A BALANCED EDGE: RE‐ENVISIONING THE URBAN WATERFRONT
FOR COEXISTENCE OF INDUSTRY AND PUBLIC PLACE
by
NEENAH LOUISE HOPPE
(Under the Direction of John F. Crowley)
ABSTRACT
This thesis examines urban waterfronts struggling to incorporate two increasing, but potentially conflicting land uses: public space and maritime industry. The Erie Basin area of Red
Hook, Brooklyn, New York, where promoting industry and public space along the waterfront are
listed as a high priority, is used as a primary case study. A selection of international and local
waterfront case studies is compared and analyzed. The intent is to identify ways to foster compatibility of these two uses, and to suggest how these scenarios can be adapted to Red
Hook. The proposed applications imply how other municipal waterfronts facing a similar increase in pressure might move towards the coexistence of, rather than mutual exclusion between waterfront industry and public space.
INDEX WORDS: Landscape Architecture, Urban Waterfront Development, Industry,
Public Access, Red Hook, Brooklyn
A BALANCED EDGE: RE‐ENVISIONING THE URBAN WATERFRONT
FOR COEXISTENCE OF INDUSTRY AND PUBLIC PLACE
by
NEENAH LOUISE HOPPE
B.S., The Pennsylvania State University, 2003
A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ATHENS, GEORGIA
2011
© 2011
Neenah Louise Hoppe
All Rights Reserved
A BALANCED EDGE: RE‐ENVISIONING THE URBAN WATERFRONT
FOR COEXISTENCE OF INDUSTRY AND PUBLIC PLACE
by
NEENAH LOUISE HOPPE
Major Professor: John F. Crowley Committee: Douglas M. Pardue Lara D. Mathes Jennifer M. Lewis
Electronic Version Approved:
Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2011 iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks are in order for all who have aided me in ways known or unknown throughout my time at the University of Georgia and during the writing of this work. I am especially grateful to my advisor, Jack Crowley, for his patience and steady guidance throughout
this process. I am thankful to Doug Pardue for his boundless energy and enthusiasm, his
unconventional studio, which, in part, influenced the direction of this work, and for his
committee chairmanship. Thank you also to Lara Mathes and Jennifer Martin Lewis for your
participation and feedback as committee members. To Mom, Willie and Miss Kelsey, I cannot
thank you enough for keeping me grounded and for your unending support and encouragement.
I am also grateful to Donna Gabriel and Michael Sims for keeping us all on track, and to my friends, roommates, classmates, and professors for sharing this journey.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iv
LIST OF TABLES ...... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Current Relevance ...... 1
Overview of Previous Research ...... 3
Overview of Research ...... 5
2 HISTORIC PATTERNS AND NEW RELATIONSHIPS ...... 8
Public Access ...... 8
Historic Overview of U.S. Shipping and Settlement ...... 14
General Pattern of Port Development ...... 15
Water Dependent Industries and Efficiency ...... 17
Shifting Economies ...... 20
3 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ...... 23
Definitions and Suitability of Industries on the Waterfront ...... 23
Environmental Hazards and Public Perception of Risk ...... 25
Activation and Safety through a Mix of Uses...... 27
Zoning and Policy ...... 28
vi
Financing ...... 29
Profitability, Efficiency and Security ...... 29
Meeting Neighborhood Needs ...... 31
Time and Character ...... 32
4 CASE STUDIES ...... 37
Brooklyn Navy Yard, Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A...... 36
Port of Nagoya, Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture, Japan ...... 46
Lower Don and Port Lands, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ...... 53
Summary of Lessons and Strategies ...... 62
5 APPLICATION TO ERIE BASIN AREA, RED HOOK, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK ...... 70
Study Area Introduction: New York City’s Waterfront Plan ...... 70
Site Context ...... 72
Demographic and Socio‐economic Data ...... 78
History and Inventory of Red Hook and Erie Basin Study Area ...... 80
Introduction of IKEA ...... 89
Suggested Approaches for Erie Basin ...... 94
Primary Study Area Conclusion ...... 104
6 CONCLUSION ...... 106
Potential for Further Study ...... 110
WORKS CITED ...... 111
APPENDIX ...... 122
A More Futuristic Model ...... 122
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Summary of Devices Used by Case Study Waterfronts ...... 63
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Waterfront Evolution...... 16
Figure 2: Growth of Container Traffic in the U.S...... 18
Figure 3: Specific CO2 Emissions per tonne‐km and per Mode of Transport in Europe ...... 19
Figure 4: Comparison of Fuel Efficiency ...... 20
Figure 5: Dry Cargo Capacity Comparison ...... 20
Figure 6: Modern and Classic Architecture Juxtaposed Along Shanghai's Bund ...... 34
Figure 7: Historic and Modern at Opposite Ends of the Street. Tallinn, Estonia...... 35
Figure 8: Figure‐Ground of Case Studies ...... 36
Figure 9: Figure‐Ground of Selected Area of Brooklyn ...... 37
Figure 10: Context Map of Brooklyn’s Relationship to Manhattan ...... 38
Figure 11: New York Community Districts ...... 42
Figure 12: Land Use Map, Brooklyn Community District 2 ...... 42
Figure 13: Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Plan ...... 44
Figure 14: Brooklyn Navy Yard Public Transportation Map ...... 44
Figure 15: Figure‐Ground of the Port of Nagoya ...... 46
Figure 16: Arial View of Nagoya Garden Pier with Close‐Up of Observation Tower ...... 48
Figure 17: Contextual Composite Map of Nagoya, Japan ...... 48
Figure 18: Nagoya Subway and Rail Map ...... 52
Figure 19: Figure‐Ground of Port Lands, Toronto ...... 54
Figure 20: Waterfront Toronto Project Overview Map ...... 56
ix
Figure 21: Neighborhood 70 Within Ward 30 ...... 58
Figure 22: Map of the Port Lands ...... 60
Figure 23: Plan of Sherbourne Common Water Treatment Facility and Park ...... 61
Figure 24: Perspective Rendering of Sherbourne Common Water Treatment Facility ...... 62
Figure 25: Port of Vancouver Public Viewing Platform ...... 66
Figure 26: Port View Park, Oakland, CA ...... 66
Figure 27: Borneo‐Sporenburg Bridges, Amsterdam, Netherlands ...... 67
Figure 28: Rolling Bridge, Grand Union Canal, Paddington Basin, London ...... 67
Figure 29: Brazil's Ministry of Education and Culture Building ...... 68
Figure 30: Elliot Bay and Myrtle Edwards Park, Seattle, WA ...... 68
Figure 31: Figure‐Ground of Red Hook Industrial Areas and Public Spaces ...... 70
Figure 32: Map of Erie Basin Site Context, Showing NYC Reach Recommendations ...... 72
Figure 33: Close‐Up of Study Area Context ...... 73
Figure 34: Significant Maritime Industrial Areas (SMIAs) ...... 74
Figure 35: Marine Container Terminals of New York Harbor ...... 74
Figure 36: Zoning Map, Erie Basin Area ...... 75
Figure 37: Reach 14 S‐Brooklyn Upper Bay South ...... 76
Figure 38: Brooklyn Community District 6 ...... 77
Figure 39: Brooklyn Census Tracts ...... 77
Figure 40: Land Use Map, Brooklyn Community District 6 ...... 78
Figure 41: Grain Elevator at Gowanus Bay ...... 80
Figure 42: Three sides of the Port Authority Grain Terminal ...... 82
Figure 43: Red Hook Graving Dock ...... 83
Figure 44: Revere Sugar Refinery before Demolition in 2007 ...... 85
x
Figure 45: Rendering of Proposed Mall for 280 Richards Street ...... 86
Figure 46: Selected Parcels around Erie Basin ...... 86
Figure 47: Red Hook Warehouses and Pier 41 ...... 87
Figure 48: Serial Vision of Erie Basin ...... 90
Figure 49: Panoramic view ‐ Arriving at Erie Basin by Water Taxi ...... 91
Figure 50: Transportation Routes to IKEA...... 92
Figure 51: View towards IKEA along Beard Street from Warehouses and Market ...... 93
Figure 52: Pedestrian Access near IKEA...... 93
Figure 53: Graffiti on 280 Richards Street ...... 94
Figure 54: Grain Silos Adapted into Residences, Puerto Madero, Argentina ...... 98
Figure 55: Carroll Street Retractile Bridge ...... 102
Figure 56: Figure‐Grounds Comparing Old and New Waterfront Patterns ...... 102
Figure 57: Suggested Focus Areas for Erie Basin Study Area ...... 103
Figure 58: Kenzo Tange's Plan for Tokyo ...... 122
Figure 59: Floating City Concept ...... 123
Figure 60: Fuller's Triton ...... 123
Figure 61: Offshore Piers‐Part of the Suggested Solution for Climate Change ...... 124
Figure 62: Lilypads ‐ Ecopolis by Callebaut ...... 125
Figure 63: 50MW Platform...... 126
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Current Relevance
Why is planning for waterfront redevelopment that incorporates both water dependent industries and public access important? Throughout history, cities and their waterfronts have
undergone continual cycles of change, shifting with the economy and technological innovation.
In today’s search for fuel efficient transportation of goods and people, reduction of carbon
emissions and other pollutants that harm our environment, and sufficient employment of citizens, cities are once again poised to rely heavily on water dependent industries. Mass
manufacturing in the United States has plummeted and international trade has steadily
increased (World Trade Organization). At the same time, there is a call for smaller scale, local
production utilizing new technologies and paving the way for ‘green’ industry. This is happening
just as cities all over the world are again realizing the value of having public access to
waterfronts, and are re‐developing abandoned industrial edges or displacing water dependent industries with new mixed commercial, residential and park uses.
How to accommodate water‐reliant industries, as well as public access, is a problem that an increasing number of municipalities are facing. Competition from more lucrative types of development that do not require water access frequently crowd out water‐dependent activities, but with population increase and densification around urban areas, it is becoming more difficult
for these types of businesses to find space on the fringe (Division of Coastal Resources). At the 2
same time, siting public spaces near working ports introduces a host of potential hazards and incompatibilities, for both the industry and the public. Some issues that must be considered are: the safety of the public around large operating equipment, the threat of reduced security of business property by means of theft or potentially terrorism, reduced industrial efficiency,
increased noise, truck traffic, pollution and the public perception of pollution, and health and
safety.
Despite these potential conflicts, many municipalities cite stimulating both water‐ dependent industries and public access to the waterfront as goals for areas within their jurisdictions (Waterfront Toronto; Port of Los Angeles; New York City Department of City
Planning "Draft Programmatic Recommendations: Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive
Waterfront Plan"). The neighborhood of Red Hook Brooklyn in New York is in such a position.
This research began with an inquiry into how a ‘public’ waterfront project was funded – publicly, privately, or cooperatively – affected the degree to which users felt it was public. The new Erie Basin promenade created by Swedish furniture retailer IKEA in Red Hook, Brooklyn, in exchange for a change of zoning from Industrial to commercial, was cited as an exemplary case of private funding of a public space. When I began to investigate the area, I found it well
designed, but surprisingly empty. Wedged between an active barge port and a series of
dilapidated piers facing a strip of parked buses and cement trucks, the area was uninviting.
Although succeeding from a landscape design standpoint, something in the larger context was missing. Preliminary review of the NYC Planning Department’s “Vision 2020” waterfront plan
revealed its goals for Red Hook to include an emphasis on strengthening water‐dependent industries and public access. I decided to focus on this topic as I began searching for comparison 3
case studies and found many other areas listing the same goals, but few, if any, good examples for how to accomplish their coexistence.
While historically ports were the center of city life, containerization and other modern developments have often led water dependent industries and public access to be in conflict
(Marshall 97). With shipping and “container trade volumes that are projected to double by
2020” (Venturino) and a great public push for access to the water (National Research Council
(U.S.) Committee on Urban Waterfront Lands 9‐11), this conflict can only be expected to rise in
the future. As our population steadily increases, structuring our habitat in ways that support the population and the quality of life enjoyed by the population becomes imperative. With the evolution of industry, planning policy, and environmental design sensitivity, waterfronts, which have continually evolved to meet the changing needs of society, hold the potential to positively influence these issues, as long as they are strategically adapted to incorporate multiple
functions that may have previously been deemed incompatible.
Overview of Previous Research
Previous research returns a short list of projects combining industrial waterfront sites
and public access, the majority of them in foreign countries. However, a host of projects in
recent years have re‐envisioned former industrial sites into well used public attractions,
indicating a shift in public willingness to accept industrial elements in their parks. The success of
parks such as Gas Works Park in Seattle and Duisburg‐Nord in Germany, “exemplify a positive
new perception of the industrial landscape that is compatible with leisure and cultural activities
and conservation of the environment” (Reed and Museum of Modern Art New York N.Y. 27).
While these sites rely on re‐contextualizing historic industrial structures, a number of sources 4
suggest that this acceptance of industrial aesthetics in public places may extend beyond ‘extinct’
industries to currently active ones.
Several authors note the positive potential of public interaction with ‘working’
waterfronts, and suggest that the combination of active waterfront industries and public access
is something that the public will not only accept, but embrace. “Some of the most powerful and
exciting areas of the urban waterfront are associated with the working port and industrial and
transportation facilities” (Breen and Rigby The New Waterfront : A Worldwide Urban Success
Story 171). Although they focus more on architectural components than user experience, they are careful to note that when well incorporated, public access can take advantage of the interesting features offered by working industrial areas.
In The Death and Life of American Cities, Jane Jacobs notes a mixture of primary uses as one of the four components necessary for the creation of city diversity, and thus vitality. This
mixture of uses ensures a distribution of people active throughout the entire day, for reasons
both economic and social. Jacobs’ lambasts “policies of sorting out leisure uses from work uses,
under the misapprehension that this is orderly city planning” (J. Jacobs 171). Although Euclidean zoning, the planning concept of clearly delineated uses, is becoming less the norm and mixed use areas are adopted with more frequency (The Philadelphia Zoning Code Commission), there is still often a tension between the needs of industry and public access that keeps them separate.
To cite popular culture in addition to academia, recall the appeal of the factory visits in
the PBS show “Mr. Rogers Neighborhood”, or note the current popularity of how‐to TV shows
from cooking to landscaping to fashion. “Deadliest Catch”, “Myth Busters”, “Dirty Jobs”, are just
a few that consistently rank high in TV listings. People are inherently interested in how things 5
are made and how they work. Watching the industry in action can be an attraction in itself. In addition to the already clear magnetism that waterfronts exude, mixing public spaces into working waterfronts is a potentially compelling combination. Unfortunately, few detail how such combinations can realistically be accommodated.
Overview of Research
This thesis is an examination of waterfronts redeveloping with the twin goals of
encouraging maritime industry and public access. The Erie Basin Area of Red Hook, Brooklyn,
New York is used as a primary case study, and is compared to other local and international
studies. The question this thesis seeks to address is this: how can we plan and design for water
dependent industries and public access to coexist? The question is formed in response to the problem that these two uses, generally deemed incompatible by traditional planning methods, are on the rise. The research is guided by this set of assumptions:
Public access to waterfront is important and demand for it is increasing, along with
population density.
Water dependent industries are important and efficient transportation is becoming more
necessary to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and reduce emissions harmful to our
atmosphere.
And these contextual observations:
Uses of waterfront have evolved over time to meet changing needs
The benefits of having publicly accessible waterfronts has become clear and cities all over
the world are redeveloping to create more public waterfront spaces and mixed use
waterfronts. 6
At the same time, fuel costs and global economies are rising. Shipping is efficient and
waterborne trade is expected to rise.
There is a call for green power and innovation in energy efficiency and industry. America is
looking for new ways to lead. The coexistence of non‐conventional land uses could be a step
towards meeting those goals.
Land use trends are moving away from strict separation and toward more mixed uses, with
industry and the need for employment at the fore.
Industry is evolving. There is perhaps a need to redefine ‘industry’, and to define it in
relation to manufacturing and the waterfront. Identifying suitable industries for mixing with
public spaces is needed.
Are we moving beyond Post‐Industrial? A new phase of needing to employ workforce at
large and small production scales – of ‘green power’ goods. Higher Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFÉ) standard vehicles, wind turbines, etc. might require re‐integrating industry
into our economy.
The main claim is that water‐dependent industries and public access to waterfront can
coexist, if certain conditions are met. While this work contains a series of suggestions indicating
how strategies gleaned from other case studies might be applied to the Erie Basin area in Red
Hook, it is more akin to a kit of parts than a strict design or planning application. Other land uses
are mentioned, but they are not the focus of this research, as they are generally able to
accommodate public access, and do so frequently.
Chapter Two covers the historical context of shipping and public access to the waterfront, in order to better understand the current situation. Chapter Three discusses
opportunities and constraints that might be encountered through the mingling of these two 7
land uses. Chapter Four explores cases studies of waterfronts that were developed with goals
similar to those stated for Erie Basin and that have been noted in literature for their combining
of industry and public place. Additional methods for accomplishing this goal were culled from a review of waterfront cities considered during the selection of case studies, but ultimately not
used as in depth studies. Chapter Five introduces the primary study area in the Red Hook
neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York, reviews the area’s history and current conditions, and
suggests approaches for adapting the strategies presented in chapter four to this particular
place. Chapter Six concludes the research and offers questions for further study.
8
CHAPTER 2
HISTORIC PATTERNS AND NEW RELATIONSHIPS
While many redevelopments of urban waterfronts hinge on the concept of being in the midst of the “post industrial” age, at some point we must begin to re‐define ‘industry’ to fit the present. “The idea of the post‐industrial city is a transitional one, appropriate perhaps to turn‐of the‐century (21st) uncertainty. The character of the post‐industrial waterfront in the information age is not yet clear” (Barry Shaw in Marshall 171). Multiple signs suggest though, that
‘industries’, including those dependent on the waterfront, are still in our future. Understanding why this might be so requires a review of historic patterns of public access to the waterfront and the correlation of waterborne commerce and city development. While the economic and
political frameworks surrounding these patterns are complex, and not the subject of this thesis,
an overview is warranted.
