Ground 15 – Fall 2011 – Planning and Infrastructure by Ground Magazine

Landscape Architect Quarterly 08/

Features Best Friends/ Worst Enemies

12/

Gutter to Gulf

18/

The Bottom Line

20/

Round Table Green Infrastructure

Publication # 40026106

Fall 2011 Issue 15

Contents

03/

Up Front Information on the Ground Planning and Infrastructure:

08/

12/

Best Friends/Worst Enemies: Landscpe Architects and Engineers Adam Nicklin, OALA, and Victoria Taylor, OALA, in Conversation Gutter to Gulf Reimagining Water and Its Role in New Orleans

President’s Message

Editorial Board Message

President’s Message

Editorial Board Message

The OALA continues to advance and make stronger connections with our allied professions. OALA Council has begun the task of implementing many aspects of our new, approved strategic plan. Our website, which is partially completed now, will be further refined in the near future. Marketing efforts and other key initiatives are now under way; in the fall, we‘re participating at IIDEX, utilizing the opportunity to tell others all about landscape architects and the OALA. In October, I will attend the O.P.P.I. (Ontario Professional Planners Institute) Conference/AGM in Ottawa to strengthen ties with our allied planning profession.

An emerging landscape vocabulary that relates infrastructure, ecology, and civic space—identified in this issue by authors Jane Wolff, Elise Shelley, OALA, and Derek Hoeferlin in their article about post-Katrina New Orleans—speaks eloquently to a broader trend within landscape architecture.

A task force has been struck to examine and report back to Council on a Practice Act. This is an important task and was given priority by the membership. We will continue to update the membership on important issues through the OALA News.

TEXT BY JANE WOLFF, ELISE SHELLEY, OALA, AND DEREK HOEFERLIN

18/

The Bottom Line Public Investment in the Public Realm TEXT BY RON PALMER

20/

26/

Round Table Green Infrastructure Issues and Debates A Culture of Learning TEXT BY KATE NELISCHER

28/

Technical Corner Modular Green Roof Systems TEXT BY NANCY CHATER, OALA

32/

Professional Practice A Life of Learning TEXT BY NATE PERKINS

34/

42/

Notes A Miscellany of News and Events Artifact Biking—North of 60 TEXT BY CAROLINE SCHUTRUMPF

Fall 2011 Issue 15

The organization relies on dedicated volunteers, and I personally encourage you to consider participating on a committee or activity. Many tasks have a limited time mandate, and are specific and focused. Together, we will work toward a stronger, more unified voice for the profession as we reach out to other allied professionals, the public, and government. Council has discussed having a breakfast at Queen’s Park in April, 2012, to reach out to our provincial leaders. Initial planning is under way for this important event, which will require additional volunteers. Golf Day was held on August 12, 2011, at Granite Ridge in Milton. This successful event was attended by more than 130 members, guests, and suppliers/friends of the OALA. Without ongoing support, it would not be possible to support students at the University of Toronto and University of Guelph to the same degree; this support is appreciated by students and Council. Overall, we have a busy fall ahead and many things to accomplish. GLENN A. O’CONNOR, OALA PRESIDENT@OALA.CA

The impetus to create quality public space in tandem with infrastructural systems is fueled in part by the need to find win-win solutions for budget-conscious municipal clients. As Adam Nicklin, OALA, points out in his discussion with Victoria Taylor, OALA, engineers and landscape architects jointly have to ask, “what do we want to deliver in terms of public realm, and what do we have to deliver in terms of infrastructure?” The goal is to devise solutions that are both “beautiful and pragmatic.” New Orleans is a telling example of how infrastructure is essential but often overlooked by citizens, policy makers, and design professionals. Disasters bring to light the weaknesses of infrastructural systems that overlook basic ecology, such as development in floodplains and the impact of large-scale interventions like draining swamps or wetlands. Making infrastructure “visible” is also a cultural act involving narratives and other forms of representation that are able to “tell the story” in a way that captures the imagination of all stakeholders, as Wolff et al and Nicklin point out. In his article about the importance of public investment in the public realm, Ron Palmer makes a persuasive bottom-line case, suggesting that “landscape architects need to recognize and promote their important contribution to city-building as an economic imperative.” Our Round Table feature brings together a range of professionals working in the broad area of “green infrastructure.” We are excited about the recently formed Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition—on which the OALA has a representative—and will watch with interest as the coalition works to have sustainability principles incorporated into the formal definition of infrastructure by the provincial government. We hope this issue makes the relationship between planning, infrastructure, and landscape architecture legible in new and interesting ways. As always, we look forward to responses to the ideas raised in this issue of Ground. NANCY CHATER, OALA, AND ROBERT WALKOWIAK CO-CHAIRS, EDITORIAL BOARD

Masthead

.15

Editor Lorraine Johnson

2011 OALA Governing Council

OALA Editorial Board Nancy Chater (co-chair) Johanna Evers Eric Gordon Jocelyn Hirtes Lorraine Johnson Fung Lee Leslie Morton Maili Sedore Netami Stuart Victoria Taylor Rob Walkowiak (co-chair)

President Glenn O'Connor

Art Direction/Design typotherapy+design inc. www.typotherapy.com Advertising Inquiries advertising@oala.ca 416.231.4181 Cover A proposal for New Orleans, by Fadi Masoud, from the Gutter to Gulf project (see page 12). Ground: Landscape Architect Quarterly is published four times a year by the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects. Ontario Association of Landscape Architects 3 Church Street, Suite 407 Toronto, Ontario M5E 1M2 416.231.4181 www.oala.ca oala@oala.ca Copyright © 2011 by the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects All rights reserved ISSN: 0847-3080 Canada Post Sales Product Agreement No. 40026106 Ground is printed on 100 percent post-consumer, processed chlorinefree paper that is FSC certified.

Vice President Joanne Moran Treasurer Bryce Miranda Secretary Morteza Behrooz Officer Johanna Evers

OALA

About

About the OALA

Ground: Landscape Architect Quarterly is published by the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects and provides an open forum for the exchange of ideas and information related to the profession of landscape architecture.

The Ontario Association of Landscape Architects works to promote and advance the profession of landscape architecture and maintain standards of professional practice consistent with the public interest. The OALA promotes public understanding of the profession and the advancement of the practice of landscape architecture. In support of the improvement and/or conservation of the natural, cultural, social and built environments, the OALA undertakes activities including promotion to governments, professionals and developers of the standards and benefits of landscape architecture.

Letters to the editor, article proposals, and feedback are encouraged. For submission guidelines, contact Ground at magazine@oala.ca. Ground reserves the right to edit all submissions. The views expressed in the magazine are those of the writers and not necessarily the views of the OALA and its Governing Council.

Ground Advisory Panel

Past President Lawrence Stasiuk Councillors Sarah Koeppe Jonathan Loschmann Associate Councillor—Senior Neeltje Slingerland Associate Councillor—Junior Jonathan Woodside Lay Councillor Linda Thorne Appointed Educator University of Toronto Elise Shelley Appointed Educator University of Guelph Sean Kelly University of Toronto Student Representative Peggy Chi University of Guelph Student Representative Leila Fazel OALA Staff Registrar Karen Savoie Acting Administrator Aina Budrevics

.15

Upcoming Issues of Ground Ground 16 (Winter) Real/Artificial Deadline for advertising space reservations: October 28, 2011 Ground 17 (Spring) Mobility Deadline for editorial proposals: October 7, 2011 Deadline for advertising space reservations: January 16, 2012 Ground 18 (Summer) Health Deadline for editorial proposals: January 17, 2012 Deadline for advertising space reservations: April 23, 2012 Ground 19 (Fall) Time Deadline for editorial proposals: April 17, 2012 Deadline for advertising space reservations: July 23, 2012

Letter to the Editor As the new Head of Horticulture at the Royal Botanical Gardens, I have seen a copy or two of Ground. Just wanted to let you know that I think you’re doing a terrific job! Great themes and articles—and beautiful design. Congratulations to the Editorial Board and the OALA. CARLO A. BALISTRIERI HEAD OF HORTICULTURE, ROYAL BOTANICAL GARDENS BURLINGTON, ONTARIO

Erratum In Ground 14, photographs 03 and 04 appearing on page 3 should have been credited to Jo Dickins.

Andrew Anderson, BLA, academic leave of absence from the OALA Victoria Lister Carley, OALA, Victoria Lister Carley Landscape Architect, Toronto John Danahy, OALA, Associate Professor, University of Toronto George Dark, OALA, FCSLA, ASLA, Principal, Urban Strategies Inc., Toronto Katherine Dugmore, MCIP, RPP, Waterfront Project Manager, City of Thunder Bay Real Eguchi, OALA, Eguchi Associates Landscape Architects, Toronto Donna Hinde, OALA, Partner, The Planning Partnership, Toronto Ryan James, OALA, Landscape Architect, Peterborough Alissa North, OALA, Assistant Professor, University of Toronto, Principal of North Design Office, Toronto Peter North, OALA, Assistant Professor, University of Toronto, Principal of North Design Office, Toronto Cecelia Paine, OALA, FCSLA, FASLA, Professor and Associate Dean of Graduate Studies, University of Guelph Nathan Perkins, MLA, PhD, ASLA, Associate Professor, University of Guelph Jim Vafiades, OALA, Senior Landscape Architect, Stantec, London

Up Front

.15

direct water, stormwater, and wastewater in a similar manner to grey infrastructure yet have multiple societal benefits. Living green infrastructure includes urban forests, natural areas, parks and landscaped areas, green roofs, rain gardens, bioswales, engineered wetlands, and stormwater ponds. Internationally, green infrastructure is gaining attention as a tool to address water concerns and other environmental problems such as: lack of green space, declining urban forest cover, urban “heat island” management, air quality, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and loss of biodiversity.

01 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

working for change

01-03/

IMAGES/

Green infrastructure, including street trees, can be used as tools to address many environmental problems. Casey Morris

In December 2010, the non-profit organization Ecojustice Canada filed an Application for Review under the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) on behalf of two Green Infrastructure Ontario (GIO) Coalition members. The application requested that six ministries (Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs; Infrastructure; Environment; Municipal Affairs and Housing; Natural Resources; and Transportation) review and change their definitions of infrastructure to include green infrastructure.

The application suggested that this definitional change was necessary to ensure that infrastructure development in Ontario would happen in a manner that facilitates Ontarians’ quality of life and positions the province as a leader in green infrastructure. In particular, the current approaches to designing, planning, and building our communities has resulted in a number of environmental problems including water quality degradation, unsustainable water use, and increased flood risk. Green infrastructure could be used to address and alleviate these problems.

Current definitions of infrastructure refer to “hard” or “grey” infrastructure, such as pipes, tunnels, bridges, and roads. The application requested that the definition of infrastructure be reviewed to consider the following definition of green infrastructure: natural or engineered ecological processes or structures that process, capture, and

The application also points to the inconsistencies among the ministries’ approaches to infrastructure, which prevent uniform treatment and implementation of policies and funding to promote sustainable communities. The application requests that the ministries work together to review and incorporate sustainability principles in the definition of infrastructure. All ministries have denied the application. Further, the ministries responded individually to the Applications for Review under the EBR, and this piecemeal response is a barrier to the integrated approach needed to realize the benefits of living green infrastructure. Ecojustice will continue to work with GIO to advocate for an approach to infrastructure in Ontario that integrates government initiatives in order to realize the full benefits of embracing green infrastructure solutions for environmental challenges.

