Manual of Inversion

The ExxonMobil

Sara Brown & Sayjel Patel

CONTENTS

PROLOGUE Ways of Working Why a Manual? Ghosts on the Ground

Assessment City Flows Over Time and Space Site Flows: Past / Present Visible / Invisible Water / Oil

CONCEPTUALIZATION Three Operations Damming Channeling Osmosis Activity Flows Three Sketches

REALIZATION Spatial Vision Modular Parcelization Infrastructural Walls Program Vision: Human and Environmental Health Human Health Ecosystem Rationale Mobile Health Center Health-Care Start-Ups Data Centers Environmental Health Ecosystem Rationale Remediation Landscapes

4 / 111

PROLOGUE

6 / 111

WAYS OF WORKING

What happens when metaphor meets reality, or the poetics of design meet ground truth?

What happens when a studio confronts a site and city that is unique, but also representative of other (brownfields) sites and (shrinking) cities across United States?

What happens when a conceptual architect and an analytic planner collaborate?

The Baltimore: Inversions studio (Spring 2013) investigated these questions in the context of a decomissioned Exxon-Mobil refinery and tank farm in Canton, Baltimore, Maryland. The site covers 130 acres, adjacent to the Inner Harbor to the west, mixed-use development, to the northwest, and industrial land to the south and east.

prologue

WHY A MANUAL?

Like any text or cultural artifact, a manual is not neutral, but carries with it a distinct set of implications.

First of these is the idea that a system, operation, or process can be replicated. In this manual, we present a spatial and programmatic solution for a particular brownfield site, but we believe that there are elements that effectively can be brought to other sites.

Second is the notion that a manual is a means of coming to terms with complexity. It seeks to render something in terms of its essentials: what is necessary to know for success. Brownfields are complex, and they tend to attract additional complexity. A brief survey of the highly technical language of brownfield reports, -- “light non-acqueous phase liquid,” “site stratigraphic and hydrogeologic conditions,” “contaminant mobility and recoverability,” -- makes this apparent, and this is just the language of remediation/environmental engineering. Environmental lawyers, real estate investors, and designers have their own lexicon. Wherever possible, we have attempted to simplify, without compromising accuracy or precision.

Finally, manuals tend to communicate both verbally and graphically. We,

too, have sought to use all the tools at our disposal, relying on essays, infographics, diagrams, sections, and axometric drawings, among others, to present a vision for the site with resolution at multiple scales.

This manual, which crystallizes our own thinking over the ten weeks of this studio, is intended not to be prescriptive, but provocative. Through our work on the studio site, we have tried to give a sense of what must be considered when approaching similar sites, and provide a system for thinking through options, as well as generating additional ones. We intend that this manual be used as a reference, not a comprehensive resource. For those who wish to pursue the construction of stormwater wetlands, for example, we have included references in the back.

The word “manual” comes from the Latin word for “hand,” with the implication being that a manual is a guide to something that one operates with their hands. It is an important reminder that this manual is best deployed in combination with on-the-ground site experience. In pursuit of clarity, we have moved towards abstraction, but we recognize, and derive inspiration from, the messy realities of brownfields, and our site in particular.

8 / 111

GHOSTS ON THE GROUND

From above and ground level, the site for this studio, a former Exxon-Mobil refinery and tank farm, is simultaneously a blank landscape and one inscribed with meaning.

Aerial photography of the site reveals traces of old tanks, once arranged in rows, but now removed, their footprints filled with shallow pools of water. There are large expanses of asphalt and concrete, some intact and some broken up and stored in piles. The land is torn up in sections, where excavation has been performed. To the east, along the water, there is the hard edge of shipping infrastructure, once used to support oil brought in by tanker.

Lifting away the top layer of the landscape presents another set of traces. The first four to eight feet of the site are fill, a heterogenous assortment of gravel, sand, silt; brick, asphalt, and glass fragments; and pieces of old railroad ties. A huge oil pipeline (the Colonial Pipeline) juts through the site, joined by a network of smaller sewer and water pipes. There is a brick tunnel containing a channelized stream (Janney’s Run), which drains to the southeast. Visible through the presence of staining and pools of underground oil is the petroleum contamination that infiltrates the soil and water, another topography laid over the contours of the site’s hydrogeology.

Experiencing the site at ground level, another set of signs becomes apparent. The southeast parcel consists of a seemingly wild field, overgrown with grasses and scattered with mounds of dirt: an urban savanna. The northwest parcel, largely stripped to the bare ground, is bisected with piping. The southwest parcel contains a Grecian-influenced brick building, a strange mix of the decorative and functional. Everywhere, there is chain-link fencing, barring access to individual parcels, and also suggesting that there is some sort of activity taking

place that merits securitization. In addition, the site is framed, bounded, and cut by infrastructure, - railway and road, - which seems to situate it as the location of important flows of goods or people.

Confronting the site, whether from above or ground level, elicits a sense of unease and charged expectation. It is evident that the site possesses an order, or spatial logic, that governs the arrangement of the (now-removed) tanks, piping, and infrastructure. However, to the observer, this order is not immediately comprehensible. In other words, there is a sense that important things have happened, or are happening, here, but it is not clear what they are. Why else build, and then demolish, the large tanks? Why leave this terrain, right at the edge of the city and near the water, undeveloped? Why invest in infrastructure to serve this area?

Part of the obscurity stems from deliberate decisions by the site’s owner. To protect residents, reduce liability, and avoid negative public response, Exxon Mobil has kept the site closed for a long time. It also has taken down structures that delineate the site’s function, in an attempt to move it closer to blankness. Another part of the obscurity is geographic. The site lies in a liminal zone, between (public) residential and commercial development to the north and (private) industry to the southeast. A final component of it is a larger social disconnect from brownfields. Unless working in them, most Americans have a limited knowledge of productive landscapes, shaped by a small number of images distributed by the media: grime-covered men interacting with heavy equipment, as in old steel or auto plants, or masked, hatted workers laboring in modern “clean-tech” factories. In regard to brownfields, this lack of knowledge is compounded by fear of contamination. Fences, locked gates, “Danger!” or “Warning!” signs, and a rich cultural lexicon of stories about

prologue

dangers to human and environmental health discourage involvement with these sites.

In Powers of Horror, the French psychoanalytic critic, Julia Kristeva, describes the concept of the “abject.” According to Kristeva, the abject is that which exists outside of the symbolic order. Often associated with filth, waste, and death, the abject is defined not by a “lack of cleanliness or health, but [by] what disturbs identity, system, order. What does not respect boundaries, positions, rules. The in-between, the ambiguous, the composite.” It is the part of the self that is cast away to continue living, and as such, breaks down the distinction between subject and object, and threatens coherent meaning and identity. As Kristeva states, “If the object... through its opposition, settles me within the fragile texture of a desire for meaning, what is abject, on the contrary, the jettisoned object, is radically excluded and draws me to the place where meaning collapses. And yet, from its place of banishment, the abject does not cease challenging its master. Without a sign (for him), it beseeches a discharge, a convulsion, a crying out” (1-2). As a reminder of what people would prefer to forget, the abject is traumatic to face. Both familiar and foreign, it evokes “uncanniness.”

The feelings associated with abjection, -- fascination, curiosity, but also unease, -- are not dissimilar from those aroused by the site. From one perspective, brownfields contain elements of the abject. Often allowed to revert back to a semi-wild state once they are removed from production, as has occurred with this site, they challenge the nature/human divide. They also are often associated with activities about which people might prefer not to know, such as the improper disposal of contaminants. In Powers of Horror, Kristeva draws a distinction between knowledge of death as a concept, which can

be part of the symbolic order, and the experience of coming face-to-face with the materiality of death, a body, which is deeply grounded in the abject. Similarly, brownfields physically manifest contamination, in a way that stacks of EPA reports cannot. Even if there is no odor, no petroleum-stained or -saturated soil, the fencing around and the remediation piping across an otherwise unoccupied landscape trigger the sensation that something is amiss.

