Amphi Park - studio crosson by University of Arizona, School of Architecture

PIMA WATER URBANISM

AMPHI NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NAVAJO WASH

2019

STRATEGY + PROPOSAL

PROJECT TEAM STUDENT CREATORS CAITLYN RICHARD JESSICA TANNER

PROFESSOR COURTNEY CROSSON

PRINCIPAL HYDROLOGIST JACOB PRIETTO

COMMUNITY PARTNERS ST. FRANCIS SHELTER AMPHI NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WARD 3

PROJECT STATEMENT This project has three main goals involving water mitigation and park improvement. As this is a site with a severe water deficiency, this design for Amphi Park directs water from Navajo Wash into a large basin in a move which can be a precedent for parks throughout Tucson. The site also has a reputation as an unsafe park, which this design combats through additional lighting, seating, and maintaining visibility throughout the space.

GOALS Divert stormwater from Navajo Wash and groundwater from the parking lot south of the park Retain as much water as possible to alleviate annual water deficit Improve existing walkway + install lighting to increase safety

WATER MOVEMENT NAVAJO WASH

1ST. AVE WASH

TUCSON WATERSHED

NAVAJO WASH

6 8 9 8

8 9 8 6

0120345

9 6 9 8 9 8 6

0120345

8 9 6 9 8 9 8 6

0120345

6 6

8 !"$ %& 2!' (

)*+,-/-0 1234526

350C D" 8"EF$

6089

8 !"$ %& 2!' ( 79: ;<= >5?3 )*+,-/-0 1234526 8 !"$ %& 2!' ( 79: ;<= 5?3 5?@ 5?@ 0?5 >5?3 )*+,-/-0 1234526 8 !"$ %& 2!' ( 79: ;<= 0?5 3?5 5?3 5?@ >5?3 3?5 A?5 )*+,-/-0 1234526 5?@ 0?5 79: ;<= 5?3 5?@ A?5B 0?5 3?5 >5?3 5?@ 0?5 3?5 A?5 5?3 5?@ 0?5 3?5 A?5B 5?@ 0?5 3?5 A?5 6089

6089

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT What would you like to see at Amphi Park in order to make it a better space for the community? RESULTS:

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SURVEYING THE STAKEHOLDERS

Example of survey provided at stakeholder meetings

Amphi Neighborhood Park Survey Begin with 10 points. Distribute these points between the project goals below, with ‘0’ meaning you would not like to see this done at the park, and ‘10’ meaning you would love to see it happen.

Seating Lighting Visibility Water Harvesting / Flood Mitigation Area for Sports (ex soccer, baseball)

These numbers should total 10 points. Thank you for your help!

Left: Example surveys collected. Above: Photos from stakeholder meetings

AMPHI PARK VEGETATION

Type ‘A’ - DESERT WILLOW – CHILOPSIS LINEARIS Native to s.w. US/n. MX, typ. found in dry washes 1500-5000 ft. Fully grown trees can reach 25’H x 20’W Deciduous, attracts birds. Can subsist on rainwater once established but irrigation leads to better flowers and leaf cover Type ‘B’ - PALO BREA - CERCIDIUM PRAECOX Native to Sonoran Desert + n. MX but not Tucson. Fully grown trees can reach 25’H x 25’W. Semi-evergreen. Drought tolerant, benefits from rainwater harvesting Type ‘C’ - VELVET MESQUITE - PROSOPIS VELUTINA Native to Tucson. Fully grown trees can reach 25’H x 25’W. Deciduous, drought tolerant Type ‘D’ - AFGHAN PINE - PINUS ELDARICA Native to Afghanistan, Pakistan, + Russia (not Tucson). Fully grown trees can reach 50’H x 30’W. Evergreen, moderate water needs

A A C 1

C 1 D B A

C C 1 D D

D D

C D

D A D

Site Vegetation

D D

C 1

D C 1 B D D

Type ‘A’ - DESERT WILLOW – CHILOPSIS LINEARIS Native to s.w. US/n. MX, typ. found in dry washes 1500-5000 ft. F Deciduous, attracts birds. Can subsist on rainwater once established Type ‘B’ - PALO BREA - CERCIDIUM PRAECOX Native to Sonoran Desert + n. MX but not Tucson. Fully grown trees

C C D D D C 1

C 1

Type‘A’ - FLOWERS

C 1

D D C 1 C1 C1

Type‘A’ - FLOWERS

D B C 1 C 1 D

Type‘A’ - BARK

A D

Type ‘B’- FLOWERS

Type ‘B’ - BARK

A Type ‘B’- FLOWERS

n.t.s.

