Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CABOT/KOPPERS SUPERFUND SITE: AN ANALYSIS OF THE FOOD AND ARTS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
By
MARIANA ARIAS SANZ
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2018
© 2018 Mariana Arias Sanz
To my parents Silvina Sanz and Walter Arias, my brother Juan Ignacio Arias Sanz, and my partner, Armando Rolins
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research would not have been possible without the ongoing help I received
from numerous individuals from my personal, academic, and professional life. I would
like to firstly thank my thesis committee, Ruth Steiner and Ilir Bejleri, for their continuous
support, input and feedback towards this thesis and for being mentors in my graduate
degree. On a similar note, I extend my gratitude to my colleagues from the Urban
Planning Project course, who were involved in a substantial portion of this thesis project
during class in the Fall 2017 semester.
I am also grateful to the member of the Gainesville community who took the time
to contribute to my research through interviews and extensive participation. Members of
city staff, Stephen Foster neighborhood residents, and others were involved in
answering questions, attending meetings, and providing their opinions on topics related
to my research, which has formed a crucial part of my concluding remarks.
Finally, I want to thank my family and friends, who were my constant and
unfaltering support system throughout my thesis project and graduate career. Without
their sympathy and encouragement, I would not have made it to graduation so quickly
and in such a strong sense of mind. Thank you to my parents, Walter Arias and Silvina
Sanz, who supported me more than I ever expected and deserved. Thank you to my
brother, Juan Ignacio Arias Sanz, for inspiring me to persist and teaching me to be
patient with myself and others. Thank you to my partner, Armando Rolins, for being my
pillar and foundation and making everything worthwhile.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 7
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 8
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... 10
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 13
2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 17
Brownfield and Superfund Site Redevelopment ..................................................... 17 Examples of Superfund Redevelopment................................................................. 24
Davis Timber Company Superfund Site ........................................................... 25 Camilla Wood Preserving Company ................................................................. 26 Cascades Park Gasification Plant and Landfill ................................................. 27
Martin-Marietta, Sodyeco, Inc. .......................................................................... 29
Raleigh Street Dump ........................................................................................ 30 Food-Based and Art-Based Economic and Community Development .................... 31
3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 41
Study Design .......................................................................................................... 41 Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 42
Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 42 Redevelopment Proposal ........................................................................................ 44 Interviews ................................................................................................................ 45 Recommendations and Discussion ......................................................................... 47
4 STUDIO COURSE FINDINGS ................................................................................ 49
Site Analysis ........................................................................................................... 49
History and Contamination ............................................................................... 49 Environmental, Hydrological, and Contamination Analysis .............................. 51 On-Site Remediation Plan ................................................................................ 52 Existing Site and Surrounding Conditions ........................................................ 54
SWOT Analysis ....................................................................................................... 55 Strengths .......................................................................................................... 55 Weaknesses ..................................................................................................... 56
6
Opportunities .................................................................................................... 57
Threats ............................................................................................................. 59
Development Proposal............................................................................................ 60 Overview .......................................................................................................... 60 Uses ................................................................................................................. 61 Programs, Events, and Amenities .................................................................... 63
The culinary experience ............................................................................. 63
The arts ...................................................................................................... 66 The historic railway .................................................................................... 67 High capacity transportation....................................................................... 67 Trail system and clock tower plaza ............................................................ 68
Summary .......................................................................................................... 69
5 RESEARCH FINDINGS .......................................................................................... 79
Art District Setting Comparisons ............................................................................. 79 Population and Cultural District Size ................................................................ 79 Population Density and Transportation ............................................................ 80
Demographics and Culture ............................................................................... 82 Climate ............................................................................................................. 83
Findings and Recommendations ............................................................................ 84
6 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 101
7 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 103
APPENDIX
A FIGURES .............................................................................................................. 104
B PHOTOGRAPHS .................................................................................................. 108
C OBJECTS ............................................................................................................. 111
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 112
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 117
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table page 4-1 On-site remedy selection .................................................................................... 70
4-2 Off-Site Remedy Selection ................................................................................. 70
4-3 Upper Floridian Aquifer Remedy Selection ......................................................... 70
5-1 Comparison of city populations and art district acreage ..................................... 93
5-2 Demographics comparison between Gainesville, Miami, and Charlotte ............. 93
5-3 Climatic data for Gainesville, Miami, and Charlotte ............................................ 94
5-4 Square footage and population increase calculations ........................................ 95
8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page 2-1 Number of cancer cases expected from site exposure ....................................... 34
2-2 Map of all EPA regions ....................................................................................... 35
2-3 Aerial of the capped area prior to replacement of vegetation cover.................... 36
2-4 Entrance to recreational complex ....................................................................... 37
2-5 A centerpiece in the Smokey Hollow Commemoration of Cascades Park .......... 38
2-6 Illustration of ReVenture Park ............................................................................. 39
2-7 Rehabilitated wetland area on December 2015 .................................................. 40
3-1 Firkin Pubs and Brewery SWOT Analysis Example ............................................ 48
4-1 Contamination source areas ............................................................................... 71
4-2 Chronology of events .......................................................................................... 72
4-3 Hydrostatigraphy of site deposits ........................................................................ 73
4-4 Map of ownerships on-site .................................................................................. 74
4-5 Existing land use ................................................................................................ 75
4-6 Cabot/Koppers development proposal uses map ............................................... 76
4-7 Aerial of proposed development ......................................................................... 77
4-8 3D aerial of proposed development .................................................................... 78
5-1 Power of 10+ example in Melbourne, Australia .................................................. 96
5-2 Visuals of proposal with recommended changes................................................ 97
5-3 3D visuals of proposal with recommended changes ........................................... 98
5-4 Proposal without street network connecting Stephen Foster Neighborhood ...... 99
5-5 Development phasing (Phase I: red, Phase II: yellow, Phase III: blue) ............ 100
A-1 Site location map .............................................................................................. 104
A-2 Potential vehicle access points to Cabot/Koppers ............................................ 105
9
A-3 Gainesville Regional Transit System Route 15 ................................................ 106
A-4 Gainesville Regional Transit System Route 27 ................................................ 107
B-1 Aerial of Cabot/Koppers 1964........................................................................... 108
B-2 CSX Railway facing north at NE 33rd Ave. intersection ................................... 109
B-3 Overgrown portion of CSX Railway facing south .............................................. 110
C-1 Interview questions ........................................................................................... 111
10
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AOC Areas of Concern
APA American Planning Association
AROD
Amendment to the ROD
Beazer Beazer East Inc.
Cabot Cabot Carbon Corporation
CCA Chromated Copper Arsenate
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
City City of Gainesville
DNAPL Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
FAD
Food and Arts District
FDEP
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection
FDOT
Florida Department of Transportation
GAToRS
Gainesville Autonomous Transit Shuttle
GRU
Gainesville Regional Utilities
Koppers
Koppers Inc
LIT
Local Implementation Team
MGP
Manufactured Gas Plant
NPL National Priorities List
PCP Petachlorophenol
11
PD
Planned Development
PPS
Project for Public Spaces
PRCA
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs
PRP
Potentially Responsible Parties
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI/FS
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD
Record of Decision
Site
Cabot/Koppers Site
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,
and Threats
UF
University of Florida
ULDC
Unified Land Development Code
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
WHC Wildlife Habitat Council
12
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Urban and Regional Planning
CABOT/KOPPERS SUPERFUND SITE: AN ANALYSIS OF THE FOOD AND ARTS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
By
Mariana Arias Sanz
August 2018
Chair: Ruth Steiner Cochair: Ilir Bejleri Major: Urban and Regional Planning
This thesis examines one of the redevelopment proposals that was generated
during the Fall 2017 Urban Planning Project course offered at the University of Florida.
The redevelopment proposal was designed for the local Cabot/Koppers Superfund site
located in north Gainesville along the Main Street corridor. The development, called
Food and Arts District, is a cultural center which embraces the history of the industrial
site through a food- and arts-centered development.
The report brings together historic and current site conditions to present an
analysis of the benefits and limitations of the site, which was then used to formulate the
proposed development plan. The development concept was then presented to several
members of the community, including city staff, to obtain input, feedback, and concerns
regarding the proposal. The information gathered from these interactions with the
community, coupled with examples of similar developments in other cities, was then
used to generate appropriate changes to the site so it could better align with the needs
and desires of the community.
13
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Gainesville, located in north Florida, is home to approximately
130,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016) people and is best known for the University of
Florida. Gainesville population has been steadily increasing in the last decade due to
advances in education, a fact that attracts businesses to the area and in turn, further
increases population (Ruggeri, 2015). One of the greatest challenges faced by cities
nation-wide is handling rapid population growth, while ensuring the city has appropriate
capacity and infrastructure to sustain them. One way to address this issue is by
redeveloping sites that already accommodate the city’s infrastructure and use available
land more efficiently – a concept called infill development (American Planning
Association, 2012). This research will investigate a potential infill development which will
help tackle growing populations in a sustainable manner by increasing population
density, extending pedestrian and bicycle trail networks, introducing a major cultural
center to the city, and offering affordable housing options for low-income families.
Other than being the official home of the Florida Gators, Gainesville used to
serve the purpose of an industrial city with rail connection to other parts of Florida.
Although it is considered an important city today, Gainesville had a small and slow
beginning, starting back in the late 1800s. The area was a prominent cotton and
vegetable center back in the 19th century, and with less than 2000 people living in the
region, Gainesville was merely a small town. In the 1880s two new railroads were
constructed through the city – including the train tracks and depot building found in
today’s Depot Park. This drastically increased infrastructure, trade routes, population,
and industry (City of Gainesville, n.d.). By the 20th century, Gainesville had become
14
home to approximately 32,000 people and had established a citrus and phosphate
industry. The real population boom in Gainesville, though, occurred throughout the 20th
century with the introduction of the University of Florida as well as immigration of freed
slaves in the 20s (which brought about a significant increase in skilled laborers) and war
veterans in the 50s. With the university’s intellectual reputation, the number of students
admitted exponentially grew, and by 1970 there were 32,000 students. Although the
city’s growth rate has stabilized and has ranged between 0.46% to 0.82% since the year
2000, the population continues to increase. Previous years saw greater increase rates
due to city annexations as well as large increases in student acceptance rates at the
University of Florida, until an enrollment cap was placed. Gainesville has been
considered as an experimental city where professionals have the opportunity to
implement new ideas and projects throughout the city to test their effectiveness – hence
the availability of Innovation Square and other research facilities.
Due to its industrial past, the city is now faced with the challenge of handling
abandoned and contaminated sites. There are two important terminologies related to
these sites – brownfield sites and Superfund sites. According to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA),
Superfund sites are uncontrolled or abandoned sites or properties where hazardous waste or other contamination is located. A contaminated site is generally considered a "Superfund site" if the federal government is or plans to be involved in cleanup efforts. Many of these sites are listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.).
Brownfield sites are real properties, the expansion, development, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Generally, the federal government is not involved at brownfields. Rather, state and tribal response programs play a significant role in cleaning up and helping to
15
revitalize these sites, frequently through state voluntary cleanup programs (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.).
Superfund and brownfield sites have their differences, though they have similar
effects on communities and sometimes pose comparable threats to the environment
and overall wellbeing of people in surrounding areas, property values, and social justice.
Although the implications and challenges of Superfund and brownfield sites will be
explored in detail in Chapter 2, it is important to understand that these sites are
detrimental to the three pillars of sustainability – the environment, economics, and
society. Therefore, the remediation and redevelopment of such properties is essential to
healthy neighborhoods, community economics, and social welfare.
The Cabot/Koppers site in north Gainesville is an example of a Superfund site,
one of which many Gainesville residents are unaware. The 140-acre contaminated area
is listed as one Superfund site under the NPL, but two distinct properties make up the
site. Both properties have industrial histories and are currently undergoing remediation
and discussion has been taking place regarding what development should be brought
into this large site, which is located on the intersection of Main Street and 23rd Avenue.
Professor Ruth Steiner at the University of Florida was asked to involve students in the
brainstorming of what the future of the site could hold. This led to the Fall 2017 Urban
Planning Project course offered by the College of Design, Construction, and Planning to
tackle the redevelopment project for the site.
In the recent past, the city of Gainesville has been focusing on enhancing local
culture, character, and sense of community. The 352 Arts Roadmap, for example, is a
program created by the City in collaboration with Alachua County, the state of Florida,
and Mataraza Consulting that aims to support arts and culture throughout Gainesville
16
and the county. Their vision states: “Culture will be central to our environmental,
economic, and social well-being. We envision a future in which there are more
opportunities to create, participate in, learn from, and enjoy art, history and cultural
expression county–wide” (City of Gainesville, n.d.). These efforts, coupled with infill
development and smart growth, have introduced fresh new businesses, cultural centers,
and public community spaces such as The Curia Complex, Depot Park, a recently
renovated Bo Diddly Plaza, and the Cade Museum.
17
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Brownfield and Superfund Site Redevelopment
Brownfield redevelopment has been an increasingly present trend in the past few
decades, namely due to the escalation in environmental consciousness arising from air,
land, and water pollution, threats of climate change, and the impulse to stray from
suburban sprawl and greenfield developments. In the United States alone, it is
estimated that there are approximately 450,000 brownfield sites – with equal numbers in
Europe and Asia (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.). Brownfields are
industrial or commercial sites that have been abandoned or are being underutilized due
of the possibility of contamination and hazardous conditions. These sites stand idle in
communities, offering no benefits and often create health, environmental, and social
problems (Local Government Environmental Assistance Network, n.d.). These sites
began appearing with higher frequencies in the later part of the 20th century, when cities
that had previously experienced a boom in industrial economy in the 19th and beginning
of the 20th century saw a decline in such activities. Removing buildings and cleaning up
sites is costly, therefore many of these sites were left abandoned with high
contamination levels and low market value.
