University District Alliance Urban Design Framework, Phase III

METROPOLITAN DESIGN CENTER

University District Alliance

URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK PHASE III

Transforming the SEMI into a New Innovation District

New University of Minnesota Innovation Campus

The urge to preserve certain cities, or certain buildings and streets within them, has something in it of the instinct to preserve family records‌ [Cities] are live, changing things-–not hard artifacts in need of prettification and calculated revisions. We need to respect their rhythms and to recognize that the life of the city form must lie loosely somewhere between total control and total freedom of action.

Spiro Kostof The Architect: Chapters on the History of the Profession, 1977

A Special Thanks Funding for this Direct Design Assistance project is provided through generous support from the McKnight Foundation and the Dayton Hudson Endowment.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Sentinels of Memory: Maintaining the Sense of Place in a Landscape of Cultural History

02

Acknowledging the Legacy of Innovation in Minnesota’s Growth Economy

06

Thinking Beyond Property Lines: Land Reorganization and Value Capture in Transforming Post-Industrial Sites

10

Regenerative Site Plan

14

Innovation District - Detail Views

18

APPENDIX Restoring the Site: The Promise of Bio- and Phytoremediation

22

The GD III Graduate Urban Design Studio: Testing Regenerative Principles for the SEMI Area

28

Project Participants

36

References

37

Sentinels of Memory: Maintaining the Sense of Place in a Landscape of Cultural History

The Urban landscape is not a text to be read, but a repository of environmental memories far richer than any verbal code. Working with an inclusive urban landscape history can connect diverse people, places, and communities, without losing a focus on the process of shaping the city.

Dolores Hayden, The Power of Place, 1997 The few buildings and industrial activities that remain today in the southeastern portion of the SEMI district are the surviving structures of what not so long ago was one of Minneapolis’ regional, economic, and industrial powerhouses in the region. Around the turn of the 20th Century, an early industry supported the lumber and flour milling for which Minneapolis became famous. Huge silos and elevator towers stored excess grain and mills processed wheat into flour, barley into malt for beer, and flax into linseed oil for paint products. As mills and railroad transport declined and the population moved out to the suburbs in the mid-20th century, many businesses left the district.

Electric Steel Grain Silos

Over the years, land expansion by the City of Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota has transformed the western portion of the SEMI district. But a major portion of the land is still occupied by the BNSF rail yards that played a vital economic role in transforming the city of Minneapolis along with a few towering silos that stand as sentinels of memories from a previous era. Prior to this early industrial transformation, the landscape of the SEMI district was part of a vast system of hydrologically linked wetlands draining to the Mississippi River by three creeks. Today, fragile remnants of these wetlands are still present and efforts to recover one of its creeks—Bridal Veil — is under discussion.

The Growth of Industry and Railroads in Minneapolis Between 1860 and 1920, railroads completely changed not only American society, but the American landscape as well. Railroads guided how Minneapolis and the surrounding region developed, spurring the dramatic growth of both industry and population during this time. It was a combination of the great hydroelectric potential of St. Anthony Falls, the vast stands of pine to the north, and the fertile soil of the prairies to the west, that attracted lumber production and flour milling to Minneapolis as early as the 1820s. In Minneapolis, rails corridors were built first by the millers to serve their facilities on the riverfront allowing Minneapolis to become an international powerhouse in lumber and flour by the 1880s.

Grain Silos

The collective impact of railways on the national fabric was nothing less than dramatic ...Rails overcame geographic challenges, offered reliable service with calculated periodicity, had an almost limitless capacity, and quickly became the nation’s basic means of transport. Railroads also became America’s first big business. They simultaneously gave rise to all sorts of manufacturing and commerce, changed warehouse traditions, and spawned regionally specialized factory production. The net result was an integrated national economy blending city and countryside into one.

Delmar I Grain Elevator

2

Don L. Hofsommer, Minneapolis and the Age of Railways, 2005

Twin Cities, 1875 To Duluth

To Winnipeg, Canada (Red River Valley)

To Chicago St

SE

Oa kS tS E

18

SEMI 6th

SE

th

Av e

St

To Iowa Un

ive

St

Hwy 280

4th

SE

E

eS Av

24th Ave SE

ta so Ka

5th

To Breckenridge, MN (Red River Valley) SE

rgy

Ene

Park

Dr

rsit

Electric Steel Elevators, 1906

SE

23

rd Av e

SE

yA ve

Av e

SE

Walnut St SE

Beacon St SE

th

4th

25

Washington Ave SE

Inte St

rca

mp

SE

us

Tra n

ron

Hu

sit

5th St SE

lco

th 27

Ma

SE

To Iowa

0

l

St

To Chicago

SE

rsit

yA ve

1.5

SE

3

0

Miles 6 Feet 1,000

250 500

째

24th Ave SE

eS Av E

Spencer Kellogg and Sons (linseed oil), 1930

SE

6th

tS E

SE

St

SE rgy

Oa

18

kS

th

Av e

St

Hwy 280

4th

SE

yP

ta so Ka

St

ive

ne

SEMI, 1953

4th

Un

Sid

Railroad map of the Twin Cities with SEMI in orange, 1875

5th

Westgate Dr

Av e

30

SE

th

Av e th 26

Erie St SE

Ontario St SE

ve sA

Rd

N Eustis St

am

er

Huron St

Riv

illi W

Fulton St SE

E

Essex St SE

SE

SE

Av e

St

lm

are

SE

law

Av e

De

29th Ave SE

Delaware St SE

SE

Harvard St SE

SE

Oak St SE

St

Delaware St SE

Un

ive

Ene

Park

Dr

rsit

SE

23

rd

Av e

SE

yA ve

Av eS

E

Walnut St SE

Beacon St SE

4th

25 th

Washington Ave SE

Inte St

rca

mp

SE

us

sit

Av e th 27

E Ma

l

Feet 1,000

SE

250 500

째

e Av

24th Ave SE

ta so SE

SE

6th

SE

E

St

St

SE

Oa

18

kS

th

tS

4th

Hwy 280

SE

SE

Ka

Av e

yA ve

0

SEMI, 1991

St

St

rsit

yP

1953 aerial photograph, U.S. Department of Agriculture

5th

ive

ne

Westgate Dr

SE

30 th

Av e th 26

Ontario St SE

Erie St SE

SE

Rd

4th

Un

Sid

N Eustis St

ve sA am

er

Huron St

Riv

Essex St SE

Av eS

SE

lco lm

St

SE

are

Av e

law

illi W

Fulton St SE

E

SEMI industries, 1948

5th St SE

De

29th Ave SE

Delaware St SE

SE

Harvard St SE

E

Oak St SE

tS nS

ro Hu

Delaware St SE

Tra n

Un

ive

k y Par

rg

Ene

Kurth Malting, 1958

Dr

rsit

SE

23

rd

Av e

SE

yA ve

Av e

SE

Walnut St SE

Beacon St SE

th 25

Inte St

SE

rca

mp

us

sit

5th St SE

SE

Un

ne

4th

ive

yP

l

Westgate Dr

30

Av e th 27

lco lm

th

Av e th 26

Erie St SE

Ontario St SE

SE

Sid

St

SE

N Eustis St

1991 aerial photograph, U.S. Geological Survey

SE

Rd

ve sA am

er

Huron St

Riv

Essex St SE

Av e

SE

Ma

St

SE

are

SE

law

Av e

De

29th Ave SE

Delaware St SE

illi W

Fulton St SE

E

Tra n

E

Harvard St SE

4th

S St ron Hu

Delaware St SE

Oak St SE

Washington Ave SE

rsit

yA ve

SE

0

250 500

Feet 1,000

째

Crescent Grain Elevator under demolition, 1978

3

The first rail line in Minnesota, the St. Paul & Pacific, was finally built in 1862 with a ten-mile track connecting the town of St. Anthony (later part of Minneapolis) to the steamboat docks in St. Paul. Soon, the St. Paul & Pacific extended northwest along the river, making its way toward the Red River Valley. As the capacity of the lumber and flour mills at St. Anthony Falls increased, the millers began to feel the negative effects of not having their own railroads. In response, millers in Minneapolis begin organizing their own railroads infrastructure to bypass the Chicago market. The first was the Minneapolis and Saint Louis Railway, built in 1869, with hopes of ultimately connecting south to St. Louis and north to Duluth. In 1871, a track was built to White Bear Lake, connecting to an existing line to Duluth, giving Minneapolis access to Great Lakes shipping. The southern line ran south to Albert Lea in 1877 and finally to Fort Dodge, Iowa by 1878. This line brought Minneapolis lumber to the south and grain from southern Minnesota and coal from Iowa back to Minneapolis. Eventually the line did connect to rails to St. Louis, giving Minneapolis millers access to alternative markets.

