Regenerative Mutualism by Geoffrey Cox by Geoff Cox

Regenerative

Mutualism

Committee: Raymond Cole (Chair), Ronald Kellett, Michel Labrie

The University of British Columbia, May 2015 ÂŠ Geoffrey Cox

abstract Architecture has evolved alongside the cultivation of a pervasive and detrimental mechanistic worldview which leads us to treat other forms of life as mere resources to be used, abused and discarded as needed to satisfy our desires. As a result, human relationships with biotic and abiotic systems have become increasingly antagonistic in nature, seeing our species profit at the expense of the earth and all living things within it. Needed is a shift in the conceptualization of design intervention to intentionally seek out the establishment of positive, mutualistic relationships between human and biotic systems in the development of an enduring, partnered co-evolution within place. In this way the value of architecture and design can move beyond simple anthropocentric notions of fixed containership and begin to act as a dynamic and responsive symbiotic process which exists to continually meet the needs of all forms of life throughout uncertain futures.

iii

CONTENTS FRONT MATTER

GP 1

ABSTRACT

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

DEDICATION

FORWARD THREAT OF SELF

A COLLECTIVE HOPE

LIVING SYSTEMS AND EVOLUTION INTRODUCTION

REGENERATIVE DESIGN AS A FRAMEWORK

REGENERATIVE DESIGN THINKERS AND PRACTICIONERS

REGENERATIVE

MENTAL SHIFT

PHYSICAL SHIFT

A THIRD PLACE FOR CO-EVOLUTION

SPACE AND PLACE

THIRD PLACES IN THEORY

MEDITOPE

GP 2

CASE STUDIES OLYMPIC SCULPTURE PARK

FOLLY FOR A FLYOVER

HUD LIVING BREAKWATER PROPOSAL

L’ÎLE DERBORENCE

UNDERSTANDING PLACE CENTRAL WATERFRONT

DISCOVERY OF PLACE

HISTORY OF PLACE

MUTUALISTIC ARCHITECTURE A NEW APPROACH

PROJECT SUCCESSION

CONCLUSION

SUPPORTING ILLUSTRATIONS PLANS

SECTIONS

105

RENDERS

113

REFERENCES

121 v

LIST OF figures 1

Cover Image

Adapted from Pauline Moss, “Spidery Trees”, Deviant Art, digital art image, creative commons licence, accessed September 4, 2014, http://paulinemoss.deviantart.com/art/Spidery-Trees-412689629

Background Image, p. 3-4

Warner Bros Entertainment. Interstellar. 2014. Digital Image. Interstellar Movie. From: www.interstellarmovie.net/downloads (accessed November 27, 2014).

Background Image, p. 5-6

IBID

Background Image, p. 21-22 p. 23-24

Background Image, p.25-26

Adapted from NASA Visible Earth Catalogue, “City Lights of the Americas”. Photograph. From: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=79787

Background Image, p.29-30

Adapted from NASA Visible Earth Catalogue, “Earth - The Blue Marble”. Photograph. From: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=54388

Background Image, p.37-38

Le Monde. “Jardin du Tiers Paysage“. Photograph. From: http://s1.lemde.fr/mmpub/edt/zip/20140630/122332/medias/interface/estuaire/jardinTiersPaysage.jpg

Background Image, p.45-46

Weiss / Manfredi Architects. “Seattle Art Museum Olympic Sculpture Park”. Photograph. From: http://weissmanfredi.com/project/seattle-art-museum-olympic-sculpture-park

Background Image, p.47-48

Assemble Studio. “Folly for a Flyover”. Photograph. From: http://assemblestudio.co.uk/?page_id=5

Background Image, p.49-50

SCAPE Architects. “Costal Strategies”. Living Breakwaters Conceptual Project. Digital Image. From: http://www.scapestudio.com/projects/living-breakwaters/

Background Image, p.51-52

Will Foster. “Derborence Island”. Photograph. Project by Gilles Clement. From: http://wasteland-twinning.net/blog/derborence-island/

Background Image, p.58

Background Image, p.59-60

H.T. Devine, “First Vancouver City Council Meeting after the fire”. Photograph. Vancouver Public Library Photo Archive, #1089.

Background Image, p.61-62

“Panoramic view of the Vancouver harbour waterfront”. Photograph. Library and Archives Canada, Reference number: PA-029618

Background Image, p.63-64

“1927 Pier BC”, Celebrate Vancouver 125. Photograph. From: http://www.celebratevancouver125.ca/wp-content/ uploads/2011/05/1927_Pier-BC.jpg

Background Image, p.65-66

Adapted from Google Earth Landsat Imagery, 2014, 49°17’ N 123°06’ W.

Background Image, p.75-76

“Red billed oxpecker buphagus”. Photograph. From: http://pixgood.com/oxpecker-and-zebra.html

Background Image, p.77-78

“Olympia oysters”. Photograph. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrea_lurida#/media/File:Ostrea_Lurida.jpg

Other Images and Works:

Kengo Kuma & Associates, Erik Møller Arkitekter, JAJA Architects. Break Space. 2012. Digital Image. Natural History Museum of Denmark Proposal. From: http://www.archdaily.com/267564/natural-history-museum-proposal-kengo-kuma-associates-erik-moller-arkitekter-jajaarchitects/04_breakspace (accessed November 27, 2014).

Adapted from Google Earth Landsat Imagery, 2014, 49°17’ N 123°06’ W.

All other images and works are photographs or digitally constructed images by Geoffrey Cox.

vii

acknowledgement Many view a thesis as a personal exploration in the pursuit of uncovering new knowledge and information. However, for me this exploration was very much a collaboration between myself and all of those who have helped me reach this point throughout my past. Knowledge is built upon the foundations of those who come before you and awaits a future evolution catalyzed by those yet to discover it. As a result I recognize the contribution of ideas and support by my family, friends and mentors along this rewarding journey. In particular I would like to thank my thesis committee led by Dr. Ray Cole, an inspirational teacher and leader whose passion and talent for architecture and education I will never forget. In addition Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d like to recognize the creative talent and time spent by Heba Maleki, Jason Heinrich, Neil Aspinall and Ryan Brown in helping me reach the end. And finally my parents who have helped me to dream big and reach far.

To the wonder of life, in all forms, in all places, for all time.

gp 1

1 2

forward THE THREAT OF SELF

In the 2014 movie Interstellar1 the protagonist Cooper finds himself unsatisfied existing within a desolate world characterized by failing agriculture and degraded habitat. In this future version of earth living systems can no longer cope with climatic imbalance and gradually succumb to an infertile and inhospitable reality. The last potential strategy for continued existence resides on leaving the planet altogether in search of a new beginning. While notions of apocalyptic narratives and end-ofworld scenarios have been part of human culture into the foreseeable past, the impending sense of doom due to human-induced environmental degradation and collapse is perhaps relatively new. These types of narratives succeed in playing to our fears and engaging us in stories centered around last-ditch efforts for human survival and preservation. However, commonly paired alongside the emotion of fear in these contemporary narratives is a hard-willed, overwhelming sense of hope in overcoming challenge and extinguishing threat. Today it seems as though this threat has been unequivocally identified as self - a human infliction characterized by the inability to adequately adapt our actions to benefit all forms of life rather than harm them through the process of human growth. Our reality is a story in which the last decade in particular has seen our senses bombarded through media and popular culture with the inherently fearful message of negative consequence. While this methodology works surprisingly well in capturing our attention towards the context of challenge, it cannot ever be successful as the prominent emotional foundation relied upon to create positive solutions for change. By now some if not most of us have had enough of the message of fear and are ready to come together though hope and determination to create a better future for all living systems on earth. 3

“We used to look up in the sky and wonder about our place in the stars,” Cooper muses. “Now we just look down and wonder about our place in the dirt.” Interstellar, 2014

A COLLECTIVE HOPE Central to the emerging notions of regenerative design is this message of hope. In the recent book Designing for Hope: Pathways to Regenerative Sustainability (2014)2 authors Chrisna du Plessis and Dominique Hes identify the urgent need for the positive framing of a shared vision moving forward. Du Plessis and Hes echo common sentiment with many other researchers and critical thinkers who have been immersed within debates about sustainability, green building and regenerative design for most of their professional lives. Dire scientific predictions about climate change, ecosystem degradation, loss of biodiversity and the impending end of humanity eventually impose a heavy mental toll. Although scientific research has been able to open our eyes to empirical evidence of how the earth is changing over time due to our actions, a pessimistic extrapolation of these facts used to create a bleak future easily leaves one in a mentally exhausted and depressed state. The effort to infuse the ongoing conversation and call to action with hopefulness is certainly not meant to embody naivety optimism, but rather to instill a healthier global mental consciousness towards a lingering ability for humanity to adapt and change. Although this message of hope needs to first be adopted and cultivated at the level of the individual, it is most powerful as a driver of change when it becomes a shared purpose amongst a community of people at the heart of place. In Interstellar, the progress towards the change needed wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t possible without both working agents - the individual and the collective. As we continue to reflect on our actions and find ways to curb consequence we will surely continue to need individuals to rise up and find ways to rally communities around a shared vision based on common values. In addition we will need others to find these tribes of change and work together in turning idea into action at the local and global scale.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;As individuals we have followed a journey familiar to many sustainability advocates and practitioners alternating between optimism, cynicism and outright despondency, yet always searching for a message of hope, a future vision of a flourishing world.â&#x20AC;? Chrisna du Plessis and Dominique Hes, 2014

living sys and evolutio 7

stems

on 8

INTRODUCTION LIVING SYSTEM INTERACTIONS

The complex world around us is composed broadly of living and non-living things. The biotic agents of plants, animals and fungi depend on the continued use of abiotic resources such as water, air, light and soil to grow and evolve over time. In addition, these biotic agents also depend on other species to provide food and nutrients in order to survive and reproduce. These inter-species interactions are represented through a network of relationships which can prove to be beneficial or harmful to one or more of the species involved. It is this multiplicity of adapting and changing relationships and resource cycles which form ecosystems and the web of life. For thousands of years humans took on an unassuming and equitable role within these ecosystems. We were prone to the ebb and flow of living systems within the places of our habitation which at times sustained our existence and at other prescribed our demise. Today we see ourselves established in the age of the Anthropocene characterised by a human dominion over biotic and abiotic systems where our actions have the ability to lead toward widespread and systemic global change - for better or worse. Advances in technical and information systems have allowed us to command increasing control over our external environment and dictate the outcomes of interactions with other biotic and abiotic agents. The result is ultimately a harnessed power to direct our own evolution over a near immediate time scale. Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve somehow transcended the functional evolutionary timeframe of the earth and other living systems which still operate on an adaptive scale of many thousands of years through biological feedback loops and a messy process of trial and error, life and death. This profound ability firmly relinquishes us as biologically divergent and has the potential for both immense opportunity and dire consequence. 9

