Urban Waterfront Revitalization Through Landscape Approach Environmental Sciences Essay

urban Waterfront Revitalization Through decorate approaching Environmental Sciences Essayurban weeweefronts restrain heavily degraded and received bad perception from urban dwellers. There ar needs of effective urban pissfront revival meeting programs to r distributively(prenominal) a sustainable victimisation of those waterfronts. This research studies is to reachulize a beautify climb up principles into revitalization program of urban waterfront. This area in translates archival analysis to establish type of urban waterfront revitalization programs around the world and to intelligence the fiber of urban waterfront. Finally, it uses literary productions survey to identify visualise settings of grace overture. judge results of the study would allow in the types of waterfront revitalization programs, role of urban waterfront and fig consideration for waterfront adorn. They atomic number 18 expected to lead towards formalizing the urban waterfront revitaliza tion principles based on grace blast. After the introduction of the spineground problem, the proposal allow face the literature on waterfront revitalization, urban waterfront and waterfront revitalization program, and describe the research systemological analysis before graveling the expected results. This study contributes in becomeing principles for waterfront revitalization program. also adding value to existing urban assets, the proposed principles for waterfront revitalization program support the sustainable maturement agenda of the world.Keywords Landscape cuddle, urban waterfront, waterfront revitalization program.1.1 BACKGROUNDurban rivers provide whatever functions to the cities such(prenominal) as water supply, cargo shipss, biological protections and promoting for the development of the cities with its cordial, scotchal and environmental values. However, with the non planned well urbanization, the rivers amaze been maladjusted which resulting in degrada tion of urban ecosystem.River proceeds has increasely drawn attention, and match activities obtain been carried issue extensively (Holmes, 1998). urban rivers that once were the most richness element of metropolis were neglected. They were channelized and turn into big drain. The properties on its corridor turn their back to the river and the cities tried to treat river as unwanted thing.N startheless, river corridors remain as constant born(p) feature article within suburbanized ornaments, which make it more heavy option for home grounds coming back and nature preservation. The encroachments of development into this argona turn out fragmented, otiose and divided the vegetation on this corridor into small patches. These lead to substantial dismission of habitat and biodiversity in particular in urban aras.Due to the native recourses final stage in urban area, importance of rivers has become realize by city dwellers. It becomes important places for recreation and leisure period. This why in recent years, the riverfront instauration and plan initiatives have increased. There are two major issues for this development, conservation and human organism use. Most of getes for river developments have difficulties to deal with some(prenominal) of them, which they tend to choose every one. These lead to the failure of the jut out. This thesis aims to bring these issues together to inform the recital of embellish architecture.1.2 APPROACHThis research study use a set of literature addressed waterfront development around the world. The literatures have covered many perspectives such as ecological, historical, ethnic and built excogitation. Even though the literature look into provides a broad overview of waterfront development, the designs and mean of these waterfront developments have been superficial especially in ecology perspectives. Furthermore, for river corridor development, most literatures are focusing to non-urban landscapes, leaving the river corridors in urban landscape percipient for exploration.1.3 Problem statement1.4 Research examination1.4.1 Main Research Question1.4.2 sub Research Question1.5 intent AND OBJECTIVES1.5.1 GOALSRevitalize the urban river through comprehensive landscape design solutions.1.5.2 OBJECTIVESTo run across 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 draw near to understand their distinctive, 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 one(a) introduces and contextualizes the research problems. The literature reviews are presented in Chapter Two. It examines the development of waterfronts, its design and grooming glide slopees. Chapter Three is describing the research method. It analyze the landscape arise literature to define the concepts and highlight the principles that allow for guide the development of landscape design principles for urban riverfront on Chapter Four. Chapter Five summarizes the findings of this study talk of the diligence 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 designing the waterfront. Hence, it is expected they will help designers establishing 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 crucial of study1.8 TERMINOLOGIES1.8.1 URBAN waterwayWalsh, Christopher J. et al. (2005) indicated that an urban watercourse is a erstwhile inborn waterway that flows through a heavily dwell area. Urban watercourses a lot significantly polluted payable to urban runoff and ha ve with sewer outflows.1.8.2 RIVER CORRIDORFrom Malaysian Drainage and Irrigation Department (DID) guidelines of river development (2004), river corridor is the area outside the river reserved and in 50 meters from the river-reserved boundary.1.8.3 SUSTAINABLE watercourseThe sustainable watercourse covers an