Jason Paul Fristensky : Independent Research & Studio Project by Jason Paul Fristensky

adaptDENVER:

A strategic green infrastructure vision for adapting the Denver Metro in preparation for thermal climate change Jason Paul Fristensky Spring 2014 University of Pennsylvania School of Design Department of Landscape Architecture Professor Richard Weller LARP 702: Modus Operandi Studio

DESIGN FOR M.O. STUDIO : METHODOLOGY

TABLE OF CONTENTS Research Extracts

..........

Denver Metro Overview

..........

Typology Lens Overview

..........

Tree Species Selections

..........

Typology Strategies

..........

.......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........

29 36 43 50 57 59 67 75 81

Overall Strategy Summary

..........

Planting Sequence & Thermal Impacts

..........

Future Recommendation

..........

Previous Research

..........

CBD & Mixed High Density Use Industrial & Business Parks New Residential Mid-age Residential Old Residential Multi-Family Residential Peri-Urban Greenways & Open Space Underutilized Agricultural Land

A SPECIAL THANKS TO: Sara Davis and John Myer, Denver Parks and Recreation Craig Greenwell, EPA Region 8 Office Dr. Jim Klett, Colorado State University Kevin Rein, Colorado Division of Water Resources Sonia John, Friends and Neighbors of Washington Park

RESEARCH FOCUS

How can we mitigate the confluence of thermal climate change and the urban heat island effect in the semiarid region of Denver? How can an effective strategic plan be developed that acknowledges funding options, prioritizes long-term environmental valuation and addresses public awareness?

APPROACH Designer as an instrumental catalyst to advance conversation and public awareness.

Project as an adaptation vision and scoping strategy at the metropolitan scale with implementable specificity via a typological approach

RESEARCH QUESTIONS : PROJECT DRIVERS 3

What is the production cycle for an implementation strategy that increases the urban tree canopy by 4.25 million or 15%?

9.7 Million

4.25 Million

Existing Trees

Additional Trees

15.7% Existing Denver Metro UTC

30.7% UTC

7.2 째F cooler DESIGN FOR M.O. STUDIO : PREMISE 4

Information interpolated from the 2103 Denver Urban Forest Assessment

overviewDENVER:

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

721 sq. miles

METRO : AERIAL 6

8 counties

METRO : 8 COUNTIES 7

29 cities

METRO : 29 CITIES 8

Annual

17” Precipitation

METRO : EXISTING RESOURCES 9

METRO : EXISTING URBAN TREE CANOPY BLOCKS 10

METRO : URBAN HEAT ISLAND 11

prioritizing low existing canopy areas

METRO : PRIORITIZATION 12

2035

259

sq. miles

2013

2.94 million people

2035

3.62 million people

METRO : EXPANDING URBANIZATION 13

lensTYPOLOGIES:

TYPOLOGY : UNDERUTILIZED AGRICULTURAL LAND 15

TYPOLOGY : GREENWAY 16

TYPOLOGY : PERI-URBAN 17

TYPOLOGY : MID RESIDENTIAL 18

TYPOLOGY : OLD RESIDENTIAL 19

TYPOLOGY : NEW RESIDENTIAL 20

TYPOLOGY : INDUSTRIAL SPACE 21

TYPOLOGY : CBD 22

speciesSELECTION:

APPROVED STREET TREES AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY

FRONT RANGE RECOMMENDED TREE LIST

109

SPECIES SPECIFICATIONS

14 123

Heat Tolerance

Drought Tolerance

Pest Tolerance

-30 Diversity 10 - 20 - 30 % No More Than:

SPECIES : FUTURE TOLERANCE AND DIVERSITY FILTERING 24

Species - Genus - Family

93 DIFFERENT TREES

Families Altingiaceae Anacardiaceae Betulaceae Bignoniaceae Cercidiphyllaceae Cornaceae Cupressaceae Eucommiaceae Fabaceae Gingkoaceae Hamamelidaceae Hippocastanaceae Lauraceae Magnoliaceae Oleaceae Pinaceae Rosaceae Sapindaceae Tiliaceae Ulmaceae

Genera (Species) Acer (8) Liriodendron (1) Aesculus (1) Maacki (1) Alnus (1) Malus (1) Amelanchier (3) Magnolia (2) Carpinus (1) Parrotia (1) Catalpa (2) Phellodendron (2) Celtis (3) Picea (2) Cercidiphyllum (1) Pinus (3) Cercis (1) Pistacia (1) Cornus (1) Platanus (1) Corylus (1) Prunus (5) Crataegus (6) Pyrus (5) Eucommia (1) Quercus (11) Fagus (1) Sorbus (1) Gingko (4) Styphnolobium (1) Gymnocladus (1) Syringia (3) Juniperus (3) Tilia (5) Koelreuteria (1) Taxodium (1) Liquidambar (1) Ulmus (4) Zelkova (4)

39 (93 species) SPECIES : FUTURE TOLERANCE AND DIVERSITY RESULT 25

VALUE PER TREE PER YEAR

Existing UTC Ecosystem Benefits $61.70 Additional UTC Ecosystem Benefits $66.93

Ecosystem Benefits value includes: reduced electricity use reduction in CO2 reduced pollution reduction in stormwater management costs rainfall interception and water speed reduction

Ecosystem Benefits value excludes: job creation human health and medical costs wildlife habitat biodiversity

Individual Annual Benefits: Real Estate Value + $82.58 Summer Cooling Cost - $106 Information interpolated from the 2103 Denver Urban Forest Assessment

SPECIES : INDIVIDUAL TREE VALUATION 26

typologySTRATEGIES:

Typology Differentiation

Peri-Urban

Underutilized Agricultural

Old Residential

Mid Residential

Multi-Family

CBD Mixed

DENVER METRO LEVEL

NGO, NON-PROFIT RNO, HOA

CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL

INDIVIDUAL

TYPOLOGY MAPPING : FLOW DIAGRAM DIFFERENTIATION 28

New Residential

Industrial/ Business

Greenways Open Space

DENVER METRO LEVEL CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL

Typology Differentiation

Peri-Urban

Underutilized Agricultural

Old Residential

Mid Residential

New Residential

Multi-Family

Miscellaneous Spaces

CBD/MIXED

Streets

NGO, NON-PROFIT RNO, HOA INDIVIDUAL

Industrial/ Business

Greenways Open Space

Business Parking Lots

TYPOLOGY MAPPING : FLOW DIAGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 29

TYPOLOGY CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

WHOLE OF METRO COSTS & BENEFITS

68,385 Additional Trees 18.9 sq miles

PARAMETERS: Streets: 35’oc Parking Lots: 25% carrying capacity Metric: 706 sf per tree (30’ mature canopy) Reduction Coefficient: 0.50 (urbanized areas)

COST:

@ $320 per tree to purchase and install

BENEFIT:

$394 million

2100

$4.6 million annually @ $67 per tree per year Includes:

STRATEGY : CBD & URBAN CORE HIGH DENSITY 30

$21.8 million

Energy Savings Carbon Storage & Sequestration Air Quality Stormwater Runoff Property Values

URBAN CORE & CBD SPECIES

NURSERY LOCATION

Amur Maacki (Maacki amurensis) Persian Ironwood (Parrotia persica) Osage Orange (Maclura pomifera) English Oak (Quercus robur) Pin Oak (Quercus palustris) Shingle Oak (Quercus imbricaria) Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum)

2-3â&#x20AC;? CALIPER PLANTINGS Nursery locations for propagation of species to be located on vacant land within, or directly adjacent to, typology

VARIABLE PLANTING PARTNERS

Miscellaneous Spaces

DENVER METRO LEVEL

CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL

Streets

Business Parking Lots

NGO, NON-PROFIT RNO, HOA

INDIVIDUAL

STRATEGY : CBD & URBAN CORE HIGH DENSITY 31

EXISTING VIEW

CULTURAL EXPRESSION

What if each organization annually donated a tree per score factor? ...And gave back to the city that supports them with a 0.1% tax every year... Broncos : One Rockies : Four Nuggets : One Avalanche : One Rapids : One

