Yes, land is an endangered species
Dear critical thinking ones,
A few months back, a friend of mine said, “Land is an endangered species.” Her words stopped me in my suburban tracks. I’d always thought of animals and plants as being endangered (and maybe critical thinking) but land? It only took a moment for me to agree and recall what Mark Twain said, “Buy land, they’re not making it any more.” Here are some stats on land loss in the US.
6,000 acres a day
4 acres per minute
land the size of Seattle every nine days
And so few notice or care.
A passionate group of folks in my town are working hard to buy 120-acres of magical forest close to my home. It’s nature at its finest and although we’re in an overly developed suburb of Boston, when I step into this oasis from the noise and congestion outside it, I could be in rural northern New Hampshire. In fact, one of the conservationists who lead a walking tour last spring said he has seen more animals in this suburban enclave than he does in New Hampshire. Birds fly overhead, water trickles down a stream, trees grow tall, plants exhale oxygen, moss acts as a cushioned bed. (I spent many summer afternoons as a child dozing on soft, green moss after running my hands over its velvety face.) Oh, and it’s got that rarest of all landscapes — meadows. Very few meadows left in our midst. Most of them have been converted into housing developments called The Meadows At “fill-in-the-blank.”
Nothing more enchanting then entering a clearing in the middle of virgin woods.
It’s like a comma in a sentence, a rest in a musical score, a pause in your speech. It gives you time to reflect on the woods you’ve just meandered through. Meadows make me want to dance through them like I’m in some Elizabethan England period piece, where the young girls wear crowns of flowers atop their long hair, hold hands and spin around in circles with their heads tilted backwards glancing at the sky.
As beautiful and rare as this land is, the folks who make money off destroying land would like to destroy this one too and replace it with big homes. I bet they haven’t ventured inside because anyone who ventured inside could not dismember the trees from the land. It’s that beautiful. The land has wide, cleared trails ready made for families to walk on, exercisers to snowshoe on, horses to galavant on. Funny, that the view from the street, the one most folks concentrate on is not the best view in this case. The real view is from the inside up and the inside out. I got on my hands and knees to look at the view the plants have – giant trees protecting them – natural skyscrapers that sent gifts of leaves cascading to the ground.
I’d like share a photo with you that Jimmy took now that I’ve got my “insert photo” abilities back.
Our government spends tons of money on all sorts of destructive things, why not more on saving the endangered things like land, the ones that gift us the oxygen we need to breathe? Can’t folks see that when it’s gone, it’s gone and we may be too?
Muse thx, Giulietta
Do you think land is endangered?
RSS
This is beautiful, G., and I couldn’t agree more.
When I was in England this spring I was struck by the realization that, everywhere in Southern England I went, I could see signs of civilization and human sprawl. Nothing was pristine any more, even the little bits of preserved forest. It was all tainted. Not until I migrated north, into lake country and then into Scotland, was there any sense of wilderness at all.
It made me homesick. Even the thought (as noble as it is) of saving forests like the one you describe makes my teeth ache a bit. There was a time that we humans built enclaves and towns and cities as a refuge from the danger of the wilderness. Now we’re hoping to save a few enclaves of wilderness from the dangers of, well, us.
That’s an imbalance that seems obvious, but I guess it maybe isn’t. At least not to the economy. At some point, bigger-better-faster-more will drag us to a wall that we can’t surmount and, as you say, “when it’s gone, it’s gone and we may be too.”
I hope we learn to appreciate the wild places more before that happens. I hope we stop in time.
Hi Michael,
As usual your writing enchants, like this truism. “Here was a time that we humans built enclaves and towns and cities as a refuge from the danger of the wilderness. Now we’re hoping to save a few enclaves of wilderness from the dangers of, well, us.”
Pretty soon we’ll only be able to see the wilderness in a plant zoo – it will be cordoned off with plastic fencing. Glad Scotland still has some wilds!
Thx G.
Looks like a beauty-filled place Giulietta!
I too come from a suburban background. It was quite a change when I moved to a small farm in Northern New Mexico for 7.5 years. I learned about the seasons and connected with the land in a way I never had before. Though I now choose to live in the city, my connection with the earth is still very important to me.
Hey Paul,
It’s amazing that so many younger folks today have no connection with the land and earth like you do. They see it as a scary place without electrical outlets. I have read that we can have wildness even in our cities – take the Bronx, it’s got I believe more open space than any city in the US (until it gets “discovered” anyway.) I’m intrigued by your newest post. Will check it out. Thx G.
As a former urban designer, I want to encourage you to work not only for protected wilderness areas, but also to think about where the best places to build are.
