Baptism by Water: Master of Architecture Thesis by Youngsoo Yang by Youngsoo Yang

Baptism by Water

Youngsoo Yang M.Arch Thesis Thesis Advisor Saundra Weddle

Contents

Preface

Introduction

07 11 17 23 29 37

Research Background Evolution Communication Ideology Target Users Summary

Thesis Statement

45 49 57

Site Selection United States of America New York City Hudson Yards

Program

69 73 77

Precedents Leรงa Swimming Pools Olympic Sculpture Park Oxygen House

Acknowledgments

Notes & Sources

Bibliography

Preface

On June 23, 1988, Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Institute for Space Studies, testified before the United States Congress that the planet was warming due to human activities, significantly affecting the global climate as a result. The scientific evidence pointed to the greenhouse effect as the primary cause of global warming. The public statement marked the first time a prominent scientist affirmed the connection from human contribution to changing the atmospheric composition of the planet. This groundbreaking congressional testimony caused widespread public and media attention, including the New York Times publishing an alarming front-page article with the headline, “Global Warming Has Begun.”1 For almost thirty years since the testimony, scientific findings and measurements have only consolidated to support and confirm Hansen’s simple message: climate change is happening and we are responsible. The United States and the international community have since witnessed profoundly little progress on resolving this global environmental crisis, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus. What should have been a straightforward, logical step toward resolving the scientific predicament, the response somehow devolved into political, ideological, and cultural controversies; especially in the United States, where the debate on climate change has become an extremely bipartisan topic. According to a 2010 Gallup survey, 47 percent of Americans linked global warming to natural causes – the highest percentage in the world compared to the world average of 14 percent. The U.S. also ranked one of the lowest among developed countries – 34 percent – in attributing

global warming to human activities.2 These findings lead to a question: despite the indisputable scientific evidence, what is creating resistance and denial to accept the facts and fail to galvanize action against the threats of climate change? In search for the answer, the question is examined through different lenses of psychological, social, political, cultural, and ideological perspectives, specifically in the context of the United States. Over twenty-eight years since Dr. Hansen’s testimony on the human induced climate change, dire warnings from climate scientists and experts have repeatedly faced staunch skepticism and denial from the public, politicians, industries, and even fellow scientists. It is extremely important to understand how this culture of scientific repudiation has grown to establish itself in the U.S. Informed by the interdisciplinary research, the thesis proposes a different strategy to approach the deep-rooted problem, by which the new message of climate change communicates in a personal, palpable, and pertinent way to our everyday lives. The thesis’ design proposal is located on the current site of the Hudson Yards development on the west side of Manhattan, New York. This location presents compelling physical and cultural contexts in which the tangible impacts of climate change encounter cultural denialism induced by short-term capitalistic thinking. It serves as an ideal representation of the city’s as well as the entire country’s current dynamics of the climate change debate. The tension between the contradictory forces, displayed by the rising sea levels of the Hudson River and the ongoing multi-billion-dollar real-estate development, provides an exceptional opportunity in the dense urban environment of New York. The site’s close proximity to the river introduces the element of water as a central theme in the design process as well as in the programmatic component of architecture, acting as a visual indicator of climate change.

The architectural manifestation of the thesis project aims to provide an environment to inspire profound change in individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s behavior and attitude toward the issue of climate change. Along with the current top-down methodology to combat climate change such as government policies and technological solutions, a bottomup approach is equally necessary to truly and positively evoke oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s awareness and understanding of the climate and our environmental footprint. The architecture strives to provide an opportunity to realize the human potential. Capitalizing on architectureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s inherent nature of public exposure and visual vocabulary of forms, spaces, and materials, the design solution addresses the current problems of climate change and offers a platform for individuals as well as culture and society to finally take action.

Introduction Research Thesis Statement Site Selection Program Precedents Acknowledgments Notes & Sources Bibliography

Introduction

As mounting scientific evidence points to the human cause of global climate change, a lack of significant action and sense of urgency persists in the U.S. society. Despite the increasingly alarming predictions of the future based on current data and measurements, the United States and the rest of the world have made little headway to address this unprecedented threat on individual, national, and global dimensions. Climate change constantly remains a low priority in Americansâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; concerns.1 Furthermore, the debate of anthropogenic climate change has become severely polarized in the U.S. politics, limiting substantial progress due to political inertia. Scientific consensus is in overwhelming agreement on human responsibility on climate change, yet social consensus is muddled with opposing ideological beliefs, plagued with doubt and denial that prevent meaningful conversations to take place. To understand how these complications have established a culture of inaction and apathy, it is important to analyze how people perceive and understand the issue of climate change in their daily lives. To many, climate change is a distant, imperceptible, and irrelevant thought. The human brain is not adept at fully comprehending the abstract quality of climate change; the greenhouse effect is invisible to the eye, extreme weather events occur in remote regions of the world, far from the sphere of personal influence. Daily conversations rarely mention the topic of climate change, while media spew out complex data and statistics to warn us of the threats of global warming. Further complicating the issue, active climate deniers and skeptics refer to contradictory weather events such as cold spells and snowfalls, to discredit scientistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; warning of the warming planet.

Through interdisciplinary research of natural and social sciences, this thesis seeks to examine and understand the roots of the problems that cause social and political resistance to accept the science and take action. The aim is to convert them into opportunities to trigger behavioral and attitudinal change on an individual level that eventually leads to a social paradigm shift in the way society and its members perceive climate change. The new message of climate change must speak in a personal, tangible, and pertinent way to our everyday lives. This thesis is not a review of climate science, investigating the scientific validity of climate change. It is an exploration of todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s cultural and social attitude in the United States toward the environmental issue. The interdisciplinary research encompasses a broad range of viewpoints from evolutionary psychology to ideological understanding of differing worldviews on global warming. Science alone cannot solve climate change but a collaborative effort involving various disciplines of human knowledge and experience may find an answer to this unprecedented global crisis. Set in geographic and cultural contexts of Manhattan, New York, the final statement of the thesis manifests through architectural design as a response to the problems. As evident from the events of Hurricane Sandy in 2012, New York City is one of many coastal cities around the world under the direct threat of changing climate. The warmer global temperature leads to rising sea levels, more frequent floods, and more severe storms, that all affect the lives of New Yorkers. Architectural intervention in the urban fabric of Manhattan seeks to address climate change by bringing a renewed sense of awareness of the environment that will inspire meaningful action on individual and collective levels to address the unprecedented existential threat to humanity.

Introduction Research

Background Evolution

Thesis Statement Site Selection Program Precedents Acknowledgments Notes & Sources Bibliography

Communication Ideology Target Users Summary

Background

The science behind anthropogenic climate change is unequivocal. As early as 1827, long before the knowledge of global climate change, French physicist, Joseph Fourier, first introduced the concept of greenhouse effect. He argued that certain gases in the atmosphere allowed the incoming sunlight to pass through but trap the heat energy reflected from the planet’s surface, acting as an insulator to balance the planetary temperature.1 A commonly used analogy to explain the greenhouse effect is comparing Earth’s atmosphere to a blanket: imagine a blanket around the planet preventing the heat inside to escape as the sun warms up the Earth. In the 1850s, scientist John Tyndall conducted laboratory measurements of carbon dioxide absorption of heat radiation. He discovered that the gas in the atmosphere acts as a natural thermostat controlling the planet’s temperature. In other words, Tyndall proved that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas absorbing the heat energy bounced from the planet’s surface, and thus playing a significant role in the planetary energy balance.2 It was the Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, who in 1895, first questioned and calculated the effects of carbon dioxide on climate. He recognized that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could significantly influence the global temperature of the Earth.3 He also noticed the rapid increase in the human contribution to carbon emissions due to the development of fossil fuel use at the time. Arrhenius was one of the first people to question the effects of anthropogenic carbon emissions as we “evaporated our coal mines into the air.”4 It was not until the late 1950s that Charles Keeling first measured the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide in Mauna Loa, Hawaii. He discovered a steady increase in the accumulating

1824

Joseph Fourier introduces the idea of greenhouse effect

1850

Joseph Tyndall proves CO2 is a greenhouse gas

1958

Charles Keeling measures CO2 in the atmosphere at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii

1988

James Hansen testifies before U.S. Congress that global warming is caused by human actions

2016

Atmospheric CO2 concentration level records 400 ppm for the first time in human history - 40 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions (2014) - global temperature increase by 1.7 Â°F since 1880 - sea level rise at the rate of 1 inch per decade - melting of Arctic ice by 13% per decade

amount of CO2 in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution in the early 19th century. His observation presented factual evidence of a direct relationship between the burning of fossil fuels and the increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, measured in parts per million (ppm).5 The collected data measurements which continue to the present-day have produced the Keeling Curve, one of the most important pieces of scientific work of the twentieth century. (Figure 2.1) The graph clearly illustrates the upward trend of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere which correlate to the increase in fossil fuel consumption in industries and modern lifestyle around the world.

Almost sixty years later, in 2013, the same Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii first monitored an ominous landmark record of 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere – an unprecedented level in human history. This is over a 40% increase from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm.6 Although the estimate number varies, the last time the atmospheric CO2 levels have been this high was at least 800,000 years ago, meaning that the entire history of human civilization has never seen such levels.7 (Figure 2.2) Michael Mann, climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, states that when the atmospheric level of CO2 was over 400 ppm, the global temperatures were substantially warmer with sea levels as high as 100 feet higher than they are today.8 The continuing upward trajectory of the Keeling Curve does not show any signs of stopping, despite consistent warnings from the scientific community. Human consumption of fossil fuels has released approximately 374 billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere since 1751, with 9449 million metric tons produced in 2011 alone – a 3.4 percent increase over 2010 emissions, and a 90 percent increase since 1970.9 10 (Figure 2.3) The rate at which the burning of fossil fuels is releasing carbon dioxide is only accelerating. Consequently, the year 2016 witnessed global carbon dioxide levels permanently pass the threshold of 400 ppm, to which scientists claim that returning below such levels will not happen in our lifetimes.11 Meanwhile, indicators of the warming planet are undeniable: the average global temperature has risen by 1.7 °F since 1880, and “the ten warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998.” The mass ice sheets in the Arctic show a rapid decline at a rate of 13.3 percent per decade, partially contributing to the rise in the global average sea level of seven inches over the past 100 years. Extreme weather events, such as more intense storms, heat waves and droughts lead to loss of lives with economic consequences. The litany is endless. The science is clear and the evidence of climate change is indisputable.

Figure 2.1 Keeling curve shows the accumulating trend of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere

Current Level

1950 Level

Figure 2.2 Ice-core data of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 800,000 years ago

Figure 2.3 Global carbon emissions have increased significantly since 1900

Evolution

“Global warming is a deadly threat, precisely because it sneaks in under the radar that we’ve evolved.” – Daniel Gilbert1 Supported by irrefutable factual data and empirical evidence, the scientific community worldwide agrees on human responsibility for the unprecedented era of global climate disruption. However, social, political, and individual reaction to dire forecasts of the future are minimal, if not existent. The reason the scientific evidence and constant warning signs do not elicit a meaningful response is due to the way the human brain reacts in the face of perceived threats. Over two million years, our brain’s evolutionary process has enabled us to respond to certain threats that are effective at triggering the brain’s alarm system, prompting to action. Understanding the human brain through the lens of evolutionary psychology is extremely important, because this particular discipline serves as the basis of understanding other branches of psychology and human behavior. More importantly, our ancestors’ genetic coding of the brain still dictates the way people behave in today’s modern world, as the brain has evolved from the process of natural selection.2 In his 2015 book, What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming, the author Per Espen Stoknes investigates the causes of ‘psychological climate paradox’, in which more scientific facts and evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change lead to less public concern.3 He argues that today’s conventional communication of climate change fails to address the inherent human psychological barriers. They prevent the messages from reaching individuals with a sense of urgency and therefore fail to motivate the public to take meaningful action. He highlights five “ancestral forces” – self-interest, status, social imitation,

short-termism, and risk vividness – as genetic features that help to understand how evolutionary psychology explains the human behavior in response to climate change.4 For thousands of years, human species have roamed the Earth as nomads, migrating from place to place in search for food and habitat. They lived in form of tribes and small groups, protecting themselves from other tribes and natural predators. This ancient lifestyle has prioritized human to perform primarily selfish choices that cater toward himself and the group he belongs to, with disregard for ‘others’.5 Self-interest was necessary for survival. This primitive impulse translates to the modern behavior in the context of climate change. According to a 2009 survey, only 34 percent thought global warming will personally harm them, as opposed to 88 percent of the same respondents who were “extremely sure that global warming is happening.”6 It is evident that a disconnection exists between the awareness of climate change and the perception of its impact on a personal level. Before humanity evolved to adopt agricultural lifestyle, our ancestors were first hunter-gatherers, who expected an instant reward for their labor on the same day. This human preference to value instant profit over distant benefits continues to modern societies, where short-term gratification outweighs long-term outcomes.7 The inherent long-term nature of climate issues, with decades and centuries into the future, fails to trigger the brain’s alarm system to effectively address the situation. The brain responds more easily to short-term events such as daily concerns, economic consequences, and security of himself and his group. The issue of climate change constantly ranks as one of the lowest priorities in

Great deal

Fair amount

Not at all %

The economy

Federal spending and the budget deficit

The availability and affordability of healthcare

Unemployment

The size and power of the federal government

The Social Security system

Hunger and homelessness

Crime and violence

The possibility of future terrorist attacks in the U.S.