Tree per point Trees per homerun Tree per 3-pointer Tree per goal tree per goal

2013 seasons

STRATEGY : CBD & URBAN CORE HIGH DENSITY 32

606 points 159 homeruns 521 3-pointers 350 goals 45 goals

STORMWATER INFILTRATION PLANTING BASIN

STRATEGY : CBD & URBAN CORE HIGH DENSITY 33

STRATEGY : CBD & URBAN CORE HIGH DENSITY 34

8-10 F Micro-climate Decrease

STRATEGY : CBD & URBAN CORE HIGH DENSITY 35

DENVER METRO LEVEL CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL

Typology Differentiation

Peri-Urban

Underutilized Agricultural

Old Residential

Mid Residential

New Residential

Multi-Family

CBD Mixed

INDIVIDUAL

INDUSTRIAL/ BUSINESS

Open / Undeveloped Space

TYPOLOGY MAPPING : FLOW DIAGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

NGO, NON-PROFIT RNO, HOA

Streets

Greenways Open Space

Business Parking Lots

TYPOLOGY CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

WHOLE OF METRO COSTS & BENEFITS

597,353 Additional Trees 97.32 sq miles

PARAMETERS: Streets: 35’oc Parking Lots: 25% carrying capacity Metric: 706 sf per tree (30’ mature canopy) Reduction Coefficient: 0.50 (urbanized areas)

COST:

$191 million

@ $320 per tree to purchase and install

BENEFIT:

$3.4 billion

2100

$40 million annually @ $67 per tree per year Includes:

Energy Savings Carbon Storage & Sequestration Air Quality Stormwater Runoff Property Values STRATEGY : INDUSTRIAL & BUSINESS PARKS 37

INDUSTRIAL & BUSINESS PARK SPECIES

NURSERY LOCATION

2-3â&#x20AC;? CALIPER PLANTINGS Nursery locations for propagation of species to be located on vacant land within, or directly adjacent to, typology

VARIABLE PLANTING PARTNERS

Open / Undeveloped Space

DENVER METRO LEVEL

CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL

Streets

Business Parking Lots

NGO, NON-PROFIT RNO, HOA

STRATEGY : INDUSTRIAL & BUSINESS PARKS 38

INDIVIDUAL

EXISTING VIEW

CULTURAL EXPRESSION

What if each mode of transportation was linked to a number of trees? ...And helped to forest the spaces around their vehiclesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs.... Vehicles : One Tree per every 5 years

51,000 annually

One Tree per train per week

884 annually

Trains (17) :

Airplanes (16) : One Tree per airline per day

5,840 annually

STRATEGY : INDUSTRIAL & BUSINESS PARKS 39

STORMWATER INFILTRATION PLANTING BASIN

STRATEGY : INDUSTRIAL & BUSINESS PARKS 40

STRATEGY : INDUSTRIAL & BUSINESS PARKS 41

8-10 F Micro-climate Decrease

STRATEGY : INDUSTRIAL & BUSINESS PARKS 42

DENVER METRO LEVEL CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL

Typology Differentiation

Peri-Urban

Underutilized Agricultural

Old Residential

Mid Residential

Private Space

Front Yard

NEW RESIDENTIAL

Median

Multi-Family

R.O.W. Planting Strip

CBD Mixed

NGO, NON-PROFIT RNO, HOA INDIVIDUAL

Industrial/ Business

Greenways Open Space

Miscellaneous Spaces

Back Yard

Athletic Fields

Schools

Open Space

Parks

Capacity of 2.3 per Private Space TYPOLOGY MAPPING : FLOW DIAGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 43

TYPOLOGY CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

WHOLE OF METRO COSTS & BENEFITS

98,237 Additional Trees 39.1 sq miles

PARAMETERS: Streets: 35’oc Parking Lots: 25% carrying capacity Metric: 706 sf per tree (30’ mature canopy) Reduction Coefficient: 0.83 (irrigated areas)

COST:

@ $160 per tree to purchase and install

BENEFIT:

$566 million

2100

$6.6 million annually @ $67 per tree per year Includes:

STRATEGY : NEW RESIDENTIAL

$15.7 million

Energy Savings Carbon Storage & Sequestration Air Quality Stormwater Runoff Property Values

NEW RESIDENTIAL SPECIES

NURSERY LOCATION

Nursery locations for propagation of species to be located on vacant land within, or directly adjacent to, typology VARIABLE PLANTING PARTNERS Private Space

Front Yard

Median

R.O.W. Public Space Planting Strip

Back Yard

Athletic Schools Open Fields Space

DENVER METRO LEVEL

CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL

NGO, NON-PROFIT RNO, HOA

Parks

INDIVIDUAL

Acer buergeranum (Trident Maple) Acer campestre (Hedge Maple) Acer grandidentatum (Bigtooth Maple) Acer miyabei (Miyabe Maple) Acer nigrum (Black Maple) Acer truncatum (Pacific Sunset Maple) Aesculus glabra (Ohio Buckeye) Alnus cordata (Italian Alder) Amelanchier (Shadblow Serviceberry) Amelanchier x Autumn Brilliance (Cole’s Serviceberry) Catalpa ovata (Chinese Catalpa) Catalpa speciosa (Northern Catalpa) Celtis laevigata (Sugar Hackberry) Celtis occidentalis (Common Hackberry) Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) Crataegus ambigua (Russian Hawthorn) Crataegus douglasii (River Hawthorn) Crataegus phaenopyrum (Washington Hawthorn) Eucommia ulmoides (Hardy Rubber-tree) Fagus sylvatica (European Beech) Ginkgo biloba (Autumn Gold Ginkgo) Ginkgo biloba (Magyar Ginkgo) Ginkgo biloba (Princeton Sentry Ginkgo) Ginkgo biloba (Shangri-la Ginkgo) Gymnocladus dioicus (Kentucky Coffeetree) Koelreuteria paniculata (Goldenraintree) Magnolia x soulangiana (Magnolia Saucer) Phellodendron amurense (Amur Corktree) Phellodendron lavallei (Eye Stopper Cork Tree) Pistacia chinensis (Chinese Pistache) Prunus serotina (Black Cherry) Pyrus calleryana (Callery Pear) Pyrus calleryana (Chanticleer Pear) Pyrus usseriensis (Ussurian Pear) Quercus macrocarpa (Bur Oak) Quercus muehlenbergii (Chinkapin Oak) Quercus x macdanielli (MacDaniel’s Oak) Quercus x mazei (Colorado Foothills Oak) Quercus undulata (Wavyleaf Oak) Quercus x warei (Ware’s Oak) Styphnolobium japonicum (Scholar Tree) Tilia americana (American Linden) Tilia americana (Lincoln Linden) Tilia x euchlora (Redmond Linden) Tilia mongolica (Mongolian Linden) Ulmus japonica (Japanese Elm) Ulmus parvifolia (Allee Lacebark Elm) Ulmus wilsoniana (Prospector Elm) Ulmus x (Elm hybrids) Zelkova serrata (Green Veil Zelkova) Zelkova serrata (Halka Zelkova) Zelkova serrata (Musashino Zelkova) Zelkova serrata (Village Green Zelkova)

1-2” CALIPER PLANTINGS STRATEGY : NEW RESIDENTIAL 45

EXISTING VIEW

What if every wedding couples planted 1 tree? ...And had a life that grew with their marriage...

CULTURAL EXPRESSION

“Start a new life”

And if they divorce, 1 tree gets planted for every year of marriage?

