Matt Perotto Landscape Architecture Portfolio

matt perotto

COLLECTION OF WORK what is landscape architecture?

PRODUCTIVE LANDSCAPE COMMUNITY DESIGN PHASING STRATEGY CONNECTIONS AND ACCESSIBILITY RESOURCE FEEDBACK LOOPS ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION URBAN AGRICULTURE TREE CULTIVATION SEDIMENT REMEDIATION SEWAGE BIOREMEDIATION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FLOODPLAIN PROGRAM PARAMETRIC COMPUTATION

The emergent themes within the following pages are representative of a reoccuring methodology in my research based design explorations, and professional work - the desire to question the scale and scope of the landscape architecture discipline in order to explore innovative, and evocative methods and processes of creating a sustainable future through the medium of landscape.

what is landscape architecture?

LANDSCAPE AS INFRASTRUCTURE 06

decoding water recoding urbanism

16

vertical metabolism

performance based research 16

green roof innovation & testing lab

LANDSCAPE AS REGENERATION 24

tRee generation

30

in Flux

LANDSCAPE AS URBANISM 36

uc merced 2020

42

the river runs through it

LANDSCAPE AS EXPERIENCE 50

east & west

68

view hamilton

COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED STATES

Wyoming

decoding water // recoding urbanism UPPER BASIN

Colorado

Utah

New Mexico

LOWER BASIN

Arizona

MLA 3b graduate thesis independent design process 2015 (jan-apr) 15 weeks research 2014 (sep-dec) 15 weeks

Decoding water recoding urbanism explores the cultural and morphologic relationships between urban development and water metabolism within the Phoenix Metropolitan Area in the face of climate change and water scarcity.

Decoding water recoding urbanism investigates various alternative urban typologies for the region, proposing that environmental context and sustainable water management must be paramount considerations in developing urban form and community. The project investigates parametric computation as a tool to integrate environmental and infrastructural research within the design process of landscapes and urban form, and combines data and research from typically disjunct environmental and water related systems from private, municipal, state, and federal sources. Through this research based design exploration, various models of water sustainability and decentralized system design are evaluated, exposing opportunities for conservation, treatment, and reuse directly within the urban fabric of the existing and future communities.

By developing new archetypical relationships between waterintegrated urban form and multi-scalar landscape infrastructures, Decoding water recoding urbanism proposes a new typology of urbanism for the 21st century, adaptively redesigning the existing City from directly within the City.

6

Nevada

LANDSCAPE AS INFRASTRUCTURE decoding water recoding urbanism

California

ARIZONA

Mexico

township: 6 mi. x 6 mi. section: 1 mi. x 1 mi. quarter: 1/2 mi. x 1/2 mi. quarter-quarter: 1/4 mi. x 1/4 mi.

PUBLIC LAND SURVEY GEOMETRIC PARTITION RESIDENTIAL single family low

single family med

single family med

single family high

town homes

apartment & condo

RECREATION

AGRICULTURE

COMMERCIAL & INDUST

golf & development

radial crop cultivation

office complex

golf

strip crop cultivation

processing

Colorado River shortages will have major impacts on the water supply to Central Arizona over the next 15 years, with the majority of cutbacks impacting the Greater Phoenix Region by nearly 33% of its current Colorado River supply. Over this same duration, the region is expecting an increase in population by as much as 2.7 million people from its current 4.3 million, dramatically increasing the residential demand on water. The urrent plan is one of conservation and mitigation, as it seeks to grand junction in demand, by offset the future shortage in supply and growth removing agricultural and ground water recharge allocations.

1653 km2

provo

UTAH

19% NEVADA LAND USE DISTRIBUTION

land to be developed

LAND AREA

commercial

developed land

148km2

138 km2

CALIFORNIA 173m3/s/year

multi-unit residential

NEVADA 12m3/s/year

COLORADO

single family residential

ARIZONA 110m3/s/year

1% 2m3/s/year

ARIZONA

11% 32m3/s/year

67m3/s/year

UTAH

NEW MEXICO

150m3/s/year

COLORADO

23%

40m3/s/year

14%

52%

high density

WYOMING

COLORADO RIVER WATER COMPACT ALLOCATION

low density

medium density

GROUND WATER

AN IMPROBABLE FUTURE

SURFACE WATER

COLORADO RIVER WATER

Flaming George Dam

salt lake city

st george

state trust developable

groundwater water bodies

3473 km2

watersheds

las vegas

MUNICIPAL

2960 km2

Glen Canyon Dam

major rivers

INDUSTRIAL

POTABLE WATER USE

60%

4%

37%

private developable

Hover Dam

hydrologic infrastructure major cities

santa fe

flagstaff

Davis Dam

SEWAGE TREAMENT

CALIFORNIA

albuquergue

ARIZONA

SATELLITE RECLAMATION

dam location

NEW MEXICO

Parker Dam PHOENIX METROPOLITAN AREA

los angeles riverside

Theodore Roosevelt Dam

oceanside

Imperial Dam

san luis rio colorado

INDIAN

AGRICULTURE

CIVIC

MUNICIPAL

OUTPUT INDUSTRIAL

U. MEXS.A ICO

IRRIGATION

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE

tucson

NUCLEAR

tijuana

mexicali

TRES RIOS AND SALT RIVER

san diego

POTABLE DISTRIBUTION

IRRIGATION DISTRIBUTION

01 acquisition

01 acquisition

02 conveyance

02 conveyance

03 water filtration

03 conveyance: laterals

04 conveyance: pipe

04 conveyance: sub laterals

05 end use

Surface canals acting as the highest order of hydrological conveyance infrastructure provide the public with a unique opportunity to experience the hydrological systems that keep the city operating.

colorado river water surface water groundwater filtration plant major dams

05 end use

In addition to the various municipalities that make up the Region, and the private infrastructural companies that own, operate and maintain the canal infrastructures, there are a number of agencies that regulate and ensure the adequate supply of water to different areas of the region, called irrigation and conservation districts.

colorado river water surface water groundwater aquifers agricultural lands wells

8

WASTE COLLECTION + RECLAMATION

STORMWATER COLLECTION + MANAGEMENT

01 generation

01 rainfall

02 conveyance: sewer

02 defensive structure

03 sewage treatment

03 conveyance: storm pipe

04 conveyance: canal

04 conveyance: storm canal

05 end use

A culture exists already to extract and treat liquids from the regional sewage system to a reclaimed quality suitable for the irrigation of various uses, but on an insignificant scale.

In many instances sewage is conveyed +50miles prior to treatment

sewage reclaimed 05 conveyance: river sewage treatment plant reclamation plant civic irrigation

Currently stormwater is considered a liability rather than an asset or opportunity to capture and reuse. The approach is to control and deflect, rather than integrate new uses with flooding water, and has resulted in an elaborate system of infrastructure that is required only once or twice a year.

surface water 100m floodzone

14873 m2 (9%) 52 m3pd (67%)

926 Lpd (33%)

Toilet

Other

Faucet

624 Lpd (67% of indoor use) Leaks

Unit Grey Potential

Bath

12 Lpd (1%)

1800 Lpd (67%)

Unit Indoor

10 Lpd (1%)

60 Lpd (6%)

26 m3pd (33%) 18 m3pd (67% of indoor use)

Unit Outdoor

Shower

Total Grey Potential

urban sanitary sewer

Dishes

Total Outdoor Total Indoor

DISCOVERING RELATIONSHIPS urban freshwater

160 Lpd (17%)

93 people

Lot Coverage

150 Lpd (16%)

Population

130 Lpd (14%)

6 people per hectare

Clothes

SINGLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY

226 Lpd (24%)

PARAMETRIC SCRIPTING 178 Lpd (19%)

URBAN FORM & WATER USE

sanitary out massing decentralized treatment

FEEDS THE SYSTEM agriculture

10

206 Lpd (25%)

115 m3pd (37%)

896 m3pd (100%)

Other

Leaks

Faucet

12 Lpd (1%)

8 Lpd (1%)

Bath

Dishes

Faucet

Toilet

Other

Faucet

Leaks

Shower

12 Lpd (2%)

Bath

815 Lpd (100%) 526 Lpd (68% of indoor use)

Dishes

0 Lpd (0%)

8 Lpd (1%)

618 m3pd (68.9% of indoor use) 23 Lpd (3%)

Total Grey Potential

Leaks

Shower

Toilet 206 Lpd (25%)

178 Lpd (22%)

0 Lpd (0%)

Total Indoor

155 Lpd (19%)

21317 m2 (13%)

132 Lpd (16%)

2970 people

Lot Coverage

101 Lpd (12%)

Population

Clothes

505 Lpd (67% of indoor use)

183 people per hectare

Unit Grey Potential

Shower

751 Lpd (68%)

15 Lpd (2%)

350 Lpd (32%)

Unit Indoor Unit Grey Potential

Other

217 m3pd (67% of indoor use)

Unit Outdoor

Unit Outdoor

Clothes

Toilet 195 Lpd (26%)

322 m3pd (68%)

Total Grey Potential

Unit Indoor

165 Lpd (22%)

150 m3pd (32%)

Total Indoor

130 Lpd (17%)

38108 m2 (24%)

Total Outdoor

125 Lpd (17%)

1196 people

Lot Coverage

101 Lpd (13%)

74 people per hectare Population

12 Lpd (2%)

815 Lpd (37%) 526 Lpd (68% of indoor use)

Bath

1347 Lpd (63%)

Unit Indoor Unit Grey Potential

Dishes

Unit Outdoor

8 Lpd (1%)

79 m3pd (68% of indoor use) 23 Lpd (3%)

Total Grey Potential

Total Outdoor

178 Lpd (22%)

150 m3pd (63%)

Total Indoor

101 Lpd (12%)

35425 m2 (22%)

Total Outdoor

132 Lpd (16%)

409 people

Lot Coverage

155 Lpd (19%)

25 people per hectare Population

Clothes

POTABLE DISTRIBUTION

POTABLE DISTRIBUTION

POTABLE DISTRIBUTION

WATER REUSE POTENTIAL A) grey water reuse within development B) purple water irrigation at adjacent agriculture C) recycled water out - to some other reuse...

ALLOCATING DENISTY

A-01 implications on module

A-02 split massing

A-03 secondary access (increase variability & flexibility)

DISCOVERING RELATIONSHIPS - there are a number of assumed consistent, conceptual inputs (water), fixed elements (building massing/ density), and outputs (waste and sewage) within each quarter-quarter land parcel that makes up the metro region. The project proposes forging new feedback relationships between these elements by considering decentralized ecological-based sewage treatment to regenerate fresh water directly within the land parcel.

A-04 anchor the corners

A-05 refine massing

ALLOCATING DENSITY - once the overarching feedback loop concept has been identified and the associated physical elements understood, the question becomes what happens with that reclaimed, treated water which otherwise would have entered the regional sanitary system. Three alternatives are considered; 1) it is reused within the building massing, reducing the volume of imported fresh water; 2) it is used for decentralized, local agriculture; 3) it contributes to new rivers.

A-06 reintegrate modular components

AGGREGATING AS SYSTEM - Once a conceptual framework for the organization of the elements is developed for the individual quarter-quarter parcel, one begins to ponder where the water might flow in scenario #3. By locating DWRU parcels adjacent to one another, they have the potential to create a new hydrological and ecological network. Program within each parcel then is organized and consolidated by its relationship within the new individual hydrological-ecological network.

AGGREGATING AS SYSTEM B-04 (zone1) restrict agriculture to optimal surface area

B-07 vary density based on openspace program and hydrology allocation E

RE

R TU UL

IC

R AG

TU UL

IC

NE

R AG

2

N

O

TI EA

ZO

CR RE NE

3

GY

LO

ZO

B-05 refine hydrologic system

B-08 density implications on volume RE

E UR

T UL

TU UL

IC

IC

NE

R AG

2

N

O

TI EA

ZO

CR RE NE

GY

3

LO

ZO

SP AC E

B-09 urban and streetscape program

IT Y

B-06 develop openspace typology

EN

B-03 establish zones (3 hierarchies of program tied to hydrology)

O EC

N

GY

2

ZO

IT Y M

TU UL

IC

R AG

N

O

TI EA

CR RE NE

ZO

+

NE

LO

O EC

CO

ZO

M UN

RE

CR RE

+

TI EA

3

AM

O

NE

RE TA IL

R AG

IV E

B-02 flow = volumetric

O EC

AC T

B-01 propogate corridor

GY

1

LO

O EC

ZONE 1 CULTIVATION

ZONE 2 RECREATION

ZONE 3 ECOLOGY

Zone 3 - Cultivation

Zone 2 - Recreation

Zone 1 - Ecology

100 people per hectare

120 people per hectare

Population

1619 people

Lot Coverage Total Outdoor

Total Outdoor 265 m3pd (100%)

Total Grey

132 m3pd (50% of indoor use)

Total Potable

132 m3pd (50% of indoor use)

Total Sewage Produced

Total OUTPUT

Total Potable

158 m3pd (50% of indoor use)

132 m3pd (50% of indoor use)

To Agriculture

66 m3pd (50% of total output)

To Agriculture

To Corridor

66 m3pd (50% of total output)

To Corridor

Total Grey

219 m3pd (50% of indoor use)

Total Potable

219 m3pd (50% of indoor use) 370 m3pd (100% of indoor use)

Wetland Area

158 m3pd (50% of indoor use)

7409 m2

Total OUTPUT

0 m3pd (0% of total output)

219 m3pd (50% of indoor use)

To Agriculture

158 m3pd (100% of total output)

0 m3pd (0% of total output)

To Corridor

mid density urban massing low density urban massing

370 m3pd (100%)

Total Sewage Produced

6346 m2

Total OUTPUT

0 m3pd (0%)

Total Indoor

317 m3pd (100% of indoor use)

Wetland Area

16551 m2 (10%)

Total Outdoor

317 m3pd (100%) 158 m3pd (50% of indoor use)

2267 people

Lot Coverage

0 m3pd (0%)

Total Grey

Total Sewage Produced 5293 m2

Population

18210 m2 (12%)

Total Indoor

265 m3pd (100% of indoor use)

Wetland Area

1943 people

Lot Coverage

0 m3pd (0%)

Total Indoor

140 people per hectare

Population

17542 m2 (11%)

219 m3pd (100% of total output)

high density urban massing

streetscape activation (retail +)

streetscape activation (retail +)

subsurface garage

subsurface garage

agriculture flexible recreation

wild habitat wetlands

wetlands

subsurface waste treatment wetlands

sub surface waste treatment

stormwater

sewage

potable water

underground parking

12

04 connect

05 variate

01 designation

02 activate

03 integrate

04 hierarchy

05 variate

secondary pathways

03 shape

dry terrestrial habitat

02 activate

dry terrestrial habitat

05 designation

agriculture

05 variate

agricultural area drains into river

04 re-orient

headwaters of hydrologic system

03 densify

facilitate connections to existing greenspace

02 optimize

semi-private space

double loaded varying unit size condo units

01 designation

sewage treating wetland

sub surface waste treatment

stormwater

main sewage

main potable water

underground parking double loaded varying unit size condo units

path meets with existing roadway

400m / 5min walk

78 URBAN CORRIDORS HOST 3.45 MILLION ADDITIONAL PEOPLE USING 10% WATER OF THE CONVENTIONAL SINGLE FAMILY URBAN TYPOLOGY, & PRODUCING $100M CROPS ANNUALLY

800m / 10min walk

FROM THAT SAME WATER

Decoding Water// Recoding Urbanism proposes adaptively redesigning a new typology for the Greater Phoenix Region, using the quarterquarter PLSS parcel as the module for a scalared sustainable redesign methodology. Through parametric computation 78 potential corridors (made up from a multitude of adjacent quarterquarter modules) were identified and redeveloped.

