Goodyear Gila River Masterplan

GOODYEAR GILA RIVER MASTERPLAN ARIZONA

STATE

U N I V E R S I T Y

GRADUATE

A R C H I T E C T U R E

S T U D I O

F A L L

2015

City of Goodyear Masterplan 2015 studio

Published December 9th, 2015 Professor Kristian Kelley Davíð Hildiberg Aðalsteinsson Spencer Bates Lauren Bucher Bridget Gesser Scott Morgan Nishad Patwardhan Conor Keilty Kevin Kolden Nathan Leber Chandler Willie

Masterplan

Presentation Outline Site Analysis Vision and Goals Masterplan Proposals Nodes Open Gradient Bridge

Goodyear, Arizona 33.4500째 N, 112.3583째 W

Downtown

PHX Site

5 miles

10 miles

Goodyear Context within Phoenix Metropolitan Area

ASU

Lower

Road

Gila

e iv R a ri F a u A

g

ay

Road

r

S. L i t c h f i e l d

85

w High

Buckeye

River

Cotton L n.

Salt Estrella

0.5 mile

Mountain

Range

1 mile

Site Area: 2,940 acres (North Development) 282 acres (South Development) 3,222 total acres (5 square miles)

River

Natural Maps

1900

Before & After

Today

1937

Spread of Development

1986

2015

The site consists of three distinct topographic zones. The first is flat agricultural development. This land covered the vast majority of the proposed site.

The second is the river. This area cuts in between the agricultural land and the third zone, the mountainous region to the south.

Site Photos

Zone Definitions Floodway

AE

The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas necessary in order to discharge the one hundred year flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot.

An area with a detailed delineation of a Floodplain and in which Base Flood Elevations have been determined.

A

An area with an approximate delineation of a Floodplain.

Floodway boundaries and Base Flood. Elevations have not been determined.

AH

An area with Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); Base Flood Elevations have been determined.

0.5 mile

1 mile

100 Year Floodplains

AH

A

AE

Floodway

Anna’s Hummingbird – Variable nest, usually on a branch of tree or shrub, sometimes in vines, on wires, under eaves. Usually 4-25 feet above ground, can be lower or higher.

0.25

Ecology

1.mile

2.miles

Lesser Nighthawk - Nest site is on ground, sometimes in shade of small shrub but often in fully exposed open spot. Sometimes on roof of building. No nest built, eggs laid on bare dirt or gravel.

Lucy’s Warbler - Typically nests 5-40’ above ground. Nest is loosely and raggedly made of coarse grass and weeds, bark strips, mesquite leaf stems, and fine grasses.

Summer Tanager - Nest site is in a tree, often an oak, pine, or cottonwood. Placed on a horizontal branch, usually well out from trunk and 10-35’ above the ground.

White-Tailed Kite - Nest site is in top of tree, usually 20-50’ above ground, sometimes higher or lower depending on available sites.

Live-oak often chosen as nest site.

Yellow Warbler – Nest site is placed in upright fork of branches in shrubs, small trees, and briars from 2-60’ above ground.

Lower Salt and Gila Rivers Ecosystem

Demographics

1980 2,747 residents

1990 6,258 residents

2014 73,832 residents

2020 100,000 residents

= about 3,000 residents With a mere 2,747 residents in 1980 and 6,258 in 1990, Goodyear’s population has exploded to a population of 73,832 as of April 1, 2014 (MAG Estimates, April 1, 2014). Goodyear grew 245% between the 2000 and 2010 Census and it is expected to surge to well over 100,000 residents by 2020 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2009 ACS).

Population

Chandler 4,202 residents per square mile

Population Density

Surprise 1,100 residents per square mile

Goodyear 162 residents per square mile

Paris 9,240 people per square mile 9,240 people per square mile

London 13,211 people per square mile 13,211 people per square mile

Site

Goodyear 162 people per square mile

Comparative DensityDensity162 people per square mile (52 homes per square mile)

Boston 13,322 people per square mile 13,322 people per square mile

National Education High school graduate or higher age 25+ = 86%

Education

Arizona Education High school graduate or higher age 25+ = 85.7%

Goodyear Education High school graduate or higher age 25+ = 91.5%

High School Graduate

Associate Degree = 38.8%

Highest Degree Earned

Professional Degree = 2.2%

Bachelor Degree = 18.6%

Master Degree = 8.5%

Doctorate Degree = .6%

Farming, Fishing, and Forestry .74% percent of the population

Construction, Extraction, and Maintenance 9.79% percent of the population

Production, Transportation, and Material Moving 11.24% percent of the population

Service

11.64% percent of the population

Professional and Related Occupations 16.37% percent of the population

Management, Business, and Financial Operations 17.99% percent of the population

Sales and Office

32.22% percent of the population

Industries

United States Income Median household income = $53,046

= $10,000

Income

Arizona Income Median household income = $49,774

Goodyear Income Median household income = $70,627

drove car alone

carpooled

time to work

84%

10%

people per each 1 minute period

ways to work

900

750

600

450

300

150 worked at home

5% 0

other

2%

Household Transportation

10

20

30

40

50

minutes

60

90+

less than 5

229

5-9

942

10-14

2,090

15-19

2,232

20-24

2,455

25-29

720

30-34

3,721

35-39

781

40-44

1,737

45-59

3,153

60-89

1,353

90+

174

Housing

number of bedrooms

number of cars

6k

6k

4k

4k

2k

2k

0k

one bedroom

two bedroom

three bedroom four bedroom five bedroom

0k

no car

one car

two cars

four cars

five cars

five +

home building in Goodyear by year 12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

<1939

Housing and Transportation

1940-1949

1950-1959

1960-1969

1970-1979

1980-1989

1990-1999

2000-2010*

0

2000-2010

90% built between 2000 and 2004

Services

Library

Cultural Centers

Community Center

Museum

Education

Elementary School

High School

College/ University

Transit

1.mile

3.miles

Goodyear Ground Transportation

Rail Line

Trail

Road

Arterial

Freeway (Future)

0.5 mile

1 mile

Site Ground Transportation

Rail Line

Trail

Road

Arterial

Freeway (Future)

75

70

65

60

0.5 mile

1 mile

GYR Part 77 Overlay

>=65 Day-night Average Sound Level (ldn)

<=65 Day-night Average Sound Level (ldn)

No Restriction

Part 77 Minimum Restrictions

Part 77 Recommended Restrictions

Goodyear Airport recommends that open water bodies are avoided within 10,000 feet from the ends of the runway. This will help reduce waterfowl/aircraft collisions.

0.5 mile

1 mile

Open Water Limit

Site

Runway

10,000 Ft Radius

Utility

2011 City of Goodyear Water Supply (12,719.4AF)

Pumped CAP Water 68%

Pumped Groundwater 3%

Reclaimed Discharged 27%

Reclaimed Direct Use 6%

Reclaimed Recovered 1%

Goodyear Water Availability

157th Avenue (Recharge Capable)

Stored Water Type

Quantity (AF/yr)

Limitation of use

Corgett Wash

Groundwater

5,025

Service Area

Rainbow Valley

Stored Water Credits

723.02

Central Arizona Project

7,516.98

Reclaimed Water

1,377

Previously stored at CAWCD sites and City site Available for recharge recovery 2008 Demand used

Total

14,642.56

Central Arizona Project

Pumps

Usage

Treatment

Surface Drained (Corgett and Rainbow Valley)

CAP Recharge Groundwater Recharge (only at 157th facility)

Goodyear Water Supply Diagram

0.5 mile

1 mile

Current Reclaimed Water Supply

Reclaimed Water Lines

157th Water Treatment Facility

0.5 mile

1 mile

Site Transmission Lines

500 kV

345 kV

230 kV

69 kV

< 69 kV

Sarival 69 kV Substation

230 kV - 500 kV

69 kV

Residential Scale

200’ 120’ 100’ 50’

50’ 25’

Right of Way

High voltage lines pass directly through the site. While the current agricultural land use isn’t largely impacted the future developement would be more affected by their presence.

Although some industrial customers can accept this level of power, most would need to have it stepped down.

Our site has only a few instances of this voltage transmission lines.

High voltage lines are expensive to bury or move.

Transmission lines of this voltage are easier to hide than those of higher voltage.

Most new developments bury these.

High Voltage Taxonomy

6.15 GW

Cholla Coal Power Plant

12.0 GW

Site has the potential photovoltaic energy production as two Cholla Coal Power Plants *Based on the efficiency of ASU Lot 59

1 GW Production

Power Generation Potential

Photovoltaic Coverage

1.mile

3.miles

Waste Management

Solid Waste Transfer Station

Cedillo Metal Recycling

Goodyear Airport South Superfund

Western Ave Superfund

Goodyear Airport North Superfund

Vision and Goals

â&#x20AC;&#x153; The Gila Riverfront will be a preeminent example of ecological urbanist practices, implemented within the context of typical American suburban sprawl. A beacon of smart growth, The Gila Riverfront will set the benchmark for urban development globally.

â&#x20AC;?

Vision

Sustainability + Resiliency

A | wetland restoration bridge

C | didactic infrastructure, freeway as teaching moment

Cyclical Rather Than Linear Process

Reduce Environmental Impacts

Revitalize the River

- Encourage partnerships between local Hedonistic Didacticism Diagrams

businesses and industries to create symbiotic relationships - Develop a water system which uses the full

potential of fresh, gray, remediated, reclaimed,

and wastewater - Promote agriculture for local consumption

- -

-

- Create riparian water treatment systems - Realize the riverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recreational and economic potential - Eradicate Salt Cedar and other invasive species

B | brine filtering street section

Vision

Promote renewable energy sources Create infrastructure that cleans, conserves, and stores water Develop walkable neighborhoods and alternative transit connections

A Sence of Place (Placemaking)

Reinterpret Existing Conditions

Highlight the Unique Assets of the Site

Promote a Mixed Use Vibrant Community

- Integrate agriculture into the community - Use the historic canal system as a development asset - Support development along Estrella Parkway

connecting to downtown Goodyear

- - -

- Encourage live/work lifestyles - Create streets with specific neighborhood characteristics - Human-scale development

Vision

Develop and expand hiking and mixed-use trails Expand habitat for bird watching Create parks for water recreation such as fishing, kayaking, and swimming

THE CATALYST

Foster Innovative Technologies - Develop maker spaces for private and public users

Promote partnerships between private, City -Diagrams

educational, and public sectors - Attract higher education (Research: aerospace,

riparian restoration, etc.)

Vision

Reimagine Suburban Development

Redefine Infrastructure

- Reconceptualize water retention strategies that

promote natural processes - Provide a fine grained mix of housing types and typologies - Establish micro-utilities and other community

scale alternatives

- Make use of utility corridors for additional

productive uses - Design roads that support multiple user types - Create freeways which do not fragment communities

Masterplan Proposals Problem Initial Masterplan Nodes Open Gradient Final Masterplan Bridge

Existing Condition

Typical Development

PROBLEM: Vast ecological space has itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s identity and resilliency erased by typical suburban developments.

Problem

How do we keep Goodyear viable and inovative?

