Greening our City: Improved Health and Sustainability, Economic Stability in Crisis Times

3,694 views

Published on

Greening our City: Improved Health and Sustainability, Economic Stability in Crisis Times

Published in: Design, Technology, Real Estate
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,694
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Greening our City: Improved Health and Sustainability, Economic Stability in Crisis Times

  1. 1. 2010 Greening Newtown‐The Results of USF’s  Environmental Science  and Policy Capstone Seminar Authors: Jennifer Ascani Leslie Babiak Todd Bogner Alana BrasierRebekah Brightbill Melissa BrogleMelanie Decesare Sara Giunta Justin Heller Garrett Hyzer Katrina Johnson Jason Kendall Christopher Klug Anna Leech Corey Leonard Scott Moore Lin Ozan Adrien Roth Edited and Compiled by Robert Brinkmann Matthew Torrence University of South Florida  12/1/2010  1
  2. 2. Table of ContentsIntroductionRobert Brinkmann……………………………………………………………………………page 1A Sustainable Urban Environment: the use of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ inNewtown, SarasotaJennifer Ascani…………………………………………….…………………………………page 3Green Roof Gardens for Enhancing Sustainable Development in NewtownLeslie Babiak………………………………………………………………………..………page 17What a Greenway Park could mean socially and environmentally to a diverse populationwithin SarasotaTodd L. Bogner………………………………………………………………………….…page 36A Green Infrastructure Network to Sustainably Redevelop Newtown, SarasotaAlana Brasier………………………………………………………………………………page 52Minority Business Creation in Newtown: Equalizing the Reach of GreenRebekah G. Brightbill……………………………………………………………….……page 68Waste Reduction, Litter Prevention, and Litter Control in NewtownMelissa R. Brogle…………………………………………………………………………page 87Newtown Residential Bus Stop InventoryChristopher Cochran……………………………………………………………………page 100A Citizen’s Initiative for Sustainable Urban Living through Expanded Recycling andConservation in the Home and CommunityMelanie M. DeCesare……………………………………………………………………page 117Brownfields to Created Wetlands: A Project Initiative for Newtown, SarasotaSara Giunta……………………………………………………………..…………………page 135Benefits of Improved Street Lighting Using Energy Efficient LED TechnologyJustin Heller………………………………………………………………………………page 152Sarasota’s Food Desert:A Case for Providing Newtown’s Residents Access to HealthyFoodsGarrett Hyzer……………………………………………………………………………page 168Sustainable Redevelopment within the Newtown Community of Sarasota, Florida:Green StreetsKatrina Johnson…………………………………………………………………………page 183
  3. 3. Promoting Sustainable Redevelopment in Newtown with Urban ForestryJason Kendall…………………………………………………………………………page 199The Potential Effects of Rising Sea Levels on Sarasota and Newtown, and the Lessonslearned from Hurricane Katrina.Christopher Klug………………………………………………………………………page 213Bicycle Infrastructure in NewtownAnna Leech……………………………………………………………………………page 227Assessing the Potential Benefits of Florida Friendly Municipal Landscaping in Newtown,SarasotaCorey Leonard…………………………………………….…………………………page 243Noise Pollution and Environmental JusticeScott A. Moore…………………………………………………………………………page 258The Benefits of On-Site Power Generation for NewtownLin Allen Ozan…………………………………………………………………………page 272A Natural History of Newtown, Sarasota, Florida: Including Geology, Hydrology and SoilsAdrien Roth……………………………………………………………………………page 288The Feasibility of Public Wi-Fi in Newtown, Sarasota: Investigating Community andEconomic Development through Public Wireless Internet AccessMatt Torrence…………………………………………………………………………page 307
  4. 4. IntroductionRobert Brinkmann, Ph.D.Professor of GeographyMonths ago, I had my first encounter with Newtown. I drove from USF in Tampa to visit myfriend and colleague, Ms. Lorna Alston. She just started her new position as the GeneralManager of the North Sarasota Redevelopment Division and I was anxious to see how she likedher new position. I was familiar with her impressive work in East Tampa and I knew she wasgoing to make a big difference in the community and in the lives of its citizens. As I drove intoNewtown’s main street, I was struck by its small-town charm. In many ways, the structure ofNewtown is similar to that espoused by those who seek a “New Urbanism” in American cities.New Urbanists recommend developments with small downtowns within walking distance ofhomes and places of work, and with access to public transportation and parks. Indeed, Newtownhas many things in place that make it a highly desirable place to live. It has a distinctneighborhood feel, parks, and easy access to transportation. Yet, there are also problems ofunderemployment, crime, environment, and economic development. Around the United States,there are many Newtowns. Many people are working to improve these communities and thereare many success stories. I have no doubt that North Sarasota will be among the success stories. To many, Sarasota is considered one of the greenest cities in the United States. It wasone of the first in Florida to embrace many of the key elements of the modern sustainabilitymovement. Thus, it makes sense to think about Newtown and the North Sarasota region withinthe context of environmental sustainability. How can this part of Sarasota become a bigger partof Sarasota’s national and international reputation as an urban ecotopia? Each time I teach my graduate seminar called Capstone Seminar in EnvironmentalScience and Policy, I try to give my students opportunities to work within a community onexamining sustainability issues. To me and my students, environmental sustainability includesnot just the environment, but also social and economic issues. Thus, I challenge my students tolook at all aspects within a community to evaluate how to make improvements and to developplans and ideas that are practical and that can assist others in making their communities a betterplace. In the past, my classes have done similar projects in Clearwater and Tampa. I am thrilledthat I was given permission to work with Sarasota in examining the North Sarasota 1
  5. 5. Redevelopment area. I am grateful for the assistance of many who gave of their time to assiststudents in their efforts. Within this document are reports from 20 students. This is the largest group I have everhad in this course. The students include individuals working on masters degrees in Geography,Planning, or Environmental Science and Policy. In addition, some of the students are completinga Graduate Certificate Program in Environmental Management. The student projects varyconsiderably from green job training to green roof development. The nature of the reports veryas well in that some are very applied programs with concrete suggestions, while others are moretheoretical in nature. Regardless of the content, each student brings a unique perspective to theunderstanding of the North Sarasota area. 2
  6. 6. A Sustainable Urban Environment: the use of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ inNewtown, SarasotaJennifer AscaniAbstract Urban Environments are commonly depicted by their man-made infrastructures -skyscrapers, parking garages, roads, sidewalks, restaurants, and apartments. Often times, naturallandscapes must be altered to accommodate a proposed structure. This can be done through anumber of means: dredging, filling, clearing and flattening. Native vegetation and naturalenvironments are more often than not altered, if not completely demolished, in the process ofurban expansion. While destruction of these natural environments is harmful to inhabitants ofthese ecosystems, lack of green spaces in new urban environments can be just as harmful to itsnew residents. The implementation of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ is a proposed effectivestrategy to halt, replenish, and even prevent the loss of natural ecosystems in Florida’s urbanenvironments. In urban neighborhoods, such as Newtown, Sarasota, implementation of nativevegetation in residential yards yields a plethora of benefits to the neighborhoods’ wildlife as wellas its residents.OutlineThe following outline highlights the main sections of this technical report:I. Newtown Sarasota A. History of the Newtown Community B. New Beginnings for Newtown C. Goals & Objectives of Newtown Community Redevelopment AreaII. Current Conditions A. Newtown Boundaries B. Focus on Residential Yards 1. Newtown Gospel Church 2. City of Sarasota Housing Authority 3. Residential House 1 3
  7. 7. 4. Residential House 2 5. Residential House 3III. Proposed Conditions A. “Curb Appeal” B. Smart Landscaping C. Be an Environmental Advocate D. Your Residence Could Look Like ThisIV. About The Florida-Friendly Landscaping Program™V. Nine Principles of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™VI. Education & Introduction of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ into the Newtown CommunityVII. Benefits of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ for the Newtown Community A. Becoming a Sustainable Community B. Environmental Benefits C. Environmental Benefits D. Residential Benefits E. Communal BenefitsVIII. ConclusionNewtown, SarasotaHistory of the Newtown Community: The town of Sarasota, originally platted in 1883, was founded in 1902 (History of theNewtown Community, 2008). In 1904, the Florida West Shore Railway was constructed in theregion that is now considered Newtown, thus bringing the rail service to Sarasota. Newtown isconsidered the second historic African-American core district of Sarasota. The first AfricanAmerican core district, originally called Overtown and more recently known as the RosemaryDistrict, boomed at the turn of the century and into the 20’s, demanding further growth north. Charles Thompson, a well-known circus manager, led the development of Newtown in1914. Thompson’s motivation for development stemmed from his desire to better the quality oflife for Sarasota’s African-American community. Around the same time, Sarasota’s Downtownwas expanding, thus thrusting the African-American population northward. By 1960, Newtownwas home to approximately 7,000 people, or about 6% of Sarasota County’s population. 4