Through this process, water is treated as a valued and respected commodity, while making reclaimed water a central focus for designing urban form and landscape spaces.

ZONE 1 CULTIVATION

400m / 5min walk

800m / 10min walk

ZONE 2 RECREATION ZONE 3 ECOLOGY

dp3m 8682

dp3m 6572

dp3m 0952

dp3m 8852

dp3m 6552

dp3m 8352

dp3m 9842

dp3m 6242

dp3m 3232

dp3m 5612

dp3m 3612

dp3m 0312

dp3m 8112

dp3m 3791

dp3m 8012

dp3m 5191

dp3m 3091

dp3m 0781

dp3m 0181

dp3m 5971

dp3m 8771

dp3m 9571

dp3m 9471

dp3m 9861

dp3m 0361

dp3m 1061

dp3m 7551

dp3m 8051

LANDSCAPE AS INFRASTRUCTURE decoding water recoding urbanism

dp3m 0941

dp3m 8541

dp3m 4131

dp3m 9821

dp3m 2221

dp3m 8911

dp3m 0911

dp3m 7801

dp3m 0701

dp3m 5601

dp3m 0201

dp3m 789

dp3m 089

dp3m 4101

dp3m 759

dp3m 639

dp3m 709

dp3m 698

dp3m 198

dp3m 668

dp3m 547

dp3m 737

dp3m 127

dp3m 417

dp3m 775

14

In addition to redefining the possibilities of relationships between urbanism and water use/ consumption, the developed urban typology of the module and its larger confounded corridor system creates a starkly contrasting system that juxtaposes the existing city in both built form and landscape experience and interaction. Each of the 78 corridors identified not only promotes water sustainability, and optimization within the individual modules of the corridor itself, but also creates urban scaled, optimization and performance efficiency by further closing the loop between input and output, connecting its overall hydological output with the urban infrastructural systems which provide the inputs for the rest of the region.

INDIAN

AGRICULTURE

CIVIC

MUNICIPAL

SATELLITE RECLAMATION

INDUSTRIAL

SEWAGE TREATMENT

DECENTRALIZED TREATMENT

OUTPUT GROUNDWATER RECHARGE

TRES RIOS AND SALT RIVER

NUCLEAR

dp3m 6596

dp3m 7906

dp3m 7665

dp3m 6545

dp3m 1245

dp3m 8305

dp3m 5294

dp3m 1984

dp3m 3034

dp3m 1914

dp3m 9293

dp3m 7383

dp3m 7773

dp3m 3963

dp3m 0553

dp3m 8443

dp3m 5133

dp3m 7023

dp3m 5613

dp3m 2313

dp3m 0013

dp3m 3903

dp3m 6703

dp3m 0703

dp3m 7103

IRRIGATION MUNICIPAL

INDUSTRIAL

POTABLE WATER USE

GROUND WATER

SURFACE WATER

COLORADO RIVER WATER

VERTICAL METABOLISM

vectorworks design scholarship in landscape architecture (2015) MLA 3a option studio independent 2014 (oct-dec) 12 weeks

Vertical metabolism finds criticism in the flows of resources in the contemporary city and challenges the need for regional scaled resource management. It critically examines the relatively recent phenomenon of vertical habitation and proposes a reconfiguration and reimagination of sustainable infrastructure and productive landscapes that support urban life in ways that take advantage of this opportunity of vertical habitation.

Vertical metabolism images a theoretical future for the City of Toronto in the 22nd century developed through a new typology of infrastructurally guided urbanization. It proposes a dynamic and flexible phasing strategy that allows for incremental integration within the existing urban fabric of the City, and provides a new methodology for the further intensification of Toronto’s downtown core.

Vertical metabolism sets the stage for a new, sustainable future of infrastructurally guided urbanism. By considering vertical space as a venue for new implementable performative landscapes, avant-guarde relationships between habitation, and decentralized resource production and consumption become possible while the reuse and recycling of resources through ecological processes develop new experiential and sociocultural experiences within the City.

16

LANDSCAPE AS INFRASTRUCTURE vertical metabolism

4 factors contribute to the identification and selection of potential implementation sites throughout the downtown core - vacant space, proximity to adjacent vacant space, adjacent aaging building stock, and proximity to existing main/ trunk infrastructure

PHASE 1 plant infrastructure SEWAGE liquid waste bio-waste agriculture

water treatment centre

WATER greywater freshwater stormwater

PEOPLE social programming office parklands

Building 1 daily sewage = 106.03m3 treatment area = 1060.3m2 daily water = 96.81m3 daily grey water = 9.22m3

Building 2 daily sewage = 130.16m3 treatment area = 1361.6m2 daily water = 124.32m3 daily grey water = 11.84m3

community ammenties

offices of Vertical Metabolism

sewage treatment centre

Building 1 footprint = 375m2 floors = 43 gfa = 16125m2 occupants = 461

Building 2 footprint = 450m2 floors = 46 gfa = 20700m2 occupants = 592

18

PHASE 2 grow program SEWAGE liquid waste bio-waste agriculture

WATER

water treatment centre

greywater freshwater stormwater

PEOPLE social programming office parklands

water treatment Building 1 daily sewage = 106.03m3 treatment area = 1060.3m2 daily water = 96.81m3 daily grey water = 9.22m3

Building 2 daily sewage = 130.16m3 treatment area = 1361.6m2 daily water = 124.32m3 daily grey water = 11.84m3

Building 3 daily sewage = 48.76m3 treatment area = 487.6m2 daily water = 44.52m3 daily grey water = 4.24m3

community ammenties

community ammenties offices of Vertical Metabolism agricultural production

Building 4 daily sewage = 136.16m3 treatment area = 1361.6m2 daily water = 124.32m3 daily grey water = 11.84m3 soil production Building 5 daily sewage = 106.03m3 treatment area = 1060.3m2 daily water = 96.81m3 daily grey water = 9.22m3 sewage treatment centre Building 6 daily sewage = 78.89m3 treatment area = 788.9m2 daily water = 72.03m3 daily grey water = 6.86m3

sewage treatment

educational program (infrastructual focused social program) Building 1 footprint = 375m2 floors = 43 gfa = 16125m2 occupants = 461

Building 2 footprint = 450m2 floors = 46 gfa = 20700m2 occupants = 592

Building 3 footprint = 200m2 floors = 37 gfa = 7400m2 occupants = 212

Building 4 footprint = 450m2 floors = 46 gfa = 20700m2 occupants = 592

Building 5 footprint = 375m2 floors = 43 gfa = 16125m2 occupants = 461 Building 6 footprint = 300m2 floors = 40 gfa = 12000m2 occupants = 343

PHASE 3 closing the loop SEWAGE liquid waste bio-waste agriculture

water treatment centre

WATER greywater freshwater stormwater

PEOPLE social programming office parklands + water treatment

water treatment Building 1 daily sewage = 106.03m3 treatment area = 1060.3m2 daily water = 96.81m3 daily grey water = 9.22m3

+ community ammenties Building 2 daily sewage = 130.16m3 treatment area = 1361.6m2 daily water = 124.32m3 daily grey water = 11.84m3

community ammenties community

Building 3 daily sewage = 48.76m3 treatment area = 487.6m2 daily water = 44.52m3 daily grey water = 4.24m3

ammenties offices of Vertical Metabolism agricultural production

Building 4 daily sewage = 136.16m3 treatment area = 1361.6m2 daily water = 124.32m3 daily grey water = 11.84m3

+ agricultural production soil production

Building 5 daily sewage = 106.03m3 treatment area = 1060.3m2 daily water = 96.81m3 daily grey water = 9.22m3

+ soil production

sewage treatment centre Building 6 daily sewage = 78.89m3 treatment area = 788.9m2 daily water = 72.03m3 daily grey water = 6.86m3

sewage treatment

Building 7 daily sewage = 56.35m3 treatment area = 563.5m2 daily water = 51.45m3 daily grey water = 4.9m3

Building 8 daily sewage = 136.16m3 treatment area = 1361.6m2 daily water = 124.32m3 daily grey water = 11.84m3

+ sewage treatment

educational program (infrastructual focused social program) Building 1 footprint = 375m2 floors = 43 gfa = 16125m2 occupants = 461

Building 2 footprint = 450m2 floors = 46 gfa = 20700m2 occupants = 592

Building 3 footprint = 200m2 floors = 37 gfa = 7400m2 occupants = 212

Building 4 footprint = 450m2 floors = 46 gfa = 20700m2 occupants = 592

20

Building 5 footprint = 375m2 floors = 43 gfa = 16125m2 occupants = 461 Building 6 footprint = 300m2 floors = 40 gfa = 12000m2 occupants = 343

Building 7 footprint = 225m2 floors = 38 gfa =8550m2 occupants = 245 Building 8 footprint = 450m2 floors = 46 gfa =20700m2 occupants = 592

VERTICAL METABOLISM In an age where governments at the municipal, provincial, and federal level, are all starting to acknowledge the role that density plays in supporting all realms of healthy, sustainable living, intensification of urban regions is dramatically increasing.

Whilst this architectural trend is clearly visible in our contemporary city-scapes, the response by landscape architects and urban designers has been fairly mundane in comparison, resticting the vertical dimension to just green roofs and mid-to-roof top terraces.

Vertical Metablism looks to change this phenomenon through the lense of resource consumption, treatment, and reuse in the development of vertically stacked, and vertically relating infrastructural landscapes. The city-scape of the future will no longer be confined to the traditional ground plane, and our understanding and interaction with resource consumption comes full circle in the process.

BUILT FORM VS NFRASTRUCTURE massing (above floor 2)

massing (floor 1 & 2)

massing (subgrade)

infrastructure (above floor 2)

infrastructure (floor 1 & 2)

infrastructure (subgrade)

22

The proposal was first conceptualized through a series of mapping exercises which looked to document those urban infrastructural systems inhabitats of the city typically dont visually see or interact with, and how they have evolved over the past 200 years since the original establishment of the City of Toronto.

It became imediately clear that many systems (santary sewage for example) which once were separated (small scale) and tangible, quickly became networked due to system efficiencies and intangible to the urban dweller.

Spatial patterns of resource movement also dramatically changed from site/ local scale (or perhaps reliant on streams), to regional urban networks. Once the vertical plane was factored into the study, the shame and form of these resource-movement maps starkly changed from complex webs, to pure vertical lines - posing the quesion, what would happen if we utilized these new heights to find compatible resource feedback relationships?

LANDSCAPE AS INFRASTRUCTURE vertical metabolism

24

University of Toronto gritlab graduate research assistant 2013, 14, 15 (may-sep) 16 weeks (each summer) RCI conference presentation

Throughout the summer terms of my Graduate Studies, I worked as a Research Assistant at the Green Roof Innovation and Testing Laboratory (GRIT Lab) at the University of Toronto, Daniels Faculty. This experience provided me with a unique exposure to many aspects of sustainable city building practices, including the construction, maintenance, and performance of green roofs and solar photovoltaic systems, as well as the underlying technological infrastructures that keep the research lab operating on a daily basis.

These newly emerging sustainable technologies lie at an interesting intersection between the achitecture, landscape, environmental, and engineering disciplines.

Working at the GRIT Lab provided me with the opportunity to interface with academics and professionals within each field to generate wholistic analytical findings. Daily tasks included: • coding new auto-generated data analysis systems • the installation, maintenance, and programming of sensors within the data aquisition system • industrial design, product modeling, and fabrication of various instruments • co-development of reports on preliminary research findings • litterature review and contribution to peer reviewed publications • conference presentations on research methodology & findings

26 LANDSCAPE AS INFRASTRUCTURE gritlab 13-08-28 23:00

13-08-28 22:00

13-08-28 21:00

13-08-28 20:00

13-08-28 19:00

13-08-28 18:00

13-08-28 17:00

13-08-28 16:00

13-08-28 15:00

13-08-28 14:00

13-08-28 13:00

13-08-28 12:00

13-08-28 11:00

13-08-28 10:00

13-08-28 9:00

13-08-29 23:00

(CLOUD COVER)

13-08-29 22:00

13-08-29 21:00

13-08-29 20:00

13-08-29 19:00

13-08-29 18:00

13-08-29 17:00

13-08-29 16:00

13-08-29 15:00

13-08-29 14:00

13-08-29 13:00

13-08-29 12:00

13-08-29 11:00

13-08-29 10:00

13-08-29 9:00

13-08-29 8:00

13-08-29 7:00

13-08-29 6:00

13-08-29 5:00

13-08-29 4:00

13-08-29 3:00

13-08-29 2:00

13-08-29 1:00

13-08-29 0:00

1W

1C

2W

2C

2E

3W

3C

3E

4W

4C

5W

5C

6C

6E

7W

7C

7E

8W

8C

8E

9W

9E

10C

11C

11E

Air Temperature

Solar Radiation

OPEN DOOR TORONTO

Over the past decade of development in Toronto, City bylaws have mandated that new buildings require green roofs, while context specific research dedicated to understanding the performance of green roofs in the City was limited.

