iulia katsy
URBAN
ADAPTIVE PLANNING SOLUTIONS FOR FLOOD-RELATED HAZARDS
URBAN RESILIENCY
Adaptive planning solutions for flood-related hazards
Iuliia Katsy
URBAN RESILIENCY
Adaptive planning solutions for flood-related hazards
Iuliia Katsy Sapienza University of Rome, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture & Design, PhD in Architecture & Construction - Space and Society, XXVIII° cycle
2016
This thesis is approved by the supervisor: Prof M. Raitano Promotion committee: Chairman Professor G. Strappa, Sapienza University of Rome, coordinator Prof. M. Raitano, Sapienza University of Rome, supervisor Independent commission: Prof. Paola Gregory, Polytechnic University of Turin Prof. Andrea Sciascia, University of Palermo Prof. Carlo Moccia, Polytechnic University of Bari English proofreading: Alicia Oropollo Irina Zelenina
Editing and Design: Iuliia Katsy Š 2016 Iuliia Katsy
To my beloved family and Davide
6
Urban Resiliency Adaptive planning solutions for flood - related hazards
CONTENTS Acknowledgements Prologue: it is time to rethink
SECTION I Chapter 1
10 13 17
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND The summary statement
19
The conceptual linkage between resilience and planning Aim and questions of the research Case study Comparative analysis Research boundaries and expectations
19 20 22 23 25
Chapter 2
Concerning historical, conceptual and empirical framework of the resilience theory
26
2.1
Conceptual definition of resilience: from ecological science to urban community Origins of resilience Ecological and engineering resilience Social development and community resilience Beyond resilience dimensions Understanding the resilience of cities
26
Inside resilience framework: the adaptive cycle
37
Parsing differences: Sustainability? Resilience? or both? Sustainable world Resilience vs Sustainability
40 40 41
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2
26 27 32 34 35
References
SECTION II Chapter 3 3.1
TOWARDS URBAN RESILIENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF FLOOD-RELATED HAZARDS
55
Fostering resilience in urban design and planning
57
Urban resilience: a historic overview
57
Content
7
60 63 69
3.2 3.3 3.4
72
Chapter 4
72
4.1
72 73
4.1.1 4.1.2
77 79
4.2 4.3
81
87
8
Planning for flood-related hazards Flood as natural and artificial phenomenon The water and the city Not all flooding is created equal Dealing with floods: adaptation of urban layout Key planning properties References
SECTION III
89
Chapter 5
89 91
5.1.1 5.1.2
95
5.2
100 114 124 130
5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4
136
5.3
138 142 146 150
5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4
154
5.4
160 162
Evaluating urban resilience in planning thinking Design and planning attributes to promote urban resilience Regarding resilient patterns in architecture
EXPLORING ADAPTIVE DESIGN AND PLANNING INDICATORS IN COPING WITH FLOOD-RELATED HAZARDS Defining comparative framework of urban resilience indicators Developing the resilience framework Urban morphology: from individual site to sub-regional scale Positive practice for resilience Individual site scale Neighbourhood scale City scale Sub-regional scale Assessing urban resilient indicators in urban design and planning Grade of inter-permeability Flexible value Self-organization way Transformation mode Elaboration of results References: case studies References
Urban Resiliency Adaptive planning solutions for flood - related hazards
SECTION IV Chapter 6 6.1 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.4 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.5 6.5.1 6.5.2
SECTION V Chapter 7 7.1 7.2
TARGETING ADAPTIVE URBAN DESIGN AND PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND SOLUTIONS
165
Lessons learned
168
Prologue Adaptation of buildings
168 168
Review: buildings can “live with the flood” Adaptive design principles for buildings Adaptive design solutions
168 169 171
Adaptation of public open spaces
179
Review: account for urban open spaces Adaptive design principles for projecting public open spaces Adaptive design and planning solutions
179 181 182
Adaptation of green open spaces
193
Review: potentiality of green open spaces Adaptive design principles for projecting green open spaces Adaptive design and planning solutions
193 194 196
Adaptation of transport networks
202
Review: transport networks Adaptive design principles for a transportation network
202 204
References
206
SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS
211
The summary statement
213
Research synthesis and results Critical reflections for moving forward
213 220
References
222
Appendix Bibliography Index of tables Index of figures
224 231 242 243
Content
9
Acknowledgments After almost four years of intense work on this dissertation in Sapienza University of Rome, for me it is time to reflect about all people that supported me during this journey called Ph.D. research. Although this thesis would not have been completed without my persistence and enthusiasm to continuously explore. I cannot but acknowledge the invaluable input in many ways of a number of people while conducting this research. First and foremost, I am deeply grateful to my supervisor Prof. Manuela Raitano for her excellent attitude, numerous discussions and exchange of ideas, cheerful remarks in texts and giving me the freedom to explore new topics and ideas, often outside my comfort zone. Moreover, she kindly trusted in my capabilities and gave me exceptional opportunities for professional growth as the architect and researcher. Prof. Annalisa Metta (promoter) for her assistance at the beginning of the research process and broadening the dissertation by posing questions from a different perspective. I would like to express my gratefulness also to the Ph.D. program in Architecture and Construction – DRACO and entire professorial faculty for the opportunity