2016 UMN MLA capstone- Ayers-Looby: Invisible Works

INVISIBLE WORKS a public introduction to the dynamic life of wastewater infrastructure Bridget Ayers Looby 2016

CONTENTS This capstone project aims to introduce the public to its wastewater

INTRODUCTION

4

CONTEXT

8

SITE & SYSTEM

10

DESIGN PROPOSAL

26

CONCLUSION

30

FIGURES

34

BIBLIOGRAPHY

36

treatment infrastructure by bringing the public realm into the public works, exposing them to the dynamic process, and providing space for research and innovation. In doing this, the goal is to shift the manner in which infrastructure is seen, experienced, and imagined.

Bridget Ayers Looby University of Minnesota Master of Landscape Architecture Capstone Project Proposal 2016 Capstone Committee: Matthew Tucker, Assistant Professor of Landscape Arhictecture, Chair Joseph Favour, Interim Head of Department of Landscape Architecture, Member Blaine Brownell, Professor of Architecture, Member Ross Altheimer, Co-Founder and Principal, Ten x Ten Studio, Member Special thanks to Nicholas Davern and the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant

2

INVISIBLE WORKS

INTRODUCTION

3

INTRODUCTION

Invisible Works Today’s modern cities support the everyday lives of billions of people through an endless network of tunnels, wires, pipes, and systems. Every aspect of our lives is intimately dependent on this infrastructure which we pay for and maintain as public citizens, yet the large majority of it functions out of sight and beyond our perception.

The invisibility of these public works is not only impeding our understanding of these systems, but also overlooking an opportunity to reimagine this infrastructure in the future.

The cause for this perception stems from the manner in which our cities have grown. Over the past 100 years, heavy industry and public works infrastructure have been incrementally relegated to the

4

INVISIBLE WORKS

INTRODUCTION

5

Is this the public realm?

Is this the best way to engage with critical infrastructure?

Is this the future of public space?

Does this encourage dynamic thinking?

6

INVISIBLE WORKS

INTRODUCTION

7

periphery of cities. Often this was done for

sanitary, and environmentally sustainable

logistical and public health reasons; operations

practices.

were unsanitary and unsavory, more space

remain on the outskirts of the public eye,

was needed for these systems to function,

contributing to the static misunderstanding

and the public was barred from contact for

of the systems. Out of sight, out of mind.

Yet

these

operations

still

their own safety. In many cases, associated structures were hidden underground or

Pre-post

obscured from plain sight. One such system is wastewater treatment infrastructure; “Cities

Today’s post-industrial cities are geared

are dependent on vast infrastructure systems

more toward provision of services than that

to remove wastewater. These systems are

of goods, and many industries have been

largely invisible and mostly unnoticed, yet

retired or relocated.

fundamental to modern life.”

industries have recently become the focus

(Bell, 2012).

Consequently, vacant

of many design and planning projects as

8

However, in the majority of today’s post-

opportunities for public space, Duisburg Nord

industrial cities, it is no longer necessary

and Gasworks Park being prime examples

to

of such projects.

restrict

public

access.

Increasing

Rahul Mehrotra & Felipe Vera, 2014

Although these designs

environmental regulations and streamlined

capture the public imagination and are

technology have led to more space-efficient,

appropriate responses to changing cities,

INVISIBLE WORKS

“ When cities are analyzed over large temporal spans, ephemerality emerges as an important condition in the life cycle of every built environment.”

INTRODUCTION

9

Brightwater Treatment Plant opens in Seattle, Washington.

INFRASTRUCTURE, PERCEPTION, & TIME

All 9 MSP treatment plants achieve 100% compliance.

Minneapolis-St. Paul separates combined sewers.

Gasworks park opens in Seattle, Washington.

Clean Water Act is passed.

Pittsburgh steel plants continue to dispose of mountains of slag.

2014

2009

Mayflies return to MSP region.

Duisburg Nord is designed in Germany.

2040?

2007

1998 1992

1991

1985

1975

Fresh kills landfill opens.

River is labeled a public health problem; most of the native fish die.

1960 First lock and dam built; river can’t flush effluent.

Sewers are built in Twin Cities, dumping raw sewage into the Mississippi River.

1972

1950 1938

1947

1926

1917 1880

10

INVISIBLE WORKS

INTRODUCTION

11

they often fail to embody the dynamic and

would capitalize on many of the possibilities

it becomes “post-industrial.�

In this way,

There are certain systems that are inextricably

functional nature of the industries that once

not

designers can reintroduce the public to the

linked to the pulse of the city. Wastewater

dynamic nature of the infrastructure which

treatment is one such system. Not only does

available

in

post-industrial

sites.

occupied them. At the same time, the public

12

works that were once marginalized alongside

This capstone project proposes a new

supports the city. In shifting perceptions of

it reflect the dynamic nature of an urban

these industries are largely still functioning,

intervention point for designers and planners.

these systems from static to active, generations

area, it also sustains the populations within

albeit more efficiently and sanitarily than

The point is pre-post; to capitalize on

to come will be better prepared for future

them. It enables public well being, promotes

they originally did.

These parallel sites

wastewater treatment infrastructure as a

scenarios as adaptive, resilient thinkers.

environmental health, and is one of the surest

offer unique opportunities for design which

unique typology of public realm space before

INVISIBLE WORKS

indicators of social and economic standing.

INTRODUCTION

13

The ability to transport, treat, and ultimately

cities in order to inform sustainable planning.

forget about sewage is arguably one of the

However, as engineer and urban metabolism

greatest

and

scholar Christopher Kennedy (2010) writes,

social shifts of the modern era (Gandy, 2014).

this practice has yet to be integrated

This is the luxury of invisible waste, and this

into design and landscape architecture,

project aims to dismantle that social shift.

