Applied Science, Faculty of
Architecture and Landscape Architecture (SALA), School of
DSpace
UBCV
Wen, Angela
Human activity and the creation of anthropocentric environments are undoubtedly the most significant catalysts for evolution on this planet today. Today, approximately 55% of the world's population, 4.2 billion inhabitants, live in cities, and this trend is predicted to increase to 70% by 2050. However, migrating to cities is not just exclusive to humans. This concrete jungle is home to a menagerie of creatures attracted to plentiful food and protection from hunting or other natural dangers. The study of urban evolution has rapidly become the frontier of biology and can help us understand how evolution in urban populations contributes to conserving sensitive ecosystems. The implications of this can help establish sustainable urban environments that will improve human health. Architects have a social responsibility to reflect this social shift in our designs to create harmony between nature and humans. This thesis looks at the built environment through the lens of nonhuman species as equal citizens. By anticipating the emergence of nonhuman citizens in the city, architecture can create a reconciliation of humans with nature. Located in the southeast corner of False Creek, Vancouver, an empty lot is earmarked for a multi-building development. This thesis is a critique of this master plan. Rather than the standard method of human-centred design, this project proposes a new ecocentric way to design this site. Its objective is to think of architecture on the farthest end of the human-nature spectrum: humans are participants with nature.
A DARWINIAN CITYdecentering humans in architectural design in an evolving urban ecology.A DARWINIAN CITYdecentering humans in architectural design in an evolving urban ecology.BY ANGELA WENHons. BSc, University of Western Ontario, 2016SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE inTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESSchool of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Architecture ProgramCOMMITTEECHAIRARCH 548 SupervisorInternal MentorExternal MentorAdam RysanekMatthew Soules Mari FujitaBrendan Buchanan Dee e University of British ColumbiaMay 2021© Angela Weni.Human activity and the creation of anthropocentric environments are undoubtedly the most significant catalysts for evolution on this planet today. Today, approximately 55% of the world’s population, 4.2 billion inhabitants, live in cities, and this trend is predicted to increase to 70% by 2050. However, migrating to cities is not just exclusive to humans. This concrete jungle is home to a menagerie of creatures attracted to plentiful food and protection from hunting or other natural dangers. The study of urban evolution has rapidly be-come the frontier of biology and can help us understand how evolu-tion in urban populations contributes to conserving sensitive ecosys-tems. The implications of this can help establish sustainable urban environments that will improve human health. Architects have a social responsibility to reflect this social shift in our designs to create harmony between nature and humans. This thesis looks at the built environment through the lens of nonhuman species as equal citizens. By anticipating the emergence of nonhuman citizens in the city, ar-chitecture can create a reconciliation of humans with nature. Located in the southeast corner of False Creek, Vancouver, an empty lot is earmarked for a multi-building development. This thesis is a critique of this master plan. Rather than the standard method of human-cen-tred design, this project proposes a new ecocentric way to design this site. Its objective is to think of architecture on the farthest end of the human-nature spectrum: humans are participants with nature. ABSTRACTii. iii.TABLE OF CONTENTSFront MatterIntroductionCity vs. Nature 2abstract iiilist of figures videdication ixUrban Evolution 8thesis statement 14PRECEDENTS 16green VANCOUVER 385 design points 46CONTEXTProcessEND MATTERAT THE STAKEHOLDERS TABLE 79FINAL DESIGN 114CONCLUSION 124Site 50stakeholders 66BIBLIOGRAPHY 125APPENDIX 127iv.List of Figuresvi. vii.1. Wen, Angela. “Big Bird.” Illustration. 14 Dec 2020. 2. Wen, Angela. “Rene De-cat-es.” Illustration. 14 Dec 2020. 3. Wen, Angela. “Nature-Human Scale.” Illustration. 14 Dec 2020. 4. Wen, Angela. “The Last Supper.” Illustration. 14 Dec 2020. 5. Wen, Angela. “City vs Nature Before.” Illustration. 14 Dec 2020. 6. Wen, Angela. “Rural vs. Urban.” Illustration. 14 Dec 2020. 7. Wen, Angela. “City vs Nature After.” Illustration. 14 Dec 2020. 8. Wen, Angela. “Birds up there?.” Illustration. 14 Dec 2020. 9. Wen, Angela. “Construction chipmunk.” Illustration. 14 Dec 2020.10. Unknown. “Vancouver Convention Center Roof” Photograph. Unknown. Web. 20 Dec 2020.11. Unknown. “Vancouver Convention Center Roof 2” Photograph. Unknown. Web. 20 Dec 2020.12. Unknown. “Vancouver Convention Center Bees” Photograph. Unknown. Web. 20 Dec 2020.13. Unknown. “Ecosystems” Drawing. Unknown. Web. 20 Dec 2020.14. Wen, Angela. “Vancouver Convention Center.” Illustration. 19 Dec 2020.15. Perkins+Will. “VanDusen Botanical Garden Visitor Centre / Perkins+Will” 20 Mar 2012. ArchDaily. Web. 20 Dec 2020.16. Perkins+Will. “VanDusen Botanical Garden Visitor Centre / Perkins+Will” 20 Mar 2012. ArchDaily. Web. 20 Dec 2020.17. Perkins+Will. “VanDusen Botanical Garden Visitor Centre / Perkins+Will” 20 Mar 2012. ArchDaily. Web. 20 Dec 2020.18. Wen, Angela. “Visitor Center.” Illustration. 19 Dec 2020.19. Raymon Rutting. “Vlotwateringbrug / NEXT architects” 26 Oct 2015. ArchDaily. 20. Raymon Rutting. “Vlotwateringbrug / NEXT architects” 26 Oct 2015. ArchDaily. 21. Raymon Rutting. “Vlotwateringbrug / NEXT architects” 26 Oct 2015. ArchDaily. 22. Raymon Rutting. “Vlotwateringbrug / NEXT architects” 26 Oct 2015. ArchDaily. 23. Wen, Angela. “Bat Bridge.” Illustration. 19 Dec 2020.24. SCAPE. “Oystertecture”. Render. SCAPE Studio. Web. 13 Dec 2020.25. SCAPE. “Oystertecture”. Render. SCAPE Studio. Web. 13 Dec 2020.26. SCAPE. “Oystertecture”. Render. SCAPE Studio. Web. 13 Dec 2020.27. Wen, Angela. “oyster.” Illustration. 19 Dec 2020.28. Nelson Kon.”Harmonia 57 / Triptyque” 26 Sep 2008. ArchDaily. Web. 17 Dec 202029. Nelson Kon.”Harmonia 57 / Triptyque” 26 Sep 2008. ArchDaily. Web.17 Dec 202030. Nelson Kon.”Harmonia 57 / Triptyque” 26 Sep 2008. Web. ArchDaily. 17 Dec 202031. Wen, Angela. “Harmonia 57” Illustration. 19 Dec 2020.32. Laura Cionci. “Bosco Verticale / Boeri Studio” 23 Nov 2015. ArchDaily. Web. 20 Dec 202033. Laura Cionci. “Bosco Verticale / Boeri Studio” 23 Nov 2015. ArchDaily. Web. 20 Dec 202034. Paolo Rosselli. “Bosco Verticale / Boeri Studio” 23 Nov 2015. ArchDaily. Web. 20 Dec 202035. Wen, Angela. “BioMilano.” Illustration. 19 Dec 2020.36. d___LAB. “Section Drawing of filament development backing onto the road and facing open space” Illustration. Repair. Book. 2018.37. d___LAB. “Existing territorial plan showing sites ecology” & “proposed” Illustration. Repair. Book. 2018.38. d___LAB. “Imagined inhabitation” Illustration. Repair. Book. 2018.39. Wen, Angela. “Grassland Common” Illustration. 19 Dec 2020.40. Erieta Attali. “Subliminal proto dwelling: Garden House 2”. Photograph. Web. Dec 17 2020.41. Erieta Attali. “Subliminal proto dwelling: Garden House 3”. Photograph. Web. Dec 17 2020.42. Erieta Attali. “Subliminal proto dwelling: Garden House 4”. Photograph. Web. Dec 17 2020.43. Wen, Angela. “Garden House.” Illustration. 19 Dec 2020.44. Barkow Photo. “Hy-Fi 1” Photograph. Web. World Architects. 11 Dec 202045. Barkow Photo. “Hy-Fi 2” Photograph. Web. World Architects. 11 Dec 202046. Unknown. “Mycelium Brick” Photograph. Unknown. Web. 20 Dec 2020.47. Wen, Angela. “Hy-Fi Mycelium” Illustration. 19 Dec 2020.48. Larsson, Magnus. “Bacterial Construction of Dune Scape” Render. Unknown. Web. 2009.49. Larsson, Magnus. “habitable spaces” Render. Unknown. Web. 2013.50. Larsson, Magnus. “Section Image” Render. Unknown. Web. 2013.51. Larsson, Magnus. “habitable spaces” Render. Unknown. Web. 2013.52. Wen, Angela. “Dune.” Illusttration. 19 Dec 2020.53. Wen, Angela. “Mushroom Leaders.” Illusttration. 19 Dec 2020.54. Wen, Angela. “Vancouverisms.” Illusttration. 19 Dec 2020.55. Vancouver, City of. “Map 2. Biodiversity Hotspots in the City of Vancouver.” Biodiversity Strategy. Illustration. 1 Feb 201656. Wen, Angela. “A Seat at the Table.” Illusttration. 19 Dec 2020.57. Wen, Angela. “Expo 86.” Illusttration. 13 Nov 2020.58. Wen, Angela. “Good boys.” Illusttration. 19 Dec 2020.59. Wen, Angela. “Exploring Section.” Illusttration. 8 Mar 2021.60. Wen, Angela. “Biodiversity Hotspots.” Illusttration. 8 Mar 2021.61. Wen, Angela. “Exploring Axo.” Illusttration. 8 Mar 2021.62. Wen, Angela. “Site: False Creek.” Illusttration. 10 Mar 2021.63. Wen, Angela. “Exploring Home.” Illusttration. 8 Mar 2021.64. Wen, Angela. “Site: City of Vancouver SEFC.” Illusttration. 24 Apr 2021.65. Wen, Angela. “Site: SEFC Proposed Master Plan 1.” Illusttration. 24 Apr 2021.66. Wen, Angela. “Site: SEFC Proposed Master Plan 2.” Illusttration. 8 Mar 2021.67. Wen, Angela. “Bad boys.” Illusttration. 13 Dec 2020.68. Wen, Angela. “Program: Stakeholders.” Illusttration. 8 Mar 2021.69. Wen, Angela. “Intertidal Buds.” Illusttration. 8 Mar 2021.70. Wen, Angela. “Beaver.” Illusttration. 8 Mar 2021.71. Wen, Angela. “Flora.” Illusttration. 8 Mar 2021.72. Wen, Angela. “Barred Owl.” Illusttration. 8 Mar 2021.73. Wen, Angela. “Welcome to the Stakeholders Table.” Illusttration. 8 Mar 2021.74. Wen, Angela. “Intertidal Slide 1.” Illusttration. 20 Apr 2021.75. Wen, Angela. “Intertidal Slide 2.” Illusttration. 20 Apr 2021.76. Wen, Angela. “Intertidal Slide 3.” Illusttration. 20 Apr 2021.77. Wen, Angela. “Intertidal Slide 4.” Illusttration. 20 Apr 2021.78. Wen, Angela. “Beaver Slide 1.” Illusttration. 20 Apr 2021.79. Wen, Angela. “Beaver Slide 2.” Illusttration. 20 Apr 2021.80. Wen, Angela. “Beaver Slide 3.” Illusttration. 20 Apr 2021.81. Wen, Angela. “Flora Slide 1.” Illusttration. 20 Apr 2021.82. Wen, Angela. “Flora Slide 2.” Illusttration. 20 Apr 2021.83. Wen, Angela. “Flora Slide 3.” Illusttration. 20 Apr 2021.84. Wen, Angela. “Flora Slide 4.” Illusttration. 20 Apr 2021.85. Wen, Angela. “Flora Slide 5.” Illusttration. 20 Apr 2021.86. Wen, Angela. “Owl Slide 1.” Illusttration. 20 Apr 2021.87. Wen, Angela. “Owl Slide 2.” Illusttration. 20 Apr 2021.88. Wen, Angela. “Owl Slide 3.” Illusttration. 20 Apr 2021.89. Wen, Angela. “Master Plan Progress.” Illusttration. 25 Apr 2021.90. Wen, Angela. “Stakeholders Table.” Illusttration. 10 Mar 2021.91. Wen, Angela. “Intertidal Zone.” Illusttration. 25 Apr 2021.92. Wen, Angela. “Beaver Zone.” Illusttration. 25 Apr 2021.93. Wen, Angela. “Flora Zone.” Illusttration. 25 Apr 2021.94. Wen, Angela. “Barred Owl Zone.” Illusttration. 25 Apr 2021.95. Wen, Angela. “Construction Fox.” Illusttration. 