Trump Teeing Off in Scotland: The Ongoing Clash between Developers and the Environment

In a previous entry, I blogged about the latest in innovative designs for real estate development in large cities, with an eye toward improving the environment. Italian architect David Fisher has proposed the novel concept of large residential and commercial towers with independent floors capable of being mechanically and individually rotated. In addition to enhancing the appearance of city skylines and the view for occupants, the towers would generate their own power as well as enough electricity for several surrounding buildings, through the use of wind turbines and solar cells. The first of these skyscrapers is scheduled to be erected in Dubai by 2010, and this rare combination of a net production of clean energy with aesthetic benefits could transform cities of the 21st century. With natural resources becoming a vital issue in today's global economy, architects, planners, designers and real estate developers are becoming increasingly sensitive to environmental concerns. This week I explored the blogosphere for new developments in the world of real estate, and particularly those which have raised controversy about their effect on the surrounding environment. A recurring question which is being asked is: will a proposed development be beneficial to the surrounding land or will it have a negative impact on the environment? With the effects of urbanization, suburbanization, and sprawl, cities are increasingly requiring developers to incorporate environmental measures in new land development. Along with this pressure, many developers on their own are seeking to build greener developments to meet the market demand from environmentally conscious buyers. Recently, billionaire Donald Trump has been involved in a feud with Scotland natives over his plan to develop the "world's greatest golf resort" in Scotland, a one billion dollar project which includes two championship golf courses, a five-star hotel and hundreds of houses. The essence of the dispute is that the land he has chosen is a three-mile stretch along the coast which has not been touched for centuries, and which is considered by many to be sacred. Critics of the proposal claim that the development would have tremendous adverse consequences on the surrounding environment. For example, local residents and conservationists point out that one of the golf courses proposed in an area known as the Foveran Links, is a stretch of shifting sand dunes that is home to some of the country's rarest wildlife, including skylarks, kittiwakes, badgers and otters. Proponents counter that with proper planning and relocation the adverse effects on the environment from actual implementation of the plan may be minimal. Moreover, they argue that the environmental impact must be balanced against the positive impact the proposed development would have upon the local and national economy, and that Trump's resort would create much needed employment in a depressed economy, as well as a significant rise in revenue to the area from increased tourism. I became fascinated with this issue which is apparently much debated in the press, but there is very little in the blogosphere. While there has been much written in news articles over the last few years on the proposed resort, covering the specifics of both sides of this debate, it was difficult to locate any blogs which addressed the issues raised. I finally found two, both of which were against the project. The first post I commented on, “Trump Golf Resort Delayed: Birdies Have the McDonald Bogeyed” by Trenton Flock. Here Flock is more than skeptical of Trump’s claim to be concerned for the environment, and it is clear he is not fond of the developer. I found another post entitled, "Trump an Environmentalist? You’re Fired," which written by Marc (last name unknown), a young man with a passion for environmental issues and 'rural culture issues,' who publishes a blog with other authors entitled "In One Ear...Out the Other." He too is apparently firmly convinced of the negative impact Trump's plans will have on the environment. I posted my comments to each of the blogs, but for the convenience of the reader they are set forth below, along with a link to each.

“Trump Golf Resort Delayed: Birdies Have the McDonald Bogeyed”
Comment:
I would like to thank you for your post and I enjoyed reading your comments about the environmental issues raised by Donald Trump’s proposed resort. First let me say I appreciate your concerns and that I agree with you that Mr. Trump’s statement about people not wanting to play on a course that is environmentally harmful is a pretty weak argument. But your post leaves the impression that this is his only argument. The actual extent of the project’s effect on the environment is the subject of much debate. There are methods of minimizing the impact of the development upon the environment, including preserving species by “translocating” them to similar locales where they can thrive as they do in the affected area. I do agree with you that the project may ultimately end up being scaled down. The major controversy appears to be that the project will affect what has been called “one of the few remaining mobile dune systems in Britain.” Opponents of the project want the project to be scaled back to eliminate the nine holes proposed for the dunes. However, according to Trump’s project director, "What we're talking about doing is simply planting grass, which would stop this highly mobile sand from traveling northerly, where it has essentially been gobbling up farmland like a giant sand slug," I am curious as to what you think about the merits of his argument in this regard. Also, one aspect of the issue that you do not mention is the question of the positive effects of the proposed development on the economy and the people of Scotland. This billion dollar project is not just about courses according to the Seattle Times, the project calls for two championship golf courses, and a 450-room hotel, in addition to 500 villas and 1,000 vacation homes. It is estimated that this will add an additional $400 million immediately into the local economy and up to $100 million a year thereafter. There are many local residents who believe that Scotland may not see another opportunity like this in the near future. Do you believe trade-offs such as this type of economic benefit merit consideration in weighing the merits of a proposed development of this magnitude?

