Gowanus Pathways. a Framework to Support Community Resilience

Gowanus Pathways. a framework to support community resilience

SES 660A | Capstone Adrienne Downey | Fall 2017 RISK MANAGEMENT Summary

Fifth Avenue Committee (FAC) is a major voice in the Gowanus Community of Brooklyn, New York City. A primary steward of the neighborhood’s affordable housing assets and inclusivity visions, a respected and willing partner with the business community, and a strong voice for community TRANSFORMATIVE sustainability and resilience. But even with the best visions and coalitions, circumstances are stressing even the most stalwart tools. STEWARD Heading into a major neighborhood rezoning this fall, concurrent with more than $1.3 billion committed for environmental cleanup up the toxic Gowanus canal. Deep speculative pressures from developers and a prevailing municipal attitude that favors public private partnership, are exacerbating residential and industrial displacement concerns. Transforming the hardscape also raises concerns over environmental gentrification even as much-needed remediation, growth, and affordable housing assets are added. Add to the foregoing, the pernicious reality of climate change, and the stakes for transformative change are higher than ever. Deep uncertainty for the ADAPTIVE Community’s future is battling against deep anxiety for sustainable outcomes. In pursuit of the Community’s self-determined visions (Bridging Gowanus, 2014, Survive and Thrive, 2017, and Urban Heat Island Technical Assistance Panel, 2017) this Capstone will present a plan to help FAC negotiate a resilient future for Gowanus using an emerging policy technique: Adaptation Pathways. It will further examine links to potential determinants such as tax-increment financing mechanisms (TIF, Bridging Gowanus) or complementary spinoffs TRANSPARENT such as the EcoDistricts® frameworks (UHI TAP). Steeped in risk-management principles and in explicit acknowledgment of limited predictability in circumstances of deep uncertainty, Flexible Adaptation Pathways (also commonly, Dynamic Adaptation Pathways) models are comprehensive in framework and tactical in application. Designed to be flexible, objective, transparent, and responsive to evolving circumstances, a Gowanus Pathways Framework, used to administer community funds, driven by Fifth Avenue Committee and its community partners presents an important resource in the community toolbox in stewarding successful outcomes from transformative change in the years to come. DEEP UNCERTAINTY Systems theory and risk management disciplines calls this scale of transformative change: conditions of deep uncertainty. Layers of interconnections, compounding circumstances, and paradoxical results thwart the predictability of standard models and confounds the usual tools of policy and intervention – especially siloed agency approaches and investment decisions front-loaded in time.

Working under the assumption that Fifth Avenue Committee, together with its Community FLEXIBLE partners will successfully negotiate a suitable agreement to leverage public funding through rezoning and subsequent development of the Gowanus neighborhood, Adaptation Pathways are recommended as the ideal tool for Fifth Avenue Committee to reconcile conditions of RESILIENT systems complexity and deep uncertainty with a resilient and adaptive approach.

Cover Image: Adapted from [36] Hasnoot et al. “Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world”. Global Environmental Change. Volume 23, Issue 2, April 2013, Pages 485-498 CB6 - Brooklyn Community Board 6 CPC - New York City Planning Commission CWA - Clean Water Act DCP - NYC Department of City Planning Contents DEP - NYC Department of Environmental Protection DOE - NYC Department of Education Acknowledgments 3 EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EDP - Equitable Development Plan FAC - Fifth Avenue Committee Client Profile 5 FAR - Floor Area Ratio GI - Green Infrastructure 1. Transformative Change 7 GCC- Gowanus Canal Conservancy GHG - Greenhouse Gases GNCJ - Gowanus Neighborhood Coalition for Justice 2. Foundations & Practice 17 HYIC - Hudson Yards Infrastructure Corporation Case Study #1: NYC Green Infrastructure Plan (New York City) 23 LTCP - Long Term Control Plan Case Study #2: Thames Estuary, TE2100 Plan (London, United Kingdom) 28 MOS - NYC Mayor’s Office of Sustainability Case Study #3: Rhine Delta (Netherlands) 30 MORR - NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency Case Study #4: Dutch Kills Green (Queens, New York City) 34 NEIWCPP - New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission Case Study #5: 11th Street Bridge Park (Washington, D.C.) 36 NYC - New York City Case Study #6: Onondaga Lake Watershed Partnership (Syracuse, New York) 38 NYCHA - New York City Housing Authority Case Study #7: Hudson Yards (Manhattan, New York City) 41 NPCC - New York City Panel on Climate Change OLWP - Onondaga Lake Watershed Partnership 3. Gowanus Visions 45 PILOT - Payment in Lieu of Taxes RCP - Representative Concentration Pathways SLR - Sea Level Rise 4. Gowanus Pathways 49 TAP - Technical Assistance Panel TIF - Tax Increment Financing 5. Determinants and Spin-offs 57 TDR - Transfer of Development Rights UHI - Urban Heat Island ULI - Urban Land Institute 6. Conclusions 61 Common Abbreviations

page intentionally left blank. Acknowledgments

In preparation of this Capstone, I would like to extend sincere thanks to the following individuals for their invaluable time and insights:

Elena Conte and Sydney Cespedes of the Pratt Center for Community Development; and Christine Petro of the Gowanus Canal Conservancy.

Michelle de la Uz and Sabine Aronowsky of Fifth Avenue Committee. Your dedication and results astound. I am grateful for your support for this Capstone and sincerely hope that it has value in the coming months.

Thanks to Alec Appelbaum and Jaime Stein, for their professional insights and deep commitments to intel- lectual growth, sustainability and social justice.

Thanks similarly to my fellow Capstone classmates for their shared encouragement and ideas along our journey.

Finally, in paraphrasing Jane Jacobs from the Economy of Cities1:

“the most valuable of a writer’s materials is uninterrupted time in which to write, and I am grateful beyond measure to my husband…and my [son]…for their gifts to me of time and their cheerful protection of it against incursions.”

Like most of her observations, their economy and understatement are no cover for their depth of understanding.

page intentionally left blank. 2 3 Client Profile

Founded in 1978, FAC is a non-profit community development corporation in Gowanus, South Brooklyn whose scope of work includes affordable housing, economic development, community organization, education, and advocacy for its community of +5,000 low- and moderate-income New Yorkers across the neighborhoods spanned by Brooklyn Community Board 6 (CB6).2

FAC operates under seven “Principles in Action” [See FAC Principles in Action] alongside affiliate and subsidiary organizations Neighbors Helping Neighbors, and Brooklyn Workforce Innovations, and frequent coalition partners Families United for Racial and Economic Equality (FUREE), Gowanus Alliance, Gowanus Canal Conservancy (GCC), New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) resident’s associations, local arts and religious groups, elected officials, and economic development partners.2

FAC’s Executive Director is Michelle de la Uz; at the helm since January 2004. Michelle serves on the Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC) National Board, New Partners for Community Revitalization, Inc. and is the former Chair of the Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development. She is currently also a Commissioner on New York City’s Planning Commission (CPC), and thereby participates regularly in citywide land-use actions. Under Michelle’s leadership, the number of multi-family, mixed use housing and commercial spaces under FAC’s management has more than doubled and its building stock has importantly included sustainable design practices including affordable LEED® Platinum and Gold projects.3

Between its open doors for programming, skin-in the-game experience as a landlord, coalition advocacy partnerships, and the Executive Director’s particular vantage point as Commissioner, FAC is an organization with a strong handle on the pulse of the Gowanus neighborhood and its context within citywide developmental challenges and politics.

FAC Principles in Action2 But FAC’s team is small, and their resources tight (annual operating budget of ~$20M, including $10M in real Combining Organizing and Development Modeling Sustainability estate assets for affordable housing, and a pipeline for development of nearly 1,000 units of affordable hous- We combine grassroots organizing with community development so We pursue development that equitably meets the needs of pres- ing3). Straddling between the roles of community advocate and empowerment agency, environmental and people can live with dignity and respect. Through organizing, we bring ent and future generations. Sustainable design, construction and public health steward, and one of the largest affordable housing landlords in the neighborhood, FAC’s role is as people together to fight for justice. Through development, we take maintenance practices improve the quality of life for our residents collective responsibility for the welfare of our community. and community. We seek to make hidden health, social, economic and important as it is strained. To be effective they need the right tools and a seat at the table. environmental impacts visible through organizing and education, so Building Community Beyond Geographic Boundaries individuals and collectives can take action. Our community extends beyond geographic boundaries through the citywide impact of our programs, the state and national alliances we Including our Entire Community build, and the transnational experiences of the people involved in our We strive to include members of our community in our work regardless work. of race, class, age, gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, physical and mental ability, immigration status or criminal history. Promoting Community Control and Accountability We create opportunities for our community to actively participate in Collaborating Effectively decision-making in our work as well as in their lives. We believe that We recognize that working for broader change requires working people should have a say in shaping their physical environment, and collectively with outside partners. We seek collaborations with organi- that community ownership and leadership provides accountability zations and stakeholders in our community and beyond that share our fundamental to sustaining our efforts over the long term. values and goals.

Striving for Innovative Solutions We acknowledge that today’s conditions may not remain the same tomorrow. We seek innovative, dynamic and entrepreneurial ways to achieve our goals.

4 5 Transformative Change

Gowanus is no stranger to change.

Like many urban waterways until the early 20th Century, the Gowanus Canal was an important hub of industrial and manufacturing activity. Manufactured gas plants, paper mills, tanneries, and chemical plants graced the canal’s banks4 and provided important services and employ- ment to the burgeoning City of New York and its surrounding Boroughs. Environmental sensibilities and standards toward the waterfront during this era were markedly different from today’s appreciation with waterways acting as an industrial sewer rather than recreational and social amenity.

Today, industry has waned and sensibilities have changed and understanding of the links to adverse health impacts have grown stronger. Densification and aggressive growth across all city boroughs has brought residents in increasingly close contact with the legacy of impacted sites. Pressures for development are at a historic high even as they face off against the paradoxical 1effects of climate change. The canal and eponymous surrounding neighborhood is currently home to more than 15,0005 residents in New York City’s Brooklyn Borough. Recognized and celebrated for its diversity of land use and quirkiness in overall effect, the neighborhood’s motley of incubators, 21st century light industry makers and artisans, offices, and small commercial businesses, and active heavy industry is a haven for artists and a vibrant residential community including important affordable housing and NYCHA public housing assets.

But now, where proximity to active industry, pervasive environmental damage, and mixed building typologies has long kept Gowanus property values lower than its counterparts in Brooklyn CB6, deepening citywide speculation and federalist pressures on city budgets are meeting efforts to clean up the canal and spur new development.

Barges float along the Canal and pass under the Culver Viaduct, 1935. Photo: Seymour “Zee” Zolotorofe via The Sixth Borough 6 7 Transformative Change: Cleanup

EPA Superfund Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) Gowanus Canal is one of the city’s worst offenders, In addition, “Green” infrastructure (GI) especially annually spewing approximately 377 million gallons of bioswales, tree pits, and permeable pavers, is being Residues from those plants once essential to economic Since its national legislation in 1972 (33 U.S.C. §1251 combined sewage overflow and untreated street runoff deployed to manage stormwater at source and alleviate life in Gowanus have since permeated the banks and et seq. (1972), New York City has been in continu- (Figure 2) from its watershed area of 1,759 acres into pressures on the “grey” system. sedimentary floor of the canal(Figure 1). This toxic ous non-attainment of the Clean Water Act (CWA)7. the Gowanus Canal from outfalls along the length of the matrix includes polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, in the Designed to set wastewater standards for industry, canal.4 While future water impacts related to future densifi- form of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs), carcinogenic water quality standards for all contaminants in surface cation are set for accommodation through revisions to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and heavy metals, waters, and regulate point source discharges into the Responsible for responding to this crisis, the New York the Building Code which will require all new construc- including neurotoxins mercury and lead and oxidative nation’s navigable waters, the CWA provides a nation- City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)’s tion to detain 90% of its storm water footprint under stressor copper.6 al framework for monitoring, measurement, and water Water Quality Program and attendant Long-Term a 1” storm9, the Long-Term Control Plan confirmed for quality compliance in pursuit of the goal that waterways Control Plan (LTCP) process is implementing a concerted Gowanus seeks to remedy long-outdated infrastructure Recognized for this legacy of toxic industrial contam- become fishable, and swimmable. “Grey + Green” infrastructure strategy4 for Gowanus to upgrades to a point which meets the needs of the wa- ination, the Gowanus Canal was added to the United bring it into compliance. tershed today.6 States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) list of Built in the early 20th Century, this engineering design Superfund National Priorities on March 2, 20106. co-drains wastewater with stormwater runoff, ideally Traditional, “grey”, infrastructure improvements planned Together, between the Superfund and the LTCP, more sending both toward the city’s water treatment plants for Gowanus include the installation of 12 million gallon than $1.3 billion in federal, state, and municipal funding Following extensive study, public consultation, and plan- prior to release into the city’s waterbodies. State-of- capacity sewage detention tanks, 1.5 million gallon high have been earmarked for major environmental remedi- ning requisite to the Superfund Process, the EPA signed a the-art upon initial construction, a century of surface capacity stormwater sewers, dredging, pumping station ation and infrastructure upgrades.4 Record of Decision (ROD) in September 2013, bringing development has not been met with underground expan- upgrades (7.5 million gallons), flushing tunnel improve- into effect a legally binding plan for the canal’s reme- sion, resulting in a system that today is substantially ments, sewer and interceptor cleaning programs, and These infrastructure investments will alone constitute diation including extensive draining and capping of the undersized. Its efficacy is compromised to the extent that aeration.8 a major transformative change driver for the neigh- canal floor and turning basins, and ongoing monitoring even under dry conditions, untreated overflows occur, borhood. post-remediation.6 and in wet weather, overflows are rampant.8

Figure 1: Gowanus Canal Contamination, Graphic © CH2MHILL, via Gowanus Canal Conservancy Figure 2: Gowanus Pollution, Photo © emptysquare

8 9 Transformative Change: Rezoning

Figure 3: Gowanus Neighborhood Planning Study14 Rezoning

After almost a decade of rumored interest and early stage-work, New York City’s Department of City Plan- Gowanus Concerns in Rezoning13: ning (DCP) officially kicked off the Gowanus rezoning on October 2016 (Figure 3).9 “The Canal and the particular mix of uses in the neighborhood is what makes Gowanus distinct from Similar to other NYC neighborhoods such as East New the surrounding residential neighborhoods, yet this York and East Harlem, Gowanus has been tapped by delicate balance is under siege. […] Mayor Bill de Blasio for review under his 2015 vision blueprint OneNYC, especially for their potential con- An aggressive real estate market threatens to dis- tribution to his administration’s Mandatory Inclusionary place longtime residents and businesses alike while Housing (MIH) program and related citywide goal of further segregating the predominately low- and mod- 200,000 affordable housing spaces.10 erate-income NYCHA residents from their neighbors. […] Land-use actions on the scale of a rezoning effort in NYC are fraught with challenges, from change in char- Current neighborhood planning efforts in Gowanus acter, gentrification, displacement, as well as misplaced present an opportunity to build on the unique nature or dishonored benefit agreements with communities. of this mixed use community. Equally important, the efforts present the City and the community with an Evidence particularly of the last can be found in the opportunity to curb destructive real estate forces and testimony and comments toward Intro 1132, passed by to combat negative trends that continue to further City Council in December 2016.11 The Intro, which cre- segregate the community, displace low- and mod- ates a public list of city planning commitments, commonly erate-income residents, and eliminate industrial and referred to as the “Neighborhood Commitment Tracker” small commercial businesses.” is an effort to reconcile a standing need for transparency and accountability between communities engaged in rezoning efforts and a process which emphasizes the role of private development.