15 Dec 2021.for every living thing. viii. ix.01CITY VS. NATURE The words’ nature’ and ‘city’ present an archetypal conflict that all urbanists experience. In principle, these two elements are ideologically bipolar. ‘Nature’ is all things living that are natural and organic, while the ‘city’ infers an artificial, human-made environment designed for humans. One symbolizes the polar opposite of the other. There is an irreconcilable antagonism between nature and cities that remains a conflict for humans living in urban environments. As the designers of the built environment, architects, landscape architects, and urban planners are responsible for reconciling these two ideologies to create a symbiotic relationship between nature and the city. The widespread separation of humans and nature in Western culture is complex and can be traced through a few historical developments, starting with the rise of Judeo-Christian values 2000 years ago1. Historian Lynn White argued this value system initiated the idea that humans are no longer a part of nature, essentially laying the foundations of anthropocentrism2. Before this point, belief systems with multiple gods and earth spirits dominated where nature is thought to be sacred, and humanity is thoroughly entangled in it. Once humans started to frame themselves as masters over nature, they considered it a right to exploit nature to their ends. René Descartes, French-born “natural philosopher” of the 17th century, regarded nonhuman animals as machines, devoid of consciousness, and lacking sentience. He believed that as the only rational beings, humans are wholly René Des-CAT-es1 202separated from and superior to nature1. White associates this shift in attitude as the beginning of the world’s environmental crises. Viewing the natural world as separate from human beings is ethically problematic and empirically wrong. Over centuries, this mentality has become engrained in Western culture. Governments and corporations have developed a stronghold over the natural systems that are destabilizing the biological chemistry of the global climate system. As a result, we are feeling the repercussions of how intertwined humanity and nature are. Rising temperatures and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events have alerted humans of the consequences of anthropocentrism. In the last half-century, the climate crisis has urged humans to shift from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism. Environmental ethics journals have tried to uncover qualitative insights on the changing public visions of human-nature relationships. Survey studies such as the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale of Dunlap and Van Liere and the Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) attempt to measure the affective bonding between human-nature relationships3. However, these studies are outdated and only focus on one type of connection or mind of thought. The 2011 study “Public Visions of the Human/Nature Relationship and their Implications for Environmental Ethics” by de Groot et al. created a third measuring instrument called the Human and Nature (HaN) scale. It captures a full range of human-nature relationships with a four-tier classification system that ranges on a scale from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism – Mastery over nature, guardianship of nature, partnership in nature, participation in nature3. Virtually all respondents believe that humans are morally responsible for nature, and contrary to many philosophical and popular convictions, mastery over nature is widely rejected by all participating Western countries. Overall, the general public does not subscribe to “mastery 3 4fig.03to the image of “guardianship of nature,” “partnership with nature,” or “participation with nature.” Western culture is steadily abandoning anthropocentric values and exchanging them for more ecocentric values. Nevertheless, institutions obstruct them from leading their lives accordingly3. Humans are ready to reconcile the separation of culture and nature. Architects have a social responsibility to demonstrate awareness of social changes and reflect this in their design. As designers of the built environment, they are responsible for the permanent impressions we have on nature. Therefore, architects yield the power to combine the incompatible and create a new ecocentric reality. over nature,” and women and people who visited nature more often tended to be more ecocentric. Interestingly, individual’s opinions were varied, and their responses did not consistently fall under one category. Therefore, de Groot suggests that the human-nature relationship resembles a sliding scale. Most importantly, the study concluded that western culture is sympathetic to even more radical forms of nonanthropocentrism3. Unfortunately, de Groot argues that the discrepancy lies between the individual and institution despite this now proven cultural shift. Irrespective of what people believe, institutions only reflect the economic utility of nature3. Nearly all respondents adhered NOTES:1.) Alberro, Heather. “Humanity and Nature Are Not Separate – We Must See Them as One to Fix the Climate Crisis.” The Conversation. 2.) Haberer, Joseph and Lynn White. “The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 2, no. 4 (1982): 378.3.) de Groot, M., Martin Drenthen, W. T. de Groot, and Center for Environmental Philosophy, The University of North Texas. “Public Visions of the Human/Nature Relationship and their Implications for Environmental Ethics.” Environmental Ethics 33, no. 1 (2011): 25-44.5 6fig.04URBAN EVOLUTION Today, approximately 55% of the world’s population, 4.2 billion inhabitants, live in cities. This trend is predicted to increase to 70% by 20501. Urbanization is dramatically altering the environment. Dense settlements constructed of buildings and roads result in increased temperatures, more impervious surface cover, altered hydrology, and elevated air, noise, and light pollution.2 Additionally, the changes in the biotic environment include increased habitat fragmentation, the introduction of invasive species, and a decrease in overall biodiversity2. However, the trend of migrating to cities is not just exclusive to humans. Cities are plentiful with food and protection from hunting, making them ideal homes for a veritable menagerie of creatures3. Animal and plant populations moving into cities are entering into extreme environments, which many studies have shown are experiencing divergent selection between urban and non-urban environments. A recent surge of research shows that urbanization affects both nonadaptive and adaptive evolution. The thousands of cities worldwide share some features while differing in other aspects related to their age, historical context, governmental policies and local climate. Thus, the phenomenon of global urbanization represents an unintended but highly replicated global study of experimental evolution2. We can harness the global urban experiment to understand the repeatability and pace of evolution in response to human activity. Cites are Petri dishes of experimental growth repeated all around the globe. 7 805 At the most basic level, evolution is a change in population allele frequencies from one generation to the next. Evolution is influenced by several mechanisms such as mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and natural or sexual selection2. Mutation through pollution, although theoretically possible, is very unlikely. Allele frequency changes are likely due to genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection. Urbanization has a strong influence on genetic drift, which are stochastic changes in allele frequencies between generations2. When populations are isolated and their sizes reduced, the effects of genetic drift are intensified. In combination with reduced gene flow, due to urban landscapes that impede movement, such as roads and buildings, genetic divergence between separated populations is exacerbated2. Natural selection is indeed happening, and populations are adapting to urban environments. Evidence shows divergent selection leads to natural selection in life history, morphology, physiology, behaviour, and reproductive traits. For example, Jean-Nicolas Audet at McGill University showed that urban raccoons significantly out-smarted their non-urban compatriots, comparing test times of performing tasks like prying into trash cans3. Another study from Audet showed that Barbados urban bullfinches, known for stealing sugar packets from restaurant terraces, tested better problem-solving skills than rural birds in controlled test scenarios3. As a species that has experienced extreme prosecution in urban environments, coyotes, are selected for shyness or fear personality traits, making them expert sleuths living amongst humans in cities3. Urban environments are powerhouses of evolution; we see human-induced rapid evolutionary change as species show their ability to adapt to these new and harsh environments. As cities become more prevalent, organisms adapting to the urban lifestyle have become more common. If this persists, potentially more populations can colonize and thrive in human-dominated landscapes. 9 10fig.06 Our understanding of how urbanization affects evolution is in its infancy, with more questions than answers. Johnson recognizes there are still three unsolved questions that are most important to advancing urban evolutionary biology: how frequently do populations adapt to cities? Are there consequences of urban evolutions for conservation and human health? Can we use urban evolutionary biology to design more sustainable cities? Researchers need to examine the features of cities, including management and design practices, that influence evolutionary processes and have beneficial effects on the persistence of native populations and communities. Hopefully, the study of urban ecology will lead to more resilient cities to environmental perturbation and become more sustainable for humans and nonhuman urban dwellers. NOTES:1.) The World Bank, “Urban Development Overview.” n.d. Text/HTML. World Bank. 2.) Johnson, Marc T. J. and Jason Munshi-South. 2017. “Evolution of Life in Urban Environments.” Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 358 (6363): eaam8327.3.) Dell’Amore, Christine. 2016. “How Wild Animals Are Hacking Life in the City.” 2016. National Geographic News. April 18, 2016. 