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?
1 comment:
First and foremost, this post is well-written with clarity and an easy-to-follow progression of ideas and concerns. I enjoyed how you linked the subject of your post last week, concerning the construction of the rotating towers in Dubai, to the subject of your post this week, regarding Donald Trump's proposed multi-million dollar golf resort in Scotland through the environmental implications of these proposed projects at each specific development site. It demonstrates a fluidity from post to post, and strengthens the focus of your blog on innovative real estate development. I also appreciated that after you included a sentence explaining the difficulty of finding blogs on this particular subject, as that is a reoccurring challenge for me in my own blog.
Your commentary in response to both blog postings is thoughtful and engaging, and it is evident that you used your prior research and general knowledge of the nature of Trump's proposed plan to raise some interesting questions to the authors. It was important to re-iterate the environmental concerns of the project, but I'm glad you raised the issue of the economical impact Trump's golf resort could have in Scotland, and I liked how you referenced specific articles as a platform for your questions to each author. It would have been nice to have seen two contrasting blogs, one in support of Trump's development proposal and one against it, in order to gain a different perspective on the subject. That being said, I understand how difficult it was to find blogs, and therefore I think it was important that although you didn't comment on a blog in support of the Trump golf resort's construction, you explained some of the arguments posed in its favor from internet articles and resources. I also would have liked to know more about the authors of both post: will they be personally effected by the project's construction? Are they natives of Scotland, if so, does this affect the nature of their viewpoint? Overall, this is an excellent post: I enjoyed the care and concern of your personal commentary, and how you capitalized on your viewpoint in order to raise some important questions to the authors of each blog.
Post a Comment