Green Infraestructure A Landscape Approach
Green Infraestructure A Landscape Approach
Green Infraestructure A Landscape Approach
Green Infrastructure:
A Landscape Approach
www.planning.org
American Planning Association
Planning Advisory Service
Report Number 571
David C. Rouse, aicp, is a planner and landscape architect at Wallace, Roberts & Todd (WRT) in
Philadelphia. His projects include comprehensive plans for cities, counties, and regions; parks
and open space system plans; urban design plans; and zoning and development regulations.
Rouse is an active participant in national initiatives of the American Planning Association
and speaks across the country on topics ranging from the role of planning and design in pub-
lic health to green infrastructure and urban forestry.
Ignacio F. Bunster-Ossa is a landscape architect and urban designer whose work is consistently
recognized for design innovation. He is a leading practitioner of Landscape Urbanism, an
approach to urban design based on the fusion of ecology, community identity, infrastruc-
ture, recreation, and public art. Bunster-Ossa directs WRT’s landscape architecture studio
in Philadelphia as well as many of the firm’s large-scale landscape projects. He is a Harvard
Loeb Fellow and periodically lectures, teaches, writes, and serves on design award juries.
Contributors
Bj Adigun is program coordinator at CH2M Hill in Syracuse, New York. Patrice Carroll is
senior planner for the City of Seattle. Bill Cesanek, aicp, is vice president in the Edison, New
Jersey, office of CDM Smith. Andrew Dobshinsky, aicp, is an associate at WRT in Philadelphia.
Greg Dorolek is senior associate and landscape architect at Wenk Associates in Denver. Dave
LaClergue is an urban designer for the City of Seattle. Tom Leader is principal of Tom Leader
Studio in Berkeley, California. Mia Lehrer is president of Mia Lehrer + Associates in Los
Angeles. Brian Marengo is senior water resources technologist in the Philadelphia office of
CH2M Hill. Dee Merriam works on the relationship between health and the built environ-
ment; she has a particular interest in developing synergies between water management and
public access to outdoor space. Leah Rominger is staff consultant and landscape designer in the
Philadelphia office of CH2M Hill. Terry Schwarz, aicp, is the director of Kent State University’s
Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative. Eric Tamulonis is a landscape architect at WRT in
Philadelphia who focuses on the planning and design of parks and open space systems, as
well as institutional, historical, and academic landscapes. Nancy Templeton, aicp, is an associ-
ate at WRT in Philadelphia. Karen Walz, faicp, is principal of Strategic Community Solutions,
a consulting firm based in Dallas. Bill Wenk is founder and president of Wenk Associates in
Denver.
The Planning Advisory Service is a subscription service offered by the Research Department of the
American Planning Association. Four reports are produced each year. Subscribers also receive PAS
Memo and PAS QuickNotes, and they have access to the Inquiry Answering Service and other valuable
benefits. To learn more, visit www.planning.org/pas/index.htm.
W. Paul Farmer, faicp, Chief Executive Officer; Sylvia Lewis, Director of Publications; William R. Klein,
aicp, Director of Research.
Planning Advisory Service Reports are produced in the Research Department of APA. Timothy Mennel,
Editor; Lisa Barton, Design Associate.
Missing and damaged print issues: Contact Customer Service, American Planning Association, 205 N.
Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601 (312-431-9100 or [email protected]) within 90
days of the publication date. Include the name of the publication, year, volume and issue number or month,
and your name, mailing address, and membership number if applicable.
© January 2013 by the American Planning Association.
APA’s publications office is at 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601–5927.
APA headquarters office is at 1030 15th St., NW, Suite 750 West, Washington, DC 20005–1503.
E-mail: [email protected]
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE:
A LANDSCAPE APPROACH
David C. Rouse, aicp, and Ignacio F. Bunster-Ossa
TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................................ 1
References................................................................................................................................ 155
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
▲
1
2 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
Key to these developments was a growing awareness of landscape as Grass only partially covered by
both a vital resource needing protection and a countervailing force that a perforated surface makes for a
could be used to positively shape city and regional development patterns. pervious parking lot.
Landscape architect Ian McHarg was a seminal figure in raising environ- iStockphoto.com/Oks_Mit
mental awareness through his writings, television show (The House We Live
In), professorship at the University of Pennsylvania, and practice with the
firm Wallace McHarg Roberts & Todd. His book Design with Nature (1969)
established an influential methodology for analyzing land’s suitability for
development or conservation, while his work as an advisor to the federal
government during the Johnson administration led to establishment of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), “the world’s first institutional-
ized system of environmental impact reviews” (Yaro 1998, xi). NEPA requires
analysis of the impacts of any proposed federal or federally funded action
determined to significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
This groundwork has become ever more critical to today’s planning and
urban design practitioners, as they grapple with key questions such as: How
can cities and regions become environmentally, economically, and socially
sustainable? How can cities large and small, some of which have experienced
decades of population decline, become more desirable, attractive, and equi-
table places of opportunity for greater numbers of people to live? And how
can the urban environment integrate a working landscape that promotes the
health and well-being of people and ecosystems at all scales, from the region
and city to singular development sites? In essence, what is the urban and
regional pattern for a sustainable future, how can it be implemented, and
how can planners and designers play leading roles in addressing these issues?
A key to answering these questions lies in the use of the landscape to
perform ecological functions—such as cleansing urban waters, replenish-
ing aquifers, scrubbing airborne pollutants, sequestering carbon, absorbing
floodwaters, moderating microclimates, and sheltering wildlife—while
simultaneously supporting societal functions such as physical activity and
recreation, mobility, food and fiber production, economic productivity, cul-
tural identity, and community cohesion. Taken broadly to mean a network
of spaces, places, and design elements—natural or constructed, public or
private, local or regional—that provides such benefits, landscape looms large
as a catalyst to achieving sustainable futures for cities and regions.
4 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
Millennium Park in downtown This report explores the concept of landscape as green infrastructure—
Chicago, with its mix of built the physical manifestation of complex, multifunctional systems that span
and landscape infrastructural disciplines (planning and design); contexts (urban, suburban, and rural);
elements, has become a major and scales (region, city, neighborhood, and site). Chapter 2 elaborates on
tourist destination. the evolution and basic attributes of this concept. Chapter 3 addresses its
Carolyn Torma implications for practitioners, with a focus on integrating the work of urban
planners and landscape architects. It lays out a set of unifying principles
that can be used by different professions to advance green infrastructure
solutions. Chapter 4 presents case studies drawn from communities across
the United States that are implementing these principles through green
infrastructure initiatives in a variety of contexts and across scales.
CHAPTER 2
5
6 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
HISTORIC ANTECEDENTS
Human settlements have long been integrated
into the larger landscape. The Mesa Verde cliff
dwellings in Colorado, inhabited between about
550 and 1300 by the Anasazi, are an advanced
and dramatic example, where pueblo architec-
ture seems fused with its sandstone surround-
ings (Figure 2.1). Similarly, pre-Columbian
Machu Picchu in Peru is built from the rocks
on which it stands, with stone walls angled to
match the slopes of the supporting mountain,
mimicking the larger landscape. Ancient Babylon
is etched in the imagination as a garden city
with the allure of bountiful and soothing urban
nature—an image that migrated throughout the
Middle East, Moghul India, Moorish Spain, and
beyond to the Americas during Spanish coloniza-
tion, where it took the form of the walled garden
and tree-laden courtyard. Such forms also tended
to have a practical, infrastructural component—
the gardens of Alhambra, constructed by the
Moorish rulers of Granada in the 14th century,
incorporated water features that helped cool the
complex (Figure 2.2).
In 1681, William Penn advanced the integration of landscape and city in Figure 2.3. Fairmount Park,
America by envisioning Philadelphia as a “Green Country Towne.” Penn Philadelphia
had witnessed firsthand the devastation in London wrought by the bubonic WRT
plague followed soon after by the great fire. His vision of a city comprising
large estates, each well-buffered from neighbors, thus had as much to do
with public health and safety as with lush greenery. In 1858, Philadelphia
established Fairmount Park (today one of the largest urban parks in the
nation) as a way to improve and protect the Schuylkill River as the city’s
main water supply while also providing access to cooling breezes, expansive
views, and recreational space (Figure 2.3).
The idea of landscape as infrastructure gained further currency
through Frederick Law Olmsted’s 1870s proposal for Boston’s Back
Bay, a “noxious tidal swamp” that lay stagnant with effluent, as part of
an “Emerald Necklace,” a seven-mile corridor of parkland connecting
Boston Common with Franklin Park. In addition to providing needed
parkland, Olmsted’s design for the “Fens” improved drainage, help-
ing to flush and cleanse the waters and mitigate local flooding. In the
early 1900s, Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., as a member of the McMillan
Commission, extended the concept of the Boston Fens to the Anacostia
River in Washington, D.C. The commission was entrusted with the
renovation of the National Mall and other key public areas to com-
memorate the 100th anniversary of the founding of the nation’s capital.
In an effort to rid the Potomac River of its “malarial flats” and bring
about a healthier, recreation-oriented landscape, Olmsted proposed the
addition of wetlands that could trap and filter urban effluent—a clear
use of nature to promote public health and well-being.
Other professionals advanced the practice of landscape-level planning and
design during an era in which landscape architecture and urban planning
were not separate professions. Examples include Charles Eliot’s Plan for the
Metropolitan Park System of Boston (1899) and his nephew Charles Eliot II’s
Open Space Plan for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1928). Perhaps best
known for his parks and boulevard plan for Kansas City, Missouri, imple-
mented between 1890 and 1920, George Kessler also designed a comprehen-
8 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
mon ground of the two professions. More recently, a second definition of green infrastructure evolved from
the need to address the water-quality impacts of urban stormwater runoff in
response to the Clean Water Act and related regulatory mandates. According
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA; www.epa.gov/owow/
NPS/lid), green infrastructure refers to “systems and practices that use
or mimic natural processes to infiltrate, evapotranspirate (the return of
water to the atmosphere either through evaporation or by plants), or reuse
stormwater or runoff on the site where it is generated.” While the Florida
Greenways Commission and Conservation Fund definitions emphasize large
landscape elements such as parks, natural areas, greenways, and working
(agricultural and forest) lands, the EPA identifies smaller-scale features in
urban contexts—green roofs, trees, rain gardens, vegetated swales, pocket
wetlands, infiltration planters, vegetated median strips, and so on—as typi-
cal components of green infrastructure.
Chapter 2. Landscape Planning, Design, and Green Infrastructure 11
This report seeks to bring these two definitions together and enrich
them by viewing green infrastructure through the lens of landscape—the
physical manifestation of processes that connect the built and natural
environments, performing multiple functions and yielding associated
benefits for the health and well-being of people and wildlife. This per-
spective links physical form and aesthetics with function and outcomes
(benefits); natural habitats with landscapes managed by humans for specific
purposes; and green infrastructure with gray infrastructure. It envisions
green infrastructure as a three-dimensional “envelope” that surrounds,
connects, and infuses buildings, streets, utilities, and the like. As such it
is not separate from gray infrastructure but forms the ground on which
it exists. In other words, there is no fixed boundary between the two. The
erasure of boundaries compels a holistic and interdisciplinary approach
to the planning and design of infrastructure.
KEY CONCEPTS
This report is intended for planners, landscape architects, architects, civil
engineers, scientists, and others interested in the spatial structure, func-
tions, and values (environmental, economic, and social) of natural and
built landscapes. In traditional practice, these professionals have tended to
operate independently of one another. The concept of landscape as green
infrastructure provides a potent platform for integrating the work of physical
designers, policy planners, and others and leveraging this collaboration to
achieve larger societal goals.
▲
Completed in 2006, the Sidwell Friends Middle School expansion in Washington, D.C.,
involved renovating a 55-year old, 33,500-square-foot building and constructing a
39,000-square-foot addition. Integrated water management tied to the school’s environmen-
tal ethic and curriculum was central to the project design. Green roofs are used to retain
and filter stormwater, and a wetland garden is used to treat wastewater before recycling
it as graywater for flushing the school toilets. The system requires holding and a sewage
separator tank powered by rooftop photovoltaic panels—a clear integration of gray and
green infrastructures. Students grow vegetables and herbs for the kitchen on the green Figure 2.5. Sidwell Friends
roofs. The site design includes a pond, rain garden, and filters and swales to absorb and Middle School garden,
purify stormwater runoff (Figure 2.5). Other features include bicycle storage and showers, Washington, D.C.
underground parking, and native plantings. Andropogon
▲
12 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
Environment
• Green infrastructure can absorb stormwater, reducing runoff and associ-
ated impacts such as flooding and erosion.
• It can improve environmental quality by removing harmful pollutants
from the air and water.
• It can moderate the local climate and lessens the urban heat island effect,
contributing to energy conservation.
• It can preserve and restore natural ecosystems and provide habitats for
native fauna and flora.
• It can mitigate climate change by reducing fossil fuel emissions from
vehicles, lessening energy consumption by buildings, and sequestering
and storing carbon.
Economy
• Green infrastructure can create job and business opportunities in fields
such as landscape management, recreation, and tourism.
• Studies have shown that it can stimulate retail sales and other economic
activity in local business districts (Wolf 1998 and 1999).
• It can increase property values (Neelay 1988; Economy League of Greater
Philadelphia 2010).
• It can attract visitors, residents, and businesses to a community (Campos
2009).
• It can reduce energy, healthcare, and gray infrastructure costs, making
more funds available for other purposes (Heisler 1986; Simpson and
McPherson 1996; Economy League of Greater Philadelphia 2010).
Chapter 2. Landscape Planning, Design, and Green Infrastructure 13
Community
▲
THE URBAN FOREST: A KEY
• Green infrastructure can promote healthy lifestyles by providing outdoor COMPONENT OF THE URBAN
recreation opportunities and enabling people to walk or bike as part of LANDSCAPE AND GREEN
their daily routines. INFRASTRUCTURE
• It can improve environmental conditions (e.g., air and water quality) and Trees are arguably the largest structural
their effects on public health. component of green infrastructure. Their
• It can promote environmental justice, equity, and access for underserved habitats range from naturally occurring
populations. forests and managed timber stands to the
physical fabric of suburban and urban
• It can provide places for people to gather, socialize, and build community communities, where they are planted or
spirit. regenerate in private yards and vacant
lots, on institutional campuses, along
• It can improve the aesthetic quality of urban and suburban development.
streets, in parks and preserves, and
• It can provide opportunities for public art and expression of cultural values. elsewhere. The National Urban and
Community Forestry Advisory Council
• It can connect people to nature. Studies have shown that better health
(NUCFAC) defines urban forestry as “the
outcomes, improved educational performance, and reduced violence can
art, science, and technology of managing
be among the resulting benefits (Ulrich 1984; Kaplan 1995; Berman et al.
trees and forest resources in and around
2008; Kuo and Sullivan 1996, 2001a, and 2001b).
urban community ecosystems for the
• It can yield locally produced resources (food, fiber, and water). physiological, sociological, economic, and
aesthetic benefits trees provide society”
A key question for planners and designers is: How can we measure these (NUCFAC 2004).
benefits to demonstrate the value green infrastructure brings to society? Schwab (2009) describes the environ-
Indicators are quantitative or qualitative measurement tools that track prog- mental, economic, and social benefits of
ress toward goals and objectives. They are useful in characterizing complex the urban forest, defining general and
system changes over time in relatively simple terms. Early indicator systems design principles, and presenting case
were developed largely to address human impacts on natural ecosystems, but studies illustrating how an effective urban
their scope has broadened to encompass other dimensions of sustainability, forestry program can be part of a “new
often structured around the triple bottom line. Many of the above benefits planning agenda.” That report empha-
lend themselves to quantitative measurement, for example: sizes the importance of valuing the urban
forest as an investment that makes sense
• Environmental Indicators: stormwater volume reduction, harmful pol- from a triple-bottom-line perspective.
lutants removed from the air, tree canopy coverage, carbon storage and One valuable tool in this area is i-
sequestration, etc. Tree, a suite of free software programs
• Economic Indicators: jobs created, property values increased, reductions in developed by the U.S. Forest Service with
building energy use, etc. cooperating partners. I-Tree can be used
by communities of all sizes to inventory,
• Social (Community) Indicators: parks and open space access (typically evaluate, and quantify the benefits of their
measured in terms of walking distance to the nearest resource), parks and urban forest resources (www.itreetools.
open space equity (typically measured in terms of distribution relative to org). I-Tree uses field data from complete
demographics), public health outcomes, etc. inventories or randomly located plots
to calculate the dollar value of benefits
Other benefits, such as improved aesthetic quality, support of public art, provided by a community’s urban for-
and facilitation of cultural expression, are harder to measure, though they are est, such as pollution removal, carbon
central to the practice of landscape architects and other design professionals. storage and sequestration, and structural
Thus, an important challenge is to develop meaningful ways to define the
▲
(replacement) value.
qualitative benefits provided by landscape as green infrastructure.
ENDNOTES
1. Frank, Engelke, and Schmid (2003) differentiate between “recreational” and “utilitarian”
exercise: “Recreational forms of exercise are those undertaken for discretionary reasons
on someone’s leisure time…. Utilitarian forms of physical activity are those that are
worked into one’s daily habits” (56–88). They hold that utilitarian physical activity (e.g.,
walking or biking to work or to shop) is likely to more significantly affect a person’s
health than recreational activity.
2. The biologist Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, a seminal figure in the development of systems
thinking and author of General System Theory (1969), referred to this paradigm as “the
whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”
CHAPTER 3
17
18 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
▲ GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE While the landscape approach integrates green and gray infrastructures
AND THE PROFESSIONS OF across scales from site design to regional planning, conventional public- and
PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE private-sector organizational structures do not lend themselves to this holistic
ARCHITECTURE approach. In the public sector, planners address infrastructure to varying
degrees through their core functions of long-range planning at the district,
While this report primarily addresses the citywide, and regional scales; codification of zoning and development regula-
work of planners and landscape architects, tions; and review of current development applications for conformance with
civil engineers have an important role to those regulations. Meanwhile, engineers usually housed in a separate depart-
play in advancing green infrastructure ment such as public works or utilities design hard infrastructure systems
solutions through the design of storm- for transportation, utilities, and stormwater, and they review development
water and other infrastructure systems. drawings for compliance with engineering standards. Landscape architects
The Zofnass Program for Sustainable most often work in a parks and recreation department, where they design
Infrastructure at the Harvard Graduate parks, streetscapes, and other landscape elements. Because they have differ-
School of Design and the Institute for ent training, typically work in separate departments with singular missions,
Sustainable Infrastructure (founded by and deal with dissimilar types and scales of projects, opportunities for these
the American Society of Civil Engineers, professionals to work together to achieve broader goals are often limited.
the American Council of Engineering In the private sector, consulting firms typically have core specialties such
Companies, and the American Public as planning, landscape architecture, engineering, or architecture. Where
Works Association) have taken an im- multiple disciplines are housed in one firm, or when firms with different
portant step in this direction by de- specialties form teams to pursue project opportunities, the opportunity for
veloping the Envision Rating System. collaboration across disciplines is greater. However, similar barriers to those
Envision provides a holistic framework encountered in the public sector (different professional training, project types
for evaluating and rating the community, and scales, etc.) make a truly integrated approach to planning and design
environmental, and societal impacts and more difficult. Some of the most successful examples of disciplinary integra-
benefits of transportation, water supply, tion have come when an agency specifies in a request for proposals (RFP)
wastewater treatment, and other types of or a design competition for a project such as a park master plan, corridor /
civil infrastructure projects. Credits used streetscape improvement, or revitalization plan that it seeks to harness the
to develop numeric ratings of projects are triple-bottom-line outcomes of a green infrastructure approach.
grouped into five categories: So what, specifically, can planners do to promote green infrastructure?
• Quality of Life (benefits to and impacts Internally within their organization (e.g., a municipality or private consult-
on communities affected by the project) ing firm), they can build connections across different types of programs and
• Leadership (communication and col- projects (e.g., from comprehensive planning goals and policies to site-level
laboration in project development) design), with other departments (public works, transportation, watersheds,
etc.), and with other professionals (engineers, landscape architects, architects,
• Resource Allocation (quantity, source,
etc.). They can also collaborate with outside partners that deal with issues
and characteristics of materials and
related to green infrastructure, such as sewer and water authorities charged
other resources used in project con-
with addressing Clean Water Act mandates, regional land-conservation
struction and operations)
organizations, and park districts or agencies. The key is to find common
• Natural World (impacts on natural interests across disciplinary and organizational boundaries to make green
systems) infrastructure a vital part of the fabric of our communities and landscapes.
• Climate and Risk (resiliency vis-à-vis This chapter defines a set of unifying principles intended to accomplish this.
short-term hazards such as flooding It indicates how green infrastructure can be woven into the established mis-
and long-term changes such as sea sions, services, and methods of planning and other professions.
level rise)
PLANNING AND DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Examples of specific credits relevant to Six principles inform the planning and design of green infrastructure across
green infrastructure include encouraging different disciplines and scales of professional practice:
alternative modes of transportation (i.e.,
trails, bikeways, transit, etc.—Quality 1. Multifunctionality
of Life), managing stormwater (Natural 2. Connectivity
World), and managing heat island effects
(Climate and Risk). See www.asce.org 3. Habitability
▲
/Sustainability/ISI-Rating-System. 4. Resiliency
5. Identity
6. Return on investment
Chapter 3. Green Infrastructure in Practice 19
Multifunctionality
This principle builds on the concept of the triple bottom line—the environ-
mental, economic, and community benefits provided by green infrastructure.
Also called ecosystem services, these benefits derive from the multiple and
overlapping functions provided across the different systems—hydrology,
transportation, energy, economy, and so on—that can intersect in green infra-
structure. The multifunctionality principle calls on planners and designers to
maximize value for the communities they serve by using green infrastructure
to achieve seemingly disparate goals such as flood control, reduced depen-
dence on imported energy, and improved public-health outcomes.
▲
infrastructure has been established, for example, by sizing and configuring on-site “bor-
row areas” (from which fill materials needed for the expanded levees and toll road are
extracted) into recreational lakes laced with marshlands and dotted with “floating wet-
lands” (rings of suspended aquatic vegetation)—features that provide water cleansing,
aquatic habitat, and recreational value. In this and other ways the floodway will emerge
as a massive public work of green infrastructure, changing the function and identity of
a heretofore little-seen and even less-used public resource. (See the related case study of
▲
Connectivity
This principle means that green infrastructure is most effective in provid-
ing services and benefits when it is part of a physically connected system
across the landscape (e.g., a natural reserve or a park). For example, a natural
reserve that is connected to others by a corridor of native vegetation (e.g.,
along a river or stream) is more valuable (all other factors being equal) than
one surrounded by urban development because it allows for wildlife move-
ment between different habitat areas. Similarly, a park that is connected to
other parks via a regional hiking or biking trail serves more people than one
surrounded by a local residential neighborhood.