Every year the GRIT Lab opens its doors to the public during Open Door Toronto. These moments mark an important interface where the people can learn about the various ways green roofs are collectively acting to capture and slow the release of stormwater into the city system, mitigate the urban heat island effect, and increase urban bio diversity.

28

LANDSCAPE AS INFRASTRUCTURE gritlab

North Toronto Treatment Plant Brickworks Rail Line

OPPORTUNITY

tRee generation Climax Maple and Beech Forest (Crothers Woods Trail Management Strategy, 2007)

PRESERVATION

MLA 2b core studio independent 2014 (mar-apr) 6 weeks

During the evening of December 22nd 2013, the City of Toronto suffered one of the most environmentally harmful storm events in recent history. Ice as thick as 4cm coated every surface in the City, causing irreparable damage to 2,000,000 of Toronto’s 10,000,000 trees (20% of the urban forest). In response, the city has set an ambitious target of replanting 150,000 trees annually over the upcoming years in the hopes of restoring the urban canopy. tRee generation seeks to find unique opportunities to help the City achieve this goal by developing a new methodology for the production and distribution of trees from directly within the heart of the City. tRee generation fundamentally changes the City of Toronto’s relationship with the by-product of its regionalized sewage treatment system and dredge from the Don River, and creates an opportunity to use these currently discarded resources as a new source of high nutrient soil, creating a direct benefit for the City. tRee generation not only offers a local and cost effective alternative to producing new urban tree stock, but it also proposes re-using an existing, abandoned industrial rail line for the transportation of cultivated trees directly to various sites of ecological regeneration, thus minimizing the scale of infrastructural intervention and transportation costs, while making public participation in the ecological restoration process more attainable.

Through careful design, the treefarm is designed to act as a massive recreational and educational facility whilst remaining fully operational throughout the year.

30

LANDSCAPE AS REGENERATION tRee generation

Nutrient rich soil blending Rainwater harvesting Greenhouse container nursery Tree farm

PRODUCTION

Concentrated programmatic hub Gateway nodes

PROGRAM

All systems exposed, connecting the forest with the farm, and the city with the Don Valley

CONNECT

Leaside transmission substation

Leaside Community

North Toronto Sewage Treatment Plant production c

adaptive reuse of Lawblaws

the HUB

production a

programmatic follies

production b

Broadview North Community

CROTHERS WOODS

the don valley parkway the don river

The site of Crothers Woods offers the ideal opportunity to explore beneficial potentials for the confluence of natural urban ecology with needed tree cultivation direction within the City confines. Numbers existing conditions make the site ideal for a tree nursery including hydrologic resources (The Don River, and the North Toronto Sewage Treatment Plant), Rail infrastructure for inter-urban material transport, and an existing wearhouse structure to host a new conference-convention, and science-research center.

Amelanchier canadensis

Service Berry

Carpinus caroliniana

American Hornbeam

Robinia pseudoacacia

Black Locust

Betula papyrifera

White Birch

Populus tremuloides

Trembling Aspen

Pinus strobus

White Pine

Fagus gradifolia

American Beech

Gleditsia tricanthos

Honey Locust

Tsuga canadensis

Eastern Hemlock

Acer saccarinum L

Silver Maple

Acer negundo

Manitoba Maple

Thuja occidentalis

Eastern White Cedar

Fraxinus nigra

Black Ash

Populus balsamifera

Balsam Poplar

Larix laricina

Tamarak

Betula alleghaniesis

Yellow Birch

Plantanus occidentalis

Sycamore

Liriodendron tulipifera

Tulip Tree

Salix fragilis

Crack Willow

Black Willow

Salix nigra

Juniperus virginiana

Eastern Red Cedar

Crataegus mollis

Red Hawthorn

Quersus velutina

Black Oak

Celtis occidentalis

Hackberry

Bur Oak

Quersus macrocarpa

Quercus rubra

Red Oak

Quercus alba

White Oak

Picea glauca

White Spruce

Prunus serotina

Black Cherry

Acer saccharum

Sugar Maple

picea pungens

Colorado Blue Spruce

Tilia americana

American Basswood

Acer nigrum

Black Maple Height at sale (m) Max height (m)

3.7 23

3.6 22

3.3 20

3.3 20

3 18

2.7 16

2.7 16

2.5 15

2.2 13

1.7 10

1.7 10

1.5 9

0.8 5

5 30

4.2 25

3 18

3 18

2.7 16

2.5 15

2.5 15

1.8 11

1.8 11

1.7 10

3 18

2.8 17

2.8 17

2.8 17

2.7 16

2.7 16

2.5 15

2.5 15

0.8 5

0.8 5

Spacing in plantation

2.1x1.6

2.1x1.6

2.0x1.5

2.0x1.5

1.8x1.4

1.7x1.3

1.7x1.3

1.7x1.3

1.7x1.3

1.5x1.1

1.5x1.1

1.5x1.1

1.2x0.9

2.4x1.8

2.3x1.7

1.8x1.4

1.8x1.4

1.7x1.3

1.7x1.3

1.7x1.3

1.5x1.1

1.5x1.1

1.5x1.1

1.8x1.4

1.8x1.4

1.8x1.4

1.8x1.4

1.7x1.3

1.7x1.3

1.7x1.3

1.7x1.3

1.2x0.9

1.2x0.9

Total trees Trees per harvest

826 413

755 378

942 471

1079 540

1286 643

1430 715

1448 724

1458 729

1126 563

1125 563

986 493

848 424

984 492

559 280

550 275

842 421

993 497

1013 507

966 483

909 455

956 478

886 443

824 412

465 233

810 405

1088 544

1180 590

1429 715

1571 786

1598 799

1637 819

1345 773

2095 1048

Soil per tree (m3) Soil per harvest (m3)

0.45 185.85

0.45 169.88

0.41 193.11

0.41 221.2

0.34 218.62

0.3 214.5

0.3 217.2

0.3 218.7

0.3 168.9

0.22 123.75

0.22 108.46

0.22 93.28

0.15 73.8

0.58 162.11

0.53 145.75

0.34 143.14

0.34 168.81

0.3 151.95

0.3 144.9

0.3 136.35

0.22 105.16

0.22 97.46

0.22 90.64

0.34 79.05

0.34 137.7

0.34 184.96

0.34 200.6

0.3 214.35

0.3 235.65

0.3 239.7

0.3 245.55

0.15 100.88

0.15 157.13

7.01 1500.52

7.81 1671.58

8.95 1914.69

8.96 1916.89

8.74 1869.32

8.85 1892.85

8.91 1905.92

6.88 1471.93

5.13 1097.97

4.5 962.31

3.87 827.63

2.94 628.6

6.67 1428.4

5.94 1272.02

5.86 1255.07

6.92 1480.15

6.19 1324.21

5.9 1262.77

5.55 1188.26

4.36 933.03

4.04 864.72

3.76 804.2

3.24 693.12

5.64 1207.37

7.58 1621.75

8.22 1758.89

8.73 1868.01

9.6 2053.64

10 2139.91

9.76 2088.93

4.89 1045.75

6.25 1338.33

YEAR 1

Water per day (m3) 7.67 Water per season (m3) 1641.63

January February March April May June July August September October

YEAR 2

November December January February March April May June July August September October

YEAR 3

November December January February March April May June July August September October

YEAR 4

November December January February March April May June July August September October

YEAR 5

November December January February March April June July

August September October

32

YEAR 1

November December January February March April

Treated water outflow into Don River

North Toronto Treatment Plant

Adaptive reuse of an existing wearhouse structure combined with new high-tech sustainable developments comprise “the Hub�. The buildings face inward to a plaza where mature specimens of all tree species cultivated in the nursery are on display amongst a series of reflecting pools and seating elements. The buildings host research labs, conference areas, and market spaces, and allow for multi-seasonal programing (such as skating in the winter). Sustainable resource production meets education, meets recreation at the Hub. Primary treatment settling plant

Pedestrian lookout point

Restaurant and cafe

Tree species showcase

Water feature / skating rink

Rainwater storage tank

Green roofs

July

Tree storage

June

Loading platform

May

Administration facility

April

Greenhouses

March

Soil mixing facility

February

Brickworks rail line

January

Multipurpose slope corridor

December

Leaside rail yard

YEAR 6

November

Office space

October

Adaptive reuse flex market space

September

Pedestrian lookout point

August

Vehicle access to North Toronto Treatment Plant

May

MBER

AUGUST

JULY

JUNE

MAY

APRIL

MARCH

FEBRUARY

JANUARY

tree farm Soil Wholesale

Public Sales

OPERATIONS TREE HARVESTING ACCESS PUBLIC PROGRAM

Cottonwood Flats - cycle A

Treatment Plant - cycle A

Cottonwood Flats - cycle B

Treatement Plant - cycle B

existing established climax forest Yogapolooza

pedestrian

Wingfest

Labour Day

TIFF Screenings

Machine + Irrigation existing Established Climax Forest

YEAR 1

Sun Valley - cycle A

New Years Fireworks

Winterlicious

Ice Sculpural Festival

YEAR 2 Valentines Day Dinner

Family Day Festival

Canadian Music Week

YEAR 3 St Patricks Day

Spring Break

World Landscape Architecture Month Conference

Good Friday Service

YEAR 4

Sun Valley - cycle B

Annual Arborist Conference

Contact Photography Festival

Victoria Day

YEAR 5

Jazz Festival

Ribfest

Canada Day

YEAR 6

Police Dog Day

the hub

Open SkatingSkating

Nature and Heritage Hikes

Public Movies

MARKETS

Community Barbeques

Seed Trade

Garden

ART

Food

Professional Galleries and Exhibits

FLEX FORUMS

Public Art

Rentable Event Space

Corperate Team Building (retreats)

Job Fairs

HABITAT TRACKING

Conferences

Butterfly Counting Program

Bird Courting Program

PUBLIC EDUCATION Photo Monitoring Program

Summer Camps

School Field Trips

Tree Education Classes

Arborist School (professional)

Guided Tours (green roofs)

MAINTENANCE

Guided Tours (tree farm)

Snow Removal (programattic hub)

Ice Removal (Don River)

Debris Removal (Don River)

Aquatic Habitat Monitoring (Don River)

SALES

Invasive Removal (climax forests)

Terrestrial Habitat Monitoring (climax forests)

WATER

City of Toronto

Pumped Water (North Toronto Treatment Plant)

SOIL

Rainwater Collection (at program hub)

Nutrient Rich Soil Production

Sediment Delivery

Biowaste Delivery (North Toronto Treatment Plant)

Green Roof Community Volunteers

Tree Farm Community Volunteers

Container Nursery (greenhouses)

Tree Farm Opperations (outdoors)

TREE

ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

INPUTS

Subsurface conveyance

Surface conveyance ≈ 1200m3 added flood storage 5 YEAR FLOOD

5 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 1200m3 added flood storage

34 Greenhouse 212m3

Tree farm 2139.91m3

INPUTS

Tree farm 2139.91m3

tRee generation provides an opportunity to produce both native, and resilient locally grown trees, in a uniquely efficient and cost effective manor directly within Toronto’s downtown.

