Urban Planning and the Scientific
Uncertainties of Sea Level Rise
ARCHNES
MASSACHUSETTS INSTIT ITE
OF
By
C4LLY
JUN 29 2015
Pierre Beaudreau
LIBRARIES
B.Ain Urban Systems
McGill University (2012)
Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master in City Planning
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
June 2015
2015 Pierre Beaudreau. All Rights Reserved
The author hereby grants to MIT the permission to reproduce and to distribute
publicly paper and electronic copies of the thesis document in whole or in part in
any medium now known or hereafter created.
Author _Signature
redacted
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
Ce
e b
Signature
redacted
May 21st 2015
Anne Whiston Spirn
Professor of Landscape Architecture and Planning
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted
bySignature
redacted
Professor Dennis Frenchman
Chair, MCP Committee
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
Urban Planning and the Scientific
Uncertainties of Sea Level Rise
by
Pierre Beaudreau
Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning on May 21st 2015
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in City Planning at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in June 2015.
Thesis Advisor: Anne Whiston Spirn
Readers: Fadi Masoud, Sarah Williams
Abstract
While climate change has recently gained much needed traction in our societal and political
spheres, the science behind climate change continues to be a complex interplay of countless
variables, timelines, and scenarios. Despite climate scientists' best efforts to predict what
the future holds in terms of climate change and sea level rise, various limitations and
uncertainties inherent in climate models challenge our ability to plan appropriately for the
future.
As planners and designers adopt various sea level rise thresholds in their policies and
designs, the uncertainties of the climate models, and climate itself, are often overlooked.
Major planning and design projects and proposals, such as those resulting from the
'Rebuild by Design' competition launched by the United States federal government, were
found to use different sea level rise thresholds in their approaches. Such observed variation
in projects' sea level rise preparedness mirrored the uncertainty in the climate models
themselves and led to using a more long-term analysis of the incremental impacts of sea
level rise on the built environment.
Using modeling and scripting software (Rhino and Grasshopper) a customizable tool
named SEARISE 3D was developed to allow planners and designers to explore the impacts
of sea level rise on any portion of any city (provided basic elevation and infrastructure
data). Using data generated through the tool, decision-makers can find the optimal longterm sea level rise threshold to begin preparing for. Similarly, planners, designers, and
architects can use the tool to visually explore flooding scenarios and create base layers for
producing design proposals to respond to sea level rise. SEARISE 3D was made available
online for free (under the MIT License) for all to use, improve, and develop further metrics
for decision-making in face of our uncertain climate future.
2
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I would like to thank the entire MIT community. Your hallways are
inspiring and intimidating but you have shown me what it is like be passionate about what
you do and that being a little wacky is just that much more human. Two years is not nearly
enough time to spend in such a place. IHTFP but please TMAYD!
Thank you to Anne, from the day I walked through the doors of MIT I knew you were there
to talk to, bounce ideas off of, and guide me through this amazing journey. I couldn't have
asked for a better advisor/supervisor and look forward to staying in touch as our projects
evolve.
A long 'for-each loop' thank you to each and every one of my fellow MCPs for constantly
pushing my limits, exposing me to perspectives outside of my comfort zone, and also
keeping me in check during my frequent trips to dreamland. They were right when they
told us we'd learn just as much from our colleagues as from our professors.
Thank you to Fadi and Sarah for taking the time to help me blend my mixture of traditional,
technology, and design theses into a final product that hopefully is juuust right.
A special thank you to Manos for showing me the ropes of Grasshopper and Rhino. Without
you my thesis would have just been a bunch of GIS maps! I'll pony up one day and repay
you for all the help you generously offered.
To Stephanie, thank you for your never-ending support, and countless trips through the
mountains. My work pales in comparison to the amazing work you do in an effort to find
cures and save lives. The world needs a special award for people like you. It was a close
race to the finish of our graduate degrees, but it seems like I have won 0.
To my parents Meagan and Bernard, thank you for supporting me in everything I do and
always being there to put things in perspective. You have given me my 'do-it-yourself and
'leave-no-stone-unturned' personality with which I have built some of the greatest
relationships and memories. Here's to finally being done with school and finally being able
to give back to you for all your support.
Lastly, to my supporting cast, Nicholas, Alex, Eric and Annique, I would never have made it
here without you, and knowing that you all were working just as hard to make your dreams
come true - you push me to be better every day. A mountain range and border guards ain't
got nothing on us! I'm really looking forward to our next adventures, from Rimouski, to
Quebec City, Montreal, and the world. The sky is the limit, but we've got that one covered!
Love and thanks,
Pierre
3
Table of Contents
................
LIST OF FIGURES..............................................................................................................................
LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................
.............................................
8
INTRODU CTION ............................................................................................................................................
. .
1.1 - AN 'OVERVIEW ' OF CLIMATE CHANGE ..................................................................................-...-.
6
7
PREFA CE .....................................................................................................................................-----........----1-
5
-..... .........- 8
1.1 - CLIMATE SCIENCE PROJECTIONS .................................................................................................................
..........
11
1.2 - COASTAL DESIGN STRATEGIES.......................................................................................................................
........
18
1.3 - CRITIQUE OF CURRENT DESIGN STRATEGIES.....................................................................................................
24
1.4 - A LONGER-TERM PLANNING APPROACH ...............................................................................................................
26
1.5 - NEW Y KORK CITY: A CASE ..........................................................................................................................................
31
2 - SITE SELECTION & SCENARIO BUILDING .............................................................................................
33
2.1 - CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEW TOW N CREEK...................................................................................................
34
2.2 - SCENARIO BUILDING FOR CLIENT..............................................................................................................................
38
3 -BUILDING
40
A TOOL FOR UNDERSTANDING & VISUALIZING SEA LEVEL RISE ...........
............. .............................
3.1 - REQUIRED DATA ..........................................................................................................
41
3.2 - FROM ARCGIS TO RHINO ............................................................................................................................................
43
3.2
44
- INTERACTIVITY W ITHIN RHINO - GRASSHOPPER ..............................................................................................
3.3 - DATA & VISUA L OUTPUTS ..........................................................................................................................................
52
3.4 - ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS FOR ANALYSIS..............................................................................................................53
3.5 - SCALE LIMITATIONS & FINAL OUTPUTS..................................................................................................................54
4-
USING THE TOOL TO INFORM DESIGN SCENARIOS .......................................................................
55
4.1 - EXPLORING DA TA OUTPUTS .......................................................................................................................................
55
4.2 - APPROACHES FOR HYPOTHETICAL CLIENT SCENARIO .....................................................................................
63
4.4 - INTEGRATING DESIGN STRATEGIES W ITHIN NEW YORK CITY CONTEXT ..........................................................
65
4.5 - PHASING AND NEW ZONING DISCUSSION................................................................................................................75
76
5 - CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................
...............................................
5.1 - REAL W ORLD IMPLICATIONS...................................................................................
5.2 - W ORDS OF W ISDOM/CAUTION.....................................................................................................
5.3 - CLOSING REMARKS.........................................................................................
W O RKS CITED .........................................................................................................
.........
...
...............
-------------------............................
76
79
81
.... -------------------............. 82
4
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Graph of global surface warming scenarios depending on emissions ......................................................
11
Figure 2 - Graph showing narrowing confidence interval over the course of IPCC Annual Reports................. 13
Figure 3 - Observed vs. actual arctic sea ice annual minimum extent ............................................................................
14
Figure 4 - Example of climate change projection graph being cut at 2100 ..................................................................
17
Figure 5 - Example of using highway infrastructure atop a berm to protect against the sea................................19
Figure 6 - Aerial image of a river lock/damn in the Netherlands, preventing inland areas from flooding..........19
Figure 7 - Example of a building on the right with freeboard principle (floodable ground floor).....................19
Figure 8 - Multi-family floating canal houses on Scheepstimmermanstraat, Amsterdam. .....................................
19
Figure 9 - An example of a coastal house that has been abandoned due to increasing coastal risk................... 20
Figure 10 - M ap of building age in Queens and Brooklyn......................................................................................................
26
Figure 11 - A map showing the uneven effects of climate change on sea level rise across the world............... 27
Figure 12 - Exam ple of a flood insurance map for New York City. ....................................................................................
28
Figure 13 - Artistic rendering of Miami under water due to sea level rise ....................................................................
29
Figure 14 - The New York City region with a 6ft sea level rise and major storm surge event .............
33
Figure 15 - A proposed Gowanus Creek flood barrier.................................................................................................................
36
Figure 16 - Flooding in neighborhood adjacent to Newtown Creek ................................................................................
37
Figure 17 - Screenshot of the M eerkat GIS tool tutorial. ......................................................................................................
44
Figure 18 - Variables that allow for user to change sea level rise, storm surge, and base water levels........... 47
Figure 19 - Screenshot of the tool with 15ft sea level rise shows which buildings are flooded..........................
48
Figure 20 - Images of 5ft, 10ft, and 15ft flooding scenarios with flooded buildings and real estate value.......... 50
Figure 21 - The SEARISE 3D tool with Rhino 3D (left) and Grasshopper definition (right)...................................
51
Figure 22 - Example of graph showing break in impacts of sea level rise on built environment. ...................... 52
Figure 23 - Map of Newtown Creek with 10ft and 20ft flooding scenarios ................................................................
62
Figure 24 - A map of Newtown Creek with sea level rise, and strategic areas of intervention............................
65
Figure 25 - N avy Yard Barrier and Bridge Barrier .......................................................................................................................
66
Figure 26 - Strategic areas in the Newtown Creek basin to prevent extensive flooding.........................................
67
Figure 27 - Defense scenario with a floodwall being built for most of the waterfornt along East River ............. 69
Figure 28 - Freeboard example in NYC Department of City Planning Waterfront Revitalization Program........ 70
Figure 29 - W -zoning m ap for New tow n Creek basin .................................................................................................................
72
Figure 30 - Example of W-1 and W-2 zoning resulting form the SEARISE 3D analysis............................................
72
Figure 31 - Sloped design that could be used along coastal parcels ...............................................................................
73
Figure 32 - The SEARISE 3D tool with introductory paragraph, instructions, for using the tool.........................
78
5
List of Tables
Table 1 -Recent major coastal development and sea level rise thresholds.................................................................
23
6
Preface
It is my greatest hope that humankind will be capable of fixing the ills we have caused on
our planet before its too late. In that case, many of the alarms I sound in this thesis will be
put to rest. That said, today's efforts for curbing catastrophic climate change are far from
what we need. As a result, this thesis takes on the "plan for the worst, while hoping and
working for the best" approach. Using both the proposed framework for thinking of long
term planning, and a new tool for exploring urban data under future scenarios, I believe
this approach provides a more objective method for planning for future climate change
realities. Lastly, I also believe that planning and design can be used for preparing for longterm risks that might not occur but still make that area more resilient for short-term
realities, and an attractive place to live for current and future generations.
It is also important to note that my position in this thesis is one of scientific yet alarmist
nature. In other words, I take the scientific community's findings as part of the
answer/reality of future climate, but also question the ability to predict future climate
using relatively new and non-exhaustive computer models.
Lastly, much of the climate science published and discussed is contested; people claim that
climate change is part of larger earth systems and cycles, or that the sun is warming up and
increasing our temperature, or that plants need carbon so why would carbon be a problem.
The list goes on. These claims have all been put to rest by various scientific teams and will
therefore not be covered in the following text. The climate science community and an evergrowing public community are finally agreeing that human activities are affecting the
planet. We don't have the luxury of time in this debate. We must begin to prepare now.
7
1 - Introduction
Climate change is one of the most pressing and important issues facing humankind. As
humans continue to emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the planet's delicate
atmospheric equilibrium is being rapidly pushed into a state unseen in millions of years,
and with unknown consequences. In response to changing climate conditions, many
disciplines are looking for ways of predicting and preparing for the future. On the leading
edge of the science are climatologists, whom using sophisticated computer models are
producing data outputs, and resulting reports, to help shed light on the fundamental
problems associated with increasing greenhouse gases. Despite powerful computer
modeling techniques, there is still much uncertainty as to how accurate the predictions for
future climate actually are, especially as we are beginning to observe unanticipated and
rapidly increasing rates of change. As countless other disciplines look to climate science for
guidance on what future climate scenario to prepare for, urban planning and design are
disciplines where decisions taken today concerning new development will be greatly
affected by the effects of climate change in the next 100 years. In fact, with current state-ofthe-art technologies and building codes, one can expect much of the infrastructure being
built today to be present well into the current century, and perhaps affected by sea level
rise. While climate science strives to provide the best estimates as to possible future
scenarios, climate models are still incomplete and riddled with uncertainties. This thesis
will demonstrate how the limitations and uncertainties of climate change science and
projections should be incorporated into our long-term planning efforts. Using interactive
and parametric computer programs and frameworks, this thesis also explores the
development of a tool, coined SEARISE 3D, to help visualize and identify strategic
intervention opportunities to prepare for ever-changing climate scenarios.
