Viewed the Thesis/Dissertation in Its Final Electronic Format and Certify That It Is an Accurate Copy of the Document Reviewed and Approved by the Committee

U UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Date: May 11, 2009

I, Sara Michelle Phillips , hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of:

Master of Community Planning in College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning

It is entitled: Sustainable Development: A Tool for Urban Revitalization

Sara Phillips Student Signature:

This work and its defense approved by: Carla Chifos, PhD, AICP Committee Chair: Michael Romanos, PhD, AICP Verle Hansen, PhD

Approval of the electronic document:

I have reviewed the Thesis/Dissertation in its final electronic format and certify that it is an accurate copy of the document reviewed and approved by the committee.

Committee Chair signature: Carla Chifos Sustainable Development: A Tool for Urban Revitalization

A thesis submitted to the

Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF COMMUNITY PLANNING

In the School of Planning

of the College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning

2009

Sara Phillips

B.P., Miami University, 2007

Thesis Committee: Carla Chifos, PhD, AICP, Chair

Michael Romanos, PhD, AICP, Member

Verle Hansen, PhD, Reader ABSTRACT

As urban residents throughout the United States moved to the suburbs in the mid twentieth century, many urban cities and their neighborhoods lost population, jobs and a sense of community as public services were reduced and the physical conditions of buildings deteriorated. Many scholars and practitioners claim that sustainable development can aid in revitalizing declining urban neighborhoods (Devuyst et al. 2001;

Chiras and Wann 2003; Crowe 2003; Been and Voicu 2006; Erickson 2006; Kemp 2006;

Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 2006; Wiland and Bell 2006). Sustainable development represents the coexistence between economic development and the environment as it promotes economic growth at minimal expense to the environment or to future generations. Sustainable communities are therefore introduced when deciding how a city or neighborhood should be planned to meet economic needs of the present without compromising future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). These communities recognize that they must offer an ecologically sound, economically viable and socially responsible environment for its residents. This thesis focuses on determining how sustainable development can serve as a tool for urban revitalization by exploring the projects that cities are currently implementing throughout the United States. It consists of a data set designed to analyze cases throughout the United States that have used different sustainable development techniques to revitalize their urban neighborhoods.

iii iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my committee, Dr. Carla Chifos, Dr. Michael Romanos, and Dr.

Verle Hansen for their guidance, patience and wisdom. I would also like to thank my friends and boyfriend who have provided a temporary escape from this challenging endeavor. Most importantly, I want to thank my family for their unconditional love and support, for without their guidance, I would not be where I am today.

v Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 The Problem ...... 2 Format of Document ...... 5 Chapter 2: Methodology ...... 7 Chapter 3: Literature Review ...... 10 Declining Urban Neighborhoods in the United States ...... 10 Sustainable Communities ...... 14 Importance of Knowledge ...... 22 Sustainability and Revitalization ...... 23 Chapter 4: Data ...... 34 Chapter 5: Analysis ...... 89 Links Within Data Categories ...... 89 Revitalization/ Environmental Goals ...... 90 Green Activities/ Initiatives ...... 95 Funding ...... 102 Key Players ...... 103 Links Between Data Categories ...... 105 Sustainable Development Analysis ...... 106 Revitalization Goals and Green Activities ...... 136 Revitalization Results and Green Activities ...... 154 Chapter 6: Conclusion ...... 170 Recommendations ...... 174 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 178 Appendix ...... 195 Comparative Matrix ...... 195 Case Studies ...... 195

vi Table of Figures

Figure 1. Sustainable Development Diagram ...... 17 Figure 2. Summary Table: Revitalization/ Environmental Goals ...... 92 Figure 3. Frequency of Revitalization/Environmental Goals Used ...... 95 Figure 4. Summary Table: Green Activities ...... 98 Figure 5. Frequency of Green Activities Used ...... 101 Figure 6. Summary Table: Funding Sources ...... 102 Figure 7. Summary Table: Key Players ...... 105 Figure 8. Summary Chart: Potential Value of Green Space ...... 111 Figure 9. Summary Chart: Potential Value of Community Gardens ...... 116 Figure 10. Summary Chart: Potential Value of Environmental Restoration ...... 117 Figure 11. Summary Chart: Potential Value of Brownfield Redevelopment/ Infill ...... 119 Figure 12. Summary Chart: Potential Value of Mixed-Use Development ...... 121 Figure 13. Summary Table: Potential Value of ‘Green’ Infrastructure ...... 123 Figure 14. Commercial LEED Projects by State ...... 124 Figure 15. Growth of Green Buildings in the United States ...... 125 Figure 16. Summary Chart: Potential Value of Green Buildings, Green Technology & Green Construction Practices ...... 127 Figure 17. Summary Table: Potential Value of Transportation ...... 129 Figure 18. Summary Table: Potential Value of Green Job Training and Creation ...... 130 Figure 19. Summary Chart: Potential Value of Pedestrian-Friendly Streets ...... 132 Figure 20. Summary Table: Potential Value of Eco-Industrial Parks ...... 135 Figure 21. Summary Table: Goal 1 and Green Activities ...... 137 Figure 22. Frequency of Green Activities Used to Achieve Goal 1 ...... 139 Figure 23. Summary Table: Goal 2 and Green Activities ...... 140 Figure 24. Frequency of Green Activities Use to Achieve Goal 2 ...... 141 Figure 25. Summary Table: Goal 3 and Green Activities ...... 142 Figure 26. Frequency of Green Activities Used to Achieve Goal 3 ...... 144 Figure 27. Summary Table: Goal 4 and Green Activities ...... 145 Figure 28. Frequency of Green Activities Used to Achieve Goal 4 ...... 146 Figure 29. Summary Table: Goal 5 and Green Activities ...... 147 Figure 30. Frequency of Green Activities Used to Achieve Goal 5 ...... 148 Figure 31. Summary Table: Goal 6 and Green Activities ...... 148 Figure 32. Frequency of Green Activities Used to Achieve Goal 6 ...... 149 Figure 33. Summary Table: Goal 7 and Green Activities ...... 150 Figure 34. Frequency of Green Activities Used to Achieve Goal 7 ...... 151 Figure 35. Summary Table: Goal 8 and Green Activities ...... 152 Figure 36. Frequency of Green Activities Used to Achieve Goal 8 ...... 153 Figure 37. Summary Table: Goal 9 and Green Activities ...... 153 Figure 38. Frequency of Green Activities Used to Achieve Goal 9 ...... 154 Figure 39. Summary Chart: Results of Community Cleanup & Green Space ...... 160 Figure 40. Summary Chart: Factors that Promote Community Interaction ...... 163

vii Chapter 1: Introduction

Cities throughout the United States have experienced the decline of their urban neighborhoods in the late twentieth century as citizens were drawn to newer, more expansive suburbs. As the migration to the suburbs became more and more popular, the inner-city neighborhoods lost population, jobs and a sense of community as public services were reduced and the physical conditions of those businesses, residences and the community institutions (such as schools or churches) that remained in the inner-city deteriorated (Keating et al. 1996; Leinberger 1996).

Sustainable development has been introduced by scholars and practitioners as an effective method to revitalize these urban areas. Sustainable development can be defined as development which aims promote economic activity which is considerate of local ecosystems and takes place in such a way that meets the needs of the local population without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World

Commission on Environment and Development 1987). It focuses on the interaction between environmental, economic and social policy areas and seeks to find ways to promote economic growth at minimal expense to the environment or to future generations and/or use environmentally sound practices to create economic growth and improve quality of life. In the case of revitalization, sustainable development should address ecological issues (lack of green space and air, water and soil pollution), economic issues

(employment and economic development) and social issues (poverty, health, affordable housing and inequality). “These three components need equal attention if sustainability initiatives are to be successful” (Devuyst 2001, 172).

Cities within the United States have found that there is no single “best” definition

1 of urban sustainability. Different cities are likely to develop slightly, or even significantly, different conceptualizations of urban sustainability, depending on their current economic, environmental, and social circumstances and their individual values and priorities. As a result, a single set of indicators designed to define and measure progress towards achievement of one city’s sustainability goals may not be appropriate for measuring progress in another city. Despite the varying definitions, communities throughout the US are integrating their own perceptions and definitions of sustainable

‘green’ development with conventional planning, (re)development and construction techniques.

The Problem

Several scholars as well as practitioners claim that sustainable development can aid in revitalizing declining urban neighborhoods as it offers a holistic approach to addressing the social, economic and environmental issues present in a community

(Rudlin and Falk 1999; Devuyst et al. 2001; Chiras and Wann 2003; Crowe 2003; Been and Voicu 2006; Erickson 2006; Kemp 2006; Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 2006;

Wiland and Bell 2006). Very few of these individuals however, provide specific details describing the ‘sustainable’ revitalization process as well as examples of specific cities that are implementing such development. I am interested in how sustainable development has served as a tool in such revitalization. This project attempts to determine how cities and neighborhoods use ‘green’ environmental approaches and practices to revitalize their communities by focusing on the three important ingredients of sustainable development, the environment, the economy and society - as environmental initiatives are implemented

2 to produce an economic improvement that benefits society (revitalization). The project studies cases throughout the US to determine the specific components of ‘green’ development that have helped ‘define’ a sustainable community as they are applied to revitalizing deteriorating neighborhoods. From these cases, I have created a catalog/matrix which can be found in the Appendix. This matrix consists of the ‘green’ activities that are included in the revitalization process within each case and what each case sought to accomplish. I then analyzed and determined the connections between

‘green’ initiatives and urban revitalization. This matrix provides information that contributes to the larger understanding of sustainable development by providing specific examples of sustainable development initiatives and examples of how cities are using such projects to revitalize their communities.

Research Questions

This project includes one key question that will be answered though my data collection and analysis:

1. How have urban revitalization attempts in the United States incorporated ‘green’

initiatives?

Study Objectives

To answer the research question above, the objective of the study is to:

1. Organize and understand a range of urban revitalization programs that have used

‘green’ initiatives.

3 Definitions

To better understand what this project attempts to determine, several concepts need to be defined. Several key concepts used in this project include: decline; revitalization; and ‘green’ environmental activities. Because many different definitions can be considered when discussing each of these terms, I need to specifically state what each means within this particular project. When the ‘decline of urban neighborhoods’ is discussed, I am referring to any of the following environmental, social and economic problems: the loss of employment opportunities as businesses move to other neighborhoods; the loss of residents as former inhabitants follow those businesses to other neighborhoods (or vice versa); the loss of construction (development) as investment and resources are redirected to other neighborhoods and the increase in vacant

(underutilized and dilapidated) land; the deterioration of housing quality; and the increase in urban pollution (air, water and land), crime, poverty and physical decay (i.e. vandalism and overgrown vegetation).

Revitalization can have the following positive characteristics: an increase in housing, employment, development and investment opportunities, an increase in quality of life (i.e. housing quality, employment quality, attractiveness, green space and recreational space), and an increase in residents (often times those with a higher income that can be reinvested within the community).

When ‘green’ environmental activities are discussed, I am referring to those decisions and actions made with the environment in mind (i.e. green space, open space, streetscapes, park creation, reforestation, community gardens, nature/wildlife restoration and protection, brownfield redevelopment, mixed-use development, pedestrian-friendly

4 development, green building, infill development, green construction practices, green infrastructure, green technology, renewable energy, transit, eco-village creation, environmental education, green job training and creation, community plans, and eco- industrial parks). These activities are typically defined as focusing on the environmental component of sustainable development rather than all three (environmental, social and economic). These actions will all be discussed in further detail later in the report.

Format of Document

This project is divided into six sections, each representing a chapter. The second section (Chapter 2) discusses the methodology undertaken- how the research was conducted and how the data was collected. The third section (Chapter 3) focuses on the literature available from reputable authors and practitioners on subjects such as the history and trends of declining urban neighborhoods within the United States, the definition and characteristics of sustainable communities, the challenges and barriers of creating a sustainable community, the importance of knowledge, and the connection between sustainability and urban renewal. The forth section (Chapter 4) introduces the data collected with a brief summary of each case studied in this project and the fifth section (Chapter 5) analyzes the data by suggesting possible relationships and linkages within the revitalization and environmental goals, green activities initiated, funding used and key players involved. This analysis also attempts to form linkages between green activities and the sustainable value added from implementing an environmentally conscious project, the revitalization goals and the sustainable activities initiated and the revitalization results and sustainable activities initiated. The sixth and final chapter

5 summarizes the significance of the study’s findings and provides a few recommendations for encouraging further use of sustainable development in revitalization projects.

6 Chapter 2: Methodology

This project utilizes qualitative, exploratory research within a three-step process to create a data set that includes 60 cases (examples) of urban neighborhood revitalization via sustainable development throughout the United States (see Appendix). This data set contributes to future research by offering descriptive information on the relationship between green environmental initiatives and urban revitalization.

Step 1: Identify all potential cases

The cases are selected through two steps. First, I search for cases of urban revitalization within the United States in journals, professional literature, websites and books. In the second step, I filter those cases by the objective of the project/case (do they incorporate green initiatives in their revitalization plans?) using the key words sustainable development, green activities, eco-friendly design, smart growth, brownfield redevelopment. Throughout my search, certain terms frequently appeared in the literature and are used as additional key words/criteria for selecting additional cases. These key words include: sustainable development; environmental consciousness; eco- and environmentally- friendly design; smart growth; brownfield redevelopment; mixed-use development; streetscapes; pedestrian-friendly; renewable energy/ energy efficiency; green building; green infrastructure; open space, green space, greenway, trail, park and garden creation; native landscaping and reforestation; environmental education; eco- village; multi-modal transportation; and preservation and protection. These terms are used to classify the term ‘green activities/ initiatives’ throughout the course of this project.

7 I am analyzing 60 cases that implement green environmental projects that incorporate such terms listed above with the aim of revitalizing their urban communities.

Step 2: Collect data on revitalization goals and ‘green’ activities used in each case

After the cases are selected based on the above process, I collect the following for each case: (a) location of the project; (b) scale (city, county, neighborhood) of the project;

(what each case sought to accomplish- i.e. beautification, affordable housing, job creation, pedestrian activity, parks and recreational areas, reduction of blighted areas); (f) environmental goals of the community (what each community sought to accomplish environmentally- i.e. a sustainable community, local food production, clean and healthy property, green space creation); (g) strategy (how the community implemented particular activities to reach their goals); (h) funding (how the community paid for their revitalization efforts); (i) the green activities/ initiatives included in the project (i.e. park and green space creation, renewable energy, preservation/restoration, community garden creation, brownfield redevelopment and green building); (j) the sustainable value added by implementing these green activities (i.e. what environmental, social and economic value will result from implementation; (k) who implemented these green activities (key players involved- government, grassroots organizations, nonprofits); (l) how each of these cases is defining the end-result (i.e. are they hoping to create a sustainable community, an eco-village, or an eco-city?); (m) the outcomes (if applicable); and (n) references. The data collected allows me to compare cases to each other, to ultimately analyze and determine the connections between the green initiatives and urban

8 revitalization and if there are certain green activities used to address specific revitalization goals. In order to facilitate this comparison, the data is condensed and arranged into a matrix (see Appendix). The data categories found in the matrix consist of several of those listed above (items (e), (f), (h), (i), (j) and (k)).

Step 3: Analysis- Identify relationships between green initiatives and urban revitalization.

The matrix allows me to analyze (compare and contrast) sample cases to determine which green approaches have been used to revitalize declining urban neighborhoods in the United States and to determine the interrelationships between these green approaches and revitalization outcomes (sustainability?). It can also help answer several other questions that can be analyzed in future research: are the green approaches used approaching sustainable development; do the green revitalization approaches differ depending on type of community or neighborhood was being discussed; and do communities experience a shift towards sustainability or do they simply use green ideas to create an image for investment purposes.

This analysis addresses: the revitalization goals of the cases studies; the green initiatives implemented to achieve the revitalization goals; funding used; key players involved; the sustainable development value (environmental, economic and social) that the green initiatives add to the revitalization process; the linkages between the green initiatives and revitalization goals; and the linkages between the green initiatives and revitalization results.

9 Chapter 3: Literature Review

Declining Urban Neighborhoods in the United States

Attention to the dynamic nature of neighborhood change reflects the broader interest of trying to understand the push and pull factors that shape an urban area.

Particular attention has been given to the physical, institutional, and social factors that cause neighborhoods to become unstable or decline. Physical causes of decline include technological, architectural, and locational features that make a home or neighborhood obsolete and potentially unsafe. The US has experienced a transformation from an industrial society to an informational technology society. Consequently, industrial city neighborhoods have experienced decline as industries close and jobs are lost. Age also threatens the viability of neighborhoods because it affects decisions to invest in property as well as decisions to move. Institutional factors (i.e. zoning, code enforcement, rent control, property assessment, and lending practices) shape the operation of the housing market and other land use choices which can affect both negative and positive neighborhood change. Social characteristics associated with neighborhood decline include the change in racial or ethnic composition, income level, family status, and the age of household members. However, using social characteristics to explain neighborhood change can be controversial since it implies a direct relationship between physical deterioration of the neighborhood and the people living there (Keating et al.

1996).

Cities throughout the United States have experienced the decline of urban neighborhoods as citizens are drawn to newer, more expansive suburbs. Economic

10 expansion after World War II allowed many urban residents to flee from overcrowding, polluted and sometimes dangerous city centers as highways, housing developments, GI loans, Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insurance and inexpensive energy made relocation to suburban areas possible and affordable (Keating et al. 1996; Leinberger

1996). As the migration to the suburbs became more and more popular, the inner-city neighborhoods lost population, jobs and a sense of community as public services were reduced and the physical conditions of those businesses and the community institutions

(such as schools or churches) that remained in the inner-city deteriorated (Keating et al.

1996; Leinberger 1996).

The decline of central cities and urban areas in the late twentieth century led to a decline in their neighborhoods as well. As resources have moved out of these inner-city neighborhoods, crime and physical decay has often taken over. Those that cannot afford to move (the lower-income, often minority urban residents) are left behind and disconnected from mainstream society (Keating et al. 1996; Leinberger 1996). The challenges faced by the remaining residents often include violence, concentrated poverty, decaying housing, failing business districts, unemployment, and other social problems.

Calthorpe (1989) claims that:

The current round of suburban growth is generating a crisis of many dimensions: mounting traffic congestion, increasingly unaffordable housing, receding open space, and stressful social patterns. The truth is, we are using planning strategies [that are now over 50 years old] and no longer relevant to today’s culture. Our household makeup has changed dramatically, the work place and work force have been transformed, real wealth has shrunk, and serious environmental concerns have surfaced. But we are still building World War II suburbs as if families were large and had only one breadwinner, as if jobs were all downtown, as if land and energy were endless, and as if another lane on the freeway would end congestion (3).

11 While many neighborhoods have experienced decline and deterioration, others have experienced a renaissance. Urban neighborhood revitalization has been inspired by community members and grassroots organizations that refuse to allow older neighborhoods to be forgotten and have led effort to improve their neighborhoods. They recognize that these neighborhoods offer assets such as existing infrastructure, educational facilities, and social and civic organizations.

Revitalization is broadly presumed to be a positive outcome for declining neighborhoods. However, not everyone always benefits from improvements. Studies have drawn attention to positive as well as negative effects of neighborhood revitalization

(Baldassare 1982; Palen and London 1984; Keating et al. 1996; Greenberg 1999). Some positive effects of neighborhood revitalization include an increase in housing quality, the increase in perceived ‘attractiveness’, a higher level of investment, and an increase in affluence and level of education. An improvement in housing quality with renovation and infill housing construction occurs as capital for renovation and rehabilitation is invested into the neighborhood. As a result, the neighborhood’s perceived ‘attractiveness’ increases, which results in “a greater desire by existing residents to remain in, and new residents to move into, the area, resulting in a net increase in population size” (Baldassare

1982, 92). Investors’ confidence in real estate appreciation thus leads to a higher level of sales activity. As the neighborhood becomes more attractive, an immigration of middle- income families tends to occur, which raises affluence (the average income) and education level of the neighborhood’s population. Of all these characteristics, rising income seems to be the most dependable indicator of revitalization, primarily because it represents the most essential change (Baldassare 1982; Keating 1996).

12 There are, however, some negative effects that can occur as a result of revitalization effort which include: displacement and gentrification; declining population; decline in housing quality; and disinvestment (loss of tax base). While neighborhood improvements can have a positive impact by attracting more higher-income residents to the neighborhood, displacement and gentrification have been known to occur as new residents compete with the existing residents for housing (Palen and London 1984). As a result, a neighborhood’s unique history, culture and character often disappear with those displaced residents. Population size may sometimes decline in neighborhoods where large, lower-income families are replaced by middle-income childless couples and single- person households. Although housing improvements may increase, complaints about housing quality may actually increase as individuals with higher standards and paying higher rents compromise the local population (Baldassare 1982). When initiating a neighborhood revitalization project, it is important to consider both the positive and negative impacts such a project could have on the existing neighborhood.

Revitalization efforts have been spurred by public and private support including government programs (resources) at the local, state and national level that are directed toward downtown and inner-city neighborhood redevelopment (i.e. Community

Reinvestment Act, Community Development Block Grant Program, Urban

Empowerment and Enterprise Zone program) (Keating et al. 1996). It is important to note that the revitalization of urban neighborhoods requires planning. Neighborhood planning has a long history in the United States (Rohe and Gates 1985; Keating et al. 1996) and has been linked with urban renewal clearance, historic preservation, housing conservation and more recently, Community Development Corporation - sponsored redevelopment.

13 It is also important to realize that organized attempts to measure neighborhood revitalization efforts have serious problems. Baldassare (1982) notes that examples of these problems include inappropriate units of analysis, case studies without comparison areas, a lack of longitudinal data from an appropriate time period, the use of the unproven reports of local officials and researchers, and one-dimensional or highly limited descriptions of local areas in the inner city. Because the existing evaluation modes have such flaws (as described above), it becomes very difficult to successfully evaluate neighborhood revitalization efforts. It is for this reason that I do not attempt to measure or analyze the success of neighborhood revitalization attempts in this project, but to describe the characteristics of revitalization efforts. My research will support and allow future study to determine the success of sustainable revitalization practices.

Sustainable Communities

Historically, urban areas have generally been considered environmentally unsustainable because of their reputation as being centers of economic activity, industry, over-consumption and sprawling growth, which are all known to cause negative environmental impacts. These activities cause urban areas to be the world’s chief consumers of natural resources and generators of waste, and, consequently, their leading sources of environmental problems (Leitmann 1999). Urban cities and their neighborhoods demand a high input of resources including water, fossil fuels, land, and all the goods and materials that their populations and enterprises require. The more populous the city and its neighborhoods and the richer their inhabitants, the larger their ecological footprint is likely to be in terms of its demand on resources. These cities therefore draw from and impact larger land areas per capita. Industrial cities and their

14 neighborhoods draw resources not only from their own local and rural regions, but from international regions as well (Roseland 2005). The less an urban area can support and provide for its inhabitants, the more it is considered to be highly unsustainable.

Cities are also economic production and growth engines, as they generate more employment than their hinterlands, and therefore have more of an ability to feed their population and create wealth. While they may rely on external sources of raw materials

(which can deteriorate and devalue the environment), cities produce most of the region's added value. Cities are centers of wealth, knowledge, and accomplishment, where ideas of improving the urban environment can evolve into implementation, resulting in restoration success stories. Many areas around the world are proving that cities can offer a healthy urban environment as they implement sustainable development in their city centers and surrounding neighborhoods.

Sustainable community development is a more recent neighborhood revitalization tool that has been used in cities throughout the United States (Devuyst et al. 2001; Chiras and Wann 2003; Erickson 2006; Kemp 2006). To fully understand this connection, I will first define the concept of sustainable development and discuss its impacts on a neighborhood. I will conclude the literature review by discussing the relationship between sustainable development and neighborhood revitalization.

The concept of sustainable development was first defined in the Bruntland Report in 1987 (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987) as development which aims to promote economic activity which is considerate of local ecosystems and takes place in such a way that meets the needs of the local population without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The Report

15 claims that “sustainable development can only be pursued if population size and growth are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem” (World

Commission on Environment and Development 1987, 25). The Report concludes the section on sustainable development by stating that it is not a fixed state of harmony, but a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are made consistent with future as well as present needs. The Commission acknowledges that this process is neither easy nor straightforward and in the final analysis, sustainable development must rest on political will (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987).

Sustainable development is fairly abstract and broad and is subject to a variety of interpretations but, nonetheless, has caught the attention of policymakers and citizens worldwide (Portney 2003). It has become an increasingly popular topic of discussion within the United States, especially when planning and developing cities. The US has joined the sustainable development discourse within the last 20 years, as the impacts of our actions are becoming more noticeable. The US is now recognizing the country’s impacts on the environment and the need for sustainable development to contribute to the solution. The 1992 United Nations’ Conference for Environment and Development

(UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro sparked interest in integrating the concept of sustainable development into policy making and planning. “Between 1993 and 2000, the Clinton-

Gore Administration bypassed Congress’ lack of support and championed the concept of sustainable development, putting a substantial effort into integrating it into federal-level policy and programs” (Chifos 2007, 435). As a result, new federal-level institutions were created, federal-level government agencies were rethinking their missions and

16 reorganizing their offices, policy recommendations and strategies were constructed, programs were funded, federally funded research was influenced, and federally generated data, tools, and methods were circulated for public use (Chifos 2007). Most authors agree that the ability to become sustainable depends on planning: the integration of economic and environmental planning allows wealth to continue to be created, but through processes that do not deplete or contaminate future resources (Frankel 1998;

Selman 2000; Lein 2003; Miller and de Roo 2005; Roseland 2005).

Sustainable development is many things: it is a social and political process, an integrating concept and a holistic approach of bringing ecological, economic, and social aspects of a problem together (Dallmeyer and Ike 1998). It is important to realize that it does not focus exclusively on the environment but on the interaction between environmental, economic and social policy areas. Figure 1 depicts this interaction and the point where all three components converge (sustainability).

Figure 1. Sustainable Development Diagram

Source: Intel 2008, 2

The concept of sustainable communities is introduced when deciding how a city or neighborhood should be planned to meet economic needs of the present without 17 compromising future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on

Environment and Development 1987). The 1996 report from the U.S. President’s Council on Sustainable Development described healthy and sustainable communities as:

Communities where natural and historic resources are preserved, jobs are available, sprawl is contained, neighborhoods are secure, education is lifelong, transportation and health are accessible, and all citizens have opportunities to improve the quality of their lives (12).

This kind of development represents the coexistence between economic development and the environment. It is about finding ways to promote economic growth at minimal expense to the environment or to future generations and/or using environmentally sound practices to create economic growth and improve quality of life.

Some of the key characteristics of urban sustainability that are often mentioned in literature and policy documents include: intergenerational equity; intragenerational equity including social, geographical and governing equity; protection of the natural environment and living within its carrying capacity; minimal use of nonrenewable resources; economic vitality and diversity; community self-reliance; individual well- being; and satisfaction of basic human needs (Wheeler and Beatley 2004). There is considerable debate within the academic community, planning agencies, and other organizations about the relative importance of each of these characteristics of sustainability. While, some believe that environmental considerations should be the dominant actor in this debate, others believe that economic considerations are the most essential. Others claim that this argument is irrelevant in that a healthy city requires a holistic approach where a healthy economy, society and environment is needed in order to survive (Girardet 1999, Satterthwaite 1999, Hallsmith 2003, Kemp 2006). There is even disagreement on whether all of the characteristics above should be included when

18 developing sustainability goals. As a result of these disagreements, varying definitions and characteristics have been formed when discussing ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ communities.

Cities within the United States have found that there is no single “best” definition of urban sustainability. Different cities are likely to develop slightly, or even significantly, different conceptualizations of urban sustainability, depending on their current economic, environmental, and social circumstances and their individual values and priorities. Since no two cities are the same, activities that the environment can sustain and that citizens want and can afford may be quite different for each city. As a result, a single set of criteria designed to measure progress towards achievement of one city’s sustainability goals may not be appropriate for measuring progress in another city.

Despite the varying definitions, communities throughout the US are integrating their own perceptions and definitions of sustainable ‘green’ development with conventional planning, (re)development and construction techniques.

There are certain fundamental properties of sustainability indicators that all cities will wish to consider. These criteria will be identified and addressed throughout my research. It is essential to look at cities holistically- their economy, available technology, infrastructure, architecture, socials networks, cultural tendencies, natural resources and environment- in order to understand the full meaning of sustainable urban development

(Devuyst 2001).

The process towards becoming a sustainable community can be long-term, possibly taking decades to achieve substantial results. Are cities’ actions actually making a difference in terms of economic development and environmental quality? Since the

19 United States is a fairly recent member of the sustainable development movement and thus work toward creating sustainable communities within the US is early in its gestation period, it is difficult to determine whether pursuit of sustainability has succeeded (Mega

2005). However, it is not too early to assess whether cities are, or seem to be, moving down the paths toward becoming sustainable. For this reason, I do not attempt to analyze the success of cities adopting sustainable development practices, but rather only look for characteristics of sustainable development.

Challenges and Barriers

Although there are many cities that have adopted some sustainable practices, there are still major challenges and barriers that might limit their ability to achieve sustainable development. Many of the environmental, social and economic problems present in cities are such challenges. Inoguchi et al. (1999) state that the path towards a sustainable city requires a parallel two-track approach: addressing the pressing environmental problems and challenges that exist, and addressing the underlying social, economic, and political factors that form root causes of urban environmental decay. These environmental problems and challenges include waste management, pollution and the variety of forms in which it exists, transportation and the reliance on the automobile, available resources, and resource and energy demands (Inoguchi et al. 1999).

Chiras and Wann (2003) refer to three major sociopolitical and economic barriers that limit options for American cities to become sustainable, which include: the physical layout of cities and their suburbs, which result in social isolation and resource consumption (e.g. increased driving in order to commute to work and high fuel prices);

20 the “mold” of city culture, which reinforces extravagant, private lifestyles that often disregard public values and require expensive, time-consuming maintenance; and government incentives, municipal zoning laws, and bank lending policies that shaped suburbia in particular but have become obsolete. The widespread layout of cities and their suburbs has promoted an isolationist, individualistic lifestyle as many Americans choose to live in their own house with their own backyard in the suburbs, as opposed to living in apartment buildings and condos in downtown areas. While people move further away from downtown, their jobs do not. As a result, many Americans spend more time in their own cars commuting to and from work each day and consuming more energy resources.

City culture within the United States has also promoted consumption via the ‘American

Dream’, where people have become addicted to the consumption of an endless array of products with the hopes of acquiring happiness. Americans thus tend to define who they are by what they own (De Graaf et al. 2001). In order to become more sustainable, both

Portney (2003) and Girardet (1993) suggest that cities and their neighborhoods focus on consuming less, not more. These barriers have been integrated into our society at an early stage and we must make the transition to a more sustainable society to reap the economic, environmental and social benefits they can provide.

It is important to realize that the concept and definition of a sustainable community does not describe just one type of neighborhood, town, city or region.

Activities that the environment can sustain and that citizens want and can afford may be quite different from community to community. “Rather than being a fixed thing, a sustainable community is continually adjusting to meet the social and economic needs of

21 its residents while preserving the environment’s ability to support it” (Roseland 2005,

17).

Importance of Knowledge

In order for sustainable initiatives to be successful, public support and participation is essential, which stresses the importance of a localized bottom-up approach. Although there may be a growing interest in the environmental health of our urban neighborhoods, Susman (1999, 1) found “a stunning disconnect between people’s passion for and their knowledge about environmental protection.” Oftentimes the environmental changes that people are aware of are those that are directly apparent.

However, there remains an uncertainty about the significance and scale of environmental problems (Macnaghten 2001). Studies (Benedict 1999, Leitmann 1999, Susman 1999,

Disinger 2001, Bristol 2005, Hungerford and Volk 2003, and Roseland 2005) have found that recently, it has become more critical to instill an appreciation for our role in the ecological stability of our environment in our youth. Benedict (1999, 1) stated,

“introducing environmental education is often viewed as a key step toward sustainable development.”

Leitmann (1999) claims that the lack of knowledge about the existence, extent, impact and costs of environmental problems, can significantly affect how people view the environment and the level of importance they place on focusing attention on sustainable development as a means to solve current environmental and social problems. He further claims that when the public is not educated about the environmental problems present around them, it is difficult for them to take action to improve the quality of their city.

22 Roseland (2005) argues that popular education techniques successfully engage the community in the identification and critical analysis of issues, information gathering related to these issues, and problem-solving and decision-making methods. He believes that if the public does not have access to the information that affects their well-being, they are unable to participate and therefore place resolution of environmental problems as a priority.

It is important to acknowledge the need for environmental education. If the public is not educated about the environmental issues, they are less likely to understand the value of implementing sustainable development in their community and will therefore be less likely to support the plans for sustainable redevelopment. An educated public will also be more willing to participate in the revitalization effort.

Sustainability and Revitalization

As defined earlier, a sustainable community or city is one that uses its resources to meet current needs while ensuring that adequate resources remain available for future generations. A sustainable community seeks to provide a better quality of life for all its inhabitants while maintaining nature’s ability to function over time by minimizing waste, preventing pollution, promoting efficiency and developing local resources to revitalize the local economy. It is a holistic approach that resembles a living ecosystem in which human, natural and economic elements are interdependent and draw strength from each other.

Several practitioners have suggested the use of sustainable development as an economic stimulus for neighborhood revitalization (Rudlin and Falk 1999; Devuyst et al.

2001; Chiras and Wann 2003; Erickson 2006; Kemp 2006). Very few, however,

23 specifically explain how sustainable development is used in revitalization efforts. Roger

Kemp is one scholar and practitioner who provides a little more explanation of sustainable development revitalization as he claims that ten basic framework principles have served as the basis for building the urban environment now are being refined as site- specific guidelines for revitalizing communities. Those principles include:

Evoke a sense of place Restore and establish the unique urban ecology Invest in the public realm Broaden the mix of uses Improve connectivity Ensure that buildings support city building goals Build on existing strengths Preserve and enhance heritage resources Provide a balanced network for movement Foster public safety (Kemp 2006).

Devuyst (2001) claims that communities are beginning to realize that the decline of their neighborhoods needs to be addressed in a holistic way, looking at all the issues

(environmental, social and economic) involved within the context of the entire local situation. He believes that problems are best solved in the subsystems in which they arise and that sustainable development is most effective when implemented at the local level.

Rudlin and Falk (1999) further believe that creating sustainable communities means creating neighborhoods in which change can take place naturally and gradually over time. Sustainable neighborhoods should resemble sustainable forests in that they should develop naturally, be constantly renewed, and contain a rich variety of species.

They state that sustainable neighborhoods should enhance the quality of social and economic life of their citizens, and offer a great location to live, work and visit. Places that offer such a quality of life will attract people and investment and will be constantly renewed. Rudlin and Falk also claim that the most important challenge of the sustainable

24 urban neighborhood is to stimulate a feeling in its residents that they belong and have a sense of pride and responsibility for their community. They claim that if these conditions are met, the area will become economically stable.

In an effort to revitalize local communities, citizens, nonprofit organizations, and local public officials throughout the US are focusing on nature restoration, smart growth, green infrastructure, green building, urban agriculture/ community gardens, the creation of central ‘main streets’ with mixed-use development, wildlife protection through the creation of open space, brownfield redevelopment and green jobs (Stein 1993; Elliot

1998; Froehlich 1998; Lockwood 1998; Welsh and MacRae 1998; Irvine et al. 1999;

Kelly and Zieper 2000; Davis 2002; International Development Research Centre and

Urban Management Program for Latin America and the Caribbean 2003; Kushner 2003,

Holland 2004; NAPGEP 2004a; NALGEP 2004b; Platt 2004; Wekerle 2004; Glover et al. 2005; Rosol 2005; Dubbeling 2006; Gute and Taylor 2006; Kemp 2006; APA Food

System Planning Committee 2006; Mougeot 2006; USEPA 2007; World Watch Institute

2007; Mendes et al. 2008).

Nature Restoration

Participants in neighborhood revitalization are restoring nature as a vehicle to improve and enhance economic conditions within their communities. Cities have invested in nature by implementing projects and programs that incorporate creating, protecting, preserving, and restoring nature. This investment yields positive tangible and intangible community-wide benefits. Kemp (2006, 1) states that “the realities of modern economic life have shown us that, when investment focuses on natural aspects of our communities, business, commerce, and tourism will follow shortly thereafter.”

25 Smart Growth

As cities continue to increase in size, another step to achieving sustainable development is through growth management or ‘smart growth’. Growth management focuses on the need to plan logically to accommodate the impacts of growth. It is a comprehensive concept, concerned not only with the physical impacts of growth but with the economic and social impacts as well (Stein 1993, 3). “Managing growth is about planning for the infrastructure necessary to accommodate anticipated growth and designing an urban form that most effectively serves the needs of residents” (Kushner

2003, 243).

Cities are focusing on smart growth to avoid the pitfalls of development and capture its benefits (Froehlich 1998; Kemp 2006). While development can create a better tax base, provide jobs and amenities for residents, and enhance a community’s livability, it can also add to traffic congestion, disrupt neighborhoods, and detract from the character of the community. Smart growth is “town-centered and transit- and pedestrian- oriented; includes a greater mix of housing, commercial, and residential uses; and preserves open space and other environmental amenities” (Froehlich 1998, 1). The smart growth movement recognizes that people want jobs, tax revenues, and the amenities that come with development without degrading the environment, raising local taxes, or worsening traffic congestion. The New Jersey redevelopment plan shows that a 43 percent reduction in the loss of open space can be achieved by better directing growth

(and preserving open space) (Froehlich 1998). Smart growth plans have succeeded by influencing communities to adopt a more sustainable mentality which directly influences citizens’ actions.

26 Green Infrastructure

Development has damaging effects to the natural environment. Water quality concerns are becoming more dominant as cities are experiencing the damaging effects of contaminated urban stormwater runoff in to natural waterways as a result of increasing impervious surfaces (i.e. roads, parking lots and roofs) in urban areas. Developers and local governments are increasingly seeking development designs (i.e. green infrastructure) that reduce the amount of runoff and protect water resources. These designs would also reduce costs in water treatment and prevent treatment facility expansion.

Green Building

Green buildings have received increasing interest in the US as architects chose to use building methods that are attractive and energy efficient. These buildings are often heated and cooled by renewable resources (i.e. sun, shade and wind) and use low-energy, nontoxic, recycled, reused and local building materials and furnishings (Register 2006).

These buildings are green because they have less of an impact on the environment, conserve more resources and provide healthier indoor working/living conditions than a conventional building (Kemp 2006).

Green buildings often include green (vegetated) roofs. The plants and soil on such a rooftop catch the rainwater and hold it longer than a regular rooftop. When the rainwater finally flows off the roof, it’s cleaner as it hasn’t picked up pollutants from the asphalt of a more traditional roof and the runoff velocity is decreased (Kemp 2006).

Some green buildings capture this clean rooftop runoff and use it for irrigation. The vegetated roof also lowers energy costs over the life of the building. The plants protect

27 and shade the roof from damaging ultraviolet light and temperature extremes, reducing heating and cooling needs.

State and local governments are currently leading by example by implementing policies that call for their own agencies and departments to meet specified green standards when building new facilities. By setting an example, municipalities are hoping to encourage the private sector to follow. Governments are also pushing green criteria on their buildings to lower the long-term costs. Though the initial upfront investment is higher, it is less expensive in the long run to own and operate an energy-efficient building

(Kemp 2006). “As governments move forward and set a positive example, the price for materials and equipment could fall” (Kemp 2006, 229). To encourage green building by private companies, some states are offering monetary, tax, and density incentives to remove some of the cost barriers (Kemp 2006).

Urban Agriculture/ Community Gardens

Recent research examines the use of urban agriculture and community gardens to revitalize brownfield sites through urban greening (Rosol 2005). Links between ecological restoration and community gardening also appear more commonly in literature

(Irvine et al. 1999). Local governments have begun to recognize that urban agriculture supports a variety of sustainability goals. In addition to increasing local food production, urban agriculture contributes to environmental protection, resource recycling and conservation, therapy and recreation, education and safe food provision, public health and nutrition, poverty reduction, green architecture, open space management, participatory decision making, social inclusion and community economic development (APA Food

System Planning Committee 2006; Mougeot 2006; Mendes et al. 2008). As a result,

28 urban agriculture typically involves a wide range of people, and has an interdisciplinary and citizen-led approach to knowledge and solutions (Welsh and MacRae 1998; Wekerle

2004). Since this initiative involves multiple stakeholders in decision making, policies that meet the needs of both the municipality and its constituents are more likely to be developed (Mougeot 2006). At the same time, more inclusive and participatory decision making has been shown to promote citizen participation and buy-in at all levels

(International Development Research Centre and Urban Management Program for Latin

America and the Caribbean 2003; Holland 2004; Wekerle 2004; Dubbeling 2006;

Mougeot 2006). Literature also theorizes that urban agriculture contributes to social capital and civic engagement (Glover et al. 2005).

In 2002, the City of Portland and Multnomah County established a food policy council that advises and reports to both governments on food policy issues. This council supports urban agriculture and explains its importance with the following benefits:

Community gardens are important neighborhood gathering places that contribute

to the city’s parks and open space system and support neighborhood livability;

Urban gardening supports self-sufficiency and access to healthy food for Portland

residents;

Portland’s Community Gardens Program encourages organic gardening, building

healthy soil, new and heirloom plant varieties, composting, cover cropping, food

sustainability, and intergenerational activities (Mendes et al. 2008).

Main Streets and Mixed-Use Development

Recreating the traditional ‘main street’ is also being used in neighborhood revitalization efforts (Lockwood 1998). Similar to the pre-World War II small town main

29 streets, these projects seek to recreate a sense of community and identity in a pedestrian- friendly environment nearby residential areas which includes mixed-use development

(office, retail, entertainment, hotels, housing, and civic institutions). Lockwood (1998) states that “main street stores are answering shoppers’ demands for convenience, efficiency, and something new while avoiding the sense of sameness that frequently seems to fill many suburban centers” (20). Even retailers have rediscovered the profit potential of a main street (Lockwood 1998).

The pedestrian-friendly development provides a vibrant, mixed-use community which provides some incentive for people to walk rather than drive. A pleasant walking environment with sidewalks, weather protection, and attractive landscaping is a step toward encouraging people to choose transit, bikes, or walking over individual vehicles.

In addition to environmental benefits, this yields social benefits by encouraging informal encounters among neighbors, and health benefits from the exercise. This new configuration will also unite the surrounding neighborhoods, enhance the residents’ experiences, and prompt further development (Kemp 2006).

Wildlife Protection

Planning departments are also focusing on the protection of wildlife, especially native species, through the creation of parks and open space in neighborhoods (Elliot

1998; Kelly and Zieper 2000). It is becoming increasingly apparent that people want to connect with the surrounding environment. While open space is very important, wildlife biology is needed to incorporate wildlife into the local area. Studies have shown that open space correlates to an increased quality of life (Kelly and Zieper 2000) which also leads to increased property values (and increased tax revenue) and the attraction of

30 businesses (jobs). As developers become increasingly knowledgeable about the incorporation of open spaces (which allow for wildlife restoration) into their plans, they have learned that property values increase. Access to open space and outdoor recreational areas also attract new business into a community. Businesses look for appealing locations that suit both work and leisure needs. Kelly and Zieper (2002) state that “corporate CEOs say that the quality of life for employees is the third-most important factor in deciding where to locate a business, behind access to domestic markets and availability of skilled labor” (32). The increasing property values, employment and tax revenue thus rejuvenates the neighborhood. For example, by 1873, Central Park not only brought

$5.24 million in taxes per year (within 20 years), it attracted millions of residents and tourists to its attractions and those of nearby hotels, restaurants, and businesses (Kelly and Zieper 2000; Platt 2004).

Brownfield Redevelopment

Brownfields find themselves in the spotlight of today’s urban redevelopment movement partly due to their impact on the local economy and the environment and their use as neighborhood revitalization tools. Brownfields are routinely associated with distressed urban areas, particularly central cities and inner (first ring) suburbs that once were heavily industrialized, but have since been vacated. A brownfield can often add blight to neighborhoods and lead to other community problems. Aside from the health and environmental risks that may be posed by contaminated soil, groundwater or surface water, brownfields are often associated with abandoned, underutilized and unsafe buildings, lost jobs and a diminished tax base, decreased property values, increase in suburban sprawl, vandalism and criminal activity (United States Environmental

31 Protection Agency (USEPA) 2007). They represent millions of unrealized tax dollars and millions in lost wages. Their presence contributes to reduced economic development and job creation in urban areas (central cities and older suburbs). According to a survey by the Conference of Mayors, 33 cities with brownfield sites conservatively estimated their cumulative annual loss of tax revenues at $121 million and projected losses at $386 million. This data suggests that more than 20,000 cities and other municipalities nationwide could be losing billions of dollars each year in local tax receipts resulting from their failure to restore brownfields to economic viability (Davis 2002).

Brownfields, however, are not hopeless places. They are often prime locations for revitalization. Many brownfields are located on favorable real estate, such as waterfronts, central city areas, or places that are nearby other businesses and resources. They typically have infrastructure already in place (National Association of Local Government

Environmental Professionals (NALGEP) 2004a). The redevelopment of brownfield areas often requires the strong support of neighborhood and community leaders. Redeveloping brownfields has therefore been used as a revitalization tool for declining neighborhoods

(e.g. transforming brownfields into thriving new centers of commerce and industry and creating jobs through cleanup and reuse) (NALGEP 2004b; Gute and Taylor 2006;

USEPA 2007).

Green Jobs

Policymakers worldwide recognize that adopting sound environmental policies can promote economic growth and job creation. Investments in energy efficiency, clean energy technology, renewable energy, and green building/infrastructure have the potential to create a significant number of ‘green’ jobs (World Watch Institute 2007). In a

32 recent survey, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory “estimated that energy service companies provide about $4 billion in annual energy-efficiency investment nationwide,

25 to 30 percent of which is spent on labor to design, install, operate, and maintain comprehensive energy-efficiency projects in a wide range of building sectors” (World

Watch Institute 2007). The City of Cincinnati has developed a Brownfield Job Training

Program which provides Cincinnati residents with training in abatement of lead and asbestos, as well as the removal of other hazardous waste materials. This program assures

Cincinnati residents “green” job opportunities through placement assistance (City of

Cincinnati Office of Environmental Quality).

Communities throughout the US are implementing sustainable development projects with the hope of revitalizing their declining urban areas. No project is the same as communities chose to focus on varying sustainable tools which include: nature restoration, smart growth, green infrastructure, green building, central ‘main streets’ with mixed-use development, wildlife protection through the creation of open space, brownfield redevelopment and green jobs. Citizens, nonprofit organization and public officials are using these tools with the hopes of neighborhood beautification, real estate investment, improved housing quality, reuse of deteriorating land, creating a sense of place, and creating jobs to improve the local economy. The next chapter will describe the specific revitalizations goals and the sustainable development tools used in each case studied in this project.

33 Chapter 4: Data

This project looks at 60 initiatives that cities, counties and neighborhoods

throughout the United States have implemented with the goal of integrating

environmental stewardship and sustainable development into decisions to revitalize their

communities. These cities, counties and neighborhoods have observed the importance of

creating, protecting, preserving and restoring nature to improve and enhance economic

conditions within their communities. Roger Kemp1, both a scholar and practitioner, has

found through his experience that “the realities of modern economic life have shown us

that, when investment focuses on natural aspects of our communities, business,

commerce, and tourism will follow shortly thereafter” (Kemp 2006, 1). He claims that if

environmental issues are addressed and remedied within a community, economic

development (revitalization) will follow.

Before the data is analyzed (in Chapter 5), each case is described briefly,

highlighting the goals each case sought to achieve, the green activities initiated,

background on the area’s revitalization needs, a brief description of the strategy used to

achieve the desired results, and the results of the project (if available). The order of the

cases listed is based upon the number of cases that are implementing the particular green

initiative (i.e. green space projects are listed first because the cases studied used this

initiative the most, community garden projects are listed next because this initiative was

implemented the most, after green space projects). The green initiative implemented in

1 Roger Kemp has served as a city manager for cities throughout the United States for the past 20 years and has been an adjunct professor at major educational institutions such as the University of California, Golden Gate University, Rutgers University, and the University of Connecticut. He holds a B.S. degree in business administration, both M.P.A. and M.B.A. degrees, and a Ph.D. degree in public administration and has written and edited numerous books and articles on various topics related to municipal management throughout his career. 34 each case (i.e. green space, community gardens, nature restoration, brownfield redevelopment, mixed-use) is included in the case title after the project name (e.g.

Baltimore Trails in Baltimore, Maryland (Green Space)) to make it easier for the reader to identify the initiative implemented in the case. Please refer to the detailed case descriptions in the Appendix for more detail.

Case 1. Baltimore Trails in Baltimore, Maryland (Green Space)

The goal of this project was to revitalize the Gwynns Falls Trails and Baltimore’s neighborhoods by creating a park which would link the neighborhoods to the city’s redeveloped harbor district. The city had been working for two decades to rejuvenate its downtown harbor district as a cultural, recreational, and retail showplace. The visioning process (which took more than four years) included contributions from 16 community groups, 11 nonprofit organizations, and 8 city agencies. Residents were polled on their open-space needs, properties were studied, and a master plan was created (Kemp 2006).

It is believed that the most successful parks emerge from broad community participation and can contribute significant value to nearby residential and commercial districts. This convergence of forces is leading to new public/private partnerships that create, rejuvenate, and sometimes manage urban parks and open space. Assembling land for urban parks is complicated by the involvement of various stakeholders and multiple jurisdictions, complex ownership patterns, and the frequent need for extensive environmental assessment and cleanup which can be very expensive (Kemp 2006).

Case 2. Saint Paul’s Riverfront in Saint Paul, Minnesota (Green Space)

This project sought to reforest the Mississippi valley to create a network of neighborhoods that replace old industrial facilities and empty lots. It was thought that

35 reforestation would spur additional development (houses, jobs and cultural attractions).

The involvement of ecologists and landscape architects led to a focus on restoration of the native ecological community. The revitalization of Saint Paul’s riverfront began when this vision of trees was turned into a public/private partnership between the city and the developers to create new houses, jobs and cultural attractions in the valley (Kemp 2006).

Since the completion of the project, the Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation is stewarding projects ranging from housing, to new banking and software company facilities, to museums and other cultural attractions that draw evening and weekend activity. Upper Landing Park will include an amphitheater, a large commons area to accommodate festivals, and a river balcony and promenade, along which permanently anchored boats will provide concessions, rentals, and educational and restroom facilities to minimize the impact on the fragile floodplain site (Kemp 2006). This project has also spurred further revitalization and investment in the area including a mixed-use neighborhood, restoration of the Lower Phalen Creek watershed, and a network of greenways, streetscape improvements, and parks that will extend the river valley’s reach into downtown and older neighborhoods (Kemp 2006).

Case 3. Philadelphia’s Side Yard Program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Green

Space)

This project sought to reduce the amount of poverty, crime, and vacant land by implementing a side-yard program (controlled by the Neighborhood Transformation

Initiative (NTI) program) which allows property owners to apply for and acquire a lot adjacent to theirs to use as a green space or parking area. The land may someday be sold for development, but must be transformed into a “clean and green” space until then, to

36 begin to change the perception of the lot, the block, and the entire neighborhood and discourage vandalism and crime (Wiland and Bell 2006).

NTI works with a number of minority contractors and nonprofit neighborhood groups through subcontracts with Philadelphia Green. The lot-cleaning program has created jobs for more than seventy neighborhood residents. Using funds that Philadelphia raised through issuing bonds, NTI was able to pinpoint the most dangerous buildings and demolish nearly seven thousand of them over a 5-year period. After a building is demolished and the lot prepared according to the new demolition specifications, neighborhood contractors hired by Philadelphia Green step in to create beauty out of blight (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Case 4. UCGreen in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Green Space)

This program sought to clean the city and to enhance the physical environment in distressed local communities by participating in the West Philadelphia Initiative, a five- part program that seeks to improve on five aspects of urban living: economic growth, business development, improved housing, a "clean and safe" environment and the quality of schools. Spearheaded by the University of Pennsylvania and its partner neighborhood organizations, the initiative has embarked on a massive planting program, called

UCGreen. UCGreen, was instrumental in adding dozens of trees and flowers to the area's once-sparse streets.

This community-based project has brought Penn students, faculty and staff together with public schools and neighborhoods to enhance the physical environment in

University City through planting new trees and greenery. So far, UCGreen has helped renew 25 neighborhood blocks, planted more than 400 trees and more than 10,000 flower

37 bulbs and created three children’s gardens and four public gardens. UCGreen has focused on vacant lots, distressed parks and residential blocks. One example is the Lea School

Garden. Through UCGreen, what was once a 1,600 square foot concrete courtyard at a local public elementary school has become a thriving outdoor learning environment of plants, bushes, trees and flowers, a shallow pond and seeding area, a trellis and murals depicting the four seasons. The children helped design the garden together with a professional architect while engaging in hands-on science activities with the support of

Penn faculty and students (Wiland and Bell 2006, University of Pennsylvania). As a result of the West Philadelphia Initiative (UCGreen), “crime has fallen dramatically, the schools are improving” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 89).

Case 5. Philadelphia’s Norris Square Neighborhood/ Las Parcelas Park in

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Green Space)

This project sought to reduce the amount poverty, crime, and vacant land by involving the community in park and cultural revitalization. Twenty years ago, Norris

Square, like much of the greater Kensington area, was filled with abandoned factories and warehouses, dilapidated homes, trash, traffic, and poorly lit vacant lots. The largely

Latino community started the Norris Square Project and began by doing simple things to help stabilize the neighborhood (i.e. keeping a watchful eye on the illegal activity occurring and calling the police to report it) (Wiland and Bell 2006).

They entered into a partnership with Philadelphia Green to implement the Norris

Square Neighborhood Project/ Las Parcelas Park. The project began as Latino residents seized control of a vacant lot on the block of a bad drug street and proceeded to paint a mural, plant fruit trees, a garden and other landscaping, and install a swimming pool. The

38 focal point of the garden is a casita (“little house”), which is modeled on the traditional homes still found in Puerto Rico. La Casita, as it is known, is a heritage center and museum, where children born and raised in Philadelphia can learn about the Puerto Rican ancestry. Outside, families maintain their own vegetable and flower gardens. They want to establish a store where people from the community can sell their arts and crafts and open a restaurant that will sponsor cooking classes with vegetables from the garden

(Wiland and Bell 2006).

Now, people are actually moving back to Norris Square. 50 abandoned lots in

Norris Square were transformed into 6 award-winning community gardens in 18 years.

The only thing they don’t like is the taxes. The taxes are going up and that means that the property values are increasing as well (Wiland and Bill 2006, 124-128).

Case 6. South Bronx’s Greenway in New York, New York (Green Space)

This project sought to alleviate poverty and remediate the environment through green-collar jobs and sustainable development. South Bronx wanted to replace old manufacturing with green industry (eco-industrial parks) where the waste of one company becomes the raw material of another and create opportunities that employ people so they can become an active part of the city. The South Bronx Greenway Project

(SBG) is a community-led plan for a bicycle/pedestrian greenway along the South Bronx waterfront, which will provide much needed open space, waterfront access and opportunities for mixed used economic development. The Greenway Project will allow for public recreation and exercise and hopefully spur further sustainable development in the area (Sustainable South Bronx).

39 Majora Carter, the founder of Sustainable South Bronx (SSBx) states that one reason people struggle with obesity in the South Bronx is the limited opportunity for exercise safely outdoors. SSBx is developing the South Bronx Grennway to provide safe public space, and create better transportation policy. Integrating traffic calming measures and truck routes that keep trucks away from the residential areas will help integrate physical activity into daily life (Sustainable South Bronx).

Case 7. LA’s Trees in Los Angeles, California (Green Space)

This project sought to create jobs, reduce concrete and reconnect the community with public spaces by planting trees. The California Division of Forestry donated tree seedlings to a nonprofit organization (TreePeople) to plant around the city. It was found that the trees survived best when they had someone to look after them (especially in their most vulnerable period- the first couple years in the ground). As a result, volunteers of

TreePeople are taught not only how to plant trees but also how to care for them- something most residents who’ve personally helped ‘re-green’ their neighborhoods are motivated and eager to do. When community members plant the trees themselves, they developed a sense of ownership over those trees and protected them (Wiland and Bell

2006).

LA could meet half of its water needs if it could somehow capture and retain its rainfall each year. Instead, 85% of that water slips out of the city’s grasp, washed out to sea and never seen again. Because rainwater is not saved, LA has to buy water that falls in Salt Lake City (Wiland and Bell 2006). In addition to beautifying its surroundings, “a single mature urban tree reduces the amount of carbon dioxide by about 115 pounds per year” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 147).

40 Case 8. East Harlem Tree Planting in New York, New York (Green Space)

This project sought to create community sustainability from the ground up and work to address six environmental issues in East Harlem: public health and asthma, parks and open space, sustainable business, farmers’ markets and healthy eating, green building, and transportation. This project focused particularly on creating parks and open space by planting trees throughout East Harlem. As part of the Million TreesNYC initiative, (a citywide, public-private program with the goal to increase the urban forest in

New York by planting and caring for one million new trees across the City's five boroughs over the next decade), 39 trees were planted in East Harlem by volunteers.

East Harlem experiences higher-than-average air pollution, and residents suffer from some of the highest rates of asthma in the city; both can be reduced by increasing the urban tree canopy (Million TreesNYC, b). Trees help clean the air, and reduce the pollutants that trigger asthma attacks and exacerbate other respiratory diseases. They cool streets, sidewalks, and homes on hot summer days. Trees increase property value, and encourage neighborhood revitalization. And trees make the City an even more beautiful and comfortable place to live, work, and visit (Million TreesNYC, a).

Case 9. Central Park in New York, New York (Green Space)

This project sought to reduce the congestion and pollutants caused from an urban city center and convert brownfield land to green recreational space. Frederick Law

Olmsted decided to create Central Park to provide the urban residents an opportunity to experience nature, allowing them to get away from the stress and confining nature of the fast-paced life in the city (Olmsted and Kimball 1928/1973). In 1872, Olmsted wrote that his purpose in designing Central Park was “to supply to the hundreds of thousands of

41 tired workers, who have no opportunity to spend their summers in the country, a specimen of God’s handiwork that shall be to them, inexpensively, what a month or two in the White Mountains or the Adirondacks, at great cost, to those in easier circumstances” (Olmsted and Kimball 1928/1973, 46). Olmsted and Vaux envisioned the park to be the new center of town- a place where people could easily go after work to get away from the stress and confining nature of a fast-paced life in the city.

The project was self-funding through increases in property tax collections on surrounding land. In the 1870s, the annual increase in property taxes was estimated to exceed the annual interest on the park project costs by over $4 million (Olmsted and

Kimball 1928/1973). Property values in Manhattan doubled during the 15 years after park development began (Garvin et al. 1997). Today, condos with a view of Central Park cost several million dollars apiece (up to $5.8 million- Kemp 2006, 40), which brings tax dollars accordingly (Platt 2004). “These park-generated tax revenues allowed the city to pay for municipal services that it could not otherwise have afforded and provided the stimulus for city officials to acquire the 26,369 acres of land that currently constitute

New York City’s extraordinary park system” (Garvin et al. 1997, 2).

Case 10. MillionTreesNYC in New York, New York (Green Space)

This project sought to strengthen New York City’s urban environment (including its transportation network, housing stock, land and park system, energy network, water supply and air quality), to maintain current and future infrastructure, and preserve and improve NYC’s environment by planting trees. The MillionTreesNYC initiative is a citywide, public-private program with an ambitious goal: to plant and care for one million new trees across the City's five boroughs over the next decade. By planting one million

42 trees, New York City can increase its urban forest (consisting of street trees, park trees, and trees on public, private and commercial land) by 20%, while achieving the many quality-of-life benefits that come with planting trees (MillionTreesNYC).

Case 11. Chicago’s CitySpace Program in Chicago, Illinois (Green Space)

This project sought to attract environmentally sensitive businesses to the old steelmaking quarter to fulfill the urgent need for more jobs in the region and reduce the amount of abandoned and underutilized property by creating green space which has economic, social and ecological benefit. The City of Chicago realizes that part of the problem is the design of cities. Cities are not built to keep cool with tightly packed buildings, streets and sidewalks made of brick, stone, steel and asphalt (materials that absorb heat and radiate heat back into the neighborhood (Wiland and Bell 2006). The

CitySpace program works to expand the amount of parkland in Chicago by converting abandoned and underutilized property into community gardens, parks and other forms of public open space. The program operates through an unprecedented agreement between the City of Chicago, Chicago Park District, Forest Preserve District of Cook County, and

Chicago Public Schools. In targeting greening projects on vacant lots, school playgrounds, and underutilized land along the Chicago River, the cooperative effort is helping Chicago achieve its open space goals, especially in neighborhoods where the amount of public land falls far below local and national standards (City of Chicago, a).

Parks improve property values, help reduce crime by strengthening neighborhood ties, reduce temperatures and clean the surrounding air and water. The California Energy

Commission has actually calculated that the Co2 reduction achieved by a single tree has a dollar value of $920 per ton per year (Wiland and Bell 2006). By turning liabilities into

43 assets that benefit today's and future generations, CitySpace is demonstrating to city residents and businesses that Chicago's land resources gain tremendous value through intergovernmental cooperation and innovative redevelopment (City of Chicago, a).

Case 12. Philadelphia Green in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Community Gardens &

Green Space)

This project sought to reduce the amount of poverty, crime, and vacant land by creating green space and public parks. The Mayor undertook the Neighborhood

Transformation Initiative (NTI) which recognizes the importance of green space in urban environments. The mission of this city’s $295 million bond-funded program is to halt the decay of vacant lots around town by planting green spaces. In the Mayor’s first term, every vacant lot in the city of Philadelphia was cleaned twice. The city entered into contracts with neighborhood groups and Philadelphia Green to help the city keep the vacant lots clean and help train people to garden on and clean those lots. They planted over 7000 trees in neighborhoods. They changed the wording in demolition contracts so that sites would be left better prepared for grass and trees (Wiland and Bell 200).

Through Philadelphia Green, the Philadelphia Horticultural Society (PHS) operates the largest comprehensive urban greening program in the nation (Wiland and

Bell 2006). PHS strives to help people revitalize their communities and improve their way of life through horticulture. One of the most prominent ways PHS realizes this goal is through the establishment and preservation of community gardens. PHS takes the profits from its annual Flower Show (usually about $1 million) and invests it into the local community to provide training, plants, tools, soil, and the general knowledge needed to positively impact urban areas. The PHS gives back to the community by

44 creating gardens on vacant lots and revitalizing neighborhood parks, gradually cleaning empty lots around town and planting beautiful landscapes. This program uses native species in planting projects when reviving neighborhood parks (Wiland and Bell 2006).

As of 2006, the Center City has been growing and thriving. “We have the third largest population of any downtown in the county next to New York and Chicago, with

80,000 people living there currently” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 86). They now have a heavily used parks system (which was underfunded for many years but now has new leadership and direction). They have a vibrant shopping district and the largest number of preserved historic buildings in the country. Since 2000, Philadelphia Green has stabilized more than 3 million square feet of vacant land (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Case 13. Community University Partnership in Baton Rouge, Louisiana

(Community Gardens)

This project sought to revitalize the community through a dynamic partnership between the university and local residents. The project was interested in developing a productive partnership between a predominantly white southern university and a predominantly African-American community and implementing a developmental approach to sustainable community building. Forging a partnership is essential to gaining access to the community and ensuring that community-building efforts are sustained.

Building a trusting relationship was the first step in the process of breaking down barriers and gaining access to the community (Hoff 1998).

The project focused on economic development, the enhancement of educational opportunities, physical improvements, and the construction of housing to promote sustainable economic and social development and to engage in environmental restoration

45 and protection projects (Hoff 1998). One of the partnership’s main projects was the creation of community gardens. While the immediate goal of the garden may be to grow fresh produce to generate income, social capital can also be developed through the relationships and bonds which develop between neighbors who work in the gardens. In addition, the use of vacant lots for community revitalization contributes to the social capital of the area by converting community hazards into productive areas that make the area not only more visually appealing but economically viable (Hoff 1998).

The partnership learned that: the history of the area in which outreach activities operate must be understood and issues arising out of this history must be addressed; a partnership is essential in building sustainable community projects- a key ingredient in making progress; successful community outreach projects take time to evolve and mature; community building is a long-term process that involves forming coalitions among community members, associations, and groups; and funding can expedite the process (Hoff 1998).

