Topic: Infraestructura

2019 International Conference on China Urban Development

Junio 27, 2019 - Junio 29, 2019

Beijing, China

Offered in inglés

Main Theme: Paradigm Shift to Quality Urbanization

After years of rapid urbanization that emphasized construction and economic growth, China is entering a new era of urban development with a policy focus on the quality of urbanization. This paradigm shift is timely but also challenging. The past urbanization model has led to serious environmental degradation, distortions in land and housing markets, and worsening wealth inequalities. This pattern of development must be addressed through new efforts towards quality of urbanization. Climate change, aging infrastructure, and emerging technologies pose both new challenges and opportunities for the country. China can learn significantly from similar global experiences in new urbanism. Its pursuit for quality urbanization will be crucial for the successful implementation of the New Urban Agenda, which was adopted by national governments at the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III).

This conference continues the series of International Conferences on China Urban Development, previously held in Cardiff, Hong Kong, Shanghai, London, and Glasgow. It will bring together researchers from urban studies, geography, sociology, economics, political science, urban planning, urban management, public policy, and China studies from different parts of the world. These researchers will share empirical and policy research findings on urbanization and urbanism. It will provide a platform to explore the complex process of urban development in China, and to debate policy and actions towards quality urbanization in an increasingly uncertain world.


Detalles

Fecha(s)
Junio 27, 2019 - Junio 29, 2019
Time
2:00 p.m. - 6:15 p.m.
Location
Yingjie Exchange Center, Peking University
Beijing, China
Idioma
inglés

Tecnociudad

El camino hacia un tránsito más inteligente está asfaltado con datos
Por Rob Walker, Abril 30, 2019

 

“Lo que se mide, se controla”, dice la perogrullada comercial. Para bien o para mal, la idea también es aplicable para el diseño de ciudades e infraestructura.

Y la aparición de los macrodatos (conjuntos masivos de información sin procesar que se pueden obtener gracias a las nuevas tecnologías de compilación y almacenamiento) abre la posibilidad a nuevas mediciones que pueden informar sobre cómo planifican y gestionan sus proyectos los organismos estatales de transporte.

Se puede pensar en la labor de la iniciativa State Smart Transportation Initiative (Iniciativa Estatal de Transporte Inteligente, SSTI). La SSTI se fundó en 2010 en la Universidad de Wisconsin y utiliza el nuevo tesoro de datos como guía para tomar decisiones de uso y planificación del suelo en el mundo real. La SSTI combina y analiza datos sobre asuntos desde cómo las personas acceden a las estaciones de tránsito hasta cuán fácil les resulta llegar al trabajo o la tienda de comestibles, y así evidencia patrones que pueden ayudar para futuras decisiones.

La SSTI empezó a funcionar en 2018 en conjunto con la asociación sin fines de lucro Smart Growth America, cuyos programas incluyen recursos para los departamentos estatales de transporte y colaboración con la SSTI en varias ediciones de The Innovative DOT: A Handbook of Policy and Practice (El DOT innovador: un manual de política y práctica), una guía para “los departamentos de transporte (DOT, por su sigla en inglés) comprometidos con la excelencia y la innovación”. Hoy, la sociedad trabaja con más de doce organismos de transporte, funciona como una especie de base de conocimientos sobre políticas y ofrece asistencia técnica directa.

Una de las claves para aprovechar mejor los megadatos es encontrar el marco correcto. “Accesibilidad significa pensar: ‘¿Cuán accesible es este lugar?, en vez de: ‘¿A qué velocidad van los autos en cierta parte del camino?’”, explica Eric Sundquist, director de la SSTI. Este enfoque más holístico no es una idea nueva, pero está ganando fuerza, en parte debido a la mayor cantidad de datos y las herramientas más sofisticadas para ordenarlos. En las últimas investigaciones, la SSTI definió la accesibilidad como “la facilidad con la cual las personas acceden a oportunidades como empleo, tiendas, parques, escuelas y otros destinos. La ‘facilidad’ se mide en términos de la duración del viaje, con algunos ajustes que explican cómo los pasajeros usan el sistema”.

Entre otros proyectos, la SSTI estuvo trabajando con el Departamento de Transporte de Virginia, cuyo programa Smart Scale recurre a los macrodatos para “calificar” las propuestas de transporte que envían los municipios y condados según la capacidad probable de mejorar la accesibilidad al trabajo. La ronda más reciente también incorpora el acceso a destinos distintos al trabajo, como centros comerciales y parques.

Por ejemplo, un ejercicio de planificación de la SSTI se centró en mejorar el acceso a destinos distintos al trabajo en Vienna, Virginia. Una parte del análisis exploró cómo fortalecer una red de senderos peatonales y ciclovías puede conectar mejor la calle principal de la ciudad con otros barrios. Pero otra parte consideró un escenario que incluía un cambio en el uso del suelo: alentar el desarrollo comercial de una zona infrautilizada en el límite sur del pueblo. Este último en realidad generó mejoras en accesibilidad con mejor puntaje que los proyectos hipotéticos de transporte.

Este esquema de puntajes se basa en datos de población, empleo y uso del suelo; de automóviles; de servicios de tránsito que, hoy, en gran parte se informan en un formato congruente gracias a Google Maps; y de bicicletas y peatones. Según el proyecto, se pueden agregar más datos, como categorías de empleo e ingresos del vecindario. Esto amplía las posibilidades de pensar cómo se puede mejorar la “accesibilidad”, medir si la mejor opción es construir nueva infraestructura peatonal o trabajar para colocar una tienda de comestibles en un desierto alimenticio.

Hemos logrado que la gente sea consciente de esto en la comunidad donde operamos”, agrega Sundquist, para que otros DOT puedan trabajar sobre las mismas ideas. Y, de hecho, hace poco los funcionarios del transporte de Hawái trabajaron con la SSTI para intentar llevar el proceso de puntaje “un poco más allá”, agrega.

Puntuamos todos sus proyectos sobre una base parcial de accesibilidad. Entonces, si un proyecto ofrece más acceso por transporte que en auto, sugerirá cómo cambiarían los modos”. Hoy, el estado está evaluando los resultados de la SSTI.

Amy Cotter, directora adjunta de Programas Urbanos del Instituto Lincoln, indica que estos datos representan mejoras totalmente nuevas en los métodos existentes de recolección de información y en las mediciones.