Phoenix Growth 1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2014

311% 32% 36% 25% 34% 9% 6%

Comparative growth rates

+333,000 +141,000 +210,000 +190,000 +340,000 +110,000 +90,000

Goodyear Growth 1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2014

31% 29% 28% 127% 202% 245% 15%

+400 +500 +600 +3,400 +13,000 +46,000 +10,000

Nodes

The Winter Olympics in Vancouver, Canada, did a great job in terms of sustainable development.

There were multiple new facilities constructed along with a brand new rapid transit link between the airport and downtown Vancouver, called the Canada Line, which is part of the SkyTrain transit system. With an overall cost of $2 billion dollars, this infrastructure finished in 2009, well ahead of schedule and long before the Olympics.1 Interest for this project started in the year of 2000 because of a big increase in passenger and cargo traffic at Vancouver Airport. This prompted attention to serve the growing employment base on Sea Island, and also the existing and future passenger terminals. This north-south transportation corridor is one of the busiest in Vancouver. Because of the traffic congestion that is forming there, the Canada Line was a logical idea.2 Vancouver, like most Olympic hosting cities, used the Olympics to kick-start the project.

The use of the Canada Line dramatically exceeded anticipated usage per year. The goal was to have 100,000 in 2013 and 142,000 in 2021.

The numbers skyrocketed, and had a total of 105,000 in 2010 and 136,000 in 2011. Additionally, in November of 2010 the Canada Line had over 200 million total passengers. Although this is positive because of less car use, the increasing number of passengers has raised concerns, and TransLink announced that “we’re seeing this substantial rise in demand by more people for more transit when TransLink has no ability to meaningfully increase capacity.” This is forcing the government to have future development.

An example includes a fundraising proposal of increasing gas cost per liter by 2 cents.3 This Nineteen Kilometer (11.9 Miles) Rail Rapid System originally had sixteen stations, but now it has seventeen and other future stations being built. Because of this new infrastructure there is much interest in creating communities along the nodes. On the top of the list is the waterfront, which is a $1.5 billion worth of development.

This was an old thirty-two acre industrial site, which is being transformed into a mixed use district with a third of it being devoted to parks.

This development is supposed to reconnect downtown Vancouver to the Columbia River after a long industrial occupation.

1 Gold, J. R., & Gold, M. M. (2011). Olympic cities: City agendas, planning and the world’s games, 1896-2016. New York;London;: Routledge. 73 2 Canada Line (Apr 12, 2006). Canada Line Final Project Report.

3 TransLink (Aug, 2011). TransLink Reports Ridership Heading For a New Record. Retrieved From http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/Media/2011/August/TransLinkreports-transit-ridership-heading-for-a-new-record.aspx

CANADA LINE | Vancouver | TransLink | 2009

Barcelona is without a doubt the best example of an Olympic hosting city when it comes to city planning and regeneration. The transformation that Barcelona went through and what they are known for today can be traced back to the plans done for the 1992 Olympics. The amount of work that happened in the city during the six years would normally have taken decades, but the planning capability allowed the Spanish to pull it off. Pasqual Maragall who was the mayor of Barcelona during the planning phase and Olympics saw the importance of improving public spaces in trying to solve the social and economic issues after thirty-six years under the dictator Francisco Franco. Barcelona did not witness immediate economic growth post Games, with unemployment rate and taxes rising but it stayed clear that the Olympics were going to benefit Barcelona. Many of the former Olympic hosts, would put efforts into the short-term profit of hosting the Olympics, while Barcelona put emphasis on the strategic longterm benefits.1 Bohigas had a clear plan for the Olympic village, which was key to success which entailed, firstly, placing four main Olympic areas that would serve as activation spaces for the problematic areas around them, and secondly, ensure that all the facilities had a purpose after the Games.2 Planners located new buildings on land where they could regenerate the areas around it, so it was not only about the building, but instead about the space and events that the building would activate once installed.

Seaside City The beach consisted of “industries, depots, and various facilities connected with the commercial port. The railway line separated part of the city from the sea and many beaches were occupied by shantytowns” The Riverside Plan was devised in 1966 where the main purpose was to repurpose the waterfront and twenty years later Antonio Bonet Castellana designed the Olympic Village in the seaside area. In conclusion, placing the village there was done to regenerate the whole coastline. There were thoughts about placing the Olympic village in the suburbs of Vallés which would have been much cheaper. In the long run, Barcelona would have benefitted a lot more with the chosen site, because after too many years of industrial use the city could be opened up to the Mediterranean sea with its beautiful beaches.3 1 A. Ferrer, ‘La nuova urbanistica comunale in Catalogna,’ in Barcellona. Nuovo ordine territorial, ed. By F. Indovina (Milan: Franco Angeli, 1999), p. 84.

2 Gold, John R, and Margaret M. Gold. Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World’s Games, 1896-2016. London: Routledge, 2011. Print. 276 3 Gold, John R, and Margaret M. Gold. Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World’s Games, 1896-2016. London: Routledge, 2011. Print. 279

BARCELONA MODEL | BARCELONA | 1992

Business

Technology

Walkability Economic Wetland Relax Beach Density

Heritage Conservation

Nature Main Street

Residential

Social Meeting

Agriculture

Community Social Living

SOLUTION: Create a series of nodes sprouting from a linear transportation line.

Develope three distinct districts ranging in density, purpose, and character.

Individual Business Ecological Close Proximity

Rural

Solution

Green Space

Polycentric Ecological Diagram

Environmental Rural

Social Mix

Economic Downtown

Polycentric Ecological Master Plan

Name Beach agriculture Residential Low Mixed Use Low Mixed Use High Residential Medium City Center Whole Site

Land Use

Acres 559 485 384 194 297 345 320 4,675

Dwellings

Totals:

32,809 units

Lbs of Food 4,854,880

1,922 3,873 8,911 6,907 11,196

4,854,880 lbs

Washes and open habitat

Riparian â&#x20AC;&#x153;Beachâ&#x20AC;?

Cooridor

Agriculture

Medium/Low Density Residential

Medium/Low Density Mixed Use

High Density Residential/ Commercial

Economic District

Social District and the “Beach”

Environment District

Open

A Seattle/ Idaho-based firm, Patano Studio Architecture, is proposing an $800 million project to the east downtown area as part of a larger conceptual plan to expand the Washington State Convention Center. The project plans to cap Interstate 5. A highway which runs through downtown Seattle and has caused a disconnect such that highways tend to do.

The was highway built in 1962 as which increased commuter traffic and connected the greater areas and caused efficiency in city mobility however dividing the city. Their project would cap a 2 mile long section of the the highway.

The architects have proposed a 45 acre park that would feature plants, trails, and community spaces, and connect to affordable housing and retail districts. Toward downtown, the park would run over a proposed 20,000 seat NBA / NHL arena which adds to the areas convention space and community interaction.

The goals of the project include: reconnecting neighbourhoods and the urban fabric of the city, public benefits for densifying the urban core, energy generation, noise reduction and storm water mitigation, emissions control. The Project aims to implement new architectural infrastructure at a city scale such as 45 Acre Park, Convention Center Expansion, Downtown Arena, Downtown housing, cultural activity space and collective views of the city, water and mountains.

1. “A/N Blog • SEATTLE PARK PROPOSAL TO CAP I-5 UNVEILED.” Architect's Newspaper Blog. Accessed October 16, 2015. http://blog.archpaper.com/2015/10/seattle-park-proposalcap-5-unveiled/#.VjOqTYTSxSU

INTERSTATE 5 CAP | Seattle | Patano Studio Architecture | 2015

The Gary Comer Youth Center green roof is an 8,160 square-feet garden in Chicago used for education and urban agriculture.1 Students in the youth center grow and harvest crops year round, teaching the values of agriculture in a safe, fun environment. The garden is comprised of crops from potatoes to flowers, and skylights bring light into the interior of the building. Soils range from 12 to 24 inches, allowing for a variety of planting options.

Some of the benefits of the roof garden include, but are not limited to: temperatures between 20-30°F warmer in the winter and 10°F cooler in the summer; production of one thousand pounds of fruits and vegetables annually, feeding 175 children at the center each day; over six hundred students participating in the gardening programs; and saving $250 in annual healing and cooling costs as compared to a standard roof.2 Hoerr Schaudt, the landscape architecture firm on the project, says this about the project, “This rooftop haven for urban agriculture is an afterschool learning space in a neighborhood with little access to safe outdoor environments, and adds an unusual dimension to traditional green roof design: the youth center’s full time Gardner uses a planting system custom-designed by Hoerr Schaudt as a teaching tool. The garden maximizes two heat sources – ambient heat from the building and solar energy.”3 The educational aspects of the garden include classes for students interested in the agriculture process, formal classrooms surrounding the green space to create a visual connection to the garden, and the ability harvest, cook, and eat the crops on site.

The project architect, John Ronan Architects, states that “Students harvest crops in this outdoor classroom that are used in the culinary arts program in the ground floor kitchen.”

The roof garden not only serves as an educational tool, it is also a social center point for the youth center. The ability to act out the entire agricultural process from seeding to consumption ties the building and community together while increasing awareness of ecological urbanism.

1

2 3

“Rooftop Haven for Urban Agriculture Chicago USA.” ASLA 2010 Professional Awards. Web. 14 Oct. 2015.

“Gary Comer Youth Center Green Roof.” Greenroofs.com. Web. 14 Oct. 2015.

“Gary Comer Youth Center.” Hoerr Schaudt. Web. 14 Oct. 2015.

GARY COMER YOUTH CENTER GREEN ROOF | Chicago, IL | Hoerr Schaudt | 2006

Open

Covered freeway reduces noise and keeps views intact

Views to the highway maintain connection to infrastructure Pathways allow for pedestrian and bike connection to the city

Stormwater collection in the tunnels feed the wetlands Covered Highway

Pathways create opportunities for stormwater collection and the water is redirected to the wetlands areas Community green space created between the infrastructure

Community Creation

Diagrams Community Highway

Open space for community infrastructure and activities

Structures are forced to be minimal impact due to flood plain regulations

Hard edges are removed and the canal is revitalized with engineered ecology

Educational and small commercial farming attracts local businesses and respects the history of the area

Encourages walking and biking due to lack of direct vehicle access Canal Revitalization

Canal becomes an attraction, bringing the residents through the more agricultural areas.

Boardwalk â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;bufferâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is created to provide access to the welands areas and cirrculation to the city Green buffer acts as a levee to allow high density development closer to the wetlands attraction

Wetlands Interaction Soft edge allows the residents to interact with the wetlands

Diagrams

Wetlands are engineered to filter the collected stormwater and feed it back into the city

Expected Land Use

Wetlands 130 acres

Recreational Areas 220 acres

Production Agriculture 1000 acres

Community Agriculture 630 acres

Medium Density Land Use 480 acres

High Density Land Use 200 acres

Gradient

ConcepturalSolution Solution Conceptual

High to medium density mixed-use 1,136 acres (1.75 square miles) Agriculture 790 acres Industy 460 acres Population estemate 10,000

Land Use Diagram

High density mixed-use

medium to low residential

center of industry

wash areas

riparian resotration zone

reservoir

ConcepturalLakefront Conceptual LakefrontDevelopment Development

Roughly the size of Canyon Lake, Goodyear will have a large amenity that attracts development as well as rehabilitate the riparian zone on the site.

