Urban Waterfront Revitalization Through Landscape Approach Environmental Sciences Essay

Urban Waterfront Revitalization Through Landscape Approach Environmental Sciences EssayUrban waterfronts hold back heavily degraded and received to the full grown perception from urban dwellers. There ar needs of effective urban waterfront revivification programs to achieve a sustainable training of those waterfronts. This research studies is to formulize a ornament approach principles into revitalization program of urban waterfront. This cartoon engrosss archival analysis to identified type of urban waterfront revitalization programs around the creation and to understanding the mathematical function of urban waterfront. Finally, it uses literature survey to identified purpose considerations of ornament approach. Expected results of the study would include the types of waterfront revitalization programs, role of urban waterfront and founding consideration for waterfront landscape. They argon expected to lead towards formalizing the urban waterfront revitalization princip les based on landscape approach. After the introduction of the background problem, the proposal bequeath present the literature on waterfront revitalization, urban waterfront and waterfront revitalization program, and describe the research methodology before presenting the expected results. This study contributes in developing principles for waterfront revitalization program. Besides adding value to existing urban assets, the proposed principles for waterfront revitalization program support the sustainable development agenda of the world.Keywords Landscape approach, urban waterfront, waterfront revitalization program.1.1 BACKGROUNDUrban rivers provide spelly functions to the cities much(prenominal) as water supply, transportations, biological protections and promoting for the development of the cities with its social, sparingal and environmental values. However, with the non planned well urbanization, the rivers start been disturbed which resulting in degradation of urban ecos ystem.River restoration has progressively drawn attention, and corresponding activities have been carried out extensively (Holmes, 1998). Urban rivers that once were the most importance element of city were neglected. They were channelized and eject into big drain. The properties on its corridor turn their back to the river and the cities tried to treat river as unwanted thing.Nonetheless, river corridors remain as continuous pictorial feature within suburbanized landscapes, which make it more grievous resource for home grounds restoration and nature preservation. The encroachments of development into this area have fragmented, diminished and split up the vegetation along this corridor into small patches. These lead to substantial loss of habitat and biodiversity especially in urban areas.Due to the natural recourses destruction in urban area, importance of rivers has become realize by city dwellers. It becomes important places for amusement and leisure. This why in recent ye ars, the riverfront image and planning initiatives have increased. There are two major issues for this development, saving and human use. Most of approaches for river developments have difficulties to worry with both of them, which they tend to choose either one. These lead to the failure of the project. This thesis aims to bring these issues together to inform the practice of landscape architecture.1.2 APPROACHThis research study used a set of literature addressed waterfront development around the world. The literatures have covered many perspectives such as ecological, historical, cultural and built design. charge though the literature inspection provides a broad overview of waterfront development, the designs and planning of these waterfront developments have been superficial especially in ecology perspectives. Furthermore, for river corridor development, most literatures are focusing to non-urban landscapes, going the river corridors in urban landscape open for exploration .1.3 Problem statement1.4 Research question1.4.1 Main Research Question1.4.2 sub Research Question1.5 ending AND OBJECTIVES1.5.1 GOALSRevitalize the urban river through comprehensive landscape design solutions.1.5.2 OBJECTIVESTo ensure the goal can be achieved, these objectives have been derivedTo assess the literature on waterfront revitalization programs around the world.To assess the design that using landscape approach to understand their characteristic, strengths and weaknesses.To investigates and understand of the role of urban river to the users.To formulize the design principles for urban riverfront revitalization programs.1.6 CHAPTER OUTLINEChapter unmatchable introduces and contextualizes the research problems. The literature reviews are presented in Chapter Two. It examines the development of waterfronts, its design and planning approaches. Chapter Three is describing the research method. It analyze the landscape approach literature to define the concepts and cozy up t he principles that will guide the development of landscape design principles for urban riverfront on Chapter Four. Chapter Five summarizes the findings of this study discuss the application of the principles and presents areas of further research.It is considered that the design principles here proposed will be useful for landscape architects, designers and planners in invention the waterfront. Hence, it is expected they will help designers effecting and creating sustainable waterfront that celebrating the past, enjoying the present and respecting the future of urban environment.Figure 1.1 Research design diagram1.7 significant of study1.8 TERMINOLOGIES1.8.1 URBAN watercourseWalsh, Christopher J. et al. (2005) indicated that an urban watercourse is a formerly natural waterway that flows through a heavily be area. Urban watercourses often