matt perotto
COLLECTION OF WORK what is landscape architecture?
PRODUCTIVE LANDSCAPE COMMUNITY DESIGN PHASING STRATEGY CONNECTIONS AND ACCESSIBILITY RESOURCE FEEDBACK LOOPS ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION URBAN AGRICULTURE TREE CULTIVATION SEDIMENT REMEDIATION SEWAGE BIOREMEDIATION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FLOODPLAIN PROGRAM PARAMETRIC COMPUTATION
The emergent themes within the following pages are representative of a reoccuring methodology in my research based design explorations, and professional work - the desire to question the scale and scope of the landscape architecture discipline in order to explore innovative, and evocative methods and processes of creating a sustainable future through the medium of landscape.
what is landscape architecture?
LANDSCAPE AS INFRASTRUCTURE 06
decoding water recoding urbanism
16
vertical metabolism
performance based research 16
green roof innovation & testing lab
LANDSCAPE AS REGENERATION 24
tRee generation
30
in Flux
LANDSCAPE AS URBANISM 36
uc merced 2020
42
the river runs through it
LANDSCAPE AS EXPERIENCE 50
east & west
68
view hamilton
COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED STATES
Wyoming
decoding water // recoding urbanism UPPER BASIN
Colorado
Utah
New Mexico
LOWER BASIN
Arizona
MLA 3b graduate thesis independent design process 2015 (jan-apr) 15 weeks research 2014 (sep-dec) 15 weeks
Decoding water recoding urbanism explores the cultural and morphologic relationships between urban development and water metabolism within the Phoenix Metropolitan Area in the face of climate change and water scarcity. Decoding water recoding urbanism investigates various alternative urban typologies for the region, proposing that environmental context and sustainable water management must be paramount considerations in developing urban form and community. The project investigates parametric computation as a tool to integrate environmental and infrastructural research within the design process of landscapes and urban form, and combines data and research from typically disjunct environmental and water related systems from private, municipal, state, and federal sources. Through this research based design exploration, various models of water sustainability and decentralized system design are evaluated, exposing opportunities for conservation, treatment, and reuse directly within the urban fabric of the existing and future communities. By developing new archetypical relationships between waterintegrated urban form and multi-scalar landscape infrastructures, Decoding water recoding urbanism proposes a new typology of urbanism for the 21st century, adaptively redesigning the existing City from directly within the City.
6
Nevada
LANDSCAPE AS INFRASTRUCTURE decoding water recoding urbanism
California
ARIZONA
Mexico
township: 6 mi. x 6 mi. section: 1 mi. x 1 mi. quarter: 1/2 mi. x 1/2 mi. quarter-quarter: 1/4 mi. x 1/4 mi.
PUBLIC LAND SURVEY GEOMETRIC PARTITION RESIDENTIAL single family low
single family med
single family med
single family high
town homes
apartment & condo
RECREATION
AGRICULTURE
COMMERCIAL & INDUST
golf & development
radial crop cultivation
office complex
golf
strip crop cultivation
processing
Colorado River shortages will have major impacts on the water supply to Central Arizona over the next 15 years, with the majority of cutbacks impacting the Greater Phoenix Region by nearly 33% of its current Colorado River supply. Over this same duration, the region is expecting an increase in population by as much as 2.7 million people from its current 4.3 million, dramatically increasing the residential demand on water. The urrent plan is one of conservation and mitigation, as it seeks to grand junction in demand, by offset the future shortage in supply and growth removing agricultural and ground water recharge allocations.
1653 km2
provo
UTAH
19% NEVADA LAND USE DISTRIBUTION
land to be developed
LAND AREA
commercial
developed land
148km2
138 km2
CALIFORNIA 173m3/s/year
multi-unit residential
NEVADA 12m3/s/year
COLORADO
single family residential
ARIZONA 110m3/s/year
1% 2m3/s/year
ARIZONA
11% 32m3/s/year
67m3/s/year
UTAH
NEW MEXICO
150m3/s/year
COLORADO
23%
40m3/s/year
14%
52%
high density
WYOMING
COLORADO RIVER WATER COMPACT ALLOCATION
low density
medium density
GROUND WATER
AN IMPROBABLE FUTURE
SURFACE WATER
COLORADO RIVER WATER
Flaming George Dam
salt lake city
st george
state trust developable
groundwater water bodies
3473 km2
watersheds
las vegas
MUNICIPAL
2960 km2
Glen Canyon Dam
major rivers
INDUSTRIAL
POTABLE WATER USE
60%
4%
37%
private developable
Hover Dam
hydrologic infrastructure major cities
santa fe
flagstaff
Davis Dam
SEWAGE TREAMENT
CALIFORNIA
albuquergue
ARIZONA
SATELLITE RECLAMATION
dam location
NEW MEXICO
Parker Dam PHOENIX METROPOLITAN AREA
los angeles riverside
Theodore Roosevelt Dam
oceanside
Imperial Dam
san luis rio colorado
INDIAN
AGRICULTURE
CIVIC
MUNICIPAL
OUTPUT INDUSTRIAL
U. MEXS.A ICO
IRRIGATION
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
tucson
NUCLEAR
tijuana
mexicali
TRES RIOS AND SALT RIVER
san diego
POTABLE DISTRIBUTION
IRRIGATION DISTRIBUTION
01 acquisition
01 acquisition
02 conveyance
02 conveyance
03 water filtration
03 conveyance: laterals
04 conveyance: pipe
04 conveyance: sub laterals
05 end use
Surface canals acting as the highest order of hydrological conveyance infrastructure provide the public with a unique opportunity to experience the hydrological systems that keep the city operating.
colorado river water surface water groundwater filtration plant major dams
05 end use
In addition to the various municipalities that make up the Region, and the private infrastructural companies that own, operate and maintain the canal infrastructures, there are a number of agencies that regulate and ensure the adequate supply of water to different areas of the region, called irrigation and conservation districts.
colorado river water surface water groundwater aquifers agricultural lands wells
8
WASTE COLLECTION + RECLAMATION
STORMWATER COLLECTION + MANAGEMENT
01 generation
01 rainfall
02 conveyance: sewer
02 defensive structure
03 sewage treatment
03 conveyance: storm pipe
04 conveyance: canal
04 conveyance: storm canal
05 end use
A culture exists already to extract and treat liquids from the regional sewage system to a reclaimed quality suitable for the irrigation of various uses, but on an insignificant scale. In many instances sewage is conveyed +50miles prior to treatment
sewage reclaimed 05 conveyance: river sewage treatment plant reclamation plant civic irrigation
Currently stormwater is considered a liability rather than an asset or opportunity to capture and reuse. The approach is to control and deflect, rather than integrate new uses with flooding water, and has resulted in an elaborate system of infrastructure that is required only once or twice a year.
surface water 100m floodzone
14873 m2 (9%) 52 m3pd (67%)
926 Lpd (33%)
Toilet
Other
Faucet
624 Lpd (67% of indoor use) Leaks
Unit Grey Potential
Bath
12 Lpd (1%)
1800 Lpd (67%)
Unit Indoor
10 Lpd (1%)
60 Lpd (6%)
26 m3pd (33%) 18 m3pd (67% of indoor use)
Unit Outdoor
Shower
Total Grey Potential
urban sanitary sewer
Dishes
Total Outdoor Total Indoor
DISCOVERING RELATIONSHIPS urban freshwater
160 Lpd (17%)
93 people
Lot Coverage
150 Lpd (16%)
Population
130 Lpd (14%)
6 people per hectare
Clothes
SINGLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY
226 Lpd (24%)
PARAMETRIC SCRIPTING 178 Lpd (19%)
URBAN FORM & WATER USE
sanitary out massing decentralized treatment
FEEDS THE SYSTEM agriculture
10
206 Lpd (25%)
115 m3pd (37%)
896 m3pd (100%)
Other
Leaks
Faucet
12 Lpd (1%)
8 Lpd (1%)
Bath
Dishes
Faucet
Toilet
Other
Faucet
Leaks
Shower
12 Lpd (2%)
Bath
815 Lpd (100%) 526 Lpd (68% of indoor use)
Dishes
0 Lpd (0%)
8 Lpd (1%)
618 m3pd (68.9% of indoor use) 23 Lpd (3%)
Total Grey Potential
Leaks
Shower
Toilet 206 Lpd (25%)
178 Lpd (22%)
0 Lpd (0%)
Total Indoor
155 Lpd (19%)
21317 m2 (13%)
132 Lpd (16%)
2970 people
Lot Coverage
101 Lpd (12%)
Population
Clothes
505 Lpd (67% of indoor use)
183 people per hectare
Unit Grey Potential
Shower
751 Lpd (68%)
15 Lpd (2%)
350 Lpd (32%)
Unit Indoor Unit Grey Potential
Other
217 m3pd (67% of indoor use)
Unit Outdoor
Unit Outdoor
Clothes
Toilet 195 Lpd (26%)
322 m3pd (68%)
Total Grey Potential
Unit Indoor
165 Lpd (22%)
150 m3pd (32%)
Total Indoor
130 Lpd (17%)
38108 m2 (24%)
Total Outdoor
125 Lpd (17%)
1196 people
Lot Coverage
101 Lpd (13%)
74 people per hectare Population
12 Lpd (2%)
815 Lpd (37%) 526 Lpd (68% of indoor use)
Bath
1347 Lpd (63%)
Unit Indoor Unit Grey Potential
Dishes
Unit Outdoor
8 Lpd (1%)
79 m3pd (68% of indoor use) 23 Lpd (3%)
Total Grey Potential
Total Outdoor
178 Lpd (22%)
150 m3pd (63%)
Total Indoor
101 Lpd (12%)
35425 m2 (22%)
Total Outdoor
132 Lpd (16%)
409 people
Lot Coverage
155 Lpd (19%)
25 people per hectare Population
Clothes
POTABLE DISTRIBUTION
POTABLE DISTRIBUTION
POTABLE DISTRIBUTION
WATER REUSE POTENTIAL A) grey water reuse within development B) purple water irrigation at adjacent agriculture C) recycled water out - to some other reuse...
ALLOCATING DENISTY
A-01 implications on module
A-02 split massing
A-03 secondary access (increase variability & flexibility)
DISCOVERING RELATIONSHIPS - there are a number of assumed consistent, conceptual inputs (water), fixed elements (building massing/ density), and outputs (waste and sewage) within each quarter-quarter land parcel that makes up the metro region. The project proposes forging new feedback relationships between these elements by considering decentralized ecological-based sewage treatment to regenerate fresh water directly within the land parcel.
A-04 anchor the corners
A-05 refine massing
ALLOCATING DENSITY - once the overarching feedback loop concept has been identified and the associated physical elements understood, the question becomes what happens with that reclaimed, treated water which otherwise would have entered the regional sanitary system. Three alternatives are considered; 1) it is reused within the building massing, reducing the volume of imported fresh water; 2) it is used for decentralized, local agriculture; 3) it contributes to new rivers.
A-06 reintegrate modular components
AGGREGATING AS SYSTEM - Once a conceptual framework for the organization of the elements is developed for the individual quarter-quarter parcel, one begins to ponder where the water might flow in scenario #3. By locating DWRU parcels adjacent to one another, they have the potential to create a new hydrological and ecological network. Program within each parcel then is organized and consolidated by its relationship within the new individual hydrological-ecological network.
AGGREGATING AS SYSTEM B-04 (zone1) restrict agriculture to optimal surface area
B-07 vary density based on openspace program and hydrology allocation E
RE
R TU UL
IC
R AG
TU UL
IC
NE
R AG
2
N
O
TI EA
ZO
CR RE NE
3
GY
LO
ZO
B-05 refine hydrologic system
B-08 density implications on volume RE
E UR
T UL
TU UL
IC
IC
NE
R AG
2
N
O
TI EA
ZO
CR RE NE
GY
3
LO
ZO
SP AC E
B-09 urban and streetscape program
IT Y
B-06 develop openspace typology
EN
B-03 establish zones (3 hierarchies of program tied to hydrology)
O EC
N
GY
2
ZO
IT Y M
TU UL
IC
R AG
N
O
TI EA
CR RE NE
ZO
+
NE
LO
O EC
CO
ZO
M UN
RE
CR RE
+
TI EA
3
AM
O
NE
RE TA IL
R AG
IV E
B-02 flow = volumetric
O EC
AC T
B-01 propogate corridor
GY
1
LO
O EC
ZONE 1 CULTIVATION
ZONE 2 RECREATION
ZONE 3 ECOLOGY
Zone 3 - Cultivation
Zone 2 - Recreation
Zone 1 - Ecology
100 people per hectare
120 people per hectare
Population
1619 people
Lot Coverage Total Outdoor
Total Outdoor 265 m3pd (100%)
Total Grey
132 m3pd (50% of indoor use)
Total Potable
132 m3pd (50% of indoor use)
Total Sewage Produced
Total OUTPUT
Total Potable
158 m3pd (50% of indoor use)
132 m3pd (50% of indoor use)
To Agriculture
66 m3pd (50% of total output)
To Agriculture
To Corridor
66 m3pd (50% of total output)
To Corridor
Total Grey
219 m3pd (50% of indoor use)
Total Potable
219 m3pd (50% of indoor use) 370 m3pd (100% of indoor use)
Wetland Area
158 m3pd (50% of indoor use)
7409 m2
Total OUTPUT
0 m3pd (0% of total output)
219 m3pd (50% of indoor use)
To Agriculture
158 m3pd (100% of total output)
0 m3pd (0% of total output)
To Corridor
mid density urban massing low density urban massing
370 m3pd (100%)
Total Sewage Produced
6346 m2
Total OUTPUT
0 m3pd (0%)
Total Indoor
317 m3pd (100% of indoor use)
Wetland Area
16551 m2 (10%)
Total Outdoor
317 m3pd (100%) 158 m3pd (50% of indoor use)
2267 people
Lot Coverage
0 m3pd (0%)
Total Grey
Total Sewage Produced 5293 m2
Population
18210 m2 (12%)
Total Indoor
265 m3pd (100% of indoor use)
Wetland Area
1943 people
Lot Coverage
0 m3pd (0%)
Total Indoor
140 people per hectare
Population
17542 m2 (11%)
219 m3pd (100% of total output)
high density urban massing
streetscape activation (retail +)
streetscape activation (retail +)
subsurface garage
subsurface garage
agriculture flexible recreation
wild habitat wetlands
wetlands
subsurface waste treatment wetlands
sub surface waste treatment
stormwater
sewage
potable water
underground parking
12
04 connect
05 variate
01 designation
02 activate
03 integrate
04 hierarchy
05 variate
secondary pathways
03 shape
dry terrestrial habitat
02 activate
dry terrestrial habitat
05 designation
agriculture
05 variate
agricultural area drains into river
04 re-orient
headwaters of hydrologic system
03 densify
facilitate connections to existing greenspace
02 optimize
semi-private space
double loaded varying unit size condo units
01 designation
sewage treating wetland
sub surface waste treatment
stormwater
main sewage
main potable water
underground parking double loaded varying unit size condo units
path meets with existing roadway
400m / 5min walk
78 URBAN CORRIDORS HOST 3.45 MILLION ADDITIONAL PEOPLE USING 10% WATER OF THE CONVENTIONAL SINGLE FAMILY URBAN TYPOLOGY, & PRODUCING $100M CROPS ANNUALLY
800m / 10min walk
FROM THAT SAME WATER
Decoding Water// Recoding Urbanism proposes adaptively redesigning a new typology for the Greater Phoenix Region, using the quarterquarter PLSS parcel as the module for a scalared sustainable redesign methodology. Through parametric computation 78 potential corridors (made up from a multitude of adjacent quarterquarter modules) were identified and redeveloped. Through this process, water is treated as a valued and respected commodity, while making reclaimed water a central focus for designing urban form and landscape spaces.
