# data[].attributes.body
STUDIO BRIEF

# data[].attributes.body
1. Demography - activities / survey

2. Human comfort - sun & wind

3. Cultural - ( Capturing wildness of newyork, Sunbathing due to the lawn， Sun direction ) time

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read Teardrop Park, NY, NY Analysis by Tyler Ellison on Issuu and browse thousands of other publications on our platform. Start here!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teardrop Park transcends its small size, shady environment, and mid-block urban location through a meandering design formed with complex irregular spaces, robust plantings, strong materials and bold topography that creates places for prospect and refuge. Designed primarily as a landscape for children, the park's spatial structure and reinterpretation of natural form makes a place for exploration and movement.

Project Location, Scope and Size
Teardrop Park is a 1.8 acre public park located in Battery Park City, a mixed-use neighborhood on the southwestern side of lower Manhattan. The landscape architects were the prime consultant, responsible for organizing the project team and overseeing design from initial concept through construction administration. The park's design and construction was coordinated by the landscape architects with that of the four surrounding apartment buildings, creating opportunities to fine-tune architectural massing as a means of improving site environments. In addition to engineers and lighting consultants, contributing subconsultants included child development specialists, soils engineers, and a fountain designer.

Physical Context
The flat, featureless plot of land that was the pre-existing site was created in the 1980s by filling in a portion of the Hudson River shoreline. This resulted in a high water table and potential for lateral infiltration of river waters that limited the potential depth of site program. Solar analysis indicated that the residential towers that were to define the corners of the park, each ranging from 210 feet to 235 feet in height, would create tremendous shade.

Wind studies indicated that the east/west corridors through the park would experience strong, cold, and desiccating winds off the Hudson River while the areas between the buildings would be more protected.

The combined constraints of water, sun, and wind affected how park program was positioned as well as the kinds of plant and ecological communities that could be created. For instance, recognizing that the northern half of the site would have the longest hours of sunlight on any given day, the designers made this the location for the Lawn Bowl (which was tilted southward to better absorb the available light). Play areas for small children, like a sand box, Slide Hill, and Water Play rocks, were placed in the shaded and wind-protected areas.

Design Program
The client wanted a unique natural environment for play that would build on nearby recreational opportunities, contribute to the ongoing development of a family-friendly social identity for the neighborhood, and meet the client's own strict sustainability guidelines. Although children were imagined as the most important users, the park was to provide a landscape setting that appealed to multiple age groups represented in the neighborhood. The range of users includes students from a nearby high school, office workers, residents of the hundreds of surrounding apartments, and elderly residents of an adjacent assisted-care facility. Specific client program directives included sand and water play areas and a lawn that would be large enough for periodic events, but most importantly, would provide alternative and more passive forms of play in response to the huge traditional play equipment at nearby Rockefeller Park.

Design Intent
Experiencing natural environments is widely recognized as an important part of early childhood development, and yet most urban playgrounds have banished plants in favor of equipment. Teardrop Park is designed to address this gap, offering adventure and sanctuary to urban children while engaging their minds and bodies. Site topography, interactive water fountains, natural stone, and intimately-scaled plantings contribute to an exciting inner world of intricate textures, intense scale differences, and precisely choreographed views.

Specific features, like the Ice-Water Wall, the Marsh with its access path scaled to children, the steeply sloped planted areas, groves of trees, and the Water Play rocks, as well as the stone Reading Circle placed where there is also an outward view to the Hudson River, celebrate the expressive potential of the natural materials of landscape construction while reinventing the idea of nature play in the city.

Environmentally Sustainable Materials and Installation Methods
The client's design review panel was an active force in the early development of the design, offering key support as the landscape architects navigated through complex programmatic and technical decisions related to achieving ambitious sustainability goals and a generally innovative design strategy.

The park's "green" credentials are reflected in every aspect of its development, from material selection to contractor practices. Not only is the park layout and program a response to the microclimatic asymmetry created by the buildings; the varied fabricated soils were also meticulously calibrated to create optimum growing conditions.

Based on decades-long research into urban soils and non-toxic plant maintenance, environmental aspects of the park's design include fully organic manufactured soils and maintenance regimes that avoid pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides. Treated and recycled gray water from the adjacent LEED Gold-rated Solaire Building and stormwater runoff from the site captured in an underground storage pipe supply all of the park's irrigation needs.

