2.3.1 TUBERIAS DE PVC-P Y PVC-L
C) Tomacorrientes a Prueba de Agua
Significance of the Results
The results of the analysis suggest that substantial differences exist between the two scenarios in their ability to address the compounding concerns of the brownscape. In terms of restoring and enhancing ecological processes and human use patterns associated with the larger brownscape, the corridor-based scenario represents a successful approach. The difference between the scenarios in terms of the amount and quality of open space and public access areas, as well as connectivity to the rest of the city, was substantial.
Sustainability and community development are held up by policy makers and government officials as the primary values of brownfields redevelopment. But the site-by-site decision making scenario highlights how such policy might be expressed through the conventional development process. The results of this analysis reveal that such development is not responsive to the ecological processes and human use patterns of the corridors where these brownfields are concentrated.
This study however, is not tied to specific policy
recommendations about exactly what quantitative value should be attached to each specific indicator. For example, the analysis reveals that the site-by-site scenario would allocate 8.0% of the study area to be publicly accessible, while the corridor-based scenario would allocate 26.8% of the land as publicly accessible. This indicates a substantial difference in public access between the two scenarios. The question remains however, whether it would be feasible or most desirable for Philadelphians for 26.8% of the land to be publicly accessible. Publicly accessible land calls for a substantial level of maintenence and oversight. Philadelphians might be
concerned about the costs of maintaining such spaces. They might also harbor concerns about crime in such an accessible site.
Similarly, the viewshed analysis reveals that by opening up land on the waterfront in the corridor-based plan, 25% more of the viewpoints offered views of the river than in the site-by-site plan. While more views to the river may be seen as more desirable to the populace, this involves a trade-off where high-rise towers must be removed from the waterfront. Philadelphians might find that they would give up some views to the river in exchange for the economic development potential that would be associated with more building projects on the waterfront.
The public land share and viewshed analysis examples represent indicators where a substantial difference between the scenarios was revealed. Not all of the indicators revealed such a decisive distinction. For example, the average street segment length
associated with the two scenarios differs by 45 feet. In both cases, the average street segment length exceeds the standard block length for the City of Philadelphia. The costs associated with building new road connections in the corridor-based scenario might not be worth the modest increase in accessibility that would stem from such an intervention. In fact, 45 feet might not yield a noticeable difference in accessibility at all.
Overall Value of the Scenario Analysis Process
In reviewing the results of the alternative scenario analysis, it is useful to consider the overall value of this type of process. Instead of being an absolute portrait of definitive future conditions, these scenarios make visible the range of choices implicit in the redevelopment process. Visible differences reveal themselves in a
way that helps to guide the public debate surrounding large scale redevelopment decision making. As a tool for exploring these choices, this methodology represents a straightforward approach that can be employed as part of a community’s redevelopment decision making process.
The two alternatives developed in this study represent two distinct directions for how development could proceed. The results of the analysis demonstrate the qualitative differences implicit in these scenarios. These differences highlight important concerns that have been part of the city’s debate over the future of their waterfront. How much access should people have to the water? Which option is more desirable to residents who live in nearby neighborhoods? The alternative futures process helps to facilitate discussion of such issues.
Feasibility of Implementing a Scenario Analysis Process
This scenario analysis process represents a straightforward methodology for considering a range of redevelopment choices that could easily be employed by local governments or community groups. The scenarios could be generated using existing proposals, such as the site-by-site scenario in this study, or by individual designers as in the corridor-based scenario. More preferably, a community participation process could be used to generate alternative scenarios.
For the computation of the data, an analyst with a moderate level of GIS fluency would be able to carry out the operations. The data came from readily available sources that can be accessed in most municipalities. The measures that were used in this study can be easily computed using GIS software by someone with experience using Spatial Analyst extensions in ArcGIS.
In terms of exploring the range of options, the alternative
scenarios analysis process can be made richer through the development of a greater range of realistic alternatives than was possible through this particular study.