Up Front: Information on the Ground 03

TEXT BY ANASTASIA LINTNER, A LAWYER AT ECOJUSTICE.

Up Front

.15

04 URBAN WILDLIFE

buzz on bees When Scott MacIvor asked me if he could place a bee nesting box in my backyard, I jumped at the chance. MacIvor is a PhD candidate at York University in Toronto and he’s at the beginning of a four-year research project to study bees in the urban environment—specifically, the diversity of solitary, cavity-nesting species, such as leaf-cutter bees, found in the city, and how we might better design urban habitats for these crucial pollinators. The nesting box he installed in my yard this spring, tucked in a sunny spot behind a paw paw tree, is just one of more than 200 Toronto sites now graced with “bee condos.” Some are in private gardens, some in public gardens, and others are in semi-naturalized parks and on green roofs. Serendipidously, many are in the yards of architects and landscape architects—precisely those who, when MacIvor has compiled his results, will be able to use his findings in their professional work.

MacIvor paid a visit to my backyard in midsummer to see if any bees were nesting in the boxes. “Wow!” he enthused, “you’ve got 70 percent colonization. That’s a lot for a backyard!” I have to admit that I was chuffed. I don’t know whether to attribute this backyard bee success to the temporarily overgrown state of my garden or to the many native plants found there, or even to some fluke of geography—all I know is that the bees seem to like my place, and I definitely like the bees (and so does my vegetable patch). Their presence has even made me feel fine about the 05

round holes appearing on the leaf edges of my redbud and sugar maple—the damage, which is minimal and doesn’t affect the health of the trees, is a sign of leaf-cutter bees at work. Along with nesting materials, such as the bits of leaves collected by leaf-cutters and the mud collected by mason bees, all bees need nesting places and pollen and nectar sources. Surprisingly, the plant diversity found in cities can offer bees

Up Front

.15

planners and landscape architects: “I’m very interested in how we can integrate ecological resiliency and support for wild species in our design of cities.”

Interestingly, while a lot of attention has been paid in recent years to the decline of pollinators, there is much that we don’t know about native bee populations. (Nonnative honeybees, on the other hand, are relatively well studied in comparison.) MacIvor notes that his York University colleague Jason Gibbs found a new species of bee near College and Spadina in Toronto last year: “Just think—a brand new species right in the middle of North America’s fifth largest city!” I live relatively close to that corner, and can’t help but dream that maybe MacIvor will find something special in my yard. But for now, I’m more than happy to share my yard with a nesting box full of bees. For more information on MacIvor’s project, visit www.TObees.ca. TEXT BY LORRAINE JOHNSON, AUTHOR OF CITY FARMER: ADVENTURES IN URBAN FOOD GROWING.

09 04/

Cavity-nesting bees provisioning nestbox tubes.

IMAGE/

Scott MacIvor

05/

Nestbox in backyard with gold finches.

IMAGE/

Deborah Chute

06/

Bee nestbox on a green roof in Toronto.

IMAGE/

Scott MacIvor

07/

Redbud tree leaves affected by leaf-cutter bees.

IMAGE/

Scott MacIvor

08/

Bee nestbox in forest clearing.

IMAGE/

Scott MacIvor

09/

Bee nestbox in a residential backyard.

IMAGE/

Scott MacIvor

10/

Scott MacIvor setting up at the Evergreen Brick Works.

IMAGE/

Dave Barr

better habitat than that found in agricultural areas, which are often dominated by monocultural crops. In his research, MacIvor is looking at the landscape and urban matrix factors that influence the diversity and foraging of cavity-nesting bees and pest-controlling wasps in the city of Toronto. Of particular interest to MacIvor is the question of how we can improve the foraging ranges of bees through connectivity in urban, fragmented landscapes: “There are so many opportunities in the city to design for multifunctionality,” he notes. And in exploring how bees navigate the urban matrix, MacIvor hopes that his results will be useful to urban

Up Front

.15

soil erosion problems bedeviling the U.S. in the 1930s and 1940s. In a massive campaign, the Soil Conservation Service urged farmers to plant kudzu for soil stabilization. So successful were their efforts that by 1945, kudzu was growing on approximately one half million acres of the southeastern U.S. Today, the legacy of kudzu’s ubiquitous planting is that the “miracle vine” has turned into a pervasive pest. While kudzu is perhaps the poster plant in the southeastern U.S. for the lesson of unintended consequences of good intentions, it may be a surprise to learn that kudzu is also growing in Ontario. A small population—discovered by a governmentemployed botanist in 2009—has been growing, but neither expanding nor shrinking, for at least a decade in a farmer’s field bordering Lake Erie near Leamington. For University of Toronto PhD candidate Heather Coiner, this plot has been the focus of her research for the past five years. As she puts it, her interest in various plants’ range limits “blew up” into a multi-year thesis on kudzu—a metaphor perfect for the explosive growing abilities of this vine.

Interestingly, though, the Ontario kudzu population has stayed confined to its one small location. Coiner attributes this to the fact that the lake, with a 100-foot embankment, borders one end of the plot and the 12 INVASIVE PLANTS

kudzu in ontario It is a plant uniquely suited to B-grade horror movies. Able to extend its tendrils 60 feet in one growing season and drape itself over houses, whole forests—basically, anything in its path—kudzu (Pueraria lobata) took less than a century to exert fecund dominance over the southeastern United States. Native to China, the vine was introduced to the U.S. in 1876, when it was included in a planting at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition. It gained popularity as an ornamental and was used as a pasture crop for grazing livestock, but its explosive spread across the southern landscape was primarily facilitated by its promotion as an effective control for the

Up Front

.15

farmer’s fields provide another controlling boundary—the kudzu tendrils that extend into the fields are regularly cut back by farm equipment. But, as Coiner notes, “just because it hasn’t expanded yet doesn’t mean it won’t.” If the farmer’s fields weren’t being cultivated, for example, Coiner suspects that the kudzu would spread: “Southern Ontario provides perfectly suitable conditions for kudzu,” she points out. Even so, while Coiner urges caution, she doesn’t see a need for panic. “While kudzu doesn’t appear to be a menace right now, even a single incidence of the vine could cut into Ontario’s agricultural industry. That’s our prime agricultural land and we can’t afford to lose any acreage. We shouldn’t be complacent.”

Nearing the end of her research project, Coiner is completing her final experiment on how low temperatures control kudzu’s range limits, and she is particularly interested in how kudzu will respond to a changing climate: “Invasive species such as kudzu may become more problematic later if they’re able to exploit changing conditions such as warmer mean temperatures and increased levels of C02.” As for the future possibilities for kudzu in Ontario, Coiner’s research is one important piece of the puzzle: “Looking at species’ range limits is really complicated, but it’s the best predictive test we’ve got.” TEXT BY LORRAINE JOHNSON, EDITOR OF GROUND.

11/

Heather Coiner measuring photosynthesis on kudzu leaves in Leamington.

IMAGE/

Kate Henbest

12/

Undergraduate assistant Kate Henbest measuring kudzu growth rates on a slope bordering Lake Erie.

IMAGE/

Heather Coiner

13/

Kudzu flowers open from the bottom up, and smell like grape pop.

IMAGE/

Heather Coiner

14/

Kudzu leaf lobing is highly variable, even within one patch.

IMAGE/

Heather Coiner

15/

A field and tree taken over by kudzu in eastern Arkansas.

IMAGE/

Heather Coiner

16/

Lobed kudzu leaves.

IMAGE/

Heather Coiner

17/

It is difficult to reclaim land once kudzu is well established.

IMAGE/

Heather Coiner

Best Friends/ Worst Enemies

.15

Adam Nicklin, OALA, and Victoria Taylor, OALA, in conversation about the similarities and differences between landscape architecture and engineering 01/

Model of East Bayfront district, in Toronto, used to piece together massing and major landscape/ infrastructure systems.

IMAGE/

Courtesy Waterfront Toronto/ West 8 + DTAH joint venture

02/

The integrated stormwater management system proposed for East Bayfront, including diagrams explaining the system build approach to fabrication.

IMAGE/

Courtesy Waterfront Toronto/ West 8 + DTAH joint venture

03/

The revitalization of Queens Quay Boulevard, a design-led environmental assessment.

IMAGE/

Courtesy Waterfront Toronto/ West 8 + DTAH joint venture

Victoria Taylor (VT): The relationship between engineers and architects is a frequent topic of conversation since we often work together in many capacities. It is especially relevant for this issue of Ground, so thank you for taking the time to chat with us. The professions of landscape architecture and engineering are so similar—in terms of function, safety, making things work, even in terms of ecology—but these professions are also very different. You have some interesting thoughts on that subject to share with our readers.

Adam Nicklin (AN): One of the differences between landscape architects and engineers, in their approach, is that engineers are, by necessity, very pragmatic. They work through a problem from A to B and, frankly, maybe that’s the best way. Where we differ is that landscape architects and design professionals are adept at presenting ideas and capturing the imagination of someone quickly. An engineering approach that starts at A and ends at Z usually results in a large report, which you have to really sift through

Best Friends/ Worst Enemies

.15

to get to the gist of it. Whereas landscape architects are in the fortunate position of being able to cut to the chase. In some ways, I think that landscape architects tend to view engineers as both our best friend and our worst enemy. They are our worst enemy because we often want to do something different, and they want to do the same thing over and over. But there are reasons for why they repeat things—at the end of the day, most of the liability for the work that we do actually rests with them. And we sometimes take that maybe a bit too lightly. We can fall into the trap of marginalizing the work that engineers do and seeing it as an obstacle. But actually it’s not so much that they want to do the same thing over and over; it’s just that they’ve been through it— many for years and years—so the only way

to change that solution is to understand what set them off in that direction and for landscape architects to come up with something better. But that takes a lot of rigour, and it takes delving into the engineering problems and solutions in a lot of depth, which can take a lot of time. But it’s the only way to get results.

VT: There are different points at which landscape architects come into the process and where engineers come into the process. Take, for example, the RFP stage—Request for Proposals—a process where there is usually an engineer on the team. There is an opportunity there to establish the ground work for the future, when we are just starting a new relationship. What happens at that point? Or, what could happen at that point to achieve something different?

Best Friends/ Worst Enemies

.15

important decision within the public realm of design is already out of your hands. You can push back, but what’s driving it is out of your hands. In the typical planning approach, everything is equal. We’ll have the sidewalk the same on both sides, and we’ll draw circles for trees along every street because it looks like it needs them. But a typical engineering approach has already filled that space with utilities. Fundamentally, the city has always seen a street as a zoning problem: this is Hydro’s portion, this is Bell’s portion, etc. Never at any point do they think of a tree—one of the basic things landscape architects use for public realm design—as a utility, and as having the same importance as the utilities.