Transplant to tree farm production

Output to City

Outputs

SOILSOIL FLOWS FLOWS

5349.09m35349.09m3 total soil required per harvest cycle (avg) total soil required per harvest cycle (avg)

OUTPUTS OUTPUTS INPUTS

Sediment Inputs + Biowaste Mixing Facility Sediment + Biowaste Mixing Facility

Outputs

WATER FLOWS

2351.91m3 total irrigation required per growing season

WATER FLOWS OUTPUTS 5 YEAR FLOOD

≈ 1200m3 added flood storage FLOOD FLOWS

5 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 1200m3 added flood storage

25 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 6300m3 added flood storage

25 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 6300m3 added flood storage Tree farm 2139.91m3

Output to City

Tree farm 2139.91m3

Inputs

Greenhouse 212m3

Transplant to tree farm production

Greenhouse 212m3

Dreged Sediment from Don River 5250m3 per year

Tree farm 4823.09m3

INPUTS

Sediment + Biowaste Mixing Facility Sediment + Biowaste Mixing Facility

WATER FLOWS WATER FLOWS 2351.91m3 total irrigation required per growing season

5 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 1200m3 added flood storage

FLOOD FLOWS

required per growing season INPUTS 2351.91m3 total irrigation OUTPUTS OUTPUTS

5 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 1200m3 added flood storage

Subsurface storage tank (25000m3 capacity)

SubsurfaceSurface conveyance conveyance Subsurface storage tank (25000m3 capacity)

Surface conveyance Subsurface conveyance

Outputs

FLOOD FLOWS

25 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 6300m3 added flood storage 25 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 6300m3 added flood storage

2351.91m3 total irrigation required per growing season

OUTPUTS

Subsurface storage tank (25000m3 capacity)

Subsurface storage tank (25000m3 capacity)

Subsurface conveyance Surface conveyance

FLOOD FLOWS

100 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 12400m3 added flood storage

FLOOD FLOWS

100 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 12400m3 added flood storage

LANDSCAPE AS REGENERATION tRee generation 100 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 12400m3 added flood storage

100 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 12400m3 added flood storage

Tree farm 2139.91m3

OutputsFLOWS WATER

36009 total trees at any one time 5349.09m3 total soil required per harvest cycle (avg) 2351.91m3 total irrigation required per growing season

INPUTS and OUTPUTS INPUTS INPUTS

Greenhouse 212m3

Outputs

Retail Sale 650.91m3

Greenhouse 526m3

Tree farm 4823.09m3

Retail Sale 650.91m3

Greenhouse 526m3

Dreged Sediment from Don River 5250m3 per year

Cot 84 42

(City of

Tree farm 4823.09m3

Cottonwood Flats 8498 total trees 4249 each harvest

Treatment Plant 13218 total trees 6609 each harvest

Dreged Sediment from Don River 5250m3 per year

Inputs

Output to City

Tree farm 2139.91m3

OUTPUTS 2351.91m3 total irrigation required per growing season

Rainwater Collection at Programmatic Hub possible 13182.6m3 per season (market roof and parking lot = combined 20760m2 surface area

SOIL FLOWS OUTPUTS

WATER FLOWS

with toronto avg ofRainwater 635mm of rainfall annually) (Government Collection at Programmatic Hub of Canada, 2014) possible 13182.6m3 per season (market roof and parking lot = combined 20760m2 surface area with toronto avg of 635mm of rainfall annually) (Government of Canada, 2014)

Treatment Plant 13218 total trees 6609 each harvest

Sediment + Biowaste Mixing Facility

Transplant to tree farm production

Greenhouse 212m3

SOIL FLOWS total soil = 6000m3 750m3 biowaste produced perproduced year (City of Toronto, North Toronto Treatement Plant, 2014) at a ratio of 1:8 biowaste/ sediment mixture total soil produced = 6000m3

TREE FLOWS Output to City

Possible input from North Toronto Treatment Plant to fill deficit in drought

Possible input from North Toronto Treatment Plant to fill deficit in drought

Tree farm 4823.09m3

Greenhouse 526m3 Greenhouse 526m3

Retail Sale 650.91m3 Retail Sale 650.91m3

5349.09m3 total soil required per harvest cycle (avg)

750m3 biowaste produced per year (City of Toronto, North Toronto Treatement Plant, 2014) at a ratio of 1:8 biowaste/ sediment mixture

INPUTS

Dreged Sediment from Don River 5250m3 per year

Sun Valley 14294 total trees 7147 each harvest Sun Valley 14294 total trees 7147 each harvest

36009 total trees at any one time

possible 13182.6m3 per season (market roof and parking lot = combined 20760m2 surface area with toronto avg of 635mm of rainfall annually) (Government of Canada, 2014)

Greenhouse container production

Rainwater Collection at Programmatic Hub possible 13182.6m3 per season (market roof and parking lot = combined 20760m2 surface area with toronto avg of 635mm of rainfall annually) (Government of Canada,Hub 2014) Rainwater Collection at Programmatic

Cottonwood Flats 8498 total trees 4249 each harvest Cottonwood Flats 8498 total trees 4249 each harvest

INPUTS and OUTPUTS

Possible input from North Toronto Treatment Plant to fill deficit in drought

Treatment Plant 13218 total trees 6609 each harvest Treatment Plant 13218 total trees 6609 each harvest

TREE FLOWS

Possible input from North Toronto Treatment Plant to fill deficit in drought

(City of Toronto, North Toronto Treatement Plant, 2014) at a ratio of 1:8 biowaste/ sediment mixture total soil produced = 6000m3

750m3 biowaste produced per year (City of Toronto, North Toronto Treatement Plant, 2014) at a ratio of 1:8 biowaste/ sediment mixture totalbiowaste soil produced = 6000m3 750m3 produced per year

The layering of hydrological, soil, and social programming overlay on the Crothers Woods to create a dynamic and exciting tree nursery in the Don River Valley.

Tree farm 4823.09m3

Tree farm 4823.09m3

Greenhouse 526m3

Greenhouse 526m3

Retail Sale 650.91m3

Retail Sale 650.91m3

Dreged Sediment from Don River 5250m3 per year

Dreged Sediment from Don River 5250m3 per year

INPUTS INPUTS

Greenhouse 212m3

Rainwater Collection at Programmatic Hub possible 13182.6m3 per season (market roof and parking lot = combined 20760m2 surface area

Inputs

with toronto avg of 635mm of rainfall annually) (Government Canada,at2014) Possible input from North Toronto Rainwater of Collection Programmatic Hub possible 13182.6m3 per season Treatment Plant to fill deficit in drought (market roof and parking lot = combined 20760m2 surface area with toronto avg of 635mm of rainfall annually) (Government of Canada, 2014)

Possible input from North Toronto Treatment Plant to fill deficit in drought

Greenhouse container production

Greenhouse container production

Transplant to tree farm production Sediment + Biowaste Mixing Facility

Inputs

OUTPUTS

OUTPUTS

Greenhouse container production Subsurface storage tank (25000m3 capacity)

Inputs

Outputs

SubsurfaceSubsurface conveyance storage tank (25000m3 capacity)

Surface conveyance Subsurface conveyance

FLOOD FLOWS

Surface conveyance

25 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 6300m3 added flood storage 25 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 6300m3 added flood storage 100 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 12400m3 added flood storage

100 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 12400m3 added flood storage

in Flux

3rd place Chrysler Engine Plant international design competition - UD4U (2015) with Megan Esopenko & Rob McIntosh 2015 (aug) 3 weeks

The former Chrysler Engine Plant in Kenosha, Wisconsin is and always has been a dynamic place of change. The site was home to a diverse range of auto production activities and processes for nearly a century; it has seen jobs ebb, flow and disappear; and it has played a central role in shaping and defining what the City of Kenosha is today – for better or for worse. The termination of production on this site has left a barren and toxic void in its wake.

With countless jobs lost and lives indisputably changed forever, this former site of production now finds itself with an uncertain future.

While the closure of the Chrysler Engine Plant has undoubtedly had a negative impact on those who relied on the site as a source of income and job security, this project seeks to use the closure of the plant as a point of departure from the past and the beginning of a new legacy – one of productivity, environmental resiliency, and community building. By using the remnants of the past as the foundation for the future, this proposal sees the site turned into a renewed space of production, restoration and innovation that is strongly connected to the community that surrounds it. This proposal gives value to what remains of the past and turns what would otherwise be seen as a burden on the site into a resource to build on.

The core of in Flux lays in the idea that industrial production, environmental remediation and community activities do not need to be separated; rather, they can be intricately woven together in an innovative and resilient way to form a new typology and model for development that is a fusion of all three.

36

LANDSCAPE AS REGENERATION in Flux

1914 13,513

1902 1,500

1916

sold WWII DOUBLE WASP ENGINE

sold

to Milwaukee

LAKE MICHIGAN

Harbor Park Intra-U

rban R

ail

Kenosha Trolley Loop Washington Park

DOWNTOWN KENOSHA

t

dS

52n

Deco

mmis

Intro-Urb

an Rail

to Chicago

sione

Columbus Park

d Ind

ustria

l Rail

Brass Community School

Corr

idor

Intra

Former Chrysler Engine Plant Site

Chrysler Engine Plant site

-Urb ail

an R

McKinley Elementary School

total decommissioned industrial lands within Kenosha city limits

(within that area), total estimated contaminated lands

30%

2009

20%

CLOSED

HALF MILLION CARS PRODUCED

EACH YEAR

in Flux

% tree coverage within developed area

chicago

kenosha

1960s OVER A

chicago

10%

kenosha

PROFIT

40%

% residents living within 10min walking distance to public park space

SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION meets URBAN PARK

52nd street A. active zone B. play zone c. passive zones d. flex spaces e. market zone

a

b

25th avenue

urban agriculture c

urban agriculture d

urban agriculture

e urban agriculture 30th avenue soil operations along the new inner-park streetcar corridor urban agriculture

urban agriculture

d

soil processing facility

l rai

c

mixed use corridor 60th street

or

d rri

co

SITE ORGANIZATION

historic rail network

built form (operations & mixed use massing)

SITE CIRCULATION

civic program (hierarchy in intensive program along central spine)

automobile

water filtration and conveyance bisecting the cultural spine

pedestrian

light rail (connected urban street car loop)

public education and participation in tree farm programs

SITE OPERATIONS

soil wind rows

water treatment & distribution

tree cultivation

forested zones

urban agriculture

intersections of production & social systems

This design envisions the site as a place of active and passive production, full of programming and public space at its core and anchored to an environmental model that not only forms the basis for the new era of productivity on the site, but also begins to rehabilitate and regenerate this site and others like it.

STRATEGY 01

STRATEGY 02

STRATEGY 03

use the past as the foundation for the future

from single family reliance to multi-faceted resilience

the site as a generator of innovation and development in the community TREES

TREES

FOOD TREES FOOD

OPPORTUNITY

FOOD

OPPORTUNITY

OPPORTUNITY

ENTERTAINMENT ENTERTAINMENT

RESLILIENCE RESLILIENCE

SOIL SOIL

ENTERTAINMENT

COMMUNITY

SOIL

RESLILIENCE

COMMUNITY

COMMUNITY

JOBS JOBS

FROMTO SINGLE INDUSTRY RELIANCE TO MULTIFACETED RESILIENCE THE SITE AS A GENERATOR THE SITE AS A GENERATOR OF INNOVATION USE THE AS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE FUTURE FROM SINGLE INDUSTRY RELIANCE MULTIFACETED RESILIENCE OF INNOVATION USE THE PAST AS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE PAST FUTURE & DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT THE COMMUNITY FROM SINGLE INDUSTRY RELIANCE TO MULTIFACETED RESILIENCE THE SITE AS IN A GENERATOR OF INNOVATION USE THE PAST AS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE FUTURE & DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY

JOBS

University of California, Merced 5200 North Lake Road Merced, California 95343 (209) 228-4400 RK

PRIMARY WALKWAY

IT

OF

WO

0 LIM

SECONDARY WALKWAY

202

Developer:

T SITE

JEC

TERTIARY WALKWAY

PRO

SHARED USE PATH

Plenary Properties Merced 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 410 Los Angeles, CA 90067

SIDEWALK CROSSING

Contractor:

BIKE LANE (CLASS 1 + 2) Webcor Builders 207 King St., Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94107

ROAD

BINDING EDGE

uc merced 2020

(SERVICE ONLY)

Architect/Engineer:

EXISTING SIDEWALK

THROUGH PLAZA/ COURTYARD TEMPORARY ROUTE

Consultant:

PARKING

Hargreaves Associates 970 Tennessee St. San Francisco, CA 94107

ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES Issued For:

No.: Description:

Date:

IN PROGRESS

17JAN17

STAIRS ACCESSIBLE ROUTE (<5%) ACCESSIBLE ROUTE (>5%) (all non-noted hardscape areas are accessible) RK

IT

0

E

CT

OF

WO

LIM

202

SIT

UC Merced 2020 SITE

OJE

PR

Designated Campus Fire Marshal:

PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK Designated Campus Building Official:

PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK

E

BINDING EDGE

NC

FERE R REONLY

FO Sheet Name:

SITE CIRCULATION & ACCESSIBILITY

TRUE NORTH

PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK

PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK

1

SITE CIRCULATION & ACCESSIBILITY - PHASE 1 SCALE:

1" = 100'-0"

Project No.:

Sheet No.:

Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Scale:

1" = 100'

CIRCULATION & ACCESSIBILITY DURING PHASE 1

University of California, Merced 5200 North Lake Road Merced, California 95343 (209) 228-4400 RK

PRIMARY WALKWAY

IT

OF

WO

0 LIM

SECONDARY WALKWAY

202

Developer:

T SITE

JEC

TERTIARY WALKWAY

PRO

SHARED USE PATH

Plenary Properties Merced 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 410 Los Angeles, CA 90067

SIDEWALK CROSSING

Contractor:

BIKE LANE (CLASS 1 + 2) Webcor Builders 207 King St., Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94107

BINDING EDGE

ROAD (SERVICE ONLY)

Architect/Engineer:

EXISTING SIDEWALK

THROUGH PLAZA/ COURTYARD TEMPORARY ROUTE

Consultant:

PARKING

Hargreaves Associates 970 Tennessee St. San Francisco, CA 94107

ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES Issued For:

No.: Description:

Date:

IN PROGRESS

17JAN17

STAIRS ACCESSIBLE ROUTE (<5%) ACCESSIBLE ROUTE (>5%) (all non-noted hardscape areas are accessible) RK

IT

0

E

OJE

CT

OF

WO

LIM

202

SIT

UC Merced 2020 SITE

PR

In July of 2016, the Plenary Properties Merced proposal team was awarded the UC Merced 2020 Project contract â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Hargreaves Associates provided landscape architectural services for the proposed campus expansion from schematic through to the end of design development, at which time site landscape construction documentation transitioned to a design-build trade partner.

Designated Campus Building Official:

Owner Review:

Interwest Review:

Key Plan:

PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK

SERVICES LOADING BAY

Seal & Signature:

E

NC

FERE R REONLY

FO Sheet Name:

PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK

PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK

SITE CIRCULATION & ACCESSIBILITY

TRUE NORTH

PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK

SITE CIRCULATION & ACCESSIBILITY - PHASE 2 SCALE:

1" = 100'-0"

1

Project No.:

Sheet No.:

Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Scale:

1" = 100'

CIRCULATION & ACCESSIBILITY DURING PHASE 2

University of California, Merced 5200 North Lake Road Merced, California 95343 (209) 228-4400 RK

PRIMARY WALKWAY

IT

OF

WO

0 LIM

SECONDARY WALKWAY

202

Developer:

T SITE

JEC

TERTIARY WALKWAY

PRO

SHARED USE PATH

Plenary Properties Merced 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 410 Los Angeles, CA 90067

SIDEWALK CROSSING

Contractor:

BIKE LANE (CLASS 1 + 2) Webcor Builders 207 King St., Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94107

ROAD (SERVICE ONLY)

Architect/Engineer:

EXISTING SIDEWALK

THROUGH PLAZA/ COURTYARD TEMPORARY ROUTE

Consultant:

PARKING

Hargreaves Associates 970 Tennessee St. San Francisco, CA 94107

ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES Issued For:

No.: Description:

Date:

IN PROGRESS

17JAN17

STAIRS ACCESSIBLE ROUTE (<5%) ACCESSIBLE ROUTE (>5%) (all non-noted hardscape areas are accessible) RK

IT

0

E

OJE

CT

OF

WO

LIM

202

SIT

UC Merced 2020 SITE

PR

Designated Campus Fire Marshal:

PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK Designated Campus Building Official:

PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK

Whilst the UC Merced 2020 campus is situated in the regional context of the flat agricultural plains of the San Joaquin Valley, the site itself is situated on a highly topographic series of rolling hills and bisected by 2 major Irrigation district canals. These topographic transitions extend throughout the site design as an integral component of the campus landscape architecture, seeing groups of buildings sit on large terracing plains, with sculpted slopes of highly geometric landform juxtaposing the primarily arid and native planting palette.