  8. 8. In the 1960’s, Newtown’s commercial community prospered. The community boastedmany restaurants, grocery stores, service stations, a drug store, repair shops, beauty parlors,barbershops, and a doctor and dentist’s office (City of Sarasota, 2008). Sadly, decades ofdecreased investment and financial flight, along with creation of government subsidized housingand social services, have resulted in residential properties in disrepair alongside flourishingsingle-family homes. Additionally, many multifamily houses in the community have notreceived continued care, thus resulting in extensive community decomposition.New Beginnings for Newtown: The city of Sarasota held a community-wide meeting with Newtown residents onFebruary 11, 2010, requesting ideas on how to improve the quality of life of the Newtowncommunity, particularly within the areas of Economic Development, Law Enforcement,Neighborhoods, Social Services, and Youth Services (New Beginnings for Newtown, 2008). Theintended outcome of this meeting was to discover ideas and solutions that would assist, as wellas equip, the residents of Newtown to bring about positive change within their community. OnFebruary 23, 2010, the city of Sarasota held another community-wide meeting with Newtownresidents, where they presented the proposed changes and adopted a grass-roots effort to achievethese changes. The meeting attendees then broke into focus groups based on their area of interestand developed action plans to accomplish their goals.Goals & Objectives of Newtown Community Redevelopment Area: The lists of assets and issues generated at the public meeting have been developed into alist of goals and objectives that provide the guidelines for redevelopment in the NewtownCommunity, referred to as the Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan 2020 (NewtownComprehensive Redevelopment Plan 2010 Goals and Objectives, 2010). For the purpose of thistechnical report, the focus will be on the establishment of functional, aesthetically pleasingcommunity development. The following is a list of objectives from Newtown ComprehensiveRedevelopment Plan 2020 in which the research of this technical paper will aid in achieving:1. Administration (Redevelopment Administration and Policy): Goal III: Prevent the occurrence of slum and blight. Objective 2: Eliminate conditions that decrease property 5
  9. 9. values and reduce the tax base.2. Economic Development: Goal II: Re-establish old neighborhoods through redevelopment and revitalization of the housing stock. Establish a safe, functional, and aesthetically pleasing community environment. Objective 4: Work with the City to clean up vacant, unattended properties.4. Land Use: Goal 1: Establish Land use pattern that reflects the redevelopment area as a community of diversified interests and activities while promoting compatibility and harmonious land-use relationships. Objective 4: Protect and enhance existing residential neighborhoods.8. Urban Design/Parks: Goal I: Establish Parks, recreation, open space, and beautification efforts to create an identifiable character for the redevelopment area, one which will reflect a pleasant, appealing atmosphere for working, shopping, touring, and residing in the district. Objective 3: Prepare landscaping, streetscaping and lighting plans for public to strengthen the historic character of the redevelopment area and encourage the use of these features when negotiating private sector development plans. Objective 8: Utilize a variety of beautification techniques to provide comfortable, pleasing, and healthful work, leisure, residential, and shopping environments. Objective 9: Develop urban site design, landscape design, and architectural design guidelines for new and redevelopment projects.Current ConditionsNewtown Boundaries According to the Geographic Boundary Map of Newtown (pg. 2 of Front Porch FloridaCommunities Newtown, 2007), the Newtown neighborhood boundaries are as follows: OldBradenton Road to the west, US Hwy 301/North Washington Boulevard to the east, MyrtleStreet to the north and 17th Street to the south. 6
  10. 10. Focus on Residential Yards On October 30, 2010, photographs were taken of five random residential sites to illustrate current conditions of residential yards in Newtown. As the photographer was alone, observations cited in this paper are based on the photographer’s observations of the yards during a less than five-minute drive-by and observed from the photographs. Table 1.1Name Location Site NameNewtown Gospel Church 1815 Gillespie Avenue Site 1City of Sarasota Housing Corner of 24th Street and Site 2Authority Dixie AvenueResidential House 1 2831 Maple Avenue Site 3Residential House 2 2830 Goodrich Avenue Site 4Residential House 3 2728 Goodrich Avenue Site 5 Newtown Gospel Church According to the Sarasota Property Appraiser, Site 1 is zoned as RMF2: Residential, Multi-Family (9 units/acre) with (land) use code 7100: Institutional- Churches. The Land Area of the parcel is 47,564 square feet. The 2010 Assessed Value of the parcel is $ 329,900.00 (Appendix A). According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, Site 1 is composed (as a percentage of total area) of the following soil types: 100% EauGallie and Myakka fine sands (Appendix B). The current vegetation is mostly sparse, exposing many areas of soil. There are a fair number of established deciduous and coniferous trees as well as a few palms on site. The established deciduous and coniferous trees are located at the rear of the church (west) and provide shade for the building (Appendix C). There is a concrete sidewalk that perimeters the front of the site and an unpaved parking area is located to the right of the building (Appendix D). City of Sarasota Housing Authority According to the Sarasota Property Appraiser, Site 2 is zoned as G: Governmental Use with (land) use code 0390: Residential Multi-Family - 100 or more units. The Land Area of the 7
  11. 11. parcel is 586,811 square feet. The 2010 Assessed Value of the parcel is $ 2,059,000.00(Appendix E). According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, Site 1 iscomposed (as a percentage of total area) of the following soil types: 100% EauGallie andMyakka fine sands (Appendix F). The current vegetation is mostly turf grass. There are a fairnumber of established deciduous and coniferous trees as well as a few palms on site. Theestablished deciduous and coniferous trees are located to the west and south of the HousingComplex and providing shade for few buildings (Appendix G). There are concrete sidewalks thatperimeter each neighborhood block. Additionally, there are no paved or unpaved parking areasas all parking is street parking (Appendix H).Residential House 1 According to the Sarasota Property Appraiser, Site 3 is zoned as RSF4: Residential,Single Family (5.5 units/acre) with (land) use code 0100: Residential - Single Family. The LandArea of the parcel is 5,000 square feet. The 2010 Assessed Value of the parcel is $ 39,100.00(Appendix I). According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, Site 1 iscomposed (as a percentage of total area) of the following soil types: 100% EauGallie andMyakka fine sands (Appendix J). The current vegetation is overgrown and unmanaged. There area fair number of established deciduous and coniferous trees as well as a few palms on site. Theestablished deciduous and coniferous trees are located at the rear of the residence (west) andprovide shade for the building (Appendix K). There is a concrete sidewalk that perimeters thefront of the site. Additionally, there are no paved or unpaved parking areas as parking for thisresidence is street parking (Appendix L).Residential House 2 According to the Sarasota Property Appraiser, Site 4 is zoned as RSF4: Residential,Single Family (5.5 units/acre) with (land) use code 0100: Residential - Single Family. The LandArea of the parcel is 5,000 square feet. The 2010 Assessed Value of the parcel is $ 49,800.00 8
  12. 12. (Appendix M). According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, Site 1 iscomposed (as a percentage of total area) of the following soil types: 45.4% EauGallie andMyakka fine sands and 54.6% Holopaw fine sand, depressional (Appendix N). The currentvegetation is mostly turf grass. There are a fair number of established deciduous and coniferoustrees as well as a few palms on site. The established deciduous and coniferous trees are located atthe rear of the residence (east) and provide shade for the building (Appendix O). There is aconcrete sidewalk that perimeters the front of the site as well as a concrete driveway.Additionally, there is a chain-link fence that perimeters the property (Appendix P).Residential House 3 According to the Sarasota Property Appraiser, Site 5 is zoned as RMF2: Residential,Multi-Family (9 units/acre) with (land) use code 0820: Multi-Family/less than 10 units/Duplex.The Land Area of the parcel is 5,000 square feet. The 2010 Assessed Value of the parcel is $64,500.00 (Appendix Q). According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, Site 1 iscomposed (as a percentage of total area) of the following soil types: 100% EauGallie andMyakka fine sands (Appendix R). The current vegetation is mostly turf grass. There are a fairnumber of established deciduous and coniferous trees as well as a few palms on site. Theestablished deciduous and coniferous trees are located at the rear of the residence (east) andprovide shade for the building (Appendix S). There is a concrete sidewalk that perimeters thefront of the site as well as a concrete driveway to the south (Appendix T).Proposed Conditions“Curb Appeal” One strategy used to raise aesthetic value of a residence is to improve “curb appeal.”Shows such as HGTV’s Curb Appeal take a less than aesthetically pleasing residential yard andtransform it via new landscaping into an eye-catching, property with the potential to sell quickly. 9
  13. 13. As many of the objectives of the Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan 2020 include anaesthetically pleasing sector, creating “curb appeal” has been a supported strategy for achievingthis.Smart Landscaping While creating an aesthetically pleasing residential yard increases property value as wellas meets objectives of the Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan 2020, when executedin a particular fashion this creation can also be environmentally sustainable. One of the 9Principles of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ (FFL) is “Right Plant, Right Place.” Unlikenutrient rich soil found in the north, central Florida boasts mostly xeric (dry) conditions(Appendix U). While many people want a lush, green lawn, they don’t realize that the soilconditions of Florida do no support that type of vegetation. Homeowners end up pumpingexcessive amounts of water and fertilizer into their lawns, believing if they add enough they willbe rewarded with a lush, green lawn. Conversely, lawns that go unattended and unmanaged are abreeding ground for exotics species. The majority of people are unaware that excessive watering depletes Florida’s aquifer.While the aquifer does get replenished through rain, if the state experiences a drought, residentiallawns suffer. This is not aesthetically pleasing, nor does it support a favorable ecosystem forwildlife. FFL offers a sustainable solution to this all too common problem. Choosing nativeplants capable of thriving in xeric conditions by adapting to periods of little to no water can keepresidents’ lawns looking beautiful, while reducing irrigation demands and associated costs(McKinney, 2008). Introducing rain barrels (Appendix V) as an alternative means of watering,through the capture and re-use of rainwater, can also help to transform lawns into sustainableecosystems (Bucklin, 1993). Native vegetation also attracts and supports wildlife that would notbe found in turf grass (Doody et al, 2010). Wildlife displaced by urbanization can thrive in aresidential lawn of native vegetation allowing residents to live in harmony with nature (Chen,2009).Be An Environmental Advocate In addition to residents misusing water to keep their lawns lush and green, over 10