ZONE 1 CULTIVATION
400m / 5min walk
800m / 10min walk
ZONE 2 RECREATION ZONE 3 ECOLOGY
dp3m 8682
dp3m 6572
dp3m 0952
dp3m 8852
dp3m 6552
dp3m 8352
dp3m 9842
dp3m 6242
dp3m 3232
dp3m 5612
dp3m 3612
dp3m 0312
dp3m 8112
dp3m 3791
dp3m 8012
dp3m 5191
dp3m 3091
dp3m 0781
dp3m 0181
dp3m 5971
dp3m 8771
dp3m 9571
dp3m 9471
dp3m 9861
dp3m 0361
dp3m 1061
dp3m 7551
dp3m 8051
LANDSCAPE AS INFRASTRUCTURE decoding water recoding urbanism
dp3m 0941
dp3m 8541
dp3m 4131
dp3m 9821
dp3m 2221
dp3m 8911
dp3m 0911
dp3m 7801
dp3m 0701
dp3m 5601
dp3m 0201
dp3m 789
dp3m 089
dp3m 4101
dp3m 759
dp3m 639
dp3m 709
dp3m 698
dp3m 198
dp3m 668
dp3m 547
dp3m 737
dp3m 127
dp3m 417
dp3m 775
14
In addition to redefining the possibilities of relationships between urbanism and water use/ consumption, the developed urban typology of the module and its larger confounded corridor system creates a starkly contrasting system that juxtaposes the existing city in both built form and landscape experience and interaction. Each of the 78 corridors identified not only promotes water sustainability, and optimization within the individual modules of the corridor itself, but also creates urban scaled, optimization and performance efficiency by further closing the loop between input and output, connecting its overall hydological output with the urban infrastructural systems which provide the inputs for the rest of the region.
INDIAN
AGRICULTURE
CIVIC
MUNICIPAL
SATELLITE RECLAMATION
INDUSTRIAL
SEWAGE TREATMENT
DECENTRALIZED TREATMENT
OUTPUT GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
TRES RIOS AND SALT RIVER
NUCLEAR
dp3m 6596
dp3m 7906
dp3m 7665
dp3m 6545
dp3m 1245
dp3m 8305
dp3m 5294
dp3m 1984
dp3m 3034
dp3m 1914
dp3m 9293
dp3m 7383
dp3m 7773
dp3m 3963
dp3m 0553
dp3m 8443
dp3m 5133
dp3m 7023
dp3m 5613
dp3m 2313
dp3m 0013
dp3m 3903
dp3m 6703
dp3m 0703
dp3m 7103
IRRIGATION MUNICIPAL
INDUSTRIAL
POTABLE WATER USE
GROUND WATER
SURFACE WATER
COLORADO RIVER WATER
VERTICAL METABOLISM
vectorworks design scholarship in landscape architecture (2015) MLA 3a option studio independent 2014 (oct-dec) 12 weeks
Vertical metabolism finds criticism in the flows of resources in the contemporary city and challenges the need for regional scaled resource management. It critically examines the relatively recent phenomenon of vertical habitation and proposes a reconfiguration and reimagination of sustainable infrastructure and productive landscapes that support urban life in ways that take advantage of this opportunity of vertical habitation. Vertical metabolism images a theoretical future for the City of Toronto in the 22nd century developed through a new typology of infrastructurally guided urbanization. It proposes a dynamic and flexible phasing strategy that allows for incremental integration within the existing urban fabric of the City, and provides a new methodology for the further intensification of Toronto’s downtown core. Vertical metabolism sets the stage for a new, sustainable future of infrastructurally guided urbanism. By considering vertical space as a venue for new implementable performative landscapes, avant-guarde relationships between habitation, and decentralized resource production and consumption become possible while the reuse and recycling of resources through ecological processes develop new experiential and sociocultural experiences within the City.
16
LANDSCAPE AS INFRASTRUCTURE vertical metabolism
4 factors contribute to the identification and selection of potential implementation sites throughout the downtown core - vacant space, proximity to adjacent vacant space, adjacent aaging building stock, and proximity to existing main/ trunk infrastructure
PHASE 1 plant infrastructure SEWAGE liquid waste bio-waste agriculture
water treatment centre
WATER greywater freshwater stormwater
PEOPLE social programming office parklands
Building 1 daily sewage = 106.03m3 treatment area = 1060.3m2 daily water = 96.81m3 daily grey water = 9.22m3
Building 2 daily sewage = 130.16m3 treatment area = 1361.6m2 daily water = 124.32m3 daily grey water = 11.84m3
community ammenties
offices of Vertical Metabolism
sewage treatment centre
Building 1 footprint = 375m2 floors = 43 gfa = 16125m2 occupants = 461
Building 2 footprint = 450m2 floors = 46 gfa = 20700m2 occupants = 592
18
PHASE 2 grow program SEWAGE liquid waste bio-waste agriculture
WATER
water treatment centre
greywater freshwater stormwater
PEOPLE social programming office parklands
water treatment Building 1 daily sewage = 106.03m3 treatment area = 1060.3m2 daily water = 96.81m3 daily grey water = 9.22m3
Building 2 daily sewage = 130.16m3 treatment area = 1361.6m2 daily water = 124.32m3 daily grey water = 11.84m3
Building 3 daily sewage = 48.76m3 treatment area = 487.6m2 daily water = 44.52m3 daily grey water = 4.24m3
community ammenties
community ammenties offices of Vertical Metabolism agricultural production
Building 4 daily sewage = 136.16m3 treatment area = 1361.6m2 daily water = 124.32m3 daily grey water = 11.84m3 soil production Building 5 daily sewage = 106.03m3 treatment area = 1060.3m2 daily water = 96.81m3 daily grey water = 9.22m3 sewage treatment centre Building 6 daily sewage = 78.89m3 treatment area = 788.9m2 daily water = 72.03m3 daily grey water = 6.86m3
sewage treatment
educational program (infrastructual focused social program) Building 1 footprint = 375m2 floors = 43 gfa = 16125m2 occupants = 461
Building 2 footprint = 450m2 floors = 46 gfa = 20700m2 occupants = 592
Building 3 footprint = 200m2 floors = 37 gfa = 7400m2 occupants = 212
Building 4 footprint = 450m2 floors = 46 gfa = 20700m2 occupants = 592
Building 5 footprint = 375m2 floors = 43 gfa = 16125m2 occupants = 461 Building 6 footprint = 300m2 floors = 40 gfa = 12000m2 occupants = 343
PHASE 3 closing the loop SEWAGE liquid waste bio-waste agriculture
water treatment centre
WATER greywater freshwater stormwater
PEOPLE social programming office parklands + water treatment
water treatment Building 1 daily sewage = 106.03m3 treatment area = 1060.3m2 daily water = 96.81m3 daily grey water = 9.22m3
+ community ammenties Building 2 daily sewage = 130.16m3 treatment area = 1361.6m2 daily water = 124.32m3 daily grey water = 11.84m3
community ammenties community
Building 3 daily sewage = 48.76m3 treatment area = 487.6m2 daily water = 44.52m3 daily grey water = 4.24m3
ammenties offices of Vertical Metabolism agricultural production
Building 4 daily sewage = 136.16m3 treatment area = 1361.6m2 daily water = 124.32m3 daily grey water = 11.84m3
+ agricultural production soil production
Building 5 daily sewage = 106.03m3 treatment area = 1060.3m2 daily water = 96.81m3 daily grey water = 9.22m3
+ soil production
sewage treatment centre Building 6 daily sewage = 78.89m3 treatment area = 788.9m2 daily water = 72.03m3 daily grey water = 6.86m3
sewage treatment
Building 7 daily sewage = 56.35m3 treatment area = 563.5m2 daily water = 51.45m3 daily grey water = 4.9m3
Building 8 daily sewage = 136.16m3 treatment area = 1361.6m2 daily water = 124.32m3 daily grey water = 11.84m3
+ sewage treatment
educational program (infrastructual focused social program) Building 1 footprint = 375m2 floors = 43 gfa = 16125m2 occupants = 461
Building 2 footprint = 450m2 floors = 46 gfa = 20700m2 occupants = 592
Building 3 footprint = 200m2 floors = 37 gfa = 7400m2 occupants = 212
Building 4 footprint = 450m2 floors = 46 gfa = 20700m2 occupants = 592
20
Building 5 footprint = 375m2 floors = 43 gfa = 16125m2 occupants = 461 Building 6 footprint = 300m2 floors = 40 gfa = 12000m2 occupants = 343
Building 7 footprint = 225m2 floors = 38 gfa =8550m2 occupants = 245 Building 8 footprint = 450m2 floors = 46 gfa =20700m2 occupants = 592
VERTICAL METABOLISM In an age where governments at the municipal, provincial, and federal level, are all starting to acknowledge the role that density plays in supporting all realms of healthy, sustainable living, intensification of urban regions is dramatically increasing. Whilst this architectural trend is clearly visible in our contemporary city-scapes, the response by landscape architects and urban designers has been fairly mundane in comparison, resticting the vertical dimension to just green roofs and mid-to-roof top terraces. Vertical Metablism looks to change this phenomenon through the lense of resource consumption, treatment, and reuse in the development of vertically stacked, and vertically relating infrastructural landscapes. The city-scape of the future will no longer be confined to the traditional ground plane, and our understanding and interaction with resource consumption comes full circle in the process.
BUILT FORM VS NFRASTRUCTURE massing (above floor 2)
massing (floor 1 & 2)
massing (subgrade)
infrastructure (above floor 2)
infrastructure (floor 1 & 2)
infrastructure (subgrade)
22
The proposal was first conceptualized through a series of mapping exercises which looked to document those urban infrastructural systems inhabitats of the city typically dont visually see or interact with, and how they have evolved over the past 200 years since the original establishment of the City of Toronto. It became imediately clear that many systems (santary sewage for example) which once were separated (small scale) and tangible, quickly became networked due to system efficiencies and intangible to the urban dweller. Spatial patterns of resource movement also dramatically changed from site/ local scale (or perhaps reliant on streams), to regional urban networks. Once the vertical plane was factored into the study, the shame and form of these resource-movement maps starkly changed from complex webs, to pure vertical lines - posing the quesion, what would happen if we utilized these new heights to find compatible resource feedback relationships? LANDSCAPE AS INFRASTRUCTURE vertical metabolism
24
University of Toronto gritlab graduate research assistant 2013, 14, 15 (may-sep) 16 weeks (each summer) RCI conference presentation
Throughout the summer terms of my Graduate Studies, I worked as a Research Assistant at the Green Roof Innovation and Testing Laboratory (GRIT Lab) at the University of Toronto, Daniels Faculty. This experience provided me with a unique exposure to many aspects of sustainable city building practices, including the construction, maintenance, and performance of green roofs and solar photovoltaic systems, as well as the underlying technological infrastructures that keep the research lab operating on a daily basis. These newly emerging sustainable technologies lie at an interesting intersection between the achitecture, landscape, environmental, and engineering disciplines.
Working at the GRIT Lab provided me with the opportunity to interface with academics and professionals within each field to generate wholistic analytical findings. Daily tasks included: • coding new auto-generated data analysis systems • the installation, maintenance, and programming of sensors within the data aquisition system • industrial design, product modeling, and fabrication of various instruments • co-development of reports on preliminary research findings • litterature review and contribution to peer reviewed publications • conference presentations on research methodology & findings
26 LANDSCAPE AS INFRASTRUCTURE gritlab 13-08-28 23:00
13-08-28 22:00
13-08-28 21:00
13-08-28 20:00
13-08-28 19:00
13-08-28 18:00
13-08-28 17:00
13-08-28 16:00
13-08-28 15:00
13-08-28 14:00
13-08-28 13:00
13-08-28 12:00
13-08-28 11:00
13-08-28 10:00
13-08-28 9:00
13-08-29 23:00
(CLOUD COVER)
13-08-29 22:00
13-08-29 21:00
13-08-29 20:00
13-08-29 19:00
13-08-29 18:00
13-08-29 17:00
13-08-29 16:00
13-08-29 15:00
13-08-29 14:00
13-08-29 13:00
13-08-29 12:00
13-08-29 11:00
13-08-29 10:00
13-08-29 9:00
13-08-29 8:00
13-08-29 7:00
13-08-29 6:00
13-08-29 5:00
13-08-29 4:00
13-08-29 3:00
13-08-29 2:00
13-08-29 1:00
13-08-29 0:00
1W
1C
2W
2C
2E
3W
3C
3E
4W
4C
5W
5C
6C
6E
7W
7C
7E
8W
8C
8E
9W
9E
10C
11C
11E
Air Temperature
Solar Radiation
OPEN DOOR TORONTO
Over the past decade of development in Toronto, City bylaws have mandated that new buildings require green roofs, while context specific research dedicated to understanding the performance of green roofs in the City was limited. Every year the GRIT Lab opens its doors to the public during Open Door Toronto. These moments mark an important interface where the people can learn about the various ways green roofs are collectively acting to capture and slow the release of stormwater into the city system, mitigate the urban heat island effect, and increase urban bio diversity.