While lack of transit, walkability, greening, and deepening inequity are common and substantive concerns, Gowanus’ delicate balance of mixed land-use is beloved by residents, inspiring affectionate characteriza- tions as a “cesspool of innovation”.12 “People are already making Williams- A neighborhood of great potential, careful balance burg-type money in Gowanus…. must be taken to support its vibrancy and character and protect its most vulnerable residents [See Gowanus Concerns in Rezoning] with targeted policy and sup- It will only get harder portive funds. for affordable housing to compete with From a land-use and economic development basis, re- those kinds of returns”. zoning actions ultimately constitute one of the city’s most powerful tools for comprehensive and transformative – Anon. Gowanus Developer change of a neighborhood.

Like all tools, its successful use depends heavily on intent.

10 11 Transformative Change: Climate

14 Figure 5: Gowanus Base Flood Elevation Map14 Figure 6: Gowanus FEMA Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (PFIRM)

Increased Frequency and Severity of Rainfall Urban Heat Island

The New York State Environmental Protection Bureau In addition, rising mean global temperatures and the notes the effects of climate change: adverse impacts of localized micro-climates are drawing increased attention across urban centers nationwide. “There can no longer be any doubt that climate change is more than just a threat – it is a reality. Urban Heat Island (UHI) (Figure 7)and the deadly Across the nation and around the world, ecosystems effects of hyperthermia are of increasing concern for are being altered by warmer temperatures, rising sea the Gowanus hardscape17. Heavy industry’s emphasis levels and severe rainstorms that are striking with on paved surfaces and low focus until recent years on growing frequency and intensity. greenscaping and GI, which brings critical shade and evapotranspirative cooling18, make Gowanus particular- The effects of this global crisis are being felt locally ly vulnerable to the impacts of urban heat island. as well… [H]eavy rainfalls and devastating floods are taking an enormous toll on communities across New York State, from Long Island to the Southern Tier to the Capital Region to the North Country.”15 Figure 4: Increase Frequency and Severity of Rainfall in New York15 Increased frequency and severity of rainfall (Figure 4) events are now exacerbating the already strained combined sewer system and Gowanus regularly suffers tidal and rainwater flooding and sewer backups.

Sea Level Rise (SLR)

Sea Level Rise (SLR) and its direct and compounding storm risks in flood damage to homes and businesses is a Figure 7: Urban Heat Island18 major concern for this low-lying area (Figure 5).14

Similarly, facing exposure as a neighborhood within a coastal Delta City to the effects of increasing severity and freqency of storms on the Atlantic seaboard, the impacts of flooding due to storms and storm surge are of increasing concern (Figure 6).14

Damage from Inundation and overwash of contaminants from unremediated legacy sites and ongoing unprotect- ed outdoor uses has sparked studies by the City on the need for flood protection in Gowanus including proposals for a 200-foot flood-gate for the canal’s mouth16.

Residents are understandably keen to avoid repeat of Superstorm Sandy’s 2012 damage – or worse.

12 13 Transformative Change: Figure 8: Transformative Change Drivers in Gowanus4

Cumulative Impacts

As well illustrated by the Gowanus Canal Conservancy (GCC) (Figure 8), the foregoing change drivers: environmental cleanup (Superfund, LTCP and attendant GI plans), rezoning, and climate change impacts (SLR, UHI) are all simultaneously at work in Gowanus.

While the time scale for each intervention varies, their individual, compounding - and confounding - impacts will bring lasting consequences for decades to come.

As we will see in the next section, systems theory and its links to urban resilience, risk management and adaptive management techniques, are the basis for an emerging policy paradigm: Adaptation Pathways.

As FAC searches for solutions to empower Gowanus Community visions, tools that respect the scale of change, the scale of uncertainty, and the scale of time are essential in tackling the cumulative impacts that will conspire to underline or undermine such visions.

14 15 Foundations & Practice

Together, the foregoing issues of Superfund Cleanup and LTCP wastewater system upgrades, rezoning, and climate change are happening concurrently: neither isolated in time from each other, in impacts, nor isolated from Gowanus’ surrounding communities.

The actions of each of these contributors to change will heighten the complexity of Gowanus’ system dynamics and deepen the uncertainty and unpredictability of their interactions and cumulative effects.

Having secured more than $1.3 Billion in redemediateive and infrastructure funding from Federal and State counterparts to rectify legacy environmental abuses, the neighborhood is now on the cusp of rezoning led by the DCP.4

Where deep private development interest, and prevailing impacts from climate change threaten the neighborhood’s most vulnerable through displacement and deepening inequity, Gowanus is today exposed to a climate of transformative change and deep uncertainty of unparalleled proportion.

As we will see in the forthcoming section, there is a deepening divide between foundations and practice in current policy approaches responding to the exigencies of transformative change - especially the uncertainties of climate change risk. 2 Understanding the systems-basis for urban resilience, the limitations of current risk- based and adaptive management techniques, stewardship and equity principles for social resilience, provides the basis for a new policy paradigm for climate change: Adaptation Pathways.

Add to this basis, the contextual realities of development in New York City, and the challenge faced by stewards with an equity-based mission cannot be underestimated.

To achieve sustainability and resilience for Gowanus, the right tool for this job is more important than ever.

©Stephen Speranza. Source: Andy Newman. “Can Gowanus Survive Its Renaissance?” New York Times. October 13, 2007. 16 17 Foundations & Practice:

Urban Resilience Deep Uncertainty probabilistic. Perhaps the most famous current example includes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Urban Systems set-points to tune system performance. The issues and actions being taken in Gowanus relating (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, published in 2013. to environmental cleanup, deepening social divides, Where climate models are deeply intricate and reliant Systems are defined as a “set of interrelated elements Jay Wright Forrester, Massachusetts Institute of Tech- speculative pressures, and climate change, not to men- upon socio-, economic and geopolitical considerations as that interact with each other within some defined bound- nology Professor and the founder of modern System tion the impacts of economic drivers and politics, are they are on climate systems behaviors, researches have ary and are organized to perform a function or follow Dynamics states this succinctly: deeply linked in a complex system. modeled over “1200 scenarios of future emissions, each some purpose”.19 scenario having a different ‘story’ of how the future might “In the complex system the cause of a difficulty Densification will likely have positive impacts on proper- unfold”. Commonly grouped into four prevailing mod- Originally the basis of physics and control engineering may lie far back in time from the symptoms, or in a ty markets, negative impacts on urban heat island, and els, or Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) practices from the early 20th century20, by the 1970s completely different and remote part of the system. In stormwater management. Restoration of bulkheads and provide a probabilistic framework for policymakers to systems models and control theory had extended fact causes are usually found, not in prior events, but capping of noxious contaminants may improve resident grapple with the potential outcomes of climate change. beyond traditional engineering applications and was in the structure and policies of the system.”24 health exposures, but bring more traffic to the neighbor- (Figure 10).24 well established in social systems such as economics, and hood... urban environments. These observations are seen readily in the following Multiplying transformative land use and environmen- causal-loop diagram (Figure 9) as an example of mod- Theses interactions – whether happy convergences or tal change by the uncertainties of climate change, the Based on the works of Nobel Laureate and physicist and eling systems of obesity within an urban system. destructive paradoxes – exist simultaneously and their intractable problem for Gowanus is what systems-theory systems theorist Philip Anderson21 and his theories of impacts compound and convolute outcomes. and resiliency-planning literature calls Deep Uncertain- complexity, researchers Luis Bettencourt22 and Michael Where “systems tuning” in urban environments is ty25, with foreknowledge of outcomes and linearity of Batty23 demonstrated success in modeling urban envi- driven mainly by policy, the importance of policy While there has been some increasing success in model- inputs to outputs thwarted by the system’s complexity. ronments as systems. They confirmed for cities important tools that respect the working of their systems are ing urban systems to yield robust predictive extrapola- elements of key “systems” modeling and performance – critical. tions for cities22, as we have seen in the section Transfor- Responding to such uncertainty, adaptive – or itera- especially complexity of “systems control” and chal- mative Change, the multiplicity of actions and actors at tive – approaches and a focus on continuous assess- lenges common to “systems tuning”, for example the play in Gowanus, the outcomes of transformative change ment and process take on a central role. As such, presence of lag times, the futility of focusing linearly on and the compounding effects and limited predictability awareness and acknowledgment of the limitations inputs, and the importance of focusing on output driven of the impacts of climate change explode the capacities of deep uncertainty are important prerequisites for of such models with outcomes in complex systems at best successful resilient planning.

Figure 9: Urban Systems Causal-Loop Diagram22

Figure 10: IPCC’s Representative Concentration Pathways, Image © Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO)

18 19 Foundations & Practice: Urban Resilience

coming the silos into which different aspects of the Resilience city network are divided – water, transport, health and so on – is a central challenge of urban planning. In her book, the Resilience Dividend, Judith Rodin defines of so-called “shocks and stresses” – not the least of In a system as complex as a city, no one person or resilience as: which includes the impacts of globalization and Climate specialty can see the whole picture[.]”22 Change.25 “the capacity of any entity – an individual, a com- Building collective capacity and approaches that are munity, and organization, or a natural system – to Her framework corroborates the concept of Deep tactical, adaptive, and smart are essential to build resil- prepare for disruptions, to recover from shocks and Uncertainty in systems and her critique of existing con- ience pro-actively. Whether in terms of economic losses, stresses, and to adapt and grow from a disruptive ditions analyses that yield “fair weather” policies and stranded assets, social costs, environmental, or human experience”.24 outcomes risk losing important opportunities – what she costs. Rodin is justified in her call to arms: calls the Resilience Dividend (Figure 11): And where sustainability is commonly defined from the “[w]e need to take action, and we need to do so in Brundtland Commission as: “[the opportunity] to build new relationships, take anticipation of disruption, in advance of shocks, in on new endeavors and initiatives, and reach out for preparation for stresses – not after they have started “Humanity[’s] ability…to ensure that it meets the new opportunities, ones that may never have been to wear us down.”24 needs of the present without compromising the ability imagined before.” of future generations to meet their own needs.”27 Resilience is a state of awareness and of collaboration Planning and preparing amidst complex systems and and a process of investment – in all five forms of Sus- Resilience continues to encompass the fundamental deep uncertainty is no easy task. Change in thinking tainable Capital: Natural, Human, Social, Manufactured, precepts of sustainability, namely balancing economic, about policy and policy approaches that continue to and Financial (Figure 12).29 social, and environmental foci, and extends this concept favor unilateral rather than collective approaches, and to account for system inputs and changing circumstances. significantly miss out on the unique perspective, knowl- Resilience tools for Gowanus will need to embrace Under the notion of resilience, sustainability remains the edge, social and human capital of communities.28 these precepts. goal, and resilience is the ability to maintain this state under duress and adapt constructively. Franz Gatzweiler, Director of the International Council for Science’s Urban Health and Well-Being program Rodin further details five characteristics of resilience: based at the Institute of Urban Environment in Xiamen, awareness, diversity, integration, self-regulation, China notes, and adaption. Which are in turn expressly supported by social cohesion and challenged by circumstances “[o]ur capacity to act collectively is lagging. Over-

Figure 11: The Resilience Dividend14 Figure 12: The Five Forms of Sustainable Capital29