But urban design should be more than an exercise in filling in the gaps. Urban design is also about holistically changing where utility corridors or transit corridors actually go. This is a big mental shift. I think it’s something engineering firms are starting to catch on to, and they’re pushing urban design in ways that they never used to, knowing that clients want it. They see the results that you get if you do push it. 05

AN: Let‘s say you are doing an environmental assessment for a transit project. The first thing that typically would happen is that an engineering-based team would look at road profile, traffic capacity, alternate routes, and would decide on a cross section for that street. Let’s say the cross section of that street would be for the transit to go down the middle. Then, working out from the centre, it would be an exercise in allotting the rest of the space to achieve the same traffic capacity that was provided by that street currently. The space in between is an urban design problem—a decision about a median or a sidewalk, for example—and that is typically seen as where we, as landscape architects, would come in.

VT: Definitely it is more common in the practice, today, for designers to look below ground, figure out what’s going under the surface as well as above ground, and how these two conditions affect the success of public realm design. Take, for example, the issue of trees. You have to consider trees’ roots and that the success of the tree above ground is based on how they will grow in the soil: how this natural infrastructure will thrive amongst the other pieces of manmade infrastructure.

But we could turn around and say, “Okay, the same way that Hydro doesn’t want a Bell line placed within a metre of its line, well, we’re going to take the six metres for trees and we don’t want any utilities infringing there.”

AN: Yes, and the limiting factor is that the city already has an idea of what their standard is for how wide a street should be, based on the size and amount of utilities they think are required. So the first, most

The best way to solve this is to get involved early in the process and start to think about it from an engineer’s point of view. Understand the decisions they will need to make. You need to work on practical solutions with them to come up with something that exceeds expectations. VT: In dealing with the public realm, we’re dealing with politics and public money, and the imperative of being more efficient with 07

Best Friends/ Worst Enemies

public money. The better the relationship is between the two professions of landscape architecture and engineering, the better it is financially and politically. I assume there is motivation from that angle as well. AN: Yes, there’s definitely a political climate right now of prudence and fiscal responsibility. We’ve all been in meetings or in scenarios where landscape or good public realm design has been seen as a luxury. It’s been seen as what you do if you can afford it. But if you can get people on side with not just how nice it is, but how much sense it makes to do it differently, then you’re on to a winner. If you can pose it in a way that’s beautiful and pragmatic and prudent, then it’s a win-win-win. One example is when we did the design for the stormwater management tanks in the East Bayfront, Toronto. Originally the design was a passive stormwater system. We basically saved having to account for the substructure of the boardwalk we had planned above, by using the tanks themselves to support the decking. So the result is beautiful, yet smart and prudent. Further, our team designed it to shore up the dockwall to extend the lifespan of the wall for another hundred years, and designed the structural fill as fisheries habitat. VT: So, in this example, it was not really that landscape architects came up with that and told the engineers to draw it? It was a collaboration. AN: Yes, a complete collaboration that was only made possible with the creative input of civil and structural engineers. We went through many iterations, but all were based around these questions: what do we want to deliver in terms of public realm, and what do we have to deliver in terms of infrastructure? We have to do both. We also had to spend a considerable amount of money on the fisheries habitat to make up for the fact that we had eaten into the lake—i.e., there was less lake area—so what is the smart thing to do? Well, you turn the structural fill into a fisheries habitat. So again it’s that kind of prudence in your approach which people respect, so then you have their ear when you tell them about what kind of improvements you want to make.

.15

VT: In that situation, specifically, can you even divide it between “the engineers brought this and we, as landscape architects, brought that”? Can we understand it that way, or does it just completely flow together? There are specific things that we rely on the engineers for, to achieve. What kinds of things are those? AN: Well, for one thing, engineers are going to be stamping the functional design of that facility. They are the ones verifying that it won’t fall down and, primarily, that it works—that it is cleaning water to the specifications laid out by the city. The only way to pull that together for a client to understand is to diagram it out. And engineers really can use our help there, quite frankly. Landscape architects are good at telling a simple story about how the thing works and comparing it to other options, saying: what do you get with this, what do you get with that? When you’re comparing systems, you’re basically saying: what is it giving us? If we go back to our example of environmental assessments, how do you decide what a road looks like, how do you decide how you build transit in a road? Well, you decide on what you think is important, and you look at different options, and the ones that deliver more are better. VT: Engineers can pretty much build anything, they can make something work and function. In your mind, what is the value that landscape architects bring to a design project? AN: The value we bring is firstly a holistic and informed approach to making great places. It could be a street, a park, a marine facility—anything—but we bring a fairly dynamic approach in understanding how a great place can benefit people, economies, culture. I think landscape architects are good arbiters. When we’re at our best, and when we understand some of the engineering problems, we can take it away from just being an engineering problem and into a broader realm of what are you getting for your solution. Engineering is giving you solutions, delivering something from here to there. It’s servicing something; it’s allowing a

service vehicle to get through here. Well, we’re in the fortunate position of being able to think of five different ways that that could happen and being able to talk about that from a public realm point of view, and why it might be okay that the fire truck doesn’t come this way, that we could design this differently so that we can accommodate it over here. VT: What about green infrastructure and the role of engineers and landscape architects? AN: Green infrastructure is a bit of a vague term, but everyone kind of knows what it implies. And this is another area where a sense of collaboration with engineers can really improve a project. Engineering doesn’t need to be just pipes, it doesn’t need to be hidden away. In some instances, you can show what is happening, and there’s a certain beauty in showing the function of storm water, for instance—how it moves through the land—and that can become art. And landscape architects really do engage in that. I mean everyone does that. We love it. That’s our opportunity to play with engineering, to see it in different manner and to create art. Actually there is some irony to the theme of this conversation—how landscape architects and engineers are different. Because really we are not that different. We’ve just been on different paths, and finally the paths are coming together. At the point when we realize we’re both trying to do the same thing, but in a different manner, a lot of those differences dissolve away. It’s there where you find the spirit to collaborate. This is what we need to look for. BIOS/ ADAM NICKLIN, OALA, IS A PRINCIPAL AT DU TOIT ALLSOPP HILLIER. VICTORIA TAYLOR, OALA, IS A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CURRENTLY WORKING AT TORONTOBASED BROOK MCILROY. SHE HAS DEVELOPED AN EDIBLE GARDEN ON THE ROOF OF THE TORONTO RESTAURANT PARTS & LABOUR.

04-05/

Construction of Silva Cell planting system within the municipal rightof-way in the East Bayfront district.

IMAGES/

Courtesy Waterfront Toronto/ West 8 + DTAH joint venture

06/

Local street within the East Bayfront district.

IMAGE/

Courtesy Waterfront Toronto/ West 8 + DTAH joint venture

07/

The Toronto Central Waterfront Masterplan.

IMAGE/

Courtesy Waterfront Toronto/ West 8 + DTAH joint venture

Gutter to Gulf

.15

Reimagining water and its role in New Orleans 01/

A proposal to develop aquaculture in a defunct shipping canal.

IMAGE/

Fadi Masoud, University of Toronto, 2009

02/

Historical sections of the 17th Street Canal, which carries water to Lake Pontchartrain.

IMAGE/

Jennifer Bucovec, Fatima Idris, Greg Warren, and Lu Zhang, University of Toronto, 2010

Gutter to Gulf

.15

Historical Sections

1860

1924

1950

1991

2007

TEXT BY JANE WOLFF, ELISE SHELLEY, OALA, AND DEREK HOEFERLIN

Six years after Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans continues to act as a crucible for dilemmas about infrastructure, regional ecology, and landscape and urban design. Gutter to Gulf, a unique multidisciplinary research and teaching initiative by the University of Toronto and Washington University in St. Louis, seeks to transform the way people understand these dilemmas: the intensity of their expression at the bottom of North America’s largest drainage basin makes New Orleans a vivid example for cities across the continent. A Brief History of Water in New Orleans New Orleans owes its existence to its location in the Mississippi Delta: the city was built on the portage between Lake Pontchartrain, which offered access to the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean, and the Mississippi River, which offered access to the centre of the North American continent. The city’s location has been its blessing

and its curse. When New Orleans was founded in the early 18th century, it occupied the high, dry land along the river’s natural levees. The passage to the lake could be made by boat with a short portage; and the lake offered access to the Gulf via Lake Borgne. The cypress swamps between the river and the lake lay just above sea level, but they were too wet to occupy permanently, and until the early twentieth century, urban development was confined to the stable high ground along the Mississippi. In the first half of the twentieth century, mechanical pumping technology enabled the draining and subdivision of New Orleans’s back-of-town swamps. The reclamation of these soggy areas had an unexpected consequence: it made ground levels fall. This process, called subsidence, occurred through

Gutter to Gulf

.15

Florida Ave Canal

max water volume is approximately

1,540,000 cubic feet

different mechanisms. Organic matter in the soil oxidized, so soil volume was reduced. As pumping extracted water from the ground, soil particles collapsed onto each other. The removal of the cypress swamps brought an end to soil creation through organic decomposition. Finally, the levees that had been constructed along the length of the Mississippi to stop flooding prevented the replenishment of soil by alluvial material. As the land fell lower and lower, it became more vulnerable to flooding, and water no longer drained naturally to Lake Pontchartrain. Today, the city is a giant sink. Approximately half of its surface lies below sea level, and levees protect it from Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi River. Rainwater enters the storm sewer system through drains in the street and travels through pipes and canals to pumping stations, where it is mechanically lifted and sent through outfall canals to the lake. New Orleans does not need a hurricane to flood: the drainage system can store just half an inch of rainfall, and it can pump half an inch of rain in one hour. After that, the city begins to fill with water.

03/

An inventory of surface canals and their physical characteristics.

IMAGE/

Philip Burkhardt, Kenny Fung, Karen May, Julian Pelekanakis, Denise Pinto, and Tara Razavi, University of Toronto and Washington University, 2010

04/

An inventory of underground drainage canals and their physical characterisics.

IMAGE/

Justin Cheung, Jonathan Dowse, Marc Hardiejowski, Juan Robles, Scott Rosin, and Brendan Wittstruck, University of Toronto and Washington University, 2010

Gutter to Gulf

.15

Now What? New Orleans’s drainage system is essential to the city’s everyday life, but it exists outside the consciousness of most citizens, policy makers, and design professionals. The city is a Gordian knot of dilemmas about water and its management. This knot emerged over time from the development of an infrastructure system that denies the city’s basic ecology. It creates vulnerability to disasters—from hurricanes to oil spills—and makes recovery extremely difficult. It demands new ways of thinking about the role of water in cities today. The city needs a water plan. Gutter to Gulf arose to advocate for synthetic water planning in New Orleans. Its premise is that better information at both grassroots and policy levels is the first step toward improved urban watershed awareness and management. It addresses water planning in two ways: by providing clear, comprehensive information about how infrastructure functions right now and by proposing a new landscape vocabulary that relates infrastructure, ecology, and civic space.

05/

This physical model shows the correspondence—and lack of correspondence—between the city’s hydrological and hydraulic systems.

IMAGE/

Washington University Gutter to Gulf studio, 2011

06/

Historical study showing where surface canals have been buried.

