The Turning Point: A Focused Design Study for the Gowanus Canal by Chris Anderson

The Turning Point: A Focused Design Study for the Gowanus Canal A capstone study in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Landscape Architecture Degree at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science & Forestry Chris Anderson, MLA Candidate

Richard Hawks, Major Professor

Department of Landscape Architecture, SUNY-ESF

Martin Hogue, Steering Committee

Department of Landscape Architecture, SUNY-ESF

Andrea Parker, Steering Committee

Executive Director, Gowanus Canal Conservancy

Douglas Johnston, Professor and Department Chair Department of Landscape Architecture, SUNY-ESF

May 2017

Contents Premise

Problem Definition

Case Studies

Summer Work

Site Selection

Goals, Objectives, & Methods

Site Visit

Process

Design Narrative

Project Timeline

Annotated Bibliography

Image Credits

Premise This study will investigate waterways in dense urban areas. The focus will be on the unique challenges and opportunities that arise from the intersection of ecology, infrastructure, and access that occur along urban tidal waterways. The purpose is to provide an adaptive framework for the development of public open space along the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, NY.

Oil sheen on the Gowanus. Photo: Steven Kirsch

Background Throughout the history of human civilization, people have made the deliberate choice to make their homes near bodies of water. From Abidjan to Zürich, countless cities have sprouted up along the shores of oceans, rivers, lakes and streams. According to a joint study by Columbia University’s Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center and the Center for International Earth Science Information Network, approximately 40% of the world’s population lives within 100 kilometers of the coast.1 When other water bodies such as inland rivers and lakes are taken into consideration, it is safe to say that the majority of mankind lives near water. While they may be impressive, these figures do not come as a surprise. Water can provide a wealth of services to those living near it. Most vitally, perhaps, freshwater rivers and lakes can provide a reliable source of water to support growing populations. Beyond simply sustaining life, however, water has acted as a global connector. For millennia, humans have taken to the water to explore unknown lands, harvest food, trade goods and services, and engage in warfare. Ports and harbors dot the coasts on every continent, and many coastal cities are defined by the cultural and commercial exchange that occurs at these hubs. The intersection of land and water holds significance far beyond the anthropocentric perspective. Just as humans have a historic trend of flocking to water, so do plants and animals. Migrating flocks and herds navigate the landscape based on sources of water, in tune with the seasonal ebb and flow of precipitation. Desert oases provide a haven for flora and fauna, all huddled around the precious pool. Despite the fact that these riparian ecosystems generally compose a minor proportion of the landscape, they are typically more structurally diverse and more productive in plant and animal biomass than adjacent upland areas.2 Today, cities around the world are confronted with the challenge of managing expanding urban development, changing roles of harbors and ports, and the growing threat of flooding as a result of climate change. Along with these challenges is the increasing recognition of the important role that natural systems play in urban areas. No longer can a city viewed be as a place separate from nature. The future of cities depends on the integration of our man made infrastructure with the surrounding ecology.

World population density map showing population concentrations in coastal areas

1 Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) of Columbia University. 2006. CSD Coastal Population Indicator: Data and Methodology Page. 2 Montgomery, Gerald L. “Riparian Areas Reservoirs of Diversity”. USDA NRCS, February 1996.

Area of Interest: New York Harbor In few other places around the world are these challenges more apparent and more pressing than in New York City. Throughout its entire history, the city has been defined by its relationship to its waters. In 2011, Mayor Michael Bloomberg went so far as to call the city’s waterfront and waterways its “Sixth Borough”.3 Put simply, New York City would not exist as it does today were it not for the unique confluence of waters that make up its shores. New York City has 520 miles of coastline, more than the coastlines of Miami, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco combined.4 The city as it exists today sits on a strange foundation of ancient sediments, glacial till, and excavated fill, a byproduct of millennia of massive geological forces followed by four centuries of aggressive human urbanization. The great cultural diversity that is so celebrated by residents and visitors of the five boroughs reflects, and has in large parts replaced, the incredible ecological diversity that defined what was once a lush and unique archipelago of small islands. What is it about these islands that makes them such diversity magnets? The answer, of course, comes primarily from the water. Just as riparian ecosystems tend to support a more diverse and productive biology, coastal landscapes allow human settlements to not only survive, but thrive. What makes the New York Harbor landscape particularly unique, however, is its estuarine nature. Estuaries are defined as an area where a river flows into the sea.5 The New York Harbor is far from a simple estuary, however. In reality, it is a complex, interconnected network of rivers flowing toward the sea, ocean currents advancing and retreating with the tides, and bays and sounds in which the cocktail of fresh and saltwater is shaken and stirred vigorously. Across the span of its fifteen hundred square miles, the harbor is washed by some of the most complicated tides in the world, pushing some 260 billion cubic feet of water underneath the Verrazano Bridge and nearly fifty miles north up the Hudson River. The movement and mixture of the water is influenced by a host of factors including seasons, precipitation patterns, lunar phases, and even air pressure.6

New York Harbor at high tide

The concept of a “harbor” brings to mind more than just a physical landscape. It also implies a place of safety and protection. The New York Harbor has historically been such a place for the life that has made its home along its shores. Simultaneously, however, living on the edge brings with it inherent risks. Severe storms, cyclones, and hurricanes regularly pummel the coastline, delivering high winds and flooding, both from precipitation and extreme tidal fluxes. These inherent dangers have been recently and dramatically exhibited by Hurricane Sandy, the historic 2012 storm that flooded vast portions of the city, destroyed thousands of homes, resulted in billions of dollars in damages and claimed the lives of dozens of New Yorkers.

3 Rovzar, Chris. “Mayor Bloomberg Attempts to Rebrand the ‘Sixth Borough’”. New York Magazine, 14 March 2011. 4 The City of New York, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, “Coastal Protection”, A Stronger, More Resilient New York, June 2013, p. 40. 5 “Estuary.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2016. Web. 18 October 2016. 6 Waldman, John. Heartbeats in the Muck. The Lyons Press, 2000, p.10.

Problem Definition If the New York Harbor is a microcosm of the opportunities and challenges that accompany a city built amidst and upon a riparian ecosystem, the Gowanus Canal represents a confluence of factors unique to the city. The Gowanus Canal is a 1.8 mile long waterway in southwestern Brooklyn. It is bordered by the Red Hook peninsula to the west, Carroll Gardens and Cobble Hill neighborhoods to the north, Park Slope to the East, and the Gowanus Bay and greater New York Harbor to the south. Notorious today for its noxious pollution, stagnant waters laced with technicolor chemical sheens, and its infamous status as the final resting place for countless gangsters, the canal has been central to the development of the city for centuries. People have long been drawn to its banks for as many reasons as there are harmful bacteria in its murky waters. Native Americans, Dutch settlers, British soldiers, and many generations of enterprising Brooklynites have all staked a claim along its banks over the course of history. Most recently, much of the conversation surrounding the canal can be broken into three categories: remediation, resilience, and rezoning.

Remediation Most pressing, perhaps, is addressing the canal’s status as one of the most polluted water bodies in the country. Years of industrial use and abuse, combined with poor water circulation and increasing pollution from stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows into the canal have all contributed to its current dismal state. Only in the past decade have significant efforts been made to begin the remediation of the canal. Historic Background Pollution in the canal is not a modern phenomenon. Since its transformation from a natural creek and saltmarsh into a dredged and bulkheaded canal by the end of the 19th century, there have been concerns about the lack of water flow leading to a buildup of contaminants. A Board of Health report from 1876 estimated that an average of 9,187 pounds of solid waste and 10,682 gallons of urine were expelled into the canal each day.7 In 1878, the New York Times would report on a meeting of the Board of Health in which the canal was “pronounced to be offensive and dangerous to the health of the people residing in the vicinity”.8 Ten years later, in 1889, the Times would report that a state funded investigation had declared that “while the canal is a source of great profit to less than one hundred persons, firms, or corporations who enjoy a monopoly of its ownership...the only way to better the canal was to close it up...it was detrimental to health...and therefore an injury in its present condition”.9 In 1911, in a grand public ceremony, a switch was flipped to activate the Gowanus Flushing Tunnel, which had been built over the span of five years and connected the canal with nearby Buttermilk Channel, intending to increase the flow of water through the canal and alleviate some of its noxious odor.10 For the next fifty years, the flushing tunnel would operate and was moderately successful in making the Gowanus a slightly less offensive waterway. Unfortunately, the flushing tunnel was rendered useless in 1960 by a broken propeller-drive shaft, stopping the flow of fresh water. After a long and tumultuous life, “the once world-famous canal was left to rot, and the people in its vicinity left to breathe the fumes”.11 Over the following decades, governmental organizations and civic groups would make a concerted effort to reverse the trend of institutional neglect. Progress proved to be difficult, and was typically tied to a bottom line based on economic viability. In 1973, a former chairman of the New York City Planning Commission met with the Army Corps of Engineering to formally request a federally funded dredging project. This request was promptly rejected by the Corps, as they “did not believe that the economic benefits to be derived from dredging equaled the cost” of the project.12 In 1978, a consortium of concerned neighborhood residents formed the Gowanus Canal Community Development Corporation, a not-for-profit neighborhood organization whose mission is to advocate for the revitalization of South Brooklyn, focusing on the sustainable development of the communities surrounding the Gowanus Canal”.13 In 1981, the full results of an $8.1 million federal study revealed what many had known for over a century; the canal’s waters were almost entirely devoid of free oxygen, had extremely high concentrations of fecal coliform, grease, oil, and sludge, and industrial use had dropped to a mere fraction of what it had been.14 For the next two decades, a similar pattern would play out repeatedly. Complaints about the canal by concerned groups, recognition and study of the problem by authorities, proposal of solutions, but ultimately very little responsibility assigned or action taken.