In her essay, Kristeva contends that a driving force in art is a desire to purify the abject. As she says, “The artistic experience... is rooted in the abject it utters and by the same token purifies” (18). Speaking about literature, she claims that some of the most powerful work comes from immersion in the abject. Poetry, in particularly, is suited to this because it experiments with grammar, metaphor, and meaning, stretching language, and thus revealing its gaps, contradictions, failures, and insufficiencies (38). This manual considers Kristeva’s arguments through the “poetics” of design. It takes on the opportunity, and challenge, to reveal the site’s meaning, render it more ‘legible,’ and reproduce it at a human scale, without sacrificing the jouissance of uncertainty.

10 / 111

100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

1900 1910 1930 1960 19701920 1940 1950 1980 1990 2000 2010

BALTIMORE CITY POPULATION

ASSESSMENT

12 / 111

Baltimore is a city of flows, over time and space.

The Town of Baltimore was established in 1729, 23 years after the Port was founded for the tobacco trade. Over the next two centuries, Baltimore rose to prominence as a major seaport and manufacturing center. Its primary industries included steel and auto production, transportation, and shipping.

Starting in the 1950s, with de-industrialization and the flight to the suburbs, Baltimore experienced massive population loss. It became a prototypical ‘shrinking city,’ a ‘hole’ in the otherwise prosperous greater Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area. The city shifted from a production- to a service-oriented economy.

Today, 90 percent of Baltimore jobs are in the service sector. The city is struggling to define its identity and determine its priorities. The city’s core is shifting outward from the Inner Harbor, to Canton in the southeast and Locust Point in the southwest. Our site exists right on this divide, with mixed-use retail/residential (Fells Point and Brewers’ Hill) to the northwest and industrial (Seagirt and Dundalk Marine Terminals) to the southeast.

CITY FLOWS: OVER TIME AND SPACE

assessment

LAND USE 1957 LAND USE 2010

14 / 111

SITE FLOWS

A microcosm of the city as a whole, our site exists at the intersection of many flows. From above, it is cut dramatically by infrastructure (rail and highway), and littered with impervious surfaces that produce sheets of runoff. At and below ground level, it is the location of complex flows of water, also complicated by petroleum contamination.

PAST / PRESENT FLOWS

PAST PRESENT:

• Water (Cretaceous-age freshwater delta)

• Soil (4-8 ft. of fill)

• Variety of goods to firms that no longer exist

Charcoal ironworksCopper-smelting plantCotton millDistilleryShipyardsSmall oil refineries

Canner’s Row:Chesapeake Bay oystersEastern Shore vegetablesBahamas pineapples

• Stormwater

• Contaminated soil and water (remediation)

• Transportation (road, rail, shipping)

• Coal

assessment

16 / 111

assessment

Baltimore occupies an area of 92 miles, 13 of which are water-covered.

The city lies within 2 major watersheds: the Pa-tapsco River Basin and the Back River Basin. The two river basins, which extend beyond the city, have a total drainage area of 673 square miles.

BALTIMORE’S WATER LANDSCAPE

Baltimore’s Bureau of Water & Wastewater operates 3 reservoirs and 3 wastewater treatment plants.

It delivers 265 million gallons of drinking water to Baltimore City and surrounding counties daily.

BALTIMORE’S WATER SYSTEM

18 / 100

2 ft. contoursHurricane innudation zoneSewer lines

conceptualization

20 / 111

WATER AND OIL

Both past and present, visible and invisible, water and oil flows have defined the site.

OIL ON THE SITE

1865 1890 1915 1940 1965 1990 2015

REFINERY

PETROLEUM STORAGE

1979: Observed oil seepage from ground

1977: Facility connected to Colonial Pipeline (previously received product via ship)

1985: Removal of bulk storage tanks started

By 1983103,200 gallons recovered

By mid-20011,250,000 gallons recovered

By 20083,500,000 gallons recovered

assessment

WATER ON THE SITE

Concentrated

Obstructed

Pounding

Seeping

Rising

Sinking

PARCEL

SITE

SURFACE & SUBSURFACE

VERTICAL HORIZONTAL

Precipitation

Evapotrans.

Remediation(Dual vacuum)

Water Table

Surface Runoff

Water Table

Stormwater Pipes

Hidden Stream

CSO(Harbor)

SW PipesHidden Stream

TYPE OF WATER FLOWS

Sewers

Storm Surge

FloodingContamination

Sea Level

Aquifer

22 / 111

25

20

10

45

[A]

The site has complex hydrogeology:

2 hydrology layers: Groundwater tablePatuxent aquifer

3 geology layers: Pleistocene layerArundel formationPatuxent formation

SUBSURFACE FLOWS (OIL AND WATER)

[1]

Pleistocene depositsSand, silt, clay

[3]

Arundel formationSilt with sand and clay lenses

[2]

Groundwater table

[4]

Patuxent formationSand and silty sand

Patuxent aquifer contaminated with LNAPL (light non-acqueous phase liquid)

assessment

25

20

10

45

[A]

DAMMINGCHANNELINGOSMOSIS

CONCEPTUALIZATION

26 / 111

THREE SITE OPERATIONS

To grapple with the scale and complexity of the site, as well as the fluidity of the programs permitted (any use but residential), we turned to metaphor to conceptualize our project.

Inspired both by the multiplicity and dysfunctionality of flows that occur onsite, we used ‘flows’ as a metaphor to approach the site programmatically and spatially.

We conceptualized three operations related to flows: • Damming• Channeling• Osmosis

We then considered the distinctive characteristics of each of these operations,as well as how they interact with and oppose each other.

DAMMINGActiveEpisodic (on/off)Maintenance of differenceBrittleness

CHANNELING: Active and passive ContinuousOvercoming and maintenance of difference

OSMOSIS: PassiveOvercoming of differenceResilience

CONCEPTUALIZED OPERATIONS

ActivePassive

Continuous EpisodicOn/off

Overcoming of Difference

Maintenance of Difference

Resilience Brittleness

method

28 / 111

ACTIVITY FLOWS

We then examined how possible pro-grams fit with each of these opera-tions.

We did so by mapping “flows” of activ-ity intensity for each of these pro-grams, and then comparing them to the essential characteristics of each of the conceptualized operations.

At the same, we also assessed how these programs fit with Baltimore’s needs.

We identified these needs through a review of local newspaper coverage

and planning best practices.

HOW PROGRAMS FIT WITH BALTIMORE’S NEEDS

DAMMINGEconomic GrowthPreserves IndustrialModel for Other Brownfields

CHANNELINGSocial ConnectivityBasic Services Now

OSMOSISEcologyUnique Site ConditionsFuture Investment

PROGRAMSDC - Data centerMHC - Mobile health centersNM - Night marketNPC - Nonprofit centerOM - Open manufacturingP - PlazaPA - ParkingW - WetlandsR - RemediationSC - Sustainability centerStreamTLC - Trans. logistics center

OMMHC

TLC

DCR

WSC

Stream WTLCSC

MHC RNM

PMHC

NPCPATLC

WSC

BALTIMORE’SNEEDS

Promotes Social Connectivity

MHC DC

NPCNM P

TLC OM

Supports Economic Growth

Basic ServicesNow

Future-FocusedInvestment

Responds to Unique Site Conditions

Model for Other Brownfield Sites

Preserves Industrial Use

Restores Ecology

method

ACTIVITY FLOWS FOR THREE OPERATIONS

3 am 6 am 9 am 12 pm 3 pm 6 pm 9 pm 12 am

Pedestrian Activity (Along Daylighted Stream)

Night Market

Flex Open Workshops

Consolidated Nonprofit Center

Train

Closed Areas of Remediation Site

Train

Parking

Data Storage Center

Open Areas of Site: Mobile Healthcare Center

3 am 6 am 9 am 12 pm 3 pm 6 pm 9 pm 12 am

Train

3 am 6 am 9 am 12 pm 3 pm 6 pm 9 pm 12 am

Sustainability Center Research and Teaching

Constructed Wetlands (Stormwater Manage-ment)

Plaza

Transportation Logistics Center

30 / 111

Key feature: Parcelize at scale of existing residential block, and then turn units “on and off”

OPERATION 1: DAMMING

32 / 111

OPERATION 2: CHANNELING

Key feature: Concentrate and drive movement through two major corridors

34 / 111

OPERATION 3: OSMOSIS

Key feature: Establish two poles, and then a permeable space through which these conditions of difference can be reconciled

SPATIALIZING THE PROGRAMS ONSITE: THREE PARTIS

Information

REMEDIATION

Contaminated Soil & Water

DATA STORAGE

Social Services

Health

Youth

Financial

RECREATIONAL WATERFRONT

INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT

Raw Material Vendors

Tier 1 Suppliers

Tier 2 Suppliers

Component Fabrication Plants

Sub- & Final Assembly Plants

Distribution Centers

Customers

Retailers

Workforce Dev.

