Bryan Beerman / Living with Water

L I V I N G W I T H W A T E R A

N EW

UR BAN

COAST L IN E

A N D

B RYA N

A RC H I T E C T U R E

BE E R MA N

FO R

T H E

F U T U R E

L I V I N G W I T H W A T E R A

NEW

UR BAN

COAST L IN E

A N D

B RYA N

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

FO R

T H E

BE E R MA N

MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE THESIS

|

B A L L S TAT E U N I V E R S I T Y

|

2015

F U T U R E

Special thanks to my thesis advisors for their expert advice, knowledge, inspiration, and support: Harry Eggink / Major Lohren Deeg / Minor Michel Mounayar / Minor Simon Bussiere / Minor Also, to my family, friends in Charleston, and other professionals that encouraged me and provided advice.

6

How can architecture redefine the future of the urban coastal edge, by transforming underutilized industrial ports into re-envisioned districts and architecture that connect the city with water, are culturally vibrant, strengthen the sense of place, and are environmentally resilient models for future development?

‘‘

‘‘

7

CONTENTS ABSTRACT

10

THE ELEPHANT

Why Care?

Approaches + Considerations

Learning from the Dutch

Water Architecture Methodologies

14 16 22 24 26 30

PRECEDENTS / WATERFRONT DISTRICTS

Back Bay Charrette

Lower Manhattan Proposal HafenCity

Canary Wharf

Kop van Zuid

Darling Harbour Venice

34 36 40 42 46 48 50 52

PRECEDENTS / BUILDINGS

Sydney Opera House

Oslo Opera House

EYE Film Institute

NEMO Science Center

Copenhagen Opera House

54 56 58 60 62 64

DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Precedent Takeaways

Defining Success Values

66 68 70 72

THE EDGE OF CHARLESTON

Context Photos

Evolution of the Edge Assumptions

Regional Plan Concepts

74 76 78 82 86

8 Contents

CHARLESTON DOCKLANDS / DISTRICT MASTER PLAN

The Project

Site Analysis Opportunity

Exploration + Concept Studies

Master Plan Concept

Charleston Docklands

Living Edge Site Sections

Phasing Plan

88

ARCH 304 STUDIO / THE END OF THE DOCK

Ideas in Action

110 112

COASTAL MUSEUM + LEARNING CENTER

Inspiration + Concept

Exploration + Process Sketches

Experiencing the Edge

Components + Performance

Floor Plans

Building Section

118 120 124 128 130 134 136

OPEN WATER Conclusion

140 142

REFERENCES Notes

Illustration + Photo Credits Bibliography

144 146 152 156

90 94 96 98 100 102 104 108

Contents 9

10 Abstract

A bstract

Abstract 11

LIVING WITH WATER Water is a valuable and unique characteristic of coastal cities that creates a powerfully inherent draw, provides leisure, and defines a sense of place. However, it is also a source of risk and disaster, yet people still choose to live on the water. Flooding and hurricanes are a current problem for cities, and will get even worse in the future with sea level rise, which NOAA confidently states will increase as much as 6.6 feet by 2100, affecting over 8 million people in the U.S. Additionally, many cities are not taking advantage of their waterfronts, which are often disconnected, isolated, abandoned, or blocked from the city and its culture.

This combination requires that we rethink how the urban waterfront is designed, in order to live in harmony with the water and accommodate the growing population demand in coastal cities, despite the threats of nature. How can architecture redefine the future of the urban coastal edge, by turning the waterfront from an inaccessible, dangerous, risk-latent environment into a viable cultural asset? This thesis will enlighten a new way to transform unused industrial ports into re-envisioned districts and architecture that connect the city with water, are culturally vibrant, strengthen the sense of place, and are environmentally resilient models for future development.

12 Abstract

Creating an urban water culture means that cities must embrace fundamentally new urban designs and architecture that allow water to be based around leisure, accessed as a public amenity, managed through a network system, and connected with the city core.

Architecture must exist between land and water, with resilience to adapt to changing conditions.

Much can be learned from the Dutch, who have already based their lifestyle around water to live in harmony with it, plus cities such as Venice, which embrace the excitement and leisure that water provides.

Charleston is a prime location to test ideas for a new urban waterfront, as it is already plagued by flooding and is disconnected from its underutilized shoreline, yet its population is projected to surge 45% in 30 years.

These strategies will be implemented in designs across multiple scales for the east coast Union Pier district, including a conceptual master plan and the architecture of a landmark building – a coastal museum and learning center.

While integrating into the historic fabric and sense of place, new patterns and architectural forms will respond to the environment and exemplify the notion of the leisure-city. The result can guide other coastal cities in redefining their waterfronts for the future and give inspiration for using architecture as a new approach to living with water.

Abstract 13

14 The Elephant

T he

E lephant

The Elephant 15

WHY CARE? Urban waterfronts are in a state of crisis. 123.3 million people in the U.S., or 39 percent, live in counties adjacent to the coast.1 In addition, 6 of America’s 10 most populous cities are on coastal waterfronts.2 While these statistics give evidence of the country’s fascination with the coastline and their value to cities, several problems threaten cities and their coasts today, including identity, environment, and population.

One problem exists when coastal cities fail to take full advantage of their waterfronts. This creates a culturecrisis, as cities risk losing their sense of place and uniqueness – a factor for attracting people. It also negatively affects the quality of life, leisure opportunities, and tourism. Industrial waterfront sites contribute to this, as they often occupy economically valuable property, isolate the city from the water, and prevent the best parts of the city from being experienced.3 The reason is rooted in history. Almost all coastal cities can trace the beginning of their existence back to water, since they relied on shipping as a driver for economic success.4 But, beginning with the City Beautiful Movement, urban waterfront redevelopment has become a phenomenon in cities, as the need for the working waterfront lessens due to technology advancements and the value for urban land increases.5 Major cities including Seattle, Boston, Baltimore, New York, San Francisco, Norfolk, Oakland, Savannah, Long Beach, New Orleans, Mobile, Philadelphia, and San Diego all have part of their urban edge occupied by industrial ports. Many of these are incredibly busy in sustaining 16 The Elephant

the U.S. economy, while some have underutilized areas. In all cases, the ports block the city and its residents from the coastline, and underutilized edges provide valuable opportunities for cities to reclaim. Charleston, SC, is a prime example. While its main ports are heavily used inland along the Ashley River, two industrial edges make up the majority of the city’s eastern coastline.

Specifically, Union Pier Terminal can be considered underutilized, as hundreds of feet are dedicated just for a cruise terminal, with the rest containing a sea of open paving for potential storage. On a positive note, cities, including Charleston, are beginning to recognize the valuable resource in their waterfronts, and some are starting to make plans for redevelopment and revitalization.6 But, waterfront utilization is not the only problem facing cities. There is also a surge of urban growth to accommodate with the increased popularity of downtown, yet a fixed geography limits the area for expansion. In the case of Charleston, the population is growing at an incredible rate and projected to increase by 45% to surpass one million people by the year 2042.7 Additionally, a major future challenge and potential peril for every coastal city is how to make the urban coastline environmentally resilient.

NOAA confidently states that the sea level will increase as much as 6.6 feet by 2100, affecting millions of people in the U.S.8 Some researchers predict much more, others predict less, but the point is that waterlines will affect the way of life along the coast. In the case of Charleston, this increase would put

most of the city underwater. Clemson University has studied the potential impact of sea level rise in Charleston, and created a series of land area maps to compare four levels of magnitude: 1 foot, 3 feet, 6 feet, and 12 feet.9 Even without considering the future sea level, coastal cities are already threatened by hurricanes and storm surge, while currently plagued by flooding.

In Charleston, there is insufficient drainage, which often becomes blocked during rainstorms and causes parts of the city to be several feet underwater.

Flooding damages homes, costs money, creates fear, prevents transportation, and essentially halts life. In all, two options exist. One is to retreat from the urban coast, live behind a barrier, and let nature run its course. The other, better choice is to stay and use architecture as a solution to live with the water.

2.1 / OPPOSITE The landscape of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005

The Elephant 17

123.3 million

39% OF THE U.S. POPULATION LIVES IN COUNTIES ADJACENT TO THE COAST 1

18 The Elephant

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NEW YORK LOS ANGELES CHICAGO HOUSTON PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX SAN ANTONIO SAN DIEGO DALLAS SAN JOSE

6 OUT OF 10 MOST POPULATED U.S. CITIES ARE COASTAL 2

The Elephant 19

2012 698,200

2042 1,014,300

CHARLESTON: 45% PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH 7

20 The Elephant

+6.6 ft

2100

0 ft

2000 1850

-1.3 ft

NOAA PROJECTED SEA LEVEL RISE 8

The Elephant 21

APPROACHES + CONSIDERATIONS REAWAKENING THE COASTLINE Rather than being blocked by industry, urban waterfronts should be reclaimed and given back to the public. Some cities are starting to take this approach by spanning public parks and plazas along the water for residents and visitors to enjoy. There has also been an increase in locating landmark buildings of cultural significance along the water as a way to take advantage of the unique environment and connect the civic life of the city to the water’s edge.

Venues such as museums, concert halls, or libraries can activate an area and give hierarchy to a developing district.

Diversified use is key in creating vibrant waterfronts, even as places to live rather than just to visit.10 In terms of living along the coast, there are four main urban organization patterns. The jetty is a pier that gives access to water-based buildings, providing the closest proximity to the water, and it tends to be privately accessed but have publically visible buildings.11 The spit is similar to a jetty, but made from landforms and allows for land or water-based structures on either side, essentially extending the effective water frontage of the coastline.12 The bank is the typical edge of the main landform, with structures lining the edge, and offers the most public setup.13 The island, which exists off-shore, is accessible by boat or bridge, tends to be the most private, and can provide opportunities for selfsufficiency.14 WATER MANAGEMENT + RESILIENCE Nature has its own systems, intolerant to man altering them. Some of these are storms, flooding, and sea level.

22 The Elephant

Certain land areas have a greater risk for flooding, most notably categorized

by FEMA into flood zones, each with building code restrictions. For coastal areas, Zone V is where the site is at risk of inundation from “the 1-percentannual-chance flood event with additional hazards associated with storm-induced waves.”15 In this zone, FEMA requires that the ground level of the building may not be occupied space, which often becomes dedicated to parking, and that the main building must be elevated without the use of solid perimeter walls.16 While these requirements protect the building, they cripple any chance for creating a vibrant urban environment with life at street level, and instead, turn the city into a barricade where all buildings and activities are lofted above.

Additionally, a typical city drainage system is based on below-ground piping that drains to the coast.

Charleston uses this system, but runs into problems during rain at high tide, which blocks the flow of the pipes to the harbor.17 This causes immense flooding in the streets and road-closures – sometimes even enough for kayaking.

The city also has no above-ground area for the water to go, since the marshes and creeks have been infilled over time for development.18 Instead, Charleston spends an enormous amount of money – hundreds of millions of dollars – on installing new pumping systems and on digging tunnels up to 140 feet underground.19 More strategies man has developed to manage water include barriers, coastal armoring, elevated development, floating development, floodable

development, living shorelines, or simply retreating.20 However, water management is most effective when working with nature instead of against it, allowing life to exist beyond the barriers.

For example, Living Breakwaters by SCAPE / Landscape Architecture is a resiliency concept for New York that naturally mitigates inundation from storm surges through a layered ecological approach. The result keeps communities connected to the water, provides protection without a wall, creates calm waters for recreation, and stabilizes habitat diversity.21 Considering engineering techniques pioneered by the Dutch provides further inspiration in water management and district design.

2.2 / OPPOSITE View of Sydney’s waterfront districts, including Circular Quay, Darling Harbour (right), and a proposed rendering for the Barangaroo development and park (left)

The Elephant 23

LEARNING FROM THE DUTCH The Dutch have been champions of water management and working with nature for centuries. This is because the Netherlands geography lies below sea level, forcing the country to develop techniques in order to continue daily life. In doing so, the Dutch epitomize the very idea of living with water: letting water come into their manmade landscapes and managing it. The engineering that defines the country started thousands of years ago with farmers who subdivided their land and built dikes to manage the water.22 Today, about 3,500 polders, or low areas surrounded by dikes, have been built to collect water and strategically move it using electric pumping stations (formerly windmills), as the country continuously and artificially bails out the land below sea level back to natural bodies of open water.23 The system influenced the political structure in the Netherlands, with the creation of the District Water Boards: separate elected government authorities in charge of management decisions per region.24 Additionally, the only way for the dikes, polders, canals, and pumps to successfully function is through collaboration between neighbors and national unification.25 However, the current polder system has its own problems with saline seepage, sinking land, rotting peat, and constant pumping, which is why new alternative innovations are being explored.26 Water needs more space amid rising sea levels, and a restructuring of the Dutch landscape could make water more visible, involve environmental planning, include new infrastructures, and allow water collection.27 For example, the New Water Movement suggests either 24 The Elephant

making polders dynamic by keeping a flexible water level and allowing water in certain areas or depolderizing entirely, with the goal to integrate “housing development, ecology, and water management.”28 The national water management system for the Dutch also includes a critical perimeter protection plan that keeps away the ocean’s flooding threats.

Coastal inlets are controlled by dams and barriers, such as the Delta Works and Maeslandt flood barriers.29 Dikes line the major rivers and the coastline to keep out the high sea level.

Yet internally, the Dutch are doing anything but living behind barriers.