11 1207Human activity and the creation of anthropocentric environments are undoubtedly the most significant catalysts for evolution on this planet today. The study of urban evolution has rapidly become the frontier of biology and can help us understand how evolution in urban populations contributes to conserving sensitive ecosystems. The implications of this can help establish resilient and sustainable urban environments that will improve human health. Architects have a social responsibility to reflect this social shift in our designs to create harmony between nature and humans. This thesis looks at the built environment through the lens of nonhuman species as equal citizens. By anticipating the emergence of nonhuman citizens in the city, architecture can create a reconciliation of humans with nature. This thesis aims to explore how urban evolutionary biology be used to design more sustainable cities.THESIS STATEMENT13 14fig.08PRECEDENTSSeveral architects and theorists have pioneered the way for more ecocentric design in architecture. Ariane Lourie Harrison of Yale School of Architecture (YSOA) has coined the term “posthuman architecture,” which attempts to look at human-animal relationships and the entanglement of humans, technology, and nature within the built environment1. Rather than saying “let’s forget about humans,” posthuman discourse aims to shift humans from the center of design and to consider a broader idea of what life forms should be regarded as citizens. These sentiments are now being implemented in the built environment2. The following are precedents of built or theorized projects that try to reinvent the relationship with the natural world – reestablishing humans as part of and not separate from nature. Once cities begin to open up to cohabiting with other species, we can link architecture with habitat restoration.NOTES:1) PCA-STREAM. “‘Posthuman’ Architecture.” Accessed October 21, 2020. 2) International Living Future Institute. “Living Building Challenge 4.0 Basics | Living-Future.Org.” 2019. April 29, 2019. 15 1609Architects: LMN Architects + MCM/DA Location: Vancouver, Canada Status: Completed (April 2009) Habitat type: Aerial & Aquatic Situated on Vancouver’s waterfront with spectacular views of mountains, the Vancouver Convention Centre West is designed to bring together the natural ecology and vibrant local culture by accentuating their interrelationships through the architecture. It received a double LEED Platinum certification for its waste management, energy efficiency, indoor water use reduction, and facility maintenance and renovations. It is the first double LEED Platinum convention centre in the world. It has a six-acre green roof, a restored marine habitat, a black water treatment plant, a seawater heating and cooling system, floor-to-ceiling windows that allow natural light to pour in, and local wood materials harvested sustainably. The most visible evidence of the project’s profound approach to ecology is its living roof. At 6 acres, it is the largest green roof in Canada, hosting 400,000 indigenous plants and four bee colonies of 60,000 bees each. Along the perimeter facing the water, an artificial concrete reef drops below the public walkway. The reef is designed in collaboration with marine biologists and consultants to ensure ecological restoration of the natural shoreline, which supports salmon, crabs, starfish, seaweed, and various other resident marine species. The Vancouver Convention Centre West is an excellent local example of sustainable design considering various elements, including civic space, ecological function and economic and social connections to downtown Vancouver. This project is relevant to this thesis because it is situated in the local context, has reached the highest sustainability achievements possible in the industry, and made a serious attempt at restoring not one but two habitat types. While it receives high praise for its green roof and artificial reef, situated underneath the building, there is very little interaction with humans. It is a lost opportunity for education and awareness of local sensitive environments.VANCOUVER CONVENTIONCENTER WEST17 18fig.10-13fig.14VANDUSEN BOTANICAL GARDEN VISITOR CENTERArchitect: Perkins+Will Location: Vancouver, Canada Status: Completed (2011) Habitat Type: Terrestrial Perkins+Will designed the Visitor Centre at the VanDusen Botanical Garden in Vancouver, Canada, in parallel with an ecologist. Inspired by an orchid, the building is an undulating landscape of interior and exterior spaces with an expansive green roof on which vegetation can grow, thus reoccupying the land on which it sits. The building also features numerous passive and active systems that reuse the site’s renewable resources and waste. It exceeds LEED Platinum status and is the first building in Canada to apply for the Living Building Challenge, the most rigorous set of sustainability requirements. The Living Building Challenge is an international sustainable building certification program that encourages buildings to move beyond being less destructive and genuinely regenerative. It aims to “reconcile the built environment with the natural environment, into a civilization that creates biodiversity, resilience, and opportunities for life with each adaptation and development.” The building’s green roof and surrounding landscape were carefully designed to include only native plants, forming distinct ecological zones. A vegetated land ramp was included to connect the roof to the ground plane, encouraging local fauna to interact with the building. Old-growth trees were preserved to facilitate ecologically balanced systems of wetlands, rain gardens, and streams Replacing the habitat that was once there on its roof and building a land bridge for terrestrial animals to access it demonstrates the concept of regenerative design. By achieving the highest LEED status and Living Building Challenge, this visitor center reaches the highest sustainable standards a building can earn according to industry standards. However, the viability of a green roof as restored habitat is not proven and needs monitoring to see if it is successful. 19 20fig.15-17fig.18BAT BRIDGEArchitect: NEXT Architects Location: Monster, The Netherlands Status: Completed (October 2015) Habitat Type: Aerial The Bat Bridge by NEXT is a pedestrian overpass bridge with three specific components that provide roosts for several bat species. The abutment functions as a winter stay at the north side, while the deck and the brick balustrade accommodate stays for bats during the summer. The bridge design is intended to constitute the ideal habitat for various species of bats, aiming to grow a large colony. The project is located along a flight route of several bat species. The structure is made out of concrete to optimize the suitability of the bridge for bats. The mass of the concrete provides a stable and pleasant climate. The underside of the bridge is equipped with entrance slots. The openings have a rough finish for grip. The slots are part of a pattern of grooves in the concrete arch. “A textbook example of how a functional object can at the same time serve nature,” says bat-expert Marcel Schillemans from the Mammal Society. The bat bridge becomes part of the Poelzone, an elongated area in the Westland, strengthening the existing green and ecological connections. Although this project is smaller-scale, the execution was strong. The ratio of the designated program for humans and animals in this project was even, if not, more for bat species. It was clear that NEXT considered bats an equal client, considering the bat’s behaviours and habitat. Details about temperature, materials, and roosting behaviours were implemented to ensure successful habitation. The bridge is situated along a known flight route of several bat species and strengthens the ecological connections between neighbouring ecosystems. This project also has great potential for reproduction in other areas or places around the world. 21 22fig.19-22fig.23OYSTER-TECTUREArchitect: SCAPE Location: New York, USA Status: Concept (2010) Habitat Type: Aquatic Oyster-tecture envisions the return of a thriving oyster habitat that existed previously in the New York Harbor until the early 20th century before it was destroyed by over-harvesting and pollution. The project hopes that by resurrecting the oyster population and diversifying the aqueous marine life combined with thoughtful urban planning, the city waterfronts would, at last, become accessible and enjoyable recreation space. Oyster-tecture proposes a living reef composed of a woven web of ‘fuzzy rope’ that supports marine growth, generates a 3D landscape mosaic that attenuates waves and cleans millions of gallons of harbour water by harnessing the biotic filtration processes of oysters, mussels, and eelgrass. Cleaner, slower water enables neighbourhood fabrics to create new channels inland from the Gowanus Canal. A watery regional park emerges that prefigures the city’s return to the waterfront as a sustainable strategy for the next century. Oyster-tecture aims to improve habitat and water quality, restore biodiversity to tidal marshes and encourage new relationships between New Yorkers and their harbour. This project demonstrates the potential of biology to enhance the urban environment beyond conventional aesthetic effects. Oyster-tecture makes an excellent argument for reactivating the harbour for humans while simultaneously restoring the natural ecosystems. This project demonstrates the idea of cohabitation, a place that supports life and growth, both for humans and other plant and animal species, in which a diversity of species can live together and prosper on mutually beneficial terms. The techniques used in this project could potentially be replicated in other port cities that suffer from marine pollution, including Vancouver.23 24fig.24-26fig.27HARMONIA 57Architect: Tryptique Location: Sao Paulo, Brazil Status: Completed (2008) Habitat Type: Aerial Harmonia 57 is comprised of a pair of buildings connected by a metallic footbridge and punctuated by terraces and windows. Between the two main structures is an outdoor plaza from which to view its unique façade. Like a living body, this building breathes, sweats, and evolves. The walls are thick and covered externally by a vegetal layer that works like the structure’s skin. This dense wall is made of organic concrete with pores, where several plant species can grow, giving the walls a green shagginess. Water is the central feature of this project – rainfall and wastewater are collected, treated, and reused to nourish the plants on all building facades. It is a continuous cycle, much like in nature. The network of exposed pipes, sprinklers, plumbing tanks, and tubes act like the veins and arteries of the building. The result of this ensemble is an impressive edifice that presents a new perspective on “live architecture.” This building is a unique attempt to treat the whole buildings as an entire organism. While it does not have an approach to the site or an effort to serve nature around it, it creates an entirely new ecosystem. Tyrptique can support the organisms living on the building using the water system on-site and strategic sun lighting. This project could be improved by more careful strategizing of what plants are used to support more species. Using this technology can expand the species it serves to more than just plants. Additionally, changes to the building shape could maximize living space for more living organisms. 