7 Alexiou, Joseph. Gowanus: Brooklyn’s Curious Canal. NYU Press, 2015, p. 223. 8 New York Times, June 2, 1878 9 New York Times, September 17, 1889 10 Reinhalter, Lauren, “The Gowanus Canal: A Superfund Site”, Documents to the People, Winter 2013, p. 36 11 Alexiou, p. 306 12 Ibid, p. 323 13 Gowanus Canal Community Development Corporation Website, http://gowanus.org/gccdc/?page_id=130, 20 October 2016. 14 Alexiou, p. 327

EPA Superfund Status In December of 1980, Congress voted to pass Public Law 96-510, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. CERCLA is the primary federal program that seeks to identify, assess, and remove or remediate the nation’s most heavily polluted sites. The law also holds companies and organizations responsible for past and current pollution with a liability clause that requires these Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP) to cover the cost of the cleanup. Lacking any PRPs, or if they are unable to cover the cost, the EPA is authorized to tap into a public trust that is funded by petroleum, chemical, and corporate environmental income taxes, otherwise known as the “Superfund”. The jurisdiction of CERCLA was expanded further with the creation of a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) that is used to evaluate sites to be added to a National Priorities List (NPL), a catalogue of sites most in need of long-term remedial response actions.15 After decades of negligible action, the Gowanus Canal was officially assessed by the EPA in early 2009. This investigation revealed dangerously high levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB), heavy metals, coal tars and volatile organic compounds. The assessment earned the canal a score of 50 on the HRS, well above the 28.5 required for inclusion on the NPL.16 Within months, the EPA proposed the addition of the canal to the NPL, subject to a two-month long comment period. Thousands of comments were received, with the overwhelming majority voicing support for the canal’s status as a Superfund site. There was still some dissent, and in keeping with previous attempts at cleaning up the canal, it all came back to money. Some concerns, mostly from the city government, were that labeling the canal as one of the nation’s most polluted sites would stigmatize the area and deter potential real estate investment. In this case, the long-term value of the environment and public health ultimately trumped the potential value in short-term economic growth and development, and the Gowanus Canal was officially added to the NPL as a Superfund site on March 4, 2010.17 The EPA’s decision set in motion a chain of events that is still playing out today, and will continue to guide the future of the canal for decades to come. Within a year of the Superfund designation, the EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, and National Grid (which had been identified as a PRP) initiated a remedial investigation to understand the nature and extent of contamination. Unsurprisingly, the EPA reported that the chemical contamination found in the sediments of the canal presented unacceptable ecological and human health risks. Next was the feasibility study, which explored seven remediation alternatives based on factors such as effectiveness, cost, and implementability. All the solutions involved dredging and capping strategies, and were presented to the public for comments and questions. Simultaneously, the EPA notified over 31 PRPs of their potential liability, including a chemical manufacturing plant, the City of New York, the US Navy, US Postal Service, and the US General services Administration.18 Proposed canal floor cap, from top:

In March of 2013, the EPA published the record of decision, detailing their final $508 million remediation plan. The project is divided into three target areas; upper, middle, and lower canal. The middle section is the most contaminated, followed by the upper and finally the lower, located closest to the bay and with the lowest levels of pollutants. 300,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment will be dredged from the bottom of the canal, dewatered, heated to destroy contaminants, and disposed of off-site. The canal floor will then be capped with clean materials to prevent further contaminant seepage. Additional work will include addressing issues related to combined sewer overflows, excavating several extant basins along the canal’s length, and repairing and improving the flushing tunnel system. This entire process is estimated to be completed by 2022, and will be followed by reviews every five years to assess the effectiveness of the work and prescribe any additional interventions as needed.19

Gravel armor layer Sand and gravel isolation layer Organoclay treatment layer Contaminated native sediment

15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Priorities List, Final Rule--Gowanus Canal, March 4, 2010, www.gpo.gov/fdys; Executive Order No. 12580, Superfund Implementation, 52 Federal Register 2923, January 23, 1987 16 Reinhalter, p. 37 17 Regulations.gov, National Priorities List, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Gowanus Canal. Docket Folder Summary (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0063) 18 Reinhalter, p. 37 19 Loney, Natalie, USEPA, TEDxGowanus Lecture, Brooklyn January 2014

Resilience The area surrounding the Gowanus Canal is, and has historically been, a floodplain. The underlying hydrology has been both a blessing and a curse for those who have chosen to settle the area. Like many other low lying areas of the city, the historic drainage patterns and ecosystems of Gowanus have been largely ignored in favor of development. While this trend has allowed for a robust industrial neighborhood to flourish, the risk of flooding is becoming an increasingly significant hindrance to those who live and work in the area. Historic Background To understand issues relating to the resilience of the area surrounding the Gowanus canal, it is important to understand how the area functioned before the canal was built. While scientists are able to give a fairly accurate depiction of how the underlying geologic morphology of the landscape came to be, the story of the ecosystems that developed upon that landscape are more difficult to determine without first-hand accounts. Much of the historic information regarding the appearance and function of the land surrounding the New York Harbor begins with the famous 1609 voyage of English explorer Henry Hudson. In his book Mannahatta, Eric Sanderson makes a commendable effort of reconstructing the natural systems that existed on the island of Manhattan prior to European settlement, using the Hudson voyage as a reference point. Imagining what Hudson and his crew would have seen from the deck of the Halve Maen (Half Moon)20, Sanderson paints a picture of “Mannahatta’s natural wealth - the old-growth forests, stately wetlands, glittering streams, teeming waters, rolling hills, abundant wildlife, and mysterious people”.21 While most of Sanderson’s study is of the island in particular, he does make reference to the incredible biological diversity of the local waterways, which would have included the Gowanus Creek, the natural precursor to the Gowanus Canal. Henry Hudson’s 1609 voyage up the river that would eventually bear his name was the harbinger of the Dutch settlement that would follow in the coming decades. By the 1630s, officers of the Dutch West India Company were acquiring significant portions of land in the region. Looking for land suitable for both agriculture and eventual settlement, large tracts near the Gowanus Creek were among the first to be purchased.22 It was not long before the western edge of Long Island was “dotted with evidence of agricultural prosperity in a truly Dutch character”, including a number of tidal grain mills taking advantage of the natural hydraulics of the Gowanus Creek.23 Oysters also provided a source of nutrition and income for early settlers, being plentiful in the brackish waters of the salt marshes surrounding Gowanus Creek.

20 21 22 23

Calandro, Daniel, Arctic Explorers: The Three Ships of Henry Hudson, Hudson River Valley Institute, 2006, p. 2. Sanderson, Eric, Mannahatta: A Natural History of New York City, Abrams, 2009, p. 10 Alexiou, p. 8 Ibid, p. 34

There were even early forays into canal digging. A mill owner by the name of Adam Brouwer proposed a project to the governor, writing “there is situate a kill...which might be made fit to pass through it to the Gouwanes and the Mill...where the water is ordinarily shallow, inasmuch as the said kill, which is now blocked up by sand at the end, might be made, without much trouble of digging...navigable for the passage of boats”.24 The creek was the main artery that fueled the mills, watered the fields and livestock, and provided transportation for many of the goods and services that the people depended on. This dependence grew and as the canal system became increasingly trafficked, New York’s Colonial Assembly passed an act in March of 1774 “empowering the people of Gowanus to widen the canal, keep it in order, and tax those who used it”.25 Over the next few decades, the canal would be patched together in piecemeal fashion, mixing the dredging efforts of the early Dutch colonists with both the British and American modifications that followed. Even before the canal reached the alignment that it holds today, there were issues and concerns regarding the loss of the wetlands and resulting flooding. The disorganized process of dredging rendered the surrounding salt marshes and meadows essentially useless for both tidal mills and agriculture, and heavy rains would often flood the area for extended periods of time, making the land unsuitable for practically any conceivable use.26 By the mid-eighteenth century, the canal had reached the form that it currently holds today. In just a few short decades, thousands of years of ecosystem establishment had been completely disturbed, uprooted, and ignored, and a rich diversity had been traded for the promise of a rich economy. Current Resiliency Plans As a coastal city, New York has always been susceptible to flooding. However, with climate change promising an increase in frequency and intensity of storms along with rising sea levels, neighborhoods across the city have been facing the daunting task of preparing for the next weather catastrophe.

Historic floodplain + Canalization = Severe flood risk

The threat of climate change became infinitely more tangible in October of 2012, when New York City was hit by Hurricane Sandy. The dangerous combination of high winds, high tides, and a full moon sent floodwaters into the streets, tunnels, and basements all across the city. For residents of the Gowanus and Red Hook neighborhoods, the primary source of the flooding was the Gowanus Canal. At just after 9:00pm on October 29, the water levels in the canal reached levels approximately 6 feet above average high tide, inundating almost the entire neighborhood with the canal’s dangerously polluted and malodorous waters. The flooding caused serious loss of power and heat for residents and businesses, destroyed merchandise 24 25 26

Stiles, Henry, History of the City of Brooklyn, Brooklyn, 1867, p 69. Alexiou, p. 51 Ibid, p. 108

and materials, and disrupted daily activities for weeks on end.27 Since Sandy, concerted efforts have been made to prioritize a resilient New York City. While resiliency can be a difficult word to define, in these efforts the primary concern has to do with flood preparedness and response. Studies and plans have been produced at the neighborhood, city, state, and federal levels, all of which have an impact on the future of the Gowanus Canal. New York Rising Community Reconstruction Plan Announced by Governor Andrew Cuomo in April of 2013, the New York Rising Community Reconstruction Plan is a community-based planning initiative that empowers New York’s most at-risk communities to develop plans for physical, social, and economic resiliency in the wake of recent extreme weather events. Funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the plan identifies forty-five communities most impacted by climate change, with each community led by a planning committee that includes local residents, business owners, and civic leaders. These committees also received support and technical expertise from the Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery, New York State Department of State and Department of Transportation, along with consultants from a variety of planning firms with specialties in engineering, flood mitigation, and green infrastructure. The neighborhood of Red Hook, immediately bordering the eastern side of the Gowanus Canal, was identified as one of the forty-five communities selected as part of the project. The plan that was generated by Red Hook residents and the Planning Committee over the course of fourteen committee meetings and three public engagement meetings addresses not only flooding but the related issues of “emergency preparedness, capacity building, small business resiliency, chronic sewer system issues, and broader economic development strategies”.28 The Gowanus Canal is identified in this study as being a primary cause of flooding for the neighborhood, however the distinct strategies outlined in the plan tend to focus more on coastal flood protection and not the canal specifically. The plan also acknowledges and applauds the work that has already been done by the city and state, particularly the development of the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency and the resulting A Stronger, More Resilient New York. A Stronger, More Resilient New York In 2007, then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg launched PlaNYC, an effort to prepare the city for population growth, boost the economy, plan for climate change, and generally improve the quality of life for the city’s residents. Immediately following Superstorm Sandy, Bloomberg increased the focus on climate change with the convening of the Special Initiative for Rebuilding 27 New York City, Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency, A Stronger, More Resilient New York, June 2013, p. 43 28 NY Rising Community Reconstruction Program, “Red Hook”, NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan, March 2014, p. 13.

and Resiliency (SIRR), charging it with analyzing the impacts of the storm, assessing the future risks posed by climate change, and outlining strategies for citywide resilience. The outcome of this effort is A Stronger, More Resilient New York, a nearly $20 billion plan including over 250 initiatives that touch on a comprehensive range of issues pertaining to citywide infrastructure, the built environment, community rebuilding and resiliency plan funding and implementation. Coastal protection, buildings, insurance, utilities, healthcare, telecommunications, transportation, parks, and wastewater are all addressed. Specific community plans are outlined for five regions, including the Brooklyn-Queens Waterfront, with the Gowanus Canal in its scope. When it comes to coastal protection, the majority of the proposals revolve around the idea of creating a line of protection, featuring measures such as multi-purpose berms, bulkheads, elevated sites, deployable flood walls, elevated streets, and drainage pumps - all within the 100year floodplain. The most specific details available for the Gowanus Canal can be found within the Brooklyn-Queens Waterfront Community Rebuilding and Resiliency Plan, in which one of the nearly 50 initiatives proposes to â&#x20AC;&#x153;call on and work with the US Army Corps of Engineers to develop an implementation plan and preliminary designs for a local storm surge barrier along the Gowanus Canalâ&#x20AC;?.29 As described, this barrier would be situated at the mouth of the canal, potentially extending from the Erie Basin at the west to 29th St in Sunset Park to the east. Beyond specific proposals for the canal, the comprehensive coastal protection plan outlines four basic strategies: increase coastal edge elevations, minimize upland wave zones, protect against storm surge, and improve coastal design and governance. The strategies are further outlined by initiatives include a number of concepts that could potentially be applicable to plans for Gowanus, even if they are not specifically suggested for application along the canal. These initiatives include bulkhead improvements, tide gates, wetlands, living shorelines, and levees. Southwest Brooklyn: Growing From the Waterfront Again In addition to the resiliency plans that have been generated by city, state, and federal governing bodies, addressing the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future in a changing climate has generated significant interest and conversation from the private sector. Most recently, in September of 2016, global engineering firm AECOM released a visioning study of Southwest Brooklyn in response to community demands for new investment and infrastructure. This development-heavy plan devotes much of its attention to the anticipated influx of new residents to the area, proposing the construction of nearly 50,000 new housing units, generating over 50,000 new jobs, and improving transportation to make jobs transit-accessible. While the vision is framed within the context of climate-change, the focus on housing, jobs and transportation steers the conversation more toward economic and social pressures. 29

Floodwall

Deployable floodwall

Multi-purpose berms

Elevated land & streets

Terracing

Wetlands & living shorelines

Strategic retreat

A Stronger, More Resilient New York, p. 257.

