WATERFRONT SPECTACULAR

BY

ANNA L. HOCHHALTER

THESIS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture in Landscape Architecture
in the Graduate College of the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2013

Urbana, Illinois

Masters Committee:

Associate Professor David L. Hays, Chair

Assistant Professor Richard L. Hindle
Lecturer Sharon L. Irish
 ABSTRACT

Through discourse analysis and site evaluation, this thesis asks two questions:
first, what is the potential of the contemporary urban waterfront to structure and
perpetuate meaningful spectacle; and second, what is the potential for spectacle
to restructure the post-industrial public waterfront thus affording these sites more
transformative power within society? Discourse analysis of spectacle is used in order
to establish a typology of spectacle as well as a new definition of the phenomenon.
Three case study citiesNew Orleans, New York City, and Chicagoare evaluated in
order to understand contemporary design strategies in post-industrial public waterfront
projects. Spectacle is newly defined by the author as, a visible deviation from the
norm intended to provoke a response. That understanding of spectacle is then
explored as a design strategy on a riverfront site in downtown Detroit, Michigan, as
part of the Detroit by Design 2012 Detroit Riverfront Competition. The author proposes
a concept called CityWorks Plaza & Port: a Publicly Owned Working Wharf and
Repurposing Cooperative as a model for Detroit. CityWorks Plaza and Port capitalizes
on two detrimental aquatic invasive species: the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) and
zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) and asserts that making work visible, in public,
is spectacularas noted, a visible deviation from the norm intended to provoke
a response. In conclusion, this thesis discusses how instrumentalizing spectacle
in design can lead to a post-post-industrial scenarioone which merges industrial
space with public space, thus enabling a more diverse and generative economy while
meeting public demands for waterfront access and recreational space.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want to acknowledge my thesis committee principal adviser, David L. Hays, for

his thoughtful and provocative involvement in each step of this thesis process. I also
want to acknowledge the attentive editing by my thesis committee member, Sharon
Irish, the design critiques provided by my thesis committee member, Richard Hindle,
and the many challenging conversations with faculty in the Department of Landscape
Architecture at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

I am grateful to several design professionals who met with me to discuss their

work in waterfront design, planning, and construction, specifically: Allen Eskew,
Principal with Eskew+Dumez+Ripple in New Orleans; Paul Seck, Principal, and
Stephen Noone, Associate Principal with Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates in
New York City; and Ken Smith, Principal, and John Ridenour, Project Manager, with
Ken Smith Workshop in New York City. Additionally, Chris Merritt, Tallie Kimble, Ron
Morrison, Evan Blondell, Ethan Phillips, and Tim Johnson, shared their hospitality,
allowing my site visits in New Orleans and New York City to go smoothly.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................1
2. Spectacle: History, Examples, and Discourse...............................................................3
3. Contemporary Design Strategies in Post-Industrial Public Waterfronts........................ 8
4. Critique of Post-Industrial Public Waterfront Designs..................................................17
5. Post-Post-Industrial Spectacle: A Proposed Urban Waterfront Design Strategy.........19
6. Discussion.....................................................................................................................29
7. Bibliography..................................................................................................................31

iv
1. Introduction

In a contemporary post-industrial economy, urban waterfronts are recognized

as locations ripe with the potential for urban revitalization. Attempting to meet the
demands of public constituents and the need for a reliable economy, waterfront
municipalities continue to have an advantage over their nonaquatic contemporaries.
Since the 1960s, many cities have transformed the post-industrial waterfront
into commercial and recreational spaces (ULI, 2004). Historically, those sites
accommodated a shipping and transportation industry with spectacular qualities, such
as the dramatic scale of the ships and their ports, as well as in the active crossing
of the land-water threshold. Then those spectacles were diminished, obscured, or
disappeared when manufacturing eliminated waterfront access and blocked views,
and more recently, when those sites were replaced with places for public leisure.
While attempts to reconnect the urban core with the marginalized waterfront through
the creation of public space is valuable, this thesis argues that designers, landscape
architects, and planners should work to increase both the spectacular qualities and
the social meanings of the revitalized urban waterfront. What is the potential of the
contemporary urban waterfront to structure and perpetuate meaningful spectacle?
What is the potential for spectacle to restructure the post-industrial public waterfront
thus affording it more transformative power within society?
Waterways have played significant roles in the development of American cities.
With access to the network of trade and transportation, cities have thrived along the
waters edge (ULI, 2004). However, with changing economic trendschanges in the
means of production and transportationas well as changes in urban values, the
character of many urban waterfronts has changed dramatically during the past fifty to
seventy-five years. Many industrial waterfronts face becoming obsolete or dilapidated
as a result of those changing economic trends. Cities have worked to address the
public desire for increased recreational opportunities and access to the waterfront.
Places that were once closed to the public and operated by private industry are being
consolidated and sculpted into linear public parkland with new activities, aesthetics,
scale, management, and economic impact.
As designers of transformed waterfronts, landscape architects and architects
render images of future waterfront scenarios in order to catalyze interest. Spectacular
renderings are nearly commonplace within the realm of project proposal images. Yet,
the proposed programs for public waterfront renovation projects usually conform

1
to conventional understandings of public space, recreation, and commercial
opportunities. Additionally, there is often a disparity between the qualities projected
in spectacular proposal renderings and those evident in the built results. Many
factors contribute to that disparity. Spectacles in the public realm are heralded by
city planners as signs of economic health but criticized by some social theorists for
diverting attention and resources away from important social issues within a city.
Theorists Guy Debord, Quentin Stevens, Kim Dovey, Anne-Marie Broudehoux, and
James Corner have been important in this research as scholars concerned with the
negative impact of spectacles. Building on that critique, this thesis asks whether and
how contemporary urban waterfronts could become both spectacular and responsive
to social needs.

2
2. Spectacle: History, Examples, and Discourse

The word spectacle comes from the Latin word, specere, meaning to look.
Similarly, the words species, specimen, spectrum, speculate, and speculum
also share that root. Figure 1 illustrates the linguistic relationship in question.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, species is a kind or sort; specimen is an individual
animal, plant, piece of a mineral, etc.; spectacle is a visually striking performance or
display; spectrum is a band of colors, as seen in a rainbow; speculate is from a theory
or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence; and speculum is an instrument
that is used to dilate an orifice or canal in the body to allow inspection (Oxford
Dictionary, 2012). Contemporary designers and theorists in landscape architecture
are interested in more than what is visible to the eye, but understanding the root of
spectacle offers insight into the range of related phenomena.

Figure 1. Diagram of English words sharing the Latin root, specere. Illustration by author.