Instead of constructing dikes around their cities, which creates a “flooded bathtub,” they are choosing to “collect the water in all kinds of places and use it to make the city more appealing; and therefore economically stronger as well.”30 This means keeping the water above ground, rather than hiding it below with piping systems, like New Orleans.31 Cities such as Rotterdam are implementing containment, management, and source control systems. Where there was once a major problem in surface water cleanliness, 30 km of canals were constructed with locks and pumps to refresh it, similar to the large network of historic canals in Amsterdam, which provide water management, transportation, and appealing urban landscapes and housing settings.32 Green roofs are mandatory on some buildings in Rotterdam to collect and reuse water.33 Creating water plazas is a way the city accommodates outdoor activities, such as a sports field, yet allows

these areas to flood during increased periods of rain due to their lower elevation.34 Other urban plazas hold large volumes of water in a designed space as a delaying tactic before gradually releasing it to the drainage system, keeping surrounding streets dry.35 Parking garages are also being designed with sub-grade bladders to allow the expansion of sewer systems during heavy rains.36 In all of these techniques, the Dutch manage and plan for the unpredictable, while positively incorporating water into their lifestyle.

2.3 / OPPOSITE Canal in Amsterdam

The Elephant 25

WATER ARCHITECTURE Through design, individual buildings can take on the challenge to co-exist with the water and provide resilience.

Currently, most water resilient buildings are limited to small-scale application or residential, yet many of these techniques have the potential to be applied at any scale, as some largescale proposals have demonstrated in theory. Five key typologies exist: FLOATING Simple in concept, floating buildings are always on top of the water, like a houseboat.

However, understanding the science behind floatation is critical for their success.

The Archimedes Principle allows the flotation of heavy structures to be possible, when the buoyant force in the weight of the water displaced equals the weight of the building.37 The solution for design success is creating a building with a density and displacement area that accomplishes the principle.

Much work in floating architecture has been done by Waterstudio.NL, through many theoretical projects, although their ideas are beginning to be built, such as with the Citadel, the world’s first floating apartment complex.38 Many of the firm’s theories are based on buoyant foundations, which are aided in the development of lightweight buoyant material, such as aerated concrete.39 This also allows new concepts as to how cities currently restricted by their coastline area and with high costs for land will be able to expand out into the water in the future.40

26 The Elephant

While floating architecture is resistant to floods, applying the idea on a singlebuilding scale creates challenges of isolation, access, and system independence. Concepts for floatation across districts offers possibilities for unification, but will require a new form of city codes and planning.

AMPHIBIOUS Amphibious architecture is a cross between a land-based building, elevated design, and floating structure, since it includes elements from each.

This type allows buildings to operate at ground level as is typical, but have the resilience to respond to changing contextual and environmental conditions. In this way, the architecture can resist flooding and provide safety during times of inundation by floating the structure when needed. This is accomplished through a watertight foundation that rests at ground level, yet floats when water surrounds it, guided by piles or walls.41 Flotation is made possible by designing for Archimedes Principle.

Amphibious design is also beneficial in sensitive contexts or historic areas, since the building’s flood management system is essentially hidden, and it allows the ground level to reside below local flood code standards.42 Additional expenses from standard construction are in waterproofing and providing a double foundation system.43 For example, the Maasbommel houses designed by Factor Architecten BV are amphibious and use this method, as

2.4 / TOP Floating: Floatyard by Perkings + Will 2.5 / ABOVE LEFT Amphibious: Maasbommel houses by Factor Architecten BV 2.6 / ABOVE RIGHT Amphibious: Amphibious House by Baca Architects

The Elephant 27

they sit “on a concrete caisson that acts as both a pontoon and a cellar,” allowing it to float up to 4.5 meters by the guide of steel piles.44 The structures were also designed to resist the forces of surging water and the building systems use flexible pipework.45 All of this allows the homes to exist beyond the protection of the dikes, where houses typically would not occupy.46 ELEVATED Elevated construction is the typical design for buildings in flood-risk areas along the coast, as evidenced by the homes along many beachfronts.47 The reason for this has been logic, flexibility of construction, and code requirements by FEMA, mentioned previously.48 Situating the building on a series of piles is most common, since it provides stability amidst inundation and footing strength in loose coastal soil types.49 For example, the Kieran Timberlake House uses this method to loft the building. However, an elevated first floor is extremely problematic in an urban context, its social implications fail to provide any relationship to the street, which is vital to forming successful urban spaces, making this solution best for private vacation homes. It also creates difficulty in programming the ground floor, providing access via ramps, and providing surveillance for security.50 Another method is to elevate an entire urban district, as demonstrated by the design of HafenCity, Hamburg, where the streets, infrastructure, and built area are above the flood zone with only public plazas

28 The Elephant

below.51 The downsides to this are cost and connecting to the elevation of surrounding context.

SACRIFICIAL Some architecture can be designed to take on water, as is the case in Venice.

With this method, the ground floor or lower level of a building is sacrificial, containing no vital systems or spaces, so that water is allowed to flow through it while saving the rest of the structure.

After inundation, the sacrificed space can be cleaned and reused.

Most often, this space is a lower level used for storage or car parking, and it also doubles for water containment.

Problems with this method occur when inundation is higher than the sacrificial floor, or if the first floor is raised too high, the building takes on similar challenges as the “elevated” method.

SUBMERSIVE Directly opposite of sacrificial, submersive buildings are designed to be watertight to exist in flooding or even be located underwater. While effective, this is a very expensive method due to the amount of waterproofing required, and seems to only be used in special scenarios as a marketing technique, such as with the Poseidon Undersea Resort.

2.7 / TOP Elevated: Loblolly House by Kieran Timberlake 2.8 / ABOVE LEFT Submersive: Discus Hotel by Deep Ocean Technology 2.9 / ABOVE RIGHT Sacrificial: Fondazione Querini Stampalia by Carlo Scarpa

The Elephant 29

METHODOLOGIES COLLECTION OF INFORMATION Most of the information that informed this thesis and project was researched through literature review and precedent studies. Secondary and tertiary sources were utilized through published books and online articles, which provided the best way to access the most information in order to develop a background understanding to the thesis question, while enlightening strategies that could become part of a solution.

PRECEDENTS Studying precedents allowed for the consideration of methods used by other cities and waterfront buildings, which were evaluated as to what extent they could enlighten direction for future projects or the city of Charleston. (See the following “Precedent Analysis” section for an explanation of analysis methodologies.)

Examples of effective waterfronts and even transformed post-industrial sites are scattered around the world, and thorough analysis of each was most efficiently performed by comparing multiple publications about each work, while investigating online maps and photographs to get an understanding

30 The Elephant

of the contextual arrangement of the developments. Publications also give detailed drawings that allow for better understanding, such as street sections, programmatic diagrams, and design intent.

OBSERVATION Personal observation played a key role in studying the city of Charleston and the Union Pier District, plus gathering knowledge of some precedents. For eight months during 2013, the author lived and worked as a resident of downtown Charleston, where he observed the city and the project site as a naïve and participant observer. This base knowledge helped guide the direction of the project and site analysis, by giving him a foundation for understanding the city’s history, context, architectural styles, atmosphere, districts, and basic social structures. Most importantly, it allowed for a firsthand experience of the city, including its current waterfront conditions, lack of a connection with the city center, and water-related challenges, but also its vibrancy and success of downtown, showing a city with incredible potential to elevate its

quality of life even further.

The author also studied architecture in Australia and Europe, spending a few days in a couple of the cities explored as precedent studies – Sydney and London – while experiencing several other urban waterfronts that were used as a frame of reference in comparison, but not part of the precedents.

Although less formal, observation was imperative to generating a qualitative understanding of the project site and of waterfront spaces.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Long-distance communications gave additional information and resources.

An email interview with Ben McGhee, current Architectural Masters Student at TU Delft, was conducted to get a first-hand report through observation of waterfronts in the Netherlands.

This also assisted with qualitative understanding and gave an outside opinion. Phone calls and emails with practicing architects in Charleston provided access to city information and resources, such as a sea level study conducted by Clemson University.

PROCESS As previously stated when describing the project, assumptions were made to narrow the scope of a vastly complex design problem.

All findings were organized into major themes to draw conclusions for possible strategies that could be implemented in the study and project. Throughout the process, formal meetings with thesis advisors and informal communication with practicing architects gave feedback, critiques, resources, and direction to the study. The resulting ideals and waterfront ideas were then tested in a design project, as part of a self-directed semester studio.

The Elephant 31

PRECEDENT ANALYSIS A number of precedents were studied to give insight into industrial edge transformations, city-water connections, water culture integration into design, resilience strategies, and water management strategies. Because the implementation of these topics exist at both a large and small scale, the studies were categorized into waterfront districts and waterfront buildings. To compare the precedents and evaluate their success, the following topic rubric was created.

These topics were derived from the research compiled in the Approaches section, and include both quantitative, measureable categories, plus others that are qualitative. Rankings are based on a three-point system, to determine how well the project satisfies each topic.

DISTRICTS Land Use Amount of diversity in uses Activities Number of different activities for residents or visitors to do Walkability Density, proximity of destinations, and infrastructure design to promote walking City Connection Uninterrupted connection between the city and waterfront Water Management Viability of the district’s overall system for managing water and resilience Pedestrian Priority The waterfront is reserved for pedestrians

32 The Elephant

Private / Public Relationship Physical or visual connection to promote a holistic district and security Social / Economic Sustainability Opportunity for people of all income brackets to live in the district BUILDINGS Water Management Viability of the system for collecting and reusing water on-site, while providing resilience Visual Connection Views of the water from the interior Interior / Exterior Unification Visual and physical connection to the surroundings for spatial integration Waterfront Access Physical access to the water’s edge Waterfront Program Program and activity existing along the water City Connection Uninterrupted connection to the city Cost Feasibility Viability of the project expense

The Elephant 33

34 Waterfront Districts

P

R

E

C

E

D

E

N

T S

W aterfront D istricts

Waterfront Districts 35

BACK BAY CHARRETTE Land Use Activities Walkability City Connection Water Management Pedestrian Priority Private / Public Relationship Social / Economic Sustainability BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS Urban Land Institute (conceptual study report) The Back Bay district makes up the historic roots of Boston along the Charles River Basin, and is the city’s most valuable real estate. Its heritage has given it a very walkable street design with mixed use building types, but the area is only four feet above high tide and in great risk of flooding or even permanent inundation in the future.60 The city realizes the danger, and two efforts for action have been initiated so far.

One initiative was a report project prepared for the Boston Society of Architects, entitled “Building Resilience in Boston,” and intended to provide “best practices for climate change adaption.”61 Although highly praised by the media, this report does not even come close to giving justice to its title, and only lists a 3.1 / OPPOSITE Aerial view of Back Bay 3.2 / TOP Sea level rise simulation under current conditions

36 Waterfront Districts

set of negligible, even insignificant, approaches when considering its originally stated goals. Considering the current natural disaster risks and sea level rise scenarios referenced in this thesis, big moves are needed in the city plan and the architecture if Back Bay is to have any chance at being above water in the future. Instead, the report suggests strategies such as mitigating heat island effect, adding pervious pavement, increasing drain pipes, retrofitting homes to take on flood waters, waterproofing exteriors, increasing structural requirements, and resorting to adding places of refuge.62 While these are good environmental and planning moves, they miss the root of the problem entirely – water – and take the approach of creating barriers rather than actual design management that addresses how living can exist with water.

A second, more valuable initiative was conducted with a charrette to come up with ideas for a future of integrating water into the district, as a method for infrastructure solutions.

The goal of this was “embracing daily flooding as an opportunity, not just a threat”.63 Although speculative and often labeled “radical,” this study provides applicable design decisions dealing with water management and urban edge design. It is relevant to

Waterfront Districts 37

Charleston, because Boston has similar waterfront conditions and concerns, as both are located just off the coastline in a bay, with rivers feeding from inland, have expanded through infilling marshes, have low elevations, have mostly historic buildings, have some industrial edges, and are vulnerable to inundation.

One main outcome of the charrette, was the idea for a canal system to “celebrate living with water much in the way Venice and Amsterdam have for centuries.”64 The plan would integrate canals into the N-S streets and E-W allies, allowing the existing grid and successful city fabric to continue functioning. Storrow Drive would be converted into a “water-controlling canal,” which would regulate water flow into the other canals per management needs, while constructed wetlands and bermed parklands would provide additional relief areas for water retention, plus more recreation space.65 All of this would replace the Charles River Dam through phased implementation, and would result in a decentralized solution by regulating water at each canal inlet.66 Additional advantages include improving the quality of living in the area by increasing walking, biking, and water activities; connecting to the Charles

38 Waterfront Districts

River; and creating pleasant street landscapes. Charleston has a similar potential for canal integration into its historic streets, as suggested by city planner Jacob Lindsey. A vital addition to make the Back Bay plan successful is a strategy for regional or national water management, which the charrette did not address.

3.3 / TOP View of a proposed canal down an existing street 3.4 / ABOVE Suggested network plan of canals

Waterfront Districts 39

LOWER MANHATTAN PROPOSAL Land Use Activities Walkability City Connection Water Management Pedestrian Priority Private / Public Relationship Social / Economic Sustainability NEW YORK, NEW YORK Museum of Modern Art An exhibit at MoMA in 2010 called Rising Currents showcased design ideas for the future of the city’s Upper Bay waterfronts.

Five architecture firms from New York presented proposals for five zones as test sites, considering future climate change conditions. The project responded to Hurricane Sandy, in an effort to start planning for future ecological and infrastructural issues amid higher water levels.67 The zone proposal for Lower Manhattan (Architecture Research Office and dlandstudio) is most applicable to urban waterfront design, as it suggested green streets and a new protective edge.68 Streets would have new soft and hard infrastructure with porous paving, wide greenways, water collection plazas, and plants to absorb water.69 The intent is to create a new ecological infrastructure that works with the existing fabric to provide a water management system, while also giving new opportunities for parks.70 To protect against sea levels and storm surges, the coastline would incorporate three systems: “a productive park 3.5 / OPPOSITE Visioning design for a protective, ecologial layered waterfront edge 3.6 / TOP New green water management network integrated into the street system 40 Waterfront Districts

network, freshwater wetlands, and tidal salt marshes.”71 The result is a layered system that slows down and filters water, while reintroducing biodiversity.

These design ideas introduce exciting visions of urban life with water and ecology integration.