You can think about urban design guidelines to help increase density in appropriate places so you can take the pressure off wilder areas. Part of the art of it is raising social consciousness about good, high quality design to create beautiful places to live surrounded by gorgeous countryside (think Europe) rather than endless sprawling suburbia. But to pull that off, we have to change the way we imagine living here in the U.S.
It’s a tricky balance between “overly developed” and appropriately developed. I don’t know Boston, so I can’t comment, but here in Berkeley so many people are anti- any kind of development (NIMBY’s) that our retail is evaporating. We need higher density housing in the downtown area to “do our part” in this busy SF Bay Area….
On a side note:
I love the book Grassland for an intriguing perspective on how (inappropriately) we divided up land in the West in particular.
Jenna
Thanks for the Grasslands recommendation Jenna! I will order it from the library today.
You’re so right about the tricky balance. What we have in the Boston area now is sprawl, but instead of infilling the already built sprawl, the developers/more housing advocates want to build density housing on the few open spaces that exist. They make more money that way.
It’s done under the phony guise of creating affordable housing – but 75% of the units are market rate and the 25% affordable usually reverts back to market rate at some point, ending up with 0% affordable and no open space. We’re ending up with sprawling sprawl instead of retracting sprawl.
I’m a walker and biker and would love to see bike paths like they have all over Europe. In the warmer months, people could bike to work.
It’s time to think about creating a Steady State in this country – ironically, it will probably bring more prosperity than the endless growth model.
Thx for good info! G.
In my cross-country road trips I noticed land is like a movie theater … everybody sits on top of each other even when there is plenty of room available.
Thanks J.D., Great observation.
It’s probably easier to hawk land and for more money when it’s near the perceived amenities. In the days of early suburban yore, every neighborhood seemed to have a field to play on and woods to play in. Now, you have to drive to find a field. And, of course, we played in each other’s yards, freely. No lawsuits loomed around every bend.
Thx. G.
Oh, this makes me ache, G. Just in the 20 years I’ve lived in my region so much open space has disappeared in favor of retail and suburban housing. It’s very sad. About five years ago the council of governments got representatives from the entire region to come together to create a far-reaching blueprint for smart growth and enhanced transit. Such a worthy effort. But alas, I hear the developers fight it every step of the way, and communities give in because they see it as the only way to increase tax revenues. Plus, even though we have a bunch of old reclaimed rail yards that are perfect for new, close-in, mixed-use developments, the cry of NIMBY keeps them on hold for what seems like forever. Sometimes I wonder if they will ever happen. I’ve lived here long enough to see many good ideas die a slow, painful death.
Of course I bet you also know that studies consistently show that more per capita open space in urban areas directly correlates to more happiness and emotional wellness. That’s probably why I treasure my garden so much. And it’s definitely why I plan to move to a region that places a higher value on smart growth, walkability, and open space.
So my heart goes out to you and I hope your magical forest is saved!
Hi Patty,
Thanks for the support. I’ll let everyone know! Out here, we’ve got some abandoned shopping centers that would make great mixed use – the land has already been ripped up. Why not make it pretty again?
Appreciate the comment, G.
Giulietta –
Go for it! I agree that nature and wilderness is under threat and I think you’re amazing for doing something about it. Stay strong and win your battle to preserve our earth one piece at a time. Wonderful!
Phil
Hi Phil,
Glad to have you and your thoughtful comments back! Thank you for the support. We need to get back in touch with our “inner wilderness” and the best way to do that is to surround ourselves with it.
Thx, G.
Giulietta – Those stats are shocking – to people who care. Many have no idea or don’t give a damn even if they do. Unfortunately, it has always been in our country’s nature to destroy and rebuild, supposedly bigger, better, more advanced – you name it – in its place. Who cares about lofty trees and meadows and nature when people want to live in places called The Meadows? I saw this happen in my hometown in – hear this, Michael – southern England where the meadows of my childhood were covered with houses as fast as people could build them. It’s still called “the countryside” but it’s actually a suburban sprawl.
Your husband’s photo of that magnificent tree signals a message of natural grandiosity that can be lost/saved if the human-wielded ax of so-called civilization in the form of materialistic urban development does not fell it.
Unfortunately, money plays the tune, and unless more (influential/important) people get involved in land conservation, the almighty dollar will tread all over the few natural enclaves that remain within city/town limits.
Hi Penelope,
Yes, the stats truly seem unbelievable. Housing starts, though, fuels our economy, which makes no sense to me since it’s finite. They might want to start thinking of a new way to fuel it.
Thx, G.