More Development, Less Public Space......

Today, we the urban travellers are taking you through a a bit of a deliberation.....How many communication networks, roads and infrastructure are being developed in our cities? With that question answered, how much of our public space is being eradicated for these expansions to occur?

 Image illustrating a section of the Solomon Hochoy Highway, Trinidad

The most recent example of this issue facing Trinidad and Tobago is the extension of the Solomon Hochoy Highway, particularly the phase extending from Debe to Mon Desir. Should the construction of the highway be completed, it will significantly increase economic activities within the southern parts of the country, promote trade and the movement of commercial goods throughout the country and increase job opportunities for many people [1]. However, this development is going to come at a cost, literally and figuratively as thousands of acres of agricultural land will be lost, over 10 communities will be split as well as the construction that will occur within the direct path of a lagoon [2]. Many have argued that the public space and land around the site should not be compensated to accommodate an increase in road networks and connectivity as there are alternative ways to approach this issue that would not only reduce the cost of construction, but reduce the impact that this procedure will have on the environment as well as reduce the number of communities that are to be uprooted from their homes. An alternative way being the “Highway Re-Route” movement that many citizens have supported; this approach would have avoided constructing throughout the swampland completely and constructing around the area instead. As of now, it looks as though the development of this road infrastructure is going to happen and this equates to the loss of a vast amount of valuable public space.

This case can be linked to Roger Trancik's work on The Theories of Urban Design where he refers to parks, the countryside and rural areas as “soft space.” He stated that, “rural space, although architecturally unenclosed, is not lost space. Enclosure of rural space is derived from natural features of topography and land form, water, vegetation in the form forests, and plantations, as well as man-made enclosures of fences and stone walls. Therefore the natural landscape can also be defined as positive, structured space accommodating patterns of settlement and human activities” [3]. Is he right? Roger Trancik, in this excerpt, explains that rural areas do not need to be completely lost as activities can occur within those areas; development of infrastructure and communication networks can occur in the name of progress, however, it does not have to involve eradicating the activities and liveliness of areas that are less urbanised or less developed.

What do you think? Where do you stand regarding this issue? Does more development equate to the loss of more public space, in your opinion?

Until next time,

The Urban Travellers

References:

[1] http://nidco.co.tt/new/index.php/our-projects/ongoing-projects/78-san-fernando-to-point-fortin-highway.html 

[2] http://www.guardian.co.tt/columnist/2014-10-05/remember-issue-accountability

[3] https://buildingcommunities.nd.edu/news/11213-urban-classics-4-finding-lost-space/