Education

Stream Stormwater

TRANS. LOGS. CENTER SUS. CEN.

Brownfield Remediation

Climate Change

Adaptation

PLAZACrossing Gathering

Coordinating Transp.

Reinventing Transp.

CONS. WETLANDS

Hard Soft

TRAIN

DATA STORAGE

PARKING MOBILE HEALTH CENTERS

PARKING

Information CarsTechnology

JHU Expertise Cars

CleanSoil & Water

Healthcare for Baltimore

TRANSPORTATION LOGISTICS CENTER

SUSTAINABILITY CENTER

PLAZA

CONSTRUCTED WETLAND

Transformation over time

REMEDIATION

CONSOLIDATEDNONPROFIT

CENTER

OPENMANUFACT.

DAYLIGHTED STREAM

NIGHTMARKET

Information

REMEDIATION

Contaminated Soil & Water

DATA STORAGE

Social Services

Health

Youth

Financial

RECREATIONAL WATERFRONT

INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT

Raw Material Vendors

Tier 1 Suppliers

Tier 2 Suppliers

Component Fabrication Plants

Sub- & Final Assembly Plants

Distribution Centers

Customers

Retailers

Workforce Dev.

Education

Stream Stormwater

TRANS. LOGS. CENTER SUS. CEN.

Brownfield Remediation

Climate Change

Adaptation

PLAZACrossing Gathering

Coordinating Transp.

Reinventing Transp.

CONS. WETLANDS

Hard Soft

TRAIN

DATA STORAGE

PARKING MOBILE HEALTH CENTERS

PARKING

Information CarsTechnology

JHU Expertise Cars

CleanSoil & Water

Healthcare for Baltimore

TRANSPORTATION LOGISTICS CENTER

SUSTAINABILITY CENTER

PLAZA

CONSTRUCTED WETLAND

Transformation over time

REMEDIATION

CONSOLIDATEDNONPROFIT

CENTER

OPENMANUFACT.

DAYLIGHTED STREAM

NIGHTMARKET

REALIZATION

REALIZATION

40 / 100

As we moved from three preliminary sketches to develop a more comprehen-sive project, we confronted the lim-itations of our method. To generate the initial spatial and programmatic schemes for our site, we defined three operations related to ‘flows,’ and considered them in isolation.

However, as evidenced by observation of a typical stream, these three op-erations do not occur alone and apart from each other, but simultaneously and in relationship with each other.

To treat them as detached from each other within the context of our site not only does not reflect the com-plexity of natural systems, but also enhances the dysfunctionality of the flows onsite.

MERGING FLOWS

conceptualization

[3]

[2]

[1]

[1] Osmosis - Infiltration into streambed[2] Channeling - Water flows down gradient[3] Damming - Water pools

CONFLUENCE OF THREE OPERATIONS

42 / 100

Borrowing from the episodic, on/off functioning of dams, in which short release periods are interspersed with long holding periods, we elected to treat the site as a complex of mod-ular parcels. These parcels serve as ‘containers’ (or ‘dams’) for an evolving set of activities. Programs are turned ‘on’ and ‘off’ in response to changing economic, environmental, and social needs. Remediation is a crucial function that is turned ‘on’ early, and determines the activation of the other parcels.

The scale of this particular grid comes from the existing residential grid to the northeast. The size of the intervention is appropriate given that this site hosts flows that exist at a regionwide and citywide scale (water and transportation infrastruc-ture).

This ‘modular parcelization’ approach is designed to be generic. It is in-tended to provide a spatial solution that is transferable and applicable to other brownfield sites. The ‘on/off’ grid structure offers a way to come to terms with the scale and com-plexity of brownfield sites, as well as their fluctuating levels of contam-ination over time.

In an inversion, spatial rigidity enables programmatic flexibility. The parcelization, articulated by infra-structural walls that bound the par-

cels, provides a literal framework for innovation and facilitates site transformation over time.

SPATIAL VISION: MODULAR PARCELIZATION (DAMMING)

conceptualization

44 / 100

REMEDIATION: IMPETUS FOR MODULAR PARCELIZATION

The remediation process drives the parcelization of the site. It is the first program to be turned “on,” and the one that determines the spatial location and timing of other programs.

Remediation is suitable for parceliza-tion because it is a localized activ-ity, especially when it comes to the Lower Zone. Wells are drilled at spe-cific places where LNAPL is recoverable. While the wells need to be connected to the existing recovery system, there is some flexibility about where to place the above- or below-ground piping.

Remediation has its own spatial logic that is complementary to the structur-al arrangement of the grid.

conceptualization

[1] Recovery wells[2] Topography [3] Contamination plume contours

[1)

[2)

[3)

46 / 111Remediation pipelinesRecovery wellsGrid

prologue

48 / 100

[1] Surface[2] Pleistocene sediments[3] Water table[4] Arundel formation

conceptualization

50 / 100

Infrastructural walls bound the parcels of the grid. In an inversion of the typical fig-ure-ground diagram, they ‘fill’ the street, yet function as channels for movement. The walls let storm- and waste- water, vehicles, and people move through the site.

They also serve as edges, boundaries, and limits, defin-ing and dividing space.

INFRASTRUCTURALWALLS(CHANNELING)

conceptualization

INFRASTRUCTURALWALLS(CHANNELING)

52 / 100

“RULES OF THE GRID”

Infrastructural walls are rigid concrete walls that provide the basic frame-work for the grid and transport people and storm-/waste-water. They comple-ment other, more flexible types of “walls.”

I. PURPOSEUse infrastructural walls to mediate the site’s scale and allow people to orient themselves. Enable multiple levels of connectivity: Horizontal (west/east, north/south)Vertical (up/down)Between scale (unit/site/city)

II. CIRCULATION PATTERNSEstablish separate circulation patterns for people/water and vehicles/trains. People enjoy being near water, and both are protected from the safe-ty/contamination issues associated with vehicles/trains.

III. QUANTITYBuild the minimum number of walls required in order to keep the grid maxi-mally flexible. Focus on doing so for the programs that require walls in or-der to function: stream and constructed wetlands. Provide enough walls for structure and orientation, but exercise care that the site does not become closed off.

conceptualization

WALL TYPOLOGY

CONTENTS People Vehicles

ELEVATION At grade

MATERALITY

Also:Earthen

berms/bedsIndustrial

rubble or riprapBuilding edge

Ground-level or elevated tracks

PERMEABILITY

FUNCTION

Less:Separated

More:Move freely along and across

Trains

At and above grade

StormwaterWastewater

Follows drainage gradient

Ground-level road

Also:Pathways

Building edge

Channels2 components:Pathways and viewing platforms

(people)Stormwater/wastewater canals

Infrastructural wall Other grid “walls”TYPE

Concrete

Stairs Ramp Gate Waterfall

MOVING BETWEEN THE WALLS

54 / 100

Water flows in one of two direc-tions (southeast or southwest),

following the site’s natural to-pography. Water moves passively

(down the gradient), and from more contaminated to less con-

taminated. Thia is the inverse of the energy-consuming pumping up

of contaminated groundwater on the parcels undergoing remedia-

tion.

WATER FLOWS

Site enables horizon-tal and vertical circu-lation. With the grade

changes, views are maxi-mized where possible.

PEOPLE FLOWS

conceptualization

Vehicles move in the most efficient way to access all the parcels. Traffic is districuted across inter-sections. All road runoff is trapped and treated.

