Page 1

CITY RECONSIDERED Downtown Kansas City Recycling System Vision Study

Kansas City Design Center | Urban Design Studio 2015-16 Kansas State University University of Kansas


The Kansas City Design Center is made possible by two generous support grants from the William T. Kemper Foundation and the Hall Family Foundation. This project was funded by the Mid-America Regional Council Solid Waste Management District and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. This publication cannot be sold, duplicated, or published electronically or otherwise, without the express written consent of the KCDC. The purpose of this publication is academic in nature and is intended to showcase the research, scholarship, and design work of the students of the KCDC.

KCDC Kansas City Design Center

ii


CONTENTS iv viii

Foreword Acknowledgements

3

01 | BACKGROUND

5 6 10 12

Project Scope Why Recycle? Dilemmas Community Engagement

15

02 | INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS

18 28 38

Precedent Studies Regional Waste Flows Waste Rates and Loads

59

03 | VISION FRAMEWORK

61 64 70 78 82 88 116

Goals of the Greater Downtown Area Plan Project Boundaries Type of Waste Loads Vision Framework Conceptual Scenarios System Strategies Vision Plan

119

04 | CLUSTER STRATEGY

122 124 126 132

Concept Site Conditions Waste Management Systems Design Proposals

147

05 | ORGANIC NODE

150 156 168 172

Concept Site Conditions Organic Waste Systems Design Proposal

193

06 | SHOWCASE NODE

196 200 214 218

Concept Site Conditions Design Elements Design Proposal

235

07 | LINKS STRATEGY

238 240 252 260

Concept Site Conditions Design Elements Design Proposal

301

08 | CONCLUSIONS

307

09 | BIBLIOGRAPHY

3


FOREWORD Today we are faced with the shifting paradigm of the public realm in urban environment. No longer just a space of appearance in which we signify our civic values and practice our collective life – to the extent that it was ever fully lived as such – with the expansion and the imperative for sustainable stewardship of urban environment the public realm is progressively becoming an interface where heretofore invisible processes of the infrastructural functioning of the city come to manifest and make itself present. This represents a compelling [urban] design dilemma which extends far beyond providing place for such processes and demands a substantive study into their nature and the possibilities for their integration into the life, meaning and quality of the public realm. In other words, it forces a new subject onto the field of the design whereby the common parameters of the discipline need to be reexamined in order to discover the possibilities for meaningful response and action. When KCDC was asked to undertake the vision study for the recycling system for downtown Kansas City, we were aware of the challenge of the uncharted territory and the need for the sustained study to discover the actual design subject and provide meaningful response to it. In doing so we were guided by the principle assumption that the [recycling] infrastructure needs to be integral to the designed quality of the public realm and indelibly incorporated into its life flows as an attribute. It is to the credit of the industrious, committed and talented group of students that we were able to do the necessary research and surmount an intimidating amount of often-incompatible data, invent ways to constructively relate and map them and process our analytical findings to create a meaningful base for our design investigations. This publication aims to be more than a summary of the studio process, it attempts to make the case for an integrated approach to design thinking where research, information and data processing, overall planning strategies, policy considerations, design iterations and sustainable materials resources management and processing [both natural and manmade] are seen as interdependent and constituting parts of the conceptual and functioning whole. Therein reside the possibilities for a different, value creation based approach to design which opens up new perspectives for thinking about land vacancy, urban space and public realm as a resource rather than liability and we hope that we were able to uncover fresh design paradigms that capitalize on it. We further hope that so documented argument, in addition to the knowledge, insights, discoveries and design ideas generated in the course of the project, will offer our stakeholders and civic partners useful perspectives, actionable ideas and possibilities for eventual implementation of a comprehensive recycling systems in downtown Kansas City. We remain indebted to the MARC Solid Waste Management District and who have provided us with the grant that made this project possible, in particular Lisa McDaniel, Nadja Karpilow and Tom Jacobs as well as all other members of our project Advisory Group. Additionally, we would like to thank the Missouri Department of Natural Resources who partially funded this project. This publication that solely contains work produced by KCDC students during the academic 2015/16 year, was in main conceived, designed and prepared by Amanda Kline, Lauren Heermann, Libby Tudor and Halima Shehu. Their classmates and myself owe them a debt of gratitude for their commitment, perseverance and hard work on capturing the essence of their yearlong learning efforts. Finally, I want to thank my colleague Associate Professor Jason Brody for his invaluable contribution to the teaching efforts on this project. Thank you all, I feel privileged to have had a good fortune to work with such a good group of students, colleagues and committed stakeholders. Vladimir Krstic


Grand Blvd Link

12th St Link

v

Main St Link


vi


Architecture’s professional identity has long included a claim of responsibility for the city. Its ancient history, its involvement in building, its generalist education and its creative practice all contribute to architecture’s regard for its own special role in shaping the material world supporting human civilization. Yet this self-identity is made problematic by architecture’s traditional preoccupation with form. A practice focused on the design of individual buildings seems inadequate to the immensity, complexity, and speed of contemporary urbanization. It is less the highly visible failings of, say, the modernist public housing project that illustrates architecture’s limitations here than the vast swaths of suburban subdivisions, office parks and commercial strips that bear little of architecture’s imprint. Sustainable waste management presents unique challenges to architecture and its related disciplines – but addressing those challenges suggests new possibilities for architectural practice.This studio considers the problem of recycling in downtown Kansas City. Existing city policy providing recycling pick up to residents is limited to single-family housing, meaning the bulk of the downtown area is left unserved. Part of the challenge is to design a recycling system that can address the varying waste loads of a range of dense residential, commercial and industrial uses. For that system to be successful considerations of economics, policy, incentives, and enforcement need to be taken into consideration. Yet the importance of managing solid waste is undeniable if we are concerned with the impact dense human settlement has on the planet. The KCDC studio’s work in the past year includes modeling of waste loads, study of regional waste hauling networks, and research to solid waste management in comparable cities. Findings of significance range from the impact of public events in the generation of waste downtown to the importance of composting in addressing the organic side of municipal waste. The study identifies key dilemmas of access, efficiency, and education, and proposes three big strategic ideas – clusters, nodes, and links – to address the problem of recycling in a multi-faceted way. Each of the strategies addresses part but not all of the complex set of issues and challenges and opportunities in improving recycling in downtown Kansas City. Importantly, each is an urban design in its own right: that is, the strategies address the challenges of recycling while at the same time improving the general quality of the urban realm in downtown Kansas City. Together they address both the hard challenges of developing functional recycling infrastructure and systems and the soft challenges of raising awareness and changing behavior. This recycling study forced design students to consider the city through its waste and the complex logistical and bureaucratic systems needed to process waste. The vision and strategic proposals contained within point the way towards creative design practices capable of shaping the immensity, complexity, and speed of contemporary urbanization. Dr. Jason Brody

vii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Advisory Committee The voluntary participation of our advisory committee and professional reviewers throughout the studio’s numerous meetings was essential in the development of this project. We must acknowledge their individual willingness to show up, provide insightful feedback to us, as students, and stay committed in the studio project’s success. Their dedicated involvement allowed us to make stronger research and design outcomes. John Blessing, Deffenbaugh Industries Jim Callier, Resource Conservation and Pollution Prevention Section - EPA Dominique Davison, Principle Architect, DRAW Architecture + Urban Design LLC Cassandra Ford, Business Recycling Program Manager, Bridging The Gap Lydia Gibson, Independent Planner and Recycling Consultant Scott Harris, Downtown Neighborhood Association Tom Jacobs, Environmental Program Director, MARC Nadja Karpilow, Environmental Planner, MARC SWMD Marleen Leonce, City of Kansas City, MO - Solid Waste Division Lisa McDaniel, Solid Waste Program Manager, MARC SWMD Kristin Riott, Executive Director, Bridging The Gap Kevin Anderson, Missouri Organic

Students

Faculty

This project was done as a collaboration among architecture, landscape architecture, and planning students at the Kansas City Design Center.

Vladimir Krstic - KCDC Director & Professor Dr. Jason Brody - Associate Professor Sarah Kraly - Executive Assistant

Levi Caraway - Architecture, KSU Lauren Heermann - Landscape Architecture, KSU David Maynard - Regional and Community Planning, KSU Libby Tudor - Landscape Architecture, KSU Amanda Santoro - Landscape Architecture, KSU Jeremy Knoll - Architecture, KSU Jazmin Perez Flores - Architecture, KSU Halima Shehu - Architecture, KSU Andrew Rostek - Landscape Architecture, KSU Noah Volz - Architecture, KSU Nathan Mattenlee - Architecture, KSU Sean Tapia - Urban Planning, KU Joel Savage - Architecture, KSU Lindsay Stucki - Landscape Architecture, KSU viii


01 | BACKGROUND 5

Project Scope

6

Why Recycle?

10 Dilemmas 12

Community Engagement


PROJECT SCOPE Project Scope and Intent

Project Statement

City Reconsidered is a research study, vision framework, and set of design proposals to address recycling in downtown Kansas City, Missouri. It was completed by fourteen architecture, landscape architecture, and urban planning students enrolled at the Kansas City Design Center (KCDC) over the 2015-2016 academic year, a collective effort conducted in collaboration with the MidAmerica Regional Council Solid Waste Management District (MARC SWMD) who sponsored the project and provided input and professional expertise. The study was initiated to address a gap in recycling infrastructure in Kansas City, which currently provides municipal recycling services to single family residences in the city but not the multifamily and commercial uses that make up the majority of the built fabric downtown.

Kansas City currently recycles 27% of its waste stream, a rate that while comparable to similar cities in the Midwest nonetheless leaves substantial room for improvement. City Reconsidered suggests a goal of 80% diversion, with the potential to divert 40% of the city’s waste to traditional recycling systems and an additional 40% of waste to organic composting facilities. To reach this goal, recycling infrastructure must successfully address three main dilemmas: accessibility to recycling infrastructure, efficiency in recyclable collection and processing systems, and public education about recycling. City Reconsidered proposes three strategies – clusters, nodes, and links – to address the above dilemmas.

The studio conducted extensive research into the problems associated with development and implementation of effective recycling infrastructures over the fall of 2015, including behavioral research, analysis of extant waste operations and policies in the Kansas City region, and study of relevant precedents across a range of North American cities. This led to development of a comprehensive vision framework and, over the first half of 2016, a set of sophisticated design proposals that suggest a variety of creative means of addressing recycling downtown. Each of the proposals addresses the public realm of the city as well, pointing to opportunities to make a better city in general even while addressing narrow infrastructural concerns.

Clusters group together recycling infrastructure of multiple private users within a small area such as a city block to achieve greater efficiency, gain bargaining power, and free up or otherwise improve local urban space. Nodes activate underutilized public spaces with either functional recycling infrastructure or recycling-related programmatic activity to educate and engage the public while addressing functional recycling needs. Links address recycling infrastructure in conjunction with comprehensive consideration of the public realm within the most active areas of downtown Kansas City in order to engage, educate, and provide consistent recycling access to downtown Kansas Citians on the go.

Background | 5


WHY RECYCLE? Environmental Ethics

Social Benefits

People should be educated about recycling so they understand the importance managing their waste properly. Reducing, reusing, and recycling materials is beneficial to one’s community and the environment. Diverting waste that is sent to landfills and incinerators reduces harmful toxins from being emitted into the air and contaminating groundwater, as well as preserving valuable land. Recycling materials can also conserve natural resources and reduce the energy needed to produce new materials. By reducing pollution and the need for raw materials, recycling can help preserve and sustain the environment for future generations (EPA 2015).