  14. 14. fertilization is another environmental issue (Manning, 2008). Urban environments usually havehigh amounts of impermeable surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, and roads where waterdoes not filter through but runs across the surface. Natural rain, as well as sprinkler systems andself-watering that comes in contact with fertilized lawns, carries the fertilizer down storm drainsand into wetlands, lakes, and ponds. While large amounts of fertilizer may be beneficial toplants, excessive nutrient loads have the opposite effect in water bodies (Erickson et al, 1999).Excessive amounts of nutrients feed algae blooms, making lake and pond management extremelydifficult. Utilizing native plants that require little to no fertilizer will aid in reducing urban run-off as well as keep water bodies more biologically and aesthetically pleasing.Your Residence Could Look Like This Go to http://www.floridayards.org/interactive/index.php to use Florida-FriendlyInteractive Yard. This online interactive tool will give you step-by-step directions to transform acommon turf yard into one dominated by FFL plants. The site is a copyrighted production ofFusionspark Media, Inc. so no part of the production can be copied and reproduced. Additionallyfound on the site is a Florida-Friendly Plant Database that can be utilized in FFL transformation.Black (2003) compiled a list of Florida’s native plants that he believes has the greatest potentiallandscape use. These plants are equally practical and attractive when utilized in rural and urbanenvironments.About The Florida-Friendly Landscaping Program™: The Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ (FFL) Program is an extension of the University ofFlorida, Institute of Food & Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) Environmental HorticultureDepartment. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) primarily funds theFFL program and as of 2009, has required that UF/IFAS use the term “Florida-FriendlyLandscaping” in all of its research, publications, and associated materials to match the languagethat is used in Florida’s state legislation (citation*). FloridaYards.org is a project of the FloridaSprings Initiative of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and ispresented by UF/IFAS. The FFL program was created to include Florida Yards &Neighborhoods (FYN) program and the Florida-Friendly Best Management Practices for 11
  15. 15. Protection of Water Resources by the Green Industries (GIBMPs). The FYN program and theGIBMP program both promote the 9 Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ Principles, which applyequally to homeowner and industry sanctions.Nine Principles of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™: The University of Florida, Institute of Food & Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) createdThe Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Handbook that highlights nine principles that will aidresidents in reaching their goal of a Florida-Friendly Yard. The nine principles are as follows: 1. Right Plant, Right Place 2. Water Efficiently 3. Fertilize Appropriately 4. Mulch 5. Attract Wildlife 6. Manage Yard Pests Responsibly 7. Recycle Yard Waste 8. Reduce Stormwater Runoff 9. Protect the WaterfrontEducation & Introduction of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ into the NewtownCommunity While knowledge can be a powerful tool, many times it can go to waste if it is not sharedand therefore does not have the opportunity to impact others. The following section highlightsstrategies to effectively educate and expose the Newtown community to the sustainablelandscape approach of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™:  Display of Informative Posters at high traffic community areas such as community centers/schools /libraries/grocery stores. Colorful, eye-catching posters are visual tools that can attract the attention of passers-by and encourage them to learn more.  Creation of a website link to Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ Program (http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/) and Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ 12
  16. 16. (http://www.floridayards.org/) from Newtown’s website. A simple link that connects Newtown’s residents to the “How-To” of FFL (Naveh, 2007).  Presentations at schools/community centers of the Nine Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ (FFL) Principles. Children are sometimes the environment’s best advocates. FFL is an active, outdoor activity that many children would enjoy doing with a parent or guardian.  “Model FFL Yard” in the community. Many times a Model, able to be seen, touched, and observed can be a highly effective tool in motivating others to apply the same Model principles to their properties. Pick a parcel that is in a high community traffic area to maximize learning potential.  Creation of a Gardening Club that abides by the Nine FFL Principles. Creation of a Gardening Club to uphold FFL Principles as well as build community camaraderie can be offered through the community center.  Handouts/brochures: Creation and distribution of handouts/brochures of FFL is a non- spoken way of getting word out into the community. Handouts can supplement posters and presentations and can always be made available at the community center.Benefits of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ for the Newtown Community:Becoming a Sustainable Community FFL has environmental, communal as well as economic benefits. In a community such asNewtown that is striving to become a more sustainable town, FFL is a simple strategy thatsupports the big picture idea of sustainable living. While it does not solve every environmentaland economic issue, it is a small step that nearly every resident can take and will contributetoward the realization of Newtown’s goals in becoming a sustainable community (Kuo, 2003).Environmental Benefits As mentioned in previous paragraphs, environmental benefits of FFL include a reductionin watering amounts and costs, minimizing urban run-off, and recruitment of native (plant andanimal) species. Additionally, installing FFL trees increases CO2 uptake, which is quite plentifulin urban environments (Manning, 2008). Tress, if planted in particular locations, can shaderesidences, which in turn reduces the need to run air conditioning thus saving money andresources. 13
  17. 17. Residential Benefits Increasing green spaces in urban environments increases the quality of life of residents(Kuo, 2003). Residents who utilize FFL in their yards will most likely spend more time outside,enjoying the work of tending to their yards. This could lead to communal bonding and, asmentioned before, the creation of a Gardening Club. Native plants can be purchased from localnurseries, thus supporting sustainable business practices in Newtown. Enjoyment of suchgardening activities may also lead to an interest of a career pursuit in landscape architecture;landscape ecology, botany, and many related fields, as well as small business opportunities.Communal Benefits Lastly, general aesthetics of the community of Newtown would improve drastically ifresidents took part in the FFL program. The community as a whole would enjoy a newly foundedcohesion through their unity of practicing the 9 Principles of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™.While aesthetics is beneficial to the community, it meets many objectives from NewtownComprehensive Redevelopment Plan 2020 (Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan 2010Goals and Objectives, 2010). FFL would increase property value as well. Very few people areinterested in living in areas that are not aesthetically pleasing, with overgrown lawns andmismanaged vegetation. An entire community implementing FFL would only increase outsider’sinterests in joining the community and willingness to pay the extra dollar to have a low-maintenance, aesthetically pleasing lawn.Conclusion Newtown is faced with a tremendous opportunity to transform a neglected neighborhoodto a sustainable, model community for the entire city of Sarasota. Small changes that residentscan accomplish on their own that will aid in helping their community become more sustainablewhile giving residents a sense of pride of ownership of their community. The implementation ofFFL as an effective strategy to halt, replenish, and even prevent the loss of natural ecosystems inFlorida’s urban environments will in turn create a sustainable ecosystem for wildlife as well asfor residents. Most importantly, FFL is an opportunity for the citizens of Newtown to come 14