Dice que, por ejemplo, muchas veces, la planificación de decisiones dependió mucho de los resultados de encuestas sobre el tránsito, que “son caros de obtener y, en ocasiones, cuestionables”. Entonces, las tecnologías emergentes que está recolectando la SSTI (como “trip-making data”, o datos de viaje, seleccionados de los servicios que suman la información de vehículos con GPS habilitado, aparatos de navegación e incluso apps de smartphones) son una alternativa seductora. “Estos datos nuevos ofrecen mejor información a un costo inferior, y preparan a organismos, planificadores y DOT estatales para tomar mejores decisiones”, dice Cotter.

El Instituto Lincoln se asoció con la SSTI en 2017 para un proyecto, “Connecting Sacramento”, junto con varias entidades y partes interesadas del sector público y privado. Esto dio como resultado un estudio que catalizó gran parte de las últimas labores de la SSTI con el fin de evaluar cómo las nuevas fuentes de datos y las nuevas herramientas para entenderlos pueden ayudar a mejorar las políticas de transporte.

La investigación de Sacramento incluyó un caso de estudio sobre los trayectos a pie desde y hacia una estación de tránsito en particular. La SSTI trabajó con StreetLight Data, una empresa emergente de análisis del tráfico que elaboró métodos de evaluación de señales de GPS con aprendizaje automático para distinguir conductas de viajes a pie y en bicicleta. Sundquist dice que, a veces, ambos métodos de viaje “fueron tratados con displicencia” en las labores de planificación, justamente “porque son muy difíciles de medir”. Entonces, si se agrega esta información nueva a otros datos de transporte y uso del suelo, puede haber nuevos descubrimientos. En este caso, los datos señalaron un porcentaje inesperadamente alto de viajes a pie entre la estación de tránsito y un centro particular de edificios de oficinas. Esto sorprendió, dado que los edificios no solo tenían mucho lugar de estacionamiento, sino que además solo había una forma de acceder a pie: cruzando la autopista. El estudio afirmó que, en vistas de este descubrimiento, corregir o agregar puntos de acceso podría mejorar la condición de quienes viajan hacia el trabajo y alentar a que se sumen más personas.

Por supuesto, este tipo de análisis puede estar a kilómetros de las realidades que vive un departamento de transporte estatal. Pero los programas tales como el sistema de puntaje Smart Scale de Virginia sugieren a qué puede llevar el análisis de macrodatos. Si se sigue mejorando en la recolección y el análisis de datos, deberíamos poder evaluar mejor el impacto de un determinado proyecto, compararlo mejor con lo que se predijo y adaptarlo para el futuro.

El cliché de “lo que se mide, se controla” a veces se usa incorrectamente para afirmar que lo que no se mide (o no se puede medir) tampoco se puede controlar, o no hace falta controlarlo. Pero, tal como afirma Sundquist, estas nuevas formas de datos y análisis sobre el transporte se pueden ver como una oportunidad. Pueden revelar información práctica factible. Y también pueden ayudar a los planificadores, administradores de transporte y otras personas a pensar con creatividad sobre qué desearían medir después.

 


 

Rob Walker (robwalker.net) es periodista; escribe sobre diseño, tecnología y otros temas. Su libro The Art of Noticing (El arte de darse cuenta) se publicará en mayo de 2019.

Imagen: Uno de los mapas de “Connecting Sacramento”, un proyecto ejecutado por State Smart Transportation Initiative con socios como el Instituto Lincoln. El estudio evaluó cómo las herramientas nuevas y los datos pueden ayudar a mejorar la política de transporte. Crédito: State Smart Transportation Initiative

Mensaje del presidente

Construir las ciudades que necesitamos
Por George W. McCarthy, Abril 30, 2019

 

Hacia 2050, el 70 por ciento del planeta será urbano: se sumarán unos dos mil millones de residentes a las ciudades de todo el mundo. Si consideramos la historia y el futuro de estas áreas, nuestro desafío más importante podría ser redesarrollar territorio que ya está en uso u ocupado. Mantener, gestionar y expandir una ciudad donde los edificios y las personas ya están arraigados es mucho más difícil que crear una desde cero. El lugar y el modo en que ubiquemos a la población nueva allanarán el camino de las viviendas para el resto del milenio. En este siglo urbano, debemos encontrar formas de construir las ciudades que necesitamos.

El crecimiento urbano del futuro no se dará en las megaciudades. Todo parece indicar que, en 30 lugares con más de 10 millones de residentes, el crecimiento demográfico se está estabilizando. Las ciudades con crecimiento más acelerado son las que hoy tienen entre 100.000 y un millón de habitantes. Estas ciudades no tienen ni tendrán la capacidad de gestionar el crecimiento. ¿Cómo pagarán la infraestructura (carreteras, puentes, gasoductos, etc.) para duplicar o triplicar su tamaño? ¿Se atorarán con desarrollos no planificados que sumarán a las mil millones de personas que ya viven sin servicios públicos?

Más allá de los desafíos logísticos y económicos, hay otra preocupación, relacionada con la identidad de las ciudades. ¿Cuánto nos importa la relación entre las personas y su lugar? ¿Estamos listos para conservar la “personalidad” y proteger la integridad de las ciudades y las personas que viven en ellas? ¿Nos podremos dar el lujo de renunciar a la conveniencia a cambio de la individualidad? Si aceptamos que la mayoría de las ciudades en todo el mundo no tienen los recursos para planificar y gestionar su propio crecimiento futuro, entonces concedemos el diseño y la forma de las ciudades futuras a las fuerzas del mercado. Esto augura un futuro de monotonía urbana, una distopía tomada de Le Corbusier: todas las ciudades parecerán bosques de “torres en el parque”, convenientes y desalmadas.

