This document provides an overview of a thesis project studying the transformation of vacant land into green space in Brooklyn, New York. Specifically, it examines the development of the Gowanus Canal Sponge Park, a new park designed to capture stormwater runoff while serving as an educational space. Through on-site observations, interviews, literature review and analysis of institutional relationships, the project aims to understand the process of creating this type of green infrastructure and develop a framework that can be replicated in other cities. Initial results suggest the park is starting to meet some social and ecological goals, but more data is still needed to fully understand its performance and educational impact.

1. A Green Space Grows in Brooklyn:
Understanding the Transformation Process of Vacant Land
into Green Space
Zachary T. Heyman
Eugene Lang College The New School for Liberal Arts
Environmental Studies Senior Thesis
December 2016
Faculty Advisor: Timon McPhearson
Special Thanks: Brandon “Biko” Koenig, Mia C. White
E: heymz009@newschool.edu
T: (908) 797-9241

2. Table of Contents
Chapter 1:
Introduction……………………………………………….. p. 2-6
Case Study: Gowanus…………………………………… p. 6-11
Case Study: Gowanus Canal Sponge Park……………….. p. 11-13
Chapter 2:
Literature Review………………………………………… p. 13-20
Chapter 3:
Methods………………………………………………….. p. 20-23
Chapter 4:
Data Analysis & Findings………………………………. p. 23-30
Chapter 5:
Conclusion & Implications……………………………… p. 30-32
References & Appendix…………………………………. p. 32-41
2

3. Abstract
As cities become more densely populated and open spaces are few and far between, it is
critical that our visions of green spaces be expanded to include all possible landscapes that can
serve as many functions as possible. The urban green space of today contrasts with earlier ideas
of parks as carefully designed and manicured spaces and we are now considering the ways in
which we can activate “dead spaces” or underutilized plots of land such as street ends, railways
and vacant lots. In New York City, there are more than 30,000 vacant lots, many of which have
the potential to be transformed into vibrant, well-functioning green spaces. The purpose of this
thesis is to understand the process of how vacant land in NYC is being transformed into green
space by analyzing a brand new park on the banks of the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn. This
space is designed to act as a critical piece of green infrastructure that captures stormwater runoff
while doubling as a public educational space and showcasing the ecological processes at work.
Through a multi-method study of on-site observations, interviews, literature review and
institutional network analysis, this study finds that understanding the complex relationships
among the institutions involved is critical in developing a replicable framework for transforming
vacant land in any city. Results also show that the park is already meeting some of its social and
ecological goals, though much remains to be understood as far as its actual performance and
ability to act as an educational space for anyone who uses it.
Key words: vacant land, green space, Gowanus, green infrastructure, urban ecosystem services.
Introduction
Cities are often viewed as wholly artificial places; a homogeneous sprawl of static, gray
space with no life other than humans, and the occasional rat or pigeon. However artificial they
may appear, ecological processes are still active in cities and in their green spaces, constantly
working to improve the health and productivity of the urban environment. Green space is defined
as open land and its vegetative cover (Jorgensen & Gobster 2010), together forming the central
component of urban ecosystems. These green spaces, both planned and naturally occurring, can
provide inhabitants with a multitude of invaluable social and ecological benefits. Improved air
3

4. quality, cooler temperatures, recreation opportunities, aesthetics, meeting places for
social gatherings and much-needed interaction with nature are among the many ecosystem
services (ES) provided by urban green spaces. However, many urban residents are experiencing
diminished access to natural green spaces because urban development often destroys natural
habitat, especially at the urban core (Longcore and Young 2000). This has contributed to a dearth
of ES in many cities, as well as to the growing disconnect between many urban dwellers and the
“natural” environment over decades of rapid urbanization.
Humanity’s ever-changing relationship with nature, namely in its destruction,
modification and control, has been central to the growth of modern civilization. As a result, we
have tried to distance ourselves from nature, yet remain dependent on it. The mental and physical
benefits we obtain from ecological processes, such as clean air and peace of mind, have
traditionally been achieved by simply going for a hike or relaxing in a park. As cities become
more densely populated and open spaces are few and far in between, it is critical that our visions
of green spaces be expanded to include all possible landscapes that can serve as many functions
as possible. With more than 80 percent of people living in cities in the United States (U.S.
Census Bureau 2010), there is now more urgency to preserve, revitalize and create natural
spaces in urban environments than ever before. Eric Sanderson (2012) argues that there must be
a shift in thinking about cities as ecological landscapes that encompass the built and natural
environments and that we must broaden our idea of what nature is - which he defines as the
interactions of soil, rock, air, water, energy and life characteristic of our planet. It is becoming
more accepted by urban ecologists, designers, architects and city planners that urban
4

5. environments are incredibly complex, heterogeneous landscapes. In these ecosystems, plants,
animals, insects and humans constantly interact and shape the landscape, just as they do in larger,
more wild ecosystems.
Physical landscapes are constantly being shaped by our different perspectives, values and
experiences of nature. The urban green space of today contrasts with earlier ideas of parks as
carefully designed and manicured spaces. New parks are being reclaimed from the discarded
parcels of land in cities such stranded patches of woods, stormwater systems and rail lines and
are being “strung together like beads” (Otterbourg 2016). Tapping into the ecological potential of
all urban space, no matter how small, forms the central idea of this thesis project. In many cases,
communities are given agency to organize and help transform these vacant spaces into vibrant
shared green spaces. This is a common practice in dense, older cities such as New York where
opportunities for large-scale green space development are few and far between (McPhearson
2012).
If urban green space planning and design were to consider the untapped potential of
vacant or neglected space, this would likely lead to a much greener, connected, and more
resilient urban ecosystem. These spaces in any neighborhood with or without existing parks or
green corridors could be clustered to provide a much-needed networked ecology in cities. The
results would improve natural habitat allowing for species to move and migrate, while creating a
more equitable distribution of urban green space for people (McPhearson & Marshall 2015).
Research on how human health and well-being is affected by exposure to specific types of green
spaces has largely been focused on the human side of the equation, specifically the social,
5