19,992 marriages Denver Metro (avg/year since 2000)

average cost of wedding is $27,000

weddinghigh.com

STRATEGY : NEW RESIDENTIAL 46

INCREASING TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANTING STRIPS TO 8’ AND ESTABLISHMENT WATERING

STRATEGY : NEW RESIDENTIAL 47

STRATEGY : NEW RESIDENTIAL 48

4-6 F Micro-climate Decrease

STRATEGY : NEW RESIDENTIAL 49

DENVER METRO LEVEL CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL

Typology Differentiation

Peri-Urban

Underutilized Agricultural

Old Residential

MID RESIDENTIAL

Multi-Family

CBD Mixed

INDIVIDUAL

Industrial/ Business

Greenways Open Space

Public Space

Private Space

Front Yard

New Residential

NGO, NON-PROFIT RNO, HOA

Back Yard

Athletic Fields

Schools

Open Space

Parks

Capacity of 5.7 per Private Space TYPOLOGY MAPPING : FLOW DIAGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 50

TYPOLOGY CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

WHOLE OF METRO COSTS & BENEFITS

469,335 Additional Trees 192.5 sq miles

PARAMETERS:

COST:

@ $160 per tree to purchase and install

Streets: 35’oc Metric: 706 sf per tree (30’ mature canopy) Reduction Coefficient: 0.83 (irrigated areas)

$75.1 million

BENEFIT:

$2.7 billion

2100

$31.4 million annually @ $67 per tree per year Includes:

Energy Savings Carbon Storage & Sequestration Air Quality Stormwater Runoff Property Values STRATEGY : MID RESIDENTIAL 51

MID RESIDENTIAL SPECIES

NURSERY LOCATION

Nursery locations for propagation of species to be located on vacant land within, or directly adjacent to, typology

VARIABLE PLANTING PARTNERS Public Space

Private Space

Front Yard

Back Yard

Athletic Fields

DENVER METRO LEVEL

CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL

STRATEGY : MID RESIDENTIAL 52

Schools

Open Space

NGO, NON-PROFIT RNO, HOA

Parks

INDIVIDUAL

1-2” CALIPER PLANTINGS

EXISTING VIEW

What if every wedding couples planted 1 tree? ...And had a life that grew with their marriage... And if they divorce, 1 tree gets planted for every year of marriage?

CULTURAL EXPRESSION

“Start a new life”

19,992 marriages Denver Metro (avg/year since 2000)

average cost of wedding is $27,000

weddinghigh.com

STRATEGY : MID RESIDENTIAL 53

RESTORING UNDERUTILIZED RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANTING STRIPS TO 8’ AND ESTABLISHMENT WATERING

STRATEGY : MID RESIDENTIAL 54

STRATEGY : MID RESIDENTIAL 55

4-6 F Micro-climate Decrease

STRATEGY : MID RESIDENTIAL 56

DENVER METRO LEVEL CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL

Typology Differentiation

Peri-Urban

Underutilized Agricultural

Private Space

Back Yard

OLD RESIDENTIAL

Mid Residential

R.O.W. Planting Strip

New Residential

Multi-Family

CBD Mixed

NGO, NON-PROFIT RNO, HOA INDIVIDUAL

Industrial/ Business

Greenways Open Space

Public Space

Front Yard

Athletic Fields

Schools

Open Space

Parks

Strip Malls

TYPOLOGY MAPPING : FLOW DIAGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 57

TYPOLOGY CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

WHOLE OF METRO COSTS & BENEFITS

minimal Additional Trees 9.32 sq miles

PARAMETERS:

COST:

@ $160 per tree to purchase and install

Streets: 35’oc Metric: 706 sf per tree (30’ mature canopy) Reduction Coefficient: 0.83 (irrigated areas)

BENEFIT:

$0 annually @ $67 per tree per year

Approach requiring each city to continue responsibility to maintain its’ current canopy via loss replacement from age, vandalism, or disease

STRATEGY : OLD RESIDENTIAL 58

DENVER METRO LEVEL CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL

Typology Differentiation

Peri-Urban

Underutilized Agricultural

Old Residential

Mid Residential

New Residential

MULTI-FAMILY CBD Mixed

Street Trees

NGO, NON-PROFIT RNO, HOA INDIVIDUAL

Industrial/ Business

Greenways Open Space

Property Grounds

TYPOLOGY MAPPING : FLOW DIAGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 59

TYPOLOGY CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

WHOLE OF METRO COSTS & BENEFITS

9,015 Additional Trees 10.6 sq miles

PARAMETERS:

COST:

@ $160 per tree to purchase and install

Streets: 35’oc Metric: 706 sf per tree (30’ mature canopy) Reduction Coefficient: 0.83 (irrigated areas)

BENEFIT:

$51.9 million

2100

$604 thousand annually @ $67 per tree per year Includes:

STRATEGY : MULTI-FAMILY

$1.44 million

Energy Savings Carbon Storage & Sequestration Air Quality Stormwater Runoff Property Values

MULTI-FAMILY SPECIES

NURSERY LOCATION

Nursery locations for propagation of species to be located on vacant land within, or directly adjacent to, typology

VARIABLE PLANTING PARTNERS

Street Trees

DENVER METRO LEVEL

CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL

Property Grounds

NGO, NON-PROFIT RNO, HOA

INDIVIDUAL

1-2” CALIPER PLANTINGS STRATEGY : MULTI-FAMILY 61

EXISTING VIEW

What if every wedding couples planted 1 tree? ...And had a life that grew with their marriage... And if they divorce, 1 tree gets planted for every year of marriage?

CULTURAL EXPRESSION

“Start a new life”

19,992 marriages Denver Metro (avg/year since 2000)

average cost of wedding is $27,000 weddinghigh.com

STRATEGY : MULTI-FAMILY 62

INCREASING TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANTING STRIPS TO 8’ AND ESTABLISHMENT WATERING

STRATEGY : MULTI-FAMILY 63

STRATEGY : MULTI-FAMILY 64

4-6 F Micro-climate Decrease

STRATEGY : MULTI-FAMILY 65

STRATEGY : INDIVIDUAL OUTREACH PROVOCATIONS 66

DENVER METRO LEVEL CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL

Typology Differentiation

PERIURBAN

Underutilized Agricultural

Old Residential

Mid Residential

New Residential

Multi-Family

CBD Mixed

NGO, NON-PROFIT RNO, HOA INDIVIDUAL

Industrial/ Business

Greenways Open Space

Property Grounds

Capacity of 117 per Private Space TYPOLOGY MAPPING : FLOW DIAGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 67

TYPOLOGY CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

WHOLE OF METRO COSTS & BENEFITS

104,043 Additional Trees 28.04 sq miles

PARAMETERS:

COST:

$16.65 million

@ $160 per tree to purchase and install

Metric: 706 sf per tree (30â&#x20AC;&#x2122; mature canopy)

BENEFIT: Includes:

2100

$6.9 million annually @ $67 per tree per year

Reduction Coefficient: 0.83 (irrigated areas)

STRATEGY : PERI-URBAN

$599 million

Energy Savings Carbon Storage & Sequestration Air Quality Stormwater Runoff Property Values

PERI-URBAN SPECIES

NURSERY LOCATION

Nursery locations for propagation of species to be located on vacant land within, or directly adjacent to, typology

VARIABLE PLANTING PARTNERS

Property Grounds

DENVER METRO LEVEL

CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL

NGO, NON-PROFIT RNO, HOA

INDIVIDUAL

1-2” CALIPER PLANTINGS STRATEGY : PERI-URBAN 69

EXISTING VIEW

What if every wedding couples planted 1 tree? ...And had a life that grew with their marriage... And if they divorce, 1 tree gets planted for every year of marriage?

