Wild Urban Coastlines - Palmer

WILD URBAN COASTLINES

How can human and wildlife habitat co-exist in cities?

Roz Palmer Capstone, December 2013 Alec Appelbaum and Jaime Stein, advisors

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4 Part 1: Co-­‐existence ..................................................................................................... 6 ‘Functioning’ ............................................................................................................................... 7 ‘Co-­‐exist’: further evolution of the City ........................................................................ 10 ‘Resilience’ ................................................................................................................................ 11

Part 2: Risk: Why should we care about our coastlines? .......................... 13 Coastal Risk .............................................................................................................................. 13 New York City / the Hudson-­‐Raritan Estuary ........................................................... 16

Part 3: The Case for Natural Habitat vs. Seawalls ........................................ 19 Hard Infrastructure .............................................................................................................. 19 Soft Infrastructure ................................................................................................................. 20

Part 4: The Evolution of Urban ............................................................................. 23 1. NYC’s long-­‐term planning and green infrastructure ......................................... 23 2. Low Impact Development (LID) and “habitat enhancements” ..................... 23 3. Delaware Estuary Living Shorelines ........................................................................ 24 4. Revitalization and use of space for resiliency ...................................................... 26 5. Rethinking the City in large-­‐scale redesign ........................................................... 28

Part 5: Weber Court .................................................................................................. 33 Context ....................................................................................................................................... 33 The City’s plan for Southern Brooklyn ......................................................................... 36 Gans Studio ............................................................................................................................... 39

Part 6: Proposal and limitations .......................................................................... 41 Conclusion: Wild Urban Coastlines .................................................................... 45 Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 46 Appendices .................................................................................................................... 53

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 2

Executive Summary Though we’ve separated ourselves from natural ecosystems with dense built environments, New York City is the Hudson-­‐Raritan Estuary -­‐-­‐ our capacity to build on wetlands does not guarantee a capacity to overcome its natural cycles. This paper argues for a better integration of natural habitat (wetlands) with dense human habitat (cities), and a better transition from the land to the water.

A conventional wetland cannot function in a dense urban environment, however, so I explore a shift in our current definitions of “functioning estuary,” how these environments can “co-­‐existent,” and what a “city” will need to be in the future to allow this to happen.

Based on the concept of “ecosystem services,” recent studies have revealed hard evidence that coastal habitats protect people and property from sea level rise and severe weather events. The paper reviews several of these studies and points out vulnerabilities specific to New York City.

I make the case for implementing soft infrastructure as opposed to engineered infrastructure based on long-­‐term costs and benefits, and conclude that hard infrastructure will crumble while soft infrastructure will grow. Implementation of soft infrastructure also accomplishes the goal of integrating natural and urban environments, and aids in adaptation to climate change.

To ground these large-­‐scale concepts in reality, the end of the paper presents a proposal for a site-­‐ specific living shoreline pilot project, which draws inspiration from a number of precedent studies. I cite PlaNYC, Low-­‐Impact Development, the Delaware Estuary, strategies for post-­‐industrial waterfront revitalization both in NYC and abroad, Rebuild by Design (HUD) and most importantly, the Vancouver Convention Center as guidance for the pilot project.

The paper introduces the existing site, Weber Court in Southern Brooklyn, the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency’s plans for the area around it, and Gans Studio’s proposals for neighborhood-­‐ wide resiliency as well as preliminary designs for elevating houses in the sunken courts of Sheepshead Bay. The stepped intertidal seawall that I propose will act as a compact living shoreline: it will grow natural habitat over time, adapting the Weber Court community to sea level rise and storm surge -­‐-­‐ all as a natural shoreline would do.

I argue that, in conjunction with regional interventions, the stepped seawall will show that a meticulously created coastal habitat can thrive in a dense center of human use and habitation, and that a small piece of land can be productive for many species on many scales. The intervention will also prove, ideally through the residents’ observations and the steady growth of biodiversity, that the integration of urban and natural environments is possible, and that a hard divide between land and water does not serve coastal species, including us.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 3

Introduction: An evolved concept of what ‘urban’ means can create more biodiverse, and therefore more livable cities.

The Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy has been working for 25 years to make 1.3 miles of abandoned shoreline into the sustainable park we can all enjoy today.1 People are excited about the volleyball courts and the carousel, but they’re also excited about feeling like you’re in the woods on pier six and that there’s a place to “put your feet in the water.”2 Though we’ve separated ourselves from these natural habitats with dense built environments, New York City is the Hudson-­‐Raritan Estuary -­‐-­‐ our capacity to build over it does not guarantee the capacity to overcome its natural cycles (e.g. tides and storms).

Many landscape architects and designers like Michael Van Valkenburgh, the architect of Brooklyn Bridge Park, are working to bring ”nondestructive land planning” to urban landscapes.3 There’s six acres of “living roof” and 1,500 feet of marine habitat built into the Vancouver Convention Center, for example.4 Cities like Copenhagen tackled this issue so long ago that their center-­‐city harbor is clean enough to swim in, and the fact that thousands of people do every summer indicates the demand for access to the water, not only for recreation but for subsistence and business uses as well.5 The naturalist E.O. Wilson uses the word “biophilia” to describe that “innate affiliation people seek with other organisms, and especially with the living natural world.” Studies (nevermind our own brains) tell us that humans like to live and work near a body of water.6 Especially along coastlines, which house both ecological and economic concentrations of productivity, we need to continually innovate ways to sustain a dense and highly diverse set of functions, and to re-­‐incorporate the estuary back into the city.

Organisms need spawning ground, the sea will claim its tidal plain, wildlife requires migration corridors, industry needs trade routes, and people need housing, recreation and beauty: there is a reason that most

1 Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy, “Brooklyn Bridge Park,” Brooklynbridgepark.org, accessed December 12,

2013, http://www.brooklynbridgepark.org/about-­‐us.

2 William S. Saunders, “Michael Van Valkenburgh, Harvard Landscape Architecture Professor: A Profile,”

Harvardmagazine.com, December 2013, http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/11/the-­‐urban-­‐landscaper.

3 Saunders, “Michael Van Valkenburgh.”

4 “Environment,” Vancouver Convention Centre, 2013, accessed December 9, 2013,

http://www.vancouverconventioncentre.com/thefacilities/environment/.

5 See “Copenhagen Climate Change Adaptation Plan” for a summary of their work so far and future plans.

6 Edward O. Wilson, The Social Conquest of Earth (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2012): 272.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 4

major cities were established on a waterfront.7 Coastal wildlife habitat is essential to this creation of biodiverse, livable cities, and can serve as an adaptation to sea level rise and increasingly intense storms due to climate change.

Following a re-­‐examination of our current definitions of ‘nature’ as separate from ‘urban,’ I will use precedent studies and a proposed pilot project for a community’s shoreline in Southern Brooklyn to outline ways in which human and natural coastal habitat can co-­‐exist. Using solutions proposed in this paper, coastal urban hubs can strive to provide sustainable habitat for all species, with slight privilege to the humans already inhabiting the shore.

7 Beijing, Sao Paulo, Mexico City are considered the only major metropolises that did not grow from a waterfront;

Rutger de Graaf, Inaugural Lecture BlueRevolution, Lecture, 2012, accessed September 30, 2013, http://www.slideshare.net/rutgerdegraaf/inaugural-­‐lecture-­‐bluerevolution-­‐video.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 5

Part 1, Co-­‐existence: What does it mean for natural and human habitat to co-­‐exist?

In the industrial era, the sentiment that the city was an ugly, unhealthy place devoid of nature was understandable. Now, however, in many cities in the U.S., industry no longer dominates the majority of the coastline, and the industry still present is under strict regulations for air and water health.8 Though this does not mean that coastal neighborhoods are universally healthy, the inequitable placement of urban infrastructure and industry is receiving more attention than in the past.9 Reports such as Vision2020 from New York City’s waterfront division describe the need and plan for the complete transformation of the coastline in order that the defunct industrial perimeters can be opened to public use. But the ability to maintain human and other species’ habitats in the same place requires a new definition of what a functioning ecosystem is when in the context of an urban landscape.

We therefore need a tailored definition of ‘functioning,’ and an evolved definition of ‘city’ -­‐-­‐ one that takes into account the integration and possible mimicry of natural systems. Using New York City as a focus, our new definitions can inspire an “alternative vision that opts for the transition zone, with islands, wetlands, and graded embankments, allowing the city to cooperate with the sea, rather than trying, fruitlessly, to banish it.”10 To understand the coast as a ‘transition’ as opposed to a boundary, it is important to understand New York City’s history as an estuary and what an estuary provides as a transitory zone. According to Eric W. Sanderson, lead ecologist at the Wildlife Conservation Society and founder of The Welikia Project, when they were intact “marshes all over the island [Manhattan and other boroughs] buffered flooding, slowed rushing waters, recharged aquifers, and filled springs with water. Wetlands held soil on the island, slowing erosion...these wetlands were filled with animals...”11 The ‘intertidal’ zone that will be the focus of this paper serves all of the functions mentioned above, acting as a geomorphic transition between terrestrial and aquatic habitat, and as a buffer zone between wet and dry, water and land.12

8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Air Pollution and the Clean Air Act,” usepa.gov, August 2013, accessed

November 11, 2013, http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/; “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.” usepa.gov, March 2009, accessed November 11, 2013, http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/index.cfm.

9 “Renewed Debate Over 91st St. Marine Waste Station,” Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance, July 7, 2013, http://www.waterfrontalliance.org/waterwire/2013/07/07/renewed-­‐debate-­‐over-­‐91st-­‐st-­‐marine-­‐waste-­‐ station.

10 Guy Nordenson, Catherine Seavitt, and Adam Yarinsky, On the Water | Palisade Bay (Ostfildern, Germany: Hatje Cantz Verlag, 2010): 11.

11 Eric W. Sanderson, “Urban Legend: Discovering Manhattan’s Wetlands,” National Wetlands Newsletter 27, no. 1 (February 2005), 14–17.

12 Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority and Climate Change NSW 2009, “Environmentally Friendly Seawalls: A Guide to Improving the Environmental Value of Seawalls and Seawall-­‐lined Foreshores in Estuaries” (Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, June 2009), http://www.hornsby.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/41291/Environmentally-­‐Friendly-­‐Seawalls.pdf.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 6

(Source: Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW)

‘Functioning’ To create the most inhabitable coast possible, the restoration and creation of natural coastal habitat along the perimeter of cities needs to be prioritized. But ‘natural coastal habitat’ in cities cannot simply mimic preserved natural areas. A fully functioning estuary, for example, cannot co-­‐exist with dense housing, which is why national parks and wilderness areas are protected as they are. But this shouldn’t, and doesn’t, disallow any natural areas from existing near human habitat. Community gardens do, green infrastructure does increasingly, bee-­‐keeping and roof gardens are becoming popular, beaches certainly exist (albeit with deficient dunes); what does a wetland have to be to survive alongside humans?

As defined most basically by the Environmental Protection Agency, wetlands are “lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface”13 And an estuary meets with, or contains, wetlands: “an estuary is a partially enclosed body of water along the coast where freshwater from rivers and streams meets and mixes with saltwater from the ocean.”14

13 “Wetlands and Nature,” usepa.gov, October 9, 2012, accessed September 23, 2013,

http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/nature.cfm.

14 “Wetlands and Nature,” usepa.gov.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 7

Much of New York City’s coastlines are wetlands that lie along the Hudson-­‐Raritan Estuary, which at one time made the city “a nexus of biological diversity.”15 It is clear why NYC is no longer really a wetland, since humans have taken serious measures to define wet areas from dry ones. And since the ground in the city no longer becomes saturated with sea water regularly, a necessity for a wetland, “saturation with water” doesn’t determine the soil, plant or animal communities living on the surface.

Biodiversity can also be an indicator of functionality. According to the diversity-­‐productivity hypothesis, NYC is also not a functioning ecosystem. In estuarine ecosystems, where many species propagate, the richness of diversity is especially high, and therefore so too is the production of organic matter (see Appendix D for a diagram of estuarine ecology). The diversity-­‐productivity hypothesis uses organic production as an indicator of functionality: “estuarine environments are among the most productive on earth, creating more organic matter each year than comparably-­‐sized areas of forest, grassland, or agricultural land.”16 If production drops off, it is a sign that the number of species present and their biodiversity are waning and that the functions fulfilled by these species have ceased.17 The functions created by biodiversity and its correlated production of organic matter has major effects on human populations. According to the National Research Council, wetland functions can include water-­‐quality improvement; water retention, which helps to ameliorate flood peaks and desynchronizes high flows in streams and rivers; groundwater recharge; shoreline stabilization; and provision of a unique environment, part aquatic and part terrestrial, that supports a diversity of plants and animals, including a majority of the nation's rare and endangered species.18 Many functions are defined only in relation to human activity and use, detracting from the nature of an ecosystem, which is to persist regardless of human benefit. But in completely human (monetary) terms, a functioning estuary produces services that would otherwise cost $800-­‐9000 per acre.19 In New York, though a direct monetary exchange hasn’t been calculated for a particular estuarine service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calculated one for its watershed management: “as long as the city agreed to set aside $300 million over the next 10 years to acquire land and restrain upstate development that causes runoff and pollution,” the agency would exempt New York from having to build an $8 billion filtration plant.20 This gives us a good idea of what a functioning ecosystem is

15 Sanderson, “Urban Legend,” 14–17.

16 “Basic Information About Estuaries,” usepa.gov, accessed September 9, 2013,

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/about.cfm.

17 Gretchen C. Daily, ed., Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (Washington D.C.: Island

Press, 1997): 94.

18 National Research Council, Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act, Washington D.C.:

National Academy Press, 2001.

19 Gretchen C. Daily, Nature’s Services, 186.

20 Anthony DePalma, “City’s Catskill Water Gets 10-­‐Year Approval,” NYTimes.com, April 13, 2007, accessed

December 12, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/nyregion/13water.html?_r=0.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 8

worth to the city, and what we are simply incapable of doing without vast infrastructural investments.

The bright side is that we can make those vast investments in something that is naturally resilient (defined below) and self-­‐sustaining – investments that will appreciate over time, rather than depreciate.

Taking all of these definitions into account, a functioning wetland is essentially one that maintains itself when undisturbed by human activity. Even more basically, a functioning wetland is one that has not been filled for development. But these are the existing definitions, and the functionality for an urban wetland will have to be different. This paper will rely mostly on the diversity-­‐productivity hypothesis for the following discussion: the goal for restoring or creating coastal urban wetlands will be to encourage the highest possible amount of biodiversity.

As in watershed management, which over the years has become increasingly about ecosystem management (in the form of plantings) to stabilize rivers and streams and less about engineering reservoir infrastructure, there must be a target standard for restoration of natural waterfronts.

Benchmarks for healthy, functioning ecosystems should be defined in terms of stability. Though the metric for stability will vary over time and must be based on long-­‐term monitoring, a stable coastal ecosystem will 1) maintain itself (have “reduced long-­‐term maintenance costs”21) and withstand tides, storms, and surges the way an average natural wetland does, 2) house a consistent, high register of biodiversity that effectively serves, on a small scale, the same purposes as an undisturbed wetland 3) not undergo radical or sudden changes over time such as erosion.22

21 City Of New York, Department of City Planning, Vision2020: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan (City

of New York, Waterfront Division, March 2011), http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/cwp/index.shtml, 110.