1.1 - An 'Overview' of Climate Change
Since the start of the industrial revolution in the 18t and 19th century, humankind has been
emitting a growing volume of climate influencing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
(GHGs) (e.g. carbon dioxide [C02] and methane [CH 4 ]). There are many side effects of these
greenhouse gases on our climate; however, the fundamental science behind these gases'
8
greenhouse effect is that C0 2 and CH 4 in the air trap radiant heat emitted from surfaces
&
warmed by the sun and prevent that energy from being released back into space (Reay
Hogan, 2012). This science is undeniable and many studies have built on it to show a direct
correlation between the concentration of C0 2 in the atmosphere and the planet's
temperature, tracing C0 2 emissions and temperature back to recent ice ages (Shakun, et al.,
2012). As a result of rising GHGs, our atmosphere is changing in observable and
measurable as well as unobservable and immeasurable ways. The following are only a few
effects of GHGs on our planet:
e
Rising temperatures cause increased evaporation of water (H 2 0), which, in its gaseous
form (water vapor), is one of the strongest greenhouse gasses, further intensifying the
greenhouse effect and thus the temperature of the planet.
*
Due to rising atmospheric, land, and sea surface temperatures, snow packs and ice
sheets are melting at unprecedented rates, which, in turn, increases sea level.
* As global temperatures as a whole increase, oceans also begin to warm. Water's
properties mean oceans can absorb enormous quantities of heat, which counters
atmospheric and land temperature increases. However, water expands as it warms
and further exacerbates the problem of rising sea levels.
*
Oceans, one of the planet's largest carbon sinks, responding to increased
concentrations of C0 2 in the atmosphere, have been absorbing more C0 2, which has
caused considerable decrease in the pH of oceans (acidification) which is putting
many ocean species at risk, namely crustaceans and corals.
These effects of increased GHGs concentrations in the atmosphere are cause for alarm.
Much of contemporary society revolves around water in one way or another, whether it be
dependent on healthy marine ecosystems for food supplies, or farmers depending on
winter snowpack melting in the spring to feed irrigation systems, or the fact that many of
the world's largest cities are built on the coast (historically serving the need for trade and
exploration via ports and ships, but today also for recreation and romanticism).
Coastal cities, or any urban setting at risk of flooding and damage from sea level rise, are
the primary focus of this thesis, whereby sea level rise is threatening the future of these
9
cities. Recent extreme weather events such as Hurricane Katrina and Sandy have further
exposed the vulnerability of coastal cities to unpredictable weather events, which scientists
predict will increase in strength and frequency. While scientific projections provide the
best understanding of what might happen in the future, I will demonstrate how the
uncertainty in climate change science is often mismatched and/or overlooked in
approaches to urban planning and design. I will outline what I believe is a more robust
approach to understanding the implications of uncertain climate science projections and
how we can begin to prepare cities for an unpredictable future.
10
-
---
I
1.1 - Climate Science Projections
Recent decades of climate science have shown how controversial and contested the idea
that humans are changing the climate of the planet can be. However, in recent years, the
discussion has slowly shifted from "if we are impacting the planet", to "how much we are
impacting the climate", or "how much can the planet take before shifting into a new state
threatening current human populations".
When looking for any kind of projection concerning climate change, one comes across the
work of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Established in 1988, their work
and publications range from projections on atmospheric warming and sea level rise, to
ocean acidification and biodiversity loss. Despite the IPCC being composed of some of the
world's most renowned scientists on these very subjects, the complexity of climate science
is evident in the variation among many of the projections that have been published and
their associated confidence levels.
6.0
-
-
.-
A2
A1B
OMPC~=Q7,WC1-AR4
81
Yar 20 Canstmn
5.0
----
20th 0o40"y
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-
-10
1900
2000
Year
I-
TJ
2100
Figure 1 - Graph of global surface warming scenarios depending on emissions
(IPCC, 2007).
11
Figure 1 above shows recent predictions by the IPCC where various lines on the graph
represent different emission scenarios. Each line evaluates the amount of warming, one
might observe under certain GHG emission scenarios (A2 = high emissions scenario; A1B =
medium emissions scenario; B1 = low emission scenario; yellow-line = committed warming
using 2000 constant emissions) (IPCC, 2007). On either side of these lines are lightercolored areas representing the uncertainties of each of the model predictions.
These graphs/scenarios demonstrate the uncertainty faced when looking at the future of
climate change and global warming. However, these predictions graph human action as the
independent variable, whereby how humans respond to this challenge (i.e. phase out GHGs
or not) will affect our fate. In that sense, society is in a position of relative understanding of
how our actions can affect our future, despite uncertainty on final impacts. Unfortunately,
global agreement on curbing emissions to prevent potentially devastating temperature
increases, which has historically been said to be around 2*C, speaks to societal and political
will to demand for sustainable reality.
Despite our understanding of how humans are impacting the climate based on scientific
models, what happens if these computer models decision-makers base their actions on are
not well calibrated, cannot process the endless amount of data in our climate, or worse, are
fundamentally incomplete?
1.1.1 - Variability in IPCC Projections
Aside from the variability in the projections themselves, there is also temporal variability
in projections over time. Some of the initial projections from the IPCC on climate change
came out in the 1980s when they predicted that our climate could warm by 2'C by 2100.
Over the years however, there has been a steady increase not only in the average warming
people expect to see but also the range of possible warming thresholds that are possible.
For example, from the IPCC's 1990 report (IPCC, IPCC Policymakers Summary, 1990),
highest estimates were for a 6'C, the best estimates were around 4*C, and low estimates
were around 3*C of warming by 2100. In the 2014 report, the highest projection was
between 4C and 6'C degrees Celsius and lowest of not even 1*C degree Celsius (IPCC,
12
2014). This supports the claim that the science itself is still experimental and that these
values or time scales cannot be taken as realities. As a result, our planning and design
strategies/interventions should not take these values as snapshots of the future but rather
as a process of understanding how these significant climactic and temporal shifts will
continue to affect our urban environments.
While the variability in the models still remains, the models themselves have gotten more
confident in the projections they provide. As Figure 2 shows, the confidence intervals for
potential warming scenarios is narrowing, which correspond to an increase in precision of
computer models. In other words, for a given hypothetical future scenario and known
condition, the ability for computers to predict what might happen has improved (to the
extent that they are accurate is different).
Width of Confidence Interval of IPCC Predictions
-
80
-
-
90
70
Width of
-- ---
-- -
60
50 t-
-
-
_
----
------
-
---
Confidence
--
Interval (cm) 40
30
-_-
20
10
0
1
_-
2
3
-- -_
4
IPCC Report Numbers
Figure 2 - Graph showing narrowing confidence interval over the course of IPCC Annual Reports.
13
1.1.2 - Scenario Predictions versus Actual Observations
Matching these hypotheses with actual observations is essential in testing the validity of a
specific model. In climate change science, this is even more important given the complexity
of the experiment. Despite today's advanced computing power, creating parameterized
models for predicting how our planet's climate might change is still a work in progress.
Unfortunately, this has led to significant discrepancies in what scientists have predicted
and what we can observe in the field/world.
Predictions of arctic ice retreat, for example, have missed the mark significantly. The ice
extent has decreased much faster than anticipated. As Figure 3 below demonstrates, the
IPCC model predictions for the extent of arctic sea ice for the year 2100 was already
reached in 2012.1 Similarly, Greenland's ice sheet is melting faster than predicted by the
models (Rahmstorf, et al., 2015). In fact, a recent study claims that Earth's climate is much
more sensitive to carbon in the atmosphere than previously thought, leading to much faster
warming and resulting effects on our ecosystems and urban environments (Morello, 2012).
Findings like these sound the alarm when society finds itself making important choices and
changes based on IPCC models. It appears that change is happening faster than we
anticipated.
30
20
J
IPCC GLOBAL MODELS
3.4
MINIMUM ANNUAL ARCTIC SEA ICE: IPCC MODELS VS OBSERVATIONS
Figure 3 - Observed vs. actual arctic sea ice annual minimum extent.
1 http://www.climatecentral.org/
14
1.1.3 - Missing Variables in Models
Perhaps one of the most important missing pieces in current climate change projections
and models are the unknowns. As former United States Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
put it so elegantly in a 2002 interview, there are two types of unknowns: known unknowns,
and unknown unknowns 2. These two are important elements of climate modeling for
different reasons. There is no way of adding 'unknown unknowns' into our models because
we simply do not know what these might be; in other words, there is the possibility that
our impact on the planet's equilibrium might lead to consequences we haven't foreseen. In
a slightly less uncertain scenario, there are known unknowns, where we know certain
conditions may lead to major shifts in our climate but we are not sure if, when, or at what
rate, they might happen. One such example of a 'known unknown' is the melting of Siberia's
and Canada's permafrost. As global temperatures rise, and with more warming observed in
Northern regions, permafrost begins to melt and releases methane (CH 4), a GHG 30 times
more potent than C02(Shaefer, 2012). This phenomenon is a 'known unknown' because we
know that if the permafrost melts it will release enormous quantities of methane, and
jumpstart a positive feedback loop (the permafrost carbon feedback) likely to make it even
more difficult to curb GHGs. However, we are uncertain as to the rate at which this might
happen or how quickly it might impact any efforts to keep warming below certain
thresholds (2*C). As a result, scientists haven't incorporated such scenarios into their
projections and therefore ignore the possibility of climate threshold/tipping point3 .While
it is reasonable for scientists not to integrate phenomena that they are unsure will happen
or how they affect scenarios, it points to yet another weakness of taking scientific
predictions at face value. In fact Weitzman (2011) has characterized this negligence around
possible disastrous scenarios as "fat-tailed uncertainty" whereby the risks at the extreme of
the graph are much higher (or 'fatter') than a standard normal distribution. The purpose of
highlighting these missing variables is simply to present another argument to question the
current reliance on climate models for action.
2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk
3 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/27/1165174/-IPCC-5-Will-Ignore-CO2-Methane-fromM elting-Permafrost-a-H uge-Carbon-Source
15
1.1.4 - Cutting Projections at 2100
The last element of concern to highlight concerning climate change projections is perhaps
the simplest, yet most important. A quick Internet search for climate change projections
will yield thousands of graphs showing different climate scenarios. Closer attention to the
graph's time variables will reveal that the great majority of these graphs end their
predictions/lines at the year 2100 (as seen in Figure 4). In fact, in the most recent synthesis
report on climate change from the IPCC, the year 2100 was used 56 times, while not a
single projection was present for beyond 2100. There are many things wrong with ending
the projections at 2100. First, as mentioned prior, for every degree of warming, sea level
will continue to rise for hundreds of years due to warming oceans. In fact, it is estimated
that "carbon dioxide displays exceptional persistence that renders its warming nearly
irreversible for more than 1,000 years" (Solomon, et al., 2010). Second, some of these
projections are observably exponential, suggesting an increasing rate of melting/warming
(which aligns with the increasing speed of warming scientists have observed). Third, and in
response to the first two points, in terms of urban life cycles, an 80 years time scale is
relatively short: a quick geospatial analysis of Brooklyn's buildings showed that the
average building in the FEMA flood map for Brooklyn was found to have been built in 1891.
If today's cities or decision-makers are allowing buildings to be erected that will last
beyond 2100, shouldn't they be aware of plausible longer-term sea level rise scenarios?
For these reasons it is essential to consider sea level rise and climate change scenarios
beyond 2100.
16
Global mean sea level rse
(b)
M anm
(relative to 1W6-2005)
A.
2081-2100
0.8
31
0.6
-
0.4
0.2
21
1
2000
2050
Year
2100
Figure 4 - Example of climate change projection graph being cut at 2100
(IPCC, 2014)
Hopefully the critiques outlined so far demonstrate that using current IPCC projections as
the basic knowledge to start planning for sea level rise is an approach that has many flaws
and risks. Unfortunately, technology still isn't capable of prediction our planet's complex
environmental interactions. Climate projections will continue to change as adjustments in
the models occur, and as our climate continues to respond to rapidly changing conditions
caused by human pressures the planet has not seen in millions of years. That being said,
how can urban planners and designers begin matching the limitations and uncertainties of
climate science to make sure we do our best to prepare our cities and society for the worstcase scenario?
17
1.2 - Coastal Design Strategies
With climate change and sea level rise placing coastal cities across the world in vulnerable
situations, it is important to look to cities that have historically managed thrive under
similar conditions. Perhaps the most famous example of living under constant threat of
water is the Netherlands, a country nearly entirely below sea level, which for centuries has
built infrastructure to prevent the ocean's water from rendering its land uninhabitable.