Public Access
Why is public access to the waterfront important, and once established, what qualities must the access points possess to make the often large economic investments in establishing
them worthwhile? In attempting to address this question, it is helpful to examine the ways in
which we approach the built environment. Our biological predispositions, aesthetic associations,
history, economic values, and laws all acknowledge the importance of water in society, yet too frequently in today’s cities, much of the public is separated from the water by a variety of impediments. Still, the public seeks the unique amenity of the waterfront. Recognizing the 9
reasons for this continued fascination is a first step in the process of reconnecting people and water, a relationship which has the potential to form cities’ most vital, vibrant edges.
The earliest human settlements were valued for their provision of and proximity to our most basic needs: air, water, food, shelter. Progressing rapidly, the built environment grew to meet spiritual, social and economic needs (Jellicoe and Jellicoe 11). Water is not only one of the fundamental requirements for life; it is often a limiting factor in the attainment of other resources. The plants and animals that we rely on and, at least, early forms of shelter and transportation require water as well. It is logical then, that, “The majority of people in the world
live within 100 km of bays and estuaries” (Burger 400). In the United States alone, a 2003
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) study estimated that:
Approximately 153 million people (53 percent of the nation’s population) lived in coastal counties. Coastal counties constitute only 17 percent of the total land area of the United States (not including Alaska), but account for 53 percent of the total population. This ratio of coastal county population to the population of the United States as a whole has remained relatively stable (between approximately 52 and 54 percent) since 1970. Most of the nation’s most densely populated areas are located along the coast. Coastal counties average 300 persons per square mile, much higher than the national average of 98 persons per square mile. The most densely populated counties in the nation, New York (Manhattan), Kings (Brooklyn), Bronx, and Queens comprise portions of New York City. Together, these counties average almost 39 thousand persons per square mile (Crossett 6).
Additionally, only six of the seventy‐five largest U.S. cities are not located on a major
water body (Breen 11). The intrinsic value of water to life cannot be overstated.
Access to water has long been recognized as a human need, and therefore many societies protect it as a right. In their publication “Public Access in New Jersey: The Public Trust
Doctrine and Practical Steps to Enhance Public Access” the Coastal Management Office of the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection states that, “The ability of the public to
have access to and use of coastal lands, water and resources is a right that predates the 10
founding of this country and has been woven into the fabric of our basic rights and principles”
(Freudenberg 1).
Law for much of the United States references the public trust doctrine, which some say may be traced to Roman times, “when free access to navigable waters and the foreshore was the right of every citizen” (Breen 24). Although the exact history of the law is debated, many
accept that it was adopted as part of English common law during the formation of the first 13
colonies. “The central idea of the public trust doctrine has always been that each state holds its
coastal waters and the land underneath them for the benefit of the public” (Archer 5). It first
appeared in American law in the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s Ordinances of 1641 and 1647,
which gave rights to owners of tidal lands to the low watermark and to owners of ponds ten acres or more, the high watermark (Archer 5). These rights were later expanded to fresh, inland waters with the establishment of the Northwest Ordinance in 1787 (Archer 6).
Shipping channels in the United States are also often publicly maintained; many argue that based on this shared burden of maintenance, the public should share the right to access and enjoy the waterfront.
In addition to the intrinsic value of water and the legal value of access to it, or, perhaps
because of these, water also possesses high aesthetic value. In their book Waterfronts, Anne
Breen and Dick Rigby state that, “It’s axiomatic that people love water and want to reach it and
touch it” (24). Another possible explanation for human affinity for waterfront views is the
concept of “biophilia.” Richard Louv, in his book, Last Child in the Woods, cites Edward O.
Wilson’s definition of “biophilia as ‘the urge to affiliate with other forms of life” (Louv 43). He goes on to say that the “biophilia theory…is supported by a decade of research that reveals how strongly and positively people respond to open, grassy landscapes, scattered stands of trees, 11
meadows, water, winding trails, and elevated views” (Louv 43, Emphasis added). In other words,
Humans today are still thought by many to favor waterfront views as one of the elements of the
‘natural’ environments that originally sustained us.
Another concept, put forth by Kevin Lynch is that people define their environment by readily identifiable features within it. This helps them to create mental maps on which to
structure their daily activities, delineate boundaries, and orient themselves. He notes that water
bodies, are “lateral references” that clearly delineate the edge of spaces, and therefore aid in
orientation for those on land, as well as providing physiologic definition of places (Lynch 62‐66).
Although agreement as to why people value the aesthetics of the waterfront so dearly may not be easily reached, the higher economic values assigned to such areas makes the human predilection for them, and accompanying willingness to pay for access to them if able, quite
clear. Real Estate prices are 7‐9% higher for properties adjacent to water, and for those with expansive waterfront views the value may even be double (Alva). Another example can be found in tourism destinations, where a quick internet scan shows that waterfront rooms often command 10‐30% higher rates than rooms without waterfront views. Proximity to waterfront
amenities also adds value to an establishment, increasing with each block nearer it is. Similarly, in public recreation areas and campgrounds, the presence of water is one of the top predictors of site use (Oliveira and Gordon).
It is therefore well established that, given the choice, a majority of people prefer to be
near water. This combined with the shared cost of maintaining navigable waters might seem like reason enough for a society that prides itself on democracy to ensure its citizens access to
the waterfront, however more economically advantageous situations often win out. Another
reason to encourage public access might be found in the need for protection of our dwindling 12
water resources. Prevalent as it may seem, fresh water is in increasingly short supply. It is estimated that one in seven people does not have access to clean drinking water, a number expected to climb with increasing population pressure (World Water Council). Pollution and global warming threaten our water supply as well food supplies supported directly (fisheries)
and indirectly (all forms of agriculture) by water (not to mention the jobs associated with these markets). It is clearly in the public interest to protect and conserve water. How does that relate
to public access to waterfront? Through the argument that people are often more willing to
protect that with which they frequently associate.
Richard Louv describes the idea that we are inclined to protect that which we have come to know and care for as “attachment theory”, which may be seen as an extension of biophilia theory. He states, “The protection of nature depends on more than the organizational strength of stewardship organizations; it also depends on the quality of the relationship between the young and nature – on how, or if, the young attach to nature” (156). If inhabitants of urbanized areas do not have the opportunity to interact with the processes of waterfronts,
naturalized or otherwise, how can they be expected to protect these resources, which although
recognized as necessary to life, may seem remote and unimportant to people who have not
experienced them directly.
The predilection of humans for waterfront views, combined with fulfillment of needs
which drove historical building patterns along the water, has, throughout history, led to vibrant social spaces along waterfronts. Andrew Hurley describes this in reference to St. Louis’s downtown waterfront: “Thousands of workers were kept busy loading and unloading cargo. It was a place where people from all walks of life encountered one another, where news from afar arrived first, where laborers were hired, and where deals were made. Not merely a colorful 13
adjunct to the city, the waterfront was its most vivid articulation” (Hurley 23). Through variety of use, activation and programming, waterfronts can provide highly valued social gathering spaces.
Although the economic value of waterfronts has fluctuated over time in accordance with the uses assigned to these areas, it has often been a driving or limiting force in the vitality of waterfronts. At the height of industry, the economic value of waterfronts focused on utility –
generation of energy, conveyance of waste, etc. It was also valued for transportation, both via
water and as an outer ‘edge’ for highways and warehouse storage, etc (Wrenn 16‐18). Later, economic values were used as a revitalization tool capitalizing on the aesthetic values and associated tourism and consumption. Andrew Hurley sums it up this way:
Striving to recreate a lively and crowded social environment that would contribute to a more exciting and livable city, planners, policymakers, and developers looked to the past for inspiration. By the 1970s, they had gone a step further, actively promoting the preservation and reuse of historic structures… Waterfront districts rehabilitated in this fashion, including New York City's South Street Seaport, Boston's Faneuil Hall Marketplace, and Baltimore's Inner Harbor, cultivated a celebratory version of the past that was consistent with their emphasis on tourism and consumption. Typically, references to social conflict were muted, and the industrial era was ignored in favor of attention to a more remote preindustrial past. Although many of the mass consumer‐oriented waterfront revitalization projects have proven themselves successful from a financial standpoint, they have often compromised the goal of reintegrating the waterfront into the fabric of civic life (21‐22).
Currently, as many cities review their redeveloped waterfronts from the 1980’s, the question of how to better economically value the social, environmental and cultural/historic contributions of waterfronts arises. Whether we examine the social, aesthetic, environmental, cultural or economic values regarding the relationship of the built environment to urban
waterfronts, it seems we will be directed to the importance of protecting and enhancing public
access to these special features.
14
Historic Overview of U.S. Shipping and Settlement
The history of America’s settlement owes much to its navigable waters. As methods of utilizing this all important resource evolved with new technologies and changing societal needs, the interface between land and water shaped the cities and towns that grew up along it.
Transport of goods was initially completely reliant on water. Harbors provided security, as well
as linking the colonies to Europe. During the 1600’s, 5 ports were established on the Atlantic
Coast. The first of these, in 1625, was New Amsterdam, renamed New York in 1664. New York was followed by Boston, Massachusetts; Newport, Rhode Island; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and
Charleston, South Carolina (Wrenn 3) .
In the early 1700’s shipyards and merchants dominated the New England economy, demonstrating security and independence. Manhattan held two advantages over other northern ports: fertile soil and vast access to interior lands via the Hudson River, and later, the Erie Canal.
In 1730 New York began to import and export goods directly to and from England. By the 1750’s new colonies began to compete with and divert trade from the initial five ports. Suitable harbors could be directly linked to urban expansion. Pittsburg, Cincinnati and Saint Louis were predicated by their inland waterways. The Louisiana Purchase made these last two outposts for
further westward expansion. Ports on the Pacific coast were slower to develop due to the time
and security risks involved in traveling back and forth to Europe (Wrenn 6).
In the early 1800’s steamboats revolutionized waterborne commerce, reducing the time
it took to transport goods between New Orleans and Cincinnati from 78 days via barge to 25 by
steamboat (Green). In 1825 the Erie Canal spurred growth in the Great Lakes region. New York
benefitted immensely as it received an influx of commerce from the towns emerging along the 15
canal. Similar efforts to link Philadelphia and Pittsburg and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canals
were not as successful (Wrenn 8).
Railroads were the next to heavily impact commerce and port cities. The speed of rail
was a counterbalance to the low cost of water transport. Railroads had a polarizing effect on port cities. Those that were able to accommodate them along their waterfronts were
strengthened thanks to expanded access to previously unreachable areas and year‐round
viability. Ports that could not accommodate railroads along the water faltered. Saint Louis,
Missiouri was eventually able to benefit from rail by turning its back on the waterfront, while
Chicago managed to retain both. The introduction of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad to
Baltimore in 1827 led it to become the third strongest port at the time, behind New York and
New Orleans (Wrenn 9).
General Pattern of Port Development
As port cities developed, their shorelines often followed a typical progression, varied to
degrees by location. The first requirement of course, was the discovery of a safe harbor. Next,
wooden jetties were built to accommodate small ships ferrying goods from larger vessels anchored offshore. A small trail, and later, road system, connected the jetty to habited areas and inhabitants had access to the natural shoreline.
As growth occurred, significant shoreline alterations were common. Larger piers allowed ships to dock directly. A street grid was established and filled in with buildings. Sea walls and bulkheads were added for stability and a shoreline road became active with suppliers and merchants. 16
Steamships escalated this progression, layering rows of warehouses between the street
and water’s edge. Dredging was required to open up channels for larger vessels. Wooden piers
were replaced by stone and fill, expanding the distance between city center and shore. Often,
these works necessitated a governing body such as a port authority to oversee operations. The
addition of railroads to the waterfront required larger quantities of fill, often supplied through
dredge material. “This change effectively severed the central city from the waterfront” (Wrenn
10).
Increasingly, waterfronts became congested and difficult to navigate. Elevated highways
were built to divert traffic away from these areas. Shops and offices along the old shoreline road
were redeveloped into warehouses. Two typical scenarios played out from this point. Either shipping declined, heralded by expressway expansion and demolition of shoreline structures, or it increased bringing with it new industrial ventures and more and larger piers (Wrenn 11).
Figure 1: Waterfront Evolution. Scope increases horizontally from top left (Wrenn 10‐11). 17
Water Dependent Industries and Efficiency
America desires to be a leader in energy efficiency and exemplary environmental
standards (The White House). Since the 2008 financial collapse, and ensuing average U.S.
unemployment rate of 9% (Bureau of Labor Statistics), it is also desperately looking for ways to
get people back to work. With “container trade volumes that are projected to double by 2020
(Venturino)” and the noted energy efficiency of shipping related to other means of
transportation (Center for Ports and Waterways and Kruse), maritime commerce could be a key
ingredient in meeting these two goals. Maintaining spaces for these activities while marrying them with the recent surge in waterfront redevelopments for public access could lead the way for a new type of industrial age, governed by cleaner technology.
According to NOAA, “Maritime commerce accounts for 95% of imports to and exports from the United States.” Water dependent “uses generate billions of dollars for the State's (of
New York) economy and are vital to the economic health and character of most waterfront communities” (Division of Coastal Resources). New York’s ports handled 96 million tons of
waterborne traffic in 2005, ranking it 11th in the nation (American Society of Civil Engineers).
And “Today the Port of New York and New Jersey is the third largest port in the nation” (The
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey). In 2010, only Los Angeles and Long Beach,
California moved more twenty‐foot‐equivalent‐units (TEUs). 18
Figure 2: Growth of Container Traffic in the U.S. (American Society of Civil Engineers)
With the expansion of the Panama Canal expected to be complete in 2014, seaborne trade will continue to grow. The introduction of the so‐called post‐PANAMAX vessels has ports the world over scrambling to update their harbors to accommodate these new, even larger scale ships which require 50’ or deeper water. Currently the only U.S. Port on the Atlantic that can handle such ships is Norfolk, VA (Winner). Combined with the crumbling state of existing inland waterway infrastructure, rated at D‐ in 2009 by the American Society of Civil Engineers, this growth has great implications for how the land‐side of these operations will again be adjusted in
coming years. 19
In America’s quest to become energy and transportation efficient, and to lead the world
in these areas while maintaining high environmental standards, it is imperative that water and rail transportation routes be maintained. “Rail is the second most energy efficient mode of both passenger and freight transport (after maritime)” (European Environment Agency).
Debate exists over which modes of transport are most efficient and environmentally
friendly, as evidenced by this quote in a Washington Post article, “the shipping industry's carbon footprint has come under scrutiny recently, in part because large ocean‐going vessels use fuel that is much dirtier than the kinds used by cars and trucks” (Eilperin). However, multiple sources
suggest that shipping is still more efficient and less polluting than other methods. The following
graphics show the relative CO2 emissions, fuel efficiency, and carrying capacity of ships relative
to other forms of transportation.
Figure 3: Specific CO2 Emissions per tonne‐km and per Mode of Transport in Europe, 1995‐ 2009 (Center for Ports and Waterways and Kruse)
20
Figure 4: Comparison of Fuel Efficiency (Center for Ports and Waterways and Kruse).
Figure 5: Dry Cargo Capacity Comparison (Center for Ports and Waterways and Kruse)
Shifting Economies
In Fluid City, Kim Dovey notes, “The shift from an economy dominated by manufacturing to one focused on information industries has a range of effects…The ‘new economy’ is driven by technology and information industries such as leisure, tourism, banking, finance, and science”
(Dovey 10). The question arises: have we changed the world economy this way? The United
States economy has – but only by shifting the manufacturing jobs offshore. Manufacturing is 21
more mechanized, but still needed, somewhere. Often it is relocated to places where wages are
low. Environmental standards in these developing areas are frequently low as well (Costantini
and Crespi). This is part of a cycle where, as countries develop, their wages rise and their
competitive advantage in low technology trade decreases (Aiginger 172). The United States and
Japan, among other developed nations, have seen this happen. One might expect that China’s and India’s wages will begin to rise (Auer and Fischer 491‐503; de Sousa and Poncet), pushing their manufacturing sectors to countries less developed.
If we have learned from our previous industrial revolutions, we know the damage of letting environmental concern slide. Constantini and Crespi suggest that another model exists in which competitive advantage can be gained through “global diffusion of environmental‐ friendly technologies” (447). The authors cite industrial innovation as a way for countries with stringent environmental regulations (noting Kyoto protocol) to compete in the global market.
This dovetails nicely with our government’s call to green industry, suggests a way to entice
environmentally sound manufacturing to our shores by providing jobs, and also provides a
means to counter the public notion of ‘dirty’ industry.
Metropolis magazine notes “that although the United States has lost 42,000 factories
since 2001, and some 5.5 million manufacturing jobs since the turn of the millennium”, leading
to what the author terms a “death spiral”, the combination of advanced technologies, a desire
to “go green”, and a human inclination to build tangible objects is leading to something of a
“renaissance” (K. Jacobs). “Every time I see an old industrial building newly converted into
artists’ studios or luxury condos, I wonder: Wouldn’t it be better to convert that old factory into
a bunch of small, technologically adroit new factories?” (K. Jacobs). The author cites the 22
Brooklyn Navy Yard as one example where “industry‐as‐community‐builder approach is
working” (K. Jacobs).