“There is arguably a need for the planning

engineering

achievements

and

Urban Metabolism

design

community

--

specifically

architects, engineers,and planners -- to step up to a higher level ... and design the

In 1965, sanitary engineering pioneer Abel

urban metabolism of sustainable cities.”

Wolman released his seminal text “The Metabolism of Cities”, in which he coined the

History

term urban metabolism and analyzed the inflow and outflow of resources (primarily

The Metro WWTP lies on approximately

water) within a hypothetical city of 1

180 acres in St. Paul, Minnesota along the

million people. Since then, engineers have

Mississippi River and adjacent to Pig’s Eye

been publishing on the subject of urban

Lake. The site and its surrounding area holds

metabolism and computing flows within

a unique place in the history of St. Paul; it

Abel Wolman’s study of Urban Metabolism, 1965

14

INVISIBLE WORKS

INTRODUCTION

15

Pig’s Eye Lake was named for French

has become less toxic and more accessible

Canadian bootlegger Pierre Parrant, who

to the public. Pig’s Eye Lake boasts a heron

set up operations at Fountain Cave near

rookery and bicycle trails, and operations at

present-day St. Paul.

The lake itself was a

the Metro WWTP have become much cleaner.

popular recreation area for the area’s early

However, remnants from these “invisible”

inhabitants, until the city itself eventually

activities are still present today, and the area

grew beyond capacity to handle its own

is still very separated from the city. An active

waste.

In 1937, St. Paul constructed a

rail slices between the plant and the larger

sewage plant just West of Pig’s Eye Lake

network; both city and neighborhood are

and began accepting the refuse which,

separated by rail and distance. The Metro

until that point, had been dumped directly

WWTP site and its neighboring industries

into the Mississippi River.

The landscape

also lie within the fluctuating floodplain of the

continued its legacy of marginalization when,

Mississippi River, though now protected by

from 1956 to 1972, it operated as an active

dikes and floodgates. The now-defunct dump

dump for the nearby cities and from 1977 to

is listed on the Minnesota’s superfund watch

1985 when the Metropolitan Waste Control

list, as well as the leftover ash lagoons from

Commission disposed its sewage ash in the

previous WWTP incinerations. It is not possible

area. Since the induction of the Clean Water

nor desirable to erase the history of this

Act, increasingly strict pollution regulations,

landscape, but it is difficult to celebrate when

closure of the Pig’s Eye dump in 1985, and

so much still remains unseen to the public eye.

Artists relaxing at Pig’s Eye Lake, 1926

Construction of Sewage Plant, 1937

Mississippi River flooding industry adjacent to Metro WWTP, 1969

public investment in green space, the area

Burning tires at Pig’s Eye Dump, 1960s

16

INVISIBLE WORKS

Metropolitan WWTP, 1979

INTRODUCTION

17

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1

How can the public realm be stitched back into the public works of wastewater treatment?

2

How can its metabolic process be revealed in material and site scales?

3

Can this new typology for public space cultivate more dynamic thinking?

The ability to transport, treat, and ultimately forget about sewage is arguably one of the greatest engineering achievements and social shifts of the modern era Matthew Gandy, 2014

18

INVISIBLE WORKS

INTRODUCTION

19

CONTEXT

Adjacencies & Reach The Metro WWTP is falls under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Council, the policy, planning, and service-providing body for the Twin Cities metropolitan region.

The Metropolitan Council

Environmental Services division operates all wastewater treatment facilities within this region (over 90% of the metro area population). “The Council operates and maintains approximately 610 miles of regional sewers that collect flows from over 5,000 miles of sewers owned by 108 communities and treats approximately 250 million gallons of wastewater daily at eight regional treatment plants.� (metrocouncil.org) The Metro WWTP is the largest of these plants.

20

INVISIBLE WORKS

CONTEXT

21

M I N N E A P O L I S - S T. P A U L M E T R O P O L I TA N R E G I O N

SERVICES

5,000

108

8

St. Paul

Minneapolis MILES OF REGIONAL SEWERS

COMMUNITIES SERVED

W A S T E W AT E R T R E AT M E N T P L A N T S

Metro WWTP Sewershed WWTPs Interceptors

5

22

INVISIBLE WORKS

10

20 miles

CONTEXT

23

M E T R O WA S T E WAT E R T R E AT M E N T PLANT SEWERSHED

Forest Lake Andover

Hugo Coon Rapids

Brooklyn Park

SERVICES

White Bear Lake

Maple Grove

180

62

1 Roseville

Golden Valley

MILLION GALLONS S LU D G E / DAY

COMMUNITIES SERVED

St. Paul

W A S T E W AT E R T R E AT M E N T P L A N T

Minneapolis

1.8

Mendota Heights South St. Paul

Metro WWTP Lift stations Interceptors MILLION PEOPLE 2.5

24

INVISIBLE WORKS

5

10 miles

CONTEXT

25

L I F T S TAT I O N S

Region & Flow Brooklyn Park lift station

Wastewater flow is dynamic but constant, and the fingers of its infrastructure expansive.

The Prairie du Chein Jordan aquifer is tapped to provide freshwater for the majority of the Metro WWTP sewershed.