6. psychological and physiological benefits and outcomes. Jorgensen and Gobster (2010) argue the
importance of understanding the nature of green space as it relates to social benefits. “What are
the key green space characteristics that generate desired health and well-being outcomes?” and
“Do different characteristics of “green” play differential roles with respect to various human
benefits (p. 339),” are among the critical questions that must be asked in understanding how
urban green spaces might be created to maximize land use and functionality and improve human
health and well-being.
With more than 30,000 public and private vacant lots in New York City, the potential for
social-ecological revitalization across the city is immense (Kremer et al. 2013) and critical for
the long-term resilience of the city. Rising sea levels and dramatic climatic shifts are likely to
lead to an increased frequency of storms like Hurricane Sandy, hotter summers and more erratic
weather. Additional environmental concerns are focused on stormwater management, an issue
exacerbated by the city’s aging combined sewer overflow (CSO) system, improving habitat
fragmentation and reducing the urban heat island effect. Through the growth of a network of
socially and ecologically productive spaces and critical green infrastructure, there is hope for
combating and adapting to these environmental challenges.
This thesis focuses on how vacant land is being transformed into green space in
Gowanus, Brooklyn, a neighborhood long plagued by the presence of the infamous and ever-
toxic Gowanus Canal, currently undergoing a rapid wave of gentrification and changing land-use
patterns. The case chosen for this study, the Gowanus Canal Sponge Park, has massive
implications for the development of multifunctional green space and infrastructure development
6

7. in cities sharing similar resiliency challenges. Understanding the process of how this space came
to be is the primary goal of this project, which has been designed to be a pilot study with the
potential to be expounded on or replicated as a way of understanding the complex relationships
among institutional and community actors involved in developing critical green infrastructure in
cities. Green spaces are our life-support system and central to understanding our relationship to
nature in cities is by understanding how these spaces are conceived, planned and constructed.
Ecologically speaking, it is essential to create an interconnected network of green spaces in cities
that support native species, maintain natural ecological processes, sustain air and water resources
and contribute to the health and quality of life for all people (Benedict & McMahon 2002).
Case Study: Gowanus, Brooklyn
Since its construction over a natural waterway in 1897, the Gowanus Canal has acted as
the dumping ground for untreated industrial waste from coal yards, machine refineries, gas
manufacturing plants, tanneries and chemical plants. By the mid-1950s, industry had started to
diminish, regular dredging of the canal by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had ceased (Nyman
et al. 2010) and the repercussions of this continue to be felt in the neighborhood today, as
buildup of sediment from industrial pollution has caused the canal has become one of the most
toxic waterways in the country. Another major contributor of pollution in the canal comes from
the city’s CSO system, a system common in older cities where waste and stormwater flows
together. During moderate rainfall events, pressure on the system causes pipes to overflow and
releases waste into waterways via outfall points, of which the Gowanus has eight (U.S. Army
7

8. Corps of Engineers 2005; Foderaro 2015). Additionally, the zone surrounding the canal is
classified by the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as a target area for
immediate intervention to reduce CSO inputs, which are currently the greatest source of
pathogens in the canal; discharging more than 1.1 billion liters a year of combined sewage (U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers 2005). After decades of neglect and the buildup of pollution from
industry and CSO outfalls, the stagnant canal was granted Superfund status by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2010; a designation reserved only for the country’s
most hazardous toxic waste sites. The goals of the Superfund program include protecting human
and environmental health through toxic site cleanup, involving local communities in the recovery
process and making responsible parties pay for work done in the Superfund process (EPA 2013).
In 2013 the $506 million cleanup plan was finalized, paving the way for ecological, social and
economic revitalization in Gowanus.
Integral to the goals of PlaNYC and OneNYC, the city’s long-term sustainability plans, is
developing an open, clean and alive Gowanus Canal Watershed and creating green space and
parkland along its shores (Vision 2020, NYC 2013). In order to meet these larger goals, the long-
term goals in Gowanus are: 1) Improve water quality to at least a “B” (defined as the best
possible grade by the EPA, given the toxicity of the canal); 2) Create a “green” stormwater
district for the Gowanus Watershed; an interconnected system of bioswales, rain gardens and
other green spaces designed to reduce stormwater flow into the Canal; 3) Upgrade the
stormwater system and build a new sewage storage tank to mitigate the impacts of CSOs (Vision
8

9. 2020, NYC 2013); and 4) Create a waterfront public space for environmental education and
recreation opportunities as part of the canal remediation process (Plunz and Culligan 2007).
Over the past decade of cleanup and ecological revitalization, some hardier forms of
aquatic life, such as shore crabs and cormorants, have begun to appear in the canal and its
waterfront. Because the cleanup of the canal has proven to remove some of its repellent qualities
even in the early stages of the remediation process, 25 blocks surrounding the canal were
rezoned in for non-industrial use by the Bloomberg administration in 2005, identifying more than
60 sites for potential commercial or residential development with the potential to generate at
least $500 million in tax revenue (Rice 2009). However, there are likely many more sites for
potential development that are focused on non-capitalist commodity production, such as green
space for educational purposes, if planners and developers consider creating small productive
green spaces as an alternative to residential or commercial development. Figure 1. below depicts
this potential through land and vacant space mapping, illustrating the changing land use and
numerous parcels of vacant space surrounding the canal.
9

10. !
Figure 1. Land-use map reveals significant vacant space around the canal, perfect for
transformation by new activity zones. Image & Map by Annette Bohr and Anna Lips
One of the leading groups dedicated to identifying and transforming vacant land in
Gowanus is the Gowanus Canal Conservancy (GCC). The GCC’s mission is to support the long
term goals of the neighborhood in creating an open, clean and alive Gowanus Canal Watershed,
specifically focusing on environmental education and community-centric design. Among these
projects is the Gowanus Greenscape Map; a community-based interactive mapping tool where
people can simply go online and drop pins on their desired spaces. This map is designed to help
10