Throughout the park, including the 27-foot high, 168-foot long stacked blue stone Ice-Water Wall, stone selection was limited to those that could be quarried within 500 miles of the park site. The largely native plant palette creates excellent habitat for migrating birds and effectively jump-starts natural ecologies on a site that is composed of biologically inert fill from the original excavation of the World Trade Center. A calibrated approach to soils allowed the landscape architects to match carefully inventoried microclimates with several variations of the manufactured soil.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teardrop Park transcends its small size, shady environment, and mid-block urban location through a meandering design formed with complex irregular spaces, robust plantings, strong materials and bold topography that creates places for prospect and refuge. Designed primarily as a landscape for children, the park's spatial structure and reinterpretation of natural form makes a place for exploration and movement.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.landscapeperformance.org/case-study-briefs/teardrop-park

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Before

After

Eliminated 60 tons of stone waste, 80 gallons of diesel, and 1,776 lbs of carbon by constructing a full scale mock-up of the Ice-Water Wall at the quarry, ensuring that no extra stone was shipped to the job.

Achieved 99.5% establishment of the 3,260 woody trees and shrubs planted at Teardrop by calibrating factors in the manufactured soils such as load bearing capacity, water retention, drainage and nutrient levels.

Maintains healthy levels of nitrogen without the addition of any nitrogen fertilizer and encourages 30-50% greater root development by regularly performing biological soil tests and balancing soil microorganisms through compost tea application.

Eliminates potable water use for lawn irrigation, saving an estimated 90,000 gallons of water and $385 annually by recycling greywater from the adjacent Solaire Building.

View/Download a PDF showing how the landscape performance benefits were derived.
Download Methods

Counters nature-deficit disorder by providing open-ended nature play for an estimated 200,000 children a year, with 72% of those observed engaged in physical activity and 69% enjoying constructive, dramatic, and functional play.

At a Glance

Size

1.8 acres - Teardrop North0.5 acres - Teardrop South

Budget

$17 million - Teardrop North

Completion Date

2006 - Teardrop North; 2010 - Teardrop South

Experiencing natural environments is widely recognized as an important part of early childhood development, and yet most urban playgrounds have banished plants in favor of equipment. Teardrop Park is designed to address this gap, offering adventure and sanctuary to urban children while engaging their minds and bodies. Site topography, interactive water fountains, natural stone, and intimately-scaled plantings contribute to an exciting inner world of intricate textures, intense scale differences, and precisely choreographed views, all nestled in Battery Park City.

Challenge

Solar analysis indicated that the residential towers that were to define the corners of the park would create tremendous shade, since each ranged from 210 to 235 feet in height. Wind studies indicated that the east/west corridors through the park would experience strong, cold, and desiccating winds off the Hudson River while the areas between the buildings would be more protected. Due to the shade and wind, temperatures could drop sometimes 10°F below other locations in the city, complicating the design goal of creating sanctuary for urban children.

Solution

The combined constraints of water, sun, and wind influenced the park program, as well as the kinds of plant and ecological communities that could be created. For instance, recognizing that the northern half of the site would have the longest hours of sunlight on any given day, the designers made this the location for the Lawn Bowl, whereas play areas for small children were placed in the shaded and wind-protected areas. At Teardrop South, heliostats "borrow" from the surrounding environment, using reflected light to activate and brighten what might be a cool and shady space.

Specific features, like the Ice-Water Wall, the Marsh, the Water Play rocks, and the stone Reading Circle reinvent the idea of nature play in the city, celebrating the expressive potential of natural materials.

All stormwater at Teardrop North is captured on site for use in the planted areas. Drip irrigation is used to minimize evaporation and water loss.

The adjacent Solaire building captures its greywater for reuse in the lawn areas of the park with a storage capacity of around 6,000 gallons, more than the 5,000 gallon/week peak irrigation needs of the lawn.

The park's design includes fully organic manufactured soils and maintenance regimes that avoid pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides.

All 3,000 tons of stone was obtained within 160 miles from the site.

The blue stone wall was assembled first at the quarry with stones used as-is and fit on site. The stones were then numbered, disassembled, transported, and reassembled, thus avoiding waste by-products and unnecessary transport of extra stone.

Over 16,870 plants and trees were planted at the park, with 88% of them native to New York State. Each plant community is carefully calibrated to microclimate and manufactured soil.

Heliostats are used to reflect light into Teardrop South, brightening and improving the occupancy of what might otherwise be a cool and shady space.