IMAGE/

Greg Warren, University of Toronto, 2010

Gutter to Gulf

.15

When it

Harvest

Rains...

Time

07/

A proposal for cooperative rice farming in a low-lying, economically disadvantaged neighbourhood.

IMAGE/

Adam Bobbette and Karen May, University of Toronto, 2010

08/

A proposal to design street tree planting in relation to soil types.

IMAGE/

Julian Pelekanakis, Washington University in St. Louis, 2010

Planning for water involves both technical and political questions, and Gutter to Gulf aims to speak to engineers, designers, policy makers, and citizens. The initiative raises design issues that are rhetorical—what, for instance, should the image of water be in a soggy place, and how can that image help citizens to come to terms with where they live?—and practical—how does rainwater hit the ground, travel through the city, and make its way to the Gulf of Mexico? Questions of expression and pragmatism come together around public safety: limiting risk will depend not only on adequate water storage but also on the development of a flood culture that recognizes the landscape’s basic tendencies. These issues cross disciplines and arenas: they engage planning, urban and landscape design, architecture, engineering, economics, and politics. They involve landscape types from infrastructure to public space to private gardens. They demand reckoning with ecological systems from regional to residential scales.

Gutter to Gulf

.15

Existing Condition

Gutter to Gulf has developed a range of documents to elucidate current circumstances and offer alternatives. To understand the historical evolution of water systems in New Orleans, the initiative has examined three emblematic water bodies: a historic stream—Bayou Saint John—an outfall canal—the 17th Street Canal—and a navigation channel—the Industrial Canal (see image 02). To describe and explain the drainage system’s components, mechanisms, and surface manifestations, Gutter to Gulf has developed a taxonomy (see images 03, 04, and 06). To investigate the relationships—or lack of relation—between the city’s water management system, other kinds of infrastructure, and subdivision related to governance, the initiative has created a series of physical and digital models that overlay boundary conditions (see image 05). Finally, Gutter to Gulf proposes new urban landscapes that bring together ecology, infrastructure, and civic purpose (see images 01, 07 and 08). For more information on Gutter to Gulf, please visit www.guttertogulf.com. BIOS/ JANE WOLFF IS AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT THE DANIELS FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, LANDSCAPE, AND DESIGN AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO, AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE FACULTY’S MLA PROGRAM. ELISE SHELLEY, OALA, IS AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT THE DANIELS FACULTY. DEREK HOEFERLIN IS AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN AT WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS.

The Bottom Line

.15

TEXT BY RON PALMER, BES, MCIP, RPP

01-03/

Improvements to Michigan Avenue in Chicago benefit the public realm and also improve the business landscape.

IMAGES/

Courtesy Ron Palmer

Investment in the public realm (parks, streetscapes, public buildings) is good for a city’s image, health, beauty, and quality of life. It is also good for the bottom line. Public sector investment in the public realm helps to ensure that new jobs are created, commercial and business centres are enhanced, property values are increased, and income is generated for investors for many years to come. Interestingly, in the late 1800s the concept of economic benefits through public realm investment was better understood than it is today. One striking example is that, in 1873, property values in the wards surrounding the recently established Central Park had increased in value so much that the City of New York was receiving $4.4 million U.S. in excess property taxes alone (in 1873 dollars!). Although this message was lost for decades, it is again being heard in progressive cities across North America. Numerous studies have shown that significant public investment in the public realm can:

Promote increased property values and tax assessment: A healthy retail sector dramatically enhances the economic benefits through the collection of HST. Enhanced property values enrich property tax assessments. An improved overall environment attracts more residential development. Increased residential density increases the residential property tax base. Promote reinvestment by the private sector in old and new building stock: Experience across North America indicates that public sector investment stimulates private sector investment in new buildings. Creating a beautiful public realm is an investment in the future. Public dollars spent secure existing tax revenues and have the potential to generate tremendous additional financial returns to all levels of government. Maintain existing retailers and attract new businesses: Success breeds success, and an enhanced public realm ensures the retention of current tenants and attracts new retailers. Public investment sends a strong message to the private sector. Enhance a city’s reputation: Tourism increases with an array of facilities, activities, and events that are supported by the public sector. By identifying an area as having the potential to become a key tourist destination, its transformation enhances the city’s ability to attract tourists from around the world.

Public investment in the public realm

Case studies confirm the importance of public sector investment in the public realm.

The Bottom Line

.15

State Street/Michigan Avenue, Chicago In 1996, approximately $36 million U.S. was spent improving State Street in downtown Chicago. Those funds were split roughly 50/50 between the federal and municipal governments. As a direct result of this investment in public infrastructure, retail lease rates in 1997 immediately rose more than 18 percent to $32.00 U.S./ft2, and have continued to rise ever since. Retail vacancy rates have declined from more than 10 percent to less than 2 percent. On North Michigan Avenue, intersecting State Street, lease rates in the early 1990s were averaging between $60.00 and $150.00 U.S./ft2. Key improvements—such as enhanced sidewalks, including planters/ plantings and new street furniture—to Michigan Avenue, primarily privately funded, started in 1995. Post-improvement lease rates are up to $300.00 U.S./ft2. In addition, the total amount of retail floor space has increased from 2.2 million square feet in 1988 to more than 3.3 million square feet.

In 1992, the 42nd Street Redevelopment Plan, worth more than $2.6 billion U.S., dramatically changed the face of Times Square. Financed with more than $300 million U.S. in public money, the redevelopment—such as a reconfigured traffic/pedestrian network, enhanced sidewalks, including planters/plantings and new street furniture—has been enormously successful, with more than $2.5 billion U.S. in private sector development built since 1995. Further, in 1992, when the Times Square Business Improvement District started, lease rates averaged $38.00 U.S./ft2, and vacancy rates were 20 percent. In 2001, lease rates had increased to $58.00 U.S./ft2 and vacancy rates had dropped to just under 5 percent. Today, the area is home to 280 restaurants and 670 retail stores. Tourism has increased dramatically, with more than 12 million theatre patrons spending $590 million U.S. annually on tickets alone.

Times Square, New York City In the early 1980s, Times Square was filled with illegal or illicit businesses and was shunned by residents and tourists alike. In 1984, there were only 3,000 people in the 13-acre Times Square area involved in legitimate businesses, generating a total of $6 million U.S. in property taxes.

Post Office Square Park, Boston For years, a two-acre parcel of land in the midst of Boston’s Financial District was occupied by an unsightly, 500,000-square-foot concrete parking garage. But in the early 1980s, at the urging of surrounding businesses, the city joined a unique public-private partnership to demolish the structure and create an underground garage covered by a graceful park. Most observers agree that Post Office Square Park has changed Boston forever. The park has boosted the value of surrounding properties, while providing an elegant green focus to a crowded commercial area. It is an extremely well used and popular part of the downtown Boston experience.

Lessons Learned The principle inherent to these case studies, and others, is that public sector investment can be leveraged into private sector investment response and long-term economic prosperity. Public sector investment is required as a key stimulus to enhance the demand for development (influencing the market) by investing in the city, which, in turn, will establish the appropriate environment for revitalization and investment. Landscape architects need to recognize and promote their important contribution to city-building as an economic imperative. A high-quality public realm has tremendous value—hard economic value in terms of real estate value, tourism value, and assessment value—that needs to be continuously enhanced through public sector investment. Experience has shown that the economic benefits of public sector investment in the public realm are not only desirable but are achievable. BIO/ RON PALMER, BES, MCIP, RPP, IS A PARTNER IN THE TORONTO-BASED FIRM THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP. ALONG WITH HIS FIVE PARTNERS, RON’S FIRM IS INVOLVED IN A FULL RANGE OF PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTS, WITH A FOCUS ON CITY-BUILDING AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION/FACILITATION.

04/

The image of Times Square in New York City has been transformed through public investment.

IMAGE/

Courtesy Ron Palmer

05/

An unsightly parking garage in Boston is now a popular park, as a resut of a unique public-private partnership.

IMAGE/

Courtesy Ron Palmer

Round Table

.15

Our Round Table participants discuss the challenges of rethinking the definition of green infrastructure and incorporating sustainable systems into built projects

BIOS/

NANCY CHATER, OALA, IS CO-CHAIR OF THE GROUND EDITORIAL BOARD. SHE RECENTLY JOINED THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP IN TORONTO. DORIS CHEE, OALA, HAS BEEN A PRACTISING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AND AN OALA MEMBER SINCE 1989. SHE HAS WORKED IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS ON A VARIETY OF PROJECTS, AND IS CURRENTLY WITH HYDRO ONE NETWORKS INC., DEALING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF BOTH NATURAL AND URBAN SETTINGS REGARDING HYDRO STATIONS AND LINE CORRIDORS IN ONTARIO. SHE IS ACTIVE IN MENTORING YOUNG ASSOCIATES WHO ARE WORKING TO BECOME LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS. COLLEEN CIRILLO HAS A MASTER'S DEGREE IN ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE STUDIES FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO AND HAS WORKED FOR TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION SINCE 2000. IN 2003, COLLEEN INITIATED THE HEALTHY YARDS PROGRAM, AND IN 2009 SHE CO-FOUNDED THE HORTICULTURE OUTREACH COLLABORATIVE, WHICH SHE CURRENTLY CHAIRS. AT PRESENT, SHE IS ON SECONDMENT FROM HEALTHY YARDS AND IS COORDINATING THE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ONTARIO COALITION. TODD FELL, OALA, IS A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND SENIOR MANAGER AT DOUGAN & ASSOCIATES ECOLOGICAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN. TODD HAS A UNIQUE BACKGROUND IN BOTH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION, AND SINCE JOINING D&A IN 1998 HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN NUMEROUS PROJECTS REQUIRING EXPERTISE FROM BOTH DISCIPLINES. HIS PROFICIENCIES IN BOTH DESIGN AND ECOLOGY FACILITATE HIS UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ECOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND NATURAL HERITAGE PLANNING. HIS WORK INVOLVES PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR PROJECTS IN LAND DEVELOPMENT, MUNICIPAL PLANNING, POLICY DEVELOPMENT, MASTER PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, VEGETATIVE SLOPE STABILITY AND NATURAL CHANNEL PLANTINGS, WILDLIFE CROSSINGS, GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT, PARKS, RECREATION, AS WELL AS CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION INITIATIVES.