11. identify sites for social-ecological intervention that reflect the needs and priorities of the
neighborhood and its inhabitants and this information is currently being used by GCC to identify
potential sites for social-ecological intervention. This map is also a vital tool in this research as a
method of understanding community perception of the study site and how this input is valued in
the development process. Figure 2. Below describes the map’s functionality, allowing users to
identify spaces they frequently use/visit (green pin), spaces they rarely use/visit (red pin), and
sites where they would like to see new a public space (blue pin).
Figure 2. Gowanus Greenscape Map. Open-source mapping tool used to identify spaces that
could inform future land use decisions and social-ecological revitalization. Map by Gowanus
Canal Conservancy.
11

12. Case Study: Gowanus Canal Sponge Park
The study site I have selected for this project is the Gowanus Canal Sponge Park™ pilot
site, a green infrastructure project designed by GCC and dlandstudio that only recently opened in
June of this year on a former vacant lot owned by the NYC Department of Transportation
(DOT). This pilot site was selected from EPA and DEC recommendations, based on historical
land use patterns and minimal soil contamination (Drake and Kim 2011). This project is designed
as a working landscape system, improving the environment surrounding the canal over time by
capturing thousands of gallons of stormwater and pollutants, such as heavy metals and solid
waste, before they enter the canal, preventing further contamination as the remediation process
continues (Foderaro 2015). Utilizing its design of alternating beds of gravel and plantings of
flood-tolerant plants such as asters, Rosa rugosa and sedge grass, sand beds, soils and gravel, the
park functions like a sponge, capturing stormwater before it reaches the canal while filtering out
pollutants such as garbage and litter and other heavy metals - providing a direct solution to the
CSO problem. Preliminary analysis of the park’s functionality conducted by dlandstudio showed
that it would successfully capture all of the stormwater flowing down Second Street during
moderate rainfall (0.09-.39 inches per hour) to the dead-end at the canal (the pilot site,
approximately 1,500 sq. ft.). During the heaviest rainfall (> 0.39 inches per hour), however, the
analysis showed that the park would at least cleanse and filter the water before flowing into the
canal, preventing further water pollution as the remediation process continues (Drake & Kim
12

13. 2011; Foderaro 2015). Sponge Park™’s modular components make for easy assembly and
according to Adrian Benepe from the Trust for Public Land, there is “potential for universal
implementation of the Sponge Park™ system in other cities where urban water management is
one of the principal strengths.” Overseen by the NYC Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP)’s Green Infrastructure program, the pilot phase of the Sponge Park will determine whether
similar green infrastructure projects can effectively prevent pollution and benefit the local
ecosystem through additional services such as education opportunities, waterfront access,
improved biodiversity and aesthetic value.
In addition to its role as critical green infrastructure, Sponge Park™ also serves a
valuable purpose in educating the community on the importance of green infrastructure.
Although the park could act as a space for educational programs, which will be explored in the
analysis and results section of this paper, one of its primary goals is to act as a working landscape
that passively educates people on how green infrastructure functions and how it can be easily
integrated into any community and offer myriad social-ecological benefits (Foderaro 2015). The
Sponge Park™ has a key role in the emerging network of green spaces in the neighborhood
designed to capture stormwater and improve water quality and despite being a newly opened
space, results of this study show that the park is already meeting some of its ecological goals and
some of its social goals in the form of public educational space, showcasing green infrastructure
in action.
13

14. Literature Review
In this section, I will explore the history of urban green spaces and their social, ecological
and cultural value; how vacant lots and underutilized spaces have the potential to be transformed
into vibrant, multifunctional ecosystems; the importance of ecosystem services in urban areas
and how establishing a connected network of green spaces in cities leads to increased
biodiversity, greater productivity and resilience. Understanding these issues is essential to any
research that seeks to understand the process of how green space is created in cities in that it
lends to a more holistic perspective on how humans interact with nature in cities and how we
might create spaces that provide specific benefits as they relate to spatial and temporal
boundaries.
Understanding Green Space in Cities
In 1839, public health expert J.F. Murray wrote about the benefits of open green spaces in
cities. Murray described London’s open spaces as “great vehicles of exercise, fresh air, health,
and life to the myriads that congregate in the great metropolis (James 2015).” Around the time of
the Industrial Revolution, the aesthetic, recreational and health benefits of green spaces started to
be recognized as cities became more dense, noisy and polluted. In recent years, ecologists have
begun exploring the ways that ecological design can mitigate some of these negative aspects of
urban life (James 2015). Research by Longcore and Young (2000) found that green spaces are
critical in developing strong communities “by contributing to mental well being and by binding
people together through their public spaces.” Additional research found that urban Americans
14

15. largely prefer naturalized streets and neighborhoods and that stress is lessened while positive
social feelings increased (Longcore & Young 2000).
Cities are ecological places, but have rarely been thought of as such in 10,000 years of
urbanization. Unlike other species, whose survival is based on how well adapted they are to an
environment, humans have adapted our surrounding environments to meet our needs. Cities are
constructed habitat for humans, but they remain natural habitat nonetheless. Eric Sanderson
(2012) explains that “nature simply takes on new, idiosyncratic forms that contrast with the
original ecological mosaics of the pre-city.” Otterbourg (2016) also notes that although a major
benefit of urban green space is to replicate larger, more wild landscapes, these spaces are also
understood to serve another purpose; to support human development and ecological productivity
in the built environment, contributing to an overall healthier ecosystem. Benedict & McMahon
(2013) found that as much as cities require critical gray infrastructure such as roads, sidewalks
and sewers, they also require critical green infrastructure to regulate and support our natural life-
line in cities. Green infrastructure is defined as the interconnected systems of natural areas and
other open spaces that are protected and managed for the ecological benefits they provide to
people and the environment,
An important distinction was also proposed by Benedict and McMahon, in that “green
space is often viewed as something that is nice to have, the term green infrastructure implies
something that we must have.” They argue that this distinction is important in changing public
perceptions about green space planning and protection (Benedict and McMahon 2013). However,
it could also be argued that green infrastructure, specifically as productive green space, should be
15

