Resilient and equitable urbanism by design: insights from the collaborative process to reimagine the SF Bay Area

PDF

Download

Open document

Transcript (if available)

Content RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

Sandra Mendler
University of Southern California

Resilient and Equitable Urbanism by Design:
Insights from the collaborative process to reimagine the SF Bay Area

Candidate for Price School, DPPD
August 2019

Committee:
Daniel Mazmanian
Hilda Blanco
Deborah Natoli
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Introduction………………………………………………………………… 5
Chapter 2 Literature Review and References………………………………… 20
2.1 Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………… 21
2.2 References……………………………………………………………………………………… 95
Chapter 3 Methodology……………………………………………………………….. 130
Chapter 4 Research………………………………………………………………………. 144
4.0 Research Introduction……………………………………………………………………. 145
4.1 Elevate San Rafael………………………………………………………………………….. 150
4.2 Estuary Commons…………………………………………………………………………… 158
4.3 The Grand Bayway………………………………………………………………………….. 168
4.4 Islais Hyper-Creek……………………………………………………………………………. 178
4.5 Our Home……………………………………………………………………………………….. 192
4.6 The People’s Plan……………………………………………………………………………. 202
4.7 Public Sediment……………………………………………………………………………… 210
4.8 Resilient South City…………………………………………………………………………. 219
4.9 South Bay Sponge…………………………………………………………………………… 228
4.10 Cumulative Assessment………………………………………………………………….. 238
4.11 Linkages………………………………………………………………………………………….. 246

Chapter 5 Conclusion.…………………………………………………………………… 248
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CONTENTS – APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Key to the Transformation Dashboard…………………………. 279
Appendix 2 Detailed Case Studies………………………………………………….. 286
APP 2.1 Elevate San Rafael………………………………………………………………………… 287
APP 2.2 Estuary Commons…………………………………………………………………………. 299
APP 2.3 The Grand Bayway………………………………………………………………………… 320
APP 2.4 Islais Hyper-Creek…………………………………………………………………………. 332
APP 2.5 Our Home…………………………………………………………………………………….. 349
APP 2.6 The People’s Plan…………………………………………………………………………. 367
APP 2.7 Public Sediment……………………………………………………………………………. 377
APP 2.8 Resilient South City………………………………………………………………………. 390
APP 2.9 South Bay Sponge………………………………………………………………………… 403
Appendix 3 Transformation Toolkits……………………………………………… 414
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Resilient and Equitable Urbanism by Design:
Insights from the collaborative process to reimagine the SF Bay Area
This project is about the potential for sustainable, equitable socio-ecological transformation of the SF Bay
Area, and where to start to get there. Nine case studies from the recent Resilient by Design, Bay Area
Challenge (RbD) offer tangible examples of the positive transformation that is possible and the
community-based processes, and economic and governance tools that are needed to achieve it. The
project explores three key questions: First, what was learned from the RbD Challenge that will help
communicate the challenges of resilience and equity, and build support for needed changes to design,
planning and public policy? Second, how can the diverse ideas developed by the RbD Challenge be
synthesized into a framework to help guide future Bay Area projects? And third, what are the key leverage
points for positive change?
It is increasingly apparent that the Bay Area economy has become an engine of inequality. As discussed
below, the economic recovery has produced rising incomes for those at the high end of the income
spectrum and record level investment, and yet, the real poverty rate in California is now the highest in
the country and homelessness is surging (BACEI 2015, 2018; Turner 2017; Samsara 2016; Policy Link 2015).
The compounding challenge of climate change – a symptom of a larger sustainability crisis – has been
described as “two sides of the same political-economic coin” as “the issues of sustainable development
and social/environmental justice have surfaced together as in no other period in world history” (Faber
and McCarthy 2003, p.40). The task of addressing both challenges simultaneously is daunting on the
surface, yet the SF Bay Area provides an ideal laboratory to investigate creative new models. The Bay Area
was selected as the site for the RbD design challenge largely because the combination of commitment to
social values and strong institutions, factors that have supported innovative policy in the past, as well as
the first ever tax measure to create a regional resilience fund, measure AA (RbD 2017, p.2).
The discussion that follows describes the larger role that the RbD challenge is supporting to produce
social-ecological transformation in the Bay Area, an accomplishment that can serve as a model for other
metro areas like the San Francisco Bay Area that are powerful hubs of the US economy. The RbD case
studies add an important dimension to current policy and planning discussions, as they ground abstract
ideas in real places and communities – illustrating potential physical form and a rich community process
– as well as significant co-benefits. Each of the casestudies demonstrate the potential co-benefits of place-
based investments to build social resilience, while simultaneously addressing urgent climate mitigation
and adaptation goals. A Transformation Dashboard has been created to describe the strategies in each of
the projects and compare them. Finally, I conclude that physical design and planning ideas are not
sufficient on their own to address the urgent challenges of resilience, equity and sustainability. The need
for additional policy levers to support meaningful transformation has inspired six key recommendations:
1. Create Priority Resilience Areas for targeted investment
2. Identify select CoC tracts as early action “TCC+” demonstration projects using measure AA
resilience funds, TCC funds and a fair share of new regional housing funds
3. Pilot new models for community stabilization and wealth building
4. Develop regional resilience vision to protect and restore watershed assets
5. Create multi-jurisdiction resilience fund as a regional wealth Fund
6. Promote community partnership process
5
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Introduction
The SF Bay Area is comprised of 9 counties and 101
cities that are clustered around the SF Bay, the
terminus of a watershed that spans 40% of the
state and is increasingly at risk from sea level rise,
increased flooding and other effects of climate
change (Thorne et al. 2018). At the same time, the
Bay Area economy has become an engine of
inequality – with economic growth concentrating
benefits and increasing income inequality and
poverty. The combination of economic prosperity
for some with declining income for others is fueling
a regional housing crisis, compounding challenges
to both sustainability and equity (BACEI 2015,
2018). The question, then, is how the SF Bay Area
can meet climate mitigation and adaptation
challenges with investments in resilience that meet
the urgent needs of the present – including the
rising cost of housing, displacement and adverse
health impacts – while also meeting the long-term
goals of sustainable development and inclusive
prosperity?
While the focus on sustainability has been strong in the Bay Area and the State of California for decades,
and planning for climate adaptation is increasing, the focus on a holistic approach to sustainability and
resilience is just emerging. My position is that a holistic approach must consider the physical design of our
communities an urgent priority and a key opportunity area, as the impacts to communities from a
changing climate are place-based, and access to opportunity is place-based as well. Resilience is
understood in this context to be fundamentally about protecting people and their community support
systems, not just the physical assets of the city – it requires nurturing of social as well as physical resilience
– and in places of systemic disadvantage it requires transformation (Anderies et al. 2013; Folke 2006;
Folke et al. 2010; Davoudi 2012). Like the comprehensive planning process in California, which integrates
planning across silos from housing and transportation to natural systems and infrastructure, resilience
planning requires multiple inputs, a scale that typically extends beyond political boundaries, and a very
intentional focus on social impacts and equity.
This project investigates the San Francisco Bay Area as a case study for the regional transformation that
needs to occur in coastal cities to meet the challenges of climate change with new models of sustainable
development that build resilience in advance of a crisis. To do so requires strategies to strengthen physical
and social structures to mitigate the physical and social stressors that drive vulnerability, and in many
places, to engage in meaningful transformation (Ahern 2013; Smith and Stirling 2010). A set of nine
visionary design proposals developed for the recently completed Resilience by Design Bay Area Challenge
are systematically evaluated to identify innovative resilience strategies, as well as economic and
governance tools, and community engagement strategies that can catalyze new development patterns.
Figure 1.1: Map showing extent of 9-county SF Bay Area
(CNRA 2016 San Francisco Bay Area Region Report, p.10)
6
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides an overview of the RbD design challenge and the research problems that are driving
this study, as well as my theoretical orientation, research questions and a quick summary of the structure
of this report.
What is the Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge?
The Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge was launched in the summer of 2017, as a year-long process
to spur creative community-driven design to address resiliency challenges throughout the nine-county
Bay Area. The challenge brief encouraged a comprehensive approach to environmental and social
resiliency, including equity and inclusion for under-served communities (Resilient by Design 2017, p.14).
In May of 2017, over fifty multi-disciplinary teams of leading firms locally, nationally and internationally
submitted qualifications and ten teams were selected by a jury of national and international experts. At
the same time, seventy-four potential sites were evaluated, as communities around the Bay Area were
invited to nominate themselves for consideration (Siegel 2019, p.12). Teams began the design challenge
with a research phase from September through December, with each team touring the Bay Area,
participating in expert panels, and conducting research on 3-5 sites, both on their own and as a cohort. At
the end of the four months, the Research Advisory Committee matched each design team with a site, and
work began in earnest to assemble local partners, and engage in community outreach and collaborative
design. In May 2018 the final design concepts were presented by the nine teams that completed the
challenge, each with a preliminary roadmap for implementation (p.13).
The driving idea behind the RbD process was that design thinking would promote more holistic problem
solving and engage communities with a more creative public process. Amanda Brown-Stevens, managing
director of Resilient by Design explained that “RbD was an extreme version of design professionals leading
an engagement process. Typically, local government would be the “client” for a large-scale planning
process like this. We wanted to flip the dynamic so that designers are leading – multi-disciplinary
collaboration was the goal, but we also wanted to bring experience from other places – this was a key
part of the competition (A. Brown-Stevens, personal communication July 19, 2018).”
RbD was modelled after Rebuild by Design, a competition launched by the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding
Task Force in response to over $65 billion in damages and economic loss in NYC and surrounding areas
from the 2012 hurricane (Gendall et al. ed. 2015, p.1); however, the two efforts were fundamentally
different. While the NYC Rebuild competition benefited from post-disaster urgency, strong local
government participation and significant funding from US Housing and Urban Development (HUD) –
including $920 million in Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery funds (Grannis et al.
2016, p.3) – the SF Bay Area design challenge had none of these. Instead, the Bay Area design challenge
was about developing ideas to avert disaster – it had interest from local governments, but no identified
sources of funding nor a process for implementing the plans. This difference led to important learning
opportunities for designers, as financing training and advising were integrated into the program.
Philanthropic funding was essential to the RbD process. The Rockefeller Foundation, attracted to the Bay
Area’s commitment to plan in advance of a disaster; as well as state and regional successes in
sustainability policy, and the recently passed measure AA funds for Bay Restoration, provided the bulk of
funding for the $5 million design challenge (RbD 2017, p.11). Allison Brooks, chair of the Resilient by
Design executive board, and executive director of the Bay Area Regional Collaborative (BARC), explained
7
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
how the team tried to secure public funding for years prior to winning the Rockefeller support: “Cities
don’t have extra resources, and even in the bay area where government is interested in innovation it can
be very difficult to support projects. No agency releases an RFP for people to be innovative and work with
community in an open process to create multi-benefit solutions. This is just not what the public sector
does. It is much more constrained, and for good reason… they are always trying to meet obligations, are
at capacity, and not skilled at this kind of networking. This process opened up access to design thinking
for local governments and provided an opportunity to explore ideas in the broader context of
community.” Finally, Brooks offered that she feels that design teams are well positioned to lead a public
process, as they take complex information and put it into a form that broad sets of people can understand
– with concepts and visuals that generate energy and excitement (A. Brooks, personal communication,
July 19, 2018).
Research Problem
The SF Bay Area has been experiencing a cycle of growth – both economic growth and population growth
– but has not been supporting that growth with increased housing and community development, creating
a substantial housing deficit, increasing the costs for housing, driving displacement and increasing
transportation-related CO2 emissions. While the housing crisis is the most obvious challenge facing the
Bay Area at this time, there is a growing sense that current economic growth is working against community
wellbeing for everyone (Bay Area Council Economic Institute (BACEI) 2018; Moskowitz 2017). Given the
need for massive investment in new housing, the Bay Area recently convened an emergency task force to
address the challenge. The result, the “CASA Compact: A 15-year Emergency Policy Package to Confront
the Housing Crisis in the SF Bay Area,” offers significant new policy recommendations (CASA Committee
2019) that are moving though legislature, however, how and where the housing will be developed, and
if it will support sustainability, resilience and equity goals or work against them, are big questions. This is
the time to vision the future of the Bay Area. Existing economic incentives will reproduce the current set
of problems unless changes are made (Soursourian 2012; Samara 2016; McKinsey 2016). Will new
development continue to produce a pattern of wealth and comfort for the few, with eroding of quality of
life and increasing climate threats for the many? Or is it possible that an innovative approach to
collaborative design and policy making will catalyze new patterns of land use and a new generation of
buildings, infrastructure, and natural areas supported by improved collaborative governance and
innovative funding mechanisms to support development that is both inclusive and equitable?
The discussion below outlines key urban design and planning issues embedded in the climate-equity
challenge facing the Bay Area. It begins with the local effects of climate change and the growing
vulnerability of communities to sea level rise, flooding and other climate related impacts driving the need
for adaptation measures, and increased commitment to mitigating further impacts. Next, the problem of
social equity is discussed, including the challenges of increasing poverty and growing inequality, even in
the midst of robust economic growth. Finally, the public policy challenges are addressed, with a high level
look at two California policy tools created to address the challenges of climate and equity as it relates to
the built environment.
The Local Effects of Climate Change
In 2018 the California Natural Resources Agency published the Fourth Climate Change Assessment, which
includes carefully researched projections for increased temperatures, rising sea levels, reduced snowpack
8
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
impacting the water supply, more extreme precipitation and drought, and increased areas susceptible to
wildfire. While the authors of the 4
th
Climate Assessment acknowledge that risk areas under discussion
have not changed since the first assessment in 2006, for the first time the study outlines a detailed set of
adaptation “actions” as well as a new chapter on Climate Justice (Thorne et al. 2018, p.18).
Localized effects of climate change include sea level rise in combination with changing patterns of rainfall
and more intense storm events. The San Francisco Bay Area Summary for the 4
th
Climate Assessment
states that sea level has already risen 8 inches and projects a likely rise between 29 inches and 54 inches
by 2100 along the California coast, however, recent studies suggest those estimates may be low, and sea
levels could rise over nine feet by 2100 along San Francisco’s shoreline (Ackerly et al. 2018, p.30). Figure
1.2 shows the impact of a 100-year flood event together with 4.6 ft of SLR. This level of inundation impacts
the runways at San Francisco and Oakland
International Airports, as well as nearly 1,700
miles of roadway, of which 169.5 miles are major
highways. Major portions of the Port of San
Francisco, Oakland and Richmond are also
impacted (Ekstrom and Moser 2012, p.38).
In the San Francisco Bay, it is the combination of
storm surge, tides and sea level rise that produce
the greatest impacts. A compounding effect of
climate change is that individual storms are
becoming more intense with greater variation
between wet years and years of drought (Ekstrom
and Moser 2012; Ackerly et al. 2018). Multiple
planning studies by state and local governments,
and a review at the federal level by National
Research Council (requested by Governor
Schwarzenegger in 2008) has led to consensus
that planning for sea level rise should be
integrated into all future development within the
inundation zone (CCSF 2015, 2016b, MTC 2017a).
Climate adaptation planning has been integrated
into the state mandated planning process with SB
379, a bill requiring all cities and counties to
include climate adaptation planning within the
safety element of their general plan, when
housing elements are updated (Jackson 2015).
Bay Area governments have developed a three step methodology to evaluate vulnerability and risk prior
to planning adaptation strategies – vulnerability measures the degree of exposure, the sensitivity of the
impacted asset and its adaptive capacity, that is, the ability to adjust, moderate or otherwise cope with
change, while risk assessment addresses consequences such as cost, loss of use, etc. (CCSF 2015, p.7). It
is the combination of vulnerability and risk that highlights the challenges in many low-lying low-income
communities around the Bay. These are areas where creative exploration is especially needed to pilot and
test ideas that address the complex inter-relationships between land and water.
Figure 1.2: Locations in the San Francisco Bay Area Projected
to Be Inundated by a 100-Year Flood Event with and without
(1.4 m) Sea-Level Rise Source: Biging, Radke, and Lee. 2012
(Ekstrom and Moser 2012, p.38)
9
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Each of the teams in the RbD challenge explored the risk factors in their site area in detail, with a focus on
social and physical factors. Many adaptation complexities were identified and studied during the RbD
process; for example, the region is experiencing subsidence with land in some areas sinking even faster
than sea level is rising. Dr. Kristina Hill, assistant professor at UC Berkeley and member of the All Bay
Collective team, was a vocal proponent of the need to address subsurface dynamics: “To imagine how our
coastal areas are going to change, we need to be able to anticipate the impacts of higher water tables as
well as higher tides. Rainwater won’t seep into the ground anymore as water tables rise - and that’s going
to be a big change. Water will actually seep up out of the ground when it rains, and tides are high… this
has big implications for seismic risks, pipe capacity, and exposure risks from existing soil pollution. If you
can’t visualize how groundwater works, you’re missing a critical vulnerability driven by rising seas and
your adaptation plans are likely to fail” (K. Hill, personal communication, July 19, 2018).
Another primary issue is the cost of adaptation, and the challenge of funding investments that may not
have market returns. The Urban Land Institute began alerting the SF Bay Area real estate business
community with a 2015 report that spoke to the need for innovation in governance, finance and design
to meet a challenge that is no longer in the distant future, noting that over 280 square miles of low-lying
land in the nine county Bay area region is vulnerable to being inundated as soon as 2050 (ULI 2015, p.8).
Preliminary estimates of the cost to protect infrastructure and assets in the nine-county bay area put the
price tag at about $35 Billion (Northcross and Spencer 2018, p.9). The funding challenge also underscores
the need for coordinated action rather than establishment of standards that are implemented on a project
by project basis. A 2015 report by ULI cautioned that “Under San Francisco’s current approach, each new
project will invest millions of dollars to build a perimeter and raise the height of its building sites, which
could effectively create a series of islands along the waterfront (ULI 2015, p.28).” Funding concepts for
infrastructure were an integral part of the RbD projects, as teams were asked to build partnerships and
propose funding strategies as part of the design challenge.
Finally, there is the issue of maintaining the focus on mitigation at the same time as adaptation. In the
landmark Stern Report on the Economics of Climate Change, Nicholas Stern reminds readers that even
though adaptation reduces the cost of damage from climate change, and even though adaptation has
many co-benefits to communities, it actually “does nothing to directly prevent climate change and is in
itself part of the cost of climate change” (Stern 2006a, p.345). Given the high cost of climate-related
damage and the potential for co-benefits, aligning adaption and mitigation strategies is an important goal,
and a number of California and Bay Area studies have identified how cost-effective climate mitigation
strategies are in reducing future loss and providing co-benefits (Thorne et al. 2018, Ekstrom and Moser
2012). These issues will be explored in much greater detail as the project case studies are evaluated.
The Local Effects of Growing Inequity
As discussed above, the SF Bay Area has been experiencing a cycle of growth – both economic growth and
population growth – “If the Bay Area were a country, its $748 billion GDP in 2017 would qualify it as the
19th largest economy in the world,” according to the Bay Area Council Economic Institute. In fact, they
note that “From 2014 to 2017, the Bay Area’s GDP grew by 4.3%—much faster than the increase for the
US as a whole, and faster than the growth of most of the world’s 25 largest economies” (BACEI 2018, p.1).
While the headlines for economic growth in the Bay Area are impressive, income has been declining for
those with low-wage jobs while the cost of living is rising sharply. SF Bay Area data show clear trends of a
reduction in middle wage jobs, declining incomes, displacement of low and middle-income residents from
10
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
the most desirable neighborhoods and increases in concentrated poverty and homelessness (Turner 2017,
Samsara 2016, BACEI 2015, Policy Link 2015).
Income inequality is widening across the US (Picketty 2014; Wilkinson and Pickett 2009), yet divergence
of income gains are even more pronounced in California. Even with a booming economy, as the region’s
economic performance as measured by GDP has been outpacing the growth in the national economy,
those at the lower end of the income scale have seen income decline, as described in see figure 1.3,
illustrating real earned income growth for the US and for California (Policy Link 2015, p37).

Figure 1.3: Change in Earned Income 2008-2018 (graphic by author, with data from Bay Area Economic Institute 2018)
The challenge of growing poverty and inequality in the SF Bay Area highlights structural inequities based
on race and class, as communities of color were historically constrained by redlining and racism, limiting
opportunities to build wealth through home ownership (Rothstein 2017). The legacy of redlining
continues across the metropolitan area as wealth is concentrated in communities that can support a local
tax base that pays for services and maintains infrastructure. California tax policy (Proposition 13 and AB
8) limits taxes on residential and commercial properties, leaving municipalities with middle and low-
income populations at a disadvantage, as the cost to service those populations is often greater than the
revenue received through taxes, a reality that has led to a practice called the “fiscalization of land use,”
and that drives the need to use impact fees as the primary source of funds for local infrastructure
(Kirkpatrick and Smith 2011; Schafran 2013). As a result, impact fees in California are over three times
the national average, imposing disproportionately high costs on lower-income renters and homebuyers
(McKinsey Institute 2016, p35). These and other structural drivers of inequity are explored in greater detail
in chapter two.
Given the structural challenges described, the hope would be that economic recovery in the Bay Area
would support growth throughout the region, creating opportunities for all. Unfortunately, the pattern
has been the opposite, with a growing divide as job growth has been strong for high wage and low wage
jobs, but not for those in between, and housing costs are escalating sharply (BACEI 2018). The growing
11
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
income gap together with high economic growth has been fueling displacement, limiting opportunities
for those that are displaced to areas that have less access to jobs and transit, while also compounding
climate challenges with increased emissions for transportation (Soursourian 2012, Chapple 2016, Zuk and
Chapple 2016).
In addition to growing inequality, the Bay Area is seeing an increase in poverty. Data show that in spite
the strong of Bay Area economy, the state of California also has the highest levels of real poverty and child
poverty in the nation (BACEI 2018; DeVore 2016; Anderson and Kimberlin 2018, Wimer 2017, 2018). Real
poverty refers to the Supplemental Measure of Poverty that has been developed by the US Census, to
illustrate differences between the official measure of poverty (OPM) and a poverty measure that more
accurately reflects the experience of households, as it accounts for noncash benefits received by families
on the one hand, and nondiscretionary expenses including food, clothing, shelter, and utilities on the
other (US Census 2018). The disconnect between the OPM and the real poverty measure means that
California households also receive less relief from their poverty as benefits are calculated based on the
OPM. Californians also have the highest per capita rate of unsheltered homeless in the country, a
particular challenge in the Bay area where homelessness is rising rapidly (Keeling 2019; Brinklow 2018;
Turner 2017).
The impacts of poverty are tangible. Statistics show that the combined impacts of pollution, stress and
lack of access to fresh food, open space and other amenities in disadvantaged neighborhoods have a large
impact on life expectancy, conforming to a pattern called a “social gradient,” where those living in places
with the least poverty in the SF Bay Area can expect to live on average ten years longer than those living
in high poverty areas (BARHII 2015). The number of people exposed to dangerous levels of pollution is
high, with estimates that “almost 7.5 million people or roughly 20% of the state's total population lives in
areas that are burdened with high concentrations of pollution and socioeconomic vulnerabilities (CEJA nd,
p.2).” The issue of disparate health impacts has been a major driver of the environmental justice
movement in the Bay Area and nationally, and some progress is being made to align carbon reduction
goals with the air quality improvements in low-income communities of color that are disproportionately
impacted by diesel emissions and other industrial facilities (Cushing, Morello-Frosch, Wander & Pastor
2015; Pastor 2014).
While the entrenched inequity in the Bay Area is daunting, and generally representative of patterns
throughout the US, this project will highlight opportunities to shift the dynamics and build wealth within
under-invested communities. For example, for the first time, California’s Fourth Climate Assessment
includes a chapter on Climate Justice, and the document identifies the opportunity to capture substantial
health co-benefits through climate mitigation, referencing a study finding that “deep greenhouse gas
emission reductions (80% below 1990 levels) in California could significantly improve health outcomes,
and cost savings would be comparable to the cost of achieving those reductions by 2050. These savings
are achieved because shifting from polluting technologies to clean technology improves air quality, saves
lives, and improves overall public health (Thorne et al. 2018, p.7).”
The Need for Effective, Equitable Sustainable Development Policy
California has been a leader in development of environmental policy, beginning with automobile
emissions standards in the 1960s and aggressive energy efficiency standards for buildings and appliances
in the 1970s, as the California Energy Commission (CEC) was formed in response to the 1973 Arab oil
12
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
embargo, and the California Public Utilities Commission mandated that gas and electric utilities sponsor
energy efficiency programs (Mazmanian et al. 2013). These early regulatory efforts led to significant
reductions in per capita energy use and pollution. Concern about greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) has
also had a long history in California, as CEC and the Air Resources Board (ARB) have been actively tracking
GHG emissions in California for over 30 years. (CA.gov nd). These early regulatory efforts have been
described by Mazmanian and Kraft as belonging to the “first epoch” of environmental management
(Mazmanian and Kraft 2009), as command and control regulations produced predictable results. Another
distinction is that these early regulatory efforts can be described as “socio-technical” in nature, because
the object being regulated operates outside of the social-ecological system and is not place-bound (Smith
and Stirling 2010, p.3).
The early decades of environmental management in California helped to build support to pass the
landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB32, mandating reductions in carbon
emissions across all sectors (California Air Resources Board 2008). The passage of AB32 was remarkable
because it set targets without specifying the means of achieving them, creating authority for innovative
new programs to be developed that attempt to promote compliance through incentives and market-
based mechanisms. These are concepts that belong to the “second epoch” of environmental management
per Mazmanian and Kraft (2009).
The good news is that the 2020 emission reduction targets of AB32 have been met ahead of schedule,
and the law has been extended by SB32, which has a much more aggressive target of cutting emissions to
40% below 1990 levels by 2030 (Megerian and Dillon 2016). Innovative programs have been created, and
results have been generally positive, however gaps and unintended consequences have emerged that
point to challenges in implementation given local control of land use. Two of the state’s key climate
policies guiding development of urbanized areas, cap-and-trade and SB 375, will be discussed briefly
below.
SB 375 – The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, also known as SB 375, represents an important
approach to planning for GHG emissions reduction and growth concurrently, integrating land use
planning, housing and transportation. While the total emissions reduction targeted from this strategy is
currently low, the linkage between housing and transportation and the potential to drive a “smart growth”
land use pattern represents an important shift towards more sustainable urban form that will produce
significant emissions reductions over the long term. The law directs the Air Resources Board to initiate a
collaborative planning process for each Municipal Planning Office in the state, which is then responsible
for engaging local community participation to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in the
regional transportation plan that demonstrates how the region will meet the greenhouse gas emission
targets. The SCS does not supersede a city’s or county’s general plan or other planning policies or
authorities, and the targets established are non-binding but linked to various incentives including
transportation funding and streamlining of the environmental review process required by California
Environmental Quality Act (Steinberg 2008; Fulton 2008; Altmaier 2009).
In theory, the strength of SB 375 is the process, as it engages local stakeholders and regional planning
authorities to explore win-win solutions that align the buildings and the transportation sector to reduce
GHG emissions while meeting the community’s needs. However, in reality, local communities have not
13
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
welcomed the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) that allocates housing by income level, and
while transportation funding is being distributed based on a plan for affordable housing related to
transportation, the planned housing is not being built (Barbour and Deakin 2012, Metcalf 2016). Also,
when measured against the detailed analysis in the “Plan Bay Area Equity Analysis Report,” the predicted
results of the current plan show continued increases in displacement and ongoing cost increases for
housing + transportation, a metric that impacts household earnings available for all other discretionary
and non-discretionary uses. (Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) 2017b, p.6-5). While the target for Plan Bay Area was a ten percent reduction in the
housing plus transportation costs, the plan predicts a thirteen percent increase in those costs, versus a
fourteen percent increase without the benefit of the plan (Kirkey 2016, p.24).
The research problem then, is that a promising and increasingly necessary regional planning tool is under-
performing – the consequences include widespread displacement, reduced access to jobs and services for
disadvantaged populations, as well as significant increases in VMT and travel related emissions as the
populations most likely to use public transport can no longer access transit. A report by the Bay Area
Economic Institute places the blame on land use, stating that: “One of the main causes of California’s
failure to achieve its climate goals is sprawling land use patterns driven primarily by local barriers to
producing sustainable, affordable, transit-oriented housing,” and noting that “studies partially funded by
the Environmental Protection Agency found that compact development could reduce vehicle miles
traveled by 20 to 40 percent and could reduce emissions from transportation by 9 to 15 percent by 2050”
(BACEI 2016, p.1).

Cap-and-Trade and Transformative Climate Communities (TCC)
Another important regulatory tool at the state level influencing land use and community development is
California Cap-and-Trade, a mechanism that establishes a fixed set of allowances for emissions that can
be traded to enable the market to invest in the most cost-effective emissions reduction strategies. Like SB
375 discussed above, this program is representative of “second generation” environmental policy that
offers flexibility in how regulatory targets are met, to enable greater flexibility and cost-efficiency through
Figure 4: The State of
California is not on tract to
meet the 2050 climate goals,
as VMT continues to grow due
to growth at the urban fringe
(BACEI 2016, p.2, citing
California Air Resources
Board)
14
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
a market-based approach (Mazmanian and Kraft 2009). However, the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) recognizes that pricing alone will not produce equitable results, noting that “placing a price on
GHG emissions addresses only one of many market failures that impede solutions to climate change.
Additional market barriers and co-benefits would not be addressed if a cap and trade system were the
only state policy employed to implement AB 32” (CARB 2008, p.18).
The recent battle over the reauthorization of California’s ambitious carbon reduction targets is a useful
illustration, as SB 32 did not pass until a companion bill AB 197 was agreed upon that strengthened the
Environmental Justice provisions within the cap-and-trade program by prioritizing direct emissions
reduction in disadvantaged communities (Zabin 2016). Researchers had found clear evidence that the
carbon market was favoring pollution reduction in affluent areas, while air quality was not improving, and
in some cases was getting worse in poor neighborhoods. Data also demonstrated that communities of
color were impacted more significantly, even when normalized for income (Cushing et al. 2016).
Soon after the companion bill was agreed to, AB 2722 was passed as an implementing measure that would
be administered by the Strategic Growth Council to direct revenue from the cap-and-trade program to
the communities most impacted using the CalEnviroScreen tool, which ranks communities based on
multiple measures of vulnerability including income, race, poverty and health impacts. Named the
Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) program, AB 2722 funds the development and
implementation of neighborhood-level community plans including GHG emissions reduction projects
providing local economic, environmental, and health benefits to disadvantaged communities (Burke
2016).
The evolution of SB 375 and the cap-and-trade system provide an example of the need for climate
legislation to evolve as implementation challenges are identified. They are foundational public laws that
represent hard won successes and can be important building blocks for the socio-ecological
transformation that is needed to address current place-based challenges of climate and equity. However,
Mazmanian and Kraft (2009) caution that environmental management based on “second epoch” policies
can produce results that fall short when suspicions and conflicts between parties have not been
eliminated, and fundamental conflicts been not been resolved. They describe the transition to the “third
epoch” of environmental management as one where collaborative methods are fully embraced to achieve
community-based sustainability (Mazmanian and Kraft 2009, p.25). Given the need to building trust and
a sense of common purpose, my sense is that place-based and equity-focused “socio-ecological”
environmental management strategies, versus “socio-technical” strategies (Smith and Stirling 2010), will
hold the most promise for the transition to truly collaborative methods.
Research Purpose
This project explores the potential to meaningfully address the challenges of resilience and equity through
design of the built environment – buildings, infrastructure and natural areas (marshes, creeks and open
space), as well as the policy needed to establish community engagement, governance and financing
strategies. Given the magnitude of the climate challenge and the need to radically reduce emissions while
addressing physical challenges of sea level rise, flooding, warming and other effects of climate change, it
makes sense to ask how the physical form of urban areas is supporting or working against these goals,
and how design strategies might create more sustainable, resilient and equitable systems. This was the
spirit and intention behind the RbD Bay Area Challenge. The solutions offered by nine diverse teams bring
15
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
local, national and international expertise and creativity to the question of how to design a more
sustainable, equitable and resilient future. The location of the nine projects in one metropolitan region
but in very different physical and social contexts led to diverse solutions.
I also believe that this research is particularly timely, as key urban areas in the US are growing – particularly
in the urban hubs of our economy where geographic clustering and economic advantage is heightened, a
process Richard Florida calls “urbanized knowledge capitalism” (Florida 2017, p.9). This new economic
dynamic is coinciding with a time of increased vulnerability to the effects of climate change and a
heightened need to innovate, to create new patterns of development and urban infrastructure to ensure
a sustainable future (Randers et al. 2018; Steffen et al. 2015). New patterns of growth are urgently needed
to address this design and planning challenge.
Why Focus on Cities?
Cities – the places where most of humanity lives – are locally constructed, yet decisions about how cities
are designed, constructed and managed drive impacts that are global in nature, a mismatch that drives
externalities and creates free rider incentives. This project explores urban systems at a variety of scales,
from the regional, to the city and the urban neighborhood scale. The focus on the city scale as a place of
primary intervention to address global climate challenges is explored throughout this project, based on
the following key drivers:
1. No mechanism at the federal level, and limited authority at the state level
2. Growth is already coming to Bay Area cities, driving investment
3. The transition to a low-carbon future favors more localized economies
4. Appropriate scale to advocate for common interests
First, as a practical matter there is currently no mechanism within the US political system at the federal
level to either incentivize or mandate the kind of emissions reductions that are needed to avert a climate
catastrophe. To the contrary, the current administration’s policy and incentives are focused on liberating
market forces to pursue short term economic gains without regard to community impacts. This has led to
a devolvement of climate policy to the state and local level (Rabe 2016; Fiorino 2014, 2009; Mazmanian
and Kraft 2009; Jonas and Ward 2007).
However, and perhaps more importantly, another reason that Bay Area cities can take on the climate
challenge at this time, is that they are growing. Cities are where the growth is – both in terms of
demographics and economic activity – and in an age where communications and transportation have
seemingly overcome spatial barriers, cities matter as “places” (Florida 2017; Blakely 2014; Goldsmith and
Blakely 2010). As a result, “geography has strangely become more important and agglomeration
economies have made some cities more useful” (Goldsmith and Blakely 2010, p121). The trend towards
reurbanization in the SF Bay Area is indicative of a trend that is occurring nationally and internationally as
key “knowledge-based” economies are thriving (Florida 2017). Robert Fishman refers to the shift back to
urban centers as the “Fifth Migration,” building on ideas from a classic 1925 article by Lewis Mumford
describing major trends in population migration shaping land use. However, Jed Kolko’s recent review of
the demographics of the Fifth Migration shows that while there is a noticeable shift of the affluent to
central city areas, an even larger percentage of the poor are being displaced (Kolko 2016). Sustainable
16
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
and equitable urban development will require an inclusive approach with tools appropriate to both the
affluent urban core and the under-invested satellite cities.
There has been considerable debate on the specifics of a preferred planning scale for a low-carbon future
– whether it be regional or “megaregional” – however current thinking argues for localized “endogenous”
economic development of multiple smaller urban centers within the megaregion, with coordinated
planning of the “ecoregion” to ensure healthy stewardship of natural resources, including the watershed
and airshed, as the best model (Wheeler 2009, Banarjee 2009, Blakely 2014, Chapple 2015). A
development approach that nurtures multiple vibrant localized economies also promises to be more
equitable and inclusive. These ideas will be developed further in chapter five.
Finally, the city scale is the appropriate scale to advocate for common interests. Mazmanian and Kraft
offer that “linking sustainability concepts to concepts of community has particular advantages, since
communities represent the social and the physical expression of community” (Mazmanian and Kraft 2009,
21). In terms of the economics of climate change Nicholas Stern (2006) offers as a general principal that
investments should provide benefits to those that are making the payment, in order to create a self-
reinforcing process, he describes as “autonomous adaptation” (Stern 2006, p. 459). Finally, in the “San
Francisco Bay Area Summary Report,” a sub-section of “California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment,”
Ackerly, Jones, Stacey and Riordan (2018) emphasize the essential role of planning and design: “The three-
way relationship between land use, transportation infrastructure, and energy systems — all of which are
vulnerable to climate impacts — is perhaps the most critical interdependence in determining the future
growth and prosperity of the Bay Area.” (Ackerly et al. 2018, p.7).
Theoretical Orientation
This project explores the potential for place-based design interventions together with progressive policy
to address the dual challenges of climate and equity – fundamental urban development problems that
impact land use and development patterns, as well as access to opportunity, public health, and much
more. I believe these challenges are deeply rooted in a process Neil Smith has described as “uneven
geographical development,” that is, the tendency of capital to both invest in and withdraw from the built
environment in search of maximum profit (Smith 2008, p.6). This process drives the commodification of
urban land and undervalues public goods, a classic collective action problem that requires innovative
governance solutions (Ostrom 2014; Press and Mazmanian 2016; Harvey 2012, 2009; Mazmanian and
Kraft 2009). These concepts are explored in greater detail in chapter two.
The market economy fueling the New Urban Crisis prioritizes short-term gain over long-term
sustainability, and the accumulation of private over public wealth. A “post neo-liberal” theoretical
orientation is engaged for this project to support strategies that move beyond both paternalistic “welfare
state” strategies and neo-liberal market-based strategies to new “post neo-liberal” models that build
capacity for more equitable growth, enabling more people to participate in the economy (Laurent 2017;
Detter and Folster 2017; Heather Campbell et. al. 2016; Dasgupta 2014; Blakely 2014). I describe this
orientation as one that moves away from strategies that simply provide a “return to capital,” to those
supporting strategies that provide a “return to community,” by leveraging economic investment to build
economic capital together with social, human and cultural capital, as well natural and physical capital.