By 1920, twenty-nine railroad lines served the city. Railroads transformed the landscape of the city, especially near St. Anthony Falls, with the building of dozens of large-scale infrastructure projects, such the Stone Arch Bridge in 1883. Railroads also facilitated a large population growth in Minneapolis, which finally surpassed St. Paul in 1880. In 1870, Minneapolis’ population was 13,000 and by 1890, it had grown to nearly 165,000. By the end of World War I, flour milling began to decline in Minneapolis, with the railroad not far behind.

Adding to this decline was Minnesotans pressing the legislature to pay attention to the needs for road construction –a move away from the monopolistic practices of railroad politics. In compliance with the federal Highway act, the Minnesota legislation passed the Highway Bill in 1917 and by 1921 a second highway bill passed the legislature providing the legality for the construction of a highway system of communications, which allowed trucks to compete with rails for commercial and passenger traffic.

Grain elevators [that] dominated the [SEMI] area ...reflected the symbiotic relationship between urban and rural: farmers needed the grain companies and grain silos operators to market their products, while trade centers relied on the flow of grain to nurture their economic well-being. Over the years, the SEMI included examples of nearly every grain elevator design popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, though only two types, steel and reinforced concrete, are present today.

Charlene Roise, The Junction of Industry and Freight: the Development of the Southeast Minneapolis Industrial Area, 2003

4

Development of the SEMI District Detailed city atlases from the early 1900s are particularly revealing in telling the story of early industry development in the SEMI. It begins slowly in the 1890s with a few elevators, lumberyards, and foundries dotting the district. Over time, additional elevators, linseed oil mills, and machine shops crop up, and by 1914 the site became clearly established as the home to silos and elevators, mills, and manufacturing complexes. The height of industry, judging from aerial photographs, appears to be between the 1920s and the 1950s, indicating a dense zone filled with grain silos and rail yards surrounded by the expansion of the city of Minneapolis to the west and south. Beginning in the 1960s, however, structures and train tracks were removed and the empty land was used as parking lots.

By the mid 2000s, we see the University of Minnesota campus expanding eastward including the TCF Stadium and biotech buildings occupying the area where mills and foundries once stood.

According to Charlene Roise’s account, the SEMI was one of the locations in the Twin Cities where a concentration of grain-storage facilities were developed. Wood was the earliest construction material used in grain elevators, with lumber readily available from sawmills in Minneapolis. Some were sheathed in metal siding but over time wood proved to be impractical due to its flammable nature.

The St. Anthony elevator constructed in 1901 used tile, a material that Minnesota engineers helped to develop. Over time, improvement on the design of grain silos and elevator towers included the uses of electric operation and the design of circular bins, which proved to be more practical than square storage facilities.

Concrete quickly came to dominate all other construction materials chosen for terminal elevators and grain bins in the SEMI. From at least 1909 until the last grain bin was constructed in 1957, nearly every new elevator and storage bin was made out of reinforced concrete....

Charlene Roise, The Junction of Industry and Freight: the Development of the Southeast Minneapolis Industrial Area, 2003 In addition to flour, the SEMI district gave birth to several other important industrial aggregates such as in the production of linseed oil (derived from the milling of flax grain), which made Minneapolis a national leader controlling 35% of the mill capacity in the USA. The oil was shipped around the world and used to make paint, linoleum, varnish, enamel, oilcloth, printing inks, and patent leather. The Archer-Daniels-Miller (ADM) “Delmar” elevators were built between 1925 and 1931, creating what was “the largest elevator facility in the country” at that time. Delmar elevators #1 and #4 are still standing.

Starting in the 1950s there was a shift from oil-based to latex paints.

ADM switched to soybeans and sunflowers to make up for the lack of demand. While two ADM elevators still remain, the plant was demolished. The Spencer Kellogg mill, once located on the corner of present-day 25th Avenue and 6th Street, was also demolished and a parking lot stands in its place. In essence, the decline of flour milling and rail transportation in Minneapolis led to the decline of grain storage and industrial production in the SEMI district triggering the unfortunate destruction of most of the grain silos and mills, beginning in the 1960s.

SEMI and Surrounding Area, 2012 COMO NEIGHBORHOOD MARCY-HOLMES NEIGHBORHOOD

Elm St SE

e Av

Av eS

E

ta so Ka

15

th

SE

SEMI area BNSF Rail Yards

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

Un

ive

rs

MINNEAPOLIS ST. PAUL

TCF Bank Stadium

ity

Av en

ue

4t

Miss

Huron St SE

Oak St SE

hS

tS

E

PROSPECT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD

issip

pi R iver

SEMI area boundary Neighborhood boundary 2012 aerial photograph, U.S Geological Survey

0

500

1,000

Feet

2,000

째

Birdseye View of Grain Elevators and SEMI Industrial Area, 2013

5

Acknowledging the Legacy of Innovation in Minnesota’s Growth Economy

Minneapolis expanded rapidly between 1860 and 1900. Industries were formed, infrastructure was established, and the population grew exponentially. In the span of 40 years, Minneapolis transformed from a small, quiet village into a bustling cosmopolitan center.

Soderstrom, Sauerwein, and Suess, Minneapolis: Currents of Change, 2005 As illustrated in the chart on the following pages, the decades leading to the 20th century were marked by a great period of industrial and population growth in the Twin Cities, a transformation that was founded in great part by the development of the railroads.

As the region’s first rail hub, St. Paul became home to many rail company headquarters, and the banks that financed their continental expansions. Rails in Minneapolis connected the industrial hub to quickly expanding agricultural lands and boosted the industries of milling, manufacturing, warehousing, and wholesaling. Many of the smaller mills began to consolidate during this time, creating the household names of Pillsbury and Washburn-Crosby (later General Mills).

Expansion of industry during this time brought a prosperity that allowed the Twin Cities to seriously invest in public works and to establish institutions of higher learning, health, and the arts. Many public and private institutions opened at this time such as the University of Minnesota, followed by Augsburg, Hamline, Macalester, St. Thomas, Concordia and St. Catherine colleges --all of them open to academic instruction by 1905. As Minneapolis thrived in financial and industrial strength, many important farsighted ideas were put into practice to improve the quality of urban life, which included the investment and construction of an extensive network of streetcar corridors. By 1900 Minneapolis flourished, and successful business leaders used their wealth to establish a trend in philanthropic activities giving birth to libraries, art museums and establishing the city’s renowned Metropolitan Park System. By the end of the century, Minneapolis reached a population of 202,718 becoming the 19th largest city in the United States.

As milling began to decline in the 1920s, companies began to diversify their products to ensure further growth. By marketing to the increasingly urban populations, flour mills were able to convince their loyal consumers to purchase other food products, such as breakfast cereals and baking mixes. Manufacturing companies followed suit. Former lumber mills turned to manufacturing paper and other products. Research and development allowed large innovative corporations, such as Honeywell and 3M, to find new products to manufacture, giving them an edge over their smaller competitors.

By 1940, the transition was well underway from an urban economy that relied on agriculture to a metropolitan economy that relied on manufacturing and service…

Henceforth the Twin Cities would look to a new set of industries for their growth and prosperity.

Adams and Van Drasek, Minneapolis-St. Paul: People, Place, and Public Life, 1993

6

World War II established Minnesota as a center of high-technology industry. The war also brought investments that launched many hightech manufacturing corporations including radar, computers, and atomic science requiring the most advanced scientific knowledge of the day. By the 1960s, the Twin Cities had become an important center for the computer and electronics industries, with companies like Control Data Corporation (CDC) and Cray Research that once competed with industry giants like IBM. By 1970, 175 electronics companies made their home in the Twin Cities metro area.

But the years following WW II brought a new stimulus to innovation.

This time the interest developed from the advances made in the health sciences including the manufacturing of medical devices.

Medtronic began in 1949 in northeast Minneapolis and many other medical technology companies made their home in the Twin Cities area, including Starkey Laboratories, the world’s major manufacturer of hearing aids, and Boston’s Scientific’s Cardiovascular Group.

These advances in innovation sciences have made the Twin Cities to be the second largest medical device-manufacturing center in North America.

The research and development impetus that allowed so many Twin Cities’ corporations to diversify, innovate, and grow in the mid-20th century continued during the second half of the century. The state’s success in medical technology has allowed Minnesota to move into the emerging field of bioscience. Today, Minnesota is home to two of the world’s leading research centers, the University of Minnesota and Rochester’s Mayo Clinic. Partnerships between these institutions and private companies have advanced new technologies and patents often leading to new business ventures, further expanding the regional economy as is the case with the development of Discovery Genomics, a young company that advances gene therapies, using technologies developed at the University of Minnesota.

Looking Ahead: Transforming the SEMI as a New Innovation District for Minneapolis Innovations and big cultural transformations take place in cities …they have throughout history, been the places that have ignited the “sacred flame” of human imagination and creativity.