VEHICLE FLOWS

56 / 100

conceptualization

FLOWS AND THE GRID

[1]

[1] Stormwater flows[2] Cold streamwater used for data center cooling[3] Streamwater aerated before it enters CW

BOSTON STREET

[0]

Chesapeake Bay

Chesapeake Bay

[3]

Arrows indicate elevation change and direction of water flowWater travels to the southeast and the southwest in line with the site’s topographyInfiltration encouraged after water is cleaned by CW

58 / 100

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS PREDOMINATE

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MH[D]

MH[D]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MH[D]

MH[D]

SC

SC SC

SC

CW

CW

CW CW

CW

CW

CWCW

DC

DCHT

HT

HT

HTHT

HT

HT

HT

HT

HT

DC

DC

DC

DC

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MH[D]

SCSC

CW

CW CW

CW

CW

CW

CWCW

DC

DC

DC

DCHT

HT

HT

HT

HT

HT

HT

HT

T

HT

HT

HT DC

DC

DC

DC

SC

SC

SC

SC

SC

SC

SC

CWCW

CWCWCWCW

CWCW

CWCWTM

TM

TM

TM

CW CW

CWCW

CW

CW

DC

DCHT

HT

DC

TT

SOCIAL CONCERNS PREDOMINATE ECONOMIC CONCERNS PREDOMINATE

THREE PROGRAMMATIC OUTCOMES

Baltimore takes the lead in environmental sustainability.

Site evolves into a research center and natural reserve.

With federal, state, and nonprofit support, Baltimore commits to addressing healthcare disparities and provid-

ing equitable, effective care as a model for other cities.

Site evolves into a healthcare clearinghouse and coordi-nation center.

Healthcare technology start-ups are successful, and form the basis for a new industry in Baltimore.

Site evolves into a technology campus.

SC

conceptualization

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS PREDOMINATE

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MH[D]

MH[D]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MH[D]

MH[D]

SC

SC SC

SC

CW

CW

CW CW

CW

CW

CWCW

DC

DCHT

HT

HT

HTHT

HT

HT

HT

HT

HT

DC

DC

DC

DC

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MH[D]

SCSC

CW

CW CW

CW

CW

CW

CWCW

DC

DC

DC

DCHT

HT

HT

HT

HT

HT

HT

HT

T

HT

HT

HT DC

DC

DC

DC

SC

SC

SC

SC

SC

SC

SC

CWCW

CWCWCWCW

CWCW

CWCWTM

TM

TM

TM

CW CW

CWCW

CW

CW

DC

DCHT

HT

DC

TT

SOCIAL CONCERNS PREDOMINATE ECONOMIC CONCERNS PREDOMINATE

THREE PROGRAMMATIC OUTCOMES

Baltimore takes the lead in environmental sustainability.

Site evolves into a research center and natural reserve.

With federal, state, and nonprofit support, Baltimore commits to addressing healthcare disparities and provid-

ing equitable, effective care as a model for other cities.

Site evolves into a healthcare clearinghouse and coordi-nation center.

Healthcare technology start-ups are successful, and form the basis for a new industry in Baltimore.

Site evolves into a technology campus.

SC

60 / 100

Remediation initiated

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[D]

MHC[D]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[D]

MHC[D]

SCSC

DC

DCHT

HT

HT

HT

HT DC

DC

DC

SCSC

CW

CW CW

CW

CW

CW

CWCW

DC

DC

DC

DCHT

HT

HT

HT

HTT

HT

HT

HT DC

DC

DC

DC

DC T

Full remediation complete

PROGRAMMATIC EVOLUTION OVER TIME

Some remediation complete

T

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

HT

HTHT

HT

HT

MHC[D]

DC

R R

RR

R

MHC[D]

conceptualization

Remediation initiated

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[D]

MHC[D]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[D]

MHC[D]

SCSC

DC

DCHT

HT

HT

HT

HT DC

DC

DC

SCSC

CW

CW CW

CW

CW

CW

CWCW

DC

DC

DC

DCHT

HT

HT

HT

HTT

HT

HT

HT DC

DC

DC

DC

DC T

Full remediation complete

PROGRAMMATIC EVOLUTION OVER TIME

Some remediation complete

T

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

MHC[P]

HT

HTHT

HT

HT

MHC[D]

DC

R R

RR

R

MHC[D]

62 / 100

The inverse of our spatial solution, which is generic, our programmat-ic solution is highly specific to our site. Having defined the units of the grid as ‘containers,’ we have filled them with activities that respond to Baltimore’s economic, environmental, and social needs and the parcels’ unique hydrogeology.

Influenced by osmosis, we estab-lish two programmatic ‘poles’ on our site: Human and environmental health. Through the construction of our in-frastructural walls, we enable pro-ductive flows between these conditions of difference. In the process, both are transformed, with human and envi-ronmental health acting to mutually reinforce each other.

PROGRAMMATIC VISION: HUMAN & ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH (OSMOSIS)

conceptualization

HUMAN HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

Water, sanitation, and hygieneIndoor and outdoor air pollutionClimate changeNatural and human disastersInfectious disease agentsChemicals, pesticides, wastes

Diet and food accessExercise opportunity

Physical safetyInfectious agent exposure

Pollutant/chemical exposureSocial capital

Economic capital

DESIGN INTERVENTIONS:NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENTS

Housing qualityLand use and transportation patterns

Climate change mitigationResource and ecosystem protection

THE LINKS BETWEEN HUMAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

“The health analysis revealed disparities across Southeast Baltimore

communities... and a spatial and statistical relationship between

environmentally degraded brownfields areas and at-risk communities...

Communities living in the highest brownfields zone (Zone 3) experi-

enced statistically higher mortality rates due to cancer (27% ex-

cess), lung cancer (33% excess), respiratory diseases (39% excess),

and the major causes of death (20% excess)” (“Examining Urban Brown-

fields Through the Public Health ‘Macroscope’”)

64 / 100

Just as Baltimore is characterized by extreme disparities of wealth, it also exhibits extreme disparities of health. Both of these have a strong racial component. Non-whites are more likely to be not only poor, but also sick. For example, in a study con-ducted by the Joint Center for Polit-ical and Economic Studies and Equi-ty Matters, Inc., there was a life expectancy difference of as much as 30 years between residents in vari-ous neighborhoods (2005-2009). Peo-ple in the wealthy, white Roland Park neighborhood lived, on average, to 86.3 years, compared to people in

the poor, black Upton/Druid Heights neighborhood (56.7 years).

Despite having state-of-the-art medi-cal facilities affilitated with Johns Hopkins and University of Maryland, Baltimore struggles to deliver care to its most vulnerable populations. In terms of healthcare, then, the city needs a new way forward. In ad-dition, it is well-positioned to be-come a leader in developing and test-ing new models of healthcare delivery because of its concentration of medi-cal expertise.

HUMAN HEALTH RATIONALE

Fair or Poor Health Status

Obesity Diabetes Household Asthma

(At least 1 HH member)

Unmet Healthcare

Needs

Unmet Mental Healthcare

Needs

Exposure to Violence

Food Insecurity

High Blood Pressure

No Health Insurance

HHI $15,000-24,999

HHI $75,000+

Black

White

2008 PERCENTAGES

conceptualization

LIFE EXPECTANCY BY COMMUNITY STATISTICAL AREA, BALTIMORE CITY, 2002-2006

62.5-66.5 years

66.6-69.5

69.8-71.5

71.6-75.6

75.7-82.9

66 / 100

PROGRAMMATIC ECOSYSTEM

MHC depot receives supplies by freight rail. Warehouses provides storage and distribution space. Dispatch center coordinates care and responds to emer-gencies city-wide. HT start-ups nearby use MHC to test their innovations.

[1]

[2]

[4]

conceptualization

Three MH typologies:• Basic medical • Basic dental• Counseling center: Mental health and sub-

stance abuse

[1] Freight rail[2] Boston Street[3] Infrastructural walls[4] MHC supply depot[5] MHC supply warehouse[6] MHC vehicle parking lot[7] MH dispatch (call) center[8] HT start-up building

[3]

[5]

[6]

[7)

[8)

68 / 100

01. MOBILE HEALTH CENTERS

NEEDS ADDRESSED• Serve five interrelated vulnerable populations• Save money and lives

PART OF A LARGER NETWORK OF DISPERSED CARE

REPRESENT THE FUTURE OF HEALTHCARE

TODAY

Expensive and inefficient

Concentrated in large hospital complex

Large healthcare disparities

TOMORROW

Lower costs, higher quality

Decentralized, dispersed system of care

Targeted delivery

THE GROWING NEED FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS

Traditional hospital

Mobile health centers

Community health centers

Outpatient clinics

Retail or drugstore

clinics

Tele- or remote medicine

PATIENT

201540m Americans

201020m Americans

The Affordable Healthcare Act only increas-ing need for care from community health centers. MD received $15 million from ACA for this purpose in May 2012.

conceptualization

SERVE FIVE INTERRELATED VULNERABLE POPULATIONS

UNINSURED OR UNDERINSURED16.5% of Baltimore City residents

EX-OFFENDERS12,000 people released from MD correctional system each year2/3 (8,000 people) to Baltimore City3,000 additional people awaiting trial in jail each month

MENTALLY ILL16% of homeless reported mental illness (2007)

SUBSTANCE ABUSERS41% of homeless reported substance abuse (2007)

HOMELESS4,000 people living on street (2011)500 chronically homeless people: Homeless for 1 yr. or at least 4 homeless episodes in 3 yrs.

