!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !
Softening The Edge ! Developing America’s Urban Waterfronts In The Era Of Climate Change
!! !! !! !! ! H+U March Term 2! Shaping the Modern City
!
Submitted by Amanda Palasik! 1 April 2015 
Contents!
! !
The Role Of Waterfront Development In The Era Of Climate Change………………………………………1!
!
The Nature Of The Waterfront Edge: City Versus Water…………………………………….……..…………2!
! ! ! !
Eliminating The Edge: Return To Nature Via Soft Infrastructure…………………………………..…………3!
New York City: Rethinking The Waterfront As A Hybrid Solution…………………………….…………….…4!
Pioneer For Resilient Waterfront Development In American Cities……………………………………..……5!
A Future For Waterfront Cities In The Era Of Climate Change?…………………………………..….………7!
! ! ! ! !
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………..………….……8!
Figure Credits………………………………………………………………………………….………….….……9!
Appendix…………………………………….…………………………………………………………….………11!
!
! !
Softening The Edge: Developing America’s Urban Waterfronts In The Era Of Climate Change
The Role Of Waterfront Development! In The Era Of Climate Change!
!
Cities are constantly being reinvented and transformed to sustain a competitive edge and to create a unique image that will set them apart in a globalised market. Since the latter half of the twentieth century, industrial American waterfront cities in particular have used their geographic positioning to an advantage for urban [re]branding and regeneration, transforming former brown fields into built-up centres of urban vitality to attract new populations and economic investment. The emergence of the waterfront development renaissance paired with the political shift from Welfare State to Neoliberal governance posed ongoing debate as to how and for whom waterfront development should be implemented, concerns of which are still relevant to today.!
!
However, these lingering debates have abruptly been superseded by alarming global climate change threats questioning if we should be developing on waterfronts at all. Accelerated demands of flooding, storm surges, and degraded water quality has resulted in the urgent need for sufficient infrastructure to replace the existing ageing and inadequate solutions posed prior to the twenty-first century environmental crisis. As a first line of defence in response to these conditions, the physical nature of waterfront infrastructure maintains a critical responsibility for the vitality of cities. But should vulnerable cities such as Mumbai, Guangzhou, or New York vacate coastal populations? Recent catastrophic events, such as flooding caused by the storm surge of Hurricane Sandy in New York City and Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, have forced these formerly subordinate issues to the forefront of [re]development, acknowledging the reality that former infrastructure designed to keep water out of the city is no longer feasible.!
Figure 1. Storm surge from Hurricane Sandy causes the Hudson River to rise over the banks of the Hoboken, NJ. waterfront in October, 2012.
!
Essentially, the crux of contemporary waterfront development debate is attributed to a fundamental battle between capitalism versus environmentalism, whereas the economic driven priorities of urban development trends ignore the reality that without a symbiotic relationship with water, the economic, political, and social value associated with ‘waterfront’ is essentially irrelevant (Malone, 1996, p.2). The biggest challenge facing waterfront development in the contemporary era of climate change is no longer a mere question of how and for whom to design, but to defy the conventional market driven approach to development by innovating policy and attaining investment to ensure protective infrastructural measures become realities to secure the future of urban waterfronts.!
Figure 2. Surge from tsunami overtops sea wall in Miyako, Japan, 2011.
!
1
Softening The Edge: Developing America’s Urban Waterfronts In The Era Of Climate Change
The Nature Of The Waterfront Edge: ! City Versus Water!
!
Civilisation has relied heavily on its relationship with water for survival, defence, transport, and trade since early settlement. However, the urbanisation of prenineteenth century America struggled to find a balance between the natural and built landscape of the New World1 (Meyer, 1999, p.184). Consequently, this struggle resulted in the necessity to manipulate and control nature, particularly through the implementation of hard infrastructure2, in order to conform to the built environment. With rapid urbanisation over past centuries, nature has become a rare and isolated commodity in urban environments. The evolving push to incorporate and preserve nature in cities as a vital component of civilisation not only appeases the sociopolitical desire to creative cultural identity, but also acknowledges the symbiotic reliance for co-existence. !
!