MUTUALISTIC DOMESTICATED DOG

HUMANS

HOMO SAPIENS

CANIS LUPUS FAMILIARIS

ANTAGONISTIC GREAT WHITE SHARK

HUMANS

HOMO SAPIENS

CARCHARODON CARCHARIAS

COMPETITIVE HUMANS

PINE BEETLE

HOMO SAPIENS

DENDROCTONUS PONDEROSAE

COMMENSAL HUMANS

SKIN BACTERIA

HOMO SAPIENS

PROPIONIBACTERIUM ACNES

AMMENSAL HUMANS

HOMO SAPIENS

AMERICAN ROBIN TURDUS MIGRATORIUS

A DISCONNECT AMONG LIVING SYSTEMS From an evolutionary standpoint human development over the last few hundred years in particular has resulted in an unprecedented increase in our biological fitness - the ability to survive and reproduce as a species. We have managed to increase our living population to over 7 billion3, more than double our average life expectancy4 and drastically reduce the incidence of childhood mortality5. However, many recent studies and reports have indicated that our progress continues to consequently harm living systems. For example, the Living Planet Index (LPI)6 developed by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) which serves as an indicator for the state of global biological diversity estimates that the number of vertebrate species existing today is half of what it was 40 years ago, mostly due to human-induced effects. We have become very good at taking care of ourselves and very bad at taking care of the rest of the living world around us. Many of our negative impacts on the world stem from a growing emotional, physical and functional disconnect between our species and living systems. Although we constantly interact with biotic and abiotic systems on a daily basis these relationships have become increasingly parasitic in nature seeing our species often profit at the expense of our host: the earth and all living things within it. This is problematic because it represents a counterproductive model for the growth and successful evolution of all life forms into the foreseeable future. In addition to still depending on ecological agents and systems for our own survival, an ethical responsibility for harm reduction is also implied through the clear power imbalance weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve created between ourselves and other forms of life.

CHALLENGING A MECHANISTIC WORLDVIEW At the heart of our trend towards establishing harmful antagonistic interactions between human and biotic agents is the manifestation of our individual and collective worldview - the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. Some have argued that the development and adoption of a so-called mechanistic worldview has been central to poorly guiding human behaviour and actions7 8. In a mechanistic worldview the earth and all life within are imagined as malleable components of a functional machine where the dynamic of the whole can be understood from the properties of the parts. Here empiricism,reductivism and rationalism are the only ways to arrive at truth and drive decisive action. In this view biotic and abiotic systems are conceptualized as subordinate resources available for human use. Air, water, plants and animals are all materials to be controlled, managed and consumed for the sole benefit of those who exercise the power over them. While it might be unfair to acknowledge a generalization that most people fully adopt this mechanistic worldview, it is much easier to regard organizations such as corporations to do so. Many companies adopt business models centered around the generation of monetary gain and deploy a variety of strategies to manipulate environmental conditions to maximize profit above all else. Of course it is these very short-sighted and self-centered actions which often lead to undesirable forms of antagonism such as predation and parasitism. In order to curb the rise in negative interactions between biota and humans we need to mend our connection with the living systems around us by seeking the formation of partnered relationships with other biotic agents. These regenerated relationships must strive to be mutualistic in nature, producing a positive effect on the health, happiness and fitness of all involved biota. 13

regenera design framewo 15

ative

ork 16

regenerative design 17

thinkers + practitioners 18

regenerative RECONNECTING LIVING SYSTEMS

Today, notions of regeneration are surfacing in the areas of social culture, economic planning and environmental response. The incorporation of regenerative principals within the context of architecture and design was first introduced in 1994 by John T. Lyle in his book Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development 9. In the two decades since, many other researchers, practitioners and creative thinkers have built upon the early conceptions of regenerative design in efforts to strengthen its core theory and infuse this thinking within the world of architectural practice. In the broadest sense regenerative design provides an initial framework for positively supporting the co-evolution of human and natural systems in a partnered relationship10. It is firmly founded on an interdisciplinary, holistic, systems thinking approach which holds at its core the aspiration of net-positive development. Regenerative design is guided by a more biocentric worldview which strives to further understand the biotic world around us and infuse human design with the potential found in biotic systems through concepts such as biophilia11 and biomimicry12. While a desire to shift the way we think and act is shared amongst the regenerative design community, examples and methodology suggesting specificity on how this process manifests itself tangibly in the physical environment are still wanting. What does a partnered, mutualistic relationship between all living systems really look like? What is the role of humans and other biotic agents in this relationship? How does the role of architecture and the architect need to change to best support this paradigm shift? This work explores further the mental and physical changes needed to make this paradigm shift and proposes one strategy for approaching living system co-evolution through the designation of meditopes - subareas of place which act as an evolutionary middle ground for all living systems within. 19

“Regenerative design, as used here, relates to approaches that support the co-evolution of human and natural systems in a partnered relationship. It is not the building that is ‘regenerated’ in the same sense as the self-healing and self-organizing attributes of a living system, but by the ways that the act of building can be a catalyst for positive change within the unique ‘place’ in which it is situated. Within regenerative development, built projects, stakeholder processes and inhabitation are collectively focused on enhancing life in all its manifestations – human, other species, ecological systems – through an enduring responsibility of stewardship.” Raymond Cole, 2012

mental shift

INADEQUATE SUSTAINABILITY PARADIGMS Over the past two decades we have seen a significant rise in the body of work which attempts to generate functional notions of sustainability and green building. Today, strategies aimed at curbing the impact of humans on living systems appear to be primarily focused on the design and construction of the physical object of architecture - buildings. These efforts have culminated in the invention of design frameworks and rating systems such as LEED, BREEAM, CASBEE and Green Globes which provide methodology to quantify and compare building performance. Du Plessis argues that these current sustainability paradigms are reaching the limit of usefulness due to their conceptual foundation in an inappropriate and unchallenged mechanistic worldview13. This faulty mentality has led to the creation of many ill-informed notions of sustainability hinged on the belief that there exists some perfect, absolute and enduring balance between human consumption and environmental production which can be attained through technical implementation and responsible consumership. This object-oriented and static paradigm of sustainability becomes inadequate in its inability to wholly account for dynamic change over time in real living systems. Biological organisms in comparison never attempt to sustain systems in absolute stasis but to the contrary are constantly under pressure to adapt, evolve and improve their relative fitness amongst other biota. If a species is unable to cope with threatening factors from the environment or other organisms it will eventually die out through natural selection. If we want to succeed in moving towards notions of netpositive regenerative development the worldviews we adopt must better account for the dynamic, adaptive nature of living systems.

“Earlier variants of sustainability envisioned a change from a current ‘unsustainable’ state to a future ‘sustainable’ state that can be achieved by following a specific set of rules. The human development enterprise would then focus on maintaining this imagined optimal state. However, the notion that, apart from a set of very specific biogeochemical conditions, there is some set of ideal ‘sustainability’ conditions that should be maintained is meaningless in a dynamic and ever-changing world.” Chrisna du Plessis, 2012

INTROSPECTION AND EXTROSPECTION The work of Bill Reed and Pamela Mang through the Regenesis Group suggests that the mechanistic worldview needs to be fundamentally challenged and replaced by a more biocentric one if we hope to fuse a healthy alliance between living systems14. Clearly if we truly want to change the way we interact with the world around us we must first rebuild the way we think about the issues instead of simply pushing to change the physical outcome alone. We need to challenge and adapt the way we think about ourselves, the earth, and all the living things within it to better understand what the best set of goals and aspirations might be for a better way forward. Regenerative design serves as an appropriate tool for facilitating this mental shift away from a mechanistic worldview because it is both extrospective and introspective in nature. The extrospective dimension of regenerative design pushes us to think differently about the environment external to self through a greater understanding of interconnected ecological systems and the dynamic relationships that exist between the biotic agents acting within. Introspectively, regenerative design also strongly implicates an ongoing necessity of self development in parallel to project development for all involved in the process. In tandem these reflections are what ultimately shape what we value as individuals and communities and effect the decisions and actions we make on a daily basis. Sometimes the process of reflection is difficult, especially when it means challenging preconceived notions about the world around you. As we shift away from a mechanistic worldview some core characteristics which currently define and drive human systems will need to be rethought. For example, ideas on land ownership, abiotic resource allocation, ecological preservation and social values will need to be further tested against a new worldview which sees humans within living systems rather than above them. 23

“‘Green’ building, like the building industry, generally defines and measures a building’s value in terms of human benefit. Ecological sustainability defines value in terms of benefits to the systemic capability to generate, sustain and evolve the life of a particular place.” Mang and Reed, 2014

physical shift

THE ROLE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN From the scale of mullion to metropolis, architecture has created and facilitated many opportunities for human growth and development beyond the simple provision of shelter. Today however, the sprawl of megacities connected by plane, train and automobile represents how the process and product of architecture has been solely a human-oriented endeavor. As more people continue to migrate into urban cores we increase the strain on neighboring ecosystems through the interference and displacement of the biotic and abiotic agents contained within. For a successful partnered relationship to be established between humans and living systems we must actively engage architecture within the scope of transformation. Needed is a shift in the role of architecture to serve all living systems in both process and product. A shift in the process of architecture would see conventional, successive phases of design and construction replaced with a more holistic and biologically inclusive methodology. This framework should conceptualize design intervention as a continually adaptive and dynamic process which endures into the foreseeable future. In this way an architectural project is seen as an intermediate chapter in a much larger story of living systems within a place. Here place is not finitely constrained by property boundaries but instead acknowledges the multiplicity of scales which defines its character and functionality from local habitat, to regional watershed and global biomes.

