REDEVELOPING Industrial Sites · REDEVELOPING Industrial Sites A Guide for Architects, Planners, and Developers CAROL BERENS Architects, urban planners, urban designers, de-velopers,

ISBN: 978-0-470-39824-1 4-COLOR • GLOSSY

REDEVELOPING Industrial SitesA Guide for Architects, Planners, and Developers CAROL BERENS

Architects, urban planners, urban designers, de-velopers, city offi cials, and all those interested in revitalizing their post-industrial cities will fi nd the tools they need here. Redeveloping Industrial Sites delivers solutions to complex issues con-cerning urban planning, design, and fi nancing to reveal lessons on ways to successfully convert decaying land and buildings into vibrant parks, stimulating cultural destinations, and active commercial complexes. In addition, carefully chosen real-world examples illustrate topics such as sustainability, public policy, and developer know-how to form a complete picture of the elements involved in planning and executing urban redevelopment projects. Redeveloping Industrial Sites:

• Covers strategies used to turn abandoned industrial sites into vibrant new neighborhoods and special districts such as Toronto’s Distillery District and Philadelphia’s Piazza at Schmidts

• Emphasizes design and economic issues that urban planners and city offi cials need to plan successful projects as well as manage spontaneous neighborhood transformations such as loft conversions

• Includes case studies of a variety of redevelopments from across North America and Europe ranging from large projects such as New York’s Hudson River Park and Amsterdam’s harbor to the small, but important neighborhood regenerators such as Baltimore’s American Brewery Building for Humanim

• Examines how cities from Minneapolis, Minnesota to North Adams, Massachusetts, to Swansea, Wales harnessed the forces of tourism and art to transform their mills and harbors

Providing historical context as well as current perspective, Redeveloping Industrial Sites offers clear direction on repurposing derelict and polluted wastelands and warehouses into vital, living extensions of their communities.

CAROL BERENS is a vice president with

the Empire State Development Corpo-

ration in New York City. An architect

and developer, Berens manages land

development of upstate New York

mixed-used communities as well as

the sale and development of state-

owned land. She is the author of the

book Hotel Bars and Lobbies, as well

as articles on design and urban issues.

Front Cover: Back Cover:

Urban Outfi tters Headquarters at the Philadelphia Navy Yard Olympic Sculpture Park, Seattle

Architect: Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle (MS&R) Lead Designer, Site Design and Architecture: Weiss/Manfredi

Photographer: Lara Swimmer/Esto Photographer: Lara Swimmer/Esto

Architecture/Urban Design/Real Estate Development

The ultimate resource on strategies for redeveloping abandoned urban sites

REDEVELOPING Industrial Sites

BERENS

A GUIDE FOR

ARCHITECTS,

PLANNERS, AND

DEVELOPERS

P1: TIX/OSW P2: ABCfm JWBT327-Berens August 26, 2010 19:15 Printer Name: Yet to Come

ii


REDEVELOPMENT OFINDUSTRIAL SITES

i


ii


REDEVELOPMENT OFINDUSTRIAL SITESA Guide for Architects,Planners, and Developers

Carol Berens

JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC.

iii


This book is printed on acid-free paper. ∞©

Copyright C© 2011 by Carol Berens. All rights reserved.

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.Published simultaneously in Canada.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization throughpayment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923,978-750-8400, fax 978-646-8600, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should beaddressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, 201-748-6011,fax 201-748-6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book,they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book andspecifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be createdor extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitablefor your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liablefor any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or otherdamages.

For general information on our other products and services, or technical support, please contact our Customer CareDepartment within the United States at 800-762-2974, outside the United States at 317-572-3993 or fax 317-572-4002.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available inelectronic books.

For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at http://www.wiley.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

Berens, Carol.Redevelopment of industrial sites : A Guide for Architects, Planners, and

Developers / by Carol Berens.p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-0-470-39824-1 (cloth : alk. paper); 9780470649305 (ebk); 9780470649312 (ebk);9780470649329 (ebk); 978-0-470-95017-3 (ebk); 978-0-470-95041-8 (ebk)

1. City planning–Case studies.2. Industrial sites. I. Title. II. Title: Strategies for reclaiming the urban landscape.

NA9053.I53B47 2010711′.5524–dc22

2010007961

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

iv

http://www.copyright.com

http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions

http://www.wiley.com


CONTENTS

Acknowledgments viiIntroduction ix

SECTION 1: THE INDUSTRIALLEGACY

Chapter 1: Patterns of IndustrialSettlement 3

Industry Arrives 3

Transportation 16

Why Industry Left and What It Left Behind 18

Chapter 2: The Emergence ofAn Industrial Architectureand Aesthetic 21

Industrial Buildings—Early Developments 21

Industrial Architecture and the ModernMovement 33

Industrial Aesthetic and Renovation 39

SECTION 2: REDEVELOPMENT—ANOVERVIEW

Chapter 3: Project PlanningStrategies 45

Public Outreach: Requests forProposals, Competitions, andOther Tools for Public Participation 46

