Capstone Report

landflow

Poojitha Ramalingachar Capstone Report I Spring 2015 Master of Landscape Architecture I Chatham University

AN URBAN STREAM CORRIDOR DESIGN THAT ALLOWS FOR DYNAMIC CHANGES IN THE COMPLEX SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF PITTSBURGH’S SOUTH OAKLAND NEIGHBORHOOD

ABSTRACT The city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania has a rich history of transformation from an industrial city into a hub for healthcare, manufacturing, arts, education and technology. The city has been reclaiming abandoned, underutilized and vacant land and returning it to productive uses. This project argues for a new approach for the design of the built environment based on resilience theory. The underlying assumption of this project is that a built environment is a complex interlinked socio-ecological system that is self-organizing, has adaptive cycles at multiple scales and is uncertain. The proposed resilience design approach seeks to increase the resiliency of the landscape by allowing it to adapt and evolve through the changes.

POOJITHA RAMALINGACHAR I Capstone Repor t Chatham University Spring 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

RESEARCH

Introduction and Theoretical Context.................1

Purposes & Objectives..........................................1

Justification..............................................................2 Literature Review...................................................2 Precedent Studies..................................................5

Proposed Design Approach.................................8

2

SITE

Site Introduction...................................................10 Watershed............................................................12 Inventory................................................................15

3 C O N T E X T U A L A N A LYS I S Systems Analysis..................................................16

Constraints and Opportunities..........................18

Area of Interest: Existing conditions.................20

4

DESIGN CONCEPT

Concept Statement..............................................24

Regional Scale.....................................................26 Neighborhood scale...........................................27 Site scale..............................................................28

5

PROPOSED DESIGN

Vision Plan............................................................29 District Plan...........................................................30 Site Plan................................................................31

Sections and Perspectives..................................32 Design details......................................................34

6

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1 RESEARCH 1.1 INTRODUCTION & THEORETICAL CONTEXT We live in a complex dynamic world, which is constantly changing and unfolding. These changes include unwelcomed surprises and disturbances. How then, can our landscapes evolve through these dynamic events and still retain their ability to support both human and ecological system?

Resilience thinking is a concept evolved from systems thinking, which has three main concepts. The first concept states that we are all part of an inter-linked series of human and natural systems referred to as socio-ecological systems (Walker and David Salt, 2006). Changes in one domain of the system, social or ecological, have impacts on the other domain. It is therefore efficient to study and understand the domains together as a system than as a single isolated domain.

region/a city/ or any organization of our interest as a complex adaptive system with linked domains, thresholds and cycles. From his perspective, the built environment is viewed as a complex system that is constantly hanging and adapting to the changing world. This project aims to apply the foundational principles of resilience theory to the design approach of new landscapes within the built environment.

Specifically, this approach will attempt to foster more holistic systems that are capable of absorbing changes and disturbances that occur within and around it, and still retain its basic structure, function and identity.

1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

Finally, resilience is defined as “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance; to undergo change and still retain essentially the same function, structure and feedbacks� (Walker and David Salt, 2006). It is the capacity to undergo some change without crossing a threshold to a different system regime—a system with a different identity.

With the number of serious environmental events and unwelcomed changes occurring in our landscapes, seascapes, farms and natural systems, there has been a growing body of research on the concept of resilience and natural resource management. There have been efforts all over the world on understanding, managing, governing these linked complex socialecological systems. There has been development in the concepts of resilience within coastal communities/ region (ASLA, Oct 2013), riverfronts (Brew, 2010), and urban settings (ASLA, Oct 2013). Nearly 40% of the projects of 2013 ASLA Awards were on resilience and it was also among the topics explored at ASLA Annual Expo & Meeting 2013. In a world characterized by dynamism and uncertainties in ecological and social systems, it is important to apply resilience theory in the design of new spaces and landscapes within the built environment.

These resilience concepts provide a framework for viewing a social-ecological system as one system operating over many linked scales of time and space.

Though these systems are affected by many variables, they are usually driven by only a handful of key controlling variables. The focus of resilience concept is on how the system changes and copes with disturbance.

It is emerging as a new key to the sustainable thinking.

