a f ramework to suppor t commun i ty res i l ienceG owa n u s Pa t h wa y s .

SES 660A | Capstone Adrienne Downey | Fall 2017

Cover Image: Adapted from [36] Hasnoot et al. “Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world”. Global Environmental Change. Volume 23, Issue 2, April 2013, Pages 485-498

FLEXIBLERESILIENT

RISK MANAGEMENT

ADAPTIVE TRANSPARENT

DEEP UNCERTAINTY

TRANSFORMATIVESTEWARD

Fifth Avenue Committee (FAC) is a major voice in the Gowanus Community of Brooklyn, New York City. A primary steward of the neighborhood’s affordable housing assets and inclusivity visions, a respected and willing partner with the business community, and a strong voice for community sustainability and resilience.

But even with the best visions and coalitions, circumstances are stressing even the most stalwart tools.

Heading into a major neighborhood rezoning this fall, concurrent with more than $1.3 billion committed for environmental cleanup up the toxic Gowanus canal. Deep speculative pressures from developers and a prevailing municipal attitude that favors public private partnership, are exacerbating residential and industrial displacement concerns. Transforming the hardscape also raises concerns over environmental gentrification even as much-needed remediation, growth, and affordable housing assets are added. Add to the foregoing, the pernicious reality of climate change, and the stakes for transformative change are higher than ever. Deep uncertainty for the Community’s future is battling against deep anxiety for sustainable outcomes.

In pursuit of the Community’s self-determined visions (Bridging Gowanus, 2014, Survive and Thrive, 2017, and Urban Heat Island Technical Assistance Panel, 2017) this Capstone will present a plan to help FAC negotiate a resilient future for Gowanus using an emerging policy technique: Adaptation Pathways. It will further examine links to potential determinants such as tax-increment financing mechanisms (TIF, Bridging Gowanus) or complementary spinoffs such as the EcoDistricts® frameworks (UHI TAP).

Steeped in risk-management principles and in explicit acknowledgment of limited predictability in circumstances of deep uncertainty, Flexible Adaptation Pathways (also commonly, Dynamic Adaptation Pathways) models are comprehensive in framework and tactical in application. Designed to be flexible, objective, transparent, and responsive to evolving circumstances, a Gowanus Pathways Framework, used to administer community funds, driven by Fifth Avenue Committee and its community partners presents an important resource in the community toolbox in stewarding successful outcomes from transformative change in the years to come.

Systems theory and risk management disciplines calls this scale of transformative change: conditions of deep uncertainty. Layers of interconnections, compounding circumstances, and paradoxical results thwart the predictability of standard models and confounds the usual tools of policy and intervention – especially siloed agency approaches and investment decisions front-loaded in time.

Working under the assumption that Fifth Avenue Committee, together with its Community partners will successfully negotiate a suitable agreement to leverage public funding through rezoning and subsequent development of the Gowanus neighborhood, Adaptation Pathways are recommended as the ideal tool for Fifth Avenue Committee to reconcile conditions of systems complexity and deep uncertainty with a resilient and adaptive approach.

Summary

ContentsAcknowledgments 3

Client Profile 5

1. Transformative Change 7

2. Foundations & Practice 17 Case Study #1: NYC Green Infrastructure Plan (New York City) 23 Case Study #2: Thames Estuary, TE2100 Plan (London, United Kingdom) 28 Case Study #3: Rhine Delta (Netherlands) 30 Case Study #4: Dutch Kills Green (Queens, New York City) 34 Case Study #5: 11th Street Bridge Park (Washington, D.C.) 36 Case Study #6: Onondaga Lake Watershed Partnership (Syracuse, New York) 38 Case Study #7: Hudson Yards (Manhattan, New York City) 41

3. Gowanus Visions 45

4. Gowanus Pathways 49

5. Determinants and Spin-offs 57

6. Conclusions 61

page intentionally left blank.

Common Abbreviations

CB6 - Brooklyn Community Board 6CPC - New York City Planning CommissionCWA - Clean Water ActDCP - NYC Department of City PlanningDEP - NYC Department of Environmental ProtectionDOE - NYC Department of EducationEPA - U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyEDP - Equitable Development PlanFAC - Fifth Avenue CommitteeFAR - Floor Area RatioGI - Green InfrastructureGCC- Gowanus Canal ConservancyGHG - Greenhouse GasesGNCJ - Gowanus Neighborhood Coalition for JusticeHYIC - Hudson Yards Infrastructure CorporationLTCP - Long Term Control PlanMOS - NYC Mayor’s Office of SustainabilityMORR - NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and ResiliencyNEIWCPP - New England Interstate Water Pollution Control CommissionNYC - New York CityNYCHA - New York City Housing AuthorityNPCC - New York City Panel on Climate ChangeOLWP - Onondaga Lake Watershed PartnershipPILOT - Payment in Lieu of TaxesRCP - Representative Concentration PathwaysSLR - Sea Level RiseTAP - Technical Assistance PanelTIF - Tax Increment FinancingTDR - Transfer of Development RightsUHI - Urban Heat IslandULI - Urban Land Institute

3 2

AcknowledgmentsIn preparation of this Capstone, I would like to extend sincere thanks to the following individuals for their invaluable time and insights:

Elena Conte and Sydney Cespedes of the Pratt Center for Community Development; and Christine Petro of the Gowanus Canal Conservancy.

Michelle de la Uz and Sabine Aronowsky of Fifth Avenue Committee. Your dedication and results astound. I am grateful for your support for this Capstone and sincerely hope that it has value in the coming months.

Thanks to Alec Appelbaum and Jaime Stein, for their professional insights and deep commitments to intel-lectual growth, sustainability and social justice.

Thanks similarly to my fellow Capstone classmates for their shared encouragement and ideas along our journey.

Finally, in paraphrasing Jane Jacobs from the Economy of Cities1:

“the most valuable of a writer’s materials is uninterrupted time in which to write, and I am grateful beyond measure to my husband…and my [son]…for their gifts to me of time and their cheerful protection of it against incursions.”

Like most of her observations, their economy and understatement are no cover for their depth of under-standing.

page intentionally left blank.

5 4

Combining Organizing and Development We combine grassroots organizing with community development so people can live with dignity and respect. Through organizing, we bring people together to fight for justice. Through development, we take collective responsibility for the welfare of our community.

Building Community Beyond Geographic Boundaries Our community extends beyond geographic boundaries through the citywide impact of our programs, the state and national alliances we build, and the transnational experiences of the people involved in our work.

Promoting Community Control and AccountabilityWe create opportunities for our community to actively participate in decision-making in our work as well as in their lives. We believe that people should have a say in shaping their physical environment, and that community ownership and leadership provides accountability fundamental to sustaining our efforts over the long term.

Striving for Innovative SolutionsWe acknowledge that today’s conditions may not remain the same tomorrow. We seek innovative, dynamic and entrepreneurial ways to achieve our goals.

Modeling Sustainability We pursue development that equitably meets the needs of pres-ent and future generations. Sustainable design, construction and maintenance practices improve the quality of life for our residents and community. We seek to make hidden health, social, economic and environmental impacts visible through organizing and education, so individuals and collectives can take action.

Including our Entire CommunityWe strive to include members of our community in our work regardless of race, class, age, gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, physical and mental ability, immigration status or criminal history.

Collaborating EffectivelyWe recognize that working for broader change requires working collectively with outside partners. We seek collaborations with organi-zations and stakeholders in our community and beyond that share our values and goals.

FAC Principles in Action2

Client ProfileFounded in 1978, FAC is a non-profit community development corporation in Gowanus, South Brooklyn whose scope of work includes affordable housing, economic development, community organization, education, and advocacy for its community of +5,000 low- and moderate-income New Yorkers across the neighborhoods spanned by Brooklyn Community Board 6 (CB6).2

FAC operates under seven “Principles in Action” [See FAC Principles in Action] alongside affiliate and subsidiary organizations Neighbors Helping Neighbors, and Brooklyn Workforce Innovations, and frequent coalition partners Families United for Racial and Economic Equality (FUREE), Gowanus Alliance, Gowanus Canal Conservancy (GCC), New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) resident’s associations, local arts and religious groups, elected officials, and economic development partners.2

FAC’s Executive Director is Michelle de la Uz; at the helm since January 2004. Michelle serves on the Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC) National Board, New Partners for Community Revitalization, Inc. and is the former Chair of the Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development. She is currently also a Commissioner on New York City’s Planning Commission (CPC), and thereby participates regularly in citywide land-use actions. Under Michelle’s leadership, the number of multi-family, mixed use housing and commercial spaces under FAC’s management has more than doubled and its building stock has importantly included sustainable design practices including affordable LEED® Platinum and Gold projects.3

Between its open doors for programming, skin-in the-game experience as a landlord, coalition advocacy partnerships, and the Executive Director’s particular vantage point as Commissioner, FAC is an organization with a strong handle on the pulse of the Gowanus neighborhood and its context within citywide developmental challenges and politics.

But FAC’s team is small, and their resources tight (annual operating budget of ~$20M, including $10M in real estate assets for affordable housing, and a pipeline for development of nearly 1,000 units of affordable hous-ing3). Straddling between the roles of community advocate and empowerment agency, environmental and public health steward, and one of the largest affordable housing landlords in the neighborhood, FAC’s role is as important as it is strained. To be effective they need the right tools and a seat at the table.

7 6

Barges float along the Canal and pass under the Culver Viaduct, 1935. Photo: Seymour “Zee” Zolotorofe via The Sixth Borough

Transformative Change

Gowanus is no stranger to change.

Like many urban waterways until the early 20th Century, the Gowanus Canal was an important hub of industrial and manufacturing activity. Manufactured gas plants, paper mills, tanneries, and chemical plants graced the canal’s banks4 and provided important services and employ-ment to the burgeoning City of New York and its surrounding Boroughs. Environmental sensibili-ties and standards toward the waterfront during this era were markedly different from today’s appreciation with waterways acting as an industrial sewer rather than recreational and social amenity.

Today, industry has waned and sensibilities have changed and understanding of the links to ad-verse health impacts have grown stronger. Densification and aggressive growth across all city boroughs has brought residents in increasingly close contact with the legacy of impacted sites. Pressures for development are at a historic high even as they face off against the paradoxical effects of climate change.

The canal and eponymous surrounding neighborhood is currently home to more than 15,0005 residents in New York City’s Brooklyn Borough. Recognized and celebrated for its diversity of land use and quirkiness in overall effect, the neighborhood’s motley of incubators, 21st century light industry makers and artisans, offices, and small commercial businesses, and active heavy industry is a haven for artists and a vibrant residential community including important afford-able housing and NYCHA public housing assets.

But now, where proximity to active industry, pervasive environmental damage, and mixed build-ing typologies has long kept Gowanus property values lower than its counterparts in Brooklyn CB6, deepening citywide speculation and federalist pressures on city budgets are meeting efforts to clean up the canal and spur new development.

1

9 8

Long Term Control Plan (LTCP)

Since its national legislation in 1972 (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972), New York City has been in continu-ous non-attainment of the Clean Water Act (CWA)7. Designed to set wastewater standards for industry, water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters, and regulate point source discharges into the nation’s navigable waters, the CWA provides a nation-al framework for monitoring, measurement, and water quality compliance in pursuit of the goal that waterways become fishable, and swimmable.

Built in the early 20th Century, this engineering design co-drains wastewater with stormwater runoff, ideally sending both toward the city’s water treatment plants prior to release into the city’s waterbodies. State-of-the-art upon initial construction, a century of surface development has not been met with underground expan-sion, resulting in a system that today is substantially undersized. Its efficacy is compromised to the extent that even under dry conditions, untreated overflows occur, and in wet weather, overflows are rampant.8

EPA Superfund

Residues from those plants once essential to economic life in Gowanus have since permeated the banks and sedimentary floor of the canal (Figure 1). This toxic matrix includes polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, in the form of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs), carcinogenic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and heavy metals, including neurotoxins mercury and lead and oxidative stressor copper.6

Recognized for this legacy of toxic industrial contam-ination, the Gowanus Canal was added to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) list of Superfund National Priorities on March 2, 20106.

Following extensive study, public consultation, and plan-ning requisite to the Superfund Process, the EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) in September 2013, bringing into effect a legally binding plan for the canal’s reme-diation including extensive draining and capping of the canal floor and turning basins, and ongoing monitoring post-remediation.6

Figure 1: Gowanus Canal Contamination, Graphic © CH2MHILL, via Gowanus Canal Conservancy

Transformative Change: CleanupIn addition, “Green” infrastructure (GI) especially bioswales, tree pits, and permeable pavers, is being deployed to manage stormwater at source and alleviate pressures on the “grey” system.

While future water impacts related to future densifi-cation are set for accommodation through revisions to the Building Code which will require all new construc-tion to detain 90% of its storm water footprint under a 1” storm9, the Long-Term Control Plan confirmed for Gowanus seeks to remedy long-outdated infrastructure upgrades to a point which meets the needs of the wa-tershed today.6

Together, between the Superfund and the LTCP, more than $1.3 billion in federal, state, and municipal funding have been earmarked for major environmental remedi-ation and infrastructure upgrades.4

These infrastructure investments will alone constitute a major transformative change driver for the neigh-borhood.

Gowanus Canal is one of the city’s worst offenders, annually spewing approximately 377 million gallons of combined sewage overflow and untreated street runoff (Figure 2) from its watershed area of 1,759 acres into the Gowanus Canal from outfalls along the length of the canal.4

Responsible for responding to this crisis, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)’s Water Quality Program and attendant Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP) process is implementing a concerted “Grey + Green” infrastructure strategy4 for Gowanus to bring it into compliance.