20 21 Foundations & Practice: Risk Management

In international monetary supply, central banks regularly Figure 13: Iterative Approaches in International Monetary Supply30 Infrastructure Plan) or unplanned policy adjustments.” 34 set trajectories for growth under “expected” circumstances but acknowledge that these circumstances exist In resiliency studies, risk management takes on an even Important outcomes from an iterative processes being: on a continuum of probabilities. Whether for supply, more profound challenge. Where resiliency embodies inflation, or exchange rates, such paths are commonly climatic, social, economic, and cultural adaptation and 1. “[to] keep long-term target options open as published to the financial sector, embedded amid high responsiveness, combining economic risk management long as possible by setting decision-triggering and low probability risk assessments to govern financial practices with the broader scope of societal mechanisms thresholds, policy; where risk is based upon statistical definitions of involves even more moving parts. 2. work to minimize the adjustment costs of regu- compounding probability and consequence. These limits larly implemented adjustment periods, and are treated as “recalibration points” or “mid-course cor- “[D]ecision mechanisms must cope with competing 3. minimize administrative complexity in both ad- rections”, and the transparency of each iterative adjust- indices of change as they try to monitor what climate justment processes by making them as transpar- ment is critical to the overall function of the central bank impacts are occurring and what they mean in terms ent and as predictable as possible”.34 as “leader” within markets and predictable partner with of economic and social vulnerabilities in the future.”34 policy makers.30 (Figure 13) Where the crux of predictability – if not of outcomes Where predictability of outcomes is low, especially – but of decision triggers – is the basis for Pathways The parallels between the complexity of international under climate change, a stronger emphasis on decision models. Predictability of outcomes is replaced with monetary structure and the “conflicting explanations making through iterative processes takes hold: “[t]rans- predictability of process and decision points to man- of climate science” have drawn close comparison by parency in the process can […] lessen the costs of planned age risks. climate change experts and policy makers for over a decade. 16

“Responding to climate change involves an iterative risk management process that includes both adaptation and mitigation, and takes into account climate aggregate assessment of international climate-relat- Case Study #1: NYC Green Infrastructure Plan (New York City) change damage, co-benefits, sustainability, equity and ed risk. Today’s 80 x 50 targets demonstrate a need, attitudes to risk”30 based explicitly on risk-assessments, to proactively Adaptive Management Techniques “bend the curve” to tackle not only the effects of cumu-

And more specifically, lative GHG emissions but also the time-based lag in its 33 New York City’s DEP has jurisdiction over maintaining the Figure 14: DEP Grey + Green Strategy depletion. Today’s target is consistent with the findings city’s supply of clean drinking water supply, wastewater “Regularly scheduled “mid-course corrections,” similar of the Global Compact of Mayors (to which NYC is an collection and treatment, and the reduction of air, noise, to the “recalibrated” points depicted in Figure [13], important signatory party) technical advisory group and hazardous materials pollutions.35 can be envisioned for an iterative climate adaptation C40 Cities in their report Deadline 202032. process…where the “corrections” might come in the In 2010, DEP unrolled its first ever Green Infrastructure form of updated climate information, new technolog- In day-to-day, practical policy, early NYC iterative Program33– a watershed- and surface permeabili- ical advancement, or a new policy that would serve approaches within agencies have included DEP’s 2010 ty-based initiative to manage one inch of rainfall over to readjust the risk trajectory back to an acceptable Green Infrastructure (GI) Plan33. Designed to provide 10 percent of the City’s combined sewer area by 2030, level”. 30, Figure reference updated to match this report the policy basis for widespread use of “green” infra- per NYC’s obligations under the federal Clean Water structure (bioswales, green roofs, green walls, perme- Act, and New York State Consent Order Decree (“the Indeed iterative risk-based approaches currently inform able pavers, etc.) to manage stormwater in addition to Consent Order”). New York City’s approach to climate change through traditional “grey” infrastructure (e.g. sewers, pumping the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC)’s stations, retention tanks) to cost-effectively tackle NYC’s Designed to provide the policy basis for widespread Task Force processes and assessments16 and in Mayor obligations under the CWA. use of “green” infrastructure (GI) (bioswales, tree pits, de Blasio’s revision of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) blue and green roofs, green streets, constructed wet- targeting in his 2015 blueprint OneNYC’s 80x50 mitiga- Here, “adaptive management techniques” were used lands, permeable pavers, etc.) to manage stormwater tion plan17. Starting with the first commitment in 2007 to as the guiding method for policy implementation and in addition to traditional “grey” infrastructure (e.g. reduce GHG 30 percent by 2030 (30 x 30) set under agency learning through deployment. But critics look sewers, pumping stations, retention tanks). DEP’s “Green Mayor Bloomberg’s 2013 blueprint PlanNYC’s, the city to the program’s failure to meet the 2017 state 1.5% Strategy” would offer savings of $1.5B over the “Grey acknowledged its path to achieve 40% reductions by Consent Order Decree targets33 and are stumped on Strategy” (Figure 14), and in addition, bring “between 2030, and then expanded again to the current ambi- how and where these so-called adaptations took place $139M - $418M in additional benefits through reduced tious target of 80 percent by 2050 (80 x 50)31. to steward the goal. An emphasis on process and clarity energy bills, increased property values, and improved on when or how such adaptations would be implemented health” over a 20 year period.33 Each of these revisions has raised the bar for action or considered was lacking and public transparency and consistent with global climate change reassessments and accountability limited. (See Case Study #1: NYC Green 22 23 Case Study #1: NYC Green Infrastructure Plan (New York City) Adaptive Management Techniques - Cont’d

Focusing on city-owned property including rights-of-way, Lessons for Gowanus Figure 15: Comparison of Adaptive Policymaking vs. Adaptation Pathways36 and government inter-agency collaboration, notably schools (NYC Department of Education, DOE), parks Learning from the Green Infrastructure Program’s (New York City Department of Parks & Recreation, NYC example, the Gowanus Community should be critical of Parks) and public housing (NYCHA), DEP sought to roll adaptive policy techniques that are insufficiently vague out its plan under paths of least resistance. to ensure outcomes. While driving a policy agenda that emphasizes environmental benefits and founded In addition to its novel use of GI, DEP also expanded in lauvdable systems-based precepts like recognizing its policy repertoire through this program to employ uncertainty, risk-management, and adaptation, low “adaptive management techniques” for the first time. A transparency and process have hampered not only guiding method for policy implementation and agency DEP’s outcomes but more broadly, public advocacy and learning through deployment, DEP writes: accountability efforts.

“This Green Infrastructure Plan is an adaptive And if DEP’s example showcases adaptive management management strategy – an iterative, flexible deci- policies gone awry, applied to technocratic policies and sion-making process where incremental measures are with the most endowed city agency, what happens when continually evaluated and rejected or improved. This applied to social policies and actors with constrained process produces better decisions about investments funding? The actors, the negotiations, the adaptations and overall resource allocation to achieve water will all be more complicated, more convoluted, and quality objectives. Already, DEP has adjusted its more nuanced and the funds far less fungible. approach to incorporate conservation strategies. An adaptive management approach is essential given the In the extreme, it is even conceivable that such vague magnitude of investment required to manage storm- tools may actually insert risk by opening opportunities water and the wide range of uncertainties about fu- to policy subversion through biased interpretations or ture conditions, including climate, rainfall, population, appropriation. Where explicit approaches seek to safe- water demand, land use, technology, and regulatory guard outcomes, they also safeguard intent. requirements.”33 The risks of deep uncertainty are already there; they But critics look to the program’s failure to meet the 2017 need not be compounded by inadequate tools. Consent Order targets33 and are stumped on how and where these so-called adaptations took place to steward the goal. An emphasis on process and clarity on when or how such adaptations would be implemented or considered was lacking and public transparency and accountability limited.

DEP notes,

“[the] Green Strategy is nimble enough to incorporate new technologies and approaches as they emerge during the implementation of our plan...the effectiveness of adaptive management depends upon DEP’s ability to measure performance.”33

However, shortcomings to Adaptive Policymaking concentrate in their vague descriptions and poor links between outset conditions and outcomes.36 (Figure 15)

24 25 Foundations & Practice: Figure 17: Adaptation Pathway Models for the Rhine Delta: (left) Full Pathways model showing subjectivity of perspectives; (top right) Decision Adaptation Pathways Cycles (Transfer Stations/Tipping Points) ; (bottom right) Pathways Policy Development36 “Pathways” models (commonly “Flexible Adaptation Figure 16: The effect of uncertainty on adaptation strategies27 Pathways”, or “Dynamic Pathways”) are taking off from the shortcomings of Adaptive Planning and gaining ground in climate change adaptation and resiliency policy applications where deep uncertainty abounds.

As demonstrated through the research of Ranger and Reeder37, Wise et al.38, Yohe, et al.30, Haasnoot et al.36, and New Yorks City’s own climate change modeling guru Cynthia Rosenzweig39, Pathways approaches take on a variety of environmental planning subjects – for example flood protection for London’s Thames River Estuary36 (See Case Study #2: the Thames Estuary, TE2100 Plan), or water management in the Netherlands36 (See Case Study #3: Rhine Delta, Netherlands).

Pathways models start by identifying conditions that are counter to the vision of the policymaker. These conditions are referred to as policy “no-go zones” or “maladap- Where traditional urban policy and design approaches tive spaces.”38 Pathways models next map out a diversity have focused on explicit plans (e.g. masterplanning) of strategies over time, each strategy predicated on and deliberate actions either front-loaded in time or in technical, economic or social factors and their eventual strict preordained sequence, Pathways models eschew limitations – or strategy failure – over time (Figure 16). strict sequencing and focus instead on: (1) the creation Laid in parallel and adjusted for time, the layers of of a robust framework of sequential strategies whose strategy in the model begin to take shape akin to a de- links are tactically decided over time, (2) designation cision tree. At each point where a strategy is exhausted, of participants, (3) iterative decision cycles, and (4) the or where analysis confirms experience outside the range identification of crucial tipping points as signals in strat- Figure 18: Adaptation Pathway Models, Theoretical Approach demonstrating impacts of external influences such as: Institutional Preparedness, (D) of acceptable conditions, a decision cycle is triggered. egy implementation; where tripping a signal indicates Path dependencies from prior circumstances/bias (C), and Links between pathways via Transformative Cycles (B)38 (Figure 17) the limitation of a strategy, or, a course headed towards unwanted outcomes (“maladaption”).38 Consistent with the precepts of risk-based approaches, each policy line is held until it fails, and iterative By design, Pathways approaches recognize overtly the decision cycles forge links to supplementary strategies. limited capacity of predictive behavior in complicated Whether a financial, social or environmental “cost”, the systems and instead focus on sequences of corrective durability of investment is upheld for as long as possible, actions, or “nudges”, in response to an assessment of and the incremental cost of supplementary action – not prevailing conditions – both from forces, assets, and the entire cost of the action – is the next “expenditure”. actors operating within the system as from outside forces. This iterative approach also allows for techno- Driven by a Stewardship Committee, Pathways methods logical advancement and adoption of cutting-edge invert common policy approaches from their usual focus technologies incrementally. Where industry support and in upfront, predictive, actions to impart change and technical solutions are also unknown, users of a Pathways instead to focus on a tactical and responsive approach approach can also take advantage of development - including to external stimulus. In taking iterative deci- in performance and or cost of solutions to make such sions, the committee responds to each stage of strategy, “nudges”. recalibrating, and nudging outcomes (via e.g. investment, policy shifts) in the desired direction and steward As cities live this complexity daily, municipal structures against outcomes that are inconsistent with a determined and policy approaches that rely heavily on fixed plans vision. (Figure 18) remain ill equipped to address such systems realities; tested ever more so in the face of climate change. Contrary to conventional policy methods that seek to distill and simplify problems, the approach embraces Agencies, their budgets, and policies work by-and- wicked problems. It deliberately exposes the uncertainty large independently, and conventional policy tools of physical and policy outcomes, and the subjectivity of depend upon predictable assessment of impacts to stakeholders and participants. inform recommendations. Better tools are needed. 26 27 Case Study #2: Thames Estuary, TE2100 Plan (London, UK) Pathways Approaches for Risk Management Figure 19: Thames River Barrier37

The Thames River Estuary Plan (TE2100)37 was an exer- Lessons for Gowanus cise in investment planning for flood defense along the Thames Estuary, including upgrades and updates to its The Thames River provides a powerful example for mega-infrastructure, the Thames Barrier (Figure 19), as mega-projects and the robustness of the Pathways Tool well as regional approaches to flood infrastructure and in managing long-term climate risk and cost-control. socio-economic adaptation programs. Where the current rezoning action will take at least 18 months to complete, the results will accumulate indefinite- The decision to use Pathways model for this effort was ly thereafter. And where FAC and its coalition partners dominated by (1) the need for planning that acknowl- are non-profits or volunteers, even with the proceeds edged previously unappreciated circumstances of cli- from a rezoning effort, funds are invariably constrained. mate change and the deep uncertainties of probabilistic In a stewardship role, FAC and its partners will live a climate information, and (2) a risk-based approach that similar challenge in pursuit of their visions for Gowanus managed mega-project investments and avoided cost and as such a Pathways model begs strong consider- overruns from changing design. In a Pathways model, ation. these conflicting concerns meet to satisfy risk without exploding cost. But with the nuances of tradeoffs between environmental © DAVID ILIFF and social outcomes in Gowanus, TE2100s’ macro-scale “The key driver for the project was to consider how uniaxial model will likely be insufficient for its purpos- tidal flood risk was likely to change in response to es. Distillation in this case would oversimplify and risk future changes in climate and people and property in masking an important source of transparency for the Figure 20: Pathways Model for TE2100 Plan37 the floodplain.”37 community’s debate and decisions.

Driven by the United Kingdom’s Environmental Agency Instead, Gowanus requires an explicit framework for (federal-level environmental organization) and re- both environmental and social drivers in change. sponsible for not only regional coordination but project management and capital expenditures on flood risk in the estuary, stewardship of taxpayers dollars and socio-economic disaster risk management in their protection was paramouvnt.

The project employed three main analyses that com- plemented the core of the Pathways approach: (1) an interative, managed adaptive approach; (2) adaptation models and pathways linking individual strategies to conditions assessments; and (3) vetting lead-times and constructability models (Figure 20).

The result is one of the earliest applied pathways models that applies a uni-axial risk assessment model: “flood risk”. The result of six years of regional, municipal, and public social and economic consultations, the outcomes of social, economic or otherwise environmental priorities are implicit in this model’s determination of flood risk.

