TOPIC 4B: URBAN WATERCOURSES

Gabriella Bertazzo

69897

As per Douglas’ reading, urban watercourses were originally points in the landscape where cities emerged (Douglas, 2013).They provided a fresh water source and irrigation for farmland, which cities like Mesopotamia relied on (Douglas, 2013), as it depended on seasonal flooding for agricultural purposes

However the complexity of the relationship between urban development and rivers lead to issues that further diminished the importance of rivers in cities. Issues such as flooding from upstream caused Europe 9.2 billion euros in 2002 (Douglas, 2013) when the Elbe catchment flooded. Preventative methods such as diversion schemes are necessary to be able to maintain urban form and development. In historic times rivers were threatening the health of cities due to them becoming a multi use-dumping site (Lancaster, 2015), for sewage and rubbish. This dumping sediment led to the further erosion and additional flooding. Water quality was one of the most demanding issues (Batista, 2013). The maintenance and cost of rivers became difficult to sustain which ultimately led to their coverage.

Covered river and streams were channelled underground in an “egg like drain” (Lancaster, 2015) in order to control fluctuating rises in water levels. I think it’s interesting to note the cultural significance that came about due to river coverage. As mentioned in the lecture (Lancaster, 2015), the appearance of “toshers” and cave clans (Lancaster, 2015) became a significant part of these underground systems. (Lancaster, 2015) furthermore workers and tour guiders often opposed day lighting as the interaction with these drainage systems and running rivers was a major social and economic benefit to this niche amount of people.

The correlation of urban watercourses and infrastructure is a complex issue. Many were not geographically mapped in earlier time periods (Lancaster, 2015) For example; Williams’s creek under Elizabeth St can affect future urban growth as rivers govern street layout and placement of infrastructure. As shown in the lecture, large landscape fields and ovals indicate an underground river or stream (Lancaster, 2015), for the mere fact that building cannot be built over them. As (Douglas, 2013) states ‘know the ground you’re building on.”

What is interesting now, is the change in the type of health issues we are facing. We now want these rivers back as they provide psychological, economical, social and environmental benefits. It seems to be a new epidemic of not only restoring waterways but utilising unused areas into inner city garden strips. Knowing the issues that rivers can cause, Is this sensible urban planning to restore the river? Could the past repeat itself? Will the benefits out way the costs?

In the lecture we talked about different types of restoration.

Re-introduction of natural aquatic ecosystems (Lancaster, 2015) such as the river Dearne in North England. The project aimed to focus on the restoration of biodiversity, ecological value and recreational opportunities. The restoration was to straighten the channel and create physical uniformity. They wanted ‘naturalness’ and ‘connectivity’ (Westing, 2014) within the landscape.

However from the surveys conducted, less people interacted with the river after the restoration. Residents stated that ‘the aimed naturalness conveyed a neglected, lack of maintenance and control of the river’ (Westing, 2014). Now there are less people using the area than before. So considering this, is the need for city-river integration too artificial and forceful over people? Is planning more focused on having the “restorative effect”?

Cheonggyecheon River in Seoul, is a perfect example that crosses between both architectural and cultural restoration (Lancaster, 2015). As its instrumental role improved both economic competiveness (Kriznik, 2011) and global appeal. However is it as successful as it is portrayed to be?

The UN Habitat Organisation (UN Habitat, 2012) praises Seoul on the success of its project. It highlights a few key opportunities and benefits that have arisen since it’s opening. These included restoration of cultural activities such as the lantern festival. Social sustainability through more green spaces and the engagement in educational resources. The government (UN Habitat, 2012), have stated that they have created an ‘informal knowledge community’.

Ecological sustainability includes decreases in air and noise pollution, city temperatures. The establishment of lost habitats (UN Habitat, 2012) and corridors.

The project has seemed to create a sequence of sustainable epidemic solutions. The city has gone on to improve walkability, cycle ability and improved the bus system.

In contrast a journal article on the symbolic reconstruction of Seoul by Kriznik (Kriznik, 2011) questions the success of the restoration on a local scale. He suggests that the reconstruction has had many negative effects on the community, especially at a local level. These include; gentrification, disappearance of local spaces and cultures, displacement of traditional markets (Kriznik, 2011) and emerging alienation among local residents.

I think what he’s trying to point out is that local places are been replaced by global schemes of urban renewal processes. The industrial service sector was a major part of down town Seoul (Kriznik, 2011), but the new identity of the area excludes this sector. Are governments more focused on their global benefits and tourists then of the citizens in their local areas?

The government in my perspective has only considered the future impacts the river will have on the area. But they haven’t thought about the future impacts of the river itself. They have also adopted unsustainable water practices. Why do the pictures always look so fabulous?!? Because they are using heavily treated fresh water rather recycled wastewater (UN Habitat, 2012). Pumping from out of city to ensure all year round flow of the river. Is this restoration going to be sustainable in the long run? Are there going to be future difficulties?

Saw Mill River, Yonkers  was an interesting example as the project was considered “day lighting” (Trice, 2005), However the actual river remained buried. The final so-called day lighted river was actually a artificial river created adjacent (Civil engineering, 2012) to the original river that remains underground. The purpose of this was for flood control and water quality, where the original river acted as a catchment for city runoff and rising water levels. The artificial river was for show only. Will this type of strategy work better? Could this be an alternative solution for the Elizabeth St proposal?

  

REFERENCE LIST

Batista, J. S. (2013). Improving Visual attractiveness to enhance cities- river intergration- A methodologial approach for ongoing evaluation. Planning, Practice and Research , 28 (2), 163-185.

Civil engineering. (2012). City Revives Buried river. American society of civil Engineers, Civil Engineers. Yonkers: American society of civil Engineers.

Douglas, I. (2013). An environmental history. Environmental history and global change series , 233-251.

Kriznik, B. (2011). Selling Global Seoul: Competitive Urban Policy and Symbolic Reconstruction of Cities . University of Seoul (1), 291-313.

Lancaster, M. (2015, March 24). ABPL20034: Urban History, Wk. 4B lecture notes. Urban water courses . melbourne, VIC, Australia: University of Melbourne.

Trice, A. (2005). Daylighting streams: Breathing life into urban streams and communities. American rivers, City of Yonkers. Yonkers,NY: American rivers.

UN Habitat. (2012). Urban patterns for green economy: Working with nature. UN habitat , 2-60.

Westing, E. S. (2014). Making sense of landscape change: long term perceptions amoung local residents following restoration. Journal of Hydrolodgy , 519 (C), 2613-2623.