Designated Campus Fire Marshal:

PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK

PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK

masterplan coordination 2017-current

Seal & Signature:

PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK

BINDING EDGE

design-build commission 2016-19 (aug-feb) 18 weeks

PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK

BINDING EDGE

1st place competition 2015-16 (nov-mar) 16 weeks

UC Merced 2020 is the first institutional Private, Public, Partnership (P3) Project in the United States, setting a new precedent for both the funding mechanism and rapid pace of design and construction of large scale institutional developments. Hargreaves Associates was the landscape architect on one of 4 competing teams for the 2020 Project contract, collaborating with architects SOM, Page, Mahlum, and WRNS, engineers Sherwood, and ARUP, and a varied array of associated contractor teams led by Webcor Builders, and developer Plenary.

Key Plan:

Owner Review:

Interwest Review:

BINDING EDGE

Hargreaves Associates University of California Merced

Owner Review:

Interwest Review:

Key Plan:

PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK

Seal & Signature:

E

NC

FERE R REONLY

FO Sheet Name:

PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK

PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK

TRUE NORTH

PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK

SITE CIRCULATION & ACCESSIBILITY - PHASE 3 (SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETITION) SCALE:

1" = 100'-0"

1

SITE CIRCULATION & ACCESSIBILITY Project No.:

42

LANDSCAPE AS URBANISM uc merced 2020

Sheet No.:

Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Scale:

CIRCULATION & ACCESSIBILITY DURING PHASE 3

1" = 100'

AN ECO-CAMPUS

The campus Masterplan is built from a series of interconnected component parts - quads, plazas, courtyards, walks, and restored natural landscapes - each of which is comprised of native plantings and low water use species which invite the regional biophilia into the heart of campus. Sports facilities line the edge of Cottonwood Meadow and draw close spatial relationships between campus recreation and restored ecology.

UC Merced 2020 Project

03.29.2016

1.5.(b) PLANTING PLAN

LS1(A) PLAZA

LS1(B) COURTYARD

LS2(A) MODIFIED

LS2(B) STREETSCAPE

LS3 PERIMETER

LS4 CENTRAL (P)

LS5 PERIPHERAL (P)

UC Merced 2020 Project LS1(B) LS1(A) PLAZA COURTYARD

03.29.2016LS2(A)

MODIFIED

LS2(B) STREETSCAPE

LS3 PERIMETER

NOT PROPOSED

A critical component to expanding the existing campus open space system is through expanding its current urban forest and tree Acer macrophyllum stock. Our proposal further develops the plant (Big Leaf Maple) palette of the existing campus, prioritizing native species in selection and distribution throughout the proposed campus.

TREE SPECIES & DISTRIBUTION

Cephalanthus occidentalis (California Button Willow)

Cercis occidentalis (California Dogwood)

Bellevue Rd

Artemisia caucascia (Silver Spreader)

Cornus californica (California Dogwood)

Polystichum munitum (Western Sword Fern)

Bellevue Rd

Carpenteria californica (Bush Anemone)

Hesperaloe parviflora (Red Yucca)

Raphiolepis indica spp (Indian Hawthorn)

Bellevue Rd

Alnus rubra (Red Alder)

Woodwardia fimbriata (Giant Chain Fern)

Lavatera assurgentiflora (Tree Mallow)

Rhus integrifolia (Lemonade Berry)

Bellevue Rd

Quercus douglasii (Blue Oak)

Fraxinus dipetala (California Ash)

Polystichum munitum (Western Sword Fern)

Rhamnus californica ‘Eve Case’ (California Coffeeberry)

Rhus glabra (Smooth Sumac)

Bellevue Rd

Quercus lobata (Valley Oak)

Populus fremontii (Fremont Cottonwood)

Arctostaphylos spp Manzanita

Romneya coulteri

Salix Laevigata (Red Willow)

Quercus lobata (Valley Oak)

Matilija Poppy, Salvia spp.

Salix lasiandra (Black Willow)

Salix Laevigata (Red Willow)

Solidago californica (California Goldenrod)

Each building has numerous adjacent waste receptacles, bike racks, and drinking fountain Quercus lobata near its main entrance, (Valleyand Oak) in addition to bike racks, the housing buildings all have external sheltered bike storage structures.

Salix lasiandra (Black Willow)

Teucrium fruticans (Bush Germander)

Various types ofRobinia seating can be found pseudoacacia throughout the campus, through benches, (Purple Robe sloped lawns, and seat walls in various Locust) Courtyards, Academic Quad, Academic Walk, and Town Square.

Sambucus Mexicana (Elderberry)

Teucrium x lucidrys (Germander)

Our design proposal strategically locates californica trees throughout Aesculus the campus, acting both (California Buckeye) aesthetically to bring nature into the campus, and functionally by providing needed shade in large open areas not covered by adjacent buildings. Additionally, trees in central parking areas are situated within the respective Alnus rubra (Red landscape component Alder)with shade coverage as a primary consideration.

Shrubs and ground covers have been distributed throughout the campus to restore Carpinus local ecology. Within thebetula hardscape zones, (European native thicket plantings are prioritized both for Hornbeam) distributed storm water infiltration and uptake, as well as for bird nesting opportunities within the Quads, Plazas, and Walks.

Fremontodendron Through the restoration of Little Lake, californicum significant effort has beenBush) placed on preserving (Flannel and maintaining existing trees within the tree preservation zone. Those that are removed will be either moved and replanted, or replaced within its immediate proximity.

Ginkgo biloba ‘Autumn Gold’ (Ginkgo) UC Merced 2020 Project

03.29.2016

EXISTING PRESERVED TREE

Acer macrophyllum (Big Leaf Maple)

Populus fremontii (Fremont Cottonwood)

Acer macrophyllum (Big Leaf Maple)

Acer macrophyllum (Big Leaf Maple)

Populus fremontii (Fremont Cottonwood)

Quercus macrocarpa (Urban Pinnacle Oak)

Quercus phellos (Willow Oak)

Aesculus californica (California Buckeye)

Quercus douglasii (Blue Oak)

Aesculus californica (California Buckeye)

Acer negundo californicum (California Box Elder)

Quercus lobata (Valley Oak)

Quercus Robur ‘Alba’ (Crimson Spire Oak)

Sambucus Mexicana (Elderberry)

Aesculus californica (California Buckeye)

Quercus lobata (Valley Oak)

Populus fremontii (Fremont Cottonwood)

Salix Laevigata (Red Willow)

Salix lasiandra (Black Willow)

Quercus Alba (White Oak)

Sambucus Mexicana (Elderberry)

Quercus macrocarpa (Urban Pinnacle Oak)

Quercus phellos (Willow Oak)

californica 1.5.(b) Rhamnus (California Coffeeberry) PLANTING SCHEDULE TREES

PROPOSED TREE PROPOSED HEDGE

Platanus racemosa

© Plenary Properties Merced

1” = 500’-0” 0’

250’

500’

750’

1.5.(c) (California Sycamore) OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT AND Vol. 2 - Section 1, p.23 FURNITURE Quercus Alba (White

The preliminary furnishing schedule on the Oak) subsequent pages has been developed with existing campus site furnishings in mind.

FURNITURE TYPES & DISTRIBUTION

Waste receptacles are distributed throughout Tilia cordata the campus and closely located to one another ‘Greenspire’ in high traffic pedestrian spaces.

(Greenspire Linden) In addition to waste receptacles, bike racks, and benches can be found at each of the 4 recreation court venues.

SEATWALLS

© Plenary Properties Merced

© Plenary Properties Merced

BENCHES BIKE RACK

Vol. 2 - Section 1, p.24

BIKE STRUCTURE WASTE RECEPTACLE DRINKING FOUNTAIN TREE GRATE

UC Merced 2020 Project TRANSIT SHELTER

03.29.2016

SHADE STRUCTURE FENCE

© Plenary Properties Merced

1” = 500’-0” 0’

250’

500’

750’

1.5.(f)/1.5.(g)/1.5.(h) DRAINAGE AND STORM WATER Vol. 2 - Section 1, p.28 DETENTION AND RETENTION

The Drainage and Storm water system proposed for the 2020 campus further extends the storm water measures within the existing campus into a larger, integrated campus network. These Systems are tied together as a holistic water management system, connected by both the urban hardscape as well as the seasonal flows of water within the existing dry river corridor derived from the North Bowl.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

With close consideration given to the proposed contouring of the site, much of the larger systems of water conveyance are designed for surface flow, making its movement and eventual storage of water in the Cottonwood Meadow visible to campus constituents, while showcasing the ephemeral rain and storm water fluctuations of the Central Valley

NORTH POND

LITTLE LAKE

By seeing the movement of water as a naturally occurring environmental amenity, our proposal for UC Merced 2020 enhances the connection of water both visually and functionally between Little Lake, Cottonwood Meadow and Cottonwood Meadow South, where storm water from Little Lake overflows into a dry meandering swale; the start of a green corridor that bisects the urban campus through its connection with Cottonwood Meadow.

20 ACRE FT

COTTONWOOD MEADOW

COTTONWOOD MEADOW SOUTH

UC Merced 2020 Project

© Plenary Properties Merced

1” = 500’-0” 0’

250’

500’

750’

03.29.2016

1.5.(i) PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN Vol. 2 - Section 1, p.30

Our 2020 proposal was designed to have minimal intervention with the existing topography of the site, and primary consideration was given to the balance of cut and fill within the project boundaries.

TOPOGRAPHY & LANDFORM 240

Thorough consideration was given to the landscape design at a campus holistic level, and strategized to provide an episodic spatial experience as one moves throughout, comprising of a series of varied landscape typologies connecting existing campus with proposed, each with a distinctive character.

225

230

235

By closely considering the flows and movement of water across the proposed 2020 campus, the topography has been graded to prioritize surface water conveyance locally towards planted zones, and towards Cottonwood Meadow on a larger scale, where the proposed contouring interfaces with that of the past golf course preserving the past use as an artifact within the landscape, and accessible by meandering paths amongst native grasses at the eventual masterplan buildout.

255 220 225

250

230 250

235 245

250

250

245

240

225

230

RAMP 8.3% (WITH LANDINGS)

220

230

240

215

One of the two recreational court venues sits perched above the perimeter of the Cottonwood Meadow 100yr 24hr floodline, whilest the second sits below and doubles as flood storage during intensive storm events.

The main components of the cycle and pedestrian network run along this north edge, overlooking the meadow ecologies.

220

225

215

230

230

215

230

In a dual effort to provide both cost saving and land use efficiency, the proposed developments achieve a relatively high spatial density, allowing a significant portion of the campus expansion to be set aside as native meadow. These areas operate in a socio-cultural perspective, creating ecological corridors connecting with the existing Campus Little Lake weaving throughout, whilst also functioning as a regional scaled stormwater basin that allows campus constituents to interact with the ephemerality of the local climate, retaining smaller storms in varying enclaves of stepped topography, and inundating various depressed rec court facilities in the 100 year storm.

235

230

225

210

215

225

210

220

3X BASKETBALL 209

220

LITTLE LAKE HWL 215 NWL 213.50

225

2X VOLLEYBALL 209

215

210 215

220

1X COMPETITION FIELD 221

2X RECREATION FIELDS 216

3X BASKETBALL 206.5

235

1X VOLLEYBALL 206.5

RAMP 8.3% (WITH LANDINGS)

1X TENNIS 206.5

205

205

205

215

1X 1X 1X VOLLEYBALL BASKETBALL TENNIS 208 207 207 220

215

Many of the major landscape elements and outdoor spaces throughout the site are designed as a series of large scale plateaus of active and passive spaces that terrace across the site connected through gracefully sloped walks and corridors.