After use

in businesses and residents, it enters the wastewater treatment train. First, wastewater is flushed into local pipes, which plug into municipal sewer pipes, which then lead into interceptors, the largest of the conveyor pipes. Interceptors flow to the lowest point

Brooklyn Park

in the sewershed, the Metro WWTP. There are 331 miles of interceptor pipes connecting

Golden Valley

Golden Valley lift station

this sewershed to its plant. At select points Minneapolis

St. Paul

along the way, this water is monitored at meter stations. In situations where gravity

Mendota

is not sufficient to direct flow to the WWTP,

Mendota lift station

26

INVISIBLE WORKS

CONTEXT

27

WWTP LAND USE TYPOLOGY

the interceptors run through a lift station.

These meters and lift stations are effectively “invisible to the public eye. Embedded within a public park as a nondescript building or sitting at the end of a cul-de-sac, the stations are quiet connections to infrastructure which rarely merit a second glance.

Ultimately,

gravity brings wastewater to the wastewater treatment plant for treatment and eventual

St. Paul, Minnesota

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Portland, Oregon

Shakopee, Minnesota

Washington, D.C.

New Orleans, Louisiana

release into the river. This system is essential, recurring, and can be found in every major metropolitan region in the United States of America.

The importance of wastewater

treatment plants both as systems and design opportunities cannot be overstated. The Metro WWTP itself in St. Paul, Minnesota performs its operations on approximately 160 acres within its floodwalls and berms.

28

INVISIBLE WORKS

CONTEXT

29

i pp iss ss Mi

CONTEXT

ive

iR

4

r

1

Holman Field Airport

2

1

Aggregate Industries

3

Pig’s Eye Wood Recycling

4

BNSF Railroad

5

Battle Creek Regional Park

6

Pig’s Eye Regional Park

7

Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant

8

Northern Metal Recycling

9

Kaposia Landing

10

Pig’s Eye Heron Rookery Scientific & Natural Area

11

Red Rock Elevator

3

Ba

2

5

ttle ek

Cre

6

7

8

Pig’s Eye Lake

9

11 .5 mi

30

INVISIBLE WORKS

1 mi

10 CONTEXT

31

SITE & SYSTEM

Where & How Located just 3 miles from downtown St. Paul between the Mississippi River, Pig’s Eye Lake, neighboring industry and nature reserve, the Metro wastewater treatment plant is a perfectly positioned urban refuge.

In both location and function it blurs

the line between industry and ecology, between urban and wild.

32

INVISIBLE WORKS

SITE & SYSTEM

33

ree

C ttle k

SITE

Ba

Mississippi River

IN

1

1

Solids Processing

2

Odor Treatment

3

Access & Parking

4

Employee Offices

5

Decommissioned Infrastructure

6

Liquids Processing

7

Decommissioned Scum Lagoons

8

Flood Wall & Berm

9

Outfall

2

3

5

4

5 5

8 6

CURRENT SITE USERS

300 D A I LY

300

A N N U A L LY

700

A N N U A L LY

8

7

9 SITE EMPLOYEES

ALLIED PROFESSIONALS

STUDENTS

100’ 200’

34

INVISIBLE WORKS

400’

OUT

SITE & SYSTEM

35

SITE FLOW

IN

5

Coming & Going

3

2 2

The Metropolitan Council has owned the Metro WWTP site since the 1930s.

Given

improvements in

1

that there have been significant changes and

1 4

both the chemical and mechanical treatment

processes since then, the layout of the current Metro WWTP does

2 3

not necessarily follow a linear flow, but rather snakes around decommissioned infrastructure and overlaps itself at certain points.

3

The flow enters from an interceptor at the north end of the site, beginning 4

dirty and becoming cleaner as it moves south. At the outfall, the 4

clean water enters the Mississippi River as a slightly warmer, slightly source of fresh water. Animals and people alike take advantage of this

3

OU

confluence, and the outfall is popular with both wildlife and fishermen.

T

Often, a bald eagle can be spotted perched alongside the video camera on the last WWTP structure, scoping the outfall for a fresh meal.

5

36

INVISIBLE WORKS

SITE & SYSTEM

37

MATERIAL PRODUCT (++ OPPORTUNITY)

M AT E R I A L F LO W

Byproducts & Highlights Once wastewater arrives at the Metro WWTP, it takes approximately 15 hours to make the journey from dirty to clean. During that time,

and organic processes. The diagram at the right breaks down each of those stages and quantities, and in doing so reveals strategic

QUANTITY

materials through a series of chemical

may come in the form of public interaction

LOCATION & STAGE

points throughout the process that present opportunities for intervention. This intervention

SLUDGE 180 million gallons/day

GRIT/SCUM 20.6 tons/day to landfill

ODORS 24,000 cubic feet/ minute

CAKE 207 dry tons/day

STEAM 40,300 pounds/ hour

ASH + CLASS B BIOSOLIDS 27 dry tons/day to landfill

STEAM

WATER 178 million gallons/day

STEAM

STRUCTURE

it is separated into a number of different

IN

PRIMARY BUILDING

PRIMARY CLARIFIERS

1

2

2

SOLIDS MGMT & THICKENERS 3

4

1

2

INCINERATOR

5

3

AERATORS & CLARIFIERS 3

OUTFALL

4

OUT

5

amplify the byproducts highlighted in this diagram so the user and public can be aware of the urban metabolism and system process

38

through

material

interaction.