  18. 18. together and collectively make a positive difference within their community as well as the planet.Works Cited:Black, RJ. (2003). Native Florida Plants for Home Landscapes. Retrieved from: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ep011.Bucklin, R. (1993). Cisterns To Collect Non-Potable Water For Domestic Use. Retrieved from: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ae029.Chen X, Wu J (2009) Sustainable landscape architecture: implications of the Chinese philosophy of “unity of man with nature” and beyond.” Landscape Ecol. 24: 1015- 1026.City of Sarasota. (2010). Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan 2010. Goals and Objectives. Retrieved from: http://www.sarasotagov.com/newtown/Newtown_CRA_G&O.pdf#page=1.City of Sarasota. (2008). New Beginnings for Newtown. Retrieved from: http://www.sarasotagov.com/newtown/newbeginnings.html.City of Sarasota. (2008). History of the Newtown Community. Retrieved from: http://www.sarasotagov.com/newtown/history.html.Doody, B., Sullivan, J., Meurk, C., Stewart, G., Perkins, H. (2010). Urban realities: the contribution of residential gardens to the conservation of urban forest remnants. Biodiversity and Conservation 19:1385-1400.Erickson, J., Volin, J., Cisar, J., Snyder, G. (1999). A Facility for Documenting the Effect of Urban Landscape Type on Fertilizer Nitrogen Runoff. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 112: 266-269.Florida Department of Community Affairs. (2007). Front Porch Florida Communities Newtown. Retrieved from: www.dca.state.fl.us.Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ Program | UF Dept of Environmental Horticulture. (2010).These nine principles will help you reach the goal of a Florida-Friendly Yard. Retrieved from: http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/homeowners/nine_principles.htm.Fushionspark Media Inc., (n.d.) Florida-Friendly Interactive Yards. Retrieved from: http://www.floridayards.org/interactive/index.php.Google Earth. Imagery Date December 15, 2008. Retrieved from: www.googleearth.com. 15
  19. 19. Haynes, J., Hunsberger, A., McLaughlin, J., Vasquez, L. (2001) Drought-Tolerant, Low- Maintenance Plants for Southern “Florida Yards” and “Florida Landscapes.” Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 114:192-194.Kuo, F. (2003). The Role of Arboriculture in a Healthy Social Ecology. Journal of Arboriculture 29:148-155.Manning, W. (2008). Plants in urban ecosystems: Essential role of urban forests in urban metabolism and succession toward sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 15:362-370.McKinney, ML. (2008). Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst. 11:161–176.Naveh, Z. (2007). Landscape ecology and sustainability. Landscape Ecol. 22:1437–1440. 16
  20. 20. GREEN ROOF GARDENS FOR ENHANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTIN NEWTOWNPrepared by Leslie Babiak“Is it not against all logic when the upper surface of a whole town remainsunused and reserved exclusively for a dialogue between the tiles and the stars.” Le CorbusierEXECUTIVE SUMMARY An increased public awareness of the importance of maintaining ecological systems in anexpanding built environment has led to the development and application of technologies thatallow us to live more lightly on the planet, strengthen our connections between people, andcreate more sustainable communities. The concept of sustainability and sustainable developmenthas evolved over time to incorporate various meanings; however, sustainability is usuallyassociated with living within the earth’s means through the alteration of individual and collectivehuman behavior in ways that improve the quality of life while preserving environmentalpotential for the future. The natural environmental elements of a community are essential, notonly for human survival, but also for emotional and psychological health; thus, finding ways tobuild a stronger connection between community residents and natural landscapes enhancescommunity sustainability. Green roofs, layered systems in which a vegetated area becomes part of the roof, offer thepotential to provide a greater array of benefits to the built and natural environment, than anyother sustainable building technology. The sustainable development of a community can befurther enhanced by using green roofs as a viable solution for growing healthy food locally. Thelong distance production and transport of fresh foods, typically 1500 miles from field to table,arrives with environmental and social costs attached. Growing food locally on a green roof can 17
  21. 21. contribute to a community’s food security network, improve the nutrition of local residents,provide job skills training and other educational opportunities, and create opportunities forrevenue. Underutilized rooftop space can be transformed into a new avenue for culturalexpression and citizen involvement; hence, strengthening community ties. Though prevalent throughout many parts of the world, green roof technology has onlyrecently received recognition in the United States and Canada. Public education of the value ofgreen roofs and the ways in which they reduce environmental impacts and provide social,ecological, and economic benefits will help increase widespread awareness, remove institutionalbarriers, and strengthen the likelihood that local policy-making and incentives supporting greenroof installations will become more of a reality. A green roof growing fruits and vegetables inNewtown would serve not only as a learning tool but would be a promising stride toward settinga community standard for sustainable development. This paper begins by offering an overview of the benefits of a green roof and of growingfood closer to home. Secondly, an account of green roof garden design considerations and anillustrative case for successful green roof food production will be presented. This will befollowed by a depiction of how this innovative approach in taking advantage of unused roofspace can impact Newtown’s redevelopment in a sustainable way.WHAT IS A GREEN ROOF? While the modern day green roof originated in Germany over one hundred yearsago, green roofs have existed for thousands of years in many different parts of the world.Although recently introduced within the past decade in the United States and Canada, robustgrowth in installation efforts and progress in policy-making are indicative of a strong likelihoodthat green roofs will become widespread throughout North America in the near future. Installed 18
  22. 22. on top of the existing roofing membrane, the green roof system components are typically layeredas follows: waterproof membrane protection layer, insulation or separation layer, root barrier,drainage layer, filter fabric aeration layer, growing medium (often referred to as substrate), andvegetation (figure 1). Modern green roof technology incorporates patented soil blends that arecustomarily composed of a mix of organic and inorganic ingredients including perlite, compost,peat moss, small stones, and expanded clay or shale.FIGURE 1: SECTIONAL VIEW OF LAYERED GREEN ROOF COMPONENTSpractitiionerresources.org/document64941 Extensive green roofs, categorized as having a substrate depth of 2 to 6 inches andusually not accessible to the public, are less expensive to install as the building load rarelyrequires modification. Having a substrate depth of six inches or greater, intensive green roofsare usually more costly to construct and maintain, are designed to accommodate a wide range of 19
  23. 23. plant and tree species, and may even contain public park-like areas. The goals of the green roofproject and its intended usage will determine the type of green roof constructed. As thecultivation of food crops necessitates soil depths of 6-18 inches, an intensive green roof systemengineered for adequate weight bearing capacity would be the type of green roof required for thisproject (Weiler & Scholz-Barth, 2009; Dunnett & Kingsbury, 2008).WHY SHOULD WE PLANT GREEN ROOFS? Although green roofs are not a panacea for the problems brought about by urban andsuburban development, green roofs provide a greater range of benefits than any other greenbuilding technology (Cantor, 2008). The proven environmental benefits from green roofsinclude: the capture and filtration of rainwater resulting in a decreased quantity of water enteringstorm drains and flowing into rivers and other water bodies, reduction of the urban-heat-islandeffect by cooling and cleaning the air, provision of natural habitat, and reclamation of greenspace previously lost to development. Benefits to the built environment, due to the insulatingeffects of the green roof system, include doubling the life span of the roof membrane andimproving the thermal performance of buildings, thereby reducing energy consumption andlowering heating and cooling costs. Provision of space for local food production and other uses,potential sources of revenue, therapeutic and recreational outlets in caring for plants, and thestrengthening of community ties in working together toward a common good are some of thecultural benefits that can be derived from green roofs. On the other hand, the drawbacks of green roofs pertain to the comparatively high initialcosts and the necessary prerequisites for satisfying the additional weight load to the building(Oberndorfer et al., 2007). When a roof surface is transformed into useful space, the buildingbecomes economically and functionally more efficient; however, the important point to consider 20
  24. 24. accrue over the life of the roof, will outweigh the upfront capital costs. Even though intensivegreen roofs are typically more expensive to construct and maintain, the environmental and socialbenefits will be far more substantial than those of extensive, or shallow, green roofs. In a cost-benefit analysis, it is important for full life-cycle costs, including the extended lifespan of theroofing membrane resulting from the protection provided by the green roof, to be considered.For example, a gravel-covered roof usually requires replacement after 25 years, in comparison toa green roof membrane which should not require repairs for 40-50 years (Ngan, 2004).GROWING FOOD CLOSER TO HOME Urban or peri-urban agriculture, the production of fruits and vegetables within city orsuburban areas to provide the local population with access to high quality food, is an emergingindustry in the United States, where the ingredients for an average meal travel for roughly 14days and up to 1500 miles from farm to table (Pirog, 2003). This long-distance transport ofproduce increases the cost of the food, contributes to energy consumption and pollution, and isassociated with a decline in the food’s nutritional value (Dunnett & Kingsbury, 2008). Roofsurfaces offer a viable opportunity for growing healthy food in urban and suburban areas wheregarden space may be restricted, soil may be contaminated, or access to inexpensive, high qualityfresh foods is often limited. In contrast to growing food in containers placed atop the roof, agreen roof design is an integrated system which allows the growing medium, or soil, to cover therooftop. Due to the greater surface area of greenery and its integration with the green roofcomponents, the green roof yields more environmental, structural, and food security benefitsthan those obtained through growing food in containers (Garnham, 2002). The green roof garden would afford Newtown the opportunity to reap the social,economic, and environmental benefits derived from gardening, in combination with those 21
