The Need for Early Design Intervention by Landscape Architects on Post-Industrial Sites to Enable Phytoremediation Planting

Detailed Analysis of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London

Callie Jo Bernier

Landscape Contextual Studies submitted for the degree of MLA in Landscape Architecture

Edinburgh College of Art, University of EdinburghEdinburgh School of Architecture & Landscape Architecture

January 2015

‘The design discipline should become an active link between the sci-entific disciplines and practice, as it is capable of integrating specific knowledge into a spatial concept for a specific site, accommodating

interdisciplinary research and providing possible scenarios for future urban and rural transformation’ (Wilschut et al., 2013, p. 87).

Fig. 1

Derelict industrial sites litter urban landscapes. These sites have either been abandoned or remain in their degraded state due to eco-nomic crises or disinterest. The east end of London reinvigorated its post-industrial region to promote community well-being, affordable housing, and job opportunities—as well as the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. This eventual site of Queen Elizabeth Olym-pic Park had a history of pollution and neglect. Decontamination of the soil was a high priority in the construction and design. Cur-rent methods for removing contamination, such as excavation and capping, incur huge costs, both environmentally and economically. Alternatively, phytoremediation—or the uptake of contaminants by plants—is a more sustainable and cost effective solution for re-storing contaminated sites. However, typically landscape architects are brought into the design processes after reclamation has already occurred. This dissertation seeks to find out how pre-reclamation consideration of phytoremediation planting in landscapes can im-prove remediation of post-industrial sites, such as Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Contained here will be a contextual review of related works, interviews with professionals, and on-site questionnaires with users. These uncover how landscape architects incorporate phy-toremediation planting in post-industrial reclamation projects, what people prefer in regards to design of a public remediated landscape within an urban landscape, as well as how multi-disciplinary teams function when converting a brownfield. Additionally, the success of phytoremediation as a scientific method and structural design ele-ment in remediating landscapes will be discussed. It was discovered that landscape architects do not utilise phytoremediation planting and are not included in early design remediation decisions. Concern-ing post-industrial sites, it is important to understand the benefits early design-thinking about phytoremediation planting can have for local communities—specifically, promoting healthy communities and providing much-needed green-space.

Abstract

Fig. 2

Table 1: Benefits of Brownfield Redevelopment 11

Table 2: Popular Conventional Remediation Methods for Brownfields 12-13

Table 3: Advantages and Disadvantages of Typical Phytoremediation Planting 15

Table 4: Design Challenges Facing the Parklands and Waterways 24

Table 5: Key Aims of the Olympic Park BAP 28

Table 6: Results from an Interview with Katie Jackson of LDA Design in London 32-33

Graph A: Game Attendance based on Purpose 35

Graph B: Purpose based on Age 35

Graph C: Transportation based on Origin 36

Graph D: Transportation based on Age 36

Graph E: Origin based on Frequency 37

Graph F: Origin based on Age 37

Figure 1: Planting at Olympic Park 2

Figure 2: Planting at Olympic Park 4

Figure 3: Soil Remediation at Olympic Park 8

Figure 4: Phytoremediation Mechanisms 17

Figure 5: Phytoremediation Tree Species 18

Figure 6: Historical Acitivites at Olympic Park 20

Figure 7: Enabling Phase at Olympic Park 22

Figure 8: Design Transformation Phases 25

Figure 9: Flood Extent of the Lea Valley 26

Figure 10: Created Habitats 26

Figure 11: Wetland Bowl Planting 28

Figure 12: Multi-generation Home 31

Figure 13: Parkland Network 31

Figure 14: Cuningar Loop Birch Tree Planting 39

Figure 15: Legacy of Olympic Park with Housing Development 42

List of IllustrationsAbstract 5

Introduction 9

Literature Review 10

Brownfield Conversion 10

Conventional Remediation Techniques 11

Phytoremediation 14

Design-thinking 19

Case Study Analysis 21

Methodology 21

Background 21

Results 30

Discussion 38

Conclusion 43

Reference Cited 44

Illustrations Cited 55

Appendix A - Questionnaire 58

Appendix B - Interview with LDA Design 61

Appendix C - Interview with Gillespies LLP 73

Appendix D - Interview with Pick Everard 80

Contents

8 9

Redevelopment of brownfield sites is a common enterprise in the UK that demands large amounts of soil and water remediation to remove potentially harmful contaminants. The Earth has a limited supply of soil; therefore it is important to clean and protect it. Con-ventional types of remediation are often expensive and ineffective. An alternative method available involves using plants to absorb the contaminants and remove them from the soil, a process called phy-toremediation. Using information gained by performing a contextual literature review of brownfields, remediation techniques, and project design-thinking relating to landscape architecture, Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London was chosen for case study analysis, be-cause it involved one of the largest soil remediation (particularly soil washing) operations the world has seen. Other remediation efforts in that region included decontaminating waterways and groundwater, though this paper focuses on soil reclamation. The design of the landscape sustainably merged ecological and urban spaces in the Olympic Park, along its fringes, and in the wider public realm—resulting in an attraction visited by millions of locals and tourists every year. To understand the role of landscape architects in the creation of the Olympic Park and the community’s perceptions after its completion, an interview with LDA Design and an on-site questionnaire were performed as pieces of an enchained methodology. It was found that landscape architects need to be in-volved in early design decisions, to allow development of applicable planting schemes and increase the use of plant-based technologies like phytoremediation. The research that follows is only a glimpse of the huge potential concerning the application of beneficial phytore-mediation in landscape-designed remediated brownfields.

Introduction

Fig. 3

10 11

and Lees, 2005). Due to environmental, social, and economical chang-es, the redevelopment of brownfields therefore factors into the triple bottom line model proposed by sustainability (Hou et al., 2014). Ben-efits of cleaning up brownfields are numerous and varied (Table 1). Nonetheless, this restorative process can be extremely difficult due to complications and restrictions.

Conventional Remediation Techniques Before redevelopment of a brownfield site can occur, firstly the remediation of the soil must take place in order to remove con-taminants that could cause risk to human health. Remediation is an expensive and time-consuming endeavor, which should be consid-ered before any work begins. Once the site has been deemed remedi-al, site characteristics need to be investigated to determine the type of remediation most suitable (Mulligan et al., 2001). Conventional methods of remediation are generally unsustainable and limited in their ability to destroy common heavy metals inhabiting brownfields, such as lead, chromium, arsenic, zinc, cadmium, copper, and mercu-ry (Mulligan et al., 2001) (Table 2).

Brownfield Conversion In the United Kingdom, policy has shifted since the late 1990s encouraging brownfield regeneration and usage in terms of sustain-able development (Baing and Wong, 2012; Dixon and Adams, 2008). A brownfield is defined as, ‘previously-developed land’ that has the potential to be redeveloped in the UK (Baing and Wong, 2012, p. 2990). Other countries adopt the US Environmental Protection Agency’s more detailed definition of a brownfield as: ‘real property, the expansion, redevelopment or reuse of which may be complicat-ed by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant’ (EPA, 2011). Since the UK has a legacy of industrialisation, it was known that over 66,000 hectares of brown-field sites existed in England as of 2003, with 16,500 of those hectares considered, ‘difficult to develop’ (English Partnerships, 2003; Dixon and Adams, 2008, p. 117). England tends to be more interested in re-using brownfields to create compacted urban spaces, while Scot-land encourages greenfield land for housing development when brownfield land does not meet the requirements, which can promote urban sprawl (Dixon and Adams, 2008; Scottish Executive, 2003a). Brownfields can be converted into different uses such as rec-reational, industrial, commercial, or natural spaces (DeSousa et al., 2009). However, brownfields are most commonly redeveloped for residential use due to high demand and low property value (Becerra, 2013; Baing and Wong, 2012). A target was set by the government in 1998 that 60% of new housing development should occur on brown-fields in England by 2008 (DETR, 1998; Dixon and Adams, 2008). It was estimated that 80% of new residences in England were built on previously developed land by 2008, exceeding the target (CLG, 2010a; Baing and Wong, 2012). Since brownfields are primarily lo-cated in poor neighbourhoods of urban blight, their redevelopment is known to cause dramatic socioeconomic changes (DeSousa et al., 2009). Redeveloping a brownfield increases property values, dis-placing local residents with middle-class newcomers. This process is known as, ‘gentrification’ (Becerra, 2013, p. 2; Glass, 1964; Davidson

Literature Review

12 13

Table  2:  Popular  Conventional  Remediation  Methods  for  Brownfields.  Method   Technique   Definition   Pros   Cons   UK  Case  Study  

Excavation  ‘Dig  and  Dump’    

Extraction   Exports  contaminated  soil  to  landfills  and  replaces  it  with  imported  fill  (Pulford  and  Watson,  2003)  

• Heavily  utilised   • Soil  is  not  treated  • Expensive  • Hard  to  find  accepting  landfills  • Landfill  taxes  • Exposure  risks  • Off-­‐site  

Greenwich  peninsula  in  London,  UK  (Hellings  et  al,  2011)  

Cover  Systems  ‘Capping’  

Isolation   Seals  waste  material  by  an  impermeable  layer,  such  as  compacted  clay  or  geosynthetic  clay,  which  is  overlaid  with  soil  (Lamb  et  al.,  2014)  

• Reduces  hydraulic  conductivity  in  landfills  

• Limits  leachate  production  • Popular  solution  • On-­‐site  

• Soil  is  not  treated  • Costly  • Methane  emissions  in  landfills  • Tends  to  crack  after  5  years  • Requires  heavy  maintenance  • Limits  plant  growth  

Contaminant  landfill  site,  Waterford,  Hertfordshire,  UK  (Hutchings  et  al.,  2001)  

Chemical  Stabilisation  

Immobilisation   Introduces  contaminated  soil  to  chemicals  that  lock  toxins  in  impermeable  solids  (Adriaanse,  2010)  

• Prevents  leaching  into  groundwater  

• On-­‐site  • Improves  soil  permeability  

• Expensive  • Exposure  risks  • Soil  is  not  treated  • Long-­‐term  monitoring  

West  Drayton,  UK  (Al-­‐Tabbaa  et  al.,  1998)  

Soil  Washing   Physical  Separation  

Separates  finer  soil  particles  from  coarser  particles,  and  washes  adhered  contaminants  off  the  finer  particles  (Adriaanse,  2010)  

• Nontoxic  soil  can  be  reused  • Can  be  on-­‐site    

• Destroys  inherent  properties  of  the  soil—making  it  infertile  

• Expensive  • Small  amounts  of  fine  soil  need  

additional  treatment  • Contaminated  liquid  needs  

treatment  • Time-­‐consuming  

Basford  gasworks,  Nottingham,  UK  (Wallace  and  Cork,  1998)  

Incineration   Physical  Separation  

Uses  high  temperatures  to  burn  and  separate  contaminated  waste  into  ash  and  gas  (Keller  et  al.,  2005)  

• Generates  heat  that  can  be  used  for  electrical  power  

• Destroys  inherent  properties  of  the  soil—making  it  infertile  

• Expensive  • Contaminated  by-­‐products  

generally  end  up  in  landfills  • Off-­‐site  

Byker  municipal  solid  waste  incinerator,  Newcastle  upon  Tyne,  UK  (Rimmer  et  al.  2006)  

Bioremediation   Treatment   Uses  microbial  action  (bioremediators)  to  break  down  contaminants  into  less  hazardous  substances  (Kumar  et  al,  2011)  

• Degrades  organic  contamination  • Occurs  naturally  or  with  soil  

amendments  • Promotes  specific  flora  and  

fauna  • Low-­‐cost  • On-­‐site  

• Depends  on  bioavailability  of  contaminants  

• Limited  ability  to  destroy  heavy  metals  

• Time-­‐consuming  • Seasonal  factors  • Products  could  be  more  toxic  

Hydrocarbon-­‐contaminated  site,  Whitley  Bay,  UK  (Frenzel  et  al,  2009)  

Additional  Sources:  Nyhan  et  al.,  1990;  Albright  et  al.,  2006;  Albrecht  and  Benson,  2001;  Vasudevan  et  al.,  2003;  Bogner  and  Matthews,  2003;  Robinson  et  al.,  2009;  Huang  et  al.,  1997;  Cooper,  1999.    