Individuals are more likely to recycle if they can see what products are being made from their old waste. The more people are inspired by recycling and the projects and benefits it creates, the more they want to be involved (TerraCycle 2015). If recycling can be immersed into the public realm of cities and in everyday lives, the public will begin to see the impacts of recycling. Public spaces can also be enhanced to incorporate recycling activities for the public to engage with. These interactions with recycling and products that arise from the reuse of materials, can prompt children and adults to think about their own consumption practices (Recology 2015).

Current Diversion 27%

6 | Background

Future Diversion Goal 80%


RECYCLING’S IMPORTANCE TO KANSAS CITY Environmental Ethics Waste has been an urban issue since the dawn of civilization, becoming a serious design concern as density increases and the potential for foul odors, pests, and contamination of air and water are compounds. Just sixty years ago, many Kansas City residents had trash cans partly buried in their yards near the alleyways for regular privately contracted pickup, and simply burned most leaf and brush waste. Starting in 2004, Kansas City, MO residents voted to approve an earnings tax in exchange for a number of City-provided services, including commingled recycling collection for residents of single and attached homes of fewer than six units. Collection included paper, cardboard, metals, and number1 and number 2 plastics. The City also opened several public drop-off locations for additional materials such as Styrofoam, batteries, additional plastics, and more. These drop-off locations were also meant to serve the portion of the Kansas City population not covered by regular curbside pickup, and were managed by staff and volunteers from a local nonprofit, Bridging The Gap. Over a decade later, recycling participation has leveled off, and there are large portions of the Greater Kansas City area that still do not have convenient or affordable access to recycling services, namely multi-family dwellings of six or more units, and commercial properties. Kansas City has set a goal to reach an 80 percent diversion rate by 2020, but only 27 percent of their waste is currently being diverted from the landfill.

40%

Organic Waste

Kansas City currently diverts 27 percent of the waste stream distributed among multiple haulers and the city service, with most waste going to landfills. Using the City’s objective of 80 percent diversion as a guide, the city should aim for 40 percent diversion by recycling and composting through the support of multiple organizations and changes to service structure.

40 + 40 Approach to Diversion Kansas City can improve its diversion of waste from landfills by taking a 40+40 approach to its waste. By addressing the waste through recycling and compost, the city can increase diversion to 80% from the landfill while reducing the environment impact and gaining benefits.

40% Recycled Waste

88 40% Diversion

Background | 7


COMPOSTING BENEFITS Organic Waste in Landfills Produces Methane In the United States, 18% of the methane released into the atmosphere comes from waste management. Methane is an extremely detrimental greenhouse gas that is over 25 times more harmful than carbon dioxide.

Compost Aids in Reducing Food Deserts

Decrease Air Toxins

Composting organic waste produces a soil fertilizer that can be used to help grow food. This outlet for organic waste can be used to help address growing food deserts in our cities.

Compost Amended Soil Holds More Stormwater Kansas City has 708 acres of pervious right-ofway and an extensive amount of surface parking. Tilling composted organic waste into the soil of these sites would capture approximately 30 million gallons of water, alleviating 40% of the city’s stormwater retention quota.

Promote Local Agriculture

Retain Rainwater Runoff 8 | Background


RECYCLING BENEFITS Recycling Feeds Back into the Local Economy Closing recycling loops promotes sustainable local economies based on lower transportation and material costs and recaptures the value of waste traditionally sent to landfills. Additionally, materials can be sold out into other green economies for additional profit. Benefit Local Economies

Recycling Reduces the Impact of Consumed Goods Reducing the reliance on virgin materials, recycling helps to protect vulnerable ecosystems and reduces the energy and greenhouse gases that would be emitted during the production of everyday goods.

Recycling and Material Reuse Creates More Jobs For every 10,000 tons of waste, recycling creates ten times the jobs of traditional landfill practices. For Kansas City, this would be an additional 148 jobs. A developed local material waste industry would create an additional 1,100 jobs or $16,000,000 in economic capital.

Reduce Air Emissions

Create Jobs Background | 9


DILEMMAS Education Individual unwillingness to take part in publicly provided recycling services may stem from a lack of education. According to a recent study, 22 percent of Kansas City residents, or 102,080 people, do not recycle weekly although they do receive city-provided services to do so. Many do not recycle because of common misconceptions or because they do not have convenient access (Kansas City Planning and Development 2015). For example, many do not understand the need to recycle or how and what to recycle (SCS Engineers 2008). Expanded educational efforts may also increase people’s willingness to compost. Education about proper composting processes could address common misconceptions that keep people from participating. Many people are often concerned about potential odors or pests associated with composting. If done correctly, the collection of organic food waste can be fairly safe and clean, contrary to what many may think (SCS Engineers 2008). The strategies outlined in chapter three of this document propose possible ways to make recycling and composting more comprehensible. Education is an important element of the proposed open space and linkage strategies. Education about recycling and composting can take the form of not only outreach programs but also artwork, visual prompts, or various amenities in public space.

10 | Background

25% of all Kansas City residents live in multi-family housing

City provided recycling is not accessible to residents living in multi-family housing.


Efficiency

Accessibility

Inefficiencies found in the regional study relate to waste collection and transportation. For example, multiple haulers drive many of the same routes to collect along similar waste streams from neighboring properties. If more recyclable waste streams are further separated to collect individual recyclable or compostable materials, then additional trucks may be on the roads and driving similar routes. Instead, waste could be collected at centralized locations and shared by multiple land uses clustered in a dense area. Many business or residential complexes downtown currently own individual bins for trash and recyclables. If organic, glass, plastic, or paper are collected in single streams, countless more bins many fill alleys and service areas. Waste haulers may be required to make many more routes and stops if multiple buildings do not share central waste collection points. Service and function is an important element of the proposed privately shared collection points, which are explained in chapter three.

Although the city strives to provide trash and recycling opportunities to many residents, current collection services only reach 75 percent of Kansas City’s population, who live in singlefamily housing. The remaining 25 percent of residents, or 116,000 people, do not receive such services (Kansas City Planning and Development 2015). This makes recycling inconvenient for many. Later proposals in this document explore outcomes if the current collection system expands to accommodate more people.

Data collection may help efficiently predict the needs and trends of Kansas City’s waste production, and integrated technology can make data collection easier. The city has already invested in GPS trackers, which have been documenting the routes of all city-funded haulers. Further technology investments in sensor equipment could notify haulers when bins are full to minimize collection routes. Possible technology and data collection scenarios are later addressed alongside proposed waste system improvements.

The city has considered an organics collection program, which has not yet been implemented. According to a previous study, the program would only serve residents living in single-family units (SCS Engineers 2008). Outcomes of a citywide organic waste program are later explored, with the intention that all residents are provided this service. Large events intermittently contribute to a large portion of the City’s waste, however many events do not offer attendees accessible places to recycle or compost. Bridging The Gap has outlined several ways to plan a sustainable event, but few policies require recycling to be provided (Bridging The Gap). More waste produced at these events could be collected and diverted from landfills if the city asked all public events to promote more sustainable waste practices. Well-designed public spaces can integrate recycling and composting, create healthier urban environments, and improve the quality of life for local residents (Hou 2010). However, the inventory of the Greater Downtown Area shows how access to recycling and composting is limited in public spaces. Recycling is rarely an option where trash bins are provided in the public right-of-way and parks, and organic food waste collection is never offered. The application of recycled materials also rarely exists. If a strategic plan for public space prioritizes sustainable waste practices and the application of sustainable materials, then recycling and composting behaviors may be encouraged. Background | 11


COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Key Collaborators with Different Roles Many people were involved in this downtown recycling project. Although primarily conducted by the students at the KCDC, it would not have been possible without the guidance from several people and organizations. With funding support from the Mid-America Regional Council Solid Waste Management District (MARC SWMD), the KCDC progressed with help from an advisory committee, professional preview group, children from local schools, and the everyday residents, workers, and users of public space in Downtown Kansas City. Many people have a stake in this downtown project, and an attempt was made to consider the needs and opinions of all. Each person or entity involved in the guidance of the project development played a slightly different but important role in the outcomes. Where some offered technical knowledge about the factors of waste management downtown, others provided broader thoughts about what the project could offer the entire metropolitan area or region. While some were more concerned with the feasibility and logistics, others were more interested in how the project could be shared with local leaders and the larger community to inspire change. Professional Review Group Several design professionals reviewed the studio work at two occasions in October and December of 2015. During the spring semester, the professional reviews and advisory committee meetings were merged, as both groups represented stakeholder concerns, whether from an expert waste management perspective, local neighborhood perspective, or an urban design perspective.

Advisory Committee The advisory committee included twelve members and was invited to review the project and provide critical feedback and guidance on the studio’s research and design. These reviews occurred at two meetings and an open-house event during the fall and again during the spring semester. The committee offered expert advice on sustainable design and planning and practical waste management techniques. They collectively represented various stakeholder opinions within the community. This group is collectively represented by the following people and organizations: •

John Blessing, Deffenbaugh Industries

Jim Callier, Resource Conservation and Pollution Prevention Section - EPA

Dominique Davison, Principle Architect, DRAW Architecture + Urban Design LLC

Cassandra Ford, Business Recycling Program Manager, Bridging The Gap

• Lydia Gibson, Independent Planner and Recycling Consultant •

Scott Harris, Downtown Neighborhood Association

Tom Jacobs, Environmental Program Director, MARC

Nadja Karpilow, Environmental Planner, MARC SWMD

Marleen Leonce, City of Kansas City, MO, Solid Waste Division

• Lisa McDaniel, Solid Waste Program Manager, MARC SWMD

12 | Background

Kristin Riott, Executive Director, Bridging The Gap

Kevin Anderson, Missouri Organic


Children Participation Community involvement should be inclusive to all, including children. Overall, literature supports the importance of incorporating children in the participatory design process because they have the awareness and capability to provide valuable community input and a different perspective as they are not as likely to be blinded by preconceived notions. With this knowledge, the students set out to engage in a participatory design process with Crossroads Academy students, which lead to a series of design charrettes. The design ideas and the researcher’s analysis of these charrettes was then shared with fellow classmates working on the studio project. Along with the project design development of the Links strategy, the students observed how the children’s ideas influenced the designers ideas of interactive features, playful ground plane, concept of place-making, and consideration for a variety of users.

Private Professional Businesses DRAW Architecture + Urban Design LLC Deffenbaugh Industries

Government Organizations / Agencies City of Kansas City Solid Waste Division Environmental Protection Agency

Non-Profit Organizations Mid-America Regional Council Downtown Neighborhood Association Bridging The Gap

Children Crossroads Academy

Professional Review Group Local Leaders Professional Designers

Advisory Committee Local Experts Neighborhood Leaders Environmental Planners

Students at the KCDC

Vision Plan of the Recycling vvProject

Background | 13


02 | INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 18

Precedent Studies

28

Regional Waste Flows

38

Waste Rates and Loads


Best Practices Across Cities in North America

Regional Flows of Recycling and Waste Around Kansas City

THREE LEVELS OF RESEARCH The approach to developing solutions to the issues within a complex and largely invisible infrastructural system begins with developing an inventory of what is known of the existing system. Inventory research was organized into three categories, ranging from national, regional, to local scale. First, the project explored the best practices of other cities, from which Kansas City could learn. Second, a study was done on the regional systems of recycling in the metropolitan area. The inventory study concludes with an exploration of the Greater Downtown Area and its current needs for recycling and composting. These conclusions led to the development of overall guidelines for the design of a recycling and composting project.