Another example is Venice, a city built on water, where water was historically used for
transportation (and still today to a certain extent); in Venice they learnt to live with water
and in doing so created an interesting urban fabric. In both cases, a combination of
protection, adaptation, and/or retreat was be applied to acknowledge the power of water,
while allowing for humans to live in such unique yet vulnerable environments. This section
will first provide examples of how these protection, adaptation, and retreat strategies are
increasingly being used today. Second it will take a look at recent major development
projects that seek to address sea level.
1.2.2 - Various Approaches to sea level rise and climate change
There are three conventional approaches in the climate change planning toolkit: protection,
adaptation, and retreat; the following image examples were taken from a report on
Strategies for Managing Sea Level Rise (SPUR, 2009). The protection/defense approach
uses major infrastructure to build up barriers in the form of levees and berms to shield
against sea level rise and increased storm surge (Figure 5 and Figure 6). Such
infrastructure is designed to keep the water out, and the interior areas dry to continue
accommodating people and infrastructure. This is a strategy largely used by the
Netherlands over many generations (ibid).
18
Figure 5 - Example of using highway
infrastructure atop a berm to protect against
the sea. [Image: picasa user Wilfrid]
Figure 6 - An aerial image of a river
lock/damn in the Netherlands, preventing
storm surges from flooding inland areas.
[Image: Aero Lin Photo]
The concept of adaptation is one whereby development happens in harmony with water,
letting water flow in and out of infrastructure and systems (Figure 7 and Figure 8).
Through the use of materials, design, and engineering, adaptation can be done in a variety
of ways from adding coastal marshlands to dampen the strength of storm surges, to
adopting 'free board' development strategies whereby the first floor can flood without
damaging crucial infrastructure (which is placed on the higher floors) and be fixed quickly.
Figure 7 - Example of a building on the right
with freeboard principle (floodable ground
floor). [Image: flickr user werdsnave]
Figure 8 - Multi-family floating canal houses
on Scheepstimmermanstraat, Amsterdam.
[Image: flickr user stevecadman]
19
Retreat involves moving away from risk-prone coastal areas (Figure 9). This can be
accomplished in several ways, but at the core involves phasing out development and
government infrastructure investment/support in areas that are at growing risk of flooding
damage and/or sea level rise. One variation of phasing out land use in high-risk areas is
observed in recent increases in insurance premiums for property within the FEMA flood
maps. While highly controversial, this points to the reality that living in high risk areas is a
financial risk and may become less and less affordable/sustainable as climate change
progresses. New zoning laws can be implemented to discourage people from building or
renovating in a flood prone area. Similarly, after a certain amount of time cities might
increase taxes on property in risk zones to compensate for increased disaster spending,
further discouraging people from building/living there.
Figure 9 - An example of a coastal house that has been abandoned due to increasing coastal risk.
[Image: flicrk user swirlspace]
20
These three strategies for coastal design are applicable in myriad ways and combinations.
The Netherlands, for example, does not apply one technique alone (e.g. protection), they
use a mix of protection, adaptation, and retreat to deal with the fact that most of their
population and infrastructure resides below sea level. Today's major development projects
also adopt a variety/combination of these strategies.
21
1.2.1 - Recent Major Coastal Design Projects
One event that has had the greatest impact on general awareness of climate risk, and
subsequent climate change adaptation in the United States was Hurricane Sandy. In the
wake of Hurricane Sandy, the US government's Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
department put forward a program/competition named Rebuild by Design (RBD), which
called for ideas and designs to prepare our cities for the dangers of climate change.
Completed in 2014, the competition awarded a total of $930M to 6 winning teams.
Given the uncertainties of climate change discussed prior, examining the winning design
approaches for their take on sea level rise and proposed solution was done to better
understand how industry leaders were thinking about and reacting to the long-term reality
of climate change. In examining these projects, it was hoped that some of the uncertainties
of the climate science might be made evident in the individual project approaches.
Additional projects were also examined to complement Rebuild by Design projects with a
variety of coastal projects underway or proposed. For each project, proposals were combed
to find the threshold for which the winning project was focusing its attention. Table 1
organizes the findings and begins to show the "state of the climate change planning field",
or rather, what future scenario planners and decision-makers are preparing our cities for.
22
Table 1 -Recent major coastal development and sea level rise thresholds.
OMA (RBD)
OMA winning design mentions the sea level rise component of their analysis but
never discloses the actual threshold they used to begin their design analysis
and proposal. It is unclear to what degree they took into account the high and
low thresholds for likely sea level rise. They use the 100-500 year flood as a
metric, which has a progression dependent on sea level rise. Furthermore, they
elaborate their plan for next 20-50 years. Already will have seen a 1-2fot sea
4
level rise.
MIT CAU, ZUS,
URBANISTEN
The team approximated the estimated future hazard, by building out a 100-year
flood map using a 2.5ft sea level rise, predicted by the SIRR report, as a
(RBD)
5
baseline. Also mention 6ft SLR 2100 in a graph.
Cornell Tech
Campus
Scheduled to open in 2017, the Cornell Tech Campus will be able to adapt to at
least a one foot increase in the 100-year flood elevation (using the Advisory 1%
Base Flood Elevation) due to sea level rise, which is within the likely range of
sea level rise projected by the NYPCC (New York Panel on Climate Change) by
end of century.
6
Seaport City
Seaport City feasibility study looks at 4-7ft sea level rise range by 2100. As is
Brooklyn Navy
Yards
No mention of climate change or sea level rise on their website, nor in their
8
commitment to sustainability report.
Newtown
Creek gates
Additionally, climate change and sea level rise are expected to increase the risk
of coastal flooding in the coming decades, especially as the number of
the case in many other projects however, they stop the clock at 2100.7
residential and commercial buildings in the 100-year floodplain along the East
River and New York Bay waterfront is projected to increase significantly during
the same period.
Living With
Sea level rise: Boston has experienced 1 foot of sea level rise since the late
Water Report
1800s and is expected to see up to 6 feet more by 2100.9
4http://www.rebuildbydesign.org/poject/oma-final-proposal/
5 http://www.rebuildbydesign.org/project/mit-cau-zus-urbanisten-final-proposal/
6 http://tech.cornell.edu/nyc-campus/
7 http://www.nycedc.com/
8 http://brooklynnavyyard.org/
" http://tbha.org/sites/tbha.org/files/documents/prt2-designing-with-water-full.pdf
23
1.3 - Critique of Current Design Strategies
The projects outlined in the previous section are a step in the right direction. Decisionmakers and developers are, for the most part, acknowledging a future increase in sea level
are preparing for it. However, given what is known and what was highlighted in terms of
climate change projection limitations, I challenge many of the sea level rise thresholds used
in these projects. I challenge them for the simple reason that if we are acknowledging the
science by preparing for a certain amount of sea level rise by a certain year, we should also
acknowledge the limitations of the science and recognize sea level rise as long-term
problem with increasing rate of change and uncertainty. Lastly, it is interesting to highlight
that there was little mention retreat in winning Rebuild by Design proposal, which in lowlying areas such as the Meadowlands, NJ, should in my opinion be seriously considered.
These findings serve as the motivation and baseline assumption for the approach to my
thesis and planning for long-term sea level rise.
1.3.1 - Matching Climate Science Uncertainty to Designs
Given the uncertainties outlined, I believe it is important to match the uncertainties in the
science with similar caution in the designs put forward, both at building scales and at the
neighborhood/city scale. In other words, I believe we should be designing buildings and
communities capable of withstanding not only agreed-upon climate scenarios but also
some of the more dire scenarios some scientists claim will happen faster than anticipated.
1.3.2 - Need Longer-Term Planning
One way to prepare for the uncertainty of climate change is to look at the problem for what
it really is, a long-term planning challenge. Planning for longer-term climate change also
better prepares cities for short-term 'surprises' that might occur outside of our current
understanding of climate.
That is easier said than done however, much of today's development cycle relies on
developers making their investment/money back within a few years ("flipping"). As such,
typical return-on-investment cycles allow developers and companies to begin making a
24
profit in a certain number of years. This leads to decisions about development that are
often not at the same scale as climate change. This problem then becomes a much larger
and public problem when the development uses public funds to subsidize or build
infrastructure, which after 40 or 80 years of investment in infrastructure, might be
rendered obsolete due to sea level rise. This reminds of some of the ills of urban sprawl,
where government investment in low-density and low-serving infrastructure redistributed
tax-money from dense urban environments to the low-density periphery (a
mismanagement of resources on many fronts).
One could argue that new developments can go up in flood zones because developers can
make their money back before the water rises. Perhaps that is acceptable if it is private
development not using or reliant on tax-dollars or public infrastructure upkeep, and if
potential renters or property owners are made aware of the risks of sea level rise and
storm damage. In the Rebuild by Design case however, federal dollars, or taxpayer's dollars
are being awarded to projects that are not preparing for long-enough-term climate change,
but rather what scientists have agreed is most likely. We should challenge where these
investments are being made and strive for projects that serve the longest possible scenario.
Planners, designers, and decision-makers need to look beyond real estate cycles, political
cycles, and begin internalizing long-term climate cycles, and uncertainties, into our urban
designs. We cannot rely on one administration, or developers' perceptions of climate
change to drive how we begin preparing for continued and accelerating sea level rise. The
challenges we face will likely require billions of dollars and decades of work to complete
and will require coordination between different levels of government, and the private
sectors rarely seen today. For these reason I believe it is important to start asking the hard
questions now, face the reality that we are significantly impacting our climate/planet, begin
preparing for catastrophic scenarios. Hopefully in the process of doing so we will change
our behavior, outlook on the problem, and moving in the right direction by preparing for
the worst while hoping for the best.
Longer-term planning is a must.
25
1.4 - A Longer-Term Planning Approach
When it comes to long term planning and predicting scenarios that are on the same time
scale as our built environment, I believe it is planners' duty to make sure that the
communities and plans we create are designed for much longer than the next 80 years. For
example, to combine many pieces of information from previous chapters, looking at
building age in Queens and Brooklyn (Figure 10 shows older buildings in red and newer
buildings in light orange) we see that many buildings built in the early 20th century have
lasted well over 100 years. In fact the average age of buildings in the study area is 1929.
With today's advanced engineering, technology, and LEED certification, it is reasonable to
expect that the structures built today will have lifespans well over 100 years. However,
again, we are often not looking beyond 2100 for climate change projections. Another
example of this mismatch is Cornell's new Tech Campus, whereby Cornell just signed a 99year lease for a new campus on Roosevelt land in East River. Surely this state-of-the-art
campus will last longer than 100 years, yet it sits at the gates of the NYC harbor, facing the
rising sea and its strengthening storms.
J1
-AA
4
Figure 10 - Map of building age in Queens and Brooklyn (red = over 100 years, orange = less than
100 years).
26
In such situations, I believe it is necessary for planners and designers to use existing or
develop new tools to work independently of climate change scientists and projections such
as those of the IPCC and FEMA flood maps. Planners and designers need a customizable
tool allowing them to:
1) Visualize current scientific climate scenarios at a site-specific scale, but also explore
a wider array of sea level rise projections up to the more catastrophic scenarios,
2) Produce and analyze appropriate parameters for understanding how to move
forward with development and planning despite the uncertainty (e.g. % residential
square footage lost, length of roads, property lost, investment required, etc.),
3) Adapt quickly to the ever-changing climate science, and weather forecasts, by
changing variables in the model to visualize and understand risks and implications.
Such a tool would equip planners and decision makers with more powerful data to
understand and prepare for the uncertainty inherent in climate science and future
scenarios. Furthermore, as seen in Figure 11, sea level rise will not happen in a uniform
fashion, certain locales will experience more sea level rise than others, and therefore must
explore more local solutions.
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Sea level trends (mm/yr)
Figure 11 - A map showing the uneven effects of climate change on sea level rise across the world.10
10 http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/sa/SeaLevelRise/slr/mapxjlj2_blue2red.png
27
1.4.1 - Tool for Visualizing and Analyzing
The reason for exploring and developing a tool that is capable of exploring and displaying a
wide range of data for planners and decision-makers is because visualizations are one of
the most powerful and common tools for planners and designers. Visualizing and
communicating data through maps, graphs, and architectural renderings can make or
break support for a project to move forward.
When visualizing sea level rise, communicating possible scenarios in the context of large
urban areas can be done using simple flood maps or more extreme/alarming renderings
and visuals. Simple flooding and insurance maps are common and often show the extent of
possible flooding given current climate science knowledge (Figure 12).
Uoo City
A"se City
1
Figure 12 - Example of a flood insurance map with areas at risk of flooding for New York City.'