22 Karen A. Duhring et al., “Evaluation of Living Shoreline Techniques,” In Living Shorelines Summit Williamsburg,

VA, 2006: 35.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 9

The city began restoration projects to improve existing wetland stability long before Sandy hit, which are outlined in the NYC waterfront division’s Vision2020. In order to accomplish a viable yet visionary comprehensive plan for the coastline, the department called out the need “identify resources to promote scientific research and micro-­‐ and macro-­‐scale modeling of flood and storm surge risks and potential interventions to inform decisions about coastal management.”23 The report also mentions the promotion of pilot projects “to test potential strategies and evaluate their effectiveness in providing coastal protection,” while highlighting an equal need to monitor the health of aquatic life at such implementation sites. The Weber Court pilot project proposed at the end of this paper fulfills these goals.

One test site that may be useful for Vision2020’s inventory of “potential interventions” is the Delaware River delta. In a Williamsburg, Virginia panel on the Evaluation of Living Shorelines, panelists Rochelle D. Seitz and Amanda S. Lawless presented the diversity and number of organisms at several sites in the mid-­‐atlantic. Their findings made a clear case for the ability of living shorelines to provide habitat for a wider variety and number of species than a bulkhead, as shown in the graph to the right.

‘Co-­‐exist’: further evolution of the City In order for a wetland to function in a dense urban environment, the current definition of ‘urban’ will need to change. It is not possible for humans to live in a monocultural (single-­‐species) environment, not only in terms of the health of the biosphere, but in terms of human health as well. A discussion of the impacts of the natural environment on human health will not be discussed in this paper, as it is a discipline of its own. However, the following discussion is based on an assumption that humans are biophilic: they need to live in a biodiverse environment in order to survive. Experts on biophilia and biomimicry like E.O. Wilson, Natalie Jeremijenko and Dayna Baumeister have made the case that, no

23 City of New York, Department of City Planning, Vision2020, 112.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 10

matter how clever our technological innovations, humans need the natural world to survive and we therefore need to revisit our relationship with it.24 The ideal form of coexistence for any two species is a mutualistic symbiotic relationship, in which both species benefit from and rely on each other’s existence. Cities, if considered as an organism, are presently parasitic in that they receive benefit from other species by doing harm to them: cities “extract all required resources from the surrounding area [natural environment] and after using them, discharge the pollutants to this area.”25 If the city loses its host, or its resources, it can’t survive, yet we continue to deplete those resources as if we can. What we need “now is a more concrete vision...of what a world with wetlands is like...we need to [show]...that a country with wetlands can be wealthy, productive and full of life.”26 Not only is a new idea about our role in the environment and our vision of a city evolving, but our built environment is starting to reflect it, too.

Cities like Vancouver, B.C. in Canada, due to its position on a peninsula and rapid population growth, has had to be very diligent about using space wisely. It has done so through zoning that promotes highly diversified multi-­‐use buildings in the downtown area. The best example of this creative use of space is the Vancouver Convention Center that was built for the 2010 Olympics. According to the architects LMN, the building “triples the total square footage of the public realm on the waterfront.”27 Though co-­‐ existence will (and does) require the creation of public space, these examples in multi-­‐use apply to every square foot of urban waterfronts whether private or public. Co-­‐existence may translate for New York City into more residentially-­‐focused zoning for the waterfront, or more public space instead of commercial use.

‘Resilience’ Because many climate change adaptation plans have been released recently, the idea of ‘resiliency’ is very popular. So what does it mean? And how can it help us understand why natural coastal habitat as

24 “Natalie Jeremijenko: Environment Design,” Seedmagazine.com, accessed December 13, 2013,

http://seedmagazine.com/designseries/natalie-­‐jeremijenko.html; “Design Night: Mother Nature -­‐ Biomimicry with Dr. Dayna Baumeister,” Vimeo.com, February 18, 2013, accessed December 13, 2013, http://vimeo.com/59915360.

25 Rutger Ewout De Graaf, “Innovations in Urban Water Management to Reduce the Vulnerability of Cities.”

Technische Universiteit Delft, 2009. http://www.deltasync.nl/reports/De_Graaf_thesis.pdf.

26 Sanderson, “Urban Legend,” 14–17.

27 Stephanie Lewis and Kristin Dispenza, “Case Study: Vancouver Convention Centre,” Buildipedia.com, April 2, 2010, accessed October 8, 2013, http://buildipedia.com/aec-­‐pros/featured-­‐architecture/case-­‐study-­‐vancouver-­‐ convention-­‐centre?print=1&tmpl=component Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 11

sea-­‐buffer-­‐zone is so important? The definition of resilience, as defined by the Stockholm Resilience Centre is “the self-­‐organizing capacity or ability of a system” or natural entity to remain stable as what it is and how it performs.28 With this definition, it is clear how natural systems can improve the resiliency of a city: unlike ecosystems, seawalls and other engineered structures do not self-­‐organize. As they crumble, they compromise the resilience of the urban organism as a whole.

By maintaining their internal resiliency, estuaries improve upon the resilience of the urban organism. The more established an ecosystem, the more biodiverse it is, and the more diverse, the more robust it is. And a more robust ecosystem is a more robust flood barrier. The definitions of resilience and ‘functioning’ create the argument for the re-­‐integration of natural coastal habitat into dense human ones.

The Stockholm Resilience Centre calls resilience “Persistence, Adaptability and Transformability.”29 So for New York City to be resilient, it must allow natural habitat to persist in order to adapt to sea level rise by transforming its coastline.

The idea in the Netherlands -­‐-­‐ a country that has successfully survived centuries of flooding -­‐-­‐ is to “live with nature, rather than fight (what will inevitably be, they have come to realize) a losing battle.”

Self-­‐organization must not only include preventative as opposed to reactive measures, but also interdisciplinary solutions to create a variety of uses at all times, not just in disaster. The Dutch have implemented coastal protections that “improve public life, public space and the landscape at a fraction of the billions American taxpayers pay out for repairing hurricane damage.”30 Using these definitions of traditional wetlands, functionality, co-­‐existence, and resilience, our measurement of the functionality of an urban coastal wildlife habitat will be that it: 1) is visibly more biodiverse than man-­‐made coastlines, 2) produces increasing amounts of organic matter over time until comparable to an undisturbed wetland system,31 3) and maintains stability over time, defined as a steady retention or growth of mass over time without sudden changes or depletion.

28 Brian Walker, The Best Explanation to Resilience (Stockholm Resilience Centre n.d.), accessed October 11, 2013,

http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/what-­‐is-­‐resilience.html.

29 Carl Folke, What Is Resilience? (Stockholm Resilience Centre, n.d.) accessed October 8, 2013.

30 Michael Kimmelman, “Flood Control in the Netherlands Now Allows Seawater In,” NYTimes.com, February 13,

2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/arts/design/flood-­‐control-­‐in-­‐the-­‐netherlands-­‐now-­‐allows-­‐sea-­‐ water-­‐in.html?adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1360772516-­‐PLHrtEyb6t/PD+qmDykWsQ&_r=0.

31 This goal has been proven achievable in the Chesapeake Bay with the same species of grass that populates the Hudson-­‐Raritan estuary: “Above-­‐ground biomass in created Spartina alterniflora marshes on the Atlantic Coast...quickly reaches parity with natural marshes if basic conditions for marsh establishment and survival are employed;” G.A. Matthews and T.J. Minello, Technology and Success in Restoration, Creation, and Enhancement of Spartina alterniflora marshes in the United States: Volume 1 – Executive Summary and Annotated Bibliography, (U.S. Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Office, 1994): 36.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 12

Part 2, Risk: Why should we care about our coastlines?

As the ocean swells, city-­‐dwellers and planners will need to predict and manage where that water will go.32 Most government leaders have recognized the importance of rebuilding better and focusing on coastal resilience strategies for their cities, regions and countries. Increasingly, academics, engineers and planners are focusing on the protection that natural habitat provides in addition to reporting on sea level rise, temperature increase, air and water pollution and their effects on human health. The coastline isn’t simply an amenity or a vulnerability: it is where adaptation can make the most impact for our cities.

Coastal Risk The latest report by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), titled “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis,”33 states with unprecedented certainty that humans are the ‘dominant cause’ of climate change, and predicts that sea levels will be 12-­‐29 inches higher [in 2050] than they are today.”34 This is not relevant here in its disclosure of what causes climate change, but that scientists rank its presence with the highest scientific certainty possible. In order to protect our most densely populated and vulnerable communities, the conversation must be about how to deal with the 12 to 29 additional inches of water at our edges, not whether or why the vulnerability exists.

Over the past 200 years, the United States has lost about 50% of its wetlands.35 Like every other ecosystem, wetlands provide us with what some call “ecosystem services:” forests produce oxygen to breathe, bees pollinate our plants and food, and wetlands provide a buffer from storm surge and flooding (along with other services mentioned above).36 Based on these services, recent studies have revealed hard evidence that coastal habitats “shield people and property from sea-­‐level rise and storms,” according to one produced by The Natural Capital Project, the Nature Conservancy and Stanford University scientists.

32 For example, recent storms have claimed more square footage of our coastlines than we were prepared for:

Sandy in Oct. 2012 and Haiyan in Nov. 2013; Aland Duke, “Superstorm Sandy Breaks Records,” CNN.com, October 31, 2012, accessed November 18, 2013, http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/30/us/sandy-­‐records/; The Economist, “Typhoon Haiyan and the Philippines: Stress Test,” Economist.com, November 16, 2013, accessed November 16, http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21589883-­‐responding-­‐disaster-­‐essential-­‐so-­‐preparing-­‐next-­‐stress-­‐ test.

33 IPCC -­‐ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis,” Ipcc.ch, accessed October 21, 2013, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UmVALSQZxcx.

34 Matt McGrath, “IPCC Climate Report: Humans ‘Dominant Cause’ of Warming,” BBC News -­‐ Science & Environment, September 27, 2013, accessed October 15, 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-­‐environment-­‐24292615.

35 Thomas E. Dahl, “Wetland Losses in the United States, 1780s–1980s,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/wetloss/wetloss.htm.

36 See Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, Gretchen C. Daily, ed. for a more comprehensive discussion of the services that ecosystems provide.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 13

The Natural Capital Project’s Coastal Hazard Index for the United States: The graph shows population in thousands affected in states “With [coastal] habitats” in black and “Without habitat” in white.

(Source: Arkema, “Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-­‐level rise and storms”)

The above diagram is part of that report, published in Nature Climate Change this year, which calculated a “hazard index” for every 1 km2 of the United States coastline “using five sea-­‐level-­‐rise scenarios,” and models of each area with and without “intact reefs and coastal vegetation.” The authors synthesized these scenarios with data on the vulnerability of communities (the percentage of the population that is poor or elderly) and residential property value to “deliver the first national map of risk reduction owing to natural coastal habitats.” The report concluded that “coastal habitats defend the greatest number of people and total property value in Florida, New York and California,” meaning that these states stand to benefit most by maintaining, restoring and creating coastal habitat as an adaptation to sea level rise and storms.37 In New York City alone, yet another indicator of vulnerability is the fact of 45% of the New York City Housing Authority's properties being in FEMA’s 100-­‐year flood zone. This means that almost half of the

37 Katie K. Arkema et al., “Coastal Habitats Shield People and Property from Sea-­‐level Rise and Storms,” Nature

Climate Change 3 (2013): 913-­‐914.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 14

city’s publicly-­‐subsidized homes are situated in the most flood-­‐prone areas, which is a vulnerability not only of the city’s people but also of its investments.38 Another report, which assesses future risk specific to the south shore of Long Island, concludes that “modest and probable sea level rise (.5 m by 2080) vastly increases the numbers of people (47% increase) and property loss (73% increase) impacted by storm surge.”39 The paper proposes a re-­‐ invention that includes more species in those communities, namely grasses, fish, birds and microorganisms that allow a healthy ecosystem to naturally defend inlands from flooding. Their recommendations align with those of most urban ecologists, climatologists, and conservationists.

Peter Kereiva, the Nature Conservancy’s chief scientist and head author of the Natural Capital Project’s report, discourages dependence on ‘hard’ or engineered infrastructure, asserting that hardening our shorelines with seawalls and other costly engineering shouldn’t be the default solution...they might be appropriate in some situations. But now we have data on those places and opportunities where nature contributes the most to protecting our coastal communities — and giving us all the other benefits it can provide, such as recreation, fish nurseries, water filtration and erosion control.40 In New York City, PlaNYC reports and Vision2020 support long-­‐term, diversified and natural solutions for coastlines.41 These reports encourage the restoration of natural coastal habitat in general, but draw a clear conclusion for New York in particular. The authors of these reports and many others are quick to point out that it is no coincidence that many of the most vulnerable places are within historic flood plains. New York City is the Hudson-­‐Raritan Estuary. Though we have filled and now live and work on much of that estuary, it remains an estuary, which is why its flood plains continue to flood.

The difficulty in ‘restoring’ this estuary, as the report encourages, is that it requires us to re-­‐create, not just restore, wetlands. And this is a difficult task, as it is one with little history.

38 Judd Schechtman, J.D., M.U.P., and Michael Brady, Cost-­‐Efficient Climate Adaptation in the North Atlantic (CEANA),

September 2013, http://seagrant.uconn.edu/CEANA/CEANAFull.pdf, 125.

39 Christine C. Shepard et al., “Assessing Future Risk: Quantifying the Effects of Sea Level Rise on Storm Surge Risk

for the Southern Shores of Long Island, New York,” Natural Hazards 60 (December 4, 2011): 727–745.

40 Bob Lalasz, “New Study: Coastal Nature Reduces U.S. Risk from Storms,” Cool Green Science, July 15, 2013,

accessed December 9, 2013, http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/07/15/new-­‐study-­‐coastal-­‐nature-­‐reduce-­‐ risk-­‐storm-­‐united-­‐states/?s_intc=tab3p1.

41 City of New York, Department of City Planning, Vision2020.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 15

New York City / the Hudson-­‐Raritan Estuary As mentioned above, New York City

was once one of the great biodiversity hotspots of the planet.42 As newcomers developed, urbanized, and killed off the peninsula and islands’43 resources for trade and subsistence, the estuary slowly became the culturally diverse metropolis that we know today. Though humans’ use of the land and water redefined the coastline, as shown to the right, it did not significantly change the city’s geomorphology or position in a delta.44 The storms that we have experienced in the recent past are not new to the landscape, but our technologies, strategies and climatology have evolved, changing our relationship with vulnerability, and, with further adaptation, with the land and water as well.45 To be specific, New York City is “a system of bays and tidal rivers where the Hudson, Hackensack, Passaic, Rahway, and Raritan rivers meet the Atlantic Ocean.”46 New York is also home to the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, which is “the country’s largest urban wildlife refuge” (part of Gateway National Recreation Area).47

42 In his book The Big Oyster, Mark Kurlansky has compiled a smattering of voyagers’ reactions to the bounty that

was New York Harbor and its surrounding land masses from the 1400-­‐1600s; Mark Kurlansky, The Big Oyster, (New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2006).

