160 likes | 172 Views
Mixed-Use residential Area in the Bridgeport eco-Tech park. Penelope Papanikolaou April 28, 2015 EVST 4000W University of Connecticut Spring – 2015. Thesis Statement.
E N D
Mixed-Use residential Area in the Bridgeport eco-Tech park Penelope Papanikolaou April 28, 2015 EVST 4000W University of Connecticut Spring – 2015
Thesis Statement A mixed-use residential area in the Bridgeport Eco-Tech Park would be most beneficial for residents and employees because it will increases their quality of life, is economical, and is a good opportunity to implement green technology.
Bridgeport Eco-Tech Park and Bgreen 2020 • BGreen 2020 - Sustainability plan • Focus on the Bridgeport Eco-Tech Park and the surrounding area • Upgrade existing buildings and areas to be greener, more energy efficient, and more climate resilient • Create new green industries • Create more jobs, especially low-skilled jobs • Create alternatives for energy and waste disposal • Create a new housing development and possibly a school
Mixed-Use Residential Area • “An urban, suburban, or village development, or even a single building that blends a combination of residential, commercial, cultural, institutional, or industrial uses, where those functions are physically and functionally integrated, and that provides pedestrian connections.” ~ Dictionary.com
Increased Quality of Life • Convenience for residents and employees – everything they need nearby (Grocery stores, retail, restaurants, schoolsand work) • Incentive to walk, bike, or use mass-transit, instead of driving • Less automobile ownership • Smaller parking lots – Land could be used for something else/green space • Less traffic and carbon dioxide emissions in the air – better air quality • Increase physical activity • Sense of community
Economic Benefits • Job Creation • Eco-Tech Park • Construction • Teachers • Community – Grocery store, retail, restaurants, etc. • Low-skill jobs (Employ younger people/those who were unable to further their education) • Low-Income Housing • Good planning and design • Cost-effective building materials (Renovating instead of tearing everything down) • Reducing energy costs (Using green energy from Eco-Tech Park) • Keeping lots and housing units small (promotes community, development more manageable, costs less to live in)
Economic Benefits Cont. • Retail • Adds a new commercial tax base – Helps offset the cost of construction and will make the rent more affordable • Bring in new customers from all over – Keeps the money flowing • New Amenities for the area – increases the value of the area
Green infrastructure and landscaping • Benefits: • Decreases long-term cost (energy) • Helps the environment • Promotes human health • Change in attitude – Green design features now important when it comes to buying homes and in master-planned communities • Naturally manages storm-water, reduces risk of floods, captures pollution, and improves water quality (Very important to Bridgeport being on the water)
Green Infrastructure and landscaping cont. • To be added to the housing development: • Permeable pavement (Flexi-Pave – road runoff to be absorbed instead of going into the ocean and grass) • Rain gardens and green roofs (Landscape-based drainage features – add green space to urban areas, help with water pollution and flooding, multiple uses as a community garden) • Native plants and trees (Withstand the climate – add shade in the summers, habitats for animals, add more green space)
Storrs Center, Storrs, CT • Before – single-use and strictly commercial, most being take-out restaurants – mostly only catered to UCONN students • Now – mixed-use, including commercial, residential, industrial, and open, green space – caters to everyone and brings in new people
Portland, Oregon • Study conducted on “smart growth” (transport and land-use integration) in the city • Embraces sustainability principles • Private sacrifice for public gains • “Personal time losses incurred when switching from cars to transit are matched by societal gains like cleaner air and fuel savings.” • Found supply constraints have inflated land costs (per square foot and per residence) • Public gains – cheaper infrastructure per mile, cleaner air) • Private sacrifice – higher housing and land costs • Unclear if due to smart growth, or Portland just being an attractive place to live and do business • Smart Growth is promising, but has major hurdles to be overcome
School and early environmental education • Possibility to add a school to the housing development • Close proximity to housing, allows for more lower-income children to go to school, creates new jobs for teachers • Should have environmental education as its main goal • Teach about green technology and what the Eco-Tech Park does • Green roofs and community gardens – Provide fresh vegetables and fruit to students and community – teaches students at young age about being “green” and sustainability • The earlier the better – change the attitudes about the environment of younger generations and will change the future (and teach their parents)
Conclusions • Mixed-Use Residential Area will: • Increase the quality of life for residents, employees of the Eco-Tech Park, and others from around the state • Can be economical – good planning and design • Good opportunity to use green infrastructure and landscaping • Early environmental education opportunity
References: • BGreen 2020: A Sustainability Plan for Bridgeport, Connecticut. (n.d.). https://learn.uconn.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1372096-dt-content-rid-5387796_1/courses/1153-UCONN-EVST-4000W-SEC001-12885/Bpt%20sustainability%20plan%20BGreen-2020.pdf • Cervero, Robert. (1996). Mixed Land-Uses and Commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 30(5), 361-377. • Frank, Lawrence, D. (2000). Land Use and Transportation Interaction: Implications on Public Health and Quality of Life. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20, 6-22.
References • Noiseux, K., & Hostetler, M. E. (2010). Do Homebuyers Want Green Features in Their Communities?. Environment & Behavior. 42(5). 551-580. • Palmer, J. (1998). Environmental Education in the 21st Century: Theory, Practice, Progress and Promise. London: Routledge. • Perkins, Douglas D. et al. (2004). Community Development as a Response to Community-Level Adversity: Ecological Theory and Research and Strengths-Based Policy. Investing in children, youth, families, and communities: Strengths-based research and policy, 321-340. • Storrs Center: Rethink Main Street. (2014). Mansfield, CT. PPT. http://www.storrscenter.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/14-0224_TownCouncilPres_FINAL.pdf
References • Talen, Emily. (2010). Affordability in New Urbanist Development: Principle, Practice, and Strategy. Journal of Urban Affairs, 32(4), 489-510. • Wise, Steve. (2008). Green Infrastructure Rising: Best Practices in Stormwater Management. Planning Magazine, August/September 2008. • Cervero, Robert. (2000). Transport and Land Use: Key Issues in Metropolitan Planning and Smart Growth. University of California Transportation Center. UC Berkeley: University of California Transporation Center. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8dc5p6mv