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