The idea of the product of architecture should also shift from the finite bounds of a material object, a building, to the design and facilitation of relationships and flows within these nested ecosystems. The stuff of architecture is still certainly formed from an amalgamation of physical objects, but the effect of these manifestations on living systems is what should be the primary concern and focus of design exploration and implementation.

“One of the biggest transformations I’ve had to make in doing this work is to be unattached to the physical manifestation of the project and learn to look beyond that to what is really being developed that is maybe more necessary to have ramifying impacts in the world” Joel Glanzberg, Regenesis Group, 2014

a third p for co-evolu 27

place

ution 28

space and place MULTIPLE SCALES OF PLACE

For architects the concepts of space and place have been questioned, evaluated, defined and re-defined for decades. The confusion and debate between the two and its relationship to humanity in particular is in part due to semantic difference. In an effort to instill clarity here we denote that space is referred to as an area, expanse or realm which remains free from physical specificity. Place on the other hand is where space and time converge in a physical geographical locale and is further characterized by the users (biotic forms of life) which appropriate, inhabit and change its form and function over time. Needed is both a shared mental conception of a space where humans exist mutualistically with other biotic agent as a unified living system, along with physical place for life to connect, exchange and evolve to a stronger and more resilient state. As the mental transformation needed involves a fundamental shift in worldview towards the adoption of a more biocentric one was argued previously, we must now explore what constitutes meaningful change within a physical place. Regenerative design broadly recognizes the world as a series of interconnected and interrelated ecosystems which operate on microscopic and macroscopic scales of place. One could, for instance, see the neighborhood they live in as a place and observe the influence of large scale system flows such as water cycles and bird migration, but also could look under their feet and discover an equally rich host of smaller scale flows produced by bacteria, fungi and other microorganisms within the soil.

What is desired is a suggested methodology for how architecture and design can meaningfully engage with place as a physical manifestation of partnered co-evolution which begins to foster mutualistic interactions between human and biotic systems.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Place is defined here as the unique, multilayered network of living systems within a geographic region that results from the complex interactions, through time, of the natural ecology (climate, mineral and other deposits, soil, vegetation, water and wildlife, etc.) and culture (distinctive customs, expressions of values, economic activities, forms of association, ideas for education, traditions, etc.).â&#x20AC;? Mang and Reed, 2012

Third place theory DEFINING A THIRD PLACE

The examination of theories surrounding the concepts of third space, place and landscape offers some insight into how tangible methods for changing mental and physical paradigms might occur. Several different creative minds have conceived about a distinguished third place which typically is born out of an acknowledgement of the failure of binary, dichotomous thinking that positions two opposing views against each other. The introduction of a third place fundamentally works to deconstruct false duality and binary reductionism through representation of an-other. Argued here is that architecture has been misguided in its establishment of a false dichotomy within the place of biological interactions between humans and other species. The physical and mental manifestation of a “built environment” which is functionally separate somehow from a “natural environment” has been misleading in its inaccurate depiction of what is actually an interdependent global environment. The introduction and proliferation of anthropocentric enclosure within the urban setting in particular appears firmly aimed at securing place for the self within, while keeping out and at a distance other biota.

This dichotomy is now so strongly embedded both mentally and physically that it has manifested itself today at the scale of cities where we are able to see clearly a stark contrast between human infrastructure and ecological systems. Compounding the issue is the human designation of area towards ecological reserve such as zoos, parks or “green spaces”. In these places biotic life remains firmly under anthropocentric control and monitoring so that its continued existence is solely purposed with human enjoyment and pleasure rather than evolutionary progress and biodiversity expression. This problematic dichotomy of course needs to be fundamentally challenged and dismantled if a mutualistic sense of co-evolution is to really occur free from zoo cages and park boundaries.

“It is in the ‘in-between’ space between buildings that symbiotic or synergistic relationships will occur.” Amy Olver and Daniel Pearl, 2014

TRIALECTIC SPATIAL THEORY Throughout much of the 20th century the philosopher Henri Lefebvre offered much critical thought towards the production and function of cities, urbanism and space. In his work on The Production of Space15 Lefebvre develops a trialectic of spatial theory which suggests that a real, more truthful notion of space termed “lived space” is the product of the combination between a perceived physical place and a conceived mental construct of space. This lived space is argued to be where social relations manifest and where we actively experience everyday life. In his theory called Thirdspace16, Edward Soja builds off of Lefebvre’s concept of thirding-as-othering and the trialectic spatial theory in his examinations of “real-and-imagined places”. Soja accepts the defining of the first space as a real, physical place which can be mapped and the second space as an imagined conception of place formed through world experiences and mental fabrication. However, Soja broadens the definition of the third space to not merely exist as the amalgamation of the first two spaces, but as a condition produced from the manifestation of all spaces together: perceived, conceived, and lived. Through this view Soja situates his third space deliberately to not be a compromise between the first and second space as Lefebvre’s lived space is. Soja describes this third space as still distinguishable from the other two spaces (physical and mental) as well as a transcending composite between all spaces. The message that can be extracted by the work of Lefebvre and Soja is the importance of the mixing of our perceived reality along with our conceived reality in producing space, and place. Although an architect might only think of the physical dimension of design and its ramifications on people, what is needed is to consider both the physical and mental dimensions of an intervention in producing place that affects living systems in multiple ways. 33

â&#x20AC;&#x153;A knowable and unknowable, real and imagined lifeworld of experiences, emotional events, and political choices that is existentially shaped by the generative and problematic interplay between centers and peripheries, the abstract and concrete, the impassioned spaces of the conceptual and the lived, marked out materially and metaphorically in spatial praxis, the transformation of (spatial) knowledge into (spatial) action in the field of unevenly developed (spatial) power.â&#x20AC;? Edward Soja, 1996

A THIRD PLACE BETWEEN WORK AND HOME In-between the places of home and work we find the Third Place as defined by Ray Oldenburg17. These places such as community centres, cafes and bars fill a functionally important and needed role in human social structures. To Oldenburg these places offer a common venue for people to meet, gather and linger for the purposes of growing and maintaining social connections. They provide a niche place that allows one to expresses themselves in a different capacity as they might normally at work or at home. Oldenburg’s offering of a description towards the third place is generally observational in nature and certainly shaped by a personal worldview developed through American culture over the past 75 years. He notes the seeming decline in the availability and situation of these third places among modern urban development, especially following World War 2 and the implementation of zoning restrictions which prescribed homogeneity to North American neighborhoods. This manifested in the lack of “other places” in areas like residential zones which would have historically served as a hub for social mixing among community members allowing them to build relationships, establish trust and share ideas and services. Oldenburg offers several superficial characteristics to these third places such as the importance of inexpensive retail, the presence of food and drink and having welcoming and comfortable atmospheres. However, deeper characteristics which emerge from these places include lack of obligatory presence, social neutrality, geographic accessibility, the availability for one to freely speak their mind and be “their true selves”17. Of key importance is that third spaces here provide a way for human communities to grow value through the formation and maintenance of rich, varied and open associations. These notable characteristics can be viewed as potentially transferable to a new type of third space which provides this service not just to human systems, but towards all living systems as a whole. 35

â&#x20AC;&#x153;In order for the city and its neighborhoods to offer the rich and varied association that is their promise and potential, there must be neutral ground upon which people may gather.â&#x20AC;? Ray Oldenburg , 2001

GARDEN IN MOVEMENT AND THIRD LANDSCAPE Gilles Clément is a well known French landscape architect who has been very influential over the past few decades in generating ideas on the way humans and ecological systems can mutually co-exist in a partnered relationship. Through a philosophy of “humanist ecology” Clément views the role of the gardener as one that attempts to enrich the life within a place through a marriage of human guidance and natural processes in the production of ‘gardens in movement’18. Within these landscapes human intervention is intentional yet minimal, including only basic practices such as annual pruning and path clearing. The garden otherwise has its autonomy respected and is knowingly left to evolve and adapt over time in response to environmental events. Here the act of landscape intervention itself is seen as a process of maintaining the overall growth of the garden rather than dictating the specificity of the entire ecological system in an anthropocentric way.

Third Landscape18 is a further concept from Clément which describes in-between spaces that have been abandoned or neglected by human use and as such provide biota with opportunities to establish life and increase in biodiversity over time. These places such as abandoned industrial areas or the embankments of roads and railways successively accumulate biotic life and to Clément represent a growing genetic reservoir to be valued and respected. While these places are already prevalent as a by-product of a passive human inattention, Clément has also argued through his work that the intentional designation of these spaces actively through landscape design and planning is both feasible and even potentially desirable.

Most notable about the concepts of gardens in movement and the third landscape is the accepted relinquishment of human ownership and power over place. Together these ideas suggest broad strategies for building mutualistic and partnered relationships among living systems where ecological systems are left to partially or completely adapt and evolve without human interaction.

“The Third Landscape - an undetermined fragment of the Plantary Garden - designates the sum of the space left over by man to landscape evolution - to nature alone... Compared to the territories submitted to the control and exploitation by man, the Third Landscape forms a privileged area of receptivity to biological diversity. “ Gilles Clément, 2012

THIRD SPACE, PLACE, LANDSCAPE SUMMARY Each theory of third space, place and landscape offers unique perspectives and characteristics that can be used to shape an architectural intervention methodology which purposefully attempts to dismantle the human-ecological dichotomy within both mental space and physical place. Lefebvre and Soja’s more abstract third space as a spatial trialectic reinforces the notion of an everyday lived space which is a result of the inseparable manifestation of physical perception as well as mental conception. As one cannot exist without the other potential architectural strategies aimed at shifting paradigms must remain conscious of both the material and immaterial presence of a proposed intervention process and product. Oldenburg’s third place offers strong insight into the need for the re-emergence of a typological venue which serves to foster social relationships between people over time. An extrapolation of some of the inherent core characteristics of third places such as neutrality, accessibility and openness towards all living systems within a place may provide a powerful framework for mutualistic interactions can be fostered among all biota.