Sir Peter Hall, Cities in Civilization, 1998

As we stride on the thresholds of the 21st century, one can only think with some degree of certainty that our future metropolitan growth and development will again be created by investing in human capital and local resources to stimulate the development of new innovation industries and economies. But contrary to our previous national efforts of siting innovation centers in industrial parks away from urban centers today, leading companies are looking for new districts of innovation in cities adjacent to and in cooperation with academic institutions. The goal is to foment greater proximity, greater level of human interactions where knowledge can be transferred allowing for the creation of ideas to flourish. As Peter Hall recognized in his studies, cities and their metropolitan regions are being recognized again today by the quality of the ideas they generate, the innovations they bring forward, and the quality and intensity of urban life they have created to attract greater numbers of talented individuals, expanding new territories of knowledge and economies.

Another change in trajectory is that most new established hubs of innovation are developing independently from Washington programs and initiatives. This new trend is supported by many examples indicating that as a result of our last financial recession, cities and metropolitan regions across the country are making a vital shift to become more independent from Washington strings by taking control of their own problems while creating new destinies.

As a result of a federal leadership vacuum, cities around the country have had to tackle our economic problems largely on our own.

Local elected officials are responsible for doing, not debating. For innovating, not arguing. For pragmatism not partisanship.

We have to deliver results at the local {metropolitan} level.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, The State of the Economy: Four Years After Onset of Financial Crisis, 2012 As such, Metropolitan regions across the nation are investing in the promotion of start-up companies allowing for the greatest proximity to academic institutions, bringing partnerships with leading research and venture-capital firms while sharing ideas in the production of new knowledge. In addition, these new hubs of innovation are often located in dense urban centers with easy access to public transportation, surrounded by walkable and lively public spaces maximizing the integration of activities and informal encounters.

These new clusters of research activity are known today as ‘Innovation Districts” where the density of jobs per square mile is twice as in the regular metropolitan areas. The realization is that increasing job density is an important criterion when planning innovation districts aiming at bringing entrepreneurial creativity.

On average, the rate of patenting is positively related to the employment density of an urbanized area. Specifically, the rate of patenting is 20 to 30 percent greater in a metropolitan area with an employment density twice that of another metro area. These findings confirm that the location density plays an important role in creating the flow of ideas that generates information and growth.

Gerald A. Carlino et al, Knowledge Spillovers and the New Economy of Cities, 2001

renewable energy, fashion, and industrial design. However, not all is about work and business in Innovation Districts. All of them emphasize the development of a collaborative atmosphere with the motto that encourages “Work-Live-Play” in a physically attractive, sustainable urban context that encapsulates the values of innovative site planning, the harvesting and recycling of water and implementing renewable energy systems, fostering a community ethic.

Bearing this in mind, the Urban Design Framework--Phase III is proposing the dedication and development of a new Innovation District to be acquired in collaboration and partnership among the City of Minneapolis, the University of Minnesota, Hennepin County and the Prospect Park community (among others). The selected site utilizes a portion of the SEMI industrial context next to the University of Minnesota and Prospect Park neighborhood along two new LRT transit stations and totaling approximately 240 acres. Currently, the site presents itself as a partially abandoned industrial landscape comprising the striking presence of several enormous grain silos, an active BNSF rail corridor amid a terrain that still has the ecological remnants of several important but fragile wetland ecosystems.

Employment Change by Industry Sector, Twin Cities Region, 2000 - 2010

Today, innovation districts can be found in cities such as Boston, New York, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Portland, Toronto, and Barcelona, the latter perhaps being the best known innovation district to today. All of them are created to support the growth of new start-up companies either in information management technologies, biotechnologies, health care sciences, green technologies, robotics,

7

Evolution of Innovation in the Twin Cities Municipal Incorporation in the Twin Cities Metro, 1860 - 2020 1860

Incorporated places

1880

1900

1920

Recent incorporations

Population Distribution in the Twin Cities Metro, 1959 - 2020

Industry and Population Growth in the Twin Cities Metro, 1820 - 2010 3,000,000

RETAIL

First • 1924: Supervalu store

Dayton’s • 1902: opens Goodfellows

opens in Mpls

store in Minneapolis

2,500,000

FOOD PROCESSING Hormel • 1891: founded in

South St. • 1886: Paul stockyards founded

St. Paul

Cargill • 1909: headquarters

ARTS & PHILANTHRONPY Minnesota • 1883: Institute of Arts

Minnesota • 1903: Orchestra gives

2,000,000

HEALTH CARE Abbott •1882: Northwestern

Mayo Clinic

in Rochester

WAREHOUSING/WHOLESALE St. Paul builds • 1860s: warehouses assoc.

1,500,000

Minneapolis • 1890: surpasses St. Paul

with transportation

Rail • 1854: connects Chicago

First railroad • 1861: in Minnesota built

Great Northern RR • 1893: completes transcontinental

Peak of • 1910s: passenger rail traffic

route to West Coast

MANUFACTURING

Honeywell • 1890s: Crown • 1906: 3M moves • 1886: from Duluth to Iron Works opens in Mpls

Machinery, textile, • 1860s: furniture, and paper

1,000,000

•

in wholesale trade

RAILROADS

to Mississippi River

shops open at SAF

(thermostats)

St. Anthony Falls

in flour milling

opens in St. Paul

(

Flou Peak of • 1916: • 1920s/30s: companies dive flour production

Largest Minnesota • 1870s: • 1880: Minneapolis • 1881: flour mill in the technology improves leads the nation flour quality

Ecolab, Inc • 1 • 1923: (chemicals) p

St. Paul

opens

FLOUR MILLING First merchant • 1854: flour mill built at

•

established

University • 1911: • 1915: University Hospital founded partners with

Mayo • 1889: Clinic opens

Hospital opens

in St. Paul

Minneapolis • 1915: Foundation

first performance

established

Land-O• 1921: Lakes founded

in Minneapolis

world constructed

with food proce

in Minneapolis

EDUCATION 500,000

University • 1851: of Minnesota established

Macalester • 1893: Concordia • 1905: St. Catherine Central High • 1872: Augsburg • 1880: Hamline • 1866: • 1885: College opens University opens University opens University opens and St. Thomas School founded in Minneapolis

in St. Paul

LUMBER MILLING

Water First merchant • 1848: • 1854: power companies saw mill built at St. Anthony Falls

1840 8

1850

incorporated

1860

1870

in St. Paul

open in St. Paul

Lumber mills • 1880s: move from Falls

to north Minneapolis

1880

1890

in St. Paul

in St. Paul

Northern • 1919: Last lumber Minneapolis • 1899: • 1910s: mill in Minneapolis pine forests is the leading lumber market in the world

1900

1910

depleted

closes

1920

19

1940

Higher density

1960

1980

2000

2020

1959

1980

2000

2020

Lower density

HIGH TECHNOLOGY & BIOSCIENCE Hormel • 1949: Medtronic • 1942: Institute opens founded (bioscience)

St. Jude Starkey Control • 1967: • 1957: • 1976: Medical founded Labs opens Data Corp. opens

(medical devices)

Dayton’s • 1956: opens world’s

e

(hearing aids)

(computers)

first mall: Southdale

(gene therapy)

Mall of • 1992: America opens

Dayton’s • 1966: Best • 1962: opens first Buy opens Target store

Discovery • 2000: Genomics founded

(medical devices)

in Bloomington

in St. Paul

CHS established • 1998: in Inver Grove Heights

General • 1928: Mills founded

in Minneapolis

Target McKnight • 1946: • 1953: Corp. begins Foundation

Walker Art • 1927: Center opens in Minneapolis

donating profits

endowed

Sister Kenny • 1942: Institute lays ground-

Guthrie Medtronic • 1981: First • 1978: • 1963: Avenue Theater opens establishes in Minneapolis

charity foundation

World’s first • 1968: bone marrow transplant

work for physical therapy

performed (U-MN)

Warehousing • 1920s/30s: declines in the inner city

University of • 1983: MN Heart and Lung

Institute established

largest food wholesaler

Trains • WWII: requisitioned for

military purposes

Large MN • WWII: corporations provide

1924: Ford opens plant in St. Paul (cars)

930

established

Rainbow Foods, in • 1992: Hopkins, becomes nation’s

and moves out to suburbs

ur ersify essing

7-County Metro area 2010 population: 3,005,000

Valspar • 1970: moves to Mpls

wartime manufacturing

(paint)

Buffalo, NY • 1930: surpasses Mpls

Last • 1965: operating mill

at Falls closes

in flour production

Stem Cell • 1999: Institute founded

U of M alumni Norman • 1970: Borlaug receives Nobel Peace Prize for agricultural research

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

at UMN

1990

2000

Minneapolis 2010 population: 382,578 (12.7% of Metro) St. Paul 2010 population: 285,068 (9.5% of Metro) 2010 9

Thinking Beyond Property Lines: Land Reorganization and Value Capture in Transforming Post-Industrial Sites

While the recycling of derelict industrial lands to alternative urban uses has been an accepted practice for many years, it has frequently been accompanied by developments that have too often done little to enrich the environments they have replaced. Those attending renewal conferences may be forgiven for wondering why the “before� photos of the site so frequently looked more interesting and alive than the built form that emerged.

