Renia Kagkou | Urban Design & Geo-spatial Analysis

RENIA

RENIA KAGKOU PORTFOLIO Harvard University Graduate School of Design Master of Architecture in Urban Design Master in Design Studies, Urbanism , Landscape & Ecology

2017

R

93 Kirkland street, Cambridge, MA , 02138 Athens, Greece May 23, 1990 917 413 9497 nkagkou@gsd.harvard.edu

Address Hometown Birthdate Mobile E-mail

01

URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN

02

SPATIAL ANALYSIS

03

recipro[city] | thesis design GSD STU | industrial machine

inequality in NYC | GSD 5407 integrative manhattan | GSD 1221 energy landscapes | CGA

RESEARCH agricultural geographies is pacific limitless[ed]? | UTL wood urbanism | Publication

4

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

city block

city block

city block

city block

city block

city block

city block

city block

960 ft

city block

960 ft 960 ft

380 ft 260 ft

380 ft

240 ft

Barcelona

Block Comparison in three different cities

160 ft

380 ft

380 ft 960 ft 260 ft

New York

380 ft

380 ft

260 ft

Athens

380 ft

380 ft

260 ft

440 ft

440 ft

The projectparcel envisions an innovative public realm parcel parcel parcel 440 ft 65 ft within metropolitan Athens.

The transformation of parcel parcel 88 440 ft ft vacant spaces into an interstitial network that 120 ft 160 ft 120 ft 160 ft parcel mitigates the boundaries between public and 120 ft 160 ft Midtwown New York City L’ Exampie Barcelona and to Barcelona Midtwownprivate, New York Cityimplements an adaptive design L’ Exampie 120 ft 160 ft address the problems of City the contemporary city Midtwown New York L’ Exampie Barcelona caused by the economic, institutional and social Midtwown New York City crisis. Today’s perplexing problems of the Athenian center require a cross-disciplinary approach at an urban scale.

The choice of Exarchia for the application of the thesis proposal was based on the district’s high numbers of store closures since the 2008 economic recession, the exacerbated drug and criminality issues as well as its unique social parameters of a very active community.

The intervention empowers collectiveness, culture and sustainability while responding pragmatically to the conditions of the city and the challenges of austerity. It utilizes the city’s urban voids to implement a network of flexible, multifunctional spaces through bottom-up initiatives.

65 ft 88 ft

65 ft 88 ft

parcel 60 ft

65 ft

parcel 100 ft

65 ft 88 ft

Exarchia Athens

L’ Exampie Barcelona

thesis design proposal | recipro[city]

5

RECIPRO[CITY] Thesis Design Proposal for an expanded public paradigm in Exarchia, Athens 10th Semester, thesis | Michael Su, Philippe Baumann [instructors]

6

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

Kypseli

Exarchia

Historic Triangle

0 km

1 km

2 km

3 km

0 km

4 km

1 km

2 km

3 km

4 km

3 km

4 km

Three Areas of Study Historic Triangle | Exarchia | Kypseli

0 km

0 km

1 km

2 km

3 km

4 km

0 km

1 km

2 km

3 km

1 km

2 km

0 km

3 km

1 km

2 km

3 km

4 km

1 km

0 km

1 km

2 km

3 km

2 km

0 km

1 km

2 km

3 km

4 km

2 km

3 km

1 km

2 km

3 km

4 km

0 km

1 km

2 km

3 km

4 km

0 km

1 km

2 km

3 km

4 km

0 km

1 km

2 km

3 km

4 km

2011 Population Athens: 664,046 Suburbs: 3,074,160

4 km

1 km

0 km

4 km

Athens: 867,023 Suburbs: 1,673,218

0 km

4 km

3 km

1971 Population

Athens: 437,000 Suburbs: 43,000

City’s Form Development growth & population changes

2 km

0 km

4 km

1921 Population

0 km

1 km

Past to Present During the 20th century, Athens went through a series of transformations that define today’s urban form. Unplanned erection of urban dwellings and the “system consideration” resulted in an unregulated, dense city grid. Private properties and the automobile dominated, while public areas were neglected. The resulting metropolitan environment was lacking quality of living while suburbanization competed for its population and commercial power.

4 km

0 km

1 km

2 km

3 km

4 km

thesis design proposal | recipro[city]

Photos from Exarchia & Kypseli abandoned spaces [top], sidewalk conditions [middle], NTUA campus & Exarchia square [bottom]

Current Conditions The final hit for the Athenian center was the outbreak of the 2008 economic crisis. Protesting, loss of commercial activity and the defacing of public spaces devastated the streetscape. Austerity and the socio-economic instability triggered poverty, homelessness, racism and criminality. Today’s public realm is left unclaimed by the citizens. Aging building stock, squares that lack function as well as marginalized people constitute the pedestrians experience. Vertical segregation is the result of the diverse conditions between the streets and the “retiré” apartments [penthouses]. Eventually, the unutilized spaces become urban voids within the city’s fabric and dominate the streetscape conditions.

7

8

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

Topography & Green

Street Typology

Athens: 2.5 sqm / resident

25m

15m

10m

8m

Elevation Typologies 6m

5m

4m

pilotis

Berlin: 13.0 sqm / resident

sidewalk

New York: 20.0 sqm / resident

Empty Lots

Abandoned Buildings

Vacant Ground Floors

Site Analysis Kypseli and Exarchia districts in relation to the Historical Triangle.

Exarchia by Numbers According to data collected from the NTUA School of Architecture for Exarchia, in 2013 there were 467 vacant ground floor stores, 86 abandoned buildings and 21 empty lots.

thesis design proposal | recipro[city]

a a

Parks & Squares Courtyards Empty Lots Abandoned Buildings Vacant Ground Floor

Master Plan of Interconnected Urban Voids within Exarchia & Kypseli on site personal research conducted in January 2014

0m

100 m

200 m

300 m

400 m

0m

50 m

100 m

150 m

200 m

9

10

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

Gestures of Penetration urban dwellings & neoclassical buildings

Exarchia Square

Conceptual Proposal Perspective [a-a] Interconnectivity of the public spaces formed by utilizing negative spaces

thesis design proposal | recipro[city]

0m

100 m

200 m

300 m

400 m

0m

50 m

100 m

150 m

200 m

Connecting the NTUA with Exarchia Square penetration of ground floor urban voids

National Technical University of Athens

folding

cutting

splitting

shifting

off-setting

supporting

11

12

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

Negative Space

Capturing

Splitting

Unfolding

Composing Strategies Axonometric Diagrams of the Negative Space perspective view of the interstitial network

thesis design proposal | recipro[city]

13

Circulation Play Use Work Use Live Use

Allocating Program Integrated Program & Collectiveness The interventions form a multifunctional urban system between the square of Exarchia and the enclosed NTUA School of Architecture campus. Programs from both academia and the plaza are integrated within the “network� and diverse social activities are established.

Vacant stores and basement near the campus incorporate lectures, critiques and other academic events that will foster inspiration and dialogue between the city’s users and its planners. At different times of the day, the same spaces transform into workshop areas, open cinemas, event venues and exhibition spaces. Near Exarchia square, the decaying neoclassical buildings are preserved but also deconstructed encouraging urban agriculture, farmers markets and public dining areas. Participation in the production, sale and consumption of food can create opportunities for income and provide affordability.

Above the streetscape, the first floor residential apartments that have been used by small private practices although they are lacking proper layout for an efficient work environment.

These units are redesigned into affordable, open plan work spaces where creativity, innovation and the local economy will be empowered.

14

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

Plan ground floor public network

Urban Strategies: 1. Reprogramming of urban voids within the city that will reconnect them with the urban fabric.

2. Reactivating public spaces and improving the streetscape and ground floor conditions so that pedestrian circulation is prioritized.

3. Introducing a network of public platforms and communal work spaces that will allow ad hoc activities and will reinforce the multi-functionality of the urban dwelling and reduce vertical segregation 4. Redesigning courtyards and sidewalks with landscape elements that will enrich the respond to the challenges of pollution and bring nature within the concrete environment 5. Resolving the relation of the NTUA campus with the neighborhood through a new main entrance.

thesis design proposal | recipro[city]

15

Network’s Ecosystem The public platforms create continuity between the interventions while a system of low and high planting cools the areas over the hot Athenian summer months, reduces air pollution caused by traffic and introduces soft textures to the intense concrete physical environment.

Eventually, the blocks within the network diminish the boundaries between private and public use, encouraging a concept of sharing and offering resources. The Exarchia paradigm will create new initiatives for urban design and change the way Athenians interact with their city.

High Planting

Low Planting

Public Platform

Fabric & Circulation

Pedestrian Circulation Public Transportation Bus Stops Movement & Landscape Systems panels indicate interventions & planting cools the air and reduces C02

16

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

Long Section cutting through the network’s live, work, play spaces

Revitalizing Vacant Ground Floors urban dwelling near the NTUA campus

thesis design proposal | recipro[city]

17

03 02 01

03. Upper Levels 02. First Levels 01. Ground Levels

Revitalizing Abandoned Neoclassical Buildings neoclassical buildings near the square of Exarchia

LAND USE augmented industrial zoning INDUSTRIAL [M] ZONING

+ RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL 18 RENIA KAGKOUOVERLAY | WORKSAMPLE

INDUSTRIAL USE as driver for

OPERATIONAL M ZONING

WORKSHOPS

COOPERATIVE HOUSIG

collective live-work

FLOOD PARK

STAGE

industrial use

POWER PLANT

FERRY PIER

flood mitigation

GSD STU | Industrial appliance

19

THE INDUSTRIAL APPLIANCE rezoning waterfront industrial [M] zone areas in Manhattan’s east waterfront GSD STU | Carles Muro, Felipe Correa [instructors]

BOATING PIERS

The project suggests changing [M1] industrial zoning of waterfront areas into “operational [M1] zoning”: an integration of flood mitigation and transportation infrastructure, collaborative live-work spaces and recreational areas with industrial land-use. The site is located between the ConEdison steam plant of New York (heating steam) and Stuyvesant town (an affordable housing development) in the east side of Alphabet City in Manhattan. The FDR highway is currently cutting the site from the waterfront.