Si se pueden tomar como referencia las labores recientes e históricas para redesarrollar los vecindarios urbanos, los residentes urbanos podrían no aceptar las soluciones convenientes tan fácilmente. En Dharavi, un barrio de Bombay que se hizo famoso por la película ¿Quién quiere ser millonario?, 700.000 personas viven en una superficie de menos de 2,5 kilómetros cuadrados. En 2006, un grupo de interés decidió construir edificios altos para “mejorar” las condiciones de vida de miles de personas que vivían en el asentamiento informal e intentaron convencerlos de que se mudaran allí. A pesar de que ofrecieron conexión de agua corriente, techos seguros y beneficios similares, este grupo se sorprendió al ver que pocos lo aceptaban. Se quedaron perplejos porque nadie quería irse para ocupar viviendas modernas. Pero no habían hecho la tarea: Dharavi produce alrededor del 25 por ciento del producto interno bruto de Bombay. Los residentes no solo vivían ahí, sino que trabajaban ahí. No estaban dispuestos a cambiar su sustento y su techo por un techo nuevo, aunque fuera mucho mejor. 

Todavía se está planificando cómo desarrollar Dharavi, ubicado en el territorio más valioso de Bombay. Los residentes pobres tendrán problemas para protegerse del poder inexorable del mercado. Pero si nos comprometiéramos a defender los derechos e intereses de los residentes, ¿podríamos imaginar un futuro centrado no en edificios altos, sino en un uso del suelo más creativo que ofrezca un techo y promueva el empleo? ¿Qué se necesitará? ¿Dónde podemos buscar buenos ejemplos de redesarrollos con buenos resultados?

En la historia de Estados Unidos no abundan los ejemplos exitosos de redesarrollo urbano. Los primeros intentos de desmantelar asentamientos informales mediante la construcción de viviendas públicas guardan una similitud inquietante con las labores de Bombay. Irónicamente, la construcción de viviendas públicas no fue una estrategia de viviendas. El Congreso la aprobó como una estrategia de empleo, diseñada para volver a emplear mano de obra de construcción durante la Gran Depresión. 

Durante la posguerra, el gobierno federal delegó el redesarrollo a las autoridades locales con la Renovación Urbana. Un caso famoso fue el del redesarrollo de West End, en Boston, a mediados de la década de 1950. La ciudad hizo uso (correcto o incorrecto) de la expropiación y obtuvo cientos de viviendas que pertenecían a familias blancas de clase media, con la excusa de que estaban en malas condiciones y de que era necesario “hacer un mayor y mejor uso de estas”. Los residentes del vecindario intentaron detener el proceso mediante organizaciones locales, protestas y juicios. Pero no lo lograron. El barrio fue sustituido por un desarrollo impulsado por el mercado. Según la Fundación para la Preservación Histórica, hacia 1964 se perdieron más de 18.000 edificios históricos de Estados Unidos por renovaciones urbanas.

Cuando el desarrollador Robert Moses propuso una carretera transurbana que pasaría por Greenwich Village, Jane Jacobs, activista y escritora, aprovechando la experiencia de Boston y la demolición de la Estación Pensilvania original de Nueva York, una “mejora” contra la cual ella había protestado, organizó a otras personas para evitar la destrucción al por mayor del tejido urbano de la Ciudad de Nueva York. Jacobs marcó el inicio de un enfoque con múltiples frentes en oposición a la planificación abusiva, centralizada y vertical. La resistencia organizada fue el primer frente; el armado de coaliciones, el segundo; pero lo que creó el marco para que cientos de otras personas defendieran su ciudad fue la política de uso del suelo.

Las coaliciones de Jacobs reclutaban a amas de casa de Nueva York y a aliadas poderosas, como Eleanor Roosevelt y Lady Bird Johnson, quienes no solo pensaban que la renovación urbana tenía un costo humano intolerable, sino que también lloraban la pérdida de la cultura y la historia. Movilizar a otros nos puede ayudar a proteger la historia y la cultura urbanas. Incluir a aliados poderosos ayuda aun más. Pero para poder potenciar nuestras labores, necesitamos herramientas más poderosas: políticas que impidan lo que queremos impedir y promuevan lo que queremos promover. Necesitamos zanahorias y palos.

La Ley Nacional para la Conservación Histórica (NHPA, por su sigla en inglés), sancionada en 1966 por el presidente Johnson, fue el palo que exigía revisar las estructuras históricas antes de demolerlas para redesarrollar vecindarios. El Crédito Fiscal Histórico, promulgado en 1978, fue la zanahoria. Dado que redesarrollar edificios históricos y adaptarlos para nuevos usos podría ser más caro, el crédito fiscal endulzó la idea: se pagaba por el bien público que se conservaba con las estructuras históricas y lograba que el redesarrollo fuera asequible. Treinta y cinco estados imitaron estos pasos con sus propios programas de crédito fiscal histórico para complementar la financiación federal. Así, comenzó la recuperación de las ciudades de Estados Unidos. Según la Fundación para la Preservación Histórica, entre 1981 y 2015 se invirtieron más de US$ 120.000 millones en la reutilización de edificios para adaptarlos. 

¿Cuáles son los desafíos de hoy para el redesarrollo urbano? Uno es la perseverancia de la planificación para hacer un “mayor y mejor uso”. En una charla que di el año pasado en Cantón, China, los planificadores no podían concebir por qué se pensó que Jacobs ganó al evitar que se construyera una carretera a lo largo del sur de Manhattan. Argumentaban que el trabajo de un planificador es alcanzar el mayor y mejor uso, y no mantener intactos los edificios y vecindarios antiguos. La planificación vertical aplicada a objetivos estrechos es una garantía casi segura de que se replicarán los resultados de la renovación urbana, a costa de la cultura y la historia.

Todas las comunidades urbanas corren el riesgo de ser desplazadas por un segundo desafío, más importante, y un nuevo villano sin rostro: el capital global capturará inmuebles en ciudades de todo el mundo y los hará menos habitables y menos asequibles. A pesar de la crisis económica mundial de 2008, se considera que los bienes inmuebles urbanos aseguran el capital, en especial en lugares con moneda estable, como Estados Unidos. Según CNBC, durante los 12 meses anteriores a marzo de 2017, los inversores extranjeros compraron 284.455 viviendas de Estados Unidos y gastaron más de US$ 150.000 millones. Según Statistica, el 52 por ciento de las adquisiciones extranjeras de bienes inmuebles se dan en los suburbios, mientras que el 27 por ciento se da en ciudades centrales. En algunas ciudades, más del 20 por ciento del total de inversión en bienes inmuebles proviene del extranjero. La inversión mundial también incluye el capital local, y no solo fluye hacia destinos dentro de Estados Unidos, sino también hacia ciudades en crecimiento de todo el mundo. Este capital distorsiona los mercados inmobiliarios y hace que las personas que viven en las zonas urbanas no puedan costearlas, desde California hasta China. También distorsiona los mercados de oferta y determina lo que se construirá de acuerdo con los gustos de los residentes temporales y los especuladores.

