AA 04 2011 05 03 Project Fresh Kills

ARCHITECTURAL ASSOCIATION SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE GRADUATE SCHOOL PROGRAMMES

COVERSHEET FOR SUBMISSION 2010-2011

PROGRAMME:

MA [Landscape Urbanism]

TERM:

Spring

STUDENT NAME(S):

KELVEKAR, Shantesh

SUBMISSION TITLE

Project Fresh Kills

WORD COUNT

3,957 words

COURSE TUTOR

SMITH, Tom

COURSE TITLE

Machining Landscape

SUBMISSION DATE:

3rd May 2011

DECLARATION: “I certify that this piece of work is entirely my/our own and that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of others is duly acknowledged.”

Signature of Student:

Date:

Project Fresh Kills KELVEKAR, Shantesh AA MA [LU] 2010-11

CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction

2.0 History 2.1 Ground Conditions 2.2 Increment in Pollution Levels 2.3 Post 9.11

3.0 Encouragement of Dumping Activity 3.1 Environmental Impacts 3.2 Disturbance of Ground Conditions

4.0 Initial Conception 4.1 Design Methodology 4.2 Time Based Strategy 4.3 Evolution

5.0 Fresh Kills, Making Impacts!

6.0 Systems Incorporated

7.0 Anticipation for the Future 7.1 Supports to the Natural System 7.2 Socially and Culturally Contributing Landscape 7.3 Economic Benefits

8.0 Conclusion

Abstract A pile of garbage, where all hopes lost, if some day gets an optimistic outlook for converting it into an ecological treasure; sounds very much familiar? This is a case which, of lately, one experiences in almost every scenario where human habitation is impacting. There is a hopeless desire for rearranging the conditions favourable to nature, and in return to us.

Ever since humans came on this planet, they have fiddled with the nature, but the rate of fiddling from almost negligible exploded exponentially. A hypothetical day portrayed in the movie ‘WALL‐E’ (2008), where in distant future, a small waste collecting robot, Wall‐E, works day and night to clean the mess humans created, and ironically humans have fled the earth long time back. Hundreds of years later Eve, a highly sophisticated robot, sent by humans from space finds a plant, at which point the humans, who already have fled, have a hope that the earth is ready for life to evolve back. The point this movie makes is ‘Natures triumph over anti‐nature’. Nature always is attempting to improvise back to its original configuration; it is we, who have to be sensitive in understanding, and respecting nature.

Although such scenario has not come in our real life experience, a close cut of it ‐ a miniscule version, one can witness is the land fill at Staten Islands, the upcoming Fresh kills Park. For decades this part of Staten Islands served as a dumping zone for the region, now is attempted to convert into an ecologically responsive, and diverse park, in terms of its flora. Also, the park is expected to act as a catalyst, and decompose the landfill faster; in return release methane. The released methane then would be added to the energy grid and is used by the residences of the island.

There are various other aspects as well to this park which would make the space more humane for the nature, as well as to the society.

The outlook of the paper is to focus on how the landfill of the abandoned, intoxicated area is strategized to transform into a habitual area. Concentration would be on a more general strategy could be learnt from this project and implemented on several other derelict legacy areas, in an attempt to be genuinely responsive to nature.

AA LU 2010‐11

Project Fresh Kills

1.0 Introduction Fresh Kills is an area of waste landfill in the Borough of New York City’s Staten Island. The land fill spreads to an area of 2,200 acres (890 hectares). The name ‘Fresh Kills’ comes from the location of the island, where the island is located in the banks of Fresh Kills estuary. This landfill initially opened in the year 1947, was meant to be temporary, and for a very short duration. However, over a period of time New York’s annual garbage production increased, and this was a disposal area in the closest possible vicinity, and yet detached from the main city grid. And hence this land turned into a primary dumping land catering to the New York City.

The garbage disposal over a period of time rose exponentially, and at its peak there was an average of 20 barges dumping wastes every day, each barge weighing approximately 650 tonnes1. This meant 13,000 tonnes of waste dumped every single day, or 4.75 million tonnes annually. Eventually this piling in 2001 was noticed, when the landfill was 25 metres taller than the Statue of Liberty! There was a lot of pressure from the environmentalists and activists to shut this dumping. Finally on 22nd March 2001 the landfill site was officially closed.

