Retrofitting "Trashed" Land into Benefical Community Space

Oasis appears
Decay now gives way to growth
Nature rejoices
-Louis J. Lombardo[1]

On a hot day last month, my husband and I happened upon a hidden oasis in Daegu, Korea: the Daegu Arboretum. We strolled through the park, which featured 230,000 square meters of gardens and greenhouses, including a cactus greenhouse, a bog garden, an herb garden and a picnic area. It was bustling with children and adults alike, all enjoying the space and their ability to connect more closely with nature.

Map of Daegu Arboretum. Photo by Jace Lee.

The arboretum, while a splendid refuge for city residents, also holds a deeper significance: the park is built on a large landfill that was in operation from 1986-1990. It was converted into civic space by city government. This project, which opened in 2002, is part of a growing trend in cities across the world.


You don’t have to go far from Daegu to see other successful landfill retrofits. Once known for its flowers and as a site to grow vegetables, the small island of Najido in the Han River near Seoul became a landfill site in the 1970s. As the repository for the trash coming from a growing city, the site quickly expanded into a mountain of trash said to be 34 times the size of the Pyramids of Giza. After the landfill was closed in 1993, the City of Seoul installed 100 methane gas extraction wells to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help power the city. The 2002 World Cup brought renewed interest in redesigning Najido into an eco-friendly island. 2.8 million Square meters of former landfill were transformed into five differently themed parks. Today, the successful World Cup Park sees 9.8 million visitors a year. 

Asian Green City Index Highlights Opportunities for Improvement

Seoul, by Hyunwoo Sun

Earlier this year, a major report was published by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) that dug into current trends among major cities in Asia.  In the Asian Green City Index, the EIU looked at 22 Asian cities (capitals and other leading business centers) and compared them against each other in key areas of environmental performance. Each city received both an overall ranking and a breakdown of what contributed to their scores in each key area. The following data from one city, Seoul, demonstrates what the study highlights.

The report, sponsored by Siemens, concluded that Seoul ranked “above average” (receiving a score of 4 out of 5), and shares this distinction with Hong Kong, Osaka, Taipei, Tokyo and Yokohama. The city of Singapore was the only city to achieve the score of “well above average.”

Seoul, the third most densely populated city in the study, ranked well in areas of energy and carbon dioxide, transportation, water, land use and buildings, sanitation and environmental governance. Seoul was lauded for having one of the best transportation networks of buses and subways, and for having minimal water leakage problems coupled with one of the highest rates of access to sanitation and wastewater treatment. The City is also at the top of the class (compared to cities with similar income levels) for low carbon dioxide emissions and high energy efficiency.

Seoul Traffic, by JimTheGiantEagle

However, the study revealed that “[Seoul] produces the most waste among all 22 cities in the Index, at an estimated 996 kg per person per year, well above the Index average of 375 kg.” Seoul also only scored “average” on its air quality because of the amount of nitrogen dioxide emissions. “It has the second highest concentration of this pollutant in the Index, at 71 micrograms per cubic metre, compared to the average of 47 micrograms. This is due to Seoul’s over-reliance on cars — automobiles are a main source of nitrogen dioxide — and they are responsible for almost three quarters of Seoul’s air pollution.” Seoul also boasts less green space than the study’s average.

The report highlighted figures from the United Nations and the Asian Development Bank revealing that Asian cities are becoming more concentrated as people migrate to urban centers (over the last five years over 100,000 residents moved to Asian cities every day). Overall, the study sought to determine the environmental strength of these leading cities and offer areas for improvement.

City Spotlight: Daegu, South Korea a renewable energy innovator

A version of this article was also published in the City of Daegu's English language newspaper In Daegu.


As the demand, cost and availability of energy continues to rise, cities that invest in clean, green sources of energy are building a sustainable future for themselves and their inhabitants. Last year, South Korea announced its intention to spend 40 trillion Won to support the development of clean and renewable sources of energy between now and 2015. The Korean government wants to become one of the world’s top five clean energy economies. Such a commitment to clean energy greatly benefits many cities in Korea. Here we showcase the City of Daegu in Southeastern Korea. As the third largest city in the country with a population of 2.5 million, Daegu has already made significant strides of its own in the field of renewable and green energy technology.

Daegu promotional poster highlights its
recognition as an ISCI "solar city."