Table  2:  Popular  Conventional  Remediation  Methods  for  Brownfields.  Method   Technique   Definition   Pros   Cons   UK  Case  Study  

Excavation  ‘Dig  and  Dump’    

Extraction   Exports  contaminated  soil  to  landfills  and  replaces  it  with  imported  fill  (Pulford  and  Watson,  2003)  

• Heavily  utilised   • Soil  is  not  treated  • Expensive  • Hard  to  find  accepting  landfills  • Landfill  taxes  • Exposure  risks  • Off-­‐site  

Greenwich  peninsula  in  London,  UK  (Hellings  et  al,  2011)  

Cover  Systems  ‘Capping’  

Isolation   Seals  waste  material  by  an  impermeable  layer,  such  as  compacted  clay  or  geosynthetic  clay,  which  is  overlaid  with  soil  (Lamb  et  al.,  2014)  

• Reduces  hydraulic  conductivity  in  landfills  

• Limits  leachate  production  • Popular  solution  • On-­‐site  

• Soil  is  not  treated  • Costly  • Methane  emissions  in  landfills  • Tends  to  crack  after  5  years  • Requires  heavy  maintenance  • Limits  plant  growth  

Contaminant  landfill  site,  Waterford,  Hertfordshire,  UK  (Hutchings  et  al.,  2001)  

Chemical  Stabilisation  

Immobilisation   Introduces  contaminated  soil  to  chemicals  that  lock  toxins  in  impermeable  solids  (Adriaanse,  2010)  

• Prevents  leaching  into  groundwater  

• On-­‐site  • Improves  soil  permeability  

• Expensive  • Exposure  risks  • Soil  is  not  treated  • Long-­‐term  monitoring  

West  Drayton,  UK  (Al-­‐Tabbaa  et  al.,  1998)  

Soil  Washing   Physical  Separation  

Separates  finer  soil  particles  from  coarser  particles,  and  washes  adhered  contaminants  off  the  finer  particles  (Adriaanse,  2010)  

• Nontoxic  soil  can  be  reused  • Can  be  on-­‐site    

• Destroys  inherent  properties  of  the  soil—making  it  infertile  

• Expensive  • Small  amounts  of  fine  soil  need  

additional  treatment  • Contaminated  liquid  needs  

treatment  • Time-­‐consuming  

Basford  gasworks,  Nottingham,  UK  (Wallace  and  Cork,  1998)  

Incineration   Physical  Separation  

Uses  high  temperatures  to  burn  and  separate  contaminated  waste  into  ash  and  gas  (Keller  et  al.,  2005)  

• Generates  heat  that  can  be  used  for  electrical  power  

• Destroys  inherent  properties  of  the  soil—making  it  infertile  

• Expensive  • Contaminated  by-­‐products  

generally  end  up  in  landfills  • Off-­‐site  

Byker  municipal  solid  waste  incinerator,  Newcastle  upon  Tyne,  UK  (Rimmer  et  al.  2006)  

Bioremediation   Treatment   Uses  microbial  action  (bioremediators)  to  break  down  contaminants  into  less  hazardous  substances  (Kumar  et  al,  2011)  

• Degrades  organic  contamination  • Occurs  naturally  or  with  soil  

amendments  • Promotes  specific  flora  and  

fauna  • Low-­‐cost  • On-­‐site  

• Depends  on  bioavailability  of  contaminants  

• Limited  ability  to  destroy  heavy  metals  

• Time-­‐consuming  • Seasonal  factors  • Products  could  be  more  toxic  

Hydrocarbon-­‐contaminated  site,  Whitley  Bay,  UK  (Frenzel  et  al,  2009)  

Additional  Sources:  Nyhan  et  al.,  1990;  Albright  et  al.,  2006;  Albrecht  and  Benson,  2001;  Vasudevan  et  al.,  2003;  Bogner  and  Matthews,  2003;  Robinson  et  al.,  2009;  Huang  et  al.,  1997;  Cooper,  1999.    

14 15

Plants that accumulate high concentrations of metals are known as hyperaccumulators (Bolan et al., 2011). They have the po-tential to cleanse contaminated soils of brownfields because of their metal sequestration mechanisms and specific metal internal require-ments (Chaney, 1983; Shen et al., 1997). Hyperaccumulators tend to accumulate higher concentrations of contaminants in their shoots than their roots (Chaney et al., 1997). Members of the Brassicaceae family, such as Thlaspi and Alyssum, are well-known hyperaccumu-lators in harsh environments, especially mining sites (Brown et al., 1994; Brooks et al., 1979). Yet, little research has been conducted on which specific plant species are most appropriate (Nixon et al., 2001; Venkatraman and Ashwath, 2009). In terms of suitable plant species, each brownfield provides different requirements, including geographical location, remediation approaches, soil conditions, and types of contamination (Pulford and Watson, 2003; Lamb et al., 2014). Research indicates that the ideal plant for remediating contaminated soils would tolerate contami-nants and environmental stresses, survive high clay conditions, and poorly structured low nutrient soils, as well as accumulate

Phytoremediation An emerging alternative remediation technology involves the use of plants that: ‘remove, contain, or render harmless environmental con-taminants’ (Cunningham and Lee, 1995; Lamb et al., 2014, p. 573). This process is called phytoremediation (Salt et al., 1998). The advantages and disadvantages of using phytoremediation for soil decontamination are presented in Table 3. Plants have the ability to amend organic pollutants by up taking the contaminants into their plant tissue, releasing catalysts that encourage microbial activity and biochemical transformations, or enhancing mineralization in the rhizosphere—where plant roots reside (Schnoor et al., 1995). Although it is possible to destroy most organic ma-terials present in contaminated soil, heavy metals prove more difficult. Their chemistry can be altered, turning them into a different solubility or toxicity. Notwithstanding, these contaminants can still make their way into air, water, or food chain pathways. They could also be ingested, inhaled, or absorbed. Humans, plants, animals, ecosystems, and build-ings are the receptors of contaminants through these pathways. Of these receptors, plants have been found to absorb contaminants by hanging onto them on their roots or taking them into their vascular system. Five ways exist in which plants can accomplish these two forms of heavy met-al absorption (Lamb et al., 2014; Pulford and Watson, 2003) (Fig. 4): 1) Phytoextraction: pollutant-accumulating plants extract organic and metal contaminants from the soil and store them in their harvestable parts (Kumar et al., 1995). 2) Phytostabilisation: plants stabilise the environment by reducing the mobility and bioavailability of pollutants (Bolan et al., 2011; Vangronsveld et al., 1995; Smith and Bradshaw, 1972) 3) Phytodegradation: plants and associated microbes degrade organic pollutants (Pulford and Watson, 2003; Burken and Schnoor, 1997). 4) Rhizofiltration: plant rhizomes filter wastewater by absorbing metals (Dushenkov et al., 1995). 5) Phytovolatilisation: plants volatilise pollutants into the atmos- phere (Burken and Schnoor, 1999; Banuelos et al., 1997).

16 17

several types can survive in these harsh conditions with a reduced growth rate (Dickinson et al., 1992; Kahle, 1993). Salix (Willow), Betula (Birch), Populus (Poplar), Alnus (Alder), and Acer (Sycamore) are genera with promising results in regards to phytoremediation (Pulford and Watson, 2003; Borgegard and Rydin, 1989; Turner and Dickinson, 1993; Drew et al., 1987; Pulford et al., 2002) (Fig. 5). High biomass producing willows (Salix) possess genetic variability and can be bred for metal uptake and tolerance (Larssen, 1994). Studies report that willows are tolerant to at least four (Cd, Cu, Zn, Pb) of the seven most important metal contaminants in soil (Kuzovkina and Quigley, 2005). Willows are therefore viable plants for landscape architects to integrate into designs on brownfield remediation sites.

contaminants, transpire water at a high rate, and be a high biomass producing crop with a deep root system to make it economically feasible (Ebbs and Kochian, 1997; Lamb et al., 2014; Punshon et al., 1996). Bamboo (Dendrocalamus latiflorus), belonging to the Poaceae family, is the best example of a plant that meets these requirements: rapid growth, high transpiration rates, deep roots, and the ability to survive harsh environmental conditions (Ashwath and Venkatraman, 2010). Herbaceous species such as short grasses (<1 metre tall), forbs, and small shrubs have been found beneficial in remediation projects provided there is adequate soil storage in the design (Albright et al., 2004). They form dense ground covers that prevent water runoff and wind erosion, helping stabilise the soil (Ngatunga et al., 1984; Lal, 1998; Bielders et al., 2001). Nevertheless, herbaceous species that have shallow root systems, like short grasses, are ineffective phytopumps (Ruth et al., 2007). In other words, they cannot remove water from the soil profile at depths greater than one metre. Some Poaceae fam-ily species are considered, however, because of their dual purpose as bioenergy crops, as well as their high growth rates and carbon sequestration abilities. Successful examples include Arundo donax (Giant reed), Panicum virgatum (switch grass), Miscanthus spp. (mis-canthus), Pennisetum purpureum (Napier grass), Festuca arundina-cea (Tall Fescue), Vetiveria zizanioides (Vetiver grass), and Phalaris arundinacea (canary grass) (Lamb et al., 2014; Lewandowski et al., 2003; Angelini et al., 2009). Since hyperaccumulators store contami-nants in harvestable parts however, it could be potentially dangerous growing and harvesting hyperaccumulating crops for humans and wildlife consumption (Labrecque et al., 1995). Conversely, trees are a low cost, sustainable, and ecologically sound solution (Pulford and Watson, 2003). Since no commercially important trees are known to be hyperaccumulators, it is acceptable for qualified trees to hold higher concentrations of metals (Rid-dell-Black, 1993; Labrecque et al., 1995). Even though there are few ecospecies of trees that tolerate high concentrations of metals,

Fig. 4: Diagram showing phytoremediation mechanisms.

18 19

Design-thinking Once a brownfield is remediated, designers can start con-structing proposals. Landscape architects are commonly selected to design the landscape to benefit both people and wildlife inhabiting the site. When converting a brownfield, multi-disciplinary teams of different professions are assembled in order to ensure the best possi-ble outcome (Slavid, 2012). Although the works undertaken by each profession are generally in conjunction, ‘brownfield redevelopment is routinely the domain of engineers, economists, and public policy analysts’ (Collins, 2000, p. 462). For landscape architects, this means that their design is heavily influenced on remediation efforts. Phy-toremediation design principles within landscape architecture have been developed by Todd (2013), but they are too simplistic for such a complex objective and need to be manipulated for each site. A large portion of the principles deal with the implementation of phytore-mediation where contaminated restricted areas—hotspots—exist, instead of incorporating phytoremediation planting to suit a design that limits access to potentially hazardous hotspots (Todd, 2013). In designing a post-industrial site, it is important for the remedia-tion and design decisions to collaboratively decrease health risks to people and wildlife. Many gaps exist in phytoremediation research, which leaves room for improvement within the profession of land-scape architecture (Mulligan et al., 2001).

Fig. 5: Promising phytoremediation tree species: wilow (1), birch (2), poplar (3), alder (4), and acer (5).

1 2

3

4 5

20 21

Methodology This dissertation primarily focuses on Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London to analyse types of remediation methods practiced in the UK and how they can be improved. The Olympic Park was chosen because it was one of the greatest successful land redevelopment projects in British history (Hou et al., 2014). To better understand the remediation procedures carried out at the Olympic Park and the role of hired landscape architects, research was con-ducted using a variety of sources and an interview with a senior landscape architect from LDA Design in London. Further investiga-tion occurred in the form of a user questionnaire to gain insight into the perspectives of the community and tourists, since LDA Design conducted no pertinent follow-up studies. This was accompanied with visually surveying the site during visits.

Background Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park is located in the Stratford area of east London in the lower valleys of the River Lea and River Lee Navigation, including the smaller, ‘Bow Back’ rivers (Nicholls, 2014, p. 40; Palmer et al., 2014). It is known as the birthplace of the Indus-trial Revolution of the 19th century (Palmer et al., 2014). During this time, the significant marshes and wetlands that occupied the site were filled in and the watercourses were engineered for navigation, water supply, power, and drainage, leading to industrial exploitation (Hellings et al., 2011; Firth, 2014; Palmer et al., 2014). Historical activi-ties led to contaminated and low-value property, as well as polluted watercourses (Gold and Gold, 2013) (Fig. 6). Cigarette, glue, soap, leather, match, chemical, paint, and fertiliser manufacturing existed, as well as railways, electrical substations, and gasworks (Gold and Gold, 2013; Mead et al., 2013). During World War II, the site was a demolition material tip, specifically for bomb-damaged buildings (Mead et al., 2013). In fact, it was a landfill of noxious waste for over 100 years surrounded by low-income residents living in poor condi-tions (Adriaanse, 2010; Harvie, 2013). The Olympic Park resides in

Case Study Analysis

Fig. 6: Historical activities of the Olympic site, including manufacturing companies and railway yards.