Based on our analysis of site in relation to the larger context of the Manhattan as well as its infrastructural importance for the city we propose an .the interweaving of relevant land uses. In terms of transportation we suggest a new subway stop on site for the L that runs between Union Square and Williamsburg as well as a new ferry stop to connect the site with the rest of the fabric. The highway is merged with mitigation infrastructure, light manufacturing work spaces and an elevated public pedestrian walk that connects the two blocks with a waterfront public space.

20

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

ANALYSIS WATERFRONT ‘M’ ZONING

New York Metro [M] Zoning Waterfront Areas site ANALYSIS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY

Residential Density site ANALYSIS RETAIL DENSITY

Urban Contextual Analysis Sites of [M] zoning waterfronts overlape with areas of low residential and commectial land use density. The site, although gepgraphycally relevent, remains unconnected to transportation networks.

The highway that surrounds the area has moderate traffic load.

Retail Density site

GSD STU | Industrial appliance

ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS

FERRY ROUTES

TRAFFIC LOAD

Traffic Load site

Connectivity to Subway site

Ferry Routes site

21

22

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

C1-5

R8-B

R8-B C2-5

C2-5

C2-5

C2-5

C2-5

C1-5

C1-5

C1-5

C1-5

C2-5

C2-5

R7-2

C2-5

R7-A M-R

M-R

R7-2

C1-5

C1-5

C1-5

C2-5

R8-B

R7-2

M-R R7-2

R7-2

R7-2

Master Plan

Blocks The Manhattan block is tilted by 90 degrees and accommodates a variety of residential, collaborative livework spaces at the upper floors and retail spaces at the lower spaces.

C2-5

GSD STU | Industrial appliance

23

live/work + power plant + transit hub + flood mitigation system + Highway + industrial workspaces

RE-ZONED LAND

LAND USE + DEVELOPMENT MODEL

PIER

ConEd steam plant

‘public’ circulation + recreation

FDR highway shared light industry space flood wall

Territorial Calibration in Relation to Population territorial zones are redistributed to respond to

SITE

OPERATIONAL WALL

transit hub [ferry + metro terminal]

additional management by: BUILDING COLLECTIVES

appropriated into: CITY LAND BANK

UNIT collective living + working spaces workshop spaces

co-developed with: COMMUNITY LAND TRUST

co-developed with: COMMUNITY LAND TRUST

STRATEGY

appropriated into: DEVELOPMENT AGENTS CITY LAND BANK additionally managed by: BUILDING COLLECTIVES

N

DEVELOPMENT AGENTS

SITE

24

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

PIERS

OPERATIONAL WALL

WATER SPONGE

CITY

highway, promenade, workshops CITY + COMMUNITY TRUST [WORKSHOPS]

absorbs flooding + filters runoff CITY

Section through flood mitigation wall, highway and blocks

GSD STU | Industrial appliance

25

HARD PARK

RESERVOIR

SOFT PARK

14TH ST +TRANSIT TERMINAL

BUILDING WORKSHOP

COMMERCIAL/WORKSPACE

CITY + COMMUNITY TRUST

for storm water CITY

CITY + COMMUNITY TRUST

ferry + metro access CITY

shared workshops BUILDING COLLECTIVE

rentable units COMMUNITY TRUST + BUILDING COLLECTIVE

10M

5M

1M

1:400

26

WC

WC

TICKET MACHINE TICKET BOOTH

ENTRANCE SHOPS

SHOPS

SHOPS

SHOPS

SHOPS

ENTRANCE

TICKET PASS

SHOPS

TICKET BOOTH

TICKET MACHINE

PLANTER

PLANTER

SHOPS

LOUNGE

WC

WC

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

M ST

R

VE

RI

EA

AN

HA TT AN

Ground Level Plan public workshops., retail, subway transit station and ferry station, public park EA

AN TT HA

ST

5M

1M

1:750

R

10M

GROUND LEVEL PLAN

RI

VE

AN

M

ST

R

VE

RI

ST

EA

EA

AN TT HA

AN

M

Wall Vignettes Highway, promenade, workshops

AN TT HA

AN TT HA

AN

M

AN

M

M

R

VE

RI

ST

EA

R

VE

RI

AN

HA TT AN

WC

WC

WC

OFFICE OFFICE

OFFICE

CONFERANCE ROOM

CONFERANCE ROOM

OFFICE

OFFICE

CONFERANCE ROOM

OFFICE

LOUNGE

LOUNGE

WC

GSD STU | Industrial appliance

M ST

AN

R

HA TT AN

VE

RI

EA

Upper Level Plan Collaborative live-work spaces, highway, promenade EA

ST

RI

ST

5M

1M

1:750

R

10M

PROMENADE LEVEL PLAN

VE

R

VE

RI

ST

EA

EA

AN TT HA

AN TT HA

AN

M

AN

M

R

M

VE

RI

ST

EA

R

VE

RI

AN

HA TT AN

EA

ST

RI

VE

R

27

28

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

Live Work Building Collectives

2-floor unit

duplex community

duplex community

Block Diagram Of unit combinations and collective communities

duplex community

duplex community

live-work BUILDING COLLECTIVES

duplex community

duplex community

TYPICAL PARCELS

OPERATIONAL ZONES FUNCTIONS CITY + + transit COMMUNITY TRUST + industrial + recreation + flood mitigation

PROMENADE ZONE + public pedestrian promenade + boating piers CITY

HIGHWAY ZONE + light industry workspaces + highway/raised pier + transit terminal + power plant CITY + COMMUNITY TRUST [WORKSHOPS]

‘GROUND’ ZONE + water sponges/’parks’ + flooding piers + ferry piers + ‘rec’ pier CITY + COMMUNITY TRUST [’PARKS’]

COMBINED CITY + COMMUNITY TRUST

Piers Exploded Diagram multi-functional infrastructure

GSD STU | Industrial appliance

29

30

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

quartile representation[blocks] representation[calls]

calls from quartile 1

50,000 45,000

1

25%

25%

40,000

2

25%

24%

30,000

25% 25%

calls

3 4

calls from quartile 2

35,000

26% 25%

calls from quartile 3

25,000 20,000 15,000

calls from quartile 4

10,000 5,000 0 0

mean block income is $52500

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

income

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

total

6,000

Physical Disrepair 0

10

311 Call volume and Income normalized calls [*1000]

100

1200

15000 +

$35296

$52500

$75215

$250000

GSD 5407 | inequality in NYC

31

INEQUALITY IN NYC

Water System Tunnel Condition Condition Traffic Signal /Missed Sweeping ate g/Inadequ Sweepin n - Missing g Sig Street Danglin Sign aged Street gn - Dam ition nd Si n Street t Light CoConditio l Stree Street chanica ter a e e - M g W ites dpip Standin lled Segee ta e l Stan S Squanica n ch itio er Me nd w r - Co Seint nkle alk la ce Spri Sidew mp an ty Co en afe t ter in S n d en Ma old itio ar t r C ol aff nd g C ea nio ho Sc k Co rkin l H ility Se Sc al Pa ntia ac e rF sid o Re ce n- an No ten in Ma

ew

Sid

er/

ew

/S

ot

Ro

H H ig Hig ighw hwa hw ay y S ay Sig ign ral S n C Fir onst Hig ign - - D Mis e h Fir Ala ructio way Damang sing l e r Fire Alar m - R n/Plu Con age ing m d d Fire Alarm - Re eplac mbin ition Ala - N ins em g p e Fire rm - M ew S ectio nt Ala odifi yste n rm - A catio m Ferr Ferry dditionn y Co Inqu mpla iry Elev int Elect ator ri DamagDead Treecal ed Tree Cu Cranes rb Condition and De rricks Constructi Bus Stop She on lter Placem ent Building/U Broken Parking Meterse Broken Muni Meter Bridge Condition Bike/Roller/Skate Chronic Bike Rack Condition

Ge

ne

Residential

epair

Public disorder

P Ra Pu ublic dio blic P ac R As ayp tiv a se ho mb ne P e M nge ly C ub at ho Po stin Pu - Te omp lic T eria od g A blic mp lain oile l dv As ora t t ert se ry is m Ove Overg Po eme bly rflo iso nt win rown n P Ove g Rec Tree/B anha PlaIvy rflow yclin ra nd n nc lin t g in Opin g Litte Baske hes g ion rB ts Open for the askets Flam May Noi e Pe or Noise - Stre se - Vehrmit et/Sid icle ewalk Noise House Noise - Park of Worsh Noise - He ip Noise - Com licopter mercial Noise Municipal Parking Facilit y Missed Collection (All Materials) Litter Basket / Request

Unclassified

nt lai mp nt et o k as aC e -B es un cem -A su Sa la int int pla pt cy Is ool/ Rep t o om nt ke pla as aC e Ad gen ch/P Card ter g om -B ues aun acem t-Ay Iss ol/S epl A ea efit Wa lin ard C int p t R pla B en led abe lac om ueAdso enc h/Po ard er t Req AgBeaecnefilet Cd WaatbelinPglacard C B ott ie L le P ues Req ion B ott ie L le t B alor ehic a r tion ic B alo eh lic lica C ity V laint t int C ity V laint t App int App C mp men ompla icense C mp imen ompla icense Co mpli er C ew L est Co nsum OH N Requ Co mpl er C ew L Residential Co A / D rature equest st DC A Lite ture R equest ent Co nsum OH N Reque t DC P Litera ture R quirem PhysicaloDisrepair C A / D rature eques DE Litera Savings Ret DFTA Income Reques t DC A Lite ature R equest HS terature n ption D e em Ex m DOF LiParking - Tax ction Issue DC P Liter ature R du equire DOF perty - Re DE A Liter Savings R t DOF Pro rature Request DOT Lite ature Request DFT Income Reques DPR Liter n F59 o tion S re Unclassified ti Inspec H EAP D Literatu ax Exemp Emergency Response Team (ERT) e DOF Parking - T Fire Safety Director - F58 tion Issu Forensic Engineering DOF roperty - Reduc HPD Literature Internal Code Request DOF P rature Request Investigatio te Li ns and Dis T Invita DO cipline (IAD e Request ) Labo tion DPR Literatur - F59 Lega ratory Misc. l Services Pr EAP Inspection Comm ovider Misce Compl OEM llaneo ents ai nt Emergency Response Team (ERT) Oth Lite us Ca Re er En rature tegorie Fire Safety Director - F58 Sp ques force Reque s Sp ecia t for In ment st Forens ic Engineering S ecia l Enfo form Public disorder Taxpecial l Natu rceme ation HPD Literature Request i Co Pro ral n mp ject Area t A Internal Co lim s In Dis A ir Q ent spe tric A nim ua Investig de ctio t (S A nim al lity n T NAD B nim a Ab eam ) Invitatio ations and Disciplin Co EST al l Fac use (SP e (IAD) llec /Sit in a ility IT) Labo n tio e Pa - N n T Saf rk o P Legalratory ru ety erm S c e k rv it Misc. ices P No C is ro omm vider C Mis e ompla OE cellane ents int Ot M Lite ous Ca Reqher Enf rature R tegories eque Sp ues orce Sp ecia t for In ment st Speecial l Enfor forma c N Tax cial atu eme tion i Co Pro ral n mp ject Area t A lim s In Dis An ir Qu ent spe tric An ima alit ctio t (S A im l y n T NAD B ni a Ab eam ) Co ESTmal l Fac use (SP lle /S in a ilit IT) ct ite P y ion S ar N Tr afe k o Pe uc ty rm kN it ois e