Daegu didn’t just jump on the renewable energy “bandwagon” as soon as it became popular. Rather, the city has had a systematic approach to solar and other sustainable energy sources since the creation, in 2000, of a forward-looking 50-year project plan called “Visions for a Sustainable City.” Spearheaded by three Professors from Kyungpook National University, this plan aims to:

1) reduce the carbon footprint of Daegu’s residents
2) develop a renewable energy-based urban community
3) pursue culturally and ecologically sound economic development

Daegu joined the International Solar Cities Initiative in 2003 and, in 2004, hosted the first International Solar Cities Congress.

In April 2011, “Solar City Daegu” held its 4^th annual Green Energy Expo at the EXCO center with international participation almost 400 companies and 40,000 attendees. The Expo showcased a number of initiatives currently underway in Daegu (including the EXCO center itself, whose renovations will produce over 1.1 million kilowatts of electricity from renewable energy sources).

Daesung Energy's model of the
solar power tower.

Let’s showcase a few initiatives. In the works since 2008, Korea’s first solar power tower project by Daesung Energy will deliver 200 kilowatts of energy via a solar heat concentrating system to the city’s grid this fall. This solar power system will be the largest solar energy plant in Korea.

Additionally, Daegu is home to a landfill gas-to-energy facility that, since 2006, has provided the city with 1.5 megawatts of energy per hour. Designated as a UN Kyoto Protocol “Clean Development Mechanism,” this project prevents over 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere.

Fiberboard slate is manufactured
from discarded fibers pictured here.



Other exciting innovations were showcased at the Expo that should be implemented in Daegu and in other cities around the world. These include street lights that generate their own power via a small solar panel or wind turbine perched at the top of the pole and car ports fitted with solar power roofs.



Also be on the lookout for an innovative new “fiber board slate,” made by Hyundai Industrial Trident. While not a source of energy, this innovative process is reusing discarded fibers (trash) from the garment and textile industries in and near Daegu to create non-toxic corrugated roofing material.

Looking ahead, Daegu will be the host city of the 2013 World Energy Congress in October. Until then, the city will continue to implement new and exciting forms of clean, green energy and promote innovative ways to reuse what is otherwise considered trash.

New York by Gehry: deconstructing the tallest residential structure in the West

In February 2011, the New York by Gehry building finally opened its doors to occupants. This 76-story, 870-foot tall skyscraper in Manhattan is now the tallest residential building in the Western hemisphere. With 903 apartments, this new structure’s total occupancy is greater than some depopulated rustbelt towns.[1] A structure of such significant scale should be examined for the physical, social, economic and environmental impacts that it—and the governmental regulations that helped finance it—will have on its community.  While it will surely become an iconic addition to the skyline, New York by Gehry exhibits only the barest elements of environmental conservation and economic equality, and has therefore missed a great opportunity to become known for arguably more important contributions to New York City. This is an unfortunate consequence of both the developer’s priorities and the lack of appropriate governmental regulation.

Physical Merits: A Unique Addition to the Skyline

The New York by Gehry building (formerly called Beekman Tower and then 8 Spruce Street) is located in Manhattan’s Financial District. Designed by renowned architect Frank Gehry for developer Bruce Ratner, the structure features a façade of billowing, undulating stainless steel. Initial reviews of the building’s design have been largely favorable. Nicolai Ouroussoff, architectural critic for The New York Times calls it “the finest skyscraper to rise in New York since Eero Saarinen’s CBS building went up 46 years ago.”[2] The New Yorker’s Paul Goldberger has called it “the first big apartment house worth talking about in more than a generation.”[3]

In addition to praise, a few criticisms have also been leveled against the structural design. One is that the undulating folds, which catch the sun at different angles throughout the day, were only chosen for three sides of the building. The structure’s south side is flat, and looks to some as though the building “presents its backside” to Wall Street.[4] Others criticize the unique exterior design for not translating into the interior of the apartments.[5] Notwithstanding these minor criticisms, most agree that the building adds additional vitality and dramatic flair to lower Manhattan’s skyline.