important element in docket21 or so sustainable development. This is because the watercourse have capacity to contribute in increasing biodiversity and profit from development, improving and raise conditions of the areas and people who live surround it. Sustainable development elements are sparing 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 rehabilitation studies was Canada in premature 1970s. In his studies, he found out that focus of waterfront rehabilitati on 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 europium 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 lack an aesthetical aspect and finally that ever the demands of conserving fragile nature need not exclude people from the scene.In former(a) part of the world, the development of waterfront is relatively recent phenomenal. Lately, many countries start to open their eyes on authority of their river. South of Korea has demonstrating almost wonderful projects of river rehabilitation developm ent such as Chengyecheon River and Han River rehabilitation project. Franco (2000) states 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 meter of designs. The categories are historical, residential, recreational, pagan, environmental and working waterfront. Usually, the development of waterfronts would include one or more categories in modulate 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 maximal use of the space.Table 2.1 shows some of the waterfront projects that have a major characteristic but have several other features abound. This categorization does seem have significant role in effecting the materials and design either. In order to use the categorizations, the heuristic devise should be taken to emphasis the major characters of each project.Table 2.1 Waterfronts, their major character and usesNo.Waterfront / CityMajor voiceUsesSource1Baltimore WaterfrontMixed usedUrban renewal cultural complex, office, residentialBreen and Rugby (1994)2Boston Waterfront diachronicPublic promenades, hotel, residentialwww.thebostonwaterfront.net3Charleston Waterfront ParkPublic officePark, 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, capital of the United Kingdom Millennium VillageMixed useP romenades, institutions, residential, commercialBurdett (1998)8Thames River, London Millennium 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, merrimentSandercock 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)18Coal Harbour, VancouverResidentialOpen space, office, marinaQuayle (1991)19Danube River, ViennaPublic spaceDam, e cological restoration, leisureHansjakob hansjakob (1998)20Chengyecheon River, SeoulPublic 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 combat water runoff and combined sewer system.Initially, such watercourses were managed as a resource for human benefit including water supply, flood mitigation, disposal of wastewater and minimisation 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 ab initio ignored (Paul and Meyer 2001).Important factor 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 earlier settlements were s ettle where there were plenty water and land for food production, and there were no or exalted disaster related to water. Water management became the basis 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 hostility of changes in technology. openingible scientists begin to ac friendship the water may have played a role in determining 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 pressure sewer, culverting and channelizing the natural river have patrimonial the water into drainage network faster. These events increase the flow velocity, reduce the time of the runoff hydrograph, increase the flow rates which finally giving a hydrological problem flooding.In term of flood mitigation, authorities who in stretch in river development have change the course of the river flow, in order to prevent localized flooding. They use engineering 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 cod 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 movement to correct these problems. Their effort is to deal with bank erosion, due to the macroscopic amount of rainwater and using technologies such as daylighting and re-meandering. Example of self-made project of daylighting is Cheonggyecheon river restoration project.Another major problem of urban hydrology is water quality degradation. McPherson (1974) states that oil leakage and spill, mining activities, surface or streets have contaminated the urban river. Other factors in this problem are begrime erosion from construction, industrial process effluents, and combined sewer overflows, urban storm runoff, leakage from septic 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 globe 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 m any river cities are rediscovering their waterfronts and commissioning grooming 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. every development project that will benefit some people is inevi circuit board. Social and environmental impacts of water development, a number of effects obtained are usually extends far beyond the design of the site itself. Ecologists, environmentalist and designers have difficulties to counter 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 readying precedes by five to ten years, something unexpected situation might to develop which some with preferable 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 remedial measures because of lack of solid scientific recite 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 after the distress (Biswas and Durie, 1971). In principle, it is expensive to fix compensation after they occur It is cheaper to take preventive measures.However, overall manakin for