28
LANDSCAPE AS INFRASTRUCTURE gritlab
North Toronto Treatment Plant Brickworks Rail Line
OPPORTUNITY
tRee generation Climax Maple and Beech Forest (Crothers Woods Trail Management Strategy, 2007)
PRESERVATION
MLA 2b core studio independent 2014 (mar-apr) 6 weeks
During the evening of December 22nd 2013, the City of Toronto suffered one of the most environmentally harmful storm events in recent history. Ice as thick as 4cm coated every surface in the City, causing irreparable damage to 2,000,000 of Toronto’s 10,000,000 trees (20% of the urban forest). In response, the city has set an ambitious target of replanting 150,000 trees annually over the upcoming years in the hopes of restoring the urban canopy. tRee generation seeks to find unique opportunities to help the City achieve this goal by developing a new methodology for the production and distribution of trees from directly within the heart of the City. tRee generation fundamentally changes the City of Toronto’s relationship with the by-product of its regionalized sewage treatment system and dredge from the Don River, and creates an opportunity to use these currently discarded resources as a new source of high nutrient soil, creating a direct benefit for the City. tRee generation not only offers a local and cost effective alternative to producing new urban tree stock, but it also proposes re-using an existing, abandoned industrial rail line for the transportation of cultivated trees directly to various sites of ecological regeneration, thus minimizing the scale of infrastructural intervention and transportation costs, while making public participation in the ecological restoration process more attainable. Through careful design, the treefarm is designed to act as a massive recreational and educational facility whilst remaining fully operational throughout the year.
30
LANDSCAPE AS REGENERATION tRee generation
Nutrient rich soil blending Rainwater harvesting Greenhouse container nursery Tree farm
PRODUCTION
Concentrated programmatic hub Gateway nodes
PROGRAM
All systems exposed, connecting the forest with the farm, and the city with the Don Valley
CONNECT
Leaside transmission substation
Leaside Community
North Toronto Sewage Treatment Plant production c
adaptive reuse of Lawblaws
the HUB
production a
programmatic follies
production b
Broadview North Community
CROTHERS WOODS
the don valley parkway the don river
The site of Crothers Woods offers the ideal opportunity to explore beneficial potentials for the confluence of natural urban ecology with needed tree cultivation direction within the City confines. Numbers existing conditions make the site ideal for a tree nursery including hydrologic resources (The Don River, and the North Toronto Sewage Treatment Plant), Rail infrastructure for inter-urban material transport, and an existing wearhouse structure to host a new conference-convention, and science-research center.
Amelanchier canadensis
Service Berry
Carpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam
Robinia pseudoacacia
Black Locust
Betula papyrifera
White Birch
Populus tremuloides
Trembling Aspen
Pinus strobus
White Pine
Fagus gradifolia
American Beech
Gleditsia tricanthos
Honey Locust
Tsuga canadensis
Eastern Hemlock
Acer saccarinum L
Silver Maple
Acer negundo
Manitoba Maple
Thuja occidentalis
Eastern White Cedar
Fraxinus nigra
Black Ash
Populus balsamifera
Balsam Poplar
Larix laricina
Tamarak
Betula alleghaniesis
Yellow Birch
Plantanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Tree
Salix fragilis
Crack Willow
Black Willow
Salix nigra
Juniperus virginiana
Eastern Red Cedar
Crataegus mollis
Red Hawthorn
Quersus velutina
Black Oak
Celtis occidentalis
Hackberry
Bur Oak
Quersus macrocarpa
Quercus rubra
Red Oak
Quercus alba
White Oak
Picea glauca
White Spruce
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
Acer saccharum
Sugar Maple
picea pungens
Colorado Blue Spruce
Tilia americana
American Basswood
Acer nigrum
Black Maple Height at sale (m) Max height (m)
3.7 23
3.6 22
3.3 20
3.3 20
3 18
2.7 16
2.7 16
2.5 15
2.2 13
1.7 10
1.7 10
1.5 9
0.8 5
5 30
4.2 25
3 18
3 18
2.7 16
2.5 15
2.5 15
1.8 11
1.8 11
1.7 10
3 18
2.8 17
2.8 17
2.8 17
2.7 16
2.7 16
2.5 15
2.5 15
0.8 5
0.8 5
Spacing in plantation
2.1x1.6
2.1x1.6
2.0x1.5
2.0x1.5
1.8x1.4
1.7x1.3
1.7x1.3
1.7x1.3
1.7x1.3
1.5x1.1
1.5x1.1
1.5x1.1
1.2x0.9
2.4x1.8
2.3x1.7
1.8x1.4
1.8x1.4
1.7x1.3
1.7x1.3
1.7x1.3
1.5x1.1
1.5x1.1
1.5x1.1
1.8x1.4
1.8x1.4
1.8x1.4
1.8x1.4
1.7x1.3
1.7x1.3
1.7x1.3
1.7x1.3
1.2x0.9
1.2x0.9
Total trees Trees per harvest
826 413
755 378
942 471
1079 540
1286 643
1430 715
1448 724
1458 729
1126 563
1125 563
986 493
848 424
984 492
559 280
550 275
842 421
993 497
1013 507
966 483
909 455
956 478
886 443
824 412
465 233
810 405
1088 544
1180 590
1429 715
1571 786
1598 799
1637 819
1345 773
2095 1048
Soil per tree (m3) Soil per harvest (m3)
0.45 185.85
0.45 169.88
0.41 193.11
0.41 221.2
0.34 218.62
0.3 214.5
0.3 217.2
0.3 218.7
0.3 168.9
0.22 123.75
0.22 108.46
0.22 93.28
0.15 73.8
0.58 162.11
0.53 145.75
0.34 143.14
0.34 168.81
0.3 151.95
0.3 144.9
0.3 136.35
0.22 105.16
0.22 97.46
0.22 90.64
0.34 79.05
0.34 137.7
0.34 184.96
0.34 200.6
0.3 214.35
0.3 235.65
0.3 239.7
0.3 245.55
0.15 100.88
0.15 157.13
7.01 1500.52
7.81 1671.58
8.95 1914.69
8.96 1916.89
8.74 1869.32
8.85 1892.85
8.91 1905.92
6.88 1471.93
5.13 1097.97
4.5 962.31
3.87 827.63
2.94 628.6
6.67 1428.4
5.94 1272.02
5.86 1255.07
6.92 1480.15
6.19 1324.21
5.9 1262.77
5.55 1188.26
4.36 933.03
4.04 864.72
3.76 804.2
3.24 693.12
5.64 1207.37
7.58 1621.75
8.22 1758.89
8.73 1868.01
9.6 2053.64
10 2139.91
9.76 2088.93
4.89 1045.75
6.25 1338.33
YEAR 1
Water per day (m3) 7.67 Water per season (m3) 1641.63
January February March April May June July August September October
YEAR 2
November December January February March April May June July August September October
YEAR 3
November December January February March April May June July August September October
YEAR 4
November December January February March April May June July August September October
YEAR 5
November December January February March April June July
August September October
32
YEAR 1
November December January February March April
Treated water outflow into Don River
North Toronto Treatment Plant
Adaptive reuse of an existing wearhouse structure combined with new high-tech sustainable developments comprise “the Hub�. The buildings face inward to a plaza where mature specimens of all tree species cultivated in the nursery are on display amongst a series of reflecting pools and seating elements. The buildings host research labs, conference areas, and market spaces, and allow for multi-seasonal programing (such as skating in the winter). Sustainable resource production meets education, meets recreation at the Hub. Primary treatment settling plant
Pedestrian lookout point
Restaurant and cafe
Tree species showcase
Water feature / skating rink
Rainwater storage tank
Green roofs
July
Tree storage
June
Loading platform
May
Administration facility
April
Greenhouses
March
Soil mixing facility
February
Brickworks rail line
January
Multipurpose slope corridor
December
Leaside rail yard
YEAR 6
November
Office space
October
Adaptive reuse flex market space
September
Pedestrian lookout point
August
Vehicle access to North Toronto Treatment Plant
May
MBER
AUGUST
JULY
JUNE
MAY
APRIL
MARCH
FEBRUARY
JANUARY
tree farm Soil Wholesale
Public Sales
OPERATIONS TREE HARVESTING ACCESS PUBLIC PROGRAM
Cottonwood Flats - cycle A
Treatment Plant - cycle A
Cottonwood Flats - cycle B
Treatement Plant - cycle B
existing established climax forest Yogapolooza
pedestrian
Wingfest
Labour Day
TIFF Screenings
Machine + Irrigation existing Established Climax Forest
YEAR 1
Sun Valley - cycle A
New Years Fireworks
Winterlicious
Ice Sculpural Festival
YEAR 2 Valentines Day Dinner
Family Day Festival
Canadian Music Week
YEAR 3 St Patricks Day
Spring Break
World Landscape Architecture Month Conference
Good Friday Service
YEAR 4
Sun Valley - cycle B
Annual Arborist Conference
Contact Photography Festival
Victoria Day
YEAR 5
Jazz Festival
Ribfest
Canada Day
YEAR 6
Police Dog Day
the hub
Open SkatingSkating
Nature and Heritage Hikes
Public Movies
MARKETS
Community Barbeques
Seed Trade
Garden
ART
Food
Professional Galleries and Exhibits
FLEX FORUMS
Public Art
Rentable Event Space
Corperate Team Building (retreats)
Job Fairs
HABITAT TRACKING
Conferences
Butterfly Counting Program
Bird Courting Program
PUBLIC EDUCATION Photo Monitoring Program
Summer Camps
School Field Trips
Tree Education Classes
Arborist School (professional)
Guided Tours (green roofs)
MAINTENANCE
Guided Tours (tree farm)
Snow Removal (programattic hub)
Ice Removal (Don River)
Debris Removal (Don River)
Aquatic Habitat Monitoring (Don River)
SALES
Invasive Removal (climax forests)
Terrestrial Habitat Monitoring (climax forests)
WATER
City of Toronto
Pumped Water (North Toronto Treatment Plant)
SOIL
Rainwater Collection (at program hub)
Nutrient Rich Soil Production
Sediment Delivery
Biowaste Delivery (North Toronto Treatment Plant)
Green Roof Community Volunteers
Tree Farm Community Volunteers
Container Nursery (greenhouses)
Tree Farm Opperations (outdoors)
TREE
ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT
INPUTS
Subsurface conveyance
Surface conveyance ≈ 1200m3 added flood storage 5 YEAR FLOOD
5 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 1200m3 added flood storage
34 Greenhouse 212m3
Tree farm 2139.91m3
INPUTS
Tree farm 2139.91m3
tRee generation provides an opportunity to produce both native, and resilient locally grown trees, in a uniquely efficient and cost effective manor directly within Toronto’s downtown. Transplant to tree farm production
Output to City
Outputs
SOILSOIL FLOWS FLOWS
5349.09m35349.09m3 total soil required per harvest cycle (avg) total soil required per harvest cycle (avg)
OUTPUTS OUTPUTS INPUTS
Sediment Inputs + Biowaste Mixing Facility Sediment + Biowaste Mixing Facility
Outputs
WATER FLOWS
2351.91m3 total irrigation required per growing season
WATER FLOWS OUTPUTS 5 YEAR FLOOD
≈ 1200m3 added flood storage FLOOD FLOWS
5 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 1200m3 added flood storage
25 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 6300m3 added flood storage
25 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 6300m3 added flood storage Tree farm 2139.91m3
Output to City
Tree farm 2139.91m3
Inputs
Greenhouse 212m3
Transplant to tree farm production
Greenhouse 212m3
Dreged Sediment from Don River 5250m3 per year
Tree farm 4823.09m3
INPUTS
Sediment + Biowaste Mixing Facility Sediment + Biowaste Mixing Facility
WATER FLOWS WATER FLOWS 2351.91m3 total irrigation required per growing season
5 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 1200m3 added flood storage
FLOOD FLOWS
required per growing season INPUTS 2351.91m3 total irrigation OUTPUTS OUTPUTS
5 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 1200m3 added flood storage
Subsurface storage tank (25000m3 capacity)
SubsurfaceSurface conveyance conveyance Subsurface storage tank (25000m3 capacity)
Surface conveyance Subsurface conveyance
Outputs
FLOOD FLOWS
25 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 6300m3 added flood storage 25 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 6300m3 added flood storage
2351.91m3 total irrigation required per growing season
OUTPUTS
Subsurface storage tank (25000m3 capacity)
Subsurface storage tank (25000m3 capacity)
Subsurface conveyance Surface conveyance
FLOOD FLOWS
100 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 12400m3 added flood storage
FLOOD FLOWS
100 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 12400m3 added flood storage
LANDSCAPE AS REGENERATION tRee generation 100 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 12400m3 added flood storage
100 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 12400m3 added flood storage
Tree farm 2139.91m3
OutputsFLOWS WATER
36009 total trees at any one time 5349.09m3 total soil required per harvest cycle (avg) 2351.91m3 total irrigation required per growing season
INPUTS and OUTPUTS INPUTS INPUTS
Greenhouse 212m3
Outputs
Retail Sale 650.91m3
Greenhouse 526m3
Tree farm 4823.09m3
Retail Sale 650.91m3
Greenhouse 526m3
Dreged Sediment from Don River 5250m3 per year
Cot 84 42
(City of
Tree farm 4823.09m3
Cottonwood Flats 8498 total trees 4249 each harvest
Treatment Plant 13218 total trees 6609 each harvest
Dreged Sediment from Don River 5250m3 per year
Inputs
Output to City
Tree farm 2139.91m3
OUTPUTS 2351.91m3 total irrigation required per growing season
Rainwater Collection at Programmatic Hub possible 13182.6m3 per season (market roof and parking lot = combined 20760m2 surface area
SOIL FLOWS OUTPUTS
WATER FLOWS
with toronto avg ofRainwater 635mm of rainfall annually) (Government Collection at Programmatic Hub of Canada, 2014) possible 13182.6m3 per season (market roof and parking lot = combined 20760m2 surface area with toronto avg of 635mm of rainfall annually) (Government of Canada, 2014)
Treatment Plant 13218 total trees 6609 each harvest
Sediment + Biowaste Mixing Facility
Transplant to tree farm production
Greenhouse 212m3
SOIL FLOWS total soil = 6000m3 750m3 biowaste produced perproduced year (City of Toronto, North Toronto Treatement Plant, 2014) at a ratio of 1:8 biowaste/ sediment mixture total soil produced = 6000m3
TREE FLOWS Output to City
Possible input from North Toronto Treatment Plant to fill deficit in drought
Possible input from North Toronto Treatment Plant to fill deficit in drought
Tree farm 4823.09m3
Greenhouse 526m3 Greenhouse 526m3
Retail Sale 650.91m3 Retail Sale 650.91m3
5349.09m3 total soil required per harvest cycle (avg)
750m3 biowaste produced per year (City of Toronto, North Toronto Treatement Plant, 2014) at a ratio of 1:8 biowaste/ sediment mixture
INPUTS
Dreged Sediment from Don River 5250m3 per year
Sun Valley 14294 total trees 7147 each harvest Sun Valley 14294 total trees 7147 each harvest
36009 total trees at any one time
possible 13182.6m3 per season (market roof and parking lot = combined 20760m2 surface area with toronto avg of 635mm of rainfall annually) (Government of Canada, 2014)
Greenhouse container production
Rainwater Collection at Programmatic Hub possible 13182.6m3 per season (market roof and parking lot = combined 20760m2 surface area with toronto avg of 635mm of rainfall annually) (Government of Canada,Hub 2014) Rainwater Collection at Programmatic
Cottonwood Flats 8498 total trees 4249 each harvest Cottonwood Flats 8498 total trees 4249 each harvest
INPUTS and OUTPUTS
Possible input from North Toronto Treatment Plant to fill deficit in drought
Treatment Plant 13218 total trees 6609 each harvest Treatment Plant 13218 total trees 6609 each harvest
TREE FLOWS
Possible input from North Toronto Treatment Plant to fill deficit in drought
(City of Toronto, North Toronto Treatement Plant, 2014) at a ratio of 1:8 biowaste/ sediment mixture total soil produced = 6000m3
750m3 biowaste produced per year (City of Toronto, North Toronto Treatement Plant, 2014) at a ratio of 1:8 biowaste/ sediment mixture totalbiowaste soil produced = 6000m3 750m3 produced per year
The layering of hydrological, soil, and social programming overlay on the Crothers Woods to create a dynamic and exciting tree nursery in the Don River Valley.