Case 14. Philadelphia’s Village for Arts and Humanities in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania (Community Gardens & Environmental Education)

This project sought to reduce the amount poverty, crime, and vacant land by involving the public. The Black Foundation Center created a garden in the abandoned lot behind the center’s building and incorporated art into the layout. Philadelphia Green supplied the trees and soil and worked with the children volunteers to teach them about gardening. As a result, the park creator was inspired to run a simple art program for children. This led to the formation of the Village for the Arts and Humanities, a community arts center. Children and adults go to learn about art. The community now

46 incorporates paintings and murals into the neighborhood gardens and parks and benches are built using recycled materials (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Case 15. Philadelphia’s Greensgrow Farm in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

(Community Gardens)

This project sought to clean the city and reduce the amount of vacant, blighted land by establishing an urban farm, known as Greensgrow, that was created by transforming a plot of land in Kensington, a Philadelphia neighborhood, which was formerly a galvanized steel plant into a neighborhood garden. The land was so badly contaminated that it qualified for federal superfund money to clean it up. Ordinarily, you would not grow conventional crops on a previously contaminated site, but the founder chose to grow crops hydroponically, in specially formulated water, where the roots of the plant could soak up their nutrition without the need for soil (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Greensgrow sells produce and plants to local restaurants and citizens. This project emphasizes the importance buying local, organic food. Buying local supports the small family farms that have been going out of business and selling out to developers. By making small farmers economically viable they’re saving farmland from developers and keeping the family on the farm. The farm also educates people about healthy food and provides access to the highest-quality food. (Wiland and Bell 2006). Greensgrow serves the Philadelphia community by offering self guided tours of their operations, including lessons in composting, hydroponic growing, and raising bees. In 2007, they began making biodiesel with waste oil from a local Philadelphia restaurant and long time supporter of local foods, ‘Standard Tap’. Working with Wilson Collage’s Fulton Farm, they are applying solar laminates to the new Farm Stand roof. Greensgrow is also the co-

47 founder of the Farm Market Alliance, developing policies designed to strengthen nearby rural farming communities while ensuring that the urban consumer has a voice in issues surrounding food choices and methods of production (Greensgrow Farms).

Case 16. Girls Today, Women Tomorrow in Los Angeles, CA (Environmental

Education & Gardening)

This project sought to create jobs, reduce concrete, and reconnect the community with public space by involving the public. The Girls Today, Women Tomorrow (GTWT) program is held after school for girls and uses the program’s community garden to expose the girls to nature in the urban environment which then helps them think about the kind of food they are eating. The program hopes to use produce from the garden in home cooking classes to further reinforce the students’ understanding of where food really comes from.

These cooking classes also offer healthy options that can be just as cheap as fast food

(Wiland and Bell 2006).

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign found that inner-city girls who are exposed to nature tend to exhibit higher self-discipline and avoid risky behavior. The researchers found that these girls were better able to handle peer pressure, sexual pressure, and challenging situations. They made better choices and performed better in school (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Case 17. Seattle’s Community Gardens in Seattle, Washington (Community

Gardens)

Seattle, Washington is often considered the leader in sustainable development.

This project sought to restore the salmon population and Puget Sound watershed, focus on green building to allow for growth and prevent its negative impacts, and connect the

48 community with the surrounding ecosystem by implementing a community garden.

Seattle wanted to be the kind of place where wildlife can thrive even at the edge of a growing city. It is important to acknowledge that “most of the great things in Seattle happen because the citizens want it” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 194).

The project provides organic community garden space for residents of 70 Seattle neighborhoods. The community gardens offer 2500 plots and serve more than 6000 urban gardeners on 23 acres of land. The program serves all citizens of Seattle with an emphasis on low-income and immigrant populations and youth. The project community gardeners show their concern for the value of fresh organic vegetables by supplying 7 to 10 tons of produce to Seattle food banks each year. Supporting a strong environmental ethic, the project allows organic gardening only (Wiland and Bell 2006).

The Local Food Economy Project expands on earlier studies of the economic impact of local spending. The analysis shows that locally directed spending by consumers more than doubles the number of dollars circulating among businesses in the community.

This means that a shift of 20% of a community’s food dollars into locally directed spending would result in a nearly half billion dollar annual income increase in King

County alone and twice that in the Central Puget Sound region (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Case 18. Harlem’s Green Market in New York, New York (Community

Garden/Farmer’s Market)

This project sought to create community sustainability from the ground up and working to address six environmental issues in East Harlem: public health and asthma, parks and open space, sustainable business, farmers’ markets and healthy eating, green building, and transportation. The project focused particularly on opening a farmers’

49 market in East Harlem. The Greenmarket is a privately funded not-for-profit organization that organizes and manages 59 outdoor farmers' markets throughout New York City. All market participants grow, raise or produce all their market items in the local region

(Farmer’s Market Federation of New York). Greenmarket promotes regional agriculture and ensures a continuing supply of fresh, local produce for New Yorkers. Greenmarket also supports farmers and preserves farmland for the future by providing regional small family farmers with opportunities to sell their fruits, vegetables and other farm products to New Yorkers (Council on the Environment of New York City).

Case 19. Chicago River Restoration in Chicago, Illinois (Nature

Restoration/Protection)

This project sought to restore the Chicago River, which once served as the city’s dumping ground, but is now seen as an important resource. Friends of the Chicago River worked to clean up the river and envisioned a 156-mile river park, flowing past fifty or so towns in the Chicago area (Wiland and Bell 2006). Chicago citizens, led by the grassroots organizations tackled the cleanup with a physical cleanup (i.e. invasive species removal and litter pickup) and legislative efforts to stop dumping on riverbanks and pollutants into the water. The organizations and citizens involved in the cleanup mapped out walking trails, put up interpretive signs, and knit that piece of the river into their daily lives

(Wiland and Bell 2006).

As the river began looking better, people wanted access to it. Some of the old fencing was torn down to provide access for recreational groups. Today, high school and college rowing teams use the river regularly. A canoe and kayak rental company has been established along the path. The city’s parks department is buying up parcels of land to

50 incorporate into the grand vision of a river park. Some developers have even built condos emphasizing the river view. There are rumors that otters have returned to the river. Since otters require slightly purer water conditions that other mammals, we can assume that the water is improving (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Case 20. Chicago’s Lake/River Restoration Efforts in Chicago, Illinois (Nature

Restoration/Protection)

This project sought to restore the Calumet Lake and River region, which was once home to Chicago’s steel industry and where the landscape was heavily polluted. Today, the city, state, and federal governments have joined the effort to preserve the nearly 5000 acres of the region’s natural spaces and attract less harmful business to the area. Soil and native plants were reintroduced to the area with the hopes of restoring a portion of the

Calumet watershed. Eventually, the city hopes that the area will attract companies that are looking for real estate in pristine settings. The area will also lure birders, anglers, and boaters who see the place as a perfect recreational setting. Soon the Calumet will offer bicycle trails, public access to the wetlands area, and an active environmental center. The challenge will be to bring jobs/economic activity back to the area (Wiland and Bell

2006).

In 1998, the National Park Service announced the Calumet was suitable for designation as a National Heritage Area. In 2000, the city and state announced that they would allocate funds to save the area. They split the acreage in half with 3000 acres of the best land to be preserved for nature and 3000 acres of the already damaged or denuded fields to be set aside for appropriate industrial use (The preserve area has since grown to 4,800 acres) (Wiland and Bell 2006).

51 Case 21. LA’s Natural Infrastructure in Los Angeles, California (Nature

Restoration/Protection)

This project sought to create jobs, reduce concrete, improve air and water quality, and work with nature to collect and store as much rain water a possible by restoring the natural infrastructure of the LA River. The river was seen as the perfect vehicle for building a sense of community that they city lacked. The City recognized that when the water quality was healthy, other organs were too (i.e. habitat, recreation, community aesthetics). The River Project conducts 6-week programs in local schools to educate and involve students in river restoration. Kids assist in designing new parks and choosing the plants to be used with the help of botanists, and then they go out into the field to pick up trash on the banks, erect interpretive signage, or remove invasive species (Wiland and

Bell 2006).

Case 22. Borough of Paulsboro Brownfield Redevelopment in Paulsboro, New

Jersey (Brownfield Redevelopment)

This project sought to redevelop contaminated brownfield property. The recommended site development plan includes: waterfront port development- including a

900-foot wharf structure that can accommodate “mid-sea ocean-going vessels” up to 800 ft in length; Industrial/commercial development; river gateway- a commercial/retail development with public access to the riverfront; and open space- a green buffer to separate industrial uses from the surrounding neighborhood and creation of a neighborhood park (Kemp 2006).

52 Case 23. Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta, Georgia (Brownfield Redevelopment)

The Georgia Congress Center Authority (GWCC- a state agency), the Committee for the Olympic Games and the Centennial Olympic Park Area, Inc. (COPA) sought to redevelop an impervious, brownfield property along the water in to a park/open space for the 1996 Olympics. The challenge and opportunity of hosting the 1996 Centennial

Olympics was the motivating force that accelerated and focused the effort. Private sector donations and funds raised by the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce and local philanthropic grants, assembled 60 acres of parking lots and other downtown land fronting the GWCC’s key sports and convention locations at pre-Olympic prices no higher than $2/ sq ft. (Kemp 2006; Centennial Olympic Park).

Initially, the site was partly developed as the 6-acre, $18 million centerpiece for the 1996 Olympics. The 21-acre park was finished the next year for an added $12 million, with the remaining land made available for private, mixed-use development. This unique 21-acre park serves as Georgia's lasting legacy of the Centennial Olympic Games and it anchors efforts to revitalize residential and commercial development in Georgia's capital city of Atlanta. Half the park is committed to projects ranging from super-luxury condos and a hotel to new facilities for CNN and the Coca-Cola Company. The value of the development is near $1 billion today. Property values are now $200/ sq. ft and rising

(Kemp 2006, 40).

In cities where lack of density and isolation have replaced crowding and noise as major problems, new parks like Atlanta’s must often double as plazas, making physical and visual connections among previously separated streets and neighborhoods, and providing a variety of magnet stages for daily activities and special events. This project

53 allowed for a transformation from a wasteland to a prime parkside location that succeeded substantially by introducing revenue-generating activities (i.e. daily vendors).

Events are now hosted in the park, in addition to the normal day-to-day traffic, which bring an estimated three million visitors to this urban oasis each year (Kemp 2006).

Case 24. Mill Race Park in Columbus, Indiana (Brownfield Redevelopment)

Through this project, Columbus sought to reclaim a floodplain and toxic waste site for community use and to provide support for downtown revitalization efforts. The project area was once an industrial site and a substandard housing area, located in a flood plain which caused flooding, creating an inhospitable place to live. Not surprisingly the area became known as “Death Valley” to many local citizens (Historic Columbus

Indiana). In the 1960s, the park site was purchased by the city and cleaned up, transforming it into the first iteration of Mill Race Park. In the late 1980s a redesign/update was awarded to Van Valkenburgh Associates, resulting in the completion of the current design of Mill Race Park in 1993 (Historic Columbus Indiana).

In 1992, 86 acres of downtown riverfront property was reclaimed by the city through volunteer effort. Private fundraisers raised $145,000 for the purchase of 66 acres

(Columbus Indiana). The design process included a four-month planning period, during which the park designer met with community leaders, interested citizens, groups and even elementary- school children. The public consultations allowed the people to feel involved in the process, which aided the designer in creating a vision for the park (Kemp 2006).

Case 25. Millennium Park in Chicago, Illinois (Brownfield Redevelopment)

This project sought to attract environmentally sensitive businesses to the old steelmaking quarter to fulfill the urgent need for more jobs in the region and reduce the

54 amount of abandoned and underutilized property by creating public space. The city transformed property that was once (one of the city’s biggest eyesores) a heavily-polluted industrial site and an 800 car parking lot into the 25-acre Millennium Park. The park incorporated an underground parking garage covered by arguably the world’s largest green roof which reduces 115 pounds of CO2 from the atmosphere per year. The project became a great example of successful public-private relationships. Parks build community and a city is enriched when its citizens have more places to hang out, visit with friends, and meet new people (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Case 26. Philadelphia’s Brownfield Redevelopment in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

(Brownfield Redevelopment & Green Space)

This project sought to clean up underutilized, contaminated land to spur development along the riverfront. In 2001, the City Planning Commission developed a plan to convert an 11-mile underutilized area along the Delaware into residential and recreational uses, allowing the public greater access to the water. The proposal included an incremental clean-up strategy, including phytoremediation- a remediation technique that uses plants to remove or stabilize contaminants- transforming the blighted landscape into flowering fields. Other innovative techniques that were used include the use of porous pavement on roadways, wetland/vegetative swales along the roads, green infiltration trenching along street, bike trails and parking areas for water quality improvement that will reduce the need for wastewater treatment infrastructure. The cost of clean-up for the area is estimated to be at least $250 million (Kemp 2006).

The overall visions for the North Delaware Riverfront include: a trail and a linear river park; a river road with public access to the river; and thousands of new residential

55 and commercial units. These visions will require zoning changes and incentives to entice suburban developers. The EPA also agreed to provide technical assistance and guidance through its regional Smart Growth Agreement with the City of Philadelphia. The city committed funding from its neighborhood economic stimulus fund to bring to fruition

(Kemp 2006).

Case 27. Camden Brownfield Redevelopment in Camden, New Jersey (Brownfield

Redevelopment)

This project sought to revitalize deteriorating brownfield properties along the riverfront by cleaning and replacing the contaminated property with mixed-use development. The end result included an aquarium, a 4-acre $9 million horticultural playland, a $56 million indoor-outdoor entertainment facility that can seat up to 25,000 people, and a minor league baseball stadium (Campbell Fields).

There’s a national trend in the redevelopment of brownfield properties because these properties offer distinct advantages such as being in or near densely populated areas that are supported by existing public infrastructure and mass transit, as well as frequently existing in neighborhoods rich in architectural and cultural heritage. The redevelopment allows economic development to take place in an area previously unused (Kemp 2006).

Case 28. Hartford’s Riverfront Redevelopment in Hartford, Connecticut

(Brownfield Redevelopment & Mixed-Use)

This project sought to spur economic development downtown and potentially spill over into surrounding neighborhoods by redeveloping contaminated land into multi-use center that focuses attention on the river. The goal was to convert previously vacant and contaminated property in a prime commercial location in to a use that brings in money

56 and creates a sense of place where people are attracted. Adriane’s Landing is a billion- dollar, multi-faceted development complex that would encompass a good portion of downtown near to and linking with the river and create an estimated 7,000 jobs. It includes a convention center and stadium; a 700-room convention hotel; a 14-screen movie complex; a Riverfront Discovery Center with aquarium; space station and history museum; affordable housing; and a network of shops, nightclubs and other recreational amenities (pedestrian riverfront arcade, multiuse sports complex and intermodal transportation system) (Kemp 2006).

The city has been working to connect Hartford to the River in the form of a walkway (open to pedestrians, bikers and joggers) and construction of a promenade.

Other plans call for grassy terraces leading to the river from the plaza with areas that could seat up to 2,000 people for performances and other special events. A bulkhead is also planned to be built along the river’s edge to allow excursion boats and water taxis to operate from downtown (Kemp 2006).

Case 29. Chattanooga Mall in Chattanooga, Tennessee (Mixed-Use Development)

This project sought to revitalize a declining mall and 4 square miles of its surrounding neighborhood with a mixed-use town center, parks and greenways to establish a pedestrian-friendly community in the once auto-dominated, pedestrian-hostile environment. With the help of the public (during a week-long charrette held by the regional planning agency) a plan was created using mostly private funding. This study called for creating a town center and embedding it in a street grid with new office, retail and residential construction. The mall’s exterior would be refaced with outward-facing storefronts. Much of the 50 acres of parking will be used for new housing, parks, civic

57 buildings, and a town square. The plan also reshapes a pedestrian-hostile arterial street on which the mall fronts, which currently has seven lanes and no sidewalks (Kemp 2006).

Robert Gibbs, an economic planner on the project states that “there is a huge movement right now in retailing to go back to main street. Today all the national chains are looking for space on main street. The shopping centers are learning from the cities”

(Kemp 2006, 73). The viable market area, consisting of a solid neighborhood, mature residential community, a lot of office space, excellent visibility, and vehicular access, was helpful in marketing the proposal.

Case 30. Cambridge University Park in Cambridge, Massachusetts (Mixed-Use

Development)

This project sought to return blighted, unused industrial land to productive use with a mixed-use site with commercial and residential use (including a minimum of 400 units and a significant affordable housing component). The 27-acre corporate campus

(including Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University) is located in the heart of Cambridge and is a lively integrated community of offices, laboratories, restaurants, shops, a hotel, grocery store, residences, and parks. The mixed-use development concept has been an important draw for many anchor tenants. Nearby public transit and on-site housing along with such conveniences as the supermarket, daycare facilities, and restaurants, appeal to prospective residents and employees. The development of a market-rate apartment building enhances the development’s open space and encourages greater use of the park, restaurants, and shops after business hours (Kemp

2006).

58 University Park is now considered a common ground for neighborhood residents, university scientists, and office workers. The 1.3-acre park is the centerpiece of a new, mixed-use neighborhood developed next to MIT. The development of a market-rate apartment building will better enhance the development’s open space and encourage greater use of the park after business hours. The area’s robust housing market, along with

Cambridge’s retraction of rent control, is prompting the developer to build 246 additional residences beyond its original obligation of 400 units. Besides offering employees nearby living accommodations, a number of University Park companies lease apartments for use by out-of-town employees, consultants, and customers (Kemp 2006).

Case 31. Grand Forks Redevelopment in Grand Forks, North Dakota (Mixed-Use &

Green Space)

This project sought to clean up and rebuild the city after intense flooding with mixed-use, cluster redevelopment of a town square along the riverfront. Park creation would also draw focus to the river, which they hoped would create a sense of place. Since a major flood in 1997, many of the businesses that had remained downtown (after suburban flight) have either relocated, closed completely, or are in temporary space and have no definite plans for permanent relocation. Although government offices and schools are expected to rebuild in their existing downtown locations, the future of many of the retailers and professional service firms is uncertain. The U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development offered $171 million in aid and services of the Urban

Land Institute (ULI) advisory services panel to the city (Kemp 2006).

The ULI panel proposed a conceptual land use plan for downtown Grand Forks that included a flood protection system; creation of exciting public spaces along the river,

59 including a traditional town square; clustering of land uses by development type; and streetscape and infrastructure improvements. The park would include native landscaping, pedestrian promenades, hard-surface hiking and jogging paths, and baseball/football fields. The use of public funds would be essential for stimulating both initial revitalization projects and private investment (Kemp 2006).

Case 32. Lake Worth Beach Restoration in Lake Worth, Florida (Mixed-Use

Development)

The beach has been the center of Lake Worth community life since before the city was founded in 1913. A Mediterranean/revival-style casino and bath built on the site in

1922 were largely destroyed by a hurricane in 1947. In 1949, the entire beach was scraped clean of native vegetation and converted to a vast surface parking lot to accommodate large numbers of tourists. As of 2001, 80% of the beach was paved. This project sought to restore the beach as public space and to create an economic, physical and social asset by creating mixed-use (retail, restaurants, conference and banquet space, public locker rooms, a lifeguard station, parking garage, picnic pavilion, restrooms, a fishing pier, pool equipment building and common areas) and open space with abundant landscaping. The previous multiple-lane road along the beach will be redeveloped into a tree-lined, old-fashioned single-lane avenue/promenade where pedestrians can feel more secure and welcome (Kemp 2006).

Case 33. LA’s Green Infrastructure in Los Angeles, California (Green

Infrastructure)

This project sought to create jobs, reduce the amount of concrete, improve air and water quality, and work with nature to collect and store as much rain water as possible by

60 focusing on green infrastructure. The City’s plan for increasing the amount of green infrastructure consisted of installing cisterns throughout the city and building swales to absorb the water into the ground. While the initial costs are more expensive, the city would save money that was once used to buy water from other cities. The TREES

(Transagency Resources for Environmental and Economic Sustainability) organization was created to design a “natural” retrofit for LA and create a software program that could show what different green infrastructure scenarios would cost as well as the benefits they would offer (Wiland and Bell 2006, 156- 159).

This project addressed several major air- and water-quality problems facing LA.

The problem of green waste was solved by residents and schools mulching their waste on-site to feed their beds (reducing 40% of the waste stream). The issue of water availability was addressed as hundreds of thousands of gallons were captured and stored during storms or else fed into the ground to recharge reservoirs and aquifers. Water pollution was addressed by designing driveways and parking lots to filter out toxins. High energy demands were addressed as trees and grass shade homes and schools, reducing the demand for air conditioning. Poor air quality was resolved as the new urban forest filters out particulates and CO2. Job creation was addressed by retrofitting 2,700 acres encompassing 8000 homes which would require the employment of many people with a variety of skill levels, from trained engineers and technicians to competent landscapers and day laborers. In following years, trees would need to be tended, cisterns maintained, filtering systems installed or repaired, grass mown, and green waste mulched (Wiland and Bell 2006, 154-163).

61 While this method would cost $100- 300 million (2-6 times the cost of the original storm drain), the city would save $200 million from using their own water rather than buying it from another city and $30 million would be saved by mulching green waste rather than paying to send it to a dump (Wiland and Bell 2006, 162).

Case 34. Eden Place in Chicago, Illinois (Environmental Education)

This project sought to attract environmentally sensitive businesses to fulfill the need for more jobs in the region and to recover the neighborhood's rich architectural history by educating and involving the public. It was found that a block in Fuller Park neighborhood was contaminated with lead and asbestos. The EPA confirmed but neither the city nor the federal government would do anything more. Neighbors and local contractors organized to clean up the block and turn it into an environmental education center. Slowly, the community began to transform the block into Eden Place, a wildlife preserve and nature education center, complete with its own prairie, wetlands, nature pond, savanna, Indian village, farmyard with farm animals, and extensive vegetable garden (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Case 35. Sustainable Cleveland Corporate Roundtable (CRT) in Cleveland, Ohio

(Environmental Education)

Sustainable Cleveland sought to help create clean, healthy, and safe neighborhoods that benefit all Cleveland’s residents. The Sustainable Cleveland

62 disseminated to other Cleveland and Great Lakes region neighborhoods to assist others in improving information access in their communities (Earth Day Coalition).

Sustainable Cleveland also invested in environmental education. Sustainable

Cleveland and the Nance College of Business at Cleveland State University initiated a

Corporate Roundtable (CRT) where the group of business leaders (i.e. CEO of BP

American) meets monthly for peer learning about best practices and innovation in corporate and community sustainability. Sustainable Cleveland serves as a neutral party, offering knowledge resources to assist in participants’ exploration of sustainability and what it means for their businesses. Discussion focuses on enhancing economic, environmental and social values through sustainable practices, products, technology, and strategy through sustainable supply chains, corporate sustainability models in use today, and business opportunities in climate-friendly technologies (Sustainable Cleveland

Partnership).

Case 36. Seattle’s ‘Choose to Change’ Education Program in Seattle, Washington

(Environmental Education)

Sustainable Seattle provides education on sustainability to adults and school children, through workshops and other programs. Currently, Sustainable Seattle is offering a program geared for youth to reduce waste, recycle, and learn smart consumption behavior called ‘Choose to Change’. Sustainable Seattle also offers workshops for individuals seeking knowledge on issues of sustainability. Recently, Sustainable Seattle

63 offered a workshop called ‘Aligning your Career with Sustainability, which provided those interested in careers in sustainability and useful methods for achieving this goal

(Wiland and Bell 2006).

Case 37. Chicago’s Wireless Technology in Chicago, Illinois (Green Technology)

Chicago’s Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) is a nonprofit organization (with a blend of green grassroots thinking and cutting edge technology) that currently brings free Internet services to four lower-income neighborhoods. Residents who don’t own and cannot afford a computer can also receive a refurbished system, most of which are donated by area colleges and local governments. By providing free internet and computers to those who can’t afford it, the organization provides people greater access to information. As a result, residents are able to learn about conserving energy use, telecommute (instead of physically commuting thus reducing destruction of natural resources that would be consumed), interact, and pay bills online (reduce paper waste).

Access to the web has become an important tool for social change and “internet access has been shown to be one of the most important determiners of economic and education success” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 41).

Case 38. Sustainable Cleveland’s Sustainable Technology in Cleveland, Ohio (Green

Technology)

Sustainable Cleveland sought to help create clean, healthy, and safe neighborhoods that benefit all Cleveland’s residents. The Sustainable Cleveland

64 Partnership will 1) develop and implement a replicable model environmental information access system in several Cleveland neighborhoods to help citizens create positive environmental change in their communities, and, 2) develop collaborations between community residents, organizations, universities and regulators. This model will be disseminated to other Cleveland and Great Lakes region neighborhoods to assist others in improving information access in their communities (Earth Day Coalition).

Sustainable Cleveland also focused on sustainable technology to achieve its goals.

Sustainable Cleveland is organizing a discussion with TeamNEO, NorTech, and Pew

Center for Global Climate Change to determine the feasibility and interest of creating a sustainable technologies economic development “cluster” for Northeast Ohio.

Sustainable technologies can help retool existing Northeast Ohio companies, attract companies with sustainable technology products to Northeast Ohio, and to expand and support local companies to market sustainable technologies both domestically and internationally. Sustainable Cleveland aims to develop a critical mass of companies supporting a particular industry, which can be the basis for attracting other sustainable technology companies to the region. Key industries represent near-term targets for growth within this cluster includes: clean energy, sustainable water use, green buildings, and urban land recycling (“brownfield” redevelopment) (Sustainable Cleveland).

Case 39. Sustainable Cleveland Wind Farm in Cleveland, Ohio (Green

Technology/Renewable Energy)

Sustainable Cleveland sought to help create clean, healthy, and safe neighborhoods that benefit all Cleveland’s residents. The Sustainable Cleveland

Partnership will 1) develop and implement a replicable model environmental information

65 access system in several Cleveland neighborhoods to help citizens create positive environmental change in their communities, and, 2) develop collaborations between community residents, organizations, universities and regulators. This model will be disseminated to other Cleveland and Great Lakes region neighborhoods to assist others in improving information access in their communities (Earth Day Coalition).

Sustainable Cleveland implemented a wind farm to achieve its revitalization goals. Sustainable Cleveland’s Northeast Ohio Wind Farm project (NOW) was established with the input from 40 representatives from government, policy research organizations, multinational corporations, civic groups, community foundations, and wind developers (Sustainable Cleveland Partnership). This project is leading to strategic team-building around a manufacturing cluster to support a local wind development, and for exporting wind power products and services to other regions of the world. Sustainable

Cleveland has begun leading discussions with Sustainable Cleveland’s corporate and civic partners about the potential to reenergize regional manufacturing to create a center for wind turbine and component manufacturing. Several regional companies already manufacture components for this industry, primarily for export to Europe (Sustainable

Cleveland Partnership).

Case 40. Chattanooga Venture-Vision 2000 in Chattanooga, Tennessee

(Environmental Education & Community Plan)

This project sought to reduce the pollution, increase social welfare, create neighborhood jobs, and increase business and community relations by increasing community action and education. A community needs assessment and strategic planning process was initiated by gathering information from over 1,000 citizens, summarizing

66 their thoughts into 40 future goals, and, through and organizing new and existing organizations and leaders into a series of citizen task forces and organizations to address the goals (Hoff 1998).

The project emphasized that importance of having community-wide participation, coordinating interrelated systems, maintaining a balance of vision and action, nurturing public/private collaboration, and finding positive working solutions (Hoff 1998, 116).

Chattanooga’s sustainable development efforts resulted in: the Tennessee Riverpark and

Aquarium; locally built zero-emission electric buses that are used locally and are increasingly sold nationally and internationally; Chattanooga-hosted conferences that have brought expert environmental consultants to the community; the Orange Grove

Recycling Facility, which employs over 100 individuals with disabilities and provides education tours regarding disabled individuals’ social contributions and illustrates environmental problems; a new prototype for a city-county school system; environment and children’s health-enhancing recreational alternatives, especially for children in low- income neighborhoods; plans for the redevelopment of chemically contaminated brownfields with eco-industrial parks; preservation of natural resources, including the

Tennessee River Gorge and rejection of ecologically destructive enterprises such as chip mills; and neighborhood development, including the inner city Westside Community

Revitalization (Hoff 1998).

Case 41. LA’s Green Vision Plan in Los Angeles, California (Green Community

Plan)

This project sought to create jobs, reduce concrete and reconnect the community with public spaces by creating a Green Visions Plan. This plan serves as an excellent

67 model for how communities can establish green areas even if their city is already heavily developed. The long-term goals of the Green Visions Plan include: protecting and restoring natural areas to ensure the growth of native biodiversity and reintroduction of historically accurate natural plant communities; restoring natural function to the hydrological cycle to maximize groundwater recharge, improve storm-water quality, and minimize flood hazards; and increasing and ensuring equitable access for residents to a range of open spaces and recreational opportunities, and thereby reduce socioeconomic and geographic disparities in present-day patterns of access to these types of resources

(Wiland and Bell 2006, 146).

The plan seeks to maximize political and financial support for the Green Visions

Plan by proposing multiple-use facilities wherever possible to meet the goals and habitat restoration and conservation, restoration of hydro-ecological function, and creation of more recreational open space (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Case 42. Sustainable Cleveland’s Study in Cleveland, Ohio (Green Community

Plans)

Sustainable Cleveland sought to help create clean, healthy, and safe neighborhoods that benefit all Cleveland’s residents. The Sustainable Cleveland

Partnership will 1) develop and implement a replicable model environmental information access system in several Cleveland neighborhoods to help citizens create positive environmental change in their communities, and, 2) develop collaborations between community residents, organizations, universities and regulators. This model will be disseminated to other Cleveland and Great Lakes region neighborhoods to assist others in improving information access in their communities (Earth Day Coalition).

68 The organization created a unique study of the corporate sustainability of

Northeast Ohio’s 150 largest corporations (a.k.a. NEO 150). The NEO Top 150 collectively represents billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. By measuring businesses that leave such a large economic footprint on the region, the achievements and room for improvement illuminated by this benchmarking exercise will be a catalyst for far- reaching change. In order to move forward with their mission of integrating sustainable business practices into Northeast Ohio’s 150 largest corporations, it is important to accurately assess where the constituents are today. By integrating this data into other developing regional assessments, this project is on track to be the nation’s first benchmarking of a geographic region’s sustainability. Through this project, Sustainable

Cleveland aims to help integrate sustainability into the region’s vision of economic development and prosperity (Sustainable Cleveland).

The value of Sustainable Cleveland’s initiatives will be demonstrated through improved competitive advantage, high return on investment, job creation, environmental protection, and strengthening of the social and community fabric.

Case 43. Harlem-on-the-River Waterfront Park Plan in New York, New York

(Green Community Plan)

This project sought to engage community leaders and residents in developing a community-driven plan to achieve a healthy, sustainable and environmentally just community. The Harlem-on-the-River Project would both increase access to the Harlem waterfront and raise interest in one of Northern Manhattan’s neglected neighborhoods.

WE ACT for Environmental Justice (West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc.) is a nonprofit, community-based, environmental justice organization dedicated to building

69 community power to fight environmental racism and improve environmental health, protection and policy in communities of color. WE ACT accomplishes this mission through community organizing, education and training, advocacy and research, and public policy development. WE ACT empowers residents to address irresponsible development proposals with community-based planning and development of sustainable, proactive initiatives (WE ACT). This community plan allowed for the development of the

West Harlem Waterfront Park in 2003.

Case 44. Detroit Eco-Village in Detroit, Michigan (Eco-Village)

Detroit sought to establish an eco-village to demonstrate the use of energy efficiency, renewable and alternative energy technologies as a profitable catalyst for the redevelopment of decaying cities. By demonstrating the value returned on such investment as tangible - even in a region with a legacy of carbon-heavy industry - they set out a model that can be replicated in cities across the United States and around the world.

This initiative intends to capitalize on the excitement created by an eco-village of green development and state-of-the-art alternative energy technology to be an economic development anchor within a target urban redevelopment area. The project plans for a broad, mixed-use development of about 1 million square feet, and would include a technology park, residential and commercial developments.

Drawing on both established and emerging technologies, they designed a strategic energy plan for the project that makes best use of energy efficiency, alternative and renewable energy technologies. New construction could include solar and wind power, bio-fuels and trash-to-energy generators, energy-efficient building materials, hydrogen fuel cells, etc. Such technologies would be linked together into a microgrid to power the

70 eco-village, feeding excess power back to the main utility grid. Vacant land and environmental brownfields will be used to grow bio-fuel feedstocks, creating a new kind of urban greenspace as it removes blight. The project would also include and encourage green transit and alternative fuel solutions for mass transit and vehicles (Urban Eco-

Village Model).

Case 45. East Price Hill Eco-Village in East Price Hill- Cincinnati, Ohio (Eco-

Village)

The East Price Hill eco-village wished to revitalize the deteriorating neighborhood through capitalizing on its existing built and natural environment, to promote environmental stewardship and community building. The community sought to be a model of sustainable living for other neighborhoods, create a neighborhood that builds a new sense of community identity, stabilizes home ownership, increases real estate values, nurtures community pride, offers an abundance of parks and greenspace, clean air and land, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, trees, and renovated energy-efficient homes. Ideas such as promoting home ownership and community involvement complemented larger ideas of greenspace preservation, organic gardening, tree cover, and energy efficiency. Most importantly, they recognized there would need to be a focused effort on connecting the social, environmental, and economic components of Price Hill in a synergistic manner in order to work towards sustainability (Sizemore 2004).

During the first five years, the community produced various demonstrations of improvements throughout the Seminary Square area they hoped would spur neighborhood re-investment such as various beautification projects, litter mitigation, recycling promotion, home renovations, façade improvements along the Warsaw Avenue

71 business district and tree planting endeavors. The organization initiated workshops around themes such as energy conservation and environmental stewardship and people started purchasing homes on Enright. The common element residents experienced was community, and particularly community centered on the values of the natural environment. Gardening, recycling, tree planting, and general care for their homes centered on more ecological practices was the glue that created this bond (Sizemore

2004).

Case 46. Los Angeles Eco-village in Los Angeles, California (Eco-Village)

This project sought to create a neighborhood model that would convince leaders in the developing world to bypass the unsustainable development patterns of American cities and suburbs. The eco-villagers demonstrate the processes for creating a healthy neighborhood ecologically, socially, and economically. They try to reduce their environmental impacts while raising the quality of neighborhood life. Members of the eco-village recognize that a neighborhood is only sustainable when its economic, social, and physical systems are sustainable (Arkin 1993).

Projects within the eco-village include: a demonstration grey water reclamation system; creation of a community land trust; electric vehicle co-op; a buying co-op for organic food and environmentally safe household products; education about mutual housing/limited equity housing co-ops; neighborhood health/nutrition/exercise group; organizing/educating about recycling; working with off-track youth (5 - 16) within neighborhood (unstructured safe play, tutoring, earth stewarding activities, Jr. co-op businesses, etc.); establishing neighborhood conflict resolution process; working with gardens and orchards; starting a market garden; starting a bicycle repair co-op business;

72 organizing and providing technical assistance to several neighborhood micro-businesses, e.g., apartment management business (including resident mgmt., open green space maintenance, unit prep., plumbing, electrical, painting, cleaning, showing and renting, collecting rent, etc.), domestic cleaning using non-toxic cleaning materials, food kiosk

(coffee, tea, fruit, papers, etc.), seedling nursery, herb market garden for local stores and restaurants, source separation recycling, paper recycling from local print shops and offices, compost sales, egg sales; helping design and organize for traffic calming implementation; researching building/buying a quadracycle for bio-cycling co-op

(picking up compostable and recyclable material around neighborhoods); organizing special events (potlucks and other social gatherings, special speakers on co-ops, organic gardening, water/energy auditing/conservation, organic pest control, health issues, etc.); helping design, develop, market, train for conducting public interactive "tours" of Eco-

Village; building a demonstration food growing trellis over a sidewalk area; reinvigorating the Jr. Recycling Co-op, multi-family building source separation recycling, etc.; helping create overall Eco-Village development plan and schedule; helping facilitate small groups of neighbors for input and feedback on Eco-Village design issues such as traffic planning, building retrofits, plaza design, etc.; designing and implement a health survey; helping start an electric car conversion co-op for with neighborhood residents and their vehicles; picking up local compost materials (from stores, homes, stables); and activating Residents Co-op Housing Share Savings (R-CHARS) (Arkin 1993).

Case 48. Cleveland EcoVillage in Cleveland, Ohio (Eco-village)

This project sought to reduce sprawl and attract people back into the city to create healthy, attractive, urban neighborhoods by promoting high performance buildings,

73 neighborhoods, and businesses by creating an eco-village. As older cities like Cleveland are being redeveloped, it is vital that this urban regeneration incorporate advanced ecological design (GreenCityBlueLake, a). The eco-village would create new housing opportunities, better transit facilities, and programs to help people cut energy bills. The eco-village incorporated affordable green single family housing within walking distance to public transit, cohousing, and a greenspace plan (which includes greenspace design, green infrastructure to addresses stormwater management issues, and natural habitat preservation and restoration) (GreenCityBlueLake, b).

Case 48. EPA’s Sustainability Model in Stella, Missouri (Sustainable/Eco-Village)

This project sought to create a model that revitalizes the community while learning about the effects of human decision making on natural resources. Stemming from a previous partnership with Stella, EPA sustainability researchers decided to create a comprehensive study of the community and its sustainable future. This study resulted in a master plan that showed how the community could develop to meet citizens’ needs and respect their values, while strengthening the natural, social, and economic systems that make a community viable.

The success of Stella’s revitalization plan is conditioned upon (1) economic activities that factor in human and environmental costs; (2) social activities that ensure human safety, communal decision making, and shared access to natural resources; and (3) environmental actions that preserve “intact” ecosystems. Some proposed economic action items in Stella’s master plan include: concentrating commercial, institutional, and public activities in a core area within walking distance from a common parking area; creating a resident cooperative to support and pay local farmers to grow food to meet local needs,

74 and create a farmers’ market; constructing a multi-purpose building to replace the demolished hospital structure in order to house a town hall, library, post office, café, and emergency shelter; converting a former general store to provide a café, shops, and commercial space; providing local auto parts services and a gas station; and developing activities and opportunities to buy locally in order to keep money in the community.

Some of the proposed social action items include: developing clustered housing around communal green space where children can play safely isolated from streets and within view of neighbors; providing walkable streets: multiple routes, shade trees, and sidewalks to increase human interaction; narrowing streets to reduce paved surfaces and related storm water runoff damage; and creating parks and waterside activities for residents and visitors. Some environmental actions include: developing a forested green belt around the community with a riparian (streamside) corridor; restoring the stream bank with native species; creating ponds for storm water retention and rain gardens on residential property to reduce water runoff; constructing wetlands to purify wastewater; and recycling “grey water” for irrigation, lawn use, and car washing.

The Stella master plan outlined a number of start-up projects selected for their reasonable cost, interest for community volunteers, and potential for sustainability. Some of these projects include creating gateway gardens, create a streamside park, organizing a local farmer’s market, building more (infill) housing, protecting the natural springs, and building trails. Many of these projects are already in progress.

This case shows that it is not possible to separate the three systems (social, economic and environmental): community concerns are developer and environmental concerns, developer concerns are community and environmental concerns, and

75 environmental concerns are developer and community concerns. In terms of sustainability, everything matters—a concept that potentially applies to larger-scale urban and regional planning, as well as to small communities like Stella. Although development to meet Stella’s sustainability master plan will likely be slow and uncertain over the next decade, the process has revealed strong relationships among communities, developers, and environmental stewards.

Case 49. Fruitvale Transit Village in Fruitvale, California (Transportation)

This project sought to improve the low-income, predominantly minority community experiencing economic stress by reducing traffic and pollution in and around

Fruitvale. It is the result of a broad-based partnership among public, private, and nonprofit organizations working together to revitalize a community using transit-oriented development, which seeks to use mass transit stations as building blocks for economic revitalization and environmental improvement. This case study focuses on the incorporation of environmental justice principles into the planning and design of the

Fruitvale Transit Village. Plans for the Transit Village include a mixture of housing, shops, offices, a library, a child care facility, a pedestrian plaza, and other community services all surrounding the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) station. The project is expected to reduce traffic and pollution in and around Fruitvale because community residents will have access to a range of goods and services within easy walking distance of the transit station (US Department of Transportation).

76 partnerships to generate funding and other resources necessary to plan and implement a costly and complex project. It illustrates a strong commitment to public involvement by the lead agencies involved. In this case, the Unity Council's leadership role in the project helped ensure that the community's own vision for the transit station and its surrounding area served as guiding principles for the planning and design process. Finally, the planning effort behind the Fruitvale Transit Village represents an innovative strategy for using mass transit as a lever for revitalizing an urban community. While transit-oriented development has been successful in a growing number of affluent suburban locations, the

Fruitvale Transit Village sets a precedent for such projects in lower-income, inner-city communities (US Department of Transportation).

Case 50. LA’s Light Rail in Los Angeles, California (Transportation)

This project sought to invest in smart growth and reduce commuting times experienced by residents by focusing on LA’s transit/ light rail. In Antelope Valley

(Westside), commute times to work are often two hours each way. Parents often return home late at night and do not get to spend much time with their kids. As a result, teen problems started to arise (i.e. gangs and violence). This project sought to transform the old right-of-way from an extinct railroad line (bought by the later known Metropolitan

Transit Authority), to build a light rail line to the west side of LA. Citizen groups and grassroots organizations advocated for this line and worked with the MTA. This new line would potentially serve 8 hundred thousand people living along the corridor from Santa

Monica through Culver City to downtown LA (Wiland and Bell 2006).

77 Case 51. Portland’s Transportation (Transportation)

This project sought to reduce sprawl and concentrate growth and development within the urban growth boundary. The Joint Policy Advisory Committee on

Transportation (JPACT) and Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality have created several tools (vehicle inspection program, commuting requirements for downtown businesses, parking regulations and transit) to reduce the amount of sprawl and air pollution that is occurring as Oregon’s population continues to grow. Portland plans to expand its motor vehicle inspection program into areas outside the regional urban growth boundary and implement a more sophisticated vehicle emission test. An

“employee commute options rule” was created that will require companies with 50 to 100 workers to submit plans for reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips by 10%. This figure increases to 20% for larger employers. A “parking ratio rule” was created to reduce the number of new parking spaces by requiring local governments to establish maximum parking ratios for new development. This new ratio will allow two parking spaces per

1,000 square feet of office space in residential districts and between 0.7 and 1 parking space for every 1,000 feet of office space downtown. The region’s light rail system-

Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) serves as an alternative form of transportation that helps the region welcome new development and growth without the negative side-effects.

Hoping to take advantage of light rail’s popularity, Tri-State Metropolitan

Transportation District, local governments, and the Department of Environmental Quality are engaged in a public-private partnership that seeks to create transit-oriented developments on large undeveloped parcels near planned west side light rail stops.

78 Case 52. South Bronx Training Program in New York, New York (Green Collar

Jobs)

This project sought to alleviate poverty and remediate the environment by creating an environmental training program. The Ecological restoration job training program (Bronx Environmental Stewardship Training- BEST) trains people from the community and citywide about the ecological restoration needs. The program has experienced about an 85% placement rate and training includes: brownfield remediation;

Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Hazardous Material and Industrial

Safety training; green roof installation/maintenance; river bank restoration; bioremediation; phytomediation; ecological restoration; wetland restoration; and stream bank stabilization (Sustainable South Bronx).

SSBx launched the Bronx Environmental Stewardship Training in 2003. This 10- week job-training program confronts environmental, health, poverty and quality of life problems by equipping urban residents to work in "green collar" jobs such as ecological restoration, hazardous waste cleanup, green roof installation and maintenance, urban forestry and landscaping. The program targets people who are facing barriers to employment. "These are folks who have been incarcerated or on public assistance,"

Craytor explains. "When they rebuilding the Bronx and the city through ecological restoration," she continues, "They're also rebuilding their lives and it affects not just them but their families as well” (Sustainable South Bronx).

79 places, PlaNYC2030 misses the chance to help make a "green collar" workforce into reality (Gotham Gazette 2008).

Case 53. Glendale’s Pedestrian Streets in Glendale, Wisconsin (Pedestrian-Friendly

Development)

The city of Glendale sought to produce a safe and inviting place for residents and visitors to walk and shop by implementing a new streetscape plan that incorporates pedestrian-friendly elements. West Silver Spring Drive, a straight, 1-mile stretch of heavily traveled arterial, was lined with parking lanes and surrounded by vacant and underused properties. The city used Tax Increment Financing funding to recreate this main street to become more pedestrian-friendly and aesthetically pleasing. They constructed a gently curving roadway that produced larger parcels for office and retail development. The improvements will also slow traffic and reduce the amount of accidents occurring in the intersection. Green spaces, pedestrian lighting, benches, bus shelters and rest areas will be installed.

The pedestrian-friendly development provides a vibrant, mixed use community which offers some incentive for people to walk rather than drive. Officials are projecting that subsequent development will create a harmonious character for the area (Kemp

2006).

Case 54. Waco Streetscape in Waco, Texas (Pedestrian-Friendly Development)

This project sought to balance commerce with a sense of community by improving pedestrian activity. The city chose to update its image citywide by creating an environment through streetscapes that offers downtown visitors easy access to an already-developed retail and entertainment base. The project incorporates lighting,

80 furniture, paving, signage, landscaping and other features to help create an attractive and functional pedestrian environment. The streetscape will link Waco’s various downtown areas and allow people to travel between shops, restaurants, hotels, apartments and clubs in a more pedestrian friendly environment.

Residents and developers have responded favorably to the changes as State and

Federal offices, hotels, loft apartments, restaurants and specialty shops have been added to Waco’s downtown. The city is installing a bicycle/pedestrian trail along the Brazos

River to connect with the downtown improvements. While there is no single way to revitalize an area, cities across the nation seem to be focusing on the need for pedestrian- friendly elements that create a sense of convenience, safety and community (Kemp

2006).

Case 55. Seattle’s High Point Development Project in Seattle, Washington (Mixed-

Use Development & Swales)

This project sought to restore the salmon population and Puget Sound watershed, focus on green building to allow for growth and prevent its negative impacts, and connect the community with the surrounding ecosystem by focusing on mixed-use/ mixed-income development and swales (with green building strategies. Seattle Housing Authority and the City decided to transform an abandoned housing development in West Seattle into a vibrant, dense, mixed-use, mixed-income community. Since the site is located in a watershed, swales were used to prevent runoff and encourage groundwater recharge. Old building materials from the existing buildings were salvaged and recycled and about 100 trees were protected from construction using tree fences. This project provides a model for the strategic use of trees, swales and plantings to mimic nature’s systems for

81 managing and purifying water. The project will promote green lifestyles and a sense of community (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Case 56. Chicago’s Green Affordable Housing in Chicago, Illinois (Green Building

& Green Technology)

This project sought to create affordable and environmentally-friendly housing development for Chicago's neediest individuals by constructing green buildings with geothermal heat pumps, high-efficiency heating and air conditioning systems, solar hot water heating systems, and solar panels and green roofs. The added savings from reduced utility bills will go towards funds for other uses, including supportive services for tenants.

Half the units are for those who endured homeless and half are for public housing residents. The complex offers a wide variety of support services designed to assist in the transition from homelessness and will enable residents to live as independently as possible (City of Chicago’s Department of Housing).

Mayor Daley states that "We know that affordable and permanent supportive housing is critical in helping people at risk of homelessness find stability so they can access employment services, health care, and mental health and addiction services . . .

Washington SRO will hopefully provide the permanent solution they need to break out of the cycle of poverty and despair" (Chicago’s Department of Housing). Washington Park

SRO is also an example of how green practices can be incorporated into affordable housing design and construction to minimize environmental impact and reduce energy consumption. In Chicago, urban greening is not undertaken with the sole purpose of aesthetic improvement; it is also an important and recognized component of the city’s

82 urban infrastructure and is considered imperative for good quality of life in all of

Chicago’s 77 communities (Kemp 2006, 78).

Case 57. Green Building and Construction Practices in Seattle, Washington (Green

Building, Infill Development, and Green Construction Practices)

This project sought to restore the salmon population and Puget Sound watershed, focus on green building to allow for growth and prevent its negative impacts, and connect the community with the surrounding ecosystem by focusing on sustainable urban infill housing (rebuilding on existing land within the city) and green building and construction techniques. Martha Rose Construction (known for its sustainable building) is one construction company that allows a salvage company to pick through existing structures

(that will later be torn down for new development) for usable items (i.e. hardwood floors, cabinets, mantelpieces) which are donated to shelter organizations or sold to people looking to store old homes. The empty shell is then demolished, and the resulting concrete, wood, and bricks are sent to a recycling site that sorts “commingled debris”.

The wood is ground up for composting, the metal is recycled as scrap and anything unusable is ground up and sent to the landfill. By using these pre-construction techniques, only 5% of structures (instead of 100%) make it to a landfill.

During construction, the company tries to save as many trees on site as possible by erecting tree fences (if a fenced tree is damaged, the responsible party must pay for value of the tree), minimizes the amount of destruction to the land, captures and retains stormwater, eliminates the use of toxic pressure-treated lumber and use shingles with a longer lifespan, and emphasizes using materials that are more durable and last longer (i.e. commercial-grade tile and carpets and cedar siding). A major goal among green builders

83 is to reduce energy loss by altering construction practices and installing energy efficient appliances (Wiland and Bell 2006; City of Seattle’s Department of Planning and

Development).

Case 58. Chicago’s Green Roofs in Chicago, Illinois (Green Building, Green

Infrastructure, and Green Collar Jobs)

This project sought to attract environmentally sensitive businesses to the old steelmaking quarter to fulfill the urgent need for more jobs in the region and reduce the amount of abandoned and underutilized property through incentivizing the use of green roofs (with native plants). The City of Chicago Department of Environment is issuing grants for green roofs. Grants of up to $5,000 are available towards the cost of installing a green roof- consisting of plants and soil, or other light-weight growing medium, installed on top of a waterproofing membrane. The City also provides a list of green roof providers as well as a guide to rooftop gardening (Chicago Green Roof Grants Program).

Green roofs help building owners save money (energy savings through high efficiency), while also contributing to a healthy city. A green roof was constructed on top of City Hall to reduce the heavy flow of rainwater and heavy flooding, and create a beautiful habitat for birds and other creatures. The native plants reduce rain water runoff, reflect heat, shade the building, cool the air by slowly releasing moisture through the pores in their leaves, and purify the air by transforming excess CO2 into oxygen. City

Hall also makes and sells its own honey from a swarm of bees that live in the rooftop apiary and pollinate the rooftop plants. This particular green roof saves taxpayers $4,000-

$5,000 a year in heating and cooling costs. On a hot day, the air is actually about 15 degrees cooler in the garden than on nearby rooftops (Wiland and Bell 2006).

84 The Building Green/Green Roof Initiative sets forth policies and resources that promote sustainable building practices across the city. Policies involve environmentally responsible design, construction and maintenance techniques that are available for and may apply to both new and existing structures. The initiative promotes the construction of buildings that: enhance the well being of occupants; require fewer resources to build and maintain; and cost less to operate. These policies are applicable to new public buildings, planned developments, and privately funded structures that are subsidized by the City of

Chicago (City of Chicago).

Case 59. South Bronx Green Roofs in New York, New York (Green Building, Green

Infrastructure, and Green Collar Jobs)

This project sought to alleviate poverty and remediate the environment by implementing a green roof program. SSBx’s green roof installation business trains people how to install green roofs in the community and around the city (a.k.a. SmartRoof

Representatives). They educate community members on the process of stalling green roofs from structural analysis to soil depth, plant selections, government incentives, and installation. They work to design a system to fit individual needs and spread this beneficial technology throughout NYC (Sustainable South Bronx, b).

SmartRoof representatives also educate community members on the importance of green roof installation. Green roofs result in temperature reduction and energy conservation; stormwater management (by absorbing rain water); improved air quality; space for urban agriculture; employment; reintroduce native species. While retrofitting an existing building with a green roof costs more than a conventional roof, this investment yields cost savings over time through energy conservation and rooftop longevity. A green

85 roof can also increase the resale or rental value of a property and provide aesthetic enjoyment (Sustainable South Bronx, b).

Case 60. Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park in Northampton County,

Virginia (Brownfield Redevelopment, Mixed-Use, Green Space, Green Building,

Green Construction, Green Infrastructure, Green Technology/Renewable Energy, and Green Collar Jobs/Training)

Northampton County, Virginia, has transformed brownfield land into an industrial park which cycles its waste streams into revenue streams and industrial processes are based on the designs of natural systems. This “ecological industrial park” is part of an innovative county strategy where economic development is protecting valuable environmental assets and environmental protection is fostering development of a sustainable economy. The county wants to “build a strong and lasting economy by capitalizing on and protecting Northampton’s rich natural, cultural, and human assets”

(Kemp 2006, 152). This commitment would simultaneously benefit business, the environment, and the current and future community. The ecological industrial park would help build a strong and diversified economic base by attracting and growing new companies and by retaining and expanding existing companies. The companies in the park would provide quality jobs with competitive wages and benefits and opportunities for training and advancement. Environmentally, the ecological industrial park would preserve natural and cultural resources, protect habitat and water quality, and strive to eliminate waste and pollution. It would showcase green technology companies and maximize efficient use of resources through “industrial symbiosis”- the notion that the

86 byproducts of one industrial process or company can serve as the raw material for another industrial process or company (Kemp 2006).

The ecological infrastructure and natural amenities have enhanced economic development efforts by helping to attract the corporate tenants the county has targeted.

Without the projected financial income produced by the corporate tenants of the technology park (part of which from energy efficiency and recycling wastes), it would not have been possible to fund protection of the natural areas or construction of the trails, wetlands, and ponds. The sustainable technology strategy has attracted several diverse companies to Northampton County and its eco-industrial park that shared the county’s high business, environmental, and human equity standards (Kemp 2006).

Within a year since the park opened, companies have combined to create more than 50 new jobs, a significant impact given Northampton’s rural economy. Over the next years they are expected to create an additional 50 jobs and to bring $15 million in direct real estate and equipment investment to the county. Cape Charles Wind Farm alone is valued at $7.8 million and will generate $120,000 annually in business personal property, machinery, and tools taxes. The success of the eco-industrial park has allowed the county to move forward with the next phases of the sustainable development strategy (Kemp

2006).

Of the 60 initiatives discussed above (see Matrix and individual case descriptions in Appendix), 43 are focused city-wide with 21 in large cities (consisting of more than 1 million citizens), 6 in medium-sized (consisting of more than 500,000 citizens), and 17 in small cities (less than 500,000 citizens).2 One initiative is located in a village (187

2 These classifications are based on 2000 census data.

87 citizens), five cases focus on county-borough level, and ten of the cases focus on the neighborhood level.

These initiatives focus on a variety of green activities including: green space/ open space/ streetscape/ park creation/ reforestation; community gardens/ farmers markets; nature restoration/ protection; brownfield redevelopment; mixed-use development; green infrastructure; green building; environmental education; green technology/ renewable energy; environmental community plans; eco-village creation; infill development; transportation (alternative forms/green transit/transit oriented development); green job training and creation; green construction practices; pedestrian- friendly development; and eco-industrial park creation. While some initiatives focus on just one activity, others integrate several. Of the 60 cases, 27 incorporate green space/ open space/ streetscape/ park creation/ reforestation, 11 incorporate community gardens/ farmers markets, 10 incorporate nature restoration/ protection, 9 incorporate brownfield redevelopment, 8 incorporate mixed-use development, 8 incorporate green infrastructure,

7 incorporate green building, 7 incorporate environmental education, 6 incorporate green technology/ renewable energy, 6 incorporate environmental community plans, 5 incorporate eco-village creation (which includes many of the ‘green’ initiatives listed), 5 incorporate transportation (alternative forms/green transit/transit oriented development),

4 incorporate infill development, 4 incorporate green job training and creation, 3 incorporates green construction practices, 3 specifically incorporate pedestrian-friendly development, and 1 focuses on an eco-industrial park. These cases will be analyzed further in the next chapter.

88 Chapter 5: Analysis

Now that the cases used in this project have been summarized, the potential relationships formed within and among them can be analyzed. I begin my analysis by focusing on each data category (i.e. revitalization goals, environmental goals, green activity, funding and key players) as it relates to each specific case. I first analyze the revitalization/ environmental goals, then the green activities, the funding used and the key players involved. Additional categories are included in the detailed reports, providing additional information (see Appendix). I then attempt to form linkages between the data categories as I analyze the possible connection between: the potential sustainable value and the green activities implemented; revitalization goals and the green activities implemented; and the revitalization results and the green activities implemented. It is important to note that this analysis attempts to distinguish between real and perceived relationships as they pertained to the particular cases studied.

Links Within Data Categories

I began my analysis by focusing on each individual data category as I looked at each data category separately (i.e. revitalization goals, green activities, funding, key players). By narrowing my scope of vision, several trends within each category began to appear. For instance, there were several prominent revitalization goals and several categories of green activities. There were also trends within the type of funding used for these projects and the key players involved in these revitalization projects.

89 Revitalization/ Environmental Goals

With the analysis of the 60 cases, 9 major revitalization/ environmental goals seemed to emerge. These goals are listed in order of how often it was used within the cases:

Reconnecting neighborhoods to the city and creating a competitive energy in

cities as places for living, working and entertaining which simultaneously

benefits the economy, environment and community. These cases focused

particularly on pollution reduction, increasing social welfare and community

action, and strengthening economic development (20 cases- 1, 2, 8, 10, 13, 18,

23, 28, 29, 32, 35, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 60).

Reducing vacant, blighted, deteriorating and real or perceived contaminated land

and the poverty and crime that often results (16 cases- #3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15,

22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 40, 60).

Alleviating poverty and remediating the environment by creating “green-collar”

jobs (16 cases- #6, 7, 11, 16, 19, 20, 21, 25, 33, 34, 37, 41, 52, 58, 59, 60).

Connecting the community by creating public spaces (9 cases- #7, 16, 17, 21, 33,

36, 41, 55, 57).

Restoring and protecting natural infrastructure (i.e. watersheds, streams, rivers

and lakes) (7 cases- #17, 19, 20, 21, 36, 55, 57).

Investing in smart growth (6 cases- #17, 36, 50, 51, 55, 57).

Creating a model for using sustainable development (i.e. energy efficiency,

renewable and alternative energy technology, green building) as a profitable

catalyst for redevelopment (5 cases- #44, 45, 46, 47, 48). This goal incorporates

90 the first goal by actually creating a model neighborhood that establishes

economic, ecological, and social interests.

Producing safe and inviting environments for residents and visitors to walk and

shop (2 cases- #53, 54).

Creating affordable, environmentally-friendly housing (1 case- #56).

While many of the cases focused on one revitalization goal, some focused on several. For example, Case #60: Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park sought to clean up contaminated brownfield property (goal # 2) and create a public space (goal #4) that benefits the economy, environment and the community (goal #1) with an eco-industrial park. The ecological industrial park would help build a strong and diversified economic base by attracting new companies and by retaining and expanding existing companies.

The companies in the park would provide quality jobs with competitive wages and benefits and opportunities for training and advancement (goal #3). The eco- industrial park would also preserve natural and cultural resources, protect habitat and water quality, and strive to eliminate waste and pollution.

The underlying visions of these goals seem to be typical for communities who wish to revitalize their urban communities. It is common for a community to want to reduce the amount of vacant and blighted land, to increase economic development and create affordable housing for its residents. However, the cases studied in this project are going a step further by placing additional criteria and tying these goals to the environment. For instance, not only do these communities want to reduce deteriorating land, they want to rebuild on this land and incorporate green space and green building.

91 They want to increase economic development by investing in clean/green technology, create affordable housing by building environmentally friendly structures, and create a competitive energy in their community by focusing on the environment (through pollution reduction and renewable energy). These communities stand apart from those focusing on traditional revitalization techniques as they recognize the importance of strengthening the economic, social and ecological development simultaneously.

Figure 2. Summary Table: Revitalization/ Environmental Goals

Goal Case 1. Reconnect neighborhoods to the city 1: Baltimore Trails and create a competitive energy in 2: St. Paul’s Riverfront Restoration cities as places for living, working and 8: East Harlem Tree Planting entertaining which simultaneously 10: Million Trees NYC benefits the economy, environment and 13: Community University Partnership community. These cases focused 18: Harlem’s Green Market particularly on pollution reduction, 23: Centennial Olympic Park increasing social welfare and 28: Hartford’s Riverfront Redevelopment community actions, and strengthening 29: Chattanooga Mall economic development. 32: Lake Worth Beach Restoration 35: Sustainable Cleveland Corporate Roundtable 38: Sustainable Cleveland Sustainable Technology 39: Sustainable Cleveland Wind Farm 40: Chattanooga Venture: Vision 2000 42: Sustainable Cleveland’s Sustainability Study 43: Harlem-on-the-River Waterfront Park Plan 44: Detroit Eco-Village 45: East Price Hill Eco-Village 49: Fruitvale Transit Village Project 60: Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park 2. Reducing vacant, blighted, deteriorating 3: Philadelphia’s Side Yard Program and real or perceived contaminated land 4: UCGreen and the poverty and crime that often 5: Philadelphia’s Norris Square results Neighborhood/ Las Parcelas Park 9: Central Park 11: Chicago’s City Space Program

92 12: Philadelphia Green 14: Philadelphia’s Village for Arts and Humanities 15: Philadelphia’s GreensGrow Farm 22: Borough of Paulsboro Brownfield Redevelopment 24: Mill Race Park 26: Philadelphia’s Brownfield Redevelopment 27: Camden Brownfield Redevelopment 30: Cambridge University Park 31: Grand Forks Redevelopment 40: Chattanooga Venture: Vision 2000 60: Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park 3. Alleviating poverty and remediating the 6: Sustainable South Bronx Greenway environment by creating “green-collar” 7: LA’s Trees jobs. 11: Chicago’s City Space Program 16: Girls Today, Women Tomorrow 19: Chicago River Restoration 20: Chicago’s Lake/River Restoration Efforts 21: LA’s Natural Infrastructure 25: Millennium Park 33: LA’s Green Infrastructure 34: Eden Place 37: Chicago’s Wireless Technology 41: LA’s Green Vision Plan 52: Sustainable South Bronx- Environmental Stewardship Training 58: Chicago’s Green Roofs 59: Sustainable South Bronx Green Roofs 60: Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park 4. Connect the community by creating 7: LA’s Trees public spaces. 16: Girls Today, Women Tomorrow 17: Seattle’s Community Gardens 21: LA’s Natural Infrastructure 33: LA’s Green Infrastructure 36: Seattle’s ‘Choose to Change’ Education Program 41: LA’s Green Vision Plan 55: Seattle’s High Point Development Project 57: Seattle Green Building/ Construction Practices

93 5. Restoring and protecting natural 17: Seattle’s Community Gardens infrastructure (i.e. watersheds, streams, 19: Chicago River Restoration rivers and lakes). 20: Chicago’s Lake/ River Restoration Efforts 21: LA’s Natural Infrastructure 36: Seattle’s ‘Choose to Change’ Education Program 55: Seattle’s High Point Development Project 57: Seattle’s Green Building/ Construction Practices 6. Invest in smart growth. 17: Seattle’s Community Gardens 36: Seattle’s ‘Choose to Change’ Education Program 50: LA’s Light Rail 51: Portland’s Transportation 52: Seattle’s High Point Development Project 57: Seattle Green Building/ Construction Practices 7. Creating a model for using sustainable 44: Detroit Eco-Village development as a profitable catalyst for 45: East Price Hill Eco-Village redevelopment. This goal incorporates 46: LA Eco-Village the first goal by creating a model 47: Cleveland Eco-Village neighborhood that establishes 48: EPA’s Sustainability Model economic, ecological and social interests.

8. Producing safe and inviting 53: Glendale Pedestrian Streets environments for residents and visitors 54: Waco Streetscape to walk and shop.

9. Creating affordable, environmentally- 56: Chicago’s Green Affordable Housing friendly housing.

94 Figure 3. Frequency of Revitalization/Environmental Goals Used

Green Activities/ Initiatives

As mentioned in Chapter 4, the 60 cases focus on a variety of green activities including:

green space/ open space/ streetscape/ park creation/ reforestation (27 cases- #1, 2,

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 45, 46, 48, 53, 54 and

60)

community gardens/ farmers markets (11 cases- #11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,

34, 46 and 48)

nature restoration/ protection (10 cases- #17, 19, 20, 21, 34, 36, 48, 55, 57 and 60)

brownfield redevelopment (9 cases- #22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 44 and 60)

mixed-use development (8 cases- #27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 44 and 55)

green infrastructure (8 cases- #26, 33, 46, 47, 55, 58, 59 and 60)

green building (7 cases- #44, 47, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60)

environmental education (7 cases- # 16, 34, 35, 36, 40, 46 and 52)

green technology/ renewable energy (6 cases- #37, 38, 39, 44, 56 and 60)

95 environmental community plans (6 cases- #40, 41, 42, 43, 46 and 47)

eco-village creation (which includes many of the individual initiatives listed) (5

cases- #44, 45, 46, 47 and 48)

transportation (alternative forms/green transit/transit oriented development) (5

cases- #44, 46, 49, 50 and 51)

infill development (4 cases- #30, 48, 55 and 57)

green job training and creation (4 cases- #46, 52, 59 and 60)

green construction practices (3 cases- #44, 57 and 60)

pedestrian-friendly development (3 cases- #30, 53 and 54)

eco-industrial park (1 case- #60)

While some cases focus on just one activity, others integrate several (i.e. eco- village creation which incorporates many green activities listed above in its attempt to create a model sustainable neighborhood. Case #60: Northampton County Eco-Industrial

Park implemented more than one green activity to focus on more than one revitalization goal. This project redeveloped a brownfield property, incorporated reforestation and environmental (nature) restoration and protection, and produced green collar jobs by using ‘green’ construction practices and ‘green’ technology to construct ‘green’ buildings and ‘green’ infrastructure within an eco-industrial park. Not only did this project clean up a previously contaminated property, it constructed an end-use that is environmental friendly and produced minimal waste.

It also appears that those projects using ‘green’ construction practices are doing so in order to create ‘green’ buildings (case #44, 57 and 60). Some of those ‘green’

96 buildings incorporate ‘green’ infrastructure (case #47, 58, 59 and 60) and ‘green’ technology (i.e. producing alternative forms of energy) (case #44 and 60).