3
 Big, dramatic, temporary, unexpected: spectacle excites our senses and
inspires awe (Rockwell, 2006). The history of spectacle is rich and complex. Several
examples in European and United States history illustrate the range of circumstances
in which spectacle has been significant. As discussed in the previous paragraph,
spectacle is defined as a visually striking performance or display (Oxford Dictionary,
2012). The term is often used in theater and has also been used to describe horrific
events. In Triumph of Pleasure: Louis XIV and the Politics of Spectacle, music historian
Georgia Cowart writes that a definition of spectacle in King Louis XIVs time would
have encompassed almost any genre of theater or public event with a strong visual
element, such as public hangings(Cowart, 2008).
Human-designed landscape spectacles have also been common for centuries.
For example, Versailles was known for spectacular gardens and fountains therein.
Marc Treib notes that the bosquets were often filled with banquets, musical and
theatrical performance and amorous trysts and that grand spectacles took place
on the axis (Treib, 2007). Additionally, the gardens themselves were considered
spectacles due to the amount of visible and activated water used in the gardens. The
fountains constructed at Versailles during Louis XIVs reign are the main form of water
spectacle and are a synthesis of sculpture and hydraulic engineering. The water in the
fountains was choreographed to increase its dramatic effect. In fact, the King referred
to the turning on and turning off of the water as playing the fountains, as if they were
a musical instrument (Berger, 2010). The Salle de Bal, one of the component bosquets
at Versailles, combined water and sculpture to produce spectacular visual displays and
sounds. Built in 1680 and 1683, that setting was an oval, bowl-shaped theatre with five
cascades of water. On the walls of each cascade was a brass wire strung with exotic
shells that trembled and rang as the water flowed over them (Woodbridge, 1986).
According to Woodbridge, this sound was integrated into the musical performances
that took place in the Salle de Bal (Woodbridge, 1986). These details suggest that
the creation of spectacle in the gardens involved more than the sense of sight only.
It involved the overlapping of the senses. Thus, the gardens could be viewed as one
complex stage upon which visitors and physical features together created an orchestra
of sound and movement.
In a similar way, perceptions of spectacle can be seen in the wilderness.
For example, during the nineteenth century explorations of the country, travelers
encountered landscape forms such as the Sierra Nevada, the Catskills, Adirondacks,
Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Niagara Falls and noted their unbelievable and sublime
appearance. Environmental historian, William Cronon writes of John Muirs

4
exclamation when arriving in the Sierra Nevadas in 1869, saying, No description of
Heaven that I have ever heard or read of seems half so fine (Cronon, 1995).
Since the mid-twentieth century, some cultural theorists have used the word
spectacle to refer broadly to visual strategies used to further an agendastrategies
which are widespread in the context of society. This understanding of spectacle
was perhaps best described by the European collective known as the Situationists
International, the ideas of which are frequently attributed to the author and theorist,
Guy Debord. In 1977, Debord published The Society of the Spectacle, which describes
spectacle and its impact in modern society. He writes, In societies dominated by
modern production, life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles.
Everything that was directly lived has receded into a representation (Debord, 2004).
With Marxist roots, Debord was critical of the separation of the worker in industrial
society from meaningful work. Additionally, he despised what he saw in society as a
state in which the representation of life (through images) is experienced more than life
itself.
Contemporary theorists continue to draw on Debords understanding of
spectacle, and expand the influence of the discourse of spectacle. In Dream:
Re-Imagining Progressive Politics in an Age of Fantasy, cultural theorist Stephen
Duncombe describes fascism and commercialism as two systems which use
spectacle:

both fascism and commercialism share core characteristics of

spectacle: looking beyond reason, rationality, and self-evident truth and making
use of story, myth, fantasy, and imagination to further their respective agendas.
Both meet people where they are, draw upon preexisting desires, then redirect
them. (Duncombe, 2007)

The influence of spectacles seductive nature can be seen in contemporary

economic development strategies. Architectural and urban theorist Anne-Marie
Broudehoux, and others, have described how spectacles have been used by cities to
catalyze economic development. As Broudehoux remarks, The spectacularization
of the urban landscape has been championed by cities looking for new ways
to foster economic growth, as they enter the global competition for visitors and
capital (Broudehoux, 2010). In an essay entitled Images of Power: Architectures
of the Integrated Spectacle at the Beijing Olympics, she argues that large cultural
productions distract the public from engaging in positive social activities and

5
democracy. Broudehoux interprets Guy Debords writing on spectacles, and asserts
that spectacular architecture is created by some authorities as a distraction technique
to pacify the public and deter them from being critical of the government (Broudehoux,
2010). However, this Bread and Circuses argument contradicts other theories, which
posit that festivals, parades, and other public aesthetic forms are potential vehicles for
resistance and as fora for critiquing governmental and mainstream cultural behaviors.
Similarly, planning and architectural scholars Quentin Stevens and Kim Dovey,
write about the limits of spectacle in urban design: the exploratory and liberatory
possibilities of the city have been reduced to spectaclestimulating the senses but
passivizing the body (Stevens, 2004). They are referring to the Southbank district in
Melbourne, a post-industrial riverfront district redeveloped in the late 1980s and early
1990s into an arts, shopping, gambling, and cinema district, linked with a riverfront
pedestrian promenade.
By analyzing the range of ways in which spectacle has been used, we can see
that the power of spectacle is more than innocent visual pleasure. Based on a review
of literature and examples, I categorize spectacle into the following types, shown in
Figure 2.
Relative to this analysis, the definition of spectacle as a visually striking
performance or display fails to acknowledge the power and influence of spectacle,
as demonstrated in the examples discussed above. I define spectacle as a
visible deviation from the norm intended to provoke a response. That definition
acknowledges its history as a social strategy used in the contexts of government,
commercialism, the arts, and activism to instigate an action or reaction.