Tree farm 4823.09m3
Tree farm 4823.09m3
Greenhouse 526m3
Greenhouse 526m3
Retail Sale 650.91m3
Retail Sale 650.91m3
Dreged Sediment from Don River 5250m3 per year
Dreged Sediment from Don River 5250m3 per year
INPUTS INPUTS
Greenhouse 212m3
Rainwater Collection at Programmatic Hub possible 13182.6m3 per season (market roof and parking lot = combined 20760m2 surface area
Inputs
with toronto avg of 635mm of rainfall annually) (Government Canada,at2014) Possible input from North Toronto Rainwater of Collection Programmatic Hub possible 13182.6m3 per season Treatment Plant to fill deficit in drought (market roof and parking lot = combined 20760m2 surface area with toronto avg of 635mm of rainfall annually) (Government of Canada, 2014)
Possible input from North Toronto Treatment Plant to fill deficit in drought
Greenhouse container production
Greenhouse container production
Transplant to tree farm production Sediment + Biowaste Mixing Facility
Inputs
OUTPUTS
OUTPUTS
Greenhouse container production Subsurface storage tank (25000m3 capacity)
Inputs
Outputs
SubsurfaceSubsurface conveyance storage tank (25000m3 capacity)
Surface conveyance Subsurface conveyance
FLOOD FLOWS
Surface conveyance
25 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 6300m3 added flood storage 25 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 6300m3 added flood storage 100 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 12400m3 added flood storage
100 YEAR FLOOD ≈ 12400m3 added flood storage
in Flux
3rd place Chrysler Engine Plant international design competition - UD4U (2015) with Megan Esopenko & Rob McIntosh 2015 (aug) 3 weeks
The former Chrysler Engine Plant in Kenosha, Wisconsin is and always has been a dynamic place of change. The site was home to a diverse range of auto production activities and processes for nearly a century; it has seen jobs ebb, flow and disappear; and it has played a central role in shaping and defining what the City of Kenosha is today – for better or for worse. The termination of production on this site has left a barren and toxic void in its wake. With countless jobs lost and lives indisputably changed forever, this former site of production now finds itself with an uncertain future. While the closure of the Chrysler Engine Plant has undoubtedly had a negative impact on those who relied on the site as a source of income and job security, this project seeks to use the closure of the plant as a point of departure from the past and the beginning of a new legacy – one of productivity, environmental resiliency, and community building. By using the remnants of the past as the foundation for the future, this proposal sees the site turned into a renewed space of production, restoration and innovation that is strongly connected to the community that surrounds it. This proposal gives value to what remains of the past and turns what would otherwise be seen as a burden on the site into a resource to build on. The core of in Flux lays in the idea that industrial production, environmental remediation and community activities do not need to be separated; rather, they can be intricately woven together in an innovative and resilient way to form a new typology and model for development that is a fusion of all three.
36
LANDSCAPE AS REGENERATION in Flux
1914 13,513
1902 1,500
1916
sold WWII DOUBLE WASP ENGINE
sold
to Milwaukee
LAKE MICHIGAN
Harbor Park Intra-U
rban R
ail
Kenosha Trolley Loop Washington Park
DOWNTOWN KENOSHA
t
dS
52n
Deco
mmis
Intro-Urb
an Rail
to Chicago
sione
Columbus Park
d Ind
ustria
l Rail
Brass Community School
Corr
idor
Intra
Former Chrysler Engine Plant Site
Chrysler Engine Plant site
-Urb ail
an R
McKinley Elementary School
total decommissioned industrial lands within Kenosha city limits
(within that area), total estimated contaminated lands
30%
2009
20%
CLOSED
HALF MILLION CARS PRODUCED
EACH YEAR
in Flux
% tree coverage within developed area
chicago
kenosha
1960s OVER A
chicago
10%
kenosha
PROFIT
40%
% residents living within 10min walking distance to public park space
SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION meets URBAN PARK
52nd street A. active zone B. play zone c. passive zones d. flex spaces e. market zone
a
b
25th avenue
urban agriculture c
urban agriculture d
urban agriculture
e urban agriculture 30th avenue soil operations along the new inner-park streetcar corridor urban agriculture
urban agriculture
d
soil processing facility
l rai
c
mixed use corridor 60th street
or
d rri
co
SITE ORGANIZATION
historic rail network
built form (operations & mixed use massing)
SITE CIRCULATION
civic program (hierarchy in intensive program along central spine)
automobile
water filtration and conveyance bisecting the cultural spine
pedestrian
light rail (connected urban street car loop)
public education and participation in tree farm programs
SITE OPERATIONS
soil wind rows
water treatment & distribution
tree cultivation
forested zones
urban agriculture
intersections of production & social systems
This design envisions the site as a place of active and passive production, full of programming and public space at its core and anchored to an environmental model that not only forms the basis for the new era of productivity on the site, but also begins to rehabilitate and regenerate this site and others like it.
STRATEGY 01
STRATEGY 02
STRATEGY 03
use the past as the foundation for the future
from single family reliance to multi-faceted resilience
the site as a generator of innovation and development in the community TREES
TREES
FOOD TREES FOOD
OPPORTUNITY
FOOD
OPPORTUNITY
OPPORTUNITY
ENTERTAINMENT ENTERTAINMENT
RESLILIENCE RESLILIENCE
SOIL SOIL
ENTERTAINMENT
COMMUNITY
SOIL
RESLILIENCE
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
JOBS JOBS
FROMTO SINGLE INDUSTRY RELIANCE TO MULTIFACETED RESILIENCE THE SITE AS A GENERATOR THE SITE AS A GENERATOR OF INNOVATION USE THE AS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE FUTURE FROM SINGLE INDUSTRY RELIANCE MULTIFACETED RESILIENCE OF INNOVATION USE THE PAST AS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE PAST FUTURE & DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT THE COMMUNITY FROM SINGLE INDUSTRY RELIANCE TO MULTIFACETED RESILIENCE THE SITE AS IN A GENERATOR OF INNOVATION USE THE PAST AS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE FUTURE & DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY
JOBS
University of California, Merced 5200 North Lake Road Merced, California 95343 (209) 228-4400 RK
PRIMARY WALKWAY
IT
OF
WO
0 LIM
SECONDARY WALKWAY
202
Developer:
T SITE
JEC
TERTIARY WALKWAY
PRO
SHARED USE PATH
Plenary Properties Merced 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 410 Los Angeles, CA 90067
SIDEWALK CROSSING
Contractor:
BIKE LANE (CLASS 1 + 2) Webcor Builders 207 King St., Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94107
ROAD
BINDING EDGE
uc merced 2020
(SERVICE ONLY)
Architect/Engineer:
EXISTING SIDEWALK
THROUGH PLAZA/ COURTYARD TEMPORARY ROUTE
Consultant:
PARKING
Hargreaves Associates 970 Tennessee St. San Francisco, CA 94107
ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES Issued For:
No.: Description:
Date:
IN PROGRESS
17JAN17
STAIRS ACCESSIBLE ROUTE (<5%) ACCESSIBLE ROUTE (>5%) (all non-noted hardscape areas are accessible) RK
IT
0
E
CT
OF
WO
LIM
202
SIT
UC Merced 2020 SITE
OJE
PR
Designated Campus Fire Marshal:
PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK Designated Campus Building Official:
PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK
E
BINDING EDGE
NC
FERE R REONLY
FO Sheet Name:
SITE CIRCULATION & ACCESSIBILITY
TRUE NORTH
PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK
PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK
1
SITE CIRCULATION & ACCESSIBILITY - PHASE 1 SCALE:
1" = 100'-0"
Project No.:
Sheet No.:
Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Scale:
1" = 100'
CIRCULATION & ACCESSIBILITY DURING PHASE 1
University of California, Merced 5200 North Lake Road Merced, California 95343 (209) 228-4400 RK
PRIMARY WALKWAY
IT
OF
WO
0 LIM
SECONDARY WALKWAY
202
Developer:
T SITE
JEC
TERTIARY WALKWAY
PRO
SHARED USE PATH
Plenary Properties Merced 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 410 Los Angeles, CA 90067
SIDEWALK CROSSING
Contractor:
BIKE LANE (CLASS 1 + 2) Webcor Builders 207 King St., Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94107
BINDING EDGE
ROAD (SERVICE ONLY)
Architect/Engineer:
EXISTING SIDEWALK
THROUGH PLAZA/ COURTYARD TEMPORARY ROUTE
Consultant:
PARKING
Hargreaves Associates 970 Tennessee St. San Francisco, CA 94107
ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES Issued For:
No.: Description:
Date:
IN PROGRESS
17JAN17
STAIRS ACCESSIBLE ROUTE (<5%) ACCESSIBLE ROUTE (>5%) (all non-noted hardscape areas are accessible) RK
IT
0
E
OJE
CT
OF
WO
LIM
202
SIT
UC Merced 2020 SITE
PR
In July of 2016, the Plenary Properties Merced proposal team was awarded the UC Merced 2020 Project contract â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Hargreaves Associates provided landscape architectural services for the proposed campus expansion from schematic through to the end of design development, at which time site landscape construction documentation transitioned to a design-build trade partner.
Designated Campus Building Official:
Owner Review:
Interwest Review:
Key Plan:
PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK
SERVICES LOADING BAY
Seal & Signature:
E
NC
FERE R REONLY
FO Sheet Name:
PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK
PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK
SITE CIRCULATION & ACCESSIBILITY
TRUE NORTH
PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK
SITE CIRCULATION & ACCESSIBILITY - PHASE 2 SCALE:
1" = 100'-0"
1
Project No.:
Sheet No.:
Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Scale:
1" = 100'
CIRCULATION & ACCESSIBILITY DURING PHASE 2
University of California, Merced 5200 North Lake Road Merced, California 95343 (209) 228-4400 RK
PRIMARY WALKWAY
IT
OF
WO
0 LIM
SECONDARY WALKWAY
202
Developer:
T SITE
JEC
TERTIARY WALKWAY
PRO
SHARED USE PATH
Plenary Properties Merced 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 410 Los Angeles, CA 90067
SIDEWALK CROSSING
Contractor:
BIKE LANE (CLASS 1 + 2) Webcor Builders 207 King St., Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94107
ROAD (SERVICE ONLY)
Architect/Engineer:
EXISTING SIDEWALK
THROUGH PLAZA/ COURTYARD TEMPORARY ROUTE
Consultant:
PARKING
Hargreaves Associates 970 Tennessee St. San Francisco, CA 94107
ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES Issued For:
No.: Description:
Date:
IN PROGRESS
17JAN17
STAIRS ACCESSIBLE ROUTE (<5%) ACCESSIBLE ROUTE (>5%) (all non-noted hardscape areas are accessible) RK
IT
0
E
OJE
CT
OF
WO
LIM
202
SIT
UC Merced 2020 SITE
PR
Designated Campus Fire Marshal:
PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK Designated Campus Building Official:
PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK
Whilst the UC Merced 2020 campus is situated in the regional context of the flat agricultural plains of the San Joaquin Valley, the site itself is situated on a highly topographic series of rolling hills and bisected by 2 major Irrigation district canals. These topographic transitions extend throughout the site design as an integral component of the campus landscape architecture, seeing groups of buildings sit on large terracing plains, with sculpted slopes of highly geometric landform juxtaposing the primarily arid and native planting palette.