QUANTITY

the design intervention is to strategically

D1

D2

D3

D4

GRIT/SCUM 20.6 tons/day to landfill

D6

D5

D7

ASH + CLASS B BIOSOLIDS 27 dry tons/day to landfill

MATERIAL WASTE (++ OPPORTUNITY)

current waste stream. The ultimate goal of

DESIGN LOCATION

with material or research into harvest of a

INVISIBLE WORKS

SITE & SYSTEM

39

S E A S O N A L LY I N T E R A C T I V E M AT E R I A L S

DEC

GAS - LIQUID - SOLID

JAN

STEAM NOV

FEB

OCT

D7

D5

D3

D1

MAR

D2

D4 D6

SEP

APR

R

MU

MS ROO H S

WA TE M AY

S 40

INVISIBLE WORKS

OM RO

JUL

SH MU

AUG

JUN

SITE & SYSTEM

41

S I T E E X P E R I E N C E - S PAT I A L O P P O R T U N I T Y

Current vehicular entry

42

Primary central access road

Decommissioned treatment building and adjacent vacant lot

Current shared visitor & employee parking lot

Floodwall on southern end of site

INVISIBLE WORKS

Decommissioned tanks

SITE & SYSTEM

43

SITE EXPERIENCE - EXPERIENTIAL OPPORTUNITY

Secondary settling tanks

Aeration tank

44

Decommissioned settling tank

Clarifier controls

INVISIBLE WORKS

Southern end near Heron Rookery

Inside decommissioned treatment building

SITE & SYSTEM

45

DESIGN PROPOSAL Visible Works The opportunities for design intervention come in three primary forms: spatial opportunity on site, experiential opportunity on site, and material opportunity in process. The design proposal aims to take advantage and blend all three types. The intervention is done strategically so as not to disrupt the actual function of the site, and aims to maintain public safety and positive experience while eliminating public exposure to any untreated solids aside from guided tours. The three primary zones on site are reflective of experience and design move, as well as concentration of larger public space. The northern zone, where solids treatment takes place, is primarily restricted to employees and guided tours only. The central zone encompasses the most concentrated public realm, containing the visitor & research center, visitor parking lot, river walk entry, main street woonerf, large public plaza, and two retired infrastructure play areas with interactive water fountains and viewing platforms. The southern zone focuses on the aquatic and less programmed experience, with the tankwalk paths, linear grove, biosolids events mound, outfall view, aquatic entry, field stations, and trail connections to the larger context.

46

INVISIBLE WORKS

DESIGN PROPOSAL

47

PROGRAM GOALS

1

PUBLIC bring the public realm into the public works of wastewater infrastructure

“We have more advanced assessment techniques, better rehabilitation designs, and improved construction techniques, but I think the biggest impact for communities is improved community outreach�

Leisa Thompson, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Manager

2

3

48

PROCESS engage users in the dynamic metabolic process through the highlighting of material byproducts

INNOVATION invert general perception of the WWTP from place of waste to cultivator of new ideas and source of new materials

INVISIBLE WORKS

DESIGN PROPOSAL

49

MASTER PLAN 1 Visitor check-in & entry 2 Drying racks 3

Employee parking

2

4 Visitor parking

3

1

5 Main street woonerf 6 Entry plaza 7

4

10

5

Visitor & research center

8 Riverwalk 9

10 9 7

8

6

9

Retired infrastructure play area

16

Mushroom mulch beds

11

Tankwalk

12

Linear grove

13

Biosolids events mound

14

Outfall view

11 15 13

15

Lagoon research field station

16

Trail connections

17

Freshwater kayak launch

12

14

100’ 200’

400’

17 50

INVISIBLE WORKS

16

INTRODUCTION

51

PLAN ZONING

VEHICLE ACCESS

1

GUIDED TOUR & SOLIDS TREATMENT

2

PUBLIC REALM & RETIRED INFRASTRUCTURE

3

AQUATIC & TRAIL EXPLORATION

1

2 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

NEW SITE USERS

350 D A I LY

400

A N N U A L LY

1000

A N N U A L LY

3

SITE EMPLOYEES

2000

A N N U A L LY

GROUPS & EVENTS

ALLIED PROFESSIONALS

500

A N N U A L LY

FA M I L I E S & R E C R E AT O R S

STUDENTS

250

A N N U A L LY

RESEARCHERS & C O L L A B O R AT O R S

AQUATIC ACCESS

52

INVISIBLE WORKS

DESIGN PROPOSAL

100’ 200’

400’

53

RETIRED INFRASTRUCTURE P L AY A R E A

28’

8’

PRIMARY USERS

CLIMBING BARRELS

WORKSHOP & CLASSROOM BUILDING

STUDENTS

P L AY THICKET INTERACTIVE F O U N TA I N PLANTED TA N K S

VIEWING MOUND

FA M I L I E S & R E C R E AT O R S

TA N K V I E W G R AT E

10’

54

20’

40’

INVISIBLE WORKS

DESIGN PROPOSAL

55

D E S I G N L AY E R S 1

2

CURRENT CONDITIONS & PRIMARY U N D E R G R O U N D W AT E R P I P E

5

6

MUSHROOM MULCH BED (I.E. S O L I D S O D O R T R E AT M E N T )

56

VISITOR CENTER & MAIN STREET WOONERF

SOUTHERN LINEAR GROVE & BIOSOLIDS EVENTS MOUND

INVISIBLE WORKS

3

4

A L L P E D E S T R I A N C I R C U L AT I O N

7

V I S I T O R PA R K I N G LO T & E M P LO Y E E PA R K I N G LO T

RETIRED INFRASTRUCTURE P L AY A R E A S

8

P L A N W I T H A C T I VAT E D W AT E R T R E AT M E N T A R E A S

DESIGN PROPOSAL

57

A)

G AT H E R I N G S PA C E C A PA C I T Y

ENTRY PLAZA: WEEKEND EVENTS

MOUND

P L AY I N T E R ACT I V E T H I C K E T F O U N TA I N

RETIRED TA N K

1,500

ENTRY PLAZA

A B)