to dedicate my time on research and to augment my own and hopefully other people’s understanding about extreme climate adaptation in urban environments. Especially I am grateful to the coordinator of our Ph.D. program Prof. Giuseppe Strappa for giving the excellent guidance during the research process and for organization of all great workshops and lessons. Furthermore, I would like to thank the external and internal jury members of my Ph.D. defence committee, respectively: Prof. Paola Gregory / Polytechnic University of Turin, Prof. Andrea Sciascia / University of Palermo, Prof. Carlo Moccia / Polytechnic University of Bari and Prof. Giuseppe Strappa / Sapienza University of Rome for their valuable contribution. Thank you to all my (former) colleagues and friends of the Faculty of Architecture for the good advice and a pleasant working environment. I would like also to thank all my friends for their valuable company and friendship. Dear Valina, Valeriya and Iulia for the great experience exchange, inspirational work, nice coffee and fun. I would especially like to thank my fellow Ph.D. candidate and dear friend Valeriya Klets for her friendship over the past four years here in Italy. I would like to give special thanks to my friend Alma that supported me during my research efforts and has shared all good and bad experiences. Special gratitude goes out to Irina Zelenina and Alicia Oropolo who assisted me in the final phase, with commitment and competence but also with infinite patience, verifying the English text.
10
Urban Resiliency Adaptive planning solutions for flood - related hazards
I am deeply grateful to my dear family for their continuous support and love through this difficult time for all of us. Thanks to my parents Victoria and Igor for always encouraging my educational endeavours, for their interest and gentle backing, to finally close this chapter of my life. I also want to thank my dear sister Svetlana for unconditional love and care throughout this period. Words cannot express how grateful I am to all of you for being by my side at every stage of my life and career, either professional or personal. Last but certainly not least I would like especially thank Davide for his faith in me, patience, moral support and very inspiring ideas that enriched my thesis. You backed me through these years and gave the positive attitude regarding this dissertation, seeing the possible future achievements. Mainly in the first year you encouraged me to bring into consideration the critical interactions between architecture and environment, making actually possible this research from various standpoints. Davide, I don’t know what I would do without you.
Iuliia Katsy, Rome, October 2016
Acknowledgments
11
The future is no longer what it ones was Carlo Gasparrini
12
Urban Resiliency Adaptive planning solutions for flood - related hazards
Prologue: it is time to rethink It is quite impossible to imagine the future of our cities without passing over a filter of risk. Risk is everywhere; it takes various forms, shapes and you will never know in advance when, where and how it will catch us unawares. First of all it represents itself in the high level of urban vulnerability of our cities and unpredictable natural phenomena - the main product of irreversible human impact on the planet. For the last three decades, natural disasters of various types and strength are increasingly shaking our cities. While certain geographic (urban) areas are particularly susceptible to specific natural disaster, no region on the Earth is free from the risk of a cataclysmic traumatic event. Unfortunately, living in the age of incredible technologies and progressive sciences (that allow us to cure incurable diseases, to take a look into depths of the universe or to build unimagined cities) we are still unable to efficiently cope with any occurrence of natural or artificial phenomenon. The increasing number of natural catastrophes in the World, naturally raises a rhetorical question about the real effectiveness of the ongoing sustainable framework of development. For a long time, a growing response for any storm occurrences were considered the part of an urban and political rhetoric around the question of long-term sustainability and no other. Although the most significant emphasis lies in uncontrolled rapid urbanization, expansions, consumptions and land use that are still managed in the old-fashion way (the financial and economic explosions prevailing over the environmental and social qualities). In addition, density percentage of the world population makes the city environment particularly vulnerable to any kind of climatic changes on the planet. In agreement with data introduced by the World Health Organization (World Health Organization, 2010) and Un-Habitat (Tann vom Hove, 2012), yearly the urban population grows with increasing numbers. For the first time in history, our planet will have more than 50 percent of the world population in urban areas and by 2050 more than 70 percent of this urban population will live near the water. Such extremely negative trends and conditions will clearly reflect on the quality of physical infrastructures and human lifetime. The quality of urban and social life in cities’ private and public infrastructures are decreasing yearly becoming unusable due to increasingly inappropriate maintenance; construction of buildings, bridges or tunnels in urban areas without proper compliance construction standards and seismic/waterproof norms and codes. Along with a slow urban decay in mega-cities small towns are also affected, where the physical and social decay is more noticeable. In this way the urban framework of cities is facing the various climatic, geographical, social and infrastructural vulnerabilities, where their inability gradually adapt to upcoming changes and impact of natural disasters is manifest evident.
