Choreographing Urban Sustainability with Communities

Choreographing Urban Sustainability

with communities:

+ How

can

Community Building

Improved Stormwater Management Systems

support one another in low-income communities?

2

   Choreographing

Urban Sustainability with Communities:

How can community building and the improvement of stormwater management systems support one another in low-income, urban neighborhoods?

Emily Ryan McCoy Master of Landscape Architecture Final Project May 2008 Department of Landscape Architecture College of Design North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC

Committee: Chair, Assistant Professor Kofi M. Boone, Landscape Architecture Assistant Professor Dr. Lee-Anne S. Milburn, Landscape Architecture Assistant Professor Dr. William F. Hunt III, Biological and Agricultural Engineering 1

Abstract

Enacting strategies to improve urban life can no longer be encapsulated into one discipline’s goals, one realm of implementation or viewed at from one standard scale. To facilitate sustainable development within the urban form, design and planning strategies must address social, environmental, economic and aesthetic considerations in unison (Figure 1).

publ ic

col lab or ation

macro

stormwater management strategies.

social

aesthetic m es o

for collaboration by highlighting the secondary benefits of certain

economic

m

significant problems in the urban environment, but typically organizations that strive to improve these resources work independently of one another. However, a few innovative organizations have found overlapping objectives and reasons

environment

private

water quality and community building groups that strive to help communities in need become aware of and develop their assets and capacities. Lack of social resources and water quality concerns are two

o icr

One such collaboration is between environmental groups involved in improving

individual

Discovering how among different disciplines can benefit one another and a critical evaluation of these relationships will become increasingly imperative in our dynamic and complex world.

The intent of this investigation was to critically review the literature, conduct case studies and a post-occupancy evaluation to discover how such

non-profi t

partnerships can be executed successfully and what lessons can be

learned. This investigation has revealed that successful partnerships between these groups require that secondary benefits of stormwater management strategies be Figure 1. Sustainable development matrix tailored to a community’s unique concerns and presented to the community in such terms. It has also been found that success for these projects is dependent on whether their plans address several scales and have long-term viability with regards for environmental, social and economic health, while also providing aesthetic appeal and desirability.

Keywords: low impact development, urban sustainability, community education and outreach, community building, community design, stormwater management, resource conservation and education

1

.Introduction 7 - 10

Why focus on urban environments, stormwater management and community building? 7 - 8

2

. Literature Review 11 - 42

2.1 Urban Form + Function 11 - 18....2.2 Urban Sustainability Theory 18 - 20....2.3 Sustainable Design Strategies 20 21....2.4 Stormwater Management and the Urban Ecosystem 21 -23....2.5 Community Building 24 - 35....2.6 Community Building, A New Tool for the Community Design Toolbox 35 - 37....2.7 How Can the Improvement of Stormwater Management Systems + Community Building Benefit from One Another? 37 - 42

3

. Examples 43 - 62

3.1 Introduction 43....3.2 Selection + Evaluation Criteria 43....3.3 The Bottom Neighborhood Project/ Wilmington, NC 44 - 52....3.4 Rutgers University P3 Project/ Newark, NJ 53 - 55....3.5 West Philadelphia Landscape Project 56 - 58....3.6 Anacostia River Initiative/ Washington, DC 58 - 61....3.7 Summary of Project Performance Based on Sustainability Criteria

4

. Conclusions 63 - 64 4.1 Scale + Organization 63....4.2 Private vs. Public Land 63....4.3 BMP’s + Public Open Space 63....4.4 Getting People Involved 63....4.5

Visibility + Instant Gratification 63....4.6 Closing Remarks 63 - 64

5

. Design Project 65 - 96

5.1 Project Title 65....5.2 Project Location 65...5.3 Project Tyoe 65...5.4 Project Statement 65...5.5 Goals + Objectives 65...5.6 Lessons Learned 65...5.7 Methods 65-66...5.8 The Plan 66-70... 5.9 Context 70 - 71...5.10 Opportunities 71 - 72... 5.11 Public Process + Outreach... 72 - 73...5.12 The Process Applied to East Durham 73 - 101 ...5.13 Concluding Remarks 102

6

. References 103 - 110

7

. Acknowledgements + Appendices 111 - 115

7.1 Abstracts 111 - 112...7.2 Site Visit Notes 112 - 113...7.3 Stormwater Model Outputs for Eastway Elementary 114...8 Acknowledgements 115

List of Illustrations Figure 2. Figure 1. Sustainable development matrix

3

Figure 3. Figure 1. Basic logic for approaching sustainable development within the urban form.

9 Figure 4. Figure 2. Sustainable development matrix as it applies to this paper

10

Figure 5. Figure 3. The human ecosystem framework (Fish, Dalton, and McLean, 2007) 12 Figure 6. Figure 6. City form and ecological health. The heat island effect in Baton Rouge, La. The red and yellow areas indicate relatively warmer areas and usually are impervious surfaces such as roofs and roads (here around 149 deg. F.). The blue and green areas are typically vegetation and water (here 77 deg. F.) Large areas of surfaces such as roads and buildings in urban areas increase the ambient temperature such that energy consumption is increased along with rainfall and death due to heat stroke in addition to degrading water quality (http://science.nasa.gov). 13 Figure 7. Figure 7. How form influences our quality of life

13

Figure 8. Figure 4. Street diagrams of various cities. Note that Mississauga, Ontario has large blocks and in turn little pedestrian activity ( Jacobs, 1993. www.bricoleurbanism.org). This “super block” form, characteristic of suburban sprawl, forces people to drive more, which has been known to increase air pollution and is linked to physical inactivity and obesity (Ewing et al, 2003) 13 Figure 9. Figure 5. Urban design conversations must include landscape ecology principles.

Street diagrams with hypothetical “green” spaces to question how landscape ecology principles and urban design principles can benefit and inform one another. Can ecological corridors and vehicular corridors occupy the same space? How does developing large tracts of vacant land to public open space transform urban communities and ecological communities? Can green corridors provide desirable pedestrian pathways, where people will become more active? 13 Figure 10. Figure 8. Coinciding elements of urban design and landscape ecology

14

Figure 11. Figure 9. Forman’s top priority, ‘indispensable’ patterns [2002]. This diagram is of East Durham. Note at the plan view scale, quality of land is not evaluated. A site level view of the spaces is an essential layer , as city-defined public open space does not necessarily indicate a high quality piece of land. This patch in East Durham is used by the city as a dump and storage facility of construction materials and also lies within the floodplain. (next page). 15 Figure 12. Figure 10. Effects of impervious surfaces [ adopted from Arnold and Gibbons, 1996 ] 25 Figure 13. Figure 11. Storm sewer in Queens, 1938. [ Gotham Gazette (2003) ] Figure 14. Figure 12. Los Angeles River [ Sorvig 2002 ]

27

27

Figure 15. Figure 13. Newark, NJ with a CSO on a clear day[ Rutgers University 2005 ] 27 Figure 16. Figure 14. CSO Lake Michigan [ http://www.macalester.edu/environmentalstudies/students/projects/ urbanwastewaterwebsite/index.html ] 27

Figure 17. Figure 15. Rain garden with native plant species at Centennial Campus, NCSU [ photo by McCoy ] 29 Figure 18. Figure 16. Rain barrel at a home in Wilmington, NC [ photo by McCoy ] 31 Figure 19. Figure 18. Extended stormwater detention basin at Centennial Campus NCSU a day after a 10-year storm [ photo by McCoy ] 31 Figure 20. Figure 17. Rain garden to capture roof runoff in Raleigh, NC [ photo by McCoy ] 31 Figure 21. Figure 19. Dense urban situations can be challenging for stormwater management design [ photo by McCoy ] 34 Figure 22. Figure 20. Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation [ www.partnership.org ] 36 Figure 23. Figure 21. Rohe’s recommended steps for building social capital within a community [ 2004 ] 38 Figure 24. Figure 22. Volunteers and WECO work together to learn about stormwater issues in Wilmington, NC and construct BMP’s in their neighborhood [ WECO ] 44 Figure 25. Figure 23. Anderson Tabernacle- rain garden in lower left corner of photo 46 Figure 26. Figure 24. Rain garden in resident’s backyard- resident added hardscape materials and mulching 46 Figure 27. Figure 25. Wallace Park- Jason Wright checking on monitoring equipment 46 Figure 28. Figure 26. Stonesthrow Townhomes constructed wetland

46

Figure 29. Figure 27. Christy Perrin (WECO), Joe Abbate (Cape Fear River Watch) and Jason Wright (NCSU BAE) inspect resident’s rain garden 47 Figure 30. Figure 28. Stormwater ‘Green Streets’ in Portland designed by Kevin Perry (http://www. artfulrainwaterdesign.net/photos/show/378/)

52

Figure 31. Figure 29. Weequahic Park (Rutgers Team P3, 2005) 53 Figure 32. Figure 30. Seth Boyden Complex (Rutgers Team P3, 2005)

54

Figure 33. Figure 31. Dayton Elementary School (Rutgers Team P3, 2005) 54

List of Illustrations

Figure 34. Figure 32. P3’s concept master plan (Rutgers Team P3, 2005) 55 Figure 35. Figure 33. P3’s site plan for Dayton Elementary school (Rutgers Team P3, 2005) 55 Figure 36. Figure 34. School children observing a water feature at their school (WPLP) 56 Figure 37. Figure 35. Master plan and accompanying vignettes (AWI)

59

Figure 38. Figure 36. Boundaries map of East Durham: boundaries can be viewed as opportunities or constraints 74 Figure 39. Figure 37. East Durham context maps

75

Figure 40. Figure 38. Landscape architect’s role in community design

76

Figure 41. Figure 39. Land use and neighborhoods of East Durham

77

Figure 42. Figure 40. Urban renewal in the 1950’s led to the displacement of many AfricanAmerican families in Durham 77 Figure 43. Figure 41. Men using a ramp to roll hogshead of tobacco onto a train car 77 Figure 44. Figure 42. Living conditions in the low lying areas of Durham in the early 1900’s 77 Figure 45. Figure 44. NCDOT’s plan for widening Alston Ave. (note buildings that will need to be removed and proximity to Eastway Elementary) 78 Figure 46. Figure 43. Most polluted streams in Durham from 1996-2002 78 Figure 47. Figure 45. Existing urban form and landscape ecology structure of East Durham 80 Figure 48. Figure 46. Ladder of sponges concept development 81 Figure 49. Figure 47. Ladder of sponges concept development 82

Figure 54. Figure 52. Living and learning neighborhood planning: opportunities for stormwater management 87 Figure 55. Figure 53. Living and learning neighborhood planning: opportunities + constraints for stormwater management 88 Figure 56. Figure 54. Living and learning neighborhood planning: stormwater management strategy 89 Figure 57. Figure 55. Eastway Elementary Site Plan: existing conditions

90

Figure 58. Figure 56. Eastway Elementary site plan: potential nodes (urban design and ecological) 91 Figure 59. Figure 57. Eastway Elementary site plan: study model

92

Figure 60. Figure 58. Eastway Elementary site plan: master plan 93 Figure 61. Figure 59. Eastway Elementary site plan: section looking south (see plan on previous page for section cut line) 94 Figure 62. Figure 60. Eastway Elementary site plan: detail section looking south

95

Figure 63. Figure 61. Eastway Elementary site plan: detail section looking south

96

Figure 64. Figure 62. Eastway Elementary site plan: detail section looking south

97

Figure 65. Figure 63. Alston Avenue Widening Design Altertaive

98

Figure 66. Figure 64. Alston Avenue Widening Design Alternative: axon 99 Figure 67. Figure 65. Alston Avenue Widening Design Alterative: stormwater planter detail (Planters slow down, infiltrate and filter stormwater while also providing seating, planting and indicating the slope and low points of the neighbohood.)

100 Figure 68. Figure 66. Alston Avenue Widening Design Alterative: crosswalk and vegetated swale that also functions as a pedestrian refuge 101

Figure 50. Figure 48. Ladder of sponges concept development 83 Figure 51. Figure 49. Living and learning neighborhood planning development: existing conditions. Orange areas indicate historical parcels, purple are government parcels and blue is the floodplain of the Goose Creek.

84 Figure 52. Figure 50. Living and learning neighborhood planning development: existing conditions 85 Figure 53. Figure 51. Living and learning neighborhood planning: East Durham’s human and social capital 86

6

1. Introduction WHY FOCUS ON URBAN ENVIRONMENTS?

Half of the world’s population now resides in urban areas and it is projected that by 2030 this will increase to 60% (U.N., 2003). Recent urbanization trends offer the opportunity for cities to be designed and re-designed so economic development can meet basic human needs while enhancing cultures and natural environments, for present and future generations (known as sustainable development) (Figure 2). In addition, there is a great need to ensure that these cities are designed and re-designed to alleviate poverty, promote social equality, create strong social relationships and practice sound environmental management (World Bank, 2005).

Urban communities and all the players that influence urban form and function must seek design decisions that are multi-faceted in their strategies for creating sustainable communities. When faced with such decisions, the basic concepts for initiating sustainable communities should involve the equal pursuance of social, economical and environmental viability with careful attention to aesthetic appeal. This pas de quatre, or “dance of four performers,” is an essential composition of urban design criterion that can be realized at several scales; from local to global; and transgress the compartmentalized efforts of many disciplines that are on parallel paths to improve people’s lives.

One area in need of multi-scalar and multi-discipline thinking is urban stormwater design and planning. Water resource management has been cited as one of the most critical issues urban communities will face in the 21st century (Dalhammar & Mehlmann, 1996) and urban stormwater runoff has been identified as one of the major causes of water pollution (US EPA, 1996).

Due to the magnitude and complexity of water resource issues presented in our communities, it has become imperative that we make sustainable decisions that choreograph a balanced “dance” of the four performers to control and prevent stormwater pollution. It has been demonstrated that not only is it possible to utilize low-impact stormwater management strategies to prevent and control stormwater pollution, but also these strategies are capable of producing economic and social benefits if set within an appropriate framework.

Several partnerships between the public and private sectors have been developed to address urban stormwater management and community

revitalization (Anacostia River Initiative, Washington, DC; West Philadelphia Landscape Project, PA; The Bottom Neighborhood Project, Wilmington, NC; Rutgers P3 Team, Newark, NJ; Restorative Redevelopment: The Nine Mile Run Model, Pittsburgh, PA). In recent years, these partnerships have found success by integrating their efforts with ongoing community building strategies in urban neighborhoods. Alone, many community building efforts have thrived by helping communities in need become aware of and develop their assets and capacities. These efforts have resulted in stronger neighborhoods, socially and economically (Kretzman and McKnight, 1993).

By marrying community building and a natural resource improvement effort, like stormwater management; communities and professionals can work together to improve the quality of urban life.

The combination of urban stormwater management and community building represents an emerging trend in addressing the challenges facing communities in a comprehensive way. As such, it asks how community building and improved stormwater management systems can support one another in low-income, urban neighborhoods? The methods utilized in this investigation were to critically review the literature, conduct case studies and a post-occupancy evaluation to discover how such partnerships can be executed successfully and what lessons can be learned.

This investigation has revealed that successful partnerships between these groups require that secondary benefits of stormwater management strategies be tailored to a community’s unique concerns and presented to the community in such terms. It has also been found that success for these projects is dependent on whether their plans address several scales and have long-term viability with regards for environmental, social and economic health, while also providing aesthetic appeal and desirability (Figure 3).

The intent of this paper is to: •

First, provide an overview of successful urban form, innovative stormwater management and community building principles and why they are imperative in designing urban communities. The goal is to first establish a common language in order to discuss their integration and then evaluate how these philosophies can relate to one another.

7

•

Second, to develop a set of criteria that will be used to measure the “success” of projects that have integrated community building principles and innovative stormwater management strategies based on whether they have encouraged, discouraged or neglected urban design components necessary for sustainable communities. Impacts on the environment (hydrology), society (principles of community building), aesthetics/ physical quality (desirable neighborhood form) and economic gain (job creation and skills development) will be evaluated, in addition to their scale and strategies for implementation.

•

Third, develop design principles at a range of scales to guide attempts to integrate community building and stormwater management.

•

Finally, apply the guidelines to a revitalization project in a community in East Durham, NC.

Author’s note to you: My topic immerses itself into disciplines that are superficially unrelated and vast, but are so important to me I wanted to look at them at this depth. I wrote this with 3 main groups of people in mind- those within the landscape architecture world, civil engineers and most importantly, community organizers and educators. I assumed that each group had limited knowledge of the other’s basic theories and the literature review is intended to introduce each discipline to the other, if needed.

8

Recent Urbanization Trends

Re-evaluate Are we meeting our current needs?

Are we going to meet our future needs?

Calculate The consensus: no + not at this rate

Formulate How can we improve our cities?

What are the considerations?

Figure 1. Basic logic for approaching sustainable development within the urban form.

9

Sustainable Design Decisions ...a dance of four performers...

public

macro

environment

Job Creation + Training

economic

aesthetic

m

non-profi t

Community Building

social

tomorrow

m es o

o icr

Collaborate

private

today

individual

Stormwater Management

“Healthy� + Desirable Forms

Figure 2. Sustainable development matrix as it applies to this paper

10

2. Literature Review

2.1 WHAT ARE URBAN FORM + FUNCTION?

and seafood production.

Ur b a n Fo r m

The primary physical elements of landscape have been defined by landscape ecologists as (Dramstad, Olson and Forman, 1996): • Patches (isolated group with a distinct characteristic) • Edges (the outer part of the patch that is different in character than the inside of the patch) • Corridors (can be a barrier, a filter, a source of isolation or connectivity) • Mosaics (networks)

To first understand how cities can be designed to foster sustainable communities, we must first understand what urban form is and what variables make cities different from one another. A city’s form has a dialectical relationship with how it functions as a place for living and evolves over time in response to cultural, geographical, demographical, regional and environmental changes. Typically, urban form is narrowly defined as the compilation of transportation systems, architecture, population density and patterns of land use within a city (Handy, 1996, p. 152-53). The raw physical elements of urban form have been identified by Kevin Lynch (1960) as: • Paths (channels of movement) (Figure 5) • Edges (boundaries) • Districts (two-dimensional distinct sections of a city) • Nodes (distinct points that may be a foci, convergence of paths or dominant features that an observer can enter) • Landmarks (like nodes, but they cannot be entered by an observer, they are only external) •

These elements cannot exist alone and the organization of these elements can make a city distinct and “satisfying” or unsatisfying, according to Lynch.

The assimilation of these elements gives a city its form and are the “primary determinants” of urban sustainability (Beatley, 2003). For example, more compact and dense urban forms can foster more efficient use of energy or encourage pedestrian transportation or the distribution of vegetation in a city can offset the negative effects of the heat island effect.

To consider sustainable forms in urban systems it is important for cities to evaluate the interface between the urban and natural elements, how they influence one another and what forms between the urban and natural systems can be fused together as one element independent of an urban or natural designation (Figure 6, 7, 8 and 9). Prior to this evaluation, it is necessary that communities critically evaluate which ecosystems it depends on most in order to plan for its protection and amelioration (Marsh, 1983). To most communities, aquatic ecosystems will be important for water supply, but other considerations should be addressed such as supporting industries like forestry

At first, one may think that desirable urban forms are incompatible with ecological design and planning concepts, but as Beatley (2003) points out, several examples exist, especially in Europe. Many European cities have demonstrated this interaction with green rings around cities or natural patches connected by corridors.

Like man-made urban elements, their organization and character can also determine the quality and diversity of the system. For example, the geometry of a patch can dictate the movement, size and density of plant and animal populations. Forman (1995) has found that there are “indispensable” patterns (Figure 10a) in the landscape that support high quality ecological processes if they are kept within the landscape . These patterns are considered a necessity for any land use plan that strives for healthy ecosystems, but also needs to be evaluated on the site level to understand the quality of the patch. Low quality patches that offer connectivity to large scale corridors can be opportunities for restoration (Figure 10b).

As Zipperer, Wu, Pouyat and Picket (2000) have pointed out, in order to maintain the viability and productivity of ecosystems and the services they provide, land use decisions must be grounded in ecological and social principles. Zipperer et al. suggest a human ecosystem model to evaluate how land use decisions will affect physical, social and ecological processes and structures in urban and urbanizing landscapes (Table 1). The human ecosystem model is simply a “checklist” for natural resource-based management strategies that include sociocultural considerations in concert with biophysical ones.

Zipperer et al. (2000) conclude that connectivity is one of the most important considerations when making land uses decisions.

11

Principle

Definition

Content

The structural and functional attributes of a patch where “structure” is the physical arrangement of ecological, physical, and social components, and “function” refers to the way the components interact

Context

The patch’s location relative to the rest of the landscape as well as the adjacent and nearby land units that are in direct contact or linked to a patch by active interactions.

Connectivity

How spatially or functionally continuous a patch, corridor, network or matrix of concern is s

Dynamics

How a patch or patch mosaic changes structurally and functionally through time

Heterogeneity

The spatial and temporal distribution of patches across a landscape. Heterogeneity creates the barriers or pathways to the flow of energy, matter, species and information.

Hierarchy

A system of discrete functional units that are linked but operate at two or more scales. Proper coupling of spatial and temporal hierarchies provides a key to simplifying and understanding the complexity of urban landscapes.

Figure 3. The human ecosystem framework (Fish, Dalton, and McLean, 2007)

Table 2. The human ecosystem model considerations

12

Figure 4. Street diagrams of various cities. Note that Mississauga, Ontario has large blocks and in turn little pedestrian activity ( Jacobs, 1993. www. bricoleurbanism.org). This “super block” form, characteristic of suburban sprawl, forces people to drive more, which has been known to increase air pollution and is linked to physical inactivity and obesity (Ewing et al, 2003)

Figure 5. Urban design conversations must include landscape ecology principles. Street diagrams with hypothetical “green” spaces to question how landscape ecology principles and urban design principles can benefit and inform one another.

Can ecological corridors and vehicular corridors occupy the same space? How does developing large tracts of vacant land to public open space transform urban communities and ecological communities?

Can green corridors provide desirable pedestrian pathways, where people will become more active?

Figure 6. City form and ecological health. The heat island effect in Baton Rouge, La. The red and yellow areas indicate relatively warmer areas and usually are impervious surfaces such as roofs and roads (here around 149 deg. F.). The blue and green areas are typically vegetation and water (here 77 deg. F.) Large areas of surfaces such as roads and buildings in urban areas increase the ambient temperature such that energy consumption is increased along with rainfall and death due to heat stroke in addition to degrading water quality (http://science. nasa.gov).

Figure 7. How form influences our quality of life

13

 

Urban Form+ Function

Urban Design

+

[ dialogue ]

Landscape Ecology

Elements + Patterns Paths > < Corridors

u a

oxbor

Edges > < Edges Blvd./ 70

Hoods > < Patches Nodes > < Nodes

m 47

0

0.1 0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1 Miles

Districts > < Mosaics 0

0

0.1 0.2

0.1 0.2

0.4

0.4

0.6

0.6

0.8

0.8

1 Miles

$ $

1 Miles

Figure 8. Coinciding elements of urban design and landscape ecology

14

Urban Form+ Function

[ dialogue ]

Landscape Ecology Models Figure 9. Forman’s top priority, ‘indispensable’ patterns [2002]. This diagram is of East Durham. Note at the plan view scale, quality of land is not evaluated. A site level view of the spaces is an essential layer , as city-defined public open space does not necessarily indicate a high quality piece of land. This patch in East Durham is used by the city as a dump and storage facility of construction materials and also lies within the floodplain. (next page).

Large Patch

Connectivity with Stepping Stones

Heterogeneous “bits of nature”

Connectivity with Corridors

East. Durham Water Bodies Drainage Area Public Open Space Flood Plain Tree Cover

$ 0

0.1 0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1 Miles

15

Urban Form+ Function

[ dialogue ]

Opportunities HANOVER

GEARWOOD

City of Durham’s “Staging Area” and Park CANAL

ALSTON

MALLARD

NEVILLE

LOWRY

CALVIN

FERN

GILBERT

0

0

0.1 0.2

0.4

0.6

50

100

0.8

200

300

400

500 Feet

1 Miles

Figure 10b. Quality assessment of patches is essential to landscape ecology-based planning.

16

Ur b a n M e t a b o l i s m + E f f i c i e n c y Cities themselves have qualitative and quantitative forms and functions much like living organisms, as investigated by Bettencourt, Loco, Helbing, Kühnert & West (2007). Not only can their supply networks (sewer systems, subway tunnels, fiber optic cables, water lines, etc.) be described in the language of fractal geometry, as living supply networks can be described (the nervous system and skeletal system); cities also follow the same laws of metabolism as living entities (Lehrer, 2007). Kleiber’s equation (mass raised to the 3/4 power) regarding metabolic rate explains larger animals are more efficient than smaller animals. Bottencourt et al. (2007) have found that this is also to be true with the size of cities.

The larger the city, the more efficient it should be (Bettencourt, Loco, Helbing, Kühnert & West, 2007). Elements of urban “metabolism” include indicators like per-capita consumption of gasoline or the total length of power cables, which is reduced to the population size raised to the 0.80 power; much like Kleiber’s equation (Lehrer, 2007). Although this indicates denser cities consume fewer resources per a person, this idea is counter intuitive to people’s notions about cities. Cities are usually thought to be mires of pollution and filth, but Bettencourt et al. (2007) have found that smaller cities and towns actually have higher rates of consumption and pollution per capita (Bettencourt et al., 2007; Lowe, 1991; Owens, 1986; ).

When Bottencourt et al. (2007) looked at social interaction in cities compared to living organisms, it was found that cities do not behave like large organisms and are uniquely “an unprecedented phenomenon.” Large organisms tend to be slower than smaller organisms, which allows them to live longer, but go to any city and you will find anything but a slow paced environment. Cities not only have fast-paced inhabitants, cities also have more productive inhabitants (higher rates of patent filings, wages, etc.). Bottencourt et al. (2007) findings are that cities can actually become a positive feedback loop, where a larger population promotes more productivity per a person, which in turn encourages more people to move to the city.

Resource Limitations Although this positive feedback loop could go on forever, cities are faced with realistic limitations of resources needed for survival, both natural and social (Bottencourt et al., 2007, Smith, Whitelegg and Williams, 1998; Putnam, 1995). With regards to natural resource limitations, population ecologists

recognize this phenomenon as logistic population growth. Every population of species has a growth limit that an ecosystem can support, which is also known as carrying capacity (Molles, 1999). For the human population, the ecological theories of carrying capacity are no different. This concept has been extended to the urban human population and identified as urban ecological footprint, the actual amount of land that is needed to sustain an urban community (Rees, 1992). It is no surprise that an urban community cannot sustain itself, but relies on outside resources beyond their boundaries to support urban living. This poses several complex and dynamic relationships that exist regarding resource consumption.

Wasteful and neglectful use of a natural resource not only diminishes the amount of people an ecosystem can sustain healthfully, but also allows for unequal distribution of a resource (Alberti and Susskind, 1996). This is especially true with water resources. Since water systems are blind to political boundaries and have a dynamic presence, certain groups of people can be affected by water quality and quantity in very different ways. Community’s living downstream from others must cope with the upstream community’s behaviors regarding water quality and accessibility. This can be especially evident when there are periods of drought. Conversely, when water becomes abundant, groups living downstream from others may be adversely affected by their upstream neighbor’s behaviors regarding water quantity. Today these issues are becoming more amplified with water rights lawsuits and flooding communities.