Additional Considerations
Measuring the Remediation Potential of the Scenarios
Because this study sought to analyze the scenarios for their ability to address the goals of brownscape redevelopment, the financial
considerations of redevelopment were not analyzed. When we quantify the value of landscape processes for citizens and local governments, however, it is clear that corridor-based decision making may actually promote
economic development goals rather than detract from them. One way that the landscape may be valued is to focus on the economic benefits of open space. As open space within a metropolitan region decreases, the value of the remaining open space increases.1 Benefits of open space to citizens include enhancement of surrounding property values; potential production value through urban forestry or urban agriculture; natural systems value stemming from groundwater recharge, climate moderation, flood control and water pollution abatement; use and nonuse value, such as recreational opportunities and scenic viewshed preservation; and intangible value associated with place attachment.2
The benefits to local economies from open space go beyond the benefits for individual citizens. For example, open space and the creation of green infrastructure can also generate new business opportunities for a city from tourism and recreational activities. These new business opportunities generate jobs and increase tax revenues.3
On the other hand, the added infrastructure and services associated with new residential development may actually cost local governments more than the marginal increase in property tax revenues from this development. Preserving open space or clustering development may be fiscally preferable to development of that land. In fact, the development of open space often falls above the break-even line in a fiscal impact analysis.4
Discussion 65
In Philadelphia in particular, development of the 1,294 acre Pennypack Park, which lies northeast of the study area, increased surrounding real estate values by $3,391,000 This means that each acre of parkland generated $2,600 in increased value to surrounding properties.5 Applying this figure to the corridor-based scenario, adjusting for inflation, the 263 acres of open space parkland would generate $1,446,500 in added value to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. This enhancement value can be contrasted with the costs associated with providing services to a large number of new residential units that will not be contributing property tax for ten years.
Measuring the Remediation Potential of the Scenarios
Another important measure that was beyond the scope of this study is the potential for each scenario to eliminate or reduce contamination. In general, it will be difficult to generate a model to analyze these conditions until a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment is completed. This assessment generates a picture of the degree and nature of contamination that exists on a site through an examination of historical conditions and soil sampling.6
Phase 1 Site Assessments are not initiated until a developer makes plans to develop a particular parcel. Such assessments are conducted in relation to that parcel rather than throughout the brownscape.7 Assessing an entire brownscape is unlikely to occur for several reasons. Such assessments are very expensive. It is unclear who would pay for such a study other than a development entity with an interest in the development potential of that land. Without knowing the existing conditions of contamination on a site, it is impossible to understand what technologies will need to be employed to clean up that site and in turn, how well that site may eventually be remediated.8 Until more landscape-based processes for site characterization and cleanup are established as acceptable
practices in the environmental sciences, a risk-based approach to remediation will continue to be employed.
Visual Preference
In this study, many images were developed to articulate the differences between the two scenarios. Any observer of this study might reasonably generate their own preferences for aspects of these particular approaches. Such preferences could be systematically analyzed as part of the analysis process. By showing such images to groups of individual observers, patterns will emerge that reveal the group preferences for one scenario or the other. A visual preference study was outside the scope of this particular analysis, but it could be reasonably integrated into future studies.
TITLE
APPENDIX
Source: Table S400 of Smart Growth Index for Imperviousness Guidance
Project Overview
1 “Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment,” United States Environmental
Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/ (accessed February 13, 2006).
2 “Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment,” United States Environmental
Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/ (accessed February 13, 2006).
3 “Recycling America’s Land, a National Report on Brownfields Redevelopment,”
(U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2006).
4 “Fact Sheet on Brownfields,” The White House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2002/01/20020111-4.html, (accessed January 27, 2006).
5 Georgette C. Poindexter, “Separate and Unequal: A Comment on the Urban
Development Aspects of Brownfields Initiatives.,” Knowledge@Wharton (March 2,
1996).
6Carl Steinitz et al., Alternative Futures for Changing Landscapes (Washington, D.C.:
Island Press, 2003).
6 Ibid.
The Delaware Waterfront
1 Delaware River Source Water Assessment Partnership, “Delaware River Source
Water Assessment,” Philadelphia Water Department, http://www.phillywater.org (accessed October 5, 2006)
2 Bruce Stutz, Natural Lives, Modern Times: People and Places of the Delaware River
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998).
3 T.L. Bryant and J.R. Pennock, “The Delaware Estuary: Rediscovering a
Forgotten Resource,” (1998).
4 William E. Toffey, “Philadelphia’s River Resources : Technical Paper,” ed.
Philadelphia City Planning Commission (1982).