Lastly, Clément’s third landscape stands as the only theory explored which is centered around non-human proliferation. The observation of the ability of ecological systems to appropriate forgotten areas within urban places and contribute to an increase in genetic biodiversity through human relinquishment of control is extremely profound. Here all biota gain a free and open chance to exist, adapt and evolve over time. Additionally, the active designation of third landscapes within an intervention as proposed by Clément may also serve as a productive tool in both providing place for biotic systems to gain a foothold within the city, but furthermore as a challenge to anthropocentric concepts of control and power that need to be deconstructed in order to establish viable notions of partnered co-evolution.

Meditope

A CO-EVOLUTIONARY THIRD PLACE The dichotomous nature of architectural development today leaves us with the presence of at least two separate environmental conditions: place for people, and place for people to view and interact with other biota in a controlled and prescribed way. Borrowing some nomenclature from ecology we can accurately define each of these spaces as anthrotope and biotope, respectively. What we can argue for now is the need to establish a third place to oppose the first two and effectively dismantle the binary nature of the expression of each. This place can be thought of as an evolutionary physical place as well as a conceptual imagined place. As a perceived â&#x20AC;&#x153;middle groundâ&#x20AC;? between the first two places we once again borrow terminology and refer to this place as a meditope. To build a strong initial framework for the meditope we can appropriate desired characteristics from the third spaces, places and landscapes discussed earlier. In order to form a meaningful partnership between human and biotic systems 3 fundamental broad characteristics must be set in place: an establishment of neutrality, a fostering of mutualistic interactions and the ability for these relationships to adapt and evolve over time.

The transformation of place into a meditope needs to first start with the understanding of place and the interactions between life within. Next, elements of human control and power need to be challenged through new modes of ownership and occupation which treat all forms of life equitably and respectfully. Only though the fostering of this open conceptual and physical space can the fostering and maintenance of mutualistic relationship occur and aspire to produce positive outcomes for all biota involved. Lastly, the acknowledgement, acceptance and encouragement of developing an atmosphere of reflection and adaptation through trial and error will be essential to the continued growth and vitality of the meditope over time.

gp 43

WHAT IF ARCHITECTURE WITHIN A PLACE EXISTED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF ALL FORMS OF LIFE, OVER TIME, IN A PARTNERED CO-EVOLUTION?

2 44

Case study 1 OLYMPIC SCULPTURE PARK WEISS/MANFREDI SEATTLE, WASHINGTON The Olympic Sculpture Park located on the west coastline of Seattle, North of the downtown core, was designed by Weiss/Manfriedi Architects and realized in 2007. Over a 6 year span the project transformed a previous brownfield site which had become contaminated over the years through industrial usage into a public pedestrian footbridge and outdoor art gallery for the Seattle Art Museum. Human-enhancing design elements: Artwork Connecting pathway from city to waterfront Artificial lighting Vistas Sewall amenity (views, walking, biking) Seismic stability Biophilic elements Biotic-enhancing design elements: Seawall aquatic habitat creation Ground and tree habitat creation Water and soil purification

The Sculpture Park appears very successful as a design intervention in providing human amenity and pleasure. However, the extent of intentional and conscious enhancement of ecological functionality and human interactions with biotic elements is seemingly minimal and only extends to the creation of simple habitat areas, which are still shared for the most part with human visitors. While the inclusion of these elements are still somewhat positive, the project does not seem to offer much in terms of fostering a mutualistic, partnered relationship within the urban core. The addition of more active and evolving systems along the traversing path, or the designation of future art pieces which deal with these topics could prove beneficial.

Case study 2 FOLLY FOR A FLYOVER ASSEMBLE STUDIO LONDON, UK Folly for a Flyover was a temporary installation erected under a London motorway flyover by a team of 200 volunteers. The installation which was assembled over the course of a month remained open for a six week period and served as a cafe and event space by day and an outdoor movie cinema at night as part of the Create festival. The structure was built by hand and consisted of reclaimed and donated materials. During its temporary activity the space drew in over 40,000 visitors. At the end of the six week period the structure was disassembled and its components were slated to be reused by a local primary school as new play and planting facilities. Due to the success of the project a development corporation has since invested in providing permanent infrastructure to allow the site to continue as a public event space. Human-enhancing design elements: Community engagement Arts/cultural space provision Demonstration of successful temporary interventions Third Place, social mixer (Oldenburg) Biotic-enhancing design elements: N/A Folly for a Flyover solely set out to benefit human enjoyment and pleasure form an underutilized urban area. The project succeeds in developing a thoughtful installation which provided a way for the local community to engage with the project on a more meaningful level and as such gain a deeper appreciation for the place of intervention. The temporary nature of the project also challenges conventional notions of permanence, ownership and control of place in delivering humanity amenity and program. 47

CASE STUDY 3 HUD LIVING BREAKWATERS PROPOSAL SCAPE STATEN ISLAND AREA, NEW YORK Living Breakwaters was one of six winning entries into the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rebuild by Design competition which was created following hurricane Sandyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s devastation in order to generate new ideas on how to redevelop communities with deeper preparedness and resiliency to environmental threat. The intent of Living Breakwaters was to reduce risk, revive ecology and incorporate education into the development of reef-like breakwater structures which buffer against wave damage, flooding and erosion, while providing new habitat for aquatic life. These new habitats and associated ecology would then provide a framework to engage local schools with science, recreation, education and access. Human-enhancing design elements: Tidal breakwater (dissipates waves) Education and understanding Recreation opportunities Access increased Economic generation Biotic-enhancing design elements: Create areas of varied tidal activity Create protected habitat for aquatic life The Living Breakwaters concept is progressive in the intentional mixture of human and ecological amenity in its proposal. Allowing a design intervention primarily aimed at flood mitigation to double as a habitat creation strategy is extremely interesting and compelling. Furthermore, the integration of dynamic use of the intervention through recreation and education provides a way for the project to continue its evolution into the future and provide more community benefit beyond initial intentions. 49

CASE STUDY 4 L’ÎLE DERBORENCE GILLES CLÉMONT PARC MATISSE, LILLE, FRANCE The developed garden at Parc Matisse in Lille is the direct expression of Clément’s concepts of garden in motion and the third landscape. Here the gardener produces and maintains a spectrum of ecological areas and habitats which serve both human and biotic interests. Many species of plants are allowed to seed, grow, adapt and evolve and provide a multiplicity of habitat for other biotic life. Paths are cut seasonally for human occupation and movement, but do not always manifest in the clearing of entire areas for human enjoyment alone. This is the garden in motion, which changes seasonally according to the gardeners will and knowledge of the garden. The third landscape is produced atop a carved embankment, visually and physically cutting off human activity and allowing this area to evolve on its own. Human-enhancing design elements: Biophilia Recreation space Relaxation space Biotic-enhancing design elements: Complex biotic habitat Third landscape - minimized human activity This varied garden is successful in its provision of dynamic and adaptive landscapes. It’s clear that unlike other urban park spaces this one attempts to at times actively engage the public in novel ways, and in other instances actively removes the human element to allow the evolution of natural process. Originally the people living close by took a negative stance against the raised third landscape, but over time began to understand both its ecological value and it’s challenge of human control and power. 51

understa place 53

anding 54

Central waterfont A PLACE FOR INTERVENTION Vancouver is a relatively young city incorporating itself in 1886. Today, the city is currently the third most populous metropolitan area in Canada with over 2.4 million19 inhabitants residing in the Greater Vancouver area. Additionally, the city harbours one of the largest ports of trade in North America representing an important gateway for the exchange of goods and materials to and from the Pacific Northwest. Central Waterfront is an area situated along the Northern coastline of downtown Vancouver that has been chosen as a physical place for the conceptual development of a meditope. Nested deep within the urban core of Vancouver the site offers a strong opportunity to test some of the strategies involved with creating a place for co-evolution amongst a density of human occupation. In order to best develop and refine the initial intervention strategies a process of study and analysis must first be undertaken to best characterize this place and understand what possibilities and limitations might exist. Research in this sense will be conducted through a series of site visits coupled with a literature review of material pertaining to the function and change of the area over time. Documentation of the site will primarily be through photography along with the development of diagrams and maps to visualize and integrate information uncovered. We will start by briefly understanding the abiotic agents and flows within place before seeking to discover how humans and other biotic agents occupy, use and move through the place. A focus will then be on uncovering the history of interaction between human and ecological systems over time in order to characterize the existing relationship between living systems in this place. 55

discovery of place ABIOTIC INFLUENCE Central Waterfront exists north of Gastown and extends along the coastline from Canada place to the Main Street overpass. In a broader context the place is first characterized through the abiotic factors which form its physical geography and subject it to change over time through climatic variation. Located within the Pacific Northwest, the area is defined strongly by a coastal maritime climate which typically results in warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters20. The relatively high latitude (49.25oN) produces a significant shift in daylight hours between summer and winter solstice, with the longest summer day containing 16 hours of daylight and the shortest winter day containing just below 8 hours. Temperature is generally temperate with averages maintained between 0-20oC throughout the year. The area is fairly wet, seeing 161 rainy days per year with rainfall variation of around 170mm during an average winter month and 40mm in summer. Snow rarely falls and accumulates in the lower lying metropolitan regions but readily collects as elevation increases into the surrounding mountains. Wind levels are typically relatively low and predictable, with wind speeds averaging about 15km/h equating to that of a gentle breeze more qualitatively. Air quality in the region is generally high compared to other urban centres, but still suffers from human-induced pollution21. Similarly, water quality in the surrounding area can be quite high (in terms of aquatic species use) but is subject to human contamination from industrial facilities, combined sewer overflows and stormwater discharges22. The remainder of the exploration of place will move from abiotic variables to how human and biotic systems have influenced the site over time and potentially into the future. 57