Nineteenth-century port cities in particular held a pivotal social and economic position as the waterfront became a forum of public interchange amongst citizens of diverse backgrounds, commerce, industry, and transportation (Meyer, 1999, p.30). A resulting shift in the perception of the water changed from its former reputation as a threat feared by the unknown to an alluring phenomenon associated with health and wealth, untainted by the insalubrious conditions associated with nineteenth century urbanism (Malone,1996, p.31). However, this revered relationship quickly deteriorated as waterfront industrialisation took over, transforming shorelines into factories with working ports of piers, wharves, and flood walls, contaminating the water and segregating the city from the water’s edge (Desfor, Laidley, Stevens & Schubert, 2011, p.8). These infrastructures, along with dams, canals, flood gates, and levees, were derived to control and combat water from entering the city, once again portraying water as something to be feared and safeguarded against (Bergdoll, p.17, 2011). !
!
Figure 3. Major sea wall in Miyako, Japan where a major tsunami exceeding the limit of the wall, caused devastating flooding of the city in 2011. An example of hard infrastructure consequently creating a barrier between city and waterfront.
Figure 4. Flood wall in London’s Royal Docks. An other example of hard infrastructure designed to keep water out of the city and consequently limiting the public’s connection with the water to an uninviting path.
Contemporary North American waterfront development trends have transgressed from production to consumption, favouring market driven models that pioneered redevelopment in the latter half of the
1The
New World signified the Americas as an independent Nation, marking the beginnings of an evolving debate on the intervention of built civilisation on nature. This debate later evolved into political movements such as Roosevelt’s New Deal, to conserve natural resources and “collectivise America’s scenic beauty” through widespread implementation of parks (Meyer , 1999,p.184). In the latter half of the twentieth century, nature became a significant component of America’s public realm, such as Robert Moses’ infamous New York beaches. 2
For the argument presented in this paper, the term ‘infrastructure’ is targeted as the physical systems that support (or in some cases, consequently hinder) the co-existence between the natural and built environment. Hard infrastructure is defined as the synthetic engineered systems that manage natural ecologies such as storm-water and bodies of water.
2
Softening The Edge: Developing America’s Urban Waterfronts In The Era Of Climate Change
twentieth century3. Based on maximising economic potential, these models are criticised for diluting the connection between city and water and thereby reducing the value of waterfront to merely visual. Real estate is marketed at a premium for the luxury of a “waterfront view”, limiting access to the financially and socially privileged. In his account on the evolution of postindustrial waterfront development, Architect and Planner Barry Shaw rationalises the longevity of this model by summarising the development cycle in three stages: pioneering the “radical” vision, expansion and experimentation vision, and consolidation and standardisation of vision (Smith and Ferrari, 2012, p.4). Shaw predicts the emergence of a new renaissance of development in the early decades of the twenty-first century, with the economic recession inspiring the reevaluation of water and associated appurtenances as a resource (although his prediction lacks definitive details as to the exact nature of the vision).!
Figure 5. Recently, the City of Boston had to halt construction of its harbour redevelopment mid way to derive impromptu solutions to safeguard against the unexpectedly increasingly rising sea level (Ross, 2013).!
! !
Eliminating The Edge: ! Return To Nature Via Soft Infrastructure! It seems apparent that the new generation of waterfront development speculated by Shaw could lend itself to rethinking the physical nature of the waterfront edge in response to immediate threats of climate change. Regardless of the skepticism on whether climate change related or not, recent catastrophic events caused by flooding and storm surges have created tabula rasa conditions in several cities, forcing immediate resilient redevelopment strategies to prevent future disasters. Likewise, these devastating events have inspired global concern to address the nature of waterfront development, as well as the capacity of existing infrastructure to handle the increased threats of climate change. As was the case of the ageing and insufficient levees in New Orleans that caused fatal flooding during Hurricane Katrine, cities can no longer rely on existing infrastructure alone for protection. Cities can no longer afford to sustain the constant battle of keeping water out of the city.!
Figure 6. Transforming urban waterfront infrastructure from hard to soft. Concepts for New York’s Waterfront put forth for the Rebuild by Design Competition by OMA.!
!
While there is no single solution to address challenges posed by climate change, some American cities have adopted the Scandinavia mentality of living with water as opposed to fighting to keep water out of the city (Braw 2013). A key component to the realisation of this mentality focuses on the controlled acceptance of flooding, transforming waterfronts not into engineered walls but into their former natural conditions as wetlands, marshes, and pervious greenfields. These tactics, categorised as green or soft infrastructure, are defined as multifold land development strategies focused on the
Figure 7. KCAP’s Bao’an Coastal City masterplan Shenzhen, China. The design activates the waterfront of the Pearl River Delta, transforming the former edge into a resilient network of biotopes and public green space. Given China’s ongoing battles with water pollution, rethinking the value of urban waterfront development from an environmental standpoint is a major feat.