Although they are found with greater frequencies in post-industrial areas and city
cores, brownfield sites are believed to be present in most counties of the United States
in large cities as well as suburban areas, and in all continents worldwide. These sites
can be considered desirable to develop on since they are often located in the older,
more central areas of cities, and have exiting infrastructure that can be reused – this is
a mere glimpse into the benefits of developing on brownfield sites, more of which will be
18
discussed later. The term “brownfield” was adopted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in the 1990s with the introduction of regulations intended to
protect the environment, and the term was created to encompass both the challenges
and opportunities of such sites (Hollander et al., 2010).
Superfund sites, although similar to brownfields, are considered more hazardous
and contaminated properties that are often not in a productive state. Many of these sites
are registered in the NPL and are destined to be remediated and redeveloped because
of their severe threat to human health and the environment. Federal aid is usually a
factor in the remediation process, and the EPA has a Superfund Remediation Initiative
in place to provide training, funding, and other types of support types (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.). Despite the differences between Superfund
sites and brownfields, many of the benefits and challenges are similar for both
redevelopment processes and outcomes.
Redeveloping brownfields and Superfund sites has been proven to bring
numerous benefits to surrounding communities. The main advantage to these projects
is improved human and environmental health, which coincides with EPA’s mission “to
protect human health and the environment” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
n.d.). By cleaning up contaminated sites, the risk of toxins affecting human health is
decreased or terminated altogether. These toxins are also removed from the air, soils,
and water bodies, which improves the environmental quality of the area and prevents
the contamination from spreading to the surroundings.
A second area that experiences gains from these projects is sustainable urban
development; a factor that encompasses numerous aspects. A term that contrasts
19
“brownfield” is “greenfield”, which refers to untouched and undeveloped land, forests,
and farmland. Developmental expansion into greenfields, although popular in the 1950s
and still seen today, is undesirable as it interferes with the more natural environments
and requires the construction of new buildings and infrastructure, which demand more
resources. Brownfield development, on the other hand, increases density in areas that
have already been built on, which promotes walkability and reuses underutilized or
vacant spaces (Hollander et al., 2010). This approach is commonly coupled with the
term “infill development”, which implies building in spaces within cities as opposed to
expanding outward. The presence of vacant and underutilized sites can be a catalyst to
blight, low property values, and poverty levels in neighborhoods. This indicates that the
redevelopment of the property can improve community welfare and increase the market
values of the area (Hollander et al. 2010). Examples of brownfield and Superfund
redevelopments and their successes will be explored later in this text to provide a better
understanding of real outcomes and how communities benefit from these projects.
The redevelopment of brownfields and Superfunds is laced with many
challenges. One of the most common concerns in developing on these sites is the
existing and potential contamination imbedded in the land. Brownfields are often
abandoned, vacant, or underutilized industrial sites that have become contaminated and
hazardous, therefore an additional effort is needed to clean-up and restore the site to
adequate conditions before development can occur (Hollander et al., 2010). Funding for
such redevelopment projects prove a major hurdle in the field, since often the entire
process can cost several hundred dollars. The lengthy process has also been known to
dampen brownfield and Superfund redevelopments as it could take decades to
20
complete a project from the early stages of site analysis until the end of construction.
Even with grants and training opportunities in place to encourage these projects, the
extra effort of investing so much time and capital into a site that could require significant
cleanup methods can be repellant to many developers.
This added effort, along with the strict regulations for redeveloping and
remediating brownfield sites has discouraged developers in the past, yet the benefits of
redeveloping in brownfields are too many to ignore. Social injustice has come up as a
major issue that can be battled through brownfield redevelopment, as well as Superfund
redevelopment. As mentioned previously, the properties adjacent or near brownfield
sites are often those frequented and inhabited by low-income and minority populations,
which means that they are the ones most vulnerable to decreasing land value and
environmental pollution (Carter, 2016). This is because while industrial activities in
American cities were declining, the predominantly Caucasian middle-class population
was fleeing from inner cities and seeking better living conditions in the ever-growing
suburbs; leaving behind a decaying city core with abandoned industrial sites replete of
the low-income minority groups (Carter, 2016).
Like any other plan, the remediation and development of a brownfield needs to
be carefully assessed and discussed before any action can be taken. Due to their
delicate nature, brownfield sites have several involved parties, and more so if they have
been designated a Superfund site. The first step in tackling a Superfund site is to
formulate an appropriate group of professionals and specialists to study and propose
the best remediation and development solutions to the property. The group should
include project managers, local, state, and federal agencies, environmental engineers,
21
attorneys, consultants, contractors, local groups (such as non-profit organizations,
businesses, residents, grant providers, and neighborhood associations), and architects
(Hollander et al., 2010).
Creating a community outreach program is the second step in having a
successful redevelopment project. In several cases, people who frequent, own, or live in
surrounding areas of the site have some form of interest in it. Their interest can lie in the
remediation process to ensure that any toxins are removed from the site to prevent their
spreading and further contamination, or in the development process by inputting the
community’s opinions and needs to help shape the future of the site. Having an
engaged community that is actively participating in the process and is offered
transparency in the matter can have a drastically positive impact on the redevelopment
and remediation processes, creating less delays and objections to the plan.
The third step, according to Principles of Brownfield Regeneration (2010) is to
seek funding and support from a variety of parties. One of the first places one could look
to for financial support is the EPA, as they have the Brownfields Program in place to
provide funding and tools throughout the process. Although the Brownfields Program
has only been around since the mid-1990s, the EPA has shown tremendous support
through the Brownfields Assessment Grants, Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grants,
Brownfields Cleanup Grants, Brownfields Area-Wide Planning Grants, and the
Brownfields Job Training Grants (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.). Several
states nationwide adopted their own brownfield funding programs following the EPA
initiative, further encouraging this form of development.
22
Despite extensive support from state and federal parties, one major challenge
surrounding Superfund sites are liability regulations. Due to the likely contamination and
hazardous conditions in these sites, the assessment, remediation, and development
regulations need to be stringent in order to protect all stakeholders. In fact, one of the
main reasons brownfields exist is because the property owners are often apprehensive
about legal liabilities and choose to leave the sites as they are; leading to vacancy,
abandonment, and underutilization of the site. The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2017), established in the 1980s, was highly strict in establishing liabilities,
including “anyone who ever owned a contaminated property outright, held a mortgage
for such a property, or even maintained an easement through a [sic] such a property”
(Hollander et al., 2010, p. 16). CERCLA was amended in 2002, which limited liability to
include only those who were directly involved in contaminating the property. Even with
this relaxation of CERCLA regulations, the issue of liability is, understandably, still a
major issue today, requiring the expertise of an environmental lawyer who is trained to
detect the environmental risks. All parties involved in the assessment, remediation, and
development process should be familiar with their legal liability, especially since
mistakes in the process could lead to further contamination and hazardous conditions.
After exploring the advantages and limitations of developing on brownfield and
Superfund sites, there have been concerns related to the cost of cleanups and whether
they are worth the benefits. Evidently, each individual site and situation will have distinct
costs and benefits composed of a variety of factors, which means that no one cost-
benefit analysis is fully suitable for every Superfund site. One study titled How Costly is
23
“Clean”? (Hamilton & Viscusi, 1999) examined 150 Superfund sites and the expected
cancer risk resulting from the chemical contamination of those properties. It was found
that over a period of 30 years, the expected cancer cases for each of the sites was
lower than 0.1, and that the costs per case avoided were relatively high “with only 44
out of 145 sites having a cost per cancer case lower than $100 million” (Hamilton &
Viscusi, 1999, p. 3).
Figure 2-1, taken from the report, illustrates the expected cancer cases for the
150 sites. It shows that from the 150 sites selected for the study, 15 sites, or 0.1% of
them expected to have at least one cancer case over the course of 30 years, and a vast
majority of the Superfund sites showed less than 0.1 expected cancer cases arising
from exposure to unremediated soil and groundwater contamination (Hamilton &
Viscusi, 1999).
Hamiton and Viscusi’s report paints the picture that the expenditure for the
cleanup of most Superfund sites in the study – which could cost hundreds of thousands
of dollars depending on the case – were not worth spending considering the number of
cancer cases expected if the site were to be left untouched. However, the focus of the
report was to analyze cancer risks arising from exposure to contamination. Although the
authors mentioned other noncancer risks and nonmedical benefits of Superfund
cleanups, their cost-benefit analysis did not include these factors. This generated a
limitation to the report, since realistic outcomes and costs of cleanups not only include
more aspects for monetary assessment, but also include factors that are difficult to
monetized, such as the services provided by a healthy ecosystem.
24
The authors conclude that the study provides a general analysis of the costs is
cleanup and the cancer risks for leaving the sites unremediated, and they agree that the
research would benefit from a more detailed analysis of individual sites and their
specific remediation plans (Hamilton & Viscusi, 1999). Nevertheless, How Costly is
“Clean”? offers readers the insight to critically assess the cost-benefit situation of a
Superfund site of interest.
Examples of Superfund Redevelopment
The next portion of this Literature Review will present various examples of past
brownfield and Superfund redevelopment projects. As mentioned at the beginning of the
section, these jeopardized sites are found nationwide and can have drastic differences
in size, history, use, and contamination levels, so it’s important to explore past
redevelopment cases of a wide variety of sites. The successes and benefits of the
selected projects will be the focus of this section, but challenges and limitations will also
be mentioned in order to provide a holistic view of the reality of cleaning up and
redeveloping Superfund and brownfield sites.
Five former Superfund sites were selected to illustrate some ways in which these
contaminated sites can be remediated and rehabilitated to better fit a community. With
approximately half a million contaminated sites scattered through the United States, the
selection process included narrowing down the area from which these sites were
chosen.
The focus of this report is a Superfund site located in Gainesville, Florida.
Therefore, for the selection of the five examples, the search was narrowed to include
only those sites located within the same EPA region as Florida; Region 4. The EPA has
a total of ten regions that cover all U.S. states as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin
25
Isles (About EPA, 2017). Figure 2-2, sourced by the official EPA website, shows which
states are covered by their respective region. The states found in the same EPA Region
as Florida are Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, and Mississippi.
Furthermore, due to the endless variables that make each Superfund site
distinct, such as size, historical uses, contamination levels, toxins, and environmental
and geological conditions, a goal of the site selection was to demonstrate the different
remediation and reuse approaches depending on the condition of the area. This was
explored through presenting the Cascades Park redevelopment in Tallahassee, Florida,
the Martin-Marietta site in Charlotte, North Carolina, and the Raleigh Street Dump site in
Tampa, Florida. The other two examples; Davis Timber and Camilla Wood Preserving
Co., were selected due to some similarities with Gainesville’s Cabot/Koppers site, such
as historic use, contamination, and remediation process – all of which are explored in
detail in Chapter 4.
Davis Timber Company Superfund Site
The first redeveloped Superfund site is the Davis Timber Company property in
Hattiesburg, Mississippi. This 30-acre site is very similar to the project site selected as
the focus of this thesis, which will be examined in detailed in the following sections, is a
former timber processing facility. Between 1972 and the 1980s, the Davis Timber
Company site held a storage pond, which caused extensive contamination on-site and
downstream from the area (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). The extent of
downstream contamination was so severe that “the Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality banned the consumption of fish from County Club Lake from
26
1989 until June 2001” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014, p. 1) as several
fish were dying from the dioxin compounds.
The site was placed in the NPL in the year 2000 and the remediation process
was completed in 2012, two months earlier than expected and $400,000 below the
calculated budget (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). Remediation for this
site included the removal of contaminated soils, containing the most severely
contaminated areas under a 3-acre cap, shown in Figure 2-3, and regulating surface
water flow and erosion (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014), a similar
approach to the Cabot/Koppers site.
Chuck Davis, the property owner, began exploring reuse opportunities with
community members prior to the completion of the remediation process. Davis first
donated 3 acres of his site for a community center and local polling location. In
November of 2012, a portion of the property was leased to the Hub City Humane
Society, which is currently on their fourth year of operation sheltering cats and dogs
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). In the future, they hope to expand their
program to include a rehabilitation facility for horses and to introduce educational and
therapeutic programs to help disabled children (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
2014). The former Davis Timber Company Superfund site is now an asset to the
community; a site that formerly hindered the area and its residents now serves as a
shelter and healing space for abandoned animals.
Camilla Wood Preserving Company
Another similar case was the Camilla Wood Preserving Company site, located in
Camilla, Georgia. The 40-acre site operated as a wood treating facility between 1947
and 1991. Site investigations identified severe chemical contaminations, which led the
27
EPA to add the site to the NPL in 1998 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012).
Between 1991 and 2007, the EPA did extensive work to remove and treat contaminated
soils and water from the site, and in 2012 the process of long-term remediation began.
The remediation was completed in November of 2015, which included the creation of a
stormwater detention basin, a vertical wall and cap to contain the most hazardous
areas, and future monitoring of the upper aquifer in areas where it abuts the site (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2012).
Using funding from the Superfund Redevelopment Initiative grant, the city of
Camilla established a Land Use Committee, and in 2003 this committee concluded that
the site would be best used as a sports complex, featured in Figure 2-4. The
community’s need for soccer fields, basketball courts, walking trails, and other open
spaces were met, and the project proposal also included a small recreational vehicle
park (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). The redevelopment plan also
rehabilitated an existing office building on-site to serve as the Mitchell County Parks and
Recreation Department Headquarters. The City took ownership of the property in
August of 2007 and was awarded the Excellence in Site Reuse Award in 2012 for their
efforts in rehabilitating the Superfund site (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
2012).
Cascades Park Gasification Plant and Landfill
The Cascades Park Gasification Plant was a manufactured gas plant (MGP) that
operated from the late 19th century to the 1950s. The site, located in Tallahassee,
Florida, is composed of a former landfill, the MPG, and a former Centennial Field, as
well as three other areas of concern (AOC) that are in the State of Florida Cleanup
Program (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015). After a series of environmental
28
investigations performed between 1985 and 2002, the City of Tallahassee implemented
a remediation plan that would be split into two phases.
