Tuscaloosa News on Ecocity

March 18, 2008


From Tuscaloosa News… 

Rethink development. “Start approving new housing without any parking and create and expand a car-free street into a car-free district,” said Richard Register, designer, builder and author in ecological city design and planning, who is organizing the Ecocity World Summit in April. “Go for higher density in the mode of very mixed-use with the sort of architectural features I talk about in my books: Rooftop and terraced gardens and cafes up there, bridges between clustered buildings.”

Register, president of Ecocity Builders in Oakland, Calif., pointed to other cities that work with their universities to create new spaces where there were previously none.

“The University of California at Berkeley has nine bridges linking 18 buildings, or in a couple of cases, the building is a bridge with a large open ground level passageway,” he said. “These features could be emphasized and buildings on campuses brought close enough together to create streetscapes in one part of town, and/or campus while opening up other areas for natural and agricultural activities.”

Move away from sprawl. Register’s group, Ecocity Builders, has a mapping system that helps identify “vitality centers” for more development where people can walk to conduct business.

[Read entire article]


Radio Interview: Richard Register on Green Seed Radio

March 14, 2008
Green Seed Radio

Listen in on this interview of Richard Register that Mo Mellady produced for Green Seed Radio. It’s a great discussion of what an ecocity is all about, and what the goals of the Ecocity World Summit are.

Richard Register on Green Seed Radio

Richard Register is very knowledgeable and very accessible, and this interview acts as a great primer on the entire topic. Enjoy! Thanks Mo!

Paolo Soleri, Einstein and Gandhi

March 12, 2008

Note: Thanks to Richard Register for writing this article on Paolo Soleri, the man and the mind behind Arcosanti. You can hear Paolo on Day 3 of the Summit, Saturday April 25.


Said a friend recently, “We hear about Paolo Soleri so infrequently these days, why do you keep mentioning him as a key person in your career, anyway?” “My career? Should be everybody’s survival, not just one individual’s career.”

By Richard Register

Paolo Soleri Paolo Soleri is one of the three most important people of the 20th century, and leading into the 21st century now. Time Magazine got it backward deliberating on their two nominees when its editors and publishers chose Einstein over Gandhi as Man of the 20th Century. Of course they missed Paolo entirely, for reasons I’ll contemplate below. 

In “outward looking,” mechanistic Western tradition they chose Einstein over Gandhi because Einstein told us a great deal about the universe we are part of, the universe outside of ourselves, and how it works in terms of physics and mathematics. Very important for sure, even beautiful in its way. Gandhi, however told us about ourselves and how to survive deep into the future by way of non-violence and self-discipline, by the love and spiritual/psychological path that many equate with the “inward looking” Eastern tradition. Of course! Time Magazine is a western publication.

Gandhi, like Einstein, worked in the physical world but in a very different field of action, destroying the most far-flung empire the world ever saw and replacing it with the still-largest democracy on the planet – all with non-violence and appeal to the compassionate and spiritual. It is amazing, and to our discredit and gathering danger, that he is talked about so infrequently these days. On behalf of us Westerners avoiding self-confrontation, Time Magazine correctly represented the strong tendency of economics and science to embrace Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of economics and supposed objectivity of science leading the way, with little guidance from whatever it is humanity really is. We float into the future following what is physically possible. We blindly follow the pathetically under-examined and under-evaluated trends of economy. (Should we really follow something that’s invisible?!)

Soleri figures in as providing the General Field Theory that Einstein sought unsuccessfully, because he, Einstein, didn’t identify one of those key items in the evolutionary process, namely us people with our ability to shape evolution itself, to provide another dimension of creativity to the full swath of evolution’s course through the universe – and destructivity. What we add to evolution are love and hate, passion and robotic numbness, greed and generosity, good and evil and other elements of a wide range of “drivers” way off the radar screen of physics and math. Soleri, though developing the theory in a language that most people couldn’t read – or didn’t want to think about – said it most succinctly in the title of one of his books: “The Bridge Between Matter and Spirit is Matter Becoming Spirit.” This sounds puzzling to most people but simply means that evolution delivers changes in a particular pattern in which people now play a crucial role giving rise to higher levels of integration, physically and thereby spiritually, if spirit means higher levels of consciousness and conscience in us humans and heading toward whatever may come in moving in that direction into the unknown reaches of future evolution.