Later the same year terror attack on the World Trade Centre, and the collapse of two towers was a huge blow to the US. The rubble needed some zone for discarding; one third of the total rubble was dumped into Fresh Kills. For that purpose the region needed to be re‐opened for a short while. It was shut later, immediately after the activity.

The response for the project needed to be very sensitive for more reasons than just nature. It was nation’s emotions, people’s sentiments, refurbishing environment, rescuing local ecology. For the designers, James Corner and Field Operations, the percept was far more; they were strategizing a possibility which looked at creating alternative energy resource from the wastes, a landscape for socially interactive space, a probable economic resource, and everything certainly without nature being at stake.

The project has undergone seven years since its conception, to forming the ground conditions. A part of it at present (2011) is open occasionally to the public via guided tours, awareness programmes and campaigns are held. But it is only after thirty more years the project is expected to evolve to a level conceived, and can be termed fruitful. Nevertheless, what currently one records is a progress of it from what it was a decade back. It is making a remarkable progress.

A hope exists for (again) a nature’s triumph over human menace!

KELVEKAR, Shantesh

Page 1

AA LU 20110‐11

Project Fresh Kills

2.0 Histo ory New Yorrk City grew exponentiallly with the ddawn of the ttwentieth century. This m meant more inflow of public in n the city, mo ore usage off resources, aand hence m more producttion of wastee. Initially, m more than half the waste prod duced by New York City was dumpe ed into the sea. In 19344, US Suprem me Court handed down a decision that succh dumping created a pu ublic nuisancce by litteringg the Long Issland and New Jerssey coasts and polluting off shore w waters. The Court ordered d that the prractice of dumping at sea be aabandoned. EEver since th hen Staten Issland’s Fresh h Kills becam me a replacem ment, until b beginning of this ccentury, wheere there we ere severe ppollution facttors, and hence the disccarding of waste w into this regio on too was ccalled off.

Staten Issland is an issland south‐‐west of the Manhattan grid, adjace ent to the Loower Bay. Be ecause of the wayy it is locateed geograph hically, ther e were no major interrventions in terms of economic e venturess in spite of a triggeringg of an expo nential urbaan growth in n Manhattann. Manhattan n, on the other sid de, faced a cconstant growth. This m eant that th here needed a space to ccater to the dumping of wastees (majorly n non bio‐degrradable mattter). Staten Island’s close proximity,, and relative ely lesser land valu ues due to laack of major economic acctivities mad de it an ideal location for the purpose e.

The sitee was openeed for landffill in 1947. It was a ru ural agricultural area ottherwise. Slowly the agricultu ural activities deterioratted, and eveentually they almost vanished. Initiially the pro oposal to make Freesh Kills a landfill area w was meant too be temporaary, and the site was inteended to be open for only tweenty years. And then itt was to bee converted into a multtiuse ‐ incorrporating residential, recreatio onal, commeercial and ind dustrial activvities2. But then the term m of twenty years term e extended further. At its peak tthere was arround 13,0000 tonnes of w waste, on an n average peer day, beingg dumped into this zone. Soon the pile was around tweenty five metters taller tha an the Statuee of Liberty!

2.1 Grou und Conditions The origginal site of waste dispo osal was limiited to a reggion of the island whichh was located on salt marsh. TThe sub‐soil was primarrily clay, wit h the top laayer being sand and siltt majorly. Th he region encouraged varied sspecies of flo ora and faun a within, and had an evo olved eco‐syystem of itse elf; within ndaries of evven the landffill then. Theere were tidaal wetlands, forests, and freshwater wetlands the boun within th his region. This T is a clea ar example oof how natu ure adapted with unnatuural conditio ons3. The landfill liies in the fligght path of sseveral migrrating bird sp pecies; also tthe Fresh Ki lls Estuary iss an ideal source fo or herons to o construct their nests. L ike many oth her wetlands around thee world, this area too is a locaation for atttracting bird ds, even afteer there havve been inccidents of diisposal of hazardous material in this regio on. However,, there has bbeen a declin ne of these m migrating birdds since the 1990’s.