22 23

chemicals (Adriaanse, 2010; Hellings et al., 2011) (Fig. 7.2). The lefto-ver fine particles of soil washing were disposed of off-site (Hellings et al., 2011). Less than 100,000 m3 of soil were decontaminated suc-cessfully for reuse through bioremediation and chemical stabilisation (Mead et al., 2013). In the end, the entire site was capped with 800 millimetres of decontaminated soil separated from the untreated soil by an underlying marker layer, consisting of a bright orange geotex-tile fabric (Hellings et al., 2011) (Fig. 7.3). The second phase entailed fabricating designs for the space, which were crucial in meeting the 2012 deadline (Naish and Mason, 2014). Six principal design themes were devised: infrastructure and urban form, connectivity, topography, water, vegetation and biodi-versity, together with use and activity (BALA, 2015). The original masterplan for the Olympic Park was created by EDAW, now fully merged with AECOM (Slavid, 2012). They generated the layout of major infrastructure and set the parameters for the landscape archi-tects: LDA Design and Hargreaves Associates (Slavid, 2012). The two landscape architectural firms worked collaboratively to appear as one unit for the client. The park’s design is a modern take on eight-eenth century picturesque landscapes where walkways and landform collaboratively conceal and reveal views of park and distant London landmarks (Hopkins et al., 2011; Firth, 2014). The southern portion of the park includes hard, active urban areas, while the northern part contains ecologically rich green spaces (Firth, 2014; Naish and Ma-son, 2014). Due to the Olympic Park being such a high profile project, people at the top of their fields were employed to form a multi-disci-plinary team (Brady and Davies, 2014; Daothong and Stubbs, 2014). This explains the impressive quality of detail seen throughout the park despite design challenges (Table 4).

boroughs of Newham, Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets, and Hack-ney, three of which were previously, ‘consistently ranked as the most deprived local authority areas in England’ (Fussey et al., 2012, p. 261). On 6 July 2005, London won the bid for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games (Harvie, 2013; Nicholls, 2014). Attention turned to the socially excluded, fragmented brownfield neighbourhoods of east London as an economically, environmentally, and socially opti-mal location (Firth and Patel, 2014; McNevin, 2014). An approximate 200-hectare area was chosen to, ‘transform the heart of East London’ (Hellings et al., 2011; Harvie, 2013, p. 487; Mead et al., 2012). London wanted to leave a lasting legacy and set the stage for the first sustain-able Olympic and Paralympic Games (Daothong and Stubbs, 2014). The first phase consisted of enabling the site for further de-velopments (Hellings et al., 2011). This involved clearing the space and remediating the heavily contaminated soils and groundwater, while abiding by the zero waste policy (Gold and Gold, 2013). The main contaminants found on-site were: heavy metals like arsenic, copper, lead, and zinc; polyaromatic hydrocarbons; chlorinated sol-vents; and ammonia (Jackson and Bonard, 2011; Mead et al., 2013). Atkins, engineering design experts, developed a successful remedi-ation strategy for Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, which involved the world’s largest soil washing operation (Adriaanse, 2010; Jackson, 2015). Soil remediation involved 2 million m3 of soil being excavated, treated, and replaced in less than 3 years (Gold and Gold, 2013; Mead et al., 2013). The objective was that 90% of the soil would be recy-cled, which was virtually achieved with a final percentage of 75-80% (Adriaanse, 2010; Hellings et al., 2011). Soil washing, bioremediation, chemical stabilisation, and material sorting were the primary reme-diation techniques explored, with soil washing being the most prom-inent (Mead et al., 2013; Hellings et al., 2011) (Fig. 7.1). Soil hospitals that were set up on-site treated 700,000 m3 of contaminated soil by filtering, separating, and washing it with surfactants and solvents to eradicate heavy metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and other toxic

1

2

3

Fig. 7: Enabling phase of creating the Olympic Park, including waste sorting (1), soil washing (2), and capping (3).

24 25

post-games legacy for appropriate scale and capacity (Hopkins et al., 2011). A total of 29 new bridges and underpasses were built using reclaimed materials to connect local communities across the Lea val-ley (Baird et al., 2011; Daothong and Stubbs 2014; Firth, 2014). Addi-tionally, landform was heavily influenced on flood mitigation. For instance, the riverbanks were graded back to allow interaction with the water, leading to excess soil that was kept on-site in the form of designed mounds (Nicholls, 2014; Jackson; 2015).

Parkland work started in January 2010 and was completed by February 2012 with an anticipated cost of £246 million (Hopkins et al., 2011). With experience in large park design, post-industrial resto-ration, and previous Olympic games—Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) appointed project sponsor—John Hopkins led the parklands and public realm landscape design and delivery team to focus on, ‘look and feel’ along with functionality (Hopkins et al., 2011, p. 31). This meant that Hopkins oversaw each discipline’s implementations to confirm they matched his vision for the site (Jackson, 2015; Hop-kins et al., 2011). The planning for the Olympic Park was designed in three primary transformation phases: Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012, Transformation 2013, and Legacy long-term (Brady and Davies, 2014; Naish and Mason, 2014; Nimmo et al., 2011; Jackson, 2015) (Fig. 8). One of the largest undertakings in the creation of the Olympic Park was the £673 million implementation of structures, bridges, and highways (Baird et al., 2011). To account for large crowd movement during the games, permanent pedestrian bridges and paved con-courses were built with temporary additions, which were removed

Fig. 8: Three design transformation phases: Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012 (left), Transformation 2013 (middle), and Legacy long-term (right).

26 27

With two rivers flowing through the site, water was a defining factor in the design approach. Potential sources and mechanisms of flooding were identified using a 1 in 100 years flood event, taking into account climate change (Palmer et al., 2014). The boroughs of Leyton, Carpenters Road Estate, and Canning Town in this scenario were found to be at potentially high flood risk. To counteract this, flood mitigation measures were chosen based on their ability to less-en flood threat throughout the catchment, cost efficiency, constructa-bility, added environmental values, and water quality improvement capabilities (Palmer et al., 2014). Flood mitigation works at the Olympic Park involved the creation of the Wetland Bowl reed beds, Bully Point wetland, Henniker’s ditch extension, Channelsea Gorge culvert, surface water outfalls encompassing porous paving and bio-swales, and clear-span bridges, as well as the widening of the Waterworks River (Hopkins et al., 2011; Palmer et al., 2014). The re-sults of restoring and designing 5.5 kilometres of waterways showed reduced flood risk to 4,000 residential and commercial properties and improved water quality, habitat creation, biodiversity, recreation, lei-sure, education, and overall well-being for east Londoners (Hopkins et al., 2011; Palmer et al., 2014) (Fig. 9). To ensure no net loss in habitat, it was declared by the ODA’s Sustainable Development Strategy that there must be greater than 45 hectares of species rich habitat in the design for the Olympic Park by 2014 (Daothong and Stubbs, 2014; Hopkins et al., 2011). Although challenging, this goal was achieved through the creation of an Olym-pic Park Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) (ODA, 2008) (Table 5). This plan takes into account numerous policy, planning, and guidance documents, such as the Lee Valley Regional Park Plan (LVRP) 2007, London Thames Gateway Development Corporation – Lower Lea Valley Vision, and East London Green Grid. The different habitats created were categorised as built environment, parks, squares and amenity space, allotments, brownfield habitats, species-rich grass-land, trees and scrub, wet woodland, rivers, reedbed, and ponds (Naish and Mason, 2014) (Fig. 10).

Fig. 9: Flood extent of the Lea valley in 2006 (left) and 2014 (right).

Fig. 10: Habitats created for 2012 game phase (left) and 2014 transformation phase (right).

28 29

the UK. They were once common in floodplain forests, but now vastly declining due to habitat destruction and hybridisation. On-site seed collection of 99 species was also conducted (Hopkins et al., 2011; Jackson and Bonard, 2011). The two wetland bowls were planted with 350,000 wetland and borderline aquatic plants grown from seeds and cuttings, becoming one of the largest aquatic planting schemes undertaken to date in the UK (Hopkins et al., 2011) (Fig. 11). Furthermore, 4 hectares of invasive species in the Lea valley 40-kilo-metre ecological parkland corridor—such as Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam, and giant hogweed—were removed from site and incorporated into the management plan (Firth, 2014; Jackson and Bonard, 2011). As of June 2011, the primary owner of the park be-came London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) (Naish and Mason, 2014). They appointed a park manager with a large contrac-tor team to oversee the management and monitoring of the Olympic Park now that the final transformation stage is complete (Daothong and Stubbs, 2014; Naish and Mason, 2014). Being the site of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the space encourages recreation and activity through five sporting venues (Firth, 2014). There are walking and cycling circuits in place: London 2012 Trail, Children’s Trail, and Art Trail—which integrates 26 permanent artworks in the park, like the UK’s tallest 114.5 metre ArcelorMittal Orbit sculpture (Hopkins et al., 2011). After the games, the park was temporarily closed to the public to allow transforma-tion works. The northern part of the park was reopened in July 2013, while the southern portion was delayed until April 2014 (Daothong and Stubbs, 2014; Firth, 2014; Naish and Mason, 2014; McNevin, 2014). In the northern part, the Lee Valley Velopark comprises a one-mile road circuit, BMX track, and mountain bike trails, along with the velodrome track (Naish and Mason, 2014). By 2016, the 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium will house West Ham United FC, as well as athletic competitions and live music concerts (Daothong and Stubbs, 2014; Naish and Mason, 2014).

Since much of the park was considered brownfield habitat, additional recycled manufactured soil was brought in because each typology demanded a different soil profile. For example, the prized perennial meadow required low-nutrient topsoil (Hopkins et al., 2011). The wildlife found inhabiting the existing brownfield site—such as endangered invertebrates—was accounted for in the BAP’s Species Action Plans (Jackson and Bonard, 2011). Additionally, over 700 wildlife installations were constructed in areas like the Great British Gardens for riverine, wetland, terrestrial, and urban species (Hopkins et al., 2011). In terms of plants, 6,000 trees were planted (Hopkins et al., 2011). Native black poplars (Populus nigra betulifo-lia) were established because they are considered extremely rare in

Fig. 11: Wetland bowl planting.

30 31

The latest addition to the site is the creation of five new com-munities warranted by LLDC, reflecting the legacy framework trans-formation phase (Firth, 2014; McNevin, 2014). Near the end of 2014, the first housing development known as Chobham Manor released 250 of its 850 homes (Daothong and Stubbs, 2014; Firth and Patel, 2014). Using the destitute spaces surrounding and in Queen Eliz-abeth Olympic Park for residential and commercial purposes will guarantee the park’s continued use by locals, if not increased use. With active frontages and overlooking windows, the buildings are supposed to help instill a sense of security within the park (Firth and Patel, 2014). Characteristically, east London had a high turnover rate in residents. To combat this, multi-generation homes are being built, encouraging lasting social and economic investment (Firth and Patel, 2014) (Fig. 12). With large populations of ethnic groups residing in the nearby boroughs of Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets, and Hack-ney, the houses are intended for large, even extended families (Firth and Patel, 2014; Fussey et al., 2012). Over the next decade, it is ex-pected that 20,000 new dwellings will be constructed in the lower Lea valley (Firth, 2014). These will intertwine with the new park network underway along the River Lea between Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park and the River Thames (Firth, 2014) (Fig. 13). Regeneration of entire communities in the public realm of the Olympic Park increases connectivity between east and west London and alleviates the histor-ical barriers once in place (Firth, 2014).

Results An interview with senior landscape architect Katie Jackson of LDA Design in London was conducted to learn the landscape archi-tect’s role in the creation of the Olympic Park. The results are pre-sented in Table 6.

Fig. 13: Proposed parkland network along the lower Lea valley.Fig. 12: Multi-generation home.

32 33

cI

34 35

Graph A

Graph B

The user questionnaire proved interesting, although it is only a representation of the views of the community and tourists in re-gards to the Olympic Park, and thus is not statistically significant (Appendix A). A total of 55 people of all ages were investigated on-site on two different days, 64% of which were male. Twenty-one people were questioned on a Saturday afternoon and thirty-four par-ticipated on a Monday morning. People aged 26 to 44 were the most common age group that participated. The majority of participants were from London and used the underground or train services to access the park. Most rarely visited the site for the primary purpose of leisure or recreational activities. Of the people questioned, 58% of them attended the summer London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Nonetheless, the public only somewhat knew the history of the site. When asked if they had heard of the terms brownfield or remediation, 62% had heard of brownfields while only 27% knew of remediation. Only two women over 60 years old had heard of phy-toremediation. Participants were additionally asked if they thought the new housing development would benefit the community, of which 87% said yes. Everyone felt safe in the park when approached on foot. Two open queries were requested that asked participants what their favorite aspect of the park was or what they saw as most successful and what improvements they would suggest (Table 5). From a design perspective, Jackson (2015) stated, ‘I think the planting is most successful. Its most notable because of the bold horticultur-al moves. We perceive it in how the planting frames the landform in which it sits.’ Graphs of certain results of the questionnaire were created for comparison purposes (Graph A-F).

36 37

Graph E

Graph F

Graph C

Graph D

38 39

project using manufactured soil (Irwine, 2014). Through the senti-ments reflected by the interviewees, it was apparent that remediation projects are new to landscape architectural firms in the UK.

The disadvantages seem to outweigh the advantages with regards to why phytoremediation is not seen as an alternative reme-diation technique in the UK. Jackson (2015) thought the main rea-sons were, ‘time and liability.’ Phytoremediation plants need time to mature and reach their full hyperaccumulating abilities. Once they absorb the contaminants, there is the potential risk of exposure to people and wildlife (Kirkwood, 2001). The identified contamination hotspots at the Olympic Park were further remediated so they could be publically accessible (Mead et al., 2013). Contrarily, certain phy-toremediation plants could have continued to treat these hotspots while acting as a barrier to redirect people and limit exposure (Todd, 2013). Since remediation sites are landscaped with vegetation any-how, it would appear that phytoremediation would be a cost-effec-tive option. The initial 2007 budget for construction of the Olympic Park was £8.1 billion and as Jackson (2015) noted, cost was not a problem (Brady and Davies, 2014). Nonetheless, in typical small-scale remediation projects, cost matters.

