Manual of Inversion

The ExxonMobil

Manual of Inversion

Sara Brown & Sayjel Patel

CONTENTS

PROLOGUE

Ways of Working

Why a Manual?

Ghosts on the Ground Assessment

City Flows

Over Time and Space

Site Flows:

Past / Present

Visible / Invisible

Water / Oil CONCEPTUALIZATION

Three Operations Damming Channeling Osmosis

Activity Flows

Three Sketches REALIZATION

Spatial Vision Modular Parcelization Infrastructural Walls

Program Vision: Human and Environmental Health

Human Health Ecosystem Rationale

Mobile Health Center Health-Care Start-Ups Data Centers

Environmental Health Ecosystem Rationale Remediation Landscapes

4 / 111

PROLOGUE

6 / 111

WAYS OF WORKING

What happens when metaphor meets reality, or the poetics of design meet ground truth?

What happens when a studio confronts a site and city that is unique, but also representative of other (brownfields) sites and (shrinking) cities across United States?

What happens when a conceptual architect and an analytic planner collaborate?

The Baltimore: Inversions studio (Spring 2013) investigated these questions in the context of a decomissioned Exxon-Mobil refinery and tank farm in Canton, Baltimore, Maryland. The site covers 130 acres, adjacent to the Inner Harbor to the west, mixed-use development, to the northwest, and industrial land to the south and east.

prologue

WHY A MANUAL?

Like any text or cultural artifact, a manual is not neutral, but carries with it a distinct set of implications.

First of these is the idea that a system, operation, or process can be replicated. In this manual, we present a spatial and programmatic solution for a particular brownfield site, but we believe that there are elements that effectively can be brought to other sites.

Second is the notion that a manual is a means of coming to terms with complexity. It seeks to render something in terms of its essentials: what is necessary to know for success. Brownfields are complex, and they tend to attract additional complexity. A brief survey of the highly technical language of brownfield reports, -- “light non-acqueous phase liquid,” “site stratigraphic and hydrogeologic conditions,” “contaminant mobility and recoverability,” -- makes this apparent, and this is just the language of remediation/environmental engineering. Environmental lawyers, real estate investors, and designers have their own lexicon. Wherever possible, we have attempted to simplify, without compromising accuracy or precision.

Finally, manuals tend to communicate both verbally and graphically. We,

too, have sought to use all the tools at our disposal, relying on essays, infographics, diagrams, sections, and axometric drawings, among others, to present a vision for the site with resolution at multiple scales.

This manual, which crystallizes our own thinking over the ten weeks of this studio, is intended not to be prescriptive, but provocative.

Through our work on the studio site, we have tried to give a sense of what must be considered when approaching similar sites, and provide a system for thinking through options, as well as generating additional ones.

We intend that this manual be used as a reference, not a comprehensive resource. For those who wish to pursue the construction of stormwater wetlands, for example, we have included references in the back.

The word “manual” comes from the Latin word for “hand,” with the implication being that a manual is a guide to something that one operates with their hands. It is an important reminder that this manual is best deployed in combination with on-theground site experience. In pursuit of clarity, we have moved towards abstraction, but we recognize, and derive inspiration from, the messy realities of brownfields, and our site in particular.

8 / 111

GHOSTS ON THE GROUND

From above and ground level, the site for this studio, a former Exxon-Mobil refinery and tank farm, is simultaneously a blank landscape and one inscribed with meaning.

Aerial photography of the site reveals traces of old tanks, once arranged in rows, but now removed, their footprints filled with shallow pools of water. There are large expanses of asphalt and concrete, some intact and some broken up and stored in piles. The land is torn up in sections, where excavation has been performed. To the east, along the water, there is the hard edge of shipping infrastructure, once used to support oil brought in by tanker.

Lifting away the top layer of the landscape presents another set of traces. The first four to eight feet of the site are fill, a heterogenous assortment of gravel, sand, silt; brick, asphalt, and glass fragments; and pieces of old railroad ties. A huge oil pipeline (the Colonial Pipeline) juts through the site, joined by a network of smaller sewer and water pipes. There is a brick tunnel containing a channelized stream (Janney’s Run), which drains to the southeast. Visible through the presence of staining and pools of underground oil is the petroleum contamination that infiltrates the soil and water, another topography laid over the contours of the site’s hydrogeology.

Experiencing the site at ground level, another set of signs becomes apparent. The southeast parcel consists of a seemingly wild field, overgrown with grasses and scattered with mounds of dirt: an urban savanna.

The northwest parcel, largely stripped to the bare ground, is bisected with piping.

The southwest parcel contains a Grecianinfluenced brick building, a strange mix of the decorative and functional. Everywhere, there is chain-link fencing, barring access to individual parcels, and also suggesting that there is some sort of activity taking

place that merits securitization. In addition, the site is framed, bounded, and cut by infrastructure, - railway and road, which seems to situate it as the location of important flows of goods or people.

Confronting the site, whether from above or ground level, elicits a sense of unease and charged expectation. It is evident that the site possesses an order, or spatial logic, that governs the arrangement of the (nowremoved) tanks, piping, and infrastructure.

However, to the observer, this order is not immediately comprehensible. In other words, there is a sense that important things have happened, or are happening, here, but it is not clear what they are. Why else build, and then demolish, the large tanks? Why leave this terrain, right at the edge of the city and near the water, undeveloped? Why invest in infrastructure to serve this area?

Part of the obscurity stems from deliberate decisions by the site’s owner. To protect residents, reduce liability, and avoid negative public response, Exxon Mobil has kept the site closed for a long time. It also has taken down structures that delineate the site’s function, in an attempt to move it closer to blankness. Another part of the obscurity is geographic. The site lies in a liminal zone, between (public) residential and commercial development to the north and (private) industry to the southeast.

A final component of it is a larger social disconnect from brownfields. Unless working in them, most Americans have a limited knowledge of productive landscapes, shaped by a small number of images distributed by the media: grime-covered men interacting with heavy equipment, as in old steel or auto plants, or masked, hatted workers laboring in modern “clean-tech” factories. In regard to brownfields, this lack of knowledge is compounded by fear of contamination. Fences, locked gates, “Danger!” or “Warning!” signs, and a rich cultural lexicon of stories about

prologue

dangers to human and environmental health discourage involvement with these sites.

In Powers of Horror, the French psychoanalytic critic, Julia Kristeva, describes the concept of the “abject.”

According to Kristeva, the abject is that which exists outside of the symbolic order.

Often associated with filth, waste, and death, the abject is defined not by a “lack of cleanliness or health, but [by] what disturbs identity, system, order. What does not respect boundaries, positions, rules. The in-between, the ambiguous, the composite.”

It is the part of the self that is cast away to continue living, and as such, breaks down the distinction between subject and object, and threatens coherent meaning and identity.

As Kristeva states, “If the object... through its opposition, settles me within the fragile texture of a desire for meaning, what is abject, on the contrary, the jettisoned object, is radically excluded and draws me to the place where meaning collapses.

And yet, from its place of banishment, the abject does not cease challenging its master.

Without a sign (for him), it beseeches a discharge, a convulsion, a crying out” (12). As a reminder of what people would prefer to forget, the abject is traumatic to face. Both familiar and foreign, it evokes “uncanniness.”

The feelings associated with abjection, -fascination, curiosity, but also unease, -- are not dissimilar from those aroused by the site. From one perspective, brownfields contain elements of the abject. Often allowed to revert back to a semi-wild state once they are removed from production, as has occurred with this site, they challenge the nature/ human divide. They also are often associated with activities about which people might prefer not to know, such as the improper disposal of contaminants. In Powers of Horror, Kristeva draws a distinction between knowledge of death as a concept, which can

be part of the symbolic order, and the experience of coming face-to-face with the materiality of death, a body, which is deeply grounded in the abject. Similarly, brownfields physically manifest contamination, in a way that stacks of EPA reports cannot. Even if there is no odor, no petroleum-stained or -saturated soil, the fencing around and the remediation piping across an otherwise unoccupied landscape trigger the sensation that something is amiss.