In terms of coastal protection, the report suggests that in order to mitigate the impacts of sea level rise and increasing storm events, measures “should integrate living reefs, wetlands, and mechanical flood control devices to create a continuous public waterfront”.30 Perhaps not surprisingly, the measures are similar to strategies that have been proposed in the previously discussed plans. Raised ground, fortified architecture, deployable protection, berms, flood gates, and fortification of new and existing transportation corridors are suggested typologies, with a flood gate at the mouth of the Gowanus Canal once again being proposed. Sponge ParkTM Plan The Sponge Park Plan, developed by landscape architecture firm dlandstudios in 2008, provides an interesting perspective of a design approach to the Gowanus Canal that predates Superstorm Sandy as well as the EPA Superfund designation. This plan focuses primarily on stormwater management by slowing, absorbing, and filtering runoff through a series of public urban waterfront spaces. The larger goals of remediating the contaminated canal water, activating the canal edge, and providing environmental stewardship are addressed through a combination of street ends and esplanades totaling to approximately 16 acres of publicly accessible land with which to work. Considering that previously examined plans consider climate change, with the threat of rising seas and increasingly devastating storms, to be one of the most significant challenges facing the city, it is remarkable that, just eight years ago, climate change is not mentioned once in the Sponge Park plan. Still, the methods that are used such as water remediating wetlands, open spaces with soft edges, planted basins and cisterns can be considered part of a resilient development strategy. Another unique characteristic of the Sponge Park plan is that it has resulted in one of the only examples of proposed canal-side treatments that has actually been carried through to completion. While the entire plan is not being implemented, the essential concept of a street-end runoff interception and remediation “park” was funded by $1.5 million in grants from city and regional agencies and completed in 2016. The park is currently being monitored for performance, and dlandstudio has identified nearly 200 additional street-ends that could potentially become sites for further implementation of the concept.31

Sponge Park: Street-end stormwater interception and remediation

30 AECOM, Southwest Brooklyn: Growing from the Waterfront Again, August 2016, p. 54. 31 Mattioli, Guglielmo, “The Sponge Park: Cleaning One of America’s Most Polluted Waterways”, Metropolis Magazine, November 2 2016

Rezoning A city as complex as New York is in a constant state of flux. Populations shift, buildings rise and fall, jobs boom and bust, and governing administrations come and go. What all these changes have in common is that they are all directly linked to the way in which a city uses its land. Particularly in waterfront cities such as New York, the water-land boundary creates a very finite supply of land that must satisfy a nearly infinite set of needs. Historical Background Since European settlement, and even during the centuries before, the area surrounding Gowanus has been treated as a productive landscape. Whether harvesting oysters from the salt marshes, growing crops on the uplands, harnessing the tides to mill grain, or transporting goods along the inland waterway, the way people have used Gowanus Creek/Canal has allowed Southwest Brooklyn, and the city at large, to rapidly grow and prosper. The ways in which the land is used has long been a point of conversation, and often contention, for the residents of Gowanus. In the mid-nineteenth century, shortly before the canal was completely transformed into an industrial corridor, the inhabitants and landowners around the Gowanus were reluctant to change. Even considering the promised economic benefits that industry would surely bring, the idea of “rapid growth brought anxiety to this once-small community, as they felt the power over the meadows and brooks that defined their landscape slipping away”.32 There was a value to the landscape that went beyond bigger barges, new warehouses, and deeper channels. The banks of the Gowanus were still seen as an appealing destination to take in “natural” beauty in such close proximity to urban living. In 1853, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle described the meadows of the Gowanus as “a wild public park on the edge of civilization, where the residents of growing South Brooklyn could act out a pastoral urban fantasy, benefiting from lands essentially unchanged since colonial times”.33 Despite the trepidation, economic progress eventually won out, as it often does. The Gowanus Canal Improvement Commission was created by the New York State legislature in 1866. The members of this commission, which included the mayor of Brooklyn, a state senator, as well as several major landowners and business, were tasked with overseeing “the transformation of the historic creek through a process of dredging and draining the adjacent marshlands to construct a bulkhead lined with docks”.34 Over the course of the next fifteen years, construction of the canal would take place in a similarly sputtering manner as it had before, but with the advantage of government oversight and increased investment from the surrounding community. By 1881, the canal had been built out to a degree that closely resembles that which exists today.35 The end of the nineteenth century brought an end to the “City” of Brooklyn, with its incorporation into New York City as a borough in 1898. The improved Gowanus Canal quickly proved to be a vital asset to the city, providing access for a wide variety of industrial uses, including lumber, coal, brick, stone, flour, plaster, cement, paint, chemicals, and manufactured gas plants.36 At the beginning of the twentieth century, there were approximately 25,000 vessels plying the waters of the canal per year. At the start of World War II, the traffic had fallen to 18,000. Ten years later, the number would drop to 10,000. By the 1960s, “so much boat traffic had been lost that the Army Corps of Engineers did not bother to gather statistics at all”.37 This drop in traffic was due in large part to decreasing demand for products that came from the industries along the canal, including manufactured gas, coal, hay and grain, as well as an increased use of trucks and highways instead of barges for the transportation of goods.

32 33 34 35 393 36 37

Segment of map from US Army Corps of Engineers 1942 survey, inventorying businesses along the canal including coal handling plants, oil handling plants, lumber handling, grain handling, grain elevators, chemical plants, cotton warehouses, and sand, gravel and stone cement shells. Source: Eymund Diegel

Alexiou, p. 118 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, March 17, 1853 Reinhalter, p. 35 Drake, Susannah and Kim, Yong, “Gowanus Canal Sponge Park”, Ecological Restoration, December 2011, p. Reinhalter, p. 35 Alexiou, p. 306

Recent Rezoning Plans The last fifty years have been a period of change for the Gowanus neighborhood. Some canal-side industries remain, including a waste transfer station operated by the NYC Department of Sanitation, asphalt and concrete plants that supply the city’s Department of Transportation, several construction companies and building material distributors. As many of the industries that had long-defined the neighborhood moved out or went out of business, other light manufacturing businesses have taken up residence in the neighborhood. Simultaneously, other vacant spaces, such as abandoned warehouses and factories, have been re-purposed by a new class of enterprising occupants, including artists, small businesses, bars and restaurants. The relatively rapid change in land use and neighborhood character over the past half-century has also given rise to an especially involved and vocal local culture. Community organizations and board meetings are well used and well attended. The residents feel a pride about their neighborhood and recognize its unique place in New York City’s urban fabric. Much of the community activism has been in relation to the remediation of the canal itself, however more recently there has been significant attention paid to the potential rezoning of the neighborhood. With significant amount of vacant or underused properties, rising demand and value of housing, and the ever-present New York City pressure of development, residents, stakeholders, and city officials have all been engaging in the conversation of how the land surrounding the Gowanus Canal will be used in the future. The following series of planning studies each offer immense amounts of valuable information about the neighborhood. Within the scope of this project, the primary focus will be related to ways in which these studies impact waterfront development and open space. Gowanus Canal Corridor Framework - NYCDCP Beginning in January of 2007, New York’s Department of City Planning officially recognized the need to re-think the Gowanus neighborhood and began the process of drafting a rezoning proposal. Over the course of approximately eighteen months and at least six public meetings, NYCDCP developed a set of guiding principles relating to issues including use, density, bulk, and waterfront access. Discussing waterfront access, the department recognizes that “the prospect of redevelopment of sites on the canal creates an opportunity to achieve public access at the canal’s edge”.38 Specific suggestions include: • • • • • •

Requiring public open space and access at the canal’s edge for residential and commercial developments (40’ esplanade). Providing pedestrian connections between adjacent neighborhoods and the canal. Maintaining visual corridors from the street grid to the canal. Placing open space at key locations on deeper blocks along the canal. Encouraging a multi-faceted character of canal open spaces. Establish regulations that would outline materials such as lighting, benches and plantings that would be chosen with community input.

By spring of 2008, a draft of the rezoning proposal was presented to the community. Further steps would include refining the proposal based on community input, conducting an Environmental Impact Study (EIS), and once the rezoning plan was certified, beginning the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). Unfortunately, these steps were never taken and the plan stalled at the draft stage, primarily due to the addition of the Gowanus Canal to the National Priorities List (NPL) and designation as a Superfund Site in March of 2010. Bridging Gowanus In the summer of 2013, less than a year after Superstorm Sandy devastated the neighborhood, local elected officials representing the Gowanus area, including several city council members, a US congresswoman, state senator and state assemblywoman, initiated what would become the Bridging Gowanus community planning process. This process brought together community leaders from resident, civic, environmental, business, arts and housing groups, and was facilitat38

New York City Department of City Planning, Gowanus Canal Corridor Framework, 2007, p. 4.

ed by the Pratt Center for Community Development. With the memory of Sandy still fresh, development pressures at an all-time high, and a transitioning administration at City Hall bringing a new Mayor and City Planning Commission, the opportunity for affecting positive change was obvious. The planning process was community-based, with large public meetings, workshops, interviews, and smaller focus groups all contributing ideas and feedback to the process. A draft framework was presented in November 2014, followed by a declaration of support from Brooklyn Community Board 6 and a public comment period. The overarching goals of the framework include: • • • • • •

A sustainable, resilient, environmentally healthy community. Investment in parks, schools, transit and waterfront. Strengthening the manufacturing sector and job creation. Keeping Gowanus creative and mixed-use. Preserving and creating affordable housing for an inclusive community. Securing a pathway for responsible growth.

In terms of waterfront access, the plan outlines strategies to create, improve upon, maximize and connect public recreational sites and open space. Included in these strategies is the creation of a “Gowanus Greenscape”, a network of green nodes and paths. This system would incorporate art, culture, history and environmental science into the design and signage of a network of paths and destinations. Priorities for the Greenscape would include stormwater management features, and maximizing street-ends as destination. Recreational elements such as boating would be incorporated, and the system would be connected to existing parks and open spaces through safe multi-modal infrastructure.39 In addition to the Gowanus Greenscape, Bridging Gowanus recommends the formulation of a canal waterfront access plan. This plan, crafted through a process led by the DCP, would engage various agencies, landowners, tenants and community representatives and would include elements such as: • • • • •

Supporting environmental restoration where possible Promoting increased maritime movement of people and goods. Helping waterfront property owners take advantage of the opportunity to upgrade bulkheads in concert with the EPA’s cleanup process. Incentivizing and supporting manufacturing uses to create public access where possible. Ensuring that use-changes that trigger waterfront regulations have active ground floors and restrict parking at grade along the canal.