KELVEKAR R, Shantesh

Page 2

AA LU 20110‐11

Project Fresh Kills

2.2 Increement in Pollution Levelss As the disposal of haazardous wastes increaseed the land ((soil) was being polluted . The bargess used for he contributoors of chemical wastes, in this case tto the water and the dumpingg of garbage too were th air. Conttinuous expo osure of thesse pollutantss to the regiion caused itt to enter in the biologiccal (food) chain; th hus affectingg the life off the region from smalle er creatures like algae tto several species of birds, plaants, and som me animals.

1. Landfill at Fresh Kills

The Fressh Kills Landfill was unlin ned and thiss led to the exposure off several tonnnes of heavvy metals and chemical toxic rregion by seepage into tthe ground aand into the e water bodiies, and the sea. The oo faced a hu uge problem. There was foul smell in n the air and d the region w d beyond locals to was polluted the acceepted levels.. Finally the Federal Law w had to intervene and shut this lanndfill in 200 01; also a mandato ory order was passed to o monitor, m maintain the e site for the next thirtyy years. A hope h was created for the site tto be rejuven nated, and reescued to itss original (or least, almosst original) state.

2.3 Post 9.11 Post attaacks on the US’s World Trade Centr e; there wass a huge pile e of debris oon site. The ccollapsed tower’s debris from Ground Zerro needed a dumping zo one. Althoug gh Fresh Killss did not occcupy the entire ru ubble, the zo one needed to be reope ned for a sh hort window; yet it occuppied one third of the total rub bble created. This added d another 2 m million tonne es of debris ffrom Groundd Zero. Howe ever, this time it w was not just building, sa adly there w ere a lot of remains of tthe people kkilled in the disaster.

Thousan nds of forenssic experts w worked on thee site for 1.7 7 million hou urs, to find thhe horrific truth, they identifieed, if not more, at leasst as much as remains of 4,257 human bodiees; 300 bodies were identifieed from the rubble. This debris was dumped ove er a patch of 40 acres off the whole site. The site now w has a disastter from the history hiddden beneath,, and it was o of sentimenttal importan nce to the citizens. ouragement of Dumping Activity 3.0 Enco Operatio ons for discaarding the ru ubble in the 1960’s were e running parallel in threee separate locations viz. Plantt 1, Plant 2 aand Brookfield Avenue.

Plant 1 w was located on the site o of an old de relict factoryy on the south of the junnction of Gre eat Fresh Kills and d Little Fresh h Kills. It was in close vicinity of Muldoon M Avenue. Plant 2 is situate ed in the northern n part of Fresh Kills, close e to the regi on where th he Richmond Creek brancches out. It is in close proximitty to Victory Boulevard. The last pla nt, Brookfield Avenue Plant is to thee north of A Arthur Kill Road and Brookfield Avenue inte ersection.

All the tthree plants used to work for a tweenty‐four hours cycle, for six days a week. Plantt 1 and 2 were invvolved in marine m unloading activiti es. Barges of o waste use ed to arrivee from the boroughs b (majorlyy Manhattan and Brooklyn Borough s), and garb bage was dumped in theese plants. The T third plant waas opened in n 1966, howe ever this pla nt was open ned later, and the dumpiing was onlyy done by KELVEKAR R, Shantesh

Page 3

AA LU 20110‐11

Project Fresh Kills

using tru ucks, meanin ng there wass relatively l esser garbagge disposal iin this area; Plants 1 and 2 were actually scheduled to o be closed b by 1967. Opeening of the third plant instead of cloosing of the p prior two already polluuted area. The dump meant eencouragemeent by the authorities too dump morre waste in a was in a state of fluxx. In 1959 the constructioon of tide gaate across th he West Shorre expresswa ay bridge further eencouraged tthe barges to o dispose evven more wastes in Plant 2.

2. Illustrattion of the Fressh Kills

3.1 Envirronmental Im mpacts There was an immen nse accumulation of polllutants happ pening in and d around thiss region. Witthout the lining off the ground and the wa ater bodies ((of the close e vicinity) the toxic elem ments percola ated into the grou und, thus po olluting the soil. A relattively higherr level of to oxic chemicaals and unaccceptable metals w were found in n the soil.

The air aand water w was also being polluted too a very greaater degree by the bargees carrying the waste productss, due to thee leakage in tthem and thee gases they emitted in the process.

3.2 Distu urbance of G Ground Conditions Also, at the close off work everyy day, the ddumped and compacted filth and diiscard canno ot be left exposed, this could o otherwise ca ater shelter tto rodents4. Hence it is ccovered withh a layer of so oil/ sand.