The availability and affordability of energy

Drug use

Illegal immigration

The quality of the environment

Climate change

Race relations

Figure 2.4 Americanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Level of Worry About National Problems (2014 Rank Order) Responses to: Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m going to read a list of problems facing the country. For each one, please tell me if you personally worry about this problem a great, a fair amount, or not al all? First, how much do you personally worry about ...? 2014 Gallup poll shows that climate change is a low concern in the U.S. public

Figure 2.5 U.S. Senator James Inhofe brings a snowball to the Senate floor to discredit global warming as a hoax

the U.S. public. A 2014 Gallup survey revealed that only 28% of Americans “worry a great deal” about climate change, choosing issues such as the economy, health care and government as more important. (Figure 2.4)8 Our bias to favor short-term events relates to how the brain perceive risks. Humans assign much more attention toward threats that are immediate, tangible and spectacular, over abstract concerns.9 The human brain has evolved to instantly deal with immediate dangers such as nearby predators that directly threaten our lives, but is ineffective at recognizing more vague and abstract dangers such as climate change. As discussed, the risks of climate change are distant in time and space. In other words, risk perception determines one’s perception of the threat as worthy of his attention and energy. Unfortunately, climate change does not appear to be threatening enough for us to act upon it. Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard, shares much of Stoknes’ insight into the evolutionary perspective on human behavior to climate change. The former argues that the human brain has evolved to respond to threats that are Intentional, Immoral, Imminent, and Instantaneous. The aspects of Instantaneous and Imminent are in parallel with Stoknes’ ancestral forces of shorttermism and risk vividness, in which the brain values immediate and tangible threats over abstract dangers. For example, people react more urgently to their immediate surroundings, such as local weather experiences. A 2013 study suggests that “when mean temperatures are warmer than normal, the U.S. public tends to be more convinced and more worried about human-caused climate change.”10 Conversely, when local temperature is lower than average in the winter months, the public awareness on climate change declines. Local weather patterns are palpable, imminent, and instantaneous, while climate change – a change in Earth’s overall climate – is exactly the opposite.

Figure 2.6 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 September 11 terrorist attacks were Intentional, Immoral, Immediate, and Imminent, that triggered the brainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ancient alarm system to action

Moreover, people react fervently to threats that are Intentional, which implies a human source of danger – an enemy. One of the reasons the human brain is much more advanced than other forms of life, is its evolved ability to understand the minds of others. Gilbert argues that the brain has “special networks devoted entirely to processing information about what human agents think, feel, want and intend.”11 Naturally, humans are “hyper-vigilant” for the slightest sign of human intention. For example, we are susceptible to worry more about a much less likely terrorist attack than contracting influenza, since the latter is a ‘natural accident’ while the former is an ‘intentional action’. He concludes, “the smallest intentional action captures our attention in a way that the largest natural accident just doesn’t.”12 The threat of climate change is not intentional – there is no enemy responsible for the environmental crisis. In fact, the enemy is us with the fossil fuel-based lifestyle, further complicating our perception on climate change. Gilbert points to the September 11 terrorist attacks as an example that presses all the right buttons to trigger the brain’s alarm system, and immediately jumping to action to address the situation with urgency: from an international level of establishing security protocols including Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to an individual level of joining the military or sacrificing one’s privacy for the sake of national security. The terrorist attack was Intentional, Immoral, Immediate and Imminent.13 The plane crash into the twin towers of the World Trade Center was an immediate and extremely visual catalyst, threatening the moral values of freedom and democracy, and orchestrated by the Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda. Climate change, on the other hand, completely misses these four buttons. The human brain, an extraordinary product of over two million years of evolutionary process, is also the main culprit behind our inability to act against an unprecedented threat to our very existence.

Communication

If evolutionary psychology explains the source of modern human behavior, cognitive science helps describe more in-depth how the human brain processes information, forms opinions, and makes decisions. Cognitive psychology answers why today’s climate communication methodology has so far proven to be ineffective at delivering the dire warnings based on science and reality. Despite the widespread media coverage on global warming and scientists’ grave predictions of the future, the messages consistently fail to generate profound public attention that leads to significant action. The scientific community has ignored how ordinary individuals review, observe, and analyze information. The inherent nature of climate change communication, usually presented as numerical data and scientific statistics, unintentionally contributes to inaction and apathy.1 Therefore, it is important to understand how the human brain perceives the communication of climate change and respond to its messages. Inevitably, cognitive psychology plays a central role in explaining how we process the scientific information of climate change. This chapter investigates how the human brain interacts with today’s conventional method of climate communication and how it reacts and processes such information. Consider the following summary of the scientific statistics and data discussed in the earlier chapter, Background. • CO2 atmospheric level has passed 400 ppm, a 40% increase from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm • In 2011, burning of fossil fuels has released 9449 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere • The average global temperature has risen by 1.7 °F since 1880 • Arctic sea ice declines at a rate of 13.3 percent per decade • The average global sea level has risen by 7 inches (178 mm)since 1870

The summary represents the strategy that climate scientists have employed over and over to inform the public of the imminent effects of climate change. Filled with abstract numbers and scientific jargons, the information fails to effectively communicate the magnitude and urgency of the issue. Numerical data (400 ppm and 9449 million metric tons) coupled with esoteric graphs and charts do not engage the lay audience with the critical scale of the problem. Mathematical measurements of “1.7 °F rise in global temperature,” and “7 inches of sea level rise since 1870,” seem miniscule and insignificant. Nonetheless, each time a warning message fails to provoke a response, scientists and media bombard yet again with more scientific evidence in a dogmatic tone in hopes to finally awaken the listeners. However, as author Per Espen Stoknes describes, “raw data, on its own, does not easily give meaning.”2 Numbers, data, and measurements are not the most effective medium to convey the seriousness of climate change to the public. They seem abstract, irrelevant, and far from engaging. They fail to tap into the part of the human brain responsible for provoking concrete action. The human brain has “two distinct information processing systems,” with each side processing different forms of information in two distinct ways.3 George Marshall, author of Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains are Wired to Ignore Climate Change, explains the differences: “one is analytical, logical, and encodes reality in abstract symbols, words, and numbers. The other is driven by emotions (especially fear and anxiety), images, intuition, and experience.”4 These two distinct systems are built into the physical structure of the brain – the analytic system activates the cortex and posterior parietal cortex, while the emotional side stimulates the amygdala. The analytic and emotional systems are in constant communication, but the latter, emotional system, takes on a dominant role in decision making. It is also the part of the cognitive system where risk perception takes place, using personal experience and visual cues to evoke an emotional response.5

In his book on psychology of climate change, Stoknes echoes Marshall’s analysis of the two different cognitive systems. Borrowing the terminology from psychologist Daniel Kahneman, he labels them as ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ systems, but the principles remain the same: the fast system indicates rapid thought process and intuitive judgments based on “our past experiences and emotions,” while the slow system is “more rational, linear, logical, and cumbersome.”6 Stoknes argues that communication of climate change must address the two different cognitive systems in order to generate a successful response for action. He adds that climate change, by its slow and imperceptible nature, does little to stimulate the fast, emotional part of the brain, which is responsible for making decisions. The current climate change communication is based on scientific explanation and mathematical data that primarily targets the slow, analytical system. Although this cognitive thought process is important in making critical and informed judgments, the other system of emotions and intuition must be addressed to effectively communicate the serious risks of climate change. As Stoknes writes, “risk is a feeling, not a number.”7 Cognitive psychology explains how we perceive climate change based on our brain’s information processing system. Distance is a key factor that prevents us to relate in an engaging manner to the events of climate change. The effects of global warming are physically distant: burning of fossil fuels occur in remote areas hidden from the public eye; the melting glaciers occur in the Arctic and Antarctica; extreme floods and tsunamis devastate coastal habitats and unknown strangers in low-lying islands of the Pacific Ocean. Insulated from such events, the majority of the population in developed countries finds it difficult to relate on a personal level. Climate change does not feel ‘threatening’ because our families, friends, and communities are not directly affected. We usually experience secondhand through media coverage, social media, or other means of information. Climate change is also perceived to be distant in time since climate communication speaks in an intergenerational time scale, measured in decades and centuries.

Such distant future does not seem relevant to one’s present needs and everyday concerns, and is dismissed as a result. The impacts of climate change occur gradually and barely perceptible to the eye, over a long period of time. The social distance of “our own locus of control,” contributes to the feeling of helplessness when faced with the overwhelming situation of the global environmental crisis.8 Struggling to grasp the enormity of the problem, the brain shuts down and instead decides to ignore the existence of the problem completely. The cover of an April 2006 issue of Time magazine shows a lone polar bear losing its bearings in the midst of melting ice sheets, with the headlines: “Be worried. Be very worried.” (Figure 2.7)9 This formidable visual message intends to tap into the brain’s emotional system to elicit a visceral response from the viewer in hopes to provoke instant action on climate change. Although wellintentioned, the strategy faces the cognitive barriers of the reader’s impassive brain. The location of the Arctic evokes a psychological distance from the viewer’s reality, along with a subject of the polar bear – another element of abnormality in his daily life contributing to the disconnection. As tragic the lost polar bear is, its struggle for survival is irrelevant to the viewer’s everyday concern. Even if he desires to do something about it, his sphere of influence does little to make a significant and immediate impact on the melting Arctic glaciers and well-being of polar bears. The polar bear’s helplessness eerily reflects the reader’s emotion upon viewing the magazine cover. Another psychological barrier the Time cover demonstrates is the element of prolonged exposure. Polar bear has become the most visible and omnipresent symbol of climate change, designed to arouse compassion for the tormented animal and elicit a strong emotional response. However, the prolonged exposure of the animal over time has unwittingly molded the public to grow desensitized in its sympathy toward the creature’s tragic fate in the Arctic. The debate on climate change has experienced similar changes in the public perception on the issue. Public concerns about climate change were

Figure 2.7 Time magazine cover shows a lone polar bear on melting ice sheets in the Arctic to evoke an emotional response on global warming

higher in 1989, a year after James Hansenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s congressional testimony, only for the public interests to decline over time.10 Climate change was relatively a novel topic at the time, and when Hansenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s radical statement on human contribution to global warming made the news, the public attention soared. However, as people continued with their lives while imperceptible effects of climate change went unnoticed, the public lost interest. Similarly, following the events of Hurricane Sandy along the Atlantic coast in 2012, New Yorkers concern on climate heightened, only to return to normal by 2013.11 No matter how shocking a piece of news is, humans are incredibly adaptable at ignoring the problem when given enough time to adjust and settle.