Discussion Through the case study analysis of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, it became evident that phytoremediation was not used during the soil remediation process. In fact, LDA Design did not even adapt their planting plan to intentionally include species capable of phy-toremediation. For instance, the willow trees planted and retained on-site have the ability to continue to remediate the soil beyond the 800 millimetre capping layer since their roots can reach 3 to 5 metres deep to reach groundwater (McCutcheon and Schnoor, 2004; Hop-kins et al., 2011). Additionally, willows are known to provide wind shelter, a major suggested improvement by the questionnaire partic-ipants (Kuzovkina and Quigley, 2005). There are no areas of natural shelter, especially in the southern part of the park that is prone to high winds (Naish and Mason, 2014). Other phytoremediation spe-cies with deep root systems that provide natural shelter should have been investigated to treat the soil as a part of the ODA’s Sustainable Development Strategy. The fact that the planting plans did not take into account phytoremediation species suggests that landscape architects in the UK lack knowledge of plants and plant-based technologies. Lovell and Johnston (2009, p. 44) stated that, ‘a large gap remains between the growing body of research in landscape ecology and the applica-tion of this information in the design of landscapes based on ecolog-ical principles.’ When interviewing Susan Irwine (2014)—principal landscape architect at Gillespies LLP in Glasgow—about remediated Cuningar Loop Woodland Park, she had a similar response to Jack-son (2015) in regards to the planting scheme. Irwine (2014) stated that choosing phytoremediation species was not intentional and that, ‘contamination did not phase the planting.’ Although birch and wil-low species were planted at Cuningar Loop, the choice was uninten-tional since a decontaminated layer of manufactured soil capped the site (Fig. 14). Furthermore, both Jackson and Irwine could not think of any projects in the UK that used phytoremediation. Interesting-ly, designing Cuningar Loop in Glasgow was Gillespies LLP’s first remediation

Fig. 14: Visuals showing birch trees planted at Cuningar Loop in Glasgow.

40 41

Stubbs, 2014; Nimmo et al., 2011). The Olympic Park created employ-ment opportunities for black and minority ethnic groups, women, and disabled locals, achieving a peak rate of 43% local employment (Daothong and Stubbs, 2014). Nonetheless, Harvie (2013) argued that regeneration was deprioritised in the creation of the park and failed to sufficiently engage with locals. Interestingly however, plans to regenerate Stratford were already proposed before the London 2012 bid (McNevin, 2014; Smith, 2014). Smith (2014, p. 1919) speculated that, ‘London 2012 regeneration planning is best understood as gov-ernment intervention that de-risked East London for private-sector investors.’ With the success of the 2011 Westfield shopping centre east of the park and increased land value, this conclusion is plausible (Naish and Mason, 2014). In fact, the questionnaire participants who said the housing development would be detrimental to the community were concerned it would displace affordable housing, a typical outcome of brownfield conversion.

At Cuningar Loop, Trevor Graham (2014)—a director at Pick Everard who were the project managers—revealed that, due to the nature of the contamination, ‘it was not cost-wise to remediate the existing soil; the cheapest way was to put a cap on it.’ Graham (2014) continued to say that, ‘...it was decided before we got there, that there would be a capping layer.’ Jackson (2015) from LDA Design noted that although the landscape architects worked closely with the en-gineers—Atkins and Arup— most of the heavy remediation works were orchestrated through the engineers since they, ‘were in charge of the remediation.’ Jackson (2015) also saw LDA’s late involve-ment in the design process of the Olympic Park as unbeneficial. This suggests that landscape architects are not involved early on in the project, especially when choosing remediation methods. It could be beneficial to the design if landscape architects were involved in earlydesign-thinking because they could develop more suitable planting plans and advocate phytoremediation as a cost-effective alternative to treat the soil instead of conceal it. Todd (2013, p. 2) goes as far as to say that, ‘phytoremediation should be viewed as landscape de-sign.’ However, the profession of landscape architecture can benefit from the multi-disciplinary team approach under the leadership of a landscape architect that proved a great success when designing the Olympic Park. Taking a step back, Graphs A-F formulated from the on-site questionnaire indicate that the majority of people living in London and in walking distance from the Olympic Park are young profes-sionals who rarely find time to enjoy the park for leisurely or recre-ational activities. The 1.25 milion east Londoners living in the sur-rounding boroughs are known to be primarily young (Smith, 2014; Daothong and Stubbs, 2014). To ensure the needs of the local com-munities were being met in planning with the urban regeneration legacy phase of the Olympic Park, public participation, consultation, and community engagement programmes were started in 2009 by LLCD, as well as over 500,000 questionnaires and 1.5 million distrib-uted leaflets during the initial masterplanning stages (Daothong and

42 43

Although phytoremediation is not always practical for soil remediation efforts, it should be integrated into the landscape frame-work for the additional benefits it provides to community spaces, including spatial order, aesthetic values, and biomass production. By performing a post-transformation questionnaire within Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London, community perceptions were revealed—especially their concern for the current housing develop-ment. However, the questionnaire is only a representation of park users and further follow-up surveys need to be conducted. The interviews with practitioners gave insight into the role of landscape architects in multi-disciplinary teams on post-industrial sites. As newcomers to remediation projects, the profession of landscape architecture needs to rethink planting plans on remedia-tion sites and become more aware of the practicality of plant-based technologies—such as phytoremediation. Although Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London is a model for sustainability—in terms of soil and water remediation, multi-disciplinary team management, flood mitigation, biodiversity and habitat creation, urban regenera-tion, socioeconomic gains, and construction and design standards—it lacked in early involvement of landscape architects leading to a landscape design based on remediation instead of incorporating it. Even so, the Olympic Park is unprecedented in its rapid transforma-tion post-games and has set new benchmarks for future host cities, as well as other large-scale events. The end result was a contemporarily stunning and ecologically functioning landscape on a previously contaminated brownfield site. The conversion of brownfield sites in the UK is still an evolving undertaking that requires further research to understand the benefits of early collaborative design-thinking by landscape architects and to better explore the possibilities of phytore-mediation.

Word Count: 4,921

Conclusion

Fig. 15

44 45

Becerra, M. (2013) Environmental justice for whom? Brownfield rede-velopment and gentrification in the city of Chicago (Masters thesis, University of Michigan).

Bielders, C., Alvey, S., and Cronyn, N. (2001) Wind erosion: the per-spective of grass roots communities in the Sahel. Land Degradation and Development, 12, pp. 57-70.

Bogner, J. and Matthews, E. (2003) Global methane emissions from landfills: new methodology and annual estimates 1980-1996. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 17(2), pp. 1065.

Bolan, N., Park, J.H., Robinson, B., Naidu, R., and Huh, K.Y. (2011) Phytostablization: a green approach to contaminant containment. Advances in Agronomy, 112, p. 145.

Borgegard, S. and Rydin, H. (1989) Biomass, root penetration and heavy metal uptake in birch in a soil cover over copper tailings. Jour-nal of Applied Ecology, 26, pp. 585-595.

Brady, T. and Davies, A. (2014) Managing structural and dynamic complexity: a tale of two projects. Project Management Journal, 45, pp. 21-38.

Brooks, R.R., Morrison, R.S., Reeves, R.D., Dudley, T.R., and Akman, Y. (1979) Hyperaccumulation of nickel by Alyssum Linnaeus (Cruci-ferae). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 203, pp. 387-403.

Brown, S.L., Chaney, R.L., Angle, J.S., and Baker, A.J.M. (1994) Phy-toremediation potential of Thlaspi caerulescens and bladder campion for zinc- and cadmium-contaminated soil. Journal of Environmental Quality, 23, pp. 1151-1157.

Burken, J.G. and Schnoor, J.L. (1997) Uptake and metabolism of atra-zine by poplar trees. Environmental Science and Technology, 31, pp. 1399-1406.

Adriaanse, C. (2010) Brownfield remediation London Olympic park scrubbed clean of toxins. Chemistry and Industry, 74(13), p. 6.

Albrecht, B.A. and Benson, C.H. (2001) Effect of desiccation on com-pacted natural clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127, pp. 67.

Albright, W., Benson, C., Gee, G., Abichou, T., Tyler, S., and Rock, S. (2006) Field performance of three compacted clay landfill covers. Vadose Zone Journal, 5, pp. 1157.

Albright, W., Benson, C., Gee, G., Roesler, A., Abichou, T., Apiwan-tragoon, P., Lyles, B., and Rock, S. (2004) Field water balance of land-fill final covers. Journal of Environmental Quality, 33, pp. 2317-2332.

Al-Tabbaa, A., Evans, C.W. and Tabbaa, A.A. (1998) Pilot in situ au-ger mixing treatment of a contaminated site. Part 1: treatability study. Proceedings of the ICE – Geotechnical Engineering, 131, pp. 52-59.

Angelini, L.G., Ceccarini, L., and Bonari, E. (2005) Biomass yield and energy balance of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) cropped in central Italy as related to different management practices. European Journal of Agronomy, 22, pp. 375-389.

Ashwath, N. and Venkatraman, K. (2010) Phytocapping: an alterna-tive technique for landfill remediation. International Journal of Envi-ronment and Waste Management, 6, pp. 51-70.

Baing, A.S. and Wong, C. (2012) Brownfield residential development: what happens to the most deprived neighbourhoods in England?, Urban Studies, 49(14), pp. 2989-3008.

Baird, D., Thurston, M., Triggs, C., Corrigan, H., and Samaras, S. (2011) Delivering London 2012: structures, bridges and highways. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Civil Engineering, 164, pp. 23-29.

BALA (Be a Landscape Architect) (2015) Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. [Online]. [Accessed 28 December 2014]. Available from: http://bealandscape architect.com/work/tasks-and-projects/queen-eliza-beth-olympic-park/

Banuelos, G.S., Ajwa, H.A., Mackey, L.L., Wu, C., Cook, S., Akohoue, S., et al. (1997) Evaluation of different plant species used for phytore-mediation of high soil selenium. Journal of Environmental Quality, 26, pp. 639-646.

References Cited

46 47

Dickinson, N.M., Turner, A.P., Watmough, S.A., and Lepp, N.W. (1992) Acclimation of trees to pollution stress: cellular metal tolerance traits. Annals of Botany, 70, pp. 569-572.

Dixon, T.J. and Adams, D. (2008) Housing supply and brownfield regeneration in a post-Barker world: is there enough brownfield land in England and Scotland?, Urban Studies, 45(1), pp. 115-139.

Drew, A.P., Guth, R.L., and Greatbatch, W. (1987) Variation in heavy metal accumulation by hybrid poplar clones on sludge amended soil. Poplar culture to the year 2000. Proceedings of the Poplar Councils of the USA and Canada Joint Meeting, pp. 109-117.

Dushenkov, V., Kumar, P.B.A.N., Motto, H., and Raskin, I. (1995) Rhizofiltration: the use of plants to remove heavy metals from aque-ous streams. Environmental Science and Technology, 29, pp. 1239-1245.

Ebbs, S.D. and Kochian, L.V. (1997) Toxicity of zinc and copper to Brassica species: implications for phytoremediation. Journal of Envi-ronmental Quality, 26, pp. 776-781.

English Partnerships (2003) Towards a national brownfield strategy: research findings for the Deputy Prime Minister. English Partner-ships, London.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2011) Brownfields Defini-tion. [Online]. [Accessed 13 December 2014]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/

brownfields/overview/glossary.htm

Firth, K. (2014) London 2012 legacy: E20 – creating an integrated piece of city. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil Engineering, 167, pp. 19-25.

Firth, K. and Patel, M. (2014) Regeneration for all regeneration gener-ations. Architectural Design, 84(2), pp. 88-93.

Chaney, R.L. (1983) Plant uptake of inorganic waste constituents. In J.F. Parr, P.B. Marsh, and J.M. Kla (Eds.), Land Treatment of Hazard-ous Wastes (pp. 50-76). Noyes Data Corps, Park Ridge, NJ.

Chaney, R.L., Malik, K.M., Li, Y.M., Brown, S.L., Brewer, E.P., Angle, J.S., et al. (1997) Phytoremediation of soil metals. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 8, pp. 279-284.

CLG (2010a) Land use change statistics (England) 2009: provisional estimates. CLG, London.

Collins, T. (2000) Interventions in the rust belt: the art and ecology of post-industrial public space. Ecumene, 7, pp. 461-467.

Cooper, E.M., Sims, J.T., Cunningham, S.D., Huang, J.W., and Berti, W.R. Chelate-assisted phytoextraction of lead from contaminated soils. Journal of Environmental Quality, 28, pp. 1709-1719.

Cunningham, S.D. and Lee, C.R. (1995) Phytoremediation: plant-based remediation of contaminated soils and sediments. In H.D. Slipper and R.F. Turco (Eds.), Bioremediation (pp. 145-156). Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America Inc.

Daothong, J. and Stubbs, D. (2014) London 2012 legacy: creating a more sustainable future for London and beyond. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Civil Engineering, 167, pp. 3-12.

Davidson, M. and Lees, L. (2005) New-build ‘gentrification’ and London’s riverside renaissance, Environment and Planning A, 37, pp. 1165-1190.

DeSousa, C., Wu, C., and Westphal, L. (2009) The effect of publicly assisted brownfield redevelopment property values. Economic De-velopment Quarterly, 23(2), pp. 95-110.

DETR (Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions) (1998) Planning for Communities of the Future. Cm 3885. London: The Stationery Office.

48 49

Hutchings, T.R., Moffat, A.J. and Kemp, R.A. (2001) Effects of rooting and tree growth of selected woodland species on cap integrity in a mineral capped landfill site. Waste Management and Research, 19, pp. 194-200.

Irwine, S. (2014) Interview with C.J. Bernier. 25 November, Glasgow.

Jackson, K. (2015) Interview with C.J. Bernier. 9 January, London.

Jackson, R. and Bonard, C. (2011) Delivering London 2012: environ-mental management. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engi-neers – Civil Engineering, 164, pp. 20-26.

Kahle, H. (1993) Response of roots of trees to heavy metals. Environ-mental and Experimental Botany, 33, pp. 99-119.