JONATHAN JOYCE, OALA, IS AN ASSOCIATE WITH THE MBTW GROUP. A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WITH MORE THAN SIXTEEN YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, JON HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN AN EXTENSIVE COLLECTION OF COMMUNITY, INSTITUTIONAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND RECREATIONAL PROJECTS WITH SPECIALIZATIONS IN GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE AND SPORTS FIELD DESIGN. HAROLD SICH HAS BEEN PROVIDING CONSULTING SERVICES FOR ALMOST THIRTY YEARS ON THE PLANNING AND DESIGN OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND THE WORLD. HIS FOCUS IN RECENT YEARS HAS BEEN ON INTEGRATED URBAN SOLUTIONS, WORKING ON OR LEADING MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAMS, INCLUDING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND URBAN DESIGNERS. HE IS AN ASSOCIATE PRINCIPAL AT ARUP CANADA WORKING ON PROJECTS FOR WATERFRONT TORONTO, INCLUDING QUEENS QUAY REVITALIZATION, A NUMBER OF TTC STATIONS, AND SUPPORTS NUMEROUS OTHER PROJECTS THAT WILL IMPROVE THE PUBLIC REALM WITH A SUSTAINABLE APPROACH. NANCY SMITH LEA IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE TORONTO COALITION FOR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION (TCAT) AT THE CLEAN AIR PARTNERSHIP. NANCY HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND PROMOTION SINCE 1993. SHE HAS PUBLISHED SEVERAL ARTICLES ON BARRIERS AND INCENTIVES TO CYCLING AND HAS BEEN INVITED TO SPEAK ON A REGULAR BASIS AT CONFERENCES AND OTHER PUBLIC FORUMS ABOUT HER ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION WORK. IN 2010, NANCY WAS AWARDED A TORONTO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION’S VITAL PEOPLE GRANT FOR “PUTTING ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ON THE MAP.”

Round Table

Nancy Chater (NC): Let’s start by looking at the term green infrastructure and talk about the context it’s come out of and the different definitions that are being used. The Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition and others use the term to mean both the protection of natural systems and advocating for sustainable engineered systems such as stormwater retention. It seems to include forests, fresh water, soil—everything from that scale of natural system—down to permeable paving, rain barrels, fairly low-tech human interventions. So it’s a very broad definition, including designed and not designed, engineered and not engineered systems. Do you think that broad term is a strength or does it become confusing? Colleen Cirillo (CC): The coalition intentionally went broad with the definition in order to incorporate many of the different professions that are involved in either installing or maintaining green infrastructure. Previously, when people in Ontario were talking about green infrastructure they were often talking about energy-related technologies. But we are talking about living infrastructure. Sometimes it is a bit overwhelming to articulate what we’re after because it is so broad. Harold Sich (HS): The term can mean something different in Ontario, in North America, and in Europe. In Europe, it can be much broader, actually, and normally includes the master-planning level that takes into account full sustainability and lifecycle considerations. I would say that green infrastructure is a holistic, integrated approach that can range from the masterplanning level down to the site-specific design level. Doris Chee (DC): The positive side of the broad definition is that it brings attention to all the issues that are related to the whole green movement. However, it could be confusing to people as to what it is exactly. I’m not sure what the solution is, whether we should pare it down or keep it broad. CC: Coalition members are very keen to have more developers and engineers involved. Coalition members see it as being at that higher scale, too, although a lot of them are working on a lower scale—for

.15

example, green roofs and urban forests— but they don’t want to limit it just to that. HS: There are challenges at the higher level, such as master planning. It’s difficult because of the cyclical nature of politics and economics. However, strategies should include quick wins at the lower site-specific scale to engage the public, to get everybody enthusiastic and excited, but you also need the big, long-range plan and vision. NC: I think the “green” in green infrastructure is a short-form for sustainable. That’s one way we could look at it—the intent is to incorporate sustainability principles into the definition of infrastructure. Nancy [Smith Lea], do you see your organization, the Toronto Coalition for Active Transportation, as part of the green infrastructure dialogue, as part of that discourse? Nancy Smith Lea (NSL): Well, I do, although it’s not a term that we typically use. But any definition of green infrastructure should include pedestrians and cyclists or active transportation. DC: Green infrastructure includes practically everything that we’re working on, or that we see as an issue at this point in time. Green means alternatives to energy, alternatives to transportation, it means greening up a city literally, with roof gardens and tree planting. It means alternatives to structures and systems. NC: To make them more sustainable. DC: That’s right. Jonathan Joyce (JJ): I don’t think there’s any harm in having a broad definition. If you work anywhere in the design industry, whether you’re talking about sustainability or low-impact development, you’re talking about green infrastructure. NC: There seems to be a movement in green infrastructure discussions to monetize the value of existing natural systems and to present an economic argument, which is a strategy to persuade policy makers, government, developers, and so on to invest in green infrastructure and to protect existing

systems. I think it’s interesting that there’s this push to give an economic value to things that we depend on that have been invisible or taken for granted—everything from stormwater systems to reducing the urban heat island effect. How do economic discourses come into what you’re doing? Do you think it’s important? JJ: The biggest problem I see in green infrastructure is the actual delivery. One of the things we frequently run into is that jurisdictional authorities have sustainable policies that outline the policy benefits, but fall short in identifying the actual or perceived economic value of those benefits. In a standard real-estate model of developer/ builder/homebuyer, infrastructure costs are passed down the line. If the developer can’t define the economic value of green infrastructure elements, costs can’t be passed to the builder. Likewise, the builder cannot pass costs to the homebuyer. While today’s consumer is much more knowledgeable about the environment, sustainability, and green initiatives, if the economic value of these initiatives can’t be demonstrated to them, they won’t pay any associated premiums. End result, these initiatives are not implemented. NC: So it is important to be able to talk about the monetary gains, or bottom-line arguments, to persuade them? JJ: Recently, there have been evaluation tool kits developed and distributed. It’s hard to put a value on bigger picture items and systems, but if you can, that value can then be translated into something everybody can understand on an economic level. DC: I wonder if part of the problem is that we all know that green infrastructure is ultimately good for our health and our future; however, we work in a world where money is the bottom line and we talk economics all the time with anything that we do. If we were to marry the two, that might get the message through. HS: Maybe the bar is too low, which gets us back to policy. If we have proper policy or incentives, then we could raise the bar in certain areas. I do believe that we can

Round Table

.15

influence delivery; it’s just that we need to continually educate and motivate people to ask for that. NC: Colleen, in terms of the idea of making the economic arguments for green infrastructure, is that something that’s top of mind for you at the coalition? CC: It’s valuable to think about the amount of investment that goes into grey infrastructure. That investment is completely necessary because we all need grey infrastructure, but the coalition’s focus is about building the case that green infrastructure is just as essential and it complements and extends the life of grey infrastructure. So, it is all about putting a monetary value on the multiple benefits provided by natural vegetation and the vegetative technologies, and adequately supporting these systems. Ecosystem valuation is a relatively new science and it’s really exciting what’s happening. In the U.K., there’s a group of about 40 organizations, and they spent three years and multiple millions creating a tool to help them understand the monetary value of all these natural systems and associated benefits. The University of Illinois has an association of professors and students working on health-related benefits of green infrastructure and understanding those and putting a monetary value on them. More locally, the Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVC) has done a lot of natural capital valuation studies. CVC and Toronto and Region Conservation are part of a group called “ONES,“ which stands for Ontario Network of Evaluation Science. It’s a group of people who are taking the science and applying it locally. This new science is helping our coalition build a strong business case for green infrastructure. NSL: At the Toronto Coalition for Active Transportation, we have been looking at the economic benefits of investing in cycling and walking. We did a two-year study, which came out last year, that looked at Bloor Street in Toronto, and who the customers were who were coming to those stores and how they felt about the road as it currently is. We found that only about 10 percent of the customers coming to those stores were

driving. Local businesses are relying on people who are coming by walking, cycling, and public transit. So, economically, it’s a good idea to really try to encourage and support the infrastructure for alternative transportation. If you build a walking/ cycling trail, that’s going to increase your real-estate value. NC: There’s the economic side and there’s the science side. Of course, they’re related because once you have the scientific data, it can back up your economic argument. JJ: One problem is that many of the green infrastructure technologies are advancing so quickly that the study of the benefits can’t keep up. It’s not bad that technology is advancing so dramatically, but there ends up being this gap between the scientific assessment of benefits and the economic arguments they potentially support. NC: And it’s hard for people on the design side, and engineering side, and implementation side to be doing research. This is where research and design and policy all come together and need to work together, so I think the coalition is very exciting. HS: When I first started out, the ministry of environment, for example, used to do lots of research on everything, but now they don’t. When stormwater management systems were first being introduced in the 1960s and 70s, there were numerous reports that the ministry undertook themselves and they were readily available, but they’re not in that business any more. NC: A challenge of dealing with living systems is that they have a long lifespan, so there’s the maintenance question and what happens to them over time. The resources it takes to study, to document, the whole lifespan of these systems is a major challenge. CC: At Toronto and Region Conservation, there’s a group of people who work on STEP, which stands for Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program. They take all these ideas that sound good and try them out in our environment. Most of the research is done in the GTA. They look at, say, green roofs, or permeable pavements,

Round Table

different elements of low-impact-development, and because our climate is different, what might work in California doesn’t necessarily work in Toronto, or doesn’t perform in the same way. I like their evaluation program because it is long-term and local. Results are available on the STEP website (www.sustainabletechnologies.ca). [Todd Fell joins the Round Table.] NC: There was an American design competition a while ago; it was an infrastructure ideas competition and it had some interesting approaches to infrastructure. They argued that infrastructure is the heart of the next generation’s public’s sphere, since public spending on dedicated public spaces has evaporated. It is things like stormwater systems, rail easements and stations and roadways that will be obliged to give back to their neighbourhoods in the form of parks, community services, and affordable housing. What’s interesting is that it highlights a current design approach in which infrastructure is no longer limited to being a single-use model. There’s a push to make things have multiple programs or multiple uses. This will push infrastructure’s public compatibility and innovative design concepts and finance strategies. So working infrastructure becomes parkland and becomes transportation networks and becomes habitat; that kind of overlay of multiple uses and multiple programs opens up the field. Todd Fell (TF): That certainly describes my experience at Dougan & Associates with regards to green infrastructure, largely due to the fact that the firm crosses disciplinary boundaries between terrestrial ecology, landscape architecture, and natural heritage planning. Our firm regularly works at a multidisciplinary level with planners, engineers, other landscape architects, and other technical disciplines. When the work of the team is applied—take subdivision planning, for instance—there’s an opportunity to evaluate the synergies between conservation objectives and the infrastructure requirements of the development. Functional enhancements to existing natural heritage features such as linkages, species and habitat diversification, edge management,

.15

and area expansion can be achieved through incorporating infrastructure design into the natural system with items such as pedestrian trails, stormwater management facilities, parks and recreation facilities, and even streetscapes. In a current project we’re working on, there are a number of small, fragmented wetland communities. The site is adjacent to a school and surrounded by residential development, and the municipality has designated the land for a community park complete with sports fields, children’s play area, parking, and passive recreation opportunities. Our approach was to consolidate the wetland into a large feature that received all the runoff in the park’s drainage basin, providing both detention and water quality function thereby clearing space for the park’s recreational programming. With such a large wetland restoration feature the park became thematically and spatially linked with the new wetland and now provides a stewardship and interpretation focus for the school and surrounding community. It’s a win-win scenario for the municipality and residents. In other examples the issue often becomes how you plan your urban design guidelines to start including green elements with infrastructure. It’s a big shift in thinking, and the biggest challenges we’ve had are often with existing policy and standards that are followed to the letter rather than for the spirit of intent. This often has the result of limiting creativity and innovation. HS: We have to educate. Some people are hard to convert, but the recent generations are easier to convert a little. You’re not going to please everybody. It is a balance; it is a trade-off. We need to take incremental steps. NC: People need to be persuaded that things will actually be better with these changes, that the changes will bring about benefits rather than making something worse. Doris, I’d like to go back to this idea of infrastructural systems being opportunities for public space and multiple programming. Can you speak to your Hydro One experience? I mean, Hydro corridors are vast tracks of land. What’s the current thinking with Hydro One about other uses for that land?