16. included in a new definition of “green space” that considers all green space as critical
ecologically productive space, including parks, playgrounds and more isolated natural lands.
Social-Ecological Potential of Vacant Land
Often considered to be both a cause and consequence of blight, divestment and crime,
vacant and underutilized spaces are seen as a barrier to urban revitalization. However, scholars
have recently begun to consider new ideas of informal green spaces (IGS) or “terrain vague,” as
potential solutions to social-ecological problems in cities (Rupprecht et al. 2015; Kremer &
Hamstead 2015), such as improved stormwater management, increased habitat for biodiversity
and improved and equitable access to waterfronts and green spaces in every neighborhood. The
potential to design for social-ecological benefit from vacant space is immense, but remains an
underutilized practice in ecological urban design (McPhearson & Marshall 2015).
Vacant land in cities is often seen as a cause and consequence of blight, disinvestment,
pollution and crime, inhibiting the social, economic and environmental growth of sustainable
communities. In contrast to this perspective, it is becoming increasingly understood that vacant
land could act as a resource that can help cities meet social and environmental goals, rather than
inhibit them (Kremer & Hamstead 2015). Berkman (1956) argues that communities often
“engage with vacant land in a variety of ways that represent pluralism of values.” In this sense,
there are not necessarily “right” or “wrong” benefits of transforming vacant land, as long as they
support the wants and needs of the community. However, a possible challenge for this thesis
could arise if it is determined that the surveyed members state their desire for strictly social
16

17. spaces, or strictly ecological spaces. This could also provide an opportunity to explore the
possible interventions that can provide ecological benefits in more socially-focused spaces, such
as porous pavement to capture stormwater on a playground.
Inherent in urban economies, recent scholarship also shows that vacant spaces are critical
“loose space” sites for non-capitalist commodity production (Kremer & Hamstead 2015; Drake
& Lawson 2014; Desimini 2015). These spaces serve more passively productive purposes such
as improved air quality, stress relief, habitat provisioning and other transient uses that still benefit
humans and other species. This view of vacant land creates the possibility for unanticipated and
more innovative social and ecological opportunities that engage the marginalized communities
co-existing with these vacant spaces (Kremer & Hamstead 2015; Foster 2014).
This perspective is central to my argument that the successful transformation of vacant
land into ecologically productive space depends on the involvement of local communities and a
holistic understanding of their social, economic and environmental needs. Kremer and Hamstead
(2015) have identified various opportunities for vacant land transformation, finding that the
revitalization process begins by identifying the missing social or ecological function (such as
agricultural production or stormwater capture). Another critical first step is overcoming the
dominant perception of vacant land as “temporary and transient,” requiring a shift in thinking
that recognizes the potential long-term social-ecological benefits. Vacant land projects are
inherently temporary, often lacking a legal foundation to determine their longevity. In some
cases, land banks are formed to provide an organized system for identifying and transferring land
ownership, with moderate success. Redevelopment must be focused on community needs and
17

18. vision, but depends on existing policy and planning measures that gives agency to communities
(Kremer and Hamstead 2015).
Looking deep within the complex urban fabric, we discover that natural processes are at
work in vacant lots, rooftops, sidewalks, alleyways and other small spaces that are rarely
considered for design intervention. Vacant spaces that have already been reclaimed by nature can
also provide a wide range of benefits for both people and nature alike if designed and/or
managed appropriately. Emerging research shows that cities function more efficiently and
inhabitants’ well-being is much greater when green spaces are easily accessible and provide
ecosystem services (ES), such as habitat for biodiversity, primary productivity, stormwater
retention, air pollution removal and heat mitigation (McPhearson et al. 2013). These urban green
spaces could also be linked, through strategic spatial planning and selection of vegetation and
other biophysical characteristics, to a broader network of green space that extends beyond the
urban, exurban and suburban landscapes. This allows for a more connected system of natural
lands that allows for greater movement of species between habitat fragments. This network
contributes to increased biodiversity, provisioning of ES and ecological productivity, as well as
creating better access to a diverse mosaic of green spaces for urban dwellers to enjoy.
If we are to gain a better understanding of the different benefits and ES provided by
small-urban green spaces across urban ecosystems, we must first identify what spaces already
exist and what benefits they are already providing, whether we are already aware of them or not;
as well as identifying suitable sites for future ecological intervention. Green space in its many
forms has different capacities to impact the health of human and non-human species in cities and
18

19. must be considered when designing new spaces for different wants and needs across urban
landscapes (Taylor & Hochuli 2014). In order to enhance the function and sustainability of urban
ecosystems, green spaces must move beyond manicured lawns and ornamental plantings and
incorporate specific plants, grasses, soils and other ecological characteristics that provide desired
health and well-being outcomes (Jorgensen & Gobster 2010).
Ecosystem Services
Human health and wellbeing can be directly attributed to the presence and functionality
of green spaces and their provided ES Kaplan et al. (1972) were among the first to measure
people’s preferences for natural over urban landscapes, and before long investigators were
developing models to predict green space preferences based upon the biophysical, psychological
and artistic properties of vegetation and other landscape elements (Daniel 2001). However, as
cities continue to grow and natural land disappears, ideas of cooperation and environmentalism
are being replaced with an image of nature based on its value to us and our self-interests
(Marshall 2013), contributing to some of the criticism surrounding the ES concept.
Environmental historian Donald Worster (1977) argued that by applying economic thinking to
the study of nature, “ecologists have transformed nature into a reflection of the modern corporate
industrial system” (Marshall 2012). This view of ES forms one half of the complex debate over
whether or not whether or not our relationship with nature should be anthropocentric and based
on the instrumental values of nature (Schroter et al. 2014). A contrasting argument suggests that
ES could be used a bridge to reconnect humans with nature in cities by focusing on nonmaterial,
19

20. intangible values that are important in holistic perspectives of nature can be captured by the
cultural services domain, to include people's’ diverse values and needs (Schroter et al. 2014).
This thesis will follow the argument that ES, although negatively connotated, does in fact have
the potential foster environmental stewardship by explicating the relationship between ecological
functionality and the benefits we obtain from nature. A thorough understanding of the ES
concept is critical to this thesis as it relates to what defines a green space as “productive” or
meeting its social and ecological goals.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) defines four categories of ES: (1)
provisioning services such as food, water, timber and other resources and products obtained from
ecosystems; (2) regulating services, or the benefits obtained from the regulation of climate,
temperature, pest populations and pollution; (3) cultural services, or the non-material benefits
such as spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, recreation and aesthetics; and (4)
supporting services such as soil formation, nutrient cycling and groundwater recharge that
support the production of all other ES (Burkholder 2012; Marshall 2012). While there is much
potential for vacant land in cities to provide multiple social and ecological services, it is
important to understand that provisioning of ES varies greatly city by city, space by space.
Many urban green spaces are designed solely for the benefit of people, without
consideration for the ecological processes that support healthy ecosystems which we are a part
of. On the other hand, spaces such as “Forever Wild” sites around New York City preserve
natural, undisturbed habitat and prioritize ecological stability and productivity, while also
encouraging human interaction with nature. The Sponge Park has the opportunity to provide
20