28 29 Case Study #3: Rhine Delta (Netherlands) Figure 21: Ijsselmeer Study Area36 Pathways Approaches for Stakeholder Diversity

While the Netherlands has centuries of experience with Lessons for Gowanus managing flood pressures, climate change and particularly the effects of SLR has pushed Dutch capacity for For Gowanus, the biaxial approach of the Rhine Delta water management to the brink. The result has included and its transparency on the subject of tradeoffs is drastic re-imagining of federal policy structures on wa- worthwhile – albeit adapted to match Gowanus prior- ter management in addition to physical management. ities of social and environmental equity. Furthermore, using a robust Pathways model to house frank discussion As with the Thames Estuary TE2100 plan (See Case on the possible paradigms of influence and priority that Study #2: Thames Estuary, TE2100 Plan), the Rhine will drive outcomes for Gowanus will provide a valuable Delta model design, focusing on the region of Ijsselmeer applied framework for public conversation. (Figure 21) and including famous project outcomes such as “Room for the River”42 (Figure 22) directly incorpo- Whether the approach is environment-heavy (See rates climate unpredictability, engineering feasibility Case Study #4: Dutch Kills Green and Case Study and costing, and expands it to include more nuanced #6: OLWP), socially inclusive (See Case Study #5: 11th treatment of policy drivers including an actor-focused Street Bridge Park), or development-heavy (See Case approach that emphasizes the subjectivity of policy Study #7: Hudson Yards), or indeed balanced will pathways – namely, pathways under centralist gov- make all the difference in achieving a sustainable and ernment influence, pathways a market-driven and low resilient Gowanus. government influence direction, and pathways under an environmental and egalitarian approach (Figure 23). Transparency and debate of individual actions is em- powering, transparency and negotiation of the entire Furthermore, in the Dutch case for water management, framework and subjective interests driving outcomes flood risk comes with a paradoxical trade-off: the avail- is powerful. ability of fresh water. As such, a dual-axis is employed in its Pathways model – water demand, and water supply. s

Figure 22: Room for the River Flood Protection Project42 Figure 23: Adaptation Pathways Model for Rhine Delta showing subjectivity of perspectives36

30 31 Foundations & Practice: Stewardship & Equity

As economic disparity rises to unprecedented levels capital.24,34 Harris et al. support this conclusion offering the concept 2. opportunities for public comment; and nationwide43, social cohesion – a critical ingredient to of ‘negotiated resilience’ precisely to highlight the poli- 3. participatory conversations on the cleanup resiliency28 – is strained and its symptoms of gentrifica- As self-determination, change from within, and local tics, complexities and procedural dimensions of resilience process and outcomes.56 tion and displacement are taking on new urgency across investment are drivers and indicators of social cohesion28 in urban development – and its subjection to power Adaptation Pathways and Social Cohesion New York City44. Relatedly, an unhealthy rhetoric has in sustainable and resilient planning, their absence is dynamics51. cropped up surrounding the pitfalls of green investment conspicuous in Checker’s examination of Harlem through- The success of these examples and centrality of social and social amenities. out the latter half of the 20th Century. cohesion in each is corroborated by extensive literature Equity by Intent review of Adaptation Pathways research, where Wise et al. lists barriers to adaptation38 (adapted as list, for Envirionmental Gentrification Negotiated Resilience Armed with such awareness, the link between steward- full references see Wise et al., 2014): or Lack of Social Cohesion? ship models and equity-based planning were foremost Where Checker writes primarily in regards to devel- in the development of the planning framework for • behavioural and cognitive aspects (O’Brien and Environmental projects are not inherently democratic or opmental pressures, they are not the only culprits. In Washington, DC’s 11th Street Bridge project. (See Wolf, 2010; Nelson, 2011), equity based but nor are their outcomes necessarily har- working distinctively, in siloes, city agencies – their Case Study #5: 11th Street Bridge) Where a new pe- • unconducive governance arrangements bingers of gentrification and change. The environmental policies and their budgets – exacerbate pressures on destrian bridge would connect some of the District’s most (Amundsen et al., 2010; Storbjörk, 2010), justice needs of a community should not be subverted to social cohesion. Where a community may have strong economically vulnerable with elite neighborhoods and in • lack of or self-interested leadership (Angue- economic vulnerability or risk. Such tradeoffs are inher- vision, pitting their priorities against the mandates and bring significant recreational and health amenities, there lovski and Carmin, 2011; Moser et al., 2012), ently unsustainable – and unjust. The important link in plans of disparate agencies risks splitting mandates and were concerns that such improvements could equally • competing planning agendas and lack of successfully navigating environmental improvements are partial solutions. These actions work to undermine social have been a generator of social malaise, gentrification, institutional coordination (Moser and Ekstrom, the same as in all forms of equitable planning: careful cohesion as they undermine self-determination and local and displacement. Its communities, designers, and plan- 2010), response to the question “for-whom?”; equitable distri- investment. ners were determined to embody a more progressive • insufficient financial and human capital and bution of benefits; and democratic participation. model of development. mechanisms for enabling these (Bryan et al., The value of collaborative professional approaches and 2009; Kabubo-Mariara, 2009), In her article “Wiped Out by the Green Wave”45 making lateral connections within city government to sup- Equity, inclusion, and opportunity were forefront in every • lack of information and data (Deressa et al., Melissa Checker sets out the arguments for participatory port nested problems is the consideration that created aspect of the project and these precepts embraced by 2009; Hammill and Tanner, 2011), and democratic participation as essential preconditions New York City’s Mayor’s Offices of Sustainability (MOS) each discipline; intention was everything, and a robust • incorrect or incomplete diagnosis of problems to sustainability of process and equitable outcomes in and of Recovery and Resiliency (MORR). Similarly, the stewardship committee with diverse technical and com- (Gorddard et al., 2012), planning. project Dutch Kills Green was lauded in New York City munity voices kept it on track. • the widening science-policy gap associated for the value that was achieved through unprecedented with wicked problems (Moser, 2010), and “Contemporary fixes to environmental issues, espe- interagency collaboration46 (See Case Study #4: Dutch In promoting a sexy project with great polish in the • uncertainty and ambiguity (Sarewitz, 2004; cially climate change, provide a prime example of Kills Green). But even these agencies and projects, in “novel” light of social inclusivity and justice, this project Dessai et al., 2007). the rise of technocracy, managerial governance and focusing on government-driven solutions and interagency has successfully upended the standard power dynamic consensual politics”45 collaboration are still slow to embrace the full potential around development. A robust stewardship and equity model that promotes offered by joining forces with the community. social cohesion is therefore critical to addressing these Read from a resiliency perspective, Checker’s work Stewardship for Social Cohesion and barriers and maximizing resiliency outcomes. showcases the erosion of social cohesion. A necessary In examining the work of InWithForward, a systems Negotiated Resilience characteristic of resilient communities, Rodin defines analysis and modeling consultancy, from Vancouver, Stewardship and equity considerations, while implicit social cohesion as Canada. Similarly, in Syracuse, New York, the United State’s in Pathways models, are heightened in the trench “most polluted lake” began its own journey to remedia- warfare of urban development and prevailing culture “[T]he glue that bonds people to one another, in “Rather than major top-down changes, [InWithFor- tion in the late 1990s54. Like Gowanus, the Onondaga of development pressures. The Stewardship’s Com- families, groups, organizations, and communities. It ward]’s approach focuses on creating new interactions Lake is a designated United States Environmental Pro- mittee composition and role in a Gowanus Frame- consists of genuine commitment and caring, shared and networks within the existing urban system, protection Authority (EPA) Superfund site55 (See Case Study work must reflect this urgency. values and beliefs, engagement, common purpose, moting a shared understanding among both policy- #6: OLWP). and sense of identity” and she adds, “it makes all the makers and urban dwellers of how the system works, difference in building resilience”.24 and what can be done to change things.”22 With a clear intent to use the Superfund clean-up to maximize public outcomes, the community developed the Strong social cohesion within a community must be Onondaga Lake Watershed Partnership (OLWP) as the Social Cohesion and Carrying Capacity enabled and empowered by the bureaucratic conven- primary stewardship committee to: tions and engagement tactics of the agencies charged The question of social cohesion is furthermore one with implementing change. Civil service’s consensus and 1. inform community awareness on the implemen- embedded in concepts of carrying capacity and notions agreement and commitment to stewarding a community’s tation of state and federal agencies in the of especially available human and social capacity28 vision are essential. cleanup; as well as and the resiliency principle of self-regulation by such 32 33 Case Study #4: Dutch Kills Green (Queens, New York City) Dutch Kills Green Landscape Performance Benefits50 Transformative Green Urban Re-Design. ENVIRONMENTAL • Prevents over 20.2 million gallons of stormwater from entering the city’s combined sewer system annually, avoiding a projected $3.4 million in future capital costs to upgrade stormwater infrastructure, such as constructing a larger combined sewer overflow tunnel. • Reduces irrigation needs by 786,500 gallons per year through a native and adapted plant palette, saving $3,500 in annual irrigation costs when compared to a standard lawn. Located at the busy intersection of Jackson and North- Lessons for Gowanus • Stores 4,698 lbs of carbon and sequesters 1,079 lbs of carbon per year in 174 new trees on-site and adjacent to the ern Boulevards, and Queen’s Plaza South in Queen’s, site. New York City and the on-ramps for cars and cyclists Important for its unprecedented inter-agency cooper- alike to the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge, the hub is ation46 and its use of novel performance metric and SOCIAL further encased overhead by the 7, N, W, E, M, and R calculation approaches from researchers at the Universi- Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) subway lines and ty of Oregon and design firm WRT35, Dutch Kills Green • Increased bicycle traffic by 12% since the project was completed in 2011 with an average of 3,416 cyclists using the bicycle path per day. On average 7% of these users stop to use either the green or median seating areas. the Long-Island Rail Road.47 represents a watershed pilot in New York City for the • Helped reduce pedestrian and cyclist fatalities. Thanks to safety improvements like new pedestrian countdown signals, use of “green” design to move beyond parks, solving 2011 marked the first year that no deaths were recorded along Queens Boulevard, infamously known for many years as Named for the tributary of Newtown Creek that drains urban design issues. The result is both as beautiful as it is the “Boulevard of Death.” This is down from a high of 18 pedestrian deaths in 1997. the adjacent Long Island City watershed into Newtown practical. • Reduces average ambient noise within the green by 23%. By removing two lanes of traffic that formerly bisected the Creek, the reconstruction of this former commuter park- space and adding lush vegetation, noise from traffic and the elevated rail lines decreased from a typical range of 85- ing lot resolved a long-standing traffic congestion and But where Dutch Kills Green yielded a 37% increase 101dB to 69-75dB. pedestrian and cyclist nightmare (Figure 24) in tandem in surrounding property market value, the plan did not • Attracts an average of 125 people per day in summer. Of these visitors, 92% engaged in recreational activities, 57% with neighborhood rezoning emphasizing office and detail any attempt to reconcile resulting displacement of which were also social activities. commercial district development and anchor offices for stresses. ECONOMIC airline carrier JetBlue’s headquarters.48 This experience runs counter to the displacement con- • Provides an estimated $20,000-$37,000 in net annual benefits to the City. This includes reduced energy consumption, With a footprint of 1.5 acres, Dutch Kills Green uses cerns emphasized the in Gowanus Vision “Survive and improvements to air quality, carbon storage, and increases in surrounding property value. wetlands, native plantings, artist-designed benches Thrive”, and follows the concerns espoused by Melissa • Increases property value of surrounding properties. Between 2006 and 2013 — a period when the real estate value in and paving and “[p]revents over 20.2 million gallons Checker in her provocative article “Wiped Out by the the six largest U.S. Metro markets (including NYC metro) grew by only 8% — the estimated market value of properties of stormwater from entering the city’s combined sewer Green Wave”45, where ‘greening’, seemingly altruistic surrounding Dutch Kills Green increased 37%. system annually, avoiding a projected $3.4 million in fu- and inarguable, dominates planning conversations. ture capital costs to upgrade stormwater infrastructure, such as constructing a larger combined sewer overflow Such domination of ‘green’ techniques under and tunnel.”48,49 thinly veiled economic interests, risks subverting an inclusive and participatory conversation and exacer- Completed in 2012 following a 2001 major rezoning bated conditions of especially racial inequity. Figure 24: Dutch Kills Green Before and After49 effort of the entire Queens Plaza neighborhood, the project included the transportation redesign in addition to GI and landscape architecture interventions at a cost of $45M; all designed to specifically harness landscape performance benefits of environmental, social, and economic nature48

[See Dutch Kills Green Landscape Performance Benefits].