In her essay, Kristeva contends that a driving force in art is a desire to purify the abject. As she says, “The artistic experience... is rooted in the abject it utters and by the same token purifies” (18).

Speaking about literature, she claims that some of the most powerful work comes from immersion in the abject. Poetry, in particularly, is suited to this because it experiments with grammar, metaphor, and meaning, stretching language, and thus revealing its gaps, contradictions, failures, and insufficiencies (38). This manual considers Kristeva’s arguments through the “poetics” of design. It takes on the opportunity, and challenge, to reveal the site’s meaning, render it more ‘legible,’ and reproduce it at a human scale, without sacrificing the jouissance of uncertainty.

10 / 111

100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000

1900

1910

1920

BALTIMORE CITY POPULATION

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

ASSESSMENT

12 / 111

CITY FLOWS: OVER TIME AND SPACE

Baltimore is a city of flows, over time and space.

The Town of Baltimore was established in 1729, 23 years after the Port was founded for the tobacco trade. Over the next two centuries, Baltimore rose to prominence as a major seaport and manufacturing center. Its primary industries included steel and auto production, transportation, and shipping.

Starting in the 1950s, with deindustrialization and the flight to the suburbs, Baltimore experienced massive population loss. It became a prototypical ‘shrinking city,’ a ‘hole’ in the otherwise prosperous greater Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area. The city shifted from a production- to a serviceoriented economy.

Today, 90 percent of Baltimore jobs are in the service sector. The city is struggling to define its identity and determine its priorities. The city’s core is shifting outward from the Inner Harbor, to Canton in the southeast and Locust Point in the southwest. Our site exists right on this divide, with mixeduse retail/residential (Fells Point and Brewers’ Hill) to the northwest and industrial (Seagirt and Dundalk Marine Terminals) to the southeast.

assessment

LAND USE 1957

LAND USE 2010

14 / 111

SITE FLOWS

A microcosm of the city as a whole, our site exists at the intersection of many flows. From above, it is cut dramatically by infrastructure (rail and highway), and littered with impervious surfaces that produce sheets of runoff. At and below ground level, it is the location of complex flows of water, also complicated by petroleum contamination.

PAST / PRESENT FLOWS PAST

PRESENT:

• Water (Cretaceous-age freshwater delta)

• Stormwater

• Soil (4-8 ft. of fill)

• Contaminated soil and water (remediation)

• Variety of goods to firms that no longer exist

• Transportation (road, rail, shipping)

Charcoal ironworks Copper-smelting plant Cotton mill Distillery Shipyards Small oil refineries Canner’s Row: Chesapeake Bay oysters Eastern Shore vegetables Bahamas pineapples

• Coal

assessment

16 / 111

assessment

BALTIMORE’S WATER LANDSCAPE Baltimore occupies an area of 92 miles, 13 of which are water-covered.

The city lies within 2 major watersheds: the Patapsco River Basin and the Back River Basin. The two river basins, which extend beyond the city, have a total drainage area of 673 square miles.

BALTIMORE’S WATER SYSTEM Baltimore’s Bureau of Water & Wastewater operates 3 reservoirs and 3 wastewater treatment plants.

It delivers 265 million gallons of drinking water to Baltimore City and surrounding counties daily.

2 ft. contours Hurricane innudation zone Sewer lines

18 / 100

conceptualization

20 / 111

WATER AND OIL

Both past and present, visible and invisible, water and oil flows have defined the site.

OIL ON THE SITE

By 1983 103,200 gallons recovered By mid-2001 1,250,000 gallons recovered By 2008 3,500,000 gallons recovered

1985: Removal of bulk storage tanks started 1979: Observed oil seepage from ground

1977: Facility connected to Colonial Pipeline (previously received product via ship)

1865

1890

1915

1940

1965

1990

REFINERY PETROLEUM STORAGE

2015

assessment

WATER ON THE SITE

PARCEL

HORIZONTAL

VERTICAL Precipitation Evapotrans.

Remediation (Dual vacuum)

Surface Runoff

Stormwater Pipes Water Table

Water Table

SITE SURFACE & SUBSURFACE

Hidden Stream

CSO (Harbor)

TYPE OF WATER FLOWS Concentrated

Pounding SW Pipes Hidden Stream

Obstructed

Rising Storm Surge

Sinking

Seeping Sewers

Sea Level

Flooding Contamination

Aquifer

22 / 111

SUBSURFACE FLOWS (OIL AND WATER)

The site has complex hydrogeology: 2 hydrology layers: Groundwater table Patuxent aquifer 3 geology layers: Pleistocene layer Arundel formation Patuxent formation

[1] Pleistocene deposits Sand, silt, clay

25

[2] Groundwater table

20 10

45

[3] Arundel formation Silt with sand and clay lenses

[4] Patuxent formation Sand and silty sand

Patuxent aquifer contaminated with LNAPL (light non-acqueous phase liquid)

assessment

[A]

OSMOSIS

CHANNELING

DAMMING

CONCEPTUALIZATION

26 / 111

THREE SITE OPERATIONS

To grapple with the scale and complexity of the site, as well as the fluidity of the programs permitted (any use but residential), we turned to metaphor to conceptualize our project.

Inspired both by the multiplicity and dysfunctionality of flows that occur onsite, we used ‘flows’ as a metaphor to approach the site programmatically and spatially.

We conceptualized three operations related to flows: • Damming • Channeling • Osmosis

DAMMING Active Episodic (on/off) Maintenance of difference Brittleness CHANNELING: Active and passive Continuous Overcoming and maintenance of difference OSMOSIS: Passive Overcoming of difference Resilience

We then considered the distinctive characteristics of each of these operations,as well as how they interact with and oppose each other.

CONCEPTUALIZED OPERATIONS

Passive

Continuous

Active

Episodic On/off

Overcoming of Difference

Resilience

Maintenance of Difference

Brittleness

method

28 / 111

ACTIVITY FLOWS

We then examined how possible programs fit with each of these operations.

and planning best practices.

We did so by mapping “flows” of activity intensity for each of these programs, and then comparing them to the essential characteristics of each of the conceptualized operations.

At the same, we also assessed how these programs fit with Baltimore’s needs.

We identified these needs through a review of local newspaper coverage

PROGRAMS DC - Data center MHC - Mobile health centers NM - Night market NPC - Nonprofit center OM - Open manufacturing P - Plaza PA - Parking W - Wetlands R - Remediation SC - Sustainability center Stream TLC - Trans. logistics center

HOW PROGRAMS FIT WITH BALTIMORE’S NEEDS DAMMING Economic Growth Preserves Industrial Model for Other Brownfields

CHANNELING Social Connectivity Basic Services Now

OSMOSIS Ecology Unique Site Conditions Future Investment

Promotes Social Connectivity NM P NPC Supports Economic Growth TLC OM DC MHC Restores Ecology W SC R

Preserves Industrial Use OM TLC MHC DC

BALTIMORE’S NEEDS

Responds to Unique Site Conditions Stream W TLC SC Model for Other Brownfield Sites NM MHC R

Future-Focused Investment TLC

W

SC

Basic Services Now PA

NPC

MHC

P

method

ACTIVITY FLOWS FOR THREE OPERATIONS

Train

Open Areas of Site: Mobile Healthcare Center Parking

Data Storage Center Closed Areas of Remediation Site

3 am

6 am

9 am

12 pm

3 pm

6 pm

9 pm

12 am

Train

Flex Open Workshops Consolidated Nonprofit Center

Night Market

Pedestrian Activity (Along Daylighted Stream)