The first phase removed more than 85,000 tons of hazardous soils from the MGP
and Centennial Field areas in 2005 and 2006. The second phase, which took place
during the redevelopment of the site, ran from 2010 to 2014, removing another 12,500
tons of contaminated soil and adding an impermeable clay pond liner (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2015). Although the City continues to monitor the
quality of groundwater in the area, the remediation plan has essentially eradicated
exposure to the hazardous soils, protected aquifers from source material, and almost
restored groundwater to its original conditions.
This $40 million project concluded with a 26-acre park and stormwater
management facility that includes playgrounds, trails, interactive water features, an
amphitheater, and areas of historical recognition. The Smokey Hollow Commemoration
is a tribute for the African American community which was once located on half the site
and was destroyed around the 1960s, during the urban renewal period (Ensley, 2015),
as pictured in Figure 2-5. A Korean War Memorial is also located in the park, dedicated
to those deceased in the war. The site is now an excellent example of how a
contaminated and underutilized area can become a place of recreation, leisure,
education, and historical commemoration. The park opened on March 14th, 2014, and
an article from Tallahassee Magazine quotes Jim Davis, executive director of Blueprint
2000, “This will be a catalyst that will change the sense of place in downtown
Tallahassee” (Ewing, 2009).
29
Martin-Marietta, Sodyeco, Inc.
The city of Charlotte, North Carolina, received a 667-acre renewable energy
industrial park in August of 2014, ReVenture Park. The EPA discovered contaminants in
1982 generated when untreated manufacturing waste and landfilled materials were
disposed on site, causing the contamination of soils and groundwater (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2015). Once added to the NPL, the EPA worked
closely with local and state authorities, developer Forsite Development, and site owner
Clariant Corporation to remediate the massive site and plot a sustainable development.
The remediation process included the capping of the most contaminated areas,
the disposal of contaminated waters and soil, and groundwater treating. This was
completed in 2012, and work began to convert the area into a renewable energy park.
With such a large site under cleanup and construction, the EPA’s Superfund Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program, site owners, and community worked
together to ensure the rehabilitation plans were consistent with the cleanup process
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015). Proper cleanup of the site was an
essential part of the developer’s and owner’s vision of converting the area into a
sustainable and innovative industrial park.
With a site of such magnitude it’s evident that it would be sectioned into different
uses, despite the overall aim of dedicating the site to renewable energy industry. Forsite
Development designated “300,000 square feet of industrial building space into a
business park with a focus on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and environmental
technology” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015). That space now houses two
biomass heat and power projects, a pilot project dealing with algae-derived fuel, an
electric truck firm, a plastic recycling facility, a company that trains people on energy
30
efficiency, and an aquaculture project that covers 35 acres (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2015). Other projects include a biofuel production facility, a regional
wastewater treatment facility, a solar energy production area in place of a 25-acre
landfill, office space, and others. It also promotes conservation and natural resources by
holding a 185-acre conservation easement to enhance wildlife and stream restoration
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015). The overall illustration of the site is
depicted in Figure 2-6.
Raleigh Street Dump
The 5-acre Superfund site located in Tampa, Florida, is a former unregulated
dumpsite that has been transformed into an ecological asset in the county. Between
1977 and 1991, surrounding industries and businesses, and potentially other unknown
parties, used the sites to dump battery waste and other sorts of industrial waste (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). The EPA and Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) came together with the Atlantic Land and
Improvement (ALI), a division of CSX Transportation, and the site’s potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) to remediate the area. It was added to the NPL in 2009, and
cleanup efforts took place between 2012 and 2015, a process that included the disposal
of over 33,000 tons of soil and debris, as well as recycling 40 tons of tires found to have
been illegally dumped there.
Once the remediation process was complete, the National Wildlife Habitat
Council (WHC) joined ALI to expand and restore the salt marshes that had once existed
in the area. The primary goal of this reuse decision was to create a self-sustaining
environment and create native landscape (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
2016). This involved the removal of invasive species on-site, the planting of native
31
vegetation, and the restoration of the 2.5-acre wetland. ALI continues to conduct
monthly monitoring of the site to ensure that at least 85% of the planted vegetation is
surviving and to provide additional plants if needed (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2016). The wetlands now have a variety of wildflowers, nesting boxes for small
birds, a bat box, and milkweed gardens for monarch butterflies, and can be seen in
Figure 2-7.
Food-Based and Art-Based Economic and Community Development
The Superfund site in question throughout this research is currently in the final
stages of remediation, and the community and city officials have been discussing
possible redevelopment opportunities for it. Because the site is located near the
downtown of the city, its redevelopment needs to be more suited for the urban core. A
main characteristic of the proposed development discussed in this thesis, as is
described in a later section, revolves around creative and food-based economic
development. In order to have a full understanding of the proposal and how it could
potentially affect the city of Gainesville, it is essential to understand the types of
economic development associated with culture, arts, and the culinary industry. Although
of food- and art-based economic and community development has been practiced for
years, the conceptual framework and analysis of it has recently been reborn. This
allows researchers, developers, and city officials to further consider implementing a
greater focus on food and arts in cities. Cities and communities throughout the nation
have already taken to this practice that focuses on the local culinary experience and
local artists, showing outstandingly positive outcomes in terms of economic and
community enhancement.
32
An American Planning Association (APA) research paper expresses the
importance of arts and culture strategies to enhance and better understand community
context and character, which ultimately reinforces or creates a community’s sense of
place (Hodgson, 2011). Allowing community members to express themselves through
art and other creative forms can lead to the formation and comprehension of the
community’s historic, cultural, economic, and social context, which helps preserve the
local identity and unique characteristics. Having a local identity and uniqueness is
essential to a strong sense of place and to nurture community pride, which enhances
the region’s value (monetary and otherwise) over time. Hodgson explains that a
comprehensive artistic cultural inventory can create such spaces. Included in this
inventory is population and demographic information, local architectural history,
languages, food culture, unique customs, public spaces, temporary markets and fairs,
native plants, art forms, local educational institutions, art institutions, and galleries,
among others (Hodgson, 2011). Consider as an example the French Quarter of New
Orleans, Louisiana. The French Quarter is lathered in the community’s African
American history through the preservation of architectural characteristics, local culinary
scene, and artistic expression throughout the area. Its unique identity attracted a record
breaking 10.45 million tourists in the year 2016, with travelers investing approximately
$7.41 billion to stay and explore New Orleans (Larino, 2017).
Similar to the New Orleans example, the City of Tampa, Florida has had
significant success with its Ybor City Historic District Revitalization Plan, which invested
$12 million to revive the neighborhood (Hodgson, 2011). Planners relaxed the district’s
zoning laws to allow for nighttime activities, and through added community and
33
institution involvement, Ybor City was extensively revitalized. The Tampa Electric
Company introduced a streetcar line in the area, created infill development, and
rehabilitated existing historic buildings, which attracted new local businesses and
restaurants to the neighborhood (Hodgson, 2011). Through these investments,
Hodgson states that Ybor City was chosen as one of the APA’s Great Streets in
America in 2008 by demonstrating strong history, character, and community
engagement. In 1988, Phoenix, Arizona adopted the Public Art Plan for Phoenix, which
set a clear framework for public art to become a driving factor in urban design. Since the
implementation of this plan, art has made an impact on the shaping of the city and more
than seventy public art projects have been used in urban design, building construction,
outdoor spaces, and infrastructure (Hodgson, 2011). There have been countless
examples like these, proving that the arts have an important role to play in city design
and the enhancement of sense of place. Some instances of successful art districts
throughout the nation include the Wynwood neighborhood in Miami, NoDa (short for
North Davidson) in Charlotte, North Carolina, and NoBo (short for North Boulder) in
Boulder, Colorado.
It is evident that brownfield and Superfund redevelopment projects are essential
to healthy communities in terms of environmental, economic, and social equity matters.
Simultaneously, the ability for a city or community to express their local culture and
characteristics through creative means is a pillar to cultivating a strong sense of place
and local character, as well as for local economies and businesses to flourish. That
being so, a brownfield or Superfund redevelopment project that revolves around local
arts and history would greatly benefit the community by remediating the area and
34
creating a space for local culture to grow. This would turn a neglected lot into a unique
amenity to the city.
Figure 2-1. Number of cancer cases expected from site exposure (Hamilton & Viscusi, p.12)
35
Figure 2-2. Map of all EPA regions (EPA, 2017)
36
Figure 2-3. Aerial of the capped area prior to replacement of vegetation cover (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014, p. 1)
37
Figure 2-4. Entrance to recreational complex (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012, p.1)
38
Figure 2-5. A centerpiece in the Smokey Hollow Commemoration of Cascades Park (Ensley, 2015)
39
Figure 2-6. Illustration of ReVenture Park (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015, p. 2)
40
Figure 2-7. Rehabilitated wetland area on December 2015 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016)
41
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
Study Design
To conduct a successful research design for the analysis and redevelopment of
the Cabot/Koppers site, several aspects were explored. The research is a case study
focusing on the Cabot/Koppers Superfund site, although other Superfund sites are
referred to throughout the paper. Four critical phases were carried out in this research;
the site’s data collection, data analysis, redevelopment proposal, and recommendations
and discussion. The data collection, data analysis, and redevelopment proposal were
mostly completed with seven other students during the Urban Planning Project course
(class number URP6341) during the Fall 2017 semester at the University of Florida. In
this research, one redevelopment plan was developed more fully through interviews, a
public workshop, and further development of the proposal.
The research can be separated into two distinct sections; the portion completed
during the 2017 Fall semester Urban Planning Project course and the portion completed
during the Spring of 2018, which builds on what was done during the former. The first
part consists of the initial data collection of the Cabot/Koppers site, an analysis of the
site’s context and surrounding, and the proposed development that arose from the
analysis. The second portion takes the proposed development created during the class
and analyzes whether it would be an appropriate development to further explore for
Gainesville. This includes an analysis of similar developments elsewhere as well as an
interview process and public workshop. Each of these sections of the research are
explained in further detail below.
42
Data Collection
The initial part of the data collection process involved gathering information on
Cabot/Koppers history, its environmental and contamination analysis, its current status
and surrounding conditions, and the regional impact it had on the city. This was done in
order to present a general understanding of the context of the site in order to later
analyze the opportunities offered and constraints posed by its condition and
surroundings. Numerous documents were examined from government websites
(including city, county, and federal websites). Many of them originated from the USEPA,
as they are the federal agency that keeps track of Superfund sites and their progress
throughout the remediation and redevelopment processes. These documents included
the Beazer Settlement Agreement, the Record of Decision, Second and Fourth Five-
Year Review Reports, and a handful of reports from the Alachua County Environmental
Protection Department and the City Commission that discuss the contamination
conditions of the site’s soils, groundwater, and surrounding areas.
Data Analysis
The data analysis portion of this research consisted mainly of assessing the site
through a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis (Pickton
& Wright, 1998), which was possible once all relevant data was collected. This process
considered factors such as planning regulations, site location, demographics,
contamination, existing structures, accessibility, monitoring well locations, city-wide
needs, and others into consideration to assess what are the site’s limiting factors and
potential contributions to the surrounding neighborhoods and the City as a whole.
Although this portion of the research project was completed mostly during the Urban
43
Planning Project course in the Fall of 2017, some analyses were reevaluated and new
analysis was completed to enhance the SWOT analysis produced in the course.
Before a development could be proposed, it was essential to take all of the
background information gathered for the site and compile a comprehensive
understanding of the positive and negative aspects, as well as opportunities and
limitations caused by the site’s conditions and surroundings. Assembling this analysis
was indispensable, as this understanding allowed for the creation of a more realistic
development proposal that considered the site’s constraints and prospects. A site of this
magnitude is bound to have numerous factors that could enhance or hinder
development possibilities. Therefore, it was essential to carefully investigate the
different aspects of the site in order to determine whether they benefit or pose
challenges to the site and its potential for redevelopment.
Before the SWOT analysis was conducted, it was vital to have a complete
understanding of what this analysis tool entails and the differences between its four
components. Although SWOT is habitually used for businesses, it is also utilized in
other fields, and can be perfectly implemented into this project. According to the Pickton
and Wright paper, “SWOT analysis involves the collection and portrayal of information
about internal and external factors that have, or may have, an impact on business”
(Pickton & Wright, 1998, p. 103). The analysis is often portrayed as a matrix, where
Strengths and Weaknesses list the internal matters of the business or project, and
Opportunities and Threats describe the external factors. Figure 3-1 illustrates an
example of a SWOT analysis done for a brewing company, followed by the SWOT
analysis done for the Cabot/Koppers redevelopment project.
44
Redevelopment Proposal
The redevelopment proposal was developed steadily throughout the Urban
Planning Project course. During the course, the proposals were developed in two
stages – the individual and group proposal stages. In the former, each student in the
course created their own development proposal, resulting in eight distinct ideas. After
receiving feedback for each of the proposals from professors and City of Gainesville
staff, the eight students were then separated into three groups to produce three distinct
development concepts. The final products each had their own theme and vision. The
first was a more conservative, traditional neighborhood design that took all constraints
into account, the second was a more creative cultural center that took more liberties
than the first, and the third was a technological, research-based campus.
For this thesis, the author focuses on the development proposal that she
produced with her colleague, Allison Reagan. The initial design underwent several
alterations on paper before the digitizing for the final proposal began. The physical
versions of the proposal were sketched on tracing paper, using several layers to
illustrate the existing road network, the monitoring wells, water treatment plant, and
location of the impermeable cap on the Koppers site. This allowed for continuous
visualization of potential road connection as well as the constraints presented by the
existing remediation infrastructure and future containment cap. The proposal, which is
explained in significant detail in Chapter 4, was then digitized using software such as
SketchUp, Photoshop, and ArcGIS. Ideas for the design and features of the proposal
were generated by the author’s own interests and ideas of what Gainesville needs, as
well as her personal experiences in regional, national, and international travels. Some
criticism and ideas were also sought after from peers in the field of urban planning.