Images: © Landscape Performance Series

34 35 11th Street Bridge Park Inclusive Development Objectives52 Case Study #5: 11th Street Bridge Park (Washington, D.C.) Inclusive Development

11th Street Bridge Park Lessons for Gowanus 11th Street Bridge Park will be D.C.’s first elevated park. Developed by D.C. Ward 8 non-profit Building The 11th Street Bridge Park Task Force has done a Bridges Across the River at THEARC (Figure 24)52, the great job. Not only in creating a robust equity and inclu- plan is to build not only a pedestrian thoroughfare, but sion-based policy platform for their project, but in very rather to provide innovative public space that provides slick public materials and savvy engagement processes venues for healthy recreation, environmental education, showcasing the importance of inclusion from the project and the arts through a process of inclusive development outset, they have nipped the project’s subversion to busi- – namely “development that provides opportunities for ness-as-usual commercial forces in the bud. Focusing on all residents regardless of income and demography”.53 the role of ‘credible messengers’28, self-determination, change from within, and local investment are drivers in this project, and their promotional media adheres close- Putting Inclusion First ly to this script. Instead of an uncomfortable footnote, the issue of displacement is central and explicit. Connecting prosperous D.C. neighborhoods to the west and low-income neighborhoods to the east long-since As Scott Kratz, Director of the 11th Street Bridge Park divided by the Anacostia River, Wards 6, 7, and 8 have Task Force notes: been segregated geographically, economically and racially from affluent Capitol Hill. The plan and plan- “Looking around the country we see signature parks ning process recognized from the outset that many of such as the 11th Street Bridge Park can do a lot of the communities touched by the eastern side of Bridge really wonderful things they can bring people togeth- Park have chronic challenges relating to low homeown- er, they can be a destination, but they can also have 52 ership, high poverty, high unemployment, and pockets of unintended consequences that can include raising Figure 24: Rendering 11th Street Bridge Park extreme child poverty.37 property value. That can be great but that means that it can potentially displace people.”53

Community-Led Process Where Gowanus visions have successfully articulated the importance of inclusivity in development, the 11th Starting in 2014, the Equitable Development Plan (EDP) Street Bridge experience emphasizes the potential of- comprised a two-year consultation process hosting fered through extending this groundwork into concerted hundreds of community meetings in D.C. Wards 6, campaigns and stakeholder coalition action that has had 7, and 8. The EDP was driven by a 9-member Task real power and political impact. Where the 11th Street Force and supplemented by more than 60 experts, Bridge Task Force has been successful in creating an city agency representatives, community councils, and equity-centric project, their mission does not end there. community organizations spread across focused priorities of workforce development, small businesses and Kratz concludes by observing, housing. Focused on physical design and identification of programming as well as strategies to ensure inclusive “If we’re successful, this can be a template for how development – especially to promote opportunities to other municipalities and other cities are thinking maintain affordable housing and promote long-time about investing in a community that actually can resident home ownership, the insights of the Task Force benefit the people that live and work there”53 and priority representatives cultivated feedback from public meetings to arrive at a vetted plan and strategies Similar tactics are worth investigating for Gowanus. toward realization

[See 11th Street Bridge Park Inclusive Development Objec- tivess].

Image © OMA + OLIN 36 37 Case Study #6: OLWP (Syracuse, New York) Community Benefit from Social and Civic Cohesion

Created in response to the designation of Syracuse, ation and habitat enhancement of Nine Mile Creek; be strapped, dedicating funds through the rezoning New York’s Lake Onondaga and surrounding watershed construction underway for the Lakeview Amphitheater; proceeds for such a position could be very effective in as an EPA Superfund Site, the Onondaga Lake Water- preliminary plans for a boat launch to improve rec- maintaining public involvement and maximizing out- shed Partnership (OLWP) is a stewardship, coordination, reation access; swimmable standards in the northern comes. and public advocacy committee tasked with maximizing two-thirds of the lake with the prospect of beach siting; benefits from the lake and surrounding environs’ clean- trail extensions to piece together a 7.5 mile stretch with While a Stewardship Committee for Gowanus will be up.56 the potential to complete the loop the lake circuit; and arguably stronger with funds in hand than OLWP; it others.58 will need to be to offset the heavy economic devel- Over 100 years of industrial chemical and municipal opment pressures of NYC active management and waste including heavy metals such as mercury have In addition to Superfund remediation activities, the participation in generations to come. discharged into lake Onondaga directly or via its 285 above actions are integrated with state and municipal square mile watershed (Figure 26).55 entities coordinating infrastructure improvements – water treatment plants, combined sewer overflow improve- The watershed coordinator of OLWP is under the ments but also with watershed management via public banner of the New England Interstate Water Pollution awareness campaigns.58 Control Commission (NEIWPCC), a non-profit interstate Figure 26: Map of Onondaga Lake Contaminated Sites55 agency founded in 1947 by an act of Congress.57 The Commission’s mission is to: Lessons for Gowanus

“serv[e] and assists our states by coordinating activi- While driven by a full-time Coordinator, the partner- ties and forums that encourage cooperation, devel- ship has otherwise a fluid composition with evolving oping resources that foster progress on water and participation of the public. “[O]pen to all watershed wastewater issues, representing the region in matters stakeholders”56 – stresses not only current participation of federal policy, training environmental profession- but active evolution of stakeholder groups over time and als, initiating scientific research projects, educating intergenerational stewardship. The importance of evo- the public, and providing overall leadership in water lution also takes form in their guiding Principles – which management and protection.”57 similarly update as appropriate over time56.

A subsidiary of the interstate NEIWPCC, the OLWP is Their emphasis on neutrality as an “information clearing- both stand-alone in its focus on the Onondaga Lake but house”56 keeps the public informed while their advocacy also part of the broader regional commission’s interests efforts have been instrumental in securing additional in water resource management. This relationship helps to state and federal funding; using the Superfund actions facilitate State, regional interstate, and federal partic- as seeds for complementary projects to leverage addi- ipation by bringing together policy makers and practi- tional funds. tioners, while creating a locally sensitive and targeted framework of engagement and water management solu- The success of their “clearinghouse” approach is a great tions specific to Onondaga Lake.58 example of how much can get done with a strong stewardship council, strong public participation, government Comprised of community leaders, agencies and mem- and agency collaboration and involvement. This ap- bers of the public, the OLWP has operated since the proach speaks clearly to the importance of negotiated late 1990s under the vision of then-Congressman Jim resilience51 and an emphasis in actively cultivating social Walsh, who characterized the project as capital to build resilience28.

“[a] project for the new millennium…in which we The example from the OLWP should help to inform an forge a partnership among all levels of government approach to constructing a Stewardship Committee for and all our popular institutions, and around which we Gowanus. In creating such collaborative relationships to rally as a community, we will accomplish something carry this structure and principles beyond the Superfund great…”54 and over to the rezoning work.

Thus far, the OLWP together with Superfund clean-up For example, where as a non-profit, FAC’s own avail- efforts has successfully helped to deliver: the remedi- ability of funding to support a full-time coordinator may 38 39 Foundations & Practice: Figure 27: Green Infrastructure Fund Models17 Figure 28: Tax Increment Financing, Image © PlanningTank.com Development and Funding

Strained by limited control over state-levied tax dollars environmental and social maladaptive spaces to avoid in a federalist system, New York City, like many local domination by economic interests. and municipal governments, are looking increasingly to leverage the support of the private sector and other And where the “averted losses”41 in resiliency design nontraditional privatized and “off-the-book” meth- relating to the built environment are hard enough to ods for infrastructure investments including speculative quantify under traditional business models, such social value-capture financing methods59. (See Case Study #7: and human costs are even more nebulous. Where com- Hudson Yards) plementary tools such as disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs)60 and Health Impact Assessments61 are gaining This environment emphasizes the role of private investor ground to highlight and make economically quantifiable and economics in driving development. As shown in the productivity losses through social health and emotional case of Dutch Kills Green (See Case Study #4: Dutch wellbeing, the predictive and resilient case for social Kills Green), even projects with a decidedly strong cohesion and environmental sustainability must still be Figure 29: Tax Increment Financing62 environmental focus express their outcomes in economic made and understood by stewards with capacity to un- terms as the prevailing indicator of success. derstand, interpret, and prioritize these important issues.

Against such a heavily-weighted economic context, the Where Fifth Avenue Committee and its coalition partners needs of communities that do not readily align with are not new to municipal politics and its machinations, developmental interests or are not expressly required and is keenly aware of the essential requirement of of developers fall frequently by the wayside. Prom- funding, this Capstone rides off the assumptions that ises made to support community visions of growth and funding for the community will be negotiated through a specific initiatives to buy support have historically low rezoning action. levels of oversight, transparency, accountability, or de- livery. Where city officials have recognized this chronic Such funds are critical to prop up and prioritize social problem11, there is no comparison for direct agency in and environmental conditions for sustainability and the accumulation of – or expenditure of – funds for the resilience, underprioritized for communities in the community. prevailing market.

Preliminary estimates show that private funds between $100M-$600M could be leveraged from rezoning to help seed a community fund18. Financial tools used proposed to levy this include: the issuance of tax-free ‘social impact’ bonds; Green Infrastructure Bonuses tied to the sale of FAR; Site-Specific zoning bonuses; and On-Bill Financing mechanisms for green infrastructure amongst others.57 (Figure 27).

More aggressively, TIF, a legislative tool to capture the value from the increased property value following up-zoning (Figure 28). has also been proposed in Bridg- ing Gowanus57 (Figure 29). “Shaping real estate development in a capitalist economy is no easy feat Whatever the funding source, the prevailing conditions of transformative change, the case for risk-management But our chance of seeing a future Gowanus based on the values we have techniques, and the merits of Pathways techniques sup- — sustainability, livability, inclusion — get better if we try to shape that port the use of a Gowanus Pathways Model. development ourselves, rather than just hope it doesn’t happen.” Indeed, the more aggressive the funding method – meaning, the more closely aligned the accumulation of funds with development pressures and the more –Brad Lander, dominant economic determinants over environmental or 63 social determinants – the stronger the case for Path- NYC District 39 Councilman ways approaches that identify and safeguard against 40 41 to other cities using TIF, enabling growth without: (1) the gap to keep track on project interest payments in Drawing directly on the city budget; (2) Further burden the interim. Case Study #7: Hudson Yards (Manhattan, New York City) to the city’s standard debt load; General Obligation debt; or (3) Raising taxes64. Especially given the state The report notes, however, that a little over a third of Value Capture Financing in NYC of the city’s already strained finances further grappling the way through the project timeframe (10 years out of with the toll of post-9/11 reconstruction and economic total project from 2006-2035) “revenues from develop- fall-out thereafter, Mayor Bloomberg and City Council ment in the Hudson Yards are picking up”.65 Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project Value Capture advocated that accounting for the West Side redevelopment on the city’s books would put its objectives in direct Final rezoning of the Yards proceeded in 2005 without The Hudson Yards project currently underway is the With the adoption of this plan, TIF was dropped as a competition with these other capital improvements and significant recognition of the community’s objections result of planning endeavors in the works since 2001 funding mechanism being insufficient to cover the pro- therefore would be unlikely to take off at all59. including: excessive density, no plan for affordable hous- where TIF, under NYC Mayor Rudi Giuliani, was original- posed $3B budget. Instead, “Payments in Lieu of Tax” ing, environmental concerns, condemnations of residenc- ly proposed to redevelop the valuable West Midtown (PILOT) and “Payments in Lieu of Sales Tax” (PILOST), Hudson Yards Infrastructure Corporation (HYIC) es and businesses, displacement pressure to existing Manhattan rail yard – an area stretching between West which, despite its subtle differences from TIF is the first residents, particularly NYCHA residents, preservation 27th - West 43rd Streets and between 8th and 11th use of a value capture approach to capital financing in 63 The financing plan for the entire project covers invest- and landmarking, and significant concern over tremen- Avenues – and launch New York City’s 2012 Olympic NYC . These methods are used in compliment to common ments made between 2005-2011 and repayment dous exposure to the City’s finances. Bid with stadium investments59. funding sources such as sale of Transferable Develop- 64 through financing from 2005-2035. HYIC’s responsi- ment Rights (TDRs) and FAR bonuses . bilities include the investment plan development and With revenue generation and debt repayment priori- After many failed iterations, the stadium investments approval by its Board of Directors, bonds issuance and tized, these concerns remain today. were finally dropped. Today’s Hudson Yards project is a PILOTs and PILOST differ from TIF mechanisms in three sales through the investment phase, project administra- product of the Bloomberg Administration with a devel- important ways: (1) PILOT and PILOST properties are tion, PILOT/PILOST contract negotiations, and develop- Lessons for Gowanus opment scope to include investments for approximately so designated following negotiation of a PILOT agreement rights and funds management65. $3B (2003 dollars) including: (1) extension of the No. 7 ment with the property’s owners, not through sweeping NYC frequently prioritizes examples from within its own subway line ($1.5B provided for via subsidies to MTA), designation of an area. (2) PILOT and PILOST agree- The HYIC is a managed by a three-part team including experiences as templates. Being the only example of (2) construction of a platform over the Eastern Rail ments take the property off the city’s tax base and President (currently Angela Cavaluzzi), Vice President value-capture techniques in a major rezoning effort and Yards, and amenities including (3) the creation of a new recuperate the entire share of payments – not only the and Counsel, and Fiscal Manager and Treasurer and is especially to support transit assets – the Hudson Yards is boulevard and park land, (4) a “culture shed” to host incremental increase in development. And (3) PILOT and overseen by a panel of 13 Board of Directors serving a cautionary example of business-as-usual development events such as New York Fashion Week, and (5) a public PILOST agreements do not rise with changes in property 63 on an ex-officio basis, none of whom act in the capacity in New York City under the additional burden of debt. school with 750 seats available for grades K-8 . The taxes. PILOT and PILOST agreements terminative at the of community member. [See HYIC Board of Directors]. Bonding out such large sums puts extraordinary pressure foregoing amid extensive 2005 rezoning of the district end of the project life and similarly to TIF, thereafter on returns and forces stewardship on the city’s economic and anticipated as-of-right commercial and residential the property resumes its full market rate contributions to Performance & Criticism elite rather than a community driven exercise. The result 62 (Figure 23) 64 development . property taxes . missed opportunities to champion inclusive, mixed, and In an updated May 2016 Report from the New York accessible outcomes. Further rationale cited for using PILOT/PILOST value City Independent Budget Office65, sequential lags in capture methods for the Hudson Yards are common projected revenues have been noted between 2006 and While Midtown West a very different neighbourhood 2016 citing the effects of the 2008-2009 recession and from Gowanus, New York City’s propensity for self-re- Figure 30: Hudson Yards Development67 generally slow start in development revenue ($845.5 flexive approaches to policy and projects will never- million actual vs. projection estimates between $986.6 theless invoke these experiences when city planning million -$1.3 billion). “Interest Support Payments”, effec- goes forward. tively subsidy payments from the City have been filling

HYIC Board of Directors66

1. The City's Deputy Mayor for Economic Development and Rebuilding (Board Chair) 2. The City's Deputy Mayor for Operations (A, G) 3. Chairperson, New York City Planning Commission 4. Commissioner, New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development 5. Commissioner, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation 6. Commissioner, New York City Department of Small Business Services (G) 7. Director, New York City Office of Management and Budget (A, G) 8. President, New York City Economic Development Corporation (A, G) 9. New York City Comptroller (A, G) 10. Speaker of the City Council (A, G) 11. City Councilmember for District 3 12. Manhattan Borough President (G) 13. Chair, Manhattan Community Board 4

G = Governance Committee, created October 2, 2006. A = Audit Committee, created October 2, 2006. © Tishman Speyer 42 43 Gowanus Visions

Gowanus has a strong history of self-determination and well-timed efforts to articulate its vision of the Community. Forged through coalition building, tough negotiation, and consensus-forging debate. Bridging Gowanus (2014)62, Survive and Thrive (March 2014)13 and the Urban Heat Island Technical Assistance Panel (UHI TAP) Report (April 2017)18, provide three key community-driven visions for a sustainable Gowanus, all with strong contributions by FAC.

