ARCTIC-TECTURE |
CHRISTIANNA BENNETT 2012
RUSSIA
ALASKA
ARCTIC-TECTURE: SHISHMAREF ALASKA CHRISTIANNA BENNETT JULIA WATSON MARK MISTUR RE-COUPLING CULTURE + NATURE II
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE TROY , NEW YORK 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT 3 PRECIS THESIS ROLE OF THE ARCHITECT 7 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, ANTHROPOLOGY, ECOLOGY INTRODUCTION BY JULIA WATSON 11 RECOUPLING CULTURE + NATURE II ARCHITECTURAL DISCOURSE 13
1. RESEARCH GENEAOLOGY 15 2. GLOBAL STUDIES 33 3. SITE + CONTEXT 49 4. LANDSCAPE PROCESS: [ BARRIER ISLANDS ] 69 5. MATERIAL INVESTIGATIONS + PRECEDENTS
77
6. PROGRAM 95 7. ITERATIONS + STUDIES 97 8. DESIGN SOLUTION 109 9. CONCLUSION 123
BIBLIOGRAPHY
127
IMAGE CREDITS
129
1
2
ABSTRACT
PRECIS STATEMENT
Movement and flows define the contemporary state of life on the planet. Across the globe, the world is a myriad of people, animals, materials, and information being pushed to their limits and crossing boundaries beyond their local confines. The lure of the city is a major factor in global migration, taking the minds, bodies, and materials with the humans that are compelled to move. As a result, the natural world has had to bend in accordance to this global dance, and as urban hubs grow, so too does global temperatures and resource expenditures of our species. The relationships between sea level rise, island erosion, and sacred land begin to create an unforeseen dialogue between humans, nature, and the atmosphere. There are places on this planet with little disturbance from the human hand, and yet these communities are being impacted by the effects of large industries, pollution, contamination and etc of the soil, water, and the atmosphere. Indigenous communities have survived with a different way of understanding natural services of the world. They work with the pace of the environment a different way and manipulate materials with practices that are foreign to major cities across the world. The deep knowledge of life and energy in these communities is much more pervasive in their modern lives, than what can be seen through the eyes of most modern city dwellers. Yet, indigenous knowledge is being lost as climate change threatens to push these communities into urban, materialist environments for security against an unpredictable natural world. Examining the similarities and contrasts between these livelihoods, helps one understand the different types of connections humans have to the natural world, and how these different lenses could be imagined for recoupling culture and nature in the future. There has always been an intricate connection between cultural and natural forces. These two entities have grown through time and across cultures to become very complex and interrelated forces,and now there is an opportunity to begin designing with both in tandem. A play betwee knowledge embedded in the human consciousness and a newly-understood consciousness of the natural world. There is an emerging preoccupation that seeks to aid the planet by feeding into nature in ways that help it grow wild again. Since the beginnings of agrarian society humans have been afraid of nature. Nature could destroy crops, a house, the family; but before this time humans were nomads, wandering according to the fluctuations of the natural world and leaving certain places to let mysterious “mother
nature” replenish a given place. Like crop rotations, the nomads lived alongside nature and could even spark new growth in places. The farmer takes and takes from the land, with only the façade of replenishing the landscape with each harvest, when in fact the harvest slowly strips the land of its riches. There is a society situated in the crest of land between the Arctic Circle and the Ring of Fire that like many indigenous groups, finds particular spiritual value in the environment and the services it affords for human life. Here, a community of Inuit, the Inupiaq called the Shishmaref, have lived with the land in strategic ways due to the demands of an Arctic climate. This environment, has forced these people to be highly sensitive to the pace, character, and services available in the surrounding ecotones. Mythology of the Shishmaref, has already predicted their apparent demise. The old, Inupiaq creation story tells of the barrier island’s growth from the gathering of tree trunks near the coastal shores to create the small island, and then of the eventual swallowing up of the sea that will end the Shishmaref community. This sea level rise has already started to happen, with each storm comes and unpredictable amount of damage. The Shishmaref are now forced to decide whether to migrate away from the land that has belonged to their parents and grandparents for thousands of years, or to become radical in their preparations and stand ground. Through the intense study of mythology and the surrounding landscape, the Shishmaref’s critical condition can be alleviated. They are situated in an ecologically and biologically diverse nexus between the Arctic Tundra Lowlands, rich with kettles, marshes, and peatland as well as a dense expanse of lava fields beyond, and at the far reaches of their locale, is the northward-migrating Boreal Forest. The story that emerges from the interaction of local knowledge and the surrounding environmental elements will be an indicator of the necessities for future Arctic communities. If cities are migratory centers for one way of interacting with nature, then indigenous communities can develop regional migratory practices of creating, inhabiting, and returning services to the landscape to become a new way for humans to conduct themselves within the natural world.
1 Lixenberg, Diana. Last Days of the Shishmaref. 2008. 3
4
THESIS STATEMENT: With the onset of globalization, our ability to identify with “place� is quickly eroding. The relentless influx of virtual technology creates an always-at-hand access to alternate realities in which a majority of humans now spend their time. In devices such as telephones and computers, our minds are invisibly wired to horizons beyond that of the physical landscape and yet, materials in our surroundings are quickly falling apart. By reinterpreting and reforming land as a malleable, infrastructural device we can begin creating cultural dialogues to connect people back with existing ecologies. Small communities are an ideal platform for understanding these relationships, where developing low-impact, indigenous infrastructures readily mold themselves to intricate cultural systems to complex ecological fabrics. This Thesis explores the eroding barrier island condition, and society of six hundred Inuit at Shishmaref, Alaska, where a system of jetties will be situated in the tidal delta zone between two migrating land masses. The system, mediating between land and water, will begin to stitch the eroding landscape back to health. By implementing a system of productive fishponds and natural, land-gathering structures, the intervention aims to support the small, indigenous community by reinstating traditional practices for managing the local ecology. Taking inspiration from cultural mythology and local biological relationships, this Thesis brings forth sustainable cultural and ecological horizons in the remote, Alaskan landscape.
5
6
ROLE OF THE ARCHITECT
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, ANTHROPOLOGY, ECOLOGY RESEARCHER’S LENS PROBLEMATICS + METHODOLOGY
This project seeks to reexamine the role of the designer as a cultural and ecological facilitator. Situated within the disciplines of anthropology and landscape architecture, this Thesis project begins to explore problematics inherent to contemporary architects. We are “removed designers,” as we are removed from both the cultures and environments we are designing for. This brings forth complexities in the ways in which different communities culturally construct realities that are connected to a specific place and worldview, and thus value systems, dreams, and categories for describing their worlds are critically different from the viewpoint of the removed designer. With this in mind, the concept of place, identity, and the constructed world becomes and integral facet to design decisions and responsibility. In my own upbringing, ‘place’ is extremely important as it is a strong link I have to my family. I have grown up locally in Cohoes, New York and now study just across the Hudson River, a five minute drive to Troy, New York. My mother is one of eight children, all of whom have remained in the area to raise their families and celebrate the seasons, spending time together. My father’s family is also local and has remained in the City of Albany for more generations than we can count. It is integral to be connected to the place I have grown up to maintain connections with the people in my life. There have been devastating stories in history where people have had to leave their homelands forcibly, due to government regimes and the blind-eyes of colonialism – social protocols that refused to value the integral human connection to place and the importance of fostering relationships in a specific region.
Fig. 0.02 Aerial view of polar bears on an iceberg. Designers do not often understand the ways construction can impact natural animal corridors and passageways, the movement in landscapes that sustains life in a given area.
Many communities across the world are finally politically protected from being forced from their homes, but are currently on the cusp of climatic crises. Climate change is an unavoidable aspect of contemporary life and many peoples’ homes and livelihoods are being threatened by rising temperatures, overpopulation, polluted atmospheres and waters, and unpredictable disasters. How can designers begin to be sensitive to the environmental and cultural limits of the sites that we are intervening in? How can contemporary designers begin to act as partners to the dreams and ambitions of communities that are not our own? 7
8
These questions raise many more about establishing connections, data, and relationships with the communities we are partnering with, as well as creating the correct framework for analyzing their environments. The re-coupling of culture and nature is also a re-coupling of designer and community. There is an appropriately-named theory in anthropology called the “Grounded Theory of Ethnography” that establishes a model for constructing accurate realities of people and places through research, and is suggestive of an adoptable method for designers. Grounded Theory “moves away from technology and turns it into an art… these studies encourage [writers] to locate themselves within their narratives, and therefore distance the objectified presentation of data… it can connect theory with realities, not just with research. Thus, it may prompt grounded theorists to go deeper into their studied phenomena to understand experience as their subjects live it, not just simply talk about it” [Charmaz, 161]. Especially with my own work, examining mythology as a lens into an aspect of the value system and worldview of the Shishmaref, the idea of accurately analyzing storytelling from the realities of contemporary life in distant communities, becomes a problem. Sometimes, the accounts of subjects are not always accurate portrayals of what they do or how they live. As in the Shishmaref woman’s retelling of their creation story [adapted from the documentary by Diana Lixenberg] this may be an old worldview, one that is not entirely embraced or accepted by the modern Inuit community. To accurately design for this region and culture, an examination of the current populations’ dreams, desires, and decisions must be taken into account to fully couple with them for an appropriate design strategy. In this type of research methodology, one of the most important components of the work is the sharing of ideas and information between designer and community.
Another major breakthrough in the methodology of Grounded Theory is the idea of the researcher developing a “constellation” of meanings, details, and goals. This has strong connections to the ideas behind sustainability and localism that are flourishing in the fields of architecture and landscape architecture today. That generalization is in some ways connected to globalism, “think local, act global” is phasing-out in contemporary practices, “think local, act local” seems to be much more appropriate. This also implies a complexity of themes, where “researchers may not readily find single, unifying themes… there may be many” [Charmaz, 169]. Hence, with the overarching concerns about constructing an accurate portrait of reality, the concept of small-scale mosaics – detailed, faceted, and kaleidoscope-like structures of information act to more accurately portray the shifting, changing, and varied viewpoints that are integral elements to establishing a design proposal. Much like nature itself, cultural values and desires are always changing and never the same. Whereas a computer can re-render scenes of life, or we can replay film again and again, realities in culture and nature occur in similar patterns but never repeat themselves. The lifestyles, worldviews, and desires of communities are everchanging and can never be generalized in accordance with global trends. To fit the complex layers of one society in the framework of sweeping global ideals is to overlook the delicate, personal relationships people establish between each other and with their local environment. Much like landscape architecture’s ecosystem mosaics, the world is also comprised of cultural constellations. - Christianna Bennett, October 2011
With my concerns about ‘place’ and creating a solution to prevent “the wave” from destroying a home, a family, and a livelihood, the design details must address the most fundamental elements of social structure – the family. The study of kinship in anthropology is one of the most “basic” forms for establishing the correct lens into a culture and the meanings valuable to a group of people. The relationships between people at the family level are immeasurably important and must be examined as the glue that holds communities together. Inuit communities are known in the anthropological world for having strong ideas about the strength of familial bonds. The family unit is typically small, but extremely close-knit. This may provide an insight about the Shishmaref themselves, a small community of six-hundred twenty-five people who bear a lifestyle of severe isolation from other communities. The fortitude of this solated culture provides some insights to how they have lived on this specific land for so long.
Fig. 0.03 Women walking on a beach in a high latitude environment.
1 Interview with Tamar Gordon, Anthropology Ph.D. 2 Charmaz, Kathy. Grounded Theory in Ethnography. 2001 9
10
INTRODUCTION
RECOUPLING CULTURE + NATURE II In the current economic and biospheric crises known as the sixth extinction, conservation has emerged as a primary defense in combating climate change and forecasted environmental catastrophes. The emergent sub-field of bicultural diversity conservation explores the coexistence of stainability respondent to cultural and biological diversity. In support of the changing global conservation agenda is the design of indigenous landscape systems. Through the recoupling of culture and nature, a fractured legacy of our industrial past, new connections will be forged that associate new design agendas and ally traditional ecological knowledge with scientific exploration. Technological innovation will be allowed to systematically restructure the trajectory of development in the landscape through the synthetic design of natural and built ecologies. Intrusions in the landscape have emerged from the effects of globalization, urbanization, industrialization, and agriculturalization and compounded by the reciprocal effects of climate change. These drivers of change continually infiltrate new territories within the biosphere, migrating from the urban agglomerations to remote fragile landscapes. In these landscapes, the dual threat of overexploitation and mismanagement requires a new ethic of conversation and environmental stewardship. By ignoring patterns we wish approaching environmental tipping points that could catastrophically reduce the capacity of ecosystems to provide essential services that support human wellbeing. These issues are increasingly sited in the remote lands of developing countries facing expanding patterns of consumption that compromise the existence of their natural biological reserves. The next generation of designers will be challenged to recouple culture and nature, determining a path beyond forecasted environmental tipping points inherited from the last century of highspeed change, biodiversity loss, and unregulated expansion. Design explorations within the thesis section will pursue an agenda beyond the paradigm of Ecological Urbanism, the current conversation between the disciplines of architecture, landscape architecture, and ecological sciences. Emergent theories of biocultural diversity, a field of conservation presently making its impact within the ecological sciences, will be extended and explored through design. Design will be challenged to determine how interventions as ecological prosthetic can be embedded and elicit a new confluence within an ecosystem. Conflicting environmental and economic agendas have opened up a window of opportunity to re-establish the biospheric agenda as the crucial foundation upon which future development will most successfully proceed. On this point, the thesis will be similarly founded on the goal of interrogating our global drivers of change, in an effort to redirect development in support of our most valuable resource, our biocultural diversity. - Julia Watson, 2012
11
12
ARCHITECTURAL DISCOURSE How are small-scale indigenous communities across the world responding to the effects of global climate change, urbanization, and growing digital networks such as the internet that are rapidly rendering “place” as meaningless for making a living on this planet?
How is the understanding and value of local natural systems and processes viewed by isolated indigenous cultures, especially in comparison to rapidly-urbanizing Western cultures, and within the context of community-based sustainability?
How much is “place” an inherent part of human identity? How do different cultures tie their identities to specific locations, especially within dynamic, changing landscapes?
How can designers begin addressing community empowerment, sustainability, biodiversity, and conservation? What is the appropriate partnership between designer and the communities we are designing for?
And how can the utilization of ecosystem services and landscape processes enable the creation of sustainable and culturallyappropriate architectures, while also addressing and anticipating the mitigation of future climate change scenarios?
13
14
1. RESEARCH GENEALOGY
This project stems from cross-disciplinary interests in architecture, landscape architecture, anthropology, ecology, and sociology. The project begins with the investigation of a small Inuit community just off the western coast of Alaska who are considered some of the first climate change refugees. This chapter explores the cultural “climate” of a group of six hundred Inuit Native Americans. A portrait of this community has been aptly displayed by Dutch photographer, Diana Lixenberg, in 2008. Lixenberg created a documentary film about the Shishmaref community during the height of climatechange awareness in 2007. Some critics label this community as the “first” or “most threatened” by climate change, but in reality there are millions of communities facing the same problems, questions, and fears across the planet. The Shishmaref identify themselves as island people. In the northern territories, the distinction between islander and mainlander is readily apparent. Practices, modes for survival, and landscape conditions are extremely different on the tundra shoreline in comparison to the plains and eventual taiga biome. Communities inhabiting these landscapes derive their identity from the landscape conditions, and the practices they use to maintain a relationship to their location, either on the coast or inland. This distinction makes it an integral decision to not move the Shishmaref from the land they call home, a place where lives and stories have been built up to create a healthy culture.
15
Fig. 1.01 Main Street on Shishmaref Island during the wintertime.
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
existence of ice water
erosion
deposits under ice
sediment deposit in marshland
ice 1ft+ thick [safe for hunting]
thin ice
CLIMATE CHANGE = THINNING ICE
ice fishing season
warm-weather fishing
ice fishing season
LONGER PERIODS OF THIN ICE
incresaed period of erosion [water phase-change extended] Fig. 1.02 Calendar explaining how climate change impacts the island landscape, making it more difficult to be hunting and fishing through a large part of the year. 16
Shishmaref, AK January 2012 Shishmaref, AK June 2012 Fig. 1.03 Shishmaref, Alaska in the winter and summertime. The spring season is the most detrimental to the island, as the ice thaws and a series of spring storms allow waves to drag shoreline soils from under the footings of houses.
Shishmaref, Alaska is one of the most remote Inuit villages on the planet. Located over 80 miles away from the nearest town this hearty group of six hundred people had at one time been a sustainable community living off the ecological resources available to them. Since the early 1900’s, these ties to the landscape and local environmental characteristics has been lost. The introduction of Christian missionaries to the island transformed the livelihood of the Shismaref to the point that not only religious education was affected, but even the daily practices of the villagers was radically altered. Missionaries brought with them new markets and goods for trade, also new tastes and ideas about what was “culturally-appropriate.� These foreign ideas infiltrated the small island for years to come, slowly transforming a once hunting and fishing-based community into one reliant upon airborne imports from the mainland. Today, the Shishmaref receive three flights of food a day from USAid, a completely unsustainable source of nourishment for both the island and the United States.