The purpose of this project is to explore the concept of resilience within the built environment, envisioning the landscape as an interlinked complex adaptive system operating at different scales. This project will apply resiliency thinking to the design of new landscapes within a built environment, as a system that is capable of absorbing changes and disturbances that occur within and around it.

Resilience theory is all about viewing a farm/a

Any landscape within a built environment is a system

The second concept states that socio-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems that do not change in a predictive, linear incremental manner (Walker and David Salt, 2006). They are capable of existing in more than one kind of regime in which their function, structure, and feedbacks are different. Changes, shocks and disturbances to these systems can drive them across a threshold into a different regime, frequently with unwelcomed surprises.

1

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

constantly changing and adapting. These systems are affected by many variables and driving forces.

They are capable of existing in more than one kind of regime in which their function, structure, and feedbacks are different. Changes, shocks and disturbances to these systems can drive them across a threshold into a different regime, frequently with unwelcomed surprises.

The resilience concept focuses on how these systems adapt and cope with the changes and disturbances.

1 . 3 J U S T I F I C AT I O N It was noted by many observers that the removal of many protective natural ecosystems such as mangroves, swamps, coral reefs, etc for human development directly contributed to the destruction caused by events like Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. Had these natural buffers been in place, it is speculated that the loss of life and property would have been significantly reduced (Walker and David Salt, 2006). It is likely that these communities would be better prepared for the disturbances if they had known the driving forces of the region, and embraced the processes of natural change rather than control them for short term returns. Since then, there has been development in the concepts of resilience within coastal communities/ region, riverfronts, and also urban settings. There have been significant practices in the management of the existing systems and resources to build their resilience.

However there is less emphasis on the application of resilience theory in the creation of new landscapes.

In a field like landscape architecture where changes and dynamics are inevitable, from growing medium to changing socio-economics it is equally important to apply resilience theory in design of new spaces and landscapes within a built environment.

1 . 4 L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W With ecology and human systems being highly influential in landscape architecture, designers and planners began to work across disciplinary boundaries to understand the dynamics between natural¬ and social systems (Alberti 2008). Given the context of uncertainties, climate changes and its consequences on the built environment, there is a growing demand and interest to improve resiliency of our cities, neighborhoods and landscapes. Improving resiliency involves a greater understanding of the dynamics of natural and social systems involved within a city or any Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

urban environment.

The concept of resilience was first introduced by C. S. (Buzz) Holling (1973), who published a classic paper in the Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics on the relationship between resilience and stability. His purpose was to describe models of change in the structure and function of ecological systems. Resilience as a concept is not new but its application in realworld situations has started only in the recent years.

With the number of serious environmental events and unwelcomed changes occurring in our landscapes, seascapes, farms and natural systems, there has been a growing body of research on the concept of resilience and natural resource management especially in the disciplines of ecology and social sciences. There have been efforts all over the world on understanding, managing, governing these linked complex socialecological systems.

Resilience is defined by the Resilience Alliance as “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance; to undergo change and still retain essentially the same function, structure and feedbacks” (Walker and David Salt, 2006). It is the capacity of a system to undergo some change without crossing a threshold to a different system regime—a system with a different identity. It is an evolution of systems thinking, which states that we are all part of linked systems of human and nature referred to as socio-ecological systems. These socioecological systems are complex adaptive systems that do not change in a predictive, linear incremental manner (Walker and David Salt, 2006). They are capable of existing in more than one kind of regime in which their function, structure, and feedbacks are different.

Changes, shocks and disturbances to these systems can drive them across a threshold into a different regime, frequently with unwelcomed surprises.

A general theory of systems thinking was founded by Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy, an Austrian born biologist, who spent much of his career in the United States and Canada. He offered a new approach – General Systems Theory which challenged the reductionist thinking in the sciences during 1960s. General Systems Theory states that “The essential properties of the whole, as they arise from a configuration of ordered relationships that organization of the whole, as they arise from a configuration of ordered relationships that are specific to that particular system. (Bertalanffy 1968). He emphasized through this theory that reductionist methods of thinking could not explain 2

complex biological systems. This theory expanded to various other disciplines and as a major contribution to Systems theory- “It seems therefore that a general theory of systems would be a useful tool providing, on the one hand, from vague analogies which have often marred the progress in these fields” (Bertalanffy 1968). This theory has been ingratiated in various fields, which explains the wide adaptation of systems theory till today.