215

230

220

210

225

205

215

215

205

2X TENNIS 208

210

215

WIER 206

205

215

225

220

230

210

Where the plateaus of the Courtyard housing buildings extend south into the basin, sculpted sloped lawns act as a transitional landscape between the geometries of the built form and the ecologies of Cottonwood Meadow. © Plenary Properties Merced

1” = 500’-0” 0’

250’

500’

750’

Vol. 2 - Section 1, p.31

44

LANDSCAPE AS URBANISM uc merced 2020

Bellevue Rd

LS4 CENTRAL (P)

LS5 PERIPHERAL (P)

NOT PROPOSED

NOT PROPOSED

XERIC NATIVE PLANTINGS (in Academic Quad) 0 6" 1'-0" 2'-0"

University of California, Merced 5200 North Lake Road Merced, California 95343 (209) 228-4400

Developer:

Plenary Properties Merced 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 410 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Contractor:

BINDING EDGE

Webcor Builders 207 King St., Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94107 Architect/Engineer:

Consultant:

Hargreaves Associates 970 Tennessee St. San Francisco, CA 94107 Issued For: No.: Description: 1 2

Date:

50% DD 100% DD

21OCT16 17MAR17

UC Merced 2020 SITEWORK Designated Campus Fire Marshal:

Designated Campus Building Official:

Owner Review:

BINDING EDGE

Interwest Review:

Key Plan:

Seal & Signature:

FO

RE EFE R R ONLY

E NC

Sheet Name:

ACADEMIC QUAD ENLARGEMENT PLAN

ACADEMIC QUAD ENLARGEMENT PLAN SCALE:

1" = 200'-0"

1

0

7.5'

15'

30'

TRUE NORTH

Sheet No.:

Project No.: 10715.00 Drawn By:

MP

Checked By:

GM

Approved By: GM Scale:

1" = 15'

U1-L04-01

ECOLOGICAL REVITALIZATION (at Little Lake)

the 2020 Proposal sees the ecological revitalization of the existing Little Lake (a reminant feature of the past golfcourse and the center point of the new campus. throughout the year, its waterlevel is designed to fluxtuate with the seasons, and its reparian ecologies flow down the overflow channel to Cottonwood Meadow

RESTORED LITTLE LAKE RIPARIAN ZONE

POST RELIANCE ON WELL TOP-UP

With some simple grading to emphasize natural declivities, the landscape proposal gathers storm waters and allows them to naturally percolate into the aquifer below. Lake-like in the winter and spring and typically drying out in the summers, Cottonwood Meadow will develop a more complex ecology that reflects the classic watersheds of the central valley. Here the university has an opportunity to grow an ecology lab as the watershed ecology evolves through time.

The landscape proposed for UC Merced reflects the site specific qualities of the Central Valley: flatness, dry and wet ecologies, and inhabitants with a dynamic relationship to its production and sustainability. If the campus landscape can extend the resonance of the valley landscape and its inhabitants, in this case the university community, then a truly dynamic and sustainable community will have been created.

46

LANDSCAPE AS URBANISM uc merced 2020

ECOLOGICAL REVITALIZATION (at Cottonwood Meadow)

Swainsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hawk

Burrowing Owl

San Joaquin Kit Fox Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp

California Tiger Salamander

Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Western Pond Turtle

California Tiger Salamander

WINTER wet season

SPRING flower season

SUMMER DRY SEASON

AUTUMN transition season

YEAR 01

YEAR 02

YEAR 03

YEAR 04

YEAR 05

YEAR 06

YEAR 07

YEAR 08

YEAR 09

YEAR 10

THE

RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT

1852

1882 MLA 2a superstudio independent 2013 (nov-dec) 7 weeks

The river runs through it masterplan for the redesign of Dufferin Mall was the result of a detailed investigation into the anomalies and irregularities in the urban fabric, built form, and topography of Torontos West End. This research led to the discovery of a buried river that once passed through the study site, and defined the extents of past neighbourhoods and historical Parks on its way to Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s waterfront. By daylighting the buried Garrison Creek Ravine Corridor and exposing the current local neighbourhoods to its flows of cleaned water from on-site sewage treatment, residents, and visitors alike are able to celebrate a connection with a long lost geological and ecological artifact that predated the City.

The river runs through it provides the necessary facilities for treating the entire up-sewer catchment area supported by the sewer line. Once the water has filtered through the River on site, it can then be sent back into the community to be used as greywater, or rerouted from the existing combined sewer intake, and into the adjacent storm sewer system. Using a combination of sustainably efficient and natural treatment methods, the exposed river corridor becomes the spine to which all proposed development is centered.

The River extends up and into the neighbourhood through a network of smaller vegetated strips that collect runoff water, redirecting all stormwater flows into the River. A hybrid building typology was specifically developed to fit the unique conditions of the site. Abundant Live-work programing creates a small community environment yet uniquely supported by the local and regional corridor visitors.

48

LANDSCAPE AS URBANISM the river runs through it

1952

EVOLUTION: CITY (vs?) NATURE 01 pre-colonization ravine

02 ravine as barrier

historic route of ravine

Analyzing historical maps of Toronto tell a uniquely intriguing story. The physical geomorphology of the Toronto landscape was a much different that the way we see it today.

The Land was once dominated by a network of ravine corridors carved out by the receding glaciers and the rapid draining of Lake Iroquois some 20000 years ago.

sanitary sewer catchment area

christie pits park

As the City was first settled, and the land was surveyed, the Victorian parcelization paid no attention to the Natural features of the land. As a result many of the smaller ravine corridors (Garrison Creek) were slowly engulfed in development and replaced by sewers. Evidence of the Garrison Corridor can still be seen today in symbolic elevation changes in Christie Pits, and Trinity Bellwoodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Parks.

PROJECT SITE

combined sewer replaced Garison Creek

primary storm sewer

03 culture dominates

THE RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT

e-w trunk lines

CITY (&!) NATURE 04 re-expose

05 re-experience

The North West Branch of Garrison Creek passed directly through what is now Dufferin Grove Park - The river runs through it aims to create a vibrant new community centered around symbolically reconnecting with one of Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s original ravine corridors. This project is meant to act as a catalyst for future similar intervention.

iteration 01 / length: 600m / height: 8m / slope: 1.33%

The implications of daylighting the North West branch of the Garrison Sewer line extend far beyond that of symbolic connections with the cities original landscape. The river runs through it provides a unique approach towards sustainable neighbourhood design by not only fully treating sewage from the proposed development, but it also provides the necessary facilities for treating the entire up-sewer catchment are for the sewer line. iteration 02 / length: 700m / height: 8m / slope: 1.14%

iteration 03 / length: 800m / height: 8m / slope: 1.0%

iteration 04 / length: 1000m / height: 8m / slope: 0.8%

(slope < 0.5% ideal for riparian ecology) iteration 05 / length: 1100m / height: 5m / SLOPE

50

0.45%

LANDSCAPE AS URBANISM the river runs through it

water plaza (headwater treatment facility)

river dynamics critical distance

100 year storm flood storage floodplane the mill

ravine topography integrated within existing context

52 native plantings promote restored habitat

eastern facing livework units stepback for maximum greenroof sun exposure

center heavily planted bioswales

pedestrian only inner streets

retail spill out uses face west evening sun

=

x

(

people

Toronto average water consumption

[210L per person per day]

437.85

City of Toronto, 2012

m3 per day from the city

)

2085 people

x

=

(

Toronto average toilet usage

20L per person per day City of Toronto, 2012

41.7

)

Lake Ontario [untreated outfall] Site Area

= 2085

2085

( ) ( x

[1500m2]

=

+

[0.22km2]

m3 per day

IRRIGATION

residential irrigatable surface

( ) (

75

Toronto average irrigation usage

0.05m3 per m2 per day City of Toronto, 2005

m3 per day

)

people

x

=

(

Toronto average density per km2 City of Toronto, 2012

)

people

Toronto average sewage discharge

[230L per person per day]

500

TREATMENT PROCESS

9490 people per km2

City of Toronto, 2012

)

m3 per day

Total of 1420m3 per day

(

1300 houses + 100 office + 100 retail

)

(

x

3795

City of Toronto, 2011

3795

=

people

Toronto household average density

[2.53 people per household]

(

x

=

[approx 1m3 per minute]

people

Toronto average sewage discharge

[230L per person per day]

900

)

City of Toronto, 2012

(GE) ZEEWEED

)

m3 per day

[from approx 6000 people + ground water seepage]

AVERAGE SEEPAGE FROM ACESS GROUND WATER [RESULT OF GARRISON CREEK]

= 20

SUBGRADE

TOILETS

2000m3 per day MAX 4000m2 below grade Odorless Removes solid waste UV Treatment to secondary levels

m3 per day

TIERED REED BEDS

6000

people

(

x

=

TERTIARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENT [1M2 PER PERSON] Herbert Dreiseitl [recent waterscapes], 2012

6000

)

m2 surface area

REDIRECTION

88.7

m3 per day

STORM WATER

people

)

GREY WATER

2085

City of Toronto, 2012

SURFACE

= 2085

Toronto average density per km2

9490 people per km2

GROUND WATER

+

[0.22km2]

ONSITE SEWAGE

Site Area

CONTEXT CATCHMENT SEWAGE

COMBINED SEWER INPUT

( ) (

GREY WATER

WATER INPUT

surface runoff [flex]

sewage load [constant]

POST INTERVENTION

overlay 100 YEAR STORM

water conveyance

TREATED CITY WATER

circulation

Ashbridges Bay [regional treatment]

Further more, The river runs through it has strategically designed a large floodable flex openspace in the center of the site to create a catchment for surface runoff in storm events, reducing flooding hazard on the adjacent communities.

5 YEAR STORM

Once the water has filtered through the River on site, it is either sent back into the community to be used as greywater, or rerouted from the combined sewer line, and into the storm sewer.

Although the reduction of sewage load on Ashbridges Bay may be minuscule, the hope of future developments around the city following this approach would most certainly make a difference.

( ) ( ) River Flow

1420m3

=

-

1331.3

Grey water 88.7m3

m3 per day

community centre splill out program

community education programs

flexible street parking

substantial weight located above structural walls

pedestrian only bioswale inner streetscapes

trellis structure & urban agricultrue

solar panels generate power for live work units

ttc subway station

floodplain flexible openspace

flexible openspace

Bloor Plaza acts as the North Node for Community activity and Program, as well as an iconic entryway into the ravine corridor from Bloor. Its design provides an introduction towards the theme of juxtaposition between hard orthogonal lines characteristic of human development, and the sinuous forms of nature.

The Plaza space contains the Tiered Reed Beds that filter sewage once it has reached primary treatment from the sewage plant beneath the plaza.

GFA = 181 300 FAR = 0.82

Residential - 28%

Office - 11%

Commercial - 14%

Community -12%

Live Work - 8%

Institutional - 11%

Parking - 28%

PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION

GFA = 144 700 FAR = 0.66

Residential - 34%

Office - 13%

Commercial - 17%

Community - 14%

Live Work - 10%

Institutional - 8%

PROGRAM BY TOTAL %

required - 22000m2 GFA - 36600m2 166%

PARKING

required - 10000m2 GFA - 12600m2 126%

INSTITUTIONAL

required - 10000m2 GFA - 21800m2 218%

COMMUNITY

GFA - 13100m2

LIVE WORK

required - 35000m2 GFA - 25500m2 74%

COMMERCIAL

required - 15000m2 GFA - 19800m2 132%

OFFICE

required - 50000m2 GFA - 51900m2 104%

RESIDENTIAL

PROGRAM BY REQUIRED TARGETS

45 °

EAST

and

WEST

30 °

Hargreaves Associates International Horticulture Exhibition 2019, Beijing education and the future creative garden design concept-design development 2017-18 (oct-jan) 16 weeks construction drawing review-construction observation 2019 -current

Nearly one eighth of the worlds plants (roughly 31,000 species) are native to China, many of which have been exported and cultivated in other similar regions of the world over the past few millennium. This is evident in North America, where a wide variety of the species commonly planted in contemporary parks and public spaces throughout the continent are endemic China.

It is this seemingly untold story that EAST AND WEST seeks to explore.

The proposed garden is divided into four Site Character Zones that together create an abstraction of global Plant Hardiness Zones.

Plant species from a variety of hardiness zones common to both China and the United States are on display in Site Character Zones as representations of the real world, and contribute to a unique experience in each. In The ebb and flow of the subdividing hedge rows create a series of micro spaces within, that allow visitors to engage and interact with the garden in a variety of ways and at their own pace.

A hierarchy of pedestrian paths permeate through the garden in a maze-like network. This configuration promotes fluid movement between the more social group viewing areas along the wide formal perimeter walk, with the immersive experience of the smaller paths within. The curvilinear hedge rows gracefully stretch vertically, where the datum created by their sculpturally form raises to allow for archway openings through and between zones.

56

LANDSCAPE AS EXPERIENCE east and west

VIEWS FROM THE EXPO PLAZA

Views from outside vary as visitors walk the perimeter of the site. In most instances, the curvilinear hedge rows only allow for foregrounded viewing (left), however moments of hedge separation and path openings reveal view corridors through the length of the garden (right).

Zone 1 PLAINS & SHRUBLAND

58

LANDSCAPE AS EXPERIENCE east and west

Zone 2 MONTAINE

Zone 3 WILD MEADOW

Zone 4 WETLAND

Each of the four Site Character Zones are defined by sculptural hedge rows, where archway openings allow visitors to explore the contrasting visual character of each zone along a weaving circulation network.

In combination with the perimeter formal walk, the garden can be experienced from both outside and within.

The terraced elevation of the zones provides an underlying infrastructural function, where stormwater is collected in low-lying wetlands. At the same time, the terracing uniquely engages Expo visitors in the adjacent public spaces through curated views, encouraging an exploration of the garden and the opportunity to learn about how China’s native plant species have influenced public space design in the United States and throughout the world.

45 °

ZONE 01

30 °

HARDINESS

(hardiness < 6)

CHINA

ZONE 03

UNITED STATES 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

ZONE 02

(hardiness 6)

(hardiness 7)

10

11

ZONE 04

50° - 40°

40° - 30°

30° - 20°

20° - 10°

10° - 0°

0° - -10°

-10° - -20°

-20° - -30°

-30° - -40°

-40° - -50°

-50° - -60°

(hardiness > 7)

2019 World Horticulture Expo Creative Gardens

EAST AND WEST Landscape Architecture Journal Published: 2018 February Nearly one eighth of the worlds plants (roughly 31,000 unique species) are native to China. Over the past few millennia, many of these species have undergone a global migration from the exportation to - and cultivation in, other similar regions of the world. In this way, many places have an underlying geo-spatial relationship with China regarding prevalent plant species in local urban ecology and public spaces. This is especially true in the United States, where throughout the country a wide variety of the plant species commonly planted in public and private landscapes are native to China. On any given day in San Francisco for example, it is common to see Ginko biloba or Ulmus parvifolia trees shading sidewalks, and Acer palmatum trees, a variety of Syringa shrubs, Cotoneaster groundcovers, and Salvia perennials in parks and openspaces. Designing and implementing landscapes throughout the United States (and internationally) has provided us with a unique insight towards this reoccurring theme, and it is this seemingly untold horticultural story that Hargreaves Associatesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; creative garden EAST AND WEST seeks to explore.