  25. 25. provided by green roof technology. It has been conservatively estimated that if 6% of Toronto’sroofs were greened, jobs for 1,350 people per year would be created. If 10% of these green roofswere covered with food producing crops, the city could reap 10.4 million pounds of produce—with a market value of 4 to 5.5 million dollars per year (Dunnett & Kingsbury, 2008).DESIGNING THE GREEN ROOF GARDEN There are many interactive factors that need to be taken into account when designing agreen roof for food production; hence, an outline of the considerations and constraints regardingdesign, safety, and maintenance is in order. When considering the suitability of an existingbuilding, evaluation of the roof’s load bearing capacity, or weight load of the people, crops, andequipment that the roof is capable of supporting, will be the most important consideration(Snodgrass & Snodgrass, 2006). In consulting with a structural engineer, the type of green roof,depth of soil, total surface area, and intended use will be dictated by the structural support andload bearing capacity of the roof. The engineer will analyze the type of roofing construction(concrete, steel, wood) and roofing framework, identify obstacles such as roof vents and ducts,chimneys, electrical equipment and drains, as well as document potential solutions to designingaround them, and verify the real load capacity of the roof. The water saturated weight of thegreen roof system, including vegetation, must be calculated as permanent load to the roof(Weiler & Scholz-Barth, 2009). Although the building standards that determine minimum load-bearing capacity will varyacross the United States, the typical loadings of intensive green roofs range from 300-1000kg/m2 (61-205 lb/ft2) or more (Dunnett & Kingsbury, 2008). The live load specifications for aroof will include water, wind and safety factors required for the building’s performance as wellas human traffic and anything transient in nature such as furniture or maintenance equipment. 22
  26. 26. Dead load includes the weight of the roof itself and any permanent structural elements includingroofing layers, heating and cooling mechanical equipment, and projected wind and rain loads. The American Standard Testing Methods, (ASTM), a non-profit technical society thatdevelops and publishes standards for materials, has published several standards for green roofsystems, specifically related to the determination of roof loads for the weight of the green roofsystem and guidance in the selection, installation, and maintenance of plants for green roofs(Getter & Rowe, 2006; Weiler & Scholz-Barth, 2009; Dvorak & Volder, 2010). For furtherdetail, these standards are featured in Appendix A. Final analysis should include a surveydesignating the feasible locations for the green roof or a proposed framework for reinforcement.Engineered reinforcements will result in added costs, possibly negating the viability of the site;hence, undergoing a structural analysis at the beginning of the project is highly recommended. In addition to the engineered survey, an analysis of the roof’s daily exposure to the naturalelements-- - sun, wind, and rain-- will be necessary and can be conducted by a landscapearchitect or designer. Maximizing yields from food-producing plants mandates eight to ten hoursof sunlight each day. Although roofs are elevated and the sun exposure on the roof is generallymore ample than the sunlight at ground level, a study of daily sunlight exposure on the roof willprove useful in designing the layout of the garden to correspond with specific needs. Forexample, in areas that are exposed to a stronger amount of sunlight than is desirable for someplants, such as certain varieties of herbs, varying degrees of shade can be created by installingarchitectural features such as an arbor or small storage building, or by adding living features suchas a grouping of tall plants. Allocating certain plants to areas of the roof that are shaded byneighboring buildings may be another viable option. When wind intensity proves to be stronger 23
  27. 27. on the rooftop than at ground level, wind breakers can be designed to protect plants from thethreat of wind damage. Water is another fundamental need for plants and installing a rainwater collectionsystem, such as rerouting rooftop gutters to a cistern, (or holding tank), to store the water untilneeded, is a vital component to the green roof. Sarasota County’s Low Impact Development(LID) Manual of strategies for enhancing the local environment, protecting public health, andimproving community livability is currently moving towards finalization (L. Ammeson, personalcommunication, Sept. 14, 2010). The green roof designer should refer to the LID Manual:Chapter 3.4: Green Roof Storm Water Treatment Systems, as it offers preliminary details forrequirements and guidelines for the installation of green roofs and for cisterns enabling thestorage and reuse of captured rainwater (LID, 2009). As overhead watering on a rooftop canquickly evaporate or be misdirected by wind, an irrigation system utilizing plastic drip linesshould be installed with connections running to the cistern to allow for supplemental irrigation ina more sustainable fashion. Plans should include provision for an additional water source at theroof for backup irrigation and in case of fire (LID, 2009). Roof access and safety are other important considerations which will need to beaddressed. Stairs or a working elevator will be necessary to transport people and materials to thegreen roof garden. In instances where the parapet does not meet local building codes for publicaccess, safety features such as railings or a wall should be included (LID, 2009). An attractivesafety wall can be created by installing chain link fencing, which can then be transformed into awall of greenery in offering additional growing space for climbing or trailing plants needingvertical support. If within budgetary means, enclosed storage for equipment will provide 24
  28. 28. protection from the outside elements and the convenience of having gardening tools close athand; and, a designated area for compost production will prove worthwhile. A wide selection of proprietary green roof systems, also known as vegetated roofassemblies, are currently available for the design professional to choose from. The basiccomponents of these systems support the basic requirements of a green roof: optimal waterretention, drainage of excess water, and provisions for growing medium and airflow (Weiler &Scholz-Barth, 2009). The site chosen by Newtown for the green roof, the amount of capitalavailable, and the community’s desired outcomes for the garden are some of the main factors thatwhich will determine the specific requirements for the design, function and maintenance of theagricultural green roof. Successful realization of the project will require the integration andcollaboration of professionals from varied disciplines, as well as owners and stakeholders whoare willing to shoulder higher short-term costs to achieve long-term gains. As there are manyfactors influencing total costs, details regarding an approximation of costs involved withinstalling an intensive green roof on an existing building can be found in Appendix B, Table 1.SUCCESS IN GREEN ROOF FOOD PRODUCTION The production of an array of marketable fruits and vegetables atop roofs and balconies iscommon in other countries including Thailand, China, Japan, Australia, India, Russia, Columbia,and Haiti (Dunnett & Kingsbury, 2008; Joe, M. 2010). As urban agriculture continues to evolveinto a full-fledged commercial industry, successful projects in North America are showing thatrooftop agriculture combined with green roof systems is a viable method for producing foodlocally. The designs, activities, and outcomes of these projects vary and examining each projectwould be beyond the scope of this paper. The case featured here illustrates some of the ways inwhich a community can benefit from an agricultural green roof, and many of these ideas could 25
  29. 29. be implemented by Newtown. A model for utilizing the benefits of a green roof in combination with providing freshproduce to the local community, Eagle Street Rooftop Farm is a 6000 square foot green rooforganic vegetable farm located on a warehouse rooftop. The lightweight growing medium, amanufactured soil for green roof applications, is 5 to 9 inches in depth and consists of a blend ofcompost, rock particulates and shale. The medium can retain over 1.5” of rain, providing amarked reduction in storm water runoff. Sixteen north-to-south beds measuring a maximum offour feet in width are divided down the middle by a single aisle and all aisles are filled withmulched bark. Constructed in 2009, the cost was lower than most green roof installations,(approx. $10 per square foot), due to the existing structural details of the building and the use of 1recycled materials, including used rafters for edging. In its first season, Eagle Street yielded over 30 different kinds of produce, with the mostsuccessful plants being tomatoes, micro-greens, onions, garlic, and herbs, while production persquare foot yielded highest on tomatoes, kale and chard. At market, mixed salad greens yieldedthe best overall price per foot planted. Eagle Farm sells its harvest through its own CommunitySupported Agriculture (CSA) program in which members provide the farm with seed money bypaying a lump sum for a weekly supply of the season’s produce. In exchange, members enjoyfresh local produce and the benefits from a direct relationship with a trusted source. Produce isalso sold at community based local markets and to several local restaurants. Brooklyn residents also enjoy the benefits of Eagle Street’s commitment to communityoutreach and environmental education. During the 2009 growing season, Eagle Street conducted_________________1.http:www.rooftopfarms.org/Eagle_Street_Rooftop_Farm_Fact_Sheet_2010.pdfrooftop workshops to over 30 different schools and groups who had the opportunity to learn 26