During the summer of 2016, community open houses were held throughout the neighborhood to present the recommendations and provide residents a means to prioritize what is most important to them. Based on the framework that arose from three years of work, Bridging Gowanus is now poised to play a significant role in the development of DCP’s new plan for the Gowanus neighborhood. Gowanus Neighborhood Planning Study - NYCDCP Under Mayor Bill de Blasio’s Housing New York Plan, a new planning process known as PLACES has been initiated for New York City. As defined by the DCP, PLACES (Planning for Livability, Affordability, Community, Economic Opportunity, and Sustainability) is a collaborative, people-centered approach to planning for diverse, livable neighborhoods that collaborates with communities, stakeholders, and elected officials to actively shape their neighborhoods. The significant work and input that was invested into the Bridging Gowanus fits perfectly into the PLACES format. As a result of the dedication of elected officials and community members, the Bridging Gowanus framework has been officially adopted by its local community board (Brooklyn Community Board 6). Based on the thoroughness of the work and the endorsement of the community board, New York City’s Department of City Planning has begun the process of developing a neighborhood plan for Gowanus. 39

Bridging Gowanus, Bridging Gowanus: Draft Framework Plan, 2014

Begun in October of 2016, the process is still in its early stages. At this point, the goals for the study are as follows: • • • • • •

Improve streetscapes, pedestrian safety, and access along Canal. Encourage and expand services and amenities. Explore ways to preserve and develop job-generating uses, including industrial, arts and cultural uses. Promote new housing, with affordable housing, and protect existing residences. Support existing and future resiliency and sustainability efforts. Coordinate necessary improvements to support cleanup of the Canal and accommodate existing and future needs (e.g. schools, parks, transportation).40

Even though the process is in the early stages, there is some specific information available pertaining to waterfront land use and access. A key initiative for the process is to partner with organizations and stakeholders to develop an open space vision along the canal and across the Gowanus. Additionally, the plan seeks public and private opportunities to expand the availability of parks and open space, such as through Waterfront Public Access Areas (WPAA). Waterfront Public Access Areas are already an established part of NYC’s zoning codes, and consist of regulations that require property owners to provide both visual and physical public access to the waterfront. These WPAAs must meet specific design requirements in order for property owners to get building permits. Properties with at least 100 feet of shoreline along the Gowanus Canal are subject to these regulations, however it is noteworthy that properties along turning basins are exempt. The waterfront requirements are triggered when properties are developed with commercial or residential uses or if there is a change of use. Perhaps most importantly, the design of these open spaces does not necessarily require public input unless the property owner chooses to consult the community or requests a zoning authorization to deviate from design regulations. However, there is opportunity for community input in the form of a Waterfront Access Plan (WAP), in which a unique plan and custom design regulations for the canal can be influenced by those that live near it. While these goals are broad, the fact that the DCP is once again initiating a formal planning process for the neighborhood is significant. Triggered by Superstorm Sandy and the EPA Superfund designation, and informed by Bridging Gowanus, the department is faced with the daunting task of determining the structural framework for the neighborhood’s future. Next steps will include encouraging community input (in addition to that already provided for Bridging Gowanus), developing a planning framework that addresses the aforementioned goals, drafting a neighborhood plan that includes zoning proposals, and finally initiating public review for land use actions under the uniform land use review procedure (ULURP).

New York City Department of City Planning, PLACES: Gowanus Neighborhood Study, October 2016

Photos: Steven Kirsch & Fritz Hoffman

Case Studies In recent years, there have been a number of Waterfront Public Access Areas completed along the Gowanus Canal. Lacking a comprehensive Waterfront Access Plan, however, these spaces do not have a consistent design, and utilize a wide variety of materials and layouts. Each example provides an opportunity to study what is possible within the established parameters, including the minimum 40’ of public “esplanade” that is required for these WPAAs. Taken together as a whole, it is easy to see that each space faces challenges of access and connectivity, and would greatly benefit from a larger Waterfront Access Plan to plug into.

Sponge Park image: dlandstudios

Gowanus Whole Foods Esplanade Perhaps the most visible of public spaces currently along the canal, the Gowanus Whole Foods Esplanade was included as part of the construction of the new grocery store, completed December of 2013. The design remains firmly within the minimum 40â&#x20AC;&#x2122; esplanade requirements, and features approximately 900 feet of gently curving pedestrian path, benches, trash cans, lighting, and planting beds on both the canal and upland sides. Access to the promenade is from the Whole Foods parking lot, as well as a street entrance along 3rd Avenue and a less obvious entrance from 3rd Street. The esplanade is typically used by patrons of the grocery store, and occasionally by other neighborhood visitors, however given the lack of connectivity to other destinations, it primarily feels as if it is simply an embellished border for the storeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s parking lot.

365-363 Bond Street Esplanade / Sponge Park Located immediately north of, and essentially connected to, Sponge Park at the eastern end of 2nd Street, is an even newer waterfront esplanade. This space has come about due to the development of two large, high-end residential condominium buildings located at 365 and 363 Bond St that will ultimately contain 700 new units. While the esplanade is not complete, the finished section in front of 365 Bond features a 250â&#x20AC;&#x2122; long pedestrian walkway, integrated bench seating, lighting, and a non-motorized boat launch adjacent to Sponge Park. While technically public, the fact that the promenade is directly in front of these new residential buildings gives the space a feeling of exclusivity, again amplified by the fact that, currently, there is no connectivity to other points along the canal.

Lowes Esplanade Predating the previous two examples by over a decade, the Lowes Esplanade was built in 2004 as part of the construction of the new Lowes Hardware store on 10th Street. The first public access esplanade of its kind built along the Canal, its 400 foot length features a row of trees, park benches, lighting, and some turf grass planting. The space can only be accessed from the Lowes parking lot, and this factor along with poor maintenance contribute to a lack of use by the public. Simply put, the esplanade is an example of a space that just barely meets the minimum requirements and is consequently largely ignored by the public.

GrowOnUs Floating Landscape Less of a waterfront space and more of a watersurface space, this project by Brooklyn-based landscape architecture studio Balmori Associates is an experiment in water purification and irrigation through phytoremediation, desalination and rainwater collection. The floating structure, constructed primarily of metal pipes and a variety, wood and plastic, was launched in September of 2015 and contains over 30 different species of plants. Monitoring of the structure and its plants allows for data to be gathered regarding the viability of larger floating structures within the canal and for urban waterways as a whole. As of the writing of this proposal, the structure still floats in the canal, however it has been relegated to a turning basin out of public view.

Proposals and Designs In the years since the Gowanus Canal has been designated as a EPA Superfund project and was severely impacted by Superstorm Sandy, it has experienced a spike in notoriety as a particularly unique and challenging design problem. As a result, the canal has served as a popular site that has been approached by individuals and groups from a wide variety of disciplines, including urban design, planning, biologists, engineers, architects, and landscape architects. The resulting products have been as varied as those who produced them, ranging from conceptual master plans, hyperspecific site designs, experiments in the biology and chemistry of the canal, and lofty artistic visions. While I intend for this capstone to generate unique ideas, reviewing previous work is certainly a helpful and important component of the process. Gowanus by Design Founded as a community-based design organization, Gowanus by Design has, for the last five years, explored critical planning challenges for the Gowanus Canal and its adjacent neighborhoods. This has been accomplished primarily through a series of open design competitions. Since 2011, there have been three such competition, each with its own particular focus. 2011: Connections The inaugural competition looked closely at street life. Designers were tasked with investigating the value of urban development of postindustrial lands and exploring the possibility of dynamic, pedestrian-oriented architecture that engages with the canal and the surrounding watershed. As the name of the competition suggests, the focus was on the canal as a nexus of public connections rather than a static geographic and infrastructural component. 2013: Water_Works This competition considered water as the main focus, asking designers to create a storm water retention tank facility and year-round Community Center that would primarily serve the neighborhood’s low-income community. Both of these objectives were timely, as the EPA was currently developing plans for the installation of large storm water retention tanks as part of the Superfund process, and one potential site for the tanks happened to be a public park and pool. 2015: Axis Civitas Axis Civitas focused on the development of a ‘Gowanus Atlas’ that would document tangible and intangible conditions of the canal and its watershed, as well as an Urban Field Station, a community-gathering place to house the Atlas. Each of these competitions received dozens of submissions from students and practicing professionals, and many of the submissions are available to review online. This summer I was able to meet and speak with David Briggs, a Brooklyn-based architect who serves as the Executive Director of Gowanus By Design. As part of this capstone process, the archive of design submissions will serve as a rich resource to supplement my own designs, and the final product could likely become a submission to the next Gowanus by Design competition. Oyster-tecture Developed by Manhattan-based landscape architecture firm SCAPE Studio, Oyster-tecture was developed in 2009 as part of the Rising Currents exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art, which was intended to develop and showcase strategies for adapting New York City in the face of climate change and rising seas. As the name suggests, the project focused on the creation of a living reef of “fuzzy rope”, upon which would grow oysters, mussels, eelgrass, and other marine organisms. This living reef would attenuate waves, filter water, and create new opportunities for public space within and around the Gowanus Canal. While purely conceptual in origin, the Oyster-tecture project has since been expanded to inform a number of SCAPE’s more tangible projects, including the ongoing Living Breakwaters ecological infrastructure proposal for the southern shores of Staten Island.

Summer Work This summer, I worked with the Gowanus Canal Conservancy, which was an experience that greatly contributed to my understanding of the canal and the myriad issues that it is currently facing, as well as providing a foundation upon which this capstone project can be built. The Gowanus Canal Conservancy (GCC) is a community-based non-profit organization that serves as the environmental steward for the Gowanus Canal Watershed. For over a decade, the organization has been working toward an â&#x20AC;&#x153;open, clean and alive Gowanus Canal watershedâ&#x20AC;?, focused on creating new park space along the canal, ensuring healthy water, soil and air, and fostering ecological, business and cultural activity within the watershed. As an organization with such a mission, GCC has often found itself as a mediator between a wide range of stakeholders, including but not limited to the various communities that live within the watershed, owners of local businesses and properties, developers, local community boards, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Throughout the three months that I worked with GCC, the variety in my work reflected the many different approaches that the organization takes in addressing the canal. Whether it dealt with education, outreach, or concept development, the work allowed me to examine the canal and its environs in ways that I would have never had the opportunity to otherwise.