11 http://www1.nyc.gov/site/floodmaps/index.page
28
At the other end of the sea level rise visualization spectrum are maps and renderings that
demonstrate extreme scenarios of water engulfing cities across the world (Florida
underground in Figure 13).12 These techniques are more alarmist than realist and ignore
the fact that such sea level rise will not happen overnight. Instead cities will likely respond
accordingly and incrementally as sea level rises. This incremental nature suggests the need
for a larger master plan that ensures the most is obtained from the effort.
Figure 13 - Artistic rendering of Miami under water due to sea level rise.
12
http://nickolaylamm.com/
29
The tool developed for this thesis occupies a position in between these visualization
techniques and a more data-oriented approach, which can also then be used as a base for
design-driven interventions. It is a tool allowing for informative yet long-term datavisualizations that can help us begin thinking about sea level rise and urban planning and
development as one. A tool for designers to quickly explore a range of possible scenarios,
identify optimal thresholds and design strategies, and begin designing solutions using 3D
spatial data within the context of the chosen climate change scenario.
1.4.2 - Application of this Tool to Other Sites and Data
The development of a tool for exploring the impacts of long-term sea level rise on a city
required a case study to begin exploring. For this thesis, New York City was chosen for its
ease of access to geospatial data, and its recent position at the forefront of climate change
impacts on cities (e.g. Hurricane Sandy), not to mention the prominence of the city
internationally. However, with countless cities across the world facing similar challenges
and threats, it was crucial for such a tool to be applicable to other cities. From a computer
modeling perspective, the only difference between cities is the data inputs - the framework
and tool stays the same. If one semester's work on this tool can produce powerful
visualization and data for cities to use for their decision-making and planning, then a small
team working on the tool full-time could yield even greater results and ease of extensibility
to other cities/conditions. With standard geographic data at the city level, anybody can
apply this tool to explore planning and design solutions explored in later chapters.
30
1.5 - New York City: A Case
The implications for long-term planning and design is perhaps all the more important in a
place like New York City, one of the largest and oldest coastal cities in the United States.
New York City has trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure within FEMA's flood zones
alone, and Hurricane Sandy was the 'perfect storm' to expose the weaknesses of many
infrastructural systems and coastal realities.
1.5.1 - Hurricane Sandy & Disasters
Hurricane Sandy was in many ways the drop that overflowed the bathtub in terms of
coastal climate change development and consciousness in the Northeast Region. The
damage and cleanup efforts opened people's eyes to the type of devastation climate change
would cause at greater scales and frequencies. That being said, on a more proactive note,
the storm also sparked countless planning and design projects that could be considered the
solidification of a new age of planning in New York; an age where the water is no longer a
visual amenity, selling point, and transportation mode, but also a threat. One of the best
examples of such change is the aforementioned Rebuild by Design competition organized
by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This competition
-
allocated nearly one billion dollars ($1B) to preparing for future storms and sea level rise
a major milestone in societal and political acknowledgement of the upcoming challenges of
climate change.
Smaller communities in the New York - New Jersey Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan,
Rockaway, Hoboken, Secaucus, Meadowlands, have also received their share of attention
and projects. Unfortunately however, in many cases, these projects do not take into
consideration the uncertainty of the science surrounding climate change. For example, in
Far Rockaway, the community saw significant damage during Hurricane Sandy, a large fire
and significant flooding damage. Years later many new homes had been rebuild where the
first floor was simply elevated an additional 6ft to protect from storm damage. While
potentially solving housing and community problems for the current generation living
there, it is short sighted for a community on the front lines of climate change impacts.
31
1.4.2 - Moving Forward
Given the uncertainties of what climate change has in store, are there ways to harness
today's substantial shift in mentality and development, while moving towards strategies
that begin to address longer-term scales of climate change?
Hypothetically, if New York City were to invest 100 billion dollars over the next 25 years to
prepare for a 6ft sea level rise, what happens when the oceans reach that threshold, or
rather when models show that there will be a 10ft sea level rise instead? Of course these
processes are not overnight surprises; scientists and society will be well aware of
increasing rates of sea level rise, or changes in projections. However, what if development
decisions being made now could make that eventuality much easier to deal with?
Ideally we won't have to start over from square one once we reach today's IPCC
projections? What if we could better understand the uncertainties of climate science but
within the scope of the built environment? What if we could identify the sea level rise
threshold that will impact most of a city's infrastructure and start preparing for that? What
if we could create zones of temporal investment that would allow us to continue
development in zones that are at risk, but maintain an understanding of flexibility in built
environment, not constructing 100+ year structures in areas that will flood soon?
This of course is not trivial and can be overwhelming. However, I believe that current data
and technologies allow us to create a framework and tool that will provide planners and
decision-makers with the necessary insight and data to begin looking at this problem for
what it is - a long-term, urban planning and design challenge.
32
2 - Site Selection & Scenario Building
With the outlined inspiration, objective, and framework for a long-term planning and
decision support tool, the next step was to select a site for developing and exploring such a
tool. New York City's challenges facing sea level rise are substantial. At the same time, the
scale and density of population and development make it high priority in terms of
understanding and preparing for what climate change might send its way. Furthermore, the
availability of rich geospatial data made for a much easier development phase compared to
a city where access to data would require paying money or contacting their geographic
information systems (GIS) department.
A preliminary spatial analysis of the New York City region yielded a number of sites that
would be appropriate for further inquiry and development of a tool. As can be seen in
Figure 14, which shows the flood zone for a 6ft sea level rise and major storm surge, the
amount of land and infrastructure at risk is significant. Many sites in the New York City
region were of interest, particularly the Brooklyn Navy Yards, LaGuardia Airport, Hoboken,
Rockaway (or any place along long island for that manner), and Newtown Creek.
Figure 14 - The New York City region with a 6ft sea level rise and major storm surge event.
33
The Brooklyn Navy Yards already had significant plans and investment for the area,
therefore any findings on more appropriate planning/design choices, while perhaps
shedding light on problems of the current proposal or design, would not be as influential on
the future of the site as others might. Hoboken, which also faces one of the most difficult
and uncertain climate futures was an area of interest that would yield important results;
however, as noted in the list of approved Rebuild by Design projects, it has already received
considerable attention and funding. Other coastal sites and cities all along Long Island or
New Jersey which will in many parts be even more at risk of flooding, have lower densities
and have less staying power (in terms of moving an entire city such as Brooklyn adjacent to
NYC versus moving a new residential neighborhood that had very apparent risks from the
beginning of its construction). This reasoning led to the choice to examine Newtown Creek
area for the development of the technology/tool.
In addition to the thought process outlined above, previous inquiry into Newtown Creek
through urban design seminars and design experiments shed light on the distinct
characteristics of this waterway. Historically an industrial waterway, it has slowly begun
responding to shifts in transportation patterns and shifts in adjacent housing pressures,
making it the ideal candidate for shaping a vision of its future. It is important to note here
that the development of such a tool could not be done in a vacuum. Instead choosing a
location with easy access to the data and relative familiarity with the area allowed for
proposing context-appropriate design and planning solutions.
2.1 - Characteristics of the Newtown Creek
Newtown Creek, sitting right across the East River from Manhattan, was historically an
ideal site for industrial activity serving New York City. During World War II, it was the
busiest marine port in the United States (Weiss & Heimbinder, 2010). Today, however,
water-dependent industry has mostly left the area, and New York's soaring housing prices
have pushed the gentrification processes to the edges of Greenpoint (the neighborhood
south of Newtown Creek). This makes the area ripe for change and investment, but more
importantly, at the right 'in between space' to begin thinking for the type of long-term
planning advocated for in this project.
34
2.1.1 - Superfund Site
Due to extensive industrial activity Newtown Creek became extremely polluted in an era
where the lack of environmental awareness and laws caused enormous quantities of toxic
materials to be discharged or leaked into the waterway. As a result, in 2010 it was
designated as a Superfund Site by the US Environmental Protection Agency, a title created
by legislation serving to locate, investigate and clean up hazardous waste sites in the
United States.
This label as a superfund site can be seen as both a curse and blessing. While the extreme
pollution means that considerable work will be required for cleanup, the investment
dollars allocated for the site might be used in a manner that fulfills climate change
adaptation to ensure the pollution and contaminants aren't released into the adjacent
areas.
On Earth Day 2015, an environmental awareness spokesman swam in the river sparking a
response from the EPA saying they "strongly advises AGAINST swimming in the #Gowanus
Canal" and point to a risk sheet outlining the risks of contact with water.' 3 This only
confirms to the pollution currently in the canal, and requires us to think of the type of
development and natural infrastructure we can provide to buffer people from the
potentially harmful effects of the pollution.
2.1.2 - Next 'Gentrifying' Neighborhood
Real estate values in New York City have increased dramatically in recent years and have
made their way across the river to Brooklyn. With such pressures slowly creeping in, there
is an opportunity to harness the economic and development potentials entering these areas
and embed them into a comprehensive plan for the area. Simply allowing gentrification to
invest countless dollars into the entire area is just as bad as allowing developers to come in
and propose a single building that doesn't make sense in the surrounding fabric.
11 http://www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/npl/gowanus/pdf/gowanus
colorcoding-041212.pdf
35
Just like we can harness the energy and attention from the Superfund Status to improve the
area we can also use growing interest in real estate in the area to drive environmentally
conscious and responsible development for generations to come.
2.1.3 - Vulnerability & Hurricane Sandy Flooding Damage
Given climate change's growing storm and sea level rise, the water system today represents
a threat to adjacent properties. Hurricane Sandy demonstrated the great vulnerabilities of
the area. In fact Sandy sparked a proposal to protect the waterway from flooding by
building a lock at the mouth of the creek, which, while providing protection for the
moment, will need to be rethought at a certain threshold of sea level rise (as shown in
Figure 15). While potentially providing a temporary sense of security for further
development in the area, a greater area of the Newtown Creek "basin" should be evaluated
to make sure the proposed lock system is not simply a temporary solution and flood levels
actually overwhelm other parts of the area too (Figure 16 shows flooding due to Hurricane
Sandy well beyond the protective boundaries of the proposed Gowanus Creek flood
barrier).' 4
Figure 15 - A proposed Gowanus Creek flood barrier.
14
http://www.nycedc.com/project/gowanus-canal-newtown-creek-study
36
Figure 16 - Flooding in neighborhood adjacent to Newtown Creek. 15
In addition to its geographic position, New York City itself is at a particular risk given the
tidal realities of New York whereby the lack of harbor protection. That being said, the
Newtown Creek basin itself is shielded from much of the brute force of the leading edge of a
storm surge, which impacts coastal areas much more.
15
http://www.weather.gov/media/okx/coastalflood/Battery%20impacts.pdf
- 3-6ft of flooding
37
2.2 - Scenario Building for Client
In order to tackle the issue of appropriate urban planning and design for the Queens and
Brooklyn neighborhoods adjacent to Newtown Creek, a client-based scenario is used to
explore the various choices/considerations/scenarios/options that might occur during real
life planning and decision-making processes. Using both the Newtown Creek site and a
client-based scenario ensure that the development of the SEARISE 3D tool was done within
the everyday mindset and realities of planners and designers.
In the context of this research, the hypothesized client, a decision-maker or major design
firm, would be asking me (as a consultant) to produce a long-term analysis of climate
change impacts on the Brooklyn and Queens neighborhoods adjacent to Newtown Creek.
They have numerous proposals coming in for mitigation/protection strategies as well as
real estate proposals for the extremely valuable waterfront properties overlooking
Manhattan. As investors are prepared to invest significant sums of money into the area, the
threat of climate change looms over every new development decision. The scientific
community continues to warm of increasing risk of damage due to sea level rise and storm
surge, it is the client's duty to ensure that any investment of public resources towards
infrastructure, public space, or transportation should be done with the return on
investment and long-term strategy in mind. It is my duty, as a researcher/consultant, to
explore the range of possible long-term impacts of climate change and sea level rise on the
city, and help understand how decisions we make today can help prepare the area for longterm climate change.
2.2.1 - The Need to Select Upper Sea Level Rise Threshold
In this hypothetical scenario, which is the kind of study/condition that we will likely be
seeing more and more in the future, the outcome of this project/research scenario for the
client is to know what sea level rise threshold they should be preparing for regardless of
current IPCC projections (again, which are subject to uncertainty). The last step in
preparing the scenario for the tool will be a sea level rise threshold that will produce the
optimal investment/development strategy. Given the client-based scenario established,
38
whereby this report will provide advice and insight into how to better plan the Newtown
Creek area for the future, it will be important for us to select a future sea level rise scenario
(even if hypothetical). This will ideally be achieved by mapping out the various impacts of
sea level rise on square footage lost, building value in flood zone, length of roads in flood
zone, etc. These impacts can then be put into graphs where the independent variable is sea
level rise and the dependent variable are these built environment factors. As the results are
combined it is hoped that a clear break in the graph will identify the threshold at which the
largest impacts of sea level rise will be felt and therefore might be the best scenario to
prepare for.