17
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Research Questions
The research into the nine case study projects from the RbD design challenge creates an opportunity to
gather insights from a cohort of leading practitioners focused on creating innovative solutions to the dual
challenges of climate and equity. The research portion of this study evaluates the design proposals of nine
RbD teams, comprised of local, national and international thought leaders that have just invested a full
year of time creating innovative projects to address the dual challenges of resilience and equity in the Bay
Area. Each of the projects will be evaluated around these three key questions.
1. What was learned from the Resilient by Design (RbD) Bay Area Challenge that will help
communicate the challenges of resilience and equity, in a way that will build support in the larger
community for needed changes to design, planning and public policy?
A comprehensive set of strategies addressing resilience and equity challenges in the Bay Area has been
generated through systematic assessment of the nine RbD projects. Given that the design challenge was
structured to support collaborative dialogue on both design and policy issues – including urban design,
infrastructure, land use, governance, regulatory and finance issues – the set of strategies generated is
particularly diverse. Deep community engagement and partnership was fundamental to the process; and
as the proposals by the various project teams were compared, the framing of resilience and equity was
explored, as a common language is still emerging on how to define resilience goals for future development
in the Bay Area.
These aspects of the design challenge resonate with the literature on governance and social change on
many levels. Many believe that social change requires a shared understanding of issues and opportunities,
what Benner and Pastor refer to as the forming of an “epistemic community” (Benner and Pastor 2012,
Pastor 2014). Shared language and goals are tools to build trust, which is important as sustainability
challenges are understood to be a classic collective action problem which leads groups to choose
suboptimal outcomes due to a lack of trust (Press and Mazmanian 2016; Ostrom 2014, 1990; Potoski and
Prakash 2004; Blanco 1994).
2. How can the diverse ideas developed by the Resilient by Design (RbD) Bay Area Challenge be
synthesized into a resilience framework to help guide future Bay Area design projects?
The ideas needed to create communities that are resilient, sustainable, socially beneficial and socially just
are all inter-related. This project included development of a meta-framework, a tool I call the
“Transformation Dashboard,” to organize the diverse ideas generated by the RbD process, and to frame
them within the larger goal of sustainable and equitable wealth building. This wealth building framework
integrates six forms of capital – physical, natural, human, social, cultural and economic. The RbD projects
reveal many opportunities to build wealth in communities and highlight the multiple benefits that accrue
from resilience investments.
These ideas resonate with theory on framework development, as agreement on a framework to measure
success has been described as essential to the development of meaningful policy with strong public
support. Innes and Booher (2000) noted that “Indicators do not drive policy,” but that “agreement on
policy can be advanced by discussion of how to design indicators” (Innes and Booher 2000, 177). Chapter
18
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
two includes additional discussion of equity and resilience frameworks from the literature as well as those
developed by local governments, community groups and non-profits in the Bay Area and nationally.
3. What are the key leverage points for positive change?
Ultimately the goal of this project is to promote positive change – and that requires addressing deeply
embedded economic incentives and patterns of racial and economic exclusion that have been established
over time. The focus here is on planning and urban design as a tool to shape the geographic and socio-
spatial development patterns that profoundly impact the way resources are used and natural systems are
managed – as well as the landscape of opportunity that is currently excluding so many but could become
the source of future ‘green growth’ and prosperity. This project organizes a rich set of ideas that were
generated by the RbD project teams, and supplements them with insights from a broad set of literature.
My conclusion is that innovative community-driven design thinking needs to supported by equally
innovative policy. Six recommendations are offered as a preliminary look at specific ideas to unlock
greater opportunity, addressing places in the SF Bay Area often overlooked by those imagining the future
of the region. The recommendations are based on my hypothesis that community-driven sustainable
development of the most vulnerable communities surrounding the Bay can provide a pathway to a more
sustainable, equitable and resilient region.
Organization of the Report
This report is organized in five chapters with an appendix. It begins with this introduction to the problems
underlying the research. Chapter two is a literature review providing an overview of literature related to
equity (2.1) and sustainability (2.2) as separate topics first, and then the literature related to “just
sustainability” (2.3) which explore the intersection between the two. Next, the literature focuses on
ecological economics, including diverse sustainability metrics and tools for community wealth building
(2.4). Finally, the literature review concludes with sources focused on building will for change (2.5) and
recent resources related to emerging local policy (2.6). Chapter three describes the research methodology
developed to analyze the nine RbD case studies, and chapter four presents the case studies and key
findings. Chapter five presents conclusions: a summary of key issues explored by the nine RbD projects,
observations from the analysis and comparison of the projects, and finally, a set of preliminary
recommendations on policy proposals that could help address embedded barriers and economic
incentives working against sustainability, equity and resilience goals. In addition, there are three appendix
documents: the first includes an enlarged version of the Transformation Dashboard, developed as a part
of this project; the second provides supporting information on each of the RbD projects, with excerpted
text and page number citations to the original team reports for those interested in learning more about
the proposed innovations and policy recommendations from each team. Finally, the third appendix
outlines a “Transformation Toolkit” including innovative approaches to community engagement,
collaborative governance and financing.

19
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW AND REFERENCES

20
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2. Literature Review
2.0 Introduction
2.1 The Equity and Justice Challenge
2.1.1 The Challenge of Global Neoliberal Capitalism
2.1.2 The Urban Land Nexus: Cities as Centers of Wealth Creation
2.1.3 The Growth Machine: A Mechanism of Unequal Development
2.1.4 The Challenges of Segregation and Concentrated Disadvantage
2.1.5 A Vision for the Just City: Equity, Democracy and Diversity
2.2 The Urban Sustainability Challenge
2.2.1 Definitions of Sustainable Development
2.2.2 Resources: The Problem of Growth
2.2.3 Waste Assimilation: The Challenge of Emissions
2.2.4 Life Support Services: The Need for Green Infrastructure
2.2.5 Aesthetic and Spiritual Value: The Value of Nature
2.3 A Synthesis: Just Sustainability
2.3.1 Environmental Justice to Just Sustainability
2.3.2 Resilience as Social-Ecological Transformation
2.3.3 From Smart Growth to Sustainable Regional Form
2.3.4 Governance for Sustainable and Equitable Metropolitan Regions
2.3.5 Tools for Inclusive Community Wealth Building
2.4 Measuring Success: from GDP to Community Capital
2.4.1 Ecological Economics and Green Growth
2.4.2 New Forms of Capital and Common Pool Resources
2.4.3 GDP and the Need for Alternative Metrics
2.4.4 Measuring Community Wellbeing
2.5 Building Will
2.5.1 Building Will: Vision
2.5.2 Building Blocks for Change
2.6 SF Bay Area: Current Context
2.6.1 Current Context: Equity and Justice Challenges
2.6.2 Current Context: Resilience Challenges
21
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
Why is the economically powerful and socially liberal SF Bay Area struggling with increasing poverty and
widening inequality, and how will the region address critical long-term goals of carbon reduction and
adaptation to climate change, when current social needs are so pressing?
This project explores the potential for urban design and planning – as a social process as well an act of
physical transformation – to advance equity and inclusion in metropolitan areas in the era of climate
change. The SF Bay Area is explored as a case study that is dynamic and growing yet challenged with
increasing income inequality, growing poverty, and a housing crisis driving displacement – in addition to
the threat of sea level rise, flooding and other impacts from a changing climate. The Bay Area also has a
record of leadership in addressing environmental challenges and advocating for equity and social
inclusion.
In chapter one we discussed the surging Bay Area economy, the role of the region providing sustainable
development leadership, and the challenges of integrating a proactive strategy for resilience. These
challenges highlight the need to address urgent present needs together with climate action to deliver
benefits over a longer time horizon, as middle-income jobs are disappearing, salaries are declining for low-
income workers, and the rising cost of housing is driving displacement. The literature supporting this
project addresses the urgent challenges of social justice and climate change, with a focus on the urban
metropolitan scale.
The literature review begins with the theory investigating issues of equity and justice related to urban
development in Section 2.1, followed by theory investigating urban sustainability challenges in Section
2.2. Section 2.3 reviews literature related to the overlay between equity and sustainability, an area of
theory including environmental justice, just sustainability and resilience, with planning concepts,
governance strategies and economic tools. While the first three sections address the challenges that are
being addressed and emerging strategies to support solutions, Section 2.4 reviews how progress in
meeting these challenges is measured, Section 2.5 addresses the theory behind making change, and
reviews some key local resources as building blocks for change. Finally, Section 2.6 includes current
resources focused specifically on the SF Bay Area for additional context.

2.1 The Equity and Justice Challenge
In this first section we are focused on the larger context driving the equity and justice challenge – how the
challenges of the Bay Area experience fit within a larger context of neoliberal capitalism (Harvey
2005/2007; Purcell 2009; Stiglitz 2012; Picketty 2014, etc.), the shifting role of key cities as centers of
wealth creation and capital accumulation (Fishman 2005, Kolko 2016; Florida 2017; etc.), a discussion of
urban “growth machine” theory as a driver of unequal development and concentrated disadvantage
(Molotch 1976; Logan and Molotch 1987/2007; Smith 1984/2008; Harvey 2012; etc.), the challenges of
segregation and concentrated disadvantage (Persky and Wiewal 1996; Aldana and Dymski 2004;
Goldsmith and Blakely 2010; Jargowsky 2015, 2018; Moskowitz 2017) and, finally, an evolving tradition of
city planning that is increasingly focused on issues of justice and citizen participation (Fainstein 2010,
2016; Young 2000, 2012; Mouffe 2005; Healy 1997/2006). Each of these will be discussed briefly below.
22
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.1 The challenge of global neoliberal capitalism
A critique of global neoliberal capitalism is underway in academia and in popular media as best sellers
such as Joseph Stiglitz’s The Price of Inequality, and Thomas Picketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century,
chronicle a shift in wealth and growing income inequality that has occurred in the US and internationally.
The data show a reality in stark contrast to the popular conception of the US as the land of opportunity,
revealing instead that “America has more inequality than any other advanced industrialized country, it
does less to correct those inequalities, and inequality is growing more than in many other countries”
(Stiglitz 2012, p.31). Richard Wilkinson and Kate Prickett offer comprehensive data on the costs of
inequality in their book The Spirit Level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger, with data on health
and social problems correlated to levels of inequality to demonstrate the linkages between inequality and
a series of measures including life expectancy, mental illness and substance abuse, obesity, educational
performance, teenage births, homicide and imprisonment rates and social mobility (Wilkinson and Pickett
2009, p.19). The data compare the US to approximately twenty other affluent developed nations
internationally and compare performance state by state within the US where data is available. The
correlation between inequality and negative outcomes is consistently high with the US showing the most
extreme inequality and greatest negative outcome in nearly every case (p.20-21).
David Harvey (2005/2007), author of A Brief History of
Neoliberalism, provides a detailed discussion of the
disconnect between theory used to construct consent
for neoliberalism versus the reality of the results,
including concentration of wealth and dismantling of
the social safety net (Harvey 2005/2007). He defines
neoliberalism as a theory “that proposes that human
well-being can best be advanced by liberating
individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within
an institutional framework characterized by strong
private property rights, free markets, and free trade.
In this context, the role of the state is to create and
preserve an institutional framework appropriate to
such practices” (Harvey 2005, p.2). “Private enterprise
and entrepreneurial initiative are seen as the keys to
innovation and wealth creation” (p.64), promoting
increases in productivity that elevate living standards for everyone, with a belief that “the elimination of
poverty (both domestically and worldwide) can best be secured through the free markets and free trade,”
and that “Competition – between individuals, between firms, between territorial entities (cities, regions,
nations, regional groupings) – is held to be a primary virtue” (p.65). These are concepts in direct contrast
to many that will be described later as resilience strategies, such as collaborative governance and
cultivation of common pool resources. Harvey underscores the core conflict which is that “At the heart of
the problem lies a burgeoning disparity between the declared public aims of neoliberalism – the well-
being of all – and its actual consequences – the restoration of class power” (p.79). Respect for democratic
deliberation is another point of contrast, as Harvey describes neoliberal theorists as “profoundly
suspicious of democracy. Governance by majority rule is seen as a potential threat to individual rights and
constitutional liberties” (p.66).
Neoliberal economic theory holds that
private enterprise, privatization of
assets, and competition will create
wealth and eliminate poverty – yet
neoliberalism in practice is understood
as a “drive to restore class power”
(Harvey 2005/2007 p. 70).
Neoliberalism is at the root of the
sustainability and equity challenge, and
in direct contrast to resilience-building
strategies, such as collaborative
governance and cultivation of common
pool resources.
23
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Mark Purcell (2009) provides additional insight into the mechanics of the state in supporting neoliberal
policy in urban areas, highlighting a dual role in metropolitan fiscal policy. While neoliberals “want the
state to ‘get out of the way’ as much as possible by eliminating regulations that inhibit capital”, they also
benefit as the state provides a significant array of interventions and investments supporting the goals of
capital over the public interest (Purcell 2009, p.142). Purcell states that “state intervention includes, for
example, public investment in efficient infrastructure, the transfer of publicly created technology to the
private sector, monetarist policies to control inflation, public investment in private land development,
workfare policies to discipline the unemployed and reintegrate them into the labor market, and the
increasing dominance of exchange value as the primary way to value urban land. Under neoliberalization,
therefore, the state assists capital by both retreating and intervening” (Purcell 2009, p.142, citing Harvey
2005). This is an essential concept relative to the investments that are needed to support greater
resilience in the Bay Area. Given the scarcity of public funds for new investment, an accounting of where
public funds are already supporting the urban system could open up opportunities to reallocate funds
toward more beneficial uses.
A second important contribution of Purcell’s is his attention to the neoliberal narrative, and its use of
communicative methods without substantive outcomes as a tool to construct consent. He claims that
establishing legitimacy is “an acute political problem” given policies that benefit interests of capital over
citizen interests, as it “dismantles welfare systems, increases inequality, and unleashes into urban political
life the harsh relations of market competition” (Purcell 2009, p.143). Like Scott Campbell (1996) who
famously described the “Planners Triangle” to illustrate fundamental conflicts requiring contested
negotiations (see Campbell 1996), Purcell believes that “an approach that confronts neoliberal hegemony
with a cooperative search for a shared understanding and agreement cannot foster the kind of counter-
hegemonic politics we require to challenge neoliberalization” (Purcell 2009, p.152). Furthermore, Purcell
brings sensitivity to the idea that seeking the “common good” in negotiations between participants with
different positions of power, puts an unfair burden on the disempowered as they “cannot – or they are
urged not to – advocate for their own interests. Rather they must overcome their disadvantage by
proposing a course of action that is seen to be in everyone’s best interests, not just theirs” (p. 153; citing
Abram 2000; Hillier 2003; Sanders 1997).
Finally, Purcell expresses his disdain for methods
promising unrealistic outcomes through
cooperation, such as Healey (1997) who sees
collaboration as the way “to shape coherent
places in ‘fragmented societies’,” Instead, Purcell
writes that “if neoliberalization constitutes ‘a
successful project for the restoration of ruling
class power’ (citing Harvey 2005, p. 203), if we
recognize that to the extent power is being
fragmented it is the power of those least
advantaged by neoliberalization, then a very
different strategy is called for. What is required is
a strategy of counter-hegemonic struggle to
achieve ‘a profound transformation of existing
power relations’ (Purcell, citing Mouffe 2005,
p.52).
With the rise of neoliberalism, the nation as
a whole has experienced a shifting of
infrastructure finance away from
‘comprehensive’ or ‘integrative’ public
investment, leaving cash-strapped cities
with few options. These challenges are
especially daunting in California due to Prop
13 which constrains the ability of local
governments to raise taxes. Many have
turned to privatization, and as a result are
‘splintering’ urban space with private
infrastructures. (Kirkpatrick and Smith
2011, p.496; citing Graham 2004, p. 230).
24
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Owen Kirkpatrick and Michael Peter Smith (2011) discuss the challenges of neoliberalism as it relates to
California infrastructure finance policy (Kirkpatrick and Smith 2011). They describe how national and state
infrastructure investments have declined precipitously since the 1970s, leaving local governments with
an “infrastructure imperative” to both maintain and build new infrastructure essential to supporting
continued economic growth in the private sector, yet with few resources to invest (p.481). These
challenges are especially daunting in California due to Prop 13 which constrains the ability of local
governments to raise taxes from residential and commercial property, while at the same time, neoliberal
retrenchment has impacted state and federal funding for urban infrastructure. “In California, outlays for
public works made up almost 20% of state spending in the 1960s but fell to 3% in the 2000s” (p.483; citing
Crane 2008, p.476). As a result, cities are more dependent on debt financing to support growth, and find
themselves “more vulnerable to the decisions of capital market gatekeepers,” which can “impinge on local
authority,” for instance, “in order to access capital markets on favorable terms, cities ‘are compelled to
keep expenses low and revenues high’” (p.482; citing Hackworth, 2007: 22–3).
In response, the authors describe new development tools that have been developed as federal funding
for infrastructure waned, and state and local debt became more strictly controlled, including “a complex
set of hybrid, quasi-public mechanisms that could be used to bypass electoral controls, legislative hurdles
and constitutional debt limitations. Empowered to issue long-term debt without the formal oversight of
elected decision makers, these hybrid entities are typically governed by ‘boards of directors that combine
political officials with business leaders’, such that they ‘fit into an increasingly important “third sector” of
the US economy...between marketplace and government” (Kirkpatrick and Smith 2011, p.481; citing
Adams 2007, p.164).
Alex Schafran (2013) describes the effect of neoliberal
restructuring within the state of California, and
particularly in the Bay Area, a region that has been
impacted by neoliberalism with a “multi-scalar shift in
demographics, policy and capital investment” which has
produced what he describes as an “exurban geography of
crisis” (Schafran 2013, p.665). He also describes the
challenges to regional development from Prop 13, which
act as a “key linchpin in the growing fiscalization of land
use, whereby land-use decisions are not made according
to traditional planning criteria — such as proximity to
transit or infrastructure, community needs or
environmental impacts — but based on their ability to
contribute to the tax base” (p.674; citing Coleman 2005).
However, he also notes the challenges related to “impact
and linkage fees, which became de rigueur in Californian
cities during this era, are only necessary because of the
steady retrenchment of the federal and state
governments, especially on infrastructure”, where
“money was cut off, reduced or reconfigured — 75%
grants became 55% loans (p.675).
The economic incentives embedded
in California municipal finance (Prop
13 and AB 8) are a significant force
behind the current housing crisis, as
cities have a disincentive to provide
affordable housing. Property tax
restrictions on residential property
have led to the “fiscalization of land
use” as commercial or retail uses
generate tax revenue for the city,
while residential uses generally do
not, when the cost of servicing
households in factored in. In fact,
lower-income households are not
wanted at all, as the cost of servicing
them far exceeds revenue received
through property taxes. (Kirkpatrick
and Smith 2011; Schafran 2013).
25
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
As a result, funding restrictions have severely impacted local governments, and in the process helped to
produce inequality across the region as wealthier towns with a higher tax base could attract high-end
retail uses generating sales tax, and established towns generally had choice locations and infrastructure
that had been paid for during an earlier era – but for newer low-income communities on the exurban
fringe with the combined disadvantage of low tax-base and incomplete infrastructure, “development
became the sole way to pay for everything from new roads to new schools” (p.675; Graham and Marvin,
2001). He challenges planners to focus on exurban areas, with a recommendation to “accept exurbia as a
real place, as incomplete rather than inadequate, as a set of communities” and that “must become better
connected physically, politically and economically to the region and its cores, even if this growth should
never have been allowed to happen in the first place” (p.683; citing Kneebone and Garr 2010). He believes
that future success requires moving beyond planning around a primary central city, and instead embracing
the “multi-centered, interconnected and complex megaregion that is northern California” (p.684).
2.1.2. The Urban Land Nexus: Cities as Centers of Wealth Creation
Many have observed that key cities, rather than nations, have become the dominant economic unit
internationally, a concept referred to as “rescaling” (Harvey 1973/2009, Schafran 2013, etc.). The idea of
city dominance is not a new one, as Jonas and Ward point out in their analysis, Jane Jacobs (1970) “laid
out a powerful argument to the effect that cities, rather than nations, are agents of wealth creation (a
position in fact traceable to the eighteenth-century Scottish political economist and philosopher Adam
Smith)” (Jonas and Ward 2007, p.171; citing Jacobs 1970). However, growth dynamics driving city
dominance have evolved considerably since the 1970s through post-industrial restructuring and increased
globalization, creating new patterns of development that are highlighted below.
Robert Fishman (2005) has written extensively on patterns of suburbanization, prior to writing “The Fifth
Migration,” an article describing the reurbanization of key cities, including San Francisco and San Jose in
the SF Bay Area, as core urban areas have become the preferred places, attracting population, growth and
a renewed sense of urbanism (Fishman 2005). The Fifth Migration is named in reference to a classic 1925
article by Lewis Mumford describing major trends in population migration shaping land use. “Mumford
identified a "First Migration" of pioneers that had settled the continent, a "Second Migration" from the
farms to the factory towns, and a "Third Migration" to the great metropolitan centers, which had become
the industrial and financial core of the country. In 1925 he predicted a "Fourth Migration" which would
radically decentralize the functions of the great metropolis and spread population throughout whole
regions. Urban concentration, he announced, was now obsolete” (Fishman 2005, p.358). The influx of
population to key cities marks the “fifth migration,” a shift that is complex as the magnitude of growth in
areas like the economically dynamic Bay Area is fueling both a return to the city as well as rapid growth in
suburban areas commonly referred to as sprawl (p.360; citing Berube 2003). He describes the planning
challenge of the fifth migration as one that requires place-based policies that “not only capitalize on and
institutionalize present demographic trends but create diverse, livable, and vibrant cities that can sustain
themselves long into the future.” On a hopeful note he adds: “Finally, these districts often possess
precious legacies of long-lost civic idealism: generous public parks, dignified public libraries, and
impressive school buildings. Planning the fifth migration thus means in large part the imaginative recovery
and reuse of the strengths of a sadly depleted urban fabric” (p.363). At the same time, he sees the shifting
demographics placing tremendous pressures on housing, an issue highly relevant in the Bay Area, and
cautions that “land speculation could result in such rapid and total gentrification of an area that its former
26
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
residents are simply pushed into isolated and poorly served suburban ghettoes” (Fishman 2005, p.364;
citing Wyly et al. 2004).
Jed Kolko (2016) offers data comparing population from 2000 to 2014 to illustrate the “reurbanizing”
trend presented by Fishman (2005), a trend that describes a waning of suburbanization with population
shifting back to core urban areas (Kolko 2016
1
). Kolko points out that while the rate of suburbanization is
slowing “in fact, the U.S. continues to suburbanize. The share of Americans living in urban neighborhoods
dropped by 7%, from 21.7% in 2000 to 20.1% in 2014. Even looking at only the densest urban
neighborhoods where about one-third of the urban population lives, the share of Americans living in these
neighborhoods fell by 5%, from 7.4% in 2000 to 7.0% in 2014” (p.1). He describes how urban
neighborhoods “grew richer between 2000 and 2014. But only higher-income households became more
urban over these years. The poorest tenth of households was 12% less likely to live in urban
neighborhoods in 2014 compared with 2000, and 17% less likely to live in higher-density urban
neighborhoods. In contrast, the richest tenth of households was 12% more likely to live in higher-density
urban neighborhoods” (p.1). Lastly, he describes the racial disparity, as “(A)among 25-49-year-olds with
four or more years of college and no school-age kids, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans were all less
likely to live in urban neighborhoods in 2014 than in 2000, unlike Whites. The share of Blacks living in
higher-density neighborhoods dropped 12% and rose just 2% for Hispanics and 0.5% for Asian-Americans,
compared with an increase of 24% for Whites” (p.5). Kolko notes that “educated, young adults are highly
mobile and have disposable income, so their choices about where to live can be a strong leading indicator
about broader shifts in the desire for urban living. Also, young, talented workers boost local economic
innovation and productivity, especially when they – as economists like to say – agglomerate. And it’s not
just those urban areas themselves that benefit. The increased clustering of talented people in productive
places boosts national economic output” (Kolko 2016, p.6).
Richard Florida (2017) presents extensive
economic and demographic data to demonstrate
the shift that has occurred, as city-regions or
“megaregions” become more prominent, as “Just
40 megaregions – constellations of cities and
metros like the Boston – New York – Washington
DC corridor – account for roughly two-thirds of the
world’s economic output and more than 85% of its
innovation, while housing just 18 percent of its
population” (Florida 2017, p.8-9; citing Florida et al.
2012, 2008; Florida and King 2016). Florida has
coined the current economic regime “urbanized
knowledge capitalism” to describe the process
driving the prominence of the leading
megaregions, areas with common traits including a
high proportion of highly educated people engaged in what he calls the creative economy (p.9). Florida
names the phenomenon of concentrated advantage the “New Urban Crisis,” which he describes as
“winner-take-all-urbanism, in which the talented and the advantaged cluster and colonize a small, select