HISTORY of place ANTAGONISMS OVER TIME: LAND AND FIRE For thousands of years prior to the settlement of the City of Vancouver in 1886 people had lived in what seemed to be a symbiotic relationship with the land beneath their feet. The First Nations of this region had a strong reverence for the earth and all living things contained within which they depended on daily for their survival and propagation. Though, this is not to say that this period was one marked by ultimate peace and prosperity for all. While it we might recognize that the First Nations had a more biocentric approach to development and existence than we do today, we also might conclude some of their actions to be antagonistic in nature, such as intentional forest clearing through controlled burns, and hunting of a variety of species for nutrition. However, with the scale of these actions and outcomes much smaller than today, and with an elevated consiousness of their impact on their surrounding ecosystems, these antagonistic actions pale in comparison to the environmental impact and degredation which was established and cultivated by the foreign settlers who colonized Vancouver and the surrounding area23. By 1870 people had already migrated to the area and established what is today known as Granville and Gastown within the city. In 1886 the new Canadian Pacific Railway Western terminus was established on piles in the area North of Gastown now known as Central Waterfront. This activity was precluded by massive land clearing and development to make way for the railway and surrounding new infrastructure, greatly reducing the activity and fitness of a variety of biota which depended on the forest and intertidal shoreline for survival. Additionally, in June of 1886 a massive fire broke out in the area, destroying much of the human settlement in the process, and further negatively impacting other forms of life on site23.

First Vancouver City Council Meeting After the Fire Taken at the foot of Carrall Street at Central Waterfront

ANTAGONISMS OVER TIME: LAND AND STEEL By 1910 the shoreline along Central Waterfront had become a booming industrialized zone within Vancouver. The CP rail line facilitated the transportation of goods coming into Burrard Inlet via the Pacific Ocean across the great land expanse of Canada. For Canadians this created a great opportunity to gain access to a host of goods and services which might have otherwise been unavailable to those living in land-locked areas of the country. Additionally business and commerce were accelerated as a result of the ongoing activity of the port and rail lines. Factories and warehouses proliferated crafting and supplying the city with a variety of desirables from fresh fish to new clothes23. However, by this point the ecological strength of the site has already been greatly diminished, which species living on the land or in the water succumbing to the development of infrastructure which fueled our human appetite for growth and prosperity. A small park lingers south of the railyard, only a husk of the lush forest it once was. The intertidal area has been partially filled in and covered over to allow trains and ships access in and out. In addition, the activity of the port which continued to intensify contained a host of biological toxins and pollutants which began to accumulate and disperse into the surrounding soil and water. Hydrocarbons from combustion fuel sources such as diesel used to power the ships and trains, heavy metal particulates from machinery and cargo loads, and a host of other organic and inoragnic volatile substances such as preservatives and pesticides would all make their way into the valuable soil and water tables of Central Waterfront, affecting both human and ecological systems for many years to come.

Central Waterfront Area in 1910

ANTAGONISMS OVER TIME: WATER AND STEEL By the 1920â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the shoreline of Central Waterfont looked much different than just a few years before. The increase in shipping activity and prominance demanded the construction of new piers along the shoreline which could accomodate larger ships at a higher frequency. In 1927 the CPR finished construction of Pier B-C, considered at the time to be the priemere wharf on the Pacific coast of Canada, and is today known as the home of Canada Place23. This increase in water activity in the Burrard Inlet surely led to further harm to the aquatic life which existed below the surface, hidden from view. The City had already been dumping raw sewage and other waste into the Inlet for decades, but with the growth of the shipping industry came a heightened ongoing influx of antagonisms. There are several factors which can be considered antagonistic with relation to how we buld and operate ships, namely air pollution, water pollution, as well as sound and wave energy generated from their operation. The shipping industry has a history of using poor quality fuels, today called bunker fuel or oil, which produces a host of undesireable pollutants such as sulphur which is released into the air and water through combustion. This artifical increase of sulphur in our marine environment and atmosphere can lead to detremental alterations to hydrological pH balences as well as climate change. Lastly, ocean floor dredging as well as the resulting wave energy that is dissapated by both the movement and mechanical functioning of ships is known to disrupt marine ecosystems which can be sensitive to certain acoustic frequences and water turbulance levels.

Pier B-C Constructed near Central Waterfront in 1927

ANTAGONISMS OVER TIME: LAND AND WASTE Of the highlighted antagonisms over the last 150 years of particular significance is the land infill that occurred leading up the 1986 Vancouver-hosted Expo themed on communication and transportation. The rings contained within the logo of the world fair, seen on the right, were included to embody the three main modes of human transportation: air, land and water - also the three main modes of habitation and transport for all other forms of life. The tragic irony of the event is that although the city and human culture benefited socially and economically, it came at an environmental cost. Leading up to the fair Vancouver made the decision to construct new land mass from the existing shoreline in order to hold the events and festivities. Most of the entire shoreline in the False Creek area south of downtown was filled in for this purpose with residential, and industrial grade fill which included construction debris from nearby developments around the city. In addition, the city also decided to create more land area to the North of the CPR marshalling yard, thus creating much of the land mass we today call Central Waterfront.

A plan summary created in 1992 outlines the progress of the Pacific Place Remediation Project24 which was created following the fair in response to the desire to further develop the land created around False Creek and discovery of the environmental pollution that had resulted from the infill process. Among the parcels surveyed it was discovered that 85% of the soil was of residential quality (low toxicity), with the remaining portion deemed below this standard, with 2% of that, or 25,000 cubic meters being classified as potentially hazardous â&#x20AC;&#x153;special wasteâ&#x20AC;?. This fraction contained contaminants such as hydrocarbons, heavy metals and chlorophenols. In some cases trace amounts of arsenic and cyanide were found. Although a detailed environmental assessment is needed to uncover what toxins exist within Central Waterfront, this study provides a base condition which might reflect the soil conditions at the site in need of remediation.

SUMMARY OF HUMAN ANTAGONISMS OVER TIME In summary we can see that the activity of humans around the formation and growth of the city has been both immensely productive and beneficial for us, but seriously detrimental for other forms of life attempting to live within or traverse across Central Waterfront and the surrounding area. What was once a nutrient-rich and ecologically diverse community has been developed by humans into an industrial brownfield site with contaminated air, soil and water over time. Today, the site still harbours the contaminated soil beneath the surface, and biota must continue to fight against cruise ships, cargo ships and the seabus in the aquatic environment, with trains, cars and people on the land, and with helicopters and seaplanes in the air. This is clearly not the embodiment of a partnered coevolution that regenerative design hopes to establish. The common thread here is design and intention. The infrastructure and machines that help us thrive all have been designed to maximize their benefit to our species, however, lack of foresight and care has led many of these manifestations to produce harmful consequences for other forms of life. A ship produces sulphur dioxide through combustion, a helicopter in flight outputs high levels of acoustic energy, a train engine leaks fuel and heavy metals into the soil as it navigates the rail lines.

The same is true for architecture and the design of enclosures for human occupation. Foundations segregate soilinhabiting organisms from their nutrient medium, wall and roof treatments leak toxins into our rivers and oceans, and large glass windows are the kiss of death for curious birds. Needed now is neither the pristine pre-human ecosystem which had historically existed, or the human-centered city which acts antagonistically towards other species. A future of partnered co-evolution needs an in-between place, the meditope, designed to meet the needs of all forms of life, over time, through mutualistic relationships.

SHIPPING ACTIVITY

HE AC

ELIJET CTIVITY

STORMWATER RUNOFF

SHORELINE INFILL

RAIL ACTIVITY

MUTUALIS ARCHITEC

STIC CTURE

a new approach LIVING SYSTEMS PROJECT GOAL Today, Central Waterfront can be recognized as a direct product of human occupation and transformation through antagonistic interactions. Biological activity in this place is perceivably low, with small patches of vegetation poking out from the fringes of parking lots and rail tracks, and most of the animal population inhabiting the sparse foliage within CRAB Park to the East. Human activity in comparison encompasses the site, with the seabus, cruise ship and cargo ship terminals located to the West and Northeast, the railyard to the south, and the Helijet helicopter pad just off of the North Shore. The ultimate goal is to speculate and explore a new vision for Central Waterfront as a place for all living systems to exist and thrive over time in a partnered co-evolution. In order to get there we must work against some of the existing antagonisms on site before establishing partnerships - a good partner doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t try to pollute your home while shaking your hand. The first initial step is to remove the Helijet and parking lot activity from the site, an activity that creates great disturbance for minimal human benefit. Second, we decide to reduce the CP rail activity over time and in the process remediate the contaminated soil through several biological processes. Humans consistently take for granted the importance of soil in nutrient cycles and the level in which different organisms depend on both access and availability of soil medium for growth and survival. The first task then needed to improve living systems is a bioremediation of the soil on site, only then can we develop the conditions necessary for other forms of life to thrive on land.

In the water it would be too dramatic to do away with the seabus transportation and shipping terminals of which humans depend on for goods and services. Instead, what is needed is a way to allow industry to continue and to shelter intertidal and marine organisms as well.

A NET POSITIVE FUTURE FOR LIVING SYSTEMS Regenerative design aims to not only remove harm through the manifestation of a design intervention, but to also establish an ongoing pathway to develop positive outcomes for all living systems. For this project in Central Waterfront we can adopt this net-positive mindset and seek not only to challenge existing antagonisms and remove pollutants and contaminants from the soil and water, but additionally strive to improve the habitat for both people and other biota. In the end we speculate on the creation of an intervention which to humans can be considered an Environmental Research and Education Centre, but to other biota can be considered a mosaic of ecologically diverse habitats: a densified woodland in CRAB Park, a salt marsh wetland created from the soil excavation and remediation process, a grassland meadow stretched across the roof of enclosures, a functionally sloped intertidal zone which finally leads into a protected marine area.