significantly polluted due to urban runoff and combined with sewer outflows.1.8.2 RIVER CORRIDORFrom Malaysian Drainage and Irrigation Departmen t (DID) guidelines of river development (2004), river corridor is the area impertinent the river reserved and in 50 meters from the river-reserved boundary.1.8.3 SUSTAINABLE watercourseThe sustainable watercourse covers an important element in Agenda21 about sustainable development. This is because the watercourse have competency to contribute in increasing biodiversity and profit from development, improving and enhance conditions of the areas and people who live surround it. Sustainable development elements are economic development, social progress, conservation of resources and protection of the environment (UN Earth Summit Agenda 21, Rio de Janeiro, 1992).2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW2.1 Introduction2.2 WATERFRONT REVITALIZATIONHoyle et.al (1993, 2000) said that pioneer in waterfront replacement studies was Canada in proterozoic 1970s. In his studies, he found out that focus of waterfront rehabilitation was including wide range of development such as recreational, residential, retail , commercial, service and tourist facilities.According to him and Breen et.al (1996), the development of waterfront in America and Europe has occurred since 1960s. Perspective that tent to integrate design, environmental, social and economic objectives more efficiently (Johes, 1998) was the European approach towards waterfront development in 1990s.Manning (1997) adding that no use or treatment of waterfront should be allowed to exclude recreational value that no feature or operation however mundane needs to privation an aesthetic panorama and finally that ever the demands of conserving fragile nature need not exclude people from the scene.In other part of the world, the development of waterfront is comparatively recent phenomenal. Lately, many countries start to open their eyes on potential of their river. South of Korea has demonstrating some wonderful projects of river rehabilitation development such as Chengyecheon River and Han River rehabilitation project. Franco (2000) state s that in Brazil, there are many proposals of waterfront projects have been presented since early 1990s, unfortunately, few have been implemented. Most of them are because lack of funds and supports.Waterfront project could be divided into six categories based on Bren and Rigby (1994) studies. This categorization was used by Breen and Rigby as tool to compile a huge numbers of designs. The categories are historical, residential, recreational, cultural, environmental and working(a) waterfront. Usually, the development of waterfronts would include one or more categories in regularize to support various demands to the site. There are many cases that the waterfront project have mixed-used characteristic. For example, a project that has ecological features may be designed infused with recreation, education and trails. These multipurpose designs are to encourage the maximum use of the situation.Table 2.1 shows some of the waterfront projects that have a major characteristic but have se veral other features abound. This categorization does seem have significant role in effecting the frameworks and design either. In order to use the categorizations, the heuristic devise should be interpreted to emphasis the major characters of separately project.Table 2.1 Waterfronts, their major character and usesNo.Waterfront / CityMajor sheathUsesSource1Baltimore WaterfrontMixed usedUrban renewal cultural complex, office, residentialBreen and Rugby (1994)2Boston Waterfront pastal mankind promenades, hotel, residentialwww.thebostonwaterfront.net3Charleston Waterfront ParkPublic SpacePark, pierThompson (1991)4Elbe River, DresdenOpen SpaceEntertainment, art, parkFriedrich (1998)5Elbe River, HamburgMixed usedTransportation, residentialTrelcat (2001)6Thames River, capital of the United Kingdom docklandsPublic spaceRecreation, culturalChaline 20017Thames River, London Millennium VillageMixed usePromenades, institutions, residential, commercialBurdett (1998)8Thames River, London Mille nnium DomePublic spaceRecreation, culturalArnold (1998)9Potomic River, GeorgetownHistoricalResidential, office, mankind spacewww.georgetownwaterfrontpark.org10South Platte River, DanverPublic spaceIndustrial landscape, parkLeccese (2001)11Puerto Madero, Buenos AiresMixed useResidential, commercial, service, open spaceSchneier Madanes (2001)12Aa River, AarhusPublic spaceSteam daylighting, trailNielsen (1998)13Yarra River, MelbourneCulturalResidential, commercial, entertainmentSandercock Dovey (2002)14East River, New YorkPublic spacePromenadesFreeman 200315Meurthe River, NancyPublic spacePromenadesBruel Delmar (1998)16San Antonio River, TexasPublic spaceCommercial, hotel, entertainment, historicalPosner (1991)17Maas River, RotterdamMixed usePublic spaces, residential, officeMayer (1998)18 char Harbour, VancouverResidentialOpen space, office, marinaQuayle (1991)19Danube River, ViennaPublic spaceDam, ecological restoration, leisureHansjakob hansjakob (1998)20Chengyecheon River, SeoulPu blic spaceHistorical, commercial, entertainment, culturalwww.preservenet.com2.3 Role of urban watercourseUrban watercourse is a waterways that flowing through the populated areas. It often in bad condition and heavily degraded. Many of urban rivers have been polluted mostly by urban storm water runoff and combined sewer system.Initially, such watercourses were managed as a resource for human return including water supply, flood mitigation, disposal of wastewater and minimization of disease (Walsh 2000 Paul and Meyer 2001 Morley and Karr 2002). However, this has led to the degradation of river ecological functioning, an issue that was initially ignored (Paul and Meyer 2001).Important instrument for early settlement was water. Water