Beyond obvious resources needed for basic human survival, it has been recognized that decline in social resources within cities has manifested into community decay (Fraser and Kick, 2005; Roe, 2000; Betchtel, 1997; Putnam, 1995; Kretzmann and McKnight, 1993; Lyon, 1987). Among some of the indicators of social decay are high crime rates, low economic activity, population decline, increased poverty rates, larger differences between socioeconomic classes, high rates of unemployment, concentration of poverty, low high school graduation rates, anonymity and low home ownership (Geis and Ross, 1998; Fraser; Weil, 1996; Kingsley, Johnson and Petit, 2003; Vidal; Park et al 1925). Much of these indicators are seen in urban areas and attributed to breaks in social relationships and networks between individuals, neighborhoods, organizations and institutions; coupled with micro and macro economic shifts (Wilson, 1987; Fraser and Kick, 2005; Vidal, 2004; Littell and Wilson, 1989). These social resources seen as lacking in many urban communities are known as social and human capital and lie within the realm of other capitals like financial, physical, cultural and natural capitals (Light, 17

2004).

West states that cities cope with these deficiencies by being innovative and cites several innovation cycles throughout history; the steam engine, the car, the digital revolution (Lehrer, 2007). Cities of failure, “shrinking cities” (Oswalt, 2006), are those entities that do not foster innovation or keep up with a pace of innovation that will ensure its prosperity. West uses Detroit an example in his interview with Lehrer (2007) of this sort of economic failure, where the sole industry of Detroit; the automobile industry of the US; has remained stagnant and lacking in innovation. This lack of innovation and flexibility within the global economy has forced many automakers in Detroit to lay off thousands of people and ignite a series of events that have made the state of Michigan one of the top states in America for resident migration (U.S. Census, 2007). A lack of innovation regarding resource management and social relationships can also lead to city “shrinking.” For example, without clean water a community can barely exist; and without strong, healthy urban communities, people will continue to live in poverty and be “pushed” and “pulled” to exurban areas.

2.2 URBAN SUSTAINABLITY THEORY

Citi e s , a n Imp or t a nt Pa r t o f th e Sus t a inab l e Development Equation This quantitative and qualitative comprehension of urban morphological characteristics and need for innovative intervention concludes that cities can be the most environmentally efficient and successful places for people to live.

Although for many centuries the city has been considered the anti-thesis of nature, where pollution and consumption are rampant, cities can become and in some instances are the most environmentally sustainable places to live (Lehrer 2007). Of course, this can only occur if natural resources are available, respected and healthful; and the people living in cities lead fulfilling lives.

Most importantly, an urban renaissance will not prevail unless the city life is actually desirable. Desirability can mean many things to many people; is it an affordable place to live, is there good public education, are there open spaces, is it safe, is it a clean and healthy environment, is there a lot of traffic congestion, etc. These issues often relate to the strength of the previously mentioned capitals (physical, social, human, natural, cultural). Today, even though urban areas are becoming larger and more people are living in cities than before,

suburban sprawl is prevalent in many areas. While sprawl has many negative aspects, its positive values keep it alive and thriving. Those that choose to live in sprawling areas do so because of its inexpensiveness; ability of residents to have more local, government control; large amounts of open space; “closeness to nature;” less crime; and good schools; among a few (Forsyth, 2005). Taking these values and translating them to the urban form can make cities more attractive and productive.

Many attribute a city’s form to its ability to provide desirable habitat for humans by either negatively or positively impacting the economic, environmental, physical and social health of a community and of an individual ( Jabareen, 2006). Urban and suburban forms have a lot of influence on community and individual health and people’s behaviors (Oldenburg, 2000Urban Places; Hester, 2006). For example, Frumkin (2002) has found links between suburban sprawl and the increased use of the automobile to increased respiratory and cardiovascular disease and obesity. It is also demonstrated that urban and suburban form can significantly degrade water quality due to land use patterns that increase impervious areas, degrades our natural water systems and increases the amount of microbial and chemical pollution in our water (Frumkin, Frank and Jackson, 2004; Schueler, 2000). Further, there is indication that increased access and visibility of natural processes can lead to increased understanding of these processes and modify behaviors to respect these processes, as seen in children play environments (Moore, 1979, Hart, 1979 and Orr, 1992 as cited in Hester, 2006).

P r o b l e m s w i t h Ur b a n F o r m + D e s i g n To d a y / Ye s t e r d a y To first start a discussion about how cities can be improved upon by design, we must first pinpoint the problems with urban design today and yesterday. Before sustainability was a household word and at the same time the Brundtland Commission of the U.N. published the most popular definition of the word, Jacobs and Appleyard published Toward an Urban Design Manifesto, in the Journal of the American Institute of Planners (1987). Jacobs and Appleyard (1987) outlined some of the problems with the urban form then. Today these problems still persist: • Poor living environments (dangerous, polluted, noisy, anonymous, stressful, fatiguing) • Giantism and loss of control (scale of living and transportation systems are massive and offer no sense of place and feelings of irrelevancy) 18

• • • • • •

Large-scale privatization and the loss of public life Centrifugal fragmentation (suburbanism and homogeneity of neighborhoods) Destruction of valued places (natural, historical, cultural) Placelessness (alienation and loss of connectedness to the neighbors and the place one lives) Injustice (large discrepancies between socioeconomic classes, environmental health of poor, access to resources) Rootless professionalism (designers that fall victim to trendism, do not listen to the public they are designing for and design places that have no appreciation for local culture or needs)

To address the problems, Jacobs and Appleyard established broad goals for urban life.

• • • • • • •

Livability (comfort, not overcrowded, clean, safe, spaces for relaxation, etc.)

Identity and control (sense of ownership, free expression, participation) Access to opportunity, imagination and joy Authenticity and meaning (cities should be legible and have their own unique character) Community and public life Urban self-reliance (reduce dependence on outside resources) An environment for all (equality of resources and opportunity)

Ur b a n S u s t a i n a b i l i t y C o n c e p t s Recently, there has been an increasing amount of literature devoted to defining sustainability within the urban form. Many people from cynics to theorists believe sustainable development is somewhat of an oxymoron and an impossible goal (Rees, 1997). For the purposes of moving forward and in order to discuss the practicalities of how urban life can be improved upon, this investigation, in the broadest sense, focuses on how designers and other professionals can influence urban form to create healthful habitats. It is not a philosophical debate about the constructs of sustainability and whether it is a “real” thing.

As discussed previously, the densification of urban areas is just one of the major keys to sustainable development. However, this can only be achieved if we become good environmental stewards, protect our natural resources needed to survive and live healthy lives and most importantly, make the urban lifestyle

a desirable one. The basic concepts of urban sustainability involve the equal pursuance of social, economical and environmental viability with careful attention to aesthetic appeal, in order to produce enriching and persevering communities. Alberti and Susskind (1996, p. 214-215) have identified four general elements of sustainability that are relevant at several scales, within varying frameworks and independent of geography, in order to attempt to clarify these concepts, in practice. They propose: • Sustainability requires invention, not just discovery.

• Sustainability is an opportunity, rather than a constraint.

• Sustainability is a process, not an outcome.

• Sustainability involves a self-conscious choice; it does not simply happen.

A l b e r t i ’s ( 1 9 9 6 ) I n d i c a t o r s o f Ur b a n Sustainability While the need for more sustainable places to live has been established, the question arises: how will cities know if they are developing sustainably? Alberti (1996) has outlined several indicators for measuring urban sustainability.

The basic questions cities should first be asking themselves are how are we manipulating the physical environment; what are our rates of natural resource consumption, renewable and non-renewable; what impacts are we having on our environment with our waste and emissions; and what is the quality of people’s lives, in terms of physical and psychological health?

At their core, these considerations parallel ecological theories of logistic population growth that relate a system (here a city) to its interaction with the environment and how much land and natural systems are required to support a system. What the city or individual requires to live, the resources they consume and their waste is defined as an ecological footprint and the maximum amount of species an ecosystem can sustain without permanently damaging the environment it needs to live is carrying capacity. However, when applied to a human system in the city, this urban carrying capacity, defined by Alberti (1996) as urban ecological space, is a product of an equation that takes into account not only urban energy flows and urban patterns, but also urban

quality.

Urban flows take into account the impact a city has on the environment and is an equation of inputs and outputs. The components of this equation are sources/ inputs (natural resource flows; i.e. energy and matter); sinks/ outputs (the capacity of a system to handle pollution and waste); ecological support 19

systems/ inputs (life support systems; i.e. nutrient recycling, biodiversity, hydrological systems); and direct effects on human health and welfare/ product (Alberti, 1996). As stated earlier, this impact on an environment is considered an ecological footprint. It is estimated that cities like Vancouver and London require anywhere from 100-200 times their geographic area to support their inhabitants (Rees and Wackernagel 1994, 1995). As well, urban patterns are very important for addressing trends that influence the function of a city and aid in thoroughly analyzing interactions between a city and its environment needed for survival.

In addition to obvious quantifiable measurements (inputs and outputs) of how a city impacts resources, urban sustainability measurements should also include the quality of the urban system for living. Alberti (1996) adds to Kevin Lynch’s performance dimensions of good city form (1981), to construct criteria for measuring urban quality: • Environmental quality (air, water, soil) • Human health (food supplies, housing, infrastructure, green space) • Efficiency in resource allocation (economic output per a resource input) • Equity amongst all types of people • Diversity and resilience • Accessibility to resources and services • Learning in response to environmental change Kristina Hill (2006) has simplified these indicators and presented 6 major components of urban sustainability.

• Water (quality and quantity) • Energy (type, quantity, reliability) • Biology (biodiversity, biological productivity, human health) • Air quality (local, regional, global) • Soil fertility (soil conservation, pollution, vitality) • Social capital (bonding and bridging)

Economics- Job Creation + Skil l D e velopment Many conversations about urban sustainability, as illustrated in Hill’s and Alberti’s sustainability components, turn their backs on economic discussions or barely scratch the surface of this issue; especially when speaking about inner city communities. Maybe its because our economic system in the U.S. has traditionally been seen as one of the major causes of inner-city decline and this is “business as usual”, maybe its because past economic strategies have only been focused in the inner city on meeting the immediate needs of

individuals with government subsidies or maybe it’s because many approaches are not comprehensive, fragmented and treat the inner city as some far away archipelago in the middle of the ocean. Michel Porter, a Harvard business school professor, would agree with all of these (1995).

Porter suggests that the government’s traditional response to inner city decline merely treats the symptoms and not the ailment and that loss and lack of jobs are the root causes drug abuse, crime and other social problems in the inner city. Porter argues that if local governments reduce costs for businesses in the inner city, this area of the city can be one of the best places to extend business and thus jobs. The advantages of having a business in the inner-city are its strategic location, local market demand within that area, potential of integration with regional job clusters and an industrious labor force ready to work.

If we innovatively find ways to create new jobs in our inner cities, like “green” collar jobs (jobs that are created based on innovative technologies that are renewable and include investment in natural systems); many of the social problems may be truly alleviated. Although this is a massive obstacle to take on with the other sustainability goals of environmental and social enhancement, a comprehensive way of addressing all of these issues is the only way sustainability can be fully realized in the city.

2.3 INTRODUCTION TO SUSTAINABLE URBAN DESIGN STRATEGIES

C o n c e p t s f o r S u s t a i n a b l e Ur b a n D e s i g n In addition to Alberti’s and Hill’s components of urban sustainability, Jabareen (2006) and Wheeler (1998) have acknowledged design concepts that can fulfill the components of urban sustainability. These design concepts consist of: • Compactness/ Neighborhood-scale design • Sustainable transport • Density • Mixed land use • Efficient resource use • Preservation of local culture and wisdom • Community participation and involvement • Greening or green urbanism (introducing natural processes into the city) 20

•

Healthy living environments

M o d e l s o f S u s t a i n a b l e Ur b a n F o r m s • • • •

Neotraditional Development Urban Containment Compact City Eco City

2 . 4 S P E C I F I C S U S TA I N A B L E U R B A N D E S I G N S T R AT E G I E S F O R T H I S I N V E S T I G AT I O N The goal of this academic investigation is to address how the improvement of the environment can be coupled with the improvement of people’s lives, in addition to the obvious benefits of a healthy environment. Specifically, this is an investigation of the urban sustainability components of hydrological and social capital improvements (low impact development and community building philosophies) implemented through the design strategies of green urbanism/ the Eco City and neotraditional neighborhood development.

Ne o tr a d i ti o n a l Nei g hb o r h o o d Fo r m What is a neighborhood?

“People need an identifiable spatial unit to belong to.”

-. Alexander, 1977 Although today some may argue that a spatial unit can extend to other realms, like the world of the internet; neighborhoods, as we traditionally know them, are arguably still necessary for successful communities. Neighborhoods give residents a sense of belonging and people in cities want a distinct character to the place they call home (Alexander, 1977). As Alexander (1977) points out in A Pattern Language, successful neighborhoods are small in population (400500) and in size (2 miles across) and do not have major roads going through them. Neighborhoods also can be defined differently in the same areas, but how the residents view their neighborhood is an important delineation.

Why the neighborhood scale ?

It is realized that many of the goals and the design strategies of urban sustainability are most effectively implemented at the neighborhood scale.

Lynne Elizabeth states that neighborhood initiatives are the “crucible for sustainable societal change” and outlines the following reasons in Sustainable Architecture White Papers (2005).

• Social capital is usually built at the neighborhood level.

• Many technologies that have less environmental impacts than conventional technologies exist at the neighborhood scale.

• Successful “community-based cultures” reduce the demands on public infrastructure and resources.

• Local enterprise and vernacular knowledge foster distinctive character of a community and encourage a sense of identity within a community.

• Local economies at a neighborhood scale can lead to greater selfsufficiency and health.

• Decentralized and neighborhood-scale approaches to serving the needs of the poor is an essential requirement that exists due to the government’s downsizing and failures of large-scale welfare programs and agencies.

What is good neighborhood form (according to some)?

Neighborhood design strategies that have had proven success over the decades and have been replicated by many designers have a multitude of names and are amongst several buzzwords within the design community (new urbanism, traditional neighborhood development, transit-oriented development).

However, ultimately all of these concepts have underlying themes that are similar and take on a compact, dense form. Although everyone will not agree with these concepts, these will be considered guidelines for good neighborhood form (Duany and Plater-Zyberk, 1993): • The neighborhood needs a center and an edge.

• The optimal size of a neighborhood is a quarter of a mile from center to edge.

• The neighborhood should have a balanced mix of activities.

• Streets should be interconnecting.

• The neighborhood should give priority to public spaces and locate civic buildings in appropriate places, Also, Jacobs and Appleyard (1987) pinpoint 5 physical characteristics to achieve healthy neighborhood form: 21

•

• • •

•

Livable streets and neighborhoods (Livable includes the presence of a reasonable amount of sunlight, clean air, trees, vegetation, gardens, open space, appropriately scaled buildings, noise barriers, cleanliness, safety by designing with sun angles, decibels, lane widths, distances between buildings, etc. in mind.)

Minimum density (higher density of people living on an area of land) Integration of activities (living, working, shopping, public, spiritual, recreational, etc.)

Man-made environment should help define and encourage public spaces, even buildings and transportation corridors (especially pedestrian oriented systems) The built environment, its organization and relationships should be varied (diversity not homogeneity)

It should be noted that especially in a well-established, urban neighborhood, many of these design strategies are difficult to replicate if they do not already exist. However, these characteristics are seen as the ideal characters a compact neighborhood should have.

Ho w Ca n Inn ov ati ve Stormwater Ma na g em ent , C ommun it y Bu i l d ing a nd Ne o tr a d iti ona l Neig hb or ho o d D e s ig n s up p or t one a no ther ?

Neotraditional Design or New Urbanism has been highly criticized for “their reality not matching their rhetorical aspirations ( Jabareen, 2006).” Many self proclaimed New Urbanist developments are not any different than your conventional subdivision development in terms of density, transportation, mixed incomes , mixed uses and strategies for infill development outside of its marketing campaigns (Beatley, 2000; Krieger, 1998; Jabareen, 2006).

Although Neotraditional Design is strong for its spatial arrangement of traditional infrastructures such as buildings, sidewalks and roads, one of the strongest critiques of New Urbanism is its obvious disregard for environmental health. Despite New Urbanist developments that disregard ecological health, there are some overlapping strategies between hydrological improvements (low impact development strategies), social improvements (improvement of social capital and community building) and New Urbanism design elements that could be mutually supportive if considered in an integrative manner:

• • • • • •

Elements that establish sense of community and distinctiveness Encouragement of social interaction Narrow streets and other strategies for reducing imperviousness Street trees Open space creation Enhanced pedestrian experience

G r e e n Ur b a n i s m / T h e E c o C i t y “The city has been compared to a poem, a sculpture, a machine. But the city is more than a text, and more than an artistic or technological artifact. It is a place where natural forces pulse and millions of people live- thinking, feeling, dreaming, doing. An aesthetic of urban design must therefore be rooted in the normal processes of nature and of living.”

Anne Whiston Spirn (1989)

What is it ?

Although many definitions of urban form focus on the non-living and manmade objects, it is believed that many people neglect the role that natural processes play in distinguishing, or potentially distinguishing, a city’s form and its ability to provide desirable habitat (Hough, 1990; Beatley. 2000; Bartlett, 2005; Kaplan and Kaplan, 2005). Michael Hough (2005) adds that our traditional thinking about urban design has done little in ameliorating environmental health and creating sustaining places to live. He concludes that the separation of natural processes from the urban environment ultimately severs people from life’s essential processes and leads to a sensory and environmental handicap in urban dwellers.

No matter what city you are talking about, the issues for all remain constant: how can we efficiently maintain our resources needed for healthy living while maintaining supporting economies? Although “shrinking” cities are searching for new economies to fill in the shoes of non-viable or antiquated industries and growing cities are scrambling for resources to provide for their new members, like drinking water and public infrastructure; the concepts of green urbanism have the potential of solving many of these issues. Green urbanism involves introducing natural processes into the city, such as hydrological and food production systems (Hough, 1990) and is relevant in both cities facing mass population exodus and those facing exponential growth. Michael Hough 22

(1990) has proposed principles that should guide the development of “green” cities.

• Economy of means (strategies that get the most output with the fewest inputs) • Biological diversity for healthy living • Productivity and environmental relevance/ multifunctional landscapes • Capitalizing on the nature of the place • Environmental literacy- “the heart of the green city concept”

B e n e f i t s o f G r e e n Ur b a n i s m • • • • • • • • •

Jabareen (2006) has outlined several benefits of green urbanism identified in the current literature. These include: Creation of areas with aesthetic appeal (van der Ryn and Cowan, 1995; Nassauer, 1997) Increase of biodiversity of species and diversity of habitats (Gilbert, 1991) Reduction of pollution (von Stülpnagel, Horbert and Sukopp, 1990) Moderation of climate and heat-island effect (Plummer and Shewan, 1992) Creation of cost-effective urban drainage systems (Hough, 1995) Promotion of healthy environments (Ulrich, 1999) Establishment of educational environments (Forman, 2002) Increase economic attractiveness and the cultivation of community pride (Beer, Delshammar and Schildwacht, 2003)

Other benefits include a community’s possible reengagement and new emotional connection with the place one lives. “Sense of place” and “place making” have always been an important component of landscape design.

Landscape designers especially have been concerned with this intangible quality a place can possess and how this influences a person’s thoughts about that place. Designing places that people enjoy is tremendously important and places that have meaning and relate to their context are part of this equation.

Anne Whiston Spirn (1985) observed this phenomenon in west Philadelphia when neighborhood residents where educated about the environment in which they lived. She says this “environmental literacy” was essential to creating sense of place in the community and also was important in turning previously thought of liabilities into precious resources. To further intensify this relationship, if residents are involved in a process that aids in designing a space they are more likely to cherish and take care of this “participatory landscape (Hester, 1984, p. 49).”

Even in the face of today’s issues, prominent landscape architects, like Martha Schwartz, recognize that “place making” should be the “highest order of sustainability (ASLA conference, 2007).” Natural systems can provide a source of distinctiveness and character that can bond people to their community and also promote self-identity needed to create a sense of place. Other corresponding benefits with place-making include (as cited in Bartlett, 2005): • Improvement of mental and physical health (Kaplan, 1984); • New found tools for local organizations to utilize to perpetuate their causes; and • Sense of belonging, connection to nature and positive sense of control (Miles et al 1998).

Ho w Ca n Inn ov ati ve Stormwater Ma na g em ent , C o m m u n i t y B u i l d i n g a n d G r e e n Ur b a n i s m support one another ?

Looked at more in depth in the following section, innovative stormwater management strategies, like low impact development, have the potential of aiding in the pursuance of these green urbanism goals: • Economy of means- New jobs can be created for new niche markets of BMP construction and maintenance. Cost effective BMP’s can manage stormwater more efficiently than conventional systems.

• Biological diversity for healthy living- Improved hydrological systems increase habitat, especially riparian and aquatic, and can be corridors to connect patches.

• Productivity and environmental relevance/ multifunctional landscapesBMP’s can be incorporated on land, public and private, to add another functional dimension to its character.

• Capitalizing on the nature of the place- Hydrological systems can give communities distinct character and their enhancement can provide venues for social interaction and construction of social and human capital.

• Environmental literacy- Participation of the enhancement of hydrological systems and knowledge about them can add a depth to one’s education and alter their behaviors in such a way to prevent further destruction of that system

23

2 . 5 S T O R M WAT E R M A N A G E M E N T + T H E URBAN ECOSYSTEM "No one has the right to use America's rivers and America's waterways, that belong to all the people, as a sewer. The banks of a river may belong to one man or one industry or one state, but the waters which flow between the banks should belong to all the people."

— President Lyndon B. Johnson, upon signing the Clean Water Act of 1965

C u r r e n t Ur b a n Wa t e r I s s u e s In the USEPA’s 2002 National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress, urban runoff and storm sewer discharges have been identified as one of the leading sources of water quality impairment in surface waters, among other sources such as industrial discharges and agriculture. In 1999, approximately 5,000 square miles of estuaries, 1.4 million acres of lakes and 30,000 miles of rivers were impaired due to urban runoff (US EPA, 1999). This translates to poor drinking water, eroded waterways, loss of aquatic and riparian habitat, aesthetically displeasing water bodies, repeated and more intense water restrictions and loss of aquatic-based recreation. It is estimated by the EPA (1998, p. 147) that almost 20% of the population that uses publicly supplied water is using water from a source that has had health violations.

In addition to water quality concerns, urban areas are also increasingly suffering from water shortages. Water managers in 36 states forecast that in the next 10 years, at the local, regional or state level, they will be faced with water shortages (GAO, 2003). The reason urban areas suffer from these issues more readily than non-urban areas is their increased amounts of impervious surfaces; like parking lots, roofs, compacted soils and sidewalks (Schueler, 1995); in addition to extensive land grading and vegetation removal (Watson et al., 1981; Reinelt et al., 1999; Walsh, 2000; Rhodes et al., 2001; Groffman et al., 2003; Faulkner, 2004).

I m p e r v i o u s S u r f a c e s + Wa t e r R e s o u r c e s When storm water transverses impervious surfaces, not only does it carry

everything it encounters with it to our waterways and water sources; it also misses an opportunity to recharge the ground water, increases the peak flow of the water body, increases the likelihood of flooding and causes stream bank erosion. The composition of the water we drink, play in and fish in then tells the story of the life we lead in our communities and becomes a defining cultural artifact. (Figure 10) It has been proven through several studies and is widely accepted in the water resources community that the increase in contaminants in our water bodies and other harmful effects to water bodies directly correlate to imperviousness in a watershed (USEPA, 1999; Schueler, 1995). This non-point source pollution (NPS) is different than point source pollution because NPS pollution cannot be directly traced to its specific source. The following are NPS pollutants: • toxic chemicals (pesticides, fertilizers, oil, grease, chlorination procedures, etc.) from automobiles, landscaping practices, illegal discharges by industries and atmospheric deposition; • metals, from sources such as automobiles; • bacteria from pet waste, illegal connections to sewers and sewer overflows; • excessive nutrients; • sediments from erosion, de-icing of roads and improper storage of materials; • and trash, like cigarette butts, bottles, etc. (Barrios, 2000).

Run-off from impervious surfaces not only carry pollutants from these surfaces to our streams and lakes; it also contributes to the degradation of hydrological ecosystems by increasing the velocity of stormwater runoff, rapidly increasing the temperature of water bodies, reducing base flows in rivers and streams and increasing the amount of sediment in our water bodies.

The results of these changes in urban hydrology result in: • Alterations in hydraulic characteristics of streams (higher peak flow rates, increased frequency and duration of bankfull and sub-bankfull flows, increased occurrences of downstream flooding and reduced base flow levels); • Changes in receiving stream morphology (increased rates of sediment transport and deposition, increased shoreline erosion, stream channel widening, and increased stream bed scouring); • Aquatic habitat impacts leading to changes in fish and macroinvertebrate populations and loss of sensitive species; • Public health and recreation impacts (increased risk of illness due to contact with contaminated water bodies, contamination of drinking 24

Urban Continuum

Infiltration

Impervious Coverage

30-50%

75-100%

30-50%

Infiltration

15-20%

5-10%

Runoff

30%

55%

30%

20%

0%

Evapotranspiration

35%

30%

35%

38%

40%

15-20%

10-20% 20%

0-10% 25%

Figure 10. Effects of impervious surfaces [ adopted from Arnold and Gibbons, 1996 ]

25

water supplies, beach closures, restrictions on fishing, and shellfish bed closures); and • Aesthetic impacts (floatable wastes, surface algal scum, water discoloration, strong odors, release of toxins, eroded stream banks, fallen trees, sedimentation) (USEPA, 1999).

It has also been found that when impervious cover reaches 25%, flood events that have a probability of occurring once in 100 years could occur once every five years and even occur once a year when the imperviousness escalates to 65% (NRDC, 1999, Chapter 3). As little as 10% impervious cover on a parcel of land impacts water quality and at the 30% mark, “degradation becomes so severe as to become unavoidable” (Schueler 1995). This can become quite a problem when planning for urban watershed management, where imperviousness is typically between 50-80% (Braden and Johnston, 2004), in addition to the fact that higher density land uses persist and are encouraged.

Finally, impervious surfaces also prevent water from infiltrating into the ground below that could otherwise recharge drinking water sources, and this, in turn, can worsen the effects of drought (NRDC, 2002) (Figure 11). The NRDC’s American Rivers group (2002) uses the Atlanta area as an example of how imperviousness exacerbates the effects of drought. They have found that due to the imperviousness in Atlanta and surrounding counties, they lose anywhere from 57 to 133 billion gallons a year in drinking water because rainwater is not allowed to infiltrate the ground. This amount of water could supply 1.5 to 3.6 million households a year with their water demands, if the rainwater was managed on-site.

Why Conventional Stormwater Management Sy s tems a re Inep t “But you have to maintain pipes, too. And pipes don’t give you habitat, beauty, livability and social benefits.”

