BROWNFIELD DEVELOPMENTS – Unit 3

Definition

‘Brownfields’ refers to sites, or the activity of remediating and developing sites, which are idle, unused,
or abandoned after former industrial or commercial use, and which exhibit a legacy of contamination of
soil, groundwater, surface water, or streams.

What is a brownfield?
The term brownfield typically refers to land that is abandoned or underused, in part, because of concerns
about contamination. The federal government defines brownfields as “abandoned, idled or underused
industrial and commercial properties where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or
perceived environmental contamination.”

Brownfields could be –
 former service stations,
 former dry cleaners,
 factories,
 warehouses,
 parking lots,
 hangers,
 lots where heavy machinery was stored or repaired,
 abandoned railroads,
 former railroad switching yards,
 air strips,
 bus facilities,
 landfills,
 and many more types of facilities.

Many of these brownfields could be turned from possible liabilities into successful developments.
What are the benefits of brownfield redevelopment?
 Benefits to the community:
 Eliminating health and safety hazards;
 Eliminating eyesores;
 Bringing new jobs into the community:
 Bringing new investment into the community;
 Increasing the productivity of the land;
 Increasing property values and tax receipts by local and state governments (the effects of
increased property values on poor residents may, however, need to be mitigated).
Context

The conversion of Brownfields sites into viable industrial, residential, and recreational sites has evolved
from an initial public health protection activity to an urban planning strategy which directly and
efficiently reduces urban sprawl while improving social and economic amenity.
Most towns and communities have historically enjoyed prosperity as a result of industrial activities. Large
manufacturing facilities were commonly located in inner urban areas, particularly on valuable foreshore
land where waterways were used as key transport routes. Some health problems associated with the
‘legacy’ sites of polluting industries has caused public concern. The decline of heavy industries near
populated residential areas has frequently led to abandoned and underutilized facilities, sometimes
resulting in increased local crime and unemployment.

Because of the typical location of historic industry activities adjacent high density urban areas,
Brownfields are often located within active and renewing areas of cities. They represent cost-effective
opportunities to utilise formerly alienated land areas, improving social wellbeing while enhancing public
health protection through redevelopment and renewal. Reuse of idle industrial facilities also has a positive
benefit through minimising loss of urban commerce and of jobs.

Brownfields activity directly contributes to reducing urban sprawl through:

• reducing migration of urban populations to suburban and peri-urban communities, thereby reducing
pressure on peri-urban natural landscapes

• keeping infill development within the city's existing boundaries thus preserving open space and
decreasing urban expansion.

Brownfields Practice

Practical implementation of Brownfields development requires consideration of a range of factors

including the science of public health protection, the economic drivers of real estate development, and the
land use regulation skills of urban planning. The ability today to carefully plan land uses and
redevelopment options for affected properties allows for planning of viable risk-based remediation
projects while providing liability protection for environmental regulatory requirements.

1. Land Uses - Internationally a number of industries are associated with the potential for causing
land contamination. These include: • oil installations (e.g. oil depots, petrol filling stations); • gas
works; • power plants; Garry Smith, Brownfields Development, 44th ISOCARP Congress 2008 5
• shipyards/boatyards; • chemical manufacturing/processing plants; • steel mills/metal workshops;
• car repairing/dismantling workshops; and • scrapyards. This list illustrates the number and
diversity of land use activities which may affect environmental quality in both small local
activities and in larger industrial regions. Similarly it illustrates the locational opportunities which
Brownfields sites offer, from smaller residential suburban location to larger foreshore or inner
city industrial estate sites.

This list illustrates the number and diversity of land use activities which may affect environmental quality
in both small local activities and in larger industrial regions. Similarly it illustrates the locational
opportunities which Brownfields sites offer, from smaller residential suburban location to larger foreshore
or inner city industrial estate sites.

2. Institutional and Engineering Controls - Examples of institutional controls for contaminated

sites may include: • zoning regulations, banning certain uses from sensitive areas • Site
restrictions limiting land use in areas that are prone to natural hazards such as flood or earthquake
 Garry Smith, Brownfields Development, 44th ISOCARP Congress 2008 6 • Proprietary controls
including deeds of restriction on current land usage and easements whereby the site owner
transfers only limited ownership of a property area. Engineering controls are physical
mechanisms that contain, mitigate, or monitor residual contamination and which may prohibit
access to property or specific areas.

3. CoLocation - As Brownfields development becomes a central component of urban planning and

renewal, one approach which is increasingly attractive is ‘co-location’ of Brownfields sites
(ICMA 2003b). Co-location links the redevelopment of Brownfields sites with nearby adjacent
properties which, like Brownfields, may be proving challenging for redevelopment. The approach
considers how adjacent sites and vacant properties may be revitalised together with Brownfields
sites, through local government planning processes, and in partnership with communities and
national governments.

Co-location has advantages in ‘leveraging’ the value of Brownfields development through, for
example (ICMA 2003b):

• enabling assessment, remediation, and redevelopment of Brownfields and other adjacent sites
so that the condition of one property does not negatively impact on the potential of another

• combining resources to create a package of planning and remediation tools and programmes to
revitalise areas with distressed properties • improving cost effectiveness of area-based planning

• improving funding for infrastructure improvement such as new roads or public transport

• creating a critical mass of people or activities to make transport access effective Many localities
are accepting Brownfields sites as important reuse projects for government facilities including
public parks and recreational areas.