transportation and construction of flood embankments have turn the water into the background of urban concerns. Most literature agree that these originally settlements were settle where there were enough water and land for food production, and there wer e no or rare disaster related to water. Water precaution became the rear end for religious and social institutions. As the region began to produce surplus food, there was a societies restructuring.Dubos (1972), a humanist, states that the urban areas are identified by evaluating their cultural practices in spite of changes in technology. Social scientists begin to acknowl asperity the water may have played a role in de bourneining the social characteristics of urban areas (Lind, 1979).Increasing of impervious surface area modified of natural drain system and local climate changes have stressed the urban river. The increasing in impervious area make the runoff of rainfall in urban area has increase, compared to rural area. Furthermore, installations of storm sewer, culverting and channelizing the natural river have transmitted the water into drainage network faster. These events increase the flow velocity, reduce the timing of the runoff hydrograph, increase the flow rates which f inally giving a hydrological problem flood.In term of flood mitigation, authorities who in charge in river development have change the course of the river flow, in order to prevent localized flooding. They use engineer practices known as river channelization. These technologies including lining the riverbed and banks with concrete or other materials, divert the flow into storm drains and culverts. These changes are often bringing negative effects. It includes flooding of downstream due to changes in the floodplain, loss of habitat for fish and other species, fragmentation of riparian and others, leading to deterioration of water quality.Fortunately, some communities have taken some effort to correct these problems. Their effort is to deal with bank erosion, due to the large amount of rainwater and using technologies such as daylighting and re-meandering. Example of successful project of daylighting is Cheonggyecheon river restoration project.Another major problem of urban hydrolo gy is water quality degradation. McPherson (1974) states that oil leakage and spill, mining activities, surface or streets have begrime the urban river. Other factors in this problem are soil erosion from construction, industrial process effluents, and combined sewer overflows, urban storm runoff, leakage from dirty tanks and cesspools and contamination.As a result of pollution in urban watercourse water, many of the biological and aesthetic functions of water in urban areas cannot be fully utilized, disrespect and sometimes leading to abandoning the river from urban life itself.Litte (1990) states that there has been increasing public concern for the protection of urban watercourse water. Numerous watercourse commissions have been establish in an effort to plan use and protection. There is reason to be optimistic about combining human use and natural environments as many river cities are rediscovering their waterfronts and commissioning planning studies (Kim et al., 1991).However , the effect of waterfront development projects is not always good. All development projects have environmental and economic impact, and the development of the waterfront is not an exception. Any development project that will benefit some people is inevitable. Social and environmental impacts of water development, a number of effects obtained are comm save extends far beyond the design of the site itself. Ecologists, environmentalist and designers have difficulties to predict overall effects because of complex interaction of diverse forces.For example, current knowledge of the man made wetland ecosystem might desirable for present of time. Thus, unless the design and planning precedes by louver to ten years, something unexpected situation might to develop which some with pet effects or some are not.In the current state of the art, this group often has difficulties to convince engineers, economists, and politicians that certain developments are unwise, or spending for sanative mea sures because of lack of solid scientific evidence or facts. Furthermore, engineers traditionally handle an urban watercourse development project. Sadly, they often ignore the social and environmental considerations in their planning process.In some cases, social scientists, landscape architects and environmentalist have been brought only later on the damage (Biswas and Durie, 1971). In principle, it is expensive to fix compensation after they occur It is cheaper to take preventive measures.However, overall framework for the planning, design and management of urban river corridors still not well establish. An integrated planning that concerns every aspect regarding to urban watercourse corridors revitalization program must be develop.2.4 LAndscape approach design for waterfrontThe word landscape is a complex word appears in a wide range of scientific literature. Various authors have treated this topic. Saltzman (2001) overview the term of landscape as notion of landscape has change d and evolved over time and between the various fields of disciplines.Saltzman (2001) indicates that other disciplines has a different approach. For example, natural scientists are often focused on the bio somatogenetic environment related to the interaction between species or ongoing natural processes as a landscape. Landscape architects tends to view landscape as planning tool while for archaeologists, they are more interested in the memory of landscape and its temporal aspects. An ethnologist, anthropologists, in literature or even among other disciplines, the landscape term refers for other purposes.In this study, writer defined the landscape using the concept