Designated Campus Fire Marshal:
PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK
PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK
masterplan coordination 2017-current
Seal & Signature:
PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK
BINDING EDGE
design-build commission 2016-19 (aug-feb) 18 weeks
PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK
BINDING EDGE
1st place competition 2015-16 (nov-mar) 16 weeks
UC Merced 2020 is the first institutional Private, Public, Partnership (P3) Project in the United States, setting a new precedent for both the funding mechanism and rapid pace of design and construction of large scale institutional developments. Hargreaves Associates was the landscape architect on one of 4 competing teams for the 2020 Project contract, collaborating with architects SOM, Page, Mahlum, and WRNS, engineers Sherwood, and ARUP, and a varied array of associated contractor teams led by Webcor Builders, and developer Plenary.
Key Plan:
Owner Review:
Interwest Review:
BINDING EDGE
Hargreaves Associates University of California Merced
Owner Review:
Interwest Review:
Key Plan:
PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK
Seal & Signature:
E
NC
FERE R REONLY
FO Sheet Name:
PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK
PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK
TRUE NORTH
PROJECT SITE 2020 LIMIT OF WORK
SITE CIRCULATION & ACCESSIBILITY - PHASE 3 (SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETITION) SCALE:
1" = 100'-0"
1
SITE CIRCULATION & ACCESSIBILITY Project No.:
42
LANDSCAPE AS URBANISM uc merced 2020
Sheet No.:
Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Scale:
CIRCULATION & ACCESSIBILITY DURING PHASE 3
1" = 100'
AN ECO-CAMPUS
The campus Masterplan is built from a series of interconnected component parts - quads, plazas, courtyards, walks, and restored natural landscapes - each of which is comprised of native plantings and low water use species which invite the regional biophilia into the heart of campus. Sports facilities line the edge of Cottonwood Meadow and draw close spatial relationships between campus recreation and restored ecology.
UC Merced 2020 Project
03.29.2016
1.5.(b) PLANTING PLAN
LS1(A) PLAZA
LS1(B) COURTYARD
LS2(A) MODIFIED
LS2(B) STREETSCAPE
LS3 PERIMETER
LS4 CENTRAL (P)
LS5 PERIPHERAL (P)
UC Merced 2020 Project LS1(B) LS1(A) PLAZA COURTYARD
03.29.2016LS2(A)
MODIFIED
LS2(B) STREETSCAPE
LS3 PERIMETER
NOT PROPOSED
A critical component to expanding the existing campus open space system is through expanding its current urban forest and tree Acer macrophyllum stock. Our proposal further develops the plant (Big Leaf Maple) palette of the existing campus, prioritizing native species in selection and distribution throughout the proposed campus.
TREE SPECIES & DISTRIBUTION
Cephalanthus occidentalis (California Button Willow)
Cercis occidentalis (California Dogwood)
Bellevue Rd
Artemisia caucascia (Silver Spreader)
Cornus californica (California Dogwood)
Polystichum munitum (Western Sword Fern)
Bellevue Rd
Carpenteria californica (Bush Anemone)
Hesperaloe parviflora (Red Yucca)
Raphiolepis indica spp (Indian Hawthorn)
Bellevue Rd
Alnus rubra (Red Alder)
Woodwardia fimbriata (Giant Chain Fern)
Lavatera assurgentiflora (Tree Mallow)
Rhus integrifolia (Lemonade Berry)
Bellevue Rd
Quercus douglasii (Blue Oak)
Fraxinus dipetala (California Ash)
Polystichum munitum (Western Sword Fern)
Rhamnus californica ‘Eve Case’ (California Coffeeberry)
Rhus glabra (Smooth Sumac)
Bellevue Rd
Quercus lobata (Valley Oak)
Populus fremontii (Fremont Cottonwood)
Arctostaphylos spp Manzanita
Romneya coulteri
Salix Laevigata (Red Willow)
Quercus lobata (Valley Oak)
Matilija Poppy, Salvia spp.
Salix lasiandra (Black Willow)
Salix Laevigata (Red Willow)
Solidago californica (California Goldenrod)
Each building has numerous adjacent waste receptacles, bike racks, and drinking fountain Quercus lobata near its main entrance, (Valleyand Oak) in addition to bike racks, the housing buildings all have external sheltered bike storage structures.
Salix lasiandra (Black Willow)
Teucrium fruticans (Bush Germander)
Various types ofRobinia seating can be found pseudoacacia throughout the campus, through benches, (Purple Robe sloped lawns, and seat walls in various Locust) Courtyards, Academic Quad, Academic Walk, and Town Square.
Sambucus Mexicana (Elderberry)
Teucrium x lucidrys (Germander)
Our design proposal strategically locates californica trees throughout Aesculus the campus, acting both (California Buckeye) aesthetically to bring nature into the campus, and functionally by providing needed shade in large open areas not covered by adjacent buildings. Additionally, trees in central parking areas are situated within the respective Alnus rubra (Red landscape component Alder)with shade coverage as a primary consideration. Shrubs and ground covers have been distributed throughout the campus to restore Carpinus local ecology. Within thebetula hardscape zones, (European native thicket plantings are prioritized both for Hornbeam) distributed storm water infiltration and uptake, as well as for bird nesting opportunities within the Quads, Plazas, and Walks. Fremontodendron Through the restoration of Little Lake, californicum significant effort has beenBush) placed on preserving (Flannel and maintaining existing trees within the tree preservation zone. Those that are removed will be either moved and replanted, or replaced within its immediate proximity. Ginkgo biloba ‘Autumn Gold’ (Ginkgo) UC Merced 2020 Project
03.29.2016
EXISTING PRESERVED TREE
Acer macrophyllum (Big Leaf Maple)
Populus fremontii (Fremont Cottonwood)
Acer macrophyllum (Big Leaf Maple)
Acer macrophyllum (Big Leaf Maple)
Populus fremontii (Fremont Cottonwood)
Quercus macrocarpa (Urban Pinnacle Oak)
Quercus phellos (Willow Oak)
Aesculus californica (California Buckeye)
Quercus douglasii (Blue Oak)
Aesculus californica (California Buckeye)
Acer negundo californicum (California Box Elder)
Quercus lobata (Valley Oak)
Quercus Robur ‘Alba’ (Crimson Spire Oak)
Sambucus Mexicana (Elderberry)
Aesculus californica (California Buckeye)
Quercus lobata (Valley Oak)
Populus fremontii (Fremont Cottonwood)
Salix Laevigata (Red Willow)
Salix lasiandra (Black Willow)
Quercus Alba (White Oak)
Sambucus Mexicana (Elderberry)
Quercus macrocarpa (Urban Pinnacle Oak)
Quercus phellos (Willow Oak)
californica 1.5.(b) Rhamnus (California Coffeeberry) PLANTING SCHEDULE TREES
PROPOSED TREE PROPOSED HEDGE
Platanus racemosa
© Plenary Properties Merced
1” = 500’-0” 0’
250’
500’
750’
1.5.(c) (California Sycamore) OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT AND Vol. 2 - Section 1, p.23 FURNITURE Quercus Alba (White
The preliminary furnishing schedule on the Oak) subsequent pages has been developed with existing campus site furnishings in mind.
FURNITURE TYPES & DISTRIBUTION
Waste receptacles are distributed throughout Tilia cordata the campus and closely located to one another ‘Greenspire’ in high traffic pedestrian spaces. (Greenspire Linden) In addition to waste receptacles, bike racks, and benches can be found at each of the 4 recreation court venues.
SEATWALLS
© Plenary Properties Merced
© Plenary Properties Merced
BENCHES BIKE RACK
Vol. 2 - Section 1, p.24
BIKE STRUCTURE WASTE RECEPTACLE DRINKING FOUNTAIN TREE GRATE
UC Merced 2020 Project TRANSIT SHELTER
03.29.2016
SHADE STRUCTURE FENCE
© Plenary Properties Merced
1” = 500’-0” 0’
250’
500’
750’
1.5.(f)/1.5.(g)/1.5.(h) DRAINAGE AND STORM WATER Vol. 2 - Section 1, p.28 DETENTION AND RETENTION
The Drainage and Storm water system proposed for the 2020 campus further extends the storm water measures within the existing campus into a larger, integrated campus network. These Systems are tied together as a holistic water management system, connected by both the urban hardscape as well as the seasonal flows of water within the existing dry river corridor derived from the North Bowl.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
With close consideration given to the proposed contouring of the site, much of the larger systems of water conveyance are designed for surface flow, making its movement and eventual storage of water in the Cottonwood Meadow visible to campus constituents, while showcasing the ephemeral rain and storm water fluctuations of the Central Valley
NORTH POND
LITTLE LAKE
By seeing the movement of water as a naturally occurring environmental amenity, our proposal for UC Merced 2020 enhances the connection of water both visually and functionally between Little Lake, Cottonwood Meadow and Cottonwood Meadow South, where storm water from Little Lake overflows into a dry meandering swale; the start of a green corridor that bisects the urban campus through its connection with Cottonwood Meadow.
20 ACRE FT
COTTONWOOD MEADOW
COTTONWOOD MEADOW SOUTH
UC Merced 2020 Project
© Plenary Properties Merced
1” = 500’-0” 0’
250’
500’
750’
03.29.2016
1.5.(i) PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN Vol. 2 - Section 1, p.30
Our 2020 proposal was designed to have minimal intervention with the existing topography of the site, and primary consideration was given to the balance of cut and fill within the project boundaries.
TOPOGRAPHY & LANDFORM 240
Thorough consideration was given to the landscape design at a campus holistic level, and strategized to provide an episodic spatial experience as one moves throughout, comprising of a series of varied landscape typologies connecting existing campus with proposed, each with a distinctive character.
225
230
235
By closely considering the flows and movement of water across the proposed 2020 campus, the topography has been graded to prioritize surface water conveyance locally towards planted zones, and towards Cottonwood Meadow on a larger scale, where the proposed contouring interfaces with that of the past golf course preserving the past use as an artifact within the landscape, and accessible by meandering paths amongst native grasses at the eventual masterplan buildout.
255 220 225
250
230 250
235 245
250
250
245
240
225
230
RAMP 8.3% (WITH LANDINGS)
220
230
240
215
One of the two recreational court venues sits perched above the perimeter of the Cottonwood Meadow 100yr 24hr floodline, whilest the second sits below and doubles as flood storage during intensive storm events. The main components of the cycle and pedestrian network run along this north edge, overlooking the meadow ecologies.
220
225
215
230
230
215
230
In a dual effort to provide both cost saving and land use efficiency, the proposed developments achieve a relatively high spatial density, allowing a significant portion of the campus expansion to be set aside as native meadow. These areas operate in a socio-cultural perspective, creating ecological corridors connecting with the existing Campus Little Lake weaving throughout, whilst also functioning as a regional scaled stormwater basin that allows campus constituents to interact with the ephemerality of the local climate, retaining smaller storms in varying enclaves of stepped topography, and inundating various depressed rec court facilities in the 100 year storm.
235
230
225
210
215
225
210
220
3X BASKETBALL 209
220
LITTLE LAKE HWL 215 NWL 213.50
225
2X VOLLEYBALL 209
215
210 215
220
1X COMPETITION FIELD 221
2X RECREATION FIELDS 216
3X BASKETBALL 206.5
235
1X VOLLEYBALL 206.5
RAMP 8.3% (WITH LANDINGS)
1X TENNIS 206.5
205
205
205
215
1X 1X 1X VOLLEYBALL BASKETBALL TENNIS 208 207 207 220
215
Many of the major landscape elements and outdoor spaces throughout the site are designed as a series of large scale plateaus of active and passive spaces that terrace across the site connected through gracefully sloped walks and corridors.