6
Figure 2. Typology of spectacles, developed by author.

7
3. Contemporary Design Strategies in Post-Industrial
Public Waterfronts

The waters edge could be seen as a spattering of spectacles: industrial,

monumental, temporary, ecological, social, and commercial. Yet, common goals for
urban waterfront revitalization includes being: walkable, unique, vital, active, visible,
connective, catalytic, attractive, experiential, economic, social, and ecological.
Theory of waterfront park design can be understood within the larger history
of landscape architecture and parks planning as described and interpreted by
architecture professor Galen Cranz and landscape architect Michael Boland (Cranz,
2004). In their article Defining the Sustainable Park: A Fifth Model for Urban Parks,
the authors postulate that the Sustainable Park is the contemporary dominant type
of park, and has been since 1990. The authors describe four other types of parks
dominant in American history including, the Pleasure Ground (1850-1900), the Reform
Park (1900-1930), the Recreation Facility (1930-1965) and the Open Space System
(1965-?) (Cranz, 2004). Of the park typology, they write, Each park type evolved to
address what were considered to be pressing urban social problems at that time
(Cranz, 2004). Due to the benevolent goals of municipalities, it could be said that
the post-industrial public waterfront parks within my research are also responses to
perceived pressing urban social problems of the time. However, public constituents
do not always agree on which social problems are pressing.
My analysis of contemporary design strategies for post-industrial public
waterfront projects focused on three cities as primary case studies: New York City,
New Orleans, and Chicago. Each of those communities has an approximately
three hundred-year history of waterfront engagement. Because of New York Citys
size, diversity and continued economic success, its waterfront designs serve as
an indicator of contemporary waterfront trends. Through site visits, interviews and
photo documentation, I made observations of the following areas: the Reinventing
the Crescent six-mile redevelopment area of New Orleans; Brooklyn Bridge Park,
East River Park, East River Promenade, Battery Park City, Hudson River Park, and
Governors Island in and around New York City; Navy Pier, Northerly Island, Lake
Michigan lakeshore and Millennium Park in Chicago. Maps in Figure 3 illustrate the
focus areas of study.
Site visits made it possible to evaluate details not visible in on-line imagery
of waterfront development projects. For example, they enabled an assessment of

8
materiality, construction details, upkeep and spatial relationships to the larger urban
context and human activities. The following questions were considered for each
waterfront site:
What is the physical history of the site? What types of uses occurred?
What activities take place now?
What are the key design ideas of the site?
What, if anything, strikes me as spectacular?
What economic drivers are at work?
What are the materials used structurally and visually?
Several projects within the research area of each city are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3. Maps of research areas within the three case study cities: New Orleans, New York City, and
Chicago.

Figure 4. Boards created by author of select project sites within research areas.

9
 In New Orleans, the history of the Mississippi River is rich with the stories of
conquest, survival, development, trade, industry, and leisure. In 1718, Jean-Baptiste Le
Moyne, sieur de Bienville, placed French Louisianas capital in the resulting crescent,
on rare high ground deposited by the river, (Kelman, 2003). According to historian
Ari Kelman, Le Moyne recognized the economic potentials of being located on the
banks of the Mississippi River and its connection to Mid-Atlantic trade. Although the
geographic location was prime for water-based trade and transportation, mediating
between solid ground and the powerful waters of the Mississippi River and the Gulf
of Mexico has been an ongoing maintenance and engineering challenge for the city.
Landscape historian Lake Douglas writes that the first human-made levee in New
Orleans was built in 1726 by Pierre Le Blond de la Tour (Douglas, 2011). The levees
were built to control the regular floodwaters and to protect the stability of the city.
They can be understood as a practice of landform alteration consistent with other
urban waterfront strategies and reflecting a belief that the environment was to be
in service of the development of civilization (Kelman, 2003). Douglas writes that, in
colonial New Orleans, the levees created some of the first public spaces, serving as a
major promenade and public living rooms (Douglas, 2011). Sycamores and orange
trees were planted on them to provide fragrance and shade for the pedestrians of
the eighteenth century (Douglas, 2011). Kelman acknowledges the social role of the
levees, saying, the river provided a waterside promenade where New Orleanians and
their visitors enjoyed cooling breezes wafting off the river at night (Kelman, 2003).
Over time, however, the levees were raised, and warehouses and the railroad were built
along the waters edge; the urban core was separated from the river.
In 2008, Hargreaves Associates completed a master plan Reinventing the
Crescent: New Orleans Riverfront Redevelopment Plan, which reimagines how the
city of New Orleans can reconnect to the Mississippi River. The proposal calls for
special architectural expressions along the rivers edge and references spectacular
architecture projects in other cities (Hargreaves, 2008). Drawing upon the master plan
as a guide for studying the New Orleans riverfront, I undertook analysis of existing
conditions, older designed spaces, and proposed strategies.
New York Citys history is similar to that of New Orleans in that the waterways,
which facilitated trade and transportation, were significant reasons for the colonization
of Manhattan in 1626 by Peter Minuit (Nordenson, 2010). Also, significant
landform building and alteration took place in order to establish suitable ground
for development. Before the nineteenth century, much of lower Manhattan was
marshy wetlands. According to structural engineer Guy Nordenson et al., shipping

10
and maritime industry thrived beginning in the seventeenth century. As shipping
standards changed, much of the shipping industry relocated to other riverfront
communities, leaving a large waterfront of docks and piers in New York City open for
reuse (Rodrique, 2013). In Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan,
published in 2011, the City boasts of its five hundred and twenty miles of shoreline and
its recent commitment (since 1992) to reinvest in the waterfront. The plan states:

After decades of turning our backs on the shorelineallowing it to devolve into

a no-mans land of rotting piers, parking lots, and abandoned industrial sites
New York made reclamation of the waterfront a priority. (NYC Department of City
Planning, 2011)

Since 1992, the city has made significant progress in renovating much of the
Manhattan shoreline and large sections of the other boroughs.
The story of Chicagos development is similar to New Orleans and New York
City in that its origin is rooted in the advantageous proximity to navigable waterways.
However, its boom in development occurred later than that of New Orleans and New
York City. Historian Jon C. Teaford remarks that in 1834, a New York visitor predicted
that the infant settlement [Chicago] would become the New Orleans of the North
(Teaford, 1993). The Potawatomi Native Americans resided in the territory of what
is now Chicago, however Jean Baptiste Point du Sable, a black trader from Haiti,
is credited as the first permanent resident in 1707 (City of Chicago, 2013). Fort
Dearborn was built by the United States Government in 1795, was destroyed in 1812
during a catastrophic battle between regional Native Americans and the U.S. Settlers,
and rebuilt shortly thereafter (City of Chicago, 2013). Chicago was a multicultural
trading post on the lake mediated by gift giving, celebrations, and complex
negotiationsthat Indian communities controlled as much as Europeans did until
changes began in the 1830s (Cronon, 1991). After incorporation in 1837, speculators
identified the city as a lucrative investment, and boosters aggressively advertised and
sold property to hopeful investors (Teaford, 1993). Like other developing Great Lakes
citiesCleveland, Detroit, and MilwaukeeChicagos success was only catalyzed with
the opening of the Erie Canal in the 1830s (Teaford, 1993). In 1848, with opening of
the Illinois & Michigan Canal, the city of Chicago finally stood astride the water route
between the two great highways of commerce (Teaford, 1993). Unlike Cleveland,
Detroit, and Milwaukee, however, in the 1850s and 1860s, Chicago became the
nations leading rail center, connecting the Mississippi River markets and Midwest

