Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Designing for a Changing Climate : Adapting Vancouver`s Northeast False Creek to Higher Seas and Stronger… Keating, Jeremy Apr 30, 2016

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


310-Keating _Jeremy_Designing_Climate_Change_2016.pdf [ 11.15MB ]
JSON: 310-1.0314215.json
JSON-LD: 310-1.0314215-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 310-1.0314215-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 310-1.0314215-rdf.json
Turtle: 310-1.0314215-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 310-1.0314215-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 310-1.0314215-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Designing for a Changing Climate:Adapting Vancouver’s Northeast False Creekto Higher Seas and Stronger StormsJeremy KeatingM.Sc. (Planning) CandidateMarch 2016iDESIGNING FOR A CHANGING CLIMATE: ADAPTING VANCOUVER’S NORTHEAST FALSE CREEK TO HIGHER SEAS AND STRONGER STORMSbyJEREMY KEATINGB.Sc., University of British Columbia, 2004A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTERS OF SCIENCE (PLANNING)inTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESSchool of Community and Regional PlanningWe accept this project as conforming to the required standard..................................................................................................................................................THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAApril 2016© Jeremy Keating, 2016AcknowledgmentsThis project, and the culmination of my time at SCARP, is not the product of one person, but rather is the result of two and a half years of collaboration with dozens of classmates, instructors, and planners. While most of that time wasn’t involved directly with this project, every conversation, lecture, and interaction all led to this point, and so for that I thank you. Particularly I’d like to thank:Maged Senbel, for steering me through the wild world of urban design;Holly Sovdi and Catherine Neill, for keeping me grounded in the realities of the Northeast False Creek planning process;Camille Lefrançois, Victor Ngo, and Korbin daSilva, for keeping those late night/early morning design studio sessions enjoyable;Tasha Henderson, for digging me out of the hole and showing me how it’s done;And of course, I can’t go without thanking my wife Lauren and our son Benjamin. Infinitely patient and distracting, respectively, I couldn’t wish for better.iiTable of ContentsGlossary vi1.	 Introduction	 11.1. Description of Project 21.2. Rationale for the Project 21.3. Research Methods 31.4. Project Deliverables 31.5. Project Limitations 32. Background 52.1. Climate Change 62.2. Northeast False Creek 133. Design Principles 233.1. Connection (With Water) 253.2. Regeneration (Of Water) 263.3. Accommodation (Of Water) 273.4. Protection (From Water) 284. Case Studies 314.1. Case Studies - Hard Infrastructure 334.2. Case Studies - Soft Infrastructure 374.3. Case Studies - Combination of Hard and Soft Infrastructure 404.4. Case Studies - Building-Level Infrastructure 435. Applying the Case Studies to Northeast False Creek 475.1. Applications - Development 495.2. Applications - Creekside Park 525.3. Applications - Urban Shoreline 555.4. Applications - Naturalised Shoreline 586.	 Design	Vignettes	 616.1. Design Vignettes - Development 636.2. Design Vignettes - Creekside Park 666.3. Design Vignettes - Urban Shoreline 696.4. Design Vignettes - Naturalised Shoreline 727. Overall Design 777.1. Northeast False Creek Site Plan 797.2. New Development Area - Overview 807.3. Protected Views - Olympic Village Plaza 837.4. Creekside Park - Overview 857.5. Creekside Wetland (Mean Sea Level) 917.6. Movement Map (Existing) 967.7. Movement Map (Proposed) 977.8. Existing Flood Patterns 987.9. Proposed Flood Patterns 998. Discussion 1018.1. Design Principles and Metrics 1028.2. Next Steps 1059. References 107iiiTable of Figures1.	 Introduction	 viiiFigure 1.0: Introduction viii2. Background 4Figure 2.0: Background 4Figure 2.1: Observed change in surface temperatures 1901 - 2012 6Figure 2.2: Comparison of observed and simulated climate change 6Figure 2.3: The Greenhouse Effect 7Figure 2.4: Average Arctic Sea Ice Cover Over Time 7Figure 2.5: Ice Cover - Albedo Feedback Loop 8Figure 2.6: Multiple Feedback Loops 8Figure 2.7: Predicted Atmospheric CO2-equivalent Concentrations for RCPs 9Figure 2.8: Predicted Change in Mean Surface Temperature and Sea Level Rise 9Figure 2.9: Predicted Global Mean Sea Level Rise 10Figure 2.10: Predicted Global Mean Temperature Increase 10Figure 2.11: Predicted Annual Mean Precipitation Change (2081-2100) 11Figure 2.12: Inundated False Creek Seawall (Nov 28, 2014) 11Figure 2.13: Original False Creek Shoreline 13Figure 2.14: Map of False Creek, 1911 13Figure 2.15: Previous Industrial Uses in Northeast False Creek 14Figure 2.16: re:CONNECT Winner 14Figure 2.17: re:CONNECT Honourable Mention 14Figure 2.18: Existing NEFC Ownership 15Figure 2.19: Vancouver Neighbourhoods 15Figure 2.20: Protected Downtown View Corridors` 16Figure 2.21: Recreation on False Creek 16Figure 2.22: Existing Condition in NEFC 17Figure 2.23: Proposed changes to NEFC 17Figure 2.24: Tidal Elevation (m GD) in Vancouver During a Spring Tide 19Figure 2.25: Measured Storm Surge, January 1974 19Figure 2.26: NEFC Flood Scenarios 20Figure 2.27: False Creek North Official Development Plan Sub-Areas 21Figure 2.28: Northeast False Creek Contours 21Figure 2.29: Northeast False Creek Zoning Map 22Figure 2.30: Northeast False Creek Road Network 22Figure 2.31: Northeast False Creek Cycling Network 223. Design Principles 24Figure 3.0: Design Principles 244. Case Studies 32Figure 4.0: Case Studies 32Figure 4.1: Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Climate Change 34Figure 4.2: St. Paul Airport Flood Wall 36Figure 4.3: Riverdike Rotterdam 36Figure 4.5: KAMANAVA Area Flood Control and Drainage System 37Figure 4.4: Maeslant Barrier (Maeslantkering) 37Figure 4.6: Los Angeles River 38Figure 4.7: Richmond Dikes 38Figure 4.8: Vancouver Seawall 39Figure 4.9: HafenCity 39Figure 4.10: Qunli Stormwater Park 40Figure 4.11: Staten Island Bluebelt 40Figure 4.12: Alewife Reservation Stormwater Wetland 41Figure 4.13: Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) 41Figure 4.14: Alumnae Valley Restoration 42Figure 4.15: Heron’s Head Park 42Figure 4.16: Tåsinge Plads 43Figure 4.17: The BIG U 43ivFigure 4.18: San Dieguito Lagoon 44Figure 4.19: Shanghai Houtan Park 44Figure 4.20: Integrated Flood Protection System 45Figure 4.21: Bo01 Development 45Figure 4.22: Cuisinart Center for Culinary Excellence 46Figure 4.23: Burnham Hall 46Figure 4.25: Olympic Village 47Figure 4.24: Floatyard 475. Applying the Case Studies to Northeast False Creek 48Figure 5.0: Applying the Case Studies to Northeast False Creek 48Figure 5.1: St. Paul Airport Flood Wall 51Figure 5.2: HafenCity 51Figure 5.3: Sustainable Drainage Systems  51Figure 5.4: Bo01 52Figure 5.5: Tåsinge Plads 52Figure 5.6: The BIG U 52Figure 5.7: Cuisinary Center for Culinary Excellence 53Figure 5.8: Burnham Hall 53Figure 5.9: Olympic Village 53Figure 5.10: St. Paul Airport Wall 54Figure 5.11: Riverdike Rotterdam 54Figure 5.12: KAMANAVA Flood Control System 54Figure 5.13: Los Angeles River 55Figure 5.14: Staten Island Bluebelt 55Figure 5.15: Alumnae Valley Restoration 55Figure 5.16: The BIG U 56Figure 5.17: San Dieguito Lagoon 56Figure 5.18: Integrated Flood Protection System 56Figure 5.19: St. Paul Airport Wall 57Figure 5.20: Maeslant Barrier 57Figure 5.21: Los Angeles River 57Figure 5.22: Richmond Dikes 58Figure 5.23: Vancouver Seawall 58Figure 5.24: HafenCity 58Figure 5.25: The BIG U 59Figure 5.26: Integrated Flood Protection System 59Figure 5.27: Floatyard 59Figure 5.28: Richmond Dikes 60Figure 5.29: Qunli Stormwater Park 60Figure 5.30: Alewife Reservation Stormwater Wetland 60Figure 5.31: Heron’s Head Park 61Figure 5.32: San Dieguito Lagoon 61Figure 5.33: Shanghai Houtan Park 616.	 Design	Vignettes	 62Figure 6.0: Design Vignettes 62Figure 6.1: Deployable Flood Barrier 65Figure 6.2: Flood Resilient Buildings 66Figure 6.3: Sustainable Drainage Systems 67Figure 6.4: Integrated Dike 68Figure 6.5: Accessible Stormwater Channel 69Figure 6.6: Deployable Flood Barrier 70Figure 6.7: Raised Seawall 71Figure 6.8: Integrated Flood Protection System 72Figure 6.9: Floating Buildings 73Figure 6.10: Beach 74Figure 6.11: Waterfront Park 75Figure 6.12: Wetland 767. Overall Design 78Figure 7.0: Overall Design 78Figure 7.1: Northeast False Creek Site Plan 81Figure 7.2: New Development Area - Overview 82Table of Figures (cont.)vFigure 7.3: New Development Area - Cross Section 83Figure 7.4: New Development Area - Georgia Promenade 84Figure 7.5: Protected Views - Olympic Village Plaza 85Figure 7.6: Protected Views - Olympic Shipyard Pier 86Figure 7.7: Creekside Park - Overview 87Figure 7.8: Creekside Park - New Topography 88Figure 7.9: Creekside Park - Carrall Street Realignment 89Figure 7.10: Creekside Park - Stormwater Channel 90Figure 7.11: Creekside Park - Stormwater Channel (High Tide + Storm Surge) 91Figure 7.12: Creekside Park - Stormwater Channel (Floodwall Installed) 92Figure 7.13: Creekside Wetland (Mean Sea Level) 93Figure 7.14: Creekside Wetland (MSL +1 m) 94Figure 7.15: Creekside Wetland (MSL +2 m) 95Figure 7.16: Creekside Wetland (MSL +3 m) 96Figure 7.17: Creekside Wetland (MSL +4 m) 97Figure 7.18: Movement Map (Existing) 98Figure 7.19: Movement Map (Proposed) 99Figure 7.20: Flood Patterns (Existing) 100Figure 7.21: Flood Patterns (Proposed) 1018. Discussion 102Figure 8.0: Discussion 102Figure 8.1: Design Principles Matrix 105Figure 8.2: Sustainability Metrics Matrix 1069. References 108Figure 9.0: References 108Table of Figures (cont.)viGlossaryAlbedo: the ratio of reflected radiation from a surface to the total radiation. Perfectly black surfaces have an albedo of 0, while perfect reflection represents a value of 1.Brownfield: land previously used for industrial purposes, often containing contaminated soils.Chart datum (CD): the vertical datum to which nautical charts are referenced. In Canada, this corresponds to the Lower Low Water Level Large Tide (LLWLT), or the lowest tide which on average occurs every year.Evapotranspiration: the combined effect of plant transpiration and evaporation of water from the Earth’s surface.False	Creek	North	Official	Development	Plan	(FCN	ODP): the City of Vancouver’s development plan under which the Northeast False Creek planning process will occur.Fifth	Assessment	Report	(AR5): The report released by the IPCC in 2014 regarding climate change, as well as mitigation and adaptation strategies.Flood	construction	level	(FCL):	the combined height above mean sea level of: future sea level rise, maximum high tide, total storm surge, estimated wave effect, and freeboard.Freeboard: an additional elevation allowance in the specification of a flood construction level (FCL). It is intended to provide a measure of safety, accounting for uncertainties in the FCL calculation.Freshet: higher riverine water levels due to snow and ice melt upstream, typically occurring in the spring.Geodetic	datum	(GD): a horizontal and vertical reference for geodetic data. The vertical component of a geodetic datum usually approximates mean sea level. In Vancouver, the difference between chart datum and geodetic datum is 3.1 metres.Hard infrastructure: in the context of sea level rise, typically concrete, metal, or stone protective measures.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): an intergovernmental body under the jurisdiction of the United Nations, the IPCC assesses scientific information relating to climate change, as well as options for mitigation and adaptation.King	tide: unscientific term for significantly higher and lower tides that occur a few times a year (generally caused by some combination of perigean tide, spring tide, and storm surge).Northeast False Creek (NEFC): the portion of land along the northern shore of False Creek’s eastern end, including the Plaza of Nations, BC Place, Rogers Arena, the Concord Pacific lands, and the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts.Perigean	spring	tide: significantly higher and lower tides that occur when the sun, earth, and moon are aligned (spring tide) and the moon is closest to the earth (perigee).Radiative	forcing: the difference between the amount of solar energy absorbed by the Earth and the amount of energy reflected back.Representative	Concentration	Pathways	(RCP): greenhouse gas concentration trajectories adopted by the IPCC in the AR5, representing different potential future scenarios of atmospheric GHG concentrations.Sea	level	rise	(SLR): the slow increase in sea levels associated with climate change.Soft	infrastructure: the use of natural systems and surfaces to protect and/or accommodate.Storm surge: an increase or decrease in sea level due to atmospheric pressure changes and large scale wind stress associated with a storm.Subsidence/uplift: the vertical motion of the earth’s surface relative to a fixed datum.United	Nations	Framework	Convention	on	Climate	Change	(UN	FCCC): an international environmental treaty, which meets annually in Conferences of the Parties (COP) to assess international progress in dealing with climate change.GlossaryviiUrban	heat	island	effect: higher temperatures in urban areas due to a combination of human activities and low albedo surfaces.View cone: a City-defined view from a particular location, which can restrict building location and/or size.Wave runup: the vertical extent of waves above static water level as they wash up the shore.Wave setup: an increase in sea level shoreward in the wave breaking zone due to momentum transferred from breaking waves.Wind setup: an increase or decrease in sea level caused by wind stresses on the surface of the water.Glossary (cont.)viiiFigure 1.0: Introduction1. Introduction11. Introduction1.	