3 am

6 am

9 am

12 pm

3 pm

6 pm

9 pm

12 am

Train

Plaza

Sustainability Center Research and Teaching Transportation Logistics Center Constructed Wetlands (Stormwater Management) 3 am

6 am

9 am

12 pm

3 pm

6 pm

9 pm

12 am

30 / 111

OPERATION 1: DAMMING Key feature: Parcelize at scale of existing residential block, and then turn units “on and off”

32 / 111

OPERATION 2: CHANNELING Key feature: Concentrate and drive movement through two major corridors

34 / 111

OPERATION 3: OSMOSIS Key feature: Establish two poles, and then a permeable space through which these conditions of difference can be reconciled

SPATIALIZING THE PROGRAMS ONSITE: THREE PARTIS

Information

Information

Cars

Contaminated Soil & Water

Technology JHU Expertise

DATA STORAGE

DATA STORAGE

PARKING

REMEDIATION

MOBILE HEALTH CENTERS

Clean Soil & Water

Healthcare for Baltimore

Cars

PARKING

REMEDIATION SUSTAINABILITY CENTER

PLAZA

CONSTRUCTED WETLAND

TRANSPORTATION LOGISTICS CENTER

Transformation over time Coordinating Transp.

Crossing

TRANS. LOGS. Reinventing CENTER Transp.

PLAZA

Gathering

Brownfield Remediation

Hard

SUS. CEN.

Climate Change Adaptation

CONS. WETLANDS

Soft

Stream

Stormwater

DAYLIGHTED STREAM

TRAIN NIGHT MARKET

RECREATIONAL WATERFRONT

OPEN MANUFACT.

CONSOLIDATED NONPROFIT CENTER

Youth

Customers

Health

Retailers Distribution Centers

Financial Education

Sub- & Final Assembly Plants

Workforce Dev.

Component Fabrication Plants Tier 2 Suppliers

Social Services

Tier 1 Suppliers Raw Material Vendors

INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT

REALIZATION

40 / 100

MERGING FLOWS

As we moved from three preliminary sketches to develop a more comprehensive project, we confronted the limitations of our method. To generate the initial spatial and programmatic schemes for our site, we defined three operations related to ‘flows,’ and considered them in isolation.

However, as evidenced by observation of a typical stream, these three operations do not occur alone and apart from each other, but simultaneously and in relationship with each other.

To treat them as detached from each other within the context of our site not only does not reflect the complexity of natural systems, but also enhances the dysfunctionality of the flows onsite.

conceptualization

CONFLUENCE OF THREE OPERATIONS

[1] [2]

[3]

[1] Osmosis - Infiltration into streambed [2] Channeling - Water flows down gradient [3] Damming - Water pools

42 / 100

SPATIAL VISION: MODULAR PARCELIZATION (DAMMING)

Borrowing from the episodic, on/off functioning of dams, in which short release periods are interspersed with long holding periods, we elected to treat the site as a complex of modular parcels. These parcels serve as ‘containers’ (or ‘dams’) for an evolving set of activities. Programs are turned ‘on’ and ‘off’ in response to changing economic, environmental, and social needs. Remediation is a crucial function that is turned ‘on’ early, and determines the activation of the other parcels.

The scale of this particular grid comes from the existing residential grid to the northeast. The size of the intervention is appropriate given that this site hosts flows that exist at a regionwide and citywide scale (water and transportation infrastructure).

This ‘modular parcelization’ approach is designed to be generic. It is intended to provide a spatial solution that is transferable and applicable to other brownfield sites. The ‘on/ off’ grid structure offers a way to come to terms with the scale and complexity of brownfield sites, as well as their fluctuating levels of contamination over time.

In an inversion, spatial rigidity enables programmatic flexibility. The parcelization, articulated by infrastructural walls that bound the par-

cels, provides a literal framework for innovation and facilitates site transformation over time.

conceptualization

44 / 100

REMEDIATION: IMPETUS FOR MODULAR PARCELIZATION

The remediation process drives the parcelization of the site. It is the first program to be turned “on,� and the one that determines the spatial location and timing of other programs.

Remediation is suitable for parcelization because it is a localized activity, especially when it comes to the Lower Zone. Wells are drilled at specific places where LNAPL is recoverable.

While the wells need to be connected to the existing recovery system, there is some flexibility about where to place the above- or below-ground piping.

Remediation has its own spatial logic that is complementary to the structural arrangement of the grid.

conceptualization

[1)

[2)

[3)

[1] Recovery wells [2] Topography [3] Contamination plume contours

Remediation pipelines Recovery wells Grid

46 / 111

prologue

48 / 100

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Surface Pleistocene sediments Water table Arundel formation

conceptualization

50 / 100

INFRASTRUCTURAL WALLS(CHANNELING) Infrastructural walls bound the parcels of the grid. In an inversion of the typical figure-ground diagram, they ‘fill’ the street, yet function as channels for movement. The walls let storm- and wastewater, vehicles, and people move through the site.

They also serve as edges, boundaries, and limits, defining and dividing space.

conceptualization

52 / 100

“RULES OF THE GRID”

Infrastructural walls are rigid concrete walls that provide the basic framework for the grid and transport people and storm-/waste-water. They complement other, more flexible types of “walls.”

I. PURPOSE Use infrastructural walls to mediate the site’s scale and allow people to orient themselves. Enable multiple levels of connectivity: Horizontal (west/east, north/south) Vertical (up/down) Between scale (unit/site/city) II. CIRCULATION PATTERNS Establish separate circulation patterns for people/water and vehicles/ trains. People enjoy being near water, and both are protected from the safety/contamination issues associated with vehicles/trains.

III. QUANTITY Build the minimum number of walls required in order to keep the grid maximally flexible. Focus on doing so for the programs that require walls in order to function: stream and constructed wetlands. Provide enough walls for structure and orientation, but exercise care that the site does not become closed off.

conceptualization

WALL TYPOLOGY TYPE

Infrastructural wall

CONTENTS

People

ELEVATION

Other grid “walls”

Stormwater Wastewater

Follows drainage gradient

PERMEABILITY

FUNCTION

MATERALITY

Vehicles

Trains

At grade

At and above grade

More: Move freely along and across

Less: Separated

2 components: Pathways and viewing platforms (people) Stormwater/wastewater canals

Channels

Ground-level road

Concrete Also: Pathways Building edge

Ground-level or elevated tracks

Also: Earthen berms/beds Industrial rubble or riprap Building edge

MOVING BETWEEN THE WALLS Stairs

Ramp

Gate

Waterfall

54 / 100

WATER FLOWS Water flows in one of two directions (southeast or southwest), following the site’s natural topography. Water moves passively (down the gradient), and from more contaminated to less contaminated. Thia is the inverse of the energy-consuming pumping up of contaminated groundwater on the parcels undergoing remediation.

PEOPLE FLOWS Site enables horizontal and vertical circulation. With the grade changes, views are maximized where possible.

conceptualization

VEHICLE FLOWS

Vehicles move in the most efficient way to access all the parcels. Traffic is districuted across intersections. All road runoff is trapped and treated.

56 / 100

conceptualization

[0] [1] Stormwater flows [2] Cold streamwater used for data center cooling [3] Streamwater aerated before it enters CW Arrows indicate elevation change and direction of water flow Water travels to the southeast and the southwest in line with the site’s topography Infiltration encouraged after water is cleaned by CW

[1]

BOSTON STREET

[3]

Chesapeake Bay

Chesapeake Bay

58 / 100

THREE PROGRAMMATIC OUTCOMES

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS PREDOMINATE

SOCIAL CONCERN

DC

HT

HT

DC

T

HT

DC

HT

DC

T

MHC [P]

TM

CW

CW

TM

CW

CW

TM

CW

CW

TM

CW

CW

CW

SC

SC

SC

SC

SC

SC

SC

CW

SC

DC

HT

DC

HT

DC

HT

DC

MHC [P]

CW

CW

MH [D]

CW

DC

MH [D]

CW

CW

SC

CW

CW

CW

SC

SC

SC

CW

CW

Baltimore takes the lead in environmental sustainability.