43 Though we aren’t made to think about it much, two of NYC’s boroughs are islands, two are on the end of a larger island, and one is a peninsula.

44 Geomorphology is the scientific study of landforms and the processes that shape them; “Geomorphology,” Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia, October 15, 2013, accessed October 17, 2013, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomorphology.

45 “NYC Hazards: NYC Hurricane History,” NYC Office of Emergency Management, accessed October 17, 2013, http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/hazards/storms_hurricanehistory.shtml.

46 “Hudson-­‐Raritan Estuary,” National Geographic Education, accessed September 10, 2013, http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/maps/hudson-­‐raritan-­‐estuary/?ar_a=1.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 16

According to the Welikia Project and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), which are building a database and picture of New York City’s historic ecologic state, a number of diverse ecosystems once existed where NYC is today.48 Because the city “occurs at a profound biological crossroads...and on the Atlantic flyway for migratory birds” the task of reintroducing this biodiversity will be difficult. But it also stands to be unimaginably fruitful, if done strategically.49 Being in a delta, the city must consider “both temporary inundation from higher sea levels and damage from storm surges.” The 2011 Comprehensive Waterfront Plan, Vision2020, wisely states that to simply bulkhead the entire waterfront would not adequately address risks, would become increasingly costly, and would have negative ecological consequences for our waterways and coastal areas. To abandon dense coastal neighborhoods would have enormous costs as well.50 Restoration of existing wetlands is certainly being addressed in places like Jamaica Bay in New York, where an estimated 1,400 acres of tidal salt marsh have been lost since 1924. The marsh islands of Elders East, Elders West, Yellow Bar Hassock, Black Wall and Rulers Bar have had varying amounts of their acreage restored using material from harbor dredging projects as fill, and, in the case of Elders East, “planting by hand more than 700,000 plants grown from local seed stock by the National Resources Conservation Service,” and 200,000 plants on Elders West.

This method was used to restore approximately 40 acres on each of the islands, and other projects under the New York/New Jersey Harbor-­‐Jamaica Bay Multi-­‐Project Initiative created an additional 87 acres of marsh island habitat in Jamaica Bay.51 Most of the restoration projects fared well through Superstorm Sandy, except an eelgrass pilot project, and “potentially suitable habitat” for the piping plover actually increased.52 In Jamaica Bay, the restoration of marshlands was fairly straightforward in that it could mimic what remained. But developed, densely inhabited areas will require more imagination for how to recompose

47 “Jamaica Bay Project,” New York City Audubon, accessed October 17, 2013, http://nycaudubon.org/jamaica-­‐bay-­‐

project.

48 Ecosystems of the Hudson-­‐Raritan included “near-­‐shore eelgrass beds, high and low salt marshes and ponds,

herbaceous freshwater marshes, shrub swamps, red maple swamps, and Atlantic cedar bogs;” Sanderson, “Urban Legend,” 14–17.

49 Sanderson, “Urban Legend,” 14–17.

50 City of New York, Department of City Planning, Vision2020, 106-­‐107.

51 “Jamaica Bay -­‐ Salt Marsh Islands,” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: New York District, accessed November 9, 2013. http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/ProjectsinNewYork/EldersPointJamaicaBaySaltMarshIsl ands.aspx.

52 “Jamaica Bay Task Force Meeting,” New York City Audubon, February 4, 2013, http://www.nycaudubon.org/wordpress/tag/jamaicabay/.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 17

the natural systems that were intact decades or centuries ago; the history of landfilling for development in New York53 and other cities is long, and continues to this day.54 Though the city has restored 146 acres of wetlands since 2002,55 we need to direct our focus now to the integration of those natural ecosystems with the built environment. Green infrastructure is a growing series of natural interventions that deal with storm water overflows. It serves as an excellent example of effective integration of mini-­‐wetlands on streets, roofs, parkland to increase infiltration of rainwater into the ground before it runs into the sewer system.56 Green infrastructure could be even more effective, though, if it was included in development regulation and permits, just as coastal habitat would. Due to the nature of the infrastructure, which is that it needs to be site-­‐specific, it is difficult to normalize its implementation, and therefore to regulate.

The same problem might arise with coastal habitat: it is so important for it to be site-­‐specific that it will be hard to enforce its inclusion in city-­‐wide coastal planning. More data is needed to foresee what kind of green infrastructure (a term that can include coastal interventions) is required where.

53 For example, Freshkills Park on the West shore of Staten Island was the largest landfill in the world until 2001,

and before that it was an extensive wetland system of streams and coastal marshes. See also historic plans to fill the “marshy and unproductive” Jamaica Bay entirely: Appendix E. 54 See Mayor Bloomberg’s “Seaport City,” a plan to mimic Battery Park City on the East side of Manhattan. Nettler, Jonathan. “NYC Pushes Ahead With Plans for New Neighborhood Built on Landfill.” Planetizen: The Urban Planning, Design, and Development Network, August 1, 2013. http://www.planetizen.com/node/64423.

55 PlaNYC, New York City Wetlands Strategy (City of New York, May 2012), http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/nyc_wetlands_strategy.pdf, 5.

56 PlaNYC, NYC Green Infrastructure Plan (City of New York, Mayor’s Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability, n.d.), http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_LowRes.pdf.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 18

Part 3, The Case for Natural Habitat vs. Seawalls: what can cities gain from using green, soft or natural infrastructure as opposed to grey, hard or engineered infrastructure?

Increasingly, decision-­‐makers are looking for versatile solutions to address a host of problems facing cities. Recognizing that “restored or constructed wetlands, beaches, barrier islands and reefs can function as dynamic storm barriers that both protect and serve ecological functions,” the city incorporated Vision2020’s forwarding-­‐thinking coastal plans into the post-­‐Sandy publication from the Special Initiative on Rebuilding and Resiliency (SIRR), “A Stronger More Resilient New York.”57 The city is also collaborating with proponents of natural coastal habitat in the Army Corps of Engineers, which is the entity that builds most of the large-­‐scale flood mitigation structures for the country. Peter Weppler, the Coastal Ecosystem Section Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers is a strong advocate of what the Corps calls “nature based infrastructure (NBI)” as a better alternative to grey infrastructure.58 Weppler says that the Corps has sought to “mimic natural barriers” where possible, as they are well aware of the many benefits of natural coastal habitat.59 Hard Infrastructure More data is needed about the magnitude and long-­‐term monetary costs and benefits of soft infrastructure in order to make statistical conclusions about its implementation. Data is also essential for creating standards for soft infrastructure ‘success’ benchmarks. However, powerful evidence supports using soft infrastructure as compliment or replacement of hard infrastructure.

As shown in the diagram above, seawalls not only degrade over time but also weaken the ground beneath them. Once a seawall’s foundations are eroded to a certain point the wall itself becomes loose and can cause damage to nearby buildings, as well: waves can turn pieces of seawall into dangerous

57 City of New York, Department of City Planning, Vision2020, 110.

58 “Public Works Technical Bulletin 200-­‐1-­‐21: Applicability of Constructed Wetlands for Army Installations,” U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, June 23, 2003, http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/ARMYCOE/PWTB/pwtb_200_1_21.pdf.

59 Peter Weppler, “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,” presented at the Coastal Wetland Recovery Workshop, Federal

Plaza, New York City, October 3, 2013.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 19

projectiles during a surge. If the seawall does not become a liability and only crumbles in several places, it serves to funnel water onto property and prevent it from flowing back out.60 In the New York community of Seagate on the Western tip of Coney Island, retaining walls (a synonym for seawalls) have caused the beach to erode almost to disappearance. Scouring has loosened those walls and could put nearby properties and their inhabitants at risk in the future. Walls in this state require timely repair in order to prevent smaller storms from causing severe damage.

Sea Gate and its disappearing beach (Photo credit: author, September 2013)

Soft Infrastructure In contrast to the degradation that all hard infrastructure undergoes, the living shoreline depicted below has actually multiplied in its usefulness to the property it is meant to protect. With the installation of small amounts of coir material (the rough straw-­‐like stuff between a coconut shell and its fruity inside) this shoreline grew a flood-­‐mitigation structure in a year, and remained seemingly untouched after two large storms.

Time series at the Marina in NJ Heislerville Fish & Wildlife Management Area (left to right), 1) April 2010: pre-­‐ installation, 2) May 2010: Coir materials installed, but prior to planting, 3) June 2011: One year later plants established, 4) September 2011: Treatment still in place after Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Ike. (Source: Partnership for the Delaware Estuary)

60 Don Barber, Kevin DuBois, and Gordon Labedz, “Seawalls Mean Death to the Beach,” Bryn Mawr Department of

Geology, accessed November 15, 2013, http://www.brynmawr.edu/geology/geomorph/seawalls.html.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 20

As Peter Kareiva, the chief Nature Conservancy ecologist, puts it: natural barriers are “cheaper and they replenish themselves.” The Natural Capital Project report on coastal risk also provides the data necessary to make sound arguments for the targeted investment of natural barriers.61 A simple diagram of the life cycle of hard infrastructure versus living shorelines is shown below.

The life cycle of hard coastal infrastructure vs. soft coastal infrastructure (Source: author; photo credits: bangordailynews.com, Tony Hanson, wickedlocal.com, AP Construction, Inc., cityphile.com, Craig Baxter)

Not only do growing habitats naturally last longer (if allowed to) than seawalls, but with “increased wear and tear on waterfront infrastructure” due to higher sea levels and more intense storms,” scouring will require more “frequent maintenance and replacement of bulkheads, seawalls, and stabilized shorelines.” In short, hard infrastructure will crumble while soft infrastructure will grow. This causes the price of maintenance for the former to increase over time while the latter decreases as it grows stronger and more resilient.62 On a long-­‐term basis, natural barriers will do better to protect us with less maintenance costs and labor. It follows that a more natural transition from the land to the water is more sustainable and less

61 Lalasz, “New Study: Coastal Nature Reduces U.S. Risk from Storms.”

62 City of New York, Department of City Planning, Vision2020, 110.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 21

cost and energy intensive for cities to implement. Scientists studying the implementation of living shorelines estimate that “for every dollar spent to construct [living shorelines], as much as $1.75 is returned to the economy in the form of improvements to resources, including submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), fish, benthic organisms, shellfish, waterfowl, and wetland habitat.”63 The integration of living shorelines into urban environments also puts a city on a trajectory of less work, less maintenance, and less spending in our adaptation to climate change.

63Duhring, “Evaluation of Living Shoreline Techniques,” 36.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 22

Part 4, The Evolution of Urban: 5 ways to rethink the intersection of natural and built environments Though mimicry of natural systems is a good concept to start out with, integrating them into existing urban infrastructure and land use is complicated. Without including nature in our concept of what is ‘urban,’ and without political will and support for experimentation of new design ideas, the city can’t become biodiverse. We have witnessed the fact that natural wetlands cannot survive while being used as a city. But by drawing inspiration from cities and design firms that have attempted a new type of integration, we can produce many options for New York City’s coast. In the following section those most applicable to the Southern Brooklyn pilot project will be explored.

1. NYC’s long-­‐term planning and green infrastructure Long before Superstorm Sandy hit, New York set goals to improve the city’s sustainability index.

The Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability was interested in finding innovative ways to welcome 1 million more residents by 2030 while enhancing the urban experience, accessibility of the 520 miles of coastline, cleanliness of land and waterways, and about fifteen other categories of improvement.64 Among its many areas of concentration, the OLTPS tackled an NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainability Strategy for Clean Waterways. The one of the plan’s key components is to control runoff from 10% of the city’s impervious (paved) surfaces using green infrastructure. It also focuses on the city’s overall water quality, and will be experimenting with where to site soft infrastructure for it to be most effective.65 The City has continued to release updated reports about the progress of achieving a more livable, sustainable city, and updates other inter-­‐departmental initiatives to ‘green’ NYC’s built structures regularly.

2. Low Impact Development (LID) and “habitat enhancements” According to meteorologists’ estimates, 2.7 miles of wetland is needed to attenuate one foot of storm surge, and where that kind of mileage is not available due to housing density, maritime pathways, or established infrastructure (which is how most of a developed city’s coastline is), any barrier

64 PlaNYC. PlaNYC 2030: A Greener Greater New York, Introduction (City of New York, 2007),

http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/planyc_2011_intro.pdf.

65 PlaNYC, NYC Green Infrastructure Plan (City of New York, n.d.),

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_LowRes.pdf, 4, 14.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 23

implemented should serve many functions simultaneously.66 Scientists in the Northwest of the U.S. are experimenting with ways to incorporate habitat and other functions where there is little undeveloped space on the coast.

The city of Seattle (amongst many) has decided to use natural phenomena of filtration to manage stormwater along their coastline. The city calls LID “a land use management strategy.” They use the term “pre-­‐disturbance” to indicate a wetland’s maximum capacity to function in terms of the “hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration.” Instead of intensively developing coastlines and floodplains and using expensive grey infrastructure to meet the developments’ needs, the city emphasizes “conservation, use of on-­‐site natural features, site planning“ and distributed, as opposed to centralized, wastewater management practices.67 In conjunction with LID, ecologic institutions in the Northwest and elsewhere are testing the capabilities of habitat enhancement. When development on the water is unavoidable or immovable and wetland restoration is impractical, applying “physical and biological characteristics” to developments can promote fish and wildlife habitat. The studies conducted at the conventional seawall in downtown Seattle suggest that “added complexity and surface area could improve ecological functions of extensively altered urban shorelines” -­‐-­‐ which basically means: build anything but a completely smooth concrete wall. “Enhancement” proves that even where there needs to be a wall, it can be an ecologically productive one.68 3. Delaware Estuary Living Shorelines The Partnership for the Delaware Estuary has implemented a pilot study, the Delaware Estuary Living Shoreline Initiative (DELSI), to determine best practices for erosion control by mollusks. The DELSI tactic uses “native wetland plants, natural structures, and intertidal shellfish to trap sediment and absorb waves,” and the Partnership deployed mats in the Maurice River, and coconut-­‐fiber logs in 2008 (depicted in the “Time lapse of the Marina in NJ Heislerville Fish & Wildlife Management Area” above).

DELS is also experimenting with bagged oysters and coated wooden stakes to determine which method is best for marsh plants or has the greatest impact on erosion.69

66 Jeffrey Masters, PhD., “Storm Surge Reduction by Wetlands, ” Weather Underground, 2013, accessed October 8,

2013, http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/surge_wetlands.asp.

67 City of Seattle, “Low Impact Development | Seattle Public Utilities,” Seattle.gov, accessed October 18, 2013,

http://www.seattle.gov/util/MyServices/DrainageSewer/Projects/GreenStormwaterInfrastructure/LowImpact Development/index.htm.

68 Maureen Goff, “Evaluating Habitat Enhancements of an Urban Intertidal Seawall: Ecological Responses and Management Implications,” University of Washington, 2010, http://weber.s.uw.edu/research/publications/ms_phd/Goff_M_MS_Su10.pdf, 3.