Community engagement along the canal. Photo: Eddie Jo Antonio

Education Much of the work that GCC does relates to educating the public, primarily those that live within the canal’s watershed, about the many ways in which the canal is directly affected by the people that live and work near it. From explaining the legacy of historic pollution, the problem of combined sewer overflow events, and the importance of green infrastructure, this education takes the form of hosting public lectures, having an online presence, and perhaps most importantly, developing a school curriculum that is open to any teacher to use within the classroom. Through the STEM curriculum model, focusing on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematic, GCC has developed an extensive curriculum that uses the Gowanus Canal as a basis for a wide variety of activities and project. This summer I assisted in the development of a unit devoted to teaching middle schoolers about climate change, the ways in which it has a direct impact on the Gowanus neighborhoods, and possibilities for adapting to anticipated effects of climate change, such as flooding due to frequent extreme storm events and sea-level rise. The maps and graphics that I produced for the unit helped me gain a clearer grasp of ways in which climate change is poised to have a large influence on the future of the neighborhood. Outreach As a neighborhood, Gowanus has no shortage of people, businesses, and organizations that have strong opinions about the ways in which the area is changing. GCC often finds itself to be a mediator between these stakeholders, and the question of “What do you want the canal to be?” is often asked as a way to find common ground and inform further decisions and conversations. Much of the work I did this summer was related to this sort of outreach. I helped to run several public events that encouraged people to engage with each other in discussing what their priorities are, particularly for the edge of the canal. I produced graphics and maps to help facilitate these discussions, and spent considerable time cataloging and analyzing feedback to gain a better understanding of overarching trends in public opinion. All of this data has been, and will continue to be, useful for the further development of ideas and designs. I received feedback from hundreds of participants, mostly residents of the surrounding neighborhoods including the nearby NYCHA properties. Based on this feedback, it is clear that residents feel that what currently exists is not enough, and there is a strong mandate for a new typology of open space along the canal. Specifically, they expressed strong support for design that support both ecological and social functions. Native plantings, salt marshes, oyster habitat, as well as water features, bridges, and boat launches all were designated as important features across the board. Conceptual Development The “Gowanus Greenscape” concept, mentioned previously as part of the Bridging Gowanus framework, has been the foundation for much of the work the GCC has done over the years. The goal of creating a cohesive system of open spaces along the canal can only be accomplished if there is a consistent vision that dictates strategies and design guidelines, and the GCC sees itself as being the organization best equipped to develop and promote this vision. The conceptual design work I did this summer focused on studying and illustrating the variety of ways a 40’ wide esplanade could potentially be organized and arranged in terms of access, habitat creation, and flood management. These exploratory concepts will continue to inform further design development as concepts become more detailed and site-specific. Additionally, I developed initial design concepts for the 1st St turning basin, which were used at community meetings to discuss common goals for the final basin design, as described in further detail below.

Conceptual explorations developed to encourage community members and stakeholders to re-imagine the canal’s edge

Site Selection The Gowanus Canal originally had five turning basins along its length, from south to north at 11th St, 7th St, 6th St, 4th St, and 1st St. Of the five original basins, the 11th and 6th St basins have remained largely unchanged, the 7th and 5th basins have been partially filled, and the 1st St basin was completely filled (illegally) between 1954 and 1965.41 On June 28, 2016, I attended a meeting of the Community Advisory Group (CAG), an assembly sanctioned by the EPA as part of the Superfund process intended to help keep the community well-informed of the clean-up process and provide a means of communication and feedback between the community and the EPA. At this particular meeting, the primary topic of conversation was the upcoming dredging and restoration of one of the canal’s former turning basins, located along the 1st St corridor between the canal and 3rd Avenue. As part of the EPA’s remedial design and record of decision, the “selected remedy” plan for the canal includes the “excavation and restoration of approximately 475 feet of the filled-in former 1st Street turning basin”.42 The restoration of the basin is primarily required in order to create additional water surface area in the canal to offset the surface area that will be lost as a result of bulkhead modification and restoration. It is anticipated that bulkhead repair and replacement along approximately 18,000 linear feet of the canal will result in a slight narrowing of the canal, therefore requiring the addition of new water surface area. Assuming that the bulkhead work would narrow the canal by an average of one foot along its length, this would result in roughly 18,000 square feet of lost surface area. The basin provides approximately the same available area, and as a site that was formerly part of the canal before being illegally filled, it is a practical choice for a place in which to excavate and return to the canal waters. As a design site, the 1st St basin is a unique opportunity to study the intersection of remediation, resiliency, and rezoning on a smaller scale while simultaneously exploring and testing concepts that can be applied to the canal in a larger context.

41 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Gowanus Canal Superfund Site, Record of Decision, New York, NY, September 2013. 42 Ibid

Remediation The 1st St site is scheduled to be one of the first major projects of the overall cleanup of the canal, with work is anticipated to begin in 2018. The priority for the project is due to the high levels of contamination within the basin’s fill, as well as its proximity to the mid-section of the canal where the sediments contain the most contaminants. With the basin being one of the first major projects of the Superfund remediation, it is likely that methods used, lessons learned, and designs implemented will influence further remediation efforts further along the process. There are four other turning basins that will be addressed in some form, including the possible excavation and restoration of the eastern end of the 5th St basin, so a design study of the 1st St basin is an opportunity to inform many other aspects of the remediation efforts. Resilience As seen previously, the resiliency conversation regarding Gowanus has been increasing since Superstorm Sandy inundated the neighborhood in 2012. Most studies conclude that the most effective way to prepare for future storm events and flooding is to construct some sort of flood gate at the mouth the canal, limiting the rise of water levels in the canal during storm surges. While this sort of hard, grey infrastructure can provide a certain level of security, the EPA is not directly addressing climate change or sea level rise in their designs and there is much more that can be done in terms of resiliency, particularly when it comes to encouraging a softer, greener approach to design. Following the meeting on June 28 and subsequent meetings, during which initial basin design concepts developed by the Gowanus Canal Conservancy were reviewed, the Gowanus CAG released a resolution directly responding to the EPA’s plans for the basin. Much of the resolution is directed toward resiliency in the form of ecological restoration and shoreline softening. Specifically, the CAG outlined these following goals: • • • • •

Hard and grey transitioning to soft and green

That the form and elevation of the restored wetland support the range of salt marsh species and shorebirds that thrive across the littoral zone. That the bulkheads provide a surface to support marine life, specifically mussels, oysters, and juvenile fish. That the footprint and bathymetry of the turning basin be designed to promote natural water flow and discourage stagnation. That the City of New York work with a coastal wetland specialist to model and maximize the ecological performance of the excavated turning basin. That the City of New York take the impact of global warming into account, particularly sea level rise, when planning for the above goals.43

Taking these stated goals as an indicator of strong community intent, there is a mandate for any design for the 1st St Turning Basin to address resiliency through softer, greener strategies. The initial design concepts that were developed and used at these meetings will serve as a starting point for a more detailed, fine-grain solution.

First Street Turning Basin Cross Section

Water depth will match main channel depth after remediation ● A cap will be installed similar to Initial EPA concept design the main channel section for the 1st Street basin, showing minimal habitat areas ● A wetland shelf and no mention of public access Image: EPA will be constructed Gowanus Canal Community Advisory Group, Resolution on the Canal’s 1st Street Turning Basin, October 13, ●

43 2016.

Rezoning In an area as dense as the Gowanus neighborhood, no project, large or small, can be considered complete with consideration of the community context, both present and anticipated. As previously discussed, Gowanus is a rapidly changing neighborhood, and plans for rezoning hold the potential to make significant changes to land uses along the canalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s edge. The 1st St Basin is a small sliver of publicly owned land, surrounded on three sides by privately owned properties. With current zoning, the surrounding properties are all zoned as manufacturing, and include two self-storage facilities bordering the north and south sides of the head of the basin. Another property that defines much of the southern edge of the basin is the site of a former powerhouse that is currently vacant. The owner of the property intends to develop the building and the site as a creative mixed-use complex following the anticipated rezoning. The placement of the site within these properties suggests that any design, particularly one that may propose crossing property lines, will need to consider the variety of uses and users that could potentially occupy the space in the future. As mentioned previously, the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Waterfront Access Plan and its Waterfront Public Access Areas regulations do not designate the canalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s turning basins as requiring public access. A design proposal for the 1st St turning basin provides a unique opportunity to study how those regulations impact canal access, which is a clear community priority, and potentially make the argument for incorporating public access in ways that go beyond current waterfront access requirements.

Beyond the Basin: Expanding the Scope Developing a Design Language The 1st Street Turning Basin serves as a unique and timely foundation upon which to engage with the design challenges and opportunities presented by the canal. However, it is far from a self-contained site, and should not be treated as such. Perhaps most obviously, the water that will eventually fill and flow through the basin will be the same water that passes through the entirety of the canal. Any efforts made within the basin to alter hydrology or improve water quality will doubtlessly have an impact on the canal as a whole. Additionally, efforts to restore or improve habitat conditions within the basin will have an influence on, and in some regards be informed by, the greater canal habitat. Improving only the habitat within the basin would have insignificant benefit if the rest of the canal remains inhospitable to plant and animal life. Studies in habitat restoration, based on perspectives such as patch dynamics and heterogeneity, consistently stress the importance of creative connective systems, avoiding fragmentation, and minimizing or mediating the effects of barriers. Any successful habitat restoration must be designed with a larger context in mind. In addition to the flow of water and habitats, the flow of people in and around the basin site is directly linked to questions of access along the entire length of the canal. While existing zoning codes require public esplanades along the main channel of the canal for any new development or change of use, no such public access is required for the turning basins. As previously mentioned, strategies for integrating the basin into a larger access plan for the canal should be considered and integrated into the design. These strategies should be applied and tested within other contexts along the canal to encourage an adaptable and more broadly-applicable set of solutions.

Goals, Objectives & Methods Goal 1: Develop a relevant, socially and environmentally sensitive site design for 1st St turning basin.

Objective 1.1: Understand and incorporate unique parameters of the site.

Method 1.1.1: Review available EPA canal cleanup documents and project time line, including the Record of Decision. Method 1.1.2: Communicate regularly with the Gowanus Canal Conservancy as design progresses to insure process is remaining on track. Method 1.1.3: Make site visits, approaching site by canoe and using airborne camera methods to capture details of a site that is otherwise inaccessible.

Objective 1.2: Address current and anticipated community access needs.

Method 1.2.1: Review previous community engagement studies to determine established common vision and goals. Method 1.2.2: Communicate with the Gowanus Superfund Community Advisory Board, including attending at least one meeting in Brooklyn. Method 1.2.3: Study existing waterfront spaces along the canal to determine modes and types of access that are currently being addressed. Method 1.2.4: Research precedents of post-industrial canal designs, including the LaChine Canal in Montreal.

Objective 1.3: Incorporate salt marsh habitat and ecosystem restoration elements into overall design concept.

Method 1.3.1: Research salt marsh restoration, particularly in northeastern environments. Method 1.3.2: Communicate with experts in the field, including Carl Alderson, Marine Resource Specialist for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Method 1.3.3: Visit examples of salt marsh restoration around New York City, including the Living Dock built by the Newtown Creek Alliance, Pelham Bay in the Bronx, and Alley Pond Park in Queens.

Goal 2: Establish design language and products that can be adapted and expanded for the development of other public spaces and interventions along the canal in the future.

Objective 2.1: Incorporate formal and material details developed for 1st St turning basin site into a broader, cohesive design for other spaces and sites along length of canal.

Method 2.1.1: Inventory existing spaces and buildings occupying canalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s edge. Method 2.1.2: Identify which sites are best fit for implementation, based on physical dimensions, location within neighborhood, and current or anticipated future use of adjacent buildings. Method 2.1.3: Develop conceptual designs for most ideal sites, utilizing established language to encourage a cohesive and connected overall canal landscape.