Espousing a custom-built Gowanus future based on vibrant and mixed-use, inclusive growth and affordability, green design, resiliency, and community health principles, these visions articulate an eyes-wide-open approach to sustainability; exactly the progressive grass-roots political action and engagement that Melissa Checker relates as essential in combating environmental gentrification, in her article “Wiped Out by the Greenwave”30.

The capacity to create such visions in addition to their content lays important groundwork in terms of practice, engagement, and focus on outcomes.

3 Knowing the stresses from transformative change facing Gowanus, its background and context within New York City development, and the promise of potential Path- ways tools, it remains critical to understand where the Community sees its future.

Bridging Gowanus (2014) Survive and Thrive (March 2017) UHI TAP Report (April 2017)

In direct response to proposed rezoning action by the In March 2017, the Gowanus Neighborhood Coalition In the spring of 2017, FAC together with the Urban Land Evidenced by the MOS’ Urban Heat Island Working NYC Department of City Planning (DCP), Bridging for Justice (GNCJ) published its policy paper: “Survive Institute (ULI) hosted a Technical Assistance Panel (TAP) Group, and further detailed by the MORR $106 million Gowanus was launched by NYC District 39 Councilman and Thrive: Towards a Justice-Faced Gowanus Neigh- for Gowanus (Figure 33), focusing on the intersections Cool Neighborhoods NYC program69 launched in June Brad Lander.62 borhood” (Figure 32).13 between urban heat island (UHI) mitigation and the role 201770 which notes: of green-infrastructure.17,18 In coordination with other local elected officials and Convened by FAC the coalition has 18 coalition part- “Linking vulnerable and high-risk populations to strat- community groups, the process engaged hundreds of ners spanning residents associations, local and industrial The TAP convened 21 interdisciplinary experts including egies for green infrastructure and other nature-based local residents in-person and online from 2013-2015, development agencies, environmental stewards, artists landscape architects, transportation engineers, urban solutions is critical for increasing equity and address- with publication of its existing conditions and future groups, and religious institutions. [See GNCJ Member- designers, and developers for an intensive two-day blitz ing environmental justice in the city. vision recommendations in the draft report “Bridging ship] of site tours, stakeholder interviews, and closed profes- Gowanus” in 2014 (Figure 31).62 sional working sessions. Culminating their findings and Increasing the city’s street tree canopy will reduce the Designed to ride off the work of Bridging Gowanus and synthesis at the end of day-two, the panel presented UHI, relieve heat stress in residential neighborhoods, “Bridging Gowanus is a community planning process to specifically address the gaps in representation of their results to client FAC. help to improve air quality, and support the city’s bio- to shape a sustainable, livable, and inclusive future key underserved constituencies from that process, “most diversity by creating additional corridors of greenery for the Gowanus neighborhood – in the face of on- notably low- and moderate-income residents, the majority The TAP was tasked with examining the effects of urban that help connect between larger patches of vegeta- going change, the Superfund cleanup, and real estate of whom are Latin and African American”13, the report heat on its vulnerable populations, and potential design tion, giving local species access to a greater amount pressure.”62 advances five specific principles for the forthcoming -re interventions to address the same. The TAP was further- of habitat.”70 zoning to target inclusivity and limit displacement of the more asked to provide such recommendations specifi- Today, the report is explicitly acknowledged on the neighborhood’s most economically and socially vulnera- cally in the context of the anticipated rezoning effort The panel was convened by ULI together with FAC to DCP Rezoning “PLACES” website59 and related on-line ble residents, namely: and opportunities to dovetail such findings – including deliberately consider the current state of Gowanus’ engagement platform “PLAN GOWANUS”68 as an au- opportunities for financing – in FAC’s advocacy for the unforgiving hardscape and history of inequity. thoritative account of the community’s shared goals and 1. Advance racial and economic justice action. priorities for the area’s future development. 2. Create real affordable housing and protect ten- Under the future lens of environmental cleanup, rezoning ants from displacement This panel evidences a shift in thinking around GI, changes, and climate change, the panel’s recommenda- Importantly, Bridging Gowanus emphasizes a vibrant, 3. Promote environmental justice climate change, and health. Where GI has been tasked tions support discrete technical design, social, health, mixed-use, and sustainable future vision for the neigh- 4. Protect local businesses where we work and shop previously with water management, GI is increasingly and economic tools and tactics to empower FAC in their bourhood. It further recommends specific strategies, 5. Uplift the culture and community of long-time understood as an important tool for UHI mitigation under forthcoming advocacy for the rezoning and response. such as the use of financial tools through a rezoning-ac- residents13 current temperatures, as an adaptive tool for resilience tion such as TIF to achieve many of the community’s de- against the exacerbating effects of climate change, and sired expenditures such as GI, renewable energy assets, an important tactic within the city’s environmental justice and myriad public amenities.62 strategy.

Gowanus Neighborhood Coalition for Justice Figure 31: Bridging Gowanus (2014)62 Figure 32: Survive and Thrive, GNCJ (2017)13 Figure 33: Urban Heat Island TAP Report, ULI (2017)18 (GNCJ, List in Formation)13 • Fifth Avenue Committee (FAC), • Families United for Racial and Economic Equality (FUREE), • Gowanus Houses Resident Association, • Gowanus Houses Arts Collective, • Wyckoff Gardens Resident Association, • Wyckoff Gardens Resident Watch, • Warren Street Houses Residents Association, • RAICES Spanish Speaking Elderly Council, • VOCAL NY, • Christian Help in Park Slope (CHiPS), • St Lydia’s Church, • TRELLIS, • Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary & St. Stephen Roman Catholic Church, • Southwest Brooklyn • Industrial Development Corporation (SBIDC), • Gowanus Alliance, Gowanus Canal Conservancy (GCC), • South Brooklyn Local Development Corporation (SBLDC), • Forth on Fourth (FOFA) a Committee of the Park Slope Civic Council.

46 47 RISK MANAGEMENT

TRANSFORMATIVE Gowanus Pathways

STEWARD Given the impacts of major environmental cleanup (Superfund, LTCP) and climate change, the Gowanus community is beset by circumstances of transformative change and deep uncertainty. Entering further into a transformative rezoning of the neighborhood, it is of critical importance that any funds leveraged for the community through these actions be spent effectively to ADAPTIVE steward the Community’s self-determined Visions and resilience to uphold them.

How then can Fifth Avenue Committee recognize the conditions of deep uncertainty and using iterative, adaptive methods har- TRANSPARENT ness the rezoning action into a tool of resilience? How can Fifth Avenue Committee, its fellow coalition members, and concerned members of the community, engage in and steward its progres- 4 sive visions? “A rezoning is a land-use action, not a plan… DEEP UNCERTAINTY What we need is a plan” – Ron Shiffmann, FLEXIBLE Professor Emeritus Pratt Institute RESILIENT

48 49 Gowanus Pathways Gowanus Pathways

With the rezoning action as a tool to generate funds for the community, this Capstone recommends a Framework As with the experience of London’s Thames River (Case Under frames of global, federal, state, and municipal Gowanus Pathways Stewardship Committee: to guide the expenditure of those proceeds using the Study #2: Thames River, TE2100 Plan) and the Neth- magnitude, 5) Economic Conditions and 6) Politics each latest findings in Adaptation Pathways (Pathways) meth- erlands Rhine Delta (Case Study #3: Rhine Delta), the play major roles in the specific actions and prevailing • Full-time Pathways Stewardship Coordinator, sup- odology35,36,38 on behalf of the Gowanus Community in following sketch for a Pathways Model for Gowanus conditions that will influence the foregoing drivers. port staff stewardship of its stated visions. is specifically designed to reconcile risk management, • Board of Directors: sound fiscal management, stewardship of visions, and o Executive Director, Fifth Avenue Committee (Chair) Novel in its application to a community-scale rezoning, participatory decision-making processes - and to respect 2) Build Stewardship Committee o GNCJ and Gowanus Canal CAG (the two lists to to a funding mechanism, and in New York City with the context for New York City and Gowanus. overlap, not in duplicate) rigor, Pathways models have been recommended for Over the course of the next 18 months, Superfund clean- o NYC District 49 Council-member “mechanisms for funding”38 and “supporting self orga- Applying Rodin’s five characteristics of resilience24: up efforts, LTCP investments and rezoning are kicking o Members of the Gowanus Community public at nization and social networks so communities can exploit off. Concurrently, FAC, together with its community large members – recommend annual rotations from extreme events as triggers of transformational change.” • awareness, partners, will be following each and deeply engaged different socio-economic strata, sectors, 38 • diversity, in negotiating the terms of community proceeds to fuel • integration, their stated Visions of the future. • Standing Technical Assistance Council – e.g. ULI Where the actions in municipal projects are owned by • self-regulation, and TAP Panel experts + Pratt Center for Community various agencies, the results are owned by the com- • adaption; As soon as funds are confirmed, FAC should found a Development munity. Tools in the hands of the recipient that enable Pathways Stewardship Committee and publicly confirm constructive and flexible adaptation and that embrace we see Pathways as a strong tool to support community its responsibilities and approach. • Agency Partners - NYC’s Mayor’s Office of Recov- the limitations of deep uncertainty are essential for resilience in Gowanus, using the community funds gener- ery & Resiliency, Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, effective stewardship. ated from rezoning. Where prior pathways models have had stewardship Mayor’s Office of Environmental Remediation, De- committees, they have taken a less emphatic approach partment of Environmental Protection, Department In applying the principles of Adaptation Pathways, using Specifically, Pathways can be used to support social to resiliency precondition social cohesion. Given New of Parks & Recreation, Department of Transpor- case studies, and best practice review to expand its and environmental sustainability for Gowanus, York City’s default approach to land-use actions and tation, NYC Emergency Management, and NYC limited application for urban policy management, the whose priority consistently yields to New York City’s Gowanus’ already deepening socio-economic divide, this Housing Authority. recommendations that follow for a Gowanus Pathways development-heavy climate. element for Gowanus is paramount. It must be expand- framework will seek to: ed from prior Pathways models (See Case Study #2: Together, the Stewardship Committee, with its Technical The following steps 1–5 detail the methodology that Thames Estuary, TE2100 Plan and Case Study #3: Assistance Counsel and Agency Partners, the latter two • Manage risk and deep uncertainty by promoting a FAC can start now and over the coming months for the Rhine Delta) to reflect the importance of social cohe- acting in advisory capacity, will share the responsibilities transparent, and adaptive framework for expendi- construction of a Gowanus Pathways Framework, em- Self-Regulation Integration, Diversity, sion in an urban, mixed-use neighborhood setting per of holding public meetings and charettes at its outset to tures; phasizing each step’s contribution to a resilient Gowanus. Bridging Gowanus and particularly given FAC’s and the publicize the Pathways approach and open community GNCJ’s stated concerns in Survive and Thrive. membership to Stewardship Committee. • Steward goals set out in the community visioning documents: Bridging Gowanus, Survive & Thrive, 1) Recognize Inputs, Sources of Uncertainty, Risk and Awareness Confirmation through public engagement will determine The group will then be charged with developing the and UHI TAP reports by forming a multi-disciplinary Transformative Change Committee responsibilities, structure, and authority to Gowanus Pathways plan, negotiating and taking de- Stewardship Committee with combined Community, spend funds negotiated on behalf of the community. cisions at each of the Plan’s inflection points, and the technical experts, and policymaker voices; As the groundwork for the Gowanus Pathways mod- This confirmation will comprise the basis for the Stew- related administration of funding. el and rationale for its use, awareness of the myriad ardship Committee’s bylaws and will gear it up to start

• Enshrine the agency of client, Fifth Avenue Com- sources of uncertainty, risk and transformative change work as soon as the rezoning action is complete and Self-Regulation Adaptation, Integration, mittee, and its affiliated coalition members, in the affecting change in the neighborhood are the necessary funds start to accrue. 3) Build a Plan Stewardship Committee that drives the Pathways starting point to build a Gowanus Pathways Framework process; and for resilience. Driving off the examples of Case Study #5: 11th Building the Gowanus Pathways Framework will require Bridge Park in Washington D.C. and the Case Study #6: sound technical, social, and economic mastery of urban • Harness the outputs and maximize co-benefits for As detailed under the Background section of this Cap- OLWP in Syracuse, NY, the centrality of social equity conditions and available and future technologies. Analy- the community’s sustainability and resiliency in a stone project acute transformative change is coming to and the environment is informed by having those voices sis of the problem, creation of a model, and its popula- period of transformative change for the neighbor- Gowanus from 1) Superfund legacy industrial environ- at the table from the get-go. As such, the following Com- tion with individual strategies, their respective longevity hood. mental remediation; 2) State and municipal environmen- mittee membership structure is a first recommendation, and limitations, and their interconnectedness with other tal action to address storm and wastewater treatment with refinements expected by FAC and its community strategies requires strong modeling skills. The results are Understanding the multitude of actions and actors cur- issues under the LTCP; and from 3) Rezoning. allies based on their experience, committment to commu- both deeply elegant in their clarity and sophisticated in rently at work in Gowanus, the conditions of transforma- nity issues and justice, and an effort to avoid duplication their complexity. tive change, deep uncertainty, the pressures of Devel- Far less acute but deeply chronic are the stresses of 4) with other environmental (e.g. GCC’s Gowanus Lowlands opment in NYC, and the essential role of collaborative Climate Change, with effects of sea level rise, increased Projects) and social justice initiatives in Gowanus to community and policymaker stewardship, the case for a frequency and severity of storms bringing cloudburst avoid duplicity and to insert their actiions, energies, and Pathways policy framework for a resilient Gowanus is and inland flooding impacts, and urban heat island procoess as fully as possible into the Gowanus Pathways For Gowanus, the first step will be to confirm the com- clear. particularly at issue for Gowanus. Framework. munity’s stated Visions and any further goals – and