In “The Emergence of Postmodernism on the Urban Waterfront”, written in the mid
1990’s, the authors suggest that post‐modernism and its emphasis on individuality and
eclecticism has replaced a ‘Fordist’ movement focused on efficiency and mass scale production
in driving waterfront development schemes (Norcliffe, Bassett and Hoare 123‐34). Today it
seems that the two might be occurring simultaneously – on one hand a need for post‐PANAMAX
vessels and ports, and on the other a series of cottage industries. Perhaps this era is deserving
of a new name other than post‐modern or post‐industrial – and a new model for sharing space
on the waterfront.
23
CHAPTER 3
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
Definitions and Suitability of Industries on the Waterfront
When evaluating the types of industries or uses appropriate for a waterfront, it is important to define them. The idea of ‘Industry’ varies greatly by location and historical reference, but it is generally accepted that “Water‐dependent uses are defined as ‘an activity which can only be conducted on, in, over or adjacent to a water body because such activity
requires direct access to that water body, and which involves, as an integral part of such activity,
the use of the water” (Division of Coastal Resources). The New York State Division of Coastal
Resources lists “shipping facilities, marinas, mooring areas, yacht clubs, boat yards, commercial
and recreational fishing operations, facilities for shipping petroleum products and aggregates,
ferry landings, and various support facilities for waterborne commerce and recreation” as
examples of water dependent industries.
Water‐enhanced uses, by contrast, may have more varied definitions. Generally they are defined as uses which benefit from proximity to waterfront, but do not require it. The New York
State Division of Coastal Resources denotes them as activities which do not “require a location adjacent to coastal waters, but whose location on the waterfront adds to the public use and
enjoyment of the water's edge’. Water‐enhanced uses are primarily recreational, cultural, retail,
or entertainment uses” (Division of Coastal Resources). Manufacturing operations are another
major use which benefits economically from being in a waterfront location, but which doesn’t 24
necessarily require it, as water may be piped in or withdrawn from ground water.
Manufacturing of “metals, wood and paper products, chemicals, gasoline and oils” (USGS),
aggregates and thermoelectric‐power water cooling are all possible examples of water
enhanced uses.
The scale of water‐dependent industries varies as well. Three general scales emerge,
often correlating with the draft of the vessel and amount of mechanization required to handle cargo: large or very large includes container ports and ship building and repair yards, medium might include barges, tugs and cruise ships, possibly large yachts, smaller would be fishing fleets and marinas. A fourth could be considered for non‐motorized watercraft, but these are not
pertinent under industrial categories.
Industries potentially well‐suited to mix with public access could include transportation,
shipping, commercial fishing, boat building and repair, water supply and storm water treatment facilities. Toronto’s East Bay Front is integrating pedestrian access through a water treatment
system and using the water as a design feature (Waterfront Toronto). Watersquares, proposed
for stormwater capture in Rotterdam operate on a similar theme (Boer). Aggregate and similar construction material processing can, with careful consideration, be integrated with adjacent public uses.
Industries that are potentially more difficult to combine with public places are many of the ones that benefit from, but do not require a waterfront location, such as the manufacturing of petrochemicals or other hazardous substances. Thermoelectric‐power water cooling and ‐ as has been highlighted in recent weeks by the natural and manmade disaster in Japan ‐ nuclear energy generation are not recommended for close proximity to public areas.
Some electric and coal plants have managed to incorporate public access, mostly in the 25
form of narrow pathways along their edges. Waterfront Trail in Alexandria, Virginia, Linear Park in Grand Haven, Michigan; and Elliot Bay and Myrtle Edwards Park in Seattle, Washington are a few examples (Caution, Working Waterfront : The Impact of Change on Marine Enterprises 54‐
71).
Environmental Hazards and Public Perception of Risk
One serious potential barrier to successfully combining waterfront industries with public
spaces is the public perception of ‘industry’ as dirty, polluting and detrimental to human and
environmental health. “To call a city industrial in the present period…is to associate it with a set
of negative images: a declining economic base, pollution” (Short 208). In a 2003 study of waterfront park users in the Newark Bay Area, across The New York/New Jersey Harbor from
Erie Basin, “Pollution was viewed as the most important problem… and removing pollution was rated the most important way to improve the waterfront” (Burger 399).
Pollutants do exist in most former and current industrial areas in the air, water, and soil.
As an example, the Gowanus canal, directly adjacent to the main study area of this thesis, was listed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a Superfund clean‐up site in March of
2010. Contaminants noted on the site “include PCBs, coal tar wastes, heavy metals and volatile
organics” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "Region 2 Superfund: Gowanus Canal,
Brooklyn, N.Y."). These substances are representative of what may be found in similar waterfront industrial areas throughout the world, and are known to cause a range of negative health effects from cancers to diseases of the kidneys and central nervous system. (Wakefield and McMullan; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "Superfund"; Park et al.).
Clearly, industries have been deserving of their polluting reputation in the past, and many continue to be. However, there is a shift towards making industries less harmful and more 26
compatible with other uses. The changes in industries are driven by multiple factors: government policy, consumer demand, need due to dwindling resources, and desire for increased efficiency (Rensvik).
Since the 1960’s, environmental awareness among the public has been heightened
(Montalvo S7). Regulations such as the Clean Water Act, amended in 1977 (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency "Summary of the Clean Water Act"), and the Clean Air Act, signed in 1970 and
amended in 1990 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "Clean Air Act"), form the basis for
environmental regulation and extensive remediation efforts in the United States. On an
international scale, the Kyoto Protocol, sponsored by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), was signed in 1997 and put into effect in 2005 with the aim of limiting the world’s carbon emissions. It has encouraged use of flexible and market driven policies such as capping and trading emissions. The United States has not signed the treaty
(UNFCCC).
Cleaner industries are being promoted both by governments and through consumer
demand. A number of power companies allow customers to choose “renewable energy sources,
such as wind and solar power, geothermal, hydropower, and various forms of biomass” (Infinite
Power.org; Luukkanen). Though mainly a token measure, industrial complexes, including the
Brooklyn Navy Yard case study cited in this thesis, have begun adding renewable energy sources, such as wind turbines, to their sites. Although not feasible everywhere, and not without environmental consequence, these are some examples of less polluting forms of industry. Other manufacturing sectors from textiles (ElDefrawy and Shaalan) to automobile (Ashori; Eggers and
Eggers), printing (Vachon and Klassen), construction (Qi et al.), and shipping and transport (Lai et 27
al.) are among those seeking to develop production methods that reduce the use of toxins,
recycle and reduce use of water, and require less energy.
In addition to changing production practices, novel ways of remediating former pollution sources are becoming common. Novel brownfield remediation techniques using plants, microbes, fly‐ash, soil washing, heat, algae and ground capping are occurring around the world in an effort to make formerly toxic industrial areas safe and attractive to the public
(Lopareva‐Pohu et al.; Ji et al.; Rivero‐Huguet and Marshall; Zhang et al.).
Convincing the public of industry safety is a potentially large hurdle to the effective
combination of industry and public at the waterfront. However, through continued regulation, market incentives and remediation efforts, as well as education and outreach designed to notify the public of such activities, trust can be built. Allowing consumers choices in their energy consumption can prove empowering and encourage more industries to move in a positive direction.
Activation and Physical Safety through a Mix of Uses
Despite the best of intentions, combining solely active industries and public space at the waterfront is not likely to meet with success. Such places hold the potential to make public users feel out of place, and possibly even in danger. A mixture of different uses that keep the space
activated throughout the day, week, and season are necessary to keep public industrial spaces from feeling like a place the public is not welcome. This is one of Jane Jacob’s four basic
conditions for diversity and health of a city (J. Jacobs 152‐64).This sentiment is echoed in much
of the literature.
Several case studies make mention of the need to activate spaces for safety and
security. The Port of Oakland had to enclose its view tower at night due to vandalism, which was 28
attributed to the park’s “isolation from downtown (Breen and Rigby Caution, Working
Waterfront : The Impact of Change on Marine Enterprises 69).” The author found this to be the case while investigating Erie Basin’s Columbia Street promenade. Despite the presence of
benches and trashcans, the area is eerily vacant and wholly unwelcoming to anyone except the
few warehouse workers on break.
Zoning and Policy
Given the considerable health risks associated with discharges from many industries ‐ as well as dangers from machinery and general nuisance issues such as noise, dust, and traffic ‐ it is not surprising that governments often have regulations and zoning ordinances that separate the public and particularly residential areas, from industrial ones. However, as industry has evolved, so has zoning.
New York City’s zoning website acknowledges that planning and zoning are never really static – they must change with the times. New York and many municipalities have over the last decade moved away from Euclidean zoning and “taken a more flexible approach to the strict segregation of uses, encouraging a mix of uses that helps create livable neighborhoods and lively urban streetscapes” (NYC Department of City Planning "Zoning"). The city is still divided into three basic categories – Residential, Commercial, and Manufacturing. However, provisions do
exist for ‘special purpose’ overlay areas which allow more flexibility of land use within them,
with the intention of preserving unique character areas. The use of incentives and ‘contextual’ zoning also allow for more variety in use within the three basic categories. Waterfronts,
industrial waterfronts in particular, could certainly be considered eligible for such designations.
Clearly, for waterfront industry and public places to coexist, zoning must exist allowing them to do so. Ann Breen and Dick Rigby caution though, that precisely how these zoning 29
regulations are defined is critical. They cite a number of cases where “well meaning policy declarations have backfired when applied to marine businesses” (Caution, Working Waterfront :
The Impact of Change on Marine Enterprises 6‐7). Instances where zoning was adopted to prevent large scale housing development on the water precluded skilled workers from living near their employment. Also noted are circumstances where restaurants and offices, rather than accentuating working waterfront industries, have outcompeted them. These conflicts in financing are discussed further in the section on profitability, but they are mentioned here as they often derive from use designations.
Financing
Underwriting the costs of any waterfront development is a challenge, but may be particularly so with industries as they are not naturally trying to attract people in the way that
other private entities might. Newer waterfront parks in New York City have effectively used public–private partnerships to spread the costs of financing and maintenance (National
Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Urban Waterfront Lands 205; Van Valkenburg Associates).
Another strategy is to incorporate incentives for corporations such as increased floor area ratio, zoning changes, additional parking, etc. in exchange for provision and maintenance of public space (National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Urban Waterfront Lands 206).
While there are drawbacks and limitations to these strategies, it is well recognized that they are
often able to accomplish more, and with a better outcome for the public than either public or
private development alone (Millspaugh in Marshall 80‐85).
Profitability, Efficiency and Security
Some of the largest hurdles in combining industry and public space on the waterfront
include how to allow the industries to continue to be industrious. Efficiency, profit and avoiding 30
liability are likely to be concerns not easily allayed. Through review of case studies it is revealed
that for large scale waterfronts such as container ports, allowing visual access to the waterfront only or allowing physical access only on the periphery, at street ends or on timed schedules managed by the industry were most common means of doing this. Most of the active waterfronts reviewed had a mix of guards and gates, employed to varying degrees. The Port of
Oakland, California keeps gates locked only at night, while Brooklyn Navy Yard only allows tour
groups in when scheduled in advance. While avoiding impeding industrial efficiency is a challenge, it has potential to lead to unique solutions such as the rolling bridge in London by
Heatherwick studio, which is described further in the summary of lessons in chapter four. While many of the devices used to preserve efficiency and prevent liability are relatively simple,
providing security from larger scale threats is more complicated.
Security of ports is a major concern that must be addressed. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, this issue has been heightened, and has led to the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)– an incorporation of four other agencies: Customs and
Border Protection (CPB), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the United States
Coast Guard (USCG), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (Grillot, Cruise and
D'Erman 26). Many of the security procedures are applied digitally and to arriving cargo, rather
than to the areas in which cargo is arriving. CPB operates a database called the Automated
Targeting System (ATS) which calculates which containers carry highest risk. Risky containers are x‐rayed or put through other screening procedures, comparing their manifest (summary of
itinerary, cargo, etc.) to what is found. Those in question are subject to physical search (Grillot,
Cruise and D'Erman 30). 31
Containers departing US shipping terminals on trucks are subjected to radiation screening. If any radiation is found, they are inspected more closely and checked against the
driver’s identification and record. Beyond these physical measures, the economics, politics, and technology of container security are complex and outside the scope of this thesis. However ensuring that ports are able to implement such measures without interference is a critical
component of mixing public space with industry.
Meeting Neighborhood Needs
One of the major potential benefits of redeveloping waterfront industries in conjunction
with public waterfront spaces is the opportunity to strengthen neighborhoods and expand on
areas of unique character. However, this can also be a potential pitfall. Introducing a mix of other uses, as is often necessary to ensure safety and profitability, can lead to out‐competition
of small enterprises and the jobs they provide. Additionally, rents, taxes and other costs tend to rise, further disadvantaging low‐income residents, and paving the way for gentrification and/or
a so called ‘tourist bubble’. Careful consideration must be paid to how the mix of uses is
executed, in order to meet the needs of the neighboring area.
Jobs, affordable housing, adequate public transportation and respite from noise, dust, traffic congestion and other nuisances or hazards of industry are high on the list of basic needs
of neighborhoods facing redevelopment. Failure to meet these neighborhood needs is cited as a
weak point for waterfront redevelopment projects the world over, from London’s Docklands
(Brownill 107) to Melbourne’s Docklands (Dovey 197) to San Diego, California, Tampa, Florida,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and other U.S. examples (P. H. Brown 121‐23). Baltimore, Maryland,
while often lauded for the redevelopment of its Inner Harbor waterfront, and held up as an
example for other cities to emulate, is also notorious for its failure to integrate this successful space with the surrounding city fabric: 32
Where crime, poverty, and urban decay make parts of a city inhospitable to visitors, specialized areas are established as virtual tourist reservations. These become the public parts of town, leaving visitors shielded from and unaware of the private spaces where people live and work. Baltimore provides an excellent example of a pure tourist space carved out of urban decay (Judd and Fainstein 36).
The roughly 30 million visitors who visit Harborplace each year are conveniently protected from seeing the Baltimore beyond the tourist enclave, the other half of what has been labeled “the two Baltimores (Judd and Fainstein 36).
Depending on a project’s goals, it may be considered a financial success without meeting neighborhood needs. However, for projects intending to retain industry, employment retention or creation is often inherent in the scheme. Integrating the development into the neighborhood where employees live and work serves to greatly strengthen the project.
Time and Character
“An interesting district has a character of its own and specialties of its own…The constructive factor that has been operating here meanwhile is time...Time, in cities, is indispensable.” – Jane Jacobs (133)
‘Authentic’ character is a draw for many people. Precisely how ‘authenticity’ is defined
is a matter of debate, but one engaged in by many of the most notable writers on planning and
design. Authenticity is often described as revealing elements of time, use, and function (Berman;
J. Jacobs; Relph). Given the significant histories of many industrial waterfronts, emphasizing
unique features and their progression through time is one opportunity area for successful
conversion into public spaces. Richard Berman, author of Assessing Urban Design: Historical
Ambience on the Waterfront, notes that, “Time often allows the character of a town, district, or city to develop as distinct from others….Choices of which structures to demolish, add on to, restore or adapt, all contribute to one area’s distinctness from another” (1). Venice, Italy,
Savannah, Georgia, Boston, Massachusetts, and Annapolis, Maryland, as well as previously 33
mentioned re‐purposed industrial sites like Duisburg‐Nord, all capitalize on their historic
structures, revealing an authentic passage of time.
Aside from the assured visual pleasantry of historic waterfronts, E. Relph, author of
Place and Placelessness, describes how authenticity may aide in the development of ‘a sense of place’, or identification of and with a place, and attachment to it. “To be attached to places and have profound ties with them is an important human need” (Relph 38). Relph notes that through time, even though a place may change, attachment grows (33). “In short, people are their place and a place is its people” (Relph 34). Berman notes that due to increasing economies of scale…and resulting use of repetitive modular units of construction, many structures built in
recent years have taken on an increased homogeneity of appearance” (2). The loss of
distinctness can have a negative effect.
Jacobs and Dovey warn against singularization of place, both in form, and in pattern.
Jacobs decries homogeneity of uses as monotony. “In moving, you seem to have gotten
nowhere.” She says that homogenous places, or those with ‘contrived differences’, are “deeply
confusing…a kind of chaos” (224). Dovey observes, “The global trend to waterfront developments is also part of …. a thematic, scripted and branded form of place making” (14)
Newly redeveloped waterfronts can fall into the trap of looking like waterfronts anywhere, rather than being derived from their unique histories.
“Although tourist venues are often constructed on sites once devoted to gritty, primary production, such locales are normally rebuilt to project an overtly nostalgic and idealized version of city life. They are intended to summon an unthreatening past evoked by “authentic reproductions of a working harbor…not unlike parts of Disney World” (Judd and Fainstein 37‐
38). 34
Jacobs argues that for practical economic reasons as well as theoretical ones, a mix of
old and new is critical for the success of an area. “Large swatches of construction built at one time are inherently insufficient for sheltering wide ranges of cultural, population and business diversity” (191). This combination of old and new can be both useful and attractive. Berman states: “When two contrasting areas are juxtaposed, the boundary area heightens the visual attentions of people” (8). Berman considers this one potential reason why people are so attracted to waterfronts in the first place, but it also lends merit to the idea of juxtaposing historic and modern in the redevelopment of a waterfront. Shanghai’s Bund is an example
where this has successfully been employed. Tallinn, Estonia might be a lesser known, but equally effective example.
Figure 6: Modern and Classic Architecture Juxtaposed Along Shanghai's Bund. Author's photos. 35
Figure 7: Historic and Modern at Opposite Ends of the Street. Tallinn, Estonia. Author's photos.
Cities gain their character through “gradual accretions over time” (Berman 1).