Commonly used to spatially define the geographic areas where individual plant species survive and/or thrive, plant hardiness zones are influenced by factors such as local climate, weather patterns, and height above sea level. After a series of mapping exercises to understand the commonalities between China and the United States it was evident that while China experiences a greater range in tropical extremes, both countries share a similar range in plant hardiness zones, thus allowing for the proliferation of Chinese plants in the United States.

The design for the 2030m2 garden plot at the International Horticultural Exhibition 2019, divides the site into four weaving and intersecting â&#x20AC;&#x153;Garden Zonesâ&#x20AC;?, each representing one of these shared hardiness

60

zones. Densely planted topiary hedge rows both separate and define each of the Garden Zones. The curvilinear hedge row geometries signify a micro interpretation of the seemingly free flowing organic nature of the macro hardiness zones in the real world, and their neutral character draws visual emphasis on the environments within.

Each Garden Zone is comprised of plantings which represent a small sample of the migrated species from China to the United States, and also grow in the respective plant hardiness zone, creating a visual contrast and a dramatically different experiential character as you move through the design.

Within each of the Garden Zones, the planted areas contain three distinct planting elements; bars, clouds, and accents. The bars are comprised of rows of varying widths that are planted with individual shrub and groundcover species; the fine textured clouds contain larger sized shrubs edged with granite curbs; and the accents punctuate the spaces with the largest, individually planted specimen shrubs species. By planting these elements as groups of the same species, each of the Garden Zones display plants native to China in a method that deconstructs one of China’s various ecotypes, while at the same time compositionally maintaining a setting that might also be found in the United States - Zone 1 creates an environment representative of a Plains and Shrubland ecotype, Zone 2 becomes Montane, Zone 3 as Wild Meadows, and Zone 4 as Wetlands.

Zone 1’s plains and shrubland is defined by the contrast of the flowing bar species meant to represent the traditional monocultured rows of windbreaks, with the woody green cloud and accent plantings. The varied height and brightly colored linear bars – the violet vertical stature of the Elsholtzia and the dense circular yellow Kerria against the floating white blooms of the Astilbe arendsii ‘Astary’ – draw the eye across the full length of the garden whilst the layering of the foliage-rich clouds and accents plantings both impede and separate to enable such views.

Texture and seasonality are brought forth in the plantings of Zone 2, representing the visual character of succulent type species that grow in the rugged environmental conditions of the montane. The dense evergreen Pinus pumila cloud plantings lie amongst the parallel bars of prickly Osmanthus, Pleioblastus, and Sarcococca, juxtaposed by the dark hues of the Ophiopogon planiscapus ‘Nigrescens’s long grassy blades. Sitting above the bars and clouds, the colored foliage of the Loropetalum chinense specimens become the focus, as

61

LANDSCAPE AS EXPERIENCE east and west

if highlighting the natural speckling of hill and mountain slopes.

Color and Smell engage the senses of Zone 3 garden explorers. Just as in natural wild meadows, ornamental grasses and wildflowers make up both the bar and cloud planting elements. The monocultured arrangements of the bar and clouds create groupings of single species as if displaying a separation of the individual wild meadow ecotype components. When adjacent to walkways, the groupings of species allow for focused scents like those of the Anemone hupehensis and the touch of the varying sized blooms of the Iris’s against the Thalictrum rochebrunianum, to create a unique source of interaction with the garden.

The textures of Zone 4 represent the saturated grasses of tropical humid Wetlands. Spreads of large reeds and sedge type Miscanthus are visible from within the Wild Meadows of Zone 3 and create a sense of curiosity to discover what lies beyond. Viewed from the adjacent Creative Gardens Plaza to the west, the deep red color of the Imperata cylindrica ‘Rubra’ are sprinkled throughout the emergent Carex and Acorus that line the upper wetland shelf. Engaged by this play on color in combination with the textures of the Miscanthus sinensis ‘Zebrinus’, visitors in the Creative Gardens Plaza are encouraged to enter and explore the East and West garden further.

Complimenting the varied planting selection, each of the four Garden Zones terrace in height by 0.15m (approximately the height of one step tread), drawing inspiration from the stepped gradient in elevation above sea level typically experienced among plant hardiness zones globally. The consistent height of the hedge rows creates a unique eyelevel datum that when combined with the stepping topography at the edge of each Garden Zone, provides a feeling of openness to the garden in front and enclosure behind, encouraging a sense of curiosity to explore and discover.

Seatwalls adjacent to the hedge rows both retain the terracing topography and provide a consistent

62

seating element along their full length, allowing garden explorers the freedom to find their own place to sit and unwind. The top of the seatwalls are made of lateral wood slats that emphasizes the curvature of the Garden Zones and hedge rows, and sit above a corten steel base of earthy color tones. Segments of the seatwalls have backrests of consistent materials that allow the elderly a comfortable place to relax with friends, family, and loved ones.

A hierarchy of paths delineate the various types of accessible spaces and associated experiences within the garden. A wide formalized promenade constructed of granite pavers extends along two sides of the garden perimeter where long wood slat benches lie beneath substantial shade trees. The promenadeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s generous width has a capacity for both large and small groups, creating a forum for socializing while providing vantage points which overlook the terraced layering of the Garden Zones, and create rare moments where view corridors open from between the gracefully curving hedge rows. Within the garden, a network of informal paths made of decomposed granite permeate through the garden, allowing visitors to see, smell, and touch the plantings in a fully interactive experience. At five moments within the garden the seatwalls push downward and the hedge rows stretch vertically upward, breaking away from their consistent eyelevel height, to expose tilted elliptical openings which enable garden goers to move from one Garden Zone to another - an experience as if entering a gateway to another world.

As the sun goes down and the day turns to dusk, landscape lighting illuminates the different planting character elements that uniquely define each Garden Zone. In Zone 1, randomly spaced strip-lights highlight the foliage of the flowering bar plantings from below. In Zone 2â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Montane, the seasonal interest accent plantings are lit by spot up-lights. And in the Wild Meadows of Zone 3, small post-top lights are randomly hidden within the meadow plantings of the clouds, illuminating the grasses and perennials in bloom and creating a sense of walking amongst fireflyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s.

Much attention has been given to the refinement of details and the distribution of materials throughout the design. In addition to the formal pathway and the cloud planting edging, wide architecturally cut granite slabs

63

LANDSCAPE AS EXPERIENCE east and west

frame the entire garden – a feature only reoccurring within as the single step tread below the hedge openings.

Richly colored wood slats form the top of the seatwalls and the linear benches along the garden perimeter, and the rusted corten steel facing beneath each is also repeated below the granite slab frames in their wall condition.

In combination with the array of plantings in each Garden Zone, the consistent use of granite, wood, and corten steel creates a unique sense of place and a timelessness like no other.

EAST AND WEST exposes the horticultural relationship between two nations that is most often forgotten, and unknown to many. In this sense, the experience of walking through the garden is intended to evoke not just a new understanding about horticulture, but an unfound freedom to imagine. The garden is for dreamers; you can dream about the garden and the plants within; you can dream about the migration of plants from the East to the West, or the many other ways that the global environment might relate between China and North America; you can dream about your children learning in the garden, or simply enjoying the beauty and fragrances of the flowers in bloom. You can dream while you’re in the garden, and you’ll even dream about the garden once you’ve left.

We are excited to share our interpretation of this amazing horticultural phenomenon in our small garden design EAST AND WEST at the International Horticultural Exhibition 2019, and we look forward to experiencing and dreaming with you.

64

Garden Name Design Firm Lead Landscape Architect Size Date Location Garden Plot Design Credit

65

LANDSCAPE AS EXPERIENCE

East and West Hargreaves Associates George Hargreaves 2030m2 September â&#x20AC;&#x201C; December 2017 2019 International Horticultural Expo, Beijing - Yanqing, Beijing Creative Garden D32 George Hargreaves, Matt Perotto, Misty March

PLAINS AND SHRUBLAND (BAR planting as focal)

ACCENTS CLOUDS BAR

Staunton Elsholtzia Elsholtzia stauntonii

Chinese primrose Primula kisoana ‘Alba’

Japanese Kerria Kerria japonica ‘ Pleniflora’

Evergreen Hydrangea Dichroa febrifuga

ZONE 01 (hardiness < 6) (BAR) Wintergreen Barberry Berberis julianae

Seven-Son Flower Heptacodium miconioides

Chinese Sweetshrub Calycanthus raulstonii x ‘Hartlage Wine’

Winterhazel Corylopsis platypetala

ZONE 02 (hardiness 6) (ACCENT) Chinese Witchhazel Hamamelis mollis

ZONE 03 (hardiness 7) (CLOUD)

ZONE 04 (hardiness > 7)

Delavay Privet Ligustrum delavayanum

66

LANDSCAPE AS EXPERIENCE east and west

Chinese Blue Oak Quercus glauca

Chinese Elm Ulmus parvifolia

Helwingia Helwingia chinensis

MONTANE

(ACCENT planting as focal)

Himalayan Sweetbox Sarcococca confusa

Dwarf Whitestripe Bamboo Black Mondo Grass Sweet Olive Pleioblastus variegatus Ophiopogon planiscapus Osmanthus ‘Nigrescens’ heterophyllus ‘Sasaba’

WILD MEADOW

(CLOUD planting as focal)

Dwarf Siberian Pine Pinus pumila

Oriental Arborvitae Thuja orientalis

Thunberg Spirea Spiraea thunbergii

Rhododendron Rhododendron cinnabarinum

Chinese Sage Salvia miltiorrhiza

Blackberry Lily Belamcanda chinensis

The Old Orange Daylily Hemerocallis fulva

Daylily Hemerocallis citrina

Rodgersia Rodgersia pinnata ‘Elegans’

WETLAND Japanese Maple Acer palmatum

Japanese Maple Acer palmatum ‘Ukigumo’

Japanese Lace Siberian Yarrow Achillea sibirica ‘Japanese Lace’

Terrestrial Orchid Bletilla ‘Yokohama Kate’

Chinese Iris Iris tectorum

Japanese Anemone Anemone x hybrida ‘Prince Heinrich’

Wind Flowers Anemone hupehensis ‘Honorine Jobert’

Chinese Meadow Rue Thalictrum rochebrunianum

Chinese fairy bells Disporum cantoniense ‘Night Heron’ Sedge Grass Carex oshimensis ‘Evergold’

Grassy Leaved Sweet Flag Acorus gramineus ‘Variegatus’

Alumn-Olive Elaeagnus umbellata

Golden Sweet Flag Acorus gramineus ‘Ogon’

Chinese Silvergrass Little Miss Maiden Grass Miscanthus sinensis Miscanthus sinensis ‘Little Anderss.

Miss’ PPAF

Sweet Flag Acorus gramineus

Chinese Fountaingrass Pennisetum alopecuroides

Waterfall Millet Phaenosperma globosum

Hardy Sugar Cane Saccharum arundinaceum

The EAST AND WEST design creates two distinct types of space that allow for varied interaction with the garden - the wide formal walk provides space for active & social group viewing from the perimeter while the curvi-linear hedge rows create smaller moments of immersive recluse within. Hedge row height is calibrated at eye level, and the terracing of the Site Character Zones allows for a varied datum within the garden.

active & social space immersive recluse seating views over views blocked overlook point

Plants selected for each Site Character Zone are representative of typical plants found in each of the identified hardiness zones shared by China and the United States. Within each zone, three types of formal planting arrangements create a full composition. Visual emphasis is placed one of the tree planting elements, taking precedent from prevalent planting structure within regional ecotypes. Geometric linear ‘bar’ planting forms the underlying structure, and slightly mounded planting ‘clouds’ float above.

Small circular sections of accent planting punctuate the space, stimulating the senses and contributing to the differing character between zones.

PATH 1 + 0.30 m

ZONE 1 + 0.30 m

slope down adjacent topography

bar planting

existing grade

cloud planting

ZONE 2 + 0.15 m

accent planting

ZONE 3 + 0.00 m viewlines seatwalls retain elevation difference between zones

ZONE 4 - 0.45 m

1” = 10’ 1:120

Hargreav 315 Bay St San Francisco, CA

2019 World Ho Beiji

Landscape A No 35 Qinghua East Ro Haidian District, Issued For: No.: Description: 1 2 3

HEDGE OPENING & ARMATURE PLANTING INTEGRATION - ELEVATION

CONCEPT DESIGN SCHEMATIC DESIGN PRELIMINARY DESIG

03

EAST AN

D32 CREAT Key Plan:

Registration and Signature:

T NO NST CO Sheet Name:

Details - Pla & Arm Project No.: CHE1701 Drawn By: Checked By:

HEDGE OPENING & ARMATURE - SECTION

02

HEDGE OPENING & ARMATURE - ELEVATION

Approved By:

01

Scale:

MP MP GMc AS NOTED

L-516

MOVING WITHIN

The seatwalls act as both a linear seat extending the length of the garden, as well as the step tread between the differing elevation of adjacent zones. As one element with a dual function, the seatwalls challenge preconceived notions of single use elements as space for sitting or space for walking. The experience of walking through the hedge row archways creates a captivating moment of compression and release and movement across the seatwall contributes to a heightened sensory experience as visitors move from one zone to the next.

H 31 San Fran ℄

OBJ

℄

OBJ

℄

OBJ

2019 W

Land No 35 Qinghua Haidian

℄

OB

J

Issued For: No.: Description: 1 2 3

CONCEPT SCHEMATI PRELIMINA

EAS

D32 C Key Plan:

SEATWALL (WALL-3) - PLAN AT HEDGE OPENING

02

Registration and Sign

N CO Sheet Name:

Det Project No.:

C Drawn By: Checked By:

SEATWALL (WALL-3) - TYPICAL ELEVATION AT HEDGE OPENING

Approved By:

01

Scale:

AS

view hamilton

Hargreaves Associates City of Hamilton design competition for pier 8 promenade park 2015 (jul-aug) 8 weeks

VIEW Hamilton brings together the natural and the manufactured – both central to Hamilton’s socio-cultural identity – to create a vibrant and unique public space along the Hamilton Harbour shoreline. A welcoming and inclusive civic space, VIEW Hamilton celebrates and amplifies these themes, creating a waterfront experience that is authentically Hamilton, serving as a catalyst for the emerging Pier 8 waterfront neighbourhood as well as Hamilton’s on-going urban renaissance.