l na cle er icy cle s Int B hi le R lict Ve hic ns DP re lict Ve tio th De re ict di ou De erel y Con rly Y D irt rde nt D iso ing rmit shme int D nk e bli pla Dri rry P sta ning om Fe ood EPoiso hicle CReport F od e Ve icle Fo r Hir e Veh ps Fo Hir Was Foraffiti g Bees/ rials Gr rborin s Mate se ou e/U n Ha g d r a r Haza at Sto ampme Hazmeless Encrson Ass Hom eless Pe t as Hom Animal Kep Illegal Animal Sold Illegal reworks Illegal Fi Illegal Parking age Illegal Tree Dam Industrial Waste

cial Noise Parking Facility (All Materials) asket / Request

Research Questions 1. Who complaints, where and about what?

2. How differences in government response time vary across social groups and location in NYC?

$35296

$52500

$75215

$250000

Constituents Block Group Residents statified into 4 income quartiles residential

l na cle er icy le s Int B hic le R lict Ve hic ns DP ere elict t Ve ditio uth D er elic on Yo D er y C rly D irt rde nt D o g it me int Disrinkin Permablish g pla D erry Est onin Com rt F ood Pois hicle Repo F od e Ve icle Fo r Hir e Veh asps Fo r Hir s/W ls Fo ti Bee a ffi Gra oring Materi Harbzardous rage/Use ent Ha mat Sto campm tance Haz eless En rson Assis Hom eless Pe as Pet Hom l Animal Kept Illega imal Sold Illegal An works Illegal Fire ing Illegal Park Illegal Tree Damage Industrial Waste

servation Water Con rk Rules of Pa Vendingt Violation Lo Vacantblic Pu ing in n Urinat Conditiorty eon Prope lity ig P itary l Pvt Faci og Unsan ry Anima Animal hed D t ary Unleas plain raffic nita T ort Unsa Unsanit om p er C i Re int rovid P Tax mplaooingg tion i Co Tatt nnin ow orta Tax Ta Sn ing nsp Tra ok n t Sm ditio den n o t Co R en m ion t ce ita or f n n Sa gE lin yc c Re

GSD Spatial Analysis for the Built Environment | Andres Sevtsuk [instructor] Arianna Salazar, Lindiwe Rennert, Lucy Perkins, Omar De La Riva, Rida Qadri [partners]

APPLIANCE Asbestos Blocked Drive way Boilers DOOR/W INDOW Drinking ELEC Water FLOO TRIC RING/ Found Pro STAIRS GE HE NERAL perty Ind AT/HO In oor A T WA Le door ir Qu TER Mo ad Sewag ality e O ld P UTS P AIN IDE S LU T/P BU S AF MBIN LAS ILD UN CRIEETY G TER ING W S W A AN W ateTER ITAR ind r L Y C ow Qua EAK OND ITIO Gu lity N ar d

Water System Tunnel Condition l Condition

APPLIANCE Asbestos Blocked Drive way Boilers DOOR Drinkin/WINDOW ELE g Water FLO CTRIC FounORING/ST AIRS GE d Pro HE NERAL perty IndoAT/HOT In or A WA Le door ir Qu TER M ad Sewag ality e OUold P TS P AIN IDE SA LUM T/PL BUIL S F BI AS D U CR ET NG TER ING W NS IE Y W AT ANIT W ate ER AR ind r L Y C ow Qua EAK OND ITI Gu lity ON ar d

Visualizing Complaints using 311 data

physiscal disrepair

.

dropped

public disorder

Amenity Studied 200+ Complains Grouped residential, physiscal disrepair, public disorder .

32

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

quartile representation[blocks] representation[calls] 25%

25%

2

25%

24%

3 4

25% 25%

26% 25%

calls from quartile 1

300,000

calls from quartile 2

250,000 200,000

calls

1

350,000

calls from quartile 3

150,000 100,000

calls from quartile 4

50,000 0 0

mean block income is $52500

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

income

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

total

6,000

Residential 0

10

311 Call volume and Income normalized calls [*1000]

50

100

200 +

$35296

$52500

$75215

$250000

GSD 5407 | inequality in NYC

quartile representation[blocks] representation[calls] 25%

25%

2

25%

24%

3 4

25% 25%

26% 25%

calls from quartile 1

300,000

calls from quartile 2

250,000 200,000

calls

1

350,000

calls from quartile 3

150,000 100,000

calls from quartile 4

50,000 0 0

mean block income is $52500

33

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

income

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

total

6,000

Public Disorder 0

20

311 Call volume and Income normalized calls [*1000]

40

60

80 +

$35296

$52500

$75215

$250000

34

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

Physical Disrepair Response 0

100

Residential Response 200

300

400 +

311 Complaints Response Time measured in hours

311 Number of Calls Increase in number of calls is negatively correlated with property value. This could be because properties of higher value are less likely to have absentee landlords and have higher exposure to other complaint solving avenues than those of lower market value. Additionally, there is a negative relationship between quantity of physical disrepair complaints and real-estate values. This is probably because issues of physical disrepair in high property value areas are handled quickly, before residents feel motivated to call in and complaint whereas disrepair in lower property values lingers, warranting a call.

GSD 5407 | inequality in NYC

35

Public Disorder Response

311 Response Time Response time statistics was expected to show a negative relationship between income and response time because government is more responsive to richer block groups. (Brown & Coulter,1983) There is a positive correlation between average response time and real-estate value for residential complaints. This may be caused by difference in the type of residential complaint made from high property value areas and low property value areas. Complaints from low value areas may be deemed more problematic and, as a result, placed above high value area complaints with respect to hierarchy of response urgency.

36

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

INTEGRATIVE MANHATTAN Harvard GSD Eelements of Urban Design Pre-term Mapping Wortkshop GSD 1221 UPD Fall | Robert Gerard Pietrusko [instructor], Claudia Tomateo [partner]

06-08 hours

08-10 hours

10-12 hours

12-14 hours

14-16 hours

16-18 hours

Annual Shading [1] low Shadow Analysis intensity of shading in Manhattan, NY

medium

high

GSD 1221 | integrative manhattan

37

Manhattan’s Two Surfaces The research focused on understanding Manhattan and its complexities through the visualization off its intangible surfaces as well as their methods of interaction. The assumption made is that outdoor comfort and urban microclimate conditions relates to the vibrancy of social interactions. The two main parameters are classified as “hardscape”; the preconditioned physical form of the city, and “softscape”; the social dynamics that include physical and virtual interaction between people. The two surfaces are overlapped and generate a new representation of Manhattan. The final diagram explores through sections the potential of a correlation between the two conditions of the city. In order to account for scale variations within the city one section is taken from Lower Manhattan and one from Midtown. Although in certain points there seems to be a strong correlation this cannot be generalized and lead to particular conclusions about the affects of urban microclimate and outdoor comfort on social vibrancy.

06-08 hours

08-10 hours

10-12 hours

12-14 hours

14-16 hours

16-18 hours

Annual Solar Irradiance[2] <1000 kWh/m^2 Daylight Analysis sun power per unit area in Manhattan, NY

1700 kWh/m^2

2300 kWh/m^2

38

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

Building Heights[3] low

medium

high

Vegetation Desnity[6] low

medium

high

Additional Factors atrributes that were considered in the analysis

Building Age & Energy Use[4]

Population Density[5]

1765-1880 1881-1921 1922-1961 1962-2013

low

Commercial Desnity[7]

Public Amenities[8]

80 kBTU/sqf/yr 74 kBTU/sqf/yr 71 kBTU/sqf/yr 76 kBTU/sqf/yr

low

medium

high

medium

public spaces

transportation

high

GSD 1221 | integrative manhattan

06-08 hours

08-10 hours

10-12 hours

12-14 hours

14-16 hours

16-18 hours

39

Annual Social Media Check-Ins[9] Social Activity Analysis check-ins for Manhattan by MIT’s Civic Data Lab

Urban Microclimate [Hardscape] | Social Dynamics [Softscape] For the definition of the “hardscape” a different conception of microclimate is generated by breaking it down to its primary parameters. A set of attributes that contribute to the conditions of Manhattan’s urban microclimates are identified and analyzed. Shading, solar irradiance, building heights, building’s energy consumption and vegetation density and population density all contribute to small temperature variations in the city and affect human’s outdoor comfort. The attributes were merged in order to generate an overall definition and classification if the urban microclimate. For the “softscape” surface that represents social dynamics diverse factors that seem to affect interaction levels are taken into account. Major parameters are agglomeration of commerce, public amenities and geo-located social media activities.