3,000

200

LINEAR GROVE: WEEKEND VISITS

3,500 B 500

EMPLOYEE DRIVE

CONCRETE WALK

A G G R E G AT E DIRECT S E AT I N G I N F I LT R AT I O N

FLOOD WALL

R I PA R I A N BUFFER 10’

20’

40’

WEEKEND VISITS Families, walkers & runners, kayakers, mushroom harvesters, birdwatchers, fishers

GROUPS & EVENTS

58

FA M I L I E S & R E C R E AT O R S

INVISIBLE WORKS

EVENING & WEEKEND EVENTS Corporate retreats, weddings, festivals, concerts

DESIGN PROPOSAL

59

C)

PA R K I N G C A PA C I T Y

M A I N S T R E E T : D A I LY O P E R AT I O N S

72 20 116

26 162 D

24 10

VISITOR & RESEARCH CENTER

D)

WOONERF & EMPLOYEE DRIVE

SOLIDS FLOW

C 36

LIQUIDS FLOW

E N T RY LOT: W E E K DAY V I S I T S

DRIVE

PA R K WA L K PA R K

DRIVE

20

DIRECT I N F I LT R AT I O N

RIVERWALK S TA I R 10’

DRIVE 20’

40’

D A I LY O P E R AT I O N S Site employees, allied professionals

SITE EMPLOYEES

60

ALLIED PROFESSIONALS

RESEARCHERS & C O L L A B O R AT O R S

INVISIBLE WORKS

STUDENTS

W E E K DAY V I S I T S Morning runners & dog walkers, local students on field trips, researchers & collaborators, university students

DESIGN PROPOSAL

61

V E G E TAT I O N

S T O R M WAT E R

FLOODPLAIN FOREST & I N F I LT R AT I O N B E D S

S E A S O N A L LY F L O O D E D M A R S H

S T O R M W AT E R F L O W

OCCUPIABLE TURF

S T O R M W AT E R S T O R A G E & U N D E R G R O U N D I N F I LT R AT I O N ( N O N - P I P E D ) Z O N E

MIXED EMERGENT MARSH LOWLAND HARDWOOD FOREST

INFORMAL ZONE TREES Acer saccharinum, Populus deltoides, Quercus macrocarpa, Quercus bicolor

C AT TA I L M A R S H MN DNR PRAIRIE SEED MIX

62

FORMAL STREET TREES Gleditsia tricanthos, Ginkgo biloba, Gymnocladus dioicus

INVISIBLE WORKS

DESIGN PROPOSAL

63

CONNECTIONS:

p sip sis Mis

SITE & RIVER

iR

A)

SITE CONTEXT

r ive

Battle Creek Park

METRO WWTP

ek Cre

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

ttle Ba

ADJACENT INDUSTRY

A B) SITE & BLUFF

B

PIG’S EYE LAKE

TRANSIT CORRIDOR

Kaposia Landing

PA R K S & RESIDENTIAL 50’ 100’

E X I S T I N G R E G I O N A L PA R K S

F U T U R E B R T S TAT I O N

EXISTING TRAILS

PROPOSED TRAILS

Pig’s Eye Lake

200’

Pig’s Eye Heron Rookery Scientific & Natural Area

.5 mi

64

INVISIBLE WORKS

DESIGN PROPOSAL

1 mi

65

CONNECTIONS:

BIOSOLIDS FERTILIZERS

NEIGHBORHOOD

LIFT S TAT I O N S

MUSHROOM BRICKS

METRO WWTP T R E AT M E N T FREQUENCY

C O M M U N I T Y S AT E L L I T E S Lift stations link into the larger community to distribute annual biosolids fertilizers, mushroom blocks & spores, relay treatment scheduling, and disseminate information.

66

INVISIBLE WORKS

DESIGN PROPOSAL

67

W H AT + W H E N + W H E R E

MATERIAL PRODUCT (++ OPPORTUNITY)

JAN

STEAM

NOV

FEB

D7

D5

MAR

D2

D4 D6 D1

WA TE

D3

APR

MUS HRO

SEP

R MS OO HR

OM S

M AY

GRIT/SCUM 20.6 tons/day to landfill

ODORS 24,000 cubic feet/ minute

CAKE 207 dry tons/day

STEAM 40,300 pounds/ hour

ASH + CLASS B BIOSOLIDS 27 dry tons/day to landfill

STEAM

WATER 178 million gallons/day

JUL

IN

PRIMARY BUILDING

PRIMARY CLARIFIERS

1

DD 11

D D22

2

3 DD 3

GRIT/SCUM 20.6 tons/day to landfill

2

SOLIDS MGMT & THICKENERS 3

DD 44

4

1

2

INCINERATOR

5

3

AERATORS & CLARIFIERS 3

DD66

OUTFALL

4

5 DD 5

JUN

FLOW

THE DESIGN MOVE & ITS F O C U S O N M AT E R I A L

SEASONALITY AND HIGHLIGHTING OF I N T E R A C T I V E M AT E R I A L S

L O C AT I O N O F D E S I G N M O V E R E L AT I V E T O F L O W O F W A S T E W AT E R T R E AT M E N T

J

D STEAM

N

F

M

M

J

S OM RO SH MU

A

A

J

FLOW

ER

MU

OMS RO SH

S

WA T

SEASON

O

PLAN

DD 77

ASH + CLASS B BIOSOLIDS 27 dry tons/day to landfill

SEASON

FOCUS

OUT

5

FOCUS

D1

STEAM

MATERIAL WASTE (++ OPPORTUNITY)

