1. home and garden

Sarah Anderson, Rachael Schulte, Tyler House
Sense of Place Group
17 April 2015
Assignment #3
Question 1:
We support choice D – implementation of a greenbelt.
Question 2:
We think 10 years is a good amount of time before review, because there needs to be some
time to gather data (population growth (where, how many, etc), building development, income
levels, etc). In 10 years (2025), a new census will have occurred to further aid us in this data
collection, and we will be able to review our current projections of development before the 2025
review of the effectiveness of the greenbelt. We will have about three years between the census
data becoming available (2022), and the 2025 review of the greenbelt to conduct studies and analyze
trends to be ready for this review.
Question 3:
We want this selection to be subject to a public referendum. We believe that this will enable
to people to have a say in their community, further developing their sense of place and connection
to the Barnstable area. Because we would like a multiple use greenbelt, this will aid in the success of
it, because the people will have input of what they would like to see this greenbelt have. Though it
can be more work, we want public participation, because this work will pay off by creating a sense of
community and place. It has been held true that public participation in designing greenbelts has
helped in the success overall (Gardening Matters, 2012, Ali, 2008).
Question 4:
Greenbelts as Urban Growth boundaries are a good way to preserve and promote a strong
sense of place. Historically the “initial functions of greenbelts were to: contain urban growth,
preserve farmlands to protect agrarian economies and sustain farm capital” (Jarvis, 2001).
This isn’t as big of an issue, but we want to preserve that land, as that type of lifestyle does
have a strong sense of place, and the area farmers around Barnstaple are some of these family
famers in which we should protect their sense of place, in the region and city. Another purpose for a
greenbelt as our urban growth boundary is “to create compact development” (Kuhn, 2003).
We want “to be encouraging infill development; and to identify city edges and draw
boundaries for urban growth” (Longley et al., 1992).
This compact infill development saves virgin land, while promoting renovation and
redevelopment in the inner city. Frey (2000, p. 18) argues: “The greenbelt is now used as a modern
version of the town wall with the main objective to contain the city’s development and to preserve
the country in the immediate surrounding primarily for recreational purposes” (Ali, 2008).
Having the greenbelt as the town wall is an important feeling to belonging; think of it like
crossing into your home after a long trip or long time away. It is a relief to be “inside” your home.
The city will be protected from the country, and the country will be protected from city, allowing for
that dynamic that our haptic senses seek. The ecological benefits of using a green belt to limit urban
growth are plentiful, “in addition, plants, trees, and other components of greenbelts have been used
as filters to reduce air pollution and noise produced by industrial centers” (Shannigrahi et al., 2004).
Noise pollution might not be a huge concern in a city like Barnstaple but the projected
growth it will become more of a concern as more and more activity moves into the city. In any right,
the noise can be considered a nuisance, and a green belt boundary will help diffuse that noise in an
ascetically pleasing way. Greenbelts also act as air cleaners, and in heavily polluted areas can help
protect certain stones from corrosives effects of our polluted air. One example of this is “in Kolkata,
India, a greenbelt was established around the Victoria Memorial Monument, to protect its unique
marble stone structure from pollution produced by factories” (Shannigrahi et al., 2003).
We think a greenbelt is the best solution to help limit sprawl, but still allowing for some
growth, while it simultaneously contributes to a deeper sense of place and provides many other
benefits through the multiple uses our greenbelt will serve.
Question 5:
We have chosen to place the green belt around Barnstable in the way indicated on the map,
because it provides room for growth, but not too much, so we do not promote sprawl. In this way,
sense of place will be preserved. Within the greenbelt, we would like to implement bike paths with
rest areas, recreation centers, and community gardens. The land already in use that would now be
within the green belt will be permitted to stay, but they will be considered nonconforming, and will
not be allowed to expand more. In order to include all of these elements, we have proposed a
relatively thick green belt. As Brown’s study shows, “increasing the width, w, of the greenbelt
increases its effectiveness at slowing sprawl” (2004).
Question 7:
The greenbelt we are proposing will be available for recreational use. We would like urban
agriculture to be an option, with two different permit options – one to garden for person use, and
one to farm for profit. We would also like to see some parks distributed throughout, with a trail
system. However, no motorized vehicles (besides farming equipment, if necessary) will be allowed,
but pets on leashes will be allowed. Pavilions and other resources will be available for community
events (permits required). Winter activities (skiing, snowshoeing, sledding, etc.) allowable, with a
permit for skiing. As noted above, besides some development of trails and recreational centers,
further development will not be allowed. The existing buildings will be considered nonconforming.