DC: First off, Hydro One doesn’t own the corridor property itself. We have rights over the property; the majority of our corridors are owned by Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC). So we don’t have a real say as to what happens on the ground level, to an extent. In terms of what you can do or develop underneath our lines, there is a restriction because of the power lines above; there is a clearance that needs to be observed if anything is built underneath it. From Hydro One’s perspective, it would be great if the land could be used for something else, if it could have a secondary use of some sort. ORC is looking into that. There are tracts of land that are being used for parking lots, for playgrounds, for community gardens, that kind of thing. Hydro One stations are owned by Hydro One, and if we have left-over lands outside of the actual station itself, it is either given back to the farmer or it’s left as it was when we bought the land. Within urban centres, we tend to buy only enough land to build the station. So we don’t have secondary uses for station sites. TF: I’d love to get Hydro One and the Ministry of Natural Resources together because there are some interesting conservation opportunities that could result from a partnership between the two agencies. For example, let’s say the Ministry of Natural Resources comes out with a new policy on species at risk such as bobolink. Bobolink creates a particular problem because it’s an open field species and there’s not a lot of legislation that protects this kind of habitat due to potential conflict with agricultural uses. The Provincial Policy Statement (under the Planning Act) provides strong guidance to municipalities on conservation planning for wetland, valley, and significant woodland habitats but not for conflicts between species at risk and agriculture. However, hydro right-of-ways stipulate vegetative height restrictions and usage limitations that present perfect habitat opportunities for species like the bobolink. The ancillary benefit of targeted meadow habitat under a linear feature like a hydro right-of-way is the potential to serve a linkage function between otherwise fragmented habitat

Round Table

.15

blocks. So there are habitat conservation opportunities for species at risk. But those two parties—Hydro One and the Ministry of Natural Resources—have to be put together to see where the synergies are. NC: Is there any sort of agenda or advocacy within Hydro One to try to make the infrastructure more multipurpose? DC: Yes, there is, especially when we have a larger piece of land that’s bigger than the actual station itself. Where there is an opportunity to work with the ministry or the conservation authority, we try to do that. We do have problems with outages due to animal infiltration. We’ve got birds nesting within our stations, which then attracts other four-legged animals, and that then potentially cuts off power and creates outages. When we build our stations, we do build in security against not just human theft, but other critters and animals. It is important for Hydro One to be able to balance the two systems when we design and build our facilities and deliver reliable electrical power to our customers. HS: I think Hydro One used to work more directly with the province back in the 1960s and 70s. The corridors for the highways 403 and 407 were all planned with Hydro, including other utilities. They were planned as joint-use utility corridors. It all comes back to a broad definition of infrastructure. We lost our way for a bit in the 1980s and 90s for various reasons. DC: At Hydro One, when we plan new line corridors, our policy is to pair with existing utility or transportation corridors to reduce the footprint of grey infrastructure throughout Ontario. JJ: Multifunctionality is really a key component of green infrastructure. If you can have a multifunctional infrastructure in place— whether it’s ecological processes, or health and vitality, or economic growth and development—you’re increasing the number of benefits, and therefore you’re increasing the

sell-ability of that infrastructure itself. One of my professors at the University of Guelph always said that everything has to have at least two purposes; if it doesn’t have two purposes, it has no business being in your design. TF: On a landscape level, the biggest challenges for protecting, enhancing, and creating green infrastructure occur at the interface between natural heritage systems and the anthropogenic (human) land use matrices. It’s usually the human matrices that take priority and fragment the natural features, causing a lot of the ecological deficits we see today. However, the interface between natural and anthropogenic systems is also a place for opportunity. River systems are a good example as one of the few places where we can focus connections through the human matrices, because we’re willing to build bridges and crossings over and under watercourses, thereby maintaining a connected linear natural system. It’s a real opportunity to then jump in and say look, here’s where we can put recreational trails, parks, water mains, cable lines, stormwater management facilities, and other potentially compatible infrastructure uses. The challenge is then to extrapolate this sort of thinking and include natural heritage features and functions in our infrastructure to green up roads, utility corridors, and whatever other compatible systems there are to be found to achieve comparable landscape-level connectivity. NC: What are some of the barriers? TF: In terms of physical barriers, the top of my list would be roads. The policy and planning barriers are another story entirely. However, barriers can be overcome. One of the successes we’ve had with this is in Hamilton where we have participated with the planning and design of the Red Hill Expressway Project. This is a project that put a four-lane divided highway through the last natural valley connecting the Niagara Escarpment to the Lake Ontario shoreline. I would never suggest that the route selection was the best decision, but given the result we were keen to make the best of it. Among the team’s achievements were the revegetation of the mainline expressway

Round Table

with native species, the realignment and naturalization of eight kilometres of creek, a restored hydroperiod to the floodplain that combined a stormwater detention function, a landscape management plan (which included a pedestrian trail connecting the Niagara Escarpment to Lake Ontario as well as a massive habitat restoration and invasive species management plan in the valley), and wetland creation and enhancement areas in the lower Red Hill Valley. Reconnecting the creek to its floodplain reintroduced a hydroperiod restoring ecological function to the valley in the form of a hydrologic disturbance regime. In the past, our management has either straightened or put watercourses into box channels, effectively fragmenting its connection to the floodplain. The return of the hydroperiod acts to control invasive exotics and encourage native floodplain forest and meadow species as well as providing flood storage and detention under high-water events. A year or two ago, there was a really big rain event in Hamilton resulting in a massive flood within the valley. The city received a lot of attention from residents and in the media but, in actual fact, the floodplain functioned exactly as it was supposed to and detained water that would otherwise have flooded downstream commercial and residential areas. One of the reasons we were able to surmount the traditional barriers and achieve so much green infrastructure development as part of the expressway construction was due to the client. The City of Hamilton staff and project management team were dedicated to addressing the concerns for the natural and cultural heritage values identified by the stakeholders and through the public consultation process. NSL: This sort of doubling up of infrastructure projects to include active transportation makes so much sense. When a road is being reconstructed, it’s a perfect opportunity to figure out how to incorporate cycling and

.15

walking into the plans. This shouldn’t require advocates to always be scanning projects; complete streets include cyclists and pedestrians as a matter of course, either when we’re designing a new road or when we’re figuring out what to do with the rail corridor. TF: The only way that green infrastructure is going to be implemented is through partnerships. You have to have the government on the same page through the hierarchy from federal, provincial, regional to municipal, and they’ve all got to partner with key stakeholder groups including the public, businesses, developers, conservation authorities, and NGOs (like GIO) where their interests overlap. Partnership is the only way to actually get the deliverables that you’re looking for when it comes to green infrastructure. JJ: Yes, it’s the only way to overcome jurisdictional fragmentation. Currently, at least most of the time, green infrastructure gives way to grey infrastructure. For example, if a road is being built the focus is on what grey infrastructure needs to be accommodated and how the various utilities are coordinated. Once that is decided, green infrastructure elements like street trees are set into the design based on rigid criteria of the grey infrastructure surrounding it. In some cases, green elements are cast aside altogether. A more progressive approach would be a collaborative effort in which grey and green work together to build a better and more complete infrastructure system. NC: What is the role of landscape architecture within advocating for green infrastructure, making green infrastructure happen, designing it, educating the public? JJ: Well, it’s really limitless. TF: One of the strengths landscape architects have in our training is that we have a very broad-spectrum awareness of other disciplines because there are so many parts of those disciplines that we incorporate into our education and work. I think we recognize that we need to bring those disciplines on for their specific expertise, but it also puts us in a really good position to be captain of the ship. Even on teams in a sub role, we

can bring ideas to the table. Even if the teams are being led as an engineering project, or when things are being led by a developer, or when projects come forward from municipalities in a planning process, we’re always there in some capacity and if we are, that’s where the ideas can be brought forward and we can really work to educate our partners and the other disciplines. JJ: Landscape architects have been working with the ideas behind green infrastructure for decades. While a lot of the green infrastructure ideas aren’t new ones, what is new is the way in which we are going about implementing them. As landscape architects are typically at the table no matter what the development project, I think that when it comes to green infrastructure, we have a unique opportunity to really make a difference. DC: As landscape architects, our spectrum and perspective is broad. We’ve been trained to think globally and locally. We are able to see the big picture and also influence the details. We see the long-term goals and can put together steps that will take us there. We can manage and oversee projects while literally putting our hands in the soil to make things grow. I agree with my colleagues at this Round Table. We definitely are in a good place to influence, educate, and act to bring green infrastructure to the forefront in design and development. We need to champion and challenge policy makers, educators, professionals, and homeowners to work together towards a greener and sustainable future. WITH THANKS TO LAURA MARGARET RAMSEY FOR TRANSCRIBING THIS ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION.

Issues and Debates

.15

Advancing the profession through continuing education

TEXT BY KATE NELISCHER

The steep learning curves of university life tend to level off once landscape architects reach a level of stability in their careers. Outside the sphere of a focused learning environment, and immersed in the demands of developing a professional practice, it is sometimes difficult for landscape architects to ensure that they are continuing to capitalize on emerging information, trends, and technologies. Information becomes dated, the interpretations and demands of the profession evolve over time, and new possibilities and opportunities emerge—all of which need to be met with updated skills and contextual understandings. In the past twenty years, professional regulatory boards have actively sought to encourage and monitor the ongoing education of their members. Within the United States, twenty-nine landscape architecture boards now require set quotas for continuing education (CE) hours in order for members to maintain their good standings. Initial professional education, either obtained through bachelor degrees or masters degrees, is no longer recognized in their jurisdictions as adequate preparation for the entire working life of a landscape architect. In 2000, the OALA introduced the Continuing Education Credit Program on a voluntary basis. Members were encouraged to actively participate in experiences that would aid their practice and their own personal development, helping them to remain competitive within the field. The program fell dormant until this past January when a recommendation was brought forth to Council in support of phasing in a required CE program, largely based on the model currently employed by the British Columbia Society of Landscape Architects. The recommendation was founded on the assumption that official validation of CE efforts could not only advance the professional activities of individual members, but also instill greater confidence in clients and further the potential for innovative work within the field. Although approved by Council, the motion was defeated by the membership at the March 25, 2011, Annual General Meeting. Instead, members voted to create a specific task force for investigating the details of the proposed program, including the financial implications for the association, and to reassess the motion at the 2012 AGM.