1
All data in the paper by Kolko 2016 are based on Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) from the 2000 decennial
Census and 2014 one-year American Community Survey (ACS).
Florida (2017) describes the economic
success of key megaregions as resulting
from “the urban land nexus – a product of
the extreme clustering of economic activity
in very limited parts of a very limited
number of cities and the increasingly fierce
competition over them” (Florida 2017, p.9).
Yet, he demonstrates that displacement
and increases in concentrated poverty are
predictable by-products of “urbanized
knowledge capitalism,” creating what he
calls “The New Urban Crisis” (Florida 2017).
27
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
group of superstar cities, leaving everybody and everywhere else behind. Much more than a crisis of cities,
the New Urban Crisis is the central crisis of our time” (p.xx).
Like Harvey (1973/2009), Logan and Molotch (1976, 2007), and others, Florida (2017) ascribes success in
the key megaregions as resulting from “the urban land nexus – a product of the extreme clustering of
economic activity in very limited parts of a very limited number of cities and the increasingly fierce
competition over them” (Florida 2017, p.9). He cites data showing that the influx of people into core urban
areas also includes rapid growth at the periphery, noting that “(P)population growth is occurring fastest
in the farthest-out (or “suburbiest”) parts of suburbs and in the densest urban neighborhoods, according
to an analysis by real estate economist Jed Kolko” (Florida 2017, p.163; citing Kolko 2015). To address
these challenges, he makes the case for policy based on the connections between place and performance.
He believes “if we wish to break the cycle of concentrated urban poverty, people-based policies must be
combined with place-based policies that bolster local neighborhood conditions” (p.119). While public
attention is on gentrification, his data show that “For every census tract that gentrified between 1970 and
2000, ten remained poor and twelve that were once stable slipped into concentrated disadvantage… even
more shocking, the number of high poverty tracts tripled” (p.77; citing Cortright and Mahmoudi 2014).
His greatest concern is the challenge of “chronic, concentrated urban poverty” which he sees as “a far
bigger problem than gentrification and remains the most troubling issue facing our cities” (p.77-78).
Bruce Katz and Jeremy Nowak (2018), authors of The New
Localism: How Cities Can Thrive in the Age of Populism, describe
‘New Localism’ in terms of “collaborative networks” that have the
potential to “act as a countervailing force and cultural antidote to
the rise of right-wing populism” (Katz and Nowak, p.5). To illustrate
the idea of the ‘New Localism’, their book provides in depth
discussion of urban growth strategies in Pittsburgh and
Indianapolis in the US, where public, private and philanthropic
investment has contributed to economic growth, and in
Copenhagen, Denmark, where the city has realized economic
success by reclaiming and cultivating public assets. The
Copenhagen model offers a distinctly different approach than in
the US, showing “how a city can reclaim public assets within its
border and capture the value appreciation to create new public-
purpose revenue” (p.119). They note that the local governments
in Denmark account for over 60 percent of government spending,
the highest level among advanced nations in the OECD (p.127; citing OECD; Katz and Noring 2016).
However, Katz and Nowak argue that public asset value in the US is higher than most people think, and
that the US government has more control of public assets than it does in many other nations (p.137). Their
suggestions for better financial management of public assets include the following: First, “cities need to
know what they own and what they owe (p.127); “cities need to know the value of what they own and
leverage that value for public good” (p.128); “cities need to unify or, at a minimum, align the management
of public assets” (p.129); “cities need to insulate the management of public assets from political
interference” (p.130); “cities need to engender a culture of collaboration across the public, private and
civic sectors” (p.131); “cities should maximize the benefit of public ownership and private
management”(p.132); “Finally, cities need to think and act for the long term” (p.133). With better
management of public assets, Katz and Nowak see potential for a revenue source that can fund ongoing
Katz and Nowak describe
how cities can leverage the
wealth created through the
urban land nexus. One
particularly promising
approach they call the
“Copenhagen model”
manages public assets to
capture appreciating land
value as a source of revenue
for re-investment in projects
serving the public good (Katz
and Nowak 2018).
28
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
infrastructure development in the public interest. An additional challenge in the US context will be the
reassembling of public assets, as many of these are controlled by semi-autonomous public institutions,
and “When multiple public authorities are powerful, the power of the broader public may actually be
diminished” (p.214).
2.1.3 The Growth Machine: A Mechanism of Unequal Development
The organization of buildings, infrastructure and open space impacts the daily lives of urban residents, as
well as those that own real estate and create businesses to produce wealth – this is one of the underlying
challenges of urban development – that buildings and neighborhoods have a “use value” to those that
live there and an “exchange value” to those that profit from them, a phenomenon that drives the social,
economic and political construction of urban places, and the patterns of unequal development that
produce concentrations of wealth and poverty (Molotch 1976, Logan and Molotch 2007, Smith 2008,
Harvey 2012). The trend of economic concentration in preferred urban areas is magnified by the current
wave of reurbanization and rescaling described above. Key literature on urban growth theory and the
dynamics of uneven development are reviewed below to shed light on how urban space is shaped by
economic and political forces, concentrating economic opportunity for some while enforcing a structural
inequality for others. As the dynamics of the urban land nexus have been accentuated through neoliberal
deregulation, these processes are a high priority for innovative policy exploration.
Harvey Molotch’s (1976) seminal paper entitled “The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political
Economy of Place”, outlined a theory of urban growth as one driven by a coalition of local elites seeking
to create conditions supporting economic gain through growth – including real estate development, and
the related increases in land value and rents that accrue to location (Molotch 1976). He highlights the
competitive aspect of growth coalitions stating, “We need to see each geographical map – whether a
small group of land parcels, a whole city, a region, or a nation – not merely as a demarcation of legal,
political, or topographical features, but as a mosaic of competing land interests capable of strategic
coalition and action” (p.311; citing Banfield 1961). He also discusses the relationship between different
scales of governance, “Because of the nested nature of communities, subunits which are competitive with
one another at one level (e.g., in an interblock dispute over where the bus stop should go) will be in
coalition at a higher level (e.g., in an intercity rivalry over where the new port should go)” (Molotch 1976,
p.311). He generalizes this observation into a principle that groups aggregate together to gain benefits
from a governmental level where “action needed is at least one level higher than the community from
which the activism springs” (p.312). In a subsequent paper, Molotch emphasizes the role of local actors
working to attract capital, stating “corporate actors do not have to worry through the process of
manipulating local structures to generate a warm welcome; that is done by those on the local rentier
scheme, friendly hands (hidden and not so hidden) at work. They prepare the ground for capital” (Molotch
1999, p.254).
Neil Smith’s (1984/2008) classic text entitled Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production
of Space, also evaluates urban space in terms of the capital dynamics that produce it. Like David Harvey,
he focuses on the process of declining real estate value that creates loss for some and opportunity for
others, as “uneven development of capitalism becomes less a means of uneven expansion than one of
uneven decline” (Smith 1984/2008, p.208). It is this dynamic that is so intrinsic to unequal development
in urban areas. He describes how properties lose value until the ground-rent is depressed sufficiently that
there is a “rent gap” between the actual rent charged and the potential rent that could be earned with a
29
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
higher use, triggering redevelopment and gentrification. As an example, many inner-city neighborhoods
that were underinvested with the “suburbanization of capital,” have become prime areas for
redevelopment (p.200). Finally, he describes the cycles of decay and regeneration as a “seesaw from
developed to underdeveloped space and back again is none other than the geographical expression of the
constant necessary movement from fixed to circulating capital and back to fixed. At an even more basic
level, it is the geographical manifestation of the equally constant and necessary movement from use-value
to exchange-value and back to use-values” (p.199).
John Logan and Harvey Molotch (1987/2007) published an
expanded version of Molotch’s treatise on the growth machine,
entitled Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place; a widely
influential text that was reissued as a twentieth anniversary
edition in 2007. In the preface to the 20th anniversary edition,
the authors note that they did not feel a need to update the text
as the past twenty years have seen only an intensification of the
trends presented (Logan and Molotch 1987/2007, p.xxiv). Logan
and Molotch describe the alignment of neoliberal policy and
growth machine dynamics where social displacement and
ecological destruction are part of a “routine” system of building
places (p.xxiv). Their analysis describes the mechanisms of urban
displacement, where advantages and disadvantages are unevenly
distributed, and a portion of the population is systematically
excluded from neighborhoods providing access to opportunity.
This is a distinct planning challenge, as the “relevant land use
problem ceases to be a question of how to deploy vast migrations
of success-oriented workers and becomes instead a problem of
determining which locations will have to deal with those for
whom there is least use” (p.145).
Another key concept described is “fiscal zoning”, a practice where “the usual analysis is to estimate the
city government’s costs and revenues arising from each possible land use and then to use zoning
ordinances and capital improvement programs to encourage the fiscally most ‘profitable’ uses” (Logan
and Molotch 1987, p.187; citing Margolis 1957, p.225-227; Coke and Gargan 1969; Danielson 1972). Fiscal
zoning has become commonly understood as a tool to attract uses that generate local tax revenue,
including high-end residential and commercial/retail uses, however a less well understood by-product is
the way “suburban fragmentation allows the social costs of production in one jurisdiction, such as
servicing low-income employees, to be transferred to another” (Logan and Molotch 1987, p.189). The
impact is considerable as, “Poor suburbs must pay for higher levels of social welfare service, such as
special education programs, income supplements, public hospitals, and housing. They spend two to four
time as much as other communities on these functions… Suburbanization creates, ipso facto, a regressive
tax structure” (p.192-193).
Harvey, David (2012, 1973/2009) builds on the thesis described by Logan and Molotch, contributing
insights into some of the key contradictions and challenges embedded in the urban growth dynamic,
including monopoly effects and the treatment of the commons. For example, when discussing the
enforcement role that competition plays in the market economy, Harvey asks the “what happens when
The “growth machine”
dynamics described by Logan
and Molotch concentrate
advantage using mechanisms
of exclusion. Suburban
fragmentation is a
compounding challenge that
“allows the social costs of
production in one jurisdiction,
such as servicing low-income
employees, to be transferred
to another,” producing an
inherently regressive tax
structure in poor suburban
areas (Logan and Molotch
1987/2007, p.189).
30
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
the enforcement mechanism is lacking, as happens under conditions of monopolization, and what
happens when we include spatial competition in our thinking, which is, as has long been known, always a
form of monopolistic competition” (Harvey 2012, p.36). These questions highlight the challenge of the
Bay Area housing crisis, with increasing rents due to low supply and high demand. Ultimately monopoly
power aggravates the affordability challenge for low-income renters, as rental housing follows “a
sequential allocation of a fixed housing stock in order of competitive bidding power, the poorest group,
because it enters the housing market last, has to face producers of housing services who are in a quasi-
monopolistic position” (Harvey 1973/2009, p.170). Furthermore, “This structural dynamic would not have
the importance it does were it not for the fact that capitalists actively cultivate monopoly powers.”
(Harvey 2012, p.93).
Harvey cautions that resources cultivated as a
‘commons’ provide another opportunity for
monopoly exploitation and should be protected
carefully. “At the heart of the practice of commoning
lies the principle that the relation between the social
group and that aspect of the environment being
treated as a common shall be both collective and non-
commodified – off-limits to the logic of market
exchange and market valuations” (Harvey 2012, p.73).
He sees the intense competition for use of valuable
land as a fundamental tension, offering that
“(U)urbanization is about the perpetual production of
an urban commons (or its shadow-form of public
spaces and public goods) and its perpetual
appropriation and destruction by private interests”
(p.80). Finally, Harvey describes the racial bias that
underlies the process of accumulation by
dispossession: “While the median loss of household
wealth in the United States for everyone was 28
percent over the period 2005-2009, that of Hispanics
was 66 percent, and that of blacks, 53 percent, while
for whites it was 16 percent” (p.133).
2.1.4 The Challenges of Segregation and Concentrated Disadvantage
Patterns of development in the city-region provide a spatial expression of the unequal development
process described above, as those benefitting economically cluster in exclusive neighborhoods of
concentrated advantage – defining preferred districts as well as areas of concentrated poverty – a process
of gentrification and displacement, as well as exclusion from high value neighborhoods. (Harvey
1973/2009, 2012; Logan and Molotch 1987/2007; Orfield 1997, 2009; Rusk 1999, 2013; Florida 2017; etc.).
As discussed previously, the current trend of reurbanization in key cities under “urbanized knowledge
capitalism” (Florida 2017) is shifting the geography of poverty, creating a “suburbanization of poverty”
(Soursourian 2012; Jargowsky 2015, 2018; Moskowitz 2017, etc.). This section delves into the details of
the development mechanisms that reproduce unequal neighborhood effects, the social costs of poverty
reinforced by spatial separation, and the potential role of policy to address these challenges.
Places challenged by vacancy, crime,
pollution and under-performing schools
have become justified as places that
protect affordability. These places,
which tend to align with places marked
on maps during the days of redlining,
have disproportionate rates of asthma
among children and adults, and high
rates of other chronic diseases as well
(BARHII, 2015). The social costs of these
effects are high, and rents are especially
high too, as limited supply creates
monopoly effects. Harvey describes the
monopoly effects that take effect at the
low end of the housing market, enabling
landlords to charge high rents for
substandard housing (Harvey
1973/2009, p.170).
31
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Persky and Wiewel (1996) recognize the extensive work by urban planners and urban economists to
measure the high costs created by low density development, from the 1970s and onward, demonstrating
the "significant cost differences between planned higher-density growth and low-density sprawl" (Persky
and Wiewal 1996, p.8; citing US OTA 1995, p. 205; Burchell and Listokin 1995; Real Estate Research
Corporation 1974). They also cite the question as to whether the taxes and other revenue generated by
development cover the associated infrastructure costs, noting that “the general consensus is that
industrial and commercial developments more than pay their way, but residential development may fall
short and low or moderate income residential probably falls far short” (p.8; citing Oakland and Testa 1995;
Burchell and Listokin 1993; US OTA 1995). They offer perspective on the magnitude of difference between
the cost of servicing urban vs. suburban households based on a study in Chicago, as follows: “For years,
urban planners and urban economists have emphasized the high costs created by low density
development… only households with high incomes (>75,000/year) are likely to generate local revenues in
the outer suburbs greater than the expenditure costs they impose. In the central city, middle income
households ($30,000-$75,000) also pay their way. These
estimates indicate that new middle-income households
in the outer suburbs are imposing net public costs
between $900 and $1500 annually” (p.8). The costs
reported relate to a study in Chicago in the 1990s, so it is
to be expected that the cost differential is currently
considerably higher in the SF Bay Area. They close by
noting that “The common wisdom and de facto public
policy has been that suburban expansion reflects
economic efficiency” (p.13; citing Becker 1996). “This
analysis suggests common wisdom is incorrect. Taking a
summary view of all the benefits and costs discussed
above, we conclude that there are very large unpaid costs
and foregone benefits generated by greenfield locations”
(p.13).
Carolyn Aldana and Gary Dymski (2004) describe the role
federal housing-related policies have played in
supporting unequal development. They argue that
federal transportation funding and FHA housing loans
remain an active force shaping urban communities and
perpetuating segregation – and that while the historic role is readily acknowledged – the continuing role
of federal policy in reproducing racial separation is receiving little attention and is not well understood
(Aldana and Dymski 2004, p.99). They describe the notion that “patterns of urban sprawl and racial
separation observed today are preference based” as untenable (p.100; citing Clark 1993). Instead, they
argue that “federal housing-related policies have provided the context in which racial separation and
urban sprawl have arisen and persisted. Market forces and federal policies together have generated the
urban landscape – both in the earlier era of heavier regulation and in the deregulated era of today”
(p.100).
To underscore how current federal policy provides the greatest support for those that already have
advantage, the authors provide detailed data demonstrating the vast disparity in federal spending for
home ownership mortgage deductions versus federal spending to create low-income housing, with detail
Aldana and Dymski argue that while the
federal government role perpetuating
urban sprawl and racial segregation
during the era of red-lining is generally
well understood, the continuing role of
federal policy in reproducing inequities
receives little attention (Aldana and
Dymski 2004, p.99), as current tax policy
and federal expenditures for housing
continue to deepen patterns of inequity
and concentrations of urban poverty
(p.116). Any new policy developed to
correct affordable housing disincentives
needs to consider the full range of
incentives already impacting the
market.
32
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
by income bracket. To highlight an example, in 1998 Los Angeles County spent $55 million to build low-
income housing units, while they “spent” over $360 million in mortgage interest deduction on just those
homes that were purchased in 1997, not including all remaining existing housing. The ratio was even more
extreme in Orange County where $8 million was spent on low-income housing units while $175 million of
mortgage interest was deducted from homes purchased that year, for a total of less than one half of one
percent of federal spending for low-income housing in that market (p.107; citing data from Federal
Financial Institutions Council and US Census). Their conclusion is that “(E)each year’s increment of tax
deductions and federal housing subsidy outlays simply deepens the long-established pattern of
differential access to different kinds of federal expenditures for housing” reinforcing concentrations of
poverty (p.116). In particular, they note that the “home-acquisition/housing finance process, has to be
viewed both as one source of increasing racial wealth disparities over time and one source of urban sprawl
(p.116; citing Oliver and Shapiro 1995; Conley 1999).
William Goldsmith and Edward Blakely (2010) offer a
detailed and comprehensive assessment of the
human and social costs of poverty and inequality in
their book Separate Societies: Poverty and Inequality
in U.S. Cities, 2
nd
ed. (Goldsmith and Blakely, 2010).
While the poor “suffer loss of health, social
respectability, self-regard, and many opportunities to
enjoy life”, they describe how “highly unequal
societies spend heavily for exclusion and repression,
to pay for police, prisons, judicial systems, and gated
communities” (p.22). They describe poverty and the
separation it produces as “a process like the melting
pot in reverse” (p.28), with segregation and
concentrated poverty as a form of residential
“entrapment” that limits opportunities – a condition
that is more complex and entrenched than a mere
“spatial mismatch” of jobs and housing as it
encompasses poor quality education, discrimination
and lack of social networks that can perpetuate
disadvantage for generations” (p.143-148).
As they look toward solutions, they recall the recommendations from their original 1992 edition and
reflect on the lack of progress “In the face of these pressures, we argued, Congress would pass better
federal laws and offer more generous budgets, the executive branch would better regulate the national
economy, and industry would develop a more progressive response to competition in the global
economy” (p. 149). Instead, given the reality of federal retrenchment, the authors emphasize new
thinking around cities and city government to address urban challenges, offering three strategies that
each support “an increase in collective capacity” including municipal experimentation, local reforms as a
tool to influence federal policy, and leveraging the National Conference of Mayors as a coalition to effect
change (p. 184).
Segregation and concentrated poverty
are forms of residential entrapment that
limit opportunities – this is a challenge
more complex and entrenched than a
mere “spatial mismatch” of jobs and
housing – as it encompasses poor
quality education, discrimination and
lack of social networks that can
perpetuate disadvantage for
generations (Goldsmith and Blakely
2010, p.143-148). This is a strong
argument for inclusive community
development to counter the tendency to
“unconsciously allow the use of
segmentation, inequality, and isolation
to hide poor people, objectify them, and
rationalize their conditions” (p.29).
33
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Karen Chapple and Edward G. Goetz (2011) describe
equity regionalism and the challenges of dispersal
strategies in their paper entitled: "Spatial justice through
regionalism? The inside game, the outside game, and the
quest for the spatial fix in the United States" (Chapple and
Goetz 2011). They challenge the idea of “moving to
opportunity” also known as MTO, asking: “What happens
to the urban neighborhoods and housing projects left
behind?” and noting that studies “have not examined
systematically what happens to communities that have
experienced exits from their public housing stock via
consent decrees or MTO” (Chapple and Goetz 2011,
p.463). Instead, they suggest that “a new bottom-up or
multi-level equity regionalism” (p.371) offers potential by
supporting development of local capabilities.
Huiping Li, Harrison Campbell and Steven Fernandez (2013) argue that residential segregation has
widespread impacts that effect both the poor and the non-poor (Li et al. 2013). They note that economic
disparities between rich and poor communities “foster mutual ignorance and impede efforts to cooperate
on a regional basis to pursue economic development and/or alleviate poverty” (Li et al. 2013, p. 2; citing
Frisken 2001; Kantor 2006; Savitch and Vogel 2004). The effect of segregation on regional economic
growth is described based on analysis of data for US metropolitan areas from 1980-2005; and, results
“demonstrate that residential segregation based on race and skill level not only negatively affects
metropolitan growth, but that its impact has grown stronger over time” (Li et al., 2013, p.2). This finding
is based on the discovery that low-skilled jobs complement high-skilled jobs, thus “a technology-rich
region produces a knowledge- and service-based economy” (p.3). The authors describe that because the
current “post-industrial economy” is made more efficient by the contributions of low-skilled workers, the
separation of high- and low-skilled workers into distinct communities disproportionately impacts
commutes to work for those who are low-skilled, ultimately producing “an imbalance in the labour market
(that) inhibits the productivity and income growth of all workers” (p.13). This argument in favor of
economic efficiency offers yet another reason to support policies that provide greater access to housing
for low- and moderate-income people in core urban areas. The authors conclude that “policies cultivating
a mixed living structure, breaking racial and class barriers that impede minorities and the poor from
engaging in the mainstream, are supported” (p.14).
Paul Jargowsky (2015, 2018) describes the geographic distribution of high-poverty neighborhoods to
demonstrate how racial and economic segregation in the US perpetuates disadvantage through
generations, at great cost to impacted populations as well as the larger community. He offers detailed
mapping and demographic data to reveal a “nationwide return of concentrated poverty that is racial in
nature” and proceeds to outline the deliberate policy decisions that have created what he calls
“architecture of segregation that ensures that racial segregation and the concentration of poverty is
entrenched for years to come” (Jargowsky 2015, p.14). Jargowsky blames exclusionary zoning and
fragmented governance as the pattern of high-poverty areas falls within distinct municipal boundaries.
His two key recommendations are as follows: “First, the federal and state governments must begin to
control suburban development so that it is not cannibalistic: new housing construction must be roughly
in line with metropolitan population growth. Second, every city and town in a metropolitan area should
Placement of affordable housing in
more affluent communities is
currently proposed in the Bay Area
to support “moving to
opportunity” programs known as
MTO by the federal housing
agencies, also referred to as “high
opportunity areas” (HOAs) in
California. However, Chapple and
Goetz (2011) ask: “What happens
to the urban neighborhoods and
housing projects left behind?”
(Chapple and Goetz 2011, p.463).
34
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
be required to ensure that the new housing built reflects the income distribution of the metropolitan area
as a whole. To some, this suggestion may seem like a massive intervention in the housing market. In fact,
exclusionary zoning is already a massive intervention in the housing market” (p.14-15).
In his 2018 article “The Persistence of Segregation in the 21st Century”, Jargowsky delves into the detail
of racial segregation trends, and the compounding effect of economic segregation. He begins with a
rebuttal to Edward Glaeser and Jacob Vigdor’s article entitled “The End of the Segregated Century”, which
claims that racial segregation is declining (Jargowsky 2018, p.207; citing Glaeser and Vigdor 2012; Cutler
et al. 1999). Jargowsky explains that racial minorities may be clustering as some previously all-black
neighborhoods transition to multi-ethnic places, yet the concentration of poverty and racial minority
status remains and has in fact been increasing steadily since 2000. He continues, emphasizing that “The
whole point of segregation studies is that a segregated group is excluded from contact with a powerful
advantaged group and geographically isolated from the resources, housing, and public amenities that the
advantaged group enjoys” (Jargowsky 2018, p.210-211). Finally, Jargowsky discusses the physical
expression of segregation at the neighborhood scale: “Poor, middle-class, and affluent households tend
to live in very different neighborhoods, separated by walls, highways, railroad tracks, and municipal
boundaries” (217).
Richard Rothstein’s (2017) bestseller entitled The Color of Law describes, in great detail, the role the US
government has played in creating and enforcing segregation. He makes the case that segregation is not
a ‘de-facto’ phenomenon, but that the US government has been responsible for ‘de-jure’ discrimination;
and that given this, the government is obligated to provide a remedy for housing discrimination.
Peter Moskowitz (2017) focuses on the challenge of
gentrification, describing it as a “trauma” in his book How to
Kill a City: Gentrification, Inequality and the Fight for the
Neighborhood (Moskowitz 2017, p.5). He dedicates a section
of the book to San Francisco which he describes as an “outlier”
because its gentrification was not triggered by an economic
crash, or the exodus of an industrial economy, instead the city
is being transformed by the tech boom, which has produced a
“gold rush economy” forcing gentrification (p.8). He claims the
“Bay Area is maybe the best place to peek into the future of
the gentrified economy and find out what happens when the
poor have literally nowhere to live in a city… (and) they move
to the suburbs, where they are underserved by jobs, transit
and community services” (p. 8). He notes the political
challenge this presents as well, as “(S)suburban geography is
not built for protest; it is not built for collective action. What
we do know is that for the forseeable future, the poor will be
moving to the suburbs at unprecedented rates”, as the
majority of the poor in metropolitan regions nationally now
live in the suburbs (p.150-151; citing Kneebone and Berube
2013, p.2). Moskowitz notes that racial demographics are
shifting as well as “San Francisco once was the most diverse
county in the region, but now it is the only county that is losing
The SF Bay Area housing crisis is
much more than a supply
shortage – it is creating a
widespread demographic shift
through displacement. In his
book How to Kill a City,
Moskowitz (2017) believes this
moment in the SF Bay Area
provides a “peek into the future
of the gentrified economy”
where the poor can no longer live
in the city and are displaced to
the suburbs, remote from jobs,
transit and community services”
– and challenged by the
suburban geography, a place
“not built for protest” or for
“collection action” (Moskowitz
2017, p. 150-151, citing
Kneebone and Berube 2003).
35
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
diversity, while every other surrounding county (the suburbs) is making gains. The city will be majority
white by 2040.” (Moskowitz 2017, p.126; citing Policy Link 2015).
Jennifer Laird, Zachary Parolin, Jane Waldfogel, and Christopher Wimer (2018) investigate the variation
in poverty rates internationally, and between states in the US to gather insight into causes and potential
remedies for poverty. Their study highlights the large contribution of the cost of housing to poverty in the
Bay Area. In their comparison of poverty rates between states in the US, they note that when measured
by the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), “state-level poverty rates vary from a low of less than 10
percent in Iowa to a high of more than 20 percent in California” (Laird et al. 2018, p.628; citing Renwick
and Fox 2016). They note that the SPM is superior to the Official Poverty Measure (OPM) in that the “SPM
is adjusted for cost-of-living differences between metropolitan areas, and the SPM includes government
transfers and taxes in the calculation of household resources” (p.629-30), however the OPM is still used
for determining access to benefits, while the SPM is calculated solely for comparison purposes. One key
finding from the author’s analysis shows that “compared to other rich democracies, the United States is
less effective at using public policy to reduce poverty,” and that “expanding the federal safety net, for
example—would likely reduce poverty in all 50 states” (p.644). Analysis also shows that California, the
state with the highest poverty rate and also the highest housing costs “could cut its poverty rate by 35
percent if the cost of living in California was closer to the nationwide average” (p.645). Finally, they caution
that: “As long as there are pervasive racial and ethnic disparities in access to opportunity, the effects of
antipoverty policies will be unequal across racial and ethnic groups” (p.645).
2.1.5 A Vision for the Just City: Equity, Democracy and Diversity
While the literature described above focuses on the challenges resulting from current development
patterns within urban city-regions, this section is devoted to the articulation of a positive vision for the
Just City. The case has been made by many that urban development processes driven purely by market
forces tend to benefit the few while concentrating disadvantage for many (Molotch 1987; Harvey
1973/2009, 2005, 2012; Smith 1984/2008; Florida 2017), however the search for solutions requires a
vision of the possible to be defined and a process of engaging community. Susan Fainstein and Patsy Healy
debate the balance between communicative process and normative / utopian goals, and Michael Storper
discusses the balance between equity and efficiency, and the potential to advance justice by utilizing the
engine of the economy for broader, more inclusive social benefit.
Patsy Healey (1997/2006, 2009), author of Collaborative Planning: Shaping places in fragmented
societies, is a leading voice on the theory behind the communicative process, which has become dominant
in the urban planning tradition (Healey 1997/2006). Her focus has been on process, describing deep and
transformative engagement as a tool to construct social relations that form the basis for constructive
policy solutions. She described the impetus for her approach as postmodern, in that it has arisen from a
deep sense of cultural betrayal, as the modern positivist ideal no longer holds, with “institutions which
have generated new bastions of power and new ways in which people are made unequal” (p.39; citing
Harvey 1989; Giddens 1990; Moore Milroy 1991). The alternative she presents is an institutionalist
approach that “rejects the notion that the social world is constituted of autonomous individuals, each
pursuing their own preferences in order to obtain material satisfaction – the utilities of neoclassical
economic theory. It is based instead on the conception of individual identities, as socially constructed”
(p.55). Through the communicative process she defines, stakeholders come together to engage in
“inclusionary argumentation”, based on the principals of collaboration and power-sharing; respect for
36
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
local knowledge; an understanding that problems and the institutional capacity to solve them is socially
constructed; and finally, that transformation is achieved through struggle, and power imbalances can
undermine efforts (p.263-265).
In the final chapter of her book, Healy reflects on the ten years that have passed since the book was
originally published, and the evolution of the collaborative process with the “potential to lead to policy-
making and implementation which is more knowledgeable, better coordinated, more creative, more
inclusive and hence more legitimate,” yet acknowledges the challenges involved, as some participants
“end up frustrated and more mistrustful of each other than before” (p.330-331). She offers that the
collaborative governance is effective “only if there is a deliberate attempt to include all relevant
stakeholders, and/or to find ways of effectively bringing the potential concerns of these stakeholders into
a new collaborative process can a collaborative episode be judged as ‘inclusionary’ and only if the values
of inclusionary justice and sustainability are maintained in the process is there a potential for outcomes
to be more just and sustainable” (p. 332-333). Through this process, she sees a concept of the ‘public
realm’ emerging which “emphasizes the importance of a multi-vocality, a plurality of voices, and a
tolerance of alternatives…” in this way, “an inclusionary consciousness is established, and concerns about
justice and sustainability are continually kept in the public eye” (p.335; citing Amin and Cohendet 2004;
Dryzek 2000; Fung and Wright 2001; Hillier 2002; Schlosberg 1999). She closes her discussion with a nod
to Susan Fainstein, as she advises that “planning analysts and practitioners should not be afraid to re-
invigorate the planning project with a utopian edge”, and to “assert more strongly the idea of good city
and a good society” (p.337-338; citing Fainstein 2000; Friedmann 2000; Sandercock 2003).
In her 2009 article entitled “The Pragmatic Tradition in Planning Thought," Healey opens up the debate
once more between process and substance, as she discusses the influence of pragmatism in the planning
tradition. Describing the role of planning as a “practically situated, social learning activity, which should
draw on the full range of human capacities and promote the ability for critical, transformative systemic
framing work in the public sphere,” (Healey 2009, p.277) Healy contrasts the pragmatist view with those
that put primary value on normative principles, stating that “The pragmatists positioned themselves away
from those searching for transcendental, timeless bases for establishing truth and belief, while at the
same time providing a counterpoint to a narrow focus on the lone, “rational” individual pursuing selfish
interests presented in utilitarian economics” (p.279). She describes how Dewey “advocated the
promotion of participatory forms of democracy, as opposed to a democracy led by an intellectual elite”
and was a strong proponent of social justice (p.280; citing Westbrook 1991). Healy states that she
developed her own theories of communicative planning independent of pragmatist theory yet sees many
parallels. She see the pragmatists as an important counterpoint to the mainstream “planning project”
which she sees as existing “in a kind of utopian or virtual realm as concepts of what could perhaps come
to be, enlarging imaginations of possible futures” while the pragmatist position has been to focus on the
challenge of “acting in the world” alert to the reality of social dynamics (p.287).
Chantal Mouffe (2005) offers a critique of the consensus process in politics, arguing instead for “a third
type of relation” she calls ‘agonism’.” (Mouffe 2005, p.20; citing Mouffe 2000). She argues that
“envisaging the aim of democratic politics in terms of consensus and reconciliation is not only conceptually
mistaken, it is also fraught with political dangers” (Mouffe 2005, p.2). As a growing political consensus has
narrowed the range of choices for the electorate, “The consequence has been a growing disaffection with
politics and a drastic fall in participation in elections” (p.63). She also claims that the rise in populist ‘anti-
establishment’ parties is “due to the incapacity of establishment democratic parties to put forward
37
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
significant alternatives” (p.69). Instead, a healthy course for politics would include struggle and conflict, a
process she describes as ‘agonistic’ that engages active negotiation that does not resolve differences but
engages the conflict to promote greater understanding and ultimately enables a choice between
conflicting alternatives (p.10). She describes the politics are dangerous because “when the channels are
not available through which conflicts could take an ’agonistic’ form, those conflicts tend to emerge on the
antagonistic mode” (p.5).
Susan Fainstein (2010, 2014), author of The Just City, summarizes her vision of the just city as “a city in
which public investment and regulation would produce equitable outcomes rather than support those
already well off” (Fainstein 2010, p.3; citing Young 1990). She states that the purpose of her book is “to
recommend nonreformist reforms directed at improving the lives of residents of cities within Western
Europe and the United States. It is my hope to shift the conversation within discussion of planning and
public policy toward the character of urban areas, lessen the focus on process that has become dominant
within planning theory, and redirect practitioners from their obsession with economic development to a
concern with social equity” (p.19; citing Fainstein 2005; Beauregard 1990). She describes “nonreformist
reforms,” as those that “correct inequitable outcomes without disturbing the underlying social structure,
while the latter works by changing the social framework that gives rise to injustice.” She notes that
although transformative strategies may be preferable in principle, they are difficult to achieve in practice.”
(p.18; citing Fraser 2003, p.79). She continues, discussing the role of utopian visions, stating that “If
injustice is to be corrected… we will need the concrete imagery of utopian thinking to propose steps that
would bring us a little closer to a more just world” (p.20; quoting Friedmann 2002, p.104). She sees this
as the way, for example, that “the goal of environmental sustainability has gradually penetrated society”
(p.20; citing Hajer and Reijndorp 2001).
Fainstein traces the history of liberalism and
hence, neoliberalism, to the writings of John
Locke, whose principles for democratic
government protect the rights of the individual,
and Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who
define the Utilitarian ideal as providing the
greatest good for the greatest number – however
she emphasizes that none of these protect
minority interests (p.37). In a 2014 paper also
entitled “The Just City,” Fainstein (2014) reflects
on the challenges of neoliberal capitalism from a
concern about “growing inequality and social
exclusion arising from the use of neoliberalism as
the template for urban public policy,”
commenting that “under this governing principle,
efficiency becomes the single criterion for
evaluating public policy, and cost–benefit analysis
becomes the tool for its realization” (Fainstein
2014, p.6; citing Brenner & Theodore, 2002).
Instead, she proposes strategies to address the
“three hallmarks of urban justice – material
equality, diversity, and democracy” (p.165).
Patsy Healy and Susan Fainstein have
engaged a debate over process versus
substance through decades of writing,
offering a rich discussion of the need for
“inclusionary argumentation” (Healy
1997/2006) on the one hand, and the desire
to intervene in the planning process, to
introduce utopian concepts of justice, on
the other hand (Fainstein 2010, 2014).
Chantal Mouffe (2005), like Healy, argues
for engagement, and offers that ‘agonistic
struggle’ is needed. While the goals are
complementary there is ultimately a choice
made to promote a vision versus to commit
to crafting a vision in community without
preconceived intentions. These themes
were present throughout the Resilient by
Design challenge, with teams choosing to
emphasize both modes.

38
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Contrary to Healy’s approach discussed above, she argues that “planners whose aim is justice need to
intervene in the planning process,” as “Democratic processes can lead to exclusionary practices, since a
situation in which all social classes are proportionally represented will rarely occur… Furthermore, even
when representatives of the poor do participate, they may be co-opted or manipulated” (p.8). Fainstein
(2010) is also an outspoken critic of theory that emphasizes democratic processes idealizing open
communication while neglecting the substance of the issues (p.23). Her concern is that a more open, more
democratic process alone “fails to confront adequately the initial discrepancy of power, offers few clues
to overcoming co-optation or resistance to reform, does not sufficiently address some of the major
weaknesses of democratic theory, and diverts discussion from the substance of policy” (p.24).
Michael Storper (2013, 2018), renowned economic geographer, explores economic development of city-
regions within the context of justice, stating that “Economics is inherently concerned with justice, and all
economics has normative foundations, whether these are implicit or explicit” (Storper 2013, p.204). He
provides an overview of how policy to support justice in the city varies considerably depending on the
economic theory that underlies it. He begins with a critique of two theories that predominate in current
practice – New Neoclassical Urban Economics (NNUE) and the related theory of General Spatial
Equilibrium (GSE) – and describes how those theories are “spatially indifferent” in that they assume
individuals, firms, and households are free to choose their location, based on their preference for
amenities (p.30). Instead, he proposes that wages, prices, and incomes vary across a region, responding
to different local equilibriums, even in a highly connected economy. “There is no general economy-wide
spatial equilibrium, but rather a set of what economists call “multiple equilibriums” that reflect the
location of leading-edge activities in certain places and sorting of other types of activities to other places”
(p.30). Storper describes this as the New Economic Geography (NEG) perspective, which understands
cities primarily through the geography of production as jobs and firms drive growth, and dynamics of
“agglomeration and deagglomeration are the basis for the expansion and rearrangement of urban
systems” (p.46). A key concept is that “Innovative places have local economic dynamics – their price
systems – that are different from the economy as a whole” (p.51).
Within the NEG perspective, Storper explores the question of how to balance the desire for justice with
the desire for optimal efficiency, and if more developed places should help those that are less developed.
Storper defines justice as an “aggregate social welfare function” that describes preferences tempered by
the choices and trade-offs involved, given the current state of technology and resources, rejecting the
idea that maximum economic output is the ultimate goal of development (Storper 2013, p.204). Storper
introduces John Rawls’ “maximin principle” as a potential method to determine the balance between
equity and efficiency, describing it as follows: “People will choose increasing inequality if two conditions
are satisfied: on the one hand, if it raises efficiency and generates and “inequality surplus,” and on the
other hand, if the inequality surplus is divided out in amounts that can simultaneously provide incentives
to the highest paid to generate the inequality surplus through extra efficiency (skill, effort, etc.) and raise
the welfare of the least well off so that they are not worse off in absolute terms than in a world without
the inequality surplus. Maximin, in other words means maximizing the minimum payoff to everybody in
the distribution” (Storper 2013 p.216; citing Rawls 1971).
Like Florida (2017), Storper describes the role of innovation as a disruptive force, spurring urban growth
dynamics that concentrate advantage in cities like those in the San Francisco Bay Area. “It is clear that any
market economy is actually both generating its own disruptions – innovating and creating agglomerations
full of expensive labor along with high factor prices, expensive land, and high incomes – and trying to
39
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
revert to the mean – expelling firms, pushing people to
migrate, and trying to disperse them both away from
expensive places. The combination of these two forces
gives us the noisy reality of cities and regions at any given
moment” (p.65-66; citing North 2005; Schumpeter 1991;
Aghion and Howitt 1997). Ultimately, Storper justifies
the distinct local economy dynamics in innovative places
as necessary and beneficial means to create long-term
economy-wide increases in average wealth and income”
which can be utilized to promote development
throughout the region (p.54; citing Aghion and Howitt
1997). At the same time, he sees a need to address
communities negatively impacted by the regional
economy. “Instead of trying to oppose it, some of the
inequality surplus of a successful regional economy can
be diverted to spreading the economic and urban
benefits of a dynamically successful regional economy”
(p.225-226).
In a subsequent paper, Storper (2018) offers specific thoughts about housing: “we need aggressive,
ambitious policies aimed at, not just increasing housing density, but also inclusivity. No policy that doesn’t
offer a substantial set-aside of housing at about half the market rate is going to have any chance of dealing
with displacement in a meaningful way” (p.3). Furthermore, he claims that adding density tied to transit
will always create displacement, an outcome that is challenging efforts to rein in sprawl and
transportation emissions in the SF Bay Area. “Without targeted inclusiveness policies, the more density
you create—especially linked to transit—the more displacement you’ll get. History tells us that once we
give density to the building industry, there won’t be strong incentives for inclusiveness. If we want to see
inclusivity, we need to link it to density policy” (4). To achieve these goals he sees an expanded role for
the state: “I think that if the state is going to move more into housing policy, it needs to have more of its
own planning and guiding responsibilities… if the state is going to legislate planning, it also should actively
help localities come up with solutions.” (5)

2.2 The Urban Sustainability Challenge
Cities have always drawn resources from their hinterlands, and in the age of the global economy the
resource pool has expanded substantially. And yet, the urban sustainability challenge addresses the reality
that the environment sustaining life on earth is finite in scale and functions as a system – one that includes
humans as an integral part of the system (Rees 1995, Daly 1996, Costanza et al. 1997). William Rees has
identified a framework, based on four categories of goods and services that the ecosphere provides to
the economy: “material and energy resources, waste assimilation, life-support services, and aesthetic and
spiritual values” (Rees 1995, p.351; citing Jacobs 1991). Each of these categories of environmental
provisioning has generated significant discussion and inquiry regarding related planning, policy and
development goals. This section will begin with the foundational definitions and concepts guiding the
If innovative urban places – the
engines of the current economy – are
of by their nature disruptive, then,
Storper (2013) argues, the best
approach is to take a “high road” that
supports their development while
capturing a portion of the “inequality
surplus” as a resource to enable place
based development to “raise the
welfare of those least well off so that
they are not worse off in absolute
terms than in a world without the
inequality surplus” (Storper 2013
p.216; citing Rawls 1971). This is
presented as just redistribution.
40
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
current discussion of sustainable development, followed by key literature related to each of the four
categories of environmental provisioning – sources, sinks, life support services and amenity value.
2.2.1 Definitions of Sustainable Development
Sustainable development is a term whose origin is commonly traced back to the definition developed by
the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland 1987), chaired by Gro Brundtland
of Norway in the 1980s. The Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainable development embraces
the ideal of equity, describing a goal of growth that is socially and environmentally sustainable. While
initially conceived as a response to meet the needs of poor nations, the gap between rich and poor occurs
within urban regions as well. Later literature describing the evolving goals of sustainable development
emphasize the urgency of environmental limits together with the social challenge of developing
institutions that will provide stewardship of global life support systems to ensure survival.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987/2009), formed a commission to create a
report officially entitled Our Common Future, and commonly referred to as the Brundtland Report, after
the chairman of the commission, Gro Brundtland (WCED 1987/2009). The report provides a definition for
sustainable development that is still widely used, stating that “Sustainable development is development
that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs” (WCED 1987, p. 43). The discussion that follows underscores the concern for equity: “It
contains within it two key concepts: the concept of 'needs', in particular the essential needs of the world's
poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of
technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs” (p.43).
The focus on the needs of the poor is both normative and pragmatic, as the report highlights the human
cost as well as the environmental degradation that accompanies poverty. “The downward spiral of
poverty and environmental degradation is a waste of opportunities and of resources. In particular, it is a
waste of human resources. These links between poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation
formed a major theme in our analysis and recommendations. What is needed now is a new era of
economic growth – growth that is forceful and at the same time socially and environmentally sustainable”
(p. xii). While growth is embraced, the ultimate goal is described as “a progressive transformation of
economy and society,” as “physical sustainability cannot be secured unless development policies pay
attention to such considerations as changes in access to resources and in the distribution of costs and
benefits” (p.43).
Will Steffen, Paul Cruzen and John McNeill (2007) reflect a growing sense of urgency in the scientific
community, as they describe the impact of industrialization and rapid population growth as the driver
behind the current geological epoch, which has been named the "Anthropocene," as impacts of current
human activities, including CO 2 emissions, are of such significance, that they are projected to impact the
earth over the next 50,000 years” (Steffen et al. 2007, p.615). The authors note that:
The Anthropocene began around 1800 with the onset of industrialization, the central feature of
which was the enormous expansion in the sue of fossil fuels. We use atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration as a single, simple indicator to track the progression of the Anthropocene. From a
preindustrial value of 270-275 ppm, atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen to about 310 ppm by
1950. Since then the human enterprise has experienced a remarkable explosion, the Great
Acceleration, with significant consequences for the Earth System functioning. Atmospheric CO2
41
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
concentration has risen from 310 ppm to 380 ppm since 1950, with about half of the total rise
since the preindustrial era occurring in just the last 30 years (p.614)
The current phase of the Anthropocene, called “The Great Acceleration” is reaching criticality, as “About
60% of ecosystem services are already degraded and will continue to degrade further unless significant
societal changes in values and management occur” (p.620; citing MEA 2005). They describe the extreme
growth over the past 50 years, with a doubling of population while “the global economy increased by
more than 15-fold” (p. 617; citing McNeill 2001). In considering the path forward to address these urgent
challenges, they emphasize that technical solutions are not sufficient without social change, noting
“evidence for the growth of democratic political systems, narrowing the scope for the exercise of arbitrary
state power and strengthening the role of civil society. Humanity is, in one way or another, becoming a
self-conscious, active agent in the operation of its own life support system” (Steffen et al. p.618-619; citing
Schellnhuber 1998).
Jorgen Randers, Johan Rockström (2018) and their colleagues at the Stockholm Resilience Center offered
a note of hopefulness, as they delivered a report entitled “Transformation is Possible” to the Club of Rome,
in recognition of its 50th anniversary (Randers et al. 2018). The report reflects on what they call a “global
turning point” with the “dual adoption of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) together with
the Paris Climate Agreement, both in 2015,” celebrating the shared commitments while also recognizing
the magnitude of the ongoing challenge. “For the first time in human history the world has agreed on a
democratically adopted roadmap for humanity’s future, which aims at attaining socially inclusive and
highly aspirational socio-economic development goals, within globally defined environmental targets”
(p.4). They emphasize that the effects of climate change are producing “earlier than predicted major social
and economic impacts on human livelihoods, social stability, and economic development,” and they
caution that “We have entered a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene, where our modern world
constitutes the largest driver of change on Earth.” The shared goal is to “attain the SDGs within planetary
boundaries: call it #SDGinPB” (p.4). The goal of “achieving all SDGs without endangering planetary
ecosystem” is described as “a paradigm shift for global development” that “move(s) away from a sectorial
approach to dealing separately with social, economic and environmental issues to a model of mutual
leverage” (p.30). Sustainable development in this context retains the focus on the 3 Es, of equity,
environment and economy but with an understanding that those goals fit under a “long term purpose to
maximising human wellbeing and freedom” (p.31).
2.2.2 Resources and the Problem of Growth
Natural resources including energy and materials, essential goods and services to the economy, represent
the first category of ecosystem provisioning as identified by William Rees (Rees 1995). The depletion and
unsustainable use of renewable and non-renewable materials has been an area of primary concern
throughout the late twentieth century as resource consumption was increasing rapidly with
industrialization and population growth (Meadows et al. 1992, 2004; Rees 1995). Current methods of
measuring global resource flows enable greater understanding of planetary limits (Rockstrom et al. 2009;
Steffen et al. 2015), however do not address the local and regional scale, where the distribution of
resources varies widely. As will be discussed in subsequent sections, the local scale opens up areas of
opportunity for development of local renewable resources and “circular economy” efficiencies.
42
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows and Jorgen Randers (1992) published an update to their seminal
1972 report entitled Limits to Growth twenty years later; entitled appropriately, Beyond The Limits: Global
Collapse or a Sustainable Future (Meadows et al. 1992). The initial report, Limits to Growth detailed
findings from a comprehensive study commissioned by the Club of Rome, a group assembled to address
concerns about exponential growth. Their effort included a two-year study by MIT researchers to model
the consequences of projected growth in population, production (food and industrial), material
consumption and pollution, using a computer model dubbed “World3” created to test various scenarios
in a world of limited resources. The report, which became an international best seller, voiced an urgent
concern that the world would reach limits to growth within 100 years – however, when the study was
repeated twenty years later, researchers found that the results were not only still valid but increasingly
urgent, with a risk of “uncontrolled decline in per capita food output, energy use and industrial
production” (Meadows et al. 1992, p.xvi). In addition to sounding the alarm, the authors raise some key
issues driving future consumption, including the need for developing countries to invest in material
intensive products and infrastructure while the developed nations begin to reach a point of saturation
that enables future economic growth to occur with less material intensity. For example, they note that
“Only 8% of the world’s people own a car. Many nations plan to double or triple their highways, schools,
and hospitals” and many “live in inadequate houses or have no shelter at all” (p.78). While they note that
energy is plentiful, and if “the most sustainable, least polluting sources are used with high efficiency, it
should be not only possible but affordable to power the needs of the human race sustainability,” they are
skeptical that a ‘post-industrial’ service-based society will use fewer materials, because “services depend
on an industrial base and on materials brought from all over the world” (p.78). For example, they note
that the world economy was using 2 billion tons of nonfuel minerals per year, a rate deemed unsustainable
in the long term, even with no growth (p.85; citing Cook 1976). While the data sources are not current,
they reflect the duration of the effort to address unsustainable resource use.
William Rees (1995) provides important perspective on the scale of the sustainability challenge and offers
a tool for urban designers and planners to help conceptualize the scale of the challenge, defining the
concept of the “environmental footprint” including a methodology to measure the relative footprint of
various nations (Rees 1995). Developed after the impactful Limits to Growth report and its sequel
(Meadows et al. 1972, 1992), he was seeking a way of illustrating the “overshoot” condition, and the
relative contribution to it by different countries with very different levels of consumption.
We have reached a unique junction in human ecological history, one requiring a radical
reconfiguration of planning values and goals. The ‘ecological footprint’ of the global economy is
already larger than the planet, yet a quarter of humanity still lives in poverty, the human family is
expanding by 90 million a year, and material demands everywhere are rising. An unlikely tenfold
reduction in the energy and material intensity of economic activity would be required to
accommodate anticipated economic growth safely, posing an enormous challenge to planners in
facilitating the translation to sustainability. Failure enhances the considerable possibility of global
disaster (p.343).
Rees explains that as humanity uses an ever-larger share of the “low entropy energy and matter
continuously being formed in the ecosphere” humans displace other species from their habitats and
disrupt the ability of the ecosphere to continue regenerating itself: “The ecosphere, like the physical
processes and living species it comprises, is a self-producing system” (p.349; citing Rees 1990; Wilson
1988). Furthermore, Rees questions what the overshoot means for the design of cities and offers that
43
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
“sustainable development is a new kind of development requiring a transformation of both human-to-
nature and people-to-people relationships on the local to global scales” (p.355). He notes that planners
are “uniquely positioned to play a leadership role” given their explicit role integrators of specialized
knowledge that can “contribute to more efficient urban form and to stronger social fabric. Our
communities must become at once both more compact yet more habitable, more productive yet more
efficient” (Rees 1995, p. 355; citing Rees and Roseland 1991; Roseland 1992).
Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows and Jorgen Randers (2004), provide a 30-year update to their
seminal text, Limits to Growth, offering that “we are much more pessimistic about the global future than
we were in 1972. It is a sad fact that humanity has largely squandered the past 30 years in futile debates,
and well-intentioned but half-hearted responses to the global ecological challenge. Much will have to
change if the ongoing overshoot is not to be followed by collapse during the twenty-first century”
(Meadows et al. 2004, p.xvi).
In the chapter entitled “Transitions to a Sustainable Society”
they outline the potential future pathway as follows: “The
human world can respond in three ways to signals that
resource use and pollution emissions have grown beyond
their sustainable limits. One is to deny, disguise, or confuse
the signals.” The second way is “to alleviate the pressures
from limits by technical and economic fixes,” which they see
as essential measures that will “ease pressures for a while,
buying essential time.” However, ultimately, they believe
that system change is required: “The third way to respond is
to work on the underlying causes, to step back and
acknowledge that the human socioeconomic system as
currently structure is unmanageable, has overshot its limits,
and is headed for collapse, and therefore, seek to change the
structure of the system.” If those with vested interests can be
kept from distorting or restricting relevant information, they
predict that necessary changes can “unfold spontaneously
from new system structures” (p.235-237).
Johan Rockström, Will Steffen, Carl Folke, Robert Costanza, James Hansen, et al. (2009) published a
landmark paper entitled "Planetary Boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity" with
over twenty additional coauthors, offering an updated assessment of the sustainability challenge as one
that is focused, essentially, on protecting the future of human life on earth (Rockström et al., 2009). They
state: “The proposed concept of “planetary boundaries” lays the groundwork for shifting our approach to
governance and management, away from the essentially sectoral analyses of limits to growth aimed at
minimizing negative externalities, toward the estimation of the safe space for human development” (p.3).
Given that human activities are impacting the Earth’s climate, they caution that “exponential growth of
human activities is raising concern that further pressure on the Earth System could destabilize critical
biophysical systems and trigger abrupt or irreversible environmental changes that would be deleterious
or even catastrophic for human well-being. This is a profound dilemma because the predominant
paradigm of social and economic development remains largely oblivious to the risk of human-induced
environmental disasters at continental to planetary scales” (p.4; citing Stern 2007; IPCC 2007; MEA 2005).
Given the persistent trend of
resource use and pollution
beyond the sustainable limits,
Meadows et al. (2004) advise that
much will have to change to avoid
a collapse of the environmental
systems supporting life in the 21
st

century. Pathways to a
sustainable future will require
systemic change to address
underlying causes and feedback
structures in the system –
technical fixes will buy time. but
will not be sufficient (Meadows et
al. 2004, p.236).
44
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Given that preliminary analysis
shows that humanity has already
crossed significant planetary
boundaries relating to climate
change, biodiversity loss and the
nitrogen cycle, they caution that
there is high uncertainty
regarding the point at which a
return to safe levels may no
longer be possible. This
uncertainty highlights the
potential danger of reliance on
adaptation strategies, which may
“lull us into a false sense of
security because incremental
change” can turn “abruptly into
states deleterious or even
catastrophic to human well-
being” (p.25). They close,
offering that: “The concept of
planetary boundaries provides a
framework for humanity to
operate within this paradox”
(p.25).
Will Steffen, Johan Rockström (2015) and their co-authors provide an updated assessment of the 2009
Planetary Boundaries report (Steffen et al. 2015; citing Rockström et al. 2009). The updated report
introduces a two-tier approach to the boundaries to demonstrate the zone of the safe operating space (in
green), in addition to a zone of increasing risk (in yellow). The report summary states the following: “Here,
we revise and update the planetary boundary framework, with a focus on the underpinning biophysical
science, based on targeted input from expert research communities and on more general scientific
advances over the past 5 years. Several of the boundaries now have a two-tier approach, reflecting the
importance of cross-scale interactions and the regional-level heterogeneity of the processes that underpin
the boundaries. Two core boundaries—climate change and biosphere integrity—have been identified,
each of which has the potential on its own to drive the Earth system into a new state should they be
substantially and persistently transgressed” (p.1). Extensive detail and technical citations are found in the
full report.
The authors note that the planetary boundary (PB) system is not meant to be “scaled down” for regional
use, however they do suggest that “PB thinking” at multiple scales is useful to influence change “where
policy action most commonly occurs” (p.8; citing Dearing et al. 2014; Griggs et al. 2013). Finally, the issue
of global social equity is identified as an implementation gap that needs to be addressed in future studies,
so that a “safe and just planetary operating space” can be defined “for the further development of human
societies” (p.9).