Government-Initiated Projects 49

Owner/Developer-Initiated Projects 58

Community-Initiated Projects 65

Chapter 4: Public policyand Urban Evolution 75

Urban Evolution, Rezoning, andDevelopment Controls 75

Retaining Industry 88

Art as an Economic DevelopmentEngine 95

Chapter 5: EnvironmentalRemediation and Development 115

Environmental Regulation 115

Sustainability Issues 121

v


vi CONTENTS

Remediation and LandscapeArchitecture 122

Chapter 6: Development FinancingPrograms 131

Tax Credit Programs 132

Conservation Easements 140

Tax Increment Financing forBrownfields 144

SECTION 3: PROJECT TYPES

Chapter 7: Cultural Projects 149Architecture as Advertising 149

Museums of Industry 150

Adaptive Reuse 171

Chapter 8: Residential,Commercial, and Mixed-UseDevelopments 183

Pioneering Projects 184

The Role of Single-Purpose Entities orDevelopment Corporations 206

Self-Contained Projects 223

Chapter 9: Open Space and Parks 229Creating New Parks—An Overview 233

Retaining History through Design 245

Waterfront Parks 257

Afterword 269Appendix: Resources 271Bibliography 273Index 275


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Writing is said to be a solitary experience; however, writ-ing a book requires the help and support of many peo-ple. For their encouragement, valuable comments andsuggestions, I would like to thank Julie Pecheur, JudithBing, Ellie Becker, and Tom Doramus. Jacqueline andDick Loehr patiently listened to me and also trudgedout to take some photos. Paula and Philip Forman were,as always, stalwart supporters, and Anne Asher, PatriciaZedalis and Michael Strasser continually encouraged me.My travels would have been much less enjoyable and pro-ductive if it weren’t for the kind generosity of Diederikand Dana Advocaat in London and Bert and MalouBakker in Amsterdam. In Paris, Patricia Bungener wasalways ready to set out to explore a new project. PatrickWeiller, Caroline and Jean-Francois Kindermans playedhosts, guides, and translators in my journeys.

I greatly appreciate those who shared with me the de-tails of their projects and the long paths to completion.Their recounting of the vagaries of the market, the endlesspublic sessions, and the deadlines almost missed suppliedinvaluable information and conveyed the commitmentrequired to undertake these projects. T. Allan Comp ex-plained the complexities of establishing AMD&ART inPennsylvania and the roles his impressive team played.Sarah Parker and Wendy Holmes of Artspace expressed

their enthusiasm for and knowledge of creating artisthousing. Tom Meyer and Jeff Scherer of Meyer, Scherer& Rockcastle, Ltd. outlined the perseverance requiredto sensitively renovate historic industrial structures toenhance today’s use, while Ligeia Uker kindly enduredmy requests for images. John Grady at the PhiladelphiaIndustrial Development Corporation explained the rede-velopment process of converting a naval base to become anew part of its city. Anath Ranon of Cho Benn Holback+ Associates Inc. patiently led me through the renova-tion of the flamboyant American Brewery building into acenter for Humanim, and Henry E. Posko, Jr. and CindyPlavier-Truitt of Humanim described the nail-biting ex-perience of being first-time developers. Kara Cicchettiof the Architectural Heritage Foundation helped me un-derstand how the renovation of the Washington MillsBuilding No. 1 was achieved. The enthusiastic recount-ings of Emma Keyte at Wilkinson Eyre Architects andRichard Bevins of the National Waterfront Museum inSwansea, Wales, made their project come alive. AureleCardinal of the Groupe Cardinal Hardy explained howMontreal approaches redevelopment and the transfor-mation of its waterfront, while Eve-Lyne Busque shep-herded the images for me. The team at West 8—AdriaanGeuze, Jerry van Eyck, Nicolette Pot, and Dianne van

vii


viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Essen—untangled the story of the redevelopment ofAmsterdam’s Eastern Harbor. Regina Meyer explainedthe massive rezoning process in Brooklyn, and BrianColeman and Paul Parkhill of the Greenpoint Manu-facturing and Design Center traced the history of theirdevelopment efforts to protect industry in a corner ofBrooklyn. Tim Jones of Artscape in Toronto shared theimportance the support of art and artists to his city, andLiz Kohn helped greatly in finding the images to supportthat claim. Norman Hotson of Hotson Bakker BonifaceHaden architects + urbanistes remembered how the de-sign and planning ideas embodied in Granville Islandwere new and untested at the time and Noreen Taylorhelped unearth some old images. Steve Soler of George-town Land Development Co., LLC explained how heworked with the local community to seek approvals.Scott Erdy from Erdy McHenry Architecture shared theurban vision of the developer of Piazza at Schmitds andKristine Allouchery helped me with the images. TomOgara, a local developer, and Dan Reardon of the Trustfor Architectural Easements walked me through a projectthat showed that it is as economical to renovate as totear down.

In addition, I am indebted to all those individuals whowent out of their way to help me with photographs andpermissions: Dana Kelly of Bruner/Cott & Associates;

the Mairie de Noisiel, France, and Nestle France S.A.S.;Fiona Small of Urban Flash and Richard Cooper fromPhotoflex Studios; Lisa Ries from the Albert Kahn Familyof Companies; Ellen Flanagan Kenny with CummingsProperties; Mikko Heikkinen of Heikkinen-KomonenArchitects; Caroline Leroy at the Pavillon de l’Arsenal;Mathieu Genon at the ville de Nogent sur Marne; Stefa-nia Canta at Renzo Piano Building Workshop; TimothySullivan at Design Collective, Inc; Iwan Baan and theFriends of the High Line; Paul Januszewski; Ronald LGlassman; Emily Winslow at Greenpoint Manufactur-ing and Design Center; Richard Johnson at the TorpedoFactory; Ron Solomon; Michael Van Valkenburgh andAdrienne Heflich from Michael Van Valkenburgh Asso-ciates, Inc.; Jeroen Hendriks of cepezed; Karen Utz atthe Sloss Furnaces National Historic Landmark; GaliaSolomonoff and Steven Harper of Solomonoff Architec-ture Studio; Andrew Zago and Laura Bouwman fromZago Architecture; Jo Oltman with Cambridge SevenArchitects; Annie O’Neill; Brian Rose; Silke Schmid-bartl at Latz + Partner; Shelley Seccombe; Lara Swim-mer; Scott Fraser at Granville Island; Porter Gifford; RobWatkins; Kevin Weber; Teresa Lundquist; Jill Slaight withthe New-York Historical Society; and last but not least,Philippe Besnard.