5 Stutz, Natural Lives, Modern Times: People and Places of the Delaware River. 6 Toffey, “Philadelphia’s River Resources : Technical Paper.”
7 Stutz, Natural Lives, Modern Times: People and Places of the Delaware River.
8 “Philadelphia: The New River City,” Philadelphia City Planning Commission,
http://www.phillywater.org (accessed October 27, 2006)
9 Ibid.
10 Sandra Shea, “For a Waterfront Plan That Works, We Need Too Think Like
William Penn,” Philadelphia Daily news, July 21 2006.
11 Ibid.
Brownfields Policy and Practice
1 “Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment,” United States Environmental
Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/ (accessed February 13, 2006).
2 Ibid.
3 Harold J. Rafson and Robert N. Rafson, Brownfields: Redeveloping Environmentally
Distressed Properties (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999).
4 Smart Growth Network, “An Integrated Approach for Brownfield
Redevelopment: A Priority Setting Tool,” (Washington, D.C.: Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency., 1996).
5 Ibid.
6 Robert A. Simons, Turning Brownfields into Greenbacks: Developing and Financing
Environmentally Contaminated Urban Real Estate (Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1998), 29.
7 “Brownfield Redevelopment: Stakeholders Report That Epa’s Program Helps to
Redevelop Sites, but Additional Efforts Could Complement Agency Efforts,” ed. United States Government Accountability Office (Washington, D.C.: December 2004), 1.
8 Alan Berger, Drosscape (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2006). 9 United States Environmental Protection Agency. The New Brownfields
Law.(Brochure). Washington, D.C.
10 “Recycling America’s Land, a National Report on Brownfields Redevelopment.”
11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.
13 Network, “An Integrated Approach for Brownfield Redevelopment: A Priority
Setting Tool.”
14 “Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act “
(1980).
NOTES
1978, there were approximately 800 single-family homes and 240 low-income apartments, with about 400 children attending the 99th Street school next to the dump. In the spring of 1978, residents discovered that a dump site containing 20,000 tons of chemical wastes was leaking into their neighborhood. With network television, radio, and print media covering the events at Love Canal, a new understanding was reached by the American people of the correlation between low-level chemical exposures and birth defects, miscarriages and incidences of cancer.
19 Bartch and Collaton, Brownfields: Cleaning and Reusing Contaminated Properties. 20 Flannary Collins, “The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act: A Critique,” Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 13, no. 2: 311.
21 Bartch and Collaton, Brownfields: Cleaning and Reusing Contaminated Properties, 5. 22 Simons, Turning Brownfields into Greenbacks: Developing and Financing Environmentally
Contaminated Urban Real Estate, 3.
23 Bartch and Collaton, Brownfields: Cleaning and Reusing Contaminated Properties, 3. 24 Rafson and Rafson, Brownfields: Redeveloping Environmentally Distressed Properties. 25 Collins, “The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act:
A Critique,” 311.
26Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, Public Law 107-118
(H.R. 2869).
27 “Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment,” United States Environmental
Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/ (accessed February 13, 2006).
28 Poindexter, “Separate and Unequal: A Comment on the Urban Development
Aspects of Brownfields Initiatives..”
29Real Estate Applauds Landmark Brownfields law; New Law to Spur Economic
Redevelopment in Blighted Communities, U.S. Newswire, Jan. 11, 2002 (quoting Real
Estate Roundtable Chairman Melson C. Rising) as quoted in Collins, “The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act: A Critique,” 311.
30 Ray A. Smith, “Developers See Green in ‘Brownfield’ Sites,” Wall StreetJournal
June 2, 2005.
31 Ibid.
32 Simons, Turning Brownfields into Greenbacks: Developing and Financing Environmentally
Contaminated Urban Real Estate.
33 Tracy A. Dyke, “Evaluating the Community Benefits of Brownfields
Redevelopment” (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2000).
34 Emil Malizia, 2006.
35 Dyke, “Evaluating the Community Benefits of Brownfields Redevelopment”.
36 Simons, Turning Brownfields into Greenbacks: Developing and Financing Environmentally
Contaminated Urban Real Estate, 3-4.
