DOCSLIB.ORG

Redefining Urban Food Systems to Identify Optimal Rooftop Community Garden Locations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Redefining Urban Food Systems to Identify Optimal Rooftop Community Garden Locations REDEFINING URBAN FOOD SYSTEMS TO IDENTIFY OPTIMAL ROOFTOP COMMUNITY GARDEN LOCATIONS: A SITE SUITABILITY ANALYSIS IN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON by Ana E. Stoudt A Thesis Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE (GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY) May 2015 Copyright 2015 Ana E. Stoudt i DEDICATION I dedicate this paper to my parents, friends, and coworkers for their constant support throughout this entire process. Without them, I would not have made it here today. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am forever grateful to my advisor, Professor Warshawsky, for his encouragement and guidance throughout this experience. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................... x ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Urban Agriculture and Food Systems ................................................................................... 1 1.2 Existing Research Gaps ......................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Using GIS to Rank a Building’s Rooftop Community Garden Potential ............................. 5 CHAPTER 2: RELATED WORK .................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Urban Food Systems ............................................................................................................. 7 2.1.1 Food Utilization .............................................................................................................. 8 2.1.2 Food Availability ............................................................................................................ 8 2.1.3 Food Access .................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Food Deserts ........................................................................................................................ 10 2.3 Urban Agriculture ............................................................................................................... 12 2.3.1 Intra- and Peri- Urban Agriculture ............................................................................... 12 2.3.2 Seattle’s Urban Agriculture .......................................................................................... 13 iv 2.3.3 Defining Urban Agriculture in GIS .............................................................................. 13 2.4 Rooftop Gardens and GIS ................................................................................................... 16 CHAPTER 3: METHODS ............................................................................................................ 19 3.1 Variables.............................................................................................................................. 25 3.1.1 Roof Size ...................................................................................................................... 25 3.1.2 Water Access ................................................................................................................ 26 3.1.3 USDA Food Deserts ..................................................................................................... 26 3.1.4 Food Banks ................................................................................................................... 27 3.1.5 Community Gardens (P-Patches) ................................................................................. 28 3.1.6 Bus Stops ...................................................................................................................... 28 3.1.7 Schools and Education Centers (SEC) ......................................................................... 29 3.2 On-Site Assessments ........................................................................................................... 30 3.3 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 31 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 32 4.1 Overall Ranking Results...................................................................................................... 32 4.2 Variable Ranking Results .................................................................................................... 35 4.2.1 Roof Size ...................................................................................................................... 35 4.2.2 Water Access ................................................................................................................ 37 4.2.3 Proximity to USDA Food Desert.................................................................................. 39 4.2.4 Proximity to Food Banks .............................................................................................. 41 v 4.2.5 Proximity to Community Gardens ................................................................................ 43 4.2.6 Proximity to Bus Stop................................................................................................... 45 4.2.7 Proximity to Schools and Education Centers ............................................................... 47 4.3 Seattle’s “Landscape of Opportunity”................................................................................. 49 4.4 Ground-truthing/On-site Analysis ....................................................................................... 51 4.4.1 305 Harrison Street ....................................................................................................... 51 4.4.2 300 Mercer Street ......................................................................................................... 53 4.4.3 301 Mercer Street ......................................................................................................... 56 4.4.4 801 South Dearborn Street ........................................................................................... 58 4.4.5 2203 Airport Way South ............................................................................................... 61 4.4.6 4201 West Marginal Way Southwest ........................................................................... 63 4.4.7 1250 Denny Way .......................................................................................................... 65 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................................................... 69 5.1 Key Observations ................................................................................................................ 69 5.2 Contrasts with Prior Studies ................................................................................................ 70 5.3 Recommendation for Future Research ................................................................................ 72 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 75 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 81 APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................... 82 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Building characteristic ranking system ............................................................................ 26 Table 2 Food availability and food accessibility characteristic ranking system ........................... 29 Table 3 Food utilization characteristic ranking system ................................................................ 30 Table 4 Final food system variable ranking .................................................................................. 33 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Elements associated with the three components of food systems (Source: Ingram et al. 2005) ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2 USDA food deserts, in red, which are located in south Seattle (Source: USDA Food Access Research Atlas, 2014) ....................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3 High-level methodology framework .............................................................................. 20 Figure 4 Data acquisition, preparation, and integration workflow ............................................... 24