AUG

68

QUANTITY

S MU

SOLID

SLUDGE 180 million gallons/day

STRUCTURE

LIQUID

LOCATION & STAGE

OCT

QUANTITY

DEC

DESIGN LOCATION

SITE:

69

+

+ + ++ + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + ++

VISITOR & RESEARCH CENTER

+

+ +

+ +

+ ++ + +

+

+

+ + ++

INTERACTIVE WAT E R

J

D STEAM

N

M

J

J

FLOW

OMS RO SH

MU

A

A

S OM RO SH MU

SEASON

ER

PLAN

S

WA T

FOCUS

M

O

D1

70

F

IN

SLUDGE

GRIT ODORS

CAKE

H E AT A S H

STEAM

W AT E R

STEAM

OUT

71

STEAM TESTING

J

D STEAM

N

M

J

J

FLOW

OMS RO SH

MU

A

A

S OM RO SH MU

SEASON

ER

PLAN

S

WA T

FOCUS

M

O

D2

72

F

IN

SLUDGE

GRIT ODORS

CAKE

H E AT A S H

STEAM

W AT E R

STEAM

OUT

73

METERED STEAM & LIGHT

+ +

+

+

+ + + ++

+ +

+ + + + + + +

+ ++

+

+ +

+ +

+ +

+

+

+ +

+

+

+ + VIEWS TO & FROM ADJACENT INDUSTRY

RIVER WALK

J

D STEAM

N

M

J

J

FLOW

OMS RO SH

MU

A

A

S OM RO SH MU

SEASON

ER

PLAN

S

WA T

FOCUS

M

O

D2

74

F

IN

SLUDGE

GRIT ODORS

CAKE

H E AT A S H

STEAM

W AT E R

STEAM

OUT

75

+ + + + + + + + + INTERACTIVE F O U N TA I N S

+ + + ++

+ + ++ + + + + + ++ ++ + ++

F O R M E R TA N K MOUND

+

++ + + + + ++ + +

+

+ + + ++

+ + + ++

+ + + ++ +

+

+

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ + + + ++

RETIRED INFRASTRUCTURE

FORMER S E T T L I N G TA N K

J

D STEAM

N

M

J

J

FLOW

OMS RO SH

MU

A

A

S OM RO SH MU

SEASON

ER

PLAN

S

WA T

FOCUS

M

O

D3

76

F

IN

SLUDGE

GRIT ODORS

CAKE

H E AT A S H

STEAM

W AT E R

STEAM

OUT

77

M U S H R O O M M I C R O C L I M AT E S

+1’

+3’

+5’

+1’

+3’

+5’

+1’

+3’

+5’

Harvesting the Byproduct A primary concern to most people when visiting a wastewater treatment plant is the smell. However, apart from guided tours inside the primary screening and solids management buildings, the outdoor experience is more of a refuge from the urban core than a trip to a dirty industry. This is largely possible because of odor treatment. Currently, the Metro WWTP treats approximately half of its odors through an organic process of odor eating bacteria in large mulch beds outdoors.

The design proposal will double this organic treatment and relocate treatment to accommodate the size. One unintended byproduct of this process is growth of mushrooms in the warm mulch beds. By using subtle changes in topography in the mushroom beds combined with tree canopy, the design will amplify and expand the mushroom growth process so that users can come to the site for harvest of edible mushrooms.

MUSHROOM MULCH BED

PED WALK

MUSHROOM MULCH BED

PED WALK

MUSHROOM MULCH BED 5’ 10’

J

D STEAM

N

M

J

J

FLOW

OMS RO SH

MU

SEASON

A

A

S OM RO SH MU

PLAN

S ER

FOCUS

M

WA T

78

F

O

D4

20’

IN

SLUDGE

GRIT ODORS

CAKE

H E AT A S H

STEAM

W AT E R

STEAM

OUT

79

D E C AY & G R O W T H

U N T R E AT E D D R Y S TA C K E D MYCELIUM BRICK WALL

MYCELIUM WALL & ODOR PIPE IN MULCH BED

YEAR 1

YEAR 1

D E G R A D AT I O N / C U LT I V AT I O N B E G I N S I N U N T R E AT E D B R I C K

SUBTLE EFFECTS OF MICROTOPOGRAPHY

YEAR 2

YEAR 2

D E C A Y I N G M AT E R I A L C U LT I V AT E S N E W S W AT H O F M U S H R O O M S

WALL BECOMES NEW SOURCE OF H A R V E S TA B L E M AT E R I A L

YEAR 3

YEAR 3

J

D STEAM

N

M

J

J

FLOW

OMS RO SH

MU

A

A

S OM RO SH MU

SEASON

ER

PLAN

S

WA T

FOCUS

M

O

D4

80

F

IN

SLUDGE

GRIT ODORS

CAKE

H E AT A S H

STEAM

W AT E R

STEAM

OUT

81

MUSHROOM BYPRODUCT

SOLIDS

HARVEST

ODORS

B AC T E R I A E AT S ODORS

J

D STEAM

N

M

J

J

FLOW

OMS RO SH

MU

A

A

S OM RO SH MU

SEASON

ER

PLAN

S

WA T

FOCUS

M

O

D4

82

F

IN

SLUDGE

GRIT ODORS

CAKE

H E AT A S H

STEAM

W AT E R

STEAM

OUT

83

M E T E R E D TA N K L I G H T S

Making it Visible The treatment process at the Metro WWTP is constant, operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and treating anywhere from 180 to 250 million gallons of water each day. Because the system is very efficient and largely

METERED LIGHTS LIGHT “HIGHLIGHTS” PAT T E R N C H A N G E S EACH 10 MILLION GALLONS OF W A S T E W AT E R T R E AT E D

visually constant, a system of showing the user benchmarks in a subtle way is essential.