3
Boston and Baltimore are accredited with pioneering post-industrial waterfront development in America. The development focused on activating the waterfront by creating retail markets that would attract people to these former derelict areas, livening the streets. The success of Boston and Baltimore inspired this model to be tested around the globe in cities such as Sydney, although they were arguably not as successful.
3
Softening The Edge: Developing America’s Urban Waterfronts In The Era Of Climate Change
symbiotic relationship between nature and the built environment, both conserving natural ecologies and creating a “framework for environmental, social, and economic health - in short, our natural life-support system” ( Benedict & McMahon,2006,p.1). When implemented as part of waterfront edge development, soft infrastructure provides an initial line of defence to soften the blow of storm surges. Likewise, it allows controlled flooding to accommodate water level rise, restores water quality through natural filtration, creates opportunities for ecological education, as well as the potential to serve as an urban public amenity.!
!
Skeptics of soft infrastructure argue that the “technology” is fairly new and its long-term effectiveness has yet to be analysed. Although categorised and marketed as an innovative approach, the fundamental concepts of soft infrastructure predate the engineering of hard infrastructure (flood walls, levees, flood walls, etc.) that have replaced these natural conditions (marshes, wetlands, etc.). It can be argued that labelling soft infrastructure as ‘innovative’ is itself problematic as it infers an inherent risk. How can American Politicians be persuaded to give soft infrastructure the same priority as hard infrastructure and to “risk” the immediate success of their political term for the sake of preserving the environmental, economic, and social value of waterfront’s future? Furthermore, how can sustained public and private investment, be secured to ensure these proactive solutions are funded without the insurance of immediate economic profit?!
Figure 8. Extent of New York’s waterfront infill development since 1650 and consequently the extent to which New York flooded during Hurricane Sandy in 2012.!
!
New York City: ! Rethinking The Waterfront As A Hybrid Solution! In his essay A New Urban Frontier, urbanist Peter Hall attributes the inherent widespread success of pioneering waterfront development models to assurance, proof that inherent risk is minimised. If climate change has indeed inspired the next generation of waterfront development, New York City’s post-Sandy resiliency plan shows promise as a pioneering model for America. The catastrophe that struck America’s seemingly immortal New York City (and Tri-state region) in 2012 is arguably the long awaited proof that urban waterfronts are extremely vulnerable to climate change impacts. It was as if the country needed a public service announcement featuring the world’s esteemed financial capitol to pay attention to the long stream of warnings climate scientists have been declaring for years. The nine-foot storm surge that swept through the city stalled New York’s productivity for months, totalling $19 billion in economic damage (Wikipedia). But New York is determined to rebuild and retain its active shoreline with resiliency, defying criticism that vulnerable cities should not be [re]developing.!
! ! !
Figure 9. New York’s former soft edge at New Amsterdam (now Battery Park), 1910!
In adapting to climate change, cities can choose either grey or green infrastructure. Grey infrastructure means building walls and barriers. In New York's case, we'd lose Long Island if we went for the grey option. The green option, which has growing support, includes green roofs, green streets that will capture storm water, and pavements that allow water to percolate through.!
!
Stuart Gaffin, Research scientist at the Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University
4
Softening The Edge: Developing America’s Urban Waterfronts In The Era Of Climate Change
Acknowledging the inadequacy of it’s existing hard infrastructure to address evolving threats, the city dismissed former proposals for a $6.5 billion mega seawall that would merely displace water (Marshall, 2013). To attract interest and inspire solutions on how to best develop a resilient water edge for New York, the United States Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) and Presidential Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force created the joint program, Rebuild by Design, to host a major design competition. Not coincidentally, Danish firm BIG (Bjarke Ingels Group) was awarded the plan to redevelopment ten miles of Manhattan’s vulnerable waterfront. The $335 million design, entitled Big “U”, focuses on the waterfront as a vast urban realm, creating public place through a collective network of soft infrastructure, of which BIG refers to as “social infrastructure”. !
! !
Figure 10. Proposed cultural berm at Battery Park.! Native species bio-swales, rain gardens, and street plantings will absorb and clean storm-water, cool the city, reduce air pollution, store carbon, buffer noise, enhance recreational activities, improve mental health, and provide green jobs. As a by-product of these benefits, they will also save the City and its residents money, for example in healthcare (Bjarke Ingels, 2015).
