Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
New research released Tuesday shows that more than 700,000 acres of forest cover was lost to development or turned to pasture since 1992 in the 10 counties of the Upstate, said Brad Wyche, executive director of Upstate Forever, the managing partner of the Saluda-Reedy Watershed Consortium, which sponsored the study done by Clemson University's Strom Thurmond Institute. That 700,000 acres of lost forest cover is equal to Pickens and Oconee counties combined, Wyche said. The full 10-county area reaches from Cherokee and Union counties to the northwest corner of the state and is 3.9 million acres in size.
The researchers at Clemson University also evaluated urban density trends in the Upstate based on the number of people living in urbanized areas on a per-square-mile basis. Density in the Upstate was 2,091 persons per urban square mile in 1992, and it declined to 1,515 in 2000 and today is 1,201—a decrease of almost 50 percent over the 18-year period. We seem to be going backwards in terms of less sprawl and more urbanity. One step forward and two steps back is what I always say. This area definitely needs more urbanity like you see with Verdae in the central part of the Greenville metro area and less of the sprawl crap you see in places like Easley and Simpsonville.
Didn't they release this same information just a few years ago? Regardless, it is always worthy of consideration in relation to economic development plans.
Well, I guess if all development 'destroys the natural beauty of the Upstate,' we should certainly not have anymore developments like CU-ICAR or BMW Phase II, or Reedy River Park, right?
This really hits on one of my biggest issues with this area: there is virtually no regulation of growth/sprawl around here. New strip malls and Wal-marts are built while old, abandoned, dilapidated strip malls lay idle. New taxpayer-subsidized subdivisions have been built while older existing homes have been for sale for years. EVERYONE should be concerned about this, no matter their political ideology as unencumbered sprawl affects everyone negatively. Your home values won't rise when there is no scarcity of land to be developed. Apparently a few people are happy with leaving tiny sections of 'Nature' to be protected along the outskirts of our community, but we really all live in nature whether we realize it or not. What we do to our environment effects us, our quality of life, and the future for our kids and their kids.
Greenville/South Carolina is about 20 years behind other parts of the country in realizing that we can't just "develop" the land around us willy-nilly. You have to be smart about it, plan it to some extent. There are consequences to this unregulated sprawl: General Ugliness for one, depressed land and home values, air pollution, water pollution, waste of money/resources, lower living standards, etc...
Well, I guess if all development 'destroys the natural beauty of the Upstate,' we should certainly not have anymore developments like CU-ICAR or BMW Phase II, or Reedy River Park, right?
Why can't developments and the environment co-exist? Why do we have to clear cut an entire forest to build something? ICAR is actually a good example of the environment and development co-existing. Notice the amount of forested land left untouched between the tech neighborhoods. I like to compare it to pocket parks in urban neighborhoods. Notice the trees along the roads, bike lanes, sidewalks, creeks, ponds, etc. It's located in the heart of Greenville and not stuck out in the middle of nowhere. Last year, the BMW ITRC facility was certified by the South Carolina Wildlife Federation as an official WAIT site: http://www.scwf.org/index.php/educat...itrc-wait-site Also, check out the LEED ratings given to the buildings in tech neighborhood I: CU-ICAR buildings noted for outstanding sustainable design
Certainly development and the environment can coexist. However, there is also the matter of private property rights. If one owns a piece of property free and clear, it ought to be the discretion of that one to retain all, some, or none of the vegetation or trees on said property. I know some may think that's a simplistic view, but hey, I still think the Constitution means something. The lack of trees on a piece of property does not constitute a negative externality worthy of public regulation.
Why can't developments and the environment co-exist?
I happen to think they do pretty well as is, overall. Sure there are things that can and probably will be done better, but that's the process of evolution. There are planting ordinances in both the city and county of Greenville, and developers continue to become more environmentally aware.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