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Downtown Access Strategy Phase 1 Context Setting: Projects to Be Constructed in the Next 10 Years Table of Contents
    DOWNTOWN ACCESS STRATEGY PHASE 1 Context Setting: Projects to be Constructed in the Next 10 Years September 25, 2013 Downtown Access Strategy Phase 1 Context Setting: Projects to be Constructed in the Next 10 Years Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 II. Review of Existing Plans, Projects, and Programs ......................................... 2 III. Potential Construction Concerns and Opportunities .................................. 3 A. Existing Construction Planning Tools 3 B. SDOT’s Construction Hub Coordination Program 4 C. Construction Mitigation Strategies Used by Other Cities 7 D. Potential Construction Conflicts and Opportunities 10 IV. Future Transportation Network Opportunities ......................................... 12 A. North Downtown 12 B. Denny Triangle / Westlake Hub 14 C. Pioneer Square / Chinatown-ID 15 D. Downtown Core and Waterfront 16 V. Future Phases of Downtown Access Strategy ............................................. 18 A. Framework for Phase 2 (2014 through 2016) 18 B. Framework for Phase 3 (Beyond 2016) 19 - i - September 25, 2013 Downtown Access Strategy Phase 1 Context Setting: Projects to be Constructed in the Next 10 Years I. INTRODUCTION Many important and long planned transportation and development projects are scheduled for con- struction in Downtown Seattle in the coming years. While these investments are essential to support economic development and job growth and to enhance Downtown’s stature as the region’s premier location to live, work, shop and play, in the short-term they present complicated challenges for con- venient and reliable access to and through Downtown. The Downtown Seattle Association (DSA) and its partners, Historic South Downtown (HSD) and the Seat- tle Department of Transportation (SDOT), seek to ensure that Downtown Seattle survives and prospers during the extraordinarily high level of construction activity that will occur in the coming years.
    [Show full text]
  • 2.86-Acres | 124395 Sf
    2.86-acres | 124,395 sf REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS: unique development opportunity premier seattle land site located in south lake union INVESTMENT CONTACTS: Lori Hill Rob Hielscher Bob Hunt Managing Director Managing Director Managing Director Capital Markets International Capital Public Institutions +1 206 971 7006 +1 415 395 4948 +1 206 607 1754 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 601 Union Street, Suite 2800, Seattle, WA 98101 +1 206 607 1700 jll.com/seattle TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I The Offering 4 Introduction Investment Highlights Site Summary Objectives and Requirements Transaction Guidelines Section II Project Overview & Development Potential 17 South Lake Union Map and Legend Project Overview Zoning Zoning Map seattle Development Considerations Development Potential Section III RFP Process and Requirements 34 Solicitation Schedule Instructions and Contacts RFP Requirements Evaluation Process Post Selection Process Disclosures Section IV Market Characteristics 50 Market Overview Market Comparables Neighborhood Summary Regional Economy Section V Appendices 74 NORTH See page 75-76 for List of Appendix Documents Copyright ©2018 Jones Lang LaSalle. All rights reserved. Although information has been obtained from sources deemed reliable, Owner, Jones Lang LaSalle, and/or their representatives, brokers or agents make no guarantees as to the accuracy of the information contained herein, and offer the property without express or implied warranties of any kind. The property may be withdrawn without notice. If the recipient of this information has signed a confidentiality agreement regarding this matter, this information is subject to the terms of that agreement. Section I THE OFFERING 4 | Mercer Mega Block | Request for Proposals 520 REPLACE MERCER STREET LAKE UNION DEXTER AVE N ROY STREET ROY 99 NORTH Last large undeveloped site in South Lake Union | Mercer Mega Block | Request for Proposals 5 THE OFFERING INTRODUCTION MERCER MEGA BLOCK JLL is pleased to present the Mercer Mega Block, a 2.86-acre site acquisition opportunity.
    [Show full text]
  • SR 520, I-5 to Medina
    I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project | Supplemental Draft EIS Chapter 5—Freeway Volumes and Operations What is in this chapter? This chapter presents the transportation team’s findings for the SDEIS freeway analysis. It describes freeway traffic volumes and operations on the SR 520 freeway mainline and ramps during morning (a.m.) and afternoon (p.m.) peak (highest use) Freeway traffic volume refers to how many periods. The chapter also discusses the results of the freeway vehicles and/or people use or would like to traffic volume forecasts and operations analysis of the No Build use a freeway. Alternative and Build (6-Lane) Alternative options. Freeway traffic operation refers to how traffic is moving or flowing, and is discussed in terms of speeds, travel times, and What is traffic currently like on congestion. SR 520? The existing configuration of SR 520 does not meet current WSDOT design guidelines, which affects the freeway’s capacity to provide reliable and safe travel for buses and carpools (HOV) and general-purpose traffic. Roadway capacity in the SR 520 Reliability is defined by how travel times corridor is constrained by: vary over time. On any given day, unusual circumstances such as crashes can dramatically change the performance of the Narrow shoulders and lanes on the corridor and across the roadway, affecting both travel speeds and bridge throughput volumes. Commuters who take congested highways to and from work are well aware of this. When asked about their Short acceleration lane lengths at the SR 520/Montlake commute, they will say "it takes me 45 interchange and Lake Washington Boulevard on-ramps minutes on a good day, but an hour and 15 minutes on a bad day." Poor sight distance at roadway curves, resulting in slower Unreliable traffic conditions affect how and when people choose to travel.