The three cases that implemented pedestrian-friendly projects also incorporated trees and other vegetation into their streetscapes (case #30, 53 and 54). One value added to vegetated streetscapes (which will be discussed in more detail in the ‘sustainability value’ subsection below) is the added aesthetics which makes the area more inviting, more desirable, and more livable. The green space incorporated into urban streetscapes can appear friendlier to the eye, which can cause drivers passing through to slow down and observe the ‘natural’ and ‘pristine’ setting, making it a safer environment for the pedestrians.

By looking at the green activities implemented on a case-by-case basis, it becomes clearer that several of these activities can be linked and often complement each other in revitalization projects.

Communities throughout the US are implementing sustainable development projects with the hope of revitalizing their declining urban areas. The representative range of green activities in the cases studied shows that no project is the same as communities chose to focus on varying sustainable tools. Citizens, nonprofit organization and public officials are using these tools with the hopes of neighborhood beautification, real estate investment, improved housing quality, reuse of deteriorating land, creating a sense of place, and creating jobs to improve the local economy.

97 Figure 4. Summary Table: Green Activities

Green Activities Case Green Space 1: Baltimore Trails 2: St. Paul’s Riverfront Restoration Open Space 3: Philadelphia’s Side Yard Program 4: UCGreen Streetscape 5: Philadelphia’s Norris Square Neighborhood/ Las Parcelas Park Park Creation 6: Sustainable South Bronx Greenway 7: LA’s Trees Reforestation 8: East Harlem Tree Planting 9: Central Park 10: Million Trees NYC 11: Chicago’s City Space Program 12: Philadelphia Green 24: Mill Race Park 25: Millennium Park 26: Philadelphia’s Brownfield Redevelopment 29: Chattanooga Mall 30: Cambridge University Park 31: Grand Forks Redevelopment 32: Lake Worth Beach Restoration 34: Eden Place 45: East Price Hill Eco-Village 46: LA Eco-Village 48: EPA’s Sustainability Model 53: Glendale Pedestrian Streets 54: Waco Streetscape 60: Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park Community Gardens 11: Chicago’s City Space Program 12: Philadelphia Green Farmer’s Markets 13: Community University Partnership 14: Philadelphia’s Village for Arts and Humanities 15: Philadelphia’s GreenGrow Farm 16: Girls Today, Women Tomorrow 17: Seattle’s Community Gardens 18: Harlem’s Green Market 34: Eden Place 46: LA Eco-Village 48: EPA’s Sustainability Model Nature Restoration 17: Seattle’s Community Gardens 19: Chicago River Restoration

98 Nature Protection 20: Chicago’s Lake/River Restoration Efforts 21: LA’s Natural Infrastructure 34: Eden Place 36: Seattle’s ‘Choose to Change’ Education Program 48: EPA’s Sustainability Model 55: Seattle’s High Point Development Project 57: Seattle Green Building/ Construction Practices 60: Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park Brownfield Redevelopment 22: Borough of Paulsboro Brownfield Redevelopment 23: Centennial Olympic Park 24: Mill Race Park 25: Millennium Park 26: Philadelphia’s Brownfield Redevelopment 27: Camden Brownfield Redevelopment 28: Hartford’s Riverfront Redevelopment 44: Detroit Eco-Village 60: Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park Mixed-Use Development 27: Camden Brownfield Redevelopment 28: Hartford’s Riverfront Redevelopment 29: Chattanooga Mall 30: Cambridge University Park 31: Grand Forks Redevelopment 32: Lake Worth Beach Restoration 44: Detroit Eco-Village 55: Seattle’s High Point Development Project Green Infrastructure 26: Philadelphia’s Brownfield Redevelopment 33: LA’s Green Infrastructure 46: LA Eco-Village 47: Cleveland Eco-Village 55: Seattle’s High Point Development Project 58: Chicago’s Green Roofs 59: Sustainable South Bronx Green Roofs 60: Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park Green Building 44: Detroit Eco-Village

99 47: Cleveland Eco-Village 56: Chicago’s Green Affordable Housing 57: Seattle’s Green Building/ Construction Practices 58: Chicago’s Green Roofs 59: Sustainable South Bronx Green Roofs 60: Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park Environmental Education 16: Girls Today, Women Tomorrow 34: Eden Place 35: Sustainable Cleveland Corporate Roundtable 36: Seattle’s ‘Choose to Change’ Education Program 40: Chattanooga Venture: Vision 2000 46: LA Eco-Village 52: Sustainable South Bronx- Environmental Stewardship Training Green Technology 37: Chicago’s Wireless Technology 38: Sustainable Cleveland Sustainable Renewable Energy Technology 39: Sustainable Cleveland Wind Farm 44: Detroit Eco-Village 56: Chicago’s Green Affordable Housing 60: Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park Environmental Community Plans 40: Chattanooga Venture: Vision 2000 41: LA’s Green Vision Plan 42: Sustainable Cleveland’s Sustainability Study 43: Harlem-on-the-River Waterfront Park Plan 46: LA Eco-Village 47: Cleveland Eco-Village Eco-Village Creation 44: Detroit Eco-Village 45: East Price Hill Eco-Village 46: LA Eco-Village 47: Cleveland Eco-Village 48: EPA’s Sustainability Model Infill Development 30: Cambridge University Park 48: EPA’s Sustainability Model 55: Seattle’s High Point Development Project 57: Seattle Green Building/ Construction Practices Transportation 44: Detroit Eco-Village

100 Green Transit 46: LA Eco-Village 49: Fruitvale Transit Village Project Transit Oriented Development 50: LA Light Rail 51: Portland’s Transportation Green Job Training and Creation 46: LA Eco-Village 52: Sustainable South Bronx- Environmental Stewardship Training 59: Sustainable South Bronx Green Roofs 60: Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park Green Construction Practices 44: Detroit Eco-Village 57: Seattle Green Building/ Construction Practices 60: Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park Pedestrian-Friendly Development 30: Cambridge University Park 53: Glendale Pedestrian Streets 54: Waco Streetscape Eco-Industrial Park 60: Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park

Figure 5. Frequency of Green Activities Used

101 Funding

Although information on how every case funded its project was unavailable, I did attempt to draw some conclusions with the few that did. Of those cases that reported funding strategies, none of them seemed to rely on just once source of funding. As a result, multiple players are involved in the project as both public and private sources are often used. Public funding consists of money received through tax dollars (i.e. local, state and federal grants) and private funding consists of money received through non- governmental sources (i.e. philanthropies, foundation capital grants, donations, fundraising, and businesses). The majority of the cases relied on funding from grants

(both public and private), which stresses the importance of organization (to write a successful application for grant funding) and working relationships between the parties involved. When multiple players are involved, it is important to form partnerships. The

Figure 6. Summary Table: Funding Sources

Public Funds Sources Private Funds Sources

Tax Dollars Philanthropies

City Capital Foundation Capital Grants

City Grants Donations

State Grants Fundraising

Federal Grants Private Businesses

102 Bonds

Tax Increment Financing

Key Players

These cases involve a variety of players, ranging from the federal, state and local government, to grassroots and nonprofit organizations, to community residents. It is safe to say that the majority of these cases relied on the strong support of the local community. This support can range from participation in and/ or approval of a development plan or program to the physical involvement required to clean up a neighborhood block, plant trees and other landscaping, or establishing a community garden. In many cases, community support was often organized by a local grassroots or nonprofit organizations.

Many cases, especially those focused on a development plan, required a strong relationship between the local government (and its agencies), planners, developers/business owners and the community (Case #13: Community University

Partnership; Case #28: Hartford’s Riverfront; Case#29: Chattanooga Mall; Case #30:

Cambridge University Park; Case #31: Grand Forks Redevelopment; Case #32: Lake

Worth Beach Redevelopment; Case #49: Fruitvale Transit Village; Case #54: Waco

Texas Streetscape; and Case #60: Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park. The

Community University Partnership (Case #13) learned through its project that a partnership is essential in building successful sustainable community projects and is a key ingredient in making progress. The project also learned that community building is a long-term process that involves forming coalitions among community members, associations, and groups (Hoff 1998).

103 The local, state and federal government are involved when addressing brownfield issues because of the regulations being addressed and the support and cleanup standards required (Case #22: Borough of Paulsboro Brownfield Redevelopment; Case #23:

Centennial Olympic Park; Case #24: Mill Race Park; Case #25: Millennium Park; Case

#26: Philadelphia’s Brownfield Redevelopment; and Case #27: Camden Brownfield

Redevelopment) and typically when large amounts of funding are needed (many cities have found success in applying for grants offered by the state and federal government).

With such a wide variety of key players involved in green revitalization techniques, it is important to form successful relationships between the community residents and business leaders, the developers and the local government. For example, the

Fruitvale Transit Village project (Case #49) demonstrated an effective use of partnerships to generate funding and other resources necessary to plan and implement a costly and complex project. The Unity Council's success in building relationships with a wide range of key players helped overcome the difficult legal, regulatory, and financial hurdles the project initially faced. The project also illustrated a strong commitment to public involvement by the lead agencies involved. Typically, either city officials or private developers represent the driving force behind large-scale development projects such as the transit village. Under the best of circumstances, community residents are usually in the position of responding to plans that are initiated by others. In this case, however, the

Unity Council's leadership role in the project helped ensure that the community's own vision for the transit station and its surrounding area served as guiding principles for the planning and design process (US Department of Transportation).

104 The cases studied seem to show that every project requires one player who really cares about the project and drives it to completion. In some cases, this player was a community member and in others it was a city official such as the Mayor. In either case, this player was heavily involved with the project and made sure the project was implemented

Figure 7. Summary Table: Key Players

Community Members

Local, State and Federal Government

Planners

Developers

Landscape Architects

Realtors

Nonprofit Agencies

Philanthropies

Business Owners

Community Development Corporations (CDCs)

Links Between Data Categories

Once I found the trends within the data categories, I am able to extend my line of vision to form linkages between the data categories. For instance, I am able to determine linkages between the green initiative implemented and the potential sustainable value added, between the revitalization goals of a community and the green activities that were implemented in order to achieve those goals, and the linkage between the green activities

105 that were implemented and the revitalization results that occurred. These linkages can be visualized in the matrix found in the Appendix.

Sustainable Development Analysis

Economic development and environmental protection are often viewed as competing interests at best and mutually exclusive at worst. Clean air and water, protection of wildlife, and resource conservation often are pitted against jobs and business expansion. Proposals for new industry are often met with protests of “not in my backyard” because of fears of pollution and negative community impacts (Kemp 2006).

Despite this seemingly incompatibility, cities throughout the United States are proving that the two do not have to be conflicting ideals and can actually be compatible. There can be some value added as cities, counties and neighborhoods are choosing to implement green environmental projects with the hopes of spurring economic development and revitalizing their community. Many of these communities have noticed that the value added consists of the three components of sustainable development: environmental value, social value and economic value. Specific green activities that have produced such sustainable development value within the cases studied include: green space, trees and parks; community gardens; restoring natural infrastructure; brownfield redevelopment; mixed use; ‘green’ infrastructure, ‘green’ building, ‘green’ technology, green community plans, eco-villages, transportation, ‘green’ job training and creation, pedestrian-friendly development and the eco-industrial park.

106 Green Space/ Trees/ Parks

The cases studied in this project have shown the aesthetic, environmental, social and economic value of incorporating green space, trees and parks into neighborhood and city development plans and revitalization projects.

Green space contributes to the aesthetics of a community by adding natural character, making communities more attractive and providing beauty and color to an otherwise gray, concrete urban landscape. City leaders now understand that for a city to thrive and attract new businesses, it must address aesthetics. There may be jobs available, but that does not necessarily make the city desirable or more livable. Researchers at the

University of Washington and the University of Illinois have discovered that people would rather shop in downtown areas where trees are present. If given a choice, people are more likely to stop and eat in downtown areas with tree-lined avenues that seem wooded, shady, and inviting. “A city that understands this interesting human trait can help create attractive downtown settings and serve the public good at the same time”

(Wiland and Bell 2006, 146).

In addition to beautifying their surroundings, trees and other native vegetation contribute to a cleaner and healthier environment. Vegetation mitigates flooding as the leaves and roots intercept and absorb heavy rainfall and storm run-off. Vegetation buffers improve streams by filtering polluting run-off, which reduces the costs spent cleaning the water later on at water treatment facilities. These buffers also not only shade and cool waters to improve fish habitat but they shade and cool the urban environment (streets, sidewalks and homes) as well which alleviates the “heat island” effect (Case 10: Million

Trees NYC). On a hot day, the air is actually about 15 degrees cooler in the garden than

107 on nearby traditional rooftops (Wiland and Bell 2006). Trees also help clean our air by absorbing the pollutants that trigger asthma attacks and exacerbate other respiratory diseases and storing carbon, which can slow global climate change. “A single mature urban tree reduces about 115 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year” (Wiland and Bell

2006, 147). California Energy Commission has actually calculated that the CO2 reduction achieved by a single tree has a dollar value of $920 per ton per year (Wiland and Bell

2006).

Green space can provide a social value by increasing the sense of well-being and relaxation and reducing crime (Case #11: Chicago’s CitySpace Progam and Case #12:

Philadelphia Green). Studies have found that incorporating trees, green space and parks into a neighborhood significantly reduces crime in the area (Wiland and Bell 2006). A study in Chicago found that there were 56% fewer violent crimes and 48% fewer property crimes in public housing apartment buildings when they were surrounded by landscaping as compared to apartment buildings where landscaping was absent. It is not so much the planted spaces as much as what they stand for. A well-maintained area represents that people care about what goes on in the area. “If you litter, it will be picked up and if you engage in negative activity, it will be reported. The last thing a criminal wants is a pair of watchful eyes” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 89). Studies from the University of Illinois document the decrease in violence around public housing where green landscapes thrive. If people are invited to participate in the design and planting of an area, they learn to respect that area, because they know how much work went into it

(Wiland and Bell 2006). “The act of planting also knits people together. The simple,

108 communal act builds community, and strong communities can transform entire cities”

(Wiland and Bell 2006, 89).

Vegetation can also screen harsh views and increase privacy in dense environments and tree-lined streets limit a driver’s field of vision, encouraging cars to slow down which help pedestrians feel safer. On a treeless street, drivers have few landmarks to gauge how fast they are going. It may also be that drivers are instinctively more cautious when their visibility is reduced. Tree-lined streets may even appear friendlier to the eye, causing the drivers to slow down and observe (Wiland and Bell

2006).

Vegetation can also improve public health by removing harmful pollutants from the air that can cause respiratory diseases. East Harlem experiences higher-than-average air pollution, and residents suffer from some of the highest rates of asthma in the city; both can be reduced by increasing the urban tree canopy (Case #8: East Harlem Tree

Planting- Million Trees NYC).

Green space also provides an economic value by increasing property values (Case

#9: Central Park; Case #11: Chicago’s CitySpace Program; and Case #12: Philadelphia

Green). Studies consistently show that ‘greening’ a neighborhood can significantly reduce crime and raise property values (Wiland and Bell 2006, NYC Tree Planting).

Green space affects the bottom line and adds property value to neighborhoods by beautifying spaces and creating more attractive places for people to walk and enjoy the outdoors. People are willing to pay more to live in places with these amenities (Been and

Voicu 2006). Gardens and trees raise property values in urban areas, which in turn raise

109 the property tax base, giving cities greater tax revenues, which they can reinvest in the betterment of the city (Wiland and Bell 2006). Wiland and Bell state that

“one of the simplest ways to boost the price of a row house- and indeed the entire neighborhood- is to plant some trees. . . Today, researchers . . . can calculate and compare the cost of a home before and after a tree planting initiative with great precision . . . Planting a street tree increases the value of nearby homes by 15% . . . Turning a blighted vacant lot into a clean and green space (i.e. park or community garden) increases the value of adjacent homes by 30%” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 88).

West Philly neighborhood residents report that property values have risen steadily since the revitalization of Carroll Park (Case #12: Philadelphia Green). As a result of the creation of Central Park in New York City (Case #9: Central Park), property values in

Manhattan doubled during the 15 years after park development began (Garvin et al.

1997). Today, condos with a view of Central Park cost several million dollars apiece

(averaging $5.8 million each- Kemp 2006, 40), which brings tax dollars accordingly

(Platt 2004). “These park-generated tax revenues allowed the city to pay for municipal services that it could not otherwise have afforded and provided the stimulus for city officials to acquire the 26,369 acres of land that currently constitute New York City’s extraordinary park system” (Garvin et al. 1997, 2).

Trees in shopping districts create a more welcoming comfortable place. As a result, shoppers are inclined to linger, pay higher prices and spend more (The

Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 2006b).

110 likely to occur. For example, in Case #11, Eden Park sparked further development in

Chicago which included new homes, a 100-unit senior retirement home and new businesses which included 3 gas stations (the neighborhood previously had 0) (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Figure 8. Summary Chart: Potential Value of Green Space

Green Space

Aesthetic Value Environmental Social Value Economic Value Value

Adds Natural Mitigates Reduces Crime Raises Character Flooding Surrounding Property Values

Provides Beauty Absorbs Runoff Provides Public Raises Tax and Color Spaces Revenues (Property and Sales)

Absorbs Provides Encourages Pollution (Water Recreation Commercial & CO2) Shopping

Shades/Cools Increases Privacy Reduces Water Water, Streets, Treatment Costs Sidewalks, Parking lots & Roofs

Reduces Traffic Reduces Cooling Speed Costs

Reduces Respiratory Disease

111 Community Gardens

Eating locally grown food is not a new phenomenon. A hundred years ago, over

95% of Americans lived on farms and urban residents ate food brought by horse and carriage from nearby farms. In the 1800s, Brooklyn was the top producing agricultural county in the United States (Council on the Environment of New York City). In the 20th century, farms moved west and many local farms were cleared, paved over and sold to developers. By the 1970s, New Yorkers complained of brown lettuce and hard tomatoes while local farms went bankrupt (Council on the Environment of New York City). In the

United States, a meal travels an average of 13,000 miles before reaching a dinner plate

(Pirog et al. 2006). Eating locally produced foods reduces fuel consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and a variety of other negative environmental consequences associated with the transportation of foods. As a result, community gardens have been used as tools for urban revitalization in several of the cases studied in this project (Case

#12: Philadelphia Green; Case #15: Philadelphia’s Greensgrow Farm; Case # 17:

Sustainable Seattle’s Community Gardens; and Case #18: Harlem’s Green Market).

These gardens and local farmer’s markets not only offer environmental benefits, they have aesthetic, health/nutrition, social and economic benefits as well.

The most apparent benefit of community gardens is their aesthetic appeal.

Especially within urban neighborhoods, these gardens offer a colorful oasis for residents who are typically surrounded by concrete. For example, Glenwood Green Acres, one of the neighborhood gardens created by Philadelphia Green (Case #12: Philadelphia Green), completely transformed the neighborhood in which it is located. The 1800 block of

Glenwood Avenue was once home to a blighted complex of warehouses. After a fire in

112 1984 destroyed the property, the residents decided to turn what had long been an eyesore to the neighborhood into something that instills beauty and pride.

As discussed above, fresh produce doesn’t have to be found solely in rural areas.

These urban community gardens can provide access to healthy, high-quality food and educate the residents about food (Case #15: Philadelphia’s Greensgrow Farm; Case #17:

Sustainable Seattle’s Community Gardens; Case #18: Harlem’s Green Market). For example, Harlem’s Greenmarket was a natural solution to a two-fold problem: by selling their homegrown crops in New York City, local farms could stay in business and bring fresh food to city neighborhoods (Council on the Environment of New York City). Many local gardens also donate produce to local free stores and food banks to support the local needy population.

Another benefit of community gardening is the way it unites the neighborhood. In many cases, the act of planting brings together people of different backgrounds and lifestyles. In others, it promotes and strengthens a shared cultural identity. Either way, the power of a garden is profound. For example, Philadelphia residents recognize how the common interest in gardening has sparked tremendous friendship among neighbors.

These gardens attract a population that includes a wide range in age, ethnicity and economics (Case #12: Philadelphia Green- Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 2006). In

Norris Square, a predominantly Puerto Rican community, the six prizewinning gardens help perpetuate pride in the rich heritage of its residents. The gardens host everything from educational programs to cooking demonstrations of traditional Puerto Rican cuisine

(Case #12: Philadelphia Green- Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 2006a). Residents of community garden neighborhoods have noticed that “the simple, communal act builds

113 community, and strong communities can transform entire cities” (Wiland and Bell 2006,

89).

Community gardens can also offer a focal point for neighborhood organizing, which can lead to community-based efforts to deal with other social concerns. They also give youth a safe place to interact with peers, while involving them in beneficial activities

(Sherer 2006). As residents become more involved in their community, they not only form relationships with other residents but form a renewed sense of pride and sense of place.

Community gardens provide another social benefit by increasing the safety in the surrounding area as more people (and their watchful eyes) are present on the street (Kuo et al. 1998). Studies from the University of Illinois document the decrease in violence around public housing where green landscapes thrive and if people participate in the design and planting of an area, they will learn to respect that area, because they know how much work went into it (Case #14: Philadelphia’s Village for Arts and Humanities -

Wiland and Bell 2006). The safety and vitality of a healthy community relies heavily upon the invested pride and ownership that residents have for their neighborhood.

Communities that develop such semi-public spaces where people can become actively engaged in their community have significantly lower crime rates than neighborhoods where these amenities do not exist (Crowe 2003).

Community gardens also offer economic benefits. Seattle has found that locally directed spending supports a web of local economic activity that makes for healthier and more prosperous communities. Local spending by consumers more than doubles the number of dollars circulating among businesses in the community. This means that a

114 shift of 20% of the city’s food dollars into locally directed spending would result in a nearly half billion dollar annual income increase in King County alone and twice that in the Central Puget Sound region (Case #17: Sustainable Seattle’s Community Gardens-

Sonntag 2008, 97).

Buying local food also supports the small family farms that have been going out of business and selling out to developers. By making small farmers economically viable farmer’s markets prevent sprawl by saving farmland from developers and keeping the family on the farm. (Case #15: Philadelphia’s Greensgrow Farm). Consequently, developers will have to invest within the inner city, increasing the amount of infill development and recycling formerly developed land.

As previously discussed, green space adds property value to neighborhoods by offering beautiful spaces for people to enjoy and recreate and so do community gardens.

According to a study conducted by the Wharton School at the University of

Pennsylvania, the establishment of clean and green parcels in Philadelphia’s New

Kensington neighborhood increased property values of nearby homes by at least 30 percent- “affirmation that investing in open community spaces is, in essence, investing in a neighborhood’s economic future” (Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 2006a). Another study, produced by professors Vicki Been and Ioan Voicu of New York University, looked specifically at community gardens. It contends that “community gardens have a statistically significant positive impact on residential property values within 1,000 feet of the garden, and that those effects are most substantial in the poorest of host neighborhoods” (Been and Voicu 2006). They found that neighborhoods surrounding a

115 community garden saw a 9.4% increase in property values within the first five years of its opening (Been and Voicu 2006).

The cases studied in this project have shown the value of incorporating community gardens into neighborhood and city development plans as they encourage neighborhood revitalization by contributing aesthetic, environmental, social and economic benefits.

Figure 9. Summary Chart: Potential Value of Community Gardens

Community Gardens

Aesthetic Value Environmental Social Value Economic Value Value

Provide Beauty & Mitigate Flooding Provide Access to Encourage Local Color Healthy, High-Quality Investment Food

Absorb Runoff Educate Residents Increase Tax Revenue About Food & (Property and Sales) Nutrition

Absorb Pollution Support Neighbors Support Neighbors

Shade/Cool Water, Encourage Community Increase Surrounding Streets, Sidewalks, Interaction Property Values Parking Lots & Roofs

Encourage Community Organizing

Increase Safety & Reduce Crime

116 Restoring Natural Infrastructure (Environment)

Several cases found that restoring the natural environment can have a direct impact on environmental, social and economic development within a community. For example, Case #19: Chicago River Restoration witnessed that as the river began looking better, people wanted access to it. High school and college rowing teams now use the river regularly and a canoe and kayak rental company has opened along the river. The city’s parks department is buying parcels of land to incorporate the river into the vision of a river park. Some developers have even built condos emphasizing the river view.

In Case #20: Chicago’s Lake/ River Restoration Efforts, the city hoped that the restored area would attract companies (and the economic investment/jobs that the companies would bring) that are looking for real estate opportunities in pristine settings.

Figure 10. Summary Chart: Potential Value of Environmental Restoration

Environmental Restoration

Aesthetic Value Environmental Social Value Economic Value Value

Add Natural Create Healthy Provide Public Increase Character Environment Space Surrounding Property Values

Provide Beauty & Provide Spur Economic Color Recreation Development (Housing, Employment, Job Creation)

117 Brownfield Redevelopment/ Infill Development

Several of these cases (Case #22: Borough of Paulsboro Brownfield

Redevelopment; Case #26: Philadelphia’s Brownfield Redevelopment; and Case #60:

Northampton Eco-Industrial Park) have found that there is a national trend in the redevelopment of brownfield properties because these properties offer distinct advantages such as being in or near densely populated areas that are supported by existing public infrastructure and mass transit, as well as frequently existing in neighborhoods that are rich in architectural and cultural heritage. The redevelopment eliminates blighted property and allows economic development to take place in an area that was previously unused. This economic development can bring housing, jobs and a tax base to improve the local area.

The developers in Case #60: Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park

(previously a brownfield site) found that the ecological infrastructure and natural amenities of the industrial park have enhanced further economic development efforts by attracting the corporate tenants to the park and to the rest of the county that the county has targeted.

118 Figure 11. Summary Chart: Potential Value of Brownfield Redevelopment/ Infill Development

Brownfield Redevelopment/ Infill

Aesthetic Value Environmental Social Value Economic Value Value

Reduces Vacant, Cleans Creates Housing Reduces Blighted Land Contaminated Infrastructure Costs Properties

Encourages Less Eliminates Blighted Spurs Further Sprawl Buildings/ Improves Economic Safety Development

Improves Sense of Increases Tax Place Revenue (property, sales and income)

Encourages Local Investment

Creates Jobs

Mixed Use

A few of the cases have shown why developers are choosing to incorporate a mixture of uses (versus just one use) within their development plans. But why is a mixed- use development considered ‘green’? Mixed-use is often built as a high density community, which has been found to have a smaller ecological footprint and cost less to support than conventional development. A study called The Cost of Sprawl, conducted in

1974 by the Council on Environmental Quality, the Department of Housing and Urban

Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency, determined the effects of building densities on the surrounding environment (Register 2006). The study gathered data from cities throughout the US to compare low-, medium-, and high-density communities and measured their impacts on surrounding infrastructure (buildings, roads, 119 landscaping, and utilities) and public services (i.e. police, fire, and schools). The study found that higher-density communities required 50 percent less land and 45 percent less investment cost in infrastructure, caused 45 percent less air pollution and a similarly reduced amount of water pollution runoff, and used 14 to 44 percent less energy and 35 percent less water. The costs of fire, police, and other government services were similarly reduced in higher-density communities (Register 2006, 111).

Such a development can also reduce vehicle use by providing residential, office, and commercial uses within the same dense area. It allows residents to walk or bike to work and various shops and visitors to drive to one location, park their vehicle and walk to the various destinations. As a result, these residents and visitors save money from reducing the gasoline and maintenance costs that would be required if these individuals drove rather than walking, biking or using transit.

The mixed-use development concept has been an important draw for many anchor tenants in Case #31: Cambridge University Park. Nearby public transit and on-site housing along with conveniences such as the supermarket, hotel, daycare facilities, and restaurants, appeal to prospective residents and employees. “The central location and proximity of the hotel makes University Park attractive for recruiting purposes” (Kemp

2006, 60) says Janet Bush, Millennium’s vice president of finance. The development of housing within the area will better enhance the development’s open space and encourage greater use of the park, restaurants, and shops after business hours.

The economic planner of Chattanooga Mall (Case #30) stated that “there is a huge movement right now in retailing to go back to ‘main street’. Today all the national chains are looking for space on ‘main street’. The shopping centers are learning from the cities”

120 (Kemp 2006, 73). The viable market area which included a solid neighborhood, mature residential community, office space, excellent visibility, and vehicular access was helpful in marketing the proposal.

Figure 12. Summary Chart: Potential Value of Mixed-Use Development

Mixed-Use Development

Environmental Value Social Value Economic Value

Requires Less Encourages Community Reduces Infrastructure Infrastructure Interaction Costs

Requires Less Impervious Encourages Exercise Allows Greater Use of Surfaces Commercial Sector After Office Hours

Creates Less Air Creates Less Traffic Drawls Commercial End- Pollution Congestion Users

Creates Less Water Creates a Safer Saves Money on Water Runoff Environment for Treatment Costs Pedestrians

Uses Less Energy Saves Energy/ Water Costs

Uses Less Water Reduces Vehicle Use Costs (Less Maintenance & Gasoline)

Uses Fewer Vehicles

Green Infrastructure

Several cases have shown that ‘green’ infrastructure can produce several aesthetic, environmental, social and economic benefits as well. ‘Green’ infrastructure incorporates natural vegetation into an infrastructure design plan with the goal of mimicking natural processes. As a result, this initiative would produce similar aesthetic,

121 environmental, social and economic benefits as green space and community gardens (i.e. beautification, pollution reduction, crime reduction, and increase in property value). A key component of ‘green’ infrastructure is the pollution reduction. As discussed in the value of green space, parks and trees, vegetation has the natural ability to filter water and absorb air and water pollutants, which reduces spending at the water treatment facility.

Green roofs are one form of ‘green’ infrastructure used in the cases studied. The vegetation on roofs help shade and cool the building, acting as an insulator, which results in temperature reduction and energy conservation as well as reducing surrounding urban heat temperatures. They also provide stormwater management by absorbing rain water, improve water and air quality, provide space for urban agriculture, create employment opportunities (through installation and management) and reintroduce native species into the landscape.

Sustainable South Bronx (Case #59: South Bronx Green Roofs) has found that while retrofitting an existing building with a green roof initially costs more than a conventional roof, this investment yields cost savings over time through energy conservation and rooftop longevity. A green roof can also increase the resale or rental value of a property and provide aesthetic enjoyment (Sustainable South Bronx).

122 Figure 13. Summary Table: Potential Value of ‘Green’ Infrastructure

Green Infrastructure

Aesthetic Value Environmental Social Value Economic Value Value

Adds Natural Mitigates Reduces Crime Raises Property Character Flooding Values

Provides Beauty Absorbs Runoff Provides Public Raises Tax and Color Spaces Revenues (Property and Sales)

Absorbs Pollution Provides Reduces Water (Water & CO2) Recreation Treatment Costs

Shades/Cools Increases Privacy Reduces Cooling Water, Streets, Costs Sidewalks, Parking lots & Roofs

Reduces Traffic Increases Roof Speed Lifespan

Reduces Respiratory Disease

Green Building, Green Technology & Green Construction Practices

The cases studied in this project have also shown why ‘green’ building, ‘green’ technology and ‘green’ construction practices can be important ingredients in neighborhood revitalization. Because these three initiatives often exist within the same project (i.e. green buildings almost always integrate green technology and green construction), I have combined their analyses. As a result of focus groups, developers

123 have realized that people want to move into a community that values green development and they’re willing to pay extra for it (Wiland and Bell 2006). The growing trends of

‘green’ building, ‘green’ technology and ‘green’ construction practices have also been observed in the commercial sector as architects and developers throughout the country are choosing to design and build LEED certified buildings. Figures 14 and 15 show these trends.

Figure 14. Commercial LEED Projects by State

Source: US Green Building Council 2008

124 Figure 15. Growth of Green Buildings in the United States

Source: U.S. Green Building Council 2008

As the demand for ‘green’ buildings (with or without LEED certification), ‘green’ technology and ‘green’ construction continues to increase, architects and developers will have to provide the specialization and those that do not will be left without business.

While the cost to build a ‘green’ building is about 5% more than that of conventional construction, some builders are choosing to build ‘green’ homes because of the demand but most are doing it because they want to lead by example and feel strongly about providing higher quality housing (Wiland and Bell 2006, 216). Building ‘green’ buildings and using ‘green’ technology allows these architects and developers to attract more business than those who don’t.

It is important to realize that while the initial building costs are more expensive than those of traditional buildings, ‘green’ buildings can save money on utility bills,

125 decrease maintenance costs, and help protect the value of real estate investment. It also enhances the health and well-being of the inhabitants (family or office staff) by creating indoor environments with better air quality and (day) lighting (Wiland and Bell 2006).

These buildings can help minimize waste, preserve natural resources, protect forests and wildlife, and preserve air and water quality. They can also help create better neighborhoods, a thriving local economy, and a better quality of life for all (City of

Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development).

Local governments also recognize the importance of ‘green’ building, ‘green’ technology and ‘green’ construction as they offer grant money and tax incentives to spur their development. For example, the City of Santa Monica has created a Green Building

Grant Program where single and multi-family residences that are LEED certified are eligible to receive funding. How much funding the residence receives depends on the

LEED certification level and the expenditures of building a ‘greener’ building (i.e. a single family LEED Silver building is eligible for up to $25,000 and a single family

LEED Gold building is eligible for $30,000) (Santa Monica Green Building Program).

The difference in funding amounts recognizes that the costs to build a ‘greener’ building are higher.

In Chicago, urban greening is not undertaken with the sole purpose of aesthetic improvement; it is also an important and recognized component of the city’s urban infrastructure and is considered imperative for good quality of life in all of Chicago’s 77 communities (Kemp 2006). Chicago has recently decided to incorporate ‘green’ building and affordable housing (Case #56: Chicago’s Green Affordable Housing). The savings from the energy efficiency in these homes will go towards funds for other uses, such as

126 supportive services for tenants. They recognize that affordable and permanent supportive housing is critical in helping people at risk of homelessness find stability so they can access employment services, health care, and mental health and addiction services and hope that these homes will provide the permanent solution they need to break out of the cycle of poverty and despair (City of Chicago’s Department of Housing).

Figure 16. Summary Chart: Potential Value of Green Buildings, Green Technology & Green Construction Practices

Green Buildings/ Technology/ Construction

Environmental Value Social Value Economic Value

Use Less Utilities Improve Health & Provide Competitive/ (Energy and Water) Productivity of Leading Business Inhabitants

Minimize Waste Use Local Materials Reduce Utility Costs (Invest in Local Economy)

Preserve natural Create Affordable Decrease Maintenance Resources Housing Costs

Protect Forests & Increase Return on Wildlife Investment/ Increased Building Value

Preserve Air & Water Invest in Local Quality Economy

Use Local Materials Provide Opportunity for Grant Money

Use Recycled Materials Provide Opportunity for Tax Incentives

Create Jobs

127 Transportation

The transportation cases studied in this project (Case #44: Detroit Eco-Village;

Case #46: LA Eco-Village; Case #49: Fruitvale Transit Village; Case #50: LA’s Light

Rail; and Case #51: Portland’s Transportation) have suggested that alternative forms of transportation, green transit and transit oriented development can offer environmental, social and economic value. Sprawling development to the urban fringe throughout the US has led to the reliance on automobiles (especially single occupancy vehicles- SOVs). As the use of SOVs increase, so does the amount of air pollution and severity of respiratory disease. As these numbers increase, the use of alternative forms of transportation becomes essential. Alternative forms of transportation encourage walking, biking and the use mass transit (i.e. bus and light rail) over the use of SOVs. Walking, biking or mass transit will reduce the number of SOVs on the road which then reduces the amount of pollutants emitted into the air and the severity of respiratory disease that affects many urban residents.

The Fruitvale Transit Village (Case #49) is expected to reduce traffic and pollution in and around Fruitvale because community residents will have access to a range of goods and services within easy walking distance of the transit station. As more residents walk rather than drive, they will have an opportunity for exercise and be more likely to interact with others.

Portland (Case #51) has found that commuting requirements, parking regulations, and light rail allow for an increase in development and an increase in jobs without an

128 increase in parking spaces. The land that would previously be used for parking can then be used for additional development.

Figure 17. Summary Table: Potential Value of Transportation

Transportation

Environmental Social Value Economic Value Value

Use Less SOV Increase Safety Spur Additional Development

Create Less Air Create a Sense of Create Jobs Pollution Place

Encourage Community Interaction

Encourage Exercise

Decrease Respiratory Disease

Green Job Training and Creation

Green job training and creation not only offers the opportunity to educate residents about the environment, but to create employment in a local community. These training programs create a knowledge and expertise that give the area a competitive advantage over others without such training programs. Sustainable South Bronx’s

Environmental Stewardship Training Program (Case #52) trains local citizens in environmental/ hazardous cleanup so that they may be included in the workforce while cleaning up contaminated, underutilized land. The program confronts environmental, health, poverty and quality of life problems by equipping urban residents to work in

129 "green collar" jobs such as ecological restoration, hazardous waste cleanup, green roof installation and maintenance, urban forestry and landscaping. Training includes: brownfield remediation; Osha Haz-Mat training; green roof installation/maintenance; river bank restoration; bioremediation; phytomediation; ecological restoration; wetland restoration; and stream bank stabilization (Sustainable South Bronx).

The program targets people who are facing employment barriers (i.e. homelessness and legal history). "When they rebuild the Bronx and the city through ecological restoration, they're also rebuilding their lives and it affects not just them but their families as well” (Gotham Gazette 2008). So far the program has placed 85 percent of the graduates in jobs, and another 10 percent have gone on to college (Gotham Gazette

2008). As successful as the environmental stewardship program has been so far, however, it cannot place its trainees in green jobs if those jobs do not exist (Gotham Gazette 2008).

Figure 18. Summary Table: Potential Value of Green Job Training and Creation

Green Job Training & Creation

Environmental Social Value Economic Value Value

Create Environmental Create a Sense of Create Jobs Knowledge & Pride Awareness

Provide Ecological Create a Sense of Create Competitive Restoration/ Forestry/ Place Workforce Advantage Landscaping

Provide Hazardous Waste Cleanup

Provide Green Infrastructure Installation & Maintenance

130 Pedestrian-Friendly Streets

Two cases (Case #53: Glendale’s Pedestrian Streets and Case #54: Waco Texas

Streetscape) that focused specifically on transforming the traditionally auto-oriented urban environment into a pedestrian-friendly community did so to create a sense of convenience, safety and community for their residents and visitors. Glendale’s Pedestrian

Streets (Case #52) sought to provide a vibrant, mixed use community. The existence of pedestrian friendly streets in Glendale provided an incentive for people to walk rather than drive. A pleasant walking environment with sidewalks, weather protection, and attractive landscaping was a step toward encouraging people to choose other modes of transportation (i.e. transit, bikes, or walking) (Kemp 2006).

In addition to environmental benefits (i.e. reduction in carbon emissions as more residents and visitors choose to walk rather than drive), pedestrian-friendly areas yield social benefits by encouraging informal encounters among neighbors, and health benefits from the exercise. This new configuration will also unite the surrounding neighborhoods and enhance the residents’ experiences (Kemp 2006).

As mentioned earlier, pedestrian-friendly shopping districts, especially those with vegetation, create a more welcoming comfortable place. As a result, shoppers are inclined to linger, pay higher prices and spend more (The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society

2006b).

Waco, Texas (Case #54) found that such pedestrian-friendly redevelopment has spurred additional development in the area. Both residents and developers responded

131 favorably to the changes as state and federal offices, hotels, loft apartments, restaurants and specialty shops have been added to Waco’s downtown. The city is also installing a bicycle/pedestrian trail along the Brazos River to connect with the downtown improvements (Kemp 2006).

These cases have shown the value of incorporating pedestrian-friendly streets into neighborhood and city development plans as they encourage neighborhood revitalization by contributing aesthetic, environmental, social and economic benefits. As mixed-use and pedestrian accessibility helps revitalize an area, further development is more likely to occur.

Figure 19. Summary Chart: Potential Value of Pedestrian-Friendly Streets

Pedestrian- Friendly Streets

Environmental Social Value Economic Value Value

Use Less Vehicles Increase Increase Shopping Convenience

Create Less Air Increase Safety Spur Additional Pollution Development

Create a Sense of Place

Encourage Community Interaction

Create Vibrant Community

Encourage Exercise

132 Eco-Industrial Park

Eco-Industrial Parks often include a variety of green environmental activities that offer the aesthetic, environmental, social and economic benefits mentioned above. These activities include: brownfield redevelopment, mixed-use, green space, green building, green construction, green infrastructure, green technology/renewable energy and green collar job. Consequently, a development project that includes all these activities would also experience the aesthetic, environmental, social and economic benefits that each offers.

The Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park (Case #60) (also known as the

Sustainable Technology Park) was built to attract and produce companies that share the county’s high business, environmental, and human equity standards. The park includes a

LEED certified building (constructed primarily from local materials which gives it enhanced structural strength and a longer life span than typical designs) with a solar electricity system (solar photovoltaic roof system that will provide up to half of the building’s total annual electrical demand with the building operating at full capacity).

The building also includes: skylights for natural day lighting, enhanced insulation, interior environmental sensing, carbon monoxide sensors and alarms, low-energy lighting, low-water fixtures, porous parking lot paving (reduces stormwater runoff, which is collected and filtered by constructed wetlands), native non-irrigated landscaping, natural/constructed wetlands/trails and a wind farm that will produce enough electricity for the entire county plus some. A water reuse and recovery system is planned to recycle

133 water for industrial use. The building’s features are designed to not only reduce energy and resource demands, but also to reduce operating costs and to increase occupant productivity and health.

The Eco-Industrial Park has found that the ecological infrastructure and natural amenities have enhanced economic development efforts by helping to attract targeted corporate tenants to the park and throughout the county. Without the projected financial income produced by the corporate tenants of the technology park (part of which from energy efficiency and recycling wastes), it wouldn’t have been possible to fund protection of the natural areas or construction of the trails, wetlands, and ponds. The community has gained a new natural area park, which has proven to be popular among joggers, birdwatchers, and families.

134 Figure 20. Summary Table: Potential Value of Eco-Industrial Parks

Eco-Industrial Park

Aesthetic Value Environmental Social Value Economic Value Value

Reduce Vacant, Clean Eliminate Reduce Blighted Land Contaminated Blighted Infrastructure/ Properties Buildings/ Utility Costs Improve Safety

Create Promote Infill Improve Sense of Spur Further Beautification Development- Place Economic Less Sprawl Development

Use Less Utilities Improve Health & Increase Tax (Energy & Water) Productivity of Revenue Occupants (property, sales and income)

Minimize Waste Use Local Encourage Local Materials (Invest Investment in Local Economy)

Preserve Natural Create Jobs Resources

Protect Forests & Create Wildlife Competitive/ Leading Business

Preserve Air & Decrease Water Quality Maintenance Costs

Use Local Increase Return Materials on Investment/ Increase Building Value

Use Recycled Provide Materials Opportunity for Incentives

135 These cases suggest that when green environmental projects are implemented with the goal of spurring economic development and revitalizing the community, there are potential aesthetic, environmental, social, economic, and therefore sustainable values that are added to the area. Therefore, these initiatives have the potential to be sustainable because they can address and can place equal emphasis on all three components of sustainable development (environment, social and economic).

Revitalization Goals and Green Activities

I have analyzed each case for linkages between revitalization goals and the green activities initiated at the city, county, and neighborhood scale. For this analysis, I concentrated on the two variables: revitalization/ environmental goals and green activities executed. It may be helpful to the reader to refer back to the first two analyses

(‘Revitalization/Environmental goals’ and ‘Green Activities’).

Twenty cases focused on reconnecting neighborhoods to the city and creating a competitive energy in cities as places for living, working, and entertaining which simultaneously benefits the economy, environment and community (goal #1). Of those 20 cases, nine cases initiated green space creation, open space creation, streetscape modifications, park creation, and reforestation (case #1, 2, 8, 10, 13, 29, 32, 45 and 60), four cases initiated brownfield redevelopment (case #23, 28, 44 and 60), four cases initiated mixed-use development (case #28, 29, 32 and 44), four cases initiated ‘green’ technology and renewable energy projects (case #38, 39, 44 and 60), three cases initiated environmental education and training projects (case #35, 40, and 60), two cases initiated community gardens and/or farmer’s markets (case #13 and 18), two cases initiated

‘green’ building construction (case #44 and 60), two cases initiated ‘green’ construction

136 practices (case #44 and 60), two initiated transportation projects (case #44 and 49), two cases initiated an eco-village (case #44 and 45), two cases created an environmental community plan (case #42 and 43), one case initiated an eco-industrial park (case #60), one case initiated ‘green’ infrastructure (case #60), and one case initiated a nature restoration and protection project (case #60).

Figure 21. Summary Table: Goal 1 and Green Activities

Goal Green Activity Case Reconnect neighborhoods to Green Space 1: Baltimore Trails the city and create a 2: St. Paul’s Riverfront competitive energy in cities Open Space Restoration as places for living, working 8: East Harlem Tree Planting and entertaining which Streetscape 10: Million Trees NYC simultaneously benefits the 13: Community University economy, environment and Park Creation Partnership community. These cases 29: Chattanooga Mall focused particularly on Reforestation 32: Lake Worth Beach pollution reduction, Restoration increasing social welfare and 45: East Price Hill Eco-Village community actions, and 60: Northampton County Eco- strengthening economic Industrial Park development. Brownfield 23: Centennial Olympic Park Redevelopment 28: Hartford’s Riverfront Redevelopment 44: Detroit Eco-Village 60: Northampton County Eco- Industrial Park Mixed-Use 28: Hartford’s Riverfront Development Redevelopment 29: Chattanooga Mall 32: Lake Worth Beach Restoration 44: Detroit Eco-Village ‘Green’ 38: Sustainable Cleveland Technology Sustainable Technology 39: Sustainable Cleveland Wind Renewable Energy Farm 44: Detroit Eco-Village 60: Northampton County Eco- Industrial Park Environmental 35: Sustainable Cleveland

137 Education/ Corporate Roundtable Training 40: Chattanooga Venture: Vision 2000 60: Northampton County Eco- Industrial Park Community 13: Community University Gardens/ Markets Partnership 18: Harlem’s Green Market

‘Green’ Building 44: Detroit Eco-Village Construction 60: Northampton County Eco- Industrial Park ‘Green’ 44: Detroit Eco-Village Construction 60: Northampton County Eco- Practices Industrial Park Transportation 44: Detroit Eco-Village 49: Fruitvale Transit Village Eco-Village 44: Detroit Eco-Village 45: East Price Hill Eco-Village Environmental 42: Sustainable Cleveland’s Community Plans Sustainability Study 43: Harlem-on-the-River Waterfront Park Plan Eco-Industrial 60: Northampton County Eco- Park Industrial Park ‘Green’ 60: Northampton County Eco- Infrastructure Industrial Park Nature Restoration 60: Northampton County Eco- & Protection Industrial Park

138 Figure 22. Frequency of Green Activities Used to Achieve Goal 1

Forty five percent of these cases that wished to reconnect neighborhoods to the city and create a competitive energy in cities did so by using green space.

Sixteen cases focused on reducing vacant, blighted, deteriorating and real or perceived contaminated land and the poverty and crime that often results (goal #2). Of those 16 cases, eleven cases initiated green space creation, open space creation, streetscape modifications, park creation, and reforestation (case #3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 24, 26,

30, 31 and 60), five cases initiated brownfield redevelopment projects (case #22, 24, 26,

27 and 60), four cases created community gardens and/or farmer’s markets (case #11, 12,

14, and 15), four cases initiated mixed-used development projects (case #27, 30, 31 and

60), two cases initiated an infill development project (case #30 and 60), two cases initiated a ‘green’ infrastructure project (case #26 and 60), two cases initiated an environmental education/ training project (case #40 and 60), one case initiated a nature

139 restoration project (case #60), one case initiated a pedestrian-friendly project (case #30) and one case initiated an eco-industrial project (case #60).

Figure 23. Summary Table: Goal 2 and Green Activities

Goal Green Activity Case Reducing vacant, blighted, Green Space 3: Philadelphia’s Side Yard deteriorating and real or Program perceived contaminated land Open Space 4: UCGreen and the poverty and crime 5: Philadelphia’s Norris Square that often results Streetscape Neighborhood/ Las Parcelas Park 9: Central Park Parks 11: Chicago’s City Space Program Reforestation 12: Philadelphia Green 24: Mill Race Park 26: Philadelphia’s Brownfield Redevelopment 30: Cambridge University Park 31: Grand Forks Redevelopment 60: Northampton County Eco- Industrial Park Community 11: Chicago’s City Space Gardens Program 12: Philadelphia Green Farmer’s Markets 14: Philadelphia’s Village for Arts and Humanities 15: Philadelphia’s GreensGrow Farm Brownfield 22: Borough of Paulsboro Redevelopment Brownfield Redevelopment 24: Mill Race Park 26: Philadelphia’s Brownfield Redevelopment 27: Camden Brownfield Redevelopment 60: Northampton County Eco- Industrial Park Mixed-Use 27: Camden Brownfield Development Redevelopment 30: Cambridge University Park 31: Grand Forks Redevelopment 60: Northampton County Eco- Industrial Park Infill Development 30: Cambridge University Park

140 60: Northampton County Eco- Industrial Park ‘Green’ 26: Philadelphia’s Brownfield Infrastructure Redevelopment 60: Northampton County Eco- Industrial Park Environmental 40: Chattanooga Venture: Vision Education/ 2000 Training 60: Northampton County Eco- Industrial Park Nature 60: Northampton County Eco- Restoration/ Industrial Park Protection Pedestrian- 30: Cambridge University Park Friendly Eco-Industrial 60: Northampton County Eco- Industrial Park

Figure 24. Frequency of Green Activities Use to Achieve Goal 2

Sixty-nine percent of these cases used green space and reforestation to reduce vacant, blighted, deteriorating and real or perceived contaminated land and the poverty and crime that often results from these sites.

141 Sixteen cases focused on alleviating poverty and remediating the environment by creating “green-collar” jobs (goal #3). Of those 16 cases, five cases initiated green space creation, open space creation, streetscape modifications, park creation, and reforestation

(case #6, 7, 11, 25 and 60), four cases initiated a ‘green’ infrastructure project (case #33,

58, 59 and 60), four cases initiated environmental education/training projects (case #16,

34, 52 and 60), four cases initiated nature restoration and protection projects (case #19,

20, 21 and 60), three cases initiated ‘green’ building projects (case #58, 59 and 60), two cases initiated brownfield redevelopment projects (case #25 and 60), two cases initiated community gardens and/or farmer’s markets (case #11 and 16), two cases initiated

‘green’ technology/ renewable energy projects (case #37 and 60), one case created an environmental community plan (case #41) and one case created an eco-industrial park

(case #60).

Figure 25. Summary Table: Goal 3 and Green Activities

Goal Green Activity Case Alleviating poverty and Green Space 6: Sustainable South Bronx remediating the Greenway environment by creating Open Space 7: LA’s Trees “green-collar” jobs. 11: Chicago’s City Space Streetscape Program 25: Millennium Park Parks 60: Northampton County Eco- Industrial Park Reforestation ‘Green’ 33: LA’s Green Infrastructure Infrastructure 58: Chicago’s Green Roofs 59: Sustainable South Bronx Green Roofs 60: Northampton County Eco- Industrial Park Environmental 16: Girls Today, Women Education/ Tomorrow Training 34: Eden Place

142 52: Sustainable South Bronx- Environmental Stewardship Training 60: Northampton County Eco- Industrial Park Nature Restoration 19: Chicago River Restoration and Protection 20: Chicago’s Lake/River Restoration Efforts 21: LA’s Natural Infrastructure 60: Northampton County Eco- Industrial Park ‘Green’ Building 58: Chicago’s Green Roofs 59: Sustainable South Bronx Green Roofs 60: Northampton County Eco- Industrial Park Brownfield 25: Millennium Park Redevelopment 60: Northampton County Eco- Industrial Park Community 11: Chicago’s City Space Gardens Program 16: Girls Today, Women Farmer’s Markets Tomorrow ‘Green’ 37: Chicago’s Wireless Technology Technology 60: Northampton County Eco- Renewable Energy Industrial Park Environmental 41: LA’s Green Vision Plan Community Plan Eco-Industrial 60: Northampton County Eco- Park Industrial Park

143 Figure 26. Frequency of Green Activities Used to Achieve Goal 3

Of the ten cases that focused on connecting the community by creating public spaces (goal #4- case #7, 16, 17, 21, 33, 36, 41, 55 and 57), five cases initiated nature restoration and protection projects (case #17, 21, 36, 55 and 57), two cases created community gardens/farmer’s markets (case #16 and 17), two cases initiated infill development projects (case #55 and 57), two cases initiated ‘green’ infrastructure projects

(case #33 and 55), two cases initiated environmental education/training projects (case #16 and 36), one case initiated a green space creation, open space creation, streetscape modifications, park creation, and reforestation (case #7), one case initiated a mixed-use development project (case #55), one case initiated a ‘green’ building project (case #57), and one case used ‘green’ construction practices (case #57).

144 Figure 27. Summary Table: Goal 4 and Green Activities

Goal Green Activity Case Connect the community by Nature Restoration 17: Seattle’s Community creating public spaces. and Protection Gardens 21: LA’s Natural Infrastructure 36: Seattle’s ‘Choose to Change’ Education Program 55: Seattle’s High Point Development Project 57: Seattle Green Building/ Construction Practices Community 16: Girls Today, Women Gardens Tomorrow 17: Seattle’s Community Farmer’s Markets Gardens Infill Development 55: Seattle’s High Point Development Project 57: Seattle Green Building/ Construction Practices ‘Green’ 33: LA’s Green Infrastructure Infrastructure 55: Seattle’s High Point Development Project Environmental 16: Girls Today, Women Education/ Training Tomorrow 36: Seattle’s ‘Choose to Change’ Education Program Green Space 7: LA’s Trees

Open Space

Streetscape

Parks

Reforestation Mixed-Use 55: Seattle’s High Point Development Development Project ‘Green’ Building 57: Seattle Green Building/ Construction Practices ‘Green’ 57: Seattle Green Building/ Construction Construction Practices Practices

145 Figure 28. Frequency of Green Activities Used to Achieve Goal 4

Fifty percent of these cases restored and protected the natural infrastructure (i.e. lakes, rivers, streams, and riparian zones) in the area to connect the community and create public spaces. These cases seemed to believe that the natural environment had the ability to encourage public places and produce a more unified community.

Of the seven cases that wanted to restore and protect natural infrastructure (i.e. watersheds, streams, rivers, and lakes) (goal #5- case #17, 19, 20, 21, 36, 55, 57), seven cases initiated specific nature restoration and/or protection projects (case #17, 19, 20, 21,

36, 55 and 57) two cases initiated an infill development project (case #55 and 57), one case initiated a mixed-use development project (case #55), one case used ‘green’ construction practices and initiated a ‘green’ building project (case #57), one case initiated a ‘green’ infrastructure project (case #55), and one case initiated an environmental education/training project (case #36).

146 Figure 29. Summary Table: Goal 5 and Green Activities

Goal Green Activity Case Restoring and protecting Nature Restoration 17: Seattle’s Community natural infrastructure (i.e. and Protection Gardens watersheds, streams, rivers 19: Chicago River Restoration and lakes). 20: Chicago’s Lake/ River Restoration Efforts 21: LA’s Natural Infrastructure 36: Seattle’s ‘Choose to Change’ Education Program 55: Seattle’s High Point Development Project 57: Seattle’s Green Building/ Construction Practices Infill Development 55: Seattle’s High Point Development Project 57: Seattle’s Green Building/ Construction Practices Mixed-Use 55: Seattle’s High Point Development Project ‘Green’ 57: Seattle’s Green Building/ Construction Construction Practices Practices ‘Green’ Building 57: Seattle’s Green Building/ Construction Practices ‘Green’ 55: Seattle’s High Point Infrastructure Development Project Environmental 36: Seattle’s ‘Choose to Education/ Training Change’ Education Program

147 Figure 30. Frequency of Green Activities Used to Achieve Goal 5

Of the six cases that wanted to invest in smart growth (goal #6- case #17, 36, 50,

51, 55 and 57), four cases initiated nature restoration and protection projects (case #17,

36, 55 and 57), two cases initiated infill development projects (case #55 and 57), two cases initiated a transportation projects (case #50 and 51), one case initiated a mixed-use development project (case #55), one case initiated a ‘green’ building project (case #57), one case used ‘green’ construction practices (case #57), one case initiated a ‘green’ infrastructure project (case #55), and one case initiated an environmental education/training project (case #36).

Figure 31. Summary Table: Goal 6 and Green Activities

Goal Green Activity Case Invest in smart growth. Nature Restoration 17: Seattle’s Community and Protection Gardens 36: Seattle’s ‘Choose to Change’ Education Program 55: Seattle’s High Point Development Project 57: Seattle Green Building/

148 Construction Practices Infill Development 55: Seattle’s High Point Development Project 57: Seattle Green Building/ Construction Practices Mixed-Use 55: Seattle’s High Point Development Development Project 50: LA Light Rail Transportation 51: Portland’s Transportation ‘Green’ Building 57: Seattle Green Building/ Construction Practices ‘Green’ 57: Seattle Green Building/ Construction Construction Practices Practices ‘Green’ 55: Seattle’s High Point Infrastructure Development Project Environmental 36: Seattle’s ‘Choose to Change’ Education/ Training Education Program

Figure 32. Frequency of Green Activities Used to Achieve Goal 6

Eighty percent of those cases wanting to invest in smart growth did so by restoring and protecting the natural environment. Fifty percent of the infill development projects were implemented to focus on smart growth. Twenty five percent of the smart growth projects focused on transportation. These cases seem to show that environmental restoration and 149 protection, infill development and transportation are key ingredients in promoting ‘smart growth’ within an urban environment.

Of the five cases that wanted to focus on creating a model for using sustainable development (i.e. energy efficiency, renewable and alternative energy technology, green building) as a profitable catalyst for redevelopment (goal #7- case #44, 45, 46, 47, and

48), five cases focused overall on creating an eco-village (case #44, 45, 46, 48, and 47), three cases initiated green space creation, open space creation, streetscape modifications, park creation, and reforestation projects (case #45, 46, and 48), two cases created community gardens/farmer’s markets (case #46 and 48), two cases initiated a ‘green’ building project (case #44 and 47), two cases initiated ‘green’ infrastructure projects

(case #46 and 47), two cases initiated a transportation project (case #44 and 46), two cases created environmental community plans (case #46 and 47) one case initiated a brownfield redevelopment project (case #44), one case initiated a mixed-use development project (case #44), one case initiated an infill development project (case #48), one case initiated a ‘green’ technology/ renewable energy project (case #44), and one case initiated an environmental education/training project (case #46).

Figure 33. Summary Table: Goal 7 and Green Activities

Goal Green Activity Case Creating a model for using Eco-Village 44: Detroit Eco-Village sustainable development as a Creation 45: East Price Hill Eco-Village profitable catalyst for 46: LA Eco-Village redevelopment. This goal 47: Cleveland Eco-Village incorporates the first goal by 48: EPA’s Sustainability Model creating a model Green Space 45: East Price Hill Eco-Village neighborhood that establishes 46: LA Eco-Village economic, ecological and Open Space 48: EPA’s Sustainability Model social interests. Streetscapes

150 Parks

Reforestation Community 46: LA Eco-Village Gardens 48: EPA’s Sustainability Model

Farmer’s Markets ‘Green’ Building 44: Detroit Eco-Village 47: Cleveland Eco-Village ‘Green’ 46: LA Eco-Village Infrastructure 47: Cleveland Eco-Village Transportation 44: Detroit Eco-Village 46: LA Eco-Village Environmental 46: LA Eco-Village Community Plans 47: Cleveland Eco-Village Brownfield 44: Detroit Eco-Village Redevelopment Mixed-Use 44: Detroit Eco-Village Development Infill Development 48: EPA’s Sustainability Model ‘Green’ Technology 44: Detroit Eco-Village

Renewable Energy Environmental 46: LA Eco-Village Education/ Training

Figure 34. Frequency of Green Activities Used to Achieve Goal 7

151 These cases show that eco-villages, which incorporate many of the ‘green’ activities studied in this report, can serve as models for using sustainable development (i.e. energy efficiency, renewable and alternative energy technology, green building) as a profitable catalyst for redevelopment. The evaluation of whether or not these particular projects have succeeded in creating this profitably catalyst for redevelopment will create an opportunity for further research.

Of the two cases that wanted to focus on producing a safe and inviting environment for residents and visitors to walk and shop (goal #8- case #53 and 54), both initiated green space creation, open space creation, streetscape modifications, park creation, and reforestation projects and both initiated pedestrian-friendly projects.

Figure 35. Summary Table: Goal 8 and Green Activities

Goal Green Activity Case Producing safe and inviting Green Space 53: Glendale Pedestrian Streets environments for residents 54: Waco Streetscape and visitors to walk and shop. Open Space

Streetscapes

Parks

Reforestation Pedestrian-Friendly 53: Glendale Pedestrian Streets Development 54: Waco Streetscape

152 Figure 36. Frequency of Green Activities Used to Achieve Goal 8

This linkage, once again, seems to promote the use to green space to create pedestrian- friendly places.

The one case that focused on creating affordable and environmentally-friendly housing (goal #9- case #56), initiated a ‘green’ building and a ‘green’ technology/ renewable energy project.

Figure 37. Summary Table: Goal 9 and Green Activities

Goal Green Activity Case Creating affordable, ‘Green’ Building 56: Chicago’s Green Affordable environmentally-friendly Housing housing. ‘Green’ Technology 56: Chicago’s Green Affordable Housing Renewable Energy

153 Figure 38. Frequency of Green Activities Used to Achieve Goal 9

This project seems to suggest that ‘green’ building and ‘green’ technology can actually become more affordable for residents than conventional housing.

Revitalization Results and Green Activities

Each case has also been analyzed for linkages between revitalization results and sustainable activities initiated at a city, county and neighborhood scale. Several of the cases studied have not reported results to their revitalization efforts. Of those that did, linkages were found that relate property value increase, crime reduction and beautification to neighborhood cleanup and landscaping; and community interaction and engagement to pedestrian-friendly streets, mixed-use development and park/ garden creation.

Property Values- Neighborhood Cleanup and Planting Vegetation

As mentioned earlier in the ‘sustainable development’ analysis, several of the cases studied have witnessed an increase in property value (Case #9: Central Park; Case

#11: Chicago’s CitySpace Program; and Case #12: Philadelphia Green) as a result of cleanup, planting, and park creation initiatives. Advocates of urban greening often 154 promote the intangible benefits that open space provides, such as improving the quality of city life and fostering a sense of community pride. While these benefits are difficult to quantify, a study from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania now offers solid evidence that investment in greening yields significant economic returns, specifically, dramatic increases in real estate values (The Pennsylvania Horticultural

Society 2006b).

The Determinants of Neighborhood Transformation in Philadelphia:

Identification and Analysis- The New Kensington Pilot Study was developed and produced by Susan Wachter, professor of real estate, finance, and city and regional planning at the Wharton School. It looked at the economic impact of "place-based investment strategies," particularly the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society's seven-year greening effort in the New Kensington area of North Philadelphia (The Pennsylvania

Horticultural Society 2006b). "We were always convinced that greening has a tremendously positive impact on communities," says J. Blaine Bonham, Jr., executive vice president of PHS. "The success of our Philadelphia Green program has demonstrated this. Now, the Wharton findings begin to quantify the positive return on the investment in greening" (Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 2006b).

From 1995 through 2002, the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society's Philadelphia

Green program worked in partnership with the New Kensington Community

Development Corporation (NKCDC) to address the blight caused by more than 1,100 parcels of abandoned land in the neighborhood and to come up with a vacant-land management plan for the community. The goal was to improve the area's appearance and help stem population loss, attract new residents, and encourage reinvestment (The

155 Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 2006b). A comprehensive greening program was created to "stabilize" vacant lots (clearing debris and installing fencing and trees), create community gardens, plant trees, renovate parks, and transfer vacant lots to adjacent homeowners for private use. The results of the PHS-NKCDC partnership include 480 newly planted trees, 145 settled side yards, 217 stabilized lots, and 15 community gardens (The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 2006b).

Wachter's team utilized economic models to measure the impact of greening as accurately as possible, adjusting for other factors that affect real estate values, such as varying characteristics of individual homes and proximity to public transportation and schools. Sales information and other real estate data came from Philadelphia's Board of

Revision of Taxes, while NKCDC and PHS provided information on greening projects in the area. The study incorporates sales records on thousands of homes and more than 50 variables. To analyze the relationship between greening investments and house values, the Wharton School's Geographic Information Systems laboratory created a database that included the location and timing of greening projects (The Pennsylvania Horticultural

Society 2006b).

The study found significant increases in the value of individual homes near cleaned lots, streets trees, and parks. It found that: cleaning and greening vacant lots can increase adjacent property values by as much as 30%; planting a tree within 50 feet of a house can increase its value by about 9%; the location of a house within ¼ mile from a park increased values by 10%; and neighborhood blocks with higher concentrations of unmanaged vacant lots displayed lower house prices of about 18%. The study also found a considerable increase in the total value of property in the community. According to

156 Wachter, tree plantings alone accounted for a total increase of about $4 million, while lot improvements increased the total value by $12 million (The Pennsylvania Horticultural

Society 2006b).

Previous studies of urban greening investments have shown a positive relationship but have been smaller in scale, focusing on a limited number of properties and on the impact of a few parks or large-scale open spaces, such as greenways. For example, a

Boulder, Colorado study found that the average value of properties adjacent to a greenbelt was 32% higher than that of those located 3,200 feet away (The Pennsylvania

Horticultural Society 2006b).