69 “Living Shorelines -­‐ DELSI Tactic,” Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, 2013, accessed November 8, 2013, http://delawareestuary.org/node/195.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 24

Living shorelines also physically represent the ideology of integrating land with water and urban with wild. As depicted to the right, the implementation of a flush wall obstructs the life that can only exist in that transitory, intertidal zone. Without that transition, human populations situated at the hard line suffer, as the zone needed to protect them has been degraded.

As urbanization accelerates and more than half the world lives in cities,70 every piece of developed land must be multi-­‐purpose, which means that flood mitigation, energy production, water remediation, biodiversity propagation, and human habitation and recreation must co-­‐exist in our planning and design.

As in the practice of permaculture, an optimally diverse use of land allows all species to maintain a balanced environment and perform the most functions in the smallest space.

70 “Global Health Observatory | Urban Population Growth,” Who.int, 2013, accessed December 13, 2013,

http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/.

70

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 25

4. Revitalization and use of space for resiliency Starr Whitehouse Architects Countless designs for resiliency are being churned out daily (especially in this crucial period in New York City) by scientists, engineers, artists, activists, community groups, design firms...everyone. “Design the Edge: Hallet’s Cove and Jersey City Waterfront Park / Paulus Hook,” is one such design, on a comparable scale (~100 feet of shoreline) to the Weber Court pilot project. The goal of Starr Whitehouse Landscape Architects and Planners’ Hallett’s Cove proposal is to design “resilient space that integrates habitat restoration with community-­‐desired amenities.” This kind of language is reflected in most design submissions as municipalities are seeking holistic and interdisciplinary solutions for every urban site.

Hallet’s Cove Rendering (Source: Starr Whitehouse Landscape Architects and Planners)

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 26

NYC Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR): Freshkills Park On a much larger scale, New York City is currently converting what was the largest landfill in the world into Freshkills Park. Before its establishment as a dump in 1948, the western coast of Staten Island was “tidal creeks and coastal marshes.” This enormous park project is revitalizing 2,200 acres of NYC’s land and will contribute to energy demands (through the decomposing garbage’s methane emissions over the next 30 years), public recreation space on land and water for an ever-­‐increasing demand, and the restoration of a crucial tidal marsh’s functions for the protection and filtration of the coast.71

Rendering of Freshkills Park. (Source: NYC Department of Parks and Recreation)

Port of Rotterdam Authority: Maasvlatke 2 In the Maasvlakte port-­‐industrial zone in Rotterdam, the city and shipping industry are coordinating to ensure that the expansion of the port increases the resiliency of the region. Though this project displaces wetland and compensates elsewhere, the developers report a determination to create space “for both business and nature so that the quality of life in the whole region improves in net terms.”

The compensatory projects for replacing degraded wetlands “over-­‐compensate in habitat area, create foredunes to close up weak links in the coastline, and create dunes for flood protection.” The municipality and industry have promised to assess what impacts the movement of this ecosystem has on the seabed, wildlife and human settlement in the area, as part of their sustainable approach to expand the city’s economic import while keeping other species in mind.72

71 “Freshkills Park : NYC Parks,” accessed September 23, 2013, http://www.nycgovparks.org/park-­‐

features/freshkills-­‐park/about-­‐the-­‐site.

72 Hull & Humber City Region Observatory, Department of Geography, Working Paper 2: Port of Rotterdam,

Sustainable Estuary Management: Reconciling Development and Conservation Pressures in European Port-­‐ estuary Spaces, (Rotterdam: University of Hull, May 2008) http://www.hull.ac.uk/hhcro/pdf/Rotterdam.pdf.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 27

Unfortunately, as of the December 2011 “Port Vision 2030” report, the Port has not set numerical goals for the biodiversity or number of species found in the area, though they note that the area “is home to a surprising variety of wildlife.” The focus thus far has been on reducing the Port’s industrial emissions, which have been cut by more than half since the 1990s, and sustainable energy use. However, the report notes that, aside from compliance with regulations such as the Flora and Fauna Act, the Maasvlatke 2 also has “a code of conduct that makes extra demands” on any company using the port.

Additionally, an annual “survey is made of all species living in the area, clarifying which species need to be taken into consideration at the various locations.”73

Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Inc.: Brooklyn Bridge Park Though Brooklyn’s coast is home to many Significant Maritime Industrial Areas,74 parts of its shoreline are post-­‐ industrial spaces primed for multi-­‐species, diverse land use and productivity. The opportunity is being exploited on 85 acres of this land by landscape architect Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Inc., who created Brooklyn Bridge Park not only to provide an attractive public amenity using abandoned piers, but also to withstand large storms, sea level rise, and surge. Van Valkenburgh made topographical and horticultural choices, like grading the land to act as a large berm (hill or levee) and planting salt-­‐water-­‐resistant plants. The park’s integrity through Superstorm Sandy proved the success of the design.75 5. Rethinking the City in large-­‐scale redesign GlashusEtt: Hammarby Sjöstad Formerly an industrial port and then an informal residential community, or “shantytown,” in south Stockholm, Hammarby Sjöstad was designed to be the most environmentally-­‐friendly village imaginable.

The design for such a place “entailed a heavy investment in green public spaces, with maintenance plans

73 Port of Rotterdam Authority, Port Vision 2030, (December 2011): 60.

74 “Waterfront Justice Project,” The New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, accessed December 13, 2013,

http://nyc-­‐eja.org/?page_id=311.

75 Saunders, “Michael Van Valkenburgh.”

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 28

for the oak forest, a reed park with wooden jetties, a broad avenue, and several large parks.”76 One drawback to this kind of ground-­‐up holistic design is that the makers of Hammarby Sjöstad seem to have ignored the needs of the area’s original residents, which would not be a viable or just option in the case of Southern Brooklyn: “The shantytown lasted until 1998, when it was demolished to make way for Hammarby Sjöstad.”77 The environmental integration and soft edges of this project, but not its social considerations, can set an example for New York.

The village’s biodiversity is bolstered by its connection, via southern parks that “form green wedges,” to the Nacka nature reserve and Årsta forest. Hammarby Sjöstad’s parks are not only for the use of residents and visitors, “but are also intended to serve as dispersal corridors and living environments for animals and plants.”78 The village’s connection with the water is evident in all of its design, and especially progressive in its stormwater management. The buildings and courtyards’ water runs “via numerous small gutters” to “an open storm water basin where...the soil and plants in the area can handle the contaminants from dirty water."79 The open storm water basin is the ultimate “soft” infrastructural edge as it has no built perimeter, taking on as much water as the weather requires. The basin itself does the filtering, and its marsh-­‐like edges are a public amenity for the surrounding community and Stockholm’s general public.

76 GlashusEtt, Hammarby Sjostad: A Unique Environmental Project in Stockholm, 2007,

http://www.hammarbysjostad.se/inenglish/pdf/HS_miljo_bok_eng_ny.pdf: 9.

77 GlashusEtt, Hammarby Sjostad, 7.

78 GlashusEtt, Hammarby Sjostad, 10.

79 GlashusEtt, Hammarby Sjostad, 25.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 29

Princeton: “Palisade Bay” These kinds of edges are being built into designs in New York as well. An interdisciplinary team from Princeton drew up extensive and ambitious plans for the upper New York/New Jersey Harbor, calling it “Palisade Bay.” Their analysis and proposals are detailed in a published book called On the Water / Palisade Bay. The design incorporates several innovations in the transition from land to water including restored wetlands, oyster racks and recycled subway-­‐car reefs to attract marine wildlife and attenuate wave action. Though the design is not in line to be developed, the ideas represent the overhaul of our coastlines that is needed to achieve true resilience and not simply perceived protection.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 30

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): Rebuild by Design Projects like this one, however, have been selected through the Rebuild by Design competition. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requested proposals from multi-­‐disciplinary teams to build resiliency in the New York / New Jersey region. Ten teams made up of architects, urban designers, engineers, consultants, and landscape architects have made it to the “design opportunities phase” based on resiliency strategies for shorelines and communities of the Hudson-­‐Raritan Estuary, using anything from levees to better neighborhood-­‐level communication.80 One team, SCAPE / Landscape Architecture, is focusing on Jamaica Bay. They have set forth a plan, titled “Gardening the Bay” to make the Bay more shallow while still allowing motorboat traffic. The plan will expand tidal marshes and flatlands while providing more space for public use, and a local research institute will be instated to provide ongoing monitoring and progression of best practices for resiliency and flood mitigation.81

Source: SCAPE / Landscape Architecture

80 Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, “Teams,” Rebuild by Design, accessed November 15, 2013,

http://www.rebuildbydesign.org/teams/.

81 SCAPE/Landscape Architecture, “Gardening the Bay: Jamaica Bay, NYC,” Rebuild by Design, accessed November

15, 2013, http://www.rebuildbydesign.org/teams/.

81

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 31

Doepel Strijkers: “Renewable City 2040”

Doepel Strijkers’ design represents the big-­‐vision ideology that any and all of these interventions can combine to work toward. The firm works on designs that address how “social parameters can be combined with technical parameters to generate a truly sustainable urban area.” The company is reimagining the city to be a holistically sustainable place, where space is used efficiently and safely to be most productive for all species.

These visions advance the creation of sustainable cities while necessary rebuilding is pursued after climate-­‐related disaster. We can continue to work within current constructs while thinking idealistically: each of these case studies is an example of one or the other, but their combination reveals our growing capacity to make ideal visions into built realities.

Source: Doepel Strijkers

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 32

Part 5, Weber Court: How will natural coastal habitat be phased into the city’s infrastructure?

According to FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the advisory design flood elevation incentivizes home-­‐ and business-­‐owners to raise their properties above flood levels. If the Weber Court residents opt to take that course of action, as is being discussed in meetings with architecture firm Gans Studio, the pedestrian court will need a new shoreline. The perimeter of the Sheepshead Bay inlet, where Weber is located, is a concrete and wooden seawall. Random houses along the inlet’s perimeter are raised, as is the case with one house in Weber Court itself. In light of everything discussed above, I am proposing a stepped intertidal seawall to enhance Weber Court’s new shoreline. The court’s new edge will act as a compact living shoreline: it will grow natural habitat over time, adapting the community to sea level rise and more intense surge while allowing the marina to function as it does now -­‐-­‐ all as a natural shoreline would do.

Context But first, some background information. Weber Court is comprised of ten below-­‐street level houses connected by a pedestrian walkway, and is located in the Sheepshead Bay neighborhood of Southern Brooklyn. The bay used to be connected by Coney Island Creek to Gravesend Bay until the creek was filled in the 1930s.82 The Sheepshead Bay inlet was named after the large population of fish that used to inhabit it (that doesn’t anymore), and also gave the neighborhood its name.

The area was originally a beach bungalow summer community, but long ago established itself as year-­‐round housing (however, some of the housing stock still reflects a non-­‐weatherized, more temporary use in its foundation and insulation). Weber Court contains one of the few non-­‐bulkheaded edges in the Sheepshead Bay inlet: there is a small beach at low tide, and the seawall rises only about two feet above it, which doesn’t protect the court from flooding.

Sheepshead Bay (the inlet, not the neighborhood) is technically a “restricted tributary of Jamaica Bay, near Rockaway Inlet.” The bulkheaded edges, due to human-­‐manipulation, are straight, approximately 1.15 miles long and 400-­‐800 feet wide (and wider than it naturally used to be at its western end), with depths ranging from two to 44 feet. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has it classified as “Class I saline surface water with uses identified as

82 PlaNYC, A Stronger, More Resilient New York, (The City of New York, n.d.)

http://www.nyc.gov/html/sirr/downloads/pdf/final_report/Ch_2_ClimateAnalysis_FINAL_singles.pdf: 337.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 33

secondary contact recreation and fishing.” Secondary contact generally means that people aren’t in it, but they’re very close to it, touching it, or eating something that was.83 Inlets such as this one are responsible for the ‘back door’ flooding that Coney Island experienced during Sandy, where much of the inundation wasn’t from the ocean on the South side but from the inlets to the North: Coney Island Creek and Sheepshead Bay. Since bulkheads do not absorb any of the surge that builds in these “restricted” inlets, water is pushed over it during storms. With the sea level rising, surge will breach the seawalls more regularly, and eventually high tide will surpass their height.

Considering the court’s proximity to the water, lack of a seawall, tentative interest from the residents, and below-­‐street-­‐level walkways and building foundations, Weber Court is ready for an ambitious, collective intervention. Weber is also a good candidate for a shoreline overhaul in a more positive way: the court was once part of the city’s largest tidal wetland, Jamaica Bay, which is currently being restored. The maps on the following page show New York City’s historic wetlands (with Sheepshead Bay circled in yellow), and a historic map of the Gravesend area of Brooklyn with present-­‐ day shorelines in blue.

83 Army Corps of Engineers, “Hudson-­‐Raritan Estuary Comprehensive Restoration Plan: Potential Restoration

Opportunities Project Summary Sheets, Jamaica Bay,” accessed October 4, 2013, http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Portals/37/docs/harbor/Harbor%20Program%20Images/jambayplan.pdf Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 34

“Today’s Estuary: The Tidelands of the New York New Jersey Harbor Estuary.” Historic wetlands are in pink. (Source: NYC OLTPS and Regional Plan Association)

Gravesend Bay neighborhoods, then and now. (Source: SIRR)

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 35

Both maps show that much of what we now consider to be land was the sea not long ago. It is no wonder that South Sheepshead Bay and other parts of Brooklyn (namely Red Hook and Greenpoint)84 have been experiencing poor drainage for decades now, and storms simply compound the problem.

Though these areas are of course not technically classified as wetland anymore, residents’ experience of regular flooding proves that they still are, whether we developed on it or not.85 Weber Court, like the five other pedestrian courts in Sheepshead Bay, is approximately four feet below current street level because these streets and houses were not included in the city’s 1970s undertaking to raise the neighborhood’s infrastructure. There are frequent problems with underground utilities in South Sheepshead Bay. During high tide, the water creeps up the Weber Court sidewalk toward Emmons Avenue, the street to the North of the court and also the southernmost street in the neighborhood. During Superstorm Sandy, the court took on about 10 feet of water, and most of the houses needed to be completely rebuilt due to surge, mold, and scoured foundations.86 The City’s plan for Southern Brooklyn Though Sheepshead Bay itself isn’t listed in the SIRR’s “Full-­‐Build” flood mitigation strategy for New York City, nearby Plumb Beach’s “wetlands, living shorelines and reefs” restoration is almost complete, and other interventions nearby may affect the Sheepshead Bay inlet. Weber Court is also located less

84 Office of Emergency Management, “New York City Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan,” (The City of New York, March

2009) http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/downloads/pdf/hazard_mitigation/section_3j_flooding_hazard_analysis.pdf: 144.

85 SIRR “Brooklyn/Queens Waterfront” Community Meeting, Greenpoint residents’ statements, March 17, 2012.

86 See Appendix B for Sandy storm surge inundation maps; PlaNYC: A Stronger, More Resilient New York, 341.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 36

than half a mile from the western perimeter of NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comprehensive Restoration Plan, who are working in conjunction with the SIRR.87 In a selection of the SIRR Full-­‐Build plan, shown to the right, we can get a sense of how numerous and diverse the recommendations for the entire city’s coastline are.88 A plan for implementation is still in the works, and all interventions will be initiated pending funding and countless other considerations.