¿Qué se puede hacer? ¿Qué haría Jacobs? Estoy seguro de que ella movilizaría a los residentes locales para que exigieran el poder sobre el control del suelo, y enseñaría sobre las consecuencias de tratar a las viviendas como un producto básico comercializable. Parte de la movilización es atraer más interesados al mapa. Sin duda, ella usaría herramientas nuevas para involucrar a los ciudadanos en la planificación urbana, como las que ayudaron a construir el plan Detroit Future City. Los planificadores de Detroit usaron de todo, desde juegos en línea hasta visualizaciones de datos, y obtuvieron la opinión de más de 100.000 residentes.

Para potenciar la labor, ella necesitaría nuevas herramientas de políticas de suelo, palos y zanahorias, para motivar a los desarrolladores a que construyan las ciudades que los ciudadanos necesitan, y no los bienes inmuebles que los inversores desean. Algunos palos pueden ser recargos para inversiones extranjeras, como los que se implementaron recientemente en Vancouver y Toronto. También pueden tomar forma de tributos inmobiliarios mucho más altos combinados con exenciones de viviendas muy altas, con el objetivo de aumentar el costo de posesión en las propiedades cuyos dueños no son los residentes. Se podría proteger a los edificios de la especulación con medios como fideicomisos de suelo comunitarios. Una zanahoria puede ser aprobar desarrollos adicionales mediante bonos de densidad para los desarrollos que conserven la personalidad urbana, lo cual ofrecerá a los residentes la oportunidad de vivir y trabajar cerca. Y también debería ser una zanahoria incluir subsidios para motivar a los desarrolladores a construir los desarrollos correctos, que apoyen a los residentes y su sustento para conservar la personalidad de la ciudad.

Como sociedad, hemos cometido muchos errores, y los seguimos cometiendo. Pero quienes queremos ayudar a crear ciudades más sustentables y equitativas debemos hacer dos cosas: encontrar formas más efectivas de involucrar y movilizar a las personas, y encontrar las políticas para trabajar a escala. Es hora de preguntarse: “¿Qué haría Jane Jacobs?” Si bien no siempre acertó en todo, nos obligó a encontrar formas creativas de lograr que las ciudades funcionen y, al mismo tiempo, conservar la cultura y la historia. Ciudades más acogedoras, que puedan ofrecer un techo y empleo. Ciudades que faciliten la interacción social, no solo el comercio. Son pretensiones grandes, pero que debemos aspirar a alcanzar. Esto es crucial si queremos sobrevivir a este siglo urbano.

 


 

Fotografía: En Dharavi, un barrio de Bombay, India, de 2,5 kilómetros cuadrados y 700.000 habitantes, hubo tensión entre las “mejoras” diseñadas de forma externa y las necesidades reales de los residentes. Crédito: Flickr/Adam Cohn

Curso

2019 Fundamentals of Municipal Finance

Julio 8, 2019 - Julio 14, 2019

Hangzhou, China

Ofrecido en inglés


Each year, the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC) offers a week-long capacity-building “Training the Trainers” course to young faculty members, researchers, and practitioners from universities, government agencies, and institutions across China. The subject of the course varies each year, often targeting to the specific need for knowledge relevant to the current policy reform. The course is taught by internationally-reputed scholars in relevant fields. This year the course topic is Fundamentals of Municipal Finance.

Overview

This annual flagship training course of the PLC will adapt to China the Professional Certificate Course in Municipal Finance, offered by Harris Public Policy’s Center for Municipal Finance and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. The PLC will organize this training course in Hangzhou, China, in collaboration with the Hangzhou International Center of Urban Studies (HICUS). The venue will be in the training facility of HICUS, located in the suburb of Hangzhou City.

The 7-day course will include modules on the following topics and activities:

  • Inter-governmental Fiscal Frameworks
  • Revenues, Expenditures, and Budgeting
  • Capital Budgeting/Accounting and Urban Infrastructure Maintenance
  • Fundamentals for municipal borrowing and the US Municipal Bond Market Experience
  • Credit Analysis in Cities & Risk Assessment
  • Land-Based Finance and Land Value Capture: Concepts and International Practices
  • Public-Private Partnerships
  • Municipal Finance Challenges in China: What Can We Learn from the International Experience

We expect to recruit 50 participants. They will be selected from young scholars from universities and research institutes, practitioners from municipal governments, and PhD graduate students specializing in municipal finance. For more information please visit here.


Detalles

Fecha(s)
Julio 8, 2019 - Julio 14, 2019
Location
Hangzhou, China
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de certificado o crédito
Lincoln Institute certificate

President’s Message

Building the Cities We Need
By George W. McCarthy, Abril 9, 2019

 

By 2050, the planet will be 70 percent urban, as we add some two billion residents to the world’s cities. As we consider the history and future of these areas, our biggest challenge may be redeveloping land that is already used or occupied. Maintaining, managing, and growing a city where buildings and people already are rooted is much harder than creating one from scratch. Where and how we accommodate new populations will set the stage for human habitation for the rest of this millennium. In this century of the city, we must find ways to build the cities we need.

Future urban growth will not take place in megacities. All indications suggest that popula­tion growth is plateauing in the 30 or so places with more than 10 million residents. The fastest-growing cities are the ones with current populations between 100,000 and one million. These cities do not and will not have the capacity to manage growth. How will they pay for the infrastructure—highways, bridges, gas lines, and the like—to double or treble their size? Will they be choked with unplanned development, adding to the one billion people already living without public services?

Beyond the logistical and financial challenges, a separate concern relates to the identity of cities. How much do we care about the relation­ship between people and their places? Are we prepared to protect the integrity of cities and the people who live in them by preserving their “character”? Will we have the luxury of forgoing expedience for individuality? If we accept that most of the world’s cities do not have the resources to plan and manage their own future growth, then we concede the design and form of future cities to market forces. This portends a future of urban sameness, a dystopia straight from Le Corbusier: all cities looking like forests of “towers in the park,” expedient and soulless.