Presently, human impact on evolution is massively evident and has been understood almost solely in destructive terms, us two-legged, brain-bright exterminating angles sweeping across the planet with spears, atel-atels, bows and arrows and guns destroying most of the larger fauna of the biosphere, with axes and chainsaws, destroying most of the forests, with plows and bulldozers cutting through the soils… and so on. Now massive amounts of CO2 from our sprawling cities designed on the measure of cars, not people, destroy the stability of the climate system of a whole planet. That the Earth is experiencing an “extinction spasm” and collapsing biodiversity for all of the planet and evolution here into the many millions of years in the future is well known and accepted by anyone who studies ecological biodiversity, paleontology, evolution or just plain biology. Most people don’t want to think too much about that, or if they do, just wallow in their vulnerability and lack of courage to fight back by doing something uncomfortably new, difficult, strenuous, systematic, disciplined and rewarding. They fantasize instead about moving to a country farm, putting a solar “collector” on their roof, growing a vegetable garden while actually doing little to put even that dreamy effort in gear.

But if we took up the challenge of rescuing evolution from the division between physics and us creative agents, who are people potentially in sync with Einstein’s universe and Gandhi’s notion of who we can be, they’d realize there is a very positive side to all this interference in evolution, which is our ability to build ourselves and our cities, towns and villages in a way to get evolution back on a healthy track. We can, as Gandhi demonstrated, mold ourselves into agents of peaceful evolution. We can, as Soleri proposes in his ideas for reshaping the built environment, help reshape ourselves at the same time we are supporting, not attacking, biodiversity in the way we build our cities, towns and villages. Einstein was hooked into physics and math that were too limited, broad though they be, to give efficacy to the world we humans operate in, the world Gandhi was exploring, the world Soleri described pretty well and not only that but demonstrated in his attempts to build something capable of radical energy, land, time and other resources conservation, that is, lean and efficient “matter” organized for biodiversity and attaining higher human creative and compassionate potential.


View from Arcosanti
The view from Paolo Soleri’s project, Arcosanti

People have not caught on to Paolo’s enormous and crucial contribution for many reason, no doubt many reasons I don’t understand myself. But I see a large part of the problem of ignoring his powerful contribution as having to do with everyone following each other around in a circle like a heard of sheep, everyone wanting to be accepted and everyone afraid of genuine change. People wanting to thrive right now in material terms, cling possessively to every shred of “success,” people trying to be accepted into academic propriety, look smart and attractive, become an embodiment of business success, provide for the funding sources what the foundations and governments want, send the kids to the right schools, follow the “invisible hand” of the market place instead of the creative mind of… ourselves. We follow the supposedly objective directives of science and go where it seems to be blindly leading us rather than saying, “WE decide to go there, but not there.” Our stinginess in giving to the future, paying taxes and using them for the future, the fear of investing something in the future when we might be able to enjoy something else in comfort today is involved too, no doubt. I have nothing against some comforts and pleasant habits, and we can have some of those. But we need to face up to some real discomfort, embrace some serious even painful exercise, summons real effort and courage to grow into something “spiritual” from the material world we are part of, as Soleri suggests in that title of his book. We need to do this to facilitate a healthy direction for evolution here on this planet and in our corner of the universe.

Einstein was amazing but he didn’t get it totally right if a mere layman dare say. There’s simply more to evolution and the universe than math and physics and there’s far more to life than that. The attempt for a unified field theory based on such reduction was just too narrowly drawn.

Soleri alerted us to the direction evolution takes – moving toward more complexity and miniaturization in ever more harmonious whole systems – and suggested a methodology that would help enormously in that direction: the reshaping of cities in a healthy direction and at the same time, therefore, a reshaping of ourselves.

Can Foster + Partners’ Masdar City in U.A.E be Truly Sustainable?

March 6, 2008

From our friend Jesse Fox @ Treehugger:

With over a third of the world’s cranes hard at work building artificial islands, an underwater hotel, and the world’s tallest building, biggest mall and most expensive airport, the United Arab Emirates has now turned its attention to building the world’s most sustainable city. Masdar City, a $22 billion initiative to build a brand new, zero-emissions city for 50,000 from scratch in Abu Dhabi, got underway last month.