Site evolves into a research center and natural reserve.

With federal, state, and no commits to addressing healthc ing equitable, effective c citi

Site evolves into a healthcar nation c

conceptualization

NS PREDOMINATE

ECONOMIC CONCERNS PREDOMINATE

DC

HT

HT

HT

MHC [P]

MHC [P]

MHC [P]

MHC [P]

DC

DC

HT

DC

HT

HT

HT

HT

DC

T

HT

HT

HT

DC

MHC [P]

HT

DC

MH [D]

HT

HT

DC

MH [D]

HT

HT

CW

CW

CW

CW

onprofit support, Baltimore care disparities and providcare as a model for other ies.

re clearinghouse and coordicenter.

CW

CW

CW

CW

SC

SC

MHC [P]

MHC [P]

MH [D]

CW

CW

CW

CW

Healthcare technology start-ups are successful, and form the basis for a new industry in Baltimore.

Site evolves into a technology campus.

60 / 100

PROGRAMMATIC EVOLUTION OVER TIME

Remediation initiated

Some remedia

HT

HT

DC

T

DC

T

MHC [P]

DC

HT

DC

HT

DC

MHC [D] MHC [D]

R

R

R

R

SC

DC

HT

MHC [P]

R

DC

SC

conceptualization

ation complete

Full remediation complete

DC

HT

HT

MHC [P]

MHC [P]

MHC [P]

MHC [P]

DC

HT

HT

DC

HT

HT

DC

MHC [P]

MHC [D] MHC [D]

DC

HT

HT

T

DC

CW

CW

CW

CW

SC

SC

DC

MHC [P]

DC

MHC [D]

MHC [P]

MHC [P]

MHC [D]

CW

CW

CW

CW

MHC [P]

MHC [P]

HT

HT

HT

HT

HT

62 / 100

PROGRAMMATIC VISION: HUMAN & ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH (OSMOSIS)

The inverse of our spatial solution, which is generic, our programmatic solution is highly specific to our site. Having defined the units of the grid as ‘containers,’ we have filled them with activities that respond to Baltimore’s economic, environmental, and social needs and the parcels’ unique hydrogeology.

Influenced by osmosis, we establish two programmatic ‘poles’ on our site: Human and environmental health.

Through the construction of our infrastructural walls, we enable productive flows between these conditions of difference. In the process, both are transformed, with human and environmental health acting to mutually reinforce each other.

conceptualization

THE LINKS BETWEEN HUMAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

HUMAN HEALTH

Diet and food access Exercise opportunity Physical safety Infectious agent exposure Pollutant/chemical exposure Social capital Economic capital

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

Water, sanitation, and hygiene Indoor and outdoor air pollution Climate change Natural and human disasters Infectious disease agents Chemicals, pesticides, wastes

DESIGN INTERVENTIONS: NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENTS Housing quality Land use and transportation patterns Climate change mitigation Resource and ecosystem protection

“The health analysis revealed disparities across Southeast Baltimore communities... and a spatial and statistical relationship between environmentally degraded brownfields areas and at-risk communities...

Communities living in the highest brownfields zone (Zone 3) experienced statistically higher mortality rates due to cancer (27% excess), lung cancer (33% excess), respiratory diseases (39% excess), and the major causes of death (20% excess)” (“Examining Urban Brownfields Through the Public Health ‘Macroscope’”)

64 / 100

HUMAN HEALTH RATIONALE

Just as Baltimore is characterized by extreme disparities of wealth, it also exhibits extreme disparities of health. Both of these have a strong racial component. Non-whites are more likely to be not only poor, but also sick. For example, in a study conducted by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and Equity Matters, Inc., there was a life expectancy difference of as much as 30 years between residents in various neighborhoods (2005-2009). People in the wealthy, white Roland Park neighborhood lived, on average, to 86.3 years, compared to people in

the poor, black Upton/Druid Heights neighborhood (56.7 years).

Despite having state-of-the-art medical facilities affilitated with Johns Hopkins and University of Maryland, Baltimore struggles to deliver care to its most vulnerable populations.

In terms of healthcare, then, the city needs a new way forward. In addition, it is well-positioned to become a leader in developing and testing new models of healthcare delivery because of its concentration of medical expertise.

HHI $75,000+

HHI $15,000-24,999

Black

White

2008 PERCENTAGES

Fair or Poor Health Status

Exposure to Violence

Obesity

Diabetes

High Blood Pressure

Household Asthma (At least 1 HH member)

Food Insecurity

No Health Insurance

Unmet Healthcare Needs

Unmet Mental Healthcare Needs

conceptualization

LIFE EXPECTANCY BY COMMUNITY STATISTICAL AREA, BALTIMORE CITY, 2002-2006

62.5-66.5 years 66.6-69.5 69.8-71.5 71.6-75.6 75.7-82.9

66 / 100

PROGRAMMATIC ECOSYSTEM MHC depot receives supplies by freight rail. Warehouses provides storage and distribution space. Dispatch center coordinates care and responds to emergencies city-wide. HT start-ups nearby use MHC to test their innovations.

[2]

[4]

[1]

conceptualization

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

[6]

Freight rail Boston Street Infrastructural walls MHC supply depot MHC supply warehouse MHC vehicle parking lot MH dispatch (call) center HT start-up building

[5]

[3]

[7)

[8)

Three MH typologies: • Basic medical • Basic dental • Counseling center: Mental health and substance abuse

68 / 100

01. MOBILE HEALTH CENTERS

NEEDS ADDRESSED • Serve five interrelated vulnerable populations • Save money and lives REPRESENT THE FUTURE OF HEALTHCARE TODAY

TOMORROW

Expensive and inefficient

Lower costs, higher quality

Concentrated in large hospital complex

Decentralized, dispersed system of care

Large healthcare disparities

Targeted delivery

PART OF A LARGER NETWORK OF DISPERSED CARE Traditional hospital Retail or drugstore clinics

Mobile health centers PATIENT Tele- or remote medicine

Outpatient clinics

Community health centers

THE GROWING NEED FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS

The Affordable Healthcare Act only increasing need for care from community health centers. MD received $15 million from ACA for this purpose in May 2012.

2010 20m Americans

2015 40m Americans

conceptualization

01. MOBILE HEALTH CENTERS SERVE FIVE INTERRELATED VULNERABLE POPULATIONS UNINSURED OR UNDERINSURED 16.5% of Baltimore City residents

HOMELESS 4,000 people living on street (2011) 500 chronically homeless people: Homeless for 1 yr. or at least 4 homeless episodes in 3 yrs.

EX-OFFENDERS 12,000 people released from MD correctional system each year 2/3 (8,000 people) to Baltimore City 3,000 additional people awaiting trial in jail each month

MENTALLY ILL 16% of homeless reported mental illness (2007)

SUBSTANCE ABUSERS 41% of homeless reported substance abuse (2007)

SAVE MONEY AND LIVES MONEY

Lack of affordable healthcare is a major contributor to homelessness. Baltimore: • Provides housing/services to 25,000+ people • Allocated $4.8 million for homeless services in 2013 • Maintains 1,000+ emergency beds • Each CH person costs taxpayers $40k per year SHORT-CIRCUIT COSTLY SYSTEM

Mobile health centers Preventative and emergency care

Psychiatric facilities Jail ER

LIVES • • • •

75% of homeless have unresolved chronic medical conditions Life expectancy on streets: 42-52 years Homeless 3-4x more like to die than general population Only 1/2 of the people calling Baltimore Substance Abyse Systems are able to access care in the next few ways

70 / 100

02. HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGY STARTUPS

NEEDS ADDRESSED • Baltimore’s commercialization lag: Over the last decade, patents basically flat in Baltimore, vs. 60% rise across nation • Demand for new industry: Healthcare technology/informatics: US market for mHealth is $20 million in US - Potential to export to China and India (McKinsey) Baltimore does not require any more expensive “wet lab” space. It is already well-served in this area by the 2 science parks associated with Johns Hopkins University and University of Maryland. It does, however, need affordable, flexible, modern start-up space. There also are opportunities for good adjacencies with the data centers.