11
markets to New York City and eastern markets through the railroad (Teaford, 1993).
Chicagos approach to the waterfront distinguishes it from the other case study
cities. In 1893, the Worlds Columbian Exposition took place on the Chicago lakeshore
of Lake Michigan. With architect Daniel Burnham as the Chief planner, the exposition
exemplified the goals of the City Beautiful Movement, a movement which advocated for
the beautification of cities and the creation of public landscapes and parks in order to
increase the health of the residents. Author Ann Breen writes on the significance of this
movement during that time: the City Beautiful effort occurred in a select number
of cities concurrent with emphasis in most waterfronts of the time on industry and
transport (Breen, 1994). In 1909, Architects Daniel Burnham and Edward H. Bennett
published The Plan of Chicago and the citys waterfront was envisioned and promoted
as an expansive, connected public park with constructed ground, a marina, islands,
piers and lagoons (Burnham Plan Centennial, 2009).
Some proposed projects of the plan were realized while others were not.
Present-day Navy Pier was completed in 1916 as the Municipal Pier and was one of
two key recreational piers of the plan (Burnham Plan Centennial, 2009). Following
its completion, the pier accommodated a variety of uses, including: hosting soldiers
during World War I, having summer festivals, hosting the Navy, providing pilot training
for World War II, as well as a University of Illinois campus (Breen, 1996). Although, this
pier was designed to be a public recreational space, it experienced abandonment like
other types of waterfront projects in the United States around 1970. In 1991, a design
competition was held and Thompson and Associates were chosen to renovate the
pier (Breen, 1996). Yet, this modernization, completed in 1995, succeeded less than
two decades and in 2012, Navy Pier Inc. held the Pierscape Chicago Navy Pier Design
Competition and selected a scheme from James Corner Field Operations to celebrate
the centennial anniversary of the pier in 2016 (Navy Pier Inc, 2012). Figure 5 illustrates
examples of design schemes submitted to the Competition.
Understanding each citys approach to the waterfront since its settlement
illuminates the range of cultural and physical influences of each contemporary project,
however context is not a determinant of the future. Thus, I found it important to speak
directly with designers. Through interviews with designers involved with several
projects within my case study areas, I learned detailed information regarding the
challenges and goals for those projects which helped significantly in developing my
understanding of those projects.
Related to the Reinventing the Crescent plan in New Orleans, I interviewed
Allen Eskew, FAIA, the Principal of Eskew+Dumez+Ripple (June 28, 2012).

12
Eskew+Dumez+Ripple is the design team executive architect for the Reinventing
the Crescent. In New York City, I interviewed Principal Paul Seck and Associate
Principal Stephen Noone of Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates (August 14, 2012)
and Principal Ken Smith and Project Manager John Ridenour at Ken Smith Workshop
(August 15, 2012). Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates was the lead designer for
Piers 64-54 (Segment 5) within Hudson River Park as well as for Brooklyn Bridge Park.
Ken Smith Workshop is the lead designer of the East River Promenade in New York
City.

Figure 5. Proposal images submitted to the Pierscape Chicago Navy Pier Design Competition, 2012.
TOP: renderings by James Corner Field Operations in their submittal entitled The Peoples Pier.
MIDDLE: renderings by AECOM and BIG team in their submittal entitled, Navy Pier +.
BOTTOM: renderings by TeamX from their submittal entitled Navy Pier Pierscape.

13
 My analysis of the case study projects is based on a synthesis of my
understanding gleaned through those interviews, my reading of planning and design
documents related to those projects, and my personal experience during site visits.
The following observations of program choices, physical characteristics, and municipal
goals emerged through this method.
Within the research areas of New York City, New Orleans, and Chicago, I
observed the following primary types of programming on the waterfront:
a. active and passive recreation
b. access to view the water and sometimes to touch it
c. ecological design included in some projects
d. primary recreational and commercial land use, with some mixed-use
residential
In observing physical characteristics of the post-industrial public waterfront
areas, four primary characteristics stood out: linearity, primary access, obstacles, and
oriented views. Images in Figure 6 illustrate the characteristics and resulting condition.

Figure 6. Illustration by author of physical conditions common in urban post-industrial projects.

14
 In looking at municipal goals assigned to the waterfront design of each case
study, issues of access, connectivity, multi-modal transportation, pedestrian access,
and economic development are common concerns. In order to understand how these
issues in New Orleans, New York City, and Chicago related to broader trends in post-
industrial waterfront development, I evaluated eight municipal waterfront revitalization
plans. Figure 7 illustrates the goals of waterfront projects as described by eight
municipalities. I distilled these goals by examining waterfront revitalization plans for
the following waterfront cities in the United States: Minneapolis, Chicago, Chattanooga,
Philadelphia, St. Louis, Seattle, New Orleans, and New York City. I selected the cities
based on their reputation for having a significant waterfront redevelopment project
and I sought cities from different geographic regions in order to identify potential
regional differences within the project goals. Twelve common goals were apparent:
walkable, unique, vital, active, visible, connective, attractive, experiential, economic,
social, ecological, catalytic. These goals are consistent with broader municipal
goals for public space and revitalization projects, but are not uniquely specific to the
characteristics of the waterfront condition. Additionally, I did not perceive significant
regional differences in the project goals.
Through analysis of historical context, programming, physical condition,
aesthetics, and municipal and design goals of public post-industrial waterfront projects,
I find similarities in the challenges faced and strategies applied in New Orleans, New
York City, and Chicago, suggesting national trends in a post-industrial urban condition.

15
Figure 7. Typical municipal goals for waterfront redevelopment plans. Illustration by author. Sample cities
include: Minneapolis, MN; Chicago, IL; Chattanooga, TN; Philadelphia, PA; St. Louis, MO; Seattle, WA;
New Orleans, LA; and New York, NY.

16
4. Critique of Post-Industrial Public Waterfront Designs

Many waterfronts that were once spectacular with the bustling of large ships
and machines on a productive, industrial waterfront are now being transformed
and redesigned as spectacular spaces of leisure, recreation, and consumption.
Geographer David Harvey was critical of the landscape architecture discipline in his
remarks delivered at a symposium related to the Groundswell (2005) exhibition at the
Museum of Modern Art in New York City. Harvey challenged landscape architects to
give attention to the larger system related to post-industrial projects. The discipline
must remember the displacement of labor and the potential types of working conditions
now present in newly industrialized communities, he argued (Architectural League
of New York, 2005). Relative to the post-industrial waterfront projects under study in
this thesis, Harveys critique has traction. Although the projects in New York City and
plans in New Orleans and Chicago are certainly urban improvements and attempt to
address numerous goals of the city through the creation of waterfront access and new
commercial and recreational opportunities, these public projects neglect concerns
outside a service-economy and consumer-driven market.
Quentin Stevens and Kim Dovey describe this consumer-oriented type of post-
industrial waterfront when they write of Southbank, Melbourne, Australia, the rivers
edge is lined with scheduled entertainment venues and saturated with choreographed
street theatre, public artworks and illusory soundscapes, intended to attract a well-
heeled clientele and to frame leisure within a context of consumption, (Stevens, 2004).
The authors extended their critique by noting:

The urban design of the waterfront serves an instrumental function: feeding the
escapist desires which the city awakens, channeling them into consumption and
carefully managed forms of play. Only certain forms of escapist behavior are
tolerated. Opportunities for engagement with risk and danger are directed inside
to the gaming tables (Stevens, 2004).