Brunswick, were commissioned by the lumber industry in Canada to investigate decades of economically devastating outbreaks of the spruce budworm insect.

This study essentially proved Holling’s resilience theory (among other system tenets) and like Bertanlaffy’s theory, it also had the ability to be applied in various disciplines especially in understanding and managing human shaped environments which are interlinked with human and ecological systems (Brew 2010).

The systems theory influenced cybernetics which was a new science primarily concerned with how organisms and machines process and react to information, and how information flows regulate and organize systems (Weiner 1973). The feedback loops, one of the central ideas of Systems theory is a result of Weiner’s cybernetics principles. Feedback loops are the maintenance and regulatory mechanisms within systems: “….if you see a behavior that persists over time, there is likely a mechanism creating that consistent behavior. That mechanism operates through a feedback loop” (Meadows 2008). In other words, every part of a system creates feedbacks within a system that loops back to influence the system part.

A management approach based on resilience, on the other hand, would emphasize the need to keep options open, the need to view events in a regional rather than a local context, and the need to emphasize heterogeneity. Flowing from this would be not the presumption of sufficient knowledge, but the recognition of our ignorance; not the assumption that future events are expected, but that they will be unexpected. The Resilience framework can accommodate this shift of perspective, for it does not require a precise capacity to predict the future, but only a qualitative capacity to devise systems that can absorb and accommodate future events in whatever unexpected form they may take (Holling 1973). This framework was soon absorbed by many fields including urban planning and policy, coastal ecosystems, psychology, computer science, mathematics, urban ecology and so on.

The systems theory along with cybernetics, progressed towards Resilience, which was first introduced by Dr.C.S.(Buzz) Holling. He published a classic paper Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems in the Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics that challenged the approach to understand a system through its equilibrium state. An equilibrium centered view is essentially static and provides little insight into the transient behavior of systems that are not near the equilibrium. Natural, undisturbed systems are likely to be continually in a transient state; they will be equally so under the influence of man. (Holling 1973). Indeed Holling warned that although a static equilibrium model is easier to quantify and study, using it as the default perspective for understanding systems can lead to unexpected and perhaps entirely undesirable surprises (Holling 1973). Holling proposed a different approach to understand systems- Resilience approach, which is based on the idea that many ecosystems are subject to disturbances that create altered states.

A healthy system from this perspective is one that is not only able to maintain these relationships despite fluctuating variables but in essence embraces change (Holling 1973). The significance of this theory was soon identified in the scientific community and by 1980 CS Holling, who was at the University of British Columbia, and Gordon Baskerville at the University of New 3

Ian McHarg, a landscape architect wrote the book Design With Nature in 1969, and proposed an “ecological method” of design. He thought that the natural systems should be part of the city and viewed these natural sub-systems as part of a larger whole.

But he was criticized because he never addressed the interrelationships among these subsystems, but was concerned only with physical mapping of these systems. This objectification of landscape into separate quantified pieces is a frequently critiqued aspect of McHarg’s work (Reed 2009). This static representation of the landscape ignores the dynamic connections at work between the different components and how they contribute to the whole Reed 2009).

In 1985, landscape architect John Lyle published Design for Human Ecosystems: Landscape, LandUse and Natural Resources began to address the complexity involved in managing natural systems at multiple scales. “No Ecosystem stands alone. All ranks of ecosystems are open systems, not closed ones….

This implies that ecosystems are connected by flows of energy and materials. Each system draws in energy and materials from the systems around it and in turn Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

exports to them.” (Lyle 1999) By the 1980s and 1990s further research into ecology had revealed that ecological systems were very dynamic and terminology such as “network” and “matrix” began to emerge and became common in the literature (Reed 2009). Landscape Ecologists such as Wenche E. Dramstad, James Olson, and Richard T.T. Forman began to look at larger patterns formed across the human and natural landscape: “Like a plant cell or a human body, this living system exhibits three broad characteristics: structure, functioning, and change.

Landscape Structure is the spatial pattern or arrangement of landscape elements. Functioning is the movement and flows of animals, plants, water, wind, materials, and energy through the structure.

And change is the 18 dynamics or alteration in spatial pattern and functioning over time.” (Dramstad, Olson, Forman 1996). This perspective of landscape structure diminished the boundaries between the human and natural systems and enhanced the interrelationship between these systems.