Lastly, the magazine cover conveys a sense of guilt to the reader. It implies that it is due to his irresponsibility that this poor polar bear is suffering. The message is subtle, but its tone of accusation is present. Such guilt-inducing rhetoric represents the current attitude of climate change communication from the scientific community and media – fear mongering and accusing one’s lifestyle of energy consumption and contribution to global warming. Unfortunately, such dogmatism does little to meet the goal of raising awareness to one’s action, much less to change it. Rather, it engenders cognitive dissonance as a response. Cognitive dissonance refers to “a situation in which there are conflicting feelings, thoughts, and behaviors.”12 In other words, when one commits an action that contradicts his thought or knowledge, he begins to feel uncomfortable from the forces at odds. Interestingly, the human brain tends to resolve this conflict by modifying his thought to match his action, instead of changing his behavior to support his mind. Since it is much easier to change his mind than his actual behavior, he completely ignores his thought and continues to follow his action. This is bad news for addressing climate change as individual and social behavioral change is extremely crucial. For example, when one drives a car but knows that it contributes to global warming, dissonance sets in since those two thoughts are conflicting. The outcome is that the driver convinces himself to keep driving by modifying his perception of reality or downplaying the magnitude of his concern. By inducing guilt and fear, today’s conventional climate communication generates and worsens cognitive dissonance in individuals and culture. Instead, the climate rhetoric must speak in a positive and engaging manner in order to deliver a truly resonating message to the people.

Ideology

“The debate over climate change in the U.S. is not about carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas model; it is about opposing cultural values and worldviews through which that science is seen.”1 – Andrew J. Hoffman The lack of social consensus on climate change in the United States is startling considering the overwhelming scientific consensus. According to a 2014 Gallup poll, 63 percent of Americans believed that global warming is happening, but the responses became more polarized when asked what the main cause was – 48 percent pointed to human activities while 35 percent attributed to natural changes.2 This dichotomy of public opinions illustrates the problem the U.S. currently faces with the debate on climate change and the state of gridlock due to political inertia. Where does the divide of the social and political views come from? The answer can be found in the way humans receive, assess, analyze and act upon given information. Social psychology helps explain our thought process and behavior in the presence of others. Humans are inherently driven to maintain and strengthen the connections to the group we belong and trust. We value group consensus which influences the way we process information and establish a position that reinforces our affiliation to the referent group.3 This subconscious disposition originates from the evolutionary process, in which our ancestors faced direct threats to their survival if they refused to conform to the group. Therefore, our belief systems are determined by our innate desire to relate to others who share similar values and ideology, rather than logical and rational reasoning. This influences the way we process information, called “motivated reasoning,” in which we select pieces

of information through “ideological filters” that already support our pre-existing beliefs.4 We welcome evidence that endorses our beliefs without question. This intellectual preference is termed “confirmation bias.”5 Conversely, we discredit views that oppose and contradict what we believe in (“disconfirmation bias”).6 Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt offers an insightful analogy to describe the way humans process information through cognitive filter: “We may think we are acting as scientists when analyzing data and models, but very often we are acting more as lawyers, using our reasoning to a predetermined end, one that was emotionally biased by our ideological positions and cultural views.”7 The United States is one of the few countries in the world where the debate of climate change is as politically polarized as it currently stands. It is no coincidence that the yellow states on the Yale Climate Opinion Map, (Figure 2.9) whose majority of the adult population attribute global warming to human activities, almost entirely correspond to the blue states of the Democratic Party in the 2016 presidential election, and vice versa. (Figure 2.10) A 2016 Gallup poll reveals that 72 percent of Democrats believe in the human cause of climate change, whereas the number is much lower for Republicans at 27 percent.8 Here, the sociological concepts of motivated reasoning and confirmation/disconfirmation bias are at play. Many political conservatives disapprove mitigating actions on climate change, because they view environmental policies, such as carbon taxes and federal regulations, as a threat to the cultural values they identify with – free enterprise, economic growth, and minimal intervention from the government.

Naturally, a member of political conservatism in the United States is more likely to refute the human cause of climate change, because fellow Republicans, whom he shares similar cultural values, oppose the argument. As Andrew Hoffman describes in his book, “the debate over climate change in the United States is not about carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas models; it is about opposing cultural values and worldviews through which that science is seen.”9 Ideological barriers prevent individuals from making rational judgments based on facts. Instead, information that most closely affirms the pre-existing cultural values is what is accepted as the truth. Therefore, climate communication based on scientific evidence does little to inform and provoke a meaningful response to those who already hold a political position on the issue. The experiences of Bob Inglis, a former Republican U.S. Congressman of South Carolina, offer several lessons on beliefs in climate change as well as a real-life example of cognitive bias at play. As the representative of South Carolina’s 4th Congressional District – “the reddest district in the reddest state in the nation,” – Inglis described the sole reason he did not believe in climate change: “All I knew, was that Al Gore was for it, and therefore I was against it.”10 It is a classic example of disconfirmation bias from Inglis, a member of the Republican Party against Al Gore, of the Democratic Party. Due to the conflicting ideological values, Inglis blindly refused to accept the science of climate change, merely because his political opposition argued for it. However, his views on climate change underwent a radical transformation after his experiences with climate change around the world, including Antarctica and Australia. He witnessed the evidence from ice core drillings on the effects of carbon dioxide in global warming and the devastating impacts of coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. Inglis realized that his contrarian views on climate change was “based on ignorance,” shunning the scientific facts due to his political beliefs.11 Inglis’ realization on the reality of climate change introduces the act of experience as the silver to overcome the cognitive barrier of motivated reasoning and disconfirmation bias. In his book, How Culture Shapes the Climate

70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30%

Democratic Republican

Figure 2.8 (top) Yale Climate Opinion map shows percentage of adults in each state who think global warming is mostly caused by human activities (Yellow states: +50%, Blue States: -50%) Figure 2.9 (bottom) 2016 U.S. Presidential election results show a corresponding match to the map above

Change Debate, Andrew Hoffman argues that “motivated reasoning occurs primarily among people who are already high engaged on the issue whereas experiential learning takes place among people who are less engaged.”12 ‘Experiential learning holds the key to approach the issue of climate change that conveys a personal relevance with a sense of urgency that leads to action. The communicator of the message plays an equally important role in how the receiver perceives the information. We constantly evaluate the trustworthiness and integrity of the messenger, and whether he shares our values, concerns, and worldview.13 Al Gore’s 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, was successful in raising awareness to climate change, which earned the former US Vice President the Nobel Peace Prize for his “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change.”14 However, establishing Al Gore, a partisan political figure in the U.S., as the face of the climate change actions, only exacerbated the polarization of the political debate. Republicans’ distrust of Al Gore as the messenger of climate change led to denying his messages. Interestingly, Bob Inglis was ‘ousted’ by his fellow Republicans for pursuing environmentalist policies, costing him the bid for re-election in 2010. However, since he argued for actions that opposed his referent group values, he gained much trust and credence to his messages. Inglis was later awarded the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award for his advocacy of climate change.15 In 2014, United Nations Secretary-General, Bank Ki-moon, designated actor Leonardo DiCaprio as a UN Messenger of Peace, to raise awareness of “the urgency and benefits of acting now to combat climate change.”16 The decision to select an actor, relatively free from political identity and bias, demonsrtates the relationship between political affiliation and views on climate change, as well as the perceived trust of the messenger. Figure 2.10, 2.11, 2.12 (from top to bottom) The messenger plays an important role in how the receiver perceives the information. Former Republican Congressman, Bob Inglis; Former U.S. Vice President, Al Gore; Actor and UN Messenger of Peace, Leonardo DiCaprio

Target Users

“All mankind is divided into three classes: those that are immovable, those that are movable, and those that move.” – Benjamin Franklin Every individual carries different cultural values and belief systems, formed by diverse backgrounds, experiences, and knowledge, which shape his unique worldview including his perspective on climate change. In order to understand how to effectively communicate the issue of climate change, it is vital to “know thy audience” – to first recognize how differently individuals respond and perceive the environmental issue. It also helps to identify the problems that the conventional climate communication is facing, from which valuable lessons can be taken to construct an improved method of reaching the public. Global Warming’s Six Americas is an extensive survey conducted by researchers at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication with the aim to recognize and identify the American public perception of global warming. Every year since the fall of 2008, the researchers gather data from “a large nationally representative survey of American adults,” to produce a comprehensive report that provides useful insights into “the public’s climate change beliefs, attitudes, risk perceptions, motivations, values, policy preferences, behaviors, and underlying barriers to action.”1 The report suggests that Americans’ individual responses and their levels of engagement with climate change fall into six distinct categories: Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful, and Dismissive.2 (Figure 2.13 and Table 2.14)

Alarmed

Concerned

Cautious

Disengaged

Doubtful

Dismissive

17%

28%

27%

11%

10%

Highest Belief in Global Warming Most Concerned Most Motivated

Lowest Belief in Global Warming Least Concerned Least Motivated

Figure 2.13 Americans’ individual responses on climate change fall into six distinct categories

The Alarmed (17%) are the segment most engaged in the issue of global warming. They are very convinced it is happening, human-caused, and a serious and urgent threat. The Alarmed are already making changes in their own lives and support an aggressive national response. The Concerned (28%) are also convinced that global warming is happening and a serious problem, but while they support a vigorous national response, they are distinctly less involved in the issue – and less likely to be taking personal action – than the Alarmed. The Cautious (27%) also believe that global warming is a problem, although they are less certain that it is happening than the Alarmed or the Concerned; they don’t view it as a personal threat, and don’t feel a sense of urgency to deal with it. The Disengaged (7%) haven’t thought much about the issue at all, don’t know much about it, and are the most likely to say that they could easily change their minds about global warming. The Doubtful (11%) are evenly split among those who think global warming is happening, those who think it isn’t, and those who don’t know. Many within this group believe that if global warming is happening, it is caused by natural changes in the environment, believe global warming won’t harm people for many decades into the future, if at all, and say that America is already doing enough to respond to the threat. The Dismissive (10%) like the Alarmed, are actively engaged in the issue, but on the opposite end of the spectrum; the majority believe that warming is not happening, is not a threat to either people or nonhuman nature, and strongly believe it is not a problem that warrants a national response. Table 2.14 Descriptions of Global Warming’s Six Americas

Figure 2.15 Certainty of belief in global warming Responses to: Do you think that global warming is happening?

Figure 2.16 Timing of harm to people in the United States Responses to: When do you think warming will start to harm people in the U.S.?

Figure 2.17 Personal importance of global warming Responses to: How important is the issue of global warming to you personally?

Figure 2.18 Attitudinal certainty Responses to: â&#x20AC;&#x153;I could easily change my mind about global warming.â&#x20AC;?

Figure 2.19 Self-assessed knowledge Responses to: Do you think that you are well informed about global warming?

Figure 2.20 Beliefs regarding the causes of global warming Responses to: If global warming is happening, do you think it is...?

Figure 2.21 Beliefs about the scientific consensus Responses to: Which comes closer to your own view?

Figure 2.22 Personal threat of global warming Responses to: How much do you think global warming will harm you personally?

Figure 2.23 Threat to future generations Responses to: How much do you think global warming wil harm future geneartions?

Figure 2.24 Global Warming’s Six Americas (Artwork by Michael Sloan)

Ranging from highest belief in global warming to lowest with various levels of concern and motivation, each of these six groups is characterized by “the degree of certainty that global warming is happening.”3 (Figure 2.15) In this context, the two polar groups of the survey – Alarmed and Dismissive – share a common trait in that both are not only resolute with their beliefs on global warming, but are also highly confident about their level of informed knowledge that their beliefs are based on. (Figures 2.18 and 2.19) In other words, Alarmed and Dismissive groups are most likely unwilling to change their beliefs on global warming, regardless of the validity of their knowledge. On the other hand, the three less committed groups – Cautious, Disengaged, and Doubtful – show more room for change in their opinions on climate change. (Figure 2.18) Combined, they constitute 45 percent of the American public who are yet uncertain about their views on the issue. These will be the main target group for this thesis investigation, as they hold the key to generate a profound cultural and social shift toward taking meaningful action on climate change.