Local Needs for Recycling and Waste in the Greater Downtown Area Inventory & Analysis | 17


PRECEDENT STUDIES To establish a vision plan for Kansas City’s recycling system, the studio inventoried precedents from which the city could learn. Precedent studies were organized in three categories: best practices, comparable cities, and innovative examples. Cities were chosen for their exceptional recycling programs, development stage of recycling programs, or their comparable size. The studio researched each city and focused on distinct categories: policy, system, design, and public engagement. San Francisco,Vancouver, and Portland were further researched due to their level of involvement in all four categories. Their ability to achieve goals and set standards in their recycling and waste management practices has made them the best practice cities. These cities demonstrate that Kansas City has the capability to reach its own recycling goals. Policy changes and significant milestones were first documented to understand the history of recycling in each city. Each city has set multiple diversion goals and by looking at the types of policies that were introduced, one can better understand how their goals were achieved. Enforced milestone policies and implementation of a mandatory citywide recycling ordinances helped lead each city towards their waste diversion goals. Each city’s recycling system was evaluated based upon its level of accessibility, efficiency, costs, and convenience. Understanding the flow of material from the consumer to its end destination, the location of waste centers, and the cost of recycling services helped the studio discover that the best practice cities have consistent bins as well as incentives to recycle. The design and public engagement strategies show the levels of involvement from the government, local organizations, and individuals. Engagement from each sector brought education and awareness to the community by creating recycling programs and events, designing consistent bins, and engaging artists and designers to use recycled materials for projects.

18 | Inventory & Analysis


VANCOUVER, BC 603,502 Population

PORTLAND, OR 609,456 Population

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 852,469 Population

KANSAS CITY, MO 467,007 Population

AUSTIN, TX

912,791 Population

TUCSON, AZ

526,116 Population

Inventory & Analysis | 19


KANSAS CITY’S PERCENT DIVERTED Enforcement • Recycling is voluntary in Kansas City • Two bag trash limit for single-family curbside pick up

• 16.5% Recycled

$23 per ton for tipping fee 42%

REDUCTION IN TRASH TONNAGE

(2003-2015)

10.5% Yard

CURBSIDE RECYCLABLES

CURBSIDE NONRECYCLABLES

Paper (newspaper, shredded, office) Folders Advertising inserts Brochures Cardboard Chipboard Plastic Bottles/ Containers Pizza Boxes Aluminum Cans Aseptic Containers

Glass Plastic Bags Styrofoam Hazardous Containers Paper Towels Metal Pots Photographs/Blue Prints Bags that Contained Fertilizer/Charcoal

Waste

73% Landfill Financial Breakdown

Fees

GOVERNMENT

INDIVIDUAL

$$$

SINGLE- FAMI LY HOME MU LTI- FAMI LY HOME COMMERCIAL

20 | Inventory & Analysis

HAULER

$$$


Kansas City’s Recycling Timeline Lessons learned from Kansas City’s policies: Although people have been recycling, the city system is relatively new. The current recycling program is not benefiting the city as much as it could be, and new strategies and goals need to be set in place to expand the program.

2015

2007

Kansas City launched program to provide recycling services at special events and festivals.

2000

1980

Current recycling status of city.

2010

2004

City starts “KC Recycles” - a city provided curbside recycling program for residential areas.

1990 27%

2000

2020 2011

Kansas City’s goal to reach 80% diversion

KC Parks makes policy to submit recycling plan to city for events in parks.

Inventory & Analysis | 21


Kansas City’s Recycling System Residential clients that live in single-family units pay for their waste through general tax dollars. Single-family units are allowed a two bag trash limit and the remaining trash bags must have a purchased sticker before collection. This method is set in place to prompt residents to recycle more. Residents living in multifamily units must find private haulers to collect their waste and/ or recyclables.

How the System Works Recyclables

Yard Waste

Landfill

Simple Color Sorting at

Curbside Pick up

Separate Stream

Streams taken to Transfer

Materials taken to

Future Use for

Home & Business

or Drop-off

Collection

Station, Compost Center,

Proper Locations

Recycled Material

or MRF

Single-Family Cost (City Provided)

$2.68 $5.68 $0.97 22 | Inventory & Analysis

per bin RECYCLABLES per month per GARBAGE per month per YARD WASTE per year

2.1 x

more for garbage per month


Kansas City’s Recycling Participation Efforts from organizations such as the Mid-America Regional Council Solid Waste Management District and Bridging The Gap have helped make tremendous strides in making the Kansas City community more aware of recycling and its importance.

Kansas City’s Engagement in Recycling

DESIGN

AWARENESS

EDUCATION

INVOLVEMENT OUTPUTS

GOVERNMENT

Curbside Recycling

City Website

Revitalization Projects

MARC Awareness

ORGANIZATION MARC Education

Bridging The Gap at Community Events

INDIVIDUALS

Volunteering INPUTS

Inventory & Analysis | 23


Precedents Conclusions

Kansas City

Enforcement of Policies Results in Higher Diversion Rates By looking at what types of policies prompt higher diversion rates, it was concluded that Kansas City should consider implementing stronger and better enforced recycling policies and strategies to reach their diversion goal of 80 percent. Efficient Recycling Systems Lead to Higher Diversion Rates Building an efficient system with cost incentives that addresses single-family, multi-family, commercial sites, and the public realm is a critical component to raising diversion rates in Kansas City. Creating innovative solutions for all types of waste streams should be considered at every location level.

San Francisco

Public Engagement Increases Diversion Rates The best practice cities have shown that public participation is a huge factor in building diversion rates. Kansas City should focus on education and bringing awareness to the community. Involvement from everyone will help build public pride for recycling. Updated Policy Can Help Kansas City Reach Recycling Goals The precedent studies have shown many steps that have been not only addressed but enforced over the course of their recycling history. Kansas City’s recycling program is young, but it will need to update its road map, enforce small ordinances, and potentially implement mandatory recycling to reach their goal of 80 percent diversion by 2020.

Vancouver

Portland

Recycled Composted Landfilled 24 | Inventory & Analysis


2015

2007

Current recycling status of city.

Kansas City launched program to provide recycling services at special events and festivals.

1980

1990

2010

2000

2004

2011

1999

1990

Recology introduces curb-side organic recycling

Artist in the Residency Program established

1980

2000

1986

1996

Norcal was sold to its 570 employees

2002

42%

1970

1988

Beverage container refunds introduced

MetroVancouver waste-to-energy facility opens

1980

18%

1983

Start of paper and glass recycling

Vancouver Vancouver

1990

1995

Madatory Recycling & Composting Ordinace is passed

2006

Metro Vancouver disposal ban on recyclable materials

Metro Vancouver adopts zero waste challenge

1997

Commerical sector is mandated to reach a of goal 60% by 2005.

Oregon legislature mandated every community to provide recycling system.

1980

1990

50%

1996

Portland

Portland

2010

2000

60%

2004

100%

San Francisco reaches 80% recycled waste

2015

Organics Disposal Ban

58%

80%

2012

2020

Launch of National Zero Waste Council

2011

waste diversion target

2015

Multifamily properties are City mandates public Increasing the citywide mandated to set goal recycling. These of75% containers were diverting recycling rate to 75% about 1,00 lbs of recyclables a week.

2010

2000

Commercial customers must ensure 50% of their waste materials.

2015

2014

Food scrap collection begins

1989

1983

80%

2008

Metro recycling rate reaches 40%

40%

77%

2009

single-stream recycling established

San Francisco goal to reach ZERO WASTE

San Francisco reaches goal of 75% recycled waste

60%

2001

Household hazardous waste pick-up program established

2020

2010

San Francisco sets zero waste goal by 2020

San SanFrancisco Francisco

10%

KC Parks makes policy to submit recycling plan to city for events in parks.

City starts “KC Recycles� - a city provided curbside recycling program for residential areas.

Kansas KansasCity City

27%

2005

City of Portland developed Portland Composts Program.

75%

2020 90%

2005

City of Portland developed Portland Composts Program.

Inventory & Analysis | 25


Financial Incentives Can Increase Recycling Participation When Residents Pay

City Provided

Kansas City provides waste services for single-family housing that is paid through the city’s earnings tax, whereas the residents that live in the best practice cities pay their hauler directly. In both cases recycling rates are cheaper than garbage rates. As shown in the best practice cities, when the residents are paying for waste services directly they are more likely to recycle due to the cost incentives.

Kansas City

$2.68 per bin RECYCLABLES $0.97 per bin YARD WASTE $5.68 per bin GARBAGE $2.68 $0.97 $8.55 per bin RECYCLABLES Kansas City $5.68

per bin RECYCLABLES

per bin YARD WASTE

Portland

$7 per bin ORGANIC WASTE $8.55 $37 per bin GARBAGE$7 $37

more for garbage

2.1 x

4.3 x

more for garbage

per bin GARBAGE

per bin RECYCLABLES

per bin ORGANIC WASTE

Portland

Residents Pay for Themselves

2.1 x

more for garbage

4.3 x

more for garbage

per bin GARBAGE

$18 per bin RECYCLABLES $18 $104 $104 per bin ORGANIC WASTE Vancouver $110 $110 per bin GARBAGE

6.1 x6.1 x

per bin RECYCLABLES

per bin ORGANIC WASTE

Vancouver

San Francisco

26 | Inventory & Analysis

garbage moremore for for garbage

per bin GARBAGE

$2 32 gallon bin RECYCLABLES $2 32 gallon bin ORGANIC WASTE $2 32 gallon bin RECYCLABLES San Francisco $26 32 gallon bin GARBAGE

$2 32 gallon bin ORGANIC WASTE $26 32 gallon bin GARBAGE

6.5 X more for garbage

6.5 X more for garbage

$$$ $$$ $$$$ $ $$$$$ $$$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$$$$$ $$$$$$


Public Engagement Can Drive Recycling Participation

Portland

Vancouver

San Francisco

Design

Kansas City

The three best practice cities had similar types of public engagement from government, non-governmental organizations, and individuals.To build knowledge and participation, Kansas City will need to provide more education and awareness campaigns for the community through events, education programs, or art and infrastructure installations.

City Organization Individuals

Awareness City Organization Individuals

Education City Organization Individuals

Involvement City Organization Individuals

Kansas City Vancouver

Inventory & Analysis | 27


REGIONAL WASTE FLOWS The following inventory focuses on the Kansas City metropolitan area. It is important to understand the waste life cycle and how recyclable materials flow within the regional recycling system. For example, when people sort recyclables in their businesses or homes, and place them into bins on the curb, the haulers collect the materials and take them to a transfer station or immediately to the material recovery facility (MRF). The recyclables are compressed and shipped to a broker, then to a refinery to be broken down, and finally to a manufacturer, where a new product is made The Mid-America Regional Council Solid Waste Management District operates a local website, RecycleSpot.org, dedicated to city-wide awareness and education about recycling. The website was used to gather specific data of individual haulers, the areas being served, and services provided, in those areas. A meeting was also held with the Solid Waste Management officials at the Mid-America Regional Council to gain a better understanding of the waste streams.