THREE AREAS FOR INNOVATION REMOTE / PORTABLE MEDICINE

Phone doctor (telemedicine) Portable diagnostic tools Mobile field hospitals

GE Vscan Portable ultrasound providing instant images

Remote monitoring devices (Movement, BP, HR) CONSUMER PRODUCTS

Drug ordering and delivery Medication reminders

Voxiva Text4Baby Pregnancy-related SMS reminders

Location/tracking devices Wellness apps

HEALTHCARE INFORMATICS

Data storage and analysis Pattern/problem identification

Currently, 500+ mHealth projects worldwide 40,000+ medical apps available for smartphones and tablets

AthenaHealth Cloud-based record -keeping system

conceptualization

REINVENTING HEALTHCARE THROUGH TECHNOLOGY IN BALTIMORE OLD

NEW

Patient visits ER when very sick

Patient calls caregiver or MHC dispatch as soon as symptoms begin

Doctor performs in-person exam, and does not have access to medical records

Caregiver interviews patient over phone, with access to (digital) MR, remote monitoring device info

Doctor prescribes medicine, hopes patient takes it

Patient gets SMS reminders to take medicine, reports side effects in real time

Patient gets better, possibly returns to unhealthy lifestyle

Caregiver monitors patient remotely, advises on lifestyle choices

Patient has to visit specific location, limited to doctors nearby

Patient can access “hyperlocal� medicine (MHC), plus global medical expertise

72 / 111

03. DATA CENTER

NEEDS ADDRESSED • Reduce healthcare costs: improve efficiency and care quality • Reinvent the data center: More robust and energy-efficient More effective data management and analysis is essential to reinventing healthcare.

THE RISE OF BIG DATA IN HEALTHCARE

Electronic health records Claims and billing Clinical outcomes E-prescribing Referrals

DATA CENTER Standardize and consolidate data

Enable better self-care

Eliminate fraud, abuse, waste Streamline administration and billing

Support research

Provide better-coordinated, evidenced-based care

Pattern recognition Most effective treatments, issues w. side effects

Effective use of “big data” could save $300-400b per year in US healthcare costs, 12-17% of $2.6t total US healthcare spend.

Electronic billing/credentialing alone could save $32 billion per year.

These are “plug and play” systems that come with pre-installed racks of servers, and just need power, water, and a connection to the network to start running.

conceptualization

74 / 100

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RATIONALE

Baltimore faces significant challenges around water.

• AGING INFRASTRUCTURE: Its underground water infrastructure is old, and in need of frequent, expensive repairs.

• STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: The city is under pressure to improve its stormwater management because it is facing not only greater stormwater demands, but also stricter state and federal environmental controls.

• BAY CONTAMINATION: The Chesapeake Bay is deeply contaminated.

• CLIMATE CHANGE: Sea level rise poses a threat to low-lying areas.

INTERCONNECTED FLOWS OF CONTAMINATED WATER

LNAPL-SATURATED WATER Contamination WASTEWATER On-site facilities STORMWATER Site, larger drainage area

CHESAPEAKE BAY

conceptualization

BALTIMORE’S IMPERVIOUS SURFACES According to Baltimore’s Department of Public Works, 45.1% of the city is covered with impervious surfaces, or 23, 373 acres out of 51,790.

One 1-acre parking lot produces almost 16x the runoff volume of a similarly-sized meadow.

76 / 100

INTERCONNECTED FLOWS OF CONTAMINATED WATER POLLUTANTS CARRIED BY STORMWATER INTO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY

Nutrients 20%

Sediment 25%

Metals 11%

BOD 11%

Bacteria Oil 9% Grease 5%

Fertil.

4%

Pestic.

2%

2,147,000 lbs. phosphorus 33,400,000 lbs. nitrogen Deposited via stormwater into the Chesapeake Bay annually

POLLUTANT REDUCTION NECESSARY TO RESTORE CHESAPEAKE BAY TO BALANCE BY 2025

N

46%

P

48%

Sediment

28%

conceptualization

NUTRIENT (N+P) POLLUTION HEALTHY BAY

O2

+

+ O2

+

UNHEALTHY BAY

N+P Well-oxygenated water column

+

+ -

O2

+

+

N+P

+

-

+

N+P Poorly-oxygenated water column High levels of nitrogen and phosphorus support algae (+) growth in the water, blocking sunlight When the algae die, they are broken down by bacteria (-), which consume the oxygen in the water

SEDIMENT POLLUTION

2 effects: Diminished water quality Shoreline erosion 57% of sediment in Chesapeake Bay comes from eroding shorelines 4.7m cubic yards of sediment annually

78 / 100

PROGRAMMATIC ECOSYSTEM CONTAINERIZED DATA CENTER

DAYLIGHTED STREAM

[1]

[2]

[1] Heat exchanger [2] Street with runoff collection drain [3] Water conduit [4] Gross pollutant trap [5] Aeration reservoir [6] Flow regulation device

[3]

[4]

conceptualization

CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

[5]

[6]

Factors that control how much wetlands can clean: Volume of water Flow rate (velocity) Incoming contaminant levels Plants

80 / 100

01. REMEDIATION

UPPER ZONE: [1] Excavate remedial trenches [2] Separate LNAPL and nonLNAPL saturated soil based on visual examination [3] Separate LNAPL and nonLNAPL contaminated water using fractionation tank

LOWER ZONE: [1] Install monitoring wells to determine if LNAPL is present, recoverable [2] Install recovery wells [3] Connect wells to existing recovery system (below- and above- ground steel piping to above-ground recovery tanks) [4] Pump up LNAPL-contaminated water [5] Once all recoverable LNAPL-contaminated water removed, abandon wells

conceptualization

02. DAYLIGHTED STREAM

The daylighted stream is a critical component of the infrastructural wall system. It helps establish the gradient that enables water to move passively across the site.

The daylighted stream performs multiple functions: • It receives storm- and waste- water from upstream impervious surfaces, including huge transportation infrastructure.

• It directs water to the data center for liquid cooling.

• It acts as a reservoir (inflow) for the constructed wetlands.

• It starts the filtration process.

COOLING THE DATA CENTER WITH WASTEWATER Steps: [1] Water broughr in from daylighted stream [2] Water cooled by ambient air [3] Water pumped to data center, run through microchannels attached to server backs [4] Hot water can be returned directly to stream or transferred to heat exchanger that allows it to be used for heating

• Cooling forms 30-40% of total data center power consumption, and direct contact liquid cooling is more efficient than liquid cooling. An effective rack-backed lqiuid cooling system can cut total data center power consumption by 25%.

82 / 100

03. CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

Two purposes for wetlands on site: • Treat stormwater • Treat wastewater Constructed wetlands cost 50-90% less than conventional storm- or waste- water techniques.