As a general rule, only materials that do not contribute to hazardous waste or have harmful byproducts as the result of their production were specified. The project team chose to use HDPE (high-density polyethelene) piping throughout the project, and this has become the new Battery Park Conservancy standard. All site sealants and paints are specified as low-VOC.

Many recycled materials were used throughout construction: the rubberized play surface was made from recycled tires; all concrete in the park has a fly ash additive; erosion control materials are made from recycled plastics; organic soil components included the municipal leaf compost and biosolids, a recycled municipal waste product.

By drawing construction documents after the Ice-Water Wall mock-up was completed, $51,600 was avoided in surplus material and delivery costs alone. Additionally, to fit, shape and install on site, it is estimated that construction would have taken 4 times as much machining and labor. Instead, the 1st half of the Ice-Water Wall was completed at Teardrop in 5 days after 5 months of planning. The stone masons were allowed 4 months to complete all work and instead finished in 1 month, a quarter of the allotted time.

Using greywater from the adjacent Solaire building to irrigate lawn areas saves an estimated $385 annually in potable water costs.

After testing, it was discovered that water collected from the Solaire building was too saline to use for irrigation, so a reverse osmosis (desalinization) chamber was installed near the south side of the park. After desalinization, this water is added to the settling tanks for irrigation use.

While the entire irrigation system is metered when drawing from the city water supply, the greywater and stormwater storage tanks are not, making it difficult to calculate the reduction in water use at Teardrop North. At Teardrop South a meter was added during the installation of a 10,000 gallon stormwater storage tank to measure savings.

Benches: Kenneth Lynch & Sons
Poured-in-Place Play Surface: Sureplay International
Pavers: Hanover Architectural Products
Pole Lights: BEGA/US Architectural Lighting Fixtures and Products
Water Feature: Tri Palm International, LLC

Project Team

Client: The Hugh L. Carey Battery Park City Authority, Battery Park City Parks Conservancy
Landscape Architect: Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Inc.
Artists: Ann Hamilton, Michael Mercil
Play Consultant: Natural Learning Initiative
Lead Engineer: ARUP
Geotechnical Engineer: Rutledge Consulting Engineers
Lighting Designer: Cline, Bettridge, Bernstein Lighting Design
Turf Consultants: A. McNitt Consulting, Pennsylvania State University Agronomy Department, John Stier - University of Wisconsin
Fountain Designer: R. J. Van Seters Company
Soil Scientist: Pine and Swallow Environmental
Irrigation Consultant and Designers: Northern Designs
Architectural Lighting Consultants: U:Lighting
Natural Light Consultants: Carpenter Norris Consulting, James Carpenter Design Associates
Quarry/Stone Consultant: New York Quarries
Onsite Masonry Oversight: Betsy Hoffman, Hayden Hillsgrove

Role of the Landscape Architect

The landscape architects were the prime consultant, responsible for organizing the project team and overseeing design from initial concept through construction administration.

Additional Images References and Resources
Case Study Prepared By

Research Fellow: Kristina Hill, PhD, Associate Professor, University of Virginia
Research Assistant: Michael Geffel, MLA Candidate, University of Virginia
Aug 2011

To cite:

Hill, Kristina, and Michael Geffel. "Teardrop Park." Landscape Performance Series. Landscape Architecture Foundation, 2011. https://doi.org/10.31353/cs0080

The LPS Case Study Briefs are produced by the Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF), working in conjunction with designers and/or academic research teams to assess performance and document each project. LAF has no involvement in the design, construction, operation, or maintenance of the projects. See the Project Team tab for details. If you have questions or comments on the case study itself, contact us at email hidden; JavaScript is required.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Experiencing natural environments is widely recognized as an important part of early childhood development, and yet most urban playgrounds have banished plants in favor of equipment. Teardrop Park is designed to address this gap, offering adventure and sanctuary to urban children while engaging their minds and bodies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A beautiful and serene naturalistic experience, this park effectively mimics a Northeast forest. Material and plant selection are extremely thoughtful and attractive. But despite the landscape mastery that this park showcases, there is a very basic problem: Almost any other public use of this area would serve New York better than Teardrop Park. Serene as it is, there is almost nothing to do in this park and nothing to attract the people who might use it. It functions mostly as a private park for nearby building residents, and even these few users would be better served by a multitude of other uses instead of Teardrop Park. Besides the security guard, there were 3 people in the park on a beautiful July evening (about 7PM), and two of them were engaged in intimate physical activity.