28 | Inventory & Analysis


Inventory & Analysis | 29


Regional Inventory of Waste Regional waste streams are managed with the help of private businesses. Kansas City depends on haulers to transport waste to recycling centers, yard waste compost facilities, and landfills, but more could be done to reduce transportation inefficiencies of these resources. For example, one private hauler could be serving one house or business, while the neighbor is served by another hauler, whose headquarters is farther away. Many large collection trucks, owned by different businesses are moving up and down the same street, where one or two would get the job done. Most haulers actually offer the same three basic services in the same areas, recycling, trash and yard waste.

Greater Downtown Area Landfill Area With One Hauler Service

Area With Multiple Hauler Services

Within the Metro, the areas which receive services for curbside trash, recyclable, and organic waste pick-up were mapped alongside the destinations of those waste materials. Each waste stream has a different destination, as seen in the following investigations. The first map highlights areas where trash is being collected within larger municipalities, which are indicated by shades of gray. Darker areas show municipalities that have multiple haulers serving them. Lighter areas then show municipalities that have fewer haulers serving them. The second and third maps show similar information about what areas are being served and where recyclables and yard waste is traveling.

Areas Where Haulers Collect Curbside Trash 30 | Inventory & Analysis


Greater Downtown Area Ripple Glass Bin Drop-Off Material Recovery Facility Area With One Hauler Service

Greater Downtown Area Yard Waste Collection Site Area With One Hauler Service

Area With Multiple Hauler Services

Area With Multiple Hauler Services

Areas Where Haulers Collect Curbside Recyclables

Areas Where Haulers Collect Curbside Yard Waste Inventory & Analysis | 31


City-Provided Hauling Few cities provide residents with curbside recycling services paid for with tax money. Most cities that do not provide curbside waste collection yet require their residents to procure their own individual subscription with a private hauler. This creates a competitive and fragmented market amongst waste management companies.

City Provided Landfill Trash Service Areas 32 | Inventory & Analysis


City Provided Recycling Service Areas

City Provided Yard Waste Service Areas Inventory & Analysis | 33


Waste Flows and Transportation Routes The next logical step was to map the routes from these service areas to the transfer station or MRF of which they serve.Transfer stations, landfills, and MRFs were contacted. Upon investigation, different facilities receive loads from different haulers depending on the convenience of cost or location. For example, a city or county-owned transfer station may allow any private hauler to dump, whereas a privately owned transfer station may not allow other haulers to dump or they may charge a higher price to dump. It is difficult to know the exact routes the hauler is taking because it can depend on the willingness of that company to give up that info, but based on facility ownership and restrictions, we can make educated guesses on where each hauler could be. Many haulers are driving further to unload waste because of ownership restrictions or higher costs to dump waste at a closer location. There are many inefficiencies in this privatized system.

Midwest Shredding Services

Town & Country

Hauler Driving Routes Transfer Station MRF or Landfill Greater Downtown Area Deffenbaugh Industries 34 | Inventory & Analysis


Transit Routes to Landfills Inventory & Analysis | 35


Flows of Regional Recycling and Composting

Conclusions of the Regional Waste Study

The diagram on the right shows the parts of the recycling process happening within the metropolitan area, shown by a dashed line. Many recyclables are sent outside the region to be recycled, such as plastics, metals, and papers. Ripple Glass is the only major, local recycling center, which means only glass is both collected and recycled locally. Missouri Organic, a local company that composts organics for profit, only works with businesses and not individual residents.

Data Collection

Trash Waste Flows Garbage is dropped off at a transfer station before it is finally disposed in a landfill. Trash does not remain within the region; it can go to landfills within the metro or those outside of it, depending on fees for the day. Likewise, trash from outside the Kansas City waste stream can be disposed at landfills within it. Thus, it does not remain within a single, closed circuit. Recyclables Waste Flows Recyclables are hauled to material recovery facilities (MRFs) where the materials are sorted and baled for further transport to brokers and commodity specialists. The brokers and subsequent refineries or manufacturers are not within the metro area. Depending on the material, the baled products are shipped to other locales within the United States or internationally. There are currently no curbside collection services for glass recycling, but there are 50 glass drop-off locations within the metro area. Ripple Glass, a locally owned glass processing facility, owns all glass drop-off bins and collects glass waste for refining. With the exception of manufacturing of the new bottle from the refined recycled glass, which is done in Oklahoma, the entire recycling process for glass remains local and operates in a closed circuit. Yard Waste Flows Yard waste is picked up by haulers or transported by the individual to a site where composting can take place.This material remains local and within a closed circuit, primarily because its heavy to haul, and is no large market for it, at the moment.

36 | Inventory & Analysis

Greater data collection is needed. This data could be shared with the public so that as customers to the waste service providers, residents and business owners can make more informed decisions about where they want their waste going. Will it be kept local or will it be shipped far away? A Coordinated System Could Lessen Transportation Inefficiencies Less waste pick-up locations and more convenient places for haulers to deliver waste would lessen the driving routes for haulers and increase system efficiencies. More Recycling Centers Could Keep Materials Local If more recycling or organic centers, such as Ripple Glass or Missouri Organic are established locally, less materials would have to be sent out of the region. Materials made locally could be locally recycled or composted, essentially “closing the loop.�


Trash Recyclables Compost Inventory & Analysis | 37


WASTE RATES AND LOADS The inventory of the local needs focused especially on the Greater Downtown Area (GDA), which was the boundary of this project research. In the city’s Greater Downtown Area Plan, the GDA is defined by “31st Street on the south, North Kansas City on the North, State Line on the west, and Woodland Avenue on the east (Greater Downtown Area Plan, p3).” The Central Business District [CBD] was selected for an indepth inventory within the overall GDA principally because a from-scratch inventory was labor intensive, because limiting spatial boundaries to a smaller area made the study more feasible, and because it was thought that what was learned from this smaller inventory could be applied to the larger site. The CBD was focused on as opposed to other areas within the GDA because it had the intensity and mix of uses to warrant focused study.

38 | Inventory & Analysis


Inventory & Analysis | 39


Various Land Types Produce Different Waste Research shows that different types of land use produce waste at different rates (McDaniel 2009). The paper waste that is produced by an office building is typically higher than that of a commercial business or apartment. The organic waste that is produced by a restaurant is higher than that of an office. Different types of recyclable materials can also change depending on the building type from which the waste comes (Cascadia Consulting Group 2009; SCS Engineers 2014). To propose where improved recycling interventions are needed in Kansas City, it is also necessary to find the areas currently inaccessible to the recycling system. The city provides curbside recycling pickup to all residents living in single-family units or apartments of six or fewer units. Most apartment complexes and condominiums however, do have more than six units per building and do not benefit from tax-funded recycling collection. Businesses, such as all restaurants, shops, and offices also do not receive the benefits of recycling collection by the city. As the downtown and its surrounding districts continue to densify, the void of cityprovided recycling in this area will grow.

Current Land Use within Greater Downtown Area 40 | Inventory & Analysis


Current Land Use within Downtown Loop Inventory & Analysis | 41


Analyzing the Waste Production in Kansas City

Waste Calculations in Central Business District

Recyclable Materials within Overall Waste Not all waste should be considered equally. The amount of recyclable paper waste that is produced by an office building is typically higher than that of a commercial business or apartment. The amount of compostable organic waste that is produced by a restaurant or cafeteria is higher than that of an office. Amounts of different recyclable materials can change depending on the building type that produces the waste. The land use maps were further separated depending on the type of recyclable material produced, and the resulting maps show how different recyclables could be located spatially within the downtown area.

Measuring the Building Floor Areas Google Earth was used to model the buildings within the Downtown Loop. Each building was color-coded and grouped into its land use type, and building square footages were recorded from the model.

In the process of inventory, the studio considered many factors related to recycling. The goal was to understand the area’s physical limitations and advantages to a recycling system and calculate the loads of waste being generated in different areas. The project analyzes the load distribution of waste being generated within the Central Business District.

Measurement of Building Floor Areas

42 | Inventory & Analysis

A specific rate of waste production was applied to the square footage of each building to find the total waste production. This was done for over 350 buildings or surface lots. Vacancy rates were also considered in the calculation of hotel, parking, residential, and office land uses. 3D Representation of Waste Downtown The numbers of waste production and breakdown of recyclables were sorted through Grasshopper and spatially assigned to their corresponding parcels downtown. The following 3D models are the result of this process.


Park General government Total

Buildings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

939123.2 2.41 3748171.7 1.33 42237022.5

Building ID RA-1 RA-2 RA-3 RA-4 8-SC-1 10-SC-2 10-SC-3 11-SC-4 12-SC-5 10-SC-6 14-U-1 14-U-2 6-MF-1 6-MF-2 7-MF-1 7-MF-2 7-MF-3

Total SF 16879.8 47207.1 49915.6 21130.1 34617.7 30672.3 28089.6 49416.7 191189.6 13578.3 613758.3 83142.4 44441.7 186656.8 79615.7 66396.9 93300.7

Rate of Waste Production (lbs/sf/yr) 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 0.73 0.73 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7

1131.643456 2492.534181 43352.45289 Waste Production (tons/yr) 8.861895 24.7837275 26.20569 11.0933025 25.617098 22.697502 20.786304 36.568358 141.480304 10.047942 224.0217795 30.346976 59.996295 251.98668 107.481195 89.635815 125.955945

Vacancy Rates

0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09

Calculation of Waste Production Based on Floor Areas

Formation of a New Model to Represent Waste Production Inventory & Analysis | 43


Local Production of Waste Recyclable, organic, and landfill waste amounts created in the downtown core were calculated to understand how material resource collection could be distributed. It was important to understand how each building use produces various types of waste at different rates. 40,000 Tons of Waste is Generated in the Downtown Loop per Year When the total possible amounts of all waste generated are layered together, a composite distribution can be seen. The current and planned developments within the Central Business District will produce about 40,000 tons of waste per year, which includes recyclables, landfill trash, and organics. Breakdowns by Land Use Specific land uses could also be targeted for their higher amounts of potential recyclables produced. This idea is referenced in Kansas City’s Long Term Waste Management Strategic Plan (2008, p 46). Each waste type can be analyzed by considering the percentage of production from individual land types (Cascadia Consulting Group 2009; SCS Engineers 2014). 3D Representation The image to the right shows a 3D depiction of the landfill trash generated within the Central Business District and measured in tons. The images reflect the minimum landfill amounts after all potential recyclables and organics are removed from the overall waste stream. If the actual amount of landfill trash were to be represented, much higher amounts could be seen due to the current recycling participation rates.The same calculations were done to consider the landfill trash amounts after all currently planned projects are developed as well.

Metals 1%

Plastic 7%

Landfill Trash 35% Cardboard 18%

Office

Waste Paper 37% Glass 2%

Electronics 1%

Metals 4%

Landfill Trash 21%

Plastic 7%

Commercial Waste

Paper 22%

Organic 21%

Metals 2%

Electronics 1% Landfill Trash 7% Glass 10%

Plastic 18%

Hotel Waste

Organic 41%

44 | Inventory & Analysis

Glass 3%

Paper 19%

Cardboard 2%


Inventory & Analysis | 45


Waste Production from Events Everyday usage and waste production must be noted separately from special event usage and the temporary occupancy of these same spaces. The buildings that generate the most waste are mostly event spaces, such as Bartle Hall, Municipal Auditorium, and the Sprint Center, which is why events are an important consideration in the study.