Furthermore, the onset of climate change is rapidly changing the local landscape, making it more difficult for the Shishmaref to even consider reinstating their hunting and fishing culture. As sea ice becomes increasingly thinner, and is thinner for a longer period of time throughout the year, it creates and environment unsuitable for hunting and fishing. Thick ice is required during the cold months to be a walkable surface for the purpose of ice fishing, necessitating at least six inches of solid ice to support a human being. To begin fishing and hunting larger animals by boat, the ice needs to have cleared so that the Shishmaref can move through a clear body of water on their small, motor-powered metal boats. When the sea ice remains thin for months, rather than developing thickness or dissipating altogether, it creates a period where the villagers are trapped on the island, without the ability to make a living from their surroundings. This, coupled with the constant influx of groceries from the mainland being made available in the market creates a sinkhole of economic plight for the community and the governmental agencies that support them. 17
CULTURE 2050
LANDSCAPE 2050
Fig. 1.04 If the Shishmaref are to move from their island in search of a more stable environment, their culture would quickly dissolve and both the sense of community identity and “place” will be lost.
“Who and what we are is based on where we live and the way we live. We have been here for countless generations. We value our way of life, we value our environment as it sustains us; it provides for our very existence.”
- exerpt from the Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation Coalition Newsletter, August 2006 18
“3 Futures” During her stay with the Shishmaref, documentary photographer and filmmaker, Dana Lixenberg had the opportunity to discuss with community members what they envisioned the future “fate” of the island and their culture to be. There were three main futures envisioned by community members, each with their own merits and pitfalls.
MOVE TO KOTZEBUE & COMPETE FOR JOBS
“If we are not together anymore, I think we would become weak and kind of, like, lost.”
OVE TO KOTZEBUE & COMPETE FOR JOBS
This is a quote from Ardith Weyiouanna, an outspoken elder of the community, invested in the cultural resilience of the Shishmaref. COMPETE FORinterviews JOBS She expresses through& many of her with Lixenburg fears about how much the Inuit way of life is fading from the younger generations as their attraction to media and landscapes outside of the island become more attractive ways of life. Ardith fears that the younger Shishmaref will readily vote to move the entire community to a nearby city, such as Kotzebue, to assimilate into a more urban environment. This first proposal offers itself as a more stable landscape to live upon, but is a place that would completely derail the cultural stability of the small community. If the Shishmaref REBUILD are to take this first option, &they will face losing their small-village identity, also losing their idenity as “Shishmaref” altogether to become Kotzebue residents.
MOVE TO KOTZEBUE
MOVE INLAND
MOVE INLAND
STAY ON ISLAND
The second option raised by community members is the move inland, to a location near their ritual hot springs site, down the Serpentine River that is connected to Shishmaref Inlet. This option is not quite as detrimental to the cultural resilience of the Shishmaref name and identity, but would require a large amount of funding and construction to happen. They would need to reconstruct the airstrip for providing food and water from USAid, also all of their homes and businesses, as well as basic infrastructure for electricity, plumbing, and water, which could take months to accomplish even with the help of outside aid. The third option raised by the community, but also the most unthinkable to them is to stay on the island and continue facing the battle with the landscape and climate change. Currently, this feels like the most unfavorable option for the Shishmaref for a couple of reasons. First, the US government and support groups currently helping the
& REBUILD
& SECURE WHAT EXISTS
Shishmaref to stay afloat are struggling to support the present mode of livelihood on the island. Hence, these groups are more in favor of moving the community to a place where they can search out new homes and jobs in a stable environment, pressuring the community to choose this option. Second, the Shishmaref have been battling with this landscape for generations. Ever since they became detached from the land and reliant upon foreign goods, it has been a struggle to understand how to read the environment and use it productively. Staying on the island is not the worst option. By gaining a better understanding about the future of the landscape in the context of climate change, and utilizing the rich ecosystem resources the Shishmaref could thrive on their home turf. 19
Otto Von Kotzebue is leading the team“Kotzebue Sound Lowlands.”
Baltic-German explorers, Andreyevich Sarychef + Gleb Semenovich Shishmaref “discover” Shishmaref while working for the Russian army.
1900 - 1920: Christian missionaries become interested in Shishmaref and send two patrons there. Within 20 years, all members of the village convert. 1901: First post office is established, communication to Nome and large cities est.
Native Americans granted right to citizenship, by approval of a court of five white Americans.
Alaska becom member of t United States America.
uary Jan 3,
9
195
0 193 5 -
191
1 190 0 +
190
8 181 5 -
181
With the post office, comes teachers + more missionaries from beyond the island.
June 18, 1934: Indian Reorganization Act [IRA]
pre s 800 - 1
00
2,0 .
B.C
Teachers + missionaries speak in English, begin changing the language of the youth.
Shishmaref is hunting grounds for early Inuit settlers.
20
Shishmaref community is mainly hunters + fishers. Animist religion dominates. During dark winters art flourishes in the form of carvings from walrus ivory. Singing, dancing, games, and teaching happen in winter months to prepare youth for life on the island.
Before 1915, Alaskan Native peoples were not “second-rate citizens” but were not allowed to be citizens at all. They were considered at this time to be ‘uncivilized indigenous people.’
Electric satellite made
1930’s: era of “assimilation”
SHISHMAREF TIMELINE Aid received from U.S. government: electricity, transportation [goods by air], social services, food stamps.
Jobs held by non-Shishmaref: teachers, civil servants, police officers, religious servants.
mes 49th the s of
0s, 0s,
199
Water from the store [bought during spring and summer] costs $7.00 a bottle. During winter can melt ice chunks from the kettles. 1960 - 70’s: move towards recognizing independence of Native American groups.
y oda - T
Alaska Federation of Natives [1966] Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [1971]
2012 +
0s
200
1
197
1 197 6 -
0’s
196
196
city, telephone, e connections on the island.
Shishmaref Native Corporation
2004: US Army Core of Engineers estimates cost of relocation. Estimated cost of moving + relocation: $180 million USD
198
Only the pastor, his wife, and a few teachers have plumbing on the island. This problem exists to this day.
1983: Due to high suicide rates and alcoholism, community bans alcohol from the island.
2002: Shishmaref villagers vote for relocation.
Shishmaref lobbying group: Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation Coalition [2001]
2008: Dana Lixenberg creates documentary photography + film about Shishmaref to raise awareness about Climate Change.
Jobs held by Shishmaref: hunting/ fishing, local food industry, local stores, home, management, arts, health care [small clinic], construction
21
[DANA LIXENBERG. 2008] Fig. 1.05 View of conditions on Shishmaref Island. The influx of foreign goods to the island includes a number of “mainland technologies” such as quads and snowmobiles, “snow machines,” for traversing the land without the use of a dogsled team. Also, the constant influx of USAid materials does not include a clean-up regime, whereby metal and plastic barrels and containers remain on the island as leftover “junk” from the exchange. Having no external markets or connections beyond the island means the Shishmaref carry the weight of living with these materials on a daily basis, with no place to dispose of them.
DEMOGRAPHICS
625
OTHER RELIGION HEALTH ART
POPULATION
375 UNEMPLOYED
ADMIN.
250 EDUCATION
Fig. 1.06 Another image depicting an area designated for the disposal of junk and waste - machines, materials, and objects. 22
$64,000 ALASKA $50,000 US AVG. INCOME
$30,000 SHISHMAREF
WORK
Fig. 1.07 Demographic figures of Shishmaref, with income comparisons with the rest of Alaska and the United States average income.
ALASKAN INDUSTRIES STATE MOTTO: “NORTH TO THE FUTURE”
NOME
ALASKA
KOTZEBUE
POPULATION: 4,500
TOP 10 EMPLOYERS:
POPULATION: 3,100
130 MILES SOUTHEAST OF SHISHMAREF
petroleum refining + mining lumber seafood industry trade + transport printing + publishing retail construction
100 MILES NORTHEAST OF SHISHMAREF
old gold mining town port city tourism Iditarod, Bering Sea Ice Classic [golf], Midnight Sun Festival fishing industry = largest private sector industry employer
Inuit trading town 70% of population is Inuit Noatak, Selawik and Kobuk Rivers drain into Kotzebue creating connections inland “Kikiktagruk” Inuit name for Kotzebue means “almost an island”
* tourism industry completely changes from winter-summer months due to drastic change in temperature and landscape
[49th of 50 states for manufacturing production]
Fig. 1.08 Profiles of near-by Alaskan cities and a survey of major industries in the state of Alaska.
“Subsistence, living off what the land and sea can offer, is fading as the way of life for many of the Inupiaq. It is part of their cultural identity, but it is now a financial necessity. A T-bone steak costs 22 dollars; the same amount will buy five gallons of gas. That much gas is enough for a day of hunting with the snowmobiles, often shooting two or three caribou and getting enough meat for a few weeks.” - Dana Lixenburg Current conditions on Shishmaref Island are a reflection of the detachment from traditional modes of livelihood. At a time when the community was comprised of sustainable hunting and fishing practices, the island landscape and cultural virility were strong and healthy. Today, these practices are continued
as emergency measures for obtaining food when it cannot be purchased from the market. The average Shishmaref salary is well below the national average, and every individual on the island is considered living under the U.S. poverty level. To obtain the food and goods from the three flights a day of USAid, the villagers use food stamps. When this money is dried up, the villagers must fervently try to hunt in their degenerate landscape, attempting to revive skills their forefathers became masters at when hunting was practiced every day. This tug-of-war between living like mainlanders off of food sold in the market, and then at times, hunting for food to keep their families alive is creating an unbalanced, schizophrenic lifestyle for the Shishmaref. 23
Fig. 1.09 View of the town square during the midnight sun season. Midnight un lasts in Shishmaref for three weeks of the year.
THE HUMAN IS BODY + SOUL [SEPARATE ENTITIES] NOT 1 ENTITY
MIGRATION OF THE SOUL + PARTIAL MIGRATION OF THE SOUL FROM THE INDIVIDUAL [EXPERIENCED BY EVERY PERSON]
Fig. 1.10 Diagrams explaining the Inuit concept of “the human” and the “migration of the soul,” both integral cultural views of the body and individual that give way to understanding Inuit ideas about migration and what a person can learn to identify with and adapt to.
TENSION BETWEEN COASTAL + INLAND COMMUNITIES Fig. 1.11 [on the right] View of the barrier island chain Shishmaref Island is situated within, and [on the left] view of the inland condition where the peatland and kettle-lake landscape meets a desert of lava about one hundred miles inland from the Shishmaref. Due to their remoteness, Inuit communities have strong ties to the particular landscape in which they live. Islanders would never want to adhere to an inland way of life, and inland “forest people” would never adhere to islanders’ ways of living.
24
“Traditional knowledge refers to the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities around the world. Developed from experience gained over the centuries and adapted to the local culture and environment, traditional knowledge is transmitted orally from generation to generation. It tends to be collectively owned and takes the form of stories, songs, folklore, proverbs, cultural values, beliefs, rituals, community laws, local language, and agricultural practices, including the development of plant species and animal breeds. Traditional knowledge is mainly of a practical nature, particularly in such fields as agriculture, fisheries, health, horticulture, and forestry.”
-from the Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 8 [j] To gain a better understanding of a particular culture or community, designers should aim to research not only imagery, icons, and construction of the people and places under consideration, but also delve into the stories, rituals, and folklore of a community to try and gain the perspective of an alternative worldview. By doing so, designers, researchers, and anyone committing time and money to a community will be more prepared to set aside their own prejudices about the world and come forth with viable options responding to the wealth of knowledge inherent to them community requiring input. Traditional ecological knowledge, or “TEK” is the term used to refer to the wealth of information embedded within a
local community’s understanding of their environment and the resources available to them. It often refers to the resource management strategies utilized by a group of people to maintain their landscape and livelihood. Mythology, folklore, and specific rituals practiced by community reveal through metaphor and descriptive imagery stories about the way their world operates, providing key insights into what is important and note-worthy for making a living in a particular landscape. Often when place names, processes, and seasonal shifts are noted in these stories and practices, they are referring to natural cycles and reoccurring events in the surrounding ecology. These cultural devices are essentially highlyintricate scientific and ecological principles being described in non-scientific terms. 25
INUIT FOLKLORE ORIGINS OF THE ARCTIC PEOPLES
CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORLD
1. The ingnersuit, “great fire” have their abodes beneath the surface of the earth, in cliffs along the seashore, where the entrances are invisible and cannot be found.
The earth, with the sea supported by it, rests upon pillars, and covers the under world, accessible by various entries from the sea, as well as from mountain clefts.
2. The kungusutarissat, or mermen, are considered the proper inue of the sea. They are fond of fox-flesh and fox-tails, which are sacrificed to them to secure good hunting at sea. 3. The inugpait are giants inhabiting lands beyond the sea, where all beings have a size proportionate to them. One-eyed beings are also found here. 4. The tornit are most eminent among inue of the interior. Their dwellings are partially situated in the tracts visited by men, but the entrances are hidden beneath vegetation and soil. They are twice the size of men, or even more, but lead the same kind of life. They also go hunting at sea, but only in dangerous, foggy weather and without kayaks, sitting on the surface of the water. They are wise men and know the thoughts of men before they are spoken.
A SONG FROM SANERUT I behold yon land of Nunarsuit; . . the mountaintops on its south side are wrapped in clouds; . . it slopes towards the south, . . towards Usuarsuk. . . What couldst thou expect in such a miserable place? . . . All its surroundings being shrouded with ice, . . not before late in the spring can people from there go travelling.
26 26
Above the earth and upper world is found, beyond the blue sky... vaults like an outer shell. The upper world exhibits a real land with mountains, valleys, and lakes. After death, human souls either go to the upper or to the under world. The latter is decidedly preferred, as being warm and rich in food. There are dwellings of the happy dead arsissut - ‘those who live in abundance.’ On the contrary, those who go to the upper world suffer from cold and famine; and those are called the arssartut the ‘ball players’ who create the aurora borealis, or Northern Lights.
THE GIFTS FROM THE “UNDER-WORLD” An old bachelor, feeling envious of a younger one because of his better luck in hunting and his finding more favour with women, applied to his mother for counsel and aid. She pointed out to him a certain spot where he would find a large stone, and moving it aside, an opening would appear leading straight to the under-world, where he would come to a lake; and on seeing two boats, he was to let the first one pass, but was to apply to the second. Acting upon her advice, he received a piece of matak (whale-skin) from the second boat, by eating which he acquired astonishing goodluck in hunting. The young man, noticing this change of fortune, questioned him as to the cause of his recent success, when he imparted to him the information he had gained from his mother, only substituting the first boat for the second. The young man in this way also got a piece of matak, by eating which he only secured the worst luck in his hunting. Meanwhile the old man had consumed his piece, and went to fetch more; but when he came to the spot the second time, he found himself quite unable to move the stone.
MYTHOLOGY: DESCRIBING RELATIONSHIPS TO THE LANDSCAPE AND ECOLOGY
Fig. 1.12 Above images show landscape conditions of inland volcanoes and freshwater kettle lakes - unique landscape features in the tundra environment. The above right shows the Shishmaref village in the winter of 1910. The bottom image shows the “transference of soul” concept still believed and practiced by Inuit hunters today. 27
Fig. 1.13 Aerial view of Shishmaref Inlet and marshland in the summer months, at dusk.
Fig. 1.14 View of boats in Shishmaref Inlet from an eye-level perspective on the island, at dusk. 28
Fig. 1.15 Visualization of the Shishmaref creation story.
SHISHMAREF ISLAND: CREATION STORY “Long ago, all there was here was water and no one lived here. One day a fierce storm raged and the roar of the furious sea sounded like thunder. The powerful waves threw tree trunks up onto the sand. As time passed, grass and other plants grew over them. The grass captured new sand and hills began to form. People saw the island rising from the sea. They came to the new land to hunt the animals that lived there in abundance and the hunting camp slowly grew into a village. That is how the Shishmaref was created; from driftwood and sand, surrounded by the tempestuous water.”
“... but someday the land will return to the way it was. It will sink back into the sea. Only the sand will remain, without houses or people, and the place will look like it did all those many years ago.”
ANALYSIS + INTERPRETATION The Shishmaref creation story is the pivotal specimen of traditional ecological knowledge developed by villagers that is explored in this Thesis. The story describes the process of migration and sediment-depositing that happens to barrier islands over the course of time. By developing an oral and written description of this landscape process, and by embedding this knowledge into a story known by every individual on the island the Shishmaref acknowledge and understand that the land upon which they exist is not permanent and will be changing in the future. In response to this landscape process, the Shishmaref have had to move their village away from the shoreline three times in the past one hundred years. This type of a move is becoming increasingly more difficult and costly as the Shishmaref currently have no means of raising money to continue making large-scale moves. By studying the barrier island condition more indepth this Thesis later explores creating a productive landscape where the Shishmaref will be provided with additional land, as well as a means for generating economy to protect their homes and livelihood.
29
Fig. 1.16 “Looking for the Light in a Fading World� by Michael Robinson. This image tells the story of the inter-connectedness between humans, the landscape, and animals depicting the complex ecology of the Arctic. Here, the layering of systems exposes the reliance humans have upon the functioning of the ocean environment, marine animals, and the forests. 30
Fig. 1.17 Painting of three seals by an anonymous Inuit artist. Here, the importance of what is under the water is expressed with the same weight and clarity as what exists above the surface.
“I have worked hard at removing ‘man’ from the ‘centre of all things’ by putting him in his rightful place. Equally, among all living things.”
- Inuit artist, Michael Robinson The final facet of Shishmaref’s culture works of art and the expressive purveyors
exploration with the is to explore their concepts behind these of culture.
“Artists create identities for cultures and societies.” -Anonymous Art is a means for understanding the traditional ecological knowledge of a culture, in a similar thread as the stories, rituals, songs, poetry, and folklore. Contrastingly, the visual becomes more of a universal device because it detaches the observer from the requirement of knowing a particular vocabulary for gaining knowledge.
