Growth Out There

Lately Northern Nevada has seen two projects receive the approval of the City of Reno, two projects which are pretty controversial and are indicative of a broader set of problems the city is trying to solve, and really, what that means, is that people need to speak up, but speak up in full context.  That's done here, below the jump.

The two projects are Spring Mountain (aka Winnemucca Ranch, 29,000 acres) and Evans Ranch (almost 6,000 homes on 2,000 acres), located in two valleys quite a bit north of existing city limits.  Reno has in recent years been in an annexation frenzy.  No doubt some statistics buffs at city hall are angling for Reno's re-designation as Nevada's #2 city, which Reno hasn't been since Henderson took the honors a good 10 or more years ago.  Reno no doubt also sees a need to grow its population figures to bolster its argument in favor of Home Rule, which would help more tax dollars raised in the area be retained in the area.  Underpinning all this is our society's need for more growth, all the time.  Someone please alert us when the economists have solved that particular problem.

Part of the problem many have with Reno's recent annexations is that they are non-contiguous.  In the case of Spring Mountain in particular, the area to be annexed is located considerably north and east of existing city limits.  The same can't really be said about Evans Ranch, which is right next to, if not located within, the city's borders already.  But Evans Ranch would add higher density, more traditional suburban development on the other side of a buffer zone of low density, semi-rural suburban that could set a precedent for increased density moving forward in the existing developments.

There are a host of other reasons why people would be opposed to projects like this, and they mostly stem from a desire to see the natural landscape, in as many cases as possible, retain its character.  A house every acre or so, in the middle of the desert, actually gives the desert the room it needs to dominate its surroundings.  3 or 4 houses per acre is a different story entirely.  A house per acre can suck water out of a well almost indefinitely, 3 or 4 houses per acre will most certainly need a water system.  That'd be surface water, that precious, dwindling commodity provided to nearly all of northwestern Nevada from that one source, the Sierras, via the Truckee River.  Is there enough?

This blog would argue that if you're going to build a new town Out There, or a couple of new towns, then you might as well build towns.  Square, grid, street systems, little pocket parks, pedestrian oriented central retail & high density living districts, an anchor employer or industry or attraction of some kind.  In particular in the case of Spring Mountain, there should be a design competition.  It's a new town out in the desert, in 2008, when we already know a lot about what not to do in building new towns.  The whole development process should be public, with the public invited to dramatically influence the project.

Another priority should be building 21st century infrastructure for these new towns Out There, from the get-go.  Effective public transportation would be a great place to start, but talking about development in the desert means talking about other things, such as subsurface irrigation in all facets of the water system.  This would sadly contradict the notion that many people probably came to the region to sit out the first couple decades of the 21st in some place more resembling the 20th, but if that's the case and you want it truly done Nevada style, that means a house per acre, Out There.

At some point things have to stop being done they way they were being done before.  That doesn't mean things have to stop being done.  But there is a real need, it turns out, to figure out how to do things better than the way they were done before.  There's no time like the present.

Comments

[Brad Kottinger]

While there's quite a bit of community dialogue about Spring Mountain, some of the erroneous facts continue to misrepresent the project. Here are a few answers to some of the misinformation about the project.

Spring Mountain is being planned as a 6,100 acre developement of which 50 percent or 3,050 acres will remain as open space. With traditional small town in mind, Spring Mountain will be designed around city centers with balanced land use mixes including housing, retail and commercial spaces all linked by trails to promote community interaction and walkability. What we often forget is the synergy between enviroment and economics that needs to exist if a developement is to be considered well planned. One house every acre takes up more land and natural resources than planned dense developement within villages or districts. Take that a step further and using sustainable design practices and renewable energy sources in the form of a wind farm, Spring Mountain will achieve a 25 percent overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Connecting the protected springs, meadows and trails to BLM lands provides an abundant amount of recreational opportunities available to residents and the public, something not currently available at Spring Mountain.

In 2005, the cities of Reno and Sparks and Washoe County settled on growth areas. It was agreed that Reno would grow to the north and not to the south. It was determined that the Winnemucca Ranch was to be within the City of Reno's jurisdiction. While governance remains a key point in the discussion about Spring Mountain, there are three mechanisms available: annexation into the City of Reno; a general improvement district (GID); and, service contracts through a Homeowners Association.

Please visit www.springmountainnv.com for more information about Spring Mountain.

[Ken]

Thanks for the comment, Brad, it's a great clarification and many thanks for posting the link to the spring mountain site. It's an ambitious proposal and they do appear to want to do everything right by the environment. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.