25 26fig.28-30fig.31BIO MILANOArchitect: Boeri Studio Location: Milan, Italy Completion Date: Completed (2014) Habitat type: Terrestrial & Aerial Bio Milano is a six-part plan aimed at reforesting and rehabilitating sections of Milan, forming symbiotic relationships between natural and built environments. One component, Bosco Verticale (vertical forest), is a residential project in the center of Milan. The architect’s goal is to create a biodiverse metropolis emphasizing an increase in biologically active spaces, including new types of agriculture. The project also aims to facilitate new business and jobs for thousands of people in sustainable industries, such as renewable energy. In addition to aesthetic appeal, the dense foliage plants offer footholds for many species, including birds and insects. The boxes integrated on the terraces are planted with trees varying in size and root strength to withstand stronger winds at higher elevations. The trees assist in the building’s temperature regulation, air filtration, and dampen noise. As the dense vertical arrangement deprives them of sufficient rain, the trees rely on the building’s greywater circulation system for water. Another component of the project, Metrobosco, aims to develop a green belt consisting of words, parks and avenues, laid out around the city to support several species of animals that live or pass through the Milanese plain. Alongside these efforts, they seek to cultivate remedial plants and microorganisms on polluted land to reintegrate these spaces into the wilder ecosystem eventually. Bosco Verticale transforms an existing building typology, high-rise residential, into one that repopulates the city’s natural flora and fauna. The biological components are factored into the mechanical system, and they are accessible to the residents for their benefit and enjoyment. This project also shows great awareness to the entire ecosphere as a whole, and not just narrowly looking at the landscape surrounding project. Metrobosco’s attempt to decontaminate and restore such a large area surrounding the whole city shows the direction Milan would like to go, which is more species-inclusive and sustainable. 27 28fig.32-34fig.35GRASSLAND COMMONArchitect: d_ _ _LAB, RMIT University Location: Melbourne, Australia Status: Concept (2018) Habitat Type: Terrestrial This is a concept project proposed by the d_ _ _LAB of RMIT University called “Grassland Common: Linking Ecology and Architecture,” which presented a visionary alternative to dense housing estates that are laid across the landscape. They propose that by developing restored habitat, they can connect important habitat fragments while minimizing disturbance and essentially act as a green corridor. The basic design principles are 1. contain newly built volumes on existing footprints and reduce disruption to the untouched landscape; 2. Use a narrow form that is raised above the ground; 3. Restore habitat; 4. Use newly built semi-public common areas relating it to the surrounding “grassland common.” By concentrating the built form within the original footprint and creating and using habitat restoration of grassy woodland in the “grassland common” areas, the newly built volumes can act as a filament between existing, natural habitat. The proposed settlement is meant to buffer and embrace remnant patches of grassy woodland. On a larger scale, several settlements piece together to enhance ecological connectivity between important fragmented habitats. This project acts as a guidebook for how Melbourne should approach a biodiversity-sensitive urban design. It looks beyond a building’s site and addresses the whole region, hoping that eventually, every new building will play a part in restoring the habitat. It had a strong attitude on how structures should approach the land and what form it should take to enhance ecological restoration. There was less emphasis on what exactly goes on in the building. Instead, it leaves the program flexible, open to any mix of residential or community programs. 29 30fig.36-38fig.39GARDEN HOUSEArchitect: Baracco & Wright Architects Location: Victoria, Australia Status: Completed (2014) Habitat Type: Terrestrial This is a small, experimental, semi-permanent holiday house conceived through the inclusion of the house in the site’s ecosystem. When first approaching the site, the architects assessed the endemic vegetation and the soil of the land. Places with indigenous vegetation and unaltered soil were restored until the expansion of remnant patches revealed a shape on the site where the soil was unsuitable for endemic growth. This clearing determined where the house would be situated. The construction of this house was minimal; apart from a small utility area, no ground was sealed. The floor was raised so that the natural ground line was maintained and carried through. The decision to use translucent materials to admit more light was to sustain plant life within the home—shades and strategic tree planting offer shading during the extreme heat. Although this project seems like a glorified shed, the approach to the land, choice of materials, and minimally invasive structure integrate it into the surrounding ecosystem nicely. In this precedent, the architects have chosen to acknowledge their impermanence and make their existence secondary to the other species. By letting the land decide where they could build, they found their place in the ecosystem – symbolic of how species create their niche in an ecosystem. 31 32fig.40-42fig.43HY-FIArchitect: The Living Location: New York, USA Status: Compete (2014) Habitat type: Fungal Hy-Fi is the first large-scale structure to use this mushroom brick technology, based on a technique developed by Ecovative in 2007 and, until now, generally used to make packaging. The design included 10,000 mycelium bricks grown in reusable moulds. Using technology inspired by biology, bricks can be grown into any shape in a matter of five days using only corn crop waste and mycelium – mushroom roots. Using these entirely organic bricks, they stacked them to create a structure of three merging cylinders. The form was designed to draw breezes through the structure and cool the shaded interior further. The shiny steel moulds were placed at the top layers as bricks. The bricks were cemented together with an organic mortar and supported by wooden framing. When the building was decommissioned, the entire structure was composted and safely returned to earth. Despite the intended use of this structure solely for human use, the building practices and materials show great awareness for the environment. This project highlights the urgent need to reform outdated building practices. Hy-fi demonstrated new approaches to all phases of work, from design to construction to disposal. Rather than designing the operations to function as ecologically sustainable, all other stages of this structure’s life span – production and destruction – were sustainable.33 34fig.44-46fig.47DUNEArchitect: Magnus Larsson Location: Sahara Desert Status: Concept (2010) Habitat Type: Underground Magnus Larsson details a bold plan to build structures out of sand in the Sahara and forming a 6000km barrier to protect against the spread of the desert. Bacteria, water, urea, and calcium chloride would be injected into a sandscape. They would – via a process called microbial-included calcite precipitation – produce calcite that would cause the sand to solidify in 24 hours. It is a natural process that can be observed in swamps and lakes and is not harmful to humans as it will cease once available nutrients have been depleted. By choosing where to apply the microorganisms, the architect would have a degree of control over the process, but the environment would heavily influence the final form. While the principal aim would be to produce a barrier against sand moved by the wind, the structure formation would be augmented by wind action. This design would elegantly harness the energy embodied in the problem to propose its solution. While the architectural structure of the project is proposed for humans, its conception was derived from urgent efforts to save the Sahel Belt. This grassland is at significant risk of desertification just south of the Sahara Desert. Larson was inspired by an ongoing project to plant trees and vegetation in the same area across dozens of countries and in the region to preserve the surrounding ecosystem. This project also has a component of biomimicry, using the bacteria to calcify and build the structure. It adds another level of sustainability that many architectural institutions like LEED give little consideration to and that this thesis could incorporate in its design. 35 36fig.48-51fig.52GREEN VANCOUVER Vancouver is a coastal seaport city on the mainland of British Columbia and an excellent subject for studying urbanism and nature. Incorporated in 1886, the City of Vancouver is the youngest of North American large cities and the fifth-most densely populated city, at 5,400 people per square kilometre1. Since the 1980s, the city’s population has doubled from 1.2 million inhabitants to roughly 2.6 million in 2020. Amidst the urban landscape of Vancouver is a 400-hectare natural West Coast rainforest, Stanley Park2. It is the third-largest city-owned park that sits directly adjacent to the downtown center. With its diverse habitats – coniferous forests, boggy wetlands, rocky shorelines – at least 500 species are known to inhabit the park, including bats, coyotes, bald eagles, beavers, harbour seals, and Great Blue herons2. While the City of Vancouver’s limits are bound by the Burrard Inlet and the Fraser River, only 8 kilometres north of the downtown center are vast expanses of temperate rainforests on the North Shore Mountains. These forests contain large areas of old-growth trees and a thriving wildlife population, including black bears, coyotes, and deer. Vancouver is a rapidly growing city close to nature. It offers an unparalleled natural context to study urban evolutionary biology. Vancouver has done well to try aesthetically connect the city to its surrounding natural setting. Starting in the 1990s, Vancouver planners and architects created five basic design principles for the City of Vancouver, coined “Vancouverisms”: 37 3853high-density housing; provision of views; a large amount of green and recreation space; generous spacing between buildings; and ample recreation space; and ample civic amenities such as community centers and public art3. Since then, the city has implemented several large-scale and small-scale planning initiatives to support Vancouver wildlife. In 2009, the Greenest City Action plan was approved by Vancouver City Council, which outlined ten goals to become the greenest city in the world by 2020.4 Two of which were related to architecture: 2) Green Buildings: Lead the World in Green Building Design and Construction and 5) Access to Nature: Vancouver Residents Enjoy Incomparable Access to Green spaces, including the world’s most spectacular urban forest. Vancouver has established itself as a leader in green building and low-carbon energy system design, the Vancouver Convention Center and VanDusen Botanical Garden Visitor Center being prime examples of this. The City of Vancouver’s Renewable City Strategy states that by 2050 neighbourhoods will expand existing and develop new renewable low-carbon energy systems, new buildings will be