CULTURAL EXPRESSION

“Start a new life”

19,992 marriages Denver Metro (avg/year since 2000)

average cost of wedding is $27,000

weddinghigh.com

STRATEGY : PERI-URBAN 70

STAKED TREE PLANTED IN UNDISTURBED EXISTING SOILS

STRATEGY : PERI-URBAN 71

STRATEGY : PERI-URBAN 72

3-5 F Micro-climate Decrease

STRATEGY : PERI-URBAN 73

DENVER METRO LEVEL CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL

Typology Differentiation

Peri-Urban

Underutilized Agricultural

Old Residential

Mid Residential

TYPOLOGY MAPPING : FLOW DIAGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 74

New Residential

Multi-Family

CBD Mixed

NGO, NON-PROFIT RNO, HOA INDIVIDUAL

Industrial/ Business

GREENWAYS OPEN SPACE

TYPOLOGY CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

WHOLE OF METRO COSTS & BENEFITS

1,462,321 Additional Trees 271.05 sq miles

PARAMETERS:

Metric: 706 sf per tree (30â&#x20AC;&#x2122; mature canopy)

COST:

$29.2 million

@ $20 per tree whip to purchase and install

BENEFIT:

$8.4 billion

2100

$97.9 million annually @ $67 per tree per year

Reduction Coefficient: 0.64 (bare soil areas) Includes:

Energy Savings Carbon Storage & Sequestration Air Quality Stormwater Runoff Property Values

STRATEGY : GREENWAYS & OPEN SPACE 75

GREENWAYS & OPEN SPACE SPECIES

NURSERY LOCATION

Nursery locations for propagation of seedlings and whips can be in any easily accessible greenway that have high water table VARIABLE PLANTING PARTNERS

DENVER METRO LEVEL

CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL

STRATEGY : GREENWAYS & OPEN SPACE 76

NGO, NON-PROFIT RNO, HOA

INDIVIDUAL

Acer truncatum (Pacific Sunset Maple) Acer tataricum (Hot Wings) Amelanchier arborea (Downy Serviceberry) Carpinus caroliniana (American Hornbeam) Celtis reticulata (Netleaf Hackberry) Cercis canadensis (Eastern Redbud) Cornus mas (Cornelian Cherry) Crataegus ambigua (Russian Hawthorn) Crataegus crus-galli (Thornless Cockspur) Crataegus laevigata (Crimson Cloud Hawthorn) Crataegus x mordensis (Snowbird Hawthorn) Juniperus monosperma (Utah Juniper) Juniperus osteosperma (One-Seed Juniper) Juniperus virginiana (Eastern Red Cedar) Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweetgum) Malus species (Crabapples) Picea Glauca (Black hills Spruce) Picea omorika (Serbian Spruce) Pinus flexilis (Limber Pine) Pinus hendreichii (Bosnian Pine) Pinus strobiformis (Southwestern White Pine) Prunus ‘Snow Goose’ (Snow Goose Plum) Prunus x Frankthrees (Mt. St. Helens Plum) Prunus x cistina (Schmidtcis Big Cis Plum) Prunus x fontanesiana (DeFontaine’s Cherry) Pyrus calleryana (Jaczam Jack Pear) Pyrus fauriei Westwood (Korean Sun Pear) Quercus alba (White Oak) Quercus bicolor (Swamp White Oak) Sorbus americana (Dwarfcrown Red Cascade) Syringa pekinensis (Morton China Snow Lilac) Syringa reticulata (Ivory Silk Japanese Lilac Tree)

WHIPS, PLUGS & SEEDLING PLANTINGS

EXISTING VIEW

What if each hospital annually donated 2 trees per birth? ...And improved the air quality of the residents they help....

CULTURAL EXPRESSION

“Planting the seed”

43,081 births Denver Metro (avg/year since 2000)

average cost of birth is $9,025 average cost of cesarean is $15,755 (without complications, in a Colorado hospital). deviantart.com

STRATEGY : GREENWAYS & OPEN SPACE 77

TREE WHIP OR SEEDLING PRODUCTION PLANTINGS

LABOR FORCE Weekender’s and Community Service Time

STRATEGY : GREENWAYS & OPEN SPACE 78

STRATEGY : GREENWAYS & OPEN SPACE 79

2-4 F Micro-climate Decrease

STRATEGY : GREENWAYS & OPEN SPACE 80

DENVER METRO LEVEL CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL

Typology Differentiation

NGO, NON-PROFIT RNO, HOA INDIVIDUAL

Peri-Urban

UNDERUTILIZED AGRICULTURAL

Old Residential

Mid Residential

New Residential

Multi-Family

CBD Mixed

Industrial/ Business

Greenways Open Space

TYPOLOGY MAPPING : FLOW DIAGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 81

TYPOLOGY CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

WHOLE OF METRO COSTS & BENEFITS

3,593,122 Additional Trees 60.22 sq miles

PARAMETERS:

COST:

$71.9 million

@ $20 per tree whip to purchase and

install Metric: 706 sf per tree (30â&#x20AC;&#x2122; mature canopy)

BENEFIT: Includes:

2100

$240.7 million annually @ $67 per tree per year

Reduction Coefficient: 0.64 (bare soil areas)

STRATEGY : UNDERUTILIZED AGRICULTURAL

$20.7 billion

Energy Savings Carbon Storage & Sequestration Air Quality Stormwater Runoff Property Values

AGRICULTURAL LAND SPECIES

NURSERY LOCATION

Nursery locations for propagation of seedlings and whips can be in any easily accessible greenway that have high water table VARIABLE PLANTING PARTNERS

DENVER METRO LEVEL

CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL

NGO, NON-PROFIT RNO, HOA

INDIVIDUAL

WHIPS, PLUGS & SEEDLING PLANTINGS STRATEGY : UNDERUTILIZED AGRICULTURAL 83

EXISTING VIEW

What if each mortuary annually donated 1 tree per cremation? ...And put more than pine boxes in the earth...

CULTURAL EXPRESSION

“Leave Something Behind”

10,725 cremations Denver Metro (avg/year since 2000)

$795 for cremation $2150 for traditional funeral bigthink.com

STRATEGY : UNDERUTILIZED AGRICULTURAL 84

TREE WHIP OR SEEDLING PRODUCTION PLANTINGS

LABOR FORCE Weekender’s and Community Service Time

STRATEGY : UNDERUTILIZED AGRICULTURAL 85

STRATEGY : UNDERUTILIZED AGRICULTURAL 86

2-4 F Micro-climate Decrease

STRATEGY : UNDERUTILIZED AGRICULTURAL 87

Best Case Potential

6,401,821 Additional Trees 721 sq miles

TYPOLOGY MAPPING : ALL : METRO 88

Overall Strategy Staggered Implementation Sequencing

Peri-Urban

Underutilized Agricultural

$423

Old Residential

Mid Residential

New Residential

Multi-Family

CBD Mixed

Industrial/ Business

Greenways Open Space

Best Case Potential

million

6,401,821

Cost

Additional Trees

$36.9 billion

Benefit

TYPOLOGY STRATEGY : IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY 89

thermalIMPACT:

increase

EHE Days

EHE Deaths

by 2055

NRDC 2012 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Killer Summer Heat: Projected Death Toll from Rising Temperatures in America Due to Climate Change

CULTURAL : HEALTH AND MEDICAL 91

increase

EHE Days

EHE Deaths

by 2055

Case Example: Los Angeles July 15 – August 1 2006, resulting in more than 140 confirmed heat-related deaths, more than 16,000 emergency department visits and nearly 1,200 additional hospitalizations occurred statewide.