In his essay “Ecology and Landscape as agents of creativity”, James Corner provides theoretical bases to allow for a more animate appropriation of ecology in landscape architecture. His emphasis is on the highly interactive processes and relationships that are transformative. He conceptualizes landscapes to function as catalysts, as continual transformations and encounters that actively resist closure and representation (Corner1997, p.105). Landscapes should not be a finished product but should continue to grow, be resilient and evolve with the changes around it.

This concept of resilience was listed as one of the five possible conceptualizations of nature by CS Holling, Lance Gunderson, and Donald Ludwig in their 2002 essay In Quest for a Theory of Adaptive Change.

These five conceptualizations include nature flat, nature balanced, nature anarchic, nature resilient and nature evolving. Nature flat is the belief that humans control natural systems and that their interventions carry few consequences. Nature balanced is the idea that natural systems are oriented around stable definable equilibriums that human beings can learn to live within. Nature anarchic is the conceptualization of nature being fundamentally unstable with growth always leading to collapse. Nature resilient is a more complex model that understands how natural systems Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

can move between multiple possible equilibriums and that systems are governed by adaptive cycles of growth and collapse.

Nature Evolving is the final conceptualization and the one that signifies the newest research in thinking about complex systems. The first three models of nature are one dimensional.

Nature resilient is the first model that acknowledges system complexity. The problem with the nature resilient model is that although it understands that systems can move into multiple equilibriums at any given time, the model does not illustrate the dynamic influence of changes over time and scale. Simply stated, the nature evolving model is the best model of abrupt and transformative change because it understands the influence of system connectivity across time and scale (Holling, Gunderson, Ludwig 2002). Understanding how systems change over time and scale are the key to understanding and designing complex social ecological systems (Resilience Alliance 2010, Brew, 2012).

With increasing growth of urban population, sustainability of cities has been a major issue in landscape architecture and urban ecology. The sustainability concept provides an equilibrium-based view and understanding of “ecology” based on the goal of an ideal sustainable form. This equilibrium view according to the article by Jack Ahern denies the inherent spatial and functional dynamics of complex, self-organizing socio-economic systems like cities. He looks at how the concept of Sustainability, which was understood as an integration of Equity, Economics, and Environment, now, has a potential fourth dimension to it with the recent resilience thinking. When viewed in a non-equilibrium context, resilience theory can be understood as fourth dimension of sustainability and perhaps holds the potential to reconcile the paradox of sustainable urban form (Arhen 2010). Arhen proposes biodiversity; urban ecological networks and connectivity; multifunctionality; redundancy and modularization; and adaptive design as five strategies to build resilience capacity and transdisciplinary collaboration.

Planting Design in urban landscapes plays a significant role in enhancing urban ecosystem structure, function and services. Plants help in storm water management, biodiversity conservation and human health. However, global climatic changes and increasing unpredictable weather calls for a new protocol for plant selection 4

in urban environments. Hunter develops an adaptive strategy to accommodate these challenges which offers a protocol for planting design. The strategy focuses on adding resilience to plantings rather than matching specific plant species to specific predictions of climate change. He also discusses the benefits and challenges involved in this strategy in relation to biodiversity conservation, social impact, the opportunity for “designed experiments” that examine the urban ecosystem processes and existing model forecasts for climate change.

The theory of resilience has evolved from systems theory in the field of ecology to multi-disciplines and is now identified as the key to sustainability. When cities are viewed and understood as complex socio-ecological systems, sustainability and resilience involve more than urban form. Transdisciplinary approach, strategic, systems-level thinking is required for planning and design for urban sustainability and resilience in a nonequilibrium context. (Arhen 2012). Most resilience and adaptive strategies are focused on urban planning solutions for sea level rise, heat island effects, health impacts and water treatment (Blanco et al.2008).

Guidance to adaptation of plant communities to the global climate change is limited (Hunter 2011) which creates an opportunity for further research. The study of the evolution of resilience and development of adaptive strategies forms a framework and guiding principle to this project. The study encourages exploring how one can design a landscape within an urban environment, as a system that embraces and responds to the changes and disturbances that occur within and around it.

Field Operations (Project Lead), Diller Scofidio + Renfro, and planting designer Piet Oudolf (www. highline.org).