The ambitious project, planned by British firm Foster + Partners, was one of the first ecocity projects to receive widespread coverage in the mainstream press (see the Guardian and BusinessWeek‘s coverage of the initiative), and is supported by, among others, the World Wildlife Fund. Even George W. Bush has expressed interest in the project.

But can the media hype about Masdar City be true? TreeHugger put together a panel of experts to take a closer look. Here’s what they had to say…

Read the rest of this entry »

Radio Interview: Richard Register on KCSB

February 22, 2008

A Sustainable World on KCSB

Richard Register and Margie Bushman were interviewed last week on “A Sustainable World,” a college radio station operating from University of California, Santa Barbara. Richard talks about ecological city design (and how he first met Paolo Soleri), and Margie talks about her role with the Santa Barbara Permaculture Network, and Ecocity’s Eco-Film night, an event that promotes the Ecocity World Summit.

Jesse Fox interview with Richard Register

February 15, 2008

Via Jesse Fox at treehugger


richard-register1.jpgAuthor, theorist and philosopher Richard Register is one of the pioneers of the ecocity movement, with 35 years of experience advocating for cities that facilitate humanity’s “creative and compassionate evolution” while contributing to the health of the planet. Richard is the author of several books, including Ecocities: Rebuilding Cities in Balance with Nature, and the founder of two nonprofits – Ecocity Builders and Urban Ecology.

This post is the first in a series of many examining current and future trends in ecological city building ahead of the 2008 Ecocity World Summit during Earth Day Week in San Francisco this April.

TreeHugger: Richard, you are a 35 year veteran in the still-evolving field of ecocity building. What led you to formulate your philosophy on the subject?Richard Register: Growing up as a young artist (drawing and sculpture) with an architect father in beautiful country (near Santa Fe, New Mexico) with the end of the world perched on the mountain across the Rio Grande Valley, namely Los Alamos – where they designed the atomic bomb. Probably the other biggest influence was running into Paolo Soleri at 21 years of age and seeing his enormous positive energy, commitment to building and clear conceptualization of the problem: two-dimensions bad, three-dimensions good in complex systems such as higher organisms and the city.Putting the city into context with evolution, given my appreciation and enjoyment of nature in a beautiful place like the US Southwest, was a natural for me and wanting to rescue ourselves from the insanity of war too, inclusive of the war of humans against nature – the shock troops being cities. That Santa Fe was originally a pedestrian city and the best parts of it still are… that probably was of some “ecocity” influence too. They are proud of their solar energy accomplishments in the Santa Fe region, but their history of compact pueblo architecture nearby and the pedestrian origins of the whole thing, the whole city, are far more important than even that. Of course, the two fit intimately with one another and in a very healthy manner – ecocity and solar – and both make sense there in Santa Fe, which is one of the saddest places in the world for me to visit these days. That’s because it has spread out into the usual far flung, car-dependent sprawl that infects the present and threatens the future now virtually everywhere.

TreeHugger: How would you define an ecocity?

RR: An ecocity is an ecologically healthy city. That also means the city design is strongly informed by knowledge of ecology and its design principles. The “anatomy analogy” is very instructional in the enterprise of trying to build ecologically healthy cities. As in living organisms with different functions arranged close to one another in an appropriate spatial relationship, so too for cities.

TreeHugger: Do any existing cities fit this definition?

RR: Only pieces exist, though some like Curitiba, Brazil and Portland, Oregon have a fair number of the pieces assembled. Ancient cities have “mixed uses” and spatial relationships based on human dimensions and needs for cultural and creative opportunity, such as Kathmandu, Nepal in its older sections, Indian pueblos, old European city cores and so on. On larger scale and getting into recent times, energy systems like solar and transportation systems like bicycle paths and streetcars enter the formula.

TreeHugger: How does your conception of ecological cities compare with the New Urbanism or Smart Growth movements?

RR: New Urbanism is a small step in the right direction refusing to go further over the “bridge” it claims to be a “strategy” to… to what?! They never say. I say: the ecocity. New Urbanism’s proponents’ slavish commitment to cars and the cheap energy system, that make cars possible, in denial of the fact that cheap energy is going away forever soon have turned them into urban planning fossils. They speak out of both sides of their mouth saying transit, especially rail is great (it is), and cars have to be accommodated too (they don’t).