Lake Plessent

Roosevelt Lake Goodyear site

Tempe Town Lake

2 miles

Metro Area Lakes and Reservoirs

Bartlett Lake (rotated 90 degrees)

Canyon Lake

Saguaro Lake

The Grid: Since the time of Hippodamus, the grid has been an organizing system of organizing our cities.

Goodyear has a regular 1 mile x 1 mile grid. Small streets follow curved forms and are maze-like.

This porposal works with a 230’ x 500’ grid

Sample Cities: Barcelona Buenos Aires Helsinki Portland Phoenix New York City San Francisco (CBD) San Francisco (west) Savannah

The Gridded City

420’ x 420’ 360’ x 360’ 530’ x 300’ 230’ x 230’ 300’ x 640’ 230’ x 500’ 320’ x 450’ 280’ x 660’ 220’ x 310’

N 1” = 2,000’

Final Design

“Wastewater collection from industry buildings, etc will feed the reservoir after it is purified through wash systems that clean the water with plant material.”

Industry incorporated to foster growth and manufacturing jobs in Goodyear.

Collect water (storm, HVAC condensate, greywater, etc) and creating a large reservoir that is an amenity and attracts development.”

“Lake acts as a catalyst for the riparian restoration along the river throughout the site.”

Develop riverfront on west side, while rehabilitating the rest of the Gila River to its full ecological potential

N 1” = 2,000’

Solar is a catalyst for change and development.

Inexpensive energy abundant on the site coupled with inexpensive land, make our site ideal for large game changing industry. Imagine 21st century clean CO2 neutral industry.

“SR 30 freeway moved North of the site, parallel to the 85, with 303 extension following Cotton Road.”

Agriculture with tributaries of urban farming along the water restoration washes.

Both sides of the reservoir are high density with medium density moving away from water.

Incorporates mixed use residential with housing, restaurants, retail, etc.

Potential hospitality or higher education component.

N 1” = 2,000’

Bridge

Lower Buckeye Road

Bullard Avenue

Litchfield Road

85

Cotton Lane

Sarival Avenue

Lo op

30 3

Ex

te nt io

n

Estrella Parkway

y wa gh Hi

South Route 30

Vineya rd

0.5 mile

1 mile

Bridge - Goodyear Site Plan

Avenue

1/8 mile

Site Plan - Beaches

1/4 mile

1/8 mile

Site Plan - High Density

1/4 mile

Bullard Avenue 1/8 mile

Site Plan - Campus

1/4 mile

0.5 mile

Zones

1 mile

Parks

Learning/Making Center

South Center

Main Urban Center

Agriculture

Industry

Name

Acres

HH/Acre

Households

People

Agriculture

750

Campus

250

3

750

1,905

Downtown South

240

4

960

2,438

Downtown North

950

3

2,850

7,239

Industrial

475

Whole Site

2,655

2 (avg)

4,560

11,582

Lbs of Food

People Fed

8,130,000

11,807

8,130,000

11,807

Downtown North (950 Acres, 36%) Agriculture (750 Acres, 28%) Industrial (475 Acres, 18%) Downtown South (250 Acres, 9%) Campus (250 Acres, 9%)

The average American consumes 688.6 pounds of fruits and vegetables per year.

One acre of agricultural land has the potential to create 10,840 pounds of food annually.

Therefore, our 750 acres of agriculture can yield 8,130,000 pounds of food per year.

Our site can provide fruits and vegetables for 11,800 people, which is 300 more than the entire projected population of the community.

Land Use and Agriculture

0.5 mile

Transportation

1 mile

Main Roads

Highways

0.5 mile

Transportation

1 mile

Trails

Public Transit

Landmarks

Education Centers Environmental

Education Centers - Water

Cultural Centers

Power Lines

Services

Water Treatment Facility

Water Cleaning System

River

0.5 mile

Phases

1 mile

Big Dig

0.5 mile

Phases

1 mile

Industry

Big Dig

0.5 mile

Phases

1 mile

South Center

Industry

Big Dig

0.5 mile

Phases

1 mile

Main Urban Center

South Center

Industry

Big Dig

0.5 mile

Phases

1 mile

Learning/Making Center

Main Urban Center

South Center

Industry

Big Dig

Moments

Site Diagram Reference

Land Construction

Street System

Building System

Water System

Highway Infrastructure

Water being redirected from the ecosystem has created a large expanse of undesirable riverbed

Soil from the riverbed is excavated to reach the shallow groundwater

Desirable riverfront is developed, and the Lower Salt and Gila rivers ecosystem is supported

The Big Dig

The soil is brought to the banks, building up the site of the new city

The banks are built up to allow for the city to be pulled closer to the waterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s edge

Dense urban development is creat Levees allow for a ‘boardwalk’ condition to be created close to the water’s edge

Access to the water connects the community to the lake and ecology

Dense urban development is created as a catalyst for the growth of the city

The lake is created in part by excavating the existing riverbed

Urban Edge

Soft edge connects the ecosystem with the local community

Lower Gila and Salt River Ecosystem resoration and bird sanctuary

City to Ecosystem

Institutional and educational buildings within the community district

Community park creates a buffer between the dense urban environment and the natural environment

Bridge/Downtown “Beach”

Natural levees allow for development inside the existing flood plains

Braided streams feed the large body of water downstream

Water Capture

Water is redirected from the city and sent to water treatment facilities via small canals

Following treatment, the water is pumped back and used to support the urban environment and industry

Water Treatment Museum/View South

Green roof serves the residents with educational agriculture, residential community gardens, and a way to sustainably insulate the building and col the surrounding areas

Solar panels supply power to the building, providing power to the buildings and sending excess energy to neighboring structures

Walkways are shaded by overhangs and cantilevers to create a more walkable environment ed to their respective treatment facilities

Typical Building Sections

Downtown and Transit

Swales collect, absorb, and filter rainwater from streets into the ground before being directed to treatment Streets slope to direct rainwater to planted and grass swales

Storm water flows across sidewalks toward swales

Filter soil mix Pipe directing water to treatment plant or riparian stream

Street Section

Downtown and Agriculture

product along freeway for 1/2 mile can neutralize the pollution of 8,750 cars per day

Sunlight triggers chemical reaction between paint and smog breaking it down into water, carbon dioxide and calcium nitrate

Freeway

Lattice like design creates turbulence for better distribution

Paint is key to smog fighting powers, made from titanium dioxide based pigment

Prosolve370e installed 4ft high along both sides of the highway can neutralize the carbon emitted by 8,750 cars per day.

5.5 Miles of Freeway

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Each day, more than 80,000 cars drive on the 1-10 near the interchange, and 18,000 of those cars use Loop 303.â&#x20AC;?

AZ Central

Freeway

Agricultural Campus

Building runoff, ac condensate, brine and grey water are directed to riparian stream

At the end of the stream water is directed to treatment plant or water corridor

A variety of native plant material can be found in riparian areas or wetlands including Alkali Goldenbush, Desert Senna, and Joint Fir

Water Collection

View to Downtown along Riparian Beach

Appendix

Located in the lowest point on the earth’s dry surface the site of the Dead Sea Development Zone sits in an arid rain shadow desert1. The area is rich with ecological as well as cultural history.

People have been coming to the Dead Sea for thousands of years.

In order to increase tourism in the area and revitalize the ajacent depressed communities, the Kingdom of Jordan comissioned Sasaki Assiciatees to design a detailed master plan2 for a 40 square kilometer area along the banks of the Dead Sea. The plan includes many new sustainable mixed-use developments and is designed to add support ammenities and improve infrastructure in the existing communities. A central waste water treatment plant has been designed for the existing Sweimeh District while new healthcare, educational, commercial, residential, and hospitality developments are planned throughout the area.

The plan is divided up into several districts, each with its own unique “activity node3.” These nodes will offer mixed ammenities and help create an identity for their neighborhood. In the new Corniche District the plan is to improve the existing Tamarisk grove.

Another main objective of the master plan is to improve the public access to the water front. The new plan seeks to create connections between the existing neighborhoods and from the public area to the sea. Green streets between the existing private developments serve as view corridors out to the water.

The client’s goal is to be at the forefront of sustainable design and to be a prototype for the area. Sasaki Associates created a plan to shade the streets and open spaces with the buildings that surround them. Shading devices and photovoltaics will be common throughout the developments as well. Also, waste water treatment devices will help reduce the amount of water required to run the new development.

1 Neumann, Frank H., Elisa J. Kagan, Suzan AG Leroy, and Uri Baruch. “Vegetation history and climate fluctuations on a transect along the Dead Sea west shore and their impact on past societies over the last 3500 years.” Journal of Arid Environments 74, no. 7 (2010): 756-764.

2 “Dead Sea Development Zone Detailed Master Plan.” Sasaki Associates, Inc. 2012. sasaki.com/project/6/dead-sea-development-zone-detailed-master-plan/ 3 “A Strategic Master Plan for the Dead SeaDead Sea, Jordan.” ASLA 2012 Professional Awards. 2012. Accessed September 9, 2015. http://www.asla.org/2012awards/346.html

DEAD SEA DEVELOPMENT ZONE | Dead Sea, Jordan | SASAKI | July 2011

The Beijing Bohai Innovation city, designed by SOM architects1, represents a new model of ecological urbanism along Chinese high speed rail corridors.1 These satellite cities will connect Beijing to the coast. The goal of the project is to create a series of walkable cities while joining two large metropolitan areas.

Half of the 1473 hectare site will be dedicated to nature and public parks. These parks will respect the existing landscape, while providing much needed green space for the residents.

The landscape is centered around Turenscape’s proposed wetland park water filtration systems.

These terraced wetlands provide water collection and filtration for the city, easily purifying rainwater and streams.

SOM states, “The plan leverages the economic and lifestyle assets of the Beijing-Tianjin corridor by centering the new environmentally friendly district along the high-speed-rail line linking the national capital to the port city of Tianjin.

The city expansion will host 17.6 million square meters of mixed-use development, with a focus on providing a premier headquarters location for advanced industries in the dynamically growing Bohai Rim, a region that already accounts for more than a quarter of China’s GDP. The plan also provides an advanced multi-modal transportation network highlighted by the city’s close proximity to the existing capital airport and a potential new international airport south of Beijing. By uniting high-speed rail with metro lines, bus rapid transit, local streetcar and a stateof-the-art electric car fleet, the plan enables 80 percent of the city’s personal transportation to be by transit, walking and bicycling.

Combined with pedestrian and bicycle friendly street design, this network conveniently connects residents to neighboring workplaces, schools and cultural amenities along green streets and corridors.”

1

“Beijing Bohai Innovation City.” SOM | Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill LLP.

BOHAI INNOVATION CITY | Beijing, China | SOM | 2012

As contemporary cities grow, a common issue around the world is how to repurpose agricultural land and resources for urban development. With social, economic, and ecological implications, this topic is an even greater concern in China as cities rapidly expand due to the growth of the country’s already enormous population.

A significant shift in how we think about the relationship between cities and farms is long overdue. Sasaki’s master plan for Songzhuang offers a revolutionary vision for how urbanity and agriculture can be integrated to enhance the relationship between people and the land, creating new economic opportunities.

Conventional development patterns dictate that agriculture is located at the periphery of the city.