Pioneer For Resilient Waterfront Development ! In American Cities! What makes New York City a pioneer for a new resilient model of waterfront development is not just its ‘Starchitect’ inspired resilient plan, but the strength of its political leadership in taking the risk to support a progressive approach to addressing climate change threats rather than falling back on typical methods of protective infrastructure. For instance, in New Orleans, $14.5 billion has been invested to expediently restructure its former failed levee during Hurricane Katrina, with secured footings, reinforced materials, and three new flood gates equipped with pumps (Schwartz, 2012). Despite the upgrades, the levee retains the existing minimum design standard to meet the 100-year flood event requirement. Many have argued, including President of the New Orleans Levee Board, Tim Doody, that the upgrades are inadequate as a sole solution to meet future adverse weather events (estimated to be at the 400-year flood event level), regardless of the unquantifiable sea level rise. Tim Doody attributes the lack of risk assurance to the financial support of the United States Government, stating “It’s what the country will pay for; it’s what FEMA insures for” (Schwartz, 2012). !
!
New York acknowledges that it cannot rely solely on the country to fund its proposal and has outlined innovative approaches to attaining investment for the Big “U”. As it is, the United States faces a crisis to maintain its antiquated and crumbling infrastructure of the early tomid-twentieth century, let alone fund new projects. In order to pursue reliable and consistent funding, a heavy dependence on private money, especially in the wake of a fragile economic climate, seems imperative to making projects such as the Big “U” a reality. Despite controversy on the privatisation of public space, the US and Europe have experienced a major shift towards public and private partnerships to fund and manage projects. Likewise, New York’s innovative policy models, such as Flood Development Corporations and Resilience
Figure 11. View of Battery Park proposed elevated berm featuring integrating programs and public programs such as a middle school, public aquatic viewing platforms, contemplative space, bike and pedestrian paths, and swimming areas.!
The Big “U” is an example of what we call Social Infrastructure… What if we could envision the resilience infrastructure for Lower Manhattan in a way that wouldn’t be like a wall between the city and the water, but rather a string of pearls of social and environmental amenities tailored to their specific neighbourhoods, which also happens to shield their hinterlands from flooding. The Big “U” will not only make the waterfront more resilient but also more accessible and inviting to the citizens around it.!
!
Bjarke Ingels, Founding Partner of BIG
Figure 12. View of public realm created by soft infrastructure proposed along the East edge of Manhattan.
5
Softening The Edge: Developing America’s Urban Waterfronts In The Era Of Climate Change
Districts that operate similar to Business Improvement District models, seem to be promising in securing funds for soft infrastructure measures, dually ensuring the security of investment in the area. What can be learned from New York’s rebuild process, thus far, is that collaboration and participation on all scales - local, state, and federal, is critical to initiating even conversations about resilient rebuilding.!
!
Taking note on the success of the Randstad region4, New York’s commitment to long-term solutions is particularly unique to American cities. The challenge is persuading investors and politicians to acknowledge the long term benefits, which may not materialise in the course of a four to six-year political term nor come in the form of direct monetary profit. The value of security and economic conservation has generally been overlooked in contemporary urban waterfront development for the sake of direct economic gain. !
Figure 13. The Big “U” integrates existing hard infrastructure (flyover) into the proposal by creating public space for art and markets to activate the edge.
!
Take for example the City of Miami, a porous city built on limestone primarily at sea level. Climate scientists, such as Klaus Jacob, have been warning of the dangers of Miami’s fate for years. Regardless, the city continues to haphazardly allow billions of high-end investment along its coast, despite rising sea levels that cause saltwater to penetrate storm drains. Just recently, the city has agreed to implement a three hundred million dollar project consisting of engineered storm pumps to remove water from the city and into Biscayne Bay. Although the infrastructure will only last an estimated 30 years, the city says it will rethink its solution as needed. Meanwhile, more private luxury development is encouraged along the coast as a portion of the property tax goes towards funding the infrastructure (Paquette 2014). Only time will tell if Miami’s nonchalant market driven approach to development along the coast will be able to sustain the effects of climate change. !
Figure 14. As opposed to a permeant seawall, decorative ceiling panels over the public space will fall into place during an emergency to block water, leaving this space to be enjoyed by the public.
!