000 ft. Fully grown trees can reach 25’H x 20’W ablished but irrigation leads to better flowers and leaf cover

Type ‘C’ - LEAVES

Type ‘B’ - BARK

Type ‘C’- BARK

wn trees can reach 25’H x 25’W. arvesting

n.t.s.

Fully grown trees can reach 25’H x 20’W rown trees can reach 50’H x 30’W. d but irrigation leads to better flowers and leaf cover can reach 25’H x 25’W.

Type ‘C’ - LEAVES Type ‘D’ - LEAVES

Type ‘C’- BARK Types ‘D’ - BARK

SITE VIEWS

w A - RECYCLING View A - RECYCLING ew A - RECYCLING View A - RECYCLING

w View CENTER CCENTER FAITH CENTER CENTER ewCC- -FAITH FAITH View C -- FAITH

H F

C G

View B - PRIVATE View BWALL - PRIVATE WALL View B - PRIVATE View B -WALL PRIVATE WALL

Photographic Catalog View ViewDD--STREET STREET ViewDD--STREET STREET View

Camera icon-- vanta Blue lines-- relative Letter label-- corresp

B B View CENTER C - FAITH CENTER View C C -- FAITH FAITH View CENTER View C - FAITH CENTER

A A

View A - RECYCLING

View D - STREET View View D D -- STREET STREET View D - STREET View B - PRIVATE WALL

n.t.s. n.t.s.

n.t.s. B n.t.s. View E - GRASS View E - GRASS View E - GRASS View E - GRASS

View C - FAITH CENTER

nt where photo wasphoto takenwas taken hoto where was taken point photo was taken tive area A ective area oight) photos (right) sght) to photos (right)

age point where photo was taken perspective area ponds to photos (right)

n.t.s.

E -G GRASS View G -View RAMADA View -- RAMADA View G RAMADA View G - RAMADA

View F - RAMADA View View FF -- RAMADA RAMADA View F - RAMADA View D - STREET

View -View RAMADA View H -F BALL FENCE View BALLFENCE FENCE HH- -BALL View H - BALL FENCE

KIT OF PARTS SHADING

STANDARD RAIN BARN

BERMS

LOW SLOPED BERM

BASINS

DETENTION BASIN

SHADE STRUCTURES

MED. SLOPED BERM

DIVERSION BASIN

RAIN BARN SEATING

EMBANKMENT

RETENTION BASIN

STORMWATER MEDIANS

MEDIAN FOR PED. ACCESS

CURB ALTERATIONS

CURB CUT

CURB DIVERSION

VEGETATION

MEDIAN FOR LOW WATER FLOW

NATIVE TREES

NATIVE SUCCULENTS

MEDIAN FOR HIGH WATER FLOW

NATIVE BRUSH

NATIVE CACTUS

PHASE 1 SITE PLAN 1

EXISTING SWINGSET

PLAYGROUND WITH RAIN BARNS

EXISTING RAMADA

BASIN / SOCCER FIELD

EXISTING BASKETBALL COURT

ASPHALT PATH

EMBANKMENT

1 4

PHASE 2 SITE PLAN 1

EXISTING SWINGSET

PLAYGROUND WITH RAIN BARNS

MAIN SEATING AREA

EXISTING RAMADA

BASIN / SOCCER FIELD

EXISTING BASKETBALL COURT

ASPHALT PATH

EMBANKMENT

1 5

5 6

SECTION PERSPECTIVE OF PHASE 2

B a si n

Rain Barn

Sto

rmwater Median

RAIN BARN ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL

11’ − 0 3/4"

0’ − 3 3/8"

OVERALL 7’ − 1 5/8"

1/8" GA. ALUMINUM SHEET METAL

WATER CISTERN 4’ − 8 1/8"

4’ − 9 7/8" OVERALL CISTERN

4’ − 11 1/4"

13’ − 6 5/8"

1’ − 5 5/8"