21. valuable environmental education possibilities that could theoretically lead to better
conservation, restoration, design and stewardship practices.
Methods
This thesis used a multi-method approach to collecting and analyzing data on the Sponge
Park’s use and perceived ecological performance through site observations, on-site interviews,
photography, site-specific TED talks and community envisioning mapping data provided by the
Gowanus Canal Greenscape Map. In order to understanding the institutions and actors involved
in the development of the Sponge Park, I constructed an institutional network analysis map using
the online Graph Commons tool, which describes the strength of ties between different
institutions and their respective roles relating to the park’s creation and success. The following
sections will describe each method in greater detail.
Mapping Analysis
Although this research did not conduct any in-depth geographic information systems
(GIS) analysis, maps still proved incredibly useful in framing the spatial boundaries of the study
site and providing user input data as it relates to the current and future designs of the Gowanus
Canal Sponge Park. The Gowanus Canal Conservancy map described on page 9 reflects a
sampling of how people are using the space and what similar spaces they want to see. All of the
data provided by the map was collected by the open-source mapping tool owned by the Gowanus
Canal Conservancy and only a sample of the data proved useful for this research as it relates to
21

22. the vacant land transformation process and early park functionality. The section below describes
the use of site observations as another method of understanding how the space is being used and
its ecological functionality.
Site Observations
As a method of understanding how users are interacting with the park and making
preliminary assumptions about its functionality, a series of observations were conducted at the
pilot site located at the intersection of 2nd Street and the Gowanus Canal in the Gowanus
neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York. Site observations were conducted over the course of four
weeks beginning September 28th and ending on October 31st. Because the park’s functionality is
rooted in its ability to capture stormwater runoff before it enters the Canal, observations were
conducted on site on days after a significant rain storm, with one observation taking place during
a period of relative drought. Observational periods ranged from 1-2 hours and were usually
conducted during the middle of the day (12:00pm-5:00pm) during the week. Key points desired
from these observations included user presence and activity, weather conditions, biodiversity
presence, presence of trash/stormwater runoff in park bioretention cells, canal conditions and any
other noteworthy observations. Photography was also utilized in this methodology as a means of
capturing key observations as they relate to this thesis.
22

23. Interviews
Another method utilized in this study was that of on-site interviews with users of the
park. Interviewees were chosen at random, given full disclosure of the nature of the research and
remained anonymous. Questions were designed for the general public and are open-ended,
allowing for for a natural conversation to develop. Question structure is as follows: 1) When is
the first time you heard about the Gowanus Canal? 2) When is the first time you heard about the
Sponge Park? 3) What do you know about the history of the Gowanus Canal? 4) What is your
relationship to the Gowanus Canal (i.e. were you involved in the planning process, do you use
frequently?). 5) What is your vision for the future of the Gowanus Canal and surrounding
neighborhoods (how would you design the area yourself?)
TED Talks
Another method of data collection utilized in this project is through the analysis of two
TEDx speeches given in 2011 and 2014 by Susannah Drake, the principal architect of the Sponge
Park. Drake was unable to reached for this project, however, data collected from these speeches
proved invaluable in understanding the complex nature of the planning and development process.
The next section will describe the methodology for organizing, coding and analyzing this data
and a summary of the results.
23

24. Data Analysis & Results
After collecting all of the raw data, it was then sorted and classified into themes as
determined from the key points that emerged from the literature review relating to how vacant
land in Gowanus is being transformed into green space. These themes, which later became codes
by which data was organized and analyzed, that emerged from the literature were determined to
be: “Use (code: USE) ” or data that relates to how the study site is being used and how people
would like to see the space used, as well as user perceptions of the space itself. “Institutions
Involved (INST)” refers to data that identifies the institutions involved in the creation of the site
and their respective relationships to each other and the site itself. “Functionality & Performance
(FUNC)” refers to data that relates tot he site’s overall functionality and perceived effectiveness
in providing desired ecosystem services (stormwater runoff mitigation, educational/recreational
space). “Design Replicability (REPL)” refers to data that relates to the site’s role as a model
green infrastructure system that could be replicated in any city facing similar resiliency
challenges. Lastly, “History/Cultural Impact (HIST)” refers to data relating the history of the
space and surrounding area, as well as impact on local culture.
After creating the theme-based codes, data was organized into “a priori” codes, which
were developed by assigning each individual data point a code in order to determine patterns and
frequency of responses. Figure 3. below is an example of this codebook.
24

25. After classifying this data, it became clear the number of patterns and connections
between data points and their relationship to the different codes developed. For example, site
observations from 9/28 heavily contributed the understanding of how the space was being used.
Many people were observed walking their dogs and taking pictures of the Sponge Park planters.
Additionally, a Brooklyn Urban Garden School (BUGS) class trip was finishing up as I arrived
on the site. Although I was unable to speak with anyone there, a student had left behind their
workbook, outlining some of the goals and themes of the lesson. This “Sustainability Field Trip,”
suggests that even in its early stages, the Sponge Park is already meeting its goal of being an
educational space where people can learn about green infrastructure, stormwater management,
urban ecology and more.
The next step in the analysis process involved the creation of a grounded codebook,
where specific data points and their codes became rules by which these findings could be
interpreted Figure 4. below is an example of this codebook, highlighting the BUGS class trip as
evidence that the space is already meeting at least one of its goals.
25
Figure 3. Example of a priori codebook, illustrating the classification of data based on
corresponding theme-based codes.