-Shane DeWald, ASLA, senior landscape architect with Seattle’s DOT and SEA Street Project (Viani, 2007)

A 2 0 0 Ye a r O l d C o n c e p t Present day urban drainage systems have maintained their goals of providing

public sanitation; hygiene and flood control; but do little for today’s need of maintaining the integrity of the environment in which we live and the quality of water in our water bodies. The concepts revolving around current conventional systems are based on the same concepts of urban drainage that arose in the early 1800’s (Delleur, 2003) (Figure 12). These conventional drainage networks are inefficient at: improving the quality of stormwater, decreasing the quantity or velocity of stormwater, protecting aquatic ecosystems, protecting water quality for recreation and present a missed opportunity for improved landscape aesthetics and psychological connections to the hydrological cycle (Chocat et al., 2007) (Figure 13).

The conventional approach also is ineffective at influencing human behavior or educating the public about consumption and pollution issues. Many people do not know what watershed they live in, where their drinking water comes from, where rainwater goes and other basic concepts about the hydrological cycle; much less, fully realize what impact their daily behaviors have on water quality and quantity. Lastly, not only do conventional systems pose environmental threats and nourish hydrological ignorance amongst the general public, they are also costly and face a national overhaul due to their aging infrastructure (Field et al., 1997).

S t o r m w a t e r + Wa s t e w a t e r D i s c h a r g e s Typically when it rains in a conventional conveyance system, stormwater and all the pollutants it encounters are sent as quickly as possible away from its source to a sewer system. Depending on the type of sewer system, this stormwater is then either directly discharged into neighboring streams, rivers and lakes (separate stormwater drainage system); or mixed with the municipal and industrial wastewater in the sewer system, that is then sent to a wastewater treatment facility before it is cast back into a water body. When a sewer system contains industrial waste, municipal waste and stormwater together, this mixture can discharge into ground and surface water before it gets to the wastewater treatment plant (defined as combined sewer overflowCSO) (Figures 14 and 15). These discharges from a combined sewer system can occur due to overflows caused by clogged pipes, leaks or pipes that are simply too small to handle large rain events. Approximately 772 cities in the U.S. have combined sewer systems (Delleur, 2003). These urban wet-weather flow discharges (direct stormwater discharge from separate systems and sewer overflows from combined systems) can contain such pollutants as “visible matter, infectious (pathogenic) microorganisms, oxygen-demanding materials, suspended solids, nutrients and toxicants (heavy metals, pesticides, petroleum 26

hydrocarbons)â&#x20AC;? and costs the nation tens of billions of dollars to control (Field et al., 1997, p. 167-168).

S ep a r ate Stormwater Sy s tems â&#x20AC;Ś Sti l l No t Ad e quate Although a separate sewer system for stormwater has been seen as an improved system when compared to combined systems, this discharge still contains pollutants that the stormwater picks up with it on its way to the sewer system and then our water bodies. These pollutants can be chemical stressors, like pesticides, fertilizers, oil, grease, metals and nutrients; biological stressors, such as pathogens, and physical stressors, such as increased velocity of water flow, temperature changes, sediment loads and changes in channel characteristics (Barrios, 2000). Field et al. (1997) have found that separate stormwater systems can contain suspended solid concentrations equal to or greater than those of raw sanitary wastewater. Some of the sources of these stormwater pollutants can be lawns, sport fields, cars, pets, construction sites, power plants, chemicals applied to pavements, failed septic systems and illegal discharges (Barrios, 2000).

Figure 12. Los Angeles River [ Sorvig 2002 ]

Figure 13. Newark, NJ with a CSO on a clear day[ Rutgers University 2005 ]

Figure 11. Storm sewer in Queens, 1938. [ Gotham Gazette (2003) ]

Figure 14. CSO Lake Michigan [ http://www.macalester.edu/environmentalstudies/students/projects/ urbanwastewaterwebsite/index.html ]

27

The Future o f S W M

Integration by accident.

Physical and institutional integration by design.

Important linkages can and should be made between physical infrastructures for water supply, stormwater and wastewater management.

Starting in the 1980’s, with the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) and the EPA’s CSO Control Policy, water management professionals began to realize that the conventional system is not enough to deal with the future Collaboration = public Collaboration = engagement needs of the nation’s population (Delleur, 2003). Most importantly, it was relations/ when required. also realized that not only were the conventional technologies no longer completely effective, but also the conventional philosophies surrounding the Table 3. Differences in traditional and emerging philosophies of stormwater management current system of urban drainage had to be redressed. SWM was and is still in Sustainable Stormwater Management need of a “paradigm shift,” where technological and behavioral changes are equally weighted vehicles for improving water systems (Pinkham, 1999). Some principles of this “paradigm shift” are outlined in Table 3 by Richard Pinkham The concepts of sustainable development have also been translated within the realm of urban drainage. There are several definitions of sustainable water (1999). systems. One of them, defined by the American Society of Civil Engineers (2001), is, “Sustainable water systems are designed and managed to fully The Old Paradigm The Emerging Paradigm contribute to the objective of the society, now and in the future, while Stormwater is a nuisance.

Stormwater is a resource. Harvest stormwater maintaining their ecological, environmental and hydrological integrity.”

Convey stormwater away as a water supply, and infiltrate or retain it Another is, “ the use of water that supports the ability of human society from urban areas as rapidly to support urban aquifers, waterways, and to endure and flourish into the indefinite future without undermining the as possible. vegetation. integrity of the hydrological cycle or the ecological systems that depend on it Build to demand. It is Manage demand. Demand management (Gleick et al., 1995).” necessary to build more capacity as demand increases.

opportunities are real and increasing. Take advantage of all cost-effective options before increasing infrastructure capacity.

One use. Water follows a one-way path from supply, to a single use, to treatment and disposal to the environment.

Reuse and reclamation. Water can be used multiple times, by cascading it from higher to lower-quality needs and by reclamation treatment for return to the supply side of the infrastructure.

Gray infrastructure.

Concrete, asphalt, pipes, metal and plastic

Green infrastructure. Soils and vegetation along with pipes and treatment plants

Bigger/ centralized is better.

Small/ decentralized is possible, often desirable

Limit complexity: employ standard solutions.

Allow diverse solutions to tailor specific needs.

Ganoulis (as cited in Delleur, 2003) adds that social goals should be explicitly added to the traditional goals of scientific, technical and economic soundness.

Ganoulis introduces a”4 E paradigm” (epistemic, economic, environmental and equitable), where scientific, economic, environmental and economic criteria are the basis for the measurement of sustainable water management strategies. Ganoulis reduces this measurement as a continuum of risks and objectives for each dimension. Delleur (2003, p. 571) concludes that due to the expanding population and diminishing natural resources, water management strategies for dealing with urban runoff quality and quantity have to be dealt with in an integrated manner and “can no longer be evaluated in isolation.”

L o w Imp a c t D e vel o pment ( L I D ) One integrated approach to mange water resources on site and deal with many of these issues in a comprehensive way is the philosophy and practices of Low Impact Development (LID). Developed in the early 1990’s in Prince George’s County, Maryland, this process is a continually evolving way of addressing SWM issues with regards for scientific, economic, social and environmental 28

goals. The goal of LID is to “develop techniques, strategies, best management practices and criteria to store, infiltrate, transpire, retain and detain runoff on the site to replicate the pre-development runoff characteristics and mimic the natural and unique hydrology of the site (Huntersville, 2006).” LID is applicable to both new development and redevelopment situations.

One of the principle differences between LID and conventional management (pipe and end-of-pipe, pond treatment) is that LID strives to treat stormwater on-site, at the source, and mimic the natural hydrological processes of infiltration, storage, filtration, evaporation, detainment and conveyance (Hager, 2003). Another difference is that LID encourages multifunctional design elements that not only treat stormwater, but offer visibility of the hydrological cycle and utilize vegetation in such a manner that it possibly can be aesthetically pleasing (USEPA, 2000) (Figure 16). Also, LID strategies can also be more cost effective than traditional stormwater systems in terms of construction, maintenance and life cycle costs (US EPA, 2000).

Some of the main objectives and principles of LID are (Prince George’s County, 1999): • Utilize the best possible technology and integrated management practices (IMP’s), to protect the integrity of receiving waters.

• Grant economic incentives to compel designers and developers to seek solutions that are sensitive to the environment.

• Continue to develop the full potential of site planning and design that has the least negative impact on environmental quality.

• Consider public education and participation an important part of the LID process.

• Enhance and “build communities based on environmental stewardship.”

• Seek design decisions for construction and maintenance of stormwater facilities that are cost-effective.

• Institute new concepts, technologies and objectives that manage stormwater, mimic natural hydrological processes and do not degrade receiving streams.

• Provide flexibility in the structure of regulations to allow for technologies and policies that promote “smart growth” principles (efficient land use management and planning).

• Present venues for discussion and debate regarding economic, environmental and technical benefits of current SWM practices and other approaches that may allow for more effectiveness.

Figure 15. Rain garden with native plant species at Centennial Campus, NCSU [ photo by McCoy ]

The LID Approach LID is a comprehensive strategy and process that encompasses several considerations. Prince George’s County, Maryland (1999) has outlined several pathways through this approach. The major components and techniques of LID approaches are: Site Planning • Identify applicable regulations • Define development envelope and protected areas • Reduce limits of clearing and grading • Use drainage/ hydrology as design element 29

• • •

Reduce/ minimize/ disconnect impervious areas Modify/ increase/ lengthen flow paths Compare pre- and post-development hydrology

Hydrologic Analysis • Delineate watershed • Define design storm • Define modeling techniques • Evaluate pre-development conditions and develop base line measures • Evaluate site planning benefits and compare to baseline • Evaluate IMP’s • Evaluate supplemental needs •

Integrated management practices (IMP’s) • Define hydrologic control • Evaluate site constraints • Screen the IMP’s • Select IMP’s • Incorporate additional controls, if necessary •

Erosion and Sediment Control • Plan the development to fit the site features (topography, drainage ways, soils, vegetation).

• Schedule operations to expose the smallest practical area for the shortest time possible.

• Control soil erosion and sediment • Implement a thorough maintenance and follow-up operation Public Outreach Program • Define public outreach objectives • Identify target audience • Develop outreach materials • Distribute outreach materials

L I D Te c h n i q u e s - I M P ’s + B M P ’s … b e y o n d t h e d ay s o f B i g Mu d d y Pits In order to ensure that receiving waters experience little change in their volume, frequency, quality of runoff or in the base flows fed by ground water; several practices can be employed and integrated to manage stormwater.

Prince George’s County defines these techniques as Integrated Management Practices (IMP’s). IMP’s are a subset of Best Management practices, or BMP’s.

The use of the IMP terminology is to distinguish which BMP’s are more appropriate for Low Impact Development. Typically LID BMP’s or IMP’s are not large, centralized BMP’s; such as large stormwater ponds, that do not treat stormwater at the source or lot level (Prince George’s County, 1999).

BMP’s can be a “technique, measure or structural control that is used for a given set of conditions to manage the quantity and improve the quality of storm water runoff in the most cost-effective manner (USEPA, 1999).” In addition, non-structural BMP’s take aim at changing policies and the general public’s habits and knowledge regarding stormwater quality and quantity.

The EPA has recognized the need to treat stormwater with BMP’s and has mandated that every municipality above 10,000 in population to obtain a permit by 2003 to discharge stormwater (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System- NPDES). This, in turn, requires municipalities to utilize best management practices (BMP’s), both structural and non-structural, to deal with stormwater quality and quantity (Delleur, 2003). NPDES requirements include public education and outreach, public involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site runoff control, post construction runoff control, and municipal good housekeeping (White and Boswell, 2007). In addition, Barrios (2000) and Ice (2004) have found within the recent research that structural and non-structural BMP’s are very effective at controlling and preventing non-point source pollution and are crucial for dense urban areas to mitigate the effects of imperviousness in watersheds.

Ty p e s o f B M P ’s There are two main types of BMP’s that aim to prevent, treat and control stormwater runoff and pollution. These types are physically engineered systems or structural BMP’s; and policy-based and education-based preventive measures or non-structural BMP’s. No one BMP can solve all water quality and quantity issues in a watershed and it should be realized that not only should multiple BMP’s be utilized in one area, but also some BMP’s are more appropriate in certain locations than others. BMP’s should be part of a holistic program that addresses “proper selection, design, construction, inspection and maintenance (USEPA, 1999, Ch. 5, p. 7).”

30

Type

Definitions

Examples

Infiltration systems

Captures runoff and releases into the ground

Infiltration basins, trenches, wells, porous pavement

Detention systems

Temporary storage

Basins, underground vaults

Retention systems

Storage without surface discharge with longer holding times than detention systems

Wet ponds

Constructed wetland systems

Similar to retention and detention systems, but contains wetland vegetation

Wetlands, wetland channels

Filtration systems

Uses a combination of granular media for filtration

Media filters, bioretention systems (i.e. rain gardens)

Vegetated systems

Convey and treat runoff

Grass filter strips, vegetated swales

Disconnection of impervious surfaces

Eliminate curb-and-gutter

Misc. and vendor supplied systems

Oil/ water separators, hydrodynamic devices, catch basin inserts

• • • • • •

Grassed swales, bioretention swales and wet swales Rain barrels (Figure 17) Cisterns Infiltration trenches Green roofs (Dunnett and Clayden, 2007) Detention systems (Figure 19)

Figure 16. Rain barrel at a home in Wilmington, NC [ photo by McCoy ]

Figure 17. Rain garden to capture roof runoff in Raleigh, NC [ photo by McCoy ]

Table 4. Types of structural BMP systems [ USEPA, 1999 ]

S t r u c t u r a l B M P ’s f o r L I D o r I M P ’s Structural IMP’s or LID BMP’s are those practices that treat and store water and are chosen to meet a desired hydrology goal. These techniques can be utilized individually or linked together in a series; also known as a “stormwater chain” (Dunnett and Clayden, 2007). Some BMP’s for LID include, but are not limited to (Prince George’s County, 1999) (Table 4): • Bioretention facilities, such as rain gardens (Figure 18) Figure 18. Extended stormwater detention basin at Centennial Campus NCSU a day after a 10-year • Dry wells storm [ photo by McCoy ] • Filter/ buffer strips and other multifunctional landscape areas 31

Typically when choosing an IMP, the major considerations are : • Space requirements • Soils • Slopes • Water Table Depth • Proximity to foundations • Maintenance considerations • Hydrologic goal (retention, detention, conveyance, filtration, habitat, amenity) • Type of pollutant • Costs

Ty p e s o f N o n - S t r u c t u r a l B M P ’s Changing policies and minds to improve our water quality is just as important as the technology that can help improve our water quality. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has recognized that 63% of the American population lives in urban areas, which comprises 2% of the overall land area in America (Bureau of Census, 1990), and that these people have a significant influence on the quality of water in their communities. Due to this, the EPA has focused watershed-planning efforts to “community-based environmental protection programs (Field et al., 1998, p. 171).” These types of changes are known as non-structural BMP’s and can be education, recycling and source controls; and maintenance practices. The following are examples of these types of BMP’s (USEPA, 1999): • Education, Recycling + Source Controls • Proper disposal of hazardous materials and automobile products • Industrial, commercial and retail space good housekeeping • Community outreach • Storm drain inlet stenciling • Change in fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide use • Effective leaf management • Proper disposal of animal waste • Illicit discharge detection and elimination • Maintenance of structural BMP’s • Catch basin cleaning • Street and parking lot sweeping • Road and ditch maintenance • Alternatives to road salting and sanding • Physical removal of sediment and floatables in structural BMP’s

• • • • • • •

Vegetation maintenance General BMP maintenance Land Use Controls Regulatory approaches Land acquisition to preserve open space and buffer areas Runoff control from industrial and municipal sites Better site design (Nine Mile Run Watershed Management Plan, 2001)

E n v i r o n m e n t a l + S c i e n t i f i c B e n e f i t s o f B M P ’s BMP’s have several positive effects on downstream stormwater quality and quantity and other corresponding benefits (Braden & Johnson, 2004; Center for Watershed Protection, 1998). These include: • Less dramatic flood events and lower peak discharges • Slower velocities • Less expensive SWM • Less need to treat pollutants downstream • Reduction of erosion and sedimentation • Better water quality (such as less phosphorus and nitrogen output) • Improved aquatic ecosystem habitat • Improved in-stream biological integrity and aesthetics • Increased groundwater recharge and base flows • Improved function and aesthetics of stream corridors and riparian zones •

E c o n o m i c B e n e f i t s o f B M P ’s … . m o n e y t a l k s “But Marsh did more than sound a warning. He proposed that man’s economy be designed to work in concert with nature’s: “in reclaiming and reoccupying lands laid waste by human improvidence or malice .. the task is to become a co-worker with nature in the reconstruction of the damaged fabric.””

-Anne Whiston Spirn (1985) mentioning George Perkins Marsh’s words from his book, Man and Nature (1864) Perhaps the most convincing benefits of BMP’s are ones that put money in people’s wallets. BMP’s can have significant economic benefits for a community. BMP’s are capable of increasing property values, saving energy, preserving and adding to local economies, being less expensive than conventional stormwater systems and being the cornerstone for new niche markets. Other benefits can also be imagined and calculated if we consider 32

that natural, ecosystems perform services for us. A good example of this would be a wetland. Natural wetlands filter and retain stormwater, which in turn, protects water quality for recreation and fishing and reduce flood events. If these qualities were put in terms of dollars and cents, coastal wetlands are believed to add $800 to $9,000 an acre to a local economy (Kirby, 1993).

The benefits of such SWM strategies were reviewed by Braden and Johnson (2004) and investigated for their potential economic benefits, depicted as property value increases for residential homes that lie within a floodplain.

Improved water quality, reduced sedimentation and improved aesthetics were the main drivers in increasing property values. They have found that on-site stormwater retention that mitigates flooding and protects water quality can increase property values from 0-15%. In addition, they found that when these BMP’s improved water quality alone, property values were found to be up to 15% higher. Most of the benefits of improved water quality were found to be associated with the actual visual clarity of the water. Also, improved aesthetics due to SWM facilities or restoration of a stream or lake alone increased property values 3-15% on adjacent properties. Steiner and Loomis (1995) had similar findings. They conclude that SWM techniques that are not visible, on undeveloped land and not near a watercourse are not likely to have an effect on increasing property values.

Money can also be saved if tree conservation is a BMP strategy utilized.

Trees can provide magnificent services for people, with regards to water quality. Trees can reduce stormwater volume, filter stormwater and also provide secondary benefits, such as energy conservation (Barrios, 2000). The American Forest Association suggests that simply leaving trees on a site can reduce energy consumption up to 25% (Barrios, 2000).

As BMP’s are more necessary and municipalities begin to demand their existence through ordinances and laws, BMP construction and maintenance will become more in demand. This opens many doors for entrepreneurs that develop, construct and maintain BMP’s. Also, since the knowledge to maintain, develop and construct BMP’s is limited to a small number of people, there will be a need to provide training and certification for more people to learn this trade. The BMP market could create new economies and muchneeded jobs, a potential contributor to the “green collar” job market.

Dan Rafter (2007b) has discovered such emerging markets within the public and private realms. Not only are private companies providing BMP maintenance and installation, but also municipalities are creating new

divisions to handle administrative needs for fulfilling NPDES requirements.

Such administrative duties include public education and outreach, GIS and GPS data logging, lobbying for SWM programs and BMP’s and drafting of SWM plans.

One of the most important benefits, especially if looked at in combination with social and environmental benefits, is that BMP’s can be more cost effective than conventional systems. The Center for Watershed Protection (1998) developed several scenarios on a parcel of land and found that design with innovative structural and non-structural BMP’s reduced stormwater runoff, improved infiltration, reduced nutrient output and cost less than conventional design. For a medium density development the cost reduction was 20%, for a shopping center it was 5% and for an office park it was 3%.

Challenges of LID Although LID strategies are effective solutions for SWM, there are some challenges: Urban Infill Development + Retrofitting Urban Sites The implementation of LID principles within urban environments is intricate and presents many opportunities for inventive LID strategies that navigate around existing infrastructure, high densities and large proportions of impervious surfaces (Figure 20). LID principles can especially be needed and challenging in urban infill development or in “teardown” situations. Infill development includes topographical changes, increases in imperviousness, elimination of drainage ways, steeper slopes and stormwater sewer systems that are undersized to meet infill demands. Pond, Kacvinsky, Lewis and Barber (2007) have found that infill development scenarios have resulted in increases in impervious area by 54% and this in turn increases peak flow in the basin by 16% ; assuming only half of the lots redevelop with an average increase of 50%.

Landscape architect Joan Iverson Nassauer has effectively implemented rain gardens (small infiltration gardens to detain and infiltrate water or bioretention cells) in the city of Maplewood, MN, a suburb of MinneapolisSt. Paul, as a LID retrofit solution. Nassauer says that rain gardens are great for dealing with the “creative challenges” of small spaces in cities and provide opportunities for public education and engagement (Hager, 2003). In 33

experiences that it is extremely important when structural BMP’s are designed, a maintenance plan is drafted as well (Hager, 2003). In the Maplewood rain garden project, the city was first designated as the maintenance entity, but later found that this was not practical for the city and residents were given educational materials, such as garden plans that included low maintenance designs.

Figure 19. Dense urban situations can be challenging for stormwater management design [ photo by McCoy ]

addition, it has been discovered that this technique can also be functional in an urban setting. Researchers at North Carolina State University have found that urban bioretention cells can also be quite effective at removing pollutants, with efficiency ratios between 0.03 and 0.70 for pollutants such as pathogenic bacteria, TSS, total nitrogen and total phosphorus (Traver, Davis and Hunt, 2007). Some other techniques that can be implemented in dense, urban areas are green roofs, permeable pavements, rain barrels and disconnection of down spouts from gutters.

In San Diego County they have found that in some cases LID site-by-site design is not compatible with other goals of providing more housing for increased populations, utilizing land efficiently and designing for efficient transportation. They have compromised by using strategic LID techniques on public lands, like parks and golf courses, and other “joint-use” areas. In drafting their LID Handbook, the county has even considered incentive program for very dense and infill development that could include LID mitigation requirements with the use of pocket parks and common areas (Lucea, 2008).

M a i n t e n a n c e o f S t r u c t u r a l B M P ’s Some structural BMP’s need maintenance. If BMP’s are not maintained properly, they can have less effectiveness, failure and worse, demonstrate to the public that BMP’s are not “best” practices. Nassauer notes from her

One subdivision that Morzaria-Luna, Schaepe, Cutforth, and Veltman (2004) explored in Cross Plains, Wisconsin required that each lot have an 18.6m2 rain garden through deed restrictions. Although the developers had good intentions, the researchers found that the residents, on average, did not maintain or know how to maintain their rain gardens and that “extensive education” was needed before the homeowners were willing and able to care for the rain garden. They suggest some strategies to foster public acceptance and participation: outreach programs, demonstration rain gardens, hands-on design workshops, and credit plans where homeowners who infiltrate their stormwater on-site could receive a reduction on sewer fees.

The SEA street program in Seattle developed a successful maintenance plan for their streetscape vegetated swales, which were retrofitted on a residential road. The residents were first asked to sign a petition to allow the city to build the vegetated swales. All but one person agreed. This person eventually decided to participate once the others had been built. Each resident was given a plant palette, with pictures and example plans, to choose from and the city provided the plant material. Ultimately the residents chose the final placement of the plants and this evolved into a sense of ownership amongst the residents. The city maintained the swales for 3 years, then the residents were given control with occasional “mulch parties” sponsored by the city. A resident notes that he only has to spend “a couple of weekends” a year on his swale. The cost of the project ($850,000) is comparable to traditional gutter and ditch costs. Due to the exposure of this project and its desirability, Seattle can now convince developers to give easements to the city and pay for the vegetated swale’s maintenance in other developments. Those involved with the city affirm that having a pilot or demonstration project is an essential first step to success, not “regulatory frameworks.” Finally they note that you must match the maintenance program with resident’s abilities and lifestyles in order to make a plan become successful.

Education Educational outreach is essential to inform the public (citizens and 34

government employees that influence municipal land use and planning) about these methods and their purpose, so they can be generally accepted and understood. Education can also facilitate proper maintenance and care of LID BMP’s. As Joan Iverson Nassauer has learned first hand implementing LID techniques, "If we design and implement something that might be extraordinarily effective from the standpoint of SWM or the standpoint of ecology, but people don't get it or don't particularly like it in their neighborhood or their yard, it's just not going to be there in five or 10 years (Hager, 2003)."

Although some may initially feel that SWM goals should be pursued solely through regulations and engineered systems, it has been demonstrated that such constricted programs, in terms of strategies and scale, are unsuccessful and educational programs must be implemented to ensure success (Neiswender and Shepard, 2003; Lehner, Clark, Cameron, and Frank, 1999).

Success of public education and outreach programs are measured by their ability to educate the public about the issues of stormwater pollution, help people identify what they can do to alleviate pollution in their everyday lives, and results in achievement of a quantifiable pollution reduction or restoration target (Lehner et al., 1999). After research on more than 100 case studies that evaluated effectiveness based on environmental gains, economic advantages and collateral benefits; Lehner et al. (1999) have concluded that successful SWM control programs should include the following: • Clear and well-defined goals; • Seek and facilitate participation amongst a broad range of government and citizen groups; • Consider pollution prevention strategies as a higher priority than pollution treatment; • Institute accountability of partners and citizens with incentives, monitoring and consistent enforcement; • Strong leadership must be maintained; • Generate a stable funding source; • Include education, public participation, monitoring and enforcement; • Tailor strategies to the region or setting; • Redress and self analyze effectiveness of programs as they develop; • Highlight and elaborate on the secondary benefits of SWM control strategies that enhance people’s quality of life, such as parks, ponds and clean streets.

Most of these strategies for stormwater management education and outreach can be fostered by and successfully orchestrated with existing community

building organizations within a community. Typically these organizations are primarily concerned with crime reduction, job creation, infrastructure improvements and equal representation and access to resources; and already have established leadership and structure within a community. SWM outreach and educational programs can benefit greatly from these organizations, but also these community groups can have meaningful benefits by collaborating with the SWM groups. This potential mutualistic relationship will be discussed more in depth in the following sections.

2.6 Community Building, a New Tool for the Community Design Toolbox

What is Communit y Building ?

Community building strategies are increasingly being recognized as a new tool for design professionals in community design. Roe and Rowe, in Community and the Landscape Professional (2000), have found that design approaches, such as survey-analysis-design (SAD), are not the most effective approaches to design in a community because it focuses on answering questions in a systematic way to “design problems.” Instead, an approach that is “processbased…(with) an emphasis on how it is done, as well as what is done” is more appropriate because it leaves room for partnership with other disciplines and is capable of handling “situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness and value conflict (Schön, 1983, p. 50).” The Committee for Economic Development (1995, p. 3) defines community building as “an ongoing comprehensive effort that strengthens the norms, supports and problemsolving resources of the community.”

Community building (CB) approaches have proven to be successful modes of revitalization in communities that are burdened with unemployment, crime, poor education facilities and eroding public infrastructure since the 1970’s (Kingsley, McNeely and Gibson, 1997). Much of its success can be attributed to its principles of promoting self-sufficiency and connecting people with resources that may have otherwise been out of reach or hidden (Fraser and Kick, 2005). The driving force of this process is to capture the capacities, skills and assets of low-income communities (individuals, organizations and institutions) in a manner that promotes economic and social enhancement and links these capacities with others. Inherent in the word choice of many CB publications, i.e. capturing and releasing, is the underlying theme that all 35

people have abilities and potentials and that this energy in neither created nor destroyed, but should be harvested in community building efforts.