High Frequency

Low Frequency

Further mapping was done on other event spaces across the downtown area, as well as calculations of general amounts of waste generated by events. The methodology for calculating the overall waste production of events was slightly different than that of buildings within the Central Business District. Numbers of people and the average amounts of waste from each person attending an event were used rather than calculating it based off of square footage of a space. The largest producer of waste found in this study is the Irish Fest at Crown Center, with 100,000 people generating 30 tons of trash. With this information, different events could be better planned to anticipate the loads of waste generated.

Event Frequency 46 | Inventory & Analysis


High Waste Loads

Low Waste Loads

Peak Waste Loads from Events Inventory & Analysis | 47


Local Event Waste Load Inventory Though the waste produced by each event can vary widely, along with the attendance, the annual events with a large waste footprint are only responsible for a small amount of the total waste produced by events in the focus areas of the Greater Downtown Area. March, June, and August have the largest overall population and waste peaks.

TOP 5 WASTE PRODUCER TOTAL EVENTS 457 Events / Year

Total Events from Top 5 Waste Producers 457 Events/ Year

Different events have very different impacts on the public realm of Kansas City. Conferences, for example, feature attendees walking between parking lots, hotels, and public transportation without much need for waste disposal.What waste impact is experienced by this additional load, is a building load, rather than a public load. Regular, primarily outdoor events, such as those at and around the City Market, represent a much larger burden on the public waste collection system, which is mostly inadequate compared to the calculated event loads, requiring temporary additions of trash and recycling containment. A strategic approach to outdoor event waste collection should include recycling collection, based on the calculated volume of material, and compost collection, with proper direction and instruction, could be provided in targeted locations, such as near outdoor food and dining locations.

52 EVENTS

CELEBRATION AT THE STATION

IRISH FEST

CITY MARKET SPRINT CENTER BARTLE HALL JAN

FEB

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

OCT

NOV

DEC

Total People from Top 5 Waste Producers 5,017,642 People/ Year

TOP 5 WASTE PRODUCER TOTAL PEOPLE 5,017,642 People / Year 640 PEOPLE

IRISH FEST

CELEBRATION AT THE STATION

CITY MARKET

SPRINT CENTER BARTLE HALL JAN

48 | Inventory & Analysis

FEB

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT


Top 5 Event Waste Producer Totals 4,102 Waste Tons/ Year 1,342 Trash Tons/ Year 342 Organic Tons/ Year 2,394 Recycle Tons/ Year

TOP 5 WASTE PRODUCER TOTAL WASTE TOP 5 WASTE PRODUCER TOTAL WASTE 4,102 Waste Tons / Year

280 TONS 280 TONS

1,342 TrashTons Tons/ Year / Year 4,102 Waste 342 Trash Organic Tons / Year 1,342 Tons / Year 2,394 Recycle Tons / Year 342 Organic Tons / Year 2,394 Recycle Tons / Year

40 TONS 40 TONS 156 TONS 156 TONS

RECYCLE RECYCLE

ORGANIC ORGANIC

TRASH TRASH JAN JAN

FEB FEB

MARCH APRIL MARCH APRIL

MAY MAY

JUNE JUNE

JULY JULY

AUG AUG

SEPT SEPT

OCT

OCT

NOV

NOV

DEC

DEC

Inventory & Analysis | 49


Celebration at the Station Event Type Annual fireworks display and concert Visitor Type Kansas City residents

Land Use

Source of information: Event websiteOccupant loads based on calculated totals for each event type and general attendance (50,000 oneday event)

Hierarchy of Pedestrian Routes around Celebration at the Station 50 | Inventory & Analysis

Transit Stops

Parking

Routes


Irish Fest Event Summary Event Type Annual festival Visitor Type Kansas City residents and vendors

Land Use

Transit Stops

Parking

Routes

Source of Information: Irish Fest websiteOccupant loads based on calculated totals for each event type and general attendance (100,000 over 3 days)

Hierarchy of Pedestrian Routes around Irish Fest Inventory & Analysis | 51


City Market Event Summary Event Type Weekly market and shops, annual movie nights, general attendance, and other local events

Land Use

Visitor Type Kansas City residents, vendors, and farmers Source of Information Event websiteOccupant loads based on calculated total (100,000 estimated attendance)

Hierarchy of Pedestrian Routes around Farmers’ Market 52 | Inventory & Analysis

Transit Stops

Parking

Routes


Bartle Hall Event Summary Event Type Conferences and corporate meetings and events Visitor Type Kansas City residents, and traveling vendors, and conference attendees

Land Use

Transit Stops

Parking

Routes

Source of Information Bartle Hall representative- Occupant loads based on Auto Show (15,000 occupant maximum)

Hierarchy of Pedestrian Routes around Bartle Hall Inventory & Analysis | 53


Sprint Center Event Summary Event Type Concerts, sporting, and other performance events Visitor Type Kansas City residents, traveling vendors, and conference attendees

Land Use

Source of Information: Sprint Center website schedule-Occupant loads based on listed performance occupancy (19,000 occupants typical maximum)

Hierarchy of Pedestrian Routes around Sprint Center 54 | Inventory & Analysis

Transit Stops

Parking

Routes


Conclusions of the Local Waste Management Needs and Calculations There is High Potential to Recycle Certain Materials Locally A large amount of organic waste and paper waste is currently being produced locally. However much of this recyclable waste is either being shipped out of the region or sent to a landfill. Some organic waste is being composted with Missouri Organic or locally on an individual level, but most is being sent to a landfill. Local recycling centers or compost facilitates could take advantage of this missed opportunity. Building Types Could Benefit from Targeted Recycling Programs Some land use types produce a higher rate of certain recyclables than others. For example, office buildings produce a higher amount of paper and cardboard waste than other types of waste, and schools and restaurants produce a large amount of organic waste. A strategic management plan for waste could address land use types individually to target specific recyclable and organic waste collection. Event Waste Loads Should be Addressed The waste calculations from the land use study were significantly lower than the waste calculations from the event activity study. Although the strategies proposed later will aim to improve the management of waste from buildings, strategies should also focus on the management of waste from downtown events.

Inventory & Analysis | 55


CONCLUSION The research done in this chapter asked questions about recycling and composting on a continental level, a regional level, and a local level. These questions led to findings, analyses, and overall conclusions, which led to specific proposals addressed in the next chapter. A list of goals and objectives, later explained, also aim to address the main issues and opportunities found here. Recycling is a complex system. Cities with higher rates of diversion have a longer history of incremental policy development, often spurred by economic and other constraints to waste management that may differ from Kansas City’s experience. Uses in the GDA produce a variety of waste streams.The intensity of uses here leads to a correspondingly more significant amount of waste, meaning that effective recycling and composting programs within the GDA could be particularly impactful. Periodic and one-off events are particularly significant waste producers.

56 | Inventory & Analysis


Inventory & Analysis | 57


03 | VISION FRAMEWORK 61

Goals of the Greater Downtown Area Plan

64

Project Boundaries

70

Type of Waste Loads

78

Vision Framework

82

Conceptual Scenarios

88

System Strategies

116 Vision Plan


GOALS OF THE GREATER DOWNTOWN AREA PLAN The research shows that as the Greater Downtown Area of Kansas City continues to grow, a vision plan is needed that will promote sustainable local economies, places, and practices. A strategic system could create links across town and clustered buildings with centralized waste collection points. The system also offers nodal open spaces that introduce functional waste collection, additional waste-oriented amenities, and showcase examples of the material waste system. Possible places for such design interventions are documented here and together promote sustainable changes in the City. These suggestions will lead to further research and design by the KCDC studio. Vision Framework | 61


The following plans for recycling build on master plans previously created by Kansas City and Kansas City Design Center (KCDC). The Greater Downtown Area Plan, created in 2010, has five primary goals (The Cor Group 2010): • Create a walkable downtown • Double the population downtown • Increase employment downtown • Retain and promote safe, authentic neighborhoods • Promote sustainability This project mainly focuses on further improving the walkability and sustain ability. The design interventions proposed here can not only increase the experiential quality of pedestrian routes, but they can also influence the way people value material waste. When more people have access, awareness, and education about recycling and composting programs, they will be more likely to participate. Kansas City could promote such sustainable practices through its public open spaces, such as sidewalks, parks, parking lots, and right-of-ways. The following strategies use public spaces to foster a sustainable culture.

62 | Vision Framework


Vision Framework | 63


PROJECT BOUNDARIES When the locations and quantities of offices, multifamily units, and commercial businesses are mapped, the gaps in the city’s recycling system become clear. Although most of the downtown’s neighborhoods are made up of multi-family units and businesses, none of these building types qualify for city-funded recycling collection. The multi-family units and businesses then became the focus of this study. Geographic and neighborhood boundaries also influenced which areas may be easily reached with the first phases of an upgraded recycling system. A population density map was used to find where the most people living within the selected areas. Even a small scale recycling system implemented in a dense neighborhood could reach many people. What are Smart Waste Areas? Smart Waste Areas are focus places or first steps for an improved recycling program. They are phase one for implementing strategies within the Greater Downtown Area and later the entire city. Within these areas, the target populations, residential housing types, commercial land use types, and other criteria are fit for building the market for a recycling business to thrive. The current recycling culture could be fostered within these areas first, making them a model for surrounding neighborhoods. As the behavior to recycle is encouraged in the Smart Waste Areas and beyond, recycling may become a cultural norm for residents and businesses. This could attract more businesses like Ripple Glass.

64 | Vision Framework

1 Multi-Family

2 Commercial

6 Population Density

7 Vacancy


3 Office

4 Proposed Development

5 Events

8 Concentration Overlay

9 Concentration Overlay with Neighborhood Boundaries

10 Areas of Focus Based on Concentration

Vision Framework | 65


Smart Waste Areas


Vision Framework | 67


Goals and Objectives for Downtown Kansas City’s Waste System

VISION MISSION GOALS 68 | Vision Framework

Our vision is to create a livable downtown Kansas City through a thriving material waste system known for efficient, data driven, innovative design. The mission is to build a positive public partnership by selectively investing in recycling and composting infrastructure downtown in order to improve participation and overall diversion rates and contribute to a more convenient and amenity rich lifestyle in KC. The Proposed Framework will enhance public and private access and waste system efficiency through the use of smart waste infrastructure, consisting of data-driven tools and innovative collection methods. • • • • • •

Generate awareness and city pride for recycling Create multi-family & commercial recycling infrastructure Improve recycling convenience through accessibility Measure and publicize city goal progress regularly Increase participation through public education Create design standards for the overall system


JECTIVES FOR DOWNTOWN KANSAS CITY'S WASTE PROGRAM [TIME]

[DESIGN & POLICY]

Annual

Property owners should provide education information to tenants about benefits of recycling Create network of education-focused interactive spaces and infrastructure Better integrate city provided recycling for events City to offer pickup service, bins, support for events Strategically place art and leisure spaces within the smart waste system

GENERATE AWARENESS AND CITY PRIDE FOR RECYCLING

wntown waste system ve design.