215
230
220
210
225
205
215
215
205
2X TENNIS 208
210
215
WIER 206
205
215
225
220
230
210
Where the plateaus of the Courtyard housing buildings extend south into the basin, sculpted sloped lawns act as a transitional landscape between the geometries of the built form and the ecologies of Cottonwood Meadow. © Plenary Properties Merced
1” = 500’-0” 0’
250’
500’
750’
Vol. 2 - Section 1, p.31
44
LANDSCAPE AS URBANISM uc merced 2020
Bellevue Rd
LS4 CENTRAL (P)
LS5 PERIPHERAL (P)
NOT PROPOSED
NOT PROPOSED
XERIC NATIVE PLANTINGS (in Academic Quad) 0 6" 1'-0" 2'-0"
University of California, Merced 5200 North Lake Road Merced, California 95343 (209) 228-4400
Developer:
Plenary Properties Merced 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 410 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Contractor:
BINDING EDGE
Webcor Builders 207 King St., Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94107 Architect/Engineer:
Consultant:
Hargreaves Associates 970 Tennessee St. San Francisco, CA 94107 Issued For: No.: Description: 1 2
Date:
50% DD 100% DD
21OCT16 17MAR17
UC Merced 2020 SITEWORK Designated Campus Fire Marshal:
Designated Campus Building Official:
Owner Review:
BINDING EDGE
Interwest Review:
Key Plan:
Seal & Signature:
FO
RE EFE R R ONLY
E NC
Sheet Name:
ACADEMIC QUAD ENLARGEMENT PLAN
ACADEMIC QUAD ENLARGEMENT PLAN SCALE:
1" = 200'-0"
1
0
7.5'
15'
30'
TRUE NORTH
Sheet No.:
Project No.: 10715.00 Drawn By:
MP
Checked By:
GM
Approved By: GM Scale:
1" = 15'
U1-L04-01
ECOLOGICAL REVITALIZATION (at Little Lake)
the 2020 Proposal sees the ecological revitalization of the existing Little Lake (a reminant feature of the past golfcourse and the center point of the new campus. throughout the year, its waterlevel is designed to fluxtuate with the seasons, and its reparian ecologies flow down the overflow channel to Cottonwood Meadow
RESTORED LITTLE LAKE RIPARIAN ZONE
POST RELIANCE ON WELL TOP-UP
With some simple grading to emphasize natural declivities, the landscape proposal gathers storm waters and allows them to naturally percolate into the aquifer below. Lake-like in the winter and spring and typically drying out in the summers, Cottonwood Meadow will develop a more complex ecology that reflects the classic watersheds of the central valley. Here the university has an opportunity to grow an ecology lab as the watershed ecology evolves through time. The landscape proposed for UC Merced reflects the site specific qualities of the Central Valley: flatness, dry and wet ecologies, and inhabitants with a dynamic relationship to its production and sustainability. If the campus landscape can extend the resonance of the valley landscape and its inhabitants, in this case the university community, then a truly dynamic and sustainable community will have been created.
46
LANDSCAPE AS URBANISM uc merced 2020
ECOLOGICAL REVITALIZATION (at Cottonwood Meadow)
Swainsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hawk
Burrowing Owl
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp
California Tiger Salamander
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Western Pond Turtle
California Tiger Salamander
WINTER wet season
SPRING flower season
SUMMER DRY SEASON
AUTUMN transition season
YEAR 01
YEAR 02
YEAR 03
YEAR 04
YEAR 05
YEAR 06
YEAR 07
YEAR 08
YEAR 09
YEAR 10
THE
RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT
1852
1882 MLA 2a superstudio independent 2013 (nov-dec) 7 weeks
The river runs through it masterplan for the redesign of Dufferin Mall was the result of a detailed investigation into the anomalies and irregularities in the urban fabric, built form, and topography of Torontos West End. This research led to the discovery of a buried river that once passed through the study site, and defined the extents of past neighbourhoods and historical Parks on its way to Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s waterfront. By daylighting the buried Garrison Creek Ravine Corridor and exposing the current local neighbourhoods to its flows of cleaned water from on-site sewage treatment, residents, and visitors alike are able to celebrate a connection with a long lost geological and ecological artifact that predated the City. The river runs through it provides the necessary facilities for treating the entire up-sewer catchment area supported by the sewer line. Once the water has filtered through the River on site, it can then be sent back into the community to be used as greywater, or rerouted from the existing combined sewer intake, and into the adjacent storm sewer system. Using a combination of sustainably efficient and natural treatment methods, the exposed river corridor becomes the spine to which all proposed development is centered. The River extends up and into the neighbourhood through a network of smaller vegetated strips that collect runoff water, redirecting all stormwater flows into the River. A hybrid building typology was specifically developed to fit the unique conditions of the site. Abundant Live-work programing creates a small community environment yet uniquely supported by the local and regional corridor visitors.
48
LANDSCAPE AS URBANISM the river runs through it
1952
EVOLUTION: CITY (vs?) NATURE 01 pre-colonization ravine
02 ravine as barrier
historic route of ravine
Analyzing historical maps of Toronto tell a uniquely intriguing story. The physical geomorphology of the Toronto landscape was a much different that the way we see it today. The Land was once dominated by a network of ravine corridors carved out by the receding glaciers and the rapid draining of Lake Iroquois some 20000 years ago.
sanitary sewer catchment area
christie pits park
As the City was first settled, and the land was surveyed, the Victorian parcelization paid no attention to the Natural features of the land. As a result many of the smaller ravine corridors (Garrison Creek) were slowly engulfed in development and replaced by sewers. Evidence of the Garrison Corridor can still be seen today in symbolic elevation changes in Christie Pits, and Trinity Bellwoodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Parks.
PROJECT SITE
combined sewer replaced Garison Creek
primary storm sewer
03 culture dominates
THE RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT
e-w trunk lines
CITY (&!) NATURE 04 re-expose
05 re-experience
The North West Branch of Garrison Creek passed directly through what is now Dufferin Grove Park - The river runs through it aims to create a vibrant new community centered around symbolically reconnecting with one of Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s original ravine corridors. This project is meant to act as a catalyst for future similar intervention.
iteration 01 / length: 600m / height: 8m / slope: 1.33%
The implications of daylighting the North West branch of the Garrison Sewer line extend far beyond that of symbolic connections with the cities original landscape. The river runs through it provides a unique approach towards sustainable neighbourhood design by not only fully treating sewage from the proposed development, but it also provides the necessary facilities for treating the entire up-sewer catchment are for the sewer line. iteration 02 / length: 700m / height: 8m / slope: 1.14%
iteration 03 / length: 800m / height: 8m / slope: 1.0%
iteration 04 / length: 1000m / height: 8m / slope: 0.8%
(slope < 0.5% ideal for riparian ecology) iteration 05 / length: 1100m / height: 5m / SLOPE
50
0.45%
LANDSCAPE AS URBANISM the river runs through it
water plaza (headwater treatment facility)
river dynamics critical distance
100 year storm flood storage floodplane the mill
ravine topography integrated within existing context
52 native plantings promote restored habitat
eastern facing livework units stepback for maximum greenroof sun exposure
center heavily planted bioswales
pedestrian only inner streets
retail spill out uses face west evening sun
=
x
(
people
Toronto average water consumption
[210L per person per day]
437.85
City of Toronto, 2012
m3 per day from the city
)
2085 people
x
=
(
Toronto average toilet usage
20L per person per day City of Toronto, 2012
41.7
)
Lake Ontario [untreated outfall] Site Area
= 2085
2085
( ) ( x
[1500m2]
=
+
[0.22km2]
m3 per day
IRRIGATION
residential irrigatable surface
( ) (
75
Toronto average irrigation usage
0.05m3 per m2 per day City of Toronto, 2005
m3 per day
)
people
x
=
(
Toronto average density per km2 City of Toronto, 2012
)
people
Toronto average sewage discharge
[230L per person per day]
500
TREATMENT PROCESS
9490 people per km2
City of Toronto, 2012
)
m3 per day
Total of 1420m3 per day
(
1300 houses + 100 office + 100 retail
)
(
x
3795
City of Toronto, 2011
3795
=
people
Toronto household average density
[2.53 people per household]
(
x
=
[approx 1m3 per minute]
people
Toronto average sewage discharge
[230L per person per day]
900
)
City of Toronto, 2012
(GE) ZEEWEED
)
m3 per day
[from approx 6000 people + ground water seepage]
AVERAGE SEEPAGE FROM ACESS GROUND WATER [RESULT OF GARRISON CREEK]
= 20
SUBGRADE
TOILETS
2000m3 per day MAX 4000m2 below grade Odorless Removes solid waste UV Treatment to secondary levels
m3 per day
TIERED REED BEDS
6000
people
(
x
=
TERTIARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENT [1M2 PER PERSON] Herbert Dreiseitl [recent waterscapes], 2012
6000
)
m2 surface area
REDIRECTION
88.7
m3 per day
STORM WATER
people
)
GREY WATER
2085
City of Toronto, 2012
SURFACE
= 2085
Toronto average density per km2
9490 people per km2
GROUND WATER
+
[0.22km2]
ONSITE SEWAGE
Site Area
CONTEXT CATCHMENT SEWAGE
COMBINED SEWER INPUT
( ) (
GREY WATER
WATER INPUT
surface runoff [flex]
sewage load [constant]
POST INTERVENTION
overlay 100 YEAR STORM
water conveyance
TREATED CITY WATER
circulation
Ashbridges Bay [regional treatment]
Further more, The river runs through it has strategically designed a large floodable flex openspace in the center of the site to create a catchment for surface runoff in storm events, reducing flooding hazard on the adjacent communities.
5 YEAR STORM
Once the water has filtered through the River on site, it is either sent back into the community to be used as greywater, or rerouted from the combined sewer line, and into the storm sewer. Although the reduction of sewage load on Ashbridges Bay may be minuscule, the hope of future developments around the city following this approach would most certainly make a difference.
( ) ( ) River Flow
1420m3
=
-
1331.3
Grey water 88.7m3
m3 per day
community centre splill out program
community education programs
flexible street parking
substantial weight located above structural walls
pedestrian only bioswale inner streetscapes
trellis structure & urban agricultrue
solar panels generate power for live work units
ttc subway station
floodplain flexible openspace
flexible openspace
Bloor Plaza acts as the North Node for Community activity and Program, as well as an iconic entryway into the ravine corridor from Bloor. Its design provides an introduction towards the theme of juxtaposition between hard orthogonal lines characteristic of human development, and the sinuous forms of nature. The Plaza space contains the Tiered Reed Beds that filter sewage once it has reached primary treatment from the sewage plant beneath the plaza.
GFA = 181 300 FAR = 0.82
Residential - 28%
Office - 11%
Commercial - 14%
Community -12%
Live Work - 8%
Institutional - 11%
Parking - 28%
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION
GFA = 144 700 FAR = 0.66
Residential - 34%
Office - 13%
Commercial - 17%
Community - 14%
Live Work - 10%
Institutional - 8%
PROGRAM BY TOTAL %
required - 22000m2 GFA - 36600m2 166%
PARKING
required - 10000m2 GFA - 12600m2 126%
INSTITUTIONAL
required - 10000m2 GFA - 21800m2 218%
COMMUNITY
GFA - 13100m2
LIVE WORK
required - 35000m2 GFA - 25500m2 74%
COMMERCIAL
required - 15000m2 GFA - 19800m2 132%
OFFICE
required - 50000m2 GFA - 51900m2 104%
RESIDENTIAL
PROGRAM BY REQUIRED TARGETS
45 °
EAST
and
WEST
30 °
Hargreaves Associates International Horticulture Exhibition 2019, Beijing education and the future creative garden design concept-design development 2017-18 (oct-jan) 16 weeks construction drawing review-construction observation 2019 -current
Nearly one eighth of the worlds plants (roughly 31,000 species) are native to China, many of which have been exported and cultivated in other similar regions of the world over the past few millennium. This is evident in North America, where a wide variety of the species commonly planted in contemporary parks and public spaces throughout the continent are endemic China. It is this seemingly untold story that EAST AND WEST seeks to explore. The proposed garden is divided into four Site Character Zones that together create an abstraction of global Plant Hardiness Zones. Plant species from a variety of hardiness zones common to both China and the United States are on display in Site Character Zones as representations of the real world, and contribute to a unique experience in each. In The ebb and flow of the subdividing hedge rows create a series of micro spaces within, that allow visitors to engage and interact with the garden in a variety of ways and at their own pace. A hierarchy of pedestrian paths permeate through the garden in a maze-like network. This configuration promotes fluid movement between the more social group viewing areas along the wide formal perimeter walk, with the immersive experience of the smaller paths within. The curvilinear hedge rows gracefully stretch vertically, where the datum created by their sculpturally form raises to allow for archway openings through and between zones.
56
LANDSCAPE AS EXPERIENCE east and west
VIEWS FROM THE EXPO PLAZA
Views from outside vary as visitors walk the perimeter of the site. In most instances, the curvilinear hedge rows only allow for foregrounded viewing (left), however moments of hedge separation and path openings reveal view corridors through the length of the garden (right).
Zone 1 PLAINS & SHRUBLAND
58
LANDSCAPE AS EXPERIENCE east and west
Zone 2 MONTAINE
Zone 3 WILD MEADOW
Zone 4 WETLAND
Each of the four Site Character Zones are defined by sculptural hedge rows, where archway openings allow visitors to explore the contrasting visual character of each zone along a weaving circulation network. In combination with the perimeter formal walk, the garden can be experienced from both outside and within. The terraced elevation of the zones provides an underlying infrastructural function, where stormwater is collected in low-lying wetlands. At the same time, the terracing uniquely engages Expo visitors in the adjacent public spaces through curated views, encouraging an exploration of the garden and the opportunity to learn about how China’s native plant species have influenced public space design in the United States and throughout the world.
45 °
ZONE 01
30 °
HARDINESS
(hardiness < 6)
CHINA
ZONE 03
UNITED STATES 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ZONE 02
(hardiness 6)
(hardiness 7)
10
11
ZONE 04
50° - 40°
40° - 30°
30° - 20°
20° - 10°
10° - 0°
0° - -10°
-10° - -20°
-20° - -30°
-30° - -40°
-40° - -50°
-50° - -60°
(hardiness > 7)
2019 World Horticulture Expo Creative Gardens
EAST AND WEST Landscape Architecture Journal Published: 2018 February Nearly one eighth of the worlds plants (roughly 31,000 unique species) are native to China. Over the past few millennia, many of these species have undergone a global migration from the exportation to - and cultivation in, other similar regions of the world. In this way, many places have an underlying geo-spatial relationship with China regarding prevalent plant species in local urban ecology and public spaces. This is especially true in the United States, where throughout the country a wide variety of the plant species commonly planted in public and private landscapes are native to China. On any given day in San Francisco for example, it is common to see Ginko biloba or Ulmus parvifolia trees shading sidewalks, and Acer palmatum trees, a variety of Syringa shrubs, Cotoneaster groundcovers, and Salvia perennials in parks and openspaces. Designing and implementing landscapes throughout the United States (and internationally) has provided us with a unique insight towards this reoccurring theme, and it is this seemingly untold horticultural story that Hargreaves Associatesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; creative garden EAST AND WEST seeks to explore.