EASTWOOD PARK

HMCS HAIDA

The Niagara Escarpment and the wetlands and adjacent meadows of the Hamilton Harbour connect the contemporary city with its geologic past. At the human scale, the steel industry has greatly contributed to the economic vitality of the city and its civic identity as the ‘Steel Capital of Canada’. Both of these systems have played a pivotal material role in the morphology of the shoreline which now defines the edge of Pier 8, and the Waterfront Promenade Park.

The north section of the park is URBAN, including a series of flexible, open plazas, interspersed with an expansive lawn, wetland and meadow. Materials include stone, steel, and softgrid grass pavers, emphasizing the site’s postindustrial urban character, which is contrasted by views to the woodland shoreline to the north.

The east section of the park is WILD, where enclosure and immersion in native woodland plantings offers respite, contrasted to views of the imposing steel factories and Skyway Bridge east across the harbor.

74

LANDSCAPE AS EXPERIENCE view hamilton

PERFORMANCE

GATHERING

JUMP

CLIMB

INFORMAL SPORTS

INFORMAL SPORTS

DOG WALKING

BIKING

RUNNING

WALKING

BOAT MOORING

PICNIC

SUNBATHING

LOOKOUT

WINTER INTEREST

ORNAMENTAL PLANTING

NATIVE PLANTING

INTERPRETIVE ART

TIMELINE REFERENCE

SEATING

TERRACE SEATING

NATURE TRAILS

BIRD WATCHING

WOODLANDS

DOWNTOWN HAMILTON

THE ESCARPMENT

COOTES PARADISE

BAYFRONT PARK

PIER 4 PARK HARBOURWEST MARINA

HARBOUR ROOM PIER 8

PROMENADE WOODLANDS WEDGE LAWN URBAN PLAZA

PIER 8 ESCARPMENT HISTORIC PLAY

WATERFRONT TRAIL PROMENADE LENS WETLAND

UPPER PROMENADE

VISTA GARDENS

SLOPING MEADOW

CIRCULATION

HARDSCAPE TYPOLOGIES

SOFTSCAPE TYPOLOGIES

SUSTAINABLE WATER SYSTEMS

FOREST

MANUFACTURED

VIEW HAMILTON present day

FIRST INHABITANTS

MEADOW & MARSH

ESCARPMENT

BUSINESS

SHIPPING MANUFACTORIES

WOOD WHARF

CREATION OF LANDSCAPE SETTLEMENT CIVIC IDENTITY GEOLOGIC

1791 Dominion of Upper Canada

1908 Eastwood Park Opens

ENVIRONMENTALISM & NEW RENAISSANCE

1970 POP 296,826 1950 City officials deem Hamilton Harbour unfit for for recreation and shut down all beaches

1939 QEW Complete

1910 Steel Company of Canada (STELCO)

1826 first bridge built over Burlington Canal

1792 John Graves Simcoe names bay Burlington Bay (later renamed Hamilton Harbour)

Iroquois Confederacy of Five (later Six) Nations called the bay (Macassa, meaning “beautiful waters”)

PUBLIC ACCESS

1900 POP 51,561

1815 establishment by George Hamilton

1912 Dominion Steel Casting Company (DOFASCO)

1846 Official City Status

1867 CONFEDERATION

1812 War of 1812 and Battle of Stoney Creek

1917 swimming in Harbour health outcry

1870s Iron & Steel industry starts

RESTORATION

ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS

INDUSTRIALIZATION

1800 POP 600 1600 first explorers (Étienne Brûlé & Lasalle)

Lake Iroquis drains to current Lake Ontario & forms Iroqouis Plains

LOSS OF ECOLOGY

EFFICIENCY ESCARPMENT FILL GLOBAL

NATIONAL IDENTITY

COLONIZATION

10,000 BC 10,000 BC end of last glaciation (Quaternary Glaciation & Wisconsin Glacial Episode)

VIEW |HAMILTON past | WATERFRONT present futureHYBRID STEEL FACTORIES RECLAIMING POST-INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION STEEL SHEET PILES

1945-1952 WWII causes spike in industry introduction on heavy pollutants into harbour

1960s economic and industrial boom

2001 hamilton amalgamation

1990s beautification and ecological control underway

1952 current lift bridge built over Burlington Canal (rail) 1958 Burlington Skyway bridge 1 opens

cultural and environmental awareness and connections

2015 Randle Reef Stage 1 begins

1994 visible and measurable water quality improvement in Hamilton Harbour (Sheila Copps harbour swim)

2017 STELCO (US Steel) purchased by Bedrock Industries

1970s Internal Joint Commission Bayfront Park Opens (capped Lax Lands) (governs water usage in Great Lakes Basin) recognize need for action - start of greater public awareness 2007 STELCO files for bankrupcy & purchased by US Steel

1824 Burlington Canal dredged within Harbour created first as navigable waterway

2017 POP 536,917

Waterfront Trail Opens

1980s improved pollution controls

VIEW HAMILTON - Pier 8 as Park

ACROSS HAMILTON HARBOUR

Tall Ship Festivals & expansion of Waterfront events

NATURAL

FOREST

ESCARPMENT (ROCK) LANDSCAPE (NATURE)

WHARFS (ROCK) (WOOD)

INFILL (ROCK) (STEEL)

The Hamilton Harbour shoreline is largely natural and public to the north and west, and a hard, manufactured, and industrial edge to the east and south. These opposing conditions meet in a confluence at Pier 8. VIEW Hamilton frames these spectacular 1867 CONFEDERATION views, while creating a public open space that embodies these two distinct experiences: the URBAN and the WILD 10,000 BC end of last glaciation (Quaternary Glaciation & Wisconsin Glacial Episode)

1600 first explorers (Étienne Brûlé & Lasalle)

1791 Dominion of Upper Canada

1815 establishment by George Hamilton

1826 first bridge built over Burlington Canal

1792 John Graves Simcoe names bay Burlington Bay (later renamed Hamilton Harbour)

Lake Iroquis drains to current Lake Ontario & forms Iroqouis Plains

Iroquois Confederacy of Five (later Six) Nations called the bay (Macassa, meaning “beautiful waters”)

1846 Official City Status

1908 Eastwood Park Opens

1824 Burlington Canal dredged within Harbour created first as navigable waterway

Waterfront Trail 1950 City officials deem 1960s economic and 1980s improved Opens Hamilton Harbour unfit for industrial boom pollution controls cultural and environmental recreation and shut down all 1990s beautification and 2001 hamilton awareness and connections beaches ecological control underway amalgamation 1945-1952 WWII causes 1952 current lift bridge 2015 Randle Reef 1994 visible and measurable water spike in industry built over Burlington Stage 1 begins quality improvement in Hamilton introduction on heavy Canal (rail) 2017 STELCO (US Steel) Harbour (Sheila Copps harbour swim) pollutants into harbour purchased by Bedrock 1958 Burlington Skyway Bayfront Park Opens Industries bridge 1 opens (capped Lax Lands) VIEW HAMILTON Pier 8 as Park 1970s Internal Joint Commission

1939 QEW Complete

1910 Steel Company of Canada (STELCO) 1912 Dominion Steel Casting Company (DOFASCO) 1917 swimming in Harbour health outcry

1812 War of 1812 and Battle of Stoney Creek

21ST CENTURY / POST INDUSTRIAL HYBRID NATURE (GRASSPAVE)

1870s Iron & Steel industry starts

(governs water usage in Great Lakes Basin) recognize need for action - start of greater public awareness

2007 STELCO files for bankrupcy & purchased by US Steel

Tall Ship Festivals & expansion of Waterfront events

6M WID

MOORING BO

ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHT

MANUFACTURED

NATURAL

present day

FIRST INHABITANTS

MEADOW & MARSH

ESCARPMENT

BUSINESS

SHIPPING MANUFACTORIES

WOOD WHARF

CREATION OF LANDSCAPE SETTLEMENT CIVIC IDENTITY GEOLOGIC

Lake Iroquis drains to current Lake Ontario & forms Iroqouis Plains Iroquois Confederacy of Five (later Six) Nations called the bay (Macassa, meaning “beautiful waters”)

EFFICIENCY ESCARPMENT FILL GLOBAL

INDUSTRIALIZATION

1900 POP 51,561

1800 POP 600 1600 first explorers (Étienne Brûlé & Lasalle)

1791 Dominion of Upper Canada

1908 Eastwood Park Opens

1815 establishment by George Hamilton

1792 John Graves Simcoe names bay Burlington Bay (later renamed Hamilton Harbour) 1812 War of 1812 and Battle of Stoney Creek

1824 Burlington Canal dredged within Harbour created first as navigable waterway

1912 Dominion Steel Casting Company (DOFASCO)

1846 Official City Status

1867 CONFEDERATION 1870s Iron & Steel industry starts

PUBLIC ACCESS

ENVIRONMENTALISM & NEW RENAISSANCE

1970 POP 296,826

2017 POP 536,917

Waterfront Trail 1950 City officials deem 1960s economic and 1980s improved Opens Hamilton Harbour unfit for industrial boom pollution controls cultural and environmental recreation and shut down all 1990s beautification and 2001 hamilton awareness and connections beaches ecological control underway amalgamation 1945-1952 WWII causes 1952 current lift bridge 2015 Randle Reef 1994 visible and measurable water spike in industry built over Burlington Stage 1 begins quality improvement in Hamilton introduction on heavy Canal (rail) 2017 STELCO (US Steel) Harbour (Sheila Copps harbour swim) pollutants into harbour purchased by Bedrock 1958 Burlington Skyway Bayfront Park Opens Industries bridge 1 opens (capped Lax Lands) VIEW HAMILTON Pier 8 as Park 1970s Internal Joint Commission

1939 QEW Complete

1910 Steel Company of Canada (STELCO)

1826 first bridge built over Burlington Canal

RESTORATION

ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS

COLONIZATION

10,000 BC 10,000 BC end of last glaciation (Quaternary Glaciation & Wisconsin Glacial Episode)

NATIONAL IDENTITY

POLLUTION STEEL SHEET PILES VIEW HAMILTON STEEL FACTORIES RECLAIMING WATERFRONT POST-INDUSTRIAL HYBRID LOSS OF ECOLOGY

1917 swimming in Harbour health outcry

(governs water usage in Great Lakes Basin) recognize need for action - start of greater public awareness

2007 STELCO files for bankrupcy & purchased by US Steel

Tall Ship Festivals & expansion of Waterfront events

TO BURLINGTON/ TORONTO

TO SKYWAY

HARBOUR ROOM

HISTORIC PLAY

URBAN PLAZA

LENS WETLAND

SLOPING MEADOW

VISTA GARDENS

WEDGE LAWN

UPPER PROMENADE

VIEW TERMINUS PLAZA VIEW TERMINUS PLAZA FUTURE PARK PAVILION

INFORMAL GATHERING SPACE INDUSTRIAL TERRACES

INFORMAL GATHERING SPACE

SECURE BIKE PARKING

SLOPED WALK OPTIONAL VIEW PLAZA

ELECTRICAL SERVICE WITHIN TERRACES FORMAL GATHERING SPACE

PUBLIC ART SHADE STRUCTURE

ALTERNATIVE SHADE STRUCTURE LOCATION

HYDRATION STATION ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING

SLOPED WALK

FUTURE PUBLIC ART

INTERPRETIVE PUBLIC ART SECURE BIKE PARKING

VEHICLE BARRIERS FORMAL GATHERING SPACE

SLOPED WALK

PIER 8 ESCARPMENT

WOODLAND SEATING BENCH

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SPILL-OUT USES

TO SKYWAY

ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING

MOORING BOLLARDS PROMENADE WOODLANDS WOODLAND TERRACES INFORMAL PLAZA

FUTURE GREENWAY

CONNECTIVITY WITH FUTURE GREENWAY WOODLAND SEATING BENCH

The visually juxtaposing character of the urban and the wild is underpinned with thorough consideration for park function in a variety of layers. Accessible routes connect the upper and lower promenades of the park and permeate within its inner spaces, whilst service vehicle and multiuse trail connectivity are shared immediately adjacent to the waterfront edge. Hardscape and softscape landscape types are distributed throughout providing varied opportunities for active engagement and passive enjoyment. Sustainable stormwater systems connect the hard and soft, and the site with the Harbour.

VIEW FROM CITY

JOHN ST. N

VIEW FROM CITY

HUGHSON ST. N

DE MULTI USE TRAIL

OLLARDS

TING

TO STEEL & INDUSTRY

WATERFRONT TRAIL PROMENADE

WOODLAND TERRACES

TO ESCARPMENT WOODLAND SEATING BENCH

HMCS HAIDA

URBAN PLAZA BACKGROUND = Natural (Escarpment) MIDGROUND = Hybrid (Softgrid Paving) FOREGROUND = Manufactured (Urban Plaza)

78

LANDSCAPE AS EXPERIENCE view hamilton

NATURAL & WILD BACKGROUND = Manufactured (Steel Industry) MIDGROUND = Hybrid (Softgrid Paving) FOREGROUND = Natural (Wild Native Ecologies)

A WATERFRONT DICHOTOMY

The northern section is designed to accommodate everyday neighborhood activities, as well as community events and festivals. Large and small events will utilize the plazas and shoreline, zones where vendors can set up tents and ships can dock. The eastern section of the park is a site of respite and natural wonder. Woodlands of native birch and aspen colonize gradually sloping landforms.

Seating at the south end of the park provides an experience of enclosure and immersion in the woodlands - a unique front door to the park and waterfront beyond.