However, the coastlines surrounding the Sheepshead Bay inlet are slated for: ●

bulkheads and levees (orange),

●

groins (dotted orange lines),

●

tide gates (pink),

●

beach nourishment and dune construction (yellow lines),

●

revetments (purple dots),

●

and offshore breakwaters (blue).

Between Gravesend Bay and Jamaica Bay, both frequented migratory and spawning habitat and part of the Department of City Planning’s Jamaica Bay Waterfront Revitalization Program, lie several neighborhoods with potential to link these larger wildlife corridors.89 The coastlines of Coney Island, Gravesend, Manhattan Beach, Sheepshead Bay and Gerritsen Beach could collectively serve to re-­‐ establish a contiguous habitat between the two bays. Starting with site-­‐specific interventions like the proposed stepped seawall for Weber Court, strategies could span to off-­‐shore habitat – artificial reefs and islands – that would serve as surge attenuation for all of these neighborhoods. With improved corridors for wildlife, the disparate habitats would have a greater chance of growing and providing benefits to built communities on shore.

87 NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. Maintained for OASIS by

the Center for Urban Research, CUNY Graduate Center. “OASIS Map: Comprehensive Restoration Plan Layer,” 2012, http://www.oasisnyc.net/map.aspx?categories=ENVIRONMENT&mainlayers=Cache_Transit,NYCT_subway,CRP_ POLY&labellayers=CRP_POLY&query=crpsite&queryid=604&zoom=5&x=1001703.2644686527&y=151261.114 944648.

88 See Appendix A. 89 New York City Department of City Planning, “Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP),” Nyc.gov, accessed October 19, 2013, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/wrp/wrp.shtml.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 37

“Conceptual rendering of Coney Island Creek wetlands and tidal barrier, with Rockaway inlet barrier.”

(Source: SIRR)

Above is one of the city’s concepts for the Gravesend and Coney Island neighborhoods. Coney Island Creek would become an estuary and park, providing uses for humans as well as the popular Gravesend Bay bird population and other species in the bay. The park’s wildlife will also help to clean the Creek’s water, which is polluted with trash and fuels from the ships that must idle in the Verrazano Narrows while awaiting clearance to enter the Upper New York Harbor.90 The city has already planned initial phases and done considerable work (especially publicly after Sandy) into restoring wetlands and other natural habitat.91 It will be important to closely monitor living shoreline implementation and restoration in order to collect data and possibly re-­‐visit calls for revetments, levees, and bulkheads in the future.92 We should be striving to replace all of our hard infrastructure with dynamic shorelines where possible.

At the Living Shoreline Summit in Williamsburg, Virginia in 2006, panelists’ collective data revealed that “planted tidal marshes and supporting structures can be effective alternatives to revetments and

90 Kaiser Park manager Eric Wyche, personal interview, Coney Island, September 15, 2013.

91 Jeanna Bryner, “Bloomberg: Post-­‐Sandy NYC Will Lead Climate Change Battle,” CBS News, December 6, 2012,

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-­‐205_162-­‐57557552/bloomberg-­‐post-­‐sandy-­‐nyc-­‐will-­‐lead-­‐climate-­‐change-­‐ battle.

92 See Appendix A. Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 38

bulkheads.”93 The panel also noted that each planting and intervention must be site specific, especially in terms of expected wave energy: “The key is to continue to develop, design, and place structures that are suitable for the environment, wildlife, and landowner goals.”94 As demonstrated with Vancouver’s habitat skirt, it is possible to improve habitat when building in or near the water, while maintaining the integrity of the development and possibly improving its longevity. The city has made commendable efforts to tailor interventions to specific locations, however, funds should be diverted to more provocative pilot projects and research that has the potential to be more effective than familiar band-­‐aid approaches. Experimentation is essential to developing ever-­‐better solutions: this is how we build resilience.

Gans Studio Gans Studio, my client for this project, is a small architecture firm based in Red Hook, Brooklyn that has been working with the Sheepshead Bay neighborhood since January 2013. The firm is currently working on several projects involving green infrastructure, Southern Brooklyn, better drainage and sustainable housing.95 The Studio’s focus in Sheepshead Bay is on the below-­‐street level (“sunken”) courts, including Weber.

93 ibid.

94 Duhring, “Evaluation of Living Shoreline Techniques,” 37.

95 “Climate Resiliency Planning in Sheepshead Bay,” Pratt Center for Community Development, 2013,

http://prattcenter.net/projects/sustainable-­‐community-­‐development/climate-­‐resiliency-­‐planning-­‐sheepshead-­‐ bay.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 39

Sheepshead Bay below-­‐street level pedestrian courts (Source: Gans Studio)

Since January, Gans Studio has presented rebuilding strategies for the short-­‐ and long-­‐term to residents of the courts. The presentations focused on the residents’ concerns immediately following Superstorm Sandy, such as where to get funding to rebuild, how to remove mold, flood-­‐resistant and non-­‐toxic building materials, and how to ‘wet-­‐proof’ -­‐-­‐ a strategy that prepares a home to get wet without suffering long-­‐term damage or losing essential functions.96 For a long-­‐term vision, Gans Studio produced renderings of future possibilities for homeowners.

The three schemes below represent some of the options that the Studio has discussed with court residents. They experiment with raising houses individually to the Design Flood Elevation (13 feet), raising the court as a whole to street level, or a combination of both.97 (See Appendix C for Gans Studio’s preliminary drawings and brochures.) Elevation of the courts’ houses and walkways will allow better subgrade drainage for inland flooding, and significantly decrease homeowners’ insurance premiums for FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program.

Three experimental schemes for elevating houses in sunken courts or “mews.” (Source: Gans Studio)

96 “ODPEM: How to Flood-­‐Proof Your Home,” Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management, accessed

November 22, 2013, http://www.odpem.org.jm/DisastersDoHappen/TypesofHazardsDisasters/Floods/ProtectYourselfFromFloods/ HowtoFloodProofYourHome/tabid/292/Default.aspx.

97 Design Flood Elevation refers to FEMA’s flood insurance definitions, where the DFE is two feet above the Base Flood Elevation. The basement must be above the DFE to avoid flooding and for the house’s inhabitants to avoid astronomical flood insurance premiums; “Definitions,” FEMA.gov, June 18, 2012, accessed December 9, 2013, http://www.fema.gov/national-­‐flood-­‐insurance-­‐program/definitions#D.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 40

The Studio is also drawing up plans for a neighborhood-­‐wide climate change resilience strategy involving more absorptive land use. At the time of writing, Gans Studio is working with engineers to discuss the feasibility of their concepts. Below is one of four iterations the Studio has imagined for the courts.

One of four ideas for sustainably rebuilding the Sheepshead Bay courts (Source: Gans Studio)

The most challenging part of designing these iterations is underground infrastructure such as sewage, drainage pipes and electrical utilities. Without the cooperation of the NYC Department of Environmental Protection and utility providers, it will be very hard to make any changes that systematically solve the community’s problems. Pending more information from engineers and utility agencies, the proposal for the stepped seawall (detailed below) will incorporate drainage and rainwater outflow systems that effectively drain the streets while keeping the ecosystem healthy. In combination with the residents’ preference, the final project will be decided based on cost, public funding secured, and consultation with engineers and landscape architects.

Part 6, Proposal and limitations As a focus area within Gans Studio’s work and a pilot study for the city’s vulnerable shorelines, I am recommending a stepped intertidal seawall for Weber’s elevated shoreline, which will grow habitat over time while enhancing the homes and livelihoods of the court’s residents and marina members. A stepped wall was built underneath the Vancouver Convention in B.C., Canada: since two-­‐thirds of the Center’s Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 41

foundations are in the ocean, federal fisheries required the builders to protect marine habitat. The designers went further, though, to promote the re-­‐establishment of habitat in the area, and they, along with their LEED certifier, “started calling the seawall a habitat shelf instead.” The “concrete skirt steps down in five tiers from the underside of the public walkway into the harbor” and will therefore serve to create “1,500 lineal feet of marine habitat.” In combination with the building’s extensive green roof, the designers of the Center created acres of habitat, instead of simply building over it, all while enhancing human use and enjoyment.98

Source: LMN Architects in association with PWL

Weber Court’s steps will mimic the Convention Center’s on a smaller scale, reaching ten feet from the shore for about 100 feet along the coastline. The concept incorporates one of Gans Studio’s iterations for elevating the Weber Court houses in which the walkway is raised five feet to be approximately as high above Emmons Avenue as it is now below it. The houses would then be raised the additional eight feet required by the Design Flood Elevation. The stepped seawall will create a more gentle slope from the raised court down to the water, and provide habitat for marine wildlife without disrupting the maritime traffic or the court’s marina dock. It will “maximise the ecological value” of Weber’s shoreline

98 “Coastal Defences and Biodiversity,” Exeter.ac.uk, 2010, accessed December 9, 2013,

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/coastaldefencesbiodiversity/index.html.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 42

by attracting more “mobile invertebrates” from nearby Jamaica Bay.99 Below is a section of one of Gans Studio’s elevation schemes (not included in the diagram above), and the proposed addition of a stepped seawall.

A section of one of several concepts for elevating Weber Court houses, facing West, with the option of a stepped intertidal seawall on the new, raised shoreline (Source: Gans Studio and author)

Organizations mentioned throughout this paper, such as the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, LMN Architects, and Michael van Vaulkenberg Landscape Architects can lend their expertise to ensure effective implementation. Especially for the structural components, we will need to learn what has proved livable for marine and estuarine organisms so that the design provides “functional ecological benefits.”100 Some experimentation will be necessary. The slope at which the stepped wall is installed may affect the wildlife, wave attenuation and effects on the existing beach. Flexibility in its construction

99 Goff, “Evaluating Habitat Enhancements of an Urban Intertidal Seawall,” 14.

100 Duhring, “Evaluation of Living Shoreline Techniques,” 37.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 43

should allow for changes in its structure as monitoring provides new insights in how it might be most productive.

Though the cost of a living shoreline varies greatly depending on the circumstance and needs of the site, the Center for Coastal Resources Management cites an average of $50 -­‐ $100 per foot for “non-­‐ structural methods, such as beach nourishment and planted marshes.” Projects requiring fill or stone structures are typically more expensive, at $150 -­‐ $500 per foot.101 Aside from its location and the ability to make decisions quickly with such a small group of homeowners, Weber’s size makes it a financially feasible pilot project.

Weber is also an effective pilot site on a broader scale. The proposed shoreline’s naturally stable, stepped intertidal habitat will become more effective with later regional additions of offshore interventions such as artificial reefs, Plumb Beach and Plumb Beach’s wetland restoration, and the growing health of the Jamaica Bay estuary.102 Water quality can be measured to some extent by sediment samples to see if bivalve filtration or phytoremediation has an affect on the immediate area (mollusks and plants filter water very effectively; oysters clean about 50 gallons of water a day103).

Frequent monitoring and maintenance will be necessary for at least the first few years after implementation.

Nationally, the Natural Capital Project’s hazard assessment mentioned earlier in this paper establishes Southern Brooklyn as a necessary location for natural coastal barriers. Weber Court’s pilot project can contribute data to the growing knowledge that natural habitat is our best defense and help make the case for further implementation on New York City’s coasts.104 Interviews and observation, along with data collection, will provide a concrete gauge of the success of the shoreline.

101 Center for Coastal Resources Management, “Living Shorelines -­‐ FAQ,” 2013, accessed November 25, 2013,

http://ccrm.vims.edu/livingshorelines/faq.html#examples.

102 See Appendix A. 103 “Eastern Oysters,” Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 2012, accessed December 9, 2013, http://www.cbf.org/about-­‐

the-­‐bay/more-­‐than-­‐just-­‐the-­‐bay/creatures-­‐of-­‐the-­‐chesapeake/eastern-­‐oyster.

104 Arkema, “Coastal Habitats Shield People and Property from Sea-­‐level Rise and Storms,” 913–918.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 44

Concept rendering of Weber’s Court’s stepped intertidal seawall, facing West (Source: Gans Studio / author)

Conclusion: Wild Urban Coastlines The renowned naturalist E.O. Wilson says “the concept...that wildland is something to be replaced has been a mental fixation of most of the world’s population to this day.”105 He argues that we have been attempting this replacement for centuries, but are slowly learning that we aren’t as good at doing what natural systems do. A more important revelation has been that we don’t need to. Designs like Palisade Bay and Renewable City 2040 make room for natural ecosystems to be as productive in cities as they are in the wild.

A biodiverse network of species produces everything an ecosystem needs to survive, and an urban ecosystem is not an exception. The most productive use of space is one that houses as many species as possible. If an estuary is the most productive natural ecosystem, and a city is the most productive human system, think of what an integrated urban and natural environment could produce. And more importantly, if we like living among other species and we know how we might do that, why don’t we?

Paired with a regional system of dynamic, site-­‐specific protections, Weber Court’s stepped seawall will show that a meticulously created coastal habitat can thrive in a dense center of human use and habitation, and that a small piece of land can be productive for many species on many scales. It will also prove, ideally through the residents’ observations and the steady growth of biodiversity, that the integration of urban and natural environments is possible, and that a hard divide between land and water does not serve coastal species, including us.

105 Wilson, The Social Conquest of Earth, 95.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 45

Bibliography Arkema, Katie K. “Coastal Habitats Shield People and Property from Sea-­‐Level Rise and Storms.” Nature Climate Change 3 (2013): 913–918.

Army Corps of Engineers. “Hudson-­‐Raritan Estuary Comprehensive Restoration Plan: Potential Restoration Opportunities Project Summary Sheets, Jamaica Bay,” n.d. http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Portals/37/docs/harbor/Harbor%20Program%20Images/jambayplan.pdf.

Barber, Don, Kevin DuBois, and Gordon Labedz. “Seawalls Mean Death to the Beach.” Bryn Mawr Department of Geology. Accessed November 15, 2013. http://www.brynmawr.edu/geology/geomorph/seawalls.html.

“Basic Information about Estuaries | Estuaries and Coastal Watersheds | US EPA.” Accessed September 9, 2013. http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/about.cfm.

“Before New York — National Geographic Magazine.” Accessed September 10, 2013. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/09/manhattan/miller-­‐text/2.

“Blue Revolution.” DeltaSync, September 2012. http://www.deltasync.nl/deltasync/index.php?id=31&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=193&tx_ttnews%5BbackPi d%5D=6&cHash=201909b74ee7aacccb64cccc0bfb2ffe.

Brian Walker. The Best Explanation to Resilience. Stockholm Resilience Centre, n.d. http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/what-­‐is-­‐resilience.html.

Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy. “Brooklyn Bridge Park.” Brooklynbridgepark.org. Accessed December 12, 2013. http://www.brooklynbridgepark.org/about-­‐us.

Bryner, Jeanna. “Bloomberg: Post-­‐Sandy NYC Will Lead Climate Change Battle.” CBS News, December 6, 2012. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-­‐205_162-­‐57557552/bloomberg-­‐post-­‐sandy-­‐nyc-­‐will-­‐lead-­‐climate-­‐change-­‐ battle/.

Center for Coastal Resources Management. “Living Shorelines -­‐ FAQ,” 2013. http://ccrm.vims.edu/livingshorelines/faq.html#examples.