The findings of Six Americas study confirm much of the thesis research on psychology and human behavior on climate change. For example, the Alarmed and Dismissive both strongly believe their views on global warming while also stating that they are well-informed on the knowledge. This paradoxical evidence confirms the workings of ‘motivated reasoning’ in which individuals use ideological filter to cherry-pick and process pieces of information that only support their pre-existing beliefs and cultural values. Moreover, the analysis of climate change perception and political values, as discussed in an earlier chapter Ideology, is further strengthened by the most recent study by the Yale PCCC, Global Warming’s Six Americas and the Election, 2016. Similar to the two corresponding U.S. maps on page 37, survey results clearly demonstrate the relationship between beliefs in global warming and cultural values of individuals.4 In terms of psychology, Figures 2.22 and 2.23 illustrate the psychological barrier of distance at play. Consider the Alarmed group’s responses in Figures 2.20-23. While the high majority (at least 80 percent) of the Alarmed responds strongly to most of the surveys, one question – “How much do you think global warming will harm you personally?” – reveals a significantly lower and less affirmative responses of 34 percent. (Figure 2.22) Interestingly, the same group believes that people in the United States are being harmed now by global warming. (Figure 2.16) This illustrates that even the Alarmed group of the survey – the most motivated and concerned group of the respondents – still find it difficult to relate the issue of climate change on a personal level due to its perception of distance. The key lesson to learn from the extensive information of Global Warming’s Six Americas is that effective communication must recognize and acknowledge the different ways individuals perceive the issue of climate change. Therefore, communicators must tailor their messages according to who the target audience is and how the information is perceived by understanding their belief systems and cultural values.

Summary

Encompassing psychology, sociology, and natural science, the following list is a summary of the interdisciplinary research that explains the current controversies of climate change and the cultural response of apathy, denial, and inaction.

• Scientific consensus is in overwhelming agreement on anthropogenic global climate change, while social consensus in the U.S. is uncertain due to political, ideological, and cultural differences that distort the scientific evidence. • The threat of climate change fails to trigger the brain’s alarm system that leads to action. The evolutionary process of the human brain has prioritized threats that are personal, immediate, and tangible that tap into the deep consciousness of human survival instinct. • Low risk perception of climate change contributes to inaction and apathy. The abstract nature – distant in time and space; imperceptible and gradual effects; lack of ‘enemy’ as a source of danger – fails to indicate climate change as a serious threat. • The current strategy of using numbers and scientific data to warn the public of the dire consequences of climate change is not effective in generating a profound response, but instead cultivates indifference and negligence. • The human brain has two distinct information processing systems with each handling various kinds of information to achieve different results. The ‘analytical’ side focuses on logic, speaking in symbols, numbers, and words, while the ‘emotional’ side reacts to visuals, experience, and intuition.

• Scientific explanation and numerical statistics of climate change rhetoric only activate the ‘analytical’ side, ignoring the ‘emotional’ side of the brain which is responsible for decision making. It is also where risk perception takes place, using personal experience and visual cues to evoke an emotional response. • Prolonged exposure of the debate on climate change has desensitized the public to the seriousness of the issue. As a result, the public is losing interest and underestimates the magnitude and urgency of the environmental threat. • Guilt-inducing tone of climate change rhetoric engenders cognitive dissonance as a response, in which a discomforting conflict between one’s behavior and thought leads to ignoring the problem. • Individuals are inherently driven to maintain and strengthen the connections to the group they belong and trust, and therefore value and conform to group consensus. This social tendency explains the current bipartisan issue on climate change in the U.S. politics. • Individuals use ideological filter to selectively process information that supports their pre-existing beliefs and cultural values. Termed ‘motivated reasoning’ in psychology, this biased inclination prevents people to make informed judgments based on logic and reasoning. • Global Warming’s Six Americas study identifies six distinct groups of the U.S. public based on their perception on global warming. The three groups – Cautious, Disengaged, and Doubtful – are the target users of the thesis, for their room for change in their beliefs and attitude on climate change.

Introduction Research Thesis Statement Site Selection Program Precedents Acknowledgments Notes & Sources Bibliography

Thesis Statement

The overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change fails to translate to the disparate views of the broader public. As a mountain of empirical evidence points to inevitable consequences of the changing climate, individual and collective action for mitigation has seen significantly limited progress. The current methodology of climate communication proves to be ineffective to provoke a meaningful response, further engendering apathy and denial of the risks. Psychological and ideological barriers distort the logic of science, preventing the messages of climate change from reaching individuals with a sense of urgency. Global climate change lacks salience. Consequentially, the topic has constantly fallen to the bottom of the global, national, and personal agenda. Therefore, a radically different approach to climate communication is imperative to inspire a renewed awareness of this unprecedented global crisis. Climate Change

BRAIN MEDIA POLITICS INDUSTRY CULTURE

Individuals Communities Societies

Problem â&#x20AC;&#x153;Psychological and ideological barriers distort the logic of science, preventing the messages of climate change from reaching individuals with a sense of urgency.â&#x20AC;?

The new message of climate change must resonate with an emotional response that leads to meaningful action. The challenge is to reframe the abstract idea of climate change to a personal, tangible, immediate, relevant, and positive opportunity to motivate the apathetic minds and spark a behavioral change to action. Since the visible impacts of climate change are physically and socially distant, the new approach must pertain to everyday lives on a personal level. It must also be immediate and tangible since imperceptible and gradual effects of the changing climate

fail to trigger the human brain’s alarm system that calls to action. Most importantly, knowledge on climate change must engage the emotional side of the cognitive system, to arouse an impulsive reaction that transforms to real action. Thus, experiential learning of climate change holds the key to spark the emotional response. Firsthand experience of environmental consequences eliminates the cognitive and social filter – manifested by media, culture, politics, among others – and directly influences the minds and behavior of individuals. The personal act of experience becomes the catalyst that drives the necessary momentum to profound action. Climate Change

EXPERIENCE

Individuals Communities Societies

Solution “Firsthand experience of environmental consequences eliminates the cognitive and social filter and directly influences the minds and behavior of individuals.”

Rising sea level is one of the few visual and tangible signs of climate change that is constant and highly relevant, especially to the lives on vulnerable coastal regions at risk. This thesis focuses on the element of water as the primary medium to communicate the new strategy of addressing climate change. Water serves as a central ingredient to designing an experiential learning process that contributes to an emotional response to the global issue. This experiential component prompts a behavioral cycle in which individual and collective action leads to experiencing climate change mitigation. In turn, the positive experience from the gains produced by action, as opposed to the losses by inaction, brings about a cultural swerve to deep conviction on climate change.

Introduction Research Thesis Statement Site Selection

United States of America New York City

Program Precedents Acknowledgments Notes & Sources Bibliography

Hudson Yards

United States of America

Human activities such as burning fossil fuels are a major contribution to the greenhouse effect, trapping heat due to an increase in carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere. As a result, the average global temperature has risen by more than one degree Fahrenheit over the last century.1 The warming of the planet causes accelerated melting of glaciers and sea ice in an unprecedented rate. This leads to the expansion of sea water contributing to rising sea levels around the world, affecting approximately 70 percent of the coastlines worldwide. If the current rate of carbon emissions remains unchecked, the global temperature is projected to rise by 4° C (7.2 °F), ‘locking in’ as much as 35 feet of eventual global sea level rise affecting 460 to 760 million people worldwide.2 The United States is no exception, where as many as 25 million people live along the vulnerable coastal regions.3 Outside of Asia, the U.S. experiences the largest impact in terms of the affected population from rising sea levels, with approximately eight percent of the country’s population under threat.4 The impacts of climate change are not evenly distributed across the world, especially in terms of socioeconomic levels of individuals, communities, and nations.5 Due to the geopolitical dynamics of the global society, most developed countries are located further north from the equator where rising sea levels have the highest impact, disproportionately affecting poorer countries when they have contributed to global warming the least. With only five percent of the world population, the United States accounts for roughly 25 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.6 According to 2014 data published by World Resources Institute, the United States is overall the ‘most responsible’ for global warming, contributing to 27 percent of total cumulative carbon

Figure 4.1 The continent of North America under the scenario in which â&#x20AC;&#x153;all the ice on land has melted and drained into the sea, raising it 216 feet.â&#x20AC;?

emissions of the world since 1850.7 The lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lasts â&#x20AC;&#x153;a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever,â&#x20AC;? meaning that carbon emissions from a hundred years ago still contribute to present-day global warming.8 Although China is currently the biggest carbon polluter in the world, the United States is therefore the number one overall contributor to global warming from cumulative carbon pollution. Hence the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s decisions on energy use, consumer choices, and support for policies in regards to the environment will greatly influence the global efforts to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, the American lifestyle of energy consumption has historically been imitated and sought after from emerging developing countries as a standard of well-being.9 The future can no longer afford to accommodate such irresponsible attitude, and more than ever, needs the American society to provide a sustainable model for other countries to learn from and follow. Due to its significant contribution to global warming, the United States must take responsibility as a global leader to address the issue of climate change. In 1997, the U.S. infamously rejected to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the first international agreement to mandate regulation over the greenhouse gas emissions.10 The lack of commitment from the U.S. led to criticism from the international community, as the agreement was perceived to be meaningless without the pledge from one of the biggest polluters in the world. However, the debate on climate change in the United States shows no signs of political and cultural agreement when immediate action is desperately needed, due to a plethora of complications discussed earlier in the book. Therefore, the United States is the obvious choice for the thesis design proposal, to target the American population for a social change and address the current state of gridlock by assessing the cultural and political landscape of the American society.

Figure 4.2 United States must take responsibility as a global leader to address climate change

New York City

New York City is one of many global metropolises vulnerable to the direct impacts of rising sea levels, as a result of global warming. According to a 2015 report by Climate Central, 23 percent of New York population will be affected from sea level rise once the global temperature reaches 4°C of warming – a businessas-usual scenario.1 This percentage of the affected urban population is the second highest outside of Asia, after Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. However, if the international community immediately takes drastic measures to curb carbon emissions to achieve the goal of 2°C of warming, 13 percent of New Yorkers are at risk. It is important to note that even with immediate drastic measures, there will be inevitable consequences of climate change. Meanwhile, the city has already experienced approximately 12 inches of sea level rise over the last century and the rate at which it rises will only accelerate.2 More frequent coastal floods and storm surges are likely to occur, as seen from the catastrophic events of Hurricane Sandy in 2012. As the second-costliest cyclone on record in the United States history, Hurricane Sandy caused at least 147 direct deaths and nearly $50 billion in damages.3 It led to the “greatest number of direct fatalities related to a tropical cyclone outside of the southern states since Hurricane Agnes in 1972.”4 The superstorm’s destructive impacts acted as a wake-up call, albeit temporarily, to New Yorkers and many Americans of the global warming and changing climate. Numerous responses have followed the devastation of Hurricane Sandy, exploring creative ways to combat the rising sea levels in New York. A collaborative design effort led by Bjarke Ingels Group, nicknamed the Dryline, features a 12kmlong urban flood protection infrastructure and green public space in southern Manhattan.5 (Figure 4.4)

Figure 4.3 Blackout in southern Manhattan as the afterman of Hurricane Sandy

Past design proposals on New York waterfront have also been reassessed, such as the 2010 exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art, Rising Currents: Projects for New York’s Waterfront. The exhibition showcased six solutions by architects, engineers, landscape architects, ecologists, artists and students to respond to rising sea levels in New York. Proposals included landscape projects utilizing the existing coastline, oil tank farms to produce biofuel from algae, and oyster nurseries to revitalize the natural reef in the polluted canal in the New York Harbor.6 (Figures 4.5-8) With close relationships the water, the city has already displayed promising potential to transform the challenges of the changing climate into creative opportunities. The impacts of rising sea levels disproportionately affect the socially and economically disadvantaged. For example, when Hurricane Katrina landed in New Orleans in 2015, low-income neighborhoods of the Lower Ninth Ward suffered the most destruction.7 However, due to the city’s high urban population density, New York is one of the few examples in the world where a more egalitarian range of socioeconomic statuses are at risk from the impacts of climate change.8 (see Figures 4.9-12) This is important since their social and economic influences have the capacity to build up political momentum for action and spawn a social shift in response to climate change. As the most populous city in the United States, New York City exerts significant financial, political, and cultural influence on national and international levels. Additionally, with nearly 60 million visitors in 2015, New York City is an ideal setting to provide a global solution to a global threat of climate change. Figure 4.4 (top) Dryline, a 12-km long urban flood protection infrastructure in southern Manhattan Figures 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8 (clockwise from top left) Selected works from the MOMA’s exhibition, Rising Currents A New UrbanGround by DLANDstudio and ARO Water Proving Ground by LTL Architects Oyster-tecture by SCAPE Studio