40

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

06-08 hours

08-10 hours

Urban Microclimate[1,2,3,4,5,6] & Social Dynamics[7,8,9] Comparative Analysis an overlay of urban microclimate with social media activities

Lower Manhattan Section Sectional Analysis comparison of microclimate and social media activity

10-12 hours

12-

-14 hours

GSD 1221 | integrative manhattan

14-16 hours

Midtown Manhattan Section Sectional Analysis comparison of microclimate and social media activity

16-18 hours

41

42

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

ENERGY LANDSCAPES Harvard Center for Geographic Analysis GIS Institute CGA | Scott Bell & Jeff Blossom [instructors],

low California Built Density intensity of the built environment

medium

high

CGA | energy landscapes

43

California's Energy Landscape A few years after the Western U.S. Energy Crisis, the State of California is in the midst of a clean energy rush with a goal for 33 percent renewable energy by 2020. This one week mapping exercise focuses on the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy landscape and efficiency. The projects analyses, at a county level, the production capacities of Californiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s power plants in relation to energy consumption levels (some of the counties will present a surplus of energy whereas others a deficit). Part of the overall energy production infrastructure constitutes of wind turbines, photo-voltaic parks and hydroelectric dams. The exercise investigates the spatial configuration of such renewable energy plants within the State of California, in an effort to study how these power plants are associated with previously analyzed conditions of surplus and shortage.

60000

50000

Millions of kWh

40000

30000

20000

50-100 kWh 100-250 kWh 250-500 kWh 500-1000 kWh 1000-2000 kWh 2000-5000 kWh 5000-10000 kWh 10000-30000 kWh 30000-75000 kWh

10000

0

Counties

Electricity Consumption [kWh]

Non-Residential Electricity Consumption Residential Electricity Consumption

Non Residential Consumption

Residential Consumption

Non Residential Consumption

Residential Consumption

3000

2500

Millions of Thermes

2000

1500

1000

0-5 therms 5-10 therms 10-20 therms 20-40 therms 40-70 therms 70-170 therms 170-350 therms 350-1000 therms 1000-3000 therms

Gas Consumption [1 therm=29.3001 kWh] California Energy Consumption consumption per county

500

0

Counties

Non-Residential Gas Consumption Residential Gas Consumption

44

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

16000

14000

12000

MWh

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

Counties

Overall Per County Energy Production

1234 Power Plants

!

!

! ! !

!

509 Nonrenewable Power Plants 50312.132 MWh production

!

! ! ! !

! !!

!

! !

!

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

! !

! !

! !

! !

! ! !

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

! ! ! !!

! ! ! !

! !!

! ! ! !

! !

! !

!

! !

! ! ! !

! !

!

! ! !

! !

! !

!

! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

!

! !

! ! !

!

! !

!

! !! ! ! !

! !

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !

! ! !!

! !

! !!

!

! !!!!

!! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! !! !!

! !

! !

!

! !

!

! !

!! ! ! ! !

!

! !

! ! !!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

! !

! !

! !

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !

!

!

! !

! !

! !! ! ! !

! !! !! !! ! !!!

! !

!

!! ! !! ! ! !

!! !

! !

!

!

! !

! !

!!!! ! ! !

! !

! !

! !

!

! ! !

! !

! !

! !

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !!

! !!

! !

! !! ! !!

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!!

!! !

!

! ! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

!!!!

! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

! ! ! !

! !!!

!

!

!

!

! !

0-38 MWh 38-86 MWh ! 86-130 MWh ! 130-180 MWh ! 180-230 MWh ! 230-280 MWh ! 280-320 MWh ! 320-370 MWh ! 370-420 MWh ! 420-470 MWh ! 470-510 MWh ! 510-560 MWh ! 560-610 MWh ! 610-2500 MWh

! ! !

! ! ! !

!

! !

! !

0-38 MWh 38-86 MWh ! 86-130 MWh ! 130-180 MWh ! 180-230 MWh ! 230-280 MWh ! 280-320 MWh ! 320-370 MWh ! 370-420 MWh ! 420-470 MWh ! 470-510 MWh ! 510-560 MWh ! 560-610 MWh ! 610-2500 MWh !

Nonrenewable Energy Electricity Power Plants [2009]

!

!

!

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

!

! !

!

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

!

! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! !

!

!

! !!! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

! !

Renewable Energy

725 Renewable Power Plants 25904.764 MWh production

!

! !

! !

!

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !

!

! ! ! !!!!

! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! ! !! !

!

! !

!

! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !!

! !

! !

! !!!! !

! !

! !

! !!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

! ! ! !!!

! !

! ! !!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!!!! !! !! ! !!!!!! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !!! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !

!

!!

! ! ! !!!!! ! !

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

! ! !! !

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! ! !

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

!

!

! !!!

!

! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !

! ! ! !!

! !

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! !

CGA | energy landscapes

45

For the study, solar energy, wind power, geothermal energy, hydroelectric energy and bioenergy were categorized as renewable and sustainable energy sources. While oil, gas, municipal solid waste, landfill gas and nuclear were categorized as nonrenewable sources of energy. Although, all â&#x20AC;&#x153;waste to energyâ&#x20AC;? modes of production could be considered renewable, municipal solid waste and landfill gas were excluded due to their harmful by-products.

20000

10000

0

MWh

- 10000

- 20000

- 30000

- 40000

2000-3000 MWh 1000-2000MWh 500-1000 MWh 0-500 MWh (-)500-0 MWh (-)1000-(-)500 MWh (-)2000-(-)1000 MWh (-)5000-(-)2000 MWh (-)10000-(-)5000 MWh (-)20000-(-)10000 MWh (-)30000-(-)20000 MWh

- 50000

Alameda Alpine Amador Butte Calaveras Colusa Contra Costa Del Norte El Dorado Fresno Glenn Humboldt Imperial Inyo Kern Kings Lake Lassen Los Angeles Madera Marin Mariposa Mendocino Merced Modoc Mono Monterey Napa Nevada Orange Placer Plumas Riverside Sacramento San Benito San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Joaquin San Luis Obispo San Mateo Santa Barbara Santa Clara Santa Cruz Shasta Sierra Siskiyou Solano Sonoma Stanislaus Sutter Tehama Trinity Tulare Tuolumne Ventura Yolo Yuba

- 60000

Counties

Electricity Surplus & Deficit [2009]

Net Values 2009

20000

10000

0

MWh

- 10000

- 20000

- 30000

Electricity Surplus & Deficit [2014] California Electricity Surplus & Deficit comparison between 2009 and 2014

- 40000

- 50000

- 60000 Alameda Alpine Amador Butte Calaveras Colusa Contra Costa Del Norte El Dorado Fresno Glenn Humboldt Imperial Inyo Kern Kings Lake Lassen Los Angeles Madera Marin Mariposa Mendocino Merced Modoc Mono Monterey Napa Nevada Orange Placer Plumas Riverside Sacramento San Benito San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Joaquin San Luis Obispo San Mateo Santa Barbara Santa Clara Santa Cruz Shasta Sierra Siskiyou Solano Sonoma Stanislaus Sutter Tehama Trinity Tulare Tuolumne Ventura Yolo Yuba

2000-3000 MWh 1000-2000MWh 500-1000 MWh 0-500 MWh (-)500-0 MWh (-)1000-(-)500 MWh (-)2000-(-)1000 MWh (-)5000-(-)2000 MWh (-)10000-(-)5000 MWh (-)20000-(-)10000 MWh (-)30000-(-)20000 MWh

Counties

Net Values 2014

46

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

Crop Distribution in the United States 57.73% Grazing & Pasture 37.04% Commodity Crops 5.23% Specialty Crops Synthetic Map of Agricultural Production overlay of grazing, commodity crops and specialty crops

agricultural geographies

47

AGRICULTURAL GEOGRAPHIES An exploration based on Spatial Analysis and Land Use Modeling Mapping 2: Geosimulation | Robert Gerard Pietrusko [instructors], Ashley Thompson [partner] Independent Study | Robert Gerard Pietrusko [instructors] [research still in process, context is not for use or distribution]

This project tries to investigate the territorial dimension of urban metabolic processes focusing on the structure of the broader landscapes of food systems within the United States. It offers a complementary way of understanding urban metabolism which is not reduced to flows and networks but is directly connected to the ground conditions of the cultivation processes of various crops.

Through a series of cartographic representations, systems analysis and simulation models that benefit from the recent proliferation of data and modeling tools, the research explores how a series of regulatory, economic and environmental parameters affect the formal, spatial and material attributes of the geography of food production and the structure of its land use patterns.

48

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

FOOD SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES REGULATIONS | POLICIES

MARKET | ECONOMICS

FEDERAL FARM PROGRAMS

DEMAND

GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS & SUBSIDIES

AGRIBUSINESSES

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS TEMPERATURE SOIL NUTRIENTS SOLAR RADIANCE

GOVERNMENT COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION LOANS

WATER

$ $$

$ $$$

$

INDUSTRIAL

GRAZING & PASTURE

SPECIALTY CROPS

COMMODITY CROPS

CROPS

PERISHABLE

PRODUCTION | SUPPLY

NON PERISHABLE

LOCAL | REGIONAL

BIOFUEL

LIVESTOCK

LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION COMMODITY EXPORTS COMMODITY IMPORTS FOOD PROCESSING & ASSEMBLY

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

PROCESSING

GROCERY MANUFACTURING FIRMS

PRODUCT IMPORTS BROKERS

PRODUCT IMPORTS

WHOLESALERS

FOOD SERVICE OUTLETS

CONSUMERS

CHAINS & RETAIL

CONSUMERS

CONSUMERS

CONSUMERS

DIRECT MARKETS

CONSUMERS

CONSUMERS

CONSUMERS

CONSUMPTION

CONSUMERS

DISTRIBUTION

FOOD SERVICE WHOLESALE ORGANIZATIONS

US Food Systems Diagram AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS WATER AVAILABILITY

TEMPERATURE

SOIL CONDITION

SOLAR RADIANCE

ELEVATION

LAND SUITABILITY

GRAZING & PASTURE

SOCIAL & ENVIRONMENTAL OPTIMIZATION

COMMODITY CROPS

SPECIALTY CROPS

MARKET EFFICIENCY INDUSTRIES GLOBAL TRADE DEMAND

EFFICIENCY IN USE OF INPUTS RESILIENCE

The project grounds geographies of food systems not only by cataloging and representing the factors of agricultural production but also by comparing how different factors and their combinations are reflected upon variable patterns of the organization of agricultural land.