INTRODUCTION

In New York City, along the Hudson River’s edge wherelongshoremen once unloaded cargo and scows plied thewaters, golfers now practice their drives and bikers cycle.In London, contemporary art hangs in a former powerstation. In Omaha, lofts and studios echo with the soundsof rock bands, not livestock. Throughout America andEurope, where smokestacks and warehouses once definedneighborhoods and even cities, today shade trees over-hang park benches, museums attract streams of visitors,and new housing and office buildings bustle with activity.

For the last several decades, industry has been leav-ing the metropolitan centers of America and Europe insearch of cheaper or more efficient places to producegoods. The swaths of derelict land and crumbling build-ings left in its wake challenge architects, planners, politi-cians, and all those who are interested in the vitality oftheir cities. Redevelopment of Industrial Sites describes thestrategies that cities, towns, and determined individu-als have used to turn their formerly uninhabitable andeconomically bereft land and buildings into parks, cul-tural destinations, commercial complexes, and vibrantneighborhoods.

Headlines mourning industrial abandonment have aneerie similarity; stories of reinventions, too, though var-ied in design and use, are related in process and intent.

These projects show how three powerful forces guidingdevelopment today—environmental concerns, renewedurban cores and historic preservation—work together toredefine the post-industrial city. The many successfulstrategies recounted in Redevelopment of Industrial Siteshave entailed decades of effort, multitudes of consultants,and concerted political will, to say nothing of extensivefinancial resources.

* * *

Although the course of industry has never been static,after WWII the advent of multi-laned highways sweptindustries from densely developed cities toward moresparsely populated suburban and rural areas where newindustrial facilities had acreage over which to spread outand easy transportation access via the new arterial net-works. Container ships demanded deeper, more mecha-nized ports than the traditional harbor cities could pro-vide. It became cheaper to manufacture goods beyondthe shores of America and Europe for consumption athome. Industrial ruins soon pocked cityscapes. Aban-doned buildings with broken windows sagged amid theweeds on their bleak, forlorn grounds. Rotting pierssilently testified to the past dynamism of waterfronts.Cities, former economic powerhouses of production and

ix


x INTRODUCTION

trade, reeled from these physical and financial blows.Cities, however, have proven more resilient than thenaysayers’ warnings.

Now there are decades-worth of achievements rangingfrom well-publicized projects to those only known bytheir neighbors. The problems and ultimate solutionsof the often long and arduous development process areexamined in this book. One of the puzzling questions thatarose is determining how the redevelopment of industrialsites differs from the standard development project, if atall. The difference, however, isn’t in process as much asin necessity. The vacant land and abandoned property oflong-gone factories and failed projects stifle growth andeffectively seal off sections of towns.

To look at some of the pioneering projects in the bookis to see not only an apparently simpler era, but also toglimpse back at a time when economists and sociolo-gists declared that “The City” was no longer a viable oreven a necessary entity. Urban crime was rising, citieswere going bankrupt, and urban investment evaporated.The uniform answer was to tear down what wasn’t beingused, a policy influenced by government funding. Urbanrenewal created new high-rise housing in low-rise neigh-borhoods or left parcels vacant when the money ran out.

Slowly, with the help of a few strong personalities, thepost-industrial urban center was redefined. New York’sartists rescued SoHo’s nineteenth-century cast iron fac-tories, and in so doing unwittingly created a new ap-proach to economic development. Vancouver’s GranvilleIsland combined recreation, art, shopping, and industryto show that a layering of uses creates an active placepeople want to return to again and again. Paris turnedindustrial sites into parks in its eastern section to attractresidents to formerly dreary neighborhoods. Baltimore’sInner Harbor brought people close to the waterfront.

While we may take these projects for granted today,they forecast differences in approach to urban redevel-opment of their time and point the way to some of thelarge themes of successful conversions. Far from beingthe result of anonymous change, I was struck by howmany projects were the visions of strong personalitieswho saw beauty and possibility where others saw deteri-oration and hopelessness. With every conversation I had

with the people behind these developments, I was struckby how determined they were to achieve what they did,and that without this personal commitment and advo-cacy, these projects would not have gotten done.

The projects in the book were chosen for their trans-formative nature. Contrary to those in vibrant neigh-borhoods or exurban areas, these projects are critical toa city’s financial health and urban fabric. Abandonmentand ruin, often in strategic urban areas and comprisingmany acres, motivate the conversion of industrial sites.This is not an easy proposition, as these projects involvemultiple layers not only of regulation and complicatedfinancing, but also of history, emotion, and sometimesByzantine land ownership patterns. These complexitieslead to projects that entail government involvement aswell as the cooperation of all development actors and cantake years, even decades to complete. A long view andpatience is required by all parties.

* * *

To look at these early projects and the more recentones that have followed them, I’ve divided the bookinto three sections: A review of the industrial legacy,an overview of the redevelopment process and how itapplies to industrial sites, and finally an examination ofthree broad project types—cultural, mixed-use, and parksand open space—and how they affect their cities.

The Industrial Legacy. Where industry settled andwhat kind of land it required play important roles in howthese sites are redeveloped. Early industry needed water,either from the rivers or man-made canals and raceways,to power looms and other machinery. Cities developedaround these economic generators as the workforce theyattracted settled nearby. As a result, waterfronts in manyindustrial cites were inaccessible, reserved for workingports or factories. These areas now are in the greatestdemand for recreation and residential use.

Industrial needs also spurred the development of newmaterials and building types for factories and the accom-modation of machinery. The resulting spare forms of in-dustrial buildings, their means of construction clearly ex-pressed and not covered up, along with the prevalence ofmass production of building elements greatly influenced


INTRODUCTION xi

designers and theories of modern architecture. Years afterfunction or market changes rendered these buildings ob-solete for their original use, the simple, wide-open spacesof factories and warehouses with their exposed structuresignited the imagination of new generations, who sincethe 1960s have been rescuing these buildings. Althoughthere are many reasons for the reuse of these buildingsand sites, the allure of the industrial aesthetic cannot bedismissed, and in many instances, is crucial to the successof their redevelopment.