Keller, C., Ludwig, C., Davoli, F., and Wochele, J. (2005) Thermal treatment of metal-enriched biomass produced from heavy metal phytoextraction. Environmental Science and Technology, 39, pp. 3359-3367.

Kirkwood, N. (Ed.) (2001) Manufactured Sites. Rethinking the Post-Industrial Landscape. Taylor and Francis. New York, NY.

Kumar, A., Bisht, B.S., Joshi, V.D. and Dhewa, T. (2011) Review of bioremediation of polluted environment: a management tool. Inter-national Journal of Environmental Sciences, 1, pp. 1079-1093.

Kumar, P.B.A.N., Dushenkov, V., Motto, H., and Raskin, I. (1995) Phytoextraction: the use of plants to remove heavy metals from soils. Environmental Science and Technology, 29, pp. 1232-1238.

Kuzovkina, Y.A. and Quigley, M.F. (2005) Willows beyond wetlands: uses of Salix L. species for environmental projects. Water Air and Soil Pollution, 162, pp. 183-204.

Labrecque, M., Teodorescu, T.I., and Daigle, S. (1995) Effect of waste-water sludge on growth and heavy metal bioaccumulation of two Salix species. Plant and Soil, 171, pp. 303-316.

Lal, R. (1998) Soil erosion impact on agronomic productivity and en-vironment quality. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 17, pp. 319-464.

Frenzel, M., James, P., Burton, S.K., Rowland, S.J. and Lappin-Scott, H.M. (2009) Towards bioremediation of toxic unresolved complex mixtures of hydrocarbons: identification of bacteria capable of rapid degradation of alkyltetralins. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 9, pp. 129-136.

Fussey, P., Coaffee, J., Armstrong, G., and Hobbs, D. (2012) The regeneration games: purity and security in the Olympic city. British Journal of Sociology, 63, pp. 260-284.

Glass, R.L. (1964) London: aspects of change (Vol. 3). MacGibbon and Kee.

Gold, J.R. and Gold, M.M. (2013) “Bring it under the legacy umbrel-la”: Olympic host cities and the changing fortunes of the sustainabili-ty agenda. Sustainability, 5, pp. 3526-3542.

Graham, T. (2014) Interview with C.J. Bernier. 25 November, Glas-gow.

Harvie, J. (2013) Brand London 2012 and ‘the heart of east London’: competing urban agendas at the 2012 games. Contemporary Theatre Review, 23, pp. 486-501.

Hellings, J., Lass, M., Apted, J., and Mead, I. (2011) Delivering Lon-don 2012: geotechnical enabling works. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Civil Engineering, 164, pp. 5-10.

Hopkins, J., Askew, P., and Neal, P. (2011) Delivering London 2012: parklands and waterways. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers- Civil Engineering, 164, pp. 30-36.

Hou, D., Al-Tabbaa, A., Guthrie, P., Hellings, J., and Gu, Q. (2014) Us-ing a hybrid LCA method to evaluate the sustainability of sediment remediation at the London Olympic Park. Journal of Cleaner Produc-tion, 83, pp. 87-95.

Huang, J.W., Chen, J., Berti, W.R., and Cunningham, S.D. (1997) Phy-toremediation of lead-contaminated soils: role of synthetic chelates in lead phytoextraction. Environmental Science and Technology, 31, pp. 800-805.

50 51

Naish, C. and Mason, S. (2014) London 2012 legacy: transformation of the Olympic Park. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Civil Engineering, 167, pp. 26-32.

National Round Table on Environment and the Economy (2003) Cleaning up the past, building the future, a national brownfield re-development strategy for Canada. National Round Table on Environ-ment and the Economy, Ontario, Candada.

Ngatunga, E., Lal, R., and Uriyo, A. (1984) Effects of surface manage-ment on runoff and soil erosion from some plots at Mlingano, Tanza-nia. Geoderma, 33, pp. 1-12.

Nicholls, A. (2014) London 2012 legacy: Olympic Park waterways. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Civil Engineering, 167, pp. 40-45.

Nimmo, A., Frost, J., Shaw, S., and McNevin, N. (2011) Delivering London 2012: master planning. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Civil Engineering, 164, pp. 13-19.

Nixon, D.J., Stephens, W., Tyrrel, S.F., and Brierley, E.D.R. (2001) The potential for short rotation energy forestry on restored landfill caps. Bioresource Technology, 77, pp. 237-245.

Nyhan, J.W., Hakonson, T.E., and Drennon, B.J. (1990) Water balance study of two landfill cover designs for semi arid regions. Journal of Environmental Quality, 19, pp. 281-288.

ODA (Olympic Delivery Authority) (2008) Olympic Park Biodi-versity Action Plan. [Online]. [Accessed 7 January 2015]. Available from: http://www.walthamforest. gov.uk/documents/ke68-olym-pic-park-biodiversity-action-plan.pdf

Palmer, D., Ker-Reid, D., Venn, N., and Bruni, A. (2014) London 2012 legacy: managing flood risk at Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Pro-ceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Civil Engineering, 167, pp. 46-52.

Lamb, D.T., Venkatraman, K., Bolan, N., Ashwath, N., Choppala, G., and Naidu, R. (2014) Phytocapping: an alternative technology for the sustainable management of landfill sites. Critical reviews in Environ-mental Science and Technology, 44(6), pp. 561-637.

Larsson, S. (1994) New willow clones for short rotation coppice from Svalof Weibull, A.B. In P. Aronsson and K. Perttu (Eds.), Willow Veg-etation Filters for Municipal Wastewaters and Sludges. A Biological Purification System (pp. 193-194). Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.

Lewandowski, I., Scurlock, J.M.O., Lindvall, E., and Christou, M. (2003) The development and current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe. Biomass and Bioener-gy, 25, pp. 335-361.

Lovell, S.T. and Johnston, D.M. (2009) Designing landscapes for per-formance based on emerging principles in landscape ecology. Ecolo-gy and Society, 14, p. 44.

McCutcheon, S.C. and Schnoor, J.L. (2004) Phytoremediation: trans-formation and control of contaminants. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, p. 31.

McNevin, N. (2014) London 2012 legacy: principles, purpose, pro-fessionals and collaboration. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Civil Engineering, 167, pp. 13-18.

Mead, I., Apted, J., and Ketchell, N. (2012) Briefing: groundwater treatment on Olympic Park. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Water Management, 165, pp. 407-410.

Mead, I., Apted, J., and Sharif, S. (2013) Delivering London 2012: contaminated soil treatment at the Olympic Park. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering, 166, pp. 8-17.

Mulligan, C.N., Yong, R.N. and Gibbs, B.F. (2001) Remediation tech-nologies for metal-contaminated soils and groundwater: an evalua-tion. Engineering Geology, 60, pp. 193-207.

52 53

Scottish Executive (2003a) Scottish planning policy 3: planning for housing. Scottish Executive Development Department, Edinburgh.

Shen, Z.G., Zhao, F.J., and McGrath, S.P. (1997) Uptake and trans-port of zinc in the hyperaccumulator Thlaspi caerulescens and the non-hyperaccumulator Thlaspi ochroleucum. Plant, Cell and Envi-ronment, 20, pp. 898-906.

Slavid, R. (2012) Olympic Park overview. Landscape: The Journal of the Landscape Institute, Nov., pp. 54-73.

Smith, A. (2014) “De-risking” east London: Olympic regeneration planning 2000-2012. European Planning Studies, 22, pp. 1919-1939.

Smith, R.A.H. and Bradshaw, A.D. (1972) Stabilization of toxic mine wastes by the use of tolerant plant populations. Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Section A, 81, pp. 230-237.

Todd, L.F. (2013) Phytoremediation: an interim landscape architec-ture strategy for Canadian municipalities (Masters thesis, University of Guelph).

Turner, A.P and Dickinson, N.M. (1993) Survival of Acer pseudoplat-anus L. (sycamore) seedlings on metalliferous soils. New Phytologist, 123, pp. 509-521.

Vangronsveld, J., van Assche, F., and Clijsters, H. (1995) Reclamation of a bare industrial area contaminated by non-ferrous metals: in situ metal immobilization and revegetation. Environmental Pollution, 87, pp. 51-59.

Vasudevan, N.K., Vedachalam, S., and Sridhar, D. (2003) Study on the various methods of landfill remediation, Workshop on Sustainable Landfill Management, Chennai, pp. 309-315.

Venkatraman, K. and Ashwath, N. (2009) Phytocapping: Importance of tree selection and soil thickness. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus 9, pp. 421-430.

Pulford, I.D. and Watson, C. (2003) Phytoremediation of heavy met-al-contaminated land by trees – a review. Environment International, 29, pp. 529-540.

Pulford, I.D., Riddell-Black, D., and Stewart, C. (2002) Heavy metal uptake by willow clones from sewage sludge-treated soil: the poten-tial for phytoremediation. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 4, 59-72.

Punshon, T., Dickinson, N.M., and Lepp, N.W. (1996) The potential of Salix clones for bioremediating metal polluted soil. In I. Glim-merveen (Ed.), Heavy Metals and Trees (pp. 93-104). Proceedings of a Discussion Meeting, Glasgow. Edinburgh: Institute of Chartered Foresters.

Riddell-Black, D.A. (1993) A review of the potential for the use of trees in the rehabilitation of contaminated land. WRc Report CO 3467. Water Research Centre, Medmenham.

Rimmer, D.L., Vizard, C.G., Pless-Mulloli, T., Singleton, I., Air, V.S. and Keatinge, Z.A.F. (2006) Metal contamination of urban soils in the vicinity of a municipal waste incinerator: one source among many. Science of the Total Environment, 356, pp. 207-216.

Robinson, B.H., Banuelos, G., Conesa, H.M., Evangelou, M.W.H., and Schulin, R. (2009) The phytomanagement of trace elements in soil. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 28, pp. 240-266.

Ruth, B., Lennartz, B., and Kahle, P. (2007) Water regime of mechan-ical biological pretreated waste materials under fast-growing trees. Waste Management and Research, 25, pp. 408-416.

Salt, D.E., Smith, R.D., and Raskin, I. (1998) Phytoremediation. Annu-al Review of Plant Physiology, 49, pp. 643-668.

Schnoor, J.L., Light, L.A., McCutcheon, S.C., Wolfe, N.L., and Car-reia, L.H. (1995) Phytoremediation of organic nutrient contaminants. Environmental Science and Technology, 29, pp. 318A-323A.

54 55

Cover Photo: Charlton, A. (2011) Olympic Stadium Aerial. [Online]. [Accessed 5 January 2015]. Available from: http://www.sportsjournal-ists.co.uk/members-benefits/sja-members-invited-on-olympic-park-tour-mar-31/attachment/olympic-stadium-aerial_110208_117/

Fig. 1: Coir pallets installed on site. [Online]. [Accessed 5 January 2015]. Available from: http://www.salixrw.com/solution/olympic-park-wet-lands/

Fig. 2: Harland, A. (2013) Parklife: the life and legacy of the London 2012 Olympic Park. [Online]. [Accessed 6 January 2015]. Available from: http://sustainmagazine.com/parklife-the-life-and-legacy-of-the-lon-don-2012-olympic-park/

Fig. 3: CEEQUAL. (2015) Olympic Park Enabling Works. [Online]. [Accessed 6 January 2015]. Available from: http://www.ceequal.com/awards_068.htm

Fig. 4: Todd, L.F. (2013) Phytoremediation: an interim landscape architecture strategy for Canadian municipalities (Masters thesis, University of Guelph).

Fig. 5.1: Macari, M. (2008) The willow tree. [Online]. [Accessed 8 Janu-ary 2015]. Available from: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rattodisabi-na/2429052858/

Fig. 5.2: Schmitz, S. Birch trees outside Tate Modern, London. [Online]. [Accessed 8 January 2015]. Available from: http://www.houzz.co.uk/photos/1673494/birch-trees-modern-garden-london

Fig. 5.3: Brown, A. Picture of Fastigiate Black Poplar trees, (Populus nigra ‘Plantierensis’) species. [Online]. [Accessed 8 January 2015]. Available from: http://www.treenames.net/ti/populus/picture_populus_nigra_plantierensis_black_poplar_trees.html

Fig. 5.4: Overall tree shape, Manchurian alder. [Online]. [Accessed 8 Jan-uary 2015]. Available from: http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/tree-selector/

Fig. 5.5: Sycamore tree. [Online]. [Accessed 8 January 2015]. Available from: http://www.rgbstock.com/bigphoto/oIxGexO/Sycamore+tree

Illustrations CitedWallace, S. and Cork, J. (1998) Remediation of Basford gasworks us-ing soil washing. In T. Telford (Ed.), Contaminated Soil ’98: Proceed-ings of the Sixth International FZK/TNO Conference on Contaminat-ed Soil, 17-21 May 1998 (pp. 65-74). Edinburgh, UK.

Wilschut, M., Theuws, P.A.W., and Duchhart, I. (2013) Phytoreme-diative urban design: transforming a derelict and polluted harbour area into a green and productive neighbourhood. Environmental Pollution, 183, pp. 81-88.