Figure 4.9 Areas at risk by 10 feet of sea level rise

Price per acre: Below $100K

$100K - $999K

$1M - $10M

$10M - $100M

Over $100M

Figure 4.10 Value of properties at risk by 10 feet of sea level rise

People per square mile: Below 100

100-999

1,000-9,999

Figure 4.11 Exposed population at risk by 10 feet of sea level rise

10,000-99,999

Over 100,000

Income percentile: 80-100%

60-80%

40-60%

20-40%

0-20%

Figure 4.12 Per capita income of the population at risk by 10 feet of sea level rise

Hudson Yards

The location of the thesis design proposal is the current site of the Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project. (Figure x.x) Due to be completed by 2025, “the largest private real estate development in the history of the United States,” will attract 125,000 people a day with more than 18 million square feet of commercial and residential space built on a platform over the 26-acre rail yards. The West Side Yard is located on the west side of Manhattan by the Hudson River. Thirty railway tracks in sunken yards accommodate the overflow traffic of Long Island Railroad trains from Penn Station during the rush hour. Due to its significant role in New York City’s transit system, the West Side Yard had been free from the real estate development trend in the West Side neighborhoods. The recent boom in redevelopment of the area is in part due to the success of the High Line, which led to the gentrification of the neighborhood as well as a significant boost in real estate. In 2005, the rail yards were proposed as the site of the West Side Stadium for New York Jets, and the Bloomberg administration used it as the centerpiece for the city’s bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics. The proposal was later abandoned due to legal disputes on land-use and the city’s loss of the Olympic bid. In 2012, the Hudson Yards project broke ground, serving as the epicenter of the West Side development with “the most construction activity and approved permits since 2006.”2 Since real estate is extremely valuable in New York, selling air rights have become a common practice, especially for rail yard properties. The two major railway stations in Manhattan – Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal – sold their air rights to accommodate Madison Square Garden and the MetLife building, respectively.3 Following the examples of the preceding rail yards, the West Side Yard was designed to accommodate construction

Figure 4.13 (top) Rendering of the completed Hudson Yards development Figure 4.14 (bottom) West Side Yard, the railyard and site of the Hudson Yards development

above the existing rail lines, by leaving space for columns to support a platform above the tracks. Thanks to the predictive design, the Hudson Yards development project drilled 300 caissons into the bedrock of the site to support the platforms and the structures above.4 Due to the proximity to the Hudson River and the recessed levels of the rail yards, the area is highly prone to rising sea levels. As a result, the West Side Yard presents a compelling conflict between the short-term thinking of capitalism â&#x20AC;&#x201C; represented by the real estate development â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and the imminent impacts of climate change and sea level rise. The site exhibits the ideal context to address the challenges and convert them into opportunities to provide a renewed understanding of climate change. One of the challenges is to acknowledge the industrial context of the site, while also addressing the Hudson River waterfront to accommodate the element of water as a central component in design. The area is also accessible to a wide range of users through the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transit system: Hudson Yards subway station, Penn Station, and Port Authority Bus Terminal are all within walking distance. One of the busiest convention centers in the U.S., Jacob K. Javits Convention Center is a 840,000-square-feet landmark in the community. The High Line wraps around the western edge of the rail yards and terminates on the north. Not only does the High Line attract locals and visitors alike to the area, but the vertical relationships of views and spaces with the sunken rail yards create unique design opportunities for the architectural manifestation of the thesis exploration.

Figure 4.15 (top) Diagram of the platform construction over the rail yard Figure 4.16 (bottom) High Line wraps around the southern and western perimeter of the railyard

Figure 4.17 Site location at Hudson Yards on West Side Manhattan

Hudson River present

Estimated Sea Level Rise in 2050

Figure 4.18 Site will be completely submerged underwater by 2050 from rising sea levels of the Hudson River

Po Bu rt Au s T tho erm rit ina y l

7 5 min. walk

10 min. walk

B D Pe

tio

C E

F Sta

F M

Figure 4.19 The site is easily accessible to the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s public transportation system

Jacob K. Javits Conference Center

5 min. walk

10 min. walk

High Line

Figure 4.20 High Line and Jacob K. Javits Center attract a wide range of population to the site

Introduction Research Thesis Statement Site Selection Program Precedents Acknowledgments Notes & Sources Bibliography

Program

Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus on the human cause of global climate change, todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s method of communication consistently fails to elicit a successful public response that leads to action. The common rhetoric of apocalyptic forecasts presented with esoteric scientific language and numerical data, only understood by climate experts, does not effectively communicate the real implications, and fails to resonate with a sense of urgency to individuals, making the situation of climate change feel distant, impersonal, and irrelevant. The primary objective of the design process is to restructure the public perception on climate change by re-examining the roots of the problem and inspiring peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s daily lives with a positive mindset and genuine interest in the environment, within the urban context of New York City. The radically new approach of communicating climate change must manifest in a language of optimism and convey a supportive mindset with positive strategies to addressing the problem. This includes transforming the message of climate change into a personal, tangible, and immediate component of the conversation. In order to achieve this goal, the programmatic feature of architecture accommodates one central activity: experiential learning. As discussed in the previous chapter of Ideology, experiential learning of the changing climate bypasses the psychological and cognitive barriers of the human brain that prevent humans to directly relate to the issue of climate change. Due to the abstract quality of climate change, individuals ignore and deny the reality of the crisis, despite the mountain of scientific evidence. The effects of climate change are perceived as remote, impersonal, and

imperceptible. However, firsthand experience of the tangible effects of climate change engages the emotional system of the human brain, provoking a response that translates to action. The act of experience triggers a renewed sense of awareness to the surrounding environment. The users of the program render the distant notion of climate change into a personal journey of observation and realization. It is a direct response to the fundamental problem of the perception on climate change.

KNOWLEDGE

CLIMATE IMPACTS

SEA LEVEL RISE

EXPERIENTIAL

LEARNING

SENSES WATER

TIME SOCIETY

In order to manifest the experiential quality of climate change, sensory engagement to the surrounding environment is paramount. Naturally, water plays a key role in generating the spatial environment for experiential learning. Sea level rise is one the few indicators of climate change that are visual, tangible, and relevant to daily lives on regions like New York. Water becomes an element through which the impacts of changing climate is communicated. The siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proximity to the Hudson River allows access to a large body of water nearby. With rising sea level as an opportunity for design, the program considers the passage of time as an important component, since the overflow of the river will inevitably affect the activities and spaces on site. With experiential learning as the core element of the program, it is crucial for the design to translate the science of climate change to an emotional language, through experience, to generate a social paradigm shift in the cultural attitude of apathy and denial that ultimately, inspire meaningful action on climate change.

Introduction Research Thesis Statement Site Selection Program Precedents

Leรงa Swimming Pools Olympic Sculpture Park

Acknowledgments Notes & Sources Bibliography

Oxygen House

Leça Swimming Pools Alvaro Siza

The case study of Alvaro Siza’s Leça Swimming Pool complex in Leça de Palmeria, Portugal offers a unique insight into the architecture’s relationship to the natural element of water, as well as to the natural surroundings. Nestled within the existing natural rock formations, the architect cautiously introduces the artificial element of horizontal concrete walls to the rough texture of the rocky coastline of the Atlantic Ocean. (Figure 6.1) The project consists of two swimming pools – one for adults and the other for children – along with supporting facilities such as changing rooms, showers, and a café. Stairways and walkways link the different functions of the space. The strategic intervention of the architect’s design on such a sensitive site engages with the waters in several ways. The most prominent connection to the ocean is the visual relationship, created by the different spatial levels. The swimming complex sits below the street level of the adjacent coastal road of Avenida da Liberdade to ensure the visual connection between the ocean and the street above and beyond. (Figure 6.2) The tiered levels within the rocks descend to the waters providing views not only to the swimming pools, but also to the ocean and its horizon, presenting the visitors with different shades of “blue, green or grey of the water.”1 Phenomenological connections to the water are also in play in more obvious as well as discrete forms. As the visitors descend along the ramp to enter the swimming pools, the tall concrete walls obscure the ocean views, only allowing the sounds of the crashing waves against the rocks to permeate throughout the spaces.2 The sensory experience creates a subtle connection to the water through auditory perception, as well as the feeling of anticipation for the

Figure 6.1 The swimming pools sit within the natural rock formation of the existing site conditions

Figure 6.2 Section drawings show the vertical relationship between the street level and the ocean

experience. The act of submerging oneself in the element of water is an absolute experience and the most tangible connection to the ocean. The architect’s decision to minimize the architecture’s presence in the natural environment of the existing rocks plays a key role in developing the site’s specific relationship to the ocean. As Siza has described, the building’s integration with the natural landscape “sought to exploit as far as possible the natural conditions which had … already started to design the swimming pool, making use of the cliff and complementing its natural basins with such walls as were strictly necessary.”3 The visitors experience the illusion of swimming in the ocean due to the pools’ harmonious coexistence with the natural context. As described in the book, Álvaro Siza, “the boundary between architecture and nature no longer exists.”4 The building’s most significant connection to the water, however, occurs through the clever use of building materials. They represent the juxtaposition between nature and man-made architecture. The architect’s predominant use of reinforced concrete speaks of its artificial role within the natural context of the rock formations.5 The contrast between the straight lines of the concrete and the natural landscape further emphasizes the architectural statement of “the intentions of human beings.”6 However, the building also surrenders and pays respect to the unforgiving power of nature. (Figure 6.4) The exposed concrete of the walls, platforms, and stairways, over time, reveal the prolonged effects of the water against the weathered material. The description in the journal, A+U: Architecture and Urbanism, aptly exemplifies the built environment’s embrace of the nature: “In the first storm, the ocean took a piece of the wall, correcting what was not proper.” Alvaro Siza’s swimming pools offer a beautiful example of the architecture’s role of communicating with nature. The building’s delicate relationship to the surroundings – making its statement while respecting the nature – is a lesson to be taken and applied in the context of the thesis design project that address climate change and the rising sea levels.

Figure 6.3 “The boundary between architecture and nature no longer exists.”

Figure 6.4 “The boundary between architecture and nature no longer exists.”

Olympic Sculpture Park Weiss/Manfredi

Weiss/Manfredi Architects’ design of Olympic Sculpture Park in Seattle, Washington serves as a comparative study to the industrial site of West Side Yard in New York, due to the similarities both share with the site context. The challenge of the Seattle project was to transform the 8.5-acre “degraded site of a former fuel storage and transfer station” by connecting the city’s downtown area to the waterfront of Elliott Bay.1 The train tracks of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and the four-lane Elliott Avenue sliced through the site, isolating the waterfront from the city. (Figure 2.1) The 2,000-foot-long pedestrian circulation path in the form of “a continuous Z-shaped landscape,” (Figure 2.2 and 2.3) bridges the two separate zones, passing over the existing transportation infrastructure.2 Due to the forty-foot grade change of the site, the zigzag form of the park serves as a successful transition from the higher street level of the downtown area to the water. Not only does the design yield a physical connection to the site through circulation, it also establishes a visual connection to the city and the surrounding environment by framing the users’ views according to the diagonal axes of the path. The zigzag form of the Z-shaped landform, with the shifting planes of the concrete retaining walls, also helps to break down the immense scale of the 8.5-acre site, generating smaller and more intimate triangular spaces for artwork display and social interaction. Olympic Sculpture Park does not pretend to ignore the existing infrastructure below, but responds to the history and industrial function of the site by strategically revealing the railway tracks and the traffic underneath to the visitors above as they move through the landscape. The bridge creates a visual connection to

Figure 6.5 Site conditions before and after the construction of Olympic Sculpture Park

the infrastructure below while creating a dynamic juxtaposition between the slowness of pedestrian traffic above and the speed with which the vehicles travel. The connection to the industrial site could have been addressed more in terms of materiality, however, as the predominant use of precast concrete panels and steel isolates the experience above from the site below.3

Figure 6.6 (top) Figure 6.7 (opposite top) Figure 6.8 (opposite bottom) Figure 6.9 (bottom)

Oxygen House Douglas Darden

Oxygen House is a conceptual project for an imaginary client named Burnden Abraham, an ex-train signalman who suffered a punctured lung from a train accident. Located on a depressed flood plain of a fictional town in Mississippi, the structure is built over the rail track at the scene of the client’s near-fatal accident. The house is a sanctuary for the patient who is confined to an oxygen tent, who requested that he be entombed in the house after his death. Using this hypothetical scenario of life and death, Douglas Darden twists the old adage; “A house is for living dying,” to approach the paradoxical problem of designing a house that also serves as a final resting place for the inhabitant.1 Section drawings show two vertically opposite spaces to illustrate the co-existence of life and death. One sits below the ground level like a grave, while the other is lifted upwards to accommodate air and light. In plan, the cross axis of the house, formed by the existing rail track and mechanical instruments of the structure, represents life and death. The north-south rail track represents death while the east-west axis of oxygen stockpile and circulation suggests the human instinct to survive. The house sits on the intersection of life and death. The mechanical quality of the structure pays homage to the client’s past as a railway signalman. The juxtaposition of the mechanical structure and the tree is notable. The tree symbolizes life, while the structure itself is a place for death. Although the architecture’s programmatic feature is minimal, the spaces effectively convey the essence of the message: harmony of life and death. This precedent study provides insight into how the architect employed symbolism and spatial devices to communicate the problem, and provide an opportunity to discuss complex ideas such as life and death.