If recent and historic efforts to redevelop urban neighborhoods are any indication, urban residents might not be so quick to accept expedient solutions. In Dharavi, a Mumbai neighborhood made famous in the movie Slumdog Millionaire, 700,000 people live on less than one square mile of land. In 2006, an advocacy group decided to “improve” the living conditions of thousands of people who lived in the slum by building high-rises and trying to persuade people to move. Despite offering indoor plumbing, secure roofs, and the like, this group was stunned to have few takers. They were mystified that no one wanted to leave for modern accommodations. But they hadn’t done their homework: Dharavi produces an estimated 25 percent of the gross domestic product of Mumbai. The residents didn’t just live there, they worked there. They weren’t willing to trade their livelihoods and shelter for better shelter, no matter how much better.

Plans are still afoot to develop Dharavi, which sits on the most valuable real estate in Mumbai. It will be difficult for its poor residents to protect themselves from the inexorable power of the market. But if we were committed to defending the rights and interests of the residents, could we imagine a future centered not on high-rises, but on more creative land use providing shelter and promoting livelihoods? What would that take? Where can we look for good examples of respon­sive redevelopment?

In the United States, our history is not replete with successful examples of urban redevelopment. Early attempts at slum clearance through the construction of public housing are eerily similar to the efforts in Mumbai. Ironically, building public housing was not a housing strategy. Congress passed it as a livelihood strategy, designed to reemploy idle construction labor during the Great Depression.

In the postwar era, the federal government devolved redevelopment to local authorities through Urban Renewal. A famous case involved the redevelopment of Boston’s West End in the mid-1950s. Using (or misusing) eminent domain, the city obtained hundreds of homes that were owned by middle-class white families, citing their poor condition and the need for “higher and better use.” Neighborhood residents tried to stop the process through local organizing, protest, and the courts. They failed. The neighborhood was replaced by market-driven development. By 1964, more than 18,000 historic buildings in the United States were lost to urban renewal, says the Trust for Historic Preservation.

Informed by the Boston experience and the demolition of New York’s original Penn Station, an “improvement” against which she had protested, activist and author Jane Jacobs organized others to prevent the wholesale destruction of the urban fabric of New York City when developer Robert Moses proposed a crosstown highway through Greenwich Village. Jacobs ushered in a multipronged approach to oppose abusive, top-down, centralized planning. Organized resistance was the first prong; coalition-building was the second; but it was land use policy that created the framework for hundreds of others to defend their cities.

Jacobs’ coalitions enlisted New York house­wives and powerful allies such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Lady Bird Johnson, who not only found the human toll of urban renewal intolerable, but also mourned the loss of culture and history. Mobilizing others can help us protect urban history and culture. Including powerful allies helps even more. But to scale up one’s efforts requires more powerful tools—policies that prevent what one wants to prevent and promote what one wants to promote. It requires carrots and sticks.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), signed into law by President Johnson in 1966, was the stick, requiring review of historic structures before demolishing them to redevelop neighborhoods. The Historic Tax Credit, enacted in 1978, provided the carrot. Because it might be costlier to redevelop historic buildings and adapt them for new uses, the tax credit sweetened the pot—paying for the public good that was preserved in the historic structures and making redevelopment financially feasible. Thirty-five states have followed suit with their own historic tax credit programs to supplement federal funding. Thus began the rebound of American cities. More than $120 billion was invested in adaptive reuse of buildings from 1981 to 2015, says the Trust for Historic Preservation.

What are the challenges of urban redevelop­ment today? One is the persistence of “highest and best use” planning. In a talk I gave last year in Guangzhou, China, planners could not conceive of why Jacobs’ prevention of a highway across lower Manhattan was considered a success. They argued that achieving highest and best use was the planner’s job. Keeping old buildings and neighborhoods intact was not. Top-down planning predicated on narrow objectives is almost guaranteed to reproduce the results of urban renewal, at the expense of culture and history.

Urban communities everywhere are at risk of displacement from a second, bigger challenge and a faceless new villain: global capital capturing real estate in cities across the globe, making them less livable and less affordable. In spite of the global financial crisis of 2008, urban real estate is considered a safe harbor for capital, especially in places with stable curren­cies like the United States. In the 12-month period ending in March 2017, foreign investors purchased 284,455 U.S. homes, spending more than $150 billion, according to CNBC. According to Statistica, 52 percent of foreign real estate purchases are in the suburbs, while 27 percent are in central cities. In some cities, more than 20 percent of all real estate investment comes from outside the country. Global investment includes domestic capital as well, and it flows not only to U.S. destinations, but also to growing cities around the world. This capital distorts housing markets and makes urban areas, from California to China, unaffordable for the people who live there. It also distorts supply markets, dictating what will be built based on the tastes of part-time residents and speculators.

What can be done? What would Jacobs do? I am sure she would mobilize local residents to reclaim power over land control and teach about the consequences of treating housing as a tradable commodity. Part of mobilizing is to get more stakeholders to the table. She would no doubt use new tools to engage citizens in urban planning, like the tools that helped build the Detroit Future City plan. By using everything from online games to data visualizations, Detroit planners secured input from more than 100,000 residents.

To scale this effort, she would need new land policy tools, sticks and carrots, to motivate developers to build the cities residents need, not the real estate investors want. Sticks might include surcharges on outside investment, like those recently enacted in Vancouver and Toronto. They might include significantly higher property tax rates combined with very high homestead exemptions to increase holding costs for properties owned by nonresidents. Buildings might be protected from speculation using devices like community land trusts. Carrots might include approval for additional develop­ment through density bonuses for developments that preserve urban character, offering residents the opportunity to live and work in closer proximity. And the carrots should also include subsidies to motivate developers to build the right developments—those that preserve the character of the city by supporting residents and their livelihoods.

As a society, we have made, and continue to make, lots of mistakes. But those of us who want to help create more sustainable and equitable cities must do two things: find more effective ways to engage and mobilize people and find the policies to work at scale. This is a time to ask, “What would Jane Jacobs do?” While she did not get it all just right every time, she did compel us to find creative ways to make cities work while preserving their culture and history. Cities that were more welcoming, that could provide both shelter and work. Cities that facilitated social interaction, not just commerce. That is a tall agenda, but it’s one that we should aspire to achieve. It is critical if we are going to survive beyond this century of the city.