Important here is the notion that the project did not manifest simply from the designation of humans alone. Program is not created anthropocentrically but is rather thought of as a shared intention between all living systems in order to mutualistically benefit as many species as possible. In addition, the program types, both human and ecological, manifest over a longer period of time and work together in order to develop a rich habitat for living systems. The place and its current conditions primarily drive the program by indicating what is needed in order to enhance place. Central Waterfront needs first a reduction in human activity on land and a remediation and nutrification of the soil conditions. From there the opportunity to create research around the somewhat novel processes of bioremediation are produced along with the ability to create new habitat such as a salt marsh and grassland from the process of excavation required. Furthermore, education and public exchange are folded into to site from the capacity that the formation of the diverse ecozones provides.

MUTUALISM AS A METHODOLOGY There are many examples of symbiotic, mutualistic relationships that take place in nature. Core to the establishment and maintenance of these relationships is the concept of exchange between each agent involved in the interaction. Exchanged is always something that one agent values that the other can provide, typically a resource or a service. As a result mutualistic exchanges can be further defined by the type of exchange taking place: resource for resource, resource for service, service for service. An example is shown here between a type of bird called an oxpecker and large animals such as zebras25. In this mutualistic relationship the oxpecker grooms the zebra for the resource of food - pests and parasites it can eat - providing the zebra with the health benefit service of removing some of these undesired invaders. Additionally, both species are also on guard for potential prey and work together to protect each other. The zebra is capable of scaring off small predators that might otherwise attack the bird, and the bird in turn alerts the zebra if large predators such as lions are on the hunt by flying in an upward motion and making a distinctive call. Humans are also involved in several mutualisms with other species, specifically domesticated species such as pets. As long as a pet such as a cat or a dog is not severely confined or harmed in the relationship then a mutualism can be established where we provide a pet with nourishment, comfort and protection, and in turn we gain the biophilic benefits of a furry companion. As mutualisms symbolize a partnership between species then perhaps we can think of architecture as a potential catalyst that can work to cultivate a co-evolution through the establishment and maintenance of mutualistic relationships that exchange resources and services between human and ecological systems. 75

ZEBRA

OXPECKER

MUTUALISM

PROJECT PARTNER SPECIES The conceptualizing of ecological systems as our partner in future design and development can manifest in two main ways. First, we can think of adopting the notion of mutualistic symbiosis in a broad and enduring sense. In anything we design and construct we can use a biocentric mindset to challenge us to constantly consider what the product of our actions are and how they affect other biota. Furthermore, we can actively seek actions which have a positive effect on living systems collectively, either directly or indirectly over time. This can be considered a global mutualistic mindset. Secondly, through our research and better understanding of a place we can seek to form more intentional relationships with specific organisms native to the intervention area. The opportunity here is the ability to use these relationships to benefit the goals of living systems, as well as benefit each species separately through resource-service exchanges. There is no set quantity of relationships that should or must be established with a given project, and surely each distinctive set of project goals will suggest which relationships might be most valuable for living systems to form and maintain. It could be that a relationship has a very specific function that we desire to improve a place for living systems and the relationship might occur in a defined and finite period of time. Conversely there might be relationships which continue to benefit living systems over time and itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s worth our time and resources to maintain that mutualism into the future.

Six partner species are identified and chosen to assist project development over time. Some such as the partnership between oyster mushrooms and hyperaccumulating plants is deployed and maintained only for a finite period of time in order to utilize their soil bioremediation properties. Other partnerships, such as the relationship with organic waste and thermophilic bacteria contained within continues to provide nutrients for biota on site and heat energy for human systems and is maintained into the future.

ERACCUMULATOR PLANTS HENOPODIUM QUINOA BRASSICA JUNCEA HELIANTHUS ANUUS HLASPI CAERULESCENS CORNUS SERICEA FESTUCA GLAUCA

THERMOPHILIC BACTERIA BACILLUS SPP.

OYSTER MUSHROOM PLEUROTUS OSTREATUS

HYPERACCUMULATOR PLANTS CHENOPODIUM QUINOA BRASSICA JUNCEA HELIANTHUS ANUUS THLASPI CAERULESCENS CORNUS SERICEA FESTUCA GLAUCA

BLUE ORCHARD MASON BEE OSMIA LIGNARIA

OLYMPIA OYSTER OSTREA LURIDA

BULL KELP NEREOCYSTIS LUETKEANA

BLUE ORCHARD MAS OSMIA LIGNA

PARTNER SPECIES BENEFITS OVER TIME Each of the six partnerships designated to assist the development of this project over time have their own beneficial inputs and outputs. Additionally, each species can be considered native to the Vancouver area and the establishment of partnerships with the olympia oyster, bull kelp and the blue orchard mason bee also helps us protect these valued species from potential extinction. Species information: THERMOPHILIC BACTERIA 26 - Thrive in compost with temperatures between 40-70째C - Input: organic material, food scraps - Output: heat energy harnessed in district energy system OYSTER MUSHROOM 27 - Breaks down harmful hydrocarbon chains - Input: hydrocarbon contaminated soil, compost/straw - Output: short-chain hydrocarbons, sugars BLUE ORCHARD MASON BEE 28 - Very efficient solitary pollinators, nests in reeds and holes - Input: Small holes drilled in project decking - Output: pollination of all nearby foliage HYPERACCUMULATING PLANTS 29 - Uptake heavy metals into plant roots, body or leaves - Input: contaminated soil, compost - Output: harvested plant matter with high metal conc. BULL KELP 30 - Forms ecologically dense kelp forests on ocean floor - Input: econcrete used as substrate for seeding - Output: biofiltration of water, wave attenuation

OLYMPIA OYSTER 31 - Only species of oyster native to British Columbia - Input: biorock scaffold sculptures for substrate - Output: biofiltration of water, toxin indication

OLYMPIA OYSTER

BULL KELP

HYPERACCUMULATOR BLUE ORCHARD PLANTS MASON BEE

OYSTER MUSHROOM

THERMOPHILIC BACTERIA

project succession ENHANCING PLACE OVER TIME TIME

The next few pages outline each phase more in depth as well as the partner relationships deployed to enhance the formation of living systems program over time.

SOIL BACTERIA

HUMAN PROGRAM

ORGANIC DECOMPOSITION, HEAT PRODUCTION

OYSTER MUSHROOM MYCELIUM

MYCOREMEDIATION

MYCOREM

HYPERACCUMULATOR PLANTS BLUE ORCHARD MASON BEE BULL KELP OLYMPIA OYSTERS

SOIL

ORGANICS COMPOSTING, SOIL CONTAMINANT BREAK

WOODLAND

TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING AND MATURATION

GRASSLAND WETLAND MARINE INTERTIDAL

RESEARCH

PRIMARY SUCCESSION MUTUALISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Outlined to the right is how each of the partnered mutualistic relationships is introduced over time with the merging of human and ecological program. Some of these relationships endure throughout the entire project succession, while others are used intermittently in a heightened intensity in order to provide a desired benefit.

YEAR 1

ECOLOGICAL PROGRAM

In order to reach the project goal a speculative evolution of place over a 12 year period is suggested. This time frame is broken into two main phases: a primary succession and a secondary succession. In ecological systems a primary succession is the event where pioneer species establishes rich soil conditions over time, thus allowing the transition to a secondary succession which is characterized by the influx of a host of other plants and animals.

ORGANICS CYCLING

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

MYCOREMEDIATION RESEARCH

COMPOSTING

EDUCATION CRAFT PRODUCTION COMMUNITY EXCHANGE

WOOD RECLAIMATION AND USE

FUNGI CULTIVATIO

MEDIATION

SECONDARY SUCCESSION

SOIL ENHANCEMENT, NUTRIENT CYCLING

PHYTOEXTRACTION

PHYTOSTABILIZATION

POLLINATION + HABITAT ENHANCEMENT

BIOFILTRATION, HABITAT ENHANCEMENT

KDOWN AND REMOVAL, TOPSOIL NUTRIENT LAYERING

GRASSALAND FORMATION

SALT MARSH WETLAND FORMATION

LIVING SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT

PHYTOREMEDIATION RESEARCH

BIOROCK AND ECONCRETE RESEARCH

HYPERACCUMULATOR CULTIVATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SCHOOL TRIPS, LECTURES, CONVENTIONS

METAL RECLAIMATION AND BIOROCK SCULPTING

CO-OP WORK SPACES, MAKER SPACES, FLEX SPACES, STUDIOS

WEEKEND/NIGHT MARKET, EVENT BOOKINGS

PRIMARY SUCCESSION: SOIL In order to know the extent and severity of contamination on site a full phase 1 and 2 environmental assessment would need to be undertaken. As a result it is proposed that the first two years of the primary succession be dedicated to site research, environmental assessment and excavation processes. For this speculative project it is assumed that the site conditions and contamination would be similar to that of what was discovered in the pacific place remediation study: 85% of the soil being uncontaminated and of residential quality, and 15% being contaminated to varied degrees. It is also a very likely to assume that the area of land beneath the CP railyard is definitely contaminated in some capacity with hydrocarbons and heavy metals. As a result the bulk of the excavation proposed occurs on the West half of the railyard, reducing its capacity by roughly half through the process. The potential here is that the site acts as a living lab for the study of bioremediation processes which can then be optimized and deployed on the remaining portion of the railyard in the future, or other similar contaminated sites in Canada or around the world. In the last two years the bioremediation process of the soil begins, using oyster mushroom mycelium to break down hydrocarbons present in contaminated soils indicated through the assessment. The human program of organics processing is introduced to enhance this process and cut the nutrient-deficient soil with nutrient-rich compost. The act of composting gives the additional benefit of heat production which can heat the associated research labs which supervise and learn through the process of mycoremediation, as well as the rest of the enclosed program into the future. Depending on the efficiency and scale of composting undertaken it may also be possible for excess energy produced to be tied into a larger district energy system within the adjacent area of Gastown.