This cautious approach exemplifies concerns over mandated educational initiatives being too prescriptive and possibly too demanding for working professionals. A 1994 study of professionals in education and training within the U.K. conducted by Middlesex University professor Stan Lester grounds these concerns. The participants, all practitioners in private practice, revealed that they felt hours-and points-based educational systems prohibited them and their colleagues from pursuing their own educational agendas and employing alternative forms of development. Lester concluded that such programs result in the opposite of their intended missions; they “undermine professionalism by diverting responsibility from the practitioner to the professional body, and thus devalue learning.” Amidst doubt about the effectiveness of such rigid programs, a majority of regulatory bodies choose to employ some form of CE. The Royal Institute of British Architects employs one of the more rigid models; as of 1999, members must be evaluated each year on a points-based system wherein they are required to complete 35 hours of educational development, 17.5 of which must come directly from official RIBA programming. These hours are then recorded online and scored on a scale of one to four for usefulness of the experience. Although RIBA’s program may seem strict, regulatory boards such as the OALA have a responsibility to public welfare to ensure that there is at least a minimum level of CE taking place within the profession on a regular basis. But how to manage a points-based, all-encompassing, generic system for landscape architects working in disparate regions and within incredibly diverse capacities? Moving away from specific sanctions and towards a more facilitative approach would allow for greater flexibility in both the kinds of CE activities carried out and their associated time requirements. The Landscape Institute, the U.K. regulatory board, recognizes that within a small profession dispersed across a large jurisdiction there are fewer opportunities for formal learning. Furthermore, they acknowledge the diversity of the landscape architectural profession and that members will have varied interests relevant to their own projects that they may choose to investigate. To accom-

Issues and Debates

.15

modate these interests, members are permitted to count learning that occurs in casual, unofficial settings towards their CE requirements as long as the member justifies these events. Focusing on learning rather than recording emphasizes the importance of these experiences instead of merely chalking up hours and days to satisfy requirements. ASLA Education Program Manager Clark Ebbert recognizes the value of this reflection period to actually absorbing and applying skills and knowledge gained in CE programs. “There is a genuine interest, profession-wide, to remain current,” he says. “People are seeking out learning opportunities purely to learn, not just trying to meet quotas.” The ASLA is a founding member of LACES, the Landscape Architecture Continuing Education System, which allows members to track their participation in CE programming while also encouraging them to reflect on their experiences and record the value of the content. “The difference between primary [university-based] and continuing education is that continuing education is more topical,” notes Ebbert, as he explains the 25 diverse topic areas that the ASLA recognizes within their CE requirements. The encouragement of ASLA members to involve themselves in as many of these knowledge areas as possible is reflective of the value of interdisciplinary and collaborative approaches to CE that landscape architecture can benefit from. Creating opportunities for collaboration with external professionals can provide insight into new strategies and knowledge that will help landscape architects develop and improve, maintaining the relevancy of the profession in a dynamic and changing market. The learning cycle model, adapted from David Kolb’s experiential learning proposal in 1982 by British psychologists Dr. Peter Honey and Alan Mumford, could fulfill the need for structured CE without stifling individual creativity or limiting professional innovation. The cycle values informal, independent learning in conjunction with official conferences, meetings and classes, recognizing that alternative experiences can be supportive of professional growth. Planned learning is not superior within this scheme; instead the focus is placed on measuring the value of education to achieving

personal career objectives through active reflection processes. Taking stock of new skills and knowledge and how they can be applied to working practices allows professionals to form action plans for future growth. Whether through exacting data collection, incentive programs, or encouraging personal initiative in regards to education, landscape architects need to ensure that, as a collective, the profession both embodies and encourages a culture of progress. Landscape architects can become more effective practitioners when they are also effective learners. OALA members who wish to learn more about the task force exploring the issue of a continuing education program should contact OALA Vice-President Joanne Moran at vicepresident@oala.ca. BIO/ KATE NELISCHER HOLDS A BLA FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH. SHE IS CURRENTLY LIVING IN THE U.K. COMPLETING HER MA IN DESIGN WRITING CRITICISM AT UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON, WHERE HER THESIS FOCUSES ON THE ROLE OF WRITING IN SHAPING PUBLIC INTERPRETATION OF URBAN DESIGN.

References: Honey, P & Mumford, A (1989). The manual of learning opportunities. Maidenhead, Peter Honey Publications. Lester, S. (1995). “Professional qualifications and continuing development: a practitioner perspective,” Capability 1 (4), 16-22. Lester, S. (1999). “Professional bodies, CPD and informal learning: the case of conversation,” Continuing Professional Development 3 (4), 110-121. RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects). [http://www.architecture.com/]. The Landscape Institute (1999). Continuing professional development policy statement. London, Landscape Institute. 01/

The OALA’s Continuing Education Committee has organized many popular and enriching events over the years.

IMAGES/

Lawrence Stasiuk

Technical Corner

.15

01/

Eglinton West TTC station green roof

IMAGE/

Gardens in the Sky/Flynn Canada

02-03/

Victoria Park TTC station green roof

IMAGES/

Scott Torrance Landscape Architect

TEXT BY NANCY CHATER, OALA

With a thirty percent growth rate overall for green roof construction in North America last year, there has been significant product diversification in green roof options. Modular systems in particular have increased and they offer very useful design and installation features, though with a cost. Both modular and built-up systems have pros and cons, so the design and construction context becomes key to evaluating the best choice for a given project.

Interestingly, the development of modular systems is a North American phenomenon. Steven Peck, president of Green Roofs For Healthy Cities, a non-profit industry organization, notes that European countries, such as Germany—which continues to lead the pack for green roof installation—more commonly employ the built-up systems provided by major manufacturers such as Zinco, and Hydrotech, Soprema, and Tremco.

Technical Corner

.15

05 04/

ERSI green roof

IMAGE/

Gardens in the Sky/Flynn Canada

05/

ERSI green roof

IMAGE/

Scott Torrance Landscape Architect

06/

ERSI green roof

IMAGE/

Gardens in the Sky/Flynn Canada

are manufactured by a number of companies including LiveRoof, GreenGrid, Green Tech, Columbia Green, Firestone, and Tremco. One of the big advantages of modular systems is that they offer pre-grown planting so you can achieve “instant green” with more mature plants. The client doesn’t have to wait to see the desired planting scheme fill in. This allows for greater design control as you can specify the plants and the degree of cover. The establishment period is shorter to achieve dense coverage than it is when starting with plugs or small plants. Dense cover means less maintenance because plant cover keeps out weeds. Pre-planted also means less wind up-lift of the light-weight growing media typically used on roofs. Plants that have had a season or more to take root in modular systems

Modular systems are basically trays offered in various sizes and at a range of soil depths. Tightly butted together, they form a unified field of planting and, ideally, the module is not visible. They are typically used for extensive green roofs with shallow soil profiles, though some offer deeper trays. Some of them include a root retardant layer and a waterproofing layer. However, even with waterproofing layers built-in, it is advisable to install a new roof membrane and additional slip-sheeet or EPDM layer for protection of the membrane during the construction of the green roof. Modular systems

Technical Corner

.15

07-09/

Nathan Phillips Square podium green roof

IMAGES/

PLANT Architect Inc.

10/

Green roof in Toronto

IMAGE/

Gardens in the Sky/Flynn Canada

The award-winning podium green roof at Toronto’s Nathan Phillips Square, designed by PLANT Architect with Shore Tilbe Irwin & Partners, Toronto, Peter Lindsay Schaudt Landscape Architecture, and Adrian Blackwell, and installed by Gardens in the Sky/Flynn Canada, employed a modular system by LiveRoof. Landscape architect Jane Hutton, OALA, notes that LiveRoofs’s pre-grown panels “allowed us to start growing the plants the season before, so they were in really good shape by the time installation happened.” Hutton adds, “I think it was a good solution for the project, where there was very finicky planting, with very specific proportions of many different plants. At that scale LiveRoof allowed for a lot of customization, which was necessary.” LiveRoof comes at a range of soil depths from 2½ to 6 inches.

are better able to hold soil in place so the new installation is less likely to be affected by wind scour or to need erosion blankets. The construction period is shorter as the preplanted trays are set in place, unlike loose-laid systems, which require installation of soil, edging materials, and plants. However, from a design perspective, loose-laid systems offer more flexibility in the shape and layout of planting beds and in the topography that can be created, such as mounds. With loose-laid systems, the plant costs shift to the labour costs involved in planting onsite.

One of the often-cited advantages of modular systems is that if there is a problem with the roof membrane below, the modules can be removed and replaced easily. However, once the units knit together, this may not be so easy. Some systems have physical dividers between modules that can be lifted, to allow plant material to grow freely and knit together. LiveRoof, for example, has a removable sleeve. This is advantageous to plant growth, but over time breaks down some of the differences between modular and loose-laid systems.

A modular system by Tremco called BioTray makes a feature out of its modules literally breaking down. The system consists of 17inch-square trays composed of natural latex and coconut coir. Unlike traditional plastic modular systems, the coconut fibre decomposes over time and the BioTray module is converted into growing media (soil). The process allows for vegetated roofs without the use of plastic, increasing the sustainability of the roof. While modular systems are most commonly used with shallow soil depths, the Tremco trays can take up to 18 inches of soil.

Technical Corner

Firestone offers SkyScape, a green roof system that comes in both an extensive modular tray system with up to six inches in soil depth, and an intensive built-up system. The modular tray system is installed over a full membrane and protection board, and is shaped to accept irrigation lines. GreenGrid is a modular system composed of a series of pre-planted modules made of recycled polyethelene. The modules are available in depths ranging from 2.5 to 8 inches of soil. Columbia Green’s modular tray system comes in a 5¼-inch soil depth. It features water detention space in its ridged bottom and is marketed with an emphasis on stormwater management features being integrated with planting.

.15

Long-time green roof installer and former owner of Gardens in the Sky, Terry McGlade, of Flynn Canada, notes that modular systems work well for large expanses of roof in terms of the often overlooked labour issue of watering during installation of a large, loose-laid system. Irrigation systems are not usually activated until planting is complete. A large planting of plugs or small plants in a built-up system means the contractor has to water the plants as they are being planted and water the plants not yet planted. It can take days to plant a large roof, which adds up to “watering like crazy,” notes McGlade. Scott Torrance, OALA, has designed a number of green roofs and worked with both modular and built-up systems. One project presented an interesting condition in which a modular system was a good solution. The client was a tenant in a building, so an arrangement was made with the building owner to replace the permanent roof membrane while the modular green roof was installed by the tenant. When the

tenant moved, he could take the modular system with him, and return the roof to its original condition. Another project in which a modular system worked well was on the ninth floor of a building. Blowing soil up that high is difficult, and craning or transporting bales of soil is very heavy and time consuming. Pre-grown modules, however, could be transported in the elevator and easily installed. For the Toronto Transit Commission’s Victoria Park station, Torrance did an extensive green roof using the LiveRoof modular system in a 3-inch soil depth (planted with sedum and allium) because of loading restrictions. For a client such as the TTC, a standardized system that can be replicated at other stations and sites was desirable. Torrance notes that modular systems are generally more expensive than loose-laid, so budget limitations can be a deal-breaker, despite the other advantages. BIOS/ NANCY CHATER, OALA, IS CO-CHAIR OF THE GROUND EDITORIAL BOARD AND TECHNICAL CORNER COLUMNIST. SHE RECENTLY JOINED THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP IN TORONTO.