This philosophy varies significantly from past revitalization efforts such as “urban renewal,” which created views of low-income neighborhoods and people as hopeless endeavors (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1993). Although in past urban revitalization efforts, “citizen involvement” occurred, it has been argued that this was a superficial public relations strategy and no “real power” was extended to the citizens to have an influence on the outcome of the process (Arnstein, 1969). In the landscape design community, it has been recognized that a more “citizen-controlled (Arnstien, 1969)” system “may act as a catalyst to help create new connections within communities, release the energy and develop the potentials which can alter economic as well as social conditions” (Roe, 2000). Also it is important to strive to give communities the power to influence projects and not facilitate a one directional flow of information from the professional/ ‘expert’ to the citizen (Figure 21).

Communit y Building Themes Kingsley, McNeely and Gibson (1997) have outlined seven themes that help explain community building today.

• Focused around specific improvement initiatives in a manner that reinforces values and builds social and human capital.

• Community-driven with broad resident involvement.

• Comprehensive, strategic and entrepreneurial.

• Asset-based.

• Tailored to neighborhood scale and conditions.

• Collaboratively linked to the broader society to strengthen community institutions and enhance outside opportunities for residents.

• Consciously changing institutional barriers, racism and other injustices.

The Imp or t a nc e o f S o ci a l Cap it a l The assets or capital (a store of value that facilitates action) that communities possess can be physical (infrastructure, real estate, etc.), human (job training, education, etc.), social (relationships of trust embedded in social networks), financial, cultural (cultural knowledge that can be used to the owner’s socioeconomic advantage) (Light, 2004) and natural (ecosystem services, natural resources, etc.) (Costanza and Daly, 1992). The CB movement places weighted emphasis on community revitalization that focuses on fostering

Figure 20. Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation [ www.partnership.org ]

social capital. This focus is based on the belief that communities that are troubled have seen an “erosion of social capital” (Vidal, 2004) and are in need of “social cohesion, civic trust and collective efficacy” to improve their quality of life (Hutchinson, 2004). It is also a central idea to this approach that social capital has profound potential energy that can react a “chain of metamorphosis,” where social capital can molt into other forms of capital (social to human, human to financial) and is more readily available to impoverished communities than the other forms of capital.

36

Social capital can take a variety of forms and this facilitates different modes of action in its pursuance. Putnam (1995, p. 67) defines social capital as, “social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.” What is done with social capital depends on its effectiveness in how it is used as a driver to enhance civic engagement, interpersonal trust and effective collective action (Rohe, 2004).

Bonding social capital is a process that links people who are like one another, bridging social capital links people who are unlike one another and linking social capital connects the bonded and the bridged with people in positions of authority (Putnam, 2004). Tapping into networks of information that span the public, private and non-profit worlds from local to global action have been found extremely important for professionals, such as planners. These networks can provide communities and professionals that seek to improve people’s lives with more information, legitimacy, access to financial resources and political influence to achieve their defined goals (Briggs, 2004).

Measuring S o cia l Capita l Rohe (2004) has established a method for measuring social capital. He points out that measuring social capital is not merely tracing relationships and the outcomes of the interaction, but with how the interaction leads to trust and then collective action. It is important to realize that civic engagement does not always lead to trust. In Rohe’s ideal social capital model, effective establishment of social capital is a process that goes from civic engagement, to establishment of social networks, to interpersonal trust, to effective collective action and then individual and social benefits.

R o h e ’s P r i n c i p l e s f o r D e v e l o p i n g S o c i a l Capital (2004) It is evident that getting residents involved in community development is not an easy task in today’s world, but an essential starting point for developing social capital and building communities. A community development organizer is having a good day if they can get 1% of the population to actively participate. Rohe has developed a “two-prong” strategy that is helpful for getting more people involved and evolving that engagement into interpersonal trust Figure 22). One is developing social capital through creative activities that are fun and exciting. Monthly meetings are not considered fun and exciting. Rohe suggests social events and visioning exercises that actively engage people. Second, development of social capital cannot be kept within

the typically “closed-system” of the neighborhood or community and should be also pursued at a larger scale, such as a metropolitan or systems scale. Only at this scale can citizen participation not result in “cynicism, distrust and apathy” by intervening with the broader political and economic system to have more meaningful action and tangible outcomes.

2.7 HOW CAN COMMUNITY BUILDING AND THE IMPROVEMENT OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BENEFIT ONE ANOTHER? It is possible that the implementation, existence and maintenance of innovative stormwater management systems can help alleviate problems that urban communities face if set within a successful, multidisciplinary framework of community revitalization, such as community building. However, it is important to understand that both endeavors are enormous in scope and require much more inputs than just one another. It is proposed that the most successful strategy for stormwater resource management is to not only get community members involved in the effort, but also choose stormwater management strategies that benefit the community in meanings beyond water quality protection. Especially in urban areas where residents have lower incomes and perhaps less time to devote to their community, translating watershed restoration into other community revitalization efforts is essential.

Improved stormwater management systems can also benefit community building efforts by providing venues and activities that actively engage residents in unique and creative ways. If community building is a social development practice that seeks social enhancement in concert with economic development, then sustainable social development should ensure that environmental resources are not degraded as well. Following is a further discussion about how improved stormwater management and community building can assist one another.

Ho w Ca n th e Improvem ent o f Stormwater Management Systems Benefit Communit y Building Efforts ?

There are several approaches to stormwater management, aside from conventional practices, within an urban community that can ultimately benefit a community socially and economically, as well as environmentally.

37

Process for Building Social Captial

Civic Engagement Establish Social Networks Interpersonal Trust Effective Collective Action

Different scales + Creative Engagement

Individual + Social Benefits

Figure 21. Roheâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recommended steps for building social capital within a community [ 2004 ]

38

Many people in low-income communities do not believe stormwater issues are the most important issues in their communities (see examples section) and no one should have the illusion that they are. This is especially relevant in areas where crime and unemployment are major concerns.

However, many benefits of improved hydrological systems have secondary returns that can contribute to the amelioration of a community in ways that relate to residents’ major concerns and parallel goals of community building organizations. Often the potential secondary benefits of improved hydrological systems are disregarded and lie dormant when they could otherwise be used as a leverage tool to improve these communities.

Amplification of the secondary benefits of improved stormwater management nourishes stormwater education and outreach programs, while also attracting participants that are not initially concerned with or apathetic to water quality concerns.

Among some of these secondary benefits are: • The addition of “greener” landscapes and open space amenities can improve human physical and mental health and promote a higher quality of life (crime reduction, less environmental pollutants, aesthetic enhancement, less prevalence of vacant or neglected land, etc.).

• The transformation of hydrological liabilities into assets/ amenities (steam corridors, floodplains, vacant land, etc.).

• The promotion of a sense of place and identity.

• The enhancement of social and human capital (jobs, education, “networking,”) by using the rehabilitation, construction and maintenance of urban hydrological systems.

• Programs that offer exciting and “hands-on” activities for their members to become actively engaged and involved in the decision-making process.

• Economic opportunities for attracting new residents and businesses.

Hu m a n H e a l t h + “ G r e e n ” S p a c e s People have innate positive responses to natural landscapes (in this case, landscapes with flora and fauna) (Kellert and Wilson, 1993). Frederick Law Olmsted, “the father of landscape architecture,” recognized this in the 19th century (Todd, 1982).

“There is increasing evidence suggesting that mental health and emotional stability of populations may be profoundly influenced by frustrating aspects

of an urban, biologically artificial environment. It seems likely that we are genetically programmed to a natural habitat of clean air and a varied landscape, like any other mammal. The specific physiological reactions to natural beauty and diversity, to the shapes and colors of nature, especially green, to the motions and sounds of other animals, we do not comprehend and are reluctant to include in studies of environmental quality. Yet it is evident that in our daily lives nature must be thought of not as a luxury to be made available if possible, but as part of our inherent indispensable biological need. “ This biophilia (“innate tendency to focus on life and life-like processes to the degree that we come to understand other organisms, where we will place greater value on them and on ourselves”) (Wilson, 1993) is explained today as a genetic basis for human survival as a species. With this being recognized, it is no surprise that urban spaces with the presence of trees and grass have shown to ameliorate an individual’s mental health and functioning (Cimprich and Ronis, 2003, Hartig et al., 1991, Mang and Evans 1991, R. Kaplan 1995, Kuo and Sullivan, 2001).

Not only is it known that inferior habitats result in poor mental and physical health (Stilgoe, 2001), but also “greener” spaces have the opposite affect on human health (Kuo, Sullivan, Coley and Brunson, 1998). Even within the hospital environment, it has been found that recovering patients that have views into vegetated areas from their rooms show a significant decrease in the amount of pain medication needed, shorter recovery times and less negative nurses notes (Ulrich, 1984). These findings suggest that not only can natural features within the urban environment support mental well-being, this contact with other living entities may be a “requirement” for mental health (Roszak, 1995).

Also, several studies have concluded that “greener” neighborhoods lead to several measurable benefits within a community when compared to more desolate neighborhoods. These benefits include: Stronger social networks (Kuo et al., 1998); • More pronounced feelings of belonging among the residents (Kuo et al., 1998); • Increased amounts of social activities (Coley, Kuo, and Sullivan 1997, Sullivan et al., 2004); • Residents familiar with more neighbors (Coley et al., 1996, Sullivan, Kuo and DePooter, 2004); • Increased feeling that neighbors were concerned with helping and 39

• • • • • •

supporting one another (Kuo et al., 1998); More social interaction among the residents (Coley et al., 1996, Sullivan et al., 2004); and Decrease in crime within the neighborhood (Kuo et al., 1998).

Improved self-discipline among inner city girls (Taylor, Kuo and Sullivan, 2002) Decreased mortality among senior citizens (Takano, Nakamura and Watanabe 2002) Increased “emotional, cognitive and values-related development” in children (Kellert, 2002) More capability in dealing with challenges (Kuo, 2001)

Kaplan and Kaplan (2003) have also found that one’s environment directly affects their mental and physical health. They explain this phenomenon in their Reasonable Person Model (RPM), which is a “conceptual framework that links environmental factors with human behavior.“ This model suggests that if one’s environment can provide an individual with their “informational needs,” then this in turn can benefit one’s well being. The people within this ideal environment are “more reasonable, cooperative, helpful and constructive”.

There are three informational needs an environment must supply if it is to positively influence one’s health; (1) exploration and understanding (providing information that can be received, processed, comprehensible, educative and promote discovery); (2) restoration from mental fatigue (inability to focus, irritability and impulsiveness), as provided by natural environments; and (3) meaningful action, where participation in one’s community negates feelings of helplessness and promotes competence, feelings of usefulness and the ability to gain respect from others. Their findings directly link the design of a community with ones physical and mental well being and cite such problems as crime, lack community and dependence on motorized transportation as being causes of poor health.

Furthermore, Kaplan and Kaplan include community-based activities that revolve around nature as being able fulfill the informational needs of an environment that promotes physical and mental well-being. These types of nature activities within the community can be tree-planting organizations, gardening organizations and even include organizations that have SWM enhancement goals, like rain garden gardeners, stream restoration planting, etc.

They have found a series of benefits that a community-based nature activity can provide for individuals and communities: • Increased sense of pride in one’s community (Austin and Kaplan, 2003)

3. Examples

Greater amounts of time spent with neighbors (von Hassell, 2005) More knowledge about events within the community (von Hassell, 2005) Sense of personal identity and connectedness to community (Lynch and Brusi, 2005) • Increased self-esteem, trust and hope (Stuart, 2005) • • •

Many of the methods for improving hydrological systems in neighborhoods also include increasing the amount of vegetation in a community. For example, day lighting pipes, reclaiming wet, vacant land or incorporating bioretention areas within impervious areas inherently translates to increased vegetation. If designed for safety, easy maintenance and aesthetic appeal, this “greening” of the community can potentially have dramatic effects on the environmental health of the community, in addition to social and individual health.

Scalar Flexibility and Development of Social C a p i t a l ( Fr a s e r a n d K i c k , 2 0 0 5 ) Although CB efforts generally need to originate at the neighborhood scale, stepping out of the neighborhood into broader scales, or having scalar flexibility (Fraser and Kick, 2005), enables communities to expand their social networks and thus their opportunities for success. Not only can these larger networks build upon a community’s knowledge base, but also resources such as financial ones can be strengthened. SWM efforts are one method for broadening community’s networks of opportunity. Watersheds transgress political boundaries and water quality efforts can bring together communities that would otherwise have nothing else in common. This also allows communities in similar watersheds to pull together resources from organizations, especially financial ones that focus their efforts on larger scale issues, like those related to entire watersheds.

A t t r a c t i n g C o m m u n i t y Vo l u n t e e r s Organizations that rely on volunteers are presented with many challenges in fulfilling their goals. The most prevalent challenge is getting residents to donate their time and efforts. Especially in communities that need the most efforts, the residents are often short of free time. For organizations that also have environmental enhancement goals, the challenges are unique. Ryan and Grese (2005) summarize these challenges that must be considered before an organization sets its goals and strategies in order to ensure that the residents will accept the endeavor.

• The general public prefers maintained landscapes.

40

Some landscapes that are best for restoration may be viewed by the residents as unsafe and not properly maintained.

• Successful restorations have included the community’s recreational and social needs in their goals.

•

Outdoor activities, such as stormwater management enhancement projects, may provide creative ways for community building volunteers to bond and gain trust amongst one another. With careful attention to the challenges associated with environmental enhancement, SWM projects can provide unique settings for community building efforts and supplement their efforts to get community residents involved. Involvement in improving stormwater management systems can range from active decision-making processes to physical implementation (construction and maintenance) of BMP’s.

Ho w Ca n C ommun it y Bu i l d ing Ef f or ts B en ef it the Improvement o f Stormwater Ma na g ement Systems ?

Public outreach and education are critical elements and equally important as structural controls for improving water quality in our communities. Lehner, Clarke, Cameron and Frank (1999) have found patterns for success in these stormwater control outreach programs. Existing community building programs can initiate and supplement many of the components for successful programs.

Among the potential benefits that community building organizations can provide are: • Clear insight into the community’s unique values and concerns; • Organizational structure, participants, trust and leadership for planning, implementation, self-evaluation and long-term viability; • Relationships with other groups within the community (government, nonprofit, religious, etc); • Broader links to funding sources; • Physical resources, such as meeting venues. .

Vo l u n t e e r s + S t o r m w a t e r M a n a g e m e n t P r o g r a m s Many organizations devoted to water resource management and cities facing phase II NPDES requirements have found volunteers as a crucial component of the educational process. Not only can volunteers participate in events that deal with stormwater issues, but also the volunteering process educates them about hydrological issues. This educational process can create a verbal network among

volunteers and friends of shared knowledge and action (Rafter, 2007).

With an increasing amount of money being pulled away from governmentbased environmental and social initiatives within the city; it is increasingly necessary that programs utilize people within the community to participate in community goals (Ryan and Grese, 2005). Existing community building organizations usually have attracted residents within the community that are passionate about the improvement of their neighborhood or municipality.

Stormwater management programs can benefit greatly from this existing infrastructure of motivated individuals.

However, there are still immense challenges involved in the education and outreach process. A catalyst is still needed to get people involved and engaged who are apathetic to the issues of stormwater management. One opportunity for dealing with indifference to the issues of stormwater management may be a creative restructuring of the benefits improved stormwater management techniques may provide in benefiting people to match their own unique concerns and values. Ultimately, communities should be able to address their unique concerns and be an active participant in the design process of improving their communities.

It is also worthwhile to mention and consider that volunteerism not only supports an organization, but it can also benefit the overall community and its individuals. Among some of the additional benefits of volunteerism found by Ryan and Grese (2005) are: • Develops citizens as advocates for their environment; • Enhances an appreciation for one’s community; • People socialize with their neighbors more often; • Feelings of comfortableness within their community are increased; • Residents develop an emotional connection with their community; and • Community members tend to increase their actions regarding environmental concerns within their community.

Ta p p i n g I n t o W h a t M o t i v a t e s Pe o p l e t o Pa r ti cip ate in C ommun it y Bu i l d ing Ef f or ts Although challenges can be stifling within endeavors that rely mostly on volunteer work, understanding what motivates people within the community to participate can provide insight in how to attract community members.

As mentioned earlier, it is important for the success of a project to appeal to resident’s distinctive concerns and open a conversation about why others in the 41

community are not involved. Existing community building organizations can be very helpful when attempting to gather this information.

In my own findings; through a questionnaire distributed to an empowerment group involved in bioretention and rainwater harvesting programs in Wilmington, NC; I have found the following motivations for individuals to be involved in community building groups and stormwater management projects: • A desire to ‘help’ the environment; • Reduce crime; • Improve economics: • Improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood; and • Enhance the community so the residents will be proud of where they live.

In addition, the residents believed that many of the challenges to getting others involved were similar to Ryan and Grese’s (2005) findings.

• People are too busy; • Lack of child care during meetings and events; • People are not interested; and • Lack of advertisement about organization and its events.

These findings suggest that environmental organizations may need to consider creative ways for getting people involved. In some cases, those people that had a concern for environmental issues had also attended educational seminars or had some other level of environmental education. To first get a wider range of participants involved, it may be necessary that benefits and goals beyond environmental are communicated to community members. Also, it is necessary to talk to the community and existing organizations to discover what the challenges and opportunities are for enticing people to volunteer.

Communities may not all have the same motivations and interviews and questionnaires may be an essential tool to discovering what motivates and excites residents.

42

3. Examples

3.1 INTRODUCTION In order to understand and evaluate real-world examples of organizations that have interwoven innovative stormwater management strategies with community building goals, multiple types of projects were chosen. The projects selected are intended to represent typologies with different implementation approaches (site-by-site/ incremental and master plan strategies: Was there a specific, broad scale community master plan that was being followed?) and those implemented on public and private land. It is the intent of the investigation of these examples to critically evaluate the opportunities and constraints of these unique approaches.

3.2 cASE STUDY SELECTION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA In the following examples, those involved in stormwater management efforts have found meaningful successes and informative failures in becoming partners with existing community building organizations. The examples chosen were selected based on several criteria. Although every project initiated some aspect of the criteria, each project is unique in they have varied strengths and weaknesses based on the selection criteria (Tables 5 and 6). The criteria for case study selection were: The project planned for implementation of innovative stormwater management techniques (those considered best management practices in the Low-Impact Development community).

• The project involved collaboration with both an organization concerned with stormwater management and an organization existing in the community that had goals relating to community building (i.e. developing social or human capital within the community).

• The project site was in a low income, urban community (within a city with a high rate of imperviousness - at least 50% - located in or close to an urban core area whose residents, on average, earned less than the median income of the municipality).

• The project was within a similar geographic and/ or cultural context than that of Durham, NC, my design project site.

Each project was then evaluated on its scale, the framework for its implementation strategy (site-by-site vs. master plan scale; public vs. private land ownership) and its fulfillment of sustainability criteria that were chosen from the existing literature. The sustainability criteria are divided into whether they fulfill 1) environmental quality goals of enhancing water quality with structural or non-structural BMP’s; 2) social goals of community building, such as enhancing social and human capital; 3) aesthetic and design goals of creating healthy neighborhoods; 4) economic enhancement through job creation and training or encouragement of business development within the area; and finally, 5) innovation criteria for integrating stormwater management and community building goals.

The first example is a project that I have followed more intimately than the others due to its close proximity to Raleigh, NC. Although the other examples are wonderful accomplishments, I will not be able to delve into the other examples as thoroughly as the Wilmington, NC example.

Project

Scale

Approach

Land Ownership

The Bottom Neighborhood Project; Wilmington, NC

Watershed (Macro) and Neighborhood (Micro scale)

Master Plan and Site-by-site

Private and Public

Engineered SWM for LowIncome Urban Communities; Newark, NJ

Neighborhood (Micro scale)

Site-by-site

Public

West Philadelphia Landscape Project, PA

Community (Meso scale)

Master Plan

Mostly Public

Anacostia Waterfront Initiative; Washington, D.C.

Community (Meso scale)

Master Plan

Private and Public

•

Table 1. Case study matrix

43

Examples

3.3 The Bottoms Neighborhood Project, Wilmington, NC Publicly driven Private and Public Land Master Plan and Site-by-site Approach

I . Intro duc ti on In search of a regional example of an organization that united stormwater management goals with community building goals, Bill Hunt directed me to Christy Perrin and Jason Wright of Watershed Education for Communities and Officials (WECO), a program of the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Program. The purpose of WECO is to “develop local capacity for sustainable watershed management and facilitate watershed partnerships in North Carolina. WECO joins watershed stakeholders to accomplish collaborative solutions to water resource issues (WECO, 2008).” The strategies WECO employs are empowerment of citizens by including them in the policy-making process, distribution of technical and educational materials, facilitation of recommendations for watershed communities to improve water quality and find new links between various groups (WECO brochure). WECO is an important organization because it specializes in public facilitation and writes grant proposals for communities. In this project, WECO bridged a unique relationship with a well established community group in a Wilmington neighborhood that proved to be beneficial for some of WECO’s and the community group’s goals.

(All data obtained from WECO, WECO’s website and a site visit on 11.12.07)

II. Metho ds Case Study Post Occupancy Evaluation

III. Case Study

[EVALUATION OF PROCESS + DECISION-MAKING + OUTCOMES] Baseline Information

Figure 22. Volunteers and WECO work together to learn about stormwater issues in Wilmington, NC and construct BMP’s in their neighborhood [ WECO ]

Context The Burnt Mill Creek (BMC) watershed is a subwatershed of the Lower Cape Fear Basin. Within the Burnt Mill Creek watershed are several wellestablished neighborhoods in the northern half of Wilmington, NC. Collectively these neighborhoods (as delineated by the city land use plan) are locally known as “The Bottom” (5th St. to 19th St. and Market St. to Castle St.).

The neighborhoods are within a dense, urban form and many residents have incomes lower than the median income of Wilmington and New Hanover 44

County (Wilmington median income is $42,000, New Hanover County $41,000; areas in BMC between $22,000 and 34,000 depending on census tract) (NC Census, 2000). More than half of the parcels in the watershed are residential and 19% of the area is used for commercial and industrial purposes.

Environmental History The Bottom is distinguished by its low topographical character and frequent flood events. The main tributary of the watershed, Burnt Mill Creek, is an impaired waterbody (303d- biological impairment). Urbanization (64% imperviousness) and fecal coliform are the major water quality problems in the Burnt Mill Creek. Domestic pet waste is believed to be the major source of fecal coliform (New Hanover County Local Watershed Planning Group, 2002). Exacerbated by high levels of imperviousness, many channels in the watershed are severely eroded and altered in such a manner that result in low base flows and an inability to support life (New Hanover County Local Watershed Planning Group, 2002).

Key Participants Entities Involved with Rain Barrel and Rain Garden Project • • • • • • • • • • • •

Watershed Education for Communities and Local Officials (WECO) [project lead] Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, NCSU Cape Fear River Watch (Non-Profit) Bottom Neighborhood Empowerment Association (BNEA) (Neighborhood Group) Other Entities Involved North Carolina Division of Water Quality UNC-Wilmington Cape Fear River Watch New Hanover Soil and Water Conservation District NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program New Hanover County City of Wilmington

Financial Information In 2004 WECO received a $600,000 EPA 319 grant to improve the Burnt

Mill Creek watershed (22.3-sq.mi.) in Wilmington, NC. Goals The EPA grant was intended for the following activities in the watershed: • Design and construction of 6 large stormwater BMP’s.

• Community outreach and involvement, including a rain barrel and rain garden project.

• Water quality monitoring.

Program + Process History of Project Prior to the Bottoms Neighborhood Project, WECO was involved in facilitating the New Hanover County Local Watershed Group (2002), with sponsorship from the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP). Many diverse stakeholders joined in this effort to design strategies for improving water quality, preventing flooding and improving habitat in the basin. From 2000-2002, the group drafted a watershed plan that included: • Identifying and prioritizing major issues and problem areas • Developing goals and objectives • Prioritizing restoration projects • Recommending strategies for achieving goals • Contacting landowners to begin the project The Burnt Mill Creek subcatchment was selected as an area of priority for future projects based on its poor water quality, flooding concerns and its representation of an urban watershed. BMP’s were suggested as the “most feasible and practical” design strategies for the basin (New Hanover County Local Watershed Group, 2002).

BMP Location Selection WECO initially looked to the headwater areas (south) of the watershed for sites for structural BMP’s. The methods used for identifying potential sites were: focusing on prioritized areas identified in the 2002 Local Watershed Planning Group, brainstorm sessions with the entities involved, windshield surveys, word-of-mouth and referrals from city stormwater services. To convince landowners to be involved with the project, they found most success 45

by finding people through others they had met (“a friend of a friend”). They also had occasional success with cold calls and invitations to stormwater runoff presentations.

Large BMP Construction Before residential BMP’s and rain barrels were installed, WECO and others designed and built larger BMP’s in more visible sites. All of the larger BMP’s were designed to handle a 1.5 in. storm event. The first demonstration site was at Gregory Elementary School of Math and Science. This site has a 14,000 sq.ft. drainage area and a 1,500 sq.ft. rain garden was installed. Fifth graders from the school helped build the rain garden. Other large BMP projects include: • Stonesthrow Townhomes (multi-family) - constructed wetland • Wallace Park (neighborhood park) - constructed wetland • YMCA (community recreation facility) - permeable pavement, bioretention area for parking lot and roof runoff • Port City Java (Commercial) - vegetated swales to catch runoff from parking lot, retrofitted • Anderson Tabernacle (Church) - 8’ x 10’ bioretention/ rain garden • Mary Bridgers Park- constructed wetland, .25 acres, 5.5 acre drainage area

Figure 24. Rain garden in resident’s backyard- resident added hardscape materials and mulching

Figure 25. Wallace Park- Jason Wright checking on monitoring equipment

Figure 23. Anderson Tabernacle- rain garden in lower left corner of photo

Figure 26. Stonesthrow Townhomes constructed wetland

46

Small BMP Construction and SWM Education In order to get more community members involved in this project, WECO decided to join forces with an existing community group, the Bottom Neighborhood Empowerment Association (BNEA). BNEA meets monthly and is committed to improving their community through activities such as crime prevention and aesthetic enhancement. Partnership with a community group like BNEA proved effective because: they had already attracted community members that are passionate enough to donate their time to community enhancement goals, already have strong leadership and existing facilities in the community. For instance, the BNEA has a neighborhood resource center that is located centrally in the Bottoms neighborhood.

WECO held educational workshops with the BNEA and targeted potential homeowners to receive rain barrels and rain gardens. The educational forums were intended to teach residents about stormwater pollution and changes they could make in their own lives to improve water quality. The free workshops were titled “Beautiful yard, strong community and a clean environment!” and approximately10 people participated in each workshop. A survey distributed at the June 10, 2007 workshop indicated that all the participants learned something new about stormwater pollution and wanted to make personal efforts to improve water quality (WECO, 2007).

Through this partnership, WECO found homeowners that wanted rain barrels and rain gardens at their homes. The relationship also led to a larger network that was facilitated by the BNEA members, who suggested their neighbors, friends and church groups as others that may want to be involved.