Figure 6.10 One sits below the ground level like a grave, while the other is lifted upwards for air and light.

Figure 6.11 The cross axis of the house, formed by the existing rail track and mechanical instruments of the structure, represents life and death

Figure 6.12 The tree symbolizes life, while the structure itself is a place for death.

Introduction Research Thesis Statement Site Selection Program Precedents Acknowledgments Notes & Sources Bibliography

Acknowledgments

The entire process of this thesis research work would not have been possible without wise guidance from Professor Saundra Weddle. I genuinely appreciate the way she constantly challenged me to think critically with every sentence I wrote and every article I read. I was constantly inspired by her vast wealth of knowledge and her unwavering enthusiasm in learning. Above all, her underlying trust in my own ability to produce this work kept me through even when I was in doubt with myself. I would like to thank Jacqueline Tygart for her tremendous help with finding useful resources in and outside of the library. Her extraordinary resourcefulness is unmatched, as well as her generosity to help. My research work has benefited infinitely from her genuine interest in my learning. The conversation I had with Professor Gerard Nadeau was an eye-opening experience for me for his passion and knowledge on the topic of climate change was truly inspirational and contagious. I am grateful for our shared common interest in the environment. I am truly grateful for all the conversations and discussions I have had with my fellow classmates. Their diverse points of view have allowed me to approach my work differently and their constructive feedback have enriched the quality of the work beyond my capabilities. Support and trust I receive from my family fuel me to aim higher with greater commitment to my work. I am forever in debt for all my best qualities they have given me. Above all, I am truly blessed to have the best support from elyse, who had to spend more than a few Friday evenings watching documentaries on climate change or listening to my rant on climate deniers. Her shrewd advice has always gifted me with the strength to keep going, with the amazing ability to know exactly what to say at the right time. From proof-reading my drafts to giving me your company, I am incredibly fortunate to have you on my side.

Notes & Sources

Preface 1. Philip Shabecoff, “Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate,” New York Times, June 24, 1988, accessed November 19, 2016, http://www.nytimes. com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html. 2. Julie Ray and Anita Pugliese, “Worldwide, Blame for Climate Change Falls on Humans,” Gallup, April 22, 2011, accessed November 19, 2016, http://www. gallup.com/poll/147242/worldwide-blame-climate-change-falls-humans.aspx

Introduction 1. Justin McCarthy, “Worry About Terror Attacks in U.S. High, but Not Top Concern,” Gallup, March 23, 2016, accessed November 19, 2016, http:// www.gallup.com/poll/190253/worry-terror-attacks-high-not-top-concern. aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles.

Research: Background 1. Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, “Greenhouse effect: Fourier’s concept of planetary energy balance is still relevant today,” Nature 432 (2004): 677. 2. Disruption, directed by Kelly Nyks and Jared P. Scott (New York: PF Pictures, 2014). 3. Steve Graham, “Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927),” NASA Earth Observatory, January 18, 2000, accessed December 5, 2016, http://earthobservatory.nasa. gov/Features/Arrhenius. 4. Disruption, directed by Nyks. 5. Rob Monroe, “The History of the Keeling Curve,” Scripps Institution of Oceanography, April 3, 2013, accessed December 5, 2016, https://scripps.ucsd.edu/ programs/keelingcurve/2013/04/03/the-history-of-the-keeling-curve. 6. Disruption, directed by Nyks. 7. Andrew Freedman, “The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist,” Climate Central, May 3, 2013, accessed December 5, 2016, http:// www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didntexist-15938. 8. Ibid. 9. “Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data,” US Environmental Protection Agency, accessed December 5, 2016, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/ global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data.

10. “Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions,” Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, accessed December 5, 2016, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/ tre_glob_2011.html. 11. Brian Kahn, “The World Passes 400 PPM Threshold, Permanently,” Climate Central, September 27, 2016, accessed November 19, 2016, http://www. climatecentral.org/news/world-passes-400-ppm-threshold-permanently-20738. 12. “Global Temperature,” NASA Global Climate Change, accessed December 5, 2016, http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature. 13. “Sea Level,” NASA Global Climate Change, accessed December 5, 2016, http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level. 14. John Cook et al., “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” Environmental Research Letters 8 (2013): 3, accessed December 13, 2016, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. 15. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, 2014. Figure 2.1: “The Keeling Curve,” Scripps Institution of Oceanography, accessed December 5, 2016, https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve. Figure 2.2: Ibid. Figure 2.3: “Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data,” US Environmental Protection Agency, accessed December 5, 2016, https://www.epa.gov/ ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data.

Research: Evolution 1. Daniel Gilbert, “Global Warming and Psychology,” lecture at Harvard Thinks Big, Cambridge, MA, March 21, 2010, accessed December 4, 2016, https:// vimeo.com/10324258. 2. Per Espen Stoknes, What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2015), 27. 3. Ibid., xviii. 4. Ibid., 27. 5. Ibid., 29. 6. Anthony Leiserowitz, Edward Maibach, and Connie Roser-Renouf, Global Warming’s Six Americas 2009: An Audience Segmentation Analysis, (New Haven,

CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communi cation, 2009), 10, http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2009_05_GlobalWarmings-Six-Americas.pdf. 7. Stoknes, What We Think About, 32. 8. Rebecca Riffkin, “Climate Change Not a Top Worry in U.S.,” Gallup, March 12, 2014, accessed November 19, 2016, http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/ climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx. 9. Stoknes, What We Think About, 33. 10. Ibid., 41. 11. Gilbert, “Global Warming and Psychology.” 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid. Figure 2.4: Rebecca Riffkin, “Climate Change Not a Top Worry in U.S.,” Gallup, March 12, 2014, accessed November 19, 2016, http://www.gallup. com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx. Figure 2.5: Kate Sheppard, “Jim Inhofe Brings a Snowball To The Senate Floor To Prove Climate Change Is a Hoax,” Huffington Post, February 26, 2015. accessed December 23, 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost. com/2015/02/26/jim-inhofe-climate-snow_n_6763868.html. Figure 2.6: “Ground Zero: 2001 and 2011,” VOA News, accessed December 23, 2016, http://tools.voanews2.com/test/911_c.

Research: Communication 1. Per Espen Stoknes, What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2015), xviii. 2. Ibid., 36. 3. George Marshall, Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change, (New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2014), 48. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid., 49. 6. Stoknes, What We Think About, 40-41. 7. Ibid., 43. 8. Ibid., 40. 9. “Global Warming: Be Worried. Be Very Worried,” Time, accessed November 19, 2016, http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060403,00.html. 10. Stoknes, What We Think About, 46. 11. Ibid., 41. 12. Ibid., 61. Figure 2.7: “Global Warming: Be Worried. Be Very Worried,” Time, accessed November 19, 2016, http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060403,00.html.

Research: Ideology 1. Andrew J. Hoffman, How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2015), 5. 2. Julie Ray and Anita Pugliese, “Worldwide, Blame for Climate Change Falls on Humans,” Gallup, April 22, 2011, accessed November 19, 2016, http://www. gallup.com/poll/147242/worldwide-blame-climate-change-falls-humans.aspx. 3. Hoffman, How Culture Shapes, 16. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid., 17. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid., 16. 8. Riley E Dunlap, “Americans Believe 2015 Was Record-Warm, but Split on Why,” Gallup, March 28, 2016, accessed November 19, 2016, http://www.gallup.com/poll/190319/americans-believe-2015-record-warm-split-why.aspx. 9. Hoffman, How Culture Shapes, 5. 10. Bob Inglis, “Changing the Dialogue on Energy and Climate,” lecture at TEDx Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL, 2013, accessed November 20, 2016, http://tedxjacksonville.com/talks. 11. Ibid. 12. Hoffman, How Culture Shapes, 61. 13. George Marshall, Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change, (New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2014), 117. 14. “Al Gore – Facts,” Norwegian Nobel Institute, accessed December 1, 2016, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-facts.html. 15. “John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award,” John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, accessed December 13, 2016, https://profileincourageaward.org. 16. “Secretary-General designates Leonardo DiCaprio as UN Messenger of Peace,” United Nations, accessed December 13, 2016, http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/2014/09/secretary-general-designates-leonardo-di-caprio-unmessenger-peace. Figure 2.8: Peter Howe et al., “Yale Climate Opinion Maps – United States,” Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, April 6, 2015, accessed November 19, 2016, http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom. Figure 2.9: “2016 Presidential Election Results,” 270 to Win, accessed November 19, 2016, http://www.270towin.com/maps/2016-actual-electoral-map. Figure 2.10: JFK Library, “Bog Inglis, Winner, 2015 Profile in Courage Award,” YouTube, posted April 13, 2015, accessed December 13, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlbLsb1ngm0. Figure 2.11: Brian McCullough, “Did Al Gore Really Invent the Internet?” Internet History Podcast, November 23, 2014, accessed December 13, 2016, http://www.internethistorypodcast.com/2014/11/did-al-gore-reallyinvent-the-internet. Figure 2.12: Nick Visser, “Leonardo DiCaprio Addresses UN Climate Summit: ‘You Can Make History... Or Be Vilified By It’,” Huffington Post, September 23, 2014, accessed December 13, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/23/leonardo-dicaprio-un_n_5868718.html.

Research: Target Users 1. Anthony Leiserowitz, Edward Maibach, and Connie Roser-Renouf, Global Warming’s Six Americas 2009: An Audience Segmentation Analysis, (New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 2009), 1, http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2009_05_GlobalWarmings-Six-Americas.pdf. 2. Ibid., 3. 3. Ibid., 5. 4. Connie Roser-Renouf et al., “Global Warming’s Six Americas and the Election, 2016,” Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, July 12, 2016, accessed November 19, 2016, http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/six-americas-2016-election. Figure 2.13: “Global Warming’s Six Americas,” Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, September 1, 2008, accessed November 19, 2016, http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/about/projects/global-warmings-six-americas. Table 2.14: Anthony Leiserowitz, Edward Maibach, and Connie Roser-Renouf, Global Warming’s Six Americas 2009: An Audience Segmentation Analysis, (New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 2009), 4, http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/ uploads/2016/02/2009_05_Global-Warmings-Six-Americas.pdf. Figure 2.15: Ibid., 7. Figure 2.16: Ibid., 12. Figure 2.17: Ibid., 7. Figure 2.18: Ibid., 8. Figure 2.19: Ibid. Figure 2.20: Ibid., 9. Figure 2.21: Ibid., 10. Figure 2.22: Ibid., 11. Figure 2.23: Ibid., 12. Figure 2.24: “Global Warming’s Six Americas.”

Site Selection: United States of America 1. S. Jeffress Williams, “Sea-Level Rise Implications for Coastal Regions,” Journal of Coastal Research 63 (2013): 184. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23486512. 2. Ben Strauss, Scott Kulp, and Anders Levermann, Mapping Choices: Carbon, Climate, and Rising Seas, Our Global Legacy, (Princeton, NJ: Climate Central, 2015), 6, accessed December 13, 2016, http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/ uploads/research/Global-Mapping-Choices-Report.pdf. 3. Ben Strauss, Scott Kulp, and Anders Levermann, “Carbon choices determine US cities committed to futures below sea level,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (2015): 13508, accessed December 13, 2016, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1511186112. 4. Strauss, Mapping Choices, 12.