Redevelopment Overview. Another overridingtheme that arose in conversations with developers, ar-chitects and project proponents is that development hasbecome more complex and expensive since those firsttransformative projects. Some of the early actors lookback and are amazed at how simple, at least in mem-ory, the process was when they first started tackling reuseissues. While the process might have been easier, theconcepts were novel, requiring innovative thinking.

Some of the programs that evolved in response toredevelopment issues have added numerous layers of ap-provals, and mechanisms such as tax credits, which maymake these projects economically feasible, but at the costof complicated financing requiring a roomful of consul-tants. The rise in public participation in the form ofcommunity meetings and forums, as well as the increasein the use of competitions and requests for proposalsfor both design and development schemes, has led to agreater transparency and control of local projects, buthas also added various approval levels and subsequentlytime to the development process. How well this processis managed is a key to success or failure. This more openpublic outreach has given individuals who see a potentialproject a way to galvanize their neighbors and the govern-ment. It also presents the same tools to their opponents.

Often, cities evolve on their own while governmentpolicy plays catch-up, legitimizing what’s already takenplace without its prior approval. The initially illegal colo-nization of SoHo in New York City by artists has had animmeasurable effect on the economic development ap-proaches of cities, to say nothing of zoning laws. Almostevery hub city in America today has an arts or warehousedistrict. This “SoHo Effect”—both the spontaneous es-

tablishment of new neighborhoods “discovered” by artistsas well as their dislocation because of the rise in value ofthe surrounding real estate—has molded public policyas well as methods to deal with it. Both Minneapolis’sArtspace and Toronto’s Artscape were established to pro-vide affordable artist space so that artists wouldn’t bepushed out and have since expanded their developmentmandate. Other cities have changed their zoning lawsto allow live/work areas and artists overlay districts toencourage artists to settle there.

As beneficial as the arts economy may be for cities,encouraging it must be balanced with other public policydecisions that relate to the character of the post-industrialcity. Not everyone can be an artist. When a factory leaves,it also abandons its employees. How does a city maintainits tax base and middle class and retain industry? Severalcities have addressed this problem through zoning andspecial industrial areas, with varying success. Should theproperty remain zoned industrial or has the march oftime made that futile? Questions of public policy infusethese projects that affect more than their neighborhoodbut the character of a town.

Two major environmental milestones have facilitated,and in the best cases normalized, the redevelopment ofindustrial sites. The first is that after several years of pilotprojects in the mid-1990s, federal brownfield legislationaddressed legal liability and cleanup issues directly. Ingeneral, subsequent owners of property on which otherscaused pollution are not liable if an analysis is done be-forehand and an agreement concerning cleanup can bereached with the authorities. The federal government aswell as the states have initiated programs for voluntarycleanups in order to make these properties useful again.Along with these policies are grants to do this initial duediligence.

The second is the rise in green building techniques,such as LEED certification, that encourage the redevelop-ment of existing sites. Former industrial sites often haveeasy pedestrian access to existing transportation com-pared to new buildings on a new sites outside a city.LEED certification also promotes the reuse of existingmaterials and structures. Ironically, while environmentalconcerns with respect to industrial sites can be daunting,


xii INTRODUCTION

they’re often more easily addressed than the larger issuessuch as retaining population, city identity, and finding amarketable use.

At one time, almost all projects were conventionallyfinanced; however, it is striking how complex financinghas become today. The days of the simple bank loanare past. Almost all projects now have multiple fundingsources, many of which make the project feasible butalso add complexity and lawyers’ fees to the cost. Theavailability of tax credits for properties that are historical,old, or in underserved areas has had an inestimable effecton restoring industrial sites that fit in one of the allow-able categories. Discussions of both environmental andfinancial aspects, however, are clouded by the variationin state and federal laws that are continually in flux aswell as the ever-changing lending environment.

The increased role of not-for-profit groups in the rede-velopment of industrial sites is noticeable. These groups,whether in the arts, social services or industry, are tak-ing the initiative and becoming developers of their ownprojects. Rather than sitting back, they are building theirown facilities. Groups with specific needs and outreachprograms can use buildings that confound other devel-opers. The Baltimore social service provider, Humanim,saw a building that stood vacant for over 30 years inan underserved neighborhood, undertook the renova-tion itself and invested the developer fee into the project.The Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center sawartisan manufacturing businesses squeezed out of theirneighborhood in Brooklyn, struck a deal with the cityto take over a rambling old rope factory, and became sogood at what it does that it recently finished developingits fifth building. Stories of such not-for-profit group un-dertakings are scattered throughout the book and are aninspiration to those people and groups with little experi-ence but a lot of drive.

Project Types. The projects in this book range fromconversion of a small warehouse into a contemporary artgallery, to the remaking of the Amsterdam and Londonwaterfronts, to the creation of a riverfront parks along theHudson River in New York. Whether cultural, mixed-useor parks, change seldom comes quickly or without con-

troversy. Some projects reflect investment spear-headedby government which is often the European model. Oth-ers are accomplished through collaborative efforts of gov-ernment and private developer initiatives. In America, byfar the most common story is that of a lone visionary orgroup of like-minded locals who see a rotting pier or anabandoned factory and then refuse to accept “no” as ananswer in order to renovate it. From New York City tothe small canal town, individual pioneers often initiateprojects.

Two powerful economic development partners, artand tourism, often work together to rescue abandonedindustrial buildings and sites and infuse life into mori-bund areas. Museums now operate in former mills,factories, and industrial wastelands in North Adams,Massachusetts; Tacoma, Washington; Minneapolis, Min-nesota; and Swansea, Wales—just a few of the many cul-tural venues around the world that have pinned theirhopes on being the key to their local and regional eco-nomic development renewal. Both large and small citiesuse their adaptive reuse projects—especially in the myr-iad mill museums that recount how things were made bythe areas ancestors—to maintain a neighborhoods’ senseof history in hopes of attracting visitors who will notonly come for the exhibits, but remain to eat, shop, andperhaps stay overnight.