WECO installed a total of 10 rain barrels and 4 rain gardens on residential lots and 1 rain garden at a church, as of 11.02.07, in addition to the 6 large BMP’s mentioned earlier.

During a site visit on November 12, 2007, Christy Perrin (WECO), Jason Wight (NCSU) and Joe Abbate (Cape Fear River Watch) gathered knowledge from BNEA members and GIS parcel data to try to find additional locations for rain gardens. Joe Abbate provided information he had gathered from talking to the BNEA members about friends and neighbors that may be interested in having rain gardens and/ or barrels that live in low lying areas.

GIS parcel data overlying orthophotography was then queried to see where these parcels were (Are they in the watershed and are they near the other BMP’s?), if the parcels were large enough for rain gardens, if there was good

Figure 27. Christy Perrin (WECO), Joe Abbate (Cape Fear River Watch) and Jason Wright (NCSU BAE) inspect resident’s rain garden

access to the parcel and who owned the parcel.

Site Visit Description (see Appendix B) Un i q u e C o n s t r a i n t s (identified during site visit and WECO presentation) Initial challenges identified by WECO were identifying locations for BMP’s and getting community members (residential, commercial, industrial, municipal) involved in the process. Once WECO and partners found potential participants through the BNEA; a simple, yet unexpected challenge had to be addressed. Many of the homes in this community did not have gutters. Without gutters, rain barrels and rain gardens cannot be effective, especially in such a flat geographic area. Eventually WECO and partners found some homes with gutters and residents willing to spend their own money to purchase gutters (for the typical home in the area the costs were between $100-300).

Another issue that had to be considered and is still open for discussion is 47

maintenance of BMP’s, especially on private land. How can it be ensured that the landowners will maintain their BMP’s? What happens if the owner moves? If the BMP does not survive or if it does not improve water quality, was the effort worth it if the owner gained knowledge about the environment?

A Summary of All the Challenges: • Getting community members involved • Identifying locations for BMP’s • Finding land for BMP’s in such an urbanized area • Finding houses with gutters • Maintenance of BMP’s on private residences • Getting commercial entities involved • Amount of time it takes to get in contact with land owners and work with them • Convincing funders that coordination , education and meeting efforts are worth the costs • Making sure all entities involved are aware of goals (In one instance, one entity told community members that BMP’s would “solve” their flooding issues on their land) • Getting water to move in the extremely flat coastal plain L e s s o n s L e a r n e d + W h a t Wo r k e d (identified by WECO presentation) •

•

• • • •

Making friends through a community group proved to be a successful partnership. Also, these community members were impressed enough to notify their friends, fellow church members and school members about the program and stormwater information.

WECO learned that the way they “framed” their project was important to getting people involved. They realized that only advertising the project as an environmental effort would not work and that mentioning beautification and ways people can use rain water for their gardens proved to be effective. Also the presentation of Kuo and Sullivan’s (see research regarding green space and community benefits helped residents see the effort in a new light.

Having funding going into the project was extremely useful.

Open communication with all the landowners was helpful, especially for educational purposes.

Many types of BMP’s will not work in this context, but the one’s they chose seemed to be a good fit.

Getting media coverage through the TV and radio helped communicate

the project to the citizens effectively.

• “Sharing load” amongst project partners was helpful.

I V. P O S T O C C U PA N C Y E VA L UAT I O N [ EFFECTIVENESS OF PROJECT ] Method To learn more about why and how people in BNEA were involved in the

WECO project and their community group, I distributed a survey to members at one of their monthly meetings at the Family Resource Center in Wilmington and mailed the survey to others who had received rain barrels and rain gardens. Unfortunately, only a few people attended the meeting I attended (it was Veteran’s Day), but thankfully Christy Perrin provided me with the addresses of all that had received rain barrels and rain gardens. In total, I distributed 2 surveys at the meeting and mailed 13. To get a good return rate, I offered a raffle for a gift certificate to Home Depot or Target and put stamped and self-addressed envelopes in the mailing. Of the 13 mailed, I received 7 back for a total of 9 surveys collected.

Results (in percentages) How did you hear about BNEA? Newspaper Mail Word of mouth Flier or Poster Another Org. Other

0 0 22.2 22.2 11.1 33.3

Other responses included: • • •

“We started it with the city” WECO direct contact Started it with the city police department

What are the reasons you are involved with BNEA? Fill in comments include: • I live in the Bottom- concerned about the environment.

48

• • • • • • •

To help planet Earth and myself.

A safe and healthy community. I want to see the beauty come back to the community as it was one-half century ago.

Crime in the neighborhood. Improve economics.

Environmental outreach and understanding. Native plants.

Contacted by Jason Wright A desire to help make/ keep our neighborhood a place we are pleased to live in and share with others.

To promote a safe, crime-free neighborhood in which to live; stop drug dealers from selling drugs 24 hours a day; create more police patrols; help interracial relationships; clean up trash.

How have you participate in the NC Cooperative Extension Rain Garden and Rain Barrel Project (RGRBP)?

simple conservation practices to better their personal environment.

• I learned about the importance of rain gardens- how they clean the runoff from our driveways and parking lots.

• I have learned that our attention to small things can help improve our environment. Ex. Catching rain water for future use instead of getting water from outside faucets to water plants of small gardens.

• The most important thing I've learned is not to rake and bag leaves, but to use it as a ground cover.

If yes to # 4, has learning this information and participating in this project helped the BNEA in any way? If so, how?

Fill in comments include: Somewhat. The children started a garden earlier last spring. Our founder had a rain garden put in at her home garden.

• Making folks aware of the importance of the environment.

• My students helped to plant the plants in the rain garden- it was a very valuable learning experience.

• Yes, several of us are more aware of ways to improve our area and have shared this information with family and people in other groups that we are members of and have gotten positive feedback.

•

I have not.

0 Attended a BNEA meeting where stormwater issues and the RGRBP were presented.

100 Attended a RGRBP workshop

44.4 Helped install a RG or RB through the RGRBP

77.7 If you have participated in the RGRBP in some way, have you learned environmental information through your participation?

Yes No

100 0

If yes, what information about the environment have you learned?

Fill in comments include: • • •

How much rain runoff can be used to reduce my own water bill usage.

The importance of stormwater run-off.

How communities can become enriched through greenscaping and learn

Do you have any suggestions to improve the RGRBP? Involve more members Involve more community org’s and institutions Involve more community businesses Involve more city officials and other gov’t groups Involve more outside org’s, businesses and institutions Offer more technical assistance and maintenance information

22.2 33.3 33.3 44.4 22.2 44.4

Others:

55.5 • Try to get area church leaders and members involved • I would like to have some come and speak to my church members to help them next summer.

• The Garden Clubs of Wilmington • The way I became involved was through the school- I think if you can find contacts/ science environmental teacher interested it would help.

• I think the most effective promotion is ongoing marketing tactics like they did with cigarettes and keeping trash off highways.

49

Do you feel more people inside the community should be involved with: BNEA Yes No Not sure

100 0 0

RGRBP Yes No Not sure

77.7 0 33.3

Under age 25 0 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 over 64

11.1 0 11.1 55.5 22.2

Years lived In community: Less than 5 0 5-10 22.2 Over 10 77.7

If you answered yes for either organization in #8, what do you believe are the challenges to getting more people involved?

Do you have children under 18?

Yes 11.1 No 88.8 Do you own your home?

Yes 100 No 0

BNEA

RGRBP

Lack of advertisement

55.5

55.5

Most people are too busy

55.5

33.3

Discussion

Most people are not interested

44.4

44.4

Respondents

Meetings are not at convenient times or days

22.2

22.2

Transportation to meetings

11.1

11.1

Child care during meetings

33.3

33.3

The objectives and goals of the organization are not clear

22.2

22.2

The objectives and goals of the organization do not meet my interests

11.1

11.1

Others

33.3

33.3

Most of the people involved in BNEA, in the RGRB project and in the survey were women above the age of 55 and long time residents of the community. This is not a representative group of all the people that live in this neighborhood. These findings may suggest that these groups may be more likely to be involved in community projects and increased efforts need to be put in place to attract younger people and males in general. Also it is important to note that the rain garden and rain barrel project generally excluded people who do not own their homes (100% of respondents owned their homes). However, the project did implement large BMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s at sites that were not on private residences and involved community members that were not home owners in the design and construction process. These folks were not the focus of the survey because they did not participate in the RGRB project.

Respondents (optional information) Gender: Male 1.1 Female 88.8 Age:

Environmental Education Everyone that responded learned something new about stormwater issues. Some of the respondents indicated that they had shared their new knowledge with friends and other acquaintances. This is one of the strongest 50

accomplishments of the project.

How People Became Involved with Bottom Empowerment Group and RGRBP Again, word-of-mouth proved to be an effective tool for getting the word out about these organizations. Also, visual information, such as fliers, captured people’s attention. All of the respondents that participated in the RGRB program had some affiliation with the BNEA. Three of these people became involved in BNEA after they were first attracted by the RGRBP. Why People Became Involved with Bottom Empowerment Group

Conclusion The Bottom’s Neighborhood Project (BNP) is a successful example of how watershed planning and protection efforts can successfully engage community members in the education and planning process. WECO insightfully understands that success for these types of projects depends on having a solid financial base first and community support throughout all phases of the project. Also, success can be attributed to implementing watershed improvement efforts based on a watershed-scale plan that offers clear insight into specific “hot-spots” within a watershed.

Improvements for RGRBP

Christy Perrin and WECO also understand that innovative stormwater management systems that utilize vegetation can offer low income communities much more than benefits to water quality and quantity concerns and that making sure community members fully understand this aids in making such an effort meaningful. Organizations such as WECO are invaluable at bridging and bonding communities with the financial and social capital needed to execute such projects and can ultimately help a community in a myriad of ways.

Several of the respondents would have liked to of seen more local entities involved with the project (city officials and other organizations that may have similar interests). The respondents also wished they had more technical and maintenance instruction for their rain gardens and barrels.

Although the Bottom’s Neighborhood Project exhibits success in many realms, particularly the environmental and social, some paths for improvement lie untraveled. These untraveled paths include the other “performers”; economic sustainability and aesthetic/ desirable form:

Reasons People May Not Be Involved with BNEA and RGRBP

Economically, this effort did funnel financial capital geared for watershed improvement efforts to the Bottom’s neighborhood, but the larger question is whether that funding will be sustaining. In other words, was it an investment?

I do not believe in any way this money was wasted, but I do believe that if some of the funding or more funding could have been directed to green collar job training and creation, especially those that are geared toward watershed improvements, it would have been more of an investment for the community.

All of those that have taken time out of their day to be involved with the BNEA do so because they want their community to become a better place.

They cite several issues that the community needs to address to make it a better place: crime reduction, beautification, interracial relationships, pride in the community and environmental issues.

As anticipated, many people felt that others were generally too busy and not interested in both the BNEA Group and the RGRBP. A few people mentioned that lack of childcare may also be an issue. This may be supported by the fact that only one respondent had a child under the age of 18.

More people demonstrated that the RGRBP, rather than BNEA goals, may not be an important issue for people in that neighborhood. This may support findings in the literature review and WECO’s initial thoughts that the way they framed the project would be the key to getting more people involved.

Perhaps if the program was presented to the BNEA with a heavier emphasis on benefits beyond water quality, more people would become interested. Also with the above findings, creative and more visual advertisement may aid in recruiting members.

The BNP, unfortunately, did not fully utilize design and planning professionals to ensure that they were positively contributing to the neighborhood’s overall form and function as a whole. Although the BNP brought natural processes into the city with their stormwater designs, most of them were hidden from view and did not contribute to the amelioration or creation of the public spaces within in the community. A suggestion for the BNP is to integrate their efforts into the everyday lives of the community 51

members. This could best be accomplished by targeting BMP designs near or within street corridors. Many people in this neighborhood walk to most destinations within the community and integrating stormwater management to enhance the pedestrian experience would be a good use of public space (Figure 95). The spaces would then have multiple functions: aesthetic enhancement, stormwater management, education, air pollution attenuation, urban heat island effect mitigation, encourage social interaction, ecological corridor enhancement, etc.

Fulfilling the other 2 performers of the sustainable development equation would make the BNP a comprehensive and model sustainable community design project for the entire southeast United States in low income communities.

Figure 28. Stormwater â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Green Streetsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in Portland designed by Kevin Perry (http://www.artfulrainwaterdesign.net/photos/show/378/)

52

3.4 Engineered Stormwater Management for Low-Income Communities, Newark, NJ (P3, 2005) Publicly driven Public Land Site-by-site Approach

I . Intro duc ti on Newark, NJ has many environmental issues (water pollution, heat island effect and air pollution), social issues (crime, vacant land, unemployment) and economic issues (the mean income in the targeted neighborhood is between $8,151 and 16,522); and is also bounded by many bays and estuaries that are important to the state’s environmental and economic health. In Newark, many minorities live in areas that are plagued with environmental liabilities, especially situations where the combined sewers overflow onto streets, even on days when it is not raining. The Weequahic Park neighborhood is one of these areas. Weequahic Park is a historic neighborhood and home to the 311-acre Weequahic Park with an 80-acre lake, designed by the Olmsted firm in 1899.

II . M e t h o d s Precedent Analysis

III . P r e c e d e n t A n a l y s i s

[ EVA LUAT ION OF PRO CE SS + DECISI ON-M A K IN G + OU TCOM E S ] Baseline Information Key Participants Rutgers University Dayton Elementary School Weequahic Park Association Tenant Association of Seth Boyden Complex Newark Public School Department of Design and Construction Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission River Restoration Program Greater Newark Conservancy

Figure 29. Weequahic Park (Rutgers Team P3, 2005)

Financial Information In 2004, a $10,000 grant through the EPA’s P3 program (Prosperity, People, Planet), a national student design competition for sustainability, was awarded to the Rutgers’ P3 team to design the project. This EPA research program awards projects in two phases. Phase I is design development and Phase II is implementation. As of today, Rutgers’ P3 team has only been awarded Phase I funding and are currently seeking Phase II finances.

The budget for the project is estimated as follows: $39,020 BMP’s $10,500 Outfall structures and associated pipes for bioretention systems $3,000 for disposal and demolition of asphalt and concrete No costs for grading, provided by Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission River Restoration Program No costs for design provided by Rutgers $10,000 for job-training program Goals This project, initiated by Rutgers University’s P3 team, through Cooks College and NJ Cooperative Extension; focused on the creation of socially beneficial green spaces in a low income neighborhood that would also serve as areas 53

for stormwater management, recreation, job training, beautification and promotion of environmental awareness.

Program + Process The designers first targeted the Dayton Elementary School and the Seth Boyden Public Housing Complex as sites in need of common green spaces.

These areas were characterized as having large impervious areas, a limited amount of green spaces and lack of financial resources to address these issues.

Residents at the Seth Boyden Complex and the Dayton Street School were consulted several times throughout the design process. HydroCad was utilized to generate hydrographs and conduct stormwater basin routing of the site to ensure that the BMP’s were adequately designed and placed. This information can also be used to model and monitor hydrological characteristics of the site and quantify the benefits of the BMP’s.

Figure 30. Seth Boyden Complex (Rutgers Team P3, 2005)

BMP’s chosen for this project were: • Bioretention basins • Vegetated swales • Vegetative filter strip • Cisterns (5,000 gallons), the over flow will be linked to the vegetative filter strip and bioretention system The implementation of the project for BMP construction at the school and housing complex includes job training and placement for 20 local residents.

More residents will be trained and hired once the project finds more funding.

The training program includes a certificate from Rutgers Cooperative Research and Extension after successful completion of the program. The training program is 2 days and the program is designed to pat trainees during training $20/ hour. Once trained these people will also be paid $20/ hour to construct and maintain the BMP’s.

L e s s o n s L e a r n e d + W h a t Wo r k e d

Figure 31. Dayton Elementary School (Rutgers Team P3, 2005)

Although this project has yet to be implemented, the P3 team was successful, in their own view, executing design workshops with the community and working with them to produce a “template that deals with the community’s concerns over water and air quality, while providing functional and safe green spaces plus opportunities for residents to gain work experience. (Rutgers Team P3, 2005.)”

In the team’s own self evaluation, they felt that their open communication with the five community groups was substantial and meaningful, even feeling 54

that they had gained the community’s trust. However, in their analysis, they provided no data to support this conclusion.

The P3 team did provide quantitative data supporting their BMP design elements and their potential for pollutant removal, air pollution removal and flood attenuation, but no quantitative measure or evaluation of the interaction between the P3 team and the stakeholders. A more in depth investigation would query the community groups and their view of the processes and relationships.

Figure 32. P3’s concept master plan (Rutgers Team P3, 2005)

The largest lesson that can be learned from this group’s process is that they identified lack of government support as the main reason this project has yet to be implemented. The team identified that this should have been a main goal in the beginning of the design process due to the inherent length of time it takes to go through bureaucratic processes and receive funding. This lack of funding could possibly also lead to distrust within the community groups as it may lead them to feel hopeless and apathetic after devoting time and effort to a project that never comes to fruition.

Even as this project has yet to be implemented, it still offers a unique view into how and why projects of this nature work or don’t work. Identifying and pursuing funding in the beginning of the project is crucial to the project’s success. Also, this project uniquely involves a job training and creation element to the design process and even links community groups with Rutger’s certification program. This is a rare element that makes this endeavor an almost comprehensive effort in sustainable development.

Figure 33. P3’s site plan for Dayton Elementary school (Rutgers Team P3, 2005)

55

3.5 West Philadelphia Landscape Project, PA (Spirn, 2005; WPLP, 2007) Publicly driven Public Land Master Plan Approach

I . Intro duc ti on II . M e t h o d s Precedent Analysis

III . P r e c e d e n t A n a l y s i s [ EVALUAT ION OF PRO CE SS + DECISI ON-M A K IN G + OU TCOME S ]

Figure 34. School children observing a water feature at their school (WPLP)

Baseline Information Mill Creek is a neighborhood in West Philadelphia known as “The Bottom,” and is” one of the many ‘Black Bottoms’ in the U.S. (Spirn, 2005).” Mill creek is an area that suffers from flooding, combined sewer overflows, sinking structures within a buried floodplain, a shrinking population and has large amounts of vacant land. Many people here live in poverty, but there is also a presence of middle-class residents that are well-educated. Although almost everyone living in Mill Creek today is African-American, in the 1950’s the cultural grain was much more varied. Today this neighborhood still holds on to its compact neighborhood structure with William Penn’s grid street system, 2 diagonal thoroughfares that disrupt the grid patterns, a buried floodplain and historic row houses.

A.W. Spirn started the West Philadelphia Landscape Project (WPLP) in 1987.

The project began as part of a larger open space project for West Philadelphia then evolved into a community development project. Much of the vacant land in the area is of the buried floodplain. The initial goals of the WPLP were to keep these areas unbuilt, but use the areas for SWM and public open space.

The buried floodplain and creeks cannot be resurrected because the creeks are now sewers. Today the WPLP incorporates research, teaching and community service with such actors as universities, public schools, neighborhood groups

and public officials.

Key Participants • • • • • • • • •

Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Center for Reflective Community Practice University of Pennsylvania and Center for Community Partnerships Aspen Farms (community garden) Sulzberger Middle School Mill Creek Coalition (community development group) Philadelphia Water Department Environmental Protection Agency Philadelphia Green (community gardening group) West Philadelphia Improvement Corps (WPIC)

Financial Information Sponsors: 56

• • •

• • •

Computer Graphics Laboratory, Graduate School of Fine Arts Center for Community Partnerships, University of Pennsylvania (support for work-study research assistants) Intergraph Corporation - Hardware and software provided through Intergraph's University Partnership Program in the Utilities and Mapping Sciences Division J. N. Pew Charitable Trust (West Philadelphia Landscape Plan and Greening Project grant 1987-1991) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Philadelphia Urban Resources Partnership

University of Pennsylvania students help establish a curriculum based on environmental and historical education of the neighborhood • Students attend classes designed by University of Pennsylvania that include: • Computer: internet, Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Word • History of Mill Creek • Business: how to form a business plan and track finances • Wetlands: biology, function and design of wetlands • Geography: mapping and topographical modeling • Landscape design and maintenance • National Engineers Week Future City Competition: Use of Sim City program, build models from blue prints •

Program + Process Initial Plans and Goals

•

Community database and outreach website • The online database of the project allows access to maps, university students’ designs for the area, features built works designed by WPLP and serves as an information hub for the community.

• Maps include: • Base Maps • Building Footprints • Property Lines • Neighborhoods • Land Use • Vacant Land • Land Cover • Block Types • Sewer • Sewer Boundaries • Topography • Pre-Urban Hydrology • Hydrology • Population Characteristics

•

Implementation of watershed management strategies • Demonstration project at Sulzberger Middle School for SW detention and serve as an outdoor classroom. This project was funded by the Philadelphia Water Department.

• Aspen Farms fishpond and constructed wetland serve as an outdoor classroom for the new urban wetland class for the middle school students. This project was funded by the Philadelphia Urban Resources Partnership and Philadelphia Green.

Spirn set up a comprehensive “Framework for Action” as a guideline for WPLP. The goal of the framework is to outline strategies for landscape improvements and establish networks with various groups to aid in the revitalization efforts of the neighborhood. The framework is a master design plan for streets, sidewalks, public utilities, vacant lots, community gardens, playgrounds, parking lots, plazas, stream and transportation corridors and private yards Projects Some of the major accomplishments of the project are: •

Community revitalization

•

Landscape Projects •

• • • •

•

Community gardens • Westminster Community Garden • Pennsgrove Community Garden Aspen Farm Main Street Blockscape Program Research Documented flooding areas and flooding structures. These structures were identified by talking to neighborhood residents.

New curriculum and skills development for the neighborhood middle school

57

•

Redevelopment of Mill Creek Public Housing as a SWM demonstration project to reduce sewer overflows. The Philadelphia Water Department, Housing Authority and Planning Commission were awarded $34.8 million by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s HOPE VI program to implement this project. In total the project had a $110 million budget and started construction in August of 2003. In November 2004 the Philadelphia Streets department denied a permit for the SW demonstration project.

Unique Constraints Many of the challenges for this project were overcoming barriers (physicalfences, financial- funding and mental- racism and perceptions about stormwater management). The WPLP continues to overcome these barriers within the community through education, outreach and by building trust and networks.

Lessons Learned + What Worked The WPLP has heard similar words out of resident’s mouths that other examples in this paper have heard, "We like this project, we think it's a great project, and we understand that it's good for the environment, but you're putting all this money in to invest in a park and couldn't you invest in helping our kids have jobs and stuff ?" The WPLP responded by providing skill development programs embedded within the public middle school and actually paying students to maintain and construct landscape projects. Some of the most successful strategies this project incorporated were: • Starting with a master plan in the beginning phases of the project to get sustaining funding and city government resources.

• Thorough integration with other local entities.

• Skill development for middle school students was not only great for the children, but also helped the project gain national attention.

• Many of the initial projects were highly visible and had strong and immediate visual impact in the community.

3.6 The Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, Washington, D.C. Publicly and Privately Driven Private and Public Land Master Plan Approach

II . M e t h o d s Precedent Analysis

III . P r e c e d e n t A n a l y s i s Baseline Information The area around the Anacostia River, the ‘other’ river in Washington, D.C., is home to many under served urban communities and a drastically polluted river.

Historically, this area was one of the first suburbs of D.C., called Uniontown.

Today, the Anacostia community has approximately 71,000 residents. The Anacostia River’s watershed is 176 square miles, has 70% impervious area and receives polluted runoff from industries and other land uses within the city, in addition to its upstream neighbors in suburban Maryland.

In 2000, 20 federal and D.C. government entities joined forces under Mayor Anthony A. Williams to enact the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative (AWI) Memorandum of Understanding. This group was able to bring over $1 billion of public and private funds to lead revitalization projects on 2,800 acres on the Anacostia River. The master plan involves the creation of thousands of new jobs, four new neighborhoods, 20,000 new residential units, 1,800 acres of open space, 20 miles of trails and bikeways and 5 million square feet of office and retail space.

Key Participants • • • • • • • • • • •

Anacostia Waterfront Corporation (private) Deputy Mayor of Planning and Economic Development of D.C. The National Planning Commission Secretary of the US Department of the Interior Secretary of the US Department of Defense Several Non-profit, for profit and government agencies Anacostia Watershed Society (AWS) (Environmental) Community building and community development entities Historic Anacostia Block Association Anacostia Watershed Citizen’s Advisory Committee (AWCAC) Anacostia HOPE center (offers in financial education, small business development, job training, and computer literacy) 58

Financial Information In 2000, 20 federal and D.C. government entities joined forces under Mayor Anthony A. Williams to enact the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative (AWI) Memorandum of Understanding. This group was able to bring over $1 billion of public and private funds to lead revitalization projects on 2,800 acres on the Anacostia River.

Sponsors: Many private, non-profit and public investors Goals The key themes of the Initiative’s framework plan or master plan are: Environment: A clean and active river Implement combined sewer overflow control plan Adopt regional SW retention to control NPS pollution Restore 8 tributaries and create 6 wetlands Promote maritime activities at Boathouse Row Establish environmental interpretive center at Kingman Island Accelerate cooperative efforts with Maryland to address existing pollution loads • Implement Long Term Control Plan to reduce combined sewer overflows in the Anacostia by 98 percent by 2015.

• Restore over 300 acres of restored habitat • Implement low-impact development practices throughout the watershed.

• • • • • •

Transportation: Gaining access to, along and across the river • • • • •

20-mile river walk and trail New bridges Grand boulevards New waterfront light-rail line Freeways turned into parkways

Parks: A great riverfront system • •

New parks New recreation facilities

Figure 35. Master plan and accompanying vignettes (AWI)

59

•

New environmental parks

Destinations: Cultural destinations and places of distinct character • •

Civic parks Market squares

• •

Cultural parks Monument circle

Neighborhoods: building and sustaining strong waterfront neighborhoods • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Commercial reinvestment in gateways and new jobs Establishment of Business Resource Center to connect people with jobs with new business created by the initiative or initiative projects New neighborhoods, including affordable housing Mixed uses and mixed incomes Strategies for implementation include: All actions must support the achievement of the waterfront vision.

Unprecedented challenges require new institutions; federal and local legislation must be adopted to create them.

Create sustained federal funding for federally controlled waterfront assets.

Restoration of the Anacostia watershed must occur at the regional level.

Strengthening river stewardship means building neighborhood capacity.

Create an organized public programs campaign for the river.

Build the infrastructure for new waterfront neighborhoods; they hold the key to bringing vitality and new resources for riverside investment.

Dedicate a portion of new revenues to targeted neighborhoods east of the river.

Achieve design excellence in every aspect of the endeavor.

Program + Process Before any project was implemented, the AWI drafted comprehensive and small area plans for the project. The final initiative was a result of 20 community workshops and briefing over 5,000 people and 3,000 workshop participants. The guidelines were intended to ensure that all the objectives for land use plans, transportation, economic development and environmental enhancement were met. In addition, these plans helped organize coordination between the several agencies involved and establish a structure of how al the

plans were to be operated together, “The Family of Plans.”