20 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
▲ LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY
TERMS, CONNECTIVITY, AND
To create a connected green infrastructure system at the landscape scale,
planners and designers should establish physical and functional linkages
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE across urban, suburban, and rural landscapes and across scales to connect
site, neighborhood, city, and region. For example, vegetated corridors along
Commonly referred to as a “hub” or major watercourses can connect rural, suburban, and urban areas within a
“node” by planners and designers of region, providing multiple benefits such as wildlife habitat, recreation, and
green infrastructure systems, a “patch” management of water quantity and quality. The form of this corridor may
is defined by landscape ecologists as a vary, taking shape as a native riparian woodland in a rural (agricultural)
discrete area of the landscape that differs context, more actively managed landscape plantings in a suburban context,
from its surroundings (e.g., a park or or intensively designed landscape treatments that function as movement
natural reserve). A “corridor” is a linear corridors and gathering spaces in an urban context. Green boulevards and
element that links natural habitat patches. streets that incorporate native or indigenous plantings to benefit wildlife,
Riparian habitat along a river or stream natural stormwater management features, and safe accommodations for pe-
is a common example, while roadways destrians and bicyclists can serve as green infrastructure connections in more
are important corridors in urban and densely developed suburban and urban areas. In creating connected green
suburban landscapes. An “edge” is the infrastructure systems, planners and designers can draw on basic concepts
transition area between different land- of landscape ecology (patch, corridor, edge, and matrix as the large-scale
scape elements (e.g., patches and corri- structural components of landscapes).
dors). Finally, the “matrix” is the overall
landscape structure or pattern within Habitability
which patches, corridors, and edges are The habitability principle positions green infrastructure as visible space
embedded. While green infrastructure that provides outdoor habitat for people, flora, and fauna. The mission of
network design typically focuses on the public health profession—to foster conditions in which people can be
creating hubs and connecting corridors healthy—is central to the idea of habitable green infrastructure. Examples of
(often called links), the role of the matrix green infrastructure planning and design outcomes that advance this prin-
in fostering connectivity—e.g., an urban ciple include improved air and water quality (resulting in improved health
or suburban community with a healthy of humans and ecosystems), increased opportunity for outdoor recreation
urban forest—should not be overlooked. and exercise, and restoration of native habitats.
From a systems perspective, connectivity
encompasses both natural ecological func- Resiliency
tions such as providing habitat routes for Defined as the ability to recover from or adapt to disturbance and change,
wildlife and human ones such as promot- resiliency is particularly relevant in a time when natural and human eco-
ing social equity by connecting people to systems are experiencing accelerating change and instability, ranging from
green infrastructure. higher energy prices to economic shocks to the projected effects of climate
One good working definition of land- change. Examples of how green infrastructure can increase community
scape ecology overall is: “The study of resiliency across scales include:
native landscape structure, function, and
change at the scale of the entire landscape,
• Trees and green roofs can counteract the urban heat island effect at the
as well as the application of the results
city scale and reduce the cooling needs of individual buildings.
to the design and management of both
• A community can reduce its vulnerability to storms and the cost of pro-
natural and human dominated areas”
tective gray infrastructure by maintaining the natural flood absorption
▲
• Tree plantings, green and “blue” roofs, permeable pavement, rain gardens,
and other techniques that absorb rainfall on-site can reduce the impacts
of urban runoff during storms (e.g., overburdened storm sewers, street
flooding, and combined sanitary / storm sewer overflows into rivers and
streams).1
▲
Identity
Design of landscape elements to WATERSHED SCULPTURE: PUBLIC ART AS GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
create a perceptible identity and
sense of place is a central moti-
vation of landscape architects. Artists Daniel McCormick and Mary O’Brien describe their work thus: “We want our
Planners often use the term “com- sculptures to have a part in influencing the ecological balance of compromised environ-
munity character” to express the ments. We are compelled by the idea of using sculpture in a way that will allow the
special and valued attributes that damaged areas of a watershed to reestablish themselves. As it has evolved, our art has
make a place desirable to live in become focused on strategically congregating sculptural components made from riparian
or visit. The identity principle materials back into the watershed system. They are are intended to give advantage to
addresses the potential of green the natural system, and after a period of time, as the restoration process is established,
infrastructure to contribute to the the artists’ presence shall no longer be felt” (http://danielmccormick.blogspot.com).
visual definition of a place. A tree,
for example, can act as a carbon sink
and, through shading, contribute
to energy conservation, both of
which functions can be quantified.
But what kind of tree is it and in
what location? Is it appropriate for
the native terrain, vegetation, and
climate? What added recreational
or spiritual benefit does it provide?
Does it have any aesthetic or cultur-
ally significant effect?
In this context, the integration
of art within the public sphere
becomes a relevant consideration.
In recent decades Ecological Art
or “Eco-Art” has emerged as a
distinctive genre within the field of
public art.2 One early practitioner
is Seattle artist Buster Simpson,
whose work “Beckoning Cistern”
captures roof stormwater from
a loft building and directs it via
inventive scuppers and storage Figure 3.2. Daniel McCormick’s “Intersections” sculptures, sited
tanks to streetside rain gardens. along the Carolina Thread Trail in Freedom Park, Charlotte, North
This project fully captures the Carolina, are both art and public infrastructure. The sculptures
potential of green infrastructure to help capture the runoff from bordering streets by spreading and
engender a unique sense of place. sinking it and preventing an excess of silt and surface pollution
Thinking across scales, could a from entering Little Sugar Creek, the city’s largest urban creek.
recurring motif expressed through Daniel McCormick
▲ Return on Investment
EXAMPLES OF THE RETURN-ON- In a time of scarce financial resources, this principle calls on plan-
INVESTMENT PRINCIPLE AT WORK ners and designers to demonstrate how green infrastructure can
• The triple-bottom-line analysis conducted for reduce costs and yield positive financial outcomes for govern-
Green City Clean Waters, the Philadelphia Water ments, institutions, businesses, and citizens. Examples of ways
Department’s Long-Term Control Plan Update that green infrastructure can generate monetary value include
(Philadelphia 2009), found that green stormwater increasing land values, providing a catalyst for economic devel-
infrastructure investments (green streets, green opment, lessening energy consumption, and reducing gray infra-
roofs, pervious pavement, etc.) would yield a $2.2 structure costs. Planners and designers should use cost-benefit
billion return on $1.01 billion spent over a 40-year analyses to justify green infrastructure approaches, to plan and
period. Monetary values were calculated for eight design green infrastructure components to achieve goals such
different factors, yielding projected benefits such as reduced energy use and increased revenue, and to establish
as roughly 250 people employed in green jobs, one targets and indicators to monitor whether these goals are being
million or more additional recreational user-days, met in implementation.
six million fewer kilowatt-hours of electricity and
eight billion fewer BTUs of fuel used annually, and SCALES OF PLANNING PRACTICE
about 140 fewer heat-related deaths over 40 years. Planners and designers of the physical environment can apply
(Green City Clean Waters is included as a case study the green infrastructure principles to achieve triple-bottom-line
in Chapter 4.) benefits at different scales in different contexts. While important
work has been done at the state level, we focus here on four in-
• According to Economy League of Greater
terrelated scales: regional, local government, subarea / district /
Philadelphia et al. (2010), protected open space
neighborhood, and site.3
in southeastern Pennsylvania adds $16.3 billion
to housing property values, generates $240 mil-
• At the regional scale, green infrastructure can help shape the
lion annually in local property tax revenues, and
pattern and form of development to promote outcomes such
generates more than 6,900 jobs and $299 million
as urban revitalization, rural land preservation, reduced costs
in annual earnings. In addition, health-related cost
of publicly provided infrastructure and services, and increased
savings (avoided workers’ compensation costs
opportunities for walking, biking, and transit use.
and productivity losses) from physical activity on
protected open space total $1.3 billion per year.)
• At the scale of the local government, planning policy, regula-
• Many studies have documented the positive eco- tions, and capital investments can be used to incorporate
nomic impacts of trails at regional and larger scales. communitywide green infrastructure systems such as parks
For example, on the Great Allegheny Passage— and greenways, a healthy urban forest, and green streets and
a 150-mile trail between Pittsburgh and Cumberland, boulevards into the physical fabric of existing and new devel-
Maryland—the “Trail Towns” program aims to opment.
realize the economic potential of the trail, which
has been calculated to generate over $40 million • The district, subarea, or neighborhood scale lends itself to use of
in annual direct spending by users and $7.5 mil- green infrastructure features (green streetscapes, community
lion in annual wages attributed to trail businesses. parks and gathering places, etc.) in master planning and urban
Approximately 40 percent of trail users plan an design to achieve local benefits such as enhanced air and water
overnight stay, averaging 30 to 40 miles and $98 in quality, greater recreational opportunity, an improved business
spending a day (Campos 2009). climate, and increased social interaction and exchange.
• The Trinity River Corridor in Dallas is envisioned
as the catalyst for the potential redevelopment of a • At the site scale, housing or mixed use developments, campuses,
square mile of adjoining lands, mostly older ware- parks and public places, and other project types can incorporate
housing and small-scale industrial uses. The value green infrastructure design interventions such as green storm-
of such redevelopment could ultimately reach $8 water infrastructure, green roofs, living walls, and so on.
billion, depending on density, building typologies,
and use—tenfold the projected cost of the corridor’s Planners can to help the communities they serve achieve the
green infrastructure improvements. The return on triple-bottom-line benefits provided by green infrastructure by
investment will be compounded by energy savings consistently applying the six guiding principles across diverse
and health benefits accruing from denser develop- scales and project types. Table 3.1 (pp. 24–25) provides illustra-
ment supported by public transit in close proximity tive examples of how the principles can be applied in different
▲
Under the landscape approach, green infrastructure assumes different typologies and physical characteristics in urban, suburban, and
rural contexts and the transitions among them. This continuum is analogous to the rural-to-urban transect planning model promulgated
by planning firm Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company (DPZ). The Transect consists of six zones of increasing density with associated
design standards: Rural Preserve, Rural Reserve, Sub-Urban, General Urban, Urban Center, and Urban Core (downtown or central
business district) (www.dpz.com/transect.aspx). Using this analogy, green infrastructure in rural contexts corresponds to either the
Rural Preserve (as wilderness) or to the Rural Reserve (as “working lands with conservation value” [Benedict and McMahon 2006]). In
more-developed suburban contexts, green infrastructure takes on forms such as nature preserves surrounded by development, parks
with active recreational facilities, and private gardens. Green infrastructure merges with the built environment in dense urban contexts
(Urban Center and Urban Core), where it is expressed in streetscapes, urban parks and public gathering spaces, green stormwater
▲
infrastructure, and so on.
make connections (e.g., regional greenway and trail systems) and address
natural landscape features (e.g., watersheds and ecological zones) across
jurisdictional boundaries. Planners and policy makers can promote green
infrastructure at the regional level by:
• Integrating green infrastructure with regional patterns of growth and
conservation
• Directing investments in regional systems such as transportation, storm-
water drainage, and open space toward green infrastructure
• Facilitating partnerships among public agencies, nonprofit land conserva-
tion organizations, institutions, businesses, and developers who stand to
benefit from green infrastructure solutions
• Leveraging resources for implementation (e.g., by tapping public and
private funding streams for green infrastructure projects and programs)
In the United States, regions are typically defined to include a core city
(or cities) and surrounding suburban and rural communities, with in some
cases a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) or council of govern-
ments serving as a regional planning agency. Formal regional governance
models are generally limited to combined city-county governments (e.g.,
Indianapolis and Marion County, Louisville Metro) and special legislative
entities established to manage land use and protect high-quality resources
within designated areas (e.g., the Lake Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and
New Jersey Pinelands Commission). While MPOs focus on transportation
MULTIFUNCTIONALITY CONNECTIVITY HABITABILITY RESILIENCY IDENTITY RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Address GI’s Reinforce identity Use GI to strengthen the
contributions to Integrate GI into land-
Address the importance Develop a strategy (e.g., by incorporating economy (e.g., business
REGIONAL GROWTH / regional goals (e.g., use and development
of GI to quality of life using GI to mitigate / distinctive natural and and worker attraction /
VISION PLANS transportation, patterns across
and attractiveness adapt to climate change cultural resources into retention, food and fiber
economic development, jurisidictions
the GI system) production, tourism)
water management)
REGION
Address GI and Develop a GI plan Incorporate wayfinding
FUNCTIONAL its benefits (e.g., in (network map, policies, Use GI to improve air Use GI to increase the and interpretation into Calculate the economic
MASTER PLANS MPO long-range implementation and water quality resiliency of systems the GI system benefits generated by GI
transportation plans) strategies)
Develop a GI element Consider how GI can
linking to other Address the role of GI in Establish policies and Include indicators
Incorporate a integrate the natural
COMPREHENSIVE comprehensive improving public health strategies to reduce tracking the monetary
greenways / trail plan and built environments
PLANS plan elements (mobility, recreation, vulnerability to storm returns of GI in plan
element linking to to improve community
(transportation, land improved air and damage and flooding implementation and
adjacent jurisdictions character and express
use, etc.) through a water quality, etc.) through GI monitoring programs
community identity
systems approach
Preserve and restore
Consider GI’s benefits in Link GI to the
wildlife habitat; connect Use GI to reduce
other local government Develop an in-depth GI preservation,
people to natural the costs of gray
FUNCTIONAL plans (transportation, plan with strategies to Incorporate GI into interpretation, and
resources and outdoor infrastructure (e.g.,
MASTER PLANS economic development, develop a connected GI climate action plans adaptive reuse of
recreation opportunities stormwater)
parks and recreation, network cultural and historic
(e.g., through
etc.) resources
transportation linkages)
Enact regulatory
Integrate regulatory Develop “healthy Enact regulatory Develop tree and
approaches (e.g.,
provisions (e.g., development” code provisions protecting landscape ordinances
requirements or
DEVELOPMENT stormwater / floodplain provisions using GI floodplain and riparian and standards Identify and
incentives for open
REGULATIONS AND management, to encourage less resources; use a emphasizing the communicate GI’s
space set-asides) to
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CODES subdivision control, tree automobile-dependent stormwater utility to preservation of native positive economic
encourage development
protection) to leverage and more walkable generate money for GI habitats and use of returns
of a connected
GI’s benefits development patterns stormwater solutions native plant materials
greenway system
Use GI to increase
CAPITAL the range of Develop parks, trails, Conduct cost-benefit
benefits provided Incorporate GI into and sidewalk networks Incorporate stormwater Integrate public art with analyses of proposed
IMPROVEMENT GI in capital projects
by capital projects street improvement to provide residents GI into public capital capital projects to
PROGRAMS / (parks, streetscapes,
(e.g., stormwater projects with equitable access to improvement programs determine GI’s long-
PROJECTS public landscapes, etc.)
management, recreation, outdoor recreation term savings
reduced energy use)
MULTIFUNCTIONALITY CONNECTIVITY HABITABILITY RESILIENCY IDENTITY RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Use GI to improve Develop indicators
Design detailed GI Incorporate GI strategies Enhance community
environmental quality, to track the positive
Address GI’s benefits networks (parks in plans to reduce risks identity through
SUBAREA / DISTRICT create walkable returns of GI (e.g.,
in master planning and / nodes, streets / from flooding and storm GI (e.g., parks and
PLANS environments, and increased economic
design at the subarea sidewalks, trails / damage community gathering
provide habitat for activity, improved
scale riparian corridors, etc.) places)
wildlife public-health outcomes)
Develop an ordinance to Enact design standards Use a GI ordinance to Enact design standards Permit compatible
SUBAREA
maximize GI’s benefits Connect GI networks to promote pedestrian- protect areas vulnerable that use GI to express uses yielding economic
DISTRICT / OVERLAY
within designated through regulating friendly development to natural hazards (e.g., distinctive character and returns (e.g., urban
ORDINANCES
subareas plans and incentives and street networks flooding) sense of place agriculture, renewable
energy generation)
Use GI to meet
stormwater Use GI to improve
Enact development Consider how on-site management needs Incorporate references return on investment
Incorporate recreational
standards to leverage GI can link to larger GI (e.g., on-site bioswales to native ecosystems (e.g., through increased
SITE DEVELOPMENTS facilities and other
GI’s functions and and indigenous building
SITE
networks usable outdoor spaces and rain gardens; attractiveness for
benefits off-site regional, materials into designs tenants, reduced energy
multifunctional use)
facilities)
planning, since they are conduits for federal funding of transportation proj-
ects and programs, in recent years many have broadened their purviews to
address other regional issues. For example, the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning
Commission, the MPO for the Greater Columbus region, has established a
Center for Energy and Environment that administers programs on topics
such as greenways and water quality, sustainable growth, local foods, and
energy efficiency.
Some regional planning agencies have launched initiatives specifically
focused on green infrastructure. There are two general types of these initia-
tives: comprehensive regional plans (e.g., Vision North Texas; see Chapter 4)
and functional master plans that address specific systems such as transporta-
tion, housing, or natural resources and open space. Examples of functional
planning for green infrastructure at the regional level include:
• The Hudson Valley Regional Council is leading a green infrastructure plan-
ning project to protect and restore watersheds in the Hudson Valley region
of New York State (https://sites.google.com/site/greeninfrastructure
planning).
• In North Carolina, the Land-of-Sky Regional Council’s green infrastruc-
ture initiative establishes “a regional framework for conservation and
development that will strategically guide future growth for Madison,
Buncombe, Henderson, and Transylvania counties while respecting the
integrity of the region’s ecosystems” (www.landofsky.org/planning
/p_linking_lands.html).
• The Richmond and Crater Planning District Commissions (Virginia) part-
nered on a “blue-green” infrastructure initiative, Regional Blue-Green Infra-
structure Project: Green Infrastructure Planning Tools for Connected Com-
munities (www.richmondregional.org/planning/green%20infrastructure
.htm).
▲
While the local governmental scale
facilitates direct implementation of green GREENSCAPES: LANCASTER COUNTY GREEN
infrastructure through actions such as capital INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
improvements and changes to development
regulations, it does not necessarily address
Located in southeastern Pennsylvania about 40 miles west of Philadelphia,
how green infrastructure within a jurisdic-
Lancaster County is renowned for its agricultural landscape and the cultural
tion fits into a regional system (e.g., by con-
heritage of its Plain Sect (Amish and Mennonite) communities (Figure 3.4).
necting to greenway and trail networks in
Its 944 square miles encompass 60 municipalities and a population of 519,445
adjacent communities).
as of 2010. In 2009 the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners adopted
Local governments can address green
Greenscapes to replace the 1992 Regional Open Space Plan as an official element
infrastructure through a variety of planning
of the Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan.
applications. The comprehensive plan (re-
Lancaster County’s rich natural resources have been extensively altered by
ferred to as the general plan in California and
agriculture (accounting for approximately 54 percent of the county’s land area) and
master plan in New Jersey) is the primary
residential, commercial, and industrial development (approximately 18 percent).
policy document of local governments and
Greenscapes complements the growth management element of the comprehen-
as such is the perhaps the best mechanism for
sive plan, which establishes goals, strategies, and tools for municipalities to use
promoting the triple bottom line of sustain-
in managing growth and land preservation in designated urban and rural areas.
ability: economic prosperity, environmental
Greenscapes defines green infrastructure as “Lancaster County’s essential natural
quality, and social equity. Comprehensive
life support system … a network of natural areas, green spaces, and greenways
plans are typically organized into functional
elements such as land use, transportation,
housing, and economic development, but a
more integrated approach treats these ele-
ments as interrelated systems rather than as
separate topics (Godschalk and Anderson
2012). Because it connects multiple systems
and functions, green infrastructure is an
obvious candidate to help implement such
an approach. For example, comprehensive
plans can include green infrastructure as a
core element (in place of a more traditional
open space and natural resources element)
and identify connections with land use,
transportation, and other elements in the
plan goals, policies, strategies, and imple-
mentation actions. (On developing a green Figure 3.4. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, landscape
infrastructure element in a comprehensive WRT
infrastructure. partners can employ to realize the goals, objectives, and strategies.
28 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
Site Scale
Approaches such as green stormwater infrastructure, green roofs and building
treatments, and dedicated open space and recreation areas become physical
reality at the site scale. While landscape architects, engineers, and architects are
the primary designers at this scale, planners set important design parameters
for their work by administering development regulations, standards, and
review of subdivisions, site plans, and planned unit developments.
• Flood Area Regulations that prohibit new construction within the 100-year
floodplain.
• Riparian Buffer Requirements that maintain a 75-foot buffer from the top
of stream banks.
• Wetland Protection Regulations that supplement U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers requirements for wetlands that fall under the jurisdiction of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act.
The value green infrastructure can create for private and public develop-
ment projects goes beyond compliance with stormwater and other regulatory
requirements. Over the last decade, green building (a corollary of green
infrastructure) has evolved from being a product that was seen as expensive
and limited to one that commands a premium in a competitive market. As
one consultant has noted, “Green buildings return higher rents, offer faster
letting, secure greater occupancy, and generate higher resale values. In an
economic environment where quality is foremost, green buildings offer
higher quality at modest additional cost” (Yudelson 2009).
The market advantages of green buildings are well documented and in-
clude life-cycle building and energy cost savings; reduced operating costs of
buildings and landscapes; higher property values; healthier, more productive
occupants; and public relations and marketing advantages for developers and
owners (www.ecomanor.com/copy/leeds.pdf). In keeping with the view of
green infrastructure as a system connecting the built and natural environ-
ment, a significant proportion of green building value can come from tree and
landscape plantings, green roofs and walls, and rainwater collection systems.
Further, many federal, state, and local agencies and institutions are requir-
ing LEED certification or the equivalent in their development projects. LEED,
developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), is the most popu-
lar green building–rating system. LEED for Neighborhood Development
(LEED-ND), a recent version of LEED developed by the USGBC in part-
nership with the Congress for New Urbanism and the Natural Resources
Defense Council, identifies green infrastructure and buildings as one of five
categories in which to measure results.
for residents to discuss the benefits of green infrastructure and consider how
a green infrastructure network fits into their overall vision for the future. To
inform this discussion, planners should present their inventories and analyses
of existing and potential green infrastructure resources within the community,
the benefits they provide, and threats they may be experiencing, framed in
terms that can be readily understood by the particular audience. Positioning
green infrastructure at the forefront of the planning process emphasizes that
it is not just an amenity but essential to the functioning of the community.