The large spans and raw spaces of these former indus-trial buildings are comfortable spaces for contemporaryart, with its large sculptures that often don’t fit into tra-ditional museums. The unfinished surfaces of these con-verted buildings resemble artists’ studios and are a perfectbackdrop for this type of art.

Other cities pinning their hopes on creating touristdestinations opt for attention-getting structures that usetheir architecture as advertising. Merging the world of theculture and economic development, high-profile muse-ums and cultural centers lure visitors to once run-downformer industrial areas with attention-getting build-ings. Because of the large areas and huge infrastruc-ture investment required, these projects are almost alwaysgovernment-initiated with the costs and efforts justifiedby projected job generation and the economic benefit


INTRODUCTION xiii

gained through increased tourism and newly burnishedimage.

In America, the availability of land has traditionallyfuelled growth, with companies and people accustomedto picking up stakes to start afresh in less populous orpolluted areas. In Europe and more densely populatedAmerican areas where open space is scarce, the call forrefurbishing blighted urban areas and existing underuti-lized facilities more easily resonates. In these areas, theremay be a strong desire to restrict building and keep un-developed land undeveloped.

The last half century saw people and resources movefrom cities to newly created suburbs and beyond, espe-cially in America. While this outflow has not abated, theallure of urban living spurred in part by the revitalizationof formerly undesirable areas that offer previously un-available services and amenities now attracts the youngas well as retains those with growing families. Projects arefueled in no small part by the revival in importance ofurban public space. Not long ago, the urban landscapeconsisted of private spaces and often dangerous streets.With the rise of urban crime, the will to maintain or sup-port public space diminished, or indeed was disparagedas an inappropriate public goal. The increased safety ofcertain cities coincided, and in some ways was due to,reclaiming the public realm for the public.

The mixed-use and parks projects address this Ameri-can urban resurgence that has encouraged the market forredevelopment of industrial properties within its cities,making the real estate investment worth the risk. Thisturnaround has also left communities thirsting for morepublic space and amenities. The modern urban lifestylenow includes active outdoor pursuits such as biking andkayaking as well as visiting museums, shopping, strollingin parks, or eating at an outdoor cafe.

The fine line between neighborhood improvementand gentrification is a recurring theme heard throughoutthe planning and redevelopment process of these sites,both in America and Europe. With some exceptions,

neighborhoods adjacent to these industrial sites fall intotwo large categories: Either they are the last refuge ofaffordable housing in their cities or they were severelyunderused and then unofficially homesteaded by a par-ticular group such as artists or newly arrived immigrants.As houses, stores and parks replace boarded-up factories,existing nearby residents and businesses fear becomingstrangers in their own neighborhoods, unable to affordor adapt to changes and concerned that future stores andservices will appeal to a different class or group of people.There is no fixed response to this situation, whether basedon an unspecified fear of change or deep-seated class an-tagonism or other concerns, as will be seen throughoutthe projects presented. Even though these issues arisetime and time again, they must be addressed specificallywith each project.

The large issues of deindustrialization and globaliza-tion are directly tackled on local levels as individual com-munities are left to deal with the effects of these macroe-conomic issues. Often what appears to be a controversyover a specific development is at root an argument aboutthe past and what used to be, not purely a fight overthe future. The stage is set for conflict. Each projectcreates its own advocates and opponents—union work-ers pitted against nearby residents or newcomers versuslong-timers, for example—that may not be obvious atthe outset as each project confronts anew the fallout ofsociological as well as economic change.

* * *

Until the late 1950s, packages for Uneeda Biscuits andOreos, printed in a factory in Beacon, New York, wereloaded onto trains and delivered to the Nabisco Bakerieson West 16th Street in New York City. Today, that bakeryis the Chelsea Market, a rambling mixed-use food marketand office building, that printing plant is the museum,Dia:Beacon, and part of that railroad is called the HighLine, New York City’s newest park. How these and otherprojects were accomplished are explored in this book.


xiv

P1: TIX/OSW P2: ABCc01 JWBT327-Berens August 20, 2010 7:33 Printer Name: Yet to Come

SECTION 1THE INDUSTRIAL LEGACY

1


2


CHAPTER 1PATTERNS OFINDUSTRIAL SETTLEMENT

INDUSTRY ARRIVES

Starting with the first factories, facilities for manufac-turing and distributing goods produced indelible markson the physical layout and sociology of cities, and in-deed countries. Although the whys and wherefores ofthe Industrial Revolution are complex and beyond thescope of this book, the changes wrought by this histori-cal event shaped the built environment, influencing howand where cities developed. The story of the impact of in-dustry’s arrival and establishment can be read from theirremains today—urban population concentrations, pat-terns of transportation networks, and the evocative ruinsof factory and warehouse buildings. Industry’s monop-olization of urban waterfronts, the wide swaths of landconsumed to accommodate machines and production,and the system of roads, canals, and rails over which sup-plies and finished merchandise flowed shaped and oftencreated these cities.

For trading purposes, industry first settled where ithad easy access to rivers and oceans. When manufacturewas local and craft-based, port cities, traditional cen-ters of activity, received raw materials and distributedproducts through cavernous warehouses situated directlyon the harbor. As technology developed, especially in

America and in Britain, industry claimed waterfronts inorder to harness water power. Mills that produced cot-ton, paper, lumber, and flour, among other items, neededwater for energy, superseding the men or animals whopreviously turned the wheels. Initially, the mills took ad-vantage of naturally occurring waterfalls that producedenergy to power their waterworks. Developments thatmanipulated and controlled nature for more energy andconsistent results quickly followed, as waterways weredammed and raceways created in order to moderate theeffects of drought and generate a constant flow of powerthroughout the seasons.