Maintaining and emphasizing a time worn authenticity in industrial waterfronts is important for
both long time residents and visitors. Where identified, it provides a unique opportunity for
guiding the direction of redevelopment.
36
CHAPTER 4
CASE STUDIES
Figure 8: Figure‐Ground of Case Studies. From left: Erie Basin in Red Hook and the Brooklyn Navy Yard, Brooklyn, NY. Port of Nagoya, Japan. Port Lands, Toronto, Canada. Green indicates public open space. Black indicates industry. White is reserved for all other land‐use. Author's images, modified from Google Earth.
Three main case studies were selected for comparison to the primary case study, the
Erie Basin Area in Red Hook, Brooklyn, New York, based on a variety of characteristics. First, the areas have a history of water dependent industries along their shores. Second, after decline in the cycle of water dependent industry, the municipality sought to bring it back, in conjunction with public access to the historic and waterfront amenities located there. Third, the sites’ general locations are similar. Each is located near the junction of a river with a harbor or bay in close proximity to the ocean. The study areas are not city centers, and as such, have not been developed with the same intensity and mix of uses that would be typical of a central location.
The cases studies have accomplished the return of industry either with or without public waterfront access in differing ways, and to varying degrees. 37
The three initial comparison case studies selected are the Brooklyn Navy Yard, Brooklyn,
New York; The Garden Pier Area of the Port of Nagoya, Nagoya, Japan; and the lower Don Lands and Port Lands of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. A tertiary set of cases from around the world is examined briefly and in less detail for a wider array of examples of how to integrate industry and public place at the waterfront.
Brooklyn Navy Yard, Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A.
Introduction and Context
Figure 9: Figure‐Ground of Selected Area of Brooklyn. Green indicates public open space. Black indicates industry. White is reserved for all other land‐use. Author's images, modified from Google Earth.
The Brooklyn Navy Yard was selected as a case study due to its location on a bay adjoining a river very near the ocean, but not in a city center. It is also a few miles north of the principal site of Erie Basin, but is being redeveloped in a contrasting way. The Piers in between
are currently being developed into Brooklyn Bridge Park, and these two areas – one almost entirely industrial, one entirely public recreation, form a good contrast with the goals of the 38
primary study area to incorporate both. The Navy Yard has a long history of naval and industrial innovation and is currently evolving with a focus on becoming a new type of industrial center,
containing both maritime and other traditional and non‐traditional companies from
manufacturing to film. It is mainly without public access, although some of the initiatives it is introducing as development continues, such as scheduled tours, a perimeter greenway, and a
soon‐to‐be opened historical museum, provide insight into how industry and the public can coexist in novel ways, even under strict security requirements.
Figure 10: Context Map of Brooklyn's Relationship to Manhattan (GoogleMaps)
Brooklyn Navy Yard History
The earliest documented birth of a European, Sarah Rapelje, was in 1625 in the bay area of the New Netherlands colony. The area was called "Rennegachonk" by the Lenape Indians. In
1637, Walloon Jansen de Rapelje bought 335 acres from the Dutch West Indian Trading
Company and renamed it Waal Boght, translated from Dutch as either “Bend in the river” or 39
“Bay of Walloons”. It later became known as Wallabout Bay (Brooklyn Navy Yard Development
Corporation).
Wallabout Bay first hosted a shipyard in 1781 when Jack Johnson purchased a piece of the Rapelje property (Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation). In 1801, the U.S. Navy bought approximately 40 acres from Mr. Jackson for $40,000 and called it the New York Navy
Yard (Snyder‐Grenier and Brooklyn Historical Society 123). The Navy Yard has been home to a long line of ‘firsts’, including construction of the United States’ first steam‐powered warship, the
Fulton Steam Frigate, in 1814; the first usable war‐ship, the Ohio in 1820; the first U.S. steam
warship assigned to sea duty, Fulton II in 1837; the first use of a steam‐powered pile driver in the U.S. to build dry dock one, beginning in 1841; the launching of the USS Niagara in 1857 to lay the first trans‐Atlantic telegraph cable; and the first song broadcast over wireless radio, “I love you truly”, sung by opera singer Eugenia Farrar aboard the USS Dolphin in 1907 (Brooklyn
Navy Yard Development Corporation).
Over the years, Brooklyn Navy Yard has been central to ship building and commissioning in war efforts including the Civil war, the Spanish‐American war, and particularly, World War II.
From its docks have launched many notable war‐ships, including the USS Monitor, an ironclad
used in the civil war, USS Arizona, which now rests in Pearl Harbor, USS Missouri on which the
Japanese signed surrender documents, ending WWII & USS Constellation (Brooklyn Navy Yard
Development Corporation).
In 1824 the Navy Yard acquired twenty‐five additional acres on which it built a Naval
Hospital. During WWI years 1914‐1918, the Yard workforce increased from 6,000 to 18,000
(Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation), and it remained a place of fairly steady
employment in the area, even through the Great Depression (Snyder‐Grenier and Brooklyn 40
Historical Society). The yard was a key piece in the diverse manufacturing and industrial puzzle of Brooklyn’s waterfront, which included renowned ironwork, beer brewing, sugar refining, glass making, and textiles, just to name a few highlights. World War II caused even more dramatic
expansion, increasing the workforce in the Yard to 70,000, including, for the first time, women
(Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation). In 1966, amid protests by employees and citizens (Snyder‐Grenier and Brooklyn Historical Society 161), Brooklyn Navy Yard closed along with over 90 other military bases and installations. At the time, it employed “more than 9,000 workers and was the oldest continually active industrial plant in New York State” (Brooklyn Navy
Yard Development Corporation).
One year later, the city of New York purchased two hundred and sixty acres of the
Brooklyn Navy Yard for $24,000,000 (Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation). The
property sat idle and fenced off for years, and organized crime was rife throughout the area
(Snyder‐Grenier and Brooklyn Historical Society 162). In 1971, it was reopened under the
guidance of Commerce Labor and Industry in the County of Kings or "CLICK." (Brooklyn Navy
Yard Development Corporation) Since being taken over by the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development
Corporation in 1981 (Kennedy), the yard has evolved into a more than 300‐acre industrial park, employing more than 5,000 people in various types of industries. The BNYDC is contracted by
the city of New York to oversee leasing of its more than four million square feet of space, which currently includes over 240 tenants.
Brooklyn Navy Yard Population Density and Demographics
The Brooklyn Navy Yard is located in Community District two (CD2), adjacent to the north edge of Community District six (CD6), which contains the primary study area in Red Hook,
Brooklyn. Community District two encompasses the neighborhoods of Boerum Hill, Brooklyn 41
Heights, Clinton Hill, Downtown Brooklyn, DUMBO, Farragut, Fort Greene, Fulton Ferry, Navy
Yard and Vinegar Hill. CD2 is slightly less populous than CD6 and comparably dense, being home
to 98,620 residents on 2.9 square miles (34,077 people/sq. mi.) The Navy Yard itself comprises
Census tract 543, which houses no residents. (NYCDCP "New York City Census Fact Finder, 2000
Census Profiles for New York City") 42
Figure 11: New York City Community Districts (New York City Department of City Planning "N.Y.C. Community Data Portal")
Figure 12: Land Use Map, Brooklyn Community District 2 (New York City Department of City Planning "N.Y.C. Community Data Portal") 43
Conflict with the Neighborhood
Although successful at re‐purposing the space and reviving industry and employment in
the area, the Navy Yard has been criticized both for its ‘secure’ closed door policies which
continue to keep the public at bay (Carleson) and for sometimes questionable treatment of its
many historic buildings (Santora). Such criticism has been successful at pushing unique
strategies for allowing members of the public in – at least in a very controlled manner. In Fall
2011, the Brooklyn Navy Yard Center in building 92 (BNYC92), a museum with rotating exhibits
focusing on the transitions of the historic site, is expected to open as “a gateway to the community” (Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation).
Currently, a section of the proposed greenway skirts the outside of the navy yard, connecting the newly constructed Brooklyn Bridge Park to neighboring Williamsburg to the
North. Several public bus routes are identified in BNYDC literature as stopping near the facility
(Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation). A partnership between BNYDC, the Brooklyn
Historical Society, and Urban Oyster offer bus as well as bicycle tours within the gates, for a fee
(Urban Oyster). 44
Figure 13: Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Plan (Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation)
Figure 14: Brooklyn Navy Yard Public Transportation Map (Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation) 45
Brooklyn Navy Yard Strategies
The Brooklyn Navy Yard has managed to maintain usable space for water‐dependent industries by concentrating a variety of other industries in the same location. This bolsters the
economic position of the water‐dependent uses, allowing them to survive when they might otherwise be pushed out by more lucrative and conflicting non‐water dependent uses such as housing or retail development. This approach is one advocated by the New York State Division of Coastal resources for maintaining working waterfronts (Division of Coastal Resources). Some of the water‐dependent industries on the site include a ship repair and dry dock company, a fish importer and processer, a vessel maintenance facility, and various storage and distribution
enterprises.
At the same time as allowing the room for water dependent industries to exist, this
model creates a very mixed use spectrum of industries, from fish and aggregate processing to
artisans and video production, which allows small companies to get a hold in the niches
between larger ones. An article in Metropolis magazine quotes Andrew Kimball, president of the
Navy Yard as saying, “We’ve demonstrated here that urban manufacturing is back. It doesn’t look anything like the days of the smokestacks. It tends to be small‐scale, with very nimble businesses that tap into the creative class …” (K. Jacobs) This mix of ‘fine grained’ industry has the potential to provide a more human scale scenario than a container port, into which public access could be woven.
46
Port of Nagoya, Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture, Japan
Introduction and Context
“The Port of Nagoya is both an enormous distribution base and a thriving leisure spot, the only
such place in the Chubu region. This international port presents two faces, each closely
associated with the lives of the people” (Yamada).
Figure 15: Figure‐Ground of the Port of Nagoya. Green indicates public open space. Black indicates industry. White is reserved for all other land‐use. Garden Pier is in the pink square. Author's images, modified from Google Earth.
Some of the most unique examples of combining working waterfronts with public access are found, perhaps unsurprisingly, in Japan. Nagoya, Japan, was selected as a case study for four primary reasons. One, it shares a similar location to the Erie basin, situated at the
intersection of a river and a bay, and in close proximity to the ocean. Two, it not only retains
industry in the immediate vicinity, it manages to use that industry as a focal point for aspects of
the redevelopment. Three, it is not a city center that has been redeveloped, but a somewhat
segregated industrial district, similar to the Erie basin. Lastly, the stated primary goal of 47
redevelopment as the integration of lifestyle and industry is analogous to Red Hook’s planning goals. Secondary reasons for its selection include that is was built in the 1980’s and based on the ‘first wave’ of redevelopment such as Baltimore’s Inner Harbor and Boston’s Faneuil Hall,
which allow an examination of how elements of these earlier cases were interpreted for use in
newer redevelopments, and that it focuses on local needs as well as tourism.
The port of Nagoya is “Japan’s foremost international port” and serves a unique role as both a ‘hub’ of economic and industrial activity, and a popular place for residents “to relax and
savor seafaring culture (Yamada).” It is located on the main island of Honshu in Japan’s eastern
central Chubu region in Aichi prefecture, where the Horikawa River flows into Ise Bay.
Completed in 1984 through a partnership between the City of Nagoya and the Nagoya
Port Authority, the 52‐acre garden pier capitalizes on the strength of the surrounding shipping industry and turns it into an attraction for tourists and locals alike (Breen and Rigby The New
Waterfront : A Worldwide Urban Success Story 200). The port of Nagoya in Japan created a
Disney‐land like park and promenade capitalizing on the character and views of surrounding waterfront industries. The public section is a small area carved out of the center of Ise Bay, which contains very active container terminals. In addition to sweeping views of the working
port, the garden pier includes an aquarium, a sixty‐three meter (207 feet) observation deck above the port offices, a marine museum with access to retired Antarctic ice‐breaking ship, Fuji, an international cruise line terminal , an amusement park, and ‘the Jetty’ – a string of shops and
restaurants. 48
Figure 16: Aerial View of Nagoya Garden Pier with Close‐Up of Observation Tower (Murphy; MCGun).
Figure 17: Contextual Composite Map of Nagoya, Japan. Images adapted from Google Earth, Wikipedia and Yamada
49
Port of Nagoya History
Nagoya has a long history, stretching back to the imperial families of the second century
AD. The city was a bridge between the East and West as far back as the 16th Century. It was formally incorporated in 1889, and the need for municipal infrastructure development quickly
followed. By the 1930’s, Nagoya had established itself as a leader in the steel, machinery
manufacturing, electrical, ceramics, textile and food industries, and had a population of more
than one million. During World War II, it became a manufacturing hub, producing “more than
60% of the nation’s aircraft” (Hayashi 20).
Nagoya’s industrial efforts toward the war made it a target for U.S. bombs, which destroyed much of the city and reduced the population by about half. Rebound was swift however, and by the 1960’s, the city had incorporated many surrounding towns and increased its population to over two million. Nagoya celebrated its centennial in 1989 with the
introduction of the New Basic Plan, a policy guide which aims to develop, “a city which harmoniously balances individual lifestyles, industry and culture” (Hayashi 21). The plan strove to use the “inherent characteristics of each area…to develop…distinctive, individual cultural
base (Hayashi 24).” Waterfront areas were to receive particular attention in order to develop a
network of green and open spaces.
A 1992 article in the journal, CITIES, notes that there were several methods of securing
this network. Some methods were statutory, or required. Others are noted to be optional. Still
others worked similarly to required projects, but provided “budgetary incentives” (Hayashi 24).
So‐called “land readjustment” projects operate by two different mechanisms, “replotting” and
“contribution”. 50
Land readjustment involves identifying lands thought not to be, “utilized in a rational
and fruitful manner” (Hayashi 24), and developing public amenities using these parcels.
“Individual sites are made easier to use and their site utility increased by dividing them into
more regular shapes” (Hayashi 24). Through the process of replotting, the area that is
‘contributed’ for public facilities is subtracted from the size of the area before it was ‘adjusted’
and re‐distributed to land owners carrying the same rights as the original parcel. An analogy to a
U.S. planning device might be the transfer of development rights.
Contribution entails asking landowners “to contribute an equitable portion of their land
for the building of public facilities, and to create reserve land to be used to cover the project cost through sales” (Hayashi 24 emphasis added). Exactly what is considered an equitable share is not defined. Land owners loose a portion of their land, but it is thought that the added value of the new projects is compensation for this loss.
Hayashi notes that several issues arise from land readjustment methods of development. One issue is that the costs are shouldered by landowners and leaseholders rather than by all of the municipal and regional stakeholders. A second issue stems from the division of land into very small parcels. This lack of a comprehensive plan can undermine benefits of urbanization, such as density and “rational land use” with an appropriate mix of uses. Hayashi
explains that public facilities developed by means of land readjustment are often considered
inadequate, as can be projects in the U.S. developed solely with government funding, because
they lack the funds for either initial amenity development, or for maintenance, or for both.
In order for development to continue to be successful under land readjustment strategies, Hayashi claims the more comprehensive and coordinated implementation as well as
funding from public sources will be required. He also notes that the preservation of natural and 51
historic landscapes will require more effort in the future if current procedures continue
(Hayashi).
Nagoya Population Density and Demographics
Nagoya’s population of 2.22 million citizens makes it the fourth most populous city in
Japan, after Tokyo with 8.49 million, Yokohama with 3.58 million and Osaka with 2.63 million. In
2005, it was the third densest, measured at 1,204 people per square kilometer (3,118/ sq.mi.)
within 50 km of Nagoya’s city center, compared with 4,158 persons per square kilometer
(10,769/ sq. mi.) in the Tokyo area, and 2,094/ sq. km. (5,423/ sq. mi.) in the Osaka area.
Population estimates for 2009 indicate Aichi prefecture is home to just over 7 million people, with a density of 2,501 people per square kilometer (6,477/ sq. mi.) (Ministry of Internal Affairs).
The port of Nagoya is located in Minato‐ku Ward, the largest in terms of land area of the
16 wards, or municipal areas that make up the City of Nagoya. Minato‐ku Ward is 45.69 square kilometers or 17.64 sq mi., and in 2000 had the lowest population density of Nagoya’s wards
with 3,320 people per sq. km, or 8,605/sq. mi. (Wendell Cox Consultancy). Although a much
larger land area, this density is fairly comparable with the Erie Basin study area density of
approximately 10,215 people/sq. mile. Wards neighboring Minato‐ku range in population density from 11,779/sq. mi. to 24,969/sq. mi (Wendell Cox Consultancy).
Port of Nagoya Garden Pier Access
Nagoya prides itself on efficient public transportation. Car parking is available, but the
Garden Pier is directly accessed by subway from the city centre. A ferry terminal and several cruise ships operate in the vicinity. “The Garden Pier in the Port of Nagoya has two berths for passenger vessels. Berth 3 is 210 meters long with alongside depth of 10 meters, and it can 52
handle vessels up to 20 thousand gross tons. Berth 5 is 65 meters long and 4.5 meters deep, and it can handle vessels to 500 gross tons” (worldportsource.com).
“In 2008, the Port of Nagoya handled a record 218 million tons of cargo, including 138
million tons of international trade, with growing exports in automobile parts, industrial
machinery, and rubber products and increasing imports of liquefied natural gas and ore. The
Port of Nagoya handled over 46.5 million tons of containerized cargo in 2.6 million TEUs, almost
equally divided between exports and imports” (World Port Source "Port of Nagoya"). TEU stands for twenty foot equivalent unit. It is a measure of a shipping container’s size – a standard
40x8x8’ container counts for two standard 20x8x8 containers or TEU’s (Business
Dictionary.com).