Michael Hough, Cities and Natural Process, 1995

Grand Round Connection

East Gateway District

LRT

Kasota Springs Proposed Granary City Park Un

ive

rsi

ty

Int

erc

am

pu

sT ran

sit

Stadium Village Masterplan

University Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District

LRT

wa

y

SEMI District

Prospect Development Zone Huron Boulevard Gateway District

Transforming post-industrial sites into new and productive urban districts is a complex and often challenging process resulting from the difficulties that emerge in the process of reforming the site to its new urban identity. Fortunately, the practice of restoring postindustrial sites to alternative uses is not without some encouraging history. One example that is closely related to the SEMI site is the transformation of the Mission Bay District in San Francisco from a former dilapidated Southern Pacific railyards into a high density residential and medical innovation campus developed by the University of California Medical School.

10

In general, the difficulties of restoring post-industrial sites emerge from having to remediate contaminated soils and dealing with dilapidated infrastructure and abandoned rail yards and buildings while being engaged with the legal and regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over the remediation process. Other times, the difficulties come from trying to find transformative solutions using a planning approach that is accustomed to deal with site-specific boundaries or from relying on an economic-based master planning process that is often at odds with restoring the site laden with cultural memories prior to transforming the site to accommodate new buildings and programs.

As the gap between the infrastructure our cities need and the money we have to fund it continues to widen, more cities are aiming to implement ‘value capture’. Value capture, an idea long in vogue with economists and policy wonks, is now starting to bleed slowly into City Halls, changing the way we pay for our cities.

Transforming the SEMI Landscape into an Innovation District

Mark Bergen, How Can Cities Recapture Investment in Public Infrastructure, 2012

From the visual perspective, the landscape of the SEMI district may be labeled as the residual clutter of a former industrial chaos that for sure existed amidst lumber, flour mills, grain elevators, and active rail yards a by-product of an industry that made Minneapolis famous at the turn of the century. But the land, upon which this industry was built, had a previous physical history. This mostly-flat terrain (prime for laying out rail transportation) corresponds to the reaches of a broad fluvial terrace (second terrace) of the Mississippi River. Over the years, a good percentage of the land surrounding the SEMI became part of a larger marsh ecosystem eventually draining to the Mississippi River.

Another difficulty with post-industrial sites is assembling public and private land particularly in urban centers where property boundaries and easements are revered. Yet, scholars are finding new innovative methods of land-assembly (land sharing or land pooling) under the new concept of land readjustment that eventually distributes economic benefits to a wider urban economy with spillover effects that allow for the creation of a new social life in the city (see Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 2007).

At present, remnant wetlands still exist among abandoned rail alignments such as the Granary Corridor and in greater numbers along the Kasota Springs a location that is planned to be the future connection to the Minneapolis Grand Rounds park system. Evidence of soil contamination from multiple sources is clear and finding an appropriate solution to evaluate and mitigate the different levels of contamination will be a necessary first stage in the remediation process of the site. Several vacant grain silos are still on the site and efforts to stop any further demolition of these landmarks should be considered in order to maintain the historical presence and cultural meaning of the site.

Along with applying new tools for Land Readjustment, new methods of economic land valuation are being developed to examine in greatest detail the potential spillover outcomes of restructuring land beyond value-creation known as Value Capture. The urban planning literature is extensive with respect to investments in land improvements using the TIF method (among others) to attract development while recovering the initial investment cost via future tax revenues. Yet only recently we are finding out that major public investments (transit for instance) creates value not only along the corridor, but also produces an economic spillover effect (proximity competition) to a wider urban periphery whose value should be captured and evaluated. Value Capture models (VCM) however, should not be measured in monetary rate-of-returns only. Investing in good streets, public parks, and great public spaces have all been important signature producing significant value capture as measured by the quality-of-life and social vitality of a city.

New programs for design emerge when design practice shifts its attention formally solving perceived problems to identifying actions that support expressions of social life. These programs reveal and celebrate the new forms of urbanity emerging out of today’s political economy and its culture. So doing, metropolitan urbanism opens new territories for design consideration. It stakes out new sites of operations, introduces new methods of working, and identifies new clients.

As such, a land restructuring system is proposed based on the premise that a land reorganization (land sharing or land pooling) is possible, and then aims to conserve the historic and cultural value inherent in the site that no doubt will greatly increase the value capture at a later date. Of course having the site in close proximity to a major research university will add to the potential research outcomes that can be anticipated for an Innovation District. As such, the transformative approach is grounded on six different but integrated landscape systems:

Regenerative Landscapes

Ecological Landscapes

Greenways and Open Space Corridors

Productive Landscapes

Innovation Campus

High Density Green Urban Development

This approach to reconfiguring the SEMI lands to create an innovation district will require a community organization structure capable of drafting a land sharing agreement among all the stakeholders in favor of implementing the desired land use and infrastructure plan.

This may result in modifying somewhat the current land ownership boundaries in order to accomplish a greatest purpose and future economical value for the district.

Jacqueline Tatom, Programs for Metropolitan Urbanism, 2009

11

Toward a New Land Use Model Based on a Landscape Systems Approach 1. The Granary Greenway Corridor

Links to Grand Rounds

The SEMI area’s centralized urban location makes it a critical hub for connecting open space and trails to regional parks, greenways, trails, and ecological landscapes, which provides exponential benefits for urban living. The Granary corridor greenway can link to St. Anthony Main along an abandoned rail line, connecting remnant wetlands and fulfilling the “missing link” of the Grand Rounds.

To St. Anthony Main/ Stone Arch Bridge

View of Downtown Minneapolis

0

200

400

800

Feet 1200

To Mississippi River/Grand Rounds

2. Regenerative Landscapes: Phytoremediation Major portions of the SEMI area can be dedicated to the study of bio- and phytoremediation as a strategy to clean low levels of soil contamination. Using native plants and grasses these transitional landscapes can recover original landscape biomes allowing for the development of new forms of landscapes for social and cultural enrichment.

0

200

400

800

Feet 1200

3. Urban Green Infrastructure New urban development in and around the SEMI provides an opportunity for introducing multifunctional green infrastructure. The urban landscape can clean and store stormwater using pervious surfaces, water retention swales, water storage, and infiltration ponds.

0

12

200

400

800

Feet 1200

4. Ecological Landscapes: Wetland Revitalization

The SEMI area contains the remnants of a former large wetland. Recovering some of these wetlands can not only provide new wildlife habitat but also introduce attractive, innovative, and effective urban stormwater management.

0

200

400

800

Feet 1200

5. Innovation Campus As the grain elevators of former industry are decommissioned, the SEMI area steps into a new role - to regenerate dynamic innovations in sustainable technologies.

Its proximity to the University of Minnesota makes this site prime for development and investment of a new campus dedicated to foster the incubation of new innovation technology.

Existing BioTech Research Campus

0

200

400

800

Feet 1200

6. Productive Landscapes: Wind, Solar, and Urban Agriculture Large sections of the extensive SEMI landscape can be dedicated to generating new areas of research including wind and solar energy microgrids, urban agriculture, and soil research.

0

200

400

800

Feet 1200

13

Thinking Beyond Stormwater Retention Basins

To St. Anthony Main/ Stone Arch Bridge

Gr

an

ary

Gr

ee

nw

ay

Co

nn

ec

Proposed Bridge Connection

tio

n

E La

University of Minnesota Biomedical Discovery District n ra

G

BNSF Railyards

y ar

Mariuchi Arena

nw

e re

G

6th

St S

ay

E

Av e

Williams Arena

23

rd

University of Minnesota Football Stadium

SE

Proposed Granary City Park

Un

ive

rsit

yA ve

SE

Productive Landscapes

LRT Transit Oriented Development

Open Theater

4th

St S

1

E

5th SE 2

Stadium Village Masterplan

Av e

View of Downtown Minneapolis

Washington Ave SE

4th Street Prospect Park Development District

Future Urban Development of Green Infrastructure SE Oak St Av e

SE

ive

27 th

Huron Blvd SE

Un

Overall Site Plan 14

To Mississippi River/Grand Rounds

rsi

ty

Av e

SE

d Property Lines

To Ridgway Parkway/Grand Rounds

SE ve aA sot Ka

Grand Rounds “Missing Link�

Hwy 28 0

Ecological andscapes Wetlands

Ka so

ta A ve

SE

Stormwater Retention Basins

4

Proposed Amtrak Station

s

Ecological Landscapes Wind Turbines

r

Kasota Springs

2 Wind Turbines Proposed Bridge Connection

Productive Landscapes

3 Community Open Space

Hwy 280

Productive Landscapes

SE 6th St

Incubator Laboratories

Existing Proposed Surly Brewery Development Site

29th Ave SE

Un

ive

rsi

ty

Int

SE 5th St

erc

am

pu

sT ran

To St. Paul

sitw

4th

ay

Existing

St S

E

LRT Transit Oriented Development

University Intercampus Transitway

Ma

lco

lm

Av en

30 th

ue

Westgate Dr

Av e

SE

Westgate Business Center

Jefferson Student Housing

0

100

200

400

Feet 600

15

Developing Fronti University of Minnesota Campus

4th Street Redevelopment Area DelMar IV Silos

De

New LRT Station

University of Minnesota Intercampus Transitway

New Incubators & Labs

New University o Innovation C

16

iers of Knowledge BNSF Rail Line

elMar I Silos

Wetlands and BioPhytoremediation

Ammex Silos

Como Neighborhood

Ecological Landscapes

BNSF Railyards Wind Turbines

Community Open Space

of Minnesota Campus

Productive Landscapes

Terrace Gardens

Future Surly Brewpub Development

17

View of Historic Silos Landscape After Bio-Phytoremediation

1

High-efficiency Polycrystalline Modular Solar Panels

Modular Incubators

DelMar I Silos

Kurth Silos

Productive Landscapes

2 18

Courtyard View of a Modular Incubator Unit High efficiency polycrystalline modular solar panels Modular Units