    [Show full text]
  • Arts in Seattle
    ARTS IN SEATTLE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN ................................................................................................................................2 EXPERIENCE MUSIC PROJECT..........................................................................................................................................2 SEATTLE PUBLIC LIBRARY , CENTRAL..............................................................................................................................4 SMITH TOWER ......................................................................................................................................................................5 CHAPEL OF ST. IGNATIUS ..................................................................................................................................................7 OLYMPIC SCULPTURE PARK ..............................................................................................................................................9 SEATTLE ART MUSEUM....................................................................................................................................................11 GAS WORKS PARK ............................................................................................................................................................12 SPACE NEEDLE..................................................................................................................................................................13 SEATTLE ARCHITECTURE FOUNDATION,
    [Show full text]
  • Pioneer Square East West Pedestrian Improvements Pioneer Square Resident’S Council
    PIONEER SQUARE EAST WEST PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PIONEER SQUARE RESIDENT’S COUNCIL May 7, 2019 1 2 3 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Design and construct pedestrian improvements on portions of Main, Washington, King and Yesler Streets between 2nd Avenue and Alaskan Way in Downtown Seattle. The primary objectives are: • Connect the core of Pioneer Square to the new waterfront; • Provide safe, convenient, graceful, pedestrian connections and foster positive city life and activity in key Pioneer Square east‐west streets. PROJECT BUDGET AND FUNDING • $20 million budget for all project costs (design, environmental, construction, construction management) • Funding primarily from Waterfront Local Improvement District (LID), supported by other City funds 5 PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES • Connect Pioneer Square to the water and new 20‐acre park • Support renewal and activation of Occidental Park • Add planting and greenery • Create opportunities for fronting uses to activate the streets • Support economic vitality of the Pioneer Square historic district • Improve access for people with disabilities 6 PROJECT CHALLENGES • Aging infrastructure • Areaways • Accessibility and ADA access • New traffic patterns • Center City Connector coordination • Passenger and truck loading needs 7 PROJECT SCHEDULEPROJECT SCHEDULE • Concept Design ‐‐ June 2019 • 90% Design ‐‐ July 2020 • Construction start– September 2021 8 VALUES Vibrant Accessible Comfortable Respectful Equitable RAILROAD WAY CENTER CITY CONNECTOR FUTURE CURB SPACE FUTURE PM TRAFFIC VOLUMESFUTURE PM TRAFFIC
    [Show full text]
  • LAKE UNION Historical WALKING TOUR
    B HistoryLink.org Lake Union Walking Tour | Page 1 b Introduction: Lake Union the level of Lake Union. Two years later the waters of Salmon Bay were raised behind the his is a Cybertour of Seattle’s historic Chittenden Locks to the level of Lake Union. South Lake Union neighborhood, includ- Historical T As the Lake Washington Ship Canal’s ing the Cascade neighborhood and portions Walking tour Government Locks (now Hiram of the Denny Regrade. It was written Chittenden Locks) neared its 1917 and curated by Paula Becker with completion, the shores of Lake Union the assistance of Walt Crowley and sprouted dozens of boat yards. For Paul Dorpat. Map by Marie McCaffrey. most of the remaining years of the Preparation of this feature was under- twentieth century, Lake Union was written by Vulcan Inc., a Paul G. Allen one of the top wooden-boat building Company. This Cybertour begins at centers in the world, utilizing rot- Lake Union Park, then loosely follows resistant local Douglas fir for framing the course of the Westlake Streetcar, and Western Red Cedar for planking. with forays into the Cascade neighbor- During and after World War I, a hood and into the Seattle Center area. fleet of wooden vessels built locally for the war but never used was moored Seattle’s in the center of Lake Union. Before “Little Lake” completion of the George Washington ake Union is located just north of the Washington, Salmon Bay, and Puget Sound. Memorial Bridge (called Aurora Bridge) in L geographic center and downtown core A little more than six decades later, Mercer’s 1932, a number of tall-masted ships moored of the city of Seattle.