SAVE MONEY AND LIVES

MONEYLack of affordable healthcare is a major contributor to homelessness. Baltimore:• Provides housing/services to 25,000+ people• Allocated $4.8 million for homeless services in 2013• Maintains 1,000+ emergency beds• Each CH person costs taxpayers $40k per year

LIVES• 75% of homeless have unresolved chronic medical conditions• Life expectancy on streets: 42-52 years• Homeless 3-4x more like to die than general population• Only 1/2 of the people calling Baltimore Substance Abyse Systems are able to access care

in the next few ways

SHORT-CIRCUIT COSTLY SYSTEM

Psychiatric facilities

Preventative and emergency care

Jail

ER

Mobile health centers

01. MOBILE HEALTH CENTERS

70 / 100

02. HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGY STARTUPS

NEEDS ADDRESSED• Baltimore’s commercialization lag: Over the last decade, patents basical-

ly flat in Baltimore, vs. 60% rise across nation• Demand for new industry: Healthcare technology/informatics: US market for

mHealth is $20 million in US - Potential to export to China and India (McKinsey)

Baltimore does not require any more expensive “wet lab” space. It is already well-served in this area by the 2 science parks associated with Johns Hop-kins University and University of Maryland. It does, however, need afford-able, flexible, modern start-up space. There also are opportunities for good adjacencies with the data centers.

THREE AREAS FOR INNOVATION

Currently, 500+ mHealth projects worldwide40,000+ medical apps available for smartphones and tablets

Remote monitoring devices(Movement, BP, HR)

Drug ordering and delivery

Medication reminders

Location/tracking devices

Wellness apps

CONSUMER PRODUCTS

HEALTHCARE INFORMATICS

REMOTE / PORTABLE MEDICINE

Data storage and analysis

Pattern/problem identification

Phone doctor (telemedicine)

Portable diagnostic tools

Mobile field hospitals

GE VscanPortable ultrasound providing instant images

Voxiva Text4BabyPregnancy-related SMS reminders

AthenaHealthCloud-based record-keeping system

conceptualization

REINVENTING HEALTHCARE THROUGH TECHNOLOGY IN BALTIMORE

OLD NEW

Patient visits ER when very sick

Doctor performs in-person exam, and does not have access to medical records

Caregiver interviews patient over phone, with access to (digital) MR, remote moni-

toring device info

Patient gets SMS reminders to take medi-cine, reports side effects in real time

Caregiver monitors patient remotely, advises on lifestyle choices

Patient has to visit specific location, limited to doctors nearby

Patient can access “hyperlocal” medicine (MHC), plus global medical expertise

Doctor prescribes medicine, hopes patient takes it

Patient gets better, possibly returns to unhealthy lifestyle

Patient calls caregiver or MHC dispatch as soon as symptoms begin

72 / 111

03. DATA CENTER

NEEDS ADDRESSED• Reduce healthcare costs: improve efficiency and care quality• Reinvent the data center: More robust and energy-efficient

More effective data management and analysis is essential to reinventing healthcare.

Effective use of “big data” could save $300-400b per year in US healthcare costs, 12-17% of $2.6t total US healthcare spend.Electronic billing/credentialing alone could save $32 billion per year.

THE RISE OF BIG DATA IN HEALTHCARE

Pattern recognition - Most effective treat-ments, issues w. side

effects

Enable better self-care

Streamline administration and

billing

Eliminate fraud, abuse, waste

Provide better-co-ordinated, evi-denced-based care

DATA CENTER

Support research

Standardize and consolidate data

Electronic health recordsClaims and billingClinical outcomesE-prescribingReferrals

These are “plug and play” systems that come with pre-installed racks of servers, and just need power, water, and a connection to the network to start running.

conceptualization

74 / 100

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RATIONALE

Baltimore faces significant challenges around water.

• AGING INFRASTRUCTURE: Its underground water infrastructure is old, and in need of frequent, expensive repairs.

• STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: The city is under pressure to improve its stormwater management because it is facing not only greater stormwater demands, but also stricter state and federal environmental controls.

• BAY CONTAMINATION: The Chesapeake Bay is deeply contaminated. • CLIMATE CHANGE: Sea level rise poses a threat to low-lying areas.

INTERCONNECTED FLOWS OF CONTAMINATED WATER

STORMWATER

LNAPL-SATURATED WATER

WASTEWATER

CHESAPEAKE BAY

Contamination

On-site facilities

Site, larger drainage area

conceptualization

According to Baltimore’s De-partment of Public Works, 45.1% of the city is covered with im-pervious surfaces, or 23, 373 acres out of 51,790.

One 1-acre parking lot produces almost 16x the runoff volume of a similarly-sized meadow.

BALTIMORE’S IMPERVIOUS SURFACES

76 / 100

INTERCONNECTED FLOWS OF CONTAMINATED WATER

28%

POLLUTANT REDUCTION NECESSARY TO RESTORE CHESAPEAKE BAY TO BALANCE BY 2025

46%

48%

N

P

2,147,000 lbs. phosphorus33,400,000 lbs. nitrogenDeposited via stormwater into the Chesapeake Bay annually

BOD11%

Nutrients20%

Bacteria9%

OilGrease5%

Fertil.4%

Metals11%

Pestic.2%

Sediment25%

POLLUTANTS CARRIED BY STORMWATER INTO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY

Sediment

conceptualization

O2

O2

N+P

N+P N+P

Well-oxygenated water column

HEALTHY BAY

+

+++

+++

+

+

O2

High levels of nitrogen and phos-phorus support algae (+) growth in

the water, blocking sunlight

When the algae die, they are broken down by bacteria (-), which consume

the oxygen in the water

Poorly-oxygenated water column

UNHEALTHY BAY

-

-

-

-

2 effects:Diminished water qualityShoreline erosion

57% of sediment in Chesapeake Bay comes from eroding shorelines

4.7m cubic yards of sediment annually

SEDIMENT POLLUTION

NUTRIENT (N+P) POLLUTION

78 / 100

PROGRAMMATIC ECOSYSTEM

[1] Heat exchanger[2] Street with runoff collec-tion drain[3] Water conduit[4] Gross pollutant trap[5] Aeration reservoir[6] Flow regulation device

CONTAINERIZED DATA CENTER

DAYLIGHTED STREAM

[1]

[2][3]

[4]

conceptualization

Factors that control how much wetlands can clean:Volume of waterFlow rate (velocity)Incoming contaminant levelsPlants

CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

[5]

[6]

80 / 100

01. REMEDIATION

UPPER ZONE:

[1] Excavate remedial trenches[2] Separate LNAPL and non-LNAPL saturated soil based on visual examination[3] Separate LNAPL and non-LNAPL contaminated water using fractionation tank

LOWER ZONE:

[1] Install monitoring wells to determine if LNAPL is present, recoverable[2] Install recovery wells[3] Connect wells to existing recovery system (below- and above- ground steel piping to above-ground recovery tanks)[4] Pump up LNAPL-contaminated water[5] Once all recoverable LNAPL-contaminated water re-moved, abandon wells

conceptualization

The daylighted stream is a critical component of the infrastructural wall system. It helps establish the gradient that enables water to move passively across the site.

The daylighted stream performs multiple functions:

• It receives storm- and waste- water from upstream impervious surfaces, including huge transportation infrastructure.

• It directs water to the data center for liquid cooling. • It acts as a reservoir (inflow) for the constructed wetlands.• It starts the filtration process.