At the completion of the greening project in New Kensington, anecdotal evidence pointed to an immediate increase in property values in the neighborhood. Sandy Salzman, executive director of the New Kensington Community Development Corporation, says that, prior to the greening effort, the organization had a difficult time selling homes it renovated, but vacant lots in the neighborhood are now selling for thousands of dollars.

"We couldn't give the land away when we started this program," she recalls (The

Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 2006b). Susan Wachter notes that the community- wide scope of the greening effort in New Kensington made it a natural focus for this research. "People are not only more willing to choose this neighborhood and pay more for living in this neighborhood, but it also spurs other reinvestment" (The Pennsylvania

Horticultural Society 2006b).

Wachter further suggests that the "direct and indirect impacts to the city's property tax base are likely to contribute to the overall fiscal health of the city" (The Pennsylvania

Horticultural Society 2006b). Going forward, she imagines a possible spill-over effect:

157 with a healthier tax base, the city could offer improved services, encouraging more people to come back, thereby lowering individual tax burdens over the long-term.

The Wharton study shows that the positive effects of greening go well beyond intangible, "feel-good" benefits and that greening is an important tool for economic revitalization. Its findings will be part of continuing policy discussions on neighborhood investments in Philadelphia, as well as in other cities throughout the United States (The

Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 2006b).

Crime Reduction- Neighborhood Cleanup and Planting Vegetation

Several of the cases studied have also witnessed crime reduction (Case #11:

Chicago’s CitySpace Program and Case #12: Philadelphia Green) as a result of cleanup, planting, and park creation initiatives. Studies have also found that incorporating trees, green space and parks into a neighborhood significantly reduces crime in the area

(Wiland and Bell 2006). A study in Chicago found that there were 56% fewer violent crimes and 48% fewer property crimes in public housing apartment buildings when they were surrounded by landscaping as compared to apartment where there was no landscaping. It is not so much the planted spaces as much as what they stand for. A well- tended area broadcasts to passersby that people care about what goes on in this area. If you litter, it will be picked up and if you engage in negative activity, it will be reported.

The last thing a criminal wants is a pair of watchful eyes (Wiland and Bell 2006, 89).

Studies from the University of Illinois document the decrease in violence around public housing where green landscapes thrive. If people are invited to participate in the design and planting of an area, they will learn to respect that area, because they know how much

158 work went into it (Wiland and Bell 2006). “The act of planting also knits people together.

The simple, communal act builds community, and strong communities can transform entire cities” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 89).

Beautification- Neighborhood Cleanup and Planting Vegetation

‘Greening’ a city or neighborhood also contributes to the aesthetics. City leaders now understand that for a city to thrive and attract new businesses, it must address aesthetics. There might be more jobs available, but that doesn’t make the city desirable or more livable. A vibrant city hums because it has four things: jobs, home ownership, culture and public places that anyone, rich or poor, can enjoy (Wiland and Bell 2006, 86).

Researchers at the University of Washington and the University of Illinois have discovered that people would rather shop in downtown areas where trees are present. If given a choice, people are more likely to stop and eat in downtown areas that seem wooded, shady, and inviting. A city that understands this interesting human trait can help create attractive downtown settings and serve the public good at the same time (Wiland and Bell 2006, 146).

The cases studied in this project have shown the value of incorporating green space, trees and parks into neighborhood and city development plans as they encourage neighborhood revitalization, increase property values, reduce crime, and increase aesthetics. As green space helps revitalize an area, further development is more likely to occur. For example, in Case #11, Eden Park sparked further development in Chicago which included new homes, a 100-unit senior retirement home, new businesses including

3 gas stations (the neighborhood previously had 0) (Wiland and Bell 2006).

159 Figure 39. Summary Chart: Results of Community Cleanup & Green Space

Increased Property Values

Neighborhood Cleanup & Green Space

Beautification Decreased Crime

Community Interaction- Pedestrian-friendly streets

Several cases have shown that community interaction and involvement often occur as a result of creating pedestrian-friendly streets. As mentioned earlier in the ‘value added’ section, pedestrian-friendly streets that connect mixed-use development have been known to encourage community interaction (Case #53: Glendale’s Pedestrian Streets and

Case #54: Waco Texas Streetscape). Glendale’s Pedestrian Streets (Case #53) sought to provide a vibrant, mixed-use community. The existence of pedestrian friendly streets in

Glendale provided an incentive for people to walk rather than drive. A pleasant walking environment with sidewalks, weather protection, and attractive landscaping was a step toward encouraging people to choose other modes of transportation (i.e. transit, bikes, or walking) (Kemp 2006). These pedestrian-friendly areas also yield social benefits by

160 encouraging informal encounters among neighbors who choose to walk to the store rather than drive, and health benefits from the exercise. This new configuration will also unite the surrounding neighborhoods and enhance the residents’ experiences (Kemp 2006).

Community Interaction- Mixed-use development

Several cases have shown that community interaction and involvement also often occur as a result of creating mixed-use developments. Parks offer the opportunity for residents and visitors to interact with each other (Case #9: Central Park; Case #11:

Chicago’s Green/ Open Space; Case #12: Philadelphia’s Gardens/ Park Revitalization; and Case #24: Mill Race Park). Mill Race Park (Case #24) is now a focal point for concerts and community activities and a source of civic pride. The park provides multiple recreational environments and opportunities (i.e. solitary walks to concerts). Facilities were provided that appeal to children (playground), teens (basketball court), and families

(picnic shelters). The amphitheater, boat rental, fishing pier, lakes and trails attract a wide range of users. Events such as concerts, films and camps are also held at the park and are controlled by the Columbus Arts Council (a nonprofit org) and the Columbus Parks and

Recreation Dept (Kemp 2006). Central Park (Case #9), opened in 1858, reported usership of the park amounting to roughly 30,000 visitors per day and more than 10 million per year in 1871. The park’s designers encouraged active use in many ways, such as walking, cycling, skating, carriage driving, boating and horseback riding in order to create a sense of freedom that one would have in a true rural landscape. In 1880, Frederick Law

Olmsted (one of the designers) wrote:

To enjoy the use of the park, within a few years after it became available, the inner hour of thousands of families permanently changed, the number of private

161 carriages kept in the city was increased tenfold, the number of saddle horses a hundredfold, the business of livery stables more than doubled, the investment of many millions of private capital in public conveyance made profitable. . . How could New York have got on without the park? Twelve million visits are made to it every year (Quoted in Sutton 1971, 255).

Central park also serves as a tourist attraction, venue for public celebrations and events and a site for profitable restaurants and housing (Kemp 2006).

Community Interaction- Garden creation

Cases have shown that community interaction and involvement also often occur as a result of creating gardens. Community gardens have been used in several of the cases

(Case #12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18) studied in this project as tools for revitalization.

These gardens have been found to increase community interaction as the act of planting knits people together while they work side by side in a garden. As residents become more involved in their community, they not only form relationships with other residents but form a renewed sense of pride and sense of place. Studies from the University of Illinois state that if young people are invited to participate in the design and planting of an area, they will grow up learning to respect that area, because they know how much work went into it (Case #14: Philadelphia’s Village for Arts and Humanities - Wiland and Bell

2006). New York has found that a garden tended by a community’s residents brings out the best in that community, becoming a source of physical activity, recreation, and civic pride for all who participate. Community gardens foster relationships among residents, which in turn makes neighborhoods safer by reducing crime. These gardens also offer an opportunity for learning as many are used as outdoor classrooms as children are taught about healthy foods and how plants grow (Englander 2001).

162 The cases studied in this project have shown the value of incorporating pedestrian-friendly streets, mixed-use development, parks and gardens into neighborhood as they encourage interaction between residents within the neighborhood.

Figure 40. Summary Chart: Factors that Promote Community Interaction

Parks/ Recreation

Pedestrian- Community Mixed-Use Friendly Interaction Development Streets

Community Gardens

Summary

Communities throughout the US are implementing sustainable development projects with the hopes of revitalizing their declining urban areas. Citizens, nonprofit organizations and public officials are using sustainable revitalization tools with the specific goals of neighborhood beautification, crime reduction, real estate investment, improved housing quality, reuse of deteriorating land, creating a sense of place, and creating jobs to improve the local economy. The green revitalization tools implemented in the 60 cases include: green space, open space, reforestation, streetscape and park creation; community gardens and farmers markets; nature restoration and protection;

163 brownfield redevelopment; mixed-use development; green infrastructure; green building; environmental education; green technology and renewable energy; environmental community plans; eco-village creation; transportation (alternative forms, green transit and transit oriented development); infill development; green job training and creation; green construction practices; pedestrian-friendly development; and eco-industrial park creation.

The range of green activities in the cases studied shows that no project is the same as communities chose to focus on varying sustainable revitalization tools.

While these green development practices have yet to be proven as sustainable, the benefits of incorporating them into revitalization projects are exemplified the most by the aesthetic, environmental, social and economic value they can provide. The 60 cases studied in this project seem to suggest that when a neighborhood uses green environmental initiatives to revitalize and improve economic and social conditions for its residents, a sustainable relationship (environmental, social and economic) can be created.

This integration of environmental and economic planning has the potential to create a healthy sustainable community which is ecologically preserved, socially equitable and economically viable. Of the 17 green environmental initiatives implemented within the

60 cases, 14 have found that sustainable value can be added to the community.

Green space, open space, reforestation, streetscapes and parks offer aesthetic value by beautifying an area and creating a place where people want to live, work and visit. They provide environmental value by alleviating flooding, cleansing stormwater runoff, cooling the urban environment and cleaning the air by removing carbon. Social value is offered by reducing crime, reducing traffic speed and offering a place for recreation and economic value is offered by naturally cleansing water which reduces the

164 costs of cleaning at a treatment facility, reducing cooling costs, and increasing commercial sales, property values and the local tax base.

Community gardens offer an aesthetic value by offering beauty and color to an otherwise gray landscape and environmental value which is similar to that of green space.

They offer social values by providing healthy, high-quality food, opportunities for nutrition education, local investment (by buying local produce), community interaction, unification and cultural identity, and crime reduction. Economic value is also created by increasing local economic activity and surrounding property values.

Restoring and protecting the natural environment offers aesthetic value by adding beauty, color and natural character to the area. By cleansing the natural environment, environmental value is added. This healthy environment then offers social value by providing public space and recreation. Economic value results as property values increase and further economic development is encouraged by a beautiful, healthy and natural area.

Brownfield redevelopment and infill development offer aesthetic value by eliminating blighted and/or contaminated property that once created eye-sores for the community. Environmental value is produced by cleaning the real or perceived contaminated property and encouraging infill development within the existing infrastructure. Social value is also produced by creating/locating potential housing, commercial use and public services within an existing community. Economic value is produced by increasing economic development, housing, employment and the local tax base.

Mixed-use development creates a smaller footprint by encouraging a densely built community which costs less to support. Higher density requires less land, impervious

165 surfaces, energy, water and automobiles and produces less air and water pollution, therefore producing environmental value. It encourages community interaction and exercise through a walkable environment, which offers social value. It also requires less infrastructure and utility costs and less governmental services, which produces economic value.

Green infrastructure offers aesthetic value by adding natural character, beauty and color to the community through vegetation. Environmental value is offered by mitigating flooding, absorbing runoff and pollution and cooling pervious and impervious surfaces.

Social value is produced by reducing crime through vegetation, providing public space and recreation, increasing privacy, reducing traffic speed and reducing the amount and severity of respiratory diseases. Economic value is produced by raising property values, raising tax revenues, reducing water treatment and cooling costs and increasing the structure’s lifespan.

Green buildings, green technology and green construction practices offer environmental value by using less energy and water, minimizing waste, preserving and protecting natural resources, preserving air and water quality, and using local and recycled materials. They offer social value by improving the health and productivity of inhabitants and employees, investing in the local economy by using local materials and potentially creating affordable housing. They offer economic value by minimizing energy and maintenance costs, increasing building value and investing in the local economy.

Alternative forms of transportation, mass transit (including light rail) and transit oriented development offer environmental value by encouraging fewer single occupancy vehicle trips and therefore reducing air pollution. Social value is offered by increasing

166 pedestrian safety, creating a sense of place, and encouraging exercise and community interaction. Economic value is offered by spurring additional development around the transit routes and stops and creating employment.

Green job training and creation offers environmental value by increasing environmental education and awareness, and providing ecological restoration, forestry, landscaping, hazardous waste cleanup and green infrastructure installation and maintenance. Social value is offered by creating a sense of place and pride in an individual’s position within society. Economic value is offered by creating employment and a competitive workforce advantage.

Pedestrian-friendly streets offer environmental value by encouraging less vehicle use and therefore creating less air pollution. They produce social value by increasing convenience and safety for the pedestrian, creating a sense of place for residents and visitors and encouraging community interaction and exercise. They produce economic value by encouraging shopping and additional development in the area.

Eco-Industrial Parks offer the same aesthetic, environmental, social and economic benefits as each of the green environmental projects listed above that are incorporated into the industrial park.

While three green initiatives were not included in the sustainability analysis in

Chapter 5 (environmental education, green community plans and eco-villages), I am not suggesting that they lack potential sustainable value but that the cases failed to mention the specific value added. It can be assumed that the 17 revitalization initiatives that have potential sustainable value (i.e. green space creation, community gardens, green building, green infrastructure, transportation and pedestrian-friendly development) would not have

167 succeeded without environmentally educated players and that each environmental initiative would include some level of education. Likewise, while the specific values of environmental community plans were not discussed in the cases studied, these plans offer the blueprint that explains the implementation process for those projects that do mention specific sustainable values. Without the plan, these projects would not be developed. It can then be assumed that the overall plan would offer the same value as each of its constituents. Since eco-villages incorporate many (if not all) of the green initiatives discussed in these cases, they will offer the same potential sustainability values that each activity offers individually.

Based on the sustainable values that each green initiative possesses, the 60 cases studied in this project seem to suggest that each initiative can potentially serve as an example of sustainable development and that each ‘sustainable development’ initiative was implemented with the hope of revitalization. In several cases, these ‘sustainable’ initiatives have succeeded in revitalizing the urban neighborhood in question. For example, several cases found that neighborhood cleanup and planting vegetation resulted in increased property values, crime reduction, and beautification. As a result of the creation of Central Park in New York City (Case #9), property values in Manhattan doubled during the 15 years after park development began (Garvin et al. 1997) and condos with a view of Central Park now cost several million dollars apiece, averaging

$5.8 million each (Platt 2004 and Kemp 2006). Philadelphia Horticultural Society’s

Philadelphia Green Program (Case #12) found significant increases in the value of individual homes near cleaned lots, streets trees, and parks. They found that: cleaning and greening vacant lots can increase adjacent property values by as much as 30%; planting a

168 tree within 50 feet of a house can increase its value by about 9%; the location of a house within ¼ mile from a park increased values by 10%; and neighborhood blocks with higher concentrations of unmanaged vacant lots displayed lower house prices of about

18% (The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 2006b). However, the relationships and linkages discussed in this project should not be considered universal facts that will hold true in every neighborhood and in every city. They are simply observations from the specific cases studied in this project and suggestions to spur further study.

Communities will not find standard instructions to follow as they plan for revitalization and building environmentally sustainable practices in their local area. The wide variety of issues addressed and approaches used by the communities in this project demonstrates the uniqueness of each community and the path that a particular community wants to take will be specific to its particular situation, values and priorities.

169 Chapter 6: Conclusion

As cities throughout the United States revitalize their urban neighborhoods and city centers, many are using planning techniques to integrate sustainable development into the renewal process. Sustainable development represents the integration of environmental, social and economic planning, where economic growth that has minimal impact on the environment or to future generations is promoted. Wendell Berry (1987) states that

“because a community is, by definition, placed, its success cannot be divided from the success of its place.... its soil, forests, grasslands, plants and animals, water, light, and air. The two economies, the natural and the human, support each other; each is the other's hope of a durable and livable life” (192).

Many cities worldwide are now realizing that if our children are to survive in the environment that we have left for them, we need to confirm that the ecological, social and economic components are healthy, for one cannot survive without the other. It is important to remember that sustainable development is not a fixed result, but a process of change. It is up to a city’s administration and the local community to decide what they want this change to look like.

US cities and their neighborhoods have found that there is no single “best” definition of urban sustainability. Different cities are likely to develop slightly, or even significantly, different perceptions of urban sustainability, depending on their current economic, environmental, and social circumstances and their individual values and priorities. As a result, a single set of indicators designed to define and measure progress towards achievement of one city’s revitalization and sustainability goals may not be appropriate for measuring progress in another city. Despite the varying definitions,

170 communities throughout the US are integrating their own perceptions and definitions of sustainable development with conventional planning, (re)development and construction techniques.

This project focused on determining how sustainable development can serve as a tool for urban revitalization by exploring the various projects and sustainable development techniques that urban cities are currently implementing throughout the

United States. But why is sustainable development important when addressing urban renewal? Is there any indication that implementing these environmental projects produces something different from typical economic revitalization techniques?

To answer these questions, it is important to first address the nature of traditional revitalization techniques as most focus solely on economic revival (i.e. economic development that seeks to attract businesses and employment and raise property values) and often do not address ecological and social capital that are as equally important. The green revitalization cases studied in this project accomplish more than traditional economic revitalization projects because they can address economic, social and environmental capital simultaneously. These tools can therefore be more effective than traditional revitalization tools because they address the holistic nature of a community, not just its economy.

The underlying visions of the revitalization goals of each case studied in this project seem to be typical for communities who wish to economically revitalize their urban communities. It is common for a community to want to reduce the amount of unproductive vacant and blighted land, to reduce crime, to increase economic development and employment and create housing for its residents. However, the cases

171 studied in this project are going a step further by placing additional criteria and tying these goals to environmental and social issues. For instance, not only do these communities want to reduce deteriorating land, they want to rebuild on this land and incorporate green space and green buildings. They want to reduce crime by providing green spaces where residents can interact and establish a sense of pride and a sense of place. They want to increase economic development and employment by investing in clean green technology and creating ‘green collar’ jobs, create affordable housing by building environmentally friendly structures, and create a competitive energy in their community by focusing on the environment (through pollution reduction and renewable energy). These communities stand apart from those focusing on traditional revitalization techniques as they recognize the importance of strengthening economic, social and ecological development simultaneously.

Of these cases that have utilized green sustainable development techniques, several have succeeded in revitalizing the urban neighborhood in question. For example, several cases found that neighborhood cleanup and planting vegetation resulted in increased property values, crime reduction, and beautification. As a result of transforming

843 acres of blighted land into Central Park in New York City (Case #9), property values in Manhattan doubled during the 15 years after park development began (Garvin et al.

1997) and condos with a view of Central Park now cost several million dollars apiece, averaging $5.8 million each (Platt 2004 and Kemp 2006). The park also provides social value as a public attraction. In 1865, within six years after the park opened to the public for the first time, the park received more than seven million visitors a year. Today, more than 25 million New York City residents and visitors visit the park each year to enjoy the

172 843 acres (6% of Manhattan’s total acreage) of greenspace and waterbodies that house

26,000 trees and more than 275 different species of migratory birds (Central Park 2009).

Philadelphia Horticultural Society’s Philadelphia Green Program (Case #12) found significant increases in the value of individual homes near cleaned lots, streets trees, and parks. They found that: cleaning and greening vacant lots can increase adjacent property values by as much as 30%; planting a tree within 50 feet of a house can increase its value by about 9%; the location of a house within ¼ mile from a park increased values by 10%; and neighborhood blocks with higher concentrations of unmanaged vacant lots displayed lower house prices of about 18% (The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 2006b).

The green space that was introduced to revitalize New York and Philadelphia in these two cases offers more than economic value. They offer aesthetic value by beautifying an area and creating a place where people want to live, work and visit. They provide environmental value by alleviating flooding, cleansing stormwater runoff, cooling the urban environment and cleaning the air by removing carbon. They provide social value by reducing crime, reducing traffic speed and offering a place for recreation and economic value by reducing water treatment costs and cooling costs, and increasing commercial sales, property values and the local tax base. By implementing a project that addresses sustainable development (versus solely economic development) the comprehensive nature of a community- its economic, social and environmental factors- may be strengthened.

173 Recommendations

It is unrealistic to assume that this project provides all the answers of using sustainable development as a tool for urban revitalization. This concluding section offers recommendations for further action and research geared toward city officials, civic organizations and individuals interested in using sustainable development to revitalize their urban areas. These three recommendations include:

1. Education. In order for sustainable initiatives to be successful, public support and participation is essential (stressing the importance of a localized bottom-up approach). In order to participate, the community must be educated on the importance of sustainable development. The lack of knowledge about the existence, extent, impact and costs of environmental problems, can significantly affect how people view the environment and the level of importance they place on focusing attention on sustainable development as a means to solve urban decline (Litmann 1999). Litmann further claims that when the public is not educated about the environmental problems present around them, it is difficult for them to take action to improve the quality of their city (Litmann 1999).

Roseland (2005) states that popular education techniques successfully engage the community in the identification and critical analysis of issues, information gathering related to these issues, and problem-solving and decision-making methods. He states that if the public does not have access to the information that affects their well-being, they are unable to participate and therefore place resolution of environmental problems as a priority.

174 It is important to acknowledge the need for environmental education. If the public is not educated about the environmental issues, they are less likely to understand the value of implementing sustainable development in their community and will therefore be less likely to support the plans for sustainable redevelopment. An educated public will also be more willing to participate in the revitalization effort.

City leaders can take a proactive approach to public education by initiating and leading public discussions that explore the possibilities of urban restoration. Workshops sponsored by the city, local builders, developers, and realtors can be given to provide examples of using sustainable development for urban revitalization. This interdisciplinary group of sponsors can also provide illustrated examples of financially successful revitalization efforts demonstrating the feasibility of such projects.

2. Encouraging leadership within the City’s Planning Department. Efforts should be made by the City administration to promote and encourage the use of sustainable development not only within the Central Business District but in its neighborhoods as well. This means that planners also need to be educated. If planners are educated on the importance of sustainable development, they will be able and perhaps more likely to revise policies that incorporate sustainable development practices into future development requirements, potentially through the comprehensive plan. These policy changes will encourage and may even require developers to consider using sustainable development in the place of conventional building practices.

175 3. Further Research.

Revitalization Success: This project focused on identifying cities that were using sustainable development to revitalize their urban areas and analyzing the key components involved but did not attempt to analyze the results. Were these projects successful in meeting revitalization goals (i.e. creating jobs, increasing affordable housing, increasing the tax base, reducing vacant land, connecting neighborhoods to the downtown area, and providing public spaces) through green initiatives? Because many of these projects are fairly recent and may take several years to complete, I believe it was too soon to analyze their results. Though I did include several projects’ results if they had already been identified within the literature, further research can be conducted to determine if other green sustainable activities were successful in revitalizing the focus area.

Sustainability Success: While this project did identify several green development practices that aided particular communities in revitalization and suggested their potential sustainable value, it did not attempt to analyze whether they are actually sustainable practices that are proven to address ecological, economic and social issues simultaneously every time they are implemented. This project also did not attempt to prove that these specific cases have achieved a healthy ecological, social, economic and therefore sustainable community. As a result, further research is needed to a) determine if these green development practices are sustainable development practices and b) whether each case succeeded in creating a truly sustainable community that places equal importance on ecological, social and economic issues.

176 Scale: Further study can also focus on how decisions made within an individual neighborhood can affect the ecological, social and economic components of an entire city. Economic, social and environmental issues are cross jurisdictional and are not confined by natural or jurisdictional boundaries and such study can suggest the impact that community revitalization attempts can have on the surrounding area.

It is important to realize that the range of green development initiatives allows varying degrees of revitalization projects as no two projects are the same. A city or neighborhood may choose to focus on one particular initiative depending on its current economic, environmental, and social circumstances and its individual values and priorities. With this said, there is no one perfect model or place from which to draw ideas.

What works for one city or neighborhood may not work for another. However, as more research is done on the existing sustainable revitalization projects and techniques, community leaders can view these demonstration projects as examples of best practices, from which they can choose to implement in their own communities.

177 BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Planning Association Food System Planning Committee. 2006. Food System Planning White Paper (Prepared for the American Planning Association Legislative and Policy Committee). Chicago: Author. Arkin, Lois. Spring 1993. Transforming Inner-City Los Angeles. Designing a Sustainable Future. Baldassare, M. 1982. Evidence for Neighborhood Revitalization: Manhattan. Found in Gentrification, Displacement and Neighborhood Revitalization. 1984. edited by J. Palen and B. London. Albany: State University of New York Press. Beatley, T. (2000). Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Been, V. and Voicu, I. 2006. The Effect of Community Gardens on Neighboring Property Values. New York: New York University. Internet; accessed 12/19/08. http://www.furmancenter.nyu.edu/publication/documents/Community_Gardens_P aper_Aug3_2006.pdf Benedict, F. 1999. A Systematic Approach to Sustainable Environmental Education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(3), 433-446. Berry, W. 1987. Home Economics: Fourteen Essays by Wendell Berry. San Francisco, CA: North Point Press. Bristol, Hollace Lea. 2005. Education for sustainability: An examination of ideological perspectives in Introductory teacher-education textbooks. Ed.D. dissertation, Northern Arizona University, United States -- Arizona. Retrieved October 26, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3189039). Calthorpe, P. 1989. “Introduction: A Reverse Definition.” In The Pedestrian Pocket Book: A New Suburban Design Strategy, ed. D. Kelbaugh. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Centennial Olympic Park. History of the Park. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://www.centennialpark.com/about/park_history.html Central Park. Internet; accessed 4/26/2009. http://www.centralpark.com/ Chifos, C. June 2007. “The Sustainable Communities Experiment in the United States: Insights from Three Federal-Level Initiatives.” Journal of Planning Education and Research. Vol. 26: pp. 435-449. Chiras, D. and Wann, D. 2003. Superbia!: 31 Ways to Create Sustainable Neighborhoods. Gabriola: New Society Publishers. City of Chicago. CitySpace Program. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?BV_Ses sionID=@@@@1243225493.1223926735@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccceadefgll mefhcefecelldffhdfho.0&contentOID=536896709&contenTypeName=COC_EDI TORIAL&topChannelName=Residents&blockName=Promo+Item&channelId=- 536879024&programId=536879091 City of Chicago’s Department of Housing. Mayor Daley Dedicates Washington Park SRO. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?blockN ame=Housing%2f2008%2fI+Want+To&deptMainCategoryOID=-

178 536886259&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Housing&topChannelNa me=Dept&contentOID=536983075&Failed_Reason=Invalid+timestamp,+engine +has+been+restarted&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&com.broadvision.s ession.new=Yes&Failed_Page=%2fwebportal%2fportalContentItemAction.do&c ontext=dept City of Cincinnati Office of Environmental Quality. OEQ- Brownfield Job Training. Internet; accessed 11/8/08. http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cmgr/pages/-17800-/ Cohen, N. (2001). Urban Planning Conservation and Preservation. New York: McGraw- Hill. Columbus Indiana. Landscape Architect Michael Val Valkenburgh. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://www.columbus.in.us//static/index.cfm?contentID=203 Crowe, T. 2003. Advanced Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Louisville, KY: American Crime Prevention Institute. Internet; accessed 12/19/08. http://www.ncpc.gov.sg/pdf/CPTED%20Guidebook.pdf Dallmeyer, D.G. and Ike, A.F. ed. 1998. Environmental Ethics and the Global Marketplace. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Davis, Todd S. 2002. Brownfields: A Comprehensive Guide to Redeveloping Contaminated Property. American Bar Association. De Graaf, J., Wann, D., Naylor, T.H. 2001. Affluenza. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Devuyst, D., L. Hens, and R. Impens. 2001. Neighborhoods in Crisis and Sustainable Urban Development. Brussels: Vubress- VUB University Press. Disinger, J. 2001. K-12 Education and the Environment: Perspectives, Expectations, and Practice. The Journal of Environmental Education. 33(1), 4-11. Dubbeling, M. June 2006. Optimizing Use of Vacant Space for Urban Agriculture Through Participatory Planning Processes: A Strategy to Strengthen Urban Food Security and Municipal Participatory Governance. Paper presented at the First Participatory Workshop for World Urban Forum 2006, Toronto, ON, Canada. Elliot, D.L. AICP. “Planning and Development for People and Wildlife.” The Commissioner. Spring 1998. Chicago: American Planning Association. Found in Cities and Nature: A Handbook for Renewal. Edited by R.L. Kemp. 2006. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc. Englander, D. 2001. New York’s Community Gardens- A Resource at Risk. The Land Trust for Public Land. Erickson, D. 2006. MetroGreen: Connecting Open Space in North American Cities. Washington: Island Press. Frankel, C. 1998. In Earth’s Company: Business, Environment, and the Challenge of Sustainability. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers. Froehlich, M. “Smart Growth: Why Local Governments Are Taking a New Approach to Managing Growth in Their Communities.” Public Management. Vol. 80, No. 5, May 1998. Washington D.C.: International City/County Management Association Found in Cities and Nature: A Handbook for Renewal. Edited by R.L. Kemp. 2006. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc. Garvin, Alexander; Berens, Gayle; et al. (1997). Urban Parks and Open Space, Washington, D.C.: ULI- the Urban Land Institute. Girardet, H. 1993. The Gaia Atlas of Cities: New Directions for Sustainable Urban

179 Living. New York: Anchor Books. Girardet, H. 1999. Creating Sustainable Cities. Foxhole: Green Books Ltd. Gotham Gazzette. August 2008. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/communitydevelopment/20080819/20/261 6 GreenCityBlueLake, a. EcoVillage. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.gcbl.org/planning/ecovillage GreenCityBlueLake, b. Planning Development Projects: EcoVillage. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.gcbl.org/planning-development-projects/ecovillage Greensgrow Farms. Internet; accessed 11/3/08. http://www.greensgrow.org/pages_04/about_greensgrow.html Gute D. and M. Taylor. “Revitalizing Neighborhoods through Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment: Principles Put into Practice in Bridgeport, CT.” Local Environment. October 2006. Vol. 11(5):537-558. Hallsmith, G. 2003. The Key to Sustainable Cities: Meeting Human Needs Transforming Community Systems. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers. Historic Columbus Indiana Message Board- Mill Race Park. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://columbusin.proboards34.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=millracepar k&thread=248&page=1 Hoff, M.D. Ed. 1998. Sustainable Community Development: Studies in Economic, Environmental, and Cultural Revitalization. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers. Holcombe, R.G. and Staley, S.R. ed. 2001. Smarter Growth: Market-Based Strategies for Land- Use Planning in the 21st Century. Westport: Greenwood Press. Holland, L. 2004. “Diversity and Connections in Community Gardens: A Contribution to Local Sustainability.” Local Environment. Vol. 9(3): 285- 305. Inoguchi, T., Newman, E., Paoletto.ed. 1999. Cities and the Environment: New Approaches for Eco-Societies. Tokyo: United Nations University Press. Intel. February 21, 2008. “Technology with the Environment in Mind: Intel’s First Designed and Build Green Building”. Intel Technology Journal. Vol. 12(1). Internet; accessed 11/30/08. http://www.intel.com/technology/itj/2008/v12i1/3-greenbuilding/2-intro.htm International Development Research Centre & Urban Management Program for Latin America and the Caribbean. 2003. Guidelines for Municipal Policymaking on Urban Agriculture. Internet; accessed 11/ 23/08. http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-29688-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html Irvine, S., Johnson, L., and Peters, K. 1999. “Community Gardens and Sustainable Land Use Planning: A Case-Study of the Alex Wilson Community Garden.” Local Environment. Vol. 4(1): 33- 46. Keating, D.W., N. Krumholtz, and P. Star. ed. 1996. Revitalizing Urban Neighborhoods. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas. Kelly, M. and M. Zieper. “Financing for the Future: The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space.” Government Finance Review. Vol. 16(6), December 2000. Chicago: Government Finance Officers Association. Found in Cities and Nature: A Handbook for Renewal. Edited by R.L. Kemp. 2006. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc. Kemp, R.L. ed. 2001. The Inner City: A Handbook for Renewal. Jefferson: McFarland

180 & Company, Inc. Kemp, R.L. ed. 2006. Cities and Nature: A Handbook for Renewal. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc. Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., Coley, R.L., et al. 1998. “Fertile Groupd for Community: Inner-City Neighborhood Common Spaces.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6):823-851. Kushner, J.A. 2003. Comparative Urban Planning Law: An Introduction to Urban Land Development Law in the United States through the Lens of Comparing the Experience of Other Nations. Durham: Carolina Academic Press. LeGates, R.T. and Stout, F. ed. (2000). The City Reader. New York: Routledge. Lein, James. K. 2003. Integrated Environmental Planning. Oxford: Blackwell Science. Leinberger, C. 1996. Metropolitan Development Trends of the Late 1990s: Social and Environmental Implications. ed by Henry Diamond and Patrick F. Noonan “Land Use in America”. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Leitmann, J. 1999. Sustaining Cities: Environmental Planning and Management in Urban Design. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lockwood, C. “Retrofitting Suburbia.” Urban Land. Vol. 57(7), July 1998. Washington D.C: Urban Land Institute. Found in Cities and Nature: A Handbook for Renewal. Edited by R.L. Kemp. 2006. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc. Low, N., Gleeson, B., Green, R., and Radovic, D. (2005). The Green City: Sustainable Homes, Sustainable Suburbs. Sydney: UNSW Press. Masnaghten, P. Sustainable Development in Urban Areas: Setting the Scene. Found in Neighborhoods in Crisis and Sustainable Urban Development. Devuyst, D., L. Hens, and R. Impens. 2001. Vubress- VUB University Press. Mega, V. 2005. Sustainable Development, Energy, and the City: A Civilization of Visions and Actions New York: Springer. Mendes, W., Balmer, K., Kaethler, T. and Rhoads, A. Autumn 2008. “Using Land Inventories to Plan for Urban Agriculture.” Journal of American Planning Association. Vol. 74(4): 435- 449. Miller, D. and de Roo, G., ed. 2005. Urban Environmental Planning: Policies, Instruments, and Methods in an International Perspective. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Co. Mougeot, L. 2006. Growing Better Cities: Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Development. Ottawa, ON, Canada: International Development Research Center. National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals (NALGEP) a. 2004. Unlocking Brownfields: Keys to Community Revitalization. The National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals. National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals (NALGEP) b. 2004. Smart Growth is Smart Business - Boosting the Bottom Line & Community Prosperity. The National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals and Smart Growth Leadership Institute. Internet; accessed 11/1/07.http://www.nalgep.org/. Next Energy. Internet; accessed 11/3/08. http://www.nextenergy.org Oliver, G. August, 1994. “Portland Revs Up for Action,” Planning, Vol. 60 (8). American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois. Foound in Kemp, R.L. ed. 2001. The Inner City: A Handbook for Renewal. Jefferson: McFarland

181 & Company, Inc. Olmsted, F.L. (1870). “Public Parks and the Enlargement of Towns”. American Social Science Association. In LeGates, R.T. and Stout, F. (2000). The City Reader. New York: Routledge. Olmsted, F.L., Jr., and Kimball, T. (1928/1973). Forty Years of Landscape Architecture: Central Park. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Palan, J. and B. London. ed. 1984. Gentrification, Displacement and Neighborhood Revitalization. Albany: State University of New York Press. Pirog, R., Van Pelt, T., Enshayan K., et al. 2006. Food, Fuel, and Freeways: An Iowa Perspective on How Far Food Travels, Fuel Usage and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Iowa Statte University: Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. Internet; accessed 12/19/08. http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs/staff/ppp/food_mil.pdf Platt, R. 2004. Land Use and Society: Geography, Law, and Public Policy. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Portney, K.E. 2003. Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously: Economic Development, the Environment, and Quality of Life in American Cities. Cambridge: MIT Press. Rohe, W.H. and L.B. Gates. 1985. Planning with Neighborhoods. Chapel Hill: University Of North Carolina Press. Roseland, M. 2005. Toward Sustainable Communities: Resources for Citizens and their Governments. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers. Rosol, M. 2005. “Community Gardens- A Potential for Stagnating and Shrinking Cities? Examples from Berlin.” Erde Vol. 136(2): 165-178. Rudlin, D. and Falk, N. 1999. Building the 21st Century Home. The Sustainable Urban Neighborhood. Architectural Press, Oxford. Santa Monica Green Building Program. Internet; accessed 12/1/08. http://greenbuildings.santa-monica.org/mainpages/whatsnew.htm Satterthwaite, D. ed. The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Cities. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Selman, P.H. 2000. Environmental Planning: the Conservation and Development of Biophysical Resources. London: Sage Publications. Sherer, P. 2005. The Benefits of Parks: Why American Needs More City Parks and Open Space. The Trust For Public Land. Internet; accessed 12/19/08. http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/parks_for_people_Jul2005.pdf Sizemore, S. 2004. Urban Eco-village as an Alternative Model to Revitalizing Urban Neighborhoods: The Eco-village Approach of the Seminary Square/ Price Hill Eco-Village of Cincinnati, Ohio. University of Cincinnati Master of Community Planning Thesis. Sonntag, V. April 2008. Why Local Linkages Matter: Findings from the Local Food Economy Study. Sustainable Seattle. Internet; accessed 1/5/09. http://sustainableseattle.org/Programs/LFE%20Files/LFE%20REPORT%20FINA L.pdf Stein, J.M. ed. 1993. Growth Management: The Planning Challenge of the 1990’s. Newburg Park: Sage Publications. Stren, R.E., White, R.R and Whitney, J.B. ed. 1992. Sustainable Cities: Urbanization and The Environment in International Perspective. Boulder: West view Press.

182 Susman, M. July 1, 1999. Environmental Miseducation. The New Democrat. Retrieved October 19, 2007. Sustainable South Bronx. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.ssbx.org/mission.html Sutton, S.B., ed. (1971). Civilizing American Cities: A Selection of Frederick Law Olmsted’s Writings on City Landscape. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. 2006a. Philadelphia Green: Project Profile. Internet; accessed 1/2/09. http://www.pennsylvaniahorticulturalsociety.org/phlgreen/community_gardens.pd f The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. 2006b. Philadelphia Green. Internet; accessed 1/2/09. http://www.pennsylvaniahorticulturalsociety.org/phlgreen/index.html United States Census Bureau. U.S. POPClock Projection. Internet; accessed 4/8/08. http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html United States Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration/ Federal Transit Administration. Fruitvale Transit Village Project. Internet; accessed 11/3/08. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ejustice/case/case6.htm United States Green Building Council (USGBC). About LEED. Internet; accessed 11/30/08. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1720 University of Pennsylvania. Clean and Safe Streets. Internet; accessed 11/3/08. http://www.upenn.edu/campus/westphilly/streets.html#UCGreen Urban Eco-Village Model, Detroit, Michigan, 2007. Internet; accessed 11/3/08. http://commitments.clintonglobalinitiative.org/projects.htm?mode=view&rid=210 093 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). Septermber 26, 2007. Summary of NFAs Received and Covenants Issued. Internet; accessed 11/1/07. www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/vap/docs. Wekerle, G. 2004. “Food Justice Movements: Policy, Planning, and Networks.” Journal of Planning, Education and Research. Vol. 23(4): 378- 386. Welsh, J. and MacRae, R. 1998. “Food Citizenship and Community Food Security: Lessons from Toronto, ON, Canada. Canadian Journal of Development Studies. Vol. 19: 237-255. Wheeler, S.M. and Beatley, T. ed. 2004. The Sustainable Urban Development Reader. London: Routledge. Wiland, H. and Bell, D. 2006. Edens Lost & Found. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. World Watch Institute. October 17, 2007. Policymakers Recognize Value of “Green” Job Creation. Internet; accessed 11/8/08. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5404

183 Appendix

Comparative Matrix

Cases RevitalizationGoals GreenActivities environmentallyfriendlyhousing. NatureRestoration/Protection EcoIndustrialParkCreation Reforestation CommunityGardens/FarmersMarkets BrownfieldRedevelopment Reconnectneighborhoodstothecity&createda visitorstowalkandshop. Createaffordable, GreenSpace/OpenSpace/Streetscape/ParkCreation/ MixeduseDevelopment GreenInfrastructure GreenBuilding EnvironmentalEducation GreenTechnology/RenewableEnergy EnvironmentalCommunityPlans EcoVillageCreation Transportation(alternativeforms,greentransitand/or InfillDevelopment GreenJobTraining&Creation competitiveenergyincitiesasplacesforliving,working Reducevacant,blighted,deterioratingandrealor creating"greencollar"jobs Connectthecommunitybycreatingpublicspaces Restoringandprotectingnaturalinfrastructure (watersheds,streams,riversandlakes). Investinsmartgrowth. Createamodelforusingsustainabledevelopmentasa profitablecatalystforredevelopment. Producesafeandinvitingenvironmentsforresidentsand transitorienteddevelopment) GreenConstructionPractices PedestrianFriendlyDevelopment andentertainingwhichsimultaneouslybenefitsthe economy,environmentandcommunity. perceivedcontaminatedlandandthepovertyandcrime Alleviatepovertyandremediatetheenvironmentby thatoftenresults. 1.BaltimoreTrails xx 2.St.Paul'sRiverfront xx 3.Philadelphia'sSideYardProgram xx 4.UCGreen xx 5.Philadelphia'sNorrisSquareNeighborhood/LasParcelasPark xx 6.SouthBronxGreenway xx 7.LA'sTrees xx x 8.EastHarlemTreePlanting xx 9.CentralPark xx 10.MillionTreesNYC xx 11.Chicago'sCitySpaceProgram xx xx 12.PhiladelphiaGreen xxx

195 Cases RevitalizationGoals GreenActivities creating ironmentsforresidentsand Streetscape/ParkCreation/ environmentallyfriendlyhousing. Redevelopment EcoIndustrialParkCreation GreenSpace/OpenSpace/ Reconnectneighborhoodstothecity&createda "greencollar"jobs Connectthecommunitybycreatingpublicspaces Reforestation CommunityGardens/FarmersMarkets GreenInfrastructure competitiveenergyincitiesasplacesforliving,workingand Restoringandprotectingnaturalinfrastructure(watersheds, streams,riversandlakes). Investinsmartgrowth. Createaffordable, NatureRestoration/Protection Brownfield MixeduseDevelopment GreenBuilding Createamodelforusingsustainabledevelopmentasa visitorstowalkandshop. EnvironmentalEducation GreenTechnology/RenewableEnergy EnvironmentalCommunityPlans profitablecatalystforredevelopment. Producesafeandinvitingenv EcoVillageCreation Transportation(alternativeforms,greentransitand/or entertainingwhichsimultaneouslybenefitstheeconomy, transitorienteddevelopment) InfillDevelopment GreenJobTraining&Creation environmentandcommunity. Reducevacant,blighted,deterioratingandrealorperceived GreenConstructionPractices contaminatedlandandthepovertyandcrimethatoften results. Alleviatepovertyandremediatetheenvironmentby PedestrianFriendlyDevelopment 13.CommunityUniversityPartnership xx 14.Philadelphia'sVillageforArtsandHumanities xx 15.Philadelphia'sGreensgrowFarm xx 16.GirlsToday,WomenTomorrow xx x x 17.SustainableSeattleCommunityGardens xxx xx 18.Harlem'sGreenMarket xx 19.ChicagoRiverRestoration xx x 20.Chicago'sRiver/LakeRestorationEfforts xx x 21.LA'sNaturalInfrastructure xxx x 22.BoroughofPaulsboroBrownfieldRedevelopment xx 23.CentennialOlympicPark x x 24.MillRacePark xxx 25.MillenniumPark xxx 26.Philadelphia'sBrownfieldRedevelopment xxxx 27.CamdenBrownfieldRedevelopment xxx 28.Hartford'sRiverfrontRedevelopment x xx 29.ChattanoogaMall xxx 30.CambridgeUniversityPark xxxxx

196 Cases RevitalizationGoals GreenActivities environmentallyfriendlyhousing. FriendlyDevelopment GreenSpace/OpenSpace/Streetscape/ParkCreation/ EcoIndustrialParkCreation Reconnectneighborhoodstothecity&createda creating"greencollar"jobs Connectthecommunitybycreatingpublicspaces Restoringandprotectingnaturalinfrastructure Reforestation CommunityGardens/FarmersMarkets competitiveenergyincitiesasplacesforliving,workingand (watersheds,streams,riversandlakes). NatureRestoration/Protection BrownfieldRedevelopment MixeduseDevelopment GreenInfrastructure GreenBuilding EnvironmentalEducation GreenTechnology/RenewableEnergy Investinsmartgrowth. EnvironmentalCommunityPlans EcoVillageCreation Transportation(alternativeforms,greentransitand/or transitorienteddevelopment) InfillDevelopment GreenJobTraining&Creation Createamodelforusingsustainabledevelopmentasa GreenConstructionPractices Pedestrian entertainingwhichsimultaneouslybenefitstheeconomy, profitablecatalystforredevelopment. Producesafeandinvitingenvironmentsforresidentsand environmentandcommunity. Reducevacant,blighted,deterioratingandrealorperceived visitorstowalkandshop. Createaffordable, contaminatedlandandthepovertyandcrimethatoften results. Alleviatepovertyandremediatetheenvironmentby 30.CambridgeUniversityPark xxxxx 31.GrandForksRedevelopment xxx 32.LakeWorthBeachRestoration xxx 33.LA'sGreenInfrastructure xx x 34.EdenPlace xxxxx 35.SustainableClevelandCorporateRoundtable(CRT) x x 36.Seattle's'ChoosetoChange'EducationProgram xxx x x 37.Chicago'sWirelessTechnology x x 38.SustainableClevelandSustainableTechnology x x 39.SustainableClevelandWindFarm x x 40.ChattanoogaVentureVision2000 xx xx 41.SustainableLAGreenVisionPlan xx x 42.SustainableCleveland'sSustainabilityStudy x x 43.HarlemontheRiverWaterfrontParkPlan x x 44.DetroitEcovillage xxxxxxxxx 45.EastPriceHillEcoVillage xxxx 46.LAEcoVillage x xx xxxxxx

197 Cases RevitalizationGoals GreenActivities environmentallyfriendlyhousing. FriendlyDevelopment visitorstowalkandshop. Createaffordable, profitablecatalystforredevelopment. Producesafeandinvitingenvironmentsforresidentsand contaminatedlandandthepovertyandcrimethatoften results. Alleviatepovertyandremediatetheenvironmentby transitorienteddevelopment) InfillDevelopment GreenJobTraining&Creation GreenConstructionPractices Pedestrian Reducevacant,blighted,deterioratingandrealorperceived Investinsmartgrowth. Createamodelforusingsustainabledevelopmentasa EnvironmentalCommunityPlans EcoVillageCreation Transportation(alternativeforms,greentransitand/or competitiveenergyincitiesasplacesforliving,workingand entertainingwhichsimultaneouslybenefitstheeconomy, environmentandcommunity. (watersheds,streams,riversandlakes). NatureRestoration/Protection BrownfieldRedevelopment MixeduseDevelopment GreenInfrastructure GreenBuilding EnvironmentalEducation GreenTechnology/RenewableEnergy Reconnectneighborhoodstothecity&createda creating"greencollar"jobs Connectthecommunitybycreatingpublicspaces Restoringandprotectingnaturalinfrastructure Reforestation CommunityGardens/FarmersMarkets GreenSpace/OpenSpace/Streetscape/ParkCreation/ EcoIndustrialParkCreation 46.LAEcoVillage xxxxxxxxx 47.ClevelandEcoVillage xxxxx 48.EPA'sSustainabilityModel xxxx xx 49.FruitvaleTransitVillage x x 50.LA'sLightRail x x 51. Portland's Transportation x x 52. Sustinable South Bronx- Training Program xx x x 53. Glendale's Pedestrian Streets xx x 54. Waco Streetscape xx x 55. Seattle's High Point Development Project xx x xx x 56. Chicago's Green Afforable Housing xxx 57. Seattle's Green Building & Construction Practices xxx x x x x 58. Chicago's Green Roofs xxx 59. South Bronx Green Roofs xxxx 60. Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park xxx xxxxxx xxx

198 Cases Funding KeyPlayers TaxDollars CityCapital City,Stateand/orFederalGrants Bonds TaxIncrementFinancing(TIF) Philanthropies FoundationCapitalGrants Donations Fundraising PrivateBusinesses CommunityMembers Local,Stateand/orFederal Government Planners Developers LandscapeArchitects Realtors NonprofitsAgencies Philanthropies BusinessOwners CommunityDevelopment Corporations(CDC) 1.BaltimoreTrails xx x xx 2.St.Paul'sRiverfront xx x xx 3.Philadelphia'sSideYardProgram xxxxx 4.UCGreen xx x x 5.Philadelphia'sNorrisSquareNeighborhood/LasParcelasPark xx x x 6.SouthBronxGreenway x xxxxx 7.LA'sTrees xx x 8.EastHarlemTreePlanting x x x xx x xxxxxxx x 9.CentralPark xx 10.MillionTreesNYC xxxxxxxxxx 11.Chicago'sCitySpaceProgram xx x 12.PhiladelphiaGreen xxxxx 13.CommunityUniversityPartnership xxx 14.Philadelphia'sVillageforArtsandHumanities xx x x 15.Philadelphia'sGreensgrowFarm xx x x 16.GirlsToday,WomenTomorrow xx 17.SustainableSeattleCommunityGardens xx 18.Harlem'sGreenMarket xx x 19.ChicagoRiverRestoration xx x 20.Chicago'sRiver/LakeRestorationEfforts xx x 21.LA'sNaturalInfrastructure xx x 22.BoroughofPaulsboroBrownfieldRedevelopment 199 xx x 23.CentennialOlympicPark xxxxxx x x 24.MillRacePark x xxx x Cases Funding KeyPlayers nd/orFederal Government Planners Developers LandscapeArchitects Realtors NonprofitsAgencies Philanthropies BusinessOwners CommunityDevelopment Corporations(CDC) CommunityMembers Local,Statea Bonds TaxIncrementFinancing(TIF) Philanthropies FoundationCapitalGrants Donations Fundraising PrivateBusinesses TaxDollars CityCapital City,Stateand/orFederalGrants 25.MillenniumPark xx x x 26.Philadelphia'sBrownfieldRedevelopment xx 27.CamdenBrownfieldRedevelopment x 28.Hartford'sRiverfrontRedevelopment xxxx 29.ChattanoogaMall xxx x 30.CambridgeUniversityPark xx xx x 31.GrandForksRedevelopment xx x x x 32.LakeWorthBeachRestoration xx x x x x xx 33.LA'sGreenInfrastructure xx x 34.EdenPlace xx x x x x 35.SustainableClevelandCorporateRoundtable(CRT) xx xx 36.Seattle's'ChoosetoChange'EducationProgram xx 37.Chicago'sWirelessTechnology xx x 38.SustainableClevelandSustainableTechnology xxx 39.SustainableClevelandWindFarm xxx 40.ChattanoogaVentureVision2000 xx x 41.SustainableLAGreenVisionPlan xx x 42.SustainableCleveland'sSustainabilityStudy xxx 43.HarlemontheRiverWaterfrontParkPlan xx 44.DetroitEcovillage xxxx 45.EastPriceHillEcoVillage xxxxxx 46.LAEcoVillage xxx x x 47.ClevelandEcoVillage xxxx 48.EPA'sSustainabilityModel xx x 200 Cases Funding KeyPlayers Corporations(CDC) CommunityDevelopment Government Planners Developers LandscapeArchitects Realtors NonprofitsAgencies Philanthropies BusinessOwners CommunityMembers Local,Stateand/orFederal Philanthropies FoundationCapitalGrants Donations Fundraising PrivateBusinesses Bonds TaxIncrementFinancing(TIF) City,Stateand/orFederalGrants CityCapital TaxDollars 49.FruitvaleTransitVillage x 50.LA'sLightRail xx x 51.Portland'sTransportation xxxx 52.SustinableSouthBronxTrainingProgram xx x x 53.Glendale'sPedestrianStreets xxx 54.WacoStreetscape xx 55.Seattle'sHighPointDevelopmentProject xx 56.Chicago'sGreenAfforableHousing xx x x x 57.Seattle'sGreenBuilding&ConstructionPractices xx 58.Chicago'sGreenRoofs xx 59.SouthBronxGreenRoofs xxxx 60.NorthamptonCountyEcoIndustrialPark xx xxx x x

201 Cases PossibleSustainableValue Aesthetic Environmental Social Economic ProductivityofInhabitants UseofCommercialSectorafterOfficeHours Vehicles TrafficSpeed UsesLessWater UsesFewer CreatesLessWaterRunoff UsesLessEnergy IncreasesPrivacy Reduces CreatesLessTrafficCongestion CreatesaSaferEnvironmentforPedestrians ImproveHealth& SupportsNeighbors SpursEconomicDevelopment ReducesInfrastructureCosts CreatesJobs AllowsGreated RequiresLessInfrastructure RequiresLessImperviousSurfaces CreatesLessAirPollution ProvidesGreenInfrastructureInstallation&Maintenance IncreasesSafety/ReducesCrime ProvidesPublicSpaces ProvidesRecreation EncouragesExercise CleansContaminatedProperty EncouragesLessSprawl CreatesaHealthyEnvironment ReducesCoolingCosts ReducesEnergy/WaterCosts IncreasesShopping ReducesVehicleUseCosts EncouragesLocalInvestment ProvidesOpportunityforEconomicIncentives CreatesCompetitiveWorkforceAdvantage CreateEnvironmentalKnowledge&Awareness ProvideEcologicalRestoration/Forestry/Landscaping ProvidesHazardousWasteCleanup CreatesHousing EliminatesBlightedBuildings/IncreasesSafety Creates/ImprovesSenseofPlace Creates/ImprovesSenseofPride AbsorbsRunoff AbsorbsPollution Shades/CoolsWater,Streets,Sidewalks,ParkingLotsandRoofs RaisesTaxRevenues(PropertyandSales) EncouragesCommercialShopping ReducesWaterTreatmentCosts IncreasesReturnonInvestment/IncreasedBuildingValue UseLocalMaterials UseRecycledMaterials UsesLessSingleOccupancyVehicles EducatesResidentsaboutFood&Nutrition SupportsNeighbors EncouragesCommunityInteraction EncouragesCommunityOrganizing AddsNaturalCharacter ProvidesBeauty&Color ReducesVacant,BlightedLand MitigatesFlooding UseLocalMaterials IncreaseConvenience CreatesaVibrantCommunity RaisesSurroundingPropertyValues DrawlsCommercialEndUsers IncreasesStructureLifespan ProvidesCompetitive/LeadingBusiness DecreaseMaintenanceCosts MinimizesWaste PreservesNaturalResources ProtectsForests&Wildlife PreservesAir&WaterQuality ReducesRespiratoryDisease ProvidesAccesstoHealthy,HighQualityFood CreateAffordableHousing 1.BaltimoreTrails xx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx 2.St.Paul'sRiverfront xx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx 3.Philadelphia'sSide YardProgram xx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx 4.UCGreen xx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx 5.Philadelphia'sNorris SquareNeighborhood/ LasParcelasPark xx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx 6.SouthBronx Greenway xx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx 7.LA'sTrees xx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx 8.EastHarlemTree Planting xx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx 9.CentralPark xx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx 10.MillionTreesNYC xx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx 11.Chicago'sCitySpace Program xx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx 12.PhiladelphiaGreen xx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx 13.Community UniversityPartnership xx xxxx xx xxxxxx xx xxx xx 14.Philadelphia's VillageforArtsand Humanities xx xxxx xx xxxxxx xx xxx xx 15.Philadelphia's GreensgrowFarm xx xxxx xx xxxxxx xx xxx xx

202 Cases PossibleSustainableValue Aesthetic Environmental Social Economic ParkingLotsandRoofs ProductivityofInhabitants UseofCommercialSectorafterOfficeHours Vehicles TrafficSpeed AddsNaturalCharacter ProvidesBeauty&Color MinimizesWaste PreservesNaturalResources ProtectsForests&Wildlife ReducesVacant,BlightedLand MitigatesFlooding AbsorbsRunoff AbsorbsPollution Shades/CoolsWater,Streets,Sidewalks, CleansContaminatedProperty EncouragesLessSprawl CreatesaHealthyEnvironment RequiresLessInfrastructure RequiresLessImperviousSurfaces CreatesLessAirPollution CreatesLessWaterRunoff PreservesAir&WaterQuality ReducesRespiratoryDisease ProvidesAccesstoHealthy,HighQualityFood EducatesResidentsaboutFood&Nutrition UseLocalMaterials UsesLessEnergy UseLocalMaterials UseRecycledMaterials UsesLessSingleOccupancyVehicles SupportsNeighbors EncouragesCommunityInteraction EncouragesCommunityOrganizing CreatesHousing EliminatesBlightedBuildings/IncreasesSafety CreateAffordableHousing IncreaseConvenience CreatesaVibrantCommunity RaisesSurroundingPropertyValues RaisesTaxRevenues(PropertyandSales) EncouragesCommercialShopping ReducesWaterTreatmentCosts ReducesCoolingCosts ReducesEnergy/WaterCosts IncreasesShopping ReducesVehicleUseCosts EncouragesLocalInvestment SupportsNeighbors SpursEconomicDevelopment DrawlsCommercialEndUsers IncreasesStructureLifespan UsesLessWater UsesFewer CreateEnvironmentalKnowledge&Awareness Creates/ImprovesSenseofPlace ReducesInfrastructureCosts CreatesJobs AllowsGreated ProvidesCompetitive/LeadingBusiness ProvideEcologicalRestoration/Forestry/Landscaping ProvidesHazardousWasteCleanup ProvidesGreenInfrastructureInstallation&Maintenance IncreasesSafety/ReducesCrime ProvidesPublicSpaces Creates/ImprovesSenseofPride DecreaseMaintenanceCosts IncreasesReturnonInvestment/IncreasedBuildingValue ProvidesRecreation IncreasesPrivacy Reduces EncouragesExercise CreatesLessTrafficCongestion CreatesaSaferEnvironmentforPedestrians ProvidesOpportunityforEconomicIncentives ImproveHealth& 16.GirlsToday,Women Tomorrow xx xxxx xx xxxxxx xx xxx xx 17.SustainableSeattle CommunityGardens

xx xxxx x xxx xxxxxx xx xxx xxx 18.Harlem'sGreen Market xx xxxx xx xxxxxx xx xxx xx 19.ChicagoRiver Restoration xx x xx xx 20.Chicago's River/LakeRestoration Efforts xx x xx xx 21.LA'sNatural Infrastructure xx x xx xx 22.Boroughof PaulsboroBrownfield Redevelopment xxx xxx x x xxx 23.CentennialOlympic Park xxx xxx x x xxx 24.MillRacePark xxxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxx xxxxxx x xxx 25.MillenniumPark xxxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxx xxxxxx x xxx 26.Philadelphia's Brownfield Redevelopment xxxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxx xxxxxx x xxx x 27.CamdenBrownfield Redevelopment x xx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx

203 Cases PossibleSustainableValue Aesthetic Environmental Social Economic ronment toHealthy,HighQuality NaturalResources UsesFewerVehicles MinimizesWaste Preserves UsesLessEnergy UsesLessWater CreatesLessWaterRunoff CreatesLessAirPollution RequiresLessImperviousSurfaces ReducesTrafficSpeed ReducesRespiratoryDisease ProvidesAccess RequiresLessInfrastructure ProvidesPublicSpaces ProvidesRecreation IncreasesPrivacy CreatesaHealthyEnvi ProvidesGreenInfrastructureInstallation IncreasesSafety/ReducesCrime CleansContaminatedProperty EncouragesLessSprawl ProvidesHazardousWasteCleanup CreateAffordableHousing UseLocalMaterials AbsorbsRunoff AbsorbsPollution Shades/CoolsWater,Streets,Sidewalks, ProvideEcologicalRestoration/Forestry/ ImproveHealth&Productivityof ReducesVacant,BlightedLand MitigatesFlooding CreateEnvironmentalKnowledge& CreatesaSaferEnvironmentfor ProvidesBeauty&Color EncouragesExercise CreatesLessTrafficCongestion AddsNaturalCharacter UsesLessSingleOccupancyVehicles PreservesAir&WaterQuality UseLocalMaterials UseRecycledMaterials Creates/ImprovesSenseofPride ProtectsForests&Wildlife Creates/ImprovesSenseofPlace CreatesJobs afterOfficeHours EliminatesBlightedBuildings/Increases ReducesInfrastructureCosts SupportsNeighbors EncouragesCommunityInteraction EncouragesCommunityOrganizing CreatesHousing EncouragesLocalInvestment SupportsNeighbors SpursEconomicDevelopment EducatesResidentsaboutFood&Nutrition IncreasesShopping ReducesVehicleUseCosts ReducesEnergy/WaterCosts EncouragesCommercialShopping ReducesWaterTreatmentCosts ReducesCoolingCosts RaisesSurroundingPropertyValues RaisesTaxRevenues(PropertyandSales) IncreaseConvenience CreatesaVibrantCommunity 28.Hartford's Riverfront Redevelopment x xx xxxxxxx x xxx xxx x x x xx xxx x 29.ChattanoogaMall xx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx x xxx xxxxxx x x x 30.Cambridge UniversityPark xxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx xxxxxx x xxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxx x 31.GrandForks Redevelopment xx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx x xxx xxxxxx x x x 32.LakeWorthBeach Restoration xx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx x xxx xxxxxx x x x 33.LA'sGreen Infrastructure xx xxxx xxxxxx xx xxx 34.EdenPlace xx xxxx x xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxx 35.Sustainable ClevelandCorporate Roundtable(CRT)

36.Seattle's'Chooseto Change'Education Program xx x xx xx 37.Chicago'sWireless Technology xx xxxxxx xxx xxx x x 38.Sustainable ClevelandSustainable Technology xx xxxxxx xxx xxx x x

204 Cases PossibleSustainableValue Aesthetic Environmental Social Economic ProductivityofInhabitants UseofCommercialSectorafterOfficeHours Vehicles TrafficSpeed EducatesResidentsaboutFood&Nutrition ReducesRespiratoryDisease ProvidesAccesstoHealthy,HighQualityFood SupportsNeighbors EncouragesCommunityInteraction EncouragesCommunityOrganizing CreatesHousing EliminatesBlightedBuildings/IncreasesSafety Creates/ImprovesSenseofPlace Creates/ImprovesSenseofPride EncouragesExercise CreatesLessTrafficCongestion CreateAffordableHousing UseLocalMaterials IncreaseConvenience CreatesaVibrantCommunity RaisesSurroundingPropertyValues DrawlsCommercialEndUsers IncreasesStructureLifespan ProvidesCompetitive/LeadingBusiness DecreaseMaintenanceCosts IncreasesReturnonInvestment/IncreasedBuildingValue MinimizesWaste PreservesNaturalResources ProtectsForests&Wildlife CreatesaSaferEnvironmentforPedestrians ImproveHealth& RaisesTaxRevenues(PropertyandSales) EncouragesCommercialShopping ReducesWaterTreatmentCosts ReducesCoolingCosts ProvidesOpportunityforEconomicIncentives CreatesCompetitiveWorkforceAdvantage PreservesAir&WaterQuality UseLocalMaterials UseRecycledMaterials ReducesEnergy/WaterCosts IncreasesShopping ReducesVehicleUseCosts EncouragesLocalInvestment SupportsNeighbors SpursEconomicDevelopment AddsNaturalCharacter ProvidesBeauty&Color UsesLessSingleOccupancyVehicles CreateEnvironmentalKnowledge&Awareness ProvideEcologicalRestoration/Forestry/Landscaping ProvidesHazardousWasteCleanup ProvidesGreenInfrastructureInstallation&Maintenance ReducesInfrastructureCosts CreatesJobs AllowsGreated ReducesVacant,BlightedLand MitigatesFlooding AbsorbsRunoff IncreasesSafety/ReducesCrime ProvidesPublicSpaces ProvidesRecreation IncreasesPrivacy Reduces AbsorbsPollution Shades/CoolsWater,Streets,Sidewalks,ParkingLotsandRoofs CleansContaminatedProperty EncouragesLessSprawl CreatesaHealthyEnvironment RequiresLessInfrastructure RequiresLessImperviousSurfaces CreatesLessAirPollution CreatesLessWaterRunoff UsesLessEnergy UsesLessWater UsesFewer 40.Chattanooga VentureVision2000

41.SustainableLA GreenVisionPlan 42.Sustainable Cleveland's SustainabilityStudy

43.Harlemonthe RiverWaterfrontPark Plan 44.DetroitEcovillage x xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x xxx xxxxxx x xxx xx xxx x xxxxxx 45.EastPriceHillEco Village xx xxx x xxxxxx xxxxxx 46.LAEcoVillage xx xxx x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx xxx x x x 47.Cleveland EcoVillage xx xxx x xx xxxxxx xxxxx xxx xx xxx x x xxxxxx 48.EPA'sSustainability Model xxxxxx x xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx 49.FruitvaleTransit Village x x x xxxx xx 50.LA'sLightRail x x x xxxx xx 51.Portland's Transportation x x x xxxx xx

205 Cases PossibleSustainableValue Aesthetic Environmental Social Economic LotsandRoofs ewalks,Parking ProductivityofInhabitants UseofCommercialSectorafterOfficeHours Vehicles TrafficSpeed DrawlsCommercialEndUsers IncreasesStructureLifespan ProvidesCompetitive/LeadingBusiness ReducesRespiratoryDisease ProvidesAccesstoHealthy,HighQualityFood EducatesResidentsaboutFood&Nutrition CreateAffordableHousing UseLocalMaterials IncreaseConvenience CreatesaVibrantCommunity RaisesSurroundingPropertyValues RaisesTaxRevenues(PropertyandSales) DecreaseMaintenanceCosts IncreasesReturnonInvestment/IncreasedBuildingValue SupportsNeighbors EncouragesCommunityInteraction MinimizesWaste PreservesNaturalResources AddsNaturalCharacter ProvidesBeauty&Color ReducesVacant,BlightedLand MitigatesFlooding AbsorbsRunoff AbsorbsPollution Shades/CoolsWater,Streets,Sid EncouragesCommercialShopping ReducesWaterTreatmentCosts ReducesCoolingCosts ProvidesOpportunityforEconomicIncentives CreatesCompetitiveWorkforceAdvantage EncouragesCommunityOrganizing CreatesHousing EliminatesBlightedBuildings/IncreasesSafety ProtectsForests&Wildlife PreservesAir&WaterQuality ReducesEnergy/WaterCosts IncreasesShopping ReducesVehicleUseCosts CleansContaminatedProperty Creates/ImprovesSenseofPlace Creates/ImprovesSenseofPride UseLocalMaterials UseRecycledMaterials UsesLessSingleOccupancyVehicles CreateEnvironmentalKnowledge&Awareness EncouragesLocalInvestment SupportsNeighbors SpursEconomicDevelopment ReducesInfrastructureCosts CreatesJobs AllowsGreated EncouragesLessSprawl CreatesaHealthyEnvironment RequiresLessInfrastructure RequiresLessImperviousSurfaces CreatesLessAirPollution CreatesLessWaterRunoff UsesLessEnergy UsesLessWater UsesFewer EncouragesExercise CreatesLessTrafficCongestion CreatesaSaferEnvironmentforPedestrians ImproveHealth& ProvideEcologicalRestoration/Forestry/Landscaping ProvidesHazardousWasteCleanup ProvidesGreenInfrastructureInstallation&Maintenance IncreasesSafety/ReducesCrime ProvidesPublicSpaces ProvidesRecreation IncreasesPrivacy Reduces 52.SustinableSouth BronxTraining Program xxxx xx x x 53.Glendale's PedestrianStreets xx xxxx x x xxxxxx x x x x xxxxxxxxx x 54.WacoStreetscape xx xxxx x x xxxxxx x x x x xxxxxxxxx x 55.Seattle'sHighPoint DevelopmentProject xxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx xxxxxx x xxx xxx xx xxx xx xxx x xx 56.Chicago'sGreen AfforableHousing xx xxxxxx xxx xxx x x xxxxxx 57.Seattle'sGreen Building&Construction Practices xxx xxx xx xxxxxx xx xxx xxx x xxx xx xxx xxxxxx 58.Chicago'sGreen Roofs xx xxxx xx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxx xx xxx x x xxxxxx 59.SouthBronxGreen Roofs xx xxxx xx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xx xxx xx xxx x xx xxxxxxx 60.Northampton CountyEcoIndustrial Park xx xxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxx

206 Case Studies

Case #1: Baltimore Trails (Green Space)

Location: Baltimore, Maryland Population: 2000- 651,154 (US Census Bureau) Demographics: 2000- White- 31.6%; Black- 64.3%; Am Indian/ Alaska Native- 0.3%; Asian- 1.5%; Hispanic/ Latino- 1.7% (US Census Bureau).