Environmental Impact: Minimal Attention to Sustainability

Despite its forward-thinking architectural design, however, the building contains few innovative sustainable design features. Although it has implemented some environmentally sound practices such as energy-efficient windows, Energy Star appliances and a greywater filtration system, New York by Gehry is not LEED certified.[6] In fact, Frank Gehry made quite a stir last year when he stated that “a lot of LEED is given for bogus stuff” and that the costs of green building are “enormous” and “they don’t pay back in your lifetime.”[7] Gehry later clarified his views, explaining that he is, in fact, in favor of environmentally-sustainable building choices even if they are not included in LEED’s process.[8] Gehry contended, however, that the path to sustainable buildings and neighborhoods is ultimately a political one, citing his recent work in Switzerland:

They don’t use the LEED program over there, the government just says this is what you can and can’t do, and things have to be built in a sustainable way. So really it’s a political thing: People taking responsibility on an individual level combined with government programs that give mandates that say “this is how we’re going to require people to build.”[9]

If the designers of New York by Gehry had been inclined to reduce the building’s environmental impact, they could easily have taken a cue from recent residential additions in neighboring Battery Park City. Best practices in environmentally-friendly, low carbon residential high-rises are evident in buildings such as The Solaire (LEED Gold), The Visionaire (LEED Platinum) and Tribeca Green (LEED Gold).[10] The Solaire, for example, lowers energy demand by utilizing about 450 solar panels, built into the building’s façade.

These “green” buildings exist in part because the Battery Park City Authority (BPCA), charged in 1968 with redeveloping the dilapidated former Port of New York area into a mixed-use neighborhood with public space, adopted a policy in 2000 that requires developers to build environmentally sustainable apartments. Under the BPCA policy, structures in the area must address indoor air quality, water conservation and purification, energy efficiency, recycling of construction waste, the use of recycled building materials and building commissioning to enhance building performance.[11] BPCA even created a user-friendly best practices document that details the ways in which sustainable measures have been successfully integrated into neighborhood residential buildings.[12]

Economic Impacts: Public Dollars Financed Just Another Luxury High-Rise

All 903 dwellings in New York by Gehry are luxury apartments being rented at current market rates: studios start at $2,630-per-month, one-bedrooms are $3,580 and two-bedrooms $5,945.[13] Units are not for sale.

Despite being marketed only to the affluent, a substantial portion of the financing for the project came from public bonds and government tax breaks. The building was built, in part, with $203.9 million in tax-free financing from the New York Liberty Bond Program, a pool of funding administered jointly by the New York State Housing Finance Agency (HFA) and the New York City Housing and Urban Development Council (HDC) that was made available after September 11, 2001 to help rebuild lower Manhattan.[14]

Under the Liberty Bond Program, developers need only pay a three percent affordable housing fee (approximately $6 million in the case of New York by Gehry) rather than setting aside affordable units within the building itself.[15] This is a departure from the HFA’s traditional program which requires 20% of units within buildings financed with tax exempt bonds to be set aside for affordable housing.[16] 

Although the goal of rebuilding lower Manhattan is a noble one, if one were really concerned with maximizing affordable housing, the 3% fee option achieves significantly less desirable results than the traditional 20% affordable housing rule imposed by the HFA. According to HDC, it “constructed 467 affordable housing units using approximately $31.4 million in fees derived from previous Liberty Bond transactions.”[17] This equates to a cost of $67,237 per unit of affordable housing. Using these figures, the $6 million fee paid by Ratner for New York by Gehry bankrolls 89 affordable housing units outside of the building. By contrast, twenty percent of 903 units would have made 180 affordable housing units available within the building.

Additionally, although no affordable housing units were included within the building, all apartments in New York by Gehry will ironically be rent stabilized for the next 20 years.[18] Because the building was financed in part by government dollars, it was also eligible for a 421-a 20-year tax exemption (which Ratner applied for just before amended requirements came into effect in June 2008 that included compulsory on-site affordable housing requirements).[19] A requirement of properties included within the 421-a tax exemption is that the building’s units are reviewed by the Rent Guidelines Board, and generally subject only to periodic rent increases of 2-3 percent. Thus, while tenants of New York by Gehry are clearly willing and able to pay top dollar for their luxury apartments, they will enjoy modest incremental rent increases—a policy intended to keep middle and working class citizens from being priced out of their neighborhoods. Rent stabilization applied in this way seems a far cry from what the program was initially intended to accomplish. 