Traditional, “grey”, infrastructure improvements planned for Gowanus include the installation of 12 million gallon capacity sewage detention tanks, 1.5 million gallon high capacity stormwater sewers, dredging, pumping station upgrades (7.5 million gallons), flushing tunnel improve-ments, sewer and interceptor cleaning programs, and aeration.8

Figure 2: Gowanus Pollution, Photo © emptysquare

11 10

Rezoning

After almost a decade of rumored interest and early stage-work, New York City’s Department of City Plan-ning (DCP) officially kicked off the Gowanus rezoning on October 2016 (Figure 3).9

Similar to other NYC neighborhoods such as East New York and East Harlem, Gowanus has been tapped by Mayor Bill de Blasio for review under his 2015 vision blueprint OneNYC, especially for their potential con-tribution to his administration’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) program and related citywide goal of 200,000 affordable housing spaces.10

Land-use actions on the scale of a rezoning effort in NYC are fraught with challenges, from change in char-acter, gentrification, displacement, as well as misplaced or dishonored benefit agreements with communities.

Evidence particularly of the last can be found in the testimony and comments toward Intro 1132, passed by City Council in December 2016.11 The Intro, which cre-ates a public list of city planning commitments, commonly referred to as the “Neighborhood Commitment Tracker” is an effort to reconcile a standing need for transpar-ency and accountability between communities engaged in rezoning efforts and a process which emphasizes the role of private development.

While lack of transit, walkability, greening, and deep-ening inequity are common and substantive concerns, Gowanus’ delicate balance of mixed land-use is be-loved by residents, inspiring affectionate characteriza-tions as a “cesspool of innovation”.12

A neighborhood of great potential, careful balance must be taken to support its vibrancy and character and protect its most vulnerable residents [See Gowanus Concerns in Rezoning] with targeted policy and sup-portive funds.

From a land-use and economic development basis, re-zoning actions ultimately constitute one of the city’s most powerful tools for comprehensive and transformative change of a neighborhood.

Like all tools, its successful use depends heavily on intent.

Gowanus Concerns in Rezoning13:

“The Canal and the particular mix of uses in the neighborhood is what makes Gowanus distinct from the surrounding residential neighborhoods, yet this delicate balance is under siege. […]

An aggressive real estate market threatens to dis-place longtime residents and businesses alike while further segregating the predominately low- and mod-erate-income NYCHA residents from their neighbors. […]

Current neighborhood planning efforts in Gowanus present an opportunity to build on the unique nature of this mixed use community. Equally important, the efforts present the City and the community with an opportunity to curb destructive real estate forces and to combat negative trends that continue to further segregate the community, displace low- and mod-erate-income residents, and eliminate industrial and small commercial businesses.”

“People are already making Williams-burg-type money in Gowanus….

It will only get harder for affordable housing to compete with

those kinds of returns”.

– Anon. Gowanus Developer

Transformative Change: RezoningFigure 3: Gowanus Neighborhood Planning Study14

13 12

Increased Frequency and Severity of Rainfall

The New York State Environmental Protection Bureau notes the effects of climate change:

“There can no longer be any doubt that climate change is more than just a threat – it is a reality. Across the nation and around the world, ecosystems are being altered by warmer temperatures, rising sea levels and severe rainstorms that are striking with growing frequency and intensity.

The effects of this global crisis are being felt locally as well… [H]eavy rainfalls and devastating floods are taking an enormous toll on communities across New York State, from Long Island to the Southern Tier to the Capital Region to the North Country.”15

Increased frequency and severity of rainfall (Figure 4) events are now exacerbating the already strained com-bined sewer system and Gowanus regularly suffers tidal and rainwater flooding and sewer backups.

Sea Level Rise (SLR)

Sea Level Rise (SLR) and its direct and compounding storm risks in flood damage to homes and businesses is a major concern for this low-lying area (Figure 5).14

Similarly, facing exposure as a neighborhood within a coastal Delta City to the effects of increasing severity and freqency of storms on the Atlantic seaboard, the impacts of flooding due to storms and storm surge are of increasing concern (Figure 6).14

Damage from Inundation and overwash of contaminants from unremediated legacy sites and ongoing unprotect-ed outdoor uses has sparked studies by the City on the need for flood protection in Gowanus including propos-als for a 200-foot flood-gate for the canal’s mouth16.

Residents are understandably keen to avoid repeat of Superstorm Sandy’s 2012 damage – or worse.

Transformative Change: Climate

Figure 4: Increase Frequency and Severity of Rainfall in New York15

Urban Heat Island

In addition, rising mean global temperatures and the adverse impacts of localized micro-climates are drawing increased attention across urban centers nationwide.

Urban Heat Island (UHI) (Figure 7)and the deadly effects of hyperthermia are of increasing concern for the Gowanus hardscape17. Heavy industry’s emphasis on paved surfaces and low focus until recent years on greenscaping and GI, which brings critical shade and evapotranspirative cooling18, make Gowanus particular-ly vulnerable to the impacts of urban heat island.

Figure 5: Gowanus Base Flood Elevation Map14 Figure 6: Gowanus FEMA Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (PFIRM)14

Figure 7: Urban Heat Island18

15 14

Transformative Change: Figure 8: Transformative Change Drivers in Gowanus4

Cumulative Impacts

As well illustrated by the Gowanus Canal Conservancy (GCC) (Figure 8), the foregoing change drivers: envi-ronmental cleanup (Superfund, LTCP and attendant GI plans), rezoning, and climate change impacts (SLR, UHI) are all simultaneously at work in Gowanus.

While the time scale for each intervention varies, their individual, compounding - and confounding - impacts will bring lasting consequences for decades to come.

As we will see in the next section, systems theory and its links to urban resilience, risk management and adaptive management techniques, are the basis for an emerging policy paradigm: Adaptation Pathways.

As FAC searches for solutions to empower Gowanus Community visions, tools that respect the scale of change, the scale of uncertainty, and the scale of time are essential in tackling the cumulative impacts that will conspire to underline or undermine such visions.

17 16

Foundations & PracticeTogether, the foregoing issues of Superfund Cleanup and LTCP wastewater system upgrades, rezoning, and climate change are happening concurrently: neither isolated in time from each other, in impacts, nor isolated from Gowanus’ surrounding communities.

The actions of each of these contributors to change will heighten the complexity of Gowanus’ system dynamics and deepen the uncertainty and unpredictability of their interactions and cumulative effects.

Having secured more than $1.3 Billion in redemediateive and infrastructure funding from Federal and State counterparts to rectify legacy environmental abuses, the neighborhood is now on the cusp of rezoning led by the DCP.4

Where deep private development interest, and prevailing impacts from climate change threaten the neighborhood’s most vulnerable through displacement and deepening inequity, Gowanus is today exposed to a climate of transformative change and deep uncertainty of unparalleled proportion.

As we will see in the forthcoming section, there is a deepening divide between foundations and practice in current policy approaches responding to the exigencies of transformative change - especially the uncertainties of climate change risk.

Understanding the systems-basis for urban resilience, the limitations of current risk-based and adaptive management techniques, stewardship and equity principles for social resilience, provides the basis for a new policy paradigm for climate change: Adaptation Pathways.

Add to this basis, the contextual realities of development in New York City, and the challenge faced by stewards with an equity-based mission cannot be underestimated.

To achieve sustainability and resilience for Gowanus, the right tool for this job is more important than ever.

©Stephen Speranza. Source: Andy Newman. “Can Gowanus Survive Its Renaissance?” New York Times. October 13, 2007.

2

19 18

probabilistic. Perhaps the most famous current example includes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, published in 2013. Where climate models are deeply intricate and reliant upon socio-, economic and geopolitical considerations as they are on climate systems behaviors, researches have modeled over “1200 scenarios of future emissions, each scenario having a different ‘story’ of how the future might unfold”. Commonly grouped into four prevailing mod-els, or Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) provide a probabilistic framework for policymakers to grapple with the potential outcomes of climate change. (Figure 10).24

Multiplying transformative land use and environmen-tal change by the uncertainties of climate change, the intractable problem for Gowanus is what systems-theory and resiliency-planning literature calls Deep Uncertain-ty25, with foreknowledge of outcomes and linearity of inputs to outputs thwarted by the system’s complexity.

Responding to such uncertainty, adaptive – or itera-tive – approaches and a focus on continuous assess-ment and process take on a central role. As such, awareness and acknowledgment of the limitations of deep uncertainty are important prerequisites for successful resilient planning.

Deep Uncertainty

The issues and actions being taken in Gowanus relating to environmental cleanup, deepening social divides, speculative pressures, and climate change, not to men-tion the impacts of economic drivers and politics, are deeply linked in a complex system.

Densification will likely have positive impacts on proper-ty markets, negative impacts on urban heat island, and stormwater management. Restoration of bulkheads and capping of noxious contaminants may improve resident health exposures, but bring more traffic to the neighbor-hood...

Theses interactions – whether happy convergences or destructive paradoxes – exist simultaneously and their impacts compound and convolute outcomes.

While there has been some increasing success in model-ing urban systems to yield robust predictive extrapola-tions for cities22, as we have seen in the section Transfor-mative Change, the multiplicity of actions and actors at play in Gowanus, the outcomes of transformative change and the compounding effects and limited predictability of the impacts of climate change explode the capacities of such models with outcomes in complex systems at best

set-points to tune system performance.

Jay Wright Forrester, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology Professor and the founder of modern System Dynamics states this succinctly:

“In the complex system the cause of a difficulty may lie far back in time from the symptoms, or in a completely different and remote part of the system. In fact causes are usually found, not in prior events, but in the structure and policies of the system.”24

These observations are seen readily in the following causal-loop diagram (Figure 9) as an example of mod-eling systems of obesity within an urban system.

Where “systems tuning” in urban environments is driven mainly by policy, the importance of policy tools that respect the working of their systems are critical.

Urban Systems

Systems are defined as a “set of interrelated elements that interact with each other within some defined bound-ary and are organized to perform a function or follow some purpose”.19

Originally the basis of physics and control engineering practices from the early 20th century20, by the 1970s systems models and control theory had extended beyond traditional engineering applications and was well established in social systems such as economics, and urban environments.

Based on the works of Nobel Laureate and physicist and systems theorist Philip Anderson21 and his theories of complexity, researchers Luis Bettencourt22 and Michael Batty23 demonstrated success in modeling urban envi-ronments as systems. They confirmed for cities important elements of key “systems” modeling and performance – especially complexity of “systems control” and chal-lenges common to “systems tuning”, for example the presence of lag times, the futility of focusing linearly on inputs, and the importance of focusing on output driven

Foundations & Practice: Urban Resilience

Figure 9: Urban Systems Causal-Loop Diagram22

Figure 10: IPCC’s Representative Concentration Pathways, Image © Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO)

21 20

Resilience

In her book, the Resilience Dividend, Judith Rodin defines resilience as:

“the capacity of any entity – an individual, a com-munity, and organization, or a natural system – to prepare for disruptions, to recover from shocks and stresses, and to adapt and grow from a disruptive experience”.24

And where sustainability is commonly defined from the Brundtland Commission as:

“Humanity[’s] ability…to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”27

Resilience continues to encompass the fundamental precepts of sustainability, namely balancing economic, social, and environmental foci, and extends this concept to account for system inputs and changing circumstances. Under the notion of resilience, sustainability remains the goal, and resilience is the ability to maintain this state under duress and adapt constructively.

Rodin further details five characteristics of resilience: awareness, diversity, integration, self-regulation, and adaption. Which are in turn expressly supported by social cohesion and challenged by circumstances

Foundations & Practice: Urban Resilience

of so-called “shocks and stresses” – not the least of which includes the impacts of globalization and Climate Change.25

Her framework corroborates the concept of Deep Uncertainty in systems and her critique of existing con-ditions analyses that yield “fair weather” policies and outcomes risk losing important opportunities – what she calls the Resilience Dividend (Figure 11):

“[the opportunity] to build new relationships, take on new endeavors and initiatives, and reach out for new opportunities, ones that may never have been imagined before.”

Planning and preparing amidst complex systems and deep uncertainty is no easy task. Change in thinking about policy and policy approaches that continue to favor unilateral rather than collective approaches, and significantly miss out on the unique perspective, knowl-edge, social and human capital of communities.28

Franz Gatzweiler, Director of the International Council for Science’s Urban Health and Well-Being program based at the Institute of Urban Environment in Xiamen, China notes,

“[o]ur capacity to act collectively is lagging. Over-

Figure 11: The Resilience Dividend14

coming the silos into which different aspects of the city network are divided – water, transport, health and so on – is a central challenge of urban planning. In a system as complex as a city, no one person or specialty can see the whole picture[.]”22

Building collective capacity and approaches that are tactical, adaptive, and smart are essential to build resil-ience pro-actively. Whether in terms of economic losses, stranded assets, social costs, environmental, or human costs. Rodin is justified in her call to arms:

“[w]e need to take action, and we need to do so in anticipation of disruption, in advance of shocks, in preparation for stresses – not after they have started to wear us down.”24

Resilience is a state of awareness and of collaboration and a process of investment – in all five forms of Sus-tainable Capital: Natural, Human, Social, Manufactured, and Financial (Figure 12).29

Resilience tools for Gowanus will need to embrace these precepts.

Figure 12: The Five Forms of Sustainable Capital29

23 22

aggregate assessment of international climate-relat-ed risk. Today’s 80 x 50 targets demonstrate a need, based explicitly on risk-assessments, to proactively “bend the curve” to tackle not only the effects of cumu-lative GHG emissions but also the time-based lag in its depletion. Today’s target is consistent with the findings of the Global Compact of Mayors (to which NYC is an important signatory party) technical advisory group C40 Cities in their report Deadline 202032.

In day-to-day, practical policy, early NYC iterative approaches within agencies have included DEP’s 2010 Green Infrastructure (GI) Plan33. Designed to provide the policy basis for widespread use of “green” infra-structure (bioswales, green roofs, green walls, perme-able pavers, etc.) to manage stormwater in addition to traditional “grey” infrastructure (e.g. sewers, pumping stations, retention tanks) to cost-effectively tackle NYC’s obligations under the CWA.