Especially notable is that the proposals keep water management above ground for effectiveness, and provide possibilities for urban parks.

However, for the sunken greenways along streets to be successful, it would be important to consider how program and activities could be integrated to make them useable space rather than just lifeless voids, especially if busy traffic is on either side. This is similar to the lowered dry Turia riverbed that runs through Valencia, Spain, which serves as a long park and place where cyclists can ride interrupted through the city.

The New York proposals give insight as to how ecology can be incorporated into water management and the urban fabric.

Compared to Charleston, New York’s building scale is much larger, with wider street systems, but the proposed ideas can still give inspiration to collecting and managing water above ground by integrating a new typology of streets into existing context. Additionally, a similar coastline system of wetlands and marshes could be returned to a portion of the shores in Charleston, where they once existed, to serve as a viable method for living breakwater.

3.7 / MIDDLE Green porous streets 3.8 / BOTTOM Sunken greenway for water collection and an urban park

Waterfront Districts 41

HAFENCITY Land Use Activities Walkability City Connection Water Management Pedestrian Priority Private / Public Relationship Social / Economic Sustainability HAMBURG, GERMANY Kees Christiaanse / ASTOC (master plan) One of largest city expansions in Europe, HafenCity will increase Hamburg’s city center by forty percent.72 The district sits along Elbe River, off the North Sea, and was originally all industrial use until its shipping ports moved south in the 1990s and freed up new space.73 KCAP and ASTOC won the design competition in 2000, and construction is expected to be complete around 2025.

HafenCity has the benefit of learning from other city waterfront developments, and is an excellent example of mixed-use development, which includes housing, offices, retail, museums, schools, a university, a performing arts center, and parks.74 Tides fluctuate nine feet every day and tragic flooding in the past made water an issue for the city. Flood gates, dams, or dikes around the area 3.9 / OPPOSITE View showing construction in progress along one of the waterways 3.10 / TOP New developments include a tiered urban park and buildings elevated on a plinth

42 Waterfront Districts

were not economically feasible; rather, the design focused on ways to build outside the dike.75 The result is a new master plan is entirely based around water: a response to sea levels, tides, and storm surges.

The entire district is raised above on 8 m high plinths, with parking garages below rather than at street level, as well as some restaurants, which are protected by flood gates.76 However, 10 km of walkways follow the waterlines, allowing for a greater connection with pedestrians and enjoyable places for recreation.77 The district is also connected to the city by a bike network and is constructing an underground metro.78 Water plazas are an essential element of the design, which form urban parks in the quays that gradually step down to the water and can be submerged when water levels rise.79 Floating mooring pathways exist in the harbor basins.

As a part of the district, Herzog and de Meuron designed a landmark music venue that sits as a jewel on top of a former warehouse at the end of the western land strip.

With a few exceptions, almost all building heights were limited to eight stories to respect the historic city center and maintain visibility, and the design of the new blocks maintained

important sightlines.80 However, HafenCity seems to lack internal, on-site water management.

Its raising above the ground is the only defense strategy, and the area does not have a district-wide system to manage any rainwater that falls other than typical drainage pipes.

Additionally, while views of the water are phenomenal from many points in the city due to the distribution of several islands, the raised construction separates residents from a personal connection with the water, unless they make walking along the lower pathways that line the waterfront part of their daily routine. The district also has a heavy car reliance, with a network of roadways that seem to make the area less walkable, but creates a good solution to remove parking from street level.

The designs of HafenCity apply to Charleston, because both cities exist in an area where water levels are not regulated by a regional system, unlike the Netherlands, yet in HafenCity, water has been made the heart of the master plan. HafenCity is also a similar scenario to Charleston, since it expanded its city center as a new district that connects to the historic, but introduced a new city model with raised construction and water plazas. The design invokes goals

44 Waterfront Districts

as to what is needed in Charleston: a strategy for living with the water and a connection to the waterfront. And, HafenCity’s overarching achievement is the biggest inspiration: “that building outside the dike is safe and responsible,” as “people who live there are conscious of what it means to live with the water.”

3.11 / TOP HafenCity was formerly an industrial district dominated by ports 3.12 / ABOVE View of the waterfront after redesign

Waterfront Districts 45

CANARY WHARF Land Use Activities Walkability City Connection Water Management Pedestrian Priority Private / Public Relationship Social / Economic Sustainability LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill (master plan) The master plan for Canary Wharf was developed to transform an abandoned industrial zone into a new financial district for London.81 The urban revitalization project included over twenty building sites and four districts. While the plan created a framework of infrastructure, it focused on enhancing a way of life with the outdoor environment, most notably by integrating the design with water basins and waterfront promenades.

The district was linked to the city of London by joining with the London Underground metro system, while an elevated light-rail system allows transportation within the site, and walkability was emphasized.

The project is proof for the opportunity in reclaiming industrial waterfront as a vital resource to the city. It also demonstrates good district design with pedestrian priority, civic, and public space. It is an example for bringing water into the site for enjoyment, activities, and a constant part of visitor experience.

3.13 / OPPOSITE View down a water basin 3.14 / TOP Master plan by SOM 3.15 / ABOVE Aerial view 46 Waterfront Districts

KOP VAN ZUID Land Use Activities Walkability City Connection Water Management Pedestrian Priority Private / Public Relationship Social / Economic Sustainability ROTTERDAM, NETHERLANDS Teun Koolhaas (master plan) Formerly an abandoned port, Kop van Zuid was a redevelopment effort to unite the north and south ends of Rotterdam, divided by the Nieuwe Maas waterway.

The design exists outside the dike, and its objectives were to create a vibrant mixed-use urban area, while connecting the central business district.82 With some of the tallest buildings in the Netherlands, the district includes two universities, hotels, housing, a theater, historic buildings, and restaurants, and some of the buildings were designed by famous architects.

Kop van Zuid successfully united the city, and visually appears to shift the city center.83 It also has become a landmark with the Erasmus bridge as a new face for Rotterdam, connecting new with the historic. Its edge reserved for pedestrians and is designed to interact with the water. As such, people are visually and audibly connected with the activities happening in the harbor and along the waterway, enforcing the Dutch idea of water as leisure.

3.16 / OPPOSITE Aerial view of the Wilhelminapier district of Kop van Zuid 3.17 / TOP Industry once dominated the site 3.18 / BOTTOM Master plan 48 Waterfront Districts

DARLING HARBOUR Land Use Activities Walkability City Connection Water Management Pedestrian Priority Private / Public Relationship Social / Economic Sustainability SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA Darling Harbour Authority Darling Harbour was one of Sydney’s first industrial waterfronts and was its busiest port in the 1800s. However, when worldwide technology advanced, the port fell out of use and its industrial buildings sat abandoned. When the city prepared for the 1988 Australian Bicentennial and the 2000 Olympic Games, the Darling Harbour Authority was formed and created a master plan.

This reawakened the harbor and spurred a string of construction projects, new buildings, and waterfront developments.

Notable Australian architects created landmark buildings for the site, which include an aquarium, convention center, maritime museum, exhibition center, restaurants, retail, hotels, and parks. The harbor is still being expanded today, with a one billion dollar investment plan for additional entertainment, convention, and exhibition, as well as a new urban neighborhood.84 3.19 / OPPOSITE Aerial view of the harbor, with downtown Sydney on the right 3.20 / TOP View along the horseshoe plaza 3.21 / BOTTOM Harbourside Shopping Centre opens out to the harbor and plaza

50 Waterfront Districts

The immensely successful harbor provides a crucial link between downtown Sydney and the waterfront, connecting to the arteries of the city.

Most importantly, the civic redevelopment creates a vibrant place of public activity. The entire area is walkable, with a brick promenade along the water, and exclusive to pedestrians.

Almost all structures are oriented toward the harbor with a horseshoe shape, providing ease of access, openness, convenience, and interiorfocused views of the water and boats.

A multi-use program provides enough activities for all interests and ages, keeping the district filled with people and lively. Success for the development was also due to the city’s top-down approach and committed investment.

VENICE Land Use Activities Walkability City Connection Water Management Pedestrian Priority Private / Public Relationship Social / Economic Sustainability VENICE, ITALY Venice has enough history to be an entirely separate study, so this precedent will take an anecdotal approach by mainly focusing on the quality and significance of the waterfront spaces the city planning has created. Venice is an archipelago made up of several islands, but is now mainly all a commercial tourist city. Because of this, it lacks social / economic sustainability and a native residential population, most of who live inland and commute daily to the islands due to being driven out by the inflated cost of living and declining quality of life.85 The canals were originally created as the primary means of transportation, and they still have this function today, since the island network lacks an overall land organization, making it difficult and time consuming to navigate by foot. However, the city has an amazingly vibrant connection 3.22 / OPPOSITE View down the Grand Canal 3.23 / TOP Buildings lining the Grand Canal 3.24 / BOTTOM An inner canal

52 Waterfront Districts

to the water, at almost every turn.

The wide main canals have taken on a very public atmosphere with tons of activities filling the water, such as boats, gondolas, and kayaks. This is accompanied by the outdoor seating of restaurants lining the waterfront paths.

The narrower interior canals assume a quieter and more private nature, as the density of buildings is increased to the point where the canals form the alleys between structures. Small shops line the walkways with occasional plazas and many turns that encourage exploration. The structure of the canals and density of the buildings make the islands entirely pedestrian oriented, walkable, and comfortable, with the exception of the crowds of tourists and frustration of navigation.

Yet, Venice has been plagued by a lack of a regional water management system, as flooding frequently occurs due to the low elevation, while past subgrade pumping started to cause the islands to sink (prohibited in 1960).86 In 2003 construction began for a storm surge barrier that would seal off the city from the Adriatic Sea during high water.87 Planning and interior building design has adapted to the inundation by allowing water to routinely flow in and out of the ground level, without causing damages.

54 Waterfront Buildings

P

R

E

C

E

D

E

N

T S

W aterfront B uildings

Waterfront Buildings 55

SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE Water Management Visual Connection Interior / Exterior Unification Waterfront Access Waterfront Program City Connection Cost Feasibility SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA Jorn Utzon One of the most iconic works of architecture, the Sydney Opera House serves as a landmark to identify the city. Most notably, its formal concept directly references the harbor, as the shells that enclose its auditoriums relate to the sails on a ship. Its plan protrudes into the harbor in order to allow water to surround all sides of the site. The building is also elevated on a pedestal with a grand set of steps, creating a processional entry. More importantly, these design decisions allow the visitor to gain a perspective of the surrounding harbor.

Indoors, an elevated reception lobby was designed to face the harbor, providing panoramic views of the water, activity, and Harbour Bridge.

Outdoors at ground level, cafes and bars activate the waterfront with activity. The opera house anchors the harbor and ties into the horseshoe plaza, while assisting way-finding, due to its visibility from many directions.

The design shows how a single building can become an iconic marker for a city and its waterfront, while providing multiple opportunities to experience the waterfront environment from both the exterior and interior.

56 Waterfront Buildings

4.1 / OPPOSITE Aerial view of the harbor icon 4.2 / TOP View from the north lobby 4.3 / BOTTOM Cafes and restaurants below the Opera House line the waterfront

OSLO OPERA HOUSE Water Management Visual Connection Interior / Exterior Unification Waterfront Access Waterfront Program City Connection Cost Feasibility OSLO, NORWAY Snohetta The Oslo Opera House is the first building to anchor a new waterfront development in Oslo. It’s obvious and unique design concept is a marble roof that gradually slopes down to meet the plaza, which in turn gradually slopes and disappears into the harbor. In this way, the opera house dynamically occupies the water edge, and allows the public to have multiple perspectives of the water. They can touch and interact with the water or view it from above when on the roof, while the large planar space creates a place for activities and encourages people to visit.

The design incorporates a large amount of transparency, providing a view to see activities both inside and out. This also allows the building to illuminate the site at night.89 In addition to being a civic hub, the project is important to the urban edge of the city, because the architecture itself provides a transition to the water, allowing the city fabric to extend directly into the harbor. As a result, the design of the project creates vibrancy along the water by allowing access, encouraging discovery, and activating the city’s waterfront.

4.4 / OPPOSITE Plaza extending into the water 4.5 / TOP Access bridge and plaza 4.6 / BOTTOM Interior lobby 58 Waterfront Buildings

EYE FILM INSTITUTE Water Management Visual Connection Interior / Exterior Unification Waterfront Access Waterfront Program City Connection Cost Feasibility AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS Delugan Meissl Associated Architects With a prime location on the edge of the IJ river, the design concept of the Eye Film Institute is for the architecture to act as scenography, constantly interacting with its surroundings. The building occupies a former wasteland in the city, and now allows the public to walk along the water with a promenade that connects to a waterfront park.

Spaces within the building also engage the water with framed views out, and the building’s folds create an upper level restaurant terrace that overlooks the river.88 The Eye is significant because it anchors its district of waterfront development.

The design encourages a connection with water both inside and around the building. Forms and slopes are utilized to step down to the water, as well as to provide unique views lifted off the ground toward the city.

4.7 / OPPOSITE Harbor view 4.8 / TOP Cafe looking out to the harbor and city 4.9 / BOTTOM Open, stepped interior

60 Waterfront Buildings

NEMO SCIENCE CENTER Water Management Visual Connection Interior / Exterior Unification Waterfront Access Waterfront Program City Connection Cost Feasibility AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS Renzo Piano The NEMO Science Center takes a new approach to engaging the harbor.

Instead of focusing its design at water level, the building’s main concept is to form a gradual upward slope to create a grand rooftop piazza, which gives elevated views over the entire harbor and the city beyond. This contrasts the interior of the center, which is designed with an inward focus on the exhibits and provides very few windows out.90 However, these design decisions result in a lack of relationship with the surrounding water, despite the building’s prime location. Even though the building is along the waterfront, it lacks the quality, program, visual connection, and activity to make the waterfront a vibrant space for visitors and residents to experience.