02. DAYLIGHTED STREAM

COOLING THE DATA CENTER WITH WASTEWATER

• Cooling forms 30-40% of total data center power consumption, and direct contact liquid cooling is more efficient than liquid cooling. An effective rack-backed lqiuid cooling system can cut total data center power con-sumption by 25%.

Steps:[1] Water broughr in from daylighted stream[2] Water cooled by ambient air[3] Water pumped to data center, run through microchannels attached to server backs[4] Hot water can be returned directly to stream or transferred to heat exchanger that allows it to be used for heating

82 / 100

TWO BASIC TYPES OF CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

Lower slopes better for sur-face flows

SURFACE FLOW

Predominant water flow across wetland surface

Higher slopes better for subsurface flows

SUBSURFACE FLOW

Predominant water flow through permeable substrate

(sand and gravel)

03. CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

Two purposes for wetlands on site: • Treat stormwater• Treat wastewater

Constructed wetlands cost 50-90% less than conventional storm- or waste- water techniques.

OUTLET ZONE

Gross pollutants

INFLOWDaylighted stream

FLOW REGULATION STRUCTURE

Wetlands remove pollutants in size sequence

Coarse sediments

Fine sediments

Soluble pollutants

Deep Marsh

Marsh

INLET ZONE

Deep Marsh

Open Water

Shallow Marsh

Marsh

MACROPHYTE ZONE

GROSS POLLUTANTTRAP

THE STRUCTURE OF A CONSTRUCTED WETLAND

conceptualization

The constructed wetlands use macrophytes (aquatic plants) to carry out phy-toremediation.

The plants and associated photosynthetic organisms:• Slow down the movement of the water and enable sediment to fall out• Remove nitrogen and phosphorus through direct uptake and convert them

into biomass• Improve overall water quality by producing oxygen during phytosynthesis,

which cleans the water column

03. CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS: PHYTOREMEDIATION

It is best to use a combination of plants for maximum effect.

ROOTED: Take up N and P from sediment SUBMERGED AND FLOATING: Take up N and P from water column

10 acre marsh: Extract 70,000+ lb. N + 8,300 lb. P

Rose mallow Sea lavendar Salt grass

84 / 100

04. SUSTAINABILITY CENTER

The Sustainability Center responds to the existing brownfields to the south and the long-term threat of climate change in Baltimore.

SHORT-TERM:Brownfield Research Center

LONG-TERM:Climate Change Adaptation Center

450,000 brownfield fields in the USEstimated 1/2 are petroleum brownfields

WATER

Flooding

Shoreline erosion

Wetlands loss

LAND

Heat waves

More extreme weather

Infectious disease outbreaks

$2 trillion US land undervalued because of contaminants

Long-term, constructed wetlands could transition to tidal marsh, to soften hard edge, mitigate flooding, and buffer storm surge:

Groundwater flow

Intertidal exchange

Surface runoff

Estuary

Ocean

Infiltration

Seep

Steps[1] Excavate and/or fill the land to the proper depth (so area is under water at high tide, dry at low tide)[2] Choose plants based on salinity, depth, and duration of tidal flooding

conceptualization

86 / 100

conceptualization

88 / 100

conceptualization

90 / 100

conceptualization

92 / 100

conceptualization

94 / 111

EVOLUTION

Increasing Salinity

Non-tidal {FW marsh}

Tidal FW {marsh}

oligohaline {estuary}

mesohaline {estuary}

polyhaline {estuary|

euhaline{marine}

average annual salinity (ppt)

<0.5<5<18<30

TIDALINFLUENCE

LIMIT

96 / 111

98 / 100

Through this studio, we have explored design strategies that are suitable for our site, but also transferrable and applicable to oth-er brownfield sites. In the process, we have become convinced that there is an opportuni-ty for design to play a leading role in the treatment of these sites, and unify economic, environmental, and social forces.

While there is no “typical” brownfield, con-taminated land is a widespread condition. Brownfields exist across the United States, not just on the East Coast and in the Mid-west, and in suburban and rural areas, as well as newer and older urban areas. Most are former manufacturing or industrial locations (approximately 70%), with the rest comprised of public/military or commercial facilities. The average size of brownfield parcels var-ies, with studies reporting median sizes of 4, 5, 8.5, and 10 acres. Evidence suggests that there are many sites under a half acre, although, as evidenced by the studio site, larger parcels also are present (Heberle and Wernstedt). While distinct, the site exhibits three challenges common to brownfields: the issue of scale, as some sites are very large; of relationship to the surrounding urban fab-ric or landscape, because these sites have often been sealed off for long periods of time; and of evolving conditions over time, due to the remediation process.

Traditionally, two professions, environmen-tal engineering and real estate development, have handled the disposition of brownfield sites. Both have their own standards and cus-toms of practice, including their approach to risk. Responding to the demands of federal and state environmental agencies and private clients often implicated in the contamina-tion, environmental engineers focus on reduc-ing threats to human and environmental health and minimizing liability through successful clean-up. In doing so, they are responding to the 1980 federal Comprehensive Environmen-tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA), and related state laws. As Heberle and Wernstedt note, however, “These institu-tional controls do not so much enhance envi-ronmental quality through the elimination or treatment of contamination as they provide protection by limiting exposure to it.” Mean-while, developers concentrate on identifying sites capable of delivering strong return on investment, as well as managing liability, as a factor that could compromise the latter. Under both approaches, the site sits fallow until the remediation is complete.

Through design, however, the site can be re-conceived as a dynamic field to be activated, rather than a static void on the landscape. Taking advantage of the geography of remedia-tion, where localized wells are drilled, used to extract contamination, and then abandoned once a certain minimum recovery thresold is reached, the site can be addressed through “modular parcelization.” Under this system, the site is subdivided into units that are turned “on” and “off” as remediation pro-gresses and circumstances change. This system offers a new, more generative paradigm for managing risk. Instead of one massive site, sitting inert for many years and then sudden-ly switched “on” when the environmental engi-neers decide the time is right, regardless of market conditions, the site becomes a multi-plicity of sites, reflecting different time-frames and needs. This approach is inspired by damming, specifically the way that dams use episodic, controlled releases of water to re-duce the total load on the structure, rather than allowing the water to build up for lon-ger periods of time and increasing the chance of failure. Today, it is more critical than ever to think about managing risk in innova-tive ways, because conditions are only becom-ing more volatile, as evidenced by the 2008 economic crisis and climate change. In fact, the studio site was, or will be, affected by both of these factors. The economic crisis slowed traditional development of the site, and sections of it are vulnerable to flooding

THE GENERIC AND SPECIFIC: BROWNFIELDS BEYOND BALTIMORE

conceptualization

and sea level rise.

The “modular parcelization” of the site, ac-complished through the construction of infra-structural walls that enable people and water flows, provides a spatial framework that of-fers programmatic flexibility. The walls form “containers” that can be filled with whatev-er programs are most appropriate, and these programs can change over time. In her essay “Hounding the Snark,” Denise Scott Brown dis-cusses strategies that can be used to cope with risk in planning. She identifies “main-taining a level of generality” and “leav-ing space for expansion” as two adaptations that help respond to “change that you cannot predict” (66-67). The infrastructural walls, which are deployed on the site where need-ed to start, but can always be continued or expanded, demonstrate both of these charac-teristics. They also address the three major design challenges of brownfields, noted above. The walls mediate between different scales, providing a reference point for visitors and linking the part to the whole (unit: site: city). Similarly, they reincorporate the site back into the surrounding urban fab-ric, by subdividing according to the logic of the block. Finally, they allow remediation to progress, without arresting the transfor-mation of the site. In their flexibility and fungibility, paradoxically enabled by their structural formality, they borrow from the best elements of the grid.