Bird’s eye view of High line

1.5 PRECEDENT STUDIES 1.

High Line, New York

The High Line is a public park built on an historic freight rail line elevated above the streets on Manhattan’s West Side. It is owned by the City of New York, and maintained and operated by Friends of the High Line. It is now the nonprofit conservancy working with the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation to make sure the High Line is maintained as an extraordinary public space for all visitors to enjoy. The High Line design is a collaboration between James Corner 5

Close up of view of the Highline garden

http://www.thehighline.org/galleries/images/high-linepark-photos

This project demonstrates the design of a landscape Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

as a dynamic and evolving system and not a finished product. The openness to changes and uncertainties of its surroundings makes it a helpful precedent study for my project.

2.

Sagaponack Residence, New York

LaGuardia Design Landscape Architects, Water Mill, NY, Client: Steve and Sandy Perlbinder In order to save their beloved house from the incessant and inevitably threatening encroachment of the Atlantic Ocean, the owners of this 1970’s award winning “Record House” were willing to relocate their home in a more protected site. The house was then relocated some 400 feet further inland to the middle of a flat cornfield. The challenge for the Landscape Architect was to gracefully ensconce the simultaneously enlarged structure within a recreated landscape of undulating, grassy sand dunes and meadows, regenerating the natural environment lost with the erosion, but the ultimate goal of this project was to fabricate a self-sustaining landscape able to naturally grow for creating a resistant environment against the aggression of natural elements. (ASLA Magazine, Oct 2013)

Plan showing the residence and its context

http://www.asla.org/2013studentawards/519.html

3.

Designing for Resilience: Reshaping Purdue University’s Campus for an Ecologically Sound Future Camille Mahan, Assoc. ASLA; Lana Merrill, Student ASLA Faculty Advisor: Paul Siciliano

View of the residence amidst the planting This project is an example of resilience theory applied in a coastal region and demonstrates how the use of natural systems itself against the aggression of natural elements can build the resilience of a landscape.

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

Master plan proposed by the student http://www.asla.org/2013awards/001.html 6

As a major contributor to the values, health, and wellbeing of society, universities have a responsibility for leading in environmental stewardship on their campuses. This plan preserves the unique character of our University’s landscape while lessening its environmental imprint via stormwater management.

Specific objectives are chosen where the University can significantly reduce its imprint. These objectives result in a self-sustaining landscape that reconnects people with their environment and awakens them to the beauty of nature surrounding them (ASLA Magazine, Oct 2013).

4.

The Horizontal Dike

Yongjun Jo, Student ASLA & Kyungkun Lee,

Student ASLA, Graduate, University of Pennsylvania

Advisor: Karen M’Closkey, ASLA

This project is an example of resilience theory being used in an urban setting. The study of this project helps understand how resilience approach to design can not only help absorb changes in the environment but also contribute to the values, health and wellbeing of a society.

Illustrative Bird’s eye view

Illustrative Plan

http://www.asla.org/2013studentawards/422.html

Storm water management strategies proposed by the student to improve resiliency http://www.asla.org/2013studentawards/519.html 7

The Horizontal Dike, a new type of infrastructural waterfront protects Miami from sea level rise. Instead of drawing a clean border between the ocean and inland, the dike expands horizontally, provides rich platform for the future habitat and attraction. It will break the edge between the urban fabric and the ocean, forming liminal condition between the artificial and the natural. Ultimately, the Horizontal Dike will be a man-made infrastructure driven by natural process.

(ASLA Magazine, Oct 2013).

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

This project is an excellent example of how manmade infrastructure integrating natural processes can help build resilience and create a habitat as well as meet human needs. The study of this project can also help understand the resiliency approach in riverfront developments.

5.

St. Kjeld, in Østerbro -Copenhagen’s First Climate Resilient Neighborhood Designed by Tredje Natur, Copenhagen

The main objective of the project is to make St. Kjeld more resistant to the climate changes predicted for the particular reality of Copenhagen, but it goes beyond that: Adapting the neighborhood and offering solutions that will leave the city (even more) attractive will make it a beautiful and inspiring example for us all, demonstrating environmental, cultural, economical, and social concern.