Looking back to the map showing the vulnerability of much of the creek's lower basin area,
it is clear that planning for the future of this area will be a challenge. The first step is to
match the new perspective on climate change and sea level rise, whereby we should
assume that both will continue to increase for a long time to come, and exploring the
optimal threshold to begin preparing for.
39
3 -Building
a Tool for Understanding & Visualizing Sea Level Rise
To recapitulate, I have outlined a major problem facing coastal cities all around the world,
particularly cities the size of New York City, where high densities, infrastructure
investments, and prestige are at stake. Building a tool for exploring the impacts of sea level
rise on a particular site was the next step in turning the framework for thinking of sea level
rise in a much longer and uncertain context, into a tool allowing urban planners and
designers to start producing innovative solutions to these long-term and uncertain coastal
realities. While urban planners and designers are often well versed in geospatial
technologies such as geographic information systems (GIS) and computer aided design
(CAD) software, there was no tool that allowed for highly responsive and interactive
analyses of rich urban datasets in the context of sea level rise in three dimensions and at
various scales. This section outlines the steps taken to develop the SEARISE 3D sea level
rise tool for planners and designers to use.
To produce the tool, digital modeling and analysis software programs called Rhino and
Grasshopper were explored. Rhino, or Rhino3D, is a three-dimensional (3D) computer
aided design (CAD) application which gives users great control over the form of the spatial
data entered, also offers opportunities to import extensions and plugins capable provide
additional flexibility and customizability to the spatial manipulations one can perform. One
extension commonly used is called Grasshopper. Grasshopper was produced by the same
company as Rhino (McNeel), and offers a visual programming language, which connects
layers, shapes, or 3D polygons, in the three dimensional environment of Rhino to a variety
of spatial and mathematic manipulations in the Grasshopper environment. Together these
software programs provide a working environment widely used in the field of architecture,
but still quite limited in adoption in the field of urban planning. Furthermore, as will be
demonstrated in upcoming sections, the drag and drop functionality of Grasshopper
functions is much more intuitive and accessible to people than having to program the tool
manually using ArcGIS' Python scripting language.
40
This combination of Rhino-Grasshopper programs allows for planners and urban designers
to begin producing 3D interpretations and data visualization strategies for the impacts of
sea level rise, and ultimately a 3D base layer for rendering and master planning. While a 2D
approach for understanding the reality of sea level rise could also work, the 3D approach
allows for better visualization elements, direct rendering capabilities, and provides an
automatic base layer for moving forward towards proposing design solutions. For example,
once a specific scenario is chosen, certain buildings might be removed, while other areas
might require building a berm. In this case the end user can simply export the selected sea
level rise scenario into a 3D version of the scenario and begin changing building locations,
building heights, road networks, and more. Eventually, any proposed design intervention
can then be re-entered into the tool to explore the impacts of those changes.
This process of understanding sea level rise impact on urban environments is not new. In
fact, much of this data is likely already being used to perform similar analyses of climate
change impacts. However, what this tool and flexible working environment offers is a
quicker and more flexible approach to explore sea level rise for planners and designers
working in three dimensions. It also provides the basis for additional spatial and data
analysis, for example, integrating cost-analysis proxies for supporting and augmenting
decision-making choices. The following describes the data and processes used to develop
the functionalities of the tool (while other data and functions are possible):
3.1 - Required Data
The data required for developing this tool is quite standard in many governmental or city
planning departments:
Elevation Data
The primary data for this tool is elevation data in the form of topographic contour lines
based on elevation from Mean High Water - MHW. Without these it is impossible to
determine where sea level rise might impact the built environment. For the purpose of
this tool we will use contour lines as our elevation data, however, in the event that
contour lines are not available, Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) or point elevation data
41
can be used to derive contours. It is important to note that contour lines do have their
limitations in terms of accuracy. Given 2ft contour lines, the granularity of the
topography in between the two-foot intervals is lost and errors might occur in the
modeling. In the end however, it is assumed that these inaccuracies should not affect the
larger impacts of sea level rise.
Building Footprints and Attributes
The next important data is the built environment that is on top of this topography.
Building footprints and their respective attributes (e.g. land value, building value,
allowed density, land use, number of units, etc.) allow for going beyond simple spatial
and volumetric analyses of impacts of sea level rise to social and economic data. In the
context of a client-based approach to this problem, this is vital information that planners
and decision-makers need to move forward with investing in infrastructure, housing,
businesses, and transportation. Information surrounding property value, land use, year
built, square footage, etc., are all powerful metrics to start mapping out the impacts of
sea level rise on a urban setting. For this the latest available data for New York City
building footprints was used for the years
200916.
Roadbed & Center Lines
Lastly, the centerlines and outlines for roads are added to the equation to understand
how much infrastructure is at risk. For example, the total area of roads or the length of
roads being jeopardized, aside from direct costs of fixing and replacing, can serve as
proxies for other infrastructure such as sewers, water lines, or power and
telecommunication. These data layers dated from the year 2009. Although roads might
have changed slightly, the 2009 data still provides the necessary insight into impacts of
sea level rise.
For the purpose of this research, the data described above was all that was needed to begin
exploring the intersection of spatial data, and future climate scenarios. If additional data,
16
NYC 2009 Building Footprints from DoITT
42
such as property value per square foot, is accessible or required by the specific site
conditions then it should be integrated into the workflow.
3.2 - From ArcGIS to Rhino
The first step in setting up a visualization and data exploration tool, using the Newtown
Creek region as a demonstration, was to import the data from an ArcGIS format to a
Rhino/Grasshopper compatible format. Multiple methods are available for doing so,
namely a tutorial put together by Columbia's Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and
Preservation (GSAAP). 17 In this tutorial the user must manually import the geospatial
portion (.shp extension) of the shapefile, and then import the .dbf file that contains the
attributes associated with the shapefile. This process, while ultimately successful, required
considerable manipulation of the data to get into a format ready for manipulation. While
working through the development of the tool using the GSAAP file-importing framework, I
discovered a Grasshopper plugin called Meerkat GIS that allowed for easily importing and
cropping data (for the amount of data available for New York City, this was crucial for
testing and developing the tool). The Meerkat GIS plugin also makes it much easier to
explore other regions in a city, or look at other cities by simply importing building
footprints and contour lines, for example.
Within the Meerkat GIS plugin, all that is required is to use the "Import Shapefile" function
to import the layers into a Google Maps window, crop out a certain area of interest, and
click the "Trim Layers" button. This will export each layer within the crop box into a.mkgis
file format, which is a custom file structure designed to better allow the plugin to navigate
the data. Once this conversion is complete, using the "Parse Meerkat File" command, the
shapefiles can be connected to the Rhino/Grasshopper interface. With this, the number of
and names of fields can be seen, as well as the source, number of
polygons/shapes/lines/points in the layer, bounds in latitude and longitude, and many
more. With the GIS data now imported into Grasshopper, the next step is simply to display
it in the Rhino environment for further analysis and observation. The above methodology
17http://www.arch.columbia.edu/resources/gsapp-resources/gis/tutorials/importing-gis-data-
grasshopper
43
was derived from a tutorial put together by a user named Nathan Lowe on an online video
website, Vimeo, and can be found here: https://vimeo.com/76792609. The tutorial
explains how to move all layers to the center of the Rhino work environment, turn point
data into corresponding polygons, and extract data concerning those polygons (e.g. value of
building, number of floors for extruding, etc.).
The Meerkat GIS plugin (as seen in Figure 17 below) is a great example of how external
tools (called plugins) can greatly reduce the time required to produce these types of tools,
and the sharing power of open source or free software.
was
asSn"Q
GIS
Meerkat
w mft ftft
n
POW7o P . P*V WXn
Figure 14 - Screenshot of the Meerkat GIS tool tutorial.
3.2 - Interactivity within Rhino - Grasshopper
Moving from simply visualizing the data layers in Rhino to having them interact with each
other and the user is the nexus of the SEARISE 3D tool for exploring the framework for
planning for long-term sea level rise. For example, rather than waiting for new sea level
rise thresholds from the IPCC to be published, and FEMA to produce new flooding maps,
which can them be imported and compared with previous years of sea level rise and
understanding their relationship, this can be done interactively from the beginning. Using
44
the layers imported via Meerkat in the previous sections as a base, the following functions
were developed:
Create Elevation Contour Mesh
To create the terrain for the site from contour lines is the basis for creating the 3D
environment for sea level rise analysis. The first step in preparing the contour lines for
creating the topography elevation was to move them vertically to their respective heights.
Using the Meerkat function each contour's elevation value was used to move that contour
line (a polyline in this case) vertically to the appropriate height. Then, using these 2ft
contour lines, a topographic mesh was created using a Grasshopper "definition" (a
definition is a set of functions that achieve a certain outcome) developed by user
STUDIOTJOA on the grasshopper3d.com blog, which mimics the process used in a Rhino
plugin called RhinoTerrain for creating an elevation mesh from contour lines.18 The only
input required for the function are the contour lines of an area, allowing the user to then
choose the amount of granularity in the final terrain. Once complete, this provides the base
for setting building elevations, and detecting flood impacts on infrastructure in the area.
Building Elevation
With the ground topography function complete, the next step was to place building
footprints at their respective heights with respect to their elevation above sea level. To do
so, the mesh created and explained in the previous sections was used to determine the
nearest point between the building outline/polygon and the elevation mesh (a mesh is
simply a collection of points, lines, and shapes making up a surface that represents
topography, or anything else). For each building, the shortest distance between the
building and the elevation mesh represented the building point closest to the elevation and
therefore the lowest portion of the building. The shortest distance was then used to raise
the building to that height. This process likely has some inaccuracies concerning actual
building elevation or the presence of a basement, but nevertheless provides the
appropriate relationship between a building, the topography, and eventual sea level rise.
1
www.grasshopper3d.com/profiles/blogs/grasshopper-substitution-for-rhinoterrain
45
Road Centerlines
For calculating the metrics for the road infrastructure affected by rising sea level rise, the
process was similar to that of building footprints. Each section of the road was
projected/elevated to its respective height. As the water table rises, another true-false
calculation was done to determine if the street section was included within the bounds of
the water. If the area centroid was within the bounds, the length and area of the road were
summed up to produce the summary statistics. This data eventually can serve as a powerful
measure for creating additional measures of infrastructure where every 100ft of roadway
might also include 200ft of sewage pipes, 300ft of electrical wires, and many more
infrastructural needs. Creating metrics for these could be great addition in terms of
understanding the true impact of each sea level rise threshold.
46
Water Table, Rising Sea Level, and Impact
First a water table layer was created to mimic the water level in the area of interest. This
was done automatically by capturing the bounds of the data imported and creating a
polygon that covered that area.
An extrusion function was then used to mimic sea level rise and used feet as a unit of
measure to be consistent with the outputs of IPCC reports. The amount of potential sea
level rise itself was broken down to three variables, base water height, sea level rise, and
storm surge. This was done to allow decision-makers to input various parameters related
to coastal water realities, where base water level can change depending on tidal
fluctuations, and of course depending on possible storms coming through (Figure 18).
While these individual factors have a much more complex impact on the built environment
and topography, and they may require a different set of functions to estimate their impacts
accurately, including them allows for first-order exploration of such impacts and opens up
the possibility for integrating various other scenario discussed in the coastal development
field (e.g. SLOSH model, storm surge barriers). Furthermore, the use of multiple waterheight variables allows for easily correcting for possible mistakes between elevation
contour lines and water layers, and for looking at local variables such as tidal patterns.
Water Rising
I
Ausft~atQCe
Figure 15 - Variables that allow for user to change sea level rise, storm surge, and base water levels.
47
Flooded Buildings
With the sea level rise feature built, building footprints at their appropriate heights, and
road centerlines in place, the next step was to determine the impact of sea level rise at each
foot interval. This evaluation was done using an intersection function whereby any road
segment or building footprint within the water extrusion layer was selected (Figure 19).
Affected infrastructure was then compiled and fields of interest were selected and
summarized to provide summary statistics. For each foot of sea level rise, the values
associated with the particular building or road statistics were saved into a data-array to
create the graphs of impact of sea level rise.
-- iw Owl
b
Figure 19 - Screenshot of the tool at work where a 15ft sea level rise shows which buildings are
flooded (light red) and which buildings are not-flooded (white).