Del Mar I Silos

Dabiri’s 3.5 Kilowatt vertical turbines

DelMar IV Silos

3 Modular Incubators are elevated from the ground floor even in areas where the phytoremediation processes have cleaned the soils. New research and development ventures owe much of their success to supporting programs that nurture innovation. These programs rely on developing specific sites dedicated as “incubators” where the innovation capabilities can be tested through the multiple cycles that are required to “graduate” corporate ventures. The historic Grain Elevator Site at Prospect Park can be the ideal place to nurture multiple ventures in close proximity to the University of Minnesota.

Regeneration of Wetlands Connecting with the Kasota Springs and Probable Location for Stormwater Infiltration or Retention Basins

Ecological Landscapes Wetland Recovery

4 19

APPENDIX

Restoring the Site: The Promise of Bio- and Phytoremediation

Phytoremediation is an emerging technology that uses various plants to degrade, extract, contain, or immobilize contaminants from soil and water. This technology has been receiving attention lately as an innovative, cost-effective alternative to the more established treatment methods used at hazardous waste site.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Introduction to Phytoremediation, 2000

Why Use Bioremediation and Phytoremediation

4. Phytoremediation can also be used as a temporary solution to contain the spread of contamination or as the first step in a more intensive treatment process.

Bioremediation is a relatively established group of remediation technologies that uses the same biodegradation processes that occur in nature to clean up polluted soils or water. Bioremediation introduces these processes to a contaminated site or enhances the existing processes by providing microbes with fertilizer, oxygen, and other conditions that encourage their growth and allow them to break down pollutants more quickly.

5. Phytoremediation can cost less than conventional technologies.

Utilizing natural processes, such as plant water uptake and solar energy, means that sophisticated equipment is not needed to install or upkeep phytoremediation systems. Phytoremediation reduces up-front and long-term costs as compared to technologyintensive methods of remediation.

Types of Bioremediation • Bioaugmentation - Microbes are injected into contaminated soil to introduce biodegradation.

• Biostimulation - Amendments (nutrients, oxygen, or fertilizers) are injected into the soil to enhance existing microbial biodegradation.

• Mycoremediation - Fungi are introduced to contaminated soil and allowed to grow.

• Biopiles/composting/land farming - Contaminated soil is contained in controlled areas and treated as needed to stimulate microbial degradation.

• Phytoremediation - Contaminants are degraded, extracted, contained, or immobilized through natural plant processes.

6. Phytoremediation can be integrated into the landscape and be aesthetically pleasing. The addition of plants enhances the physical appearance of a brownfields site, which can bring added benefits to the surrounding community as well as garnering support for the project.

7. Phytoremediation can be one element of a larger treatmenttrain. Different treatment strategies can be combined for costsavings and effective cleanup of various contaminants.

8. Plants, especially trees, provide numerous additional benefits in urban areas. They improve air quality, capture greenhouse gases, and help to mitigate the urban heat island effect. Some plants provide much-needed habitat to animals, birds, and insects.

Related Uses of Plants Advantages of Phytoremediation Decision-makers should consider the needs and conditions of the site, as well as impacts to the surrounding community, when deciding which of the many different available remediation technologies to employ. Phytoremediation in particular can offer many additional social and environmental benefits that conventional technologies cannot.

1. Phytoremediation can treat a wide variety of contaminants. This is especially useful on brownfield sites, which are often made up of a collection of former industrial sites and can leave behind many different types of pollutants.

2. Treatment takes place on site. This can not only cut down on the costs of hauling soils for dumping in a landfill, but also produces fewer noise or traffic disturbances to local residents.

3. Phytoremediation offers an effective and permanent solution to site contaminants, leaving very little residual contamination.

This complete clean-up can make a site more appealing to developers.

22

The plants used in phytoremediation can also perform additional environmental protection in other applications on a site. Riparian buffers, or vegetated areas installed along the edges of water bodies, not only provide protection from non-point source pollution, but also act as critical habitat for birds and animals, as well as prevent soil erosion.

Studies indicate that phytoremediation is competitive with other treatment alternatives, as costs are approximately 50 to 80 percent of the costs associated with physical, chemical, or thermal techniques at applicable sites.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Brownfields Technology Primer: Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for Site Cleanup, 2001

Community Involvement Remediation and redevelopment of polluted sites can be a sensitive community issue. Because community support is critical for the success of the project, the community should be involved in the decision-making process from the beginning. Phytoremediation has two advantages that may make it easier for a community to accept as part of the redevelopment process. One, the process is easily understood, and two, the introduction of plants on the site may result in visual or aesthetic improvements to the area.

Contaminants and site conditions are perhaps the most important factors in the design and success of a phytoremediation system.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Brownfields Technology Primer: Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for Site Cleanup 2001

Considerations/Limitations of Phytoremediation Phytoremediation, like any remediation technology, has limitations that must be understood and considered before selection. There are many technical considerations to consider when planning and designing remediation systems. Because of this the EPA recommends employing an “experienced multidisciplinary team” of scientists, engineers, designers, consultants, and regulators to guide the process.

1. The type and level of contamination is the most critical consideration for remediation decisions. Different contaminants require different types of remediation and in some cases, contaminant levels may be too high for plants to grow.

Phytoremediation works best at sites characterized by widespread contamination at low concentrations and shallow depths.

2. The level of clean-up required for the site, which is dependent on the type of development that will be built, is another factor that will indicate whether phytoremediation can be utilized.

Environmental regulations for contaminant levels vary depending on what type of development is being considered for the site.

Clean-up levels required for residential development may be much higher than those for light industrial.

3. Site properties, such as soil type, water table depth, and geology, need to be considered before a remediation method is chosen.

4. Phytoremediation may require a longer amount of time for remediation than the development plans for a site allow. Growth rate of plant species, as well as the length of the growing season, affects the amount of time required to clean up a site. Complete clean up could require several growing seasons to be effective, whereas traditional methods may only require a few weeks or months.

5. Phytoremediation may not provide adequate protection from risks involved. Plant cultivation and soil amendments may have unintended consequences on the mobility of contaminants. For example, contaminants below ground may accidentally transfer to nearby food plants or transpire into the air.

Lessons Learned from Research 1. Know the contaminants – remediation cannot be planned before a thorough investigation of site contaminants has been completed.

2. A combination of remediation technologies may have to be employed. It is unlikely that only phytoremediation will clean up a site – excavation of “hot spots” and other remediation technologies may have to be planned in conjunction with bioremediation to fulfill clean up regulations.

3. Work with a team of experts and cultivate public-private partnerships. Because of the many stakeholders involved, the technical challenges of pollution remediation, and the complications of working with brownfield sites, it is important to employ a wide range of experts. Public-private partnerships can provide needed funding and make the process of remediation and development run more smoothly.

4. Be prepared for surprises. Even with soil testing, contaminant investigation, and careful planning, brownfields are complicated sites. It is likely that unexpected contamination will be found on the site during remediation

Phytoremediation Application Phytoremediation has been utilized and monitored for pollutant remediation at a variety of industrial sites, from agricultural fields to gas stations to landfills. While still being tested for effectiveness, phytoremediation has been shown to be particularly well-suited for brownfield remediation because these sites are often characterized by wide-spread contaminants at low concentrations. Plants utilized for phytoremediation are characterized by rapid growth, deep roots, relatively high biomass, and a high transpiration rate. A comprehensive list of plants and the contaminants they treat is included in the following pages. Phytoremediation describes a broad range of physical and biological processes that plants use to extract, contain, or destroy contaminants in soil, water, and sediment. These mechanisms are described in the adjacent table.

Phytoremediation has been attempted on a full- or demonstration-scale basis at more than 200 sites nationwide…. As the number of successful demonstration projects grows and new information about the application of phytoremediation becomes available, the use of phytoremediation as a treatment technology is increasing because the technology has been proven an efficient and effective approach at brownfields sites.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Brownfields Technology Primer: Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for Site Cleanup, 2001

6. There are costs involved with the required monitoring and maintaining of the phytoremediation process. In general, phytoremediation is lower in cost than other methods; however the monitoring costs could be higher depending on the level of contamination and cleanup rates.