"Trump an Environmentalist? You’re Fired"
Comment:
Thank you for you post about Donald Trump’s proposed development in Scotland. I appreciate your concern for the environment although we appear at first glance to be coming from opposing perspectives. I note from your bio that you have a passion for environmental and rural culture issues. On the other hand I am a real estate development major. I am concerned about the environment as well, but I also believe that economic benefits have to be considered and sometimes trade-offs have to be made when discussing whether a particular use of land is appropriate and in the best interests of society. Most of the arguments on this particular proposal seem to focus on non-issues such as Donald Trump’s ego. However, very few are addressing the real issues such as: What are likely to be the true effects of this development? Are the objections of the critics legitimate? One commentator makes a compelling argument that the true character of the land as sacred ground that must be preserved at all costs is debatable. “The three miles that Mr. Trump would like to commandeer constitute but a tiny and deserted percentage of the total. Since he took an interest, however, they have acquired a new nomenclature. No longer just sands, they are described as “unspoilt dune ecosystems”, or “mobile dune vegetation”, the “crown jewels” of “our most precious habitat”, even “a benchmark test of environment legislation”. Moreover, very few critics of the proposal seem to consider the economic benefits of the development. According to one article, the plan has overwhelming support from leaders of the local business community, who believe that the “global Trump brand”, they mention how this development would help raise the region's status and bring more business to its existing clubs and help address the shortage of housing and hotel accommodation in the region. It is estimated that the benefit to the local economy alone would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I am wondering what your thoughts are on the economic side of the equation, and how you view trade-offs in terms of benefits to the economy against potential negative environmental consequences. How do we determine at what must be preserved and when development should be stopped?

Dubai's Rotating Towers: Visionary Monument of the Future or Future Monumental Failure?

When it comes to real estate most people would probably consider a great view to be high above everything else, with the ability to see in all directions at all times. For a citybound high-rise resident, watching the sun rise from one's living room in the morning, and then watching it set from that same room in the evening that same day would be the ultimate. That may become a commonplace occurrence for many people in the future if the dream of Italian architect David Fisher becomes reality in the Middle Eastern city of Dubai. Already home to the world’s tallest free-standing structure, Dubai is considered to be on the cutting edge in terms of ambitious architecture and novel innovative real estate development. The latest and most unique project, and scheduled to begin construction soon, incorporates an extreme and revolutionary idea in the world of skyscrapers. The Dynamic Tower is a single high-rise structure with individual stories that are able to rotate independently of the building’s central core. Each floor will rotate approximately once in about ninety minutes, changing not only the view, but also the shape of the building and its appearance. Although the untested technology of dynamic architecture is sure to have setbacks, and will undoubtedly encounter obstacles in moving off the drawing board into the real world, its cultivated and functional design, combined with the prospect of producing inexpensive and environmentally clean energy for cities, may radically alter and enhance life in the cities of the future.

The Dynamic Tower will be an 80 story building. Plans call for the top 10 floors to be used for luxury style apartments, below which will be another 35 floors of apartment accommodation, followed by hotel rooms, with the 20 lower stories be used as retail space. With the rotation of individual floors occupants and visitors will enjoy a 360 degree view from wherever they choose. According to one designer “It will be continually in motion, changing shape and giving residents the ability to choose a new view at the touch of a button. The form of the building would constantly change as each floor rotates separately giving a new view of the building as it turns.” Rotating Wind Power Tower to begin construction in Dubai Mahesh Basantani;The Tower was designed by David Fisher of Dynamic Architecture, who hopes to be a trend-setter for cities of the future, and is planning to adapt his tower for sites in London and New York. According to Fisher, “Today's life is dynamic, so the space we are living in should be dynamic as well, adjustable to our needs that change continuously, to our concept of design and to our mood, buildings will follow the rhythms of nature, they will change direction and shape from spring to summer, from sunrise to sunset, and adjust themselves to the weather, buildings will be alive….From now on, buildings will have four dimensions, the fourth dimension is ‘Time' to become part of architecture…”