REVENUE

EQUITY

LOCATION KEY INPUTS & LABOR PROXIMITY TO MARKETS CONCENTRATION OF BUYERS

REGULATORY INPUTS

CAPITAL INPUTS

LABOR

GOVERMENT SUBSIDIES

FEDERAL FARM PROGRAMS

CORPORATION LOANS

REGULATORY FACTORS

Factors of Agricultural Production

LAND & BUILDINGS MACHINES & EQUIPMENT

FUELS, OIL & GASOLINE FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS

FIXED COSTS

VARIABLE COSTS

ECONOMIC FACTORS

Factors analyzed: Federal Funding, Credit Loans , Government Payments, Cost of Land and Buildings, Equipment and Machinery Expenses, Fuel and Gas Expenses, Cost of Fertilizers and Chemicals and Labor Costs,

30

10 10

CROP %

CROP %

20

0 0

10

LAND & BUILDING EXPENSES ($)

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10,000

20,000

30,000

49

agricultural geographies

0

0

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000 +

FEDERAL FARM PROGRAMS & GOVERMENT PAYMENTS ($)

90

FEDERAL FUNDING & GOVERMENT PAYMENTS

10

CROP %

LAND SUITABILITY

0 0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000 +

40

FEDERAL FARM PROGRAMS & GOVERMENT PAYMENTS ($)

90

FEDERAL FUNDING & GOVERMENT PAYMENTS

30

40

28.3%

20 71.7%

% OF CROPS THAT RECEIVE PAYMENTS 30

10

28.3%

31.8%

20

54.8%

45.2% 68.2%

CROP %

71.7%

% OF CROPS THAT 0 RECEIVE PAYMENTS 0

% OF CROPS THAT RECEIVE PAYMENTS

% OF CROPS THAT RECEIVE PAYMENTS 50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

57.73% GRAZZING

GOVERMENT COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION LOANS

37.04% COMMODITY 5.23% SPECIALTY

Federal Funding, Credit Loans & Government Payments Grazing & Pasture Commodity Crops Specialty Crops 28.3%

31.8%

45.2%

Overlay of Regulatory Factors 50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000 +

GOVERMENT COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION LOANS ($)

% OF CROPS THAT RECEIVE PAYMENTS

40

54.8%

68.2%

71.7%

0 0

450,000 +

GOVERMENT COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION LOANS ($)

CROP DISTRIBUTION

10

% OF CROPS THAT RECEIVE PAYMENTS

% OF CROPS THAT RECEIVE PAYMENTS

40

GOVERMENT COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION LOANS

30

30

40

40

20

20

30

30

10

10

CROP %

CROPS %

20

20

0 0

500,000

LAND & BUILDING EXPENSES ($)

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000 +

0

0

EQUIPMENT & MACHI

10

10

EQUIPMENT

LAND & BUILDINGS COSTS

0

CROPS %

0 0

500,000

LAND & BUILDING EXPENSES ($)

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

LAND & BUILDINGS COSTS

Example of Economic Factora [equipment, machinery fixed costs]

4,000,000

4,500,000 +

0

50,000

EQUIPMENT & MACHINERY EXPENSES ($)

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000 +

Equipment & Machinery Expenses EQUIPMENT & MACHINERY COSTS Grazing & Pasture Commodity Crops Specialty Crops

40 40

30 30

20 20

10

CROP %

10

CROP %

80

CROP %

70

CROP %

60

0

LAND SUITABILITY

Environmental Factors [soil nutrition, temperature, precipitation]

0

0 10

20

30

Land Suitability LAND SUITABILITY Grazing & Pasture Commodity Crops Specialty Crops

40

50

60

70

80

90

40

30

20

50

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

Currently policies and regulations are focussed on global market efficiency and incentivize the production of commodity crops (wheat, corn, alfa-alfa, soy) that are used and traded as a primary commodities for larger manufacturing processes, such as food processing, livestock production, trade and biofuel .

SUPPLY

CROP YIELD

SUPPLY

CROP YIELD

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

LAND SUITABILITY

REDUCES NEED FOR CAPITAL INPUTS

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE SUPPLY

AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION & INTENSIFICATION CROP YIELD

LAND SUITABILITY

REDUCES NEED FOR CAPITAL INPUTS

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE

AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION & INTENSIFICATION

SUPPLY

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

LAND SUITABILITY

CROP YIELD

REDUCES NEED FOR CAPITAL INPUTS

AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION & INTENSIFICATION

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

LAND SUITABILITY

REDUCES NEED FOR CAPITAL INPUTS

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE SUPPLY

AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION & INTENSIFICATION CROP YIELD

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

LAND SUITABILITY

REDUCES NEED FOR CAPITAL INPUTS

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE

AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION & INTENSIFICATION

LOW COMMODITY PRICES LOW COMMODITY PRICES

REGULATORY FACTORS

AGRICULTURAL LOW COMMODITY POLICY SUPPORT

EMPHASIZE ON OPENING NEW MARKETS

LOW COMMODITY AGRICULTURAL PRICES POLICY SUPPORT

REGULATORY FACTORS EMPHASIZE ON OPENING NEW MARKETS

REGULATORY FACTORS

NEW MARKETS

PRICES

AGRICULTURAL POLICY SUPPORT

EMPHASIZE ON OPENING NEW MARKETS

LOW COMMODITY

REGULATORY FACTORS

FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY SUPPLY

EXPORTS

BIOFUEL

CROP YIELD

NEW MARKETS

FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY SUPPLY

EXPORTS

BIOFUEL

CROP YIELD

FARM PROGRAMS FOOD PROCESSING & SUBSIDIES INDUSTRY SUPPLY NEW MARKETS FARM PROGRAMS & SUBSIDIES

FARM PROGRAMS & SUBSIDIES NEW MARKETS

AGRICULTURAL PRICES POLICY SUPPORT

NEW MARKETS

AGRICULTURAL POLICY SUPPORT

FARM PROGRAMS & SUBSIDIES

FARM PROGRAMS & SUBSIDIES

ECONOMIC FACTORS

ECONOMIC FACTORS EMPHASIZE ON EFFICIENT MARKET OUTCOMES

ECONOMIC FACTORS

EMPHASIZE ON EFFICIENT MARKET OUTCOMES

REVENUE

FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY SUPPLY

PROCESSING REVENUEFOOD INDUSTRY SUPPLY

EXPORTS FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY SUPPLY

AVAILABILITY OF CAPITAL REVENUE

INVESTMENT IN AVAILABILITY OF FIXED COSTS CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN INVESTMENT IN REVENUE FOOD PROCESSING FIXED COSTS VARIABLE COSTS INVESTMENT IN AVAILABILITYFOOD OF PROCESSING INDUSTRYEXPORTS SUPPLY BIOFUEL INDUSTRY SUPPLY FIXED COSTS CAPITAL

EXPORTS

EMPHASIZE ON EFFICIENT MARKET OUTCOMES

EMPHASIZE ON EFFICIENT MARKET OUTCOMES

AVAILABILITY OF CAPITAL

AVAILABILITY OF CAPITAL

INVESTMENT IN FIXED COSTS

BIOFUEL

INVESTMENT IN INVESTMENT IN VARIABLE COSTS FIXED COSTS

AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION & INTENSIFICATION CROP YIELD AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION & INTENSIFICATION

AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION & INTENSIFICATION CROP YIELD

AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION & INTENSIFICATION

AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION & INTENSIFICATION

BIOFUEL

CROP YIELD

EXPORTS CROP YIELDBIOFUEL

CROP YIELD

INVESTMENT IN VARIABLE COSTS EXPORTSAGRICULTURAL BIOFUEL EXPANSION & INTENSIFICATION INVESTMENT CROPINYIELD VARIABLE COSTS

AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION & INTENSIFICATION CROP YIELD AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION & INTENSIFICATION

INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION VARIABLE COSTS & INTENSIFICATION

AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION & INTENSIFICATION

EMPHASIZE ON EFFICIENT MARKET OUTCOMES

ECONOMIC FACTORS ECONOMIC FACTORS

BIOFUEL

CAPITAL INPUTS

EXPORTS BIOFUEL

CROP YIELD

EXPORTS

CAPITAL INPUTS

EMPHASIZE ON OPENING NEW MARKETS

REVENUE

BIOFUEL

CAPITAL INPUTS FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY SUPPLY CAPITAL INPUTS

CAPITAL INPUTS FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY SUPPLY

EMPHASIZE ON OPENING NEW MARKETS

REGULATORY FACTORS

EXPORTS

Factors Comparison

Having spatialized the all the variables of agricultural production, the second part of the research aims to examine the dynamic interplay of the three variables (capital inputs, regulatons, environmental) and investigate if it corresponds to meaningful correlations. Indeed this investigation reveals a series of contradictions. The exploration of these contradictions could of course be attributed to a multitude of social technical and economic factors. Highlighting the spatiality of these contradictions could allow for further research on understanding and optimizing these factors.