Here, “adaptive management techniques” were used as the guiding method for policy implementation and agency learning through deployment. But critics look to the program’s failure to meet the 2017 state 1.5% Consent Order Decree targets33 and are stumped on how and where these so-called adaptations took place to steward the goal. An emphasis on process and clarity on when or how such adaptations would be implemented or considered was lacking and public transparency and accountability limited. (See Case Study #1: NYC Green

In international monetary supply, central banks regularly set trajectories for growth under “expected” circum-stances but acknowledge that these circumstances exist on a continuum of probabilities. Whether for supply, inflation, or exchange rates, such paths are commonly published to the financial sector, embedded amid high and low probability risk assessments to govern financial policy; where risk is based upon statistical definitions of compounding probability and consequence. These limits are treated as “recalibration points” or “mid-course cor-rections”, and the transparency of each iterative adjust-ment is critical to the overall function of the central bank as “leader” within markets and predictable partner with policy makers.30 (Figure 13)

The parallels between the complexity of international monetary structure and the “conflicting explanations of climate science” have drawn close comparison by climate change experts and policy makers for over a decade. 16

“Responding to climate change involves an iterative risk management process that includes both adapta-tion and mitigation, and takes into account climate change damage, co-benefits, sustainability, equity and attitudes to risk”30

And more specifically,

“Regularly scheduled “mid-course corrections,” similar to the “recalibrated” points depicted in Figure [13], can be envisioned for an iterative climate adaptation process…where the “corrections” might come in the form of updated climate information, new technolog-ical advancement, or a new policy that would serve to readjust the risk trajectory back to an acceptable level”. 30, Figure reference updated to match this report

Indeed iterative risk-based approaches currently inform New York City’s approach to climate change through the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC)’s Task Force processes and assessments16 and in Mayor de Blasio’s revision of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) targeting in his 2015 blueprint OneNYC’s 80x50 mitiga-tion plan17. Starting with the first commitment in 2007 to reduce GHG 30 percent by 2030 (30 x 30) set under Mayor Bloomberg’s 2013 blueprint PlanNYC’s, the city acknowledged its path to achieve 40% reductions by 2030, and then expanded again to the current ambi-tious target of 80 percent by 2050 (80 x 50)31.

Each of these revisions has raised the bar for action consistent with global climate change reassessments and

Foundations & Practice: Risk Management

Figure 13: Iterative Approaches in International Monetary Supply30 or unplanned policy adjustments.” 34

Important outcomes from an iterative processes being:

1. “[to] keep long-term target options open as long as possible by setting decision-triggering thresholds,

2. work to minimize the adjustment costs of regu-larly implemented adjustment periods, and

3. minimize administrative complexity in both ad-justment processes by making them as transpar-ent and as predictable as possible”.34

Where the crux of predictability – if not of outcomes – but of decision triggers – is the basis for Pathways models. Predictability of outcomes is replaced with predictability of process and decision points to man-age risks.

Infrastructure Plan)

In resiliency studies, risk management takes on an even more profound challenge. Where resiliency embodies climatic, social, economic, and cultural adaptation and responsiveness, combining economic risk management practices with the broader scope of societal mechanisms involves even more moving parts.

“[D]ecision mechanisms must cope with competing indices of change as they try to monitor what climate impacts are occurring and what they mean in terms of economic and social vulnerabilities in the future.”34

Where predictability of outcomes is low, especially under climate change, a stronger emphasis on decision making through iterative processes takes hold: “[t]rans-parency in the process can […] lessen the costs of planned

Case Study #1: NYC Green Infrastructure Plan (New York City)Adaptive Management Techniques

New York City’s DEP has jurisdiction over maintaining the city’s supply of clean drinking water supply, wastewater collection and treatment, and the reduction of air, noise, and hazardous materials pollutions.35

In 2010, DEP unrolled its first ever Green Infrastructure Program33– a watershed- and surface permeabili-ty-based initiative to manage one inch of rainfall over 10 percent of the City’s combined sewer area by 2030, per NYC’s obligations under the federal Clean Water Act, and New York State Consent Order Decree (“the Consent Order”).

Designed to provide the policy basis for widespread use of “green” infrastructure (GI) (bioswales, tree pits, blue and green roofs, green streets, constructed wet-lands, permeable pavers, etc.) to manage stormwater in addition to traditional “grey” infrastructure (e.g. sewers, pumping stations, retention tanks). DEP’s “Green Strategy” would offer savings of $1.5B over the “Grey Strategy” (Figure 14), and in addition, bring “between $139M - $418M in additional benefits through reduced energy bills, increased property values, and improved health” over a 20 year period.33

Figure 14: DEP Grey + Green Strategy33

25 24

Focusing on city-owned property including rights-of-way, and government inter-agency collaboration, notably schools (NYC Department of Education, DOE), parks (New York City Department of Parks & Recreation, NYC Parks) and public housing (NYCHA), DEP sought to roll out its plan under paths of least resistance.

In addition to its novel use of GI, DEP also expanded its policy repertoire through this program to employ “adaptive management techniques” for the first time. A guiding method for policy implementation and agency learning through deployment, DEP writes:

“This Green Infrastructure Plan is an adaptive management strategy – an iterative, flexible deci-sion-making process where incremental measures are continually evaluated and rejected or improved. This process produces better decisions about investments and overall resource allocation to achieve water quality objectives. Already, DEP has adjusted its approach to incorporate conservation strategies. An adaptive management approach is essential given the magnitude of investment required to manage storm-water and the wide range of uncertainties about fu-ture conditions, including climate, rainfall, population, water demand, land use, technology, and regulatory requirements.”33

But critics look to the program’s failure to meet the 2017 Consent Order targets33 and are stumped on how and where these so-called adaptations took place to stew-ard the goal. An emphasis on process and clarity on when or how such adaptations would be implemented or considered was lacking and public transparency and accountability limited.

DEP notes,

“[the] Green Strategy is nimble enough to incor-porate new technologies and approaches as they emerge during the implementation of our plan...the effectiveness of adaptive management depends upon DEP’s ability to measure performance.”33

However, shortcomings to Adaptive Policymaking concentrate in their vague descriptions and poor links between outset conditions and outcomes.36 (Figure 15)

Case Study #1: NYC Green Infrastructure Plan (New York City)Adaptive Management Techniques - Cont’d

Lessons for Gowanus

Learning from the Green Infrastructure Program’s example, the Gowanus Community should be critical of adaptive policy techniques that are insufficiently vague to ensure outcomes. While driving a policy agenda that emphasizes environmental benefits and founded in lauvdable systems-based precepts like recognizing uncertainty, risk-management, and adaptation, low transparency and process have hampered not only DEP’s outcomes but more broadly, public advocacy and accountability efforts.

And if DEP’s example showcases adaptive management policies gone awry, applied to technocratic policies and with the most endowed city agency, what happens when applied to social policies and actors with constrained funding? The actors, the negotiations, the adaptations will all be more complicated, more convoluted, and more nuanced and the funds far less fungible.

In the extreme, it is even conceivable that such vague tools may actually insert risk by opening opportunities to policy subversion through biased interpretations or appropriation. Where explicit approaches seek to safe-guard outcomes, they also safeguard intent.

The risks of deep uncertainty are already there; they need not be compounded by inadequate tools.

Figure 15: Comparison of Adaptive Policymaking vs. Adaptation Pathways36

27 26

Figure 17: Adaptation Pathway Models for the Rhine Delta: (left) Full Pathways model showing subjectivity of perspectives; (top right) Decision

Cycles (Transfer Stations/Tipping Points) ; (bottom right) Pathways Policy Development36

Figure 18: Adaptation Pathway Models, Theoretical Approach demonstrating impacts of external influences such as: Institutional Preparedness, (D)

Path dependencies from prior circumstances/bias (C), and Links between pathways via Transformative Cycles (B)38

Where traditional urban policy and design approaches have focused on explicit plans (e.g. masterplanning) and deliberate actions either front-loaded in time or in strict preordained sequence, Pathways models eschew strict sequencing and focus instead on: (1) the creation of a robust framework of sequential strategies whose links are tactically decided over time, (2) designation of participants, (3) iterative decision cycles, and (4) the identification of crucial tipping points as signals in strat-egy implementation; where tripping a signal indicates the limitation of a strategy, or, a course headed towards unwanted outcomes (“maladaption”).38

By design, Pathways approaches recognize overtly the limited capacity of predictive behavior in complicated systems and instead focus on sequences of corrective actions, or “nudges”, in response to an assessment of prevailing conditions – both from forces, assets, and actors operating within the system as from outside forces. This iterative approach also allows for techno-logical advancement and adoption of cutting-edge technologies incrementally. Where industry support and technical solutions are also unknown, users of a Pathways approach can also take advantage of development in performance and or cost of solutions to make such “nudges”.

As cities live this complexity daily, municipal structures and policy approaches that rely heavily on fixed plans remain ill equipped to address such systems realities; tested ever more so in the face of climate change.

Agencies, their budgets, and policies work by-and-large independently, and conventional policy tools depend upon predictable assessment of impacts to inform recommendations. Better tools are needed.

“Pathways” models (commonly “Flexible Adaptation Pathways”, or “Dynamic Pathways”) are taking off from the shortcomings of Adaptive Planning and gaining ground in climate change adaptation and resiliency pol-icy applications where deep uncertainty abounds.

As demonstrated through the research of Ranger and Reeder37, Wise et al.38, Yohe, et al.30, Haasnoot et al.36, and New Yorks City’s own climate change modeling guru Cynthia Rosenzweig39, Pathways approaches take on a variety of environmental planning subjects – for exam-ple flood protection for London’s Thames River Estuary36 (See Case Study #2: the Thames Estuary, TE2100 Plan), or water management in the Netherlands36 (See Case Study #3: Rhine Delta, Netherlands).

Pathways models start by identifying conditions that are counter to the vision of the policymaker. These conditions are referred to as policy “no-go zones” or “maladap-tive spaces.”38 Pathways models next map out a diversity of strategies over time, each strategy predicated on technical, economic or social factors and their eventual limitations – or strategy failure – over time (Figure 16). Laid in parallel and adjusted for time, the layers of strategy in the model begin to take shape akin to a de-cision tree. At each point where a strategy is exhausted, or where analysis confirms experience outside the range of acceptable conditions, a decision cycle is triggered. (Figure 17)

Consistent with the precepts of risk-based approach-es, each policy line is held until it fails, and iterative decision cycles forge links to supplementary strategies. Whether a financial, social or environmental “cost”, the durability of investment is upheld for as long as possible, and the incremental cost of supplementary action – not the entire cost of the action – is the next “expenditure”.

Driven by a Stewardship Committee, Pathways methods invert common policy approaches from their usual focus in upfront, predictive, actions to impart change and instead to focus on a tactical and responsive approach - including to external stimulus. In taking iterative deci-sions, the committee responds to each stage of strategy, recalibrating, and nudging outcomes (via e.g. invest-ment, policy shifts) in the desired direction and steward against outcomes that are inconsistent with a determined vision. (Figure 18)

Contrary to conventional policy methods that seek to distill and simplify problems, the approach embraces wicked problems. It deliberately exposes the uncertainty of physical and policy outcomes, and the subjectivity of stakeholders and participants.

Foundations & Practice: Adaptation Pathways

Figure 16: The effect of uncertainty on adaptation strategies27

29 28

The Thames River Estuary Plan (TE2100)37 was an exer-cise in investment planning for flood defense along the Thames Estuary, including upgrades and updates to its mega-infrastructure, the Thames Barrier (Figure 19), as well as regional approaches to flood infrastructure and socio-economic adaptation programs. The decision to use Pathways model for this effort was dominated by (1) the need for planning that acknowl-edged previously unappreciated circumstances of cli-mate change and the deep uncertainties of probabilistic climate information, and (2) a risk-based approach that managed mega-project investments and avoided cost overruns from changing design. In a Pathways model, these conflicting concerns meet to satisfy risk without exploding cost.

“The key driver for the project was to consider how tidal flood risk was likely to change in response to future changes in climate and people and property in the floodplain.”37

Driven by the United Kingdom’s Environmental Agency (federal-level environmental organization) and re-sponsible for not only regional coordination but project management and capital expenditures on flood risk in the estuary, stewardship of taxpayers dollars and socio-economic disaster risk management in their protec-tion was paramouvnt.

The project employed three main analyses that com-plemented the core of the Pathways approach: (1) an interative, managed adaptive approach; (2) adaptation models and pathways linking individual strategies to conditions assessments; and (3) vetting lead-times and constructability models (Figure 20).

The result is one of the earliest applied pathways mod-els that applies a uni-axial risk assessment model: “flood risk”. The result of six years of regional, municipal, and public social and economic consultations, the outcomes of social, economic or otherwise environmental priorities are implicit in this model’s determination of flood risk.

Case Study #2: Thames Estuary, TE2100 Plan (London, UK)Pathways Approaches for Risk Management

Lessons for Gowanus

The Thames River provides a powerful example for mega-projects and the robustness of the Pathways Tool in managing long-term climate risk and cost-control. Where the current rezoning action will take at least 18 months to complete, the results will accumulate indefinite-ly thereafter. And where FAC and its coalition partners are non-profits or volunteers, even with the proceeds from a rezoning effort, funds are invariably constrained. In a stewardship role, FAC and its partners will live a similar challenge in pursuit of their visions for Gowanus and as such a Pathways model begs strong consider-ation.

But with the nuances of tradeoffs between environmental and social outcomes in Gowanus, TE2100s’ macro-scale uniaxial model will likely be insufficient for its purpos-es. Distillation in this case would oversimplify and risk masking an important source of transparency for the community’s debate and decisions.

Instead, Gowanus requires an explicit framework for both environmental and social drivers in change.

Figure 20: Pathways Model for TE2100 Plan37

Figure 19: Thames River Barrier37

© DAVID ILIFF

31 30

While the Netherlands has centuries of experience with managing flood pressures, climate change and partic-ularly the effects of SLR has pushed Dutch capacity for water management to the brink. The result has included drastic re-imagining of federal policy structures on wa-ter management in addition to physical management.