The design proposal will use the otherwise consistent pedestrian path lights as meters of the process. Each time 10 million gallons of wastewater is cleaned, the lighting will perform a recognition of this achievement through a series of blinks and rotations for flow, this will happen anywhere from 18 to 25 times per day. Through this nuanced approach to metering, the user experience will change each time

they visit the site.

HIGHLIGHTS L I G H T S P R I M A R I LY FA C E UPWARD & TOWARD USER EXCEPT DURING METER HIGHLIGHT 1-MIN PERIOD

J

D STEAM

N

OMS RO SH

MU

SEASON

ER

PLAN

S

A

A

WA T

FOCUS

M

O

D5

84

F

M

J

J

FLOW

Depending on season and

S OM RO SH MU

thirty seconds.

IN

SLUDGE

GRIT ODORS

CAKE

H E AT A S H

STEAM

W AT E R

STEAM

OUT

85

+

+ +

+ + +

+ + + +

+

+

+

++ +

+

+

+ + + + + METERED + + LIGHTING +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

++ + + + + +

+

+

+ +

+

+

+ +

+ +

+

+ ++

TA N K WA L K

J

D STEAM

N

M

J

J

FLOW

OMS RO SH

MU

A

A

S OM RO SH MU

SEASON

ER

PLAN

S

WA T

FOCUS

M

O

D5

86

F

IN

SLUDGE

GRIT ODORS

CAKE

H E AT A S H

STEAM

W AT E R

STEAM

OUT

87

BIOSOLIDS BUILDUP

Reuse of Waste One material byproduct which was revealed as an opportunity for intervention combination

of

class

B

is the

biosolids

and

YEAR 1

+3’

9,855 DRY TONS CLASS B BIOSOLIDS

incineration ash. These products are currently being trucked to a local landfill at a rate of 27 dry tons per day. There is no biosolids refinement facility on site at the Metro WWTP, therefore class A biosolids (which can legally be land-applied as fertilizer) are not produced.

YEAR 3

+9’

29,565 DRY TONS CLASS B BIOSOLIDS

However, class B biosolids are readily available and fully capable of serving as fill material for landform. The design proposal redirects 48,000 dry tons of class B biosolids over the course of 5 years . At this point, there will be enough fill to create a 15’ landform at the south end of the site which will meet the current height of the flood berm and serve

YEAR 5

+15’

48,000 DRY TONS CLASS B BIOSOLIDS

as a large, informal, vegetated events space.

ACCESS ROAD

PED WALK

CLASS B BIOSOLIDS EVENTS MOUND 5’ 10’

J

D STEAM

N

M

J

J

FLOW

OMS RO SH

MU

SEASON

A

A

S OM RO SH MU

PLAN

S ER

FOCUS

M

WA T

88

F

O

D6

20’

IN

SLUDGE

GRIT ODORS

C A K E H E AT A S H

STEAM

W AT E R

STEAM

OUT

89

METERED LIGHTING

BIOSOLIDS EVENTS MOUND

J

D STEAM

N

M

J

J

FLOW

OMS RO SH

MU

A

A

S OM RO SH MU

SEASON

ER

PLAN

S

WA T

FOCUS

M

O

D6

90

F

IN

SLUDGE

GRIT ODORS

C A K E H E AT A S H

STEAM

W AT E R

STEAM

OUT

91

F I E L D S TAT I O N

TO ROOKERY

I N T E R C E P T O R PAT H

J

D STEAM

N

M

J

J

FLOW

OMS RO SH

MU

A

A

S OM RO SH MU

SEASON

ER

PLAN

S

WA T

FOCUS

M

O

D7

92

F

IN

SLUDGE

GRIT ODORS

CAKE

H E AT A S H

STEAM

W AT E R

STEAM

OUT

93

CONCLUSION

94

INVISIBLE WORKS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

95

FUTURE DIRECTION

Infrastructure + Design Landscape Architects and designers have the unique opportunity to build a bridge between infrastructure and public space in the places and experiences they design. In the future of the Anthropocene and the era of the city, public works should be seen as opportunities to reimagine the urban landscape and our relationship to it. The general view of wastewater treatment plants should be inverted from waste receptacles to sources of innovation and a dynamic public spaces.

By bringing the public realm into these public works and exposing people to the metabolic process, changing material, and unique spaces that lie within this system, the aim is to shift this perception.

96

INVISIBLE WORKS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

97

BAL

NEW TYPOLOGIES

NEW PERCEPTIONS

INVISIBLE WORKS

CONCLUSION

99

FIGURES C OV ER & IN T RO D UCT IO N

DES I GN P ROP OSAL

1-4)

Photo taken by Bridget Ayers Looby

1-10)

5-6)

Park photos, Wikimedia commons, wikimediacommons.org

7)

Timeline information, http://www.metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water.aspx

C ONC LU S I ON

8)

Photo taken by Bridget Ayers Looby

1-6)

Photo taken by Bridget Ayers Looby

9)

Inputs and outputs (in tons) in Abel Wolman’s hypothetical city of 1 million, Abel Wolman 1965

7-9)

Wikimedia commons, wikimediacommons.org

10)

Artists relaxing at Pig’s Eye Lake, 1926, http://search.mnhs.org/index.php?q=wastewater%20treatment

10)

Aerial of WWTP, Bing maps, bing.com

11)

Construction of Sewage Plant, 1937, http://search.mnhs.org/index.php?q=wastewater%20treatment

12)