Located on the outskirts of Beijing, Songzhuang’s distance from Beijing’s urban core allows for the formation of a new paradigm of development where traditional relationships of city, open space, and farmland are reconfigured. The master plan for Songzhuang envisions a series of self-sustaining communities that are designed to encourage creative pursuits, offer a high quality of living, and integrate with larger regional open space and hydrological systems. Sasaki’s plan inverts the traditional pattern. Development forms the periphery of the city and the farmlands within allow for a diversity of edge conditions that foster interaction with the urban fabric. This strategy creates a balance of development and open space that ultimately facilitates a higher quality of life through self-sustenance and new economic opportunities based on research and the scientific advancement of agricultural products and processes.

In a country where farmland is being lost in the name of development at an alarming rate, and where nearly one-sixth of existing arable land suffers from soil pollution, it is imperative that future growth seriously consider food security as a priority. The master plan for Songzhuang offers a model approach which shows that agriculture can coexist with development, as well as help to generate new economic opportunities.1

Site plan / context type image

photo

diagram

photo

1 Sasaki Architects, Songzhuang Arts and Agriculture City, Beijing, China. http://www.sasaki.com/project/265/songzhuang-arts-and-agriculture-city/ . Sept. 08 2015.

SONGZHUANG ARTS AND AGRICULTURE CITY | Beijing, China | Sasaki | 2012

photo

The master plan of Dockside Green completed

by Perkins + Will et al. uses site-wide strategies including a biomass gasification plant and wastewater treatment facility. Locally sourced wood waste is converted into clean burning synthetic gas (syngas) which is used to produce heat and hot water. The global economic crisis halted construction of later phases of construction. However, the initial phases of the master plan were 99% sold before the building opened. The site EUI is 27.6 kBtu/sq.ft and creates an annual source energy of 66 kBtu/sq.ft.

The key sustainable features include 100% of all sewage is treated on-site. No municipal potable water is used for irrigation and reclaimed site black water is used. The development is 67% more efficient than a baseline standard in terms of water efficiency. Daylighting was a key part of the project. 99% of regularly occupied spaces and views for 97% of spaces. 1 The site is on former industrial brownfield land formerly occupied by a small port. Now the site is connected to downtown Victoria by a ferry as well as bicycle access. The site also has linkage to one of the longest continuous bicycle paths in North America. Most parking is located underground and the roofs are treated with a high albedo surface.

The initial phase used three distinct construction types. Traditional wood framing was used for one townhouse building. The mid-rise structures were cast-in-place concrete and the four story building piloted the use of insulated concrete forms.2 Central to Synergy’s energy efficiency are a selection of high performance building strategies coupled with district energy efficiencies. The design of a high performance envelope along with passive solar oriented buildings ensured that the heating and ventilation systems could be right sized. Daylight penetration through the whole site is enhanced by the stepped and broken building forms.3

1 “Home - Dockside Green.” Dockside Green. Accessed September 24, 2015.

2 http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs10125.pdf 3 High Performing Buildings Magazine. Fall 2011. (50) Retrieved 22 August 2015.

DOCKSIDE GREEN | Victoria, British Colombia | Perkins + Will | 2008-present

The 2004 Olympics in Athens, Greece had the best facilities of its time, but now the Olympic village is falling apart1. The bad economy is a factor, but also a factor is that Greek people have little interest in these sports and therefore there is no need for them. This also happened to some facilities at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, which were the most expensive Olympics thus far. If facilities want the life spark to be kept alive after major events, the urban planner needs to incorporate the community. Barcelona is a city known for its beaches and sangrias but it used to be an industrial city, until they got the bid for hosting the Olympics in 1992. These Olympics represented an effort to completely reconstruct the city for the better. They used the athletic facilities to reconnect the city, and twenty-two years later, the city is still blooming. How did the 2012 London Olympics learn from past games and incorporate in their Olympic park so it would be successful for many years?

The first of its four tasks in planning the London Olympics provides an analysis of the three Rs – Regeneration, renaissance, and renewal – in thinking about the Olympics.

Regeneration has been defined as the renewal, revival, revitalization or transformation of a place or community. It is meant for long-term improvements to local quality of life, including economics, social and environmental needs.

Renaissance is the process of making towns, cities and other areas ´livable´ and rediscovering city pride.2

1 Manfred, T. (2014, August 7). What The Abandoned Venues From The Athens Olympics Look Like 10 Years Later. Retrieved September 6, 2015.

2 Gold, John R., and Margaret M. Gold. Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World’s Games, 1896-2016: Second Edition., 2010.

QUEEN ELIZABETH OLYMPIC PARK | London | AECOM | 2007

NN

EL

W

34

ST

MAINTAINED EXISTING SPORTS FIELDS

CLINTON

LE

ONA

RD

C2 PL

THE BIG U

T

EL

NN TU

HOSPITAL ROW

PARK

PEDESTRIAN LOOKOUT

2050 500-YR STORM 4'-4" FLIP-DOWN BARRIER

WHAT IS AT RISK?

BIKEWAY FLYOVER

NNEL

DELIVERY POINT FOR CON-EDISON

FLIP-DOWN BARRIER

The floodplain upland of Manhattan’s 10 miles of coastline is home to approximately 200,000 people. This area contains some of the largest central business districts in the country, which cumulatively form the core of an economy with a $500 billion annual GDP, and influence economic activity throughout the world. More than 52 million annual visitors come to New York City to see the 9/11 memorial, The Battery, Wall Street, the Statue of Liberty, and Ellis Island. The +9’ 35,000 FOOT SPLASH ALLOWANCE floodplain also contains affordable housing units, home to over 95,000 low-income, elderly, andFEMA disabled2050 residents, the majority whom live in a highly +8’ 100 YEAR of FLOODPLAN vulnerable area along the East River.

+9’ FOOT SPLASH ALLOWANCE +8’ FEMA 2050 100 YEAR FLOODPLAN

Superstorm Sandy devastated much of this area. Infrastructure was disabled, +5’ homes were flooded, andSANDY people, many elderly or disabled, were trapped in their apartments. The economic heart of the Financial District stopped PLAN for a week. +4’ FEMA 2050 50 YEAR FLOOD Many residents are still struggling with the aftermath. In public housing units PATH TUNNEL affected by Sandy, mold infestation has almost doubled, illustrating that global climate change has increased the challenges of providing safe, livable, affordable housing in Lower Manhattan. Rebuilding poses its own risks. In the worst case, uncoordinated recovery actions could result in a chaotic set of atomized changes that could prove destructive to the urban realm. A piecemeal approach would not only cost much more than a coherent plan; it would also likely worsen economic disparity in the city and leave low-income areas behind. Flood-protection measures, if not intelligently designed, might sever communities’ connection to the waterfront, an unacceptable loss.

E 23

15'-8"

PERMANENT FOUNDATION

PERMANENT FOUNDATION

5'-0"

STABILIZATION SLAB

PEDESTRIAN LOOKOUT

STABILIZATION SLAB

-6’ SEA LEVEL

SOBECA INTERLOCKING SHEET PILE

ST COOPER STUYVESANT PAVILIONS

+5’ SANDY +4’ FEMA 2050 50 YEAR FLOOD PLAN

-6’ rebuilding SEA LEVEL The opportunities that brings, however, are as great as the risks. This occasion represents a priceless opportunity to rebuild better, to rebuild in such a way that as the city grows more secure physically, it gains new social, aesthetic, economic and environmental assets that enhance its reputation as the greatest city in the world. HOLLA

INTERLOCKING SHEET PILE OR SLURRY WALL

OR SLURRY WALL

BIKEWAY FLYOVER

NEL

DRILLED H-PILLING

DRILLED H-PILLING DELIVERY POINT FOR CON-EDISON

12'-11"

BM

TC

L

1

FD

Y TR EN

PROTECTED S P R

ST

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

RP EN T S R VE

BIKE PATH

O D

RAMP UP TO BRIDGE

RS

SIE

BR

BE

AR

RAMP UP TO BRIDGE BK

AM

AN

SB

UNDER FDR VIADUCT

CH

ET

ART WALK

R D

WATER

HARBOR BATH

FLIP-DOWN IN FLOOD EVENT POSITION L.E.S. NORTH-EAST RIVER PARK FLOOD SIDE BIKEWAY CAR ROAD COMPARTMENT 1 C1

1: FLIP-DOWN DEPLOYABLE MOUNTED UNDER FDR

L

R FD

SIE

DR

C1

BM

AR

R

MIDBLOCK PED. BRIDGE

TWO BRIDGES/CHINATOWN COMPARTMENT 2

TUNN

EL

C2

BRIDGING BERM

BPC

MIDBLOCK PED. BRIDGE

UNDE RP

PATH

R ST

HOUSTON FERRY LANDING

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

EN

VE

BIKE PATH

BR

DO

BK

L.E.S. NORTH-EAST RIVER PARK COMPARTMENT 1

AN

12'-11"

FD

TC

HARBOR BATH

ST

FISHING PIER

WILL

IAM

C1 COASTLINE 2.19 MILES C1 FLOODPLAIN 399 ACRES (2050 100-YEAR) 517 ACRES (2050 500-YEAR)

SBUR G BR

R

FD

IDGE

DR

EN

SB

2 W

+9’ FOOT SPLASH ALLOWANCE +4’ FEMA 2050 50 YEAR FLOOD PLAN

4'-0"

HISTORIC SHIP DOCK TOP SOIL SLURRY WALL

HOUSTON FERRY LANDING

BATTERY-FINANCIAL DISTRICT COMPARTMENT 3

9'-0"

C3

+9’ FOOT SPLASH ALLOWANCE +8’ FEMA 2050 100 YEAR FLOODPLAN

CLAY CAP COMPACTED EMBANKMENT

UNDER FDR VIADUCT

CAR ROAD

SIDEWALK

BERM

HOUSING BUILDING

EXISTING AMPHITHEATER

+5’ SANDY +4’ FEMA 2050 50 YEAR FLOOD PLAN

4'-0"

FLIP DOWN DEPLOYABLES

INTERLOCKING SHEET PILE OR SLURRY WALL

AN HATT

BR

N-Q-

B-D

SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

BM

KLY BROO

T BR OA

IRT L

WHIEHALL TERMINAL

EX

DW AY

IN

The BIG Team proposes to rethink infrastructure as an amenity. The team calls its reconceived model “social infrastructure.” Infrastructure in the United States, as traditionally conceived, has not been built in a way that engages and responds to the intimate needs of the public; rather, it has been imposed from without on our cities on a large scale, dividing communities and fragmenting the urban experience. The Big U approaches the mandate to create largescale protective infrastructure with a commitment to meaningful community engagement and fine-grained urban experiences. It fuses Robert Moses’ hard infrastructure with Jane Jacobs’ locally-based, community-driven sensibility.

The Big U’s flood-protection will not look like a wall, and it will not divide the community from itself or its waterfront. Rather, the very structures that protect us from the elements will embrace those protected, becoming attractive centers of social and recreational activity that enhance the city and lay a positive groundwork for its future.

TTERY N BA

GT ON

R

4-5

TUNN EL

The multivalent U consists of linked compartments, each built according to its own scale of time, size, and investment. This compartmentalization allows neighborhoods to tailor protective elements to fit their own needs, with cultural offerings, programming, and civic spaces as diverse as the City’s population.