As with the Thames Estuary TE2100 plan (See Case Study #2: Thames Estuary, TE2100 Plan), the Rhine Delta model design, focusing on the region of Ijsselmeer (Figure 21) and including famous project outcomes such as “Room for the River”42 (Figure 22) directly incorpo-rates climate unpredictability, engineering feasibility and costing, and expands it to include more nuanced treatment of policy drivers including an actor-focused approach that emphasizes the subjectivity of policy pathways – namely, pathways under centralist gov-ernment influence, pathways a market-driven and low government influence direction, and pathways under an environmental and egalitarian approach (Figure 23).

Furthermore, in the Dutch case for water management, flood risk comes with a paradoxical trade-off: the avail-ability of fresh water. As such, a dual-axis is employed in its Pathways model – water demand, and water supply.s

Case Study #3: Rhine Delta (Netherlands)Pathways Approaches for Stakeholder Diversity

Lessons for Gowanus

For Gowanus, the biaxial approach of the Rhine Delta and its transparency on the subject of tradeoffs is worthwhile – albeit adapted to match Gowanus prior-ities of social and environmental equity. Furthermore, using a robust Pathways model to house frank discussion on the possible paradigms of influence and priority that will drive outcomes for Gowanus will provide a valuable applied framework for public conversation.

Whether the approach is environment-heavy (See Case Study #4: Dutch Kills Green and Case Study #6: OLWP), socially inclusive (See Case Study #5: 11th Street Bridge Park), or development-heavy (See Case Study #7: Hudson Yards), or indeed balanced will make all the difference in achieving a sustainable and resilient Gowanus.

Transparency and debate of individual actions is em-powering, transparency and negotiation of the entire framework and subjective interests driving outcomes is powerful.

Figure 23: Adaptation Pathways Model for Rhine Delta showing subjectivity of perspectives36

Figure 21: Ijsselmeer Study Area36

Figure 22: Room for the River Flood Protection Project42

33 32

capital.24,34

As self-determination, change from within, and local investment are drivers and indicators of social cohesion28 in sustainable and resilient planning, their absence is conspicuous in Checker’s examination of Harlem through-out the latter half of the 20th Century.

Negotiated Resilience

Where Checker writes primarily in regards to devel-opmental pressures, they are not the only culprits. In working distinctively, in siloes, city agencies – their policies and their budgets – exacerbate pressures on social cohesion. Where a community may have strong vision, pitting their priorities against the mandates and plans of disparate agencies risks splitting mandates and partial solutions. These actions work to undermine social cohesion as they undermine self-determination and local investment.

The value of collaborative professional approaches and making lateral connections within city government to sup-port nested problems is the consideration that created New York City’s Mayor’s Offices of Sustainability (MOS) and of Recovery and Resiliency (MORR). Similarly, the project Dutch Kills Green was lauded in New York City for the value that was achieved through unprecedented interagency collaboration46 (See Case Study #4: Dutch Kills Green). But even these agencies and projects, in focusing on government-driven solutions and interagency collaboration are still slow to embrace the full potential offered by joining forces with the community.

In examining the work of InWithForward, a systems analysis and modeling consultancy, from Vancouver, Canada.

“Rather than major top-down changes, [InWithFor-ward]’s approach focuses on creating new interactions and networks within the existing urban system, pro-moting a shared understanding among both policy-makers and urban dwellers of how the system works, and what can be done to change things.”22

Strong social cohesion within a community must be enabled and empowered by the bureaucratic conven-tions and engagement tactics of the agencies charged with implementing change. Civil service’s consensus and agreement and commitment to stewarding a community’s vision are essential.

As economic disparity rises to unprecedented levels nationwide43, social cohesion – a critical ingredient to resiliency28 – is strained and its symptoms of gentrifica-tion and displacement are taking on new urgency across New York City44. Relatedly, an unhealthy rhetoric has cropped up surrounding the pitfalls of green investment and social amenities.

Envirionmental Gentrification or Lack of Social Cohesion?

Environmental projects are not inherently democratic or equity based but nor are their outcomes necessarily har-bingers of gentrification and change. The environmental justice needs of a community should not be subverted to economic vulnerability or risk. Such tradeoffs are inher-ently unsustainable – and unjust. The important link in successfully navigating environmental improvements are the same as in all forms of equitable planning: careful response to the question “for-whom?”; equitable distri-bution of benefits; and democratic participation.

In her article “Wiped Out by the Green Wave”45

Melissa Checker sets out the arguments for participatory and democratic participation as essential preconditions to sustainability of process and equitable outcomes in planning.

“Contemporary fixes to environmental issues, espe-cially climate change, provide a prime example of the rise of technocracy, managerial governance and consensual politics”45

Read from a resiliency perspective, Checker’s work showcases the erosion of social cohesion. A necessary characteristic of resilient communities, Rodin defines social cohesion as

“[T]he glue that bonds people to one another, in families, groups, organizations, and communities. It consists of genuine commitment and caring, shared values and beliefs, engagement, common purpose, and sense of identity” and she adds, “it makes all the difference in building resilience”.24

Social Cohesion and Carrying Capacity

The question of social cohesion is furthermore one embedded in concepts of carrying capacity and notions of especially available human and social capacity28 and the resiliency principle of self-regulation by such

Foundations & Practice: Stewardship & Equity

2. opportunities for public comment; and 3. participatory conversations on the cleanup

process and outcomes.56

Adaptation Pathways and Social Cohesion

The success of these examples and centrality of social cohesion in each is corroborated by extensive literature review of Adaptation Pathways research, where Wise et al. lists barriers to adaptation38 (adapted as list, for full references see Wise et al., 2014):

• behavioural and cognitive aspects (O’Brien and Wolf, 2010; Nelson, 2011),

• unconducive governance arrangements (Amundsen et al., 2010; Storbjörk, 2010),

• lack of or self-interested leadership (Angue-lovski and Carmin, 2011; Moser et al., 2012),

• competing planning agendas and lack of institutional coordination (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010),

• insufficient financial and human capital and mechanisms for enabling these (Bryan et al., 2009; Kabubo-Mariara, 2009),

• lack of information and data (Deressa et al., 2009; Hammill and Tanner, 2011),

• incorrect or incomplete diagnosis of problems (Gorddard et al., 2012),

• the widening science-policy gap associated with wicked problems (Moser, 2010), and

• uncertainty and ambiguity (Sarewitz, 2004; Dessai et al., 2007).

A robust stewardship and equity model that promotes social cohesion is therefore critical to addressing these barriers and maximizing resiliency outcomes.

Stewardship and equity considerations, while implicit in Pathways models, are heightened in the trench warfare of urban development and prevailing culture of development pressures. The Stewardship’s Com-mittee composition and role in a Gowanus Frame-work must reflect this urgency.

Harris et al. support this conclusion offering the concept of ‘negotiated resilience’ precisely to highlight the poli-tics, complexities and procedural dimensions of resilience in urban development – and its subjection to power dynamics51.

Equity by Intent

Armed with such awareness, the link between steward-ship models and equity-based planning were foremost in the development of the planning framework for Washington, DC’s 11th Street Bridge project. (See Case Study #5: 11th Street Bridge) Where a new pe-destrian bridge would connect some of the District’s most economically vulnerable with elite neighborhoods and in bring significant recreational and health amenities, there were concerns that such improvements could equally have been a generator of social malaise, gentrification, and displacement. Its communities, designers, and plan-ners were determined to embody a more progressive model of development.

Equity, inclusion, and opportunity were forefront in every aspect of the project and these precepts embraced by each discipline; intention was everything, and a robust stewardship committee with diverse technical and com-munity voices kept it on track.

In promoting a sexy project with great polish in the “novel” light of social inclusivity and justice, this project has successfully upended the standard power dynamic around development.

Stewardship for Social Cohesion and Negotiated Resilience

Similarly, in Syracuse, New York, the United State’s “most polluted lake” began its own journey to remedia-tion in the late 1990s54. Like Gowanus, the Onondaga Lake is a designated United States Environmental Pro-tection Authority (EPA) Superfund site55 (See Case Study #6: OLWP).

With a clear intent to use the Superfund clean-up to maximize public outcomes, the community developed the Onondaga Lake Watershed Partnership (OLWP) as the primary stewardship committee to:

1. inform community awareness on the implemen-tation of state and federal agencies in the cleanup; as well as

35 34

Located at the busy intersection of Jackson and North-ern Boulevards, and Queen’s Plaza South in Queen’s, New York City and the on-ramps for cars and cyclists alike to the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge, the hub is further encased overhead by the 7, N, W, E, M, and R Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) subway lines and the Long-Island Rail Road.47

Named for the tributary of Newtown Creek that drains the adjacent Long Island City watershed into Newtown Creek, the reconstruction of this former commuter park-ing lot resolved a long-standing traffic congestion and pedestrian and cyclist nightmare (Figure 24) in tandem with neighborhood rezoning emphasizing office and commercial district development and anchor offices for airline carrier JetBlue’s headquarters.48

With a footprint of 1.5 acres, Dutch Kills Green uses wetlands, native plantings, artist-designed benches and paving and “[p]revents over 20.2 million gallons of stormwater from entering the city’s combined sewer system annually, avoiding a projected $3.4 million in fu-ture capital costs to upgrade stormwater infrastructure, such as constructing a larger combined sewer overflow tunnel.”48,49

Completed in 2012 following a 2001 major rezoning effort of the entire Queens Plaza neighborhood, the project included the transportation redesign in addition to GI and landscape architecture interventions at a cost of $45M; all designed to specifically harness landscape performance benefits of environmental, social, and economic nature48

[See Dutch Kills Green Landscape Performance Benefits].

Case Study #4: Dutch Kills Green (Queens, New York City)Transformative Green Urban Re-Design.

Lessons for Gowanus

Important for its unprecedented inter-agency cooper-ation46 and its use of novel performance metric and calculation approaches from researchers at the Universi-ty of Oregon and design firm WRT35, Dutch Kills Green represents a watershed pilot in New York City for the use of “green” design to move beyond parks, solving urban design issues. The result is both as beautiful as it is practical.

But where Dutch Kills Green yielded a 37% increase in surrounding property market value, the plan did not detail any attempt to reconcile resulting displacement stresses.

This experience runs counter to the displacement con-cerns emphasized the in Gowanus Vision “Survive and Thrive”, and follows the concerns espoused by Melissa Checker in her provocative article “Wiped Out by the Green Wave”45, where ‘greening’, seemingly altruistic and inarguable, dominates planning conversations.

Such domination of ‘green’ techniques under and thinly veiled economic interests, risks subverting an inclusive and participatory conversation and exacer-bated conditions of especially racial inequity.

Dutch Kills Green Landscape Performance Benefits50

ENVIRONMENTAL

• Prevents over 20.2 million gallons of stormwater from entering the city’s combined sewer system annually, avoiding a projected $3.4 million in future capital costs to upgrade stormwater infrastructure, such as constructing a larger com-bined sewer overflow tunnel.

• Reduces irrigation needs by 786,500 gallons per year through a native and adapted plant palette, saving $3,500 in annual irrigation costs when compared to a standard lawn.

• Stores 4,698 lbs of carbon and sequesters 1,079 lbs of carbon per year in 174 new trees on-site and adjacent to the site.

SOCIAL

• Increased bicycle traffic by 12% since the project was completed in 2011 with an average of 3,416 cyclists using the bicycle path per day. On average 7% of these users stop to use either the green or median seating areas.

• Helped reduce pedestrian and cyclist fatalities. Thanks to safety improvements like new pedestrian countdown signals, 2011 marked the first year that no deaths were recorded along Queens Boulevard, infamously known for many years as the “Boulevard of Death.” This is down from a high of 18 pedestrian deaths in 1997.

• Reduces average ambient noise within the green by 23%. By removing two lanes of traffic that formerly bisected the space and adding lush vegetation, noise from traffic and the elevated rail lines decreased from a typical range of 85-101dB to 69-75dB.

• Attracts an average of 125 people per day in summer. Of these visitors, 92% engaged in recreational activities, 57% of which were also social activities.

ECONOMIC

• Provides an estimated $20,000-$37,000 in net annual benefits to the City. This includes reduced energy consumption, improvements to air quality, carbon storage, and increases in surrounding property value.

• Increases property value of surrounding properties. Between 2006 and 2013 — a period when the real estate value in the six largest U.S. Metro markets (including NYC metro) grew by only 8% — the estimated market value of properties surrounding Dutch Kills Green increased 37%.

Figure 24: Dutch Kills Green Before and After49

Images: © Landscape Performance Series

37 36

11th Street Bridge Park

11th Street Bridge Park will be D.C.’s first elevated park. Developed by D.C. Ward 8 non-profit Building Bridges Across the River at THEARC (Figure 24)52, the plan is to build not only a pedestrian thoroughfare, but rather to provide innovative public space that provides venues for healthy recreation, environmental education, and the arts through a process of inclusive development – namely “development that provides opportunities for all residents regardless of income and demography”.53

Putting Inclusion First

Connecting prosperous D.C. neighborhoods to the west and low-income neighborhoods to the east long-since divided by the Anacostia River, Wards 6, 7, and 8 have been segregated geographically, economically and racially from affluent Capitol Hill. The plan and plan-ning process recognized from the outset that many of the communities touched by the eastern side of Bridge Park have chronic challenges relating to low homeown-ership, high poverty, high unemployment, and pockets of extreme child poverty.37

Community-Led Process

Starting in 2014, the Equitable Development Plan (EDP) comprised a two-year consultation process hosting hundreds of community meetings in D.C. Wards 6, 7, and 8. The EDP was driven by a 9-member Task Force and supplemented by more than 60 experts, city agency representatives, community councils, and community organizations spread across focused prior-ities of workforce development, small businesses and housing. Focused on physical design and identification of programming as well as strategies to ensure inclusive development – especially to promote opportunities to maintain affordable housing and promote long-time resident home ownership, the insights of the Task Force and priority representatives cultivated feedback from public meetings to arrive at a vetted plan and strategies toward realization

[See 11th Street Bridge Park Inclusive Development Objec-tivess].

