By Amy Anderson
January 27, 2021
1 Resiliency
When we presented our waterfront proposal to the City of Fernandina Beach in December of 2018, we were clear in the use of the word resiliency. “Under the umbrella of resiliency, a compelling term defined as the ability to bounce back quickly from adversity, we place economic stability, equitable social life and environmental regeneration to support the enduring health of a community.” (1) This three-part framework is an evolution of work on sustainability over decades of collective research and application. Though environmental concerns might have been the driving force in the sustainable agenda, over time it became clear that without economic and social considerations no solution would be viable. The same holds true for the now prevalent term resiliency.
2 Wicked problems (2)
Two parallel phenomena, at different paces but causing similar anguish, expose the dilemma of human actions. The first mashes a species barrier between wildlife and curious humans. The second burns resources that scorch a once protective blue shield. The results, a pandemic and rising seas, are super wicked problems. Situations not prone to easy solution and with no inherent logic. Complex challenges that linear thinking cannot solve.
3 Big problem / little city
Discussion about the waterfront has exposed a normal tension between protecting the past and planning for the future. Hard fought preservation of the historic town faces new measures to identify its edge. While older plans may be carefully remembered, criteria for choosing solutions are not the same as ten or twenty years ago. And is it not political malfeasance to proceed with waterfront protection but not tend to the loss of livelihood during a pandemic? Can silver linings be found? Remaking the waterfront could be both job producing and a counterweight to the overwhelming imprint of tourism.
Notes specific to documents of 19 January FBCC meeting:
a. Is there a comprehensive financial plan that links computer modelling of extreme weather events with clear economic analysis of cost benefit assumptions? Not anecdotal media commentary but a published plan?
b. Engineering sketches are repeatedly shown on photographs of the old marina configuration. Does the new attenuator have any impact?
c. Construction scope and phasing suggests caution for bait and switch scenarios that can produce an ever-expanding budget.
d. Territorial division between Parks and Marina Boards may be an outdated split. Matthew, Irma, and their heirs do not recognize this line in the sand water.
1 Front Street REOI submittal and public presentation of February 2019
acatects, Fletcher Davis, North Florida Land Trust, Arup Engineering
2 Enduring Challenge of ‘Wicked Problems’: Revisiting Rittel + Webber,
Policy Sciences 2017, Kate Crowley and Brian Head
Amy Anderson, formerly a professor at the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, Columbia University in New York and the School of Architecture, University of Hawai‘i, practices architecture and urban design in New York, Honolulu and Amelia Island.
I understand this is an opinion piece, but it is so full of generalities and hyperbole, I have no idea what the author is really trying to say. In this sense, it does a disservice to Fernandina Observer readers.
Agreed.
Thank you for the comment Mark. I appreciate the observation.
Assumptions of humans being the problem. The continuing rhetoric of humans being the cause of all problems on Earth isn’t helpful, nor is it correct.
The jury is still out on this climate change, and it may well be that it is just another cycle in our planet’s warm and cool episodes. However, that would not be mentioned by those that would stand to gain in trying to solve a problem that there is no control over.
Numerous studies show that the sea level rise is not man made, but cyclical, and nothing we do will change how the Earth moves through the heavens.
YES, there seems to be a rise in sea levels.
NO, it isn’t necessarily humans that did it.
So we just sits and waits, and drown?
The author is making an excellent point that bears consideration. She sets the framework that “resiliency”, borne out of a quest for environmental sustainability, cannot rely on the sustainability leg as paramount in solutions; that economic and social conditions are tantamount legs of the resiliency stool.
Following this assertion, and in our current time of Covid/climate certainty, she notes the changing needs (and therefore solutions) for protecting our waterfront and posits the notion that perhaps the work on the waterfront can/should create some restorative justice in light of the economic hit faced by many in our community.
In my mind it boils down to this: Can the re-creation/restoration of the waterfront shape-shift from a massive money suck to a viable economic engine and support system for our community? A question worthy of exploration.
Tammi, Thank you for your thoughts and the concise summary of the last paragraph.
Thank you, Amy. I well written, non-technical observation of the issues. I’m a professional Physical Oceanographer and have modeled the sea rise issue for many years. Everything contributes to the sea rise issue in some way, human activity is only a minor one. One only has to look at the history of shore side structure development to see Roman cities that are currently submerged. Our planet is very dynamic and we need to understand that when constructing in any low area.
The City is fortunate to have your expertise on the Marina Advisory Board. In another forum that permits more extensive discussion, it would be good to know of your work in sea level rise modelling and perhaps how you see it in the larger climate modelling efforts.