Regional

CREATE MULTI-FAMILY & COMMERCIAL RECYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE Seasonal

Require recycling collection in new buildings and renovations Define clusters of multiple land uses that could benefit from joint collection Encourage local economy of recycling and manufacturing through by-product synergy Provide road improvements to accommodate recycling infrastructure

IMPROVE RECYCLING CONVENIENCE THROUGH ACCESSIBILITY

Monthly

RTNERSHIP

City mandates recycling and provides services to single and multifamily housing, businesses & the public realm Define most impactful locations for recycling bins to increase participation in the public realm Standardize public and event collection system Strategically place service spaces throughout the smart waste system

Greater Downtown Area

MEASURE AND PUBLICIZE CITY GOAL PROGRESS REGULARLY

IN ORDER RSION ENT AND

UBLIC AND Y UCTURE, OVATIVE

[SCALE]

Collect and validate volume of recyclables coming into and out of MRF Collect and validate volume of recyclables at drop-off locations

Weekly

INCREASE PARTICIPATION THROUGH PUBLIC EDUCATION

Public Realm

Strategically place educational prompts throughout the public realm Create recycling focused festivals Develop school incentive program and recycling competitions

CREATE DESIGN STANDARDS Permanent

Develop point-of-collection layout and enclosure rules for better hauler access Define common bin-colors for each waste type collected (trash, paper, compost, glass, etc.) Develop signage to clarify what types of materials belong to each waste type collected Develop wayfinding to locate nearest collection areas and dropoff locations

Site

Vision Framework | 69


TYPE OF WASTE LOADS Research and analysis lead to the identification of three critical waste load components, Intermittent, Continual, and Organic – which in turn lead to development of three related system strategies. • Intermittent Waste Loads recognize the pulse of activity in the form of place and space based events happening sporadically throughout the downtown area, such as the weekly River Market, monthly concerts at the Sprint Center, or bi-weekly conferences hosted at Bartle Hall. • Continual Waste Loads tie daily waste production to concentrations of land use types, which were shown to have a variety of waste mixes. For example 37% of office waste is white paper and 41% of hotel waste is organic material. • Organic Waste Loads represent an opportunity to divert approximately 40% of the current waste stream from landfill to more useful purposes. This material is primarily hauled to landfill, currently, where it decomposes and releases methane, a gas with extremely high global warming potential. The following pages further explain each of the processes for mapping these components from which the system strategies were derived.

70 | Vision Framework


Continual Loads Purpose The purpose of this study was to map possible places for shared waste collection of medium to low density buildings. This may provide waste haulers with more efficient places for waste collection throughout downtown. The links between clustered land uses and the adjacent open spaces nearby, may lead to the placement of improved recycling infrastructure. Methodology 1. Commercial, multi-family, office, and restaurant land uses within each of the previously defined Smart Waste Areas were mapped first. Clusters were identified where similar land uses were most frequent. For example, many residential buildings near one another became one land use cluster. 2. All land use type clusters were compiled and the areas of overlap were identified as smart waste clusters. Open spaces within these clusters were mapped as possible spaces for shared collection.

1 Land Use Types

2 Land Use Clusters

1 Factors for Pedestrian Travel

2 Using Common Routes to Identify Opportunity Links

3. This information was overlaid with a study done on open spaces near pedestrian travel routes to find spatial commonalities. For example, open spaces that were found near common pedestrian travel routes and within smart waste clusters were mapped and identified as possible opportunity spaces for future intervention. Findings Open spaces between many land use clusters can provide efficient places for waste collection. When these open spaces lie along highly traveled pedestrian routes, they may also have the opportunity to showcase waste infrastructure to passersby, making recycling and composting more visible and accessible to more people.

72 | Vision Framework


3 Clusters with Opportunity Spaces

6 Smart Waste Clusters with Common Routes

4 Composite Landuse Clusters

5 Formed Smart Waste Clusters

7 Smart Waste Links and Smart Waste Clusters

Open Spaces Along Smart Waste Links and within Smart Waste Clusters Vision Framework | 73


Intermittent Waste Loads Purpose The purpose of this study was to map flows of pedestrian activity and propose simplified connections across the downtown area. These connections, and the adjacent open spaces near them, may lead to possible placement of improved recycling infrastructure. Methodology 1. Factors for everyday pedestrian travel were identified, such as bus stops, streetcar stops, and bike routes. Pedestrian counts near some intersections were also overlaid to understand the location of denser street activity. Connections were drawn between these criteria, and open spaces adjacent to them were noted. 2. Pedestrian activity around event spaces were mapped according to appropriate attractions within a five-minute walking radius. Open spaces adjacent to the noted routes were identified.

1 Pedestrian Activity Around Events

2 Pedestrian Activity and Adjacent Opportunity Spaces

3 Open Spaces

4 All Pedestrian Activity Routes

3. When both event pedestrian activity and everyday pedestrian activity were overlaid, a final conclusion of overall pedestrian connections was drawn. Again, open spaces to these adjacent networks were noted. Findings Pedestrian activity along the downtown streets is strongest around event spaces where people gather. Other factors can add to pedestrian activity, such as transportation stops and bike routes. The proposed links and adjacent spaces may provide the best opportunities to make improved recycling infrastructure more visible and accessible to more people.

74 | Vision Framework


1 Factors for Pedestrian Travel

2 Heavily Traveled Pedestrian Routes

3 Heavily Traveled Pedestrian Routes and Adjacent Opportunity Spaces

5 All Pedestrian Activity Routes and Adjacent Opportunity Spaces

6 Proposed Waste Links from All Pedestrian Activity

7 Heavily Traveled Pedestrian Routes and Adjacent Opportunity Spaces Vision Framework | 75


Organic Waste Loads Purpose Organic waste is a major part of the City’s waste loads. This stream accounts 40 percent of the overall weight of waste produced locally. It decomposes anaerobically in landfills (without oxygen) producing methane gas, a greenhouse gas 25 times more harmful than CO2. Furthermore, potential benefits of organic matter is lost once in a landfill. Organic waste can be u as fertilizer to improve soil nutrient and hydraulic properties. Methodology Commercial 1.Watersheds, parking lots and previous open space were mapped to establish spatial relationships. 2. Sites were isolated to a 1500 foot radius from watershed terminus to show where intervention was most important. Residential 1. Residential and open spaces were mapped and imported into a network dataset for GIS analysis.

Commercial

1 Watersheds

2. Using a quarter-mile restriction, a network analysis was run through multiple scenarios to define the best locations for Urban Agriculture and compost drop-offs. 3. Sites within the study area were selected for implementation. Findings Strategies that engage residents through urban agriculture and establish new markets for organic waste are critical in Kansas City. These could reduce organic waste sent to the landfill and generate economic stimulus. Education can make residents aware of the opportunities of composting. Over time, Kansas City can become an example for organic waste management.

76 | Vision Framework

Residential

1 Residents and Open Space


2 Critical Improvement Zones

2 Network Analysis Model

3 Target Sites For Compost

3 Urban Agriculture and Organic Waste Drop-offs

4 Organic Waste Potential

Vision Framework | 77


VISION FRAMEWORK K FOR VISION FRAMEWORK DOWNTOWN FOR DOWNTOWNKA KA Vision Framework for Kansas City’s Waste System

M

The diagram shown below depicts how the vision and goals lead to a thorough investigation of continual, intermittent, and organic waste loads. A series of conceptual scenarios explored possible policy and design outcomes. Various system strategies were then developed. Both the conceptual scenarios and system strategies have specified intents and target tactics.

[CONCEPTUAL SCENARIOS] [CONCEPTUAL [CONCEPTUAL SCENA SCENAR

MUNICIPAL MUNICIPAL

RE-PRIORITIZA RE-PRIORITIZATION TION

VISION THE VISION IS TO CREATE A MORE LIVABLE DOWNTOWN KC THROUGH A THRIVING MATERIAL WASTE SYSTEM, KNOWN FOR EFFICIENT, DATA DRIVEN, INNOVATIVE DESIGN.

ATION

ORGANICORGANIC

INCORPORATION INCORPORATION LOCAL NEEDS REGIONAL SYSTEM BEST PRACTICES

TECHNOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGICAL REINFORCEMENT REINFORCEMENT

I N V EST IG AT ION LINKS

TO ENGAGE

S ADS

GOALS AWARENESS INFRASTRUCTURE ACCESS MEASUREMENT PARTICIPATION STANDARDS

CONTINUAL LOADS INTERMITTENT LOADS ORGANIC LOADS

LINKS

TO ENGAGE

CLUSTERS

CLUSTERS

NODES

NODES

TO COLLECT

TO ACTIVATE

TO COLLECT

TO ACTIVATE

[SYSTEM STRATEGIES]

[SYSTEM [SYSTEM STRA STRATEGIES TEGI


WN KANSAS ANSAS KANSAS KANSAS CITY'S CITY'S CITY'S WASTE WASTE CITY'S WASTE PROGRAM PROGRAM PROGRAM WASTE

[INTENT]

ONCEPTUAL ARIOS] CENARIOS] SCENARIOS]SCENARIOS]

PAL

TIZATION

IC

RATION

AL OLOGICAL AL

EMENT

[INTENT] [INTENT]

[INTENT]

[TARGETS]

[TARGETS] [TARGETS] [TARGETS]

[INTENT]

PRIVATE REQUIRED/PUBLIC ACCESS PRIVATE REQUIRED/PUBLIC PRIVATE REQUIRED/PUBLIC ACCESS ACCESS

PROPERTY PROPERTY OWNER OWNER COOPERATION COOPERATION PROPERTY OWNER PRIVA TECOOPERATION REQUIRED/PUBLIC

ACCESS BY STANDARDS ACCESS BY STANDARDS ACCESS BY STANDARDS

COLLECTION COLLECTION LAYOUT/COLORS LAYOUT/COLORS COLLECTION LAYOUT/COLORS ACCESS BY STANDARDS

EFFICIENCY EFFICIENCY

SINGLE SINGLE HAULER HAULEREFFICIENCY SINGLE HAULER

EFFICIENCY

FOOD DISTRIBUTOR REQUIRED FOOD DISTRIBUTOR FOOD REQUIRED DISTRIBUTOR REQUIRED

COLLECTION COLLECTION OFOF ORGANICS ORGANICS COLLECTION OF ORGANICS FOOD DISTRIBUTOR

PUBLIC ACCESSPUBLIC ACCESS PUBLIC ACCESS

COMPOST COMPOST LIFE LIFE CYCLE CYCLE COMPOST LIFE CYCLE PUBLIC ACCESS

SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY

STORM STORM WATER WATER MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SUST AINABILITY

PRIVATE REQUIRED/PUBLIC ACCESS PRIVATE REQUIRED/PUBLIC PRIVATE REQUIRED/PUBLIC ACCESS ACCESS

CLOUD CLOUD STORAGE STORAGE CLOUD STORAGE PRIVA TE

DATA COLLECTION DATA COLLECTION DATA COLLECTION

THIRD THIRD PARTY PARTY MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT THIRD MANAGEMENT DA TPARTY A COLLECTION

INFRASTRUCTURE INFRASTRUCTURE INFRASTRUCTURE

HIGH-TECH HIGH-TECH COLLECTION COLLECTION HIGH-TECH COLLECTION INFRASTRUCTURE

PUBLIC USE PUBLIC USE

PUBLIC USE

RIGHT RIGHT OFOF WAY WAY

ACCESS ACCESS

ACCESS

MATERIAL MATERIAL COLLECTION COLLECTION MATERIAL COLLECTION ACCESS

AWARENESS AWARENESS

AWARENESS

ACTIVATE ACTIVATE GROUND GROUND PLANE/SIGNAGE PLANE/SIGNAGE ACTIVATE GROUND PLANE/SIGNAGE AWARENESS

REQUIRED/PUBLIC ACCE

RIGHT OF WAY PUBLIC USE

PARKING PARKING LOTS/ALLEY LOTS/ALLEY WAYS PARKING WAYS LOTS/ALLEY PRIVA TE -WAYS LOW-MID

COLLECTION EFFICIENCY COLLECTION EFFICIENCY COLLECTION EFFICIENCY

COLLECTION COLLECTION LOCATION/ACCESS LOCATION/ACCESS COLLECTION CONTROL CONTROL LOCATION/ACCESS CONTROL COLLECTION EFFICIENCY