Inuit art expresses a unique mysticism, having “foggy,” unclear qualities in its forms and distinctions between objects and layers within each work. There are also strong notions of connectivity, flow, and interdependence that link together landscape features, animals, and humans in complex webs of overlapping color, textures, and linework. These particular ways of representing the world follow very closely with important parts of the landscape surrounding the Shishmaref - the fading island that is growing and eroding as it migrates along the shoreline, seasonal extremes, and the importance of what exists under the water’s surface and under the ground plane. All of these intricacies are visualized by the art and point out what are integral parts of the world this culture is immersed in. 31
32
2. GLOBAL STUDIES SEA LEVEL RISE + CLIMATE CHANGE REFUGEES
As climate change impacts are recorded across the planet, we are becoming more aware of the threats to the global community. One of the most imminent effects appearing today is the rising sea levels. Due to the warming atmosphere, glaciers and ice sheets are melting and increasing the volume of the oceans. This directly correlates with the danger of small islands disappearing off the map. The following pages explore trends at the global scale concerned with sea level rise, indigenous landscapes, biodiversity, and sacred places. This research launched the exploratory work of the entire Thesis, by providing a sweeping framework for understanding the link between nature, humans, and the climate as we stand today.
33
[1]
INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES
[2]
BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOTS
[3]
GLACIERS + SEA LEVEL RISE [Above images] These mappings document climate change and biodiversity relationships on a global scale. The chosen layers have stemmed from concerns about indigenous territories, biological diversity, and sacred landscapes. Also, there is a focus on aquatic systems and cultures on the verge of migration due to climate change. The first three layers in the mapping studies are shown above, and focus on large-scale phenomena affecting communities across the globe. Fig 2.01 Layer 1 - Indigenous Communities shows areas in the world where cultures have their rooted themselves for thousands of years and remain there to this day. 34
Fig. 2.02 Layer 2 - Biodiversity Hotspots shows areas with distinguished biological diversity as labeled by WWF. These can be areas where there is an abundance of species or endemic species, of either flora or fauna. Fig. 2.03 Layer 3 - Glaciers + Sea Level Rise shows low-lying coastal areas, as well as locations where large, melting glaciers are identified as the places most in danger of flooding with the advent of climate change.
GLOBAL MAPPING LAYERS 1 - 2 - 3 “Climate change is a complex problem of global proportions. It requires us to fundamentally reconsider where and how we live as societies; demands that we reinvent infrastructure design to meet the more variable conditions we will face in the future; and necessitates flexibility, resourcefulness, and robust, redundant systems.�
- Dr. Judith Rodin President, The Rockefeller Foundation 35
[4]
AREAS AFFECTED BY SEA LEVEL RISE
[5]
LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY
*
[6]
SACRED LANDSCAPES [Above images] Fig. 2.04 Layer 4 - Areas Affected by Sea Level Rise shows the low-lying areas of the planet, islands and coastlines most in danger of flooding due to sea level rise and [or] the advent of a large storm surge. Millions of people across the world are in danger of losing their homes, livelihoods, and even lives because of their place near the sea. Fig. 2.05 Layer 5 - Linguistic Diversity shows places where there is a variety of large numbers of indigenous languages existing. 36
Fig. 2.06 * Layer 6 - Sacred Landscapes begins to map the intangible heritage of indigenous peoples, by showing some of the most sacred places on the planet, as documented by the stories and identification of indigenous people. This is still under development in my own research as well as being rapidly developed by the Shadow Conservation Network.
GLOBAL MAPPING LAYERS 4 - 5 - 6 “The Maldives will have to find a new home for its population of almost 400,000, since the atolls reach their peak at about 8 feet. Rising water will change not only the contours of islands, but also population patterns around the world, as millions of people are directly affected.�
- Barry Bergdoll Director, Rising Currents at MOMA, NYC 37
Fig. 2.07 Artic fox jumps on lingering pieces of ice in the Arctic Ocean.
Fig. 2.08 Aerial view of a boat passing through icebergs in the Chukchi Sea. The Chukchi Sea is the body of water located directly south of the Arctic Ocean, and just north of the Pacific Ocean. Shishmaref Island is located within the Chukchi Sea. 38
[NEW CULTURAL HORIZON] the Northwest Passage EXISTING SHIPPING: 27 days Fukuoka, Japan, to New York via Panama Canal
FUTURE SHIPPING: 19 days Fukuoka, Japan, to New York via Northwest Passage
FUKUOKA
FUKUOKA
REYKAJAVIK ROTTERDAM
NEW YORK
MANCHESTER LISBON
NEW YORK NORFOLK
CARACAS
Adapted from diagram by Matthew Baird Architects.
Fig. 2.09 Diagram of the current shipping routs through the Panama Canal [left] and the proposed Northwest Passage route [right].
Fig. 2.10 Crude oil ships.
Fig. 2.11 An Inuit village located on the Arctic Ocean.
Over the next 5o years, world shipping corridors are predicted to be radically altered. As climate changes causes the ice to melt in the Arctic Ocean, a new passage for shipping is beginning to open up. Ever since the origins of shipping trade across the Atlantic had begun, explorers and traders alike have searched for a more direct route from China to Europe. The development of the Panama Canal from 1880 to 1914 was the first link to join Asia and Europe via the Atlantic Ocean and is still used as the main shipping corridor today. In 2008, a Russian satellite observed what the country had always dreamed of, the opening up of the “Northern Sea Route,” a passage through the Arctic Ocean free of
thick sea ice. The pursuit of this passage is no longer a question. Being able to take ships across the North Pole would cut shipping time down by nine days, saving both gas and time of travel between China/Japan and the United States/Europe. Researchers have also claimed there to be an abundance of the world’s unexploited resources, such as oil and natural gas in the sea floor of the Arctic ocean causing there to be a huge draw for both governments and the oil industry to take interest in this area. Under the shadow of these large-scale global plans, there exist the small, remote Inuit, Yupik, and native Greenland villages, whose homes and livelihoods are about to be radically changed. 39
ST P ASSA GE
LAND USE AQUACULTURE
NORT
HWE
BUILDING DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY
TOURISM
ECONOMY
E
LO C
AL
ST
OP
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
SS
AG
SHISHMA
NO
RT
HW
ES
T
PA
POP. 700
NOME
POP. 3,598
40
PROPOSED NORTHWEST PASSAGE
NOORVIK
KIANA
POP. 388
POP. 634
KOTZEBUE POP. 3,237
SELAWIK POP. 722
AREF DEERING POP. 140
CANDLE POP. <100
BUCKLAND POP. 406
50 mi
41
1 3
1
RISING OCEAN
2
ERODING COASTLINES
3
FUTURE ERODING + FLOOD TERRITORY
2
[NEXT 50-100 YRS]
4
Fig. 2.12 Diagram of the existing conditions and landscape elements located within the vicinity of Shishmaref Island.
4
CULTURAL LIMITS “INLAND” TERRITORY
2011
“When my mom grew up here, she used to have a mile of yard out the front of the island to get to the water, and now it’s right here at everybody’s front doors. The island is disappearing real fast.” - Joe Magby Shishmaref villager
“For decades the inhabitants of Shishmaref have felt the threat to their way of life. After destructive storms they took the first steps to combat coastal erosion. Sandbags were tossed into the water off the afflicted coast and seawalls were built. Despite these efforts, the first 14 houses vanished into the sea in a storm in 1997.” - excerpt from Last Days of the Shishmaref 42
2 3
1
1
CURRENT SHORELINE EXTENTS
2
LAND LOSS WITH 3FT SEA LEVEL RISE
3
LAND LOSS FROM A LARGE STORM SURGE [80% OF SHISHMAREF TOWN IS LOST]
[.4
20M0I] 0 FT
HIGHEST POINT IN THE TOWN: 18 FT ABOVE SEA LEVEL
0.1 mi
PREDICTED SEA LEVEL RISE
Fig. 2.13 View of the predicted effects of climate change on the shoreline at Shishmaref Island.
Current Erosion Control Measures on Shishmaref Island
Segment of the sandbag rip-rap wall
Segment of the stone rip-rap wall
Fig. 2.14
Fig. 2.15
Climate change is rapidly altering the atmospheres and landscapes of the planet. Unfortunately it is almost impossible to predict the changes that will be brought upon specific areas of the world as every year storms and temperatures are different from the last.
Corps of Engineers who have consistently been spending $2 million dollars a year to reconstruct this wall after the spring season. Even with this structure, the Shishmaref are still losing homes and structures to the sea.
At Shishmaref Island, the springtime storms have been getting worse every year. Since 1997, the Shishmaref have lost about 3 feet of coastline per year, losing homes that are built along the coast. The current wall made sections of bags. The place and
mode of protection is a rip-rap of stones, as well as several the rip-rap wall made of sand stone rip rap wall is put in maintained by the US Army
Furthermore, it is predicted that climate change will alter the Arctic and northern regions at a rate three times faster then the rest of the world and Alaska will see an average temperature rise of at least five degrees over the course of the next decade. The United States General Accounting Office has also identified 184 Alaskan villages facing problems with flooding and erosion, similar to the conditions at Shishmaref. 43
DRIVERS OF CHANGE MIGRATION OR INHABITATION?
CLIMATE CHANGE
POPULATION + CULTURE
TECHNOLOGY
MIGRATION
INHABITATION
Fig. 2.16 Drivers of change affecting Shishmaref community. Increasing climate change is changing the livelihood of the population and culture of the Shishmaref, causing them to question whether they can remain on the island and by what means they would need to do so. To remain on the island, the Shishmaref would have to begin developing new modes of technology to be able to adapt to the changing landscape as it is altered by the rising sea level and effects of erosion.
DRIVERS OF CHANGE WHAT IS HAPPENING?
CLIMATE CHANGE + LACK OF TECHNOLOGICAL GROWTH - rising sea level
NECESSITY FOR MIGRATION
- lack of resources + land
RESULTANT ASSIMILATION TO NEW CULTURE + SOCIETY + DESTROYED BIODIVERSITY - loss of cultural identity
- changing flora and fauna
- loss of indigenous knowledge
- melting permafrost
- homogenization of human species
- loss of human + biological habitats
- homogenization of biological species + ecosystems
2011
Fig. 2.17 What is currently happening to the Shishmaref population. If the Shishmaref must migrate from their island, the assimilation to a new town or city will cause the loss of cultural identity. On Shishmaref Island, the villagers not only maintain unification by way of their cultural practices, but are also tied together by their connection to the island.
44
2050
Fig. 2.18 Aerial view of Shishmaref looking into Shishmaref Inlet.
These diagrams are initial explorations about trying to identify the major causes of change affecting the Shishmaref culture and their island in the face of global climate change and the introduction of the Northwest Passage. These explorations focus on the intersection of culture, climate, and technology in the Shishmaref community. Currently the community is facing rapid depletion of land due to sea level rise and increasingly more violent storm surges. These incidents can be traced to the impacts of climate change that are being traced to noticeable changes in the Arctic region. The Shishmaref community is also facing many problems of the contemporary age.
The availability to travel, especially by air is enticing to younger generations who wish to get off the island. By traveling far from home, and being exposed to opportunities abroad, the older generations fear the young people will not return to their home on the island and continue the indigenous way of life. They fear their land, story, and legacy will become lost. Physical loss is also a concern as climate change drastically altars the shape of the island where money is scarce. Most Shismaref live off food stamps and food from USAid that is shipped in daily. As homes are being lost to the sea, and no capital is being produced by the villagers, there is very little hope that much can be rebuilt in a feasible budget and timeline. 45
ATE - CULTURE - TECHNOLOGY
050 Fig. 2.19 Diagram of largest urban centers across the globe, places where technology is developed and designed for.
050 STRONG
WEAK
INDIGENOUS TECHNOLOGY
STRONG
INDIGENOUS TECHNOLOGY WEAK
WEAK STRONG
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY
050 2011 WEAK
2050 STRONG
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY
050 2011
2050
Fig. 2.20 Depiction of the indigenous Inuit way of life fading as a result of the highly-centralized urban developments on the planet taking over. There are currently no developing technologies to help the indigenous Arctic people adapt to their changing cultural and climatic conditions. In fact, governments and investors from the wealthiest cities on the planet are now taking interest in the Arctic to take advantage of the natural resources and the Northwest Passage, to begin drilling for oil bringing back energy and profits to global cities. These interests leave little room for the Inuit to continue their current way of life as large agencies will be infiltrating their landscapes, bringing with them foreign technology and equipment for extracting from the land. 46
DRIVERS OF CHANGE II WHAT COULD HAPPEN INSTEAD?
- rising sea level
- growth of population in the area
- changing flora and fauna
- expansion of indigenous knowledge
- melting permafrost
TECHNOLOGY [working together using existence knowledge and building upon it]
2011
GROWTH OF POPULATION + BIODIVERSITY
ADAPTATION
CLIMATE CHANGE
POPULATION + CULTURE [co-creating environment and local identity]
VALUES
- expansion of ecological niches
[participation in â&#x20AC;&#x153;newâ&#x20AC;? mythology, regaining the landscape]
2050
Fig. 2.21 Diagram - What could happen if the Shishmaref community adapts to the changing island and climate? Exploring ways in which the Shishmaref can begin adapting to climate change and cultural change as they face the future.
Fig. 2.22 Aerial view of Shishmaref Island in the wintertime. During the winter months, the surrounding landscape can be used for ice fishing, but little else. It is during the long winter season that the Inuit typically develop their artwork and fine goods to be sold during the rest of the year. It is during this time that the Shishmaref rely heavily on the support of USAid food and supplies, but do not currently have a system set in place to sell goods back to a larger market for the means of making a profit. 47
48
3. SITE + CONTEXT SHISHMAREF ISLAND, ALASKA 66°14-41-N
166°06-25-W
Shishmaref Island is a small, barrier island situated on the Chukchi Sea along the north-western coast of Alaska. It is 100 miles from the eastern coast of Russia and just south of the limits of the Arctic Circle. Shishmaref exists in an interstitial zone between many ecological territories, where the intersection of these environments in the Shishmaref Bay area is currently overlooked and not managed by the local community. The site is nestled just between the Arctic Circle and the Ring of Fire. Here, the Kotzebue Peninsula, is protected by the barrier island chain with Shishmaref Island located almost at the center. The landscape is also capped to the east by the migrating Boreal Forest – a largely-untouched ecology that stabilizes the planet’s temperature, atmosphere, and adds significantly to global biodiversity. Ecologically, Shishmaref Island belongs to what is called the Kotzebue Sound Lowlands. The Kotzebue Peninsula is mainly composed of peatland and river channels that work their way down to the Bering and Chukchi Seas. The mountainous regions are situated south of the peninsula and are connected to fault lines that have created the Aleutian Island Chain which demarcates the edge of the Ring of Fire. There is also a band of lava fields that lies 80 miles inland, and west of Sarichef, that is still active today – exhibiting ash bursts and containing maars which are bodies of water connecting extremely hot lava with frozen permafrost to creating rich, forest-like soils. The Kotzebue Sound Lowlands are further classified as belonging to the Tundra Biome.
49
ARCTIC CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL DATE LINE REGION GLACIERS VOLCANIC REGIONS
Fig. 3.01 Continental-scale diagram. Here, the International Dateline creates a boundary that cuts across two islands in the Bering Sea. Big Diomede and Small Diomede islands are only a stone’s throw across from one another, but exist in separate time zones. The ways in which we construct the world through boundaries in increasingly becoming an issue, especially for designers concerned with interpreting and constructing healthy environments through the study of ecoregions.
REGION NOATAK NATIONAL PRESERVE
LOCAL COMMUNITIES POINT HOPE
REGION
KOBUK VALLEY NATIONAL PARK
FLOOD PLAINS LAVA FIELDS BOREAL FOREST RANGE
KOTZEBUE
SHISHMAREF
SELAWIK NATIONAL WILDLIFE RESERVE
KOYUKUK NATIONAL WILDLIFE RESERVE
BERING LAND BRIDGE NATIONAL RESERVE
BERING STRAIT
NOWITINA NATIONAL WILDLIFE RESERVE
NULATO HILLS
Fig. 3.02 Regional-scale. This diagram shows the Alaskan park system that exists on the Seward Peninsula. Each park exists as its own entity and is governed according to its boundaries. To better understand this region it would be advantageous to construct “park” systems that are concerned with the flow of materials across boundaries, rather than what is contained within certain jurisdictions.
50
[SITE LOCATION] Shishmaref, Alaska CHUKCHI SEA EXTENTS
SHISHMAREF, ALASKA
LANDSCAPE FEATURES
Fig. 3.03 Satellite view of Shishmaref, Alaska.
BOREAL FOREST
PERMAFROST SHORES KETTLEHOLES
ROCKY FOOTHILLS
LAVA FIELDS
SHISHMAREF
Fig. 3.04 Index of the ecological resources and the overall landscape mosaic surrounding Shishmaref on the Seward Peninsula in Alaska. The Seward Peninsula and Kotzebue Sound Lowlands are part of the Arctic tundra biome. 51
Fig. 3.05 Seward Peninsula in the summertime.
Fig. 3.06 A kettle growing flowers in the springtime.
Fig. 3.07 Polar bears traversing an ice-coverd Chukchi Sea.
Fig. 3.08 Significant biota: Arctic liverwort [on the rock] and surrounding moss.