56 57

Fig. 14: Gillespies. (2014) Previously derelict site should encourage active living. [Online]. [Accessed 9 January 2015]. Available from: http://www.landscapeinstitute.org/news/Gillespies-designs-Glas-gow-park-as-legacy-of-Commonwealth-Games

Fig. 15: London Grilling with Groundwork, London. [Online]. [Accessed 9 January 2015]. Available from: http://londonliving.at/london-grill-ing-with-groundwork-london/queen-elizabeth-olympic-park/

Fig. 6: Newham Heritage and Archives. Public to name Olympic sub-urbs. [Online]. [Accessed 5 January 2015]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12804876

Fig. 7.1: Douglas, L. (2011) Waste sorting. [Online]. [Accessed 6 Janu-ary 2015]. Available from: http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2011/12/zero-waste-olympic-games.cfm

Fig. 7.2: Black, R. (2012) Olympics shoot for green medal. [Online]. [Ac-cessed 6 January 2015]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16853201

Fig. 7.3: Wells, M. (2010) The Warning Marker Layer. [Online]. [Ac-cessed 6 January 2015]. Available from: http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/node/1108

Fig. 8: In London: a legacy begins. [Online]. [Accessed 5 January 2015]. Available from: http://www.aecom.com/Where+We+Are/Europe/Government/_carousel/In+London,+a+legacy+begins

Fig. 9: Palmer, D., Ker-Reid, D., Venn, N., and Bruni, A. (2014) Lon-don 2012 legacy: managing flood risk at Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Civil Engi-neering, 167, pp. 46-52.

Fig. 10: ODA (Olympic Delivery Authority) (2008) Olympic Park Biodiversity Action Plan. [Online]. [Accessed 7 January 2015]. Availa-ble from: http://www.walthamforest. gov.uk/documents/ke68-olym-pic-park-biodiversity-action-plan.pdf

Fig. 11: Olympic Park wetland 2012. [Online]. [Accessed 8 January 2015]. Available from: http://www.salixrw.com/solution/olym-pic-park-wetlands/

Fig. 12: Firth, K. and Patel, M. (2014) Regeneration for all regenera-tion generations. Architectural Design, 84(2), pp. 88-93.

Fig. 13: AECOM. (2011) Legacy plan for the 2012 Olympics. [Online]. [Accessed 6 January 2005]. Available from: http://webarchive.nation-alarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/master-plans/london-2012

58 59

5. What transport did you use to get to the park?☐ Walk/run☐ Bus☐ Bicycle☐ Underground/train☐ Car

6. Where are you from?☐ London☐ Other part of UK☐ Other country

7. How often do you visit the park?☐ Rarely☐ Occasionally☐ Weekly☐ Daily

8. Why do you visit the park?☐ Recreation☐ Leisure☐ Walk the dog☐ Visiting friends/relatives☐ Sightseeing☐ Other

9. Do you feel safe in the park?☐ Yes☐ No If no, why do you feel unsafe? _______________________________________________

Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park Questionnaire

Landscape Contextual StudiesMaster of Landscape ArchitectureUniversity of Edinburgh

1. Do you know what a brownfield site is?☐ Yes☐ No

2. Do you know what remediation is?☐ YesIf yes, are you aware of the remediation processes that occurred here?☐ Not at all☐ Somewhat☐ Definitely☐ No

3. Have you ever heard of phytoremediation?☐ Yes☐ No

4. What is your age?☐ <18☐ 19-25☐ 26-44☐ 45-60☐ >60

Appendix A

60 61

Appendix B10. Do you know the history of the park’s location?☐ Not at all☐ Somewhat☐ Definitely

11. Did you attend the summer London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games?☐ Yes☐ No

12. Which part of the park is your favorite and do you consider most successful?

_____________________________________________________

13. Do you think the housing development will be beneficial for the community?☐ Yes☐ No

14. What changes would you like to see made?

_____________________________________________________

Interview with LDA Design in LondonKaite Jackson - Senior Landscape Architect9 January 2015

This transcript has been edited for brevity.

In some ways yes cost was a concern, and in some ways no. The bottom line was something had to be done, in particular for games time. The project had a budget, we just didn’t endless thing and there was always the price of value engineering but at the same time if something was needed to be done for the games, it would be done regardless of cost. But by the time we got to the transfor-mation phase, in reality, cost played a much stronger part, because they realized and were in a better position to understand what had to be spent after the games. There was much greater time pressures on the transformation phase, other people don’t perceive it that way, but because the games was successful, everyone loved the park, it was brilliant landscape and they wanted it to be reopened and have access to it, but we said thanks very much but we’re going to close at for 18 months and they were so worried that the profile of the park would diminish, they put a push to it and started opening it earlier, hosting events and doing cornering off areas, which had its reasons what cause detriment to other things. They had events that opened up, people were allowed access to brand new turfed the areas and seeded areas that hadn’t established properly, which then was detri-mental to the seeding areas. I know it was filled with garbage. It was. It was drenched in places and also they did, so all of this area in the park was wet wood-land management and they do this things where they put like basi-cally log walls, mixture of logs and qware, kind of like a grassy hair type stuff, which basically they built when they built the wet wood-land area and basically, unfiltered it and built these channels and put side structures to ensure that the waterways stay clear and the vege-tation just doesn’t grow and grow and grow and close it off. So you

62 63

might be able to find some information on that. Do you think it would have been beneficial to come in earli-er? Potentially, yeah there is an idea that first 6 to 9 months the idea that you’re working with one consultant and then having to switch, is always going to be detrimental to the client like redoing work or rebriefing people. Do you find in other projects you usually come in late or do you normally come in right at the beginning? Complete-ly depends. But it does happen where you come in kind of late in the process? Absolutely, yes, it is always beneficial to be as early as possible. One of the really important things to say about this project is the system was set up in terms it was our consultant and coordi-nation. One of the things that was really unique was a client was also a landscape architect . So very suddenly he died a gentleman called John Hopkins he led the design team. The design of what we call the landscape and public ground. There was different kind of depart-ments and venues, there was infrastructure, it was called landscaping public ground, so John Hopkins was the landscape architect and he knew and had a great vision that he wanted this land of landscape engineers. So we had this great vision he knew the landscape archi-tects would be the consultants that coordinated everything. So most projects aren’t like that, but you think it was extremely beneficial? Absolutely. Do you think more projects should be like this? Abso-lutely. On Brownfield sites, from what I’m reading, it becomes hous-ing, especially in the UK. So if its housing, its architects and land-scape architects aren’t involved until the very end. Is that what you feel? Yes, that’s very true, there aren’t very many projects that come along on this scale of things, but often Olympic park is very differ-ent, is because of the high profile of the project, because of the high pressure, because it’s funded by the government, because they had to do the right thing, every step of the way, whereas there’s never to to say there’s always a right way or wrong way, but often if you get a private developer they will do the cost of effective option, so they can build whatever.

How many years was LD working on it then six years I started in 2010 so I actually only worked on the post game transformations I worked on that from stage D and took 3 years before that was 2 years. So they did all the first stage stuff in 2 years? The first 2 years was kind of the designing of the games, 18 months into it they said you need to start designing the post game transformations so we started to do a little bit of that and then I so at the 18 months to years. Is when they started landscaping on site because most of the land-scape work was built a year earlier because they wanted to be done by the time it was the summer of 2012 the new landscape was built 2010 and 2011 so it was ready and the key stuff in the hard work stuff was done later the tree planting, the meadows was done, so it could be established six years of basically and I think it is finally finished for us there’s always a little bits and projects. But it’s been divided up sounds like? Yes. Did you talk to the community at all or with the community and involved in surveys already before you got here? No it was part of the planning process there was a lot of public consultations but it was slight difficult because some people have no interest at all and other people had strong voices for example one mom, because there used to be a cycle path and because there used to be a cycle route on the old land they were being pains in the butt about exactly what they wanted and how it could fit in meaning of biodiversity targets and meeting the parks and usable for everyone so there was huge involvement Lda did work on this project for about two years before I started but that’s the standard process that you have to do in any project and in particular on a project of this scale. We had a river engineer that worked very closely with us. We worked with him in terms of planting certain species and the kind of specialism of river engineering is the kind beyond normal landscape architectural roll, they would come up with how the edges of the riv-er would interface and work with scope gap, definition. We had this 4 meter, to do the land form in the way that the river is, basically on our drawings where the 4 meter contour line was which was

64 65

basically where a normal river line was, depending on the high water and low water. That 4 meter line then became the scope of the river engineers because it was too technical for us to work through and again very collaborative and working with them. They worked with specialists and river construction teams that were in the water with waders on putting in walls. That was to ensure the fish had shelter so when the river is running really fast the fish can then sneak into the side pools where they don’t get dragged down. So its important to keep those water channels open. Just in terms of planting its all very intimate with the biodiversity and different colors and variety. Taking a step back, What was the design based on how did it come about? There was a master plan done by Edof , which looked at it as a master planning scale. So somebody said we should put stag-ing here, a development here, we should put a park in the middle, a road here, a river here and from that point we then took a forward from stage C. So the master plan set our parameters to what we were working to. Understand so many things, that kind of design that is actually. So the basic kind of master plan was already done? Yes so it set up roads bridges and then we worked in and around that basicl-ly this is where the park edges, this is where we have landform, the other thing that I should mention that I often forget it’s not just Lda design that does this we worked with partnerships with Hargraves associates. They are in the states as well aren’t they? Yes, George Hargraves, the design director, and we had to set up a team director a team structure, one of our senior partners was a delivery director. We had to present ourselves as a unit to the client, so they couldn’t identify that we were two seperate practices, so we had to work very colligatively. George Hargreaves is amazing designer, a scary but an amazing designer, but a lot of the major design moves, is slightly reminiscent of his style, other parts are strong angular type in other, plain landforms. If there was one or two things that based the de-sign, what do you think they were? I don’t know whether I could narrow it down to that ultimately it comes down to there’s so many things the idea that they wanted to build up the landform, so when

you take soil out so in a sense the landform is dictated on remedia-tion? Connectivity and flood risks? Yes, and biodiversity the picture was beginning to paint itself as if that makes sense that’s not to saythat there wasn’t much to do but the details. The thing that’s really successful about this park is the real quality and detail that was im-plemented and the places we went through to get there in the testing the quality of the people that were involved in as well. That’s what you need for this project everyone that worked on it was very skilled in that field ultimately and when you have the top directors and very disciplined you can get some amazing results, in that sense. Did you do any surveys and usage or was that done by other companies? Yes, that was done by other companies because in reali-ty, we came in 18 months into the project. Obviously the plant species were chosen as well as a lot of natives? Were they chosen for biodiversity and the habitats for the animals? Yes. What invasives were there? Do you know about the in-vasive at all? I read somewhere that they were managed or removed. In theory yes ,but then again the marker layer performed part of that, so in terms it has nothing to do with the contamination of soil. Some-thing like those Japanese nut weeds, where you get root fragments, so in theory that’s supposed to be blowing marker layer but a marker layer won’t actually stop a Japanese nutweed. Japanese nutweed, has in theory, been removed but I don’t know what the exact meth-odology is but that would have been gone through, I can’t remember what does set treatments. You can do are over those two years when they were doing works what we call the park in terms of the bound-aries of the park would have gone through that methodology so in theory, there’s no invasives in the park now, but it’s never that easy because it’s a river environment and naturally if you go north of the site, it’s just going to come down the river. So is that was part of the management plan then? Exactly. Do you know besides Japanese nutweed what other species were? I can’t remember, but Japanese nutweed is the main one because it’s so difficult to treat. Was some of the existing vegetation used? Not a huge amount

66 67

was retained, some trees but very minimal. There’s a lot around the peripheral of the park. Quite a few trees along the canal here, then there’s a some trees here that were obtained, but very minimal be-cause nothing of real quality and because of the dramatic changes in landform. Its not to say that there wasn’t anything of real value at all, but on the scale of the project it wouldn’t have been worthwhile to retain some of them. On the scale of the planting it would have been they would have been replaced approximately 6,000 trees have gone in. Were any of the species chosen because they have the capa-bility of treating contaminated soil? Like plants that take up heavy metals like willow trees or poplars? Poplars have been planted, some willows. In all honesty that was not the intention. On the site that they were planting them into had to be decontaminated, so when you have time scales to work with you can do that but in reality we had to get to the decontaminated site so it could be buildable within two years it wasn’t going to be viable. When you plant those trees they’re definitely going to breakthrough that mesh, was that a concern at all the survival of the trees? No, I don’t think so, because some of the trees would have root barriers as well to deteriorate that from happening, but I think it’s important to understand that we have these 800 decontaminated it’s not to say that what is directly below is necessarily contaminated. You did seeding collection didn’t you? Yes, there was a lot of seed collected on site, a lot of work undertaken before the enabling work,,really vigorous ecology in biodiversity surveys. The other thing I should mention is the new soils that we brought in because of the complexity of the of the biodiversity and in effect the greater parts of habitat, which are a lot of the native species, they niche habitats but you wouldn’t quite have next to each other so when you’re putting a pyramidal meadow next to a brown-field, the soils play a really important part of that and actually what we have for every different typology, ,there is basically a different soil profile so if you imagine after that 800 cap, you have 800 pending

on what the profile is for example these perennial meadows, kind of what the park is famous for, and it has what’s called low nutrient topsoil , so it’s the idea that that kind of meadow needs to have very minimal nutrients and that the grasses, from growing in case a fire comes in, so we worked very closely with James and Nigel from Sheffield University , they were our consultants and guided us. And that would be the management as well. Do you think there’s a reason why phytoremediation isn’t used in the UK for mediation efforts whether it be cost, the climate, effectiveness? Phytoremediation it’s just planting and you’re going to do it anyways, do you think it’s not suitable for public projects? I think it’s a liability risk. It’s more appropriate and a safer route for a landowner or developer to do right approach opposite instead of exposing it to people. The biggest disadvantage that I can think of is time? Yeah, it just seems to me that in areas that are kind of barrier off because there their hot spots anyways like a Kindergar Loop, they have barriered off loops but I don’t think it’s because of contamina-tion, obviously. Since they are fencing it off anyways, those areas they could be at least treating it? Yeah I’d say time and liablitly. They want the easy route. I would assume, but I don’t know that they would have done test and if there was areas of significance they would have been decontaminated as well, there are probably hotspots. Do you know where those were at all? No, I don’t, I’m afraid. So the planting wasn’t concentrated near those to move people around them they weren’t at risk or anything like that? No, the design was more promi-nent in decontamination with something that has be done. If the pro-ject would have had longer time, it could have been done in perhaps a different way, a lot more sustainable, more ecology way.I would assume, but I don’t know that they would have done test and if there was areas of significance they would have been decon-taminated as well, there are probably hotspots. Do you know where those were at all? No, I don’t, I’m afraid. So the planting wasn’t con-centrated near those to move people around them they weren’t at