the planning, design and management of urban river corridors alleviate 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 toughened this topic. Saltzman (2001) overview the term of landscape as notion of landscape has changed and traind over time and between the various fields of disciplines.Saltzman (2001) indicates that other disciplines has a unlike approach. For example, natural scientists are often focused on the bio forcible 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 central idea. In European Landscape Convention, a landscape defined asan area, as comprehend 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 twain 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 extension 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 woods and landscape planners and managers try to accomm odate commodity and non-commodity values in the akin management unit, conservationists often define functional conservation 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 making in evaluate the family 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 forecasting 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 rightfully 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 being a social-ecological system, the term landscape approach capture the need for applied interdisciplinary approaches. Term landscape approach also emphasizes the ecological effects of spatial patterns of ecosystem and brad spatial scales. It is including the commutation and interaction within the entire landscapes, dynamics of development and spatial hetero geneity, the enamor 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 respectively (Berkes et al., 2003).2.5 summary3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY3.1 IntroductionIn order to wear research on the application of landscape for the urban waterfront more effectively 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 hookup of constructive information needed to the realization of the targeted goals chassis One will be involve mostly on the information gathering determination and review of available information while in phase angle Two, based on the date acquired, a practical guidelines shall be conjecture and analyzed.Detailed reasoning and clarification of the aforementioned methodology proposed are as per the next subchapter.3.2 PHASE ONE DEtermine and reviewVast appealingness 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 design be after frameworksBased on the collected data, principles of the projects are reviewed, segregated and tabulated into a table of gild-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 fac tors, which will be helpful for the implementation of Phase 2.3.3 PHASE TWO visualize Guideline formulationThe segregated 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 infraStage 5Final ProductFigure 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 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 definit ion by Lyle (1999). He give tongue to that design exercise is equals to the participation in the process of nature creatively, which means giving form to physical phenomena in every scale. The study also accepted his judgment 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 declare 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 i llustrated 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).Central 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 to begin with focused on design, explores, and suggests the quality of the water edge form, visual quality, construct 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 burster on the Future of Toronto Wa terfront RCTFW (1992) proposed a framework of design principles for its waterfront which incorporated nine significant principlesClean Incentive of natural processes instead of engineering solutions jet plane Infrastructure composed of natural features and topography such as habitats, aquifers and parks companionship Relation 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 effectual use of government resources and integration of socio economic and environmental objectives (RCTFW 1992)Attractive rightness in design to create 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 minimi zation of the impact to natural habitats when designing a trail along the Ontario Lake and thus came out with design guidelines. He proposed that each design should keep off most sensitive zoneBalance the effect of alternativesUse preceding disturbed areasMaintain natural processesLimit accessIncorporate 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 habitual guidelines required these principles to be addressedResidentialIndustrialCommercial amateurishRuralHistoric areaCommunity characterVegetationSign age spunkHierarchy of open spacesSeveral authors combined their expertise and formulated a framework for the waterfront development 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 scaleActivityParkingThere was a successful case where a comprehensive guideline was developed. Torre (1989) presented a framework of waterfront project design based on these principlesHistoryClimate exceptional elementsImageAuthenticityFunctionPublic perception of needfiscal feasibilityEnvironmental approvalsConstruction technologyEffective management niftywin 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 checker and incentivesLand acquisitionFinancing of riverfron t revitalizationChoosing and using consultantsObtaining waterfront development permitsCoolman (Breen and Rigby 1990), stated that these general issues must be addressed during the development of design guidelines chasteness 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/LiteratureHuman useOpen SpaceCharacterEcologyAccessibilityL