Maps can be a touchy subject. I recently attended a much anticipated presentation on a topic which greatly interests me, that being the Seattle stormwater code revision. The presenter was eminently knowledgeable (I suppose I can say, since I have high regard for him, that it was Robert Chandler, largely responsible for the code revision) and skilled, keeping focus and flow in a lightly amusing and informative manner, even while being peppered with questions. The information was of great interest and entails widespread, and I believe positive, impacts.Yet I found myself in a state of unreasoning irritation through much of this invaluable information feed, having been distracted by a simple map on the wall of the room when I entered. It was just a map labeling the creeks in Seattle. Why was this such an annoyance?
As we heard at the recent Streets for People campaign kickoff (and witnessed in recent history), community organizing can be politically powerful. Some of that power resides with those who draw the community boundaries. I was once involved in the Bioregional Congress, until I decided that we were in many ways promoting sprawl, switched directions, and ran for the city as fast as I could. That group organized around Bioregions, which often meant local creek watersheds. This is a good thing, if you live in an easily definable watershed. There are long-established, well organized creek watershed communities here in Seattle. They have done, and continue to do, a tremendous amount of important work that benefits not only their creek and community, but the receiving bodies and the organisms that inhabit them, such as salmon. Yet as much as any of us they recognize, as was pointed out at the watersheds forum last fall, that we all live on a watershed, even if we don't live on a creek.
Those of us living responsibly in the concrete jungle are sometimes given the impression that water quality is not our concern. Our creeks are in our streets and embedded beneath our sidewalks in combined sewer systems, invisible. During the autumn rains, I watch the first flush of oily residues washing into the gutter, unmitigated, and wonder where they go, if or how they are treated before they get to Elliott Bay. How do you organize a community around this system of pipes? How do we take ownership of our streets the way the watershed organizers do with their creeks? I know that some of them understand the dilemma. Robert did not want to go into it in depth, but he said there have been many arguments about how to define water boundaries, whether "basin" or "watershed" or some other designation. I wish the people who make the maps could give me something better to work with, or that I could figure out where the lines should be drawn.
As we heard at the recent Streets for People campaign kickoff (and witnessed in recent history), community organizing can be politically powerful. Some of that power resides with those who draw the community boundaries. I was once involved in the Bioregional Congress, until I decided that we were in many ways promoting sprawl, switched directions, and ran for the city as fast as I could. That group organized around Bioregions, which often meant local creek watersheds. This is a good thing, if you live in an easily definable watershed. There are long-established, well organized creek watershed communities here in Seattle. They have done, and continue to do, a tremendous amount of important work that benefits not only their creek and community, but the receiving bodies and the organisms that inhabit them, such as salmon. Yet as much as any of us they recognize, as was pointed out at the watersheds forum last fall, that we all live on a watershed, even if we don't live on a creek.
Those of us living responsibly in the concrete jungle are sometimes given the impression that water quality is not our concern. Our creeks are in our streets and embedded beneath our sidewalks in combined sewer systems, invisible. During the autumn rains, I watch the first flush of oily residues washing into the gutter, unmitigated, and wonder where they go, if or how they are treated before they get to Elliott Bay. How do you organize a community around this system of pipes? How do we take ownership of our streets the way the watershed organizers do with their creeks? I know that some of them understand the dilemma. Robert did not want to go into it in depth, but he said there have been many arguments about how to define water boundaries, whether "basin" or "watershed" or some other designation. I wish the people who make the maps could give me something better to work with, or that I could figure out where the lines should be drawn.
Lydia--
I've only been reading you for a few days, but already I see a kindred soul. You should check out the recent Open Space Seattle 2100 process that I co-directed with Nancy Rottle a few years ago. Here www.open2100.org and here http://www.asla.org/NewsListingDetails.aspx?id=2478&terms=Open+Space+Seattle+2100
We organized the city by watersheds, rather than by neighborhoods. While the primary motivation was the environmental concern, what we found was that by organizing on a watershed basis the people on the hills--with the views, clout and money--actually began to talk to the people in the valleys, which have none of the above, but plenty of problems. This experience convinced me that organizing via watershed is not only good for the environment but also for the community.
We're trying to replicate a similar process that we're working on at Great City. You should come join us in the Green Infrastructure Group on the my.greatcity.org site.
Cheers and keep up the great work.
brice maryman
Thanks Brice, and congrats on your award! I'll certainly check out the Green Infrastructure Group. And give some updates on that STAR Community Index, okay? Cheers.