To tie in with the historic context, copper was chosen as the material for the exterior façade. In this way, the building respectfully connects with its surroundings, yet keeps a very unique form, influenced by building over the lanes of the IJ Tunnel.91 The building still acts as an anchor point for the harbor, as it is visible from all directions, and is only accessible by walking across bridges or along waterfront promenades.

62 Waterfront Buildings

4.10 / OPPOSITE Aerial view 4.11 / TOP View out to Amsterdam from the rooftop piazza 4.12 / BOTTOM Interior with exhibits

COPENHAGEN OPERA HOUSE Water Management Visual Connection Interior / Exterior Unification Waterfront Access Waterfront Program City Connection Cost Feasibility COPENHAGEN, DENMARK Henning Larsen Architects Completed in 2004, the Copenhagen Opera House sits inside the harbor, completing the axis with the Royal Residence and Frederik’s Church.

One side of the building visually and formally opens up to the harbor with transparency and design expression, while the other side relates to the apartment blocks to the east in scale and form.

An open four-story glass lobby creates phenomenal panoramic views, as it looks across the water to the city of Copenhagen.

The transparency connects the interior with the waterfront environment, assisted by added daylight through skylights, while giving evidence of activity at night when the lobby glows. A restaurant and terrace on the east top floor give additional views of the city 4.13 / OPPOSITE Lobby with harbor views and bridges to the auditorium 4.14 / TOP Harbor view 4.15 / MIDDLE East facade facing apartments 4.16 / BOTTOM Frederik’s Church axis

64 Waterfront Buildings

and harbor.92 The shell of the large horseshoe auditorium is visible in the lobby, appearing to float, and is covered with a contrasting wood skin visible through the glass. Entrances into the auditorium are across balcony bridges that create a dynamic experience and give different levels of views into the harbor.93 Visitors can arrive by boat, since the main entrance faces the harbor, or by the waterfront promenade that connects to the plaza.94 A 32 foot cantilevered roof frames the harbor and creates a waterfront gathering space.95 Constructed canals allow water to surround the opera house and emphasizes its monumentality on an island.96 The building has a beautiful interior and well-designed lobby waterfront connection that addresses the harbor and city beyond. Yet, the opera house was an exorbitant expense, impractical for any city to fund, as its 500 million dollar price tag makes it one of the most expensive ever built.97 Due to its isolated nature, it is a jewel to be looked at, but does not integrate much with the surrounding city fabric in terms of accessibility.

66 Design Principles

D esign

P rinciples

Design Principles 67

PRECEDENT TAKEAWAYS Each precedent provides support for the idea of living with water, gives inspiration for the possibilities of reclaiming industrial waterfronts, and is relevant to Charleston in some form. However, not one can be directly inserted into Charleston’s specific context, because every city has its own regionally distinct characteristics, such as culture, size, history, and style. For example, most of the architecture in Rotterdam takes on a contemporary style, because it was recently built after the city was destroyed in World War II. In Amsterdam, many of the new buildings incorporate glass and steel to juxtapose the existing historic facades.

What these precedents do suggest, though, is an illuminated direction and design criteria for the proposed project.

The district precedents studied are all affected by coastal water levels, yet each city has a unique set of waterfront conditions that shape the appropriate design strategies, such as the surrounding urban layout, scale of the context, and characteristics of the shoreline.

For a successful waterfront, including access, activity

68 Design Principles

opportunities, and water management, it is evident that early big move design decisions are the best solution, rather than just improving the efficiency of the existing city through short-term methods, such as installing pervious paving or building dikes. For example, HafenCity’s elevated district was one of the first decisions that directed the rest of the city’s layout, building designs, and green space opportunities.

To even consider a future of architecture and living that exists with water, design ideas cannot be timid remedies, but new proposals that shift how water and architecture are approached.

The precedents also showed that each waterfront district design has hierarchy in its urban plan. This usually includes giving pedestrians priority along the waterfront in the form of greenways, parks, commercial plazas, or residential developments.

In almost all cases, it also involves designating a jewel building, which becomes an identifier for the district, a landmark for the city’s waterfront, and a component influencing the city fabric. Many times, the jewel building is one of cultural and

civic importance, to merit an elevated architectural style and increased cost, such as a performing arts center or museum.

Each of the precedent buildings had a magnificent waterfront presence, with a strong visual and programmatic connection to the water, and they showed the significance of engaging the water while connecting with the city. Many seemed to make a contextual reference to boats and naval architecture through their formal similarities with ship bows, sails, and gangplanks. Jewel buildings tend to emphasize their hierarchy through formal differentiation from their context, while utilizing transparency and viewing platforms as the primary means to connect the interior to the waterfront atmosphere.

It is important that the jewel building radically exemplifies all the goals of responsible waterfront living, because it will be the most public, have a wide audience, be highly publicized, and represent the city.

However, none of the building precedents considered the vital components

of on-site water management or resource independence, seeming to rely on a central system. They were also designed and built for current conditions, not considering flooding or sea level rise, or even attempting to use architecture to create a solution for these issues, all of which will be paramount to future success.

All of this information creates a pretext for future district and building design in Charleston.

Charleston has an extremely important historical heritage that defines the city’s identity and that must be respected. However, the city and the coastline have been in a state of evolution since it was founded.

New architecture and design should acknowledge both of these and take a regional design approach. This does not mean trying to emulate the past; in fact, it may mean making a distinct difference and defining a new piece of the future – through patterning and architectural language – that speaks to a different perspective and culture of addressing the water. Yet in everything, the sense of place must be continually enriched.

Design Principles 69

DEFINING SUCCESS The following principles serve as measures of success for the project. As such, they act as guidelines during the design process – not to limit, but to provide direction. Each is rooted in personal values and inspired from precedent research.

ABOVE-GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT, COLLECTION, AND REUSE All rainwater must stay on-site through collection or use. Provide aboveground areas for water to be managed and collected, while giving the spaces a dual programmatic purpose when not flooded, serving as a public cultural asset. This eliminates the need to be connected to a main drainage system, which is already overburdened, and creates a culture where every person and every building contributes to the visible solution of water management.

CONNECT TO CITY NODES Link to key existing districts or buildings within the city, through views, direct accessibility, and proximity. Space becomes part of the city fabric and daily life, rather than a destination. From the city core, framed views of the water and the district are aligned.

WALKABLE STREETS Pedestrians take priority and spaces are connected to a walking / biking network.

The scale of streetscapes and buildings are designed to the pedestrian. No reliance on cars: routine automobile traffic is prohibited and limited to parking transition points in the district.

EXPERIENCE WATER Provide opportunities to touch the water and for water-based activities, while giving views of the water from every street.

LEISURE CITY Fun is free, and water is the foundation. Provide spaces for public recreation on both land and water.

COMPLETE PUBLIC ACCESS All city streets, waterways, and land are visible to the public, which encourages safety.

DECENTRALIZED SELF-SUFFICIENCY All buildings produce their own energy through on-site renewables, maintain their own fresh water needs, and recycle their own waste, as a method for efficiency and environmental design.

70 Design Principles

Design Principles 71

VALUES More personal values in design include: SOCIAL 1.

Design and city promote a healthy lifestyle.

2. Diversity of housing between rich and poor.

3. Educate about the environment (i.e. schools).

4. Support the quality of life.

PHYSICAL 5. Form and style reflect and communicate the concept.

6. Concept organizes all systems and spaces.

7. Roofs are visually light-weight.

8. Roofs are occupied: green, contain program, provide views, etc.

9. Spaces have multiple functions.

CONTEXTUAL 10. Respectful of context, but does not try to recreate it (especially historical context). This relates to scale, alignments, and style.

11. Pattern or scale is defined by context and need.

12. Interior connects with the exterior, through views, flow of space, function, and materials.

13. The first floor addresses the public realm, with visibility in, evidencing the action inside.

ENVIRONMENTAL 14. Form responds to the environment.

15. Primary interior lighting is through daylight.

16. Buildings produce all of their energy needed through green power generation.

ECOLOGICAL 17. Take advantage of edge conditions. These are the most dynamic, such as where water and land meet.

18. Promote and integrate rich ecological development as an identity of place.

72 Design Principles

Design Principles 73

74 The Edge of Charleston

T H E

E D G E

O F

C H A R L E S T O N

The Edge of Charleston 75

25 6.1 / Waterfront Park

25 6.2 / Waterfront Park

31

33 6.4 / King Street

6.3 / Ansonborough Neighborhood

32 6.5 / Vendue Range

34 6.7 / Saint Philip’s Church

29 6.6 / U.S. Customs House

3

6.8 / Charleston Historic City Market

EVOLUTION OF THE EDGE The coastline of Charleston, SC has never been static, but rather in constant evolution ever since the city was founded in 1670. As the population and need for more land expanded, the city incrementally filled in creeks, marshes, and water to grow its footprint, and in turn, altered the contours of its coastline.52 (However, eliminating the natural waterways in the peninsula is a major reason why the streets flood during rainstorms, and especially at high tide.) This process has also created different edge conditions: natural marsh, urban, and industrial.53 Charleston’s coastline has ebbed and flowed throughout history to adjust to the city’s needs, and it should continue to adapt to future needs, which means continually redefining the edge.

Since its founding, Charleston’s waterfront has been occupied as a working edge in some form, due to its commerce originally built on shipping 6.9 / OPPOSITE Site location on peninsula

78 The Edge of Charleston

and trade.54 As a result, its coastline character constantly changed with the needs of industry and economy. It is evident from footprint development maps that the east coast was the center for this industry, since the edge was almost entirely occupied by piers and jetties. While Charleston is still one of the busiest ports in the nation in 2014, many of its operations have moved upriver due to demand and transportation convenience.55 Additionally, advancements in technology throughout history, especially large-scale container shipping, have shifted operations from individual businesses to streamlined big industry.56 This has reduced the general public’s reliance on waterfront access to run their business, and now provides opportunities to utilize the coast in other ways.

The Edge of Charleston 79

Natural Edge

Inhabited Edge

Industrial Edge

80 The Edge of Charleston

1670

1788

1802

1842

1852

1939

6.10 / OPPOSITE Section studies of how the edge at the site has changed over time 6.11 / THIS PAGE Development footprint of Charleston’s coastal edge through history

1949

2015

The Edge of Charleston 81

ASSUMPTIONS NATIONAL LEADERSHIP It is important to understand that storm and sea level resistance is part of a national system and cannot be limited to a single site. Only through a network of management systems, controlled far beyond the reaches of a city, will the concept of living with water be successful. Moreover, all of this requires a national initiative, citywide implementation, and the commitment to bring in needed experts in designing such a system.

Therefore, to set up a framework for the project amidst an incredible amount of design factors, overall regional assumptions must be made, especially in water management and sea level design targets. This is due to the master plan’s scope and conceptual nature, plus the need to have a broader context when considering the viability of a single building and site design that works with a regional system.

REGIONAL PLAN For the overall approach, a regional design plan must accommodate NOAA’s sea level rise predictions of 6.6 feet by 2100,58 otherwise, most Charleston’s peninsula will be underwater. This height closely relates to the six feet of height increase found in the third level of magnitude of Clemson University’s sea level study.59 (See “Why Care?” for Charleston sea level comparison graphics.) The regional water management system will 6.12 / OPPOSITE Sea level studies by the Clemson University School of Architecture

82 The Edge of Charleston

start at the inlet points to the Atlantic Ocean, by initiating a series of locks that allow the regulation of the water level in the Charleston harbor. A sequence of water containment systems must also be implemented inland along the rivers that feed into the harbor. Combined, these strategies will allow the city to focus on managing on-site water gains and for the current infrastructure to exist in the future, despite sea level rise.

DISASTER PLANNING The site and structures must also be designed for resilience in the threat of hurricanes and storm surges, which bring forces and water levels much greater than the aforementioned onsite water management loads. Storm surges create incredibly high influxes of inundation, and since each storm can have a range of variables that determine what actual surge levels will be, the height of 25 feet was selected for the purpose of this thesis. Because all surges bring high water, the focus is not on obtaining an exact number for the water height, but rather on the importance of implementing a regional method for surge mitigation.

This study assumes the implementation of a tiered living edge around the city to absorb waves and will combine with a temporary gate system at the opening of the harbor to keep the swale out.

This allows the focus of the district plan, site, and building to be on managing increased precipitation and wind loads from the storm.

Charleston Peninsula Footprint (2000)

M1 1-Foot Sea Level Rise

M2 3-Foot Sea Level Rise

M3 6-Foot Sea Level Rise

M4 12-Foot Sea Level Rise

25-Foot Storm Surge The Edge of Charleston 83

NEW URBAN CODE Because the edges of a waterfront city are the open to the surroundings, they are the most vulnerable to wind forces, but can also serve as a first line of defense. In this case, a new code will be implemented that defines the city in a series of rings, similar to the design of a crumple zone in automobiles.

Buildings existing on the outermost ring will have the most stringent design requirements to withstand and deflect wind loads. In the event of a hurricane, it is understood that there will always be some form of physical, economic, and social loss to the city. However, through the regional plan and site / building-specific design strategies, all buildings in the new district will survive so that they can continue to function without stopping life around them.

Storms like hurricanes do not need to be entirely negative, as the increased forces of nature can instead be put to beneficial use. It is assumed that power for the district after the storm will continue uninterrupted, as energy from the storm will be harvested, stored, and drive a series of stations, such as with wind and wave turbines.

Other resource supplies will emphasize decentralization in the new code. Food and freshwater will be provided in the district, during disasters and as part of typical daily life. Some buildings in the district will grow food to sustain residents, and each individual building will be required to collect, purify, and

84 The Edge of Charleston

reuse rainwater and gray water as part of its water management system, which will provide fresh water for the building at all times. Each building will also manage its own waste, instead of having a centralized processing plant.

RELOCATION Additionally, a major shipping port exists further inland beyond the site.