Key projects and initiatives include: • • • • • • • • • • •

Poplar Point Hill East Washington Canal Park Marvin Gaye Park Southwest Waterfront Waterfront (formerly Waterside Mall) Kenilworth Parkside Kingman Island Anacostia Riverwalk Anacostia Metro Station Ballpark District

Within the environmental standards are standards for stormwater control.

The goals of the standards are to eliminate the flow of pollution into the Anacostia River and associated waterways and apply minimum standards for all development in the community.

These standards include: • All projects must be designed to retain and reuse all precipitation from a one inch in 24 hour storm event • Any discharge of SW up to a volume of a 2-year storm event shall be treated to remove pollutants, preferably filtered through vegetation • Control methods must be of the following: • Vegetated controls (green roofs, rain gardens) • Permeable pavement, infiltration trenches, dry wells, downspout disconnections • Other BMP’s can be presented to the AWC for approval • BMP’s in public space must utilize LID techniques as identified by DDOT and AWC • All BMP’s require annual certification of compliance by a registered professional engineer Unique Constraints As in the other examples, many of the residents in the Anacostia community initially displayed skepticism about the project in community meetings 60

and workshops. The concerns of the residents were that too much money was being spent on environmental and commercial goals, and not on social enhancements, like job training and job creation. One resident highlighted that there were no schools for vocational learning in the D.C. area. In 2007, the AWI opened the Business Resource Center to find people jobs and job training. Due to its youth, it is difficult to evaluate its effectiveness thus far.

Lessons Learned + What Worked Despite the conditions of the Anacostia River communities, the leaders of the AWI had a vision of the river as place that could unite the capital city of the U.S. and a driving force for improving aesthetics, economics, social structures and the environment. The initiative is well organized, has a solid master plan, encompasses a large scope and has clear goals and objectives. This organization and extended web of networks allowed the initiative to have a steady flow of financial resources.

To overcome feelings within the community that the AWI was not focusing enough on social goals, the AWI responded with a business resource center in the community and also sent out an RFP in 2007 for community organizations to design community-based programs that could help connect people (especially youth) to the Anacostia River through activities such as water-based recreational events, environmental education programming, and other opportunities that serve to increase awareness and build stronger relations to the river. It should be noted here that plans were in place to increase social enhancements in the area, but they were more of a long range solution and not immediately visible when the project began in 2000.

perhaps it would be more effective to have some sort of immediate representation of social initiatives within the community to establish trust and let the community know that the initiative intends on making social enhancements.

Landscape Architecture and Planning Firm Note about Project (WRT http://www.wrtdesign.com/project-Anacostia-Waterfront-Initiative68.html ) This award-winning master plan focuses on improving more than 1,500 acres along the Anacostia River and adjoining urban lands within the District of Columbia, an initiative backed by an unprecedented Memorandum of Understanding among 18 federal and district agency committees. Our work defined the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s environmental agenda and open space framework, and involved interaction with multiple stakeholders in achieving consensus on the design of neighborhood-specific recreation needs, national civic interests, and watershed health as well as district and federal mandates. Environmental recommendations included the daylighting of major tributaries flowing into the Anacostia, and the provision of wetlands at the point of outfalls to help retain and filter urban runoff.

In fact, Ben Bernacke (2006) illustrated that the actual number of business establishments in the Anacostia area increased by about 7 percent after the AWI began implementation of the project, along with increases in home ownership rates. Most of these new businesses were in the construction industry. Also industry data for Anacostia showed â&#x20AC;&#x153;significant increases in the number of establishments in educational services, such as academic and arts schools and training centers (a 118% gain); professional, scientific, and technical services such as offices of lawyers and engineers (a 35% increase); and health care and social assistance including medical care and day care centers (a 15% gain),â&#x20AC;? says Bernanke.

Even though the economic and social benefits of the AWI are on paper, 61

3.7 Summary of Project Performance Based on Sustainability CRITERIA AWI

Table 5. Sustainability criteria evaluation for each example

+

+++

++

++

++

0 = does not fulfill goals + = average fulfillment of goals + + = good fulfillment of goals + + + = excellent fulfillment of goals

+++

+++

+++

+

+

++

+++

Overall social capital

++

++

++

++

bonding

++

++

+++

++

bridging

++

++

++

+++

Human capital

++

+++

+++

+++

Sense of place

++

++

+++

+++

Citizen participation

++

++

++

+++

Natural processes introduced into city

++

++

+++

+++

Livable street and neighborhood

+

++

++

+++

Integration of uses

0

++

++

+++

Public space creation

++

+++

+++

+++

Connectedness/ Corridor development

0

0

0

++

0

++

+

+++

Green collar job creation or training

0

+++

+++

++

Innovative CB activities that involve environmental enhancement

++

0

++

++

Extending social and financial capital successfully

++

0

+

+++

Attracting volunteers based on secondary benefits of innovative SWM

++

++

++

++

Attracting volunteers based on appealing to the community’s distinct values

+

++

++

+++

Sustainability and Green Urbanism Criteria

The Bottom Neighborhood Project

P3 Rutgers Project

Structural BMP’s

++

++

Non-structural BMP’s

+++

Multifunctional landscapes

++

Biological diversity

WPLP

Innovative SWM

Community Building

Healthy Neighborhood Form

Economic Enhancement Job creation Innovative Integration of CB and SWM Goals

62

4. Conclusions

Innov ative SW M a nd c ommunit y build ing can b enef it one a nother in meaning s that would not ex ist if the inter a ction was ne ver initiate d. From the l iter ature re v i e w a nd ex a mple s , s e ver a l lessons can b e learne d.

4.1 Scale + Organization

Although design to engage people, promote individual health and improve our environment should occur at the neighborhood scale, organization at a larger scale must happen to orchestrate profound change in communities and provide the interconnectedness we need in our natural systems to promote diverse and healthy systems. Master planning or establishing a framework in the beginning of a project helps get several stake holders involved from variable disciplines and attract financial support that can be sustaining for longer periods of time.

4 . 2 Pr iv ate L a nd + S ite -by- S ite D e s ig n

Organizing and implementing effective BMP’s on private land has proven to be somewhat problematic. Although homeowners may initially learn a lot by constructing BMP’s on their land, there is no assurance that they will continue to maintain the BMP, what the fate of the BMP will be if they move or how they will continue to perceive the BMP in the future. In addition, implementing SWM on private land excludes groups that do not own land or have access to private land, such as commercial properties, and consumes a lot of time for coordination.

4.3 BMP’s + Public Open Space SWM on public land can be easier to coordinate and maintain. In some instances it may be easier to fund, with the exception of BMP implementation on private land, where the ordinances require implementation and annual maintenance. If BMP’s can benefit people beyond improving environmental health, and I do believe they do, then providing access of their benefits to everyone can only be done if they are enacted on public lands.

4 . 4 G e t t i n g Pe o p l e I n v o l v e d i n I m p r o v i n g Th eir He a lth

In the preceding examples, those involved in SWM efforts have found meaningful success in becoming partners with existing CB organizations in

communities. These groups already have organizational structure, embedded trust and proven leadership. This established network of people is also effective at communicating SWM principles by word-of-mouth. It is proposed that the most successful strategy for water resource management is to not only get community members involved in the effort, but also choose SWM strategies that benefit the community in meanings beyond water quality protection. Especially in urban areas where residents have lower incomes and perhaps less time to devote to their community, translating watershed restoration into other community revitalization efforts is essential.

SWM can also benefit CB efforts by providing venues and activities that actively engage residents in unique and creative ways. If CB is a social development practice that seeks social enhancement in concert with economic development, then sustainable social development should ensure that environmental resources are not degraded as well.

The findings also suggest that increased efforts, in SWM and CB, need to be put in place to attract younger people and males in general. These groups are typically not involved in these efforts unless the group actively comes to them; for example, approaching a public school with your program.

4 . 5 V is ib i l it y a nd Ins t a nt Gr atif i cati on

It has also been shown that when initiating community projects, it may be to the project’s benefit to first select a few projects that are highly visible and provide the community with the feeling of “instant gratification.” Projects that have immediate visual impact can communicate to the community that work is actually being done and establish the first step of trust within the community. It may also be a good marketing strategy to recruit participants.

Also, projects implemented in visible locations and careful attention to their aesthetic appeal can benefit not only the owner of the land, but those that can see and experience the project.

4.6 Closing Remarks Enacting strategies to improve urban life can no longer be encapsulated into one discipline’s goals, one realm of implementation or viewed at from one standard scale. To facilitate sustainable development in the urban form, strategies must address social, environmental, economic and aesthetic goals in 63

unison. This pas de quatre, or “dance of four performers” should be viewed as a relationship of compromises and continuums that cannot always be pursued equally, but at least attempted, never neglecting one of the performers. Multiscalar and multi-discipline thinking is essential to realistically approaching today’s issues. Finding ways that different disciplines can benefit one another will become increasingly imperative in our dynamic and complex world.

One such collaboration is between groups whose main efforts are to improve water quality and those groups who have organized in order to strengthen social networks and economic opportunities within neighborhoods. It has been shown that such partnerships can be mutually beneficial and have overlapping objectives if thought about in an integrated manner. This unique collaboration can be successful if addressed from multiple scales, within various public and private frameworks and take into account the long-term viability of the projects’ strategies. The combination of urban stormwater management and community building represents an emerging trend in addressing the challenges facing communities in a comprehensive way.

64

5. Design Project

5 . 1 Pro je c t Titl e Reinterpreting Tobacco Road: strategies for capturing and releasing a community’s assets through community building and improved stormwater management

5 . 2 Pro je c t L o cati on East Durham, NC

5 . 3 P r o j e c t Ty p e Goose Creek Frameworks for Action Plan: Watershed improvement and community building strategies at 3 scales (watershed, neighborhood, site)

5 . 4 Pro je c t St atement Resembling many low-income communities, East Durham, NC is witnessing an erosion of their physical, economic, green and social infrastructure.

These liabilities can be transformed into opportunities if improvements are pursued in a sustainable manner, where design decisions transcend typically compartmentalized disciplines and scales. This project presents a vision of frameworks at three scales (watershed, neighborhood, site) that guide the utilization of innovative hydrological improvements as a compelling, yet nontraditional, vehicle for community building.

5.5 Goals and Objectives In concert with the Ellerbee Creek Local Watershed Plan (the encompassing watershed of Goose Creek and drafted by the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program), the Goose Creek Framework for Action Plan aims to respect and promote natural hydrological functions of the drainage area with the underlying intent of relating to the social and cultural needs and values of the people who live in the watershed. The plan’s purpose is to not only improve the watershed’s ability to support all life and mitigate hydrological

extremes, but also provide an inclusive structure for the processes that facilitate the following actions: decision-making in planning and design, implementation and management of structural BMP’s typically used in Low Impact Development projects. These actions and processes should be carried out at several scales (site level, neighborhood level, community/ ecosystem level) and involve the entire community (individuals, non-profit, commercial, and government groups with social, environmental and economic goals) in order to ensure success. All design decisions and targeted sites were chosen in response to current planning and design issues within East Durham.

5.6 Lessons Learned from Case Studies and a Po s t - o c c u p a n c y E v a l u a t i o n Through exploring several similar projects which attempt to interweave community building goals and watershed improvements goals, the following conclusions were extracted and then carefully applied to the Goose Creek Framework for Action Plan: • Plan and establish frameworks at multiple scales to ensure success.

• Prioritize implementation of innovative BMP construction on public land and community facilities first.

• Prioritize BMP placement in places that are visible within the community and embedded in everyday activities to heighten education, pedestrian experiences, display a symbolic gesture of care and action and get community members aware of the project.

• Link those that can oversee job training and education revolving around the construction, maintenance and monitoring of structural BMP’s and provide venues for this green collar job development.

• Inform those involved of the mutual benefits for both community building groups and watershed improvement groups to work with one another.

• Use story telling and the ‘Narrative Principle’ (Hill, 2000) as a

community building tool.

5.7 Metho ds The marrying of innovative, urban stormwater management and community 65

building represents an emerging trend in addressing the challenges facing communities within the urban ecosystem. The methods utilized in this investigation were to critically review the literature, conduct four case studies (Anacostia River Initiative, Washington, DC; West Philadelphia Landscape Project, PA; The Bottom Neighborhood Project, Wilmington, NC; Rutgers P3 Team, Newark, NJ), and one post-occupancy evaluation (The Bottom Neighborhood Project) to discover how such partnerships can be executed successfully. These findings were compiled in a research paper titled, “How can community building and improved stormwater management systems support one another in low-income, urban communities?”

The successes and failures of these projects were then assembled with guidance from 1) the Center for Watershed Protection’s, “Eight-Step Approach to Stormwater Retrofitting” to prioritize the placement of structural stormwater BMP’s within East Durham, and 2) Kretzmann and McKnight’s (1993) community building guide for capturing and releasing a community’s assets and capacities. These sources were chosen in order to embed the planning and design process of stormwater management within community building goals. As well, the plan provides supplemental frameworks for the processes of planning, design, implementation, monitoring and maintenance of structural BMP’s at three different scales.

Stormwater modeling and visual representation of design alternatives were employed to illustrate aesthetic and functional differences between conventional stormwater management and road design at the Eastway Elementary school in Durham. Currently, the NCDOT is planning to turn a 2-lane road into a 6-lane road adjacent to the school site, which is heavily used as a pedestrian corridor. Illustrations were produced to communicate the aesthetic and functional impact a 6-lane road versus a 4-lane road would have on this community. Also, the Upper Neuse Site Evaluation Tool (a stormwater modeling tool that predicts pre-development and post-development stormwater quality and quantity developed by Tetratech, Inc.) was utilized in conjunction with ESRI’s ArcHydro GIS program to design and re-design structural BMP’s on the site to ensure pre-development water quality and quantity were maintained.

Finally, the information compiled through research, design and application of the site evaluation tool were pursued with hopes of demonstrating the ease and utility of using such stormwater models and visual representations to guide development within the City of Durham. Additionally, it is intended to demonstrate the effectiveness and potential secondary benefits of non-

traditional stormwater management strategies to improve the community and leverage resources that would otherwise be considered extraneous. At this time community building groups in East Durham are using this information to enrich their dialogue with the City of Durham and the NCDOT to develop a design that the entire community is comfortable with.

5.8 The Plan O ver a l l Pr incip l e s

• Water should be detained and infiltrated where it falls as close to the source as possible, with the intent of filtering and slowing down stormwater before it gets to streams and replenishing ground water.

• The floodplain should act as “ladder of sponges” to slow down and infiltrate floodwaters and provide habitat for aquatic and riparian ecosystems.

• Development of land should involve multifunctional strategies- contribute to environmental, economic and social health with careful attention to aesthetic appeal. It is critical that all design strategies are accessible to everyone within the community, promote equality and enable the citizens to alter or create spaces as they see fit (more “citizen control”).

The fundamental concepts of the Goose Creek Watershed Plan, the Living + Learning Neighborhood Plan and the Eastway Elementary School Incubator Plan are to provide innovative stormwater management strategies that serve multiple functions in rehabilitating the community and foster community building initiatives. At all scales, BMP placement is prioritized by considering urban design principles and landscape ecology principles in unison. For example, how can paths also function as corridors, nodes as patches, urban edges as landscape edges. Additionally, at all scales the basic structure of the planning process considers Forman’s definition of a healthy floodplain as a “ladder of sponges” and seeks to establish this concept within the watershed at 3 scales. Finally, the physical design of these plans seek to identify community groups and individuals who can play a role in the planning, design, implementation, monitoring and maintenance of the plan and also seeks to physically connect these groups and resources with one another.

Most importantly, the goal of all the plans is to relate to the historical and 66

cultural context of East Durham, the home of Tobacco Road. At a fine texture scale, the site design for Eastway Elementary incorporates simple ramped landforms into the design of the school property and adjacent road to reflect that subtle historical treasure, while also serving as a vehicle for soil remediation, the movement of water from man-made systems to natural hydrological systems, the movement of people to places of interest that will otherwise will be severed if the NCDOT widens the road adjacent to the elementary school. The NCDOT’s plan, as it stands today, will require a substantial retaining wall throughout the spine of the community.

Fr a m e w o r k s f o r A c t i o n P r i n c i p l e s Planning + Design • Respect • Restore • Enrich • Reveal • Empower • Innovate Implementation • Engage • Provide Access • Promote • Craft Management • Maintain • Sustain

5.9 Actions Planning According to the Center for Watershed Protection, the key to successful watershed plan development is to have a structured process to follow. The following nine-step approach has been adapted for Ellerbe Creek from the Center’s guidance. It has been added that the public involvement step be dispersed at all phases, not just in the beginning: 1.

Public involvement, 2.

Establishment of goals,

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Evaluation of options and Preliminary watershed retrofit inventory and prioritize, Field assessment of potential retrofit sites, Preparation of construction drawings, Design review and permitting, Construction inspection to ensure that facilities are properly constructed; and, Maintenance Plan to ensure that facilities are maintained.

Below is further guidance on steps 1-3: 1. Public Involvement- The public process should be embedded in all stages of the revitalization.

2. Establishment of goals- Transform hydrological liabilities into assets in order to enrich people’s lives- socially, economically and environmentally.

Principles •

•

•

•

Water should be detained and infiltrated where it falls as close to the source as possible, with the intent of filtering and slowing down stormwater before it gets to streams and replenishing ground water.

The floodplain should act as “ladder of sponges” to slow down and infiltrate floodwaters and provide habitat for aquatic and riparian ecosystems.

Development of land should involve multifunctional strategies- contribute to environmental, economic and social health with careful attention to aesthetic appeal/ responsible forms. Use + Production + Access It is critical that all design strategies are accessible to everyone within the community, promote equality and enable the citizens to alter or create spaces as they see fit.

Goals + Actions- Minimize the effects of imperviousness at all scales A. Restore and protect floodplains and riparian areas

a.

Buffer requirements

b.

Stream restorations and elimination of hardened controls

c.

Riparian plantings

d.

Designate as public open space for uses such as recreation

and stormwater management 67

e.

Utilize corridors as sources for connectivity

B. Promote LID strategies at the site level

a.

On site infiltration with LID IMP’s

b.

Incentives- tax breaks, speedy site review

c.

LID ordinance

d.

Impervious limits/mitigation

e.

Disconnect roof runoff and pavement runoff from the

stormwater system

f.

Tree conservation

g.

Minimize impervious areas C.

Protect existing hydrological areas

D. Re-build the soil’s capacity to absorb water and filter pollutants E.

Prevent construction damage a.

Prevent soil compaction b.

Prevent soil erosion and sedimentation

F.

Prevent pollution a.

Draft plans for hazard mitigation near hazardous sites b.

Promote watershed education and maintenance programs

G.

Lawn maintenance a.

Xeriscaping and use of native plants b.

Disposing pet wastes c.

Disposing grease and oil

H.

BMP construction and maintenance workshops

I.

Promote Water Conservation- how can water be stored for later use: a.

Vacant land b.

Residential lots c.

Public open space d.

Commercial land e.

Public ROW’s

J. Maintenance plan for the long-term

1.

Monitor water quality and quantity

2.

Require maintenance plans for stormwater management

K.

BMP’s Train community groups and municipal staff to maintain and monitor area BMP’s

3. Evaluation of options and identify target areas for stormwater retrofits and prioritize- people first A.

Priority variables for BMP placement (by rank)

Highest Priority areas-

a. Accessibility- public land (ROW’s, parks, government facilities, community services)

b. Visibility- Will this project be embedded in ‘every

day’ life activities/ nodes (walking to school, driving to work, going to church, going to baseball practice)?

c. Open space creation- Can it create open space in an open space deficient area? Could it connect previously unconnected area (neighborhoods, natural features, etc)?

d. Hazard Mitigation- Close proximity (‘downstream’) to hazardous waste facilities (‘hot spots’- gas stations, garbage dumpsters, industries)

e. Land Characteristic- minimal slopes, soils with good infiltration characteristics

f. Critical need for revitalization- Is it an area in immediate need for economic or residential development? Are municipal and development decisions about this area on the table or in development?

Other Priority areas

a. Imperviousness mitigation- Will it break up large patches of impervious areas? Will it prevent direct runoff from an impervious area to an adjacent waterbody (such as from a parking lot to a stream)? Is the area immediately upstream from culverts; or below or adjacent to existing stormdrain outfalls?

68

b. Existing BMP’s- retrofifts

c. Potential for large scale collection/ storage of runoff- Is it along

a longest flow path or near a historic wetland, stream or drainage

area?

B. Other important considerations for placement/ non-

placement:

a. Would it require substantial vegetation removal?

b. Would the project collect hazardous waste? Will it be near accessible to the public? What precautions should be taken?

c. Vacant land acquisition- When should a government body consider acquisition of urban land?

i. The land is within the floodplain as indicated by digital floodmaps of the 100 and 500-year floodplain?

1.

Map assets and capacities

2.

Build relationships among local assets

3.

Mobilize assets for economic development and information sharing (add environmental improvements) 4.

Convene as many community members as possible for visioning and planning

5.

Bridge outside of community for leveraging activities, investments and resources

What is the landscape architect’s role in this process?

1.

Recognizing assets and visually representing them- realistically and abstractly.

What are assets?

•

ii. Is there an above ground stream or wetland on the site or within 100 feet of such a waterbody?

iii. Is it adjacent to other publicly owned land?

iv. Would it provide connections within the neighborhood that were previously disconnected?

v. Is it near industrial land uses?

• • • • • • •

Cultural + social + environmental, individuals, organizations and institutions (leaders, elders, artists, gangs, youth, handicap, etc.)

History and stories Natural- floodplain, streams, riparian habitat, old trees, topography, etc.

Social- government programs, parks, neighborhood associations and societies Economic- local businesses Vacant land Government-owned land

Communit y-Aided Design (the other CAD)

2.

Bridging connections with outside and inside resources

As stated earlier, the community should be involved in all steps of the process in some manner. Identifying who these community members are and how to craft such relationships, has carefully been considered by community building experts. One such method is outlined below:

3.

From ‘Design for Ecological Democracy’ (Hester, 2006) a.

Visual problem solving b.

Spatial creativity c.

Site planning d.

Imagining the future e.

Providing alternatives

The Community Building Process (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1993)

69

4.

Design venues for engagement

5.

Story telling

6.

Large scale visioning- visualizing connections, recoginizing broader roles in ecosystems. etc.

7.

Imagination, non-traditional thinking

8.

Recognition of uniqueness of community

5.9 Context: The Stor y of East Durham “In 50 years, Durham had spread rapidly from a village to a bustling factory center, sucking in the rolling pine country around it. Shacks for factory workers mushroomed in the lowlands between the graded streets. The little communities, which clung precariously to the banks of streams or sat crazily on washed out gullies and were held together by cowpaths or rutted wagon tracks, were called the Bottoms. It was as if the town had swallowed more than it could hold and had regurgitated, for the Bottoms was an odorous conglomeration of trash piles, garbage dumps, cow stalls, pigpens and crowded humanity ....”

-Pauli Murray about growing up in Durham in the early 1900’s (excerpt from, ‘Proud Shoes: The Story of an American Family’ 1956)

Language + Story + Mental Models (Kristina Hill) In all cultures, stories are the “most entertaining forms of persuasion (Hill, 2000). Hill poignantly points out the potential capacity for story-telling as a vehicle for communicating the concepts of sustainability- the Narrative Principle- in her contribution to ‘Landscape and Sustainability,’ edited by John F. Benson and Maggie H. Roe. Although stories and language can powerfully highlight ’sense of place’ and promote pride and engagement within communities at several scales, this same story-telling vehicle for communication can promote overly simplified and negative stereotypes of people. In American history, written stories, such Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and verbal stories, such as those about the McCoy and Hatfield Feud in the Appalachian Mountains, have negatively influenced popular views of groups of people that are unnecessarily debilitating to those people.

In East Durham, negative stereotypes and realities about this community throughout Durham’s history have existed. Known as Smoky Hollow and a “hothole of licentiousness,” East Durham has always been known as the “seedy” area of Durham and has oscillated between being a place of disinvestment and demolition and a place of renewal and revitalization. As textile and tobacco mills and factories began to close in the 1930’s, many people lost their jobs. Currently, no industry has filled the textile and tobacco industry’s shoes to replace those lost jobs in East Durham. Later in the 1960’s, the city of Durham oversaw the construction of the Durham Freeway through the Hayti community, a successful and prosperous African-American community. Many of the families were displaced to East Durham and at the same time, many of Durham’s poor were concentrated into the Few Gardens projects.

In the 1960’s, John Loudermilk, once a resident of Few Gardens and West Durham, wrote the song ‘Tobacco Road’ about East Durham.

Tobacco Road ( John D. Loudermilk) I was born in a dump Mother died and my daddy got drunk Left me here to die or grow In the middle of Tobacco Road Grew up in a dusty shack And all I had was a’hangin’ on my back Only you know how I loathe This place called Tobacco Road But it’s home The only life I’ve ever known Only you know how I loathe Tobacco Road I’m gonna leave and get a job With the help and the grace from above Save some money, get rich I know Bring it back to Tobacco Road Bring Dynamite and a crane 70

Blow you up, start all over again Build a town be proud to show Give the name Tobacco Road Cause it’s home The only life I’ve ever known Oh I despise and disapprove you But I love ya, ‘cause it’s home Embedded in the lyrics are reflections and illusions of poverty, social dysfunction and shame about ones community. Tobacco Road was in fact once a road in East Durham. However, let us step away from popular culture and Loudermik’s lyrics for a moment, or forever if you wish, and not forget the utilitarian reason the area was known as Tobacco Road. Easily, any road in Durham could have been known as ‘Tobacco Road.’ However, the reason a road in East Durham, now Morven St., was known as Tobacco Road is quite simply because it was a ramped hill which was used to roll hogsheads of Tobacco from trucks and carts to railroad cars. Simple, innovative, resourceful.

Today East Durham is slowly revitalizing with HOPE VI funds and a few private developers, however; vacant land, unemployment, crime, those living in poverty and polluted streams and soil are still prominent. Currently on the table are plans that can have dramatic positive or negative affects on this community: the widening of Alston Ave., the Ellerbee Creek Watershed Improvement Project and projects stemming from HOPE VI investments.

In order for East Durham to not fall victim to irresponsible and disrespectful planning and design decisions, redevelopment of the community should hold social, economic and environmental health, together, as top considerations.

With East Durham’s erosion of public infrastructure; specifically, roads, wastewater systems, sidewalks and stormwater systems; there are several opportunities to utilize these improvements to also aid in the revitalization of the social infrastructure of the community. Particularly, innovative strategies for dealing with hydrological systems within the community have proven in other similar communities to be compelling, yet non-traditional, vehicles for community building. Not only can such practices protect water quality, but also support community beautification projects, promote economic development and become a leverage tool to access other needed resources.

Just as stories can stigmatize a community, they can also revitalize and

enliven them. Perhaps the real story about Tobacco Road as a resourceful and innovative place and the surfacing of other positive stories about the community can repress debilitating stereotypes and promote pride and engagement throughout the community. Innovative stormwater management in East Durham can become one such inventive catalyst, yet uncommon partner for community building strategies. If we can employ our imagination and morph traditional liabilities into assets, social change and empowerment can precipitate from this symbolic yet compelling gesture. simple + innovative + resourceful

5.10 Timely Opportunities Ellerbee Creek Watershed Improvement Project A critical evaluation of how to address watershed issues in the Goose Creek basin of East Durham is timely, as the City of Durham is currently in the process of drafting the Ellerbe Creek Watershed Improvement Project plan and is in the public meeting phase. In conjunction with Brown and Caldwell Engineering, the plan is intended to restore the Ellerbee Creek Watershed by utilizing stormwater BMP’s and is in the process of developing a plan for BMP placement, prioritization and implementation.