Introduction21.1. Description	of	ProjectIn an effort to address the coming threat of climate change, the goal of this project is to use best practices from around the world to inform the design of the Northeast False Creek area of Vancouver, B.C. (herein referred to as “NEFC”). The timing of this project, corresponding with the City of Vancouver’s initial planning stages for the area, provides a rare opportunity to positively impact how the city is designed and built, with an emphasis on looking forward towards a world impacted by climate change. By addressing the future threats of sea level rise and increased stormwater management issues, the designs presented in this project aim to aid the City of Vancouver in moving into the future sustainably, by considering more than just traditional hard infrastructure when addressing water.1.2. Rationale	for	the	ProjectClimate change mitigation often takes centre stage during discussions and governmental planning. While mitigation is critical to minimising the damage caused by anthropogenic sources of climate change, we unfortunately find ourselves at the stage where mitigation is no longer sufficient. Mean global temperatures continue to increase, with 2015 cited as the hottest year on record (NASA, 2015), and with that increase comes a host of other effects. Rising sea levels, increased storm strength, changes in precipitation patterns, higher winds, and increased urban heat island effect are just a few of the challenges that face us in the coming decades. Indeed, False Creek has experienced some flooding in the recent past, and while damage was minimal, the visual of the seawall beneath the surface of the water was a jarring one, and drove home the need for adaptation plans in False Creek.Without putting concerted efforts into adapting to these threats, we are putting our cities and our lives in jeopardy. In many urban circumstances, such as Vancouver’s NEFC, avoiding the issue of sea level rise is not necessarily an option, as it is the last large open space available for development near the downtown core, and its value is too great to leave unrealised. It is therefore critical that the City approaches developing the waterfront in a mindful and intelligent way. By doing so, the effects of climate change can be addressed while still producing the social, environmental, and economic benefits that are possible through such a large endeavour.To this end, by using a hybrid approach to urban design, pulling on aspects of building design, hard infrastructure, soft infrastructure, and landscape architecture, this project seeks to address sea level rise and stormwater management in NEFC. Traditional approaches to addressing climate change typically rely solely on hard infrastructure adaptations. Evidence from affected areas like New Orleans shows that while this can be sufficient for a time, the damage can actually be much worse when that infrastructure fails. By adapting to climate change through an integrated approach, redundancy can be built into climate resiliency, and adaptation can be done proactively instead of reactively.1.	Introduction31.3. Research MethodsWhile a brief literature review regarding climate change and sea level rise was conducted and is included as background information in this document, research into existing and planned adaptation strategies formed the key focus of inquiry for this project. By looking at best practices in other jurisdictions around the world, a variety of approaches were chosen based on each specific location and land use in NEFC. Rather than implementing a single strategy (e.g.: sea barrier or sea wall), a comprehensive approach that uses a mix of interventions will not only address the issues at hand, but can do so while allowing each area of NEFC to be realised to its greatest potential.1.4. Project	DeliverablesFollowing a background section that briefly discusses climate change and its relevance to Northeast False Creek, a summary of existing and proposed case studies from around the world relating to sea level rise and stormwater management will be explored. These case studies will then be broken down by the key areas of NEFC in which they would be best suited; in several instances, a particular case study is applicable for more than one area. Using this break down, design vignettes will be presented for three potential options, showing glimpses of how those case studies might exist in NEFC. Finally, an overall design incorporating the best of those examples will be presented.1.5. Project	LimitationsIn the interest of scope for this project, some aspects of climate change were omitted from the design. While water is likely to have the greatest effect on Northeast False Creek (both from the sea and from the sky), other effects of a changing climate, such as increased temperatures, higher wind speeds, longer and more severe droughts, and species migration are all worthy of addressing at both the site and regional level. Some of these aspects are addressed generally (such as the use of drought-resistant plants in landscaping), but are not explored in the kind of detail that would be necessary for a full, comprehensive master plan.Furthermore, while aspects of the development of the western portion of NEFC (Site 6c) are included in some of the interventions, the placement, size, orientation, and architectural detailing of the buildings to be developed was left deliberately vague. The process by which these details will be determined is a complex and long-term operation involving a number of stakeholders and multiple public consultations, which is outside of the scope of this project. As such, rough shapes, locations, and sizes were included to provide context and scale to the other aspects of the design, and were based on existing City of Vancouver illustrations and documents.4Figure 2.0: Background2. Background52. Background2. Background62.1. Climate Change2.1.1. What is Climate Change?In the global scientific community, climate change is no longer a subject for debate, and is arguably the most important global issue of our time. Since measurements began, atmospheric and oceanic temperatures have increased (Figure 2.1), snow and ice levels have decreased, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and ocean have increased. Furthermore, science has shown, with ever increasing certainty, that human activity (fossil fuel use, agriculture, and land use changes) is the strongest driver of climate change (Figure 2.2), with emissions only expected to increase over time (Stocker, Qin, Plattner, Tignor, et al., 2013).The effects are already being felt around the world. According to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) released in 2013 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), each of the last three decades have been successively warmer than any 10-year time period measured since 1850 (Stocker, Qin, Plattner, Tignor, et al., 2013). There has been an increase in heat waves in some parts of the globe, while others see increased frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation. Most of the world’s major cities are located on coastlines (United Nations Environment Programme, 2015), and with ever increasing numbers of people living in urban centres, the global population at risk of oceanic events (like tsunamis and hurricanes) will continue to rise with sea levels. In the United States alone, over 120 million people, or 39% of the population, live in counties that lie along the coast (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2010).Figure 2.1: Observed change in surface temperatures 1901 - 2012Figure 2.2: Comparison of observed and simulated climate changeObservations Models using only natural forcingsModels using both natural and anthropogenic forcingsGlobal averagesLand surface Land and ocean surface Ocean heat contentOcean surfaceObserved change in surfac  temperature 1901–2012(°C) −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.52. Background72.1.2. What is Causing Climate Change?In the public eye, greenhouse gases are the best known cause of climate change. Through the greenhouse effect, gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and water vapour absorb thermal radiation reflected and emitted by the earth and re-radiate it in all directions. While much of that radiation escapes the atmosphere, some is directed back towards the earth (Figure 2.3), resulting in a net warming effect. These gases come from many sources, including transportation, livestock, concrete production, farming, flooding for hydroelectric reservoirs, and deforestation.However, as with all complex biological systems, there are multiple pathways and feedback loops at work. As global temperatures increase, glacial retreat and loss of polar ice cap area (Figure 2.4) results in a decreased albedo (reflectivity of the earth’s surface). High albedo surfaces, such as snow and ice, reflect most of the solar radiation striking them back into the atmosphere. As the snow and ice melts, it leaves behind lower albedo surfaces, such as rock and ocean, which absorb a greater proportion of solar energy as heat, thereby increasing the warming effect taking place (Figure 2.5). Similarly, a warmer planet means that permafrost, which stores an incredible amount of carbon, could begin to melt, releasing significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and leading to a warmer atmosphere.Increases in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are partially mitigated by the oceans. While superficially these mitigations appear positive, thermal expansion of the ocean Figure 2.3: The Greenhouse EffectFigure 2.4: Average Arctic Sea Ice Cover Over Time2. Background8results in higher sea levels, and carbon dioxide absorption leads to ocean acidification and subsequent threats to oceanic biodiversity.2.1.3. UncertaintiesDespite the increase in precision as global climate models are further refined, the challenge of predicting climate change persists. As more data is gathered and models are updated, scientists are able to more accurately predict certain aspects of climate change, such as temperature or precipitation changes, with greater confidence. However, the planet is a complex biogeochemical environment, and many intertwined factors are at play, some of which we do not yet fully understand. Positive feedback loops, such as the ice cover albedo loop mentioned above, can cause unpredictable changes in the global environment, which become further complicated when considered in conjunction with other feedback loops (Figure 2.6).Uncertainties also exist within the very nature of human behaviour. While jurisdictions at every level are making strides to address climate change through mitigation, the global population continues to increase, and with it the production of greenhouse gases. In an attempt to address this uncertainty, the IPCC uses several different models to describe potential future scenarios.These scenarios, known as Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP), represent different targets of radiative forcing for the year 2100 based on a large set of mitigation scenarios (Stocker, Qin, Plattner, Alexander, et al., 2013). While the technical details are not important for the scope of this project, the RCPs with the higher numbers (e.g.: RCP8.5 vs RCP2.6) represent higher Figure 2.5: Ice Cover - Albedo Feedback LoopFigure 2.6: Multiple Feedback Loops2. Background9radiative forcing, and thus a stronger greenhouse effect. RCP2.6 assumes that global greenhouse gas emissions will peak within the next decade, then begin to decline, while RCP8.5 assumes a “business as usual” scenario, where GHG emissions would continue to climb through the 21st century (Figure 2.7). Even in a scenario where emissions were fully cut immediately, atmospheric GHG concentrations and temperatures would continue to rise for a time due to the stored energy and gases in the oceans.2.1.4. Climate	Change	PredictionsDespite the uncertainties mentioned above, it is still important to attempt predictions of future climate changes in order to properly plan for adaptation and mitigation of those effects. While the IPCC and other bodies use models to attempt to predict a number of different climate change-related factors, the scope of this report only necessitates the exploration of three effects: sea level rise, temperature changes, and precipitation changes. Sea Level RiseGlobally, even the most optimistic emissions scenario (RCP2.6) predicts between 0.26 and 0.55 m of sea level rise by the end of the century, while RCP8.5 predicts a likely range between 0.45 and 0.82 m (Figure 2.8, Figure 2.9). Locally, Vancouver’s False Creek is experiencing minor ground elevation changes due to deltaic subsidence at a rate of 1 ± 0.5 mm/year, which amounts to roughly 0.1 m over a 100 year timespan (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, 2014). The provincial government has recommended that planning for sea level rise in British Columbia account for 1.0 m by the year 2100 (BC Ministry of Environment, 2013). This is reflected in the updated Flood Construction Levels (FCL) issued Figure 2.7: Predicted Atmospheric CO2-equivalent Concentrations for RCPsFigure 2.8: Predicted Change in Mean Surface Temperature and Sea Level Rise2046–2065 2081–2100Scenario Mean Likely rangec Mean Likely rangecGlobal Mean Surface  Temperature Change (°C)aRCP2.6 1.0 0.4 to 1.6 1.0 0.3 to 1.7RCP4.5 1.4 0.9 to 2.0 1.8 1.1 to 2.6RCP6.0 1.3 0.8 to 1.8 2.2 1.4 to 3.1RCP8.5 2.0 1.4 to 2.6 3.7 2.6 to 4.8Scenario Mean Likely ranged Mean Likely rangedGlobal Mean Sea Level  Rise (m)bRCP2.6 0.24 0.17 to 0.32 0.40 0.26 to 0.55RCP4.5 0.26 0.19 to 0.33 0.47 0.32 to 0.63RCP6.0 0.25 0.18 to 0.32 0.48 0.33 to 0.63RCP8.5 0.30 0.22 to 0.38 0.63 0.45 to 0.822. Background10by the City of Vancouver of 4.6 m above the Greater Vancouver Regional District datum (roughly equivalent to mean sea level) (City of Vancouver, 2014). Temperature ChangesAt the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP21 climate talks in Paris in December 2015, the goal of limiting global temperature increases to 2°C was renewed, with efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C urged (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 2015). However, depending on future GHG emissions, warming could significantly outpace the 2°C mark (Figure 2.10), further augmenting the global climate feedback loops. Precipitation ChangesGlobal precipitation predictions vary based on geographical location. Some portions of the planet are expected to receive greater annual rainfall, while others are predicted to decline (Figure 2.11). Further, the pattern of rainfall is expected to change, with shorter, more intense wet seasons and longer, drier droughts (Stocker, Qin, Plattner, Alexander, et al., 2013). While the models vary depending on the RCP used, moist mid-latitude regions (like Vancouver) are expected to receive more rainfall as the century progresses.2.1.5. Why Climate Change Needs to be Addressed in NEFCThe opportunity for development in Northeast False Creek is one that is simply too great to pass up. Such a large tract of land, especially one on the waterfront and so close to the downtown core, is too valuable to leave fallow. However, part of its value – its Figure 2.9: Predicted Global Mean Sea Level RiseFigure 2.10: Predicted Global Mean Temperature Increase0. 