of landscape as Elbakidze and Angelstam (2007). They interpret landscape as social interactions between biophysical landscape and human society as a telephone exchange idea. In European Landscape Convention, a landscape defined asan area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors (Anon. 2000b).The Elbakidze Angelstam (2007) concluded that the social-ecological systems contain elements of both natural and cultural landscape is intertwining with each other. Landscape characters have developed by both physical and cultural factors that evolved over the years.These aspects of the landscape must to consider in addition to the biophysical environment. Therefore, to fully describing a landscape, the number of variables that representing all the dimensions of sustainability have to use (Forman et al 2003, Berkes 1995s, Anderson et al, 2005).To implementing such landscape, approach needed some changes to suit the reality. One is to include of the different perspectives from different disciplines. For example, as described by Angelstam and Richnau (2008), while forest and landscape planners and managers resolve to accommodate commodity and non-commodity values in the same management unit, conservationists often define functional conser vation landscapes, and other stakeholders such as farming communities or district officials may refer to their cultural or livelihood landscapes (e.g., Innes and Hoen 2005).More important in landscape approach is to explore the resources sustainably and untraditionally. Attention has to be fashioning in evaluate the relationship between human with human, human with nature and human with god.The landscape approach sometimes can be use as basic for ecological development scheme. It deals with the physical, ecological and geographical entity, integrating all human and natural patterns and process. In addition, the structure, composition and function analysis helps in forebode the landscape dynamic. Landscape approach ultimate goal is to maximize the long-term benefits for biodiversity for sustainable development. This can be achieve by optimizing the balance between economic purposes, ecology and social.A landscape approach that considers whats happening at both the local, water body scale and at the broader regional scale is really the only way to study these types of issues, Cheruvelil (2010) states. If you look at only one ecosystem in isolation, you dont see the whole picture.Wiens (2002) states that systematic analysis of conservation and restoration management for aquatic ecosystems in riverine is not a tradition. However, the complex interactions between land and water systems are getting recognition from governance policies, planning and management practices.Singer (2007) states that universe a social-ecological system, the term landscape approach capture the need for applied interdisciplinary approaches. Term landscape approach in like manner emphasizes the ecological effects of spacial patterns of ecosystem and brad spatial scales. It is including the exchange and interaction within the entire landscapes, dynamics of development and spatial heterogeneity, the influence of spatial heterogeneity of biological and abiotic processes, and the management of spatial heterogeneity.Risser (1984) and Angelstam (2004) reflects the idea that landscapes evolve through time, as a result of being acted upon by natural forces and human beings, which underlines that landscapes forms a whole, whose natural and socio-cultural components are taken together, not separately (Berkes et al., 2003).2.5 summary3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY3.1 IntroductionIn order to conduct research on the application of landscape for the urban waterfront more efficaciously and achieve desired results, the method to be used in this study is divided into two main phases. Each phase consists of research method that leads to the multitude of constructive information needed to the realization of the targeted goalsPhase One will be involve mostly on the data gathering determination and review of available information while in Phase Two, based on the date acquired, a practical guidelines shall be formulated and analyzed.Detailed reasoning and illumination of the aforementione d methodology proposed are as per the next subchapter.3.2 PHASE ONE DEtermine and reviewVast collection of waterfront designs and frameworks from various literatures are collected. It is crucial to establish a good data management in order to have a full understanding of the subject and its related issues, either explicitly or holistically. The assessment of the data gathered in each project is necessary where these elements are identifiedDesign consideration of urban waterfrontProposed designPlanning frameworks base on the collected data, principles of the projects are reviewed, segregated and tabulated into a table of ball club-design consideration, which are open space, human use, character, ecology, accessibility, land use, management, design issues and economy. It is easier to review the quality and impact of a particular project through a list of segregated factors, which will be helpful for the implementation of Phase 2.3.3 PHASE TWO DESIGN road map formulationThe segregat ed list of design consideration from Phase 1 will be further analyzed. Each factors, its correlation, priorities and impact is review and ranked. Next, the first five best design consideration which is implemented will be selected.From the selected design consideration, their principles are outlined in another table for analysis and incorporated in the guideline formulation..3.4 LIMITATIONs3.3 PROCEDURESThe research will be divided into 5 stages as show in the figure belowStage 5Final outputFigure 3.1 Study Approach Flow Chart4.0 RESULT AND ANALYSIS4.1 Introduction4.2 Design and planning of WaterfrontThe existing frameworks