 


 

George W. McCarthy is the President and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Photograph: In Dharavi, a one-square-mile neighborhood in Mumbai, India, that’s home to 700,000 people, tensions have existed between externally designed “improvements” and the actual needs of residents. Credit: Flickr/Adam Cohn

A car sits submerged under water as a results of heavy flooding. The car sits under an aging Providence & Worcester Railroad bridge in Worcester.

Great Adaptations

How Two Smaller Legacy Cities Are Adopting Green Infrastructure
By Cyrus Moulton, Abril 10, 2019

 

As rain sheeted across the 150,000-square-foot roof of a transit facility in one of the most flood-prone neighborhoods in Worcester, Massachusetts, things looked ominous. But instead of posing a threat, that stormwater slithered into a jumble of purple coneflower, Joe Pye weed, Russian sage, and other flood- and drought-tolerant plants growing between the complex and nearby Quinsigamond Avenue.

The transit facility, built on a remediated brownfield, represents a $90 million investment for this small city. Green infrastructure elements like that rain-absorbing bioswale were considered a must, according to William Lehtola, chair of the Worcester Regional Transit Authority Advisory Board: “We want to provide the best possible environment for the city and our customers and employees,” he said. “Not just in our buses, but in our facilities too.”

As smaller legacy cities like Worcester and nearby Providence, Rhode Island, continue the grueling work of rebounding from the severe economic and population losses suffered since their manufacturing heydays, the green approach is gaining traction. Despite challenges ranging from financial constraints to deteriorating infrastructure, many legacy cities have realized that investing in—and, in some cases, mandating—green infrastructure yields multiple benefits. Projects such as rain gardens, bioswales, urban farming, and tree planting, whether introduced on a small scale or implemented citywide, are an effective way to revitalize public spaces, manage stormwater, improve public health, and deal with the impacts of climate change, from increased heat to floods.

“Green infrastructure can address multiple challenges, and provide amenities as well,” says Professor Robert Ryan, chair of the Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning Department at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Ryan has led courses on greening legacy cities including Worcester. “Cities like Worcester and Providence are the ideal place for this approach.”

Cultivating this shift isn’t always simple. While new environmental codes, regulations, and awareness have increased the frequency of green infrastructure projects, they still often coexist with structures and streetscapes from an earlier era, when nearby waterways were de facto sewers, and pavement was the go-to choice for urban improvements.

As legacy cities across the country implement green infrastructure projects and strategies, they are coping with an important reality: They cannot just create themselves anew. They can, however, adapt and evolve.

A New Lease on Life in New England

Located in a hilly area of central Massachusetts, Worcester is home to an estimated 185,000 people. Its population peaked at 203,486 in 1950 and dipped to about 161,000 by 1980.

Worcester was always the economic hub for surrounding Worcester County. But it earned the moniker “Heart of the Commonwealth” thanks to connections with Boston (via railroad in 1835) and with Providence (via the Blackstone Canal in 1828 and the Providence & Worcester Railroad in the late 1840s), which made it an increasingly important industrial and transportation hub. It became known for its machine tools, wire products, and power looms.

Providence, perched on the banks of the Providence River at the head of Narragansett Bay, has followed a similar path, albeit in a different setting. The coastal city is home to approximately 180,000 people. That’s up from a twentieth-century low of 156,000 in 1980, but far smaller than the peak of more than 253,000 in 1940. The state capital, Providence became a manufacturing powerhouse after the Revolutionary War, with factories churning out goods such as jewelry, textiles, silverware, and machinery, and shipping them from its port. At one point, it was one of the wealthiest cities in the country.

In both cities, the industrial activity and the population eventually declined and, coupled with suburbanization, left hollowed-out sections of formerly vibrant urban cores (see Figure 1).

But, as is the case with many legacy cities, people have slowly rediscovered the assets these communities offer. As Alan Mallach and Lavea Brachman explain in the Lincoln Institute report Regenerating America’s Legacy Cities, these assets include downtown employment bases, stable neighborhoods, multimodal transportation networks, colleges and universities, local businesses, historic buildings and areas, and facilities for arts, culture, and entertainment (Mallach 2013).

Providence, for instance, is home to Brown University, the Rhode Island School of Design, the University of Rhode Island, and Johnson & Wales. Worcester is home to more than a dozen institutions of higher learning including Clark University, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and University of Massachusetts Medical School. Both cities have major hospitals and performance venues. And both cities have revitalized their downtowns with signature projects.

Providence successfully rebranded itself as an arts and cultural hub beginning in the 1990s. In a massive green infrastructure effort, the city unearthed the Providence River, formed by the confluence of the Woonasquatucket and Moshassuck rivers, which had long been buried under parking lots and railroad tracks, and lined the banks with parks and pedestrian-only walkways. (“The river has to be an integral part of the city,” said then-Mayor Vincent “Buddy” Cianci Jr. “Don’t cover it, don’t block it, don’t pollute it. Celebrate it and use it.”) The massive effort changed the character of the downtown, which soon began to draw new development projects—including ambitious renovations of vacant mill buildings—as well as new residents and businesses.

Worcester is replacing its failing downtown mall with the $565 million, mixed-use CitySquare redevelopment, reconnecting the central business district with other burgeoning parts of the city such as Washington Square—the home of the renovated Union Station—the restaurants of Shrewsbury Street, and the hip Canal District. In fact, Worcester was deemed “high performing” among cities of its size in the Lincoln Institute report Revitalizing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities (Hollingsworth 2017). Factors cited in this designation included its proximity to Boston and easy access via commuter rail; leaders who have the energy and skills to revitalize the city; and the CitySquare project. Providence was not included in either Lincoln Institute report, but its revitalization efforts have been heralded by organizations from the American Planning Association to The New York Times.

Although this momentum is promising, climate change complicates everything. In the Northeast, climate change is associated with more frequent extreme weather events including heavy rainfall and flooding, droughts, warmer air and water temperatures, changing circulation patterns in the ocean (and related impacts on weather and fisheries), and sea-level rise. Providence is positioned to see flooding and damage from more intense Nor’easters and hurricanes that slam into its shores; a climate report prepared in Worcester nods to predicted impacts including “increased temperatures, more extreme heat days, and changing precipitation patterns.”

