[at-l] The Other MacKaye Vision

[camojack at comcast.net (camojack@comcast.net)]

"What I want to know is if a controlled-access highway
and a footpath vie for same patch of undeveloped land,
which MacKaye vision takes precedence?"
-TXIIS

<sarcasm>Well, it all depends upon which local resources are ripest for exploitation.</sarcasm> 

One of my favorite passages from MacKaye's dream of a "Worker's Paradise" (with all the obvious connotations) is the following:

"Timber also is required. Permanent small scale operations should be encouraged in the various Appalachian National Forests. The government now claims this as a part of its forest policy. The camping life would stimulate forestry as well as a better agriculture. Employment in both would tend to become enlarged."

Very practical, advocating sustainable forestry, but the most rabid (and least practical) of the "tree huggers" would be appalled at such a suggestion...can someone say "Healthy Forests Initiative"?
(http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/hfi/)

-"Camo"

-------------- Original message -------------- 
> Jim and/or Ginny Owen wrote: 
> >TXIIS wrote: 
> 
> >>From: Laurence Ilsley Hewes [1942], "American Highway 
> >>Practice" (volume one), John Wiley & Sons, New York, 
> >>pp 204-205. 
> 
> > 
> 
> >>Scenic drives through undeveloped areas along controlled- 
> >>access divided highways: the *other* MacKaye vision. 
> 
> >Yep - you can find exactly the same ideas in the Appendix 
> >of "The New Exploration" (by Benton MacKaye - and probably 
> >available from ATC). The article is entitled "The 
> >Townless Highway." 
> 
> I'd prefaced my previous post the way I had on the 
> assumption that somebody here would be familiar with 
> the footnoted MacKaye essay, despite its absence from 
> the internets (Google only returns a few bibliographical 
> references to it). 
> 
> >In any case, these days they're called "Interstate 
> >highways" - and while he didn't get credit for them, 
> >he published the idea long before anyone else came 
> >up with the money or rationale for actually buildng 
> >them. 
> 
> I wasn't going to give MacKaye *that* much credit, but 
> now that I think about it, the Interstate Highway System 
> *is* about as far removed in purpose and design from 
> parkways as the existing Appalachian Trail is from 
> MacKaye's original vision. 
> 
> >MacKaye was (or at least thought of himself as) a 
> >"Regional Planner." There was no hidden agenda, no 
> >disingenuousness, no subtle "end run" involved in 
> >his Appalachian Trail article 
> >(http://www.fred.net/kathy/at/mackaye.html). 
> >He said what he meant - and he meant what he said. 
> >Those who have actually read MacKaye know that. 
> 
> Indeed. His Appalachain Trail essay is steeped in the 
> angst popular among trendy "intellectuals" of the day. 
> MacKaye thought he'd found in his vision of ridgeline 
> footpath cum labor camps a piece of the collectivist's 
> Holy Grail: A moral equivalent of war, and he is quite 
> open about the need to plan people's leisure (eyes narrow) 
> and "increase the efficiency of our spare time" (facial 
> tic) by harnessing this "undeveloped power" for the 
> health of society (reaches for revolver). 
> 
> As the catalyst for what was to become the Appalachian 
> Trail, the essay rightly deserves historical recognition. 
> However, the main premises on which his pitch for it was 
> based are morally repugnant and shockingly naive. 
> 
> >But not everyone reads (or is willing to believe) 
> >"ALL" of what he wrote - some just read those parts 
> >that support their own prejudices and ignore the 
> >rest. 
> 
> What I want to know is if a controlled-access highway 
> and a footpath vie for same patch of undeveloped land, 
> which MacKaye vision takes precedence? 
> 
> TXIIS From ellen at clinic.net  Fri Jul 22 17:15:56 2005
From: ellen at clinic.net (Bob C)
Date: Fri Jul 22 18:17:12 2005
Subject: [at-l] The Other MacKaye Vision
In-Reply-To: <072220052258.18145.42E179FA000D0B25000046E12200737478050C0E0601030E0C@comcast.net>
References: <072220052258.18145.42E179FA000D0B25000046E12200737478050C0E0601030E0C@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20050722191556.360812934.ellen@clinic.net>

"Very practical, advocating sustainable forestry, but the most rabid (and least practical) of the "tree huggers" would be appalled at such a suggestion...can someone say "Healthy Forests Initiative"?

We certainly need sustainable forests. But we also need places where a forest is left alone. Except for a few scattered unreachable patches all of Maine, for instance, has been cut over three or four times. Just as we have historical museums dedicated to preserving artifacts of the past, we need a few representative places where nature is allowed to do whatever nature unmolested by humans will choose to do. Certainly representative patches of the few scattered uncut areas remaining need to be protected. But equally important are the preservation of a few recovering forests so our children, grand children and future generations in each of our towns can observe and walk in a semblance of wildness.

Weary