While the frame is generic, the content is specific. On the studio site, water drives the program, because of the site’s complex hy-drogeology and proximity to the Chesapeake Bay, and Baltimore’s demand for more effec-tive storm- and waste- water management. The program also reflects the need to address Baltimore’s health disparities, and leverage its strengths in healthcare to generate a new industry (healthcare technology) and support economic growth. In other places, in response to other social, environmental, and econom-

ic conditions, other programs might be more suitable: new contents for the “containers.” To determine the programs, we have provid-ed, in this manual, a framework for thinking about programs in terms of flows: who/what you want to bring to the site, how, and for what purpose. The idea is to build a programmatic “ecosystem,” where the programs not only com-plement, but also actually move fluidly into each other. Three operations related to flows, - damming, channeling, and osmosis, - are productive in conceptualizing this. For exam-ple, people can be channeled to one location, and then dammed there for a specified period of time, and a specified activity, before they are released. Likewise, conditions of dif-ference can be established, by putting two dissimilar programs near each other, and then ideas can move by osmosis between them, with both programs ultimately being transformed in the process. On the studio site, this happens between the data centers and healthcare tech-nology start-ups, which become a healthcare informatics “living laboratory.”

As noted above, no brownfield is exactly the same as any other. It is important to rec-ognize that this system of “modular par-celization” may not be appropriate for all sites. In particular, it is most applicable to sites where remediation occurs on a local-ized scale, with petroleum brownfields, where contamination is removed via wells, serv-ing as the archetype. However, we believe that it has the opportunity to be used on a broad scale. Heberle and Wernstedt point out that small brownfield sites (under one acre), which are common, pose a particular reinven-tion challenge, because remediation costs may be greater than their economic values if redeveloped and there are limited opportuni-ties for economies of scale in site assess-ment and remediation. Making matters worse, these brownfield sites tend to exist in neigh-borhoods that are already distressed, with low economic activity, problematic infra-structure, and high crime. In these environ-

100 / 100

ments, “modular parcelization” might entail not the subdivision of a large parcel, as on our site, but the assemblage of small, scat-tered parcels into a network for revitaliza-tion, with the existing street grid taking the place of the infrastructural walls. This approach would shift the redevelopment of the sites beyond the level of the individu-al parcel, which can only be so effective in addressing neighborhood-, city-, and re-gion-wide problems, to the relevant scale.

The title of this studio is “Baltimore: In-versions.” Throughout our design process, we have been guided by our desire to create pro-ductive inversions. As evidenced by this man-ual, we have chosen to do so in a number of ways, turning the site from a static, inert blank to a field for activation; from a land-scape that is “formless” to “formalist”; from a place that disregards or disrupts flows of water to one that makes them a central fea-ture; and from “terra incognita” to a place that meshes with the existing urban fabric. Through this process, in another, final inver-sion, we have sought to transform the site, and brownfields in general, from a place where designers arrive last to execute, to one where they come first to strategize.

conceptualization

102 / 111

evolution over time

104 / 111

evolution over time

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

108 / 1111

REMEDIATION GeoTrans. “14th Street (Upper Zone) Corrective Action Plan Completion Report – Exxon

Mobil Baltimore Terminal.” 4 Aug. 2008. GeoTrans. “Corrective Action Plan: 14th

Street Parcel (Upper Zone) ExxonMobil

Corporation Baltimore Terminal.” 15 Feb. 2008. GeoTrans. “Interim Corrective Action Plan: Planned Additional LNAPL Recovery (Lower

Zone) ExxonMobil Corporation Baltimore Terminal.” 30 Jan. 2008. GeoTrans. “Lower Zone Corrective Action Plan – Exxon Mobil Baltimore Terminal.” 10

Sept. 2009. Heberle, Lauren, and Kris Wernstedt. "Understanding Brownfields Regeneration in the

US." Local Environment 11.5 (2006): 479-497. “Site Report.” Maryland Department of the Environment – Environmental Restoration &

Redevelopment Program. 29 Sept. 2004. HUMAN HEALTH Litt, Jill S., Nga L. Tran, and Thomas A. Burke. "Examining urban brownfields through

the public health ‘macroscope.’” Environmental Health Perspectives 110.Suppl 2 (2002): 183.

Mobile Healthcare Centers: Baltimore Homeless Services. “The Journey Home: Baltimore City’s 10-Year Plan to End

Homelessness.” Jan. 2008. <http://humanservices.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/HumanServices/downloads/Journey%20Home%20Baltimore%20City%2010%20Year%20Plan%20to%20End%20Homelessness.pdf>.

Beaudoin-Schwartz, Buffy. “Baltimore Nonprofit Preps for Obamacare with New Primary Health Care Clinic.” The Association of Baltimore Area Grantmakers. 12 Feb. 2013. <http://www.abagrantmakers.org/news/116584/ABAG--Members-in-the-News-Baltimore-Nonprofit-Preps-for-Obamacare-With.htm>.

Broadwater, Luke. “Only 5 Percent of City Retirees Receiving Medicare Are ‘Healthy.’” Baltimore Sun. 11 Mar. 2013. Online.

Cohn, Meredith. “Health Centers Win Funding to Expand Services.” Baltimore Sun. 1 May 2012. Online.

Cohn, Meredith. “Almost 13 Percent of Marylanders Uninsured” Baltimore Sun. 29 Aug. 2012. Online.

Dresser, Michael. “State designates five 'health enterprise zones.'” Baltimore Sun. 24 Jan. 2013. Online.

Dresser, Michael. “Maryland selects five health enterprise zones.” Baltimore Sun. 24 Jan. 2013. Online.

Kaysen, Ronda. “Health Centers Find Opportunity in Brownfields.” New York Times. 11 Dec. 2012. Online.

Latta, Ashley. “Nonprofit Offers Healthcare to Baltimore’s Homeless.” The Daily Record. 15 Nov. 2011. Online.

Walker, Andrea. “Health Care For the Homeless gets $858,333 Federal Health Reform Grant.” Baltimore Sun. 20 June 2012. Online.

Walker, Andrea. “Howard is Healthiest County in Md.; Baltimore City Least Healthy.” Baltimore Sun. 20 Mar. 2013. Online.

Walker, Andrea. “Sequestration Will Hit Health Care in Maryland.” Baltimore Sun. 28 Feb. 2013. Online.

Wenger, Yvonne. “Advocates say Baltimore's Plan to end Homelessness is in Disarray.” Baltimore Sun. 17 Mar. 2013.

Baltimore City Health Department – Office of Epidemiology and Planning. “2010 Baltimore City Health Disparities.” May 2010. <http://baltimorehealth.org/info/2010_05_25_HDR-FINAL.pdf>.

Healthcare Technology Start-Ups: Ascari, Alessio, and Milan Ajay Bakshi. “Global Mobile Healthcare Opportunity.”

McKinsey & Company. 18 Feb. 2010. <http://www.mckinsey.it/storage/first/uploadfile/attach/141765/file/global_mobile_healthcare_opportunity.pdf>.

Cloos, Putney, Sherina Ebrahim, Tracey Griffin, and Warren Teichner. “Healthy, Wealthy, and (Maybe) Wise: The Emergence of the Trillion-Dollar Market for Health and Wellness.” McKinsey & Company. May 2012.

Emanuel, Ezekiel. “Billions Wasted on Billing.” New York Times. 12 Nov. 2011. Online.

references

GENERAL BALTIMORE AND CANTON Dresser, Michael. “10 Years After Baltimore Tunnel Fire, Much is Unchanged.” Baltimore

Sun. 16 July 2011. Online. Keith, Robert C. Baltimore Harbor: A Pictorial History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press , 2005. Kristeva, Julia. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Trans. Leon S. Roudiez. New

York: Columbia University Press, 1982. Longo, Alberto, and Anna Alberini. "What are the effects of contamination risks on

commercial and industrial properties? Evidence from Baltimore, Maryland." Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49.5 (2006): 713-737.

U.S. Census Bureau. “Baltimore Population Counts.” <http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/md190090.txt>.

BALTIMORE WATER Ator, Scott, John Brakebill, and Joel Blomquist. “Sources, Fate, and Transport of

Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: An Empirical Model.” U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5167. 2011.

Bureau of Water & Wastewater and Department of Public Works (Baltimore). “Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Plan.” August 2006. <http://www.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/0/agencies/planning/public%20downloads/2006_CompW&WWplan.pdf>.

City of Baltimore. “Stormwater Management Business Plan.” Cleanwater Baltimore. <http://www.cleanwaterbaltimore.org/flyers/Storm%20Water%20Business%20Plan.pdf>

Langland, Michael, Joel Blomquist, Douglas Moyer, and Kenneth Hyer. “Nutrient and Suspended-Sediment Trends, Loads, and Yields and Development of an Indicator of Streamwater Quality at Nontidal Sites in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 1985–2010.” U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5093. 2012.