Defining the Green Infrastructure Network. Comprehensive plans typi-
cally contain future land use, transportation, and other maps depicting the
physical dimensions of plan policies, strategies, and actions. A green infra-
structure network map should be included to illustrate the desired future
pattern of green infrastructure lands and how they relate to other components
of the community’s spatial vision. (Green infrastructure functional plans pre-
pared separately from comprehensive plans should, of course, also include
a green infrastructure network map.) The data inventory and mapping of
existing and potential green infrastructure resources provide the basis for
this map. Because the information tends to be complex, it generally makes Figure 3.5. “Hubs and
sense for this map to be separate from the others; however, the overall form Greenways” concept map, from
of the green infrastructure network should also be included on the future the Lancaster County Green
land-use map to show its relationship to existing and future development Infrastructure Plan
patterns. (See the example from Lancaster County in Figure 3.5.) WRT / Lancaster County Planning Commission
32 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
nected network of trails, parks and natural areas covering our entire City. Critical arroyos,
irrigation canals and drainage features will serve as green infrastructure arterials with links to
neighborhoods, schools, libraries, museums, public transit terminals, workplaces, shopping
areas, parks, native habitat preserves and grand open spaces.” The plan identifies arroyos,
drainage washes, drainage channels, detention areas, the Rio Grande river corridor, and
river bottomlands as open space opportunities that if preserved would maximize the flood
control potential of the green infrastructure network while providing other benefits such
as recreation and wildlife habitat. The implementation section of the plan identifies four
general “methods” of preserving open space for incorporation into the network: regulation
(subdivision and zoning requirements); acquisition (cash purchase, trade, or donation);
incentives (development bonuses or trades); and conservation (acquisition of development
rights). Specific actions with time frames are identified for each of the four methods (e.g.,
▲
River or Stream Corridors. Waterways that Figure 3.9. Schuylkill River Greenway, Philadelphia
drain a regional watershed, coursing through Photo: WRT
Range of Uses
Similar to planners, landscape
architects can apply the six guid-
ing principles across different
scales and project types. Table 3.2
(pp. 42–43) provides examples of
triple-bottom-line benefits that can
accrue from application of these
principles across scales of practice.
Figure 3.13. (Above)
CONCLUSION Portland Mew: an
While planners and landscape ar- American version of a
chitects work on different types of woonerf
projects, at different scales, using W. Kyle Gradinger
REGION
communities to Active recreation Active mobility Cultural site access;
GREENWAYS of noise and air Mobility cost-savings
resource-based parks (cycling, jogging) commuting alternative historic interpretation
pollution where
adjoining roadways; and natural preserves
improved public health
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Water retention and
harvesting through rain Places for social and
gardens and cisterns; civic life through Flood mitigation Catalyst for
PLAZAS AND places for geothermal Hub for multimodal recreation, exhibits, through underground Places for public art and surrounding mixed use
SQUARES energy generation; transportation performances, water stormwater storage historic interpretation development
community gathering features, etc.
places
MULTIFUNCTIONALITY CONNECTIVITY HABITABILITY RESILIENCY IDENTITY RETURN ON INVESTMENT
CO2 sequestration
and VOC mitigation Increased property
Places for community Civic capital through
through urban Neighborhood Food production values of surrounding
activities (flea / farmers community engagement
LOCAL PARKS forestry; stormwater connectivity through through community residential and
markets, art fairs, in planning and design
management through sidewalks and trails gardening commercial
festivals)
bio-swales and drain development
fields
Environmental More efficient
education through Small-patch wildlife Active recreation; Water and energy Expression of local recreational use (esp.
native landscapes and connectivity through neighborhood cohesion conservation through heritage through public where integrated with
EDUCATION GROUNDS gardening; stormwater ecological restoration through after-school biological wastewater art and architecture community parks);
BMPs on play courts programs treatment improved academic
and parking areas performance
SUBAREA
Home-to-work Enhanced local business
Mitigation of heat island Places for community Enhanced community
connectivity through through improved
effect through urban events and festivities Pre- and postdisaster identity through
MAIN STREETS integrated transit outdoor environment
forestry; integrated through “flex” staging distinctive landscape
service (“complete and interface with retail
stormwater BMPs streetscape design treatment
streets”) uses
Reduced stormwater Enhanced walkability Enhanced
runoff, microclimate through shaded Localized sidewalk play Microscale stormwater neighborhood identity Increased property
LOCAL STREETS mitigation through sidewalks and traffic- and social exchange retention and filtration through distinctive values
urban forestry calming devices landscape treatments
Enhanced biodiversity Through-block Enhanced sociability Food and fiber Expression of native / Reduced energy costs
though native connectivity via garden as interface between production through indigenous ecosystems through shading and
YARDS AND GARDENS
landscaping paths private and public “edible” landscaping through landscaping improved ventilation
realms
Places for the integration
Energy conservation of art and architecture
Enhanced walkability Places for cooperative Livable outdoor space
COURTYARDS through cross and expression of Increased value of
through integrated exchange and counteracting urban
ventilation, enhanced community identity development
vertical circulation community events heat island effect
outdoor livability within mixed use
developments
SITE
BMPs through porous Potential grade- Active recreation Reduced flooding
Improved community Water treatment
paving; photovoltaic separated pedestrian support through use through stormwater
PARKING AREAS character through lot cost savings where
energy generation connectivity where as play space during detention and
design providing BMP
through overhead associated with parking off-hours harvesting functions
structures structures
Energy and water
Reduced heat island Expression of
BUILDING ENVELOPE conservation through Microscale wildlife Enhanced sociability effect, improved local community Reduced energy costs
(ROOF, WALLS, AND green roofs and connectivity through through habitable air quality through commitment to green due to efficient envelope
TERRACES) vegetated walls; vegetated roofscapes rooftops vegetated surfaces building
enhanced biodiversity
Table 3.2. Incorporating green infrastructure (GI) into landscape architecture practice
44 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
directives and resources into physical form, the opportunity for collabora-
tion clearly exists. The challenge lies in fostering meaningful collaboration
among these professions and others—such as civil engineering—that are
trained to think in different ways, address different sets of problems, and
operate independently. Using the six planning and design principles as a
unifying direction, these professions can leverage their combined expertise
to plan and implement green infrastructure solutions at all scales of practice.
There are many resources available to organizations that have limited
capacity and technical expertise in house. For example, the EPA makes a
variety of resource materials available through its website (http://water.epa
.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure) and provides technical assistance
grants to local communities. Information and resources on green infrastruc-
ture are also available from various nonprofit organizations, including the
Conservation Fund (www.greeninfrastructure.net/resources) and the Green
Infrastructure Center (www.gicinc.org/resources.htm).
Building community support will depend on a consistent effort to com-
municate what green infrastructure is and the benefits it can provide in
terms that people can understand. Planners should seek opportunities to
employ green infrastructure in ways that can provide catalysts for achieving
broader community goals (e.g., by creating opportunities for recreation and
improved community health). Doing so will help develop a constituency
for green infrastructure approaches, and ideally “champions” will emerge
from the community and its stakeholder organizations.
Chapter 4 provides case studies of communities across the country in
which planners, landscape architects, engineers, and others are building
community support for green infrastructure initiatives that implement the
key concepts and guiding principles laid out in this report.
ENDNOTES
1. Blue roofs use downspout valves, gutters, and cisterns to retain runoff and store it for
nonpotable uses such as irrigation. They are less expensive to build than green roofs
and can achieve similar reductions in runoff from rainfall (about 50 percent yearly),
but they do not reduce roof surface temperatures or energy consumption (Cho 2012).
2. There are multiple definitions of Eco-Art. One is “a contemporary form of environ-
mental art created by artists who are concerned about local and global environmental
situations, and who take art making to a functional format” (www.cynthiarobinson
.net/ecoart.html).
3. Florida and Maryland were early leaders in applying the concept of green infrastructure.
As noted in Chapter 1, the Florida Greenways Commission in 1994 recommended land
conservation strategies to establish a statewide green infrastructure network. In the
mid-1990s, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources initiated a statewide green
infrastructure assessment using GIS tools to identify and prioritize environmentally
valuable lands for acquisition, protection, or restoration. Several other states have
initiated programs to conserve green infrastructure resources at the statewide level
(e.g., Delaware’s Green Infrastructure Program and Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener
Program).
4. The National Complete Streets Coalition defines a complete street as one that is “de-
signed and operated to enable safe access and travel for all users, including pedestrians,
bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities.” This definition can
be expanded to include green infrastructure as an integral component of a complete
street, for example: tree plantings to create a safer and more attractive environment
for pedestrians and bicyclists, and green stormwater infrastructure to absorb runoff
and reduce flooding.
Chapter 3. Green Infrastructure in Practice 45
5. The Trust for Public Lands maintains a database of voter referendums sponsored by
state and local governments to raise funds for land conservation (www.landvote.org).
According to this database, from 1988 to 2011 1,755 out of 2,326 such referendums (75
percent) were approved, yielding approximately $57.5 billion.
6. Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia have developed nutrient-trading
programs within the Chesapeake Bay watershed to help meet federal requirements
under the U.S. Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake Bay program. As an example
of how this approach can be used to promote green infrastructure, the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection allows farms that establish permanent veg-
etated buffers at least 50 feet wide along stream corridors to sell credits to municipal
sewage treatment plants to help them meet state effluent discharge requirements.
7. West Union is implementing green infrastructure improvements to its main street
through the Iowa Department of Economic Development’s Green Pilot Program.
CHAPTER 4
Case Studies
▲
The chapter concludes with a table summarizing how the 11 case stud-
ies apply the six planning and design principles described in Chapter 3.
47
48 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
s
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A CITY IN TRANSITION
As an older industrial city in the Great Lakes basin, Cleveland is grappling
with population decline, aging infrastructure, and dwindling tax revenues.
At its peak in the 1950s, Cleveland had a population of 918,000. By 2010,
population had dwindled to 397,000. Not surprisingly, population decline
has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in vacant buildings and land
within the city limits. The city currently has over 20,000 vacant lots (more
than 3,700 acres in total) along with an estimated 8,000–10,000 buildings
awaiting demolition.
The news is not all bad, however. Although total population continues to
decline, Cleveland’s downtown core is in the midst of a growth spurt. The
city’s 10,000 downtown housing units are nearly 100 percent occupied, with
new housing development projects planned or underway throughout the
center city. Cleveland is home to world-class cultural institutions, thriving
businesses and industries (most notably in the biomedical sector), and an
extensive, efficient public transit system. Situated at the edge of Lake Erie,
Cleveland is part of a region that has access to an ample supply of fresh
water and an extensive network of parks and green spaces, anchored by the
Cleveland Metroparks system.
The city aims to manage the current situation of decline in ways that sta-
bilize city neighborhoods and populations while creating opportunities for
future development within a more sustainable framework. Cleveland’s gray
infrastructure is firmly in place, having been developed and expanded over
the past 200 years. Retrofitting the city for green infrastructure is a complex
and painstaking process, but one that will ultimately yield a healthier and
more resilient city. Green infrastructure can help address the city’s many
challenges, including public health concerns, air and water quality issues,
numerous brownfield sites, and a depleted urban tree canopy.
There are many definitions for “green infrastructure” in Northeast Ohio.
The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) uses the term exclu-
sively in the context of combined sewer overflow (CSO) issues, described
below. But the overall concept of green infrastructure includes a broader
range of priorities such as health, recreation, biodiversity, carbon seques-
tration, and restoration of urban ecosystems. Within this more expansive
definition, green infrastructure becomes a valuable tool for urban adapta-
tion and regeneration, with an emphasis on long-term sustainability and
interconnectivity between built and natural systems.
This case study will outline several planning initiatives aimed at reclaim-
ing the city and region through green infrastructure.
In order to comply with the federal Clean Water Act and address water-
quality issues caused by CSO discharges, NEORSD has committed $3 billion
to Project Clean Lake. The program will be implemented over the next 25
years and will meet a federal mandate to reduce the current CSO volume of
4.5 billion gallons per year to fewer than 0.5 billion gallons per year.
The CSO program for Cleveland is a hybrid approach, combining gray
and green infrastructure. The majority of the $3 billion investment in Project
Clean Lake will fund construction of seven tunnels up to 24 feet in diameter,
ranging from two to five miles in length, as much as 300 feet underground.
However, per NEORSD’s consent decree, at least $42 million of the Project
Clean Lake budget will be earmarked for green infrastructure; a small but
potentially impactful component of Project Clean Lake will be implemented
aboveground in parks, streetscapes, private-sector development projects,
and vacant properties in strategic locations throughout the city. These green
infrastructure components are being designed in 2013, with implementation
to begin in the same year; projects must capture at least 44 million gallons of
CSO volume and be completed within an eight-year window.
An important provision of the consent decree is that, beyond the initial
$42 million investment in green infrastructure, NEORSD has the flexibility to
substitute green infrastructure for gray infrastructure to resolve CSO issues
anywhere in the system. The extent to which NEORSD will take advantage
of this flexibility is still to be determined.
The green infrastructure component of Project Clean Lake has the potential
to create green spaces, wetlands, and other features that function as public
amenities and increase the vibrancy and economic potential of Cleveland’s
neighborhoods. Beyond reducing pollution in Lake Erie, the program could
become a catalyst for redevelopment in the city. But this potential will be fully
realized only if NEORSD’s green infrastructure investments are designed as
an interconnected system where individual projects interact to offer multiple
benefits. This is very difficult to achieve in a Cleveland context. Since the
gray infrastructure components of Project Clean Lake will handle about 98
percent of the CSO problem, there are a limited number of places in the city
where green infrastructure can be located to capture additional CSO volume.
Project Clean Lake must therefore focus on finding individual locations for
green infrastructure projects, rather than taking a more holistic and systematic
approach as is the case in Philadelphia (see pp. 68–75).
50 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
Two other factors will impact the outcomes of Project Clean Lake. Despite
their large numbers, vacant properties are scattered throughout the city and
it can be difficult to assemble multiple sites in the exact places where they
are most needed for green infrastructure projects. In addition, the future is
uncertain for many Cleveland neighborhoods. While there is an immediate
desire to repurpose growing inventories of vacant land for green space, parks,
agriculture, and other green infrastructure uses, there is also a long-term
need to accommodate future
development and renewed
density in parts of the
city, and it is difficult
to predict where de-
velopment demand is
most likely to emerge.
The Cleveland City
Planning Commission
has developed a con-
ceptual plan to help
anticipate the locations in the city
where future development is likely to
be viable (Figure 4.2). The plan estab-
lishes a range of indicators—including
access to transit, proximity to parks,
and recent public and private invest-
ments—that help delineate parts of
the city where existing, walkable
urban neighborhoods re-
main largely intact and
density should be main-
tained or reinforced. The
city intends to preserve
vacant land for future
real-estate develop-
Figure 4.2. Sustainable patterns ment in these areas, but elsewhere in the city, greening projects and other
of development, Cleveland efforts that reduce overall density are permissible.
City of Cleveland This has implications for Project Clean Lake. The city would like to avoid
making a permanent shift in land use for green infrastructure projects in
neighborhoods where other redevelopment opportunities remain viable.
Green infrastructure does not preclude future development, since green
infrastructure practices can be incorporated into buildings, public spaces,
and traditional real estate–development projects. However, market demand
in Cleveland is generally weak and there are not many development proj-
ects in the city that will take shape during the eight years NEORSD has to
complete its initial $42 million of investments.
The success of Project Clean Lake will depend on the extent to which the
City of Cleveland and NEORSD can work together effectively. NEORSD has
the mandate and the city has the land (through the land bank) and zoning
control. The sewer district and the city will need to collaborate in order to
achieve green infrastructure goals. Project Clean Lake will require a focused
planning effort, sensitivity toward urban design issues, and extensive com-
munity engagement in order to produce a green infrastructure program that
is thoroughly integrated into the fabric of Cleveland’s neighborhoods. The
initial $42 million in green infrastructure investments, along with future
projects made possible by substituting green infrastructure for gray in ac-
cordance with NEORSD’s consent decree, could vastly improve the quality
of life for current and future residents.
Chapter 4. Case Studies 51
Northeast Ohio Ecological Consortium / Urban Long Term Research Area Figure 4.4. Urban Agriculture
Exploratory Program Innovation Zone, preliminary
The Northeast Ohio Ecological Consortium (NEO ECO) was created through concept plan
funding from the National Science Foundation as part of the Urban Long Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Term Research Area Exploratory (ULTRA Ex) program. NEO ECO is a group
of scientists, researchers, and planners building research capacity in order
to better understand the potential of vacant urban land to provide a range
of ecosystem services. The work of NEO ECO also examines the effective-
ness and social acceptance of green infrastructure in an urban context, in
conjunction with Project Clean Lake and Re-imagining a [Greater] Cleveland.
The scientific research supported through NEO ECO examines the reemer-
gence of biophysical controls in natural processes and ways to harness them
for the benefit of people in cities. The organizing idea is that the restoration
of healthy urban ecosystems will support stable and resilient urban com-
munities. NEO ECO research includes vacant land stabilization practices,
vacant site restoration and landscape succession in Cleveland’s Slavic Village
neighborhood, assessment of the quality and quantity of ecosystem services
in support of urban agriculture on vacant lots, and development of a Vacant
Land Rapid Assessment Procedure.
Of these research efforts, the Vacant Land Rapid Assessment Procedure
(VL-RAP) has the most direct implications for green infrastructure policies.
The VL-RAP offers a way to screen and evaluate vacant sites using basic
ecological and ecosystem principles to determine their potentials for green
infrastructure uses such as wildlife habitat, stormwater management, parks,
and gardens. This provides a counterpoint to more typical site-assessment
procedures that evaluate the potential of a site primarily from the perspec-
tive of traditional real-estate development.
The VL-RAP is a user-friendly questionnaire that evaluates five metrics:
(1) existing and realistic potential size of the site, (2) landscape position and
connectivity to existing habitats, (3) soil as a dominant factor in the potential
for the reuse of urban vacant land, (4) existing economic redevelopment po-
tential, and (5) current and potential ecological condition of the vacant land
if passive uses are implemented. Upon completion, the VL-RAP provides a
single score designed to help users make relative comparisons and decide
whether a lot should be considered for green infrastructure uses rather than
54 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
The Cleveland Metroparks Strategic Plan defines green infrastructure as a regional resource
providing “triple bottom line” benefits as follows:
Green infrastructure is the region’s natural life support system, a network of parks,
greenways, trees, wetlands, and other green resources that provide essential environmental,
economic, and community benefits and ecosystem services for the people of Northeast Ohio.
Economic Benefits
• Attracts businesses and workers
• Generates revenue
• Provides access to local businesses
• Increases property values
• Lowers energy costs
• Lowers healthcare costs
56 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
s
NORTH TEXAS: RETURNING TO THE TRINITY
Figure 4.6. The Trinity River in Overview of the North Texas Region
downtown Fort Worth, by the The North Texas State Planning Region is a 16-county region served by the
Main Street Bridge North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). It covers almost
Karen S. Walz 12,800 square miles, an area larger than the state of Massachusetts (see Vision
North Texas Partnership 2008). The region spans two of Texas’ major ecore-
gions—the Blackland Prairies and the Cross Timbers and Prairies. Most of
the region is in the Trinity River basin, though parts of the region are in the
Brazos, Sabine, or Sulphur river basins (Figures 4.7 and 4.8).
At 715 miles long, the Trinity is one of the longest rivers in the United States.
Its watershed includes nearly 18,000 square miles of land, all within the state
of Texas (Trinity River Authority 2010). In 2001, approximately 15 percent of
the land within the region had been developed with urban or suburban uses.
Like its natural features, North Texas’s governance is extremely diverse.
Within the region’s 16 counties there are more than 150 cities, including 12
that have more than 100,000 residents each. For this reason, most major
initiatives involve multiple jurisdictions and thus require some degree of
collaboration or partnership to succeed.
North Texas is an attractive region to many people and businesses. In 2000
it was home to 5.3 million people, but by 2010, the population had reached
6.5 million, making it one of the fastest-growing large regions in the nation
during this decade. And North Texas is expected to continue growing rap-
idly—population projections by NCTCOG and Vision North Texas suggest
the region could have 9.5 million people by 2030 and 11.7 million by 2050.
Metropolitan Center
population density, and other
factors. The natural assets are
Policy Areas
Natural weighted based on stakeholder priori-
Separate Communities ties. The result of a greenprinting effort is a
Inner Tier
Outer Tier
series of maps showing top priorities for land conservation or
Rural protection to achieve stakeholder goals.
Chapter 4. Case Studies 59
watersheds. Of the highest priority areas, only 18.9 percent are currently
protected, so the greenprint identified 4,677 acres that should receive the
highest priority for conservation action. It provides a tangible and fact-based
approach to investment.
These greenprint results were presented to regional stakeholders during
the Vision North Texas Regional Summit in October 2011. Stakeholders from
other parts of the region were interested in greenprinting their own areas,
and some participants recommended that the entire region be greenprinted.
The greenprint information is expected to be used in environmental assess-
ments for regional transportation projects, as the basis for land conservation
initiatives by individual cities, and as part of the region’s overall efforts to
maintain the quality of water in its reservoirs.
Integrated Storm Water Management. The Integrated Storm Water
Management (iSWM) Program is a cooperative initiative that assists North
Texas cities and counties in achieving their goals of water quality protec-
tion, streambank protection, and flood mitigation. It also helps communi-
ties meet their construction and post-construction obligations under state
stormwater permits.
Development of the first iSWM manual began in 2002 as an effort to create
a comprehensive stormwater manual for the North Central Texas region.
Local government representatives worked with NCTCOG and consulting
firm Freese and Nichols to compile a regional document that would set
stormwater design standards and methodology as well as provide guidance
in meeting EPA and TCEQ regulations. The first manual was completed
in 2006 and was updated in 2009 based on user experience and feedback.
iSWM provides important tools for individual
communities interested in using a green infra-
structure approach to stormwater management
(NWTCOG 2009). It contains four key compo-
nents: (1) the iSWM Criteria Manual that cities
and counties can adopt and enforce; (2) the iSWM
Technical Manual, which provides technical guid-
ance for project designers; (3) the iSWM Tools,
web-served training guides, examples, design
tools, and other items that may be useful dur-
ing project design; and (4) the iSWM Program
Guidance document, which guides the program-
matic planning for iSWM use—the processes
necessary to develop, adopt, and use iSWM in a
particular community. (See Figure 4.13.)
Figure 4.13. The four components of the integrated One benefit of iSWM is that it provides a com-
Storm Water Management (iSWM) program mon approach that can be used throughout the
North Central Texas Council of Governments North Texas region—a consistent methodology
for designing subdivisions’ stormwater management systems; a coordinated
approach to address water quality protection, streambank protection, and
flood mitigation and conveyance; and a recommended process for ordinance
adoption. At the same time, the iSWM program recognizes that individual
cities and counties have their own existing development-review processes
and may have unique natural and development characteristics. To account
for this, iSWM builds in flexibility by including “local provision boxes”
throughout the iSWM Criteria Manual that allow a city or county to custom-
ize the manual to fit their own circumstances.
Since completion of the initial iSWM manual in 2006, 13 cities have ad-
opted stormwater management regulations based on the iSWM program, and
as of summer 2011 approximately 20 more jurisdictions are considering its
adoption. Momentum is building as additional cities adopt iSWM and more
Chapter 4. Case Studies 61
The Trinity Landscape: Green Infrastructure from the Past and for the Future
The Trinity River, its tributaries, and their surrounding landscape formed
the original infrastructure system for North Texas, providing transporta-
tion within the region; a source for building materials, fuel, food, and other
necessities; a water supply; storm drainage; and other benefits (Figure 4.16).
But during the postwar development boom, the region turned its back on
this infrastructure and perceived this landscape as a location for industrial
activity, a hazard to be tamed and managed, and an undesirable place to
spend time.