Objective 2.2: Design a prototype bulkhead modification unit that can supplement habitat restoration and public access efforts. Method 2.2.1: Research bulkhead construction and design, particularly as re lates to the Gowanus Canal’s existing bulkhead and the EPA’s bulkhead restoration plans. Method 2.2.2: Study precedents of modular habitat restoration efforts, including the Living Dock at Newtown Creek in Brooklyn, the Cuyahoga Habitat Underwater Basket project in Cleveland, and the Thames 21 project in London. Method 2.2.3: Work with members of Gowanus Canal Conservancy, including Andrea Parker and Wendy Andringa, to design prototype bulkhead unit.

Deliverables The final products of this capstone are as follows: • •

Capstone report in bound, 8.5 x 11” format Digital slideshow presentation in pdf format

Site Visit On January 28, 2017, I visited the 1st Street basin site. I had skirted the site before - either passing by on Third Ave or Carroll Street, or by canoe on the canal itself. Although the site is owned by the city and is technically within the public right-of-way, it is nearly impossible to access by foot. Getting to the basin involved climbing over a railing near the Carroll St bridge, navigating a precariously narrow shelf on top of a crumbling bulkhead, and slogging through mud. My guide for the day was Eymund Diegel, a cartographer, planner, historian, and local resident who likely knows more about the Gowanus Canal than anyone else. Visiting the site helped me to understand the scale of the space as well as brought to life the accumulated layers of elements and artifacts - fresh water leaking from bulkheads, algae, Dutch clay smoking pipes, engine blocks, tires, bricks, and circuit boards - that tell the story of the place.

Process Months of research and documentation was accompanied by months of thinking through sketching. While many thoughts did not make it to paper, and many sketches did not progress beyond a preliminary stage, the process of putting pen to paper was critical to the development of the project.

Design Narrative Every landscape is a layered landscape - the result of millennia of geologic and biologic forces. In the anthropocene age - the age of humans - mankind is contributing to these layers in increasingly significant ways. Around the globe, we see the palimpsest inscribed on the earth by civilization. In some cases, such as with the clearing of a forest, it is easy to see this impact. In other cases, particularly in dense urban areas, it is alarmingly easy to forget about the existence of the layers beneath oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s feet, and to forget the story that they tell. Any question regarding â&#x20AC;&#x153;what was here beforeâ&#x20AC;? is typically answered in terms of erasure and replacement - not of evolution or incremental change. And even in the densest, most urbanized landscapes, the stratification of history and its embedded energy can find surprising ways of revealing itself.

Figure 1: Manhattan schist

The Gowanus Canal is one of the dirtiest water bodies in the country, cut into one of the densest cities in the world. Over 150 years of intense human use has seen the canal sullied with toxic industrial waste and regular inundations of raw sewage during storm events. It didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t use to be this way. Before being confined within the walls of a canal, its waters formed the Gowanus Creek, a maze of brackish streams weaving through an immense expanse of coastal salt marsh, ultimately emptying into the Gowanus Bay. This story is not a new one, and has been told hundreds of times - especially since the canal has been designated as an EPA Superfund site and is scheduled to be completely dredged and capped to remediate the existing pollution. The story is often flecked with regret at the loss of the natural state of the landscape, and all the plants and animals that came with it. The beautiful paradise that was paved over in the name of progress. This progress is ongoing, with a forthcoming re-zoning expected to unleash a new wave of intense development on what is already becoming one of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fastest growing neighborhoods. The next few decades promise to be a time of great change for the Gowanus Canal, and change requires energy. Massive inputs of energy will be required for both the EPA remediation and anticipated development. More change, more energy, and more layers added to the landscape. At the same time, there is a growing city-wide effort to restore coastal wetland habitats that have fallen victim to urbanization - it is estimated that 85% of coastal wetlands within the NY-NJ Harbor Estuary have been lost. While plans for the remediation of the canal - the removal of pollution - have been fully developed and are underway, plans for restoration are tentative at best. Questions of how restoration can be done within the canal, what it would look like, or even if there is sufficient room for it to be effective, remain unanswered. This project is an attempt at formulating answers to those questions. In the process, more questions must be asked. What are the goals of restoration? Who, or what, is supposed to benefit from it? How can the energy of remediation and redevelopment efforts be harnessed to contribute to restoration efforts? What, in fact, is being restored in the first place?

Figure 2: Gowanus - 1766, 1844, 1942

Figure 3: Creek to Canal

Restoration implies, at least in part, a return to a previous state. In the case of the Gowanus, this would mean an effort to bring back a coastal salt marsh habitat. But it is not as easy as simply inserting what used to exist back into the landscape. So if we canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t do that, we must approach restoration as an act of reconciliation - how can the form and function of a salt marsh be reconciled with the forms and functions of urbanity?

Figure 4: Hybrid

How do salt marshes form? They are often formed in tidal regions, typically in zones sheltered from high wind and wave energy. The slower movement of water allows for sedimentation to occur, slowly accumulating into mudflats. These mudflats are eventually pioneered by early successional salt-loving plants, followed by species such as Spartina alterniflora, which spreads through rhizomes and can capture more sediment from the tides, growing the saltmarsh. Once established, salt marshes perform a variety of important functions. They act as highly efficient filters and waste management systems for excess nutrients and pollutants. They guard shorelines against flooding and erosion. They provide an ideal habitat for a diverse spectrum of plants and animals - some thriving in the submergent zones, some on the upland sections of the marsh. They can be places of great cultural significance, as well as opportunities for connecting with nature and recreation such as boating and fishing. Urban development and the preservation of natural systems are often viewed as being mutually exclusive - hard vs. soft - but do they have to be? Think of how a city is formed. Often they are located along the waterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s edge, and are initially established by a pioneering group of individuals. As greater numbers of people accumulate, the small settlement grows into a village, into a town, into a city, into a major metropolitan area. With increase in size comes increase in infrastructure and services - transportation, waste management, water lines, housing, places for recreation.

Intersection

Accumulation

Pioneer

Growth

Complexity

Figure 5: Salt marsh growth - Urban development parallels

If it isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t possible to recreate exactly what existed before, perhaps the act of restoration, in the context of a dense urban area such as Gowanus, is less about restoring at all - but more about revealing. The layers of the landscape that existed before urbanization have not disappeared. They are simply hidden, more difficult to see. The tide - the defining characteristic of both the New York Harbor and salt marsh habitats - still flows in the essentially same pattern, dictated by the cycles of the moon, as they did centuries ago. Given the chance, hearty vegetation pops up along shorelines composed of crumbling bulkheads. Animals such as herons, crabs, clams & mussels, and jellyfish can be found in the waters - albeit it rarely. People are still drawn to its waters.

Figure 6: Gowanus wildlife

Figure 7: Gowanus paddlers, past & present

Even the underlying hydrology - the ghosts creeks of the former saltmarsh - still flows beneath the concrete. Flooding from significant storm events and the combined sewer outfalls that line the canal indicate that though the wetlands may be gone, their flood plain and drainage patterns remain. These patterns can be seen in unexpected places - perpetually wet corners in subway entrances, ponds upwelling in construction excavation, even streaming through cellars and basements - all on the way to emptying into the canal.

Figure 8: Hidden hydrology

Combined sewer outfalls

Flood plain

Historic wetlands

Figure 9: Echoes of a former wetland

This project approaches restoration as a revelatory process, and engages with the inputs of time and energy in exploring how they can be directed in the development of a new urban ecology. Just as a salt marsh does not form overnight - just as a city isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t built in a day - what happens in the Gowanus will be the result of a combination of time - in this case decades, and energy - in this case from the remediation and redevelopment processes. And just as both salt marshes and cities need pioneers in order to thrive, this project must be anchored by a pilot site from which to establish the components of a larger, more comprehensive system. The main channel of the Gowanus Canal is over a mile in length, and is surrounded on all sides by dense urban conditions that range from industrialized business zones, commercial sectors, residential neighborhoods, and a network of roads and transportation infrastructure . At first glance, it may seem like a daunting task to find an entry point - a crack in the concrete with sufficient room for intervention. A look to the plans for the EPAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Superfund remediation provides an opportunity.

Transportation

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Figure 10: Dense layers of development

The remediation process consists of four main components. First, in no chronological order, the dredging of the entire canal of polluted contaminants, removing nearly 600,000 cubic yards of sediment from the bottom of the canal. Second, the capping of the canal floor with a multi-layer cap to isolate and stabilize the remaining contamination in the native sediment. Third, the installation of two stormwater and sewage retention tanks, totaling 12 million gallons of storage volume, to help combat the nearly 350 million gallons of raw sewage that enters the canal each year as a result of combined sewer overflows. Fourth, the excavation of the former 1st street turning basin in order to offset the water surface area lost as a result of bulkhead repair and replacement along the canal. Originally the northernmost turning basin in the canal, the 1st st basin was illegally filled in the mid-20th century. Today, this rubble-filled trench sits in a narrow strip of city-owned land and is slated to be among the first milestones of the Superfund process, with excavation scheduled to begin within the next two years.

Dredging

RH-034 Recommended Site Key Features: • Tank underground and adjacent to existing pumping station and outfall • Head house atop tank with odor control • Estimated $490 M to construct

Park Impacts: • No park impacts from tank construction • Park and pool may be closed for ~4 years for excavation, clean up, and park reconstruction

Capping

Retention

Excavation

Figure 11: EPA remediation process

In the language of ecological succession, a disturbance is a temporary change in environmental conditions that causes a pronounced change in an ecosystem. Disturbances often act quickly and with great effect, to alter the physical structure or arrangement of biotic and abiotic elements. These disturbances can take the form of fires, flooding, windstorms, insect outbreaks, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunami. There can also be anthropogenic disturbances, including clearcutting, forest clearing, mining, introduction of invasive species

Figure 12: Ecological succession: disturbance - pioneer - growth

Viewed in these terms, the excavation of the 1st street turning basin is a disturbance that offers an excellent opportunity for a pilot project to take root, just as pioneer species thrive in recently disturbed sites. The appeal of this site is further enhanced by the fact that, in addition to being in the crosshairs of the dredgers, the basin sits at a unique crossroads of historical, ecological, and social contexts that add layers of depth and richness.

Figure 13: Excavation as disturbance to facilitate growth

The 1st st basin site is replete with narratives - a microcosm of the canal itself. Dozens of feet below the basin lies the glacial outwash and bedrock that forms the foundation for much of the city. Centuries before Henry Hudson sailed into the harbor native Canarsee tribespeople populated its shores, drawn to the Gowanus salt marshes by the abundance of food - oysters being a primary source of nutrition. Following settlement by the Dutch in the 17th century, this site was home to Denton’s Mill. This tidal mill was only the second of its kind to be built in Brooklyn, and the accompanying dam was one of the earliest human modifications to the creek’s flow. In August of 1776, this quiet agricultural scene was the setting for the Battle of Brooklyn, considered to be the first major battle of the American Revolutionary War. American troops, pressed by the British, made their retreat across the marshy landscape by crossing Denton’s Mill dam. The ground just south of the basin is suspected to be the location of a burial ground for American troops, some of the first casualties of the war. The 19th and 20th century brought the sweeping transformation of the industrial revolution, with the basin being excavated as part of the canal’s construction in the late 19th century. Lumber mills, stone yards and a powerhouse for the Brooklyn Rapid Transit company surrounded the basin for the first half of the 1900s. With boat traffic dwindling in the mid-20th century, the basin was filled illegally and used primarily as storage space, bringing it to its current condition. Today, the basin is filled with an odd stratification of rubble that speak to its long and interesting history.