“Some degree of climate change is inevitable—there’s literally nothing we can do about it now,” said Edward R. Carr, professor of international development, community, and environment at Clark University in Worcester. “The question is, how much can we deal with it, and what is that going to look like.”

Where Revitalization and Preparedness Meet

“The most fundamental rationale for thinking about green infrastructure is to come up with uses for a massive accumulation of vacant lots, so it will not be a blight and hopefully will [have] a positive effect on the neighborhood,” said Alan Mallach. “Historically, a lot of people had the theory that a vacant lot was worthless unless you built something on it. But that’s changing. There are a number of ways you can take a vacant lot and make it valuable to the community, whether for recreation, to produce fresh food, address sewer overflow. There are ways to address vacant lots that don’t require building new housing or office buildings.”

As legacy cities assess such land use opportunities, they sometimes lack the political or economic power to engineer effective solutions. But there’s one area in which legacy cities have an advantage: They are seeking to reinvent themselves as healthier, more appealing places to live, so they are often more willing to embrace novel and creative projects. This will be helpful in the era of climate change, says Amy Cotter, associate director of Urban Programs at the Lincoln Institute.

“If you think about ways we could prepare legacy cities to play key roles in a future where climate change is affecting large population centers, green infrastructure could be both a revitalization strategy and a climate preparedness strategy,” said Cotter. “It can also help places revitalize and deal with what otherwise would be the blight of vacant property.”

Larger legacy cities across the country have embraced a suite of options with these goals in mind. In Detroit, a comprehensive green infrastructure effort has led to a citywide sprouting of green roofs, rain gardens, and a “green alley” program in which native plants and permeable pavers replace urban debris and concrete in previously neglected alleyways. In Cleveland, the regional sewer district manages a green infrastructure grants program, and ambitious plans are coming together for a park that will occupy 20 acres of formerly industrial waterfront along the Cuyahoga River. Philadelphia is investing approximately $2.4 billion in public funds over 25 years to do everything from provide rain barrels to create urban wetlands in order to reduce combined sewer overflow.

Smaller legacy cities with populations under 200,000 don’t always garner headlines, or have the resources and capacity to undertake such large projects, but many are making similar efforts. Worcester and Providence demonstrate how smaller legacy cities—one coastal, one inland—are relying on green infrastructure to help them rebound from the challenges of the last century and prepare for the uncertainties of the decades ahead.

“Not only does green infrastructure act as an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional stormwater systems, it can help protect us from climate impacts like urban heat island and coastal erosion, and be used in streetscape design to make our roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians,” said Leah Bamberger, the city of Providence’s director of sustainability. “Providence is a forward-thinking city, and green infrastructure is an opportunity to invest in green jobs while building a healthier, thriving community.”

Finding Stormwater Solutions

In the last 80 years, Rhode Island and southern New England have experienced a doubling of flood frequency and an increase in the magnitude of flood events, according to the report Resilient Rhody: An Actionable Vision for Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change in Rhode Island (State of Rhode Island 2018).

Unfortunately, the region’s infrastructure isn’t up to the challenge.

“Much of the state’s stormwater infrastructure was built at least 75 years ago and was designed for less intense storms,” the Resilient Rhody report says. “Climate change further challenges the capacity and performance of these drainage systems.”

Carr says the same is true of the Worcester area, noting that the “infrastructure here is simply not built to handle . . . what is becoming normal.”

“Climate adaptation is very specific to place,” says Ryan of the University of Massachusetts, who coedited Planning for Climate Change: A Reader in Green Infrastructure and Sustainable Design for Resilient Cities, published by Routledge. “For these particular cities, and for any legacy city, the question is how do they accommodate the extra water that comes with sea-level rise and increased precipitation.” Pointing out that neighborhood development patterns have tended to stem from the historic location of worker housing near riverside mills and factories, Ryan says flooding raises equity issues too: “How do cities protect the vulnerable populations in those low-lying areas?”

With this array of concerns in mind, public and private entities are taking action. The Green Infrastructure Coalition in Rhode Island—made up of more than 40 nonprofit organizations, city planners, architects, elected officials, and others—works to promote green infrastructure projects as one way to reduce stormwater problems such as flooding and pollution.

The coalition hires local crews to install green infrastructure projects, such as a bioswale in a local park, a green roof, or a rain garden, and trains public works employees and other involved parties on maintenance. “It’s small projects right now, but it seems that the need and appetite for this is growing,” said John Berard, Rhode Island state director of Clean Water Action, which acts as the project organizer for the coalition. “We’re seeing it get more and more prevalent as storms get worse, and cities are realizing that stormwater is a really important piece for managing a city effectively.”

Meanwhile, the city of Worcester has put policies in place that help ensure sound stormwater management. The city regulates runoff near wetlands and catch basins that drain directly to wetlands or water resource areas.

Additionally, all development and redevelopment must have no net increase in runoff rates, often leading to on-site stormwater management systems for large developments.

The city also aggressively protects land within its watershed to improve the quality of its drinking water and offset some of the land lost to development, according to Phil Guerin, director of water and sewer operations for the city.

But Guerin noted that the built-up nature of Worcester, as well as the geology of the city, makes it difficult to decrease the amount of impervious surfaces. “There are lots of areas with shallow bedrock, a shallow water table, and it’s a pretty built-up city,” Guerin said.

Combating the Urban Heat Island Effect

A few years ago, scientists from NASA set out to understand the difference between surface temperatures in the cities of the Northeast and surrounding rural areas. Their research revealed that surface temperatures in the cities were an average of 13 to 16 degrees hotter than surrounding areas over a three-year period. In Providence, surface temperatures are about 21.9 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside (NASA 2010). The compact size of Providence contributed to this heat island effect, which is caused by buildings retaining heat and by urban infrastructure such as pavement.

When it comes to combating the heat island effect, the answer is clear, says Carr of Clark University: “Trees, trees, trees. There are tons of studies that urban tree cover makes a tremendous difference in lowering temperatures, improving air quality, and—to some extent—helping with flooding.”

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a healthy, 100-foot-tall tree can take 11,000 gallons of water from the soil and release it into the air again in a single growing season.