Although casinos were not located or planned for any of the public projects
under study in this thesis, the notion that only specific forms of risk and danger are
acceptable can be seen in those projects.
Planners, designers, and developers of post-industrial waterfronts have
embraced the desire to see the water again. Many cities have had decades of visual

17
barriers to the water due to infrastructure and manufacturing buildings. Yet, creating
beautiful views at the waters edge falls short of addressing deeper urban issues such
as economic justice or ecological health. In his essay, Eidetic Operations and New
Landscapes, prominent landscape architect and scholar James Corner writes,
to continue to construe the practice of landscape as the creation of seductive and
beautiful settings is only to forestall confronting the problems of contemporary life
(Corner, 1999).

18
5. Post-Post-Industrial Spectacle: A Proposed Urban
Waterfront Design Strategy

As a way to answer my thesis questionswhat is the potential of the

contemporary urban waterfront to structure and perpetuate meaningful spectacle? and
what is the potential for spectacle to restructure the post-industrial public waterfront
thus affording it more transformative power within society?I participated in the
Detroit by Design 2012: Detroit Riverfront Competition, hosted by the American
Institute of Architects, Detroit Chapter Urban Priorities Committee. The competition
site consisted of a riverfront area in downtown Detroit, Michigan. The international
competition convened a jury of reputable designers and professionals, including
Walter Hood, Professor of Landscape Architecture, Environmental Planning and Urban
Design at University of California Berkeley; Lola Sheppard, Co-founder of Lateral
Office in Toronto; Faye Alexander Nelson, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Detroit Riverfront Conservancy; and Reed Kroloff, architect and Director of Cranbrook
Academy of Art.

Process: Site NormsCity Scale

I engaged in a seven-week design process using a two-pronged approach.
First, in implementing my definition of spectacle, I sought to engage it as a visual
deviation from the norm intending to produce a response. The second part of my
approach was to propose a new public space engaging spectacle as a strategy
addressing social issues. That approach utilizes my critique of contemporary
waterfront designs and attempts to instrumentalize spectacle for social good. In order
to achieve that approach, I attempted to understand the norms of Detroit, and to
respect those in my strategy.
In Detroit, the population steadily increased from 1900 until 1950 and then
dramatically plummeted (see Figure 8) (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998). That trend
is largely attributed to the suburban lifestyles newly desired and afforded to the upper
class and working class due to great successes in modern production within booming
industries. In Stalking Detroit, scholar Jerry Herron writes, people who had made
it considered getting out of the city to be a necessary imprimatur of success (Herron,
2001). Similarly, as the editors write in the introduction to Stalking Detroit, for much
of the twentieth century, Detroit, served as an international model for the development
of techniques of optimizing profit from speculative capital through industrialized

19
Figure 8. Bar graph and illustration made by author. Data derived from U.S. Bureau of the Census and
map created from Detroit Riverfront Competition provided materials.

production (Daskalakis, Waldheim and Young, 2001). They note that as Detroits
population shrank, its global influence as a model grew (Daskalakis, Waldheim and
Young, 2001). As a leader in the design of efficient production and assembly, Detroit
was seen as an illustration of how other cities could also increase the yield of their
production. However, this practice valued industrial efficiency, material accumulation,
and individual success over community-based urban planning and is thought to have
inspired the significant population decline many post-industrial cities have experienced
since the mid-twentieth century.
Spectacle is said to have played a role in that population decline and the
disinvestment in Detroit. Architect Dan Hoffman writes that, in the twentieth century,
[images were] the currency, and the moving reference for this Capital on the verge of
dreams (Hoffman, 2001). Hoffman is referring to the notion that an image of success
and happiness, as portrayed in advertisements and perceived by Detroit residents,
changed so rapidly that most people were in a steady state of struggle to realize their
constantly-changing material goals. According to the editors of Stalking Detroit, a
strategy of utilizing spectacle persists in the city today. Of the citys redevelopment
efforts of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, they write, the media, real estate, and business

20
interests, as well as city administration itself have invested in an urbanism of the
simulacra: the ongoing myth of Detroits resurgence (Daskalakis, Waldheim and
Young, 2001). This can be seen in the planning and boostering of the Hart Plaza, the
development of the Renaissance Center (RenCen), and the Comerica sports stadium.
Yet, the myth of Detroits resurgence is less of a myth today than it was twelve years
ago, in 2001, when Stalking Detroit was published.
The significant decline in population created a condition of vacancy within the
city limits and urban fabric. Figure 9 illustrates the percentage of vacant lots among
total residential parcels within the city limits.

Figure 9. Map of Vacant Lots, as Percentage of Residential Parcels, provided by Detroit Riverfront
Competition.

21
Process: Site NormsSite Scale
The competition site included Hart Plaza, an existing civic plaza built in 1979,
to accommodate large festivals, with an amphitheater built for 40,000 attendees,
access to the waterfront, walking trails and shaded reflective space (Detroit RiverFront
Conservancy, 2012). Detroit was at the forefront of the post-industrial waterfront
revitalization movement still in practice today. Figure 10 illustrates the norms that I
identified adjacent to the competition site.

Figure 10. Illustration by author showing adjacent architecture and program norms to the site.

DesignCityWorks Plaza & Port

On November 29, 2012, I submitted my entry, CityWorks Plaza and Port: A
Publicly Owned Working Wharf and Repurposing Cooperative, to the Detroit by
Design 2012: Detroit Riverfront Competition. The entry received an honorable mention
from the competition jury. Figure 11 shows the board developed for the competition.
CityWorks Plaza and Port is a new model for the public plaza. It offers the
public an intimate view of the working riverfront and transforms a liability into revenue
while improving the Great Lakes ecosystem. As the birthplace of the automobile,
the place where modern industrial production was perfected, the original home of
Motown, and a front line for electronic music, Detroit is accustomed to pioneering new

22
paradigms. In 1979, Detroit was ahead of the national trend when it transformed its
post-industrial waterfront into a civic open space, a plaza that gave public access to
the riverfront while fostering entertainment and tourism in a new service economy. Hart
Plaza was at first a success, but the service economy for which it and similar spaces
were designed has not been resilient enough to meet the challenges facing cities
today. In the post-post-industrial economy, public plazas need new stimuli, and Detroit
is poised to be once again at the forefront. Detroit understands that a new economy
is already underway. As a leader in the new urban agriculture movement and with
energy to remake itself through a strong network of community-based organizations,
the city is primed to usher in a new model for the civic plaza: a working space in which
production is spectacularmeaning, both public and visibleand entrepreneurship
thrives by repurposing seeming liabilities into new revenue streams.