Indeed, the park is not inviting because its spaces feel threatening--many parts are obscured from view as you experience it, and at every turn you might run into something unexpected. There is little to reward the few brave souls who do explore the park: Most turns reveal nothing more than shrubs and another mysterious turn. Other than the slide, the only thing you can do here is sit on an isolated patch of grass, or on some of the lonely benches that face the confined pathways and passive building walls. The real mystery is how the landscape architect expected humans to participate in this space _ or perhaps they hoped to deter any use. If that is they case, they were certainly successful.

The park's success diverges signifcanlty from the adjacent Rockefeller Park which is perhaps the best used and best loved section of Battery Park, with the broadest range of users.

Interviewing the security guard, I learned that teardrop park is basically a safe park, but that it usually gets very little use. The only area that gets regular use is the slide, which only gets used by children who most likely live in adjacent buildings. According to her, this activity is restricted from 3-6PM. She noted that the isolated grassy lawn area is almost never used, and informed us that most complaints come from the building residents, who complain that they cannot walk their dogs there.

Evaluating within the narrow solution set that defines Teardrop Park, this park perhaps deserves some of the praise it has received. This solution set is actually quite appealing to many and I would say much more appealing than the even narrower solution sets applied by most of the other famous landscape architects that have come out the Harvard Graduate School of Design. The extraordinary skills, knowledge base and vision of this firm (Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates) should and could be used very effectively in many parks around the world, but allowing this rather narrow solution set to dominate a park environment is doing a major disservice to the communities they are meant to serve _ even if the community they are most concerned about serving is their own landscape architecture community.

Hard to find, hard to see into, and unfriendly to navigate, this is not a park that was designed to encourage pedestrian access.

While perhaps aesthetically attractive in its attempt to mimic a Hudson Valley setting, it chooses not to mimic the aspects of urban parks that attract human beings and make them feel comfortable.

The slide is a fun use but only for a small part of the population and it is isolated from other uses. Otherwise, besides sitting, there are not many other things you will find people doing in this park.

The only social behavior this park facilitates would be private or illicit behavior. Almost all locations are secluded. Decidedly private, this is not a park that you go to to participate constructively in public.

"The dedication of Teardrop Park in Battery Park City is part of our vision for rebuilding lower Manhattan as a true mixed use community," said Governor George E. Pataki. "This park adds more green space to downtown and is another great example of 'greenÍ building and environmentally-sensitive planning. With its rolling hills and use of native stone throughout the site, Teardrop Park will certainly be one of the most visited green spaces in New York City. I want to congratulate James Gill, Tim Carey and Michael Van Valkenburgh and thank them for giving us this wonderful oasis."

Over 1,900 tons of bluestone, granite and limestone was used in the construction of Teardrop, all of it obtained from New York Hudson Valley towns including Alcove, New Paltz, Delni, and Champlain. There are over 16,871 plants and trees at the park, 88 percent of which is native to New York State. Over 50 percent of TeardropÍs materials came from within 500 miles of the site. "I wanted visitors to feel like they stepped into a glen in the Catskills," said Carey.

Teardrop Park, designed by Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, features many different kinds of landscapes, including its centerpiece, a 27-foot bluestone wall meant to evoke a mountainside. The wall will develop water on its jagged rock face during the summer, and icicles during the winter. It also has a portal in its center made of limestone for visitors to pass through to the other side.

"The idea of public parks emerged from the social discourse of the early nineteenth century and began with Olmsted and Vaux's Central Park. It's a great honor to be able to design a park for New York City at this time in our history that continues and adds to the important role of parks in our democracy," said Michael Van Valkenburgh.

The Battery Park City Authority is a public benefit corporation created by the New York State Legislature in 1968 to develop a 92-acre site at the southwestern tip of Lower Manhattan. Parcels are leased to developers who build in accordance with BPCA guidelines, which now incorporate "green" provisions mandating state-of-the-art environmental specifications to maximize energy efficiency and minimize water usage, among other provisions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A $17 Million public park that serves primarily as a private courtyard arboretum to the surrounding high-rise development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Public Art on Video (Season 2): Teardrop Park

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Look down. If you are in a city or large town, below you is a vast network of hidden systems that support your life: pipes that carry natural gas, potable water, stormwater, sewage, and communications wires. These pipes rarely come to mind, but we agree that their operation is for the common good, that survival is not possible without them, and that armies of workers should keep them running. Surrounding those pipes are soils that are equally critical to our existence but to which we give much less attention. If we truly understood the delicacy of soil as a dynamic living system integral to the health of our towns and cities, our neighborhoods and families, we would be more cautious about how it is perceived, treated, and protected. Healthy soil performs important functions such as sequestering CO ₂, mitigating stormwater runoff, supporting plant life, and sustaining the microbial populations that form the basis for all living things. So essential and complex are the conditions for soils in more developed areas that a new branch of science has arisen and is now being intensively pursued: the science of urban soils.