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100Year     RCP2.6 RCP4.5 RCP6.0 RCP8.5 Mean over2081–2100Global mean sea lev l rise42 models392542321217122. Background11location on the waterfront – is also one of its greatest threats. In its current condition, at an elevation only a few metres above sea level, NEFC is at risk of substantial flooding in the future due to a combination of stronger storms and sea level rise. Recent history has provided examples of such flooding; December 17, 2012, November 28, 2014, and March 10, 2016 all saw parts of the seawall in False Creek, Kitsilano, and elsewhere overtopped during storm surges that coincided with so called “king tides” (Figure 2.12).On the other hand, NEFC’s location on the waterfront is also one of its greatest strengths, and a source of great opportunity. By addressing climate change in such an important focal area of the city, planners, developers, and politicians can put climate change front-and-centre and make it clear that not only is it an issue worth taking on, it is an issue that must be taken on.2.1.6. Goals of Addressing Climate Change in NEFCAs discussed later in Section 5, NEFC can be effectively split into four areas, with two common themes. As such, the adaptation goals for each area are quite different.On the western side, effectively Site 6c of the False Creek North Official Development Plan, a large urban development will take centre stage, and with it an urban shoreline. The design of such an urban area necessitates the use of certain adaptation measures (e.g.: bulkhead) over others (e.g.: gentle slope). The eastern portion of NEFC (Site 9), on the other hand, presents a rare opportunity to step away from the existing hard infrastructure that defines the shoreline in False Creek. With the extension of Figure 2.11: Predicted Annual Mean Precipitation Change (2081-2100)Figure 2.12: Inundated False Creek Seawall (Nov 28, 2014)2. Background12Creekside Park in behind, a more naturalised shoreline is a perfect complement to the park, and would provide a smooth transition to the water’s edge, opening up False Creek to public access even further.Therefore, the adaptation goals for this project are also divided into two themes. For the western portion, of key importance is the reduction of risk to the future built environment, as well as the health and safety of those living in the area. The eastern half shares these same goals, with the addition of a third: establish, regenerate, and maintain healthy coastal ecosystems (USAID, 2009). These goals shape the Design Principles that follow (Section 3), which in turn form the basis for the designs chosen in this project.2. Background132.2. Northeast False Creek2.2.1. Historical Timeline of False CreekUp until the late 1800s, when European settlement of the Vancouver area began to increase significantly, the False Creek area was inhabited by the Tsleil-Waututh, Musqueam, and Squamish peoples (Donald Luxton and Associates Inc., 2013). The Creek provided abundant habitat for birds, insects, and mammals, while the natural geography provided ideal fishing grounds for the inhabitants of the area. At that time, False Creek extended east to near present-day Clark Drive, and existed as a tidal mud flat east of today’s Main Street. In addition to the tidal influences of what is now known as English Bay, numerous streams provided a source of fresh water and nutrients to False Creek (Figure 2.13).As industry increased its presence in Vancouver, so increased the demand for waterfront land. Some segments of the Creek were filled in by individual land owners (Figure 2.14), while the Flats to the east of Main Street required municipal intervention. In 1913, the Canadian Northern Railway and Great Northern Railway successfully campaigned the City (and, via a plebiscite, the residents) to fill in the False Creek Flats in, a process which began in 1915, the same year the first Georgia Viaduct was constructed. Over time, the shores of False Creek were modified by various groups to produce the topography we know today.Land was reclaimed from the Creek using a variety of materials, including fill and boulders removed from development projects in other parts of the city, scrap lumber and bricks from surrounding mills, and general industrial waste. As a result, many of the heavier Map of False Creek, Indexed Guide Map of the City of Vancouver and Suburbs, 1911, in Historical Atlas of Vancouver and the Lower Fraser Valley , page 101Figure 2.14: Map of False Creek, 1911Figure 2.13: Original False Creek ShorelineKRAP YRDNEHCLARK PARKTS BROADWAY WWEST 12 AVEEAST BROADWAYRD KRALCHOWE STVENABLES STRD LAICREMMOCSEYMOUR STP A CIF I C B LV DSMITHE STPRIOR STE X PO B LV DNELSON STTS NIAMTS NIAMKINGSWAYTERMINAL AVECORDOVA ST EWEST 2 AVEGE OR GI A  V I A D U CTDUNSMUIR STEAST 2 AVETS CEBEUQP A CI F IC B LV DFalse Creek2. Background14structures built on reclaimed land require the use of bedrock-anchored piles to maintain stability. While precise locations of toxicity are not known throughout NEFC, previous industrial land uses point to certain areas that may require cleanup or removal of toxic soils (Figure 2.15). As part of the deal between Concord Pacific (the major private landowner in the area) and the Province of British Columbia, any remediation or disposal required during the development of the land in the area falls under the jurisdiction of the provincial government (BC Ministry of Environment, 1992).Over the course of the 20th century, demand for industrial land uses near the downtown core dwindled as residential demands increased. Carried out in a series of steps, the shores of False Creek have been slowly converted to mixed use and residential neighbourhoods, including False Creek North and Southeast False Creek. The last large segment of land left for development is Northeast False Creek, the focus of this study.2.2.2. The Georgia and Dunsmuir ViaductsIn 1971, the current Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts were completed, key pieces in a planned highway system that would run through Vancouver (Donald Luxton and Associates Inc., 2013). However, significant public resistance from would-be affected residents of nearby Strathcona, Chinatown, and others halted the freeway plan, resulting in the viaducts’ out-of-place positioning in Vancouver’s structured urban fabric. Operating well below designed capacity (City of Vancouver, 2015c), and with a questionable seismic future, the City performed a number of technical studies to investigate the viability of removing the viaducts.Figure 2.15: Previous Industrial Uses in Northeast False CreekFigure 2.16: re:CONNECT WinnerFigure 2.17: re:CONNECT Honourable Mention2. Background15In 2011, a design competition was launched to reimagine the Northeast False Creek area, with or without the viaducts. Over 100 submissions were received, helping the City produce a set of Guiding Principles for the study of the Viaducts’ future viability (Figure 2.16, Figure 2.17).In 2015, the decision was made by City Council to remove the viaducts and begin a comprehensive plan for Northeast False Creek (City of Vancouver, 2015c). The planned demolition of the viaducts opens up a significant amount of land that was previously unusable, and provides a rich opportunity for development and parkland alike.2.2.3. Northeast False Creek ValueThe removal of the viaducts increases the value of the Northeast False Creek lands even further. By freeing up currently underutilised land, the City, in conjunction with other land owners in the area (the Province, Concord Pacific, PavCo, and Aquilini Development) can redistribute the current ownership of land (Figure 2.18) to improve transportation connections, increase the planned Creekside Park extension’s area, as well as allow for development of a large mixed use entertainment district on the waterfront.The value of the land also lies in what is located behind it. The NEFC area separates several Vancouver neighbourhoods from False Creek, including the Downtown Eastside, Chinatown, Gastown, Strathcona, and the Central Business District (Figure 2.19). Through proper development of the area, connections can be made allowing residents of those neighbourhoods better Figure 2.19: Vancouver NeighbourhoodsFigure 2.18: Existing NEFC Ownership2. Background16access to what is truly a city-wide amenity. The planned relocation of St. Paul’s Hospital to the False Creek Flats (City of Vancouver, 2015c) places further importance on proper transportation planning in the area.According to a 2008 OECD report, Vancouver was ranked 15th out of 136 large global port cities in terms of value of assets exposed to sea level rise (City of Vancouver, 2012a). Canada’s National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy estimated that $25 billion (2011 dollars) of real estate in British Columbia, mostly in Metro Vancouver, would be heavily impacted by a rise in sea levels of 0.28 – 0.85m by 2100, while protective measures would cost an estimated 1-2% of that value (National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 2011). A good portion of that at-risk real estate exists in and around downtown, and although measures installed in NEFC will only protect a small portion of that real estate, they can also set the standard for an integrated approach to sea level rise.While not in immediate proximity, several view corridors to various locations on the North Shore cross NEFC (Figure 2.20). Sightlines from the Cambie Street Bridge and Southeast False Creek are protected by the City’s View Protection Guidelines (City of Vancouver, 2011b), which limit the height of development in the area.False Creek itself is a valuable environmental and recreational resource. Many user groups take advantage of its calm, sheltered waters (Figure 2.21), while decades of efforts at remediating the surrounding areas have led to the return of critical species like herring and grey whales to the Creek (City of Vancouver, Figure 2.21: Recreation on False CreekFigure 2.20: Protected Downtown View Corridors2. Background172012b). However, pollution still exists in the Creek and its soils, requiring diligence during any development to prevent further contamination of the water.2.2.4. OpportunitiesWhile the main objective of this project is to address sea level rise and stormwater management in the area, there are a number of secondary environmental and social opportunities that exist in a redesign of the area.Some of the design features that can be used to address sea level rise and stormwater, such as landscaped spaces and green building surfaces, can also help to extend the cooling effect of False Creek further into the city, aiding in combating the urban heat island effect. Furthermore, soils uncovered during the development process can either be removed, remediated on site, or capped, thereby reducing the levels of pollution that affect people in the area and False Creek itself.On the social side, in its current state, the land in NEFC is extremely underutilised (Figure 2.22). Occasionally home to large events like the Olympic Pavilions or Cirque du Soleil, the space is essentially a dead zone on the waterfront right in the heart of the city. A complete redesign of the area provides a number of unique opportunities that can be incorporated into the ongoing planning process.Part of the decision to remove the Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts included a reconfiguration of the transportation network and land ownership in NEFC (City of Vancouver, 2015d). The new Pacific Boulevard and its connections to the Georgia ramp and z Hospital Transit Station Figure 2.23: Proposed changes to NEFCFigure 2.22: Existing Condition in NEFC2. Background18Prior Street, as well as the realignment of Carrall Street, allows the City to change how people move through the area by bicycle, transit, car, or on foot (Figure 2.23). The future neighbourhood will link the Central Business District of downtown with the waters of False Creek via an extension of Georgia Street to the shore. The extension of Georgia and Abbott Streets (the latter of which will act as a “high street” for businesses) will connect with the stadium area to form the core of the area’s new entertainment district. Finally, NEFC’s location on the waterfront and its future as an integral part of Vancouver’s entertainment district provide a valuable opportunity for education around sea level rise and climate change. Incorporating demonstrative climate change adaptation strategies in such a visible and well-used place will put climate change into the public eye, potentially increasing buy-in to the City’s mitigation strategies and helping the City reach its goals laid out in the Greenest City 2020 Action Plan (City of Vancouver, 2012c).2. Background19Figure 