City of New York, Department of City Planning. Vision2020: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan. New York: Department of City Planning, Waterfront Division, March 2011. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/cwp/index.shtml.

City of Seattle. “Low Impact Development | Seattle Public Utilities.” Seattle.gov. Accessed October 18, 2013. http://www.seattle.gov/util/MyServices/DrainageSewer/Projects/GreenStormwaterInfrastructure/LowImpa ctDevelopment/index.htm.

“Climate Resiliency Planning in Sheepshead Bay.” Pratt Center for Community Development, 2013. http://prattcenter.net/projects/sustainable-­‐community-­‐development/climate-­‐resiliency-­‐planning-­‐ sheepshead-­‐bay.

“Coastal Defences and Biodiversity.” Exeter.ac.uk, 2010. http://www.exeter.ac.uk/coastaldefencesbiodiversity/index.html.

“Concept of Intertidal Seawall Habitat ‘Enhancement.’” Accessed October 4, 2013. https://sites.google.com/a/uw.edu/seattle-­‐seawall-­‐project/concept.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 46

Cromar, Kevin, and Jason Schwartz. Residual Risks. Institute for Policy Integrity, New York University School of Law, January 2010.

Daily, Gretchen C., ed. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1997.

Day, John W., Byron C. Crump, Michael W. Kemp, and Alejandro Yanez-­‐Arancibia, eds. Estuarine Ecology. Second.

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-­‐Blackwell, 2013. http://wiley-­‐vch.e-­‐bookshelf.de/products/reading-­‐epub/product-­‐ id/668813/title/Estuarine%2BEcology.html.

De Graaf, Rutger Ewout. “Innovations in Urban Water Management to Reduce the Vulnerability of Cities.”

Technische Universiteit Delft, 2009. http://www.deltasync.nl/reports/De_Graaf_thesis.pdf.

“Definitions.” FEMA.gov, June 18, 2012. http://www.fema.gov/national-­‐flood-­‐insurance-­‐program/definitions#D. DeltaSync. Corporate Film, 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJlFywxZTQI. DePalma, Anthony. “City’s Catskill Water Gets 10-­‐Year Approval.” New York Times, April 13, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/nyregion/13water.html?_r=0.

“Design Night: Mother Nature -­‐ Biomimicry with Dr. Dayna Baumeister.” Vimeo.com, February 18, 2013. http://vimeo.com/59915360.

“Design the Edge: Hallets Cove.” Starr Whitehouse Landscape Architects and Planners PLLC. Accessed September 17, 2013. http://www.starrwhitehouse.com/waterfronts/design-­‐edge-­‐hallets-­‐cove/.

“Dlandstudio Architecture + Landscape Architecture Pllc.,” 2012. http://www.dlandstudio.com/.

DOEPEL STRIJKERS. “Renewable City 2040.” Accessed September 11, 2013. http://www.doepelstrijkers.com/?lan=_uk#/projects/69/RENEWABLE+CITY+2040/.

Duhring, Karen A. et al. “Evaluation of Living Shoreline Techniques.” In Living Shorelines Summit, 33–70.

Williamsburg, VA, 2006.

Duke, Alan. “Superstorm Sandy Breaks Records.” CNN.com, October 31, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/30/us/sandy-­‐records/.

“Eastern Oysters.” Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 2012. http://www.cbf.org/about-­‐the-­‐bay/more-­‐than-­‐just-­‐the-­‐ bay/creatures-­‐of-­‐the-­‐chesapeake/eastern-­‐oyster.

“Ecosystem Services and Green Infrastructure.” Urban Greenspaces Institute. Accessed October 28, 2013. http://www.urbangreenspaces.org/ecosystem.

“Environment.” Vancouver Convention Centre, 2013. http://www.vancouverconventioncentre.com/thefacilities/environment/.

European Environment Agency. Environmental Atlas of Europe, 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GydXszBLPdE. Evelly, Jeanmarie et al. “‘Seaport City,’ Battery Park City’s East River Twin, Proposed by Mayor.” DNAinfo.com New York, June 11, 2013. http://www.dnainfo.com/new-­‐york/20130611/south-­‐street-­‐seaport/seaport-­‐city-­‐ battery-­‐park-­‐citys-­‐east-­‐river-­‐twin-­‐proposed-­‐by-­‐mayor.

Folke, Carl. What Is Resilience? Stockholm Resilience Centre, n.d.

“Freshkills Park : NYC Parks.” Accessed October 18, 2013. http://www.nycgovparks.org/park-­‐features/freshkills-­‐ park.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 47

Gardner, Royal C. et al. “Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act (Redux): Evaluating the Federal Compensatory Mitigation Regulation.” Stetson Law Review 38 (May 18, 2009): 214–249.

“Geomorphology.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, October 15, 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomorphology.

GlashusEtt. Hammarby Sjostad: A Unique Environmental Project in Stockholm, 2007. http://www.hammarbysjostad.se/inenglish/pdf/HS_miljo_bok_eng_ny.pdf.

“Global Health Observatory | Urban Population Growth.” Who.int, 2013. http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/.

Goff, Maureen. “Evaluating Habitat Enhancements of an Urban Intertidal Seawall: Ecological Responses and Management Implications.” University of Washington, 2010. http://weber.s.uw.edu/research/publications/ms_phd/Goff_M_MS_Su10.pdf.

Greenpoint residents, March 17, 2012. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcla/downloads/pdf/SIRR_Public_Workshops_March_2013.pdf.

“Hammarby Sjostad.” Accessed September 11, 2013. http://www.hammarbysjostad.se/inenglish/pdf/HS_miljo_bok_eng_ny.pdf.

“Hudson-­‐Raritan Estuary.” National Geographic Education. Accessed September 10, 2013. http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/maps/hudson-­‐raritan-­‐estuary/?ar_a=1.

Hull & Humber City Region Observatory, Department of Geography. Working Paper 2: Port of Rotterdam.

Sustainable Estuary Management: Reconciling Development and Conservation Pressures in European Port-­‐ Estuary Spaces. Rotterdam: University of Hull, May 2008. http://www.hull.ac.uk/hhcro/pdf/Rotterdam.pdf.

Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force. “Teams.” Rebuild by Design. Accessed November 15, 2013. http://www.rebuildbydesign.org/teams/.

“INTEGRATING HABITATS Design Competition ih5.jpg -­‐ Gallery Page 6 – Inhabitat -­‐ Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building.” Accessed October 29, 2013. http://inhabitat.com/integrating-­‐habitats-­‐a-­‐ design-­‐competition/ih5jpg/.

IPCC -­‐ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.” Ipcc.ch.

Accessed October 21, 2013. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UmVALSQZxcx.

“Jamaica Bay -­‐ Salt Marsh Islands.” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: New York District. Accessed November 9, 2013. http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/ProjectsinNewYork/EldersPointJamaicaBaySaltMarshI slands.aspx.

“Jamaica Bay Project.” New York City Audubon. Accessed October 17, 2013. http://nycaudubon.org/jamaica-­‐bay-­‐ project.

“Jamaica Bay Research and Management Information Network -­‐ Maps Page.” Accessed November 1, 2013. http://www.ciesin.org/jamaicabay/maps.jsp.

“Jamaica Bay Task Force Meeting.” New York City Audubon, February 4, 2013. http://www.nycaudubon.org/wordpress/tag/jamaicabay/.

Jørgensen, Solveig Søholm. Floating City, 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaAV0qIaQNg.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 48

Kimmelman, Michael. “Flood Control in the Netherlands Now Allows Seawater In.” NYTimes.com, February 13, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/arts/design/flood-­‐control-­‐in-­‐the-­‐netherlands-­‐now-­‐allows-­‐sea-­‐ water-­‐in.html?adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1360772516-­‐PLHrtEyb6t/PD+qmDykWsQ&_r=0.

“Kings_County_halfmeter_w_tidal.jpg (JPEG Image, 3300 × 5100 Pixels) -­‐ Scaled (10%).” Accessed October 29, 2013. http://maps.risingsea.net/NY/Kings_County_halfmeter_w_tidal.jpg.

Knutson, Paul L., Robert A. Brochu, William N. Seelig, and Margaret Inskeep. “Wave Damping in Spartina Alterniflora Marshes.” Wetlands 2 (1982): 87–104.

Kurlansky, Mark. The Big Oyster. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2006.

Lalasz, Bob. “New Study: Coastal Nature Reduces U.S. Risk from Storms.” Cool Green Science, July 15, 2013. http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/07/15/new-­‐study-­‐coastal-­‐nature-­‐reduce-­‐risk-­‐storm-­‐united-­‐ states/?s_intc=tab3p1.

Lee, Nim. “Marine Animals of Brooklyn Bridge Park.” Brooklynbridgepark.org, October 19, 2010. http://www.brooklynbridgepark.org/news/blog/marine-­‐animals-­‐brooklyn-­‐bridge-­‐park.

Lewis, Stephanie Aurora, and Kristin Dispenza. “Case Study: Vancouver Convention Centre.” Buildipedia.com, April 2, 2010. http://buildipedia.com/aec-­‐pros/featured-­‐architecture/case-­‐study-­‐vancouver-­‐convention-­‐ centre?print=1&tmpl=component.

“Living Shorelines -­‐ DELSI Tactic.” Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, 2013. http://delawareestuary.org/node/195.

LMN Architecture, Urban Design, Interiors. “What Makes It Green?: Vancouver Convention Centre West,” n.d. lmnarchitects.com/assets/exploration/whatmakesitgreen-­‐vccw/pdfs/WMIG Vancouver.pdf.

Maly, Tim. “A City Built on Dredge.” Urban Omnibus, December 12, 2012. http://urbanomnibus.net/2012/12/a-­‐ city-­‐built-­‐on-­‐dredge/.

Masters, Jeffrey, PhD. “Storm Surge Reduction by Wetlands.” Weather Underground, 2013. http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/surge_wetlands.asp.

McGrath, Matt. “IPCC Climate Report: Humans ‘Dominant Cause’ of Warming.” BBC News -­‐ Science & Environment, September 27, 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-­‐environment-­‐24292615.

Moberg, Fredrik, and Sturle Hauge Simonsen. “What Is Resiliency? An Introduction to Social-­‐Ecological Research.”

Edited by Maria Schultz, Henrik Österblom, and Åsa Persson. Stockholm Resilience Centre, May 2011. http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.5ea7abe0139d0dada521ac/resilience_summary_lowX.pdf.

“Natalie Jeremijenko: Environment Design.” Seedmagazine.com. Accessed December 13, 2013. http://seedmagazine.com/designseries/natalie-­‐jeremijenko.html.

National Research Council. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001.

Nettler, Jonathan. “NYC Pushes Ahead With Plans for New Neighborhood Built on Landfill.” Planetizen: The Urban Planning, Design, and Development Network, August 1, 2013. http://www.planetizen.com/node/64423.

New York City Department of City Planning. “Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP).” Nyc.gov. Accessed October 19, 2013. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/wrp/wrp.shtml.

New York Natural Heritage Program. “Marine Communities.” Department of Environmental Conservation, n.d.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 49

Nicholls, R.J., P.P. Wong, V.R. Burkett, J.O. Codignotto, J.E. Hay, R.F. McLean, S. Ragoonaden and C.D. Woodroffe, 2007: Coastal Systems and Low-­‐Lying Areas. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van Der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 315-­‐356., n.d.

NOAA. “Hard Engineering Approaches to Coastal Construction,” June 2013. http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/international/pdfs/hard_engineering.pdf.

Nordenson, Guy, Catherine Seavitt, and Adam Yarinsky. On the Water | Palisade Bay. Ostfildern, Germany: Hatje Cantz Verlag, 2010.

NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. Maintained for OASIS by the Center for Urban Research, CUNY Graduate Center. “OASIS Map: Comprehensive Restoration Plan Layer,” 2012. http://www.oasisnyc.net/map.aspx?categories=ENVIRONMENT&mainlayers=Cache_Transit,NYCT_subway,CR P_POLY&labellayers=CRP_POLY&query=crpsite&queryid=604&zoom=5&x=1001703.2644686527&y=151261 .114944648.

“NYC Hazards: NYC Hurricane History.” NYC Office of Emergency Management. Accessed October 17, 2013. http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/hazards/storms_hurricanehistory.shtml.

NYC OEM. “New York City Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan,” March 2009. http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/downloads/pdf/hazard_mitigation/section_3j_flooding_hazard_analysis.pdf.

NYCEDC. “Waterfront Vision and Enhancement Strategy,” March 14, 2011. http://www.nycedc.com/project/waterfront-­‐vision-­‐and-­‐enhancement-­‐strategy.

“ODPEM: How to Flood-­‐Proof Your Home.” Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management. Accessed November 22, 2013. http://www.odpem.org.jm/DisastersDoHappen/TypesofHazardsDisasters/Floods/ProtectYourselfFromFlood s/HowtoFloodProofYourHome/tabid/292/Default.aspx.

“Organism Interaction.” Mr. Reese Science and Social Studies. Accessed November 25, 2013. http://adasciss.weebly.com/2/post/2011/12/grading-­‐period-­‐2-­‐week-­‐6-­‐organism-­‐interaction.html.

PlaNYC. A Stronger, More Resilient New York. The City of New York, n.d. http://www.nyc.gov/html/sirr/downloads/pdf/final_report/Ch_2_ClimateAnalysis_FINAL_singles.pdf.

———. A Stronger, More Resilient New York. The City of New York, n.d. http://www.nyc.gov/html/sirr/downloads/pdf/final_report/Ch_2_ClimateAnalysis_FINAL_singles.pdf.

———. New York City Wetlands Strategy. City of New York, May 2012. http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/nyc_wetlands_strategy.pdf.

———. NYC Green Infrastructure Plan. City of New York, Mayor’s Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability, n.d. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_LowRes.pdf.

———. PlaNYC 2030: A Greener Greater New York, Introduction. City of New York, Mayor’s Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability and Department of Environmental Protection, 2007. http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/planyc_2011_intro.pdf.

Port of Rotterdam Authority. Port Vision 2030, December 2011.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 50

“Public Works Technical Bulletin 200-­‐1-­‐21: Applicability of Constructed Wetlands for Army Installations.” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, June 23, 2003. http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/ARMYCOE/PWTB/pwtb_200_1_21.pdf.

“Renewed Debate Over 91st St. Marine Waste Station.” Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance, July 7, 2013. http://www.waterfrontalliance.org/waterwire/2013/07/07/renewed-­‐debate-­‐over-­‐91st-­‐st-­‐marine-­‐waste-­‐ station.

Resio, Donald T., and Joannes J. Westerink. “Modeling the Physics of Storm Surge.” Physics Today 61 (2008): 33–38.

Ross, Phillip. “Natural Barriers Protect Two-­‐Thirds Of US Coastlines From Rising Sea Levels, But New Study Says 1.3M Americans Still In ‘High-­‐Risk’ Zones.” International Science Times. Accessed October 18, 2013. http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/5637/20130715/natural-­‐barriers-­‐protect-­‐two-­‐thirds-­‐coastlines-­‐ rising.htm.