48
Building Height & Extrusion
The last step to producing the data visualization and design/planning tool was to add a last
piece of photorealism. By depicting the buildings in three dimensions we can better
recognize the area of interest and also understand the types of buildings that may be
affected by sea level rise. This was done using the Meerkat GIS capabilities by extruding the
building footprints to their respective heights in the shapefile attributes. Depending on
whether the buildings are in the flooded area or not, their color was also changed to help
visualize the impacts; buildings that were flooded in a certain scenario were colored red
while those still at bay of the water were colored green. Lastly, another advantage of having
the extruded buildings in the Rhino environment is that it allows for quick "baking" of
layers. Baking a layer simply means choosing to export the geometries from visual
previews of the data generated by Grasshopper functions, to actual geometric layers that
can be further manipulated. Once a threshold is chosen, and each infrastructure layer is
understood, this tool allows for easy exporting in order to begin proposals for design
interventions.
Animation & Exporting
The last step in of creating a data visualization tool and decision-making support system
was to automate the sea level rise portion to automatically produce graphs of the impacts
at each foot of sea level rise. This was done by adding a time function and connecting it to a
graphing function that iterated through the various sea level rise scenarios, capturing the
relevant data output (e.g. property value in flood plain), and graphing that.
An iterative function can move the slider automatically to explore how sea level rise over
time will affect the area of interest, and while doing so can produce a 3D visualization
(Figure 20) of the change in damages depending on the threshold of sea level rise. This data
is extremely valuable as it allows for data to be displayed in a graph which represents
where climate change and sea level rise would have much larger effects on that particular
location's built environment and economy.
49
Figure 20 - Images of 5ft, 10ft, and 15ft flooding scenarios in SEARISE 3D. Flooded buildings
displayed in light red and total real estate value lost displayed in the text tag above rendering.
50
These four steps, while seemingly simple in description, require considerable
understanding of the Rhino-Grasshopper interplay. As my familiarity with the
Rhino/Grasshopper tools evolved I changed different portions of the tool, namely the use of
outside plugins for importing GIS files, creating contour elevation meshes, and creating
graphs. As both the Rhino and Grasshopper tools themselves evolve in the future, other
plugins may become available that make some of these pieces more powerful, and
therefore capable of looking at larger extents of a city rather than only a portion of the
Newtown Creek basin, for example.
SEARISE 3D produced the desired data visualization framework for understanding the
impacts of sea level rise on the built environment, with relative ease in any city in the
world, all with no dependence on IPCC reports, and being able to look beyond agreed-upon
scenarios to hundreds of years of plausible scenarios (Figure 21). Again, using Meerkat GIS,
functions that automatically generate water tables, elevate buildings/roads, and extrude
buildings, allow importing new contour and building footprints to use this datavisualization and decision-making tool anywhere in the world. With the tool complete, next
came exploring how these insight could help imagine the future of this coastal area.
I
q
It
aM V
a, PI"Ia1
a.
_____
___
--
~ijQ~Q.
Figure 21 - The SEARISE 3D tool with Rhino 3D on the left and the Grasshopper definition on the
right.
51
3.3 - Data & Visual Outputs
The flexibility of selecting any spatial data attribute, and at any sea level rise, allows for
exploring a wide range of data important to the long-term coastal planning and decisionmaking process. In contrast to the common map or rendering of sea level showing where
the water will likely take over at a certain threshold, we can match that with knowledge on
how much infrastructure is lost (or perhaps where it should be relocated). From these can
be elaborate additional proxies to derive impacts on parts of the city that we might not
readily have access to or data for (e.g. sewage, water, electricity lines, etc.). The following
are some of the data categories that were explored with the tool:
* square footage of buildings lost,
*
will go with no land height changes
" percentage/types of buildings lost,
e
length of road infrastructure lost
- value of property/infrastructure lost
maps and 3D models of where water
*
maps and 3D models of areas that
could be elevated to prevent flooding
These outputs provide information useful for both decision-making and urban design for
the site. For example, using the data on the likely square footage lost to flooding at a certain
threshold, planners and decision-makers can understand how much they have to build to
accommodate the slow displacement of households matched with population growth
trends. Each of the data types studied will be presented in a format as seen below, where
the impact on a variable is shown on a graph, and any observed significant shift in impact
(called a "break" from hereon) will be presented as follows (Figure 22):
Change in Built Environment per Sea Level Rise Interval
2E+10
x-axis = sea level rise intervals
y-axis = attribute of interest
1.5E+10
1E+10
- -Total
Value Lost
Break in impact of SLR
0
0
2
4
6
8
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Figure 17 - Example of graph showing break in impacts of sea level rise on built environment.
52
3.4 - Additional Parameters for Analysis
The nature of the SEARISE 3D tool is one of modularity and extensibility. As a result, future
use of the tool (or anyone looking to improve upon it) can, and should, integrate additional
parameters or proxies for evaluating impacts of sea level rise. With the framework of the
tool in place for exploring the effects of sea level rise on the built environment, additional
parameters could easily be added. For example, the tool could factor in population growth
and how much additional building area might be needed to accommodate such growth.
Buildings or neighborhoods with floor to area ratios (FAR) below their allowed FAR, and
outside certain flooding scenario zones, could accommodate additional densities (FAR
represents the allowed density ratio between the property area and the amount of floor
area that can be built).
Another way of using the tool could be to create a total value lost (adding buildings, streets,
and other infrastructure) to contrast with the price required to build berms along the coast
for each scenario. This could be done using proxies (calculated from similar project
precedents) for building flood protection/mitigation infrastructure and applying to the
amount of coastal land requiring protection. Parameters could also be added to estimate
the cost of relocating buildings, or rebuilding roads every 20 years due to flood damage.
The possibilities for adding and exploring other variables and proxies are great. Similarly,
as more and more plugins become available for Grasshopper and Rhino, the possibility of
extending the current tool are even more exciting.
53
3.5 - Scale Limitations & Final Outputs
The development of the SEARISE 3D tool was done for a region slightly smaller than
initially planned. The responsive/interactive portion of the tool was developed at a this
smaller scale in order to take advantage of faster processing and rendering times exhibited
in Rhino-Grasshopper. Working with the entire Newtown Creek water basin would have
required much more computing power, and time, which simply wasn't available for the
development of this experimental tool. In the end, the scale was not a limiting factor to
developing the tool functionalities. That being said, the scale of the sea level rise problem
requires us to look at macro-scaled processes. We cannot expect to look at a 10x10 block
area of Brooklyn or Queens and be able to propose an approach for the next couple
hundred years of climate change. This is simply because larger topographic characteristics
in the area offer other ways water systems might impact a smaller area.
As a result, for the purpose of the chosen site, the outputs of the entire Newtown Creek
water basin were extracted manually using ArcGIS tools and exported to Excel to produce
the graphs of impact (which SEARISE 3D itself can rapidly produce in 3-dimensions for
smaller areas). This should in no way diminish the power of having an interactive
tool/approach if only that it allows for decision-makers to explore multiple variables over
decades to 100-year time scales with a click of the button. Recreating the data outputs
using manual techniques would be quite time consuming and would have to be recreated
any time new data is available or predictions change. Having a tool that allows you to
simply link new layers and begin analyzing impacts is extremely powerful for both internal
use and also in public processes where a citizen version of the tool could help the general
population better understand possible scenarios.
The scale of the problem should not prevent us from exploring the possibility for, and
developing, an interactive tool for delivering valuable decision-making and design data. At
the same time, the limitations of the tool should not prevent us from looking at this scale of
a problem. Therefore, both were accomplished and future technologies will surely allow for
the tool to be expanded to the entire water basin for data analysis.
54
4-
Using the Tool to Inform Design Scenarios
By varying the sea level rise thresholds it was possible to discover the point of sea level at
which the damage from rising tides would see a significant jump or reduction. In other
words, we could identify a change in the effects of every foot of sea level rise on the built
environment in the graph and identify thresholds where investments now could begin
preparing for long-term scenarios. This information was extremely valuable and was the
first step in assessing, in a more objective way, the impacts of the various sea level rise
scenarios, and therefore potential planning and design solutions. The outputs of the
process served as the justification to begin planning for a future scenario, which while
beyond most people's lifetime and thought process, will be the most optimal investment of
our resources in face of a problem that will likely require solutions spanning generations.
4.1 - Exploring Data Outputs
For each of the following data outputs, the x-axis represents the amount of potential sea
level rise. On the y-axis is the impact of such sea level rise on various metrics:
- Total Value Lost
* Industrial Square Footage Lost
* Length of Roads Lost
*
Residential Square Footage Lost
"Roadbed Area Lost
For each of these variables, a graph is shown with summary data broken down into both
the Brooklyn and Queens sides of the Newtown Creek river basin. The reason for breaking
down the data according to borough is due to the arbitrary line drawn when evaluating the
Newtown Creek basin. The boundaries for the site happened to include a much larger area
of Brooklyn and therefore breaking the data down into individual boroughs allowed for a
better understanding of possible differences in impacts on each side of the creek. That said,
the total impact of sea level rise should be considered, it is not a borough-specific problem
but rather a larger, topographic and temporal issue.
55
4.1.1 - Total Value Lost
Looking at the total value lost, it is clear that a large amount of value is lost between the 4ft
and 10-12ft SLR, after which it begins to taper off a little. However, the total value lost is
calculated using building value and land value. It can be said that as sea levels rise, land
that is more prone to flooding will lose much of its value. However, the situation in New
York City is very different whereby development pressures might keep property values
very high for years to come, and therefore making investment in flood-prone areas still
financially viable. Despite such realities, investing in the 10ft range seems the best option.
Total Value Lost
25,000.00
20,000.00
1 5,000.00
:1 0,000.00
5,000.00
0.00
6
2
10
14
18
A
56
4.1.2 - Square Footage Lost
The first graph produced shows the square footage of buildings lost to flooding at different
sea level rise thresholds. As one might expect the square footage of buildings affected by
flooding increases with sea level rise. However, by graphing this out, we can observe
thresholds where we see a rapid increase in affected buildings. Looking at both total value
of land lost and total value of property lost however, these graphs are virtually the same,
which controls for the fact that some properties might be valued much higher because they
are on the shore and have attractive views.
Total Square Footage Lost
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
6
2
QUEEN
10
14
18
BROOKLYN
57
4.1.3 - Residential Densities Lost
Residential Units Lost is interesting and less pronounced in terms of clear breaks in the
graph. One reason for this is that much of the land lost to sea level rise in the beginning is
actually commercial or industrial use (see below), this means that for the first few intervals
of sea level rise we will not see much property loss affecting residents, which might further
complicate any public outreach strategies to support new designs or policy. That said, there
is a growing trend of converting formerly commercial and industrial land into residential
uses. Keeping a close eye on that trends in that area will be important.
Residential Square Footage
160
o 140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2
6
10
14
18
Residential Units Lost
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
2
6
10
14
18
QUEENSBROOKLNN
58
4.1.4 - Commercial Square Footage Lost
As can be seen in the graph below, the commercial square footage looks a lot like the total
square footage graph suggesting a high number of commercial properties directly adjacent
to the East River and Newtown Creek. Once again, the break in the graph is between the
10ft and 12ft range, and supports previous breaks found in other data variables.
Commercial Square Footage Lost
1000
o 900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2
6
10
14
18
59
4.1.5 - Road Length and Area Lost
The graph below shows how much of the roadbed is affected as sea level rises. With very
little impacts before the 6ft thresholds, the impacts between 6ft and 20ft are rather steady
offering no additional support or challenge to the previously observed 10-12ft optimal
range. Of course the area of the road is not the most useful statistic as roads are often more
than just pavement; sewer and electrical lines often coincide with roads and therefore may
have a totally different story than the simple area lost. To get a better idea of the sewer and
electrical lines would require having access to that data, which for this project was not
available.
Total Road Area Lost
35000000
30000000
25000000
20000000
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
2
6
10
14
18
60
4.1.7 - Selecting an Appropriate Threshold
As observed in most of the graphs, the sea level rise scenario that puts the most
infrastructures at risk in the shortest amount of time was between the 10-12ft marks. The
only exception is residential square footage and units lost, which was most impacted
between the 14-18ft marks. The difference of impact on residential development is clearly
due to the higher density of industrial land uses directly adjacent to Newtown Creek. As the
water rises and makes its way past the current industrial land it eventually makes its way
to the rapidly gentrifying neighborhood of Greenpoint.
In the end, it appears that the 10-12ft threshold marks the height at which sea level will
begin to taper off in terms of the rate of infrastructure lost both in square footage and
value. This threshold can therefore be seen as the scenario where preparation will get the
most out of investment. In other words, any investment in a sea level rise scenario prior to
this might require rapid restructuring and modification if/when sea level rise predictions
change; this is due to the higher rate of change of impact over sea level rise observed in
most graphs before the 10-12ft range compared to after it. In fact, looking at the impacts of
a 3-6ft sea level rise, which many developers are preparing for, the impacts are much
smaller and not as evident than those of longer-term scenarios.