Illustrative perspective showing raingardens and courtyards

(http://landarchs.com/copenhagens-first-climate-resilientneighborhood/)

This project is specifically focused on cities and their climatic resilience at a neighborhood scale which makes it a relevant precedent study for my capstone project.

1.6 PROPOSED DESIGN APPROACH This project aims at developing a design approach based on resiliency theory that can be applied in the built environment. This framework will be adapted in the conventional linear design process. Conventional inventory and analysis phases will interpret the existing systems within the site and its context. Such systems include the physical, social, cultural, economic and ecological structures. In addition, the site’s history will be studied which will help visualize the evolution and dynamics of the site over the time, as well as, the Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

adaptive cycles and thresholds of each systems.

Influenced by systems thinking, the analysis of the site’s larger context will be as important as site scale interpretations. A clear understanding of how the contextual systems have evolved over time is necessary to understand the complex linkages between systems at various scales. With this in mind a contextual boundary for the site will be defined and studied.

The analysis maps and diagrams will be developed at the contextual scales and site scales for each of these systems, and based on the identified positive and negative factors of the site, recommendations for the design will be made. These recommendations will also be based on the theoretical framework from the earlier studies. They will aim at building the site’s adaptive capacity and resiliency to changes allowing the site to evolve with these changes.

Based on a comprehensive understanding of the dynamic systems within the site and its context, a program will be developed that responds to these conditions. The program will include the design elements and uses that will accommodate existing conditions as well as the theoretical framework of resiliency. The design development phase will begin with a conceptual design. At this stage the focus is on the site scale and the strategies applied begin to take shape. The concept design phase will look at various alternatives to help identify the design that best meets the resiliency criteria. The design will be further evaluated on how it meets the resilience criteria which includes the following questions: • Does the proposed design respond to both site and contextual scale requirements?

• Does the design influence the systems at both scales?

• Does the design adapt to changes over time and be resilient?

• Does the design address the central ideas of resiliency; feedback loops, adaptive cycles, panarchy?

• Does the design address all the interlinked systems which include social, physical, economic, and ecological systems?

• Does the design function as a process oriented system as opposed to static end goal?

With these criteria, the design will be further refined and the final documentation will be prepared. In the final documents, site will be introduced with its location, area and other basic information in both text and graphic format followed by site analysis maps. Site analysis 8

maps will be at both the site scale and contextual scale for all the systems analyzed from ecological systems, physical/spatial systems to social and economical systems. The program developed based on this will follow the site analysis maps in written format and a conceptual graphic format that will explain the initial thoughts and ideas. The final master plan with all the recommendations integrated in the design will follow the program development. Other supportive graphics for the design like sections, elevations, visuals of the key areas and details will end the final document set.

All these documents will be prepared using the graphic softwares of Adobe, ArcGIS, AutoCAD and Google Sketchup. The information required to produce these documents will be obtained from various sources. The site information is obtained through site visits, interviews conducted with the users, google earth images, aerial photographs, literature review of news and events of the site, libraries, and historic maps. Some of the precedent projects will also be studied through web resources and libraries.

9

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

2 SITE

2.1 SITE INTRODUCTION Pittsburgh has undergone a major transformation from an energy-driven industrial city into a diversified 21st century hub for manufacturing, technology, education, healthcare, and the arts. But Pittsburgh is not done transforming, in the next decades there are many more changes to come. Pittsburgh is re-emerging. The city has been reclaiming riverfront and brownfield sites, and returning land to productive uses. Over the last decade neighborhood populations have declined and shifted; and, nature has begun to reclaim some abandoned sites. These areas will change again as people return to urban living and the city begins to grow in population, public riverfronts, and educational attainment, and service and production job markets.

This supports the type of change that can improve the quality of life for all residents and enhance the economic, social and physical conditions of the city and region. This new attitude towards change has led to a number of conservation, preservation and development projects in the city. Some significant examples include the North Shore stadium, Southside works, Station square, Allegheny Riverfront Park along with a number of pedestrian and cycling trails (Almono Site, 2013).

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

10

South Oakland

Map showing the location of South Oakland neighborhood within the city of Pittsburgh

The site selected for this project is a part of South Oakland neighborhood. Located in the heart of Pittsburgh and to the east of Downtown South Oakland is bordered by Uptown, West Oakland, Central Oakland, Squirrel Hill South, Greenfield and Hazelwood. A short distance away- across the Monongahela River is the Southside Flats. Though located very close to the civic, medical, and educational amenities of Central and North Oakland, South Oakland has a somewhat different character.