Not only does the multiple use of this green belt provide a means of physical activity,
recreation, and local, fresh produce, but as Corning found, “Unanticipated benefits were revealed,
including convenience and access, scenic views, buffer against development, and social aspects of
the trail” (2012). The community gardens we propose implementing also provide multiple benefits
such as better nutrition, greater sense of well-being, and more active community participation,
which all contributes to a greater sense of place among the communities (Jermé, 2013, Gardening
Matters, 2012). Choosing to implement a variety of uses in the greenbelt makes the most sense
because of the many benefits it will provide, seen and unseen.
Question 8:
We want to provide a cohesive sense of place for all individuals in the community. Often a
downside of choosing to use a green belt is the “sharp increase in land prices within inner cities,”
which leads to “new development [pushed] to areas beyond the greenbelt where lands are cheaper
and no restrictions exist” (Ali, 2008). We do not want this to happen in Barnstaple. Similar to the
Petaluma timing control that put a strong emphasis on providing low income housing, we propose
there be 25% dedicated to low income housing. This housing should be integrated will all other
housing, not in high-density blocks or towers. We would like public and private organizations to work
together to accomplish this. On top of public housing units integrated throughout the city, private
developers will be required to dedicate 25% of their housing to low income citizens as well,
integrated with all other housing. We would also like for certain minimum standards to be set for
these units, so the developers do not choose the cheapest options for materials or furnishings for
these low income units. These units should be built within seven blocks of any given bus station
within the city. This will promote a further sense of place, because people of all incomes will live next
to each other, in similar conditions, and everyone will have a means of transportation to the city and
surrounding areas for jobs and recreation.
Question 9:
We propose the elementary school (“White Hill Elementary”) to go on the northwest side of
the city, near the white hill neighborhood, because it will keep the elementary schools well
distributed throughout Barnstable. The junior high school (“Lower West Side Jr High") should be
placed on the lower west side of the city, because it is near low income neighborhoods and two
elementary schools. Finally, we think the waste water treatment center should go south of town at
the fork of the river, because it is a vacant lot, but not too close to any major roads or low income
neighborhoods.
Works Cited
Alberti, M. (2000) “Urban patterns and environmental performance: what do we know?”
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19 (2000), pp. 151–163
Ali, Amal K. "Greenbelts to Contain Urban Growth in Ontario, Canada: Promises and
Prospects." Planning Practice and Research 23.4 (2008): 533-48. Academic Search
Premier. Web.
Been, V. & Voicu, I. (2006). “The Effect of Community Gardens on Neighboring Property
Values”, Law & Economics Research Paper Series Working Paper No. 06-09
Brown, D., Page, S., Riolo, R. and Rand, W. "Agent-based and Analytical Modeling to
Evaluate the Effectiveness of Greenbelts." Environmental Modelling & Software 19.12
(2004): 1097-109. Academic Search Premier. Web.
Corning, Sarah E., Rasul A. Mowatt, and H. Charles Chancellor. "Multiuse Trails: Benefits and
Concerns of Residents and Property Owners." Journal of Urban Planning and
Development 138.4 (2012): 277-85. Academic Search Premier. Web.
Frey, H. W. (2000) “Not greenbelts but green wedges: the precautious relationship between
city and county”, Urban Design International, 5, pp. 13–25.
Gardening Matters. (2012) “Multiple Benefits of Community Gardening”." Web.
Jarvis, D. (2001) “Establishing Dublin’s greenbelt”, Landscape Design, 302(August), pp. 37
38.
Jermé, Erika S., and Sarah Wakefield. "Growing a Just Garden: Environmental Justice and the
Development of a Community Garden Policy for Hamilton, Ontario." Planning Theory
& Practice 14.3 (2013): 295-314. Academic Search Premier. Web.
Kuhn, M. (2003) “Greenbelt and green heart: Separating and integrating landscapes in
European city regions”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 64, pp. 19–27.
Longley, P., Batty, M., Shepherd, J., & Sadler, G. (1992) “Do greenbelts change the shape of
urban areas? A preliminary analysis to the settlement geography of South East
England”, Regional Studies, 26(5), pp. 437–452
Shannigrahi, A. S., Sharma, R. C., & Fukushima, T. (2003) “Air pollution control by optimal
green belt development around the Victoria Memorial monument, Kolkata
(India)”, International Journal of Environmental Studies, 60(June), pp. 241–249.
Shannigrahi, A. S., Fukushima, T., & Sharma, R. C. (2004) “Anticipated air pollution tolerance
of some plant species considered for greenbelt development in and around an
industrial/urban area in India: An overview”, International Journal of Environmental
Studies, 61(2), pp. 125–137.