Dredging and large waves are currently destroying the coastline and causing erosion, resulting in more dredging.

This also negatively affects the ecology of the harbor. This shipping port (as well as the cruise terminal on the site) should be relocated out to seaside, as other cities have done, in order to spare the inner harbor and allow for positive growth.

The Edge of Charleston 85

REGIONAL PLAN CONCEPTS 6.13 / BELOW Proposed concepts that must take place before district and site design can begin

RELOCATE SHIPPING

PROVIDE INUNDATION PROTECTION

Move inland port to the coast

Deflect surges up to 25 feet Implement temporary gate system

86 The Edge of Charleston

NEW LIVING EDGE

ABOVE-GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT

Save existing historic city

Implement canal system

Reintegrate ecology and ecosystems

Address existing flooding

Consistent public green space

The Edge of Charleston 87

88 Charleston Docklands: District Master Plan

C

H

A

R

L

E

S T O

N

D

O

C

K

L

A

N

D S

D I S T R I C T M A S T E R P L A N

Charleston Docklands: District Master Plan 89

THE PROJECT This thesis enlightens a new way to redefine urban coastlines for the future by applying design ideas to reenvision the Union Pier district on the east coast of Charleston, SC. Through new waterfront strategies and architecture, the project will transform the current cargo port and cruise terminal into a civic district that connects the city with water, is culturally vibrant, and strengthens the sense of place. While integrating into the historic fabric, new patterns and architectural forms will respond to the environment and exemplify the notion of the leisure-city.

The result can guide other coastal cities in redefining their waterfronts for the future and give inspiration for using architecture as a new approach to living with water.

The project will consist of two main parts: a master plan and a single building design. Because waterfront strategies must be solved at a district

level, a new master plan of the site will be created.

Its purpose is to provide a conceptual framework, while also directing the layout, land uses, forms, functions, and contextual connections. Due to the plan’s scope and conceptual level of development, overall assumptions will be made and stated.

Next, a more detailed design for a coastal museum will be proposed, as a way to test the waterfront strategies on an architectural level. The building will serve as the anchor for the site, as evidenced in precedent studies, while filling a community need for Charleston.

The resulting design will be presented in a series of drawings, renderings, and diagrams that explain the building and the site strategies.

7.1 / OPPOSITE Charleston’s east coast

90 Charleston Docklands: District Master Plan

SITE ANALYSIS 7.2 / PREVIOUS PAGE Boundaries of the Union Pier district project site 7.3 / BELOW Context analysis within a 0.75 mile walking radius of the site

0.75 MILE

0.75 MILE

0.5 MILE

0.5 MILE

0.25 MILE

0.25 MILE

INDUSTRY + UNUSED PORT SPACE

GREEN SPACE

Blocks the city from the water

Limited and haphazard

94 Charleston Docklands: District Master Plan

0.75 MILE

0.75 MILE

0.5 MILE

0.5 MILE

0.25 MILE

0.25 MILE

BUSINESS ARTERIES

RESIDENTIAL

Commercial and retail is the heart of the city and its tourism, adjacent to the Union Pier district

Isolated inland pockets bounded by retail, except South of Broad

Charleston Docklands: District Master Plan 95

OPPORTUNITY Two industrial edges and opportunities for intervention currently exist in Charleston: Union Pier Terminal and the Columbus Street Terminal, both located on the city’s east coast. This project will focus on reenvisioning Union Pier as a new district, due to its more significant proximity, importance, and potential influence to Charleston’s city center.

The site currently contains the Cruise Ship Terminal, SCSPA headquarters, and a cargo storage lot, totaling 43 acres of land and 20 acres of pier.57 Due to its private and restricted access, the industrial zone blocks this portion of the city from the water, and results in an abrupt end to many downtown streets. However, the Union Pier district is immensely valuable to Charleston.

Not only is it located along a large stretch of waterfront, but it is also adjacent to the heart of the city and its culture, with Market Street bordering its south. Additionally, it is adjacent to the former edge of the historic Walled City, which contains the richest examples of historic architecture and tradition since the founding of the city. But no historic buildings are located on the site, since the infill maps indicate that the area was recently added in the late 1900s, making it a good candidate for redevelopment.

7.4 / OPPOSITE Enlarged project site with 6 foot sea level rise 7.5, 7.6, 7.7 / RIGHT Views from Washington Street, looking into the Union Pier Terminal

96 Charleston Docklands: District Master Plan

EXPLORATION + CONCEPT STUDIES

7.8 / THIS PAGE Site concept exploration through watercolor

98 Charleston Docklands: District Master Plan

7.9 / THIS PAGE Development of the master plan from concept studies

Charleston Docklands: District Master Plan 99

MASTER PLAN CONCEPT 7.10 / BELOW Identification of big moves 7.11 / OPPOSITE Hand sketch of draft master plan

WATER MANAGEMENT APPROACH (Developed by OMA)

1. Resist 2. Delay 3. Store 4. Discharge 100 Charleston Docklands: District Master Plan

Charleston Docklands: District Master Plan 101

PHASING PLAN 7.12 / BELOW Proposed phasing to implement the master plan

EXISTING EDGE

1 / LIVING EDGE

2 / WATER MANAGEMENT

Protect existing city

Integrate canals to prevent flooding

102 Charleston Docklands: District Master Plan

3 / CIVIC DOCK

4 / PUBLIC + SEMI-PUBLIC DOCKS

5 / NATURAL INFILL

Connect the city to the water

Add businesses and residential

Sedimentation buildup over time to create green edges

Charleston Docklands: District Master Plan 103

CHARLESTON DOCKLANDS THE LIVING EDGE The Charleston Docklands combine all previous studies to create a new waterfront development that both saves the existing city and is a model for living beyond the edge.

To protect historic Charleston from rising sea levels, a living edge was first implemented, which consists of polders that step down from the risen sea level to the existing city. The edge serves as a continuous park system with places for recreation, as well as infrastructure for a monorail that circumnavigates the city. Yet, its polders double as multiple lines of attenuation during water surges.

Canals were selectively added to existing streets to tie into the larger water management plan and address flooding in the city. These connect to an internal waterway, all of which are controlled to manage and regulate water levels.

BEYOND THE EDGE Beyond the living edge is an incredible opportunity to live with water. A series of docks were established, which extend the city’s existing program. At the south is Market Street Pier, which

reconnects the heart of the city back to the waterfront via Market Street. This is a civic dock, due to its connection with the heart of the city and its tourist areas, and the pier culminates with a coastal museum and learning center.

To the north are additional docks that transition from a more public commercial and multiuse back to semiprivate residential.

WATER AND LEISURE The master plan layout takes on a new language beyond the edge, as a way to engage all parts of the plan with water and to design around leisure. The entire plan is scaled to be walkable, like Charleston, while also relating to the city’s building size and street density.

Cars are left in garages at the edge of the district in lieu of pedestrianonly streets, and transportation is also accommodated by boat. At the core of the plan is a harbor, which combined with the other waterways, allows for many waterfront activities.

Green waterfront edges along the entire plan provide places for leisure, as they step down to the waterline. Additionally, a tree and landscape plan allow for urban shading.

7.13 / OPPOSITE Master plan for the Union Pier District, with suggested contextual development

1

Coastal Museum + Learning Center

2

Market Street Pier (Restaurants, Retail)

3

Historic Charleston City Market

4

The Beach

5

Oystertecture

6

Union Harbor

7

Floating Housing

8

Grocery Store

9

Multifamily Housing

10

Parking Garage

11

Mixed Use

12

Internal Waterway

13

Locks

14

Elementary School

15

Residential Tower

16

Retail

17

Aquarium

18

Riverboat Docking

19

Dock Fire Station

20 Quick Clinic Pharmacy 21

Boutique Hotel

22 Education Facility and Info / Library 23 Health and Fitness Club 24 Fish Market and Cafe 25 Park 26 Viewpoint Promentory and Park 27 Belvedere and Water Plaza 28 Light Rail 29 U.S. Customs House 30 Charleston County Public Library 31

Ansonborough Neighborhood

32 Vendue Range 33 King Street 34 Saint Philip’s Church

104 Charleston Docklands: District Master Plan

t

eet Concord Str

e tre eS ott

rl ha

C

17

tre nS et

9

7 11 14

th

9

9

11

7

13 11

9

9

24

16 9

t

e re St

16

t Stre Anson

e tre nS

23

et

e Str

e ab iz El

30

ou

22

9

10

25

lh Ca

7

12

9

20 21

10

et

er

e Str ay

nd xa Ale

B st Ea

gto

in sh Wa

19

16 11

16

11

et

16 15 et

e Str ens aur

et

16

15

16

11 25

16 11

L

tre eS org

26 11

Ge

27

11 15 8

31

5

15

et

ty

cie

So

e Str

6 13

et

h

ort tw

e Str

1 11

n We

tre lS

et

l sse

Ha

reet nckney St

10

Pi

18

11 16 2

11 11

5

11 33

3

reet Market St

29

Q

treet ueen S

State Street

Church Street

Meeting Street

King Street

34

East Bay Street

treet land S

Cumber

4 12

32

25

28

25 NORTH

0

100

200

300

600

Charleston Docklands: District Master Plan 105

LIVING EDGE SITE SECTIONS 7.16 / NEXT PAGE Proposed water management integration in downtown Charleston

7.14 / A-A Living Edge

7.15 / B-B Edge with Development

106 Charleston Docklands: District Master Plan

Charleston Docklands: District Master Plan 107

108 Charleston Docklands: District Master Plan

Charleston Docklands: District Master Plan 109

110 The End of the Dock

A

T he

R

C

E nd

H

3

0

4

of

S T

U

D

I

O

the

D ock

The End of the Dock 111

IDEAS IN ACTION

After setting up the master plan and thesis framework, there was an incredible opportunity to test the ideas studied by involving the work of other students. “The End of The Dock” project was implemented in Ball State’s ARCH 304 studio, taught by Harry Eggink. In the studio, students each focused on developing the end of one of the docks identified in the master plan, specifically proposing a civic piece of architecture. They looked at ideas such as how the end of the dock can become a destination, how the community can be integrated, how buildings can be resilient, and what the new language of architecture would be for living with water. In the process, students produced study sketches, physical models, drawings, and renderings to explore these ideas.

112 The End of the Dock

8.1 / ABOVE “Go with the Flow” Dock Fire Station

by Eric Weed (Pier 19) 8.2 / OPPOSITE TOP Floor plan of “Go with the Flow” by Eric Weed 8.3 / OPPOSITE BOTTOM Circulation diagram of “Go with the Flow” by Eric Weed

The End of the Dock 113

114 The End of the Dock

8.4 / OPPOSITE Process sketches by Justin Martin for “Something’s Fishy” Fish Market and Cafe (Pier 24) 8.5 / THIS PAGE Model studies by Justin Martin The End of the Dock 115

8.6 / OPPOSITE “Freestyle” Health and Fitness Club by Kirstin Baum (Pier 23) 8.7 / THIS PAGE Exploded axon of “Freestyle” by Kirstin Baum 116 The End of the Dock

The End of the Dock 117

118 Coastal Museum + Learning Center

C O A S T A L +

M U S E U M

L E A R N I N G

C E N T E R

Coastal Museum + Learning Center 119

INSPIRATION + CONCEPT

Inspiration for the coastal museum came from the roots of the lowcountry: its saltwater marshes and birds that live there. The marshes evoke a calm feeling through their repetition of waving grasses. This can be viewed from multiple perspectives, either at eye level when kayaking through the marsh or from above when walking over on piers.

Additionally, the Great Egret is an excellent example of the biology that exists in the marsh. Its quiet elegance is visible only when it moves to fly and emerge out from the grasses.

Inspiration also came from the Egret’s wingspan as a source of shelter.

Reconnecting to these roots restores the notion of living with water and can provide a new language for the coastline.

9.1 / ABOVE RIGHT Great Egret: emergence 9.2 / BELOW RIGHT Great Egret: shelter of wing 9.3/ OPPOSITE Lowcountry marsh 9.4 / NEXT TWO PAGES Sketches of chosen concept and additional exploration

120 Coastal Museum + Learning Center

Coastal Museum + Learning Center 121

122 Coastal Museum + Learning Center

Coastal Museum + Learning Center 123

EXPLORATION + PROCESS SKETCHES Multilevel Views + Public Dock

124 Coastal Museum + Learning Center

Public Roof Plaza

Water Transition

Resilience + Energy Collection

Marsh + Oystertecture

Marsh + Egret Resilience

Coastal Museum + Learning Center 125

126 Coastal Museum + Learning Center

Coastal Museum + Learning Center 127

EXPERIENCING THE EDGE INSPIRATION + EXPERIENCE The design for the coastal museum takes inspiration from the marsh and egret to create a place that embodies the idea of the waterfront environment.

The concept lifts up the living edge to house the museum beneath. Doing so allows the coastline to be experienced from multiple perspectives, including from the water itself, along its docks, or above from its flowing green roof.

by hinging down to enclose the delicate glass walls of the museum, offering impact resistance during hurricanes.

The concrete core of the museum also provides stability and the roof slopes downward on the south to mitigate impact. The core also acts as a heat sink to cool the building during Charleston’s hot summers.

The museum is very transparent to connect with the surrounding water environment, and its interior program relates to the exterior context. For example, the interior maritime exhibit continues outward into the harbor with historic boats to tour, and the estuarine exhibit extends down into one of the oystertecture / marsh ecosystems, to be viewed up-close from inside,

THE END OF THE DOCK The entire design is based on a floating dock so that rising sea levels or storm surges are not an issue. The design culminates the end of the civic dock to both welcome visitors arriving by boat and those exploring the end of the dock. A cafe triangulates the space and the public green roof invites visitors to explore the area from a new perspective, overlooking the waterfront activities in the harbor below.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE Wing-like forms glide along the roof to provide shading and cooling via the piazza effect, inspired from the Charleston single house. They are also a source for photovoltaics to produce all the energy for the building. More importantly, they double for resilience

Children from the Dockland’s schools can visit the museum with their class via school boats, learning in the classrooms and out in the surrounding ecosystems. Ongoing research of the coastal edge will also take place in the building, and public events can be held in the auditorium space.