and designs, which developed by government agencies, researches and buck private consulting firms, need to be examined and used as the base guidelines for proposed waterfront development and its design.This study applied the design concept definition by Lyle (1999). He stated that design activity is equals to the participation in the process of nature seminally , which means giving form to physical phenomena in every scale. The study also accepted his ruling on the difference of planning and design. Based on his judgment, planning involves administrative activities in spite of physical form shaping while design is the creative physical activity in all scale this design definition is similar to those explained by Steinitz and McHarg.Even though this thesis is aimed to discuss the design of riverfronts, it is also deals with certain part of the framework planning stage. This is due to the close relation of design issues discussed in the planning stage. Even Lyle (1999) himself acknowledged that the design and planning are closely linked and sometimes indistinguishable.Boston, Baltimore and Toronto were among the pioneers and being the model for the waterfront issues (Penteado 2004). Since 1970s, several publications illustrated the analysis of these cities waterfront (e.g. Breen and Rigby 1996 and Brutomesso 1993). In Toronto, for example, different frameworks, design and planning for its metropolitan waters edge were introduced (e.g. Reid 1997). rudimentary Waterfront Planning Committee (1976) in Toronto listed the physical properties that affecting the waterfront quality. They stated that it depends on the use, history, landscape, immediacy, views, activity, contrast, drama, intimacy, sound and wildlife. The Committee primarily focused on design, explores, and suggests the quality of the water edge form, visual quality, building materials and construction details, and a variety of uses.Waterfront design by Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs (1987) on the other hand addressed the following issues for designing waterfront shoreline protection, public access area, beaches, recreational boating, landscape for improving the waterfront and urban design.Royal Commission on the Future of Toronto Waterfront RCTFW (1992) proposed a framework of design principles for its waterfront which incorporated nine significant princ iplesClean Incentive of natural processes instead of engineering solutionsGreen Infrastructure composed of natural features and topography such as habitats, aquifers and parksConnection comparison between wildlife habitats, social communities, humans and nature.Open Maintenance and restoration of vistasAccessible Incorporation of public transitUseable Mix of public and private uses and public accessDiverse Variety of uses and programsAffordable Efficient use of government resources and integration of socio economic and environmental objectives (RCTFW 1992)Attractive Excellence in design to defecate memorable placesOut of all frameworks reviewed, these principles above were the most comprehensive context in the establishment of a waterfront. They dealt with both natural systems and integration of human needs.In contrast, Reed (1997) focused on the minimization of the impact to natural habitats when designing a trail along the Ontario Lake and thus came out with design guidelines. H e proposed that each design shouldAvoid most sensitive zoneBalance the effect of alternativesUse previous disturbed areasMaintain natural processesLimit access interconnected habitat enhancements.Unfortunately, he failed to mention the wildlife in urban areas along the coast.Alternatively, the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department (1994) developed a framework based on these principlesavailablenessSharing the benefitsBalanceDiversityResponsible stewardshipMany of the guidelines reviewed incorporate different principles. Another case in point is Landplan Co Ltd (1995) who proposed a framework design called generic guidelines for managing visual change in the landscape for the Toronto Waterfront. The ecumenical guidelines required these principles to be addressedResidentialIndustrialCommercialRecreationalRuralHistoric areaCommunity characterVegetationSignageLightingHierarchy of open spacesSeveral authors combined their expertise and formulated a framework for the waterfront develop ment in the United States. One of them was from Harvard University Design (1980). They proposed a Guideline for East Boston, which was dealing withOpen spacePublic accessOrientationViewsNeighborhood scale practiseParkingThere was a successful case where a comprehensive guideline was developed. Torre (1989) presented a framework of waterfront project design based on these principles registerClimateSpecial elementsImageAuthenticityFunctionPublic perception of needFinancial feasibilityEnvironmental approvalsConstruction technologyEffective managementGoodwin and Good in 1990 formulated a framework to rebuild the waterfront in a small town. The framework displayed a list of six fundamentals in the planning process. They called them the tool and technique which areWaterfront uses and activitiesLand use control and incentivesLand acquisitionFinancing of riverfront revitalizationChoosing and using consultantsObtaining waterfront development permitsCoolman (Breen and Rigby 1990), stated that these general issues must be addressed during the development of design guidelinesSimplicity and clarityCompatibility with zoningPublication and communicationTable 4.1 summarizes the information of frameworks and design presented above and others world recognized waterfront project.Table 4.1 Interpretation of concern presents in planning and design frameworks. Tick cells indicate the issues addressed by each framework.NoProject, City/ literary productionsHuman useOpen SpaceCharacterEcologyAccessibilityL