Comments and news about Environmental Planning and Design. Intended for all audiences including students and alumni of the Rutgers major of Environmental Planning and Design.
The controversy herein exhibits an interesting parallel to accessibility quandries in National Parks and wildlands: Should land be preserved or improved if there is nobody to see or use it? I would say "yes" in general and "yes" in this case in particular. However, I could see wavering when faced with financial resource scarcity.
An Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture in Rutgers’ School of Environmental and Biological Sciences. He also serves as Associate Director of the Grant F. Walton Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis and Undergradaute Program Director for Environmental Planning and Design. As a graduate of Kentucky (BSLA), LSU (MLA) and Wisconsin (PhD), he has a passion for the critical role of state universities as a source for world-class research and education based on inquiry arousal but is too busy keeping up this award-winning blog. Dr. Tulloch can be reached at dtulloch[at]crssa.rutgers.edu
The blog currently allows open commenting on posts as a way of creating discussion and dialogue. Please keep comments clean, civil and relevant. Places and Spaces reserves the right to delete all comments, particularly those that are unverified, mean-spirited or undermining the pedagogic intent of the blog.
2 comments:
The controversy herein exhibits an interesting parallel to accessibility quandries in National Parks and wildlands: Should land be preserved or improved if there is nobody to see or use it? I would say "yes" in general and "yes" in this case in particular. However, I could see wavering when faced with financial resource scarcity.
I totally second Puk!
Post a Comment