With development plans in place, New York will face pressure to ensure the project is fully implemented over its ambitious goal of three years, commencing in 2020 (Feuer, 2014). As described in Shaw’s cycle of waterfront development models, once New York’s waterfront model is envisioned, it will require time for other cities to observe the outcome before reaching a level of standardisation. But can we afford that time? Will it be too late?!
!
Figure 15. Despite frequent flooding, Miami hesitates to tackle the long term impacts of sea level rise due to climate change.
4
The Randstad region, composed of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the Hague and Utrecht, has adopted collaborative policies amongst the cities to ensure cohesive flood control within the region. It is a prime example of an effective multi-scalar policy based approach to address relevant waterfront issues.
6
Softening The Edge: Developing America’s Urban Waterfronts In The Era Of Climate Change
A Future For Waterfront Cities ! In The Era Of Climate Change?!
!
In a utopian world, there would be a single solution to mitigating climate change. This would entail an end to the underlying cause, green house gas emissions. However, as scientists conclude that irreversible damage has already been done, cities must address the repercussions unique to each. As evident with the trying efforts of the United Nation’s Kyoto Protocol, the reality of approaching a global, yet national, policy to address these issues in a time-sensitive manner is highly unrealistic. Because of the urgency involved with these issues, time is of the essence when deriving solutions. Therefore, it seems the best chance for near-term climate change reaction is dependent on local politics to drive regional standards which over time can hopefully inspire consensus to collectively share responsibility for the environmental damage. We must development new policies to fix the former, the fundamental attributors to climate change.!
surges, fundamentally protecting the vitality and assets of the city. Wheres planning for sustainable futures utilising soft infrastructure is practically endemic to the waterfront culture of Scandinavian countries, this fairly foreign model of development will be a challenge to adopt with America’s contrasting mentality until there is a precedent to ensure the risk is warranted and successful. Although still in it's early stages of development, New York’s strategic vision for the Big “U” could become this new resilient model for America as well as inspire an international renaissance for resilient urban waterfronts.
!
Additionally, public funding alone cannot sustain the measures needed to transition America’s former waterfront infrastructure to a softer edge which allows controlled flooding. In the same respect, soft infrastructure needs to receive the same priority that governance gives hard infrastructure in terms of policy and funding. As seen in the contrasting developments of New York and Miami, this will be no easy feat. Innovation in policy to attract private sector funding, such as Flood Development Corporations, will be critical to ensuring projects receive the finances needed to be realised. One universal, yet simple message needs to be emphasised: without an effective and resilient waterfront edge, the vitality and associated economic and social value of waterfront development linked to the surrounding city is jeopardised. As seen in the proposals put forth for New York City, soft infrastructure not only provides a feasible solution to protect the economic investment of the city but can become a public realm that links the city to the waterfront, enhance the natural and aquatic ecology, provide sustainable job opportunities, as well as serve as an amenity to attract future investment. The value in long-term planning needs to be adopted; America can no longer afford to live in the moment.!
!
Waterfronts have a critical role in addressing climate change as edge infrastructure physically serves as the first line of defence in associated events such as sea level rise and rising storm
Figure 16. London’s Mayor Boris Johnson’s support for floating luxury homes in the Royal Docks is a classic example of political leadership favouring market driven development to the demands of the region. Meanwhile, proposals (featured below) for a greener, more resilient, and publicly accessible waterfront go ignored.
Figure 17. Entry for Royal Docks Green Design competition by Baharash Architecture featuring soft infrastructure to create a pedestrian boulevard. Sponsored by Ecobuild + Landscape Institute with questionable support by the Mayor of London and Newham Council. Perhaps in the near future, these soft infrastructure development models will become realities and not just competition winning pipeline visions.
7
Softening The Edge: Developing America’s Urban Waterfronts In The Era Of Climate Change
Bibliography!
!! ! ! !