Rutger de Graaf. Inaugural Lecture BlueRevolution. Lecture, 2012. http://www.slideshare.net/rutgerdegraaf/inaugural-­‐lecture-­‐bluerevolution-­‐video.

Sanderson, Eric W. “Urban Legend: Discovering Manhattan’s Wetlands.” National Wetlands Newsletter 27, no. 1 (February 2005): 14–17.

Saunders, William S. “Michael Van Valkenburgh, Harvard Landscape Architecture Professor: A Profile.”

Harvardmagazine.com, December 2013. http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/11/the-­‐urban-­‐landscaper.

SCAPE/Landscape Architecture. “Gardening the Bay: Jamaica Bay, NYC.” Rebuild by Design. Accessed November 15, 2013. http://www.rebuildbydesign.org/teams/.

Schechtman, J.D., M.U.P., Judd, and Michael Brady. Cost-­‐Efficient Climate Adaptation in the North Atlantic (CEANA), n.d. http://seagrant.uconn.edu/CEANA/CEANAFull.pdf.

“Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Accessed November 21, 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheepshead_Bay,_Brooklyn.

Shepard, Christine C. et al. “Assessing Future Risk: Quantifying the Effects of Sea Level Rise on Storm Surge Risk for the Southern Shores of Long Island, New York.” Natural Hazards 60 (December 4, 2011): 727–745.

Spielman, Cindy. “Sheepshead Bay Site Summary Sheet.” The Waters We Share: Hudson-­‐Raritan Estuary Comprehensive Restoration Plan, April 10, 2013. http://www.oasisnyc.net/crp/crpdetails.aspx?id=604.

Spirn, Anne Winston. “Ecological Urbanism: A Framework for the Design of Resilient Cities,” n.d.

Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority and Climate Change NSW 2009. “Environmentally Friendly Seawalls: A Guide to Improving the Environmental Value of Seawalls and Seawall-­‐Lined Foreshores in Estuaries.” Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, June 2009. http://www.hornsby.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/41291/Environmentally-­‐Friendly-­‐Seawalls.pdf.

The Economist. “Typhoon Haiyan and the Philippines: Stress Test.” Economist.com, November 16, 2013. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21589883-­‐responding-­‐disaster-­‐essential-­‐so-­‐preparing-­‐next-­‐ stress-­‐test.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Air Pollution and the Clean Air Act.” Epa.gov, August 2013. http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/.

———. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.” Epa.gov, March 2009. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/index.cfm.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 51

“Waterfront Justice Project.” The New York City Environmental Justice Alliance. Accessed December 13, 2013. http://nyc-­‐eja.org/?page_id=311.

Weppler, Peter. “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.” presented at the Coastal Wetland Recovery Workshop, Federal Plaza, New York, October 3, 2013.

“Wetlands and Nature.” Wetlands | US EPA, October 9, 2012. http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/nature.cfm.

“Wetlands Definitions.” Wetlands | US EPA, October 5, 2012. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/definitions.cfm.

Wilson, Edward O. The Social Conquest of Earth. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2012.

Wyche, Eric, September 15, 2013.

Wild Urban Coastlines | Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013, Pratt PSPD | 52

Appendix A, page 1

Comprehensive Coastal Protection| Plan Increase Coastal Edge Elevations Beach Nourishment 1 Coney Island, Brooklyn 2 Rockaway Peninsula, Queens 3 East and South Shores, Staten Island A Orchard Beach, Bronx Armor Stone (Revetments) 4 Coney Island Creek, Brooklyn 5 Annadale, Staten Island B South Shore, Staten Island Bulkheads 6 Citywide Program 7 Belt Parkway, Brooklyn 8 Beach Channel Drive, Queens Tide Gates / Drainage Devices 9 Oakwood Beach, Staten Island 10 Flushing Meadows, Queens C Coney Island Creek, Brooklyn D Mill Creek, Staten Island Minimize Upland Wave Zones Dunes 11 Rockaway Peninsula, Queens 12 Breezy Point, Queens E Coney Island, Brooklyn Offshore Breakwaters 13 Great Kills Harbor, Staten Island F South Shore, Staten Island G Rockaway Extension H City Island, Bronx Wetlands, Living Shorelines and Reefs 14 Howard Beach, Queens 15 Tottenville, Staten Island 16 Plumb Beach, Brooklyn 17 Brant Point, Queens I Jamaica Bay J Bay Ridge Flats K Saw Mill Creek, Staten Island Groins 18 Sea Gate, Brooklyn Protect Against Storm Surge Integrated Flood Protection System 19 Hunts Point, Bronx 20 East Harlem, Manhattan 21 Lower Manhattan / Lower East Side 22 Hospital Row, Manhattan 23 Red Hook, Brooklyn L Brooklyn-Queens Waterfront M West Midtown, Manhattan Floodwalls / Levees 24 East Shore, Staten Island 25 Farragut Substation, Brooklyn N Astoria Generating Station, Queens Local Storm Surge Barrier 26 Newtown Creek O Rockaway Inlet P Gowanus Canal, Brooklyn Multi-purpose Levee Q Lower Manhattan

51

A STRONGER, MORE RESILIENT NEW YORK

Full-Build Recommendations

Appendix A, page 2

Note: Though all projects indicated on this map are recommended in the full-build scenario, not all are individually labeled in the key.

Source: SIRR, “A Stronger More Resilient New York.”

CHAPTER 3 | COASTAL PROTECTION

52



South Sheepshead Bay FEMA Sandy Storm Surge Area+  Building Footprints  Sources: NYC DCP, NYC DPR, FEMA   

New York Interim High Resolution Surge Area Building Footprints Parks and Open Space



 

  



 





 

 



   

Appendix B1

 

 

  



 

 

  

  





  

 

 

 

   

0

100

200 Feet

´











  

    

 





 

  



 

 

 



 



    

 

 

    









 

  

 







 

   



Appendix B2

 

1-4 Unit Homes within Storm Surge Study Area = 763 buildings

 









 

Legend: New York Interim High Resolution Surge Area

  

  

Sheepshead Bay Sandy Storm Surge Extent and Inundated Homes South of Avenue X between 29th and Coyle Streets



     

Parks and Open Space



 

  

  





  





 

Building Footprints

       

    





 











 



 



 

 

 











                                        



 

  

  

  

   

 

     



 

 





´

 

 

500 Feet





 

 

250

  



 

 

0



 

  

Note: "Inundated Homes" refers to DCP PLUTO data of 1-4 unit residential building footprints within the study area that intersect with FEMA's storm surge area. The number does not necessarily reflect verified flooding experience, nor is it based on a threshold volume of inundation.





 

Sources: NYC DCP, NYC DPR, FEMA



Appendix C1

THE COURTS OF SHEEPSHEAD BAY

Since January of 2013, Pratt Center and Gans studio have worked with residents of the Sheepshead Bay courts to develop an integrated approach to rebuilding that includes housing, landscape and infrastructures. The goal is to reduce the impact of both catastrophic events and the everyday vulnerabilities related to water management and sustainability that have affected the neighborhood for years and will increase in an age of climate change.

The courts are residential blocks organized around interior mews that have both great charm and intrinsic exposure to water. Originally constructed in 1929 as summer cottages on former wetland, most have been winterized and many have been expanded.

The construction of the Coney Island Sewage Treatment plan in 1971 greatly exacerbated the situation when it raised the street grid leaving the mews at their original elevations and as much as 4 feet below street level. Currently, the mews flood with every heavy rainfall and, as shareholders in the common property, the residents are responsible for the mews infrastructure and its repair.

Residents of the courts are ready to work together on a common plan that will leverage their individual investments. This is a longstanding community where many properties are occupied by the original owners. There are also some courts- such as Bogardus and Shale where a single resident owns as many as two dozen properties. The plan includes raising the houses in synchrony to the design flood elevation and thereby creating the opportunity to redesign the existing collective landscape, and to re-connect to the grid in a way that re-integrates them with services provided by the city. Recognizing that their homes are fragile and under-performing, many are eager to replace them with a net-zero prefabricated alternative.

Gans studio has visualized many potential futures for the residents as part of the community visioning process, including a scheme in which the mews itself is lifted to street level (2), and one in which the mews remains a low landscape feature with the houses accessed via a shared board walk (1). They have explored the possibility and method by which the houses would be raised separately over time with individual access and shared infrastructures could be installed at a later date (3). Finally, as a consequence of their collaboration with Jason Loiselle of Sherwood Engineering, they have begun to develop plans at the scale of the entire neighborhood that create sequences of smaller and larger wetlands in relation to a renewed shoreline.

SCHEME 1

Mews remains low. Infrastructure is raised in a rear “garden wall�. Homes are elevated to the DFE with entry stairs from beneath.

SCHEME 2

Mews is raised to meet the street, extending the city grid and allowing for water and vegetation to grow below.

SCHEME 3

Mews is raised to the Designed Flood Elevation and new plumbing is installed and incorporated into the new boardwalk system.

POCKET GARDENS Homes that were destroyed by Hurricane Sandy are demolished and replaced by water gardens or small farming pockets.

Affected homeowners can relocate within their court.

CLUSTERED WETLANDS Homes attached to or in between destroyed property are all demolished. Affected homeowners can relocate within the courts in general. Properties then become water gardens and coastal wetlands.

OPPORTUNISTIC Homes that were destroyed or abandoned after the storm are demolished and replaced by water gardens or small farms. Affected homeowners can relocate within their court.

MAIN DRAIN Dunne-Mesereau is demolished and restored to a wetland that manages most of the water, along with the growth of a coastal wetland to diffuse energy from storm surges and daily tidal patterns.

LOCATION MAP

CONEY ISLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

SHELL BANK CREEK

LAKE STANTON BEL

W T PK

Y

DUNNE-MESEREAU

CANDA SHALE-BOGARDUS WEBERS SHEEPSHEAD BAY

Appendix C2 Sheepshead Bay Sandy Storm Surge Extent and Inundated Homes South of Avenue X between 29th and Coyle Streets

Mary Brockton 10A Lake Avenue

Peter McCandless 7 Lake Avenue

Mandi Vora 8 Lake Avenue

Melissa Haggerty 13 Lake Avenue

John Mizhir 22 Stanton Road

Dora Halstead

Eleanor Antonacci

24 Lincoln Terrace

32 Stanton Road

Legend: New York Interim High Resolution Surge Area 1-4 Unit Homes within Storm Surge Study Area = 763 buildings Building Footprints Parks and Open Space

Courts Influenced by Outreach Program   

 



    

 



 

  





 





 



 







 







   



 









 



  



  

 

 

 

 





   



   



Note: "Inundated Homes" refers to DCP PLUTO data of 1-4 unit residential building footprints within the study area that intersect with FEMA's storm surge area. The number does not necessarily reflect verified flooding experience, nor is it based on a threshold volume of inundation.



      

   

 



Sources: NYC DCP, NYC DPR, FEMA





 

  

 







 

 



 







 

´



 











´



500 Feet



250



0

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community and DCP PLUTO

BATCHELDER 2782 BATCHELDER

2 BATC

42 LOSEE

2775 BROWN

40 LOSEE

BATC

2784 BATCHELDER

-61”

BAT

-50” -41”

24 STANTON

2785 BROWN

0 WN

WN 0 WN 2802 ROWN

18 STANTON

2805 BROWN

2807 BROWN

U

2810 BROWN

2816 BROWN

26 STANTON

16 STANTON

-51”

7 2’ TREAD STEPS

2822 BATCHELDER

2822 BROWN

2832 BATCHELDER

U REA ESE 12 M URT CO

40 LOSEE TERRACE

2775 BROWN STREET

2784 BROWN STREET

2775 BROWN STREET

.15'' 6

2786 BROWN STREET

2789 BROWN STREET

18 STANTON ROAD

)700+5

38 GUNNISO COURT N

N

Drawing: Stanton Overview

37 GUNNISO COURT

´

(GGV

N

SHEEPSHEAD Stanton Court Brooklyn, New York

46

10 %17

36 GUNNISO COURT

GANS studio 481 Van Brunt 9B Brooklyn, New York 11231 781-237-3034 info@gans-studio.net

2822 BROWN STREET

2821 BROWN STREET

2816 BATCHELDER STREET

25 STANTON ROAD

15 STANTON ROAD

N

2818 BROWN STREET

2814 BATCHELDER STREET

26 STANTON ROAD

16 STANTON ROAD

35 GUNNISO COURT

2819 BROWN STREET

2810 BATCHELDER STREET

27 STANTON ROAD

17 STANTON ROAD

2816 BROWN STREET

2808 BATCHELDER STREET

28 STANTON ROAD

2822 BATCHELDER STREET

2828 BATCHELDER STREET

2803 BATCHELDER STREET

2811 BATCHELDER STREET

2813 BATCHELDER STREET 2821 2827 2823 2817 HELDER BATCHELDER HELDER BATC BATCHELDER STREET BATC STREET STREET STREET

BROWN STREET 2813 BROWN STREET

2845 HARING STREET

29 STANTON ROAD

''6

2811 BROWN STREET

2804 BATCHELDER STREET

4 &'4 56

2807 BROWN STREET

2810 BROWN STREET

0 41#&

2805 BROWN STREET

6

2802 BROWN STREET

2802 BATCHELDER STREET

30 STANTON ROAD

STREET

2799 BATCHELDER STREET

2798 BATCHELDER STREET

31 STANTON ROAD

19 STANTON 2831 ROAD BATCHELDER

2803 BROWN STREET

564''

2800 BROWN STREET

20 STANTON ROAD

2801 BROWN STREET

2797 BATCHELDER STREET

2796 BATCHELDER STREET

. $#6%*'

2797 BROWN STREET

$4190

2798 BROWN STREET

21 STANTON ROAD

2793 BATCHELDER STREET

2792 BATCHELDER STREET

32 STANTON ROAD

56#061

' ' 2.#%

2791 BATCHELDER STREET

2790 BATCHELDER STREET

33 STANTON ROAD

22 STANTON ROAD

2793 BROWN STREET

2790 BROWN STREET

'

34 STANTON ROAD

23 STANTON ROAD

2787 BATCHELDER STREET

2784 BATCHELDER STREET

42 LOSEE TERRACE

'44#%

24 STANTON ROAD

2785 BROWN STREET

2788 BROWN STREET

2841 HARING STREET

-48” FROM SIDEWALK

36 GUNNISON BROWN 38 GUNNISON 35 GUNNISON 37 GUNNISON 2828 2821 BATCHELDER BROWN

2818 BROWN

&700

2814 BATCHELDER

-50”

-51”

-15” -43”2819

B

2816 BATCHELDER 25 STANTON

15 STANTON

2813 BROWN

B

2810 BATCHELDER 27 STANTON

17 STANTON

2811 BROWN

BROWN

2829 HARING STREET

BA

2792 BATCHELDER 33 STANTON 23 STANTON 2796 2789 BATCHELDER BROWN 22 STANTON 32 STANTON 2798 2793 BATCHELDER BROWN 31 STANTON 2797 21 STANTON 2802 BROWN BATCHELDER 30 STANTON 20 STANTON 2801 2804 BROWN BATCHELDER 29 STANTON 19 STANTON 2803 2808 BROWN 28 STANTON BATCHELDER

N

STANTON + GUNNISON Courts

2790 34 STANTON BATCHELDER

2827 BROWN STREET Source:

Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community and DCP PLUTO

A00

Scale: Varies Preliminary Drawings November 4, 2013

SECTION ELEVATION NORTH FACING

1/8" = 1'

NOTES LOCATED SEVEN FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL, STANTON COURT HOUSES A SERIES OF EARLY 20TH CENTURY BUNGALOWS, DESIGNED AS BEACH HOMES AND FAMILY GET AWAYS. STANTON COURT WAS DEVESTADED AFTER HURRICANE SANDY, ONCE A LIVELY NEIGHBORHOOD, IT IS NOW DESOLATE AND BEING ABANDONED AS MORE TIME PASSES AND NOTHING GETS RESOLVED. WE ARE PROPOSING TO REBUILD THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE RESIDENTS AND THEIR HOMES WILL NO LONGER BE AT RISK DURING A FLOOD OR LARGE STORM. RAISING THE HOMES WILL ALSO ALLOW FOR THE COURT ITSELF TO BE RAISED TO THE LEVEL OF THE STREET, RECONNECTING IT BOTH FOR PEDESTRIANS, AND TO THE COMBINED SEWAGE SYSTEM.