Insecticides are useed too over the productts, so as to keep roden nts and otheer insects aw way. This meant u using top so oil from som me other reegion, wherre they could possibly (most prob bably) be disturbin ng the local ecological system and the natural conditions. The usagee of insecticcides and KELVEKAR R, Shantesh

Page 4

AA LU 20110‐11

Project Fresh Kills

chemicals to keep th he rodents an nd insects aw way meant p polluting the relocated sooil at Fresh K Kills. Thus the soil then both iss likely to be e unfertile ffor certain species of vegetation, annd even if ve egetation n this soil the chemicals are bound too enter into the food cha ain, which deefinitely is hazardous grows on to humaankind and a threat to na ature. In eith er of these ccases the con nditions are uunacceptable.

3. Field Op perations Desiggn entry for Fre esh Kills, Statenn Island

4.0 Initiaal Conception n In the yyear 2003, after the debris d from Ground Zero was dep posited into Fresh Kills, serious considerrations began on revamp ping the entiire site, and focus was sh hifted to rejuuvenating th he region.

There w were proposaals for convverting the eentire land of Fresh Kills into an uurban park; the park incorporrating programmes like recreationaal facilities, reclaimed wetlands, w maanicured lan ndscaped areas, sp ports fields, natural landscape, andd lot more5. This ambitious proposaal, because of public pressuree and by presssure from the environm mentalists, w was taken seriously and thhe project w was finally consigneed to James C Corner and h his team at FField Operations.

The arch hitect considered the pro oject as an a malgamation of considering, along w with ecologiccal, social and culttural and ecconomic possibilities. Thhus what refflected as an n outcome oof the proje ect was a holistic aapproach.

KELVEKAR R, Shantesh

Page 5

AA LU 2010‐11

Project Fresh Kills

4.1 Design Methodology The project certainly had to address the primary concern that is of respecting the ground conditions, taking care of the environmental and ecological scenario. The approach of James Corner, Field Operations seemed promising as they looked at the miserable and vulnerable site quite optimistically. The stance was to take consideration of all the conditions affecting an urban life (and the neighbourhood).

Also, Field Operation’s approach could be termed optimistic because they looked at some of the techniques which strategized the evolution of project. There were several measures taken to generate alternative energy, which adds up to the service grid to cater to the neighbourhood community.

Certainly, the vegetation was also taken into account while conceiving the park; but more importantly the fact is that along with the vegetative landscape being humane to the community; it is also being very responsive to the local ecology and gives an invitation to the migrating birds. An overall approach towards the region makes this project highly sensitive towards society and ecology.

4.2 Time Based Strategy Thinking of these kinds of projects as an overnight change is absurd. Such projects need to be strategized and they slowly take shape and evolve in time. A well devised comprehensive strategy along with sensitivity makes such projects a success.

The project is conceived as a landscape whose primary intent is not to be scenic, and not to romanticise the landscape. The primary aim is to be responsive to the prevailing conditions and modulate the scenario accordingly. Formulating a structure in such cases is very critical; since if a single step is delivered wrongly the output could vary drastically, in certain cases like these involving a ton of chemical waste, the project could take a catastrophic turn. Hence both in terms of design sensibility and technology the method needs to be tested and re‐tested before it actually is executed.

4.3 Evolution The entire project in this case is designed to evolve into a mature form in the next thirty years.

However the completion of phase 1 was scheduled for 2010. This had just a small part of the park which became accessible to the public; guided tours, and informational and educational tours are being conducted both for the community and for the younger generation. An initiative is taking shape. Unlike architectural projects, landscapes need time to grow; they mature in time, and their fruitfulness is perceived in totality only through its process. In the case for Fresh Kills, the totality is not just humanitarian, but it is also towards the betterment of nature and local ecology, the other species experiencing the vicinity, bio (food) chain, reduction of toxic levels; everything eventually of course contributing to a betterment of humankind, and a provision of a better lifestyle.

The entire project in its totalitarian effect one definitely cannot perceive, even the designers, since there are several factors beyond the control which are affecting. For instance it could be nature itself, external impacts, resource availability, economy etc. However, taking an initiative and germinating a seed for the growth of this project is the least we can do. And in conceiving this stage one has to be very careful. James Corner and Field Operations to an extent have succeeded in this attempt (from what is executed, and what looks like a promising strategy). The project would be evolving, and day after day it would adapt with the nature to advance as intended.