Protection can be strategically phased: small, relatively simple projects will provide immediate protection and maintain the post-Sandy momentum while laying the groundwork for intelligent long-term solutions.

EXISTING AMPHITHEATER

Upon selection by the Rebuild by Design Jury for the 3rd phase of the competition, the Big U concept was greeted enthusiastically by many stakeholders on the West Side, at the Battery, and on the Lower East Side (LES). In order to focus resources during the relatively short planning period, the BIG Team, at the suggestion of the Mayor’s Office, decided to focus first on the Lower East Side. Here a large, vulnerable population (intended to be a major beneficiary of CDBG-DR funding), lives in the floodplain.

LANDSCAPE

HOUSING BUILDING

Our major stakeholder, the City, saw the BIG Team’s approach on the LES as suitable for other sections of the Big U. After discussions with The Battery Conservancy and the Downtown Alliance, the BIG Team expanded its design efforts to include the Financial District and The Battery, where it began building a coalition among the area’s diverse stakeholders: City, State, and Federal agencies, local elected and appointed officials, and public/private partnerships.

Across the project area, the BIG Team spoke with a vast array of officials, planners, and agency representatives, whose invaluable input enabled the plans to deftly handle a wide range of issues that concerned different entities and geographies. The BIG Team would like to express its profound gratitude for the kind attention and constructive criticism the proposals received. This feedback fostered a fine-grained responsiveness in the Big U that the team always hoped to achieve.

The component designs that emerged from this collaborative process have captured the communities’ interest, contain protective elements that can be implemented quickly, are well-positioned to pass permitting and regulatory reviews, and have positive benefit-cost ratios. Furthermore, they are designed for growth: the designs are flexible enough to accommodate further community input and refinement, as well as future adjustments necessitated by changes in regulations, ongoing climate conditions, or other unforeseen needs. The designs anticipate continued future growth, and provide physical and social elements to support the city for decades to come.

Implementation can begin in any of the three compartments. The Big U’s essential flexibility allows implementation to start swiftly, and facilitates dynamic response to any emergent issues by shifting implementation focus between compartments as necessary.

In the most vulnerable areas of the U, further outreach and collaboration with public housing communities will be needed to craft a solution that fulfils the community’s needs and the Big U’s objectives. To achieve this, the BIG Team has developed a ‘toolbox’ of resilience measures that provide multiple benefits in addition to flood protection: social and cultural amenities, housing preservation, greater access to economic opportunity, jobs, ecological function, and improved public space. The team and community can work together to decide how best to deploy these tools to create a refined, fine-grained, site-specific strategy to address public housing’s ‘towers-in-the-park.’

The Big U tools constitute a framework for adapting to the inherent dynamism of urban reality. As a result, the Big U is poised to respond to new opportunities as they arise, embracing new regulations that might allow in-water resiliency measures and soft shoreline edges; rising to challenges posed by affordable housing legislation that could include new preservation imperatives; or simply adapting protection heights in response to future sea level rise. The Big U’s flexible kit of parts will allow it to respond to these and other conditions as they emerge.

C3 PL

In order to support this adaptive framework and reap the benefits it can provide, there must be leadership structures in place to guide its growth. Part of this proposal, therefore, is to develop a Big U Lower Manhattan Waterfront Planning Leadership Council, which will streamline the adaptation of all planning initiatives to preserve resiliency, and address the long-term needs and possibilities of Lower Manhattan as these inevitably evolve. A high-capacity public agency with both authority and resources must be identified to serve as a coordinating planning and implementation agency lead for the Big U, supported by an interagency Technical Working Group and a broadly representative Community Advisory Committee.

The request for CDBG-DR funds, therefore, includes not only funding for implementation of the three compartments, but also the funding for the Big

U comprehensive planning leadership structure and continued community engagement over a long period of time. This is the only way to preserve the effectiveness of resiliency measures such as those contemplated here, and it is the only way to maximize the funding leverage, benefits, and public engagement which form the essence of the Big U. The Big U thus serves as an exemplary project: it shows how to integrate resiliency with city making.

PROPOSED PIER 42 PARK

ST.

6TH

16'-8"

+9’ FOOT SPLASH ALLOWANCE +8’ FEMA 2050 100 YEAR FLOODPLAN +5’ SANDY +4’ FEMA 2050 50 YEAR FLOOD PLAN

AVE

-6’ SEA LEVEL

C2 COASTLINE .78 MILES C2 FLOODPLAIN 75 ACRES (2050 100-YEAR) 95 ACRES (2050 500-YEAR)

18'-8"

F

OO BR YN KL GE

ID

BR

ACE

IND

BIG BENCH

ECO-PIER

MONTGOMERY

SUPERFIELD GREEN STREETS

SWIMMING POOL

On the Lower East Side (LES), the BIG Team worked intensively with LES Ready!, an umbrella organization of twenty-six community groups focused on coordinating emergency response and preparedness. With LES Ready and RBD’s support the team held a series of workshops at various locations in the neighborhood. At the first workshops, the community debated the merits of various flood protection approaches, using the BIG Team’s models of different prototypical solutions. In the second series of workshops, the results of these discussions were incorporated in two possible integral design solutions for each compartment. These designs were also discussed at length by community members, whose feedback was used to refine the final designs. Over 150 community members attended these workshops; many returned to join the team for a celebration at the end of the process.

C3 COMPARTMENT 3 ELEMENTS: BATTERY - FINANCIAL DISTRICT

C3

FLIP DOWN DEPLOYABLES

The Mayor’s Office has become a close collaborator of the BIG Team during the development of this third phase of Rebuild by Design, and has expressed enthusiasm for the emerging concepts of the Big U. As the intended grantee of CDBG-DR funding for the Big U, the City of New York has the final say regarding the project’s implementation.

BERM

Green infrastructure in the three compartments contributes to flood protection while providing social amenities. Climate-change models predict more frequent heavy precipitation events, leading to increased flooding and combined sewer overflows (CSO) – problems exacerbated by impervious city streets. The urban heat island effect will be worsened by longer heat waves. The Big U’s native species bioswales, rain gardens, and street plantings will absorb and clean stormwater, cool the city, reduce air pollution, store carbon, buffer noise, enhance recreational activities, improve mental health, and provide green jobs.

As a result, they will also reduce costs to both City and citizens.

E 23

BMB PLAZA

IMPLEMENTATION

SIDEWALK

MAN

IRT 7T

C3COASTLINE 1.37 MILES C3 FLOODPLAIN 151 ACRES (2050 100-YEAR) 182 ACRES (2050 500-YEAR)

H AV

HARBOR MUSEUM

BATTERY MARITIME BUILDING

HISTORIC SHIP DOCK

F

GE

ID

BR

GE

WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY

The communities of the Lower East Side have expressed their desires for the waterfront in seven separate visioning processes over the past decade, including the East River Esplanade Plan, A People’s Plan for the East River Waterfront (a direct response to the Esplanade Plan), and the East River Blueway Plan. Before engaging residents in a new dialogue, the team reviewed these plans to better understand local needs and desires.

CAR ROAD

INFRASTRUCTURE 3:GREEN THE ELASTIC BERM - +4’ OPTION AND +9’ OPTION, WITH INTEGRATED AMENITIES

BATTERY PARK BERM

2: THE BIG BENCH - +4’ PERMANENT FOUNDATION WITH DEPLOYABLE EXTENSION TO +9’

THREE CUSTOMIZED COMPARTMENTS The resulting Phase 3 proposal envisions three compartments that function independently to provide flood protection. Each responds to the problems posed by a particular portion of the city, and to the needs and wishes of the particular community concerned.

UNDER FDR VIADUCT

A-C

URBAN LIVING ROOM

ELEVATED BIKEWAY

BRID

CLAY CAP COMPACTED EMBANKMENT

9'-0"

PROTECTED SIDE

E AV

URG

FLOOD SIDE

H

MSB

SLURRY WALL

SOUTH STREET PAVILIONS

8T

LIA

9'-0"

TOP SOIL

PLACE

D

WIL

BATTERY

C2 COASTLINE .78 MILES +9’ FOOT SPLASH ALLOWANCE C2 FLOODPLAIN +4’ 100-YEAR) FEMA 2050 50 YEAR FLOOD PLAN 75 ACRES (2050 95 ACRES (2050 500-YEAR)

IN

FISHING PIER

N

12'-11"

C1 COASTLINE 2.19 MILES C1 FLOODPLAIN 399 ACRES (2050 100-YEAR) 517 ACRES (2050 500-YEAR)

PROPOSED PIER 42 PARK

AVE

ECO-PIER

ST.

BIG BENCH DRILLED H-PILLING

MONTGOMERY

GREEN STREETS

STABILIZATION SLAB

-6’ SEA LEVEL

6TH

BRIDGING BERM

IND

C2

SUPERFIELD

5'-0"

KLY

NNEL

PERMANENT FOUNDATION

OO BR

TWO BRIDGES/CHINATOWN COMPARTMENT 2

PATH TU

GOVERNOR'S ISLAND FERRY PERMANENT FOUNDATION STABILIZATION SLAB INTERLOCKING SHEET PILE DRILLED H-PILLING

EXISTING PIER STRUCTURE EXISTING BULKHEAD

12'-11"

SOUTH STREET PAVILIONS D

IN H

8T E AV C A-

URBAN LIVING ROOM

THREE CUSTOMIZED COMPARTMENTS

WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY

IMPLEMENTATION

The resulting Phase 3 proposal envisions three compartments that function independently to provide flood protection. Each responds to the problems posed by a particular portion of the city, and to the needs and wishes of the particular community concerned.

The communities of the Lower East Side have expressed their desires for the waterfront in seven separate visioning processes over the past decade, including the East River Esplanade Plan, A People’s Plan for the East River Waterfront (a direct response to the Esplanade Plan), and the East River Blueway Plan. Before engaging residents in a new dialogue, the team reviewed these plans to better understand local needs and desires.

The Mayor’s Office has become a close collaborator of the BIG Team during the development of this third phase of Rebuild by Design, and has expressed enthusiasm for the emerging concepts of the Big U. As the intended grantee of CDBG-DR funding for the Big U, the City of New York has the final say regarding the project’s implementation.

BROO

IRT

TB

LE

XIN

KLYN

GT ON

ERY T

BATT

4-5

RO AD WA YR

-B-D

BM

BATTERY MARITIME BUILDING

2-3

-Q RN

BMB PLAZA

AV E

NB

TH

Green infrastructure in the three compartments contributes to flood protection while providing social amenities. Climate-change models predict more frequent heavy precipitation events, leading to increased flooding and combined sewer overflows (CSO) – problems exacerbated by impervious city streets. The urban heat island effect will be worsened by longer heat waves. The Big U’s native species bioswales, rain gardens, and street plantings will absorb and clean stormwater, cool the city, reduce air pollution, store carbon, buffer noise, enhance recreational activities, improve mental health, and provide green jobs.

As a result, they will also reduce costs to both City and citizens.