As can be seen in the map below (Figure 23), the Newtown Creek Basin will face
considerable challenges due to sea level rise. The map shows both the 10ft sea level rise
outline identified as the optimal scenario to begin preparing for, as well as a 20ft sea level
rise outline. The reason for including the 20ft outline is simply to stay true to the
assumptions in this thesis, where focusing uniquely on the 10ft threshold would result in a
certain "short-sightedness" by assume that it will be the final threshold. Therefore,
including the 20ft threshold on maps also allows us to look beyond some of the most
important impacts observed in the area and understand what might happen if we reach the
first 10ft scenario sooner than anticipated.
61
Figure 23 - Map of Newtown Creek with 10ft and 20ft flooding scenarios. 19
19 Note: In all the following maps, Manhattan and New Jersey have no satellite imagery or flooding
layers because the spatial analyses were not performed for those areas.
62
4.2 - Approaches for Hypothetical Client Scenario
Having explored a variety of possible long-term planning approaches, bringing the focus
back to the client-based scenario-building forces us to reconsider the local context rather
than simply looking at this problem from a bird's eye and technocratic decision-making
position. In other words, given the amount of flooding potential, one could envision a
retreat strategy being proposed for the area. However, the likelihood of a full retreat
approach for the area seems unrealistic given New York City's real estate values, current
densities, and proximity to Manhattan. A mixture of retreat and protection (adaptation)
could be seen as more plausible, however the most realistic approach given the previously
outlined high real estate values and densities is likely the defense approach. To contrast the
type of decision-making that might happen in a different client-based scenario the "HighImpact SEARISE" vs. "Low-Impact SEARISE" example can be used:
4.2.1 - The High-impact SEARISE Case
The High Impact SEARISE Case highlights the realities already discussed whereby the total
value of existing infrastructure in the area is simply too high to abandon and/or relocate.
Some projects have already been proposed in the Newtown Creek area. For example, the
Gowanus Canal & Newtown Creek Storm Surge Barrier was proposed to prepare for the
To add to the New York City example, growing populations will require
additional real estate, which if added to areas with existing infrastructure, adds to the
argument to protect/defend existing areas and not have to rebuild infrastructure in new
next big storms.
20
areas.
4.2.2 - The Low-Impact SEARISE Case
The Low-Impact SEARISE Case serves as a comparison between two different types of cities
or base conditions. With New York City providing a clear example of a city where existing
infrastructure, and real estate values will likely drive more of a protection approach to
climate change sea level rise scenarios, in other cities where densities and real estate
20lhttp://www.nycedc.com/project/gowanus-canal-iewtown-creek-study
63
values are lower then it makes less economic sense to protect swaths of land from rising
tides. This gave rise to the idea for the "Low-Impact SEARISE Case". For example, in
Camden, New Jersey, or New London, Connecticut, sea level might engulf parts of the city
with lower densities and economic value. With lower existing and potential real estate
value in the area, it is unlikely that developers would invest in additional sea level rise
protection if they don't think they can get a return on this investment. Of course it would be
even more of a stretch for governments to use tax-dollars to subsidize development and
infrastructure protection if they too are unlikely to get a return on their investment. This
simplified example exposes the individual characteristics of different cities and the
planning/design approach for long-term planning. In both cases however the framework
and tool developed in this thesis serve as an important decision-making and design support
system.
64
4.4 - Integrating Design Strategies within New York City Context
Multiple options for moving forward in the New York City context were explored: the
protection/defense approach, and the adaptation/retreat approach. For each of these a
general vision, and series of strategic interventions form the majority of the
recommendations to the hypothetical client. Going back to the data outputs, both coastal
development strategies were examined under the chosen sea level rise scenario (10ft)
(Figure 24 below). In both cases, there were clear strategic locations that would be crucial
to the future of the Newtown Creek area. The following chapters provide both general and
specific recommendations for what a design and/or planning intervention might look like
in this location. It is important to emphasize that this is just one possible approach to
addressing sea level rise for this site. What SEARISE 3D allows is for more designs and
scenarios to be explored to ultimately find the optimal solution for the site.
Figure 24 - A map of Newtown Creek with both 1Oft and 20ft sea level rise, and areas of
intervention (1 and 2) for preventing large-scale flooding in a portion of the area.
65
Initial Strategic Interventions
Looking at Figure 24, two locations appear critical in preventing large scale flooding in the
area, namely the area directly adjacent to the Brooklyn Navy Yards (1), as well as along the
Newtown Creek itself (2). In each of these cases, building a barrier to prevent the area from
flooding is a recommendation that spans both the defense/protection scenario and the
adaptation/retreat/w-zoning approach. The reason for this is simply the fact that for an
investment in protection infrastructure spanning a very narrow portion of land would
protect a substantial area of the Newtown Creek's from flooding. In both cases, existing
infrastructure in the form of elevated highways and bridges already seemingly provide the
backbone for designing and building flood prevention measures (Figure 25 shows the
elevated highway near the Brooklyn Navy Yard and the bridge highway over Newtown
Creek). Such planning and design solutions, which can be implemented over time, allows us
to begin investing in projects that are serving their use immediately, and continue to
protect vulnerable land for a long time.
Figure 25 - Navy Yard Barrier and Bridge
Barrier [Imagery @ 2015 Google]
Given the suggestion that these two strategic barriers be built, the maps of the area from
now on will feature red lines as barriers and previously flooded regions will no longer be
shown as flooded. Despite the barriers being built however, the current and historic
66
polluted condition in the Newtown Creek suggest the need to clean up that area.
Furthermore, while the proposed barrier provides protection against flooding, storms
often combine both extreme flooding and rain scenarios. In the event that both flooding
and rain are present, turning newly protected and non-floodable portion of the Newtown
Creek into green space and drainage basin could provide additional resiliency to the area.
Another area of interest in either scenario is the Brooklyn Navy Yards, a site historically
both dependent on and at the mercy of the water it lies directly adjacent to. Despite being
extremely vulnerable to sea level rise, there are already multiple projects proposed and/or
underway in the area. Rather than propose new designs for the site, I designate it as a site
of significant opportunity to begin testing more sustainable design interventions but also
long-term sea level rise considerations (Figure 26). For example, the idea of floating
communities, or elevated homes and walkways, could be explored in that area, providing
the opportunity to test many sea level rise designs immediately, regardless of the following
recommendations being used or not.
Figure 26 - Strategic areas in the Newtown Creek basin to prevent extensive flooding.
67
Scenario 1 - Defense/Protection
As covered prior, the main idea behind protection is to build or strengthen infrastructure
to defend against the rising waters. Major design elements for such an approach include
berms, seawalls, and levees. Figure shows a yellow line representing the outline of a 20ft
floodwall that would be required to protect the entire Newtown Creek from a scenario with
20ft of flooding (e.g. either simply 20ft sea level rise, or a combination of 10ft sea level rise
and 7ft storm surge). This scenario is a relatively simple approach to understand, and as
mentioned prior in the NYC-DC example case, is likely what will happen in New York given
the real estate and land values. That being said, a few important elements must be
discussed.
Discussion of Defense/Protection Master Plan.
First, despite building a defense strategy along the East River, both the Bridge Barrier and
Navy Yard Barriers should be built to ensure that any breach or unanticipated scenario
does not jeopardize the entire area.
Secondly, and more importantly, if a defense strategy is to be chosen from the outset
(Figure 27), it will be important to plan for incremental rise in sea level, and therefore the
defense mechanisms as well. Keeping in mind the fact that water will continue to rise, and
likely at higher rates, how can we plan for sea walls and berms so that as our defense
strategy evolves over decades, we can heighten the defense mechanisms, while still
maintaining attractive public access to the waterfront. Without proper planning of how a
sea wall might evolve over time, one can imagine a scenario where the walls, or berms,
simply get higher and higher, and effectively close off access for the community to the
waterfront. For example, if we were to simply prepare for a 3ft sea level rise, we might see
ourselves creating a false sense of security behind the wall and erecting buildings directly
adjacent to the sea wall. As sea level continues to rise, the wall would likely simply be
heightened and would gradually enclose the development within it, leaving little room for
any public waterfront access design, not to mention greater buffer region between where
people live and risk associated with rising waters To prevent such a scenario, I believe it is
68
important to take the long-term lens for sea level rise, and plan/design for scenarios well
beyond current thinking. Doing so will ensure that the designs being produced now can be
effective and attractive for current populations, but also adaptable to leave enough room
for future designs to take place.
I
BRDGE BARRIER
-oUS
AUl
DEFENSE
Figure 27 - Defense scenario with a floodwall being built for most of the waterfront along East River.
69
Scenario 2 - Mix of Adaptation and W-Zoning
The defense strategy is likely the route New York City will take given some of the reasons
outlined before, namely the high price of real estate and ever-increasing housing pressures
on land. That being said, an alternative scenario can also be imagined whereby more
respect is given to the power of water and new development strategies respond to the risks
of coastal living, and begin to sprout more flexible and adaptable development strategies.
In fact, the New York City Department of City Planning already suggests the use of
freeboard strategies in their 2012 Waterfront Revitalization Program, where their first
policy suggests the incorporation of "climate change and sea level rise projections into the
planning and design of waterfront development" (see Figure 28).
Design Flood Elevation
Base Flood Elevation
cREO
Mean High Water
"Freeboard" = increasing a new building's flood resistance by
raising the elevation of the lowest floor.
Figure 28 - Freeboard example in the New York City Department of City Planning Waterfront
1
Revitalization Program document.2
21
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/wrp/wi-previsions-summary.shtml
70
While the freeboard principle is again a step in the right direction, I believe that using the
SEARISE 3D tool we can better designate the use of such approaches to prepare for sea
level rise. For example, using the natural topography, development can be incorporated
with multiple layers of sea walls and to provide a more tiered defense system, and
therefore, more resilience than a single coastal berm defensive strategy.
To accomplish this, a new zoning approach is proposed called W-zoning. This zoning will
include two different zoning types, W-1 and W-2 (more could be added), which will serve
as ways of distinguishing between areas that face a shorter-term risk of sea level rise, and
areas facing risks beyond many of today's sea level rise projections. It is important to reemphasize that while the W-zoning approach might be appropriate in certain coastal and
topographic conditions, in other cases using a defense strategy in certain areas appears
unavoidable simply due to the narrow investment requirements vs. the amount of land
saved from flooding as a result.
W-1 and W-2 Zoning Areas
Based on the 10ft and 20ft sea level rise threshold map, it became apparent that different
zoning strategies would be required in different elevation areas. Properties at the front
lines of sea level rise require different strategies than those at risk of sea level rise 100
years from now. As a result, the question was posed: what kind of zoning structure can we
put in place to start shifting development to the mentality outlined previously, and which
allows for development in high-value areas to continue, while defending or adapting to sea
level rise? Using new W-zoning structure to designate areas of high and medium long-term
risk for sea level rise (see Figure 29 and Figure 30) areas were traced according to a
mixture of topography and existing built environment. In some cases, topography justified
drawing zoning boundaries, while in other cases boundaries were drawn along streets so
that the greatest amount of infrastructure was protected with the least amount of zoning
change. Ultimately, tracing the zoning boundaries was quite subjective, and required a
certain familiarity with the topography and site conditions. If and when this tool and Wzoning strategy is applied to other areas, someone familiar with that particular site should
be making those zoning decisions.
71
WEI
GRE
E
S
Figure 29 - W-zoning map for Newtown Creek basin
Figure 30 - Example of W-1 and W-2 zoning resulting form the SEARISE 3D analysis.
72
W-1 Zones
In proposed W-1 zones the following rules could apply:
* All development must use permeable ground surfaces and able to sustain major
flooding scenarios (either hurricanes or major storm events).
*
First floor designs must be floodable, and important infrastructure must be on the
upper floors (freeboard principle). Development is allowed but without basements or
underground crucial infrastructure (heat pump, electricity, etc.).
*
Building design should be able to diffuse the power of floodwater, while protecting
areas inland from flooding. Figure 31 for example could be considered as a design
model for development along the coast, providing gradually sloping design that
accommodates various types of flooding.
e
e
Modular approach where units can be moved, or stacked on top of other buildings as
water levels change. This ensures that despite sea level rise shrinking the area of land
available, housing can still shift accordingly and accommodate growing populations.
Only allow low to medium densities along the coast to account for the fact that we will
likely see sea level rise in any new building's life cycle for the area.