23

Phytoremediation Mechanisms Phytodegradation

Hydraulic Control

Plants take up contaminants from the soil or groundwater and break them down completely within the plant.

Plants take up groundwater to contain contaminants and prevent their further migration.

Phytoextraction

Phytovolatization

Plants extract heavy metals from the soil and concentrate them in their roots and above ground shoots. Plants are later harvested and the metals recycled or destroyed.

Plants take up contaminants and release them (or a modified form) into the atmosphere via transpiration.

Rhizodegradation In this plant-assisted bioremediation, contaminants in the soil are broken down by microbial activity in the root zone.

Phytostabilization Plants stabilize pollutants in the soil, converting them to less bioavailable forms and preventing the mobility of contaminants associated with erosion.

Rhizofiltration Plant roots remove and concentrate metal contaminants from surface water or groundwater.

Often used in wetlands.

Because biological processes are ultimately solar-driven, phytoremediation is on average tenfold cheaper than engineering-based remediation methods such as soil excavation, soil washing or burning, or pump-and-treat systems. The fact that phytoremediation is usually carried out in situ contributes to its cost-effectiveness and may reduce exposure of the polluted substrate to humans, wildlife, and the environment.

Elizabeth Pilon-Smits, Phytoremediation: Annual review of plant biology, 2005

The Significance of Time in the Phytoremediation Process

0’ 2’

Soil

Soil Soil

4’

8’

Waste

Waste Waste

60’

T=0 Trees planted

T=1 Tree roots penetrate waste Remediation

T = Mature Soil created Water balance established

Adapted from “Introduction to Phytoremediation”, United States Environmental Protection Agency, February 2000.

24

Phytoremediation Decision Table MECHANISM

CONTAMINANT GOAL

MEDIA

CONTAMINANTS

PLANTS

STATUS

Phytoextraction

Extraction and capture

Soil, sediment, sludges

Metals: Ag, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Hg, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Zn; Radionuclides: 90Sr, 137Cs, 239Pu, 238,234 U

Indian mustard, pennycress, alyssum, sunflowers, hybrid poplars

Laboratory, pilot, and field applications

Rhizofiltration

Extraction and capture

Groundwater, surface water

Metals, radionuclides

Sunflowers, Indian mustard, water hyacinth

Laboratory and pilotscale

Phytostabilization

Containment

Soil, sediment, sludges

Metals: As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hs, Pb, Zn

Indian mustard, hybrid poplars, grasses

Field application

Rhizodegradation

Destruction

Soil, sediment, sludges, groundwater

Organic compounds (TPH, PAHs, pesticides chlorinated solvents, PCBs)

Red mulberry, grasses, hybrid poplar, cattail, rice

Field application

Phytodegradation

Destruction

Soil, sediment, sludges, groundwater, surface water

Organic compounds chlorinated solvents, phenols, herbicides, munitions

Algae, stonewort, hybrid poplar, black willow, bald cypress

Field demonstration

Phytovolatilization

Extraction from media and release to air

Soil, sediment, sludges, groundwater

Chlorinated solvents, some inorganics (Se, Hg, and As)

Poplars, alfalfa black locust, Indian mustard

Laboratory and field application

Hydraulic control (plume control)

Degradation or containment

Groundwater, surface water

Water-soluble organics and inorganics

Hybrid poplar, cottonwood, willow

Field demonstration

Vegetative cover (evapotranspiration cover)

Containment, erosion control

Soil, sediment, sludges

Organic and inorganic compounds

Poplars, grasses

Field application

Riparian corridors (nonpoint source control)

Destruction

Groundwater, surface water

Water-soluble organics and inorganics

Poplars

Field application

Adapted from “Introduction to Phytoremediation”, United States Environmental Protection Agency, February 2000.

Possible Strategies

1

SEEDING OF PLANT MIX FOR PHYTOREMEDIATION: MINIMAL INTERVENTION

Plants

2

• • • • • • •

Removal of pavement and building slabs Minimal soil removal Add soil amendments Hydroseed phytoremediation mix Plant trees to reach deep soil levels Phytoremediation occurs over time Monitoring of soil over time

COMBINATION OF PARKING SPACES AND PLANTED AREAS: MEDIUM INTERVENTION

Plants

Permeable materials for parking

3

• • • • • • •

Removal of pavement and building slabs Minimal soil removal to accommodate parking spaces Install pervious materials for parking and soil aeration Hydroseed phytoremediation mix Plant trees to reach deep soil levels Phytoremediation occurs over time Monitoring of soil over time

• • • • • •

Removal of pavement and building slabs Major soil removal and infill of clean soil Combination of hydroseeding and planting of rain gardens Infiltration occurs through rain gardens in areas with clean soil Phytoremediation occurs over time Monitoring of soil over time

PHYTOREMEDIATION AND INFILTRATION: HIGHEST INTERVENTION

Plants

Infiltration methods

25

Phytoremediation Plant List GRASSES Native to Minnesota Switchgrass

Panicum virgatum

Mechanism Rhizodegradation Rhizodegradation Unknown

Notes PAH (total): -29.7%/6 mo.; PAH (total priority) -56.9%/6 mo.

PAH: 57% decrease in 6 mo.

-97.3%, -89.3%, -93.6%, -45.3% decrease in each contaminant in 219 days.

Source ITRC, 2009.

PhytoPet.

Rhizodegradation Unknown Unknown

PAH (total): -47.3%/6 mo.; PAH (total priority) -8.9%/6 mo.

PAH: 47% decrease in 6 mo.

-97.3%, -89.3%, -93.6%, -45.3% decrease in each contaminant in 219 days.

ITRC, 2009.

PhytoPet.

benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenz(a)anthracene

Unknown

-97.3%, -89.3%, -93.6%, -45.3% decrease in each contaminant in 219 days.

PhytoPet.

benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenz(a)anthracene

Unknown

-97.3%, -89.3%, -93.6%, -45.3% decrease in each contaminant in 219 days.

PhytoPet.

benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenz(a)anthracene

Unknown

-97.3%, -89.3%, -93.6%, -45.3% decrease in each contaminant in 219 days.

PhytoPet.

benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenz(a)anthracene

Unknown

-97.3%, -89.3%, -93.6%, -45.3% decrease in each contaminant in 219 days.

PhytoPet.

benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenz(a)anthracene

Unknown

-97.3%, -89.3%, -93.6%, -45.3% decrease in each contaminant in 219 days.

PhytoPet.

benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenz(a)anthracene

Unknown

-97.3%, -89.3%, -93.6%, -45.3% decrease in each contaminant in 219 days.

PhytoPet.

fluorene, naphthalene, phenanthrene

Unknown

naphthalene: 75%-96.8% decrease in 1045 days (2.8 years)

Contaminant Contaminants in italics are suspected to be remediated by this plant anthracene, PAH (total), PAH (total priority), pyrene anthracene, PAHs, pyrene benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenz(a)anthracene

PAH (total), PAH (total priority) Schizachyrium scoparium PAHs benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenz(a)anthracene

Little bluestem

Big bluestem

Andropogon gerardi

Indiangrass

Sorghastrum nutans

Canada wild-rye

Elymus canadensis

Side oats grama

Bouteloua curtipendula

Western wheatgrass

Agropyron smithii

Blue grama

Bouteloua gracilis

Prairie buffalograss

PhytoPet.

Buchloe dactyloides

Red fescue

crude oil, diesel

Rhizodegradation

crude oil: 77.4% decrease in 640 days diesel: 91.6% decrease in 640 days.

PhytoPet.

pyrene

Rhizodegradation

pyrene: 96% decrease in 6 months

PhytoPet.

40% reduction in 16- and 68-week studies

PhytoPet.

Notes

Source

Cadmium: 100% decrease in solution in 24 hrs.

Chromium: 100% decrease in solution in 24 hrs.

Nickel: 85% decrease in solution in 24 hrs.

ITRC, 2009.

Notes

Source

Festuca rubra

Reed canary grass

Phalaris arundinacea

INVASIVE

Reed grass

bitumen and tar

Unknown

Phragmites australis

FLOWERING PLANTS Native to Minnesota

Contaminant

Sunflower

Cadmium, Chromium

Mechanism

Rhizofiltration

Helianthus annuus Lead, Nickel Lead

TREES Native to Minnesota Willow

Salix spp.