In 1907, the city of Providence recorded approximately 50,000 street trees, according to the local nonprofit Providence Neighborhood Planting Program (PNPP). The city currently has just half that amount—approximately 25,500 street trees—according to the sustainability dashboard on the City of Providence Sustainability website. A citywide tree inventory is underway.

In its Trees 2020 plan, Providence aims to increase the tree canopy 30 percent by 2020 and plant 200 trees annually. The city has partnered with PNPP, offering grants for tree planting and providing the curb cuts, tree pit, and trees for free. In addition, PNPP and the city offer the Providence Citizen Foresters program, which provides technical training focused on the care of young urban trees. PNPP has cofunded the planting of more than 13,000 street trees with more than 620 neighborhood groups since 1989.

“If people are engaged and want the tree, they’re more likely to care for it and nurture it,” said Bamberger. “You can plant the trees all day long, but if there’s no one there to care for them and nurture them, they’re not going to last long.”

Ryan echoes that sentiment, drawing from research he has been involved with on community gardens in Boston and Providence. “You often have outside groups come to cities and neighborhoods saying how wonderful green infrastructure is, but unless a community wants it— and wants to maintain it—it doesn’t sustain itself so well over time,” he says. “Green infrastructure needs to be both top-down and bottom-up. A bottom-up approach seems to have longer-term impact in terms of stewardship and making projects work.”

In Worcester, a robust tree-planting effort grew into a statewide success story. In 2008, the discovery of the invasive Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) in Worcester led to a massive eradication effort that would fell 35,000 trees in a 110-square-mile quarantine area in the city and adjacent towns. (Four years later, students at Clark University began studying the impact of the tree loss, noting that the heat island effect had increased in a neighborhood that had lost its trees, as did heating and air conditioning bills.)

An ambitious replanting effort known as the Worcester Tree Initiative kicked off in 2009, with the city and state Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) partnering to plant 30,000 trees in just five years in private yards, in parks, and along streets. The program recruits neighborhood tree stewards to care for and monitor the trees, and runs a Young Adult Forester program in the summer for at-risk youth.

The partnership has been so successful that the DCR has expanded it to other cities in Massachusetts through its Greening the Gateway Cities Initiative. This program is concentrated in areas within cities with lower tree canopy, older housing, and a larger renter population. DCR works with local nonprofits and hires local crews to plant trees for environmental benefits and energy efficiency. The program is currently active in Brockton, Chelsea, Chicopee, Fall River, Haverhill, Holyoke, Lawrence, Leominster, Lynn, New Bedford, Pittsfield, Quincy, Revere, and Springfield.

“The model was established in ALB areas and is now a successful model across the state,” said Ken Gooch, director of the DCR’s Forest Health Program. “We’ve planted thousands and thousands of trees.”

Facing Challenges

The city of Worcester’s zoning ordinance requires that trees be planted around the perimeter of parking areas abutting a street, park, or residential property and serving more than three residential dwellings. Additionally, interior tree plantings are required in surface lots with more than 16 spaces and the state’s Complete Streets Policy, enacted in March 2018, specifically calls out trees as an important part of the public street, noted Stephen Rolle, assistant chief development officer for the city.

But some neighborhoods are less amenable to trees, as utilities, power lines, and sidewalks on narrow streets compete for space. There are simply fewer places to plant trees in built-up cities, particularly the large shade trees providing the most environmental benefits. Urban rain gardens or bioswales often have to compete for space with utilities and parking areas too.

“There is valuable paved space downtown, and people are hesitant to let that parking space go to put in bioswales or street trees,” said Berard of the Green Infrastructure Coalition.

Rolle notes another challenge: low-intensity development is sometimes perceived as more expensive, because of installation costs or maintenance requirements. But “there’s quite a bit of evidence suggesting that the benefits of such improvements overall outweigh the costs,” he says. “It can be cheaper to pave it, but that doesn’t make it the right choice.”

Part of the Green Infrastructure Coalition’s advocacy includes support for a stormwater enterprise fund with a utility fee. Property owners pay into this fund based on the amount of impervious surface on their land, with the funds dedicated to projects including green infrastructure. But Berard admitted it’s a tough sell. “As a policy solution, it’s pretty much accepted to be the best way to fund programs,” he said. “But it’s politically unpalatable.”

As the two cities look ahead, more plans are taking shape. Worcester is engaged in a citywide master plan process that will consider adaptations to climate change. The city also received a $100,000 grant in 2018 to prepare a citywide climate change vulnerability assessment.

The Water and Sewer department is also developing a long-term plan to prioritize investments in water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure over the next 50 years, giving the department an opportunity to look at increasing stormwater capability through green infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the city of Providence has been updating its Hazard Mitigation Plan, with a major focus on climate preparedness, said Bamberger. As climate change bears down, she says, thinking ahead and planting the seeds for a greener city will be the key to vitality.

 “If you only have a day to prepare, you have [fewer] options . . . You may only get to batten down the hatches,” Bamberger said. “We do have some time to think strategically as to how we need to respond to these impacts. Integrating nature into urban design and supporting the natural systems we depend on is critical to creating a climate-resilient city.”

 

This article was published in the April 2019 print issue of Land Lines with the title “Great Adaptations: How Two Smaller Legacy Cities Are Embracing Green Infrastructure.”

 


 

Cyrus Moulton is a reporter for the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, where he covers urban and environmental issues, health, utilities, and transportation.

Photograph: Cars navigate heavy flooding under an aging Providence & Worcester Railroad bridge in Worcester, July 2018. Credit: Matthew Healey

 


 

References

City of Providence. “Sustainability Dashboard.” Open Data Portal. https://performance.providenceri.gov/stat/goals/r6yh-954f.

Hollingsworth, Torey, and Alison Goebel. 2017. Revitalizing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities: Strategies for Postindustrial Success from Gary to Lowell. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/policy-focus-reports/revitalizing-americas-smaller-legacy-cities.

Mallach, Alan, and Lavea Brachman. 2013. Regenerating America’s Legacy Cities. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/policy-focus-reports/regenerating-americas-legacy-cities.

State of Rhode Island. 2018. Resilient Rhody: An Actionable Vision for Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change in Rhode Island. Providence, RI: State of Rhode Island (July 2). http://climatechange.ri.gov/documents/resilientrhody18.pdf.

Voiland, Adam. 2010. “Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast.” Washington, DC: NASA (December 13). https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html.