68 69

risk or anything like that? No, the design was more prominent in de-contamination with something that has be done. If the project would have had longer time, it could have been done in perhaps a differentway, a lot more sustainable, more ecology way. Is this your first time involved in remediation efforts? I don’t remember a time but there must be. I think usually down as a sepa-rate contract before a landscape architect is involved. Every one of those colors is a different mix or typology, so its a different type of planting character so everyone has got a different seeding mix or planting and ultimately needs to be maintained and managed in different ways. Some you can collectly group, perennial meadows or woodlands. We worked collaboratively with a group who specializes in writing management plans, so us as the designers, kind of take part in our knowledge, this is what the park looks like now, this is what it should look like and this is what it should look like in 5 years, 20 years. Some species should be taken out, some trees should be compisted, some meadows should be cut and gave them the knowledge and they wrote a huge management plan that took 2 years too write. So there is no plans, we did all the graphs and imag-es for them. One of the interesting things is the management and main-tenance, because you’ve had a park manager we brought in some expertise and some people that were involved in managing the Royal Park but they don’t actually know how to manage this park because it’s a modern park and it’s contemporary and the idea of having perennial meadows and Nigel’s wanted to burn the meadows but couldn’t so they had to have a vigorous cut and all these things have to go on to ensure that you’re creating that, but a particular park manager didn’t have a clue on how to do all of that and so this is re-ally revolutionary in terms that of its modern approach and the team and the people. You’re obviously not working on it anymore ,who’s managing it? They created a management plan so London legacy development corporation, owner of the park however Lee Valley Regional Park

own the north park and vellen part. manage their own stuff and didn’t get involved in the management strategy so not sure its being managed properly but the rest of the park is LLDC has appointed apark manager and there is a contract that went out for a park man-agement, as a contractor team and it went to a company that does it and it was tended, they put a bid in and got the contract for five years I think it is and there’s a team of 40-50 people a lot of people involved. This might be available online I’m not sure but I’m sure there’s certainly a legacy landing paper about it but this is the back plan for the park which was kind of written before we needed to do most of the design work. Effectively, it gave us of what some of the key habitats in nba was. So there’s 45 hectors and then within that, rivers beds, trees, shrubs and roof gardens and type thing. Then what that does is within each of these is a set criteria of what plant species are required to create certain habitats and then in addition to that there’s also certain wildlife features, installations that were required to try and encourage the right species. For example certain birds,, certain species particularly needed to be attracted we needed to be sure the right things were there. We had things like Kingfisher wall, otter house, bat boxes and all of those types of things. So it’s all kind of set out for us in that sense and carried through to the design but it was really important in a major design restraint to ensure that we had the right quantity of habitats and it was all managed through the planning process. So we had a planning obligation that we would deliver that, so whenever we submitted that information to the plan-ning department, we always had to justify that we were still meeting our biodiversity targets by every stage. No, no plant knowledge and I do think it’s a problem mostly because I personally am pursuing and am actively trying learn more. Jack of all trades and the master of none. Already from the conver-sations we’ve had you probably gather from the park isn’t just about the design, it’s about soil scientist, ecologist, garden designer, who did some areas in south bout which was really really agricultural and

70 71

then we had to university of Shefril who were our horticulturist and this is why landscape architects make amazing kind of coordinators because we understand all of those disciplines enough to collaborate work with them it’s very rare that you will find a landscape architect that has the knowledge the plants. Even if I think in my office some people I have some that specialize in parks I have an incline towards horticultural and planting and some people that are fantastic in con-struction, in hard work details and some people that are brilliant at master planning. If you think about it, people find their niche but yes I agree there are far to few people in our profession that know about planting but that’s also the nature of the work in the last 20 years I think there’s been so much in residential developments, and they are just working for a kind of developer that has no money and want rebussimple planting, so everybody gets lavender and that’s it and some people haven’t really had to push themselves but I think the park has been amazing for the people understanding what needs to be done. Kind of based on what we’ve been talking about, do you know of any remediation projects in UK that involved phytoremediation? Just working in this profession have you come across any? The only thing I can think of is something called North Allafields which is next to motorway not far out of London. North Allafields basically had, something to do with landfill. When they built Wembley Stadium it was a huge landfill, instead of going into a huge landfill, they would take it and remediate on site and they built these amazing landforms that are famous on the way to Oxford, but that’s all to do with land-fill remediation.It’s just grass so phyotocapping isn’t a big part of it? I have no idea but just in terms of sustainable landfill types I can’t think of any other major. I don’t think there is there’s a project in Germany called lets partners but it was by lats it was an old industrial type building that they turned into a park there is probably some amazing phytoreme-diation stuff to theer but I don’t know the details personally. What do you think the next step or are you going into the

third stage? The next step if this is a very simple way of looking at it to say that this was transformed into actually what’s happened it’s lots of different projects this was called the SouthPark hub which is actually designed by James ? Corp. we implemented it but that was separate project, then this project here ? Park which J. Gibbins did the original design, we took that forward and I’ve recently been working on that and it’s just been finished and its not in my room yet but that’s just been finished in the last year but there’s been a series of different little projects, this project here which was done by LCE landscapearchitect which is another hub building and play area so these were intended to separate of work the end housing is obvious-ly going on the housing is then being basically owned the land is owned by LCB and it was sold to a developer so this is called truffle Manor and that’s been sold to Taylor Wimpey and Taylor Wimpey then managed that how they want, but they still have to go through design approv als, have to go through LLDC because of its location. Taylor Wimpey had to hire a Landscape Architect and its all done through them we were hired for bits and pieces of work but to some extent we want to take a step away from it because we’re proud of the work we’ve done and what’s happened but when you start work-ing for a developer you might be constrained and the developers is not interested thatwe did all the work, he just wants, you get to gist of what I’m saying? Something interesting is going on here & here called olympicopolis, their trying to bring like a V&A museum, we did get involved in some of that but all of these bits will happen over time. I think this one is going out to tend to sue.Are you involved in any of the parks that are being pursued further down? No. Are the development they’re not been developed yet? I have no idea there’s lots and lots and lots of stuff going on,, there’s so much development going on there’s stuff happening all the time basically the team of people that delivered this they’re beginning to move into the clientele is changing to the kind of that know how to deliver a park and infrastructure to LLDC, its a corporation that needs to be profitable and move a slightly different way and leases

72 73

land to developers it’s a changing climate body. Is there any questions that you think would be beneficial in the questionnaire? I had quite a few other research ideas but my orig-inal plan is failing and I’m thinking questionaire is the way I have to go to get some graphics. I think what I realized is that it took me a long time to realize this your design for the user they use it really doesn’t have any idea what they want it to be so it’s all very process and inviting the people that really don’t know what they want and they have ideas but they don’t really understand the consequences of necessarily what they’re requesting in terms of other things. Peo-ple’s perception of is... Have you ever done studies like that? No, I haven’t. I think I might just have to do this for this just come up with like 10 questions. I think would be more interesting, as under-standing how would people really know, what their favorite parts, what they seem to perceive as being very successful, are completely different, what are the most memorable parts of the park, but that’s all very much a design perspective. What do you think is most suc-cessful part? I think the planting its most, its most notable because of the bold horticultural move that we took and if you think about all the press coverage that happened during the games but it’s that kind of amazing impact that people haven’t seen before anywhere so that’s what I think caught people’s imagination and the whole idea of mixed meadow planting and the typology . It was never just about planting because to us, we perceive it how they frame the landform ,the vistas and if you put that meadow on a flat land it wouldn’t of work because of how you view it from across the river and shape of the land. Is there anything else that you had I? I don’t think so the only other thing I thought might be interesting as this one because it’s sort of talks about the strategy the waste materials the approach to sustainability water, the use of recycling water. I can email this to you.

Interview with Gillespies LLP in GlasgowSusan Irwine -Principal Landscape Architect25 November 2014

This transcript has been edited for brevity.

We weren’t limited with a plant species, meaning the contam-ination did not really direct our choice of planting on the site. There was a low level of contamination that had to be taken into account. It was used for localised rubbish dumping. However, it was organ-ised rubbish dumping, meaning it was sorted based on material. The planning authority on this site required that any areas that were going to be accessible had to be capped at to a minimum of 350 mil-limeters of material for human health reasons. We didn’t need this capping for planting because the contamination was not affecting planting already growing on site. It was maturing well and regen-erating all by itself. There’s lovely big hawthorne. The basic master plan had been done previously for the site. But, the Forestry Com-mission and Clyde Gateway did not wish to take on the previous designers from detailed planning through to construction. Since it already had planning principle, we didn’t want to change the broad range of things because then we would have had to start again--too many changes for the designers to take into consideration. One thing that we did address was the amount of existing vegetation to be removed. This contract is broken down into two packages: enabling works package which is when all the remediation occurs and what’s on site right now and design construction includ-ing planting. The original designers, Smith Lord, wanted to clear all of this area with the ultimate aim of a large open space. It seemed pointless to get rid rid of the beautiful vegetation and already exist-ing woodland, like willows and birch trees. Tom Wallace and I met on site to decide what would be kept and what would be removed, keeping broadly to the master planning principles. In doing that, we retained a large core of the existing vegetation along with the perim

Appendix C

74 75

eter which was always going to be existing, and we retained a large core of existing vegetation in the middle. This immediately creates two spaces and you can get that impression on the site. It allows you to appreciate the character of the site and grasp scale. Once we es-tablished what we were keeping and what we were removing, this allowed us to identify which areas would be publicly accessible and which areas we wanted to restrict access to--essentially the retained perimeter planting. Anything that was going to be accessible had to be capped with a minimum of 350 millimeters for public health reasons. The perimeters of the park are fenced off to indicate to people that they’re not supposed to go into these areas. We’ve put barrier planting along the fringe of native mix plant species with a high percentage of spiny plants, like holly, hawthorne, and blackthorn. The only area we might be able to avoid capping would be by the boardwalk. It’s not supposed to be accessible to the public, but because it raised up 600 millimeters off the ground, it’s acting as a separator already. We didn’t design around the badgers sets. We were aware of them and their the constraints. It was mostly the contractor who has had to work within the guidelines. The ecologist John Darbyshire in-formed us of where these were and sealed them off when he was sure there was no badgers in them, so they couldn’t come back during construction. However, they are still around. You can’t work above or in the vicinity of their sets for a 35 meter radius when they’re in there. They’ve been blocked off now and when we’re finished on site, we will take off the seals and the badgers can come back and use their sets as they did previously. This was principally when we were building the boardwalk near the river. Tree felling had to be done outside of the bird nesting sea-sons, so it was all done last January and February 2013. These things helped us decide where the accessible and inaccessible

In areas where remediation was needed on site, Robertsons carried out four remediation strategies. There was different catego-ries of remediation done on site, however, not across the whole of the site. Selected areas were chosen to try and work out where the problems and hot spots were. The point of doing this was to deter-mine what existing rootable depth existed on the site. The Forestry Commission developed a plan to determine which area had zero rootable depth to ones with a maximum of a meter rootable depth to support the planting strategy. So what we had to work out, was what we already had and what we had to bring onto the site. There may be some areas where it was seeded and you might only need a 100 millimeters of soil, but you’re still going to get 350 because of the capping requirements. Having done all of this remediation, we had a range of no rootable where there was significant household waste and asbestos problems right up to 750 mm existing rootable materi-al. You have to combine this plan with the planting plans. We re-quired 352 mm for the grass areas, 500 mm for woodland edge, and 1 meter for woodland. We did that across the site. That was how we calculated what we needed for soil requirements. Only a small amount was we needed of imported soil. Nigel Bending give advice for the importance of soil. He had done a lot of research into types of materials that you could use to make soil--shale, green compost, ash. He also did the research for where you could get this material. Unfortunately, this job was about timing and availability. We weren’t actually able to get any of the material he identified because of these issues: being sufficient and being that the location he specified were inappropriate.The other thing he wanted to do was make it incredibly complicated for the site. He wanted them to have very site specific mixes for each of the differ-ent woodland types, but planting isn’t that complicated. Because this site is already supporting planting, it wasn’t necessary.This was unlike Olympic Park which used specific mixes for specific habitat. But they had more soil anyway right from the start. We were getting bogged down with trying to be precise. In the end, Robertson’s

76 77

sourced degraded topsoil mixes with subsoil from local sites here in Glasgow. They were all tested to the British Standards for topsoil just to make sure they didn’t exceed the recommendation for contami-nants. What we did have more flexibility on within this project, was the amount of rubbish and debris in the site. As long as the material met minimal material requirements, we accepted it. We also mixed it with compost. There’s quite a lot of stone on site that you wouldn’t normally accept in an urban situation where you need a fine finish, but because this is a woodland, it can be much more uneven. The only areas where we decided that we would bring in im-ported product for topsoil was for big specimen trees. We have not had any experience before in manufactured soils and these big trees are at greater risk of shock. They’re expensive and used to loam soils. We didn’t want to take that risk and back filled them with loam topsoil grade material. Poor soil was used by the blossoming trees which is unfortunate because it’s a high priority area. Most of the site’s soil structure is good, but the soil by the ochard dries out due to high clay content. It’s unfortunate because this is supposed to be an orchard field that is seeded underneath. I’ve asked them if they could top-dress it before they seed and even it out a bit because it’s settling quite badly and leaving the trees perched so their root balls are exposed. There’s ways we can alleviate this however. Additional sections were drawn because the Forestry Com-mission was having trouble understanding the various soil depths and the gradient between them. I used the barrier fencing as a point of change. So where the inaccessible side of the fence is, it does not matter if there was limited capping or at least not a high amount --it was faded out. On the accessible side you have the retaining 350 cap, as well as all the paths which is not normal. Fences will probably not be removed even after the native barrier plants establish themselves because the river is a very fast flowing river with steep slopes. The fence will just disappear in time between the woodlands and the bar-rier planting.

