Totally wrong way to go about it

And sadly typical

...civic leaders emphasize the importance of urban density to save the splendor of the surrounding countryside,

City planning which wants to end up with interesting places doesn't start with density but finishes their with density as a byproduct of having created places where people want to be.

An interesting city should be an end in itself and not a means to yet another end such as preserving the countryside. Yes, to some degree creating interesting urban places might relieve some desire by urban-dwellers to leave the city for dwelling or recreation. But that's a pretty indirect way to save wilderness, much less mere country. Should consciousness of the dynamics of choice be part of our thinking? Sure. But should it to any degree be emphasised as a reason for saving wilderness? Only if you like indirection and useless debate. The primary way to save wilderness is to buy wilderness but fan chance in a country in which money is scarce to repair the flood-damage caused endured by Mount Rainier this past fall

But perhaps the thinking — do one thing in order to attain another — is just North American striving middle-class psychology: there are no ends but only means. Every worthwhile thing is done in order to attain some further station, which enables one to then climber higher thus enabling yet another step forward in the attempt to climb the greasy pole.

Ah! Sisyphus.

•••

Btw, the Seattle Times article to which I link above also suggests that this Sculpture Park may "redefine" Seattle. It's a probably a terrific place (I haven't seen it yet) and a welcome addition to Seattle. But "redefine Seattle?" Such a perspective suggests that Seatte's is a tabula rasa if one new element can transform it. No, we are not such a vapid city and there is much character here. And coincidentally (or not), the major private money behind the Park was generated by the company which truly has redefined Seattle — Microsoft.

Comments

[Joseph LeBlanc]

"City planning which wants to end up with interesting places doesn't start with density but finishes their with density as a byproduct of having created places where people want to be."

YES. I spent almost an entire week blog-arguing with someone over what was ultimately this point. Too often, the "smart growth" movement has been obsessed with dictating where people live. Instead, we should be designing our roadways and sidewalks so that suburbs can gracefully densify when then demand warrants.

[Gomez]

...civic leaders emphasize the importance of urban density to save the splendor of the surrounding countryside

That's also ridiculous because there will always be a certain demand among portions of the population for outlying, open spaces, and that demand won't fluctuate or change just because you build denser neighborhoods. These people know what they want, and it's not a dense urban environment. Some of us certainly do. And some of us don't.

[Hal O'Brien]

"The primary way to save wilderness is to buy wilderness..."

The Nature Conservancy pursues just such a "buying wilderness to save it" approach.