Planning Department (Baltimore). “Comprehensive Master Plan – Water Resources Element.” <http://www.baltimorecity.gov/Government/AgenciesDepartments/Planning/ComprehensiveMasterPlan/WaterResourcesElement/StormwaterRunOffNonPointPollutionPrevention.aspx>.

Planning Department. “Impervious Surfaces” (Map). <http://www.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/0/agencies/planning/public%20downloads/Impervious_map.pdf>.

Planning Department. “Regional Watersheds” (Map). <http://www.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/0/agencies/planning/public%20downloads/Regional%20Watersheds%20Map.pdf>.

Planning Department. “Wetlands” (Map). <http://www.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/0/agencies/planning/public%20downloads/Wetlands%20Map.pdf>.

THE GRID AND INFRASTRUCTURAL WALLS Blum, Andrew. “Infrastructure: Tracking the Future.” Metropolis Magazine. 2009.

<http://andrewblum.net/2009/infrastructure-tracking-the-future-metropolis-mag/>.

Campos, Robert. “The Infrastructural Complex: A Return to Big Design.” Master’s Thesis – MIT, June 2007. Online.

Jacobs, Sam. “Ceci N'Est Pas Une Pipe: Infrastructure as Architectural Subconcious.” Strange Harvest Blog. <http://strangeharvest.com/ceci-nest-pas-une-pipe-infrastructure-as-architectural-subconcious>.

Lambert, Craig. “Radiant Walls: Functions Find Form.” Harvard Magazine. Mar. 1998. <http://harvardmagazine.com/1998/03/right.walls.html>.

Rael San Fratello. “Border Wall as Infrastructure.” <http://www.rael-sanfratello.com/?p=19>.

Roberts, Sam. “200th Birthday for the Map That Made New York.” New York Times. 20 Mar. 2011. Online.

“Walls of Change.” Lebbeus Woods Blog. 28 May 2010. <http://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/walls-of-change/>.

110 / 1111

Groves, Peter, Basel Kayyali, David Knott, and Steve Van Kuiken. “The ‘Big Data’ Revolution in Healthcare: Accelerating Value and Innovation.” McKinsey & Company: Center for US Health System Reform: Business Technology Office.

Hopkins, Jamie Smith. “In Nationwide Innovation Battle, Baltimore Area Lags on Patents.” Baltimore Sun. 1 Feb. 2013.

Knapp, Tim, Ben Richardson, and Shrey Viranna. “Three Practical Steps to Better Health for Africans.” McKinsey Quarterly. <http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Health_Care/Strategy_Analysis/Three_practical_steps_to_better_health_for_Africans_2618>.

McKinsey & Company. “Client Service Initiatives: mHealth.” <http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/initiatives/mhealth>.

“mHealth: A New Vision for Healthcare.” GSMA and McKinsey & Company. 2010. <http://www.gsma.com/connectedliving/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/gsmamckinseymhealthreport.pdf>.

New York Times Editorial Board. “Miles to Go on E-Health Records.” New York Times. 1 April 2009. Online.

Novak, Stephanie. “Exploring the Role of Mobile Technology as Health Care Helper.” New York Times. 13 May 2012. Online.

Pash, Barbara. “Baltimore Nonprofit May Launch New Healthcare Accelerator.” Baltimore Media.22 Jan. 2013. <http://www.bmoremedia.com/innovationnews/biohealth012213.aspx>.

Rosenberg, Tina. “The Benefits of Mobile Health, On Hold.” New York Times. 13 Mar. 2013. Online.

Steinhauer, Jennifer. “Thousands Line Up for the Promise of Free Health Care.” New York Times. 12 Aug. 2009. Online.

Wayner, Peter. “Monitoring Your Health with Mobile Health Devices.” New York Times. 22 Feb. 2012. Online.

Data Center Vance, Ashlee. “Dell Sees Double with Data Center in a Container.” New York Times. 8 Dec. 2008. Online. Vance, Ashlee. “Google’s Search Goes Out to Sea.” New York Times. 7 Sept. 2008.

Online. Vanderbilt, Tom. “Data Center Overload.” New York Times. 8 June 2009. Online. Various authors. “Room for Debate: Information’s Environmental Cost.” New York Times.

23 Sept. 2012. Online. Vey, Jennifer S. “Building from Strength: Creating Opportunity in Greater Baltimore’s

Next Economy.” The Brookings Institution – Metropolitan Policy Program. 2012. <http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2012/04/26-baltimore-economy-vey>.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Daylighted Stream Brown, Robbie. “Now Atlanta is Turning Old Tracks Green.” 14 Feb. 2013. New York

Times. Online. French, Will. “For Landlocked Revitalization, Railyards in Lieu of Waterfronts.”

Atlantic Cities. 14 May 2012. Online. Kim, Mikyoung. “Chongae Canal Restoration.” Arch2O. <http://www.arch2o.com/chongae-

canal-restoration-mikyoung-kim>. Constructed Wetlands Ferguson, Bruce. Introduction to Stormwater: Concept, Purpose, Design. New York: John

Wiley & Sons, 1998. Flynn, Kathleen. “The Sprawl of the Wild: A New Infrastructural Landscape in Silicon

Valley.” Master’s Thesis, 2008. Greenway, Margaret. “The Role of Macrophytes in Nutrient Removal using Constructed

Wetlands.” Environmental Bioremediation Technologies. S. N. Singh and R. D. Tripathi, Eds. Springer, 2007: 257-274.

Hollander, Justin B., Niall G. Kirkwood, and Julia L. Gold. Principles of Brownfield Regeneration. Washington: Island Press, 2010.

Mays, Larry W. Urban Stormwater Management Tools. New York, McGraw-Hill, 2004. Prasad, M.N.V. “Aquatic Plants for Phytotechnology.” Environmental Bioremediation

Technologies. S. N. Singh and R. D. Tripathi, Eds. Springer, 2007: 257-274. Sinha, Rajiv K., Sunil Herat

and P.K. Tandon. “Phytoremediation: Role of Plants in

Contaminated Site Management.” Environmental Bioremediation Technologies. S. N.

references

Singh and R. D. Tripathi, Eds. Springer, 2007: 257-274. Sledge, Matt. “Gowanus Park to Feature ‘Sponge Park’ Green Infrastructure.” 2 July

2012. Huffington Post. Online. Turenscape. “Shanghai Houtan Park.”

<http://www.turenscape.com/english/projects/project.php?id=443>. Ungureanu, Cristina. “Organ Trade: Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategies for the San

Francisco Bay Area.” Master’s Thesis – MIT, 2010. Vecchio, Ann-Ariel. “Stormwater Management and Multipurpose Infrastructure Networks.”

Master’s Thesis – MIT, 2012. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. “Stormwater Design Specification

No. 13 – Constructed Wetlands.” 1 Mar. 2011. Wheeler, Timothy B. “Large Harbor Floating Wetland Project Stirs Debate.” Baltimore

Sun. 14 Oct. 2012. Online. Sustainability Center American Society of Landscape Architects. “James Clarkson Environmental Discovery

Center. White Lake Township, Michigan.” Designing Our Future: Sustainable Landscapes. <http://www.asla.org/sustainablelandscapes/discovery.html>.

English, Michael. “A Brighter Future in Brownfields.” Baltimore Sun. 26 Jan. 2004. Online.

Fried, Joseph P. “Brownfield Center Planned.” New York Times. 29 June 2001. Online. Maryland Commission on Climate Change: Adaptation and Response Working Group.

“Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Maryland’s Vulnerability to Climate Change: Phase I – Sea-level Rise and Coastal Storms.”

SMP Architects. “Sustainable Urban Science Center.” ArchDaily. 5 Nov. 2011. <http://www.archdaily.com/181020/sustainable-urban-science-center-smp-architects/>.

Wheeler, Tim. “Chesapeake Bay CleanUp Gets $9 Million in Grants.” Baltimore Sun. 26 Aug. 2012.

Wheeler, Timothy. “Chesapeake Bay Improving, Green Group Says.” Baltimore Sun. 2 Jan. 2013.

{4/30/2013}

Manual of Inversion

The ExxonMobil

Sara Brown & Sayjel Patel

Modular Parcelization