Fig. 3.09 Significant biota: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Pale Greenâ&#x20AC;? Arctic lichens. 52
TUNDRA CHARACTERISTICS
The tundra is characterized as “being covered in snow for most of the year, but in the summer, when the sun is above the horizon all day and all night, its heat is sufficient to melt the snow for at least two or three months, providing conditions necessary for the life of plants and many other organisms. In addition to populations of cyanobacteria, fungi, and lichens, the vegetation of the area consists mainly of mosses, rushes and other plants with a similar growth form, and a few more flowering plants, including dwarf shrubs and even some larger shrubs, but never trees. The northern limit of the taiga coincides with the southern limit of the tundra, although in some cases the two formations are separated by transition areas of tree-tundra [that is to say, tundra with shrubs or small patches of trees]”
seen with trees in more southerly regions of the boreal forest. This may be due to the tundra’s relatively “slow” pace as seen in the temporal lengths of growth and reproduction cycles. The tundra has “low production and little accumulation of biomass” which results in simple processes of succession “with very few seral stages and close relations with the fluidity of exchanges between the different ecosystems, including the aquatic and terrestrial ones” which explicitly shows the “biome’s inseparable unity.”
“A good example of this is the transference of biomass from aquatic systems to aerial ones when the many insects whose larval
There are many unique biological features connected to the temporality of the tundra that limit the abilities of certain types of species to survive in this biome. Many of these characteristics are defined by the vegetation’s’ ability to connect to the ground and below grade, and for the wildlife to migrate quickly out of the tundra during the coldest months of the year. Strategy in movement and formal growth patterning is no game in the tundra, the abilities of these species to function in specific ways allow them to straddle making a life in this environment from going extinct due to extreme climatic shifts throughout the year. In the same respect, the flexibility of these species to cope with various seasonal changes provides some insights to the strong adaptability characteristic of tundra species. In many cases, especially what is now being observed through climate-change analysis, is that vegetation and animal species living in the tundra are able to adapt quickly to temporal seasonal changes, often more so than what is exhibited by species in other biomes. For instance, a seasonal shift in warmer temperatures for a longer period of time in the tundra does not disrupt animal reproduction cycles like it would in more temperate climates. Also, the loss and regrowth of needles on the pine trees in this case is not so affected by trees situated in the tundra as what is
forms live under water, become adult, and take to the air.”
53
Fig. 3.10
Satellite image of Shishmaref Island in January.
Fig. 3.11
Aerial view of the island and Shishmaref Bay in March.
54
Fig. 3.12
Fig. 3.13
Satellite image of Shishmaref Island in July.
Aerial view of the island and Shishmaref Bay in July.
55
TUNDRA - SEASONALITY F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
FREEZE - THAW
DAYLIGHT
GROWING SEASON
J
Fig. 3.14 Seasonality diagram of the conditions at Sarichef Island, Alaska.
SOIL TYPES: TUNDRA [VS] BOREAL 45 mi
Shishmaref
SHISMAREF
6 mi
25 mi
200 mi 80 m i
sand ice
permafrost
organic matter/ mosses
sand
sand
volcanic ash
sand
clays
permafrost
thicker clays uncosolidated mineral horizon
talik
leafy layer organic matter/ mosses
volcanic ash
clays
uncosolidated mineral horizon
clays
talik
bedrock
bedrock
PERMAFROST COASTLINE
PEATLAND
MAARS
LAVA FIELDS
BOREAL FOREST
0-6 mi
25 - 70 mi
45 - 60 mi
80 - 100 mi
200+ mi
Fig. 3.15 Soil profiles from Sarichef Island to the Boreal Forest extents.
56
organic matter/ mosses decomposed
SEASONAL CHARACTERISTICS + VEGETATION IN THE ARCTIC LANDSCAPE Temporally, species in the tundra are tuned to lie dormant for a period of about 9 months, while temperatures dip below those typically unbearable for life to exist. Immediately after this dormancy, tundra species quickly flourish by blooming with flowers or producing offspring. There is no time wasted during the transition from freeze-to-thaw, which sets up a unique time-frame by which designers intervening within this landscape must consider for projected time-analysis and planning on a site in this region. Scientifically, the tundra’s delayed time-frame is called “lemming years” because the lemming populations do not grow every spring, but rather the populations often exponentially increase about every 3 - 4 years. In terms of how vegetal growth responds to the short growing season, “plants may not manage to produce seeds every year, which may mean local extinction… this is why most tundra species are perennial [99% in most northerly regions].” This effect can also be seen with flowering plants. For instance, a flowering plant in the tundra may produce its flowers one year, but delay the production of fruit until the next year. This is also why evergreens are in abundance in the tundra and northern regions – they do not waste time and energy growing leaves, but rather produce the much more efficient “sunlight capsules,” exhibited by their needles. Due to the tundra’s inherently flat nature, especially in comparison with the closelyrelated taiga biome, the groundcover is made up of a relatively straight-forward mosaic composition. Depressions in the landscape – formed by receding glaciers – create peat bogs and wetlands, which are collectors and drainage basins of water. Furthermore, the physical aspect of these depressions as containers allows them to function as significant thermoregulatory hubs in contrast to flat fields of grassland. The landscape depressions are indicators of water, nutrients, moss and lichen mats, and are highly suggestive of being rich centers for the production of life in this landscape. The peat land mosaics are of high ecological value, not only for its nutrient content and thermoregulatory nature, but also because this composition of water and mosses is a significant carbon sink helping to stabilize
the carbon dioxide/ oxygen equilibrium on the planet. Uniquely, peat bogs in the tundra photosynthesize 75 – 100% of the carbon dioxide from the soil, especially because “polar air” has relatively low levels of carbon dioxide. The lichens that grow in and around peat lands are “silent, testimonies to climate change.” The layers, colors, density, and condition of lichens at peat bogs can be examined to find out exactly which pollutants affected the specific area and at which time in the history of the place. The different species of lichens “give indicators and measurements of the extent of environmental pollution and the pollution responsible.” Verticality is another structural patterning that varies from north to south across the tundra biome. It can also be seen as a pattern from the shoreline to the more interior region of the landscape, where the vertical height of vegetation gets taller from: south to north, and from shore to inland. This loss of verticality sometimes coincides with the reduction of biodiversity, but is paradoxical at the shorelines, where biodiversity, and especially aquatic diversity, is high. Once again, the tundra is characterized by the extremes of soil-based living, aquaticbased living, and air-based living. Like the flies who transition from larva in the water and transition immediately to the air upon adulthood, so too does the vegetation express itself in the extremes: of low, matcoverings at the peat bogs, to tall, forest conditions inland. Wind and wind-blown ice also affect the “z-dimension” in the tundra biome. This is why there is a “carpet” patterning of mosses and plants with similar growth formations. The wind-blown particulates have the ability to destroy anything that grows too vertically here. On the same hand, snow-cover can serve as a refuge for plant and animal life. Small animals, such as lemmings, dig holes into the ground to avoid the harsher conditions above ground, to find warmth and solitude. Digging beneath the ground, the lemmings are also able to expose the precious root vegetation that can be consumed during colder months.
57
ARCTIC MOSS Calliergon giganteum “Arctic moss is characterized by long life and slow growth it is ‘the slowest growing, longest living freshwater macrophyte ever recorded.’” Lichen
Algae cell
Mosses cover the tundra in a thick matt, cushioning the ground plane. chloroplasts
air pockets
Fig. 3.16 Significant biota: Arctic moss.
CARIBOU MOSS Cladonia rangiferina “Symbiotic relationship between fungi and algae. The spongy threads of the lichens support and protect the algae.” - Blue Planet Biomes
75% of all Arctic vegetation are mosses and lichens [recursive aggregation pattern as seen in Caribou moss] Fig. 3.17 Significant biota: Caribou moss.
Underwater Above ground
salt water
el
Above ground
Above Subterranean ground
fauna moss
fauna moss
sand grass++gravel lichen
grass + lichen
lumber
fauna faunamoss
moss + lichen
grass freshwater + lichen ponds
Fig. 3.18 Layering and composition of sectional landscape conditions across the tundra from the coastline to inland kettles.
58
S
lumber
m
matt cover of moss x 2x
densely packed less dense
root system
Caribou Moss in Section
ARCTIC MOSS
species symbiosis in Arctic moss lichen + algae
CARIBOU MOSS
layering + pocketing structures in Caribou moss to maintain warmth and create space
Fig. 3.19 Exploration of different Arctic mosses. Moss was chosen as a research topic because of its appearance in coastline to inland ecologies in the Arctic. Looking at the structure and growing characteristics of moss to become a design inspiration. It is important to note that the existence of mosses and lichens as the most abundant species in the Arctic is due largely to the structure of pocketing and airspace between cells and individual branches of the vegetation, as well as the ability of these species to hug the ground in dense communities of plants. The airsacs in the cells and structure of mosses and lichens act like polar bear’s fur, capturing air and warming it close to the organism’s “body” to keep alive during the cold months. The matt condition is also important to note, as these species hug the ground to avoid being destroyed by strong winds across the barren tundra plains. Anything that grows too tall in this landscape is readily taken down by exposure to the cold and by Arctic wind.
59
BOREAL FOREST EXTENTS [2012]
POINT HOPE
KOTZEBUE
SHISHMAREF
BERING STRAIT BOREAL FOREST EXTENTS 60
61
Fig. 3.20 Killeak Maars, located on the Seward Peninsula. The maars are a possible siting condition for boreal forest tree nurseries for their rich nutrients, source of freshwater, and connection to the warmth of underground lava flows.
KILLEAK MAARS Fig. 3.21 Devil Mountain Maar.
DEVIL MT. MAAR Fig. 3.22 Kettles in the peatland surrounding the Shishmaref Inlet on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska, USA.
PEATLAND KETTLES 62
CHUKCHI SEA
KOTZEBUE SOUND
peatland
N
tephra lava flows + cones maars
0
3
6 mi
Fig. 3.23 Diagram of maars on the Seward Peninsula, adapted from the research of James E Beget, David Hopkins, and Steven D Charron.
LANDSCAPE FEATURE: MAARS Maars are deep bodies of freshwater that typically occur at high latitudes. They are formed by the interaction between hot lava and permafrost in soil. When the lava reaches permafrost there is a delayed phase change of the ice to become water. The true alteration of water is an explosive reaction, exemplary of the extreme conditions coming in contact at these sites. Once a maar is formed, the lava may continue flowing beneath the sand at the bottom of the water. This keeps most maars from completely freezing, as well as continually supplies the maars with rich nutrients from the lava. Two of the largest maars on the planet can be found on the Seward Peninsula, they are the Killeak Maars and the Devil Mountain Maar. These large maars are situated in a landscape of tundra peatland
and kettles bordering the Chukchi Sea. Here, the shallow kettles freeze and thaw with the normal rhythm of the tundra seasons. The diagram above shows the soil types surrounding the maars on the Seward Peninsula. Note the rich soils that surround the periphery of the large maars here. These areas are presumably rich in nutrients being supplied by underground lava flows and are typically warmer than the surrounding permafrost-laden soils. Although there may be too much wind in this area for trees to grow naturally, a planned and monitored nursery could be established to grow a small community of boreal forest trees.
63
Fig. 3.24 View of fog over the shoreline condition beginning to show grasses under the snow in the springtime. 64
Fig. 3.25 View of researchers measuring ice thickness on the Chukchi Sea in early spring. Note the patches of melting ice.
WATER “Tundra plants are victims of functional drought.”
The relationship between water and life on the tundra is complex. Extremely cold temperatures prevent liquid water from being readily available, despite a significant mass of ice and permafrost contained on top of and within the soils of the tundra. Only, this form of water cannot sustain life. In this case there is undoubtedly a limited water available for the natural world, “there is of course water present, but as far as the vegetation is concerned it is only available when it is liquid, and liquid water is scarce.”
The depression in the tundra land mosaic, if deep enough, can remain unfrozen throughout the year and contain some life beneath the ice sheet. Small kettles and wetlands will freeze for a significant part of the year. But once again, the coastline stands in contradiction to interior manifestations of this landscape. At Sarichef Island, the bay area and about 3 miles into the sea is frozen for ¾ of the year. At the same time, the warm Pacific Currents
just barely touch this site, bringing marine nutrients and thermoregulation by way of the ocean water. On the shoreline there is a dichotomy between warm, liquid ocean water, frozen kettle bogs, and semi-frozen river corridors.
The frozen period of the tundra, like a deep slumber, does not only halt growth due to cold temperatures, but also because of limited liquid water. The great spring flourishing of life happens because “as soon as the snow melts, the roots can function normally… when the soil temperature is around 32 degrees Fahrenheit… it is the fact that below this temperature frozen water is inaccessible to plants has given rise to the idea of ‘physiological drought.’”
65
BOREAL TREE CLIMATES BOREAL TREE CLIMATES
COLD
WARM
WARM
COLD
*
DRY
*
DRY WET W
W
E
E
BOREAL TREE INDEX
x
LARCH [RUSSIA]
WET
2x
PINE
SPRUCE
FIR
Fig. 3.26 Above: Climatic conditions of the Boreal Forest from west to east. Below: Tree species from west to east across the Boreal Forest range.
W
SCOTS PINE [NORWAY]
E
“A FOREST WITHOUT TREES” An over arching theme in the tundra landscape is that due to the extreme conditions of temperature, water availability, wind, and low/ slow growing seasonality, there is a lack of tree species in this biome. There is a Russian theory that says, “the tundra is a forest without trees,” highlighting the fact that the groundcover ecologies composed of mosses, kettles, and small animals is similar in physiognomy to “the understory of the boreal forest.” In some transitional zones between the boreal forest and the tundra, there is what is called the tree-tundra composed of small patches of boreal tree species amidst flat, moss-covered tundra expanse. This idea of the tundra as a “treeless plain” cannot be taken as static fact. Due to climate change and the effects of more 66
northerly regions becoming increasingly warmer, and wetter, will significantly change the ecological makeup of what is currently tundra landscape. The Kotzebue Peninsula is a strong example of a place where climate change is on the verge of a tipping point. The boreal forest has already migrated north of the site, providing the information that the temperatures in this region have in fact changed from pure tundra, approaching a more moderate climate. By examining aerial observations of the site, it appears that the lava fields currently act as a barrier to the boreal forest for moving westward towards the ocean. Salt water salinity and sandy soils directly at the shorelines also inhibit tree growth, but the availability of water, nutrients, and warm underground lava flows provide a framework that could support small, controlled tree growth on the peninsula.
Fig. 3.27 View of hunting camp located on a stretch of the Shishmaref Inlet at midday during the wintertime.
The elements for instigating tree growth on the Kotzebue Peninsula is a possibility, especially with the integration of a synthetic, organized composition located in the maars â&#x20AC;&#x201C; freshwater depressions in the landscape that were formed from the interaction of permafrost and magma. Maars, with their layer of volcanic ash, are able to set the stage for successional growth patterns. The lava fields just east of Sarichef Island are already exhibiting early stages of growth from an extremely thick layering of mosses and lichens. In time, the lava fields could support the migration of the boreal forest to the west. The time frame and spatial actuation of the boreal forest cannot be predicted, because it is due to local instances of â&#x20AC;&#x153;goodâ&#x20AC;? growing conditions or disaster conditions. For this reason the introduction of trees to the Kotzebue Peninsula peat land will be an integration of
manmade, synthetic materials and systems within the framework of the given freshwater maars. Here the boreal tree nursery will at once be a foreign body introduced to the landscape, but also introduce new habitats and resources for local human communities and animal species.
67 67
68
4. LANDSCAPE PROCESS: Barrier Islands Barrier islands are migrating landmasses. Although not visible to the human eye, a process of sedimentation and deposition is constantly changing the form of barrier islands over time. Shishmaref is a barrier island located in the middle of a barrier chain on the Chukchi Sea. As climate change causes the intensity of the ocean to increase over time, the longshore current that drags sediment from one end of the island to the other becomes increasingly stronger. In the future, this process will continue to accelerate, eroding parts of the island the Shishmaref currently inhabit, while building land a quarter mile away from where the village is now situated. An analysis of the process of sedimentation, and the barrier island features found on Shishmaref Island are discussed in this chapter. Also, a critique of the existing, engineered ways of protecting shorelines is explored as a driver for the design scheme and future interventions on barrier islands. By following the flow of sedimentation, rather than operating perpendicular to, or against these flows, landscape infrastructure can mold itself to the marine topography and begin acting in concert with the natural rhythms and flows of the ocean. This infrastructure also serves as a visual device and measuring tool for the Shishmaref to see how, when, and where the shape of their island is growing. By visualizing this landscape phenomenon, villagers and researchers alike will be able to pinpoint just how to grow the town in the future, as well as expand the knowledge about how to continue passively harnessing the migration of the unstable soil upon which the town survives.
69
Barrier Island Formation STAGE 02
STAGE 01
Fig. 4.01
STAGE 03
Diagram showing how a barrier island is formed, being dragged from a coastal landmass and eventually breaking off.
40
20
1880
30
20 15
20
ebb
l tida
ta
del
10
20
tidal inlet
00 20 0 98
1
wave
directio
n
re
o gsh
lon
ACCRETION
ft
dri
flood tidal delta 2012
marshland
ON
I OS
ER
lagoon
new island-forming 2050 Fig. 4.02 70
Diagram of the barrier island conditions and forces acting on Shishmaref Island.
[Shishmaref] Barrier Island Landscape Analysis
Fig. 4.03 View of a coastal condition, where ocean waves are eroding the shoreline, and also material is being transported via rivers from inland.
Fig. 4.04 View of an unnamed barrier island off the coast of South Carolina showing on the top the land condition before Hurricane Katrina, and on the bottom, the land mass after the storm passed.