1’ − 4 3/4" 8’ −CATCHMENT 8 1/8" 1’ − 0" OVERALL

WATER CALCULATIONS

ANNUAL SUPPLY ON SITE FROM RAINWATER

2,225,442 GALLONS

ANNUAL DEMAND FROM ON SITE VEGETATION

5,373,510 GALLONS

INDIVIDUAL RAINBARN COLLECTION IN 1 YEAR

RY - 3.8 ALLONS/BARN S/BARN

ALLONS/BARN LLONS/BARN

R ER- -3.39 5.27 3.53 S/BARN NS/BARN

JANUARY - 4 GALLONS/BARN

FEBRUARY - 3.8 JANUARY - 4 GALLONS/BARN GALLONS/BARN

MARCHFEBRUARY - -3.4 GALLONS/BARN - 3.8 JANUARY 4 GALLONS/BARN GALLONS/BARN

APRIL FEBR - 1.79 MARCH - 3.4 GALLO

MARCH - 3.4GALLONS/BARN MAY --FEBRUARY 0.83 - 3.8 APRIL 1.79 GALLONS/BARN GALLONS/BARN

APRIL 1.79 GALLONS/BARN JUNE--0.83 1.19 MAY MARCH - 3.4GALLONS/BARN GALLONS/BARN

JULY----0.83 9.44 GALLONS/BARN JUNE 1.19 MAY APRIL 1.79GALLONS/BARN GALLONS/BARN

AUG JULY--9.44 JUNE 1.19 GALL

JULY-SEPTEMBER - 5.27 JUNE -9.44 1.19GALLONS/BARN GALLONS/BARN AUGUST - 9.85 GALLONS/BARN GALLONS/BARN

AUGUST - -9.85 OCTOBER SEPTEMBER -3.39 5.27 JULY9.44 GALLONS/BARN GALLONS/BARN GALLONS/BARN GALLONS/BARN

NOVEMBER -5.27 3.53 OCTOBER 3.39 SEPTEMBER AUGUST ---9.85 GALLONS/BARN GALLONS/BARN

NOVEMBER 3.53 OCTOBER ---3.39 DECEMBER 4.4 GALLONS/BARN GALLONS/BARN

DECEMBER -- 3.53 4.4 NOVEMBER GALLONS/BARN GALLONS/BARN

DECEMBER - 4.4 GALLONS/BARN

DECE NOVEM OCTO GALL GALLO

RAIN BARN PROXIMITY DIAGRAM

AREA OF IMPACT DURING WET MONTHS 300 FT 2 PER BARN

AREA OF IMPACT DURING DRY MONTHS 2 100 FT PER BARN

PARK VISIBILITY DIAGRAM

VISIBILITY FROM TABLES

VISIBILITY FROM RAIN BARN SEATS

AGGREGATE SHADE ANALYSIS ACROSS A DAY

CURRENT SHADE

POST DESIGN SHADE

WATER DIAGRAM

STORM WATER 605K GAL/YR

2.2 MILLION GAL/YR

OUT

STORM WATER

2.2 MILLION GAL/YR

164K GAL/YR

RAIN WATER

TOTAL WATER SUPPLY

RAIN BARN COLLECTION 21K GAL/YR

WATER SYSTEMS

RAIN B STORMWATER MEDIAN

CISTE

RAINW

STORMWATER

BARN

ERN VEGETATION

WATER

BASIN

STORMWATER MEDIANS THROUGHOUT TUCSON

ROBLES PASS

PARK

MENLO PARK

SILVERLAKE ESTATES

REID PARK

FREEDOM PARK

UDALL PARK

HN F KENNEDY RK

KINO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

LINCOLN PARK

FLOOD HAZARD ZONES

SHEET FLOOD HAZARD ZONES

COT OWNED PARKS

AREAS OF INTEREST: FREEDOM PARK / GOLF PARKSSPORTS ALONG STREETS LINKS COMPLEX + DETENTION BASINS (WHERE EXISTING) LINCOLN PARK + STREET WASHES INTO / ACROSS PARK + WASHES INTO / ACROSS PARK + AREA OF SHEET FLOOD + AREA OF FLOOD HAZARD TUCSON BMX

AREAS OF INTEREST: PARKS ALONG STREETS + DETENTION BASINS (WHERE EXISTING) + STREET WASHES INTO / ACROSS PARK + WASHES INTO / ACROSS PARK DOM PARK / GOLF + AREA OF SHEET FLOOD S SPORTS COMPLEX + AREA OF FLOOD HAZARD

CURRENT DETENTION BASINS

JOHN F KENNEDY PARK

NETWORKING DIAGRAM - STORMWATER MEDIANS

WORKING DIAGRAM - STORMWATER MEDIANS

TUCSON BMX

KINO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

CURRENT DETENTION BASINS FLOOD HAZARD ZONES SHEET FLOOD HAZARD ZONES COT OWNED PARKS NON-COT OWNED PARKS WASHES STREET WASHES MAJOR STREETS

STORMWATER MEDIAN PROTOTYPES:

INDEX

PHASE 1 BUDGET

012345 6789 6 87 88 6 7 7 987 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 6 87 8 76789 54 !1#$5 5%1$ 5 1$ 5&' (4 5)5#*&' (4 87 6+-./01 2324/5/31236 --+683218-3 99 -:+; <= <9 >9 832? /;8432366?233834 -:+; < 9 < 9> 218@/6?231 :+;/+A --+683218-3C680DE:F > -:+; <= < > 83/ +26834>6?231834> /128?7-0D -+D G9 -:+; < <9 >

2831/3230/ -:+; < < >

7 H 6 I02@218-3 J:8F5/317/312? 2A; < >KL <L>= +28324/ I02@218-3 G>N : 6 < < >L 7/5-@2?-O -30+/1/ :+P 1 <9 < 7/5-@2?-O ;FQ2?18062@/5/31 J 6 < < A6+-;//6 -8? 12P8?8R/+C 2;83 -11-5; 9> K= J 1 < <N G 2??-36?231; 9 20Q <N < 9 1- 2??-36?231; 9 20Q < 9 < 2??-36?231; 20Q <G < 78FE72FLS1- LS J 1 <9 < +201:+/67-0DO-+ 2;83 64/; J 1 < < -30+/1/ =>= 9 J 1 <N <NG > L 1//? Q//1; 20Q < < 86/T2?D J 1 < < +// +21/ 20Q < >9 < Q26/ 1+:01:+/ 20Q < > < /3;8?/ Q26/ 1+:01:+/ 20Q < > < /30Q 20Q <9>K < /21 2?? 1 <L < 2P?/236 Q28+; 20Q < > < > 2AO836834 843; 20Q < > < :58328+/> -+8R-312? -:31 20Q < < 6Q-1- ?/01+80 1+//1 84Q1 = 20Q <9 < 6/6/;1+823 2O/1A 84Q1834 20Q <G>K < 68F/> -++:421/6 /12?G9S 1 <99 < 68F/>7/83O-+0/6 -30+/1/ LS 1 < N < 0:FF/+ 20Q <N> < Q/0D 25; 20Q < >9 < U105)5#* <= L> G < L >K -31834/30AV9 WY

5)5#*

Z[\[]^\^_`

PHASE 2 BUDGET

2831/3230/ -:+; < < >

7 H 6 I02@218-3 J:8F5/317/312? 2A; < >KL <L>= +28324/ I02@218-3 G>N : 6 < < >L 7/5-@2?-O -30+/1/ :+P 1 <9 < 7/5-@2?-O ;FQ2?18062@/5/31 J 6 < < A6+-;//6 -8? 12P8?8R/+C 2;83 -11-5; 9> K= J 1 < <N G 2??-36?231; 9 20Q <N < 9 1- 2??-36?231; 9 20Q < 9 < 2??-36?231; 20Q <G < 78FE72FLS1- LS J 1 <9 < +201:+/67-0DO-+ 2;83 64/; J 1 < < -30+/1/ =>= 9 J 1 <N <NG > L 1//? Q//1; 20Q < < 86/T2?D J 1 < < +// +21/ 20Q < >9 < Q26/ 1+:01:+/ K 20Q < > <K > /3;8?/ Q26/ 1+:01:+/ 20Q < > < /30Q 20Q <9>K < /21 2?? 1 <L < 2P?/236 Q28+; 20Q < > < > 2AO836834 843; 20Q < > < :58328+/> -+8R-312? -:31 20Q < < 6Q-1- ?/01+80 1+//1 84Q1 = 20Q <9 < 6/6/;1+823 2O/1A 84Q1834 20Q <G>K < 68F/> -++:421/6 /12?G9S 1 <99 < 68F/>7/83O-+0/6 -30+/1/ LS 1 < N < 0:FF/+ 20Q <N> < Q/0D 25; 20Q < >9 < U105)5#* < >N9L> G < 9 >K -31834/30AV9 WY