Background: Since the early 1980s, federal government support for local parks and open space- through the Land and Water Conservation Fund state grant program- has been slashed, even in the face of rising need. A 1994 study by the National Recreation and Park Association showed that $30.7 billion of state and local recreational investment would be needed between 1995 and 1999 in order to meet public demand. With the decline in federal support and the tendency of cities to cut park budgets when money is tight, many urban parks are in dire need of repair and rejuvenation. As a result, states and cities are relying on local and private funds.

It is believed that the most successful parks emerge from broad community participation and contribute bankable value to nearby residential and commercial districts. This confluence of forces is leading to new public/private partnerships to create, rejuvenate, and sometimes manage urban parks and open space.

Assembling land for urban parks is complicated by the involvement of various stakeholders and multiple jurisdictions, complex ownership patterns, and the frequent need for extensive environmental assessment and cleanup (very expensive).

The Gwynns Falls Valley stream corridor was once damaged by floods, piled with trash, and almost abandoned by the residents of the middle- and low-income neighborhoods through which it passed.

Revitalization Goals: Revitalizing the Gwynns Falls Trails will link Baltimore’s neighborhoods to the city’s redeveloped harbor district. (The city had been working for 2 decades to rejuvenate its downtown harbor district as a cultural, recreational, and retail center.)

Strategy: Funding from local philanthropies, state and municipal government, and the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) was used for the park’s construction- along with the acquisition of an additional 35 acres. This park project reveals a major shift in the way parks and open space are being created and revitalized in US cities.

The city formed a partnership with TPL and Parks and People (a local nonprofit) to link the vision to a revival of Baltimore’s neighborhoods. The visioning process (which took more than 4 years) included contributions from 16 community groups, 11 nonprofit organizations, and 8 city agencies. Residents were polled on their open-space needs, properties were studied, and a master plan was created.

Funding- Of the nearly 100 land acquisition cases that TPL completed with local public agencies, close to 20 different sources of acquisition and development funding were used. Fifty-eight of those projects relied on at least 2 sources of funding (i.e. private business and foundation capital grants, indirect capital via fundraising campaigns, management assistance, and publicity; local government support in the form of free/discounted land, tax and financing concessions, and city support services; nonprofit investment).

‘Green Activities’: Park creation.

Value Added/ Why Green: A strong connection between parks and open space and broader goals such as economic development, community identity, neighborhood renewal, and provision of needed services.

195 Key Players: In 1994, the Trust for Public Land (TPL) created the Green Cities Initiative to help cities meet the need for more parks by providing assistance in real estate acquisition, finance, and negotiations, and by exploring new ways of involving communities in public finance strategies and park management. Local philanthropies, state and municipal government, and the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) provided funding.

Environmental Goals: Connect surrounding urban neighborhoods to the downtown harbor to spur renewal of those neighborhoods.

Other Info: While every park is different, successful park efforts share 2 or more of the following characteristics: - A formal planning and “visioning” process involving a broad spectrum of public and private stakeholders; - Catalytic leadership from the public and private sectors; - A strong connection between parks and open space and broader goals such as economic development, community identity, neighborhood renewal, and provision of needed services; - A mix of private and public funding, with public funds often coming from state or local sources; - The advice and assistance of nonprofit partners such as academics; urban planning groups; local civic, community-gardening, and “friends-of-parks” organizations; and conservation real estate specialists such as TPL (Kemp 2006).

Stakeholder-driven, public/private partnerships will be a primary force in America’s future urban parks efforts. Successful parks will depend on visioning, team building, broad community support, and creative financing and real estate skills. New public/private partnerships will have to be forged to maintain and manage parks.

It is important to understand that public money is needed just as much as private money. It is also the public sector that must call for community investment in parks, create the visioning process, and invest in master plans and documents that will get private partners involved.

Park creation and redevelopment involve putting together a development team, assembling land (often from multiple and diverse owners and users), raising funds from sources outside the city’s budget, and ensuring participatory planning every step of the way.

Success Stories: Cedar Lake Park and Trail- Minneapolis, Minnesota- incorporates nature, bicycle transportation, active recreation, and citizen initiatives.

Downtown Park- Bellevue, Washington- used a park to create a sense of place and encourage a pedestrian-friendly, densely populated center.

Mill Race Park- Columbus, Indiana- volunteerism and cooperative effort.

Flagstar Corporate Plaza and Jerome Richardson Park- Spartanburg, SC- downtown revival.

Reference: Kemp, R.L. ed. 2006. Cities and Nature: A Handbook for Renewal. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc. United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

196 Case #2: Saint Paul’s Riverfront Reforestation (Green Space)

Location: Saint Paul, Minnesota

Population: 2000- 287,151 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 67%; Black- 11.7%; Am Indian/Alaskan- 1.1%; Asian- 12.4%; Hispanic/ Latino- 7.9% (US Census Bureau)

Background: In the late 1980s, Saint Paul’s Mississippi riverfront experienced the decline evident in many Midwestern river cities. Office towers and retail areas turned their backs on the river, and waterfront industries that had flourished for decades became increasingly stagnant, even though Minnesota’s service economy was booming.

Following the flight to the suburbs of downtown’s primary anchor, West Publishing, in 1992, Saint Paul’s leaders recognized that something had to be done. They hired architect Benjamin Thompson, who was the design architect for the revitalization of Boston’s Fanueil Market and Baltimore’s waterfront, to create a new vision of downtown, expecting him to produce a massive report detailing economic and urban design strategies. Instead, he recommended reforestation of the valley riverfront.

Revitalization Goals: Reforestation of the Mississippi valley that will transform the city’s sense of possibility. Create a place where people could live again with a network of neighborhoods replacing old industrial facilities and empty lots.

The Development Framework is based on an understanding that quality of life- the ability of a city to effectively balance economy, environment, and society- provides a primary competitive advantage in an increasingly globalized world. The framework has served as the philosophical standard for every development project that has gotten underway in downtown Saint Paul and along the river since its completion. The city government’s ongoing, interdepartmental agreement to follow the policies outlines in the framework is one of the most significant factors in Saint Paul’s success.

Ten basic framework principles that have served as the basis for building the urban environment now are being refined as site-specific guidelines for developing new urban villages along both sides of the river. Those principles include: - Evoke a sense of place - Restore and establish the unique urban ecology - Invest in the public realm - Broaden the mix of uses - Improve connectivity - Ensure that buildings support city building goals - Build on existing strengths - Preserve and enhance heritage resources - Provide a balanced network for movement - Foster public safety

Strategy: The Saint Paul Foundation created a nonprofit organization, Greening the Great River Park, to oversee replanting the valley forest. The involvement of ecologists and landscape architects led to a focus on restoration of the native ecological community. The real story of the rescue of Saint Paul’s riverfront began when this vision of trees was turned into a public/private partnership between the city and the developers to create new houses, jobs and cultural attractions in the valley.

The framework specifically called for formation of an agency to steward riverfront projects over the long term. In 1997, with significant grant money from regional foundation, the Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation was created to fulfill that role. Saint Paul on the Mississippi Design Center worked closely with the Riverfront Corporation, which includes staff from nearly all city departments who meet regularly to discuss new projects with developers and architects.

‘Green Activities’: Reforestation of the valley with native species to spur additional development.

197 Value Added/ Why Green: An increase in tree canopy seemed to create a place where people could live again, a network of neighborhoods replacing old industrial facilities and empty lots. Reforestation would spur additional development (houses, jobs and cultural attractions).

Key Players: City, Saint Paul Foundation, non-profit Greening the Great River Park to oversee planting, ecologists, landscape architects, citizens

Environmental Goals: Reforestation

Outcomes (if applicable): The Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation now is stewarding projects ranging from housing, to new banking and software company facilities, to museums and other cultural attractions that draw evening and weekend activity. Upper Landing Park will include a limestone riverside amphitheater shaded by the planted tree canopy. A large commons will accommodate festivals, and a river balcony and promenade are planned, along which permanently moored boats will provide concessions, rentals, and educational and restroom facilities to minimize the impact on the fragile floodplain site.

To the west of Upper Landing Park, a new mixed-use neighborhood will front a new regional trail along the north bank of the river. The 17-acre project will include open space and seven blocks of condos, townhouses, and apartments. A mixed- use city block will include housing, retail and restaurant space. The Saint Paul city council decided to reserve the highly contaminated site- once slated for a plastics plant- to create one of the urban villages envisioned by the development framework. The $140 million project will include for-sale housing.

The Lower Phalen Creek Watershed Restoration Project is a neighborhood-driven effort to enhance the habitat along the small creek, improve trails, and reconnect the neglected strand of green space with surrounding neighborhoods. The Phalen Corridor Initiative is a large-scale strategy to bring new industries to deteriorated East Side neighborhoods. One unusual component of the initiative was the replacement of the declining Phalen Shopping Center with a wetland intended to filter and improve the quality of runoff water headed for the Mississippi.

The Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation is supporting the Renaissance Project, a network of greenways, streetscape improvements, and parks that will extend the river valley’s reach into downtown and older neighborhoods. By 2001, the project has supported 92 acres of new or improved parks, five miles of new trails, and eight miles of improved streetscapes, along with overlook terraces and viewpoints.

198 Case #3: Philadelphia’s Side Yard Program (Green Space)

Location: Philadelphia, PA

Population: 1950- 2.1 million. 2000- 1,517,550 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 45%; Black- 43.23%; Am Indian/Alaskan- 0.3%; Asian- 4.5%; Hispanic/ Latino- 8.5% (US Census Bureau)

The city, however, must remake its old inner-city neighborhoods, which have been hit hardest by the downturn in fortunes in recent decades. Mayor John F. Street’s Neighborhood Transformation Initiative (NTI) is “the boldest effort to date addressing this significant problem” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 77).

Revitalization Goals: To clean the city, to dream the city, you must green it. Reduce poverty, crime and drug activity by reducing the amount of vacant, blighted land.

Strategy: Neighborhood Transformation Initiative (NTI) works with a number of minority contractors and nonprofit neighborhood groups through subcontracts with Philadelphia Green. The lot-cleaning program has created jobs for more than seventy neighborhood residents.

Using funds that Philadelphia raised through issuing bonds, NTI was able to pinpoint the most dangerous buildings and demolish nearly seven thousand of them over a 5-year period. After a building is demolished and the lot prepared according to the new demolition specifications, neighborhood contractors hired by Philadelphia Green step in to create beauty out of blight.

Philadelphia Horticultural Society (PHS) conducted a vacant land study in 2000 and found that if the city did nothing proactive to address vacant land issues, eventually, because of crime, drugs, and decreasing property values, the hidden cost in the end would cost the city more than it they decided to own the problem and address the issue. That’s what the Mayor decided to do through NTI (Wiland and Bell 2006, 83-85).

‘Green Activities’: A side-yard program (controlled by the NTI program) allows property owners to apply for and acquire a lot adjacent to them to use as a green space or parking area. The land may someday be sold for development, but for now, must be transformed into a “clean and green” space, to begin to change the perception of the lot, the block, and the entire neighborhood. When NTI takes over a lot, it’s eventually planted with grass and trees and its boundaries gently defined by wooden fences.

The Glenwood Green Acres in north Philadelphia is now 20 years old and contains more than 90 garden plots. It has hosted intergenerational projects on the heritage of Southern agriculture, crops of tobacco, cotton, and peanuts are still grown there. In 1997 the garden was preserved as a permanent open space by the Neighborhood Gardens Association (Wiland and Bell 2006, 83-85).

Value Added/ Why Green: Studies has consistently shown that “greening” a neighborhood can significantly raise property values and reduce crime” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 89). Planting trees unexpectedly raised property values by 15% (Wiland and Bell 2006, 13).

“One of the simplest ways to boost the price of a row house- and indeed the entire neighborhood- is to plant some trees. . . Today, researchers like Wachter can calculate and compare the cost of a home before and after a tree planting initiative 199 with great precision. . . Planting a street tree increases the value of nearby homes by 15% . . . Turning a blighted vacant lot into a clean and green space increases the value of adjacent homes by 30%” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 88).

If you bought a house for $100,000 in a neighborhood containing other similar properties and planted some trees on your block with your neighbors, each of you would have increased the value of your home by $15,000. If you and your neighbors devoted some weekends to building a garden in a nearby vacant lot, you’d boost the values of your homes by $33,000. Instant equity for the cost of plants and landscaping (Wiland and Bell 2006, 88).

Green space affects the bottom line. Gardens and trees raise property values in urban areas, which in turn raise the property tax base, which gives cities greater tax revenues, which they can reinvest in the betterment of the city (Wiland and Bell 2006, 89). The act of planting knits people together. The simple, communal act builds community, and strong communities can transform entire cities (Wiland and Bell 2006, 89).

A study in Chicago found that there were 56% fewer violent crimes and 48% fewer property crimes in public housing apartment buildings when they were surrounded by landscaping as compared to apartment where there was no landscaping. It’s not so much the planted spaces as much as what they stand for. A well-tended area broadcasts to passersby that people care about what goes on in this area. If you litter, it will be picked up If you engage in negative activity, it will be reported. The last thing a criminal wants is a pair of watchful eyes (Wiland and Bell 2006, 89).

Studies from the University of Illinois document the decrease in violence around public housing where green landscapes thrive. If young people are invited to participate in the design and planting of an area, they will grow up learning to respect that area, because they know how much work went into it (Wiland and Bell 2006, 129).

Key Players: Philadelphia Horticultural Society, Philly Green, City of Philly, Mayor, community members, local businesses

Outcomes (if applicable): Thanks to their research, city leaders now understand that for a city to thrive and attract new businesses, it must address aesthetics. There might be more jobs available, but that doesn’t make the city desirable or more liveable. A vibrant city hums because it has four things: jobs, home ownership, culture and public places that anyone, rich or poor, can enjoy (Wiland and Bell 2006, 86).

As of 2006, the Center City has been growing and thriving. “We have the third largest population of any downtown in the county next to New York and Chicago, with 80,000 people living there currently” (86). They now have a heavily used parks system (which was underfunded for many years but now has new leadership and direction). They have a vibrant shopping district and the largest number of preserved historic buildings in the country.

Since 2000, Philadelphia Green has stabilized more than 3 million square feet of vacant land (Wiland and Bell 2006, 129). PHS operates the largest comprehensive urban greening program in the country.

References: United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html Wiland, H. and Bell, D. 2006. Edens Lost & Found. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

200 Case #4: UCGreen (Green Space)

Location: Philadelphia, PA

Population: 1950- 2.1 million. 2000- 1,517,550 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 45%; Black- 43.23%; Am Indian/Alaskan- 0.3%; Asian- 4.5%; Hispanic/ Latino- 8.5% (US Census Bureau)

Background: The loss of people, their incomes, and their potential tax revenues was devastating. Poverty, crime, and drugs soon filled the void.

Philadelphia continues to shift its economy from being a manufacturing giant to having its base in service and tourism, with a flourishing health-care system, a growing technology base, and several major universities and colleges. Environmentally, the city is already far ahead of other cities in implementing best practices on a variety of fronts. (i.e. Fairmont Park’s educational programs teach thousands of Philadelphians the value of city-based wilderness (Wiland and Bell 2006).

The city, however, must remake its old inner-city neighborhoods, which have been hit hardest by the downturn deterioration in recent decades. Mayor John F. Street’s Neighborhood Transformation Initiative (NTI) is “the boldest effort to date addressing this significant problem” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 77).

Revitalization Goals: To clean the city, to dream the city, you must green it. To enhance the physical environment in distressed local communities.

Strategy: This community-based project has brought Penn students, faculty and staff together with public schools and neighborhoods to enhance the physical environment in University City through planting new trees and greenery. So far, UCGreen has:

helped renew 25 neighborhood blocks; planted more than 400 trees and more than 10,000 flower bulbs; created three children’s gardens and four public gardens.

UCGreen has focused on vacant lots, distressed parks and residential blocks. One example is the Lea School Garden. Through UC Green, what was once a 1,600 square foot concrete courtyard at a local public elementary school has become a thriving outdoor learning environment of plants, bushes, trees and flowers, a shallow pond and seeding area, a trellis and murals depicting the four seasons.. The children helped design the garden together with a professional architect while engaging in hands-on science activities with the support of Penn faculty and students.

More recently, in November 2001, UC Green organized Penn and local volunteers to plant 150 trees in memory of the victims of the September 11 attacks along the main thoroughfare Chestnut Street, from 31st to 40th streets (University of Pennsylvania).

‘Green Activities’: The West Philadelphia Initiative- a five-part program that seeks to improve on five aspects of urban living -- economic growth, business development, improved housing, a "clean and safe" environment and the quality of schools. Spearheaded by the University of Pennsylvania and its partner neighborhood organizations, has embarked on a massive planting program. UCGreen, was instrumental in adding dozens of trees and flowers to the area's once-sparse streets.

Value Added/ Why Green: Studies has consistently shown that “greening” a neighborhood can significantly raise property values and reduce crime” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 89).

201 Key Players: UCGreen, City of Philly, Philly public schools, community members, local businesses, Penn students, faculty and staff

Outcomes (if applicable): As a result of the West Philadelphia Initiative (planting program), “crime has fallen dramatically, the schools are improving” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 89).

Thanks to their research, city leaders now understand that for a city to thrive and attract new businesses, it must address aesthetics. There might be more jobs available, but that doesn’t make the city desirable or more liveable. A vibrant city hums because it has four things: jobs, home ownership, culture and public places that anyone, rich or poor, can enjoy (Wiland and Bell 2006, 86).

References: University of Pennsylvania. Clean and Safe Streets. Internet; accessed 11/3/08. http://www.upenn.edu/campus/westphilly/streets.html#UCGreen United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html Wiland, H. and Bell, D. 2006. Edens Lost & Found. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

202 Case #5: Philadelphia’s Norris Square Neighborhood/ Las Parcelas Park (Green Space)

Location: Philadelphia, PA (Kensington neighborhood) Population: 1950- 2.1 million. 2000- 1,517,550 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 45%; Black- 43.23%; Am Indian/Alaskan- 0.3%; Asian- 4.5%; Hispanic/ Latino- 8.5% (US Census Bureau)

Background: The loss of people, their incomes, and their potential tax revenues was devastating. Poverty, crime, and drugs soon filled the void. Philadelphia continues to shift its economy from being a manufacturing giant to having its base in service and tourism, with a flourishing health-care system, a growing technology base, and several major universities and colleges. Environmentally, the city is already far ahead of other cities in implementing best practices on a variety of fronts. (i.e. Fairmont Park’s educational programs teach thousands of Philadelphians the value of city-based wilderness (Wiland and Bell 2006). The city, however, must remake its old inner-city neighborhoods, which have been hit hardest by the downturn deterioration in recent decades. Mayor John F. Street’s Neighborhood Transformation Initiative (NTI) is “the boldest effort to date addressing this significant problem” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 86).

Revitalization Goals: To clean the city, to dream the city, you must green it. To enhance the physical environment of vacant lots within distressed local communities.

Strategy: Twenty years ago, the Norris Square area was littered with syringes and drug dealers and gunfire was common. Like much of the greater Kensington area, it was filled with derelict factories and warehouses, dilapidated homes, trash, traffic, and poorly lit vacant lots. The largely Latino community started the Norris Square Project and began by doing simply things to help stabilize the neighborhood (i.e. keeping a watchful eye on the illegal activity occurring and calling the police to report it- one day the police arrested nearly 60 people, many longtime residents). They realized that they were removing many residents from the community. They entered into a partnership with Philadelphia Green (Wiland and Bell 2006, 121-124).

Norris Square Neighborhood Project/ Las Parcelas Park- Latino residents seized control of a vacant lot on the block of a bad drug street and proceeded to paint a mural, plant fruit trees, and install a swimming pool. They painted benches bright colors, walkways were covered with gravel, herb gardens and ornamental grasses were planted. The focal point of the garden is a casita (“little house”), which is modeled on the traditional vernacular homes still found in Puerto Rico. La Casita serves as a museum and heritage center, where children born and raised in Philadelphia can learn about the Puerto Rican ancestry. Outside, families maintain their own vegetable and flower gardens. At a small outdoor food stand, neighbors serve traditional foods on special occasions. They want to establish a store where people from the community can sell their arts and crafts and open a restaurant that will sponsor cooking classes and allow diners to go out back and actually pick the vegetables for their salads. Now, people are moving back to Norris Square. Fifty abandoned lots in Norris Square were transformed into 6 award-winning community gardens in 18 years. The only thing they don’t like is the taxes. The taxes are going up and that means that the property values are increasing as well (Wiland and Bell 2006, 124-128).

‘Green Activities’: Park Revitalization/ community/ cultural involvement

Key Players: Philadelphia Horticultural Society, Philly Green, City of Philly, community members, local businesses References: United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html Wiland, H. and Bell, D. 2006. Edens Lost & Found. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company. Case #6: Sustainable South Bronx- Greenway (Green Space)

Location: Bronx, New York

Population: 2000- 1,332,650 (US Census Bureau) 203 Background: South Bronx handles about 40% of New York City’s commercial waste. A sewage treatment plant, a sewage sludge palletizing plant, four power plants and high diesel emissions from about 60,000 diesel truck trips each and every week are located in and affect the neighborhood. Right now Manhattan doesn’t handle any of its own waste or its power generation. It exists in its glory because of surrounding neighborhoods like the South Bronx (CNN.com 2008a).

The Bronx has seen the health effects of these places. On average, 25% of their children have asthma. The child asthma hospitalization rate is between 4 and 7 times the national average. The child obesity rate is 6 times higher than the rest of the city (obesity and diabetes go hand in hand) (CNN.com 2008b).

Sustainable South Bronx (SSBx) is a nonprofit environmental justice solution corporation, founded in 2001 by Dr. Majora Carter (a life-long resident). The nonprofit addresses land-use, energy, transportation, water and waste policy, and education to advance the environmental and economic rebirth of the South Bronx, and inspires solutions in areas like it across the nation and around the world. Their mission: environmental justice solutions through innovative, economically sustainable projects informed by community needs (Sustainable South Bronx).

One reason people struggle with obesity in the South Bronx is the lack of opportunity to exercise safely outdoors. SSBx is developing the South Bronx Greenway to provide safe public space, and create better transportation policy. Integrating traffic calming measures and truck routes that keep trucks away from the residential areas will help integrate physical activity into daily life (Sustainable South Bronx).

Revitalization Goals: To alleviate poverty and remediate the environment through green-collar jobs and sustainable development. Replace old manufacturing with green industry (eco-industrial parks) where the waste of one company becomes the raw material of another and create opportunities that employ people so they can become an active part of the fabric of the city's life.

Strategy: Majora Carter wrote a $1.25 M federal transportation planning grant to conduct a feasibility study for the Greenway to include the NYC Economic Development Corporation as the government sponsor, SSBx and The Point, CDC as the community partners, and landscape architects Mathews Nielsen. The study provided a unique opportunity for the community to impact design and policy. To date, nearly $30 million is secured for greenway related projects (Sustainable South Bronx).

The South Bronx Greenway will create bike and pedestrian paths around the Hunts Point and Port Morris waterfront, as well as on-street connections including Hunts Point Riverside Park, the Bazzini Piers, Tiffany St. Pier, and Barretto Point Park, and a connection to Randall’s Island Sports Complex (Sustainable South Bronx).

Mathews Nielsen Landscape Architects have collected background information on land ownership and site conditions, and conducted surveys and interviews with property and business owners. The City recently approved over $10 million to be designated for the Greenway as part of the work of the Hunts Point Task Force, bringing the total of funding for greenway-related projects in the South Bronx to $28.5M over the next few years. SSBx looks forward to moving into the construction phases of the project. Potential first phase projects will include intensive streetscape and bicycle path improvements on Hunts Point Avenue and Lafayette Avenue, two major thoroughfares in Hunts Point; a bridge connecting Randall’s Island and Port Morris under the Hell Gate span; or a new waterfront park adjacent to the new Fulton Fish Market in Hunts Point (Sustainable South Bronx).

‘Green Activities’: South Bronx Greenway Project (SBG)- a community led plan for a bicycle/pedestrian greenway along the South Bronx waterfront, which will provide much needed open space, waterfront access and opportunities for mixed used economic development.

Value Added/ Why Green: Greenway Project will allow for public recreation and exercise.

Key Players: Mayor, Sustainable South Bronx (SSBx)- nonprofit environmental justice solution corporation; local government; NYC Economic Development Corporation, SSBx and The Point, CDC as the community partners; Mathews Nielsen Landscape Architects; community. 204 Environmental Goals: To alleviate poverty and remediate the environment through green-collar jobs and sustainable development. Replace old manufacturing with green industry (eco-industrial parks). We want to create opportunities that employ people so they can become an active part of the fabric of the city's life.

References: CNN.com. June 6, 2008a. Majora Carter: Her Vision. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/05/carter.vision/ CNN.com. June 6, 2008b. Majora Carter: Interview. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/05/carterinterview/ Sustainable South Bronx. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.ssbx.org/mission.html United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

205 Case #7: LA’s Trees (Green Space)

Location: Los Angeles, CA

Population: 2000- 3,694,820 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 46.9%; Black- 11.2%; Asian- 10%; Hispanic/ Latino- 46.5% (US Census Bureau)

The interconnectedness of LA’s problems only reinforces how elegantly nature solves so many of its problems. If the LA River weren’t “channelized,” as engineers describe it, much of that water would seep into the ground and replenish the parched aquifers under the surface. LA would then be better able to meet its own water needs without having to buy river water from other states. The LA River, where children once splashed and played, is now a massive, 2-story crevice in the earth whose sole job is to get rid of freshwater (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Elsewhere LA has become a city of asphalt and concrete, where the natural world has been completely encased, erased, or eradicated. While you can find small parcels of land or landscaping and LA signature palm trees are everywhere, these green spaces and palm icons are not enough to mitigate the city’s heat island effect, smog, and flood events. Parkland is limited: LA has 0.9 parkland acres per person, compared to a national average of 10 parkland acres per person (Wiland and Bell 2006, 144).

LA grew up in an era in which people expected to have a backyard and a garden, and city officials and developers were disinclined to dedicate public open space, so not many areas were set aside for parks. Given rapid growth and increasing population density in Southern California, lack of parks and open space has become a severe problem (Wiland and Bell 2006). Former state public health officer states that “two-thirds of the kids in LA cannot walk to a park. If they don’t have a place to walk or run around, we have no business telling our kids to get in shape. Three-quarters of the kids in California cannot pass a basic fitness test, which is running one mile in 12 minutes” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 145). They are now realizing that people need to be around other people, they need to feel connected and a sense of belonging.

If there is one theme to the story of LA, it is that the human subversion of nature always causes bigger problems down the line (Wiland and Bell 2006). “The combination of deforestation and dependence on automobiles have contributed to LA’s infamously poor air quality” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 136). LA, for all its faults, for all its problems, is emblematic of many places in America. What happens there will ultimately happen throughout the US.

Revitalization Goals: Create jobs, reduce concrete, and reconnect the community by providing public space. Strategy: The California Division of Forestry donated tree seedlings to a nonprofit organization (TreePeople) to plant around the city. Urban forestry is important to counter the heat island effect, stormwater runoff, etc. It was found that the trees survived best when they had someone to look after them (especially in their most vulnerable period- the first couple years in the ground). As a result, volunteers of TreePeople are taught not only how to plant trees but also how to care for them- something most residents who’ve personally helped re-green their neighborhoods are motivated and eager to do. When community members plant the trees themselves, they developed a sense of ownership over those trees and protected them (Wiland and Bell 2006, 148- 155).

206 It was easier in a city like Philadelphia where vacant land could be assembled out of the remains of abandoned buildings. LA is very young, too vibrant to lose sections of valuable real estate, and where the city has run-down areas, it lacked the political leadership willing to make vacant land an important issue (Wiland and Bell 2006, 156).

‘Green Activities’: Planting trees

Value Added/ Why Green: Researchers at the University of Washington and the University of Illinois have discovered that people would rather shop in downtown areas where trees are present. That is, if given a choice, people are more likely to stop and browse in downtown areas that seem wooded, shady, and inviting. People prefer to eat and shop on tree-lined avenues. A city that understands this interesting human quirk can help create attractive downtown settings- and serve the public good- at the same time (Wiland and Bell 2006, 146).

Drivers also tend to slow down and speed less when driving down tree-lined streets. On a treeless street, drivers have few landmarks to gauge how fast they are going. It may also be that drivers are instinctively more cautious when their visibility is reduced. Perhaps tree-lined streets appear friendlier to the eye (Wiland and Bell 2006).

In addition to beautifying its surroundings, a single mature urban tree reduces the amount of carbon dioxide by about 115 pounds per year (Wiland and Bell 2006, 147).

Key Players: California Division of Forestry, Nonprofit organizations (TreePeople), city officials (i.e. public works), community

Environmental Goals: Improve air and water quality, work with nature to collect and store as much rain water a possible.

207 Case #8: East Harlem Tree Planting (Green Space- Tree Planting)

Location: Harlem, NY Population: 2006- Greater Harlem- 374,854; Central Harlem- 109,091 (Beveridge 2008) Demographics: Greater Harlem- 40.54% African American; 14.8% White in 2006. Central Harlem- 77.49% African American; 2.07% White (Beveridge 2008)

Revitalization Goals: to plan, design and achieve a healthy, sustainable and environmentally just community.

Background: West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc. (WE ACT) is part of the steering committee guiding Go Green, formed at the beginning of 2007 to create community sustainability from the ground up and working to address six environmental issues in East Harlem: public health and asthma, parks and open space, sustainable business, farmers’ markets and healthy eating, green building, and transportation (WE ACT). WE ACT for Environmental Justice is a non-profit, community-based, environmental justice organization dedicated to building community power to fight environmental racism and improve environmental health, protection and policy in communities of color. WE ACT accomplishes this mission through community organizing, education and training, advocacy and research, and public policy development. WE ACT empowers residents to address irresponsible development proposals with community-based planning and development of sustainable, proactive initiatives (WE ACT). As a result of their ongoing work to educate and mobilize their community (more than 630,000 residents of Northern Manhattan) on environmental issues affecting their quality of life, WE ACT has become a leader in the nationwide movement for environmental justice, influencing the creation of federal, state and local policies affecting the environment (WE ACT). One of the first environmental organizations in New York State to be run by people of color, and the first environmental justice organization in New York City, WE ACT was founded and incorporated in 1988 as the result of local community struggles around environmental threats and resulting health disparities created by institutionalized racism and the lack of social and political capital, all dynamics that led to the placement and poor management of the North River Sewage Treatment Plant, the placement and operation of 6 out of 7 New York City diesel bus depots in Northern Manhattan, the operation in our community of the only 24-hour Marine Transfer Station in Manhattan, the use of Northern Manhattan communities as New York City’s dumping ground, and the exclusion of communities of color from democratic decision-making (WE ACT). In 1988 WE ACT sued the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for operating the North River Sewage Treatment Plant as a public and private nuisance. The lawsuit was settled in 1994 for $1.1 million, and WE ACT hired its first 3 staff members with a grant from the settlement funds (WE ACT).

Strategy: Million TreesNYC, one of the 127 PlaNYC initiatives, is a citywide, public-private program with an ambitious goal: to plant and care for one million new trees across the City's five boroughs over the next decade. By planting one million trees, New York City can increase its urban forest—“our most valuable environmental asset made up of street trees, park trees, and trees on public, private and commercial land”—by 20%, while achieving the many quality-of-life benefits that come with planting trees (Million TreesNYC, a).

The City of New York planted 60% of trees in parks and other public spaces. The other 40% came from private organizations, homeowners, and community organizations. It is estimated that the Park Department provided 220,000 street trees, Parks and other agencies provided 380,000 reforestation trees, and private partners provided the remaining 400,000 trees (Million Trees NYC, a).

Harlem: As part of the MillionTrees Initiative, 50 volunteers (employees from The Home Depot stores in New York City, New Jersey, and Connecticut) gathered in East Harlem to plant 39 street trees, contributing to their goal of one million. “Our goal is to make a long-lasting difference in communities” (Million TreesNYC, b).

The local public school, NYRP, held an assembly at the school to educate the students on the importance of trees to the neighborhood (Million TreesNYC, b).

Funding: Funded by a $50,000 grant from The Home Depot Foundation, the tree planting kicked off the retailer’s annual Month of Service and was also supported by New York Cares, which organized additional volunteers, lunch and 208 breakfast, and a DJ in our St. Mark’s Monastery Community Garden on East 117th Street. The Home Depot is funding the garden’s restoration and has also made a generous gift of $1.5 million to support the MillionTreesNYC initiative (Million TreesNYC, b).

‘Green Activities’: Parks and open space working group, where the first initiative is to tap into City funding to plant trees throughout East Harlem.

Value Added/ Why Green: East Harlem experiences higher-than-average air pollution, and residents suffer from some of the highest rates of asthma in the city; both can be reduced by increasing the urban tree canopy (Million TreesNYC, b). Trees help clean our air, and reduce the pollutants that trigger asthma attacks and exacerbate other respiratory diseases. They cool our streets, sidewalks, and homes on hot summer days. Trees increase property value, and encourage neighborhood revitalization. “Trees make our City an even more beautiful and comfortable place to live, work, and visit” (Million TreesNYC, a).

If taught to care properly for their new trees, East Harlem kids can grow up alongside their green counterparts with each helping the other to stay healthy (Million TreesNYC, b).

Key Players: Harlem community, Home Depot, NYRP, AmeriCorps, students and teachers from public schools, City of New York

Million TreesNYC was launched by the Parks Department and New York Restoration Project—is a collaboration of many partners, including: community-based and non-profit groups; city, state, and federal agencies; corporations and small businesses; developers, architects, and landscape architects; private-property owners, and all New Yorkers (Million TreesNYC, b).

Environmental Goals: to create community sustainability from the ground up and working to address six environmental issues in East Harlem: public health and asthma, parks and open space, sustainable business, farmers’ markets and healthy eating, green building, and transportation.

The goal of WE ACT’s Sustainable Development Program Area is to develop and apply tools that empower the residents of Northern Manhattan and New York City to plan, design and achieve a healthy, sustainable and environmentally just community. WE ACT empowers residents to address irresponsible development proposals with community-based planning and development of sustainable, proactive initiatives.

References: Beveridge, A. August 2008. “Harlem’s Shifting Population.” Gotham Gazette. Internet; accessed 11/10/08. http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/demographics/20080827/5/2635 Million Trees NYC, a. About Million TreesNYC. Internet; accessed 11/10/08. http://www.milliontreesnyc.org/html/about/about.shtml Millions Trees NYC, b. Newsroom: East Harlem Tree Plant Day With Volunteers From the Home Depot. Internet; accessed 11/10/08. http://www.milliontreesnyc.org/html/newsroom/pr_east_harlem_100907.shtml United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html WEACT For Environmental Justice. Internet; accessed 11/10/08. http://www.weact.org/Home/tabid/162/Default.aspx

209 Case #9: Central Park (Green Space)

Location: New York, New York

Population: 1850- 515,547; 1860- 813,669; 1870- 942,292; 1880- 1,206,299; 1900- 3,437,202; 1980- 7,071,639; 1990- 7,322,564; 2000- 8,008,278 (United States Bureau of the Census, a).

Demographics: 2000- White- 44.7%; Black- 26.6%; Am Indian & Alaska Natives- 0.5%; Asian- 9.8%; Native Hawaiian/other Pac Islander- 0.1%; Hispanic/ Latino- 27% (United States Bureau of the Census, b).

Revitalization Goals: Reduce the congestion and pollutants caused from an urban city center. Convert brownfield land to green recreational space.

In his article “Public Parks and the Enlargement of Towns,” (1870) Olmsted stated that “Science has …determined many of the causes of the special evils by which men are afflicted in towns, and placed means in our hands for guarding against them. It has shown, for example, that under ordinary circumstances, in the interior parts of large and closely built towns, a given quantity of air contains considerably less of the elements which we require to receive through the lungs than the air of the country or even of the outer and more open parts of a town, and that instead of them it carries into the lungs highly corrupt and irritating matters. . . “(LeGates and Stout 2000, 315).

Strategy: Public parks first arose in 1853 with the start of the U.S. parks movement when New York’s Central Park was authorized by the New York State Legislature. New York would have to purchase land for the park from private owners and “to obtain a sizeable tract of land at a reasonable cost, it was necessary to look beyond the limits of the existing built- up city- about 34th Street in 1850- to the still rural precincts of upper Manhattan” (Platt 2004, 127). At that time, the proposed 770-acre site of central park consisted of a landscape of squatters, goats, mud and rubbish, a thirty-minute walk from the existing city. However, park advocates accurately anticipated that all Manhattan would be soon paved and built over and the park would be the center of the city. The park was eventually expanded to 110th Street, increasing the total area to 843 acres (about 0.5 miles east and west by 2.5 miles north to south (Platt 2004). In 1858, landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, along with his business partner, architect Calvert Vaux, prepared the winning plan for Central Park and Olmsted was appointed Architect in Chief to execute their plan, thus pioneering the urban parks movement. In 1872, Olmsted wrote that his purpose in designing Central Park was “to supply to the hundreds of thousands of tired workers, who have no opportunity to spend their summers in the country, a specimen of God’s handiwork that shall be to them, inexpensively, what a month or two in the White Mountains or the Adirondacks, at great cost, to those in easier circumstances” (Olmsted and Kimball 1928/1973, 46). Olmsted and Vaux envisioned the park to be the new center of town- a place where people could easily go after work to get away from the stress and confining nature of a fast-paced life in the city. Olmsted stated that What we want most is a simple, broad, open space of clean greensward, with sufficient play of surface and a sufficient number of trees about it to supply a variety of light and shade. This we want as a central feature. We want depth of wood enough about it not only for comfort in hot weather, but to completely shut out the city from our landscapes (Olmsted 1870, 6).

Olmsted also believed that parks should be planned and constructed in a way that they would never be too noisy and seldom crowded. If possible, they should branch out so that no one has to walk too far to enjoy its presence. Their design should be interesting enough so that one could benefit just by passing through on one’s way to or from work (Olmsted 1870).

‘Green Activities’: Park/open space development

Value Added/ Why Green: The project was self-funding through increases in property tax collections on surrounding land. In the 1870s, the annual increase in property taxes was estimated to exceed the annual interest on the park project costs by over $4 million (Olmsted and Kimball 1928/1973). Property values in Manhattan doubled during the 15 years after park development began (Garvin et al. 1997). Today, condos with a view of Central Park cost several million dollars apiece ($5.8 millions- Kemp 2006, 40), which brings tax dollars accordingly (Platt 2004). “These park-generated tax revenues allowed the city to pay for municipal services that it could not otherwise have afforded and provided the stimulus for city 210 officials to acquire the 26,369 acres of land that currently constitute New York City’s extraordinary park system” (Garvin et al. 1997, 2).

Key Players: Frederick Law Olmsted, Calvert Vaux, New York city and state (purchased land for the park from private owners)

Environmental Goals: Reduce air pollution by planting more trees.

Olmsted claimed sunlight and foliage were the answers to these problems of contaminated air for the air is disinfected by sunlight and foliage- that foliage acts to purify the air by screening it (LeGates and Stout 2000). He claimed that parks provided the opportunity to “escape at frequent intervals from the confined and vitiated air of the commercial quarter, and to supply the lungs with air screened and purified by trees, and recently acted upon by sunlight . . . if these could be supplied economically, our problem would be solved” (LeGates and Stout 2000, 316).

Olmsted suggested that the trees remain as a permanent fixture of the city, rather than a temporary decoration. A place should be set aside to allow these trees room to grow, even if it meant increasing the space in-between houses to allow trees to be planted or, on a greater scale, allotting a central space to be used for recreational purposes. Olmsted’s idea of combing this needed open area with the need for public recreation soon played out with the adoption of the urban park system.

Definition of End Result (sustain community, eco-village, etc): Public park

Outcomes (if applicable): At the time, Central Park was the largest public work undertaken in New York City, involving thousands of jobs and millions of dollars. The total cost of acquiring the 843 acres from private owners was $7.4 million. As of 1997, the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation managed roughly 18 miles of beaches, 46 swimming pools, 16 golf courses, six skating rinks, and 1,570 parks, playgrounds, and public spaces (Garvin et al. 1997).

Central Park was also a practical success with usership of the park amounting to roughly 30,000 visitors per day and more than 10 million per year in 1871. Olmsted and Vaux encouraged active use in many ways, such as walking, cycling, skating, carriage driving, boating and horseback riding in order to create a sense of freedom that one would have in a true rural landscape. In 1880, Olmsted wrote: To enjoy the use of the park, within a few years after it became available, the inner hour of thousands of families permanently changed, the number of private carriages kept in the city was increased tenfold, the number of saddle horses a hundredfold, the business of livery stables more than doubled, the investment of many millions of private capital in public conveyance made profitable. . . How could New York have got on without the park? Twelve million visits are made to it every year. The poor and the rich come together in it in larger numbers than anywhere else and enjoy what they find in it in more complete sympathy that they enjoy anything else together. The movement to and from it is enormous. If there were no park, with what different results in habitat and fashions, customs and manners, would the time spent in it be occupied (Quoted in Sutton 1971, 255). The park also serves as a tourist attraction, photography focus, venue for public celebrations and events, a site for profitable restaurants and a social safety valve (Kemp 2006, 40). The park’s continued success relies on maintenance and stewardship. The development of Central Park represented several firsts: 1. the first deliberately planned urban park in the United States; 2. the first park project of Fredrick Law Olmstead; 3. the first accomplishment of landscape architecture as a profession in the United States; and 4. perhaps the first use of land-value increment taxation to finance a portion of the costs of a public improvement (Platt 2004). If public officials had chosen not to spend the money needed to acquire and develop Central Park (America’s first large public park) in the mid 19th century, New York would be lacking the beautiful open green space that is actively used by a quarter of a million people on a typical weekend today. The city would also be collecting far less tax revenue. Fortunately, New York became a guidepost for cities throughout the country interested in funding the acquisition of land to be used for public parks. (Listed below are America’s 15 largest public parks.) Central Park initiated more than a century of governmental property acquisition and park development in the United States. City, state, and federal agencies now own and operate hundreds of millions of acres of streets and highways, bridges and tunnels, and a wide array of public buildings. Most of this public realm, however, consists of parkland that 211 was acquired and developed to be a place of refuge from city life, a recreational resource for large numbers of people, a scenic treasure preserved for posterity, or a means of maintaining ecological balance (Garvin et al. 1997, 2).

Olmsted’s most important contribution to modern city planning was the recognition of parks and open space as integral elements of the urban system (Pratt 2004). Olmsted was able to pioneer the U.S. parks movement, with the creation of Central Park, a park that became a guidepost for the creation of city parks throughout the country. A lack of urban green space contributes to a lack of connection with nature. By ‘greening’ a city, the urban landscape is connected with the natural world, allowing urban dwellers to reconnect with their agrarian roots, and hopefully resulting in environmental awareness and activism. There are many benefits to be gained by increasing opportunities for city people to have encounters with the natural world in urban environments. “Throughout history, urban planners and environmental designers have intuitively incorporated elements of the natural world and areas of green open space into their designs for cities in an effort to moderate the stress of urban life” (e.g. Central Park in New York City) (Low et al. 2005, 76).

References:

Cohen, N. (2001). Urban Planning Conservation and Preservation. New York: McGraw- Hill. Garvin, Alexander; Berens, Gayle; et al. (1997). Urban Parks and Open Space, Washington, D.C.: ULI- the Urban Land Institute. Kemp, R.L. ed. 2006. Cities and Nature: A Handbook for Renewal. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc. LeGates, R.T. and Stout, F. ed. (2000). The City Reader. New York: Routledge. Low, N., Gleeson, B., Green, R., and Radovic, D. (2005). The Green City: Sustainable Homes, Sustainable Suburbs. Sydney: UNSW Press. Olmsted, F.L. (1870). “Public Parks and the Enlargement of Towns”. American Social Science Association. In LeGates, R.T. and Stout, F. (2000). The City Reader. New York:Routledge. Olmsted, F.L., Jr., and Kimball, T. (1928/1973). Forty Years of Landscape Architecture: Central Park. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Platt, Rutherford. (2004). Land Use and Society: Geography, Law, and Public Policy. Washington, D.C.: Island Press; Chapter 4, “City growth and reform in the 19th century,” pp. 95-149. Sutton, S.B., ed. (1971). Civilizing American Cities: A Selection of Frederick Law Olmsted’s Writings on City Landscape. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. United States Bureau of the Census, a. Population of the 100 Largest Cities and Other Urban Places in the United States: 1790- 1990. Internet; accessed 11/10/08. http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/twps0027.html#citypop United States Bureau of the Census, b. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

212 Case #10: Million Trees NYC (Green Space- Tree Planting)

Location: New York, NY

Population: 2000- 8,008,278 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 44.7%; Black- 26.6%; Asian- 9.8%; Hispanic/ Latino- 27% (US Census Bureau)

Revitalization Goals: to strengthen NYC’s urban environment (including its transportation network, housing stock, land and park system, energy network, water supply and air quality), to maintain current and future infrastructure, and preserve and improve NYC’s environment.

Background: MillionTreesNYC is part of PlaNYC, the most extensive plan to strengthen New York City’s urban environment ever undertaken by an American city. Unveiled by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg in April, 2007, the 127- point plan is designed to create the first environmentally sustainable 21st century city. PlaNYC focuses on every facet of New York’s physical environment-its transportation network, housing stock, land and park system, energy network, water supply and air quality-and sets a course to achieve 10 aggressive goals to create a more sustainable New York by the year 2030 (Million Trees NYC).

To keep NYC as open and welcoming as ever: Create enough housing for almost a million more people, and find creative ways to make housing more affordable. Ensure that every New Yorker lives within a 10-minute walk of a park. Add to the capacity of NYC’s regional mass transit system.

To maintain NYC’s current and future infrastructure: Develop critical back-up systems for NYC’s water network, ensuring a dependable source of water into the next century. Reach a full "state of good repair" for NYC’s roads, subways, and rails for the first time in history. Provide cleaner, more reliable power for every New Yorker by upgrading NYC’s energy infrastructure.

And to preserve and improve NYC’s environment: Reduce NYC’s global-warming emissions by more than 30% by 2030. Achieve the cleanest air quality of any big city in America. Clean up all contaminated land in NYC. Open 90% of NYC’s rivers, harbors, and bays for recreation by reducing water pollution and preserving natural areas (Million TreesNYC).

Strategy: Million TreesNYC, one of the 127 PlaNYC initiatives, is a citywide, public-private program with an ambitious goal: to plant and care for one million new trees across the City's five boroughs over the next decade. By planting one million trees, New York City can increase its urban forest by 20%, while achieving the many quality-of-life benefits that come with planting trees (Million TreesNYC).

The City of New York will plant 60% of trees in parks and other public spaces. The other 40% will come from private organizations, homeowners, and community organizations. It is estimated that the Park Department will provide 220,000 street trees, Parks and other agencies will provide 380,000 reforestation trees, and private partners will provide the remaining 400,000 trees (Million Trees NYC).

‘Green Activities’: tree planting

Value Added/ Why Green: Trees help clean our air, and reduce the pollutants that trigger asthma attacks and exacerbate other respiratory diseases. They cool our streets, sidewalks, and homes on hot summer days. Trees increase property value, and encourage neighborhood revitalization. And trees make our City an even more beautiful and comfortable place to live, work, and visit (Million Trees NYC). 213 Key Players: launched by the Parks Department and New York Restoration Project—is a collaboration of many partners, including: community-based and non-profit groups; city, state, and federal agencies; corporations and small businesses; developers, architects, and landscape architects; private-property owners; and all New Yorkers (Million TreesNYC).

Environmental Goals: to plant and care for one million new trees across the City's five boroughs over the next decade. By planting one million trees, New York City can increase its urban forest by 20%, while achieving the many quality-of-life benefits that come with planting trees.

Definition of End Result (sustain community, eco-village, etc): Outcomes (if applicable):

References: Beveridge, A. August 2008. “Harlem’s Shifting Population.” Gotham Gazette. Internet; accessed 11/10/08. http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/demographics/20080827/5/2635 Million Trees NYC, a. About Million TreesNYC. Internet; accessed 11/10/08. http://www.milliontreesnyc.org/html/about/about.shtml United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html WEACT For Environmental Justice. Internet; accessed 11/10/08. http://www.weact.org/Home/tabid/162/Default.aspx

214 Case #11: Chicago’s City Space Program (Green Space)

Location: Chicago, IL

Population: 2000- 2,896,016 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 42%; Black- 36.8%; Asian- 4.3%; Hispanic/ Latino- 26% (US Census Bureau)

Background: By the 19th century, Chicago was a sprawling, filth- and crime-infested city with steel mills and slaughterhouses and train yards, corrupted politicians and gangs and tense neighborhood wards where ethnic groups regarded each succeeding wave of immigrants with suspicion. Through it all ran a river befouled with the waste of meatpacking plants and factories (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Much of the newfound commitment to nature and civic life was inspired by Mayor Richard M. Daley (who took office in 1989), who has openly championed the principles of sustainability and urged the development of natural habitat and green public recreation areas (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Revitalization Goals: Attract environmentally sensitive businesses to the old steelmaking quarter to fulfill the urgent need for more jobs in the region. Reduce the amount of abandoned and underutilized property.

Strategy: The CitySpace program works to expand the amount of parkland in Chicago by converting abandoned and underutilized property into community gardens, parks and other forms of public open space. The program operates through an unprecedented agreement between the City of Chicago, Chicago Park District, Forest Preserve District of Cook County, and Chicago Public Schools. In targeting greening projects on vacant lots, school playgrounds, and underutilized land along the Chicago River, the cooperative effort is helping Chicago achieve its open space goals, especially in neighborhoods where the amount of public land falls far below local and national standards (City of Chicago).

CitySpace's Campus Park Program is changing the landscape of neighborhoods across the city by removing pavement from public school playgrounds and replacing it with grass ballfields and play areas. The conversion, often affecting nearly an entire city block, helps mitigate the "heat island" effect caused by asphalt, provides a safer play surface for students, and improves neighborhood aesthetics. The Campus Park program has removed more than 300 acres of asphalt from 80 public schools and replaced it with grass and gardens. Sixteen additional schools are slated for campus parks in 2001 (City of Chicago).

CitySpace's Chicago River Program is reversing years of apathy and disinvestment along the river by acquiring land for fishing stations, canoe launches, nature trails and other recreational assets. New city zoning policies created by the program require new riverside developments to provide public access and landscaping in preparation of a continuous path along the river's entire length within the city. The program has acquired 36 acres of open space along 17,000 feet of river frontage and secured an additional 29,000 feet of river frontage at 31 new private real estate developments (City of Chicago).

Projects in the CitySpace Plan were prioritized through the cooperation of government entities working under the leadership of Mayor Daley. Funding is provided by a variety of public and private sources, with approximately 100 projects completed as of January 2001 (City of Chicago).

By turning liabilities into assets that benefit today's and future generations, CitySpace is demonstrating to city residents and businesses that Chicago's land resources gain tremendous value through intergovernmental cooperation and innovative redevelopment (City of Chicago).

‘Green Activities’: Green space/ gardens

Value Added/ Why Green: Parks improve property values, help reduce crime by strengthening neighborhood ties and reduce temperatures and clean the surrounding air and water. (When temperatures reached the upper 90s and low 100s in 215 July 1995, 739 Chicagoans died). The California Energy Commission has actually calculated that the Co2 reduction achieved by a single tree has a dollar value of $920 per ton per year (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Eden Park sparked further development- new homes, a 100-unit senior retirement home, new businesses including 3 gas stations (the neighborhood previously had 0) (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Key Players: Grassroots organizations, nonprofits, state, federal govt., City of Chicago, Chicago Park District, Forest Preserve District of Cook County, and Chicago Public Schools

Environmental Goals: Attract environmentally sensitive businesses to the old steelmaking quarter to fulfill the urgent need for more jobs in the region.

Outcomes (if applicable): The green roof on City Hall saves taxpayers $4,000-$5,000 a year in heating and cooling costs. On a hot day, the air is actually about 15 degrees cooler in the garden than on nearby rooftops. When surfaces in the garden are 86 degrees F, the temperature of an average blacktop roof is 168 degrees. The California Energy Commission has actually calculated that the Co2 reduction achieved by a single tree has a dollar value of $920 per ton per year (Wiland and Bell 2006, 35).

“If you build it, they would come. If you build it beautifully, they’ll keep coming” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 38).

References: City of Chicago. CitySpace Program. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?BV_Ses sionID=@@@@1243225493.1223926735@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccceadefgll mefhcefecelldffhdfho.0&contentOID=536896709&contenTypeName=COC_EDI TORIAL&topChannelName=Residents&blockName=Promo+Item&channelId=- 536879024&programId=536879091 United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html Wiland, H. and Bell, D. 2006. Edens Lost & Found. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

216 Case #12: Philadelphia Green (Community Gardens/ Parks Creation and Revitalization)

Location: Philadelphia, PA

Population: 1950- 2.1 million. 2000- 1,517,550 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 45%; Black- 43.23%; Am Indian/Alaskan- 0.3%; Asian- 4.5%; Hispanic/ Latino- 8.5% (US Census Bureau)

Background: The loss of people, their incomes, and their potential tax revenues was devastating and poverty, crime, and drugs soon filled the void. Philadelphia continues to shift its economy from being a manufacturing giant to having its base in service and tourism, with a flourishing health-care system, a growing technology base, and several major universities and colleges. Environmentally, the city is already far ahead of other cities in implementing best practices on a variety of fronts (i.e. Fairmont Park’s educational programs teach thousands of Philadelphians the value of city-based wilderness) (Wiland and Bell 2006). The city, however, must remake its old inner-city neighborhoods, which have been hit hardest by the downturn deterioration in recent decades. Mayor John F. Street’s Neighborhood Transformation Initiative is the “boldest effort to date addressing this significant problem” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 77).

Revitalization Goals: To help people improve their communities and their way of life through horticulture. To clean the city, to dream the city, you must green it. Reduce poverty, crime and drug activity by reducing the amount of vacant, blighted land.

Strategy: Philadelphia Green begins its work by finding people who wanted to make a difference in their communities. The program doesn’t do anything for anybody unless 85% of the people living on the block agreed that they wanted to be part of the program. They all have to put in a little money. The group then focuses on vacant lots. In 2006, Philadelphia had about forty thousand vacant lots in neighborhoods plagued with crack dens, drug pushers, gunfights, and overt prostitution.

The Mayor undertook the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative (NTI) which recognizes the importance of green space in urban environments. The mission of this city’s $295 million bond-funded program is to halt the decay of vacant lots around town by planting green spaces. In the Mayor’s first term, every vacant lot in the city of Philadelphia was cleaned twice. The city entered into contracts with neighborhood groups and Philadelphia Green to help the city keep the vacant lots clean and help train people to garden on and clean those lots. They planted over 7000 trees in neighborhoods. They changed the wording in demolition contracts so that sites would be left better prepared for grass and trees (Wiland and Bell 2006, 79-83).

Through Philadelphia Green, the Philadelphia Horticultural Society (PHS) operates the largest comprehensive urban greening program in the nation (Wiland and Bell 2006, 131). PHS strives to help people revitalize their communities and improve their way of life through horticulture. One of the most prominent ways PHS realizes this goal is through the establishment and preservation of community gardens. PHS takes the profits from its annual Flower Show (usually about $1 million) and pumps it back into the local community to provide training, plants, tools, soil, and the general know-how needed to positively impact urban areas. The PHS gives back to the community by creating gardens on vacant lots and revitalizing neighborhood parks, gradually cleaning empty lots around town and planting beautiful native landscapes (Wiland and Bell 2006, 79-83).

Carroll Park, in West Philadelphia is one such project where an urban park was revitalized as a result of PHS funding and neighborhood support. Now, the park sponsors a Park Patrol class for kids after school once a week, who pick up trash and participate in environmental education classes. The park is home to Earth Day festivities every April and a concert series in the summer and is the meeting site for the local garden club (Wiland and Bell 2006).

‘Green Activities’: Gardens/ park revitalization

217 Value Added/ Why Green: Studies has consistently shown that “greening” a neighborhood can significantly raise property values and reduce crime” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 89). Planting trees unexpectedly raised property values by 15% (Wiland and Bell 2006, 13).

See value added section from other Philadelphia Cases.

Key Players: Philadelphia Horticultural Society, Philly Green, City of Philly, community members, local businesses

Outcomes (if applicable): West Philly neighborhood residents report that property values have risen steadily since the revitalization of Carroll Park.

Thanks to research, city leaders now understand that for a city to thrive and attract new businesses, it must address aesthetics. There might be more jobs available, but that doesn’t make the city desirable or more liveable. A vibrant city hums because it has four things: jobs, home ownership, culture and public places that anyone, rich or poor, can enjoy (Wiland and Bell 2006, 86).

As of 2006, the Center City has been growing and thriving. “We have the third largest population of any downtown in the county next to New York and Chicago, with 80,000 people living there currently” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 86). They now have a heavily used parks system (which was underfunded for many years but now has new leadership and direction). They have a vibrant shopping district and the largest number of preserved historic buildings in the country.

Since 2000, Philadelphia Green has stabilized more than 3 million square feet of vacant land (Wiland and Bell 2006, 129).

References: Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. Philadelphia Green: Project Profile. Internet; accessed 1/2/09. http://www.pennsylvaniahorticulturalsociety.org/phlgreen/community_gardens.pdf United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html Wiland, H. and Bell, D. 2006. Edens Lost & Found. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

218 Case #13: Community University Partnership (Community Gardens)

Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Population: 2000- 227,818 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 45.7%; Black- 50%; Asian- 2.6%; Hispanic- 1.7% (US Census Bureau)

Background: The area is located between the downtown of Baton Rouge and the university. The boundaries of the community include the city center to the north, the Mississippi River to the west, the university to the south, and a prosperous neighborhood known as the Garden District to the east. It’s a low-lying area that retains water after heavy rains.

According to block group statistics from the 1990 census, 41% or those between the ages of 18 and 24 in the core area have less than a high school diploma. 52% of the population lives at or below poverty level, with over 29% living at or below 50% of the poverty level. Over 23% of households are headed by single parents. Furthermore, only 60% of households in the core have transportation. 92% of the residents are African-American. The entire area reports more instances of crimes per 1,000 residents than the city as a whole (Hoff 1998, 125).

The physical features of the area reflect its social and economic characteristics. Formerly busy streets are populated with abandoned residential and commercial buildings. The number of individuals residing in the area declined by a third from 1980 to 1990. Over 24% of housing units in the area are vacant. Children in the area lack adequate adult supervision and are surrounded by abandoned deteriorating structures and vacant lots. The spatial isolation of the people is exacerbated by the fact that Baton Rouge’s public transportation system does not reach all parts of the area and it extremely unreliable. In addition, vacant lots are frequently used to dump garbage and bulk waste materials, the streets are seldom if ever cleaned, and environmental pollution has become more serious (Hoff 1998, 125-126).

The decline of the area has been associated with numerous factors. As in many cities, the decline in employment opportunities for low-skilled workers associated with major changes in the American economy has increased the incidence of poverty. Another factor has been the emigration of middle-class African-Americans from the area into the city’s suburbs. Another factor was the construction of Interstate Highway 10, which dissected the areas and required many business and residents to relocate (Hoff 1998, 126).

While the area declined in population and lost vital local businesses, a core of committed residents remained, and many of those who vacated the area kept contact through kinship ties and church membership. In November 1993, a group of these community members came together to create an organization which it was hoped would address the area’s problems. This group ended up forming the Metropolitan Community Housing and Development Organization (MCHDO).

Revitalization Goals: Community revitalization through a dynamic partnership between the university and local people. Engage in community development projects which build on local strengths to promote sustainable economic and social development and to engage in environmental restoration and protection projects. LSU’s main goal is to work in partnership with this organization to revitalize the declining urban community. The university’s missions of research, teaching, and service are fulfilled through this project.

MCHDO’s goals included economic development, the enhancement of educational opportunities, physical improvements, and the construction of housing. For most of the members, the slogan “take back” the community epitomizes their ideal of reconstructing a vibrant, sustainable community (126).

CUP’s goals include: developing a productive partnership between a predominantly white southern university and a predominantly African-American community and implementing a developmental approach to sustainable community building.

Strategy: CUP is a collaborative effort and is managed and jointly operated by a university task force of faculty, staff, and students as Louisiana State University (LSU) and a community organization known as the Metropolitan Community 219 Housing and Development Organization (comprised of local residents, business owners, and religious leaders). Forging a partnership is essential to gaining access to the community and ensuring that community-building efforts are sustained. Building a trusting relationship was the first step in the process of breaking down barriers and gaining access to the community (Hoff 1998, 128). Initially, the approach was simply to link MCHDO concerns and community strengths with LSU’s expertise and abilities. As projects emerged and the dialogue broadened, the relevance of a developmental model to community revitalization became apparent.

‘Green Activities’: Community gardens- while the immediate goal of the garden may be to grow fresh produce to generate income, social capital can also be developed through the relationships and bonds which develop between neighbors who work in the gardens. In addition, the use of vacant lots for community revitalization contributes to the social capital of the area by converting community hazards into productive areas that make the area not only more visually appealing but economically viable (Hoff 1998, 133).

Value Added/ Why Green: The CUP project addressed revitalization goals by implementing projects aimed at enhancing local economic activity through human capital development (which enhances the abilities and opportunities of individuals through education, training, and improvements in public health and child welfare- this approach is based on the idea that econ development alone can’t promote the general welfare of a community), social capital development (i.e. the creation and enhancement of social networks and social institutions that contribute to development, creation of community-owned amenities, and the development of community and individual monetary assets), and programs that enhance productive employment and self-employment opportunities (seek to generate income-generating activities which directly address the problems of material deprivation in low-income communities and increase participation in the labor market through facilitating wage employment or supporting small business expansion or development). All are intended to build sustainable communities through local effort (Hoff 1998, 128- 135). Literacy training (i.e. child literacy activities, family literacy, and adult literacy) is one example of human capital investment- as individual become literate, their opportunities for further education and employment dramatically increase. The elevation of literacy levels of an entire area increases the potential employment opportunities for the community by providing a work force able to undertake the duties required to today’s jobs: thus, the area is able to attract new businesses (Hoff 1998, 129). As part of enhancing social capital, the identification and development of infrastructure is a key component- not only focusing on renovating dilapidated structures but creating a community garden on vacant lots. The organization would teach community members how to start a community garden project and start a public market with the products grown. While these various projects were primarily focused on the development of community amenities, they have positive implications for the future environmental enhancement of the areas as well. The CUP task force and MCHDO are seeking to strengthen existing businesses which are now under threat. In recent years, many locally owned small businesses have closed because of lack of local support. The project seeks to promote community support for local enterprise by creating awareness of the need to support local entrepreneurs and increasing the local tax base.