“We should regard barrier islands as climatic ‘miner’s canaries,’ early-warning systems for climate change and sea-level rise. Barrier islands are exposed to the open ocean, and the waves and storm sturges generated by hurricanes and other storms. As a storm makes landfall, they’re the ones that are going to receive the strongest winds and highest wave actions.” - Bob Morton, Geologist,United States Geological Survey’s Center for Coastal and Watershed Studies 71
WEST
NORTH
E
G PASSA
Fig. 4.05 Axonometric view and analysis of water depth in the ebb tidal delta on the northern edge of Shishmaref Island.
Fig. 4.06
Section A-A’ through Shishmaref Island. See plan on next page for section markers.
SECTION A-A’ 1 mile
A C B D
A
“bundling”/
C
“stabilizing”
“blocking” Fig. 4.07 Investigation of sediment deposit and flows through the ebb tidal delta. At location A, erosion and wave damage water control is greatest. Location B delineates the point where ocean currents begin to be slowed by the drag force of pulling materials from the shoreline. Location C is affected by ocean waves and ebb tidal flows. the beginning of the strategies B Location D demarcates“channeling” marshland condition. 72
strong, folded surface both
fish netting is depression
wall systems direct and
infrastructural
ISLAND INTERVENTIONS [Shishmaref] Ebb Tidal Delta Analysis STRUCTURE ACCRETION MICROHABITATS
1880
A’
A
2012
.5 mi Fig. 4.08 [Above] Diagram of water depth and sediment deposit zones in the ebb tidal delta.
2050
Fig. 4.09 [To the left] A series of drawings of the morphing shoreline condition as Shishmaref Island “migrates” from south to north as a result of the coastal sands/sediment being pulled by the longshore current forces from the Chukchi Sea.
“A barrier island is a narrow island of sand unanchored by bedrock that forms parallel to the coast. In its simplest form, a barrier island consists of a shallow ocean-side intertidal zone; a beach facing out into the open ocean; a central dune, or dunes, running the length of the island and dividing it in two; a low-lying overwash area (often a mudflat); and a salt marsh forming the landward side of the island, abutting a shallow lagoon or strait separating it from the mainland. Usually, they rise no more than a few feet above sea level. Because they are loose aggregations of sand and fill, barrier islands are dynamic. Tides and storms routinely rearrange them, shifting and removing sand, forming and reforming the shape and structure of each island. Geologically ephemeral, the islands wax and wane in a fractal rhythm. Occasionally, they vanish beneath the waves only to reappear
in different places nearby. Sometimes, infrequently, they disappear altogether.”
- from Restore America’s Estuaries Shishmaref rises no more than 19 feet above sea level at its highest point, located in the northern part of the island. Most of the village itself lies in the most dangerous geological zone, situated along the shoreline that is exposed to the Chukchi Sea. By identifying and surveying the ebb tidal area on the northern edge of the island, the focus of this project concerns itself with how to capture and move sediment that follows the natural flow of materials around the island. By creating an infrastructure where “form follows flow” the design can be better molded to the local condition, both controlling and utilizing the natural forces. 73
Beach Berm Managed Dunes
Grassland
Scrub Thicket
Marsh
Fig. 4.10 Hybrid flow analysis-design infrastructure diagram. This image shows how the natural flows of sedimentation and water in the ebb ISLAND tidal delta are extracted as literal formal decisions in the landscape. The design infrastructure is created to MANAGED BARRIER adhere to the local conditions around the island, obeying the forces of nature that act on the landscape itself. Beach Berm
Grassland
Scrub Thicket
Marsh
Low Natural Dune
NATURAL BARRIER ISLAND
Fig. 4.11a Sectional view of a â&#x20AC;&#x153;natural barrier island.â&#x20AC;? Here, dunes are not managed by human intervention and thus the local ecosystems are left unprotected from the waves and winds from the ocean-side of the island. Also, the marshland on natural barrier islands extends for a longer distance into the bay-side of the system, but is generally less productive as a managed barrier island because it is constantly undergoing change as the natural island is more-readily morphed by hydrologic and geologic forces than a managed barrier system. 74
Intervention + Critique working against the flows
push
drag
LONGSHORE DRIFT
working with the flows
push
push
LONGSHORE DRIFT
drag
LONGSHORE DRIFT
Fig. 4.12 [Above] Diagram of the typical, engineered shoreline jetty system. [Below] Diagram of new jetty typology for barrier islands.
Beach Berm Managed Dunes
Grassland
Scrub Thicket
Marsh
MANAGED BARRIER ISLAND Fig. 4.11b Sectional view of Grassland a â&#x20AC;&#x153;managed barrier island.â&#x20AC;? Note the protective dune Scrub Thicket Beach Berm Marsh structure on the ocean-side of the island. These managed dunes protect delicate Low Natural Dune ecosystems on the island itself, as well as ecologies on the bay-side.
NATURAL BARRIER ISLAND
The design proposal for Shishmaref Island stems from this analysis of the zone of sedimentation on barrier islands. By tapping into the natural forces pulling materials and depositing them at the head of barrier islands, communities living on this type of landmass can begin taking advantage of the landscape process of sedimentation and migration to begin managing their landscapes in a more productively. Intervening in this zone of sedimentation with a series of jetties that channelize the flow of sediment, rather than are constructed perpendicular to it, [see Fig 4.13] introduces a man-made framework that continues the natural process already occurring in the landscape. This ideally creates the smallest impact on the way the landscape and ecosystem are working, actually reinforcing local characteristics in a minimally-intrusive manner. 75
76
5. MATERIAL INVESTIGATIONS + PRECEDENTS An index of projects concerned with marine landscapes, ecologic principles, landforming, erosion and sedimentation control, and economics is explored in this research to serve as precedents for the design scheme. Displayed as a series of snapshots, these projects offer insight to the complex world of the ocean and how to harness both its physical power and flows, as well as how to provide infrastructure for developing dense, and rich ecologies. By searching for the right balance between built, performance structures and soft, infrastructures for habitat-creation, the following architectures, artworks, and engineered tools begin to develop a picture of the design intentions and possibilities for intervention on Shishmaref Island.
77
Fig. 5.01 Wave + erosion control core 10 steel framework.
Fig. 5.02 Vegetated stone dikes-type barrier.
Fig. 5.03 Vegetated â&#x20AC;&#x153;marsh-toeâ&#x20AC;? barrier.
78
BIOTECHNICAL WAVE + EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES
Fig. 5.04
Project
Biotechnical Structures
Wave
Log-type revetment wall.
+
Erosion
Control
Team
MBK Engineers Kjeldsen Biological Consulting LSA Associates, Inc.
Location
San Francisco Bay
Description
Fig. 5.05 Sketches of sections and elevations of the wave + erosion control structures.
Following the destruction of Hurricane Katrina, the State of California offered money to develop a series of soft infrastructures to protect San Francisco from future flooding damages. These structures would be put in place as the first line of defense against the ocean, serving to protect the existing, and expensive system of levees. The use of biotechnology and feasible, inexpensive, renewable natural resources was emphasized as a design requirement from the onset of the project. Through this research, 14 types of biotechnical barriers were developed, including: log wave-breakers, root-wad walls, interlocked wood-wads, brush walls, log boom, mulch pillows, ballast buckets, marsh-toe revetments, and vegetated stone dikes, which are all modular systems. The testing found that these structures reduce wave height by 35-64% and reduce wave energy by 57-87%. 79
Fig. 5.06 East River Ferry Landings.
Fig. 5.07 Section through the project showing modular system cantilevering off the docks. 80
SALTWATER HERBICIDE SYSTEM
Fig. 5.08
Rendering of the project showing vegetated shelving units holding wetland species that were once found in the Hudson River.
Project
Saltwater Herbicide System
Team
Ken Smith, Landscape Architect
Location
East River Ferry Landings New York, New York
Description
This project does not aim to restore the old Hudson River wetland ecology, but rather reintroduce species that used to exist there, adapting them to aspects of the current environmental conditions. Here, an ecological abstraction of the range of plants in the riparian zone and a folded module recreate the physical and hydrological conditions of a low and high marsh condition. Hydrogel: a super-absorbant polymer, capable of retaining 200-400x its own weight in water is a replacement for the underlying mud layer found in natural marshlands and prevents root systems from drying out due to wind exposure. Brackish water, usually seen as an unfavorable element, was discovered to be an herbicide and is pumped through the modules on a weekly cycle. This exchange of water also introduces fiddler crab, ribbed muscles, and snails to the designed ecosystem. 81
Fig. 5.09 Isaac Mizrahi, the designer, fitting salmon skin dress on a model.
Fig. 5.10 Red sockeye salmon are known for their brilliant color.
82
Fig. 5.11 Detail of salmon skin dress. The â&#x20AC;&#x153;coinsâ&#x20AC;? on the dress are dried and pressed salmon skin.
SALMON SKIN DRESS
Fig. 5.12
Sockeye salmon migrating in a river, swimming towards the Pacific Ocean.
Project
Salmon skin dress Cooper Hewitt “Design for a Better World”
Team
Isaac Mizrahi
Location
New York City
Description
The Cooper Hewitt “Design for a Better World” showcase called for designers to think about creating products in a sustainable manner. The salmon skin dress, by Isaac Mizrahi uses the largest waste material in the fishing industry, fish skin, as a garment material. By finding a new purpose for what would normally go to the landfill, Mizrahi has developed a means not only for saving the landscape from thousands of pounds of waste, but also creates a new market for something that was once considered worthless. This process of transforming fish skin into wearable material is a business model that can be utilized by a number of communities across the globe. Number of Salmon caught in Alaska [2011]: 171 million Predicted catch [2012]: 203 million Average weight of one salmon: 10 lbs 83
Fig. 5.13 Section of design proposal, mounds of vegetation protecting the economic and cultural resources of New York City.
Fig. 5.14 Render of two men harvesting oysters in the canal.
Fig. 5.15 View of model showing complex netting system for the new oyster landscape.
84
OYSTERTECTURE
Fig. 5.16 Section render through the canal, showing where oyster netting would be deployed to purify the polluted water.
Project
Oystertecture
Team
Kate Orff SCAPE Studio
Location
Gowanus Canal New York City
Description
Kate Orff’s project, Oystertecture, is about the integration of a previously-exiting ecology within one that has been destroyed by industrial waste and pollution over the past 100 - 150 years. By introducing oysters back into the “aquaculture” surrounding New York City, this project aims to purify water, and at the same time provide new economic capital for the city. Another phase of the project deals with planting vegetation in mound-structures to create a soft barrier that will soak up sea level rise and potential storm surges.
Fig. 5.17 Photograph of empty oyster shells. 85
traditional fishtraps
Fig. 5.18b+c Examples of fishtraps. [Above] Australian rock wall fish traps. [Below] Ancient fish trap found in Wales.
Fig. 5.18a A traditional Hawaiian fishpond, loko ‘ai.
man-made reef systems
Fig. 5.19b+c Man-made reef modules, called “Reef balls,” made out of porous concrete.
Fig. 5.19a Man-made coral reef module, “bio-reef” made of bent rebar. There is a weak electric current that runs through the metal in this structure attracting corals to the surface.
86
REEFS: “RAINFORESTS OF THE OCEANS”
Fig. 5.20 Underwater photograph of a sunken ship with coral reef ecology beginning to grow on the structure.
“Abiotic reefs are a result of a manmade/non living process either influencing the creation of the reef, such as erosion, sand depositing, dumping rocks, underwater blasting etc. Abiotic reefs also consist of Artificial Reefs created with the intent to break waves, reduce erosion or increase the bio diversity promoting marine life in areas of generally featureless bottom. Shipwrecks and sunken oil rigs also contribute to the formation of Abiotic Artificial reefs. Often artificial reefs are created deliberately for diving, but double as reef conservation measures as well by creating a habitat for reef creatures.”
- Sara Sifa, Aquaviews magazine
Traditional fish trap systems can be found being used by many cultures across the world. Typically they consist of a short rock wall extending from the shoreline to a few hundred meters from land. These walls trap fish when the tide is low, and allow the fish and marine species to travel over the wall during high tide, becoming passive hunting systems. Man-made coral reefs are beginning to gain attention by ecologists and designers as new opportunities for boosting the health of marine ecosystems. Currently, the development of metallic and concrete modules is being explored for creating surfaces, pockets, and various shading conditions to attract a wide variety of marine species. Integrating these two oceanic landscapes, both the rock-wall typology and complex, spatial structures for attracting coral reef species can create thriving marine ecologies. The combination of these two systems also provides the opportunity for harvesting healthy fish from the ocean, as opposed to using fish farming techniques that often generate conditions creating detrimental viruses exposing large bodies of water to unhealthy fish communities.
87
land art
Fig. 5.21b+c Examples of land art. [Above] “Streampath” by Gilles Bruni and Marc Babarit. [Below] “Sand” by Jim Denevan.
Fig. 5.21a “Ice” project by Jim Denevan on Lake Baikal in Siberia.
spiral jetty
Fig. 5.22b+c Views of Spiral Jetty. The top image shows the jetty in the high tide condition, hidden under the water. The bottom image is a satellite aerial view of the jetty extending from the land. Fig. 5.22a Spiral Jetty, by Robert Smithson. This image shows the jetty wall completely filled in with sediment.
88
VISUALIZING NATURAL FLOWS
Fig. 5.23 Tidal Pools by Alvaro Siza, located in Portugal.
HIGH TIDE
LOW TIDE
Fig. 5.24 Diagrams showing high and low tide conditions of an infrastructure, like spiral jetty, in the Shishmaref landscape. In the high tide condition, fish and marine wildlife can travel over the wall system and netting structure, but during low tide the fish are trapped.
“What people make of their places is closely connected to what they make of themselves as members of society and inhabitants of earth, and while the two activities may be separable in principle, they are deeply joined in practice. If place-making is a way of constructing the past, a venerable means of creating human history, it is also a way of constructing social traditions and, in the process, personal and social identities. We are, in a sense, the placeworlds we image.”
- Keith Basso, Wisdom Sits in Places
Although abhorrent to the idea of creating or reinforcing histories and monuments, the land art movement of the 1960’s closely follows ideas about place-making as explained by Keith Basso. Land artists and the work they produce are site-specific structures aimed at visualizing the changes in the land as they occur over time. The artwork erodes and changes within the landscapes, revealing natural flows and dynamics and is thus deeply tied to the specific place of their inception. Artists such as Robert Smithson, Andy Goldsworthy, Gilles Bruni and Mark Babarit, and even the architecture, Tidal Pools, by Alvaro Siza reveal temporal and physical characteristics of the landscape in a visual manner. Thus displaying to the viewer through the use of simple infrastructures, what exists at various conditions of the day or year much like watching a film reel. 89
Venice jetties
Fig. 5.25 Jetties located in Venice, Italy.
stone wavebreaks
Fig. 5.26 Rip-rap wave breaks made of stone and sand on a barrier island off the coast of New Orleans in Louisiana.
90
JETTIES + BREAKWATERS
Fig. 5.27 Aerial view of Jetty Park in Sarasota, Florida.
Jetties are man-made barriers that extend from coastal shorelines to protect the land from erosion and create areas for the safe harboring of ships. Often, they are made from natural materials such as stones or wood. A variation of the jetty that is also utilized by coastal communities are breakwaters. Breakwaters are similar structurally, but are created to accumulate sediment where they are placed. Breakwaters are also typically made from a few segments of wall, where only one or two segments connect back to the shoreline and the rest of the system is located out in open water.
Fig. 5.28 Breakwaters collecting sediment in Port Canaveral, Florida.
Jetties and breakwaters are simple, infrastructural devices that passively control the flows of ocean water and coastal sediment. According to their placement, jetties and breakwaters open channels from the ocean into a bay, or can begin collecting sediment to build new land. By collecting sediment in different ways, these structures can begin to mold coastal landscapes according to the forces and flows happening in their specific location. A series of jetties or breakwaters can begin to incrementally generate new landform over time.