  30. 30. about their food’s journey from the soil to the kitchen. On Sundays, volunteers—from beginnerto green thumb—are invited to participate in exchange for learning how to maintain the greenroof farm. Due to Florida’s mild weather and extended growing season, a green roof inNewtown can provide a sustainable environment for year-round cultivation. Varieties of beans,cabbages, endive, kale, lettuces, collard and mustard greens, spinach, peppers, squash, tomatoes,and herbs, as well as broccoli, cauliflower, celery, cucumbers, onions, radishes, strawberries, andsmall melons can be harvested at different times throughout the year (Stephens et al., 2009).IMPLICATIONS FOR NEWTOWN The demand for fresh produce is apparent in Newtown, as residents participate inimpromptu sales of fresh fruit and vegetables out of the backs of trucks that park near busyintersections lacking traffic safety and easy access. An outdoor market in Newtown featuringlocally harvested produce would aid in keeping local dollars within the community whileproviding safe and reliable access to healthy food and opportunities for strengthening social ties.The green roof garden would be an important step in helping Newtown to overcome thechallenge of forging stronger connections amongst Newtown residents and between thoseresidents and the natural environment. Considered a leader in the state, Sarasota is known for its commitment to educate localcitizens and other jurisdictions on sustainable technologies and green building policy (Ranwater& Martin, 2008). An edible green roof demonstration project located in Newtown offers theopportunity for Sarasota to extend its education and outreach to green roof applications. The cityof Sarasota is a vibrant tourist magnet and the green roof has the potential to attract not onlylocal interest but attention from national and international visitors as well. Opening the greenroof to guests and conducting guided tours of this roof top food production system would be a 27
  31. 31. significant force toward the positioning of Newtown as a destination. Designated as one of Florida’s Enterprise Zones, Newtown, also referred to as NorthCounty, has been targeted for economic renewal. Available tax credits for real estate property,business equipment, and building materials, as well as other business assistance benefits can beutilized by locating the green roof in this Enterprise Zone. At the same time, the food producinggreen roof would help revitalize the Newtown Community by reducing unemployment throughnew and diverse job opportunities, and expanding the economic base through the attraction ofoutside businesses and the formation of partnerships between property owners and private andpublic sectors. If the decision is made to pursue large-scale marketing of the harvested produce,the Entrepreneur Center (slated for establishment in 2011), a part of Newtown’s BusinessIncubator Program, may be a valuable source of assistance and support during start-up. An investigation was conducted to determine potential sites for a green roof within theEnterprise Zone boundaries. Search criteria were limited to commercial or institutional buildingswith flat to low pitched roofs and poured concrete load bearing frames. Roofs constructed withmetal or shingles over wood were eliminated, as well as any buildings having a roof footprint ofless than 1500 square feet. After mapping the sixteen candidate roofs, the average productivityper unit of area per month was calculated in order to obtain an annual estimated food yield foreach candidate roof (figure 2). Estimated average yields ranged from 2400 to over 58,000pounds of fresh produce. Atop the Fairmont Hotel in Vancouver, a 2100 square foot green roofgarden has been thriving since 1991. Supplying the hotel’s restaurant with honey and sixty 2varieties of herbs, vegetables, and fruits, it saves the hotel nearly $30,000 per year in food costs.____________2.http.www.fairmont.com/NR/rdonlyes/WFC_Herb_Garden_Dec01_pdfIt is important to note that further structural analyses by qualified professionals is necessary to 28
  32. 32. confirm the suitability of the candidate roofs identified within Newtown’s Enterprise Zone.Figure2: POTENTIAL SITES FOR GREEN ROOF GARDENS IN NEWTOWN’S ENTERPISE ZONE WITH ESTIMATED ANNUAL FOOD YIELD (Leslie Babiak) Building upon Newtown’s sense of place, through the linkage of the neighborhood to thenatural landscape, a food-producing green roof in the community would serve as a model ofsustainability at the neighborhood scale. This green roof offers the potential for contributing tothe fulfillment of the following goals and objectives, as set forth in Newtown’s Comprehensive 29
  33. 33. 3Redevelopment Plan-2020. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:  Make Newtown a destination  Expand the economic base by creating new and diverse employment opportunities  Encourage the development of regionally competitive businesses to help retain Newtown consumer dollars in the community LAND USE:  Promote and locate land use activities of regional importance within the redevelopment area to attract visitors and capture additional market opportunities URBAN DESIGN/PARKS:  Establish parks, recreation, open space and beautification efforts to create an identifiable character for the redevelopment area An edible garden green roof in Newtown would serve as an example of how acommunity can play a proactive role in enhancing its sustainability. Beyond food production,this project would provide the Newtown Community the potential for job skills training andlocal employment while increasing green space and promoting city pride. Additionally, theutilization of the untapped resource of rooftop space of multi-family, commercial, warehouse,and institutional buildings through the leasing of this unused space for agricultural productioncapabilities is a concept that is rapidly gaining attention in North America and would affordNewtown with a novel opportunity for income generation. This project presents unique learning opportunities that foster community empowerment.Seniors, youth and the under-employed can work side by side and learn from one another whileovercoming social barriers and building understanding and respect. A program that teachesyouth how to grow, harvest, and cook vegetables helps young people to learn that fruits____________3.http.www.sarasotagov.com/newtown/Newtown_CRA_G&O.pdf#page=3 (pp11-19)and vegetables don’t simply come from the store, but require the effort of people workingtogether in ways that respect and care for the environment. The rooftop garden can also serve as 30
  34. 34. a place to host educational workshops and social events, thus promoting neighborhood cohesion.CONCLUSION Greening efforts, such as street tree planting, brownfield redevelopment, and constructinggreen roofs enhance a region’s natural resources and quality of life. Communities that highlightand restore their natural environments will be places where people will want to live, work, andplay. While green roofs hold promise for addressing a myriad of problems that have resultedfrom development, a green roof boasting a bountiful harvest of fresh fruit and vegetables reflectsthe harmonious efforts of a community and holds promise for building a stronger connectionbetween community residents and the natural landscape. This paper has illustrated how green roof gardens would reflect the efforts of thecommunity in taking control of food security and social ills while providing food, jobs,environmental enhancement, education, beautification, inspiration, and hope. The benefits anddesign considerations of green roofs and the advantages of growing food close to home havebeen depicted through a spotlight on how the implementation of a green roof for local foodproduction affords the opportunity to enhance economic, environmental, and socialsustainability. A green roof featuring an edible garden in Newtown would be a powerful agentfor change in introducing an innovative environmental feature for the community to enjoy,profit, and learn from while providing a learning landscape for a vast audience.Works Cited American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM Book of International Standards. (2007). vol.4.12 Armstrong, Donna. (2000). A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: Implications for health promotion and community development. Health and 31
  35. 35. Place, (6) 319-327.Berghage, R., Beattie, D., Jarrett, A., Thuring, C., & Razaei, F. (2009). Green roofs for stormwater runoff control. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyCantor, S. L. (2008). Green roofs in sustainable landscape design. New York, NY: W.W.NortonDvorak, B. & Volder, A. (2010) Green roof vegetation for North American ecoregions: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 96 (4), 197-213.Dunnett, N. & Kingsbury, N. Planting Green Roofs and Living Walls. (2008). Portland, OR. Timber PressEagle Street Rooftop Farm. (2010) Farm Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http:www.rooftopfarms.org/Eagle_Street_Rooftop_Farm_Fact_Sheet_2010.pdfFairmont (2001). How does our garden grow? Retrieved from http. www.fairmont.com/NR/rdonlyes/WFC_HerbGarden_Dec01.pdfGarnham, Luke. (2002) Green roofs and the promise of urban agriculture. The Green Roof Infrastructure Monitor 4(2), 17-19.Getter, K. & Rowe, D.B. (2006) The role of extensive green roofs in sustainable development. HortScience, 41 (5), 1276-1285.Joe, M. (2010). Urban Farming: Veggies with a view. Retrieved from http://www.cnngo.com/Tokyo/eat/urban-farming-veggies-view-958246.Le Corbusier, (1946). Towards a new architecture. London, UK: Architectural PressNewtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan-2020. Retrieved from http://www.sarasotagov.com/newtown/Newtown_CRA_G&O.pdf#page=3.Ngan, G. (2004). Green roof policies: Tools for encouraging sustainable design. Retrieved from http://www.lacf.ca/system/files/Policy%20report.pdfOberndorfer, E., Lundholm, J., Bass, B., Coffman, R.R., Doshi, H., Dunnett, N., Gaffin, S., Kohler, M., Liu, K.K., & Rowe, B. (2007). Green roofs as urban ecosystems: Ecological structures, functions, and services. BioScience, 57 (10), 823-833.Peck, S. & Kuhn,M. (2001). Design guidelines for green roofs. Retrieved from http://www.cmhc.ca/en/inpr/bude/himu/coedar/loader.cfm?url=/getfile 32
  36. 36. Pirog, R. (2003). Checking the food odometer. Iowa State University: Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs/staff/files/food_travel1072103.pdf Ranwater, B. & Martin, C. (2008). Florida counties pushing ahead. In American Institute of Architects Report, Local leaders in sustainability: Green counties (pp.36-37) Wash, DC: AIA Sarasota County (2009).Greenroof stormwater treatment systems. In: Sarasota county preliminary LID manual (chapter 3.4). Retrieved from http://www.scgov.net/Environmental/Services/Water/SurfaceWater/documents LIDManual_Changes_Aug_Sep09.pdf. Snodgrass, E.C. & Snodgrass, L.L. (2006). Green Roof Plants: A Resource and Planting Guide. Portland, OR. Timber Press Stevens, J.M, Brown, S.P., Treadwell, D., Webb, S., Gevens, A., Dunn, R.A., Kidder, G., Short, D.,& Simone, G.W. (2009). Florida vegetable gardening guide.(pub#SP103) University of Florida: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.edis.ufl.edu/vh021. Wegscheid, C. (2009) Living with a green roof. Construction Specifier (14)1; 18-35 Weiler, S.K. & Scholz-Barth, K. (2009) Green roof systems: A guide to the planning, design, and construction of landscapes over structure. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley &Sons Wheeler, S. (2004) Planning for Sustainability: Creating Livable, Equitable, and Ecological Communities. New York, NY: Routledge.APPENDIX ANational Green Roof Standards, as published in the Annual Book of ASTM International Standards, (2007), Volume 04.12. E2396 ,2005,      Standard Testing Method for Saturated Water Permeability of Granular Drainage Media [Falling‐Head Method] for Green Roof Systems  33