Figure 11. CityWorks Plaza and Port created by author, received an honorable mention in Detroit by
Design 2012: Detroit Riverfront Competition.

23
 CityWorks Plaza and Port capitalizes on two detrimental aquatic invasive
species: the sea lamprey and zebra mussel. Abundant in population, and with
ecological and economic reasons to justify exploitation, those species are resources
ripe for untapped markets and experimental uses. Through a public - co-op
partnership, CityWorks distributes the responsibility of caring for the public sphere to a
community wider than the municipal employees and public officials.
CityWorks Plaza and Port utilizes several key strategies. First, it asserts that
making work visibleparticularly the work of a port, with its dramatic scale of ocean-
faring vessels, large cranes and gantries, and moving wateris spectacularnot only
in a visual way, but in a meaningful way (Figure 12). This spectacle is not merely an
icon.

Figure 12. Illustration by author showing a detail of the proposed site section.

The next strategy is one in which the port and the plaza merge (Figure 13). By
bringing the working port into the public sphere, accommodating the recreational,
commercial, creative, and social goals of the city, the design allows production and
leisure to coexist in the same place. However, this is not a typical working port
transporting coal or steel or other common cargo types. Sea lamprey and zebra
mussel cause significant ecological and economic damage to the Great Lakes Region
but also present opportunities (Figure 14). The scope of potentials is yet uncertain.

24
Figure 13. Detail of CityWorks Plaza & Port showing how the active port and open public space coexist.
Illustration by author.

Figure 14. The Sea Lamprey and Zebra Mussel are an untapped resource. Illustration by author. Data
sourced from Science News Online, Reuters, BBC, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, Detroit Free Press.

25
The sea lamprey is considered a delicacy in Portugal (Science News Online, 1996)
but speculative products have yet to be tested (Figure 15). With on-site facilities and
material experimentation, CityWorks Plaza and Port, is invested in its long-term capacity
to adapt and thrive.
The selection of sea lampreys and zebra mussels as target species was
significant in keeping with my design approach related to spectacle. I could have
selected an invasive species, such as the obscure tubenose goby or the innocent-
seeming, flowering purple loosestrife, but the species engaged needed to be
spectacular. Thus, the horrifying appearance of the sea lamprey and the visually
dramatic method of zebra mussel removal were well suited for me to achieve my goal.
The sea lamprey is a jawless, parasitic fish with rows of teeth used to attach itself to its
prey (Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 2000). Figure 16 illustrates why this species
is common in nightmares related to underwater ecology. Similarly, the zebra mussel
is a common nuisance to beach-goers and boaters. As Figure 17 shows, the primary
method of zebra mussel removal from boats is through power-washing (Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, 2012).
In many cities, revenue-generating public-private partnerships are necessary in
the creation and maintenance of public space. CityWorks transforms the economic
needs of the public sphere into a productive and profitable spectaclethat addresses
the economic, social, and ecological needs of Detroit and the Great Lakes region.

26
Figure 15. Detroit is well positioned to distribute new products made at CityWork Plaza & Port. Illustration
by author.

Figure 16. Image showing the circular mouth, file-like tongue, and rows of teeth of the Sea Lamprey.
Image from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

27
Figure 17. Harvesting zebra mussels from ship hulls via a powerwashing process is spectacular.
Rendering by author.

28
6. Discussion

This proposal for Detroit could easily be replicated in other waterfront cities.
Given the challenges of leisure and service-based economies, and the contemporary
demands that the public treat the waterfront as an accessible amenity, CityWorks Plaza
and Port offers a post-post-industrial strategy to creating meaningful spectacle at the
urban waterfront.
CityWorks Plaza and Port has aspects of each of the spectacle types discussed
in Chapter 2, Figure 2. In Chapter 2, I categorize spectacle in the following ways:
scenic (when physical qualities in appearance change in time); engagement (when a
person is involved in an unusual public activity); promise (when an image suggests
future happiness); horror (when pain or death is displayed for the public to see); art
(when elements are composed intentionally); critique (when satire or exaggeration
draws attention to a phenomenon); display (when strength and power are displayed
through an object or image); indication (when the process of work is made visible).
I sought to demonstrate each of these spectacle types in my design strategy
for CityWorks Plaza and Port. Thus, the project maintains access to the riverfront and
frames scenic views of the river. It offers engagement with the natural resources of
the Great Lakes Basin through employment in collecting, producing, and distributing
invasive species products. It also offers engagement through the consumption of the
lamprey delicacy and use of the zebra mussel shell material. Through the artist in-
residence program, material experimentation is on-going. The promise of a desired
future, unlike a casino or product advertisement, is seen in the working port activities
and celebration of life, food, and production. The public display of sea lamprey
processing, a creature unsettling in appearance, feeds the publics curiosity of the
grotesque. In terms of arts, the composition of walkways, landscape areas, circulation,
views, and construction details of the public plaza is designed to frame the working
port activities. The choice to invest in a publicly owned, cooperative working port
and plaza is a critique on the common public waterfront plaza design strategy which
prioritizes recreational activities on the urban waters edge. To see the active port
industry in the heart of downtown Detroit, in a site with historical importance as the
citys first European settlement, indicates and symbolizes that Detroits economy is
thriving again (similar to the promise of the project).
By adjoining the public plaza with the working industrial activities, the industrial
space, architecture and infrastructure will be designed as a public amenity with

29
attention to aesthetic craftsmanship and ecological responsibility. This opulence in
the midst of a perceived scarcity of Detroits financial resources is a display of strength
possible because of the self-sufficient funding mechanism built into the publicly owned
working wharf and repurposing cooperative.
In an interview related to the Allegheny Riverfront Park in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, landscape architect Michael Van Valkenburgh stated, city dwellers dont
just want parks; they need them so they can be connected to time and place (Amidon,
2005). Supporting that argument, this thesis asserts that contemporary public
waterfront projects would benefit from utilizing local resources, through collaborative
organizations, to strengthen connections with the body of water along which the city
is situated. As Quentin Stevens and Kim Dovey write, one of the most troubling
challenges facing urban designers and planners today is that economic and cultural
forces of globalization so often lead to a proliferation of formularized place making: the
sense that if you have seen one waterfront, you have seen them all (Stevens, 2004).
Chapter 3 of this thesis reviewed public waterfront project goals taken from cities
in various regions in the United States. The similarities among those goals, despite
geographic differences, seem to support the notion that formularized place making
is proliferating not only because of the influence of economic and cultural globalization
on planners and designers, but also because citizens and constituents of public
agencies are demanding similar amenities. The Urban Land Institute writes:

Cities seek a waterfront where there is ample visual and physical public
accessall day and all yearto both the water and the land. Cities also want
a waterfront that serves more than one purpose: they want it to be a place to
work and to live, as well as a place to play. In other words, they want a place
that contributes to the quality of life in all of its aspectseconomic, social, and
cultural (Urban Land Institute, 2004).