Figure 2.1: Control variables for seven of the nine
planetary boundaries. The green zone is defined as the
safe operating space, yellow represents uncertainty and
increasing risk, and red represents high risk impacts.
Processes where no global-level boundaries have been
developed yet are represented by gray wedges.
Source: Steffen et al. 2015, p.6
45
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.2.3 Waste Assimilation: The Challenge of Emissions
The second category of goods and services to the economy, as identified by Rees, is waste assimilation,
with strategies to control pollution commonly referred to as “sink limits” versus the “source limits”
discussed above (Rees 1995). While the concept of sustainable development was initially developed in
response to concerns about growth and increasing consumption of natural resources, the focus has
shifted to one encompassing a broader set of issues including environment pollutants with a primary focus
on carbon emissions and climate change (Meadows et al. 1972, 1992, Daly 2011). Because atmospheric
GHG emissions impact the climate system globally, the issue of externalities becomes an essential part of
the sustainability challenge.
Graham Haughton (1997, 1999) discusses the need to integrate
externalities into the discussion of ecosystem services at both the
global and the local scale (Haughton 1997). He states that
“External impacts are the least talked about or understood
aspects of the sustainable urban development debate at the
moment, and yet arguably the very ability to use urban (and other
political-administrative) boundaries to avoid accepting
responsibility for external impacts helps fuel our current patterns
of non-sustainable behaviour, as we transfer the costs of our
consumption preferences to other people, other species, and
other areas. We need to reform not just the city, but the way in
which the city interacts with the rest of the global economy and
environment” (p.190). Given the fundamental role that
ecosystems play in providing resources, and absorbing and
cleansing waste, Haughton asks “who has the priority, for
instance, to use the assimilative capacities of global commons,
such as oceans or the atmosphere, or more localised capacities,
such as rivers and aquifers?” He describes how “urban
development involves external exchanges, where cities
appropriate the carrying capacity of external areas (in terms of
both resource capture and natural assimilative properties in
respect of waste streams) without adequate compensation… this
unequal exchange causes hinterland areas to atrophy
economically as well as environmentally” (p.193; citing Ravetz
1994; White and Whitney 1992).
In a later publication, Haughton (1999) expands on the notion of externalities and how urban design to
internalize those externalities would lead to a very different urban form (Haughton 1999). He begins by
describing how externalities “effectively divorce people, businesses, and governments from responsibility
for their actions (p.234; citing O’Connor 1991; O’Connor 1993). He describes this as a cost transfer: “our
current political, economic, and social systems allow for widespread cost-transfer, where many of the
negative environmental and related impacts of the activity of a person, company, or even a region are in
effect displaced elsewhere,” and argues for policy where “widespread externalities are brought into the
decision-making frame, whether through the market mechanism (e.g. via pricing mechanisms such as
green taxes), legal sanction, or other means, is essential to moving away from current patterns of
Given the fundamental role
that ecosystems play in
providing resources, and
absorbing and cleansing
waste, Haughton (1997) asks
“who has the priority, for
instance, to use the
assimilative capacities of
global commons, such as
oceans or the atmosphere, or
more localised capacities,
such as rivers and aquifers?”
(Haughton 1997, p. 190).
Environmental impacts that
area displaced elsewhere
represent a “cost transfer”
that is not currently
accounted for and needs to
be addressed through pricing,
legislation or other means
(Haughton 1999, p.235).
46
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
profligacy in resource usage and unthinking disposal of wastes” (p.235; citing Haughton 1998). Haughton
believes that sustainable development will require systemic change, and he offers four potential models
for the future city: the externally dependent city, the self-reliant city, redesigning cities and fair-share
cities. Each of these is explored for its social justice and sustainability potential, with the fair-share city
deemed most favorable by the author (Haughton 1999, p. 242).
John Holdren (2008a, 2008b), previous science advisor to president, underscores the significance of the
global climate threat and highlights the important contribution urban development can play to meet
emission reduction goals (Holdren 2008b). First, he explains that climate interacts with all other global
systems: “Climate is the envelope within which nearly all other environmental conditions and processes
important to human well-being must function,” and that “distortion in the climate envelope can be
expected to have substantial impacts in most of these dimensions” including “the availability of water;
the productivity of farms, forests, and fisheries; the prevalence of oppressive heat and humidity; the
geography of disease; the damages to be expected from storms, floods, droughts, and wildfires; the
property losses to be expected from sea-level rise, etc.” (p.429-430; citing Holdren 2006). He cautions that
“a potential ‘tipping point’ into unmanageable degrees of climatic change increase steeply once the global
average surface temperature exceeds 2º to 2.5ºC above the pre-industrial level” which scientists have
established is likely to occur if atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and particles reach the
equivalent of 450 to 500 ppmv (Holdren 2008b, p.430; citing IPCC 2007).
To put the emissions reduction goal in perspective, Holdren
suggests that limiting concentrations to “500 ppmv would
be possible if global emissions from fossil-fuel combustion
in 2050 could be cut in half from the mid-range business-as-
usual figure of 14 billion metric tons of carbon in CO 2 per
year,” and that numerous studies have explored the
possibility of reductions of this magnitude (Holdren 2008b,
p.430; citing Hoffert et al. 2002; Pacala and Socolow 2004;
Enkvist et al. 2007; Edmonds et al. 2007; IPCC 2007). One
area of focus especially relevant to planners and designers
is his statement that “the quickest and cheapest available
reductions will be through improving the efficiency of
energy end-use in residential and commercial buildings,
manufacturing, and transport, but costlier measures to
reduce emissions from the energy supply system will also
need to be embraced” (Holdren 2008b, p.430).
Finally, Holdren (2008a) stresses that the language that is used to discuss the climate challenge is
important as shifts in atmospheric temperature be understood as “simply an index of the state of the
global climate as expressed in those patterns, and that small changes in that index represent big changes
in the patterns” (Holdren 2008a, p.6). He cautions: “Global warming is a misnomer, because it implies
something that is gradual, something that is uniform, something that is quite possibly benign. What we
are experiencing with climate change is none of those things. It is certainly not uniform. It is rapid
compared to the pace at which social systems and environmental systems can adjust. It is certainly not
benign. We should be calling it ‘global climatic disruption’ rather than ‘global warming.’” Furthermore, he
underscores that “the disruption and its impacts are now growing much more rapidly than almost
Holdren (2008a, 2008b) cautions
that global climate change is not
gradual or uniform, and the
potential tipping point to
unmanageable climatic change is
not far off; however, he also offers
that urban design and planning
can make substantial contributions
to emission reduction goals, as
improving efficiency in buildings
and reducing transportation are
some of the “easiest and quickest”
strategies (Holdren 2008b, p.430).
47
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
anybody expected even a few years ago. The result of that, in my view, is that the world is already
experiencing “dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system” (Holdren 2008a, p.5).
David Satterthwaite (2009) challenges conventional thinking on emissions reduction, offering insights
into the drivers of GHG emissions, including the impact of population on global emissions, the difference
between production and consumption related emissions, and where opportunities lie to have the greatest
impact reducing emissions (Satterthwaite 2009). First, he discusses the relationship between urbanization
and climate change, and emphasizes that global increases in population are not the primary driver of
emissions, stating “it is not the growth in (urban or rural) populations that drives the growth in greenhouse
gas GHG) emissions but rather, the growth in consumers and in their levels of consumption” (p.545). He
points out that magnitude of difference in lifetime climate impact between those in developed nations,
versus those living in the countries currently driving population growth, “varies by a factor of more than
1,000” so it is not population growth, but rather the number of consumers and their consumption patterns
that drive emissions. Satterthwaite continues, to make a larger point, which is that it is inappropriate to
allocate responsibility for GHG emissions to nations, or urban areas in general as the location of the
production of goods is often different that the location where they are consumed (p.564). Finally, he
addresses the issue of urbanization, and if cities should be viewed as the ‘problem’ or the ‘solution’,
offering that the “much-cited suggestion that cities account for 80 per cent of all GHG emissions
worldwide” noting that “actually, only around 35 per cent of the world’s GHG emissions are emitted within
city boundaries, although city populations account for a higher proportion if emissions are allocated to
consumers” (p. 559; citing Satterthwaite 2008).
In fact, Satterthwaite (2009) sees cities as a primary area
of opportunity area to reduce emissions, particularly in
the US, as cities offer “the basis for delinking high
standards of living/quality of life from high GHG emissions
per person” (Satterthwaite 2009, p.559). As evidence, he
notes that “there are very large differences in per capita
emissions between cities with high living standards. For
instance, Barcelona, widely considered as a city with a
high quality of life, has one-fifth of the GHG emissions per
person of many US cities. New York City has one-third to
one-half of the GHG emissions per person of many other
US cities” (Satterthwaite p.559-560; citing Dodman 2009).
Satterthwaite sees great potential to further reduce
emissions related to urban consumption in “the most
desirable and expensive residential areas in or close to city
centres” where consumption is highest, with desirable
features including energy efficient building design and
walkable neighborhoods (Satterthwaite 2009, p.559).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) released a fifth Assessment Report (AR5) with clear
and unambiguous warnings as to the severity of the climate crisis, and the need for both adaptation and
mitigation. They state, “Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with
adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, wide-
spread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence)” (IPCC 2014, p.17).
Satterthwaite (2009) demonstrates
that it is growth in consumption, not
growth in population that is the
primary driver behind the climate
crisis, as the difference in total
lifetime emissions “varies by a factor
of more than 1000” (Satterthwaite
2009, p. 545). Cities offer great
opportunity for reducing GHG
emissions as they offer potential to
“delink” high quality of life from high
GHG emissions per person, through
features such as energy efficient
building design and walkable
neighborhoods (Satterthwaite 2009,
p.559).
48
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.2.4 Life Support Services: The Need for Green Infrastructure
Natural areas and green infrastructure systems provide essential services that protect and support human
life – these life support services are the third category of goods and services that ecosystems provide to
the economy (Rees 1995, p.351). These life support services have been identified as: “maintenance of
the composition of the atmosphere, amelioration and stability of climate, flood controls and drinking
water supply, waste assimilation, recycling of nutrients” (Costanza et al. 1997a, p.95; citing DeGroot 1992;
Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1992; Ehrlich and Mooney 1983; Folke 1991). Climate and atmosphere regulation
mitigate global climate impacts as the metabolism of plants reduces CO 2 concentrations in the
atmosphere, while management of water resources, waste and nutrients provide localized benefits to
urban areas. It is important to note that ecosystem services can be provided by both “constructed” and
natural areas. Robert McDonald (2015) suggests the term “natural infrastructure” to refer to the elements
of nature that provide benefits to urban areas, and “green infrastructure” to designate designed systems
that utilize vegetation as an integrated part of the constructed infrastructure (McDonald 2015, 7-8).
Per Bolund and Sven Hunhammer (1999) discuss the importance of ecosystem services generated by
natural systems within urban areas, with a focus on seven urban ecosystems typologies, including street
trees, lawns/parks, urban forests, cultivated land, wetlands, lakes/seas, and streams (Bolund and
Hunhammer 1999). They focus on the contribution of natural urban ecosystems and green infrastructure
to public health and quality-of-life in urban areas, as “Most of the problems present in urban areas are
locally generated, such as those due to traffic. Often the most effective, and in some cases the only, way
to deal with these local problems is through local solutions” (p.294). Bolund and Hunhammar (1999) offer
that street trees are an example of a local strategy, which is highly effective in filtering out air pollution,
stating that “up to 85% of air pollution in a park can
be filtered out, and in a street with trees, up to 70%”
(p.295-296; citing Bernatzky 1983). Another
example focuses on water treatment as “up to 96%
of the nitrogen and 97% of the phosphorous can be
retained in wetlands, and so far wetland
restorations have largely been successful, increasing
biodiversity and substantially lowering costs of
sewage treatment (p.297; citing Ewel 1997). Both
examples illustrate local provision of ecosystem
services, which they claim is beneficial for “pure
efficiency reasons, but also on ethical and
educational grounds” even if the same ecosystem
services can be produced outside the city (p.300).
Finally, because locally generated ecosystem
services have substantial value in urban areas, they
recommend including green infrastructure and
landscape features providing ecosystem services in
land-use planning, and in cost-benefit analysis, as it
may shift the recommendations for infrastructure
and conservation projects (p.294).
Natural areas and green infrastructure
provide significant benefits in urban
areas, contributing to health and well-
being and reducing the cost of necessary
services. Six key ecosystem services
provided by natural systems in cities
include: air filtering, micro-climate
regulation, noise reduction, rainwater
management, sewage treatment, and
recreational amenity / cultural values
(Bolund and Hunhammar 2009, p.295;
citing Costanza et al. 1997a). When
provided locally, they add substantial
value in urban areas through local co-
benefits and global climate change
mitigation. Better tools are needed to
capture the value of these benefits.
49
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Robert Costanza et al. (2014) provide an assessment of the economic value of global ecosystem services
in their 2014 study entitled “Changes in the global value of ecosystem services” (Costanza et al. 2014).
They demonstrate that the contribution of ecological services is not trivial – estimating global ecosystem
services provide $125 trillion of value per year (based on 2011 dollars), as compared to a global GDP of
$75.2 trillion per year in 2007 dollars (p.156; citing Costanza et al. 1997b). Comparison to estimates
initially developed in 1997 demonstrate a growing understanding of the value of ecological services for
green infrastructure; for example, estimated unit values for tidal marsh/mangroves increased from
$14,000 to $194,000 ha/yr. largely due to inclusion of the value of “storm protection, erosion control, and
waste treatment values of these systems” (p.155; citing Wratten et al. 2013). The estimated annual loss
of ecosystem value due to urbanization and over-exploitation of resources is also substantial, as “the total
net decrease is estimated to be $20.2 trillion in annual services since 1997” (p.156). While many have
questioned the idea of putting a price on non-market goods, the authors emphasize that “It is a
misconception to assume that valuing ecosystem services in monetary units is the same as privatizing
them or commodifying them for trade in private markets” (Costanza et al. 2014, p.153-154; citing
Costanza 2006; Costanza et al. 2012; McCauley 2006; Monbiot 2012). Many eco-services are best
considered public goods or common pool resources, so conventional markets are often not the best
institutional frameworks to manage them, yet, “The ecosystem services concept makes it abundantly clear
that the choice of ‘‘the environment versus the economy’’ is a false choice. If nature contributes
significantly to human well-being, then it is a major contributor to the real economy, and the choice
becomes how to manage all our assets, including natural and human-made capital, more effectively and
sustainably” (Costanza et al. 2014; citing Costanza et al. 1997b, 2000).
2.2.5 Aesthetic and Spiritual Value: The Value of Nature
The final category of goods and services to the economy, as identified by William Rees, is aesthetic and
spiritual value (Rees 1995, p.351). The role of nature – or urban “wildness” as described by Timothy
Beatley – plays an essential role in well-being (Beatley 2011). While predominantly a human and social
benefit, the literature also attempts to translate the aesthetic and spiritual value of living with nature into
economic terms, with calculations including energy savings, health benefits, stormwater management,
etc. (McPherson et al. 1997), and equity terms, with discussion of the potential role that urban nature can
play to address social justice concerns (de Vries et al. 2003; Pincetl and Gearin 2005).
Gregory McPherson et al. (1997) advocate for the benefit of trees in urban areas, for their ecological
function as well as their contribution to health and well-being (McPherson et al. 1997). To see if the trees
could be justified economically, the team engaged in detailed analysis of the cost and benefit of urban
trees in Chicago, producing some remarkable results. But first, they begin their article with a poetic
reflection on the aesthetic and spiritual value of trees:
Urban forests are small pockets of green in a gray landscape. They are ribbons of life meandering
through a largely artificial environment. They are enclaves of serenity and biological diversity
tucked within suburban development and busy streets.
The authors continue with a statement emphasizing the importance of trees as living infrastructure: “The
worldwide trend toward urbanization threatens the ‘green infrastructure’ of our cities, making the need
to understand these ecosystems increasingly important” (p.49). To demonstrate the value of urban trees,
a case study is described, with an evaluation of local and global benefits, including carbon storage, air
50
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
pollution removal, avoided stormwater runoff and energy savings, with a calculation comparing the cost
of planting and maintaining trees over a thirty-year life span, assuming an addition of 10% more trees to
the urban forest. “Findings suggest that energy savings, air-pollution mitigation, avoided runoff, and other
benefits associated with trees in Chicago can outweigh planting and maintenance costs. Given the
assumptions of this analysis (30 years, 7% discount rate, 95,000 trees planted), planting and maintaining
trees cost $21 million, whereas the benefits conferred by the trees was valued at $59 million, for a net
present value of $38 million or $402 per tree planted. A benefit-cost ratio of 2.83 indicates that the value
of projected benefits is nearly three times the value of projected costs” (p.57; citing McPherson et al.
1994). Additionally, “Benefit-cost ratios were projected to be positive for plantings at park, yard, street,
highway, and public housing locations at discount rates ranging from 4 to 10%” (p.57). A benefit not
considered by this study, would be the jobs created planting and maintaining trees on public land.
Sjerp de Vries, Robert Verheij, Peter Groenewegen and Peter Spreeuwenberg (2003) delve into greater
detail into the question of how green infrastructure contributes to public health (de Vries et al. 2003).
Their article entitled the hypothesis that people living with greater connection to natural areas or
“greenspace” are healthier than people living in less green areas. Quantitative and qualitative analysis
methods were used including Dutch data on self-reported health of over 10,000 people that was
correlated with land-use data to assess the amount of greenspace in the subject’s living environments.
The multi-level analysis controlled for socioeconomic and demographic characteristics as well as urban
density (p.1717). The research findings showed a strong correlation between health and urbanity, with
people in highly urbanized areas having more symptoms on a general health questionnaire and a higher
risk of mental illness however, when the percentages of green and blue (e.g. water) space are increased
and garden space is present, the degree of urbanity becomes an insignificant factor, demonstrating that
access to greenspace does in fact improve health and wellbeing (p.1721). When socioeconomic status was
considered the study showed that overall lower income groups were less healthy, making the opportunity
for improvement through health promotion measures even more valuable (p.1723; citing Davey Smith et
al. 1994; McIntyre 1997).
Stephanie Pincetl and Elizabeth Gearin (2005) focus on the aesthetic and social value of green space as
it contributes to social justice and urban sustainability (Pincetl and Gearin 2005). Beginning with the issue
of access to parks and showing how access to parks within LA varies based on race, the authors then
explore opportunities to address the inequity. Pincetl and Gearin hypothesize that a focus on developing
green infrastructure in dense and socioeconomically diverse cities would improve livability and help
address inequalities while providing valuable ecosystem services. They advocate for green space in dense
urban areas that go beyond provision of parks: “Focus group discussions around urban greening strongly
pointed to the need for urban park and recreation policies to evolve to meet the needs of residents in
dense urban areas in ways that also enhance their daily quality of life – not simply as recreation or leisure
destinations. Thus, providing naturalized environments – tree-lined trees, landscaped streetscapes and
pedestrian corridors along “necessary journeys” such as walking to a bus or metro stop, school or store –
were seen as part of how the city needed to approach its parks, recreation, and green opens space
provision” (p.376). Noting that there is currently no framework to address urban inequality in the
distribution of environmental amenities, they suggest that introduction of nature into urban
neighborhoods can also provide a measure of restorative justice, as “natural services throughout the city,
and most especially in disenfranchised neighborhoods, could begin to redress decades of neglect and
blight” (p.381, citing Swyngedouw and Heynen 2003).
51
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.3 A Synthesis: Just Sustainability
This section explores the evolving efforts to address equity and environmental goals as inter-related and
inseparable goals, through theory and applications including physical planning, governance and economic
tools. The discussion begins with a variety of perspectives on Environmental Justice (Campbell, S. 1996;
Faber and McCarthy 2003; Pulido 2004; Bullard 2005; Agyeman 2013; Pastor 2014), then introduces
resilience literature (Walker et al. 2004; Folke 2006; Folke et al. 2010; Smith and Stirling 2010; Ahern 2011,
2013; Davoudi 2012; Anderies et al. 2013), then planning concepts for sustainable urbanism (Wheeler
2002, 2009; Gearin 2004; Campbell, S. 2009; Banarjee 2009; Chapple 2015), then related governance
concepts (Young 2000; Jonas and Ward 2007; Scott 2007; Mazmanian and Kraft 2009; Ostrom 2009, 2014;
Homsy and Warner 2015; Mendez 2015), and economic tools for inclusive community wealth-building
(Simon 2001; Collin and Collin 2005; Blakely and Leigh 2010; Cain 2014; Blakely 2014; Swanstrom 2019).
2.3.1 Environmental Justice to Just Sustainability
The Environmental Justice (EJ) movement has opened a conversation about race, class and privilege that
is highlighting systemic injustices and revealing gaps in the strategies currently developed to promote
sustainability. At the same time, the growing strength of the EJ movement is bringing more voices into
the sustainability dialogue and supporting development of a more inclusive and just agenda for
sustainability overall.
Scott Campbell (1996) describes the inherent
challenge of meeting the 3E’s of sustainable
development (Environment, Economy, Equity) in a
diagram he calls the “Planners Triangle” (Campbell,
S. 1996). The diagram speaks to the process and the
conflicts between economic, ecological and equity
goals. Campbell’s position is that the goal of
planning is to negotiate: “The more it stirs up
conflict and sharpens the debate, the more
effective the idea of sustainability will be in the long
run… the planner must reconcile not two, but at
least three conflicting interests: to “grow” the
economy, distribute this growth fairly, and in the
process not degrade the ecosystem.” He highlights
the development conflict as the one that is most
challenging, noting that to classify the sustainability
challenge as simply “clashes between economic
growth and environmental protection misses the
third issue, of social justice.” (p. 297).
He summarizes the three conflicts represented on the triangle, noting that the “property conflict is
characterized by the economy’s ambivalent interest in providing at least a subsistence existence for
working people, and the resource conflict by the economy’s ambivalent interest in providing sustainable
conditions for the natural environment, the development conflict stems from the difficulty of doing both
at once. Environment-equity disputes are coming to the fore to join the older dispute about economic

Figure 2.2: The Triangle of conflicting
goals for planning and the three
associated conflicts. Planners define
themselves implicitly, by where they
stand on the triangle.
Source: Campbell, S. 1996, p.298
52
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
growth versus equity (p.299; citing Paehlke 1994, 349-50). Finally, he describes sustainable development
as a process, offering that: “planners will find their vision of a sustainable city developed best at the
conclusion of contested negotiations over land use, transportation, housing, and economic development
policies, not as the premise for beginning the effort.” (Campbell, S. 1996, 304).
Daniel Faber and Deborah McCarthy (2003) introduce the term “ecological democracy” into the
discussion of environmental justice, which they define as a class struggle: “if the traditional environmental
movement continues to conceive of the ecological crisis as a collection of unrelated problems, and if the
reigning paradigms are defined in the neo-liberalist terms of a minimally regulated capitalist economy,
then it is possible that some combination of regulations, incentives and technical innovations can keep
pollution at tolerable levels for many people of higher socio-economic status. Poorer working-class
communities and people of colour who lack the political-economic resources to defend themselves will
continue to suffer the worst abuses” (Faber and McCarthy 2003, p.59). Faber and McCarthy call out
structural racism and inequality, commenting that “companies typically adopt strategies for the
exploitation of nature that are not only economically ‘efficient’ but politically ‘expedient’ (that offer the
path of least social resistance). The less political power a community of people commands, the fewer
resources a community possesses to defend itself” (p.39). They describe the exploitation of
disempowered people and natural systems as “two sides of the same political-economic coin” that have
become “part of the same historical process. As a result, the issues of sustainable development and
social/environmental justice have surfaced together as in no other period in world history (p.40).” The
solution they prescribe is “reinvigoration of an active environmental citizenship” based on “grass-roots
democracy and inclusiveness – the vigorous participation of people from all walks of life in the decision-
making processes of capital, the state and social institutions that regulate their lives” (p.57). Echoing Susan
Fainstein, they acknowledge the important contribution of communicative methods, while acknowledging
that those methods are insufficient on their own, offering that “increased participatory democracy by
popular forces in the governmental decision-making and community planning is desirable (if not
essential), and should be supported, it is, in and of itself, insufficient for achieving true sustainability and
environmental justice. What is needed is a richer conception of ecological democracy” (p.60).
Laura Pulido (2004) addresses the issue of structural racism as it relates to urban planning and
development (Pulido 2004). She offers that: “By reducing racism to hostile discriminatory acts, many
researchers (with the notable exception of Bullard 1990) miss the role of structural and hegemonic forms
of racism in contributing to inequalities” (Pulido 2004, p.71; citing Bullard 1990). She suggests that rather
than focus on specific discriminatory acts, such as the siting of polluting sources in communities of color,
that a “focus on ‘white privilege’ enables us to develop a more structural, less conscious, and more
historical understanding of racism” that instead focuses on the policy tools that are used to secure
privileges and benefits enabling whites to distance themselves from pollution and nonwhites (p.72; citing
Szasz and Meuser 1997). Her analysis of the history of suburbanization and subsequent city incorporation
suggests that there is a “spatiality of racism” and that “space is a resource in the production of white
privilege. Indeed, neighborhoods are not merely groupings of individuals, homes, and commerce, they are
constellations of opportunities with powerful consequences for both the recipient and nonrecipient
populations” (p.86; citing Frankenberg 1993).
Robert Bullard (2005), one of the early Environmental Justice activists, speaks to environmental health as
a fundamental human right that is protected by law (Bullard 2005). Bullard stresses that “The EPA is
mandated to enforce the nation’s environmental laws and regulations equally across the board. It is also
53
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
required to protect all Americans – not just individuals or groups who can afford lawyers, lobbyists, and
experts. Environmental protection is a right, not a privilege reserved for a few who can fend off
environmental stressors that address environmental inequities” (p.30). Bullard describes how Executive
Order #12898
2
is rooted in “Title VI of the four-decades-old Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits
discriminatory practices in programs receiving federal funds” (p.21). He also notes that the human cost of
inaction on air pollution is high, as it “claims seventy thousand lives a year, nearly twice the number killed
in traffic accidents” (p.35; US EPA 2002). Emissions from diesel vehicles also pose health threats, that
disproportionately affect people of color. He notes that “Diesel particulate matter alone contributes to
125,000 cancers each year in the United States” (p.35; citing State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
etc. 2000). Finally, he refers to the focus on jobs and employment as an excuse for accepting elevated
levels of pollution as a “false choice” and a “form of economic blackmail” that must be corrected (p.42).
Julian Agyeman (2013) discusses what he calls an
‘equity deficit’ that still pervades most ‘green’ and
‘environmental’ sustainability theory, rhetoric and
practice” in his book Introducing Just Sustainabilities
(Agyeman 2013, p.4; citing Agyeman 2005, p.44). He
believes that “justice implies that all people should
have the capability to flourish, and flourishing must
mean more than simply survival” (p.8; citing Sen
2009). He offers reflections on “how to how to plan,
design, maintain, and ultimately mainstream
culturally inclusive spaces and places, and equally
important, culturally inclusive practices” (p.2).
Agyeman is an advocate for public space to reclaim
space for people and to support a “revived public
realm” (p.16). He sees the “decline of public space is
a symptom of a larger neoliberal pattern of
expanding marketplaces and shrinking governments
that has resulted in an unequal distribution of
resources (p.99; citing Banerjee 2001). Agyeman
shares the example of Mayor Penalosa of Bogata,
Columbia who created a successful “new network of
pedestrian greenways connecting rich and poor
neighborhoods” as part of his ‘urban happiness’
design agenda (p.108-111; citing Wright and
Montezuma 2004; Berney 2010; Parks and
Recreation 2008; Skinner 2004; Hunt 2009; Rydin et
al. 2012; Penalosa 2009; Montgomery 2007).
Agyeman also promotes the idea of co-production as a transformative concept to promote just
sustainabilities, as an alternative economic model that is more inclusive. He offers that co-production
takes an asset-based approach, seeing people “as assets rather than burdens,” investing in their

2
Bullard notes: Executive Order #12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations
and Low-Income Populations, was issued by Bill Clinton on February 11, 1994.
“Justice implies that all people should
have the capability to flourish” (Agyeman
2013, p.8; citing Sen 2009). Agyeman
describes the example of Bogata
Columbia, and Mayor Penalosa’s ‘urban
happiness’ design agenda, including
improvements such as utilities services to
low-income (slum) areas, 1,200 new
parks, planting 70,000 trees, and a “new
network of pedestrian greenways
connecting rich and poor neighborhoods.”
When it was complete he proclaimed:
“This is not an experiment in urban
infrastructure, this is an experiment in
urban social relations (Agyeman 2013
p.110; citing Penalosa 2009)” As a result
of his improvements, school enrollment
rose by 30%, while tax revenue doubled,
and crime and traffic accident rates
dropped precipitously. As a result,
“Penalosa successfully ushered in what
appears to be a much happier Bogota”
(p.110; citing Montgomery 2007).
54
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
capacities, and using “peer-support networks in addition to professionals to transfer knowledge and
capabilities” (p.18; citing Sen 2009). In addition to local business examples, he describes how the charity
Nesta, working in partnership with the New Economics Foundation (NEF), has been using coproduction to
innovate the delivery of public services, based on the idea of “delivering service with rather than for
service users” (p.20; citing NEF 2008). In terms of property rights, he offers that “a just sustainabilities
approach would look to create new forms of common property through land reform, and to develop ‘open
source’ solutions that do not rely on proprietary technologies or intellectual property rights” (42; citing
Harvey 2011, p.233).
Manuel Pastor (2014) reveals systemic racial bias in the distribution of environmental impacts and offers
suggestions for how to effect change. His paper begins with an overview of the history of the EJ
movement, describing how protests over exposure to pollution in North Carolina in 1982 eventually led
to the creation of a UCC Commission on Racial Justice to conduct “the first nationwide study that
demonstrated a correlation between hazardous waste facilities and neighborhoods of color called Toxic
Wastes and Race in the United States” (Pastor 2014, p. 228; citing United Church of Christ 1987). In 1994,
Clinton signed Executive order #12898 on Environmental Justice, requiring projects to avoid, minimize of
mitigate disproportionate pollution burdens (Pastor 2014, p.228-229). Additional studies have
conclusively demonstrated that “disparities do exist, even when one uses multivariate analysis, and that
race is actually a more consistent and significant predictor of environmental ‘bads’ than income” (Pastor
2014, p. 229; citing Ringquist 2005), however Pastor believes the results suggest “that it is less about race
per se than it is about voice in the political process” (Pastor 2014, p. 229; citing Pastor et al. 2001; Pastor
et al. 2005; Morello-Frosch 2002). Because of this, he is a strong advocate for community process that
empowers residents, sharing an example that included “soliciting input and using a scoring strategy that
was transparent”, engaging a residents in a hands on “parallel ‘ground truthing’ project”, and empowering
residents to create maps and collect actual air monitoring data (Pastor 2014, p.241; citing Los Angeles
Collaborative for Environmental Health and Justice 2010). Finally, Pastor argues that environmental justice
should ideally be addressed at the regional scale. While it is important to gather data on a neighborhood
scale, and protect rights on a national scale, he believes that EJ planning on the regional scale is critical
because pollution varies so much by region in the US, depending on the types of industrial and economic
clusters that are present (Pastor 2014, p.234).
2.3.2 Resilience as Social-Ecological Transformation
This section discusses the “resilience perspective” and introduces terminology and concepts around
resilience, adaptation and transformation. These concepts are discussed in relation to stresses and shocks
impacting social-ecological systems (SES), which includes a range of issues, from sea level rise and flooding
to social unrest related to increasing poverty and racial injustice.
Brian Walker, C.S. Holling, Stephen R. Carpenter and Ann Kinzig (2004), authored an influential paper
entitled “Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems,” providing definitions
of resilience, adaptability and transformability that have been widely cited. Early definitions of resilience
emphasized robustness, such as this one stating that resilience is “the capacity of a system to absorb
disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function,
structure, identity, and feedbacks” (Walker et al. 2004, p.2), with adaptability and transformability as
related but different functions. Adaptability in a socio-ecological system (SES) can be defined as “the
collective capacity of the human actors in the system to manage resilience” and transformability as the
55
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
“capacity to create a fundamentally new system when ecological, economic, or social (including political)
conditions make the existing system untenable” (p.7). More recent literature, as discussed below,
recognizes the interrelatedness of those functions.
Carl Folke (2006) reviews the origins of the resilience perspective and introduces the concept of social-
ecological adaptation and transformation (Folke 2006). He begins by describing the resilience perspective
as distinct from the “stable equilibrium” view of social and environment scientists. “Old dominant
perspectives have implicitly assumed a stable and infinitely resilient environment where resource flows
could be controlled and nature would self-repair into equilibrium when human stressors were removed.
Such static equilibrium center views provide little insight into the transient behavior of systems that are
not near equilibrium” (Folke 2006, p. 253-254; citing Holling 1973). Folke describes the resilience
perspective as one marking a profound shift away from science seeing human and natural ecology as
separate, to our current understanding of the “social–ecological system,” and to “emphasize the
integrated concept of humans-in-nature and to stress that the delineation between social and ecological
systems is artificial and arbitrary.” (p.261-262; citing Berkes and Folke 1998).
Folke (2006) identifies two distinct modes of action for social-
ecological systems, adaptability which includes “the capacity of
people to build resilience through collective action”, and
transformability which includes “the capacity of people to
create a fundamentally new social–ecological system when
ecological, political, social, or economic conditions make the
existing system untenable” (Folke 2006, p.262; citing Walker et
al. 2004). Folke notes that the tools to promote social-ecological
adaptation and transformation are under development, and
identifies processes including “social learning and social
memory, mental models and knowledge-system integration,
visioning and scenario building, leadership, agents and actor
groups, social networks, institutional and organizational inertia
and change, adaptive capacity, transformability and systems of
adaptive governance that allow for management of essential
ecosystem services” (p.263). He closes by noting the urgent
need to address adaptation in the short-term, with a longer-
term goal to “achieve transformations toward more sustainable
development pathways” as “one of the great challenges for
humanity in the decades to come” (p.263).
Carl Folke, Stephen Carpenter, Brian Walker, Marten Scheffer, Terry Chapin, and Johan Rockström
(2010) recognize the confusion that has resulted from earlier definitions of resilience, and offer a
clarification, stating that “The idea that adaptation and transformation may be essential to maintain
resilience may at first glance seem counterintuitive, as it embraces change as a requisite to persist. Yet
the very dynamics between periods of abrupt and gradual change and the capacity to adapt and transform
for persistence are at the core of the resilience of social-ecological systems (SESs)” (Folke at al. 2010, p.1).
They emphasize that the social–ecological resilience is a concept that sees “people and nature as
interdependent systems,” at the local and the global scale, as the extent of human impact on the natural
environment makes it “difficult and even irrational” to separate them, even for analytical purposes (p.2;
While cities are currently
focused predominantly on
adaptation planning for
climate change, Folke suggests
that “transformation” may be
a more appropriate goal. The
transition to more sustainable
future will require
transformation to an improved
state (more compact and
walkable, for example, with
more green infrastructure), not
just preservation or recovery in
the same form, especially for
under-invested communities
(Folke 2006, p.263).