Benedict, M. and McMahon, E. (2006). Green Infrastructure. Washington: Island Press.! Bergdoll, B. (2011). Rising Currents. New York: Museum of Modern Art.! Bjarke Ingels Group, (2013). The Big “U”. [ePDF] New York: BIG, p.12. Available at: http:// www.rebuildbydesign.org/project/big-team-final-proposal/#details [Accessed 17 Feb. 2015].! Chester, M. (2015). Urban water fronts have typically been sites of heavy development and often are sites of pollution or exclusive access. But they have enormous potential benefits. How can we unlock these benefits for everyone? Are there ecological vs. social vs. economic tradeoffs? The Nature of Cities. [online] Available at: http://www.thenatureofcities.com [Accessed 25 Jan. 2015].!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Desfor, G. (2011). Transforming Urban Waterfronts. New York: Routledge.! Feuer, A. (2015). After Hurricane Sandy, New York Rebuilds for the Future. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/nyregion/after-hurricane-sandy-new-york-rebuilds-for-the-future.html?_r=1 [Accessed 21 Feb. 2015].! Gastil, R. (2002). Beyond The Edge. New York, N.Y.: Princeton Architectural Press.! Ingles, B. (2015). Hot to Cold [Lecture to AA School]. Architectural Association, 4 Mar. 2015.! Kates, R., Colten, C., Laska, S. and Leatherman, S. (2006). Reconstruction of New Orleans After Hurricane Katrina: A Research Perspective. [online] Available at: http://rwkates.org/pdfs/a2006.03.pdf [Accessed 17 Feb. 2015].! Malone, P. (1996). City, Capital, and Water. London: Routledge.! Marshall, A. (2013). The $5.9 Billion Question [online] Metropolis. Available at: http://www.metropolismag.com/ February-2013/The-5.9-Billion-Question/ [Accessed 29 Mar. 2015].! Marshall, R. (2001). Waterfronts in Post Industrial Cities. London: Spon Press.! Meyer, H. (1999). City and Port. Utrecht: International Books.! National Resources Defense Council (2015). Water Pollution Facts, Effects of Water Pollution, Clean Water Act | NRDC. [online] Available at: http://www.nrdc.org/water/ [Accessed 21 Feb. 2015].! Nordenson, G., Seavitt Nordenson, C. and Yarinsky, A. (2010). On the Water. Ostifidern: Hatje Cantz.! Paquette, D. (2015). Miami’s Climate Catch-22: Building Waterfront Condos to Pay for Protection Against the Rising Sea. [online] Washington Post. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/ 2014/12/22/miamis-climate-catch-22-building-luxury-condos-to-pay-for-protection-against-the-rising-sea/ [Accessed 21 Feb. 2015].!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Peter Hall. Waterfronts: A New Urban Frontier. (1991) Working Paper 538. University of California at Berkeley. p. 2-3.! Raptopoulos, L. (2014). "Are We Safe? Of Course We're Not." A Climate Scientist on Preparing NYC for Future Sandys. [online] the Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/05/climate-scientistklaus-jacob-warning-new-york-city-hurricane-sandy [Accessed 1 Feb. 2015].! Schleifstein, M. (2011). New Orleans Levees Get a Near-failing Grade in New Corps Rating System. [online] NOLA.com. Available at: http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/08/ new_orleans_levees_get_a_near-.html [Accessed 23 Feb. 2015].! Schwartz, J. (2012). Vast Defenses Now Shielding New Orleans. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: http:// www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/us/vast-defenses-now-shielding-new-orleans.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 [Accessed 23 Feb. 2015].! Smith, H. and Garcia Ferrari, M. (2012). Waterfront Regeneration. Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Earthscan.! The Rockefeller Foundation, (2014). HUD Announces Winning Proposals for the “Rebuild By Design” Competition. The Rockefeller Foundation. [online] Rockefellerfoundation.org. Available at: http:// www.rockefellerfoundation.org/newsroom/hud-announces-winning-proposals-from [Accessed 22 Feb. 2015].! United Nations, (2015). Kyoto Protocol. [online] UNFCC.int. Available at: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/ 2830.php [Accessed 22 Feb. 2015].!
8
Softening The Edge: Developing America’s Urban Waterfronts In The Era Of Climate Change
Figure Credits!
!
Figure 1.! Sykes, C. (2012) The Hudson River swells and rises over the banks of the Hoboken, N.J. waterfront as Hurricane Sandy approaches [reprographic digital photograph] Available at: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/ 02382/sandy-no-skateboar_2382923k.jpg [Accessed 05 Feb. 2015].!
!
Figure 2.! Yamanaka, T. (2011) Water breeches a sea wall in Miyako City, Iwate [reprographic digital photograph] Jiji Press. Available at:http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/before-and-after-interactives-show-tsunami-ravaged-japansrecovery-one-year-on/story-e6freuy9-1226295051613 [Accessed 08 Feb. 2015].!
!