2.24: Tidal Elevation (m GD) in Vancouver During a Spring TideFigure 2.25: Measured Storm Surge, January 19742.3. Technical Background2.3.1. Water	Levels	and	Flood	Construction	LevelsWater heights are determined through the interaction of several forces: tide, storm surge, wind setup, wave setup, sea level rise, land subsidence/uplift, as well as larger processes like El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, 2014). Of these factors, only the tides are deterministic; all other factors are probabilistic and are therefore far more difficult to predict into the future.Tides in the region have a range of approximately 5.1 m and a maximum elevation of 2.0 m above Metro Vancouver’s geodetic datum (GD) (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, 2014), which is roughly equivalent to mean sea level (MSL). Tides follow cyclical patterns, with two high and two low tides occurring every day (Figure 2.24), and tides generally being higher in the winter and lower in the summer. Perigean spring tides (commonly referred to as “king tides”), where the highest high tides occur, are also cyclical, and occur when increased proximity between the moon and earth (perigee) coincides with a spring tide (when the earth, moon, and sun are in alignment) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015).Of the probabilistic factors, storm surge is generally the largest contributor to high water events in Vancouver (following only the deterministic tidal variation). Water level increases associated with storm surge typically peak under 0.5 m, but will occasionally surpass 1.0 m, and can last from hours to days (Figure 2.25). Wind setup can add up to 0.1 m in False Creek, but the topography 2. Background20of the area will typically protect it from wave setup and the associated wave runup.Based on modeling done by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants on behalf of the City of Vancouver, using assumptions of 1 m sea level rise (as recommended by the Province) (BC Ministry of Environment, 2013), a 1:500 year storm, and 0.6 m of freeboard, FCLs were recommended to be set at 4.6 m, which has since been adopted by council (City of Vancouver, 2014). Council also noted that certain large development projects, such as Northeast False Creek, provide an opportunity to increase the longer term flood resilience of those areas in anticipation of the need to further raise the FCLs in the future.Figure 2.26 shows water levels during various current and future events, as well as the new FCLs, based on topographic terrain modeling.2.3.2. Existing	Conditions	in	Northeast	False	CreekNortheast False Creek falls under the umbrella of the False Creek North Official Development Plan (City of Vancouver, 2011a) (Figure 2.27). A number of sites (6c, 7a, 7b, 8, and 9, 10, and 11) are to be affected by the development of NEFC, and are distributed amongst various land owners (Figure 2.18). Sites 6c and 9 will be the main focus of this study.The topography of NEFC is quite flat, with a short, sloped rise from sea level to the seawall pathway (Figure 2.28). Virtually all of Site 9 is at 3 or 4 m above MSL, while portions of Site 6c rise to 5 m above MSL near Rogers Arena. As such, much of the area will need to be adjusted to at least match the City’s new Flood Figure 2.26: NEFC Flood Scenariosa) Existing High Tide Level (~2m GD)b) High Tide Level + 1m SLR (~3m GD)c) High Tide Level + 1m SLR + 1m storm surge (~4m GD)d) New City of Vancouver Flood Construction Level (4.6m GD)2. Background21Figure 2.28: Northeast False Creek Contours4m3m5m5m4m5mFigure 2.27: False Creek North Official Development Plan Sub-AreasConstruction Level of 4.6 m GD.Zoning for NEFC is a Comprehensive Development District specific to North False Creek and the Southeast Granville Slopes (City of Vancouver, 1997) (Figure 2.29).Running through NEFC are critical transportation infrastructure elements for both vehicles (Figure 2.30) and cyclists (Figure 2.31) entering and exiting the downtown core, as well as limited local traffic.2. Background22Figure 2.31: Northeast False Creek Cycling NetworkHA-1CD-1(265)BCPEDCD-1(264)FC-1HA-1AM-1CD-1(378)CD-1(348)CD-1(311)BCPEDCD-1(289)CD-1(346)CD-1(379)CD-1(547)CD-1(553)CD-1BCPEDBCPED000031002115000001001114000090080070060054CD-1(415)CD-1(418)CD-1(422)BCPEDCD-1(431)CD-1(432)CD-1(454)CD-1M-2CD-1(504)CD-1(516) CD-1633CAMBIEEXPO BOULEVARD PACIFIC BOULEVARDBRIDGECAMBIE   ST.BEATTY   ST.HAMILTON   ST.SOUTHERN   ST.CENTRAL   ST.WESTERN   ST.NORTHERN   ST.NATIONAL   AVE.GEORGIA      ST.KEEFER      ST.EXPO BOULEVARDTAYLOR   ST.QUEBEC  ST.PENDER      ST.CD-1(520)CD-1(519)CD-1(349) BCPED (False Creek - North Side)The intent of this District and its two accompanying official development plans (False Creek North and Southeast Granville Slopes) is to achieve a high standard of design and development within a number of residential neighbourhoods, parks, public facilities and commercial areas on the north side of False Creek.Figure 2.29: Northeast False Creek Zoning MapFigure 3:  Existing Street NetworkFigure 2.30: Northeast False Creek Road NetworkNATIONALROBSONST GEORGECOMOXBURRARDTHURLOWHORNBYPENDERDUNSMUIRRICHARDSHOMER BEATTYSMITHEHELMCKENPACIFICLLARRAC COLUMBIACOLUMBIAYUKONASHLAURELSCOTIABRUNSWICKSPYGLASSOIRATNOQUEBECMAIN STKEEFERYELTAEH1 AVE1 AVE6 AVE5 AVE10 AVE7 AVECHARLESONSTATIONNELSONG A T NORTHEXPOPA CIFIC BLV DM I LLMAIN STREETSCIENCE WORLDOLYMPICVILLAGEBROADW AYCITY HALLFa lse   Creek 23This page intentionally left blank.24Figure 3.0: Design Principles3. Design Principles253. Design Principles3. Design Principles26This project will be based on design principles that are born of both the existing condition in NEFC, as well as the opportunities that exist for development. Each principle is viewed through the lens of climate change, with particular attention paid to sea level rise and stormwater management. The case studies and design interventions included in this report were chosen based on influences from these four design principles, which all seek to integrate the city (grey), park (green), and water (blue).These principles all, in some way, contribute to the adaptation goals mentioned above: protect the built environment and its people, and establish and maintain healthy coastal ecosystems.3. Design Principles273.1. Connection	(With	Water)3.1.1. Re-establish	the	physical	connection	with	water• Explore ways to increase the physical connection with water, allowing access for everyone• Provide educational and recreational value• Connections with water will highlight and necessitate the need for further remediation of False Creek3.1.2. Allow	for	connection	with	surrounding	neighbourhoods• Open False Creek and the Creekside Park Extension to all, not just residents of the immediate vicinity• Improve pedestrian and cyclist connections with surrounding areas to draw people in• Act as a waterfront hub to bring people together3.1.3. Connections	between	the	new	development,	the	water,	and the park• Explore how different facets of the NEFC development process can interact• Include programming to draw people from the entertainment district to the park and the water• Design and place buildings appropriately to acknowledge the transition between the downtown core, the park, and False Creek3. Design Principles283.2. Regeneration	(Of	Water)3.2.1. Cleaning stormwater and False Creek• Green building principles and sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) help to clean stormwater, thereby cleaning False Creek• Remediate on-site toxicity to reduce pollutants that reach the Creek• Restore a small part of the previous life of False Creek as a tidal wetland3.2.2. Increase habitat• Explore the use of man-made structures in the water that provide habitat for key species• Construction of a tidally-influenced wetland can increase the habitat capacity of False Creek• Choose park landscape design and species to provide urban wildlife habitat3.2.3. Increase	the	environmental,	social,	and	economic	value	of the last open waterfront downtown• Provide minimally-programmed open park space to allow for multiple creative uses by varied user groups• Restore water access in a key hub of activity• Link new buildings with the water to encourage a social and environmental connection3. Design Principles293.3. Accommodation	(Of	Water)3.3.1. Design	floodable	areas• Floodable areas can be located in both urban development and landscaped areas• Opportunity for public education during high water events• Naturalised areas that are allowed to flood may provide habitat3.3.2. Allow the sea in• Take advantage of the fact that large tracts of land provide the opportunity to change the land-sea interface• Bring water into the urban fabric to further enforce Vancouver’s coastal city image• Design accessible topographies to provide recreational and educational opportunities3.3.3. Respect the sea• Waterfront real estate commands a premium price, especially downtown• Use accommodation strategies to not only protect infrastructure, but enhance it• Develop with climate change in mind3. Design Principles303.4. Protection	(From	Water)3.4.1. Development	raised	to	match	new	FCL• Meet the recently changed provincial requirements for new buildings constructed in a flood plain• Respect established view cones, which limit height and placement of development• Develop all buildings at the same elevation to provide neighbourhood cohesion3.4.2. Deployable	and	permanent	flood	barriers• Can be placed in development area, along the urban shoreline, or integrated into the park• Temporary structures allow for typical access during most of the year• Permanent structures can protect while serving as a visible sea level rise educational tool3.4.3. Using	a	combination	of	green	and	grey	infrastructure• Sustainable building features help to alleviate stormwater management issues• Daylight stormwater creeks or swales to bring water management into the public eye• Certain green infrastructure designs have the co-benefit of creating habitat31This page intentionally left blank.32Figure 4.0: Case Studies4. Case Studies334. Case Studies34Any discussion of climate change designs would be remiss without acknowledging the work done in other jurisdictions, not only in real, on-the-ground solutions, but also through policy and design. While climate change is often seen as a “future problem,” there are examples of forward-thinking adaptations from around the world that not only deal with present-day flooding issues, but also account for future flooding scenarios.There are four main strategies used for responding to sea level rise: protect, accommodate, avoid, and retreat (Ausenco Sandwell, 2011; BC Ministry of Environment, 2013). These same strategies can also be applied to overland flooding and stormwater management.1. ProtectProtection refers to the more well-known adaptation strategies, and more often than not includes hard infrastructure like seawalls, revetments, dikes, channeling, or storm surge barriers. Soft infrastructure options like dunes, wetlands, and beachfill can also be considered protective strategies, though they have the cobenefit opportunity to introduce habitat.2. AccommodateSea level rise and stormwater accommodation involve more adaptive strategies that accept climate change and attempt to work with it. Strategies include increasing the resilience of buildings to flooding, on-site stormwater management, or allowing certain areas to accept water in order to protect others (more typical in estuarine and overland flooding scenarios).3. AvoidThe avoid strategy hinges mainly on reducing or restricting development from taking place in areas at risk of flooding. This can be done through policy, by increasing required shoreline setbacks, or by zoning waterfront properties to prevent development that could be at risk.4. RetreatRetreating involves the abandonment of currently developed/developable lands through policies like rolling easements. Easements can result in challenging legal hurdles and property acquisition costs, but some of those costs are offset by eliminating the need to build protective structures for the abandoned land.4. Case Studies  MitigationSustainable site designWater eciencyEnergy eciencyMaterials sourcing and contextIndoor air qualitySustainable constructionOperations and maintenance       Win - Win-  Green roofs-  Open green space-  Rainwater reuse-  Natural stormwater management-  Wetlands protection-  Design exibility-  Material durability-  Integrated maintenance planning AdaptationEnchanced maintenanceWetlandsElevated buildingsBarriersBeach nourishment, dunesCoastal armoringGreen roofsStructural stormwater storagePumps, sumps and catchmentsNatural stormwater managementWaterway dredgingFloating infrastuctureManaged retreatFigure 4.1: Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Climate Change354. Case StudiesWhile all four strategies are valid, and each can be useful options (or indeed the only option) in different circumstances, only the first three are applicable to NEFC. Protection is a clear option; with development happening in the area, it will need to be sheltered from rising seas. Accommodation is also an option, through flood-resilient designs. While there are other more important factors at play, the restriction of buildings to just the 6c site and not site 9 (where the Creekside Park Extension will be) can be seen as a type of avoidance, as the park will not require the same types of protection as land with buildings would. Retreat is the only strategy not applicable to NEFC. Due in part to the economic realities of the area and its owners, as well as the City’s need for additional commercial and residential spaces near the downtown core, a development plan is underway for the area.With those points in mind, the case studies explored below provide examples of what other jurisdictions have done to address sea level rise and stormwater management issues.4.1. Case Studies - Hard Infrastructure 2.  