A second Dynamic Architecture tower is set to start construction in Moscow, by the end of 2008. A unique aspect of this first building in motion is in the construction itself; each floor will be prefabricated in a factory in Italy, and then be shipped directly to the site. Dr. Fisher believes that floors will be then able to go up as quickly as one every seven days, allowing for the tower to be built in about 18 months. With the prefabrication of modular structures elsewhere, the core of the tower will be the only piece that needs to be built, conserving on-site workers and pushing more of the construction off-site and into the factories. Fisher believes assembly of the Dynamic Tower will require only 80 technicians, thereby saving tens of millions of dollars on a building with a price tag of $700 million. In addition to the architectural beauty and purely aesthetic value to occupants and residents of the city, as well as the economic benefits of off-site assembly, Fisher claims that the design will have a structural advantage in the event of an earthquake. “According to Fisher, the building ensures a very high resistance to earthquakes as each floor rotates independently.”

While the beauty of such a building along with the functional benefits for anyone wealthy enough to live in one are all arguments in favor of Fisher’s vision, the most striking potential benefit is environmental. The building is designed not only to produce enough power for its own needs, but for surrounding buildings as well. The design will utilize the high winds which surround large structures, as well as the large surface area of the building. The Dynamic Tower is intended to be a true green power plant, using wind-powered turbines as well as photovoltaic cell technology to collect power from sunlight. The tower will be powered by roof solar panels and cells placed on the top surface of each floor, along with 79 wind turbines located between each of the rotating floors, which will be capable of generating 1,200,000 kilowatt-hours of energy from each level. If all goes as planned the building will create 10 times the energy it needs, giving the ability to produce energy for other nearby buildings as well.

While the revolving tower’s creator makes many promises, and there are many people who praise its potential, there are still questions about whether it will deliver. Is the revolving tower even technologically feasible? Will it be killed off by cost overruns and unexpected problems? One major criticism is the expense involved for the first building in Dubai. Some detractors raise the question of whether the tower will benefit only the wealthy. For example, writer Alstair Donald, of Spiked, a self-described "independent online phenomenon dedicated to raising the horizons of humanity by waging a culture war of words against misanthropy, priggishness, prejudice, luddism, illiberalism and irrationalism," calls it “a seven-star hotel compound for the rich serves to magnify the gap between rich and poor; the workers who build these compounds and service their inhabitants are confined to encampments on the edge of the city.” However, the more compelling arguments and criticisms focus less on societal implications and more on feasibility. The implementation of the concept may prove to be much more difficult to achieve. Will a combination of unproven technology and overly ambitious goals render the design unworkable or too costly? David Fisher’s creation is essentially a gigantic machine with innumerable moving parts, and yet he is not expecting anything to go wrong. Critics are quick to point out that he has never designed a skyscraper before, and argue that the as yet untested technology will present insurmountable technical problems. "Dubai 'shape-shifting skyscraper' unveiled"

Will the revolving tower go the way of failed inventions of the past which were acclaimed as the wave of the future? Will the revolving tower become a symbol of complete failure and blind ambition? Or will it be the first building of the world's future? Admittedly, if the critics are correct, many of the technical and engineering aspects of the dynamic tower concept create problems which have apparently not been tested or worked out. However, there is no reason to assume they will be insurmountable, if there are men and women with the vision and the patience to find solutions. Nor is there any reason to believe that even failed attempts at making this idea workable will not inspire others to seeking alternative solutions to accomplish the same goals, including clean low cost energy and self-sufficiency. One thing is certain. We cannot keep doing business as usual as our resources dwindle and global energy demands increase, and mega-cities continue to grow all over the globe. Maybe the Dynamic Tower is an idea whose time has come, and if not, perhaps its vision of environmentally clean and economic energy production will inspire other designs and other technologies which will ultimately help transform the cities of the world to a better future.