50 51 Gowanus Pathways to translate this quantitatively into areas of positive interactions. (Figure 34) Figure 35: Building Pathways: Scenarios, Strategies, and Linkages adaptation and areas of negative adaptation (malad- aptation), and tolerances in between high and low-risk Third - to aid with the identification of high/medium/ scenarios. and low scenarios and strategies to populate the Frame- work, inspiration could be readily taken either EcoDis- The second step will be to determine the axis for the tricts® indicators (See Section 5: Determinants and framework’s development. While sustainability is triple Spinoffs), or those from the Rockefeller Foundation’s bottom line – social, environmental, and economic –the Resiliency City Framework73, or other robust resiliency subservience of social and environmental to economic models. Using these strategies, building the model will considerations in New York City’s development climate include: drawing out scenarios, strategy length and (See Case Study #4: Dutch Kills Green, and Case effective duration; building linked actions to form Path- Study #7 Hudson Yards) recommend a biaxial frame- ways; and mapping them to build the model and place work to emphasize and support social and environ- their outcomes in either adaptive or maladaptive spaces mental considerations. Where sustainability ultimately (Figure 35). involves harmonization of social, environmental, and economic factors, this two-dimensional approach – with Both building the Pathways plan and on-going assess- social and environmental outcomes balanced at the ment and monitoring will likely require the engage- center, effectively presumes that the “third axis” of ment of one or more consulting firms and access to economic viability will be driven by the rezoning and proprietary data sets. Where the effectiveness of the land-use outcomes and that reconciling these interests approach is founded upon (1) a robust model popu- in the prevailing market context can be achieved by lated by technically sound strategies, and (2) accurate, harnessing economic drivers to feed the Community’s real-time assessments for evaluation by the Stewardship environmental and social priorities. Stated otherwise: the Committee, the consulting support for the approach proceeds from the rezoning can be used to augment the should be prioritized for early and sustained funding in community’s social and environmental needs and in this the approach. way drive sustainability. 4) Link Framework to Funding While not explored further in this paper, an alterna- tive 3D-dimentsional pathways model is conceivable to Where the Pathways model relies on strategy inflection make the focus triaxially explicit. Not yet seen in the points to trigger decisions by the Stewardship Commit- literature, such an approach could be compelling to tee, such “decisions” are in regards to policy assessment demonstrate full sustainability and the negotiations and and direction, but they are ultimately about the adap- tradeoffs between each of its guiding tenets: econom- tive deployment of funds to support social and environ- ic, social, and environmental. Such advanced models mental resilience. could be invaluable to support Circular Economy71 or Eco-Industrial Park72 ideals where the economic model As such, the Pathways technical Framework should be was predicated on integrated social and environmental linked to the funding model determined from the rezon-

Figure 34: Determining the Framework Axes and Adaptive Space

52 53 Gowanus Pathways

ing negotiations to vet its direct financial feasibility and/ results in directions that satisfy the neighborhoods Figure 36: Gowanus Pathways Framework © Adrienne Downey or requirements for additional fundraising and commit- self-determined visions of “sustainability”. The busi- ments from municipal or state partners amongst others. ness plan and investment strategy will be adaptive, Where the Rhine Delta example ran scenarios to eval- following the path. uate governance models on policy direction, Gowanus should similarly run “scenarios” to assess and negotiate The duration of the Pathway will follow the availabili- sequencing that matches the different subjectivity of ty of funds and the funding model ultimately decided outcomes from the rezoning and from climate change im- through the rezoning negotiation. Whether, for example pacts especially – exploring for example, high and low a community benefit agreement, zoning bonuses, or tax equity and inclusion in land-use, environmental outcomes, increment financing models, each format will excise its and availability of funds, etc. own horizon and time frames - likely stretching between the next 10-20 years following completion of the City’s For example, in the case where a rezoning yield sig- rezoning action. nificant housing under Mayor de Blasio’s Mandatory Exclusionary Housing (MIH) program, but limited “deep In the case where funds are seeded for regenerative affordability”, then housing provision or subsidy may be purposes - for example, with investments in revenue

Adaptation, Self-Regulation a priority to support via funding. Alternatively, if large generating assets such as community solar projects, the quantities of greenspace are provided through new de- Pathways model can be extended indefinitely. velopments, but all of them private, then the funds may be well used to support public greening. Should funds dry up, a community can ultimately choose to adapt the tool to less capital intensive decisions such Further examples abound: the “Paths of Respite” model as policy endeavors; or use it as a proof-of-concept offered by the UHI TAP; helping local homeowners to framework to secure additional public or private funds - access Green Infrastructure Grant funding; supporting for example, from grants. pedestrian thoroughfares; oyster beds for water filtra- tion; NYCHA mold remediation and housing repair sup- Where Pathways models rely on real-time and contin- port; community-owned renewable energy investments; uous assessment of existing conditions, monitoring and and on and on. The many tactics that are congruent with assessment is essential to sound execution. the Gowanus Visions and the activities of its many dedi- cated Stewards can all be considered in this approach. Walking a Pathway does not insulate its Stewards from outside influence; progress and the model itself must be As a tool to deploy funds acquired through rezoning in regularly updated and vetted to ensure that definitions an adaptive, resilient manner, the link to funding – either of adaptive space used - or the longevity of strategies in direct actions – or via adaptive payment schedules - and their performance - must be vetted and negotiated. is what will make this tool effective and self-regulating for Gowanus. Furthermore, changes in technology - either cost or design - can and should be regularly reviewed and 5) Follow the Path strategies updated accordingly to ensure the Community and its strategy is continually benefiting from the best Once built, following the Pathways Framework requires solutions. only the starting point - where is Gowanus today versus the ideal definition of sustainability? To this end, the importance of dedicating funds for assessment and monitoring support at the outset and du- Thereafter, the implementation process will deploy the ration of the project cannot be underestimated to ensure tools built (Figure 36): well-informed and timely decisions are made. Self-regulation, Adaptation • the Stewardship Committee’s involvement to monitor Far from a weakness in the strategy, this perpetual and track outcomes, publicize, and engage the emphasis on evaluation and performance keeps its

Awareness, Diversity, Integration, Integration, Diversity, Awareness, public to the tool’s progress and commitments on its Stewards attuned to success and the Community’s behalf; assurance that funds are well-spent on their behalf.

• spending the funds from the rezoning, the Commit- tee will continue to assess current conditions and spur corrective response with funding actions at critical “triggers” or inflection points that will nudge

54 55 Determinants & Spin-offs

Beyond the Gowanus Pathways Framework recommended in this capstone project, several tools have been proposed in the preparation of Gowanus’ Visions to either inform or complement the outcomes of the current rezoning effort.

Two particularly are of note - the first a determinant that will heavily inform the outcomes of the Gowanus rezoning: Tax Increment Financing (Bridging Gowanus); the second a spin-off that will seek to shepherd outcomes: accreditation under the EcoDistricts® framework (UHI TAP).

This section looks briefly at each and rather than recommending the Pathways framework over and above these other models, it emphasizes their potential 5 compatibility to ensure resilient outcomes.

View over 365 Bond St. apartments, a new development from Lightstone. Photo © Associated Press 56 57 Determinants & Spinoffs

Tax-Increment Financing (TIF) Whereas the exact format of the Redevelopment Plan EcoDistricts® their funding in accordance with sustainable urbanism are not legally prescribed, using the Gowanus Pathways and design principles. Bridging Gowanus62 specifically refers to the use of TIF Framework as the basis for a TIF Redevelopment Plan Increasingly popular in New York City and amongst ma- as a funds generator whose proceeds could be used to presents an important opportunity to moderate the jor metropolis’ across the US is the opportunity present- Fifth Avenue Committee is currently considering the use pay for services and amenities for the community consis- concerns detailed above, folding the entire Pathways ed through EcoDistricts®.75 of EcoDistrict® as framework to complement their visions tent with its vision for the Gowanus Community. Framework into this Plan. The Community could then of sustainability and inclusivity. lobby for definitions of maladaptive spaces consistent A combined technical assistance and certification body TIF is a form of municipal economic development tool with their visions and identify important tipping points in (similar in principle to LEED for neighborhoods) and with But EcoDistrict® frameworks do not preclude the use of common across North America and legislatively upheld strategies that will ensure timely and appropriate ex- common reporting milestones the EcoDistricts® model Pathways models to steward funding in Gowanus. Rather, on New York State’s books since 1984 (New York Gen- penditures that will prioritize Gowanus-based definitions requires commitment to EcoDistricts® sustainability im- the Gowanus Pathways Model, folded into the Forma- eral Municipal Law, Article 18-C, Municipal Redevelop- of sustainable outcomes consistent with the Community peratives; formation of a leadership model and capac- tion (Pathways Stewardship Committee) and Roadmap ment Law § 970-a-r).75 Visions. ity to drive the process; development of a road-map to (Pathways Framework) steps of the EcoDistrict® proto- set goals and assess baseline performance and targets; col (Figure 37), brings important systems-based rigor, Defined as a tool to eliminate “blight,” subject to the And in maintaining monitoring and assessment and a and performance reporting76. risk-management and transparency to populate these constraint that a municipality can only engage in re- responsive approach to changing inputs, the Redevelop- steps in a way that matches deep uncertainty. Rather development that “cannot be accomplished by private ment Plan under TIF becomes a tool for resilience. While the Formation, Roadmap and Performance re- than one or the other, the combined use of Pathways and enterprise alone” (§970-b). Against a baseline of quirements under the EcoDistricts® model parallel those an EcoDistricts® would present important opportunities taxation, TIF permits a municipality to bond out and in- Furthermore, per the terms of §970-l, the option for of the Pathways Framework in principle, the mechanism for mutual support and enhancement. vest capital, up-front, commensurate with the cumulative Trusteeship of the TIF process may offer opportunities to is markedly different. Where Pathways models express- incremental property value appreciation. This incremen- legislatively enshrine FAC and the Stewardship Commit- ly reconcile risk-management through iterative ap- Additionally, as described earlier in the Pathways tal tax-base of the designated TIF district is harnessed tee as Trustees of the Plan. proaches and constant reassessment in decision-making, Framework recommendations, EcoDistricts® sample over a prescribed period of time, diverted off of the EcoDistricts® alone do not exude such refined sensitivity “indicators” can be adapted to meet Gowanus priorities city’s books and budgetary processes, and put to use in Thus, where TIF will prompt acceleration of the busi- to risk as an evolving force nor the intricacies of com- to help (1) discern maladaptive spaces, and (2) provide the TIF district. As the district “improves”, property tax ness case of the proposed Pathways Framework, and plex systems which require evaluation of system outputs the basis for specific actions and strategy development revenues rise and the debt is steadily retired.59 will involve stronger committee participation from city rather than inputs. within the Pathways Framework whose achievement is budgetary offices and economic development offices in further the basis for inflection points over time and deci- A speculative form of investment, proponents argue that lieu of community-driven approaches, should TIF be the While in itself a funding source, EcoDistricts® use sexy sive actions and spending. the investments jump-start neighborhood growth with the proposed model for Gowanus, inclusion of the Gowanus marketing and recognizable accountability frameworks net results that they effectively “pay for themselves”. Pathways Framework (Redevelopment Plan, §970-f) and to act as a crucible for public private partnerships and Amongst other claims, opponents cite dastardly parallels Pathways Stewardship Committee (Trusteeship, §970-l) to “urban renewal” in abuse of the term “blight”; starkly as described in this report are important considerations aggressive development plans to ensure payments are to ensure the social and environmental interests of the met; and limited accountability and transparency of Gowanus Community are served; such foregoing rec- Figure 37: EcoDistricts® Framework Overview76 tax-payers dollars as they are diverted off city books ommendations to be duly vetted by appropriate legal and into the TIF program. counsel.

Where both sides make heated cases, this report will not weigh-in on the debate. Rather, in acknowledging TIF as a tool that the community has suggested to generate funds toward its vision, and in recognizing especially:

1. that acceleration of development is a common concern under TIF; and 2. the need for transparency and accountability for tax-payer dollars;59 the use of TIF warrants close assessment and careful planning.

Per the terms of §970-f, use of TIF in New York must be accompanied by the preparation and approval of a Redevelopment Plan, with approvals issued by city officials and school boards, and only supplemented by public comment.

58 59 Conclusion

“The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and the way people think.

– Gregory Bateson, 6 Anthropologist, Systems Theorist, Ecologist.77

60 61 Conclusion

Today’s Gowanus is beloved of its residents yet plagued by uncertainty.

Embarking on an era of long-overdue environmental transformation, the magnitude of the cleanup and its socio-economic impact cannot be underestimated. Coupled with equally transformative city-led rezoning efforts whose goals trade densification and development for affordable housing at the risk of upsetting a delicate mixed-use character and deeply affordable assets. The foregoing compounded by the uncertain impacts of climate change.