CROSS SECTION NORTH FACING

1/8" = 1'

SECTION ELEVATION SOUTH FACING

1/8" = 1'

LONG SECTION WEST FACING

1/8" = 1'

25'10"

ROOF HEIGHT

15'0" DFE

MEWS IS 36" BELLOW BROWN STREET & 51" BELOW BATCHELDER STREET AT GUNNISON COURT

MEWS IS 41" BELLOW BROWN STREET & 61" BELOW BATCHELDER STREET AT LOSEE TERRACE

11'0" STREET

7'0" MEWS

0'0"

SEA LEVEL

GANS studio 481 Van Brunt 9B Brooklyn, New York 11231 781-237-3034 info@gans-studio.net

SHEEPSHEAD Stanton Court Brooklyn, New York

Drawing: Existing Conditions

A01

Scale: Varies Preliminary Drawings November 4, 2013

CROSS SECTION SINGLE UNIT

3/16" = 1'

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

35'3"

ROOF HEIGHT

CROSS SECTION SEMI-ATTACHED

3/16" = 1'

NOTES THIS SCHEME PROPOSES THAT THE SPACE BETWEEN HOMES ALONG THE LOT LINES BE USED AS A MEANS OF EGRESS, LEADING TO AN ENTRY DECK WHICH SINGLE UNIT MODELS WOULD SHARE WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS. IN THE CASE OF SEMI ATTACHED UNITS, THEY SHARE ENTRY STAIRS AND DECK WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS, NOT THEIR ATTACHED TWIN. THE SEMI ATTACHED UNITS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FO A SHARED GARDEN SPACE AT ORIGINAL GRADE. THESE DECKS CREATE A CONTINUOUS BOARDWALK CONDITION AT THE LEVEL OF THE INTERIOR FINISHED FLOOR, WITH THE POTENTIAL OF ADDING CONNECTING BRIDGES.

16'10" DECK

15'0"

ENTRY TO THE CELLAR IS PROVIDED IN THE LIVING ROOM, WITH A HATCH AND LADDER. THERE IS ALSO OPPORTUNITY FOR GARBAGE AND LAUNDRY SHUTES TO MAKE VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS AND WASTE MORE CONVENIENT.

16'10" DECK

DFE

11'6"

CELLAR IS ENCLOSED BY CMU WALLS SUPPORTED BY PILES WHICH ALSO SUPPORT THE EXISTING RAISE HOME. THE CELLAR WOULD BE WATERPROOFED.

STORAGE / UTILITY

11'6"

TOP OF SLAB

STORAGE / UTILITY

STORAGE / UTILITY

TOP OF SLAB

7'10"

7'10"

0'6"

0'6"

SLAB ON GRADE

SLAB ON GRADE

ORIGINAL COURT

ORIGINAL COURT

0'0"

SEA LEVEL

CELLAR PLAN SINGLE UNIT

MAIN FLOOR PLAN

3/16" = 1'

SINGLE UNIT

LADDER TO ABOVE

CELLAR PLAN

3/16" = 1'

SEMI-ATTACHED

3/16" = 1'

OPPORTUNITY FOR A SHARED BACKYARD

STORAGE

LADDER TO ABOVE

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

STORAGE

LADDER TO ABOVE

STORAGE

UTILITY

UTILITY

UTILITY

LONG SECTION WEST FACING

1/8" = 1'

32'9"

ROOF HEIGHT

15'0" DFE

MEWS IS 10" ABOVE BROWN STREET & 3" BELOW BATCHELDER STREET AT GUNNISON COURT

MEWS IS 7" ABOVE BROWN STREET & 1O" BELOW BATCHELDER STREET AT LOSEE TERRACE

11'0" MEWS

7'10"

SLAB ON GRADE

SHEEPSHEAD Stanton Court Brooklyn, New York

Drawing: Side Entry With Boardwalk

A02

Scale: Varies PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

GANS studio 481 Van Brunt 9B Brooklyn, New York 11231 781-237-3034 info@gans-studio.net

Preliminary Drawings November 4, 2013

CROSS SECTION

NOTES

RELATIVE TO STREET 1/8" = 1'

THIS SCHEME IS MINIMALY INVASIVE, PROPOSING THAT THE EXISTING BUNGALOWS BE RAISED AND INDIVIDUAL STAIRS WOULD CREATE A STOOP-LIKE CONDITION LEADING TO EACH EXISTING DOOR. FOR ATTACHED UNITS, THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR SHARED STOOP AREAS, AS SHOWN IN THE MAIN FLOOR PLAN. ENTRY TO THE CELLAR IS PROVIDED IN THE LIVING ROOM, WITH A HATCH AND LADDER. THERE IS ALSO OPPORTUNITY FOR GARBAGE AND LAUNDRY SHOOTS TO MAKE VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS AND WASTE MORE CONVENIENT. CELLAR IS ENCLOSED BY CMU WALLS SUPPORTED BY PILES WHICH ALSO SUPPORT THE EXISTING RAISE HOME. THECELLAR WOULD BE WATERPROOFED.

15'0" DFE

11'4"

11'0"

BATCHELDER STREET

BROWN STREET

7'0"

STANTON EXISTING

0'0"

SEA LEVEL

CELLAR PLAN SINGLE UNIT

MAIN FLOOR PLAN

3/16" = 1'

SINGLE UNIT

LADDER TO ABOVE

MAIN FLOOR PLAN

3/16" = 1'

SEMI-ATTACHED

3/16" = 1'

STORAGE

UTILITY

DECK @ 17'2"

LONG SECTION WEST FACING

SLAB @ 11'10"

SHARED DECK @ 17'2"

SLAB @ 11'10"

1/8" = 1'

32'9"

ROOF HEIGHT

15'0" DFE

11'0"

MEWS IS 10" ABOVE BROWN STREET & 3" BELOW BATCHELDER STREET AT GUNNISON COURT

MEWS IS 7" ABOVE BROWN STREET & 1O" BELOW BATCHELDER STREET AT LOSEE TERRACE

MEWS

7'10"

SLAB ON GRADE

GANS studio 481 Van Brunt 9B Brooklyn, New York 11231 781-237-3034 info@gans-studio.net

SHEEPSHEAD Stanton Court Brooklyn, New York

Drawing: Individual Stoops

A03

Scale: Varies Preliminary Drawings November 4, 2013

NOTES THIS SCHEME IS CALLS FOR THE LIFTING OF THE EXISTING HOME 17 FEET CREATING AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL ABOVE THE DESIGNED FLOOD ELEVATION (DFE). THE CELLAR LEVEL WOULD THEN BE FILLED IN WITH GRAVEL AND USED FOR PIPING AS WELL AS DRAINAGE. THE FOYER LEVEL WOULD INCLUDE A HALF BATH, UTILITY ROOM, AND STORAGE, AS WELL AS BRINGING THE KITCHEN AND DINING TO THIS LEVEL, MAKING THE SECOND ORIGINAL STORY MORE PRIVATE. THIS WOULD ALLOW THE TENNANT TO HAVE A THIRD BEDROOM AND A MORE BREATHABLE AS WELL AS FLOOD-SAFE HOME. THIS SPECIFIC SCHEME LOCATES THE ENTRY STAIRS AS A FRONT STOOP, BUT COULD FUNCTION WITH EITHER OF THE PROPOSED SCENARIOS.

CROSS SECTION SINGLE UNIT

45'2"

MAIN FLOOR PLAN

ROOF HEIGHT

3/16" = 1'

SINGLE UNIT

2ND FLOOR PLAN

3/16" = 1'

SEMI-ATTACHED

3/16" = 1'

27'2"

FIN. FLOOR

17'2" DECK

15'0" DFE

7'0"

STANTON EXISTING

DECK @ 17'2"

0'0"

SEA LEVEL

SLAB @ 11'10"

LONG SECTION WEST FACING

1/8" = 1'

MEWS IS 10" ABOVE BROWN STREET & 3" BELOW BATCHELDER STREET AT GUNNISON COURT

GANS studio 481 Van Brunt 9B Brooklyn, New York 11231 781-237-3034 info@gans-studio.net

SHEEPSHEAD Stanton Court Brooklyn, New York

MEWS IS 7" ABOVE BROWN STREET & 1O" BELOW BATCHELDER STREET AT LOSEE TERRACE

Drawing: Adding a Story

A04

Scale: Varies Preliminary Drawings November 4, 2013

WEBERS COURT

12 Webers 13 Webers 14 Webers

7 Webers

15 Webers

8 Webers 9 Webers

10 Webers

GANS studio 481 Van Brunt 9B Brooklyn, New York 11231 781-237-3034 info@gans-studio.net

SHEEPSHEAD Weber Court Brooklyn, New York

Drawing: Weber Overview

16 Webers 17 Webers 18 Webers

A00

Scale: Varies Preliminary Drawings November 4, 2013

CROSS SECTION SOUTH FACING

1/4" = 1'

28'0"

ROOF HEIGHT

15'0" DFE

PARKING

STORAGE

WEBBERS COURT

5'0"

STREET

2'0"

COURT AT GRADE

0'0"

SEA LEVEL

LONG SECTION WEST FACING

1/8" = 1'

NOTES WEBBERS COURT IS THE SMALLEST OF THE SHEEPSHEAD COURTS, AS WELL AS BEING THE CLOSEST TO THE BAY. THE COURT IS ONLY TWO FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL, MEANING WHEN THERE IS A HIGH TIDE, WATER BEGINS TO MOVE UP TOWARDS THE STREET.

15'0"

NOT ONLY WOULD THE HOMES HAVE TO BE RAISED, BUT ONE COULD CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF RE INVENTING THE BULK HEAD, WHERE THE DOCK MEETS THE BAY WHICH IS NOW IN DISARAY AND WILL NOT LAST MANY MORE STORMS.

DFE

2'8"

HIGH TIDE

0'0"

SEA LEVEL

GANS studio 481 Van Brunt 9B Brooklyn, New York 11231 781-237-3034 info@gans-studio.net

SHEEPSHEAD Webers Court Brooklyn, New York

Drawing: Existing Site Sections

A01

Scale: Varies Preliminary Drawings November 4, 2013

CROSS SECTION SOUTH FACING

1/4" = 1'

26'6"

FIN. FLOOR

15'0" DFE

5'0"

STREET

2'0"

COURT AT GRADE

0'0"

SEA LEVEL

LONG SECTION WEST FACING

1/8" = 1'

40'1"

ROOF HEIGHT

NOTES 26'6"

RAISING THE COURT TO THE STREET LEVEL WOULD LINK IT BACK TO THE CITY GRID, AS WELL AS ALLOW SEWAGE AND UTILITIES TO ENTER UNDERGROUND. CURRENTLY, THERE IS A TANGLE OF WIRES ABOVE THE COURT, MADE DANGEROUS AFTER HURRICANE SANDY.

FIN. FLOOR

EACH HOME WOULD REQUIRE A STAIRCASE TO THEIR ENTRY WAYS, WHICH IS A DISADVANTAGE OF THIS SCHEME.

15'0" DFE

2'8"

HIGH TIDE

0'0"

SEA LEVEL

GANS studio 481 Van Brunt 9B Brooklyn, New York 11231 781-237-3034 info@gans-studio.net

SHEEPSHEAD Webers Court Brooklyn, New York

Drawing: Court Raised to Street

A02

Scale: Varies Preliminary Drawings Novemeber 4, 2013

CROSS SECTION SOUTH FACING

1/4" = 1'

26'6"

FIN. FLOOR

15'0" DFE

10'0" COURT

5'0"

STREET

2'0"

COURT AT GRADE

0'0"

SEA LEVEL

LONG SECTION WEST FACING

1/8" = 1'

NOTES IN THIS SCHEME, THE COURT IS RAISED TO FIVE FEET ABOVE THE STREET, MIRRORING THE WAY ONE CURRENTLY ENTERS THE COURT WITH A RAMP AND STAIRS GOING DOWN. THIS ALLOWS FOR LESS OF A CLIMB TO INDIVIDUAL UNITS AND A MORE NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL AT COURT LEVEL. THE COURT TERRACES DOWN TO THE DOCK, ALLOWING FOR THE POSSIBILTY OF SOME SORT OF ECOSYSTEM OR STORM SURGE BARRIER.

15'0" DFE

6'0" DOCK

2'8"

HIGH TIDE

0'0"

SEA LEVEL

GANS studio 481 Van Brunt 9B Brooklyn, New York 11231 781-237-3034 info@gans-studio.net

SHEEPSHEAD Webers Court Brooklyn, New York

Drawing: Court Raised 5' Above Street

A03

Scale: Varies Preliminary Drawings November 4, 2013

Appendix D1: A typical estuarine system (looking strikingly similar to Jamaica Bay, undeveloped, from the Southwest), and estuarine food web. (Source: John W. Day et al., Estuarine Ecology)

Wild Urban Coastlines Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013 | Pratt PSPD | 7

Appendix D2: Hudson-Raritan Detailed Coastal Species Chart. (Source: WXY/West 8, Rebuild

By Design U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Competition)

Wild Urban Coastlines Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013 | Pratt PSPD | 76

Wild Urban Coastlines Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013 | Pratt PSPD | 77

Wild Urban Coastlines Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013 | Pratt PSPD | 78

Appendix E: Historic Plans to fill Jamaica Bay marshlands

“The 1907 Ford Report proposed rationalizing New York’s marshy and unproductive Jamaica Bay into two large islands ringed by piers. We have since learned the value of wetlands.”

(Source: Maly, Tim. “A City Built on Dredge.” Urban Omnibus, December 12, 2012. http://urbanomnibus.net/2012/12/a-city-built-on-dredge/.)

Wild Urban Coastlines Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013 | Pratt PSPD | 79

(Source: Map from the October 22, 1930 Times article “Pushes Port Plans for Jamaica Bay” (sic) showing the proposed railroads on both sides of Paerdegat Basin. Copyright © The New York Times)

Wild Urban Coastlines Roz Palmer, Dec. 2013 | Pratt PSPD | 80