Contaminant

ITRC, 2009.

diesel range organics, PCE, TCE

Rhizodegradation DROs: 88% reduction in 2 years; Phytoextraction TCE: 9.8% decrease in 7 months, with an increase in DCE Phytovolatilization

ITRC, 2009.

diesel range organics, TCE

Rhizodegradation DROs: 88% reduction in 2 years; Phytoextraction TCE: 9.8% decrease in 7 months, with an increase in DCE Phytovolatilization

ITRC, 2009.

aniline, benzene, ethylbenzene, phenol, toluene, m-xylene, pentachlorophenol, 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, TCE TCE TCE

Phytoextraction 3-6 day test period, contaminants were volatilized, accumulated in leave, stems, Phytovolatilization or roots depending on compound Rhizodegradation Phytodegradation

ITRC, 2009.

Populus deltoides

Lombardy poplar

Populus nigra

Poplar hybrid

Populus deltoides x nigra

26

Mechanism

Rhizodegradation DROs: 40-90% reduction in 24 weeks Phytoextraction arsenic and lead: 40% sequestered in 1 month Phytosequestration DROs: 40-90% reduction of 40-50,000 mg/kg concentration in 2 years Unknown

diesel range organics arsenic, lead diesel range organics

Eastern cottonwood

Phytoextraction Phytosequestration

PhytoPet.

AQUATIC PLANTS Native to Minnesota

Contaminant

Duckweed

anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, phenanthrene

Phytosequestration Rates not calculable due to lack of initial contamination reporting; post-experiment comparisons of plant uptake in different media available in appendix.

PhytoPet.

Cattail

diesel range organics, oil, gasoline

Constructed Wetland 99% reduction of sediment concentrations in 20 hours hydraulic residence time

ITRC, 2009.

Typha spp.

copper, manganese, chromium, lead, selenium

Phytosequestration 77% reduction of chromium at effluent; accumulations of metals in plant tissues

Mechanism

Lemna gibba

GRASSES Introduced to Minnesota

Contaminant

Mechanism

Notes

Notes

Source

Source

Panicum coloratum

ITRC, 2009.

Rhizodegradation contaminant concentrations reductions ranged between 23.8%-100% for acenaphthene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, individual contaminants during 258-day test period. benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, Phytosequestration fluoranthene: 95.6% reduction in 11 months; pyrene: 94.2% reduction in 11 chrysene, fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3,c,d)pyrene, naphthalene, pyrene months. anthracene, PAHs Unknown After 40 days, adsorbed 0.006-0.11%, and red. 36-66% by unknown mechanismPhytoPet. diesel, PAH mixture (pristane, hexadecane, phenanthrene, anthracene, Rhizodegradation diesel: after 84 days, contaminants degraded 89.5% ; PAH mixture: after 22 fluoranthene, pyrene weeks,contaminants degraded 97.2% benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, fluorene, naphthalene, Unknown Rates not calculable due to no initial contamination reporting; end-test concen- PhytoPet. phenanthrene, pyrene tration comparisons of planted soil to unplanted control available in appendix.

Bermuda grass

fluoranthene, phenanthrene, pyrene, TPH

Perennial ryegrass

Lolium perenne

Kleingrass

ITRC, 2009.

fluoranthene, phenanthrene, pyrene

Rhizodegradation fluoranthene: -35%/23 mos.; phenanthrene: -55%/23 mos.; pyrene: -45%/23 mos.; TPH: -41%/26 mos.

Phytoextraction

phenanthrene

Rhizodegradation 99% reduced after 42 days.

PhytoPet.

pyrene, TPH

Rhizodegradation pyrene: 46% concentration reduction in 26 weeks; TPH: 20% concentration reduction in 26 weeks.

ITRC, 2009.

Cynodon dactylon

Slender oat grass

Avena barbata

Winter rye

Secale cereale

FLOWERING PLANTS Introduced to Minnesota

Contaminant

Contaminants in italics are suspected to be remediated by this plant Mechanism

anthracene, ethylene glycol, phenol, PAH (total priority), PAH (total), pyrene, toluene, TPH benzene MTBE MTBE, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel anthracene, phenol, pyrene

Alfalfa

Medicago sativa

naphthalene crude oil, PAHs, anthracene, pyrene, phenanthrene, hexadecane tetramethylpentadecane, fluoranthene, phenanthrene, pyrene, TPH

White clover

Trifolium repens

Lathyrus sylvestris

Daucus carota

INVASIVE

GRASSES Not Native to Minnesota Fescue

Festuca arundinacea

Contaminant

Contaminants in italics are suspected to be remediated by this plant Mechanism

anthracene, ethylene glycol, fluoranthene, phenanthrene, pyrene, TPH fluoranthene, phenanthrene, pyrene anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, pyrene benzo(a)pyrene, naphthalene, naphthalene benzo(a)pyrene

Sudangrass

Sorghum vulgare

Deer tongue

Rhizodegradation Phytoextraction

ITRC, 2009.

PhytoPet.

ITRC, 2009.

PhytoPet.

Source

anthracene: -99%/24 wks.; ethylene glycol: -41%/28 days; fluoranthene: -55%/23 ITRC, 2009. mos.; phenanthrene: -60%/23 mos.; pyrene: -70%/23 mos.; TPH: -45%/26 mos.

PhytoPet.

anthracene, pyrene

Rhizodegradation

anthracene: -99%/24 weeks; pyrene: -98%/24 weeks.

ITRC, 2009.

anthracene, pyrene

Rhizodegradation

anthracene: -99%/4 weeks; pyrene: -98%/24 weeks.

PhytoPet.

pyrene

Rhizodegradation

concentrations reduced by 73% when degradation was supplemented with microbes, 96% reduced without microbes.

PhytoPet.

TCE

Rhizodegradation 30% of 14C-TCE mineralized to 14CO2 in 32 days in soil, measured 1.3% of total Phytodegradation 14C in plant tissues, 0.2% in air Phytoextraction Phytovolatilization

ITRC, 2009.

pyrene

Rhizodegradation

reduced 73% with microbes, and 96% without microbes

PhytoPet.

Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)

Rhizodegradation

50% reduction in various concentrations in 9 months

ITRC, 2009.

Lespedeza cuneata

St. Augustine grass

Notes

Rhizodegradation anthracene: -99%/4 weeks; benzo(a)pyrene: -55.8%/6 mos.; pyrene: -87%/4 Phytosequestration weeks; pyrene: reduced by 73% when supplemented with microbes, 96% Phytovolatilization reduced without microbes; naphthalene: adsorption varies with age of plant

Dicanthelium clandestinum

Sericea lespedeza

fluoranthene: -35%/23 mos.; phenanthrene: -70%/23 mos.; pyrene: -55%/23 mos.; TPH: -50%/26 mos.

Source

Phytosequestration 200 Îźg/kg accumulated in carrot root peel after 82 days, initial concentrations at PhytoPet. 17.22 mg/kg.

PAHs (total)

Queen Anne’s Lace

Rhizodegradation Phytoextraction

Rhizodegradation concentrations reduced by 73% when degradation was supplemented with microbes, 96% reduced without microbes.

pyrene

Flat pea

Notes

Rhizodegradation anthracene: -99.4%/24 weeks, pyrene: -98.3%/24 weeks, PAH (total priority): -14%/6 mo., PAH (total): -56.5%/6 mo.

Phytodegradation Phytovolatilization Phytoextraction No information provided on rates of contaminant uptake for metals.

Phytosequestration Rhizodegradation anthracene: -99%/ 4 wks., phenol: -100%/3 wks., pyrene: -99%/24 weeks; with microbes: -73%/30 days, without microbes: -96%/30 days.

Phytosequestration contaminant adsorption improved with age of plant No information provided on rates of contaminant uptake.

Unknown

Stenotaphrum secundatum

27

The GD III Graduate Urban Design Studio: Testing Regenerative Principles for the SEMI Area

The Urban Design Studio (GD III) makes use of the Twin Cities metropolitan region as a laboratory of investigation and as an inquiry for studying the role of urban design in transforming contemporary American cities. The Studio selects a complex and often controversial urban site within the Twin Cities region to be used as a focus for urban investigations and is open to graduate students in architecture, landscape architecture, or urban planning. Students enrolling in the

Urban Design Certificate or MS in Metropolitan Design program from the College of Design should take this course as a requirement.

The overarching goal of urban design is to think of cities within a historical process of transformation. Any design interventions should take place as a regenerative process that brings forward new manifestations of successful urban living, while providing a notable degree of revitalization impetus to the surrounding districts.