Cities developed around these economic generatorsas the workforce they attracted settled nearby. Severalcities and regions claim the mantle of the birth of the In-dustrial Revolution as manufacturing developments hap-pened quite rapidly and often simultaneously, imposingsimilar physical effects on landscape and urban devel-opments. It is commonly agreed, however, that GreatBritain forged an important lead in the advancement ofmanufacturing, fueled in large part by an effective mer-chant fleet, natural resources, and dense population cen-ters. In addition to these advantageous factors, inventionsfor cotton spinning and the mechanisms to power thempropelled Britain into the forefront of textile manufac-ture and the development of cities. Manchester, quickly

3


4 PATTERNS OF INDUSTRIAL SETTLEMENT

HIGHLIGHTS OF INDUSTRIALDEVELOPMENT

1761 Bridgewater Canal built

1765 James Watt’s patent of improvedsteam engine

1769 Richard Arkwright patented spinningyarn machine

1780s Widespread use of steam power

1785 Edmund Cartwright’s power loom

1791 Panic of 1791

1792 SUM and City of Paterson

1812+ Textile mills in Waltham

1819 Panic of 1819

1822 Lowell established

1825 Erie Canal opensLachine Canal opens

1825 Menier factory in Noisiel built

1880s Town of Pullman started

1902 Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City planpublished

1917 Tony Garnier’s Cite Industrielle planpublished

1955 Air Pollution Control Act

1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956

late1950s–1960s

Rise of container shipping

1963 Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring

1963 & 1970 Clean Air Acts

1972 Clean Water Act

1974 Love Canal evacuation

1982 Times Beach evacuation

1980 “Superfund” Act

mid-1990s Brownfield pilot programs

2002 Brownfield Revitalization andEnvironmental Restoration Act

dubbed “Cottonopolis,” is a good example of how tech-nology and manufacturing transformed an area from asleepy town to a major industrial hub.

In America as in Britain, textile production led theway and the textile mills of New England were the van-guards of industrial development. The rest of the coun-try quickly followed, adapting the milling process as in-dustrial and agricultural progress dictated. The naturallandscape was transformed to accommodate industry’sneeds, and towns formed or grew exponentially in re-sponse to this rise in development. Social and physi-cal changes occurred as towns expanded around thesemills, thus enabling laborers to live close to the fac-tories where they worked. Some enclaves were builtby mill owners, who established company towns com-plete with workers’ housing, stores, and community fa-cilities, while others occurred naturally and incremen-tally. The first centers of American industry, however,were planned.1

Although New England became America’s major millcenter, the first industrial planned town was located fur-ther south, in New Jersey. As early as 1791, AlexanderHamilton and a group of investors founded the So-ciety for Establishing Useful Manufactures (SUM). Itwas created to implement his Congressional Report onManufactures, which stressed the importance of creat-ing an independent American manufacturing capacityto establish economic autonomy from Britain. Its firstand only industrial foray created Paterson, New Jersey,high above the 77-foot-high Great Falls of the PassaicRiver (Figure 1.1). In 1792, SUM purchased approx-imately six acres from three existing landowners and,supported by a charter from the New Jersey State legis-lature exempting it from local taxes, hired Pierre CharlesL’Enfant, the architect of Washington, DC, to designthe town and develop a means of controlling the waterpower to run mills. His plan was ultimately scrappedas too complicated and costly, but an alternate seriesof canals and raceways was built to provide water stor-age to ensure adequate and uniform water power to thecotton mills.


INDUSTRY ARRIVES 5

Figure 1.1At 77 feet high and 280 feet wide, the powerful Paterson Falls on the Passaic River in Paterson, New Jersey,were a source of power for some of the first mills that were developed on the East Coast. The 1912 SUMHydroelectric Plant is on the left.Photo by Martha Cooper, 8/15/1994 Working in Paterson Project Collection (AFC 1995/028), Archive of Folk Culture,

American Folklife Center Project, Library of Congress

SUM’s life span as a producer of goods was cutshort by overreaching and mismanagement. Althoughno longer engaged in manufacturing after 1796, it con-trolled the land and leased water rights. The num-ber of mills grew, requiring new sites and a rework-ing of the raceway and reservoir system to keep pacewith the expansion. By 1910, the existing power wasinadequate and SUM built a central hydroelectricplant, employing Thomas Edison’s Electric Company,and increased production to 6,500 horsepower. The

city of Paterson bought SUM’s business and holdingsin 1946.

When SUM exited the manufacturing arena othersstepped in, and factories producing paper, firearms, silk,railroad locomotives, and other items soon joined theoriginal cotton mills. In the 1840s, Paterson started fab-ricating silk, and when high tariffs were placed on im-ported textiles after the Civil War, it became the centerfor the domestic manufacture of silk ribbons and cloth.By the late 1880s Paterson was responsible for about half



Figure 1.2Essex Mills Building in 1973, built in 1870s in Paterson, New Jersey, shows the drop from the middle to lowerraceway.Historic American Engineering Record, NJ-2-9; HAER NJ, 16-PAT, 16, Jack Boucher, Photographer, 1973

the domestic production of silk, giving rise to its moniker,“Silk City.”

Meanwhile, in Waltham, Massachusetts, in the yearsafter the War of 1812, another textile manufacturingcommunity started, taking advantage of the power of theCharles River and British textile advances brought backto America by Francis Cabot Lowell, who had toured thetextile mills in England.