Spatial and Social Considerations: A Town-in-a-Building

New York by Gehry isn’t entirely residential: its lowest six floors house public facilities, including a five floor K-8 public school financed with public dollars, and one floor for the New York Downtown Hospital. [20] This type of mixed-use allocation is generally positive, as it allows for community interaction and connection. However, the New York by Gehry design seems to have deliberately minimized the opportunities for such social connections: the entrance to Public School 397 “is on the east side of the building, separated from the residents’ entrance on the west, so the streams of children arriving and lawyers and bankers leaving for work do not have to cross.”[21] Perhaps this lack of contact is the reason why the school recently had trouble with residents from the above floors carelessly dropping bottles onto the school’s playground.[22]

In addition to being segregated from the public access facilities on floors below, the building is also effectively cut off from the street.  The building was designed to exude an air of exclusivity that extends to the ground level where “residents will enter through a covered drive that cuts through the block along the building’s western side” and that is designed to “accommodate taxis and limousines ferrying people in and out of the building, making it feel more like a luxury hotel than a classic Manhattan apartment building.”[23]

This social isolation is further reinforced by the fact that the plethora of luxury amenities within the building mean that residents will seldom have to venture outside their building—or tax bracket—for socialization and recreation. Although residents likely enjoy the building’s 50-foot swimming pool, fitness center and spa, grilling terrace, game room, drawing room with grand piano, chef’s kitchen, library, “tweens den,” children’s playroom, screening room, and “comprehensive concierge and lifestyle services”—the unfortunate result may be that the need for interaction with a diverse greater community will be minimized.[24] Jane Jacobs, longtime critic of New York urban planning, would decry the lack of social interaction on street level and among those of differing backgrounds.[25]

Final Marks

In sum, New York by Gehry achieves success in some areas but misses meaningful opportunities in others. Its architectural contribution to the New York City skyline is undoubtedly significant. And it helped to bring renewed interest to previously devastated lower Manhattan. On the other hand, it reinforces the need for stricter governmental regulations regarding environmentally sustainable and economically equitable building practices. New York by Gehry’s developers took advantage of a public bond program that stipulated weak affordable housing requirements in the name of rebuilding of lower Manhattan, and rushed to finalize plans before more stringent affordable housing rules for 421-a tax abatements were implemented. They eschewed LEED and other environmental design best practices evident in nearby Battery Park. And they ultimately designed yet another socially-isolated luxury apartment. In short, rather than innovate, those involved with New York by Gehry did what many other private developers regrettably do: create the most profitable, rather than most socially beneficial structure.

We must do better. Perhaps Frank Gehry had it right: the most effective way to achieve sustainability is to mandate it. Stronger sustainable building and design standards can contribute meaningfully to the re-development of urban neighborhoods—especially in areas targeted to receive governmental assistance. If sustainable building design remains voluntary or subject to weak government regulations, opportunities for truly innovative approaches to the built environment will be missed, as they were in the case of New York by Gehry.

---

⃰ This essay is a modified version of an article I originally published on April 11, 2011 on renewcities.org.

[1] See Braddock, Pennsylvania, population 2,159 in the 2010 census; see also Klaw, Waverly de Bruijn. (March 6, 2011). Levi’s Jeans and Braddock, PA: another marketing tool puts the abandoned city into view. Retrieved February 2, 2013 from the Renew Cities website: http://www.renewcities.org/2011/03/levis-jeans-and-braddock-pa-another.html

[2] Ouroussoff, Nicolai. (February 9, 2011). Downtown Skyscraper for the Digital Age. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from The New York Times website: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/arts/design/10beekman.html

[3] Goldberger, Paul. (March 7, 2011). Gracious Living: Frank Gehry’s swirling apartment tower. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from The New Yorker website: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/skyline/2011/03/07/110307crsk_skyline_goldberger

[4] See Ouroussoff, supra, n.2.

[5] Gardner, James. (December 1, 2010). Gehry undone: Spruce Street building billows to nowhere. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from The Real Deal website: http://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/james-gardner-gehry-undone/

[6] Kamin, Blair. (February 8, 2011). Gehry's 8 Spruce Street not pursuing LEED certification; Gang's Aqua is. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from The Chicago Tribune website: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2011/02/im-looking-forward-to-reviewing-frank-gehrys-new-8spruce-street-tower-in-new-york-which-is-drawing-raves-from-new-york-criti.html

[7] Kamin, Blair. (April 10, 2012). Frank Gehry holds forth on Millennium Park, the Modern Wing and why he's not into green architecture. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from The Chicago Tribune website: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2010/04/looking-down-on-the-stunning-view-of-the-frank-gehry-designed-pritzker-pavilion-from-the-art-institute-of-chicagos-renzo-pian.html

[8] Leonard, Abby. (June 14, 2010). Architect Frank Gehry talks LEED and the future of green building. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the PBS  website: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/culture/architect-frank-gehry-talks-leed-and-the-future-of-green-building/1458/

[9] Ibid.