The neighborhood is split between a riverfront flood plain to the southwest and a plateau to the northeast. The plateau is divided into two primarily residential areas which are separated from one another by Bates Street, which runs up a valley from the flood plain to the plateau. The residents of the neighborhood on the north side of Bates Avenue selfidentify their neighborhood as Oakcliffe. The flood plain was previously packed with industrial sites such as the Pittsburgh Works Consolidated Gas Co. and the Jones & Laughlin Steel Co., but presently, the Pittsburgh Technology Center hosts facilities such as the Entertainment Technology Center of Carnegie Mellon University. The boulevard of the Allies also has a small collection of mostly automobile-oriented businesses along it. The neighborhood resides on a bluff high above the Monongahela river and the topography prevents access to the Hill district to the North west and to the South Side to the south, although the latter is accessible by bicycle through Junction Hollow trail and new pedestrian path along river and Hot Metal Bridge.

11

Demographics, Housing, Land data obtained from the department of planning, City of Pittsburgh

South Oakland houses an estimated population of 2,969 in 2010 and shows a decrease of 1.3% between 2000 and 2010. Although Pittsburgh is an aging city, due to the close proximity to three universities- Carlow University, University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University, South Oakland houses a high proportion of youth. 40.9% of the residents are in the age between 20 and 34 who are mostly students and employees of UPMC and University of Pittsburgh. South Oakland has experienced a rise in housing values more than that across the city.

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

2 . 2 WAT E R S H E D South Oakland is divided into two parts each belonging to different sub-watersheds. The eastern part of South Oakland is part of a large watershed called Four mile run watershed with a historic stream that ran through the valley and does not exist anymore. The stream has been buried into the combined sewer system which which has an overflow to the Monongahela River. This part of South Oakland became my area of interest due to its dynamic changes over time. More research was conducted to learn about the lost historic streams and the site.

Watershed, ridges and valleys identified for the Eastern part of South Oakland Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

12

Site location within the Four Mile Watershed Map Courtesy: Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy

13

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

Four Mile watershed map with lost hisoric streams and existing channels Courtesy: Slow water movement blog

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

14

2 . 3 I N V E N TO RY A N D DATA COLLECTION An inventory of the different systems within the neighborhood was conducted and the data was used as a base for the analysis and identification of the site opportunities and constraints. These systems include Circulation (vehicular and pedestrian), parks and natural systems, soils data from USGA, topography, sewer map from ALCOSAN, slopes and Zoning. The data was obtained from the City Planning department, US Census, USGA, ALCOSAN and PASDA.

Circulation

Parks and natural systems

Soils

Sewer Map

Slopes

Zoning 15

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

3 C O N T E X T U A L S I T E A N A LYS I S 3 . 1 S YS T E M S A N A LYS I S

Cirsculation systems showing the streets heirarchy, bus routes and walking radius

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

16

Analysis map showing the different landuses and key locations within the neighborhood

17

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

3.2 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

18

Using the inventory and analysis layers as a basis the opportunities and constraints within the site were identified.

This and the watershed analysis together helped me identify my area of interest for the project . The study of historic changes over time within the neighborhood and the larger context gave me a solid foundation for the resiliency concept to applied to the design.

19

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

3.3 AREA OF INTEREST : EXISTING CONDITIONS Based on my neighborhood analysis, watershed analysis and historical studies of the neighborhood, the eastern half of the neighborhood became my area of interest. The existing conditions of this area was studied in depth.

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

Housing Values within the area of interest

20

Landuse & Zoning within the area of interest

21

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

Population studies within the area of interest

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

22

Drainage Patterns within the site

Slopes

23

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

4

DESIGN CONCEPT

4 . 1 C O N C E P T S TAT E M E N T The project focuses on the design of natural systems that adapt to social and environmental changes over time and create conditions that allow for a greater diversity of natural systems. The Four Mile Run Valley was chosen as a potential site for the design because of its historic stream path, its location within the core of Pittsburgh’s neighborhoods, its surrounding vacant and publicly-owned land availability, and its location within the Four mile Run watershed that provides an opportunity for a significant reduction of combined sewer overflow into the Monongahela River.