Figure 18: Nagoya Subway and Rail Map. Star indicates garden pier stop (Sun)
53
Nagoya Strategies
Nagoya is quite obviously a different culture, and the strategy of ‘land readjustment’ by
the government would not likely be accepted in the United States. However, the concept is not totally foreign. Many public‐private partnerships operate under a similar principle. If a private landowner, say IKEA, receives a beneficial change in zoning in exchange for providing public
access, it could be considered similar to the ‘added value’ noted in the Nagoya example.
Several of the elements emphasized in this project might prove applicable to Erie basin.
The idea of embracing of both historical industry (exploration ships) and current industries
(providing an observation deck highlighting views of working container ports) is one that could easily be adopted in Red Hook. Also, the location of the garden pier is set between the more active industrial areas, just as Erie Basin is set between two SMIAs. While the focus in this area is
still on industry, it could contain smaller scale industries and more of a mix of uses, than the
areas to the north and south.
Lower Don and Port Lands, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Introduction and Context
Toronto’s Lower Don Lands and Port Lands are just beginning the process of
transforming from industrial to more recreational use. Although the location of Toronto’s
waterfront redevelopment on Lake Ontario is significantly different than that of the Erie Basin
area, the scope and goals of the projects undertaken there offer insights into combining public access with a variety of infrastructural needs and uses. While the area is very near the city 54
center, it is more isolated than other portions of the Waterfront Toronto scheme, making it analogous to Erie Basin.
Figure 19: Figure‐Ground of Port Lands, Toronto. Green indicates public open space crossing through industry – represented by black. White is reserved for all other land‐use. Author's images, modified from Google Earth.
Toronto particularly stands out among recent waterfront redevelopment projects for maintaining one of Canada’s busiest ports (World Port Source "Port of Toronto") while promoting a keen focus on public access to most of its shoreline. Elements from the downtown section – such as the Sherbourne Park area’s incorporation of a water treatment facility within
public space, as well as the transitional methods employed, are among reasons for the area’s selection. Plans for the Lower Don Lands and Port Lands are of particular interest. Neighboring
Hamilton, a heavily industrial enclave, also offers lessons for coexistence.
Toronto, the capital of Ontario, Canada, is located on the North Eastern edge of Lake
Ontario. Access to the Atlantic Ocean is possible via the St. Lawrence Seaway. Toronto is noted
to be the financial center of Canada, much as New York is often considered to be for the United 55
States. Though not typically regarded as a container port, the Port of Toronto is the largest container facility on the Great Lakes. It handled just under 23,000 TEUs in 2003, a 65% increase from the year before, and desires to be known as, “the best inland port in the world (Toronto
Port Authority).” It relies more on bulk and break bulk cargo, specifically “sugar, salt, cement,
aggregates, asphalt and liquids” (Toronto Port Authority), which is a similar circumstance to the
historical context of the Erie Basin/Red Hook study area.
The port is well connected via its harborside airport, extensive rail and road networks. It does, however rely on barge and short sea shipping to transport goods from Montreal in the
winter, when larger ships cannot pass through the St. Lawrence (Toronto Port Authority). This gives it quite a bit in common with the Erie Basin study area’s main water dependent user – the
Erie Basin Bargeport. Lisa Raitt, President and CEO of the port, emphasizes that “Shipping via
water is the most energy efficient means for the transportation of goods and it also alleviates growing congestion on the nation's highways. For instance, ships use only 10% to 20% of the energy required by trucks as a ship can move a tonne of freight up to 800 kms (500 miles) on 4 litres of fuel (1 gallon) (Toronto Port Authority)." She notes that, “short sea shipping has never been more relevant or important” (Toronto Port Authority).
Additionally, the port has seen a great resurgence of cruising in the area since the
1990’s (World Port Source "Port of Toronto"). Passenger vessels, cargo ships and pedestrian
access are accommodated in the Port Lands, making it a unique area of study for potential
parallels to Red Hook’s Erie Basin Area. 56
Figure 20: Waterfront Toronto Project Overview Map (Waterfront Toronto). Shows the context of Lower Don Lands and Port Lands in relation to the Central Waterfront.
History of Toronto’s Lower Don Lands and Port Lands
Toronto was first documented as a passageway for aboriginal peoples moving between the lower and upper Great Lakes. The French established a settlement in the 1720’s after having used the passageway intermittently for trading since the early 1600’s. They established Fort
Rouille east of the Humber River in 1750. The area grew with the fur trade. Britain sited a naval base, Fort York, there in 1793. This is considered the starting point of modern Toronto
(Waterfront Toronto).
Manufacturing was introduced to the waterfront at the beginning of the 1800’s, a
natural progression of the availability of water for transportation of goods. By the 1830’s
waterfront land was already in short supply, limiting the expansion of shipping and related trades. From the 1850’s to 1950’s filling was a common means of gaining more land, as it was in many ports. Following a trajectory similar to many waterfront cities, the industrialized urban
center became less hospitable, and those that could afford to leave did. The Gardiner 57
Expressway was built in the 1950’s to bring workers in from the suburbs, closing the waterfront
off from the city and its residents (Waterfront Toronto).
In the 1970’s efforts were made to revitalize the waterfront, but with the exception of
Harborfront Centre and Queen’s Quay Terminal, nothing major moved forward. Toronto’s unsuccessful bid for the 2008 summer Olympics provided the impetus for current waterfront
renewal efforts. A task force announced in 1999 by the Prime Minister, Premier and Mayor
began the groundwork. The team decided that whether or not the city was awarded the Games,
waterfront redevelopment should be begun (Waterfront Toronto).
Waterfront Toronto was established in 2001 at the behest of the three government
branches. In 2003, after the addition of John Campbell as president and CEO, the government passed the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Act, creating a permanent,
independent organization charged with overseeing Toronto’s waterfront revival (Waterfront
Toronto).
Toronto Population Density and Demographics
Toronto is home to 2,503,280 people. The Lower Don Lands and Port Lands are located in Ward 30: Toronto‐Danforth. The neighborhood is classified as number 70, South Riverdale.
The population of Ward 30 has fallen 6.9% between 2001 and 2006 (City of Toronto). In 2006,
51,235 people lived in the 13 square kilometer (5 sq. mi.) ward area. The approximate population density is 10,247 per square mile, nearly identical to that of the Erie Basin study area. 58
Figure 21: Neighborhood 70 Within Ward 30 (City of Toronto)
The economic, education and housing picture is, however, a bit better than that of the
Erie Basin area. In 2006, the latest year for which comprehensive data is available, the
unemployment rate was 7.2% compared with 7.6% for the city of Toronto. Median income for
individuals was $24,268, a few hundred dollars less than the city of Toronto; median income for families was $53,100, about $1,000 more than for the city of Toronto as a whole. The incidence of low income families is cited at 22.7% and 44.3% for individuals, 2.1% and 3.2% higher than for
the city of Toronto respectively. Eighteen and one half percent of the ward reported earning
$60,000 or more per year, 2.3% more than for the city of Toronto. Twenty‐two and one half
percent of residents have a high school diploma and 34.7% hold a University certificate, diploma or degree, only slightly less than for the City of Toronto (City of Toronto).
Toronto has a large immigrant community, deriving nearly 40% of its population from other countries. The majority of those immigrants have relocated from Asia, and Chinese speakers are the most prevalent. Of the immigrant population, 9.8% report having no knowledge of English or French, the official languages of Canada. 59
Housing is medium to low‐density. “43% of occupied private dwellings were in low‐rise apartments (5 stories or lower), 23% were in semi‐detached houses and 12% were in single‐ detached houses in 2006. In 2006, 58% of occupied private dwellings were owned while 42%
were rented” (City of Toronto). Average rent is $788/ month, slightly less than the average of
$931 for the city of Toronto.
Ward 28 to the West (Toronto Center, Rosedale) contains the central waterfront areas also undergoing revitalization. Its population of 58,920 people on 14 square km is only slightly
denser than that of ward 30, at 10,911/sq. mi. Although they are housed more densely: “74% of occupied private dwellings were in high‐rise apartments and 15% were in low‐rise apartments in
2006” (City of Toronto). Rent and income statistics are similar to those of ward 30.
Toronto’s Current Waterfront Projects
Waterfront Toronto estimates that its waterfront revitalization scheme is one of the biggest in the world. The overall plan encompasses 800 hectares (1,977 acres) from Bathurst
Street to Sherbourne Avenue and Front Street to Bloor Street. It is projected to be a 25 year
undertaking. Waterfront Toronto initially received 500 million dollars from each of the three branches of government, in addition to being granted authority over the primarily government
owned waterfront lands. It has generated $1.3 billion dollars through private partnerships and is seeking more to cover the estimated $27 billion dollar price tag.
Toronto Strategies
The port lands represent a 400 hectare (988‐acre) chunk of Toronto’s waterfront revival.
The city and Waterfront Toronto recognize being at a unique cross roads where waterfront industries are still in use as they are attempting to integrate more public interaction with the 60
lake. Unlike Erie basin, much of the area is government owned. The sizable challenges facing the
area include the cost and size of the project, how to accommodate still active industries, and the need for extensive flood control before further development.
Waterfront Toronto’s main strategy has been to establish pedestrian corridors
perpendicular to the waterfront to tie into upland areas. They have accomplished this by
allowing pedestrian access over movable draw‐bridges and by creating heavily landscaped
‘green’ pedestrian‐ways through the Port Lands industry. The city has also begun a pilot soil
recycling facility on the Port Lands. This service brings soil in from nearby industrial brownfields,
both by truck and by boat, and remediates it for re‐use in other applications. Visitors may look out over the industrial activities as well as take in views of the city center from atop platforms.
Figure 22: Map of the Port Lands. Green indicates pedestrian corridor improvements to connect upland areas with public beaches beyond industrial port area (Waterfront Toronto).
61
At Sherbourne Common in the East Bayfront, closer to the city center, wide pedestrian corridors perpendicular to the waterfront are again used to draw people from upland areas to the lake edge. The majority of the infrastructure is under the park, but the exposed elements
are architecturally or sculpturally interesting. Phasing and public‐private partnerships have been
instrumental in the development of these projects. While the city of Toronto considers these steps intermediate toward the eventual relocation of industry out of the area, these strategies
could provide guidance on how to mix the two long‐term for areas that are interested in doing
so.
Figure 23: Plan of Sherbourne Common Water Treatment Facility and Park (Waterfront Toronto). Image shows pedestrian corridor perpendicular from waterfront to upland areas, creating stronger community connections between the waterfront and existing urban fabric. 62
Figure 24: Perspective Rendering of Sherbourne Common Water Treatment Facility (Waterfront Toronto). Image shows wide pedestrian corridor moving perpendicularly in from the lake, creating a woven, rather than thin edge.
Summary of Lessons and Strategies
Selecting appropriate case studies was difficult. No matter what metric was applied,
none seemed to fit exactly. Although some similarities did exist between case studies, summarized in the table below, the author found that a wider survey of industrial waterfronts was necessary to provide a more complete picture of the options available. To this end, the author reviewed a selection of eleven industrial waterfront cities from around the world, in less
depth than the case studies, in order to glean more options for combining public space and
industry. The findings of this wider survey are combined with lessons gathered from the case
studies and are discussed in the next section.
63
Table 1: Summary of Devices used by Case Studies. Darkest grey indicates primary case studies. Absence of check mark does not necessarily indicate that feature was not present, but it was not found or prominent in research.
Device
NY Grand
NY
NY
MD
China
Canada
Japan
UK
Italy MI Oakland, Spain Madero,
Park,
Park,
Yard,
of Basin,
Erie Brooklyn Bridge Brooklyn Navy Nagoya, Toronto, Port CA Baltimore, Linear Amsterdam London, Haven, Puerto Argentina Genoa, Bilbao, Shanghai, Economic Public‐Private Partnership Development Private (Market) Driven Models Government Driven Land Use Pattern Introduction of other uses Retail Housing Public maritime ‐ marina, Public maritime ‐ small boat launch or landing Public beach Historic or Interpretive center Offices Clustering with Non‐water dependent industry Introduction of new industries or technologies related
to redevelopment of waterfront brownfields or redefined industry Vertical layering of land‐use Physical Adaptive Re‐use of Historic Buildings attributes Re‐use of historic structures as decorative elements Historic or other interpretation offered on maritime vessel Tower or viewing platform View platform incorporated with port or industry offices Pedestrian bridges Flexible or Movable bridges Noise Attenuation Berms as means of separation Promenade parallel with water edge Considerable Pedestrian corridors perpendicular to waterfront Transportation Metro Rail within ¼ mile and Connectivity Public Bus within ¼ mile Ferry or Water taxi Cruise ships present Bike route or greenway connection Scheduled industry tours 64
Reviewing the cases of municipalities that have attempted to integrate public access with working waterfront industries, several patterns emerge. Different scales of waterfront
industries approach the integration differently. Very large scale sites, such as container ports,
understandably offer more limited and fragmented access. Public participation in these sites is often geared toward viewing the activity taking place, rather than being directly involved at ground level. Nagoya, as well as a number of other Japanese ports, and the port of Oakland,
California, are set up in this way. Many of the larger scale, more security‐conscious working waterfronts also combine port or related administrative offices with interpretive and/or
historical centers, concentrating public entry into one secured area.
Another strategy that larger scale or security‐focused working areas, including the Port
of Oakland, California and the Brooklyn Navy Yard in New York, employ is scheduled tours. This allows the industry maximum control over their work space, while at the same time still offering a glimpse of the waterfront and its operations. While this device by itself would not provide adequate public sharing of the waterfront, when combined with other methods, it may be an acceptable way for industries to invite the public in without endangering their profitability or
increasing liability issues.
An approach shared by multiple scales of waterfront is the setting aside of parcels
adjacent to working waterfronts for public enjoyment. While this might be taken as a type of
separatist Euclidean zoning – it depends on how the approach is executed. Looking at the full
scope of a long waterfront, such as exists in Brooklyn, this method begins to create a zig‐zagging effect along the shore, with the public weaving in and out of waterfront zones. The success of this strategy depends heavily on two factors. One is the degree to which the two primary uses
intermingle with each other and with other uses at junctures. And second is the distance the 65
public must travel around areas that it is not welcome into. One quarter of a mile, which
equates to a roughly ten minute walk, is generally accepted as a suitable distance for people to
traverse in search of amenities or services. One half of a mile is considered the broad edge of a
walkable range (Walkable Communities). Another consideration is whether or not visual access
is maintained into areas that are not physically open.
Grouping similar uses together to support the viability of water dependent uses is one method found in the case studies. The Brooklyn Navy Yard does this by maintaining a large number of industries that don’t need the waterfront, but that do need warehouse space and
transportation and distribution mechanisms. Nagoya uses tourism to keep a number of its
berths active, by including local and long distance ferries, cruise ships, and historic museum ships on its docks.
One frequently noted option for incorporating the public into working areas is to include a mix of local passenger ferry and long distance, larger scale cruising ships. The degree to which this is successful again depends on what the junction between solely industrial functions and these types of services encompasses. Areas that have a mix of other uses, particularly food for disembarking tourists, as well as employees are likely to be more successful.
Smaller scale waterfronts, such as segments of Toronto and neighboring Hamilton, are more able to mix smaller scale, ground level pedestrian access through their industrial spaces.
The use of greenways, moveable bridges, performance spaces and the incorporation of marinas
and smaller craft access points are found at this scale. The following pages depict potential
design components in use in waterfronts that have successfully combined industry and public
waterfront access. Most options can be categorized as over – view platforms and bridges, under or through – pilotis and underpasses, and along and around – greenways. 66
Potential Design Components
Over: Viewing platforms, bridges
Figure 25: Port of Vancouver Public Viewing Platform (Breen 13). View towers allow visitors a window into port activities, without disrupting the work going on below.
Figure 26: Port View Park, Oakland, CA (Breen and Rigby Caution, Working Waterfront : The Impact of Change on Marine Enterprises 69). 67
Figure 27: Borneo‐Sporenburg Bridges, Amsterdam, Netherlands (West 8). The varied height of these pedestrian bridges is not only eye‐catching, it ‘sorts’ different size boats, keeping the largest vessels out, but allowing smaller ones successively closer into the channel.
Figure 28: Rolling Bridge, Grand Union Canal, Paddington Basin, London (Speller). This bridge allows pedestrian access to be timed. When people want to cross during certain business hours, they push a button. Otherwise, the canal is open for maritime traffic.
Under/Through: Pilotis, Underpasses
Pilotis or underpasses allow views to the water through industry. Some might consider them more attractive than the often used chain link fence; others might consider them less so. 68
While they do not provide as much security as traditional fencing, and sometimes suffer the negative consequences of shade or isolation, some municipalities such as Toronto are using them for mini parks. Additionally, they offer a degree of protection from the flooding that low‐
lying waterfronts are prone to, similar to beach houses being built on stilts.
Figure 29: Brazil's Ministry of Education and Culture Building. Pilotis allows views through (Soares). While this is not on a waterfront, a similar concept could easily be adapted to one. Pilotis might also allow waterfront industries to move about on ground level, while offices operate above.
Along and Around: Greenways and Paths
Figure 30: Elliot Bay and Myrtle Edwards Park, Seattle, WA (Breen and Rigby Caution, Working Waterfront : The Impact of Change on Marine Enterprises 57Photo: Robert Kaye). Image shows a pedestrian greenway going under active grain terminal conveyors. 69
Timing
Scheduled tours, shift work, and varying the types of businesses in an area contribute to different peak times of use. This might allow industry to work during the day and be open to the public in the early morning or evening, or constitute industries working at night with access during the day.
70
CHAPTER 5
APPLICATION TO ERIE BASIN AREA, RED HOOK, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
“The shoreline is Brooklyn’s most precious resource,
and the key to the borough’s future, as to its past.”