Figure 31 - Sloped design that could be used along coastal parcels. [Imagery 2015
Google]
73
W-2 Zones
W-2 zones are a little different, and more difficult to plan for, because they are not at
immediate risk of the effects of sea level rise or storm surge, however they will eventually
be next on the list. Therefore, perhaps once we have reached a certain halfway mark
regarding impacts on W-1 zones, the W-2 zones would then begin to implement many of
the W-1 requirements. For the time being however, the following are a few suggestions
surrounding the W-2 zoning areas:
e
These areas should currently be allowed to develop at higher densities and building
heights but their first floor should also be free of any crucial infrastructure. These
higher densities are to accommodate for the lower allowed densities in W-1 zones.
-
Underground floors are permitted but for parking and storage only, both uses that can
be shifted over time or in the event of a major storm or sea level rise.
-
Elevated walkways could begin to be added, or experimented with, in the zone where
high and low tides might bring flooding in and out of a neighborhood daily.
Discussionof Adaptation/W-Zoning Master Plan
It is still extremely difficult to imagine a reality where retreat takes precedence over
protection in the New York City region. The value of property continues to rise every year,
and innovative financing measures are being proposed whereby added real estate can be
used to fund climate change adaptation strategies.
For that reason, the protection master plan would likely be the most appropriate in today's
scientific climate (e.g. at current and extreme rates of warming) and economic climate
(strong real estate markets in New York City).
Of course if things change and we observe more rapid sea level rise, this might have
unknown consequences on cities such as New York and lead to much weaker real estate
pressures in low-lying coastal zones. In this case, shifting from the protection approach to
an adaptation/retreat or even full-retreat approach might be necessary. At this moment in
time however these realities point to the protection scenario and master plan.
74
4.5 - Phasing and New Zoning Discussion
The nature of long-term planning related to climate change and sea level rise should
involve the acknowledgement of possible long-term scenarios but also elaborating
strategies to arrive at a design strategy that allows for incremental change and design.
Zoning provides the governmental framework that can begin shaping the long-term
requirements. Using zoning, we can outline areas that should begin preparing for sea level
rise now in areas that still have a few real-estate cycles left before they may need to start
thinking about preparing for sea level rise and/or flooding. Despite certain areas not
requiring direct investment in climate change adaptation, this does not mean they cannot
begin thinking about it right away; in fact, to remain consistent throughout the argument
for long-term planning in this paper, preparing now might also save considerable
advantages in terms of financial savings and adaptation know-how.
Again, as a result of the framework for long-term planning for sea level rise, this research
has produced what is believed to be a useful framework for designating medium and longterm risk strategies for cities around the world. The W-1 and W-2 zoning helps frame
otherwise unfathomable timelines and scenarios into manageable planning agendas. Such
coastal-oriented zoning can also inspire people to find creative solutions for the challenges
that area faces, rather than just blanket an area with economic or social land-use decisions.
Finally, regardless of the design strategies we begin changing our urban environments to
prepare for long-term sea level rise. The important concept here is that tools such as
SEARISE 3D can help us explore and think beyond what current models are saying, and
acknowledging that there are many pieces of the climate change puzzle we have yet to
understand.
75
5-
Conclusions
The exploration of this thesis topic led to many realizations about the notion of long-term
planning in the face of climate change. First of all, it is a tremendous mental, conceptual,
scientific challenge to think of, and predict, what might happen in the next 100 years
regarding climate change. Some climate change scientists/experts claim that a 3ft sea level
rise by 2100 is realistic, while others estimate that 10ft is more realistic. The even more
variable, and noisier, realm of pseudo-scientists, bloggers, internet-commenters who may
claim that none of this is a problem to begin with, also muddies scientific rigor.
Even if the idea of climate change was 100% accepted in today's society, the variability in
future climate scenarios and limitations in the science make moving forward on a future
vision for climate change adaptation extremely difficult. This variability also can be seen as
a void between the scientific and planning community whereby the uncertainties of climate
change at a scientific level are not reflected in the way we are preparing for possible future
climate scenarios. With the help of SEARISE 3D, I believe to have built the foundation to a
tool that will allow decision-makers, planners, and anyone interested in this matter, to
quickly explore the impacts of long-term sea level rise in four dimensions (spatial 3D plus
time) for most major cities in the world.
Using the maps and charts produced through the SEARISE 3D tool we can begin looking at
the impacts of sea level rise on urban environments well beyond IPCC or FEMA predictions
and maps, and begin preparing for a defense, adaptation, and retreat strategies (or
combination of all three) to make sure the investments we make today to strengthen our
coastal cities will last as long as possible and support the greatest flexibility in the face of
climate change uncertainty.
5.1 - Real World Implications
The greatest contribution of this tool is its use for assisting in elaborating climate change
adaptation strategies at the local and regional scale. As this thesis has demonstrated using a
rapid analysis of where the greatest impacts of sea level rise might be over time allows us
76
to focus our attention on areas where investment could begin preparing an area for a longterm strategy. Other than provide a framework for real-world decision-making and urban
development, this the framework/tool presented can serve as a base for many different
realms of the planning and design process, as well as other uses:
1.
This tool could help explore coastal design strategies in many disciplines. At its crux,
the tool allows any discipline to find the scenario where their efforts and any
development will last the longest and benefit the greatest number of people. The most
likely use of SEARISE 3D would be for designers and/or architectural firms who might
not have access to GIS software to produce simple sea level rise mapping analyses, yet
for whom Rhino and Grasshopper are industry standard. This tool allows them to
explore climate scenarios and design solutions.
2.
Such a tool can also help disaster preparedness in low-lying coastal zones. For
example, if a hurricane is approach a coastal city reports may be changing hourly with
respect to the amount of storm surge, tidal height at the time of impact, and other
factors. With this tool city officials, as well as organizations with less powerful
computer technology (e.g. NGOs, or even the general public), can easily change the
projected water level and understand how many people are at risk, how many roads
will be underground, sewers, etc. Of course having this information is the first step in
being able to allocate appropriate amounts of resources to certain regions given a
specific scenario.
3.
Provide a framework, or base condition, for large-scale design competitions such as
Rebuild by Design. One could imagine a design charrette, competition, or RfP (Request
for Proposal) where base conditions are established using this tool and entries are
required to plan for sea level rise, and/or can choose to propose designs that are
incremental. Using this tool, tools could explore different flood impacts over time and
choose the best strategy forward and the designs to go with it.
Many more applications of the tool can be imagined, as the amount and type of data being
integrated into the tool change. In order to help keep this project alive, and promote the
continued use and development of the tool, parts of the thesis were integrated into the
77
Grasshopper interface to provide context for anyone who might use of the tool (see Figure
32). It is my hope that doing this can better translate, and extend, the motivation behind
the tool, rather than people having to read this relatively lengthy thesis. As people
download the plugin and explore its inner workings, short comments will guide them
through the reasoning to help them improve and expand the tool. I believe that openly
sharing the tool online will result in a tool that can provide countless other decisionsupport frameworks for climate change adaptation.
Figure 32 - The beginning of the SEARISE 3D Grasshopper Plugin with introductory paragraph,
instructions and background information about certain portions of the tool.
78
5.2 - Words of Wisdom/Caution
While this project aims to provide a framework to prepare cities for the long-term risk of
climate change, there is still the risk that any non-retreat based solution to sea level rise is
simply 'kicking the can down the road'. Returning to the scientific finding that for every
degree of warming we've already seen we will continue to see sea level rise for centuries to
come, this means that even the optimal scenario-based solutions arrived at in this thesis
are temporary. That being said, we are at the very early stages of our battle with climate
change and its effects on our society/cities. We will not have all the answers right away,
just as we do not know exactly what is in store for us. If you ask me, planning for 200 years
of uncertainty (for example) gives us a much wider window of opportunity, and margin of
error, to refine our models, and attempt to reduce our impact on the environment.
Another limitation to caution is the fact that this approach didn't include an analysis of
storm surge, or tidal patterns for that matter. This is a significant limitation to the current
approach as scientists predict that as sea levels rise so too will the severity of storms and
resulting storm surges. The variables for base water and storm surge were included in the
model but were not modified for the sake of clarity in the potential use of the tool. That
being said, storm surges will have an increasing impact on our cities. More adaptation, or
living with water, techniques might be used within the current scope of research whereby
the proposed designs prevent against 100% flooding due to sea level rise but additional
attention must be paid for storms. Projects such as barrier islands to dampen storm surges
are example of other ways to prevent storm surges from impacting New York City and
allowing local efforts to focus more on sea level rise.
Throughout the development of the tool, I quickly discovered the power and potential for
the Grasshopper-typed modular programming interface. It allows for breaking down
relatively complex operations into their building blocks while having control of the
data/manipulation every step of the way. Having done much work with computer
programming, this certainly fit with my way of solving complex problems, not to mention
allowing for a powerful and creative approach to solving a problem of great
interest/importance to me. Hopefully the structure of the exported Grasshopper tool (with
79
comments and compartments for various spatial operations) allows others to learn the
power and beauty of these tools as well.
Lastly, having spent much time in the field of urban planning and design, it was to my
surprise that these tools are quite seldom used in elaborating plans, policy, or visualization.
My introduction to these technologies was through colleagues who were professionally
trained in Architecture. Having been introduced to some extremely powerful and useful
plugin such as Meerkat GIS, I do believe that these technologies will grow in popularity in a
mostly GIS driven field of urban planning. They allow for a high level of customization in
spatial analysis and storytelling while bypassing the need to learn programming languages
such as Python to create custom operations. This is in fact a growing trend in computer
programming where an increasing number of companies are providing drag-&-drop
programming features which use pre-packaged and intuitive snippets of code for people
with no programming experience to make use of otherwise complex scripts and functions
(e.g. see programs such as Scratch, Swift).
80
5.3 - Closing Remarks
In the end, to borrow a phrase from David Rusk (Rusk, 2014), this is very much "a task of
imagining the unimaginable". Planning for sea level rise requires working with time scales
well beyond our lifetimes, let alone our daily lives, and imagining a world we have never
seen before. That said, starting to imagine what the future might hold is the first step to
getting ready for a plausible future, and will better prepare cities when that reality sinks in
(pun intended).
To bring it back to the time frame that affects today's generations, this project aims to
provide a framework that allows planners and decision-makers to start making smarter
choices about developing vulnerable coastal zones today. In doing so, we are helping
society progress towards a more resilient future, optimizing citizens' tax-dollars for longterm benefits, and hopefully improving the livelihoods of people who might otherwise face
growing danger from sea level rise and increasing storm intensities. These investments
must be seen as long-term and not necessarily directly impacting today's cities.
If anything, at the end of this project, what I hope people realize is that cities, decisionmakers, planners, architects, everyone, must act beyond what the scientific community is
telling us because ultimately, and unfortunately, the climate models are incomplete. We
must take the numbers given to us, and zoom out to the larger scale, and longer timeline, to
see what makes sense.
As we navigate through the stormy waters of climate change, having tools that allow us to
explore the variability in possible scenarios, and bridge the uncertainties of science into
our built environment will be all the more important. We can and should begin planning for
the uncertainty we face, but this should still be secondary to our efforts to stop our
devastating impact on the climate to begin with.
81
Works Cited
IPCC. (2014). CLIMATE CHANGE 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers.
IPCC. (1990). IPCC PolicymakersSummary. International Panel on Climate Change.
Morello, L. (2012). Climate Change Faster Than Predicted. Retrieved Feb 1, 2015, from
Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-fasterthan-predicted/
Rahmstorf, S., Box, J. E., Feulner, G., Mann, M. E., Robinson, A., Rutherford, S., et al. (2015).
Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation.
Nature Climate Change, 5, 475-480.
Reay, D., & Hogan, M. (2012). Greenhousegas. Retrieved from
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/153147
Rusk, D. (2014, November 5). It's Not Nice to Fool Mother Nature: Sea Level Rise and
Managed Relocation. Cambridge, MA, USA.
Shaefer, K. (2012). Policy Implications of Warming Permafrost. United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP).
Shakun, J. D., Clark, P. C., He, F., Marcott, S. A., Mix, A. C., Zhengyu, L., et al. (2012). Global
warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last
deglaciation. Nature, 484,49-54.
Solomon, S., Daniel, J. S., Stafford, T. J., Murphy, D. M., Plattner, G.-K., Knutti, R., et al. (2010).
Persistence of Climate Changes Due to a Range of Greenhouse Gases. NationalAcademy
of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica, 107.
SPUR. (2009). Strategies for Managing Sea Level Rise. The Urbanist(487).
Weiss, R., & Heimbinder, M. (2010). Newtown Creek Community Health & Harms Narrative
Project (CHHNP). Newtown Creek Alliance.
82
Weitzman, M. L. (2011). Fat-Tailed Uncertainty in the Economics of Catastrophic Climate
Change.
83