zero-emission by 2030, and existing buildings will be retrofit to perform like new construction4. To give the city “access to nature,” they aim to have all Vancouver residents live within a five-minute walk of a park, greenway or other green space and plant 150,000 new trees. As of 2019, 139,000 trees were planted in hopes that by 2050, canopy cover will increase from 18% to 22%.439 40fig.54due to light pollution. There are no strategies for creating a more hospitable environment for birds6. The biodiversity strategy identifies 28 priority “biodiversity hotspots” in Vancouver, each with its own set of features that make it unique7. It has five objectives: restore habitats and species; support biodiversity within city parks and streets; protect and enhance biodiversity during development; celebrate biodiversity through education and stewardship; and lastly, monitor biodiversity7. The objective to protect and enhance biodiversity during development calls on architects, landscape architects, and other professionals to incorporate the ecological network into neighbourhood plans to connect natural areas across In 2014, the Vancouver Parks Board released Rewilding Vancouver: An Environmental Education and Stewardship Action Plan5. Its main objective is to improve and enhance nature experiences for all Vancouverites and increase understanding and awareness of nature in the city. To further guide the city, the Vancouver Parks Board released The Vancouver Bird Strategy (2015) and the Biodiversity Strategy (2016) in the following years. While the Vancouver Bird Strategy addresses specific interventions that architects should incorporate in their designs, it only offers three strategies that prevent the harm of birds, such as flying into glazing, getting trapped in enclosed spaces, and disorientation 41 42fig.55fig.56the city. However, the specific strategies to undertake these goals are vague. Overall, the extensive initiatives and action plans set out by the City of Vancouver are commendable, but most instructions are directed towards environmental groups, urban planners and landscape architects. Very little guidance is given to architects, which is a missed opportunity since buildings are the most pronounced urban design elements. NOTES:1.) “Vancouver.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, December 15, 2020.2.) Vancouver, City of. “Wildlife.” Stanley Park wildlife. 3.) Fujita, Mari, Matthew Soules, and Rick Hoos. “Seven (7) Points for EcoMetropolitanism.” PRAXIS: Journal of Writing Building, no. 10 (2008): 26-35. 4.) Vancouver, City of, Greenest City 2020 Action Plan D. 5.) Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, 2014. Rewilding Vancouver: Environmental Education & Stewardship Action Plan (Vancouver, BC: The City of Vancouver, 2014) 6.) Vancouver Bird Advisory Committee, 2015. Vancouver Bird Strategy (Vancouver: The City of Vancouver, 2015). 7.) Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, 2016. Biodiversity Strategy (Vancouver, BC: The City of Vancouver, 2016) 43 44fig.575 DESIGN GOALS While the initiatives set forth by Vancouver attempt to create a more sustainable city, they do not reflect ideas of fostering mutualistic relationships between the city and nature. The strategies set forth seldom instruct architects and overwhelmingly prescribe more green spaces. The problem with these green spaces is that they serve humans more than they do the wildlife. Urban green spaces are more for aesthetics and symbolize nature more than they offer any ecological value. According to the Greenest City Action Plan, an architect’s only contribution is to reduce their buildings’ energy emissions. Architects should look beyond these measurable achievements in sustainability, like LEED, and explore how cities and buildings can move beyond a passive relationship with ecology. This thesis asks how architects can construct new possibilities for animals to cohabit with humans. The following are five discussion points that can enhance Vancouver’s engagement with nature. 1) Redefine Sustainability is generally defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. For architects, this displays as super-efficient, energy saving, water recycling, CO2 reducing, building designs. The fact that buildings generate nearly 40% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions weighs heavily on architects. Despite this, architects should look beyond this one definition of sustainability. The Vancouver 45 4658Convention Center West and the VanDusen Botanical Garden perform well on all measurable sustainability accounts (waste management, energy efficiency, etc.). However, the functional effectiveness of their ecological components – the land bridge, green roof and the artificial reef – are not as easily measured. These ‘restored’ habitats require recurrent monitoring over several years to quantify effectiveness. As a result, efforts by architects to actively engage in ecology happen more as a conciliatory add-on to a project rather than an equal component to humans in the design. Moreover, the LEED certification program also fails to cultivate multidisciplinary approaches to sustainable design, such as biomimicry. Biomimicry follows the theory that nature is the most efficient model in existence and can measure design effectiveness. The precedents Hy-Fi and Dune are examples of how biomimicry in architecture can enhance current sustainability standards. 2) Include All species should be considered to restore an ecosystem’s health. The precedents designed with specific species in mind (i.e. Oyster-tecture, Bat Bridge, and the Vancouver Convention center) occupy aerial and aqueous habitats that humans cannot access. Again, it seems anthropocentric to only allow species that will not interfere with humans and their daily activities. Posthuman architecture should include a wider variety of species that can cohabit with humans, rather than just the typical avian and apiary species. These species are documented to have felt less of the effects of habitat fragmentation due to their ability to fly. This thesis implores architects to expand the list of citizens to those who share terrain with humans. Increased genetic diversity frequently leads to greater species diversity at multiple trophic levels and promotes beneficial ecosystem services such as resistance to invasive species and greater primary productivity. Not only should architecture include more animals in their designs, but they should equate them to humans. Decentering humans does not mean adding compulsory green roofs. It means treating animals as equal citizens in cities.3) Intensify Vancouver should intensify their efforts to incorporate nature into the city. The Vancouver Convention Center and the VanDusen visitor center have made a significant first step with green roofs. However, the standard can be pushed. 5) Scale Our eyes can only see through the human scale but frankly is not the only scale. To design for other species, it to see through their eyes, think on their level, and design at their scale. The new frontier of architectural design is designing for the nonhuman and to do that is to get accustomed to a new scale. Beyond the human and nonhuman scale, architects must also think on the city scale. Urban features, like habitat corridors or restored habitat, can increase gene flow, homogenize allele frequencies, increase genetic diversity within populations, and erode differentiation between populations. Having an ecocentric design that can be replicated throughout a city, then throughout a region, and eventually throughout the world can help resolve the effects of habitat fragmentation by urbanization. Urbanization is a phenomenon found globally. It is an unintended, highly replicated global study of experimental evolution. Architects can harness the scalability of ecocentric design to understand the impact of their designs on the entire world. BioMilano and Harmonia 57 are examples of taking a typical building typology and intensifying the use of vegetation. They took advantage of their vertical surfaces by planting on the balconies to the top or planting them into the walls. In doing so, they benefited from cleaner oxygen, climate regulation, and reduced water waste. In addition to transforming traditional typologies, new typologies should be created – ones that accentuate the programmatic roles of both humans and animals. Projects like the convention center and the visitor center miss educational opportunities but not showcasing these ecological features of their building. Similar to how zoos bring awareness to the conservation of animals, intensified animal-human relationships would give plenty of opportunities to do the same. 4) Interiorize When talking about ecosystems, we automatically think outdoors. This thesis argues that cities need to take a more proactive role in designing nonhuman species to restore ecosystem health. As designers of buildings, the most predominant component of cities, we are responsible for deciding who is welcome and who is not. Bat bridge managed to create an entire indoor space for bats without discounting the human components of the design. Gardenhouse found clever ways to minimally disturb its surroundings, bring the vegetation inside the building, and used the ecology to enhance the overall experience inside the building. Designing habitat should not be restricted to just outdoor frameworks.47 48SITE: VANCOUVER Vancouver is a city that strives to be the greenest in the world, so experimental and sustainable design should be a welcome idea. It is one of the densest cities in the world, with an unparalleled natural context. In the Vancouver Biodiversity Strategy, the city lists 28 hotspots1. It lists habitats within Vancouver that have natural features on-site and support important biodiversity components in the City of Vancouver. Often, they represent regionally rare ecosystems that were more widespread historically or are unique to the City of Vancouver. Some support species or ecological communities at risk2. I am interested in Hinge Park, one of the 28 Biodiversity Hotspots, because of its central position in the city. It is a critical habitat in the City of Vancouver because it is the smallest hotspot, yet it is dense with ecosystem value. It has a constructed wetland, riparian zone, and intertidal zone2.50NOTES:1) Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, 2016. Biodiversity Strategy (Vancouver, BC: The City of Vancouver, 2016) Accessed Oct 11, 2020. 2) Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, 2014. Rewilding Vancouver: Environmental Education & Stewardship Action Plan (Vancouver, BC: The City of Vancouver, 2014) Accessed Oct 11, 2020.fig.5949THE CITY OF VANCOUVERBIODIVERSITY HOTSPOTSBRITISH COLUMBIA1000 0 1000 2000500SPANISH BANKPACIFIC SPIRITREGIONAL PARKMUSQUEAM PARK & CREEKVANDUSEN FORESTMUSQUEAM MARSHSOUTHLAND FORESHOREFRASER RIVER PARK WETLANDSSITE: HINGE PARK & SEFC ISLANDJERICHO FORESTJERICHO WETLANDKITSILANO SHORELINEQE PARK FORESTLANGARA PONDSTILL CREEK CORRIDORRENFREW RAVINETROUT LAKEBEAVER LAKESTANLEY PARK BLUFFSTANLEY PARK SHORELINESTANLEY PARK FORESTLOST LAGOONSECOND NARROWSENSCAPRMENTSANCTUARY PONDFRASERVIEW GOLD COURSEAVALON PONDEVERETT CROWLEY & CAPTAIN COOK PARKSfig.6051 52SITE: HINGE PARKHinge park connects to the restored shoreline of Southeast False Creek using a constructed island, Habitat island. The cobble intertidal zone around the island has been used for herring spawning, contributing to the return of sea birds and other species3. The stormwater-fed wetland is rich in birdlife and welcomed a family of beavers in 20164. The combined success of the restored wetland and rocky intertidal zone has created valuable habitat for waterfowl, and large raptors, such as Bald Eagles4. Hinge Park is a model for sustainable urban development that integrates nature into the city.Hinge Park is located in the southeast corner of False creek. It has a long history of being an industrial area. However, in the 1960s and 1970s, the industry left, and housing and parks started to take their place5. In 2006, the fate of the Southeast False Creek was decided in a Master Plan announced by the City of Vancouver6. The plan proposed that the former industrial land be transformed into a complete community that includes a community center, outdoor plaza, commercial space, and mid-rise residential housing. The first to be built was the 2010 Olympic Winter Games Athletes Village and constructed westward gradually6. The last remaining piece to be built is a large undeveloped lot directly adjacent to Hinge park. This is the proposed site for this thesis.NOTES:3) McTavish, Tam. “Habitat Island + Hinge Park.” Outdoor Project. Accessed January 10, 2021. 4) Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2020. “Hinge Park.” Accessed January 10, 2021. In Wikipedia. 5) Vancouver, City of. “Southeast False Creek.” Accessed February 1, 2021. 54fig.6153SITE: FALSE CREEKSITE: HINGE PARK & SEFC ISLANDSOUTH EAST FALSE CREEKFALSE CREEK100001 km0fig.6255 56SITE: SEFCThe master plan is currently proposed by the City of Vancouver for the site includes 13 new residential buildings, between 3 and 11 stories high7 (approximately 1,100 units), a large soccer field, and a small wetland on the northwest corner of the lot4. Directly next to the site is hinge park and habitat island. My thesis is a critique of this master plan. Rather than the standard human-centred design method, I propose a new ecocentric way to design this site. Figure 65 shows the systems and ecosystems that occur on or flow through the suggested master plan: pedestrian movement vs. vehicle movement; planted vegetation vs. wild vegetation; and aquatic vs. built environment. Most of the vegetation is planted and must be maintained, like parks and street trees, with very few areas of wild natural habitat. Most of which is centred around hinge park, habitat island, and the newly proposed wetland. The current plan prioritizes pedestrian, car, and bike flows, fragmenting natural habitats. I intend to reconnect the natural flows, elevating them to equal importance. Figure 66 shows a few elements from the current unbuilt site that the master plan intends to keep or refurbish. The seawall and retaining wall supporting the land will be left in place. Habitat island and its intertidal zone will remain intact, and Hinge Park’s wetland and human parks. They also plan to restore two historical buildings, the Sawtooth Building and the Wilkinson Building5.NOTES:6) Vancouver, City of. 2006. Southeast False Creek Public Realm Plan. (Vancouver: The City of Vancouver, 2006). Accessed January 15, 2021. 7) Vancouver, City of. 2007. Southeast False Creek Official Development Plan. Accessed January 28, 2021. fig.6357 58SITE: CITY OF VANCOUVER SOUTH EAST FALSE CREEK PLANSSOUTH EAST FALSE CREEKSITE: UNBUILT BUILTSITE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTTOTAL FLOOR AREA: 84,945 SQMTOTAL RESIDENTIAL AREA: 84,595 SQMAPPROX. 0.89 FSR, 1,167 UNITS1.2.3.4.5.1. Hinge Park2. Habitat Island3. 13 Mid-Rise Residential Buildings4. Soccer Field5. New Northwest Wetland fig.6459 60SITE: SEFC PROPOSED MASTER PLANfig.6561 6251 52SITE: HINGE PARK 1.2.3.4.5.8.7.6.2. RETAINING WALL1. SEAWALL PATH4. INTERTIDAL 3. HABITAT ISLAND6. LITTLE HUMAN PARK5. WETLAND8. WILKINSON BUILDING7. SAWTOOTH BUILDINGSITE: SEFC PROPOSED MASTER PLANfig.6663 64STAKEHOLDERS65 66 I believe architects should expand their idea of “sustainability” to more than just energy targets and building efficiency. This thesis would like to explore new definitions of “sustainability” in architecture. My design aims to think of architecture on the farthest end of the human-nature spectrum: where humans are participants with nature. This project seeks to invite these animals living in Hinge Park as part of the stakeholder’s table. Moreover, since it would be quite impossible to include all the species at the table, I narrowed it down to 4 species covering the range of critical habitats and ecosystem roles. The 4 are: 1) the beaver, a primary consumer and ecosystem engineer; 2) Intertidal buds, primary producers and decomposers; 3) Flora, primary producers; 4) And the Barred Owl, secondary consumer and an apex predator. I chose Rocky intertidal zones because they are highly productive ecosystems. They experience two extreme conditions, high tide and low tide, supporting both aquatic and terrestrial consumers. Each intertidal zone is defined by how much time it is submerged with water or exposed to the air. Subsequently, the varying conditions create different zones of habitability. Each zone is home to a completely different set of organisms1. I chose the beaver because it is an already existing inhabitant on the site. In 2016, a family of beavers established a den at Hinge Park shortly after it was built. Beavers are ecosystem engineers and play an essential role in 67NOTES:1) National Geographic Society. 2019. “Intertidal Zone.” National Geographic. October 10, 2019. 2) Boonstra, Rudy. “Beaver.” The Canadian Encyclopedia, July 11, 2013. 3) Schilthuizen, Menno. 2018. Darwin Comes to Town: How the Urban Jungle Drives Evolution. New York: Picador.4) Givetash, Linda. 2017. “More Barred Owl Sightings in Vancouver Bad News for Rats and Mice | CBC News.” CBC News, December 10, 2017. 67 68establishing and maintaining wetlands for many other species2. It is an excellent example of animals adapting to the urban environment. Plants are the basis of all ecosystems; they create their energy from the sun’s rays and provide sustenance for the rest of the food chain. Trees, shrubs, and flowers benefit all living things in their ecosystems. Species such as birds and butterflies depend on flora for feeding, shelter, and breeding3. This is why it is so important to provide green infrastructure. The barred owl is considered an “invasive species” and hunted in the wild, seeking refuge and thrives in an urban environment. Humans attract rats, pigeons, and other easy prey, and the open parks and streets are much easier to hunt in than forests4. I am the architect working with the chosen stakeholders: the beaver, the barred owl, the intertidal buds, and flora. This thesis is the story of the negotiations, the care and consideration put into findings a compromise between humans and nature. With the five design principles in mind, I consult these four stakeholders to redesign the City of Vancouver’s Master plan for my site.SECONDARY CONSUMERSPRIMARY CONSUMERSPRIMARY PRODUCERS & DECOMPOSERS & SCANGERSBarred OwlROLE: SECONDARY CONSUMER APEX PREDATORZONES: TERRESTRIAL, AERIALROLE: PRIMARY PRODUCERZONES: TERRESTRIAL, SUBTERRANIAN, WETLANDROLE: PRIMARY PRODUCERS & DECOMPOSERSZONES: MARINEROLE: PRIMARY CONSUMER ECOSYSTEM ENGINEERZONES: TERRESTRIAL, SUBTERRANIAN, WETLANDFloraBeaverIntertidal budsPROGRAM: STAKEHOLDERS Lorem ipsumHUMANS VOLES & SHREWSPLANT SPECIESRACOONINTERTIDAL SPECIESINSECTSBEAVERGREAT BLUE HERONBARRED OWLfig.6869 70STAKEHOLDER: INTERTIDAL BUDSEcosystem Role: Primary Producers & Decomposers Zone: Marine Ecosystem Value: Rocky Intertidal zones (RIZ’s) in the Pacific North West are very productive ecosystems, primarily due to their high nutrient levels and light exposure5. RIZ’s typically have large amounts of hard, stable substrate, which provide an ideal place for seaweeds to anchor their holdfasts resulting in large amounts of primary production6. With high levels of primary production, RIZ’s can support a rich community of aquatic and terrestrial consumers. Aquatic consumers feed primarily in high tides (i.e. fish, octopus, squid), while terrestrial consumers feed primarily during low tides (i.e. Birds, squirrels, rats, voles). In addition to feeding grounds, RIZ’s serve as critical nursing and spawning habitats for various subtidal species5. Cultural Value: Having an intertidal zone close to the city creates the opportunity for humans to immerse themselves in nature in an outdoor classroom. In addition to substantial ecological value, healthy shorelines house various microbes, which help break down the toxic substances found in urban run-off. This helps to maintain good water quality, which benefits both marine life and humans6.LNOTES:5) Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2021. “Intertidal Zone.” Accessed March 13, 2021. In Wikipedia. 6) Walton, Tamara, Marie Donohue, Weihao Wang, and Qin Li. 2019. “Life on the Edge : A Comparison of Vancouver’s Intertidal Systems with Recommendations for Biodiversity Enhancement in Northeast False Creek,” April 19, 2019. fig.6971 72STAKEHOLDER: BEAVEREcosystem Role: Primary Consumer & Ecosystem Engineer Zone: Terrestrial, Subterranean, Wetland Urban Evolution: The beaver is an already established inhabitant in Hinge Park. The family of beavers were an unexpected resident as a result of reconstructing a new wetland habitat. It is an excellent example of animals adapting to the urban environment2. Humans have invented ways to control beaver habitat growth using discrete drains7, and Vancouver has outlined ways to manage city-dwelling beavers8. Ecosystem Value: Beavers play an essential role in establishing and maintaining wetlands. Beaver dams enhance their environments by providing habitat for many sensitive plants and animal species2. They play a crucial role in the food chain; they occupy the 2nd trophic level – primary consumersCultural Value: The beaver is a cultural icon for Canada with historical significance and legendary status for Canadian colonial culture and indigenous people2. Beaver colonies and dams provide accessible and educational opportunities for people to learn about local ecosystems and enjoy wildlife and through observation and photography.NOTES:7) Humane Society of the United States, The. “What to Do about Beavers.” The Humane Society of the United States. Accessed March 3, 2021. 8) Pierce, Jennifer. 