5)5#*

Z[\]^_\`a^

HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS

UACAPLA FALL 2019. Summary of hydrologic computations for each site UACAPLA FALL 2019. Summary of hydrologic computations for each site 1st Iteration 3rd Iteration 10‐yr 25‐yr 100‐yr 623 Qin [cfs] 319 Qin [cfs] 623 1278 1278 623 Qout [cfs] 319 Qout [cfs] 622 1268 Amphi Park Amphi Park Inflow Vol [ac‐ft] 51 Inflow Vol [ac‐ft] 99 199 Peak Storage [ac‐ft] 1 Peak Storage [ac‐ft] 1 3 Peak reduction [%] 0 1 Peak reduction [%] 0 Volume reduction [%] 1 1 Volume reduction [%] 1 Qin [cfs] 9 14 Qin [cfs] 6 Qout [cfs] 7 10 Qout [cfs] 5 Barrio Nopal Barrio Nopal Inflow Vol [ac‐ft] 0 1 1 UACAPLAUACAPLA FALL 2019. Summary of hydrologic computations for each site FALL 2019. Summary of hydrologic computations for each site Inflow Vol [ac‐ft] Peak Storage [ac‐ft] 0.1 0.2 Iteration Peak Storage [ac‐ft] 0.12nd 3rd Iteration Peak reduction [%] 31 Peak reduction [%] 10-yr 25-yr21 100‐yr 100-yr 10‐yr19 25‐yr Volume reduction [%] 25 17 22 Qin [cfs] 1278 Qin [cfs]Volume reduction [%] 319319 625623 1278 Qout [cfs] 1268 Qout [cfs] 319319 623622 1278 Amphi Park Amphi Park Qin [cfs] 20 43 Inflow Vol [ac‐ft] 51 Qin [cfs] Inflow Vol [ac-ft] 51 13 99 99 199199 Qout [cfs] 12 Peak Storage [ac‐ft] 1 1 Qout [cfs] 10 Storage Vol [ac-ft] 0.0 0.1 0.2 293 Conner Park Conner Park Inflow Vol [ac‐ft] 1 2 4 Peak reduction [%] 0 0 1 Inflow Vol [ac‐ft] Peak Storage [ac‐ft] 0 Volume reduction [%] 1 1 1 0 Qin [cfs]Peak Storage [ac‐ft] 6 9 14 Peak reduction [%] 25 Peak reduction [%] 42 32 Qout [cfs] 4 25 5 42 7 32 Barrio Nopal Volume reduction [%] 15 14 26 Qin [cfs] 6 9 14 Volume reduction [%] UACAPLA FALL 2019. Summary of hydrologic computations for each site Inflow Vol [ac-ft] 0.4 15 0.6 14 0.9 26 Qout [cfs] 5 7 3rd Iteration Storage Vol [ac-ft] 0.1 0.2 0.3 10 Barrio Nopal Qin [cfs] 12 17 Inflow Vol [ac‐ft] 0 1 1 Qin [cfs] 12 17 26 10‐yr 25‐yr 100‐yr26 Qout [cfs] 0 0 Peak Storage [ac‐ft] 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 Qin [cfs] 127811 Qin [cfs]Qout [cfs] 13 319 206230 43 Medina 12th Medina 12th Inflow Vol [ac‐ft] 1.0 1.4 2.2 Peak reduction [%] 19 21 31 Inflow Vol [ac‐ft] 1.0 1.4 2.2 Qout [cfs] 1268 Qout [cfs] 10 319 16622 39 Amphi Park Connor Park Peak Storage [ac‐ft] 0.6 0.9 1.4 Volume reduction [%] 25 17 22 Peak Storage [ac‐ft] 1.4 Inflow Vol [ac‐ft] 51 99 Inflow Vol [ac-ft] 1.1 0.6 1.9 0.9 3.7199 Peak reduction [%] 97 98 98 Peak reduction [%] 97 98 3 Storage Peak Storage [ac‐ft] Vol [ac-ft] 0.1 1 0.2 1 0.5 98 Volume reduction [%] 60 64 64 Qin [cfs] 13 20 43 Volume reduction [%] 600 64 64 Peak reduction [%] 0 1 Qout [cfs] 10 12 29 Conner Park Qin [cfs]Volume reduction [%] 12 1 17 1 26 1 Qin [cfs] 2881 627 1273 Inflow Vol [ac‐ft] 2 4 Qin [cfs] 288 627 1273 Qout [cfs] 1 287 2 625 21273 Qout [cfs] Peak Storage [ac‐ft] 0 0 1 MedinaNavajo 1st Low 12th Qout [cfs] 1273 Qin [cfs] 6 9 14 Inflow Vol [ac-ft] 1.0287 1.4625 2.2 Navajo 1st Low Inflow Vol [ac‐ft] 46 91 189 Peak reduction [%] 25 42 32 Inflow Vol [ac‐ft] 46 91 189 Qout [cfs] Storage Peak Storage [ac‐ft] Vol [ac-ft] 0.7 51 1.1 72 1.7 103 Barrio Nopal Volume reduction [%] 15 14 26 Peak Storage [ac‐ft] 10 Inflow Vol [ac‐ft] 12 13 Peak reduction [%] 0 0 00 Peak reduction [%] 0 Peak Storage [ac‐ft] 0.1 0.10 0.2 Qin [cfs]Volume reduction [%] 288 122 627 172 1273262 Qin [cfs] Peak reduction [%] 19 212 312 Volume reduction [%] 2