26. On-site interviews and interpretation of responses from the Gowanus Greenscape Map
also proved incredibly useful in understanding how the site is being used and if it is meeting
expectations. One interviewee, a resident of the Upper East Side an avid “urban explorer”
described their visit to the Sponge Park as it relates to the greater sustainability movement.
“I don’t really have any connection to the Canal itself, but I’m very interested in the
whole green movement and this is obviously a step in the right direction. It’s cool to see projects
like this and what’s being done to ensure the future of sustainability.”
This interview suggests that people, even those with no connection to Gowanus, are
excited about the Sponge Park, not necessarily because of what it means for the local ecology of
Gowanus and the canal, but because of what it signifies for them as New Yorkers who are
affected by these social and environmental challenges every day. A respondent from the
Gowanus Greenscape Map suggests something similar, that the future of neighborhood resiliency
and sustainability is rooted in the desires of the community itself. If people want to see the
sidewalk bioswales and planting beds of the Sponge Park turned into an educational garden, then
it should be done. In this case, that was already part of the design, but also suggests that this
desire was considered during the many community envisioning forums conducted during the
development process.
26
Figure 4. Example of codebook, highlighting the BUGS sustainability field trip to the Sponge Park. 9/28/16

27. As a means of understanding the complexities of the planning and design process, an
institutional network analysis was conducted. This allowed for greater transparency in the
involvement of various institutions involved in the process, as well as illustrating the nature of
their relationships to each other and the site itself. Data for this analysis was collected through
from the literature, on-site signage and TED Talks with Susannah Drake, the principal architect
who describes at length, the various institutions involved in the development of the park and the
nature of their specific roles. Figure 5. below describes this network analysis and the strength of
these connections is illustrated in the thickness of the lines. Connections were assigned a weight
of 1-3, with 1 being the weakest connections, or little involvement and 3 being the strongest
connections, or critical to the process.
27
Figure 5. Institutional Network Analysis, highlighting the complexities in the planning and design
process that went into creating the Sponge Park pilot site. Map created through Graph Commons.

28. As shown in Figure 5. above, there were at least 22 private, community, city, state and
federal institutions involved in the creation of the Sponge Park. Initial planning and community
envisioning was done in conjunction with local groups such as the GCC, Center for Urban
Pedagogy and the Gowanus Dredgers (Drake 2014). Land was donated by the NYC Department
of Transportation and early funding was secured from City Council, due to the large amount of
community support for the project as well as the office of Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez
(who’s husband coincidentally proposed to her on the banks of the Canal). Grants were provided
by the New York State Council on the Arts and the New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission (NEIWPCC). An additional large grant provided by the NYS
Environmental Facilities Commission (Drake 2014). After funding was secured, construction
was administered in a joint effort from the DEP, DOT and NYC Parks Department. Drake (2014)
also described the complex nature of the relationships between these institutions and the park
itself. For example, the sediment underneath the Canal is controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, whereas the shade over the Canal is controlled by the DEC. The ground surface is
controlled by the DOT, who owns the land itself, but the DEC controls the runoff that flows over
the land and the Parks Department controls all green spaces in terms of programming and
maintenance (Drake 2014). Additionally, the DOT, DEP and Parks Department are all under the
jurisdiction of different deputy mayors with different funding sources. Drake (2011) found that a
major challenge in the planning process was to bring them all together to work cooperatively.
However, with the NYC Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, there is a
new understanding to have financing and different institutions come together to build new green
28

29. infrastructure systems (Drake 2011). These relationships outline the complexities that must be
understood in creating even the smallest public green spaces and is an essential step in this
process and this model shows where this process can be replicated and where improvements can
be made.
This study also found that although the site was observed to be meeting some of its social
and ecological goals, much needs to be done to ensure its long-term functionality, specifically
with regards to making it an accessible educational space for all users. Students from BUGS
were observed using the space to understand sustainability in their neighborhood, and the GCC
also held numerous community envisioning events where visitors were encouraged to use the
Sponge Park as inspiration for other waterfront public green spaces they would like to see
throughout the neighborhood and beyond. However, one notable observation found no signage
indicating what the park actually does or why it is important. At the time of most recent
observation, the only sign present described the different representatives from the various
institutions involved, but also does not outline the boundaries of the park itself (see Appendix).
Because the Sponge Park pilot site is connected to the waterfront public space owned and
managed by the 365 Bond apartment complex, the uninformed visitor might assume the whole
waterfront is the Sponge Park, when in reality only the small street end bioretention cells at the
end of 2nd Street is the pilot site itself. However, this “stacking” of green infrastructure and
public space is not necessarily a bad thing, as it creates a seamless public space that offers
numerous social and ecological benefits. It is important to note, however, that if the space is
supposed to act as an educational space where users can learn about and see green infrastructure
29

30. in action, adequate signage must be installed to ensure this. Drake and Kim (2011) stated that an
educational sign explaining the stormwater management strategy and benefits will be integrated
into the design, it is unclear when this design plans to be installed, severely limiting the park’s
functionality as an educational space. This is particularly important for this site which, as a pilot
site, will determine not only if more Sponge Parks will be created along the Canal, but if these
types of green infrastructure systems will be developed throughout the city and beyond.
Another limiting factor in this study is the uncertainty of how the park is actually
performing ecologically. In conjunction with the EPA, Manhattan College was commissioned to
develop the plan to monitor the Sponge Park system’s efficacy, which will evaluate
environmental outcomes by computing volume of water entering the system and the mass and
percentage of pollutants removed. However, the study is ongoing and will not be published and
publicly-available until eight months after the park’s opening (expected to be January-February
2017). (Drake and Kim 2011). These limiting factors are critical in understanding the park’s
actual performance and functionality, but this study found that the community and users are
excited about the park opening and its role as a model green space and no effluent was observed
in the Canal after significant rain events, suggesting that the park is performing as expecting in
some capacity.
Conclusion & Implications
It is being increasingly understood that vacant land in cities has immense potential to
provide social benefits, such as improved recreation opportunity, community cohesion,
30