North Texas’s return to its original Trinity-based natural infrastructure
began in the late 1980s and early 1990s, before the term “green infrastructure”
was commonly used. Starting with the Trinity River COMMON VISION,
the region’s initiatives have brought the river and its landscape back to
prominence in the region’s identity. These initiatives have strengthened
the role of this landscape as infrastructure and as an economically valuable
Chapter 4. Case Studies 63
asset (Figure 4.17). Together, they provide an example of landscape as green Figure 4.16. A railroad crossing
infrastructure in a region where the natural landscape has often been over- upstream of the bluff on which the
whelmed by the buildings and pavement of postwar urban development. original Fort Worth military outpost
Chapter 2 of this report identifies three key concepts that set the green was located.
infrastructure approach apart Karen S. Walz
NORTH TEXAS 2050 VISION Texas 2050 vision and action package developed by the Vision North Texas
STATEMENT partnership emphasizes sustainability throughout its recommendations.
North Texas is recognized worldwide
The vision statement describes a future that is sustainable in terms of the
as a region that sustains its economic
region’s people, its environment, and its economy. Research demonstrated
success and vitality because it contains
that the region could not sustain growth if it occurred in the “business as
many distinctive and highly desirable
usual” pattern. Stakeholder discussion and analysis of alternative scenarios
communities, supports innovative people
considered factors such as the scenarios’ impacts on natural assets and how
and businesses and nurtures its varied
efficiently they utilized limited resources.
natural assets. Sustainability: Providing Ecosystem Services. The basic tenet of the
• It contains diverse neighborhoods,
iSWM program is that stormwater management can be accomplished
mixed use centers and communities
more effectively through a “green infrastructure” approach than through a
that appeal to people of all income
more traditional system of culverts, pipes, and pumps. iSWM has created
levels and at all stages of their lives.
a consistent methodology that can be used by individual cities and coun-
ties throughout the region. It provides standard language for ordinances to
• It is a preferred location for the em-
establish and oversee these designs. Its web-based tools and the examples
ployees and businesses that comprise
found in its technical manual give cities and developers specific design
the broad-based and innovative local
details, ensuring that the ecosystem services for managing stormwater are
economy.
realized from the design of development projects.
• It offers residents and businesses access
Sustainability: Improving the Triple Bottom Line. The fourth element
to resources and opportunities that lead
of the Trinity River COMMON VISION clearly includes the environmental
to their long-term success.
benefits of green infrastructure—preservation and restoration of riparian
• It protects, manages, and enhances resources. The community benefits of green infrastructure are reflected in the
critical natural areas and uses energy first three elements of this program, which focus on the need for the Trinity
and natural resources responsibly. to be safe, clean, and enjoyable. The economic benefits of green infrastructure
• It supports resilient and effective re- are represented in the program’s final element of diversity.
sponses to change through collaboration The programs that have carried out this vision over the past 20 years ad-
dress all parts of the triple bottom line. For example, the Corridor Development
s
Public Health. The guiding principles in North Texas 2050 build upon a
set of “Principles of Development Excellence” developed by NCTCOG in
2001. At workshops and other sessions throughout the Vision North Texas
process, stakeholders were asked to consider these principles and provide
feedback on them. One consistent comment was that health concerns were
missing and should be included. As a result, one of the guiding principles
in North Texas 2050 addresses healthy communities: “Identify and sup-
port functional, sustainable infrastructure and institutions that offer North
Texans access to affordable, nutritious foods, opportunities for physical
activity, and access to wellness and primary care services.” Health is one of
the eight “investment areas” for which North Texas 2050 provides specific
recommendations for action by decision makers and stakeholders.
The public health community was involved in Vision North Texas activi-
ties that created this document. The Tarrant County health director assembled
and led a Health Research Team for Vision North Texas. The team included
leaders from public health, insurance, hospital, medical research, and other
aspects of the health care field, and was responsible for analyzing the health
implications of the alternative scenarios and for drafting the policy recom-
mendations for this investment area. It continues to participate in projects
that implement these recommendations.
Systems Approach. A systems approach counters the tendency to evaluate
and solve challenges in issue-based silos that are isolated from one another by
institutional structures. One advantage of silo thinking is that it can focus on
designing a particular solution to a problem defined within a single frame of
reference or area of expertise. But action bound by individual silos is unlikely
to create an appealing and successful community, and it is even less likely
to succeed in a context of revitalization, where existing investments and
perspectives are shaped by the complex fabric of current and past settlement.
Both of the major cities in North Texas have local Trinity projects under
way that apply systems thinking to the role of landscape in revitalization
and reinvestment. The two projects—Trinity River Vision in Fort Worth and
the Trinity River Corridor Project in Dallas—both use the river as the spine
and focal point for new urban communities. To achieve this objective, the
projects integrate actions related to flood control, stormwater management,
mobility, economic development, parks and recreation, environmental res-
toration, community revitalization, and urban design. In each case, the need
to address all these concerns simultaneously and in a coordinated way has
created challenges for designers, residents, property owners, and city offi-
cials. Despite these challenges, both Dallas and Fort Worth have completed
overall plans to guide future investment along the Trinity. Implementation to
date includes bridge construction, creation of wetland areas for stormwater
detention, construction of trails and interpretive centers, and new private
development that is transforming the central cores of the region.
s
PHILADELPHIA: MAKING THE GREENEST CITY IN AMERICA
In his inaugural address, Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter put forth a vi-
sion to make Philadelphia the greenest city in America. To make this vision
a reality, the mayor appointed a director of sustainability who embarked on
a process to create an action plan for sustainability. This plan, Greenworks
Philadelphia, elevated and integrated the multiple sustainability efforts
that were already underway and set 15 sustainability targets in the areas of
energy, environment, equity, economy, and engagement.
Greenworks Philadelphia joined together the efforts of many city depart-
ments, including the Philadelphia Water Department and the Department of
Parks and Recreation, creating an integrated and focused effort to transform
Philadelphia. The effort drew on the collective talents and expertise of virtu-
ally all government departments, the residents and workers of Philadelphia,
and an extensive array of nonprofits, neighborhood organizations, utility
companies, and the private sector.
The five core Greenworks goals are:
• Energy: Philadelphia reduces its vulnerability to rising energy prices.
• Environment: Philadelphia reduces its environmental footprint.
Figure 4.18. Timeline of
• Equity: Philadelphia delivers more equitable access to healthy neighborhoods.
Philadelphia planning initiatives
supporting green infrastructure • Economy: Philadelphia creates a competitive advantage from sustainability.
WRT • Engagement: Philadelphians unite to build a sustainable future.
more benefits are achieved when they are combined into green places. Green
Places include parks and recreation spaces, green schoolyards, vacant land
opportunities, waterfronts, green streets, green development, plazas and
auxiliary spaces, and rail and utility corridors.
Network of Benefits. The network of benefits, based on the triple-
bottom-line triad of environment, economy, and quality of life,
establishes a common language for illuminating the benefits of
sustainable open space and for measuring progress toward a
greener, more sustainable Philadelphia (Figure
4.20). It provides the city a framework to
clearly communicate goals, justify spending,
objectively prioritize projects, and report
progress.
Environment
• Clean Air – filtering airborne particulates
• Healthy Watersheds – managing stormwa-
ter, recharging groundwater, improving
ecosystem quality
• Robust Wildlife Habitat – providing
shelter for a wide spectrum of avian,
terrestrial, and aquatic species
• Hospitable Climate – providing shade,
blocking wind
Economy
• Efficient Energy Use – reducing electricity demand by increasing shaded
and reflective environments
• Valuable Properties – increasing value through proximity to open space
and improved aesthetics
• Productive Land Use – repurposing vacant and underutilized land
• Competitive Economy – attracting businesses and residents to a greener,
healthier environment
Quality of Life
• Fresh, Local Produce – supporting local urban agriculture and fresh
food supplies
• Convenient Recreation Access – bringing open space closer to residents
• Healthy Residents – providing opportunities for exercise, including
walking and biking
• Strong, Safe Neighborhoods – fostering community and engagement
in more natural settings
Measurability. GreenPlan Philadelphia sets attainable targets and recommen-
dations for incorporating open space planning into private and public projects
and assigns agencies responsible for implementation. Targets include achieving
30 percent tree cover in every neighborhood; 10 acres of parkland per thousand
residents; 100 additional green schoolyards; 1,400 miles of green streets; and a
trail within a half-mile of all residents. Additional targets and recommendations
address funding, management, operations,
maintenance, education, and outreach.
To reach these targets, Philadelphia’s
open space network must grow. GreenPlan
Philadelphia identifies and maps opportu-
nities to achieve a greener urban landscape.
(See Figures 4.21a–b and 4.22a–b.)
especially CSOs threaten the water quality in the city’s two main rivers—the
Delaware and the Schuylkill—which also happen to be the sources of the
city’s drinking water.
A Green Stormwater Management Approach. The National Combined
Sewer Overflow Control Policy requires that every city with combined
sewer overflows must create a Long Term Control Plan to comply with the
Clean Water Act. To reduce CSOs, cities must better manage
stormwater flowing into combined sewers.
The conventional approach to CSO storm-
water management is to build additional
sewer infrastructure with greater capacity
to collect larger volumes of stormwater and
then pipe it to deep tanks and tunnels during
the storm event. After the storm is over, and
combined sewer flows return to normal, the
sewage that was stored during the storm is
then pumped back into the sewer system for
treatment at the wastewater treatment plant. Because
of the high amount of impervious surface in most cities, and
the tremendous volume of runoff that occurs during rainfall
events, underground tanks and tunnels to store such runoff
temporarily are huge, both in size and cost.
PWD’s Green City, Clean Waters approach proposes
to rely primarily on a citywide green stormwater infra-
structure system with urban streets and lands designed
to allow rainfall to infiltrate, evaporate, and be reused
where it falls (Figure 4.24). Managing stormwater at the
source keeps it out of the combined sewer system, elimi-
nating the need to increase the system’s storage and treatment capacity.
Green Infrastructure Benefits. There are numerous major advantages of
the Green City, Clean Waters strategy. The large, centralized tunnels and tanks Figure 4.24. A visualization of a
needed with the traditional infrastructure approach require a long time to greened Philadelphia street
construct and are unavailable until they are complete. Hence, the city’s rivers WRT for the City of Philadelphia
continue to experience CSOs during the long construction period. Further, the
underground tanks and tunnels require significant energy to construct as well
as to pump the stored CSOs back to the wastewater treatment plant. Because
the green stormwater infrastructure approach is distributed throughout the
city, there are immediate improvements as smaller, individual projects are
implemented and less energy is required long-term for operation.
Traditional “gray” infrastructure succeeds at piping stormwater from city
streets to rivers (or storage tunnels), but that is the only function it provides.
The green infrastructure approach manages and improves the water quality
of stormwater while contributing to the economic, environmental, and social
sustainability of the city through a greener city landscape. PWD is looking
to receive the greatest return on investment for its stormwater-management
investment dollars by choosing to invest in infrastructure that both manages
stormwater and provides many corollary sustainable benefits.
These benefits are economic, social, and environmental. Green stormwater
infrastructure reduces the social cost of poverty by creating jobs that require
limited experience and are therefore suitable for individuals who might be other-
wise unemployed and living in poverty. It manages stormwater runoff naturally
without the cost of expensive pumping and wastewater treatment investments.
Green stormwater infrastructure enhancements improve visual amenity, reduce
heat island effects, provide cleaner water quality, and provide opportunities to
create more desirable outdoor spaces for the public. Trees and parks can transform
neighborhoods into exciting and more comfortable places to live, work, and play.
Green stormwater infrastructure also reduces the severity of extreme heat events
74 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
s
PWD’s rate reallocation, stormwater charges are based on the amount of
runoff from the property, using the gross size of the property and the imper- GREENED ACRES
viousness of the land cover—directly tying the amount of runoff produced
on a property to the stormwater charge it pays. By implementing green
The Philadelphia Water Department
stormwater infrastructure, a land owner can reduce the stormwater fee.
defined a new unit for measuring the
Measuring Progress. The two primary metrics for measuring the success stormwater management impacts of
of Green City, Clean Waters implementation are the volume of combined green infrastructure rather than using
sewer overflows that continue to occur, and the number of “greened acres,” gallons of stormwater managed or acres
a measure of the stormwater volume managed by green stormwater infra- of land managed, which each only tell
structure. (See sidebar.) part of the stormwater management
Since 2006, stormwater regulations have reduced runoff by over 1.5 bil- story (Figure 4.26). From “Green City,
lion gallons per year. As the pace of construction of green infrastructure Clean Waters”:
increases in the upcoming years, Philadelphia anticipates fully managing
combined sewer overflows and achieving considerable improvement in the
water quality of its streams and rivers, with correspondent benefits to the
aesthetics, economy, health, and quality of life in the city.
Lessons Learned
Leadership and Vision Are Key. This is particularly important in creat-
ing essential change in city workflow and fostering interaction among city
departments. Though efforts to plan for and implement green infrastructure
started before Mayor Nutter took office, with his leadership on sustainability
and the development of Greenworks Philadelphia there has been greater
motivation to pursue green infrastructure and sustainability goals.
Green Infrastructure Requires Partnerships. Because green infrastructure,
to be effective, needs to be geographically distributed, it is necessary for city
departments to work with one another, and for planners, landscape architects,
engineers, business owners, developers, and the community to gain buy-in
for including green infrastructure in public and private projects.
Multiple Benefits Are a Plus. One of green infrastructure’s greatest selling
points is that it provides multiple benefits. At a time when budgets are tight,
it is important that infrastructure investments can serve multiple benefits.
The economic, environmental, and social advantages of green infrastructure Figure 4.26. “Greened acres” in
are numerous, and those benefits must be communicated. Philadelphia
Passion and Patience Are Needed. Managing change can be challeng- City of Philadelphia
s
SEATTLE: A CITY’S JOURNEY TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY
Seattle, known for its spectacular natural setting, progressive politics, strong
neighborhoods, high-tech jobs, and coffee culture, has been on the upswing
since the early 1980s. Located in western Washington on Puget Sound, Seattle
is the largest city in the state, with a population of 608,660. It is the regional
center of King County and the surrounding metropolitan area of over 3.5
million people. City Planning, a division of the Department of Planning and
Development, is responsible for the comprehensive plan, develops citywide
land-use policy, and maintains the land-use code.
A Native American proverb—“Every decision must take into account its
effect on the next seven generations”—continues to inspire Seattle’s journey
towards sustainability. The breadth of the city’s sustainable policies and
practices landed Seattle at the top of 2012’s Corporate Knights Magazine
/ Tufts University Greenest Cities in America ranking—it had already
implemented 35 of the 38 best-practice municipal policies and programs
assessed. Surrounded by water and working hard to protect and restore
salmon habitat, Seattle looks to green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) as
an important piece of its sustainability strategy.
Beyond the direct water-quality and fish-habitat benefits, Seattle uses
GSI to make compact urban neighborhoods more attractive, walkable, and
livable. GSI is integrated into streetscape projects as traffic-calming features
or sightline improvements that increase pedestrian safety. The community-
engaged process of planning GSI projects brings community members
together to make positive change, building social capital and a sense of
place. GSI projects save energy and carbon emissions because stormwater
is cleansed as it infiltrates slowly through planting and soil layers, rather
than being pumped and treated at a wastewater treatment facility. GSI proj-
ects also preserve existing pipe capacity, making the drainage system more
resilient—better able to absorb future (uncertain) system disturbances like
increased runoff from wetter winters due to climate change or increased
impervious surface.
Seattle’s focus on GSI is apparent in long-range policy, codes and regula-
tion, capital projects, and other implementation programs. The city often
uses pilot or demonstration projects to test new GSI ideas and approaches,
and if successful expands them to other areas or applies them citywide. GSI
is integrated into the city’s fabric at a variety of scales and implemented by
multiple city agencies and departments in both the public and private realms:
• Long-range planning policy in the comprehensive plan provides a foun-
dation for implementing GSI broadly.
• The Green Factor, a flexible point-based landscaping standard in the land-
use code, is designed to encourage the use of GSI landscape features to
satisfy landscaping and stormwater management requirements of city
codes.
• Capital projects implemented by Seattle Parks and Recreation and the
Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) incorporate GSI.
• Drainage fees for stormwater management services encourage property
owners to reduce impervious surface. Fees are based on each property’s
estimated impact on the city’s drainage system and appear as a separate
line item on King County property-tax statements.
• SDOT’s Right-of-Way Improvements Manual provides guidance to ap-
plicants required or interested in GSI or Natural Drainage System (NDS)
designs as part of right-of-way improvement projects.
Chapter 4. Case Studies 77
Planning Context
In 1994 the city adopted Toward a Sustainable Seattle, its first comprehensive
plan under Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA), which required
counties to establish an urban growth boundary and direct large portions
of the region’s growth to designated urban centers. The plan promotes a
development pattern called the urban village strategy—new household and
employment growth is directed to places designated as either urban centers
or urban villages. These polices have enabled Seattle and King County to
preserve green spaces, forests, and farmlands outside of the urban growth Figure 4.27. Seattle Green Factor
area, an essential component of regional GSI. is leading design teams to think
Numerous comprehensive plan goals and policies refer to low-impact creatively about fitting landscape
development, green space, green building, and reduced impervious surface— features onto structures. This
evidence of the city’s commitment to the principles of GSI. For example, a has resulted in more plantings
measurable 40 percent goal for overall tree canopy is part of this 20-year integrated in rooftop or balcony
statutory plan. Environmental policies underscore the ecological and social amenity areas, often including
function of forests, parks, open space, and other natural systems, highlighting opportunities for food cultivation.
not only their capacities to help manage stormwater but also the additional City of Seattle
Seattle has been on the leading edge of GSI for more than a decade. The
Natural Drainage Systems Program, created in the late 1990s, demonstrated
that GSI could be used to protect small creeks from the damaging effects of
polluted stormwater runoff. Most of the areas where natural-system drainage
projects were initially implemented do not have piped drainage systems.
Early projects were designed to convey, slow, and clean stormwater. Initially,
projects relied on homeowners’ willingness to provide or supplement city
maintenance. Long-term success meant GSI projects had to be experienced
by the residents as a landscape amenity. Currently, SPU maintains projects
to ensure system functionality and encourages adjacent property owners
to add to this minimum standard in order to achieve their desired level of
aesthetics.
The following are some examples of GSI implementation in Seattle.
Street Edge Alternative (SEA) Streets. Seattle’s first natural drainage
project, completed in 2001, included a redesign of two blocks of a residential
street. Design features included a narrowed, meandering roadway lined with
wide vegetated swales and detention areas. The design not only achieved an
unprecedented 99 percent reduction in runoff volume but also calmed traffic
and created a new neighborhood amenity.
(See Figure 4.29.)
Viewlands Cascade. A “Cascade” pro-
totype is a natural drainage design used
on steep residential streets. The 1,400-foot-
long project, completed in 2003, included
a series of stair-stepped natural pools that
slow damaging stormwater flows, reduce
flooding, and trap pollutants before they
reach Pipers Creek. Monitoring showed up
to a 74 percent reduction in runoff volume,
and levels of pollutants like lead, copper,
and zinc were reduced by up to 90 percent.
Green Grid. The Green Grid is a larger-
scale application of the natural drainage
system concept. Green Grid projects were
constructed in two neighborhoods between
Figure 4.29. SEA (Street Edge 2003 and 2005—15 blocks in the Broadview neighborhood and 12 blocks in
Alternative) Street was Seattle’s the Pinehurst neighborhood. The projects were designed to eliminate spot
first natural drainage project. This flooding, improve conveyance, and manage stormwater runoff volume, as
prototype project demonstrated a well as improve the neighborhoods with landscaping, new street paving, and
range of unique drainage and street traffic calming. SPU partnered with SDOT to design a system using swales,
design innovations. cascades, small wetland ponds, larger landscaped areas, and smaller paved
City of Seattle areas to reduce the quantity and speed of runoff and improve wildlife habitat
in the Thornton and Pipers Creek watersheds. The Pinehurst Green Grid
project, for example, collected and treated stormwater from 49 acres and re-
duced this area’s runoff volume by 82 percent. Slowing the water down also
gives maximum opportunity for stormwater to infiltrate back into the soil
and the water table, helping sustain the creeks in the dry summer months.
High Point. High Point, a 129-acre mixed-income development con-
structed between 2005 and 2009, features the largest natural drainage system
project undertaken by the city to date (Figure 4.30). Designed in partnership
with the Seattle Housing Authority as part of a HOPE VI redevelopment, the
system treats about 10 percent of the watershed feeding Longfellow Creek,
one of Seattle’s priority watersheds. The project, totaling 1,600 residential
mixed-income housing units, included 15,000 lineal feet of vegetated and
grassy swales with engineered soil.
Chapter 4. Case Studies 81
This natural drainage system within the street right-of-way retains and Figure 4.30. Highpoint, a HOPE VI
slows stormwater runoff while bringing aesthetic value to the neighborhood. redevelopment of a Seattle Housing
Multifunctional open spaces, including a new pond park, pocket parks, Authority site, features the largest
and areas for children to play, also serve as underground water storage. natural drainage system project
Street widths were trimmed from 32 to 25 feet to reduce impervious areas undertaken by the city to date.
and porous concrete pavement was used on two city-street sections, half City of Seattle
of the public sidewalks, and for parking and access on many of the private
properties. In an effort to not only limit waste but also to mimic a forest’s
natural duff layer, the project has used on-site wood chips from trees and
vegetation to protect the critical root zone of the trees that will be preserved.
Amended soils were required throughout the project site to increase the rate
of infiltration and water-holding capacity.
Ballard Roadside Rain Gardens. Seattle is now applying its experience
with natural drainage systems to another challenge. The city’s latest com-
bined sewer overflow reduction plan is piloting additional GSI projects and
approaches to reduce the amount of stormwater that enters the sewer sys-
tem. These GSI projects focus on areas with fully combined sewer systems.
Technologies employed will include roadside rain gardens and possibly
permeable pavement in alleys. Initial projects are located in the Ballard
neighborhood / drainage basin, and may expand to additional neighbor-
hoods / basins in coming years.
Beginning in June 2010, rain gardens were installed within existing
planting strips across ten city blocks. The rain gardens are designed with
engineered soils and densely planted vegetation to infiltrate and filter
stormwater flowing from the roadway while providing attractive landscap-
ing. Rain gardens were funded with a combination of city capital funds and
federal stimulus funding.
Some rain gardens did not perform as expected. The city worked closely
with the community to evaluate, modify, and in some cases, remove rain
gardens that were not performing as designed. The knowledge gained in
82 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
this pilot project is being used to refine the city’s approach to roadside rain
gardens for CSO control in other uncontrolled CSO basins across Seattle.