51

agricultural geographies

high suitability low yield

high suitability high yield

high yield low suitability

FACTORS COMPARIS

Environment - Yield Nexus

120,000

120,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

60,000

60,000

60,000

60,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

TORS COMPARISSON

COMMODITY YIELD

GRAZING YIELD

20,000

0 0

10

LAND SUITABILITY

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

90

0

10

LAND SUITABILITY

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

GRAZING YIELD

120,000

100,000

SPECIALTY YIELD

120,000

0

90

0

10

LAND SUITABILITY

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 0

90

10

LAND SUITABILITY

ALL CAPITAL INPUTS

CAPITAL INP

ENVIRONM 120,000

120,000

120,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

60,000

60,000

60,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

120,000

80

0

10

LAND SUITABILITY

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

SPECIALTY YIELD

0

90

0

90

0

10

LAND SUITABILITY

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

80,000

0

90

0

10

LAND SUITABILITY

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

60,000

CAPITAL INPUTS: 2,000,000 - 2,200,000 40,000

ENVIRONMENT - YIELD NEXUS

Grazing & Pasture Commodity Crops Specialty Crops

20,000

GRAZING YIELD

70

COMMODITY YIELD

GRAZING YIELD

100,000

0 0

500,000

CAPITAL INPUTS ($)

LAND SUITA

120,000

120,000

120,000

120,000

120,000

120,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

60,000

60,000

60,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

52

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

FACTORS COMPARISS

120,000

120,000

120,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

60,000

60,000

60,000

60,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

20,000

20,000

COMMODITY YIELD

GRAZING YIELD

20,000

0 0

10

LAND SUITABILITY

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

90

0

10

LAND SUITABILITY

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

20,000

GRAZING YIELD

ORS COMPARISSON

SPECIALTY YIELD

120,000

0

90

0

10

LAND SUITABILITY

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 0

90

10

LAND SUITABILITY

ALL CAPITAL INPUTS

2

CAPITAL INPUTS ENVIRONMENT

120,000

120,000

120,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

60,000

60,000

60,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

120,000

80

0 0

90

10

LAND SUITABILITY

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

SPECIALTY YIELD

COMMODITY YIELD

GRAZING YIELD

100,000

0

90

0

10

LAND SUITABILITY

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

80,000

0

90

0

10

LAND SUITABILITY

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

60,000

CAPITAL INPUTS: 2,000,000 - 2,200,000

high inputs high yield

high yield low inputs

40,000

20,000

GRAZING YIELD

ENVIRONMENT high inputs - YIELD NEXUS low yield

Capital Inputs - Yield Nexus

0 0

500,000

CAPITAL INPUTS ($)

1,00

LAND SUITABILI

120,000

120,000

120,000

120,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

60,000

60,000

60,000

60,000

60,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

0 0

0

500,000

CAPITAL INPUTS ($)

1,000,000

1,500,000

LAND SUITABILITY: 60 - 90 CAPITAL INPUTS ($) 0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,000,000

4,500,000 +

0

4,500,000 +

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

20,000

0

0

SPECIALTY SPECIALTY YIELD YIELD

40,000

40,000

COMMODITY COMMODITY YIELD YIELD

40,000

GRAZING GRAZING YIELD YIELD

40,000

40,000

120,000

500,000

CAPITAL INPUTS ($) 0

500,000

CAPITAL INPUTS ($)

1,000,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,000,000

4,500,000 +

0

0

4,500,000 +

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

CAPITAL INPUTS ($)

CAPITAL INPUTS ($)

3,500,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,000,000

4,500,000 +

GRAZING YIELD

120,000

120,000

0 0

4,500,000 +

500,000

CAPITAL INPUTS ($)

1,00

LAND SUITABILI

ALL LAND SUITABILITY

120,000

120,000

120,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

60,000

60,000

60,000

40,000

40,000

20,000

20,000

120,000

100,000

0

500,000

CAPITAL INPUTS ($)

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

0

4,500,000 +

60,000

20,000

SPECIALTY YIELD

0

4,500,000 +

0

500,000

CAPITAL INPUTS ($)

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

40,000

0

4,500,000 +

0

500,000

CAPITAL INPUTS ($)

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000 +

20,000

GRAZING YIELD

LAND SUITABILITY: 30 - 60

0 0

500,000

CAPITAL INPUTS ($)

120,000

Grazing & Pasture Commodity Crops Specialty Crops

1,00

LAND SUITABILI

120,000

120,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

60,000

60,000

60,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

Y

4,000,000

COMMODITY YIELD

GRAZING YIELD

80,000

40,000

ECONOMIES OF SCALE, AFTER AN INPUT LEVEL THE YIELD DOES NOT INCREASE ALTHOUGH THE INPUTS INCREASE. QUESTIONS RAISE: ARE LOW INPUTS/HIGH YIELDS ON HIGHLY SUITABLE LAND? OR ARE HIGH INPUTS LOW YIELD RETURNS ON VERY UNSUITABLE LAND?

CAPITAL INPUTS

53

agricultural geographies

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.5

0.5

0.5

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

0

CROP YIELD

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

40,000

0.25

0.25

0

90,000

0

CROP YIELD

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

20,000

0 0

CROP YIELD

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

Regulatory Inputs - Yield Nexus

GRAZING YIELD

GRAZING %

0

high yield low inputs

SPECIALTY %

high inputs high yield

0.25

COMMODITY %

high inputs low yield

0 0

100,000

REGULATORY INPUTS

LAND SUITA

120,000

120,000

100,000

100,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

0

100,000

200,000

200,000

300,000

300,000

REGULATORY INPUTS ($) LAND SUITABILITY: 60 - 90 LAND SUITABILITY: 30 - 60

400,000

400,000

500,000

500,000

600,000

600,000

700,000

700,000

800,000

800,000

900,000 +

0

120,000

120,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

200,000

300,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

400,000

500,000

500,000

600,000

600,000

700,000

700,000

800,000

800,000

900,000 +

60,000

40,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000 +

LAND SUITABILITY: 30 - 60 0

120,000

900,000

900,000 +

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

0

900,000 +

0

100,000

REGULATORY INPUTS

1,200,000

Grazing & Pasture Commodity Crops Specialty Crops

1,500,000

1,800,000

2,100,000

2,400,000

2,700,000+

120,000

100,000

80,000

40,000

60,000

60,000

20,000

40,000

SPECIALTY YIELD

40,000

0 0

20,000

100,000

REGULATORY INPUTS ($)

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000 +

0 0

300,000

CAPITAL INPUTS ($)

600,000

900,000

1,200,000

1,500,000

1,800,000

2,100,000

2,400,000

2,700,000+

0

20,000

SPECIALTY YIELD

400,000

COMMODITY YIELD

GRAZING YIELD

0

600,000

800,000

60,000

20,000

300,000

700,000

80,000

40,000

CAPITAL INPUTS ($)

600,000

80,000

COMMODITY YIELD

20,000

40,000

300,000

500,000

100,000

60,000

200,000

400,000

100,000

40,000

60,000

0

0

60,000

100,000

300,000

120,000

80,000

0

200,000

REGULATORY INPUTS ($)

80,000

REGULATORY INPUTS ($)

100,000

120,000

100,000

20,000

0

REGULATORY INPUTS ($)

0

900,000 +

120,000

80,000

GRAZING YIELD

100,000

REGULATORY INPUTS ($)

LAND SUITA

100,000

900,000 +

20,000

0

0

0

REGULATORY INPUTS ($)

80,000

800,000

0

900,000 +

120,000

700,000

20,000

0

100,000

REGULATORY INPUTS ($)

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000 +

0 0

20,000

GRAZING YIELD

100,000

SPECIALTY SPECIALTY YIELD YIELD

COMMODITY COMMODITY YIELD YIELD

GRAZING GRAZING YIELD YIELD

0

REGULATORY INPUTS ($)

40,000

20,000

20,000

0

0

40,000

20,000

20,000

60,000

40,000

40,000

20,000 90,000

60,000

40,000

40,000

80,000

60,000

60,000

40,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

60,000

120,000

100,000

100,000

60,000

80,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

000

120,000

120,000

100,000

GRAZING YIELD

120,000

300,000

CAPITAL INPUTS ($)

600,000

900,000

1,200,000

1,500,000

1,800,000

2,100,000

2,400,000

2,700,000+

0 0

100,000

REGULATORY INPUTS

LAND SUITA

120,000

120,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

60,000

60,000

60,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

SUBCIDIES -

54

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

Urban Agglomerations urban areas in relation to water system

Agricultural Production Land specialty and commodity crops in relation to water system

Building on the basis of these observations, the second part of the research focuses on the Colorado River Basin and speculates three scenarios of policies and regulation of agricultural productivity.

agricultural geographies

ENVIRONMENT

AGENT SYSTEMS

REGULATIONS

CAUSAL LOOPS

ATMOSPHERIC

ECONOMICS (+) EVAPORATION

B

(-)

B (-) POPULATION GROWTH (+)

(+)

SURFACE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT (+)

WATER DEMAND (+)

- CAPTURE - STORAGE

PRECIPITATION

TEMPERATURE

DECLINE

(+)

RISE

(+)

(+) (-) FOOD & FODDER PRODUCTION

(+)

(-)

SURFACE WATER AVAILABILITY & ACCESS FOR USE (+)

- WITHDRAWAL - DIVERSTION

- RECREATION - AGRICULTURE - MUNICIPAL & INDUSTRIAL (+)

URBAN & RURAL CONSUMPTION (+) (+)

TERRESTRIAL

(+) HYDROELECTRIC POWER PRODUCTION & LARGE SCALE MINING

(+) (+) SOIL, LAND & HABITAT DEGREDATION (+)

WATER QUALITY DEGREDATION (+)

(+)

REINFORCING

(-)

BALANCING

Colorado River Basin Loop Diagram environment, regulations and economics 243,000 SQM | 1,450 M SUMMIT TO SEA

REGULATION LAW OF THE RIVER

ECONOMIC + ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTION

DISTRIBUTION

1915

USE + CONTROL

SOURCE: Rocky Mountain Western Slope

FRAME: Urban Agglomerations

80% AGRICULTURAL 20% MUNCIPAL + INDUSTRIAL (40M PERSONS)

1917 – League of the Southwest

GRAND LAKE, COLORADO 2000 M

1935

1944 – Mexico Water Treaty

1948 – Upper Colorado River Basin Compact

1955

UPPER BASIN

1931 – California Seven Party Agreement

-- SUPPLEMENTS EXTERNAL TRIBUTARIES --

1928 – Boulder Canyon Project Act

DENVER METRO BOULDER FORT COLLINS COLORADO SPRINGS PUEBLO CHEYENNE

GUNNISON RIVER 1 ASPINALL UNIT, CO BLUE MESA DAM COLORADO FRONT RANGE PROJECT LITTLE SNAKE RIVER WATER PROJECT

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT

RIO GRANDE RIVER ALBUQUERQUE SANTA FE

YAMPA RIVER

2 FLAMING GORGE DAM, UT

SAN JUAN RIVER

ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK

CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

BLACK CANYON OF GUNISSON

DINOSAUR NATIONAL MONUMENT ARCHES NATIONAL PARK

1500 M

CANYONLANDS NATIONAL PARK

3 NAVAJO DAM, NM SAN JUAN CHAMA PROJECT

INTER-BASIN WITHDRAWAL

1956 – Colorado River Storage Project Act

CRYSTAL DAM

GREEN RIVER

ARKANSAS RIVER SALT LAKE CITY PROVO

MORROW POINT DAM

CONSERVATION -- INAUGURAL STORAGE UNITS --

SOUTH PLATTE RIVER

1925

1945

MAJOR TRIBUTARIES

TRANS-BASIN WITHDRAWAL

1922 – Colorado River Compact

MAJOR RESEVOIRS

GRAND JUNCTION 4 GLEN CANYON DAM, AZ 1965

1975

GLEN CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

LAKE POWELL

1964 – Arizona v. Colorado

1000 M

LEE’S FERRY

1966 – National Historical Preservation Act 1968 – Colorado River Basin Project 1969 – National Environmental Policy Act 1970 – Criteria for Coordinated Long Range Reservoir Operations 1973 – Endangered Species Act & Mexico Commission 1974 – Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act