31. educational opportunity and peace of mind, as well as ecological benefits such as stormwater
capture, habitat for biodiversity, reduced air pollution and cooler temperatures. In the Gowanus
neighborhood of Brooklyn, rapid development has put vacant land at a premium and countless
planners, designers, architects and city officials are jumping at the opportunity to develop new
spaces that will provide myriad benefits for the community. Because of the environmental
remediation efforts along the Canal, planners are beginning to consider more green space
integration as part of the neighborhood revitalization efforts. Through projects like the Gowanus
Canal Sponge Park and the numerous rain gardens, pocket parks and community gardens
throughout the neighborhood, a networked ecology of productive green space is beginning to
emerge out of the industrial wastelands of Gowanus. Through community engagement, volunteer
events and participatory action research, many local organizations such as the Gowanus Canal
Conservancy are fighting to give agency to all members of the community in the design and
planning of their neighborhood’s revitalization.
The purpose of this thesis was to understand the process of how vacant land in NYC is
being transformed into green space by analyzing a brand new park on the banks of the Gowanus
Canal in Brooklyn. This Sponge Park was is designed to act as a critical piece of green
infrastructure, capturing stormwater runoff while doubling as a public educational space,
showcasing the ecological processes at work. This study found that understanding the complex
relationships between institutions involved is critical in developing a replicable framework for
transforming vacant land in any city. Results also show that the park is already meeting some of
31

32. its social and ecological goals, though much remains to be understood as far is actual
performance and ability to act as an educational space for anyone who uses the space.
However, much remains to be done in terms of understanding the actual ecological
performance and how this pilot site might be used as a stepping stone on the path to creating a
green stormwater district both in Gowanus and New York as a whole. Drake (2014) noted the
remarkable transformation of the area around the canal over the past eight years and the influx of
socially and environmentally conscious visitors to the waterfront, many of whom have expressed
the desire to see more spaces like the Sponge Park throughout the city. It is important recognize
how significant the development of the Sponge Park is to future urban infrastructure
development (Drake and Kim 2011) and many community and municipal level experts in the
area have also expressed excitement over the opening of the Sponge Park, citing its replicability
and potential for “universal implementation” as one of the project’s principal strengths. It is an
idea the is applicable for towns and cities across the country, especially in older cities where
infrastructure is aging and deindustrialization has left behind large swaths of vacant and
inhospitable landscapes (Drake and Kim 2011). As cities become more populated and
sustainability and resiliency challenges become more pressing, developing an efficient and
cooperative framework for creating critical green infrastructure is sure to be one of the greatest
urban development challenges we will ever face.
32

33. References
1. Balram, Shivanand, and Suzana Dragisevic. "Attitudes Towards Urban Green Spaces:
Integrating Questionnaire Survey and Collaborative GIS Techniques to Improve Attitude
Measurements." Landscape and Urban Planning 71 (2005): 147-62. Print.
2. Benedict, Mark A., and Edward T. McMahon. "Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for
the 21st Century." Renewable Resources Journal 20.3 (2002): 12-7. Print.
3. . How Cities use Parks for Green Infrastructure. City Parks Forum, American Planning
Association, 2003. Print.
4. Brown, Leigh, Lena Greenberg, and Taylor Drake. A Typology of Potential Sites for Green
Infrastructure Development in the Gowanus Canal Watershed for the Gowanus Canal
Conservancy. Undergraduate Collaborative Project ed. The New School:, 2014. Print.
5. Drake, Susannah C., Kim, Yong. "Gowanus Canal Sponge Park." Ecological Restoration 29.4
(2011): 392-400. Print.
6. Drake, Susannah C., and Yong K. Kim. "Sponge Park, New York City."International Review
of Landscape Architecture and Urban Design 68 (2009): 24-28. Web.
7. Drake, Susannah C. “Ecology in Public Space and Infrastructure.” TEDxBrooklyn. 12/2011.
Web.
8. Drake, Susannah C. “Designing the Gowanus Canal Sponge Park.” TEDxGowanus. 5/2014.
Web.
9. Elmqvist, T., et al. "Benefits of Restoring Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas." Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14 (2015): 101-8. Print.
33

34. 10. Faust, Joan L. "A Practical Solution for Urban Vacant Lots." New York Times (1923-Current
file): 135. Aug 19, 1973 1973. Print.
11. Flint, Sunshine. "A Tangible Transformation: The Gowanus Canal - A Vibrant and Active
Waterway." The Gowanus Gowilla [Brooklyn, NY] 2015, Fall/Winter ed.: 6. The Gowanus
Gowilla. 365 Bond, 2015. Web.
12. Frazier, Amy E., and Sharmistha Bagchi-Sen. "Developing Open Space Networks in
Shrinking Cities." Applied Geography 59.1 (2015)Print.
13. Gittleman, Mara. "Estimating Stormwater Runoff for Community Gardens in New York
City." Master of Arts CUNY Hunter College, 2015. Print.New York, NY: .
14. Henry, Allison. "Mapping Gowanus Today. Imagining Gowanus Tomorrow." (2016)Print.
15. James, Philip. "How should we Design Cities to make the most of Urban Ecosystems?" The
Conversation UK, University of Salford 2015Print.
16. Jim, C. Y. "Green-Space Preservation and Allocation for Sustainable Greening of Compact
Cities." Cities 21.4 (2004): 311-20. Print.
17. Konnikova, Maria. "How Green could New York be?" The New Yorker April 15 2015Print.
18. Kremer, Peleg, Zoé A. Hamstead, and Timon McPhearson. "A social–ecological Assessment
of Vacant Lots in New York City." Landscape and Urban Planning. 120 (2013): 218-33.
Print.
19. Marshall, Victoria. "Self-Centered Ecological Services." Scapegoat.1 (2012)Print.
20. McPhearson, Timon, and Victoria Marshall. " “Micro-Urban: The Ecological and Social
Potential of Small-Scale Urban Spaces”." The Nature of Cities. 2015. Print.
34