Key Players: Community University Partnership (CUP), Louisiana State University (LSU) and Metropolitan Community Housing and Development Organization (MCHDO)

Environmental Goals: Engage in community development projects which build on local strengths to promote sustainable economic and social development and to engage in environmental restoration and protection projects (124).

Lessons Learned: 1. The history of the area in which outreach activities operate must be understood and issues arising out of this history must be addressed. 2. A partnership is essential in building sustainable community projects- key ingredient in making progress. 3. Successful community outreach projects take time to evolve and mature. Community building is a long-term process that involves forming coalitions among community members, associations, and groups. 4. Funding can expedite the process (Hoff 1998, 137).

References: Hoff, M.D. Ed. 1998. Sustainable Community Development: Studies in Economic, Environmental, and Cultural Revitalization. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers

220 United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

221 Case #14: Philadelphia’s Village for Arts and Humanities (Community Gardens & Environmental Education)

Location: Philadelphia, PA

Population: 1950- 2.1 million. 2000- 1,517,550 (US Census Bureau).

Demographics: 2000- White- 45%; Black- 43.23%; Am Indian/Alaskan- 0.3%; Asian- 4.5%; Hispanic/ Latino- 8.5% (US Census Bureau).

Revitalization Goals: To clean the city, to dream the city, you must green it. Reduce poverty, crime and drug activity by reducing the amount of vacant, blighted land.

Strategy: The Black Foundation Center created a garden in the abandoned lot behind the center’s building and incorporated art into the layout. During the construction process, local kids would wander by after school to see what was going on, and little by little, the kids began helping. Philadelphia Green supplied trees and soil and worked with the children to teach them about gardening. That inspired the park creator to run a simple art program for children. This led to the formation of the Village for the Arts and Humanities, a community arts center. Children and adults go to learn about art. The community now incorporates paintings and murals into the neighborhood gardens and parks. Benches are built using recycled materials (Wiland and Bell 2006, 112-114).

‘Green Activities’: Gardens and public involvement

Value Added/ Why Green: See value added in previous Philadelphia cases.

Key Players: Philadelphia Horticultural Society, Philadelphia Green, City of Philadelphia, community members, local businesses

Outcomes (if applicable): City leaders now understand that for a city to thrive and attract new businesses, it must address aesthetics. There might be more jobs available, but that doesn’t make the city desirable or more liveable. A vibrant city hums because it has four things: jobs, home ownership, culture and public places that anyone, rich or poor, can enjoy (Wiland and Bell 2006, 86). As of 2006, the Center City has been growing and thriving. “We have the third largest population of any downtown in the county next to New York and Chicago, with 80,000 people living there currently” (86). They now have a heavily used parks system (which was underfunded for many years but now has new leadership and direction). They have a vibrant shopping district and the largest number of preserved historic buildings in the country.

222 Case #15: Philadelphia’s Greensgrow Farm (Community Garden /Farmer’s Market)

Location: Philadelphia, PA (Kensington neighborhood)

Population: 1950- 2.1 million. 2000- 1,517,550 (US Census)

Demographics: 2000- White- 45%; Black- 43.23%; Am Indian/Alaskan- 0.3%; Asian- 4.5%; Hispanic/ Latino- 8.5% (US Census Quickfacts)

Revitalization Goals: To clean the city, to dream the city, you must green it. Reduce poverty, crime and drug activity by reducing the amount of vacant, blighted land.

Strategy: Greensgrow was founded by Mary Seton Corboy. A plot of land in the Kensington neighborhood, formerly a galvanized steel plant, was transformed into a neighborhood garden. The land was so badly contaminated that it qualified for federal “superfund” money to clean it up. Ordinarily, conventional crops would not be grown in contaminated soil, but the founder chose to grow crops hydroponically, in specially formulated water, where the roots of the plant could soak up their nutrition without the need for soil (Wiland and Bell 2006). The foudner wanted to create an urban farm, pursue a green business, and produce food for local restaurants. This project emphasizes the importance buying local, organic food. Buying local supports the small family farms that have been going out of business and selling out to developers. By making small farmers economically viable they’re saving farmland from developers and keeping the family on the farm. Mary sells her produce/plants to local restaurants and community members. Her goal is to educate people about food and to provide access to the highest-quality food (Wiland and Bell 2006). Greensgrow serves the Philadelphia community by offering self guided tours of our operations, including lessons in composting, hydroponic growing, and raising bees. In 2007, they began making biodiesel with waste oil from their favorite Philly restaurant and long time supporter of local foods, Standard Tap. Working with Wilson College’s Fulton Farm they are applying solar laminates to the new Farm Stand roof. Greensgrow is also the co-founder of the Farm Market Alliance, developing policies designed to strengthen our nearby rural farming communities while ensuring that the urban consumer has a voice in issues surrounding food choices and methods of production (Greensgrow Farms).

‘Green Activities’: Community Garden/Urban Farm/Farmer’s Market

Value Added/ Why Green: Buying local supports the small family farms that have been going out of business and selling out to developers. By making small farmers economically viable they’re saving farmland from developers and keeping the family on the farm. Educates people about food and provides access to the highest-quality food.

Key Players: Philadelphia Horticultural Society, Philly Green, City of Philly, community members, local businesses

References: Greensgrow Farms. Internet; accessed 11/3/08. http://www.greensgrow.org/pages_04/about_greensgrow.html United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html Wiland, H. and Bell, D. 2006. Edens Lost & Found. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

223 Case #16: Girls Today, Women Tomorrow (Environmental Education & Gardening)

Location: Los Angeles, CA

Population: 2000- 3,694,820 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 46.9%; Black- 11.2%; Asian- 10%; Hispanic/ Latino- 46.5% (US Census Bureau)

Elsewhere LA has become a city of asphalt and concrete, where the natural world has been completely encases, erased, or eradicated. While you can find small parcels of land or landscaping and LA signature palm trees are everywhere, these green spaces and palm icons are not enough to mitigate the city’s heat island effect, smog, and flood events. Parkland is limited: LA has 0.9 parkland acres per person, compared to a national average of 10 parkland acres per person (Wiland and Bell 2006, 144).

LA grew up in an era in which people expected to have a backyard and a garden, and city officials and developers were disinclined to dedicate public open space, so not many areas were set aside for parks. Given rapid growth and increasing population density in Southern California, lack of parks and open space has become a severe problem (Wiland and Bell 2006). Former state public health officer states that “Two-thirds of the kids in LA cannot walk to a park. IF they don’t have a place to walk or run around, we have no business telling our kids to get in shape. Three-quarters of the kids in California cannot pass a basic fitness test, which is running one mile in 12 minutes” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 145). They are now realizing that people need to be around other people, they need to feel connected and a sense of belonging.

If there is one theme to the story of LA, it is that the human subversion of nature always causes bigger problems down the line (Wiland and Bell 2006).

“The combination of deforestation and dependence on automobiles have contributed to LA’s infamously poor air quality” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 136). LA, for all its faults, for all its problems, is truly emblematic of many places in America. What happens here will ultimately happen throughout the US. The US population is growing and becoming more urban…. (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Revitalization Goals: Create jobs, reduce concrete, and reconnect the community by providing public space.

Strategy: The program’s community garden is used to expose the girls to nature in the urban environment which then helps them think about the kind of food they are putting into their body. Gardening helps girls be in tune with Mother Nature. The program hopes to use produce from the garden in home cooking classes to further reinforce the students’ understanding of where food really comes from. These cooking classes also offer healthy options that can be just as cheap as fast food (Wiland and Bell 2006).

‘Green Activities’: gardens and education/public involvement- GTWT (Girls Today, Women Tomorrow)- a program held after school for girls who had nothing to do.

224 Value Added/ Why Green: The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign found that inner-city girls who are exposed to nature tend to exhibit higher self-discipline and avoid risky behavior. The researchers found that these girls were better able to handle peer pressure, sexual pressure, and challenging situations. They made better choices and performed better in school (Wiland and Bell 2006, 188).

Key Players: Nonprofit organizations, community, University of Illinois

Environmental Goals: Improve air and water quality, work with nature to collect and store as much rain water a possible.

225 Case #17: Seattle’s Community Gardens (Community Gardens)

Location: Seattle, Washington

Population: 2000- 563,374 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 70%; Black- 8.4%; Am Indian/ Alaskan Native- 1%; Asian- 13.1%; Hispanic/ Latino- 5.3% (US Census Bureau)

Background: Seattle has a long history of extracting and harvesting natural resources such as fish, timber and coal. WWI however, transformed to an industrial city with cutting edge ships, planes (location of Boeing manufacturing plant) and factory goods needed for war (both WWI and II). The city’s bust resulted from inflation (putting thousands out of work); and court decisions limiting logging and fishing industries (Wiland and Bell 2006).

The ending age of extraction and big technology showed the new industries would have to be created if Seattle was going to survive. The city found its salvation in computers and today, nearly every computer worldwide runs on software developed in that region of the world. They city now attracts educated professionals who want: a challenging career and a close connection to natural surroundings. Where previous generations focused on what Seattle’s natural resources could do for them, today’s generation focuses on what they can do for the environment (Wiland and Bell 2006).

The decline of salmon populations is important to the city. Seattle’s city planners and citizen activists are aware of the threats posed to salmon by rampant development, and they are trying to undo the damage done unknowingly by previous generations. Puget Sound is polluted from residential sources. Because salmon require pristine conditions in both saltwater and freshwater habitats, they are a good barometer species for the health of both. Salmon decline tells us that development- new subdivisions, roads, etc.- has impacted the land around the rivers, contaminating the waters and eroding the soil (Wiland and Bell 2006).

As more people move to Seattle, whether it because of its ‘sustainable’ reputation, the beautiful sights, or job opportunities, the city has had to focus on green building to allow for growth and prevent its negative impacts (Wiland and Bell 2006).

The organization assembles local and regional governments, businesses and the public to create a civic agenda that unites the region around long-term sustainability goals and actions; partner with urban centers and neighborhoods throughout the region to advance urban sustainability, share knowledge and create an interconnected sustainability network; develop indicators, provide original research, and serve as a clearinghouse of cutting-edge information and tools; and provide education to leaders, residents, planners, developers and others involved in smart growth, green building and place making efforts, including transportation, public spaces, open spaces, civic dialogue, urban planning and design, community building, waste, energy and food security (Sustainable Seattle).

Sustainable Seattle achieves its mission through:

AWARENESS: Create opportunities to learn about sustainable living principles and practices. ASSESSMENT: Develop tools to monitor our community's progress toward long-term sustainability. ACTION: Foster dialogue among diverse constituencies and their development of local models (Sustainable Seattle).

Revitalization Goals: Restore salmon population and Puget Sound watershed. To focus on green building to allow for growth and prevent negative impacts and to connect the community.

226 Strategy: “Most of the great things in Seattle happen because the citizens want it” Cary Moon (Wiland and Bell 2006, 194).

Local Food Economy Project- This project expands on earlier studies of the economic impact of local spending. These studies found that locally directed spending contributes as much as two to three times more to a community’s income than spending at non-local businesses. The research involves using local multipliers to describe the resource (money) flows and economic linkages of food-related businesses. Local multipliers measure the impact of local spending on a community’s income. A model of a relationship-based food economy emerges from the study. The model says that the larger the local multiplier, the more dollars circulating locally, the greater the number of economic linkages and the greater their strength. More and stronger linkages suggest a healthier, more diverse and resilient local economy (Wiland and Bell 2006).

The analysis shows that locally directed spending by consumers more than doubles the number of dollars circulating among businesses in the community. This means that a shift of 20% of our food dollars into locally directed spending would result in a nearly half billion dollar annual income increase in King County alone and twice that in the Central Puget Sound region (Wiland and Bell 2006).

A model of a relationship-based economy emerges from the study. The model says that the more dollars circulating locally, the greater the number of community linkages and the greater their strength. The research indicates that more and stronger linkages provide for a healthier, more diverse and resilient local economy. Simply put, locally directed buying and selling connects the community’s resources to its needs resulting in relationships that serve to restore the land and regenerate community (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Community Gardens (providing nourishing food for city residents)- The Department of Neighborhoods’ P-Patch Program, in conjunction with the not-for-profit P-Patch Trust, provides organic community garden space for residents of 70 Seattle neighborhoods. The community based program areas of the P-Patch Program are community, market, and youth gardening and community food security in the City of Seattle. These programs serve all citizens of Seattle with an emphasis on low-income and immigrant populations and youth. Our community gardens offer 2500 plots serve more than 6000 urban gardeners on 23 acres of land (Wiland and Bell 2006).

P-Patch community gardeners show their concern for the value of fresh organic vegetables by supplying 7 to 10 tons of produce to Seattle food banks each year. Supporting a strong environmental ethic, the P-Patch Program allows organic gardening only and since all our gardens are maintained by community members, we have an 8 hour annual volunteer requirement in our allotment gardens (Wiland and Bell 2006).

‘Green Activities’: Community gardens

Value Added/ Why Green?- The analysis shows that locally directed spending by consumers more than doubles the number of dollars circulating among businesses in the community. This means that a shift of 20% of our food dollars into locally directed spending would result in a nearly half billion dollar annual income increase in King County alone and twice that in the Central Puget Sound region (Sonntag 2008, 97).

Key Players: City of Seattle, nonprofits (i.e. Sustainable Seattle), local businesses

Environmental Goals: connecting people with the surrounding ecosystem. To be the kind of place where wildlife can thrive even at the edge of a growing city.

References: Sonntag, V. April 2008. Why Local Linkages Matter: Findings from the Local Food Economy Study. Sustainable Seattle. Internet; accessed 1/5/09. http://sustainableseattle.org/Programs/LFE%20Files/LFE%20REPORT%20FINAL.pdf Sustainable Seattle. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.sustainableseattle.org/ United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

227 Wiland, H. and Bell, D. 2006. Edens Lost & Found. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

228 Case #18: Harlem’s Green Market (Community Garden/ Farmer’s Market)

Location: Harlem, NY

Population: 2006- Greater Harlem- 374,854; Central Harlem- 109,091 (Beveridge 2008)

Demographics: Greater Harlem- 40.54% African American; 14.8% White in 2006. Central Harlem- 77.49% African American; 2.07% White (Beveridge 2008)

Revitalization Goals: to plan, design and achieve a healthy, sustainable and environmentally just community.

Strategy: Greenmarket is a program of the Council on the Environment of New York City, a privately funded not-for- profit organization. Greenmarket organizes and manages 59 outdoor farmers' markets throughout New York City. All market participants grow, raise or produce all their market items in the local region (Farmer’s Market Federation of New York)

Greenmarket promotes regional agriculture and ensures a continuing supply of fresh, local produce for New Yorkers. Greenmarket has organized and managed open-air farmers markets in NYC since 1976. Greenmarket supports farmers and preserves farmland for the future by providing regional small family farmers with opportunities to sell their fruits, vegetables and other farm products to New Yorkers (Council on the Environment of New York City).

‘Green Activities’: A new East Harlem Green Market, open both Saturday and Sunday, to expand community access to healthy, fresh food.

Value Added/ Why Green: Greenmarket was a natural solution to a two-fold problem: by selling their homegrown crops in New York City, local farms could stay in business and bring fresh food to city neighborhoods. What began with twelve farmers in an empty lot in 1976 has grown into the largest network of its kind in the country, with rigorous "grow-your- own" standards (Council on the Environment of New York City). Provides access to healthy, fresh food.

229 Key Players: WE ACT, various producers including Migliorelli Farm of Tivoli, N.Y., Breezy Hill Orchard of Staatsburg, N.Y., and John D. Madura Farms of Pine Island, N.Y. The new market is supported by the city, including the office of Scott M. Stringer, the Manhattan borough president. The greenmarket also has support from tenants’ associations at the George Washington Carver Houses, a public housing development, and the Carnegie Hill neighborhood (Chan 2007).

References: Beveridge, A. August 2008. “Harlem’s Shifting Population.” Gotham Gazette. Internet; accessed 11/10/08. http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/demographics/20080827/5/2635 Chan, S. July 13, 2007. A Greenmarket for East Harlem. The New York Times. Internet; accessed 11/10/08. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/a-greenmarket- for-east-harlem Council on the Environment of New York City (CENYC). GreenMarket Farmers’ Markets. Internet; accessed 11/10/08. http://www.cenyc.org/greenmarket Farmers’ Market Federation of New York. New York County: GreenMarket. Internet; accessed 11/10/08. http://www.nyfarmersmarket.com/regionmetronewyork.htm United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html WEACT For Environmental Justice. Internet; accessed 11/10/08. http://www.weact.org/Home/tabid/162/Default.aspx

230 Case #19: Chicago River Restoration (Natural Infrastructure Restoration)

Location: Chicago, IL Population: 2000- 2,896,016 (US Census Bureau) Demographics: 2000- White- 42%; Black- 36.8%; Asian- 4.3%; Hispanic/ Latino- 26% (US Census Bureau)

Background: By the 19th century, Chicago was a sprawling, filth- and crime-infested city. A city of steel mills and slaughterhouses and train yards. A city of corrupt politicians and fearsome gangs. A city of tense neighborhood wards where ethnic groups regarded each succeeding wave of immigrants with suspicion. Through it all ran a river befouled with the refuse of meatpacking plants and teeming factories (Wiland and Bell 2006). Much of the newfound commitment to nature and civic life owes itself to Mayor Richard M. Daley (who took office in 1989), who has openly championed the principles of sustainability and urged the development of natural habitat and green public recreation areas (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Revitalization Goals: Attract environmentally sensitive businesses to the old steelmaking quarter to fulfill the urgent need for more jobs in the region.

Strategy: Chicago citizens, led by the grassroots organizations tackled the cleanup with: a physical cleanup job and legislative efforts to get scofflaws to stop dumping trash on riverbanks and pollutants into the water. Friends of the River recruited people out to the river on weekends to help cut down invasive trees and replace them with native vegetation. Local groups interested in wildlife, the environment, and activities for children invited Friends out to their meetings to talk about their work and build momentum. Some groups sign on to “adopt-a-river”; they’d promise to clean up a specific site through all four season. If something was awry, they immediately reported it. Along the way, they mapped out walking trails, put up interpretive signs, and knit that piece of the river into their daily lives (Wiland and Bell 2006). During that time, the federal government also got stricter as the Clean Water Act was signed in 1972. As the river began looking better, people wanted access to it. Some of the old fencing was town down to provide access for recreational groups. Today, high school and college rowing teams use the river regularly. A canoe and kayak rental company has sprung up along the path. The city’s parks department is buying up parcels of land to incorporate into the grand vision of a river park. Some developers have built condos emphasizing the river view. Today, there are rumors that otters have returned to the river. Since otters require slightly purer water conditions that other mammals, we can assume that the water is improving (Wiland and Bell 2006).

‘Green Activities’: Restoring the Chicago River – Once serving as the city’s dumping ground, the Chicago River is now seen as an important resource. Friends of the Chicago River worked to clean up the river and dreamed of a 156-mile river park, flowing past fifty or so towns in the Chicago area (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Value Added/ Why Green: As the river began looking better, people wanted access to it. Today, high school and college rowing teams use the river regularly. A canoe and kayak rental company has sprung up along the path. The city’s parks department is buying up parcels of land to incorporate into the grand vision of a river park. Some developers have built condos emphasizing the river view (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Key Players: Friends of the River- grassroots organization, nonprofits, volunteer organizations, state, federal govt., City of Chicago

Outcomes (if applicable): Today, there are rumors that otters have returned to the river. Since otters require slightly purer water conditions that other mammals, we can assume that the water is improving. References: United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html Wiland, H. and Bell, D. 2006. Edens Lost & Found. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

231 Case #20: Chicago’s Lake/ River Restoration Efforts (Natural Infrastructure Restoration)

Location: Chicago, IL

Population: 2000- 2,896,016 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 42%; Black- 36.8%; Asian- 4.3%; Hispanic/ Latino- 26% (US Census Bureau)

Much of the newfound commitment to nature and civic life owes itself to Mayor Richard M. Daley (who took office in 1989), who has openly championed the principles of sustainability and urged the development of natural habitat and green public recreation areas (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Revitalization Goals: Attract environmentally sensitive businesses to the old steelmaking quarter to fulfill the urgent need for more jobs in the region.

Strategy: Today, the city, state, and federal governments have joined the effort to preserve the nearly 5000 acres left of the region’s natural spaces and attract less harmful business to the area. To transform the slag fields, the state is spreading sediment from Lake Peoria (largely topsoil that washed away during years of poor water management) on the slag fields to create a base for planting. Next, biologists seed the fields with alfalfa and rye grass, two crops that grow quickly, root deeply, and will help prevent erosion while sucking excess moisture from the wet soil. The roots can also penetrate existing cracks in the slag. The next year, biologists shape and landscape the area and plant a large part of it with native plants and smaller areas with grass more suitable for foot traffic and other park activities. At the same time, volunteer organizations invite citizens and students into the reclaimed areas to help cut down invasives and plant new native vegetation (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Eventually, the city hopes that the area will attract companies that are looking for real estate in pristine settings. The area will also lure birders, anglers, and boaters who see the place as a perfect recreational setting. Soon the Calumet will offer bicycle trails, public access to the wetlands area, and an active environmental center. The challenge will be to bring jobs/ economic activity back to the area (Wiland and Bell 2006).

‘Green Activities’: Restoring the Calumet Lake and River region – Calumet was once home to Chicago’s steel industry. Smokestacks emitted black smoke into the sky 24 hours a day, and the landscape was forever altered by the mounds of molten residuum (slag) that was dumped outside the factories. These factories are now decrepit and vacant and are joined by abandoned refineries, landfills and railroads (forming the highest percentage of Chicago’s vacant industrial buildings). Few realized that in the absence of humans, the original marshes and prairies of the lake and river were rebounding. Wildflowers sprang up in abandoned parking lots and in chinks of the tough slag. Herons, egrets, and cranes stalked fish in the Calumet’s murky waters (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Value Added/ Why Green: the city hopes that the area will attract companies that are looking for real estate in pristine settings (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Key Players: Grassroots organizations; nonprofits; city, state and federal govt., biologists; volunteer organizations; citizens

Environmental Goals: To preserve and restore the natural environment.

Outcomes (if applicable): In 1998, the National Park Service announced the Calumet was suitable for designation as a National Heritage Area. In 2000, the city and state announced that they would allocate funds to save the area. They split 232 the acreage in half with 3000 acres of the best land to be preserved for nature and 3000 acres of the already damaged or denuded fields to be set aside for appropriate industrial use. (The preserve area has since grown to 4,800 acres).

233 Case #21: LA’s Natural Infrastructure (Natural Infrastructure Restoration)

Location: Los Angeles, CA

Population: 2000- 3,694,820 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 46.9%; Black- 11.2%; Asian- 10%; Hispanic/ Latino- 46.5% (US Census Bureau)

LA grew up in an era in which people expected to have a backyard and a garden, and city officials and developers were disinclined to dedicate public open space, so not many areas were set aside for parks. Given rapid growth and increasing population density in Southern California, lack of parks and open space has become a severe problem (Wiland and Bell 2006). Former state public health officer states that “Two-thirds of the kids in LA cannot walk to a park. IF they don’t have a place to walk or run around, we have no business telling our kids to get in shape. Three-quarters of the kids in California cannot pass a basic fitness test, which is running one mile in 12 minutes” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 145). They are now realizing that people need to be around other people, they need to feel connected and a sense of belonging.

If there is one theme to the story of LA, it is that the human control of nature always causes bigger problems down the road. “The combination of deforestation and dependence on automobiles have contributed to LA’s infamously poor air quality” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 136). LA, for all its faults, for all its problems, is truly emblematic of many places in America. What happens here will ultimately happen throughout the US. The US population is growing and becoming more urban… (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Revitalization Goals: Create jobs, reduce concrete, and reconnect the community by providing public space.

Strategy: Restoring natural infrastructure of the LA River- When the water quality is healthy, other organs are too (i.e. habitat, recreation, community aesthetics). The River Project conducts 6-week programs in local schools to educate and involve students in river restoration. Kids assist in designing new parks and choosing the plant palette with the help of botanists, and then they go out into the field to pick up trash on the banks, erect interpretive signage, or remove invasive species (Wiland and Bell 2006, 166-168).

‘Green Activities’: Restoring natural infrastructure of LA River

Value Added/ Why Green: The river was the perfect vehicle for building a sense of community that they city lacked.

Key Players: Nonprofit organizations, city officials (i.e. public works), community

234 Environmental Goals: Improve air and water quality, work with nature to collect and store as much rain water as possible.

235 Case #22: Borough of Paulsboro Brownfield Redevelopment (Brownfield Redevelopment)

Location: Borough of Paulsboro, New Jersey

Population: 6,535 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: The 2.1-square-mile borough ranks 20 on the list of 100 most stressed municipalities in New Jersey with 21% of the population living below poverty level in 1990.

Background: The borough maintained a relatively small industrial base, with BP and Essex Chemical as 2 of its major industries. Paulsboro suffered an economic blow when these two entities ceased operation due to stricter environmental regulations. The closing of the Mobil plant in a neighboring town has further eroded employment. Lack of developable land is another impediment to its economic growth as most land use is residential.

The 150-acre BP property, the largest available land for industrial/commercial development is located directly across the Delaware River from the Philadelphia International Airport. The property served as an oil storage and distribution center.

Revitalization Goals: The recommended site development plan includes: - waterfront port development- including a 900-foot wharf structure that can accommodate mid-sea ocean-going vessels up to 800 ft in length. - Industrial/commercial development - River gateway- a commercial/retail development with public access to the riverfront - Open space- a green buffer to separate industrial uses from the surrounding neighborhood and creation of a neighborhood park. - A solar plant on the Essex-owned former gypsum landfill. The plant, the largest thin-film solar plant in the Northeast, will generate power for the operation of the on-site environmental remediation equipment.

Strategy: In an effort to dispose of unused properties around the nation, BP started investigating the possibility of alternative uses for the property. The company retained an engineering firm to conduct a market feasibility study to determine the highest and best use for the property. At the same time, BP initiated discussion with Essex Chemical about the adjacent property that was used as a gypsum landfill. Essex was receptive to BP’s suggestion for redevelopment of the area and pledged its willingness to follow suit with BP plans.

From the start, BP approached the borough about its plans. Because of the location of the site, one of the initial thoughts was to develop the site as a niche port. It was also important to make adequate provisions for public access to the waterfront.

One of the brownfield tools the federal government has made available to localities is the grants program. The EPA Brownfield Pilot grants provide $200,000 to municipalities and countries to conduct an inventory of the brownfield areas and investigate the extent of contamination in order to determine a remediation plan and future end uses. More than 300 localities have used these grants. In the Delaware Valley, all suburban counties in PA have been awarded an EPA Pilot grant to identify potential brownfield sites for development.

‘Green Activities’: Brownfield Redevelopment

Value Added/ Why Green: There’s a national trend in the redevelopment of brownfield properties because these properties offer distinct advantages such as being in or near densely populated areas that are supported by existing public infrastructure and mass transit, as well as frequently existing in neighborhoods rich in architectural and cultural heritage. The redevelopment allows economic development to take place in an area previously unused.

Key Players: EPA, BP Oil, city, citizens

Environmental Goals: Brownfield redevelopment

236 The recommended site development plan includes: - waterfront port development- including a 900-foot wharf structure that can accommodate mid-sea ocean-going vessels up to 800 ft in length. - Industrial/commercial development - River gateway- a commercial/retail development with public access to the riverfront - Open space- a green buffer to separate industrial uses from the surrounding neighborhood and creation of a neighborhood park.

A solar plant on the Essex-owned former gypsum landfill. The plant, the largest thin-film solar plant in the Northeast, will generate power for the operation of the on-site environmental remediation equipment.

237 Case #23: Centennial Olympic Park (Brownfield Redevelopment & Green Space)

Location: Atlanta, GA.

Population: 2000- 416,474 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000 White- 33.2%; Black- 61.4%; American Indian/Alaska Natives- 0.2%; Asian- 1.9%; Hispanic/ Latino- 4.5% (US Census Bureau)

Revitalization Goals: Focus on open space as it relates to the renewed competitive energy of inner cities as places for knowledge and service professionals to live and work, and as destinations for entertainment and tourism (Kemp 2006, 40).

Strategy: Georgia Congress Center Authority (GWCC), a state agency, created and now owns and manages Centennial Olympic Park. It employed an ad hoc 501(c )3 catalyst group- Centennial Olympic Park Area, Inc. (COPA), and using no public money (all private sector donations- contributions in the form of commemorative bricks, funds raised by the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce and local philanthropic grants- http://www.centennialpark.com/about/park_history.html ) assembled 60 acres of parking lots and other semi-brownfield downtown land fronting the GWCC’s key sports and convention locations at pre-Olympic prices no higher than $2/ sq ft. (Kemp 2006, 40).

‘Green Activities’: redeveloping impervious, brownfield land into park/open space

Value Added/ Why Green: The attraction of a “pure” real estate venture, allowing an imaginative leap from a wasteland to a prime parkside address that can, and here did, succeed by introducing revenue-generating activities. Make physical and visual connections among previously separated streets and neighborhoods, and providing a variety of magnet stages for daily activities and special events. Events hosted in the park, in addition to the normal day-to-day traffic, bring an estimated three million visitors to this urban oasis each year.

Key Players: Georgia Congress Center Authority (GWCC), a state agency; Committee for the Olympic Games; Centennial Olympic Park Area, Inc. (COPA); community.

Environmental Goals: Redevelop existing brownfield properties.

Definition of End Result (sustain community, eco-village, etc): Outcomes (if applicable): Partly developed as the 6-acre, $18 million centerpiece for the 1996 Olympics, the 21-acre park was finished the next yr for an added $12 million, with the remaining land made available for private, mixed-use development. Half the park is committed to projects ranging from super-luxury condos and a hotel to new facilities for CNN and the Coca-Cola Company, the value of the development is near $1 billion today. Property values are now $200/ ft and raising (Kemp 2006, 40).

Key ingredients include: Initial opportunity to acquire underused, semi-brownfield property near the CBD. Need to provide a better setting and better access for existing properties, in this case the Georgia Dome, convention center, and Phillips Arena. This need justified replacing derelict blocks with a park. The challenge and opportunity for presenting the 1996 Centennial Olympics, which was the galvanizing force that accelerated and focused the effort. The attraction of a “pure” real estate venture, allowing an imaginative leap from a wasteland to a prime parkside address that can, and here did, succeed handsomely. The chance to create a public amenity with 100% private funding through the quasi-public COPA as development agency and broker, and the quasi-private GWCC as park owner/manager. The unusual status of the property as a Georgia state park, which enabled special tax and zoning tools, and possible use of eminent domain. The existence of well-funded, interested neighbors like CNN and Coca- Cola. The unfulfilled market for downtown luxury housing, quality hotel rooms and other upscale mixed uses.

238 The market for revenue-generating activities in the park itself, from one-time outdoor fairs and corporate receptions to daily vendors, with natural synergy created by the adjacent sports and convention facilities. The city government, tourism/hospital industry, business community, and general public all eager to boost Atlanta’s image- and promote their own interests- with a new, photogenic urban setting (Kemp 2006, 41).

Represents the shift from the idea of the park as a refuge from the city’s bustle (Olmstead) to an area that actually adds bustle (via special events, recreational opportunities) and revives the downtown area with urban excitement.

Centennial Park is quickly becoming the center of a residential and commercial neighborhood. CNN has since moved the front of its building around to face the park- increasing economic value (Kemp 2006).

References: Kemp, R.L. ed. 2006. Cities and Nature: A Handbook for Renewal. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc. United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html Centennial Olympic Park. History of the Park. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://www.centennialpark.com/about/park_history.html

239 Case #24: Mill Race Park (Brownfield Redevelopment & Green Space)

Location: Columbus, Indiana

Population: 2000- 39,059 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 91.3%; Black- 2.7%; Asian- 3.2%; Hispanic/ Latino- 2.8% (US Census Bureau)

Background: Project area was once an industrial site and substandard housing area, called "Death Valley" by many locals. The property began as a natural wooded area of marginal quality and part of the flood plain of the confluence of two rivers. During the 1950s and 1960's the area was populated by rodents, disease and sub-standard housing. Located in a flood plain the homes were prone to flooding, creating an inhospitable place to live. Not surprisingly the area became known as Death Valley (Historic Columbus Indiana Message Board).

Revitalization Goals: To reclaim a floodplain and toxic waste site for community use and to provide support for downtown revitalization efforts.

Strategy: In the 1960s, the park site was purchased by the city and cleaned up, transforming it into the first iteration of Mill Race Park. In the late 1980s a redesign/update was awarded to Van Valkenburgh Associates, resulting in the completion of the current design of Mill Race Park in 1993 (Historic Columbus Indiana Message Board)

In 1992, 86 acres of downtown riverfront property was reclaimed in an effort that included the work of a 50-member committee of volunteers known as the "River Rats," Atterbury Job Corps workers and schoolchildren who collected pennies for the effort (Columbus Indiana).

Recognizing that the Park is intended to flood, the plant materials that were chosen by noted landscape architect Michael Van Valkenburgh are those that will not be destroyed by spring floods. The structural materials of the Park, designed by Stanley Saitowitz, are made from red steel tubing, concrete, glass block and corrugated metal that will withstand high water (Columbus Indiana).

The design process included a four-month planning period, during which the park designer met with community leaders, interested citizens, groups and even elementary- school children. The public consultations allowed the people to feel an involvement in the process, which aided the designer in creating a vision for the park (Kemp 2006).

Funding- Fundraisers raised $145,000 for purchase of 66 acres.

‘Green Activities’: Brownfield Redevelopment and Park Creation.

Value Added/ Why Green: a focal point for recreational activities (concerts and community activities) and a source of civic pride. The park’s design has attracted national attention, and the once swampy, sleepy bottomlands have been recalled to life with minimal public investment.

Key Players: City of Columbus, Van Valkenburgh Associates - the park designer, community leaders and citizens

Environmental Goals: To reclaim a floodplain and toxic waste site for community use and to provide support for downtown revitalization efforts.

Outcomes (if applicable): 85-acre park, located at the west end of downtown Columbus. Dedicated in 1992 and is now a focal point for concerts and community activities and a source of civic pride. The park’s design has attracted national attention, and the once swampy, sleepy bottomlands have been recalled to life with minimal public investment.

The park provides multiple recreational environments and opportunities (i.e. solitary walks to concerts). Facilities were provided that appeal to children (playground), teens (basketball court), and families (picnic shelters). The amphitheater, boat rental, fishing pier, lakes and trails attract a wide range of users. Events such as concerts, films and camps are also 240 held at the park and are controlled by the Columbus Arts Council (a nonprofit org) and the Columbus Parks and Recreation Dept (Kemp 2006).

Once an eyesore, now Mill Race Park is a community gathering place, a recreation and entertainment center and a green buffer zone to a bustling downtown. The project was one of Van Valkenburgh's early commissions. It won the award for outstanding new U.S. Park from Architectural Record in 1993 and an American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) Design Merit Award in 1994 (Columbus Indiana).

References: Kemp, R.L. ed. 2006. Cities and Nature: A Handbook for Renewal. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc. Columbus Indiana. Landscape Architect Michael Val Valkenburgh. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://www.columbus.in.us//static/index.cfm?contentID=203 Historic Columbus Indiana Message Board- Mill Race Park. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://columbusin.proboards34.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=millracepark&thread=248&page=1 United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

241 Case #25: Millennium Park (Brownfield Redevelopment)

Location: Chicago, IL Population: 2000- 2,896,016 (US Census Bureau) Demographics: 2000- White- 42%; Black- 36.8%; Asian- 4.3%; Hispanic/ Latino- 26% (US Census Bureau)

Revitalization Goals: Attract environmentally sensitive businesses to the old steelmaking quarter to fulfill the urgent need for more jobs in the region.

Strategy: An underground parking garage was first built to start earning revenue. Trains were also tucked below ground. The 4,500- space garage earned enough money to float municipal bonds which brought in $175 million. This garage was eventually covered with arguably the world’s largest green roof which reduces the amount of CO2 by about 115 pounds per year. The CEO of Sara Lee helped raise $30 million from major corporations and some of the better-known philanthropic Chicago families. The plans got more and more ambitious as the pledges trickled in. Donors got increasingly excited when they saw that world renowned artists and architects, Frank Gehry, were involved. The initial $30 million goal grew to $210 million. The project became a great example of successful public-private relationships. The final cost of the project totaled $475 million, including the trees, grass, structures and sculptures (made possible by contributions from private donors/corporations like BP, Exelon, SBC, Wrigley, and Chase (Wiland and Bell 2006, 32-35).

‘Green Activities’: Public Space

Value Added/ Why Green: Property that was once (one of the city’s biggest eyesores) a heavily-polluted industrial site located in a 20 ft-deep canyon of commuter trains and an 800 car parking lot was transformed into 25-acre Millennium Park. Small or large, parks build community. A city is enriched when its citizens have more places to hang out, visit with friends, and meet new people (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Key Players: Major corporations (i.e. Sara Lee, BP, Exelon, SBC, Wrigley, and Chase), City of Chicago, citizens, world renowned artists and architects, Frank Gehry

Environmental Goals: Attract environmentally sensitive businesses to the old steelmaking quarter to fulfill the urgent need for more jobs in the region.

242 Case #26: Philadelphia’s Brownfield Redevelopment (Brownfield Redevelopment)

Location: Philadelphia, PA

Population: 2000- 1,517,550 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 45%; Black- 43.23%; Am Indian/Alaskan- 0.3%; Asian- 4.5%; Hispanic. Latino- 8.5% (US Census Bureau)

Background: Hundreds of Municipalities in the US were developed along waterways to facilitate industrial development and transport of goods. The location helped these communities prosper, but also left them scarred with hundreds of abandoned, contaminated sites. Federal legislation and state efforts have helped many to reverse this trend and reuse these waterfront areas. Cities that have undertaken riverfront brownfield redevelopment include Brooklyn, Pittsburgh, Richmond, Virginia, Memphis, Cincinnati, Reno, Nevada and LA. Numerous smaller municipalities have also used creative financing and federal and state resources to reinvigorate their waterfronts.

The biggest hurdle in bringing these properties to better and higher uses is the perceived risk of contamination and the fear of liability for cleanup. Yet, redevelopment makes economic sense in the face of nationwide efforts to stop sprawl and to make use of existing infrastructure, for in-place infrastructure reduces the cost of redevelopment. In recent years, the EPA has helped communities overcome these barriers to redevelopment by providing financial assistance through grants and revolving loan funds and by publicizing brownfield redevelopment efforts.

The Philadelphia Metropolitan area was the slowest growing metropolitan area in the ‘90s according to the 2000 US Census. The city has lost most of its population to its suburbs, where a 3% population growth has led to a 33% increase in the development of greenfields. Philadelphia has struggled to become competitive with most metropolises around the nation. Although the city is home to two rivers, most of the city’s redevelopment efforts ignored that potential, leaving the riverfront areas to trash, crumbling factories, and other unwanted uses.

Revitalization Goals: To cleanup brownfield properties to increase activity along the waterfront.

Strategy: In 2001, the City Planning Commission developed a plan to convert an 11-mile underutilized area along the Delaware into residential and recreational uses, allowing the public greater access to the water. The cost of clean-up for the area is estimated to be at least $250 million.

Overall visions for the North Delaware Riverfront include: - a trail and a linear river park - a river road with public access to the river - thousands of new residential and commercial units

These visions will require zoning changes and incentives to entice suburban developers. The EPA also agreed to provide technical assistance and guidance through its regional Smart Growth Agreement with the City of Philadelphia. The city committed funding from its neighborhood economic stimulus fund to bring to fruition.

‘Green Activities’: Brownfield redevelopment along the riverfront. The proposal included an incremental clean-up strategy, including phytoremediation- a remediation technique that uses plants to remove or stabilize contaminants- transforming the blighted landscape into flowering fields.

Use of porous pavement on roadways, wetland/vegetative swales along the roads, green infiltration trenching along street, bike trails and parking areas for water quality improvement that will reduce the need for wastewater treatment infrastructure.

The plan also proposed a trail and riverfront park.

243 Value Added/ Why Green: There’s a national trend in the redevelopment of brownfield properties because these properties offer distinct advantages such as being in or near densely populated areas that are supported by existing public infrastructure and mass transit, as well as frequently existing in neighborhoods rich in architectural and cultural heritage. The redevelopment allows economic development to take place in an area previously unused.

Key Players: City, US EPA, Delaware River Port Authority (created many of the existing tourist attractions along the river)

Environmental Goals: Clean-up underutilized, contaminated land to spur development along the riverfront.

244 Case #27: Camden Brownfield Redevelopment (Brownfield Redevelopment & Mixed Use)

Location: Camden, New Jersey Population: 2000- 79,904 (US Census Bureau) Demographics: 2000- White- 16.8%; Black- 53.3%; Am Indian/ Alaskan- 0.5%; Asian- 2.5%; Hispanic/ Latino- 38.8% (US Census Bureau)

Background: Camden, once a bustling industrial port, is home to RCA and Campbell Soup Company. Camden is the poorest municipality in New Jersey and among the poorest in the nation, with an annual unemployment rate of 12% and a median household income of $23,421. The downtown area used to serve as a tourist destination with hotels, taverns, pleasure gardens, and residences. With the economic shift from manufacturing to service and river transport giving way to other alternative modes of transportation, Camden slid into decline. Camden began to turn around in 1984 with the establishment of the Cooper’s Ferry Development Association by the city, the Campbell Soup Company, RCA, and other private companies, and government and civic leaders. Since then, the waterfront has been transformed into an entertainment mecca with the infusion of millions of public dollars. Revitalization Goals: Riverfront brownfield redevelopment. Funding: The Delaware River Port Authority of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, a regional transportation and economic development agency, and owner and operator of four of the river bridges, has financed most of the developments. Is had invested more than $200 million in waterfront projects on both sides of the river. It provided $2.5million during the summer of 2002 for the completion of the pier and visitors center for USS New Jersey battleship, one of the latest tourist attractions in Camden. $32 million was spent on a tram to link Philadelphia’s Penn’s Landing to the Camden waterfront (Kemp 2006). The State of New Jersey funded $52M for the development of the New Jersey State Aquarium (Kemp 2006).

‘Green Activities’: Mixed-use development; brownfield redevelopment

Key Players: City, Delaware River Port Authority of Pennsylvania and New Jersey Environmental Goals: Brownfield redevelopment into mixed-use development Outcomes (if applicable): End result included an aquarium, a 4-acre $9 million horticultural playland, a $56 million indoor-outdoor entertainment facility that can seat up to 25,000 people, and a minor league baseball stadium (Campbell Fields).

245 Case #28: Hartford’s Riverfront Redevelopment (Brownfield Redevelopment & Mixed-Use)

Location: Hartford, Connecticut

Population: 2000- 121,578 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 27.7%; Black- 38.1%; Am Indian/Alaskan Native- 0.5%; Asian- 1.6%; Hispanic/ Latino- 40.5% (US Census Bureau)

Background: The migration from cities to the suburbs have created new, autonomous societies but have left depleted urban areas in their wake, in effect creating two separate and not so equal societies; the wrenching evolution from a manufacturing to a service-oriented economy has cost jobs and businesses but also has held promise of new opportunities for those equipped to take advantage of them.

Hartford wants to salvage what many have seen as a dying city. It has been drastically affected by the socio-economic changes and has been plagued by financial downturns, a school system seen as racially segregated and bereft of resources, reigns of terror by warring gangs, and a steady drain of its population to the perceived safety of the suburbs (Kemp 2006).

Harford also has advantages as a rich, multiethnic core population, a thriving arts and entertainment scene, long- established neighborhoods that feed into the downtown sector, and the invaluable resource of the Connecticut River (Kemp 2006).

Revitalization Goals: Several proposed projects to spur economic development downtown and potentially spill over into surrounding neighborhoods include:

Strategy: Seeking $500 million in private funding and pursuing some $150 million in federal funding to cover envi cleanup at the proposed site, housing and transportation costs. A feasibility study must also be done and the city must agree to donate land, which encompasses the old Hartford Times building (Kemp 2006).

Work must be done to develop architectural plans, raising public portion of the funding, and drumming up support for the project among business people, community groups and developers.

Adriaen’s Landing, a billion-dollar, multi-faceted development complex that would encompass a good portion of downtown near to and linking with the river. It includes a convention center and stadium; a 700-room convention hotel; a 14-screen movie complex; a Riverfront Discovery Center with aquarium; space station and history museum; affordable housing; and a network of shops, nightclubs and other recreational amenities (pedestrian riverfront arcade, multiuse sports complex and intermodal transportation system) (Kemp 2006).

Adriaen’s Landing is estimated to create 7,000 jobs (Kemp 2006).

Have been working to connect Hartford to the River in the form of a walkway (open to pedestrians, bikers and joggers) and construction of a promenade. Other plans call for grassy terraces descending to the river from the plaza with areas that could seat up to 2,000 people for performances and other special events. A bulkhead is also planned to be built along the river’s edge to allow excursion boats and water taxis to operate from downtown (Kemp 2006).

‘Green Activities’: Redeveloping contaminated land into multi-use center that focuses attention on the river.

Value Added/ Why Green: Converting previously vacant and contaminated property in a prime commercial location in to a use that brings in money and creates a sense of place where people are attracted.

Key Players: City, Robert W. Fiondeila (president, chairman and chief executive officer of Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Co.)- proposed Adriaen’s Landing, Greater Hartford Growth Council (econ development agency), Riverfront Recapture (working to connect the city to the river for past 20 years), citizens.

246 Environmental Goals: Redeveloping contaminated land into multi-use center that focuses attention on the river.

247 Case #29: Chattanooga Mall (Mixed-Use, Green Space, & Pedestrian-Friendly)

Location: Chattanooga, TN

Population: 2000- 155,554 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 59.7%; Black- 36.1%; Asian- 1.5%; Hispanic/ Latino- 2.1% (US Census Bureau)

Revitalization Goals: Revitalize 4 sq miles in the inner suburban ring anchored by the city’s oldest suburban mall, long in decline.

Background: When Eastgate Mall opened 35 years ago, it drew shoppers, stores and economic vitality from downtown Chattanooga to the developing suburbs. Ten years ago, the cycle continued as the larger Hamilton Place mall open several miles further out, drawing economic vitality away from Eastgate and the surrounding area. But last year, with a new mayor and a new mall owner, the fortunes of Eastgate’s declining mall and surrounding suburb began to change. Now “urban” redevelopment is following in the aftermath of suburban sprawl (Kemp 2006).

The Mayor requested that the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency develop a plan to revitalize Brainerd (the area surrounding Eastgate Mall).

Strategy: A consulting team was selected for a planning study to be managed by the regional planning agency but funded primarily by the stakeholder group the agency assembled. The winning proposal suggested forming a multidisciplinary team (including a traffic planner, economic planner and retail planning) (Kemp 2006).

A public design week-long charrette was held by the regional planning agency that drew 300 residents and business owners to help create a vision (draft plan) for the mall and surrounding area. The public ideas recognized that more development would help build their way out of the problem. (Typically communities see development as the cause of such problems and seek to limit future development). It is important to have supportive citizens in the redevelopment process (Kemp 2006).

The plan called for creating a town center and embedding it in a street grid with new office, retail and residential construction. The mall’s exterior would be refaced with outward-facing storefronts. Much of the 50 acres of parking will be used for new housing, parks, civic buildings, and a town square. The plan also reshapes Bainerd Road, the pedestrian-hostile arterial street on which the mall fronts, which currently has seven lanes and no sidewalks (Kemp 2006).

Funding: Private sector stakeholders funding 80% of the study included 40%-leased Eastgate Mall, fully leased Brainerd Village strip center next door, Osborne Office Park adjacent to the mall, and other businesses and banks in the area (Kemp 2006).

‘Green Activities’: Transformation of a declining mall to a mixed-use town center (a hybrid of a main street and a mall). Robert Gibbs, an economic planner on the project states that “there is a huge movement right now in retailing to go back to main street. Today all the national chains are looking for space on main street. The shopping centers are learning from the cities” (Kemp 2006, 73). The viable market area- a solid neighborhood, mature residential community, a lot of office space, excellent visibility, and vehicular access- was helpful in marketing the proposal (Kemp 2006).

The plan also proposes to connect the town square to existing residential and office development abutting the mall by cutting the mall in half with a new and a greenway. This greenway will increase the level of pedestrian activity in the once auto-dominated, pedestrian-hostile environment.

The study also calls for no new highway access for the mall.

Value Added/ Why Green: economic planner on the project states that “there is a huge movement right now in retailing to go back to main street. Today all the national chains are looking for space on main street. The shopping centers are 248 learning from the cities” (Kemp 2006, 73). The viable market area- a solid neighborhood, mature residential community, a lot of office space, excellent visibility, and vehicular access- was helpful in marketing the proposal.

Key Players: Mayor, Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency, public (residents and business owners). Partnerships and working relationships have been established among local government officials, planners and business owners.

Environmental Goals: Revitalize a declining mall and its surrounding neighborhood with a town center, parks and greenways to establish a pedestrian-friendly community.

Outcomes (if applicable): They envision a highly active center with many strong national and local tenants and potentially a complementary shopping destination for out-of-town visitors.

249 Case #30: Cambridge University Park (Mixed Use & Green Space)

Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts

Population: 2000- 101,355 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 68.1%; Black- 11.9%; Asian- 11.9%; Hispanic/ Latino- 7.4% (US Census Bureau).

Revitalization Goals: Return blighted, unused industrial land to productive use. Forest City Enterprises proposed a mixed- use site with commercial and residential (including a minimum of 400 units and a significant affordable housing component) use (Kemp 2006).

Strategy: In the 1970s, MIT began acquiring land adjacent to its campus for the development of a corporate office research and development (R&D) park that would help accelerate the transfer of technology into the commercial marketplace. In 1983, MIT selected Forest-City Enterprises to develop University Park at MIT. Forest City also owns and operates the development under a long-term lease (Kemp 2006).

The 27-acre corporate campus is located in the heart of Cambridge and is a lively integrated community of offices, laboratories, restaurants, shops, a hotel, grocery store, residences, and parks.

The first office was located in a rehabilitated shoe factory. 142 loft-style residences were located in a renovated cookie bakery. Created a special zoning district for the University Park.

The Cambridge market has long been propelled by technology companies that are attracted to the area because of the presence of MIT and Harvard. Forest City’s strategy for University Park was to develop buildings that would be sufficiently flexible to address the evolving needs of high-tech companies as they matured, while responding to fundamental shifts in the high-tech industry over time (Kemp 2006).

The first University Park building targeted the high-tech industries that had populated Cambridge for the past 30 years (i.e. defense, computer, and software firms) and those that were growing (biotechnology). Biotech firms now occupy 90% of the 700,000 sq ft of the park’s R&D space because of their growing success in the area (Kemp 2006).

The public voiced strong desires for green open spaces for the neighborhood. Vice President for planning and project development with Forest City, Peter Calkins, stated that “because we’re in a dense, urban location, our intent was to create a research park with its own identity that, over time, would knit into the adjacent neighborhood structure” (Kemp 2006, 63). The University Park Common became the centerpiece of the interconnecting open-space system and the heart and soul of the master plan. This area would become the common ground for both Cambridge residents and University Park office and scientific workers, rather than as a corporate enclave, isolated from the neighborhood. The landscape architecture firm worked with the community to create a space that would be used (Kemp 2006).

‘Green Activities’: Mixed-Use development including park space.

Value Added/ Why green: The mixed-use development concept has been an important draw for many anchor tenants. Nearby public transit and on-site housing along with such conveniences as the supermarket, hotel, daycare facilities, and restaurants, appeal to prospective residents and employees. “The central location and proximity of the hotel makes University Park attractive for recruiting purposes” (Kemp 2006, 60) says Janet Bush, Millennium’s vice president of finance. The development of a market-rate apartment building will better enhance the development’s open space and encourage greater use of the park, restaurants, and shops after business hours.

Key Players: Forest City (developer), the city of Cambridge, and MIT entered into a series of development agreements governing specific issues- traffic generation and mitigation, housing obligations, and roadway improvements- that may be changed only by mutual consent of all 3 parties. University Park represented the first the first use of development agreements to augment the city’s zoning process. Koetter Kim & Associates (architecture firm), Tsoi/Kobus & Associates (architecture firm) and Halvorson Company, Inc. (landscape architecture firm). 250 Environmental Goals: Return blighted, unused industrial land to productive use.

Outcomes (if applicable): University Park is now considered a common ground for neighborhood residents, university scientists, and office workers. The 1.3-acre park is the centerpiece of a new, mixed-use neighborhood developed next to MIT (Kemp 2006).

The development of a market-rate apartment building will better enhance the development’s open space and encourage greater use of the park after business hours. The area’s robust housing market, along with Cambridge’s repeal of rent control, is prompting Forest City to build 246 additional residences beyond its original obligation of 400 units. Besides offering employees nearby living accommodations, a number of University Park companies lease apartments for use by out-of-town employees, consultants, and customers (Kemp 2006).

References:

Kemp, R.L. ed. 2006. Cities and Nature: A Handbook for Renewal. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc. United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

251 Case #31: Grand Forks Redevelopment (Mixed-Use & Green Space)

Location: Grand Forks, North Dakota

Population: 2000- 49,321 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 93.3%; Black- 0.9%; Am Indian/ Alaskan Native- 2.8%; Asian- 1.0%; Hispanic/ Latino- 1.9% (US Census Bureau).

Revitalization Goals: Cleaning up and rebuilding the local economy after intense flooding.

Background: The winter of 1996-1997 left the city under 100 inches of snow. Spring brought more blizzards, followed by warming and heavy rains. The rains and melting snow caused the rivers to overflow (the Red River rose to 55 ft above sea level- more than double the 26-foot flood wall). More than 2/3 of Grand Forks was under water and nearly all of the city’s 50,000 citizens had to be evacuated. The city water system was contaminated, and the sewage treatment plant had to be shut down. The downtown was in even worse shape. Streets, basements, and the first floors of all buildings were flooded with sewage-fouled floodwater, mud, and debris. Fires raged in 11 downtown buildings. When the floodwaters finally receded, the city began the arduous job of cleaning up and rebuilding. HUD offered $171 million in aid and services of the ULI advisory services panel to the city (Kemp 2006). Since the flood, many of the businesses that had remained downtown (after suburban flight) have relocated, have closed completely, or are in temporary space and have no definite plans for permanent relocation. Although government offices and schools are expected to rebuild in their existing downtown locations, the future of many of the retailers and professional service firms is uncertain. This status gave the city an opportunity to ask basic questions about the role and function of downtown as they essentially have to start from scratch (Kemp 2006).

Strategy: The city’s charge to the ULI panel was to determine, in the light of current market conditions and trends, what role downtown Grand Forks should play in the regional economy and to suggest rebuilding strategies that would enable it to fulfill that role. The ULI panel advised that downtown Grand Forks be redeveloped in a way that asserts its historic role as the symbolic, physical, and functional “heart” of the region. To that end, the panel envisioned the city core as an exciting gathering place, with restaurants, specialty shops, entertainment, and festivals; public open space along the river; governmental, educational, and financial offices; and housing that offers easy access to downtown amenities, and, when possible, views of the river. The proposal also included a traditional town square that would serve as the main public space and focal point for the entire community (Kemp 2006). The panel found that downtown Grand Forks has an essentially strong and stable economy founded on agriculture, retail trade, wholesale distribution, aerospace technology, and education. Key economic forces include the University of North Dakota with 13,000 students, faculty, and staff and Grand Forks Air Force Base, which employs 12,500 people. The city also functions as a metropolitan service center and provides retail stores and services to a 17- county area of 210,000 people in eastern N. Dakota and western Minnesota (Kemp 2006). The urban core has many strengths on which to build- millions of public dollars have been invested in buildings, infrastructure, and community facilities which include a central high school, the city hall, the county courthouse and admin offices, public safety offices, and a federal building. There also has been significant private sector investment. Despite the flood, underground utilities were in reasonably good condition. There was little crime, and the city was considered safe. The CBD is surrounded by generally stable and well preserved neighborhoods. Downtown had also remained a viable and affordable residential location. Before the flood, multifamily housing downtown served the needs of the elderly and university students. The generally affordable units were typically fully occupied and waiting lists were common (Kemp 2006). The panel proposed a conceptual land use plan for downtown Grand Forks that included a flood protection system; creation of exciting public spaces along the river, including a traditional town square; clustering of land uses by development type; and streetscape and infrastructure improvements. The Park would include natural flora landscaping (native?), pedestrian promenades, hard-surface hiking and jogging paths, and baseball/football fields (Kemp 2006). The panel recommended the city allocate $50- 70 million of CDBG funds for rebuilding. The use of public funds would be essential for stimulating both initial revitalization projects and private investment (Kemp 2006).

252 ‘Green Activities’: Mixed-use, cluster redevelopment of a town square along the riverfront (focus on the river to create a sense of place). Park creation to draw focus to the river.

Value Added/ Why Green: greening provides a source of new job skills, brings communities together to work toward a common goal, calms traffic, reduces heat and air pollution, improves habitat, and contributes to scientific knowledge of natural systems.

Key Players: HUD, ULI, city, River Forks Commission (RFC)- responsible for marketing and promoting downtown, river-related events, and the region using delegated legal powers and responsible for developing the Red River Park; Downtown Development Committee (DDC)- a public/private subcommittee of RFC to create and implement the plans and budget for rebuilding downtown Grand Forks (and encourage stronger private activity).

Other: In Chicago, urban greening is not undertaken with the sole purpose of aesthetic improvement; it is also an important and recognized component of the city’s urban infrastructure and is considered imperative for good quality of life in all of Chicago’s 77 communities (Kemp 2006, 78).

In Chicago, greening provides a sources of new job skills, brings communities together to work toward a common goal, calms traffic, reduces heat and air pollution, improves habitat, and contributes to scientific knowledge of natural systems.

From a range of agencies in Chicago, to nonprofit conservation agencies, green-industry businesses, and a professional arboriculture association, the reason that Chicago is so green, and so well known for being green, is the many successful collaborations that exist.

253 Case #32: Lake Worth Beach Restoration (Mixed Use & Open Space)

Location: Lake Worth, Florida

Population: 2000- 35,133 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 65.1%; Black- 18.9%; Am Indian/Alaskan- 0.8%; Asian- 0.7%; Hispanic/ Latino- 29.7% (US Census Bureau)

Background: The beach has been the center of Lake Worth community life since before the city was founded in 1913. A Mediterranean/revival-style casino and bath built on the site in 1922 were largely destroyed by a hurricane in 1947. Remnants of the original gambling casino survive within the shell of the 1949 casino replacement building, but the current structure has no historical significance. Also in 1949, the entire beach was scraped clean of native vegetation and converted to a vast surface parking lot to accommodate large numbers of tourists. As of 2001, 80% of the beach was paved. A freshwater pool was added in 1971 to replace an original saltwater pool that was filled in behind the casino building the same year (Kemp 2006).

The effects of more than a half century of use are evident in the shabby condition of most of the beach facilities. There have been several efforts to rally public support to improve its appearance over the years. In 1981, the Lake Worth City Commission solicited a comprehensive redevelopment plan, which was debated, changed, and ultimately abandoned 4 years later. Conditions continued to deteriorate until the mid 1990s when the beach became a matter of public discussion once again. After much discussion, the mayor and city commission formed a shared vision for the beach- a core master plan produced by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) and refined by a specially appointed beach steering committee, as well as Lake Worth residents (Kemp 2006).

Citizens had clearly stated that the beach should be considered a public space and not be turned into a mall or hotel resort (Kemp 2006).

Revitalization Goals: To redevelop the beach.

Strategy: A core master plan was produced by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) and refined by a specially appointed beach steering committee, as well as Lake Worth residents.

A charette organized by the TCRPC was held with designers, planners, and various public interest groups in March 2000, and a preliminary plan was drawn up 3 months later. The city embraced the plan and appointed a beach steering committee in September 2000 to improve it. Local planner Frank Palen led the 16-member committee, with the nine- member city planning and zoning board at its core, augmented by a mix of professionals and interested citizens.

Palen conducted a survey to determine the public perception of the beach. The steering committee proposed a policy plan (not a physical plan) by May 23, 2000. Incorporated visions for an economic, physical and social asset.

Funding: General obligation bond (which is reliant on citizen support). The city plans to ask citizens for $19 million. Will try to ask Washington for a $1 million endowment or obtain money from a private source (Kemp 2006).

‘Green Activities’: Mixed-use space -retail, restaurants, conference and banquet space, public locker rooms, a lifeguard station, parking garage, picnic pavilion, restrooms, a fishing pier, pool equipment building and common areas. Open space is crucial with abundant landscaping. The previous multiple-lane road along the beach will be redeveloped into a tree-lined, old-fashioned single-lane avenue/promenade where pedestrians can feel more secure and welcome (Kemp 2006).

Key Players: City mayor, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC), city planning and zoning board, city planners, private developer (Schwab, Twitty & Hanser Architectural Group), interested citizens.

References: 254 Kemp, R.L. ed. 2006. Cities and Nature: A Handbook for Renewal. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc. United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

255 Case #33: LA’s Green Infrastructure (Green Infrastructure)

Location: Los Angeles, CA

Population: 2000- 3,694,820 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 46.9%; Black- 11.2%; Asian- 10%; Hispanic/ Latino- 46.5% (US Census Bureau)

LA grew up in an era in which people expected to have a backyard and a garden, and city officials and developers were disinclined to dedicate public open space, so not many areas were set aside for parks. Given rapid growth and increasing population density in Southern California, lack of parks and open space has become a severe problem (Wiland and Bell 2006). Former state public health officer states that “Two-thirds of the kids in LA cannot walk to a park. IF they don’t have a place to walk or run around, we have no business telling our kids to get in shape. Three-quarters of the kids in California cannot pass a basic fitness test, which is running one mile in 12 minutes” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 145). They are now realizing that people need to be around other people, they need to feel connected and a sense of belonging.

If there is one theme to the story of LA, it is that the human dominance of nature always causes bigger problems down the line (Wiland and Bell 2006). “The combination of deforestation and dependence on automobiles have contributed to LA’s infamously poor air quality” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 136). LA, for all its faults, for all its problems, is truly emblematic of many places in America. What happens here will ultimately happen throughout the US. The US population is growing and becoming more urban… (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Revitalization Goals: Create jobs, reduce concrete, and reconnect the community by providing public space.

Strategy: installing cisterns throughout the city and building swales to absorb the water into the ground. While the initial costs are more expensive, the city would save money that was once used to buy water from other cities. The TREES (transagency resources for environmental and economic sustainability) was created to design a “natural” retrofit for LA and create a software program that could show what different green infrastructure scenarios would cost as well as the benefits they would offer (Wiland and Bell 2006, 156- 159).

The US Army Corps of Engineers was planning to raise the concrete walls of the LA River again to prevent flooding- a $0.5 billion project. If the city could use a more sustainable solution to its water problem, the money saved could be used to create more jobs for its citizens (Wiland and Bell 2006).

This project addressed several major air- and water-quality problems facing LA. Each solution was integrated with the other. They include: 256 - Problem: green waste. Solution: residents and schools would mulch their waste on-site and feed their beds (reducing 40% of the waste stream- 154). - Problem: too much/too little water. Solution: hundreds of thousands of gallons would be captured and stored during storms or else fed into the ground to recharge reservoirs and aquifers. - Problem: polluted water. Solution: driveways and parking lots would be designed to filter out toxins. - Problem: high energy demands. Solution: trees and grass would shade homes and schools, reducing the demand for air conditioning. - Problem: poor air quality. Solution: the new urban forest would filter out particulates and CO2 (Wiland and Bell 2006, 162-163).

Problem: job creation. Solution: the retrofit of 2,700 acres encompassing 8000 homes would require the employment of tons of people of different skill levels, from trained engineers and technicians to competent landscapers and day laborers. In following years, trees would need to be tended, cisterns maintained, filtering systems installed or repaired, grass mown, and green waste mulched (Wiland and Bell 2006, 163).

TREES used a test subject- a small single-family house that they could install their green infrastructure techniques. They installed a dry well at the end of the driveway. Rainwater rolls down the driveway to a small grate and falls into a chamber, where it is filtered and then released in to the ground. Drain spouts that had expelled rain water into the street were repositioned so they send water into the owner’s garden. The edges of the front and back yard were raised to form a bowl shape. Water collects here and gently seeps into the earth. In the backyard, TreePeople installed 2 1,700-gallon cisterns made of recycled plastic. The 2 green boxes huddle against the side fence, collecting water from a drain spout that runs down from the roof. The yard looked about the same as it did before the upgrade (Wiland and Bell 2006, 158- 159).

TREES invited the press and public works officials to the demonstration. They simulated a flashflood over the property and none of the water ended up on the street (159). While this method would cost $100- 300 million (2-6 times the cost of the original storm drain), the city would save $200 million from using their own water rather than buying it from another city and $30 million would be saved by mulching green waste rather than paying to send it to a dump (Wiland and Bell 2006, 162).