Although perhaps an urban legend, the establishmentof the Industrial Revolution in America may also

be one of the first instances of industrial espionage.During a tour of England, Lowell is said to havememorized the design of Edmund Cartwright’s powerloom and then recreated and refined it with the helpof others in Waltham, thereby bringing the methodof manufacture to America’s shores. Not only did theowners build upon the progress and standardization ofthe British manufacturing system and maintain com-paratively clean and organized mills, they establishedboarding houses for their workers, in this case almost


INDUSTRY ARRIVES 7

Figure 1.3Waltham, Massachusetts’ Boston Manufacturing Co. building as it looked in 1979 from across Moody Streetdam. The 1814 wing is on the left, the 1816 mill is on the right, and the 1843 addition connects the two.Historic American Engineering Record, MA-54-5; HAER MASS, 9-WALTH, 4-5, Steve Dunwell, 1979

all women, or “mill girls” as they were called. Thishousing was comparatively safe, but strict rules forliving and conduct were enforced and boarding feescharged.

The practice of providing housing and services forworkers near mills, thus creating an industrial district,

became known as the “Waltham System.” It became the“Lowell System” when the community moved to Lowellin 1822 to take advantage of the more powerful watersof the Merrimack River, which was harnessed througha series of canals and dams. At the time of the relo-cation, Lowell’s population was small and agricultural,



FACTORY GIRLS

The story of working conditions, the rise of thelabor movement, and the influx of immigra-tion obviously parallels the story of the arrivaland departure of mills and factories and theimpact on urban development. Despite theirimportance, these subjects are beyond thescope of this book. From time to time, how-ever, it is valuable to acknowledge the peoplebehind the machines who made the goodsand materials and who were responsible forthe rise of industry. The history of the labormovement is rich in song, and sometimes thesimple lyrics bemoaning workers’ fates illus-trate difficult lives better than text. For ex-

ample, while owners claimed their providedhousing was a service, having their lives ruledby the factory bell and expensive boardingfees made the workers’ lot difficult. Perhapsthe truth of the mill girls’ lives can best be visu-alized in songs, which they sang while workingbecause they could not be heard above thedin of the machines. An example of one of themany songs, entitled, “Factory Girl” follows:

No more shall I work in the factory, greasy upmy clothes;

No more shall I work in the factory withsplinters in my toes.

Pity me, my darling, pity me I say;Pity me my darling and carry me away.2

Figure 1.4Lithograph of Boott Mills in Lowell, Massachusetts, shows the large mill complex sited against theMerrimack River. Many of the buildings have been converted to housing or are sites in the Lowell NationalPark (see Chapter 9).Library of Congress, 1852


INDUSTRY ARRIVES 9

Figure 1.5The design of this brick block on Dutton Street in Lowell, Massachusetts, is attributed to Kirk Boott and was oneof the original boardinghouses built as part of the Merrimack Manufacturing Company (since demolished).Historic American Building Survey MA-1151-1, Richard Graber Photographer, 1960s

and the boardinghouses and services were a recruitmenttool to entice workers to this new area. The build-ing of canals, whose owners leased water rights to themills, also created a magnet for laborers, both from thenortheast region and new immigrants, mostly from Ire-land. Within 25 years, Lowell was the second-largestcity in Massachusetts and America’s largest industrialcenter. Its 5.6-mile-long canal system produced enough

horsepower to support 40 mills. Not only were thereover 10,000 workers in these mills, but they createdthe need for more support and other industrial develop-ments as well as spurring the creation of other industriesand putting Lowell at the front of industrial technol-ogy. In fact, Lowell is considered “the first major cityin the United States designed and built for the needs ofproduction.”3



Figure 1.6Slightly later version of the boardinghouses built in Lowell, Massachusetts, often sited near a canal or the river(circa 1840s; since demolished).Historic American Building Survey MA-1153-2, Richard Graber Photographer, 1960s

The building of one or two mills was soon followedby other factories, making either the same or totally dif-ferent goods. This was a pattern repeated throughoutEurope and America. New factories tended to be builtnear each other, drawn by physical attributes such asa convenient energy source from a rapids-filled river,planned sites along man-made canals, conveniently lo-

cated transportation, or the availability of a large numberof factory workers, both skilled and unskilled. With eachnew factory more workers arrived, requiring places to liveand shop, thereby fueling the development of industrialtowns and cities. And thus the cycle repeated itself.

* * *


INDUSTRY ARRIVES 11

Figure 1.7Worker housing in Pullman, formerly outside Chicago, Illinois, though plain, was sturdily built of brick and hadcross-ventilation, gas service, and indoor plumbing among its amenities.Historic American Building Survey IL-173-2, Jack E. Boucher, photographer, December 1977

In response to these changes to the environment andsociety, utopians and pragmatists, whether philosophers,ideologues, or factory owners, formed theories and estab-lished communities to address the location of industry inrelation to other urban uses in order to provide a betterlife for workers and more “rational” cities. Many of thesecommunities, including Lowell, not only aspired to thephysical betterment of workers in terms of hygiene andeducation, but many also contained a moral componentand a concern for propriety. The balance of work andleisure, as well as the contributions of workers to theindustrial products, was the goal. Some also addressed

the design of industrial buildings and physical layout oftowns to accommodate workers and factories.

During the early 1880s, about 60 years after the cityof Lowell was founded, George M. Pullman establishedhis eponymous town in Pullman, Illinois, on approx-imately 4,000 acres about 13 miles south of Chicago.The town was built to support the factory that pro-duced luxury sleeper railway carriages, with the expecta-tion that quality housing, far from city pollution, wouldcreate a happy and productive workforce free from laborstrife and agitation. Pullman was a planned industrialtown, with factory buildings for manufacturing railway



Figure 1.8Pullman, formerly outside of Chicago, Illinois, was a complete town that contained public buildings as well asfactory and worker housing started in the 1880s. This is the Hotel Florence.Historic American Building Survey IL-1018, Cervin Robinson, photographer, August 19, 1963 (ILL, 16-CHIG, 20-1)

cars using the steel of Chicago’s mills, and also hous-ing, public buildings such as a hotel, churches, schools,and parks. Meticulously planned by the architect SolonBeman (who designed all the 1,300 original buildings)and landscape architect Nathan Barret, the town planwas a grid with landscaped elements arranged through-out and provided for planted circles at some intersections,front yards, and tree-lined parkways, supplied by plantsfrom its own greenhouse and nursery.