TWO BASIC TYPES OF CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS SUBSURFACE FLOW Predominant water flow through permeable substrate (sand and gravel)

SURFACE FLOW Predominant water flow across wetland surface

Higher slopes better for subsurface flows Lower slopes better for surface flows

THE STRUCTURE OF A CONSTRUCTED WETLAND INFLOW Daylighted stream GROSS POLLUTANT TRAP INLET ZONE

FLOW REGULATION STRUCTURE Wetlands remove pollutants in size sequence

Deep Marsh

Gross pollutants

Marsh

Coarse sediments

MACROPHYTE ZONE Shallow Marsh

Fine sediments

Marsh

Soluble pollutants

Deep Marsh Open Water OUTLET ZONE

conceptualization

03. CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS: PHYTOREMEDIATION

The constructed wetlands use macrophytes (aquatic plants) to carry out phytoremediation.

The plants and associated photosynthetic organisms: • Slow down the movement of the water and enable sediment to fall out • Remove nitrogen and phosphorus through direct uptake and convert them into biomass • Improve overall water quality by producing oxygen during phytosynthesis, which cleans the water column It is best to use a combination of plants for maximum effect.

ROOTED: Take up N and P from sediment SUBMERGED AND FLOATING: Take up N and P from water column

Rose mallow

Sea lavendar

10 acre marsh: Extract 70,000+ lb. N + 8,300 lb. P

Salt grass

84 / 100

04. SUSTAINABILITY CENTER

The Sustainability Center responds to the existing brownfields to the south and the long-term threat of climate change in Baltimore.

SHORT-TERM: Brownfield Research Center

LONG-TERM: Climate Change Adaptation Center

WATER

LAND

Flooding

Heat waves

Shoreline erosion

More extreme weather

Wetlands loss

Infectious disease outbreaks

450,000 brownfield fields in the US Estimated 1/2 are petroleum brownfields $2 trillion US land undervalued because of contaminants

Long-term, constructed wetlands could transition to tidal marsh, to soften hard edge, mitigate flooding, and buffer storm surge:

Infiltration Surface runoff

Steps [1] Excavate and/or fill the land to the proper depth (so area is under water at high tide, dry at low tide) [2] Choose plants based on salinity, depth, and duration of tidal flooding

Groundwater flow

Intertidal exchange

Seep Estuary

Ocean

conceptualization

86 / 100

conceptualization

88 / 100

conceptualization

90 / 100

conceptualization

92 / 100

conceptualization

94 / 111

EVOLUTION

TIDAL INFLUENCE LIMIT euhaline {marine}

polyhaline {estuary|

mesohaline {estuary}

oligohaline {estuary}

Tidal FW {marsh}

Increasing Salinity

<30

<18

<5

<0.5

average annual salinity (ppt)

Non-tidal {FW marsh}

96 / 111

98 / 100

THE GENERIC AND SPECIFIC: BROWNFIELDS BEYOND BALTIMORE Through this studio, we have explored design strategies that are suitable for our site, but also transferrable and applicable to other brownfield sites. In the process, we have become convinced that there is an opportunity for design to play a leading role in the treatment of these sites, and unify economic, environmental, and social forces.

While there is no “typical” brownfield, contaminated land is a widespread condition.

Brownfields exist across the United States, not just on the East Coast and in the Midwest, and in suburban and rural areas, as well as newer and older urban areas. Most are former manufacturing or industrial locations (approximately 70%), with the rest comprised of public/military or commercial facilities.

The average size of brownfield parcels varies, with studies reporting median sizes of 4, 5, 8.5, and 10 acres. Evidence suggests that there are many sites under a half acre, although, as evidenced by the studio site, larger parcels also are present (Heberle and Wernstedt). While distinct, the site exhibits three challenges common to brownfields: the issue of scale, as some sites are very large; of relationship to the surrounding urban fabric or landscape, because these sites have often been sealed off for long periods of time; and of evolving conditions over time, due to the remediation process.

Traditionally, two professions, environmental engineering and real estate development, have handled the disposition of brownfield sites. Both have their own standards and customs of practice, including their approach to risk. Responding to the demands of federal and state environmental agencies and private clients often implicated in the contamination, environmental engineers focus on reducing threats to human and environmental health and minimizing liability through successful clean-up. In doing so, they are responding to the 1980 federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA), and related state laws. As Heberle and Wernstedt note, however, “These institutional controls do not so much enhance environmental quality through the elimination or treatment of contamination as they provide protection by limiting exposure to it.” Meanwhile, developers concentrate on identifying sites capable of delivering strong return on investment, as well as managing liability, as a factor that could compromise the latter.

Under both approaches, the site sits fallow until the remediation is complete.

Through design, however, the site can be reconceived as a dynamic field to be activated, rather than a static void on the landscape.

Taking advantage of the geography of remediation, where localized wells are drilled, used to extract contamination, and then abandoned once a certain minimum recovery thresold is reached, the site can be addressed through “modular parcelization.” Under this system, the site is subdivided into units that are turned “on” and “off” as remediation progresses and circumstances change. This system offers a new, more generative paradigm for managing risk. Instead of one massive site, sitting inert for many years and then suddenly switched “on” when the environmental engineers decide the time is right, regardless of market conditions, the site becomes a multiplicity of sites, reflecting different timeframes and needs. This approach is inspired by damming, specifically the way that dams use episodic, controlled releases of water to reduce the total load on the structure, rather than allowing the water to build up for longer periods of time and increasing the chance of failure. Today, it is more critical than ever to think about managing risk in innovative ways, because conditions are only becoming more volatile, as evidenced by the 2008 economic crisis and climate change. In fact, the studio site was, or will be, affected by both of these factors. The economic crisis slowed traditional development of the site, and sections of it are vulnerable to flooding

conceptualization

and sea level rise.

The “modular parcelization” of the site, accomplished through the construction of infrastructural walls that enable people and water flows, provides a spatial framework that offers programmatic flexibility. The walls form “containers” that can be filled with whatever programs are most appropriate, and these programs can change over time. In her essay “Hounding the Snark,” Denise Scott Brown discusses strategies that can be used to cope with risk in planning. She identifies “maintaining a level of generality” and “leaving space for expansion” as two adaptations that help respond to “change that you cannot predict” (66-67). The infrastructural walls, which are deployed on the site where needed to start, but can always be continued or expanded, demonstrate both of these characteristics. They also address the three major design challenges of brownfields, noted above.

The walls mediate between different scales, providing a reference point for visitors and linking the part to the whole (unit: site: city). Similarly, they reincorporate the site back into the surrounding urban fabric, by subdividing according to the logic of the block. Finally, they allow remediation to progress, without arresting the transformation of the site. In their flexibility and fungibility, paradoxically enabled by their structural formality, they borrow from the best elements of the grid.

While the frame is generic, the content is specific. On the studio site, water drives the program, because of the site’s complex hydrogeology and proximity to the Chesapeake Bay, and Baltimore’s demand for more effective storm- and waste- water management. The program also reflects the need to address Baltimore’s health disparities, and leverage its strengths in healthcare to generate a new industry (healthcare technology) and support economic growth. In other places, in response to other social, environmental, and econom-

ic conditions, other programs might be more suitable: new contents for the “containers.”

To determine the programs, we have provided, in this manual, a framework for thinking about programs in terms of flows: who/what you want to bring to the site, how, and for what purpose. The idea is to build a programmatic “ecosystem,” where the programs not only complement, but also actually move fluidly into each other. Three operations related to flows, - damming, channeling, and osmosis, - are productive in conceptualizing this. For example, people can be channeled to one location, and then dammed there for a specified period of time, and a specified activity, before they are released. Likewise, conditions of difference can be established, by putting two dissimilar programs near each other, and then ideas can move by osmosis between them, with both programs ultimately being transformed in the process. On the studio site, this happens between the data centers and healthcare technology start-ups, which become a healthcare informatics “living laboratory.”