91
Fig. 5.30 Section study 2: “fishing dock structure”
Fig. 5.29 Section study 1: “log reef wall”
Fig. 5.31 habitat”
Section
study
3:
“vegetated
Fig. 5.33 Section study 5: “fishtrap net”
92
filtration
and
fish
Fig. 5.32 Section study 4: “stone and log shoreline assembly”
Fig. 5.34 Section study 6: “sediment-capturing net”
SECTIONAL MATERIALITY
Fig. 5.35 Section study 7: “floating fishing docks”
Following the research outlined earlier in this chapter, a series of material assemblies was put together to explore how to deploy local Arctic materials into the marine environment. The only materials chosen are those that can be continually harvested by the Shishmaref to continue building structures in their landscape. These materials are: wood/logs, stone, brush vegetation and moss, fish net woven from animal skins, and thick canvas netting also woven from animal skins. The sectional deployment of these materials explores how, from the ocean to the shoreline, an arrangement of underwater habitats and channels can be created to develop a thriving marine ecosystem. The farthest out at sea is the “log reef wall” [see Fig. 5.29]. This structure acts like a barrier reef system creating niches for animals, and also protecting the shoreline of the island from strong storm surges and waves. The next layer of the system is the fishing dock structure [Fig. 5.30] which is made up of vertically-placed logs to create a walkable surface, as well as to create shade and pocketing to attract fish. Following this segment is the “vegetated filtration and fish habitat” [Fig. 5.31] which is made up of a less-condensed series of vertical logs intermitted with thick brush units to filter the water and attract a wider variety of marine species such as starfish,
jelly fish, crabs, muscles, and clams. On the shoreline, the assembly adheres itself to the sand in a densely-packed manner following the aesthetic and construction of “Streampath” by Gilles Bruni and Marc Babarit [see Fig. 5.32]. This packed assembly of logs and stones helps hold the shoreline in place, much like the current riprap system, but is located on the marshland side of the island and creates more depth within the log and stone elements to invite sea vegetation and wildlife. The final two segments are the netting systems. The “fishing net” is made of a slightly looser weave of material to allow for the healthy passage of water from one side of the section to the other. This net acts like the Spiral Jetty discussed earlier, in that at high tide it is underwater and fish can pass over the structure freely, but at low tide the net extends to the surface of the water and traps the fish within its confines [see Fig. 5.33]. The final segment of the system is the “sediment-capturing net” [Fig. 5.34]. This densely-woven net is always located under the surface of the water, and actively begins to slow the flow of sediment as it travels form the ocean to the marshland side of the island. By slowing the rate of sedimentation where this net is located, it begins to develop a new underwater landscape, building up sand and creating more usable surfaces. 93
94
6. PROGRAM
The program for this project is outlined as a series of maps and performance outcomes developed as goals to arise from the design solution. Rather than being static, programmatic labels that are typically used for describing a building, the program of this project is understood as something that will change over time, as natural processes in the landscape will reform the island and design scheme in unforeseen ways. The idea of program for this project also encompasses the multiple scales acting on the site both physically and culturally. Shishmaref does not exist in a vacuum, nor does any other site on the planet. By visualizing Shishmaref as an element existing within multiple dynamic landscapes, a more well-rounded design proposal can be envisioned. The Shishmaref first belong to the island, this is where they derive their identity and sense of being from. The island is then an element situated within the Shishmaref Inlet, a productive bay habitat with connections to small Inuit villages through the Serpentine River. On the other side of the island, Shishmaref is connected to the Chukchi Sea, and furthermore the Northwest Passage that will begin cutting through the water, creating new networks along the coasts of Alaska, Russia, Canada, and Greenland. By traveling in any direction from Shishmaref Island, the landmass and its inhabitants are connected to both global and local networks. Understanding and manipulating their role in these systems can help the Shishmaref gain greater economic stability as the design infrastructure supports the daily livelihood of the island.
95
PROTECTION
FOOD
ECONOMY
[A] Wave + erosion control structures MBK Engineers Kjeldsen Biological Consulting LSA Associates, Inc.
[D] Oystertecture Kate Orff, SCAPE Studio at the Gowanus Canal, New York City
[C] Salmonskin dress Isaac Mizrahi, “Design for a Better World” with Cooper Hewitt, National Design Museum
Fig. 6.01 The three objectives outlined above are the drivers for the design project. Being able to protect the island from future erosion and degradation is the main objective; to solidify the future existence of the Shishmaref on their home soil. The second objective is to help the Shishmaref remove themselves from being reliant upon three flights a day of USAid, and to therefore provide for them a way of harvesting healthy food from the local environment. The third objective is to take inspiration from Isaac Mizrahi’s salmon skin dress proposal to develop a unique market and economy whereby the Shishmaref can start making money to support themselves
BIOLOGICAL INPUT “Arctic reef” ecology
creates an ecology to attract whales [reinstate hunting tradition]
krill
shrimp
fish [salmon, cod, char]
reef wall/ wave break structure
CULTURAL INPUT ceremonial whale bone arches, seen after whale hunting season
whales
whale bones
create wave break structures
Fig. 6.02 This diagram shows how the reef wall system embodies the objective of creating biocultural diversity at Shishmaref. The reef wall infrastructure offers itself as a platform for attracting, at first, the lowest organisms in the Arctic ocean food chain. These would be species such as algae, kelp, sea moss, and other vegetation that grow on underwater surfaces. After a dense layer of vegetation is built up on the reef wall, it would begin attracting the next level of animals on the food chain, krill and shrimp and then eventually fish of various sizes. With the availability of fish at this structure, the attraction of large marine animals would be the final introduction to the site. Bringing seal, walrus, and whales close to the Shishmaref for easier hunting, saving them time and fuel money. Finally, the reintroduction of large marine species, especially the whale, recreates old hunting traditions that are marked by special bone structures designed by the Shishmaref. These structures would then have a place on the reef wall, visualizing the rich ecosystem that has been created. In this way, the designed structure becomes both a part of the local ecosystem, as well as a tool and visual device belonging to the culture. Reinforcing their identity as ocean people, living off of what is available from the sea. 96
Fig. 6.03 The over-arching aim of the design proposal is the offer the Shishmaref a way to free themselves from the constraints of their small island. By expanding the cultural views of what they believe their “home turf” to be, the Shishmaref will be have more opportunities for making a living in the difficult, yet ecologically rich, Arctic landscape.
“The people of Shishmaref are determined to save their community from annihilation. Leaving their island is one thing, but abandoning the security of their community and culture is another. On that remote piece of pioneer country, they hope to preserve their way of life and prevent the community from falling apart.”
- Dana Lixenberg, Last Days of the Shishmaref PROTECT
The design requirements developed in this project respond to a number of factors ranging from observed geological and hydrological factors, to intangible evidence gathered from researching the Shishmaref culture.
PROVIDE
REVEAL
Fig. 6.04
By gaining unique insights to both the landscape and culture, the design proposal and design requirements arise from the desire to be a facilitator of positive ecological changes for the islanders. Rather than proposing a design solution to impose itself as a foreign object on the site, this strategy aims to create a productive, well-integrated landscape for the future generations of Shishmaref. The main objective of the entire project is to reveal to the Shishmaref a broader physical horizon
for their existence, extending their cultural worldview past the confines of the island and out into the ocean and surrounding bay. By extending this view to encompass a larger area, the Shishmaref can take advantage of the surrounding ecosystem services to begin building up a strong, and sustainable landscape. The three “performance criteria” [outlined on the left] are the specific design requirements for the system documented and explained in Chapter 8 Design Solution.
97
98
7. ITERATIONS + STUDIES
This project developed from a number of iterative studies concerned with multiple scales affecting the island, as well as seasonal and diurnal changes constantly affecting the landform. Developing a series of responses to a number of these factors provided the final design with an index of tested inputs about what could work in the landscape and for the Shishmaref culture. Also providing examples what might not fit as positive feedback in the iterative process. Starting at the bay scale, the design attempted to cover a wide territory of oceanic landscape, but in doing so lost sight of the small economic contribution the islanders would be able to make to such a large scheme. Zooming into the island itself, a series of wavebreaks and fishpond infrastructures were next explored as a means for covering the objectives of protection, food, and economy. At this scale, a number of spin-offs were generated as studies for how the design could respond to seasonal shifts between the winter, spring, and summer, and offering insights about construction logic, cultural practice, and how to harvest local natural resources.
99
STABLE ISLAND BECOMES A CULTURAL RELIC
SMALL ISLANDS FORM IN THE BAY AREA FROM SEDIMENT BUILD-UP
NEW DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS ON PEATLAND SHORES THAT SURROUND THE BAY
Fig. 7.01 Initial programmatic diagram of Shishmaref Inlet.
Fig. 7.02 Late spring, blue denotes local sites and local shipping corridors.
Fig. 7.04 Late summer, the bay ecology is full of life both ecologically and with human activity.
100
Fig. 7.03 Early summer, orange denotes non-local shipping corridors and locations where non-locals are traveling to.
WINTERTIME
Fig. 7.05 Winter, central meeting places between sites along the bay made possible by the ice.
ISLAND INTERVENTIONS STRUCTURE ACCRETION MICROHABITATS
2011
2050
2100 Fig. 7.06 Initial investigations of how to mold the island, using a series of jetties to pull and capture sediment with the longshore drift.
These are the first series of design iteration drawings created directly following the research portion of the project. Responding to seasonality and operating largely at the bay scale, this iteration focused on trying to organize the bay and island with the anticipation that it would have to sustain a larger population being introduced by the Northwest Passage trade route. Sites located on the shoreline represent places for harvesting local materials such as trees, mosses, stones, algae, fish, and other materials either of use to the island for protecting itself, or of use for nearby villages trading with the island in a newly-formed network of Northwest Passage towns. This iteration included speculation on what the island might become in the shadow of
the new international trading corridor. Would it be a storage place for large shipments across the Arctic Ocean? Or a destination for tourists? Would it be a hub for trade between other smaller Inuit villages? In the interests for keeping the Shishmarefâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s remoteness, a key part of their identity intact, not allowing the island to become a storage place or a tourist destination became integral decisions for the future of the project. Instead, creating a network of trade between the island and nearby Inuit villages is taken up later, in the final design scheme. Also, the aspect of developing a system of jetties to mold the islandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s form would also be taken further through the development of the design [see Fig. 7.06]. 101
Fig. 7.07 Continued development of Shishmaref Inlet. This scheme incorporates a large system of nets throughout the bay.
Fig. 7.08 Rendering of oyster netting system and vegetation in the Oystertecture project by Kate Orff and SCAPE Studio [see Chapter 5 for more information about this project].
The second series of iterations continues the exploration of the bay as the productive element in the design scheme. In Fig. 7.07, the bay is occupied by a large netting system [the blue lines] that hugs the shoreline, attracting algae, kelp, and other sea vegetation. This system also captures salmon as they swim out to sea from the Serpentine River at the end of the spring, filling with fish, readily available to the islanders. The brown lines in the drawing show jetty structures to control access and passages throughout the bay that protect the ecology from a number of shipping routes dissecting it into many pieces. 102
Also, this scheme envisions the same jetties operating within the bay to be deployed as a field of protective breakwater structures on the ocean-side of the island to preventing the shore from future erosion.
Fig. 7.09 Continued exploration of jetty wall systems and traditional fish trapping methods extending from the shoreline.
Fig. 7.10 Aerial view of the Great Barrier Reef, natural inspiration for the design of the jetty wall system.
This scheme for the island derives itself from looking at traditional fish traps designed by the Hawaiians. The Hawaiian fish traps are made from a simple series of walls constructed of stacked stones set out into the water. The Hawaiian fish traps, called loko â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;ai, interact with the tides so that when the tide is high, fish can pass over the walls and when the tide is low, they get trapped within the walled system and are then harvested by fishermen. This design is also inspired by the various reef systems that can be observed across the globe. There are four types of biotic reef systems, classified under two categories: oyster reefs and coral reefs. Oyster reefs are one of the four types, sometimes called
oyster bars and are located in shallow, brackish water systems. Under the coral reef category there are: fringing reefs, barrier reefs, and atolls, all made from the coupled growth of coral and algae. What this project aims to create is an abiotic reef, constructed of man-made materials to attract similar wildlife and create comparable surfaces, shading, and spaces as a natural reef system. The abiotic reef would be constructed out in the ocean water and act as both the fish-trapping wall system, as well as an infrastructure much like a reef, for attracting algae, sea moss, and various Arctic marine species. 103
Fig. 7.11 Sketch of the envisioned deployable units extending from the island in the summer, and contracting like a muscle in the winter to protect the island from spring time erosion.
Fig. 7.12 Protein-structure diagram showing possible formal configurations of the deployed units in the water and how they might be similarly connected together.
The next series of design schemes explores the concept of creating a â&#x20AC;&#x153;deployable ecologyâ&#x20AC;? for Shishmaref. This scheme came from thinking about how fishing nets work, and how to respond to the stark seasonal changes that occur on the island. On this page, Fig. 7.11 and Fig. 7.12 show a deployable system of units that would cluster together and hug the shoreline of the island during the winter and into the spring to protect the shoreline from erosion and protect the homes from being destroyed by ocean waves. Then, in the summertime, this system would relax, much like a muscle, and float out into the water to form a large fishing net. 104
On the opposite page, the deployable system began to be envisioned more as a structure with the ability to deploy nets into at any given time. Fig. 7.13, shows a wall section with pockets extending into the water where nets can be deployed into. These pockets could also be capped from touching the ocean water at places, and serve as holes where freshwater would form in the winter to be harvested as ice, providing access from the shoreline of Shishmaref to both freshwater and fish, two items they currently import from USAid.
freshwater ice harvest [in winter]
deployable fishing nets
kelp garden
sediment accumulation
10’
Fig. 7.13 Section drawing of a reef wall system with pockets designed into the structure for the purpose of deploying fishing scale nets.1’’ = 4’
Fig. 7.14 “Net Z33” by Numen/For Use.
Fig. 7.15 “Kalyx” project by Michael Suriano, showing canopy structure in plan.
Fig. 7.16 Rendered view of “Kalyx” by Michael Suriano, showing a canopy structure with pockets dipping down into the landscape. 105
BRANCHING STRUCTURES FOR CONTINUED SEDIMENT BUILD-UP + DOCKING BRIDGING STRUCTURE + FISH FARM CONDUIT
KELP + ALGAE FARM
SEDIMENT BUILD-UP
1 km [ each square = 150’ ]
1 km
1 km
[ each square = 150’ ]
2012
+ 3 years 2 0 1 5
Fig. 7.17 Initial drawings of the jetty wall system forming in the ebb tidal delta region, just off the northern coast of the island. This first plan begins to lay out areas for productive kelp gardens, and the integration of fish ponds into the new landscape.
106
1 km
[ each square = 150’ ]
[ each square = 150’ ]
+6 y e a rs 2 0 1 8
land-building extents
oce
an c
“Artifical Reef” rigid structure with voids for deployable nets
urre
nts
deep kelp garden sediment-capture
shallow kelp garden
waterflow from ocean
fish pond system
1 km [ each square = 150’ ]
1 km
1 km
[ each square = 150’ ]
+ 12 years 2024
1 km
[ each square = 150’ ]
+2 4 y e a rs 2 0 3 6
[ each square = 150’ ]
+4 2 y e a r s 2 0 5 4
Fig. 7.18 Second iteration of the jetty wall system showing areas of sedimentation [brown], kelp gardens, and future fish ponds finding space along the protected shoreline.
107
108
8. DESIGN SOLUTION
The design solution for Shishmaref consists of a jetty-wall infrastructure comprised of various segments that respond to oceanic flows around the island. On the oceanside of Shishmaref Island, a reef wall is designed to prevent future erosion, and to attract marine wildlife for developing a healthy ecosystem. On the bay-side of the island, located adjacent to the marshland, a traditional fish pond is designed for the creation of a new fishing economy. Extending just beyond the confines of the fish pond, is a sediment-capturing net, created to harness the natural process of sand accretion for the purpose of building new land along the northern shore. At every location, the jetty-wall infrastructure acts as both a control feature in the landscape, and as a passive device for molding to the uncontrollable forces of nature and ecology. Being able to harness relatively measurable flows, such as the changes in sea level due to tidal shifts and the rate of sedimentation from year to year, the jetty-wall can serve as a visual tool for villagers to gauge the future form and productivity of their landscape. Invisibly, this structure will also serve as an instigator for ecological growth, offering surfaces, pockets, shading, and habitat for various species of Arctic marine life. As time goes on, the infrastructure will change due to both the physical forces affecting it, much like a piece of land art, and will also be altered by feedback from the energy flows of the surrounding Arctic ecology as it is changed by the warming climate.
109
Fig. 8.01a [Above] Plan view of the design scheme. Fig. 8.01b [Below] Unrolled section of the design [unrolling the outer edge].
Sediment-Capturing Net
110
Fish Pond
Fishing Piers
Jetty-wall Infrastructure
Material Palette:
SALMON
STONES
TIMBER
WATER + ICE
Reef Wall
Precdents: Sprial Jetty Robert Smithson
HIGH TIDE
Hawaiian fish pond loko ‘ai
The final design scheme, “Jetty-wall Infrastructure” is the first element in a series of framework to be deployed into the ebb tidal delta on the northern shore of Shishmaref. The design scheme is a segmented jetty wall, beginning on the ocean-side of the island with a man-made Reef Wall, made of stones and logs. The Reef Wall on the ocean-side acts as a wave break to protect the shoreline from further erosion, and on the inside face of the wall begins to create a reef environment for attracting local species. To get to the Reef Wall, there is a wooden dock system that extends from the marshland side of the island and wraps its way up the coastline to the reef, which is located more out at sea. The dock system is made similarly to the reef wall, but consists of a less-dense packing of log and stone materials, allowing for more passage of water and wildlife between its width. This means that the dock system does not divide the water into separate zone, but maintains a healthy environment on both sides of the structure. On the marshland side of the island, the Jetty-wall Infrastructure is transformed into a Fishpond, much like the Hawaiian loko ‘ai, from the case studies section. Here, fish are free to move over a net during high tide, but are trapped in the Fishpond during low tide so that they can be harvested. Along the shoreline, there is a pathway made of stone for fishing off of, as well as a layer of sticks and logs on the shore to protect it from erosion or change as sediment enters this area.
LOW TIDE
Fishpond Sediment-Capturing Net
Finally, the Sediment-Capturing Net is also located on the marshland side of the island, working underwater to slow the process of sedimentation and begin building new land.
Reef Wall
111
Plan .25 mi Fig. 8.02 Plan of the design scheme in the Winter. This view also shows the Jetty-wall as it appears at high tide.
In the Winter, the Jetty-wall Infrastructure acts as a device to slow oceanic currents to the point that ice is formed more quickly, and thus becomes more thick throughout the winter months. By doing so, the infrastructure ensures and supports the ice fishing season by providing hunters with a safe thickness of ice to be walking on, and creating fishing holes. Also during this time, deployable fishing units can be seen on the surface of the ice. These units will be discussed in the following pages, and are deployable units easily transformed into fishing holes after the ice has hardened. 112
Plan .25 mi Fig. 8.03 Plan of the Jetty-wall in the Summer. This view is shown at low tide, when the majority of the surfaces are exposed above the surface of the water.