Figure 14: 1st St basin artifacts

Glacial outwash

Canarsee tribes

Dutch Settlement

Battle of Brooklyn

Industrialization

Present

Figure 15: Layers of history

Ecologically, the excavation of the basin lays the groundwork for establishing a robust patch of habitat in the canal. A turning basin provides ideal conditions - tidal, but with shelter from wind and wave energy, for a salt marsh to thrive. Restoring a salt marsh community would not only help to improve water quality and provide habitat, it would offer visitors to the canal a glimpse back in time, when the Gowanus was no canal but a tidal wetland.

Figure 16: Basin lies within the wetland footprint

Directly north of the basin lies a more discrete but equally exciting opportunity that exists nowhere else along the canal. Historic maps indicate the presence of a freshwater spring, and today there are cues in the landscape that confirm its existence. Vegetation can be seen sprouting from cracks in the pavement, nourished by an abundance of moisture below grade. The lots north of the basin are, and have historically been, free of built structures. Any foundation dug there would likely be regularly flooded by the underground spring. Most tellingly, at the canalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s edge, a constant stream of clean fresh water can be found seeping through the timber bulkheads into the canal. Life is drawn to this source of clean water, including birds scouting the water for fish that gather near the springâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s outlet. Daylighting this long-buried spring would allow for increased dissolved oxygen levels and would promote water movement in the canal both essential to a healthier, more living body of water. And like the salt marsh, it would begin to peel back some of the layers of the site, celebrating the richness that exists just below the surface.

Figure 17: Evidence of a hidden spring

The 1st st basin sits at the intersection of several neighborhoods, including Park Slope to the east, Carroll Gardens to the west, and Boerum Hill to the north. It is at the epicenter of new and anticipated developments, including a newly built Whole Foods grocery store, high-rise apartments directly across the canal, and the planned transformation of the old powerhouse building, bordering the basin to the south, into a mixed-use arts community space. Properties to the north are being held by developers and are likely candidates for complete redevelopment in the near future. The site is within half a mile of Gowanus Houses and Wyckoff Gardens, both NYCHA properties that house a combined population of over 4,000 people. Opening the basin up to the public would provide equitable open space along the canal that is desperately lacking - and wanted - in this community.

Figure 18: Whole Foods, high-rise apartments, powerhouse, underutilized lots

Carroll Gardens

Pop. 34,000

Boerum Hill Pop. 90,000

Park Slope Pop. 62,000

High-rise apartments

Development ready properties Powerhouse

Whole Foods

Gowanus Houses Pop. 2,800

Figure 19: Local context

Wykoff Gardens Pop. 1,200

During the summer of 2016, I had the opportunity to work with the Gowanus Canal Conservancy, a nonprofit organization that acts as the environmental steward for the canal. A keystone goal of the Conservancy is the development of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Gowanus Greenwayâ&#x20AC;?, a vision for a linear system of open spaces and parks that create a cohesive network along the canal. Currently, the spaces that do exist are little more than simple esplanades that fulfill of the minimum requirements of waterfront zoning. While these spaces are valuable, it is easy to imagine a future for the canal where slipshod design and development would leads to a disconnected and uncoordinated patchwork of paths and pocket parks. Working with existing zoning requirements and creating working relationships with developers and property owners, the Gowanus Canal Conservancy is well positioned to guide the greenscape from vision to reality.

Figure 20: Existing public open space along the canal

Figure 21: Gowanus Greenscape

Part of my work with the Conservancy involved engaging with the community in discussing what they would like to see at the edge of the canal. Over the course of the summer, I received feedback from hundreds of participants, mostly residents of the surrounding neighborhoods including the nearby NYCHA properties. Based on this feedback, it is clear that residents feel that what currently exists is not enough, and there is a strong mandate for a new typology of open space along the canal. Specifically, they expressed strong support for design that support both ecological and social functions. Native plantings, salt marshes, oyster habitat, as well as water features, bridges, and boat launches all were designated as important features across the board.

Figure 22: A summer with the Gowanus Canal Conservancy

Figure 23: Community priorities

The 1st st basin can be the pioneer site from which the next incarnation of the canal takes root. To do so, the treatment of the site must be adaptable and expandable, and must be viewed as a process rather than a static product. The transformation of the canal is one that will take place over a matter of decades - prone to delay and setbacks like any other regulatory process, particularly in our current political environment. Good design cannot be done in a vacuum, and particularly in the case of the Gowanus, any proposal must align with both the Superfund remediation and redevelopment processes, as these will be the primary influences on the landscape over the next few decades. I have proposed a phased strategy that would guide the transformation of the 1st st basin, and ultimately, would inform the development of the larger Gowanus Greenscape.

Figure 24: EPA remediation as influencing process

Figure 25: Excavation as opportunity

The first step is to embrace the energy of excavation. Celebrate it as an act of creation. Invite the public to participate in the transformation of the basin. Instead of closing off the site to the public like a typical construction site, access would be provided for observation of the process. People are naturally drawn to these sites, and the removal of nearly 40,000 cubic yards of fill would certainly attract a crowd. Far from just a hole in a fence, temporary observation decks would be built, introducing the idea of the basin and its surrounding grounds as open space within the public domain. Based on the dredging work that has already been done along the 4th St turning basin, adjacent to the Whole Foods, it is safe to assume that not only can the work be done in close proximity to the public, but that the public will enjoy the show.

Figure 26: Excavation observation

As excavation progresses and the basin grows, so do the crowds. Observation areas and access from the street transition from lightweight tactical interventions to more formalized spaces. Archaeologists assigned by the EPA to the basin project have determined that there is a high likelihood of uncovering historically significant artifacts during excavation, including components of old bulkheads, cribbing, building rubble, and buried vehicles and vessels. There is also the possibility of discovering older artifacts, including evidence of the Revolutionary War burial grounds or the Dutch tidal mill complex. The basin site could become a sort of living museum, with objects of interest displayed in public view - allowing the layers of the landscape to begin to speak for themselves.

Figure 27: A living museum

With dredging of the basin complete, the next step in the process would be to direct the creation of the multi-layer cap. Current EPA plans call for the basin to be capped similarly to the rest of the canal - essentially a series of clay, gravel, and sand layers covering the contaminated native sediment. However, there is opportunity to modify this basic design to support a more dynamic basin environment. This opportunity has been recognized and championed by the Gowanus Community Advisory Group (CAG), a forum for community members and Superfund representatives to communicate. I attended several of their meetings this past summer, including a meeting that focused primarily on preliminary plans for the basin. At the meeting, the CAG proposed a group resolution that made clear the high priority that the community places on wetland habitat restoration, and the recognition of the opportunity the 1st st basin project represents.

High Tide Low Tide Habitat Layer Sand and Gravel Isolation Layer Organoclay Treatment Layer

100 ft

Figure 28: EPAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposed cap design

A simple modification of the cap profile would allow for a gently sloping basin floor that would be able to support the growth of salt marsh species. Studies have shown that salt marsh plant communities thrive on slopes between 1 - 3% with inundation periods up to 50% of the day - essentially positioned between low and high tides. The Gowanus Canal Conservancy has had some success in planting plots of salt marsh grasses in the canal, so we know they can thrive in the canal - they just need the space.

High Tide Habitat Layer Low Tide Sand and Gravel Isolation Layer Organoclay Treatment Layer

100 ft

Figure 29: Cap modification creates slope for salt marsh plantings

Based on the tidal movement in the basin and the proposed sloped design, the basin would allow for over 15,000 square feet of viable salt marsh habitat, with further space beyond for upland plantings. A sloped basin also creates an opportunity for a community-driven salt marsh restoration. The Gowanus Canal Conservancy has a robust and highly motivated volunteer corps, and the opportunity to participate in the planting of the canalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first salt marsh would draw immense interest. An engaged group of volunteers can accomplish incredible amounts of work in little time. This can be seen locally at Syracuseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own Superfund site, Onondaga Lake, where dozens of volunteers planted over 1,000 plugs within one day, helping to restore the lake shore ecology. This sort of engagement fosters a sense of ownership and investment from the community that would contribute to the greater social sustainability of the space.

Salt Marsh 15,000 sq ft

Upland 4,000 sq ft

100 ft

Figure 30: Volunteer-driven restoration

Pedestrian access would be established through a linear concrete ramp from 3rd avenue, sloping down the basin directly into the canal. Although access into the basin is important, it is the necessary to preserve the majority of the space within the basin for habitat. Extending from the concrete ramp, simple gabion terrace walks would span the width of the canal, which ranges from 70 to 50 feet. These gabion walks would have a minimal footprint but would allow for pedestrian movement across the basin while acting as collection points for debris, allowing water to pass through but capturing objects brought in on the tide. Placed regularly at each foot of elevation rise, they would make visible the daily ebb and flow of the tide. These gabions could be filled with recycled rubble gathered during the excavation process, giving a new life to the materials that had been buried for decades within the basin. This ramp would not only provide access to the basin at low and high tides, but would also serve as a boat launch for canoes and kayaks. There is currently no formalized boat access along the canal, and this is something that has been identified as a top priority by the community.

Figure 31: In the basin: Prioritizing ecology while providing public access

Excavating the basin, establishing the salt marsh, and inviting people into the space are the crucial first steps in anchoring this pilot and coordinating its development with the Superfund process. Moving beyond these first steps, the focus would now be on expanding the growth of the project in coordination with the anticipated re-zoning expected within the next few years. This rezoning, currently an active project within city planning, will likely prioritize higher-density residential development near the canal. If the first steps were the pioneer phase, these next steps could be considered the phase in which competition becomes a driving factor in planning and design. With property values rising more quickly in the Gowanus neighborhood than anywhere else in the city, developers are eager to cash in on their investments - making the argument for preserving public open space a challenging one - though not impossible. Fortunately, guidelines are already in place that protect and encourage waterfront access, including a minimum required 40â&#x20AC;&#x2122; esplanade along the main navigation channel of the canal to accompany any new development. Pairing such requirements with creative negotiations with property holders to the north and south of the basin, it is highly feasible that arrangements could be made to allow for the expansion of the public space from the basin to surrounding upland areas. Primary factors in these negotiations would likely entail exchanging property rights for increased waterfront development rights.

