Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Summerlin is not a completely ecologically sensitive community design. One area that
Summerlin (as well as Green Valley) falls short is in the ability to foster a greater sense
of communality for all the residents. Most homes still have concrete or cinderblock walls
around them, isolating residents from immediate neighbors. Recreation areas in parks
can aid in bringing people together, but neighborhood centers are few. There are several
county supported libraries, primary and secondary schools, but no land would be made
for community college campuses or any other public higher education facility. There is an
age-restricted area, Sun City Summerlin that also exists as an enclave with a politically
active population but the concerns expressed are for the residents within the community
and not the area as whole.*
What Summerlin faces, as does Green Valley and all other neighborhoods with active neigh-
borhood associations, is the task of balancing the need for harmony within each community
and the importance of each individual to shape his or her own idea of what it means to dwell
in a community. For the most part, the extensive use of Community Codes and Regulations
(CC&Rs) means that only a few community members have great power over individuals. As
I stated earlier, in successful postmodern mixed communities, respect for persons (human
and nonhuman) must be balanced against members taking a collective interest in the well-
being of the community. Summerlin would benefit by creating more opportunities for the
development of diverse, tolerant, open communities that respect the inherent worth of indi-
viduals. I have suggested that there can be degrees in ways communities will reflect attempts
to balance individual and community, but as long as community associations focus on short-
term economic value over long-term wealth of a community as a whole, Summerlin residents,
planners, and community leaders will have to work toward the latter.
18.5 My Critique on a Planned Development: Case of Coyote Springs
Sixty miles north of Las Vegas, in the middle of the Coyote Springs Valley, across the line
between Clark and Lincoln counties is one of the ambitious attempts to create a large-scale
community in the desert (Figure 18.10). Las Vegas valley developer Harvey Whittemore
has declared his plans for the size and scope of this development (Figure 18.11):
…with as many as 159,000 homes, 16 golf courses and a full complement of stores and
service facilities. At nearly 43,000 acres, Coyote Springs covers almost twice as much
space as the next-largest development in a state famous for outsized building projects.
By comparison, Irvine Co., one of Southern California's largest developers, controls
about 44,000 acres in Orange Co.
17
Though some golf courses are already built, the development's future is on shaky ground
(Figures 18.12 and 18.13). Facing a downturn in the economy, the mortgage and housing
crisis, coupled with a shortage of water, the development today only barely continues to
grow, with a few of the golf courses making up the only sign of growth. Whether Coyote
*
Sun City residents were able to block construction of a needed access ramp on to the freeway that encircles the
north, west, and southern parts of the valley in spite of numerous requests by other local residents. This ramp
was opposed on the grounds that it would decrease property values, increase crime and traffic in the area. It was
only after several years that the access ramp given the go-ahead for construction. See http://www.lasvegassun.
com/news/2008/nov/21/interchange-lake-mead-boulevard-and-215-beltway-op/ (accessed July 19, 2009).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search