45
Interviews
Interviews were conducted with a number of Gainesville residents. Most of the
individuals interviewed were residents of the Stephen Foster neighborhood, which is
located adjacent to Superfund site in question. The interviews with the residents were
completed in a workshop/group interview method, where they expressed their needs
and wants for future developments of the site, along with their concerns about future
threats to their lifestyle posed by any future development. In order to reach them with
information about the workshop, the president of the Stephen Foster Neighborhood
Association was contacted. He facilitated communications between the researcher and
the neighborhood residents and gave suggestions on times, dates, and location for the
meeting. Four Stephen Foster residents at the meeting. Once their initial thoughts were
obtained, the researcher led a discussion about the development proposal offered
through this thesis. This was completed through an interactive map that allowed the
residents to post notes and make drawings on a visual representation of the proposal,
showing what they liked and disliked.
City officials and staff were also interviewed to obtain opinions and facts about
the development, adding or retracting ideas from the proposal. They were initially asked
the same questions as the Stephen Foster residents, with the same interactive map, but
were later asked more technical questions. These second set of questions were aimed
at generating a more thorough analysis on whether the proposal would in fact be
possible to develop, depending on land use regulations, the comprehensive plan, and
city development and community goals.
One final group of people interviewed were a few individuals who were part of
either the arts or culinary industries in Gainesville. This group was able to provide
46
information regarding the amenities available in the city for their specific industries and
whether they sufficed for their needs.
There was a total of ten participants in the interview process. Although having
more interviews would have generated better understanding of people’s needs and
concerns, the information gathered was enough to provide insight on some changes
that would be beneficial to the development proposal.
The interview process was one of the more crucial portion of this research, as it
was the main source of feedback for the proposed development for Cabot/Koppers.
Interviews were done with numerous individuals during different days and times,
depending on their availability and preference. For example, most of the Stephen Foster
residents spoken to during this research attended the workshop which was held on the
night of Monday, February 19th at the Parkview Baptist Church. However, there were
some who could not make the meeting and were interviewed at a time and location of
their choosing. City staff was interviewed during their work hours at the Thomas Center
city building for their convenience. A sample of the interview questions used throughout
this process can be found in Appendix C as Figure C-1.
For the intent of obtaining the most feedback and public opinion as possible, this
chapter also includes information gathered during the December 5th, 2017 public
presentation held by the Urban Planning Project class as well as the City Commission
meeting where the class presented their concepts on February 15th, 2018. Although
these two events were technically not interviews and weren’t focused specifically on the
Food and Arts District proposal, useful comments and concerns were presented by
members of city staff as well as Gainesville residents.
47
Recommendations and Discussion
Once all the information was gathered from the SWOT analysis and the
feedback, concerns, and opinions from the interviews, a feasibility analysis was done in
order to determine whether the proposed development would be suitable for the site
and for the city-wide community. Another method used to assess the feasibility was to
compare Gainesville with other cities that have similar neighborhoods, districts, or types
of development as the one proposed in this study. This was used to analyze different
population numbers, densities, and scale of those developments throughout the nation
to those in Gainesville. Economic viability of the proposed development was not
explored in detail but is certainly an important factor that should be studied in order to
provide a more accurate and realistic feasibility analysis. For the scope of this project,
the main aspects that contributed to the recommendations encompass the needs of the
community, the city goals of Gainesville, and public opinion on the proposal.
48
Figure 3-1. Firkin Pubs and Brewery SWOT Analysis Example (Pickton & Wright 1998, p. 104)
49
CHAPTER 4 STUDIO COURSE FINDINGS
Site Analysis
History and Contamination
The Cabot/Koppers Superfund site is located in the northeastern portion of the
city of Gainesville, Florida (it is important to note that although the addresses related to
the site are named “northwest”, the area is still geographically in northeast Gainesville).
A more accurate depiction of its location can be seen in Figure A-1, Appendix A.
Although it is considered as a single Superfund site, two major owners had two distinct
industrial uses in the past. The area totals approximately 140 acres, with the Koppers
site covering around 86 acres and Cabot Carbon comprising 34 acres (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). Also included in the site analysis and for the
development proposal was the 10-acre city-owned parcel adjacently north of the
Koppers site. Due to the area’s heavy industrial use since the early 20th century, high
levels of contaminants were found on- and off-site, which led to the EPA placing the site
onto the NPL in August of 1983.
The Cabot site has undergone several changes in ownership starting from 1911,
though all owners used the property for industrial purposes. The first proprietor was the
Williamson Chemical company in 1912, followed by the Florida Industrial Corporation in
1916, Gillette Company and US War Department in 1918, Florida Industrial Corporation
again in 1919, the Retort Chemical Company (which was responsible for building the
pine processing plant) in 1928, and finally the Cabot Carbon Company beginning in
1945 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). Cabot Carbon continued
operations until 1966, and throughout those years approximately 6,000 gallons of crude
50
wood oil and pitch were produced daily through the destructive distillation of pine
stumps (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). Some of the products from the
process included pine oil, turpentine, pine tar, charcoal, and pyroligneous acid.
Three unlined lagoons were constructed on the northwestern corner of the Cabot
site, with the purpose of storing excess wastewater laced with pyroligneous constituents
and pine tar that overflowed from an initial, concrete lined acid water pond located
northeast of the site. Pine tar was left to settle in these ponds to later be recovered,
which illustrates the extent of the contamination in these ponds. These lagoons,
represented in Figure 4-1, can be seen in the 1964 aerial photograph of the
Cabo/Koppers site, Figure B-1 in Appendix B. The industrial plant was closed in 1967
and sold to a developer who constructed the existing commercial center that stands
today, and the three lagoons were ruptured that same year, allowing the contaminated
fluids to fester through an adjacent 50-acre wetland. The contaminants reached
Springstead Creek and Hogtown Creek, two important bodies of water in the city, and
the property owners were fined for having caused this contamination.
The Koppers site is the larger 86-acre parcel adjacently west of the Cabot site
that operated as a wood treating facility from 1916 until 2009 (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2016). The site originally belonged to the American Lumber and
Treating Company, which served to treat wood poles and timbers using creosote. The
Koppers Corporation purchased the plant operations in 1954 and purchased the
property in 1984, phasing out the use of creosote and replacing it with chromated
copper arsenate (CCA) and petachlorophenol (PCP) (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2006). The site had two onsite lagoons that, similar to the Cabot Carbon site,
51
were used to contain wastewater produced in the wood treating process, a cooling
pond, and a drip track, all of which are outlined in Figure 4-1. In 2010, Beazer East Inc
(Beazer) took ownership of the site to implement remediation activities, a process that
included the removal of on-site structures, the decommissioning of activities, and the
closure of the site as an industrial wood-treating facility. Figure 4-2 shows the
chronology of events of the Superfund site.
Environmental, Hydrological, and Contamination Analysis
Within the study area, the Surficial Aquifer in the area, which is approximately 20
to 25 feet thick, is bounded by the Hawthorn Group and the Cabot/Koppers site (Mercer
et al., 2006). The Hawthorn Group ranges between 115 and 125 feet in thickness and is
a confining layer between aquifers – this means that it avoids water from circulating
between the Surficial Aquifer and the Upper Floridian Aquifer below, which prevents
further contamination of deeper aquifers. Figure 4-3 shows the geological composition
in the beneath the Superfund site, where the Ocala Limestone section represents the
Floridian Aquifer.
The Surficial Aquifer is used by the city as a source of drinking water, and the
site is located only 2.5 miles southwest and uphill from the Gainesville Regional Utilities
(GRU) Murphree well field. Surprisingly and fortunately, although there has been
significant contamination of the Surficial Aquifer just below the Superfund site, and the
natural course of water runs to the well, the Murphree well field has not been affected
by the toxins (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). Again, Figure 4-3 can be
referred to.
52
On-Site Remediation Plan
The Cabot/Koppers site was placed in the NPL in 1984, a year after it was
proposed to do so by the EPA. Once contamination was found in Hogtown Creek, the
EPA and FDEP began a remedial investigation/feasibility study (IR/FS) that same year
and a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on September 27, 1990 (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). Numerous tests were done on- and off-site to
determine the extent of contamination for soils, groundwater, and surface water. One
approach was to install monitoring wells throughout the Koppers site to evaluate the
extent of contamination in the Surficial Aquifer, the Hawthorn Group, and the Floridian
Aquifer. Even though monitoring wells were set to examine the Hawthorn Group and
Floridian Aquifer, the ROD was signed with the assumptions that the Hawthorn Group
would serve as an effective hydrologic boundary between layers that would prevent
groundwater flow between them, and that the source zones impacts were restricted to
the Surficial Aquifer (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). Hence, the ROD
excluded remediation for any groundwater deeper than the Surficial Aquifer. The main
components in the ROD are further discussed below.
The chief remediation processes for the Cabot Carbon site included firstly
implementing the lined ditch that runs along Main Street, east of the site, in order to stop
further contamination from leachate discharge flowing into the ditch as well as the
Hogtown and Springstead creeks and rerouting the water to a publicly owned treatment
works. There will also be continued operation and maintenance of the lift station that
was installed on North Main Street, and institutional controls will be implemented as
needed (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). There will also be a cap in the
northwestern corner of the Cabot property. Due to the existing buildings on site, which
53
were built before severe contamination was addressed and prior to the property was
placed in the NPL, the Cabot site still has some unknown remediation needs.
For Koppers the list of remediation processes is somewhat more extensive. The
contaminated water from the Surficial Aquifer would be extracted, pre-treated, and
discharged to a publicly owned treatment works. Contaminated soils are also to be
excavated from the former North and South Lagoons, which will undergo soil washing,
bioremediation, and stabilization of residual toxins before being put back onto the site
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). Finally, the site as a whole will undergo
bioremediation and institutional controls will be continued through well monitoring and
soil testing henceforth. The remediation process is estimated to be completed by 2020,
despite complications and uncertainties.
Modifications to the ROD were carried out by the EPA in 2011 in order to
address all remaining contamination on both sites. In the Cabot’s portion, the
Amendment to the ROD (AROD) required that sediment remediation take place in
Springstead and Hogtown Creeks, as well as investigations of the Hawthorne Group
contamination extent (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). The AROD
addressed on- and off-site soils and sediments as well as the groundwater quality of the
Surficial Aquifer, the Hawthorne Group, and the Florida Aquifer at the Koppers site.
Tables 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 list the on-site, off-site, and Upper Floridian Aquifer remedies
selected, as discussed in the ROD (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011).
After deliberation of different remediation techniques and deciding the best methods
of clean-up, the total cost of the remediation, including on- and off-site remedies, came
to approximately $63,164,000 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011).
54
Existing Site and Surrounding Conditions
Today, the Cabot/Koppers site significantly contrasts its past conditions. The
Cabot site is a developed commercial center with multiple owners, including P & J
Marina owning the P & J Marine, Marchesini & Marchesini as the owner of the Northside
Shopping Center, Raleigh Faust owning the Hamilton Track as of late 2017, Dean &
Dean Trustees owning the Davis Gainesville Chevrolet and Davis Gainesville Cadillac
dealerships, and the City owning the public land behind the Hamilton Track (Alachua
County Property Appraiser's Office, n.d.). The other three property owners of the project
site are CSX Transportation Inc. as the owner of the CSX rail line that runs between
Cabot and Koppers, the City owning the 10-acre lot north of Koppers, and Beazer East
Inc. owning the Koppers site (Alachua County Property Appraiser's Office, n.d.). Figure
4-4 illustrates these different ownerships, and Figure 4-5 shows a color-coded map of
the existing land uses on-site and in the surrounding areas.
As mentioned earlier in this report, handling Superfund sites requires a great
range of involvement from different parties. The agencies listed above, although making
up a significant number of those involved, are only the owners of the properties
involved. There is a difference between the current property owners and the potentially
responsible parties (PRP). The PRP is made up of Cabot Carbon Corporation and
Beazer East Inc., which means they are the ones responsible for implementing and
funding the remediation process. The Local Implementation Team (LIT) is involved in
reviewing and commenting on the remedial design and construction documents and is
made up of the EPA District 4, the FDEP, the City, and the County (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2011).
55
The Koppers site is currently zoned as industrial, though the land use for the
area is foreseen to change in the near future to commercial, mixed use, or recreational,
and Cabot is zoned commercial and mixed-use. The surrounding area are
predominantly residential to the west and northwest and commercial to the east and
south of the site (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). The Stephen Foster
neighborhood is the closest residential area to the site, located adjacently west of the
Koppers site and extending northwest. The neighborhood has been significantly
involved in the Cabot/Koppers remediation processes and have had continuous input in
the matter through public workshops and meetings – including attending the public
presentation that was done by the Urban Planning Project class during the Fall of 2017.
SWOT Analysis
Strengths
The first and most obvious strength that the Cabot/Koppers site has is its
magnitude. Having approximately 150 acres of land available for development, the
possibilities for project ideas are endless. The fact that a great majority of the project
site is vacant also poses an advantage, as little or no demolition will be necessary to
implement the development design. The 86 acres that comprise the Koppers property is
also owned by only one party, which eases the development process. The site’s
location is also favorable to its success, as it lies at an important intersection (23rd
Avenue and Main Street) and is part of the Main Street commercial corridor. It is also
near the Gainesville Regional Airport, the University of Florida, Santa Fe Community
College, Innovation Square, and downtown Gainesville. These proximities allow for
connections to Gainesville’s existing attractions.
56
On the topic of connectivity, another strength found on-site is the CSX railway.
Part of the rail is still in use – the section north of Northeast 33rd Avenue – for deliveries
to the cement factory adjacent to the site. South of Northeast 33rd Avenue, the railway is
deteriorated, unused, and overgrown with vegetation covering the tracks. Figures B-2
and B-3 in Appendix B show photographs of the conditions of the rail on-site as of
September 14th, 2017. The existing rail infrastructure, however, can be revitalized and
reused to improve connectivity, and possibly be used for other forms of high capacity
transportation. Overall, developers have the potential to either embrace or erase the
site’s history, both of which would provide strength to the area.