Case Study #5: 11th Street Bridge Park (Washington, D.C.)Inclusive Development

Lessons for Gowanus

The 11th Street Bridge Park Task Force has done a great job. Not only in creating a robust equity and inclu-sion-based policy platform for their project, but in very slick public materials and savvy engagement processes showcasing the importance of inclusion from the project outset, they have nipped the project’s subversion to busi-ness-as-usual commercial forces in the bud. Focusing on the role of ‘credible messengers’28, self-determination, change from within, and local investment are drivers in this project, and their promotional media adheres close-ly to this script. Instead of an uncomfortable footnote, the issue of displacement is central and explicit.

As Scott Kratz, Director of the 11th Street Bridge Park Task Force notes:

“Looking around the country we see signature parks such as the 11th Street Bridge Park can do a lot of really wonderful things they can bring people togeth-er, they can be a destination, but they can also have unintended consequences that can include raising property value. That can be great but that means that it can potentially displace people.”53

Where Gowanus visions have successfully articulated the importance of inclusivity in development, the 11th Street Bridge experience emphasizes the potential of-fered through extending this groundwork into concerted campaigns and stakeholder coalition action that has had real power and political impact. Where the 11th Street Bridge Task Force has been successful in creating an equity-centric project, their mission does not end there.

Kratz concludes by observing,

“If we’re successful, this can be a template for how other municipalities and other cities are thinking about investing in a community that actually can benefit the people that live and work there”53

Similar tactics are worth investigating for Gowanus.

11th Street Bridge Park Inclusive Development Objectives52

Figure 24: Rendering 11th Street Bridge Park52

Image © OMA + OLIN

39 38

Created in response to the designation of Syracuse, New York’s Lake Onondaga and surrounding watershed as an EPA Superfund Site, the Onondaga Lake Water-shed Partnership (OLWP) is a stewardship, coordination, and public advocacy committee tasked with maximizing benefits from the lake and surrounding environs’ clean-up.56

Over 100 years of industrial chemical and municipal waste including heavy metals such as mercury have discharged into lake Onondaga directly or via its 285 square mile watershed (Figure 26).55

The watershed coordinator of OLWP is under the banner of the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC), a non-profit interstate agency founded in 1947 by an act of Congress.57 The Commission’s mission is to:

“serv[e] and assists our states by coordinating activi-ties and forums that encourage cooperation, devel-oping resources that foster progress on water and wastewater issues, representing the region in matters of federal policy, training environmental profession-als, initiating scientific research projects, educating the public, and providing overall leadership in water management and protection.”57

A subsidiary of the interstate NEIWPCC, the OLWP is both stand-alone in its focus on the Onondaga Lake but also part of the broader regional commission’s interests in water resource management. This relationship helps to facilitate State, regional interstate, and federal partic-ipation by bringing together policy makers and practi-tioners, while creating a locally sensitive and targeted framework of engagement and water management solu-tions specific to Onondaga Lake.58

Comprised of community leaders, agencies and mem-bers of the public, the OLWP has operated since the late 1990s under the vision of then-Congressman Jim Walsh, who characterized the project as

“[a] project for the new millennium…in which we forge a partnership among all levels of government and all our popular institutions, and around which we rally as a community, we will accomplish something great…”54

Thus far, the OLWP together with Superfund clean-up efforts has successfully helped to deliver: the remedi-

ation and habitat enhancement of Nine Mile Creek; construction underway for the Lakeview Amphitheater; preliminary plans for a boat launch to improve rec-reation access; swimmable standards in the northern two-thirds of the lake with the prospect of beach siting; trail extensions to piece together a 7.5 mile stretch with the potential to complete the loop the lake circuit; and others.58

In addition to Superfund remediation activities, the above actions are integrated with state and municipal entities coordinating infrastructure improvements – water treatment plants, combined sewer overflow improve-ments but also with watershed management via public awareness campaigns.58

Lessons for Gowanus

While driven by a full-time Coordinator, the partner-ship has otherwise a fluid composition with evolving participation of the public. “[O]pen to all watershed stakeholders”56 – stresses not only current participation but active evolution of stakeholder groups over time and intergenerational stewardship. The importance of evo-lution also takes form in their guiding Principles – which similarly update as appropriate over time56.

Their emphasis on neutrality as an “information clearing-house”56 keeps the public informed while their advocacy efforts have been instrumental in securing additional state and federal funding; using the Superfund actions as seeds for complementary projects to leverage addi-tional funds.

The success of their “clearinghouse” approach is a great example of how much can get done with a strong stew-ardship council, strong public participation, government and agency collaboration and involvement. This ap-proach speaks clearly to the importance of negotiated resilience51 and an emphasis in actively cultivating social capital to build resilience28.

The example from the OLWP should help to inform an approach to constructing a Stewardship Committee for Gowanus. In creating such collaborative relationships to carry this structure and principles beyond the Superfund and over to the rezoning work.

For example, where as a non-profit, FAC’s own avail-ability of funding to support a full-time coordinator may

Case Study #6: OLWP (Syracuse, New York)Community Benefit from Social and Civic Cohesion

Figure 26: Map of Onondaga Lake Contaminated Sites55

be strapped, dedicating funds through the rezoning proceeds for such a position could be very effective in maintaining public involvement and maximizing out-comes. While a Stewardship Committee for Gowanus will be arguably stronger with funds in hand than OLWP; it will need to be to offset the heavy economic devel-opment pressures of NYC active management and participation in generations to come.

41 40

environmental and social maladaptive spaces to avoid domination by economic interests.

And where the “averted losses”41 in resiliency design relating to the built environment are hard enough to quantify under traditional business models, such social and human costs are even more nebulous. Where com-plementary tools such as disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs)60 and Health Impact Assessments61 are gaining ground to highlight and make economically quantifiable productivity losses through social health and emotional wellbeing, the predictive and resilient case for social cohesion and environmental sustainability must still be made and understood by stewards with capacity to un-derstand, interpret, and prioritize these important issues.

Where Fifth Avenue Committee and its coalition partners are not new to municipal politics and its machinations, and is keenly aware of the essential requirement of funding, this Capstone rides off the assumptions that funding for the community will be negotiated through a rezoning action.

Such funds are critical to prop up and prioritize social and environmental conditions for sustainability and resilience, underprioritized for communities in the prevailing market.

Strained by limited control over state-levied tax dollars in a federalist system, New York City, like many local and municipal governments, are looking increasingly to leverage the support of the private sector and other nontraditional privatized and “off-the-book” meth-ods for infrastructure investments including speculative value-capture financing methods59. (See Case Study #7: Hudson Yards)

This environment emphasizes the role of private investor and economics in driving development. As shown in the case of Dutch Kills Green (See Case Study #4: Dutch Kills Green), even projects with a decidedly strong environmental focus express their outcomes in economic terms as the prevailing indicator of success.

Against such a heavily-weighted economic context, the needs of communities that do not readily align with developmental interests or are not expressly required of developers fall frequently by the wayside. Prom-ises made to support community visions of growth and specific initiatives to buy support have historically low levels of oversight, transparency, accountability, or de-livery. Where city officials have recognized this chronic problem11, there is no comparison for direct agency in the accumulation of – or expenditure of – funds for the community.

Preliminary estimates show that private funds between $100M-$600M could be leveraged from rezoning to help seed a community fund18. Financial tools used proposed to levy this include: the issuance of tax-free ‘social impact’ bonds; Green Infrastructure Bonuses tied to the sale of FAR; Site-Specific zoning bonuses; and On-Bill Financing mechanisms for green infrastructure amongst others.57 (Figure 27).

More aggressively, TIF, a legislative tool to capture the value from the increased property value following up-zoning (Figure 28). has also been proposed in Bridg-ing Gowanus57 (Figure 29).

Whatever the funding source, the prevailing conditions of transformative change, the case for risk-management techniques, and the merits of Pathways techniques sup-port the use of a Gowanus Pathways Model.

Indeed, the more aggressive the funding method – meaning, the more closely aligned the accumulation of funds with development pressures and the more dominant economic determinants over environmental or social determinants – the stronger the case for Path-ways approaches that identify and safeguard against

Foundations & Practice: Development and Funding

Figure 27: Green Infrastructure Fund Models17 Figure 28: Tax Increment Financing, Image © PlanningTank.com

Figure 29: Tax Increment Financing62

“Shaping real estate development in a capitalist economy is no easy feat But our chance of seeing a future Gowanus based on the values we have — sustainability, livability, inclusion — get better if we try to shape that

development ourselves, rather than just hope it doesn’t happen.”

–Brad Lander,

NYC District 39 Councilman63

43 42

Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project

The Hudson Yards project currently underway is the result of planning endeavors in the works since 2001 where TIF, under NYC Mayor Rudi Giuliani, was original-ly proposed to redevelop the valuable West Midtown Manhattan rail yard – an area stretching between West 27th - West 43rd Streets and between 8th and 11th Avenues – and launch New York City’s 2012 Olympic Bid with stadium investments59.

After many failed iterations, the stadium investments were finally dropped. Today’s Hudson Yards project is a product of the Bloomberg Administration with a devel-opment scope to include investments for approximately $3B (2003 dollars) including: (1) extension of the No. 7 subway line ($1.5B provided for via subsidies to MTA), (2) construction of a platform over the Eastern Rail Yards, and amenities including (3) the creation of a new boulevard and park land, (4) a “culture shed” to host events such as New York Fashion Week, and (5) a public school with 750 seats available for grades K-863. The foregoing amid extensive 2005 rezoning of the district and anticipated as-of-right commercial and residential development62 (Figure 23).

Case Study #7: Hudson Yards (Manhattan, New York City)Value Capture Financing in NYC

Value Capture

With the adoption of this plan, TIF was dropped as a funding mechanism being insufficient to cover the pro-posed $3B budget. Instead, “Payments in Lieu of Tax” (PILOT) and “Payments in Lieu of Sales Tax” (PILOST), which, despite its subtle differences from TIF is the first use of a value capture approach to capital financing in NYC63. These methods are used in compliment to common funding sources such as sale of Transferable Develop-ment Rights (TDRs) and FAR bonuses64.

PILOTs and PILOST differ from TIF mechanisms in three important ways: (1) PILOT and PILOST properties are so designated following negotiation of a PILOT agree-ment with the property’s owners, not through sweeping designation of an area. (2) PILOT and PILOST agree-ments take the property off the city’s tax base and recuperate the entire share of payments – not only the incremental increase in development. And (3) PILOT and PILOST agreements do not rise with changes in property taxes. PILOT and PILOST agreements terminative at the end of the project life and similarly to TIF, thereafter the property resumes its full market rate contributions to property taxes64.

Further rationale cited for using PILOT/PILOST value capture methods for the Hudson Yards are common

HYIC Board of Directors66

1. The City's Deputy Mayor for Economic Development and Rebuilding (Board Chair)2. The City's Deputy Mayor for Operations (A, G)3. Chairperson, New York City Planning Commission4. Commissioner, New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development5. Commissioner, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation6. Commissioner, New York City Department of Small Business Services (G)7. Director, New York City Office of Management and Budget (A, G)8. President, New York City Economic Development Corporation (A, G)9. New York City Comptroller (A, G)10. Speaker of the City Council (A, G)11. City Councilmember for District 312. Manhattan Borough President (G)13. Chair, Manhattan Community Board 4

G = Governance Committee, created October 2, 2006. A = Audit Committee, created October 2, 2006.

Figure 30: Hudson Yards Development67

to other cities using TIF, enabling growth without: (1) Drawing directly on the city budget; (2) Further burden to the city’s standard debt load; General Obligation debt; or (3) Raising taxes64. Especially given the state of the city’s already strained finances further grappling with the toll of post-9/11 reconstruction and economic fall-out thereafter, Mayor Bloomberg and City Council advocated that accounting for the West Side redevelop-ment on the city’s books would put its objectives in direct competition with these other capital improvements and therefore would be unlikely to take off at all59.

Hudson Yards Infrastructure Corporation (HYIC)

The financing plan for the entire project covers invest-ments made between 2005-2011 and repayment through financing from 2005-2035. HYIC’s responsi-bilities include the investment plan development and approval by its Board of Directors, bonds issuance and sales through the investment phase, project administra-tion, PILOT/PILOST contract negotiations, and develop-ment rights and funds management65.

The HYIC is a managed by a three-part team including President (currently Angela Cavaluzzi), Vice President and Counsel, and Fiscal Manager and Treasurer and is overseen by a panel of 13 Board of Directors serving on an ex-officio basis, none of whom act in the capacity of community member. [See HYIC Board of Directors].

Performance & Criticism

In an updated May 2016 Report from the New York City Independent Budget Office65, sequential lags in projected revenues have been noted between 2006 and 2016 citing the effects of the 2008-2009 recession and generally slow start in development revenue ($845.5 million actual vs. projection estimates between $986.6 million -$1.3 billion). “Interest Support Payments”, effec-tively subsidy payments from the City have been filling

the gap to keep track on project interest payments in the interim.

The report notes, however, that a little over a third of the way through the project timeframe (10 years out of total project from 2006-2035) “revenues from develop-ment in the Hudson Yards are picking up”.65

Final rezoning of the Yards proceeded in 2005 without significant recognition of the community’s objections including: excessive density, no plan for affordable hous-ing, environmental concerns, condemnations of residenc-es and businesses, displacement pressure to existing residents, particularly NYCHA residents, preservation and landmarking, and significant concern over tremen-dous exposure to the City’s finances.

With revenue generation and debt repayment priori-tized, these concerns remain today.