The more than 500 houses accommodated workersas well as professionals and company officers. Although

designed in different styles to reflect class status as well asto lend visual variety to the streets, buildings were all con-structed of brick and designed to have cross-ventilation,gas service, indoor toilets, and running water—a stepabove most worker housing of the day. Executive homes,located closest to the carriage plant, contained more or-nament and detail than the plain worker houses.

Pullman expected the residents to be as fastidiousas his town and controlled their lives by forbiddingnewspapers, speeches, and free public life. The town wasmaintained by the Pullman Company, which charged


INDUSTRY ARRIVES 13

Figure 1.9Worker housing built by the Menier family in Noisiel, France, was part of a company town that included a townhall, school, and other public buildings that supported its chocolate factory. Photo circa 1900.Collection Nestle deposee en mairie de Noisiel. C© Nestle France et mairie de Noisiel

rent but also inspected homes and evicted renters forbreaches of cleanliness. As a result of the Panic of 1893,business declined, and by the next year many employ-ees were let go; however, their rents were not pro-portionately reduced. In an exemplification of the factthat architecture cannot trump sociology, the resultingPullman Strike was a violent landmark in labor his-tory; federal troops were brought in to break the strikebecause it disrupted rail and federal mail service. In1898, the company town became part of the city ofChicago, when the Illinois Supreme Court ordered thePullman Company to divest its ownership, a result of a

commission’s ruling after the strike that the town was“un-American.”

In 1960, when Pullman was scheduled to be demol-ished for the construction of an industrial park, thePullman Civic Organization formed to save the area.Subsequently, it became the Historic Pullman Founda-tion and has been working to restore the buildings andgrounds and maintain public access. Pullman was des-ignated a historic district by the National Park Servicein 1970. It is now called the Pullman State Historic Siteand the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency owns por-tions of the original Pullman factory, as well as the Hotel



Florence. Although the subject of continuing preserva-tion and restoration work, people live there, some ofwhom are descendents of long-ago residents.

Europe also had planned industrial towns. WhenMenier Chocolate established itself in Noisiel, France,in 1825, it found itself in the same situation as the earlyLowell factories. The town itself had few inhabitants,resulting in a labor shortage. Menier’s solution was tocreate a workers’ city—“a society of the future”—basedupon progressive social ideals. Beginning in the 1870s,the Meniers launched an enclave complete with schools,library, stores, town hall (where a member of the Menierfamily would be mayor until 1959), and hotel. The pub-lic buildings were arranged around a central town square.Thirty years after its start, a home for retired workers wasbuilt. Soon, the company owned the whole town, andthe Meniers considered their town the ideal workers’ cityand showcased it at the Universal Exposition of 1889in Paris.

Brick housing was constructed along parallel streets,with the buildings staggered to allow as much air andlight into the residences as possible. Approximately 300houses were built, each containing two apartments withseparate entrances, many with side and rear gardens. Thewide tree-lined streets were lit by gas. Tenants were notallowed to purchase their houses, as Menier wanted tocontrol their use for his factory workers. Rents, deductedfrom wages, were approximately 10 percent of the annualearnings of the heads of household. It was a paternalisticarrangement in which renters received free education fortheir children and free medical care, as well as access topublic baths and entertainment venues.

In 1960, the housing was sold to a real estate devel-oper, and today this former workers’ housing is locallycoveted houses. The European Route of Industrial Her-itage considers it one of the best-preserved industrialcommunities in Europe.

The nineteenth century produced a hotbed of ideasand approaches to city planning and social theories aimedat taming the problems of industry’s rise and saw nolack of utopian communities. Reacting to what was seenas the physical degradation of the land as factories en-

croached upon the rural landscape, these schemes alsoattempted to redistribute wealth and resources. The ideasbehind Ebenezer Howard’s Garden Cities and Tony Gar-nier’s Cite Industrielle can been seen in today’s con-cepts of zoning and city planning. That industrial ar-eas are often set apart from the rest of their citiesstems from these zoning approaches, and their integra-tion into the urban fabric can be a major challenge toredevelopment.

The basis of Howard’s idea of community controlof land and profits was an attempt to integrate townand countryside, a method of controlling the movementof the urban, industrial population into the rest of thecountry. Dirty industry and overcrowded slums would beeliminated in these new cities, which were to be startedfrom scratch. His 1902 Garden Cities of Tomorrow pro-posed towns built in concentric circles connected by axialroads. Public buildings and a commons were in the cen-ter, surrounded by grand avenues, housing, and industry.Farms were at the outer ring, a link to the untouchedlandscape. Residents would be assured of air and lightand be close to work.4

Tony Garnier’s Cite Industrielle, first exhibited in1904 and later published in 1917, was a comprehensiveproposal for the regulation of towns that clearly separatedthe city into areas reserved for work, living, traffic, andleisure, with each element isolated to allow for expansion.A green belt separated industry from the town. Garnier’stown was sited on a river, the power source for a hy-dropower plant, and although connected by a railroad,the city was self-contained, the local economy capableof providing all. Garnier’s Cite was a socialist haven; thepublic realm was responsible for the distribution of land,food, and necessities. There are great similarities betweenhis plan and the workers cities such as Noisiel, specificallyin the provision of housing and public facilities, suchas schools and libraries, as well as the need for a riverand rail transportation. Garnier’s Cite was owned by thepeople, whereas workers cities were owned and controlledby industrial families.

Although neither of these plans was tested by reality,the ideas behind them periodically are revived and can

Documents

REDEVELOPING Industrial Sites · REDEVELOPING Industrial Sites A Guide for Architects, Planners, and Developers CAROL BERENS Architects, urban planners, urban designers, de-velopers,