Weaknesses
The most present weakness of the site is the existing contamination, which is
also the reason behind the extensive remediation needs and the site’s addition to the
NPL. On-site contamination prevents the cultivation of edible plants on-site, and it
created the need for permanent and ongoing remediation techniques that are also seen
as a weakness to the site, such as the numerous monitoring wells and the water
treatment plant. Although not all of the monitoring wells need to remain on-site, the
wells were implemented onto the site at a high cost, and the more wells that remain on-
site, the better it will be for the future of the clean-up and monitoring process. Another
remediation technique in the ROD that can pose a challenge to the site is the 34-acre
impermeable cap and wall construction that will be placed in the most contaminated
area of the Koppers property – the southern portion – and the smaller one on the corner
of the Cabot site. These will prevent extensive drilling and digging in that area and could
limit the types of development that can be built atop the caps.
57
Unlike the strength mentioned for the Koppers site, the Cabot property has
numerous owners, which can make it difficult to coordinate development ideas with
them, as each of the owners may have their own vision for their property. The existing
buildings on site can also prove to be a weakness if future development plans include
their demolition. This would increase costs and add to the timeline of the development.
The existing water treatment plant, especially, could generate added challenges by
needing to be visually and audibly blocked off from any surrounding development.
Finally, although the size of the site has been identified as a strength, it can also be
considered a weakness, since the need to fill the space may hinder the quality of the
proposed development.
Opportunities
For Cabot/Koppers, several opportunities were found within and around the area.
Firstly, the existing buildings on-site, although also considered a weakness, can be
considered an opportunity as they can be repurposed for future site development. This
would reduce construction costs and would act as a sustainable development technique
(reusing construction material and decreasing waste produced during the development
process).
The site also has several potential connectivity points. For instance, it can easily
be connected through the numerous dead-end streets in the adjacent Stephen Foster
neighborhood, as well as NE 28th Place and NE 33rd Avenue. Figure A-2 in Appendix A
shows these connection points. Alachua County has also been heavily investing in rail-
to-trail networks (Caplan, 2017) and the site’s opportunity to connect to the existing trail
on NW 6th Street is strong. The 2017 Gainesville Sun article mentions that County
Commissioner Robert Hutchinson said, “trail riders have a knack for perking up local
58
economies, because bicyclists stop at nearby restaurants, hotels and stores.” (Caplan,
2017). That being so, continuing the existing trail network within the Cabot/Koppers site
could create a destination for cyclists and pedestrians and would increase economic
activity in the area.
The site has several nearby amenities that could benefit from development on
Cabot/Koppers and could enhance whatever project is pursued by the site. Many are
institutional, including the Stephen Foster Elementary School, Gainesville High School,
Sidney Lanier Center, and others, as well as almost ten churches. Numerous fast food
restaurants are located near the site. The proposed redevelopment gives the area an
opportunity to expand the culinary diversity. There is also a lack of diversity of housing
types in the area, with most residential units being single-family homes and a few
student-oriented apartments. The redevelopment of the site could expand the housing
variety in the area – including some affordable units and “missing middle” type homes.
Missing middle housing types, such as townhomes, bungalow courts, duplexes, and
multiplexes are missing in many communities. These homes are appealing to all
generations, though there appears to be a specific attraction to the older millennials
(Shaver, 2017). Bringing in a diversity of housing could increase the diversity of
residents in the area.
In terms of the surrounding properties, namely those adjacently north and east of
the site, some opportunities were also found. Many properties to the east of
Cabot/Koppers are zoned industrial. With increasing value in that area of Gainesville,
there is potential to change land use to create developments that are better suited for
the region. Also, the ten-acre property to the north of the site is city-owned, and there
59
have been discussions to incorporate the parcel into development proposals for the site.
Overall, the site could function as a transitional area between the single-family homes to
the west and the highly commercial and industrial uses to the south and east.
Threats
As can be expected, numerous threats were also identified regarding the
success of the site and its potential development. The first one is related to zoning and
land use. With so many different land use designations in the area, the development
potential of the site may be limited unless they are changed. This could require a large-
scale amendment to the comprehensive plan which would entail rezoning; a process
which would add to the timeline of the development’s completion. Because of the
existing industrial zoning, noise and visual pollution would also be an issue for any
future development generated on Cabot/Koppers. This lowers property values and
deters people from the area, as it becomes less pleasant to be around. The noise and
visual pollution could possibly hinder the success of any development built on the site.
Other factors that could threaten future developments are the Stephen Foster
residents, the on-site property owners, and city services. More specifically, there is likely
to be some hesitance from the Stephen Foster residents in terms of change in the area.
Although mostly any development would be preferred compared to the existing
conditions of the Superfund site, it is foreseeable that many of the neighboring residents
would want to keep future developments as similar to the existing surroundings as
possible – i.e. single-family homes. In fact, at the December 5th, 2017 public
presentation by the students of the Urban and Regional Planning studio course on this
same subject, several Stephen Foster residents who attended the meeting voiced that
exact concern – none of the proposals presented had enough single-family homes.
60
Another threat is the current lack of public transportation in the area. Figures A-3
and A-4 show the two routes that pass by the Cabot/Koppers site currently, routes 15
and 27. Route 15 has stops at walking distance from the site and buses come by every
thirty minutes from 6:00am to 11:30am, and then every thirty-five minutes until 10:00pm
Monday through Friday (Regional Transit System, 2018). Route 27 has stops along NE
1st Boulevard but buses only stop by every hour (Regional Transit System, 2018). If
unchanged, this lack of public transportation to the site would hamper accessibility. One
final threat identified, also related to transportation, is the CSX railway. As the northern
portion of the rail on-site is still actively delivering materials to the industrial firms along
it, the owners of the property may not be willing to change or remove the sections of the
rail that are no longer in use. This fact could cause significant challenges to connectivity
between the Koppers and Cabot portions of the Superfund site.
Development Proposal
Overview
The purpose of the Gainesville Food and Arts District (FAD) proposal is to create
a cultural center focused around the arts and the culinary experience through arts and
food-based economic development. This would cater to the needs of local artists and art
programs, as well as provide incubators and restaurant spaces for growing culinary
businesses. The site design also ties in the historic industrial uses of the site and the
CSX railway that is reflected via on-site landscape features and the extensive
multimodal trail network. A large central park and trail system is incorporated into the
site’s design to increase connectivity within and around the project area, offer ample
recreational space for the community, and encourage the use of multi-modal
61
transportation systems. Figure 4-6 illustrates the distinct areas of the site, further
described in the following sections.
Uses
The site can be divided into three primary sections: the arts, the culinary
experience, and conservation area. The site is then subdivided into seven subsections,
all of which all can be easily accessed through the bike and pedestrian trail network,
new or existing roadways, or by the high capacity railway shuttle. An overview is
provided below:
To begin, Gainesville is already a renowned location for higher education and is
further expanding its technological prowess through the continued development of
Innovation Square. Yet, the City is lacking a vibrant cultural center. In Gainesville and
Alachua County’s Cultural Plan “352 Arts Roadmap: Driving Our Cultural Future”, one
action in the plan is “to develop a multi-purpose, multi-disciplinary art center that helps
make Alachua County a cultural destination” (City of Gainesville, 2015). This site will
offer an abundance of creative opportunities to fill in this vacancy and encourage
collaboration between these three distinct sectors.
The Cabot portion of the site will include the Artists Enclave featuring an arts-
based multi-use area. The enclave will offer of affordable live/work spaces for local
artists. The ground floors will include studios, workshops, and gallery spaces for the
artists to interact with the community while the upper floors will contain more private
residential, office, and additional studio spaces as needed. The space will also have a
large, central plaza that features a water fountain with interactive sound and lighting
systems where performances could be held during evening hours and weekends; during
the week, the water feature could act as a pleasant gathering space for site visitors and
62
residents alike. The Cabot site also features a Japanese garden that connects to the
site’s extensive trail system, features a Japanese-themed restaurant, acts an event
space for local festivities, and provides an attraction point that is unique to the City of
Gainesville.
Moving on to the west, the Koppers site focus lies in the culinary experience. The
northwest corner of Koppers hosts the headquarters of a Food Hub that encourages
food security by creating a connection between local farmers, restaurants, and the
consumers. The next section, just to the south, contains mixed-use buildings with
restaurants on the ground floor and residential and office spaces above. The
southwestern portion of Koppers is composed of residential buildings that offer a wide
array of housing types including townhomes, apartments, duplexes, and bungalow
courts. East of the residential section is a small, traditional town development area,
similar to Downtown that includes a grid street system and offers spaces for commercial
retail, restaurants, entertainment, dwelling units, offices, and other uses as needed. This
area is meant to function as a bridge between the two sections of the site, flexible to the
needs of the community and future developers. The water treatment plant is also
located in this area and must remain active for the known future. In order to incorporate
the facility within the site, it will be surrounded by a muraled wall painted by local artists.
The central area of Koppers is designed to be a natural park space, with an event field
and central plaza with a clocktower restaurant showcasing views that overlook the site.
This open green space will allow future, continuous access to the onsite monitoring
wells and the underground cap for maintenance or other routine necessities.
63
The city-owned parcel north of Koppers is designated as a natural area with
campgrounds and event spaces available for birthdays, weddings, and other private
events. This nature area will function as a place for passive recreation (such as
kayaking or canoeing) while simultaneously minimizing any negative externalities
caused by urban development to Gainesville’s natural creek systems. This portion of the
site will address the community’s request for park space.
The spatial breakdown of the site is categorized in six sections; arts, mixed use,
residential, culinary, hotel, and green/open space. The arts enclave encompasses one
of the largest portions, totaling approximately 46 acres. Mixed-use areas would
comprise 19 acres of the site, and culinary spaces (including restaurants and
incubators) would total 23 acres. The potential hotel on the Cabot site would
approximate one acre and residential spaces cover 32 acres. Finally, green/open
spaces take up 29 acres. Although the total area is 150 acres, it is important to
understand these numbers are estimates based on the area covered by the different
uses in Figure 4-6. Using these numbers, the estimated population that would live on-
site would be around 2,500 people. This was calculated using the average square
footage of 1,126ft2 for two-bedroom apartments in the U.S (Otet, 2016). The Cabot site
also has a parking garage totaling approximately 720,000ft2 of parking space, which
would provide room over 3,000 cars.
Programs, Events, and Amenities
The culinary experience
The culinary aspect of FAD adds to the unique food culture already found in
Gainesville by creating a food hub that offer greater convenience to local residents and
a variety dining options. Amenities include community rooftop gardens, a seed bank, a
64
weekly farmers market, kitchens, and individual incubator spaces for emerging
restaurants, microbreweries and distilleries that are leased on a short-term basis. Once
they’ve established their market, new culinary businesses can move to larger restaurant
spaces present throughout the site. The incubator idea is inspired in part by the
business model of The Hatchery Chicago in Illinois (The Hatchery Chicago, n.d.).
Despite having Ward’s Supermarket located near the intersection of NW 23rd Avenue
and NW 6th Street, and Lucky’s Market near the intersection of NW 23rd Avenue and
NW 13th Street, Northeast and east Gainesville are currently designated as a food
desert. These facilities, although accessible by car, are too far from many
neighborhoods in northeast Gainesville, which makes it unfit for pedestrian usage. That
being the case, FAD also proposes the inclusion of a grocery store with a parking
structure located on top. This store would ideally be located either along the western
edge of the site closest to Stephen Foster or within the multi-use center present on the
Cabot site.
In order to create a truly unique culinary experience, single standing restaurants
are located along the CSX railway, the location of a proposed, onsite high-activity transit
line. These restaurants will be located in renovated railcars, representative of the
railway activity in Gainesville’s more industrial past. These restaurants will be featured
as a weekend specialty, where visitors can ride along the historic rail line and make one
of their stops at the railcar restaurants. FAD also places a focus on local businesses, so
chain restaurants and cafes will be kept at a minimum. Instead, more places like Curia
on the Drag, Cym Central, Satchels, and Downtown Wine and Cheese are encouraged.
65
Lastly, most buildings along the entire FAD site will be designed to support
rooftop gardens. The rooftop gardens will serve as a supply for onsite restaurants and
potentially for neighboring schools -- providing local and organic products to the area.
Due to the history of contamination on site there is an inability to grow food on the site’s
soils; rooftop gardens are a sustainable alternative that uses space economically. Any
demand not met by the gardens will be supplemented by local farms.
The primary purpose of the food-based approach is to satisfy a market-need for
locally-sourced dining options that support the area’s overabundance of single-family
households. In addition to satisfying the area’s needs for local food choices, the site can
also act as an employment hub for nearby residential homes that can decrease the
area’s unemployment rate while simultaneously providing residents with a livable wage.
This facility can also benefit other areas of the County as well by providing
experimental, new cuisines that are unique to northern central Florida area. Ideally,
these benefits will drive enough profitability to the development that allows the site’s
owner to give back to the community via a local food pantry that can provide nutrient-
rich meals to citizens who may be in need.
The site’s dining options and food programs could connect to existing events and
programs throughout the city in several ways. For instance, the Original Gainesville
Food Truck Rally could be expanded to the site, taking advantage of the spacious event
field and culinary diversity. Schools from around the county would be encouraged to
partake in educational workshops tailored to both youth and adults on gardening,
nutrition, cooking, etc. Additionally, the Food Hub could partner with Working Food, an
66
existing community food center in Gainesville, already working to create a more resilient
food system within the North Central Florida area.
The arts
It is exceedingly challenging for aspiring artists to succeed in the marketplace
without a support system. The Cabot site offers numerous amenities and programs for
artists. These amenities include affordable live/work dwelling units which are tailored to
aspiring artists and subsidized studio spaces for rent. Although the term is often coupled
with “fine arts”, the arts aspect of the proposal also includes theater, music,
photography, pottery, embroidery, dance, filmmaking, sculpting, and other forms of art
as well. Ideally, the multi-use center, with the help of non-profit organizations, will help
attract artists by investing in some form of essential capital for individual and community
use. Some of the spaces and amenities that are provided onsite include theaters,
recording studios, darkrooms, digital labs, kilns, printing presses, filming studios, art
supply stores, and dance studios. There are also indoor and outdoor galleries and
performing spaces. The studio spaces will also include classrooms in which community
art courses or after-school programs can be held. In conclusion, the arts portion of the
site is to provide artists with the services and space they need to create while facilitating
a bridge between amateurs, masters, and appreciators of art.
