April 4, 2016

Expert says we need new approach to designing, building infrastructure

Hillary Brown, a professor of architecture at City College of New York, will give a talk here Tuesday on what she calls “next generation” infrastructure.

The event is sponsored by Urban Land Institute Northwest, and starts at 3:30 p.m. on the 51st floor conference center of Two Union Square at 601 Union St. There will also be a panel discussion with Rhys Roth of The Evergreen State College, Jennifer Bagby of Seattle Public Utilities, Jamae Hoffman of VIA Architecture and Peg Staeheli of MIG|SvR.

Brown

Brown wrote a book called “Next Generation Infrastructure: Principles for Post-Industrial Public Works” in which she examines how to do a better job of revamping old infrastructure. She gives global examples of infrastructure that is low-carbon, resilient, and coordinated with natural and social systems.

Brown is founding principal of New Civic Works, a consulting firm whose clients have included New York Power Authority and State University of New York at Buffalo. She is a former design director and assistant commissioner at New York City's Department of Design and Construction, and founded that city's Office of Sustainable Design.

Brown shared some of her ideas with the DJC.

Q. What do you think needs to change about infrastructure?

A. Our mandate should be to upgrade and/or replace vital transportation, energy, sanitation, waste and waste-handling services — the critical urban services that are near or at the end of their useful life. We need to embrace new, more sustainable models still capable of supporting economic growth. We need to ask the question: How can we capitalize on the connectedness of our critical systems — to nature — and to each other?

What if, for example, the services provided by power plants, sewage treatment plants and waste handling centers were based upon an ecological model of interdependency instead of an industrial model of segregation? Interconnected and networked systems can share resources, exchange wastes, thereby creating synergies. This idea of circular flows is based on a simple insight: that these critical systems are analogous to the ecological systems organized by nature.

Q. Who can do this work?

A. Planners, designers and operators of these alternative systems must be drawn from the current ranks of infrastructure professionals! The only re-training required is to be grounded in thinking holistically and cooperatively about the projects they are working on — to become more fluent in “systems thinking,” i.e. understanding the interdependencies and potential synergies across our dynamic urban systems.

Collectively, you have landscape designers attuned to issues of place and natural systems; architects to patterns and relationships, while engineers tend to focus more deeply on specific technical concerns.

The overarching message should be to collaborate — observe, listen and envision anew as interdisciplinary teams. Their assignment should always be to optimize urban services and solve multiple problems with fewer solutions.

Q. Give us some examples.

A. One example of infrastructure systems that share resources and minimize waste is in the town of Hammarby Sjostad, Sweden, where integrated infrastructure provides for a nearly self-contained system of energy recovery: for example, biogas (is) extracted from sewage to fuel vehicles and domestic stoves, or heat (is) extracted from wastewater used for district home heating.

Next generation infrastructure includes multiple examples of “soft-path” (green) vs. “hard-path” (gray) infrastructure solutions. (They) integrate engineered water treatment systems with natural ecological functions, enhancing landscapes and water features for recreational, scenic and education uses.

Examples include NYC's Croton Water Filtration Plant and Sherbourne Common in Toronto, which co-locates a stormwater treatment center within an urban park, incorporating cascading water features that oxygenate (clean) the water while creating a visually compelling amenity.

Infrastructure can enhance local civic life: waste-to-energy plants or waste-transfer stations that have incorporated recreational, educational functions into their “campuses.”

Q. Can we adapt existing infrastructure?

A. Many case studies focus on adapting existing systems. One compelling example is the conversion of a coal-fired power plant to run on biomass — capitalizing on local agricultural, forestry and municipal solid waste, significantly lowering carbon emission.

In Korea, a tidal barrier built to protect a bay from storm surge was upgraded with tidal turbines to produce renewable energy. In Saudi Arabia, a polluted urban stream was converted into a major public asset using only “amplified” natural systems for wastewater treatment. The recovered wastewater is now usable for downstream irrigation.

In the town of Lille, France, an entire bus fleet was adapted to run on bio-methane produced at a new organic municipal waste handling facility. In Iceland, a geothermal power plant that produced electricity and heat for district heating, added a new function: some of its condensate is used for microalgae production to make biofuel.

Q. Given limited funding, can we do this incrementally?

A. We are bullish on local leadership and have recommendations for state and local officials eager to undertake bold initiatives. The assumption is that these are the players most likely to offer more agile leadership by partnering with progressive utilities, negotiating with regulatory agencies and seeking out new investment entities.