Prologue
13
Most contemporary planning strategies for managing natural disturbances have followed a traditional planning model: study the problem, apply one solution and move to the next problem. This approach casts disaster as static and mitigation as a positive and linear trend (Sever et al., 2015). However, the reality has another flow, adverse situations during the past quarter-century have shown natural disasters that may accompany them are not linear problems that can be solved in isolation (Mileti, 1999; Tierney, 2008). In such ambience of permanent accelerating risk conditions only, regulation of building codes, recovering or reconstructing of traumatised urban areas and building structures are no longer sufficient. Additionally the disaster prevention, preparedness and recovery (at least its current state) do not provide necessary assurance of a cloudless future. The cities are more than just physical buildings interconnecting by means of transport or pedestrian communications which we can easily rebuild or recover all the time when a disaster damages or destroys them. As Campanella (2006) emphasizes “(c)ities are more than the sum of their buildings”. So in addition to new building and design techniques we need “[…] a new way of thinking about the form and connectivity of cities that can respond and counter the strategies of the past, and must frame these plans for the present in the context of their impact on the future” (Davis, 2015). It is obviously that architectural, urban design and planning disciplines can’t and shouldn’t remain a marginal issue of such serious problems. The research and planning in urban and architectural fields must keep pace with the time, clearly understanding the significance of necessary or inevitable changes for cities’ forms, structures and spaces. Here the contemporary approaches as concept of the smart and resilient cities play a prominent role. Smart technological interactivity and the connectivity of urban fabrics might help to reduce the level of general emergency, facilitating communicative and informative exchange between the damaged and non-damaged areas of a city. For instance, for the duration of the storm surge events in Japan in 2011 such communication ability saved a lot of people’s lives by promoting informational networks of public utility. However, the smart city approach won’t help to adapt the urban environment of our cities to extremal conditions only by implementation of sensitive technologies in urban tissues. On these grounds, we can argue that urban design and planning is increasingly obligated to be more selective and pragmatic, in order to evaluate carefully variable resources and upcoming impact. Re-thinking of the overall image of the city with producing further opportunities for the re-qualification of specific urban parts while searching a functional mix and need compatible solutions for the welfare of people is a real issue of the urbanism in 21st century. From here arises a principal question of a new selective urban paradigm which is able to connect contemporary understanding of conformist architecture and urban design with those transitional scientific approaches of system adaptation in terms of unfavourable water-related conditions. This required an interpretative effort to understand environmental dynamics, challenged
14
Urban Resiliency Adaptive planning solutions for flood - related hazards
in a contemporary city by an urban growth that has resulted in a systematic obliteration of surface waters, the creation of banks and dams acting as pure hydraulic containment, the use of water bodies for liquid waste disposal needs, the compression or the juxtaposition of pervasive road infrastructures (Gasparrini, 2015). There are overwhelming evidences for the notion that resilience approach with a new adaptive tactic (from an environmental and planning perspectives) is capable to reconsider current relationships between the city and the water. It aims to suggest that new affective strategies for innovation and re-managing of existing urban tissues are able to prepare current cities for uncertain future, full of extreme climatic changes and risks. Starting from here it is time to rethink the hypothetical introduction of the urban resilience theory in terms of urban design and planning studies via its positive attributes. Based on the presented knowledge of urban resilience paradigm in planning thinking, the research inspects the essential urban planning indicators in terms of flood-related disturbances in order to promote clear resilient principles and solutions. The discussion of urban resilience approaches in relation to flooding from the standpoint of urban planning professionals is especially important due to prevailing inequality between its theoretical consideration and further practical application. Since the understanding of urban resilience approach thought design and planning sciences nowadays resulted too generic, a more detailed consideration and analysis on a practical level may give a lacking knowledge of resilient planning principles and solutions for coping flood-related uncertainties and climate change risks. Thus to increase the solidity of the empirical and practical confirmation of the research has been used the comparative analysis of internationally collected positive experiences that hypothetically can do a part of urban resilience strategy in accordance with possibly useful planning attributes. The comparative analysis will allow to reveal resilient planning principals and solutions in dealing with flood-related disturbances while permit to be better focused on the urban resilient approach in architecture, urban design and planning sciences in the future.
Prologue
15