5. Disruption, directed by Kelly Nyks and Jared P. Scott (New York: PF Pictures, 2014). 6. Anthony Leiserowitz, Edward Maibach, and Connie Roser-Renouf, Global Warming’s Six Americas 2009: An Audience Segmentation Analysis, (New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 2009), 1, http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2009_05_GlobalWarmings-Six-Americas.pdf. 7. Mengpin Ge, Johannes Friedrich, and Thomas Damassa, “6 Graphs Explain the World’s Top 10 Emitters,” World Resources Institute, November 25, 2014, accessed November 19, 2016, http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphsexplain-world%E2%80%99s-top-10-emitters. 8. David Archer, The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008) 9. Before the Flood, directed by Fisher Stevens (New York: RatPac Documentary Films, 2016). 10. “Kyoto Protocol Fast Facts,” CNN, accessed December 13, 2016, http://www. cnn.com/2013/07/26/world/kyoto-protocol-fast-facts. Figure 4.1: “What the World Would Look Like if All the Ice Melted,” National Geographic, accessed December 13, 2016, http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shorelinemaps. Figure 4.2: Chris Madden, “Cartoon: the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, 2009. The US position,” Chris Madden Cartoons, accessed December 13, 2016, http://www.chrismadden.co.uk/cartoons/environment-cartoons/carbon-footprint-cartoons/page/copenhagen-climatechange-conference-2009-cartoon.html.

Site Selection: New York City 1. Ben Strauss, Scott Kulp, and Anders Levermann, Mapping Choices: Carbon, Climate, and Rising Seas, Our Global Legacy, (Princeton, NJ: Climate Central, 2015), 15, accessed December 13, 2016, http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/ uploads/research/Global-Mapping-Choices-Report.pdf. 2. “Surging Seas: Risk Finder,” Climate Central, accessed November 19, 2016, http://riskfinder.climatecentral.org/ place/new-york. ny.us?comparisonType=city-neighborhood&forecastType=NCA_ inthi&level=6&unit=ft. 3. Eric Blake et al., Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Sandy, (Miami, FL: National Hurricane Center, 2013), 1, accessed December 13, 2016, http://www. nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL182012_Sandy.pdf. 4. Ibid. 5. “The Dryline: Urban flood protection infrastructure,” Lafarge Holcim Foundation, accessed December 23, 2016, https://www.lafargeholcim-foundation.org/ projects/the-dryline. 6. Barry Bergdoll, Rising Currents: Projects for New York’s Waterfront (New York, NY: The Museum of Modern Art, 2010). 7. “Lower Ninth Ward Statistical Area,” The Data Center, December 16, 2016, accessed December 23, 2016, http://www.datacenterresearch.org/data-resources/neighborhood-data/district-8/lower-ninth-ward.

8. “Surging Seas: Mapping Choices,” Climate Central, accessed November 19, 2016, http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/maps/mapping-choices. Figure 4.3: Iwan Baan, “More Images From New York’s Sandy Cover,” New York Magazine, November 5, 2012, accessed December 13, 2016, http:// nymag.com/thecut/2012/11/more-images-from-new-yorks-sandycover.html. Figure 4.4: “HUD: The Big Um” Bjarke Ingels Group, accessed December 13, 2016, https://big.dk/#projects-hud. Figure 4.5: “MoMA Rising Currents: A New Urban Ground,” DLANDstudio, accessed December 13, 2016, http://dlandstudio.com/projects_moma. html. Figure 4.6: “Water Proving Ground in the Rising Currents Exhibit,” LTL Architects, accessed December 13, 2016, http://ltlarchitects.com/waterproving-ground. Figure 4.7: “Oyster-tecture,” SCAPE Studio, accessed December 13, 2016, http:// www.scapestudio.com/projects/oyster-tecture. Figure 4.8: Ibid. Figure 4.9: “Surging Seas: Mapping Choices,” Climate Central, accessed November 19, 2016, http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/maps/mapping-choices. Figure 4.10: Ibid. Figure 411: Ibid. Figure 4.12: Ibid.

Site Selection: Hudson Yards 1. “The Story,” Hudson Yards: New York, accessed November 15, 2016, http:// www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com/about/the-story. 2. Bushra Shaikh and Will Parker, “These neighborhoods are Manhattan’s construction meccas,” The Real Deal, July 29, 2016, accessed November, 19, 2016, http://therealdeal.com/2016/07/29/these-neighborhoods-are-manhattansconstruction-meccas. 3. “Penn Station Sucks,” 99 Percent Invisible, accessed December 13, 2016, http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/penn-station-sucks. 4. “Building Hudson Yards,” Hudson Yards: New York, accessed November 15, 2016, http://www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com/about/building-hudson-yards. Figure 4.13: Hudson Yards: New York, accessed December 13, 2016, http://www. hudsonyardsnewyork.com. Figure 4.14: “Construction at Hudson Yards,” Metropolitan Transportation Authority of the State of New York, Flickr, accessed December 13, 2016, https://www.flickr.com/photos/mtaphotos/14794824672. Figure 4.15: “Building Hudson Yards,” Hudson Yards: New York, accessed December 13, 2016, http://www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com/about/buildinghudson-yards. Figure 4.16: Ibid. Figure 4.17 - 4.20: Google Map.

Precedents: Leca Swimming Pools 1. Maria Bottero, “Piscina a Leça de Palmeira, 1961-66,” Abitare 286 (1990):123. 2. Sofia Balters, “AD Classics: Leça Swimming Pools / Alvaro Siza,” ArchDaily, August 6, 2011, accessed November 15, 2016, http://www.archdaily. com/150272/ad-classics-leca-swimming-pools-alvaro-siza. 3. Kenneth Frampton, Álvaro Siza: Complete Works (London: Phaidon Press Limited, 2000), 82. 4. Nobuyuki Endo, Álvaro Siza (Tokyo: TOTO Shuppan, 2007), 58. 5. Endo, Álvaro Siza, 46. 6. Ibid. 7. “Álvaro Siza Vieira, Swimming Pool of Leça, 1966,” A+U: Architecture and Urbanism 474 (2010): 110. Figure 6.1: “Álvaro Siza Vieira, Swimming Pool of Leça, 1966,” A+U: Architecture and Urbanism 474 (2010): 109. Figure 6.2: Kenneth Frampton, Álvaro Siza: Complete Works (London: Phaidon Press Limited, 2000), 100. Figure 6.3: Fabio Salvo, “Siza Leça Swimming Pools Matosinhos,” accessed November 17, 2016, http://www.fabiosalvo.net/ architecture?lightbox=imageopn. Figure 6.4: Nobuyuki Endo, Álvaro Siza (Tokyo: TOTO Shuppan, 2007), 47

Precedents: Olympic Sculpture Park 1. Peter Reed, Groundswell: Constructing the Contemporary Landscape (New York, NY: The Museum of Modern Art, 2006), 116. 2. Marion Weiss and Michael A. Manfredi, Weiss/Manfredi: Surface/Subsurface (New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007), 20. 3. Reed, Groundswell, 116. Figure 6.6: “Seattle Art Museum: Olympic Sculpture Park,” Weiss/Manfredi, accessed November 15, 2016, http://www.weissmanfredi.com/project/seattle-artmuseum-olympic-sculpture-park. Figure 6.7 - 6.9: Ibid.

Precedents: Oxygen House 1. Douglas Darden, Condemned Building (New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993), 143. Figure 6.10: “Douglas Darden,” Museum of Modern Art, accessed December 13, 2016, https://www.moma.org/artists/42466 Figure 6.11: Ibid. Figure 6.12: Ibid.

Bibliography

Altarriba, Jeanette, and Lisa M. Bauer. “The Distinctiveness of Emotion Concepts: A Comparison Between Emotion, Abstract, and Concrete Words.” The American Journal of Psychology 117:3 (2004): 389-410. Accessed September 19, 2016. doi: 10.2307/4149007. “Álvaro Siza Vieira, Swimming Pool of Leça, 1966.” A+U: Architecture and Urbanism 474 (2010): 106-113. Andrew Rice, “When Will New York Sink?” New York Magazine, September 7, 2016, accessed November 19, 2016, http://nymag. com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/new-york-future-flooding-climate-change.html. Archer, David. The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008. Baan, Iwan. “More Images From New York’s Sandy Cover.” New York Magazine. November 5, 2012. Accessed December 13, 2016. http://nymag.com/thecut/2012/11/more-images-from-new-yorkssandy-cover.html. Balters, Sofia. “AD Classics: Leça Swimming Pools / Alvaro Siza.” ArchDaily, August 6, 2011. Accessed November 15, 2016. http:// www.archdaily.com/150272/ad-classics-leca-swimming-pools-alvaro-siza. Before the Flood. Directed by Fisher Stevens. New York: RatPac Documentary Films, 2016. Bjarke Ingels Group. “HUD: The Big U.” Accessed December 13, 2016. https://big.dk/#projects-hud. Blake, Eric, Todd Kimberlain, Robert Berg, John Cangialosi, and John Beven II. Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Sandy. Miami, FL: National Hurricane Center, 2013. Accessed December 13, 2016. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL182012_Sandy.pdf.

Bergdoll, Barry. Rising Currents: Projects for New York’s Waterfront. New York, NY: The Museum of Modern Art, 2010. Binder, J.R., C.F. Westbury, K.A. McKiernan, E.T. Possing, and D.A. Medler. “Distinct Brain Systems for Processing Concrete and Abstract Concepts.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17:6 (2005): 905-917. Accessed September 19, 2016. doi: 10.1162/0898929054021102. Bottero, Maria. “Piscina a Leça de Palmeira, 1961-66.” Abitare 286 (1990): 122-123. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. “Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions.” Accessed December 5, 2016. http://cdiac.ornl. gov/trends/emis/tre_glob_2011.html. CNN. “Kyoto Protocol Fast Facts.” Accessed December 13, 2016. http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/26/world/kyoto-protocol-fast-facts. Cook, John, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A. Green, Mark Richardson, Barbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs, and Andrew Skuce. “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.” Environmental Research Letters 8 (2013): 1-7. Accessed December 13, 2016. doi:10.1088/17489326/8/2/024024. Crate, Susan A., and Mark Nuttall. Anthropology and Climate: From Actions to Transformations. New York, NY: Routledge, 2016. Craven, Greg. “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See.” YouTube. Posted June 8, 2007. Accessed November 19, 2016. https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ. Darden Douglas. Condemned Building. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993. Data Center. “Lower Ninth Ward Statistical Area.” December 16, 2016. Accessed December 23, 2016. http://www.datacenterresearch. org/data-resources/neighborhood-data/district-8/lower-ninth-ward.

Disruption. Directed by Kelly Nyks and Jared P. Scott. New York: PF Pictures, 2014. DLANDstudio. “MoMA Rising Currents: A New Urban Ground.” Accessed December 13, 2016. http://dlandstudio.com/projects_ moma.html. Donner, Simon D., and Jeremy McDaniels. “The influence of national temperature fluctuations on opinions about climate change in the U.S. since 1990.” Climatic Change 118 (2013): 537-550. Accessed November 19, 2016. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0690-3. Dunlap, Riley E. “Americans Believe 2015 Was Record-Warm, but Split on Why.” Gallup. March 28, 2016. Accessed November 19, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/190319/americans-believe2015-record-warm-split-why.aspx. Endo, Nobuyuki. Álvaro Siza. Tokyo: TOTO Shuppan, 2007. Frampton, Kenneth. Álvaro Siza: Complete Works. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 2000. Freedman, Andrew. “The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist.” Climate Central. May 3, 2013. Accessed December 5, 2016. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-wasthis-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938. Ge, Mengpin, Johannes Friedrich, and Thomas Damassa. “6 Graphs Explain the World’s Top 10 Emitters.” World Resources Institute. November 25, 2014. Accessed November 19, 2016. http://www. wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world%E2%80%99s-top10-emitters. Gilbert, Daniel. “Global Warming and Psychology.” Lecture at Harvard Thinks Big, Cambridge, MA, March 21, 2010. Accessed December 4, 2016. https://vimeo.com/10324258. Graham, Steve. “Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927).” NASA Earth Observatory. January 18, 2000. Accessed December 5, 2016. http:// earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius. Griskevicius, Vladas, Stephanie M. Cantu, and Mark van Vugt. “The Evolutionary Bases for Sustainable Behavior: Implications for Marketing, Policy, and Social Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 31 (2012): 115-128.