(Stonehill and Morrone 47)
Figure 31: Figure‐Ground of Red Hook Industrial Areas and Public Spaces. Areas in black represent those zoned for industry, whether active or vacant. Green indicates existing and proposed public space.
Study Area Introduction: New York City’s Waterfront Plan
New York City boasts 578 miles of waterfront (Division of Coastal Resources), all of which is currently under review as part of Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront
Plan, led by the Department of City Planning of New York. The city’s waterfront was last reviewed in a comprehensive plan in 1992, and prior to that, in 1982. The 1992 report, New York 71
City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan: Reclaiming the City’s Edge, noted that New York has
“arguably the longest and most diverse municipal waterfront in the nation,” but called this, “a valuable but still untapped resource. Decades of declining maritime activity have left much of the city's waterfront dormant” (New York (N.Y.). Mayor. et al.).
The 1992 Plan identified four principle functions for the waterfront:
The Natural Waterfront, comprising beaches, wetlands, wildlife habitats,
sensitive ecosystems and the water itself.
The Public Waterfront, including parks, esplanades, piers, street ends, vistas and
waterways that offer public open spaces and waterfront views.
The Working Waterfront, where water dependent, maritime and industrial uses
cluster or where various transportation and municipal facilities are dispersed.
The Redeveloping Waterfront, where land uses have recently changed or where
vacant and underutilized properties suggest potential for beneficial change
The finalized draft of the current plan, which was released March 14th, 20011, as this
thesis was nearing completion, addresses these four functions, but expands them into eight broad goals: To expand public access, enliven the waterfront, support the working waterfront, improve water quality, restore the natural waterfront, enhance the ‘Blue Network’, improve government oversight, and increase climate resilience (The City of New York 20‐21). The first
three of these goals guide the focus of this research.
Vision 2020 divides the city’s waterfront into 22 reaches ("Draft Programmatic
Recommendations: Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan" 114).
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, “a reach is a continuous, unbroken stretch or expanse
of surface water…this idea has been expanded to define a reach as a significant segment of 72
surface water that has similar hydrologic characteristics.” In the National Hydrography Dataset
(NHD), “three types of reaches are in use: transport, coastline, and waterbody reaches. A fourth
type, shoreline reach, has not been implemented” (United States Geological Survey).
Site Context
The study area for this thesis is identified in Vision 2020 as being within Reach 14 South.
This reach is located Southeast of Manhattan and the East River, in the Red Hook neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York. Of primary interest is the waterfront between the Columbia Street
Esplanade and the intersection of Van Dyke and Ferris streets. This set of parcels front Erie basin, and are bordered to the East by Gowanus basin and Gowanus canal. To the West and
North, Erie basin flows into New York’s Upper Bay and Buttermilk Channel, which separates
Brooklyn from Governor’s island.
Figure 32: Map of Erie Basin Site Context, Showing NYC Reach Recommendations. Adapted from(Printable US State Maps), NYC DCP & Google Earth 73
Figure 33: Close‐up of Study Area Context. Key Features Highlighted. Adapted from Google Earth
The eastern edge of the study area is located within Sunset Park Significant Maritime and Industrial Area (SMIA) and the Northwestern edge abuts the Red Hook SMIA (New York City
Department of City Planning "Draft Programmatic Recommendations: Vision 2020: New York
City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan"). 74
Figure 34: Significant Maritime Industrial Areas (SMIAs) (The City of New York 52). Hatching represents SMIAs, yellow indicates Industrial Business Zones (IBZs). Red Hook has both.
Figure 35: Marine Container Terminals of New York Harbor (The City of New York 45). Graphic illustrates Red Hook’s central location to the large scale shipping existing in the area, and thus, the area’s potential to provide maritime support industries. 75
The area is primarily zoned for mixed use manufacturing (M1‐M3) in use group 17.
Zoning designations are found on maps 16a and 16b, combined below ("Web Version of the
Zoning Resolution of the City of New York").
Figure 36: Zoning Map, Erie Basin Area. M=Manufacturing District, R=Residential, C=Commercial. MX‐5 is a special mixed use district. (New York City Department of City Planning "Web Version of the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York")
76
Allowed land uses in group 17 include: “manufacturing uses which:
(1) Can conform to high performance standards by controlling objectionable influences; (2) In so doing, can limit their impact on adjacent residential areas; and (3) Normally generate a great deal of traffic, both pedestrian and freight.”
This includes “service and wholesale establishments”, manufacturing of many types of
goods from adhesives to motorcycles to wax and wood products, and miscellaneous uses including agriculture, docks, railroads, and trucking terminals ("Web Version of the Zoning
Resolution of the City of New York" Aticle IV, Ch 2, 10‐12).
The study area contains a special mixed use district to the west, in which the Historic
Beard Street Warehouses are located. An IKEA was completed in 2008 on the east edge of the
waterfront, and the vacant land lying between the two properties, including 280 Richards street,
has been designated an opportunity area by DCP’s Vision 2020 Comprehensive Waterfront Plan
("Draft Programmatic Recommendations: Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive
Waterfront Plan").
Figure 37: Reach 14 S–Brooklyn Upper Bay South. Manufacturing Zones and Opportunity Areas ("Draft Programmatic Recommendations: Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan") 77
The study area is located within Community District six, which also includes the neighborhoods of Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, Columbia Street District, Gowanus and Park
Slope. For the purposes of this thesis, I will focus primarily on the relationship of the waterfront to the adjoining community of Red Hook, located Southwest of I‐278/Gowanus Expressway
(Hamilton Avenue). Red Hook is comprised of census tracts, 55, 57, 59 & 85.
Figure 38: Brooklyn Community District 6. Red Hook and the primary study area within it are located SW of Hamilton Avenue. ("New York City Census Fact Finder, 2000 Census Profiles for New York City")
Figure 39: Brooklyn Census Tracts. Tracts 85,55,57,59 represent Red Hook. The primary study area is located in tract 55. ("New York City Census Fact Finder, 2000 Census Profiles for New York City") 78
Figure 40: Land Use Map, Brooklyn Community District 6. Image shows how heavily industrialized the waterfront of Red Hook and the primary study area are, compared with adjacent areas within the district. ("N.Y.C. Community Data Portal")
Demographic and Socio‐Economic Data
Community district six is quite dense, with 104,054 people residing in a 3.1 square mile area, roughly 33,566 people/sq.mi. ("New York City Census Fact Finder, 2000 Census Profiles for
New York City"). The study area is less dense, housing approximately a tenth of the population in an area roughly a third of the district (10,215 per square mile). 79
A sampling of demographic data from the 2000 Census, the last year for which detailed information is publicly available for this district, highlights the following statistics. As a subset of district six, the area of study is comprised of census tracts, 55, 57, 59 & 85. The total population of this sub‐area is 10,215, compared with 104,054 for district 6 as a whole. While only 8.8% of
the population is foreign born, 45.8% of the population that reports speaking a language other than English reports not speaking English ‘very well’. 51.6% hold a high school diploma or higher and 8.8% report being a college graduate or higher. A 20.1% unemployment rate is reported,
compared with 5.5% for district 6 as a whole, 10.7% in Brooklyn and 9.6% in New York City.
Median household income is $16,132 compared with $53,095 for district 6 as a whole, $36,295
for Brooklyn, and $42,232 for New York City.
The racial composition of the study area is nearly the inverse of the district which contains it. The population of the area is 7.5% white, compared with 54.9% in CD6 as a whole,
34.7% in Brooklyn and 35% in New York City. Blacks comprise 42.5% compared with 13.5% for
CD6, with 34.4% for Brooklyn and 24.5% for New York City. Hispanics make up 46.7% compared with 23.4% in CD6, 19.8% in Brooklyn and 27% in New York City.
There are 4,171 housing units, of which 92.6% are occupied. Of the 3,603 occupied units, 93.3% are renters. 63.7% of the total housing units are in structures containing 20 or more
units. Median gross rent was $278 compared with $859 in district 6 as a whole, $672 in Brooklyn
and $712 in New York City (NYC Department of City Planning "New York City Census Fact Finder,
2000 Census Profiles for New York City"). “The overwhelming majority of residents live in the
Red Hook Houses (East and West clusters)” (New York City Department of City Planning
"Community District Needs: Brooklyn, Fiscal Year 2011" 153).
The considerable differences in race, income, employment and education between the residents of Red Hook and those in the adjacent areas of community district six serve as a form 80
of social barrier in this already physically isolated area. As with many disadvantaged and
immigrant populations throughout history, the residents of Red Hook have often been unwilling
recipients of “noxious” industries, such as the nine solid waste transfer stations in the
neighborhood ("Community District Needs: Brooklyn, Fiscal Year 2011" 153‐55). The disparity sets the area up for gentrification and displacement if redevelopment occurs that does not make provisions for low‐income housing, blue‐collar jobs, job training and other social needs of
the neighborhood.
History and Inventory of Red Hook and Erie Basin Study Area
“Ocean, harbor, river, canal, and creek are all utterly central to Brooklyn’s identity, as water‐bound as that of any city on earth.” (Stonehill and Morrone 43)
Figure 41: Grain Elevator at Gowanus Bay. Undated historic view shows conveyor carrying grain to ocean going vessels. (New York Public Library Digital Gallery)
In 2007, The National Trust for Historic Preservation listed Brooklyn’s Industrial
Waterfront as one of 11 of America’s most endangered historic places. “Also at risk are the
places that make Brooklyn work, the buildings and sites that house manufacturing and industrial 81
jobs” (National Trust for Historic Preservation). According to the New York City Department of
City Planning, “Historically, Red Hook has been known as a bustling waterfront community and
to this day retains much of its working class values” ("Community District Needs: Brooklyn, Fiscal
Year 2011" 153).
Red Hook was settled by the Dutch in 1636. The name is said to come from the Dutch words Roode Hoek, a description for area’s red clay soils, although it is sometimes assumed to
be derived from the large hook‐shaped breakwater that makes the area easily identifiable on a
map. The Erie Canal opened in 1823, connecting Buffalo, New York on the East side of lake Erie to the Mohawk river, along Lake Ontario, to the Hudson River and down to the Port of New York
City, “which became the maritime outlet of the Great Lakes” (Zumerchik and Danver 181‐84, 89‐
97). Once Manhattan had become too restrictive for large shipping operations, private capital was invested in the construction of Erie basin in Red Hook, which began in the 1850’s (Municipal
Art Society of New York). As was typical with port development at the time, ‘new land’ was
created using dredge material. When it opened in 1864, a 2,500 breakwater protected the 135
acres of Erie Basin. With the aid of the Erie canal, Erie Basin became “one of the world’s leading
grain ports” (Bone, Betts and Greenberg 176).
Brooklyn, and Red Hook in particular, was famed for its waterfront industries. While
sugar refineries, distilleries, ship building and foundries predominated in the north, Red hook’s grain elevators at Erie and Atlantic basins were the largest in the nation (New York City
Department of City Planning et al. 15‐16; Snyder‐Grenier and Brooklyn Historical Society). The
Port Authority Grain Terminal was built in 1922 for 2.5 million dollars. The reinforced concrete
structure is 70 feet wide, 429 feet long, and its 90 foot high silos have capacity for two million bushels of grain. It rests on a 43.4 acre site at the foot of the New York State Barge Canal on 82
Columbia Street next to Erie Basin. In the 1940’s, the Port Authority took over the grain terminal
from the state. By the 1950’s, the introduction of the St. Lawrence Seaway and the high cost of labor in New York compared to other ports reduced the amount of grain traveling from the
Great Lakes to New York City. The grain terminal was closed in 1965. The 1,221‐foot‐long
conveyer that used to load grain directly onto ships was demolished in 1987 (Gray).
The terminal has been called both a magnificent feat of engineering, and a “magnificent
mistake” for its failure to re‐coop its costs (Gray). Today the structure is vacant, but the parcel is rented by Gowanus Industrial Park and appears to be used for parking and possibly cement and
aggregate storage. It has been suggested that it could be re‐used as a recycling facility or cement plant, with the capacity to hold up to 70,000 tons of cement (Mooney; Gray). According to the
Municipal Arts Society of New York, in 2003 the grain terminal was deemed eligible for both
State and National Registers of Historic Places by the Landmarks Preservation Council (Municipal
Art Society of New York).
Figure 42: Three sides of the Port Authority Grain Terminal. Left: view from Red Hook Recreation Area. Middle: View from Columbia Street. Right: from the water. (Bridge and Tunnel Club)
South of IKEA and the grain terminal on Columbia Street sits The Erie Basin Bargeport, which “is the largest private commercial marine berthing facility in the Northeast.” It contains over 4,000 linear feet of modern bulkhead for wharfing of tugs, barges, and other vessels 83
combined with over 200,000 square feet of rentable, fully covered warehouse space (Hughes).
Together with the Gowanus Industrial Park, it forms a very active marine area on the ‘arm’ or hook‐shaped breakwater enclosing Erie Basin.
Initially developed by Robins Dry Dock Company, Erie Basin’s shipyards were sold to the
Todd Shipyard Corp. in 1916 (Municipal Art Society of New York). Erie canal was replaced by the
New York State Barge Canal in 1918 (Zumerchik and Danver 182‐83).
The Todd Shipyard operated “one of the largest ship building and repair businesses in the country. During WWII, the Navy took over the southern end of the site and employed nearly 20,000 people repairing and refitting ships. Todd regained full ownership again in 1965 and operated it as New York Shipyards until they sold it to United States Dredging in 1985, who subsequently sold the site to IKEA (Municipal Art Society of New York).”
The Todd site was home to Graving Dock No. 1, a large ship repair facility. A graving dock allows
a ship to float on land. A gate is then closed behind the ship and the water pumped out in order
to make repairs possible.
Figure 43: Red Hook Graving Dock. Left: as an active facility before IKEA. Right: Historic view (Municipal Art Society of New York).
The Municipal Art Society of New York notes that Graving Dock No. 1 was:
distinguished by its size. Constructed in 1866, it was originally 540’ long and built of timber. It was lengthened in the 1880s and then again in 1928 to a length of 730’, when it was also rebuilt in steel and concrete. In 1883, Scientific American described the 84
graving docks at Erie Basin the largest dry docks in the country and possibly the world. Graving Dock No. 1 has obvious historic significance, but until IKEA took over the property it was also a functioning piece of maritime infrastructure. It was an active ship repair yard, and the company leasing it employed up to 100 people. As one of the largest graving docks in the New York Harbor, it was critical to the burgeoning maritime industry and had a replacement value of roughly one billion dollars (Municipal Art Society of New York).
In 2004, the City of New York permitted IKEA to go ahead with its controversial plans to clear the site and fill in the graving dock. A 2006 decision by the Army Corps of Engineers to
allow IKEA to continue with the construction of a new store was contested in court by the
Municipal Art Society, on the grounds that it did not meet the provisions of the National Historic
Preservation Act (Municipal Art Society of New York). A press release on the MAS website claims that the Corps violated section 106 by not conducting a “full and fair review” of the impact on historic structures. MAS went so far as to propose alternate plans which would
preserve the working graving dock in place of additional parking for IKEA. The graving dock has
been filled in and covered over for parking, although an outline of its shape remains in Belgian
block.
On the property adjacent to the IKEA site, 280 Richards Street, once stood the Revere
Sugar Refinery. Built in 1890, it processed raw sugar from 1910 through the mid 1990’s.
Although it fell into disrepair and was considered an eye‐sore by some, the refinery’s iconic
dome and industrial structures were familiar features of the Brooklyn waterfront, beloved by many in the community. The structures were demolished in 2007 after being purchased by Thor
Equities (Municipal Art Society of New York; Bagli). 85
Figure 44: Revere Sugar Refinery before Demolition in 2007 (Municipal Art Society of New York).
No definitive plans for the site have been made public, but a residential‐commercial mix has been proposed and anecdotal sources suggest that another big box commercial project may be in the works. Popular blog Curbed stated in 2009 that “a jaw‐dropping 376,000 square feet of retail space—the five borough's largest retail development in over two decades,” is being proposed by Thor Equities and FXFowle Architects (Bickerstaff). The Brooklyn Paper claims the developer is interested in creating student housing on the site (S. Brown). Neither proposal retains historic industrial or working waterfront elements but both proposals would potentially include a public walkway and would require re‐zoning. 86
Figure 45: Rendering of Proposed Mall for 280 Richards Street. Image shows modern, shipping container themed structure abutting remaining sugar refinery warehouse (Bickerstaff). Figure 46: Selected Parcels around Erie Basin (Bagli)
The next parcel along the waterfront is occupied by the Beard Street Stores and
Warehouses. The connected cluster of 21, 2‐4 story brick warehouses were built circa 1869 by
William Beard, who was also invested in the creation of Erie Basin. A sign on the warehouses notes that Beard built the foundation for the pier using rocks from ship ballast. The warehouses are one of two remaining pier warehouses in New York Harbor, and they are eligible for State
and National Historic Registers as well as New York City Landmark status. In 1992, Gregory
O’Connell purchased the warehouses from the Port Authority and restored them, retaining the
original beams and timbers and some 250 arched windows and iron shutters. Forty tenants use the space, including furniture manufacturers, glass blowers, New York water taxi, an apple processor, advertisers and artists. The sign also notes that visitors are always welcome to visit dawn to dusk. The Statue of Liberty can be seen from the west side of the pier. 87
Figure 47: Red Hook Warehouses and Pier 41. Cruise Ship departing from Atlantic Basin. Author’s photos. 7.20.2010
The Red Hook warehouses next door were also built by Beard in 1865. The 5 story brick structure with round arch windows is home to a Fairway market with residences on upper
floors. The fairway café attracts visitors to the waterfront, but signs note no trespassing, and the
space is clearly for paying customers only. Around the corner is docked the Lehigh Valley Barge
#79, which serves as a waterfront museum. It was built in 1914 and is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places (Sharps). Beyond that is a tiny park, slightly barren park with a view of the statue of liberty, followed by Pier 41‐ another set of brick warehouses constructed in the
1850’s. A number of websites list businesses which now operate within the restored
warehouses, but from this southeast ground approach they appear publicly off‐limits. Louis
Valentino Park is just around the corner of these warehouses. It was built in 1996 by the
Economic Development Corporation to commemorate a local fireman (New York City
Department of Parks and Recreation).