  37. 37. E2397, 2005,      Standard Practice for Determination of Dead Loads and Live Loads Associated with Green Roof Systems  E2398, 2005,      Standard Test Method for Water Capture and Media Retention of Geocomposite Drain Layers for Green Roof Systems  E2399, 2005,      Standard Test Method for Maximum Media Density for Dead Load Analysis* of Green Roof Systems E2400, 2006,     Standard Guide for Selection, Installation, and Maintenance of Plants for Green Roof Systems *Method E2399 includes tests to measure moisture retention potential and saturated water permeability of media.  ASTM E2397 ‐ 05 Standard Practice for Determination of Dead Loads and Live Loads associated with Green Roof Systems1.2 The procedure addresses the loads associated with green roof systems. Components that are typically encountered in green roof systems include: membranes, non‐absorptive plastic sheet components, metallic layers, fabrics, geocomposite drain layers, synthetic reinforcing layers, cover/recover boards, insulation materials, growth media, granular drainage media, and plant materials. 1.3 This procedure also addresses the weight of the green roof system under two conditions: (1) weight under drained conditions after new water additions by rainfall or irrigation have ceased (this includes the weight of retained water and captured water), and (2) weight when rainfall or irrigation is actively occurring and the drainage layer is completely filled with water. The first condition is considered the dead load of the green roof system. The difference in weight between the first and second conditions, approximated by the weight of transient water in the drainage layer, is considered a live load. ASTM E2399 ‐ 05 Standard Test Method for Maximum Media Density for Dead Load Analysis of Green Roof Systems: This is a standardized procedure for predicting the system weight of a green roof system. The density of mixed media materials will vary depending on the degree to which they are subjected to compaction and the length of time that the material is allowed to hydrate and subsequently drain. Most green roof media materials have a large capacity to absorb and retain moisture. Furthermore, moisture will drain gradually from the media following a hydration cycle. The maximum media density measured in this procedure approaches the density at the theoretical saturation point. The value of this test method to the green roof designer is that it provides an objective measure of maximum probable media density (under drained conditions) for estimating structural loads. It also provides a method for estimating the lower limit for the water permeability of the in‐place media. This latter value is important when considering drainage conditions in green roofs. Finally, the maximum media water retention has been shown to be a useful indicator of the moisture retention properties of green roof media.  1.1 This test method covers a procedure for determining the maximum media density for purposes of estimating the maximum dead load for green roof assemblies. The method also provides a measure of the moisture content and the water permeability measured at the maximum media density.   34
  38. 38. 1.2 This procedure is suitable for green roof media that contain no more than 30% organic material as measured using the loss on ignition procedure Test Methods F 1647, Method A. 1.3 The maximum media density and associated moisture content measured in this procedure applies to drained conditions near the saturation point. 1.4 The test method is intended to emulate vertical percolation rates for water in green roofs.  ASTM E2400 ‐ 06 Standard Guide for Selection, Installation, and Maintenance of Plants for Green Roof Systems: This guide addresses performance characteristics for green roof systems with respect to the planting. A rooftop is an extreme environment with strong and variable wind patterns and little or no protection from the sun’s intense heat and ultraviolet radiation. Selection of plant material can be crucial for success of the green roof system.  5.1.1 This guide provides general guidance only. It is important to consult with a professional horticulturist, green roof consultant, or work with similar professionals that are knowledgeable, experienced, and acquainted with green roof technology and plants. (Determining these performance characteristics of green roof systems provides information to facilitate the assessment of engineering aspects of the facility. Such aspects may include structural design requirements, mechanical engineering and thermal design requirements, and fire and life safety requirements) This guide covers the considerations for the selection, installation, and maintenance of plants for green roof systems. 1.2 This guide is applicable to both extensive and intensive green roof systems APPENDIX BTable 1: Costs Associated with Installing an Intensive Green Roof on an Existing BuildingComponent Cost Notes & Variables 5 - 10% of total roofing project The number and type of consultantsDesign & Specifications cost depends on project size & complexity requiredProject Administration & Site Review 2.5 - 5% of total roofing project cost. The number and type of consultants required depends on project size & complexity Cost factors include type of newRe-roofing with root-repelling ($10.00 - $15.00 per ft2) roofing system to be installed, easemembrane of roof, nature of flashing requiredGreen Roof System (curbing, ($15.00 - $30.00 per ft2) Cost factors include type & depth ofdrainage layer, filter cloth, growing growing medium, type & height ofmedium, decking and walkways) curbing, decking type, & project sizePlants ($5.00 - $200.00 per ft2) Cost is completely dependent on the type and size of plant chosen, since virtually any type of plant suitable to local climate can be accommodatedIrrigation System Cost factors include type of system ($2.00 0 $4.00 per ft2) used & size of project 35
  39. 39. Cost factors include type of fencing,Guardrail/Fencing ($20.00-$40.00 per ft.) attachment to roof, size of project/length requiredInstallation/Labor ($8.00 - $18.00 per ft2) Cost factors include equipment rental to move materials to and on roof, size of project, complexity of design, & planting techniques usedAnnual Maintenance ($1.25 - $2.00 per ft2) Cost factors include size of project, irrigation system, and size and type of plants usedAdapted from Peck & Kuhn.(2001). Design guidelines for green roofs (p.16) 36
  40. 40. What a Greenway Park could mean socially and environmentally to a diverse population within Sarasota Todd L. BognerAbstract Dividing Newtown and Ringling Art College in Sarasota is Whitaker Bayou. The bayouis currently used as a way to rid both populations of excess surface water complicating theecology for Sarasota Bay. There is a proposal to build a Greenway Park on the Newtown side ofthe bayou. This paper discusses the ecological history of the watershed in which Whitaker bayoulies and management approaches to the watershed. Next, I will discuss what a greenway is andwhat a greenway park is. Finally, I will describe what this park can achieve through amultifunctional design for the environment as well as for the residents of Newtown and thesurrounding areas.Sarasota Bay Watershed Sarasota Bay, in central western Florida lies between Anna Maria Island to the north andVenice to the south. It is comprised of 52 square miles of open water and a watershed ofapproximately 150 square miles called the Sarasota Bay watershed, which is split betweenSarasota and Manatee counties. The main source of freshwater to Sarasota Bay is PhillippiCreek, which accounts for 38% (57 square miles) of the watershed (SWFWMD, 2002). Othermajor tributaries include South Creek, Bowles Creek, and Whitaker Bayou. Whitaker Bayouaccounts for only 5% (8 square miles) of the Sarasota Bay watershed, however along with 37
  41. 41. Hudson Bayou and Cedar Hammock Creek, Whitaker Bayou has one of the highest levels ofcontaminant discharge into Sarasota Bay (EPA, 2007). Whitaker Bayou was chosen for this paper because it is the smallest of the majorcontributing sources of surface water to Sarasota Bay, has one of the highest sources ofcontaminants discharged into Sarasota Bay, and is a proposed site to build a greenway park inNewtown. This paper will examine the Sarasota Bay watershed, what a greenway park is, andwhat the social and ecological affects of a greenway park in Newtown could mean. Sarasota Bay was created about 5,000 years ago due to sea level rise and fall resulting inthe formation of barrier islands which frame the westernmost part of the bay. People have livedin the Sarasota Bay area as far back as around 10,000 B.C. (Sarasota Bay SWIM Plan, 2002).The landscape was much different then than it is now mostly due to human influences shortlyafter Florida gained statehood in 1845. One hundred and fifty years ago the Sarasota Baywatershed had pockets of isolated wetlands, which played an important role in its hydrology andbiodiversity (Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, 2006). Early American Settlers found living in the Sarasota Bay watershed to be uninhabitablefor most of the year due to the high mosquito populations. In order to combat the mosquitopopulations, a Mosquito Control District was established in the early 1900’s. This organizationinterconnected many of the isolated wetlands by ditches, severely altering the hydrology of thewatershed (Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, 2006). The assault on Sarasota Bay’s wetlands did not stop with the mosquitoes. DrainageDistricts were created in the 1920’s under the Land Reclamation Act of 1913 to drain wetlands tobe used for agriculture (Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, 2006). The draining wouldcontinue until the early 1960’s under the pretenses that it was for the alleviation of flooding. It is 38