NCDOT Road Project Plans for the widening of Alston Ave. (a major road paralleling Goose Creek) are being considered by the NCDOT and the City of Durham. Although this widening could provide many opportunities, irresponsible design could sever historic neighborhoods from one another, isolate other neighborhoods, discourage pedestrian activity and safety and display demeaning symbolic power, as witnessed in the 1960’s with the construction of the Durham Freeway.

“Future flooding along Goose Creek could either be exacerbated or improved by construction of the Alston Avenue Extension. This improvement is proposed to be built adjacent to parts of the creek and will increase storm water runoff in it.

Construction of this thoroughfare improvement also presents an opportune time to re-evaluate the flooding situation along the creek and to make some of the improvements mentioned above.”

71

-East Central Durham Plan, Durham Planning Department 2005 Re-development Although East Durham is a well-established community, many vacant parcels exist and currently several revitalization strategies are in progress with the assistance of HOPE VI funds and other private efforts. Due to this resurgence of community development, many opportunities exist for re-development that can ameliorate hydrological problems with retrofit BMP’s, Low Impact Development and other water management strategies. Organizations such as Habitat for Humanity and the Durham Housing Authority are such agencies that are currently planning development in these areas that can have a profound effect on the community as a whole.

Water quality Clean water is essential for healthy living. We need clean water for drinking, food production, recreation and industry. The Ellerbee Creek watershed has the highest percentage of impervious land cover in the Upper Neuse basin and the Goose Creek basin has one of the highest amounts impervious coverage within the Ellerbee Creek watershed. In addition, Ellerbee Creek is the greatest contributor to pollution in the Upper Neuse Basin and has been on the 303 (d) list of impaired waters since the creation of the list.

Historically, this watershed and its water bodies have been used by the people and industries- mostly textile mills, grist mills and tobacco factories- of Durham as a conduit to transport their waste. Branded as ‘Allergy Creek’ at the turn of the 20th century, Ellerbee Creek and its tributaries have been regarded as ‘ditches’ and often shunned as ‘back-doors’ and vectors of disease within the community. Today, the Goose Creek basin is home to several industries and organizations that contribute to its pollution levels. (MAP of contributors).

Pollutants in this water body originate from “street litter, rubber and metal eroded from vehicles, corrosion of galvanized roofing materials, pet wastes, fertilizers and pesticides, septic systems, illicit connections to the stormwater system and deposition of airborne pollutants from such pollutants as automobile exhaust (ECLWP).” These pollutants are carried to water bodies when it rains. These pollutants have fewer opportunities to be filtered by plants and soil, as there are large amounts of impervious surfaces.

The Ellerbee Creek and its tributaries flow into Falls Lake, the water supply for Wake County, then flow onto the Neuse River. Although residents living in this basin do not get their drinking water from this reservoir, the residents in this basin play a significant role in the quality of the drinking water for all people living downstream and people and industries that rely on freshwater ecosystems.

Water quantity Proper watershed management, with appropriate stormwater management BMP’s, can reduce flooding, lessen the effects of drought and prevent disproportionate effects of such issues on communities. Although the Goose Creek lies within the upper reaches of the watershed, flooding is still an issue, especially in the Albright neighborhood (MAP). The City of Durham states that many of the culverts in this area are undersized for a 25-year storm event (8.29 in./ hour) and that the stormwater infrastructure is due for an overhaul.

In addition, the sanitary sewer system is undersized and leaks due to its aged infrastructure. Stormwater management BMP’s can be a cost-effective solution to replace the aging infrastructure, while also providing benefits that traditional pipe and curb-and-gutter solutions cannot.

5 . 1 2 Pub l i c Pro c e ss a nd O utre a ch The process by which these issues are addressed is just as important as the structural solutions to control pollution and water quantity. Not only can pollution prevention and education be highly effective strategies for improving watershed health, but also the public process can bring communities together, empower communities to make decisions about their own neighborhoods, connect the community with resources and provide economic opportunities. In order to appeal to the Goose Creek community, watershed strategies must reflect the community’s unique concerns beyond hydrological issues. Some of the unique concerns of this community include: (extracted from public meeting comments held by the Durham Housing Authority within the HOPE VI communities) • • • •

Economic opportunities and job training Affordable housing Pedestrian safety Access to resources 72

• • • • • • • • • • • •

Education Crime prevention Improvements of public infrastructure, sidewalks especially Alston Ave. widening, some would like to see a landscaped median Flower gardens and walking trails for elderly Fewer empty lots Gateway to downtown Farmers Market Ways to slow down traffic Commercial development Pollution from industries and the City of Durham More trees

A questionnaire similar to the one for the neighborhood in Wilmington, NC (p. 44-52) can help gather such information from residents.

73

5 . 1 2 The Pre c e d ing Pro c e ss a s Ap p l i e d to E a s t D ur ha m

I-85

Drainage Area East Durham Gang Boundary

Neuse River Basin

Cape Fear River Basin

Hope VI Revitalization Drainage Area Hwy 147

0

0.1 0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1 Miles

Figure 36. Boundaries map of East Durham: boundaries can be viewed as opportunities or constraints

74

Falls Lake 5 mi.

Interstate

Mangu

m St.

Roxbor o St.

85

Miami Blvd.

Alston Ave.

Downtown

Geer St.

Holloway St.

Ea

st

Ma

in

St

.

An

gi

Du

rh

0

0.125

0.25

0.5

East Durham RR Hope VI Waterbody Watersheds

0.75

am

Fr

ee

er

Av

e.

wa

y

1 Miles

Research Triangle Park 6 mi.

Watershed

Framework Context

0

0.125

0.25

0.5

East Durham RR Hope VI Waterbody Watersheds

0.75

1 Miles

Watershed Framework Context

Figure 37. East Durham context maps

75

Frameworks for Action - East Durham

What is the Landscape Architect’s role in the community design process? ‘jack of all trades....master of landscape architecture’

• Visual representation/ ‘Visual problem solving’ • Imagining the future • Providing alternatives

Hester’s

• Recognizing assets (cultural + social + environmental) • Bonding + bridging • Story telling • Large scale visioning • ‘Without imagination, no change will happen’ (Hanemann)

Figure 38. Landscape architect’s role in community design

76

The Story of East Durham Tobacco Road

Sherwood Park

Figure 40. Urban renewal in the 1950â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s led to the displacement of many African-American families in Durham

Albright

Hope VI

East Durham

Tobacco Road Edgemont

Weldon Terrace

Industrial

County

Retail

Historic

Open Space

RR HOPE VI East Durham

City

Figure 39. Land use and neighborhoods of East Durham 0

0.125

0.25

0.5

0.75

1 Miles

Figure 41. Men using a ramp to roll hogshead of tobacco onto a train car

Figure 42. Living conditions in the low lying areas of Durham in the early 1900â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

77

What are the issues?

Timely Opportunities • Ellerbee Creek Watershed Improvement Project • NCDOT plans for widening Alston Ave. • HOPE VI redevelopment Figure 43. Most polluted streams in Durham from 1996-2002

Water Quality • Most polluted in the Upper Neuse Basin

A l s t o n Av e Widening

• Falls Lake watershed

Water Quantity

• Undersized for 25-year storm event • Aging infrastructure

Eastway Elementar y Figure 44. NCDOT’s plan for widening Alston Ave. (note buildings that will need to be removed and proximity to Eastway Elementary)

78

Watershed Plan

[ process ]

Center of Watershed Protection ‘Keys to Success’ 1. Public involvement at all stages 2. Establish goals

-

Detain, retain and infiltrate as close to the source as possible ‘Ladder of Sponges’ (Forman) Multifunctional spaces [ environmental + economic + social health, with carefu attention to ‘delight’ (Thompson) ] ‘Enabling Form’ (Hester) and accessibility

3. Prioritize BMP locations [ based on research ]

Highest

-

Accessibility (public land, ROW’s, community + gov’t services) Visibility Landscape ecology + urban form principles Open space creation Hazard + Flood mitigation Appropriate land characteristics (slopes, soils, etc) Critical need or opportune time

Other

-Impervious mitigation - Retrofit existing BMP’s - Potential for large scale collection/ storage

4. Field assessment of potential sites 5. Construction drawings 6. Construction inspection 7. Maintenance plan 79

Watershed Plan Existing Paths

0

0.125

0.25

0.5

0.75

1 Miles

[ inventory]

Existing Corridors

0

0.125

0.25

0.5

0.75

1 Miles

Existing Nodes

0

Existing Edges

0.125

0.25

0.5

0.75

1 Miles

Existing Patches

0

0.125

0.25

0.5

0.75

1 Miles

Existing Landscape Edges

Sherwood Park

Albright

East Durham Hope VI Edgemont

Weldon Terrace

Figure 45. Existing urban form and landscape ecology structure of East Durham 0

0.125

0.25

0.5

0.75

1 Miles

0

0.125

0.25

0.5

0.75

1 Miles

80

Watershed Plan

[ goals ]

Concept Development

Physical Barrier to Slow Down Water

“ Sponge” Capture - Store

[ slow down, filter with vegetation + soil ]

Release - Convey Physical Barrier to Slow Down Water

“ Sponge” Capture - Store

[ slow down, filter with vegetation + soil ]

Flow Ladder of Sponges [ store + convey ] Figure 46. Ladder of sponges concept development

81

Watershed Plan

[ goals ]

Concept Development

Flow

Ladder of Sponges [ store + convey ] Figure 47. Ladder of sponges concept development

82

Watershed Plan [ coarse ] Watershed Plan

[ goals ]

Sponges at watershed scale Floodplain Durham- owned vacant Durham open space Community Service Hazardous Waste

0

0.125

0.25

0.5

0.75

1 Miles

Figure 48. Ladder of sponges concept development

83

[ context ]

RAIL

ALMA

LATHROP

FR A

SPRUCE

LI N

AC

IL

BL

NT

NE

EX IT 12

E

A

CHERRY GROV

N

EMO

MC

HYDE PARK

AN

OR Y

1,500

2,000

PLUM UN

R

YO

GIE

Y

N

GOL E

LM AN HO

W

AN

RV E

G

ES ST OK

RE

MO

Y

MAPLE

EY

N LY O LA X LFA

NT

OD

CO

K 1,000

GR A

C RI AY ER W M

500

AB

ROBERSON

EE

UR

FR

EL

AM

250

PE

TT IG

DRIVER

RH

0

PE

East Way Elementary School

E

DU

HAYTI

EL GO L

LAUR

GUTHRIE

B

SO

12

EDG

TAYLOR

L

RT H

AL

WO

GL

LM

ER

ELM

DAL

ING

L

HO

K WAL

IT

ER

EX

ND

HE

M

RN

EL

R

MO

NK

KN

LT

E

WA L

SOUTHGATE

EASTWAY

BELT

ALSTON

Armored Goose Creek

IN BE

EU

I LL

V TTE

E FAY

MA

CE

R

D

MS

RA

HO O

KE WAL

E

HOPKINS

ELM

BELT

ER

TH

BE LIZA

PARK

RO A

D

ELIZABETH

GRACE

AR

8

Y

DRIVER

CALVIN

OD

EVA

LIBERTY

DI LL

OD

MM

HOLLOWAY

PARK

AB

CO

GILBERT

EVA

D

QU E

EN

PEACHTREE

OA K

RO

PE

#2

CHESTER

CARLTON

WO

XB

OR

O

QUE E

N

Living + Learning Neighborhood

2,500 Feet

HART

$

Figure 49. Living and learning neighborhood planning development: existing conditions. Orange areas indicate historical parcels, purple are government parcels and blue is the floodplain of the Goose Creek.

Golden Belt Factory Redevelopment

84

Living + Learning Neighborhood

Ro

xb

or

o

Elizabth St.

St

.

Finding Opportunities- Open Space Types and Gaps

Holloway St.

lor

Mo

n

Av

e.

rn

Al s

to

E. An

g

Ma

in

gi

Mo

in

er

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1 0.1

Waterbody 0.2 0.2 Watershed

0.3 0.3

0.4 0.4

.

.

.

am

Fr

Living 0.05 0.05

St

St

ee

wa

0.5 Miles

RR 00

y

St

rh

0.1

or

.

en

Du

0.05

Gl

St.

St

rv

0

0.5 0.5 Miles Miles

Hyde Park Ave.

Tay

Spruce St.

Liberty St.

+

y

Learning Framework Context

1/2 mile 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 Eastway 0.2 0.3 Elementary 0.1 0.2 0.3

Open Space

00

0.05 0.05

0.1 0.1

0.4 0.4

0

0.05

0.1

0.4

0

0.05

0.4

0.5 0.5 Miles Miles 0.5 Miles 0.5 Miles

Public Land Drainageway

Figure 50. Living and learning neighborhood planning development: existing conditions

85

Living + Learning Neighborhood Finding Opportunities Finding Opportunities- Community Asset Map

[ process ]

Duke University

Wake County Durham’s Weed + Seed Program

NC DWQ WECO

Albright Community Association

Inter-Neighborhood Council

Partners Against Crime- District 1

NC State

Ellerbee Creek Watershed Association

Durham Housing Authority Golden Belt Arts Community Eastway Elementary Habitat for Humanity Durham People’s Alliance

Historic Preservation Society of Durham

HOPE VI Arts Council Durham Justice and Fairness Uplift East Durham

UNC

Triangle Transit Authority

Floodplain East Durham Boundary as defined by the city

EPA NC Central University

HOPE VI as defined by the city Figure 51. Living and learning neighborhood planning: East Durham’s human and social capital

86

Living + Learning Neighborhood

[ process ]

Finding Opportunities- BMP Placement

Vacant Land

00

0.05 0.05

0

0.05

0.1 0.1

0.1

0.2 0.2

0.2

0.3 0.3

0.3

(white) 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.5 0.5 Miles Miles 0.5 Miles

Imperviousness

00

0.05 0.05

0

0.05

0.1 0.1

0.1

0.2 0.2

0.2

0.3 0.3

0.3

0.4 0.4

0.4

0.5 0.5 (white) Miles Miles 0.5 Miles

Figure 52. Living and learning neighborhood planning: opportunities for stormwater management

87

Living + Learning Neighborhood

[ process ]

Finding Opportunities- BMP Placement

Slope

00

0.05 0.05 0

0.05

0.1 0.1

0.1

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.3 0.3 0.3

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.5 0.5 Miles Miles 0.5 Miles

000 0

Elevation + Longest Flow Paths + Hazardous Material Sites

0.05 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.05

0.1

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.2

0.3 0.3 0.3

0.3

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.4

0.5 0.5 0.5 Miles Miles Miles

0.5 Miles

Figure 53. Living and learning neighborhood planning: opportunities + constraints for stormwater management

88

Living + Learning Neighborhood

[proposal]

Embedding Innovative SWM in Everyday Life

8 9

7 10 6

11

5

12

4 3

1

13 2

00

0.05 0.05

1

Boys + Girls Club

9

2

TTA Station

10 Salvation Army

3

Durham Rescue Mission

11 Eastway Elementary

4

Durham Hosiery Mill

12 Communities in School Academy

5

Golden Belt

13 Industries for the Blind

6

Center for Employment Training

7

Durham Library

8

SEEDS

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2

Holloway St. School

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Green Streetsâ&#x20AC;?/Stormwater Streets 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 Open Space Expansion Miles Miles Greenway/ Non-motorized Pathways Existing Railroad

Stormwater Flow Direction 00

0.05 0.05 0

0.05

0.1 0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.3 0.3 0.3

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.5 0.5 Miles Miles 0.5 Miles

Figure 54. Living and learning neighborhood planning: stormwater management strategy

89

Eastway Elementary School Incubator Existing Conditions

0

62.5

125

250

375

500 Feet

Figure 55. Eastway Elementary Site Plan: existing conditions

90

Eastway Incubator

[ process ]

Teaching + Research + Skill Development + Everyday Life + Congregation

0

62.5

125

250

375

500 Feet

Figure 56. Eastway Elementary site plan: potential nodes (urban design and ecological)

91

Eastway Incubator

[ process ]

Reinterpreting Tobacco Road Goals• Maintain resourceful and innovative past • Use land to convey stormwater • Symbol of potential energy, need for innovative industry + transformation of liabilities into assets

Figure 57. Eastway Elementary site plan: study model

92

Re i n t e r p r e t i n g

Tobacco

Road

strategies for stormwater management + community building in East Durham

Eastway

Elementary

run-off prevention + retention + detention + conveyance + filtration + habitat

School

[as incubator]

Community Center

Constructed Wetland

Hydrological Sponge

Bioretention Areas + Gathering Areas

Green Roofs

Vegetated Swales + Infiltration Trenches

Landforms

Cisterns

Paths + Parking

Vegetation

Green Roof Retrofit

Paths

Cisterns Eastway Elementary Bioretention/ Gathering Areas

Greenway

Landforms

Street Swales

Eastway

Elementary

School

[as incubator]

0

75

125

250

375

500

[[ mm ii cc rr oo ]]

Figure 58. Eastway Elementary site plan: master plan

93

Re interpreting

Tobacco

Road

strategies for stormwater management + community building in East Durham

storage + conveyance + reuse

+ permeable paths

+ remediation

Phase III

Phase II

Phase I

[[ mm ii cc rr oo ]]

Figure 59. Eastway Elementary site plan: section looking south (see plan on previous page for section cut line)

94

Stormwater Planter

Vegetated Swale + Check Dam

Figure 60. Eastway Elementary site plan: detail section looking south

95

Existing Drainage Channel

Reinterpr e t i n g

Ramp Landform T o b a c c o

R o a d

strategies for stormwater management + community building in East Durham

Eastway

Elementary

r

School

[as incubator]

Community Center

Constructed Wetland

Hyd

Green Roof Retrofit

Paths

Cisterns Eastway Elementary Bioretention/ Gathering Areas Veg Inf

Eastway Incubator

[ section ]

Greenway

Landforms

Stormwater Planter

Green Roof + Portico

Figure 61. Eastway Elementary site plan: detail section looking south

Rain Garden

96

Cistern

Reinterpr e t i n g

Ramp Landform T o b a c c o

R o a d

strategies for stormwater management + community building in East Durham

Eastway

Elementary

r

School

[as incubator]

Community Center

Constructed Wetland

Hyd

Green Roof Retrofit

Paths

Cisterns Eastway Elementary Bioretention/ Gathering Areas Veg Inf

Eastway Incubator

[ section ]

Greenway

Landforms

Floodplain Restoration

Goose Creek

Greenway Boardwalk

Constructed Wetland

Figure 62. Eastway Elementary site plan: detail section looking south

97

Ramp Landform

Reinterpr e t i n g

T o b a c c o

R o a d

strategies for stormwater management + community building in East Durham

Eastway

Elementary

r

School

[as incubator]

Community Center

Constructed Wetland

Hyd

Green Roof Retrofit

Paths

Cisterns Eastway Elementary Bioretention/ Gathering Areas Veg Inf

Eastway Incubator

[ section ]

Greenway

Landforms

Re interpreting

Tobacco

Road

strategies for stormwater management + community building in East Durham

Alston

Avenue

Widening

Alternative

[embedded in everyday life]

1.

Intersection

2. Midblock Crossing

Existing

2.

4-Lane

Alternative [ looking north ]

1.

6-Lane

NCDOT

Alternative

[ looking south ]

[[ mm ii cc rr oo ]]

Figure 63. Alston Avenue Widening Design Altertaive

98

Eastway Incubator

[ green street]

Figure 64. Alston Avenue Widening Design Alternative: axon

99

Eastway Incubator

[ stormwater planter ]

Figure 65. Alston Avenue Widening Design Alterative: stormwater planter detail (Planters slow down, infiltrate and filter stormwater while also providing seating, planting and indicating the slope and low points of the neighbohood.)

100

Eastway Incubator

[ green street ]

Figure 66. Alston Avenue Widening Design Alterative: crosswalk and vegetated swale that also functions as a pedestrian refuge

101

5.13 Concluding Remarks Enacting strategies to improve urban life can no longer be encapsulated into one discipline’s goals, one realm of implementation or viewed at from one standard scale.

To facilitate sustainable development in the urban form, strategies must address social, environmental, economic and aesthetic goals in unison. This pas de quatre, or “dance of four performers” should be viewed as a relationship of compromises and continuums that cannot always be pursued equally, but at least attempted, never neglecting one of the performers. Multi-scalar and multi-discipline thinking is essential to realistically approaching today’s issues. Finding ways that different disciplines can benefit one another will become increasingly imperative in our dynamic and complex world.

One such collaboration is between groups whose main efforts are to improve water quality and those groups who have organized in order to strengthen social networks and economic opportunities within neighborhoods. It has been shown that such partnerships can be mutually beneficial and have overlapping objectives if thought about in an integrated manner. This unique collaboration can be successful if addressed from multiple scales, within various public and private frameworks and take into account the long-term viability of the projects’ strategies through public participation and empowerment. The combination of urban stormwater management and community building represents an emerging trend in addressing the challenges facing communities in a comprehensive way.

102

6. References

Alberti, M. and Susskind, L. (1996). Managing urban sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16(4-6): 213-221.

American Society of Civil Engineers (2001). Guide for best management practices (BMP) selection in urban developed areas,

Urban Water Management Infrastructure Committee’s Task Committee for Evaluating Best Management Practices.

Austin, M.E. and Kaplan, R. (2003). Identity, involvement and expertise in the inner city: some benfits of tree planting projects. In Idetity and the Natural

Environment: The Psychological significance of nature. Susan Clayton and Susan Opotow, eds. Pp. 205-225. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Austin, S. (2003). Community-building principles: implications for professional development. Child Welfare, LXXXIV(2), 105-122.

AWI (2008). Website http://dcbiz.dc.gov/dmped/cwp/view%2Ca%2C1365%2Cq%2C605699.asp AWI, District of Columbia, Office of Planning (2003). The Anacostia Waterfront: imagine, act, transform. Washington, D.C. Barnett, D.L. and Browing, W.D. (1995). A primer on sustainable building. Snowmass, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute, Green Development Services.

Barlett, P.F. (2005) Urban place: reconnecting with the natural world (urban and industrial environments). The MIT press.

Beatley, T. (1999) Green urbanism, Island Press Bechtel, R.B. (1997) Environment and behavior. Sage, CA. Bernane, B. (2006). AXI Econmoic summit. Source: NPR website www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5380024&ft=1&f=1006 Bettencourt, L.M.A., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., Kühnert, C. and West, G.B. (2007). Growth, innovation, scaling and the pace of life in cities. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(17), 7301-7306.

Braden, J.B. and Johnston, D.M. (2004). Downstream economic benefits from stormwater management. Journal of water resources planning and management

130(6), 498-505 Briggs, X.S. (2004). Social capital: easy beauty or meaningful resource?. In Using social capital to help integrate planning theory, research, and pratice,

Hutchinson, J. and Vidal, A.C. eds. Journal of the American Planning Association 70(2): 142-192.

Burchfield, M., Overman, H., Puga, D., Turner, M. (2006). Causes of sprawl : a portrait from space [online]. London: LSE Bureau of Census. (1990). Census of population and housing. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Butler, D. and Parkinson, J. (1997). Towards sustainable urban drainage. Water Science Technology, 35(9), 53-63.

Center for Watershed Protection staff (Deb Caraco, Rich Claytor, Jennifer Zielinski). (1998). Nutrient Loading from conventional and innovatiove site

development. Center for Watershed Protection; Ellicott City, MD Chocat, B., Antener, M., Crabtree, B., Hansen, M.M., Rolf, K., and Tourbier, J. (1999) Stormwater as a resource in the urban environment, position paper.

103

Report to COST C3 WG C European Community, Brussels 1999.

Chocat, R., Ashley, J., Marsalek, M.R., Matos, W. , Rauch, W., Schilling and B. Urbonas. (2007) Toward the Sustainable Management of Urban Storm-Water

Indoor and Built Environment (16); 273 Coleman, J.S. (1990). The foundations of social theory. Cambrdige, MA: Harvard University Press.

Coley, R.L., Kuo, F.E., and Sullivan, W.C. (1997). Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment

and Behavior 29(4):468-492.

Committee for Economic Development, Research and Policy. (1995). Rebuilding inner-city communities: a new approach to the nation’s urban crisis. New

York: Author.

Costanza, R. and Daly, H.E. (1992). Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation Biology, 6(1):p. 37-46.

Dalhammar, G. and Mehlmann, M. (eds.) (1996). Waste water treatment problematique. Joint GAP-WHO report from an internet discussion to the United

Nations Habitat II conference Istanbul, June 1996.

Delleur, J.W. (2003). The evolution of urban hydrology:past, present, and future. Journal of hyraulic engineering, 129(8) p. 563-573 Downing, M., Rosenthall, J. and Hudson, M. (2003). Community capacity building for revitalization and sustainable redevleopment. WM Conference.

Tucson, AZ. Duany, A. and Plater-Zyberk, E. (1993). The neighborhood, the district, and the corridor. In The New Urbanism: toward an architectuer of community. Katz,

P. and Scully, V. eds Edwards, B. and Turrent, D. (Eds.) (2000). Sustainable housing: principles and practice. London: E and FN Spon.

Estes, R.J. (1993). Toward sustainable development: from theory to praxis. Social Development Issues, 15(3), 1-29.

Ewing, R., Schmid, T., Killingsworth, R., Zlot, A., Raudenbush, S. (2003) Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity.

American Journal of Health Promotion, 18 (1) 47-57.

Faulkner, S. 2004. Urbanization impacts on the structure and function of forested wetlands. Urban Ecosyst. 7:89–106.

Ferguson, B., Pinkham, R. and Collins, T. (2001). Restorative redeveloment: the nine mile run model. Stormwater 2(5), Retrived from http://www,forester.

net/sw0107restorative.html on September 13, 2007 Field R, Borst M, O’Connor T, Stinson MK, Fan CY, Perdek JM, Sullivan D. (1998) Urban wetweather flow management: research directions. ASCE, J Wat

Res Plan Manag 1998; May/Jun:168–180.

Fish, T.E. Dawson, S.E. and McLean, R. (2007) Social assessment applications for ecosystem-based watershed management. Proceedings of Coastal Zone 07

Portland, Oregon July 22 to 26, 2007.

Forman, R.T.T. (1995) Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landscape Ecology, 10(3), 133-142.

Fothergill, A. and Peek, L.A. (2004). Poverty and disasters in the United States: a review of recent sociological findings. Natural Hazards, 32: 89-110.

104

Fraser, J. and Kick, E. (2005). Understanding community building in urban America. Journal of Poverty, 9(1), 23-43.

Fraser, J.C. et al. (2003). The construction of the local and the limits of contemporary community building in the United States. Urban Affairs Review, 38(3),

417-445.

Frumkin (2005) From Urban Place Ganoulis, J. (2001). ‘‘Water resources management at the turn of the millennium: Towards a new scientific paradigm/La gestion de l’eau a`

l’aube du 3e mille´naire: vers un paradigme scientifique nouveau ~in English and French!.’’ Revue des Sciences de l’Eau/J. Water Sci.,

English: 14~2!, 222–230, French: 213-221.