By utilizing a new meaning of spectacle as a design toola process which

seeks to create a provocative deviation from the norm in order to create changethe
waterfront emerges in a new form. As James Corner writes, objects of a working
world break the scene of a landscape (Corner, 1999). The post-post-industrial project
challenges the disembodied view of the scenic waterway by bringing waterfront
industry into civic open space in a way that makes production and work visible to the
public.

30
7. Bibliography

American Institute of Architects New Orleans Chapter, Port of New Orleans, New
Orleans Planning Commission. 2004. New Orleans Riverfront Charrette. City of
New Orleans.

Amidon, Jane. 2005. Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates: Allegheny riverfront park.
New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Architectural League of New York. 2005. Where is the Outrage?. L: Newsletter of the
Architectural League of New York. (Summer). 4-11.

Beardsley, John. 2007. Conflict and Erosion: The Contemporary Public Life of Large
Parks. In Julia Czerniak and George Hargreaves (Eds.), Large Parks. (pp. 198-
213). New York, NY.

Berger, R. 1985. In the garden of the Sun King. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Berger, R.W. 2010. The Pyramid Fountain at Versailles. Studies in the History of
Gardens & Designed Landscapes. 30:3, 263-282.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14601170903411275. [April 1, 2012].

Bernado, Jordi. 2001.Stalking Detroit 1. Stalking Detroit. Eds. Georgia Daskalakis,

Charles Waldheim, and Jason Young. Barcelona: Actar.

Breen, Ann and Dick Rigby. 1994. Waterfronts: Cities Reclaim Their Edge. New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Breen, Ann and Dick Rigby. 1996. Waterfronts: The New Waterfront: A Worldwide Urban
Success Story. London: Thames and Hudson.

Broudehoux, Anne-Marie 2010. Images of Power: Architectures of the Integrated

Spectacle at the Beijing Olympics. Journal of Architectural Education. 63(2), 52-
62.

31
Burnham Plan Centennial. 2009. Burnham Plan Exhibition Slideshow.
http://burnhamplan100.lib.uchicago.edu/newberryexhibit/slideshow/ [April 9,
2013].

Busquets, Joan, and Felipe Correa. 2005. New Orleans: Strategies for a City in Soft
Land. Cambridge: Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College.

City of Chicago. 2013. Chicago History. http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/about/

history.html [April 9, 2013].

Corner, James. 1999. Introduction: Recovering Landscape as a Critical Cultural

Practice. Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape
Architecture. Ed. James Corner. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Corner, James. 1999. Eidetic Operations and New Landscapes. Recovering

Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture. Ed. James
Corner. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Cowart, Georgia J. 2008. The Triumph of Pleasure: Louis XIV and the Politics of
Spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cranz, Galen and Michael Boland. 2004. Defining the sustainable park: a fifth model for
urban parks. Landscape Journal. 23:2-04. 103-120.

Crompton, John L. 2005. The Impact of Parks on Property Values: Empirical Evidence
From the Past Two Decades in the United States. Managing Leisure. 10: 203-
218.

Cronon, William. 1991. Natures Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Cronon, William. 1995. The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong
Nature. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, New York:
W. W. Norton & Co.

32
Daniels, Stephen and Denis Cosgrove. 1993. Spectacle and text: landscape metaphors
in cultural geography. Place/culture/representation. Ed. James Duncan and
David Ley. New York: Routledge. 57-77.

Daskalakis, Georgia, Charles Waldheim and Jason Young, eds. 2001. Stalking Detroit.
Barcelona: ACTAR.

Debord, Guy. 2005. Society of the Spectacle. Translated by Ken Knabb. London: Rebel
Press.

Detroit Free Press. 2012. Hundreds of bird deaths sound alarm on problems in the
Great Lakes. http://www.freep.com/article/20121018/NEWS06/310180370/
Hundreds-of-bird-deaths-sound-alarm-on-problems-in-the-Great-
Lakes?odyssey=tab. [November 24, 2012]

Detroit RiverFront Conservancy. 2012. Hart Plaza. http://www.detroitriverfront.org/east/

hartplaza/. [November 20, 2012]

Douglas, Lake. 2011. Public Spaces, Private Gardens: A History of Designed

Landscapes in New Orleans. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Duncombe, Stephen. 2007. Dream: Re-imagining Progressive Politics in an Age of

Fantasy. New York: The New Press.

Flaumehaft, Mera. 1994. The Civic spectacle: essays on drama and community.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Forsynth, C.J. and C.E. Palmer. 1999. A Typology of Artists Found on Jackson Square
in New Orleans French Quarter. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology. 27 (1) 9-17.

Frampton, Kenneth. 1999. Megaform as urban landscape. Ann Arbor: University of

Michigan.

Garoian, Charles R. and Yvonne M. Gaudelius. 2008. Spectacle pedagogy: art, politics,
and visual culture. Albany: State University of New York Press.

33
Gastil, Raymond W. 2002. Beyond the Edge: New Yorks New Waterfront. New York:
Princeton Architectural Press.

Gotham, Kevin Fox. 2005. Theorizing urban spectacles. City. 9:2 (July) 225-246.

Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 2000. Sea Lamprey: A Great Lakes Invader.
http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/downloads/x106.pdf. [November 22, 2012].

Hargreaves Associates. 2008. Reinventing the Crescent: six miles of riverfront

development, Development Plan for the City of New Orleans and Port of New
Orleans Commission. http://www.reinventingthecrescent.org/files/documents/
Book_Full_001.pdf. [April 1, 2012].

Hargreaves, George and Julia Czerniak. 2009. Hargreaves: The Alchemy of Landscape
Architecture. London: Thames & Hudson.