Contemporary art installations as colored plant tubes were used for the tree-planting and for the Commonwealth Games. They were in the Commonwealth colors green, blue, yellow, and red. They weren’t permanent, but to reduce nibbling by deer and rabbits. Ashley the landscape contractor also landscaped the Athletes Village. They also had to use manufactured soil. However, their’s was screened which took away the natural variation in soil struc-ture-- all the particle sizes are the same, so the soil went rock solid in summer and sloppy in winter. Advice would be not to screen soil material, at least not to a fine single particle size. One thing the Forestry Commission did not do very well use the chipped wood from felled trees in the soil mix. The downside is it causes an acid spike initially, but after a year it would be fine. You have longer-term benefits, such as microbes, structure, and fibrous material. They tried to use it as part of the capping under inaccessible areas. It was quite difficult for them to do this however, and I think it wasted the material. The Forestry Commission didn’t want to use it in the manufactured soil because they were worried about the acidic spike. However, given the duration of the contract, they had enough time to allow for this. You shouldn’t waste your material like that. The design is based on the 1800’s waterworks on site. To represent the old waterworks, we kept a circular open space and mounding. We had looked at putting viewing towers in this area, so you can see the rest of the site, but it didn’t work out. The paths represent the pipe networks. After that, it was about making sure we created spaces within this park, especially with the woodland core. Originally you would have ended up with all open space. You would have completely lost this wonderful richness. You have the path of range responded to where we fell and cut trees. We modified the broad aspects of the master plan to suit the actual site. Since the results from the enabling works, there’s been quite a bit of site ad-justment. We’re not adhered 100% to this plan because we wanted to respect the site conditions. Gillespies did not involve the community,

78 79

but the Forestry Commission did extensively. That was part of what the community wanted this park to do for them. So that didn’t really affect the planting choice because that was guided by our brief from the Forestry Commission. This is a new style of woodland for the Forestry Commission. Important species were the native woodland edges--holly, black-thorn, hawthorne--and things that give lots of berries for birds and insects. The Forestry Commission we’re very keen that this be an ed-ucational park. The new woodlands and blossoms were an opportu-nity to introduce ornamentals and non-natives into the site. It really demonstrates to the public the massive varieties offered by trees-- leaves, form, color, texture, shape, and size. We were quite lucky that it gave us a massive opportunity to introduce a whole range of species. It’s almost has an arboretum feel to it. We could build on the woodland edge with barrier planting and transition into more ar-boretum specimen. There’s two principal types of woodland: maple and birch, that reflect the others within the area. The Forestry Com-mission wants this to be a site that on the surface looks like a lowland woodland, but looking into it are these other species. We have big specimen trees with very different characteristics. We have monkey puzzle trees, ginkgo, and liliodendron. These specimen trees are at the main junctions on the boulevard. The blossom trees were again an opportunity to show different scale of trees and spring flowers. Those were deliberately set out on a grid to contrast with the natural woodlands. It’s trying to weave in different messages and planting styles. The idea of seasonal change was an aspect which drove the plant choice. Since it’s very minimal contamination, there was no need for phytoremediation species. Yet, willow and birch are present on site. We worked with the engineers Scott Bennett Associates, how-ever, they were primarily involved with liaison of the remediation and making sure that we met all of the requirements for capping. SEPA had to sign off all the material that came on site to make sure that there was no issues with contaminating. We were involved and

worked together with the engineers. The best way is always together. We were influenced by the topography, existing trees, and the fact that a crane must go up the main boulevard after the bridge is built. Ecology constraints were badgers and pockets of Japanese knotweed. This invasive had a big influence on the site. There were three different tactics at tackling Japanese knotweed: we either cut it and buried it into a hole that already existed where the hill is now, we left it in situ and to be managed (these areas have to be where there is minimal access from minimal disturbance), and we sprayed it immediately due to longterm effects. Forestry Commission and Clyde gateway are the overall end-users and managers of the site. We have had minimal input since they have been on site other than the areas with design where there’s general planting. I have not worked with phytoremediation. This is the begin-ning. I’m surprised it’s taken this long. We haven’t dealt with any of this type of planting-- woodland planting on brownfield sites. We’re either working on public hard ground where if you do plant any-thing, such as these species of trees, you put them in decent topsoil. I do believe this is something that we need to rapidly improve our knowledge of because it’s not sustainable to strip top soil in large quantities, there’s high transportation costs, and all the implications that go with moving materials.

80 81

Interview with Pick Everard in GlasgowTrevor Graham - Director25 November 2014

This transcript has been edited for brevity.

We have to produce the paper and stuff like this book goes into the Appendix with a presentation just to the class with the pro-fessor what kind of basic. I know you guys where the professional engineers for the project. Can you explain your role in the project more was it just a mediation, hiring? We were the external project managers the only reason external tacked onto it is because there are internal project manager so we are the external managers for the pro-ject. So we are looking after the direction of the project, making sure things happened and in time. You hired? We don’t have hire them directly, the designers taken on by the contractors called Robinson. We were awarded the project under national framework that is UK wide. The contractor then hires thru a tendering exercise to select the design team. There are 3 parts to the design team. Theres the land-scape architect, the engineering practice,and the electrical team. Rob-ertsons is in charge of hiring all 3. So if you go back about two years ago that’s when Robertson and ourselves were appointed. Robertson took an outline design forward got the design team and the design was developed. Robertson developed at target cost for the project. Whenever Robertson came on board, there was a bit of uncertainty as to what was there so it was a trial exercise and they went through the existing soil to see what it was like. Roebertsons gave us the enabling works and gave us a better idea of what needed doing. That was in the spring of 2013. Then through the summer we developed target cost for the whole scheme and that was awarded October 2013 and then Robertsons came back on the site full blast for doing the work. Theres two aspects to the remediation. One is the capping layer. The existing ground is contaminated not heavily but it is, not suitable for public use as a park as it is. We actually did the risk

Appendix Dassessment and came up with a capping layer strategy, so all we are doing is separating the users from the contamination depending on the degree of risk and the degree of use, that determines the thick-ness of capping. The thickness of a capping was agreed at 370ml and that was agreed with the local authority. Why capping was chosen over other methods? It’s probably because it’s more cost effective. Did you look into other methods? No that was decided before we got there. I would have thought it would be extremely difficult and costly to remove the contamination from the soil extraction or some-thing. Was there any methods looked at of just treating it onsite? No. The main contamination was? I can’t remember. When we were on tour it was mostly just household rubble, asbestos probably from the landfill. I don’t have the report on my system it was done by my en-vironmental colleagues in our head office. They decided for that con-tamination, in the volumes involved, and the nature of the contami-nation, cost wise to remediate the existing soil. The cheapest way was to put a cap on it. That was for in terms of Public Health and safety. The other factor that comes in is the Forestry Commission wanted capping material that was suitable and good for the plant growth of trees. So in terms that capping was determined. We could have just been imported top soil and it actually turns out that wasn’t that more expensive then the option chosen, the other option was to use waste materials and secondary products so subsoil which is generally not used for anything. You take sub soil and mix it on site with organic material. There was a lot of fallen trees that were chips so that sort of thing? That was used more as a mulch. The idea was with the prop-er mixing of subsoil, gravel, sand and compost it actually produced a very good capping with good growing medium. 370 millimeters, that’s not sufficient for tree growth and that was the idea actually for the treatment of the contaminated ground underneath which was to loosen it up and make it acceptable for root growth and to remove any big stones, rubbish. Anything bigger than a brick was taken out and metal was taken out. About 400 to 700ml of the original ground that was dug up and the stuff removed and then you had 300 to

82 83

400ml of the capping soil put on top in a lot of cases you’re getting 500 to 700ml of actually growing medium. So you cleaned up what was there and then put a cap on? Yes, that was the most economical way of doing it. We could have imported all the depth material we wanted but it was cheaper to treat the existing ground. So you guys were involved in the entire stage of coming up with what you were going to do? We were project managers so we rely on the advise of the designers and the expertise of the Foresty commission. We just make sure it happens and it’s going in the right direction. So you were part of it from the beginning and what was happening there? Yes. Were you involved in doing any on site surveys that kind of questioning? That was done before and during. There is an ongoing community consultation going on. This part of the planning process, the community consultation is built into legislation. Is that going on in the form of council meetings? No, its community meetings. So meeting community groups, community schools and that sort of thing. So there was formal consultation in the planning process for beginning planning approval. What was always intended but never developed in the initial stages was the recreation facilities on site. So the basic structure is a woodland park with various paths you can walk or cycle on. But the idea was to plan within that park zones. So we have a biking trail, theres a gym trail, like an outdoor gym, there are two outdoor classrooms, there’s a bouldering park. Those things have all been the subject to more detailed discussions with play groups and a play area as well for youngsters. In a gym area so they were going out to schools and so on to learn how they would use it. So they wanted an active outdoor space? Yes. So that has all been developed in implementing those stages. The bike path construction started about a year ago in mediation and there was a lot of work that went into it. Digging up the existing ground and capping off and that extended to almost nine months. There’s a phase then of path construction and then there’s a phase of doing the various recreation-al facilities, which will go through March or April of next year. So the landscape architects I was just in touch with them and you are saying

Robertsons is more or less charge of hiring and working with them. So you were talking to the Gilspies? Susan? Yes. She is very enthusi astic about us. I think a big part of my project was concentrating on the phytoremediation but I think I’m going to be tweaking it a bit be-cause I’m finding it wasn’t really a part of this even though a few of the species they are choosing like the willow for instance are phytore-mediation species but it wasn’t intentional. From talking to her, that wasn’t a part of it because the contamination wasn’t that bad. The re-mediation is very critical to the operation of the park because it’s got to be done. The phytoremediation has to be signed off by the local authority and they need confirmation that the correct depth of cap-ping has been done and then they will sign off and say it’s fine and the public can use this area. Do you guys work on a lot of projects of remediation or is this one of the first ones? This is the first when I’m done up here. I’m in a small office, there’s a full environmental office in the south that does quite a bit of remediation down there in terms of capping. So that’s why you guys kind of asked for their input? Yes, our firm tends towards more the engineering aspects. We rely on the landscape architect for the design part and the finishes to it. So for the engineering parts at Kindergar loop, was that just path walks or what does that consist of? Yes. You have paths and paths of different types. And you had the capping part too, so the path is quite deep isn’t it? The path construction is part of the capping layer. You are not building the path on top of a capping because it is the capping. The path construction again is constructed of 400ml plus. Here are some photographs from back in June. This is where you come in, the cabins are down here. You can see all these areas have been finished in terms of taking out the material and adding capping to it. They are still very much working on the mediation. In this area we were bringing in 4 loads of subsoil and 1 load of compost and then mixing it on site and placing it the design. I know the design is based around the pipeline but what’s the difference between the paths there? This one is a tarmac path. A boulevard will come through there and it’ll be 4 meters wide. Will that be tarmac as well? Yes and these are smaller

84 85

past you have tarmac paths all the way around so people can do a loop with wheelchairs, buggies, whatever. And the less formal path will just be stone or gravel. I was going to ask this but raises up when I was on site they’re talking about the invasive species that were on site. Is that just in this area? We have Japanese Nutweed all over the place. There was a whole heap of it was dug out during they enabling works and was encapsulated in buried in the middle of the site. A big polyethmine membrane put in and it all settled in so it won’t come back up again. That probably only removed nine-ty-percent of the Japanese Nutweed 10 percent remaining. the stagey going forward is just to spray to manage it and that will be done be by the Clyde gateway and the Forestry Commission. It stopped for a whilebecause the contractors on site had stopped had to start again once a contractor leaves the other invasive species on site is the giant hogweed. In the lure of that we just removed all that including the seed heads. That’s just been done in the last few weeks. This is the Commonwealth , village, is there Central Park .