Lessons for Gowanus

NYC frequently prioritizes examples from within its own experiences as templates. Being the only example of value-capture techniques in a major rezoning effort and especially to support transit assets – the Hudson Yards is a cautionary example of business-as-usual development in New York City under the additional burden of debt. Bonding out such large sums puts extraordinary pressure on returns and forces stewardship on the city’s economic elite rather than a community driven exercise. The result missed opportunities to champion inclusive, mixed, and accessible outcomes.

While Midtown West a very different neighbourhood from Gowanus, New York City’s propensity for self-re-flexive approaches to policy and projects will never-theless invoke these experiences when city planning goes forward.

© Tishman Speyer

45 44

Gowanus VisionsGowanus has a strong history of self-determination and well-timed efforts to articu-late its vision of the Community. Forged through coalition building, tough negotiation, and consensus-forging debate. Bridging Gowanus (2014)62, Survive and Thrive (March 2014)13 and the Urban Heat Island Technical Assistance Panel (UHI TAP) Report (April 2017)18, provide three key community-driven visions for a sustainable Gowanus, all with strong contributions by FAC.

Espousing a custom-built Gowanus future based on vibrant and mixed-use, inclusive growth and affordability, green design, resiliency, and community health principles, these visions articulate an eyes-wide-open approach to sustainability; exactly the progressive grass-roots political action and engagement that Melissa Checker relates as essential in combating environmental gentrification, in her article “Wiped Out by the Greenwave”30.

The capacity to create such visions in addition to their content lays important ground-work in terms of practice, engagement, and focus on outcomes.

Knowing the stresses from transformative change facing Gowanus, its background and context within New York City development, and the promise of potential Path-ways tools, it remains critical to understand where the Community sees its future.

Chris Swain swims the Gowanus Canal for Earth Day 2015 68. Photo © Konstantin Sergeyev

3

47 46

Evidenced by the MOS’ Urban Heat Island Working Group, and further detailed by the MORR $106 million Cool Neighborhoods NYC program69 launched in June 201770 which notes:

“Linking vulnerable and high-risk populations to strat-egies for green infrastructure and other nature-based solutions is critical for increasing equity and address-ing environmental justice in the city.

Increasing the city’s street tree canopy will reduce the UHI, relieve heat stress in residential neighborhoods, help to improve air quality, and support the city’s bio-diversity by creating additional corridors of greenery that help connect between larger patches of vegeta-tion, giving local species access to a greater amount of habitat.”70

The panel was convened by ULI together with FAC to deliberately consider the current state of Gowanus’ unforgiving hardscape and history of inequity.

Under the future lens of environmental cleanup, rezoning changes, and climate change, the panel’s recommenda-tions support discrete technical design, social, health, and economic tools and tactics to empower FAC in their forthcoming advocacy for the rezoning and response.

UHI TAP Report (April 2017)

In the spring of 2017, FAC together with the Urban Land Institute (ULI) hosted a Technical Assistance Panel (TAP) for Gowanus (Figure 33), focusing on the intersections between urban heat island (UHI) mitigation and the role of green-infrastructure.17,18

The TAP convened 21 interdisciplinary experts including landscape architects, transportation engineers, urban designers, and developers for an intensive two-day blitz of site tours, stakeholder interviews, and closed profes-sional working sessions. Culminating their findings and synthesis at the end of day-two, the panel presented their results to client FAC.

The TAP was tasked with examining the effects of urban heat on its vulnerable populations, and potential design interventions to address the same. The TAP was further-more asked to provide such recommendations specifi-cally in the context of the anticipated rezoning effort and opportunities to dovetail such findings – including opportunities for financing – in FAC’s advocacy for the action. This panel evidences a shift in thinking around GI, climate change, and health. Where GI has been tasked previously with water management, GI is increasingly understood as an important tool for UHI mitigation under current temperatures, as an adaptive tool for resilience against the exacerbating effects of climate change, and an important tactic within the city’s environmental justice strategy.

Figure 33: Urban Heat Island TAP Report, ULI (2017)18 Gowanus Neighborhood Coalition for Justice (GNCJ, List in Formation)13

• Fifth Avenue Committee (FAC), • Families United for Racial and Economic Equality (FUREE),• Gowanus Houses Resident Association,• Gowanus Houses Arts Collective,• Wyckoff Gardens Resident Association, • Wyckoff Gardens Resident Watch, • Warren Street Houses Residents Association, • RAICES Spanish Speaking Elderly Council,• VOCAL NY, • Christian Help in Park Slope (CHiPS), • St Lydia’s Church, • TRELLIS, • Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary & St. Stephen Roman

Catholic Church, • Southwest Brooklyn• Industrial Development Corporation (SBIDC),• Gowanus Alliance, Gowanus Canal Conservancy (GCC), • South Brooklyn Local Development Corporation (SBLDC), • Forth on Fourth (FOFA) a Committee of the Park Slope

Civic Council.

Survive and Thrive (March 2017)

In March 2017, the Gowanus Neighborhood Coalition for Justice (GNCJ) published its policy paper: “Survive and Thrive: Towards a Justice-Faced Gowanus Neigh-borhood” (Figure 32).13

Convened by FAC the coalition has 18 coalition part-ners spanning residents associations, local and industrial development agencies, environmental stewards, artists groups, and religious institutions. [See GNCJ Member-ship]

Designed to ride off the work of Bridging Gowanus and to specifically address the gaps in representation of key underserved constituencies from that process, “most notably low- and moderate-income residents, the majority of whom are Latin and African American”13, the report advances five specific principles for the forthcoming re-zoning to target inclusivity and limit displacement of the neighborhood’s most economically and socially vulnera-ble residents, namely:

1. Advance racial and economic justice 2. Create real affordable housing and protect ten-

ants from displacement 3. Promote environmental justice 4. Protect local businesses where we work and shop 5. Uplift the culture and community of long-time

residents13

Bridging Gowanus (2014)

In direct response to proposed rezoning action by the NYC Department of City Planning (DCP), Bridging Gowanus was launched by NYC District 39 Councilman Brad Lander.62

In coordination with other local elected officials and community groups, the process engaged hundreds of local residents in-person and online from 2013-2015, with publication of its existing conditions and future vision recommendations in the draft report “Bridging Gowanus” in 2014 (Figure 31).62

“Bridging Gowanus is a community planning process to shape a sustainable, livable, and inclusive future for the Gowanus neighborhood – in the face of on-going change, the Superfund cleanup, and real estate pressure.”62

Today, the report is explicitly acknowledged on the DCP Rezoning “PLACES” website59 and related on-line engagement platform “PLAN GOWANUS”68 as an au-thoritative account of the community’s shared goals and priorities for the area’s future development.

Importantly, Bridging Gowanus emphasizes a vibrant, mixed-use, and sustainable future vision for the neigh-bourhood. It further recommends specific strategies, such as the use of financial tools through a rezoning-ac-tion such as TIF to achieve many of the community’s de-sired expenditures such as GI, renewable energy assets, and myriad public amenities.62

Gowanus Visions

Figure 31: Bridging Gowanus (2014)62 Figure 32: Survive and Thrive, GNCJ (2017)13

49 48

FLEXIBLERESILIENT

RISK MANAGEMENT

ADAPTIVE TRANSPARENT

DEEP UNCERTAINTY

TRANSFORMATIVESTEWARD

Gowanus PathwaysGiven the impacts of major environmental cleanup (Superfund, LTCP) and climate change, the Gowanus community is beset by circumstances of transformative change and deep uncertainty. Entering further into a transformative rezoning of the neigh-borhood, it is of critical importance that any funds leveraged for the community through these actions be spent effectively to steward the Community’s self-determined Visions and resilience to uphold them.

How then can Fifth Avenue Committee recognize the conditions of deep uncertainty and using iterative, adaptive methods har-ness the rezoning action into a tool of resilience? How can Fifth Avenue Committee, its fellow coalition members, and concerned members of the community, engage in and steward its progres-sive visions?

“A rezoning is a land-use action, not a plan…

What we need is a plan” – Ron Shiffmann,

Professor Emeritus Pratt Institute

4

51 50

As with the experience of London’s Thames River (Case Study #2: Thames River, TE2100 Plan) and the Neth-erlands Rhine Delta (Case Study #3: Rhine Delta), the following sketch for a Pathways Model for Gowanus is specifically designed to reconcile risk management, sound fiscal management, stewardship of visions, and participatory decision-making processes - and to respect the context for New York City and Gowanus.

Applying Rodin’s five characteristics of resilience24:

• awareness, • diversity, • integration, • self-regulation, and • adaption;

we see Pathways as a strong tool to support community resilience in Gowanus, using the community funds gener-ated from rezoning.

Specifically, Pathways can be used to support social and environmental sustainability for Gowanus, whose priority consistently yields to New York City’s development-heavy climate.

The following steps 1–5 detail the methodology that FAC can start now and over the coming months for the construction of a Gowanus Pathways Framework, em-phasizing each step’s contribution to a resilient Gowanus.

1) Recognize Inputs, Sources of Uncertainty, Risk and Transformative Change

As the groundwork for the Gowanus Pathways mod-el and rationale for its use, awareness of the myriad sources of uncertainty, risk and transformative change affecting change in the neighborhood are the necessary starting point to build a Gowanus Pathways Framework for resilience.

As detailed under the Background section of this Cap-stone project acute transformative change is coming to Gowanus from 1) Superfund legacy industrial environ-mental remediation; 2) State and municipal environmen-tal action to address storm and wastewater treatment issues under the LTCP; and from 3) Rezoning.

Far less acute but deeply chronic are the stresses of 4) Climate Change, with effects of sea level rise, increased frequency and severity of storms bringing cloudburst and inland flooding impacts, and urban heat island particularly at issue for Gowanus.

With the rezoning action as a tool to generate funds for the community, this Capstone recommends a Framework to guide the expenditure of those proceeds using the latest findings in Adaptation Pathways (Pathways) meth-odology35,36,38 on behalf of the Gowanus Community in stewardship of its stated visions.

Novel in its application to a community-scale rezoning, to a funding mechanism, and in New York City with rigor, Pathways models have been recommended for “mechanisms for funding”38 and “supporting self orga-nization and social networks so communities can exploit extreme events as triggers of transformational change.” 38

Where the actions in municipal projects are owned by various agencies, the results are owned by the com-munity. Tools in the hands of the recipient that enable constructive and flexible adaptation and that embrace the limitations of deep uncertainty are essential for effective stewardship.

In applying the principles of Adaptation Pathways, using case studies, and best practice review to expand its limited application for urban policy management, the recommendations that follow for a Gowanus Pathways framework will seek to:

• Manage risk and deep uncertainty by promoting a transparent, and adaptive framework for expendi-tures;

• Steward goals set out in the community visioning documents: Bridging Gowanus, Survive & Thrive, and UHI TAP reports by forming a multi-disciplinary Stewardship Committee with combined Community, technical experts, and policymaker voices;

• Enshrine the agency of client, Fifth Avenue Com-mittee, and its affiliated coalition members, in the Stewardship Committee that drives the Pathways process; and

• Harness the outputs and maximize co-benefits for the community’s sustainability and resiliency in a period of transformative change for the neighbor-hood.

Understanding the multitude of actions and actors cur-rently at work in Gowanus, the conditions of transforma-tive change, deep uncertainty, the pressures of Devel-opment in NYC, and the essential role of collaborative community and policymaker stewardship, the case for a Pathways policy framework for a resilient Gowanus is clear.

Gowanus Pathways

Gowanus Pathways Stewardship Committee:

• Full-time Pathways Stewardship Coordinator, sup-port staff

• Board of Directors:o Executive Director, Fifth Avenue Committee (Chair)o GNCJ and Gowanus Canal CAG (the two lists to overlap, not in duplicate)o NYC District 49 Council-membero Members of the Gowanus Community public at large members – recommend annual rotations from different socio-economic strata, sectors,

• Standing Technical Assistance Council – e.g. ULI TAP Panel experts + Pratt Center for Community Development

• Agency Partners - NYC’s Mayor’s Office of Recov-ery & Resiliency, Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, Mayor’s Office of Environmental Remediation, De-partment of Environmental Protection, Department of Parks & Recreation, Department of Transpor-tation, NYC Emergency Management, and NYC Housing Authority.

Together, the Stewardship Committee, with its Technical Assistance Counsel and Agency Partners, the latter two acting in advisory capacity, will share the responsibilities of holding public meetings and charettes at its outset to publicize the Pathways approach and open community membership to Stewardship Committee.

The group will then be charged with developing the Gowanus Pathways plan, negotiating and taking de-cisions at each of the Plan’s inflection points, and the related administration of funding.

3) Build a Plan

Building the Gowanus Pathways Framework will require sound technical, social, and economic mastery of urban conditions and available and future technologies. Analy-sis of the problem, creation of a model, and its popula-tion with individual strategies, their respective longevity and limitations, and their interconnectedness with other strategies requires strong modeling skills. The results are both deeply elegant in their clarity and sophisticated in their complexity.

For Gowanus, the first step will be to confirm the com-munity’s stated Visions and any further goals – and

Under frames of global, federal, state, and municipal magnitude, 5) Economic Conditions and 6) Politics each play major roles in the specific actions and prevailing conditions that will influence the foregoing drivers.

2) Build Stewardship Committee

Over the course of the next 18 months, Superfund clean-up efforts, LTCP investments and rezoning are kicking off. Concurrently, FAC, together with its community partners, will be following each and deeply engaged in negotiating the terms of community proceeds to fuel their stated Visions of the future.

As soon as funds are confirmed, FAC should found a Pathways Stewardship Committee and publicly confirm its responsibilities and approach.

Where prior pathways models have had stewardship committees, they have taken a less emphatic approach to resiliency precondition social cohesion. Given New York City’s default approach to land-use actions and Gowanus’ already deepening socio-economic divide, this element for Gowanus is paramount. It must be expand-ed from prior Pathways models (See Case Study #2: Thames Estuary, TE2100 Plan and Case Study #3: Rhine Delta) to reflect the importance of social cohe-sion in an urban, mixed-use neighborhood setting per Bridging Gowanus and particularly given FAC’s and the GNCJ’s stated concerns in Survive and Thrive.