The Teardrop Park site had no existing soil, so all planting soil was imported. Special bracing allowed concrete to be installed before soils, which prevented compaction of adjacent 3' deep plant beds. Photo by MVVA

The Challenges of Urban Soils

Urban soils are are naturally-occurring soils that have been disturbed by development in a way that affects their functioning and properties. Urban soils are distinguished by a number of similar features: Their horizons (the natural vertical order of soils) have become jumbled by excavation. This makes urban soil horizons confoundingly diverse; one layer may be hospitable, but adjacent layers may not be, creating abrupt changes that can cause impermeable interfaces. Soil structure (the balance of solids and pores) has been crushed out of existence by mechanical compaction that chokes off water and air exchange. Organic matter (the source of plant nutrients) is low or missing from lack of replenishment, and this imbalances the soil biological community (bacteria, fungi, nematodes, arthropods, earthworms, insects, and more). Soil volumes that are important for plant health decrease because of interruptions from urban debris such as construction waste and rocks. Finally, the predominance of pavement separates soils from natural inputs such as nutrient-rich leaf litter, and this separation causes the nutrient cycling system to slow or shut down.

In the urban environment, soils are likely to be sealed off from the agents that build healthy soil-including wind, precipitation, ice, temperature, gravity, and mineralization-which frequently have been replaced by anthropogenic processes detrimental to soil functioning. Urban soils often become defined by human activities and land use histories at a particular location rather than by the continuum of geologic processes. This disrupted order makes urban soils particularly challenging to analyze, manage, and construct.

Soil depths and formulas were calibrated for each planting condition at Teardrop Park. Lawns have 18" of compaction-resistant soil while plant beds have highly organic, less sandy soil. Photo by Paul Warchol

Urban Soils in the Service of Stormwater Management

Urban soils have the potential to be an important partner in stormwater management, use, and protection. The Natural Resources Conservation Service has recognized that soils with good infiltration and permeability can significantly reduce stormwater runoff rates and volumes that might otherwise overwhelm and impair the performance of the chain of water bodies that sustain our water supplies and the ecosystems that are necessary for healthy living [1]. Good infiltration reduces runoff by letting water soak into soils before it builds up to damaging volumes and velocities that would erode topsoil and carry both silts and pollutants to waterways. Permeability influences how quickly absorbed water drains through soil to useful depths for plants and recharge. Water that reaches root zones reduces irrigation needs. Some soil can filter toxic compounds or excess nutrients by holding them, degrading them, or otherwise making them unavailable. All of these benefits are feasible when soil has adequate pore space, which is only possible when soil's natural physical texture and structure have been preserved or created.

Over-compaction of soils is one of the greatest deterrents to implementing best practices for stormwater management, because crushed particles minimize pore space and prevent water and air from moving through. In a study by the University of Florida, soil compaction from construction vehicles reduced infiltration by 70 to 90% [2]. This is perilously close to impermeable pavement.While people recognize that reducing pavement is the primary way to improve stormwater management, few see the same connection with soil. It is not enough to substitute pavement with plant beds if nothing has been done to prevent construction compaction. Without a soil management plan that includes practices for dealing with compaction before, during, and after development, urban soils will continue to become, plot by plot, a decommissioned resource in stormwater management.