9.5 / PREVIOUS PAGE View from the water when entering the harbor 9.6 / OPPOSITE Rooftop view overlooking the harbor

128 Coastal Museum + Learning Center

Coastal Museum + Learning Center 129

COMPONENTS + PERFORMANCE 9.7 / BELOW Performance diagrams of the roof and wings 9.8 / OPPOSITE Building components

Public access green roof Water collection Harbor + city vantage point

Solar collection via integrated photovoltaics Wind acceleration for cooling via piazza concept Sun shading

Resilience mode Carbon fiber + lexan polycarbonate for force deflection Concrete primary structure

130 Coastal Museum + Learning Center

Carbon fiber frame + hurricane resistant integrated photovoltaics (lexan polycarbonate) Skylights + ventilation

Public access green roof on concrete waffle slab

Wood and steel exoskeleton support columns

Glazing with vertical glass support fins

Floating foundation and dock

Concrete primary structure + infill walls

Marsh + oystertecture colonies

Coastal Museum + Learning Center 131

9.9 / ABOVE Storm + hurricane resilience via shelter of the wings 9.10 / OPPOSITE Multilevel history + biology exhibit gallery looking out to the water 9.11 / NEXT PAGE Floor plans of the museum

132 Coastal Museum + Learning Center

Coastal Museum + Learning Center 133

AUDITORIUM

STOR.

MARITIME

LOBBY

HISTORY

SYSTEMS

LIVING MACHINE

BIOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL EXHIBITS

SUPPORT

ESTUARINE

KITCHEN

CAFE

SEATING

NORTH

0

8

16

24

Ground Level

48

RESEARCH ENVIRONMENTAL EXHIBITS

RESEARCH

OFFICE

OPEN TO BELOW

ENVIRON. EXHIBITS

OFFICE

CLASSROOM

Upper Level Coastal Museum + Learning Center 135

PUBLIC GREEN ROOF

MARITIME EXTERIOR EXHIBIT

FLOATING FOUNDATION

NORTH

0

8

16

24

48

9.12 / ABOVE North-south section through floating pier 9.13 / NEXT PAGE South view from Waterfront Park docks 136 Coastal Museum + Learning Center

MARITIME

LOBBY

ENVIRON. EXHIBIT

ENVIRON. EXHIBIT

ENVIRON. EXHIBIT

GEOTHERMAL

Coastal Museum + Learning Center 137

138 Coastal Museum + Learning Center

Coastal Museum + Learning Center 139

140 Open Water

O pen

W ater

Open Water 141

CONCLUSION This thesis has been an exploration of how cities can reconnect to their waterfronts, yet do so in a resilient way to adapt to disasters and sea level rise. Because there are multiple ways to approach these issues, this work can be viewed as a prototype in testing out one approach. However, the resulting findings can illuminate direction for Charleston and other cities.

Overall, the ideas studied cannot be solved at site level, but must be part of a larger regional plan, engaging the state or national coastline. A framework of water management must first be set in place at this broad scale. It is also important to know how each piece of the plan will affect others, as part of a multidiscipline design.

Interventions should look to work with nature, as well as account for the role of ecology.

Once developing the city, underutilized industrial areas along the coast are excellent opportunities to give back to the public, reconnect the city with water, and create a vibrant waterfront.

In doing so, cities should focus on leisure based around water and strengthening their sense of place. There are many physical means for living beyond the edge, including floating or elevated architecture, but in all cases, new designs must now focus on resiliency.

They must also address self-sufficiency, an ever-changing water line, and the layers of people and culture.

By accomplishing the above, coastal cities will thrive in the future and be successful examples of living with water.

142 Open Water

10.1 / OPPOSITE Presentation boards on display in Ball State University’s College of Architecture and Planning 10.2 / ABOVE Thesis presentation to reviewers and guests

Open Water 143

144 References

R eferences

References 145

NOTES “National Coastal Population Report,” NOAA State of the Coast Report Series, PDF, March 2013, Accessed Oct. 18, 2014, http://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/features/reports.html.

1

Josh Fecht and Tann vom Hove, “The Largest US Cities,” City Mayors Statistics, Accessed Oct. 15, 2014, http://www. citymayors.com/gratis/us-census2000.html.

2

“HAV Superharbour,” Bjarke Ingels Group, Accessed Oct. 15, 2014, http://www.big.dk/#projects-hav.

3

Nick Addamo, “9 Cities That Are Hacking Their Urban Waterfronts,” Architizer (blog), Sept. 17, 2014, http://architizer.com/ blog/reclaiming-the-urban-riverfront/.

4

Ann Breen, and Dick Rigby, Waterfronts: Cities Reclaim Their Edge, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

5

Nick Addamo, “9 Cities That Are Hacking Their Urban Waterfronts,” Architizer (blog), Sept. 17, 2014, http://architizer.com/ blog/reclaiming-the-urban-riverfront/.

6

U.S. Metro Economies: July 2012, Lexington: IHS, Inc., 2012, PDF, http://www.usmayors.org/metroeconomies/0712/ FullReport.pdf 7

“Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States National Climate Assessment,” NOAA, PDF, December 6, 2012, http://cpo.noaa.gov/sites/cpo/Reports/2012/NOAA_SLR_r3.pdf.

8

Robert Miller and Ray Huff, “Global Climate Change + The Charleston Peninsula,” Clemson University School of Architecture, Vertical Studio, CAC.C, 2006-2007.

9

Bonnie Fisher, David Gordon, Leslie Holst, Alex Krieger, Gavin McMillan, Laurel Rafferty, and Emma Stark Schiffman, Remaking the Urban Waterfront, (Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 2004).

10

11

Anne Loes Nillesen and Jeroen Singelenberg, Amphibious Housing in the Netherlands, Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2011.

12

Ibid.

13

Ibid.

14

Ibid.

“Zone V,” Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 7, 2014, Accessed Dec. 6, 2014, https://www.fema.gov/floodplainmanagement/zone-v.

15

16

Ibid.

“Stormwater Education,” The City of Charleston, Accessed Dec. 7, 2014, http://www.charleston-sc.gov/index. aspx?NID=352.

17

Evan Thompson, “The Historical Reason Why Charleston’s Streets Flood,” Charleston City Paper (Charleston, SC), Aug. 21, 2013, http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/the-historical-reason-why-charlestons-streets-flood/ Content?oid=4706751.

18

David Slade. “Charleston Plans to Complete Major Projects to Address Downtown Flooding by 2020.” The Post and Courier. June 20, 2013. Accessed Dec. 6, 2014. http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20130620/PC16/130629921.

19

146 References

“Strategies for Managing Sea Level Rise,” SPUR, Nov. 1, 2009, Accessed Oct. 20, 2014, http://www.spur.org/publications/ article/2009-11-01/strategies-managing-sea-level-rise.

20

“Living Breakwaters,” Buckminster Fuller Institute, Accessed Dec. 7, 2014, http://bfi.org/ideaindex/projects/2014/livingbreakwaters.

21

Tracy McVeigh, “The Dutch Solution to Floods: Live with Water, Don’t Fight It,” The Guardian (blog), Feb. 15, 2014, http:// www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/16/flooding-netherlands.

22

Koen Olthuis and David Keuning, FLOAT, Amsterdam: Frame Publishers, 2010, 148-149.

23 24

Ibid, 152.

25

Ibid.

26

Ibid, 160.

27

= Landscape, Edited by Dirk Sijmons, Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura Press, 2002, 34-42.

28

Koen Olthuis and David Keuning, FLOAT, Amsterdam: Frame Publishers, 2010, 161-163.

29

Ibid, 156.

30

Tracy Metz and Maartje van den Heuvel, Sweet and Salt: Water and the Dutch, Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2012, 175.

31

Ibid, 176.

32

Ibid.

“Rotterdam: The Water City of the Future,” WaterWorld, Accessed Oct. 20, 2014, http://www.waterworld.com/articles/ wwi/print/volume-25/issue-5/editorial-focus/rainwater-harvesting/rotterdam-the-water-city-of-the-future.html.

33

34

Ibid.

35

Tracy Metz and Maartje van den Heuvel, Sweet and Salt: Water and the Dutch, Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2012, 178.

“Rotterdam: The Water City of the Future,” WaterWorld, Accessed Oct. 20, 2014, http://www.waterworld.com/articles/ wwi/print/volume-25/issue-5/editorial-focus/rainwater-harvesting/rotterdam-the-water-city-of-the-future.html.

36

“Flotation,” Boundless Physics, Nov. 14, 2014, Accessed Dec. 6, 2014, https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/ boundless-physics-textbook/fluids-10/archimedes-principle-93/flotation-346-5594/.

37

Morgana Matus, ”World’s First Floating Apartment Complex,” Inhabitat, Oct. 5, 2013, Accessed Dec. 6, 2014, http:// inhabitat.com/worlds-first-floating-apartment-complex-to-begin-construction-in-2014/.

38

39

Koen Olthuis and David Keuning, FLOAT, Amsterdam: Frame Publishers, 2010.

40

Ibid.

41

Ruth Slavid, Extreme Architecture, London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd, 2009, 167.

“Amphibious House,” Baca Architects, Accessed Dec. 6, 2014, http://www.baca.uk.com/index.php/living-on-water/ amphibious-house.

42

References 147

43

Ibid.

Anne Loes Nillesen and Jeroen Singelenberg. Amphibious Housing in the Netherlands. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2011, 59.

44

45

Ruth Slavid, Extreme Architecture, London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd, 2009, 168.

46

Ibid.

Pelsmakers, Sofie, “Living with Water: Four Building that Will Withstand Flooding,” The Conversation. Feb. 25, 2014, Accessed Dec. 6, 2014, http://theconversation.com/living-with-water-four-buildings-that-will-withstand-flooding-23536.

47

“Topsider Homes’ Piling, Pier and Stilt Houses and Hurricane Home Plans,” Topsider Homes, Accessed Dec. 6, 2014, http:// www.topsiderhomes.com/piling-pier-stilt-house-hurricane-home-plans.php.

48

49

Ibid.

Pelsmakers, Sofie, “Living with Water: Four Building that Will Withstand Flooding,” The Conversation. Feb. 25, 2014, Accessed Dec. 6, 2014, http://theconversation.com/living-with-water-four-buildings-that-will-withstand-flooding-23536.

50

Laura A. Delaney Ruskeepaa, “Adaptation and Adaptability; Expectant Design for Resilience in Coastal Urbanity,” B.Arch thesis, Pratt Institute, 2007.

51

Evan Thompson, “The Historical Reason Why Charleston’s Streets Flood,” Charleston City Paper (Charleston, SC), Aug. 21, 2013, http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/the-historical-reason-why-charlestons-streets-flood/ Content?oid=4706751.

52

Cooper, Robertson, and Partners, “Concept Plan for Union Pier Waterfront” (PDF concept study presented to SCSPA, September 2010), accessed Sept. 10, 2014, http://scspa.com/unionpierplan/index.html.

53

54

Ibid.

“South Carolina Ports,” South Carolina Port Authority, Accessed Dec. 6, 2014, http://www.port-of-charleston.com/default. asp.

55

“History of Containerization,” World Shipping Council, Accessed Dec. 6, 2014, http://www.worldshipping.org/about-theindustry/history-of-containerization.

56

Cooper, Robertson, and Partners, “Concept Plan for Union Pier Waterfront” (PDF concept study presented to SCSPA, September 2010), accessed Sept. 10, 2014, http://scspa.com/unionpierplan/index.html.

57

“Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States National Climate Assessment,” NOAA, PDF, December 6, 2012, http://cpo.noaa.gov/sites/cpo/Reports/2012/NOAA_SLR_r3.pdf.

58

Robert Miller and Ray Huff, “Global Climate Change + The Charleston Peninsula,” Clemson University School of Architecture, Vertical Studio, CAC.C, 2006-2007.

59

The Urban Implications of Living with Water, Edited by Virginia Quinn, Boston: Urban Land Institute, 2014, http://boston. uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2012/04/ULI_LivingWithWater-Final1.pdf.

60

148 References

Linnean Solutions, The Built Environment Coalition, and The Resilient Design Institute, “Building Resilience in Boston,” Report for the Boston Society of Architects, July 2013, Accessed Oct. 7, 2014, http://www.greenribboncommission.org/ downloads/Building_Resilience_in_Boston_SML.pdf.

61

62

Ibid.

63

Ibid, 26.

64

Ibid.

65

Ibid, 26-27.

66

Ibid.

67

Koen Olthuis and David Keuning, FLOAT, Amsterdam: Frame Publishers, 2010, 133.

“Rising Currents,” Architecture Research Office, Accessed Dec. 6, 2014, http://www.aro.net/#rising-currents-a-newurban-ground.

68

Cilento, Karen, “Rising Currents at MoMA,” ArchDaily, March 25, 2010, http://www.archdaily.com/53736/rising-currents-atmoma/.

69

“Rising Currents,” Architecture Research Office, Accessed Dec. 6, 2014, http://www.aro.net/#rising-currents-a-newurban-ground.

70

71

Ibid.

72

Tracy Metz and Maartje van den Heuvel, Sweet and Salt: Water and the Dutch, Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2012.

73

Ibid.

74

Ibid, 181.

75

Ibid.

Anne Loes Nillesen and Jeroen Singelenberg. Amphibious Housing in the Netherlands. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2011, 50.

76

77

Tracy Metz and Maartje van den Heuvel, Sweet and Salt: Water and the Dutch, Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2012.

Anne Loes Nillesen and Jeroen Singelenberg. Amphibious Housing in the Netherlands. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2011, 54.

78

79

Ibid, 50.

80

Ibid, 54.