HOOVER DAM, AZ/NV LAS VEGAS

LAKE MEAD DAVIS DAM, AZ

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION ARE + 34 NATIVE AMERICAN RESERVATIONS

1992 – Grand Canyon Protection Act

1995

-- SOLE SOURCE --

1985

LOWER BASIN

LAKE MOHAVE

PHOENIX TUCSON

PARKER DAM, AZ

500 M

LAKE HAVASU CITY LOS ANGELES SAN DIEGO YUMA / GILA RIVER IMPERIAL VALLEY COACHELLA VALLEY

LAKE HAVASU

COLORADO RIVER AQUADUCT

IMPERIAL DAM, AZ/NV

IMPERIAL RESEVOIR

ALL-AMERICAN CANAL

MORALES DAM, AZ 2005 2007 – Interim Shortage Guidelines

SEA LEVEL 2015

GULF OF CALIFORNIA, MEXICO 500M

1000M

1500M

Colorado River Basin Systems Diagram [Regulatory, Economic, Environmental]

2000M

2500M UPSTREAM

55

35000

30000

25000

56

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

20000

15000

10000

5000

2015

0

35000

30000

25000

[1] Commodity Crop Incentives Scenario Model cash-crops are subsidized

20000

[2] Specialty Crop Incentives Scenario Model specialty crops are subsidized

15000

10000

35000 5000

2015

25000 35000 20000 30000 15000 25000 10000 20000 5000 15000 0 10000

2015

[1] Current Condition cash-crops are subsidized

30000 0

2015

3000 0 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 35000

0

30000

2015

[2] Reverse Hypothesis specialty crops are subsidized

5000 3500

25000 35000

15000 25000 10000 20000

0 10000

2015

5000 15000

5000

0 2015

[3] Equal Hypothesis no crops are subsidized

20000 30000

[3] No Incentives Scenario Model cash-crops and specialty crops are not subsidized

Land Suitability

Commodity Crops Specialty Crops

Crop Growth

3500 3000 2500

15m

5000

0m

0

Water Supply

0 0

0

-20000 -20000

-20000

-40000 -40000

-40000 0

0 -20000 -40000

0m 20m

15m15m

15m

25m 5m 20m 0m

40m

0m 50m 45m

35000

40m 35m

35m

30000

25000

30m

25000

20000

25m

30m 25m

20000

20m

15000

15m

10000

35m 60m35m 60m

35m 60m

60m 35m

25000 40000

25000 40000

30m 50m30m 50m

30m 50m

50m 30m

20000 35000

20000 35000

25m 45m25m 45m

25m 45m

45m 25m

15000 30000

20m 40m

15000 30000

20m 40m20m 40m

40m 20m

15m 35m

10000 25000

15m 35m15m 35m

35m 15m

10000 25000

10m 30m10m 30m

10m 30m

30m 10m

5000 20000

5000 20000

5m 5m 25m25m

5m 25m

25m 5m

0 15000

0m 0m 20m20m

0m 20m

20m 0m

15m15m

15m

10000 10000

10000

10000

10m10m

10m

50005000

5000

5000

5m 5m

5m

5m

0

0

0m 0m

0m

0m

Regional Labor

50000 50000

50000

45000 45000

45000

40000 40000

40000

35000 35000

35000

50000 45000 40000

15m

2015

Regional Revenue

70m70m

70m

60m60m

60m

50m50m

50m

45m45m

45m

40m 70m40m 70m

40m 70m

70m 60m 50m 45m

2100

10m

2015

2015

2100

0

0 15000

2100

70m 40m

30000 45000

2015

45m

40m 70m

30000 45000

2015 2015

45m

40m 70m40m 70m

2100

2015

2100

50m

45m45m

2100

50m

40000 35000 50000

2100

40000 35000 50000

2100

50m50m

40000 40000

2100

5m 70m 0m 60m

2100

060m

2100 2100

0m 60m 60m

2100

0 45000

2015

5000 5m 70m 70m 70m

2100

10m

5000 50000

2100 2100

10m

2100

20m

10000

5m 60m

2100

35000

5m 0m

40000

2015

45m

45000

15m 10m 70m

2015

0m 0m 50m

2015

2100

2100

2100

2100

2015

5m 5m 60m

15m

2015 2015

30m 10m

10m 10m10m 70m 50000

50000 5000 45000 0

35m 15m

2015

2100

2100

2100 2100

2015

2015

10000

2100

0m 0m 20m20m

40m 20m

2100

5m 25m

45m 25m

2100

5m 5m 25m25m

5000 20000

2100

10m 30m

2100

10m 30m10m 30m

10000 25000

50m 30m

2100 2100

15m 35m

60m 35m

2100

15m 35m15m 35m

70m 40m

2100

20m 40m

2015

20m 40m20m 40m

45m

2015

2015

25m 45m

2015 2015

25m 45m25m 45m

15000 30000

0m 50m

2015

2100

2100 2100

2100

2015

20000 35000

2015

2015 2015

2015

2015 2015

30m 50m

40000

5m 60m

35000 35000 50000 50000 30000 30000 45000 45000 25000 25000 40000 40000 20000 20000 35000 35000 15000 15000 30000 30000 10000 10000 25000 25000 5000 5000 20000 20000 0 0 15000 15000

0

2100

2100

2100

2015

2015

2015

2015

2100

-160000 -160000 -160000-160000

2100

-140000 -140000 -140000-140000

30m 50m30m 50m

2100

2100

2100

-120000 -120000 -120000-120000

2015

2015

2015 2015

2100

-100000 -100000 -100000-100000 -160000 -160000 -160000 -160000

2100 2100

-80000 -80000 -80000 -80000 -140000 -140000 -140000 -140000

25000 40000

0 15000

10m 70m

050m

35m 60m

2100 2100

-60000 -60000 -60000 -60000 -120000 -120000 -120000-120000

50m 0m50m

35m 60m35m 60m

2100

-40000 -40000 -40000 -40000 -100000 -100000 -100000-100000

15m

10000 70m

40m 70m

2100

-20000 -20000 -80000 -80000

20m

40m 70m40m 70m

35000 50000 30000 45000

2015

-20000 -20000 -80000 -80000

25m

15000

45m

2015

0 -60000 -60000

30m

20000

45m45m

2015

0 0 -60000 -60000

0

35m

60m 5m60m 500060m

15000

10m -140000 5m 5000 50000 50000 50000 0m -160000 0 45000 45000 45000 2015

0-160000 -20000 -20000

40000

25m

30000

2015 2015

-140000 5000 0 0

45000 0

2015

2100

2100

2100

2100

2015

10000

2100

2015

2015

10000

-40000 -40000

0

0 15000

15000 -12000015m

-40000 -40000

0

5000 20000

15000 -120000

2015

2100

0

10000 25000

25m 20000 -100000 20m

-140000 0 0 -160000 -20000 -20000

15000 30000

20000-100000

2100

500

20000 35000

-8000030m 25000

2100

-120000

-80000

2100

1000

25000 40000

40m -60000 30000 35m

30000 25000

30000 45000

35000

-60000

2015

1500

35000

2015

2015

3000

2015

2100

-140000 -140000

-20000 45000-160000 -20000 -160000 -160000 -160000 40000 -40000 -40000

35000 50000

10000 10000 10000 070m 50000 5000500060m 5000 45000 -20000 0 0 050m 40000 -4000045m 2015

2100

2100

2100

0

35000 35000 50000 50000 30000 30000 45000 45000 25000 25000 40000 40000 20000 20000 35000 35000 15000 15000 30000 30000 10000 10000 25000 25000 5000 5000 20000 20000 0 0 15000 15000

2015

2015 2015

2100

2015

-40000

10000 10m 50000 50000 50000 -140000 5m 5000 45000 45000 45000 0m -160000 0 40000 40000 40000

40m

2015

70m70m 10m

3500 0 50000-140000 -140000

-100000

25000

50000 5000

-120000 -120000 -120000 -120000

-80000

30m

15m

20000

45m

30000

10000

-100000 -100000 -100000 -100000 -160000 -160000 -160000-160000

2000

25000

50m

40000

35m

20m

0 0 -60000 -60000 -20000 -20000 -80000 -80000 -40000 -40000-100000 -100000 -60000 -60000 -120000 -120000 -80000 -80000 -140000-140000

2500

30000

60m

45000

35000

40m

15000

-40000

-60000

45m

15000 -12000015m

2100

-80000 -80000 -140000 -140000

35000

25m 20000 -100000 20m

2100

-60000 -60000 -120000 -120000

50m

-100000 20000

2100 2100

-40000 -40000 -100000 -100000

40000

-8000030m 25000

2015

2015

-20000 -20000 -80000 -80000

50000

60m

25000

10000 0 0 0 0-140000 5000 -140000 5000 -20000 -20000 -20000 -20000-160000 0 0 -160000

0 0 -60000 -60000

70m 70m

2015

40m -60000 30000 35m

10000 15000-120000

-40000 -40000

10 ACRES OF SPECIALTY $20,000 OF REVENUE 20 ACRE-FT OF WATER 10-20 JOBS PER DAY

2015

35000

2015

-100000

2100

20 ACRE-FT OF WATER 10-20 JOBS PER DAY

REVENUE

45000

2015

15000

2100

10 ACRES OF SPECIALTY $20,000 OF REVENUE 20 ACRE-FT OF WATER 10 ACRES OF SPECIALTY 10-20 JOBS DAY $20,000 OF PER REVENUE

WATER

50000

070m

60m 45000 -20000 50m 40000 -4000045m

30000 Agricultural Production Diagnostics -80000

-80000

-120000

50000

5m

0m

2015

SPECIALTY CROP SPECIALTY CROP

20000

2015

-60000

2015

ENCY

2015

ENCY

-20000 1045000 ACRES OF COMMMODITY -20000 30000 $3,500 OF REVENUE 40 -40000 ACRE-FT OF WATER 1040000 ACRES OF COMMMODITY 1-5 JOBSOFPER DAY $3,500 REVENUE -40000 25000 40 ACRE-FT OF WATER 35000 1-5 -60000 JOBS PER DAY

10 ACRES OF COMMMODITY $3,500 OF REVENUE 40 ACRE-FT OF WATER 1-5 JOBS PER DAY

10m

2100

5m

2015

0

2015

10m

0m -160000 0

15m

10000

5000

2015

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION DIAGNOSTIC WATER COMMODITY LABOR CROP REVENUE 0 WATER COMMODITY LABOR CROP REVENUE

0 35000 50000

20m

15000

2100

20m

LABOR

LABOR SOCIAL EFFICIENCY

25m

20000

2015

10m -140000 5m 5000

REVENUE ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY

25000

57

2100

10000

25m

30m

2100

30m

30000

The investigation is developed through three simulation scenarios for crop subsidies where each produces different social, environmental and economic outputs.