Hansen, James, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, David Beerling, Robert Berner, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Mark Pagani, Maureen Raymo, Dana L. Royer, James C. Zachos. “Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?” Open Atmospheric Science Journal 2 (2008): 217-231. Accessed November 19, 2016. doi: 10.2174/1874282300802010217. Harman, Greg. “Your brain on climate change: why the threat produces apathy, not action.” Guardian, November 10, 2014. Accessed December 4, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainablebusiness/2014/nov/10/brain-climate-change-science-psychologyenvironment-elections. Hoffman, Andrew J. How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2015. Howe, Peter, Matto Mildenberger, Jennifer Marlon, and Anthony Leiserowitz. “Yale Climate Opinion Maps – United States.” Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. April 6, 2015. Accessed November 19, 2016. http://climatecommunication.yale. edu/visualizations-data/ycom. Inglis, Bob. “Changing the Dialogue on Energy and Climate.” Lecture at TEDx Jacksonville. Jacksonville, FL, 2013. Accessed November 20, 2016. http://tedxjacksonville.com/talks. Kahan, Dan M., Ellen Peters, Maggie Wittlin, Paul Slovic, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Donald Braman, and Gregory Mandel. “The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks.” Nature Climate Change 2 (2012): 732-735. Accessed November 19, 2016. doi:10.1038/nclimate1547. Kahn, Brian. “Hurricane Sandy Hasn’t Shifted Climate Narrative.” Climate Central. October 29, 2013. Accessed November, 19, 2016. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sandy-didnt-change-athing-16669. Kahn, Brian. “The World Passes 400 PPM Threshold, Permanently.” Climate Central. September 27, 2016. Accessed November 19, 2016. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/world-passes-400-ppmthreshold-permanently-20738. Kilby, Brian. “A Psychologist Explains Why People Don’t Give a Shit About Climate Change.” Vice. June 9, 2015. Accessed November 19, 2016. http://www.vice.com/read/a-psychologist-explains-

why-people-dont-really-give-a-shit-about-climate-change-608. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, 2013. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, 2014. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Organization.” Accessed November 19, 2016. https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml. JFK Library. “Bog Inglis, Winner, 2015 Profile in Courage Award.” YouTube. Posted April 13, 2015. Accessed December 13, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlbLsb1ngm0. John F. Kennedy Library Foundation. “John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award.” Accessed December 13, 2016. https://profileincourageaward.org. Lafarge Holcim Foundation. “The Dryline: Urban flood protection infrastructure.” Accessed December 23, 2016. https://www.lafargeholcim-foundation.org/projects/the-dryline. Lavelle, Marianne. “Americans in Danger From Rising Seas Could Triple.” National Geographic. March 14, 2016. Accessed November 19, 2016. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160314rising-seas-US-climate-flooding-florida Leiserowitz, Anthony, Edward Maibach, and Connie Roser-Renouf. Global Warming’s Six Americas 2009: An Audience Segmentation Analysis. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. 2009. http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2009_05_Global-Warmings-SixAmericas.pdf. Leiserowitz, Anthony, Nicholas Smith, and Jennifer R. Marlon. Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. 2010. http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2010_10_ Americans%E2%80%99-Knowledge-of-Climate-Change.pdf. LTL Architects. “Water Proving Ground in the Rising Currents

Exhibit.” Accessed December 13, 2016. http://ltlarchitects.com/ water-proving-ground. Madden, Chris. “Cartoon: the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, 2009. The US position.” Chris Madden Cartoons. Accessed December 13, 2016. http://www.chrismadden.co.uk/cartoons/environment-cartoons/carbon-footprint-cartoons/page/copenhagenclimate-change-conference-2009-cartoon.html. Marshall, George. Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change. New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2014. McCarthy, Justin. “Worry About Terror Attacks in U.S. High, but Not Top Concern.” Gallup. March 23, 2016. Accessed November 19, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/190253/worryterror-attacks-high-not-top-concern.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_ medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles. McCright, Aaron M., and Riley E. Dunlap. “The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public’s Views of Global Warming, 2001-2010.” The Sociological Quarterly 52 (2011): 155-194. McCullough, Brian. “Did Al Gore Really Invent the Internet?” Internet History Podcast. November 23, 2014. Accessed December 13, 2016. http://www.internethistorypodcast.com/2014/11/did-algore-really-invent-the-internet. Merchants of Doubt. Directed by Robert Kenner. USA: Participant Media. 2014, DVD. Monroe, Rob. “The History of the Keeling Curve.” Scripps Institution of Oceanography. April 3, 2013. Accessed December 5, 2016. https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/04/03/thehistory-of-the-keeling-curve. Mooney, Chris. “The U.S. has caused more global warming than any other country. Here’s how the Earth will get its revenge.” Washington Post, January 22, 2015. Accessed November 19, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/ wp/2015/01/22/the-u-s-has-contributed-more-to-global-warming-than-any-other-country-heres-how-the-earth-will-get-itsrevenge/?utm_term=.6cfbe180e47d. NASA Global Climate Change. “Global Temperature.” Accessed December 5, 2016. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature.

NASA Global Climate Change. “Sea Level.” Accessed December 5, 2016. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level. National Geographic. “Climate Change 101 with Bill Nye.” YouTube. Posted December 2, 2015. Accessed December 4, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtW2rrLHs08. National Geographic. “Climate Change 101 with Bill Nye.” YouTube. Posted December 2, 2015. Accessed December 4, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtW2rrLHs08. National Geographic. “What the World Would Look Like if All the Ice Melted.” Accessed December 13, 2016. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-newshoreline-maps. Nordenson, Guy, Catherine Seavitt, and Adam Yarinsky. On the Water: Palisade Bay. New York, NY: The Museum of Modern Art, 2010. Norgaard, Kari Marie. Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011. Norwegian Nobel Institute. “Al Gore – Facts.” Accessed December 1, 2016. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-facts.html. Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik M. Conway. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press, 2010. Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik M. Conway. The Collapse of Western Civilization. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2014. Painter, James. Climate Change in the Media. New York, NY: I.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd, 2013. Painter, James. Poles Apart: The International Reporting of Climate Scepticism. Oxford, UK: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, 2011. Accessed November 19, 2016. https://reutersinstitute. politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Poles%20Apart%20the%20international%20reporting%20of%20climate%20scepticism.pdf. Paramaguru, Kharunya. “The Battle Over Global Warming is All in Your Head.” Time. August 19, 2013. Accessed December 5, 2016. http://science.time.com/2013/08/19/in-denial-about-the-climatethe-psychological-battle-over-global-warming.

Pierrehumbert, Raymond T. “Greenhouse effect: Fourier’s concept of planetary energy balance is still relevant today.” Nature 432 (2004): 677. Randers, Jorgen. 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2012. Ray, Julie, and Anita Pugliese. “Worldwide, Blame for Climate Change Falls on Humans.” Gallup. April 22, 2011. Accessed November 19, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/147242/worldwideblame-climate-change-falls-humans.aspx. Rebecca Riffkin, “Climate Change Not a Top Worry in U.S.,” Gallup, March 12, 2014, accessed November 19, 2016, http://www. gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx. Reed, Peter. Groundswell: Constructing the Contemporary Landscape. New York, NY: The Museum of Modern Art, 2006. Roser-Renouf, Connie, Edward Maibach, Anthony Leiserowitz, and Seth Rosenthal. “Global Warming’s Six Americas and the Election, 2016.” Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. July 12, 2016. Accessed November 19, 2016. http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/six-americas-2016-election. Saad, Lydia, and Jeffrey M. Jones. “U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High.” Gallup. March 16, 2016. Accessed November 19, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx. SCAPE Studio. “Oyster-tecture.” Accessed December 13, 2016. http://www.scapestudio.com/projects/oyster-tecture. Scripps Institution of Oceanography. “The Keeling Curve.” Accessed December 5, 2016. https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve. Shabecoff, Philip. “Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate.” New York Times, June 24, 1988. Accessed November 19, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html. Sheppard, Kate. “Jim Inhofe Brings a Snowball To The Senate Floor To Prove Climate Change Is a Hoax.” Huffington Post. February 26, 2015. Accessed December 23, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/jim-inhofe-climate-snow_n_6763868.html.

100

Shaikh, Bushra, and Will Parker. “These neighborhoods are Manhattan’s construction meccas.” The Real Deal. July 29, 2016. Accessed November, 19, 2016. http://therealdeal.com/2016/07/29/ these-neighborhoods-are-manhattans-construction-meccas. Stoknes, Per Espen. What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2015. Strauss, Ben, Claudia Tebaldi, Scott Kulp, Susan Cutter, Chris Emrich, Daniel Rizza, and Daniel Yawitz. New York and the Surging Sea: A Vulnerability Assessment With Projections for Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flood Risk. Princeton, NJ: Climate Central Research Report, 2014. Accessed November 19, 2016. http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/uploads/ssrf/NY-Report.pdf. Strauss, Ben, Scott Kulp, and Anders Levermann. “Carbon choices determine US cities committed to futures below sea level.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (2015): 13508-13513. Accessed December 13, 2016. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1511186112. Strauss, Ben, Scott Kulp, and Anders Levermann. Mapping Choices: Carbon, Climate, and Rising Seas, Our Global Legacy. Princeton, NJ: Climate Central, 2015. Accessed December 13, 2016. http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/uploads/research/Global-Mapping-Choices-Report.pdf. Such, Robert. “A View from Below: A new civic space and sculptural work in Seoul bring city dwellers back to the water.” Landscape Architecture 100.6 (2010): 90-97. “Surging Seas: Mapping Choices.” Climate Central. Accessed November 19, 2016. http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/maps/mapping-choices. “Surging Seas: Risk Finder.” Climate Central. Accessed November 19, 2016. http://riskfinder.climatecentral.org/place/new-york. ny.us?comparisonType=city-neighborhood&forecastType=NCA_ inthi&level=6&unit=ft. Time. “Global Warming: Be Worried. Be Very Worried.” Accessed November 19, 2016. http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060403,00.html.

101

United Nations. “Secretary-General designates Leonardo DiCaprio as UN Messenger of Peace.” Accessed December 13, 2016. http:// www.un.org/climatechange/summit/2014/09/secretary-generaldesignates-leonardo-di-caprio-un-messenger-peace. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Change Indicators in the United States, 2016. Fourth Edition. 2016. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data.” Accessed December 5, 2016. https://www.epa. gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data. Visser, Nick. “Leonardo DiCaprio Addresses UN Climate Summit: ‘You Can Make History... Or Be Vilified By It’.” Huffington Post. September 23, 2014. Accessed December 13, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/23/leonardo-dicaprioun_n_5868718.html. VOA News. “Ground Zero: 2001 and 2011.” Accessed December 23, 2016. http://tools.voanews2.com/test/911_c. Warerkar, Tanay. “Hudson Yards leads Manhattan’s building boom.” Curbed. July 29, 2016. Accessed November, 19, 2016. http:// ny.curbed.com/2016/7/29/12325718/hudson-yards-manhattanbuilding-boom-map. Weiss/Manfredi. “Seattle Art Museum: Olympic Sculpture Park.” Accessed November 15, 2016. http://www.weissmanfredi.com/ project/seattle-art-museum-olympic-sculpture-park. Weiss, Marion, and Michael A. Manfredi. Weiss/Manfredi: Surface/ Subsurface. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007. Williams, S. Jeffress. “Sea-Level Rise Implications for Coastal Regions.” Journal of Coastal Research 63 (2013): 184-96. http://www. jstor.org/stable/23486512. Wiltse, Jeff. Contested Waters: A Social History of Swimming Pools in America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2007. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. “Global Warming’s Six Americas.” September 1, 2008. Accessed November 19, 2016. http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/about/projects/global-warmings-six-americas.

102

Drury University Hammons School of Architecture Master of Architecture Thesis

YOUNGSOO YANG