Gainesville has seen a significant increase in art-related events and places,
including the monthly downtown ArtWalk event and the Downtown Festival and Art
Show, which celebrated its 36th birthday in 2017 (Downtown Festival and Art Show,
n.d.). The intent is to connect FAD to the ArtWalk program and be part of the Downtown
Festival and Art Show in the future. This goal could be facilitated through the added
transportation system provided onsite, which will be discussed in greater detail shortly.
67
The city of Paducah, Kentucky, provides a great example for a city who created a
successful arts district. Their LowerTown arts district was created as a result of the
community realizing the Lower Downtown commercial strip was experiencing serious
urban blight, littered with abandoned and dilapidated structures and in need of change.
The Artist Relocation Program (ARP) was started and attracted artists from around the
nation who came together to renovate the LowerTown district in 2005, and it is now an
area blooming with galleries, studios, and an ever-expanding art and design school
(Paducah Mainstreet, 2017).
The historic railway
Having been an industrial site for over a century, Cabot/Koppers has had a
significant, historic impact on the surrounding area and it is up to future developers to
decide to embrace or erase this from the site’s design. This site chose the former. Two
historic features that the proposal incorporates are the CSX rail line right-of-way and the
previously existing rail spurs that spread through the Koppers site during its active
years, as shown in Figure B-1.
High capacity transportation
The former rail line will be converted into a high capacity transportation system
that could come in multiple forms, such as a streetcar, trolley, or tram. This system
would ideally not only run up and down the CSX right of way on site, but also connect to
other major centers of residential and commercial activity in Gainesville. One possibility
could easily be a project already in the works for the City of Gainesville. The City has
recently received funding from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the
Gainesville Autonomous Transit Shuttle (GAToRS) pilot project (Descant, 2017). The
current potential route for the shuttle runs from the University of Florida campus to
68
Depot Park via SW 2nd Avenue and SE 3rd Street (City of Gainesville, 2017).
Potentially, this route could be further expanded to reach FAD with an added route on
Main Street, making the site easily accessible from Downtown and the University.
Trail system and clock tower plaza
The high capacity transportation system will also be sharing the rail line right of
way with an off-road bicycle path as an extension of Gainesville’s current Rails to Trails
network from NW 16th Avenue. The rest of the trail system is built upon the foundations
of the previous rail spurs in the northeastern portion of Koppers. The trail network then
branches off to the rest of the site, with the central Clock Tower Plaza serving as an
anchor to all other onsite amenities. The ground level of the plaza features an open
market area with semi-permanent stalls for a weekly farmers market. The top floor of
the clock tower will possess a restaurant with an open balcony overlooking the site.
Along the edge of the plaza, the trail network continues out in a radial pattern. The
combination of the radial trails originating from the Clock Tower Plaza and the trails that
represent the rail spurs provides a unique trail system for both pedestrians and
bicyclists that effectively provides onsite connectivity. In addition, the residents of
Stephen Foster and FAD can now travel safely and comfortably from NW 6th Street to
Main Street without having to walk alongside State Road 120.
There are seven major roadway access points as well as two service roads to
promote optimum accessibility to the site. There is also ample space for parking within
the site, with only one small surface parking lot located between the incubators, just
south of NW 31st Lane. Residential structures on the Koppers site will either have
personal garages for smaller residences or an indoor parking garage located in the
center of the multi-use buildings.
69
Summary
This concept, created during the Fall studio course, was designed under the
assumption that the CSX right-of-way was purchased and there is either a single
landowner or agreement between the multiple landowners currently present within the
site boundaries. As a result, the full physical extent of this concept may not be plausible
in the future. However, the majority of the focus was placed on programs, events, and
individual structures which could be accommodated to fit a site (or sites) of a smaller
magnitude. Figure 4-6 shows a general overview of the different uses throughout the
site, and figures 4-7 and 4-8 illustrate aerials of the development proposal within the
context of the site’s surrounding areas.
70
Table 4-1. On-site remedy selection
On-Site Remedies
Soil consolidation area Vertical barrier wall Surface grading and covers Stormwater rerouting and detention Surficial Aquifer hydraulic containment and groundwater monitoring In situ solidification/stabilization of principal contaminant source areas In situ biogeochemical stabilization of principal contaminant source areas Passive DNAPL recovery Using existing Hawthorn Group wells as treatment-injection points Hawthorn Group groundwater monitoring Contingent treatment actions in Hawthorn Group Monitored natural attention Institutional controls Five-Year Reviews Post-remedy site restoration
Table 4-2. Off-Site Remedy Selection
Off-Site Remedies
Remedial strategy for soil Remedial strategy for sediment Removal details for soil Institutional and engineering controls
Table 4-3. Upper Floridian Aquifer Remedy Selection
Upper Floridian Aquifer Remedies
Implementation details through continuous monitoring and groundwater extraction Institutional controls Substantive permitting requirements Effectiveness assumptions
71
Figure 4-1. Contamination source areas (Alachua County Environmental Protection Department, 2017)
72
Figure 4-2. Chronology of events (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016)
73
Figure 4-3. Hydrostatigraphy of site deposits (Mercer et al., 2006)
74
Figure 4-4. Map of ownerships on-site
75
Figure 4-5. Existing land use (City of Gainesville, n.d.)
76
Figure 4-6. Cabot/Koppers development proposal uses map
77
Figure 4-7. Aerial of proposed development
78
Figure 4-8. 3D aerial of proposed development
79
CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH FINDINGS
Based on the findings obtained through research of similar developments and
interviews with numerous stakeholders in the City of Gainesville, this section of the
study aims to provide recommendations and changes to the proposal to make it
succeed as a food and arts district.
Art District Setting Comparisons
Before the interviews were conducted, the proposed FAD project was compared
to successful art districts in other cities in America. The different contextual
characteristics compared are population density, cultural district sizes, weather,
transportation, and culture, and the cities selected for this comparison are Miami in
south Florida with its Wynwood neighborhood as the art district and Charlotte in South
Carolina with its NoDa art district.
Population and Cultural District Size
It was mentioned by all city staff members that one major concerns about the
FAD development proposal is whether there is enough population in Gainesville to
sustain a creative district. When compared to other cities and their art districts, for
example the ones mentioned in Chapter 2, it is clear that the cities are major within their
respective states, and often have greater population than Gainesville. However,
although their populations are significantly greater than that of Gainesville’s, their art
districts are also larger in size than the Cabot/Koppers site.
For example, Miami has a population of approximately 433,000 (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2016) while Gainesville has approximately 129,000 (U.S. Census Bureau,
2016). This means Miami has roughly 3.35 times the population. The Wynwood
80
neighborhood, which is known as the art district of Miami, spans an estimated 524 acres
(Google Earth Pro) and does not include the Miami Design District. Therefore, the art
district in Miami is 3.49 times larger than the proposed area for Gainesville’s art district.
Similarly, the NoDa neighborhood in Charlotte is 711 acres and the city has
approximately 809,000 residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). When the population in
each city is compared to the size of the arts districts, the ratio is 860:1 for Gainesville
and 1,137:1 for Charlotte, as shown in Table 5-1.
Population Density and Transportation
However, even though the ratios of between populations and sizes of art districts
are similar, especially in the case of Miami, there are other factors that need to be
compared between the two cities that would greatly influence the feasibility of a food
and arts district in Gainesville. For instance, a larger population doubtlessly offers a
greater diversity of population. This could lead to more people wanting or needing to
use the cultural amenities offered by their city. Another effect of having a larger
population is that there is a more significant demand for high capacity transportation,
therefore the benefit of investing in more efficient public transportation offsets the cost –
which may not be the case in areas with lower population densities.
Population density is also a factor that plays into public transportation, and
therefore needs to be considered. The Open Data Network website, which uses 2016
Census data, shows that the population density for Gainesville was 2,098 people per
square mile (Open Data Network, 2016). Miami’s density was 12,060 people per square
mile, and Charlotte’s was 2,717 (Open Data Network, 2016). Clearly, even though
Charlotte has the greatest population, approximately twice the numbers than Miami, its
density is comparable to that of Gainesville’s. This could indicate that if public
81
transportation is successful in Charlotte’s least dense areas, the same could be
observed for Gainesville.
According to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Transit Oriented
Development Design Guidelines, an area such as north Gainesville where the
Cabot/Koppers site is located is deemed Rural based on the population density of the
area (Florida Department of Transportation, 2013). The document provides the best
types of public transportation methods depending on an area’s population density, and
which would be best suited to fulfill the areas transportation needs while maintaining
financial feasibility. For rural areas, an express bus route would be appropriate to suit
the needs of the residents. If the population density were brought up to Suburban
standards, a local bus system would be feasible, and perhaps even a bus rapid transit
system and light rail transit – although the latter two methods would only be feasible
under certain conditions, such as jobs per dwelling units and mixed-use zoning (Florida
Department of Transportation, 2013). The added population density from the proposed
development could bring the standards of the area to Suburban, allowing for better and
more reliable transit. This improvement in transportation would make FAD more
accessible and enable it to successfully be designed with a pedestrian- and cyclist-
oriented approach and deterring from parking lots, street connections, and other auto-
oriented features.
It is important to note, however, that the population densities mentioned in this
portion of the comparison are not evenly distributed. This could skew the comparison
results, as the densities used were those of the cities in question, and only within city
limits. The FDOT use smaller-scale areas to calculate the density used in their report.
82
Demographics and Culture
Another aspect that needs to be considered when comparing Gainesville to
Miami and Charlotte is the general culture and diversity of the cities. Of the three cities,
Charlotte is the most diverse in terms of race, where approximately 50.7% of the
population is classified as white (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). Gainesville is second in
terms of race diversity, with 65.4% white population, and Miami is the least diverse, with
a 75.6% white population (although this includes Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Whites)
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2016).
The median age in Gainesville, Miami, and Charlotte for 2016 was 25.7, 39.7,
and 33.8 respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). This could indicate that Gainesville
is the one with the most Millennials and Generation X people. The significance of this
information is that the most recent generations have been noted to prefer smaller and
more affordable homes, local shops and restaurants, a vibrant night life, and walkable
neighborhoods (Pan, 2015). Because of the strong higher education influence due to
Santa Fe Community College and the University of Florida, a large portion of the
population in Gainesville belongs to the most recent generations, indicating that a
development devoted to local culture, food, and arts with smaller and more affordable
housing types could be very successful among the Millennial and Generation X
populations.
It can also be assumed that families with higher incomes have more dispensable
income to spend on leisure activities – including shopping, visiting museums, art
galleries, and performances, and dining out. Of the three cities, Charlotte has the
highest median family income of $55,599 per year, while Gainesville comes second at
$32,716 followed by Miami at $31,642 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). This information
83
could suggest that since Miami has a lower median family income, yet the Wynwood art
district has proven to be successful, a cultural district in Gainesville would also be
supported by local market. One issue with this comparison, however, is that the City of
Miami is surrounded my higher income areas, such as Palm Beach. Surely their arts
district is visited by families from those nearby richer cities, which skews the income
statistics of those visiting the Wynwood neighborhood. For ease of comparison, all the
demographic information is listed in Table 5-2.
Climate
One final feature that should be considered in this feasibility analysis is the city’s
climate. Regardless of how suitably a development is designed, weather plays a crucial
role in the willingness of people to use a space. Four climatic characteristics that can
deter people from venturing out to a place of leisure are rain, snow, humidity, and
excessively high temperatures. Gainesville has an annual high of 79.9°F and annual low
of 57.5°F, which is expected from a warm, southern city (U.S. Climate Data, n.d.). The
average annual rainfall is 47.37 inches, with a high of 7.13 inches in July (U.S. Climate
Data, n.d.). The average annual humidity of Gainesville is of 74%. Miami has an annual
high of 84.2°F and a low of 69.9°F, average annual precipitation of 61.93 inches, and a
high rainfall of 9.84 inches during September (U.S. Climate Data, n.d.). The humidity of
Miami generally stays around 73% throughout the year. This is also expected, as Miami
is closer to the equator than Gainesville. Finally, Charlotte has an annual high of 70.8°F
and a low of 48.8°F, average annual rainfall of 41.63 inches, and a high of 4.21 inches
during the month of August (U.S. Climate Data, n.d.). Charlotte also has an average
84
annual snowfall of 4 inches, with a high of 2 inches in January, and an average yearly
humidity of 67%. Table 5-3 shows this climatic comparison information.
Overall, Miami is the hottest city with the largest amount of annual rainfall.
Charlotte, however, has the largest number of rain days compared to the two Floridian
cities. Therefore, one could assume that if the cultural districts in Miami and Charlotte
are successful despite their climatic characteristics, weather should not deter people
from using FAD enough to render it unsuccessful.
Findings and Recommendations
The first aspect of the interview that was the individuals’ perceptions of
Gainesville – i.e. what they felt were strong points and spaces of the city as well as what
they believed was lacking from the city. Overall, there was a strong consensus on
Gainesville having a strong identity and sense of community. People seemed to be
generally satisfied with the local businesses and community spaces, such as parks and
trail systems. There seemed to be a discrepancy between those who believed the
current parks and recreational amenities were sufficient for the city (an idea supported
mostly by city staff) and those who believed recreational spaces were lacking
throughout the city. Most seemed to agree, however, that Gainesville natural parks and
Depot Park (along with its surrounding areas) were some of the strongest
characteristics of Gainesville – other than the University of Florida. Some of the
characteristics people believed were lacking in Gainesville were a vibrant Downtown,
more pedestrian- and cyclist-oriented developments, local arts exhibitions, affordable
housing, different housing types, and active recreation centers.