A Partnership between Urban Soils and Vegetation

The greatest positive effect of healthy urban soil is most evident in plants, the workhorses of the environment that clean the air, absorb CO ₂, abate high temperatures, support wildlife, slow stormwater runoff, and keep erosion in check. In recent years, there has been resurgence in support for increasing the vegetation and tree cover in American cities. We are well aware of the positive ecological, social,[3] and economic value of plants for individual properties, community open space, and urban regions [4]. Ecologically, a single large tree in the city is said to be ten to twenty times more beneficial to the environment than a single tree in the forest [5]. Yet the health of urban trees is declining at a rapid rate. A recent study by the U.S. Forest Service looked at twenty cities and found that they are losing tree canopy cover on average by 3% per year [6].While this loss may seem small, over time the cumulative effects are severe. For example, Washington, D.C. lost 64% of its acreage-coverage from 1973 to 1999 at an average annual rate of 2.5% [7]. Still we continue to ignore the most basic need of trees: healthy soils. On most urban sites, fertile topsoil is absent, plant roots are restricted, air and water movement is suppressed, and nutrients cannot be exchanged. All this puts plants at an extreme disadvantage. The evidence of poor soil is all around, telegraphed by unhealthy plants. So if trees are to become "beautiful utilities" as urban tree expert Henry Arnold [8] suggests, then soil must also be treated in projects as an essential utility: analyzed, engineered, budgeted, scrutinized, and maintained.

The existing seawall at the Boston Children's Museum let salt water inundate natural soils, rendering planting impossible. Custom waterproof plant boxes made from sheets of landfill liners hold new soil, sealing it from the Fort Point Channel waters. Photo by MVVA

Advocating for Soil

There are sound economic reasons to invest in good soil. As one of the core infrastructural materials in every urban landscape project, soil needs only to be tended more carefully to make it a viable component of stormwater management. Using soils to store and retain water as part of the stormwater management system can reduce costs for piping, drainage structures, runoff storage tanks, irrigation systems, and infrastructure maintenance and can provide more flexibility in design, since hard systems can add horizontal and vertical complexity that limits design options. Plants (especially street trees) with well-functioning soil are more able to start and sustain the nutrient cycling system without big infusions of maintenance after establishment and in maturity. When they do get maintenance, they are more likely to respond. Healthy soils beget trees that live longer and grow bigger, enabling them to cast more shade, and absorb more CO ₂, and runoff. Even asphalt benefits from healthy trees, since shade improves its performance and durability [8]. Last, trees in good quality soil are far less prone to infection and pests, virtually eliminating the need for chemical treatments [9]. Investing in soil is critical for the long-term health of urban trees and by extension for the success of sustainable landscape projects and green infrastructure programs.

Why then do urban soils get so little attention when they are such a critical part of our environmental infrastructure and, ultimately, of human well-being? Some of the unawareness stems from societal and governmental ignorance. While keeping water and air usable is an unquestioned necessity, few people have the same association with city soils. For the most part, urban soil is considered mysterious, complex, and costly. Design professionals have an important role to play in dispelling unwarranted concerns and helping solve tangible problems: They should lead the way, project by project, educating their clients, agencies, and others about the need for healthy soil. Before that happens, designers must step up their own soil education. My interactions with colleagues suggest a dearth of understanding of basic soil science and the need for soil management in landscape projects. Often other landscape architects reach out for soil advice only when something has gone wrong. Designers do however have a thirst for this information as is shown by the increasing number of packed sessions in soil education at the annual meeting of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), the professions' largest organization. Perhaps the neglect is also due to the fact that soil is not yet a hip topic; it has no visual presence. For many, design attention is reserved for visual effects; the hidden, infrastructural elements of landscape have long been considered the domain of engineers and scientists.

In my work as a landscape architect at Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, soil discussions begin early, sometimes in the concept phase and always by schematic design. Soil is always an item on the design checklist. Just as all practitioners request surveys to locate utility lines, we request USDA soil tests to understand what we have to work with. Partnering with soil scientists, we have learned to interpret laboratory tests so we can ask the right questions and frame discussions. We keep up with developments in soil science (biology is the big topic now), often consult allied professionals, incorporate quality control practices into our specifications, and closely monitor sourcing, blending, and installing of soils during construction. We consider soil rigorously, as we do any other product or system in our projects.