4.1. Case Studies - Hard Infrastructure364.1.1. St. Paul Airport Flood WallSt. Paul, MinnesotaAfter repeated flooding of the airport by the Mississippi River, a removable flood wall was installed on the airport grounds that prevents damage to critical infrastructure during flood events. Once flood water recedes, the flood wall can be removed, allowing full operation of the airport and its runways.4.1.2. Riverdike	RotterdamRotterdam, NetherlandsWhile dikes are exceptionally common in The Netherlands, the Dutch have started to look at them as more than just a barrier to exclude water. The Riverdike Rotterdam is a series of proposed designs for adjusting dikes along the river Maas in Rotterdam. These designs take the dikes beyond barriers and see them as opportunities to allow development closer to the water, provide public space, and even integrate transportation infrastructure.Figure 4.2: St. Paul Airport Flood WallFigure 4.3: Riverdike Rotterdam4.1. Case Studies - Hard Infrastructure374.1.4. KAMANAVA Area Flood Control and Drainage SystemKAMANAVA, Metro Manila, PhilippinesFrequent flooding during heavy rains, storm surges, high winds, and high river levels necessitates a varied flood management system in the KAMANAVA area of Manila. Employing flood walls, pumps, and dikes, as well as improving drainage and flow for rivers, all help to reduce both marine and riverine flooding in the region.4.1.3. Maeslant Barrier (Maeslantkering)Hoek van Holland, NetherlandsOne of the largest moving structures on Earth, the Maeslantkering is a movable storm surge barrier that sits at the mouth of the river Maas, where it protects most of Europe’s largest port in Rotterdam, as well as many other communities along the river and its tributaries. Controlled by computer, the barrier is automatically closed when storm surges of greater than 3.0 m are detected in the North Sea.Figure 4.4: Maeslant Barrier (Maeslantkering)Figure 4.5: KAMANAVA Area Flood Control and Drainage System 2.  4.1. Case Studies - Hard Infrastructure384.1.5. Los	Angeles	RiverLos Angeles, CaliforniaFollowing frequent and devastating flooding in the early 20th century, the Los Angeles River (and several of its tributaries) had its banks encased in concrete to reduce flooding by allowing swift flow along a fixed concourse.4.1.6. Richmond DikesRichmond, BCMuch of Lulu Island, upon which the City of Richmond rests, is near or even below sea level. As such, the island is completely encircled in dikes to prevent flooding, both from storms and high tides to the west, but also from riverine flooding during high tide and freshet events.Figure 4.6: Los Angeles RiverFigure 4.7: Richmond Dikes4.1. Case Studies - Hard Infrastructure394.1.7. Vancouver SeawallVancouver, British ColumbiaWhile images of walking or cycling are typically invoked when Vancouver’s seawall is mentioned, its core intention was to prevent erosion of parts of Stanley Park due to waves generated by ships entering Vancouver Harbour. Now, despite its height relative to mean sea level, it is frequently overtopped in some areas.4.1.8. HafenCityHamburg, GermanyAn industrial brownfield on an island in the Elbe River, HafenCity lies outside of the dikes that protect greater Hamburg from river floods. Rather than dealing with the high up-front costs of raising floodwalls or dikes to protect the new development, the buildings and streets themselves were either raised above flood levels on compacted foundations called warfts or constructed with flood-resilient materials.4.2. Case Studies - Soft	InfrastructureFigure 4.8: Vancouver SeawallFigure 4.9: HafenCity4.2. Case Studies - Soft Infrastructure404.2.1. Qunli Stormwater ParkHaerbin City, ChinaOriginally isolated on all four sides by roads and development, the wetland had been cut off from its water sources, and was therefore under threat. The new park was designed to not only restore the wetland in a very urban environment, but allow it to fulfill a stormwater treatment and management role while providing valuable public space and amenity.4.2.2. Staten Island BluebeltStaten Island, New YorkServicing 16 watersheds over a large area of Staten Island, the Bluebelt was used to address drainage and stormwater management issues in a sensitive ecological area. Rather than upgrading to larger diameter traditional grey infrastructure, a best practices approach was used that integrated the existing traditional infrastructure with green infrastructure, such as wetlands, retention ponds, and natural channels, resulting in cost savings.Figure 4.10: Qunli Stormwater ParkFigure 4.11: Staten Island Bluebelt4.2. Case Studies - Soft Infrastructure414.2.3. Alewife	Reservation	Stormwater WetlandCambridge, MassachusettsDuring heavy storms, the area’s stream was often flooded and polluted by combined sewer overflows (CSOs). Located in ecologically valuable land, the construction of common detention basins to address sewer overflows was not possible. Therefore, a wetland was developed to not only treat and slow water from storm events, but also provide natural public amenity in a dense, urban area.4.2.4. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)London, EnglandCovering a wide range of sustainable techniques, SUDS help to slow and clean stormwater to improve infiltration, reduce contaminants, and alleviate pressure on traditional stormwater management infrastructure. Examples of options under the SUDS umbrella include: bioswales, infiltration and detention ponds, green roofs, permeable/porous surfaces, rain gardens, and enhanced tree pits.Figure 4.12: Alewife Reservation Stormwater WetlandFigure 4.13: Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)4.2. Case Studies - Soft Infrastructure424.2.5. Alumnae	Valley	RestorationWellesley College, MassachusettsConverting a former parking lot with identified toxic soils, cut-and-fill was used to change the topography of the site. Some areas of contamination were capped, some soils were moved off-site for treatment, and some others, where appropriate, were left in place to allow on-site bioremediation through the use of swales, a wetland, and infiltration basins. The new site also provides valuable open space and public realm amenities.4.2.6. Heron’s Head ParkSan Francisco, CaliforniaOnce a fill site and abandoned extension of the Port of San Francisco, a saltwater wetland started to emerge naturally in the absence of human influence. The wetland was strengthened through the removal of debris and creation of a circulation-enhancing tidal channel. Today, the park features recreational and educational programming, and serves as an example of a successful saltwater wetland in an urban environment.4.3. Case	Studies	-	Combination	of	Hard	and	Soft	InfrastructureFigure 4.14: Alumnae Valley RestorationFigure 4.15: Heron’s Head Park4.3. Case Studies - Combined Infrastructure434.3.1. Tåsinge PladsCopenhagen, DenmarkA combination of plantings, which absorb and evapotranspirate water, and large underground storage tanks, which hold water until the storm has passed and allow it to enter the stormwater system slowly, help to spread out the peak of water entering the city’s traditional infrastructure, thereby reducing flooding. The installation of green infrastructure cost about half of functionally equivalent grey infrastructure.4.3.2. The BIG UNew York, New YorkA submission to a design competition looking at protecting New York from damage due to storms like Hurricane Sandy, the BIG U integrates a number of different approaches to flood protection. Taking into consideration site-specific characteristics, the BIG U calls for arrangements of deployable flood walls, landscape-integrated berms, waterproofed buildings, and green infrastructure to deal with each location’s particular requirements.Figure 4.16: Tåsinge PladsFigure 4.17: The BIG U4.3. Case Studies - Combined Infrastructure444.3.3. San	Dieguito	LagoonSan Diego, CaliforniaThe restoration of the San Dieguito Lagoon re-established the lost connection between the freshwater source of the lagoon and the tidal and flushing influences of the ocean. Linked with the project was the restoration of 150 acres of surrounding marsh and wetlands, which not only serve as valuable habitat, but also help to improve water quality in the watershed.4.3.4. Shanghai Houtan ParkShanghai, ChinaTrapped between the polluted Huangpu River and an urban expressway, Shanghai Houtan Park is a former industrial site and landfill. Using the principles of regenerative design, the site now provides valuable recreational and educational services, while treating contaminated water with hard infrastructure like cascades and terraces, as well as through the selection of wetland plants capable of removing different pollutants from the water.Figure 4.18: San Dieguito LagoonFigure 4.19: Shanghai Houtan Park4.3. Case Studies - Combined Infrastructure454.3.5. Integrated	Flood	Protection	SystemNew York, New YorkWhile not a specific case study, the PlaNYC report issued following Hurricane Sandy notes that integrated flood protection systems would be well-suited to a number of areas of New York that are at risk of flooding from similar events. These systems are site-specific, and employ a combination of floodable areas, floodwalls, terraced berms, flood-proofed buildings, and flood valves and gates.4.3.6. Bo01 DevelopmentMalmo, SwedenBo01 is a large development project on an industrial brownfield on the shore of the Baltic Sea. By moving contaminated fill around the site, the developers were able to create new topographies to allow gravity drainage of stormwater. In addition to several sustainable design elements incorporated into the buildings, on-site stormwater treatment is visibly integrated into the design of the development through the use of channels in front of each set of buildings.Figure 4.20: Integrated Flood Protection SystemFigure 4.21: Bo01 Development4.4. Case	Studies	-	Building-Level	Infrastructure4.4. Case Studies - Building Infrastructure464.4.1. Cuisinart Center for Culinary ExcellenceProvidence, Rhode IslandPartially built on stilts with a “sacrificial” first floor constructed with flood-resilient materials, the building is designed to withstand storm surge by allowing water through, rather than attempting to brace itself against the pressure. Electrical outlets, wiring, and key mechanical infrastructure are raised above anticipated flood levels to reduce damage during a high water event.4.4.2. Burnham HallLincoln, VermontFollowing significant damage due to flooding, rather than relocating the building to an area not susceptible to flooding, the building was retrofitted to withstand flooding. Temporary watertight barriers, sealed building envelope penetrations, septic backflow prevention valves, hydrostatic pressure valves, and sump pumps were installed in the existing structure. A subsequent flood proved the retrofit to be successful, and only minor cleanup was required.Figure 4.22: Cuisinart Center for Culinary ExcellenceFigure 4.23: Burnham Hall4.4. Case Studies - Building Infrastructure474.4.3. FloatyardCharlestown, MassachusettsStill in the design phase, this project by Perkins + Will gives an example of a multi-family residential designed to float, thereby extending the potential for residential development beyond the land’s edge while being adaptable to changing water levels.4.4.4. Olympic VillageVancouver, BCConstructed as housing for athletes during the 2010 Olympics, the Olympic Village was designed with a number of sustainable features, including extensive and semi-intensive green roofs covering 50% of the roof area, along with nearby bioswales and natural wetlands that help with stormwater management.Figure 4.24: FloatyardFigure 4.25: Olympic Village48Figure 5.0: Applying the Case Studies to Northeast False Creek5. Applying the Case Studies to Northeast False Creek495. Applying the Case Studies to NEFC50The design potential for Northeast False Creek can be split into four areas. For the purposes of this work, the focus will be on the interface of NEFC with water, but it is worth noting that other aspects of climate change (such as temperature increases or changes in wind strengths), while outside the scope of this project, should also be considered and addressed during the design of the neighbourhood.1. Development 2. Creekside Park3. Urban Shoreline 4. Naturalised ShorelineThe case studies explored earlier are each applicable to one or more parts of NEFC, and are broken down by area below, along with potential applications. The relevant Design Principles from Section 3 are also highlighted for each case study.5. Applying the Case Studies to NEFC5.1.	Applications	-	Development	515.1. Applications	-	Development1. Development 2. Creekside Park3. Urban Shoreline 4. Naturalised ShorelineHafenCity Sustainable Drainage SystemsOne of the most obvious options when considering developing a large area close to sea level, raising the land will protect the development from flooding due to storm surge and sea level rise. Fill generated from the excavation of underground parking can be used to alter the contours in the area to meet the FCL, and given the unknown and potentially seismically unstable ground in the area, using a similar technique to the warfts used in HafenCity would be prudent.While developing the area will, if anything, slightly increase the surface permeability through green roofs and landscaping, it is important that these techniques are used in an integrated fashion to make the most of their benefits.Linking green roofs and stormwater runoff to on-the-ground systems such as bioswales and enhanced tree pits can help to improve the water quality of stormwater that will eventually enter False Creek, either through the stormwater sewer or through other means.St. Paul Airport Flood WallDuring particularly high water events, a deployable floodwall could be included as a part of an integrated system of flood management in the area of development. In combination with flood resilient buildings, a floodwall would prevent water from moving into the development and causing damage or rendering the area unusable.Figure 5.1: St. Paul Airport Flood Wall Figure 5.2: HafenCity Figure 5.3: Sustainable Drainage Systems 5.1.	