Rain Wise: GSI for Private Property. Seattle has also established the Rain
Wise program to assist homeowners and businesses who want to install
GSI on their properties. Rain Wise promotes simple, voluntary GSI projects
that do not require a permit: planting trees, improving soil with compost,
reducing pavement and exploring permeable paving options, disconnect-
ing downspouts, installing cisterns, building and maintaining rain gardens,
installing rock-filled trenches. The city hosts workshops for contractors and
maintains a list of contractors, noting those who have attended a workshop.
In targeted combined sewer basins, the city provides rebates to residents
to cover the cost of installing cisterns and rain gardens. Outreach to maximize
participation in targeted neighborhoods has relied on a range of strategies:
direct mail to eligible households four times per year, e-mail listservs,
local media, point-of-sale promotions at local businesses, information at
local farmers markets, demonstration projects at community centers and
schools, and partnerships with local environmental organizations such as
Groundswell and Sustainable Ballard.
Lessons Learned
The city’s experience implementing GSI through policy, codes, and on-the-
ground projects has led to the following lessons learned:
Beware of Sustainability Scope Creep. Advocates wanted to expand the
Green Factor to include additional sustainable features and practices (e.g.,
wind turbines, composting) that achieve different sustainability goals. This
would have diluted the Green Factor’s focus on landscape function and
aesthetics.
Provide Training for Staff. When instituting new development regulations
like the Green Factor, work with staff responsible for reviewing projects.
If staff are not adequately prepped, they may defer to the expertise of the
project designer.
Incorporate Feedback. Make sure there are adequate resources during
pilot or demonstration phases to monitor and learn from the experience.
Get broad feedback from people involved in all aspects of the project—
approval, design, construction—and the community. Each will bring a different
experience and perspective that can improve project outcomes in the future.
Collect Data. Collect and track data on built projects. If possible, record
GSI as part of the property records so future redevelopment will include
replacement GSI.
Keep Multifunctionality in Mind. Carefully consider and design for
the social value, as well as the ecological value, of GSI at the site, block,
and neighborhood scales. Variables at the site scale may include planting
choices, rain garden depth and drainage rate, street furniture, and parking
egress design. Variables at the block scale may include traffic-calming op-
portunities and cohesive tree-canopy goals. Variables at the neighborhood
scale may include intentional integration with walking or biking routes or
safe routes to school.
Don’t Neglect Aesthetics. Aesthetics matter. Beauty is a type of function
and a source of value. Budget for beauty.
Respect Residents. Be aware that residents have strong place attachments
to the rights-of-way in front of or near their homes. GSI projects should ul-
timately represent a positive change to these cherished places. This means
weighing tradeoffs like parking loss, project cost, materials choice, and
overall level of intervention to optimize a siting plan and design.
Chapter 4. Case Studies 83
_19Final%20Draft%20Checklist.pdf.
84 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
s
AND ENHANCING COMMUNITY THROUGH GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
“Mayor Gray Goes Green” proclaimed the cover story headline in one of
Lancaster’s publications last summer (Figure 4.31). As the mayor’s last name
is the same as the industry phrase for conventional stormwater infrastructure,
it could be considered ironic that this 7.4-square-mile city of 59,000, located
65 miles west of Philadelphia and more readily associated with Amish
farmland, has become a forerunner of green infrastructure implementation.
The City of Lancaster’s green infrastructure program is considered a
model for other Pennsylvania cities of comparable size and population.
Funded by a Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources (PADCNR) Growing Greener grant, the city’s green infrastructure
program kicked off in April 2009 with a community-based planning effort.
Serving as a framework for current and future design projects in the city, the
Green Infrastructure (GI) Plan (2011) utilized a GIS-based technical founda-
tion, urban hydrology and engineering principles, watershed management
Figure 4.31. Mayor Gray and concepts, and a strong landscape-based vision. Synthesizing this approach
other City of Lancaster officials with design and construction expertise, along with a public-outreach com-
are leaders in the implementation ponent to gather early public support, resulted in an integrated plan for the
of green infrastructure as an City of Lancaster that is strongly focused on measurable implementation
integrated solution to combined and outcomes.
sewer overflows and community
enhancements. Origin of Lancaster’s Green Infrastructure Plan
Net Zero Like many historic cities that rely on a combined sewer system, the City of
Lancaster was responsible for releasing approximately one billion gallons
of untreated wastewater each year into the Conestoga River, which empties
into the Chesapeake Bay (Figure 4.32). Federal,
state, and regional attention has been focused on
strengthening the water quality of the bay and its
network of streams and rivers, and this became
one of the main drivers behind development
of the city’s green infrastructure plan. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was in
the process of mandating a Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) for the bay tributary, effectively
creating limits on nutrient and sediment pollu-
tion for communities within the 64,000–square
mile Chesapeake Bay watershed. Each state was
required to prepare a Watershed Implementation
Plan (WIP) setting forth a plan for fully restoring
the health of the bay by 2025, with 60 percent of
restorative actions required to be implemented
by 2017. As an urban center in the Pennsylvania
portion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed with
45 percent of the city served by combined sew-
ers, Lancaster and its urban stormwater runoff
was a major contributing factor to bay pollution.
The city’s amended Long Term Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control
Plan provided another incentive to consider green infrastructure as a solution
to the stormwater pollution problem. Cost estimates for gray infrastruc-
ture, including storage tanks and other capital investments, topped $250
million. City leaders realized that the economic investment in a gray-only
approach would only solve one problem, and it was an expensive solution.
An integrated green infrastructure approach would meet broader economic,
environmental, and social goals and have a greater return on investment.
In short, the GI Plan consists of a two-pronged approach towards tackling
stormwater issues in the city. First, aging gray infrastructure is slated to re-
ceive much-needed upgrades to increase the efficiency and capacity of the
system. Second, new green infrastructure methods of stormwater manage-
ment will occur on various scales throughout the city. The GI Plan became
an opportunity for the city to analyze and present a set of sustainable and
cost-effective strategies to comply with overlapping environmental regula-
tions, key regulatory drivers, and community-based needs.
3. Use GI to reduce pollution and erosive flows from urban stormwater and
combined sewer overflows to support the attainment of the Watershed
Implementation Plan for the Chesapeake Bay and to improve water
quality in the Conestoga River.
4. Achieve lower cost and higher benefit from the City’s infrastructure
investments.
5. Establish Lancaster City as a national and statewide model in green
infrastructure implementation.
Planning Process
The planning approach undertaken for the GI Plan used a GIS-based geo-
spatial assessment, an engineer-based hydrologic analysis, and a conceptual
plan development methodology. This resulted in a plan that was being put
into action before the planning was complete (see Sixth Ward Park Case
Study sidebar).
s
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN: SIXTH WARD PARK CASE STUDY
Sixth Ward Park is one of the first of many stormwater retrofit projects implemented in
the City of Lancaster, which were originally proposed as part of the Green Infrastructure
Plan that CH2M Hill helped to prepare for the city in 2011. Envisioned, planned, designed,
and installed in 2010, this project evolved as a way to introduce sustainable stormwater
management techniques into needed improvements in Lancaster’s city parks. CH2M
Hill worked on the design of green infrastructure in collaboration with a local landscape
architecture firm redesigning the park’s circulation and landscape features.
For this project, the existing pool needed to be replaced and the entire park was in need
of repairs. Sixth Ward Park became the ideal opportunity for the city to showcase how to
improve the environmental performance of the park while enhancing the overall quality
of life for city residents and providing public amenities.
The renovated park features a new basketball court paved with porous asphalt, which
captures and infiltrates stormwater runoff (Figure 4.33). A new drainage system directs
stormwater from adjacent streets to an infiltration bed located underneath the basketball
court. The park redesign also features new landscape elements, a spray pool, and play-
ground area.
Implementation Strategies
The GI Plan is divided into seven implementation strategies, or programs,
which can be accomplished on both public and privately owned land.
The Green Parks program builds upon design concepts drafted in the
2009 Urban Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan. The city obtained
funding through several state and federal grants and low-interest loans to
reconstruct five parks. The first project, Brandon Park, was identified as a
priority in the GI Plan; the final design will manage more than four million
gallons per year of stormwater runoff from adjacent streets while providing
traffic calming, ADA accessibility, and aesthetic improvements to the nearby
neighborhood (Figure 4.36). Porous pavements, vegetated curb extensions,
and bioretention facilities were added to the existing park master plan and
allowed the integration of green infrastructure within the city’s original vi-
sion for the park’s restoration.
The Green Streets program focuses on retrofitting city streets and alleys,
many of which are in poor condition, with porous pavement and other GI
elements. Under this program, standard design details and paving contracts
were modified to allow for green infrastructure to be integrated into the over-
all street-improvement capital program. The first green-alley project added
pervious pavers with a subsurface infiltration trench to an already identi-
Chapter 4. Case Studies 89
fied alley reconstruction in 2012. The cost of making this alley “green” by Figure 4.36. Outreach posters
enabling it to capture one inch of runoff (approximately 200,000 gallons per featuring high-quality renderings
year) was only 20 percent more than standard conventional reconstruction. help to successfully communicate
The Green Parking Lots program will not only manage stormwater runoff the benefits of green infrastructure
but also increase tree canopy, reduce the urban heat island effect, improve aes- projects to the public. Brandon
thetics, remedy poor pavement conditions, and enhance public safety. Four Park will manage runoff from
City-owned parking-lot projects underwent green infrastructure upgrades upland streets in a series of rain
during the summer of 2012, receiving new porous-pavement technology, gardens and porous-pavement
attractive rain gardens, tree plantings, and a more efficient striping layout parking areas.
(Figures 4.37a–b). All together, the four lots will manage over 2 million gal- CH2M Hill
Figures 4.37a–b.
Green parking
lots, such as the
Mifflin Street Lot
(constructed July
2012), feature
attractive rain
gardens that
manage runoff,
porous pavement
technologies, and a
more efficient striping
layout.
CH2M Hill
90 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
City is due in large part to the work of LIVE Green, a local nonprofit com-
munity green-advocacy group. LIVE Green prepares and presents outreach
materials for individual GI projects prior to groundbreaking and discusses
conceptual designs with potentially affected
neighbors. It has launched a website cam-
paign for the city’s overarching GI program
called “Save It Lancaster!” (Figure
4.39) while also creating marketing
videos, writing articles, and work-
ing to garner public support and
foster public understanding of
green infrastructure and its im-
portance to Lancaster’s future.
Additionally, LIVE Green is crit-
ical to grant writing and devel-
opment of funding sources for
program implementation, and,
according to public works di-
rector Charlotte Katzenmoyer,
the organization has been “a
valuable partner” in educating
residents about the GI Plan and
mobilizing city residents to help
meet U.S. EPA requirements.
In terms of financial back-
ing, the city has received $11.5
million in grant funding since
the GI Plan was completed.
Of significant note, it secured a $7 million loan from the Pennsylvania Figure 4.39. The “Save It
Infrastructure Investment Authority (PennVEST) program, which provides Lancaster!” website is a
low-interest loans for design, engineering, and construction of publicly and clearinghouse for information
privately owned drinking water, stormwater, and wastewater facilities. The on city projects and tips for
loan will help fund construction of approximately 40 public and private home owners on both small and
projects between 2012 and 2014. Both the substantial grant funding and the large ways they can contribute
PennVEST loan have helped to support rapid implementation of the GI Plan. to improving the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed by using water-
Future Efforts of Green Infrastructure Implementation Program management best practices.
Long-term maintenance is critical to the long-term functioning of any City of Lancaster
green infrastructure system. The City will need to develop a robust green-
infrastructure maintenance program tailored to specific projects in order to
keep the system operating at full performance. In addition, as Lancaster is
in the early stages of program implementation, it will take some time to be
able to monitor project success and report on measurable outcomes.
Another distinctive feature of Lancaster ’s program is the Green
Infrastructure Advisory Committee, a group of city officials and involved
individuals that meet regularly to advise the city on implementation strate-
gies and future GI efforts. Stormwater utility and impervious cover–based
rate allocations are currently being studied and will likely be implemented
in the near future. The impervious cover–based stormwater rate would equi-
tably apportion the true cost of wet-weather controls and act as an incentive
to residential and commercial property owners to reduce their impervious
cover and manage their stormwater sustainably.
Finally, Lancaster’s GI program is strongly linked to the goals of the
city’s Shade Tree Program. Following last year’s tree canopy study by
Pennsylvania’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the
city is currently conducting a citywide tree inventory. In association with
92 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
Lessons Learned
Even though Lancaster’s Green Infrastructure Plan was just adopted in May
2011, implementation of the program is being undertaken at a high rate and
with full support of the city’s leadership and public works staff. Evaluation
of the program is occurring during the implementation phase, and lessons
learned are being adopted and integrated into all activities. Key lessons
relevant to the City of Lancaster’s successful adoption and implementation
of the GI Plan can be summarized as the following:
City Leadership Must Engage. City leadership must be supportive of the
general goals of a green infrastructure program yet also educated in techni-
cal details of the issues. City leadership must be on board and committed to
green infrastructure as an integrated solution for reducing combined sewer
overflows while providing community enhancements.
Partnerships Are Important. Partnerships with policy makers, funders,
designers, contractors, residents, etc., are key to long-term success. In the
case of Lancaster, private properties make up the majority of land in the city;
therefore, outreach and public education have been crucial for a successful
implementation program. LIVE Green’s work in Lancaster demonstrates the
value of having a committed, enthusiastic green-advocacy group to conduct
outreach and garner publicity.
Multifunctionality Promotes Success. The most successful green infra-
structure projects are multifunctional, relate to their context, and provide
a significant return on investment. In Lancaster, the Green Park and Green
Street retrofit programs build upon planned capital improvements and
provide benefits such as new play amenities and traffic calming in addition
to stormwater capture at a low cost and high capture volume (high cost
efficiency).
Don’t Forget about Maintenance. Construction of green infrastructure
projects is the first part of the success story; long-term maintenance is the
second critical and often-overlooked aspect of green infrastructure imple-
mentation. The city is now folding green infrastructure maintenance into the
responsibilities of city staff. For example, Parks staff members are learning
to incorporate bioretention maintenance into their standard landscape-
maintenance routines, and the city has purchased a new street sweeper that
does double duty vacuuming porous pavement areas.
—Charlotte Katzenmoyer, Leah Rominger,
Courtney Finneran, and Brian Marengo
Chapter 4. Case Studies 93
evaluates opportunities
to improve visibility and
access to recreation areas.
As part of the program,
awareness of green infra-
structure issues has been
integrated into the city’s
development review pro-
cess. To begin, developers
may take advantage of a
free consultation that al-
lows departments from
across the city to flag issues
and opportunities when
the project concept is un-
der development. The city
planner looks for both wa-
ter quality and park needs.
Next, a preliminary re-
view begins the formal re-
Figure 4.40. Lenexa’s view process. Developers must submit letters that confirm their contact with state
stream type map and federal agencies responsible for environment reviews. Survey information
City of Lenexa identifying the three stream-setback zones (see below) is also required at this time.
A final review requires official environmental responses to the proposed
development. Ultimately, the granting of building occupancy occurs only
after stormwater infrastructure is inspected and approved or a letter of credit
for the cost of facility construction has been submitted to the city.
Organizational Structure
The “Rain to Recreation” concept views stormwater as an amenity, not a li-
ability, and it focuses on green infrastructure solutions to prevent pollution
and reduce runoff, achieving compliance through community commitment
(Lenexa n.d.). This underlying policy guides the city’s actions and supports
opportunities to leverage multiple community services. The city created
a Watershed Management Division within its Public Works Department
in 2000 and charged it with the establishment of the Rain to Recreation
program. Initially it oversaw land acquisition, project management, adop-
tion of regulations, public outreach and education, site inspections, and
system management. Since that time, the Planning and Development and
Public Works departments have been reorganized into the Community
Development and Municipal Services departments. This, along with the
changing economy, has shifted the program focus from development of
facilities to management and maintenance.
Because the city is small, its staff comes into regular contact with each
other. There are informal opportunities for them to learn about the goals and
challenges of other departments. Much of the communication required to co-
ordinate initiatives occurs due to collaborative relationships. Vision 2020 and
the creation of a Watershed Management Division within the Public Works
Department were citywide events, and all staff were familiar with the Rain
to Recreation concept. Even so, staff directly charged with its implementa-
tion and management make it a point not only to be accessible but also to
provide regular training and awareness programs targeting internal staff.
Regulations
The Rain to Recreation program and an 0.125 percent sales tax enacted in
2000 gave the city the clear direction to create a water management sys-
Chapter 4. Case Studies 95
outer zones. As a result, the ordinance protects the city’s floodplains and
establishes space for recreation facilities such as trails.
In addition, city staff, representatives from other municipalities, consult-
ing firms, and professional organizations worked together under the leader-
ship of the Heartland Chapter of the American Public Works Association and
the Mid-America Regional Council (the Kansas City metropolitan planning Figure 4.42. A rain garden
agency) to create a stormwater best-management-practices manual that pro- in Lenexa
vides guidance on techniques that reduce stormwater runoff, promote the City of Lenexa
to the care of these facilities (Figure 4.42). Private development projects are
rigorously reviewed prior to installation, are subject to inspections both
during construction and again one year following installation, and then
transition to inspections every three years in perpetuity. Without account-
ability it is unlikely that best practices would be installed and maintained.
Land Acquisition
Figure 4.43. Lake Lenexa Although Lenexa’s Rain to Recreation program has been focused on
City of Lenexa stormwater and was originally managed as a capital program within the
public works department, it was structured to acquire
property that could be leveraged to support parks and
trails. The 25-foot minimum “outer zone” beyond the
floodplain along all streams required by the Stream
Setback Ordinance provides space for trails and other
recreation amenities that enhance the stream corridors,
integrating them into the community. With public
access the streams become visible, and because they
are accessible they become a part of daily life. In ad-
dition, the city anticipated the creation of parks that
would hold regional stormwater lakes, and therefore
it acquired amounts of land significantly greater than
strictly required to support the lakes and forebay-filter
areas, thus assuring space for public amenities. For ex-
ample, the 240 acres acquired for the city’s Black Hoof
Park contains the 35-acre Lake Lenexa (Figure 4.43),
now a focal point for the community.
As of 2012, two lakes, Mize Lake and Lake Lenexa,
have been constructed and function as regional stormwater detention facili-
ties. The designs for both lakes include water-quality features (specifically
wetlands, forebays, and bioretention cells) to treat water before it enters the
lakes. Recreational uses of the lake include fishing, no-wake or nonmotor-
ized boating, hiking perimeter trails, bird watching, and photography. No
swimming is allowed. Plans for a third lake are on hold due to the slowed
Figure 4.44. Guidelines for the economy.
design of multipurpose trails in Stream corridors have been established as greenways and protected from
Lenexa’s stream corridors inappropriate development. Stream setback areas are established based
City of Lenexa on the parameters in the stream setback ordinance. Surveyed locations
Chapter 4. Case Studies 97
Outreach
Once the concept of Rain to Recreation was estab-
lished, staff took care to explain the benefits to the
general public and key stakeholders. The city held
its first WaterFest to make the connection between
water and public amenities prior to the 2000 vote on
the sales tax (Figure 4.45). It has held the celebration,
which has been featured in a best-practice publi-
cation on community promotions and marketing
(Bono et al. 2007), annually ever since.
In addition, the city targeted stakeholders, such
as the Home Builders Association, to make sure
they both understood and had compelling reasons
to support the initiative. The development com-
munity supported stormwater impact fees and
the stormwater utility with an understanding that
managing major storms with neighborhood and regional facilities that also
provided public amenities was more cost effective than on-site facilities sized
for rare 100-year storm events. City staff coordinates the dissemination of Figure 4.45. Outreach at the 2010
information through various mediums and helps organize educational pro- Lenexa WaterFest
grams and events in collaboration with the Parks Department. The conscious City of Lenexa
Funding
The city provided funds for the Rain to Recreation program out of its general
fund until 2006 and through a dedicated sales tax until 2010. The program
currently receives funds from several sources, including a stormwater utility,
and impact fees (a capital recovery fee). For more information on Lenexa’s
funding of stormwater management, see U.S. EPA 2008.
Sales tax initiatives passed by wide margins in 2000 and again in 2004. In
place through 2010, they were the primary source of funds for the acquisi-
tion and development of the system and were critical in allowing the city
to acquire land and develop the appropriate regional infrastructure prior
to development.
The city’s stormwater utility was established in 2000. It charges fees to
property owners based on the amount of a site’s impervious surface. The
funds go to the Municipal Services Department to support only the water
management aspects of the system, not recreational uses per se. The Parks
Department is anticipating the need to use proceeds from a separate sales
tax (approved by voters in 2008 for streets and parks) to support the devel-
opment of recreational components.
In 2004 the estimated capital cost of “built-out” water management re-
quired by the city’s impervious surfaces was $61,000,000. This figure was
used to generate a “system build-out” charge, calculated using an estimate
98 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
s
ONONDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORK: SAVE THE RAIN
Road to Recovery
In 1988, the State of New York, the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), and the Atlantic States Legal Foundation
(ASLF) filed a federal lawsuit against Onondaga County alleging violations
of state and federal water-pollution control laws. The suit was settled in 1989
in an agreement between the county and the litigating parties that established
an Amended Consent Judgment (ACJ) order. The ACJ required Onondaga
County to perform a series of engineering and scientific studies to evaluate
upgrades at the METRO facility as well as develop a remediation plan for
CSOs in the METRO service area.
Chapter 4. Case Studies 101
A New Approach
In 2008, the newly elected county executive, Joanne M. Mahoney, halted the
construction of the three additional RTFs in the city and commissioned a re-
view of the plan to identify alternative methods to satisfy ACJ requirements.
The intent was to revise the plan to incorporate a more environmentally
friendly approach to mitigate stormwater runoff pollution.
Green infrastructure (GI) planning was considered a viable approach to
meet the court mandates for the reduction of stormwater runoff. In November
2009, the federal courts approved a new comprehensive plan that utilized
gray storage facilities to address wet-weather flow in the combined system
and innovative GI to prevent wet-weather flow from entering the system.
The revised plan requires the county to capture approximately 250 mil-
lion gallons annually through new GI projects. The inclusion of GI into the
overall stormwater management program will help the county reach 95
percent capture of total CSO volume by 2018. The plan incorporates GI into
long-term planning and made Onondaga County the first jurisdiction in the
country required to implement GI as part of a consent order.
The county also installed an innovative stormwater capture and reuse sys-
tem inside a historic structure, the Onondaga County War Memorial Arena in
downtown Syracuse. The project utilizes a cistern system that can collect up to
15,000 gallons of stormwater runoff from the roof of the arena. The stormwater
is filtered, disinfected, and then reused to make ice for the Syracuse Crunch
minor-league hockey team. The state-of-the-art project made the Crunch the
first hockey team in the country to skate on recycled stormwater.
The Project 50 campaign exceeded expectations, with 60 projects implemented.
The campaign generated substantial local, state, and national interest. Project 50
established Onondaga County as a leader in green infrastructure and also laid
the foundation for an aggressive implementation plan for the rest of the program.