As noted above, no brownfield is exactly the same as any other. It is important to recognize that this system of “modular parcelization” may not be appropriate for all sites. In particular, it is most applicable to sites where remediation occurs on a localized scale, with petroleum brownfields, where contamination is removed via wells, serving as the archetype. However, we believe that it has the opportunity to be used on a broad scale. Heberle and Wernstedt point out that small brownfield sites (under one acre), which are common, pose a particular reinvention challenge, because remediation costs may be greater than their economic values if redeveloped and there are limited opportunities for economies of scale in site assessment and remediation. Making matters worse, these brownfield sites tend to exist in neighborhoods that are already distressed, with low economic activity, problematic infrastructure, and high crime. In these environ-

100 / 100

ments, “modular parcelization” might entail not the subdivision of a large parcel, as on our site, but the assemblage of small, scattered parcels into a network for revitalization, with the existing street grid taking the place of the infrastructural walls. This approach would shift the redevelopment of the sites beyond the level of the individual parcel, which can only be so effective in addressing neighborhood-, city-, and region-wide problems, to the relevant scale.

The title of this studio is “Baltimore: Inversions.” Throughout our design process, we have been guided by our desire to create productive inversions. As evidenced by this manual, we have chosen to do so in a number of ways, turning the site from a static, inert blank to a field for activation; from a landscape that is “formless” to “formalist”; from a place that disregards or disrupts flows of water to one that makes them a central feature; and from “terra incognita” to a place that meshes with the existing urban fabric.

Through this process, in another, final inversion, we have sought to transform the site, and brownfields in general, from a place where designers arrive last to execute, to one where they come first to strategize.

conceptualization

102 / 111

evolution over time

104 / 111

evolution over time

REFERENCES

108 / 1111

REMEDIATION GeoTrans. “14th Street (Upper Zone) Corrective Action Plan Completion Report – Exxon Mobil Baltimore Terminal.” 4 Aug. 2008.

GeoTrans. “Corrective Action Plan: 14th Street Parcel (Upper Zone) ExxonMobil Corporation Baltimore Terminal.” 15 Feb. 2008.

GeoTrans. “Interim Corrective Action Plan: Planned Additional LNAPL Recovery (Lower Zone) ExxonMobil Corporation Baltimore Terminal.” 30 Jan. 2008.

GeoTrans. “Lower Zone Corrective Action Plan – Exxon Mobil Baltimore Terminal.” 10 Sept. 2009.

Heberle, Lauren, and Kris Wernstedt. "Understanding Brownfields Regeneration in the US." Local Environment 11.5 (2006): 479-497.

“Site Report.” Maryland Department of the Environment – Environmental Restoration & Redevelopment Program. 29 Sept. 2004.

HUMAN HEALTH Litt, Jill S., Nga L. Tran, and Thomas A. Burke. "Examining urban brownfields through the public health ‘macroscope.’” Environmental Health Perspectives 110.Suppl 2 (2002): 183.

Mobile Healthcare Centers: Baltimore Homeless Services. “The Journey Home: Baltimore City’s 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness.” Jan. 2008. <http://humanservices.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/HumanServices/downloads/Journey %20Home%20Baltimore%20City%2010%20Year%20Plan%20to%20End%20Homelessness.pdf>.

Beaudoin-Schwartz, Buffy. “Baltimore Nonprofit Preps for Obamacare with New Primary Health Care Clinic.” The Association of Baltimore Area Grantmakers. 12 Feb. 2013. <http://www.abagrantmakers.org/news/116584/ABAG--Members-in-the-NewsBaltimore-Nonprofit-Preps-for-Obamacare-With.htm>.

Broadwater, Luke. “Only 5 Percent of City Retirees Receiving Medicare Are ‘Healthy.’”

Baltimore Sun. 11 Mar. 2013. Online.

Cohn, Meredith. “Health Centers Win Funding to Expand Services.” Baltimore Sun. 1 May 2012. Online.

Cohn, Meredith. “Almost 13 Percent of Marylanders Uninsured” Baltimore Sun. 29 Aug. 2012. Online.

Dresser, Michael. “State designates five 'health enterprise zones.'” Baltimore Sun. 24 Jan. 2013. Online.

Dresser, Michael. “Maryland selects five health enterprise zones.” Baltimore Sun. 24 Jan. 2013. Online.

Kaysen, Ronda. “Health Centers Find Opportunity in Brownfields.” New York Times. 11 Dec. 2012. Online.

Latta, Ashley. “Nonprofit Offers Healthcare to Baltimore’s Homeless.” The Daily Record. 15 Nov. 2011. Online.

Walker, Andrea. “Health Care For the Homeless gets $858,333 Federal Health Reform Grant.” Baltimore Sun. 20 June 2012. Online.

Walker, Andrea. “Howard is Healthiest County in Md.; Baltimore City Least Healthy.”

Baltimore Sun. 20 Mar. 2013. Online.

Walker, Andrea. “Sequestration Will Hit Health Care in Maryland.” Baltimore Sun. 28 Feb. 2013. Online.

Wenger, Yvonne. “Advocates say Baltimore's Plan to end Homelessness is in Disarray.”

Baltimore Sun. 17 Mar. 2013.

Baltimore City Health Department – Office of Epidemiology and Planning. “2010 Baltimore City Health Disparities.” May 2010. <http://baltimorehealth.org/info/2010_05_25_HDR-FINAL.pdf>.

Healthcare Technology Start-Ups: Ascari, Alessio, and Milan Ajay Bakshi. “Global Mobile Healthcare Opportunity.”

McKinsey & Company. 18 Feb. 2010. <http://www.mckinsey.it/storage/first/uploadfile/attach/141765/file/global_mobi le_healthcare_opportunity.pdf>.

Cloos, Putney, Sherina Ebrahim, Tracey Griffin, and Warren Teichner. “Healthy, Wealthy, and (Maybe) Wise: The Emergence of the Trillion-Dollar Market for Health and Wellness.” McKinsey & Company. May 2012.

Emanuel, Ezekiel. “Billions Wasted on Billing.” New York Times. 12 Nov. 2011. Online.

references

GENERAL BALTIMORE AND CANTON Dresser, Michael. “10 Years After Baltimore Tunnel Fire, Much is Unchanged.” Baltimore Sun. 16 July 2011. Online.

Keith, Robert C. Baltimore Harbor: A Pictorial History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005.

Kristeva, Julia. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Trans. Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982.

Longo, Alberto, and Anna Alberini. "What are the effects of contamination risks on commercial and industrial properties? Evidence from Baltimore, Maryland."

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49.5 (2006): 713-737.

U.S. Census Bureau. “Baltimore Population Counts.” <http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/md190090.txt>.

BALTIMORE WATER Ator, Scott, John Brakebill, and Joel Blomquist. “Sources, Fate, and Transport of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: An Empirical Model.”

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5167. 2011.

Bureau of Water & Wastewater and Department of Public Works (Baltimore).

“Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Plan.” August 2006. <http://www.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/0/agencies/planning/public%20downloads/20 06_CompW&WWplan.pdf>.

City of Baltimore. “Stormwater Management Business Plan.” Cleanwater Baltimore. <http://www.cleanwaterbaltimore.org/flyers/Storm%20Water%20Business%20Plan.pdf> Langland, Michael, Joel Blomquist, Douglas Moyer, and Kenneth Hyer. “Nutrient and Suspended-Sediment Trends, Loads, and Yields and Development of an Indicator of Streamwater Quality at Nontidal Sites in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 1985– 2010.” U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5093. 2012.

Planning Department (Baltimore). “Comprehensive Master Plan – Water Resources Element.” <http://www.baltimorecity.gov/Government/AgenciesDepartments/Planning/Comprehen siveMasterPlan/WaterResourcesElement/StormwaterRunOffNonPointPollutionPreventio n.aspx>.

Planning Department. “Impervious Surfaces” (Map). <http://www.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/0/agencies/planning/public%20downloads/Im pervious_map.pdf>.