From 1850‐1945 Red Hook’s economy thrived off of its waterfront and nearby upland industries and manufacturing (New York City Department of City Planning et al. 15‐16). In 1938,
the Red Hook East Houses were built to house the large numbers of dock workers, as part of a 88
Federal Works Program. “Together with the Columbia Street District, the area’s Columbia Street
was host to the first Puerto Rican enclave in the United States in the 1950’s and rich African‐
American and Latin cultures continue to thrive in the community” ("Community District Needs:
Brooklyn, Fiscal Year 2011" 153). Following World War II, the neighborhood slid into decline.
Several factors exacerbated the deterioration of the area. The change in shipping from break‐bulk to containerization caused relocation of much of that industry to New Jersey. “The
Construction of the Gowanus Expressway in the late 1940’s and the opening of the Brooklyn
Battery Tunnel in 1950 served to geographically sever Red Hook from the rest of the district and led to divergent paths of neighborhood development” ("Community District Needs: Brooklyn,
Fiscal Year 2011" 153). “In 1972, the City Planning Commission and Board of Estimate approved
an urban renewal plan by the Housing and Development Administration to redevelop some 230
acres of waterfront land for a modern containerport, waterfront park, and 225 units of housing
for those residents displaced by containerport development” (New York City Department of City
Planning et al. 16). While much of the residential land ended up not being redeveloped for the
intended purpose, it sat idle under the looming proposition, causing many residents to leave.
The city claimed and sold at auction many abandoned lots in the 1980’s for failure to pay taxes,
but again, many parcels remained vacant, opening the door for trash dumping, squatters and
illegal activity.
With the reinvestment in the waterfront by IKEA, O’Connell and others, and a grass roots effort by community groups to improve safety and services, the neighborhood is in the midst of a revival. But the question remains whether a working waterfront will be part of its future.
89
Introduction of IKEA
In 2008, IKEA opened its doors, along with a 6.5 acre, maritime themed esplanade
designed by Lee Weintraub. The public space was to be provided by IKEA, along with ferry service, as a trade off for the city rezoning the area from M3‐1, to M1‐1, which allows retail.
“You have to make a judgment,” as Weintraub said, “whether Brooklyn has gotten equal value
for the zoning change that yielded the blue box” (The Architect's Newspaper).
IKEA’s waterfront public access area totals 277,479 square feet ("Draft Programmatic
Recommendations: Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan"). The site
features a variety of amenities, including benches, shaded, moveable seating and tables, lights,
trash cans and emergency call boxes. Historic elements from the Todd Shipyards, including three
cranes and an assortment of winches, chains, cleats and other equipment have been preserved and are interpreted through signage. Views of the working bargeport across Erie Basin are open.
Both expansive lawn areas for large group gathering and smaller nooks for individuals or small groups are provided. The walking surface is smooth, but Belgian Block, characteristic of the neighborhood’s historic streets is used decoratively throughout. Play structures emulating cargo rolling off ships and brightly colored enclosure walls add an element of playfulness. By most
standards, these elements create a successful public space. 90
Figure 48: Serial Vision of Erie Basin. From Top Left‐ entering from SE, Looking across to Bargeport, Ferry terminal, Benches, Ferry Landing Plaza ‐ unoccupied on warm, sunny day.
Lower from left: Re‐used shipping structures, memorials for ships, Sculpture emulating break bulk cargo, Looking across to Beard Street Warehouses, Looking across Beard Street from IKEA. Author’s photos. 7.1.2010 91
Figure 49: Panoramic view ‐ Arriving at Erie Basin by Water Taxi. From left: Beard Street Warehouses and NYC water taxi‐port, vacant Thor site, IKEA, NY Port Authority Grain Terminal. Author's photos, 7.20.2010 92
Some of the initial neighborhood opposition to IKEA centered around the belief that it
would bring increased traffic, which was already a concern in the neighborhood. A traffic study
conducted by engineering firm Sam Schwartz in 2009 indicated that traffic congestion has been
less than expected (Sam Schwartz Engineering 15). Although a great deal of parking is provided, the study notes it is rarely at full capacity. IKEA has also worked hard to augment public
transportation in the area. In addition to the ferry service, a free shuttle is available to the
nearest subway stops at Smith and 9th Streets, 4th and 9th Streets and Borough Hall (IKEA). Bus stops for the city bus are provided, although services have been reduced due to budget cuts.
Although IKEA is promoting mass transit, it is still a weak aspect of the neighborhood. All planning documents reviewed pointed to a need for better connection with neighboring areas,
through land, water, or some combination. The New York City Department of City Planning notes that there is, “growing interest in revisiting the possibility of increasing water‐dependent uses at the waterfront, notably in the form of transportation services, may provide new
opportunities for linking Red Hook to the rest of the city and alternate systems that will
decrease reliance on traditional automobile and truck‐based transportation systems” (153).
Figure 50: Transportation Routes to IKEA. Red and orange indicate IKEA shuttle. Blue signifies the city bus. Yellow and green indicate subways (IKEA). 93
Beyond IKEA, the visual appeal of the surroundings decreases significantly. Parking and
storage lots fenced with razor wire dominate the opposite side of Beard Street. The Columbia
Street esplanade adjoining IKEA’s property to the east is deserted and lacks shade.
Figure 51: View towards IKEA along Beard Street from Warehouses and Market. Image shows inhospitable state of areas surrounding new development. Author's photos. 7.1.2010
Figure 52: Pedestrian Access near IKEA. Left: Looking North along Columbia Street. Middle: To Columbia Street Promenade from IKEA. Right: View South along Columbia Street Promenade. Author's photos. 7.1.2010 94
Figure 53: Graffiti on 280 Richards Street. Image might be an indication of local resident’s attitudes toward the redevelopment of their waterfront. Author’s photo. 7.1.2010
Suggested Approaches for Erie Basin
Build on Strengths
IKEA, the Significant Maritime Industrial Areas (SMIAs) containing Erie Basin Bargeport and the Gowanus Industrial Park to the south, and the Atlantic Basin to the north, and the re‐
used historic warehouses are three strong points in the redevelopment of the study area’s
waterfront. They could be considered “Chessmen” in the words of Jane Jacobs (175). She
suggests using these parts of an area that are working to guide further redevelopment. This idea
is echoed in Urban Waterfront Lands, where the authors advocate building “from strength”
(National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Urban Waterfront Lands 93‐94). Fairway Market and the Beard Street Warehouses, which house a large grocery, café and artist studios are
strong examples for secondary uses. 95
Capitalizing on existing uses that are working well might be a good strategy for Red
Hook to adopt. As Jane Jacobs notes, from this position of strength, other benefits will follow:
“The first problem is to make the most of any work and other primary‐use chessmen where they already do exist in failing residential districts” (J. Jacobs 175). “In cities you have to build from
existing assets, to build more assets” (J. Jacobs 176).
However, the mechanisms that allow the three strengths of the area to exist are currently at odds with each other, making replication difficult. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the New York Division of Coastal Resources (NYSDOS), the
New York City Department of Planning, the New York City Economic Development Corp.
(NYCEDC) and Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance all advocate maintaining waterfrontage for water dependent industries. The designation of Erie basin and the SMIAs to the north and south
indicates that these areas are still ideal for conducting industrial maritime activities based on six
characteristics: “concentrations of M2 and M3 zoned land; suitable hydrographic conditions for
maritime related uses; presence of or potential for intermodal transportation, marine terminal and pier infrastructure; concentrations of water‐dependent and industrial activity; relatively good transportation access and proximity to markets; or availability of publicly owned land”
(New York State Deparment of State 12). While the rezoning of IKEA’s property improved public access to the waterfront, it weakened the strength of neighboring waterfront industry by taking away usable space.
One strategy to combat the loss of space could be to beef up what remains. One
possible way to do this would be to close Columbia street esplanade to the public, allowing
existing and potential industry more security. Since this area is so narrowly built out into the
basin, it is not really adequate for adding the mix of uses that would be necessary to create a 96
safe, vibrant pedestrian area. A ‘street‐end’ view could connect to Erie Basin Park and through
the grain terminal to Red Hook Recreation area. As long as waterfront access in some form
connects the Red Hook houses and recreational area along the grain terminal to the Western study edge and beard street warehouses, this holds potential for compromise. Alternatively,
Columbia Street Esplanade could remain ‘open’ to the public, but shade structures and/or trees should be one basic addition if it is to be at all inviting. A wider diversity of uses is needed in the
area to make it feel activated and safe. On the other, Northwestern edge of the study area bordering Atlantic Basin/Red Hook SMIA, a mix of uses can already be seen. Encouraging more cruising and tourism related features in a mix of other uses would be appropriate for this area.
The success of the historic warehouses that have been renovated in the study area show the positive potential for adaptive re‐use in the neighborhood. Achieving this is a goal of the city: “More attention must be given to adapting the pre‐war industrial buildings lining the
waterfront for other viable businesses” (The City of New York 52). The few remaining historic industrial structures that are vacant, particularly the grain terminal on Columbia Street and the
clay works on Van Dyke Street, are of local and national significance, as evidenced by their
history and eligibility for both registers. Retaining them is even more important given that so many of the area’s historic industrial buildings have already been demolished. While the
stringency of National Registry standards may be a deterrent to industries looking for efficiency
and cheap land, every effort should be made to seek developers sensitive to the historic
significance and needs of the neighborhood. The city could consider re‐zoning these areas as
special mixed‐use districts as they have with the Beard Street warehouses. The mix could allow
industry and retail, as well as requiring a basic degree of historic structure preservation. 97
A variety of incentives are available to help accomplish this. The Southwest Brooklyn
Industrial Development Corp. lists a number of incentives available to industries in the area, including the Excelsior programs aimed at enticing to New York “targeted industries as
biotechnology, pharmaceutical, high‐tech, clean‐technology, green technology, financial services, agriculture and manufacturing” (www.sbidc.com). They note that an Industrial
Business Zone Relocation Tax Credit, Relocation Employee Assistance Program (REAP), Industrial and Commercial Incentive Program (ICIP), and Commercial Expansion Program (rent abatement program) are on offer. The Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program, administered by the National Park Service, offers a 20% tax credit for income producing properties, provided
they meet ten standards as interpreted by the Secretary of the Interior (www.nps.gov).
Examples abound demonstrating how iconic industrial forms have been positively re‐ used for unlikely purposes. Grain terminals have been adapted into hotels as seen at the
Crowne Plaza, Quaker Square Akron, Ohio; Condos such as those in Calhoun Isles, Minneapolis;
even a “Silophone” – a huge musical instrument located in Montreal (Stark 17‐20; Schneekloth
64‐132). Puerto Madero in Argentina has developed a particularly attractive set of apartments
from one of its historic grain silos. 98
Figure 54: Grain Silos Adapted into Residences, Puerto Madero, Argentina (Liernur and Zalduendo 102).
While these are all singular uses, both the case studies abroad and examples within Red
Hook support retrofitting with a mix of uses. A major component could be a vertical mix of uses
as seen in Japan. The lower floors of the grain terminal and potentially selected silos could be
retained for waterfront industry, or a mix of industries including the concrete plant, or recycling
and composting facility found to be viable in several New York Times articles (Gray; Mooney).
Other heavier manufacturing uses such as generation of eco‐friendly goods like solar panels or wind turbines that require shipping, or items like play pumps as featured in Design and
Landscape for People (Cumberlidge and Musgrave 34‐41) that fill a local need other than
employment are possibilities. Offices and lighter manufacturing uses would be suitable to occupy the middle floors. 99
Future development could capitalize on the grain terminal’s height relative to adjacent structures by allowing the top to be used as a public view tower. Eateries at the top could add another use. This could connect to the Red Hook Recreation area via elevator and skywalk so as not to interfere with the industry below. These structures might even appear reminiscent of the
conveyers that once stood to move grain, albeit for people in this stage of history. Programming
to further tie the terminal in with the park could explore showing movies using the structure as
a screen viewed from the park, a popular pastime in the borough. Using the area for performance space and encouraging design competition for re‐use like the one listed on grain net for St. Paul, MN would also build on the neighborhood’s artistic community.
Meet Neighborhood Needs
The demographics of the neighborhood as well as the picture painted by planning documents demonstrate that several needs stand out in the neighborhood. Uses that support
job creation, better public transportation, and low‐income housing are paramount. Retaining
the uniqueness and independence that Red Hook is famous for is also critical. While Red Hook
seems to have enough public recreation space for its lower density population compared to surrounding areas, Brooklyn as a whole has some of the least open space per‐capita of any of the Boroughs. Drawing neighbors through the area to unique amenities could create a sense of pride, as well as bringing income to the area.
Regarding transportation and connectivity, new development should be leveraged as it
was with IKEA to provide new services. Perhaps any new businesses entering the area could
form a fund to support the aspects needed most. If an extension of an underground subway line is not feasible, one option might be adding a tram line along pedestrian corridors, or
increasing bus service. Ferry service to music events on Governor’s Island might be considered, 100
particularly from the northern part of the study area, as this would be compatible with the burgeoning entertainment and tourism industry forming at Atlantic Basin.
In terms of job retention and creation, it is recommended that the barge port be kept as a central feature. Strengthening zoning so that even if new uses are allowed in the areas
currently zoned for industry, as might happen with 208 Beard Street, space is retained for
waterfront industry might help. The inclusion of a job/marine industry training center into
potential new offices in a vertical mix could prove beneficial.
Housing is not recommended for the water’s edge if industry is maintained there, due to the larger conflict that living atop industry presents compared with passing through it for recreational purposes. Also, the demographics indicate that the housing that exists is not currently filled. However, densification of the inner areas of the neighborhood is sought by
Community Board Six, and creating affordable housing in the area is necessary so as not to displace current residents. The “Red Hook 197‐a Plan” lists a number programs to assist with the development of low‐income housing, as well as renovation of existing owner‐occupied properties (New York City Department of City Planning et al. 83).
Treat the Waterfront as a Holistic Piece of the Urban Fabric
Of the strategies revealed through other case studies, several might prove applicable to
Erie Basin. Although it is heavily industrial at both edges, the primary study area is a small to medium scale waterfront. Using the pattern of weaving at a more intricate scale could be beneficial. IKEA has provided the walkway along the water, but the points at which it reconnects
to the neighborhood are weak. There are amenities nearby – Red Hook Recreation Area and a
smattering of restaurants and bars a few blocks inland, Fairway Market, the Waterfront 101
Museum Barge, and Louis Valentino Park to the Northwest, but crossing to them requires
navigating run‐down blocks of menacingly fenced parking lots.
The property neighboring IKEA, 280 Beard Street, and the parking lots across Beard
Street could be maintained as a larger scale block for water dependent industry. A marina has been suggested in the past, and could be seen as a suitable addition. Ship repair and storage
yards could provide jobs. Pathways directed into the neighborhood, around the property at that
point could later reconnect with Van Brunt Street and Fairway Market. Alternatively, or in
addition, moveable pedestrian bridges, such as those created by West 8 and Heatherwick
Studio, could be featured across the inlets. These would essentially be unique draw bridges that
would allow ships to pass through when needed, but otherwise offer pedestrian access across
the waterfront.
The borough already has a precedent for this type of structure. The Carroll Street
Bridge, crossing over the Gowanus canal north of Red Hook, is the oldest surviving retractile bridge in the country, one of only four remaining. It was completed in 1889 by the New Jersey
Steel & Iron Company. In 1985, it was closed for major repairs, and re‐opened in 1989. The bridge was granted landmark status in 1987 by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (Ensel).
The bridge features a single vehicle lane, flanked by pedestrian sidewalks. It retracts on a series
of rails, operated from a small adjacent booth. Utilization of devices such as movable bridges,
elevated walkways, and heavily landscaped pedestrian corridors connecting waterfront lands to
interior residential areas as seen in Toronto would help to weave waterfront amenities into the
neighborhood fabric. 102
Figure 55: Carroll Street Retractile Bridge. Similar movable structures could help increase compatibility between industry and pedestrian access (Ensel)
Figure 56: Figure‐Grounds Comparing Old and New Waterfront Patterns. Left: Old Pattern ‐ Industry as a thin, hard edge. Right: New Pattern – Industry and Public Place ‘woven’ into a holistic urban fabric (Author, Google Earth).
103
Figure 57: Suggested Focus Areas for Erie Basin Study Area 104
Primary Study Area Conclusion
Rob Adams said it well in City Edge when he noted that Melbourne must be “willing to look to its own characteristics for design solutions” (Adams in Charlesworth 64). While waterfront redevelopment cases all over the world offer some elements or suggestions that might be adapted to Red Hook, ultimately it is Red Hook that must provide the answers. One
answer might be to let the waterfront act as a unifying element, while at the same time capitalizing on the area’s industrial heritage and potential for future industrial integration.
Red Hook and Erie basin have begun a transformation something like that of Brooklyn
Navy Yard. While the bargeport and IKEA represent large scale operators, at the other end of the study area, the Beard Street warehouses are divided into small artist studios and other niche markets. The historic structure, views of Manhattan and Fairway market attract visitors in part due to their human scale. If the two areas can be drawn together along a common theme, they
may be able to mutually support the other while allowing a more porous/infiltratable/accessible
context than that of the Navy Yard.