KELVEKAR, Shantesh

Page 6

AA LU 2010‐11

Project Fresh Kills

5.0 Fresh Kills, Making Impacts!

The progress seen since 2009, when the moulding on site began, is tremendous and the project’s phase 1 is developing in an appreciable way. Already one could see a huge green patch coming over the terrain. Also, one of the designer’s strategies was to tap the methane from the ground, and add it to the energy resource grid. They have been quite successful in doing so.

Several species of birds one can see occasionally and the figures are increasing day by day, as the ground is (hopefully) providing an ideal ground for the birds to come, locate and breed.

The pathways and trails developed on the site are now open to public to a great extent, and one can experience Fresh Kills from very close, from within. The realisation of the project is acute; the vision not myopic. What one can experience is something if not ecstatic, is worth appreciable, considering from the condition of derelict landfill Fresh Kills comes from – the changes is commendable.

6.0 Systems Incorporated Molika Ashford in one of her cartoon illustrations says, “Over the next thirty years, the swollen hills of what was once the largest landfill in the world are going to become New York City’s biggest park.

But it’s no easy task to turn a legacy of trash into an urban oasis.” The scale of the landfill is massive, around thousand acres, and it would take indeterminate period for the matter to decompose and break down. In the process it would release high amounts of juices (chemicals) and methane gas. The amount of trash to be decomposed and the releases are the two major problems the park and the surrounding have to face.

The solution, what Field Operations has proposed, is a simple one, but its serves the purpose for these two problems and yet would not tamper the environment outside. The chemical process and the breakdown would happen beneath, without affecting the surface (or with negligible affect).

The proposal is to construct an impermeable layer right above the dumped refuse, cover it then with a layer of fertile soil. The waste would start decomposing beneath this impermeable layer. Inside this heaps, organic matter decomposing without oxygen creates methane gas. The gas is less in its density and hence rises and tries to escape out. In the process this layer is likely to bloat because of the gases released, hence the layer needs to be punctured. These punctured points would implant an insertion of a pipe which channelises the accumulation of the gases produced. The as released methane gas, which is combustible and can be used for household purposes. Also, release of the gas in the atmosphere is not an ideal option; the gas is used as a resource and the landfill is prevented, in spite of the liner, from bloating. The released methane, in this case, is connected to the service grid of Staten Island and is sold to the locals. The venture, however miniscule it might be at present, is generating some revenue from the wasteland and yet is not at the cost of tampering with the environment and ecology.

Above the liner which holds the refuse is a layer of fertile soil, this layer supports vegetation growth.

Different species of vegetation are bred according to the local ecological systems. Also consideration of the migrating birds determines the vegetation. This measure helps maintain and support the local ecology and its evolution in time.

7.0 Anticipation for the Future Many urban planners and environmentalists hope that the US will be able to move away from landfilling as alternative waste‐management techniques advance and better recycling takes place.

Fresh Kills Park could also serve as an example for other large post landfill projects6. However, New York still landfills most of its trash, which is not a sustainable practice.

KELVEKAR, Shantesh

Page 7

AA LU 20110‐11

Project Fresh Kills

4. Illustrattion of one of tthe primary sysstems incorporssted in project

The succcess of this p project cann not be meas ured at this point of tim me, one can argue; but w what one can anticcipate is a beetter perform ming landscaape: with the e natural sysstem, well inntegrated soccially and culturally, and also eexpected to ccontribute inn some termss to the local economy.

7.1 Supp ports to the N Natural Syste em The generation of th he methane gas, would mean that tthe decompo osition of thhe waste taking place underneeath; the gasses are utilissed as fuels. This would also reduce e load on thee resource grid, g thus saving a lot on additional consum mption of en ergy.

The top surface is likely to rejuvvenate the fflora of the rregion, supporting for thhe betterment of the local ecology. The load of acccommodatin g waste on n the wetlan nd system w would drasttically be reduced, with this th here would b be minimal innitially and later almost negligible diischarge of cchemicals into it, and hence the wetlands ccould regain its ecologicaal values. Alsso the entiree region is an nticipated to be an n ecological treasure forr birds, the ones migratting from Atlantic speciaally. This cou uld have, along wiith natural, ttouristic benefits as well.. There is a p possibility of utilising thiss natures treasure for educatio onal servicess for the com mmunity; learrning from o our own men nace createdd, we can evo olve for a better liffestyle.

