michaellyonstheunforeseen


 * Title:** The Unforeseen
 * Director:** Laura Dunn
 * Release year:** 2007


 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

This film is about development. It argues that our current habits of developing vast virgin areas and urban sprawl are having a large effect on the surrounding environment. This documentary provides an in depth look into the property development industry especially in the greater Austin area.


 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

Many of the sustainability problems demonstrated in this documentary are ecologically related. Our cultural presence and development of a built environment has had a number of ecological impacts on the natural environment. People desire to have open space and a connection with nature where they live. Through sprawl we are destroying nature in the process of trying to connect with it. Buildings and roads themselves block the natural filtration system of water through the ground into the soil and aquifers. Healthy streams often dry up and become flood zones with high flow followed by no flow because of this disruption destroying any ecological systems that previously existed in the area. Oils, greases, car residue on roads, pesticides and herbicides are all washed out from this development into the remaining water sources. The effect of urban flooding on water quality has been researched in the Austin area and it was estimated that it takes only three days for water to travel 21 miles into the Barton Springs from distant pollution sources. Water quickly flows from this spring into the Edwards aquifer, the main source of water for the entirety of Austin. Sediment caused by land leveling and development can be washed away deteriorating the clarity of the water as well. In our rampant development and sprawl across the countryside we are destroying these natural systems and polluting the water supply that much of the eco-system depends on.

The fact that we develop with this model and the pace in which we develop is also a large organizational, behavioral and cultural sustainability problem. We are expanding our network of housing at an alarming rate eliminating more and more natural areas. One suburb outside of Austin expects 30,000 new people living there within 5 to 7 years which correlates to 11,000 new homes. At Barton Springs a 127 million dollar residential subdivision called Circle C ranch was under development which is a 4500 acre area consisting of 10,000 homes and when completed it would planned to become a city within itself. The American dream is to live in a nice house in the suburbs with a white picket fence and developers are entirely willing to meet the needs of this cultural phenomenon through these massive development projects.

There are also a number of economic and political sustainability problems that both allow and encourage this form of development. Development is great in terms of GDP and the strength of the economy is often directly measured through the strength of the housing market. In our economy profit and GDP are of upmost importance so although this development is negatively effecting the environment it remains very economically viable. Uncapped lending by banks also allows easy development schemes to be promoted through excessive lending. Investors can take in 100 million dollars in debt in order to attempt to make twice as much on a residential subdivision project. But when everything doesn’t go right or people aren’t buying in at the point where the most of the money is going out then a lot of the development schemes can get into debt. This can create very large unpaid loans if the project goes into bankruptcy. There is also resistance amongst politics to limiting this development. A bill was passed in Austin but luckily vetoed which allowed developers to follow only the environmental laws that existed when their project was started. This allowed a loophole in environmental laws where developers could buy out bankrupted old projects from years past and keep them going under environmental regulations that were decades old.


 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

One portion that I found very persuasive during the film was when you could visibly see the clarity changes within the Barton Spring between 1994 and 2006. Snorkelers taking underwater footage were shown during each year with clear degradation in clarity making it hard to argue that people and pollution in the area is not affecting the water quality. Also the movie ended with the following quote: “For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil for which some have strayed from their faith in their greediness and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (1 Timothy 6:9-10). Although religion wasn’t cited as a solution to this problem I felt this conclusion to be a compelling summary to the fundamental greed that drives real estate developers in many of their projects. Also I found the fact that the Circle C project at Barton Springs ended in bankruptcy to be a nice point of justice.


 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**

I was not compelled by the fact that the film focused intently on the Austin area and spent significant time on the area of Barton spring in particular. Although this allowed for development of how the problem specifically affected the people of this area I would have been more convinced if the movie sought to prove why this is a global problem. Also, Barton Springs is a magnificent environmental natural landmark but would the local people have prevented the development in the area if it was a standard forest or wetland that offered no obvious tangible benefits to the community as this swimming hole did?


 * What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?**

This film definitely compelled me to seek out more information on the un-sustainability associated with development and suburban sprawl. I am a future civil engineer so the concept of development is very important to me and further knowledge on any of the issues associated with development would be beneficial to me in my future career. I was especially compelled to seek out any technical alternatives that might exist to solve some of the ecological problems created by this development.


 * What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?**

I think this film best addresses those living in the areas of development that were talked about. I don’t think they realize the effect that it might have had on the environment to create the suburban subdivisions that they live in. I think it will give these people insight into the effects of the “American Dream” in which they are participating. Most people will probably not be inspired to act though unless a particular local case similar to Barton Spring is present to rally behind. Development activities often act on a much larger scale than the average viewer will feel they can counteract.


 * What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**

The movie made a comparison of development to the human body with roads of development similar to capillaries of the body but tumors can make blood vessels that never turn off and devastate the body. They said that we need cells and new cells like we need development, but unsustainable development is like cancer and developing too fast can destroy everything else in the process. They argued that a model of development needs to be created and implemented that grows by increasing the quality of existing housing instead of further developing virgin areas, a model that develops interior landscape until there is no more opportunity to do so. Growth itself is not the enemy, it’s the nature of the way we are currently growing or the quality of the growth that we are bringing about.

The documentary does point out that the results in Austin with Barton Springs are not typical of most cities in Texas. Most town councils welcome any form of development as progress. “If the people lead, the leaders will follow”, if people make this development an issue then the operation of these town councils may become an area of intervention in which to bring about more sustainable development. For the Barton Springs problem a town meeting about the project lasted into the early morning hours as thousands of activists and various local people got up to talk against the project.


 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?**

The film could have looked more into the energy and waste associated with the massive construction projects. The film focused largely on water contamination as an ecological problem of the built environment but vast energy and natural resources are used and wasted to build these systems as well. As mentioned before I think a wider array of examples from different areas around the country would also help strengthen the point that overdevelopment is a rampant problem across our country.