35. 21. McPhearson, Timon. "Vacant Land in Cities could Provide Important Social and Ecological
Benefits." The Nature of Cities 2012. Print.
22. McPhearson, Timon, Peleg Kremer, and Zoé A. Hamstead. "Mapping Ecosystem Services in
New York City: Applying a social–ecological Approach in Urban Vacant Land." Ecosystem
Services 5 (2013): 11-26. Print.
23. Nachbauer, Fredric. "Gowanus, Brooklyn: Waterfront Revitalization." The Sixth Borough:
Redefining Brooklyn's Waterfront. 2013. Web. <http://thesixthborough.weebly.com/
revitalization-of-gowanus-canal.html>.
24. NYC DEP. Press Release. Department of Environmental Protection, Council Members
Lander, Levin and Gonzalez, Dlandstudio, and the Gowanus Canal Conservancy Announce Plans
to Build a Sponge Park™ Adjacent to the Gowanus Canal. July 2013.
25. Niemelä, Jari, et al. "Using the Ecosystem Services Approach for Better Planning and
Conservation of Urban Green Spaces: A Finland Case Study."Biodiversity & Conservation
19.11 (2010): 3225-43. Print.
26. Otterbourg, Ken. "How Urban Parks are Bringing Nature Closer to Home." National
Geographic 4/1/2016 2016Print.
27. Peschardt, Karin Kragsig, Jasper Schipperijn, and Ulrika K. Stigsdotter. "Use of Small Public
Urban Green Spaces (SPUGS)." Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11.3 (2012): 235-44.
Print.
35

36. 28. Peschardt, Karin Kragsig, and Ulrika Karlsson Stigsdotter. "Associations between Park
Characteristics and Perceived Restorativeness of Small Public Urban Green Spaces."
Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013): 26-39. Print.
29. Pickett, S. T. A., and M. L. Cadenasso. "Linking Ecological and Built Components of Urban
Mosaics: An Open Cycle of Ecological Design." Journal of Ecology96.1 (2008): 8-12. Print.
30. Plunz, Richard, and Patricia Culligan, eds. Eco-Gowanus: Urban Remediation by Design.
New York, NY: Columbia University GSAPP, 2007. Print.
31. Rice, Andrew. "On the Waterfront." New York Times Magazine Oct 25, 2009 2009: 64-7.
Print.
32. Sanderson, Eric. "Cities of Nature." Nature of Cities (2012)Print.
33. Schröter, M., et al. " Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept: A Synthesis of Critique
and Counter-Arguments." Conservation Letters 7.6 (2014): 514-23. Print.
34. Taylor, Lucy, and Dieter F. Hochuli. "Creating Better Cities: How Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Functioning Enhance Urban Residents' Wellbeing." Urban Ecosystems 18.3
(2015)Print.
35. U.S. EPA Region II. Gowanus Canal Superfund Site: Superfund Proposed Plan. New York,
NY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012. Print.
36. RECORD OF DECISION Gowanus Canal Superfund Site Brooklyn, Kings County, New
York. New York, NY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013. Print.
36

37. 37. Young, Terence, and Travis Longcore. "Creating Community Greenspace: A Handbook for
Developing Sustainable Open Spaces in Central Cities." California League of Conservation
Voters Education Fund (2000)Print.
Appendix
Interview #1
Location: Gowanus Canal Sponge Park
Date: Wednesday, 9/28, 1-2pm
Weather: Partly cloudy, mid-60s
Park user: Anonymous
Length: 2 minutes, 48 seconds
RQs: How is vacant land being transformed into productive green space?
How are people using these new green spaces?
How are they performing ecologically?
This interview was conducted on site and the interviewee was a friend of mine interested in
exploring unique urban spaces very interested in the city’s waterfronts. Despite their relative lack
of knowledge about Gowanus and the Sponge Park, was very enthusiastic about this project and
suggested being interviewed.
- When was the first time you heard about the Gowanus Canal? (ex. how often do you come
here?)
Oh, I was a kid, you know, it's always been there, but it looked very different then than it does
now.
- What do you know about the history of the Gowanus Canal?
I know it used to be used for industrial purposes and moving things throughout the industrial
base in the area and then it kind of fell out of use and over polluted and now it just looks like a
trash heap.
- When is the first time you heard about the Sponge Park?
Probably a few months ago and came down here for the first time a few weeks ago to check it
out - pretty cool what is set up so far.
37

38. - What's your relationship to the Canal or Sponge Park, were you involved in the planning,
do you use it frequently, are you interested in waterfront development?
I mean I don't really have any connection to the Canal itself, but I'm very interested in the
whole green movement and sustainability and this is obviously a step in that direction so it's
cool to see projects like this and what's being done to ensure that future. I've never lived in the
area or anything like that though.
- If you lived in the area or were involved in the design process, what would your vision for
the future of the Canal and surrounding neighborhoods be?
I would personally like to see the other side of the Canal fixed up, obviously this side is much
nicer and built up but across the water all you see is sheet metal and a trash yard, some derelict
buildings. You know it's time that this shit just gets cleaned up, people keep talking about,
promises are made. And you know it's always the regular people who have to go in and do
something, fix it up, there's never some government person or agency coming in and doing
something for good - it's all about whatever makes money.
——-
Gowanus Greenscape Mapping Data
- Users post anonymously, no dates given
- Coding by interaction (frequently use, rarely use, new idea for public space)
- coding developed by Gowanus Canal Conservancy - coded only on axis of use
*I frequently use/visit this public space
*I rarely use/visit this public space
*I would like to see a new public space here
• "I love this street end and the view to the canal. Would love to see the sidewalks and
planting beds at the end turned into an educational garden."
• "The old Dredgers boat launch needs to be reopened.” -
• "former canoe launch site, was a good access point to the waterfront now blocked by
construction site"
• "The new metal bulkhead is a poor habitat for marine and shore life. The crumbling
edge across the canal and the timber bulkhead elsewhere are much friendlier for birds,
fish, and mussels. Life won't come back to the canal unless we keep this in mind."
• "Can't wait for the Sponge Park to be open and in use!"
38

39. • "The new open space looks wonderful, can't wait to use!”
• “water views"
• I rarely use this public space - Why is there no shade or seating in the sponge park? Not
very inviting.
——-
39
BUGS Sustainability Field Trip Packet

40. !
40
Examples of signage at Sponge Park & 365 Bond Waterfront

41. !
!
41
Signage and evidence of trash collected in retention cells at
Sponge Park

42. 42