7.2 Sociaally and Culturally Contributing Landsscape The land dscape is forreseen to be e very humbble and respect and adapt the existting social se etup. The developm ment strategy encouragges intrusionn of people inside the territory of Fresh Kills. But this intrusion n is for the benefits of the society witthout holding the upcom ming nature’ss treasure at stake.

The society, in fact, is already being involveed, by meanss of guided ttours, particiipation in workshops etceteraa, to create awareness among a the ggeneral pub blic about th he problems which situa ation like Fresh Kills gives. Cleaner C and efficient allternative energy systems are proomoted thro ough this publicityy. Also, emph hasis is on re ecycling maxiimum of the trash produced.

The park provides walkways, w play p fields, ggathering spaces where people can come toge ether and n of the cuulture, consiidering a mingle m more to be socially acttive. This e ncourages diversificatio d cosmopo olitan culturee of New Yorrk City. Thus , what is antticipated is a palette of vaaried social sscenarios coming ttogether for a better evo olvement of tthe culture o of the region n.

KELVEKAR R, Shantesh

Page 8

AA LU 2010‐11

Project Fresh Kills

7.3 Economic Benefits Production and tapping of methane gas, a highly combustible substance, and routing it into the service grid is the initial economic contribution one could see at the first glance of the project. But there are several other components which would contribute indirectly towards the economy. For instance, encouraging flow of migrating birds attracts bird watchers and tourists; this would mean there would be scope to encourage related businesses in the area. Other such inferences could be the sports fields, horticulture related activities, exhibition spaces, communal gatherings etcetera could be a few other programmes which could evolve in the span of next thirty years, in which period the park would mould itself evolving through time.

8.0 Conclusion What started almost six decades ago got transformed into a menace. Like humans have evolved, create a problem – solve it; Fresh Kills is in the process of finding a solution, though a theoretical solution is ready. This appears, as suggested earlier, a trailer of the movie ‘WALL‐E’!

But, there comes a clear disclaimer with nature that it relapses back to its original format no matter how much ever we fiddle with it. But recently we have been rediscovering that it is an intelligent system to go with nature instead of against.

An intrusion at Fresh Kills initially witnessed an anti‐nature propaganda, and in course of time the disaster it led to. And what one sees now is a sensitive proposal from James Corner and his team at Field Operations which obeys and respects nature. The proposal seems promising. It attempts to gain the maximum from the loss created; then be it generation of energy, rejuvenating the land, attract the fauna into the curated flora or recondition the biological/ ecological system.

The sensibility of this project is seen in the utilisation of each and every element on site and gaining from it, yet without hampering/ tampering with the nature. Encouraging alternative fuel’s generation is another good utilisation without affecting the natural conditions adversely.

What one shall be learning from this project is not just a methodology of the way technology is implemented/ proposed in this project. But one must focus on the bigger picture, of the way things are seen in interrelation to each other and strategized accordingly; a percept of the larger scenario.

Another important thing to learn is smarter and efficient methodologies in recycling, considering that while one ‘Fresh Kills’ is being restored here, there should not be another ‘Fresh Kills’ under growth, which could lead to fatal problems in the future. Efficient recycling would mean lesser disposal of garbage, and eventually lesser rubble to decompose.

With sensitivity towards nature and by using technological advancement consciously, rather than using them haphazardly, would lead us to a better tomorrow.

References 1 –Lloyd, John, Mitchinson, John, (2006) The Book of General Ignorence,Faber & Faber, Britain 2 –Fresh Kills – Landfill (Report) (Nov, 1951), City of New York. The Report was submitted to the then Mayor Impellitteri and the Board of Estimate, Tabard Press, New York.

3 –Staten Island Landfill: Fresh Kills (retrieved 27 April 2010), Pg. 1 4 –Staten Island Landfill: Fresh Kills (retrieved 27 April 2010), Pg. 4 5 –Source: Fresh Kills Park Development Website.

6 –Illustration from a cartoon (Source: Unknown) A few of the references have been taken from unknown sources published in several blogs over the internet. Since the project is still in progress, and only phase 1 is ready there

KELVEKAR, Shantesh

Page 9