City-County Collaboration
One of the key strategies of the program is to implement projects on publicly
owned property. Early in the program, many demonstration projects were
conducted on county-owned property. While this strategy proved to be ef-
fective, county officials recognized the importance of integrating GI into
already-established systemic planning efforts. To achieve this goal, the County
Chapter 4. Case Studies 103
recognized the need for a strong partnership with the City of Syracuse,
since most of the publicly held lands in the ACJ coverage are owned by the
City. Soon after announcing plans for the Save the Rain program, County
Executive Mahoney enlisted the support of City mayor Stephanie Miner to
facilitate cooperation between the jurisdictions.
The partnership was to prove beneficial in a number of ways. For the
county, it would allow access to city-owned properties for constructing
GI to meet ACJ requirements and reduce stormwater pollution to the lake
and its tributaries. For the city, the partnership would allow infrastructure
revitalization to include GI as a key component of planning. And for the
general community, GI work conducted in roadways, parks, and other
publicly owned land would improve neighborhood aesthetics, provide
additional recreational and transportation opportunities, introduce nature
to urban landscape settings, and affect public health through improved air
and water quality in local communities.
The county / city partnership resulted in the completion of dozens of GI
projects ranging from green streets to extensive renovations in city parks. One
of the first collaborations between the county and the city was the completion
of a commercial green street located on the 300 block of Water Street in the
heart of downtown Syracuse (Figures 4.50a–b). The project consists of several
green infrastructure types including porous-paver parking lanes, infiltration
trenches and planters adjacent to the sidewalk with enhanced landscaping,
and tree plantings in the right-of-way. The Water Street project illustrates the
dramatic difference green elements can have on urban settings. A corridor
once known for its hard lines and concrete received a facelift highlighted
by sustainable approaches that not only capture stormwater but soften the
streetscape for commuters and patrons.
Vital Partnerships
While a significant portion of the
program relies on the construction
of GI on publicly held land, the
104 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
Figures 4.51a–b.
Installation of a green
roof on the privately
held Monroe Building in
downtown Syracuse
Madison Quinn, Onondaga County
Lessons Learned
Wet-weather events are very common in Onondaga County. With close to
40 inches of precipitation and an average snowfall of nearly 100 inches each
year, managing stormwater runoff is constant concern in the region. Yet the
management of wet weather often goes unnoticed. In many ways, the Save
the Rain program introduced wet-weather management to the community
consciousness.
As noted, Onondaga County was the first jurisdiction to include GI in
a consent order. Under the previous version of the action plan, the county
was able to improve water quality in the lake and its tributaries through
traditional construction methods. Many viewed the inclusion of GI as a
distraction from the overall goals outlined in the consent order, while others
106 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
s ONONDAGA COUNTY expressed concerns about whether GI was an effective alternative method
ONLINE REFERENCES AND to reduce wet-weather flow. During the early stages of the program, many
RESOURCES concerns surfaced, including the following:
• Onondaga County, New York: www • Community buy-in for a program that would be instituted in neighbor-
.ongov.net hoods across the city
• Save the Rain: www.savetherain.us
• Performance of green infrastructure in a cold-weather climate
• Onondaga Lake Partnership: www
.onlakepartners.org • Financial implications of large-scale construction of GI
• U.S. EPA Onondaga Lake site: www • Policy shift in accepting GI as standard practice in redevelopment projects
.epa.gov/region2/water/lakes
• Operations and maintenance for a decentralized infrastructure program
/onondaga.htm
• New York State, Department of • Paradigm shift away from traditional wet-weather solutions
Environmental Conservation,
Onondaga Lake information: www While these concerns could be addressed theoretically, the county felt
.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8668.html and the best approach was to illustrate GI in practical ways. By constructing
www.dec.ny.gov/docs/regions_pdf several demonstration projects, the program gave the community real-life
/oltimeline.pdf examples of GI in practice. The county also invested in educating the public
through extensive marketing and public education and outreach campaigns.
• Onondaga County Department of
Demonstration projects in the community combined with informational
Water Environment Protection: www
seminars, presentations on GI planning, and neighborhood involvement
s
.ongov.net/wep/index.html
alleviated some of the skepticism and set the stage to aggressively pursue
full-scale implementation.
Another prevailing issue was the administration of GI projects through
the county’s competitive-bid process, which while effective for long-duration
construction projects (such as gray infrastructure) lacked the flexibility
needed to implement a comprehensive GI program. For instance, under
the previous plan, a typical construction-year procurement schedule would
include as many as 10 gray infrastructure projects in a construction season.
Under the new plan, dozens of projects would have to be bid, awarded,
and contracted at an accelerated rate to ensure completion during the
construction season. It took some time for the county to put in place the
proper procedures and policies to effectively manage the dramatic increase
in volume of projects.
As the program moves forward, the county adapts policies and procedures
to improve operational efficiency and address unforeseen issues. Many of
the challenges Onondaga County face are natural growing pains that come
with implementing a robust program in an urban setting. The county views
these challenges as opportunities to learn and help other municipalities in
their pursuits of sustainable approaches.
In the summer, water is pumped from the terminal pond back to the
lake and the stream system becomes a recirculating fountain feature. The
lake is also used as a reservoir for on-site summer irrigation needs, pre-
venting the need to draw on city water supplies. It is recharged both by
rains within the park watershed as well as an onsite well. The presence of
this large body of water brings a cooling presence to the downtown. The
open-air Eastgate Pavilion was positioned to receive breezes across the
water, making the park more habitable on hot summer days that normally
send Birmingham residents fleeing for air conditioning.
The stream system begins at a lake spillway and descends westward Figure 4.58. View of the steam
across the park, pooling several times and threading around islands. plant that abuts Railroad Park
During the winter it carries significant storm flows, and in the summer Tom Leader Studio
The Powell Street Promenade bisects the park east to west and is framed
by shade tree “islands” which project into the adjacent lake as well as display
gardens filled with seasonal crops, perennial herbs, and cut flowers. This
linear connector extends beyond the park to provide future connections
through the planned Railroad Reservation Park District to Sloss Furnace, a
National Historic Landmark preserving Birmingham’s steel-making heritage.
Between Sloss Furnace and Railroad Park lies a brick steam plant soon
to go out of service and a city parking lot, the future site of the “Cultural
Furnace.” This proposed major creative and cultural enterprise will join
private developers with local planners to create a mixed use project focus-
ing on creative work, art, food, and business propagation. The Birmingham
Community Foundation sponsored a design competition called “Prize to the
Future” to choose the development team.
Since Railroad Park has opened, it has given rise to the construction of
a minor league ballpark at the park’s western end, bringing the historic
Birmingham Barons home from suburban exile. At the east end, the developer
design competition for the “Cultural Furnace” is under way. New develop-
ment and loft conversions are sprouting around the park perimeter and,
even more important, the park has become the most racially integrated and
heavily used space in the entire city.
Figure 4.60. Red Mountain
Park is six miles from downtown Red Mountain, Green Ribbon
Birmingham, within city limits, Red Mountain Park, one of the largest urban parks in the country, is being
and adjacent to very dense reclaimed from a landscape devastated by a century of mining. The park’s role
neighborhoods that served the in the region’s green infrastructure story is threefold: a clear transformation
mines and blast furnaces. from industrial wasteland to new green, recreational landscape; a ridgetop
WRT complement to the stream valley greenways; and a site to dramatize and
heighten the interest in the
ways large-scale mining has
shaped the landscape. The
land was clear-cut, graded,
terraced, and tunneled
through to reach the large
and highly profitable iron ore
seam within the ridge.
The 1,200-acre park will
connect the new and old
Birmingham, revitalizing the
long-disadvantaged northern
community left in the wake
of mining. Located along
a ridgeline referred to in
the local press as the “Great
Divide,” a leftover symbol of
the city’s formerly divisive
historic racial and economic
conditions, the park will link
Birmingham’s older, histori-
cally African American communities north of the mountain to newly devel-
oping areas south of it. Features include over 40 miles of trails, including a
10-mile rail trail and a four-mile highline trail on an elevated rail grade, a
45-acre commons, a 20-acre lake, and various active recreation areas (Figure
4.60).. In addition, nine historic mine openings will be interpreted, with one
mine as the park’s interpretive and development focus. Greenway links reach
well beyond the park boundary to connect to adjacent areas, improving the
long-term sustainability of the site and the larger community.
Chapter 4. Case Studies 113
themes secure social equity. The healing process is begun by using the park to
link two very different communities divided by the mountain. The northern
communities, historically black company towns developed by the mining
company, struggled with mine closings in the mid-20th century and have
had no relationship to the abandoned mine lands, which as private corporate
holdings were sealed to public access. In contrast, the southern communities
represent the region’s most ambitious growth, with golf courses, signature
hotels, planned communities, and office parks. The park master plan uses
park planning, physical design, and programming to break down barriers
and to organize a neighborhood stabilization, historic preservation, and
improvement plan to help preserve the community identity of the former
company towns still inhabited by original miners and
their descendants.
Economic sustainability is a key factor
for the region’s acceptance of green
Lessons Learned
A number of lessons can be learned from the story of Birmingham and
Jefferson County’s approach to green infrastructure:
Serendipity Can Build a Plan. In the case of Birmingham, opportunistic
actions shaped a course that has moved the community forward as well as
a well-mapped plan would have. In some planning-friendly communities,
implementation begins after a well-considered and long-anticipated course of
action. Adjusting the mode of action to the community temperament helped
to achieve positive results in Birmingham, a community that required the
victories of specific project implementation such as Railroad Park to raise
confidence in larger visions.
Regulatory Compliance Can Equal Opportunity. In Jefferson County,
EPA’s penalty was turned into a regionally scaled civic virtue. Coupling
hard-piped sewage with green infrastructure has enabled the community
to solve long-standing problems well beyond the core value of improved
water quality. This clearly illustrates the advantages of multifunctional
infrastructure investments.
Green Infrastructure by Any Other Name Would Be as . . . Green. Call
it what you will, the results meet the definition of regional and site green
infrastructure. Projects are called by names that matter to those affected by
them: parks, trails, greenways, nature centers, stream restoration projects. For
instance, the major regional trail planning project in the county was first called
“Our One Mile” to emphasize to residents that each of the many constituent
communities would have a claim to its own stretch of trail to benefit its com-
munity health program. The system’s final, community-generated name, the
Red Rock Ridge and Valley Trail System, makes clear that the system is also
interconnected and comprehensive. While the term “green infrastructure” was
not used as the driving force of the development of the elements described
above, the outcome is clearly green infrastructure as defined in this report.
Green Infrastructure Can Contribute to Regional Identity. Elected of-
ficials, along with staff of the Regional Planning Commission of Greater
Birmingham and the Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham, among
other regional leadership vision entities, have agreed that support for the
projects described above—which equate to a regional green infrastructure
system—is important to help redefine Birmingham’s identity as a community
of choice for residents, visitors, and potential businesses and institutions
that might consider locating here.
Evolving Partnerships Are Key to Success. The list of interlocking partner-
ships involved in Birmingham and Jefferson County’s efforts is impressive—
industry, health care, education, government at all levels, corporate bodies,
philanthropic institutions, nonprofits, and private citizens all have played
roles in the development of regional and site projects. U.S. Steel stands out
as an unconventional partner, and the health community is a recent addition
to this and other open space initiatives. The Freshwater Land Trust—born
of the EPA consent decree—has sought out innovative partners to make
its case for support, most notably involving the faith-based community in
support of open space preservation.
Critical Mass Equals Political Clout. The sum of the individual efforts
and projects described above created a powerful and compelling record of the
community’s integrated accomplishments and vision. This played a key role
in the mayor’s appeal to the U.S. Department of Transportation for TIGER
funding. The greenway trails and health projects, coupled with requests
for disaster relief reconstruction funding after the devastating tornadoes of
2011, made the successful case for federal funding.
Chapter 4. Case Studies 117
Harness History That Points to the Future. The community made good Railroad Park, Birmingham
use of past visionary plans, albeit largely unimplemented ones, to make the Tom Leader Studio
case for seizing a lost opportunity to create part of an earlier regional vision
for parks and open space that was the precursor to today’s regional green
infrastructure thinking. This effort places today’s actions in perspective
against the past heyday of the city, a time of optimism appealing to current
leaders attempting to advance the community’s well-being.
Integrate Green Infrastructure with Community Planning and
Development. The county and city have not yet been able to align their
land use, transportation, zoning, and investment priorities with the new
green infrastructure system. Some efforts are under way and show signs of
future success, including a road corridor plan that links to the greenways
and trails system, and the planning taking place for the corridor extending
from Railroad Park to the Sloss Furnace development area. But by and large,
the full potential of the transformative effect of green infrastructure has not
yet been leveraged by the system.
—Tom Leader and Eric Tamulonis
118 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
s
TO REVITALIZE A CITY
The Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan represents the culmination
of more than 10 years of river activism, bringing together public agencies
and stakeholders toward a common goal. The plan shapes a bold vision to
transform a channelized flood-control conveyance into a significant regional
recreational and ecological resource. The master plan signals a new era for Los
Angeles, replacing gray infrastructure designed for drainage, automobiles,
and urban development with a public
corridor embodying green infrastruc-
ture and a new vision of an integrated,
denser city (Figures 4.63a–b).
Figures 4.63a–b. The Los Angeles subsequent history of water shortage, water supply, management, and
River today and a vision for its distribution are vital elements to its success. From its dependence on the
future increasingly arid Owens Lake to the enclosed drinking-water reservoirs
City of Los Angeles and fenced-off concrete channel of the Los Angeles River, the city is a prime
example of problematic water-management practices and their associated
issues and outcomes.
Los Angeles is often referred to as the “infrastructural city,” and the Los
Angeles River provides the backbone to its heavily disputed water sup-
ply through an extensive network of canals, tunnels, tributaries, buried
conduits, siphons, pumping stations, and reservoirs. It was originally a
rich riparian corridor with diverse plant and animal species, and first the
Chapter 4. Case Studies 119
Native Americans and later the Spanish built the city’s earliest settlements
along its banks. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the river powered the city’s
industries and served as an important transportation corridor, creating
economic value and growth.
While the Los Angeles River is the original source of life for the city of
Los Angeles, there is little or no natural flow from June to October; it is es-
sentially a “dry river,” with water flow occurring only in the rainy season
from November to May (Figure 4.64). Out of ignorance, extensive building
campaigns encroached into the river’s floodplain, and inevitable damage
from floods occurred on numerous occasions in the first half of the 20th
century. In 1914, 1934, and 1938, devastating floods prompted the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to
construct the concrete-lined channel that now conveys the river for most of
its 51-mile length.
Over time, with the railyards, warehouses, and other industrial uses that Figure 4.64. The “dry”
line its edge, the river has become both literally and figuratively isolated Los Angeles River
from most people and communities. Today, with every portion altered City of Los Angeles
and engineered, the Los Angeles River is unrecognizable from its native
state and is no longer capable of recharging the aquifers underlying its
path. Instead, it discharges its water unobstructed and unused into the
Pacific Ocean.
While it is impossible to undo what has been done in the six decades of
water management practices since the river was first channelized, the City of
Los Angeles faces an unprecedented opportunity to reverse the past and re-
envision the river. The Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan outlines
a hopeful future for perhaps the single-largest water infrastructure network
and the most important potential public space in southern California. It con-
tributes to redefining citywide strategies for sustainable water management
practices; sets the groundwork for democratizing the water infrastructure
system, transforming the river into a new amenity and a source of socioeco-
nomic revitalization; and represents a crucial step in restoring green space
and providing opportunities for connection in the city of sprawl.
120 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
Creating Momentum
Over the past two decades, Los Angeles’s communities, with many local,
state, and federal government agencies and nongovernmental organizations,
have engaged in efforts to revitalize the Los Angeles River and its watershed.
The city has invested in parks, bike paths, bridges, street improvements, and
other projects. In 1996, the first Los Angeles River Master Plan was adopted
by the County Board of Supervisors. The plan created a list of issues to con-
sider, including aesthetics, economic development, environmental quality,
flood management, jurisdiction and public involvement, and recreation.
In addition, California’s conservancies and the state park system have
fostered the creation of numerous new open space amenities in the river
corridor—notably the establishment of the Los Angeles State Historic Park
and the Rió de Los Angeles State Park. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
is engaged in several studies to restore a functioning ecosystem within se-
lected areas of the channel. Many nonprofit groups, including the Friends
of the Los Angeles River (FoLAR), Tree People, North East Trees, the River
Project, the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council, the Trust
for Public Land, and others have worked tirelessly to raise public and civic
awareness of the river’s potential and to implement revitalization projects.
Several research endeavors and associated data have been made available
by educational institutions, including the University of Southern California
Center for Sustainable Cities’s GreenVisions program and the University of
California at Los Angeles’s Institute of the Environment.
In June 2002, the Los Angeles City Council approved establishment of the
Ad Hoc Committee on the Los Angeles River to focus on the revitalization
of the river and its tributaries. The committee coordinates and partners with
other stakeholders on major revitalization efforts, identifies linkages between
projects and communities, recommends policy changes, and creates a city role
for river revitalization. It has focused on major revitalization issues, including
opportunities for implementing projects, such as bridges, parks, bicycle paths,
pedestrian trails, and other recreational amenities, and programs to encour-
age public education, litter removal, job creation, community development,
tourism, civic pride, and improved water quality. Together these actions have
served to bring value to neglected spaces and foster a sense of place along the
river throughout the city (Figure 4.65).
Figures 4.66a–b. Today’s river implementation. A bold commitment is made to natural system restoration,
and a visualization of its potential treatment of stormwater runoff, and the reconnection of park-poor neighbor-
City of Los Angeles hoods to river green space.
The master plan—developed by a team of engineers (prime consul-
tants Tetratech), landscape architects and urban designers (Civitas, Wenk
Associates, and Mia Lehrer + Associates), community activists, and special-
ists—lays out the following goals with recommendations to implement a
long-term, phased approach.
Chapter 4. Case Studies 123
Current Status
Since the adoption of the LARRMP in 2007, funding from several city and
state grants has spurred several projects including habitat restoration initia-
tives, parks, and bikeways, putting this plan into action. In 2010, the EPA
deemed a portion of the river navigable, putting it under the protection of
the Clean Water Act. In 2011, Los Angeles was awarded federal funds under
the America’s Great Outdoors initiative to revitalize the urban waterway
and its surrounding community.
Another important step in moving forward is the Los Angeles River
ecosystem study conducted by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, which
investigates the feasibility of restoring ecosystems and implementing
flood-control measures, as well as other aspects of the revitalization of the
river. The study acknowledges the federal government’s responsibility and
124 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
Lessons Learned
Strong Leadership Is Important. Leadership and vision is critical in
gaining the momentum needed to create a comprehensive plan, implement
supportive policy, secure funding opportunities, and keep the project mov-
ing forward.
Policy Plays a Guiding Role. Creating a comprehensive plan supported
by policy that articulates a strategic approach is imperative in providing
guidance for practitioners, facilitating ongoing communication between
partners and the community, and securing support from funding institutions
while promoting cost-effective green infrastructure practices.
Collaboration Is Key. Encouraging cross-agency engagement and cre-
ating public-private partnerships is instrumental in executing successful
projects. These collaborations are beneficial in communicating incentives
and values across the involved communities, diversifying funding sources,
and expanding the knowledge base of possible solutions.
Community Engagement Is Required for Success. Ensuring participation
from the community is critical in promoting awareness while establish-
ing the needs and preferred outcomes of different community groups. It
is imperative to encourage a rich set of activities and programming that
reflects the community so that green infrastructure’s spaces are integrated
into public life.
Different Scales Open Possibilities. Retrofitting existing infrastructure
provides a framework for spatial planning from large-scale to more local
green spaces, all offering opportunities for infrastructural enhancement at
several scales. With a plan of this magnitude, it is important to be open to
different opportunities and circumstances and allow for projects at varying
scales depending on presented conditions.
Don’t Forget about Maintenance. Outside of design and construction
costs, there is a need for funding the life-cycle or long-term maintenance
costs of implementing green infrastructure solutions. This cost should be
included in initial strategies.
Tackle Large Projects in Phases. Re-envisioning existing infrastructure
in a major city or highly populated region while ensuring that regulatory,
management, and funding institutions are working in concert is challeng-
ing. One approach for achieving this is to implement a phasing plan and
groundwork for completion, such as the river management framework laid
out in the LARRMP.
Terminology Tells a Story. As it is becoming more widely understood
and accepted, the term “green infrastructure” is a useful tool in framing
the multifaceted economic and social value it creates for our communi-
ties to potential funding institutions and stakeholders. The estimates of
the economic benefits from revitalizing five of the Opportunity Areas are
powerful examples.
—Mia Lehrer
Chapter 4. Case Studies 125
for nearby residents. Responding to postwar growth directed toward the sub-
urbs, other large parks were developed in the surrounding Jefferson County
area by the county and state.
As the park system increased focus on delivery of recreation services and
parks outside of the city’s historic core, concern for historic preservation led to
increased care for Olmsted’s legacy. Moreover, the environmental movement
of the 1970s focused attention on water quality and resource protection along
waterways. This interest in the environmental quality of open space, coupled
with the rails-to-trails movement and federal funding for trails as transpor-
tation enhancements, evolved into the greenway movement that informed
plans for the Ohio River and stream corridors in the region. In recognition
of the value of cultural landscapes, Metro Parks prepared a master plan for
the Olmsted parks in 1994. Together the actions resulting from these various
park and open space movements led to the beginnings of a connected regional
green infrastructure system.
In 1993, Louisville and Jefferson County began the process of merging
into a single metropolitan government. This triggered the need to develop
a comprehensive plan to guide the integration of planning efforts. As with
the 1897 parks plan, it was a chance to reflect on how best to provide green
space in the coming century for a community in the process of change.
This set the stage for the new park and open space plan to take a broad
systemwide approach with the vision and ambition of the Olmsted plan. The
goals of the resulting plan, listed below, reflect the systems-based thinking
of the landscape approach to green infrastructure described in Chapter 3
of this report:
• A system of well-maintained parks and recreation facilities that meets the
needs of the residents of Louisville and Jefferson County
• A network of open spaces and greenway corridors that protects significant
natural resources
• A parks and open space system that preserves and enhances visual quality,
protects historic and archaeological resources, and provides opportunities
for education
Chapter 4. Case Studies 127
By focusing on the park and open space plan as a system with the
attributes highlighted above, the plan positions parks, open space, and
greenways as the building blocks in a regional green infrastructure strategy.
Three Key Recommendations: The Outer Landscapes, the Countywide Loop Trail,
and the Parklands of Floyds Fork
The Parks and Open Space Master Plan included three foundational recom-
mendations that have shaped the metro system.