PUBLIC USE PUBLIC USE FUNCTIONALITY FUNCTIONALITY FUNCTIONALITY FUNCTIONALITY

PUBLIC USE

MULTIPLICITY MULTIPLICITY MUL MULTIPLICITY TIPLICITY

PUBLIC USE PUBLIC USE

PUBLIC USE

OF OF PROGRAMS PROGRAMS OF PROGRAMS ++ PEOPLE OF PEOPLE PROGRAMS + PEOPLE + PEOPLE

LAYERING ACCESS LAYERING ACCESS LAYERING ACCESS

MULTIPLE MULTIPLE USES USES

SHOWCASE SHOWCASE SHOWCASE SHOWCASE

PUBLIC USE PUBLIC USE

PUBLIC USE

MATERIAL MATERIAL COLLECTION COLLECTION MATERIAL COLLECTION PUBLIC USE

RE-PURPOSED RE-PURPOSED RE-PURPOSED WASTE WASTE RE-PURPOSED WASTE WASTE

AWARENESS AWARENESS

AWARENESS

TEMPORARY TEMPORARY INSTALLATIONS/PLAYFUL INSTALLATIONS/PLAYFUL TEMPORARY INSTALLATIONS/PLAYFUL OBJECTS OBJECTS OBJECTS AWARENESS

ORGANICS ORGANICS ORGANICS ORGANICS

PUBLIC USE PUBLIC USE

PUBLIC USE

MATERIAL MATERIAL COLLECTION COLLECTION MATERIAL COLLECTION PUBLIC USE

EDUCATION EDUCATION

EDUCATION

TACTICAL TACTICAL URBANISM/URBAN URBANISM/URBAN TACTICAL AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE URBANISM/URBAN AGRICULTURE EDUCA TION

AS AS NEW NEW AS FOCUS FOCUS NEW AS NEWFOCUS FOCUS

RATEGIES] [SYSTEM IES] STRATEGIES] ATEGIES]

REQUIRED

PRIVATE - LOW-MID RISE - LOW-MID RISE PRIVATE - LOW-MID PRIVATE RISE

OF OF NEW NEW OF INFRASTRUCTURE INFRASTRUCTURE NEW OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE INFRASTRUCTURE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE

ACCE

RISE

LARGE LARGE SCALE SCALE MATERIAL MATERIAL LARGE COLLECTION COLLECTION SCALE MATERIAL COLLECTION PUBLIC USE URBAN URBAN AGRICULTURE/SMRF AGRICULTURE/SMRF URBAN AGRICULTURE/SMRF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE

MATERIAL MATERIAL COLLECTION COLLECTION MATERIAL COLLECTION PUBLIC USE MULTIPLE USES LA YERING ACCESS


Downtown Kansas City’s Recycling Vision Plan The image below depicts the Downtown Kansas City Recycling Vision Plan. The following pages explain the system components and how the waste loads investigated may impact future waste management. The conceptual scenarios then explore possible outcomes of policy adjustments, technology integration, and organic collection. Finally, the system strategies are briefly introduced. These strategies guided prototypical design development, fully explained in later chapters of this book.

80 | Vision Framework


CONCEPTUAL SCENARIOS To achieve the goals of the project, certain situations were examined that would optimize recycling and compost collection. Three separate and yet interconnected scenarios were created to experiment with how management of waste could be improved in downtown Kansas City. The first two scenarios, Municipal Recycling and Organic Collection, each deal with individual types of waste. The third, Smart Technology, examines how modern technologies can reinforce the other scenarios and optimize the entire waste management system. The Municipal Recycling and Organic Collection scenario considers the privatization of trash collection for all land use types rather than as a city-provided service. Alternatively, recycling collection services could be completely provided by the city for all land use types, most importantly those that are currently underserved: multifamily and commercial. The organics collection scenario incorporations the collection of organic waste, mainly food products, into the city’s recycling system. The building types that generate the most organic waste, grocery stores and restaurants, are required to dispose of it separately from normal recyclables and trash. All other buildings and private homes could have access to organic collection services through a private contract with Missouri Organic. The smart technology scenario introduces new technologies to help the overall waste collection system better perform. Increased performance could allow the city to better manage the entire waste system.

82 | Vision Framework


Smart Technology Compiling data of waste collection methods in one location to improve system performance. This will allow easy access to the information for better informed decision making, and interactive, waste oriented amenities. Kansas City currently has a diversion rate of twenty-seven percent. In order to increase the diversion rate to match that of other progressive cities, all citizens and visitors of Kansas City need equal access to recycling services. Technology can fill this need by becoming a more interacted part of the recycling systems public realm. This will also make the recycling system more efficient and interactive. As Cisco announced their partnership with Kansas City to develop a Smart and Connected City Framework, the technology proposed as infrastructure could integrate into their vision.

Vision Framework | 83


Municipal Recycling Kansas City Provides Recycling For Everyone Kansas City currently has a diversion rate of twenty-seven percent. In order to increase the diversion rate to match that of other progressive cities, all citizens and visitors of Kansas City need equal access to recycling services. The most efficient way to do so would be for the city to provide recycling services to all homes (singlefamily and multi-family) and business. Issues of education, awareness, taxing, and enforcement are at the forefront of the issues the city will be facing with this change. However, these are issues the city needs to address within the current system. A city run recycling system can handle these issues more efficiently as well as current inefficiencies in how waste is collected by haulers especially in the densely populated Greater Downtown Area. Existing System Services

Proposed System Services 84 | Vision Framework


Single Family “It’s good to finally see efforts to increase recycling participation in other sectors!”

Multi-family Tenants “Now that I have access to this service in my living space, I’m going to do part to recycle.”

Property Owners “It’s nice to have the opportunity to provide the option to recycle to my tenants.”

City Official “By providing recycling services to multifamily and commercial buildings, Kansas City will now be able to meet it’s 80 percent diversion goal.”

Hauler “Less pickup for public bins has led to greater efficiencies and education efforts has decreased contamination rates and increased profits.”

Visitor “The opportunity to recycle in public spaces are abundant here. It lets us know that Kansas City takes recycling and the environment seriously.”

Vision Framework | 85


Organic Waste Collection Organic collection is required for all restaurants and grocery stores. Organic collection is also available to multi-family and single family. Housing although it is not mandated. Kansas City currently has a diversion rate of 27 percent. In order to increase the diversion rate to match that of other progressive cities, all restaurants and grocery stores in Kansas City need equal access to organic collection services. The most efficient way to do so would be for the city to require restaurants and grocery stores to collect their organics in order to increase the city’s waste diversion rates. Introducing organic collection to multi-family and single-family housing will also increase waste diversion rates and decrease contamination rates in the city’s recycling stream.

86 | Vision Framework


Composting Design Scenario that a policy change is not necessarily required to develop an KCMO currently requires new construction developments and alternative compliance method. renovations requiring re-zoning in the Greater Downtown Area to provide on site water storage for a 1.5” storm event. Adding 1% Organic Matter to the top 12” of an acre of soil results in a water storage capacity of 16,500 gallons in the soil 1.5“ of water per square foot (equivalent to 41,023 gallons per itself for up to 7 days. Sub soil amendment can improve rate of acre) of site is required regardless of building-to-land ratio, and containment on site beyond soil holding capacity. is not reduced based on pervious vs. impervious surface area. An alternative compliance method to the piped system currently The stored rain water must release into the storm sewer system required would include: at a minimum rate of 0.5” per square foot per day (72 hours). This is accomplished using an underground ow restrictor, and 1. Geotechnical report indicating sub-soil percolation rates and requires an expensive street “tap” of the existing storm system amendment recommendations. for each building. Storm water beyond a typical 1.5” storm is 2. Proof that engineered soils with a specified and documented level released through a grate near the sidewalk to drain to a street of organic matter (compost) have been added within construction. storm sewer inlet, bypassing the slow-release containment. 3. Civil Engineer provides a Storm Drainage Study to demonstrate KCMO policy affecting this include sections: storm water control volume requirement (already required) and *5601.3 General Req. and Applicability amended capacity. Calculation should indicate pervious vs. impervious *5601.5.A.4, 5606.4.B and B1 ratio on site, designed percolation rate, and soil storage capacity. *12.4.2 / 14.6.4 City Overflow Control Plan 4. Landscape plan showing plant species improving soil percolation *KCMO Code of Ordinances Sec. 52036 rate. Current City policies specially leave compliance to the discretion 5. Some piped storage may still be required, but this method should of the Director of the Water Services Department, meaning allow for reduction of total gallons of storage required.

Vision Framework | 87


SYSTEM STRATEGIES Further analysis of these components led to the development of three distinct system strategies: Clusters, Nodes, and Links. The methodology for identifying suggested locations for implementation of each of the strategies is articulated through a series of component maps that combine to form the basis of selection

88 | Vision Framework


Proposed Waste System Strategies

Current Waste System Dilemmas

Clusters

Functionality Node

Multiplicity Node

Increases accessibility by adding recycling infrastructure convenient to more people

Increases education about recycling & why it is important through engagement

Showcase Node Increases efficiency by creating shared collection points for many users Organic Node

Links

Vision Framework | 89


CLUSTERS Clusters are concentrations of low and mid-rise private buildings with similar or balanced waste types that aim to increase collection efficiency and access to different material waste streams. They centralize collection around specific materials and use concentrations of land uses to empower businesses to negotiate bulk hauling discounts. Finally, clusters can reduce the number of trucks and bins through centralized and concentrated collection layouts. 90 | Vision Framework


Mapping from Continual Load Component to Find Cluster Areas

N 0’ 600’

Composite Clusters

Commercial Multi-Family Office Restaurants Opportunity Spaces

Land Use Cluster

Identifying Overlapping Clusters to Form Clusters Vision Framework | 91


Identifying Opportunity Spaces within Clusters Commercial Multi-Family Office Restaurants Opportunity Spaces Land Use Cluster

Cluster

1 2

3

4

6

Clusters with Opportunity Spaces 92 | Vision Framework

5


Smart Waste Clusters Could Make Waste Collection Downtown More Efficient As depicted in the methodology in the larger Clusters were identified where similar land maps and the methodology repeated below, each uses were most frequent. For example, many selected Smart Waste Cluster was analyzed at a site residential buildings near one another became scale. Land uses within the clusters were looked one land use cluster. at again and spaces highlighted in blue within the cluster were identified as potential locations for 2. All land use type clusters were compiled and where the shared collected would be placed. the areas of overlap were identified as smart waste clusters. Open spaces within these 1. Commercial, multi-family, office, and restaurant clusters were mapped as possible spaces for land uses within each of the previously shared collection. defined Smart Waste Areas were mapped first. 1