Does NOT account for Population Increases

Assumes that energy demands can handle increased mechanical cooling needs

Cost $133 MILLION NRDC 2012 “Killer Summer Heat: Projected Death Toll from Rising Temperatures in America Due to Climate Change

CULTURAL : HEALTH AND MEDICAL 92

THERMAL CLIMATE CHANGE + 8.6 F 8F

high emission RCP 8.5 scenario

Near-term Projections

Long-term Projections

(IPCC 2013, p. 981) Highly Likely

(IPCC 2013, p. 1062) Likely

+ 6.5 F

+ 3.6 F 3F

+ 2.7 F

0F 2015

2035

2065

2080

2100

IMPLEMENTATION : THERMAL TIMELINE 93

TREE SEQUENCING + 228,500 trees for first 10 years ...then 64,150 every year until 2075

+ 8.6 F

6.6% mortality of new plantings

Mature by 2084

4,250,000 by 2059

+ 6.5 F

25 year maturity echo

5.87 MILLION Trees Planted 5.51 MILLION Trees Survive

+ 3.6 F 3.95 MILLION Trees Planted 3.7 MILLION Trees Survive

+ 2.7 F

2.99 MILLION Trees Planted 2.8 MILLION Trees Survive

0F 2015

2035

IMPLEMENTATION : TREES PLANTED TIMELINE 94

2065

2080

2100

COOLING IMPACT

- 8.8 F + 8.6 F

+ 228,500 trees for first 10 years ...then 64,150 every year until 2075

Thermal rise offset by 2050

6.6% mortality of new plantings

- 6.8 F + 6.5 F

25 year maturity echo

5.87 MILLION Trees Planted 5.51 MILLION Trees Survive

- 3.7 F + 3.6 F

3.95 MILLION Trees Planted 3.7 MILLION Trees Survive

- 0.2 F + 2.7 F

2.99 MILLION Trees Planted 2.8 MILLION Trees Survive

0F 2015

2035

2050

2065

2080

2100

IMPLEMENTATION : CANOPY COOLING TIMELINE 95

futureRECOMMENDATION:

2035

+ Current development requirement is only a public open space

259

sq. miles

minimum 10% 2013

2.94 million people

Shift focus; requiring new development to include tree planting that will achieve a within 25 years, and any tree losses to be replaced within 1 year and a minimum 2â&#x20AC;? caliper

tree canopy

minimum 35%

2035

3.62 million people

METRO : GROWTH RECOMMENDATION 97

previousRESEARCH:

1) SYNOPSIS The 2013 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) indicates the earth is quickly approac hing a significant and hazardous shift in diurnal temperature highs that will be felt globally. The report predicts that most US cities will traverse a climate threshold before 2050, and temperatures will increase by 5-10 degrees F by the end of the century. Additionally, the annual number of days exceeding 100 degrees is expected to increase roughly eight-fold (EPA, 2013). Combined with the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, preemptive planning of intra-urban environments and implementation of a strategic plans to assist with adaptation are urgently needed. There are existing literature, strategy discussions, scientific reports, public health response programs, and approac hes to regulating the urban thermal environment; however, most of these focus on mitigation though emissions reduction, while â&#x20AC;&#x153;adaptationâ&#x20AC;? responses to the hazards posed by rising temperatures and UHI effect are being under-emphasized. As landscape arc hitects, we are uniquely qualified to assist in the realization of whole of city adaptation by bridging science with holistic design solutions. Denver, Colorado, has commenced implementation of the Mile High Million (Hinkenlooper, 2006), a million tree initiative similar to many large metropolitan cities. Superficially, the Mile High Million appears a significant contribution to urban adaptation in Denver, but full implementation of the program will only increase the Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) by 3.8%. Based on the Denver Urban Forest Assessment (Xiao, 2013), the UTC in Denver would need to be increased by nearly 16% to effectively mitigate the anticipated temperature changes. The Modis Operandi Studio will be used to outline the production and implementation cycle of a robust urban forest for the Denver Metropolitan region, culminating in a comprehensive package of plans, metropolitan transects, and policy recommendations to provide the City of Denver with a viable adaptation (rather than mitigation) strategy in response to thermal climate c hange.

2) PRIMARY RESEARCH QUESTION How can we adapt to the predicted confluence of thermal climate c hange and the UHI effect in the semi-arid region of Denver?

3) SUB-RESEARCH QUESTIONS Can water-sensitive urbanism be created in a State with strict water rights policies and restrictions against water har vesting? Can an effective strategic plan be developed that acknowledges funding options, prioritizes longterm environmental valuation and addresses public awareness?

4) DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Due to the focus on mitigation via emissions reductions, adaptation responses to the hazard of rising temperatures and heat island effect are currently being under-emphasized. As landscape arc hitects, we are uniquely positioned to facilitate the realization of whole of city adaptation by bridging science with holistic design solutions.

5) LITERATURE REVIEW i

In a study published Nature on October 10, 2013, MoraLab (2013) provided a timeframe of thermal climate c hange that predicted that, under a business-as-usual scenario, “average location[s] on Earth will experience a radically different climate by 2047” (Mora, 2013). Even with mitigation through concerted emission reductions, the average year of climate departure is predicted to be postponed only until 2069. The lead author further state that “regardless of the scenario, c hanges will be coming soon...[and that]…within my generation, whatever climate we are used to will be a thing of the past” (Mora, 2013). “Climate departure” was defined as “using temperature data from 1860 to 2005 as a baseline, the point in time that the average temperature of the coolest year after 2005 becomes warmer than the historic average temperature of the hottest year, for a specific location” (Thorp 2013). Beyond significant impacts to biodiversity, ecological, and agricultural ecosystems that will negatively impact societal necessities, predicted temperature increases will force our urban environments across a health and safety threshold. NASA (2013) published another study, whic h included visualization of the impacts and gradient of progressively increasing temperatures over the remainder of this century. As in Mora et al. (2013), NASA found that, regardless of emission reduction or business-as-usual, over 75% of the US will see an increase in temperature between 4.5 and 8 degrees F. While this increase may seem small, suc h a rise in temperatures will catapult most cities across the public health threshold and c hallenge human physiological tolerances (EPA, 2013). Combined with an overall thermal increase, the number of days exceeding 100 degrees F is forecast to increase roughly eight-fold in locations like Denver, Colorado (EPA, 2013). Presently, the number of days exceeding 100 degrees F in Denver averages less than one per year (National Weather Ser vice, 2013). EPA (2013) predicts that by the end of the century, we will see between 20 and 75+ days exceeding 100 degrees F, corresponding with low or high emission scenarios, respectively. To place this predicted scenario into context, we have only to review the 2003 European Heat Wave to see for ourselves the damage that such a c hange in our thermal environment can inflict. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 2004), temperatures spiked to between 95 to 104 degrees F during July and August 2003. The result was “enormous social, economic, and environmental effects” with major loss of water ecosystems, rampant fires, power outages, and reduced agricultural output, all of whic h culminated in nearly 35,000 deaths (UNEP, 2004). Under suc h extreme conditions and duration, reliance upon artificial interior cooling is a short-sighted and naïve approac h for future adaptation to rising exterior temperatures. Fortunately, numerous researc hers have outlined potential methods for adaptation. For example, in a paper entitled Remote sensing science to inform urban climate change mitigation strategies , Karen Seto (Yale Sc hool of Forestry and Environmental Studies) states that “there are enormous opportunities to shape the built environment and for urban spatial planning to play an important role in climate c hange mitigation and adaptation” (Seto, 2013, p. 1). The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report for Policymakers (IPCC, 2013), released in September 2013, emphasizes the contribution of anthropogenic causes to c hanging climates, in part to point out how mitigation via anthropogenic responses might proceed. However, at many levels this issue, whic h remains controversial (although largely outside of the scientific community; S. Talbot, USGS, personal communication), is subordinate to the fact that regardless of the proximal cause, the ultimate result the same: climate c hange is predicted to push humans, along with other species, to the limits of physiological tolerances. Summarizing various emission scenario models, the IPCC (2013) states that “it is virtually certain that there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales as global mean temperatures increase. It is very likely that heat waves will occur with a higher frequency and duration” (IPCC 2013, p. SM14). This summary of multiple independent studies more than sufficiently outline predicted outcomes, and as suc h should be taken as a clarion call by the public and their leaders for the preparation of our cities, and society as a whole, for sur vival. ii