First, the plan adopted an approach to the overall conception of open
space in the Metro area that paralleled Olmsted’s initial plan. The Olmsted
plan was an elegant translation of the city leaders’ vision: a three-park
framework in which the parks within the city preserved and connected
three regionally distinctive landscapes. In this framework, the features Figure 4.68. Part of Louisville’s
of this outer landscape system were the Ohio River (as represented by 1995 Parks and Open Space
Shawnee Park), a bluegrass valley (Cherokee Park), and one of the nearby Master Plan
hills referred to as “the Knobs” (Iroquois Park), all connected by three WRT
ment impacts. Negotiations among the land trust, Metro Parks, and a local
philanthropic family led to the decision to create the large regional park along
Floyds Fork that was recommended in the Park and Open Space Master Plan
(Figure 4.70). The family, headed by Humana Healthcare cofounder David
Jones and his son Dan, formed a nonprofit organization, 21st Century Parks,
to serve as a development and management entity. 21st Century Parks, along
with Metro Parks and the Future Fund, negotiated an agreement on the
purchase, ownership, management, and development of the park. All three
entities have an ownership interest in various properties, and 21st Century
Parks is the primary developer and manager of the project.
130 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
The Parklands is one of the largest of the new group of American mega-
parks, defined as signature parks, frequently more than 1,000 acres, which
are intended to have a multipurposed, regional impact. Twenty-seven
miles long and up to one mile wide, it is best described as a string of four
large parks of more than 500 acres each. The four parks are linked by the
Louisville Loop, a water trail, and park road, all lying within a greenway
mosaic of forests, meadows, fields, and farmland. The parks are largely
habitat-centered landscapes with focal areas of recreational development,
including community and environmental education buildings, large event
lawns, signature promenades, playgrounds, picnic shelters, dog parks, play-
ing fields, community gardens, and maintenance facilities.
In addition to its regional role as one of three major outer landscapes
along the Louisville Loop, The Parklands is conceived as a tool to proactively
guide the metro area’s future growth. By serving as an open-space focus
and amenity for adjacent neighborhood development, much as the original
Olmsted parks did, The Parklands will shape the form of urban development
in the eastern Metro area for decades to come.
To address the park’s role in neighborhood development, and to help
assure a healthy context for The Parklands’ future, the park master plan
includes a long-term strategy for close in-
tegration with surrounding communities
and natural spaces. This “parks without
borders” concept extends the influence
of the park and links future community
development to the park along Floyds
Fork’s tributaries, connecting roadways,
and other intermediate points of access. In
this way, The Parklands will be connected
outside its borders to smaller community
and neighborhood parks via a pedestrian/
cyclist-oriented system of trails and to
nearby habitat patches via riparian and
forest habitat corridors.
This approach of integrating public and
private open space connections is a promis-
ing way to ensure the extension of regional
green infrastructure through to the neigh-
borhood and site levels. 21st Century Parks
is proactively engaged in helping to lead the
way in this regard. The organization has
Figure 4.71. Visualization of one purchased two failing land subdivision projects and is working to develop them
of The Parklands trails in a way that is sympathetic with and connected to The Parklands.
WRT The park plan includes over 145 miles of trails, roads, and watercourses for
hikers, bikers, horseback riders, and boaters. The Louisville Loop, a 12-foot-wide
paved trail, connects to most parking areas and serves as a distributor spine to
the lower-impact trails. Signature trails lead to major programmatic features in
the designed landscapes, and gravel excursion trails provide easy access to the
transitional landscapes near the features. Low-impact natural surface hiking
and biking trails extend into the backcountry, allowing for different degrees
of challenge, exposure, and isolation for the park visitors (Figure 4.71). The
continuous water trail provides seasonal paddling with six watercraft access
points for trips of various length in different water-level conditions.
The built form of The Parklands reflects the dynamic, water-shaped eco-
system of Floyds Fork and its valley, and the Kentucky bluegrass–country
architectural heritage that flavors the region. The shapes of roads and paths,
the design of buildings and bridges, and the park’s topography and plantings
Chapter 4. Case Studies 131
merges these two aspects, reinforcing the guiding principle of The Parklands
that humans and nature are intertwined and not separate opposing forces.
The design of pathways and layout of buildings reflects the fluid ac-
tion of water, with its myriad forms of turbulence and waves. In addition,
the architectural features reflect the region’s rural heritage, with walls of
stacked stone and dark stained-wood siding.
Plantings and the edges of habitat areas are
shaped to address these forms, and create a
richly shaped middle ground between forest
edge and buildings.
Three major focal points add contrast to
the natural and fluid systems: the Egg Lawn,
a 20-acre clearing in the woods (Figure 4.72);
the Grand Allee, a half-mile promenade and
linear garden; and the Arc Walk, a 1⁄3-mile
curved hedgerow garden. Each provides
space for large gatherings of people and a
more urbane, programmatic counterpoint
to the surrounding wilds of forest and
meadows.
Productive landscape features include a
community garden, hundreds of acres of agricultural fields, thousands of Figure 4.72. The Egg Lawn, in
acres of woodland, ponds, and the creek. Walnut and other woods are po- The Parklands of Floyds Fork
tentially available for sustained harvesting, and a forest management plan is WRT
tion credits, compared to $1.6 million for the land in its unenhanced state,
or less if developed. A work in progress, the project is under development
at present with a target of 2015 for completion of the bulk of circulation and
recreational improvements.
Conclusion
Green infrastructure in the Louisville metro area has evolved from its be-
ginnings with Frederick Law Olmsted’s park system plan to a present-day
countywide system that integrates parks, open space, and greenways. In
addition, in 2011 the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD), long an advocate
for green infrastructural solutions in the Metro area, published a guide de-
tailing best practices for low-impact development. The Green Infrastructure
Design Manual made regional green infrastructure more detailed and project-
specific. For instance, the manual interconnects with Cornerstone 2020’s
green infrastructure strategy in ways such as the use of Parklands riparian
buffer enhancements to improve water quality in Floyds Fork.
The efforts along Floyds Fork dovetailed with Metro Parks’ plans to im-
prove the park system, culminating in a major regional commitment to park
improvements that prompted the name “City of Parks.” Looking back to the
Olmsted era and its effect on the green infrastructure approach, Olmsted’s
vision for the Louisville park system of being “recreative…exertive…and
gregarious” echoes the tenets of a landscape approach to green infrastructure.
Together, the Cornerstone 2020 parks plan, the City of Parks implemen-
tation plan, MSD’s green design manual and strategies, and the Complete
Streets program adopted by the Metro government are all opportunities to
enhance the region’s green infrastructure. As of this writing, however, there
is not an overarching plan to coordinate these efforts in a way that makes
them greater than the sum of their parts.
Lessons Learned
The following are a series of observations about the successes and chal-
lenges of the process of regional and site application of green infrastructural
principles for Cornerstone 2020 and The Parklands of Floyds Fork projects.
Comprehensive Planning Presents Opportunities. The comprehensive
planning process and merger was a good opportunity to step back from the
independent city and county approach and apply systems thinking to green
infrastructure in the combined jurisdictions.
Planning Leads to Funding. Louisville Metro’s park-system planning laid
the key groundwork for The Parklands and was instrumental in attracting
the interest of 21st Century Parks and federal and state funding.
Public-Private Partnerships Are Key. The combination of public sec-
tor (Louisville Metro), nonprofit (21st Century Parks), and land trust (The
Future Fund) allowed each party to make best use of their advantages and
strengthen the reach of each other’s green infrastructure interests.
A Landscape Approach Is Still Elusive. While the metro parks, open
space, and greenways master plan emphasizes a systems-based approach,
it does not move beyond the notion of using greenways as a connective
fabric. The approach used was a step forward beyond typical municipal in-
terdepartmental silos by anticipating some of the open space impact of other
programmatic infrastructure actions. According to this approach, the park,
open space, and greenways network envisioned by Cornerstone 2020 would
be improved by being fully integrated with other infrastructural systems
such as roads, transit, water, sewer, power, telecommunication, zoning and
land-use development, and schools and other institutions.
134 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
the soil would not likely support building loads without pile
foundations. In addition, any successful redevelopment had to
solve these contamination and stormwater management issues
within the financial constraints of future tax revenue that the
city could reasonably expect.
Moreover, while the city sought to enhance pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity to the Valley and create regional trails to
reestablish connections to adjacent neighborhoods, providing
these connections would be physically challenging. There was
no safe access for pedestrians or bicyclists into the site, and
extreme topography separates the neighborhoods on the bluffs
from the valley floor 60 feet below. To the north and south are
close-knit, single-family neighborhoods such as Merrill Park
and Piggsville that are the most dense, ethnically diverse, and
poorest neighborhoods of any in the state. But Interstate 94
creates a barrier between the site and the neighborhoods to the
north, while active rail lines divide the valley from the neigh-
borhoods to the south. There is limited vehicular access; two large viaducts
(27th Street and 35th Street) span the site from north to south, but few roads
descend into the valley (Figure 4.75). Very few residents adjacent to the site
had a relationship with the Menomonee River, which flows through the
project site, and many in the younger generations didn’t even know it existed.
136 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
Following the competition, Wenk Associates was retained as the lead plan-
ner and landscape architect for the site. Milwaukee Transportation Partners
(MTP), a joint venture between CH2M Hill and HNTB, led environmental
remediation as well as civil and transportation engineering. Alfred Benesch
and Company led the civil and structural engineering for the restoration
of Airline Yards and pedestrian bridges. MVP and the city’s Economic
Development Department acted as the core client group throughout the
planning, design, and construction of the project.
and festivals, as well as more informal park uses. In addition, the park will
provide a retreat for employees, making this an attractive site for any busi-
ness locating in the Menomonee Valley. These aspects of the plan made the
Shops development site attractive to potential owners and allowed the city
to be competitive with greenfield sites elsewhere.
To further promote development, the park is also the site of all the storm-
water treatment in the redevelopment area, thus eliminating the need for
detention ponds and other land-intensive uses on individual properties and
allowing owners to gain a higher development yield for their properties.
Natural wetlands and ponds make up the stormwater treatment area and
contribute to the restoration of native ecologies. The wetlands contrast with
the park’s more formal landscapes and provide structure for trails and more
passive user experiences.
The wetlands are an integral part of the stormwater treatment system,
functioning to cleanse stormwater runoff of pollutants in three basic steps.
Stormwater is first collected at the redevelopment site and piped to the six
storm outfalls in the park. There, large particulates settle in small ponds
located at the base of the outfall. From there, stormflows spread out evenly
across broad, shallow wetland meadows where water is transpired through
plant material or infiltrates through the soil substrate. This water is collected
in an “infiltration gallery”—a two-foot-deep layer of recycled crushed con-
crete that sits below the soil and plant-rooting zone. The concrete, which
came to the project courtesy of the demolition and reconstruction of a large
highway interchange in downtown Milwaukee, was crushed into pieces
ranging from eight to 24 inches in diameter. The infiltration gallery has
excess flood-storage capacity to manage larger storm events. From there,
the water is conveyed to a swamp forest.
The subsurface construction of the infiltration gallery is key to the suc-
cess of the wetland restoration, as it enables the surface detention areas to
remain very shallow, with maximum ponding depths of a few feet. Keeping
the detention-area depth shallow allows wetland plant species to thrive,
achieving much greater plant diversity and species richness than that of
typical detention ponds, which are generally deep basins that have limited
recreational or ecological value.
At the southernmost end of the site, a large lawn opens up onto a stone
river terrace. The terrace acts as an overflow area for the stormwater manage-
ment wetlands and allows people to get to the edge of the Menomonee River,
something that has not been possible in past decades. This area includes
river point bars, small dike structures that extend into the river, re-creating
the river’s natural processes and creating aquatic habitat. These structures
will also allow human and nonmotorized boat access to the river.
A pedestrian bridge spans the river, connecting the Shops site with the
Airline Yards site south of the river. Airline Yards, an abandoned 22-acre
former rail switchyard, is extremely isolated, sandwiched among the river,
active rail lines, and bluffs that rise up at the edge of the valley. The plan
here restores ecological communities native to southern Wisconsin. It lays
out access points for canoeing and fishing, wetland boardwalks, commu-
nity gardens, and a variety of hiking and biking trails. Nearly 300,000 cubic
yards of contaminated debris from the Shops demolition was moved to this
site and capped, covered, and shaped to recall the area’s glacial heritage.
These landforms, including drumlins, kames, and eskers—some as tall as
60 feet—assist in making critical pedestrian and bike connections between
the adjacent neighborhoods and park as well as expanding the Hank Aaron
State Trail network into downtown Milwaukee (Figure 4.77). From their
heights, two pedestrian bridges span the active rail lines and touch down
in the neighborhoods on the bluffs.
Chapter 4. Case Studies 139
The Urban Ecology Center, a local nonprofit, opened a Menomonee Valley Figure 4.77. The Airline Yards site
site in September 2012 at Airline Yards, where they will educate more than and the Hank Aaron State Trail
70,000 inner-city youth annually on the benefits of ecology in Milwaukee Wenk Associates
(Figure 4.78).
The planning for the redevelopment of the Milwaukee Road Shops site
occurred at a time when the city and county of Milwaukee could not afford
to construct or manage public parks. Using the multifunctional approach,
however, the city was able to leverage funds from other large infrastruc-
ture projects in the valley in order to build Menomonee Valley Park; there
was very little money added to the project to construct traditional park
and open space amenities. The park was an outcome of careful planning,
design, and programming of infrastructure. The community gained a
much-valued asset that balances more than 60 acres of active and passive
recreational areas and provides public access to the Menomonee River for
the first time in more than 50 years.
The plan for Menomonee Valley Park and redevelopment is still is
yet to be fully realized, with phases currently under construction and
ongoing development of new programs. Still, there have been many
measurable results. The redevelopment has created 80 acres of light-
industrial development with nearly 2,000 family-supporting jobs, $1 mil-
lion in new property taxes, nearly 60 acres of public park with restored
wetlands and riverbanks, over three miles of regional bike trails, and a
native prairie, savanna, and forest restoration. Between 2002 and 2009,
60 acres of Shops property increased from $1.2 million to $36 million
in assessed value—a 2,900 percent increase. Many new area employees
can be seen biking to work from the neighborhoods surrounding the
valley. Neighborhood schoolchildren have been active in planting trees
and establishing wetland plants in the park—more than 70 percent of
the trees in the park have been planted by schools, local community
members, and advocacy groups.
The Menomonee Valley Park and redevelopment have brought tre-
Figure 4.79. New plantings in mendous environmental benefits to the region. The plan has created more
the former brownfield site than 45 acres of native plant restoration within the site and along the
Wenk Associates Menomonee River (Figure 4.79). The treatment wetlands for the redevelop-
Chapter 4. Case Studies 141
ment sites infiltrate and store more than two million gallons of stormwater
annually. The Shops site is said to be 13 to 17 degrees cooler on the warmest
summer days than it was previously. And finally, it is estimated that the
carbon dioxide sequestered as a result of the plan is equal to taking 140,000
cars off the road every year.
Lessons Learned
The following are key lessons that can be gained from Menomonee Valley
Park.
It Takes a Community. No one person can carry the torch for compre-
hensive green infrastructure development; implementation of a plan takes
many champions in local government and the community. The city, the state,
local business leaders, and community advocates shared a common vision
for a green infrastructure project that would support broader economic,
environmental, and social outcomes. From concept through construction,
these champions were critical in order to keep plans that required approval
from many different city departments and state agencies moving forward.
Scale Makes a Difference. Understanding the scale of the project is critical
when making decisions related to the multifunctional uses of green infra-
structure. The Menomonee Valley Park and redevelopment site is neither
regional in scale nor a “site” scale typical of individual redevelopment
projects. At 140 acres, the site might be better labeled a district, and its size
allows the plan to achieve multifunctional benefits and amenities, such as
nature parks and trails, that cannot be achieved by implementing low-impact
development (LID) strategies on a site-by-site basis.
Partnerships and Coordination Are Key. Implementation requires public-
private partnerships as well as interdepartmental coordination within
city government. In this case, the City was the single landowner, perhaps
making the project less difficult to implement. However, the Menomonee
Valley Park and redevelopment offers a valuable precedent that can be used
for cities with emerging development or neighborhood districts that need
to strengthen communities while also repairing or rebuilding outdated
infrastructure. There are tremendous economic, social, and environmental
efficiencies and benefits that can be gained through a district-scale approach
to green infrastructure. These can be realized if landowners, developers,
and city departments understand a common vision and work through the
common roadblocks and red tape that often arise from individual depart-
ments’ agendas.
—Bill Wenk and Greg Dorolek
s
Table 4.2. (pp. 142–44) shows how the case studies in this chapter embody
the principles laid out earlier in this report.
CASE STUDY MULTIFUNCTIONALITY CONNECTIVITY HABITABILITY RESILIENCY IDENTITY RETURN ON INVESTMENT
• Cuyahoga County
• Re-imagining a
Green Print, Cleveland
[Greater] Cleveland:
Multiple functions Metroparks Strategic
Re-imagining a [Greater] economic
come together in Plan: regional/county
Improved Cleveland: vacant land development/
landscape-scale GI system
environmental quality, Re-imagining a [Greater] pilot projects provide real estate market
Cleveland and GI – environmental • Re-imagining a outdoor recreation, and Cleveland: urban a catalyst for building stabilization
Northeast Ohio improvement (water [Greater] Cleveland, restoration of native agriculture neighborhood-level • Cleveland Metroparks
quality, habitat, Cleveland Complete habitats through GI capacity and identity Strategic Plan: identifies
etc.), recreation, and Green Streets
economic benefits
transportation, etc. Ordinance: integrate GI
provided by GI
into Cleveland’s urban
fabric
Trinity River COMMON Trinity River Corridor
Trinity River COMMON
• Flood control VISION and related in Dallas as a catalyst
VISION and related
• Cost effectiveness initiatives: create a new for up to $8 billion
Environmental Trinity River corridor as initiatives: natural
of GI compared to source of community in redevelopment of
North Texas restoration, recreation, the “spine” of a regional habitat restoration,
technologies that identity through an mostly older industrial/
mobility, community GI system environmental
become outdated and environmental and warehouse uses (more
revitalization, etc. restoration, outdoor
expensive to operate recreational resource than 10x return on
recreation opportunities
and maintain over time connected to adjacent investment in GI
development improvements)
GI incorporated into the
GreenPlan Philadelphia, city’s landscape matrix
Green City, Clean Waters: through multiple
define benefits based on interventions
the triple bottom line, • GreenPlan Green City, Clean Waters:
e.g.: clean air and water, Environmental quality Reduced energy Contributions to projects $2.2 billion
Philadelphia: tree
Philadelphia climate amelioration (air and water), consumption, locally community and return on investment
planting, green
(environment); recreation, and public based jobs sense of place at the from $1.01 billion spent
schoolyards, parks and
increased property health improvement neighborhood scale on GI over a 40-year
recreation spaces, etc.
values, job creation period
(economy); and • Green City, Clean
improved public health, Waters: green streets,
recreation (community). rain gardens, stormwater
wetlands, etc.
• Multifunctional
open spaces GI incorporated into
integrate stormwater the city’s landscape • GI’s contributions
management with matrix through Improved to attractive, walkable
recreational use multiple interventions environmental quality, neighborhoods and Reduced stormwater
• Streets integrate (landscape treatments more attractive Flood control business districts runoff, improved water
Seattle
stormwater per the Green Factor, neighborhoods and quality quantified for GI
• Improved aesthetics
management with “Green Grid”, green business districts projects
as an important GI
traffic calming/ streets, rain gardens, outcome
improved public safety etc.)
and an enhanced
pedestrian realm
CASE STUDY MULTIFUNCTIONALITY CONNECTIVITY HABITABILITY RESILIENCY IDENTITY RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Multiple programs Reduced runoff,
incorporate GI into the urban heat island Enhanced sense of place
city’s landscape matrix Increased outdoor effect through GI and community identity GI benefits quantified
Improved water quality, (Green Parks, Green recreation opportunities and tree plantings through improvements through “Green
Lancaster, Pennsylvania recreation, public safety Streets, Green Parking through park (40% coverage target to parks, streetscapes, Infrastructure Benefit
Lots, Green Schools and improvements compared to present schools, etc. Calculator”
City-Owned Sites, Tree 28%)
Planting)
Neighborhood/regional
Community identity scale stormwater
Citywide greenway promoted through management approach
Increased trail Reduced flooding education and outreach
system comprising with public amenities
Lenexa, Kansas Improved water quality, access, recreational through regional lakes/ on the “From Rain to
lakes in regional parks, proven to be more cost-
recreation, education opportunities for detention facilities in Recreation” program,
connecting stream effective than stormwater
residents parks annual Lenexa
corridors management facilities on
WaterFest celebrations each development site
Integrated with
Returns on GI
Connective Corridor Improved
Stormwater investments being
project linking environmental quality, Aesthetic
management, tracked include reduced
Onondaga County, Syracuse University’s recreation, connection improvements
neighborhood Flood control gallons of stormwater
New York main campus with of people to natural (neighborhoods, urban
revitalization, runoff, improved water
downtown Syracuse systems in the urban streetscapes)
transportation quality in Onondaga
through transportation landscape
Lake
improvements
GI addresses EPA
mandate and provides
• Regional greenway • Railroad Park: multiple benefits that
• Railroad Park: • Railroad Park:
system connecting the exercise trails, cultural would not be provided
GI, water storage/ memorializes
three parks and performing arts by a gray infrastructure
irrigation, recreation, • GI approach to flood Birmingham’s rail/
venues (amphitheater, approach, e.g.:
community gathering • Railroad Park: rail trail control, water quality steel-making industry,
place • Red Mountain Park: “Cultural Furnace”) improvement • Railroad Park:
enhances visual
Birmingham, Alabama connects “new and • Red Mountain catalyst for downtown
• Red Mountain Park: • Parks and greenways identity of downtown
old” Birmingham Park: environmental development
habitat restoration, as generators of local • Red Mountain
public health/ and surrounding restoration (forest/ economic activity • Red Mountain Park:
communities to a large habitat management, Park: memorializes/
recreation, revenue revenue-generating
resource-based/urban reclamation of mined interprets industrial/
generation uses within the park,
park areas) mining heritage
economic spinoffs
for surroundings
communities
• Native habitat
Stormwater restoration New businesses
management, Connection to regional Local economic Provides venues for
Menomonee Valley • Education of urban locating in the valley,
environmental trail network via the development arts, cultural events,
Park, Milwaukee youth on the benefits of job creation, increased
remediation, recreation, Hank Aaron State Trail and festivals
ecology in Milwaukee property values
crime reduction
(Urban Ecology Center)
Green infrastructure encompasses the naturally occurring and human-built features that
manage stormwater, remove pollutants, conserve energy, and provide other ecological,
cost-effective, and environmentally sustainable services (Vibrant Cities & Urban Forests
Task Force 2011). The regulation of development practices that impact green infrastructure
fall under the purview of a number of different codes and ordinances, such as stormwater
management, tree protection, open space preservation, erosion control, and zoning and
subdivision controls.
These codes and ordinances are often developed and enforced separately by various
municipal professionals and departments, resulting in a “silo” approach to the development
review process. For example, planners typically address infrastructure by codifying zoning
and development regulations and reviewing development applications for conformance
with those regulations. Meanwhile, engineers in public works or utilities departments
review development drawings for compliance with engineering standards. Landscape
architects most often work in a parks and recreation department, where they design parks,
streetscapes, and other landscape elements. Because these various professionals typically
have different training, work in separate departments with singular missions, and deal
with varying scales of projects, there is too often limited opportunity or motivation for
them to collaborate on a broader mission.