The neighborhood must build on its strengths, which include waterfront Industry ‐
exemplified by Erie Basin Bargeport in an industrial zone at one end and the water taxi offices and storage in a special mixed use area at the other; retention of character‐defining historic
structures ‐ represented by Beard Street and Red Hook warehouses, showing the great
potential for re‐use of the New York Port Authority Grain Terminal on Columbia Street; and
public spaces – embodied by Red Hook Recreational Area and the new Erie Basin Esplanade at
IKEA.
New development must meet neighborhood needs, including facilitating a more thorough public transportation system, attracting industries with the potential to employ larger 105
numbers of the population, and maintaining a mix of low‐income housing. As seen in Toronto,
Brooklyn Bridge Park, and the Navy Yard, as well as many other park and city transformations throughout the world, partnerships between public and private entities are often critical in the achievement of these goals.
Finally, bringing together neighborhood needs and strengths requires a holistic
approach – not one that treats the waterfront separately from the neighborhood in which it exists. While waterfronts have unique characteristics as ‘edges’, treating solely the edge leads to
too great a dichotomy with adjoining spaces, and subsequently, to disinvestment of either those
areas or the waterfront. Baltimore’s Inner Harbor is one example of where this has occurred.
The waterfront redevelopment there is considered highly successful and a model for
waterfronts the world over, but it has not helped lessen the crime that plagues the city a few blocks away. Red Hook can avoid this by meeting the needs of the surrounding neighborhood and tying pedestrian corridors and activities at the waterfront into the existing urban fabric.
106
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
This thesis has sought to find ways to incorporate two waterfront land uses traditionally
thought incompatible: industry and public place. In the context of expanding globalization,
competition for resources, particularly highly desirable waterfront locations, can only be
expected to increase. With the expansion of the Panama Canal expected to be complete in
2014, port cities in the United States are rushing to expand and retrofit their land holdings to
accommodate larger ships with larger draft. Ports that cannot adapt in a timely fashion risk becoming obsolete. In many cases, intermediary measures including bolstering the use of tug
and barge industries, recently assumed to be waning, can help with transfer of goods, and stave
off economic collapse of port cities. At the same time a pushback exists against globalization,
exemplified by local movements from food to fuel. It calls for America to increase its self
reliance by reducing dependence on foreign oil and finding ways to employ our citizenry, perhaps through the manufacturing of goods for a new age of energy. A simultaneous increase
in population density in coastal areas indicates the need for more public space along treasured
waterfronts. How to accommodate these divergent needs is a problem facing many
municipalities now and in the future.
What began with an examination of why the primary study area in Red Hook, Brooklyn,
was not well used, despite being well designed by landscape architectural standards, soon
revealed that the tensions between these larger issues were at play. A better understanding of 107
the external contextual forces influencing landscape architecture was necessary. Through survey
of other waterfronts with similar goals of incorporating public space and waterfront industry, a
number of methods and strategies for facilitating coexistence were uncovered, although no case
represented a model in and of itself. Despite demonstrated need, there are no definitive solutions. The pieces must be cobbled together to fit each individual scenario. However, the
conclusion reached is that it is possible for industry and public to coexist at the waterfront,
provided certain conditions are addressed.
Appropriate Industries Must be Defined
Initially, the type of industry present or desired must be analyzed for scale and compatibility with public integration. For this thesis, suitable industries were primarily defined as water dependent or water enhanced – industries that require water such as shipping or that benefit from it, such as a fish market. Light manufacturing, and in some cases, heavier manufacturing are considered as long as they allow waterfront space to remain for industries that require it. Highly dangerous industries, such as nuclear reactors, are obviously not considered safe for coexistence with public space.
Adequate Zoning Must Exist
Zoning must exist or be revised to allow and support the unique combination of industry
and public place. A mixture of other uses must often be sought to activate the area enough
throughout the day and week so that members of the public find industrial spaces inviting and
safe. Often, downgrading an industrial zone to include a mix of other uses results in the industry
being driven out due to higher real‐estate costs or incompatibilities with new uses, particularly housing. Creation of Special Mixed Use districts such as the one encompassing Beard Street 108
Warehouses in Red Hook can allow a municipality to focus on the uses it wants the area to contain, rather than placing them at odds with each other.
Industry Needs Must be Met
Reducing liability and maintaining efficiency and security are vital components for industries. These goals can be achieved in part through scheduled tours and time restrictions, allowing access only at point locations such as a port office or street end, and greenways along
edges. Such measures provide benefits for employees as well as the public. Additionally,
schemes where industry agrees to provide a public amenity and maintenance for it, in return for the local governing agency taking ownership of it, and thereby liability, can produce the
intended results.
Neighborhood Needs Must be Met
Sensitivity to the needs of the neighborhood can help smooth the way for successful
integration. Emphasizing a need for quality jobs, appropriate management of noise, traffic and other hazards, providing adequate public transportation, allaying environmental concerns, and maintaining affordable housing are crucial for well balanced development. Alex Krieger speaks to this while cautioning that, “a city’s waterfront cannot be thought about as a thin line”
(Krieger in Marshall 177‐81). He advocates a “complex land and water weave” to avoid
deadening blocks just inland from the waterfront (177). Preserving, and where plausible,
adaptively re‐using historic structures can be a component of this, allowing history to peak
through, and building a rich sense of place that inspires people to both visit and inhabit.
109
Design Features and Policy Components Can Meet these Needs
Physical features of a site can enable and enhance the compatibility of unconventional uses. Such features include pedestrian bridges, particularly moveable ones that allow marine vessels or trucks to pass through at various times, viewing platforms, particularly ones combined with port or operational offices, greenways skirting the edge of industrial sites or weaving between them, pilotis or pilings that allow views through industrial sites to the water, and berms, earthen mounds or fences to separate uses but allow views. Vertical separation of uses, as well as differences in timing can help facilitate a positive mix. Addressing the needs of both the industries and the visiting and residing public is critical to successful application.
Financing such a delicately balanced situation is a challenge, and one best addressed by the individual assets and liabilities of each place attempting it. Cases abroad seem to work well with mainly government impetus; projects in the United States were notable for partnerships
between public and private investment. Incremental development rather than master planning is suggested by many writers on the subject (Krieger in Marshall 178‐79; Rybczynski 150),
although it is often at odds with current patterns.
The suggestions here are not intended to be prescriptive, but rather to be used as tools
to guide towards the desired effect – industry and public sharing the waterfront. They are
geared for projects undertaken in the near to mid‐future. Visions for the more distant future
have been proposed by various architects and planners both past and present. They suggest that
one solution to the increasing pressures on limited waterfront space might be to promulgate the
use of artificial islands offshore. Although seemingly outlandish, similar measures have recently
been employed in the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan, highlighting their relevance and potential future use (Belson A4). While diverging from the main ideas in this thesis, the use of artificial 110
islands can be seen as another version of the historic practice of creating shoreline, as well as a
potential future solution for the placement of industries of outsize scale – those clearly too large
or dangerous for intermingling with the general public. As such, they merit a brief discussion, supplied in the appendix.
Finding ways to combine the industries that provide the goods we require, while at the
same time expanding public access to the highly valued waterfront is a topic that deserves
continued and multi‐disciplinary attention. Benefits to combining industry and public place are
numerous. The combination allows us to retain jobs and a working class, rather than relocating
both to other countries. It allows people to live where they work, reducing commute times, vehicle emissions and traffic. It allows people to view industries and see how their products are
made – placing value on industriousness and sufficiency. It builds unique character, allowing spaces to be shaped by what occurs there. And it fosters a connection with history by allowing an industrial theme to emerge, which can be seen to evolve over time through the retention of spaces used for specific activities.
Potential for Further Study
Since relatively few locations have implemented combined industrial –public spaces along the waterfront, there are several avenues for further assessment. Post occupancy
evaluations could be done of sites established with these two land uses at the fore. Behavior
and use maps could be completed; users and neighboring residents could be surveyed or interviewed regarding their perceptions of the space. Quantitative data regarding user‐ship,
efficiency, safety and profitability of industries and environmental impacts or traffic studies
could use wider publication, as could policy components.
111
WORKS CITED
Aiginger, K. "A Framework for Evaluating the Dynamic Competitiveness of Countries." Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 9.2 (1998): 159‐88. Print. Alva, Marilyn. "Waterfront Homes Seen Weathering Housing Market Storm; Limited Supply, and Demand; Condos Aside, Agents Say South Florida, Jersey Shore,Southern California Active " INSIDE REAL ESTATE. 13 April 2007 ed: Investor's Business Daily, 2007. Print. American Society of Civil Engineers. "Report Card for America's Infrastructure: New York". 2010. American Society of Civil Engineers. January 30, 2011.
2011, The New York Edition ed., sec. World, Asia Pacific: A4. Print. Berman, Richard W. Assessing Urban Design : Historical Ambience on the Waterfront. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006. Print. Bickerstaff, Wally. "Blockbuster: Red Hook Mega‐Mall Plans Revealed!". New York, N.Y., 2009. Curbed NY. 4.15.2011.
Boyd, Robin. Kenzo Tange. Makers of Contemporary Architecture. New York,: G. Braziller, 1962. Print. Breen, Ann. Waterfronts : Cities Reclaim Their Edge. New York: McGraw‐Hill, 1994. Print. Breen, Ann, and Dick Rigby. Caution, Working Waterfront : The Impact of Change on Marine Enterprises. Washington, D.C.: Waterfront Press, 1985. Print. Breen, Ann, and Dick Rigby. The New Waterfront : A Worldwide Urban Success Story. New York: McGraw‐Hill, 1996. Print. Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation. "Brooklyn Navy Yard Industrial Park". Brooklyn, New York, 2005. Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation. 2.6.2011.
(MARAD) and the National Waterways Foundation (NWF), 2007, Amended 2009. Print. Charlesworth, Esther Ruth. Cityedge : Case Studies in Contemporary Urbanism. Oxford ; Burlington, MA: Architectural Press, 2005. Print. City of Toronto. "Demographic Information for the City of Toronto". Toronto, ON, 2011. Living in Toronto. City of Toronto. 2.23.2011.
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Management and Budget Office, Special Projects, 2004. Print. Cumberlidge, Clare, and Lucy Musgrave. Design and Landscape for People : New Approaches to Renewal. London: Thames & Hudson, 2007. Print. de Sousa, José, and Sandra Poncet. "How Are Wages Set in Beijing?" Regional Science and Urban Economics 41.1 (2011): 9‐19. Print. Division of Coastal Resources, New York State Department of State. "Coastal Resources Online". 2004. New York Department of State. 10.17.2010.
Abingdon, Oxfordshire ; New York: University of New South Wales Press ;
Routledge, 2005. Print. dpr‐barcelona. "Floating Cities: Reloaded." dpr‐barcelona: Word Press, 2010. Print. Eggers, Felix, and Fabian Eggers. "Where Have All the Flowers Gone? Forecasting Green Trends in the Automobile Industry with a Choice‐Based Conjoint Adoption Model." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78.1 (2011): 51‐62. Print. Eilperin, Juliet. "New Energy Efficiency Standards for Shipping." Post Carbon ‐The Post's environment team on global climate and energy issues: The Washington Post, 2011. Vol. 2011. Print. ElDefrawy, N. M. H., and H. F. Shaalan. "Integrated Membrane Solutions for Green Textile Industries." Desalination 204.1‐3 (2007): 241‐54. Print. Energy Island Ltd. "Energy Island". London, UK, 2009. 3.23.2011.
IKEA. Brooklyn, N.Y. 4.20.2011.
1987, sec. Real Estate. Print. Kurokawa, Kish o. Metabolism in Architecture. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1977. Print. Lai, Kee‐Hung, et al. "Green Shipping Practices in the Shipping Industry: Conceptualization, Adoption, and Implications." Resources, Conservation and Recycling In Press, Corrected Proof. Print. Lopareva‐Pohu, Alena, et al. "Assessment of Fly Ash‐Aided Phytostabilisation of Highly Contaminated Soils after an 8‐Year Field Trial: Part 1. Influence on Soil Parameters and Metal Extractability." Science of The Total Environment 409.3 (2011): 647‐54. Print. Louv, Richard. Last Child in the Woods : Saving Our Children from Nature‐Deficit Disorder. Updated and expanded. ed. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2008. Print. Luukkanen, Jyrki. "Green Paper with Green Electricity? Greening Strategies of Nordic Pulp and Paper Industry." Energy Policy 31.7 (2003): 641‐55. Print. Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. Publications of the Joint Center for Urban Studies. Cambridge [Mass.]: Technology Press, 1960. Print. Marshall, Richard. Waterfronts in Post‐Industrial Cities. London ; New York: Spon Press, 2001. Print. MCGun. "Mcgun's Photostream". 2011. Yahoo, Flickr. 2.6.2011.
Murphy, Declan. "Destinations...Japan Travel Guide: Port of Nagoya". Okazaki City, Aichi Prefecture, JAPAN. The Yamasa Institute. 2.6.2011.
Palca, Joe. "Spurred by Rising Seas, Dubai's Floating Ambition". 2008. Rebecca Davis, National Public Radio. 3.23.2011.
Stark, William E. . "Vanishing Giants: The Grain Elevators of Minneapolis and Their Legacy." Mineapolis, MN: Hennepin History Museum for Project for Pride in Living Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the City of Minneapolis. Print. Stonehill, Judith, and Francis Morrone. Brooklyn : A Journey through the City of Dreams. New York Bound Books. New York: Universe, 2004. Print. Sun, Robin. "Japan Vacation Attractions". 2011. Khamnams Diary. 2.6.2011.
Walkable Communities. Port Townsend, WA. Walkable Communities, The Walkable and Livable Communities Institute, Inc. 2.25.2011.
Barry Shaw, "History at the Water's Edge," in Waterfronts in Post Industrial Cities, ed. Richard Marshall (London: Spon Press, 2001), 160‐72.
R. Timothy Sieber, "Waterfront Revitalization in Postindustrial Port Cities of North America,"City and Society 5, no. 2, (1991): 120‐36.
U.S. Army Engineer, Water Resources Support Center, History of Transportation on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Institute for Water Resources. 1983.
J. Goss, "Disquiet on the Waterfront: Reflections on Nostalgia and Utopia in the Urban Archetypes of Festival Marketplaces," Urban Geography 17 (1996): 221‐47. 119
Andrew Merrifield, "The Struggle over Place: Redeveloping American Can in Southeast Baltimore," Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 18 (1993): 115‐17.
Dreschel, 2000 A. Dreschel, Waterfront Trail rights a longstanding fault, Hamilton Spectator 10 (July) (2000), p. A3.
120
APPENDIX
A More Futuristic Model
A more outlandish solution to the shortage of waterfront land for public and industrial use might be suggested through futuristic or utopian architectural visions of both the past and present. Kenzo Tange and later, a group of Japanese architects characterized as ‘metabolists’ popularized the notion of floating cities in the 1960’s (Noffsinger). Tange’s plan for Tokyo used
traditional Japanese housing forms, but suspended them on axes over Tokyo Bay (Boyd plates
119‐26). Buckminster Fuller continued this path later in the 1960’s with his proposal for Triton, a tetrahedronal floating city for Tokyo Bay (Fuller).
Figure 58: Kenzo Tange's Plan for Tokyo (Tange and Kultermann).
121
Figure 59: Floating City Concept (Kurokawa 54).
Figure 60: Fuller's Triton (dpr‐barcelona)
More recently, the threat of climate change and a subsequent projected rise in sea level is a current popular theme for design competitions and exhibits. In 2010, the Museum of
Modern Art (MOMA) hosted the exhibit ‘Rising Currents’. A host of notable architecture and
landscape architecture firms constructed plans for the New York waterfront’s presumably
imminent crisis of flooding (The Museum of Modern Art). Among the exhibitors, Guy 122
Nordenson, Catherine Seavitt and Adam Yarinsky, authors of On the Water: Palisade Bay, propose a series of man‐made islands and offshore piers(Nordenson et al.).
Figure 61: Offshore Piers‐Part of the Suggested Solution for Areas to be Inundated due to Climate Change (Nordenson et al. 101).
123
Similar to Tange and Fullers’ concepts, ‘Lilypads‐ Ecopolis’, envisioned by architect
Vincent Callebaut, are a series of floating islands designed to house refugees of natural disaster,
based on the construction of lily pads (Callebaut).
Figure 62: Lilypads ‐ Ecopolis by Callebaut
More market driven ventures are easy to find. National Public Radio recently featured a story about Dutch architects creating visions of floating housing platforms and beaches for
Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The architects hope to both show a model for cities dealing with climate change and capitalize on the wealth and lax planning regulations of the region (Palca).
A more technological example can be found in the work of Energy Island, an engineering
group from the UK. Their hexagonal platform units can be linked together, and provide
renewable energy floating offshore. 124
Figure 63: 50MW Platform. Produces Solar, Wind and Wave Generated Energy in addition to Desalinating Sea Water (Energy Island Ltd.).
These models mimic the metabolists’ work in form, and appear to derive their ideal of self sufficiency from current prototypes like cruise ships, naval vessels and oil platforms. While
the aims of these floating and suspended cities and structures are different, they all offer a
similar implication: large, complicated operations can take place on platforms in the water,
rather than along the coastline. Instead of the public sharing ever more precious waterfront
with industry, it might be possible to relocate the largest scales or least compatible industries
off land entirely. In the process, steps to ameliorate the effects of sea level rise and provide
sustainable energy could be achieved.
For these more futuristic models much more research is needed into details of how the
structures might be constructed, supplied, and staffed. Environmental impact assessments would be necessary. And comparisons of efficiency would likely be required.