In a paper entitled Climate change and the differential evidence of European urbanism , Mehaffey (2012), emphatically underscores the consequences of continued delay by allied design professions. Mehaffey states that “climate c hange – at once the tip of a larger crisis of unsustainability, and in its own right a looming threat the human well-being on par at least with the black death of the thirteenth century – has c hanged everything, except our way of thinking. Our response to date has been c haracterized by a bizarre mix of paralysis, denial, and tokenism. We have hardly begun to c hange the titanic operating system that pulls us deeper into the crisis” (p. 46). Our response to natural disasters suggests we are a reactive society, rather than a proactive one. Thus, while statements like Mehaffey’s can be perceived as apocalyptic and devoid of any hope for the sur vival of the human species, these warnings have been sounded for decades and now society urgently needs to understand these predictions and prioritize responses, and transmit that understanding and prioritization to elected officials. As designers of the urban realm, it is our responsibility to analyze and synthesize site-specific information and develop solutions in response to that information. Up to this point, our 'response' to climate c hange has been largely on a city-block, park, or singular urban corridor scale, and that scale provides an insignificant impact on the urban realm. Steffen Lehmann (University of South Australia), an internationally renowned thought leader in the field of sustainable buildings, urban development principles and our complex relationship with nature, emphasizes the lacking efficacy of our response by stating that “urbanism is often missing from the proposed remedies for climate c hange and environmental stress; it is the invisible wedge in the pie c hart of green solutions...[and] to respond to the energy and climate c hange c hallenge, compounding layers of design must be integrated. Efficient, climate-responsive buildings are important but miss many community-scale opportunities” (quoted in Haas, p. 14). In his conceptual strategy writing Green Urbanism: Formulating a Series of Holistic Principles (Haas, p. 25-30), Steffen Lehmann provides 15 Guiding Principles of Green Urbanism, summarized below: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14)

Climate and Context; city based on its climatic conditions, with appropriate response to location and site context; Renewable Energy for Zero CO2 Emissions; the city as a self sufficient, on-site energy producer, using decentralized district energy systems; Zero-waste City; the zero-waste city as a circular, closed-loop eco-system; Water; the city with closed urban water management and a high water supply. Landscape, Gardens, and Urban biodiversity; the city that integrates landscapes, urban gardens, and green roofs to maximize biodiversity. Whic h strategies can be applied to protect and maximize biodiversity and to reintroduce landscape and garden ideas back into the city to ensure urban cooling?it needs to maximize the resilience of the ecosystem through urban landscapes that mitigate the “urban heat island ” (UHI) effect, using plants for air-purification and urban cooling. Further, the narrowing of roads, whic h calms traffic and lowers the UHI, allows for more (allimportant) tree planting; Sustainable Transport and Good Public Space; Local and Sustainable Materials with less embodied energy; Density and Retrofitting of existing districts; the city with retrofitted districts, urban infill, and densification/intensification strategies; Green buildings and Districts; Livability, Healthy Communities, and Mixed-use Programs; Local Food and Short Supply Chain; Cultural Heritages, Identity, and Sense of Place; Urban Governance, Leadership, and Best Practices; Education, Research, and Knowledge; iii

15) Strategies for Cities in Developing Countries In response to the necessary adaptation in preparation of thermal climate c hange, Principles (4) and (5) are the most critical for planning the urban environment. In support of these principles, Steffen posits that water and vegetation are crucial for the urban environment, that “biophilic cities are using natural processes as part of their infrastructure – green roofs, green walls, and integrated open space management – together with creative use of urban areas for foot production. One of the core reasons for cities moving down the biophilic path is to air-condition their city through photosynthetic cooling effects of plants and water in the urban landscape as well as using less heat-absorbing materials” (Haas, 2012, p. 19). Translating this approach into a multi-pronged method for urban thermal regulation caused by the UHI effect combined with temperature increases predicted via climate c hange falls squarely into the abilities and principles inherent to the field of Landscape Architecture. Another set of conceptual approac hes to the future livability of cities is addressed in by Peter Newman (Newman et al., 2009), in Resilient cities: Responding to peak oil and climate. Seven key elements and summarized descriptions of the paradigm shift outlined are as follows: 1) Renewable Energy City; urban areas will be powered by renewable energy tec hnologies from the region to the building level. 2) Carbon Neutral City; every home, neighborhood, and business will be carbon neutral. 3) Distributed City; cities will shift from large centralized power, water , and waste systems to small-scale and neighborhood-based systems. 4) Photosynthetic City; the potential to harness renewable energy and provide food and fiber locally will become part of urban green infrastructure. 5) Eco-Efficient City; cities and regions will move from linear to circular or closed-loop systems, where substantial amounts of their energy and material needs are provided from waster streams. 6) Place-Based City; cities and regions will understand renewable energy more generally as a way to build the local economy and nurture a unique and special sense of place. 7) Sustainable Transport City; cities, neighborhoods, and regions will be designed to use energy sparingly by offering walkable, transit-oriented options for all supplemented by electric vehicles. While these key elements are critical to embed within the urban environment, they are still primarily focused on mitigation via reducing emissions and use, which is not predicted to quickly mitigate the impending thermal climate c hange (Mora et al., 2013). Why is there no “Cool City” approach, one that fully acknowledges thermal public heath and safety within the urban environment? To this point, while we may portray through rhetoric our site designs' adaptation providing capacity, the long-range view and upfront designs still fail to tackle the most pressing issues of our society. Steffen Lehmann (2010) eloquently articulates the critical impact of this ineffective approac h in The principles of green urbanism: Transforming the city for sustainability : “Arc hitecture and urban planning are playing a major role in the c hallenge of moving towards a more sustainable urbanization models. But rather that see our relative wealth in the developed world as an opportunity to build well – designing and constructing longer lasting buildings and cities with enduring infrastructure – we do just the opposite: we keep designing and constructing cities and buildings that are not meant to last more that 20 to 30 years and put in place policies that encourage rapid depreciation, planned obsolescence and minimal expenditures with the lowest bidder.

Human settlement patterns have created such fragmented and polluted natural habitats that biologist now predict that as many as two-thirds of all plant and animal species will be extinct by 2050. Add to that the exponential rise in atmospheric carbon, at levels not seen for the last 400,000 years, and the exponential increase in human population....we stand at a moment in our history when we either c hoose to inhabit this planet very differently very quickly, or we may find ourselves among the species that we have rendered extinct” (p. 214) Even as climate adaptation plans are being created for cities, including Million Tree initiatives, these efforts are severely limited since they do not address ecologically responsible approac hes, suc h as addressing species diversity and the ability of planted trees to withstand the c hanging climate. Turning to the allied sciences, such as landscape ecology and biomimicry, and bridging the informational gap between design and science, is crucial for any long-term climate c hange strategy to be effective: “Hugh Aldersey Williams explored extensively the relationship between animal structure and buildings. Biologists have obser ved that before eco-systems collapse they often become so inter-connected, productive and efficient that they lose all resiliency, becoming unable to withstand unexpected outside stress. Their collapse represents what biologists call an 'adaptive cycle', in whic h the eco-systems have become more diverse and resilient, but less inter-connected, productive and efficient, Certainly, such obser vation of principles must be of relevance for all designers of the human eco-system we call the built environment.” (Lehmann, 2010, p.244) Adaptation plans targeting the urban environment will likely need a multi-layered system of strategies that would allow for higher performance and site specific micro-climate efficacy. One suc h method of potential is solar cooling: “For highly air-conditioned dependent cities, solar cooling technology is a particularly useful solution to reduce their urban heat island (uhi) effect. The uhi effect creates primarily a night-time problem, when the interior spaces are not cooling down sufficiently at night.... Solar cooling tec hnology would avoid the issue that air-conditioned units blow their hot waster air into the streets, whic h is getting trapped in the urban environment, adding to the uhi problem. Integration of greenery in the urban environment is essential to mitigate for the urban heat island effect. Planted surfaces have muc h lower temperatures, heat up less, and improve the micro-climate. Water bodies have also beneficial effects on the micro-climate, as they help moderate temperatures in summer through evaporation.” (Lehmann, 2010, p. 272) Peter Droege (University of Lic htenstein), an internationally eminent leader in urban design and planning with a focus on resilient urbanism, addresses the hazardous confluence of UHI effect and thermal climate c hange in Renewable city: A comprehensive guide to an urban revolution (Droege, 2006). He noted that the “most visible and damaging effects of climate change” (p. 74-78) are two-fold. The first is through hazard and exposure to temperature c hange itself, which will manifest as greater heat levels and a rise in the number of days of extreme temperatures and a higher incidence of drought with extreme flooding. The second tier of damage is revealed in physical impact. He noted five direct impacts of rising temperatures, with likely downstream impacts. The five impacts are summarized as follows: 1) 2) 3) 4)

power generation efficiency declining at higher ambient temperature; drying damage to water supply and sewage systems; failure of transport systems during storm surge and floods; overall depletion of loss and agricultural production; v