2016. Understanding and Managing Beavers in Vancouver. fig.7073 74STAKEHOLDER: FLORAEcosystem Role: Primary Producers Zone: Terrestrial, Subterranean, Wetland Ecosystem Value: Plants are the basis of all ecosystems. They are primary consumers. They create their energy using the sun and provide energy and sustenance for the rest of the food chain. Trees, shrubs, and flowers benefit all living things in their ecosystems. Species such as birds and butterflies depend on flora for feeding, shelter, and breeding3. This is why it is so important to provide green infrastructure.Urban Evolution: Urban evolutionary biologists preach planting native species. A thriving native plant garden creates pristine pockets that attract local wildlife like birds, bees, butterflies, and more. In addition to this, urban evolutionary biologists welcome non-native species. Many of the species that have been evolving and adapting in the urban environment most successfully are non-native. Urban environments are inherently unnatural, non-native, and the success of exotic species speaks to the colonialism of cities. The most important note urban evolutionary biologists suggest to cities is to “let it grow3.” Let the mixture of native species and non-native species plants coevolve together, give these green spaces assemble naturally from species growing abundantly in cities3. fig.7175 76STAKEHOLDER: BARRED OWLEcosystem Role: Secondary Consumer & Apex Predator Zone: Terrestrial, Aerial Urban Evolution: The barred owl is a non-native species, or ‘invasive species, thriving in an urban environment. They are the perfect example of a species that has found an advantage to living in proximity to humans over living in the wild. In the wild, they are prosecuted for not being native. Humans attract rats, pigeons, and other easy prey; human-made environments like open parks and streets are much easier to hunt than forests4. Many successful human-made barred owl nest boxes have been made9. Ecosystem Value: The barred owl is an apex predator, a carnivore that eats meat, meaning it sits at the top of the food chain. It is also important because its habitat requirements are similar to that of many birds10. Supporting the barred owl helps more bird species. 77NOTES:9) “Barred Owl.” NestWatch. Accessed May 1, 2021.10) Kaufman, Kenn. 2014 “Barred Owl.” Audubon. November 13, 2014. fig.7278fig.7379 8051 52[ROCKWEED]: The original master plan keeps the retaining wall, which detriments growth along the different intertidal zones due to its steep slope. Because habitats are defined by their intertidal zones, its important to increase the surface area in each zone.fig.7481 8251 52upper intertidal zonelower intertidal zonesubtidal zonesupratidal zonemiddle intertidal zone[MUSSEL]: As a rocky intertidal zone, rocks and large substrates are essential for seaweeds and organisms to latch to. We need large sturdy surface areas.fig.7583 84upper intertidal zonelower intertidal zonesubtidal zonemiddle intertidal zonesupratidal zone[ANGELA]: Okay, let’s tear down the retaining wall, and bring back the shoreline, rerouting the seawall. We’ll create an even 10% slope to give more surface area to each tidal zone. If the substrates can be anything, what if we created sculptures for intertidal species to latch to, and at each tide level a new intertidal zone is revealed.fig.7685 8651 52[ANGELA]: We will place tall sculptures scattered around the beach. It creates a sculpture garden where people can wander and explore the vertical array of intertidal zones.fig.7787 8851 52[BEAVER]: In an urban environment where wetlands are few and far between, I happened upon Hinge Park by chance in 2016. This site is my home, so I should be considered an equal citizen in the new master plan[BEAVER]: May i remind you, if you allow me to expand my habitat as I please, I will bring an entourage of species and improve water quality. [ANGELA]: mmm... there might be some concerns about that...In particular flooding and trees falling. fig.7889 9051 52[ANGELA]: True, such diverse wildlife in the city would be greatly beneficial to humans. It would make a great outdoor classroom. We’ll reroute the seawall through the wetland and put signage to educate bypassers. We can plant trees that are beaver adapted, like willows, that grow quickly after being chewed down.fig.7991 9251 52[ANGELA]: To prevent intense flooding, beaver specific drains can be installed around the site. As rainfall increases through the seasons, buildings and paths can be raised in anticipation of rising water levels. The wetland can expand and spread freely, and subterranean species can thrive.fig.8093 9451 52[FLOWER 1]: The master plan boasts a low FSR, dedicating half its site to “green” space, namely a large soccer field. In reality, this field has no ecological value. It serves as a representation of nature to humans, not to flora.fig.8195 9651 52[FLOWER 2]: Urban environments are inherently foreign. Many of the most successful species evolving in cities are non-native. While native species are important for attracting other native species, non-native species should be welcome too. Let things grow man! Let greenspaces assemble naturally from species growing abundantly in the city.fig.8297 9851 52[ANGELA]: Interesting idea! Let’s leave empty soil beds around the site, letting urban ecosystems colonize on their own. Cladding with soil pots can be attached to buildings. Gaps and holes in pavement tiles filled with soil can sprout plants spontaneously. Let’s see what evolves naturally in the city!fig.8399 10051 52[ANGELA]: For plants to grow, they need rich soil and lots of sunlight. If the buildings were arranged in a North-South configuration, there can be strips with substancial sunlight. fig.84101 10251 52[ANGELA]: Roofs should be green roofs or blue roofs, planted with a diverse list of species. Homes for pollinators can be placed on buildings. fig.85103 10451 52[OWL]: The master plan only has one occupant in mind - humans. I seek refuge in cities. In the wild I am prosecuted for being “non-native”. I need the master plan to create a home for me. fig.86105 10651 52[ANGELA]: The newly configured plan is a more naturalized space. What else do you need?[OWL]: Cities are teeming with prey like pigeons and mice. I need trees to roost and hide for hunting. My home must be built within 70m of a water source. fig.87107 10851 52[ANGELA]: We can provide homes for you on our buildings, built to your specifications. And our architects can comply to bird-friendly building strategies. fig.88109 110fig.89111 112FINAL DESIGN By highlighting the parts of the master plan that did not work for each stakeholder, we dismantled the master plan and came up with a new configuration. The site is reduced to give way for an immersive sculpture garden with surface area for thousands of intertidal species. A wetland flows across the site for the beaver and all its entourage. Green spaces now have a more ecological function. Although I have reduced the number of residential buildings by reconfiguring them in the new site, there is only a 20% reduction in housing. The section in Figure 91 shows the new 10% slope that replaced the retaining wall. The statue garden allows the public to view the intertidal zones, expressed here at low tide. To the right, the rerouted seawall allows existing foot traffic to flow through the site. In the Figure 92 section, there are beaver-friendly willow trees. The pathway and building are raised so water can rise as it pleases through the seasons. This also relieves space below grade for underground species to thrive. The section in Figure 93 shows the integration of flora throughout the site. The preserved sawtooth building is converted into a greenhouse, which along with the green roofs, are accessible to the residents for fresh greens and other edible plants. The planters along the face of the buildings and the pathways alongside them are left to wild growth. The section in Figure 94 shows the owl boxes as part of the occupancy of the building. They are located in proximity to water and trees, making them a proper habitat for living and hunting. A slatted exterior skin prevents birds from flying into the windows.90113 11451 52fig.91115 11651 52fig.92117 11851 52fig.93119 12051 52fig.94121 122CONCLUSIONAround the world, habitat loss due to urbanization is a significant threat to wildlife. The future is uncertain, but one thing is for sure, animals are adapting to live in human-constructed habitats. Land management professions such as landscape architects and urban ecologists are actively repairing the natural environment, yet archi-tects are rarely present in this discussion. This thesis investigated the architect’s role in regenerative design. By having empathy for nonhu-man species and inviting them to the stakeholders’ table, I achieved the five design goals. By thinking of ways to include more species, intensify species habitat, interiorize when possible, I was able to de-sign for more species. Rather than thinking on only a human scale, I designed for each stakeholder on their scale. Instead of the standard human-centred design method, this thesis proposes an ecocentric design method that redefines sustainable design.123 12495BibliographyAlberro, Heather. “Humanity and Nature Are Not Separate – We Must See Them as One to Fix the Climate Crisis.” The Conversation. Accessed November 26, 2020. http://theconversation.com/humanity-and-nature-are-not-separate-we-must-see-them-as-one-to- fix-the-climate-crisis-122110.Baracco, Mauro and Louise Wright. 2018. Repair. Australian Pavilion, 16th International Architecture Exhibition, La Biennale di Venezia 2018.“Barred Owl.” NestWatch. Accessed May 1, 2021. https://nestwatch.org/learn/all-about-birdhouses/birds/barred-owl/.Boonstra, Rudy. “Beaver.” The Canadian Encyclopedia, July 11, 2013. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/ beaver#:~:text=Beavers%20inhabit%20forested%20regions%20across,can%20manufacture%20its%20own%20environment. Cheptou, Pierre-Olivier, Anna L. Hargreaves, Dries Bonte, and Hans Jacquemyn. 2017. “Adaptation to Fragmentation: Evolutionary Dynamics Driven by Human Influences.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 372 (1712): 20160037. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0037.Dell’Amore, Christine. 2016. “How Wild Animals Are Hacking Life in the City.” 2016. National Geographic News. April 18, 2016. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/04/160418-animals-urban-cities-wildlife-science-coyotes/.de Groot, M., Martin Drenthen, W. T. de Groot, and Center for Environmental Philosophy, The University of North Texas. “Public Visions of the Human/Nature Relationship and their Implications for Environmental Ethics.” Environmental Ethics 33, no. 1 (2011): 25-44.Fujita, Mari, Matthew Soules, and Rick Hoos. “Seven (7) Points for EcoMetropolitanism.” PRAXIS: Journal of Writing Building, no. 10 (2008): 26-35. Accessed December 20, 2020. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/24329239.Gibson, Eleanor. 2015. “NEXT Architects Completes Bat-Friendly Bridge in Holland.” 2015. Dezeen. October 26, 2015. https://www.dezeen.com/2015/10/26/ecological-bat-bridge-next-architects-completed-habitation-holland-monster/.Givetash, Linda. 2017. “More Barred Owl Sightings in Vancouver Bad News for Rats and Mice | CBC News.” CBC news, December 10, 2017. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/barred-owls-vancouver-1.4441740.Haberer, Joseph and Lynn White. “The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 2, no. 4 (1982): 378.Humane Society of the United States, The. “What to Do about Beavers.” The Humane Society of the United States. Accessed March 3, 2021. https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/what-do-about-beavers.International Living Future Institute. “Living Building Challenge 4.0 Basics | Living-Future.Org.” 2019. April 29, 2019. https://living- future.org/lbc/basics4-0/.Johnson, Marc T. J. and Jason Munshi-South. 2017. “Evolution of Life in Urban Environments.” Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 358 (6363): eaam8327.Kaufman, Kenn. 2014 “Barred Owl.” Audubon. November 13, 2014. https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/barred-owl.Kos, Drago. “Nature in the City or the City in Nature?” Urbani Izziv 19, no. 2 (2008): 129-32. Accessed December 20, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24906037.McTavish, Tam. “Habitat Island + Hinge Park.” Outdoor Project. Accessed January 10, 2021. https://www.outdoorproject.com/habitat- island-hinge-park.National Geographic Society. 2019. “Intertidal Zone.” National Geographic. October 10, 2019. http://www.nationalgeographic.org/ encyclopedia/intertidal-zone/.Orff, Kate. 2016. Toward an Urban Ecology. New York, NY: The Monacelli Press.PCA-STREAM. “‘Posthuman’ Architecture.” Accessed October 21, 2020. https://www.pca-stream.com/en/articles/ariane-lourie-harrison- posthuman-architecture-119.Pierce, Jennifer. 2016. Understanding and Managing Beavers in Vancouver. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26686.33606.PWL Partnership Landscape Architects Inc. 2009. “Southeast False Creek Private Lands: Public Realm Enrichment Guide.” Accessed January 23, 2021. https://vancouver.ca/docs/sefc/public-realm.pdf.Schilthuizen, Menno. 2018. Darwin Comes to Town: How the Urban Jungle Drives Evolution. New York: Picador.The World Bank, “Urban Development Overview.” World Bank. Accessed October 21, 2020. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/ urbandevelopment/overview.University of British Columbia, 2016. UBC Bird Friendly Guidelines. Accessed December 19, 2020. https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/sustain. ubc.ca/files/uploads/CampusSustainability/CS_PDFs/GreenBuildings/UBCBirdFriendlyGuidelinesApril2016.pdf.Vancouver, City of. Greenest City 2020 Action Plan D. Accessed December 19, 2020. https://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/greenest- city-action-plan-development.aspx.Vancouver, City of. “Southeast False Creek.” Accessed February 1, 2021. https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/southeast- false-creek.aspx.Vancouver, City of. 2007. Southeast False Creek Official Development Plan. Accessed January 28, 2021. https://bylaws.vancouver.ca /odp/odp-southeast-false-creek.pdf?_ga=2.167854759.744020805.1611879218-1886482772.1611139674.Vancouver, City of. 2006. Southeast False Creek Public Realm Plan. (Vancouver: The City of Vancouver, 2006). Accessed January 15, 2021 https://vancouver.ca/docs/sefc/public-realm.pdf.Vancouver, City of. “Wildlife.” Stanley Park wildlife. Accessed December 20, 2020. https://vancouver.ca/parks-recreation-culture/ wildlife-.aspx.Vancouver Bird Advisory Committee, 2015. Vancouver Bird Strategy (Vancouver: The City of Vancouver, 2015). Accessed December 15, 2020 https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouver-bird-strategy.pdf.Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, 2016. Biodiversity Strategy (Vancouver, BC: The City of Vancouver, 2016) Accessed Oct 11, 2020 https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/biodiversity-strategy.pdf.Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, 2014. Rewilding Vancouver: Environmental Education & Stewardship Action Plan (Vancouver, BC: The City of Vancouver, 2014) Accessed Oct 11, 2020. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/enviromental-education- stewardship-action-plan.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2cRwk9TS6j_R2xBiVaS3KBnuaoOVyNyM_DPygsT3igROcQ0L8iNd8eIhU.Walton, Tamara, Marie Donohue, Weihao Wang, and Qin Li. 2019. “Life on the Edge : A Comparison of Vancouver’s Intertidal Systems with Recommendations for Biodiversity Enhancement in Northeast False Creek,” April 19, 2019. https://doi. org/10.14288/1.0378505.Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2020. “Hinge Park.” Accessed January 10, 2021. In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index. php?title=Hinge_Park&oldid=983557700.Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2021. “Intertidal Zone.” Accessed March 13, 2021. In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index. php?title=Intertidal_zone&oldid=1006809583.Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2020. “Vancouver.” Accessed December 15, 2020. In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Vancouver. 125 126Appendix127 128STAKEHOLDER: BEAVERBEAVERS NEEDS1. Expand the two wetlands by connecting them through the site, creating a site-long wetland that can expand and shrink as necessary. 2. Have appropriate materials to build dens and dams, i.e. trees, bushes 3. Separation from domestic animals, like dogs, that disrupt their habitat. HUMAN NEEDS1. Anticipate the fluctuating water levels on the wetland to prevent flood damage2. Mitigate disruption from tree harvesting and protect appropriate trees 3. Create observation points and educational opportunities for bypassers THE DESIGN I created a restored wetland four times the proposed new wetland and Hinge Park’s wetland combined. This wetland area was designated the “Beaver zone,” where water level rise could be anticipated. Buildings and paths built within this “beaver zone” must be raised above the ground to anticipate the rising water level. In order to contain flooding in the “beaver zone,” drains can be added to control flooding at a certain water level. Dog parks were relocated away from the beaver zone. The seawall was diverted through the wetland to offer educational opportunities for humans with educational signage. Willows, the most beaver-adapted tree, can be planted in the “beaver zone.” Their fast growth resists dying from beaver harvest. This section contains the written research and reasoning for each stakeholder as a supplement to the narrative. STAKEHOLDER: INTERTIDAL BUDSINTERTIDAL ZONE NEEDS1. Create more natural rocky intertidal zones in the downtown area rather than the typical human-manufactured RIZ’s in downtown.2. Remove the retaining wall and decrease the slope (<10%) of the beach to increase substrate surface area and species diversity in each tidal zone.3. Provide large, non-toxic substrates, like rocks, for species to latch on to and hide inHUMAN NEEDS 1. Consider shoreline erosion and sea-level rise 2. Reroute the seawall and pedestrian traffic along the pathway. 3. Deliberate the loss of developable land by reshaping the shoreline THE DESIGN In order to create adequate living space for the intertidal species, I had to cut back the shoreline to make way for a rocky beach. By removing the retaining wall, cutting into the grassy park, and creating a gradual 10% slope on the beach, I increased the surface area of each tidal zone. Large sculptures would be scattered around the beach and serve as large substrates for seaweeds and primary producers to take hold. These large sculptural pieces are designed to showcase the range of intertidal zone species on a vertical spectrum so, at low tides, humans can immerse themselves in an interactive outdoor classroom. STAKEHOLDER: FLORAFLORA NEEDS1. Create green spaces that serve an ecological function, unlike the currently proposed soccer field, which only serves humans. 2. Create pristine pockets of natural native species that easily attract more native species (birds, bees, etc.)3. Let things grow out and let non-native species thrive as they naturally do well in hard-to-grow places, like urban environments. HUMAN NEEDS 1. Provide large open gather spaces to replace the soccer field and alternatives for people who want to engage in field sports 2. Provide space for anthropocentric green programs like parks, community gardens, and dog parks. 3. Determine which surfaces flora can grow on and how this can be made possible. THE DESIGN I created pristine pockets of natural habitat around the beaver zones and parks. I left open meadows for gathering space, and humans who wish to play sports can go to any of the five soccer fields in a 2km radius of the park. The closest is 900km away, which is Jonathan Roger Park. City surfaces (i.e. building facades, sidewalks, planters, under buildings) will be made of materials that encourage plant growth. All buildings have green roofs or blue roofs, planted with a variety of plant species. Pollinator homes are integrated into the facades of buildings to encourage the pollination of flora on the site. Buildings are built in similar height regulations to the rest of the Southeast False Creek area – lower buildings near the waterfront stepping higher towards 1st and 2nd avenue. Configuration of buildings into strips from North to South to allow for more light flowing through the site. After reconfiguring the buildings, the total number of buildings is reduced by two buildings, approximately 20% lost in marketable housing. AppendixSTAKEHOLDER: BARRED OWLBARRED OWL NEEDS1. Create urban green spaces with enough trees to roost and hide in during the day 2. Provide nest boxes, anywhere 12 to 30ft high, within 200’ of water, and with no obstructions in front of the entrance hole. 3. Enforce bird-friendly building design: glazing design considerations, bird trap reduction, and light pollution reduction. HUMAN NEEDS 1. Minimize interactions between humans and owls2. Reap the benefits of owls preying on pests like pigeons and rats 3. Create educational opportunities from this living situationTHE DESIGN A new naturalized site with plenty of trees is an ideal habitat for the barred owl. Owl boxes are installed on less human frequented parts of buildings, raised 12-30 ft above ground, and close to the wetlands. Architects will implement the bird-friendly design: minimizing glazing, increasing visibility of glass, dampening reflection, securing enclosed spaces with small openings (i.e. Mechanical ducts) and ensure courtyards have generous openings so they can escape. Light pollution will be reduced around the site: using blue or green exterior lights, downlighting, operational lighting systems, and motion sensor lighting. This section contains the written research and reasoning for each stakeholder as a supplement to the narrative. 129 130
Graduating Project
Vancouver (B.C.)
eng
Unreviewed
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
University of British Columbia. ARCH 549
sustainability
nonhuman
ecocentric
urban evolution
A Darwinian City : decentering humans in architectural design in an evolving urban ecology
Text