Herron, Jerry. 2001. Three meditations on the ruins of Detroit. Stalking Detroit. Eds.
Georgia Daskalakis, Charles Waldheim, and Jason Young. Barcelona: Actar.

Hoffman, Dan. 2001. The best the world has to offer. Stalking Detroit. Eds. Georgia
Daskalakis, Charles Waldheim, and Jason Young. Barcelona: Actar.

Hooftman, Eelco. 2009. Design against nature. Harvard Design Magazine. 31:10 (Fall/
Winter) 32-39.

Hurley, Andrew. 2006. Narrating the urban waterfront: the role of public history in
community revitalization. The Public Historian. 28:4 (Fall) 19-50.

Islam, Gazi, Michael J. Zyphur, and David Boje. 2008. Carnival and Spectacle in Krewe
de Vieux and the Mystic Krewe of Spermes: The Mingling of Organization and
Celebration. Organization Studies. 29 (12): 1565-1589.

Jenkins, Eric J. 2008. To Scale: One Hundred Urban Plans. New York: Routledge.

Kelman, Ari. 2003. A River and Its City. Berkeley: University of California Press.

34
Kemp, Roger L. 2009. Cities and Water: A Handbook for Planning. Jefferson:
McFarland & Company.

Kershaw, Baz. 2007. Theatre ecology: environments and performance events.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kilian, D. and B.J. Dodson, 1996. Forging a postmodern waterfront: Urban form and
spectacle at the Victoria and Alfred Docklands. South African Geographical
Journal. 78:1 (April) 29-40.

Lawson, Laura. 2007. Parks as Mirrors of Community: Design Discourse and

Community Hopes for Parks in East St. Louis. Landscape Journal. 26: 10-23.

Lewis, Peirce F. 1976. New Orleansthe Making of an Urban Landscape. Cambridge:

Balliger Publishing Company.

Ley, D. and K. Olds. 1988. Landscape as spectacle: world's fairs and the culture of
heroic
Consumption. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 6(2) 191212.

Lockyer, Angus. 2007. The logic of spectacle c. 1970. Art History 30:4 (September)
571-589.

Louis, Ross. 2011. Performing New Orleans: Toward a Political Poetics. Rev Black
Political Economy. 38:320-362.

Martin, Bradford D. 2004. The theater is in the street: politics and public performance in
sixties America. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

McDonough, Tom, Ed. 2002. Guy Debord and the Situationist International: texts and
documents. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Meyer, Elizabeth K. 2008. Sustaining beauty: the performance of appearance.

Landscape Architecture. (October) 92-131

35
Miara, Jim. 2009. New Orleans, LA and Other Cities Restore Inner-City Parks and Their
Waterways. Cities and Water: A Handbook for Planning. Edited by Roger L.
Kemp, 112-117, Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2012. Zebra mussel (Dreissena

polymorpha). http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/aquaticanimals/zebramussel/
index.html. [November 27, 2012].

Mitchell, Don. 2008. New Axioms for Reading the Landscape: Paying Attention to
Political Economy and Social Justice. Political Economies of Landscape
Change. J.L. Wescoat, Jr. and D.M. Johnston. Eds. Dordrecht: Springer.

Mukerji, C. 1997. Territorial Ambitions and the Gardens of Versailles. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Navy Pier Inc. 2012. The Centennial Vision: A Framework for Reimagining Navy Pier.
http://navypiervision.com/index.html [November 27, 2012].

Nordenson, Guy, Catherine Seavitt, and Adam Yarinsky. 2010. On the Water | Palisade
Bay. New York: Museum of Modern Art.

NYC Department of City Planning. 2012. Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive
Waterfront Plan. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/cwp/index.shtml [April 2,
2012].

Olwig, Robert. 2002. Landscape, nature, and the body politic: from Britains
renaissance to Americas new world. Madison : University of Wisconsin Press.

Otero-Pailos, Jorge. Tourism. C-LAB. < c-lab.columbia.edu/0161.html>

[March 10, 2012]

Oxford Dictionary. Species Speculum. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/

english[October 3, 2012]

Perkins, Harold A. Turning Feral Spaces in Trendy Places: A Coffee House in Every
Park. Environment and Planning. 41: 2615 2632

36
Pinder, David. 2000. Old Paris is no more: geographies of spectacle and anti-spectacle.
Antipode. 32:4 (October), 357-386.

PNAS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In This Issue.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/45/19133/F1.expansion.html [November 22,
2012]

Reuters. 2008. Sliming and prehistoric? Ill have it cooked in blood.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/05/us-food-portugal-lamprey-
idUSL0549208320080305. [November 27, 2012]

Rockwell, David and Bruce Mau. 2006. Spectacle. London: Phaidon.

Rodriquez, Jean-Paul. 2013. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
Department of Global Studies & Geography. Hofstra University. http://people.
hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch4en/appl4en/ch4a2en.html [April 4, 2013]

Ruggles, D. Fairchild. Lecture on Roman Water and Urbanism at the University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, September 19, 2011.

Sairinen, Rauno and Satu Kumpulainen. 2006. Assessing social impacts in urban
waterfront regeneration. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 26:120135.

Science News Online. 1996. Lamprey: A taste treat from prehistory?

http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arch/8_10_96/food.htm. [November 22, 2012]

Smith, Erin. 2009. Redefining the edge: life without levees. Places. 21:1 (Spring) 25-29.

Stevens, Quentin; Dovey, Kim. 2004. Appropriating the Spectacle: Play and Politics in a
Leisure Landscape. Journal of Urban Design 9:3 (October): 351-365.

Teaford, Jon C. 1993. Cities of the Heartland: The Rise and Fall of the Industrial
Midwest. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Treib, Marc. 2007. Moving the eye. In Harris, D. and Ruggles, D. eds. Sites Unseen. 61-
88. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

37
Urban Land Institute. 2004. Remaking the Urban Waterfront. Washington, D.C.: ULI
The Urban Land Institute.

Upton, Dell. 1994. The Master Street of the World: The Levee, In Streets: Critical
Perspectives on Public Space, Zeynep Celik, Diane Favro, and Richard
Ingersoll, eds. 277-288. Berkeley: University of California Press.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1998. Tables 10-22: Population of the 100 Largest Urban
Places: 1880-1990. http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/
twps0027/tab13.txt. [August 28, 2012].

Waller, Steven N. 2007. Rebuilding the Parks of New Orleans. Public Manager; 36 (3).

Woodbridge, K. 1986. Princely gardens: the origins and development of the French
formal style. London: Thames and Hudson.

Zimmermann, Astrid. 2008. Constructing Landscape: Materials, Techniques, Structural

Components. Boston: Birkhauser.

Zukin, S. 1991. Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley/Los

Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

38