  42. 42. estimated that there are some 800 miles of ditches in Sarasota County originating from this time.At the present time about half are now on privately owned lands (Sarasota CountyComprehensive Plan, 2006). With the rise in population came the need for development, and with it came the filling inof wetlands for houses, roads, and other impervious surfaces (Sarasota County ComprehensivePlan, 2006). Prior to development, during extreme rain events, water would sheet flow andcollect in the isolated wetlands. With the alterations in the natural hydrology, water from stormevents would cause flooding if not directed elsewhere. The solution to directing water away from harming people and economic loss, was todirect it to the largest body of water as fast as possible. That body of water for the Sarasota Baywatershed was Sarasota Bay (and subsequently the Gulf of Mexico) via various bayous, creeks,and other tributaries. With redirected water comes the added hydrologic load of municipalwastewater and runoff from agriculture, residential, and commercial irrigation. Also, anycontaminants on roads have a direct path to Sarasota Bay.Management and Politics In 1987 Sarasota Bay became an Estuary of National Significance by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. The Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program (SBNEP),formed in 1989 to be the acting body which would care for the interests of Sarasota Bay and itsnatural resources (SWFWMD, 2002). In 1995 SBNEP issued a document called the“Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan” (CCMP). The Florida Legislature createdthe Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Act of 1987. This act gave the watermanagement districts the ability to “protect the ecological, aesthetic, recreational, and economic 39
  43. 43. value of the state’s surface waters…”, and stated that pollution sources can come from non-pointas well as point sources (SWFWMD, 2002 pg.3). The Sarasota Bay SWIM plan was created in1997 and focused on projects outlined in the CCMP, such as improvements in sediment andwater quality, habitat losses, and recreational uses (SWFWMD, 2002). The projects on theSWIM plan are prioritized by the SBNEP. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to identify waters which are “impaired”.Impaired waters are listed as “fair” or “poor” in the Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection (FDEP) report. Through the CWA and the 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act,the FDEP sets Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL’s) of nutrients, bacteria, chemicals,sediments, or other pollutants that are causing the impairment through the Watershed ApproachInitiative. The most notable efforts to improve surface water quality came with the 1972 FederalWater Pollution Control Act Amendments (FWPCAA), which gave the EPA deadlines to grantpermits to water pollution sources, make wastewater guidelines, require water pollution sourcesto have water pollution control technology, and eliminate pollution discharges to make thenation’s waterways fishable and usable for recreational purposes (Switzer, 2004). It has been found that although the FWPCAA gave the government Command-and-Control governance over point source pollution, it did little to nothing for a more pressingconcern: non-point source pollution. Non-point source pollution includes agricultural runoff,urban runoff, and stormwater runoff and is the leading cause of impairment in the nation’swaterways. Pollution from these sources include: increased nitrogen, phosphates, heavy metals,sediments, and animal wastes. Non-point pollution not only affects surface-water, but caninfiltrate to ground water sources as well, contaminating drinking water. Unfortunately, non-point sources are the hardest to identify, and even more difficult to regulate. 40
  44. 44. Wetland restoration as a priority project Wetlands in the Sarasota Bay watershed include both inland freshwater ecosystems, aswell as coastal freshwater and saltwater ecosystems. Mitsch et.al describes wetlands as “thekidneys of the landscape”. The reason for this designation is because they receive waste fromupstream water sources, and cleanse it for sources downstream, shorelines, and for groundwaterrecharge (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). Wetlands also serve as reservoirs to hold water for flood protection in times of heavyrains and storm events. Biodiversity is often more varied in wetlands than they are in theiradjacent ecosystems and provide a habitat which is conducive for a wide variety of flora andfauna. With the destruction of wetlands for agricultural and urban uses comes a decline in waterquality downstream, increased chances of flooding, and a loss of biodiversity. For these reasons,the SBNEP lists wetland habitat restoration projects as a priority throughout the Sarasota Baywatershed. Other priority projects by the SBNEP include projects such as determining waterquality, identifying toxic loads, determining nitrogen loading, updating the pollutant loadingmodel, integrated water resource evaluation, and the evaluation and implementation ofstormwater retrofit (SWFWMD, 2002).Whitaker Bayou Like most coastal bayous and creeks in Florida, the creeks and bayous of Sarasota Baywere historically tidal extensions of the estuaries with most of the freshwater influxes comingfrom storm events and heavy rains. Whitaker Bayou is one such source for Sarasota Bay. 41
  45. 45. Kathryn L. Meaux, classifies Whitaker Bayou as a “Tidal Creek” and quotes Holland et al., assaying “tidal creeks are sentinels that provide early warning of the degree to which landdevelopment affects coastal environmental quality” (Meaux). Tidal creeks link upland wetlandswith coastal estuaries. In October, 2010 while kayaking Whitaker Bayou, I observed stormwater drains andother surface water runoff culverts draining unfiltered, directly into Whitaker Bayou. Some ofthe human artifacts observed were an innumerable amount of plastic bottles, bicycles, cans,various articles of clothing, every imaginable type of fast food container, and shopping carts,which Ann Riley describes as an “indicator organism” of the urban creek in her 1998 article,“What is Restoration” (Riley, 1998). This waste comes from both sides of the river. Ironically, the two sides could not be moredifferent from each other. On the eastern bank is Newtown; on the western bank is the RinglingCollege of Art and Design. Newtown is a city within a city in Sarasota. It is the poorest area ofSarasota with over 30 percent unemployment and 40 percent transient residents. Ringling on theother hand, is a leading private not-for-profit art institute. Even with this stark dichotomy ofcultures, each side’s trash and pollutants end up in Whitaker Bayou. Meaux’s data shows that Whitaker Bayou is the most impacted of the tidal creeks whichextend into Sarasota Bay, one of the poorest in water and sediment quality, and the least inhabitat richness (Meaux). The bayou itself, excluding the poor water quality, poor clarity, andlack of aquatic life, is a beautiful meandering waterway through an otherwise urbanneighborhood. According to Rutherford Platt, there does not need to be a strict dichotomy betweennature and city. An urban watershed (often first and second order streams under the Strahler 42
  46. 46. classification system) should serve the same functions as any upstream tributary. The variousparts of a watershed provide ecological services as well as recreational purposes such as fishingand canoeing (Platt, 2006). Negative impacts of urbanization will increase as the populationgrows unless measures are taken to control pollutants and bad management practices (Platt,2006).Greenways In its natural state, Whitaker Bayou would serve as a “greenway”. Although there is noabsolute definition of a greenway, Jack Ahern defines greenways as, “… networks of land containing linear elements that are planned, designed, and managed for multiple purposes including ecological, recreational, cultural, aesthetic, or other purposes compatible with the concept of sustainable land use” (Ahern, 1995 pg 134). A greenway by design is linear allowing biotic communities to migrate. Many greenwaysare situated along riparian corridors. These greenways act as a buffer to mitigate runoff fromagriculture and stormwater for the health of water bodies downstream (Ahern, 1995). Past management techniques for stormwater management and flood control have been todesign catchment ponds. These catchment ponds only serve as “islands”. Without linearinterconnections, the biodiversity and breeding populations are isolated (McGuckin and Brown,1995). Restored wetlands should not only take into consideration flood control, and groundwaterrecharge, but the biotic community as well. This should be done through planning their 43
  47. 47. interconnectivity thoughtfully to be a greenway, and not an isolated island. Robert Searns describes three generations of greenways. Originally greenways linkedpoints of destination in an aesthetically pleasing way. Next, they took the traveler out of the city,not for the purpose of transportation, but for the journey itself. Now, we are in what he describesas the third generation. This is where attitudes change from what people want to do with theenvironment for their own pleasures, to environmental stewardship (Searns, 1995). In this phase of greenway development greenways are built not just for the humanpsyche, but for the betterment of the environment, taking into consideration other species, habitatconservation, health of the environment, and functioning environmental services (Searns, 1995).Environmental services are things the environment provides which would be costly for us to domechanically, if it could be done at all. Examples of environmental services are waterpurification and flood control. According to the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, protection and restoration ofnatural systems is an important part of Sarasota’s watershed management program (SarasotaCounty Comprehensive Plan, 2006). The amendment known as the “2050 plan,” includesResource Management Areas (RMA’s), which are areas designed to protect contiguousgreenways on waterways with ecological benefits (Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, 2006).Greenway Parks A “greenway park” is a linear park which uses open spaces, often along a ripariancorridor, to create an aesthetically pleasing environment which allows for biodiversity, andenvironmental services. This type of park is also built with the human residents in mind as wellas the environment. 44

×