Gleis, K. J,, and Ross. C’, K. (1998), A new look at urban alienation: ‘I’he effect of neigbborbood disorder on perceived powerlessness. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 61, 252-246.

Groffman, P.M., D.J. Bain, L.E. Band, K.T. Belt, G.S. Brush, J.M. Grove, R.V. Pouyat, I.C. Yesilonis, and W.C. Zipperer. (2003). Down

by the riverside: Urban riparian ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ 1(6):315–321.

Hager, M.C. (2003) Low-Impact Development. Stormwater, 4(1). Retrieved October, 2, 2007, from http://www.forester.net/sw_0301_low.html Hart, R. (1979), “Children’s Experience of Place” (I~ingtonP ublishers, New York).

Hill, K. (2000). Visions of sustainability. (in Landscape and sustainability ed. Benson, J.F. and Roe, M.H.) Chapter 14, Spon press, NY. Hester, R.T., Jr. (1984). Planning neighborhood space. Van Nostrand: New York.

Hough, M. (1990) Green cities : ecologically sound approaches to urban space Hutchinson, J. (2004). Symposium introduction. In Using social capital to help integrate planning theory, research, and pratice, Hutchinson, J. and Vidal, A.C.

eds. Journal of the American Planning Association 70(2): 142-192.

Ice, G. (2004). History of innovative best management practice development and its role in addressing water quality limited waterbodies. Journal of

Environmental Engineering, 130(6): 684-689 Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (2000). Indicators for sustainable communities: a strategy building on complexity theory and distributed intelligence. Planning

theory and practice, 1(2): 173-186.

Kaplan S; Kaplan R. American Journal of Public Health (AM J PUBLIC HEALTH), Sep2003; 93(9): 1484-9 (54 ref ) Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B.P. and Glass, R. (1999). Social capital and self-rated health: a contextual analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 89 (8), 1187-

1193.

Kellert, S.R. (2002). Experiencing nature: affective, cognitive and evaluative development in children. In Children and Nature: psycological, sociocultural, and

evolutionary investigations. Peter H. Kahn, Jr. and Stephen R. Kellert, eds. Pp. 117-151. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kingsley, G.T., McNeely, J.B. and Gibson, J.O. (1997). Community building: coming of age. The Development Training Institute, Inc and The Urban Institute.

Kirby, K. (1993). Wetlands Not Wastelands. Scenic America Technical Information Series 1(5): 1-8 105

Kretzman, J.P. and McKnight, J.L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: a path toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. Chicago, IL:

ACTA Publications.

Kuo, F.E. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city: does vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behavior 33(3): 343-367.

Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., Coley, R.L. and Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community: inner city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of

Community Psychology 26(1):823-851.

Lawrence AI, Ellis JB, Marsalek J, Urbonas B, Phillips BC: Total urban water cycle based management. In: Joliffe IB, Ball JE (eds), Proc 8th Int Conf on Urban

Storm Drainage, Sydney, Australia 1999;3:1142–1149.

Lehner, P., Clark, G.P.A., Cameron, D.M., and Frank, A.G. (1999). Stormwater strategies: community responses to runoff pollution. Natural Resources

Defense Council. Obtained from http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/storm/stoinx.asp Light, I. (2004). Social capital’s unique accessibility. In Using social capital to help integrate planning theory, research, and pratice, Hutchinson, J. and Vidal,

A.C. eds. Journal of the American Planning Association 70(2): 142-192.

Littell,J,, & Wynn,J. (1989). The availability and use of community resources Jor young adolescents in an inner city and a suburban community. Chicago:

Chapin Hall Center for C’hildren, Universit)’ of Chicago.

Lowe, D.M. (1991). Shaping Cities: The environmental and human dimension. WorldWatch Paper 105.

Lucera, R. (2008). Low-impact development comes to the county of San Diego. Stormwater 9(1) retreived from www.stormh2o.com/sw_0801_low.html on

February 1, 2008.

Lyon, L. (1987). The community in urban society. Chicago, Ill.: Dorsey Press.

Lynch, B.D. and Brusi, R. (2005). Nature, memory, and nation: New York’s Latino gardens and casitas. In Urban place. Peggy F. Bartlett, ed. Pp. 191-211.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of a city.

Machlis, G. E., Force, J. E. and Burch, W. R. Jr. (1997). The human ecosystem, part I: the human ecosystem as an organizing concept in ecosystem management.

society and natural resources, 10: 347-367.

Massey, D. (1994). Space, place and gender.

Mattessich, P.W. (1997). Community building: what makes it work: a rewiew of factors influencing successful community building. St. Paul, MN: Wilder

Foundation publications.

Meyer, E. K. (1995). The expanded field of landscape architecture. In G.F. Thompson and F. R. Steiner (Eds.), Ecological design and planning (pp. 45-79). New

York: John Wiley & Sons.

Molles, M.C. (1999). Ecology: concepts and applications. WCB/ McGraw-Hill: University of New Mexico Moore, R.C. (1986), “Childhood’s Domain” (Croom Helm, London).

106

Morrow, B.H. (1999). Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters, 23(1):1-18.

Morzaria-Luna,H.N., Schaepe, K.S., Cutforth, L.B., and Veltman, R.L. (2004) Implementation of Bioretention Systems: A Wisconsin Case Study. Journal of

the American Water Resources Association. August 2004.

Nadenicek, D.J. & Hastings, C.M. (1995). Environmental rhetoric, environmental sophism: the words and work of landscape architecture. In M. Conan (Ed.),

Environmentalism in landscape architecture (pp.133-162). Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.

Naparstek, A. & Smith, R. (1997). Community building: Revitalizing the nation’s public housing. Journal of Housing and Community Development, 354(5),

11-39.

National Institute of Mental Health. (1990). Clinical training in serious mental illness (DHHS Publication No. ADM 90-1679). Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Neiswender, C. and Shepard, R. (2003). Elements of successful stormwater outreach and education. USEPA publication obtained from http://www.epa.gov/

ord/NRMRL/pubs/625r03003/25Neiswender.pdf (PDF) New Hanover County Local Watershed Planning Group. (2002). 2002 Watershed Plan Summary.

O’Neil, J. M., & Egan, J. (1992). Men’s and women’s gender role journeys: Metaphor for healing, transition, and transformation. In B. R. Wainrib (Ed.), Gender

issues across the life cycle (pp. 107-123). New York: Springer.

Orr, D.W. (1992). Ecological literacy: education and the transition to the postmodern world (University of New York Press: NY) Owens, S. 1986. Energy, Planning and Urban Form. Pion, London.

Park, R. E., Burgess. I’.. W., McKen/.iL’, R. D.. & Witth, L. (1921). The city. C’hicago: University of Chicago Press.

Perrin, C., Beggs, P., Butler, J. and Wright, J.. (2006). Enagaing Wilmington residents in stormwater management. Presentation to Southeastern watershed

roundtable, Asheville, NC, August 2-4, 2006.

Pinkham, R. (1999). 21st century water systems: scenarios, visions and drivers. Rocky Mountain Institute: Snowmass, CO. Retrieved October, 23, 2007, from

http://www.ttp://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid172.php Pond, M.C, Kacvinsky, G., Lewis, M. and Barber, D. (2007). Teardowns: controlling stormwater impacts. Stormwater 8(5): 106-112.

Porter, M. (1995). The competitive advantage of the inner city. Harvard Business Review.

Prince George’s County, Maryland, Division of Environmental Resources. (1999). Low-impact development design strategies: an integrated design approach.

Largo, Maryland Putnam, R. D., Light, I., Briggs, X., & Rohe, W. M. (2004) Using social capital to help integrate planning theory, research and practice. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 70(2), 142-192.

Putnam, R.D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6: 65-78.

107

Putnam, R.D. (2004). Symposium preface. In Using social capital to help integrate planning theory, research, and pratice, Hutchinson, J. and Vidal, A.C. eds.

Journal of the American Planning Association 70(2): 142-192.

Rafter, D. (2007a). The importance of volunteers. Stormwater 8(3): 84-88.

Rafter, D. (2007b). The messy business of maintaining BMP’s. Stormwater 8(6): 84-88.

Rees, W.E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leave out. Environment and urbanization 4(2): 121-130.

Rees, W.E. (1997). Is ‘sustainable city’ an oxymoron? Local Environment, 2(3), 303-310.

Reid, D.A. (2006) African Americans and community building: lifting despite racism and racial separatism. Journal of Urban History, 33(1), 156-166.

Reinelt, L., R. Horner, and A. Azous. (1999). Impacts of urbanization on palustrine (depressional freshwater) wetlands–Research and management in the Puget

Sound region. Urban Ecosyst. 2:219–236.

Rhodes, A.L., R.M. Newton, and A. Pufall. 2001. Influences of land use on water quality of a diverse New England watershed. Environ.

Sci. Technol. 35(18):3640–3645.

Roe, M.H. (2000). The social dimensions of landscape sustainability. (in Landscape and sustainability ed. Benson, J.F. and Roe, M.H.) Chapter 4, Spon press,

NY. Roe, M.H. and Rowe, M. (2000). Community and the landscape professional. (in Landscape and sustainability ed. Benson, J.F. and Roe, M.H.) Chapter 12,

Spon press, NY. Rohe, W.M. (2004). Building social capital through community development. In Using social capital to help integrate planning theory, research, and pratice,

Hutchinson, J. and Vidal, A.C. eds. Journal of the American Planning Association 70(2): 142-192.

Roszak, T. (1995). Where psuche meets Gaia. In Ecopsycology: restoring the Earth, healtng the mind. Theodore Roszak, Mary E. Gomes, and Allen D. Kanner,

eds. Pp. 1-17. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Rutgers Team P3 (2005). Engineered Stormwater Management for Low-Income Urban Communities A Design Proposal and Plan for Implementation and

Educational Outreach Proposal #: G4S70481. http://www.water.rutgers.edu/Senior_Design/P3_finalreport_reduced.pdf Ryan, R.L. and Grese, R.E. (2005). Urban volunteers and the environment: forest and prairie restoration. ) In Urban Place Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. Toronto, CAN: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schueler, T. R. (1995). Site planning for urban stream protection, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C. Scruton, R. (1996). The eclipse of listening. The New Criterion, 15(30), 5-13.

Scueler, T.R. (2000). Microbes and urban watersheds: concentrations, sources and pathways. In The Practice of Watershed Protection. Schueler, T.R. and

Holland, H.K., eds. . Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection.

108

Silgoe, J.R. (2001). Gone barefoot lately? American Journal of Preventative Medicine 20: 243-244.

Smith, M., Whitelegg, J., and Willaims, N. (1998). Greening the built environment. Earthscan publications Ltd. : London, U.K. Spirn, A.W. (1984). Granite garden. Basic books of HarperCollin Publsihers: US. Spirn, A.W. (1985). Urban nature and human design: renewing the great tradition. Journal of planning education and research 5(39):39Spirn, A.W. (1989). The poetics of city and nature: toward a new aesthetic for urban design. Landscape journal, winter 1989.

Sprin, A.W. (2005). Restoring Mill Creek: landscape literacy, environmental justice and city planning and design. Landscap Reseach 30(3): 395-413.

Streiner, C. F., and Loomis, J. B. (1995). “Estimating the benefits of urban stream restoration using the hedonic price method.” River, 5(4),

267–278.

Stuart, S.M. (2005). Lifting spirits: creating gardens in California domestic violence shelters. In Urban place. Peggy F. Bartlett, ed. Pp. 61-88.Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Sullivan, W.C., Kuo, F.E., and DePooter, S. (2004). The fruit of urban nature: vital neighborhood spaces. Environment and Behavior 36(5): 678-700.

Takano, T., Nakamura, K. and Watanabe, M. (2002). Urban residential environments and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: the importance of

walkable green spaces. Journal of Epidemology and Community Health 56:913-918.

Taylor, A.F., Kuo, F.E., and Sullivan, W.C. (2002). Views of nature and self-discipline: evidence from inner city children. Journal of Environmental Psycology

22:420-421.

Todd, J.E. (1982). Frederick Law Olmsted. Twayne Publishers, Boston.

Torras, M. and Boyce, J.K. (1998). Income, inequality and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics, 25(2), 147-

160.

Traver, R.G., Davis, A.P. and Hunt, W.F. (2007) Bioretention and biofiltration BMPs. Stormwater 8(7): 18-30.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (1999) Preliminary data summary of urban storm water best management practices. EPA-821-R-99-012, August 1999 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress, EPA841-R-97-008, April, p. ES-13. And p. 147.

Ulrich, R.S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224:420-421.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (1991). Construction site stormwater discharge control: an

inventory of current practices. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 883-R-91-100.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress, EPA841-R-97-008, April, p. ES-13. And p. 147.

United States EPA. (2000). Low impact development, a literature review. (EPA-841-B-00-005). Washington, DC: US 109

United Way of Metropolitan, Atlanta Board of Directors. (1996). Community building principles. www.unitedwayatlanta.org/GranteePartners/

CommunityBuildingPrinciples.asp Viani, S.O. (2007). Seattle’s green pipes. Landscape Architecture Magazine (97(10):100-111.

Vidal, A.C. (2004). Building social capital to promote community equity. In Using social capital to help integrate planning theory, research, and pratice, von Hassell, M.E. (2005). Community gardens in New York City: place , community, and individuality. In Urban place. Peggy F. Bartlett, ed. Pp. 91-116.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Walsh, C.J. (2000). Urban impacts on the ecology of receiving waters: A framework for assessment, conservation, and restoration. Hydrobiologia 431:107–114.

Walsh, J.(1997). Stories of Renewal: Community building and the future of urban America. A report from the Rockefeller Foundation.

Watson, V.J., O.L. Loucks, and W. Wojner. 1981. The impact urbanization on seasonal hydrologic and nutrient budgets of North American watershed.

Hydrobiologia 77:87–96.

WECO (2008). http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/agecon/WECO/ Weil, M.O. (1996). Community building: building community practice. Social Work, 41(5), 481-499.

White, S.S. and Boswell, M.R. ( 2007). Stormwater Quaity and Local Governemnt Innovation. Journal of the American Planning Association 73(2): 185-193.

Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

World Bank (2005). World development ondicators 2004. Washington DC: World Bank.

WPLP (2007).Website http://web.mit.edu/4.243j/www/wplp/about.html

110

7. Appendices

7.1. Abstracts

LID Conference with WECO IMPLEMENTATION OF LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT RETROFITS IN A LOW INCOME NEIGHBORHOOD IN WILMINGTON, NC J.D. Wright, W.F. Hunt III, M.R. Burchell II, C.A. Perrin, E.R. McCoy

Abstract: Burnt Mill Creek, located within downtown Wilmington, NC, is on the EPA’s 303(d) list for impairment due in large part to urban stormwater runoff.

The urban nature of the watershed presents challenges for restoration because of the varying land uses including single and multi-family residential areas, recreational parks, and commercial and industrial areas. Restoration efforts are multiplying in Burnt Mill Creek as a result of passionate involvement from local community leaders, and partnerships with state organizations.

Watershed Education for Communities and Local Officials (WECO) of NC State University (NCSU) coordinated a partnership, with NCSU Dept. of Biological and Agricultural Engineering (BAE), the City of Wilmington, as well as several other key state and local organizations and citizens groups, to obtain an EPA 319 grant that addresses stormwater management in the watershed. Community involvement has led to several retrofit BMP opportunities.

Often in large scale watershed retrofit projects, education and retrofit opportunities in low income areas are overlooked. This paper focuses specifically on the partnership with one citizen group, the Bottom Neighborhood Empowerment Association (BNEA). The bottom area is a dense urban neighborhood where many residents have incomes lower than the median income of Wilmington and New Hanover County (Wilmington median income is $42,000, New Hanover County $41,000; areas in BMC between $22,000 and $34,000 depending on census tract) (NC Census, 2000). BNEA is a group of citizens living in the bottom area who are working to improve the quality of life in their neighborhood. Cooperation with BNEA has led to several educational and LID retrofit opportunities including three educational workshops held in the community, installation of ten rain gardens in community areas and private residences, and distribution of twenty-four 65 gallon rain barrels. A large rain garden and 250 gallon

cistern were installed at a school in the bottom to serve as an education and demonstration site for the community. A smaller residential scale rain garden was installed at a church in the bottom to demonstrate rain gardens for home owners. Ten rain gardens total have been installed at citizen’s private residences in the bottom. Many residents in the bottom made the financial investment to install gutters on their homes in order to meet the criteria to receive a free 65 gallon rain barrel. A survey developed and distributed by an NCSU graduate student showed that each resident who responded found some stormwater educational benefit to participating in the workshops and the retrofit efforts. Many of the respondents indicated that they shared what they learned with their neighbors, a significant accomplishment in accordance with the goals of the overall project. Although restoration takes time, momentum continues to build in the bottom area as resources are devoted to thoughtful education and engagement with the public.

LID Conference- this paper Enacting strategies to improve urban life can no longer be encapsulated into one discipline’s goals, one realm of implementation or viewed at from one standard scale. To facilitate sustainable development within the urban form, design and planning strategies should involve the equal pursuance of social, economical and environmental viability with careful attention to aesthetic appeal. This pas de quatre, or “dance of four performers,” is an essential composition of urban design criterion that can be realized at several scales, from local to global; and transgress the compartmentalized efforts of many disciplines that are on parallel paths to improve people’s lives. Discovering how collaboration among different disciplines can benefit one another and a critical evaluation of these relationships will become increasingly imperative in our dynamic and complex world.

One such collaboration is between environmental groups involved in improving water quality through low impact development and community building groups, who have organized in order to strengthen social networks and economic opportunities within neighborhoods. Lack of social resources and water quality concerns are two significant problems in the urban environment, but typically organizations that strive to improve these resources work independently of one another. However, a few innovative organizations have found overlapping objectives and motivations for collaboration by highlighting the 111

secondary benefits of LID. Construction Costs Several partnerships have been developed to address community revitalization and urban stormwater management with LID strategies (Anacostia River Initiative, Washington, DC; West Philadelphia Landscape Project, PA; The Bottom Neighborhood Project, Wilmington, NC; Rutgers P3 Team Project, Newark, NJ;). These partnerships have found success and challenges by integrating their efforts with ongoing community building groups in urban neighborhoods. The methods utilized in this investigation were to critically review the literature, conduct four case studies and a post-occupancy evaluation of one project to discover how such partnerships can be executed successfully and what lessons can be learned.

This investigation has revealed that such partnerships can be mutually beneficial and have overlapping objectives if thought about in an integrated manner. Successful partnerships between these groups require that the secondary benefits of LID be tailored to a community’s unique concerns and values, be presented to the community in such terms and involve communities in the decision-making process. In order to appeal to a community’s distinct problems, watershed restoration efforts must be translated and promoted into meanings beyond water quality protection by highlighting the potential secondary benefits of LID. This is especially critical in low-income, urban neighborhoods where water quality concerns are not the most significant issue. It has also been found that success for these projects is dependent on whether plans address several scales; occur within both public and private frameworks; and have long-term viability with regards for environmental, social and economic health, while also providing aesthetic appeal and desirability. By marrying community building and a natural resource improvement effort, like LID; communities and professionals can work together to improve the quality of urban life by choreographing a balanced “dance” of the four performers.

Appendix 7.2.

The B o ttoms Neig hb or ho o d Pro je c t S ite V is it No te s [November 12, 2007 10am - 9pm]

Jason Wright estimated that a 4’ x 10’ or 5’ x10’ rain garden for the project cost approximately $130 ($2.60-3.25 sq.ft.), 16 man-hours for a 5 x 10’ and 24 man-hours for a 8 x 10’. The costs of the constructed wetlands were not available, but Jason did note that is took 20-25 people about 8 hours to complete or 160-200 man-hours.

Itemized Costs of 4’ x 10’ or 5’ x10’ rain garden : • $60-70 plants • $15-20 mulch and oil • $30-40 drain lines Construction + Maintenance Notes from Site Visit Constructed wetlands • Need to have access for trucks for maintenance and construction, therefore private property is not an ideal location.

• At least 0.5 acre drainage area is needed and the water table must be high enough to keep it wet.

• Tannic acid making the water look muddy, homeowners do not like.

• Future research needed in discovering impact on parking lot sealants and water quality (changes in pH?).

• An architect’s rendering of Wallace Park wetland prior to construction helped residents accept the project. (B + O Design team) Rain Barrels • Some of the elderly citizens that had rain barrels were not actively using them at the time of the visit and did not have the proper overflow device attached to the rain barrel.

• Others with rain barrels needed hoses and rain barrels placed higher to water plants and have better access to it.

Rain Gardens • Species that were doing well (note: the area was in somewhat of a drought) • Itea viginiana (Sweetspire, shrub) • Rudbeckia sp. (Black-eyed Susan, perennial) • Coreopsis grandiflora and verticillata (Tickseed, perennial) • Panicum virgatum ‘Heavy Metal’ (Switch Grass) • Juncus sp. (Rush ) • Iris sp. (perennial) • Aronia arbutifolia (Red Chokeberry, shrub) 112

• Plants not doing well were planted in the shade and not shade tolerant species.

• At Gregory Elementary School’s rain garden, grass is taking over mulched areas and maintenance crew is mowing over designed berms and flattening them.

Permeable Pavement (YMCA) • Needs to be swept every 6 months or once a year.

Vegetated Swale (Port City Java) • Wheel stops need to be raised slightly to allow water to go underneath.

• Wooden weirs in swale working well.

• Swale is 5’ wide.

113

7.3. stormwater model for eastway elementary based on proposed site design

Mecklenburg County Site Evaluation Tool - Site Performance Analysis Eastway Elementary Upper Neuse, Ellerbee, Goose Design Phase 3

Mecklenburg County Site Evaluation Tool - Site Performance Analysis Eastway Elementary Upper Neuse, Ellerbee, Goose Design Phase 3

Land Use Summary Total Site Area (acres) Pre-development impervious percentage Post-development impervious percentage

14.6 31.9% 38.4%

Annual Pollutant Load and Target Summary Target Evaluation

Annual Hydrology Summary Annual Surface Runoff (inches/yr) Annual Infiltration (inches/yr)

Existing Landuse 13.53 2.46

(developed portion of site)

Design without BMPs 16.03 2.43

Design with BMPs 4.55 4.62

Existing Landuse 0.396 1.758 2.305

Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 1 inch storm 1-yr 24-hr storm 2-yr 24-hr storm

Design without BMPs 0.429 1.769 2.306

BMP Storage Volume 0.666 0.666 0.666

Target 0.429 0.010 0.001

Additional load from undeveloped areas removed by BMPs

Meets Goal?

Yes Yes Yes

Sediment Load

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

1 yr 24 hr 0.8

1 inch Storm Event Not Selected

0.6 0.4 0.2

0.0

2 yr 24 hr 0.8

1-yr 24-hr Storm Event Not Selected

0.6 0.4 0.2

0.0 Cap Vol

2.00 1.00

Cap Vol

Target

Cap Vol

Existing Landuse

Design without BMPs

Design with BMPs

Source

Target

Meets Goal?

54.99 94.02

54.99 94.02

9.86 43.31

Estimated Estimated

54.99 94.02

Yes Yes

50

Posts, no BMP Existing

cfs

40

Post, with BMPs

30 20 10 0 12:00 PM

100

3:00 PM

6:00 PM

9:00 PM

12:00 AM

10-yr 24-hr storm

cfs

3:00 AM

Post, no BMPs

80

Existing

60

Post, with BMPs

20 0 9:00 AM

12:00 PM

0.54

0.5

2

(lb/yr)

Nitrogen Load

(devel. portion of site)

100

16.0 14.0 12.0 Total Phosphorus 10.0 Removal Target 8.0 Not Selected 6.0 Target 4.0 2.0 0.0

80 60 40

Total Nitrogen Removal Target Target Not Selected

20 0

Sediment Load 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

3:00 PM

6:00 PM

9:00 PM

12:00 AM

Sediment

Total Phosphorus

Total Nitrogen

Fecal Coliform

6.98 4.71 0.10

17.2 16.2 3.2

106 101 41

2,075 1,137 49

(ton/yr)

Existing Landuse Design without BMPs Design with BMPs

20.0

(lb/yr)

Nitrogen Load

Fecal Coliform Load 2,500

100

2,000 1,500

60

1,000

40

5.0 0.0

20

500

0

0

Sediment

Total Phosphorus

Total Nitrogen

0.478 0.323 0.007

1.18 1.11 0.22

7.27 6.93 2.83

(ton/ac/yr)

(# x 109/yr)

120 80

10.0

Areal Loading Rates

(lb/yr)

Phosphorus Load

15.0

Existing Landuse Design without BMPs Design with BMPs

40

6:00 AM

92 28 45.0% 69.3% Yes

Target

Entire Site Annual Load

2-yr 24-hr storm

9:00 AM

14.6 1.3 70.0% 90.9% Yes

(lb/yr)

0.0

Target

60

6:00 AM

Target

0.00

Peak Flow and Hydrograph Summary

2-yr 24-hr storm (cfs) 10-yr 24-hr storm (cfs)

4.16 0.09 85.0% 97.9% Yes

(devel. portion of site)

3.00

2-yr 24-hr Storm Event Not Selected

Total Nitrogen

Phosphorus Load

(devel. portion of site)

5.00 4.00

1 inch storm

Total Phosphorus

(ton/yr)

Design without BMPs Design with BMPs Target Removal Achieved Removal Meets Goal?

Storm Event Runoff Volume and Target Summary

Sediment

(lb/ac/yr)

(lb/ac/yr)

Fecal Coliform

(# x 109/ac/yr)

142.1 77.9 3.4

3:00 AM

114

8. Acknowledgements Fina l C omments ab o ut the Fina l Pro je c t Pro c e ss At the end of my final project process, I was approached by individuals within the community to produce drawings to help them show the NCDOT alternatives to their plans to run a 6-8 highway through the spine of their community. As my father and our family lived in Durham before and at the beginning of the Durham Freeway construction in the 1960’s and since the focus of my studies at the time was community design, I changed gears to fulfill their needs. I feel passionately that this disproportional degradation of communities and the environment in low-income communities is wrong and was astounded that Durham politics had not changed since the 1960’s.

I hope that my drawings were of some use to the group. Unfortunately, I was not able to focus on my site design as I intended. For me that is the “fun” part of being in school because it allows me to step away from reality and abstract whatever thoughts are evoked by immersing myself in that place. At the time, it felt selfish to spend time in such a manner.

From this experience, I would like to suggest in the future that faculty and final project students together address issues within their community as a group to produce meaningful deliverables. Despite the pains of group work, this method could allow for useful community assistance and give students the much needed time to design outside the confines of the “real world” one last time. An exercise in developing a master plan or “framework of action” as a group and then whittling it down to a site design, produced individually, is such a powerful exercise. Group work is too much avoided in school and is the reality of much work within our profession.

Tha n k s + Pr a is e Special thanks to Kofi Boone and Christy Perrin from WECO, who were instrumental in this investigation and of course my family, friends and Turtle for their love, support and understanding throughout the turbulent grad school years I like to call my missing years.

Although this process was not the most efficient, I learned an incredible amount and deeply appreciate all that Kofi, Bill Hunt, Chrsity Perrin and the entire NCSU faculty contributed to my learning process throughout my time at COD. Cheers if you made it this far in my paper! emily.

115