Harvard on airports

[ClimbnSink]

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...cebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fb-wall
“Airports force us to think of landscape architecture in very expansive and multilayered ways,” he said. “An airport is really a whole region, not just a runway with a chicken-wire fence around it.”

So landscape architects have to look up, look out, and look wide — 100 miles at least — to see where birds feed and roost and where they are prey. They also need to see airports as models of other built environments — shipyards and ports, for instance — that contain both static and mobile elements.

 

[AggieMike88]

Thread creep: While the article and the OP comment makes sense, what befuddles me is the "master plan" developers who want to start a large project near an existing airport.

This has happened off the south end of KDTO (look at the airport on Google Maps and the land between the runway and Farm-to-Market 2499). the City of Denton is making a big push to add capacity to the airport since the politicians actually understand that an airport of our size contributes greatly to the economic engine of the community. This includes adding a second runway and doing more to attract corporate jet traffic.

I can just see the impending collision between the city/airport and the future homeowners. To quote Dr. Bruce, serious ==sigh==.

 

[cowman]

Why isn't there some law that says if the airport/racetrack/factory/whatever was there first, people who just moved in are not allowed to sue?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Yes, when I think of airports I immediately think of Harvard.

 

[Skip Miller]

Why isn't there some law that says if the airport/racetrack/factory/whatever was there first, people who just moved in are not allowed to sue?

'cause no lawmaker wants to pizz off his constituency. He/she needs the votes!



-Skip