“Canary Wharf Master Plan,” Skidmore, Owings and Merril, Accessed Oct. 20, 2014, http://www.som.com/projects/ canary_wharf_master_plan.

81

“Project: Kop van Zuid,” Beyond Plan B, Accessed Oct. 20, 2014, http://beyondplanb.eu/projects/project_kop_van_zuid. html#4.

82

References 149

83

Ben McGhee (graduate architecture student in Rotterdam), email interview by Bryan Beerman, Oct. 20, 2014.

84

Darling Harbour Live, Darling Harbour Live, Accessed Apr. 12, 2014, http://www.darlingharbourlive.com.au/.

Nick Squires, “Is Venice Being Loved to Death?,” The Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 31, 2012, Accessed Dec. 7, 2014, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/1031/Is-Venice-being-loved-to-death.

85

86

Koen Olthuis and David Keuning, FLOAT, Amsterdam: Frame Publishers, 2010, 123-124.

87

Ibid.

“EYE – New Dutch Fiilm Institute,” Archdaily.com (blog), Apr. 10, 2012, http://www.archdaily.com/223973/eye-new-dutchfilm-institute-delugan-meissl-associated-architects/.

88

“Oslo Opera House,” Archdaily.com (blog), May 7, 2008, http://www.archdaily.com/440/oslo-opera-house-snohetta/.

89

“NEMO Science Center,” ArchiTravel (blog), Jan. 1, 2013, http://www.architravel.com/architravel/building/nemo-sciencecenter/.

90

91

Ibid.

“Copenhagen Opera House,” Arcspace.com, Sept. 16, 2004, Accessed Dec. 6, 2014, http://www.arcspace.com/features/ henning-larsen-architects/copenhagen-opera-house/.

92

“The Opera in Copenhagen,” Henning Larsen Architects, Accessed Dec. 6, 2014, http://www.henninglarsen.com/ projects/0400-0599/0553-the-opera-copenhagen.aspx.

93

94

Ibid.

“Copenhagen Opera House,” Arcspace.com, Sept. 16, 2004, Accessed Dec. 6, 2014, http://www.arcspace.com/features/ henning-larsen-architects/copenhagen-opera-house/.

95

96

Ibid.

“The Danish Invasion: How Danish Architecture is Taking Over the World,” Bazis, April 3, 2014, Accessed Dec. 9, 2014, http://bazis.ca/blog/danish-invasion/.

97

150 References

References 151

ILLUSTRATION + PHOTO CREDITS 2.1

Retro Report, In the Shadow of Katrina, photograph, http://retroreport.org/in-the-shadow-of-katrina/.

2.2

The Guardian, Plan for Barangaroo, rendering on photograph, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/ jan/09/barangaroo-sydney-land-lease.

2.3

Huffington Post, Amsterdam Canal, photograph, http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1184022/thumbs/o-AMSTERDAMfacebook.jpg.

2.4

Perkins + Will, Floatyard, Rendering, http://perkinswill.com/work/floatyard.

2.5

The Asahi Shimbum Premium, Maasbommel House, photograph, http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/ amphibious-houses-are-seen-at-a-river-on-october-3-2008-in-news-photo/108677227.

2.6

Baca Architects, Amphibious House, graphic, http://www.baca.uk.com/index.php/living-on-water/amphibious-house.

2.7

Kieran Timberlake, Loblolly House, photograph, http://www.nanawall.com/gallery-detail/3121.

2.8

Deep Ocean Technology, Discus Hotel, rendering, http://www.dezeen.com/2013/01/29/worlds-largest-underwaterhotel-planned-for-dubai/.

2.9

Marcel Frei, Fondazione Querini Stampalla, photograph, https://www.flickr.com/photos/frei/5268060653/.

3.1

Burgess Properties, Back Bay, photograph, http://www.burgessproperties.com/img/uploads/home_bg/backbay_ aerial.jpg.

3.2

Nickolay Lamm, Boston Sea Level Rise, rendering, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/american-cities-sea-levelrises-due-global-warming-gallery-1.1314182?pmSlide=1.1314211.

3.3

Michael Wang, Arlen Stawasz, and Dennis Carlberg, Back Bay, graphics from “The Urban Implications of Living with Water” and posted on the Next City website, http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/resilience-boston-canal-plan-waterrising-sea-level.

3.4

Michael Wang, Arlen Stawasz, and Dennis Carlberg, Back Bay, graphics from “The Urban Implications of Living with Water” and posted on the Next City website, http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/resilience-boston-canal-plan-waterrising-sea-level.

3.5

Architecture Research Office and dlandstudio, Rising Currents, rendering, http://www.architectmagazine.com/ projects/view/a-new-urban-ground/2869/.

3.6

Architecture Research Office and dlandstudio, MoMA Rising Currents, rendering, http://www.dlandstudio.com/ projects_moma.html#prettyPhoto.

3.7

Architecture Research Office and dlandstudio, Rising Currents, rendering, http://www.aro.net/#rising-currents-anew-urban-ground.

152 References

3.8

Architecture Research Office and dlandstudio, Rising Currents, rendering, http://www.aro.net/#rising-currents-anew-urban-ground.

3.9

KCAP, HafenCity, rendering on photograph, http://www.kcap.eu/en/projects/v/hafencity/162.

3.10

Hans Jessen, HafenCity Hamburg, photograph, http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/display/28382617.

3.11

Unidentified, HafenCity – 1980, photograph, http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=182928.50.

3.12

Josh Whalen, HafenCity, photograph, https://www.flickr.com/photos/joshwhalen/8069264181/sizes/l.

3.13

Dominvs Hospitality, photograph, http://dominvsblog.com/plans-unveiled-for-500ft-canary-wharfdocklandsresidential-mega-tower/.

3.14

SOM, Canary Wharf Master Plan, graphic, http://www.som.com/projects/canary_wharf_master_plan.

3.15

Aeroengland, Aerial Photograph of Canary Wharf Docklands London UK, photograph, http://aeroengland. photodeck.com/media/dad26208-e42d-11e3-8528-329e81129ea7-aerial-photograph-of-canary-wharf-docklandslondon-uk.

3.16

Roel Dijkstra Fotografie, Rotterdam wilhelminapier kop zuid luchtfoto, photograph, http://www.roeldijkstra.nl/ archief/Rotterdam.asp.

3.17

Beyond Plan B, Kop van Zuid in History, photograph, http://beyondplanb.eu/projects/project_kop_van_zuid.html.

3.18

Beyond Plan B, Kop van Zuid Master Plan, graphic, http://beyondplanb.eu/projects/project_kop_van_zuid.html.

3.19

Andreea Mihaela, Travel – Curiosities, photograph posted to blog website, http://pasiunirelaxare.blogspot. com/2014/04/sydney.html.

3.21

Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, Harbourside Shopping Centre, photograph, http://www.darlingharbour.com/ shop/harbourside.aspx.

3.22

Wallpaper Up, Venice Grand Canal, photograph, http://www.wallpaperup.com/uploads/wallpapers/2012/05/14/2810/ 3938ac233a7606c28ed236c391a0b7d7.jpg.

4.1

Brands Display, Indian travelers vote for Australia as their favorite adventure destination, 19 June 2014, photograph, http://brandsdisplay.com/indian-travelers-vote-for-australia-as-their-favorite-adventure-destination/.

4.2

Sheila Skillman, Sydney Opera House Concert Hall Northern Foyer, photograph, http://scskillman.com/tag/ masterpiece/.

4.3

Sydney CBD, Opera House Dining, photograph, http://www.urbanwalkabout.com/sydney/cbd/food/cafes/.

4.4

Paula Mary De Angelis, Norwegian Opera House – view from the fjord, 13 Mar 2013, photograph, https:// oftheangelsdesigns.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/norwegian-opera-house-view-from-the-fjord/.

References 153

4.5

Maxine Schnitzer, Oslo Opera House, photograph, http://www.maxineschnitzer.com/index.php#mi=2&pt=1&pi=1000 0&s=24&p=9&a=0&at=0.

4.6

Sustainable Cities Collective, Oslo Opera House, photograph, http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/ futurecapetown/94336/oslo-opera-house-space-people.

4.7

Radwa Omar, Eye Film Institute, photograph, http://radwaomar.wordpress.com/page/2/.

4.8

Victor Lacken, Eye Film Institute, Amsterdam, photograph, Sept. 8, 2012, https://plus.google. com/116947923643606285942/posts/fWXyA2RmV2s.

4.9

Denis Guzzo, EYE Film Institute, photograph, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/movies/a-new-dutch-focus-onfilm.html?_r=0.

4.10

Giulia Cimarosti, NEMO Science Center, Amsterdam, 2 June 2012, photograph, http://www.travelreportage. com/2012/06/02/museums-of-amsterdam/_dsc4885/.

4.11

NEMO Science Center, NEMO’s Roof, photograph, https://www.e-nemo.nl/en/visit/nemos-roof/.

4.12

Disfruta Amsterdam, NEMO Interior, photograph, http://www.disfrutaamsterdam.com/Utrecht.

4.13

Mostly Opera, Copenhagen Opera House, photograph, http://mostlyopera.blogspot.com/2008/10/copenhagenopera-house.html.

4.14

Nathan Siemers, Copenhagen Opera House, photograph, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Copenhagen_ Opera_House.jpg.

4.15

Derek Boshouwers, Opera House, Copenhagen, photograph, Rob Deutscher, Amalienbor Plads and Opera House, photograph, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalienborg.

4.16

Rob Deutscher, Amalienbor Plads and Opera House, photograph, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalienborg.

6.3

Google Maps, Society Street, photograph, https://www.google.com/maps/@32.78423,-79.931549,3a,75y,36h,92t/dat a=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s0meyUKyfJDi1bTlQ_Fjdpg!2e0.

6.6

College Trad, U.S. Customs House, photograph, http://www.collegetrad.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/456.jpg.

6.8

Chainsawcrawford via Panoramio, Charleston City Market, photograph, http://static.panoramio.com/photos/ large/51972731.jpg.

6.9

Google Earth, Charleston, 32°47’09.02”N 79°55’38.94”W, eye alt. 47.33 mi, 7 March 2015, photograph.

6.11

Historic Charleston Foundation, Peninsula Shape, digital interactive map overlays, https://www.historiccharleston. org/Maps/Peninsula-Shape, online images used as base image for each map.

154 References

6.12

Robert Miller and Ray Huff, Global Climate Change + The Charleston Peninsula, presentation boards via PDF, 20062007. The “Charleston Peninsula Footprint” and “25-Foot Storm Surge” images were created by the author, based on the maps from the previous studies.

7.1

David Oppenheimer, The Battery Historic Waterfront Homes Aerial Photo, photograph, http://www. performanceimpressions.com/Charleston_SC_scenic_travel_photos_2013/content/bin/images/large/Charleston_ South_Carolina_aerial_opp5846.jpg.

7.2

Google Earth, Charleston, 32°47’04.04”N 79°55’36.80”W, 1 Mar 2014, photograph used as base image.

7.4

Google Earth, Charleston, 32°47’04.04”N 79°55’36.80”W, 1 Mar 2014, photograph used as base image and sea level was mapped from ClimateCenteral.org.

7.5

Google Earth, Charleston, 32°47’09.02”N 79°55’38.94”W, n.d., photograph.

7.6

Google Earth, Charleston, 32°47’08.44”N 79°55’37.59”W, n.d., photograph.

7.7

Google Earth, Charleston, 32°46’57.08”N 79°55’32.85”W, n.d., photograph.

7.16

Charleston Inside Out, King Street, photograph, http://charlestoninsideout.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ secondsunday.jpg, photograph used as base for rendering.

8.1

Eric Weed, “Go with the Flow” (ARCH 304 project presentation, Ball State University, 22 April 2015).

8.2

Eric Weed, “Go with the Flow” (ARCH 304 project presentation, Ball State University, 22 April 2015).

8.3

Eric Weed, “Go with the Flow” (ARCH 304 project presentation, Ball State University, 22 April 2015).

8.4

Justin Martin, “Something’s Fishy” (ARCH 304 project presentation, Ball State University, 22 April 2015).

8.5

Justin Martin, “Something’s Fishy” (ARCH 304 project presentation, Ball State University, 22 April 2015).

8.6

Kirstin Baum, “Freestyle” (ARCH 304 project presentation, Ball State University, 22 April 2015).

8.7

Kirstin Baum, “Freestyle” (ARCH 304 project presentation, Ball State University, 22 April 2015).

9.1

Ron Reznick, Great Egret Flight, photograph, http://www.digital-images.net/Gallery/Wildlife/Studies/EgretHeron/ Egrets/egrets.html.

9.2

Ron Reznick, Great Egret Flight, photograph, http://www.digital-images.net/Gallery/Wildlife/Studies/EgretHeron/ Egrets/egrets.html.

10.2

Philip Borkowski, Thesis Presentation, photograph (27 April 2015).

References 155

BIBLIOGRAPHY = Landscape, Edited by Dirk Sijmons. Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura Press, 2002.

Addamo, Nick. “9 Cities That Are Hacking Their Urban Waterfronts.” Architizer (blog). Sept. 17, 2014. http://architizer.com/ blog/reclaiming-the-urban-riverfront/.

“Amphibious House.” Baca Architects. Accessed Dec. 6, 2014. http://www.baca.uk.com/index.php/living-on-water/ amphibious-house.

Bergdoll, Barry. Rising Currents. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2011.

Breen, Ann, and Dick Rigby. Designing Your Waterfronts. Washington D.C.: National League of Cities, 1981.

—. The New Waterfront: A Worldwide Urban Success Story. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1996.

—. Waterfronts: Cities Reclaim Their Edge. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

Brown, Peter Hendee. America’s Waterfront Revival. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.

“Canary Wharf Master Plan.” Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. Accessed Oct. 20, 2014. http://www.som.com/projects/canary_ wharf_master_plan.

