Originally, I had written a strong piece about the puerile mentality of using a single solution for illegal immigration problem along the Mexican border. The idea of using a single design solution for an area with varied contexts is ludicrous, sustainable only at great expense, and has the potential to damage some American cities. Last time I checked, the goal of border security is to dramatically slow illegal immigration; I’m all for that. However, that goal does not include irreparably damaging entire urban areas.
I’m on my way to DC for the 3rd time this year to discuss design issues along the Rio Grande. I’m being asked to be part of these meetings because of my familiarity with the river as it traverses through the cities on the Texas border. Like the river, these cities are old. Laredo dates to the 1700’s, for example. Together, the larger cities (El Paso, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Laredo, Brownsville, McAllen, and the other Rio Grande Valley communities) total over 1.1 million people. While these are not wealthy communities, they are vibrant communities that are growing.
Their original raison d’etre is the Rio Grande, which I would classify as a desert river. Just like many communities throughout the US.
It also happens to be the border with Mexico, and the illegal immigration issue is one that must be addressed by the US. Before you go categorize me before you finish reading this: I’m a big fan of slowing illegal immigration way down.
As I understand it, the current proposal is to use the same solution along the river border throughout the Texas US/Mexico border: A double fence with a patrol road down the middle, with clear zones on both sides. The footprint is some 200’ to 400’ wide, depending upon terrain. That solution is to be implemented in rural areas such as the large ranches and in urban areas such as downtown Laredo.
However, once we analyze such an approach closely, the validity of a single solution rubberstamped everywhere falls apart pretty quickly. The complexity of urban environments militates against the same solution that is used in rural areas. I just think that a fence whose footprint is an entire city block in width, located along the river in an urban area, is a bad idea.
We can measure the effect of the proposed border fence within four areas: Oddly enough, many of the same negative aspects that noted for the border fence below are the same negative aspects that a channelized ditch has:
1. Economic Value:
The impact of such as fence along the Rio Grande can almost be intuitively felt. If the edges of waters are a soul-felt draw for people, then putting a fence between people and the waters’ edge will do nothing but drive people away. The economic development opportunities along the river will be eliminated, and a no-mans-land will be created. In an urban setting, this malignancy can creep further into downtown.
2. Social/Cultural Value
The only social/cultural value that the border fence might have is in the area of security. However, security comes in several categories, including national security and personal security. The only positive effect that the proposed border fence could have is in the area of national security. Yes, it could work. However, other ways exist to get the same security. To blindly accept the same security solution in a city block that is used on a ranch seems ludicrous.
The border fence has no other positive social/cultural value, period. In fact, within the context of a city, the no-mans-land that will inevitably erupt adjacent to the fence (and thereby eroding the urban fabric of shops and street life) actually impinges on personal security by creating a blighted area.
3. Visual Value
The impact on the visual vernacular is severe. Who in their right mind is going to make significant investments in the urban fabric, public or private, with such a fence next to them? It’s almost as if the fence, if placed in a city, could require a wholesale mitigation measure for the adjacent properties. There are land uses that can abut a security fence: industrial uses and defense-related uses come to mind, or other uses that do not desire pedestrian traffic or human interaction at street level. However, for most urban uses that desire such interaction, the proposed border fence is going to be detrimental on a street level. In short, it simply is not good urban design.
4. Environmental Value
I define environmental value as those qualities or characteristics that add ecological and human sustainability within a given context. As a broad example, environmental value within an urban context is related more to green building principles and avoiding negative impacts on regional resources such as rivers. Conversely, environmental value within a rural context is related more to enhancing or avoiding negative impacts to natural systems.
As far as the border fence is concerned, it has no environmental value in either urban, suburban, or rural areas. It interrupts the wildlife migration near the Rio Grande in rural areas.
There are other methods to provide such border security along the Rio Grande. We have proposed a series of improvements along Laredo’s riverfront that provide border security as well as provide the framework for private investment and redevelopment of Laredo’s downtown. I’ll be able to share more about that proposal once we have both federal and state authorities engaged. I can give you a hint, though: If you analyze the actual security requirements of the Border Patrol, there are other methods of meeting the actual security requirements other than a vertical fence. If you’re particularly interested, please email us at the contact information on the blog page.
BTW, there is a publication coming out from ULI called “Return on Perception”, which discusses many of these same issues in depth. I’ve been privileged to see a couple of the chapters and the foreword…..it’ll be a great commentary on the importance of great public spaces to the overall economy.
posted by KEVIN CONNER
The border wall is fundamentally incompatible with border communities and riparian habitat alike. The design spelled out in the Secure Fence Act, "at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing", is lifted from the walls that begin in the Pacific ocean and extend 14 miles inland. To complete that stretch the Real ID Act had to be passed, giving DHS Secretary Chertoff the power to unilaterally waive all laws, including the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and a host of others. The fact that the wall could not be constructed without violating those laws, and thus the waiver was deemed necessary, is the clearest indication of its destructive nature. When it rips through Laredo, Brownsville, etc., it will be similarly destructive, but instead of riparian habitat it will be tearing through homes, businesses, the University of Texas at Brownsville campus, etc. For all of its destructive impact it will not stop undocumented immigrants from entering the US. Around half of the undocumented immigrants in the United States arrived on legal visas, which they later overstayed. The Congressional Research Service came to the conclusion that the wall in California had no net impact on the number of undocumented immigrants living in the US. The Border Patrol has stated repeatedly that a wall will only slow a crosser down by 5 minutes, not stop them. That is why so many of us who live along the border are opposed to its construction.
Posted by: S. Nicol | September 15, 2007 at 09:18 PM