A ATT

IRT 7

C3COASTLINE 1.37 MILES C3 FLOODPLAIN 151 ACRES (2050 100-YEAR) 182 ACRES (2050 500-YEAR)

NH

ELEVATED BIKEWAY

MA

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

WHIEHALL TERMINAL

1

STUYVESANT COVE PARK

20'-0"

ND TUN

CH

This project is a great case study for our studio this semester because it really blends together infastructual engineering with successful urbanism. Our goal is to design a better way to build a city in the BATTERY desert; this will require PARK BERM not only heavy understanding of the technical requirements to pull this off, but also an appreciation for the qualities HARBOR thatMUSEUM will make is a successful city urbanistically. It doesn’t matter if it’s the most efficient city on the planet if we can’t get people excited and enthusiastic about the possibility of living there.

GANSEVOORT ST

PEARL ST

SOBECA

RO

SANDY SURGE LEVELS 2050 100-YR STORM

RESEARCH The Big U concept was the product of a research phase in which the BIG Team studied the history of resiliency planning in the tri-state area and elsewhere.

The team’s research demonstrated that resiliency plans typically account for the existing city, but fail to anticipate the natural growth and transformation of communities. In response, the BIG Team resolved to combine city-making and resiliency planning to create coordinated, intelligent designs for “growing resiliency.” The resulting designs propose to not only solve existing problems, but prevent the formation of new ones, proactively enhance the city in many dimensions, and channel its future growth in desirable directions. Such an approach has many advantages. It creates possibilities to financially leverage incorporated projects and integrate them with existing plans. It creates opportunities to work with communities to ensure that the resiliency measures double as social, economic, and environmental assets. As a dynamic process, moreover, “growing resiliency” enables planners to adapt on the fly to emergent developments such as global climate change and shifting policy priorities.

ST

N W TO ID -M

COOPER STUYVESANT PAVILIONS

E 42

CHELSEA

The Big U is a protective system that encircles Manhattan, responding to the needs and concerns of the island’s diverse communities. Stretching from West 57th Street south to The Battery and up to East 42nd Street, the Big U protects 10 continuous miles of low-lying geography that comprise an incredibly dense, vibrant, and vulnerable urban area. The proposed system not only shields the city against floods and stormwater; it provides social and environmental benefits to the community, and fosters an improved public realm. For Phase 3 of Rebuild

by Design, the Big U team created coordinated plans for three contiguous but separate regions of the waterfront dubbed “compartments.” Each compartment comprises a physically discrete flood-protection zone that can be isolated from flooding in adjacent zones. Each presents unique opportunities for integrated social and community planning. The compartments work in concert to protect and enhance the city, but each compartment’s proposal is designed to stand on its own. Proposed solutions for the components were designed in close consultation with the associated communities and many local, municipal, State and Federal stakeholders; each proposal has a benefit-cost ratio greater than one; and each is flexible, easily phased, and able to integrate with existing projects in progress.

T

NS EE QU

3S

ST

BAXTER ST

E2

ND TU

EL

UNN

1 Hurricane Sandy. (n.d.). Retrieved from American Planning Association: https://www.planning.org/sandy/ 2 BIG TEAM. (n.d.). Rebuild by Design. Retrieved from http:// www.rebuildbydesign.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/briefing/BIG__IP_Briefing_ Book.pdf 3 Post, N. M. (2014). Manhattan’s protection plan viewed as global urban model.

New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

TU

C2 COMPARTMENT 2 ELEMENTS: TWO BRIDGES - CHINATOWN

The Big U is a protective system that encircles Manhattan, responding to the needs and concerns of the island’s diverse communities.

Stretching from West 57th Street south to The Battery and up to East 42nd Street, the Big U protects 10 continuous miles of lowlying geography that comprise an incredibly dense, vibrant, and vulnerable urban area.

The proposed system not only shields the city against floods and stormwater; it provides social and environmental benefits to the community, and fosters an improved public realm. For Phase 3 of Rebuild by Design, the Big U team created coordinated plans for three contiguous but separate regions of the waterfront dubbed “compartments.” Each compartment comprises a physically discrete flood-protection zone BPC that can be isolated from flooding in adjacent zones. Each presents unique opportunities for integrated social and community planning.2

BATTERY-FINANCIAL DISTRICT This occasion represents a priceless opportunity COMPARTMENT 3 to rebuild better, to rebuild in such a way that as the city grows more secure physically, it gains new social, aesthetic, economic and environmental assets that enhance its reputation as the greatest city in the world.3

PL BATTERY

SIT

SCHOOL OF CONSTRUCTED ENVIRONMENTS PARSONS THE NEW SCHOOL

STUYVESANT COVE PARK

The opportunities that rebuilding brings, however, are as great as the risks. This occasion represents a priceless opportunity to rebuild better, to rebuild in such a way that as the city grows more secure physically, it gains new social, aesthetic, economic and environmental assets that enhance its reputation as the greatest city in the world. HOLLA

RS

HARBOR BATH

AN

big 10THteam STREET CONNECTION

Superstorm Sandy devastated much of this area. Infrastructure was disabled, homes were flooded, and people, many elderly or disabled, were trapped in their apartments. The economic heart of the Financial District stopped for a week.

Many residents are still struggling with the aftermath. In public housing units PATH TUNN affected by Sandy, mold infestation has almost EL doubled, illustrating that global climate change has increased the challenges of providing safe, livable, affordable housing in Lower Manhattan. Rebuilding poses its own risks. In the worst case, uncoordinated recovery actions could result in a chaotic set of atomized changes that could prove destructive to the urban realm. A piecemeal approach would not only cost much more than a coherent plan; it would also likely worsen economic disparity in the city and leave low-income areas behind. Flood-protection measures, if not intelligently designed, might sever communities’ connection to the waterfront, an unacceptable loss.

BE

TR

2050 500-YR STORM

The floodplain upland of Manhattan’s 10 miles of coastline is home to approximately 200,000 people. This area contains some of the largest central business districts in the country, which cumulatively form the core of an economy with a $500 billion annual GDP, and influence economic activity throughout the world. More than 52 million annual visitors come to New York City to see the 9/11 memorial, The Battery, Wall Street, the Statue of Liberty, and Ellis Island. The floodplain also contains 35,000 affordable housing units, home to over 95,000 low-income, elderly, and disabled residents, the majority of whom live in a highly vulnerable area along the East River.

AM

NJ

ST

2050 100-YR STORM

GANSEVOORT ST

BA XT ER

The Big U concept was the product of a research phase in which the BIG Team studied the history of resiliency planning in the tri-state area and elsewhere.

The team’s research demonstrated that resiliency plans typically account for the existing city, but fail to anticipate the natural growth and transformation of communities. In response, the BIG Team resolved to combine city-making and resiliency planning to create coordinated, intelligent designs for “growing resiliency.” The resulting designs propose to not only solve existing problems, but prevent the formation of new ones, proactively enhance the city in many dimensions, and channel its future growth in desirable directions. Such an approach has many advantages. It creates possibilities to financially leverage incorporated projects and integrate them with existing plans. It creates opportunities to work with communities to ensure that the resiliency measures double as social, economic, and environmental assets. As a dynamic process, moreover, “growing resiliency” enables planners to adapt on the fly to emergent developments such as global climate change and shifting policy priorities.

More than 200,000 people live in the floodplain of Manhattan’s south coast. This area also contains some of the largest central business districts in the country, which cumulatively form WHAT IS AT RISK? the core of an economy with a $500 billion annual GDP and economic influence throughout the world.

As the storm surge hit, homes, infrastructure, and transportation systems were all taken offline due to flooding. The problem was exacerbated by “power outages that after the storm left approximately 8 million customers in the dark on the East Coast.”1

SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE The BIG Team proposes to rethink infrastructure as an amenity. The team calls its reconceived model “social infrastructure.” Infrastructure in the United States, as traditionally conceived, has not been built in a way that engages and responds to the intimate needs of the public; rather, it has been imposed from without on our cities on a large scale, dividing communities and fragmenting the urban experience. The Big U approaches the mandate to create largescale protective infrastructure with a commitment to meaningful community engagement and fine-grained urban experiences. It fuses Robert Moses’ hard infrastructure with Jane Jacobs’ locally-based, community-driven sensibility.

The Big U’s flood-protection will not look like a wall, and it will not divide the community from itself or its waterfront. Rather, the very structures that protect us from the elements will embrace those protected, becoming attractive centers of social and recreational activity that enhance the city and lay a positive groundwork for its future.

The multivalent U consists of linked compartments, each built according to its own scale of time, size, and investment. This compartmentalization allows neighborhoods to tailor protective elements to fit their own needs, with cultural offerings, programming, and civic spaces as diverse as the City’s population.

Protection can be strategically phased: small, relatively simple projects will provide immediate protection and maintain the post-Sandy momentum while laying the groundwork for intelligent long-term solutions.

Upon selection by the Rebuild by Design Jury for the 3rd phase of the competition, the Big U concept was greeted enthusiastically by many stakeholders on the West Side, at the Battery, and on the Lower East Side (LES). In order to focus resources during the relatively short planning period, the BIG Team, at the suggestion of the Mayor’s Office, decided to focus first on the Lower East Side. Here a large, vulnerable population (intended to be a major beneficiary of CDBG-DR funding), lives in the floodplain.

THE BIG U | New York City | BIG Team | 2015

On the Lower East Side (LES), the BIG Team worked intensively with LES Ready!, an umbrella organization of twenty-six community groups focused on coordinating emergency response and preparedness. With LES Ready and RBD’s support the team held a series of workshops at various locations in the neighborhood. At the first workshops, the community debated the merits of various flood protection approaches, using the BIG Team’s models of different prototypical solutions. In the second series of workshops, the results of these discussions were incorporated in two possible integral design solutions for each compartment. These designs were also discussed at length by community members, whose feedback was used to refine the final designs. Over 150 community members attended these workshops; many returned to join the team for a celebration at the end of the process.

Our major stakeholder, the City, saw the BIG Team’s approach on the LES as suitable for other sections of the Big U. After discussions with The Battery Conservancy and the Downtown Alliance, the BIG Team expanded its design efforts to include the Financial District and The Battery, where it began building a coalition among the area’s diverse stakeholders: City, State, and Federal agencies, local elected and appointed officials, and public/private partnerships.

Across the project area, the BIG Team spoke with a vast array of officials, planners, and agency representatives, whose invaluable input enabled the plans to deftly handle a wide range of issues that concerned different entities and geographies. The BIG Team would like to express its profound gratitude for the kind attention and constructive criticism the proposals received. This feedback fostered a fine-grained responsiveness in the Big U that the team always hoped to achieve.

The component designs that emerged from this collaborative process have captured the communities’ interest, contain protective elements that can be implemented quickly, are well-positioned to pass permitting and regulatory reviews, and have positive benefit-cost ratios. Furthermore, they are designed for growth: the designs are flexible enough to accommodate further community input and refinement, as well as future adjustments necessitated by changes in regulations, ongoing climate conditions, or other unforeseen needs. The designs anticipate continued future growth, and provide physical and social elements to support the city for decades to come.

Implementation can begin in any of the three compartments. The Big U’s essential flexibility allows implementation to start swiftly, and facilitates dynamic response to any emergent issues by shifting implementation focus between compartments as necessary.

NEW BMB PLAZA 201'-11"

.