Cilento, Karen. “Rising Currents at MoMA.” ArchDaily. March 25, 2010. http://www.archdaily.com/53736/rising-currents-atmoma/.

Composition of Oceanic Architecture, Edited by Akio Kuroyanagi and Tomio Watanabe. Tokyo: Process Architecture Co., Ltd., 1991.

“Construction Begins on $2.5 Billion Transformation of Darling Harbour.” New South Wales Government. New South Wales Government, 6 Dec. 2013. Accessed Apr. 12, 2014. https://www.nsw.gov.au/news/construction-begins-25-billiontransformation-darling-harbour.

Cooper, Robertson, and Partners. “Concept Plan for Union Pier Waterfront.” PDF concept study presented to SCSPA, September 2010. Accessed Sept. 10, 2014. http://scspa.com/unionpierplan/index.html.

“Copenhagen Opera House.” Arcspace.com. Sept. 16, 2004. Accessed Dec. 6, 2014. http://www.arcspace.com/features/ henning-larsen-architects/copenhagen-opera-house/.

“The Danish Invasion: How Danish Architecture is Taking Over the World.” Bazis. April 3, 2014. Accessed Dec. 9, 2014. http://bazis.ca/blog/danish-invasion/.

“Darling Harbour Authority.” State Records New South Wales. The State Records Authority of New South Wales, n.d.

Accessed Apr. 12, 2014. http://search.records.nsw.gov.au/agencies/568%3Bjsessionid%3D16C54B3B4321F38DFB76E497F5 5EB709.

Darling Harbour Live. Darling Harbour Live. Accessed Apr. 12, 2014. http://www.darlingharbourlive.com.au/.

156 References

Delta Urbanism: The Netherlands, Edited by Han Meyer, Inge Bobbink, and Steffen Nijhuis. Chicago: The American Planning Association, 2010.

Department of City Planning City of New York. Urban Waterfront Adaptive Strategies.NYC Planning: Department of City Planning City of New York. Department of City Planning City of New York, June 2013. Accessed 2 Feb. 2014. http://www. nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/sustainable_communities/sustain_com7.shtml.

Destination NSW. Destination New South Wales, n.d. Accessed Apr. 14, 2014. http://www.destinationnsw.com.au/.

“EYE – New Dutch Fiilm Institute.” Archdaily.com (blog). Apr. 10, 2012. http://www.archdaily.com/223973/eye-new-dutchfilm-institute-delugan-meissl-associated-architects/.

Fecht, Josh and Tann vom Hove. “The Largest US Cities.” City Mayors Statistics. Accessed Oct. 15, 2014. http://www. citymayors.com/gratis/us-census2000.html.

Fisher, Bonnie, David Gordon, Leslie Holst, Alex Krieger, Gavin McMillan, Laurel Rafferty, and Emma Stark Schiffman. Remaking the Urban Waterfront. Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 2004.

“Flotation.” Boundless Physics. Nov. 14, 2014. Accessed Dec. 6, 2014. https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/ boundless-physics-textbook/fluids-10/archimedes-principle-93/flotation-346-5594/.

“Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States National Climate Assessment.” NOAA. PDF, December 6, 2012. http://cpo.noaa.gov/sites/cpo/Reports/2012/NOAA_SLR_r3.pdf.

Geuze, Adriaan. Residential Waterfront: Borneo Sporenburg, Amsterdam, Edited by Rodolfo Machado. Cambridge: Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 2005.

Goodyear, Sarah. “Designing a Way to Live in Boston’s Watery Future.” Next City. 6 October 2014. http://nextcity.org/daily/ entry/resilience-boston-canal-plan-water-rising-sea-level.

HafenCity Hamburg. Accessed Dec. 6, 2014. http://www.hafencity.com/en/home.html.

Hall, C. Michael. “The Politics of Decision Making and Top-Down Planning: Darling Harbour, Sydney.” Academia.edu.

Academia, n.d. Accessed Apr. 12, 2014. http://www.academia.edu/151979/The_politics_of_decision_making_and_topdown_planning_Darling_Harbour_Sydney.

Hall, Peter. Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2002.

Hasham, Nicole, and Leesha McKenny. “Darling Harbour $1B Transformation.” The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media, 12 Dec. 2012. Accessed Apr. 12, 2014. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/darling-harbour-1b-transformation-20121211-2b7wr.html.

“HAV Superharbour.” Bjarke Ingels Group. Accessed Oct. 15, 2014. http://www.big.dk/#projects-hav.

References 157

“History and Heritage.” Darling Harbour. Sydney Harbor Foreshore Authority, n.d. Accessed Apr. 12, 2014. http://www. darlingharbour.com/learn-explore/history-and-heritage.aspx.

“History of Containerization.” World Shipping Council. Accessed Dec. 6, 2014. http://www.worldshipping.org/about-theindustry/history-of-containerization.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Nov. 1, 2014. Accessed Nov. 12, 2014. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/.

Knox, Paul L. Cities and Design. London: Routledge, 2011.

Krier, Leon. Architecture and Urban Design, Edited by Richard Economakis. Great Britain: Academy Editions, 1992.

Kozloff, Howard. “Sydney’s Darling.” Urban Land, Nov.-Dec. 2001: 82-86.

Lindsey, Jacob. “Charleston Pecha Kucha 16 – Jacob Lindsey.” YouTube. Dec. 18, 2012. Accessed Dec. 7, 2014. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=NP9NVNNlDyA. Linnean Solutions, The Built Environment Coalition, and The Resilient Design Institute. “Building Resilience in Boston.”

Report for the Boston Society of Architects, July 2013. Accessed Oct. 7, 2014. http://www.greenribboncommission.org/ downloads/Building_Resilience_in_Boston_SML.pdf.

“Living Breakwaters.” Buckminster Fuller Institute. Accessed Dec. 7, 2014. http://bfi.org/ideaindex/projects/2014/livingbreakwaters.

Lockwood, Charles. “What Makes a Great Public Realm.” Urban Land Mar. 2006: 55-59.

Lopez, Guillermo. “Public Space Design.” Urban Land Mar. 2006: 60-64.

Matus, Morgana. ”World’s First Floating Apartment Complex.” Inhabitat. Oct. 5, 2013. Accessed Dec. 6, 2014. http:// inhabitat.com/worlds-first-floating-apartment-complex-to-begin-construction-in-2014/.

McVeigh, Tracy. “The Dutch Solution to Floods: Live with Water, Don’t Fight It.” The Guardian (blog). Feb. 15, 2014. http:// www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/16/flooding-netherlands.

Metz, Tracy, and Maartje van den Heuvel. Sweet and Salt: Water and the Dutch. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2012.

Miller, Robert and Ray Huff. “Global Climate Change + The Charleston Peninsula.” Clemson University School of Architecture, Vertical Studio, CAC.C. 2006-2007.

Montgomery, Charles. Happy City: Transforming Our Lives through Urban Design. London: Penguin, 2013.

National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Street Design Guide. Washington D.C.: Island, 2013.

158 References

“National Coastal Population Report.” NOAA State of the Coast Report Series. PDF, March 2013. Accessed Oct. 18, 2014. http://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/features/reports.html.

“The National Map Viewer.” U.S. Geological Survey. 2014. Accessed Dec. 6, 2014. http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/.

“NEMO Science Center.” ArchiTravel (blog). Jan. 1, 2013. http://www.architravel.com/architravel/building/nemo-sciencecenter/.

Nillesen, Anne Loes, and Jeroen Singelenberg. Amphibious Housing in the Netherlands. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2011.

Olthuis, Koen, and David Keuning. FLOAT. Amsterdam: Frame Publishers, 2010.

“The Opera in Copenhagen.” Henning Larsen Architects. Accessed Dec. 6, 2014. http://www.henninglarsen.com/ projects/0400-0599/0553-the-opera-copenhagen.aspx.

“Oslo Opera House.” Archdaily.com (blog). May 7, 2008. http://www.archdaily.com/440/oslo-opera-house-snohetta/.

Pawlukiewicz, Michael, Prema Katari. Gupta, and Carl Koelbel. Ten Principles for Coastal Development. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 2007.

Pelsmakers, Sofie. “Living with Water: Four Building that Will Withstand Flooding.” The Conversation. Feb. 25, 2014.

Accessed Dec. 6, 2014. http://theconversation.com/living-with-water-four-buildings-that-will-withstand-flooding-23536.

“Project: Kop van Zuid.” Beyond Plan B. Accessed Oct. 20, 2014. http://beyondplanb.eu/projects/project_kop_van_zuid. html#4.

Revitalizing the Waterfront, Edited by B.S. Hoyle, D.A. Pinder, and M.S. Husain. London: Belhaven Press, 1988.

“Rising Currents.” Architecture Research Office. Accessed Dec. 6, 2014. http://www.aro.net/#rising-currents-a-new-urbanground.

“Rotterdam: The Water City of the Future.” WaterWorld. Accessed Oct. 20, 2014. http://www.waterworld.com/articles/wwi/ print/volume-25/issue-5/editorial-focus/rainwater-harvesting/rotterdam-the-water-city-of-the-future.html.

Ruskeepaa, Laura A. Delaney. “Adaptation and Adaptability; Expectant Design for Resilience in Coastal Urbanity.” B.Arch thesis, Pratt Institute, 2007.

Ryan, Zoe. Building with Water. Basel: Birkhauser GmbH, 2010.

Savoy, Daniel. Venice from the Water. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012.

Slade, David. “Charleston Plans to Complete Major Projects to Address Downtown Flooding by 2020.” The Post and Courier. June 20, 2013. Accessed Dec. 6, 2014. http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20130620/PC16/130629921.

Slavid, Ruth. Extreme Architecture. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd, 2009.

References 159

“South Carolina Ports.” South Carolina Port Authority. Accessed Dec. 6, 2014. http://www.port-of-charleston.com/default. asp.

Speck, Jeff. Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2012.

Squires, Nick. “Is Venice Being Loved to Death?.” The Christian Science Monitor. Oct. 31, 2012. Accessed Dec. 7, 2014. http:// www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/1031/Is-Venice-being-loved-to-death.

“Stormwater Education.” The City of Charleston. Accessed Dec. 7, 2014. http://www.charleston-sc.gov/index.aspx?NID=352.

“Strategies for Managing Sea Level Rise.” SPUR. Nov. 1, 2009. Accessed Oct. 20, 2014. http://www.spur.org/publications/ article/2009-11-01/strategies-managing-sea-level-rise.

Sucher, David. City Comforts: How to Build an Urban Village. Seattle: City Comforts, 2003.

Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, New South Wales Government, n.d. Accessed Apr. 14, 2014. http://www.shfa.nsw.gov.au/.

Thompson, Evan. “The Historical Reason Why Charleston’s Streets Flood.” Charleston City Paper (Charleston, SC), Aug. 21, 2013. http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/the-historical-reason-why-charlestons-streets-flood/ Content?oid=4706751.

“Topsider Homes’ Piling, Pier and Stilt Houses and Hurricane Home Plans.” Topsider Homes. Accessed Dec. 6, 2014. http:// www.topsiderhomes.com/piling-pier-stilt-house-hurricane-home-plans.php.

Torre, L. Azeo. Waterfront Development. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989.

The Urban Implications of Living with Water, Edited by Virginia Quinn. Boston: Urban Land Institute, 2014. http://boston.uli. org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2012/04/ULI_LivingWithWater-Final1.pdf.

U.S. Metro Economies: July 2012. Lexington: IHS, Inc., 2012. PDF. http://www.usmayors.org/metroeconomies/0712/ FullReport.pdf Waterfront Regeneration, Edited by Harry Smith and maria Soledad Garcia Ferrari. New York: Routledge, 2012.

Waterfronts in Post-industrial Cities, Edited by Richard Marshall. London: Spon Press, 2001.

Wylson, Anthony. Aquatecture. London: The Architectural Press Ltd, 1986.

“Zone V.” Federal Emergency Management Agency. July 7, 2014. Accessed Dec. 6, 2014. https://www.fema.gov/floodplainmanagement/zone-v.

160 References

References 161

Water is a valuable and unique characteristic of coastal cities that creates a powerfully inherent draw, provides leisure, and defines a sense of place. However, it is also a source of risk and disaster, yet people still choose to live on the water. Flooding and hurricanes are a current problem for cities, and will get even worse in the future with sea level rise, which NOAA confidently states will increase as much as 6.6 feet by 2100, affecting over 8 million people in the U.S. Additionally, many cities are not taking advantage of their waterfronts, which are often disconnected, isolated, abandoned, or blocked from the city and its culture.

This combination requires that we rethink how the urban waterfront is designed, in order to live in harmony with the water and accommodate the growing population demand in coastal cities, despite the threats of nature. How can architecture redefine the future of the urban coastal edge, by turning the waterfront from an inaccessible, dangerous, risk-latent environment into a viable cultural asset? This thesis will enlighten a new way to transform unused industrial ports into re-envisioned districts and architecture that connect the city with water, are culturally vibrant, strengthen the sense of place, and are environmentally resilient models for future development.

Creating an urban water culture means that cities must embrace fundamentally new urban designs and architecture that allow water to be based around leisure, accessed as a public amenity, managed through a network system, and connected with the city core. Architecture must exist between land and water, with resilience to adapt to changing conditions. Much can be learned from the Dutch, who have already based their lifestyle around water to live in harmony with it, plus cities such as Venice, which embrace the excitement and leisure that water provides.

Charleston is a prime location to test ideas for a new urban waterfront, as it is already plagued by flooding and is disconnected from its underutilized shoreline, yet its population is projected to surge 45% in 30 years. These strategies will be implemented in designs across multiple scales for the east coast Union Pier district, including a conceptual master plan and the architecture of a landmark building – a coastal museum and learning center. While integrating into the historic fabric and sense of place, new patterns and architectural forms will respond to the environment and exemplify the notion of the leisure-city. The result can guide other coastal cities in redefining their waterfronts for the future and give inspiration for using architecture as a new approach to living with water.