56
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
citing Steffen et al. 2007). The process of transformation is also useful to consider, as it has been described
as a process that involves “novelty and innovation” as new forms are tested, and that transformation at
smaller scales enables transformation at larger scales (Folke et al. 2010, p.7). Finally, they describe the
process of transformation as one that requires either crisis or breaking down resilience of older regime,
challenging existing structures that may be quite resilient, as “deliberate transformation involves breaking
down the resilience of the old and building the resilience of the new” (p.7).
Adrian Smith and Andy Stirling (2010) describe how the goals of “socio-ecological” resilience do not
always align with sustainable transformation, which they describe as “socio-technical,” as sustainable
transformation is a process which needs to break down existing systems to make change (Smith and
Stirling 2010). To better support transformation, they advise the nurturing of sustainable regimes in
“green niches” that can incubate new models out of reach of the market, noting that “Niches provide
protective settings that reduce susceptibility to prevailing market pressures. Radical sustainable
innovations that carry systemic implications typically need this kind of space to develop, improve, and
enroll support” (Smith and Sterling 2010, p.6; citing Kemp et al. 1998; Smith 2007).
Finally, Smith and Stirling (2010) underscore that the
resilience capacity of cities is social, and who has the authority
to lead is an interesting question. They offer that “A state
actor may be the facilitating agent, but transition initiatives
must primarily be implemented within business communities
and civil society” (Smith and Stirling 2010, p.7; citing Kemp
and Loorbach 2006). Describing a localized scale of leadership,
they suggest that: “a place-based political jurisdiction will sit
at the heart of the polycentric governance arenas,” and that
those places “are actually governed by multilevel processes,
which opens this question to an even wider set of interests
and constituencies (Smith and Stirling 2010, p.10; citing Folke
et al. 2005; Lebel et al. 2006).
Jack Ahern (2011, 2013) discusses planning and design for transformation and the importance of
prototyping and testing. In a paper entitled “From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in
the new urban world,” he describes how “Adaptive planning and design conceives the ‘problem’ of making
decisions with imperfect knowledge about change and uncertain disturbances as an ‘opportunity’ to
‘learn-by-doing’” (Ahern 2011, p.343; citing Holling 1978). Furthermore, he sees these experiments as an
opportunity to develop research into adaptive design, physical urban systems, and urban biodiversity to
achieve “greater social learning and meaningful social engagement and participation in decision-making
and policy setting.” He sees the process of testing and learning as essential to creating innovative solutions
to meet the sustainability challenge in the midst of rapid urbanization, as “the magnitude of global
infrastructure (re)development represents an unprecedented opportunity to redirect and (re)conceive
the process of urbanization from one that is inherently destructive to one that is sustainable and resilient
in specific terms,” with green infrastructure playing a key role to build resilience capacity (p.343).
In a subsequent paper, Ahern (2013) describes how planning and designing for transformation requires a
dynamic process that advances urban form, governance and social structure together: “When cities are
understood and accepted as dynamic, self-organizing systems, the concept of sustainability changes.
Resilience capacity of cities is
social – and who has the
authority to lead is an interesting
question. “A state actor may be
the facilitating agent, but
transition initiatives must
primarily be implemented within
business communities and civil
society” (Smith and Stirling 2010,
p.7; citing Kemp and Loorbach
2006).
57
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Rather than aspiring to develop an idealized spatial form with associated ecosystem services—
sustainability is challenged to build the resilience capacity of cities” (Ahern 2013, p.1203). He describes
the collaborative “transdisciplinary” process needed to develop resilient urban solutions, and advocates
for landscape ecologists to play a key role, involving “stakeholders and decision makers with scientists and
professionals, throughout a project, with all parties contributing to, and benefiting from, a mutual
knowledge and experience base” (p.1205, table 1; citing Tress et al. 2005; Naveh 2001). Finally, he
outlines five key urban design strategies to build resilience capacity and transdisciplinary collaboration: 1)
Enhance biodiversity; 2) Build urban ecological networks and manage connectivity; 3) Plan and design for
multi-functionality; 4) Build redundancy and practice modularization: 5) Practice adaptive design with
“safe to fail” design experiments (p.1206-1209).
Simin Davoudi (2012) discusses the application of the resilience perspective to planning theory and
practice, offering insights and words of caution that “we need to tread carefully when translating
resilience thinking from the natural to the social world” (Davoudi 2012, p.305). Davoudi is concerned with
issues of justice, the appropriate role of government, and the need for a proactive response to power
dynamics. First, on the issue of social justice, she offers that “the idea of self-organisation which is
inherent in resilience thinking,” when “translated into the social context, it becomes highly charged with
ideological overtones as it refers to self-reliance.” She notes that “the emphasis on self-reliance in
resilience thinking is a quintessentially American idea, referring to the ability of people and places to ‘pull
themselves up by their bootstraps’ and reinvent themselves in the face of external challenges” (p.305;
citing Swanstrom 2008, p. 10). Davoudi’s view is that even though “the existence of engaged social
networks help foster adaptive capacity and enhance transformative resilience, it is not a substitute for
responsive and accountable governance” (Davoudi 2012, p.305). Another important issue of concern
relates to power and politics and the conflict over questions such as, what is a desired outcome, and
resilience for whom?” Given the tendency of investment to prioritize high value neighborhoods, she is
concerned with the real possibility that some areas are left behind. To address that concern, she advises
that “in the social context we cannot consider resilience without paying attention to issues of justice and
fairness in terms of both the procedures for decision-making and the distribution of burdens and benefits”
(p.306).
Anderies, Folke, Walker, and Ostrom (2013) discuss the need for resilience, adaptability and
transformability concepts to be implemented as an effective response to the climate challenge (Anderies
et al. 2013). They acknowledge that “overlapping definitions and confusion about how these conceptual
domains articulate with one another reduces their utility.” As a solution, they propose that “sustainability,
resilience, and robustness can be used in tandem to address the multi-scale and multi-level challenges
associated with global change” (p.1). They also offer an important cautionary note, stating that “resilience
is a system-level concept and is distinct from sustainability in that it is not normative, i.e., it does not
include specific choices about performance measures: We seldom hear of sustainable dictatorships, but
there are resilient dictatorships. The use of resilience concepts for decision making requires the addition
of performance measures” (p.4).
2.3.3 From Smart Growth to Sustainable Regional Form
The “Smart Growth” movement arose in response to suburban sprawl as urbanized areas grew in size,
rapidly expanding at the urban fringe. Yet even after decades of smart growth planning, and innovative
policy tools such as SB 375 in California, challenges remain around equity, sustainability and sprawl at the
58
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
urban fringe, and many have begun advocating for a new regionalism, based on comprehensive
sustainable planning at the regional scale, as it is large enough to capture the scale of ecosystem dynamics
within watersheds and airsheds as well as the social dynamics of development along transects from urban
to suburban to rural (Banerjee 2009, 2014; Campbell 2009; Calthorpe 2011; etc.). Some see the potential
for this to be developed as a “bio-regional model”, potentially organized around regional watersheds
rather than political boundaries (Rees 1992/2017; Campbell 2009).
Elizabeth Gearin (2004) describes how the “Smart Growth” movement arose in response to suburban
sprawl as urbanized areas grew in size, rapidly expanding at the urban fringe, noting that the term was
initially coined by Maryland governor Parris Glendening as a “political and marketing decision” to generate
popular support for funding infrastructure in targeted growth areas by pairing it with land conservation
in targeted preservation areas. She describes smart growth as a process that advocates for “growth by
design, not uncontrolled growth or a moratorium on growth” using tools that “balance competing land-
use interests across multiple situations and jurisdictions” (Gearin 2004, p.292).
Stephen Wheeler (2002, 2009) discusses sustainability and equity challenges at the regional scale.
Wheeler (2002) describes new regionalism as an emerging movement bringing a renewed focus to
physical planning and urban design as a territorial approach (Wheeler 2002). Key characteristics he
identifies for new regionalism include: “1) a focus on specific territories and spatial planning; 2) a response
to the particular problems of the postmodern metropolitan region; 3) a holistic perspective that integrates
planning specialties as well as environmental, equity, and economic goals; 4) a renewed emphasis on
physical planning, urban design, and sense of place; and 5) a more activist or normative stance on the part
of planners” (p.270-273). Wheeler acknowledges that the term ‘new regionalism’ has been used in many
contexts – for “coordinated central-city and suburban economic development” (p.267-268; citing Pastor
et al. 2000; Swanstrom 1995), and for “new policies to reduce income and resource disparities between
suburbs and central cities” (Wheeler 2002, p.270; citing Rusk 1993; Orfield 1997; and powell 2000). Finally,
he advocates for a return to planning that considers real places, not just abstract functions, noting that
“geographers have argued that the dimension of “space” itself disappeared from mid-20th-century
regional debates, and authors such as Lefebvre and Soja have argued for its re-inclusion” (Wheeler 2002,
p.270; citing Lefebvre 1974; Soja 1989).
In a subsequent paper, Stephen Wheeler (2009) addresses the question of scale as it relates to regional
and megaregional planning, sharing his concern that “Urbanization at large scales has inherent
sustainability problems, and planning institutions and governance mechanisms have had limited success
at the metropolitan scale, let alone at a megaregional one.” He suggests that “more sustainable regional
development includes an emphasis on balanced local communities” (Wheeler 2009, p.863). He advises
that regional economic integration be considered carefully, as larger units inherently drive transportation
demand and contribute to economic disparity, stating that: “Equity issues, both within and between
regions, have been exacerbated in recent years by the increasing size and fragmentation of these areas.
Of particular concern are the concentration of poverty within parts of the region, growing disparities in
tax base and opportunity and environmental justice inequities” (p.865; citing Pastor et al. 2000 and Bullard
et al. 2000). Furthermore, regional planning is not inclusive enough, as it has “a profound suburban,
middle-class bias” and promotes “regional economic competitiveness that benefits elites while not
necessarily improving the welfare of lower income groups” (Wheeler 209, p.866; citing Rast 2006, p.249).
59
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Wheeler believes that “the physical expansion of regions should
not be a goal of national or regional planning unless steps can be
taken to address sustainability problems related to mobility,
growth management, equity, economic development, and
governance – and that planning at the regional scale should
promote sustainability rather than regional growth” (Wheeler
2009, p.872). Instead, his model for a sustainable region is one
with distinct community clusters each supporting a local
economy, creating a “focus on smaller-scale community
development within the region, with attempts to maintain
separation between local communities in terms of labour
markets, housing markets, road systems, and land development”
(p.872).
Scott Campbell (2009) explores how the shift from a traditional metropolitan framework to a megaregion
framework, which he describes as a “network of multiple adjacent metropolitan areas and their interstitial
hinterlands” might impact planning priorities and opportunities for ecological sustainability (Campbell
2009, p.127). Campbell notes that potential sustainability benefits of the megaregion framework include
its ability to “preserve large environmental (or ‘green infrastructure’) systems” (p.128; citing Regional Plan
Association 2006). While the megaregion scale encompasses “the holistic scale of environmental systems
(e.g. watersheds, air basins, habitats) and thus allows integrated management of these systems within a
coherent spatial planning framework”, he cautions that the focus on economic integration of megaregions
“will further foreground economic competitiveness over environmental protection” (p.136). Also, without
strict land use controls, Campbell is concerned that a “megaregion growth machine will fuel land
consumption at the fringes” (p.134). While he questions if the megaregion approach is complementary or
in conflict with “the renewed interest in the social and environmental benefits of returning to a more
localized supply networks of goods and services” (Campbell 2009, p. 136; citing Pollan 2006; McKibben
2007; Shuman 2006), he imagines the possibility of a “hybrid model that encourages greater consumption
of goods and service produced within the megaregion itself” (p.136; citing Sale 1985). Finally, he concludes
with the opinion that while the issue of scale will not predict the result, there will likely be tremendous
pressure for expansive growth, and that success will “be linked to social commitment to sustainability per
se and to concrete tradeoffs between expansion and preservation” (p.137).
Tridib Banarjee (2009), describes concepts that have shaped current patterns of the built environment in
terms of density, design and livability, and explores how future development at the megaregion scale may
evolve to better address the priorities of sustainability and livability (Banarjee 2009). Banarjee proposes
that “megaregions should be seen as systems of places” (p.88) and suggests that definition of the system
will depend on how the boundaries are delineated. He highlights “three types of measurements: linkages,
gradients, and boundaries” (p.89; citing Dewar and Epstein 2007) and offers that: “Preservation of the
natural landscape and ecosystem must be the first and most obvious step in defining the future form of
megaregions” (p.90). And yet, physical form is not the only consideration, Banarjee recommends that
“any comprehensive analysis of a megaregion as a system of places must also include and understanding
of the social ecology of the system” (p.91). Looking back historically he offers that “In retrospect it seems
that many of the normative visions of the American metropolitan development had indirectly prescribed
urban sprawl by emphasizing lower-density development in their antipathy for higher-density urban living
and associated anti-urban bias typical of the turn of the century” (Banarjee 2009, p. 85; citing White and
Wheeler (2009) offers a vision
for sustainable regions with
“distinct community clusters,
each supporting a local
economy,” with adequate
separation between “labor
markets, housing markets,
road systems, and land
development” (Wheeler
2009, p.872).
60
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
White 1962). However, Banarjee notes that “In an era of heightened consciousness about global warming
and climate change, concession to megasprawl as in inexorable outcome is not acceptable. Perhaps the
most significant performance requirements for megaregional planning will be to contain the ecological
footprint of the region while showing real growth in terms of green gross regional product per capita.”
(Banarjee, p. 103-104). Given the shortage of affordable housing, he suggests that “the corridor city may
be the ideal scenario in which the interests of environmental advocacy, housing advocacy, and transit
advocacy converge” (p.102). While appropriate in terms of efficient land use, more compact urban forms
also support formation of social interactions. Banarjee notes that: “Social theorists such as Jane Jacobs
(2002) and Richard Sennett (1971) discuss the positive urbanism of mixed-use street living. From the social
ecology point of view these corridors may afford possibilities for a more positive and diverse social
contract that that of isolated neighborhood enclaves (p.103; citing Banerjee and Baer 1984). Finally, as a
closing thought, he addresses the role of governance: “Planning at the megaregional scale is essentially a
problem of regional governance. We might imagine density, design, and conservation guidelines for the
entire megaregion, but how such imperatives are implemented remains a governance challenge and calls
for innovations in institutional arrangements” (p.104). Banarjee’s observations raise interesting questions
about the future physical and social structure of the megaregion and the possibility that these might be
conceived to be mutually reinforcing.
Karen Chapple (2015) explores the challenge of planning for
sustainability that “truly incorporates equity” given that the
“livable city is an expensive city,” in her book Planning
Sustainable Cities and Regions: Towards More Equitable
Development (Chapple 2015, p.2). She argues that the
fundamental premises which have guided urban planning and
policymaking need to be rethought. These include “how to
engineer neighborhood density and diversity, how to develop
economies for specific places, and how to locate the poor near
social and economic opportunities” (p.3). Focusing on place-
based endogenous development, she questions the singular
focus often placed on the export base and suggests that “local
consumption may drive regional growth by creating new
markets, intensifying local impacts, or enhancing a region’s
attractiveness” (p.197; citing Markusen and Schrock 2009).
Furthermore, she notes that “To the extent that new local-
serving activity relies on underutilized land or labor, it will also
increase overall productivity (p.198; citing Bartik 2004).
In terms of urban design, she advocates for the development of shared retail, commercial and recreational
spaces that can act as “social seams” between residential neighborhoods, to promote shared access to
resources as well as social mixing in public areas. This approach “avoids the problem of breaking up
enclaves, while still promoting accessibility to higher-quality goods and services and diverse social
networks.” It is an approach that creates “complete communities” and requires “thinking beyond narrow
housing policy to places, and then ensuring that those places have the porous boundaries or social seams
that facilitate mixing” (p.134; citing Brooks et al. 2012).
2.3.4 Governance for Sustainable and Equitable Metropolitan Regions
Karen Chapple (2015) makes
the case for place-based
endogenous development to
drive equitable and sustainable
regional growth, creating new
markets as well as local jobs
(Chapple 2015, p. 197-198). In
terms of urban design, she
advocates for shared retail,
commercial and recreational
areas that can act as “social
seams” between residential
neighborhoods to promote
shared access to resources as
well as social mixing in public
areas (p. 134).
61
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Transforming development practices to address sustainability and equity goals at the metropolitan
regional scale will require both innovation and multi-level cooperation (Ostrom 2012; Mazmanian and
Kraft 2009; etc.). The challenge of “fractured governance” in the US is significant, as land use is controlled
by local governments, while states have authority over environmental quality, transportation and
infrastructure funding, and councils of government (COGs) and municipal planning organizations (MPOs)
are tasked with regional infrastructure planning – yet have no enforcement authority (Vig and Kraft 2016;
Fulton and Shigley 2005). The literature offers a variety of strategies to address the challenges of
governance and the opportunities to develop policy supporting what Mazmanian and Kraft refer to as the
“third epoch” of the environmental movement with its focus on collaborative management of linked
human and environmental systems (Mazmanian and Kraft 2009).
Iris Marion Young’s (2000) influential book Inclusion and Democracy speaks to the challenges of
representation, arguing that regional governance can be “deeply democratic” only if combined with
“neighbourhood and community-based participatory institutions many of which are differentiated by
group affinities” to create a model she calls “differentiated solidarity” (Young 2000, p.9). Young challenges
conventional integration strategies based on dispersion, offering a view that validates the desire of
populations to cluster, as “legitimate desires to form and maintain affinity grouping. Spatial group
differentiation, however, should be voluntary, fluid, without clear borders, and with many overlapping,
unmarked, and hybrid places” (p.197). She articulates a vision of integration that works to “combat
exclusion and foster individual freedom” while it affirms “freedom of association that may entail
residential clustering and civic differentiation” (p.197).
Andrew Jonas and Kevin Ward (2007) offers a counterpoint to the message of those arguing for the
dominance of city-state over the nation-state, describing it as a “rescaling” that does not fully transfer the
obligations of the nation-state to the city-state, as “all too often the city-region is seen as an autonomous
political and economic space: what is left after the nation-state and its decision making and democratic
authority has been curtailed by the forces of economic globalization and spatial agglomeration” (Jonas
and Ward 2007, p.171-172). They challenge the idea that there is a defined “politics of city-regionalism”
that “behaves as an autonomous force of global economic and political change” (p.172). Instead the
authors advocate for a both-and approach that includes government policy at multiple scales, so the
problematic issues of inequality and uneven development related to the “failings of neoliberal policy
frameworks” are addressed together with the “existing politics of distribution taking place across city-
regions on an everyday basis, including material demands for collective consumption, social movements
around the living place, and the like” (p.175).
James Wesley Scott (2007) discusses the smart growth agenda and its potential to integrate equity and
sustainability goals through regional planning with a focus on the SF Bay Area as a casestudy (Scott 2007).
Describing “old regionalist” approaches as those that secure binding regional powers, he defines new
regionalist approaches as those that favor “municipal partnerships, horizontal coordination and greater
burden-sharing at the local level (p.19; citing Sancton 2001). He offers that: “One basic quandary that
smart growth must resolve is the promotion of social equity and inclusionary governance while exploiting
market mechanisms,” as commonly used strategies to incentive development, such as tax increment
financing, reduce local revenue available for local services (p.21; citing Prince 2004). Scott also expresses
concern for the lack of authority regional planners have, and yet, he sees new governance models
emerging in the SF Bay Area as a form of “regional corporatism,” as “new coalitions involving
environmental, business, government and a variety of civic actors appear to be materialising as a
62
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
pragmatic response to a lack of regional government” (p.31; citing Donald Rothblatt, 1999). Questions
remain regarding accountability and democratic control, as “the visioning process behind the smart
growth agenda was highly selective and not representative of the region’s population” given that the
community process was “organised around selective fora and workshops rather than clearly identifiable
regional associations” (p.30). Finally, he concludes by noting that “political economies of suburban
development (and the fragmented planning process) continue to promote sprawl, particularly in urban
areas where regional controls are generally absent. Furthermore, as might be expected, social equity
aspects are either greatly underfunded or often subsumed” (p.31).
Daniel Mazmanian and Michael Kraft (2009) present
a framework for understanding the evolution of
environmental management through three distinct
epochs and review the challenges and opportunities
that are embedded in the shift from “a regulatory
strategy of environmental protection to one based on
principals of sustainability” (Mazmanian and Kraft,
p.6). Furthermore, they see this work emerging at the
city and regional scale, as they believe that the best
way to bring about a new epoch of environmental
management is to “build on local and regional
experiences in sustainability efforts,” ultimately
moving toward a national consensus on sustainable
development policy based on lessons learned from
local innovation (p.6).
Mazmanian and Kraft outline three epochs – the first based on command and control regulation, the
second based on negotiated agreements and incentive-based strategies, and the third based on a systemic
approach to sustainability (p.7-12). They describe the cultural context behind the first and second epochs,
noting that the first epoch developed as “a consensus emerged among scientists, technicians,
policymakers, and the public that the issues of pollution and environmental degradation were severe and
should be addressed as a top national priority” (p.13). In contrast, the second epoch marks a time where
what “changed most markedly was faith in the philosophy of regulation and strong control by the federal
government. It became clear that government alone, especially the federal government, could neither
direct nor police all businesses and every community” (p.13), triggering a “Backlash against the agency
and the rise of a counter-philosophy and approach that became the hallmark of second environmental
epoch” (p.20). Out of necessity, regulators and industry worked together to devise more efficient
strategies, based on use of “alternative dispute resolution, extensive collaboration, negotiated rule
making within the EPA, and similar processes” (p.24-25). In response, the second epoch, “shifted from
strict regulation to balancing environmental objectives with other social and economic priorities, with
greater attention to human health effects and to carrying out more efficiently those environmental
policies there were on the books” (p.13).
Finally, Mazmanian and Kraft describe the emerging third epoch of environmental management as one
based on a “philosophy and strategy of ‘sustainability’” (Mazmanian and Kraft 2009, p.21). “For the third
epoch, now in its formative stage, collaboration and cooperation among all affected stakeholders and
incentive-based methods of policy implementation are promoted as the preferred approaches for both
Mazmanian and Kraft (2013) describe
the emerging third epoch of
environmental management as one
involving “collaboration and
cooperation among all affected
stakeholders and incentive-based
methods of policy implementation” that
is based on “a sustainability approach
that envisions a complex web of human
and natural systems interactions and
linkages, without starting or end point.”
(Mazmanian and Kraft 2009, p.21)
63
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
philosophical and instrumental reasons” (p.25; citing Maser 1997; Weber 2003; Wondolleck and Yaffee
2000). The third epoch represents not just transition but transformation to support community
sustainability. The authors note that “linking sustainability concepts to concepts of community has
particular advantages, since communities represent the social and physical expression of
interdependence” (Mazmanian and Kraft 2009, p.21).
Elinor Ostrom (2014) has written extensively about governance of common pool resources, and the
institutional structures that support collective action. Her article entitled “A Polycentric Approach for
Coping with Climate Change” (2014) specifically addresses the climate challenge, referring to it as one of
producing a public good: “The problem of averting massive climate change—or a global “public bad”—
would be a global “public good” (Ostrom 2014, p.5; citing Sandler 2004; Carraro 2003). And yet, she
describes how creating a public good is an inherent collective action dilemma, and “potentially the largest
dilemma the world has ever knowingly faced”, as all those that would benefit from reduced emissions and
cleaner air, receive the benefit whether or not they pay the costs. Ostrom disagrees with the “classic
theory” of collective action, which predicts that behavior change will only occur if an external authority
imposes enforceable rules, seeing it as limiting (p.5). Instead, Ostrom points to community scale
interactions “where participants trust one another to be effective reciprocators” as an essential part of
breaking through collective action barriers to climate action planning (p.7; citing Stavins 1997; Miller 2004;
Wiener 2007), and she identifies the characteristics that support cooperative behavior, including trust,
and a focus on benefits at multiple scales (p.12-13). Challenges identified include the possibility of gaming
the system, for example, with a “carbon accounting methodology as a ‘one size fits all’ policy that does
not account for the diversity of ecosystems involved,” (p.26; citing Boyd 2009) as well as the problem of
leakage between locations when policy incentives encourage activities to move to locations with less
restrictions, (p.29; citing Ebeling 2008) and finally, costs and inefficiencies related to policy that is
inconsistent, such as greenhouse gas emission targets that vary from one location to the next (p.30).
Finally, Ostrom advocates for “polycentric” systems of governance rather than systems with a rigid
monocentric hierarchy (p.33, citing Ostrom, V. 1999).
George Homsy and Mildred Warner (2015) challenge the popular notion that cities are independently
leading on environmental policy and they identify the need to motivate suburban areas to support
sustainability actions (Homsy and Warner 2015). Discussing the challenges of applying polycentric
governance theory, they note that “Polycentric theory argues that suburbs, which most closely reflect the
competitive Tiebout world of public choice, should exhibit higher sustainability action in an effort to
protect property values. However, our analysis shows suburbs exhibit the lowest adoption rates. Suburbs
may be free riding on the sustainability policies of their central cities, rather than protecting the
environment on their own” (Homsy and Warner 2015, p.63-64; citing Fischel 2001). The authors conclude
that “Municipal sustainability actions are higher when they occur in a multilevel governance framework
where the strengths of all levels of governments as well as citizens are harnessed,” citing the way states
like California and Massachusetts create frameworks for local policy and promote “regional coordination
and policy targets, as these seem to encourage more local sustainability action” (Homsy and Warner 2015,
p.66).
Michael Mendez (2015) offers insight into the practical challenges of coordinating multiple levels of
governance, as he describes the Climate Action Planning process and the failure to leverage this policy
tool for community transformation in California (Mendez 2015). His paper entitled “Assessing local
climate action plans for public health co-benefits in environmental justice communities” found consistent
64
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
evidence that the health impacts of climate change on local communities were not studied: “To date, the
majority of research focuses on measuring local climate efforts and evaluating the general efficacy of
adopted climate action plans (CAPs)” (p.637). This study found that CAPs “rarely analyze whether
greenhouse gas reduction strategies will also yield health co-benefits, such as a reduction in the co-
pollutants of climate change (i.e. ozone, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides). In many instances, the
net co-benefits of health are not monetized, quantified, or even identified by local governments” (p.637).
“What distinguishes California’s climate change law from regulations passed by other sub-national
governments is that AB 32 requires that statewide measures to reduce GHG emissions must also consider
how their implementation will impact communities that are already adversely affected by air pollution”
(p.638, citing California Health and Safety code sections 38565 and 38591). However, local climate action
plans, even in California, focus on strategies to reduce global GHG emissions with little or no attention to
air quality co-benefits from reductions in ozone, particulate matter (PM), and nitrogen oxides that benefit
community health (Mendez 2015, p.638; citing Burtraw and Toma 2000; Li 2002; Pittel and Rubbelke
2008). Mendez notes that “recent health co-benefit studies indicate that AB32 will decrease GHG
emissions by 165 metric tons, as well as smog and soot by more than 179,000 metric tons in the next 10
years. These reductions will result in cost savings of $8.3 billion in pollution-related health costs (p.639;
citing American Lung Association and EDF 2014), and yet, even though the state has made progress
reducing GHG and co-pollutant emissions, “AB 32 does not require any action to be taken by local
governments.” Similarly, California’s other landmark climate law, SB 375, also focuses on GHG reduction
targets, but “unlike AB 32, SB 375 does not mandate that GHG reduction measures be designed with the
consideration of how their implementation will impact communities that are already adversely affected
by air pollution” (Mendez 2015, p.639). This study represents an important reminder that planning for
community well-being faces challenges to achieve holistic planning results, even when resources are
available to support a closely aligned planning process.
2.3.5 Tools for Inclusive Community Wealth Building
Given the trend of increasing economic disparity, with ever more people relegated to neighborhoods with
limited opportunity and concentrations of poverty, this section focuses on tools to restore under-invested
communities, building “complete communities” that enable more localized economies to thrive. A focus
on endogenous community development and wealth building aligns with the goal of transformation to a
sustainable regional form with localized community clusters discussed previously. It is interesting to recall
that Jane Jacobs (1970) was an early advocate for the benefit of local economies as a strategy for
community development, including the benefits of import substitution, which she referred to as ‘import
replacement’ (Jacobs 1970, p. 145-179). Many of the ideas in her classic text The Economy of Cities,
resonate with the literature discussed below.
William Simon (2001) describes the Community Economic Development (CED) movement as “a kind of
social entrepreneurialism” that is producing projects that represent “the most optimistic and innovative
approaches to urban poverty on both the left and the right” (Simon 2001, p.2). He describes an approach
that positions communities as both agents of development and beneficiaries of development of under-
invested urban neighborhoods. His book entitled The Community Economic Development Movement,
describes the history of the CED movement, and includes numerous case studies and descriptions of
economic and policy tools. One particularly compelling case study he describes is the Dudley Street
Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI) in the Roxbury area of Boston. DSNI formed as a nonprofit corporation to
represent that minority low-income neighborhood and is described as a “model of grassroots
65
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
accountability and involvement” (p.13). In collaboration with the city of Boston, DSNI was able to
transform hundreds of small lots that were absentee owned and abandoned, as the city redevelopment
delegated powers to DSNI, including eminent domain (p.13; citing Medoff and Sklar 1994).
CED typically involves mixed use development,
particularly in urban neighborhoods. One core idea Simon
emphasizes is the potential opportunity of local economic
development, citing the work of Michael Porter, who
promotes the value of local business serving local demand
in traditionally under-served areas. He touts the
competitive advantage, not from low land cost or labor
cost, but from purchasing power in areas with limited
services as higher density compensates for lower
earnings, and from inner-city entrepreneurs who
understand the preferences of their local customers
better (p.102-103, citing Porter 1995). However, as
beneficial as CED can be, Simon cautions that “On
average, CED programs are oriented toward groups at the
top of or somewhat above the class to which traditional
welfare programs have been directed,” and that the “shift
from traditional public housing to the newer models has
come at the expense of poorer groups.” Because of this a
“serious commitment to a minimally decent standard of
living will always require something like traditional
welfare programs for a significant fraction of low-income
people” (p.220).
Robin Collin and Robert Collin (2005) advocate for environmental reparations to fund community and
ecosystem improvements, as recognition for those that have been impacted by racial injustices (Collin
and Collin 2005). Given that people of color have been impacted by chronic and cumulative exposure to
environmental toxins for generations, environmental justice communities are calling for “reparative,
restorative environmental policy based on justice first, then sustainability” (p.209). The authors highlight
the blind spots in mainstream environmental activism and public policy is the tendency to focus on the
“media of pollution – air water and land” which ignores public health indicators” (p.210). While they
acknowledge some “positive developments in the program include new policies that actually examine
cumulative and ecological risk when dealing with polluted sites”; they underscore the need for sustainable
urban planning to include “Meaningful community involvement” to determine “the social, economic, and
cultural parameters of any cumulative risk assessment” (p.216, citing Riddell 2003). Next, they describe
environmental justice reparations as a process that can take many forms, from environmental cleanup of
air, water, and land, to commitments to monitoring, and/or requirements that polluting industries use
cleaner production methods, however they do not see parks as an adequate form of reparations, because
they can be banked as land to develop later. Instead, they advocate for the designation of “environmental
preservation districts as reparations” (218, citing Bell 1987). Finally, the authors state that “Reparations
are both spiritual and environmental medicine for healing and reconciliation. They are legally possible,
and they form the path to both justice and restoration of living systems on which we all depend” (p.221).
One core idea Simon (2001)
emphasizes is the potential business
opportunity of local economic
development, citing the work of
Michael Porter, a business
consultant and professor at the
Harvard Business School: “Although
Porter never uses the term ‘import
substitution’, a substantial measure
of his argument resonates with this
framework.” Simon describes
Porter’s thinking, that “local
demand is an important category of
opportunity for inner-city business
generation. Indeed, he suggests it
includes the most immediate
opportunities” (p.101, citing Porter
1995, p.58).
66
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Edward Blakely and Nancey Leigh (2010), authors of the classic text Planning for Local Economic
Development, now in its 4th edition, provide a definition for local economic development based on
community benefit (Blakely and Leigh 2010). Their definition goes beyond the simple pursuit of growth to
include a focus on the desired end state: “Local economic development is achieved when a community’s
standard of living can be preserved and increased through a process of human and physical development
that is based on principals of equity and sustainability” (p.75; citing Fitzgerald and Leigh 2002). Blakely
and Leigh also discuss community economic development, which they define as “the neighborhood scale
of socioeconomic transformation in a distressed location” (p.329). Blakely and Leigh (2010) describe how
community-based economic development efforts over the past several years have proliferated due to the
“failure of the general economy to serve the needs of particularly disadvantaged communities,” offering
examples of projects that generate “socially useful, labor intensive projects” that improve employability
of participants, as well as strategies that to boost local control and local ownership of homes and
businesses (p.330). They summarize the goal as one of self-reliance: “The basic objective of these
initiatives is to teach people at the neighborhood level to own their own pond and fish in it” (p.331). Tools
and strategies discussed include Community Development Corporations (CDCs), community reinvestment
programs, Community Development Finance Institutions (CDFIs), cooperatives, community land trusts,
local enterprise agencies, employee/worker ownership, etc. (p.332-340). Finally, they note that these
strategies are particularly beneficial in mixed-use urban neighborhoods versus places that have separated
residential and commercial zoning (p.331; citing Teitz 1989, p.112).
Colleen Cain (2014) discusses the benefits and limitations of Community Benefits Agreements (CBA) as a
tool for sharing the benefits of development with impacted communities. CBAs are a potentially powerful
tool that enable communities to negotiate with developers for a broad set of benefits, however Cain also
acknowledges the role of “growth machine” dynamics behind them, a reference to pro-growth coalitions
“united behind the doctrine of ‘value-free development’, that is, the belief that land use should be
determined by the free market only and at any cost, without consideration for other factors, such as the
ways in which growth might impact local residents negatively” (p.937; citing Logan and Molotch 1987,
p.32). In contrast to the ‘value-free development’ described by Molotch, CBAs been touted as ‘value-
conscious development’ that ‘reinvests’ a portion of the development surplus. Cain notes that when
Molotch (1990) revisited his thesis, he “suggests that localities increasingly demand and achieve positive
outcomes from developers, not just to offset infrastructure costs related to a project, but also to address
less direct effects, like traffic congestion or social costs” (Cain 2014, p.941; citing Molotch 1990). CBAs are
legally binding and typically negotiated directly with a developer of a single project, to deliver an agreed
upon set of community interests, not just mitigations for immediate development impacts (Cain 2014,
p.942; citing Baxamusa 2008; Gross 2007–2008).
Sharing a case study example from Pittsburgh, where community members faced off with developers of
a new stadium project, Cain writes that after more than a year of negotiation “the city’s first CBA was
signed, affording the community benefits such as community participation in a Hill District comprehensive
master plan to guide future redevelopment; $2 million toward the establishment of a grocery store; and
initial funding for a job resource center, which would facilitate first source hiring for construction and
arena jobs. Nearly 100 organizations, businesses, and groups signed the CBA on behalf of the coalition”
(p. 944). While CBAs have been characterized as a way to “lift all boats to achieve growth with justice” (p.
942; citing Meyerson 2006), Cain points out the limitations: negotiations were difficult and costly, and the
opportunities for CBAs are limited to unique areas within strong markets, and ultimately, the process did
not challenge the dominant standards of growth (p.953-955). Further, she shares Ho’s critique that “CBAs
67
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
are not an end goal; no sector has the time or energy to negotiate a CBA for every proposed project.
Instead, he calls for systemic changes in the public sector so that publicly subsidized projects are made to
satisfy the issues raised by all major stakeholders, including the community” (p.955, citing Ho 2007-2008).
Cain offers a closing thought that “perhaps what is needed is a new standard for growth” that is based on
of “Measuring quality of life and city success” by a set of criteria, such as providing affordable housing,
services, living wage jobs and elimination of environmental hazards (Cain 2014, p.955).
Edward Blakely (2014) discusses the importance of local economic development as a tool to build
sustainable and equitable communities in “The future of sustainable economic development in cities”
(Blakely 2014). With the belief that “the foundation of sustainable economic development is endogenous
(local resources) development,” Blakely encourages cities and towns to organize as “economically viable
units based on their continuous and replenishable resources,” based on the six categories of local resource
including “human, physical, social, economic, organization/institutional and governmental or regulatory”
(p.397). Blakely credits Schumpeter (1975/1942) with inspiring a paradigm for sustainable economic
development as he argued that “local development is the only form of sustainable development” (Blakely
2014, p.400; citing Schumpeter 1975/1942). Blakely clarifies that “sustainable development does not
argue with globalization but takes issue with the processes of current globalization practices that are
unsustainable and unaccountable,” and calls for government to level the playing field by eliminating
corporate subsidies and tax breaks that favor multi-nationals and challenge local enterprise (p.400-401).
He imagines future trade as “glocalization”, where localities compete directly with other localities – city
to city – on a worldwide platform, as “local nodes linking to global trade systems and not dependent on
other larger places to be their gateways of trade. Local communities must become more self-reliant”
(p.408). He clarifies that glocalization is “not an argument against globalization but a firm proposition that
global economic strength arises from endogenous resource development that uses each component of
the resource base carefully” (p.411). Finally, he outlines three “pillars” for sustainable economic
development. First, that “economic development must be indigenous; that is, it should be driven by use
of the human, natural and community resources in the place and not by external economic drivers,”
second, “sustainability means adding value to, and not extracting value from a place,” and third,
“sustainable economics grows and spreads wealth, both knowledge and money, throughout the
community, enriching the entire environment” (p.397).
Todd Swanstrom (2019) addresses the fundamental challenges of implementing community economic
development in weak market areas (Swanstrom 2019). As has been discussed in detail above, he notes
that housing market strength “varies more within metropolitan areas than across them,” as he
characterizes weak housing submarkets as those with “low demand and prices” that “suffer from systemic
market failures that prevent the market from recovering without outside intervention” (p. 175).
Additional challenges facing weak market neighborhoods include low housing demand, increasing
vacancy, disincentives to develop as housing prices fall below replacement costs, deferred maintenance
of existing housing, and declining rates of home ownership as homeowners are replaced by absentee
owners and speculators (p.176). Failure to consider market conditions can be harmful, for example,
adding subsidized housing alone, without other improvements, can actually weaken the market further
(p.178).
68
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Swanstrom believes that the path forward requires
comprehensive place-based investment: “Rebuilding
weak markets requires a comprehensive approach with
enough power to stop or reverse the reinforcing causal
loops that undermine market confidence. If only one
factor, such as high-quality housing is addressed, the
effort will be overwhelmed by the effects of other
factors, such as high crime, low-performing schools, and
poor job access. Policy makers must address all, or most,
of these factors simultaneously” (p.181). Based on
evaluation of 48 comprehensive community initiatives
over a 20-year timeframe, he notes that the process is
difficult with very few success stories yet “despite those
results, weak market communities have been turned
around” (p.181, citing Kubisch et al, 2010, p.vii). To
increase opportunities for success, Swanstrom advices
that “Highest priority should be given to neighborhoods
on the temporal and spatial edges – neighborhoods that
are located between strong- and weak-market areas and
still have functioning housing markets but could tip over
into reinforcing cycles of decline. Those areas have the greatest potential to promote both equity and
efficiency” (p.188-189). Finally, he advises that “Public policy should always build on strengths” and that
“Strong civic institutions in a neighborhood can compensate, at least in part, for market weaknesses;” and
another, perhaps the “most valuable asset many weak market communities have is vacant land,” which
can support creative sustainable transformations: “Urban agriculture serving niche markets can be
profitable, and sewer utilities are often willing to pay communities to convert vacant land for storm water
retention” (Swanstrom 2019, p.182; citing Mallach 2012, p.103-106).