In the Summer, the Jetty-wall becomes an active part of the Shishmaref landscape. It offers itself first, as protection from the waves and detrimental erosion, and also performs as an extension of the island providing better points for fishing and engaging with the marine landscape. During low tide, the Reef Wall element reveals pathways that lead villagers closer to the surface of the water and further into the extents of the ocean. Low tide also activates the Fishpond, trapping the fish and making them available for harvest. 113
Fig. 8.04 Section of the Fishpond showing the netting elements, dock elements, deployable fishing units, and the open water at the ebb tidal delta, where ships are able to pass.
114
This Fishpond is both a diurnally-changing element in the design scheme, as well as changing the underwater topography from year to year. On a daily cycle, the Fishpond fluctuates its performance according to the tides. Like the Hawaiian fish pond case studies, the fish nets allow for the passage of fish and marine life when the tide is high, but capture them in a body of water when the tide is low. During the low and mid-tide, fishermen can go out into the Fish Pond and be able to capture the fish without having them escape back into the ocean. The Sediment-Capturing Net is also included in this scheme and can be seen just below the fishing boat in Fig. 8.04. The Sediment-Capturing Net is made of a thickly-woven netting material made by
the Shishmaref. Its thickness, strength, and flexibility, as well as its location allow this part of the infrastructure to begin altering the flow of sediment from the longshore drift pushing the shoreline northward. This net begins to accumulate sediment, changing the underwater topography and eventually filling up what exists on its inner edge with sand. Over time, the sediment wall itself is rebuilt over the new topography, until a new layer of island sand is created. With this new landscape, the Shishmaref can begin moving their town to the marshland side of the island, becoming both protected from the Jetty-wall Infrastructure, as well as provided with a healthy fishing economy just outside their front doors; which is much like it used to be when they were a subsistence-based culture. 115
Fig. 8.05 Bird’s eye view of “Ice” by Jim Denevan. This picture is taken on Day 1, when the sculpture was made, before it became hidden by the wind covering the landscape with a fresh layer of snow.
Fig. 8.06 Diagram of the scale of Jim Denevan’s project over-layed on an image of Manhattan, versus Lake Baikal in Siberia. The large expanse of Arctic and polar landscapes is deceiving, as can be seen by the early design studies in Chapter 7 Iterations + Studies.
116
Fig. 8.07a Section of a Deployable Fishing Unit, showing sunlight filtration, growth of algae and phytoplankton, as well as its anchoring into the sea floor.
Fig. 8.08 View of the Fishpond in the winter, with Deployable Fishing Units at various stages of transformation on the ice.
Fig. 8.07b Diagrams showing the transformation of the Deployable Fishing Units from a bundle of stacked logs in the summer [see Fig. 8.07a], to being encased by ice with the onset of winter, then, burning the logs, and finally, seeing the units disappear to create a fishing hole through the thick ice.
The Deployable Fishing Units are small, easily-made modules that can be put together by the Shishmaref to ensure favorable fishing in both the summer and winter months. In the summertime, these bundles of logs float in the Fishpond and around the Reef Wall, attracting algae and phytoplankton to grow onto the structures. With the introduction of these nutrients, fish are then attracted to these areas and “hang-out” in, or around the units. During the summer, these units become points of attraction for fishers wishing to find a good number of fish. In the winter, the logs in these units stick out above the ice, and when the ice becomes thick enough and be reached
by foot. The Shishmaref can then go out and burn the logs that are above the ice, melting through the thickness to create ice fishing holes. The precedent for this scheme is the work of Jim Denevan, called “Ice” on Lake Baikal. In his project, Denevan was interested in creating a pattern in the frozen landscape, and to do so burnt the top layers of ice and snow off of the lake. The newly-melted areas formed a circular, spiraling pattern that can be seen in many of his artworks, which is used in a way to show rapid scalar shifts within the large landscapes he works [see Fig. 8.06]. The day after creating this artwork, the pattern was hidden under a new layer of snow and ice, revealing the diurnal changes that occur on the surface of Lake Baikal. 117
Fig. 8.09 Section through the Reef Wall showing the different pathway levels leading the Shishmaref closer to the water, as the tides change the level of water throughout the day.
Fig. 8.10 Diagram of the Arctic food chain. 118
Fig. 8.11 An Inuit whale-bone arch, a celebratory structure that is proof of a good whale hunting season.
The Reef Wall is a hybrid, wavebreak and man-made reef system. The layering of stone and log materials creates a thick boundary between the oceanic waves and the shoreline on Shishmaref Island, but at the same time is a soft infrastructure that molds itself both formally and materially to the marine landscape. The introduction of more logs and stone surfaces underwater become attraction points for the growth of algae and lichens on both sides of the wall. On the inner edge, the side that is protected from the ocean, the water is calmer and kelp begin to take root, forming a kelp garden that hugs the length of the reef.
On the outer edge of the wall, there are a series of steps underwater that act as further protection from wave damage, and serve to support the rest of the structure. This area is the most affected by the rough waves and ocean currents, but allows for a number of pocketing, shade, and spaces where fish habitats may be found. It is this side of the wall that also attracts species such as seal and walrus that come for the availability of fish. On the top of the pathways, whale-bone arches are placed by the Shishmaref, reinstating an old celebratory hunting tradition that tells of the prosperity of the ecosystem the new infrastructure provides for them. 119
Plan [2050] .25 mi Fig. 8.12 Projected plan view of the Jetty-wall Infrastructure, as well as surrounding island and marshland landscapes in 2050.
120
Shishmaref in 2050 Over time, the Jetty-wall Infrastructure will begin to change both itself and the island landscape it is adhering to. By 2050, the Fishpond will be filled with sediment collected from the Sediment-capturing Net. This is the beginning formation of a new landform being created by the design infrastructure.
Fig. 8.13 Rendering of the Jetty-wall in approximately the year 2020. Note the growth of vegetation in the Fish Pond, as well as developing kelp gardens along the inner edge of the Reef Wall.
Likewise, the Reef Wall will continue developing in ecological richness as more and more species are attracted to the abundance of algae, phytoplankton, and kelp enveloping the structure. Unlike the fishponds, the reef wall will remain intact and continue providing the island with protection from erosion and waves from the Chukchi Sea. As the old fishing docks are dismantled from the original Fishpond, new fish ponds are created, being positioned closer to the ocean-side of the island. These fish ponds will continue collecting sediment like the first, building up more land along the northern shore. After these fishponds collect enough sediment to create a new northern shoreline, additional layers of fish ponds and sediment-capturing nets can be deployed in a recursive manner at their edges. The reason for building the infrastructure in this way is both responding to the process of sedimentation, and being limited by the tidal flows that control the performance of the fish ponds. The fishponds must be connected to the shoreline, and close enough so that tidal fluctuations are activating the fishing nets at high and low tide.
Fig. 8.14 Rendering of the Jetty-wall in 2050. By 2050, the Fish Pond will be filled with sediment and Shishmaref will have the opportunity to begin creating more fish ponds along the northern shoreline of the island. These fish ponds will continue the collection of sediment for the purpose of building up topography and landmass. The marshland side of the island will begin to flourish as the waters remain calmer and more species are attracted to the infrastructure. Also, the inner edge of the Reef Wall will continue to be a thriving place for kelp and marine vegetation.
As seen in the plan for 2050 [Fig. 8.11], the town itself ensures greater protection and prosperity by moving close to the northern shoreline. Here, the Reef Wall protects from wind and waves off the ocean, and the productive fish ponds are a landscape for creating economy located just beyond the villagersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; homes. The Shishmaref would also begin creating on-shore fish farming pools for protecting a population of young fish to be sent into the fish pond and Shishmaref Inlet waters after having reached a mature age. These on-shore fish pools are meant as temporary places for young fish before entering the wild, and could offer the Shishmaref opportunities for introducing new and different species into the ecosystem. The fish pools also serve as an educational hub for teaching the youth about fishing, and for exploring the developing marshland ecology. These growing, testbed ecologies will serve as primary research centers for organizations interested in Arctic health, effects of climate change, and marine research. 121
122
9. CONCLUSION
Small island communities, like the Shishmaref, will continue to face an uncertain future as climate changes radically alter the Earth’s atmosphere. Arctic communities will begin to see the most rapid changes from this global phenomenon, as changes are expected to increase temperatures in the tundra at a rate three times faster then in lower latitudes. The research presented in this Thesis calls future designers to be prepared for responding to the climatic changes predicted to occur over the next decades, and to do so in a way that is local, deriving inspiration and knowledge from the indigenous rituals and practices of a given location. By utilizing local resources and knowledge, a design solution is better adapted to both the culture and ecology at a given place. Designing infrastructures that are responsive to both cultural desires, and ecological needs generates an architecture that blurs the distinction between itself and the landscape it is operating in. Much like the land art movement of the 1960’s, future landscape management proposals will have to continue responding to the constant influx of change on at all time scales. By adapting built infrastructures to respond to biological and geomorphological processes, structures can begin to be molded by natural forces of the place in which they exist. The economy and protection provided to the Shishmaref by the Jetty-wall Infrastructure will ensure a productive future for this small community. By “extending” the landscape process described in their creation story, the design will transform this island into a productive center for marine ecology research and a profitable fishing industry. By generating a source of income for the Shishmaref, the design hopes to break off their unhealthy ties to the three flights a day of USAid, and allow the village to become an independence entity in the Arctic. Just as the Northwest Passage enters the global sphere, this island community will become an active participant in local trade, reforming old connections with towns down the Serpentine River, and to large urban centers, such as Nome and Kotzebue.
123
Future Horizons
CHUKCHI
SEA
CHUKCHI SEA ISLANDS
RESPONSE TO MYTHOLOGY: FROM EROSION TO ECOLOGY + ECONOMY
RUSSIA: Serykh Gusey Islands • Wrangel Island • Yuzhnyy Island • Idlidlya Island • USAid Karkarpko Island • Kasegaluk Lagoon US Army Corps of Engineers Islands • Kolyuchin Island • Kosa Dvukh Pilotov • Big Diomede Island
Indirect connection to NW Passage Forestry trade with Kotzebue
$10.2 million
$10 million/year
USA: Chamisso Island • Little Diomede Island • Herald Island • Puffin Island • Sarichef Island • Seahorse Islands Shishmaref Erosion & Relocation Coalition
Fine goods/ crafts trade with Nome
NGO’s + other
Fig. 9.01 Nearby Alaskan the $6 million islands facing similar erosion problems as Fishing trade inland $2 million Shishmaref. 4.5 MILES
[7.3 KM]
FUTURE AGENCY
CURRENT AGENCY
NEW PLACES OF BIODIVERSITY LOCAL ALASKAN VILLAGES
NOORVIK
KIANA
KOTZEBUE SELAWIK
SHISHMAREF
DEERING CANDLE
BUCKLAND
NOME
FUTURE NETWORK OF CHUKCHI SEA VILLAGE TRADE Fig. 9.02 Diagram of the future connections Shishmaref will make with surrounding villages through their productive fish trade.
124
MATERIAL FLOWS
IN THE INDIGENOUS LANDSCAPE
Nor
e
out
eR
ag ass st P
e
thw
bue
17]
por
eg
ts b
ng
ppi Shi
ze Kot
rid
Cor
a
shm
Shi
ex ref
20 in [
rom or f
3x/ day US Aid flights [2012]
North Inlet Tree Nurseries monthly US Aid flights [2050]
North Delta Algae + Plankton Farms
South Inlet Tree Nurseries Moss Harvesting Fields
South Delta Algae + Plankton Farms
Fig. 9.03 Material Flows in the Indigenous Landscape: Shishmaref Inlet shown as a network of linked ecosystem resources supporting the island and being managed by the Shishmaref. Key features in this landscape are the maars, where trees could begin to be planted in nurseries to support future jetty-wall construction, and also the Serpentine River delta where algae farming can take place in the nutrient-rich water.
125
2045 2025
2035 2015 2055
2045 2025
2015 2035 2055
2045 2025
Fig. 9.04 Sketch of the future northern shoreline. New topographic conditions created by sediment accumulation from the jetty-wall 2035 infrastructure on Shishmaref Island. 2015 2055 126
“Human cultures, knowledge systems, religions, social interactions, and amenity services have been influenced and shaped by the nature of ecosystems. At the same time, humankind has influenced and shaped its environment to enhance the availability of certain valued services, recognizing that it is not possible to fully separate the different spiritual, intellectual, and physical links between human cultures and ecosystems.”
- from Ecosystems and Human Well-Being by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Fig. 9.05 Winter ecology, explored throgh a section of the reef wall.
127
128
BIBLIOGRAPHY LITERATURE 1. Basso, Keith. Wisdom Sits in Places. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 1996. 2. Beget, James E. The Largest Known Maars on Earth, Seward Peninsula, Northwest Alaska. Arctic. Vol 49. Alaska: University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 1995. 3. Burch, Ernest S. Social Life in Northwest Alaska: The Structure of Inupiaq Eskimo Nations. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. 2006. 4. Cajete, Gregory. Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Santa Fe: Clear Light Publishers. 2000. 5. Charmaz, Kathy. Grounded Theory in Ethnography. London: Sage. 1995. 6. Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Orlando: Harcourt, Inc. 1957. 7. Fairhall, David. Conflict Ahead In Arctic Waters. Berkeley: Counter Point. 2010. 8. Foreman, T. R. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscape and Regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1986. 9. IUCN. Shaping A Sustainable Future IUCN Programme 2009 - 2012. Washington DC: IUCN. 2009. 10. IUCN. IUCN: Shaping the Future, 2009. Washington DC: IUCN. 2009. 11. Lixenberg, Diana. Last Days of the Shishmaref. Netherlands: Paradox/ Episode Publishers. 2008. 12. Li, Charlene. Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies. Boston: Harvard Business Press. 2010. 13. Mahoney, Nicola. Landraum. Berlin: Jovis. 2010. 14. Meyer, Elizabeth. Slow Landscapes. Virginia: University of Virginia Press. 2009. 15. MOMA. Rising Currents: Projects for New York’s Waterfront. NYC: MOMA. 2011. 16. Palang, Hannes. Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changing Landscapes. Dordercht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2003. 17. Phan, Van Lit. Mountains in the Sea: Vietnamese Miniature Landscape Art of Hon Non Bo. Portland: Timber Press, 2001. 18. Robinson, L. M. Living Systems: Innovative Materials and Technologies for Landscape Architecture. Basel: Birkhauser. 2007. 19. Strub, Harold. Bare Poles: Building Design for High Latitudes. Ottawa: Carlton University Press. 1996. 20. TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity. Malta: Progress Press. 2010. 21. Wadhams, Peter. Ice in the Ocean. Australia: Gordon and Breach. 2000. 22. White, Mason. On Farming. Barcelona: Actar Birkhauser. 2010. 23. Zimmerman, Astrid. Constructing Landscape: Materials, Techniques, Structural Components. Basel: Birkhauser. 2011. 24. Zubov, Nikolai. Arctic Ice. San Diego: US Navy Electronics Laboratory. 1963.
WEBSITES + ONLINE PUBLICATIONS 1. “Alaska’s 32 Ecoregions Section IIIB.” Alaska Department of Fish and Game. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/species/ wildlife_action_plan/section3b.pdf 2. “Beringia: Proposal for a Transcontinental Energy & Transport Network across the Bering Strait for a Post-Carbon World.” OPSYS. Found at http://www.opsys.net/index.php?/projects/beringia/ 3. “Ecoregions: Earth’s most special places.” World Wildlife Fund. 2010. http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/ arctic/ 4. “Human and Economic Indicators - Shishmaref.” Arctic Change, NOAA. http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/ 5. “Isaac Mizrahi Salmon skin dress, Cooper-Hewitt Design for a Better World, 2009.” Matadorn Network. http:// matadornetwork.com/change/isaac-mizrahis-salmon-skin-dress/ 6. “Ecosystems and Human Well-Being.” Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/ documents/document.356.aspx.pdf 7. Rink, Hendrick. “Tales and Traditions of the Eskimo”. Sacred Texts. http://www.sacred-texts.com/ 8. “Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation Coalition.” SERC. 2006. http://www.shishmarefrelocation.com/ 9. “Shishmaref, Alaska.” City Data. 2006. http://www.city-data.com/ 10. “The Last Days of Shishmaref: Dana Lixenberg / Jan Louter.” Paradox. 2008. http://www.paradox.nl/paradox/ 11. “The Last Days of the Shishmaref: An Inupiaq Community Swallowed by the Sea”. The Last Days of the Shishmaref. 2008. http://www.thelastdaysofshishmaref.com/shishmaref3/cms/cms_module/index.php 12. “USGS: Alaska Science Center”. USGS. 2010. http://alaska.usgs.gov/
129
130
IMAGE CREDITS ABSTRACT page 2. “Swarm of fish” Found at http://vi.sualize.us/ ROLE OF THE ARCHITECT page 6. “Project New York” by Troy Conrad Therrien. Found at http://archinect.com/people/project/42561118/project new-york/ page 7. “Creatures” by Eveliina Oksanen. Found at http://weheartit.com/ page 8. “Untitled” by Peter Korniss. Found at http://piccsy.com/2011/11/pter-korniss RESEARCH GENEAOLOGY page 14. “Eskimo baseball, 1a.m., June 2007” by Dana Lixenberg. Found at http://www.thelastdaysofshishmaref.com/ Fig. 1.01 “Main Street” by Edward M. Pio. Found at http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/12/03/shishmaref.alaska. climate.change/index.html Fig. 1.02 “Shishmaref Yearly Calendar” self-created image Fig. 1.03 “Nathan Weyiouanna’s house” by Dana Lixenberg. Found at http://www.thelastdaysofshishmaref.com/ Fig. 1.04 “Three Futures with Ardith Weyiouanna” self-created image, with photography by Dana Lixenberg Fig. 1.05 “Midnight June 2007” by Dana Lixenberg. Found at http://www.thelastdaysofshishmaref.com/ Fig. 1.06 “Noon June 2007” by Dana Lixenberg. Found at http://www.thelastdaysofshishmaref.com/ Fig. 1.07 “Shishmaref Demographics” self-created image Fig. 1.08 “Alaskan Industries” self-created image Fig. 1.09 “Midnight sun” by Dana Lixenberg. Found at http://www.thelastdaysofshishmaref.com/ Fig. 1.10 “Views of soul and body” self-created image Fig. 1.11 “Inland and coastal communities” self-created image Fig. 1.12 “Transference of the soul” by Life Magazine Fig. 1.13 “Shishmaref Inlet” by George F. Mobley. Found at http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/ george-mobley Fig. 1.14 “Cloud cover” by Dana Lixenberg. Found at http://www.thelastdaysofshishmaref.com/ Fig. 1.15 “Creation story” self-created image Fig. 1.16 “Looking for the Light in a Fading World” by Michael Robinson. Found at http://www.bearclawgallery.com/ Fig. 1.17 “Untitled” by anonymous. Found at http://www.bearclawgallery.com/ GLOBAL STUDIES page 32. “Nathan Weyiouanna’s house” by Dana Lixenberg. Found at http://www.thelastdaysofshishmaref.com/ Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.