Figure 3.! Hanai, T. (2011) The seawall today [reprographic digital photograph] Reuters. Available at:http://www.ibuzzer.net/ 2012/03/tsunami-then-and-now/ [Accessed 08 Feb. 2015].!
! !
Figure 4.! Palasik, A. (2014) Flood walls in London’s Royal Docks [digital photograph].! Figure 5.! Ryan, D. (2013) Pier 4 developers have proposed using special flood barriers to protect new buildings [reprographic digital photograph] The Boston Globe. Available at:http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/ 2013/08/03/water-threatening-waterfront-development/b4eCLXFdwk5d8hUHcYdIeI/story.html [Accessed 20 Feb. 2015].!
!
Figure 6.! Office of Metropolitan Architecture. Concepts for HUD’s Rebuild by Design [digital rendering] Available at:http:// www.designboom.com/architecture/rebuild-by-design-shortlist-includes-big-oma-west-8 [Accessed 12 Mar. 2015].!
!
Figure 7.! KCAP Architects + Planners. Coastline redevelopment with mixed waterfront activities [digital rendering] Available at: http://www.kcap.eu/en/projects/v/bao_an_coastal_city/ [Accessed 20 Feb. 2015].!
!
Figure 8.! Map of Manhattan’s waterfront landfill development from 1650 to 1980 [rendered! map] Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2342297/Manhattans-original-coastline-revealedHurricane-Sandy-flooded-land-reclaimed-400-years.html [Accessed 20 Feb. 2015].!
!
Figure 9.! Postcard of New York’s New Amsterdam, dated 1910 . Concepts for HUD’s Rebuild by Design [reprographic illustrated postcard] Available at: https://ephemeralnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/ fortamsterdampostcard.jpg/[Accessed 12 Mar. 2015].!
!
Figure 10.! Bjarke Ingles Group (2013) The harbor berm [digital rendering] Available at: http://www.big.dk/#projects-hud [Accessed 10 Feb. 2015].!
!
Figure 11.! Bjarke Ingles Group (2013) Harbor berm: Harbor Middle School and reverse aquarium [digital rendering] Available at: http://www.big.dk/#projects-hud [Accessed 10 Feb. 2015].!
!
Figure 12.! Bjarke Ingles Group (2013) The bridging berm: New topography and vistas over park [digital rendering] Available at: http://www.big.dk/#projects-hud [Accessed 10 Feb. 2015].!
!
Figure 13.! Bjarke Ingles Group (2013) Flip-down deployable: A new band of public art space along the waterfront [digital rendering] Available at: http://www.big.dk/#projects-hud [Accessed 10 Feb. 2015].!
!
Figure 14.! Bjarke Ingles Group (2013) Flip-down deployable: Panels deployed in space prior to storm [digital rendering] Available at: http://www.big.dk/#projects-hud [Accessed 10 Feb. 2015].!
!!
9
Softening The Edge: Developing America’s Urban Waterfronts In The Era Of Climate Change
Figure 15.! Miami: the world’s #1 economic loser to sea-level rise [reprographic digital photograph] Available at: http:// belovedplanet.com/tag/sea-level-rise/ [Accessed 12 Mar. 2015].
!
Figure 16.! Greater London Authority (2014) Plans have been unveiled for Britain's first 'floating village' in the old industrial heart of east London [digital rendering] Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2702773/Luxuryfloating-village-set-built-Londons-Docklands-featuring-high-end-homes-restaurants-ice-rink.html [Accessed 2 Feb. 2015].!
!
Figure 17.! Baharash Architecture (2014) Royal Docks Ecobuild competition: Highly commended - Water Boulevards [digital rendering] Available at: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/winner-announced-in-ecobuild-royal-docks-contest/ 5067022.article [Accessed 2 Feb. 2015].!
!!
10
Softening The Edge: Developing America’s Urban Waterfronts In The Era Of Climate Change
Appendix! The Big “U” Concept for A More Resilient New York Waterfront
Reference:! Bjarke Ingles Group (2013) The Big “U” [digital rendering] Rebuild by Design. Available at: http:// www.rebuildbydesign.org/project/the-big-u/ [Accessed 10 Feb. 2015].
The Big “U” Concept for A More Resilient New York Waterfront
Reference:! Bjarke Ingles Group (2013) The Big “U” [digital rendering] Rebuild by Design. Available at: http:// www.rebuildbydesign.org/project/the-big-u/ [Accessed 10 Feb. 2015].
11