Applications	-	Development	521. Development 2. Creekside Park3. Urban Shoreline 4. Naturalised ShorelineBo01 Tåsinge PladsSeveral aspects of Bo01 are similar to the area of development planned for NEFC. Both industrial brownfields are in areas potentially susceptible to flooding, and are large areas of land in an urban setting to be developed as one project. This last point provides the greatest opportunity, in that buildings can be shaped and oriented with respect to the public realm to allow for integration of on-the-ground stormwater features like those seen in Bo01.Another example of surface-level stormwater management, the features used in Tåsinge Plads could be used in the public spaces surrounding the new development in the NEFC area to manage stormwater on site before being discharged into False Creek. The visibility of such features helps to keep the public mindful of water management.The BIG UThe BIG U provides a number of different potential options for exploration in NEFC. In the area that will see development, options include flood-resilient/waterproof buildings and deployable flood walls to help reduce flood related damage during high water events. By integrating flood protection directly into the buildings, they can potentially be built closer to mean sea level, and thus require less fill to increase the elevation.Figure 5.4: Bo01 Figure 5.5: Tåsinge Plads Figure 5.6: The BIG U5.1.	Applications	-	Development	531. Development 2. Creekside Park3. Urban Shoreline 4. Naturalised ShorelineCuisinart Center for Culinary Excellence Burnham Hall Olympic VillageWhile it is not expected that the structures built in NEFC will be under immediate threat of flooding, it is possible that during the life of the building it could face flooding due to sea level rise and storm surge. Using the Cuisinart Center as an example, buildings in the area could be constructed so as to reduce pressures on the structure from flooding, such as by having breakaway panels and glass on the first floor. Maintaining non-residential uses on the ground floor will reduce protective requirements.Another alternative to protecting the structures built in the area can be drawn from Burnham Hall, where deployable protection could be installed during anticipated high water times. These features, combined with sealed building envelope penetrations, would help to minimise the damage done by flooding.The sustainable design features of the Olympic Village would prove just as suitable for development across the water in NEFC. Aspects like extensive and intensive green roofs, along with associated bioswales, could help with stormwater management, as well as provide valuable green space in a large urban development.Figure 5.7: Cuisinart Center for Culinary Excellence Figure 5.8: Burnham Hall Figure 5.9: Olympic Village5.2.	Applications	-	Creekside	Park541. Development 2. Creekside Park3. Urban Shoreline 4. Naturalised ShorelineRiverdike Rotterdam KAMANAVA Flood Control SystemWhile dikes are typically seen as linear mounds used to protect infrastructure behind them, this is not necessarily the best form in all circumstances. Given the potential flooding threat from False Creek, the public space of Creekside Park could be used to hide a dike within its landscaping to protect the new Pacific Boulevard and any other low-lying infrastructure to the north and east of the park.The system employed in KAMANAVA includes some features that would not necessarily be appropriate in NEFC; however, its inclusion of flood walls, pumps, and dikes warrant exploration here in Vancouver. Using a combination of these features, integrated into the park itself, could help to reduce flooding damage to infrastructure behind the park.St. Paul Airport Flood WallDuring particularly high water events, a deployable floodwall could be included as a part of an integrated system of flood management in Creekside Park. In combination with modified topography and berms, a floodwall could prevent water from moving along lower elevation portions of the park like pathways or ditches.5.2. Applications	-	Creekside	ParkFigure 5.10: St. Paul Airport Wall Figure 5.11: Riverdike Rotterdam Figure 5.12: KAMANAVA Flood Control System5.2.	Applications	-	Creekside	Park551. Development 2. Creekside Park3. Urban Shoreline 4. Naturalised ShorelineAlumnae Valley RestorationFill excavated from the development site to create underground parking can be used to modify the topography of the new Creekside Park extension. Similarly, the soil from the park itself can be moved around to create interesting features, but given the unknown nature and likely toxicity of soils in the area, soils will either need to be capped, taken off-site for treatment, or held in place for on-site bioremediation. The former is the more cost-effective of the options; however, on-site bioremediation can provide a valuable educational opportunity.Staten Island BluebeltAnother example of moving water through an urban environment, the Bluebelt is an excellent case study in dealing with water using green infrastructure like wetlands and retention ponds. The Bluebelt has also shown these green infrastructure options to be more cost-effective than traditional grey infrastructure, and produce better water quality at discharge from the system, which would further help clean up False Creek if a similar program were implemented to deal with the stormwater from the City-owned properties.Los Angeles RiverThe use of the City-owned properties between Quebec and Main Streets to the northeast of the new Creekside Park will create additional impervious surfaces, thereby requiring stormwater management. One potential method of dealing with this stormwater would be to keep it visible on the surface rather than running it through underground grey infrastructure. While the channeled-concrete design is not visually appealing, it serves as an example of moving water on the surface through an urban environment to its eventual discharge point.Figure 5.13: Los Angeles River Figure 5.14: Staten Island Bluebelt Figure 5.15: Alumnae Valley Restoration5.2.	Applications	-	Creekside	Park561. Development 2. Creekside Park3. Urban Shoreline 4. Naturalised ShorelineIntegrated Flood Protection SystemThe Creekside Park extension could serve as a piece of an integrated flood protection system for NEFC. By incorporating floodable areas, landscaped berms, and deployable floodwalls within the park, the buildings and infrastructure behind the park would be protected from temporary flooding due to sea level rise and storm surge.San Dieguito LagoonThe San Dieguito Lagoon project serves as an example of not only enhancing a watershed, but also connecting that waterway to tidal influences via the lagoon and wetlands. Lessons learned in this project would be helpful for installing a similar waterway to connect the City-owned properties with False Creek.The BIG UThe Berms in the Battery portion of The BIG U design is an excellent case study for NEFC. While the value of infrastructure protected around Creekside Park is much lower than that of lower Manhattan, using parks and landscaping to protect while providing interesting and engaging public spaces is a far more elegant solution than a typical dike or seawall.Figure 5.16: The BIG U Figure 5.17: San Dieguito Lagoon Figure 5.18: Integrated Flood Protection System5.3.	Applications	-	Urban	Shoreline571. Development 2. Creekside Park3. Urban Shoreline 4. Naturalised ShorelineSt. Paul Airport Flood Wall Maeslant BarrierTypical sea barriers also create barriers between people and the water. A deployable, temporary flood wall such as the one used at the St. Paul Airport could help to alleviate the disconnect between people and the shoreline by only being installed during times of dangerously high water.The Maeslant Barrier is an example of one large piece of infrastructure protecting a large land base. One of the options put forward by the Province of British Columbia in their report was the installation of a barrier near the Burrard Street Bridge, which would be closed during storm events. While not located within NEFC, its installation would affect NEFC and its need for protection through other means.5.3. Applications	-	Urban	ShorelineLos Angeles RiverWhile the volume of water moving through the site would not nearly match that of the river in the case study, there will be significant stormwater moving not only from the new development in NEFC, but also potentially from other lands in the surrounding area. Bringing that stormwater to the surface would serve to bring it into the public eye as it makes its way to False Creek.Figure 5.19: St. Paul Airport Wall Figure 5.20: Maeslant Barrier Figure 5.21: Los Angeles River5.3.	Applications	-	Urban	Shoreline58Richmond Dikes Vancouver SeawallThe dikes in Richmond are typically and purposefully more rural in nature, but their chief purpose does not change: prevent the ocean from encroaching on valuable land and infrastructure. A critical component of dikes is the height-to-width ratio, so installation of a dike in this portion of NEFC would likely require reclamation of land from False Creek but could add habitat value.Perhaps the most obvious choice is to simply keep or raise the existing seawall along NEFC. Past flooding in False Creek during storm surges has shown that the existing height is insufficient, and raising the seawall risks further disconnecting the public from the water’s edge.1. Development 2. Creekside Park3. Urban Shoreline 4. Naturalised ShorelineHafenCityIn addition to the raised buildings themselves, the streets in HafenCity were raised above flood levels. However, the water-facing public spaces were kept at the original elevation to preserve access to the waterfront. A similar concept employed in NEFC, perhaps with stepped levels leading from the water to the development area, could ensure water access was still possible, while still protecting the buildings behind.Figure 5.22: Richmond Dikes Figure 5.23: Vancouver Seawall Figure 5.24: HafenCity5.3.	Applications	-	Urban	Shoreline59The BIG UIn addition to its green infrastructure and landscaped berms, The BIG U also incorporates more urban protection mechanisms into its design, including deployable floodwalls, bulkheads, terraced concrete berms, and flood-proof waterfront structures.1. Development 2. Creekside Park3. Urban Shoreline 4. Naturalised ShorelineIntegrated Flood Protection System FloatyardThe urban shoreline portion of NEFC is perhaps best suited for an integrated flood protection system. Combinations of bulkheads, floodable areas, berms, floodwalls (both permanent and temporary), as well as infrastructure to deal with any water that collects from heavy rainfall and stormwater runoff, would help to protect the development behind the shoreline.Extending the potential for residential and/or commercial uses out onto the water (without the necessity of adding fill to False Creek) could add life and amenity to the shoreline, while not being out of place amongst the numerous boat moorages that dot the area.Figure 5.25: The BIG U Figure 5.26: Integrated Flood Protection System Figure 5.27: Floatyard5.4.	Applications	-	Naturalised	Shoreline601. Development 2. Creekside Park3. Urban Shoreline 4. Naturalised ShorelineRichmond Dikes Qunli Stormwater Park Alewife Reservation Stormwater WetlandAs noted above, the dikes in Richmond serve as examples of more rurally-designed flood management. However, their chief purpose remains to prevent the ocean from encroaching on valuable land and infrastructure. A critical component of dikes is the height-to-width ratio, so installation of a dike in this portion of NEFC would either require reclamation of land from False Creek or be incorporated into the adjacent park. Dikes can also affect views and water access.The Qunli Stormwater Park is an excellent case study showing a functional stormwater wetland that receives water only from developed urban sources. The park was designed not only to treat stormwater on site, but to provide educational and recreational opportunities in an urban environment.A stormwater-fed wetland in an urban setting, the Alewife Reservation wetland is capable of handling sewer overflows through natural processes and provides a valuable public amenity and critical habitat in a heavily populated metropolitan region.5.4. Applications	-	Naturalised	ShorelineFigure 5.28: Richmond Dikes Figure 5.29: Qunli Stormwater Park Figure 5.30: Alewife Reservation Stormwater Wetland5.4.	Applications	-	Naturalised	Shoreline611. Development 2. Creekside Park3. Urban Shoreline 4. Naturalised ShorelineHeron’s Head Park San Dieguito Lagoon Shanghai Houtan ParkA saltwater wetland located in an industrial, urban setting, Heron’s Head Park has shown that not only can a wetland exist in such a setting, but that it can happen naturally and flourish while providing valuable recreational and educational opportunities.Another example of wetlands that can flourish in former industrial sites containing latent contamination, Shanghai Houtan Park combines bioremediation with recreation and education, and helps to draw people to an area that might otherwise be empty.The establishment of a tidally influenced channel, along with stormwater-fed wetlands, has improved water quality, generated habitat, and reduced the reliance on traditional stormwater infrastructure for the neighbourhood.Figure 5.31: Heron’s Head Park Figure 5.32: San Dieguito Lagoon Figure 5.33: Shanghai Houtan Park62Figure 6.0: Design Vignettes6. Design	Vignettes636. Design Vignettes6.	Design	Vignettes64Looking at the case studies that were applied to each of the four portions of Northeast False Creek, what follows are three design vignettes for each area, further exploring some of the concepts outlined above in Section 5. The vignettes provide a visual representation of how those ideas might be applied, along with a brief analysis of the pros and cons of each idea, which will lead into the final design. Also displayed are the Design Principles that apply to each of the vignettes.6.1.	