The main objectives of the design includes: 1.

An integrated storm water system that captures, slows down and partially filters the surface runoff from eastern half of South Oakland neighborhood and flows through the daylighted historic stream through Four Mile Run valley to Monongahela River.

2.

An artful design of storm water flow that is visible and a pedestrian access that connects people to the stream bed and allows for passive recreation, education, demonstration and interactions with the natural systems.

3.

A design that disconnects a part of the neighborhood of South Oakland from combined sewer system but is part of a larger contextual strategy that seeks to revive the Four mile run watershed. This results in a significant reduce in surface runoff, soil erosion and pollutants flow into the Monongahela River.

4.

A pedestrian network that connects to the existing city wide trails hence being a part of the larger social context.

5.

A flood plain that can accommodate greater flood events, allow diverse habitats to thrive, thereby increasing the biodiversity within the neighborhood and the region.

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

24

With these objectives and a theoretical framework of resiliency and systems thinking, a broader contextual vision was developed to illustrate how the contextual systems can influence and shape the site design. The contextual analysis and vision identifies three major nodes where the gray infrastructure meets the green systems. These nodes became the anchor points for the design. A connected storm water infrastructure for the residential streets of South Oakland, an artfully designed water feature, an ADA accessible path from Swinburne street, a boardwalk from Boundary street through the constructed wetland, overlook terraces with benches and boulder seating, 30-40’ wide flood plain to accommodate flood events and a sediment pool to collect and filter runoff from Schenley Park are the main program elements. The design creates a valuable amenity to the neighborhood that can improve property values and educational opportunities.

Beyond the ecological and social benefits, the design creates an identity to the neighborhood and foster an environmentally conscious community.

Conceptual sketch showing site and nodes 25

Topograpghical studies of the nodes Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

4.2 REGIONAL SCALE

SOUTH OAKLAND

SCHENLEY PARK

NO

MO A

EL AH

NG

district ER RIV

Conceptual visioning on the regional scale Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

26

4.3 DISTRICT SCALE

site

Conceptual site design on district scale 27

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

4.4 SITE SCALE

Conceptual view of the design elements at site scale

Conceptual plan showingprogram and elements on site scale Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

28

5

PROPOSED DESIGN

5.1 VISION PLAN

29

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

5.2 DISTRICT PLAN

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

30

5.3 SITE PLAN

31

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

5.4 SECTIONS AND PERSPECTIVES

Bird’s Eye view

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

32

View 1

33

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

5.5 DESIGN DETAILS

View 2

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

34

View 3

35

Poojitha Ramalingachar I Spring 2015

6

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Walker, Brian, and David Salt. Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world.

Island Press, 2006.

Walker, Brian, and David Salt. “Preparing for Practice: The Essence of Resilience Thinking.” In Resilience Practice, pp. 1-25. Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, 2012.

Walker, Brian H., John M. Anderies, Ann P. Kinzig, and Paul Ryan. “Exploring resilience in social-ecological systems through comparative studies and theory development: introduction to the special issue.” Ecology and Society 11, no. 1 (2006): 12.

LaGro, James A. Site analysis: linking program and concept in land planning and design. John Wiley & Sons, 2001.

Brew,2012. Dynamic Capacity: A resilience model for riverfront design in Pittsburgh’s strip district. MLA, Chatham University.

Ahern, Jack. “Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design.” Landscape Ecology 28.6 (2013): 1203-1212.

Hunter, MaryCarol. “Using Ecological Theory to Guide Urban Planting Design An adaptation strategy for climate change.” Landscape Journal 30.2 (2011): 173-193.

The 2013 ASLA Awards.. Landscape Architecture Magazine. October 2013.

American Society of Landscape Architects. 1899.

2013 ASLA Awards. [10 October] The Resilience Alliance. 1999. http://www.resalliance. org/index.php/key_concepts. [1 November 2013].

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Richard Rauso, Chatham University Jason Vrabel, Chatham university Dr. Kyle Beidler, Chatham University Dr. Thelma Lazo-FLores, Chatham University Fellow classmates, friends and family

Submitted by Poojitha Ramalingachar in fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Landscape Architecture degree Chatham University Pittsburgh, Pa