Graduate students in the Urban Design Studio present their projects to the community in December 2012

28

IDEA #1: Bioremediation, Stormwater Management, and Habitat Restoration SITE ANALYSIS: HISTORIC GRAIN ELEVATORS

PHYTOREMEDIATION CASE STUDY: BRUCE VENTO NATURE SANCTUARY

Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary wetlands

Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary

Phytoremediation concept for SEMI

Rendering of phytoremediation in SEMI

By David McKay 29

MANAGING STORMWATER

Site section axon highlighting stormwater Stormwater plan

CAMPUS BLOCK EXPLORATIONS

View of wetlands from trails

Site plan

Building massing

CASE STUDY: UCSF MISSION BAY

View of campus mall

By Shona Mositees 30

Rendered site plan

Dimensioned site plan

Dimensioned building massing

Building massing volumes

IDEA #2: Fourth Street Corridor: Dense Mixed-Use Infill Development INITIAL SITE ANALYSIS

DENSITY STUDIES

View corridors

Proposed site movement

SITE PLAN

Green/open spaces

FOURTH STREET VITALITY

By Eric Lindner 31

RESIDENTIAL BLOCK: MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING

Housing concepts

Solar access

Open spaces within residential buildings

RETAIL & OFFICE SPACE

Model

By Pardees Azodanloo 32

FOURTH STREET CORRIDOR

View B: 4th Street looking NW

View C: 29th Ave looking North from above

View C: 29th Ave looking North

Fourth Street Bird’s Eye

Fourth Street Plan

Section AA: Northwest to Southeast

Mixed Use Housing

29th

Mixed Use Housing

30th

Hotel / Convention

Malcolm

By Aaron Regla Breton 33

FOURTH STREET: LIVING STREET / WOONERF

High Point Drainage Diagram by SvR Design Company

FOURTH STREET: COMPLETE STREET

LRT station at 29th Avenue

Fourth Street Cultural Center

By David McKay 34

LRT station and surrounding development

IDEA #3: Creating the University Innovation Campus ARCHITECTURAL TYPOLOGY

Modular unit system configuration

Sun conditions based on module layout and seasons

View of phytoremediation and modules

Typical configuration of modular units

Historic grain silos with new building type

Night views of SEMI

View east from Stadium Village LRT station

By Joey Larson 35

PROJECT PARTICIPANTS Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association

Stakeholders The Wall Companies

Christina Larson, President

John Wall

Tamara Johson, Chair, Master Planning Committee

Fred Wall The Cornerstone Group

Prospect Park 2020, Inc.

Colleen Carey, President Beth Pfeifer, Director of Development

Richard Gilyard, President Dick Poppele, Vice President John DeWitt, Secretary Ray Harris, Board Member

University of Minnesota Foundation Pierre Willette, Economic & Community Development Manager

Nan Skelton, Board Member Nan Kari, Board Member Brian Golberg, Manager

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Mark Ferrey, Environmental Scientist

University District Alliance

ARCADIS-US

Ted Tucker, President Vision and Planning Committee Members

Denice Nelson, Principal Remediation Engineer

Richard Gilyard, Chair Dick Poppele John Kari

University of Minnesota, College of Design Benjamin Ibarra Seville, Assistant Professor, School of Architecture

Julie Wallace Eric Amel Mark Johnson Phillip Kelly

ARCH 8255: GD III Urban Design Studio, Fall 2012, University of Minnesota

Ian Baebenroth

Pardees Azodanloo

Peg Wolff

Niko Kubota

Haila Maze

Joey Larson

Jan Morlock

Eric Lindner David McKay

City of Minneapolis, Community Planning and Economic Development Kjersti Monson, Director of Long Range Planning

36

Shona Mositees Ben Newby Aaron Regla Breton Samaneh Vahaji

REFERENCES Sentinels of Memory: Maintaining the Sense of Place in a Landscape of Social History • Anfinson, J. O. (2003). River of History: A Historic Resources Study of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District.

• Francaviglia, R. V. (2002). The Historic and Geographic Importance of Railroads in Minnesota. In A. J. Aby, (Ed.), The North Star State: A Minnesota History Reader (181-187). St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press.

• Hart, J. F., & Ziegler, S. S. (2008). Landscapes of Minnesota: A Geography. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press.

• Hofsommer, D. L. (2005). Minneapolis and the Age of Railways.

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

• Kane, L. M. (1987). The Falls of St. Anthony: The Waterfall the Built Minneapolis. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press.

• Pearson, M. (2009). Rapids, Reins, Rails: Transportation on the Minneapolis Riverfront. Minneapolis, MN: Hess, Roise, and Company for the St. Anthony Falls Heritage Board.

• Pennefeather, S. M. (2003). Mill City: A Visual History of the Minneapolis Mill District. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society.

• Roise, C., & Weaver Olson, N. (2003). The Junction of Industry and Freight: the Development of the Southeast Minneapolis Industrial Area - A National Register Assessment. Minneapolis, MN: Hess, Roise and Company for the Minneapolis Community Development Agency.

• St. Anthony Falls Heritage Board (2011). History of St. Anthony Falls.

Retrieved from http://www.mnhs.org/places/safhb/history_railroads. shtml

Acknowledging the Role of Innovation in Minnesota’s Growth Economy • Adams, J. S., & VanDrasek, B. J. (1993). Minneapolis-St. Paul: People, Place, and Public Life. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

• Carlino, G.A., Chetterjee, S., & Hunt, R. (2001). Knowledge Spillovers and the New Economy of Cities. Business Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia) Q4, pp. 17-24.

• Gelbach, D. (2005). Minnesota: Shaped by the Land. Sun Valley, CA: American Historical Press.

• Hayden, D. (1997). The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

• Jeffrey, Kirk (1989). The Major Manufacturers: From Food and Forest Products to High Technology. In C. E. Clark, Jr. (Ed.), Minnesota in a Century of Change: The State and Its People Since 1900 (223 – 259).

St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press.

• Katz, B., & Wagner J. (2012). How Colleges can Foster Development Zones. The Atlantic Cities. Retrieved from http://www.theatlanticcities. com/jobs-and-economy/2012/02/how-colleges-can-fosterdevelopment-zones/1209/ • Metropolitan Council (1999). Maintaining our competitive edge for the 21st century: The State of the Region. St. Paul, MN: Metropolitan Council.

• Soderstrom, M., Sauerwein, K., & Suess, P. (2005). Minneapolis: Currents of Change. Encino, CA: Cherbo Publishing Group, Inc. • Office of Business Development, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. (2010). Economic Overview and Industry Strengths of Minneapolis/St. Paul. Retrieved from www.PositivelyMinnesota.com/business

Thinking Beyond Property Lines: Land Reorganization and Value Capture in Transforming Post-Industrial Sites • Bergen, M. (2012, August 12). How Can Cities Recapture Investment in Public Infrastructure? The Next City. Retrieved from http://nextcity. org/forefront/view/money-grab.

• Hong, Y. & Needham, B. (editors) (2007). Analyzing Land Readjustment: Economics, Law, and Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

• Hough, M. (1995). Cities and Natural Process. London, UK: Routledge.

• Kostof, S. (1977). The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Restoring the Site: The Promise of Bio- and Phytoremediation • Barr Engineering Company. (1993). Basis for sinkhole treatment designs. Minneapolis, MN. • Cornell University and Penn State University, Environmental Inquiry.

(2009). Bioremediation. Retrieved from http://ei.cornell.edu/biodeg/ bioremed/index.html • Gadd, G.M. (2001). Fungi in Bioremediation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

• Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) (2009).

Phytotechnology Technical and Regulatory Guidance and Decision Trees, Revised. Retrieved from: http://www.itrcweb.org/ guidancedocument.asp?tid=63 • Pilon Smits, E. (2005). Phytoremediation. Annual review of plant biology, 56(1), 15.

• Suthersan, Suthan S. (1997). Remediation Engineering: Design Concepts. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

• University of Saskatchewan, Department of Soil Sciences. PhytoPet online plant database. http://phytopet.usask.ca/mainpg.php • USDA PLANTS National Database (2012). http://plants.usda.gov/java/ • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). Brownfields Technology Primer: Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for Site Cleanup (EPA 542-R-01-006). Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

• US EPA. (2000). Introduction to Phytoremediation (EPA/600/R-99/107). Cincinnati, Ohio: National Risk Management Research Laboratory.

• US EPA. (2010). Phytotechnologies for Site Cleanup (EPA 542-F10-009). Washington, DC: Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation.

• US EPA. (2010). Green Remediation Best Management Practices: Bioremediation. (EPA 542-F-10-006). Washington, DC: Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation.

• US EPA. (2011). Technologies: Remediation web portal.

Contaminated Site Clean-Up Information. Retrieved from: http://www. clu-in.org/remediation/ • US EPA. (2012). Green Remediation Focus web portal. Contaminated Site Clean-Up Information. Retrieved from: http://www.clu-in.org/ greenremediation/

37

METROPOLITAN DESIGN CENTER Ignacio San Martin, Dayton Hudson Professor, Chair of Urban Design and Director of the Metropolitan Design Center Adrienne Bockheim, MLA, Research Fellow, DDA Program Coordinator Peter Crandall, MArch, Research Fellow

2013 The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.

This publication/material is available in alternative formats upon request. Please contact Ignacio San Martin, 612-625-9000. Š 2013 University of Minnesota, Metropolitan Design Center, College of Design Printed on 100 percent post-consumer fiber, processed chlorine free, FSC recycled certified, and manufactured using biogas energy.

For additional information contact METROPOLITAN DESIGN CENTER COLLEGE OF DESIGN University of Minnesota 1 Ralph Rapson Hall, 89 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455

smartin@umn.edu