The positive feedback and opinions offered by individuals will be explored. One
of the most mentioned benefits that the site could bring is the fact that although
85
Gainesville has some cultural centers, since as some scattered galleries and museums,
or the UF Cultural Plaza, there is no one center where Gainesville can showcase its
cultural features. Museums, performance spaces, galleries, and local restaurants have
been on a rise throughout the city, but overall there isn’t a strong sense of culture in
Gainesville, from what the interviewees have stated. Gainesville also has a growing
local culinary and arts industry, there is no one hub or location where people can go to
in order to meet their culinary or art needs. One interviewee, Justin Langer, works as a
chef in Gainesville. When asked about his personal needs and experiences with the
existing culinary infrastructure and amenities, he indicated that overall, he felt as though
his needs were met. However, he did explain that having one central hub where he
could live, work, and meet all his needs would be preferred. Langer also mentioned that,
although Gainesville’s local restaurants, cafes, and bars are on the rise, there is still a
weak sense of local culinary spaces, which he believes would drastically improve if FAD
were to be implemented.
Another major advantage people saw in the proposed development is the added
variety of housing types and affordable housing options for low-income families, young
professionals, and individuals in the arts industry. There was a general agreement that
Gainesville lacks in housing types and affordable units, and FAD would help tackle this
problem. Interviewees were also keen on the proposed trail network that created
pedestrian and cyclist connections within and around the site – namely the connection
to the existing rails-to-trails network. Stephen Foster residents were excited about the
potential pedestrian connectivity with the site. Many were also thrilled to see a potential
strengthening of the Main Street corridor and the possibility of it to deter from the
86
automobile industry, however some voiced a concern about likely increases in traffic
congestions and trip generations due to this strengthening.
The biggest concern mentioned by the interviewees was the density on site.
However, some sided with the fact that the density was too high and not enough single-
family homes were planned for the area, while others (namely city staff) voiced that the
population density of the proposal should be higher, and that an increase of 2,500
people would not be enough to sustain the development. This divergence in opinion is
significant to this development, since both sides of the argument cannot be appeased
simultaneously. Similarly, the city staff interviewed showed concern about the planned
high capacity transit system, as there may not be enough population to warrant the
public transportation system envisioned for the proposal. Another major query was the
question of where funding for the development would come from – considering density,
land use, and rents would not be as profitable as possible for property owners.
In terms of the design of the proposal, there were two suggestions made towards
changing the development. The first one was in relation to the residential area located
to the southwest of the Koppers site. One interviewee, who asked to remain
anonymous, indicated that it could be beneficial to swap the residential area with the
incubator and restaurant areas. This would keep the higher density uses closer to the
major roads and the residential buildings would be kept in the more distant and quiet
side of the development. The other suggestion concerned the vehicle connection points
located on NW 32nd Avenue and NW 33rd Avenue. During the workshop with the
Stephen Foster residents, it was mentioned that having only those two vehicular
connecting points between the neighborhood and the development would create a
87
bottle-neck effect on those roads. This would be caused by drivers who choose to use
the Stephen Foster neighborhood access instead of the entry and exit points on the
main roads. It was suggested that FAD either not have automobile connections to the
Stephen Foster neighborhood at all, or to connect all the streets so that the bottle-neck
effect is not burdened on NW 32nd Avenue and NW 33rd Avenue. Although the Stephen
Foster residents understandably preferred the former of the two options, increasing
connectivity between the two sites would in fact not generate intense traffic congestions
as they fear. Providing a well-connected grid street network is one of the better
development practices to reduce congestions by creating numerous ways in which an
individual could travel from one point to another.
One of the most significant interviews was with the City of Gainesville’s Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Affairs (PRCA) Department’s Russell Etling, the Cultural Affairs
Manager. He explained that the driving force of the PRCA is the 352 Arts Roadmap
project, which is a cultural plan for the city and the county. As stated in Chapter 1, the
plan’s vision is “Culture will be central to our environmental, economic, and social well-
being. We envision a future in which there are more opportunities to create, participate
in, learn from, and enjoy art, history, and cultural expression county-wide.” (City of
Gainesville, n.d.). The four priorities listed in the roadmap are to nourish and increase
creative vitality, to increase creative opportunities for all residents everywhere, to boost
Gainesville’s reputation as an even more attractive place to live, work, and visit, and to
increase cultural affairs’ stewardship (City of Gainesville, n.d.). Etling commented that
the vision, amenities, and goals of FAD perfectly align with the 352 Arts Roadmap goals
and that it would provide many amenities that he claimed are lacking in the city.
88
Etling emphasized the city’s need of a hotel and major conference center,
however, and suggested this would be an excellent location for them. Since there is
already a designated acre for hotel use in the plan, he recommended the hotel be
connected to a multi-use conference center and meeting spaces and that it all be
located within the Cabot site, where the arts amenities, galleries, and theaters are
found. This would encourage tourists to use the local businesses and attractions on-
site, all of which will be at walking distances, and would create a buyer market for the
local crafts and foods. The importance of walkable and interactive pedestrian spaces
was also stressed, considering the many different attractions and activities on-site. In
order for the local shops, galleries, and restaurants to be successful, there needs to be
an active transportation community. This would be encouraged by having shaded or
covered walkways, outdoor seating, native vegetation and landscaping, attractive
buildings close to the sidewalks, and pedestrian safety measures.
Although there was already the intention of having a large performance theater
on the Cabot site, Etling reiterated the city’s need of a 700-seat theater – a comment
also mentioned by both city planners Lawrence Calderon and Andrew Persons. The
hotel, conference center, and theater would generate profit for the owners the site,
making it more likely for the proposed FAD to sustain itself. It was also discussed that
the in November of 2017 the city approved an eight-year $0.10 sales tax increase
towards the Wild Spaces and Public Places program; one that allocates those extra ten
cents towards the PRCA department. This increase in sales tax could generate
approximately an extra $10 million for the Cultural Affairs department, which could be
used to help start and support more food and art programs on the future FAD site.
89
There was also mention a potential amphitheater. Although it was not mentioned
in the proposal, there has been discussion about the need of an amphitheater in
Gainesville and comments were made about this cultural center being the optimal
location for it. This idea was supported by city staff and some Gainesville residents, but
Stephen Foster residents were not keen on having an amphitheater located only a short
distance away from their quiet neighborhood. Etling and other city staff agreed this
would be a suitable location for the amphitheater, and if it’s strategically located on the
eastern portion of the Koppers site or on the Cabot site, it should not be a nuisance to
the Stephen Foster neighborhood. This same dilemma took place in the Depot Park
area of Gainesville in the last couple of years, where there was talks about introducing
the much-needed amphitheater to the area and neighbors in the surrounding homes
were strongly against the idea. A Gainesville Sun article by Karen Orr uses a few
examples of cities that built amphitheaters near residential neighborhoods and how this
significantly and negatively affected those who lived in the area (Orr, 2017). Taking this
into account, including everything the Stephen Foster residents have already suffered
through by living adjacent to a Superfund site and their reservations about having a
major cultural center be developed on the site, it is recommendable to find a different
location for the amphitheater; one of which would not interfere with the lives of nearby
residents. It would also be difficult to find a suitable location for the amphitheater on-site
because of the amount of added residential. The only way the amphitheater could be
faced so the sound is directed away from the residential buildings would be if it were
located on the eastern side of Koppers within the open-space area. However, the issue
with this placement is that the amphitheater would need to face northeast, and because
90
of the way the remediation cap is being designed on the Koppers site, the amphitheater
would be facing a downward slope, which is the opposite of how an amphitheater
should be placed.
One final important concept learned through this research was The Power of
10+, a movement developed by the Project for Public Spaces (PPS) organization
(Project for Public Spaces, n.d.). This concept is used as a tool to design public spaces
by being attentive to the interaction between humans and their built environment. It uses
the idea that for a place to be more interesting and better equipped to suit people’s
needs, there must be at least ten things to do and they should be layered to create a
synergistic environment. For example, the central plaza in the Cabot site would have an
interactive water fountain, public outdoor seating, private outdoor seating from cafes
and restaurants, live music and performances, indoor and outdoor galleries, sculpture
gardens, access and views to the Japanese garden, cycling, and other activities and
amenities that would suit the desires of pedestrians. Figure 5-1 shows an example of
such layering of activities in Melbourne, Australia, where no single type of use
dominates the space.
Revised Proposal
Figures 5-2 and 5-3 illustrates the new proposed development after the
recommended changes were implemented to the design. The figure includes a legend
with the different types of buildings on-site, and the breakdown of each building type
footprint is as follows: bungalows make up 84,000ft2; duplexes 100,000ft2; townhomes
126,000ft2; apartments (in a non-mixed-use building setting) 80,500ft2; restaurant
mixed-use 486,800ft2; arts mixed-use 358,500ft2; and hotel 100,000ft2. It is important to
91
understand that these numbers depict the square footage footprint of each building and
does not multiply the values by the number of floors. To calculate the total residential
population increase created by the site each building type footprint was multiplied by
their respective number of floors – although the mixed-use buildings had the first floor
designated as non-residential – and the total square footage was divided by the
average size of each respective housing type. This generated a total number of
potential households moving on-site, and the number was then multiplied by the
average Alachua household size of 2.4 people (Index Mundi, n.d.). Table 5-4 shows
these calculations, and ultimately this proposal would increase population by almost
7,500 people, which complies with the suggestion mentioned by city staff to increase
the population of the site in order to have people to sustain the on-site businesses. As
shown in the table, although there are four main different housing types, apartments are
the dominant type (namely due to the number of floors available) and would provide
space for over 6,000 people. In addition, Figure 5-4 shows the proposal without the
extension of the streets that would connect to the Stephen Foster neighborhood. Since
one of the biggest topics discussed was the vehicular connectivity between FAD and
the neighborhood, it is important to visualize the street network without that added link
between the two. The absence of these vehicular connections is not recommended by
the author, as it would likely intensify traffic conditions on-site. However, because of the
hesitation from the Stephen Foster residents to have these connections it is important to
consider the possibility. Although these vehicular connections would not exist, there
would still be cyclist and pedestrian links between the neighborhood and FAD, which
promotes active transportation.
92
For the proposed development to be implemented, rezoning and a change of
future land use need to be considered for the parcels in question. As previously
mentioned, the current land uses designated for the Superfund site are Industrial (which
make up most of the site), Commercial, and Mixed-Use Medium. The existing zoning of
Koppers is General Industrial (I-2), while Cabot zoning includes Limited Industrial (I-1),
Automotive-Oriented Business (BA), Mixed Use Medium Density (MU-2), and General
Business District (BUS) (City of Gainesville, n.d.). Considering the variety of uses found
in FAD – including multiple types and densities of residential, commercial, retail,
recreation, and cultural centers – the recommended future land use for the site is
Planned Use District and a zoning of Planned Development (PD) District. According to
the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) of Alachua County, PD is defined as
An area of land developed as a single entity for a number of dwelling units and/or commercial and industrial uses, in accordance with a plan which does not necessarily comply with zoning district regulations for lot size, lot coverage, setbacks, off-street parking, height, bulk or type of dwelling, etc. (Alachua County, 2017, pp. 410-33)
The purpose of the PD District is to promote development through phased planned
communities while using creative concepts for the development that are not defined in
the ULDC (Alachua County, 2017, pp. 403-15). Having this district zoning would allow
for the flexibility this development would require, while still being compliant with the
Comprehensive Plan. Figure 5-5 depicts the suggested phasing of the development,
with the Koppers site being developed first in two phases and Cabot being developed in
Phase III along with the repurposing of the rail track. The reason for this phasing
proposal is mainly due to logistics. The Koppers site will be the first of the two sites to
be completely remediated, therefore construction could begin on in sooner. Since the
site is approximately 90 acres, the development was divided into two phases, with
93
Phase I being the southern portion of the site. This was decided based on the fact that
development along 23rd Avenue would give the area a quick boost in economic activity
and density, since the southern portion of Koppers is designed as mostly a mixed-use
area with a focus on culinary amenities. Phase II would incorporate the remaining
residential units on the Koppers site, as well as the large central park and recreation
facilities including the city parcel to the north of the Superfund site. Finally, Cabot would
be developed during Phase III due to its remediation uncertainties and unknown date of
remediation completion.
Table 5-1. Comparison of city populations and art district acreage
City Population Art District Acreage Ratio (Population : Acreage)
Gainesville FL 129,000 150 860:1
Miami FL 433,000 524 826:1
Charlotte NC 809,000 711 1,137:1
Table 5-2. Demographics comparison between Gainesville, Miami, and Charlotte
Feature Gainesville Miami Charlotte
Population Density 2,098/sq mi 12,060/sq mi 2,717/sq mi
Percentage of White Population 65.4% 75.6% 50.7%
Median Age 25.7 39.7 33.8
Median Family Income $32,716 $31,642 $55,599
94
Table 5-3. Climatic data for Gainesville, Miami, and Charlotte
Climate Feature Gainesville Miami Charlotte
Annual High Temp. 79.9°F 84.2°F 70.8°F
Annual Low Temp. 57.5°F 69.9°F 48.8°F
Average Annual Precipitation 47.37 inches 61.93 inches 41.63 inches
Average Annual Humidity 74% 73% 67%
Average Annual Snowfall N/A N/A 4 inches
95
Table 5-4. Square footage and population increase calculations
Housing type
Average housing size
Footprint square footage
No. of floors
Total square footage
Alachua avg. family size
No. of families
Population increase
Bungalow 1,800 (Fixr, 2018)
91,200 1 91,200 2.4 51 122
Duplex 900 (Fixr, 2018)
102,000 2 204,000 2.4 227 544
Townhouse 2,200 (Fixr, 2018)
126,000 1 126,000 2.4 57 137
Apartment 861 (Fixr, 2018)
925,800 1-4 2,380,300 2.4 2,765 6,635
Total pop. increase
7438
96
Figure 5-1. Power of 10+ example in Melbourne, Australia (Project for Public Spaces, n.d.)