‘Green Activities’: Green Infrastructure-

Value Added/ Why Green: While this method would cost $100- 300 million (2-6 times the cost of the original storm drain), the city would save $200 million from using their own water rather than buying it from another city and $30 million would be saved by mulching green waste rather than paying to send it to a dump (162).

Key Players: Nonprofit organizations (TreePeople, TREES), city officials (i.e. public works), community

Environmental Goals: Improve air and water quality, work with nature to collect and store as much rain water as possible.

257 Case #34: Eden Place (Environmental Education)

Location: Chicago, IL (Fuller Park neighborhood)

Population: 2000- 2,896,016 (Chicago- US Census Bureau); 3,420 (Encyclopedia of Chicago)

Demographics: 2000 (City)- White- 42%; Black- 36.8%; Asian- 4.3%; Hispanic/ Latino- 26% (US Census Bureau)

2000 (neighborhood)- White- 1.3%; Black- 94.7%; Asian- 0.2%; Other- 2.3% (Encyclopedia of Chicago).

Fuller Park has always been home to the poor: in 1950, 24 percent of the community lacked indoor toilets. In the 1950s the community was overrun and split by the Dan Ryan Expressway, which displaced one-third of the population. The 1950s also saw the erosion of the local economy as trucking and interstate highways rendered the centralized Union Stock Yard unnecessary (Encyclopedia of Chicago). In the 1960s, the Union Stock Yard was in decline, eventually closing in 1971 and eliminating many jobs in the stockyards area. At the same time, thousands of southern African Americans migrated north each year and encountered a segregated housing market that restricted them to areas of the city's South and West Sides. Fuller Park saw its population change from 80 percent white in 1945 to 97 percent black in 1970, declining in total numbers from 17,174 in 1950 to 4,364 by 1990. From 1975 to 1990, there was a net loss of 41.5 percent of jobs in the stockyards area, including nearly 45 percent of all manufacturing jobs. Since 1969, no new housing, public or private, has been built in the community. In the same period, only 12 permits for commercial development were granted by the city. During the 1980s, Fuller Park received fewer bank loans for home improvement purposes than any neighborhood in Chicago (Encyclopedia of Chicago).

While there are many longtime homeowners who either cannot or do not want to leave, over two-thirds of the community's 2,000-unit housing stock is rental. The poverty rate is over 40 percent and single mothers head a large number of families. Yet renewal efforts persist as the Neighbors of Fuller Park attempt to recover the neighborhood's rich architectural history. These efforts include the rehabilitation of the park, including its central fountain, courtyard, and fieldhouse. In the early 1990s, a shopping center was developed between the Dan Ryan Expressway and the Metra tracks just west of the Robert Taylor Homes and adjacent to Garfield Boulevard (Encyclopedia of Chicago).

Revitalization Goals: Attract environmentally sensitive businesses to the old steelmaking quarter to fulfill the urgent need for more jobs in the region. To recover the neighborhood's rich architectural history.

Strategy: Neighbors organized and local contractors donated earthmovers, dump trucks, bulldozers, and backhoes. Together they picked the block clean, sending the refuse (including 23 tons of concrete) to a certified waste disposal site (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Funding: $3,000 earned in a fund-raiser was used as Fuller Park residents bought several tons of topsoil to cap off the existing soil (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Slowly, they began to transform the block into Eden Place, a wildlife preserve and nature education center, complete with its own prairie, wetlands, nature pond, savanna, Indian village, farmyard with farm animals, and extensive vegetable garden (Wiland and Bell 2006, 60-62).

258 ‘Green Activities’: Public Involvement/ Education – It was found that a block in Fuller Park neighborhood was contaminated with lead and asbestos. The EPA confirmed but neither the city nor the federal government would do anything more. Neighbors and local contractors organized to clean up the block and turn it into an environmental education center Wiland and Bell 2006).

Key Players: Grassroots organizations, nonprofits, state, federal govt., City of Chicago, citizens, local contractors

Environmental Goals: Attract environmentally sensitive businesses to the old steelmaking quarter to fulfill the urgent need for more jobs in the region.

References: Encyclopedia of Chicago. Fuller Park. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/490.html United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html Wiland, H. and Bell, D. 2006. Edens Lost & Found. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

259 Case #35: Sustainable Cleveland Corporate Roundtable (CRT) (Environmental Education)

Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Population: 2000 Census- 478,403 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: White- 41.5%; A.A- 51%; Asian- 1.3%; Hispanic/Latino- 7.3% (US Census Bureau)

Two identified problems for neighborhood and community organizations are: 1) residents of these communities have little or no access to the environmental decision making process and 2) local residents often do not have access to the information, tools and resources needed to make decisions. In order for residents of low-income and communities of color to become a part of the environmental decision making process, these communities must have the information, resources, and tools to participate meaningfully in the decisions that affect their health, safety, and environment. By providing information access, technical assistance, and pollution prevention tools to Cleveland residents, this project will empower neighborhood residents to work toward a safer and cleaner environment for all people, regardless of race or class (Sustainable Cleveland Partnership).

The Sustainable Cleveland Partnership (SCP) program is a local initiative in neighborhood-based environmental protection for low-income and/or minority communities. In the framework of environmental justice, sustainable development, and pollution prevention, SCP training workshops (more than 25 held to date) have included such modules as the right-to-know laws, environmental risk regulation and reduction, environmental audits of specific neighborhoods, Title V air permit program, and more. SCP organizes tours of industrial parks, participates in public hearings and media events, leads citizen campaigns on pollution prevention for large stationary sources, and builds capacity in a variety of minority constituent groups including citizens’ councils, street and block clubs, community centers and development associations, and schools and churches (Earth Day Coalition).

Revitalization Goals: The partners in the Sustainable Cleveland Partnership envision clean, healthy, and safe neighborhoods that benefit all of our residents. The Sustainable Cleveland Partnership will 1) develop and implement a replicable model environmental information access system in several Cleveland neighborhoods to help citizens create positive environmental change in their communities, and, 2) develop collaborations between community residents, organizations, universities and regulators. This model will be disseminated to other Cleveland and Great Lakes region neighborhoods to assist others in improving information access in their communities (Sustainable Cleveland Partnership).

Strategy: Sustainable Cleveland convened in 2002 as a partnership between Dave Nash, an environmental attorney with experience and relationships in the corporate community, and Lisa Hong, a business and civic entrepreneur, environmental advocate, and former lobbyist who brings knowledge and contacts in the entrepreneurial and non-profit sectors. Capitalizing on their respective expertise and networks, Dave and Lisa formed Sustainable Cleveland, a Community Action Team to spur sustainable economic development in Northeast Ohio. The group bases its work on the premise that leveraging social and professional relationship networks can further a civic organization’s mission quickly, cost-effectively, and with significant community impact (Sustainable Cleveland).

260 1. Facilitate the adoption of sustainability practices in the Northeast Ohio corporate community to create economic value and optimize the region’s natural and social capital assets. 2. Unite the collective leadership voice of Northeast Ohio’s corporate sustainability leaders to highlight and apply sustainability values and strategies to regional economic development and civic leadership initiatives. 3. Demonstrate a model of cross-sector collaborative leadership that positions Northeast Ohio as a sustainable solutions leader (Sustainable Cleveland).

Sustainable Cleveland operates on the “Community Action Team,” model, guided by the following principles: 1. We strive to implement the Triple Bottom Line of sustainable development, creating value by integrating and uniting financial, environmental and social assets. Value will be demonstrated through improved competitive advantage, high return on investment, job creation, environmental protection, and strengthening of the social and community fabric. 2. The most robust and innovative solutions result from dialogue and collaborative action among teams comprising multiple stakeholder viewpoints and areas of expertise. We aim to focus on the best solutions, and “hold the center” among stakeholder interests. 3. Sustainability “champions” are critical to implementation of our vision and mission. We seek to support, engage with or create such champions in the corporate and civic arenas (Sustainable Cleveland).

‘Green Activities’/ Initiatives: Sustainable Cleveland Corporate Roundtable (CRT) (Sustainable Cleveland Partnership)

Convened with the Nance College of Business at Cleveland State University, this group of business leaders meets monthly for peer learning about best practices and innovation in corporate and community sustainability. Sustainable Cleveland serves as a neutral, “honest broker,” offering knowledge resources to assist in participants’ exploration of sustainability and what it means for their businesses. Discussion focuses on enhancing economic, environmental and social values through sustainable practices, products, technology, and strategy.

Steve Percy, retired CEO of BP America and Steering Committee Member, serves as the primary facilitator for this invitation-only forum of participants comprising many of the region’s largest national and multi-national corporate citizens who maintain global or division headquarters in Northeast Ohio. Round table discussions explore such topics as sustainable supply chains, corporate sustainability models in use today, and business opportunities in climate-friendly technologies.

The Sustainable Cleveland Corporate Round table is a safe space for our members to learn about effective stakeholder engagement, a key piece to corporate sustainability. Our programming runs the gamut of sustainable issues and Ohio industries. The Corporate Round Table has also hosted major speaker events for a wider audience of civic and business leaders: • September 8, 2004: Sustainable Cleveland and the Corporate Roundtable hosted The Impact of Sustainable Business Practices and Corporate Social Responsibility on Shareholder Value, featuring Hewson Baltzell, the President of Innovest, a global leader in financial research based upon the principle that sustainable business practices are an indicator of strong financial, operational and share price performance. • November 5, 2004: Sustainable Cleveland and the Corporate Roundtable hosted New Approaches on Energy and the Environment: Policy Advice for the President. Our featured speaker, Paul Portney, was then President and Senior Fellow for Resource for the Future, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that seeks to improve environmental policymaking worldwide through objective social science research. The talk gave an advanced preview of 25 innovative policy recommendations to be presented to George Bush on November 17, 2004. • October 18, 2005: Sustainable Cleveland partnered with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change to bring a Pew Center workshop entitled Capitalizing on Climate- Friendly Technologies to our Corporate Round Table members. Robert Dorsch, Director of Biotechnology Business Development for DuPont, and Randy Overbey, President of Primary Metals Development for Alcoa, were the featured presenters at a special Corporate Round Table meeting prior to the workshop.

Value Added/ Why Green: Value will be demonstrated through improved competitive advantage, high return on investment, job creation, environmental protection, and strengthening of the social and community fabric. 261 Key Players: City of Cleveland, Cleveland Sate University, Cuyahoga County Planning Commission, Earth Day Coalition, Environmental Defense Fund, Greater Cleveland Coalition for a Clean Environment, Greater Cleveland Neighborhood Forum, Lee-Seville-Miles Citizens Council, Neighborhood Centers Association, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, St. Clair Superior Coalition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sustainable Cleveland Partnership and NeighborhoodLink.

Environmental Goals: The partners in the Sustainable Cleveland Partnership envision clean, healthy, and safe neighborhoods that benefit all of our residents. The Sustainable Cleveland Partnership will 1) develop and implement a replicable model environmental information access system in several Cleveland neighborhoods to help citizens create positive environmental change in their communities, and, 2) develop collaborations between community residents, organizations, universities and regulators. This model will be disseminated to other Cleveland and Great Lakes region neighborhoods to assist others in improving information access in their communities.

References:

Earth Day Coalition. Sustainable Cleveland Partnership. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.earthdaycoalition.org/programs_scp.php

Sustainable Cleveland. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.techfutures.net/PDF/Plan_Sustainable_Cleveland_Ju.pdf

Sustainable Cleveland Partnership. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.nhlink.net/enviro/scp/description.html

United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

262 Case #36: Seattle’s ‘Choose to Change’ Education Program (Environmental Education)

Location: Seattle, Washington

Population: 2000- 563,374 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 70%; Black- 8.4%; Am Indian/ Alaskan Native- 1%; Asian- 13.1%; Hispanic/ Latino- 5.3% (US Census Bureau)

Background: The ending age of extraction and big technology showed the new industries would have to blossom if Seattle was going to survive. The city found its salvation in computers and today, nearly every computer worldwide runs on software developed in that region of the world. They city now attracts educated professionals who want: a challenging career and a close connection to natural surroundings. Where previous generations focused on what Seattle’s natural resources could do for them, today’s generation focuses on what they can do for the environment (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Founded in 1991, Sustainable Seattle is a non-profit organization dedicated to enhancing the long term quality of life in the Seattle / King County area. Sustainable Seattle provides communities and individuals with meaningful information that reflect their priorities and helps them make sustainable choices (Sustainable Seattle). The organization assembles local and regional governments, businesses and the public to create a civic agenda that unites the region around long-term sustainability goals and actions; partner with urban centers and neighborhoods throughout the region to advance urban sustainability, share knowledge and create an interconnected sustainability network; develop indicators, provide original research, and serve as a clearinghouse of cutting-edge information and tools; and provide education to leaders, residents, planners, developers and others involved in smart growth, green building and place making efforts, including transportation, public spaces, open spaces, civic dialogue, urban planning and design, community building, waste, energy and food security (Sustainable Seattle).

Sustainable Seattle achieves its mission through:

Revitalization Goals: Restore salmon population and Puget Sound watershed. To focus on green building to allow for growth and prevent negative impacts.

Strategy: “Most of the great things in Seattle happen because the citizens want it” Cary Moon (Wiland and Bell 2006, 194).

Education- Sustainable Seattle provides education on sustainability to adults and school children, through workshops and other programs. Sustainable Seattle has offered its recent workshop “Putting Sustainability Into Action” to over a thousand Middle- and High-School students and has awarded mini-grants. Currently, Sustainable Seattle is offering a program geared for youth to reduce waste, recycle, and learn smart consumption behavior called ‘Choose to Change’. 263 Sustainable Seattle also offers workshops for individuals seeking knowledge on issues of sustainability. Recently, Sustainable Seattle offered a workshop called ‘Aligning your Career with Sustainability, which successfully provided those interested in careers in sustainability and useful methods for achieving this goal. ‘Green Activities’: Environmental education

Key Players: City of Seattle, nonprofits (i.e. Sustainable Seattle)

Environmental Goals: connecting people with the surrounding ecosystem. To be the kind of place where wildlife can thrive even at the edge of a growing city.

Definition of End Result (sustain community, eco-village, etc): Outcomes (if applicable):

References: City of Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development. City Green Building. Internet; accessed 11/10/08. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/greenbuilding/ Sustainable Seattle. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.sustainableseattle.org/ United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html Wiland, H. and Bell, D. 2006. Edens Lost & Found. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

264 Case #37: Chicago’s Wireless Technology (Green Technology)

Location: Chicago, IL

Population: 2000- 2,896,016 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 42%; Black- 36.8%; Asian- 4.3%; Hispanic/ Latino- 26% (US Census Bureau)

Revitalization Goals: Attract environmentally sensitive businesses to the old steelmaking quarter to fulfill the urgent need for more jobs in the region.

Strategy: Chicago’s Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) is a nonprofit organization (with a blend of green grassroots thinking and cutting edge technology) that currently brings free Internet services to four lower-income neighborhoods (since one of Chicago’s major Internet providers doesn’t offer services there due to the “lack of market”. CNT used a grant to serve as many as 250 people in each of the 4 neighborhoods with WiFi (highspeed internet connection that can be shared by multiple wireless users). Residents who don’t own and cannot afford a computer can receive a refurbished system, most of which are donated by area colleges and local governments. CNT also solicits donations through its website and written proposals for donations from companies and foundations. CNT also bought a dozen low-cost computers from Wayside Cross Ministries, a religious group, that were refurbished by a youth technology program run by Korean-American Community Services. Kids learn how to fix computers, and others down the line get to use them. CNT expects to place about five hundred computers over the course of the project (Wiland and Bell 2006).

‘Green Activities’: Wireless (paperless technology)

Value Added/ Why Green: Provides free internet and computers to those who can’t afford it. Access to internet technology/information allows people to learn about conserving energy use, telecommute (instead of physically commuting thus reducing destruction of natural resources that would be consumed), interact, and pay bills online (reduce paper waste). Access to the web has become an important tool for social change. “Internet access has been shown to be one of the most important determiners of economic and education success” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 41).

Key Players: Grassroots organizations, nonprofits, state, federal govt., City of Chicago, CNT, Wayside Cross Ministries- religious org, youth technology program

Environmental Goals: Attract environmentally sensitive businesses to the old steelmaking quarter to fulfill the urgent need for more jobs in the region.

265 Case #38: Sustainable Cleveland Sustainable Technology (Green Technology)

Location: Cleveland, Ohio Population: 2000 Census- 478,403 (US Census Bureau) Demographics: White- 41.5%; A.A- 51%; Asian- 1.3%; Hispanic/Latino- 7.3% (US Census Bureau)

Background: While Cleveland's environment has been improving over the last 25 years, low-income communities and communities of color are often the last to benefit. As of 1993, people of color are twice as likely to live near a commercial hazardous waste handling facility than whites. Ohio ranks third in the nation with the highest number of commercial hazardous waste facilities located in communities with above national average percent people of color (Goldman and Fitton 1997). Two identified problems for neighborhood and community organizations are: 1) residents of these communities have little or no access to the environmental decision making process and 2) local residents often do not have access to the information, tools and resources needed to make decisions. In order for residents of low-income and communities of color to become a part of the environmental decision making process, these communities must have the information, resources, and tools to participate meaningfully in the decisions that affect their health, safety, and environment. By providing information access, technical assistance, and pollution prevention tools to Cleveland residents, this project will empower neighborhood residents to work toward a safer and cleaner environment for all people, regardless of race or class (Sustainable Cleveland Partnership). The Sustainable Cleveland Partnership (SCP) program is a local initiative in neighborhood-based environmental protection for low-income and/or minority communities. In the framework of environmental justice, sustainable development, and pollution prevention, SCP training workshops (more than 25 held to date) have included such modules as the right-to-know laws, environmental risk regulation and reduction, environmental audits of specific neighborhoods, Title V air permit program, and more. SCP organizes tours of industrial parks, participates in public hearings and media events, leads citizen campaigns on pollution prevention for large stationary sources, and builds capacity in a variety of minority constituent groups including citizens’ councils, street and block clubs, community centers and development associations, and schools and churches (Earth Day Coalition).

Sustainable Cleveland’s vision, mission, and goals: Vision: Establish Northeast Ohio as a global model of a 21st-century community with a thriving economy, high quality of life, and a regional brand based on sustainability-driven innovation and practices across all sectors. Mission: Promote economic development by helping to integrate sustainable business practices and innovation into Northeast Ohio’s 150 largest corporations. Goals: 1. Facilitate the adoption of sustainability practices in the Northeast Ohio corporate community to create economic value and optimize the region’s natural and social capital assets. 2. Unite the collective leadership voice of Northeast Ohio’s corporate sustainability leaders to highlight and apply sustainability values and strategies to regional economic development and civic leadership initiatives. 3. Demonstrate a model of cross-sector collaborative leadership that positions Northeast Ohio as a sustainable solutions leader (Sustainable Cleveland).

‘Green Activities’/ Initiatives: Sustainable Systems Industry (SSI) (Sustainable Cleveland) Sustainable Cleveland is convening a dialogue with TeamNEO, NorTech, and Pew Center for Global Climate Change to determine the feasibility and interest of creating a sustainable technologies economic development “cluster” for Northeast Ohio. Sustainable technologies can help retool existing Northeast Ohio companies, attract companies with sustainable technology products to Northeast Ohio, and to expand and support local companies to market sustainable technologies 266 both domestically and internationally. Sustainable Cleveland aims to develop a critical mass of companies supporting a particular industry, which can be the basis for attracting other sustainable technology companies to the region. Sustainable Cleveland originally intended to develop an identifiable and relatively influential network of NEO global corporations and key sustainability stakeholders with demonstrated sustainability successes to have the ability to inform and influence key regional economic development discussions. They set their sights on identifying sustainability opportunities and convening the necessary complement of expertise to add value across the industry sectors already identified by the region’s major economic development organizations. These sectors include: • Nanotechnology • Bioscience & Healthcare • Electronics, Controls & Instruments • Information & Communication Technologies • Energy, Power & Propulsion • Polymers & Advanced Materials • Advanced Manufacturing

Several key projects are emerging as opportunities in sustainable technologies and practices: 1. NEO Regional Air Quality Attainment State Implementation Planning Process. 2. Regional Energy Strategy initiative, headed by the BP Fellow for Advance Energy at The Cleveland Foundation 3. Ohio Climate-Friendly Technologies, a project of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Key Players: City of Cleveland, Cleveland Sate University, Cuyahoga County Planning Commission, Earth Day Coalition, Environmental Defense Fund, Greater Cleveland Coalition for a Clean Environment, Greater Cleveland Neighborhood Forum, Lee-Seville-Miles Citizens Council, Neighborhood Centers Association, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, St. Clair Superior Coalition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sustainable Cleveland Partnership and NeighborhoodLink.

Definition of End Result (sustain community, eco-village, etc): Sustainable Cleveland

References:

Earth Day Coalition. Sustainable Cleveland Partnership. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.earthdaycoalition.org/programs_scp.php Sustainable Cleveland. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.techfutures.net/PDF/Plan_Sustainable_Cleveland_Ju.pdf Sustainable Cleveland Partnership. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.nhlink.net/enviro/scp/description.html

United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

267 Case #39: Sustainable Cleveland Wind Farm (Green Technology/Renewable Energy)

Location: Cleveland, Ohio Population: 2000 Census- 478,403 (US Census Bureau) Demographics: White- 41.5%; A.A- 51%; Asian- 1.3%; Hispanic/Latino- 7.3% (US Census Bureau)

Two identified problems for neighborhood and community organizations are: 1) residents of these communities have little or no access to the environmental decision making process, and, 2) local residents often do not have access to the information, tools and resources needed to make decisions. In order for residents of low-income and communities of color to become a part of the environmental decision making process, these communities must have the information, resources, and tools to participate meaningfully in the decisions that affect their health, safety, and environment. By providing information access, technical assistance, and pollution prevention tools to Cleveland residents, this project will empower neighborhood residents to work toward a safer and cleaner environment for all people, regardless of race or class (Sustainable Cleveland Partnership).

Sustainable Cleveland’s vision, mission, and goals: Vision: Establish Northeast Ohio as a global model of a 21st-century community with a thriving economy, high quality of life, and a regional brand based on sustainability-driven innovation and practices across all sectors. Mission: Promote economic development by helping to integrate sustainable business practices and innovation into Northeast Ohio’s 150 largest corporations. Goals: 1. Facilitate the adoption of sustainability practices in the Northeast Ohio corporate community to create economic value and optimize the region’s natural and social capital assets. 268 2. Unite the collective leadership voice of Northeast Ohio’s corporate sustainability leaders to highlight and apply sustainability values and strategies to regional economic development and civic leadership initiatives. 3. Demonstrate a model of cross-sector collaborative leadership that positions Northeast Ohio as a sustainable solutions leader (Sustainable Cleveland).

‘Green Activities’/ Initiatives: Northeast Ohio Wind Farm and Manufacturing (NOW) On January 10, 2006, Sustainable Cleveland was the convener of a daylong work session on the possibility of a utility- scale wind farm in Northeast Ohio. Hosted by the Cleveland Foundation, this meeting brought together 40 representatives from government, policy research organizations, multinational corporations, civic groups, community foundations, and wind developers to explore collaboratively what it would take to make such a project a reality (Sustainable Cleveland Partnership).

The NOW conversation is leading to strategic team-building around a manufacturing cluster to support a local wind development, and for exporting wind power products and services to other regions of the world. Sustainable Cleveland has begun leading discussions with our corporate and civic partners about the potential to reenergize regional manufacturing to create a center for wind turbine and component manufacturing. A half-dozen regional companies already manufacture components for this industry, primarily for export to Europe (Sustainable Cleveland Partnership).

Potential project partners moving forward: Pew Center on Global Climate Change, NorTech, TeamNEO, The Cleveland Foundation, Leadership Cleveland, Greater Cleveland Partnership, Cleveland Convention and Visitors’ Bureau, Cuyahoga County Planning Commission (Cuyahoga Valley Initiative), Cleveland State University Nance College of Business (Sustainable Cleveland Partnership).

References:

Earth Day Coalition. Sustainable Cleveland Partnership. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.earthdaycoalition.org/programs_scp.php Goldman, Benjamin A., and Laura Fitton.1994. Toxic Wastes and Race Revisited: An Update of the 1987 Report on the Racial and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites. Center for Policy Alternatives, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice. Sustainable Cleveland. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.techfutures.net/PDF/Plan_Sustainable_Cleveland_Ju.pdf Sustainable Cleveland Partnership. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.nhlink.net/enviro/scp/description.html

United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

269 Case #40: Chattanooga Venture- Vision 2000 (Environmental Education & Community Plan)

Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee (Piney Woods, Alton Park and Chattanooga Creek neighborhoods)

Population: 2000- 155,554 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 59.7%; Black- 36.1%; Asian- 1.5%; Hispanic- 2.1% (US Census Bureau)

Background: In less than 30 years, Chattanooga has moved from being one of the most polluted cities in the US to receiving national international prominence for its achievements in sustainable development. A mixture of organizational and individual efforts (private not-for-profit, for-profit, and governmental) have dramatically reduced pollution in the air, land, and water of the community. These efforts have positioned Chattanooga as an international model of an “environmental city” that is realizing sustainable development and its intricately connected components of “economy, ecology, equity”. By 1974, Chattanooga was ranked nationally as 8th in industry per capita. Accompanying the city’s high industrial ranking were extremely high national rankings in pollution levels. During the 40s, 50s and 60s, the pollution alone limited visibility to such an extent that car headlights were often turned on midday. During the 50s, women reported their nylon hose disintegrating when worn outdoors. The pollution was visible and increasingly linked to social welfare concerns, especially health. By 1963, the community’s mortality rate from tuberculosis was 3 times the national average. Citizens’ health concerns also included emphysema and other respiratory diseases. Increased emissions from industrial and commercial processes and the use of soft coal for heating purposes were exacerbated by atmospheric temperature inversions that confined the pollution within the mountainous terrain surrounding the city. In 1969, the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW) ranked Chattanooga at the most highly polluted city in the US- first in air pollution from particulate matter releases (e.g. airborne smoke and dust; linked to respiratory and cardiopulmonary illness) and second only to LA in ground-level ozone. In 1992, more than 5 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were released into the air, on land, or in water from commercial and industrial facilities (Toxic Release Inventory 1992). 31 of these 45 facilities are clustered in Chattanooga’s downtown area. Three of these facilities ranked amount the top 50 emitters in the eight southeastern states of chemicals considered to cause developmental and neurological damage. These facilities cluster in census tracts where the community’s African-American population is also concentrated (111).

Revitalization Goals: Pollution reduction (to increase social welfare), community action, create neighborhood jobs, business and community relations.

Strategy: Individual citizens and citizen groups, private ventures, and public entities have continued to concentrate on pollution reduction. Chattanooga Venture first initiated a community needs assessment and strategic planning process called Vision 2000. Vision 2000 gathered information from over 1,000 citizens, summarized their thoughts into 40 future goals, and, through Chattanooga Venture leadership, organized new and existing organizations and leaders into a series of citizen task forces and organizations to address the goals.

‘Green Activities’: Public education re: the environment, Chattanooga Creek cleanup, etc and a community plan.

Key Players: Neighborhood groups; community-based grass-roots clearinghouse Neighborhood Network; local, state, and federal legislators and officials (i.e. representatives of the Tennessee Dept of Health, regional EPA office, and the US EPA Office of Environmental Equity); regional colleges and universities; S.T.O.P (Stop Toxic Pollution); ADSDR (agency for toxic substances and disease registry); the Neighborhood Improvement Corporation

Environmental Goals: Clean up contamination (hazardous waste remediation)

Outcomes (if applicable): Among the outcomes of this process have been: Tennessee Riverpark and Aquarium Locally built zero-emission electric buses that are used locally and are increasingly sold nationally and internationally Chattanooga-hosted conferences that have brought expert environmental consultants to the community. 270 The Orange Grove Recycling Facility, which employs over 100 individuals with disabilities and provides education tours regarding disabled individuals’ social contributions and illustrates environmental problems A new prototype for a city-county school system Environment and children’s health-enhancing recreational alternatives, especially for children in low-income neighborhoods Plans for the redevelopment of chemically contaminated brownfields with eco-industrial parks Preservation of natural resources, including the Tennessee Rive Gorge and rejection of ecologically destructive enterprises such as chip mills Neighborhood development, including the inner city Westside Community Revitalization

The unique success of Chattanooga’s sustainable development ventures owes a debt to that time when “success in cleaning up our air gave us the confidence to believe we could succeed in other ways” (Hoff 1998, 110).

The “lessons learned” include the importance of having community-wide participation, coordinating interrelated systems, maintaining a balance of vision and action, nurturing public/private collaboration, and finding positive working solutions (Hoff 1998, 116).

References: Hoff, M.D. Ed. 1998. Sustainable Community Development: Studies in Economic, Environmental, and Cultural Revitalization. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers. United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

271 Case #41: LA’s Green Vision Plan (Environmental Community Plan)

Location: Los Angeles, CA Population: 2000- 3,694,820 (US Census Bureau) Demographics: 2000- White- 46.9%; Black- 11.2%; Asian- 10%; Hispanic/ Latino- 46.5% (US Census Bureau)

Background: Massive suburban sprawl and poor planning has led to the region’s overdependence on automobiles, lack of decent public transportation, horrendous traffic, and deterioration of air quality. It’s impossible to divorce the issue of strained water resources from the endless cycle of drought and flood. As LA’s population grows, fresh water becomes harder and harder to find. When these complex issues are fused together, they become unmanageable (Wiland and Bell 2006). Elsewhere LA has become a city of asphalt and concrete, where the natural world has been completely encases, erased, or eradicated. While you can find small parcels of land or landscaping and LA signature palm trees are everywhere, these green spaces and palm icons are not enough to mitigate the city’s heat island effect, smog, and flood events. Parkland is limited: LA has 0.9 parkland acres per person, compared to a national average of 10 parkland acres per person (Wiland and Bell 2006, 144). LA grew up in an era in which people expected to have a backyard and a garden, and city officials and developers were disinclined to dedicate public open space, so not many areas were set aside for parks. Given rapid growth and increasing population density in Southern California, lack of parks and open space has become a severe problem (Wiland and Bell 2006). Former state public health officer states that “Two-thirds of the kids in LA cannot walk to a park. IF they don’t have a place to walk or run around, we have no business telling our kids to get in shape. Three-quarters of the kids in California cannot pass a basic fitness test, which is running one mile in 12 minutes” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 145). They are now realizing that people need to be around other people, they need to feel connected and a sense of belonging.

Revitalization Goals: Create jobs, reduce concrete, and reconnect the community by providing public space.

Strategy: LA formed a Green Visions Plan which serves as an excellent model for how communities can pull together green areas even if their city is already heavily developed. The long-term goals of the Green Visions Plan include: 1. Protect and restore natural areas to ensure the growth of native biodiversity and reintroduction of historically accurate natural plant communities. 2. Restore natural function to the hydrological cycle to maximize groundwater recharge, improve storm-water quality, and minimize flood hazards. 3. Increase and ensure equitable access for residents to a range of open spaces and recreational opportunities, and thereby reduce socioeconomic and geographic disparities in present-day patterns of access to these types of resources. Maximize political and financial support for the Green Visions Plan by proposing multiple-use facilities wherever possible to meet the goals and habitat restoration and conservation, restoration of hydro-ecological function, and creation of more recreational open space (Wiland and Bell 2006, 146).

‘Green Activities’: Green Visions Plan

Key Players: Nonprofit organizations (TreePeople), city officials (i.e. public works), community

Environmental Goals: Improve air and water quality, work with nature to collect and store as much rain water a possible. References: United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html Wiland, H. and Bell, D. 2006. Edens Lost & Found. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

272 Case #42: Sustainable Cleveland’s Sustainability Study (Environmental Community Plan)

Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Population: 2000 Census- 478,403 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: White- 41.5%; A.A- 51%; Asian- 1.3%; Hispanic/Latino- 7.3% (US Census Bureau)

Two identified problems for neighborhood and community organizations are: 1) residents of these communities have little or no access to the environmental decision making process, and, 2) local residents often do not have access to the information, tools and resources needed to make decisions. In order for residents of low-income and communities of color to become a part of the environmental decision making process, these communities must have the information, resources, and tools to participate meaningfully in the decisions that affect their health, safety, and environment. By providing information access, technical assistance, and pollution prevention tools to Cleveland residents, this project will empower neighborhood residents to work toward a safer and cleaner environment for all people, regardless of race or class (Sustainable Cleveland Partnership).

Sustainable Cleveland’s vision, mission, and goals: Vision: Establish Northeast Ohio as a global model of a 21st-century community with a thriving economy, high quality of life, and a regional brand based on sustainability-driven innovation and practices across all sectors. Mission: Promote economic development by helping to integrate sustainable business practices and innovation into Northeast Ohio’s 150 largest corporations. Goals: 273 1. Facilitate the adoption of sustainability practices in the Northeast Ohio corporate community to create economic value and optimize the region’s natural and social capital assets. 2. Unite the collective leadership voice of Northeast Ohio’s corporate sustainability leaders to highlight and apply sustainability values and strategies to regional economic development and civic leadership initiatives. 3. Demonstrate a model of cross-sector collaborative leadership that positions Northeast Ohio as a sustainable solutions leader (Sustainable Cleveland).

‘Green Activities’/ Initiatives: Measuring Up: NEO 150 Sustainability Benchmarking Sustainable Cleveland is embarking on a unique study of the corporate sustainability of Northeast Ohio’s 150 largest corporations. Not only are the NEO Top 150 Sustainable Cleveland’s audience through their mission, but they collectively represent billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. By measuring businesses that leave such a large economic footprint on our region, the achievements and room for improvement illuminated by this benchmarking exercise will be a catalyst for far-reaching change. Sustainable Cleveland, with our partners, will develop, administer, and analyze the results of a simple benchmarking survey based on categories and metrics common across existing benchmarking programs. We will phrase our questions to “uncover” sustainable practices and behavior, though the practice may not be called such by the corporation. For example, within Sustainable Cleveland’s corporate network is one of the largest marketers of sulfuric acid in North America. Though they do not recognize it as “sustainable business practice,” a major part of their process is recycling hundreds of millions of gallons of chemicals annually. Within Northeast Ohio, Sustainable Cleveland anecdotally has discovered significant, but unrecognized sustainable practices and behavior (Sustainable Cleveland).

In order to move forward with our mission of integrating sustainable business practices into Northeast Ohio’s 150 largest corporations, it is important to accurately assess where our constituents are today. And by integrating our data into other developing regional assessments, this project is on track to be the nation’s first benchmarking of a geographic region’s sustainability. Through Measuring Up, Sustainable Cleveland aims to help integrate sustainability into the region’s vision of economic development and prosperity (Sustainable Cleveland).

Definition of End Result (sustain community, eco-village, etc): Sustainable Cleveland References:

Earth Day Coalition. Sustainable Cleveland Partnership. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.earthdaycoalition.org/programs_scp.php Goldman, Benjamin A., and Laura Fitton.1994. Toxic Wastes and Race Revisited: An Update of the 1987 Report on the Racial and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites. Center for Policy Alternatives, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice. Sustainable Cleveland. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.techfutures.net/PDF/Plan_Sustainable_Cleveland_Ju.pdf 274 Sustainable Cleveland Partnership. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.nhlink.net/enviro/scp/description.html

United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

275 Case #43: Harlem-on-the-River Waterfront Park Plan (Environmental Community Plan)

Location: Harlem, NY

Population: 2006- Greater Harlem- 374,854; Central Harlem- 109,091 (Beveridge 2008)

Demographics: Greater Harlem- 40.54% African American; 14.8% White in 2006. Central Harlem- 77.49% African American; 2.07% White (Beveridge 2008)

Revitalization Goals: to plan, design and achieve a healthy, sustainable and environmentally just community.

WE ACT for Environmental Justice is a non-profit, community-based, environmental justice organization dedicated to building community power to fight environmental racism and improve environmental health, protection and policy in communities of color. WE ACT accomplishes this mission through community organizing, education and training, advocacy and research, and public policy development. WE ACT empowers residents to address irresponsible development proposals with community-based planning and development of sustainable, proactive initiatives (WE ACT).

As a result of our ongoing work to educate and mobilize our base – the more than 630,000 residents of Northern Manhattan – on environmental issues affecting their quality of life, WE ACT has become a leader in the nationwide movement for environmental justice, influencing the creation of federal, state and local policies affecting the environment (WE ACT).

One of the first environmental organizations in New York State to be run by people of color, and the first environmental justice organization in New York City, WE ACT was founded and incorporated in 1988 as the result of local community struggles around environmental threats and resulting health disparities created by institutionalized racism and the lack of social and political capital, all dynamics that led to the siting and poor management of the North River Sewage Treatment Plant, the siting and operation of 6 out of 7 New York City diesel bus depots in Northern Manhattan, the operation in our community of the only 24-hour Marine Transfer Station in Manhattan, the use of Northern Manhattan communities as New York City’s dumping ground, and the exclusion of communities of color from democratic decision-making (WE ACT).

In 1988 WE ACT sued the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for operating the North River Sewage Treatment Plant as a public and private nuisance. The lawsuit was settled in 1994 for $1.1 million, and WE ACT hired its first 3 staff members with a grant from the settlement funds (WE ACT).

Strategy: In 1998, WE ACT partnered with Community Board 9 to organize the Harlem-on-the-River Project. Our goal was to engage community leaders and residents in developing a community-driven plan that would both increase access to the Harlem waterfront and raise interest in one of Northern Manhattan’s neglected neighborhoods. Working with over 200 residents, elected officials, and representatives from the New York City Parks Department, a community vision plan for the waterfront was developed and submitted to the NYC Economic Development Corporation (EDC) by WE ACT in 1999. In late 2000, EDC developed a master plan based on the Harlem-on-the-River community plan. Approval for the final West Harlem Waterfront Park plan came in 2003 and applications for construction were quickly completed. A groundbreaking took place in October 2005. Construction on the park is scheduled to be completed before the end of summer 2008. We're currently planning events for an official park opening (WE ACT).

As the park becomes a reality, WE ACT has continued its work to ensure that the Northern Manhattan community will be able to both access it and play an active role in its administration, operations and programming. In 2005, WE ACT created the Harlem Waterfront Council (HWC), a non-profit entity incorporated in New York State with its 501 (c)(3) status

276 pending. HWC seeks to aid in the management of the park, as well as educate the general public, media, public officials and community residents on the importance of the Harlem Piers (WE ACT).

In late 2007 the Mayor’s office commissioned WE ACT to organize a broad-based steering committee and community- based charrette process that would work to find the best possible use for the MTS at 135th Street, which is adjacent to the park. Our work over the next several months will include bringing the community together around the re-use of the MTS though the From Trash to Treasure Campaign (WE ACT).

‘Green Activities’: West-Harlem- Harlem-on-the-River Project- community-driven plan that would both increase access to the Harlem waterfront and raise interest in one of Northern Manhattan’s neglected neighborhoods. West Harlem Waterfront Park

Key Players: WE ACT, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer’s Office, North General Hospital, Mt. Sinai Medical Center, the City Department of Health, Manhattan Community Board 11, State Senator Jose Serrano, and the Little Sisters of the Assumption.

References: Beveridge, A. August 2008. “Harlem’s Shifting Population.” Gotham Gazette. Internet; accessed 11/10/08. http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/demographics/20080827/5/2635 United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html WEACT For Environmental Justice. Internet; accessed 11/10/08. http://www.weact.org/Home/tabid/162/Default.aspx

277 Case #44: Detroit Eco-Village (Eco-Village)

Location: Detroit, Michigan

Population: 2000- 951,270 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 12.3%; Black- 81.6%; Asian- 1.0%; Hispanic/ Latino- 5% (US Census Bureau)

Revitalization Goals: To demonstrate the use of energy efficiency, renewable and alternative energy technologies as a profitable catalyst for the redevelopment of decaying cities. By demonstrating the value returned on such investment as tangible - even in a region with a legacy of carbon-heavy industry - we will set out a model that can be replicated in cities across the United States and around the world.

Strategy: - NextEnergy will work with key community leaders, real estate partners, technology developers and others to finalize the site location and detailed project parameters for this initiative. - NextEnergy will develop a strategic energy plan for the project, including energy efficiencies, and alternative and renewable energy solutions. - NextEnergy will lead efforts to implement the energy plan, coordinating public, private and nonprofit resources.

It is significant that this project will be located within the cradle of the 20th Century carbon-rich industrial revolution and automotive technology hub, Detroit. One of the challenges in redeveloping distressed urban areas is attracting residents and businesses to move into these new developments and therefore, the capital required to bring re-development to fruition. People with the resources to choose where they want to live or locate their businesses have many options in a region - both the city and the suburbs - and it takes more than just new construction to attract them.

‘Green Activities’: This initiative intends to capitalize on the excitement that would be created by an " eco-village" of green development and state-of-the-art alternative energy technology to be an economic development anchor within a target urban redevelopment area. The project plans for a broad, mixed-use development of about 1 million square feet, and would include a technology park, residential and commercial developments.

Drawing on both established and emerging technologies, we will design a strategic energy plan for the project that makes best use of energy efficiency, alternative and renewable energy technologies. New construction could include solar and wind power, bio-fuels and trash-to-energy generators, energy-efficient building materials, hydrogen fuel cells, etc. Such technologies would be linked together into a microgrid to power the eco-village, feeding excess power back to the main utility grid. Vacant land and environmental brownfields will be used to grow bio-fuel feedstocks, creating a new kind of urban greenspace as it removes blight. The project would also include and encourage green transit and alternative fuel solutions for mass transit and vehicles. Where possible, we will capitalize on existing investments by federal agencies and others in emerging technologies, using this project to test and validate their use in the broader marketplace.

Value Added/ Why Green: - Amount of greenhouse gases reduced or avoided - minimum of 5000 Tons CO2 annually - Amount of clean energy generated - 10 million KWhrs (saves how much?) - Square footage of green building - 1 million square feet

Key Players: NextEnergy will work with key community leaders, real estate partners, technology developers and others to identify an appropriate neighborhood, project and site for this initiative, and then will lead the collaborative effort to implement the strategic energy plan and see the project through.

Partnership Opportunities: - Real Estate, construction and economic development partners committed to the vision. - Support for deployment of prototypes and cutting-edge carbon-mitigation technology into an urban setting.

278 - Investment capital (for early stage, cutting edge, advanced technology deployment) - Operational support of planning, coalition building and project management.

Environmental Goals: To demonstrate the use of energy efficiency, renewable and alternative energy technologies as a profitable catalyst for the redevelopment of decaying cities. By demonstrating the value returned on such investment as tangible - even in a region with a legacy of carbon-heavy industry - we will set out a model that can be replicated in cities across the United States and around the world.

Definition of End Result (sustain community, eco-village, etc): Eco-village

Outcomes (if applicable):

Estimated Total Value $200,000,000 Commitment Duration 3-5 years

References: Next Energy. Internet; accessed 11/3/08. http://www.nextenergy.org Urban Eco-Village Model, Detroit, Michigan, 2007. Internet; accessed 11/3/08. http://commitments.clintonglobalinitiative.org/projects.htm?mode=view&rid=210093 United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

279 Case #45: East Price Hill Eco-Village (Eco-Village)

Location: East Price Hill- Cincinnati, OH

Population: 2007- 19,957 (Drilldown Report- Social Compact Inc. Cincinnati Neighborhood Market DrillDown. June 2007. http://www.socialcompact.org/pdfs/CincinnatiDrillDownReport.pdf)

Demographics: 2000- A.A.- 21%

Background: As one of Cincinnati’s first ring neighborhoods, Price Hill has experienced many years of disinvestment and deterioration. However, the neighborhood possesses many assets to develop into a self-reliant community, including schools, a library, parks, churches, and an established community of households. The neighborhood’s residents have committed themselves to a more sustainable future by developing a plan that promotes “natural, social and economic growth in a manner that does not inhibit future generations from enjoying the same resources” (Sizemore 2004, 12).

According to the 1990 U.S. Census, East Price Hill had the largest concentration of poor whites in Cincinnati. An aging, deteriorating housing stock, failing business district, and a rise in petty crime created the urban environment in which Imago initiated its eco-village dream.

The Ecological Mission of Imago The main function of Imago has been to promote environmental stewardship through community building. In 1978, a small group of Price Hill residents concerned about energy consumption patterns and global environmental issues formed the environmental education organization, Imago, Inc. Their goal was to address more sustainable ways of living and to help educate the public through civic involvement and outreach programs (Sizemore 2004).

Years of discussions and a desire to improve the neighborhood led individuals to envision what an ecologically sustainable neighborhood would involve. They recognized that nearly half of Price Hill’s (East and West) land area was made up of natural green infrastructure in the form of woods, street trees, parks, open green space, and cemeteries. As an older established urban neighborhood, schools, libraries, churches, business districts, and many other civic institutions were a significant part of the area’s urban fabric. The community decided to build upon these assets as they would serve as the foundation for the Seminary Square Eco- Village (Sizemore 2004).

Revitalization Goals: revitalize community using the urban eco-village approach; to promote environmental stewardship and community building. To be a model of sustainable living, build a new sense of community identity, stabilize home ownership, increase real estate values, and nurture community pride. Revitalizing a deteriorating neighborhood through capitalizing on its existing built and natural environment.

Strategy: Since 1993, the non-profit organization of Imago has been working with local residents of East Price Hill and Seminary Square to develop their neighborhood into an ecological neighborhood. Seminary Square is approximately a 50 block area located in the East Price Hill neighborhood (Sizemore 2004).

Funding- In 1998, Imago was awarded with a grant for $100,000 each year for 5 years until 2003 through the ‘Community Investment Partners’ of the Greater Cincinnati Foundation. The CIP’s approach focused on aiding neighborhoods that have experienced rapid social and economic changes. With the financial support and flexibility of the CIP grant, it was the CIP’s goal to aid committed neighborhoods in becoming a positive example for other Cincinnati neighborhoods in renewal and growth. The leaders of Imago felt their previous projects of promoting energy efficiency, tree planting, and other ecological education programs in the neighborhood, the partnerships developed, and their future vision would be a solid foundation to apply for the grant (Sizemore 2004).

Since the East Price Hill neighborhood had assets of strong neighborhood organizations including churches, Imago, and Santa Maria Community Services and that Imago had developed partnerships with many of these organizations, they were awarded the grant (Sizemore 2004). With the awarded money, Imago launched a plan to capitalize on its assets of an existing green infrastructure (parks, trees, open space), civic organizations (schools, churches, service agencies), and built environment (housing, street and pedestrian network, business district) as the basis for converting Seminary Square into 280 an ecologically sustainable neighborhood. Imago decided to focus on these assets of the neighborhood, rather than the conventional community development model of addressing needs, problems, and weaknesses. Additionally, since this section of East Price Hill is an urban neighborhood, they hoped the progress made there would be readily transferable to other urban communities (Sizemore 2004).

During the first five years, Imago produced various demonstrations of improvements throughout the Seminary Square area they hoped would spur neighborhood reinvestment (i.e. various beautification projects, litter mitigation, recycling promotion, home renovations, façade improvements along the Warsaw Avenue business district and tree planting endeavors). Imago and its partners developed a strategic plan 2001, which served as an organizational process for community participants to envision what they desired for their future and encompasses all of East and West Price Hill. Imago would continue their efforts in revitalizing Seminary Square, but also take the lead organizational role through the Price Hill Will by guiding a more comprehensive approach to the greater Price Hill neighborhood (Sizemore 2004).

Funding- Awarded a two-year $100,000 grant (1995-1997) that completed a pilot project aimed at helping businesses, churches, non-profit groups, schools, and residents of Price Hill to learn how to reduce gas consumption by 10 percent and electric consumption by 5 percent (Imago 1997). The project focused on zip code 45205, which encompasses parts of East and West Price Hill, as a way to measure whether or not educational efforts of the project were effective. The campaign included extensive marketing efforts educating the benefits of reducing energy consumption on both the pocket book and the environment. Imago promoted free energy audits, weatherizing assistance for low- income residents, and the availability of incentives for businesses and homeowners such as rebates for replacing heat pumps and direct load control allowing customers to have CG&E install gauges that shut down air conditioners for several minutes during peak consumption times. In addition, the campaign negotiated with Price Hill businesses to offer discounts on energy efficient products and services (Sizemore 2004).

While the organization initiated workshops around themes such as energy conservation and environmental stewardship, people started purchasing homes on Enright and became Imago members. The common element residents experienced was community, and specifically a community focused on the values of the natural environment. Gardening, recycling, tree planting, and general care for their homes centered on more ecological practices was the glue that created this bond. In the early 1990s, Enright residents began encouraging like-minded people to move to their street. They realized that the dreams they valued were very practical, modest, and applicable to a neighborhood where housing, infrastructure, public parks, and other essential elements for creating community already existed. Ideas such as promoting home ownership and community involvement complemented larger ideas of greenspace preservation, organic gardening, tree cover, and energy efficiency. They even discussed innovative ideas such as a no-car street during the dream phase (Sizemore 2004).

A key focus in harnessing neighborhood participation, particularly with the new populations, was to create block clubs, hosting festivals, and facilitating gatherings, targeting residents’ involvement with their parks; involvement with planting trees; participation by putting the recycling containers out; circulation of block club newsletters with information and any form of activity that may facilitate the informal building of community. They also built civic infrastructure and connected the social institutions. Imago brought nine churches including Cincinnati Bible College, Salvation Army, four Catholic churches, the United Church of Christ, Christ Community Church and Price Hill Baptist together to form the Ministerial Association and met together quarterly to share experiences and coordinate on community events (Imago 2003).

One of the original missions of Imago in building community was to sell the concept of the eco-village to the public. The first thing was to conduct the charrette which was designed to make residents aware of the eco-village concept and to gain feedback of residents and interested parties. Following this charrette, Imago attempted to reach even more residents by conducting several more forums in order to sell the plan’s concept and to gain feedback. This example, along with outreach programs and projects through the Imago Earth Lab, was Imago’s principal medium for educating Price Hill residents on the benefits of a more ecologically sustainable neighborhood (Sizemore 2004).

Funding- forming a partnership with Home Depot and received a grant of $25,000 in January 2003 in order to get the businesses to realize the economic benefits of being more environmentally friendly (Sizemore 2004). Through the Home Depot grant, Imago was able to install energy efficient bulbs throughout Imago’s main office on Warsaw Avenue, and changed to an energy efficient furnace and air conditioner. Imago felt that by providing a lead demonstration of the cost 281 benefits involved, they could influence business owners in the area to upgrade as well. Despite this model, business owners have still been reluctant to make the investments in being more energy efficient and participate in more environmentally centered practices (Sizemore 2004).

‘Green Activities’: beautification projects, litter mitigation, recycling promotion, home renovations, façade improvements along the Warsaw Avenue business district and tree planting endeavors

Value Added/ Why Green- Neighborhood reinvestment; money savings on energy efficiency; community relationships; community involvement; sense of place; home ownership.

Key Players: Imago, Community Partners, Price Hill Will, Greater Cincinnati Foundation- Community Investment Partners, East Price Hill Improvement Association, Price Hill Civic Club, Price Hill Merchants and Professionals Association, Ecological Neighborhood Coalition, University of Cincinnati, City of Cincinnati Planners,

Environmental Goals: to create a neighborhood that would offer an abundance of parks and greenspace, clean air and land, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, trees, and renovated energy-efficient homes. Ideas such as promoting home ownership and community involvement complemented larger ideas of greenspace preservation, organic gardening, tree cover, and energy efficiency. Most importantly, they recognized there would need to be a focused effort on connecting the social, environmental, and economic components of Price Hill in a synergistic manner in order to work towards sustainability.

Definition of End Result (sustain community, eco-village, etc): eco-village

References: Drilldown Report- Social Compact Inc. June 2007. Cincinnati Neighborhood Market DrillDown. Internet; accessed 11/3/08. http://www.socialcompact.org/pdfs/CincinnatiDrillDownReport.pdf Giglierano, G. and D. Overmyer. 1988. The Bicentennial Guide to Greater Cincinnati: A Portrait of Two Hundred Years. Cincinnati: The Cincinnati Historical Society. Imago. 1997. Price Hill Energy Efficiency Campaign: Final Report. Cincinnati: Imago. Maloney, M. and J. Buelow. 1997. The Social Areas of Cincinnati: An Analysis of Needs. 3rd edition. Cincinnati: Michael Maloney. Sizemore, S. 2004. Urban Eco-village as an Alternative Model to Revitalizing Urban Neighborhoods: The Eco-village Approach of the Seminary Square/ Price Hill Eco-Village of Cincinnati, Ohio. University of Cincinnati Master of Community Planning Thesis.

282 Case #46: L.A. Eco-Village (Eco-Village)

Location: Los Angeles, CA- Wilshire Center/Koreatown

Population: LA- 2000- 3,694,820 (US Census Bureau). Eco-village- 500

Demographics: 2000- White- 46.9%; Black- 11.2%; Asian- 10%; Hispanic/ Latino- 46.5% (US Census Bureau)

Background: Known for its massive suburban sprawl, congestion, smog, concrete, freeways, runaway high-rise development, crime, alienation, homelessness, pop culture, high cost of land and housing. LA has become a city of asphalt and concrete, where the natural world has been completely encases, erased, or eradicated. While you can find small parcels of land or landscaping and LA signature palm trees are everywhere, these green spaces and palm icons are not enough to mitigate the city’s heat island effect, smog, and flood events. Parkland is limited: LA has 0.9 parkland acres per person, compared to a national average of 10 parkland acres per person (Wiland and Bell 2006).

The civil uprising in Los Angeles in 1992 left sections of the city in ruins. The physical rebuilding has barely begun, and where it has, it tragically replicates the unsustainable design and patterns of life disrupted by the fire. People continue to leave the city in droves - some because of the region's economic downturn, others because they are frightened and disillusioned. But among those who stayed, a growing number were engaged in healing the city. From public housing tenants to block clubs to study groups within public agencies, people are organizing, dialoging, and learning. Their agendas are growing more and more consistent: empowerment for social, economic, and environmental justice (Wiland and Bell 2006).

The message was heard in City Hall, where officials responsible for neighborhood planning and revising the city's General Plan are seeking out ways to engage the public in the planning process. Projects and programs are springing up throughout the area addressing bits and pieces of the sustainability puzzle. Among them are graywater projects, energy and water conservation demonstrations, organic gardens, a community-supported agriculture movement, and an Eco-Home movement. There are also efforts to unpave L.A., restore the L.A. River, create urban forestry, and stop various freeways and street widenings. There are moves toward affordable and co-op housing and cohousing, green businesses and ecological economic development (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Now there is a single project that seeks to combine all these elements in a single sustainable neighborhood demonstration, the L.A. Eco-Village at Bimini-White House Place (Arkin 1993).These seemingly unrelated events are typical of the seeds needed to grow a sustainable urban neighborhood or eco-village out of a damaged central city area. Spontaneous encounters and working together build trust and a sense of community. When neighbors see people of good will having fun on the streets, they are more likely to join in, expanding a healthy sense of play and good neighborliness. This helps neighborhood residents recapture hope, reclaim the streets from automobiles and crime, and move into cycles of empowerment. This is whole-systems or cyclic thinking, as distinct from the linear approach characteristic of unsustainable practices (Arkin 1993).

A whole-systems approach to sustainable neighborhood planning and development is interactive and collaborative. This kind of planning recognizes the value of spontaneity and chaos as essential to innovation and creativity. It is sensitive and respectful of the pace at which people can learn, plan, "own," and incorporate the changes (Arkin 1993).

A neighborhood is sustainable when its economic, social, and physical systems are sustainable. The emphasis is always on the people and how they can take care of themselves and their environment in healthy ways that do not jeopardize the ability of future generations to do the same. This is the stuff, then, from whence eco-villages are made - a critical mass of people within a small geographic area who are regularly thinking and acting in whole-systems ways (Arkin 1993).

Eco-Village The Los Angeles Eco-Village is one place where these ideas are rapidly coming together. Three miles west of downtown Los Angeles, at the north end of last year's civil uprisings, this two-block mixed-use neighborhood is home to approximately 500 people in a dozen somewhat run-down but architecturally significant buildings. The members had planned to create the eco-village on an 11-acre city-owned landfill site and its adjacent neighborhoods about seven miles 283 northeast of the current location (Arkin 1993).

Their decision to stay and work on retrofitting the neighborhood they have called home for 13 years evolved out of their commitment to participate in the healing of their city. Members were rethinking their position concerning urban development and open space issues. They believed that the commercial corridors, with endless miles of single-story development and strip malls, could be transformed into beautiful three- to five-story compact mixed-use areas interspersed with open space along tree-lined sidewalks with bicycle, pedestrian, and mass transit-friendly streets. Members also believed that there should be incentives and mandates to help owners of large tracts of open space transfer their development rights for use in underdeveloped urban areas. Open spaces should no longer be developed, but rather protected and restored so they can once again become part of the planet's life support system.

Twenty-five members of the Eco-Village Advisory and Planning Group unanimously and enthusiastically agreed that they could have the greatest impact where it was needed most - by retrofitting their own neighborhood for sustainability. The eco-village believes their city, bioregion, and the world at large desperately need inner-city models of sustainable neighborhoods.

Revitalization Goals: to create a neighborhood model in such a way so as to convince leaders in the developing world to bypass the unsustainable development patterns of American cities and suburbs. To introduce whole-systems planning to heal and provide a model of sustainability in neighborhoods that have already been built up.

Eco-Villagers demonstrate the processes for creating a healthy neighborhood ecologically, socially, and economically. They try to reduce their environmental impacts while raising the quality of neighborhood life.

Strategy: During the Summer of 1983, the Cooperative Resources and Service Project (CRSP) - a promoter of, and federation for, cooperatives and cooperative networks throughout Southern California - brought together a 20-person volunteer group to create and forge the founding vision of their non-profit "developer" - the Los Angeles Mutual Housing Association (LAMHA). Composed of activists in affordable housing, urban ecology, social change, economic development, and cooperatives, our intention was to bring together all the resources and expertise CRSP had accumulated in the past (and would continue to develop in the coming decade) for the ongoing creation of sustainable urban communities. LAMHA is charged with a commitment to permanent affordability of land, housing, and business spaces; democratic control and on-going member education; broad-based community support; a sustainable approach to development; and a high level of self-reliance among its members (Arkin 1993).

In 1986 the group established plans to develop an 11-acre dump site, located in Northeast Los Angeles about five miles from downtown, filled with sand, rock, gravel, and dirt into the Los Angeles Eco-Village (Arkin 1993).

CRSP owns two buildings consisting of 48 units of housing. CRSP's Ecological Revolving Loan Fund (ELF), a community development loan fund, was the source of funds for these acquisitions. ELF accepts loans from those interested in socially and environmentally responsible investments. ELF money was also used for basic rehabilitation and ecological retrofitting of the buildings. The LAEV intentional community also created a new legal entity to acquire the buildings from CRSP for permanently affordable cooperative ownership (2005). Rental cash flow from the buildings was sufficient to maintain the properties (Arkin 1993).

How Eco-Village activity works: New Eco-Villagers begin by working with existing project groups in order to meet people, establish trust and build personal and working relationships. Project groups are made up of core group Eco- Villagers, neighbors, friends and volunteers. When newcomers have the feel of the way things happen, they may want to put more energy into a favorite project or start one of their own. People interested in starting new projects should do so in a way that does not compete with other projects already underway. People are also urged to help others on priority projects such as special gardening and tree planting days (Arkin 1993).

A major feature planned for the L.A. Eco-Village during the coming decade is the acquisition of existing apartment buildings for conversion to permanently affordable, cooperative ownership for the community's very low- to moderate- income current and future residents. Some of the buildings will be used as cohousing and other collaborative housing arrangements. Eco-village members are also promoting changes in city law that will protect neighborhoods from 284 gentrification. Without such a policy, increasing a neighborhood's sustainability will also increase the value of real estate, driving out the very people who improved the neighborhood (Arkin 1993).

Organic urban agriculture, an orchard, community composting and rooftop and vertical gardens have begun within the neighborhood. Planned water conservation and biological gray water reclamation could cut water use by 85 percent. Retrofits for energy efficiency can reduce conventional energy requirements by about 75 percent. The village is also considering implementing waste-to-resource systems, retrofitting adjacent commercial strips to mixed-use residential and commercial, retrofitting buildings with non-toxic regional and recycled building materials, and operating community- owned non-polluting vehicle pools (Arkin 1993).

‘Green Activities’: A demonstration grey water reclamation system. Creation of a community land trust

Electric vehicle co-op A buying co-op for organic food and environmentally safe household products. Education about mutual housing/limited equity housing co-ops. Earthquake preparedness. Educating, identifying neighborhood resource persons, organizing water/food buying co-op for storage, strapping water heaters. Neighborhood health/nutrition/exercise group. Researching, planning, neighborhood education/organizing for participation in restoration of Bimini Baths (hot mineral springs 2000 feet below the streets). Organizing field trips/overnight camping trips.

Organizing/educating about recycling. Revitalizing our Local Exchange Trading System (LETS) as a neighborhood currency system. Working with off-track youth (5 - 16) within neighborhood (unstructured safe play, tutoring, earth stewarding activities, jr. co-op businesses, etc.). Establishing neighborhood conflict resolution process. Working with gardens and orchards. Starting a market garden. Start a bicycle repair co-op business.

Organize and provide technical assistance to several neighborhood micro-businesses, e.g., apartment management business (including resident mgmt., open green space maintenance, unit prep., plumbing, electrical, painting, cleaning, showing and renting, collecting rent, etc.), domestic cleaning using non-toxic cleaning materials, food kiosk (coffee, tea, fruit, papers, etc.), seedling nursery, herb market garden for local stores and restaurants, source separation recycling, paper recylcing from local print shops and offices, compost sales, egg sales.

Help design and organize for traffic calming implementation. Create primary school teaching co-op for community schooling to interface under contract with L.A. Unified School District, White House Place Primary Center. Research/build or buy a quadracycle for bio-cycling co-op (picking up compostables and other recyclables around neighborhoods). Help organize as a micro-business. Help organize teen-agers for on-going Eco-Village and social activities targeted for them. Voter registration. Organize special events (potlucks and other social gatherings, special speakers on co-ops, organic gardening, water/energy auditing/conservation, organic pest control, health issues, etc.). Help design, develop, market, train for conducting public interactive "tours" of Eco-Village. Build a demonstration food growing trellis over a sidewalk area. Reinvigorate the Jr. Recycling Co-op, multi-family building source separation recycling, etc. Help create overall Eco-Village development plan and schedule. Help facilitate small groups of neighbors for input and feedback on Eco-Village design issues such as traffic planning, building retrofits, plaza design, etc. 285 Design and implement a health survey. Organize traffic calming brunches in the street. Help start an electric car conversion co-op for with neighborhood residents and their vehicles. Pick up local compost materials (from stores, homes, stables). Organize seasonal rituals and celebrations.

Children's activities (visits to the library, story hour, tutoring in reading skills, crafts, etc.). Activating Residents Co-op Housing Share Savings (R-CHARS) (Arkin 1993).

Key Players: 50 eco-village members; politicians, existing neighborhood residents, future residents; the volunteer Design Team stewards the vision of Eco-Village and moves the work forward (includes a Berkeley-based community architect Harry Jordan, who prepared an exploratory design study for the site); the retired Planning Director for the City of Los Angeles, Cal Hamilton, who is guiding the village through the process of lining up support from key representatives of all the City's agencies that will be affected by Eco-Village. (By garnering such support now, assuming that political work continues to be successful, the various City agencies will not feel that the Eco-Village project is being forced upon them).

Design Team members also include planning and architecture faculty from local universities, ecological designers, and alternative energy experts, as well as activists in affordable housing and other community organizers, gardeners, engineers, secretaries, carpenters, lawyers, librarians, artists, bookkeepers, photographers, and doctors.

Environmental Goals: to achieve and demonstrate high-fulfillment, low-impact living patterns, to reduce the burden of government, and to increase neighborhood self-reliance in a variety of areas such as livelihood, food production, energy and water use, affordable housing, transit, recreation, waste reduction and education (http://www.laecovillage.org/).

Definition of End Result (sustain community, eco-village, etc): eco-village

References: Arkin, Lois. Spring 1993. Transforming Inner-City Los Angeles. Designing A Sustainable Future. L.A. Eco-Village. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.laecovillage.org/ United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html Wiland, H. and Bell, D. 2006. Edens Lost & Found. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

286 Case #47: Cleveland EcoVillage (Eco-Village)

Location: Cleveland, OH (Detroit-Shoreway neighborhood)

Population: 2000 Census- 478,403 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: White- 41.5%; A.A- 51%; Asian- 1.3%; Hispanic/Latino- 7.3% (US Census Bureau)

Background: An ecovillage has a dense mix of housing, shopping, and promotes healthier living because streets are comfortable to walk and bike, with plenty of public places to recreate and even grow food. It supports the necessities of life in one place with links to transit within easy walking distance (EcoCity Cleveland).

“The organizational process of an ecovillage project is as important as the environmentally friendly technologies employed. The Cleveland EcoVillage features an interesting partnership between an environmental organization and a neighborhood-based development organization” (EcoCity Cleveland).

Motivation- By the mid-1990s Cleveland was starting to experience significant redevelopment, but little of that development was taking the environment into account (i.e. conventional housing and commercial development and construction methods). No project had taken all the possibilities for environmentally-friendly development and combined them in a single project (EcoCity Cleveland).