2

Commercial Multi-Family Office Restaurants Collection Point

3

E 5th St W 9th St

St

Wyandotte St

Blvd

Main St

Grand

t Walnu uri Ave

E Misso

5th and Walnut Cluster 4

Main St

Pennsylvania Ave

W 9th St

W 10th St

9th and Broadway Cluster

10th and Main Cluster E19th St

5

6

Main St

Baltimore Ave

Wyandotte St

Main St

Baltimore Ave

W 18th St

W 19th St E 20th St

14th and Walnut Cluster

19th and Main Cluster

18th and Baltimore Cluster Vision Framework | 93


NODES Nodes capitalize on underutilized spaces in the public realm. They revitalize the public realm through creative use of recycling and composting infrastructure. Nodes can employ a range of tactics, from integration of functional infrastructure for collecting and processing recyclables and organics to repurposing waste into public art. They address access, efficiency, and public education related to recycling while at the same time bringing attention and activity to spaces in the city that aren’t being used to their full potential. 94 | Vision Framework


Preliminary Visualization Studies

Vision Framework | 95


Mapping from Continual Load Component Selected Links Commercial Multi-Family Office Restaurants Cluster

All Open Spaces

N 0’ 600’

All Open Spaces

96 | Vision Framework

Proposed Links and Clusters From Continual Waste Loads


Selected Links Cluster

Selected Opportunity Spaces

Proposed Links and Clusters With Adjacent Open Spaces

Possible Open Spaces From Continual Waste Loads

Vision Framework | 97


Mapping from Intermittent Load Component Other Pedestrian Activity Event Pedestrian Activity Proposed Pedestrian Links

All Open Spaces

Waste Focus Area

All Open Spaces

98 | Vision Framework

Proposed Links From Intermittent Waste Loads


Other Pedestrian Activity Event Pedestrian Activity Proposed Pedestrian Links Waste Focus Area

Proposed Links With Adjacent Open Spaces

Selected Opportunity Spaces

Possible Open Spaces From Intermittent Waste Loads

Vision Framework | 99


NODE TYPOLOGIES From these possible open space interventions, four typologies of nodes were created to distinguish potential programming of the nodes. The four typologies are Functionality, Multiplicity, Showcase, and Organic. The organic node had a separate method (explained further on page 102) than the other typologies focusing on accessibility to most of the residents in the Smart Waste Areas. For three of the typologies, Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to perform a suitability analysis. This would allow the studio to choose site locations for each type of node intervention. A toolkit to for designing each node would also be helpful because each has specific strategy to improve public space. The chart on the right explains the kinds of lots, such as vacant lots, abandoned parking lots, or parks from which the selections were made. Criteria that went into the suitability analysis for each lot typology is also displayed on the chart. All open spaces considered in this analysis came from the original findings of the continual and intermittent waste loads study.

Possible Open Spaces for Nodal Strategy Interventions 100 | Vision Framework


Criteria for Node Suitability Analysis Functional Lots

Multiplicity Lots

Showcase Lots

Lot Types

Vacant Lots & Abandoned Parking

Used Surface Parking & Parks

Any Abandoned/ Used Parking and Vacant Lots

Criteria

30% Highway Access

25% Transit Stops

20% Transit Stops

500’ 1000’ 2000’

100’ 200’ 400’

100’ 200’ 400’

30% Land Values

25% Density of Surrounding Buildings

40% Land Values

$0 - $50,000 $50,000 - $100,000 %100,000 - $500,000 $500,000 - $1,000,000 $1,000,000 +

More Adjacent Buildings Less Adjacent Buildings

$0 - $50,000 $50,000 - $100,000 %100,000 - $500,000 $500,000 - $1,000,000 $1,000,000 +

40% Lot Sizes

50% Usage in Parks/ Parking Lots

40% Density of Surrounding Building

0-1/2 Acre 1/2 Acre +

0 - 20% 20 - 40% 40 - 60% 60 - 80% 80 - 100%

More Adjacent Buildings Less Adjacent Buildings

Vision Framework | 101


Suitability for Functional Node Higher Land Value ! (! (

Lower Land Value ! (

! ( ! ( ! (

( !! ( ! ( !! ( ! ( ! ( ( !! ! ( ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ( ! !! ( ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (! ( ! (! ( ! ( ! (! (

! (

( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! (! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (

! ( ! ! ( (

( !! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (! (! ( ! (! (! ( ( ! ! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (! ( ( ! (!

( ! ( !

! ( ! (! (! ( ! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (

Highway Access

Land Values 0

½

1 Miles

´

Lot Size 0

½

1 Miles

´

´

Source: MARC, Kansas City GIS, Jackson County GIS

Highway Access Areas Weighted 0

½

1 Miles

´

Closer to Highway Access Point

More Affordable (Less Expensive)

Further from Highway Access Point

Less Affordable (More Expensive)

0

1 Miles

´

´

Source: MARC, Kansas City GIS, Jackson County GIS

Over Half Acre

Under Half Acre

Land Values Weighted

Lot Size Weighted ´

Source: MARC, Kansas City GIS, Jackson County GIS

102 | Vision Framework

½

0

½

1 Miles

´

0

½

1 Miles

´

Source: MARC, Kansas City


Suitability Map for “Functional” Node Locations Each of the previous criteria was summed together and weighted by the percentages below to create the suitability of locations for potential functional nodes.

More Suitable

• Highway Access: 30% Weighted • Land Values: 30% Weighted

Less Suitable

• Lot Size: 40% Weighted

Vision Framework | 103


Suitability for Multiplicity Node

0

Parks/ Parking Usage

½

1 Miles

´

0

½

1 Miles

Density of Surrounding Buildings

´

´

Transit Stops

Source: MARC, Kansas City GIS, Jackson County GIS

More People Use the Space

0

½

1 Miles

½

´

´

Source: MARC, Kansas City GIS, Jackson County GIS

Closer to Transit Stop

Further from Transit Stop

Fewer Adjacent Buildings

´

´

Density of Surrounding Buildings Weighted ´ 0

½

1 Miles

Transit Stops Weighted Source: MARC, Kansas City GIS, Jackson County GIS

0

104 | Vision Framework

1 Miles

More Adjacent Buildings

Fewer People Use the Space

Parks/ Parking Usage Weighted

0

½

1 Miles

´

Source: MARC, Kansas City GIS,


Suitability Map for “Multiplicity” Node Locations Each of the previous criteria was summed together and weighted by the percentages below to create the suitability of locations for potential multiplicity nodes. • Density of Surrounding Buildings: 25% Weighted

More Suitable

Less Suitable

• Proximity to Transit Stops: 25% Weighted • Park and Parking Lot Usage: 50% Weighted

Vision Framework | 105


Suitability for Showcase Node

Transit Stops

0

0

½

1 Miles

½

1 Miles

Density of Surrounding Buildings

´

´

´

Land Values ´

Source: MARC, Kansas City GIS, Jackson County GIS

Source: MARC, Kansas City GIS, Jackson County GIS

0

Closer to Transit Stop

Further from Transit Stop

Transit Stops Weighted 0

0

1 Miles

´

½

1 Miles

´

Fewer Adjacent Buildings

Less Likely to be Developed Soon

Land Values Weighted ´ Source: MARC, Kansas City GIS, Jackson County GIS

106 | Vision Framework

1 Miles

More Likely to be Developed Soon

Density of Surrounding Buildings Weighted ´ ½

½

More Adjacent Buildings

Source: MARC, Kansas City GIS,

0

½

1 Miles

´


Suitability Map for “Showcase” Node Locations Each of the previous criteria was summed together and weighted by the percentages below to create the suitability of locations for potential showcase nodes. • Proximity to Transit Stops: 20% Weighted

More Suitable

Less Suitable

• Density of Surrounding Buildings: 40% Weighted • Land Values: 40% Weighted

Vision Framework | 107


Final Node Selection

Multiplicity Nodes

When added together, three final suitability maps were created for each of the three node typologies. Within each, four sites were selected according to their final suitability rating, their distribution across the downtown, their ownership, and various other experiential qualities, which made them preferable to other sites.

Function Nodes

Provisional Node Site Selection Our provisional site selections represent an illustration of what could happen. If these concepts were implemented, these spaces would provide a starting off point. All were inventoried here to understand the opportunities and constraints individually. The distinct reasons why each site was chosen are listed, such as proximity to light rail stops or high pedestrian activity nearby, as well as the distinct experiential qualities of the site, such as an overhead tree canopy or wide open expanse. Possible opportunities are listed for each site that could integrate designs for recycling and composting, such as wayfinding and signage, high tech bins, or stormwater management and urban agriculture that makes use of compost soils.

108 | Vision Framework

Showcase Nodes Other Node Sites


3rd St and Main Functional Node 10th St and Main Showcase Node 12th and Forest Functional Node

3rd St and Wyandotte Multiplicity Node 11th and Holmes Functional Node 12th and Wyandotte Multiplicity Node Truman and Main Showcase Node

14th St and Main Multiplicity Node

16th and Wyandotte Showcase Node 20th and Main Showcase Node

Pershing and Main Multiplicity Node

27th St and Gillham Functional Node

Vision Framework | 109


LINKS Links address recycling in the public realm. They course through the most active, intensively used parts of downtown. Through careful insertion of recycling infrastructure within redesigned public space, links both educate and raise awareness about recycling and composting and address functional collection of recyclables for people on the go. 110 | Vision Framework


I want to learn how to recycle!!

Preliminary Visualization Studies

Vision Framework | 111


Mapping from Continual Load Component High Pedestrian Travel High Vehicular Travel Commercial Multi-Family Office Restaurants Smart Waste Cluster

Factors for Pedestrian Travel

112 | Vision Framework

Bike Routes Bus Stops Streetcar Stops High Pedestrian Counts Medium Pedestrian Counts Low Pedestrian Activity Waste Focus Area

Using Common Routes to Identify Links


Selected Links High Pedestrian Travel High Vehicular Travel Commercial Multi-Family Office Restaurants Smart Waste Cluster

Selected Links Near Smart Waste Clusters

Proposed Links

Proposed Links From All Pedestrian Activity Address Continual Waste Loads

Vision Framework | 113


Mapping from Intermittent Load Component

N 0’ 600’

Pedestrian Activity Around Events

114 | Vision Framework

Low Pedestrian Activity Medium Pedestrian Activity High Pedestrian Activity High Waste Event Lower Waste Event Waste Focus Area

Factors for Activity Heavily Traveled Route Waste Focus Area

Heavily Traveled Pedestrian Routes


Other Pedestrian Activity Event Pedestrian Activity High Waste Event Lower Waste Event Waste Focus Area

All Pedestrian Activity Routes

Other Pedestrian Activity Event Pedestrian Activity Proposed Pedestrian Links Waste Focus Area

Proposed Links From All Pedestrian Activity Addresses Intermittent Waste Loads Vision Framework | 115


VISION PLAN The combined vision plan includes all clusters, nodes, and links strategies, which will work together to create a comprehensive approach to improving recycling and composting. Each strategy addresses a dilemma in a different way. For example, both clusters and links focus on increasing accessibility by adding recycling infrastructure so that it is more convenient to more people, yet clusters focus on private realms and links are about the public accessibility.

116 | Vision Framework


City Reconsidered: Downtown Kansas City Recycling System Vision Study | Part 1  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you