Professional Practice

.15

Teaching beyond school TEXT BY NATE PERKINS

Almost thirty years ago, I had the once-in-a-lifetime experience of starting my first day on the job in a landscape architecture office. Freshly minted with a degree, nervous about the unknown, I began what might be called my “real” education. I had the great luck to be hired by two landscape architects who were gifted and hard-working practitioners, and, most importantly to me, were teachers. They did not work for a university or college; rather, they were professionals, almost a decade removed from their own formal education. They realized that my office education was just that—an education. They did what great teachers do in setting the bar high and encouraging me to grow, by allowing me to experience and experiment, and by treating me with respect. I didn’t make a great wage and didn’t expect to. I worked long hours and expected to. I did a lot of the remedial tasks in the office and didn’t complain because I was learning and (I think) earning my keep. But I didn’t work hard and happy because it was demanded of me; I did so because my employers shared with me their joy of learning the art, science, and craft of practice. Never did my employers say to me dismissively, “You don’t know anything [practical]!”; “What do they teach you [meaning all students] nowadays?”; “You are costing me money [while I teach you]!” and other utterly gratuitous, demeaning, and thoughtless comments that many of my classmates had to hear. What I really learned in my first professional job was that while I wasn’t expected to know everything, I was expected to be a self-motivated and quick learner. I was expected to ask questions (but not too many) and to bring what I knew into the office (but to realize book learning is different from the school of hard knocks). In short, my employers were teachers who understood that mastering landscape architecture takes years and, since no one is born knowing everything, practice is a school of sorts. I’m now in a very different place in that I am the person preparing students for their once-in-a-lifetime first day. All too frequently I hear, and hear of, professionals who seem to derive pleasure from telling students that they don’t know anything, they are costing them money, and other forms of what I call “professional hazing.” I believe this is a tradition in many professions and one that, frankly, serves no purpose.

Take medicine for example. Numerous studies have shown that if you are going to have surgery, the most important predictor of success is the surgeon’s experience. The question you want to ask of your doctor is, “How many times have you performed this procedure?” In other words, practise makes perfect, or at least less lethal. Medical students come out of school having learned on cadavers. At some point they must learn real-world skills on someone—maybe you or me. The medical profession accepts that on-the-job learning is the way it is and, therefore, has evolved a set of checks and balances, systems and procedures to extend education from the surreal world of universities to the real world. If there were never opportunities for new doctors to learn their skills on the job, then a generation from now there would be no experienced surgeons. I know of no alternative.

01/

Nate Perkins

IMAGE/

Courtesy Nate Perkins

Professional Practice

.15

I want to believe that landscape architecture practitioners understand this and that some have simply forgotten that they also didn’t know a whole lot when they graduated. Someone had to teach them those things that are required of a practitioner, yet it seems a fairly common notion that the students I teach should be the first generation of entry-level practitioners to know it all. Perhaps I am too sheltered in the crumbling, underfunded, and politically dismissed Ivory Tower to realize just how out of touch I am. I graduated knowing 400 woody plants, only approximately thirty of which were either available in nurseries or “economically” useful at the time. I graduated knowing how to design roads—with all the horizontal, vertical, and super-elevation calculations—although I have only seen one of mine built in a third of a century. I learned hand graphics and spent a huge amount of time on hand lettering only to be introduced my first week in the office to Kroy, Leroy, and their friend Chartpack. I learned history but even my enlightened employers were not particularly enthusiastic when I tried to fit Riverside, Illinois, “principles” into a modern 150-house subdivision. I learned AutoCad version 1.0 in school but the office didn’t have it until five years after I left. I could go on at length, but my point is this: I graduated from university with lots of stuff my employers didn’t seemingly need and a lack of stuff they seemingly did. Yet they were smart enough to know I had the basics and knew how to learn. And here’s the kicker: a lot of the stuff not immediately or obviously valuable to my employers was in fact valuable. I knew how to ask questions; I was curious. I could semi-intelligently converse with people because I was broadly read. I had some core values, a commitment to my community and profession, and knew a smattering of humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences. In short, I was educated in the liberal arts and sciences as well as trained in landscape architecture. In theory, I had the basics to be a good citizen and professional not just in the short-term but for many decades to come.

In addition, I left school with the clear message that, as a professional, I was expected to “give back”—to help the next generation of professionals. I could send money or spend my time, but the idea was that I was joining a profession and I had obligations whether I wanted them or not. How cheeky of those professors! I am now one of those professors and I often challenge the students I teach to do the same. Some do, some don’t, but I, and many of my colleagues, make the effort to convey this message of obligation and service. The lens of time has not made many things clearer to me. Rather, many things I once thought certain and unambiguous now seem nuanced and subject to endless qualification. However, one conviction that has not changed or blurred is this: the best professionals are always good teachers. They teach their employees, their clients, and the public with enthusiasm and respect. Each year, professionals come to the University of Guelph to participate in an awards jury and each year I am deeply impressed with their enthusiasm and willingness to “teach” the students. They do not tell the students what they do not know; they tell the students how much more there is to know. What’s the difference? The difference is they share the joy of their life-long learning and convey the message that even at the pinnacle of practice, they too are students…as we all are. Thank you to Karen Hammond, George Antoniuk, Jim Melvin, and John Consolati for years of “teaching.” BIO/ NATE PERKINS, PHD, FASLA, IS UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM COORDINATOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH. HE IS OF THE OPINION THAT MOST PROFESSORS ARE, AT HEART, STUDENTS WHO JUST DIDN’T WANT TO GROW UP. HIS SCHOLARSHIP IS BROADLY IN THE AREA OF ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOUR AND DESIGN FOR DISADVANTAGED POPULATIONS.

Notes

.15

Notes: A Miscellany of News and Events 01

urban agriculture books Urban agriculture is being recognized for its importance to overall health and resiliency of communities and regions. But what exactly are the planning implications? Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy, Sustainable Places is a new report recently published by the American Planning Association (APA) and identifies the challenges and opportunities faced by cities and counties of varying sizes, economies, and locations. The report provides numerous examples and case studies of communities currently embracing and encouraging urban agriculture activities. Urban Agriculture is available for $60 from APA. Visit www.planning.org for more details.

01/

Cover of the recently published book Carrot City.

IMAGE/

Monacelli Press

The exhibition on which the book Carrot City is based has been touring North America and has garnered much positive attention. In September, Monacelli Press published Carrot City: Creating Places for Urban Agriculture, by the exhibition’s curators: Mark Gorgolewski, June Komisar, and Joe Nasr. The book presents forty projects, created by designers from Canada, the U.S., and around the world, that explore innovative approaches to making space in cities for food production.

heritage The Ontario Urban Forest Council recently published a second edition of its popular toolkit to assist communities in protecting trees with heritage value. Securing the Future of Heritage Trees provides many inspirational examples of work being done throughout Ontario to both honour the past and protect trees into the future. The book identifies numerous challenges and how various communities have overcome them. To order a copy of this useful resource, visit www.oufc.org.

conference An upcoming conference in Toronto, Spreading Roots: Working Together to Protect our Urban Trees, brings together international and local experts to discuss recent innovations in design and tree care, threats to the urban forest, and ways to engage the public in stewardship. Sponsored jointly by the Ontario Urban Forest Council and the Toronto Botanical Garden, the conference will take place from November 3-5, 2011, at the Toronto Botanical Garden. For more information, visit www.spreadingroots.ca.

Notes

.15

new members The Ontario Association of Landscape Architects is proud to recognize and welcome the following new full members to the Association: Ning Huang Marc Kramer Linda Anne McDougall * Michelle Moylan * Serge Poitras Catherine Rioux Louise St. Denis Meghan Stewart * Douglas J Taylor * Andre Turcot David Van Dam *

Asterisk (*) denotes a Full Member not having custody and use of the Association Seal.

plants In an effort to educate gardeners about alternatives to invasive plants, the Ontario Invasive Plant Council has published an informative guide for Southern Ontario called Grow Me Instead: Beautiful NonInvasive Plants for Your Garden. Each commonly sold invasive plant, such as English ivy and periwinkle, is described in terms of the ecological damage it does, and then alternatives, such as wild strawberry and mayapple, are provided, including colour photographs and horticultural details. Categories covered include groundcovers and grasses, trees and shrubs, vines, and aquatics. To order a copy of this free booklet, visit www.ontarioinvasiveplants.ca.

02/

Land use observatory (Sound and Internet installation) by TOPOTEK 1— Martin Rein-Cano and Lorenz Dexler—at the International Garden Festival.

IMAGE/

03/

A recent OALA social event.

IMAGE/

Courtesy OALA

04/

AlgaeGarden by Heather Ring, Brenda Parker, and Synnøve Fredericks at the International Garden Festival.

IMAGE/

events The Steam Whistle Brewery lawn provided a perfect backdrop for the more than twenty OALA members who joined forces at the Blue Jays game in Toronto on June 28th to let off a little mid-week steam. Even the home team’s 6-7 loss to the Pittsburgh Pirates couldn’t put a damper on the spirits of the members and associates who came decked out in OALA blue. Whether those in attendance indulged in ball-park beverages, street meat, goodnatured heckling, or all of the above, a good time was had by all. More social events to follow in the months ahead! Check the OALA website, www.oala.ca, for details.

festivals The 12th edition of the International Garden Festival at the Jardins de Métis in Quebec is open until early October. As in previous years, the festival features a stellar lineup of participants, with 23 gardens, including new gardens by Ken Smith, Diane Balmori and Michael Van Valkenburgh, Heather Ring (UK), Vladimir Sitta (Australia), and a group of young designers from Switzerland, Canada, and Mexico in addition to those coming back from last year.

Interested in being involved with Ground: Landscape Architect Quarterly?

The OALA Editorial Board is looking for volunteers who can help out with various tasks, such as research, transcription, and writing. Any level of commitment is appreciated, from researching upcoming events for the Notes section to transcribing Round Table discussions... Fun, satisfying work—and the best part, no need to attend meetings! To get involved, please e-mail magazine@oala.ca.

Artifact

.15

TEXT BY CAROLINE SCHUTRUMPF

Whitehorse, in the Yukon, is not the first city that comes to mind when one thinks of bike-friendly places. And yet people in Whitehorse bike year-round, and biking is very much a part of the Yukon’s culture. You’ll often see people with bikes in the back of their pick-up trucks, and there are amazing mountain bike trails in and around Whitehorse and a very active road bike community.

01/

A selection of bike racks in Whitehorse.

IMAGES/

Caroline Schutrumpf

Whitehorse bike culture is supported by “FUNktional” cycling infrastructure. A federal grant provided the opportunity for the local government to commission artist-designed bike racks around the city. Each piece playfully relates to its location. Outside the liquor store, for example, the rack takes the forms of wine, beer, and martini glasses. Outside the Municipal Services Building, old pipe and machine parts have found a new use. And paying homage to uniquely northern modes of transportation, a pack of sled dogs frozen in their journey juxtaposes motion and rest and wheeled and footed travel adjacent to the historic White Pass & Yukon Route office. Infrastructure on a roll, northern style. BIO/ CAROLINE SCHUTRUMPF IS A MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE GRADUATE WHO LIVED IN WHITEHORSE IN THE SPRING OF 2011.