2.4 Measuring Success: From GNP to Community Capital
This section is focused on measuring success in meeting sustainable, equitable development goals, with
the understanding that metrics are key to implementation. The critique of GDP is a key area of discussion
as its usefulness a measure of welfare has been challenged for over 50 years, and yet, GDP is still
commonly used as a proxy for social well-being, when considering urban policy options. Additional issues
discussed in this section include Ecological Economics and the evolving narrative around ‘green growth’
(Daly and Cobb 1989/1994; Daly1996; Costanza et al. 1997a; Jacobs 1997, 2013; Jackson 2017); commons
and public realm resources and their role in the formation of social capital (Serageldin 1996; Serageldin
and Grootaert 2000; Light 2004; Barnes 2006; Detter and Fölster 2017); new metrics to measure welfare
and sustainable growth (Arrow et al. 2010; Stiglitz et al. 2011; Laurent 2017); and measures of community
wellbeing (Roseland 2005; EcoDistricts; STAR Communities, etc.).

Development strategies in strong
market and weak market areas are
completely different - strong market
areas can leverage market
investment while weak market areas
need to address quality of life issues
to re-build demand (Swanstrom
2019). Comprehensive place-based
investment is needed in weak market
areas, with an approach that builds
on strengths and local assets. Strong
civic institutions are a strength to
build on, as is vacant land, which can
be plentiful in under-invested areas
(Swanstrom 2019, p.182; citing
Mallach 2012, p.103-106).
69
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.4.1 Ecological Economics and Green Growth
Ecological economics has been described as an attempt to address gaps in both ecology and economics
and has been described as “an attempt to help rectify this tendency to ignore humans in ecology, while
at the same time rectifying the parallel tendency to ignore the natural world in the social sciences”
(Costanza et al. 1997, p.48). Economists and ecologists began to encourage the major international
agencies to develop accounting systems that included the environment in the 1980s, the International
Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE) was formed in 1987, and the journal Ecological Economics was
initiated in 1989 (Costanza et al. 1997a, p. 49; citing Ahmad, El Serafy, and Lutz 1989). From those
beginnings a robust discussion of economic measurement has continued to develop, even though official
measures remain the same.
William Nordhaus and James Tobin (1972) authored a seminal paper, entitled “Is Growth Obsolete?” in
which they distinguished between growth in Gross National Product (GNP) and public welfare, arguing
that GNP does not measure welfare, rather it measures production (Nordhaus and Tobin 1972). They
developed a new measure of economic welfare (MEW) to better estimate per capita welfare, making
three basic adjustments to the calculation of GNP, first, re-classification of GNP expenditures as
consumption, investment, and intermediate; second, imputing values for consumer capital (domestic
business investment and home ownership), leisure time, and the value of household work; and third,
correcting for “disamenities” of urban living (p.5). Commuting to work is an example of a consumer
intermediary that does not directly contribute to well-being, while government intermediary activities
include the cost of police, sanitation, and national defense – items that are “regrettably necessary” yet
“necessary overhead costs of a complex industrial nation-state” (p.7). They raised the issue of the value
of natural resources and the cost of pollution but did not incorporate those the MEW calculation, however
they represent that the failure of market signals to incentivize environmental protection relates primarily
to a “defect of the pricing system” rather than a problem of growth (p.17). Finally, they define “sustainable
MEW” as distinct from “actual MEW,” where MEW-S is “the amount of consumption in any year that is
consistent with sustained steady growth in per capita consumption at the trend rate of technological
progress,” excluding “the capital expenditures needed to sustain the capital-output ratio” (p.24).
Herman Daly and John Cobb (1989/1994), authors of For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy
Toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future, describe the historic split between land
economics and industrial economics, and the abstraction of land as ‘rent’ (Daly and Cobb 1989/1994).
They trace modern economic theory back to its intellectual roots, describing how land – which originally
referred to all of nature – came to be defined as ‘property’ for economic purposes, and how governments
have used their widespread ownership of land as a tool to stimulate economic growth. Given the priority
placed on industrial development, governments have not typically worked to maximize the value of land
assets and instead “have usually followed a low price policy for resources precisely in the interests of
fostering growth and buying peace between labor and capital, at the expense not only of landlords, but
also of future generations” (Daly and Cobb 1989/1994, p.116).
Herman Daly (1996) argues in his book Beyond Growth, for a “radical shift from a growth economy and
all it entails to a steady-state economy” (Daly 1996, p.31). Daly describes sustainable development as a
fundamental “shift in our vision of how the economic activities of human beings are related to the natural
world – an ecosystem which is finite, non-growing and material closed” (p.1). He describes “steady state”
economic theory as one that “begins with physical parameters (a finite world, complex ecological
70
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
interrelations, the laws of thermodynamics) and inquires how the nonphysical variable of technology,
preferences, distribution, and lifestyles” can be brought into balance with the limitations of the natural
world, bringing a focus on qualitative versus quantitative growth (p.4). And he frames the discussion
around three distinct types of policy tools needed to align economic growth with the needs of society and
the environment – these are efficient allocation, just distribution and sustainable scale. He explains:
“Economics have recognized the independence of the goals of efficient allocation and just distribution
and are in general agreement that it is better to let prices serve efficiency, and to serve equity with income
redistribution policies. Proper scale is a third, independent policy goal and requires a third policy
instrument. The later point has not yet been accepted by economists, but its logic is parallel to the logic
underlying the separation of allocation and distribution” (p.51). To determine the sustainable scale of the
economy on a macroeconomic level, he suggests that the “best index of the scale of the human economy
as a part of the biosphere is the percentage of human appropriation of the total world product of
photosynthesis’ which he describes as Net primary production (NPP)” (p.57).
Contributing to the critique of GDP
3
, Daly highlights the critical distortion which is that “GNP does not
reveal whether we are living off income or capital, off of interest or principal. Depletion of fossil fuels,
minerals, forests, and soils is capital consumption, yet such unsustainable consumption is treated no
differently from sustainable yield production (true income) in GNP” (Daly 1996, p.40). To underscore this
issue, he quotes Sir John Hicks simple definition of income as “the maximum value which he can consume
during a week, and still expect to be as well off at the end of the week as he was at the beginning” (p.99;
citing Hicks 1946). Then, he offers that “Two adjustments are needed to NNP (net national product) to
make it a closer approximation to Hick’s concept of income and a better guide to prudent behavior. One
adjustment is simply to extend the principle of depreciation to cover consumption of natural capital stocks
depleted through production. The other is to subtract defensive expenditures, or regrettable expenditures
necessary to defend ourselves from the unwanted side effects of our aggregate production and
consumption” (p.100).
Robert Costanza, John Cumberland, Herman Daly, Robert Goodland and Richard Norgaard (1997a)
provide a comprehensive introduction to the topic of Environmental Economics, including fundamentals
of market processes, methods for natural resource valuation and an overview of potential policies and
incentives to promote sustainability (Costanza et al. 1997a). They frame the issues of ecological economics
around the basic challenges and “interdependent goals” of “sustainable scale, fair distribution, and
efficient allocation” and note that “neoclassical economics deals extensively with allocation, secondarily
with distribution, and not at all with scale” (p.80). While they see all three as “interrelated but distinct”
domains for policy, they advise that independent policy instruments be developed and applied in a
particular order (p.81; citing Daly 1992). They recommend that “first, establish the ecological limits of
sustainable scale and establish policies that assure that the throughput of the economy stays within these
limits. Second, establish a fair and just distribution of resources using system of property rights and
transfers…. Third, once the scale and distribution problems are solved, market-based mechanisms can be
used to allocate resources efficiently.” A fundamental challenge with the issue of scale, they note, is the
shift that has occurred from “empty-world” to “full-world” economics as the rapid increase in both
population and consumption has driven a shift “from an era in which human-made capital was the limiting
factor in economic development to an era in which remaining natural capital has become the limiting
factor” (p.83). Furthermore, they note that “in this full world era investment must shift from human-made

3
GDP refers to Gross Domestic Product, whereas GNP refers to Gross National Product.
71
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
capital accumulation toward natural capital preservation and restoration” as well as “increasing the
productivity of natural capital” (p.86).
To shed further light on the discussion of the productivity of natural capital, the authors describe the work
of Howard Hotelling (1931), which is described as a study of natural resource use, and the economic
factors that lead to its conservation or depletion over time (Costanza et al. 1997a, p.42-46; citing Hotelling
1931). They describe Hotelling’s analysis of interest rates in the general economy as a fundamental
challenge for conservation, as interest rates affect the management of all capital assets, including
biological resources. He noted that “the level of the interest rate affects how biological resources are
managed and hence the rate and direction of ecosystem transformation and species extinction. Any
species or ecosystem that cannot be managed at a level such that it is generating a flow of services at a
rate greater than the rate of interest ‘should’ be depleted” (p.43, citing Hotelling 1931). The authors
describe a common extension of the argument, that “trees that grow slower than the rate of interest will
never be commercial” (p.44). Also, according to Hotelling’s model, “even when market prices fully reflect
the value of a species, it will be efficient to exploit a species to extinction or totally degrade an ecosystem
if the value of the species or the ecosystem over time is not increasing at least as fast as money deposited
in an interest-bearing account” (p.45).
Finally, the authors note that the natural environment is not simply a source of materials for production,
but also provides ecological services, a function that is often overlooked by economic accounting (p.95)
“despite the fact that this ‘factor of production’ has always been a prerequisite for economic
development.” They see this beginning to change as economies grow in size relative to the ecosystems
that support them, commenting that “a healthy economy can only exist in symbiosis with a healthy
ecology. The two are so interdependent that isolating them for academic purposes has led to distortions
and poor management” (p.96).
Michael Jacobs (1997) paper, entitled “Sustainability and Markets: On the Neoclassical Model of
Environmental Economics,” discusses the potential role for market mechanisms to drive sustainable
development and suggests a more active role for the state in developing transformative planning and
design strategies (Jacobs 1997). He frames his discussion around sustainability, clarifying that the
presence of biophysical limits “does imply that there are limits to particular uses of environmental stocks
and flows of material and energy through the economy,” but that “sustainability as a concept does not
imply that economic growth must be subject to limits,” revealing his belief in the potential for ‘decoupling’
economic growth from resource flows (p.366). And yet, the larger challenge he sees around ‘sustainable
growth’ is in incentives and enforcement, and the need for a combination of market tools and institutional
rules. He describes the market as good at incremental adjustments, but not transformation, noting that
sustainability will require “long-term structural change in economy and society.” He believes that the
market works best making incremental adjustments in response to consumer demand, as “the concept of
market equilibrium depends upon the assumption that demands and preferences (tastes) at given prices
do not change” (p.375-376). Given those limitations, he advocates for a proactive role by the state in
setting objectives, identifying potential ‘techniques’ to meet those objectives, and then adjusting prices
as needed to incentive behavior to meet the objectives. He contrasts this what he describes as
conventional processes that are ‘essentially hands-off’ using taxes and fees, but not defining the ‘technical
72
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
and social methods by which the objectives will be
achieved’ such as investments in light rail or
planning for walkable neighborhoods. “Understood
as a process of ecological restructuring, therefore,
sustainability will require detailed government
involvement: in setting environmental-economic
objectives, in choosing techniques, and in the use
of instruments. This must be described as a form of
planning” (p.380). Finally, he offers that protection
of the public good is fundamentally a role of the
state, not the market, and as such, requires
collective decision making. He summarizes as
follows: Markets cannot guarantee, and are in
practice almost certainly unable to achieve, major
reductions in environmental impact. Since the most
important environmental goods are inescapably
public and collective in character, only states can
regulate their condition: only states have the
coercive power which can over-come the free-
riding problems of individual choice” (p.381-382).
Nicholas Stern (2006, 2007), author of the influential Stern Review, makes the case for the high economic
cost of delaying action on climate change mitigation (Stern 2006). At the same time, he acknowledges
that adaptation has become essential given emissions already in the atmosphere, so ideally strategies
should address both mitigation and adaption. “Adaptation and mitigation are not alternatives; we must
pursue both. But the costs of each will influence the choice of policies for both” (Stern 2007, p.7). He
defines adaptation as “any adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected
climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities (Stern 2006,
p.458; citing IPCC 2001, chapter 18). The potential for local benefits from adaptation is an important
concept, however he emphasizes that alone “does nothing direct to prevent climate change and is in itself
part of the cost of climate change” (Stern 2006, p. 345). Finally, he advises that “we must go beyond
incentives and the institutions that can support them and examine the possibilities for changing
preferences and the behaviour they generate. This can happen through information, discussion and
education” (Stern 2007, p.8).
Michael Jacobs (2013), author of Green Growth, describes the ‘green growth’ concept, and its strong
international support, particularly following the global economic downturn in 2008 (Jacobs 2013). His
discussion offers a counterpoint to Daly (1996), Jackson (2017) and others arguing for a transition to a
low- or no-growth economy. Jacobs begins by describing the intensity of interest from the international
economic and development institutions, including the World Bank, OECD, UNEP which have committed
themselves to the goal of green growth and/or the “green economy” (Jacobs 2013, p.197; citing World
Bank 2012a, 2012b; OECD 2012a). In addition, a new international organization has been created called
the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), and an online Green Growth Knowledge Platform (GGKP) has
been created (Jacobs 2013, p.197; citing GGCI n.d.; GGKP n.d.). Jacobs clarifies that the intentions of the
institutions promoting green growth, stating that the programs being created are “not a substitute for
sustainable development but a way of achieving it” (p. 199; citing OECD 2011; UNEP 2011; World Bank
Jacobs (1997) sees the larger problem for
sustainable growth as one of incentives
and enforcement, as market tools are good
for incremental adjustments, but
institutions need to drive transformation
(Jacobs 1997, p.380) Re-balancing
economic incentives is needed so
municipalities no longer see low- and
middle-income households as a burden,
and reducing cost burdens on infill
development so housing is more
affordable will enable residents to be more
self-sufficient. Public investment in
infrastructure would make a large
difference, as would access to local jobs
and transit to enable less reliance on the
automobile.
73
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2012b). Nonetheless, he acknowledges that the motivation behind the conceptual framing of green
growth is political, driven by concerns that economic recovery and growth are a core interest of voters
and businesses, and therefore the overriding policy objective of governments” (p.199, citing Stern 2007).
Jacobs lays out two arguments in favor of green growth, one he calls the ‘standard’ argument, which
focuses on cost-benefit over time, and another ‘stronger’ argument which addresses additional benefits
that drive higher economic returns. To illustrate the ‘standard’ argument Jacobs refers to the Stern
Review, which modeled the cost of stabilizing GHG emissions versus the economic costs of damage from
climate change which was much larger: the equivalent of between 5% and 20% of GDP every year” (p.200-
201; citing Stern 2007). He describes how the report attracted many critics arguing that the negative
effects were too far in the future to be relevant and that “future human societies would be richer (because
of economic growth) and would develop the technologies to adapt to or otherwise prevent warming”
(p.201; citing Nordhaus 2007). The ‘stronger’ argument addresses those concerns, claiming that “far from
slowing the economy down, policies to make it greener could be a driver of higher output and rising living
standards,” showing short term results as well (p.201). Jacobs points to three areas that contribute to
economic benefit. First being the benefit of a green stimulus, with public investment replacing lost private-
sector demand during the recession (p.202). Second, he notes that green growth theory addresses market
failures in the current economic growth model, as it underinvests in natural capital, and overinvest in
activities which cause its degradation. Furthermore, he notes that “the environmental costs of using
natural resources are not just unpriced, but their exploitation is actually subsidized" (p.204). And thirdly,
green growth proponents claim that new jobs in environmental industries will be created, and that new
green technologies are on the brink of creating a ‘new industrial revolution’ which could lead to “whole
systems of production, distribution, and consumption” (p.207-208).
Finally, he outlines the short-term economic return possible with green growth, by referencing a study by
UNEP entitled the Green Economy Report which compares a ’green growth’ path that has lower economic
performance in the early years due to the investment of 2% of GDP per year, with a reference case where
environmental damage accumulates over time due to lack of investment. “Within seven years from the
2010 start date, the “green growth” scenario has a higher rate of growth than the base case, and real GDP
is greater by just after 2020” (p.209; citing UNEP 2011). In closing, Jacobs speaks to the importance of the
“discourse coalition” that he believes is forming across environmental industry sectors, as an increasing
number of business and commercial interests align with environmental policy goals to ensure its success
(p.210; citing Hajer 1995).
Tim Jackson (2017), author of Prosperity Without Growth, challenges the necessity of continued economic
growth, arguing that a transition to an economy focused on creating prosperity without growth is
necessary to address sustainability goals (Jackson 2017). He argues that it is “abundantly clear” that the
economy should no longer be growing in material terms, as “Continual material growth would
compromise our ability to remain with the ‘safe operating space’ of the planet and undermine our future
prosperity.” He suggests instead that the economy should be restructured to promote social well-being
by investing in community development, jobs, natural assets and resilience (p.165). He refers to Amartya
Sen (1999) who believes that it is people’s “capabilities or freedoms” that constitute well-being (p. 62,
citing Sen 1999). Jackson describes the conventional model for investment as focused on stimulating
growth through increased labor productivity and innovation, and contrasts that with what he calls a
“slow” community investment model that “targets the capabilities needed for people to flourish:
nutrition, health, education, enjoyment, ecological resilience” (p.166). Jackson embraces the idea of a
74
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
positive dynamic role for the ‘progressive State’ as opposed to the “myth of the powerless, conflicted
state.” One that is attentive both to the changing social conditions and to the underlying needs of its
citizens. One which collaborates actively in the design of the good life. One which is inclusive and
considerate. One which invests vigorously in the common good” (p.209).
Jackson lays out four key topics that can drive a radical
transformation of the economy - what he calls “four
distinct foundations for the economy of tomorrow: the
nature of enterprise, the quality of work, the structure
of investment and the role of money” (p.140). Each of
these are discussed briefly below. First, the “nature of
enterprise” hints at new opportunities that arise with
dematerialization and a shift away from consumer
materialism, to new enterprise that delivers ‘human
services’ that improve the quality our lives: nutrition,
shelter, health, social care, etc. (p.142). Second, “work
as participation” questions the exclusive focus on labor
productivity, and suggests a re-valuing of labor-intensive
professions, such as those providing “the exercise of
care, craft and creativity” (p.147). Jackson
recommendation is that “a structural shift towards
services makes a lot of sense” as a strategy to facilitate
full employment as technology-driven productivity lessens the need for labor, even though he expects it
will produce a “considerably slower rate of economic growth” (p.174-175). Third, Investment as
commitment involves development of human and social capital – what US philosopher Michal Sandel has
called ‘the infrastructure of civic life’ (p.150; citing Sandel 2013). Fourth and finally, “money as a social
good” explores alternatives to debt-based financing for longer term sustainable infrastructure and
community development investment. Jackson lays out a series of potential alternatives ranging from
increased taxes to support direct government spending to impact investing, credits unions and
cooperatives (p.154-157). While many details have been suggested, these strategies point to a structural
transformation that would require active public and community participation, as a counterpoint to private
capital.
William Nordhaus (2017), is an American economist and developer of integrated economic and climate
models to measure the social cost of carbon (SCC), which he describes as the “most important single
economic concept in the economics of climate change” (Nordhaus 2017). The DICE model (Dynamic
Integrated model of Climate and the Economy), one of three such models currently being used to estimate
the SCC in the United States, has been used to estimate that “the SCC is $31 per ton of CO2 in 2010 US$
for the current period (2015)” (Nordhaus 2017). The estimate represents a major revision from the
previous values, as the “SCC for2015 has been revised upwards from $5 to $31 per ton of CO2 over the
last quarter-century. (Nordhaus 2018, p.638) In comparing the two estimates, he notes that “Emissions,
concentrations, and forcings were underestimated, but by a relatively small fraction. However, economic
variables such as output, damages, and the SCC were massively underestimated.” (Nordhaus 2018, p. 626)
He describes the major cause of the revision as resulting from a change from the “stagnationist view of
global growth in the 1980s and 1990s to a view of continued rapid growth today, which shifted projections
for per capita output upwards by a factor of 3½ times!
“Longer term, less productive
investments will be essential for
sustainability but less attractive to
private capital. So the role of their
progressive State in protecting these
assets is going to be vital. Financing
social investment without increasing
public sector debt can only be achieved
through higher taxation. Or through the
public sector taking some ownership
stake in productive assets. Or else by a
reform in the monetary system in
favour of sovereign money.” (Jackson
2017, 222)
75
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Per Espen Stoknes and Johan Rockström (2018) describe a new method for measuring “genuine green
growth” to address the concern that claims of green growth are not making significant enough progress
to meet urgent climate goals (Stoknes and Rockström 2018). The method is needed to address concerns
such as the following: “The United Nations Environmental Program, UNEP, defines a green economy as
one that results in “improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing
environmental risks and ecological scarcities,” however, the authors point out that there is not
quantification of what “significant” entails and raises questions about the value of ‘green growth’ (p.41,
citing UNEP 2011). To address this concern, they have developed a metric to measure the carbon
productivity or ‘CAPRO’ needed to meet established planetary boundaries. “Starting with climate
emissions, this means that to earn the label of ‘genuine green growth’ the carbon productivity of an
economic entity must achieve a trajectory over time sufficient to meet science-based targets derived from
planetary boundaries (p.43; citing CDP et al. 2016; Krabbe et al. 2015; Steffen et al. 2015). Applying their
method to the Nordic countries they found that “Sweden, Finland and Denmark have delivered genuine
green growth with CAPRO at 5.7%, 5.5% and 5.0% pa respectively over a reasonably long time period
(2003–2014)” while Norway did not meet the targets (Stoknes and Rockström 2018, p.47). Based on the
measured data the authors conclude by stating that “Critics of green growth are wrong however in
claiming that there is no evidence for genuine green growth happening since 2000” (p.47).
2.4.2 New Forms of Capital and Common Pool Resources
Ismail Serageldin (1996) presents the idea of “sustainability as opportunity” which he describes as
creating value by "expanding the capital stock.” He takes a positive stance towards sustainability, defining
it as follows: Sustainability is to leave future generations as many opportunities as, if not more than, we
have had ourselves” (Serageldin 1996, p.188). He begins with a review of Sir John Hick’s famous “Hicksian
Income”, which is "the maximum value a person can consume during a week, and still expect to be as well
off at the end of the week as at the beginning" (p.188). He notes that “Conventional national accounts
may serve macro-economists and central bankers well, but they do a poor job of measuring sustainable
income or changes in a nations productive capacity.” He points out that national accounting factors in
depreciation of man-made capital, but does not factor in depreciation of natural capital, underscoring
with some examples: “when a tropical forest is logged, no estimate is made for the loss of an irreplaceable
asset. When land cultivation increases the loss of topsoil, which subsequently accumulates in a reservoir,
no allowance is made for the harmful effects on soil and water storage.” (p.192).
After making the case for natural capital, he proceeds to demonstrate the value of other types of capital
that are also often over-looked in conventional economic analysis. He states that “To get to the heart of
the concept of sustainability, we must expand our understanding of capital to include more than man-
made capital as conventionally defined and accepted in the economic literature, to include other forms
of capital that are every bit as important to our individual and collective well-being as man-made capital.
There are at least four kinds of capital: Man-made (the one usually considered in financial and economic
accounts), natural capital (as discussed in many works of environmental economics), human capital
(investments in education, health and nutrition of individuals) and social capital (the institutional and
cultural basis for a society to function)” (p.188). He accepts the idea that the four kinds of capital that are
“partially substitutes and partially complements”, yet acknowledges the “limits of substitution, because
it is impossible to conceive any type of activity if any of the four kinds of capital is driven to zero” (p.189).
While Serageldin refers many times to the idea of four types of capital, and in some cases to “at least
four” my sense is that he would be open to the idea of adding cultural capital, based on his struggles with
76
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
how to classify “knowledge”, which raises interesting questions. He questions if it is distinct from human
capital, or already embedded in it… especially given that knowledge is not associated only with human
capital and “some argue that knowledge is a non-rival but excludable good whereas human capital is both
rival and excludable.
Ismail Serageldin and Christiaan Grootaert (2000) expand further on the idea of social capital, noting that
“There is growing evidence that social capital can have an impact on development outcomes, including
growth, equity, and poverty alleviation (Serageldin and Grootaert 2000, p.47; citing Grootaert 1996).
Associations and institutions provide an informal framework for sharing information, coordinating
activities, and making collective decisions. For example, sharing information helps formal and information
institutions avoid market failure by alerting colleagues to critical information, coordinating activities
support communities by reducing opportunistic behavior, and collective decision making is needed for
management of public goods and common resources (p.47-48). They call attention to the issue of equity
in communities, noting that social bonds may be weakened or strengthened depending on the degree of
equity that prevails. For example, “Local institutes are more effective at enforcing common agreements
and cooperative action when the assets are distributed relatively equitably, and benefits shared equally.”
The authors close by noting that “an integrated view of social capital is an important step toward
measuring and operationalizing the concept. Such a view is based on the recognition that the four types
of capital can coexist and are in fact needed to maximize the impact of social capital on economic and
social outcomes” (p.49).
Ivan Light (2004), author of “Social Capital’s Unique Accessibility” discusses the characteristics of three
“new” types of capital – social, human and cultural – and highlights the unique quality of social capital as
a form of tradable value that can be generated without any monetary investment. He defines social capital
as relationships of trust embedded in social networks” (Light 2004, p.146), and states that “Except for
social capital, all other forms of capital exclude the poor, ignorant, unpropertied, and uncultivated…
However, the poor do have some limited ability to create and maintain social capital.” Because of this
quality, he describes social capital as being “uniquely democratic” and “the place to start when
encouraging agency in necessitous populations” (p.149).
Peter Barnes 2006 – Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons focuses on strategies to
strengthen the commons, and introduces concept of a “natural capital trust.” Reflecting on Garrett
Hardin’s classic text, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” he offers “According to Hardin, people will always
overuse a commons because it’s in their self-interest to do so. I saw the problem instead as a pair of
tragedies: first a tragedy of the market, which has no way of curbing its own excesses, and second a
tragedy of government, which fails to protect the atmosphere because polluting corporations are
powerful and future generations don’t vote. This way of viewing the situation led to a hypothesis: if the
commons is a victim of market and government failures, rather than the cause of its own destruction, the
remedy might lie in strengthening the commons.” (Barnes 2006, p.x)
Ivan Light and Leo-Paul Dana (2013) delve into the issues of social capital and cultural capital, revealing
subtle yet important linkages between them. As a counterpoint to Serageldin (1996) and Serageldin and
Grootaert (2000) and others that extoll the value of social capital, Light and Dana discuss pros and cons.
The potential negative they see lies in the possibility that relationships of trust might protect mediocrities,
or impose mental conformity on a group, thereby squelching entrepreneurship” (Light and Dana 2013,
p.603). However, they also see “social capital is a catalyst” as “resources born of social capital enable and
77
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
enhance the entrepreneurship of groups endowed with social capital… However, as we show, the research
literature has relied overmuch on prevailing social contexts in which cultural capital supports
entrepreneurship, thus concealing the supportive role of cultural capital” (604). One of their intriguing
findings is that “social capital requires supportive cultural capital”, and that “social capital is catalyst”
especially for groups that have less power. Light notes that “Social capital normally appears in the
developed world in tandem with supportive cultural capital. Under these circumstances, some readers
and reviewers might assign to social capital all the credit for promoting entrepreneurship—at the risk of
ignoring its indispensable partner. Hence, claims of social capital’s advantageousness for
entrepreneurship are overstated” (p.606).
Dag Detter and Stefan Fölster 2017 – Authors of The Public Wealth of Cities: How to Unlock Hidden Assets
to Boost Growth and Prosperity, make the case for better management of public assets to build public
wealth. Noting that Infrastructure investment in the US is half the European level as a share of GDP, they
highlights the cost of underinvestment in infrastructure and suggest that cities can benefit by “shifting
resources from consumption to long-term investments” (Detter and Fölster 2017, p.20).
2.4.3 GDP and the Need for Alternative Metrics
There is growing consensus within the international development community that GDP (gross domestic
product) is a poor measure of welfare, and that alternative metrics are needed to guide economic growth
toward greater equity and sustainability (Laurent 2017; Stiglitz et al. 2011; Arrow et al. 2010; Serageldin
1996, etc.). While GDP is a measure of production, new metrics are being developed to measure ‘wealth’
which is more representative of a sustainable economy.
Kenneth Arrow, Partha Dasgupta, Lawrence H. Goulder, Kevin J. Mumford and Kirsten Oleson (2010)
authored an influential paper in entitled “Sustainability and the Measurement of Wealth” (Arrow et al.
2010). In it, they define sustainable development as the “economic paths along which intergenerational
well-being does not decline” which they link to a “comprehensive measure of the economy's wealth”
(Arrow et al. 2010, p.2). They define wealth as “the entire range of capital assets to which people have
access” including “reproducible capital goods (roads, buildings, machinery and equipment), human capital
(health, education, skills), and natural capital (ecosystems, minerals and fossil fuels); but also population
(size and demographic profile), public knowledge, and the myriad of formal and informal institutions that
influence the allocation of resources” (p.2). The authors describe an approach to measure well-being
instead of production, describing it as a measure of “comprehensive well-being” that provides
intergenerational benefit, which they refer to as “comprehensive wealth” (Arrow et al. 2010, p.2). The
authors attribute the idea that “wealth” should be used as the metric for sustainable development to
Pearce and Atkinson (1993), who defined sustainable development to be an economic path along which
(comprehensive) wealth does not decline. Although the Pearce-Atkinson definition was not founded on
the more basic notion of intergenerational well-being, the paper influenced a bold program of research
at the World Bank's Vice Presidency for Environmentally Sustainable Development, where researchers
sought to estimate the composition of the wealth of nations and their movements over time” (Arrow et
al. 2010, p.3; citing Serageldin and Steer, 1994; Serageldin, 1996; World Bank, 1997).
Nicholas Sarkozy (2010) formed a commission to study the measurement of economic performance and
social progress, and ultimately wrote the preface to the publication of the findings entitled Mismeasuring
78
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
our lives: Why GDP Doesn’t add up (Sarkozy 2010; preface to Stiglitz et al. 2010). In it he explains why he
established the commission and why the development of new metrics is of such critical importance:
“I hold a firm belief: We will not change our behavior unless we change the ways we measure our
economic performance. If we do not want our future and the future of our children and
grandchildren to be riddled with financial, economic, social, and environmental disasters, which
are ultimately human disasters, we must change the way we live, consume, and produce. We must
change the criteria governing our social organizations and our public policies…
This is how we begin to create a gulf of incomprehension between the expert certain in his
knowledge and the citizen who experience of life is completely out of synch with the story told by
the data. This gulf is dangerous because the citizens end up believing that they are being deceived.
Nothing is more destructive of democracy…
For years the statistics portrayed increasingly strong economic growth as a victory over scarcity,
until it came to light that this growth was endangering the future of the planet and was destroying
more than it was creating. Is it any wonder that those whom we are now asking to make efforts
and sacrifices and change their way of life before it is too late feel deceived?...
If our measuring systems overvalue the usefulness to society of speculation compared with work,
entrepreneurship, and creative intelligence, then this dangerously reverses the value system
underpinning our vision of progress and introduces into the heart of capitalism a contradiction
that can only end up ruining it” (excerpted from Sarkozy 2010, p.vii-xv; in Stiglitz et al. 2010).
Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen and Jean-Paul Fitoussi (2011), as discussed above, were appointed by French
President Nicholas Sarkozy to lead a Commission on the “Measurement of Economic Performance and
Social Progress” (Stiglitz et al. 2011). Their task was to “identify the limits of GDP as an indicator of
economic performance and social progress, including the problems with its measurement;” and “to
consider what additional information might be required for the production of more relevant indicators of
social progress” (p.7). The report ultimately recommended three distinctly different metrics be
developed, one for current economic well-being, one for non-economic aspects of well-being, and a third
for assessing sustainability, which is conceived as well-being that can be sustained over time. The over-
arching idea behind the economic well-being metric is to “shift emphasis from measuring economic
production to measuring people’s well-being,” by evaluating “income and consumption rather than
production” (p.12). The sustainability metric, on the other hand, measures whether “levels of well-being
can be sustained over time” which in turn “depends on whether stocks of capital that matter for our lives
(natural, physical, human, social) are passed on to future generations” (p.11).
The authors explore which accounting metrics should be used to support measurements of economic
well-being that focus on income and consumption rather than production. While they acknowledge that
GDP is a poor measure of well-being they do not believe that “adjustments” to the GDP measure are the
right approach. Instead they advocate for the use of income and consumption metrics, together with
information on wealth and the distribution of wealth and greater understanding of non-monetary
contributions, such as home childcare and leisure time (p.35). They note that use of income and
consumption measures address the challenge identified by Nordhaus and Tobin in their seminal 1973
paper, that GDP does not properly identify as “defensive” those activities that “are evidently not directly
79
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
sources of utility themselves but are regrettably necessary inputs to activities that may yield utility” (p.28;
citing Nordhaus and Tobin 1972).
The recommendation for quality of life metrics is to include both objective and subjective measures. The
authors identify three conceptual approaches that underlie their approach to measuring quality of life.
The first approach is based on the notion of “subjective well-being” as a “long philosophical tradition views
individuals as the best judges of their own conditions.” The second addresses the challenge of social
justice with a “capabilities approach” which “reflect(s) a focus on human ends and on respecting the
individual’s ability to pursue and realise the goals that he or she values; a rejection of the economic model
of individuals acting to maximise their self-interest.” And the third approach is the concept within welfare
economics of “fair allocations” that the non-monetary dimensions of quality of life need to “respect
people’s preferences” and not be based on averages that bias towards those better-off in society (p.42).
Objective features shaping quality of life include Health, Education, Personal activities, Political voice and
governance, Social connections, Environmental conditions, Personal insecurity, and Economic insecurity.
Each of these is further explored in terms of Cross-cutting issues and Inequalities in quality of life (p.44-
55).
Finally, in terms of sustainability, they argue that “sustainability is complementary to the question of
current well-being or economic performance and must be examined separately” They underscore that
the “recommendation to separate the two issues might look trivial... (Y)yet it deserves emphasis, because
some approaches fail to adopt this principle, leading to confusing messages” (p.77). They recommend a
“well-identified sub-dashboard” of indicators that ultimately include a monetary index as well as
measures that cannot be monetized. Given the complexities of monetary evaluation, some of which are
described below, they have determined that the monetary index “should remain essentially focused on
economic aspects of sustainability.” They suggest this is a ‘pragmatic compromise’ which combines an
“indicator more or less derived from the extended wealth approach, ‘greened’ as far as possible on the
basis of currently available knowledge, but whose main function, however, would be to send warning
messages concerning ‘economic’ non-sustainability”, while acknowledging that the “environmental
aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow-up based on a well-chosen set of physical indicators”
(p.78-79).
A deeper look at their assessment of adjusted net savings (ANS) and environmental footprint (EF)
measures yields some important insights. First, they describe ANS as a system also known as “genuine
savings or genuine investment” that “builds on the concepts of green national accounts but reformulates
these concepts in terms of stock or wealth rather than flows of income or consumption. The theoretical
background is the idea that sustainability requires the maintenance of a constant stock of “extended
wealth”, which is not limited to natural resources but also includes physical, productive capital, as
measured in traditional national accounts, and human capital. Net adjusted savings is taken to be the
change in this total wealth over a given time period, such as a year” (p.67). The details of the natural
resource valuation are revealing, as the ANS deducts values for depletion of a variety of natural resources
to reflect the “decline in asset values associated with their extraction and harvest.”, with an “adjustment
for environmental degradation… limited to a restricted set of pollutants, the most significant one being
carbon dioxide emissions.” The calculations do not include many important sources of environmental
degradation, and market valuation of environmental degradation is lacking. Finally, they acknowledge
that computing ANS per country misses the global nature of sustainability, as low prices allow importing
countries to “over-consume and to transfer the long-term costs of this over-consumption to the exporting
80
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
countries” (p.69). The authors also describe the Ecological Footprint (EF) which “measures how much of
the regenerative capacity of the biosphere is used up by human activities (consumption),” and note that
the indicator “gives no role to savings and capital accumulation: any positive ecological surplus
(biocapacity that exceeds the ecological footprint) does not entail an increase in some natural capital
stock, and hence an improvement in future productive capacity” (p.70-71).
The above discussion highlights some of the complexity with development of sustainability measures. The
authors conclude that “If we want to measure sustainability, what is required is a comparison between
this concept of genuine production and current consumption. All this makes the appropriate sustainability
index more akin to a concept of net investment or disinvestment, and this is precisely the route that
extended wealth or ANS exemplifies, but which is also implicitly followed by footprint indicators that are
more specifically focused on the renewal or depletion of environmental assets” (p.72). As an indication
that the extended wealth approach is a step in the right direction, they note that ANS metrics better
evaluate “one of the longstanding objections made to GDP by environmentalists, i.e. the fact that
ecological catastrophes can increase GDP through their implied impact on economic activity. In an
extended wealth approach, an ecological catastrophe is registered as a destruction of capital” (p.73).
Partha Dasgupta (2014) presents a proposal to provide a “unified language for both sustainability and
policy analyses” with a theory that clarifies the importance of establishing a sustainability metric based
on measurement of wealth, as opposed to income or simply production (as in GDP). They state: “The
theory shows that by economic growth we should mean growth in wealth, which is the social worth of an
economy’s entire stock of capital assets, not growth in GDP or improvements in the many ad hoc
indicators of human development that have been proposed in recent years” (p.17). He continues, stating
that “The concept of wealth invites us to extend the notion of capital assets and the idea of investment
well beyond conventional usage. The theory shows that by sustainable development we should mean
development in which wealth (per head) adjusted for its distribution does not decline. I show that this
theory has radical implications for the way national accounts are prepared and interpreted” (p.19).
Éloi Laurent (2017) is focused on the question “How can we measure what really matters?” Given the
limitations of GDP as a measure of welfare – he states that “GDP measures only a tiny fraction of the
complexity of modern human society” – he “disqualifies” it as a policy instrument and looks instead to the
work by Stiglitz commission discussed above (Laurent 2017, p. 27-30; citing Stiglitz et al. 2011). He notes
that “the commission, which was focused on measurement issues, also urged that measures of well-
being… be put in a context of sustainability.” In other words, while well-being and sustainability should
not be confused or conflated in a single metric, neither should they be separated analytically: they should,
on the contrary, both be articulated” (p.30).
The measurement of sustainability should be based on an assessment of “stocks of capital from which
they derive benefits and that determine their long-term development: manufactured capital (factories,
cities, infrastructures), human capital (population, health, education), social capital (institutions governing
social interactions and norms of trust), knowledge capital (scientific discoveries, technology, talents), and
natural capital (climate, soil, biodiversity, minerals)” (p.16).
Laurent describes three stages of ecological economics – “The first was centered on resource analysis and
efficient management of scarce renewable or non-renewable resources was its core objective (p.136;
citing Hotelling 1931), the second focused on externality analysis, or how to lower pollution in the
81
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
biosphere by internalizing externalities” (p.136, citing Pigou 1932). The third stage, the one we are now
experiencing, is one he describes as truly focused on the challenge of sustainable development – how we
can “maintain our current level of well-being for future periods or future generations under the existing
ecological constraint” (p.136). Laurent believes that “The two most convincing attempts so far in this
direction have been the adjusted net savings (ANS) and the inclusive wealth index (IWI)” (145). The ANS
was discussed above, and the IWI data zoom out to look more holistically at measures of wealth overall.
As an example, “Produced capital, the type for which by far the most exhaustive and reliable data exists,
represents only about 18 percent of the total wealth of nations. The remaining capital types together
constitute 82 percent of wealth, 54 percent in human capital and 28 percent in natural capital. In high-
income countries, almost two-thirds of the wealth comes from human capital alone” (p.147).
Laurent concludes his book with a chapter on the local scale. He offers that there are “two strong reasons
why local jurisdictions (cities, metropolitan areas, regions), even more than the nation-states, can become
vectors of the well-being and sustainability transition.” The first relates to cities as drivers of economic
growth, what he calls “autonomous multipliers of development” and the second is the paradoxical fact
that even with advance communications, places seem to matter more in the current economy (p.171).
He offers that “one way to project local well-being in time is to try to define and measure territorial
resilience” (p.185).
2.4.4 Measuring Community Wellbeing
The previous discussion has highlighted a number of different methods of transitioning from economic
metrics that focus purely on production, to others that are more focused on well-being, with measures
for income, consumption and wealth building. The chart below provides an overview of the kinds of
capital that are discussed in each of the literatures – some lean more toward ecological measures, some
more towards justice, and some addressing both. It is telling to note that the literature focused on a more
of a local scale, rather than national or global scale, tend to be more inclusive in what they measure.