That’s a big contradiction there that needs to be straightened out. “This town (planet) ain’t big enough for the two of us!” heard in old western movies is more like it: “cars or car-free cities. Choose.”

The New Urbanists’ four-story height limit makes no sense in an overpopulated world and shows no love of flamboyant architecture with rooftop gardens, terraces, bridges between buildings, buildings that ARE bridges, etc. as in my writing and drawing.


The “Smart Growth” people, in their embracing of higher than New Urbanist densities and building heights is another step toward ecocities, and they may actually get there someday. Their commitment to higher-density mixed-uses and balanced-development is a kind of cold planners’ language way of leading into the sort of flamboyant architecture I imagine investing in, instead of parking structures, freeways, gas stations, garages and wide driveways, etc. etc. Their main problem is in embedding themselves in the infinite-growth-in-a-finite-environment capitalistic nonsense, simply by calling their effort “Smart Growth.” There is nothing smart about infinite growth of the sort they embrace.

What they want to build physically is on the way to ecocities, if lacking most of the subtleties. How to jettison the economist’s bizarrely ecologically ignorant basic assumptions about human economy being real and nature’s incidental, and how to get the people with the money – let’s face it – to invest in ecocities, I have no idea! I’ve been trying for years and it isn’t working. Ideas anyone? Maybe saying climate change and Peak Oil are coming to get their children will finally get to them, but I don’t have that much confidence in that either. The positive alternative I’ve been putting forward for 35 years certainly has gathered little favor and support. So far.

TreeHugger: Where are the hot spots of ecocity planning and building in the world today? Where will the next wave of ecocity building come from?

RR: The hot spots of ecocity planning and building are in my head and yours and anyone else’s willing to entertain these thoughts. It amazes me how few people will even listen, how people can’t string more than two links in a “chain” of causes and effects together, how the idea of a network of interconnections can find no purchase in their minds at all, despite wonderful spider webs in everyone’s experience. Pull on one strand and all the others move around the whole web. The science like that is called ecology and it’s been around a while already – and almost nobody gets it.

As far as geographic locations, Chicago and London have a lot of good things going. Car-free cities like Venice, Italy and Gulongyu, China have structures that go way back to pedestrian roots in physically constricted island locations and though they are not consciously developing in an ecocity direction, they have a lot to exemplify. Arcosanti, Arizona and Auroville, India are heroic attempts by still starving young city experiments, young as cities go, ignored like the insane panhandler down the street, but in this case real geniuses nobody pays any attention to. Solar and wind technologists are making hardware to harmoniously provide energy for such cities and organic farmers raising their food. But does anybody put all these pieces together? Not yet.

“Part of the new New Orleans rebuilt above the floods on 20 feet of elevated fill . A good solution that’s possible with pedestrian compactness and streetcars and bikes, but not possible as a scattered car infrastructure which would require far too much fill.”

TreeHugger: Will these ecocities be affordable to the average person, or will they turn into gated communities for the rich?

RR: In capitalism as it is trying to grow and extend itself into the future: gated communities for the rich. In a system that I’ll call tax the rich and build for future people, plants and animals on a healthy Earth – which is very different from industrial socialism – not just the average person but the low-income person too.

I have been vilified by some “social justice” people for ignoring the poor. I have to say categorically that this is a lie and that furthermore I’ve generally been far lower-income than my accusers! I like low-income people – I am one! The raw beginning of the advantage of ecocities for low-income people is that the city becomes accessible, at least physically, to everyone without the requirement to invest $10,000 a year in a car and its support systems.

That’s helpful but it doesn’t solve all problems. Racial, religious, ethnic and other divisions sew seeds of poison so bad that even in the best designed cities you could well have jerks swilling martinis behind guard walls and security forces with guns one foot of concrete and steel away from starving untouchables. Can’t solve everything I’m talking about here, though a lot has to do with the city and its design and functioning. Oddly, some people believe city design could solve everything. I for one make no such claims.

In fact I’ll say this at this juncture: aside from design of the built environment, the other two big ones are over-consumption and over-population, probably followed by eating too much meat. Those are the big four assaulting the planet. None of those stand alone, but then none of them, if ever largely solved, implies the others will be solved because of that as well.