There are growing examples of environmentally responsible reuse of Brownfields sites through
green building, low impact develop practices, smart growth (urban consolidation), preservation of
parks and open, transit-oriented development, and pollution prevention.

Examples

European countries have traditionally placed a high value on spatial planning, with local governments
exercising strong planning and land use authority, and Brownfield sites have been addressed as part of an
integrated planning and redevelopment framework (IEDC 2008). Large-scale planning policies that seek
to harmonize land use and remediation requirements may enhance economic goals.

For example, the Netherlands environmental agency recognises that contamination can be found across
large areas, and utilises a largescale approach to local land use and zoning decisions. Such an approach
supports local government urban regeneration projects. Uniformity of cleanup protocols, in turn, enhances
the feasibility of remediation efforts at these sites.

UK national government goals in Brownfields redevelopment are supported by a strong local government
role in environmental cleanup and urban planning. Local government identifies contaminated lands,
determining responsibility for site cleanup, establishing remediation requirements and maintaining
records. Through planning and permitting powers, local government coordinates cleanup with land use,
controlling the suitability of remediation and site condition with proposed further site use.

Similarly in the Netherlands the provinces and municipalities take the lead in identifying contaminated
properties within their jurisdictions. Local governments prioritize sites based upon threats to human
health and the environment (IEDC 2008).

In Germany local governments are supporting land remediation goals earmarked for appropriate proposed
land uses. However project profitability reportedly remains a decisive factor that will drive a project
forward.

Source - http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/1202.pdf

Case Studies & Comparison

The researchers say that, despite substantial investment in brownfield regeneration in Europe, more
holistic approaches and best practice guidelines are still needed. Interested in how brownfield
regeneration could lead to economic growth and the creation of sustainable communities, they compared
brownfield regeneration policy and practices in the UK and Germany, focusing on two case study
waterfront sites of similar size and type: King’s Waterfront in Liverpool and Rheinauhafen in
Cologne.

To assess the sites, they surveyed local residents, collected information from stakeholders including city
councils and developers, and conducted a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
analysis for each site.

1. King’s Waterfront is situated in one of the UK’s most deprived areas. Previously a deserted car
park, £390 million (ca. €560 million in 2005) of investment from EU and UK-based public and private
sector partners has enabled redevelopment of the site into an office, retail, leisure and community space.
The redeveloped site is expected to create 2,200 new jobs and millions in visitor spending per year. The
central area and conference centre has good green credentials, including low carbon emissions and rain
water harvesting. However, transport options are considered to be limited.

2. The Rheinauhafen site incorporates housing, offices, museums, leisure and retail units and a car park
and was redeveloped at an estimated cost of €650 million, with funding largely provided by the EU’s
NORISC1 project and private investors. Regeneration of the site is expected to create 2,500 new jobs and
greatly boost the image of the area, which was once considered an eyesore. Some old buildings have been
restored rather than replaced, which has helped make the development more sustainable whilst retaining
some of the site’s heritage. The site also incorporates a flood protection system. However, houses are not
considered affordable.

The researchers’ comparison finds that both sites are mixed use, attractive, sustainable and respectful of
their heritage. They serve as catalysts for economic growth, but have limited housing types. Renewable
energies have not been well implemented in either development and benefits for local neighbourhoods are
limited. Key differences between the sites include types of funding and the more innovative, recycled
architecture at the Rheinauhafen site. Based on their study, the researchers say that brownfield
regeneration practice is advancing the objective of ‘urban renaissance’, and King’s Waterfront and
Rheinauhafen provide examples of best practice, but that the uniqueness of each site means there is no
single recipe for success.

(Source - http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/39si_en.pdf)

3. Australia - The historic development of Brownfields activities in Australia was initiated largely
through government enterprise and the Olympic Games, and more recently has been transferred to the
private sector, resulting in continuing practice improvement.

Two Australian case studies illustrate the value of Brownfields development and the application of
planning and risk assessment tools:

1.Olympics 2000 site, Homebush Bay, Sydney and 2. Rhodes foreshore residential sites, Homebush
Bay, Sydney

The use of Brownfields methods to improve urban fabric is a common feature of Australian urban
planning and has emerged as a strategy in urban consolidation and real estate development. In addition to
extensive urban centre redevelopment, small infill regional releases utilise Brownfields sites for
expansion of urban fringe lands contributing to housing supply.

The Olympics 2000 site was developed on a large area of derelict land in Sydney which had formerly
hosted a munitions storage facility, a major regional abattoir, and a poorly regulated metropolitan and
industrial waste landfill in the geographic centre of a sprawling city. The State, Commonwealth and
Olympics funding contributed to the remediation of the site to host the 2000 Olympics events, to develop
a new medium density urban residential area and to provide major sporting facilities and environmental
parkland for the city (Smith 2003).

An important initial ‘driver’ for this early example of Australian Brownfields development was protection
of worker and public health during the development. This was an example of Brownfields development
driven by attention to public health protection through cleanup of contaminated sites, linked in this case to
preparation of international quality sporting facilities.

At Rhodes in Sydney, a foreshore residential area adjacent the Homebush Bay Olympics 2000 site,
private development is remediating heavily chemically contaminated industrial land to residential
standard using a risk-based approach. This is being undertaken through legislative and regulatory
processes and requires high-quality science, regulatory auditing and ongoing air quality and local
waterways protection.