Overall, this research allows SPECIALTY COMMODITY notCROP only to make spatial senseCROPof the variables that affect agricultural production but also offers a platform for further research on understanding and optimizing these factors both socially and environmentally.

2015

2015

15000 -12000015m 10000

2100

0

0

-160000

15000

2100

10000-140000 5000 5000 -160000

2015

2100

-140000

WATER ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICIENCY

2015

-120000

-120000 10000 15000

35m

20000

25m 20000 -100000 20m

40m

agricultural geographies 35m

35000

40m

25000

-8000030m 25000

25000 -100000 20000

2100

15000

30000

40m -60000 30000 35m

2100

-80000 -100000

35000

2100 2100

20000

30000 -80000

45m

40000

45m

2100

35000 -60000

50m

45000

50m

35000

60m

50000

60m

40000

2015

25000

2015

-60000

-40000

70m

45000

2015 2015

40000 -40000

070m

60m 45000 -20000 50m 40000 -4000045m

45000

2100

-20000 30000

70m

50000 50000

-20000

2100

0 0 35000 50000

IS PACIFIC LIMITLESS[ED]?

Investigating exploitations of oceanic ecological production in the Pacific 58

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

Renia Kagkou | Ashley Thompson

Harvard Graduate School of Design

Pacific Ports

Exclusive Economic Zones

Fishing Density

Fishing Vessel Density

Synthetic Map of Pacific Processes of Urbanization overlay of vessel density, EEZs & Pacific ports

© Renia Kagkou | Ashley Thompson

is pacific limitless[ed] | UTL

59

IS PACIFIC LIMITLESS[ED]?

Investigating exploitations of oceanic ecological production in the Pacific Urban Theory Lab | Neil Brenner & Robert Gerard Pietrusko [instructors], Ashley Thompson [partner] The project uses AIS transmition vessel data provided by navama® project website: http://navama.com/?p=863

One of the only remaining ‘last frontiers’, the Pacific Ocean is a rare site in the 21st century still capable of supporting the exploration and appropriation of new territories and resources, what Moore terms ‘cheap nature’. Despite historic notions of a vast expanse of endless resource, the Pacific is in fact far from limitless.

Analyzing the reorganization of the ocean as an operational landscape, we identify processes of neoliberal development and specifically, the exploitation of wild food-source by the commercial fishing industry driven by capitalist accumulation, commodification, and privatization. The investigation reveals the intensification and connectivities of the fishing industry to the agglomeration in relation to territorial rights and competitive access to open-seas, patterns of regional and international trade, and the role of states versus operations of transnational corporations to include considerations of labor and technology. The intensification of these practices demonstrates how commercial fishing has been rendered disassociated both with supply and demands of food systems, but also from the resource base, the marine biomass itself. Instead, fishing industries and the regulatory and governance frameworks within which they operate are dependent on achieving economies of scale to secure projected assurances to fish, synonymous with present and future profit. Furthermore, exploitative manipulation of these political and economic mechanisms are in fact jeopardizing access to and heath of wild fisheries with massive implications for the enduring stability of the Pacific Ocean as an enduring source of sustenance, livelihood, commerce, and culture.

60

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

Global ports

Regulatory Fishery Bodies

Exclusive Economic Zones & Bathymetry

Territorial Rights and Access to Open Seas Exclusive Economic Zones and Regulatory Fishery Bodies

Pacific Fish Production

Pacific Fish Production Per Capita

Global Fish Consumption

Global Fish Consumption Per Capita

IS PACIFIC LIMITLESS[ED]?

Investigating exploitations of oceanic ecological production in the Pacific Renia Kagkou | Ashley Thompson is pacific limitless[ed] | UTL

61

Harvard Graduate School of Design

Global Fish Trade

Population Density

Fishing Vessel Density

Global Fish Trade

© Renia Kagkou | Ashley Thompson

Operationalization of the Pacific Population Density Mapping relational geographies Fishing Density

200

150

100

50

0 1950 0 ft

Depth Ecologies Pacific Bathymetry in Section

100 ft

200 ft

300 ft

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

400 ft

Wild Catch vs Aquaculture Rise of aquaculture as wild fish decreases

Delineating the bounds of an increasingly limitless[ed] ocean, the result of this diminutive dynamic will result in overcapitalization that sinks profits to satisfy endless capital investment as all other marine social and ecological resources are inversely depleted. Investing more and more for less and less, shoring up profit margins on speculation and intensification until the system collapses, long after all the wild fish are gone – the ultimate exhaustion of cheap nature.

62

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

Population < 10,000

10,000 - 20,000

20,000 - 50,000

50,000 - 100,000

200,000 - 500,000

500,000 - 1,000,000

1,000,000 - 2,000,000

2,000,000 - 5,000,000

Territorial Calibration in Relation to Population territorial zones are redistributed to respond to population values of urban agglomerations

is pacific limitless[ed] | UTL

63

Synthetic Map of Alter-Urbanization gradient oceanography of territorial and resource calibration

Major Fish Habitats Suitability Map mapping thermohaline circulation and fish ecosystems

Exclusive Economic Zones existing territorialization of the Pacific

Proposal for a new notional urban-oriented oceanography that incorporates spatial conditions deployed through gradient strategies of ocean surface, depth, and access parameters while accommodating the transient nature of a swimming biomass and the interdependent ecological systems that impact their lifecycle. We seek to disrupt this market-resource genocide by envisioning alternative processes of commercial fishing to redistribute territorial capital development through the intersection of national, commercial, and local privileges for biomass extraction across scale and function indicators predicated on the urban.

64

RENIA KAGKOU | WORKSAMPLE

WOOD URBANISM From the Molecular to the Territorial, Daniel Ibañez, Jane Hutton and Kiel Moe Visual Essay using Satterlite Data and Remote Sensing GSD | Daniel Ibañez [partner]

By using the so called Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), this visual-essay reveals the patterns of urban transformation across very diverse landscapes looking at wavelengths and intensity of visible and near-infrared light reflected by the land surface. Near-infrared light reflected provides a quantity that correlates with the capacity of the lands to absorb and synthetize solar energy. If the land surface reflects very low values it corresponds to barren areas of rock, sand or snow, but also typically urban infrastructures such as roads and buildings. Moderate values represent shrub and grassland, while high values indicate temperate and tropical rainforests. This is process enables to quantify the concentrations of green leaf and vegetation. It provides a gradient (from blue to red) that measures what is alive (red) from what is not (blue). But also, it identifies where plants are thriving and where they are under stress.

The selected images bring together eight geographies of the earth’s surface, rendering a particular urbanization process within and beyond urban agglomerations. By freezing a particular moment in time, each of them depicts a unique pattern within a larger, dynamic and ongoing process of transformation – deforestation, logging, land-grabbing, formal and informal plantations, urban agglomerations, etc.

The visual essay proposes a threefold reading: First, a comparative reading of the different sites by scale –all satellite images are at 1:250,000; Second, it enables a comparative reading of the imprints on the ground and the patterns of urban transformation –from areas of regional specialization to urban agglomerations; And third, a comparative reading of the NDV Indexes revealing the gradients and arrays of alive vegetation in contrast with lifeless surfaces.

wood urbanism

65

[Amazon 1.250000m.jpg]: The Amazon is being dramatically deforested in support of global urbanization. The connectivity infrastructures that enable the extraction of timber and the deployment of soy plantations and cattle are creating unprecedented patterns of deforestation in the ParĂĄ State, in Brazil.

[Barnapito 1.250000m.jpg]: The Amazon has become a site of land-grabbing providing economic surplus to international investment firms. Both the regulatory framework and the landscape has been subject of a radical transformation to enable massive agricultural crops of soy beans, in Bamapito region, State of Bahia in Brazil.

[Brunei 1.250000m.jpg]: Ancient rainforests in Indonesia are being massively plundered in support of global capitalism around the globe. These two areas of land-grabs located in the periphery of Brunei are three times the size of Paris and have been completely erased in support of paper industries.

[El Chaco 1.250000m.jpg]: El Chaco in Paraguay has been radically transformed in the last twenty years.

Both the ecological and economical value of the area has been plundered though massive illegal logging, deployment of agricultural field and cattle farming.

[Irving 1.250000m.jpg]: Forest plantation by large timber corporation in the border between US and Canada. In the image we see Spruce-fir forest of J.D. Irving, Limited Sawmill Division.

[Kansas 1.250000m.jpg] Massive agricultural crops of corn, wheat and sorghum in Kansas State, USA. As many other areas of the mid-west, this huge center-pivot irrigation system enable the operationalization and intensification of land in support of food demand.

[NYC 1.250000m.jpg] New York City is the urban agglomeration and the landscape of consumption per excellence. In contrast to other urbanized areas of the earth, here the polarization between areas of biomass â&#x20AC;&#x201C;typically urban parks- and the areas characterized by the dense urban fabric is very distinct.

[Punchaw 1.250000m.jpg] Punchaw, in British Columbia, Canada is one of the most productive timber regions in North America. This region is easily recognizable by a scattered pattern of plantations and logging strategies.

2017

R