Keyline® in the AR Sandbox #7: The City Forest
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.พ. 2020
- Welcome to this 7-part video series that is excerpted from Oregon State University's Online Permaculture Design Certificate Course:
workspace.oregonstate.edu/cou...
The Keyline® Plan is a method of land design for soil and water conservation developed by Australian farmer and engineer P.A. Yeomans in the 1950's, and practiced widely throughout Australia ever since. My training in this design system came from Keyline® design's modern day emissary, Darren J. Doherty of the Regrarians (www.regrarians.org). This series is my best attempt to present a simple introduction to the design system, beginning with the very basics: understanding landforms to determine the potentials that each landscape possesses.
There are a lot more design layers to this system then what is presented in this 7-part series, so please treat this as an introduction, and not a comprehensive explanation. I also refer to other videos within this series that are part of Oregon State's Online Permaculture Design Certificate Course and are not publically available, so if you want more depth in this topic and others, please visit our course offerings:
Andrew Millison’s links:
www.andrewmillison.com/
permaculturedesign.oregonstat...
SIGN UP FOR ANDREW'S FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER:
share.hsforms.com/1X79TznHYRC...
Great presentation! I'm skeptical of some of the city planning ideas you mentioned (but didn't use) in this video. The idea of small mixed-use areas is great if everyone lives/works/plays in their own neighborhoods. The problem comes in when lots of people are changing jobs and everyone is commuting again, only this time between communities. You get traffic chaos, or alternatively, overbuilt infrastructure to accommodate all the possible route permutations. Or, by making it more costly and inconvenient to change jobs, you reduce worker's negotiating leverage vs their employers, which manifests as lower salaries, lower quality of life, and greater inequality. I'm actually very happy that Andrew did this with large city sectors.
Also, the shared resources of a neighborhood sounds wonderful, and works nicely in many enthusiast communities. It requires someone to be in charge and make day-to-day decisions, and others to do the physical work to maintain the system. That work comes from the neighborhood... but then how do you assign tasks? How do you incentivize people to do their assignments? Rewards and punishments are required, which means someone to judge which residents aren't doing their fair share. Right now, that's usually not a problem. Everyone in a permaculture community is there because they believe in what they're doing. If someone shirks, peer pressure kicks in and they'll eventually move back to a conventional community. If the leaders are too dictatorial, then the residents leave and the community falls apart. Knowing all this, residents do their share, and leaders don't abuse their power. Usually.
But now let's assume that there's a big cultural shift and these neighborhoods become mainstream. We already know who those leaders will be, because we have them now in the form of Homeowners' Associations. You could argue that permaculture communities would be run democratically, but HOA's usually are, also. As I've gotten older and dealt with HOA's and local government more, I've come to realize that there's just no wishing away the downsides. In other places and times, the duties of the HOA went under other guises: church elders, village/family patriarchs, landed gentry, etc. Big multigenerational family homes (also something that I like in theory when they work) are plagued with the same problems.
One of the big attractions of permaculture is that it promotes autonomy. Too much dependency on communities, governments, corporations, and supply chains leads to those institutions gaining an unhealthy degree of power over people's lives. It brings out the worst in everyone. Whereas, by keeping these associations as voluntary as possible, we enjoy their benefits without being chained to them and without them getting drunk on petty power/social games.
Resilience comes from diversity, avoid imposing a template in opposition to the structures that emerge naturally from the environment, design systems that self-regulate and require minimal input of resources, maximum yields from ... these aren't just good principles for land management. They're good touchpoints for community-building as well.
Well, in my view the only big issue with mixed use comes when you have to Work too locally.Effectively, living in a mixed use unit like that is kind of like living in a "small town" in some ways. In such small towns, generally you have a decent chunk of more specialized jobs and such. But, generally there is only a couple employers for each major company.
But, any super big employer might effectively end up with their own cell with such a system. Kind of like the impact a military base can sometimes have in a city.
If most shopping and recreation can be done in a somewhat decentralized way that cuts down on a lot of trips. A lot of issues with mixed use tend to either come down to low-level community oriented usages. Or are also density issues. If the density of the living area is too low then mixed use doesn't really make too much sense.
I do think it has a lot of promise as way to make cities a lot more compact and affordable to live in. Without just putting everyone in skyscraper towers.
If you spread out employment but still kept it condensed to a degree then that would allow using transit effectively to create clusters of density that are fairly close together. Or if you wanted more of a hybrid approach.
You could have a system where people generally drive to the center of their cluster. And all the clusters are then connected by rail.
Which then would work decently well to still allow a bit of park and ride activity. But, still leading to naturally higher local density without having to just make everything skyscrapers.
Ring roads are a pretty decent way of doing highways. So, if you were to build a city in a valley with a plan like in the video you could make a highway on that loop that goes up each ridge and loops along.
They also didn't give that much of an idea of the scale. Which makes me wonder,
"What about if it grows bigger than just this watershed?"
Excellent series of videos Andrew, a great addition to the course.
When you put the water there on purpose, it can be easy to get rid of the excess!
We just need to model after the beavers, they make many dams one after the other, if one breaks, the others hold. So essentially they have many "overflow" valves
you are awesome. watching this series has made me happy.
Awesome! So cool seekng this concepts explaindes in such a clear way!!! Thanks
Awesome.. to see this consept... thanks..
Just found your channel thanks for all the great information
Great video! 'Lots to think about. Thanks.
Hi Andrew! I like this idea, but can you also make a video where you create your own version of this city forest with the things you mentioned earlier? You haven't made a #8 video to this date and I think that'll be interesting. Thank you!
Nice videos, thanks from Brasil.
great presentation! ..
1. Is it any possibility that water can erode the road? (from higher side)
2. Where will you put WTP (Grey/black water)?
We want grid roads of some kind. No cul-de-sacs!!!
Edit grid roads reduce walking/biking and driving time which reduced car use as well as reduces car duration use.
How do you keyline large flat areas?
There are none
Water always flows you only have to see it
Wouldn't this design make just about the entire city an AE or an A level floodway?