5) overall threatened quality to the urban environment, compounded by the UHI effect. With respect to the surface heat island effect, Droege (2006) noted that the urban environments can produce temperatures upwards of 18 degrees F, relative to surrounding undeveloped lands. This effect can be most significant at night, when heat absorbed by impervious surfaces is released into the lower atmosphere. The result of higher temperatures is an increase in artificial cooling efforts, whic h expels more hot air into the urban environment and increases the atmospheric heat island (Wong, 2012). The combination of surface heat island and atmospheric heat island generates a feedback system though convection and air dynamics. The most direct strategy for reducing UHI is to increase canopy and shade over imper vious surfaces that have a low reflectivity and albedo, primarily through the use of trees and other vegetation (Wong, 2012). Beyond direct shading by trees and urban forests, evapo-transpiration cooling breezes caused by the decreased localized temperature is a potential method of increasing air flow within a dense urban environment. This can be facilitated by including living walls and green roofs as a supplementary strategy. In fact, urban parks may have the potential to cool beyond their borders and upwards of 100 meters downwind (ASLA, 2012). While these mec hanisms are complex, presumably dominant wind flow at any given location, combined with its proximate surroundings, would potentially create micro-climatic cooling effects. An ancillary concern is the limited ability to insert any park of significant size within the dense urban environment that would have a measurable impact on the entire urban environment. To provide an effective adaptation strategy in response to thermal climate change and UHI effect, a metropolitan-scale green infrastructural approach is necessary.

6) CASE STUDIES AND PRECEDENTS The ability for green infrastructure and vegetation cover to reduce UHI effect was studied in the city of Manc hester, United Kingdom (Gill, 2007). This study found that “outdoor thermal comfort is highly variable from factors suc h as humidity, solar radiation, wind, and precipitation…[but] adding 10% cover decreased maximum surface temperatures by 2.2 C in 1961-1990, and [with increasing canopy diameter] 2.4-2.5C by the 2080's” (p. 120-122). This translates into roughly a 4.5 degree F decrease, whic h, with regard to expected temperature increase associated with climate c hange, provides an appropriate urban adaptation strategy. Many cities nationally and globally have created Climate Change Actions Plans, most of whic h appear to be based in policy and, again, strongly focused on emission reduction and mitigation as the suggested approac h for urban adaptation. Denver, Colorado‘s 2007 Greenprint Climate Action Plan falls into this category, but lacks effective long-range adaptive planning. The Plan is comprised of ten Key Elements and Goals, summarized below (Mayor's Greenprint, 2007): 1) Corporate and Residential Climate Challenges - Develop outreac h campaigns supporting the adoption of best practices related to energy conservation, renewable energy, multi-modal transportation, and waste reduction. 2) Incentivize Energy Conser vation - Introduce a proposal to apply a tiered rate structure to electrical and natural gas usage. 3) Voluntary Travel Offset Program - Provide the opportunity to pay a small voluntary fee, at the time of air travel or motor vehicle registration, to offset the carbon emissions related to travel. 4) City Leading by Example - Aggressively pursue opportunities for energy efficiency and renewable energy at Denver International Airport, work to develop “carbon neutral” City buildings through application of energy efficiency savings. 5) Enhance Recycling Programs - Support new & expanded recycling initiatives throughout Denver to double present recycling rate. vi

6) Energy Efficiency Standards for New Buildings and Remodels - Adopt a set of mandatory building standards for commercial buildings and building codes for new homes. 7) Increase Energy Efficiency in Existing Homes - Promote basic energy efficiency measures at residential properties as a way to improve the energy efficiency of older housing stock. Incentives to plant shade trees and install in-home energy display systems. 8) Community-wide High-performing Green Concrete Policy - Require, through City policies, the use of “green” concrete, containing a low to moderate percentage of fly ash, in all public and private construction projects. 9) Compact Growth Boundary with Incentives for Density in Urban Areas - Support maintenance of the existing DRCOG growth boundary and support additional population growth around transit in the metro area to promote denser, more pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-friendly neighborhoods that will reduce the demand for motorized personal transport. 10) City Support for Alternative Transportation Strategies - Develop various City policies that promote the transition over time to the use of alternative transportation sources (such as bicycles, telecommuting, walking, van/car pools, and mass transit). Eac h of these elements is valuable and should be implemented. However, the only one with robust potential planning for thermal climate c hange is (7), with its link to the Mile High Million tree planting initiative. Unfortunately, even that element is focused on residential homes only, whic h mostly have existing vegetation; thus, this approach will have little impact for the city-wide UHI effect. This approac h is duplicated in many Climate Action Plans, demonstrated in the summary by the ICLEI (2013) as: x Atlanta, GA - Climate Action Plan underlying goals to reduce emission and have a “No Net Loss” of urban trees x Boston, MA - A Climate of Progress, mitigation and mitigation through emission reduction, energy efficiency, reduction, cool roofs, coastal responses to sea level rise, private transportation reduction, and planting 100,000 trees for heat island eduction x Chicago, IL - Climate Action Plan includes increasing total green roofs to 6,000, and mitigate urban heat island effect with 1 million trees x El Paso, TX - Extreme Weather Task Force was established 10 years ago. Its purpose is to bring awareness to the community about staying healthy and hydrated, finding cool zones. x Grand Rapids, MI - To offset the urban heat island effect, the city plans to increase its tree canopy cover to at least 37.5% between 2011 and 2015. x Houston, TX - NO Climate Action Plan. Owns 17 SPACE units for emergency relief effort. The units contain refrigerators and air conditioning to provide relief. x Los Angeles - ClimateLA is focusing on emission reduction, alternative transportation and energies, and planting 1 million trees for CO2 sequestration and adding 35 parks x New York, NY - plaNYC Climate Action Plan to reduce gas emission by 30%, mitigate heat island effect primarily through cool roofs. Trees for Public health is focused on planting in low coverage neighborhoods x Philadelphia, PA - Greenworks, identified a target of 30% UTC by planting 1 million trees by 2025 for health and heat island offset x Salt Lake City, UT - SLCGreen, reducing carbon footprint, reduce greenhouse emissions, and early phases pf beginning an urban tree plan x Tucson, AZ - Plan is focused on water shortage remedies, greenhouse gas emission vii

reduction, and acknowledge increasing temperatures, but with arid climate and low water resources, the response to heat island effect is severely limited x Washington, DC - District will surpass 1.5 million square feet of green roofs in 2012 as requirements and incentives encourage installation of green roofs A handful of the plans acknowledge the necessity for increasing urban canopy cover and addressing UHI effect, though the quantitative aspects are relatively insignificant relative to existing canopy and levels of canopy increase needed for adaptation to thermal climate change. The New York City Climate Action plan, plaNYC 2030, explicitly states that with â&#x20AC;&#x153;significant increase in predicted high temperature days ...emission reduction will not alone have significant impactâ&#x20AC;? (plaNYC, 2007). As found in a majority of metropolitan regions, implementation of Million Trees planting initiatives has commenced during the past five to seven years. The initiative in Denver was started in 2006, with the goal of planting one million trees by 2025, and jump-started with a $6 million grant for the US Department of Energy (Mile High, 2013). To date, at least 250,000 trees have been planted, but planting appears to have been mostly via an on-request system and located in newer residential front yards. Further, the program restricted the number of total species to eight, all of whic h are tolerant only of existing climate conditions and less likely to sur vive in the increasing temperature range. Earlier this year, initial funding was exhausted, and the Mile High Million program has been cut. The current focus of the Denver City Forester is to prepare for the damaging impacts of the Emerald Ash Borer and Asian Beetle, whic h have been moving westward across the country as temperature and precipitation c hanges (Denver Post, 2013).