Design	Vignettes	-	Development656.1.1. Deployable Flood BarrierPros• Temporary aspect keeps access to waterfront during low water• Can be set up and taken down quicklyCons• Exposes buildings to potential water damage• Ongoing assembly/disassembly costs during flood events• May require pumping to remove seepage6.1. Design	Vignettes	-	DevelopmentFigure 6.1: Deployable Flood Barrier6.1.	Design	Vignettes	-	Development666.1.2. Flood Resilient BuildingsPros• Reduce the costs to raise buildings above flood level• Protects buildings while keeping them closer to the waterCons• Raised floors reduce usable building height• May require other concurrent flood resistant mechanisms (e.g.: flood wall)Figure 6.2: Flood Resilient Buildings6.1.	Design	Vignettes	-	Development676.1.3. Sustainable Drainage SystemsPros• On-site stormwater management• Green spaces in urban environment• Reduction of building energy requirements• Costs can be offset by subsidiesCons• Extra structural load may require increased building strength• Green walls take up possible valuable glazing opportunitiesFigure 6.3: Sustainable Drainage Systems6.2.	Design	Vignettes	-	Creekside	Park68Pros• Integrating dike into park eliminates visual and mental barrier from water• Gentle seaside slope allows access for all ages and abilities to False CreekCons• Saline flooding during high water events could damage park and/or landscaping• Requires fill to create topography6.2. Design	Vignettes	-	Creekside Park6.2.1. Integrated DikeFigure 6.4: Integrated Dike6.2.	Design	Vignettes	-	Creekside	Park696.2.2. Accessible Stormwater ChannelPros• Daylights stormwater• Can connect to infrastructure from City properties to be developed• Provides habitat and recreation• Can help remediate latent toxicityCons• Requires fill to create topography• Ongoing maintenance may be requiredFigure 6.5: Accessible Stormwater Channel6.2.	Design	Vignettes	-	Creekside	Park706.2.3. Deployable Flood BarrierPros• Temporary aspect keeps access to waterfront during low water• Can be set up and taken down quicklyCons• Exposes buildings and park to potential water damage on seaward side• Ongoing assembly/disassembly costs during flood events• May require pumping to remove seepageFigure 6.6: Deployable Flood Barrier6.3.	Design	Vignettes	-	Urban	Shoreline716.3.1. Raised Seawall6.3. Design	Vignettes	-	Urban	ShorelinePros• Raised development protects from flooding• All development at equal elevation, maintaining uniform public experience• Access to water via strampCons• Creates more hard surfaces• Puts bulk of public experience even further from the waterFigure 6.7: Raised Seawall6.3.	Design	Vignettes	-	Urban	Shoreline726.3.2. Integrated	Flood	Protection	SystemPros• Buildings situated behind multiple steps of protection• Allowing flooding of pathways brings sea level rise into public eyeCons• Saltwater flooding can cause damage to surfaces• Seawall pathway unusable during periods of high water• Barrier to False Creek still in placeFigure 6.8: Integrated Flood Protection System6.3.	Design	Vignettes	-	Urban	Shoreline73Figure 6.9: Floating Buildings6.3.3. Floating	BuildingsPros• Adding commercial space without reclaiming land from False Creek• Showcasing a new type of construction for VancouverCons• Likely to be very expensive due to highly desirable location• Requires new policy to permit such buildings6.4.	Design	Vignettes	-	Natural	Shoreline746.4. Design	Vignettes	-	Naturalised Shoreline6.4.1. BeachPros• Draws people down to the water• Provides only beach location for ~3km (Sunset Beach)Cons• Does not add habitat value or help to clean up False Creek• Requires land reclamation from False CreekFigure 6.10: Beach6.4.	Design	Vignettes	-	Natural	Shoreline75Figure 6.11: Waterfront ParkPros• Raised seawall reduces risk of flooding• Landscaped dike can provide habitat• More ecologically beneficial than traditional hardscapeCons• Slope (1:3) to water is not fully accessible• Raising only the seawall creates a barrier between the park and water• May require land reclamation from False Creek6.4.2. Waterfront Park6.4.	Design	Vignettes	-	Natural	Shoreline766.4.3. WetlandPros• Significant habitat value opportunity• Connection to and cleaning of stormwater• Recreation and educational opportunitiesCons• Does not provide a barrier to ocean flooding• Can be challenging to maintain• Requires land reclamation from False CreekFigure 6.12: Wetland77This page intentionally left blank.78Figure 7.0: Overall Design7. Overall Design797. Overall Design807. Overall DesignFollowing the case studies and vignettes above, a mixture of features and properties from suitable concepts were combined into the final design presented below. Decisions were made through the lens of not only protecting and future-proofing the NEFC area against the effects of climate change, but aimed to do so while providing valuable social and environmental benefits to the area, its residents, and to the city at large. These decisions were aided by the Design Principles put forward in Section 3.7. Overall Design7. Overall Design81Figure 7.1: Northeast False Creek Site Plan7.1. Northeast False Creek Site PlanNFloating Structures Georgia Promenade Urban/Park Transition Creekside WetlandCreekside Park ExtensionCarrall Street GreenwayNew Developed Area Dunsmuir Connector827. Overall Design7.2. New Development Area - Overview• Large mixed use development project• Home of the city’s new “entertainment district”• Topography raised to 4.8 m above MSL (predicted 1:10,000 year storm level in 2100)• Includes Abbott St. “high street” and Georgia promenadeFigure 7.2: New Development Area - Overview7. Overall Design83Figure 7.3: New Development Area - Cross Section7.2.	 New	Development	Area	-	Cross	Section• Sustainable drainage system (SUDS) connected to cistern for irrigation water during drought• Overflow from SUDS released into False Creek• Stepped integrated flood protection allows flooding of lower levels during high water events, but maintains usability at higher levels• Stramp provides water level access and a place to sit847. Overall Design7.2. New Development Area - Georgia Promenade• Georgia Promenade adds public space out over the water, and wrapped pilings provide herring spawning habitat• Visual sightlines up and down Georgia connect the Central Business District and Entertainment District with False Creek via the Promenade• Stramp provides water level access and a place to sitFigure 7.4: New Development Area - Georgia Promenade7. Overall Design85Figure 7.5: Protected Views - Olympic Village Plaza• View from Olympic Village Plaza on the south shore of False Creek• City of Vancouver View Cone H1 (Grouse Mountain and the North Shore)7.3. Protected Views - Olympic Village Plaza867. Overall Design• View from Olympic Shipyard Pier on the south shore of False Creek• City of Vancouver View Cone C1 (North Shore Mountains)7.3. Protected Views - Olympic Shipyard PierFigure 7.6: Protected Views - Olympic Shipyard Pier7. Overall Design87Figure 7.7: Creekside Park - Overview7.4. Creekside Park - Overview• Multiple pathways provide options for moving through the park• Northern most path elevates and connects with the Dunsmuir Connector to provide access to the downtown escarpment for pedestrians and cyclists• Carrall Street realignment directly connects Andy Livingston park and the communities beyond with False Creek887. Overall Design7.4. Creekside Park - New Topography• Altered topography through cut-and-fill• Subtle amphitheatre shape allows for staging of outdoor concerts and other public events• Space for public art installations to transition users between park and urban fabric to the westFigure 7.8: Creekside Park - New Topography7. Overall Design89Figure 7.9: Creekside Park - Carrall Street Realignment7.4. Creekside Park - Carrall Street Realignment• Carrall Street realigned and reconfigured to act as a greenway• Connections to Andy Livingston park and the communities beyond• New park slope helps to hide the Skytrain guideway, while allowing for access to the downtown escarpment via the new Dunsmuir Connector907. Overall Design7.4. Creekside Park - Stormwater Channel• Naturalised channel connects stormwater infrastructure from northeast of the park (including the to-be-vacated City lands currently occupied by the viaducts)• An inland extension of the coastal wetland, the channel is cut to allow tidal flushing• Gentle slopes into the channel provide all-abilities access for education and recreation• Appropriate selection of plant species can accommodate saline flooding and extended dry periodsFigure 7.10: Creekside Park - Stormwater Channel7. Overall Design91Figure 7.11: Creekside Park - Stormwater Channel (High Tide + Storm Surge)7.4. Creekside Park - Stormwater Channel (High Tide + Storm Surge)• Channel topography allows entry of water into the fabric of the city during high water events• Water level displayed: high tide (+2 m MSL) and storm surge (+1 m MSL)927. Overall Design7.4. Creekside Park - Stormwater Channel (Floodwall Installed)• Channel topography allows entry of water into the fabric of the city during high water events• During water levels that could cause damage, floodwalls can be deployed• Water level displayed: high tide (+2 m MSL) and storm surge (+1 m MSL)Figure 7.12: Creekside Park - Stormwater Channel (Floodwall Installed)7. Overall Design93Figure 7.13: Creekside Wetland (Mean Sea Level)• Installation of saltwater wetland at the mouth of the stormwater channel provides further filtration and cleaning of stormwater• Tidally-influenced wetland provides various types of habitat• Gentle slopes from park allow all-abilities access for education and recreation• Appropriately contaminated fill could be introduced to allow for on-site remediation• Water level displayed: mean sea level7.5. Creekside	Wetland	(Mean	Sea	Level)947. Overall Design• Water level displayed: +1 m MSL7.5.	 Creekside	Wetland	(MSL	+1	m)Figure 7.14: Creekside Wetland (MSL +1 m)7. Overall Design95Figure 7.15: Creekside Wetland (MSL +2 m)• Water level displayed: +2 m MSL (high tide)7.5.	 Creekside	Wetland	(MSL	+2	m)967. Overall Design• Water level displayed: +3 m MSL (high tide +1 m sea level rise)7.5.	 Creekside	Wetland	(MSL	+3	m)Figure 7.16: Creekside Wetland (MSL +3 m)7. Overall Design97Figure 7.17: Creekside Wetland (MSL +4 m)• Water level displayed: +4 m MSL (high tide +1 m sea level rise + 1 m storm surge)• Topography and floodwall protects the park and the infrastructure behind from over 4 m above current mean sea level, the estimated 1:500 year storm in 21007.5.	 Creekside	Wetland	(MSL	+4	m)987. Overall Design7.6. Movement	Map	(Existing)    Pedestrian movement    Cyclist movement    Vehicular movementN• Existing transportation infrastructure has movement mostly taking place along the periphery of Northeast False CreekFigure 7.18: Movement Map (Existing)7. Overall Design99Figure 7.19: Movement Map (Proposed)7.7. Movement Map (Proposed)    Pedestrian movement    Cyclist movement    Dunsmuir Connector    Vehicular movementN• New transportation infrastructure keeps vehicular movement to the periphery of NEFC while allowing permeation of pedestrians and cyclists into the site• New connections provide ready access to False Creek from multiple directions and neighbourhoods1007. Overall DesignFigure 7.20: Flood Patterns (Existing)a) Existing High Tide Level (~2m GD) b) High Tide Level + 1m SLR (~3m GD)c) High Tide Level + 1m SLR + 1m storm surge (~4m GD) d) New City of Vancouver Flood Construction Level (4.6m GD)7.8. Flood	Patterns	(Existing)7. Overall Design101a) Existing High Tide Level (~2m GD) b) High Tide Level + 1m SLR (~3m GD)c) High Tide Level + 1m SLR + 1m storm surge (~4m GD) d) New FCL + 0.2m for additional future proofing (4.8m GD)7.9. Flood	Patterns	(Proposed)Figure 7.21: Flood Patterns (Proposed)102Figure 8.0: Discussion8. Discussion1038. Discussion1048. DiscussionThe design presented in this project is intended to address the planned development of the Northeast False Creek area of Vancouver, B.C., with an emphasis on adapting the area to a future impacted by climate change. The development process of such a large tract of land in such a key area of the city provides a rare and valuable opportunity to build not only a world class new neighbourhood, but to do so in a sustainable and resilient way. By addressing two of the more critical local consequences of climate change (sea level rise and stormwater management), this project aims to provide input into the City of Vancouver’s planning process through the exploration of case studies, general design concepts, as well as more specific adaptations.8.1. Design Principles and MetricsThe details of the design were chosen based on the Design Principles outlined in Section 3. Using those Principles, different facets of the design were evaluated for their effectiveness in furthering the adaptation of NEFC to climate change (Figure 8.1). Some features are relevant (depicted as filled-in circles) to more of the Design Principles than others (hollow circles), while others still are at least partially relevant (half filled circles). However, all provide at least some value, hence their inclusion in the final design. Vignettes not selected for use in the final design were omitted based in part on poorer performance against these metrics, as well as relevant sustainability metrics (Figure 8.2).1058. DiscussionFigure 8.1: Design Principles MatrixConnection(With Water)Regeneration(Of Water)Accommodation(Of Water)Protection(From Water)Re-establish physical connection with waterDesign PrinciplesIncrease habitatAllow the sea inDeployable and permanent flood barriersAllow for connection with surrounding neighbourhoodsIncrease the value of the last open waterfront downtownRespect the seaUsing a combination of grey and green infrastructureConnections between new development, park, and waterCleaning stormwater and False CreekDesign floodable areasDevelopment raised to match new FCLDevelopment Raisedto 4.8m Above MSLSustainable