Natural
Capital
Physical
Capital
Human
Capital
Social
Capital
Cultural
Capital
Economic
Capital
Arrow et al. 2010 (p.2) yes yes (3) yes (4) yes (5) yes (2)
Blakely, Edward J. 2014 (p.397) yes yes yes yes
Costanza et al. 1997 (p.123) yes yes (7) yes
Costanza et al. 2016 yes yes (6) yes yes
Hawkins, Lovins, Lovins, 1999 (p. 4) yes yes (1) yes yes (8)
Laurent 2017 (p. 149) yes yes (1) yes yes yes (2)
Roseland 2005 (p.5) yes yes yes yes yes yes
Serageldin 1996 (p.188, 200) yes yes yes yes maybe
Stiglitz, Sen, Fitoussi 2010 (p.20) yes yes yes yes
Vermuri and Costanza 2006 yes yes yes yes

82
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Calls this “manufactured” capital
2. Calls this “knowledge” capital / or “public knowledge”
3. Calls this “capital goods”
4. Calls this “population”
5. Calls this “formal and informal institutions”
6. Calls this “built capital”
7. Calls this “human made”
8. Calls this “financial”
Mark Roseland (2005) has created a guidebook for sustainable community development, with a focus on
what he calls a “community capital” approach (Roseland 2005, p.5). He believes that sustainable
community development is a community-engaged process that works best when stakeholders in the
process “think of community in terms of assets, or capital” and when participants commit to “spending
time and effort in transformation and transaction activities” (p.4; citing Ostrom 1993). The key to
understanding this approach, he advises, is to recognize that strengthening the six forms of community
capital described below is “the foundation for Sustainable Community Development” and is based on
“appreciation of community assets” together with a realistic approach to addressing the challenges “or,
in conventional terms, deficits” (p.12). While acknowledging that others have proposed four types of
capital, he advocates for working with all six types of capital to build sustainable communities. The six
types include: “natural, physical, economic, human, social, and cultural forms of capital” (p.5). Each is
described further below:
• Natural capital refers to “any stock of natural assets that yields a flow of valuable goods and
services into the future.” Roseland describes environmental assets which comprise natural capital
as a “stock” that can be describes as three primary types: 1) “non-renewable resources, such as
minerals and fossil fuels”; 2) “the finite capacity of natural systems to produce “renewable
resources” such as food crops, forestry products, and water supplies”; 3) “the capacity of natural
systems to absorb our emissions and pollutants without side effects” (p.5; citing Jansson et al.
1994; Wackernagel and Rees 1996; Goodland 2002).
• Physical capital is the “stock of material resources such as equipment, building, machinery, and
other infrastructure that can be used to produce a flow of future income. The origin of physical
capital is the process of spending time and other resources constructing tool, plants, facilities and
other material resources that can, in turn, bur used in producing other products” (p.8; citing
Ostrom 1993). Physical capital is sometimes referred to as produced, manufactured, or public
capital (p8; citing NRTEE 2003; Goodland 2002; Rainey et al. 2003).
• Economic capital refers to “the ways we allocate resources and make decisions about our material
lives. Economic capital should be maintained in order for people to live off the interest, or income.
Goodland (2002) argues that economic and manufactured capital can be substituted” as assets
are bought and sold to meet needs of production. (p.8; citing Goodland 2002)
• Human capital is the “knowledge, skills, competencies, and other attributes embodied in
individuals that facilitate the creation of person, social and economic well-being. (p.8; citing OECD,
2001).” Human capital is “formed consciously through training and education and unconsciously
through experience (p.8; citing Ostrom 1993). Health, education, skills, knowledge, leadership and
83
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
access to services constitute human capital. Human capital needs continual maintenance by
investments through our one’s lifetime” (p.9; citing Goodland 2002).
• Social capital refers to “relationships, networks and norms that facilitate collective action (p.9;
citing OECD 2001), or the shared knowledge, understandings, and patterns of interactions that a
group of people bring to any productive activity” (p.9; citing Coleman 1988; Putnam 1993). Social
capital characteristics of individuals and community groups that build trust, such as “community
cohesion, connectedness, reciprocity, tolerance, compassion, patience, forbearance, fellowship,
love, commonly accepted standards of honesty, discipline and ethics, and commonly shared rules,
laws, and information.” When there is a lack of social capital, or “competition and individualism
over cooperation and community,” violence and mistrust can result. (p.9; citing Goodland 2002).”
Finally, social capital is a durable public good; “it does not wear out upon being used more and
more”; however “if unused, social capital deteriorates at a relatively rapid rate” (p.9; citing
Ostrom 1993).
• And finally, cultural capital is the product of “shared experience through traditions, customs,
valued, heritage, identity, and history.” Roseland notes that while it is sometimes subsumed
under the heading of social capital, he has become convinced as he has worked with numerous
communities in different parts of the world that “cultural capital deserves its own category…
Enhancing cultural capital implies attention to traditions and values, heritage and place, the arts,
diversity, and social history” (p.11-12).
Cecilia Wong (2014) – UN-Habitat’s City Prosperity Index (CPI) for people-centered urban prosperity. Tool
integrates productivity, infrastructure, quality of life, equity and social inclusion, and environmental
sustainability with urban planning / governance / institutions at the center.
EcoDistricts (2016) – EcoDistricts Protocol Version 1.1: The global performance standard that empowers
sustainable neighborhood and district-scale development. Collaboration tool focused on the process steps
for community-driven planning.
STAR Communities (2018) – New local government tool for city sustainability planning that is designed to
enhance local resilience and sustainability. Developed by ICLIE in partnership with the US Green Building
Council and launched July 2018. Includes checklist of issues with thresholds for each.

2.5 Building Will
The final topic of discussion centers on the issue of building will, that is, the critical factors that motivate
change. The use of culturally resonant language has also been identified as a powerful tool, with cultural
connection to the concepts of “freedom” and “justice” as especially resonant in the US context.
2.5.1 Building Will: Vision
Hilda Blanco (1994), author of How to Think About Social Problems, describes the philosophy of
pragmatism, and its relevance as a theory for engaging difficult social problems. She credits Charles Peirce
and William James with introduction of the term pragmatism at the end of the nineteenth century, which
84
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
can be summarized as a process of inquiry based on consideration of the full range of practical
consequences of an action, as “Tracing the consequences of a proposed strategy amounts to articulating
the pragmatic meaning of a proposal” (Blanco 1994, p.26). She describes the critical role that planning can
play promoting social change, and reflects on the challenge of intractable social problems, such as poverty
and racism, which she defines as the most challenging because both the means and the ends are not
known, as people do not agree on the goals, and there is a lack of consensus on acceptable solutions
(p.23). She believes that “Lack of consensus characterizes major recalcitrant social problems,” and while
“as a society, we can initiate social change without consensus,” she cautions that without consensus the
change will not be sustained, and backlash is likely. Instead, she advises that “it is precisely strong
participatory planning processes that offer the best means to forge consensus and build community in
heterogeneous societies” through a process she calls “facilitating communities of hope.” (Blanco 1994,
p.196). She continues, stating that “The planning process is the democratic way to generate consensus on
social issues. Such consensus, in effect, constitutes the formation of a community. The communities
formed through such a planning process are communities of interpretation and hope.” (p.197)
Robert Olson (1995), author of “Sustainability as a Social Vision” advises that building consensus on a
vision for a sustainable society requires “a dynamic, comprehensive, positive vision of the future, not a
dry technical concept or a mere response to dangerous trends” (Olson 1995, p.34). Citing Polak’s study
of Western history, and Markley and Harman’s review of history and anthropology, Olson offers that
“images of the future that have the power to guide and motivate constructive social change almost always
have a number of common characteristics” and includes the following outline of criteria that can be used
to evaluate the effectiveness of a civic vision statement (p.18):
• Believable – must be perceived as in the realm of the possible
• Highly positive – visionary inspirational quality, either “essence optimism” (things will improve
due to inherent conditions, God, the market, class struggle, etc.) or “influence optimism” (things
can improve through effort).
• Open ended – not rigid or static, invites further elaboration
• Responsive – addresses specific challenges, revised outmoded or obsolete aspects of society
• Integrative – revitalizes the society’s sense of meaning and purpose; provides explanation of
“what is happening” or “what could be”
Judith Innes and David Booher (2000) provide insight and guidance on the development and use of
indicators for sustainable communities. Because urban sustainability requires actions by so many diverse
participants in the city, they caution that “a top-down intervention or applying an a priori plan will either
not make much difference, or it will have an unpredicted and possibly counterproductive effect” (Innes
and Booher 2000, p.179). Instead, they advocate for the use of indicators as a process tool to build shared
understanding and to discover policy opportunities. The authors reference complexity theory to support
the idea that a “distributed network of agents, each with little knowledge individually, can produce
outcomes that are coordinated and that demonstrate more intelligence collectively than any individual”
(p.179). To create the most effective indicators, the collaborative process should address the following:
“Indicators must measure something publicly valued. Their users must be involved in their design. Their
meaning must be understood and shared among those to whom they are relevant. They must stand up to
expert critique. They must be trusted by all players. They must be linked conceptually and practically to
actual policies or potential actions. There must be a place in the decision/action process where they are
85
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
to be discussed and linked to action.” Furthermore, they emphasize that the primary value of the indicator
is actually achieved during the course of its development, as agreement on indicators can lead to
agreement on policy, focus attention and lend legitimacy to the ideas developed (p.177). They also advise
that indicators of various types are typically beneficial and suggest three types: 1) “System performance
indicators are required to provide information to the public about the overall health of a community or
region” 2) “Policy and program measures are required to provide policy-makers with feedback about how
specific programs and policies are working” 3) “Rapid feedback indicators are required to assist individuals
and businesses to make more sustainable decisions on a day-to-day basis.” (p.173).
Philip Berke (2002) argues that planners needs to embrace visionary community engaged physical
planning, guided by the values of sustainability in his paper entitled “Does sustainable development offer
a new direction for planning? (Berke 2002). He states that “The growing debate about sustainability has
revived a forgotten or discredited idea that planning could be visionary and done on a large scale,” an
attitude he describes as a response to the challenges of the “procedural approach” which “emphasizes
diversity, openness, and consensus building but it’s not equipped to plan for, and implement, a shared
civic vision in the local planning arenas dominated by fragmentation and conflict” (p.22). Community
engagement and participation is seen as a key to this goal – creating a shared civic vision – however he
acknowledges the negative perceptions that must be overcome as conventional advocacy planning is a
process that “began in the 1960s as a tool to fight racism and poverty, (but) has evolved into a tool to
preserve quality of life for the affluent”, undermining the idea that participation is a process to envision
the common good (p.24-25). Berke believe that the New Urbanism movement offers an important though
flawed model, as it “revived the idea that planning is about physical design, but this concept does not
embrace a holistic vision of community buildings” (p.21). Instead, he advocates for a vision that would
“extend new urbanist principles to embrace urban ecology, place-based economies, and social equity, as
well as broader global (and regional) concerns. Moreover, this vision must view the potential of
community building as an ongoing process of restoration and enhancement, not simply of maintenance
of current conditions” (p.29).
Berke advises that the vague idealism of sustainability needs to move from “theory to practice,” (Berke
2002, p.34) and offers three “conceptual dimensions” that should be addressed to derive a more precise
definition: “reproduction, balance, and link local to global concerns.” First, he describes system
reproduction the need for “not only duplication of the status quo but also fostering of revitalization.”
Next, he describes balance as the need to address all three dimensions of sustainability – environment,
economic and social values – and to insist that all three are accounted for before a plan can go forward.
And, finally he offers that creating local-global linkages are essential to accounting for externalities, and
to establish “long-range and comprehensive thinking that connects local actions with global issues” (p.31-
32). Finally, Berke suggests that the way to build support for a sustainability vision in community is to use
sustainability as “an overarching framework to dramatically shift the practice of local participation from
dominance by narrow special interests towards a more holistic and inclusive view.” He sees the use of a
framework as an important tool to achieve regional coordination that can “lead to cross-linking of local
groups with similar goals that often work on parallel tracks without communicating or cooperating” (Berke
2002, p.34).
Heather Campell, Malcolm Tait, Craig Watkins (2014) address the question of how planning can address
the challenges of the neoliberal mindset, beginning with the debate between communicative planning as
a value-neutral process oriented approach to method versus what they see as “a (re-) emergence of
86
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
interest in planning with substantive forms of justice, captured in a concern for the “just city” (see e.g.,
Campbell 2006; Fainstein 2000, 2010; Marcuse et al. 2009),” which they describe as having “emphasis on
material redistribution and substantive outcomes” (p.48). The redevelopment of a town center, in Exeter,
in the UK, was presented as a case study to explore the role of local government planners in collaboration
with private developers. The author notes that “It is striking how easily the City Council was prepared to
cede control of their land to the developer. This course of action reflects a view that the public sector
should be involved in land disposal, often at discounts, in order to promote commercial development”
(p.53). The capitulation of government planners to the private developer was described as unnecessary
and based on ignorance or lack of experience, as. “the “state” could have used its regulatory controls,
land ownership, and even market competition to achieve more, if only policy makers and planners had
had a greater sense of what was possible.” Finally, they spoke to the potential of public ownership as a
future opportunity. “A greater capacity and willingness by such planners to capitalize on state ownership,
and the resulting control of large quantities of valuable (in all senses of the term) development land, would
produce different outcomes” (p.55).
Stephen Carpenter, Carl Folke, Marten Scheffer and Francis Westley (2019) describe the challenges
society faces from social-psychological forces as global changes, such as concentrated wealth and
environmental degradation, increasingly contribute to social destabilization (Carpenter et al. 2019).
Destabilization, they claim, has triggered a global emergence of exploration, in response to “symptoms of
a complex system that is losing stability” as human systems are dynamical and can fluctuate wildly as they
approach a tipping point and the current equilibrium loses resilience (p.2). They see this as a time that
requires development of “general resilience” which is “the capacity of social-ecological systems to adapt
or transform under a broad spectrum of unfamiliar and unpredictable stresses” (p.4, citing Carpenter et
al. 2012). This is a critical time that requires “healthy and generative social innovation,” yet the authors
caution that “anxiety will tend to reduce real exploration and sustainable innovation” and may trigger
defensive and reactionary behavior, and attraction to backward-looking narratives. They advise that the
path forward requires a positive vision – and a need to engage in imagining “alternative futures” that
address values, stating that “a collective future always involves beliefs about values, norms, and ways of
life that characterize a society (p.4, citing Jasanoff and Kim 2015).
2.5.2 Building Blocks for Change
These resources provide key insights and timely information for moving forward with socio-ecological
transformation in the SF Bay Area.
Mark Northcross and Robert Spencer (2018), lead authors of the Finance Guide for Resilient by Design
Bay Area Challenge Design Teams, produced a document for design teams with detailed guidance on
California finance, with extensive listings of Bay Area public and private funding opportunities.
Michelle Roos (2018), authored the “Climate Justice Summary Report” for California’s Fourth Climate
Change Assessment, a document produced by the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). The
document provides a review of literature addressing Climate Justice, Just Transition, etc. One of the key
recommendations developed by the Climate Justice Working Group is for funding: “By 2020, California
should identify, raise, and invest at least $1 billion, and by 2025, at least $10 billion through appropriate
funding sources” to protect frontline community members with planning, infrastructure investments, an
“adequate supply of affordable, energy efficient housing” and support for “a just transition to a non-
87
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
extractive, clean energy economy in ways that provide multiple benefits to frontline communities,
including job training, targeted employment, and generation of wealth and health” (Roos 2018, p.17).
CASA Compact (2018), A supplement to the CASA Compact (2019) was published prior to the final report
entitled: “Racial Equity Analysis for the CASA Compact.” The supplemental report analyzes the geographic
distribution of low-income and minority households in the Bay Area, and also includes mapping showing
high opportunity areas (HOAs). One of the findings offers a note of caution about the CASA process itself,
stating: “Historically, public and private actions at CASA’s scale negatively impacted minorities. So,
sequencing and phasing implementation is critical” (CASA Committee 2018, p.16).
CASA Compact (2019), produced the “CASA Compact: A 15-Year Emergency Policy Package to Confront
the Housing Crisis in the San Francisco Bay Area.” The result of an 18-month effort by a “blue-ribbon task
force of elected and civic leaders,” the CASA Compact is a comprehensive plan to “preserve, protect and
produce” more housing in the Bay Area. The plan includes policy proposals to support construction of new
housing at all income levels, and tenant protections to address unjust evictions and displacement (CASA
Compact 2019, p.i). The final report includes a recommendation to raise substantial funds – $2.5 Billion
per year for fifteen years – to fund subsidized housing for very low, low, and middle-income households,
proposing that $1.5 billion should come from local and regional revenue sources, and the remainder from
state and federal sources (p.18). Other policy proposals include establishment of regulatory streamlining,
disposition of vacant public land, and calls for “redevelopment 2.0” to allow for greater use of TIF (tax
increment finance) funding. The report acknowledges the challenges of structural racism and exclusion in
the introduction, stating: “The Bay Area’s segregated housing patterns — both by race and by income —
are a legacy of decades of discriminatory government policies and private sector lending practices. The
CASA Compact contains specific protections for neighborhoods and residents most affected by that
horrible history” (p.i). Out of concern for potential displacement pressures, the final recommendations
suggest that: “Implementation of this policy in sensitive communities should be automatically deferred
for a period of up to 5 years where the local jurisdiction should develop a context-sensitive plan for that
community.” (CASA Committee 2019, p.14).
SFEI and SPUR (2019), recently published the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaption Atlas is a
comprehensive resource with mapping and recommended green infrastructure strategies covering the
entire bay shoreline. It provides comprehensive design guidance for nature-based sea level rise
adaptation, organized around 30 Operational Landscape Units (OLUs). “The purpose of the document is
to encourage designers, communities and their stakeholders to explore strategies that utilize nature-
based approaches can be used to create a resilient shoreline with multiple benefits. Nature-based
approaches, and hybrid measures that integrate nature with engineered structural approaches, can often
perform better than traditional engineered infrastructure while costing less and providing co-benefits like
new recreational opportunities and habitat for native species (Bridges et al. 2015). Despite the advantages
of natural and nature-based approaches, they are often not as familiar or well understood as traditional
engineering. This report provides a practical synthesis of scientific information on how and where to use
natural and hybrid shoreline measures in San Francisco Bay” (SFEI and SPUR 2019, p.13).

88
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.6 SF Bay Area Context
These resources have provided essential information on the current political, economic, social and
ecological issues challenging the Bay Area, and the efforts underway to make positive change.
2.6.1 SF Bay Area: Equity and Justice Challenges
Matthew Soursourian (2012), author of "Suburbanization of Poverty in the Bay Area," presents data
showing the increase in poverty in suburban versus urban tracts in the SF Bay Area, using the national
poverty measure and 2000 to 2009 data for comparison. He found that “population in poverty rose faster
in suburban census tracts and varied across racial groups and nativity status. The number of people living
in poverty rose 16 percent in the suburbs, compared to 7 percent in urban areas. Blacks and Hispanics
saw the greatest percentage growth in suburban poverty, as did the native-born population” (Soursourian
2012, p.2). He also notes that national data in “the 2005 American Community Survey revealed that for
the first time, more poor people lived in the suburbs of major U.S. metropolitan areas rather than in
central cities” (p.3). While his data shows that the SF Bay Area still has more people in poverty living in
urban areas, the trend has shifted, and he cautions that SB 375, will exacerbate that trend and potentially
“hasten the suburbanization of poverty” (p.10). He also notes that suburban poverty creates additional
challenges as poor populations in suburban areas have less access to transportation and social services,
as well as the “network of foundations and non-profit service providers” that have taken root in urbanized
areas to address the challenges of poverty (p.11).
Association of Bay Area Governments (2014), produced a report entitled “Affordable Housing Gap
Analysis” stating that “Plan Bay Area projects growth of 1.1 million jobs and 660,000 new housing units
by 2040. Translating projected job growth by industry and occupation to derive household wages, the
Plan estimates that at least 56% of all new households may be very low or low income” (ABAG 2014, p.10).
“Market rate development alone will not meet this demand; it must be complemented with affordable
housing development… This report estimates the need for affordable housing development subsidy at $4
billion annually, and the shortfall at $3.2 billion” (p.3). However, it is important to note that the projected
housing meets the growth projections only and does not account for the deficit that already exists.
BARHII (2015), which stands for Bay Area Regional Health
Inequities Initiative, published a report entitled “Health
Inequities in the Bay Area.” The document findings point
to a strong and consistent correlation between
neighborhood characteristics and health outcomes. “Life
expectancy in the Bay Area, as in the nation as a whole,
conforms to a pattern called the “social gradient,” in
which the more income and wealth people have, the
more likely they are to live longer, while people with less
income and wealth can expect to live comparatively
shorter lives.” In the SF Bay Area, they found that “People
who live in places where there is the least poverty can
expect to live on average ten years longer than people
who live in the places with the most poverty,” for
example, “People who live in West Oakland can expect to
The Bay Area Regional Health
Inequities Initiative reports that
where a person lives in the Bay Area
can impact their life expectancy by
over ten years (BARHII 2015, p.7).
“Understanding the significant role
the physical and social environment
plays in shaping our health helps
answer the question of why the
United States spends more per capita
on health care than any other
country in the world, yet ranks 30
th
in
life expectancy” (p.4).
89
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
live on average 10 years less than those who live in the Berkeley Hills” (BARHII 2015, p.7-8). The
neighborhood characteristics they identify in high poverty areas include lack of access to fresh food and
open space, limited public transportation, air pollution and “socially segregated housing that contributes
to high rates of community violence” (p.17).
Tony Roshan Samara (2016), author of "Race, Inequality and the Resegregation of the Bay Area,"
describes how the policy focus is shifting from an exclusive focus on gentrification and displacement, to
the emerging pattern of resegregation (Samsara 2016). “For much of the past 10 years, attention to the
negative consequences of regional growth has focused on gentrification and the displacement of
communities of color through speculative real estate investment and in-migration of wealthier residents;”
however, from a “more holistic perspective, displacement appears as the leading edge of regional
resegregation.” Furthermore, he sees the current expression of segregation as the result of “a racialized
market economy organized around the needs of wealthier residents employed in high-wage occupations
but whose quality of life is dependent upon a plentiful supply of cheap, flexible labor,” and that this
emerging pattern “will be decisive in shaping the region of the 21
st
century” (p.5).
McKinsey Institute (2016), produced a report entitled “A Toolkit to Close California’s Housing Gap: 3.5
Million Homes by 2025,” based on their estimate of new homes needed to satisfy current unmet housing
demand plus future projected growth by 2025 (McKinsey 2016). They note that “higher demand for
housing and insufficient supply has inevitably pushed up California’s real estate prices… In high-income
areas such as Silicon Valley and San Francisco, prices have climbed at double the rate of income” (p.4).
They note that the lack of affordable housing challenges poorest households the most, as “California’s
low-income, very-low-income, and extremely-low-income households—which account for 38 percent of
the state’s population—nearly 100 percent are unable to afford the local cost of housing” (p.5). The
situation is even worse in San Francisco, where the “booming, innovation-focused economy and record-
setting real estate prices (that) make the cost of housing unaffordable to 73 percent of households” (p.7).
The report outlines fifteen tools to promote new housing, focused primarily on identification of housing
sites, funding sources and construction cost-efficiencies, with one tool (#6) addressing the lack of
incentive for communities to provide housing for low-income residents, an important structural
disincentive: “State and local governments in California could design a system in which local governments
benefit directly from creating housing, attracting residents, and helping to balance jobs and housing”
(p.27).
Susanne Moser, Julia Ekstrom, Julia Kim, and Samantha Heitsch (2018), authors of "Adaptation Finance
Challenges: Characteristic Patterns Facing California Local Governments and Ways to Overcome Them,"
for California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, emphasize that the “potentially very high cost of
adaptation, mitigation – even ambitious mitigation – is highly cost effective” (Moser et al. 2018, p.90).
Their analysis found that “while near-term (2020-2050) annual mitigation investments US-wide are
significant (between $220-410 billion), by mid-century they are cost effective on fuel-savings alone, not
even counting the damages from inaction or the cost of adaptation to greater global warming that could
be avoided” (p.90). Their survey of local governments in California found that “funding is the biggest
barrier overall among the broader spectrum of adaptation barriers” (p.44). However, they also found that
funding is not the only challenge. Other significant barriers include “capacity issues, attitudinal and
political challenges among funding providers and funding recipients, lack of technical assistance, scientific
gaps, and – ultimately – deep-seated legacies of neglect and injustice, and institutional barriers to
adequate local government funding” (p.91).
90
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.6.2 SF Bay Area Context – Resilience
California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) has produced four statewide climate change assessment
reports. The first, in 2006, was “instrumental” in supporting the passage of the landmark Assembly Bill 32,
California’s Global Warming Solutions Act. The Second Assessment in 2009, “concluded that adaptation is
a crucial complement to reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” motivating the production of California’s
first Climate Adaptation Strategy the same year. In 2012, California’s Third Climate Change Assessment
“made substantial progress in projecting local impacts of climate change, investigating consequences to
human and natural systems, and exploring barriers to adaptation.” Finally, California’s Fourth Climate
Change Assessment (Fourth Assessment) advances the science behind “regional vulnerabilities and
localized adaptation strategies” with 44 technical reports including the first Climate Justice report (Moser
et al. 2018, p.ii). This section includes discussion of the California Summary Report, the San Francisco Bay
Area Summary Report, as well as earlier reports focus on the City and County of San Francisco.
California Air Resources Board (2018a). This Draft Co-Benefit Assessment Methodology: Adaptation,
California Climate Investments, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, states that “placing a price on GHG
emissions addresses only one of many market failures that impede solutions to climate change. Additional
market barriers and co-benefits would not be addressed if a cap and trade system were the only state
policy employed to implement AB 32. Complementary policies will be needed to spur innovation,
overcome traditional market barriers (e.g., lack of information available to energy consumers, different
incentives for landlords and tenants to conserve energy, different costs of investment financing between
individuals, corporations and the state government, etc.) and address distributional impacts from possible
higher prices for goods and services in a carbon-constrained world.” (CARB 2008, p.18)
Julia Ekstrom and Susanne Moser (2012), authors of "Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerabilities, and
Adaptation in the San Francisco Bay Area: A Synthesis of PIER Program Reports and Other Relevant
Research," provide detailed data and interpretation of challenges related to human and social
vulnerability to climate change impacts (Ekstrom and Moser 2012). Relating to social inequality, they note
that “Inequality was especially high in terms of the distribution of wealth and poverty as indicators of
adaptive capacity. However, the strongest inequalities were found in the structural factors affecting
people’s coping capacity, whereby poor and non-white populations tended to live in areas with less tree
cover, more impervious surfaces, and lower levels of penetration of air conditioning” (p.46).
City and County of San Francisco (2015) have produced "Guidance for Incorporating Sea Level Rise Into
Capital Planning: Assessing Vulnerability and Risk to Support Adaptation," as a definitive guidance
document to address the “pervasive and increasing threat” of sea level rise along San Francisco’s
shorelines (CCSF 2015, p.2). The Guidance document describes a four-step process that includes a science
review undertaken to develop consensus on sea level rise impacts to the SF Bay Area coastline, a
vulnerability assessment (assessing exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity), a risk assessment to
identify the assets at greatest risk to sea level rise, and a recommended adaptation planning process, to
(I)identify, prioritize, and incorporate means to reduce, mitigate or project from unacceptable risks within
project plans” (CCSF 2015, p.7-8). Each of the steps is then described in greater detail, and a sample Sea
Level Rise Checklist is included in the appendix (CCSF 2015, p.34-40).
City and County of San Francisco (2016a), produced “Resilient San Francisco,” a plan incorporating
extensive input from public and private stakeholders including “30 government agencies, and over 50
91
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
community-based organizations and private sector partners,” and with support from 100 Resilient Cities
(CCSF 2016a, p.23). The report begins by affirming that “San Francisco is a world leader in innovation, in
social justice advocacy, in livable and sustainable urbanism,” and asks “How can we face these challenges,
while becoming more equitable and affordable, stronger and empowered, and also more prepared? How
can we look toward San Francisco at 1 million residents, or SF@1M, as we are calling this important
milestone, and not only maintain our San Francisco values, but build on them?” (p.13). The document
addresses six key “hazards” including: “Earthquakes, Climate Change, Sea Level Rise, Infrastructure, Social
Inequity, and Unaffordability” (p.10). Four key cross-cutting “goal statements include: Plan and Prepare
for Tomorrow; Retrofit, Mitigate and Adapt; Ensure Housing for San Franciscans Today and After a
Disaster; Empower Neighborhoods through Improved Connections” (p.11).
Each of the four goals is then developed with actions and key indicators to measure success. The report
speaks to the importance of an integrated approach that provides multiple benefits. “We are looking for
co-benefits—moments when one solution, or a set of solutions, contributes to progress on multiple
problems” (p.22). An example of a creative multi-benefit action under goal 4 is to “Reimagine libraries as
community space,” with the following description: “The Office of Resilience and Recovery will partner
with the San Francisco Public Libraries (SFPL) to conduct community outreach meetings at the City’s 29
libraries, building on the work already being done in the libraries to reimagine these neighborhood spaces
as gathering sites” (p.107).
City and County of San Francisco (2016b), report entitled “Sea Level Rise Action Plan” was developed by
“an interagency task force of twelve City departments” convened by Mayor Ed Lee to identify assets at
risk, review the regulatory environment governing coastal development, and identify actions (p.iii). The
document builds on the earlier "Guidance for Incorporating Sea Level Rise Into Capital Planning: Assessing
Vulnerability and Risk to Support Adaptation," adopted by the Capital Planning Committee in 2015 (CCSF
2015). While the earlier report outlined a four-step process, this report extends that process with two
additional steps, stating: “Adaptation planning and implementation typically follows a cyclical, six-step
process, including 1) Review Science; 2) Assess Vulnerability; 3) Assess Risk; 4) Develop Adaptation Plan;
5) Implement Adaptation; 6) Monitor Adaptation (p.1-6). The report proceeds to describe the steps in the
planning process in some detail, including descriptions of projects in process, each with very different
challenges and proposed strategies. For example, Treasure Island has elevated the island three feet, and
developed a plan for funding future SLR adaptation, with Special Taxes collected through a Community
Facilities District (p.3-8). India basin, on the other hand, “is analyzing living shoreline strategies to create
an adaptive and resilient Bayshore with a 100-year horizon,” using terraced wetland to promote habitat
migration over time (p.3-10).
James Thorne, Joseph Wraithwall and Guido Franco (2018), authors of "California’s Changing Climate
2018: A Summary of Key Findings from California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment," begin by stating
that “California and the world need to rapidly reduce climate pollution to avoid the worst effects of
climate change” while noting that preparation for “continued acceleration of climate impacts in the
future” is also required based on the intensity of historic carbon emissions already in the atmosphere
(Thorne et al. p.3). The authors speak to the magnitude of sea level rise and other impacts, noting that if
emissions are not reduced, but continue at current rates (defined as RCP 8.5 versus RCP 4.5), “model
results indicate that total sea-level rise by 2100 is expected to be 54 inches, almost twice the rise that
would occur if greenhouse gas emissions are lowered to reduce risk” (p.6). The report notes that heat
waves have been responsible for more deaths in California than any other natural disaster over the past
92
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
30 years, and that “mortality risk for those 65 or older could increase ten-fold by the 2090s because of
climate change” (p.7). Finally, the report speaks to the high cost of inaction and suggests that quantifying
the value of assets at risk of extreme climate-related events is one way of engaging reluctant stakeholders
and noting that “climate adaptation is a highly cost-effective option for governments to pursue” (p.18).
David Ackerly, Andrew Jones, Mark Stacey and Bruce Riordan (2018), authors of the “San Francisco Bay
Area Summary Report,” a sub-section of “California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment,” provides an
assessment of the localized impacts the SF Bay Area, including regional climate science (as it impacts
temperature, precipitation, fog, wildfire, and sea level rise), impacts to social systems, built environment
and infrastructure, and natural and managed ecosystems (Ackerly et al. 2018). The report acknowledges
areas of scientific consensus (such as sea level rise projections), as well as unknowns relating to the local
dynamics of coastal fog, which plays an important role in tempering the local climate (p.13), and changes
to Sierra Nevada snowpack, which is critical to the local water supply. They state that if current emission
rates go unchanged (the high emissions scenario), “average Sierra Nevada snowpack is projected to
decline by nearly 20% in the next 2-3 decades, 30% to 60% in mid-century, and by over 80% in late century”
(p.17). While sea level rise projections in the Bay Area are consistent with the California report (Thorne et
al. 2018), they note that recent studies suggest that extensive loss of Antarctic ice could produce sea level
rise as high as 2.87m by 2100 in San Francisco, a result that is “plausible with very low probability.” The
time scale of the climate disruption that is underway is also important to consider, as sea level rise is now
inevitable and will continue. “Even with high levels of emissions reductions, research now suggests that
at least 2 meters of sea level rise is inevitable over the next several centuries due to time lags in response
to increasing global temperatures” (p.30).
Ackerly et al. emphasize the important role of planning and
design: “The three-way relationship between land use,
transportation infrastructure, and energy systems — all of
which are vulnerable to climate impacts — is perhaps the
most critical interdependence in determining the future
growth and prosperity of the Bay Area.” They note that
“the critical lack of affordable housing in the core of the
region is forcing households further south, north, and
inland, with negative energy and environmental
consequences” (p.7). The need for transformation of the
Bay Area infrastructure and built environment around the
Bay edge is highlighted, as infrastructure investments and
affordable housing are currently clustered along the Bay:
“Much of the Bay Area’s transportation system — airports,
roads, and railways — is concentrated along the bay where
flooding from sea level rise and storm surge is a major
vulnerability. The Bay Area electrical grid is vulnerable to
power outages during wind and wildfire events while much
of our natural gas transmission system is located along
waterways and will be impacted by flooding from sea level
rise and extreme storm events. Wastewater treatment
plants, historically located along bay shorelines where
Places of disadvantage have not
been a social choice but an option of
last resort, and in a state that does
not provide a right to shelter, this
toehold in housing is often
protected fiercely. “While these
communities are on the front lines
for future flood and inundation risk,
they themselves have limited ability
or incentive to pursue adaptation
strategies. Further, their
vulnerability is reinforced by this
positioning, and experiences both
within the region and beyond have
led vulnerable communities to fear
that adaptation strategies may
increase the attractiveness of their
communities to outside investors,
resulting in displacement” (Ackerly
et al. 2018, p.65).
93
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
effluent discharge was convenient, are now highly vulnerable to future sea level rise” (p.7). These
challenges point to the need for integrated planning.
The authors highlight Plan Bay Area 2040, adopted in July 2017, and its “new commitments to resilience-
building actions,” noting that “the region is at an important crossroads where research, planning, design,
and management activities focused on resilience are coming together both in policy and on the ground”
(p.39). Key accomplishments cited in Plan Bay Area 2040 include the assembly of “a critical mass of
research and analysis on vulnerability to sea level rise and flooding all around the bay by local and regional
partners through the Bay Area Regional Collaborative (BARC),” Six actions are identified to address
vulnerabilities including “regional governance, resilient housing, funding, social equity, mitigation, and
other issues arising from climate adaptation planning on a regional level.” Finally, they speak to the
importance of integrating resilience planning into the next Sustainable Communities Strategy, which will
be completed by 2021 (p.39).