TreeHugger: When I read your book Ecocities: Building Cities in Balance with Nature only a couple of years ago, the ideas you put forth seemed visionary, yet way ahead of their time. It was difficult to imagine their application on a large scale. Yet, today, these issues seem to have entered mainstream discourse almost overnight. How has this affected your work? How do you see the ecocity concept evolving and developing as awareness of our environmental predicament continues to grow?

RR: First of all, “green building” is all the rage, but a green building is easy compared to a green city. There are many supposedly wonderful examples of great buildings getting the limelight – but to drive out to them completely destroys whatever “sustainability” they were supposed to embody in the energy and pollution involved in the drive. Other green buildings are in the right place, in a mixed-use city, and that’s a good step.

But beyond the coincidence of a green building appearing in a healthy relationship to the rest of the city, interest in sustainable cities, green cities and even ecocities, such as the purported “World’s first ecocity, Dongtan, China” has been growing for sure. Some of this is real and some is smoke screen, or more up to date: green screen. As long as these places have lots of cars, they are far from what they claim to be, and all of them but Venice and Gulongyu have lots of cars or lots of cars planned, even if somewhat de-emphasized.

My work has picked up pace only very little – with constant efforts to raise money and spend time trying to convince people to listen. I’m spending far more time doing that than writing and drawing pictures to illustrate what I think would be healthy and happy. This is largely my fault because I’m self-consciously fighting a battle against a rapidly rising tide of climate change, “Peak Oil,” species extinctions and misconceptions about ways to solve those problems with palliatives. I’m probably acting desperate instead of thoughtfully reasonable and strategic. Only one foundation has come to me with significant help in the last five years. Otherwise I’ve been beating the bushes furiously! Three individual patrons and Kirstin Miller, who is my co-conspirator in this work and has been for several years now, have been extraordinarily important. A handful of others who have been friends to this effort for years are still on board. But for sure there has been no breakthrough.

I suspect that after our conference, the Seventh International Ecocity Conference in San Francisco in April, people will catch on more easily and the ironic result might well be me getting much more “successful” after 65 years of age, hired to do this and that planning workshop and seminar, pontificate about ecocity principles and reminisce about the early days of ecocity theory and practice. Some of my drawings might even lead to a built project or two. But maybe all that will be too late to have helped stem the tide of climate change and the beginning of the age of no cheap energy, which is likely to be a most unpleasant time. It may well – right now – be too late to build the foundation that could have been built if myself, Soleri and some of the other earlier proponents of ecocity development had been given the chance to thrive 35 years ago.

We’ve burned up about half the world’s oil without building the foundation in physical structures and energy systems for future ecocities. Most of that last half of the oil is likely to be used resentfully trying to secure the last dregs, Dick Chaney style, and keep out the neighbors, Idaho Survivalist style. But we may salvage something of civilization yet if we immediately stop expanding highways and shift the money over to ecocity mixed use building and transit and bikes.

“A possible downtown San Francisco -­ biologically, as well as economically and culturally, intensely alive. This is a highly mixed use community with no cars. Streets, alleys, hallways and bridges link pedestrians efficiently through the whole structure. Runs on one tenth the energy of conventional car-dependent cities.”

TreeHugger: On that note, many people are predicting that the next administration in Washington DC will have to follow a completely different path than the current one regarding to its outlook on the environment and ecological, planning and economic issues. Do you expect a completely new set of rules when someone else takes the helm, or will the playing field remain more or less as it is?

RR: If the slide into resentment from power shortages that are likely to start in two to four years, of the sort we are seeing in South Africa right now, is slow, things will stay pretty much the same as far as government structure, rules and habits go. The cartoon characters of greed and violence that have been the administration of this country for the last two terms are leaving an almost incomprehensible mess for those who follow. It’s truly challenging to figure out how to repair their damage, much less move in a creative and compassionate direction. Maybe there will be some hopeful surprises. I’m trying to lend my efforts in that direction, of course.

If we enter a free fall collapse – which has happened to many head-strong societies in the past – our disappearing act will define the coming of a new geological and ecological age, one that paleontologists say we just started anyway in the “extinction spasm” we are still furiously engaged in. The extinction species de jure is the horseshoe crab right now and last year about this time the last River Dolphin expired in the Yangtze River.