Confirmation through public engagement will determine Committee responsibilities, structure, and authority to spend funds negotiated on behalf of the community. This confirmation will comprise the basis for the Stew-ardship Committee’s bylaws and will gear it up to start work as soon as the rezoning action is complete and funds start to accrue.

Driving off the examples of Case Study #5: 11th Bridge Park in Washington D.C. and the Case Study #6: OLWP in Syracuse, NY, the centrality of social equity and the environment is informed by having those voices at the table from the get-go. As such, the following Com-mittee membership structure is a first recommendation, with refinements expected by FAC and its community allies based on their experience, committment to commu-nity issues and justice, and an effort to avoid duplication with other environmental (e.g. GCC’s Gowanus Lowlands Projects) and social justice initiatives in Gowanus to avoid duplicity and to insert their actiions, energies, and procoess as fully as possible into the Gowanus Pathways Framework.

Gowanus Pathways

Awareness

Div

ersit

y, In

tegr

atio

n, S

elf-

Regu

latio

n

Adaptation, Integration,

Self-Regulation

53 52

to translate this quantitatively into areas of positive adaptation and areas of negative adaptation (malad-aptation), and tolerances in between high and low-risk scenarios.

The second step will be to determine the axis for the framework’s development. While sustainability is triple bottom line – social, environmental, and economic –the subservience of social and environmental to economic considerations in New York City’s development climate (See Case Study #4: Dutch Kills Green, and Case Study #7 Hudson Yards) recommend a biaxial frame-work to emphasize and support social and environ-mental considerations. Where sustainability ultimately involves harmonization of social, environmental, and economic factors, this two-dimensional approach – with social and environmental outcomes balanced at the center, effectively presumes that the “third axis” of economic viability will be driven by the rezoning and land-use outcomes and that reconciling these interests in the prevailing market context can be achieved by harnessing economic drivers to feed the Community’s environmental and social priorities. Stated otherwise: the proceeds from the rezoning can be used to augment the community’s social and environmental needs and in this way drive sustainability.

While not explored further in this paper, an alterna-tive 3D-dimentsional pathways model is conceivable to make the focus triaxially explicit. Not yet seen in the literature, such an approach could be compelling to demonstrate full sustainability and the negotiations and tradeoffs between each of its guiding tenets: econom-ic, social, and environmental. Such advanced models could be invaluable to support Circular Economy71 or Eco-Industrial Park72 ideals where the economic model was predicated on integrated social and environmental

interactions. (Figure 34)

Third - to aid with the identification of high/medium/and low scenarios and strategies to populate the Frame-work, inspiration could be readily taken either EcoDis-tricts® indicators (See Section 5: Determinants and Spinoffs), or those from the Rockefeller Foundation’s Resiliency City Framework73, or other robust resiliency models. Using these strategies, building the model will include: drawing out scenarios, strategy length and effective duration; building linked actions to form Path-ways; and mapping them to build the model and place their outcomes in either adaptive or maladaptive spaces (Figure 35).

Both building the Pathways plan and on-going assess-ment and monitoring will likely require the engage-ment of one or more consulting firms and access to proprietary data sets. Where the effectiveness of the approach is founded upon (1) a robust model popu-lated by technically sound strategies, and (2) accurate, real-time assessments for evaluation by the Stewardship Committee, the consulting support for the approach should be prioritized for early and sustained funding in the approach.

4) Link Framework to Funding

Where the Pathways model relies on strategy inflection points to trigger decisions by the Stewardship Commit-tee, such “decisions” are in regards to policy assessment and direction, but they are ultimately about the adap-tive deployment of funds to support social and environ-mental resilience.

As such, the Pathways technical Framework should be linked to the funding model determined from the rezon-

Figure 34: Determining the Framework Axes and Adaptive Space

Figure 35: Building Pathways: Scenarios, Strategies, and Linkages

Gowanus Pathways

55 54

Figure 36: Gowanus Pathways Framework © Adrienne Downeyresults in directions that satisfy the neighborhoods self-determined visions of “sustainability”. The busi-ness plan and investment strategy will be adaptive, following the path.

The duration of the Pathway will follow the availabili-ty of funds and the funding model ultimately decided through the rezoning negotiation. Whether, for example a community benefit agreement, zoning bonuses, or tax increment financing models, each format will excise its own horizon and time frames - likely stretching between the next 10-20 years following completion of the City’s rezoning action.

In the case where funds are seeded for regenerative purposes - for example, with investments in revenue generating assets such as community solar projects, the Pathways model can be extended indefinitely.

Should funds dry up, a community can ultimately choose to adapt the tool to less capital intensive decisions such as policy endeavors; or use it as a proof-of-concept framework to secure additional public or private funds - for example, from grants.

Where Pathways models rely on real-time and contin-uous assessment of existing conditions, monitoring and assessment is essential to sound execution.

Walking a Pathway does not insulate its Stewards from outside influence; progress and the model itself must be regularly updated and vetted to ensure that definitions of adaptive space used - or the longevity of strategies and their performance - must be vetted and negotiated.

Furthermore, changes in technology - either cost or design - can and should be regularly reviewed and strategies updated accordingly to ensure the Community and its strategy is continually benefiting from the best solutions.

To this end, the importance of dedicating funds for assessment and monitoring support at the outset and du-ration of the project cannot be underestimated to ensure well-informed and timely decisions are made.

Far from a weakness in the strategy, this perpetual emphasis on evaluation and performance keeps its Stewards attuned to success and the Community’s assurance that funds are well-spent on their behalf.

ing negotiations to vet its direct financial feasibility and/or requirements for additional fundraising and commit-ments from municipal or state partners amongst others. Where the Rhine Delta example ran scenarios to eval-uate governance models on policy direction, Gowanus should similarly run “scenarios” to assess and negotiate sequencing that matches the different subjectivity of outcomes from the rezoning and from climate change im-pacts especially – exploring for example, high and low equity and inclusion in land-use, environmental outcomes, and availability of funds, etc.

For example, in the case where a rezoning yield sig-nificant housing under Mayor de Blasio’s Mandatory Exclusionary Housing (MIH) program, but limited “deep affordability”, then housing provision or subsidy may be a priority to support via funding. Alternatively, if large quantities of greenspace are provided through new de-velopments, but all of them private, then the funds may be well used to support public greening.

Further examples abound: the “Paths of Respite” model offered by the UHI TAP; helping local homeowners to access Green Infrastructure Grant funding; supporting pedestrian thoroughfares; oyster beds for water filtra-tion; NYCHA mold remediation and housing repair sup-port; community-owned renewable energy investments; and on and on. The many tactics that are congruent with the Gowanus Visions and the activities of its many dedi-cated Stewards can all be considered in this approach. As a tool to deploy funds acquired through rezoning in an adaptive, resilient manner, the link to funding – either in direct actions – or via adaptive payment schedules - is what will make this tool effective and self-regulating for Gowanus.

5) Follow the Path

Once built, following the Pathways Framework requires only the starting point - where is Gowanus today versus the ideal definition of sustainability?

Thereafter, the implementation process will deploy the tools built (Figure 36):

• the Stewardship Committee’s involvement to monitor and track outcomes, publicize, and engage the public to the tool’s progress and commitments on its behalf;

• spending the funds from the rezoning, the Commit-tee will continue to assess current conditions and spur corrective response with funding actions at critical “triggers” or inflection points that will nudge

Gowanus PathwaysAw

aren

ess,

Div

ersit

y, In

tegr

atio

n,

Self-

regu

latio

n, A

dapt

atio

nA

dapt

atio

n, S

elf-

Regu

latio

n

57 56

View over 365 Bond St. apartments, a new development from Lightstone. Photo © Associated Press

Determinants & Spin-offs5 Beyond the Gowanus Pathways Framework recommended in this capstone project, several tools have been proposed in the preparation of Gowanus’ Visions to either inform or complement the outcomes of the current rezoning effort.

Two particularly are of note - the first a determinant that will heavily inform the outcomes of the Gowanus rezoning: Tax Increment Financing (Bridging Gowanus); the second a spin-off that will seek to shepherd outcomes: accreditation under the EcoDistricts® framework (UHI TAP).

This section looks briefly at each and rather than recommending the Pathways framework over and above these other models, it emphasizes their potential compatibility to ensure resilient outcomes.

59 58

Whereas the exact format of the Redevelopment Plan are not legally prescribed, using the Gowanus Pathways Framework as the basis for a TIF Redevelopment Plan presents an important opportunity to moderate the concerns detailed above, folding the entire Pathways Framework into this Plan. The Community could then lobby for definitions of maladaptive spaces consistent with their visions and identify important tipping points in strategies that will ensure timely and appropriate ex-penditures that will prioritize Gowanus-based definitions of sustainable outcomes consistent with the Community Visions.

And in maintaining monitoring and assessment and a responsive approach to changing inputs, the Redevelop-ment Plan under TIF becomes a tool for resilience.

Furthermore, per the terms of §970-l, the option for Trusteeship of the TIF process may offer opportunities to legislatively enshrine FAC and the Stewardship Commit-tee as Trustees of the Plan.

Thus, where TIF will prompt acceleration of the busi-ness case of the proposed Pathways Framework, and will involve stronger committee participation from city budgetary offices and economic development offices in lieu of community-driven approaches, should TIF be the proposed model for Gowanus, inclusion of the Gowanus Pathways Framework (Redevelopment Plan, §970-f) and Pathways Stewardship Committee (Trusteeship, §970-l) as described in this report are important considerations to ensure the social and environmental interests of the Gowanus Community are served; such foregoing rec-ommendations to be duly vetted by appropriate legal counsel.

Tax-Increment Financing (TIF)

Bridging Gowanus62 specifically refers to the use of TIF as a funds generator whose proceeds could be used to pay for services and amenities for the community consis-tent with its vision for the Gowanus Community.

TIF is a form of municipal economic development tool common across North America and legislatively upheld on New York State’s books since 1984 (New York Gen-eral Municipal Law, Article 18-C, Municipal Redevelop-ment Law § 970-a-r).75

Defined as a tool to eliminate “blight,” subject to the constraint that a municipality can only engage in re-development that “cannot be accomplished by private enterprise alone” (§970-b). Against a baseline of taxation, TIF permits a municipality to bond out and in-vest capital, up-front, commensurate with the cumulative incremental property value appreciation. This incremen-tal tax-base of the designated TIF district is harnessed over a prescribed period of time, diverted off of the city’s books and budgetary processes, and put to use in the TIF district. As the district “improves”, property tax revenues rise and the debt is steadily retired.59

A speculative form of investment, proponents argue that the investments jump-start neighborhood growth with the net results that they effectively “pay for themselves”. Amongst other claims, opponents cite dastardly parallels to “urban renewal” in abuse of the term “blight”; starkly aggressive development plans to ensure payments are met; and limited accountability and transparency of tax-payers dollars as they are diverted off city books and into the TIF program.

Where both sides make heated cases, this report will not weigh-in on the debate. Rather, in acknowledging TIF as a tool that the community has suggested to generate funds toward its vision, and in recognizing especially:

1. that acceleration of development is a common concern under TIF; and

2. the need for transparency and accountability for tax-payer dollars;59

the use of TIF warrants close assessment and careful planning.

Per the terms of §970-f, use of TIF in New York must be accompanied by the preparation and approval of a Redevelopment Plan, with approvals issued by city officials and school boards, and only supplemented by public comment.

Determinants & Spinoffstheir funding in accordance with sustainable urbanism and design principles.

Fifth Avenue Committee is currently considering the use of EcoDistrict® as framework to complement their visions of sustainability and inclusivity.

But EcoDistrict® frameworks do not preclude the use of Pathways models to steward funding in Gowanus. Rather, the Gowanus Pathways Model, folded into the Forma-tion (Pathways Stewardship Committee) and Roadmap (Pathways Framework) steps of the EcoDistrict® proto-col (Figure 37), brings important systems-based rigor, risk-management and transparency to populate these steps in a way that matches deep uncertainty. Rather than one or the other, the combined use of Pathways and an EcoDistricts® would present important opportunities for mutual support and enhancement.

Additionally, as described earlier in the Pathways Framework recommendations, EcoDistricts® sample “indicators” can be adapted to meet Gowanus priorities to help (1) discern maladaptive spaces, and (2) provide the basis for specific actions and strategy development within the Pathways Framework whose achievement is further the basis for inflection points over time and deci-sive actions and spending.

EcoDistricts®

Increasingly popular in New York City and amongst ma-jor metropolis’ across the US is the opportunity present-ed through EcoDistricts®.75

A combined technical assistance and certification body (similar in principle to LEED for neighborhoods) and with common reporting milestones the EcoDistricts® model requires commitment to EcoDistricts® sustainability im-peratives; formation of a leadership model and capac-ity to drive the process; development of a road-map to set goals and assess baseline performance and targets; and performance reporting76.

While the Formation, Roadmap and Performance re-quirements under the EcoDistricts® model parallel those of the Pathways Framework in principle, the mechanism is markedly different. Where Pathways models express-ly reconcile risk-management through iterative ap-proaches and constant reassessment in decision-making, EcoDistricts® alone do not exude such refined sensitivity to risk as an evolving force nor the intricacies of com-plex systems which require evaluation of system outputs rather than inputs.

While in itself a funding source, EcoDistricts® use sexy marketing and recognizable accountability frameworks to act as a crucible for public private partnerships and

Figure 37: EcoDistricts® Framework Overview76

61 60

“Canoeing Down a Superfund Site”. Photo © Carolyn Cole, Los Angeles Times

6Conclusion

“The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and the way people think.

– Gregory Bateson,Anthropologist, Systems Theorist, Ecologist.77

63 62

“At the heart of resilience thinking is a very simple notion – things change – and to ignore or resist this change is to increase our vulnerability and forego emerging opportunities. In so doing, we limit our options.”

