Chapter 1: Introduction

1.4 Moving from 20th to 21st Century Planning

Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.

—Edward Abbey

In the twentieth century, city planners did not worry as much about integrating with either the aesthetic or functional aspects of the watershed because of our newfound ability to quickly engineer our way around what were considered the natural “limitations” of these systems. Local engineers suggested zoning regulations to prohibit construction in floodplains in 1927 and in 1934. Their recommendations were never codified because political leadership prioritized economic growth, allowing development to progress at an extremely fast rate and depriving us of the benefits of nature’s services to cleanse and infiltrate rainwater runoff and secure local water supplies. As our built environments have become further and further removed from their natural context, the utility of twentieth century urban design has reached an end. New Orleans showed us that as a city stops working within its natural and functional parameters, its future becomes less secure: nature always bats last. There is no longer a quick fix for urban watersheds. They must now be redesigned to function as part of an integrated system.

Water links us to our neighbor in a way more profound and complex than any other.

—John Thorson

With such a disconnect from our natural context, it is no surprise that so many city dwellers lack a coherent and meaningful sense of belonging, a sense of place. Cities like Manchester or Detroit illustrate that at a certain point this disconnect leads to social decline, urban unrest, disinvestment and long-term blight. Even though they were the center of progress in their day, these cities did not thrive because they came to be valued chiefly for their industries, which came and went. They ignored one of the most important elements of the human condition: relationship to the natural world and its rhythms. The great cities of the world have not only used their water resources for functional and economic benefit, but they have also embraced both the functionality and the natural beauty of these resources in their urban design, and formed richer places because of it. In order to regain our sense of connection, both the form and function of our watershed ecosystems must be pieced back together and integrated into the urban fabric.

In the 19th Century, we devoted our best minds to exploring nature. In the 20th Century, we devoted ourselves to controlling and harnessing it. In the 21st Century, the best minds are working on how to restore nature.

—Stephen Ambrose

In the Tujunga/Pacoima Watershed, healthy rivers and streams, sufficient parks and open spaces, protected hillsides and floodplains are not secondary amenities: they are integral to our future social and economic health. Water supply is a fundamental need. Adapting our land use template to one that takes advantage better of nature’s services is the most cost-effective way of ensuring that we have sufficient clean water, vibrant habitats, cleaner air and healthy neighborhoods. The template used to build the San Fernando Valley fostered a car-dependant culture and deprived us of our most precious natural resource. But that template is not immutable.

Since most of the watershed was developed quickly, cheaply and around the same time, much of our built environment is aging at the same rate. Areas considered ripe for redevelopment can be designed differently so that over time, the template shifts. The recent trend towards densification could provide an opportunity to transform the template to a more sustainable one if we simultaneously ‘undevelop’ those areas of land that can best serve our water supply and public health needs.

Thinking about “highest and best use” and “overriding considerations” in a watershed context can re-define the language of land use planning and facilitate a transition to greener infrastructure and a more sustainable future. Making that transition successfully involves a set of fundamental paradigm shifts that require collective cooperation and effort.

The first step in developing a viable plan for change is finding common ground: bringing diverse people together to collaborate and create a consensus vision, a mutually supportive set of goals, and a holistic, proactive approach.