37 Kirsten H. Engel, “Brownfield Initiatives and Environmental Justice: Second-
Class Cleanups or Market-Based Equity?,” Journal of Natural Resources and
Environmental Law 13 (1997-1998).
38 Network, “An Integrated Approach for Brownfield Redevelopment: A Priority
Setting Tool.”
39 “A Sustainable Brownfields Model Framework,” ed. United States
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (1999).
40 Ibid., 4-6.
41 The Committee on Com., U.S. House of Rep., The Realty Behind the Rhetoric:
EPA’s Brownfields Initiative, at http://com-notes.house.gove/brown/brown. htm as quoted in Collins, “The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act: A Critique.”
An Alternative Approach: Brownscape Redevelopment
1 American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed. (1993), s.v. “landscape”.
2 Verner Dahlerup, Ordbog over det Danske Sprog (Copenhagen: Nordisk, 1931),
Jacob Grimm and Wilhelm Grimm, Deutches Worterbuch (Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1885), Arthur R.Borden, Jr. A Comprehensive Old English Dictionary (University Press of America, 1982) in Anne Whiston Spirn, The Language of Landscape.
3 Anne Whiston Spirn, The Language of Landscape (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1998).
4 Laurel Raffery and Leslie Holst, “An Introduction to Urban Waterfront
Development,” in Remaking the Urban Waterfront (Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 2004).
5 Ibid. 6 Ibid.
7 Roy Mann, Rivers in the City (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973).
8 Charles Waldheim, editor, The Landscape Urbanism Reader, 1 ed. (New York:
Princeton Architectural Press, 2006).
9 John Tillman Lyle, Design for Human Ecosystems (Washington, D.C.: Island Press,
1999).
The Framework for Research
1 Joan Iverson Nassauer and Robert C. Corry, “Using Normative Scenarios in
Landscape Ecology,” Landscape Ecology 19 (2004): 343.
2 Ibid.
3 David Hulse, “Using Normative Scenarios in Landscape Ecology,” Landscape
Journal 19, no. 2 (2000).
4 Steinitz et al., Alternative Futures for Changing Landscapes.
Nassauer and Corry, “Using Normative Scenarios in Landscape Ecology.”
5 Carl Steinitz et al., “Biodiversity and Landscape Planning: Alternative Futures
for the Region of Camp Pendleton, California,” (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1996).
6 Ibid.
7 Lynch, Image of the City. 8 Ibid.
9 Yan Song and Gerrit-Jan Knaap, “Is Portland Winnng the War on Sprawl?,”
Journal of the American Planning Association 70, no. 2 (2004). Site-by-Site Decision-Making
1 Board of Revision of Taxes, Board of Revision of Taxes, Philadelphia (2006 [cited
February 15 2007]); available from http://brtweb.phila.gov/default.aspx.
2 Lisa Chamberlain, “Tax Breaks Drive a Philadelphia Boom,” New York Times,
January 8 2006.
3 Philadelphia Department of Commerce, Addressing Brownfield Concerns: Brownfield
Redevelopment Assistance (2002 [cited February 18 2007]); available from http://
www.phila.gov/commerce/comm/lvl_2/mbat_env_concerns.htm.
4 Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation, Philadelphia Keystone
Opportunity Zones (2006 [cited December 10 2006]); available from http://www.
philakoz.org/.
Corridor-Based Planning and Design
1 Richard T.T. Forman, Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
2 Ibid.
3 C.F.J. Whebell, “Corridors: A Theory of Urban Systems,” Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 59, no. 1 (1969).
4 Ibid.
5 Peter Calthorpe and William Fulton, The Regional City (Washington: Island
Press, 2001).
6 Ibid.
7 William M. Marsh, Landscape Planning: Environmental Applications (Hoboken:
Wiley, 2005).
Discussion
1 Charles Fausold and Robert Lilieholm, “The Economic Value of Open Space: A
Review and Synthesis,” Environmental Management 23, no. 3.
2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid.
5 Tom Fox, “Urban Open Space: An Investment That Pays,” (New York: 5 5 5
6 Neighborhood Open Space Coalition, 1990).
Simons, Turning Brownfields into Greenbacks: Developing and Financing Environmentally Contaminated Urban Real Estate.
7 Ibid. 8 Ibid.