– Brian Walker and David Salt78

Today’s Gowanus is beloved of its residents yet plagued by uncertainty.

Embarking on an era of long-overdue environmental transformation, the magnitude of the cleanup and its socio-economic impact cannot be underestimated. Coupled with equally transformative city-led re-zoning efforts whose goals trade densification and development for affordable housing at the risk of upsetting a delicate mixed-use character and deeply affordable assets. The foregoing compounded by the uncertain impacts of climate change.

Where Pathways models represent the cutting edge of resilience planning, its use for Gowanus offers an opportunity for transparent negotiation of the available strategies and tradeoffs which will invari-ably be made – not only in the timeframe of rezoning and cleanup – but especially for the decades in its wake.

Novel in its application to a community-scale rezoning, to a funding mechanism, and in New York City with rigor, Pathways Models have been recommended for “mechanisms for funding”23 and “supporting self organization and social networks so communities can exploit extreme events as triggers of trans-formational change.” 23

A Pathways Framework for Gowanus is consistent with the neighborhoods’ approach to-date of self-determination and dialogue. Using a Pathways Framework will complement this approach and seek to empower its residents and stewards to work together to apply the funds from rezoning actions into a transparent and sustainable framework that expands “Adaptive Management” practice into robust, actionable, resilient practice.

Without limiting specific sources of funding, or combination with other emerging resilience tools such as EcoDistricts®, the use of a Pathways framework allows alignment of FAC’s policy objectives in a way that embraces the systems reality of connectivity of issues and deep uncertainty in outcomes amidst the many forces of change impacting Gowanus.

By following change closely and applying funds and strategies in a strategic, incremental manner that is adaptive to change, Gowanus can “nudge” a straying pathway back in line to support the neigh-borhood’s progressive and sustainable ideals in balancing environmental, social, and economic interests and uphold them under stress.

Deep uncertainty need not be tantamount to deep anxiety. By inserting FAC’s stewardship and agency, together with its Stewardship Committee partners through a period of transformative change, a Pathways Framework for Gowanus presents an opportunity to embrace uncertainty and change and use it as the basis for building social, environmental, and economic resilience for the Community.

Conclusion

65 64

Sources1. Jacobs, Jane. The Economy of Cities. Vintage Books, 1970.s2. Fifth Avenue Committee. http://www.fifthave.org 3. Michelle de la Uz, Commissioner. Department of City Planning, New York City. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/about/commission/delauz-bio.page 4. Petro, Christine. Green Infrastructure & Education. Gowanus Canal Conservancy, June 2017. 5. American Community Survey (ACS), 20106. Superfund Site: Gowanus Canal, Brooklyn, New York. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0206222 7. Water Quality Assessment Map. NYS Section 305(b) Water Quality Report. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/305basmtmap10.pdf 8. Korin Tangtrakul and Josh Eichen. Open Sewer Atlas NYC. http://openseweratlas.tumblr.com/ 9. New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation August 2010. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/swdm2010entire.pdf 10. One New York: the Plan for A Strong and Just City (OneNYC). New York City Office of the Mayor, April 2015. http://www.nyc.gov/html/onenyc/downloads/pdf/publications/OneNYC.pdf 11. Mayor Bill de Blasio Signs Legislation to Create a Neighborhood Commitment Tracker. December 22, 2016. http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/972-16/mayor-bill-de-blasio-signs-legislation-create-neighborhood-commitment-tracker 12. Albrecht, Leslie. TEDx Conference to Showcase ‘Gowanus-Inspired’ Ideas. DNAInfo.com, December 9, 2013. https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20131209/gowanus/tedx-conference-showcase-gowanus-inspired-ideas 13. Survive and Thrive: Towards a Justice-Focused Gowanus Neighborhood. Gowanus Neighborhood Coalition for Justice, March 2017. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3522582/Survive-and-Thrive-FINAL22mar17.pdf14. PLACES: Gowanus Neighborhood Planning Study. New York City Department of City Planning. http://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/gowanus/gowanus.page 15. Current & Future Trends in Extreme Rainfall Across New York State. New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, Environmental Protection Bureau, September 2014. https://ag.ny.gov/pdfs/Extreme_Precipitation_Report%209%202%2014.pdf. 16. NYCEDC And Mayor’s Office Of Recovery And Resiliency Announce Request For Proposals to Conduct Study Examining Coastal Protection Measures For The Gowanus Canal And Newtown Creek. Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency (ORR) and New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), June 03, 2014. https://www.nycedc.com/press-release/nycedc-and-mayors-office-recovery-and-resiliency-announce-request-proposals- conduct-0 17. Gowanus Heat Island: ULI TAP Briefing Book. Fifth Avenue Committee, April 24 & 25, 2017 18. Gowanus Urban Heat Island: Technical Assistance Panel. Urban Land Institute, April 2017. 19. Meadows, Donella. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2008.20. Capra, Fritjof. The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. Anchor Books, 1997.21. Anderson, Phillip. More is Different. Science. Vol. 177. 1972. pp. 393-39622. Pollock, Kevin. Urban physics. Nature: Outlook, vol. 531, no. 7594, 17 March 2016, pp. s64-s66.23. Batty, Michael. An Experimental Model of Urban Dynamics. The Town Planning Review, vol. 43, no. 2, April 1972, pp. 166-186.24. Rodin, Judith. The Resilience Dividend: Managing disruption, avoiding disaster, and growing stronger in an unpredictable world. Profile Books, 2015.25. The Society for Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty (DMDU). http://www.deepuncertainty.org/26. Global warming: Dwindling chances to stay below 2 degrees Celsius warming. Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO). ScienceDaily. September 21, 2014. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140921145005.htm 27. Brundtland, GH, and World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission On Environment and Development. Oxford University, 1987. 28. Stein, Jaime. Carrying Capacity As A Tool for Understanding Social Resilience: From Ecosystem to Community. November 9, 201729 The Five Capitals. The Forum for the Future. https://www.forumforthefuture.org/project/five-capitals/overview 30. Yohe, Gary and Robin Leichenko. Adopting a Risk-Based Approach. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. May 2010 31. New York City’s Roadmap to 80 x 50. New York City Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. September 2016. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/sustainability/downloads/pdf/publications/New%20York%20City’s%20Roadmap%20to%2080%20x%2050_Final.pdf 32. Deadline 2020: How Cities Will Get the Job Done. C40 Cities and Arup. December 2015. http://www.c40.org/researches/deadline-2020 33. NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainable Strategy for Clean Waterways. New York City Department of Environmental Protection, September 2010. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_LowRes.pdf 34. New Orleans & The Birth of Urban Resilience. The Rockefeller Foundation, 2015. https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/new-orleans-birth-urban-resilience/ 35. Mission Statement. New York City Department of Environmental Protection. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/about_dep/mission_statement.shtml36. Haasnoot , Marjolijn, et al. Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world”. Global Environmental Change, vol. 23, 2013, pp 485-49837. Reeder, Tim and Nicola Ranger. How do you adapt in an uncertain world? Lessons from the Thames Estuary 2100 project. World Resources Report: Decision Making in a Changing Climate, 2011. https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/uploads/wrr_reeder_and_ranger_uncertainty.pdf 38. Wise, R.M., et al. Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Global Environmental Change. January 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002 39. Rosenzweig C. et al. Climate Change Adaptation in New York City: Building a Risk Management Response. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2010 40. Thames Estuary 2100: Managing flood risk through London and the Thames estuary (TE2100 Plan). United Kingdom Environment Agency. November 2012. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322061/LIT7540_43858f.pdf 41. Thompson, Matt, et al. The Business Case for Adapting Buildings to Climate Change: Niche or Mainstream. Innovate UK, 2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/430507/Report_BusinessCaseForAdaptingBuildingstoClimateChange_ webfinal.pdf42. Nijssen, Pim. The Dutch ‘Room for the River’ Program: A Modern Approach for Managing High Water Levels in the Netherlands. Sustainable Adaptive Gradients in the Coastal Environment. Webinar. October 18, 2017. http://www.resilient-infrastructure.org/presentations.html43. Reich, Robert. Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few. Vintage Books, 201644. Hackworth, Jason. Postrecession Gentrification in New York City. Urban Affairs Review, vol. 37, no. 6, July 2002, pp. 815-840. 45. Checker, Melissa. Wiped Out by the ‘Greenwave’: Environmental Gentrification and the Paradoxical Politics of Urban Sustainability. City and Society, vol. 23, no. 2, 2011, pp. 210-229.46. Brown, Hillary. Next Generation Infrastructure: Principles for Post-Industrial Public Works. Island Press, 2014.47. Dutch Kills Green. New York City Economic Development Corporation. https://www.nycedc.com/transition/dutch-kills-green 48. Newman, Andy. Instead of a Parking Lot. New York Times. April 4, 2012. https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/what-is-green-near-a-water-course-and-dutch/?mcubz=1.

Sources49. Dutch Kills Green: Landscape Performance Benefits. Landscape Performance Series. Landscape Architecture Foundation. 50. Thoren, Roxi et al. Dutch Kills Green, Queens, NY: Methodology for Landscape Performance Benefits. University of Oregon and WRT Design, September 2013. https://landscapeperformance.org/sites/default/files/Dutch%20Kills%20Green%20Methodology.pdf 51. Harris, Leila et al. Negotiated resilience. Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/21693293.2017.1353196 52. 11th Street Bridge Park: Equitable Development Plan. Building Bridges Across the River at THEARC, November 2015. https://bridgepark.org/sites/default/files/Resources/EDP%20Final%20-%20UPDATED.pdf 53. 11th Street Bridge Park: Equitable Development Task Force. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=184&v=a-MCsBehWjA 54. Clinkhammer, Aimee. Caring for Onondaga Lake watershed is a project for the millennium (Commentary). Syracuse.com, July 20, 2015. http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/caring_for_onondaga_lake_is_a_project_for_the_millennium_commentary.html 55. Superfund Site Profile: Onondaga Lake, Syracuse, New York. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=0203382#bkground 56. Onondaga Lake Watershed Partnership. http://www.olwp.org/about1.html 57. New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. http://neiwpcc.org/58. Watershed Coordinator Report. Onondaga Lake Watershed Partnership, December 2014. http://www.olwp.org/uploads/2/5/4/0/25403925/olwp_wateshed_report_2014.pdf59. Fisher, Bridget. The Myth of Self-Financing: The Trade-Offs Behind the Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project. Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis (SCEPA), The New School for Social Research. July 2015. http://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/images/Bridget_Fisher_WP_2015-4_final.pdf.60. Bloom, Barry R. Public Health in Transition. Scientific American, September 2005. pp. 92-99.61. Kemm, John. Health Impact Assessment: a tool for Healthy Public Policy. Health Promotion International, Volume 16, Issue 1, 1 March 2001, Pages 79–85, https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/16.1.79 62. Bridging Gowanus: Draft Framework Plan. Pratt Center for Community Development. November 2014. http://report.bridginggowanus.org//wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Bridging-Gowanus-Draft-Planning-Framework-for-DCP-all-chapters_v2.pdf63. Kimmelmann, Michael. In Gowanus, a People’s Housing Plan to Challenge the Mayor’s. The New York Times. August 1, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/arts/design/in-gowanus-a-peoples-housing-plan-to-challenge-the-mayors.html64. Hudson Yards Plans and Related Land Use (ULURP) Applications: Comments and Recommendations. Manhattan Community Board No. 4, August 2004. http://www.nyc.gov/html/mancb4/downloads/pdf/agendas/2004_08/1_hy_ulurp_response_final.pdf65. Devine, Theresa J. Learning from Experience: A Primer on Tax Increment Financing, New York City Independent Budget Office (IBO). September 2002. http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/TIF-Sept2002.pdf. 66. Hudson Yards Development Corporation: Board of Directors. Hudson Yards Development Corporation. http://www.hydc.org/html/board/board.shtml 67. Hudson Yards New York. Related Companies, http://www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com/about/building-hudson-yards/ 68. Plan Gowanus. New York City Department of City Planning. https://plangowanus.com 69. Mayor Announces Program to Help Curb Effects of Extreme Summer Heat. New York City Office of the Mayor, June 14, 2017 http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/411-17/mayor-program-help-curb-effects-extreme-summer-heat 70. Cool Neighborhoods NYC: A Comprehensive Approach to Keep Communities Safe in Extreme Heat. New York City Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency, June 2017. http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/orr/pdf/Cool_Neighborhoods_NYC_Report_FINAL.pdf 71. Stahel, Walter R. Circular economy: a new relationship with our goods and materials would save resources and energy and create local jobs. Nature, vol. 531, no. 7595, 2016, p. 435-438. https://www.nature.com/news/the-circular-economy-1.19594 72. Gibbs, David and Pauline Deutz. Reflections on implementing industrial ecology through eco-industrial park development. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 15, no. 17, November 2007, pp. 1683-169573. City Resilience Framework. The Rockefeller Foundation and Arup, December 2015. https://assets.rockefellerfoundation.org/app/uploads/20140410162455/City-Resilience-Framework-2015.pdf 74. General Municipal Law, Article 18-C, Municipal Redevelopment Law §970-A -§970-R. New York State Senate. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/GMU/A18-C. 75. Wells, Llewellyn, et al. Sustainability Districts for NYC: Building an Equitable and Resilient Future. Croxton Collaborative Architects, April 2016. http://www.2030districts.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/160425_NYC%20Sustainability%20Districts%20Brochure_view.pdf 76. Ecodistricts Protocol: The Standard for Community Development. Version 1.2, October 2016. https://ecodistricts.org/get-started/the-ecodistricts-protocol/get-the-protocol/ 77. An Ecology of Mind. Directed by Nora Bateson. Bullfrog Films, 2010. 78. Walker, B.H. and Salt. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. p.174, Island Press, 2006. Washington, D.C., U.S.

FLEXIBLERESILIENT

RISK MANAGEMENT

ADAPTIVE TRANSPARENT

DEEP UNCERTAINTY

TRANSFORMATIVESTEWARD