Commonly used to spatially define the geographic areas where individual plant species survive and/or thrive, plant hardiness zones are influenced by factors such as local climate, weather patterns, and height above sea level. After a series of mapping exercises to understand the commonalities between China and the United States it was evident that while China experiences a greater range in tropical extremes, both countries share a similar range in plant hardiness zones, thus allowing for the proliferation of Chinese plants in the United States. The design for the 2030m2 garden plot at the International Horticultural Exhibition 2019, divides the site into four weaving and intersecting â&#x20AC;&#x153;Garden Zonesâ&#x20AC;?, each representing one of these shared hardiness
60
zones. Densely planted topiary hedge rows both separate and define each of the Garden Zones. The curvilinear hedge row geometries signify a micro interpretation of the seemingly free flowing organic nature of the macro hardiness zones in the real world, and their neutral character draws visual emphasis on the environments within. Each Garden Zone is comprised of plantings which represent a small sample of the migrated species from China to the United States, and also grow in the respective plant hardiness zone, creating a visual contrast and a dramatically different experiential character as you move through the design. Within each of the Garden Zones, the planted areas contain three distinct planting elements; bars, clouds, and accents. The bars are comprised of rows of varying widths that are planted with individual shrub and groundcover species; the fine textured clouds contain larger sized shrubs edged with granite curbs; and the accents punctuate the spaces with the largest, individually planted specimen shrubs species. By planting these elements as groups of the same species, each of the Garden Zones display plants native to China in a method that deconstructs one of China’s various ecotypes, while at the same time compositionally maintaining a setting that might also be found in the United States - Zone 1 creates an environment representative of a Plains and Shrubland ecotype, Zone 2 becomes Montane, Zone 3 as Wild Meadows, and Zone 4 as Wetlands. Zone 1’s plains and shrubland is defined by the contrast of the flowing bar species meant to represent the traditional monocultured rows of windbreaks, with the woody green cloud and accent plantings. The varied height and brightly colored linear bars – the violet vertical stature of the Elsholtzia and the dense circular yellow Kerria against the floating white blooms of the Astilbe arendsii ‘Astary’ – draw the eye across the full length of the garden whilst the layering of the foliage-rich clouds and accents plantings both impede and separate to enable such views. Texture and seasonality are brought forth in the plantings of Zone 2, representing the visual character of succulent type species that grow in the rugged environmental conditions of the montane. The dense evergreen Pinus pumila cloud plantings lie amongst the parallel bars of prickly Osmanthus, Pleioblastus, and Sarcococca, juxtaposed by the dark hues of the Ophiopogon planiscapus ‘Nigrescens’s long grassy blades. Sitting above the bars and clouds, the colored foliage of the Loropetalum chinense specimens become the focus, as
61
LANDSCAPE AS EXPERIENCE east and west
if highlighting the natural speckling of hill and mountain slopes. Color and Smell engage the senses of Zone 3 garden explorers. Just as in natural wild meadows, ornamental grasses and wildflowers make up both the bar and cloud planting elements. The monocultured arrangements of the bar and clouds create groupings of single species as if displaying a separation of the individual wild meadow ecotype components. When adjacent to walkways, the groupings of species allow for focused scents like those of the Anemone hupehensis and the touch of the varying sized blooms of the Iris’s against the Thalictrum rochebrunianum, to create a unique source of interaction with the garden. The textures of Zone 4 represent the saturated grasses of tropical humid Wetlands. Spreads of large reeds and sedge type Miscanthus are visible from within the Wild Meadows of Zone 3 and create a sense of curiosity to discover what lies beyond. Viewed from the adjacent Creative Gardens Plaza to the west, the deep red color of the Imperata cylindrica ‘Rubra’ are sprinkled throughout the emergent Carex and Acorus that line the upper wetland shelf. Engaged by this play on color in combination with the textures of the Miscanthus sinensis ‘Zebrinus’, visitors in the Creative Gardens Plaza are encouraged to enter and explore the East and West garden further.
Complimenting the varied planting selection, each of the four Garden Zones terrace in height by 0.15m (approximately the height of one step tread), drawing inspiration from the stepped gradient in elevation above sea level typically experienced among plant hardiness zones globally. The consistent height of the hedge rows creates a unique eyelevel datum that when combined with the stepping topography at the edge of each Garden Zone, provides a feeling of openness to the garden in front and enclosure behind, encouraging a sense of curiosity to explore and discover. Seatwalls adjacent to the hedge rows both retain the terracing topography and provide a consistent
62
seating element along their full length, allowing garden explorers the freedom to find their own place to sit and unwind. The top of the seatwalls are made of lateral wood slats that emphasizes the curvature of the Garden Zones and hedge rows, and sit above a corten steel base of earthy color tones. Segments of the seatwalls have backrests of consistent materials that allow the elderly a comfortable place to relax with friends, family, and loved ones. A hierarchy of paths delineate the various types of accessible spaces and associated experiences within the garden. A wide formalized promenade constructed of granite pavers extends along two sides of the garden perimeter where long wood slat benches lie beneath substantial shade trees. The promenadeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s generous width has a capacity for both large and small groups, creating a forum for socializing while providing vantage points which overlook the terraced layering of the Garden Zones, and create rare moments where view corridors open from between the gracefully curving hedge rows. Within the garden, a network of informal paths made of decomposed granite permeate through the garden, allowing visitors to see, smell, and touch the plantings in a fully interactive experience. At five moments within the garden the seatwalls push downward and the hedge rows stretch vertically upward, breaking away from their consistent eyelevel height, to expose tilted elliptical openings which enable garden goers to move from one Garden Zone to another - an experience as if entering a gateway to another world.
As the sun goes down and the day turns to dusk, landscape lighting illuminates the different planting character elements that uniquely define each Garden Zone. In Zone 1, randomly spaced strip-lights highlight the foliage of the flowering bar plantings from below. In Zone 2â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Montane, the seasonal interest accent plantings are lit by spot up-lights. And in the Wild Meadows of Zone 3, small post-top lights are randomly hidden within the meadow plantings of the clouds, illuminating the grasses and perennials in bloom and creating a sense of walking amongst fireflyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. Much attention has been given to the refinement of details and the distribution of materials throughout the design. In addition to the formal pathway and the cloud planting edging, wide architecturally cut granite slabs
63
LANDSCAPE AS EXPERIENCE east and west
frame the entire garden – a feature only reoccurring within as the single step tread below the hedge openings. Richly colored wood slats form the top of the seatwalls and the linear benches along the garden perimeter, and the rusted corten steel facing beneath each is also repeated below the granite slab frames in their wall condition. In combination with the array of plantings in each Garden Zone, the consistent use of granite, wood, and corten steel creates a unique sense of place and a timelessness like no other.
EAST AND WEST exposes the horticultural relationship between two nations that is most often forgotten, and unknown to many. In this sense, the experience of walking through the garden is intended to evoke not just a new understanding about horticulture, but an unfound freedom to imagine. The garden is for dreamers; you can dream about the garden and the plants within; you can dream about the migration of plants from the East to the West, or the many other ways that the global environment might relate between China and North America; you can dream about your children learning in the garden, or simply enjoying the beauty and fragrances of the flowers in bloom. You can dream while you’re in the garden, and you’ll even dream about the garden once you’ve left. We are excited to share our interpretation of this amazing horticultural phenomenon in our small garden design EAST AND WEST at the International Horticultural Exhibition 2019, and we look forward to experiencing and dreaming with you.
64
Garden Name Design Firm Lead Landscape Architect Size Date Location Garden Plot Design Credit
65
LANDSCAPE AS EXPERIENCE
East and West Hargreaves Associates George Hargreaves 2030m2 September â&#x20AC;&#x201C; December 2017 2019 International Horticultural Expo, Beijing - Yanqing, Beijing Creative Garden D32 George Hargreaves, Matt Perotto, Misty March
PLAINS AND SHRUBLAND (BAR planting as focal)
ACCENTS CLOUDS BAR
Staunton Elsholtzia Elsholtzia stauntonii
Chinese primrose Primula kisoana ‘Alba’
Japanese Kerria Kerria japonica ‘ Pleniflora’
Evergreen Hydrangea Dichroa febrifuga
ZONE 01 (hardiness < 6) (BAR) Wintergreen Barberry Berberis julianae
Seven-Son Flower Heptacodium miconioides
Chinese Sweetshrub Calycanthus raulstonii x ‘Hartlage Wine’
Winterhazel Corylopsis platypetala
ZONE 02 (hardiness 6) (ACCENT) Chinese Witchhazel Hamamelis mollis
ZONE 03 (hardiness 7) (CLOUD)
ZONE 04 (hardiness > 7)
Delavay Privet Ligustrum delavayanum
66
LANDSCAPE AS EXPERIENCE east and west
Chinese Blue Oak Quercus glauca
Chinese Elm Ulmus parvifolia
Helwingia Helwingia chinensis
MONTANE
(ACCENT planting as focal)
Himalayan Sweetbox Sarcococca confusa
Dwarf Whitestripe Bamboo Black Mondo Grass Sweet Olive Pleioblastus variegatus Ophiopogon planiscapus Osmanthus ‘Nigrescens’ heterophyllus ‘Sasaba’
WILD MEADOW
(CLOUD planting as focal)
Dwarf Siberian Pine Pinus pumila
Oriental Arborvitae Thuja orientalis
Thunberg Spirea Spiraea thunbergii
Rhododendron Rhododendron cinnabarinum
Chinese Sage Salvia miltiorrhiza
Blackberry Lily Belamcanda chinensis
The Old Orange Daylily Hemerocallis fulva
Daylily Hemerocallis citrina
Rodgersia Rodgersia pinnata ‘Elegans’
WETLAND Japanese Maple Acer palmatum
Japanese Maple Acer palmatum ‘Ukigumo’
Japanese Lace Siberian Yarrow Achillea sibirica ‘Japanese Lace’
Terrestrial Orchid Bletilla ‘Yokohama Kate’
Chinese Iris Iris tectorum
Japanese Anemone Anemone x hybrida ‘Prince Heinrich’
Wind Flowers Anemone hupehensis ‘Honorine Jobert’
Chinese Meadow Rue Thalictrum rochebrunianum
Chinese fairy bells Disporum cantoniense ‘Night Heron’ Sedge Grass Carex oshimensis ‘Evergold’
Grassy Leaved Sweet Flag Acorus gramineus ‘Variegatus’
Alumn-Olive Elaeagnus umbellata
Golden Sweet Flag Acorus gramineus ‘Ogon’
Chinese Silvergrass Little Miss Maiden Grass Miscanthus sinensis Miscanthus sinensis ‘Little Anderss. Miss’ PPAF
Sweet Flag Acorus gramineus
Chinese Fountaingrass Pennisetum alopecuroides
Waterfall Millet Phaenosperma globosum
Hardy Sugar Cane Saccharum arundinaceum
The EAST AND WEST design creates two distinct types of space that allow for varied interaction with the garden - the wide formal walk provides space for active & social group viewing from the perimeter while the curvi-linear hedge rows create smaller moments of immersive recluse within. Hedge row height is calibrated at eye level, and the terracing of the Site Character Zones allows for a varied datum within the garden.
active & social space immersive recluse seating views over views blocked overlook point
Plants selected for each Site Character Zone are representative of typical plants found in each of the identified hardiness zones shared by China and the United States. Within each zone, three types of formal planting arrangements create a full composition. Visual emphasis is placed one of the tree planting elements, taking precedent from prevalent planting structure within regional ecotypes. Geometric linear ‘bar’ planting forms the underlying structure, and slightly mounded planting ‘clouds’ float above. Small circular sections of accent planting punctuate the space, stimulating the senses and contributing to the differing character between zones.
PATH 1 + 0.30 m
ZONE 1 + 0.30 m
slope down adjacent topography
bar planting
existing grade
cloud planting
ZONE 2 + 0.15 m
accent planting
ZONE 3 + 0.00 m viewlines seatwalls retain elevation difference between zones
ZONE 4 - 0.45 m
1” = 10’ 1:120
Hargreav 315 Bay St San Francisco, CA
2019 World Ho Beiji
Landscape A No 35 Qinghua East Ro Haidian District, Issued For: No.: Description: 1 2 3
HEDGE OPENING & ARMATURE PLANTING INTEGRATION - ELEVATION
CONCEPT DESIGN SCHEMATIC DESIGN PRELIMINARY DESIG
03
EAST AN
D32 CREAT Key Plan:
Registration and Signature:
T NO NST CO Sheet Name:
Details - Pla & Arm Project No.: CHE1701 Drawn By: Checked By:
HEDGE OPENING & ARMATURE - SECTION
02
HEDGE OPENING & ARMATURE - ELEVATION
Approved By:
01
Scale:
MP MP GMc AS NOTED
L-516
MOVING WITHIN
The seatwalls act as both a linear seat extending the length of the garden, as well as the step tread between the differing elevation of adjacent zones. As one element with a dual function, the seatwalls challenge preconceived notions of single use elements as space for sitting or space for walking. The experience of walking through the hedge row archways creates a captivating moment of compression and release and movement across the seatwall contributes to a heightened sensory experience as visitors move from one zone to the next.
H 31 San Fran ℄
OBJ
℄
OBJ
℄
OBJ
2019 W
Land No 35 Qinghua Haidian
℄
OB
J
Issued For: No.: Description: 1 2 3
CONCEPT SCHEMATI PRELIMINA
EAS
D32 C Key Plan:
SEATWALL (WALL-3) - PLAN AT HEDGE OPENING
02
Registration and Sign
N CO Sheet Name:
Det Project No.:
C Drawn By: Checked By:
SEATWALL (WALL-3) - TYPICAL ELEVATION AT HEDGE OPENING
Approved By:
01
Scale:
AS
view hamilton
Hargreaves Associates City of Hamilton design competition for pier 8 promenade park 2015 (jul-aug) 8 weeks
VIEW Hamilton brings together the natural and the manufactured – both central to Hamilton’s socio-cultural identity – to create a vibrant and unique public space along the Hamilton Harbour shoreline. A welcoming and inclusive civic space, VIEW Hamilton celebrates and amplifies these themes, creating a waterfront experience that is authentically Hamilton, serving as a catalyst for the emerging Pier 8 waterfront neighbourhood as well as Hamilton’s on-going urban renaissance.