I don't mean to imply that assuring good soil is obvious or easy; it is neither, even for a firm that has been attempting it for twenty years. Every project brings unique soil challenges and clients with different agendas. The client may be unfamiliar with non-traditional stormwater approaches and therefore reluctant to consider soil-dependent systems. Brownfield properties often have contaminated soil or no useful soil at all. In other kinds of properties, existing soils could be reused if amended, but space may be too limited to manage soil-blending operations. Sometimes soil chemistry is limiting. For example: elevated pH from concrete or limestone rubble can interrupt nutrient exchange and narrow plant selection; high salinity in soil near tidal waters wreaks havoc on water uptake and cellular structure in plants. Local contractors often have no experience with installing designed soils. In my experience, construction managers show little tolerance for any aspect of landscape construction that is dynamic, an inherent characteristic of soil in particular and landscapes in general. Unless we have a repeat client, the process of educating, convincing, and making monetary tradeoffs to get good soil starts anew on every project. Sometimes we battle the sins of others' projects in which someone tried but failed to improve soils. Projects with unsuccessful or difficult soil processes often produce rumors that the landscape architect specified unrealistic soils that cost too much and slowed the schedule, even if the problem was caused by the laxity of a member outside the design team.
Shown here in 2012, the subsurface box planters at Boston's Children's Museum hold willow trees installed in 2006. Photo by Elizabeth Felicella.
Repositioning Soil as Infrastructure

How can we begin a campaign for good urban soil? We can start by talking with city hall, one of the biggest makers of landscapes and planters of trees, about the importance of soil. How many of the thousands of landscapes planted every year include soil improvement? Atlanta, Detroit, Denver, Los Angeles, and many other cities have tree-planting programs. Ambitious past and current mayors like Richard Daley and Michael Bloomberg launched campaigns to plant a million trees. Despite current commitments to increasing urban vegetation through tree planting, under current practices the mortality rate for young street trees is shockingly high: Some studies have found that over twenty-five percent of newly planted trees die within two years of installation [10,11], wasting already strained public funds and leaving behind a depressing reminder of failed nature. Wouldn't it be more strategic to forgo planning one million trees in poor soil and instead plant 500,000 trees in good soil? [12]

To be stewards of urban soils, we need to ask pointed questions early in and throughout projects and insist on satisfactory answers that ensure positive long-term results for stormwater and planting. When zoning requires developers to add or replace trees, we need to ask for more than in-kind caliper inches and to require a soil management plan. When contractors install soil, they need to treat it like the valuable commodity it is or bear the cost of remediation. State and municipal specifications (which are used by contractors defensively instead of proactively) already define which dirt is suitable for backfill-why not extend this thinking to include requirements for the type, procurement, handling, and installation of planting soil? Landscape architects and anyone else who works with the landscape need to heed these too. Such guidelines should not be overly technical or onerous. Plant species should be matched to soil conditions, especially its pH and water supply. Trees should be planted at the right elevation to expose the root flare so soil doesn't suffocate the tree. Adequate soil volume (800 to 1400 cubic feet per tree) and shared root space to encourage root spread should be provided [13]. Soils should be arranged to mimic the horizons in nature in which the top is rich in nutrients, the middle has the correct structure to encourage root growth, and the bottom is drainable. To resist compaction and maintain water and air exchange, soils higher in medium-to-coarse sands (rather than easily compactable fine sands and loam) should be used, and limits on density should then be set. Wet or frozen soils should not be moved or installed. To promote water and air exchange, rootball zones in tree pits should be exposed and at least half of the surface area of a plant bed should be left open, or a simple aeration system should be installed. Well-aged compost should be used to to provide 5% to 10% organics to the top layer of soils. And last, utilities should be placed at least three feet from trees.

There are more technical elements and specifications to consider, especially for sites with no soils, but as Stuart Shillaber the superintendent of horticulture at Boston's Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy advised me recently about introducing organic maintenance, "be happy when someone can implement 60% of the program. The rest will come when clients see results. "

The installation and upkeep of our existing "hard" utility systems requires substantial public and private investment. Creating well-functioning soils would not require large funds from the public since this work can be achieved project by project. Upkeep of hard utilities is costly and disruptive; not so for soils that can be tended several times a year with substantially less trouble. The ASLA estimates that every year nearly 4.6 million acres are affected by public and private landscape projects [14].Making headway on a quarter to third of that amount would start a revolution.

The Future of Urban Soils

From my vantage point, prospects for improving urban soils are good. In my thirty-year career as a landscape architect, there has never been a time of greater interest, research, and resources for managing urban soils and as many successfully constructed projects using urban soils. Advocacy for higher quality soil is rising nearly forty years after Dr. Phil Craul (professor emeritus at SUNY) and his colleagues started the field studies on urban soils that led to his 1992 publishing of the seminal Urban Soil in Landscape Design. Today, the USDA's National Resources Conservation Service has substantial mapping, literature, and research on urban soils [15]. Ted Hartsig, a division chair of the Soil Science Society of America, tells me that the organization recently formed an urban soils division and committee whose focus is issues of urban soils including morphology and classification, the relationship of chemicals and nutrient quality, physics, biology, and structure, as well as the restoration and management of these soils. Urban soils studies are proliferating at public and private universities like Johns Hopkins and Kansas State.