In order to support this adaptive framework and reap the benefits it can provide, there must be leadership structures in place to guide its growth. Part of this proposal, therefore, is to develop a Big U Lower Manhattan Waterfront Planning Leadership Council, which will streamline the adaptation of all planning initiatives to preserve resiliency, and address the long-term needs and possibilities of Lower Manhattan as these inevitably evolve. A high-capacity public agency with both authority and resources must be identified to serve as a coordinating planning and implementation agency lead for the Big U, supported by an interagency Technical Working Group and a broadly representative Community Advisory Committee.

The request for CDBG-DR funds, therefore, includes not only funding for implementation of the three compartments, but also the funding for the Big U comprehensive planning leadership structure and continued community engagement over a long period of time. This is the only way to preserve the effectiveness of resiliency measures such as those contemplated here, and it is the only way to maximize the funding leverage, benefits, and public engagement which form the essence of the Big U. The Big U thus serves as an exemplary project: it shows how to integrate resiliency with city making.

36'-6"

FLYING OVER PLAZA

43'-0"

BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN RAMP

+9’ FOOT SPLASH ALLOWANCE +8’ FEMA 2050 100 YEAR FLOODPLAN

9'-0"

+5’ SANDY +4’ FEMA 2050 50 YEAR FLOOD PLAN

-6’ SEA LEVEL

TOP SOIL COMPACTED EMBANKMENT

In the most vulnerable areas of the U, further outreach and collaboration with public housing communities will be needed to craft a solution that fulfils the community’s needs and the Big U’s objectives. To achieve this, the BIG Team has developed a ‘toolbox’ of resilience measures that provide multiple benefits in addition to flood protection: social and cultural amenities, housing preservation, greater access to economic opportunity, jobs, ecological function, and improved public space. The team and community can work together to decide how best to deploy these tools to create a refined, fine-grained, site-specific strategy to address public housing’s ‘towers-in-the-park.’

The Big U tools constitute a framework for adapting to the inherent dynamism of urban reality. As a result, the Big U is poised to respond to new opportunities as they arise, embracing new regulations that might allow in-water resiliency measures and soft shoreline edges; rising to challenges posed by affordable housing legislation that could include new preservation imperatives; or simply adapting protection heights in response to future sea level rise. The Big U’s flexible kit of parts will allow it to respond to these and other conditions as they emerge.

96'-1"

BATTERY MARITIME BUILDING

EXISTING GRADE +6" AIR LAYER

CLAY CAP SLURRY WALL

9'-0"

BATTERY PARK UNDERPASS

BROOKLYN BATTERY TUNNEL

THE BATTERY BERM

WATER

35'-0"

133'-6"

70'-0"

20'-0"

PROMENADE

BATTERY PARK BOSQUE

BATTERY BERM BOSQUE

BIKEWAY

74'-6" BATTERY BERM AND SEEGLASS CAROUSEL

25'-0" +9’ FOOT SPLASH ALLOWANCE +8’ FEMA 2050 100 YEAR FLOODPLAN

40'-0"

+5’ SANDY +4’ FEMA 2050 50 YEAR FLOOD PLAN

9'-0"

-6’ SEA LEVEL

COMPACTED EMBANKMENT CLAY CAP TOP FINISH CONCRETE SLAB

SLURRY WALL

EXISTING BULKHEAD

BATTERY PARK UNDERPASS

PIER FOUNDATION

HARBOR BERM - THE REVERSE AQUARIUM AND HARBOR MIDDLE SCHOOL 120'-0" WATER

30'-0" NEW MUSEUM

56'-0"

49'-0" BATTERY BERM

CITY

The Central Deleware River Waterfront Masterplan is a project that will span 3 decades to complete. While implimentation of the master plan may be a big undertaking, the gian it brings the city is vital. After theconstruction of the I-95 freeway in 1979 the once heart of the economy was cut off and made difficult to travel to. It took years, numerous teams, and a stack of supporting documentation and research but ultimately the city successfully compleated a unique master plan with a 30 year timeline.

The current problem is not one that a simple fix will solve. There needs to be a change that will influence the economy, the locals and the tourists. The completed master plan turns the waterfront into the front door of the city and connects the city and waterfront which was being seperated by the freeway. The significance of this project is profound and crucial for the sucess of Philidelphia.

The characteristic of the space will be achieved through numerous precidents being executed.

The site will encorporate a mixed use plan that engourages high density with low and mid rise building to preserve views. This will be organized around open space and will include residential on top with restaurants and shops on the street.

There will also be parks planted every half mile that lay directly on the waterfront. The team put an importance on the ability to have a wide variety of open spaces and felt this would be achiteved most efficiantly through a variety of parks. Next there was a bicycle and trail network that is set up to stretch across the entire waterfront along with connecting it to multiple existing streets that will help to create easier access to the waterfront which was cut off by the freeway. Finally, ownership, economics and implimentation make up the final component that equally drove the creation of this master plan. In order to stimulate the development as a whole there needs to be public sector investments on publicaly owned property.

The identified three priority sites will drive the master plan as it spans through the decades to its completion. The idea is that the successfull implimentation of these three sites will ultimately be the success of it as a whole. This master plan is unique and significant, not to mention crucial for the future sucess of Philidelphia.

DELAWARE RIVER WATERFRONT | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | KieranTimberlake | 2035

This project is built on a site that has served as a military post to the Spanish who arrived in 1776 and then to the US in 1846. Before the colinization of the site it was home to the native Ohlone people.1 An overview of the project is given on the Presidio Parkway website. “Doyle Drive has been re-envisioned as the Presidio Parkway.” It will act as a “gateway between the iconic Golden Gate Bridge and the city of San Francisco. The project team strived to create a roadway that reduces impacts to biological, cultural and natural resources; respects the project setting within a national park, the National Historic Landmark District and surrounding neighborhoods; meets community needs; and provides a safer roadway.”2 Measures were taken to minimize the impact on the local ecology. The Crissy Drainage improvements used turbidity shields to prevent contamination of the San Francisco Bay. They also used bubblers around the submerged concrete piles to prevent fish from injury and to reduce noise pollution from construction. Efforts were made to relocate trees and collect native seeds before construction obliterated them.

Parkway gets buried

Native plants are conserved

The Presidio Parkway improvement project was divided into two phases. This was done to facilitate scheduling as well as funding considerations. “Phase I was delivered through the traditional design-bid-build method. Phase II will be delivered through a public-private partnership.” The project will cost approximately $856 million. Phase I will comprise about 60% with the remaining 40% retained for the completion of Phase II.

1 2

United States. National Park Service. “Presidio of San Francisco (U.S. National Park Service).” National Parks Service. October 8, 2015. Accessed October 14, 2015.

“Overview.” Presidio Parkway Re-envisioning Doyle Drive. 2015. Accessed October 14, 2015.

Project location

PRESIDIO PARKWAY | San Fransisco, CA | SF County Transportation Authority | 2009

The Gary Comer Youth Center green roof is an 8,160 square-feet garden in Chicago used for education and urban agriculture.1 Students in the youth center grow and harvest crops year round, teaching the values of agriculture in a safe, fun environment. The garden is comprised of crops from potatoes to flowers, and skylights bring light into the interior of the building. Soils range from 12 to 24 inches, allowing for a variety of planting options.

Some of the benefits of the roof garden include, but are not limited to: temperatures between 20-30°F warmer in the winter and 10°F cooler in the summer; production of one thousand pounds of fruits and vegetables annually, feeding 175 children at the center each day; over six hundred students participating in the gardening programs; and saving $250 in annual healing and cooling costs as compared to a standard roof.2 Hoerr Schaudt, the landscape architecture firm on the project, says this about the project, “This rooftop haven for urban agriculture is an afterschool learning space in a neighborhood with little access to safe outdoor environments, and adds an unusual dimension to traditional green roof design: the youth center’s full time Gardner uses a planting system custom-designed by Hoerr Schaudt as a teaching tool. The garden maximizes two heat sources – ambient heat from the building and solar energy.”3 The educational aspects of the garden include classes for students interested in the agriculture process, formal classrooms surrounding the green space to create a visual connection to the garden, and the ability harvest, cook, and eat the crops on site.

The project architect, John Ronan Architects, states that “Students harvest crops in this outdoor classroom that are used in the culinary arts program in the ground floor kitchen.”

The roof garden not only serves as an educational tool, it is also a social center point for the youth center. The ability to act out the entire agricultural process from seeding to consumption ties the building and community together while increasing awareness of ecological urbanism.

1

2 3

“Rooftop Haven for Urban Agriculture Chicago USA.” ASLA 2010 Professional Awards. Web. 14 Oct. 2015.

“Gary Comer Youth Center Green Roof.” Greenroofs.com. Web. 14 Oct. 2015.

“Gary Comer Youth Center.” Hoerr Schaudt. Web. 14 Oct. 2015.

GARY COMER YOUTH CENTER GREEN ROOF | Chicago, IL | Hoerr Schaudt | 2006

Mexico City’s exponential urban growth in the last decades has brought with it problems in terms of mobility, disorganized urban development and pollution. This has affected the connectivity of its roads and axes both physically and in terms of image.

However, it has also provided important opportunities for urban and architectural interventions.

Floor Plans

Concept

Level 1

Diagnosis: Nowadays, Chapultepec Avenue is a space used primarily for vehicle transit, creating an uninhabitable frontier which is practically impassable.

It requires urgently a new spatial arrangement, which solves the problems of the different means of transport in the area, informal trade and pollution. A solution that expands green areas and regenerates the urban image. 1

It is necessary to generate a public environment that recognizes the social and cultural diversity of the place, and that promotes safer and healthier lifestyles.

Level 2

Project Description: The proposal consists of interweaving 2 neighborhoods in Mexico City by means of build an Elevated Park with commerce of all kinds, cultural and welfare facilities, green areas and sustainable mobility. An Urban Project: Dynamic (commercial and cultural activities); Compact (with high: density and connectivity) & Egalitarian (with commerce and housing: of diverse formats). A Public Infrastructure that acts as a catalyst for the generation of community.

Where public services and urban facilities not only compensate a need, but become spaces of social integration. 2 The project creates a “New Destination” inside the city by generating an atmosphere: attractive, comfortable and safe. It works as trigger for urban contiguous developments by providing uses and services that have regional impact. It improves the quality of life, stimulating the economic, social and environmental development, while limiting the expansion of the city footprint. 3 Creating a susteinable neighbourhood: The project creates a new destination inside the city by generating an atmosphere: attractive, comfortable and safe. It works as a trigger for urban contiguous developments by providing uses and services that have regional impact. It improves the quality of life, stimulating the economic, social and environmental development.

photo

photo

1 Equipo Editorial. “Project for an Elevated Park in Chapultepec, Mexico” [México: Parque Elevado Chapultepec, proyecto catalizador para generar comunidad en la Ciudad de México] 27 Jul 2015.

2 ArchDaily. (Trans. Cruz, Daniela) Accessed 13 Oct 2015. <http://www.archdaily. com/770861/mexico-parque-elevado-chapultepec-proyecto-catalizador-para-generar-comunidad-en-la-ciudad-de-mexico/>

Project for an Elevated Park | Chapultepec, Mexico | FRENTE arquitectura | 2015

The Underwood Family Sonoran Landscape Laboratory uses green infrastructure to create an oasis in the desert. The landscaping creates shade, cleans the air, harvests water, creates new habitat in an urban setting, and promotes well-being. The Landscaped area serves as an outdoor classroom and entry to the College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture expansion building.