2.01 “Indigenous Communities” self-created image 2.02 “Biodiversity Hotspots” self-created image 2.03 “Glaciers + Sea Level Rise” self-created image 2.04 “Areas Affected by Sea Level Rise” self-created image 2.05 “Linguistic Diversity” self-created image 2.06 “Sacred Landscapes” self-created image 2.07 “Arctic Endeavor” by Ruth Teichroeb. Found at http://oceansnorth.org/resources/arctic-endeavor-photo-journal 2.08 “Rising Tide Lifts All Boats” by Associated Press. Found at http://www.footsforecast.org/ 2.09 “Northwest Passage” self-created image adapted from a diagram by Matthew Baird Architects 2.10 “Exxon tanker” by Rob Stapleton. Found at http://www.deseretnews.com/ 2.11 “Kulusuk” by N. Feren Found at http://mybt.budgettravel.com/ 2.12 “Factors affecting Shishmaref Island” self-created image 2.13 “Land loss due to sea level rise and storm surges” self-created image 2.14 “Sandbags” by Dana Lixenberg. Found at http://www.thelastdaysofshishmaref.com/ 2.15 “Rip-rap wall” by Dana Lixenberg. Found at http://www.thelastdaysofshishmaref.com/ 2.16 “Migration or Inhabitation?” self-created image with photography by Dana Lixenberg 2.17 “What is happening?” self-created image 131
Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.
2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22
“Shishmaref, USA” by Carl Safina. Found at http://carlsafina.org/ “Urban hubs” self-created image “Indigenous versus industrial technology” self-created image “What could happen instead?” self-created image with photography by Dana Lixenberg “Frozen moments” by Donachy Photography. Found at http://donachyblog.wordpress.com/
SITE + CONTEXT page 48-49. “6 June 2011” by Hajo Eicken. Found at http://www.arcus.org/search/siwo/2011-06-03 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.
3.01 “Continental-scale map” self-created image 3.02 “Regional-scale map” self-created image 3.03 “Location of Shishmaref Island” self-created image 3.04 “Ecosystem Resorces on the Kotzebue Sound Lowlands” self-created image 3.05 “Summertime” by Dana Lixenberg. Found at http://www.thelastdaysofshishmaref.com/ 3.06 “Springtime” by Dana Lixenberg. Found at http://www.thelastdaysofshishmaref.com/ 3.07 “Chukchi sea” by NASA. Found at http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/ 3.08 “Arctic moss and liverwort” by Genny Anderson. Found at http://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/ 3.09 “Pale green lichens” by Genny Anderson. Found at http://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/ 3.10 “Shishmaref, AK” Found at http://www.flashearth.com/ 3.11 “Shishmaref, AK” Found at http://www.flashearth.com/ 3.12 “Shishmaref, AK” Found at http://www.flashearth.com/ 3.13 “Shishmaref, AK” Found at http://www.flashearth.com/ 3.14 “Shishmaref Seasonality Calendar” self-created image 3.15 “Kotzebue Sound Lowland Soil Profiles” self-created image 3.16 “Arctic moss” self-created image 3.17 “Caribou moss” self-created image 3.18 “Sectional profiles of tundra vegetation” self-created image 3.19 “Caribous moss in section” self-created image with photography by David M. Moore 3.20 “Killeak maars” Found at http://www.flashearth.com/ 3.21 “Devil Mountain maar” Found at http://www.flashearth.com/ 3.22 “Peatland kettles” Found at http://www.flashearth.com/ 3.23 “Maar soils on the Seward Peninsula” self-created image 3.24 “Fog” by Dana Lixenberg. Found at http://www.thelastdaysofshishmaref.com/ 3.25 “NASA’s ICESCAPE Scientists at Work” by NASA. Found at http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/ 3.26 “Boreal Forest climate conditions” self-created image, photography by United State Geological Survey 3.27 “Hunting camp” by Dana Lixenberg. Found at http://www.thelastdaysofshishmaref.com/
LANDSCAPE PROCESS: Barrier Islands page 68. “Aerial view of Shishmaref” by Lawrence Hislop. Found at http://www.grida.no/ Fig. 4.01 “Spit theory of barrier island formation” by Hoyt. Found at http://www.nps.gov/ Fig. 4.02 “Shishmaref Island: barrier island forces” self-created image Fig. 4.03 “Sarichef Island” by Elizabeth Marino. Found at http://polarfieldservice.wordpress.com/2010/02/ Fig. 4.04 “Ship Island before and after Hurricane Katrina” by U.S. Geological Survey. Found at http://soundwaves.usgs. gov/2009/03/ Fig. 4.05 “Axonometric of the ebb tidal delta” self-created image Fig. 4.06 “Section A-A’” self-created drawing Fig. 4.07 “Sediment deposition” self-created drawing Fig. 4.08 “Water depths” self-created image Fig. 4.09 “Shishmaref Island migration” self-created drawing Fig. 4.10 “Hybrid diagram” self-created drawing Fig. 4.11a “Natural barrier island section” self-created drawing Fig. 4.11b “Managed barrier island section” self-created drawing Fig. 4.12 “Intervention and critique diagrams” self-created drawing
132
MATERIAL INVESTIGATIONS + PRECEDENTS page 76 “Oyster-net model” by SCAPE Studio. Found at http://www.scapestudio.com/projects/oyster-tecture/ Fig. 5.01 “Core 10 steel framework” From Living Systems: Innovative Materials and Technologies for Landscape Architecture. Fig. 5.02 “Vegetated stone dikes” From Living Systems: Innovative Materials and Technologies for Landscape Architecture. Fig. 5.03 “Marsh toe” From Living Systems: Innovative Materials and Technologies for Landscape Architecture. Fig. 5.04 “Biotechnical Wave + Erosion Control Structures” From Living Systems: Innovative Materials and Technologies for Landscape Architecture. Fig. 5.05 “skteches” From Living Systems: Innovative Materials and Technologies for Landscape Architecture. Fig. 5.06 “Fulton Ferry Landing” Found at http://www.brooklynbridgepark.org/the-park/fulton-ferry-landing-open Fig. 5.07 “Section” by Ken Smith, Architect. From Living Systems: Innovative Materials and Technologies for Landscape Architecture. Fig. 5.08 “Saltwater Herbicide Ferry Landings Render” by Ken Smith, Architect. From Living Systems: Innovative Materials and Technologies for Landscape Architecture. Fig. 5.09 “Isaac Mizrahi Salmon skin dress” by Mackenzie Stroh, Cooper Hewitt Museum. Found at http://matadornetwork. com/change/isaac-mizrahis-salmon-skin-dress/ Fig. 5.10 “behavior photo of pacific sockeye salmon schooling underwater split level” by Brandon Cole Marine Photography. Found at http://www.brandoncole.com/ Fig. 5.11 “Detail of salmon skin dress” by Mackenzie Stroh, Cooper Hewitt Museum. Found at http://matadornetwork.com/ change/isaac-mizrahis-salmon-skin-dress/ Fig. 5.12 “Sockeye salmon ready to spawn” by Chelsea Brook. Found at http://raven3creative.wordpress.com/ Fig. 5.13 “Oyster Reef Park” by SCAPE Studio. Found at http://www.scapestudio.com/projects/oyster-tecture/ Fig. 5.14 “Oystertecture” by SCAPE Studio. Found at http://www.scapestudio.com/projects/oyster-tecture/ Fig. 5.15 “untitled” by SCAPE Studio. Found at http://www.scapestudio.com/projects/oyster-tecture/ Fig. 5.16 “Section through the Gowanus Canal” by SCAPE Studio. Found at http://www.scapestudio.com/projects/ oyster-tecture/ Fig. 5.17 “Oysters” by Governors Island Blog. Found at http://govislandblog.com/2010/12/10/bringing-the-oyster-back-to new-york-harbor/ Fig. 5.18a “He’eia Fishpond” by Photos of Aloha. Found at http://shop.photosofaloha.com/Travel/Aerials Fig. 5.18b “Fishtraps near Brewarrina, New South Wales” by Renew, R. Found at http://donsmaps.com/ Fig. 5.18c “Giant Fish Trap” by Wales News Service. Found at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ Fig. 5.19a “Bioreef Acropora Electric” by Sean D’Oliveira. Found at http://coastalnewstoday.com/ Fig. 5.19b “Reef ball 2” by Reef Ball Foundation. Found at http://www.reefball.org/ Fig. 5.19c “Reef Ball” by Reef Ball Foundation. Found at http://www.reefball.org/ Fig. 5.20 “Red Sea shipwreck” by Sea Safaris. Found at http://www.seasafaris.net/ Fig. 5.21a “Ice” by Jim Denevan. Found at http://www.jimdenevan.com/ Fig. 5.21b “Streampath” by Gilles Bruni and Marc Babarit. Found at http://www.clemson.edu/ Fig. 5.21c “Sand by Jim Denevan. Found at http://www.jimdenevan.com/ Fig. 5.22a “Spiral Jetty, 2010” by Robert Smithson. Found at http://www.robertsmithson.com/earthworks/spiral_jetty.htm Fig. 5.22b “Spiral Jetty 1” by Robert Smithson. Found at http://www.robertsmithson.com/earthworks/spiral_jetty.htm Fig. 5.22c “September 2002” by George Steinmetz. Found at http://www.robertsmithson.com/earthworks/spiral_jetty.htm Fig. 5.23 “Leca Swimming Pools” by Alvaro Siza Architects. Found at http://inhabitat.com/leca-seaside-swimming-pools are-a-stunning-fusion-of-nature-and-the-man-made/ Fig. 5.24 “Jetty-wall infrastructure at high tide and low tide” self-created image Fig. 5.25 “MOSE project Venice from the air” Found at http://www.cnrep.lsu.edu Fig. 5.26 “Eroding Islands, Louisiana” by Tyrone Turner. Found at http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/photos/ Fig. 5.27 “Aerial view of Jetty Park” Found at http://gulfcoastaerialphotos.com/ Fig. 5.28 “Coastal Environment” Found at www.log.furg.br/ Fig. 5.29 “Log Reef Wall” self-created image Fig. 5.30 “Fishing Dock Structure” self-created image Fig. 5.31 “Vegetated Filtration and Fish Habitat” self-created image Fig. 5.32 “Stone and Log Shoreline Assembly” self-created image Fig. 5.33 “Fish Trap Net” self-created image Fig. 5.34 “Sediment-Capturing Net” self-created image Fig. 5.35 “Floating Fishing Docks” self-created image
133
PROGRAM page 94. “Springtime” self-created image Fig. 6.01 “Design Objectives” self-created diagram, images from Living Systems: Innovative Materials and Technologies for Landscape Architecture and the Cooper Hewitt Museum. Fig. 6.02 “Infrastructure for Biocultural Input” self-created diagram Fig. 6.03 “Programmatic Flows” self-created image Fig. 6.04 “Performance Criteria of the Design” self-created diagram, images from Robert Smithson, USGS, and National Geographic. ITERATIONS + STUDIES page 98. “Scan from sketchbook 1, Spring 2012” self-created drawing Fig. 7.01 “Shishmaref Inlet Programmatic Diagram” self-created image Fig. 7.02 “Spring program” self-created image Fig. 7.03 “Early Summer program” self-created image Fig. 7.04 “Late Summer program” self-created image Fig. 7.05 “Winter program” self-created image Fig. 7.06 “Island Interventions: Structure, Accretion, Microhabitats” self-created image Fig. 7.07 “Bay as a Fishnet” self-created drawing Fig. 7.08 “Oyster reef beds” by SCAPE Studio. Found at http://www.scapestudio.com/projects/oyster-tecture/ Fig. 7.09 “Island Reef and Protection System” self-created drawing Fig. 7.10 “Gran barrera de coral” Found at http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/ Fig. 7.11 “Deployable fishing concept drawing” self-created drawing Fig. 7.12 “Protein structure” From Index of Biochem Slides at Stanford University. Found at http://cmgm.stanford.edu/ biochem/ Fig. 7.13 “Section of a reef-canopy wall system” self-created image Fig. 7.14 “Net Z33” by Numen/ For Use. Found at http://www.archdaily.com/ Fig. 7.15 “Kalyx plan” by Michael Suriano. Found at http://archinect.com/people/project/2750489/kalyx/ Fig. 7.16 “Kalyx rendering” by Michael Suriano. Found at http://archinect.com/people/project/2750489/kalyx/ Fig. 7.17 “Midterm design scheme 1” self-created drawings Fig. 7.18 “Midterm design scheme 2” self-created drawings DESIGN SOLUTION page 108. “Jetty-wall Infrastructure bird’s eye view” self-created rendering page 111. “Material Palette” self-created diagram, photography by Stacy Smith. Found at http://staceysmith.co.nz/ Fig. 8.01a “Jetty-wall Infrastructure Key Plan” self-created drawing Fig. 8.01b “Jetty-wall Infrastructure Unrolled Section” self-created drawing Fig. 8.02 “Winter 2012 Plan” self-created drawing Fig. 8.03 “Summer 2012 Plan” self-created drawing Fig. 8.04 “Fishpond Section” self-created drawing Fig. 8.05 “Bird’s eye photograph of Ice” by Jim Denevan. Found at http://www.jimdenevan.com/ Fig. 8.06 “Scalar comparison of Ice in Manhattan and Lake Baikal” by Jim Denevan. Found at http://www.jimdenevan.com/ Fig. 8.07a “Single deployable fishing unit” self-created diagram Fig. 8.07b “Process of transformation for a deployable fishing unit” self-created diagram Fig. 8.08 “Fishpond plan in the winter” self-created drawing Fig. 8.09 “Reef Wall Section” self-created image Fig. 8.10 “Defrosting Sea Food” by UNEP. Found at http://www.adventures-in-climate-change.com/earth-at-a-glance/ arctic-sea-ice-web/ Fig. 8.11 “Whale Bone Arch” by Mary Green Photography Design. Found at http://www.margygreen.com/ Fig. 8.12 “Jetty-wall Infrastructure Plan in 2050” self-created drawing Fig. 8.13 “Jetty-wall rendering in 2020” self-created image Fig. 8.14 “Jetty-wall rendering in 2050” self-created image
134
CONCLUSION Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.
9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05
“184 Alaskan islands affected by erosion” self-created image “Future Chukchi Sea Village Trade” self-created image “Material Flows in the Indigenous Landscape” self-created image “Sediment accumulation over time, Shishmaref Island” self-created image “Section of the reef wall, study rendering” self-created image
135
C.BENNETT
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUE BACHELOR’S OF ARCHITECTURE THESIS NOMINATION: HARRIET R. PECK PRIZE For best solution to a Thesis project in architecture design.
ARTIC-TECTURE explores the intersection of landscape architecture, architecture, and socio-cultural studies. Through intensive research during 9 months of work, this publication documents the entire research process and design proposal for the Shishmaref in Northwest Alaska, a small island village on the brink of destruction. Sea level is predicted to rise in increasingly over the next forty years, possibly erasing whole cultures from the face of the earth, that is, unless measures can be taken to safely and sustainabily maintain these valuable lowlands. Many of these regions belong to some of the most environmetally productive areas on the planet, from wetlands to the rich Arctic Ocean. What is even more important is that many of these areas lack suffient understanding. Currently there is no conclusive evidence upon the ecosystem dynamics in the Artic, there is no data about its biomass or ecologically productivity. It is for this reason, as well as a host more, that these quickly eroding cultures and places be maintained. Those indigenous to these regions behold invaluable information about the land, flora, fauna, and how to sustainabily live in remote, challenging climates and locations. Folklore and mythology are means to decifering generational values passed down from centuries of inhabitation. This project explores the landscape management and design proposal through the lens of a number of stories from the Shishmaref and neighboring Inuit in order to make the most culturally and ecologically fitting solution. The phrase “Think Global, Act Local” is a mantra at the heart of this exploration.
// Christianna Bennett // August 2012
| 2012