Berms, Bjarke and the Big U: Soft post-Sandy strategies

This is big.  And BIG.  From climateprogress:

Two states are receiving $920 million from the federal government, money that’s part of a $60 billion aid package awarded to Sandy-hit states to help them rebuild from the Superstorm.

… the largest chunk (is) going to a project called “the Big U,” which aims to build a 10-mile protective barrier around lower Manhattan. The point of the barrier, which will be composed of levees and berms, will be to protect the region from storm surge and flooding.

But the project’s creators — architecture firm Bjarke Ingels Group* (BIG) — are also focusing on the utility and aesthetics of the wall, factoring in greenspace and protective walls that would be “decorated by neighborhood artists” into their proposal.

Bridging Berm provides robust vertical protection for the Lower East Side from future storm surge and rising sea levels. .

.

This is fascinating on so many levels, particularly because it reveals two distinct approaches to dealing with climate-related catastrophe, represented by two European neighbours.

What you see above is the soft Danish strategy: “The Berm also offers pleasant, accessible routes into the park, with many unprogrammed spots for resting, socializing, and enjoying views of the park and river,” the proposal’s creators write about a section of the wall.”

The Dutch, shortly after Sandy, arrived in NYC with the hard strategy: barriers and sea-gates based on their experience in Rotterdam (right).

The Dutch will get their chance to try a more hard infrastructure- based approach, where Rem Koolhaas’s firm OMA will be doing a project – Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge – that aims to decrease the chances of flash flooding by installing a series of connected pumps and drainage routes that can capture and carry rainwater in Jersey City, Hoboken and Weehawken, New Jersey – though there will be ‘soft’ ecological elements incorporated into this and, indeed, the other winning project that will install breakwaters, or partially submerged barriers, off the south shore of Staten Island.

The “Living Breakwaters” will dull the severity of storm surge and create new habitat for fish, oysters and lobsters. The proposal also plans on building a network of “water hubs” on the shore near the breakwaters. These would act as recreational parks, providing opportunities for kayaking and other activities in the calm water created by the breakwaters, along with providing space for birdwatching and outdoor classrooms and labs.

Lots more at “Rebuild by Design.”  And more on the Big U here:

.

This being America, of course, there will have to be a culture war or two, and numerous legal battles:  From New York:

The Manhattan project, a multi-stage piece of green riverside infrastructure, will mean whipping together a fractious choir of bureaucrats, community boards, the Army Corps of Engineers, activists, obstructionists, NIMBYites, and environmentalists.

Fortunately, there’s a Dutchman involved:

Still, Henk Ovink, the tireless Dutch water management expert who runs the program, claims to relish the obstacles. … “We’re changing people’s futures and we don’t want it to be too easy. That would be weird.”

These projects are an early indicator of what will be played out around the world as the volatile realities of climate change require cities and regions to consider how they will adapt, whether through hard or soft strategies – or, obviously, both.

But it took a Sandy to unleash the billions from bureaucracies that would otherwise prefer to avoid such allocations when some of their political leaders (see below) cannot even bring themselves to mouth the words ‘climate change.’  In the end, though, it’s physics and chemistry and inevitability – when eventually it’s realized that the cost of doing nothing is too high a price to pay.

.

* Yes, that Bjarke Ingels of the Vancouver House proposal: the twisting tower at Granville Bridge.

Also: Putting a Price Tag on Nature’s Defenses