97
Figure 5-2. Visuals of proposal with recommended changes
98
Figure 5-3. 3D visuals of proposal with recommended changes
99
Figure 5-4. Proposal without street network connecting Stephen Foster Neighborhood
100
Figure 5-5. Development phasing (Phase I: red, Phase II: yellow, Phase III: blue)
101
CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION
From the information gathered from the interview process and the feasibility
analysis, it appears FAD is a proposal worth exploring further. Through the interviews
conducted, there appeared to be a consensus about the need of a cultural center and a
culinary-based hub, as well as a need for more recreational spaces. When compared to
other examples of art districts, it became clear that Gainesville has the appropriate
conditions and population to sustain the 150-acre Food and Arts District, and that this
development would further increase population density in the area and pedestrian
connectivity. The general reaction towards the proposal was overwhelmingly positive,
whether during individual interviews, the Stephen Foster residents workshop, or the two
public meetings on December 5th, 2017 and February 15th, 2018. Although there are
details that were unpopular or had disagreeing views, the overall thought of bringing
FAD to the Cabot/Koppers site was welcome and brought enthusiasm and hope to the
Gainesville community.
As previously mentioned, one of the biggest disagreements about the FAD
concept was the population increase. Having two polarized views about the number of
people being too high or two low proved challenging to compromise. Finally, the revised
proposal was designed to further increase the population of the area in order to make
FAD feasible socially and economically.
Many comments referred to the lack of a major food or art hub in Gainesville
where culinary and artist needs can be met – namely affordable housing options for
those in the culinary and arts industries. As mentioned by several of the interviewees,
FAD would help soften the burden of lack of affordable housing and would serve as an
102
excellent example of a walkable and pedestrian-friendly mixed-use district. Featuring
cultural amenities to create an attraction point in Gainesville, FAD would enhance the
unique character, sense of community, and sense of place of the city.
Evidently, there are more aspects that need to be considered in order to make a
more concrete statement about the feasibility and suitability of having a cultural district
in Gainesville – namely on the Cabot/Koppers site. First is the economic and financial
side of the FAD proposal, which was merely touched on in this research. One
recommendation for future research would be to take the revised proposal presented
and to do an economic feasibility analysis. This would likely be the most important
aspect that still needs to be considered to prove the proposal economically viable.
Another limitation found throughout the research was the low participation rate
with the interviews. Although there was a handful of Stephen Foster residents and of
city staff who partook in the interview process for this research, it would have been ideal
to interview more people – especially Stephen Foster residents and other members of
the general public or affiliates of the food and art industries.
Also, the comparison done between the three cities of Gainesville, Miami, and
Charlotte did not take into account many other aspects that make cities what they are.
For example, the density comparison only considered the population residing within the
city limits. However, many other people live in surrounding areas nearby, namely in the
South Florida region, and these numbers certainly make a difference when looking at
the potential public that would use a service – in this case an arts district. A more
detailed analysis of the area could benefit the accuracy of the study, however the
comparisons conducted give reason to believe that FAD could thrive in the region.
103
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION
The revised redevelopment proposal for FAD would likely bring prosperity,
density, and diversity to north Gainesville and enhance the Main Street corridor. It would
also show the people of Gainesville what a creative, successful, and sustainable
solution to Superfund infill development could look like, and how an area can be
improved through innovative ideas and communication between the different
stakeholders in the city.
Conversations and meetings about what should be done with the Cabot/Koppers
Superfund site are ongoing and will likely be discussed for the next few years until a
decision is made. Several aspects still need to be considered before making a decision,
including the needs of the city, the geology, geography, and demographics of the area,
the desires of residents, and the economic feasibility. This study has so far engaged
several members of the community – residents and city staff alike – into thinking about
this issue with an open mind and visualizing different possibilities.
Although more information should still be collected on this case, this study
provides a glimpse into the general opinion on what the City of Gainesville and its
residents need, and how Cabot/Koppers can help meet those needs and enhance the
city. Through the interviews, public meetings, and comparisons to other city art districts,
FAD has proven to be a popular idea which could improve the downtown environment
and boost the Main Street corridor. This thesis allowed the author to research and build
on the creative collaboration of eight students in a studio setting, and with the
cooperation of city staff and Gainesville residents, a wholistic proposal was presented.
104
APPENDIX A FIGURES
Figure A-1. Site location map (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016)
105
Figure A-2. Potential vehicle access points to Cabot/Koppers (Google Maps, 2017)
106
Figure A-3. Gainesville Regional Transit System Route 15 (Regional Transit System, 2018)
107
Figure A-4. Gainesville Regional Transit System Route 27 (Regional Transit System, 2018)
108
APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHS
Figure B-1. Aerial of Cabot/Koppers 1964 (Alachua County Environmental Protection Department, 2017)
109
Figure B-2. CSX Railway facing north at NE 33rd Ave. intersection (author, 2017)
110
Figure B-3.Overgrown portion of CSX Railway facing south (author, 2017)
111
APPENDIX C OBJECTS
Figure C-1. Interview questions
112
LIST OF REFERENCES
About EPA. (2017, August 21). Retrieved from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa
Alachua County. (2017). Unified Land Development Code. Alachua County.
Alachua County Property Appraiser's Office. (n.d.). Public Map Viewer. Retrieved from
Alachua County Property Appraiser's Office:
http://acpa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6cc1107447194
a6197c5b9487a1b4fd2&query=Parcels,PARCELID=%2708244-001-
014%27&popup=true
American Planning Association. (2012, April 14). APA Policy Guide on Smart Growth.
Retrieved from American Planning Association:
https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/smartgrowth.htm
Brourman, M., Erickson, J. R., Mercer, J. W., Slenska, M., & Toth, J. P. (2006). DNAPL
SOURCE EVALUATION AT A PORTION OF THE CABOT. First international
Conference on DNAPL Characterization and Remediation, 25-28.
Caplan, A. (2017, August 9). County to spend $3.3M for rail-to-trail plan. The
Gainesville Sun.
Carter, D. K. (2016). Remaking Post-Industrial Cities: Lessons from North America and
Europe. New York: Routledge.
City of Gainesville. (2015). 352 Arts Roadmap: Driving our Cultural Future. Gainesville:
City of Gainesville.
City of Gainesville. (n.d.). City of Gainesville Environmental Layers. Retrieved from
Gainesville Maps:
http://gainesvillefl.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2cbafda7
73334276b847f974a962295c
City of Gainesville. (n.d.). Department of Doing Interactive Map. Retrieved from
Gainesville Maps:
http://gainesvillefl.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4e5bf13c
90bf406da07444ecbbd58cb2
City of Gainesville. (n.d.). Department of Doing Interactive Map. Retrieved from City of
Gainesville:
http://www.cityofgainesville.org/PlanningDepartment/MappingandGIS/MapLibrary
.aspx
City of Gainesville. (n.d.). Gainesville History. Retrieved February 25, 2017, from City of
Gainesville.
113
City of Gainesville. (n.d.). 352 Arts Roadmap. Gainesville.
Curia on the Drag. (n.d.). Curia on the Drag. Retrieved from Curia on the Drag:
http://www.curiaonthedrag.com/
Descant, S. (2017, December 12). Florida City Launches Autonomous Public Shuttle
Pilot. Future Structure.
Downtown Festival and Art Show. (n.d.). About the Festival. Retrieved from Downtown
Festival and Art Show: http://www.gainesvilledowntownartfest.org/about-the-
festival/
Ensley, G. (2015, August 24). Smokey Hollow Commemoration Celebrates Lost
Neighborhood. Tallahassee Democrat.
Ewing, J. (2009, November). After Years of Neglect, Tallahassee's Historic Cascades
Area Re-Emerges as a Public Park. Tallahassee Magazine.
Fixr. (2018). Build a Duplex Cost. Retrieved from Fixr: https://www.fixr.com/costs/build-
duplex
Fixr. (2018). Build a Townhouse Cost. Retrieved from Fixr:
https://www.fixr.com/costs/build-townhouse
Fixr. (2018). Build Apartment Cost. Retrieved from Fixr:
https://www.fixr.com/costs/build-apartment
Fixr. (2018). Build Bungalow Cost. Retrieved from Fixr: https://www.fixr.com/costs/build-
bungalow
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2016). Cabot Carbon/Koppers
Summary of Site History and Remediation Activities. Florida Department of
Environmental Protection.
Florida Department of Health. (2009). Off-Site Surface Soil Koppers Hazardous Waste
Site Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida EPA Facility ID: FLD980709356.
Atlanta.
Florida Department of Transportation. (2013). Transit Oriented Development Design
Guidelines. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Transportation.
Fresh produce for a food desert. (2016, April 6). The Gainesville Sun.
Google Earth Pro. (n.d.).
Hamilton, J. T., & Viscusi, W. K. (1999). How Costly Is "Clean"? An Analysis of the
Benefits and Costs of Superfund Site Remediations. Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, 18(1), 2-27.
Hodgson, K. (2011). Community Character. Chicago: American Planning Association.
114
Hollander, J. B., Gold, J. L., & Kirkwood, N. (2010). Principles of Brownfield
Regeneration: Cleanup, Design, and Reuse of Derelict Land. Washington DC:
Island Press.
Index Mundi. (n.d.). Florida Average household size, 2009-2013 by County. Retrieved
from Index Mundi: https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-
facts/florida/average-household-size#map
Larino, J. (2017, March 23). New Orleans hosted a record 10.45 million tourists in 2016.
The Times-Picayune. Retrieved February 8, 2018, from
http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2017/03/new_orleans_record_tourist_co
u.html
Local Government Environmental Assistance Network. (n.d.). Brownfields/Superfunds.
Retrieved from Local Government Environmental Assistance Network:
http://www.lgean.org/p2/brownfields.htm#issue
Mercer, J. W., Toth, J. P., Erickson, J. R., Brourman, M., & Slenska, M. (2006). DNAPL
SOURCE EVALUATION AT A PORTION OF THE CABOT. First international
Conference on DNAPL Characterization and Remediation, 25-28.
Open Data Network. (2016). Population Density. Retrieved from Open Data Network:
https://www.opendatanetwork.com/entity/1600000US3712000-
1600000US1225175-1600000US1245000/Charlotte_NC-Gainesville_FL-
Miami_FL/geographic.population.density?year=2016&ref=compare-entity
Orr, K. (2017, October 22). Aphitheater would cause neighborhood noise pollution. The
Gainesville Sun.
Otet, A. (2016, June 23). As US Apartments Get Smaller, Atlanta, Charlotte, Boston
Rank among Top Cities with Largest Rental Units. Rent Cafe Blog.
Paducah Mainstreet. (2017). Lower Town Arts District. Retrieved from Paducah
Mainstreet: http://www.paducahmainstreet.org/lowertown-arts-district.htm
Pan, Y. (2015, December 7). Where's Hot - and Where's Not - for Home-Buying
Millennials in 2016. Realtor.
Pickton, D., & Wright, S. (1998). What's swot in strategic analysis? Strategic Change, 7,
101-109.
Project for Public Spaces. (n.d.). The Power of 10+. Retrieved from Project for Public
Spaces: https://www.pps.org/article/the-power-of-10
Regional Transit System. (2018). Complete Weekday Routes Map. Retrieved from
Regional Transit System: http://go-rts.com/spring-2018/
Ruggeri, I. (2015, March 29). Population growth in Florida, development in Alachua
County. The Independent Florida Alligator.
115
Shaver, K. (2017, December 9). Cities turn to ‘missing middle’ housing to keep older
millennials from leaving. The Washington Post.
The Hatchery Chicago. (n.d.). What is The Hatchery? Retrieved from The Hatchery
Chicago: http://thehatcherychicago.org/about-us/
U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). American Fact Finder. Retrieved from U.S. Census
Bureau.
U.S. Climate Data. (n.d.). Climate Charlotte - North Carolina. Retrieved from U.S.
Climate Data: https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/charlotte/north-
carolina/united-states/usnc0121
U.S. Climate Data. (n.d.). Climate Gainesville - Florida. Retrieved from U.S. Climate
Data: https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/gainesville/florida/united-
states/usfl0163
U.S. Climate Data. (n.d.). Climate Miami - Florida. Retrieved from U.S. Climate Data:
https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/miami/florida/united-states/usfl0316
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Second Five-Year Review Report for
Cabot Carbon/Koppers Superfund Site. Mobile: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Record of Decision Summary of
Remedial Alternative Selection. Atlanta: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Record of Decision Summary of
Remedial Alternative Selection: Cabot Carbon/Koppers Superfund Site. Atlanta:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Celebrating Success: Camilla Wood
Preserving Company Camilla, Georgia. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Celebrating Success: Davis Timber
Hattiesburg, Mississippi. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Celebrating Success: Martin-Marietta,
Sodyeco, Inc. Charlotte, North Carolina. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Superfund Site: Cascade Park
Gasification Plant Tallahassee, FL. Retrieved from U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency:
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Cle
anup&id=0404729#bkground
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Celebrating Success: Raleigh Street
Dump Superfund Site Tampa, Florida. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Fourth Five-Year Review Report for
Cabot Carbon/Koppers. Atlanta: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
116
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2017, July 24). Superfund: CERCLA Overview.
Retrieved from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Our Mission and What We Do. Retrieved
from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-
mission-and-what-we-do
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Overview of the Browngields Program.
Retrieved from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview-brownfields-program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Types of Contaminated Sites. Retrieved
October 7, 2017, from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/types-contaminated-sites
University of Florida. (n.d.). Cabot/Koppers: A Superfund Story. Retrieved from
University of Florida Maps:
https://ufl.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=1fb5f5302dc8426
3a781def8da87081c
117
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Mariana graduated from her master’s degree in urban and regional planning in
the summer semester of 2018. Her involvement in the College of Design, Construction
and Planning at the University of Florida began in fall of 2013, when she switched from
a management degree to study sustainability in the built environment. She also pursued
minors in classical studies and urban and regional planning. Mariana has been
passionate about environmental matters since an early age and hopes to use her
knowledge of urban planning to promote smart growth within cities, walkability, and
healthier living styles.