Mississippi River flooding adjacent industry, 1969, http://search.mnhs.org/index.php?q=wastewater%20treat

13)

Burning tires at Pig’s Eye Dump, 1960s, http://search.mnhs.org/index.php?q=wastewater%20treatment

14)

Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant, 1979, http://search.mnhs.org/index.php?q=wastewater%20treatment

15)

Photo taken by Bridget Ayers Looby

Photo taken by Bridget Ayers Looby

C ON TEXT 1-4)

Photo taken by Bridget Ayers Looby

5)

Lift station section, Metropolitan Council

6)

Nearmap aerial image, Nearmap.com

SI TE & SYS T E M

100

1)

Photo taken by Bridget Ayers Looby

2)

Nearmap aerial image, Nearmap.com

3-5)

Photo taken by Bridget Ayers Looby

6-7)

Google street view, Google.com

8-18)

Photo taken by Bridget Ayers Looby

INVISIBLE WORKS

FIGURES

101

BIBLIOGRAPHY J OU R NA L S

6) Lopes, Myriam et al. “Chapter 18: Guidelines for Urban Sustainable Development.” In Understanding Urban Metabolism: A Tool for Urban Planning, edited by Chrysoulakis, Nektarios, et al, 197-205. New York: Routledge, 2015.

1) Baccini, Peter. “A City’s Metabolism: Towards the Sustainable Development of Urban Systems.” Journal of Urban Technology 4, no. 2 (1997): 27-39.

7) Lyle, John T. Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1994.

2) Behzadian, Koroush. “Advantages of integrated and sustainability based assessment for metabolism based strategic planning of urban water systems.” Science of The Total Environment 527-528, no. 0048-9697 (2015): 220-31.

8) Mehrotra, Rahul and Felipe Vera. “Chapter 13: Ephemeral Urbanism: Learning From Pop-up Cities.” In New Geographies, 6: Grounding Metabolism, edited by Daniel Ibanez and Nikos Katsikis, 122-130). Harvard Graduate School of Design, 2014.

3) Bell, Sarah. “Urban Water Systems in Transition” Emergence: Complexity & Organization 14, no. 1 (2012): 45-58.

4) Cordoboan, Natalia and Chris Kennedy. “Metabolism of Neighborhoods” Journal of Urban Planning & Development 134, no. 1 (2008): 21-31.

5) Hossain, Faisal. “Local-To-Regional Landscape Drivers of Extreme Weather and Climate: Implications for Water Infrastructure Resilience” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 20, no. 7 (2015).

6) Kennedy, Chris, et al. “The Changing Metabolism of Cities” Journal of Industrial Technology 11, no. 2 (2007): 43-59.

7) Kennedy, Chris, et al. “The study of Urban Metabolism and its Applications to Urban Planning and Design” Environmental Pollution 11, no. 2 (2010).

8) Moloney, Kirk, and Simon Levin. “The Effects of Disturbance Architecture on Landscape-Level Population Dynamics.”

Ecology 77, no. 2 (1996): 375-94.

9) Niza, Samuel et al. “Urban Metabolism” Sustainability 7 (2015): 8461-490. Accessed October 17, 2015. http://www. mdpi.com/journal/sustainability.

9) Reed, Chris and Nina-Marie Lister. “Chapter 1: Parallel Genealogies” In Projective Ecologies, edited by Chris Reed and Nina-Marie Lister, 22-39. ACTAR, Harvard Graduate School of Design, 2014.

10) Salgueiro, R. et al. “Chapter 5: Petrified Metabolism as Urban Artifact” In New Geographies, 6: Grounding Metabolism, edited by Daniel Ibanez and Nikos Katsikis. Harvard Graduate School of Design, 2014.

11) Wolff, Jane. “Chapter 10: Cultural Landscapes and Dynamic Ecologies: Lessons from New Orleans.” In Projective Ecologies, edited by Chris Reed and Nina-Marie Lister, 184-203. ACTAR, Harvard Graduate School of Design, 2014.

GI S & M AP P I NG 1) Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. AutoCAD basemap and contours. Received December 2015.

2) Minnesota Geospatial Commons. GIS information and shapefiles. Accessed October 2015 - April 2016.

3) MN Topo. Regional and area contours. Accessed October 2015 - April 2016.

10) Paterson, Willa et. al. “Water Footprint of Cities: A Review and Suggestions for Future Research.” Sustainability 7 (2015): 8461-490. Accessed October 17, 2015. http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability.

BO O KS & CH A P T E R S 1) Baccini, Peter and Paul Brunner. “Chapter 5: Designing Metabolic Systems” In Metabolism of the Anthroposphere, 2nd ed, 281-361. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2012.

2) Bhatia, Neeraj et al. Coupling: Strategies for Infrastructural Opportunism. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2011.

3) Ellis, Erle C. “Chapter 9: Anthropogenic Taxonomies” In Projective Ecologies, edited by Chris Reed and Nina-Marie Lister, 168-183. ACTAR, Harvard Graduate School of Design, 2014.

4) Gandy, Matthew. The Fabric of Space: Water, Modernity, and the Urban Imagination. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2014.

5) Hight, Christopher. “Chapter 4: Designing Ecologies” In Projective Ecologies, edited by Chris Reed and Nina-Marie Lister, 84-105. ACTAR, Harvard Graduate School of Design, 2014.

102

INVISIBLE WORKS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

103

INVISIBLE WORKS a public introduction to the dynamic life of wastewater infrastructure Bridget Ayers Looby b.ayerslooby@gmail.com 612-508-7402 Master of Landscape Architecture Capstone Project Proposal 2016 University of Minnesota