[10] The Solaire: 20 River Terrace, New York, NY 10282; The Visionaire: 70 Little West Street, Battery Park, NY 10004; Tribeca Green: 325 North End Avenue, New York, NY 10282.

[11] Proenza, Crystal. (September, 2007). Battery Park City: An Urban Experiment. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from The Cooperator: Co-op and Condo Monthly website: http://cooperator.com/articles/1500/1/Battery-Park-City/Page1.html

[12] Battery Park City Authority. (May, 2005). Hugh L. Carey Battery Park City Authority Residential Environmental Guidelines.  Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the BPCA website: http://www.batteryparkcity.org/pdf_n/BPCA_GreenGuidelines.pdf

[13] Chaban, Matt. (February 14, 2011). You Can Finally Rent a Piece of New York… by Gehry, That Is. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from The New York Observer website: http://observer.com/2011/02/you-can-finally-rent-a-piece-of-new-york-by-gehry-that-is/

[14] New York City Housing and Urban Development Corporation. (February 27, 2008). HDC Board Approves Financing for Two Major Projects. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the HDC website: http://www.nychdc.com/pages/pr_02%252d27%252d20081.html

[15] New York City Housing and Urban Development Corporation. (June 7, 2010). HDC Board of Directors Approves $45 Million in Tax-Exempt Bonds For the Financing of Beekman Tower.  Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the HDC website: http://www.nychdc.com/pages/pr_6%252d7%252d20103.html; see also FC Beekman Associates, LLC. (November 22, 2010). Letter Re: Petition to submeter electricity at a building located at 8 Spruce Street, New York, NY 10038. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the New York State Public Service Commission website: http://bit.ly/WREz2V

[16] Good Jobs New York. Liberty Bond Housing Coalition Statement. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the Good Jobs New York website: http://goodjobsny.org/economic-development/liberty-bond-housing-coalition-statement

[17] New York City Housing and Urban Development Corporation. (April 1, 2008). HDC Closes on a 904-Unit Frank Gehry Designed Tower in Lower Manhattan. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the Real Estate Rama: Government and Public Relations News website: http://newyork.realestaterama.com/2008/04/01/hdc-closes-on-a-904-unit-frank-gehry-designed-tower-in-lower-manhattan-ID0259.html

[18] Shapiro, Julie. (February 22, 2011). Frank Gehry's Skyscraper Has Rent-Stabilized Apartments. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the DNA Info website: http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20110222/downtown/frank-gehrys-skyscraper-has-rentstabilized-apartments

[19] Shapiro, Julie. (June 27-July 3, 2008). C.B. 1 approves Ratner’s tax break just by saying no. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the Downtown Express website: http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_269/cb1approvesratners.html; See also Wambua, Matthew. (May 21, 2012). 421-a Legislation Overview and FAQ. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the NYC Department of Housing Preservation & Development website: http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/downloads/pdf/421a-FAQ.pdf

[20] Ibid.

[21] Taylor, Kate. (November 28, 2011). Living in a 76-Story Work of Art, and a Symbol of Rebirth. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from The New York Times website: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/nyregion/living-inside-new-york-by-gehry.html

[22] Ibid.

[23] See Ouroussoff, supra, n.2.

[24] See New York by Gehry official website, supra, n.6.

[25] Drier, Peter. (Summer 2006). Jane Jacobs’ Radical Legacy. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the National Housing Institute’s Shelterforce Magazine website: http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/146/janejacobslegacy.html

_________________________________________________________________

Photos by flickr contributors Structures:NYC, emmett.hume, Alex Terzich, Atomische • Tom Giebel, jikatu and onesevenone.

Levi’s Jeans and Braddock, PA: another marketing tool puts the abandoned city into view

Levi’s, the deeply red, white & blue jeans company, is reinventing what the modern-day American pioneer looks like. In their recent ad series, their “go forth to work” mantra now applies to making crumbling, dilapidated US cities such as Braddock, Pennsylvania live and breathe again.

Similar to the “we put our boots on and went exploring” ads of Palladium Boots that I wrote about in Urban Renewal and Designer Shoes, Levi’s is bringing attention to the town of Braddock. Not that the town’s mayor, John Fetterman, hasn’t been doing his fare share of re-popularizing the once-prosperous city.