7) DENVER SPECIFIC DATA In Marc h, 2013, an Urban Forest Assessment (Xiao et al., 2013), completed by researc h scientists from the University of California Davis, was provided to the manager of the Denver Mile High Million program and the Denver Forestry Department. A summary of elements from this report indicate the potential of increasing the Denver Metropolitan urban canopy cover: x x x x x x x x

The Metro Denver urban forest is extensive, covering 15.7% of the 721 square mile region; There are approximately 9.6 million trees in the Metro Denver urban forest, assuming an average crown diameter of 19-ft per tree; The Denver Metro urban forest contains approximately 10 million vacant planting sites, assuming plant-able space for a 30-ft crown diameter; 70% of these plant-able vacant sites are in single family residential and mixed land uses; 16% percent are in public and institutional land uses Filling 50% of the plant-able vacant sites region wide will require 4.25 million trees; This would increase the UTC to roughly 31%, and 20-30 years to reac h projected canopy level; Reac hing the 4.25 million would result in $1 billion in ecosystem ser vices, property value increase to $788 million, save $32.2 in electricity costs, and reduce stormwater costs by $178 million annually.

If the 4.25 million trees were treated as an infrastructural asset, for example, similar to the transportation infrastructure, its asset value valuation would reach $93.6 billion through the end of this century. Within the urban forest assessment, Xiao et al. (2013) excluded any impervious surfaces from the potential planting sites, suggesting that the number of potential sites could be viii

significantly higher. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Finding adequate space for trees in these densely engineered developments is a c hallenge. These problems urgently need solutionsâ&#x20AC;? (Xiao, 2013). Combined with the urban forest assessment, the climatology specific to the semi-arid Denver region with limited precipitation of 17â&#x20AC;? annually and resultant strict water regulations linked to intrastate and international compacts presents a complex but ideal set of circumstances that falls squarely into the realm of landscape arc hitecture as instrumental in strategic development of an implementable solution. Water regulations in Denver provide an obstacle for planning. According to the Colorado Division of Water Resources web site, the following provides a glimpse of water regulation complexity (CDWR, 2013): Rooftop Precipitation Collection x Although it is permissible to direct your residential property roof downspouts toward landscaped areas, unless you own a specific type of exempt well permit, you cannot collect rainwater in any other manner, such as storage in a cistern or tank, for later use. Please review our publications below, as well as links to CSU Extension's information on this topic and Colorado law on the subject as written in the Colorado Revised Statutes, before applying for a Rooftop Precipitation Collection System Permit. If your well has not been registered, you will also need to Register an Existing Well before applying. x Rainwater Har vesting Pilot Projects x House Bill 09-1129 allows for Pilot Projects for the Beneficial Use of Captured Precipitation in New Real Estate Developments. The Colorado Water Conser vation Board (CWCB) has developed criteria and guidelines for applications and the selection process for new development pilot projects to evaluate the feasibility of rainwater har vesting as a water conser vation measure in Colorado, when paired with efficient landscaping and irrigation practices. Graywater Reuse x Colorado Water Law typically does not permit most residential properties to reuse graywater, water already used once for showers, laundry and dish washing. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division (CDHPE WQCD) administers requirements and minimal standards. Many city and county regulations further prohibit the issuance of any type of individual sewage disposal system permit within a certain distance of ser vice by a municipal or community sewage treatment facility, so please contact your local government office for specific details. Stormwater Management x Precipitation that falls on a site and becomes concentrated in a detention or infiltration area may not be diverted for any beneficial use. Landscaping that is planted on roofs (green roofs) is allowable as long as the landscaping intercepts only precipitation that falls directly onto the landscaping. The landscaping may not intercept and consume concentrated flow and may not store water below the root zone. Please see the administrative position for additional details.

8) BIBLIOGRAPHY ASLA (2012). Cool Designs for hot Cities: Site strategies to mitigate the urban Heat Island, Workshop Session A-4 summary presented by Larissa Larsen, pdf. www.asla.org Beatley, T. (2011). Biophilic cities: Integrating nature into urban design and planning . Washington D. C.: Island Press. Bell, D. M., Bradford, J. B., & Lauenroth, W. K. (2013). Mountain landscapes offer few opportunities for high elevation tree species migration. Global Change Biology: early online. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12504. CDWR (Colorado Division of Water Resources). (2013). Rainwater collection and graywater reuse. Available at: water.state.co.us/SURFACEWATER/SWRIGHTS/Pages/RainwaterGraywater.aspx Denver Post (2013, September 9). Denver 'chops' Mile High Million trees project . Available at: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24051514/denver-c hops-mile-high-million-trees-project Droege, P. (2006). Renewable city: A comprehensive Guide to an urban revolution . Great Britain: Wiley-Academy. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2013). Climate c hange impacts and adapting to change (plus website sub-pages) , http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/index.html Accessed October 19, 2013 Gill, S.E. & Handley, J.F & Ennos, A.R. & Pauleit, S. (2007), Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of the Green Infrastructure, Built Environment Volume 33, Number 1 Haas, T. (Ed.). (2012). Sustainable urbanism and beyond: Rethinking cities for the future . New York, NY: Rizzoli International Publications Inc. Heinberg, R. & Lerc h, D. (Eds.). (2010). The Post carbon reader: Managing 21 st century's sustainability crises . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hinkenlooper, J. (2006, July 12). State of the City Address, 2006. ICLEI, Local Governments for Sustainability USA (2012), Local governments, extreme weather, and climate change 2012. Factsheet, available at: www.icleiusa.org. Accessed October 18, 2013. IPCC Working Group (2013). Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers . Lehmann, S. (2010). The principles of green urbanism: Transforming the city for sustainability. Washington D. D.: Earthscan LLC. Mayorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Greenprint Denver Advisory Council (2007). City of Denver Climate Action Plan 10/2007 Mehaffey, M. (2012). Climate c hange and the differential evidence of European urbanism. In: Haas, T. (Ed.), Sustainable urbanism and beyond: Rethinking cities for the future. New York, NY: Rizzoli International Publications Inc. Mile High Million (2013). Available at: www.milehighmillion.org, accessed October 20, 2013 Mora, C., Frazier, A., & Longman, R. (2013). Study in Nature Reveals Urgent New Time Frame for x

Climate Change, University of Hawaii Manoa MoraLab. Department of Geography, University of Hawaii, http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/mora/PublicationsCopyRighted/Cities%20Timing.html National Weather Ser vice (2013), National Weather Service Forecast Office; Denver-Boulder, CO Available at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=BOU NASA (2013). Climate models show potential 21 st century temperature, precipitation c hanges . Available at: http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/climate-models-show-potential-21st-centurytemperature-precipitation-c hanges/#.UrYiX-JdDPs Accessed October 22, 2013 Newman, P., Beatley, T., & Boyer, H. (2009). Resilient cities : Responding to peak oil and climate c hange . Washington D. C.: Island Press. PlaNYC 2030 (2007), Available at www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/home/home.shtml Seto, K. C. (2013). Remote sensing science to inform urban climate c hange mitigation strategies. Urban Climate 3 : 1-6. Retrieved at: www.elsevier.com/locate/uclim Talbot, Sandra (2013). USGS Alaska Science Center. Personal communication Thorp, G. (2013, October 9). Hot spots: Global temperature rise . Washington Post. UNEP (2004). Impacts of summer 2003 heat wave in Europe . Environmental Alert Bulletin . Available at: www.grid.unep.c h/ew Wong, E. (2013). Reducing urban heat islands: Compendium of strategies, Urban Heat Island basics. EPA document, available at: http://www.epa.gov/hiri/resources/compendium.htm Xiao, Q., Wu, C. & Bartens, J. (2013). Metro Denver Urban Forest Assessment , University of California Davis.