Revitalization Goals: Older cities like Cleveland are now being redeveloped, and it is vital that this urban regeneration incorporate advanced ecological design (GreenCityBlueLake, a). If a comprehensive "ecovillage" development could happen in Cleveland, an older industrial city, it could become a model for urban regeneration.

To reduce sprawl and attract people back into the city, it was essential to create healthy, attractive, urban neighborhoods.

Strategy: EcoCity Cleveland believed the neighborhood development groups, who were doing work to stabilize and revitalize communities, might want to incorporate ecological designs into their projects, but they were constrained by time and resources. Given the city's tremendous needs, the groups were under pressure to crank out the new housing units as fast as possible. Environmental groups, who have the scientific knowledge, could become partners with the neighborhood groups, who have the development experience. Together, they could acquire the additional resources to change the nature of development in the city (EcoCity Cleveland).

EcoCity Cleveland had been meeting to talk about the Regional Environmental Priorities Project (REPP), an initiative out of Case Western Reserve University to rank the most serious environmental problems facing Northeast Ohio. They looked at the REPP's top priorities—suburban sprawl and outmigration from the urban core—and the discussion gravitated toward the idea of promoting an ecological development in the city—an "ecovillage." To reduce sprawl and attract people back into the city, it was essential to create healthy, attractive, urban neighborhoods. And an ecovillage could demonstrate many of the ideas that the environmental groups promoted (EcoCity Cleveland).

Eco-Village Site Selection: Sites were evaluated based on a number of criteria, including:

Proximity to transit (presence of Regional Transit Authority Rapid station or bus lines, or potential for bike/pedestrian facilities). Presence of vacant land for development. Diversity of population (percent minority, income levels, education levels). Neighborhood economic status (moderate income, need for employment, small business/commercial areas). Existing community resources (presence of active organizations and churches, health services, recreational programs, funding for programs like the federal Empowerment Zone). Physical characteristics (condition of housing stock, affordability of housing, presence of brownfields needing environmental remediation).

287 Environmental activities (for example, participation in lead-abatement programs, urban gardening, green space planning). Community development organization (technical capacity, including quality of past projects and the ability to be a partner in an ecovillage project). Interest in an ecovillage among the community development organization, other neighborhood institutions, and residents (EcoCity Cleveland).

They eventually decided on a site in the Detroit-Shoreway neighborhood-the area around the W. 65th Street Rapid station. The selection was based on the belief that this site near W. 65th and Lorain Avenue possessed unique potential for transit- oriented development, a vibrant mix of residential and commercial uses, and a combination of new development and rehab of existing buildings. They were also impressed with the diversity of the neighborhood and the potential for partnering with the Detroit Shoreway Community Development Organization, one of the most capable nonprofit development groups in the city (EcoCity Cleveland).

Rooting the project in the neighborhood

The most important task of creating the eco-village included gaining broad-based neighborhood acceptance for the eco- village idea. EcoCity Cleveland worked with staff of Detroit Shoreway to introduce the project to block clubs, Ward 17 Councilman Timothy Melena, local church leaders, and other neighborhood organizations. They told them about the potential opportunities and solicited their support (EcoCity Cleveland).

Although the "eco-village" idea was a novel one, most residents agreed that their neighborhood needed redevelopment help. They could see the benefits of new housing opportunities, better transit facilities, and programs to help people cut energy bills. And they were willing to pitch in to help improve their community (EcoCity Cleveland).

Based on the positive response, EcoCity Cleveland and Detroit Shoreway decided to move ahead with the project. The two organizations signed a formal partnership agreement and began to raise funds for more detailed planning. EcoCity obtained a grant from the Katherine and Lee Chilcote Foundation to support the development of a concept plan. Detroit Shoreway obtained a grant from the city's Cityworks program for additional planning assistance and community involvement (EcoCity Cleveland).

Conceptual plan

The funds enabled the partners to hire City Architecture, a local architecture/urban planning firm that specializes in sensitive designs for urban neighborhoods. City Architecture staff began turning ideas into drawings (EcoCity Cleveland).

Centering on the area within a quarter-mile radius of the Rapid station (a quarter mile being convenient walking distance to a transit stop), they made base maps of the current land uses and parcels available for development. The base maps allowed them to begin thinking about locations for new housing, commercial development, bike and pedestrian linkages to the Rapid station, and opportunities to improve green space (EcoCity Cleveland).

Most of all, they began to see how the Rapid station (which was deteriorated, dangerous and a detriment to the neighborhood) could become the focal point for the neighborhood. RTA was planning to rebuild the station. If a new station could be surrounded by stores and housing, it could become a lively activity center. Transit could be the catalyst for other development (EcoCity Cleveland).

They realized that public input was needed to fully develop the plan. In December 1997 they invited neighborhood residents and interested design professionals from around the region to an all-day brainstorming workshop. More than 60 people participated in creating new visions for the neighborhood. City Architecture then took all the workshop suggestions and created conceptual plan drawings. Included are ideas for more than 250 units of new housing, mixed-use commercial development clustered near the Rapid station, the possibility of building over the Rapid tracks, and places for habitat restoration and community gardens. The drawings only show physical development, not the programs (i.e. environmental education and job creation) that might be part of an ecovillage (EcoCity Cleveland). 288 Next steps

By early 1998, the Cleveland Eco-Village project was primed to take off. They had a promising site, support from the community and city officials, a strong partnership between an environmental group and an experienced neighborhood development organization, and an exciting concept plan (EcoCity Cleveland).

To carry the work beyond the conceptual planning phase, full-time, paid staff was needed. Therefore, the two organizations collaborated on a grant proposal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for funding to hire an eco- village project manager. After a competitive, national review process, they were fortunate to be one of 42 groups to receive funding (out of nearly 1,000 applicants). The grant went to Detroit Shoreway, and in 1999 the organization hired an Eco-Village project manager (EcoCity Cleveland).

In 2000 and 2001, planning accelerated on physical development projects in the Eco-Village. In early 2002, construction began on a 20-unit town home development and a new Rapid Transit station. Both will be catalysts for additional green development in the neighborhood. This Eco-village might give Cleveland a new reputation as a green city and a city that takes less from the earth and gives more to people (EcoCity Cleveland).

The Cleveland EcoVillage is a diverse neighborhood that is pedestrian-friendly and community-oriented. Residents are within walking distance of the Rapid Transit Station and the Zone Recreation Center. The area has older and newer homes, including some of the city's finest examples of green building. The area also includes numerous schools, historic churches, and communtiy gardens. Residents can participate in block clubs, recreation groups, annual workshops, and celebrations. There are countless opportunities in the Cleveland Eco-Village (EcoCity Cleveland).

Townhomes- The Bridge Square Townhomes include many sustainable components, including beautiful bamboo floors, a super high efficiency furnace, and durable granite countertops (GreenCityBlueLake, b).

Green Cottages- The Green Cottages is a one-of-a-kind housing project in the City of Cleveland. These homes offer environmental sustainability through green design and significant energy savings; they sustain the healthy mixed-income character of the near West Side by allowing moderate-income families to purchase high-quality homes and they are universally designed, life-cycle homes that allow aging in place (GreenCityBlueLake, b).

It will be the first affordable development in Northeast Ohio to be LEED certified, which promotes the design and construction of high-performance green homes (GreenCityBlueLake, b).

The five cottages continue the momentum of the Cleveland Eco-Village, where 20 ‘green’ townhomes were built in 2004 and completely sold. The Cottages are right across the street from the townhomes, and both are within walking distance of a rebuilt W. 65th Street Rapid station (GreenCityBlueLake, b).

The Cuyahoga Community Land Trust ensures they will be permanently affordable. Through the Land Trust, homeowners purchase the home at a substantially reduced price. When they sell, they agree to allow a portion of the increase in the value of the home to stay with the home in order to bring the sale price down for the next moderate-income buyer. Applicants need to meet minimum and maximum income eligibility requirements, which are based on family size. For example, the maximum eligible income is $34,800 for a one person household and $49,700 for a four person household. ‘Green’ features include recycled and recyclable-content products, water saving products and a smaller (1,225 sq ft.) home which will cost less to heat and cool (also helping the affordability!) (GreenCityBlueLake, b).

When the Cleveland EcoVillage updated their community plan, they learned that residents wanted to see green building principles used in single family homes that a typical, moderate income neighborhood family would be able to afford. This is a challenge Detroit Shoreway Community Development Organization is taking on through a partnership with the Cuyahoga Community Land Trust (CCLT). CCLT will retain ownership of the land while selling the fee-simple homes at an affordable price to moderate income homeowners. They have also partnered with the Cleveland Green Building

289 Coalition’s Emerging Designers Program to design the homes. The result is a five- unit new construction project, with two-bedroom and three-bedroom designs, known as the Green Cottages (GreenCityBlueLake, b).

Cohousing- Cohousing is a form of cooperative housing that engages residents in the design and management of their community. Cohousing encourages community interaction, consensus in decision making, and shared common spaces. By sharing facilities and helping each other, residents of cohousing communities can often lead more sustainable lives(GreenCityBlueLake, b).

The ongoing foreclosure crisis, shifting demographics that include more single-parent households, an aging population and the associated cross-generational living, and growing interest in alternative housing options all combine to make cohousing an increasingly compelling housing choice (GreenCityBlueLake, b).

Zone Rec Greenspace Plan- Michael J. Zone Recreation Center at W. 65th Street and Lorain Avenue in the Cleveland EcoVillage neighborhood includes 22 acres of greenspace has the potential to be much more than an aging facility connected to a vast stretch of mown lawn on Cleveland’s Near West side(GreenCityBlueLake, b) .

For the past five years, Ward councilman Matt Zone, a group of residents and visionaries worked on a plan to transform Zone Rec into a national demonstration of how an urban park can best contribute to sustainable living (GreenCityBlueLake, b). One of the innovative ideas of the Zone Rec Greenspace Plan is a biofiltration swale to capture stormwater running off the roof and parking lot. The swale keeps stormwater on site and filters it into a natural landscape of wetlands, meadows and lowland woods dotted with paths and boardwalks (GreenCityBlueLake, b).

The plan recently won the American Society of Landscape Architects Ohio Chapter Honor Award, the highest recognition given by the chapter to a project every year. ASLA recognized it as “a balanced solution to the divergent needs of the community.” Now the groups shepherding the Zone Rec plan are tasked with finding funding to make this urban park a reality(GreenCityBlueLake, b).

Besides improving and adding to play and activity areas, new concepts include state-of-the-art green technology to maintain most of the stormwater on site, and re-introducing natural elements such as gardens and wetlands (GreenCityBlueLake, b).

Goals of Zone Recreation project:

Provide a national model for ecological urban greenspace design Incorporate comments from community design session Improve quality and diversity of community active recreational needs and integrate with ecological design Create low-impact stormwater management practices by filtering and detaining on-site runoff Establish areas of natural habitats with diverse vegetative communities Demonstrate principles of permaculture, sustainability, and natural habitat restoration Improve connections for the neighborhood residents and businesses including EcoVillage, RTA Station, Barbara Booker Elementary School, and the new Urban Community School (GreenCityBlueLake, b).

‘Green Activities’: green housing, cohousing, greenspace plan (including green infrastructure)

Value Added/ Why Green: new housing opportunities, better transit facilities, and programs to help people cut energy bills.

Green’ features include recycled and recyclable-content products, water saving products and a smaller (1,225 sq ft.) home which will cost less to heat and cool (also helping the affordability for mixed-income residents).

Key Players: Detroit Shoreway Community Development Organization; EcoCity Cleveland; City Architecture; residents; Cuyahoga Community Land Trust (CCLT); Cleveland Green Building Coalition’s Emerging Designers Program.

290 Environmental Goals: Promote high performance buildings, neighborhoods, and businesses.

Definition of End Result (sustain community, eco-village, etc): Eco-village

References: EcoCity Cleveland. Ecological Design: The Cleveland EcoVillage. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/ecologicaldesign/ecovillage/intro_ecovillage.ht ml GreenCityBlueLake, a. EcoVillage. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.gcbl.org/planning/ecovillage GreenCityBlueLake, b. Planning Development Projects: EcoVillage. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.gcbl.org/planning-development-projects/ecovillage United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

291 Case #48: EPA’s Sustainability Model (Sustainable Community)

Location: Stella, Missouri Population: 187

Background: The small town of Stella, Missouri, is a unique living laboratory that is testing the sustainable development potential of similar communities, based on a planning model developed by EPA researchers in cooperation with local residents. The Stella master plan provides a baseline of environmental, economic, and social variables by which to evaluate the sustainability of Stella’s development over the next decade. The researchers hope to determine how we can plan communities while leaving the natural systems intact.

In Stella, a three-hour drive from Kansas City, National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) sustainability scientists are collaborating with residents in a real-world experiment with the potential to revitalize the community while learning about the effects of human decision making on natural resources.

Stella began its association with EPA in 2006 during the demolition and disposal of an asbestos-laden former hospital building. Under the guidance of EPA’s brownfields program, which encourages development of restored urban properties, residents began studying plans to construct a mixed-use clinic, library, and housing complex on the old site. This was a defining moment for Stella, which, like many small towns, had seen a steady decline in its fortunes. Once a community of 500 to 600 people, Stella was noted for its showy dogwood trees that attracted visitors during an annual spring “Dogwood Tour.” The town was bordered by streams and forest lands, and had an active central shopping area. Over the years, the dogwoods died off, local streams deteriorated through neglect and upstream diversion, and jobs and population flowed outward. Even the teachers in Stella’s local school lived elsewhere. Stella gradually became more village than town while nearby communities, including Bentonville, Arkansas, Wal-Mart world headquarters, exerted development pressures within the region.

In 2006, spurred by the potential development of the restored hospital site, Stella residents accepted an invitation from EPA sustainability researchers to make a comprehensive study of the community and its sustainable future. This study resulted in a master plan that showed how the community could develop to meet citizens’ needs and respect their values, while strengthening the natural, social, and economic systems that make a community viable. The plan was adopted in June 2007.

Revitalization Goals: revitalize the community while learning about the effects of human decision making on natural resources. Mobilize citizens to build community!

Strategy: Stella began its association with EPA in 2006 during the demolition and disposal of an asbestos-laden former hospital building. Under the guidance of EPA’s brownfields program, which encourages development of restored urban properties, residents began studying plans to construct a mixed-use clinic, library, and housing complex on the old site.

The Master Plan

Sustainability theory may make use of scientific models dealing with climate warming, water resources, air quality, and land use, but in simpler terms, the success of Stella’s revitalization plan is conditioned upon (1) economic activities that factor in human and environmental costs; (2) social activities that ensure human safety, communal decision making, and shared access to natural resources; and (3) environmental actions that preserve “intact” ecosystems. Some proposed action items in Stella’s master plan that follow these guidelines include:

Economic Actions

292 Concentrating commercial, institutional, and public activities in a core area within walking distance from a common parking area Creating a resident cooperative to support and pay local farmers to grow food to meet local needs, and create a farmers’ market Constructing a multi-purpose building to replace the demolished hospital structure in order to house a town hall, library, post office, café, and emergency shelter Converting a former general store to provide a café, shops, and commercial space Providing local auto parts services and a gas station Developing activities and opportunities to buy locally in order to keep money in the community

Social Actions

Developing clustered housing around communal green space where children can play safely isolated from streets and within view of neighbors Providing walkable streets: multiple routes, shade trees, and sidewalks to increase human interaction Narrowing streets to reduce paved surfaces and related storm water runoff damage Creating parks and waterside activities for residents and visitors

Environmental Actions

Developing a forested green belt around the community with a riparian (streamside) corridor Restoring the stream bank with native species Creating ponds for storm water retention and rain gardens on residential property to reduce water runoff Constructing wetlands to purify wastewater Recycling “grey water” for irrigation, lawn use, and car washing

Community Project 1 Create four gateway gardens located at the major entry roads into Stella. Goal: To beautify the community and extend a welcoming outreach to visitors. The project involves interacting with the state of Missouri as well as property owners at each location for permission to plant the gardens, selecting indigenous plants to fit climate and blend with changing seasons (eliminating extra planting), and planting and maintaining the gardens. Status: In progress.

Community Project 2 Restore dogwood trees throughout the community. Goal: To place Stella back on the regional Dogwood Tour to attract visitors. The project involves obtaining the permission of property owners at each location and recruiting help with the purchase, planting, and long-term care of trees. Status: In progress.

Community Project 3 Create a streamside park. Goal: To provide a waterside setting for community activities and a play area for children. The project involves developing a plan, applying for grants, and enlisting volunteers to help clear, plant and maintain the area, and build play equipment. Status: In progress.

Community Project 4 Build a new veterans’ memorial. Goal: To honor area veterans with a memorial to be completed by November 1, 2008. The project involves planning, researching veterans’ names and donors, planting tree-lined walkways paved with bricks engraved with names of veterans, and coordinating volunteer maintenance. Status: On schedule for completion date.

Community Project 6 Organize a local farmers’ market. Goal: To compensate for the lack of a grocery store in town and to create interaction with area farmers. The project involves organizing a cooperative to contract with farmers to grow food for local 293 consumers, creating a distribution network, advertising, and developing space for market tables and tents. Status: In progress.

Community Project 10

Build more housing. Infill existing platted lots up to 12 dwelling units/acre. Include housing in commercial areas (as “mixed use development”). Upgrade existing housing using grants whenever possible. Contact School District to determine teacher housing needs. Obtain financing. Status- In progress.

Community Project 11

Protect natural springs. Obtain public access from property owners of each spring. Plan a rest area with large stones for seating. Plan and plant native vegetation. Enlist State Highway Dept to create pull-off/parking area. Maintain regularly. Status- In progress.

Community Project 12

Build Indian Creek Trails. Enlist property owners at each location to permit trails. Obtain materials. Enlist citizens to build, check and maintain trails (as needed). Status- In Progress.

‘Green Activities’: gateway gardens; restore dogwood trees; create a streamside park; local farmer’s market; infill/ renovate housing; natural spring protection; Indian Creek trails.

Value Added/ Why Green: This master plan showed how the community could develop to meet citizens’ needs and respect their values, while strengthening the natural, social, and economic systems that make a community viable.

It is not possible to separate the three systems: community concerns are developer and environmental concerns, developer concerns are community and environmental concerns, and environmental concerns are developer and community concerns. In terms of sustainability, everything matters—a concept that potentially applies to larger-scale urban and regional planning, as well as to small communities like Stella.

Key Players: USEPA (NRMRL); USEPA Region 7; town of Stella; state of Missouri; individual property owners; developers;

Environmental Goals: revitalize the community while learning about the effects of human decision making on natural resources. Build community!

Definition of End Result (sustain community, eco-village, etc): sustainable community

Looking Ahead

Although development to meet Stella’s sustainability master plan will likely be slow and uncertain over the next decade, the process has revealed strong relationships among communities, developers, and environmental stewards. Indeed, it is not possible to separate the three systems: community concerns are developer and environmental concerns, developer concerns are community and environmental concerns, and environmental concerns are developer and community concerns. In terms of sustainability, everything matters—a concept that potentially applies to larger-scale urban and regional planning, as well as to small communities like Stella.

The uniqueness of the Stella project has been recognized by the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C., which will display information about Stella’s sustainability planning in a special “Green Community” exhibit beginning this October. The exhibit will run through October 2009 to demonstrate that green communities are not just a collection of sustainably designed buildings, but depend on the integration of many elements. Meanwhile, applying Stella’s strategy for

294 sustainability is providing a field test for the study of human-made and natural relationships, truly unique in environmental research.

References:

United States Environmental Protection Agency: Risk Management Research. Research Highlights: Revitalizing Stella, Missouri- A Sustainability Model. Internet; accessed 11/3/08. http://www.epa.gov/NRMRL/news/news072008.html

295 Case #49: Fruitvale Transit Village Project (Transportation)

Location: Oakland, CA- Fruitvale Bay

Population: Population of Oakland- 2000- 399,484; 2007- 397,067 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: More than 50 percent of the Latino population of Oakland, California, lives and works in Fruitvale (Cultural Heritage Tourism).

2000- White- 31.3% ; Black- 35.7%; Asian- 15.2%; Hispanic/ Latin- 21.9% (US Census Bureau).

Revitalization Goals: Improve the low-income, predominantly minority community experiencing economic stress.

Strategy: The Fruitvale Transit Village project is the result of a broad-based partnership among public, private, and nonprofit organizations working together to revitalize a community using transit-oriented development. Transit-oriented development is a planning concept that seeks to use mass transit stations as building blocks for economic revitalization and environmental improvement. In September 1999, groundbreaking took place on a $100 million mixed-use development adjacent to the Fruitvale Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) station in Oakland, California. Fruitvale, one of Oakland's seven community districts, is a low-income, predominantly minority community experiencing economic stress. This case study focuses on the incorporation of environmental justice principles into the planning and design of the Fruitvale Transit Village.

The Fruitvale Transit Village is the Unity Council’s idea, a community development corporation formed in 1964 by activists who wanted to create a forum for working on issues important to Fruitvale's Latino community. The origins of the project date back to 1991, when BART announced plans to construct a multi-layered parking facility next to the Fruitvale station. Members of the community were concerned that the proposed structure would increase traffic and pollution and further separate the Fruitvale neighborhood from the BART station. The Unity Council galvanized neighborhood opposition to the parking structure design and location, arguing that any development around the BART station should be guided by a broad-based community planning process.

Faced with this strong community opposition, BART withdrew its proposal and agreed to work with the Unity Council on a plan for the area. During the next several years, the Unity Council engaged local stakeholders in a comprehensive visioning and planning process that laid out the parameters of the Fruitvale Transit Village. Plans for the Transit Village include a mixture of housing, shops, offices, a library, a child care facility, a pedestrian plaza, and other community services all surrounding the BART station. The project is expected to reduce traffic and pollution in and around Fruitvale because community residents will have access to a range of goods and services within easy walking distance of the transit station.

The Fruitvale Transit Village project illustrates a number of key themes and effective practices that are central to incorporating the principles of environmental justice into transportation planning and design. First, it demonstrates an effective use of partnerships to generate funding and other resources necessary to plan and implement a costly and complex project. The Unity Council's success in building relationships with a wide range of key players helped overcome the formidable legal, regulatory, and financial hurdles the project initially faced.

In addition, the project illustrates a strong commitment to public involvement by the lead agencies involved. Typically, either city officials or private developers represent the driving force behind large-scale development projects such as this. Under the best of circumstances, community residents are usually in the position of responding to plans that are initiated by others. In this case, however, the Unity Council's leadership role in the project helped ensure that the community's own vision for the transit station and its surrounding area served as guiding principles for the planning and design process.

Finally, the planning effort behind the Fruitvale Transit Village represents an innovative strategy for using mass transit as a lever for revitalizing an urban community. While transit-oriented development has been successful in a growing

296 number of affluent suburban locations, the Fruitvale Transit Village sets a precedent for such projects in lower-income, inner-city communities.

‘Green Activities’: Transit Oriented Development, mass transit

Value Added/ Why Green: The project is expected to reduce traffic and pollution in and around Fruitvale because community residents will have access to a range of goods and services within easy walking distance of the transit station.

Key Players: Unity Council, City of Oakland, BART, community of Fruitvale

Environmental Goals: reduce traffic and pollution in and around Fruitvale

References: Cultural Heritage Tourism. Bringing Life to a Neighborhood: Dia De Los Muertos in Fruitvale, California. Internet; accessed 11/3/08. http://www.culturalheritagetourism.org/successStories/fruitvaleCaSidebarStory.htm United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration/ Federal Transit Administration. Fruitvale Transit Village Project. Internet; accessed 11/3/08. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ejustice/case/case6.htm

297 Case #50: LA Light Rail (Transportation)

Location: Los Angeles, CA

Population: 2000- 3,694,820 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 46.9%; Black- 11.2%; Asian- 10%; Hispanic/ Latino- 46.5% (US Census Bureau)

LA grew up in an era in which people expected to have a backyard and a garden, and city officials and developers were disinclined to dedicate public open space, so not many areas were set aside for parks. Given rapid growth and increasing population density in Southern California, lack of parks and open space has become a severe problem (Wiland and Bell 2006). Former state public health officer states that “Two-thirds of the kids in LA cannot walk to a park. IF they don’t have a place to walk or run around, we have no business telling our kids to get in shape. Three-quarters of the kids in California cannot pass a basic fitness test, which is running one mile in 12 minutes” (Wiland and Bell 2006, 145). They are now realizing that people need to be around other people, they need to feel connected and a sense of belonging.

Revitalization Goals: reduce commuting times

Strategy: The old right-of-way from an extinct railroad line was bought by the later known Metropolitan Transit Authority, to build light rail line to the west side of LA. Citizen groups/grassroots organization advocated for this line and worked with the MTA (Wiland and Bell 2006, 171-176).

‘Green Activities’: Transit/ light rail- in Antelope Valley (Westside), commute times to work are often 2 hours each way. Parents often don’t get home until 7 or 8 o’clock at night and thus don’t get to spend much time with their kids. As a result, teen problems start to arise (i.e. gangs, violence, etc).

Value Added/ Why Green: This new line would potentially serve 8 hundred thousand people living along the corridor from Santa Monica through Culver City to downtown LA (Wiland and Bell 2006, 171-176).

Key Players: Citizen groups, grassroots organizations, Metropolitan Transit Authority, community

Environmental Goals: Improve air and water quality, work with nature to collect and store as much rain water a possible.

298 Case #51: Portland’s Transportation (Transportation)

Location: Portland, OR Population: 2000- 529,121 (US Census Bureau) Demographics: 2000- White- 77.9%; Black- 6.6%; Asian- 6.3%; Hispanic/ Latino- 6.8% (US Census Bureau)

Background: Portland has a reputation as a place that works, partly because it has attempted regional solutions to regional problems. Steady growth in the area is pushing jobs and housing to the edge of a regional urban growth boundary that encompasses 234,000 acres in 24 cities and parts of three counties. Development is sprawling out to small towns outside the urban growth boundary, dozens of miles from downtown Portland (Oliver 1994).

Despite investments in transit, the automobile is becoming more (not less) important in the region. On average, Portland residents are increasing their travel by almost four percent a year, placing a burden on the transportation system and the air supply. Population growth of about 1.4% a year further contributes to the challenge (Oliver 1994).

Fred Hansen, director of Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality, along with other regional readers is seeking new approaches to transportation. The Environmental Quality agency has the authority under Oregon and federal law to restrict automobile use and impose industrial restrictions in order to preserve air quality. He hopes that the region can avoid punishing industry and the public by gradually developing a strong transit system while establishing land-use patterns that give residents a choice in how to move around the region (Oliver 1994).

Revitalization Goals: reduce sprawl and concentrate growth/development in the downtown area. Improve air quality, transit ridership, traffic flow and accommodating development.

Strategy: The Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) represents major political and transportation constituencies and has had success in finding regional solutions. It serves as an advisory committee to the elected council of the regional government, Metro and calls the shots in all major transportation issues.

Vehicle inspections- As a result of Portland’s requests for clean air status for both ozone and carbon monoxide to the USEPA, the city will call for expanding the motor vehicle inspection program into areas outside the regional urban growth boundary, combined with implementation of a more sophisticated vehicle emission test.

Commuting Requirements- The environmental quality department has also prepared an “employee commute options rule” that will require companies with 50 to 100 workers to submit plans for reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips by 10%. This figure increases to 20% for larger employers.

Parking regulations- The department of environmental quality recommended lifting the city’s 20-year-old downtown parking lid, which allows no more than 44,322 parking spaces in the core area. This lid was placed to reduce air pollutions problems by phasing out surface parking in 1972. Hansen believes that the agency can keep carbon monoxide to acceptable levels without the current lid, and the city has promised to maintain a strict parking ratio downtown.

A “parking ratio rule” would replace the parking lid by reducing the number of new parking spaces by requiring local governments to establish maximum parking ratios for new development. Its goal is a 10% reduction in vehicle trips generated by new retail, commercial, and industrial projects.

The parking rule parallels the statewide Transportation Planning Rule, which calls for a 10% reduction in parking spaces over the next 20 years, 10% reduction in vehicle miles traveled per capita over 20 years, and a 20% reduction in 30 years. The region’s residents now average 12.8 miles of travel per day. The rule requires all commercial developments to be oriented to transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. In practice, that can mean that grocery stores can no longer be set back behind parking lots, builders of fast-food restaurants would have to make them accessible to bicyclists and pedestrians, and subdivision streets and bike paths would have to link to school and stores. This new ratio will allow two parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space in residential districts and between 0.7 and 1 parking space for every 1,000 feet of office space downtown.

299 Transit- The region’s light rail system- Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) is being expanded due to citizen interest and administration planning. Light rail has helped focus development in the region.

Funding: The Tri-County Metropolitan Transit District (Tri-Met), which runs the light rail and bus service, asked voters to approve $475 million in bonds to help pay the $billion construction costs.

‘Green Activities’: Transit/ light rail, commuting requirements, parking regulations,

Value Added/ Why Green: Light rail allows for an increase in development and an increase in jobs without an increase in parking spaces. The land that would previously be used for parking can then be used for additional development.

Key Players: Citizen groups, nonprofit organizations, Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality, Metro, Tri-County Metropolitan Transit District, community

Environmental Goals: Reduce sprawl and the air pollution emissions that occur from the resulting automobile use.

Outcomes (if applicable): A study conducted by a nonprofit land-use watchdog group, “Making the Land Use/Transportation/Air Quality Connection” (LUTRAQ) found that vehicle miles traveled could be reduced in the suburbs by creating a pedestrian-oriented environment similar to what exists in old Portland neighborhoods. It also found that a market demand for 1,150 multi-family and 1,400 single-family housing units exists annually in transit-oriented developments in Washington County.

Tri-Met has found that 36% of the region’s residents ride transit at least once a month, double the number of occasional riders before light rail. MAX has almost as many riders on Saturdays as the 25,000 is averages on weekdays. Light rail is perceived differently from transit. Hansen states that “people who would never get on a bus will get on MAX” (Oliver 1994).

Hoping to take advantage of light rail’s popularity, Tri-Met, local governments, and the Department of Environmental Quality are engaged in a public-private partnership. They want to create transit-oriented developments on large undeveloped parcels near planned west side light rail stops.

There are now 11,639 surface parking spaces, reduced from 15,800 twenty years ago. The downtown has added over 30,000 jobs since the early 1970s while adding fewer than 5,000 parking spaces, and the percentage of downtown workers riding transit to work has doubled in that period. However, within the last several years, transit ridership has declined as many rely on the convenience of their own vehicles.

References: United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html Oliver, G. August, 1994. “Portland Revs Up for Action,” Planning, Vol. 60 (8). American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois. Found in Kemp, R.L. ed. 2001. The Inner City: A Handbook for Renewal. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc.

300 Case #52: Sustainable South Bronx- Environmental Stewardship Training (Green Collar Job Training)

Location: Bronx, New York

Population: 2000- 1,332,650 (US Census Bureau)

Background: South Bronx handles about 40% of New York City’s commercial waste. A sewage treatment plant, a sewage sludge palletizing plant, four power plants and high diesel emissions from about 60,000 diesel truck trips each and every week are located in and affect the neighborhood. Right now Manhattan doesn’t handle any of its own waste or its power generation. It exists in its glory because of surrounding neighborhoods like the South Bronx (CNN.com 2008a).

Sustainable South Bronx (SSBx) is a nonprofit environmental justice solution corporation, founded in 2001 by Dr. Majora Carter (a life-long resident). The nonprofit addressed land-use, energy, transportation, water and waste policy, and education to advance the environmental and economic rebirth of the South Bronx, and inspire solutions in areas like it across the nation and around the world. Their mission: environmental justice solutions through innovative, economically sustainable projects informed by community needs (Sustainable South Bronx).

Strategy: SSBx launched the Bronx Environmental Stewardship Training in 2003. A 10-week intensive job-training program, it confronts environmental, health, poverty and quality of life problems by equipping urban residents to work in "green collar" jobs such as ecological restoration, hazardous waste cleanup, green roof installation and maintenance, urban forestry and landscaping.

The program targets people who are facing barriers to employment. "These are folks who have been incarcerated or on public assistance," Craytor explains. "When they rebuilding the Bronx and the city through ecological restoration," she continues, "They're also rebuilding their lives and it affects not just them but their families as well” (Sustainable South Bronx). The training runs quarterly, graduating approximately 60 trainees per year. So far, it has placed 85 percent of the graduates in jobs, and another 10 percent have gone on to college (Sustainable South Bronx).

As successful as the environmental stewardship program has been so far, however, it cannot place its trainees in green jobs if those jobs do not exist. While it seems as though PlaNYC2030 would create such jobs, SSBx staff find that, in many places, PlaNYC2030 misses the chance to help make a "green collar" workforce into reality. (Gotham Gazette 2008)

‘Green Activities’: Ecological restoration job training program (Bronx Environmental Stewardship Training- BEST) that trains people from the community and citywide about the ecological restoration needs- about an 85% placement rate. Training includes: brownfield remediation; Osha Haz-Mat training; green roof installation/maintenance; river bank restoration; bioremediation; phytomediation; ecological restoration; wetland restoration; and stream bank stabilization (Sustainable South Bronx).

Value Added/ Why Green: The ecological restoration training program trains local citizens in environmental/ hazardous cleanup so that they may be included in the workforce while cleaning up contaminated, underutilized land.

Key Players: Mayor, Sustainable South Bronx (SSBx)- nonprofit environmental justice solution corporation; local government; NYC Economic Development Corporation, SSBx and The Point, CDC as the community partners; community. 301 Environmental Goals: To alleviate poverty and remediate the environment through green-collar jobs and sustainable development. Replace old manufacturing with green industry (eco-industrial parks). We want to create opportunities that employ people so they can become an active part of the fabric of the city's life.

References: CNN.com. June 6, 2008a. Majora Carter: Her Vision. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/05/carter.vision/ CNN.com, b. June 6, 2008b. Majora Carter: Interview. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/05/carterinterview/ Gotham Gazzette. August 2008. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/communitydevelopment/20080819/20/261 6 Sustainable South Bronx. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.ssbx.org/mission.html United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

302 Case #53: Glendale Pedestrian Streets (Pedestrian-Friendly Development)

Location: Glendale, Wisconsin

Population: 2000- 13,367 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 86.8%; Black- 8.1%; Asian- 3% (US Census Bureau).

Revitalization Goals: Implementing a new streetscape plan that incorporates pedestrian-friendly, unifying elements.

Strategy: West Silver Spring Drive, a straight, 1-mile stretch of heavily traveled arterial, was lined with parking lanes and surrounded by vacant properties and underused land parcels. In its place, the city is constructing a gently curving roadway that will produce larger land parcels for office and retail development. The improvements will also slow traffic (which routinely exceeds the posted 35 mph speed limit by 10 to 15 mph) and remedy the accident-prone intersection (Kemp 2006).

Funding- Tax Increment Financing

‘Green Activities’: Recreating a main street to become more pedestrian-friendly and aesthetically pleasing. Signal light intersections will increase from 2 to 5; green spaces and pedestrian lighting will be added; and benches, bus shelters and rest areas will be installed. The project is estimated to cost $24 million. Officials are projecting that subsequent development will create a harmonious character for the area (Kemp 2006).

Value Added/ Why Green: Pedestrian-friendly Development for providing a vibrant, mixed use community. The existence of pedestrian friendly streets provides some incentive for people to walk rather than drive. A pleasant walking environment with sidewalks, weather protection, and attractive landscaping is a step toward encouraging people choose transit, bikes, or walking over cars. In addition to environmental benefits, this yields social benefits by encouraging informal encounters among neighbors, and health benefits from the exercise. This new configuration will also unite the surrounding neighborhoods and enhance the residents’ experiences (Kemp 2006).

Key Players: city, citizens

Environmental Goals: The city wishes to produce a safe and inviting place for residents and visitors to walk and shop.

303 Case #54: Waco Streetscape (Pedestrian-Friendly Development)

Location: Waco, Texas

Population: 2000- 113,726 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 60.8%; Black- 22.6%; Am Indian/Alaskan- 0.5%; Asian- 1.4%; Hispanic/ Latino- 23.6% (US Census Bureau).

Revitalization Goals: Balancing commerce with a sense of community by improving pedestrian activity. Using the streetscape concept to update its image citywide. Creating an environment that offers downtown visitors easy access to an already-developed retail and entertainment base.

Development came first in Waco. Rather than implementing the streetscape program to spur development, they focused on enhancing the progress that was already made.

Strategy: The streetscape will link Waco’s various downtown areas and people will be able to travel in a more friendly pedestrian environment between shops, restaurants, hotels, apartments and clubs.

The $4.1 million project began in 1996 when a 4-day design workshop in which city representatives, downtown business leaders and Baylor University staff shared ideas about the new streetscape. The city then analyzed primary vehicular and pedestrian linkages, development characteristics, existing sidewalks and other features.

‘Green Activities’: Project incorporates lighting, furniture, paving, signage, landscaping and other features to help create an attractive and functional pedestrian environment.

Value Added: Pedestrian-friendly elements create a sense of convenience, safety and community.

Key Players: City Planning Department; business leaders; Baylor University staff, community

Environmental Goals: Balancing commerce with a sense of community by improving pedestrian activity.

Outcomes (if applicable): Residents and developers have responded favorably to the changes. State and federal offices, hotels, loft apartments, restaurants and specialty shops have been added to Waco’s downtown, and even more enhancements are in the works. The city is installing a bicycle/pedestrian trail along the Brazos River to connect with the downtown improvements.

There is no single way to revitalize downtowns; successful projects have included everything from streetscaping to reconfigurations of existing districts. However, cities across the nation seem to be focusing on the need for pedestrian- friendly elements that create a sense of convenience, safety and community. And in doing so, they are stretching the old definitions of redevelopment and changing the urban landscape.

304 Case #55: Seattle’s High Point Development Project (Mixed-Use Development & Swales)

Location: Seattle, Washington

Population: 2000- 563,374 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 70%; Black- 8.4%; Am Indian/ Alaskan Native- 1%; Asian- 13.1%; Hispanic/ Latino- 5.3% (US Census Bureau)

They city now attracts educated professionals who want: a challenging career and a close connection to natural surroundings. Where previous generations focused on what Seattle’s natural resources could do for them, today’s generation focuses on what they can do for the environment (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Sustainable Seattle achieves its mission through:

Revitalization Goals: Restore salmon population and Puget Sound watershed. To focus on green building to allow for growth and prevent negative impacts.

Strategy: “Most of the great things in Seattle happen because the citizens want it” Cary Moon (Wiland and Bell 2006, 194). Seattle Housing Authority and the city decided to transform an abandoned housing development in West Seattle called High Point (overlooking Elliott Bay) into a vibrant, dense (16 units per acre and narrow streets) mixed-use, mixed- income community. Since High Point makes up 10% of Longfellow Creek’s watershed (which drains into Puget Sound), swales would be used to prevent runoff and encourage groundwater recharge (Wiland and Bell 2006). 305 The old building materials were salvaged and recycled and about 100 trees were protected from construction. Wanted to create a prototype that could be replicated in other urbanizing cities and counties. High Point provides a model for the strategic use of trees, swales and plantings to mimic nature’s systems for managing and purifying water. High Point will promote green lifestyles and a sense of community (Wiland and Bell 2006).

3 types of swales: vegetated (a narrow plot of land stretching along a roadway and planted with trees, perennials, and ground covers; 18 in of gravel under the sod that can hold about a foot of water during heavy rains), shallow (covered with grass and trees only, stretches down about 7 in and hold about 2 in of excess water) and conveyance (ground pitched at an angle in order to transfer water from one type of swale to the other, holding about a foot of water) (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Tree fences are used during construction, low-VOC products are used in the building and site managers are pushing the use of electric- battery- charged lawn mowers and leaf blowers over gasoline-powered ones (Wiland and Bell 2006).

‘Green Activities’: Mixed-use/ mixed-income development and swales (w/ green building strategies)

Value Added/ Why Green?- Developers want to lead by example (instead of jumping on the band wagon after everyone else has already done it). As a result of focus groups, they’ve realized that people want to move into a green community and they’re willing to pay extra (Wiland and Bell 2006; City of Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development).

Key Players: City of Seattle, nonprofits (i.e. Sustainable Seattle), Seattle Housing Authority

Environmental Goals: connecting people with the surrounding ecosystem. To be the kind of place where wildlife can thrive even at the edge of a growing city.

306 Case #56: Chicago’s Green Affordable Housing (Green Building & Green Technology)

Location: Chicago, Illinois

Population: 2000- 2,896,016 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 42%; Black- 36.8%; Asian- 4.3%; Hispanic/ Latino- 26% (US Census Bureau).

Revitalization Goals: Create affordable and environmentally-friendly housing development for Chicago's neediest individuals

Strategy: On April 5, 2008, Mayor Richard M. Daley opened the 63-unit Washington Park Single Room Occupancy (SRO), a new $10.6 million affordable and environmentally-friendly housing development for those who endured homeless and public housing residents in the Grand Boulevard Community on the City's South Side (City of Chicago’s Department of Housing). “We know that affordable and permanent supportive housing is critical in helping people at risk of homelessness find stability so they can access employment services, health care, and mental health and addiction services," said Mayor Daley. "Washington SRO will hopefully provide the permanent solution they need to break out of the cycle of poverty and despair" (City of Chicago’s Department of Housing).

The complex offers a wide variety of support services designed to assist in the transition from homelessness and will enable residents to live as independently as possible."The project furthers the City's commitment to preserve and provide affordable housing with support services to those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, which is the cornerstone of the City's 10 year Plan to End Homelessness," said Mayor Daley (City of Chicago’s Department of Housing).

The building originally opened in 1950 as the Washington Park YMCA and was a center of community activity. The Affordable Housing Preservation Foundation preserved and adapted the building for new use in order to keep affordable housing in the community and restore it as a symbol of civic pride (City of Chicago’s Department of Housing).

Funding- The City of Chicago invested nearly $900,000 in low-income housing tax credits, to generate $9.2 million in equity for the project. Other significant investments included $750,000 from the Illinois Housing Development Authority Trust Fund, $500,000 from the Federal Home Loan Bank, $450,000 in energy efficiency grants and $400,000 from HUD's Supportive Housing Program (City of Chicago’s Department of Housing).

Washington Park SRO is also an example of how green practices can be incorporated into affordable housing design and construction to minimize environmental impact and reduce energy consumption.

The Affordable Housing Preservation Foundation also plans to obtain the Silver LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) rating for the development.

‘Green Activities’: Green building- geothermal heat pumps, high-efficiency heating and air conditioning systems, solar hot water heating system, solar panels and green roof will lower electric and water bills. As a result, the added savings will go towards funds for other uses, including supportive services for tenants

Value Added/ Why Green: Savings from the energy efficiency will go towards funds for other uses, including supportive services for tenants. Such affordable and permanent supportive housing is critical in helping people at risk of homelessness find stability so they can access employment services, health care, and mental health and addiction services.

Key Players: Mayor, City of Chicago, Affordable Housing Preservation Foundation,

307 Environmental Goals: Create affordable and environmentally-friendly housing development for Chicago's neediest individuals

References: City of Chicago’s Department of Housing. Mayor Daley Dedicates Washington Park SRO. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?blockN ame=Housing%2f2008%2fI+Want+To&deptMainCategoryOID=- 536886259&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Housing&topChannelNa me=Dept&contentOID=536983075&Failed_Reason=Invalid+timestamp,+engine +has+been+restarted&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&com.broadvision.s ession.new=Yes&Failed_Page=%2fwebportal%2fportalContentItemAction.do&c ontext=dept Kemp, R.L. ed. 2006. Cities and Nature: A Handbook for Renewal. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc. United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

308 Case #57: Seattle Green Housing/Construction Practices (Green Building, Infill Development & Green Construction Practices)

Location: Seattle, Washington

Population: 2000- 563,374 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 70%; Black- 8.4%; Am Indian/ Alaskan Native- 1%; Asian- 13.1%; Hispanic/ Latino- 5.3% (US Census Bureau)

Sustainable Seattle achieves its mission through:

Revitalization Goals: Restore salmon population and Puget Sound watershed. To focus on green building to allow for growth and prevent negative impacts.

Strategy: “Most of the great things in Seattle happen because the citizens want it” Cary Moon (Wiland and Bell 2006, 194).

309 Sustainable urban infill housing/ green building and construction techniques- rebuilding on existing land within the city. Martha Rose Construction (known for its sustainable building) allows a salvage company to pick through existing structures (that will be torn down for new development) for usable items (i.e. hardwood floors, cabinets, mantelpieces) which are donated to shelter organizations or sold to people looking to restore old homes. The empty shell is then demolished, and the resulting concrete, wood, and bricks are sent to a recycling site that sorts “commingled debris”. The wood is ground up for composting, the metal is recycled as scrap and anything unusable is ground up and sent to the landfill. Only 5% of structures (instead of 100%) ever make it to a landfill. Recently, Rose has started using demolition crews that only use biodiesel equipment to knock down buildings. The crew tries to save as many trees on site as possible. They erect fences and filters to halt further erosion and place a layer of wood chips on the ground to give the machines a slightly firmer footing and traction so they don’t tear up the earth. When they start building basements, they make a point to mimic the natural process forests use to capture and retain water. They do it by establishing infiltration pits filled with crushed rock, which allows local water to seep into the ground and slowly percolate into the earth instead of running down storm drains. They even use porous concrete. They try to eliminate use of toxic pressure-treated lumber and use shingles with a longer lifespan. They emphasize using materials that are more durable and last longer (i.e. commercial-grade tile and carpets and cedar siding). A major goal among green builders is to reduce energy loss- carpenters try to build larger spaces in the walls for thicker insulation. They even insulate the underside of the concrete slab on which the house sits. They install dual-flush toilets, use paints and adhesives that don’t have harmful fumes or VOCs, use fiberglass not made with formaldehyde, install all natural linoleum and Energy Star appliances and compact fluorescent light bulbs. The Martha Rose Construction is quite small (3-8 houses built/ year) but each of them has been certified as energy-efficient and environmentally friendly structures by Washington’s “Built Green” organization. It’s estimated that 20% of new homes in Seattle are certified by Built Green, including several low-income complexes (Wiland and Bell 2006; City of Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development).

Tree fences during construction- Each of the trees to be saved during demo/construction is assessed according to its value if you had to buy it at a nursery today, transport it to a site, and plant it by any means necessary. The cost of each tree is then displayed on the wire fence enclosing it like so: “Bigleaf maple, Acre macrophylum, appraised value: $42,365,” “London plane, Platanus x acerifolia, appraised value: $35,666,” “Douglas Fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii, appraised value: $19,248,” “Lawson Cypress, Chamaecyparis lawsoniana, appraised value: $24,417.” Each fence carries this warning to everyone working on the site: “Tree Protection Fence. No trespassing on critical root zone of this tree without direct approval of owner’s representative. Work within the critical root zone shall result in a fine of $1,500 or the appraised landscape value, whichever is greater (Wiland and Bell 2006).

‘Green Activities’: Sustainable urban infill housing/ green building and construction techniques

The cost to build a green house is about 5% more than that of conventional construction. Some builders are building green homes because of the marketing but most are doing it because they feel strongly about it- providing higher quality (Wiland and Bell 2006, 216).

Green building can save money on utility bills, decrease maintenance costs, and help protect the value of real estate investment. It also enhances the health and well-being of your family or office staff by creating indoor environments with better air quality and (day) lighting.

It can help minimize waste, preserve natural resources, protect forests, wildlife, air and water quality. And it can help create better neighborhoods, a thriving local economy, and a better quality of life for all (City of Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development).

Key Players: City of Seattle, nonprofits (i.e. Sustainable Seattle), Seattle Housing Authority

310 Environmental Goals: connecting people with the surrounding ecosystem. To be the kind of place where wildlife can thrive even at the edge of a growing city.

311 Case #58: Chicago’s Green Roofs (Green Building, Green Infrastructure & Green Collar Jobs)

Location: Chicago, IL

Population: 2000- 2,896,016 (US Census Bureau)

Demographics: 2000- White- 42%; Black- 36.8%; Asian- 4.3%; Hispanic/ Latino- 26% (US Census Bureau)

Revitalization Goals: Attract environmentally sensitive businesses to the old steelmaking quarter to fulfill the urgent need for more jobs in the region.

Strategy: The City of Chicago Department of Environment is issuing grants for green roofs. Grants of up to $5,000 are available towards the cost of installing a green roof- consisting of plants and soil, or other light-weight growing medium, installed on top of a waterproofing membrane (Chicago Green Roof Grants Program). The City provides a list of green roof providers as well as a guide to rooftop gardening.

Building Green/ Green Roof Initiative- The Building Green/Green Roof Initiative sets forth policies and resources that promote sustainable building practices across the city. Policies involve environmentally responsible design, construction and maintenance techniques that are available for and may apply to both new and existing structures. The initiative promotes the construction of buildings that: enhance the well being of occupants; require fewer resources to build and maintain; and cost less to operate.

Green Building and Green Roof policies are applicable to new public buildings, planned developments, and privately funded structures that are subsidized by the City of Chicago (City of Chicago).

‘Green Activities’: Green roofs with native plants – built in 2000 to cool the roof of City Hall, reduce the heavy flow of rainwater and heavy flooding, and create a beautiful habitat for birds and other creatures. If done correctly, a green roof will actually weigh less than a conventional roof garden and impart much-needed shade and insulation to the building below. The native plants reduce rain water runoff, reflect heat, shade the building, cool the air by slowly releasing moisture through the pores in their leaves, and purify the air by transforming excess CO2 into oxygen. City Hall also makes and sells its own honey from a swarm of bees that live in the rooftop apiary and pollinate the rooftop plants (Wiland and Bell 2006).

Value Added/ Why Green: The green roof on City Hall saves taxpayers $4,000-$5,000 a year in heating and cooling costs. On a hot day, the air is actually about 15 degrees cooler in the garden than on nearby rooftops. When surfaces in the garden are 86 degrees F, the temperature of an average blacktop roof is 168 degrees. The California Energy Commission has actually calculated that the Co2 reduction achieved by a single tree has a dollar value of $920 per ton per year (Wiland and Bell 2006, 35).

Green roofs help building owners save money, while also contributing to a healthy city. Green roofs create energy savings for building owners by assisting with more efficient heating and cooling. They also work to lower surrounding urban heat temperatures. In addition, green roofs reduce storm water runoff, improve water quality, and create conditions for longer- lasting roof systems (Chicago Green Roof Grants Program).

Key Players: City of Chicago; contractors; citizens 312 Environmental Goals: Attract environmentally sensitive businesses to the old steelmaking quarter to fulfill the urgent need for more jobs in the region.

References: City of Chicago. Conserve Chicago Together: Building Green/ Green Roof Initiative. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.ci.chi.il.us/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?blockName=C onserve+Chicago+Together%2fFunding+Opportunities%2fI+Want+To&deptMai nCategoryOID=- 536890175&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Conserve+Chicago+Toget her&topChannelName=SubAgency&contentOID=536912290&Failed_Reason=In valid+timestamp,+engine+has+been+restarted&contenTypeName=COC_EDITO RIAL&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&Failed_Page=%2fwebportal%2fportal ContentItemAction.do&context=dept Chicago Green Roof Grants Program. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/GreenR oofGrantsProgramDescription.pdf United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html Wiland, H. and Bell, D. 2006. Edens Lost & Found. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

313 Case #59: Sustainable South Bronx Green Roofs (Green Building, Green Infrastructure & Green Collar Jobs)

Location: Bronx, New York

Population: 2000- 1,332,650 (US Census Bureau)

Sustainable South Bronx (SSBx) is a nonprofit environmental justice solution corporation, founded in 2001 by Dr. Majora Carter (a life-long resident). The nonprofit addressed land-use, energy, transportation, water and waste policy, and education to advance the environmental and economic rebirth of the South Bronx, and inspire solutions in areas like it across the nation and around the world. Their mission: environmental justice solutions through innovative, economically sustainable projects informed by community needs (Sustainable South Bronx).

Strategy: SSBx’s green roof installation business trains people how to install green roofs in the community and around the city. They will discuss the steps needed with residents to make roofs green. From structural analysis to soil depth, plant selections, government incentives, and installation, they want to design a system to fit individual needs and spread this beneficial technology throughout NYC. Individuals are encouraged to make a free appointment to meet with a SmartRoof representative (Sustainable South Bronx, b).

SSBx is actively lobbying to New York City and State Governments to place a value on the air quality improvements and stormwater runoff reductions that green roofs provide. These can come in the form of tax abatements/credits, or possibly free structural analysis. While we cannot guarantee these efforts will be successful, there is good precedent in other municipalities such as Portland, OR and abroad for this type of legislation (Sustainable South Bronx, b).

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) may be able to assist with financing for green roof projects (Sustainable South Bronx, b).

‘Green Activities’: green roof installation business; green job creation; green building

Value Added/ Why Green: Green roofs result in temperature reduction and energy conservation; stormwater management (by absorbing rain water); improved air quality; space for urban agriculture; employment; reintroduce native species. Retrofitting an existing building with a green roof costs more than a conventional roof, but this investment yields cost savings over time through energy conservation and rooftop longevity. A green roof can also increase the resale or rental value of a property and provide aesthetic enjoyment (Sustainable South Bronx, b).

Key Players: Mayor, Sustainable South Bronx (SSBx)- nonprofit environmental justice solution corporation; local government; community; NYSERDA

314 Environmental Goals: To alleviate poverty and remediate the environment through green-collar jobs and sustainable development. Replace old manufacturing with green industry (eco-industrial parks). We want to create opportunities that employ people so they can become an active part of the fabric of the city's life.

References: CNN.com. June 6, 2008a. Majora Carter: Her Vision. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/05/carter.vision/ CNN.com, b. June 6, 2008b. Majora Carter: Interview. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/05/carterinterview/ Gotham Gazzette. August 2008. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/communitydevelopment/20080819/20/261 6 Sustainable South Bronx, a. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.ssbx.org/mission.html Sustainable South Bronx, b. Sustainable South Bronx Smart Roof Project. Internet; accessed 11/9/08. http://www.ssbx.org/greenroofs.html United States Bureau of the Census. State and County Quick Facts. Internet; accessed 11/2/08. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

315 Case #60: Northampton County Eco-Industrial Park (Brownfield Redevelopment, Mixed-Use, Green Space, Green Building, Green Construction, Green Infrastructure, Green Technology/Renewable Energy, and Green Collar Jobs/Training)

Location: Northampton County, Virginia Population: 2000- 13,093 (US Census Bureau) Demographics: 2006- White- 59.8%; Black- 38.9%; Am Indian/ Alaskan- 0.2%; Asian- 0.2%; Hispanic/ Latino- 6.1% (US Census Bureau)

Background: Economic development and environmental protection often are viewed as competing interests at best and mutually exclusive at worst. Despite this seemingly incompatibility, Northampton County, Virginia, has opened the first phase of a new kind of industrial park in which waste streams are cycled into revenue streams and industrial processes are based on the designs of natural systems. This “ecological industrial park” is part of an innovative county strategy whereby economic development is protecting valuable environmental assets and environmental protection is fostering development of a sustainable economy.

Northampton is a place rich in natural and historic resources, including miles of pristine beaches, a string of preserved barrier islands, thriving marshes and tidal creeks, fish and shellfish, birds and wildlife, open land and clean water, small towns and historic villages, woodlands, and farms. Recognizing the global importance of this ecosystem, the United Nations has designated much of Northampton County and the surrounding region as a World Biosphere Reserve.

In sharp contrast to the county’s natural and historic wealth, many of its people live in severe economic poverty. The closure of nearly all of the area’s seafood and agricultural processing plants during the 1980s resulted in the loss of more than 1,500 jobs. By the early 1990s, 28% of the population was living in poverty, while 10% of the county’s homes lacked plumbing and 12% lacked sanitary facilities.

Having declined economically to become one of the poorest communities in Virginia and in the nation, the county began to wrestle with difficult, seemingly contradictory questions. Should the environment be sacrificed for economic development? Should a stagnant economy, lack of jobs, and poverty by accepted as the price of protecting a unique environment? Should the county try to strike a balance between economic development and environmental protection that would provide for “manageable” levels of both poverty and pollution? None of these scenarios was acceptable.

Rather than compromising the local economy for the environment or vice versa, the county instead decided to pursue a strategy that would simultaneously maximize both the economy and the environment for the benefit of the entire community. As one member of the Northampton County Board of Supervisors put it: “We must do business today in a way that won’t put us out of business tomorrow” (Kemp 2006, 153).

In 1993, the county formally began its sustainable development initiative with a mission to “build a strong and lasting economy by capitalizing on and protecting Northampton’s rich natural, cultural, and human assets.”

Revitalization Goals: “build a strong and lasting economy by capitalizing on and protecting Northampton’s rich natural, cultural, and human assets.” This commitment would simultaneously benefit business, the environment, and all of the county’s people both now and in the future. The ecological industrial park would help build a strong and diversified economic base by attracting and growing new companies and by retaining and expanding existing companies. The companies in the park would provide quality jobs with competitive wages and benefits and opportunities for training and advancement.

Strategy: Through a partnership with the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Virginia Coastal Program, the county hired the nation’s first local director of sustainable development. With funding from the NOAA, VCP, and other partners, this individual organized the Department of Sustainable Development and led Northampton in formulating a vision for the county’s future and a strategy to achieve that vision.

The Sustainable Development Action Strategy was developed through an intensive, collaborative process involving community workshops, task forces, meetings and events. The county involved a broad cross section of its diverse 316 citizenry in the strategic development process, leveraging their combined experience to identify industries with realistic, significant, immediate, and ongoing potential for development. As a result, Northampton decided to target the following industry sectors: agriculture, seafood/aquaculture, heritage tourism, research/education, arts/crafts, local products, and sustainable technologies. The community also identified the vital natural, historic, and community assets that would need to be preserved and capitalized on to develop and sustain these targeted industries. The final step in the process was the formulation of an action plan for implementing the strategy. In June 1994, the Board of Supervisors adopted the strategy as the county’s official development policy and immediately kicked off its implementation.

One of the keys of the Sustainable Development Action Strategy was to leverage private investment in the county in ways that would achieve the integral goals of building an economic base and protecting natural and cultural assets. Public financial resources would have to be carefully focused to achieve the greatest possible return for each dollar invested. The strategy would also need to be phased in over time using major impact projects as long-term building blocks.

The master plan for the eco-park was created through an intensive 3-day community design workshop/charette. The plan carefully integrated the park with the historic town of Cape Charles and the natural landscape adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay. The site centered on redevelopment of former industrial land surrounding the town’s harbor. Half of the site was reserved for “ecological infrastructure”, including the Chesapeake Bay Coastal Dune Habitat Preserve, natural and created wetlands, and historic/archaeological sites. As an ecological industrial park, its facilities are based on the designs of natural systems. Electricity is generated from sunlight. A water reuse and recovery system is planned to recycle water for industrial use. Porous paving reduces stormwater runoff, which is collected and filtered by constructed wetlands.

The community formed its own development company (Sustainable Technology Park Authority) to manage the park. The Authority is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Slightly more than 200 acres of land was acquired in five transactions between 1995-1998. This included 30 acres adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay to be permanently preserved as a Coastal Dune Natural Area Preserve within the park. The land also included 45 acres of brownfields, including a former town dump and abandoned industrial land adjacent to Cape Charles Harbor. The United States EPA funded the environmental assessments that documented that lack of any hazardous materials or pollution problems associated with the site.

The first phase, a 31,000 sq ft multi-tenant manufacturing/office building was completed in January of 2000. The building meets the US GBC’s “green” building standards.

Funding: Northampton County and its Department of Sustainable Development raised more than $8 million of local, state, and federal funding to develop the first phase of the eco-industrial park. It included a $2.5 million bond issue approved by local voters. By 2002, this public investment leveraged another $8 million from private companies locating in the first phase of the park. This funding provided the means to achieve the initial objectives of the county’s Sustainable Development Action Strategy.

The public funding covered everything necessary to open the facility as a world-class eco-industrial park, including master planning, community involvement, covenants and sustainability standards, environmental assessments, land purchase, engineering, permits and approvals, infrastructure construction, multi-tenant green building construction, a solar electricity system, natural wetlands, trails, amenities, marketing, legal costs, and the leasing of initial corporate tenants.

Private investment accomplished tenant improvements for office, research/development, and manufacturing space, as well as partial funding for the solar energy system.

$7.8 million was committed for development of a wind farm within the park that will produce more electricity that used by the entire county. The county has contracted to export this wind electricity to utilities within the northeastern United States energy grid.

‘Green Activities’: Build an ecological industrial park known as the Sustainable Technology Park (located in the Town of Cape Charles) that would attract and produce companies that would share the county’s high business, environmental, and human equity standards. The park includes a LEED certified building (constructed primarily from local materials which 317 gives it enhanced structural strength and a longer life span than typical designs) with a solar electricity system (solar photovoltaic roof system that will provide up to half of the building’s total annual electrical demand with the building operating at full capacity). The building also includes: skylights for natural day lighting, a common meeting and conference room, enhanced insulation, interior environmental sensing, carbon monoxide sensors and alarms, low-energy lighting, low-water fixtures, porous parking lot paving (reduces stormwater runoff, which is collected and filtered by constructed wetlands), native non-irrigated landscaping, natural/constructed wetlands/trails and a wind farm that will produce enough electricity for the entire county plus some. A water reuse and recovery system is planned to recycle water for industrial use.

The building’s features are designed to not only reduce energy and resource demands, but also to reduce operating costs and to increase occupant productivity and health.

Local/state/federal funding of $727,000 was used to fund a natural preserve, beaches and dunes, a critical migratory bird habitat, constructed wetlands and ponds, a system of trails and boardwalks, more than 4,000 new trees and a total of 90 acres of protected natural area.

Value Added/ Why Green: The ecological infrastructure and natural amenities have enhanced economic development efforts by helping to attract the corporate tenants the county has targeted. Without the projected financial income produced by the corporate tenants of the technology park (part of which from energy efficiency and recycling wastes), it wouldn’t have been possible to fund protection of the natural areas or construction of the trails, wetlands, and ponds. The community has gained a new natural area park, which has proven to be popular among joggers, birdwatchers, and families.

The Industrial Park has also attracted additional businesses into the county.

Key Players: County, citizens, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, Virginia Coastal Program, community- formed development company (Sustainable Technology Park Authority) to manage the park.

Environmental Goals: “build a strong and lasting economy by capitalizing on and protecting Northampton’s rich natural, cultural, and human assets.” This commitment would simultaneously benefit business, the environment, and all of the county’s people both now and in the future. Environmentally, the ecological industrial park would preserve natural and cultural resources, protect habitat and water quality, and strive to eliminate waste and pollution. It would showcase green technology companies and maximize efficient use of resources through “industrial symbiosis”- the notion that the byproducts of one industrial process or company can serve as the raw material for another industrial process or company.

Definition of End Result (sustain community, eco-village, etc): Eco-industrial park

Outcomes (if applicable): The ecological infrastructure and natural amenities have enhanced economic development efforts by helping to attract the corporate tenants the county has targeted. Without the projected financial income produced by the corporate tenants of the technology park, it wouldn’t have been possible to fund protection of the natural areas or construction of the trails, wetlands, and ponds. The community has gained a new natural area park, which has proven to be popular among joggers, birdwatchers, and families.

The sustainable technology strategy has attracted several diverse companies to Northampton County and its eco-industrial park. The Norwegian-based company, Hauge Technologies, develops and manufactures “pressure exchanger” equipment that significantly reduces the cost and energy demands of converting sea water to fresh water. This technology promises to make safe drinking water more affordable and available to more people worldwide.

Transforming Technologies is another startup company that develops computer security and identification devices. Pro Vento America, Inc., is a subsidiary of a German wind energy developer that has initially leased offices for 12 employees and expects to grow to 50 employees within 5 years. Pro Vento has also leased sites for 6 wind turbines that will produce 7.8 megawatts of electricity to be sold into the national power grid.

318 The park has also provided land for the expansion of the county’s largest manufacturer, Bayshore Concrete Products Corporation, which employs more than 400 people.

The eco-industrial park has not only attracted companies to the park but to locations throughout the county and its towns. One of these companies, Atlantis Energy Systems, is the successor of a Swiss firm that produces “architecturally integrated photovoltaics.” These are commercial and residential roofing, siding, windows, and skylights that generate electricity from the sun. Scientific and Environmental Associates is a consulting firm that provides coastal resources management services to government and corporate clients all over the world. The company moved it headquarters to Northampton because of its commitment to sustainable development.

A total of 800,000 sq ft of building area is planned for future phases of the park, which will provide space for 200 or more companies and 1,200 to 1,500 jobs. Depending on market conditions, buildout of the park will occur over the next 2 or 3 decades, providing a long-term public framework for private investment.

In the year since the park opened, these companies have combined to create more than 50 new jobs, a significant impact given Northampton’s rural economy. Over the next years they are expected to create an additional 50 jobs and to bring $15 million in direct real estate and equipment investment to the county. Cape Charles Wind Farm alone is valued at $7.8 M and will generate $120,000 annually in business personal property, machinery, and tools taxes.

Annual debt service for the park is approximately $200,000, with annual operating and maintenance expenses of about $100,000. As soon as the first building is fully leased, it will generate an annual rental income of $180,000. Combined with annual tax revenues of $120,000, the park’s direct revenues and expenditures are balanced for the first phase. The financial sustainability of the park will remain a key measure of success as development continues.

The success of the eco-industrial park has allowed the county to move forward with the next phases of the sustainable development strategy.

319