Where Pathways models represent the cutting edge of resilience planning, its use for Gowanus offers an opportunity for transparent negotiation of the available strategies and tradeoffs which will invariably be made – not only in the timeframe of rezoning and cleanup – but especially for the decades in its wake.

Novel in its application to a community-scale rezoning, to a funding mechanism, and in New York City “At the heart of resilience thinking is a very simple notion – things change with rigor, Pathways Models have been recommended for “mechanisms for funding”23 and “supporting – and to ignore or resist this change is to increase our vulnerability and self organization and social networks so communities can exploit extreme events as triggers of transformational change.” 23 forego emerging opportunities. In so doing, we limit our options.” A Pathways Framework for Gowanus is consistent with the neighborhoods’ approach to-date of self-determination and dialogue. Using a Pathways Framework will complement this approach and seek to empower its residents and stewards to work together to apply the funds from rezoning actions – Brian Walker and David Salt78 into a transparent and sustainable framework that expands “Adaptive Management” practice into robust, actionable, resilient practice.

Without limiting specific sources of funding, or combination with other emerging resilience tools such as EcoDistricts®, the use of a Pathways framework allows alignment of FAC’s policy objectives in a way that embraces the systems reality of connectivity of issues and deep uncertainty in outcomes amidst the many forces of change impacting Gowanus.

By following change closely and applying funds and strategies in a strategic, incremental manner that is adaptive to change, Gowanus can “nudge” a straying pathway back in line to support the neighborhood’s progressive and sustainable ideals in balancing environmental, social, and economic interests and uphold them under stress.

Deep uncertainty need not be tantamount to deep anxiety. By inserting FAC’s stewardship and agency, together with its Stewardship Committee partners through a period of transformative change, a Pathways Framework for Gowanus presents an opportunity to embrace uncertainty and change and use it as the basis for building social, environmental, and economic resilience for the Community.

62 63 Sources Sources

1. Jacobs, Jane. The Economy of Cities. Vintage Books, 1970.s 49. Dutch Kills Green: Landscape Performance Benefits. Landscape Performance Series. Landscape Architecture Foundation. 2. Fifth Avenue Committee. http://www.fifthave.org 50. Thoren, Roxi et al. Dutch Kills Green, Queens, NY: Methodology for Landscape Performance Benefits. University of Oregon and WRT Design, 3. Michelle de la Uz, Commissioner. Department of City Planning, New York City. September 2013. https://landscapeperformance.org/sites/default/files/Dutch%20Kills%20Green%20Methodology.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/about/commission/delauz-bio.page 51. Harris, Leila et al. Negotiated resilience. Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses. 2017. 4. Petro, Christine. Green Infrastructure & Education. Gowanus Canal Conservancy, June 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/21693293.2017.1353196 5. American Community Survey (ACS), 2010 52. 11th Street Bridge Park: Equitable Development Plan. Building Bridges Across the River at THEARC, November 2015. 6. Superfund Site: Gowanus Canal, Brooklyn, New York. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://bridgepark.org/sites/default/files/Resources/EDP%20Final%20-%20UPDATED.pdf https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0206222 53. 11th Street Bridge Park: Equitable Development Task Force. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=184&v=a-MCsBehWjA 7. Water Quality Assessment Map. NYS Section 305(b) Water Quality Report. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 54. Clinkhammer, Aimee. Caring for Onondaga Lake watershed is a project for the millennium (Commentary). Syracuse.com, July 20, 2015. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/305basmtmap10.pdf http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/caring_for_onondaga_lake_is_a_project_for_the_millennium_commentary.html 8. Korin Tangtrakul and Josh Eichen. Open Sewer Atlas NYC. http://openseweratlas.tumblr.com/ 55. Superfund Site Profile: Onondaga Lake, Syracuse, New York. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 9. New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation August 2010. https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=0203382#bkground http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/swdm2010entire.pdf 56. Onondaga Lake Watershed Partnership. http://www.olwp.org/about1.html 10. One New York: the Plan for A Strong and Just City (OneNYC). New York City Office of the Mayor, April 2015. 57. New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. http://neiwpcc.org/ http://www.nyc.gov/html/onenyc/downloads/pdf/publications/OneNYC.pdf 58. Watershed Coordinator Report. Onondaga Lake Watershed Partnership, December 2014. 11. Mayor Bill de Blasio Signs Legislation to Create a Neighborhood Commitment Tracker. December 22, 2016. http://www.olwp.org/uploads/2/5/4/0/25403925/olwp_wateshed_report_2014.pdf http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/972-16/mayor-bill-de-blasio-signs-legislation-create-neighborhood-commitment-tracker 59. Fisher, Bridget. The Myth of Self-Financing: The Trade-Offs Behind the Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project. Schwartz Center for Economic Policy 12. Albrecht, Leslie. TEDx Conference to Showcase ‘Gowanus-Inspired’ Ideas. DNAInfo.com, December 9, 2013. Analysis (SCEPA), The New School for Social Research. July 2015. http://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/images/Bridget_Fisher_WP_2015-4_final.pdf. https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20131209/gowanus/tedx-conference-showcase-gowanus-inspired-ideas 60. Bloom, Barry R. Public Health in Transition. Scientific American, September 2005. pp. 92-99. 13. Survive and Thrive: Towards a Justice-Focused Gowanus Neighborhood. Gowanus Neighborhood Coalition for Justice, March 2017. 61. Kemm, John. Health Impact Assessment: a tool for Healthy Public Policy. Health Promotion International, Volume 16, Issue 1, 1 March 2001, Pages 79–85, https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3522582/Survive-and-Thrive-FINAL22mar17.pdf https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/16.1.79 14. PLACES: Gowanus Neighborhood Planning Study. New York City Department of City Planning. 62. Bridging Gowanus: Draft Framework Plan. Pratt Center for Community Development. November 2014. http://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/gowanus/gowanus.page http://report.bridginggowanus.org//wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Bridging-Gowanus-Draft-Planning-Framework-for-DCP-all-chapters_v2.pdf 15. Current & Future Trends in Extreme Rainfall Across New York State. New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, Environmental Protection 63. Kimmelmann, Michael. In Gowanus, a People’s Housing Plan to Challenge the Mayor’s. The New York Times. August 1, 2016. Bureau, September 2014. https://ag.ny.gov/pdfs/Extreme_Precipitation_Report%209%202%2014.pdf. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/arts/design/in-gowanus-a-peoples-housing-plan-to-challenge-the-mayors.html 16. NYCEDC And Mayor’s Office Of Recovery And Resiliency Announce Request For Proposals to Conduct Study Examining Coastal Protection Measures For 64. Hudson Yards Plans and Related Land Use (ULURP) Applications: Comments and Recommendations. Manhattan Community Board No. 4, August 2004. The Gowanus Canal And Newtown Creek. Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency (ORR) and New York City Economic Development Corporation http://www.nyc.gov/html/mancb4/downloads/pdf/agendas/2004_08/1_hy_ulurp_response_final.pdf (NYCEDC), June 03, 2014. https://www.nycedc.com/press-release/nycedc-and-mayors-office-recovery-and-resiliency-announce-request-proposals- 65. Devine, Theresa J. Learning from Experience: A Primer on Tax Increment Financing, New York City Independent Budget Office (IBO). September 2002. conduct-0 http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/TIF-Sept2002.pdf. 17. Gowanus Heat Island: ULI TAP Briefing Book. Fifth Avenue Committee, April 24 & 25, 2017 66. Hudson Yards Development Corporation: Board of Directors. Hudson Yards Development Corporation. http://www.hydc.org/html/board/board.shtml 18. Gowanus Urban Heat Island: Technical Assistance Panel. Urban Land Institute, April 2017. 67. Hudson Yards New York. Related Companies, http://www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com/about/building-hudson-yards/ 19. Meadows, Donella. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2008. 68. Plan Gowanus. New York City Department of City Planning. https://plangowanus.com 20. Capra, Fritjof. The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. Anchor Books, 1997. 69. Mayor Announces Program to Help Curb Effects of Extreme Summer Heat. New York City Office of the Mayor, June 14, 2017 21. Anderson, Phillip. More is Different. Science. Vol. 177. 1972. pp. 393-396 http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/411-17/mayor-program-help-curb-effects-extreme-summer-heat 22. Pollock, Kevin. Urban physics. Nature: Outlook, vol. 531, no. 7594, 17 March 2016, pp. s64-s66. 70. Cool Neighborhoods NYC: A Comprehensive Approach to Keep Communities Safe in Extreme Heat. New York City Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency, 23. Batty, Michael. An Experimental Model of Urban Dynamics. The Town Planning Review, vol. 43, no. 2, April 1972, pp. 166-186. June 2017. http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/orr/pdf/Cool_Neighborhoods_NYC_Report_FINAL.pdf 24. Rodin, Judith. The Resilience Dividend: Managing disruption, avoiding disaster, and growing stronger in an unpredictable world. 71. Stahel, Walter R. Circular economy: a new relationship with our goods and materials would save resources and energy and create local jobs. Nature, vol. 531, Profile Books, 2015. no. 7595, 2016, p. 435-438. https://www.nature.com/news/the-circular-economy-1.19594 25. The Society for Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty (DMDU). http://www.deepuncertainty.org/ 72. Gibbs, David and Pauline Deutz. Reflections on implementing industrial ecology through eco-industrial park development. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 15, 26. Global warming: Dwindling chances to stay below 2 degrees Celsius warming. Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO). no. 17, November 2007, pp. 1683-1695 ScienceDaily. September 21, 2014. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140921145005.htm 73. City Resilience Framework. The Rockefeller Foundation and Arup, December 2015. 27. Brundtland, GH, and World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission On Environment and https://assets.rockefellerfoundation.org/app/uploads/20140410162455/City-Resilience-Framework-2015.pdf Development. Oxford University, 1987. 74. General Municipal Law, Article 18-C, Municipal Redevelopment Law §970-A -§970-R. New York State Senate. 28. Stein, Jaime. Carrying Capacity As A Tool for Understanding Social Resilience: From Ecosystem to Community. November 9, 2017 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/GMU/A18-C. 29 The Five Capitals. The Forum for the Future. https://www.forumforthefuture.org/project/five-capitals/overview 75. Wells, Llewellyn, et al. Sustainability Districts for NYC: Building an Equitable and Resilient Future. Croxton Collaborative Architects, April 2016. 30. Yohe, Gary and Robin Leichenko. Adopting a Risk-Based Approach. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. May 2010 http://www.2030districts.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/160425_NYC%20Sustainability%20Districts%20Brochure_view.pdf 31. New York City’s Roadmap to 80 x 50. New York City Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. September 2016. 76. Ecodistricts Protocol: The Standard for Community Development. Version 1.2, October 2016. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/sustainability/downloads/pdf/publications/New%20York%20City’s%20Roadmap%20to%2080%20x%2050_Final.pdf https://ecodistricts.org/get-started/the-ecodistricts-protocol/get-the-protocol/ 32. Deadline 2020: How Cities Will Get the Job Done. C40 Cities and Arup. December 2015. http://www.c40.org/researches/deadline-2020 77. An Ecology of Mind. Directed by Nora Bateson. Bullfrog Films, 2010. 33. NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainable Strategy for Clean Waterways. New York City Department of Environmental Protection, September 2010. 78. Walker, B.H. and Salt. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. p.174, Island Press, 2006. Washington, D.C., U.S. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_LowRes.pdf 34. New Orleans & The Birth of Urban Resilience. The Rockefeller Foundation, 2015. https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/new-orleans-birth-urban-resilience/ 35. Mission Statement. New York City Department of Environmental Protection. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/about_dep/mission_statement.shtml 36. Haasnoot , Marjolijn, et al. Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world”. Global Environmental Change, vol. 23, 2013, pp 485-498 37. Reeder, Tim and Nicola Ranger. How do you adapt in an uncertain world? Lessons from the Thames Estuary 2100 project. World Resources Report: Decision Making in a Changing Climate, 2011. https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/uploads/wrr_reeder_and_ranger_uncertainty.pdf 38. Wise, R.M., et al. Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Global Environmental Change. January 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002 39. Rosenzweig C. et al. Climate Change Adaptation in New York City: Building a Risk Management Response. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2010 40. Thames Estuary 2100: Managing flood risk through London and the Thames estuary (TE2100 Plan). United Kingdom Environment Agency. November 2012. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322061/LIT7540_43858f.pdf 41. Thompson, Matt, et al. The Business Case for Adapting Buildings to Climate Change: Niche or Mainstream. Innovate UK, 2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/430507/Report_BusinessCaseForAdaptingBuildingstoClimateChange_ webfinal.pdf 42. Nijssen, Pim. The Dutch ‘Room for the River’ Program: A Modern Approach for Managing High Water Levels in the Netherlands. Sustainable Adaptive Gradients in the Coastal Environment. Webinar. October 18, 2017. http://www.resilient-infrastructure.org/presentations.html 43. Reich, Robert. Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few. Vintage Books, 2016 44. Hackworth, Jason. Postrecession Gentrification in New York City. Urban Affairs Review, vol. 37, no. 6, July 2002, pp. 815-840. 45. Checker, Melissa. Wiped Out by the ‘Greenwave’: Environmental Gentrification and the Paradoxical Politics of Urban Sustainability. City and Society, vol. 23, no. 2, 2011, pp. 210-229. 46. Brown, Hillary. Next Generation Infrastructure: Principles for Post-Industrial Public Works. Island Press, 2014. 47. Dutch Kills Green. New York City Economic Development Corporation. https://www.nycedc.com/transition/dutch-kills-green 48. Newman, Andy. Instead of a Parking Lot. New York Times. April 4, 2012. https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/what-is-green-near-a-water-course-and-dutch/?mcubz=1.

64 65 RISK MANAGEMENT TRANSFORMATIVE STEWARD ADAPTIVE TRANSPARENT DEEP UNCERTAINTY FLEXIBLE RESILIENT