    [Show full text]
  • Queen Anne Historic Context Statement
    QUEEN ANNE HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT Prepared by Florence K. Lentz and Mimi Sheridan For the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods, Historic Preservation Program and the Queen Anne Historical Society October 2005 The community of Queen Anne is one of Seattle’s oldest residential neighborhoods. Pioneer settler Thomas Mercer first called the forested, water-lapped district Eden Hill. By the mid-1880s, the growing suburb had acquired the name Queen Anne Town in reference to its showy domestic architecture. The character of this thoroughly urban neighborhood today is the result of several key influences, both physical and human. Natural features have both encouraged and restrained the development of Queen Anne over time. Waterways at the base of the hill virtually assured adjacent industrial growth from an early date. At the same time, steep topography limited the spread of large-scale commercial and industrial land uses on the hill itself. Instead, the hill became attractive as an early residential suburb because of its spectacular territorial and water views and its relative accessibility to the city. Queen Anne Hill was linked to Seattle by public transit in the late 1880s. Thereafter, streetcar lines fostered rapid platting, intensive residential construction, and the eventual emergence of multifamily housing – all within a brief forty-year period of time. The close-in location and unsurpassed views continue to stabilize the high value of real estate on the hill. Queen Anne’s character has been shaped as much by its human resources as by its physical features. The fact that progressive, well-educated families made the hill their home from the outset has left a lasting legacy.
    [Show full text]
  • Denny Way/ Lake Union CSO Control Project
    Denny Way/ Lake Union CSO Control Project What is a CSO? How will the new system work? Artist’s rendering of the CSO Control Facility located at 545 Combined Sewer Overflows are discharges of wastewater and stormwater 1. During dry weather, wastewater will continue to flow in the existing collection Elliott Avenue West. that occur during storms. CSOs are now discharged at the outlet in Myrtle system. As levels rise in the pipes during storms, flows will be diverted Edwards Park about 50 times per year and contain pollutants that present into a 6,200-foot long tunnel under Mercer Street. During many storms, health risks to humans and aquatic life. CSOs also occur on Lake Union flows will be stored in the tunnel until the storm subsides. After the storm, at city and county outfalls. the flows will be transported to the West Point Treatment Plant. 2. Sometimes during large storms the tunnel storage will fill up—on average Why do we have CSOs in Seattle? 10 to 20 times per year. When this happens, flows will undergo CSO treatment here at the Elliott West Facility. After treatment, flows will go Seattle’s sewer system was constructed long before any wastewater treatment to the Denny Regulator in Myrtle Edwards Park. They will then be discharged plants were built. The collection system pipes do not have adequate capacity 500 feet offshore through an outfall that is 60 feet deep. to convey storm flows to the plants and were built with overflow points 3. During the largest storms—on average, once a year—flows may exceed to surface water bodies.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Annual Report
    SEATTLE CHANNEL 2010 Annual Report Highlights of the last year include: • For the third time in the last four years, SEATTLE CHANNEL won the prestigious Excellence in Government Programming Award from the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA). The winner of this award is often referred to as “the best municipal TV station in the nation.” In addition, SEATTLE CHANNEL won 25 other NATOA awards. • SEATTLE CHANNEL also won four Emmy awards from the Northwest Chapter of National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. • In the last year, SEATTLE CHANNEL continued its commitment to the most thorough coverage of Seattle’s local government of any television outlet. • SEATTLE CHANNEL’s website received over 9.5 million page views last year, with around 540,000 visits resulting in streaming or downloading videos. • By working out distribution agreements, SEATTLE CHANNEL began showing some of its programs, including Book Lust, Art Zone and American Podium on Bellevue TV, Kirkland TV and Renton TV. • Seattle magazine named SEATTLE CHANNEL as one of the “Best of the Decade: Media” and its Art Zone as one of the “Best of the Decade: Arts.” • Since the beginning of 2010, SEATTLE CHANNEL has been featured in 80 media outlets from small blogs to major websites and newspapers including USAToday.com, The Seattle Times, SeattlePI.com, Puget Sound Business Journal, Crosscut, Seattle Weekly, The Stranger, Publicola and many others. • SEATTLE CHANNEL partnered with CityClub and Town Hall to host Seattle Speaks, a 90-minute, multi-media, interactive live call-in show hosted by C.R. Douglas. There were two episodes this year: one on Tax Reform and the other on Marijuana Policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Speed & Reliability