Most critically, the public is starting to understand at the personal level of their gardens that the old adage "better to put a $5 tree in a $50 hole than to put a $50 tree in a $5 hole" is correct. Remember that until professionals and individuals teamed together to demand action, climate change was downplayed. Landscape architects and other professionals must play a part, whether through projects, lobbying our government, writing articles, lecturing, self-education, or speaking up in any propitious situation. We can be plausible leaders in the discussion to invest in another underworld utility, the first that is purely for the public good.
Laura Solano is a Principal at Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates in Cambridge, MA and an Adjunct Associate Professor at Harvard University's Graduate School of Design. In practice for over 30 years, Laura has been an integral contributor to many of MVVA's best-known landscapes, including: Teardrop Park, Restoration of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House, the George W. Bush Presidential Center, Boston Children's Museum Entry Plaza, and Don River Park in Toronto. She lectures across the US on technology, was on the Soils Committee for the Sustainable Sites Initiative, is featured in the film "Leaders in the Field: Women in Landscape Architecture", and is a board member of the Landscape Architecture Foundation.
References

[1] Soil Quality Information Sheet. Soil Quality Indicators: Infiltration",Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA, January 1998 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_019144.pdf

[2] J.H. Gregory, M.D. Dukes, P.H. Jones, and G.L. Miller, "Effects of urban soil compaction on infiltration rate," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Volume 61, Number 3. http://abe.ufl.edu/mdukes/pdf/stormwater/Gregor-et-%20al-JSWC-compaction-article.pdf

[3] Geoffrey H. Donovan, David T. Butry, Yvonne L. Michael, ScD, Jeffrey P. Prestemon, Andrew M. Liebhold, Demetrios Gatziolis, Megan Y. Mao, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, "The Relationship Between Trees and Human Health: Evidence from the Spread of the Emerald Ash Borer," Volume 44, Issue 2, pp. 139-45, http://www.ajpmonline.org/webfiles/images/journals/amepre/AMEPRE_3662-stamped_Jan_8.pdf

[5] "Study: Nations urban forests losing ground; New Orleans, Albuquerque, Houston losing Trees." News Release, USDA Forest Service, February 23, 2012, http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2012/releases/02/urban-forests.shtml

[8] E. Gregory McPherson and Jules Muchnick, "Effects of Street Tree Shade on Asphalt Concrete Pavement Performance," Journal of Arboriculture, Volume 31, Number 6,November 2005, 303, http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/mcpherson/psw_2005_mcpherson001_joa_1105.pdf

[11] Jacqueline W.T. Lu, Erika S. Svendsen, Lindsay K. Campbell, Jennifer Greenfeld, Jessie Braden, Kristen L. King, and Nancy Falxa-Raymond, "Biological, Social, and Urban Design Factors Affecting Young Street Tree Mortality in New York City," City and the Environment, Volume 3, Issue 1, 2010, http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=cate

[13] James Urban, Up by Roots : Healthy Soils and Trees in the Built Environment, International Society of Arboriculture, 2008

[15] Soil Quality Information Sheets, Soil Quality Institute in cooperation with the National Soil Survey Center, NRCS, USDA; and the National Soil Tilth Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/publications/publications.html#utn

Suggested Reading

Timothy A. and Philip J. Craul, Soil Design Protocols for Landscape Architects and Contractors, Jon Wiley & Sons, 2006.

James Urban, Up by Roots : Healthy Soils and Trees in the Built Environment, International Society of Arboriculture, 2008

"Standards for Organic Land Care, Practices for the Design and Maintenance of Ecological Landscapes", NOFA Organic Land Care Program publication, Northeast Organic Farmer's Association, 2011. http://www.organiclandcare.net/sites/default/files/upload/standards2011.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reconsidering The Underworld Of Urban Soils

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If we truly understood the delicacy of soil as a dynamic living system integral to the health of our towns and cities, we would be more cautious about how it is perceived, treated, and protected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Battery Park City, NY Flood Map and Climate Risk Report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Access high-resolution, interactive flood maps and understand the risk of flooding for properties in Battery Park City, NY as well as flood prevention.