Drainage SystemsCreekside Park ExtensionStormwater ChannelGeorgia PromenadeIntegrated Flood ProtectionCreekside WetlandKey: Relevant Partially relevant Not relevant8. Discussion106Figure 8.2: Sustainability Metrics MatrixEconomicEnvironmentalSocialDollar Cost Over Business As UsualUrban Heat Island EffectPublic Green SpacesDollar Cost Under Business As UsualHabitat GenerationEducational OpportunitiesOpportunity CostStormwater ManagementMovement of PeoplePreventing Future Economic LossesClimate Change LeadershipDrawing People to False CreekDevelopment Raisedto 4.8m Above MSLSustainable Drainage SystemsCreekside Park ExtensionStormwater ChannelGeorgia PromenadeIntegrated Flood ProtectionCreekside WetlandMetricKey: Economic cost (+) or savings (-)Opportunity to show leadershipReduces UHI effectProvides green spaces Opportunities for education Cyclist/pedestrian movementProvides plant/animal habitat Manages stormwater+ ++ + + + + +---- -1078. DiscussionIn analysing the sustainability matrix, different factors were considered. For economic metrics, dollar signs were used to denote when an intervention cost more or less than a “business as usual” scenario, presented opportunity costs, or had the potential to prevent future economic losses. The business as usual scenario differs from location to location in NEFC, so it is worth exploring each individually.In the development area, business as usual refers to typical construction practices seen in Vancouver’s downtown core: high percentage of glazing, maximising salable area, and keeping extraneous construction costs low. Therefore, it was determined that raising the development 0.2 m above the mandated Flood Construction Level of 4.6 m would result in additional costs (fill), opportunity costs (0.2 m less developable height), but also help to prevent future damage to the area by raising it even further above sea level. The implementation of sustainable drainage systems in the developed area would add construction costs up front, but also has the potential to result in energy-related cost savings, hence its representation of a dollar cost both above and below business as usual. Opportunity costs would result if green walls were used through the reduction of potential glazing space.Elsewhere in the area, business as usual might represent a simple, flat green space for the Creekside Park Extension, a raised seawall matching the rest of the waterfront, or traditional underground grey stormwater infrastructure. In most cases, the designs included in this report would be more costly to implement, with the exception of the stormwater channel, as it would remove the need for underground pipe installations.Each intervention’s ability to deal with environmental and social aspects of urban life was also analysed. Icons indicate that an intervention provides a positive benefit against that metric. In the case of habitat generation, both floral (leaf) and faunal (bird) habitat is explored, while movement of people can take place either on foot or by bicycle.8.2. Next StepsThe design presented here represents the initial phases of what will be a complex and extended master planning process for Northeast False Creek. Technical studies, pro forma analyses, public engagement exercises, building design iterations, and other studies are all still required prior to the completion of the final designs for the area. Furthermore, amendments to the False Creek North Official Development Plan will need to be made to allow aspects of the design to come to fruition (e.g.: maintenance of the existing shoreline, allowable uses in Area 6c, building orientation).Climate change and its effects are inevitable. By planning for those effects now, the Northeast False Creek area can not only see success in the near term, but will also be able to thrive at the end of the century as seas rise and storm intensity increases. The neighbourhood will serve as a case study for climate resilient development, not only for municipalities in the Metro Vancouver area, but around the world.108Figure 9.0: References9. References1099. References1109. ReferencesReferencesAiken, C., Chase, N., Hellendrung, J., & Wormser, J. (2014). Designing with Water: Creative Solutions from Around the Globe.American Society of Landscape Architects. (2006). From Brownfield to Greenfield: A New Working Landscape for Wellesley College Wrenched from its Toxic Past. Retrieved from Society of Landscape Architects. (2010). Shanghai Houtain Park: Landscape as a Living System. Retrieved from Society of Landscape Architects. (2012). A Green Sponge for a Water-Resilient City: Qunli Stormwater Park. Retrieved from School. (2015). Earth Day & the Greenhouse Effect. Retrieved from Sandwell. (2011). Climate Change Adaption Guidelines for Sea Dikes and Coastal Flood Hazard Land Use - Draft Policy Discussion Paper. Retrieved from Environmental Services Inc. (2010). Burrard Inlet Point Source Discharge Inventory.Banks, J. (2006). West Dyke Trail | Terra Nova Park. Retrieved from Ministry of Environment. (2013). Sea Level Rise Adaptation Primer: A Toolkit to Build Adaptive Capacity on Canada’s South Coasts.BC Ministry of Environment, L. & P. (1992). Pacific Place Remediation Project. Retrieved from Team. (2014). The BIG “U.”Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. (2015). Outcomes of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris. Retrieved from, R. (n.d.). Greening the Port of San Francisco’s Backlands. Retrieved from of New York. (2013). A Stronger More Resilient New-York, 445.City of Vancouver. (1997). Zoning and Development By-law 3575.City of Vancouver. (2011a). False Creek North Offical Development Plan.City of Vancouver. (2011b). View Protection Guidelines.City of Vancouver. (2012a). Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.City of Vancouver. (2012b). Greenest City 2020 Action Plan.City of Vancouver. (2012c). Vancouver Viaducts Study.City of Vancouver. (2014). Flood Construction Levels.City of Vancouver. (2015a). City of Vancouver Zoning Districts. Retrieved from of Vancouver. (2015b). Open Data Catalogue. Retrieved from of Vancouver. (2015c). Removal of the Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts.City of Vancouver. (2015d). The Future of Vancouver’s Viaducts 2015 Update.9. References111De Urbanisten. (n.d.). River dike Rotterdam. Retrieved from Luxton and Associates Inc. (2013). Eastern Core Statement of Significance.Easterbrook, S. (2013). The Climate as a System, part 4: earth system feedbacks. Retrieved from (2008). No title. Retrieved from Vancouver. (2014). Vancouver Seawall Flooded and Closed - Pictures. Retrieved from of Alewife Reservation. (2015). Sightings. Retrieved from, N., Horowitz, C., & Lunghino, C. A. (2012). Looking Up: How Green Roofs and Cool Roofs Can Reduce Energy Use, Address Climate Change, and Protect Water Resources in Southern California. Nrdc Report, R:12-06-B(June). Retrieved from Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. (2016). NOAA GFDL Climate Research Highlights Image Gallery: The Shrinking Arctic Ice Cap. Retrieved from Associates. (n.d.). Derbyshire Street Pocket Park. Retrieved from British Columbia. (2012). Storm Closes Stanley Park and West Vancouver Seawalls. Retrieved from, A. (2014). Part of Vancouver’s seawall closed due to high tide, strong winds. Retrieved from Hafencity. (n.d.). HafenCity Hamburg [DE]. Retrieved from, E., & Yan, A. (2011). The Local Effects of Global Climate Change in the City of Vancouver: A Community Toolkit and Atlas.Laurenfolkerts. (2013). Malmo BO01. Retrieved from, T. (2016). Metro Vancouver windstorm offers a peek into a future with higher sea levels. Retrieved from Construction Corporation. (2011). San Dieguito Wetlands Restoration Project. Retrieved from Heller Photography. (2012). Dragon Boat Spring Sprint in Vancouver. Retrieved from, S., Bourdeau, E., Falco, G., Resler, C., Tovar, H., & Zoegall, S. (2011). Climate Change Adaptation and Sustainable Design at the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey.Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal. (2014). St. Paul Downtown Airport puts up floodwall to hold back Mississippi River. Retrieved from (2015). NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures in 2015. Retrieved from Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2010). What percentage of the American population lives near the coast? Retrieved from (cont.)1129. ReferencesNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2015). What is a perigean spring tide? Retrieved from Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. (2011). Paying the Price: The Economic Impacts of Climate Change for Canada.Northwest Hydraulic Consultants. (2014). City of Vancouver Coastal Flood Risk Assessment.Orbicon. (2015). Tasinge Plads passed the “cloudburst test.” Retrieved from + Will. (n.d.). Floatyard. Retrieved from, S. (2014). JWU Cuisinart Center for Culinary Excellence. Retrieved from (2013). TIMELINE: The Camanava flood control project. Retrieved from, J. (2015). 26 photos showing the Vancouver skyline evolving from 1919 to 2015. Retrieved from, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Alexander, L. V., Allen, S. K., Bindoff, N. L., … Xie, S.-P. (2013). IPCC, 2013: Technical Summary. In T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, … P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.: Cambridge University Press.Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., … Midgley, P. M. (Eds.). (2013). IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.: Cambridge University Press.Translink. (2015). Translink Cycling Maps. Retrieved from Regional Cycling Map Vancouver Burnaby New Westminster.pdfUnited Nations Environment Programme. (2015). Cities and Coastal Areas. Retrieved from (2009). Adapting to coastal climate change : a guidebook for development planners. Nature, (May), 148.Vancouver Aquarium. (2011). Vancouver’s Old Streams.Vancouver Sun. (2012). Storm surge causes floods, seawall damage in Metro. Retrieved from (n.d.). Vancouver Olympic Village. Retrieved from Alliance. (2015). Staten Island Bluebelt Expands. Retrieved from (2015a). List of neighbourhoods in Vancouver. Retrieved from (2015b). Representative Concentration Pathways. Retrieved from (2016a). Los Angeles River. Retrieved from (2016b). Seawall (Vancouver). Retrieved from (cont.)9. References113Image SourcesTitle Page.  (Vancouver Sun, 2012)Back of Title Page. (City of Vancouver, 2015b)1.0. (Huffpost British Columbia, 2012)2.0. (Judd, 2014)2.1. (Stocker, Qin, Plattner, Tignor, et al., 2013)2.2. (Stocker, Qin, Plattner, Alexander, et al., 2013)2.3. Modified from (Astrocamp School, 2015)2.4. (Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, 2016)2.5. (Easterbrook, 2013)2.6. (Easterbrook, 2013)2.7. (Wikipedia, 2015b)2.8. (Stocker, Qin, Plattner, Tignor, et al., 2013)2.9. (Stocker, Qin, Plattner, Alexander, et al., 2013)2.10. (Stocker, Qin, Plattner, Alexander, et al., 2013)2.11. (Stocker, Qin, Plattner, Alexander, et al., 2013)2.12. (Forum Vancouver, 2014)2.13. (Vancouver Aquarium, 2011)2.14. (Donald Luxton and Associates Inc., 2013)2.15. (BC Ministry of Environment, 1992)2.16. (City of Vancouver, 2012c)2.17. (City of Vancouver, 2012c)2.18. (City of Vancouver, 2015d)2.19. (Wikipedia, 2015a)2.20. (City of Vancouver, 2011b)2.21. (Mike Heller Photography, 2012)2.22. (Jeremy Keating, 2015)2.23. (City of Vancouver, 2015d)2.24. (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, 2014)2.25. (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, 2014)2.26. (Jeremy Keating, 2016)2.27. (City of Vancouver, 2011a)2.28. Image produced with data from (City of Vancouver, 2015b)2.29. (City of Vancouver, 2015a)2.30. (City of Vancouver, 2015c)2.31. (Translink, 2015)3.0. (Vancouver Sun, 2012)4.0. (Forum Vancouver, 2014)4.1. Reproduced from (Mills-Knapp et al., 2011)4.2. (Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal, 2014)4.3. (De Urbanisten, n.d.)4.4. (fjutjumaja, 2008)4.5. (Rappler, 2013)4.6. (Wikipedia, 2016a)4.7. (Banks, 2006)4.8. (Wikipedia, 2016b)4.9. (KCAP Hafencity, n.d.)4.10. (American Society of Landscape Architects, 2012)4.11. (Waterfront Alliance, 2015)4.12. (Friends of Alewife Reservation, 2015)4.13. (Greysmith Associates, n.d.)4.14. (American Society of Landscape Architects, 2006)4.15. (Chiang, n.d.)4.16. (Orbicon, 2015)4.17. (BIG Team, 2014)4.18. (Marathon Construction Corporation, 2011)1149. ReferencesImage Sources (cont.)4.19. (American Society of Landscape Architects, 2010)4.20. (City of New York, 2013)4.21. (Laurenfolkerts, 2013)4.22. (Phillips, 2014)4.23. (Aiken, Chase, Hellendrung, & Wormser, 2014)4.24. (Perkins + Will, n.d.)4.25. (Vitaroofs, n.d.)5.0. (Forum Vancouver, 2014)5.1. (Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal, 2014)5.2. (KCAP Hafencity, n.d.)5.3. (Greysmith Associates, n.d.)5.4. (Laurenfolkerts, 2013)5.5. (Orbicon, 2015)5.6. (BIG Team, 2014)5.7. (Phillips, 2014)5.8. (Aiken, Chase, Hellendrung, & Wormser, 2014)5.9. (Vitaroofs, n.d.)5.10. (Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal, 2014)5.11. (De Urbanisten, n.d.)5.12. (Rappler, 2013)5.13. (Wikipedia, 2016a)5.14. (Waterfront Alliance, 2015)5.15. (American Society of Landscape Architects, 2006)5.16. (BIG Team, 2014)5.17. (Marathon Construction Corporation, 2011)5.18. (City of New York, 2013)5.19. (Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal, 2014)5.20. (fjutjumaja, 2008)5.21. (Wikipedia, 2016a)5.22. (Banks, 2006)5.23. (Wikipedia, 2016b)5.24. (KCAP Hafencity, n.d.)5.25. (BIG Team, 2014)5.26. (City of New York, 2013)5.27. (Perkins + Will, n.d.)5.28. (Banks, 2006)5.29. (American Society of Landscape Architects, 2012)5.30. (Friends of Alewife Reservation, 2015)5.31. (Chiang, n.d.)5.32. (Marathon Construction Corporation, 2011)5.33. (American Society of Landscape Architects, 2010)6.0. (Forum Vancouver, 2014) 8.0. (Forum Vancouver, 2014)9.0. (Forum Vancouver, 2014)Back Page. (Slattery, 2015)115This page intentionally left blank.© Jeremy Keating, 2016


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items