Planning Department. “Regional Watersheds” (Map). <http://www.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/0/agencies/planning/public%20downloads/Re gional%20Watersheds%20Map.pdf>.

Planning Department. “Wetlands” (Map). <http://www.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/0/agencies/planning/public%20downloads/We tlands%20Map.pdf>.

THE GRID AND INFRASTRUCTURAL WALLS Blum, Andrew. “Infrastructure: Tracking the Future.” Metropolis Magazine. 2009. <http://andrewblum.net/2009/infrastructure-tracking-the-future-metropolismag/>.

Campos, Robert. “The Infrastructural Complex: A Return to Big Design.” Master’s Thesis – MIT, June 2007. Online.

Jacobs, Sam. “Ceci N'Est Pas Une Pipe: Infrastructure as Architectural Subconcious.”

Strange Harvest Blog. <http://strangeharvest.com/ceci-nest-pas-une-pipeinfrastructure-as-architectural-subconcious>.

Lambert, Craig. “Radiant Walls: Functions Find Form.” Harvard Magazine. Mar. 1998. <http://harvardmagazine.com/1998/03/right.walls.html>.

Rael San Fratello. “Border Wall as Infrastructure.” <http://www.raelsanfratello.com/?p=19>.

Roberts, Sam. “200th Birthday for the Map That Made New York.” New York Times. 20 Mar. 2011. Online.

“Walls of Change.” Lebbeus Woods Blog. 28 May 2010. <http://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/walls-of-change/>.

110 / 1111

Groves, Peter, Basel Kayyali, David Knott, and Steve Van Kuiken. “The ‘Big Data’ Revolution in Healthcare: Accelerating Value and Innovation.” McKinsey & Company: Center for US Health System Reform: Business Technology Office.

Hopkins, Jamie Smith. “In Nationwide Innovation Battle, Baltimore Area Lags on Patents.” Baltimore Sun. 1 Feb. 2013.

Knapp, Tim, Ben Richardson, and Shrey Viranna. “Three Practical Steps to Better Health for Africans.” McKinsey Quarterly. <http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Health_Care/Strategy_Analysis/Three_practical _steps_to_better_health_for_Africans_2618>.

McKinsey & Company. “Client Service Initiatives: mHealth.” <http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/initiatives/mhealth>. “mHealth: A New Vision for Healthcare.” GSMA and McKinsey & Company. 2010. <http://www.gsma.com/connectedliving/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/gsmamckinseymhealthreport.pdf>.

New York Times Editorial Board. “Miles to Go on E-Health Records.” New York Times. 1 April 2009. Online.

Novak, Stephanie. “Exploring the Role of Mobile Technology as Health Care Helper.” New York Times. 13 May 2012. Online.

Pash, Barbara. “Baltimore Nonprofit May Launch New Healthcare Accelerator.” Baltimore Media.22 Jan. 2013. <http://www.bmoremedia.com/innovationnews/biohealth012213.aspx>.

Rosenberg, Tina. “The Benefits of Mobile Health, On Hold.” New York Times. 13 Mar. 2013. Online.

Steinhauer, Jennifer. “Thousands Line Up for the Promise of Free Health Care.” New York Times. 12 Aug. 2009. Online.

Wayner, Peter. “Monitoring Your Health with Mobile Health Devices.” New York Times. 22 Feb. 2012. Online.

Data Center Vance, Ashlee. “Dell Sees Double with Data Center in a Container.” New York Times. 8 Dec. 2008. Online.

Vance, Ashlee. “Google’s Search Goes Out to Sea.” New York Times. 7 Sept. 2008.

Online.

Vanderbilt, Tom. “Data Center Overload.” New York Times. 8 June 2009. Online.

Various authors. “Room for Debate: Information’s Environmental Cost.” New York Times.

23 Sept. 2012. Online.

Vey, Jennifer S. “Building from Strength: Creating Opportunity in Greater Baltimore’s Next Economy.” The Brookings Institution – Metropolitan Policy Program. 2012. <http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2012/04/26-baltimore-economy-vey>.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Daylighted Stream Brown, Robbie. “Now Atlanta is Turning Old Tracks Green.” 14 Feb. 2013. New York Times. Online.

French, Will. “For Landlocked Revitalization, Railyards in Lieu of Waterfronts.”

Atlantic Cities. 14 May 2012. Online.

Kim, Mikyoung. “Chongae Canal Restoration.” Arch2O. <http://www.arch2o.com/chongaecanal-restoration-mikyoung-kim>.

Constructed Wetlands Ferguson, Bruce. Introduction to Stormwater: Concept, Purpose, Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998.

Flynn, Kathleen. “The Sprawl of the Wild: A New Infrastructural Landscape in Silicon Valley.” Master’s Thesis, 2008.

Greenway, Margaret. “The Role of Macrophytes in Nutrient Removal using Constructed Wetlands.” Environmental Bioremediation Technologies. S. N. Singh and R. D. Tripathi, Eds. Springer, 2007: 257-274.

Hollander, Justin B., Niall G. Kirkwood, and Julia L. Gold. Principles of Brownfield Regeneration. Washington: Island Press, 2010.

Mays, Larry W. Urban Stormwater Management Tools. New York, McGraw-Hill, 2004.

Prasad, M.N.V. “Aquatic Plants for Phytotechnology.” Environmental Bioremediation Technologies. S. N. Singh and R. D. Tripathi, Eds. Springer, 2007: 257-274.

Sinha, Rajiv K., Sunil Herat and P.K. Tandon. “Phytoremediation: Role of Plants in Contaminated Site Management.” Environmental Bioremediation Technologies. S. N.

references

Singh and R. D. Tripathi, Eds. Springer, 2007: 257-274.

Sledge, Matt. “Gowanus Park to Feature ‘Sponge Park’ Green Infrastructure.” 2 July 2012. Huffington Post. Online.

Turenscape. “Shanghai Houtan Park.” <http://www.turenscape.com/english/projects/project.php?id=443>.

Ungureanu, Cristina. “Organ Trade: Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategies for the San Francisco Bay Area.” Master’s Thesis – MIT, 2010.

Vecchio, Ann-Ariel. “Stormwater Management and Multipurpose Infrastructure Networks.”

Master’s Thesis – MIT, 2012.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. “Stormwater Design Specification No. 13 – Constructed Wetlands.” 1 Mar. 2011.

Wheeler, Timothy B. “Large Harbor Floating Wetland Project Stirs Debate.” Baltimore Sun. 14 Oct. 2012. Online.

Sustainability Center American Society of Landscape Architects. “James Clarkson Environmental Discovery Center. White Lake Township, Michigan.” Designing Our Future: Sustainable Landscapes. <http://www.asla.org/sustainablelandscapes/discovery.html>.

English, Michael. “A Brighter Future in Brownfields.” Baltimore Sun. 26 Jan. 2004.

Online.

Fried, Joseph P. “Brownfield Center Planned.” New York Times. 29 June 2001. Online.

Maryland Commission on Climate Change: Adaptation and Response Working Group.

“Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Maryland’s Vulnerability to Climate Change: Phase I – Sea-level Rise and Coastal Storms.”

SMP Architects. “Sustainable Urban Science Center.” ArchDaily. 5 Nov. 2011. <http://www.archdaily.com/181020/sustainable-urban-science-center-smparchitects/>.

Wheeler, Tim. “Chesapeake Bay CleanUp Gets $9 Million in Grants.” Baltimore Sun. 26 Aug. 2012.

Wheeler, Timothy. “Chesapeake Bay Improving, Green Group Says.” Baltimore Sun. 2 Jan. 2013.

{4/30/2013}

The ExxonMobil

Manual of Inversion

Modular Parcelization

Sara Brown & Sayjel Patel