To overcome these traditional silos, this appendix proposes an integrated regulatory
and management framework that brings together existing regulations and review processes
with new approaches to optimize the interactions between natural and built systems in
an integrated green-infrastructure framework. This framework is developed through a
three-step process:
2. Evaluate how the existing regulations work together to promote green infrastructure
and where gaps exist.
145
146 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
Table A.1 illustrates how regulations can be evaluated in an integrated approach using
stormwater management regulations as an example. The primary green-infrastructure
function of the stormwater management ordinance is to regulate development to reduce
the velocity of post-construction stormwater runoff, thereby preventing flooding and
surface water degradation. Table A.1 (pages 4 and 5) identifies the relationship between
stormwater regulations and other ordinances that regulate green infrastructure, potential
conflicts and redundancies among the regulations, and opportunities for more integrated
application of the regulations.
Each regulatory component identified in step 1 should undergo the same evaluation to
inform development of an integrated green-infrastructure ordinance in step 3.
In addition to evaluating existing regulations, step 2 should include an identifica-
tion of regulatory gaps that could be addressed in the integrated green-infrastructure
code. (The “core green-infrastructure regulations” above provide a simple checklist for
identifying such gaps.) For example, the municipality may currently lack a tree preser-
vation ordinance. Recommendations to incorporate new regulations into an integrated
green-infrastructure code should be based on direction set by a comprehensive or other
adopted plan, and should take into account the capacity of municipal staff to administer
and enforce the regulations.
Also in step 2, the code evaluation should examine the existing review process for each
ordinance, starting with identification of the reviewing departments and professionals and
the timeframes for review. Using stormwater management regulations as an example, the
following questions should be considered:
• Which department is the lead reviewer for stormwater management plan permitting
and who provides final approval?
• Which other departments and professionals must review the plan?
• Is another level of review required (e.g., county, state, federal)?
• Where in the review process does stormwater management occur? After planning and
zoning? Concurrent with planning and zoning? Before public works/streets?
• What is the timeframe for review and approval?
• Who enforces the ordinance?
Through this evaluation, the municipality can identify where separate review pro-
cedures result in unnecessarily long or overlapping review processes, where there are
conflicting departmental missions, and where gaps in professional expertise may exist.
The ultimate goal is to eliminate redundancies and inefficiencies through a streamlined
review process that incorporates the expertise and authority of all professionals who deal
with green infrastructure. The regulatory evaluation will also help to identify missed op-
portunities to apply green infrastructure best management practices.
Relationship to
Stormwater
Management Potential Opportunities
Ordinance Regulations Potential Conflicts Redundancies for Integration
Factor in the presence
Duplicative of trees in pre- and post-
Clearing trees and
Trees intercept requirements for development calculations
Tree preservation vegetation to make
rainwater and filter tree plantings that for stormwater management
ordinance room for engineered
pollutants. may not fit on a credits. Mature existing trees
retention facilities
site should be given the highest
credit.
Provide stormwater
management credits for the
Possible
use of street trees, biorention,
incompatibility
Trees intercept and other best management
Street tree between root growth
rainwater and filter practice (BMPs). Specify
ordinance of required tree
pollutants. compatible tree species and
species and subsurface
ways to prevent conflicts (e.g.,
drainage facilities
root barriers).
Overlapping
Allow for the use of BMPs,
Open space open space and
such as bioretention,
Open space Open spaces absorb requirements may onsite stormwater
pervious materials, and
preservation rainwater and filter be impractical on facilities (i.e.,
green roofs to reduce the
ordinance pollutants. constrained sites (e.g., detention /
open space requirement on
urban infill) retention areas) on
constrained urban sites.
constrained sites
Erosion and Reducing stormwater Emphasize the use of
sedimentation runoff and velocity vegetation to stabilize soil
control ordinance mitigates erosion. and reduce runoff.
Create coordinated
Species required landscaping and tree
by landscape protection plan that includes
ordinance may existing trees, new plantings,
Trees and shrubs
Landscaping not be appropriate BMPs (e.g., bioretention and
intercept rainwater
requirements for stormwater vegetated swales), street trees,
and filter pollutants.
management areas etc. Focus on tree protection
that are periodically and functionality of the
inundated. plantings for stormwater
management.
Restricting Emphasize the use
Steep slope development on of vegetation in soil
protection steep slopes mitigates stabilization to reduce
runoff and erosion. excessive soil disturbance.
Relationship to
Stormwater
Management Potential Opportunities
Ordinance Regulations Potential Conflicts Redundancies for Integration
Allow for flexibility in
street widths to encourage
use of GSI. Include new
Appropriately
streets in the impervious
Street design and sized streets reduce Excessive street width
cover calculation for post-
specifications impervious surfaces requirements
construction stormwater
and associated runoff.
flow to encourage reduced
widths. Provide credits for
green street design.
Sidewalk design
Pervious materials Allow for pervious
Sidewalk design standards that restrict
reduce stormwater pavement in sidewalk
and specifications the use of pervious
runoff. design.
material
Appropriately sized Allow for pervious pavement
Driveway design driveways and pervious in driveway design. Allow
Excessive driveway
and specifications materials reduce flexibility in driveways widths
width standards
stormwater runoff. depending on level of traffic.
Increased open Separate open
Building setbacks / space and reduced Inflexible setback space requirements, Allow for flexibility in
yard requirements impervious coverage requirements that may particularly on setbacks to allow for use
reduce runoff from limit the use of GSI constrained urban of GSI.
the site. sites
Focus on the overall
Double counting stormwater management
Building/ Impervious coverage of impervious impacts rather than
Reduce impervious
impervious requirements that surface and specifying a maximum
coverage and resulting
coverage don’t allow for building coverage percentage. Allow for
runoff.
requirements effective use of GSI maximums flexibility in the use of
BMPs such as green roofs,
bioretention, rain gardens.
Focus on performance of
parking lot design from a
Overlapping stormwater management
Appropriate parking Parking requirements requirements perspective rather than the
requirements, that increase for parking lot number of spaces and aisle
Parking regulations landscaping, and impervious coverage landscaping, widths. Allow for flexibility
pervious pavement (number of spaces, general to incentivize the use of
reduce runoff. parking stall size) landscaping, street BMPs such as bioretention,
tree planting, tree structural soils, enhanced
preservation, etc. landscaping, pervious
paving/overflow parking
areas, etc.
Efficiency: A primary purpose of the integrated code framework is to improve the ef-
fectiveness and efficiency of existing regulations by eliminating conflicts and redundancies
and addressing gaps that prevent implementation of green infrastructure solutions—not
to create new layers of regulations that complicate code administration.
Enforceability: Communities must have the capacity to enforce the regulations and the
authority to apply penalties when necessary.
Existing regulations can be modified for consistency among the green infrastructure
components and new best management practices incorporated to create the framework for
a model green-infrastructure code. The following are the basic components of such a code:
2.0. Applicability
As described in step 2, the overall goal should be to incorporate some form of green infra-
structure into all developments, but certain regulations may not be applicable in all contexts.
For example, the limitations on small development sites and urban infill sites should be
considered when addressing elements such as impervious surface limits, the required
number of trees preserved or replaced, and the percentage of open space required on a site.
• Steep slopes
Limit disturbance on slopes greater than 15 percent and protect trees in steep slope areas
to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion. Include steep slopes in open space requirements
where applicable.
• Fee-in-lieu option
Incorporate flexibility in the ordinance to address sites that are physically constrained
and cannot accommodate the required tree, landscaping, or open space coverage.
In such cases, a fee-in-lieu option is an effective approach that allows developers to
compensate for lost trees and open space by paying into a fund, which can be used
for a variety of ecological management functions, such as planting and maintenance
of trees, maintenance of open space, administrative enforcement, and even education
and outreach programs.
Include green street design in the landscaping requirements described in the Urban
Forest and Green Stormwater Management regulations described in this section.
3.0.5. Scoring
The integrated green-infrastructure code can incorporate an approach similar to the Seattle
Green Factor (www.seattle.gov/dpd/permits/greenfactor), which uses a scoring system
for private development designed to increase the amount and quality of new landscapes
in commercial zones through green infrastructure practices. Seattle’s zoning ordinance
requires a minimum score for each applicable zoning district. The scoring system tests
alternative approaches to meeting landscaping requirements, which can be further
adapted to address broader green-infrastructure goals, including reduced stormwater
runoff, filtered stormwater pollutants, and protected natural features.
When a new development is proposed, the applicant must demonstrate how the green
infrastructure requirements will be met using a system that calculates the quality of
elements such as tree preservation, open space preservation, green roofs, permeable
paving, and others. The elements are weighted according to relative functional and
performance values. For example, the canopy area of a preserved tree earns 0.8 points
while a newly planted tree earns only 0.4 points. Green roofs have a factor of 0.7 while
permeable paving, which does not provide the same level of aesthetic, energy, and
habitat benefits, is multiplied by 0.4. To apply this basic concept elsewhere, the scoring
system could be modified to address goals and conditions in individual municipalities
and contexts (e.g., urban, rural, and suburban). Figure A.1. is an example scoresheet
from Seattle Green Factor.
Figure A.1
154 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
CONCLUSION
As environmental regulations become more advanced and increasingly tied to economic
and social benefits, municipalities have a wider array of regulatory tools at their disposal
to guide development in sustainable directions. The ability to regulate development to
promote green infrastructure is a valuable community tool that has many applications,
including ordinances addressing tree preservation, landscaping, open space preservation,
erosion control, riparian buffer protection, and stormwater management. However, these
ordinances are typically developed and enforced in “silos,” an approach that doesn’t ad-
equately address the interaction of all of the elements that comprise the green infrastructure
network. The model green-infrastructure framework presented in this paper provides a
guide that can be used to integrate existing regulations and review processes with new
approaches and best management practices to optimize the triple-bottom-line benefits
green infrastructure can provide for communities.
—Nancy Templeton, aicp
References
155
156 Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach
Florida Greenways Commission. 1994. Creating a Statewide Greenways System: for People…
for Wildlife…for Florida. Report to the governor.
Frank, Lawrence, Peter Engelke, and Thomas Schmid. 2003. Health and Community Design.
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Gill, S. E., J. F. Handley, A. R. Ennos, and S. Pauleit. 2007. “Adapting Cities for Climate
Change: The Role of the Green Infrastructure.” Built Environment 33(1): 115–33.
Godschalk, David R., and William R. Anderson. 2012. Sustaining Places: The Role of the
Comprehensive Plan. PAS Report no. 567. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Heisler, G. M. 1986. “Energy Savings with Trees.” Journal of Arboriculture 12(5): 113–25.
Hofmeister, Sabine. 2009. “Natures Running Wild: A Social-Ecological Perspective on
Wilderness.” Nature and Culture 4(3): 293–315.
Jones, David A. 2006. “21st Century Parks: A Legacy for the Future.” Sustain, no. 14.
Kentucky Institute for the Environment and Sustainable Development, University of
Louisville, summer.
Jorgensen, Anna, and Richard Keenan, eds. 2012. Urban Wildscapes. New York: Routledge.
Kaplan, Stephen. 1995. “The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Frame-
work.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 15.
Kuo, F. E., and W. C. Sullivan. 2001a. “Aggression and Violence in the Inner City: Effects
of Environment vs. Mental Fatigue.” Environment and Behavior 33(4): 543–71.
———. 2001b. “Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime?”
Environment and Behavior 33(3): 343–67.
Lenexa (Kansas), City of. n.d. “Rain to Recreation.” Available at www.lenexa.com/rainto
recreation/index.html.
Lippard, Lucy R. 2007. The Lure of the Local. New York: New Press.
Louv, Richard. 2011. The Nature Principle. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin Books.
McHarg, Ian L. 1969. Design with Nature. Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press.
Meadows, Donella H. 2008. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Ed. Diana Wright. White River
Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green.
Morris, Marya, ed. 2006. Integrating Planning and Public Health: Tools and Strategies to Cre-
ate Healthy Places PAS Report no. 539/540. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Mostafavi, Mohsen, and Gareth Doherty, eds. 2010. Ecological Urbanism. Zurich: Lars Müller.
National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council. 2004. A National Research Plan
for Urban Forestry, 2005–2015. Sugarloaf, Calif.: USDA Forest Service.
Neelay, D., ed. 1988. Valuation of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Other Plants, 7th ed. Council
of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, International Society of Arboriculture.
New York, State of. 2009. Open Space Conservation Plan. Available at www.dec.ny.gov/
docs/lands_forests_pdf/osp09complete.pdf.
North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). 2009. iSWM Criteria Manual for
Site Development and Construction. Arlington, Tex.: NCTCOG. Available at http://iswm
.nctcog.org/criteria_manual.asp.
———. n.d. “Floodplain Management: Trinity River COMMON VISION Program.” Avail-
able at www.nctcog.org/envir/SEEsafe/fpm/index.asp.
Philadelphia, City of. 2009a. Greenworks Philadelphia. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. Avail-
able at www.phila.gov/green/greenworks/pdf/Greenworks_OnlinePDF_FINAL.pdf.
———. 2009b. Philadelphia Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Plan Update, sup.
vol. 2: Triple Bottom Line Analysis. Available at www.phillywatersheds.org/ltcpu
/Vol02_TBL.pdf.
Philadelphia Water Department. 2011. City of Philadelphia Stormwater Management Guidance
Manual. Available at www.pwdplanreview.org/StormwaterManual.aspx.
References 157
Schwab, James C., ed. 2009. Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and Community
Development. PAS Report no. 555. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Seattle, City of, Department of Planning and Development. 2011. “Seattle Green Fac-
tor.” Available at www.seattle.gov/dpd/Permits/GreenFactor/WhereDoesitApply/
default.asp.
Simpson, J. R., and E. G. McPherson. 1996. “Potential of Tree Shade for Reducing Residential
Energy Use in California.” Journal of Arboriculture 22(1): 10–18.
Spirn, Anne Whiston. 1984. The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design. New
York: Basic Books.
Steiner, Frederick. 2010. “Matters of Scale: Landscape Architects Define Their Future When
They Define the Scope of Their Work.” Landscape Architecture, September.
Sullivan, W. C., and Kuo, F. E. 1996. “Do Trees Strengthen Urban Communities, Reduce
Domestic Violence?” Human Environment Research Laboratory, Dept. of Natural
Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign.
Forestry report R8-FR56.
Templeton, Nancy, and David Rouse. 2012. “The Role of Tree Preservation Ordinances in
Green Infrastructure.” Zoning Practice, September.
Trinity River Authority of Texas.2010. Trinity River Basin Master Plan. Available at www
.trinityra.org/downloads/Master%20Plan%20Justified%20REV.pdf.
Ulrich, R. 1984. “View through Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery.” Science
224: 420–21.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure
Municipal Handbook: Funding Options. EPA-833-F-08-007. Washington, D.C.: EPA. Avail-
able at www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/Programs/stormwater/MS4/guidance/handbooks
/Documents/Funding%20Options%20Municipal%20Handbook.pdf.
Vibrant Cities & Urban Forests Task Force. 2011. Vibrant Cities & Urban Forests: A National
Call to Action. New York: New York Restoration Project. Available at http://vcuf.files
.wordpress.com/2012/11/vcuf_report.pdf.
Vision North Texas Partnership. 2008. Regional Choices for North Texas. Available at www
.visionnorthtexas.org/regionalchoices/regionalchoices.html.
Walker, Brian, and David Salt. 2006. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in
a Changing World. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1995. Park and Open Space Master Plan. Cornerstone 2020. Louis-
ville and Jefferson County. See www.wrtdesign.com/projects/detail/louisville-and-
jefferson-county-parks-master-plan/169.
Wiser, Steven. n.d. “Before Olmsted: Inspiration behind the Louisville Parks System.”
Includes a transcription from the Louisville Courier-Journal, June 5, 1887. Available at
www.wiserdesigns.com/uploads/Before_Olmsted.pdf.
Wolf, K. L. 1998. “Trees in Business Districts: Positive Effects on Consumer Behavior!” Fact
Sheet no. 5. Seattle: University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Center for
Urban Horticulture.
———. 1999. “Nature and Commerce: Human Ecology in Business Districts.” In Building
Cities of Green: Proceedings of the Ninth National Urban Forest Conference, ed. C. Kollin.
Washington, D.C.: American Forests.
Yaro, Robert. 1998. “Foreword.” In To Heal the Earth: Selected Writings of Ian L. McHarg, ed.
Ian L. McHarg and Frederick R. Steiner. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Yudelson, Jerry. 2009. “The Business Case for Green Buildings.” Union Real Estate Invest-
ment, Hamburg, Germany. September 29. Available at www.greenbuildconsult.com
/pdfs/PPA-Yudelson.pdf.
RECENT PLANNING ADVISORY SERVICE REPORTS
The American Planning Association provides lead- 552. Great Places in America: Great Streets and Neighbor
ership in the development of vital communities by hoods, 2007 Designees. April 2008. 84pp.
advocating excellence in community planning, pro- 553. Planners and the Census: Census 2010, ACS, Fact-
moting education and citizen empowerment, and finder, and Understanding Growth. Christopher William-
son. July 2008. 132pp.
providing the tools and support necessary to effect
positive change. 554. A Planners Guide to Community and Regional Food
Planning: Transforming Food Environments, Facilitating
Healthy Eating. Samina Raja, Branden Born, and Jessica Ko-
zlowski Russell. August 2008. 112pp.
529/530. Planning for Wildfires. James Schwab and Stuart
Meck. February 2005. 126pp. 555. Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and
Community Development. James C. Schwab, General Editor.
531. Planning for the Unexpected: Land-Use Development January 2009. 160pp.
and Risk. Laurie Johnson, Laura Dwelley Samant, and Su-
zanne Frew. February 2005. 59pp. 556. Smart Codes: Model Land-Development Regulations.
Marya Morris, General Editor. April 2009. 260pp.
532. Parking Cash Out. Donald C. Shoup. March 2005. 119pp.
557. Transportation Infrastructure: The Challenges of Re-
533/534. Landslide Hazards and Planning. James C. Schwab, building America. Marlon G. Boarnet, Editor. July 2009.
Paula L. Gori, and Sanjay Jeer, Project Editors. September 128pp.
2005. 209pp.
558. Planning for a New Energy and Climate Future. Scott Shu-
535. The Four Supreme Court Land-Use Decisions of 2005: ford, Suzanne Rynne, and Jan Mueller. February 2010. 160pp.
Separating Fact from Fiction. August 2005. 193pp.
559. Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation
536. Placemaking on a Budget: Improving Small Towns, Neigh- Practices. Barbara McCann and Suzanne Rynne, Editors.
borhoods, and Downtowns Without Spending a Lot of Money. March 2010. 144pp.
Al Zelinka and Susan Jackson Harden. December 2005. 133pp.
560. Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into
537. Meeting the Big Box Challenge: Planning, Design, and
Planning. James C. Schwab, Editor. May 2010. 152 pp.
Regulatory Strategies. Jennifer Evans-Cowley. March 2006.
69pp. 561. Fiscal Impact Analysis: Methodologies for Planners.
538. Project Rating/Recognition Programs for Supporting L. Carson Bise II. September 2010. 68pp.
Smart Growth Forms of Development. Douglas R. Porter 562. Planners and Planes: Airports and Land-Use Compat-
and Matthew R. Cuddy. May 2006. 51pp. ibility. Susan M. Schalk, with Stephanie A. D. Ward. Novem-
539/540. Integrating Planning and Public Health: Tools and ber 2010. 72pp.
Strategies To Create Healthy Places. Marya Morris, General 563. Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy, Sustainable
Editor. August 2006. 144pp. Places. Kimberley Hodgson, Marcia Caton Campbell, and
541. An Economic Development Toolbox: Strategies and Martin Bailkey. January 2011. 148pp.
Methods. Terry Moore, Stuart Meck, and James Ebenhoh. 564. E-Government (revised edition). Jennifer Evans-Cowley
October 2006. 80pp. and Joseph Kitchen. April 2011. 108pp.
542. Planning Issues for On-site and Decentralized Waste 565. Assessing Sustainability: A Guide for Local Govern-
water Treatment. Wayne M. Feiden and Eric S. Winkler. No- ments. Wayne M. Feiden, with Elisabeth Hamin. July 2011.
vember 2006. 61pp. 108pp.
543/544. Planning Active Communities. Marya Morris, Gen- 566. Planning for Wind Energy. Suzanne Rynne, Larry Flow-
eral Editor. December 2006. 116pp. ers, Eric Lantz, and Erica Heller, Editors. November 2011. 140pp.
545. Planned Unit Developments. Daniel R. Mandelker.
567. Sustaining Places: The Role of the Comprehensive
March 2007. 140pp.
Plan. David R. Godschalk and William R. Anderson. January
546/547. The Land Use/Transportation Connection. Terry 2012. 104pp.
Moore and Paul Thorsnes, with Bruce Appleyard. June 2007.
440pp. 568. Cities in Transition: A Guide for Practicing Planners.
Joseph Schilling and Alan Mallach. April 2012. 168pp.
548. Zoning as a Barrier to Multifamily Housing Develop
ment. Garrett Knaap, Stuart Meck, Terry Moore, and Robert 569. Planning and Broadband: Infrastructure, Policy, and
Parker. July 2007. 80pp. Sustainability. Kathleen McMahon, Ronald L. Thomas, and
Charles Kaylor. July 2012. 76pp.
549/550. Fair and Healthy Land Use: Environmental Justice
and Planning. Craig Anthony Arnold. October 2007. 168pp. 570. The Rules That Shape Urban Form. Donald L. Elliott,
Matthew Goebel, and Chad Meadows. October 2012. 124pp.
551. From Recreation to Re-creation: New Directions in
Parks and Open Space System Planning. Megan Lewis, Gen- 571. Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach. David C.
eral Editor. January 2008. 132pp. Rouse and Ignacio F. Bunster-Ossa. January 2013. 160pp.
i a
PAS 542. Wayne M. Feiden, faicp, and Eric S. Winkler. 2006.
c
61 pp. $15.
e
This report explains how planners can address
sp rest
wastewater treatment to help their communities meet
goals for growth and protect drinking water and other
natural resources. The authors present a balanced,
e
insightful, and technically rigorous explanation of how
t
these systems need to be sited, designed, and managed.
Parks are more than just playgrounds. In fact, they’re just one
component of a system that also may include recreation facilities,
natural resource sites, cultural and historic sites, forests, farms,
and streetscapes. The authors—planners and park professionals—
combined their expertise to offer guidance on planning for
parks and open space systems in a manner similar to planning
for other community resources. From Recreation to Re-Creation
explains how to plan for parks that protect wildlife, help manage
stormwater, and allow residents to connect with nature.
Assessing Sustainability
PAS 565. Wayne M. Feiden, faicp, with Elisabeth Hamin. 2011.
108 pp. $48.
www.planning.org
American Planning Association
Planning Advisory Service
Report Number 571