You have to remember that on December 18, the United States Congress voted in an insane energy policy, insane relative to our energy and biological realities on this finite planet. Both parties voted not to help wind and solar energy and to give major further support to oil, coal and nukes. The one renewable source they did favor – biofuels – is the one that puts the last of the agricultural land and last of the biodiversity in forests and grasslands into your car’s gas tank. Utterly insane! There are hungry people out there and extinctions are spreading like ink through blotter paper and they want to do that?! And, repeat, both parties are for it.

How much money will go into Amtrak as versus private car supports such as highway building? The ratio is about one to fifty. Again, that’s insane. Amtrak works with ecocities and the freeway system supports cities suffocating the planet.

TreeHugger: City building is an almost monumental task, and is usually carried out by a complex web of competing interests and ideologies, most of which can seem completely inaccessible to the average person. How can people who are not involved with these official processes affect positive change in the built environments in which they live?

RR: That’s a serious misconception. Everyday NIMBY’s the world around are as sophisticated and engaged as any of the best trained planners in city governments and almost all of them are working to keep the same system that makes them comfortable in their owner-occupied neighborhoods and secure in their well-paid jobs. They are busy shaping cities and they know that “complex web” of applications, approvals, hearings and so on inside and out. That’s what the first group does as a self-defense avocation and the second professionally. And anybody can join them in the work but take a different direction.

The notion that it is hard to change the city is a notion the NIMBY’s and professional planners promulgate to their own benefit like the dark ages Catholic priests speaking Latin among themselves and being as mysteriously obscure as possible to conceal the scam of their indulgences from the impressionable masses left out in the dark.

We know how to build the ecocity. It’s easy if you want to: up-zone for more density and diversity in the centers and withdraw from sprawl. We are replete with tools. We are also in denial about their use and spinning all sorts of excuses for not getting on with the only thing that can possibly be strong enough to save our asses!

All illustrations by Richard Register.
For further visual illustration of Richard Register’s ideas, check out: How to Retrofit a Downtown (The Abbreviated Course).

Featured Project: Berkeley, Heart of the City

February 8, 2008

Richard Register is working on this exciting concept: The Heart of the City/Strawberry Creek Plaza Project. Above is a flyover, and below is a description.

The Heart of the City/Strawberry Creek Plaza Project

Utilizing ecological rebuilding and design approaches, the Heart of the City/Strawberry Creek Plaza Project proposes to demonstrate practical, sustainable solutions to the serious environmental and related social challenges facing urban communities globally.

Structurally, a Heart of the City Project in Berkeley’s downtown embracing an ecologically oriented design concept would:

  1. Create a one block pedestrian street on Center Street between Oxford Street and Shattuck Avenue.
  2. Create a small public plaza.
  3. Incorporate a “daylighted” Strawberry Creek into the site design.
  4. Create buildings that utilize sustainable design principles, including solar energy.

The project addresses:

  • Automobile dependence and transportation alternatives
  • Pedestrian streets, public space, and street design
  • The city and region’s housing/jobs geographic imbalance
  • The need to demonstrate effective green building design, materials, and methods
  • Education and outreach to the community
  • Restoration of urban waterways and green space
  • Local biodiversity
  • Energy conservation
  • CO2 abatement/climate change, and related effects
  • Linkages between environmental restoration and sustainable development

In Berkeley, the project could optimize sustainable features in developments on approximately 3 acres (about 131,000 sq. ft.) of downtown real estate owned by the University of California, Bank of America, City of Berkeley and possibly other interests at a time when Berkeley is more open to new urban planning approaches. The Project advocates a mix of residential, commercial, and arts-oriented development and public open space, including a section of a restored Strawberry Creek flowing through the project.

The initial planning for the Berkeley Heart of the City Project, begun in 1997, was concerned with refining the concept, introducing it to the community and building basic interest and support. We have statements of interest, letters of support and/or financial contributions from over 100 citizen groups addressing a broad spectrum of health, social, economic, and environmental issues. (Click here to read the list of supporters of the Ecocity Amendment, which lists the Heart of the City Project as one of its policies.)

If the Heart of the City Project takes on a broader scope and aspires to connect to larger urban ecological reshaping, it could demonstrate how sustainable development can help pay for environmental restoration through Transfers of Development Rights (TDRs) and other land-conservation incentives. For example, development removed along the course of Strawberry Creek between downtown and the San Francisco Bay can, in essence, be added to the more efficient urban center, hence the linkage between downtown development and the creek’s restoration over time.