Figure 32: Planning and development process and mechanisms

Even with the properties to the north being developed, entry to an upland space could be threaded through the built environment, the narrow entrance inviting urban explorers into the space beyond. Venturing further, narrow views open up into a broad vista of the canal, the basin salt marsh, and a curious stream of water navigating cracks and channels in the concrete plaza. If the basin space prioritizes the brackish tidal salt marsh, the upland plaza celebrates the revealing of the long-buried spring. Beginning as a trickle and ending as a cascade into the basin, the movement and sounds of the spring waters would delight and intrigue visitors, continuing the close relationship between people and the waters of the Gowanus that has lasted for hundreds of years. After navigating between stone seating elements, foot bridges, and boulders that obstruct and divert, the water falls over the basinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s edge into the canal, providing much-needed oxygenation and water movement. Pedestrian circulation routes invite both exploratory and transitory movements. Access from the plaza into the basin is provided by gently sloping ramps that transition users from a vast panorama of the canal to a more intimate setting within the basin. For more direct movement, a pedestrian bridge connects the two sides.

Figure 33: Upland plaza and spring daylighting

Viewed as a process, the development of the basin and the surrounding properties would take a number of years to accomplish. During that span, the rest of the canal would be undergoing a similar transformation. The dredging and capping of the main channel would be well underway. A frenzy of construction projects would be changing the face of the lots immediately surrounding the canal. With the basin space established as an example of a new typology of open space along the canal, embraced by an engaged and invested public, and stewarded by the Gowanus Canal Conservancy, it could function as a gateway to the emerging Gowanus Greenscape.

Figure 34: The 1st St Basin: A new public space typology for the future of the Gowanus Canal

Access points from the street to the basin and from the basin to the uplands would be extended to connect with esplanades running along the main channel of the canal. Connectivity is vital not only for a cohesive pedestrian experience, but for ecological considerations. Habitat connectivity is considered to be one of the most important factors in maintaining biological diversity, and would be an essential component in making the canal more capable of supporting marine life. Given that the vast majority of existing bulkheads along the canal will be replaced during the remediation process, it makes sense to look to the canalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s edge for opportunities to build connectivity into the design of new bulkheads.

In keeping with the process-oriented approach taken with the 1st st basin, the process of â&#x20AC;&#x153;building a better bulkheadâ&#x20AC;? can be approached in phases. The basin could serve as a testing ground for early prototypes, with modular units that would be lightweight, easily affixed to sheet steel piling, and could be assembled, installed and monitored by volunteers. These units would consist of steel cages that would be suspended from the bulkhead and filled with planting medium. The angle and height of the cages would be adjustable to account for variations in tides and water levels within the canal. Above water, the cages would support similar salt marsh plantings as would be found in the basin as well as provide perches for marine fowl such as herons and cormorants. Below the surface, they would provide shelter zones for fish and crustaceans and could support bivalves such as oysters, mussels, and clams. These modular units could be continuously adapted and improved based on lessons learned from earlier prototypes. As more units are installed, they would act as a growing connective tissue. Ultimately, these principles could be translated into the structural design for new multi- functional bulkheads that would provide not only structural support, but would allow for an improved pedestrian experience and encourage a diverse, connected habitat above and below the water surface.

Figure 35: Bulkhead brainstorming

Figure 36: Build a better bulkhead

Looking at the broader scope of public spaces along the canal, the establishment of the basin site would be a crucial step in the development of the greenscape. The four remaining turning basins in the canal would be ideal locations to continue the growth of robust patches of connected wetland habitat. While each of these basins has its own unique set of parameters, an application of a model similar to that of the 1st st basin and lessons learned from that site could provide for roughly 3.5 additional acres of salt marsh habitat. For the three southernmost basins, located within the industrialized business zone, the water treating capabilities of a salt marsh would be particularly valuable as the area surrounding these basins is all designated as direct drainage into the canal. Directing and filtering the runoff through the planted basins would vastly improve the quality of water that is ultimately released into the canal. For the Fourth St basin, located adjacent to the Whole Foods, there would be ample opportunities for public access and engagement similar to those at the 1st st basin site.

Figure 37: Growing the Gowanus Greenscape: uplands, bulkheads, and basins as a connected system

While it is undeniably important to think in terms of the canal in its entirety, it is equally important to remember that any larger plan for the canal must begin with a series of smaller steps and interventions. Throughout this project, I have attempted to keep this process in mind to generate a series of ideas that are adaptable to an ever-changing environmental, political, and social environment. I would like to thank my committee for all of their support, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Gowanus Canal Conservancy and the greater Gowanus community in envisioning and building the future of the canal.

Figure 38: Finding the opportunities in the urban fabric for pioneering growth

Figure 39: 1st St Basin: A gateway to a new Gowanus

Bulkhead continued monitoring

Bulkhead unit construction & installation

Graphic production

Bulkhead unit design

Basin site design

Precedent research and site visits

Literature review

Stakeholder meetings and interviews

Canal field work and inventory

September

August 18: Finish summer work with Gowanus Canal Conservancy

August

October 12: Capstone proposal presentation

October

2016 November

December 9: Capstone proposal report completed

December

January

March

March 1: World Canal Conference call for abstracts deadline

February

2017

April 12: Final May 2: capstone Final presentation capstone report deadline

April

May

Annotated Bibliography The following sources have all been cited previously in the report, and are listed here as an easy-to-reference summary of research done thus far in the capstone process. AECOM, Southwest Brooklyn: Growing from the Waterfront Again, August 2016 Development-focused planning study of Southwest Brooklyn done by global engineering, consulting, and management firm AECOM. Received praise for its thoroughness and innovative ideas, but also garnered skepticism for focusing heavily on large, expensive development projects. Alexiou, Joseph. Gowanus: Brooklyn’s Curious Canal. NYU Press, 2015 Recently published history of the Gowanus Canal, arguable the most thorough written history of the canal and the surrounding neighborhood available in one work. Bridging Gowanus, Bridging Gowanus: Draft Framework Plan, 2014 Much discussed community-driven study and plan that is the result of several years of intense community engagement. Now providing the foundation for New York City’s Department of City Planning’s Gowanus Neighborhood Study and rezoning initiative. Brooklyn Daily Eagle & New York Times, various historic articles, 1853 - 1889 Using online archives, historic articles of these newspapers provide unique insights into the culture surrounding the Gowanus neighborhood in years past. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle has not been in operation since 1955. Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) of Columbia University. 2006. CSD Coastal Population Indicator: Data and Methodology Page Operating out of Columbia University, the Center for International Earth Science Information offers useful information regarding global trends in coastal populations. Drake, Susannah and Kim, Yong, “Gowanus Canal Sponge Park”, Ecological Restoration, December 2011 Co-authored by the lead designer of Gowanus’ Sponge Park, this article provides details on the design, construction, and funding process for one of the first significant park projects at the canal’s edge. Gowanus Canal Community Advisory Group, Resolution on the Canal’s 1st Street Turning Basin, and other assorted resolutions, 2013 - 2016 Published regularly online by the Gowanus Canal Community Advisory Group (CAG), these resolutions are a an effective way of understanding the priorities and goals of this group, made up of dozens of concerned community members and stakeholders that meet on a monthly basis. Loney, Natalie, USEPA, TEDxGowanus Lecture, Brooklyn January 2014 As the designated Community Involvement Coordinator, Ms. Loney was invited to participate in the independently organized TEDxGowanus event in January of 2014. Her brief lecture is a useful synopsis of the EPA Superfund process and associated factors. Ms. Loney is also a regular attendee of the Gowanus Canal CAG meetings. Montgomery, Gerald L. “Riparian Areas Reservoirs of Diversity”. USDA NRCS, February 1996 This scientific paper, published through the USDA NRCS, was a useful reference for more information regarding the unique effects of riparian areas on surrounding biodiversity. New York City Department of City Planning, Gowanus Canal Corridor Framework, 2007 Undertaken from 2007 - 2009, this framework study was the first recent attempt made by New York City’s Department of City Planning (NYCDCP) to rethink and ultimately rezone the Gowanus neighborhood. Efforts were stalled in 2009 due to a impending Superfund designation.

New York City Department of City Planning, PLACES: Gowanus Neighborhood Study, October 2016 NYCDCP has very recently (as of October 2016) initiated a new study of the Gowanus neighborhood. Informed by the work done by the Bridging Gowanus study, the results of this initiative are highly-anticipated, and the rezonings are likely to have a significant impact on the overall character and function of the neighborhood for decades to come. New York City, Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency, A Stronger, More Resilient New York, June 2013 Released in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, this comprehensive plan contains an impressive array of actionable recommendations both for rebuilding the communities impacted by the storm and increasing the resilience of infrastructure and buildings citywide. NY Rising Community Reconstruction Program, “Red Hook”, NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan, March 2014 Another product of a New York government reeling from the effects of Superstorm Sandy and other extreme weather events, NY Rising Community Reconstruction Program (NYRCR) participatory recovery and resiliency initiative established to provide assistance to 124 communities severely damaged by Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Irene, and Tropical Storm Lee. Reinhalter, Lauren, “The Gowanus Canal: A Superfund Site”, Documents to the People, Winter 2013 This article is a concise and useful summary of issues relating to the Gowanus Canal as a Superfund Site. Stiles, Henry Reed, History of the City of Brooklyn, Brooklyn, 1867 A very useful primary source in understanding Brooklyn and its various neighborhoods at a time of rapid change and industrialization, with many references to Gowanus. Available as an online archive. Sanderson, Eric, Mannahatta: A Natural History of New York City, Abrams, 2009 Hugely influential upon its publishing in 2009, this book is an ambitious study of New York City’s natural history and an attempt at recreating, in as fine detail as possible, the biota that would have existed on the island of Manhattan prior to European settlement. Not much is mentioned specifically about boroughs outside of Manhattan, however the information is still extremely useful when thinking about the idea of “restoration”. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Gowanus Canal Superfund Site, Record of Decision, New York, NY, September 2013 Of the many documents publicly available from the EPA relating to the Gowanus Superfund project, the Record of Decision is the definitive source for highly detailed information relating to the history of contamination, potentially responsible parties, and the plans for remediation. Waldman, John. Heartbeats in the Muck. The Lyons Press, 2000 This short but informative book offers a take on the history, sea life, and environment of New York Harbor. The author is a professor of biology at Queens College, City University of New York.

Image Credits Figure 1: Caleb Smith Figure 2: Proteus Gowanus / Eymund Diegel Figure 3: Generated by author Figure 4: Generated by author Figure 5: Generated by author Figure 6: Mark Philips / Eymund Diegel Figure 7: Painting: Bryant White / Photo: Andrea Parker Figure 8: Author / Misha Draskoczy / dlandstudio Figure 9: Generated by author Figure 10: Generated by author Figure 11: EPA Figure 12: By Hannu Figure 13: Generated by author Figure 14: Generated by author Figure 15: Generated by author Figure 16: Generated by author Figure 17: Generated by author / Eymund Diegel Figure 18: BL Companies / 365 Bond / Herzog and de Meuron Figure 19: Generated by author

Figure 20: Generated by author Figure 21: Gowanus Canal Conservancy Figure 22: Andrea Parker Figure 23: Generated by author Figure 24: Generated by author Figure 25: Generated by author Figure 26: Generated by author Figure 27: Max Touhey / author Figure 28: EPA / Gowanus CAG / author Figure 29: Generated by author Figure 30: Onondaga Conservation Corps / Gowanus Canal Conservancy / author Figure 31: Generated by author Figure 32: NYC Department of City Planning Figure 33: Generated by author Figure 34: Generated by author Figure 35: Generated by author Figure 36: Generated by author Figure 37: Generated by author Figure 38: Generated by author Figure 39: Generated by author 91