EASTWOOD PARK
HMCS HAIDA
The Niagara Escarpment and the wetlands and adjacent meadows of the Hamilton Harbour connect the contemporary city with its geologic past. At the human scale, the steel industry has greatly contributed to the economic vitality of the city and its civic identity as the ‘Steel Capital of Canada’. Both of these systems have played a pivotal material role in the morphology of the shoreline which now defines the edge of Pier 8, and the Waterfront Promenade Park. The north section of the park is URBAN, including a series of flexible, open plazas, interspersed with an expansive lawn, wetland and meadow. Materials include stone, steel, and softgrid grass pavers, emphasizing the site’s postindustrial urban character, which is contrasted by views to the woodland shoreline to the north. The east section of the park is WILD, where enclosure and immersion in native woodland plantings offers respite, contrasted to views of the imposing steel factories and Skyway Bridge east across the harbor. 74
LANDSCAPE AS EXPERIENCE view hamilton
PERFORMANCE
GATHERING
JUMP
CLIMB
INFORMAL SPORTS
INFORMAL SPORTS
DOG WALKING
BIKING
RUNNING
WALKING
BOAT MOORING
PICNIC
SUNBATHING
LOOKOUT
WINTER INTEREST
ORNAMENTAL PLANTING
NATIVE PLANTING
INTERPRETIVE ART
TIMELINE REFERENCE
SEATING
TERRACE SEATING
NATURE TRAILS
BIRD WATCHING
WOODLANDS
DOWNTOWN HAMILTON
THE ESCARPMENT
COOTES PARADISE
BAYFRONT PARK
PIER 4 PARK HARBOURWEST MARINA
HARBOUR ROOM PIER 8
PROMENADE WOODLANDS WEDGE LAWN URBAN PLAZA
PIER 8 ESCARPMENT HISTORIC PLAY
WATERFRONT TRAIL PROMENADE LENS WETLAND
UPPER PROMENADE
VISTA GARDENS
SLOPING MEADOW
CIRCULATION
HARDSCAPE TYPOLOGIES
SOFTSCAPE TYPOLOGIES
SUSTAINABLE WATER SYSTEMS
FOREST
MANUFACTURED
VIEW HAMILTON present day
FIRST INHABITANTS
MEADOW & MARSH
ESCARPMENT
BUSINESS
SHIPPING MANUFACTORIES
WOOD WHARF
CREATION OF LANDSCAPE SETTLEMENT CIVIC IDENTITY GEOLOGIC
1791 Dominion of Upper Canada
1908 Eastwood Park Opens
ENVIRONMENTALISM & NEW RENAISSANCE
1970 POP 296,826 1950 City officials deem Hamilton Harbour unfit for for recreation and shut down all beaches
1939 QEW Complete
1910 Steel Company of Canada (STELCO)
1826 first bridge built over Burlington Canal
1792 John Graves Simcoe names bay Burlington Bay (later renamed Hamilton Harbour)
Iroquois Confederacy of Five (later Six) Nations called the bay (Macassa, meaning “beautiful waters”)
PUBLIC ACCESS
1900 POP 51,561
1815 establishment by George Hamilton
1912 Dominion Steel Casting Company (DOFASCO)
1846 Official City Status
1867 CONFEDERATION
1812 War of 1812 and Battle of Stoney Creek
1917 swimming in Harbour health outcry
1870s Iron & Steel industry starts
RESTORATION
ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS
INDUSTRIALIZATION
1800 POP 600 1600 first explorers (Étienne Brûlé & Lasalle)
Lake Iroquis drains to current Lake Ontario & forms Iroqouis Plains
LOSS OF ECOLOGY
EFFICIENCY ESCARPMENT FILL GLOBAL
NATIONAL IDENTITY
COLONIZATION
10,000 BC 10,000 BC end of last glaciation (Quaternary Glaciation & Wisconsin Glacial Episode)
VIEW |HAMILTON past | WATERFRONT present futureHYBRID STEEL FACTORIES RECLAIMING POST-INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION STEEL SHEET PILES
1945-1952 WWII causes spike in industry introduction on heavy pollutants into harbour
1960s economic and industrial boom
2001 hamilton amalgamation
1990s beautification and ecological control underway
1952 current lift bridge built over Burlington Canal (rail) 1958 Burlington Skyway bridge 1 opens
cultural and environmental awareness and connections
2015 Randle Reef Stage 1 begins
1994 visible and measurable water quality improvement in Hamilton Harbour (Sheila Copps harbour swim)
2017 STELCO (US Steel) purchased by Bedrock Industries
1970s Internal Joint Commission Bayfront Park Opens (capped Lax Lands) (governs water usage in Great Lakes Basin) recognize need for action - start of greater public awareness 2007 STELCO files for bankrupcy & purchased by US Steel
1824 Burlington Canal dredged within Harbour created first as navigable waterway
2017 POP 536,917
Waterfront Trail Opens
1980s improved pollution controls
VIEW HAMILTON - Pier 8 as Park
ACROSS HAMILTON HARBOUR
Tall Ship Festivals & expansion of Waterfront events
NATURAL
FOREST
ESCARPMENT (ROCK) LANDSCAPE (NATURE)
WHARFS (ROCK) (WOOD)
INFILL (ROCK) (STEEL)
The Hamilton Harbour shoreline is largely natural and public to the north and west, and a hard, manufactured, and industrial edge to the east and south. These opposing conditions meet in a confluence at Pier 8. VIEW Hamilton frames these spectacular 1867 CONFEDERATION views, while creating a public open space that embodies these two distinct experiences: the URBAN and the WILD 10,000 BC end of last glaciation (Quaternary Glaciation & Wisconsin Glacial Episode)
1600 first explorers (Étienne Brûlé & Lasalle)
1791 Dominion of Upper Canada
1815 establishment by George Hamilton
1826 first bridge built over Burlington Canal
1792 John Graves Simcoe names bay Burlington Bay (later renamed Hamilton Harbour)
Lake Iroquis drains to current Lake Ontario & forms Iroqouis Plains
Iroquois Confederacy of Five (later Six) Nations called the bay (Macassa, meaning “beautiful waters”)
1846 Official City Status
1908 Eastwood Park Opens
1824 Burlington Canal dredged within Harbour created first as navigable waterway
Waterfront Trail 1950 City officials deem 1960s economic and 1980s improved Opens Hamilton Harbour unfit for industrial boom pollution controls cultural and environmental recreation and shut down all 1990s beautification and 2001 hamilton awareness and connections beaches ecological control underway amalgamation 1945-1952 WWII causes 1952 current lift bridge 2015 Randle Reef 1994 visible and measurable water spike in industry built over Burlington Stage 1 begins quality improvement in Hamilton introduction on heavy Canal (rail) 2017 STELCO (US Steel) Harbour (Sheila Copps harbour swim) pollutants into harbour purchased by Bedrock 1958 Burlington Skyway Bayfront Park Opens Industries bridge 1 opens (capped Lax Lands) VIEW HAMILTON Pier 8 as Park 1970s Internal Joint Commission
1939 QEW Complete
1910 Steel Company of Canada (STELCO) 1912 Dominion Steel Casting Company (DOFASCO) 1917 swimming in Harbour health outcry
1812 War of 1812 and Battle of Stoney Creek
21ST CENTURY / POST INDUSTRIAL HYBRID NATURE (GRASSPAVE)
1870s Iron & Steel industry starts
(governs water usage in Great Lakes Basin) recognize need for action - start of greater public awareness
2007 STELCO files for bankrupcy & purchased by US Steel
Tall Ship Festivals & expansion of Waterfront events
6M WID
MOORING BO
ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHT
MANUFACTURED
NATURAL
present day
FIRST INHABITANTS
MEADOW & MARSH
ESCARPMENT
BUSINESS
SHIPPING MANUFACTORIES
WOOD WHARF
CREATION OF LANDSCAPE SETTLEMENT CIVIC IDENTITY GEOLOGIC
Lake Iroquis drains to current Lake Ontario & forms Iroqouis Plains Iroquois Confederacy of Five (later Six) Nations called the bay (Macassa, meaning “beautiful waters”)
EFFICIENCY ESCARPMENT FILL GLOBAL
INDUSTRIALIZATION
1900 POP 51,561
1800 POP 600 1600 first explorers (Étienne Brûlé & Lasalle)
1791 Dominion of Upper Canada
1908 Eastwood Park Opens
1815 establishment by George Hamilton
1792 John Graves Simcoe names bay Burlington Bay (later renamed Hamilton Harbour) 1812 War of 1812 and Battle of Stoney Creek
1824 Burlington Canal dredged within Harbour created first as navigable waterway
1912 Dominion Steel Casting Company (DOFASCO)
1846 Official City Status
1867 CONFEDERATION 1870s Iron & Steel industry starts
PUBLIC ACCESS
ENVIRONMENTALISM & NEW RENAISSANCE
1970 POP 296,826
2017 POP 536,917
Waterfront Trail 1950 City officials deem 1960s economic and 1980s improved Opens Hamilton Harbour unfit for industrial boom pollution controls cultural and environmental recreation and shut down all 1990s beautification and 2001 hamilton awareness and connections beaches ecological control underway amalgamation 1945-1952 WWII causes 1952 current lift bridge 2015 Randle Reef 1994 visible and measurable water spike in industry built over Burlington Stage 1 begins quality improvement in Hamilton introduction on heavy Canal (rail) 2017 STELCO (US Steel) Harbour (Sheila Copps harbour swim) pollutants into harbour purchased by Bedrock 1958 Burlington Skyway Bayfront Park Opens Industries bridge 1 opens (capped Lax Lands) VIEW HAMILTON Pier 8 as Park 1970s Internal Joint Commission
1939 QEW Complete
1910 Steel Company of Canada (STELCO)
1826 first bridge built over Burlington Canal
RESTORATION
ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS
COLONIZATION
10,000 BC 10,000 BC end of last glaciation (Quaternary Glaciation & Wisconsin Glacial Episode)
NATIONAL IDENTITY
POLLUTION STEEL SHEET PILES VIEW HAMILTON STEEL FACTORIES RECLAIMING WATERFRONT POST-INDUSTRIAL HYBRID LOSS OF ECOLOGY
1917 swimming in Harbour health outcry
(governs water usage in Great Lakes Basin) recognize need for action - start of greater public awareness
2007 STELCO files for bankrupcy & purchased by US Steel
Tall Ship Festivals & expansion of Waterfront events
TO BURLINGTON/ TORONTO
TO SKYWAY
HARBOUR ROOM
HISTORIC PLAY
URBAN PLAZA
LENS WETLAND
SLOPING MEADOW
VISTA GARDENS
WEDGE LAWN
UPPER PROMENADE
VIEW TERMINUS PLAZA VIEW TERMINUS PLAZA FUTURE PARK PAVILION
INFORMAL GATHERING SPACE INDUSTRIAL TERRACES
INFORMAL GATHERING SPACE
SECURE BIKE PARKING
SLOPED WALK OPTIONAL VIEW PLAZA
ELECTRICAL SERVICE WITHIN TERRACES FORMAL GATHERING SPACE
PUBLIC ART SHADE STRUCTURE
ALTERNATIVE SHADE STRUCTURE LOCATION
HYDRATION STATION ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING
SLOPED WALK
FUTURE PUBLIC ART
INTERPRETIVE PUBLIC ART SECURE BIKE PARKING
VEHICLE BARRIERS FORMAL GATHERING SPACE
SLOPED WALK
PIER 8 ESCARPMENT
WOODLAND SEATING BENCH
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SPILL-OUT USES
TO SKYWAY
ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING
MOORING BOLLARDS PROMENADE WOODLANDS WOODLAND TERRACES INFORMAL PLAZA
FUTURE GREENWAY
CONNECTIVITY WITH FUTURE GREENWAY WOODLAND SEATING BENCH
The visually juxtaposing character of the urban and the wild is underpinned with thorough consideration for park function in a variety of layers. Accessible routes connect the upper and lower promenades of the park and permeate within its inner spaces, whilst service vehicle and multiuse trail connectivity are shared immediately adjacent to the waterfront edge. Hardscape and softscape landscape types are distributed throughout providing varied opportunities for active engagement and passive enjoyment. Sustainable stormwater systems connect the hard and soft, and the site with the Harbour.
VIEW FROM CITY
JOHN ST. N
VIEW FROM CITY
HUGHSON ST. N
DE MULTI USE TRAIL
OLLARDS
TING
TO STEEL & INDUSTRY
WATERFRONT TRAIL PROMENADE
WOODLAND TERRACES
TO ESCARPMENT WOODLAND SEATING BENCH
HMCS HAIDA
URBAN PLAZA BACKGROUND = Natural (Escarpment) MIDGROUND = Hybrid (Softgrid Paving) FOREGROUND = Manufactured (Urban Plaza)
78
LANDSCAPE AS EXPERIENCE view hamilton
NATURAL & WILD BACKGROUND = Manufactured (Steel Industry) MIDGROUND = Hybrid (Softgrid Paving) FOREGROUND = Natural (Wild Native Ecologies)
A WATERFRONT DICHOTOMY
The northern section is designed to accommodate everyday neighborhood activities, as well as community events and festivals. Large and small events will utilize the plazas and shoreline, zones where vendors can set up tents and ships can dock. The eastern section of the park is a site of respite and natural wonder. Woodlands of native birch and aspen colonize gradually sloping landforms. Seating at the south end of the park provides an experience of enclosure and immersion in the woodlands - a unique front door to the park and waterfront beyond.