    TRANSIT SPEED & RELIABILITY 2020 ANNUAL SPOT IMPROVEMENTS END OF YEAR REPORT PUBLISHED JANUARY 2021 This page intentionally left blank. II 2020 Annual Spot Improvements End of Year Report CONTENTS INTRODUCTION �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������3 1. Westlake Avenue N & Harrison Street .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 2. 24th Avenue S & S Dearborn Street ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 3. Airport Way S & S Royal Brougham Way �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6 4. Latona Avenue NE & NE 50th Street �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7 5. NE 50th Street & 15th Avenue NE ..................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1300 East Mercer Street a Classic 8-Unit Apartment for More Information
    1300 EAST MERCER STREET A CLASSIC 8-UNIT APARTMENT FOR MORE INFORMATION: AND REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY COLLIN HAGSTROM CURRAN HAGSTROM PRINCIPAL | BROKER PRINCIPAL | BROKER PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTS 206.505.9436 206.505.9426 • CAPITOL HILL TROPHY PROPERTY • IMMEDIATE RENT UPSIDE curran@ • 1-MILE TO DOWNTOWN CBD collin@ • PRIME LOCATION CLOSE TO westlakeassociates.com westlakeassociates.com LIGHT RAIL • 12,020 SQUARE FEET - LR3 LOT • BIG REDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL • FIRST TIME ON MARKET IN 30+ • CHARMING ANHALT-STYLE YEARS BUILDING OFFERING SUMMARY WESTLAKE ASSOCIATES, INC. IS PROUD TO PRESENT 1300 EAST MERCER STREET FOR SALE. SITUATED ON A 12,020 SQUARE FOOT CORNER LOT AT THE EPICENTER OF SEATTLE’S THRIVING CAPITOL HILL NEIGHBORHOOD, 1300 EAST MERCER PRESENTS INVESTORS WITH THE $3,950,000 $329 per RARE OPPORTUNITY TO OWN A CLASSIC, ANHALT- STYLE APARTMENT PROPERTY WITH SIGNIFICANT Price Land SF REDEVELOPMENT AND VALUE-ADD POTENTIAL. A massing study provided by b9 Architects shows the potential to develop a 39- $ $ unit apartment building on the site with an average unit size of 700 square feet. An alternative plan shows the ability to keep the existing 8-unit structure while developing the single-story carport on the northeast corner of the lot into a new, 13-unit apartment building. The existing 8-unit property consists of an attractive mix of studios, one, and two- 39+unit 12,020 SF bedroom units - each with private entrances, coved ceilings, arched doorways, and oak hardwood floors throughout. Given the current rents, the new owner will have Site Corner Lot the ability to greatly increase the NOI to hold the property long-term, or to help in off-setting costs prior to development.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Urban Seattle Apartment Study
    2016 Seattle Apartment Market Study KIRKLAND Redmond $265,233 28.6% $360 17.5% 3.8% 60BP 2015 AVG PRICE PER UNIT AVG PRICE PER SF Turn to CAP RATE LearnPAGE about your 13 Greenlake 2014 $306apartment’s value 4.4% Wallingƒord AVG PRICE PER SF CAP RATE Fremont QUEEN ANNE BELLT WN Bellevue downtown WEST SEATTLE SEATTLE NEIGHBORHOOD APARTMENT STUDY 2016 An Analysis of the 5 Unit to 50 Unit Urban Apartment Market Dylan Simon Jerrid Anderson Matt Laird Daryl Burton COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL SEATTLE MULTIFAMILY TEAM “ The market does not trade upon what everybody knows, but upon what those with the best information can foresee.” - William Hamilton Cover neighborhood logos designed by DEI Creative: www.deicreative.com 2016 Seattle Neighborhood Apartment Market Study Who We Are Colliers’ Seattle Multifamily Team is a team of dedicated, expert commercial real estate brokers working for apartment owners, developers and investors. Our goal is to help you maximize your return on investment, whether that is selling your apartment building faster and for more money or ensuring your purchase is a sound investment; we believe in building a long-term relationship, not just brokering a transaction. Our 2016 Seattle Neighborhood Apartment Market Study is a prime example of our approach to advising our clients. By giving our clients a better understanding of current and future market dynamics we believe our clients are empowered to make better decisions and achieve higher returns. This is Brokerage Evolved™. If you have a question about our market study or want us to help you understand how market dynamics are impacting your investments, just give us a call, we’d be happy to help.
    [Show full text]