An 11,600-gallon cistern collects water to support the plaza’s garden. The system harvests approximately 250,000 gallons of water annually.

Of that, 40% comes from air conditioning condensate, 33% from rainwater collected off the roof, 18% from well water blow off, and 9% from greywater collection.1 This water accounts for 83% of the landscape’s required water during the first five years. Once the plants are established, the potable water required for the landscape is expected to drop to nearly zero.2 The system collects air conditioner condensate, roof runoff, and greywater into the 7-footdiameter by 38-foot-tall, 11,600-gallon capacity vertical storage tank. A potable water supply connects to the storage tank in the case of an emergency water shortage. In the case of an exess of water in the storage tank (for example, during a storm) the storage tank overflows into a bioswale arroyo. The arroyo slowly filters the water into the soil, preventing the storm system from becoming flooded. The site also uses water from a nearby well. The well requires daily flushing in order to operate properly. In the past, the well dumped 200 gallons of water into the city storm drain daily.3 Since the well water was not able to be directed into the on-site storage tank, a desert riparian pond provided a location for the well water. This pond provides a habitat for desert fish and helps mineralize the water.

As an entry for the Sonoran Landscape Laboratory, the garden also serves as a teaching tool. It is an effective learning experience. The garden demonstrates a variety of regional plants and their usefulness in green infrastructure. The garden has five zones representing the five regions in the Sonoran Desert.

1 Hawkin, Kim. “Finding Water in the Desert.” Green Infrastructure Digest: Sustainable Site Solutions for a Sustainable World. Hawkins Partners (HPI). 22 Jan. 2010. Web. 10 Oct. 2015.

2 Harrison, Jeff. “Underwood Garden Wins National Design Honors.” UA News.

University of Arizona. 18 May 2010. Web. 11 Oct. 2010.

3 “Honor Award: Underwood Family Sonoran Landscape Laboratory.” ASLA. American Society of Landscape Architects, n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2015.

SONORAN LANDSCAPE LABORATORY | Tucson | Ten Eyck Landscape Architects | 2010

The Bullitt Center, a six-story, 50,000 square foot office building in Seattle that aspires to be the world’s greenest commercial building, opens its doors to the public today on Earth Day. This $30 million “living laboratory” distinguishes itself from other sustainable projects with its composting toilets, the exclusion of 350 common toxic chemicals - including PVC, lead, mercury, phthalates, BPA and formaldehyde - along with a strict energy and water budget that aims for self-sufficiency under the Living Building Challenge.

The environmentally-conscious Bullitt Foundation hopes that the new center will demonstrate that carbon-neutral office space can be “commercially viable and aesthetically stunning,” a series of systems that can be easily copied elsewhere without being overly demanding in upkeep.

There are quite a few systems that make the Bullitt Center not only unique but one-of-a-kind. One of them is its rainwater collection system into a 56,000-gallon cistern where the water is then filtered and disinfected. Another are the two rows of five bright blue aerobic composters, each about the size of a Fiat 500, composting human waste so odorlessly and efficiently that the first compost extraction will not be required for 18 months. A third is the building’s rooftop array of photovoltaic panels, which extend far behind the building’s edge to produce around 230,000 kilowatt-hours a year - hopefully just the right amount of energy for a building that is already 83% more efficient than a typical commercial site in Seattle(which is really saying something).

Perhaps the coolest thing about this collection of innovative systems is that they will all be visible. The mechanical and electrical rooms of the Bullitt Center will have large glass windows that display the stateof-the-art engineering, where tourists can scan quick response codes with a smartphone to learn about individual elements. In addition, a kiosk will be set up to let visitors know real-time measurements of the building’s indoor air quality, energy consumption, photovoltaic power production and water levels.

In fact, the building will be so closely monitored that managers will be able to track down energy consumption to an individual plug.

But science isn’t the only thing that the Bullitt Center has going for it. According to office workers, the building is made up of “spectacular views, ample natural light and almost distracting quiet.” This is due in part to the exposed, 13-foot-high ceilings and 10-foot-high windows on the upper floors that contribute to an airy loftflike feel and maximize on daylight. It may be the first heavy-timber mid-rise building erected in Seattle since the 1920’s, using native Douglas Fir certified by the Forest Stewardship Council for the timber and steel frame. 1

1 “The ‘World’s Greenest Commercial’ Building Opens in Seattle Today.”

ArchDaily. N.p., 21 Apr. 2013. Web. 13 Oct. 2015.

THE BULLITT CENTER | Seattle| Miller Hull | 2013

diagram

SmithGroupJJR helped transform a long-vacant site in downtown Scottsdale into a thriving mixed-use destination and successful public/ private partnership. The development blends retail, office and residential spaces into a beautiful urban park setting where art and culture-based events are staged year-round.1 Up until about 50 years ago, canals were a community focal point, where residents gathered in the shade under tall cottonwood trees lining banks or splashed in the water to cool off during the hot summer months. By the late 20th century, though, that sense was largely gone. The canals became the back alleys of the region. Today, most of metro Phoenix still turns away from its canal banks. Yet many say it’s counterintuitive for a desert metropolis to ignore an asset like flowing water.2 Nan Ellin, a former professor at Arizona State University, got residents and bureaucrats to envision a new future for the canals five years ago. As she walked the waterways near her home in central Phoenix, she came up with the concept for “canalscape,” envisioning bustling urban hubs that combine desert landscapes and public gathering spaces around the waterfronts.

In the late 1990s, the Scottsdale Waterfront existed only in the minds of city planners and developers.

Scottsdale spent at least $30 million from city coffers to help transform the canal area.

Pedestrians can lean over the railings and peer straight down at the water. The city also paid to bury power lines and line the canal with palms and native trees.3 In the end, some say difficulties coordinating portions of the project in the canal right of way nearly soured SRP on the notion of assisting canal-adjacent development altogether.

Jim Duncan has been the utility’s point person on canal issues since the early 1990s, overseeing the entirety of the Scottsdale project. He said the grandiose endeavor forced SRP to examine an internal culture that resisted any changes to the canal banks, SRP was naturally cautious about change.

1 “Golub, OPUS West, City of Scottsdale.” Scottsdale Waterfront. Web. 14 Oct. 2015. http://www.smithgroupjjr.com/projects/scottsdale-waterfront#.Vh6aaPlViko 2 Gardiner, Dustin. “A Fresh Vision of Valley’s Canals.” The Arizona Republic 6 Apr. 2014. Print.

3 Simon, Alfred. “Mixing Water and Culture: Making the Canal Landscape in Phoenix.” Order No. 3043829 Arizona State University, 2002. Ann Arbor: ProQuest. Web. 14 Oct. 2015.

SCOTTSDALE WATERFRONT | Scottsdale, AZ | Smithgroup JJR | 2007-2014

The Winter Olympics in Vancouver, Canada, did a great job in terms of sustainable development.

There were multiple new facilities constructed along with a brand new rapid transit link between the airport and downtown Vancouver, called the Canada Line, which is part of the SkyTrain transit system. With an overall cost of $2 billion dollars, this infrastructure finished in 2009, well ahead of schedule and long before the Olympics.1 Interest for this project started in the year of 2000 because of a big increase in passenger and cargo traffic at Vancouver Airport. This prompted attention to serve the growing employment base on Sea Island, and also the existing and future passenger terminals. This north-south transportation corridor is one of the busiest in Vancouver. Because of the traffic congestion that is forming there, the Canada Line was a logical idea.2 Vancouver, like most Olympic hosting cities, used the Olympics to kick-start the project.

The use of the Canada Line dramatically exceeded anticipated usage per year. The goal was to have 100,000 in 2013 and 142,000 in 2021.

The numbers skyrocketed, and had a total of 105,000 in 2010 and 136,000 in 2011. Additionally, in November of 2010 the Canada Line had over 200 million total passengers. Although this is positive because of less car use, the increasing number of passengers has raised concerns, and TransLink announced that “we’re seeing this substantial rise in demand by more people for more transit when TransLink has no ability to meaningfully increase capacity.” This is forcing the government to have future development.

An example includes a fundraising proposal of increasing gas cost per liter by 2 cents.3 This Nineteen Kilometer (11.9 Miles) Rail Rapid System originally had sixteen stations, but now it has seventeen and other future stations being built. Because of this new infrastructure there is much interest in creating communities along the nodes. On the top of the list is the waterfront, which is a $1.5 billion worth of development.

This was an old thirty-two acre industrial site, which is being transformed into a mixed use district with a third of it being devoted to parks.

This development is supposed to reconnect downtown Vancouver to the Columbia River after a long industrial occupation.

1 Gold, J. R., & Gold, M. M. (2011). Olympic cities: City agendas, planning and the world’s games, 1896-2016. New York;London;: Routledge. 73 2 Canada Line (Apr 12, 2006). Canada Line Final Project Report.

3 TransLink (Aug, 2011). TransLink Reports Ridership Heading For a New Record. Retrieved From http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/Media/2011/August/TransLinkreports-transit-ridership-heading-for-a-new-record.aspx

CANADA LINE | Vancouver | TransLink | 2009

The Underwood Family Sonoran Landscape Laboratory is a high performance landscape that works in tandem with the College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (CALA) building at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona.

The landscape functions as both an outdoor classroom and an entry plaza. It exemplifies sustainable strategies of water harvesting, climate regulation, air and water cleansing, recycling, urban wildlife habitat, and human well being. The former grayfield is now a thriving habitat that shades the southern exposure of the new building with a vine covered scrim. A 11,000-gallon tank collects water produced by the building to support the native garden, eliminating the need for potable water resulting in a completely self-sustaining landscape.1 Landscape Performance Benefits2 • Total integration with building mechanical systems including harvesting of roof runoff, HVAC condensate, drinking fountain graywater into 11, 600 gallon cistern.

• 83% reduction in potable water use for irrigation during desert establishment period (first seven years). Annual potable water use reduction is approximately 230,000 gallons.

• Expected 100% reduction in non-harvested water after establishment period.

• Irrigation is 100% ET controlled by the University of Arizona.

• Demonstration of 5 biomes of Sonoran Desert.

• Establishment of 18,000 gallon desert wetland.

• Utilizes 300 gallons/day of university well water ‘blow off’ (backwash from sand filter well) that previously was sent for sewage treatment.

• Creation significant terrestrial/aquatic habitat with significant opportunistic repopulation with active predation activities.

• Project serves as model for regional government’s water harvesting/conservation legislation.

• Desert Riparian channels lined with reused brick and concrete from partial demolition of building.

1 “Portfolio June 2015.” Issuu. Ten Eyck Landscape Architects, 1 June 2015. Web. 13 Oct. 2015.

2 “Information.” Underwood Family Sonoran Landscape Laboratory. College of Architecture, Planning, and Landscape Architecture. Web. n.d. 12 Oct. 2015.

UNDERWOOD SONORAN LANDSCAPE LABORATORY | Tucson, AZ | Ten Eyck | 2007