Currently it is estimated that this facility could intake 500m続 of raw organics a week from the city of Vancouver and compost that amount in periods of 30 days in bioreactors.

WOODLAND

PRIMARY SUCCESSION: SOIL SALT MARSH

ORGANICS COMPOSTING BIOREMEDIATION RESEARCH

SECONDARY SUCCESSION: LAND The first four years of secondary succession is focused on the enhancement of land. The first opportunity is to take the excavated area around the former railyard and adjacent parking lots and transform them into a constructed salt marsh wetland over time. The second opportunity is to take the mycoremediated soil and deploy it around the site, and on the green roofs of the enclosure to undergo the second phase of bioremediation which uses heavy metal hyperaccumulating plants to immobilize harmful heavy metals in a process called phytorememdiation. Bees which make homes in wetland areas and in small holes in wooden structures are introduced here to assist in the pollination of these crops. The additional human program to compliment the formation of the salt marsh and grassland is more public in nature, grounded in education and community exchange. The diversity of habitat formed provides the opportunity for the project to develop and deploy educational program to tie into school curriculums or to disseminate to the public at large. A presentation centre and flexible, bookable classrooms are introduced to the enclosed spaces in this phase to meet this need. Additionally, as the second landform enclosure spans up from the salt marsh towards the water it creates an interstitial space between itself and the adjacent enclosure built in the first phase. In this space an indoor/outdoor area is created through the construction of a glazed canopy which allows temporary event programming to take place, such as a weekend or night market. Additional interior space is allocated to community exchange in the form of a market so that it may provide warm, enclosed space when outdoor conditions are undesirable. Above the landform structures exists the grassland meadow stretched throughout, with human pathways allowing circulation of people from Gastown arteries up and over the site, providing views and physical engagement of each habitat condition. 85

GRASS MEAD

SLAND DOW

EDUCATION

SECONDARY SUCCESSION: LAND

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

SECONDARY SUCCESSION: WATER The last four years of secondary succession are focused on the protection and enhancement of water-based habitat. A construction system is devised to build a living breakwater out over time. These rings function on the surface as an opportunity for people to navigate around the enclosed and protected areas, engaging with the ecology present and providing further recreation benefit to people as type of seawall extension. The living breakwater is constructed out of a special type of concrete developed to promote the growth of organisms on its surface, called econcrete. This material is used in the formation of piles and associated rip-rap blocks which are contained within the width of the pathway by steel mesh. This formed structure acts not only to attenuate wave and sound energy coming from the nearby ship activity, but also provides a diverse home for a variety of organisms that would navigate the cracks and crevices it produces, or adhere to its surface permanently. Bull kelp can be grown and allowed to adhere to small blocks of econcrete which could then be released over time, each season, into the protected area to â&#x20AC;&#x153;seedâ&#x20AC;? the area with kelp in order to promote the formation of kelp forests.

Within the enclosed areas large steel sculptures can be seen extruding from the surface of the water. These mesh objects are made from recycled rebar in a process known as biorock formation. When a low voltage current passes through the submerged metal it will slowly promote the accretion of substrate like calcium carbonate which will encase the metal and provide a viable substrate for organisms such as the Olympia Oyster to inhabit. These sculptures also form the last part of the program, considered a tidal art gallery where artists can develop these sculptures over time and install them on site, creating an attraction for local and visiting people to the site. As the tide moves in and out of the inlet it reveals new experiences among the sculptures and additionally provides an influx of nutrients to organisms in the intertidal and subtidal zone.

MARINE INTERTIDAL ZONE

SECONDARY SUCCESSION: WATER

EDUCATION RESEARCH ART/CRAFT

A NEW CENTRAL WATERFRONT By the end of the secondary succession period the project has established a host of diverse and highly functional human and ecological habitats and associated programs, together representing a snapshot of a co-evolution over time. Both activity of human and ecological systems is increased, allowing both to exist together, at times separately in their own habitats, and at other times engaging with each other in respectful moments of partnership. Once this point is reached the future becomes less clear. It is hard to plan a few years in advance, let alone over a decade. What is certain is that to be truly regenerative the project needs to constantly assess its methods of feedback along with the changing needs of living systems over time in response to uncertain challenges that may arise from environmental conditions. For example, predicted sea level rise and global warming may apply a pressure to this area and the city as a whole to adapt in order to allow life to continue to grow and thrive. As new technology is developed and new knowledge formed the future may need to evolve in a completely different way in order to continually meet the needs of living systems over time. Important in facilitating these transitions is to identify construction methods which can be easily disassembled and repurposed if necessary. Here, a Crosslaminated Timber structure raised on piles with an elevated decking was identified as the best construction system and material choice to meet the desired outcomes. Wood is the perfect construction material as it is not only renewable and performative, but also can be easily disassemmbled and even composted afterward if needed.

The choice of raising the building off the ground is made to address tentative soil fill conditions as well as to allow a variety of biota to flow underneath the structure as habitat. In this way human program exists coveredby a rich meadow habitat and acts as a sort of canopy over an informal undergrowth habitat as well.

GRASS MEAD

MARINE INTERTIDAL ZONE

SECONDARY SUCCESSION: WATER

SLAND DOW

WOODLAND

PRIMARY SUCCESSION: SOIL SALT MARSH

ORGANICS COMPOSTING BIOREMEDIATION RESEARCH

EDUCATION

SECONDARY SUCCESSION: LAND

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

EDUCATION RESEARCH ART/CRAFT

CONCLUSION PROJECT REFLECTION The exploration of regenerative design as a new way of conceptualizing and approaching design has been both a challenging and rewarding processes. Rethinking our own worldviews which are deeply rooted in past experience is a difficult task, but also one that gradually opens our eyes to seeing a new, much stronger potential for architecture to change not only the way humans inhabit a place, but how the act of design can lead to positive enhancement of a place for all forms of life within it. Regenerative mutualism seeks to embody the notion of partnered co-evolution at the core, adopting a more biocentric worldview as a result. Proposed in this thesis was a methodology of developing a regenerative design approach that involved thinking about place through the relationships between the species that exist within. As a type of interaction, mutualism was identified as type of relationship we could seek to establish in order to reach the symbiotic partnership needed to establish and maintain a true co-evolution of living systems. When we consider how we act within a place, and towards other species, the concept of intentionally shaping relationships based on positive exchanges of resources and services forces us to confront the outcomes of our actions and alter them to benefit as many other species as possible. Most of the time we donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t intend to antagonize other biota, but rather cause harm to them as a result of our short-sighted consciousness of our daily decisions. We need not wait to arrive in a future depicted in Intersellar, weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve already gained the profound ability for our species to change the planet for better and worse. The question now is how we collectively intend to use this power, and how we can find new ways to unite humanity under the umbrella of living systems, for the future benefit of all life. 91

3 3

SUPPORTI ILLUSTRAT 5

ING TIONS 3

2 4 94

1 7

YEAR 3 PRIMARY SUCCESSION: SOIL RENDERED ROOF PLAN

YEAR 7 SECONDARY SUCCESSION: LAND RENDERED ROOF PLAN

YEAR 12 SECONDARY SUCCESSION: WATER RENDERED ROOF PLAN

100

TIPPING AREA

BIOREACTOR

MECHANICAL

STORAGE

PARKING

OFFICES

TRAIN LOADING

MYCO/PHTYO LABS

MYCO/PHTO GREENHOUSE

ENV. PROTECTION ORGANIZATIONS

SHARED LUNCH AREA

BIOROCK/ECONCRETE LABS

OPEN AIR MARKET

RESEARCH

INDOOR MARKET

PUBLIC W/C

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

RESTAURANT / CAFE

EDUCATION

FLOATING TIDAL PLATFORM

LIVING SEAWALL

EVENT AREA

VISITOR / PRESENTATION CENTRE

CLASSROOMS

INTERTIDAL WALKWAY

MARSH WALKWAY

MEADOW WALKWAY

BIOIROCK BOAT

WOODLAND AREA

WOODSHOP

BIOROCK SCULPTURE STUDIO

ECONCRETE FABRICATION

HUMAN PROGRAM AREAS ORGANICS PROCESSING

CRAFT PRODUCTION

101

102

TIPPING AREA

BIOREACTOR

MECHANICAL

STORAGE

PARKING

OFFICES

TRAIN LOADING

MYCO/PHTYO LABS

MYCO/PHTO GREENHOUSE

ENV. PROTECTION ORGANIZATIONS

SHARED LUNCH AREA

BIOROCK/ECONCRETE LABS

OPEN AIR MARKET

RESEARCH

INDOOR MARKET

PUBLIC W/C

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

RESTAURANT / CAFE

EDUCATION

FLOATING TIDAL PLATFORM

LIVING SEAWALL

EVENT AREA

VISITOR / PRESENTATION CENTRE

CLASSROOMS

INTERTIDAL WALKWAY

MARSH WALKWAY

MEADOW WALKWAY

BIOIROCK BOAT

WOODLAND AREA

WOODSHOP

BIOROCK SCULPTURE STUDIO

ECONCRETE FABRICATION

HUMAN PROGRAM AREAS ORGANICS PROCESSING

CRAFT PRODUCTION

103

N 0

100m

CUT PLAN, 2M ELEVATION

4 3 3

2 5

1 1

4 2

3 2

4 1 1 7

104

2015

2016 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PHASE 1

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

2017 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PHASE 1

HELIJET AND CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY DECONSTRUCTION

105

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

PHASE 1 ENCLOSURE CONSTRUCTION

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

2018 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

BIOREMEDIATION RESEARCH BEGINS

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

WOODLAND TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING

EXCAVATION OF CONTAMINANTS AND DEBRIS

C.R.A.B PARK WOODLAND TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING PHASE1 PILING AND FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION

ORGANIC COMPOSTING BEGINS

MYCOREMEDIATION YEAR 1

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

2019 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

ENCLOSURE CONSTRUCTION PHASE 2 WETLAND CONSTRUCTION AND PREPARATION

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

2019

2020 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

SCHOOL EDUCATION BEGINS

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

PUBLIC MARKET OPENS

MYCOREMEDIATION YEAR 2

HYPERACCUMULATOR PLANTING

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

202 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

HYPERACCUMULATOR HARVESTING AND REPLANTING WETLAND MAINTENANCE

WETLAND PLANTING PHYTOREMEDIATION YEAR 1

PHYTOREMEDIATION YEAR 2

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

2022 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

HYPERACCUMULATOR HARVESTING AND REPLANTING WETLAND MAINTENANCE

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

2023 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

PHYTOREMEDIATION YEAR 3

WETLAND MAINTENANCE

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

2023

2024 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

BIOROCK INSTALLATION YEAR 1

HYPERACCUMULATOR HARVESTING AND REPLANTING

BLUE ORCHARD MASON BEE HABITAT CONSTRUCTION

LIVING BREAKWATER CONSTRUCTION PHASE 1 PHYTOREMEDIATION YEAR 4

ECONCRETE INSTALLATION YEAR 1

2025 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

BIOROCK INSTALLATION YEAR 2 LIVING BREAKWATER CONSTRUCTION PHASE 2 OLYMPIC OYSTER BIOROCK FIXING

ECONCRETE INSTALLATION YEAR 2 KELP FOREST PLANTING/SEEDING

2026 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

BIOROCK INSTALLATION YEAR 3 LIVING BREAKWATER CONSTRUCTION PHASE 3 OLYMPIC OYSTER BIOROCK FIXING

ECONCRETE INSTALLATION YEAR 3 KELP FOREST PLANTING/SEEDING

2027 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

BIOROCK INSTALLATION YEAR 4 LIVING BREAKWATER CONSTRUCTION PHASE 4 OLYMPIC OYSTER BIOROCK FIXING

ECONCRETE INSTALLATION YEAR 4 KELP FOREST PLANTING/SEEDING

FULL LONG SECTION AND PROJECT ACTIVITY TIMELINE 106

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

2015

2016 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PHASE 1

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

201 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PHASE 1

107

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

PHASE 1 ENCLOSURE CONSTRUCTION

C.R.A.B PARK WOODLAND TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING HELIJET AND CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY DECONSTRUCTION

MAY

PHASE1 PILING AND FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

2018 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

BIOREMEDIATION RESEARCH BEGINS

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

WOODLAND TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING

EXCAVATION OF CONTAMINANTS AND DEBRIS ORGANIC COMPOSTING BEGINS

MYCOREMEDIATION YEAR 1

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

2019 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

ENCLOSURE CONSTRUCTION PHASE 2 WETLAND CONSTRUCTION AND PREPARATION MYCOREMEDIATION YEAR 2

SECTION - PRIMARY SUCCESSION: SOIL 108

2019

2020 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

SCHOOL EDUCATION BEGINS

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

PUBLIC MARKET OPENS

109

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

20 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

HYPERACCUMULATOR HARVESTING AND REPLANTING WETLAND MAINTENANCE

WETLAND PLANTING HYPERACCUMULATOR PLANTING

OCTOBER

PHYTOREMEDIATION YEAR 1

PHYTOREMEDIATION YEAR 2

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

021

2022 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

2023 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

HYPERACCUMULATOR HARVESTING AND REPLANTING

HYPERACCUMULATOR HARVESTING AND REPLANTING WETLAND MAINTENANCE

OCTOBER

BLUE ORCHARD MASON BEE HABITAT CONSTRUCTION PHYTOREMEDIATION YEAR 3

WETLAND MAINTENANCE

LIVING BREAKWATER CONSTRUCTION PHASE 1 PHYTOREMEDIATION YEAR 4

SECTION - SECONDARY SUCCESSION: LAND 110

2023

2024 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

LIVING BREAKWATER CONSTRUCTION PHASE 2 OLYMPIC OYSTER BIOROCK FIXING

111

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

BIOROCK INSTALLATION YEAR 2

BIOROCK INSTALLATION YEAR 1 ECONCRETE INSTALLATION YEAR 1

20 JANUARY

ECONCRETE INSTALLATION YEAR 2 KELP FOREST PLANTING/SEEDING

LIVING BREAKWATER CONSTRUCTION PHASE 3 OLYMPIC OYSTER BIOROCK FIXING

025

2026 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

BIOROCK INSTALLATION YEAR 3 ECONCRETE INSTALLATION YEAR 3 KELP FOREST PLANTING/SEEDING

2027 JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

BIOROCK INSTALLATION YEAR 4 LIVING BREAKWATER CONSTRUCTION PHASE 4 OLYMPIC OYSTER BIOROCK FIXING

ECONCRETE INSTALLATION YEAR 4 KELP FOREST PLANTING/SEEDING

SECTION - SECONDARY SUCCESSION: WATER 112

113

RENDER: COMPOST AND LAB AREA 114

115

RENDER: MARKET AREA 116

117

RENDER: LIVING BREAKWATER 118

END

119

“Progressing along this journey will require new knowledge and skills certainly but, much more importantly, it will require a new mind and a new way of being, and that in turn will require integrating inner developmental processes with our outer development work. “Success” in Regenerative Development is iterative and progressive, with each cycle moving upward. But it requires, from the beginning, a fullhearted commitment—and that can be the most difficult challenge of all.” Regenesis Group

120

references

121

Interstellar, directed by Christopher Nolan. (2014; Hollywood, CA: Paramount Pictures), Cinema release.

Chrisna du Plessis and Dominique Hes, Designing for Hope: Pathways to Regenerative Sustainability (New York: Routledge, 2014), 9.

“World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision”, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, data excel spreadsheet, accessed December 3, 2014, http:// esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/population.htm

Max Roser, “Life Expectancy”, Our World in Data, online data set, accessed December 3, 2014, http://www.ourworldindata.org/data/population-growth-vital-statistics/ life-expectancy

“Under-five mortality estimates”, Child Mortality Estimates, United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation, online data set, accessed December 3, 2014, http://www.childmortality.org/files_v17/download/U5MR.xlsx

“Living Planet Report: Species and spaces, people and places”, World Wildlife Federation (WWF), online publication, accessed December 3, 2014, http://wwf.panda.org/ about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report

du Plessis and Hes, Designing, 2014.

Pamela Mang and Bill Reed, “The nature of positive”, In Building Research & Information (2014) 43:1, 7-10.

John T. Lyle, Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development (Toronto: Wiley, 1996).

Raymond Cole, “Regenerative design and development: current theory and practice”, In Building Research & Information (2012) 40:1, 1-6.

Stephen R. Kellert, Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life (New York: Wiley, 2008).

Michael Pawlyn, Biomimicry in Architecture (Newcastle: RIBA Publishing, 2011)

Chrisna du Plessis, “Towards a regenerative paradigm for the built environment”, In Building Research & Information (2012) 40:1, 7-22.

Pamela Mang and Bill Reed, “Designing from place: a regenerative framework and methodology”, In Building Research & Information (2012) 40:1, 23-38.

Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space (New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 1992).

Edward W. Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places (New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 1996).

Ray Oldenburg, The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community (New York: Marlowe & Company, 1999).

Gilles Clément, “The Third Landscape”, online article, accessed December 10, 2014, http://www.gillesclement.com/art-454-tit-The-Third-Landscape

“Focus on Geography Series, 2011 Census”. Census metropolitan area of Vancouver, British Columbia, Statistics Canada, online data set, accessed January 20th, 2015, http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cma-eng.cfm

“About BC”, Climate & Weather, Super Natural British Columbia, online arcticle, accessed January 20th, 2015, http://www.hellobc.com/british-columbia/about-bc/climateweather.aspx

“BC Air Quality”, B.C.’s Air Quality Readings, online data set, accessed January 20th, 2015, http://www.bcairquality.ca/readings/

Jacques Whitford, “Burrard Inlet Environmental Indicators Report: Public Consultation Document”, Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program (BIEAP), (2014), 23.

Chuck Davis, “The History of Metropolitan Vancouver”, Chronology 1757-1994, online database, accessed March 11th, 2015, http://www.vancouverhistory.ca/ chronology.html

Jon O’Riordan, “Pacific Place Remediation Project Remedial Plan Summary”, Pacific Place Remediation Project, BC Environment, online document, accessed January 10th 2015, http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/clad/ccs/pacific_place/

Shlomiya Bar-Yam, “Mutualistic Relationships”, online article, accessed January 27thh, 2015, http://www.necsi.edu/projects/evolution/co-evolution/mutualistic/coevolution_mutualistic.html

“The Science of Composting”, Thermophilic Composting, Cornell Composting, online article, accessed November 12th, 2014, http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/chapter1.pdf

Paul Stamet, “The Petroleum Problem”, Fungi Perfecti, online article, accessed January 10th, 2015, http://www.fungi.com/blog/items/the-petroleum-problem.html

“Blue Orchard Mason Bee, Osmia lingnaria”, Apiculture Factsheet #506, British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, online article, accessed March 3rd, 2015, http://www. agf.gov.bc.ca/apiculture/factsheets/506_osmia.htm

Wendy Peer et al, “Phytoremediation and hyperaccumulator plants”, in Molecular Biology of Metal Homeostasis and Detoxification (2006) 14, 299-340

A. Lamb, D. Gibbs and C. Gibbs, “Straight of Georgia Biodiversity in Relation to Bull Kelp Abundance”, Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, online report, accessed March 14th, 2015, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/347489.pdf

“Olympia Oysters”, Capital Regional District (CRD), online article, accessed Febrary 8th, 2015, https://www.crd.bc.ca/education/our-environment/wildlife-plants/marinespecies/olympia-oysters

122

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

In presenting this report in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the advanced degree in the Architecture Program at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Architecture Reading Room shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this report for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Chair of Architecture or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.

Geoffrey Cox Name of Author

April 29, 2015 Date

________________ Signature

Regenerative Mutualism Title

M.Arch Master of Architecture Program 2015