94
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
References

Abram, S. (2000). Planning the Public. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 351–57.
Ackerly, D., Jones, A., Stacey, M., & Riordan, B. (2018). San Francisco Bay Area Summary Report.
California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Publication number: CCCA4-SUM-2018-005.
Adams, C. (2007). Urban governance and the control of infrastructure. Public Works Management Policy,
11(3), 164–76.
Aghion, P. & Howitt, P. (1997). Endogenous Growth Theory. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Agyeman, J. (2005). Sustainable communities and the challenge of environmental justice. New York NY:
New York University Press.
Agyeman, J. (2013). Introducing just sustainabilities: Policy, planning, and practice. London, UK: Zed
Books.
Agyeman, J., Bullard, R. & Evans, B. (Eds.) (2003). Just sustainabilities: Development in an unequal world.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Ahern, J. (2011). "From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world."
Landscape Urban Planning 100(4), 341–343.
Ahern, J. (2013). Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: The promise and challenges of integrating
ecology with urban planning and design. Landscape Ecology 28, 1203-1212.
Ahmad, Y., El Serafy, S. & Lutz, E. (Eds.) (1989). Environmental Accounting for Sustainable Development.
A UNEP-World Bank Symposium, Washington, DC: World Bank.
Alberti, M. (2008). Advances in urban ecology: Integrating humans and ecological processes in urban
ecosystems. Springer Publishing.
Aldana, C. B. & Dymski, G.A. (2004). Urban sprawl, racial separation, and federal housing policy. In J.
Wolsh, M. Pastor & P. Dreier (Eds)., Up Against the Sprawl: Public Policy and the Making of
Southern California (pp. 99-119). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Alexander, F. S. (2015). Land Banks and Land Banking (2nd ed.). Flint, MI: Center for Community Progress.
Accessed at https://www.communityprogress.net/publications-pages-396.php
All Bay Collective (2018). Estuary Commons: Final Design Report. Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge:
http://www.resilientbayarea.org/estuary-commons/
Altmaier, M., and Barbour, E., Eggleton, C., Gage, J., Hayter, J., & Zahner, A. (2009, October 4). Make it
work: Implementing Senate Bill 375. University of California, Berkeley: Center for a Sustainable
California. Accessed at: sustainablecalifornia.berkeley.edu/pubs/SB375-FULL-REPORT.pdf
American Lung Association and Environmental Defense Fund (2014). Driving California forward: Public
health and societal economic benefits of California’s AB 32 transportation fuel policies. San
Francisco, CA: EDF.
95
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Amin, A. and Cohendet, P. (2004). Architectures of knowledge: Firms, capabilities and communities.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderies, J. M., Folke, C., Walker, B., & Ostrom, E. (2013). Aligning key concepts for global change policy:
robustness, resilience, and sustainability. Ecology and Society 18(2), 8. doi:10.5751/ES-05178-
180208
Anderson, A. & Kimberlin, S. (2018, January 5). Better poverty measure shows economic hardship is more
widespread in certain parts of California. California Budget and Policy Center. Accessed at:
https://calbudgetcenter.org/blog/better-poverty-measure-shows-economic-hardship-widesprea
d- certain-parts-california/
Altshuler, A., & Luberoff, D. (2003). Mega-Projects: The changing politics of urban public investment.
Washington DC, Brookings Institution Press.
Arrieta-Kenna, R. (2017, July 18). California just got bipartisan support to extend its cap and trade program
to 2030: Republicans helped pass a key set of bills to deal with climate change and pollution.
Accessed at https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/7/15/15955756/ california-
climate-brown-ab398-cap-and-trade
Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, C., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., … & Pimentel, D. (1995, April 28).
Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity, and the Environment. Science, 268 (5210), 520-521.
Arrow, K. (2000). Observations on social capital. In P. Dasgupta & I. Serageldin (Eds.), Social capital a
multifaceted perspective, Washington DC: World Bank.
Arrow, K.J., Dasgupta, P., Goulder, L.H., Mumford, K.J., & Oleson, K. (2010). Sustainability and the
measurement of wealth. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 16599. Accessed
at http://www.nber.org/papers/w16599
Association of Bay Area Governments (2014). Affordable housing funding gap analysis. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. Accessed at: https://www.planbayarea.org/sites /default/files/
pdf/prosperity /research/Affordable_Housing_Funding_Gap_Analysis.pdf
Association of Bay Area Governments (2016). Regional housing need plan, San Francisco Bay Area: 2014-
2022. Accessed at: http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/
Baldassari, E. (2018, December 11). In Oakland, a radical approach to housing shortage: A new housing
coop seeks to keep buildings permanently affordable. Mercury News, Accessed at https://
www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/11/in-oakland-a-radical-approach-to-housing-shortage/
Banerjee, T., & Baer, W.C. (1984). Beyond the Neighborhood Unit: Residential Environments and Public
Policy. New York: Plenum.
Banerjee, T. (2001). The future of public space: beyond invented streets and reinvented places. Journal of
the American Planning Association, 67 (1) 9-24.
Banerjee, T. (2009). Megaregions or Megasprawl? Issues of Density, Urban Design, and Quality Growth.
In C. Ross (Ed.), Megaregions: Planning for Global Competitiveness (pp. 83-106), Washington DC:
Island Press.
96
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Banerjee, T. (2014). Urban design and sustainability: looking backward to look forward. In D.A. Mazmanian
and H. Blanco (Eds.), Elgar Companion to Sustainable Cities: Strategies, Methods and Outlook (pp.
381-396). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Banfield, Edward (1961). Political Influence. New York: Macmillan.
Barbour, Elisa and Michael Teitz (2005). CEQA reform: Issues and options. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy
Institute of California.
Barbour, Elisa and Michael Teitz (2009). Blueprint Planning in California: An Experiment in Regional
Planning for Sustainable Development. In D.A. Mazmanian & M. Kraft (Eds.), Toward Sustainable
Communities, Transition and Transformation in Environmental Policy (2nd ed., pp. 171-200).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barbour, Elisa and Elizabeth A. Deakin (2012, winter). Smart Growth Planning for Climate Protection:
Evaluating California’s Senate Bill 375. Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(1), 70-86.
BARHII (2015). Health Inequities in the Bay Area. Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative. Accessed
at: http://barhii.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ barhii_hiba.pdf
Barnes, Peter (2006). Capitalism 3.0. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Bartik, Timothy J. (2004). Economic Development. In J.R. Aronson and E. Schwartz (Eds.), Management
Policies in Local Government Finance (5th ed., pp. 355-390), Washington DC: International City/
County Management Association.
Baumol, William (2012). The Cost Disease: Why Computers Get Cheaper and Health Care Doesn't. New
Haven and London: Yale, University Press.
Baxamusa, Murtaza H. (2008, March). Empowering Communities through Deliberation: The Model of
Community Benefits Agreements. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27 (3).
Bay Area Council Economic Institute (2015). A Roadmap for Economic Resilience: The Bay Area Regional
Economic Strategy. Bay Area Council Economic Institute. Accessed at: www.bayareaeconomy.org
/files/pdf/BACEI-RES-Report.pdf
Bay Area Council Economic Institute (2016). Another Inconvenient Truth: To Achieve Climate Change
Goals, California Must Remove Barriers to Sustainable Land Use. Bay Area Council Economic
Institute. Accessed at: http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/files/pdf/Another_Inconvenient_
Truth_BACEI16.pdf
Bay Area Council Economic Institute (2018). Continuing Growth and Unparalleled Innovation: Bay Area
Economic Profile. Bay Area Council Economic Institute. Accessed at http://www.bayarea
economy.org/ report/continuing-growth-and-unparalleled-innovation/
Beauregard, R.A. (1990). Bringing the City Back. Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(2), 210-
215.
Becker, T.J. (1996, January 21) All over the map: Sprawl suits our lifestyles, but does it exact a burdensome
cost? Chicago IL: Chicago Tribune, Real Estate section.
Bell, D. (1987). And we are not saved: The elusive quest for racial justice. New York: Basic Books.
97
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Benner, C. & Pastor, M. (2012). Just growth: Inclusion and prosperity in America’s metropolitan regions.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Benner, C., & Pastor, M. (2015). Equity, growth and community: What the nation can learn from America’s
metro areas. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (Eds.) (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and
social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Berke, P. R., 2002, “Does sustainable development offer a new direction for planning? Challenges for the
twenty-first century.” Journal of Planning Literature, 17, 21-36.
Bernatzky, A. (1983). The effects of trees on the urban climate. In Arboricultural Association (Ed.), First
international arboricultural conference: Trees in the 21st Century (pp. 59–76). Oxford, England:
AB Academic.
Berney, R. (2010). Learning from Bogota: how municipal experts transformed public space. Journal of
Urban Design, 15 (4), 539-558.
Berube, A. (2003). Gaining but losing ground: Population change in large cities and their suburbs. In B.
Katz & R. E. Lang (Eds.), Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Evidence from Census 2000, (pp.
33-50). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Betsill, M. & Rabe, B.G. (2009). Climate Change and Multilevel Governance: The Evolving State and Local
Rules. In D.A. Mazmanian & M. Kraft (Eds.), Toward Sustainable Communities, Transition and
Transformation in Environmental Policy (2nd ed., pp. 201-226), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
BIG ONE Sherwood (2018). Islais Hyper-Creek: Final Design Report. Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge:
http://www.resilientbayarea.org/islais-hyper-creek
Bionic (2018). Elevate San Rafael: Final Design Report. Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge: http://
www.resilientbayarea.org/elevate-san-rafael
Blakely, Edward (2014). The future of sustainable economic development in cities. In D.A. Mazmanian &
H. Blanco (Eds.), Elgar Companion to Sustainable Cities: Strategies, Methods and Outlook (pp. 397-
412). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Blakely, E.J. & Leigh, N.G. (2010). Planning for Local Economic Development: Theory and Practice (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.
Blanco, H. (1994). How to Think about Social Problems: American Pragmatism and the Idea of Planning.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Boarnet, M.G. (2010). Planning, climate change, and transportation: Thoughts on policy analysis.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 44 (8), 587–595.
Bolund, P. & Hunhammer, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29, 293–
301
Boswell, M., Greve, A.I., & Seale, T.L. (2012). Local Climate Action Planning. Washington DC: Island Press.
98
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Boswell, M., Greve, A.I., & Seale, T.L. (2014). Climate Action Planning. In D.A. Mazmanian & H. Blanco
(Eds.), Elgar Companion to Sustainable Cities: Strategies, Methods and Outlook (pp. 302-319).
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Bowdler, J., Cisneros, H., Lubell, J., & Phillips, P.L. (2017). Building Equitable Cities: How to Drive Economic
Mobility and Regional Growth. Washington DC: Urban Land Institute.
Boyd, E. (2009). Governing the Clean Development Mechanism: Global Rhetoric versus Local Realities in
Carbon Sequestration Projects. Environment and Planning A, 41(10), 2380-2395,
Bradshaw, T.K. (2006). Theories of Poverty and Anti-Poverty Programs in Community Development. RPRC
Working Paper No. 06-05, Rural Poverty Research Center. Accessed at: http://www.rprc online.
org/
Brenner, N. (2002). Decoding the Newest “Metropolitan Regionalism in the USA: A Critical Overview.
Cities, 19(1), 3–21.
Brenner, N. & Theodore, N. (Eds.) (2002). Spaces of neoliberalism: Urban restructuring in North America
and Western Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.
Brinklow, A. (2019, May 22). 4,000 people applied for 28 affordable homes in Oakland, “A drop in the
bucket,” laments Mayor Schaaf. San Francisco, CA: Curbed SF.
Brinklow, A. (2018, October 26). UN report calls Bay Area homeless crisis human rights violation: Special
rapporteur cites SF and Oakland along with worst slums in the world. San Francisco, CA: Curbed
SF.
Brooks, A., Ohland, G., Thorne-Lyman, A., & Wampler, E. (2012). Are We There Yet? Creating Complete
Communities for the 21st Century. Oakland CA: Reconnecting America.
Brown, H. (2014). Next generation infrastructure: Principles for post-industrial public works. Washington
DC, Island Press.
Brown, C. & Lazarus, E. (2018). Genuine Progress Indicator for California 2010-2014, Ecological Indicators,
93 (2018), 1143–1151.
Bullard, R.D. (1990). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Bullard, R.D., Johnson, G.S., & Torres, A.T. (Eds.) (2000). Sprawl city: Race, politics, and planning in Atlanta.
Washington DC: Island Press.
Bullard, R.D. (Ed.) (2005). The quest for environmental justice: Human rights and the politics of pollution.
Berkeley CA: Counterpoint.
Bullard, R.D. (2005). Environmental Justice in the 21st Century. In R.D. Bullard (Ed.), The quest for
environmental justice: Human rights and the politics of pollution (pp. 19-42). Berkeley CA:
Counterpoint.
Burchell, R.W. & Listokin, D. (1993). The Development Impact Assessment Handbook and Model.
Cambridge, MA: Urban Land Institute.
99
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Burchell, R.W. & Listokin, D. (1995). Land, Infrastructure, Housing Costs and Fiscal Impacts Associated with
Growth: The Literature on the Impacts of Sprawl Versus Managed Growth. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln
Institute of Land Policy.
Burke, A. (2016). AB 2722: Transformative Climate Communities Program. Accessed at: https://leginfo.
legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2722.
Burtraw, D. & Toman, M. (2000). Ancillary benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation policies. Climate Change
Issues Brief, 7, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Byrne, T., Munley, E.A., Fargo, J.D., Montgomery, A.E., & Culhane, D.P. (2013). New Perspectives on
Community-Level Determinants of Homelessness. Journal of Urban Affairs, 35(5), 607-625, DOI:
10.1111/j.1467-9906.2012.00643.
CA.gov (nd). California Climate Change Legislation. Accessed at https://www.climatechange.ca.gov/state/
legislation.html
Cain, C. (2014). Negotiating with the growth machine: Community benefits agreements and value-
conscious growth. Sociological Forum, 29(4), 937-958.
California Air Resources Board (2008). Climate Change Scoping Plan: A framework for change, pursuant to
AB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Accessed at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/
scopingplan/document/ scopingplandocument.htm
California Air Resources Board (2018a). Draft co-benefit assessment methodology: Adaptation, California
Climate Investments, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Accessed at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/
capandtrade/auctionproceeds/draft_adaptation_am.pdf
California Environmental Justice Alliance (2016). Transformative Climate Communities: Community vision
and principals for a successful program. California Environmental Justice Alliance, Accessed at
https://calgreenzones.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ TCCReport.2016.FINAL-OCR.pdf
California Health and Safety Code 38565 (n.d.). Accessed at: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/health-and-
safety-code/hsc-sect-38565.html;
California Health and Safety Code 38591 (n.d.). Accessed at: https://codes.findlaw. com /ca/health-and-
safety-code/hsc-sect-38591.html
Calthorpe, P. (2011). Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change. Washington DC: Island Press.
Calthorpe, P. & Fulton, W. (2001). The Regional City. Washington DC: Island Press.
Campbell, H. (2006). Just planning: The art of situated ethical judgment. Journal of Planning Education
and Research, 26(1), 92–106.
Campbell, H., Tait, M. & Watkins, C. (2014). Is there space for better planning in a neoliberal world?
Implications for planning practice and theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(1),
45–59.
Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of
Sustainable Development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 296-312.
100
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Campbell, S. (2009). The imperative of growth, the rhetoric of sustainability: The divergence of the
ecoregion and the global megaregion. In C. Ross (Ed.), Megaregions: Planning for Global
Competitiveness (pp. 127-140). Washington DC: Island Press.
Carlson, Ann (2016, August 24). Does AB 197 mean the end of cap and trade in California? Language directs
the Air Resources Board to prioritize direct emissions reductions. Legal Planet, accessed at:
http://legal-planet.org/2016/08/24/does-ab-197-mean-the-end-of-cap-and-trade-in-california/
Carpenter, S.R., Arrow, K.J., Barrett, S., Biggs, R., Brock, W.A., Crépin, A.-S., … & de Zeeuw, A. (2012).
General resilience to cope with extreme events. Sustainability, 4(12), 3248-3259. Doi:10.3390/
su4123248.
Carpenter, S.R., Folke, C., Scheffer, M., & Westley, F.R. (2019). Dancing on the volcano: social exploration
in times of discontent. Ecology and Society 24(1), 23. Doi:10.5751/ES-10839-240123
Carraro, C. (2003). Governing the Global Environment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
CASA Committee (2018, November 30). Racial equity analysis for the CASA compact. Metropolitan Transit
Commission, Accessed at: https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Racial_Equity_Analysis_for_the_
CASA_Compact.pdf
CASA Committee (2019, January). CASA Compact: A 15-Year Emergency Policy Package to Confront the
Housing Crisis in the San Francisco Bay Area. Metropolitan Transit Commission, Accessed at:
https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/CASA_Compact.pdf
CDP, UN Global Compact, WRI and WWF (2016) Science-Based Targets. Accessed at: http://sciencebased
targets.org/
Chapple, K., & Goetz, E.G. (2011). Spatial justice through regionalism? The inside game, the outside game,
and the quest for the spatial fix in the United States. Community Development, 42 (4), 458-475,
Doi: 10.1080/15575330.2010.532878
Chapple, K. (2015). Planning Sustainable Cities and Regions: Towards More Equitable Development. New
York, NY: Routledge Press.
Chapple, K. (2014). Strategies for growing green business and industry in a city. In D.A. Mazmanian & H.
Blanco (Eds.), Elgar Companion to Sustainable Cities: Strategies, Methods and Outlook (pp. 116-
132). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Chiu, D., Mullin, K., Wicks, B., & Wiener, S. (2019). Assembly Bill 1487: San Francisco Bay Area Regional
Housing Finance Act. California Legislature 2019-2020 Regular Session, February 22, 2019.
City and County of San Francisco (2015). Guidance for incorporating sea level rise into capital planning:
Assessing vulnerability and risk to support adaptation. San Francisco, CA: Accessed at:
http://onesanfrancisco.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/Guidance-for-Incorporating-Sea-Level-
Rise-into-Capital-Planning1.pdf. First adopted by the Capital Planning Committee September 14,
2014, revision adopted December 14, 2015,
City and County of San Francisco (2016a). Resilient San Francisco. San Francisco, CA: Accessed at
https://sfgsa.org /sites/default/files/Document/Resilient%20San%20Francisco.pdf
101
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
City and County of San Francisco (2016b). Sea level rise action plan. San Francisco, CA: Accessed at
https://www.sfpublicworks.org/about/san-francisco-sea-level-rise-action-plan
Clark, W.A.V. (1993). Measuring racial discrimination in the housing market. Urban Affairs Quarterly 28(4),
641-50.
Climate Plan (2016). Leading the way: Policies and practices for Sustainable Communities Strategies.
Accessed at: https://www.climateplan.org/new_report_leading_the_way_on_strategies_for_a_
more_sustainable_california
Coke, J.G., & Gargan J.J. (1969). Fragmentation in land-use planning and control. National Commission on
Urban Problems, research report no. 18. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94
(supplement), pp. S95-S120.
Coleman, M. (2005). A primer on California city finance. Western City Magazine, March 2005.
Collin, R.M. & Collin, R. (2005). Environmental reparations. In R.D. Bullard (Ed.), The quest for
environmental justice: Human rights and the politics of pollution (pp. 209-221). Berkeley CA:
Counterpoint.
Common Ground (2018). The Grand Bayway: Final design report. Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge,
Accessed at: http://www.resilientbayarea.org/grand-bayway
Conley, D. (1999). Being black, living in the red: race, wealth and social policy in America. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Consensus Building Institute (2018). Assessment: Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge. Resilient by
Design. Accessed at: http://www.resilientbayarea.org/rbd-challenge-assessment
Cook, E. (1976, February). Limits to Exploitation of Nonrenewable Resources. Science, 20.
Cortright, J. & Mahmoudi, D. (2014). Neighborhood change, 1970 to 2010: Transition and growth in urban
high poverty neighborhoods. Impressa Economics, accessed at: http://dillonm.io/articles/
cortright_mahmoudi_2014_neighborhood_change_1970_to_2010.pdf
Costanza, R. (2000). Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosystems, 3, 4–10.
Costanza, R. (2006). Nature: Ecosystems without commodifying them. Nature, 443, 749.
Costanza, R., Cumberland, J., Daly, H., Goodland, R., & Norgaard, R. (1997a). An Introduction to Ecological
Economics. Boca Raton FL: St. Lucie Press.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farberk, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., … & van den Belt, M. (1997b).
“The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital.” Nature, 387, 154-160.
Costanza, R., Quatrini, S. & Øystese, S. (2012). Response to George Monbiot: The Valuation of Nature and
Ecosystem Services is Not Privatization. Responding to Climate Change (RTCC), Climate Home
News, accessed at: https://www.climatechangenews.com/2012/08/15/response-to-monbiot -
valuation-is-not-privatization/
102
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I., … & Turner, K.
(2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152-
158.
Costanza, R., Daly, L., Fioramonti, L., Giovannini, E., Kubiszewski, I., Lars Fogh Mortensen, L.F., & Wilkinson,
R. (2016). Modelling and measuring sustainable wellbeing in connection with the UN Sustainable
Development Goals. Ecological Economics, 130(2016), 350–355.
Crane, D. (2008). California’s infrastructure deficit. Public Works Management and Policy, 12(3), 476–78.
Cushing, L., Morello-Frosch, R., Wander, M., & Pastor, M. (2015). The haves, the have-nots, and the health
of everyone: The relationship between social inequality and environmental quality. Annual
Review of Public Health, 36, 193-209. Doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122646
Cushing, L.J., Wander, M., Morello-Frosch, R., Pastor, M., Zhu, A., & Sadd, J. (2016). A preliminary
environmental quality assessment of California’s Cap and Trade Program,” USC Research Brief,
September 2016, online at http://dornsife.usc.edu/PERE/enviro-equity-CA-cap-trade
Cutler, D.M., Glaeser, E.L., & Vigdor, J.L. (1999). The rise and decline of the American ghetto. Journal of
Political Economy, 107(3), 455-506.
Daly, H.E., & Cobb, J.B. (1994). For the Common Good: redirecting the economy toward community, the
environment, and a sustainable future (2
nd
ed.). Boston MA: Beacon Press.
Daly, H.E. (1992). Allocation, distribution and scale: Towards an economics that is efficient, just and
sustainable. Ecological Economics 6:185-194.
Daly, H.E. (1996). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Boston MA: Beacon Books.
Danielson, M. (1972). Differentiation, segregation, and political fragmentation in the American
metropolis. In K. Nash (Ed.), Research reports of the Commission on Population Growth and the
American Future (pp. 143-76). Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
Dasgupta, P. & Serageldin, I. Ed. (1999). Social capital: A multifaceted perspective. Washington DC: World
Bank. Accessed at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/663341468174869302/pdf/m
ulti-page.pdf.
Dasgupta, P. (2014). Measuring the wealth of nations. Resource Economics, 6, 17-31.
Davoudi, S. (2012). Resilience: A bridging concept or a dead end? Planning Theory & Practice, 13 (2), 299–
333.
Dearing, J.A., Wang, R., Zhang, K., Dyke, J.G., Haberl, H., Hossain, M.S., … Poppy, G.M. (2014). Safe and
just operating spaces for regional social-ecological systems. Global Environmental Change, 28,
227–238. Doi: 10.1016 /j.gloenvcha.2014.06.012
Debacker, L., Bibbins, S.A., Urquilla, M., James, T., Clarke, J., Mazur, L., … Burrows, R. (2015). Pathways to
Resilience: Transforming Cities in a Changing Climate. Oakland CA: Movement Strategy Center.
Accessed at: https://kresge.org/sites/default/files/Pathways-to-resilience-2015. pdf
DeFilippis, J., Fisher, R., & Schragge, E. (2010, Summer). Radicalizing Community. Social Policy, 13-20.
103
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
DeFilippis, J. (2004). Unmaking Goliath: Community Control in the Face of Global Capital. New York, NY:
Routledge.
deGroot, R.S. (1992). Functions of Nature. Groningen, the Netherlands: Wolters Noordhoff BV.
Detter, D., & Fölster, S. (2017). The public wealth of cities: How to unlock hidden assets to boost growth
and prosperity. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution Press.
DeVore, C. (2016, September 28). Why does California have the nation's highest poverty rate? Forbes.
Accessed at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2016/09/28/why-does-california-
have-the-nations-highest-poverty-rate/#27d409de12d9
deVries, S., Averheij, R., Groenewegen, P., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2003). Natural environments – healthy
environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health.
Environment and Planning, 35, 1717-1731
Dewar, M. & Epstein, D. (2007). Planning for "megaregions" in the United States. Journal of Planning
Literature, 22(2), 108-124.
Dewey, J. (1991). The Public and its Problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press, Ohio University Press. Originally
published in New York, NY: H. Holt, 1927.
Dillon, L. (2019, April 11). California Gov. Gavin Newsom pushes for low-income housing on state property.
Los Angeles Times. Accessed at: https://www.latimes.com /politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-
affordable-housing-state-property-20190411-story.html
Dodman, D. (2009). Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions
inventories. Environment and Urbanization, 21(1), 185–202.
Dreier, P., Mollenkopf, J. & Swanstrom, T. (2014) Place Matters: Metropolitics for the Twenty First Century
(3rd ed.). University Press of Kansas.
Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ebeling, J. (2008). “Risks and Criticisms of Forestry-Based Climate Change Mitigation and Carbon Trading.”
In C. Streck, R. O’Sullivan, T. Janson-Smith, & R. Tarasofsky (Eds.), Climate change and forests:
Emerging policy and market opportunities (pp. 43–58). London, England: Chatham House.
EcoDistricts (2016). EcoDistricts Protocol Version 1.1. Accessed at: https://ecodistricts.org/protocol/
Edmondson, A. (2016, June). Wicked-Problem Solvers. Harvard Business Review, 52-59.
Ekstrom, J.A., & Moser, S.C. (2012). Climate change impacts, vulnerabilities, and adaptation in the San
Francisco Bay Area: A synthesis of PIER program reports and other relevant research. California
Energy Commission, Publication number CEC-500-2012-071. Accessed at: https://www.energy.
ca.gov/ 2012publications/CEC-500-2012-071/CEC-500-2012-071.pdf
Ehrlich, P. & Ehrlich, A. (1992). The value of biodiversity. Ambio, 21, 219-226.
Ehrlich, P.R. & Mooney, H.A. (1983). Extinction, substitution and ecosystem services. BioScience, 33, 248-
254.
104
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Ewel, K.C. (1997). Water quality improvement by wetlands. In G.C. Daily (Ed.), Natures Services: Societal
Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (pp. 329–344). Washington DC: Island Press.
Faber, D., & McCarthy, D. (2003). Neo-liberalism, globalization and the struggle for ecological democracy:
Linking sustainability and environmental justice. In J. Agyeman, R. Bullard, & B. Evans (Eds.) Just
Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World, (pp. 38-63). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Fainstein, S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review, 34(4), 451-76.
Fainstein, S.S. (2005). Planning theory and the city. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25, 121-
130.
Fainstein, S. (2010). The just city. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Fainstein, S.S. (2014). The just city. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18(1), 1-18.
Fainstein, S.S. (2016). Spatial justice and planning, In S. Fainstein and J. Defilippis (Eds.), Readings in
Planning Theory (4th ed., pp. 258-272). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Fainstein, N., & Fainstein, S.S. (2009). Social equity and the challenge of distressing places. In C. Ross (Ed.),
Megaregions: Planning for Global Competitiveness (pp. 250-279). Washington DC: Island Press.
Field Operations (2018). South bay sponge: Final design report. Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge.
Accessed at: http://www.resilientbayarea.org/south-bay-sponge.
Fiorino, D. (2009). Regulating the future: A new approach for environmental governance. In D.A.
Mazmanian & M. Kraft (Eds.), Toward Sustainable Communities, Transition and Transformation in
Environmental Policy (2nd ed., pp. 63-86). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fiorino, D. (2011). Explaining national environmental performance: approaches, evidence, and
implications. Policy Science, 44, 367. Doi: 10.1007/s11077-011-9140-8
Fiorino, D. (2014). Sustainable cities and governance: what are the connections? In D.A. Mazmanian & H.
Blanco (Eds.), Elgar Companion to Sustainable Cities: Strategies, Methods and Outlook (pp. 413-
433). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Fischel, W.A. (2001). The homevoter hypothesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Fishman, R. (2005). The fifth migration. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(4), 357-366.
Fitzgerald, J. and Leigh, N.G. (2002). Economic revitalization: Cases and strategies for city and suburb.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Florida, R. (2015, August 10). America's biggest problem is concentrated poverty, not inequality. Citylab,
accessed at: http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/08/americas-biggest-problem-is-concentrat
ed- poverty-not-inequality/400892/
Florida, R. (2017). The new urban crisis: How our cities are increasing inequality, deepening segregation,
and failing the middle class – and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Florida, R., Gulden, T. & Mellander, C. (2008). The rise of the mega-region. Cambridge Journal of Regions,
Economy and Society, 1(3), 459-476.
105
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Florida, R., Mellander, C. & Gulden, T. (2012, April). Global metropolis: Assessing economic activity in
urban centers based on nighttime satellite images." Professional Geographer, 178-187
Florida, R. & King, K. (2016). Venture capital goes urban: Tracking venture capital and startup activity
across US zipcodes. Toronto, CA: University of Toronto, Rotman School of Management, Martin
Prosperity Institute.
Florida, R., Mellander C. & King, K. (2017, October). Winner-take-all cities. Martin Prosperity Institute,
Working Paper Series. Accessed at http://martinprosperity.org/media/2017-MPIWP-002_
Winner-Take-All-Cities_Florida-Mellander-King.pdf
Folke, C. (1991). Socioeconomic dependence on the life-supporting environment. In C. Folke and T.
Kaberger (Eds.), Linking the Natural Environment and the Economy: Essays from the Eco-Eco Group
(pp. 77-94). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441-473.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global
Environmental Change 16 (2006), 253–267.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T. & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking:
integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20.
Fox, L. (2018, September). The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2017. US Census. Accessed at https://
www. census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications /2018/demo/p60-265.pdf
Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of whiteness. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota.
Fraser, N. (2003). Social justice in the age of identity politics. In N. Fraser & A. Honneth (Eds.),
Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange (pp. 7-109), New York: Verso.
Friedmann, J. (2000). The good city: in defense of utopian thinking. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 24 (2), 473-89.
Friedmann, J. (2002). The Prospect of Cities. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Frisken, F. (2001). The Toronto story: sober reflections of fifty years of experiments with regional
governance. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23, 513–541.
Fulton, W. (2008). SB 375 is now law—but what will it do? California Planning and Development Report.
Accessed at: http://www.cp-dr.com/node/2140.
Fulton, W. & Shigley, P. (2005). Guide to California Planning (3
rd
ed.). Point Arena, CA: Solano Press Books.
Fung, A. & Wright, E.O. (2001). Deepening democracy: innovations in empowered participatory
governance." Politics and Society, 29 (1), 5-41.
Gearin, E. (2004). Smart Growth or Smart Growth Machine? The Smart Growth Movement and its
Implications. In J. Wolsh, M. Pastor & P. Dreier (Eds.), Up Against the Sprawl: Public Policy and the
Making of Southern California (pp. 279-309). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
106
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Gendall, J., Bisker, J., Chester, A., Eisenberg, T., Davis, S. & Ovink, H. (Eds.) (2015). Rebuild by design.
American Printing Co., accessed at: http://www.rebuildbydesign.org/data/files/501.pdf
Giddens, A. (1990). Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gillham, O. (2002). The Limitless City: A Primer on the Smart Growth Debate. Washington DC: Island Press.
Gismondi, M., Connelly, S., Beckie, M., Markey, S. & Roseland, M. (2016). Scaling Up: the convergence of
social economy and sustainability. Edmonton AB: AU Press
Glaeser, E.L. & Gottlieb, J.D. (2008, Spring). The economics of place-making policies. Brookings Papers on
Economic Activity, 155-239.
Glaeser, E., Resseger, M., & Tobio, K. (2009). Inequality in cities. Journal of Regional Science, 49 (4), 617–
646.
Glaeser, E. & Vigdor, J. (2012). The end of the segregated century: Racial separation in America's
neighborhoods, 1890 - 2010. New York, NY: The Manhattan Institute.
Goldsmith, W. & Blakely, E. (2010). Separate societies: Poverty and inequality in U.S. cities (2
nd
ed.).
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Goodland, R. (2002). Sustainability: Human, social, economic, and environmental. In B. Timmerman (Ed.).
Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change, Vol 5: Social and Economic Dimensions of Global
Environmental Change. John Wiley & Sons.
Graham, S. & Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities
and the Urban Condition. London: Routledge.
Graham, S. (2004). Constructing premium network spaces: reflections on infrastructure networks and
contemporary urban development. In R.E. Hanley (Ed.), Moving people, goods, and information
in the 21st century: The cutting edge infrastructures of networked cities. New York, NY: Routledge.
Grannis, J., Arroyo, V., Hoverter, S., Goetz, M., Bennett, A., DeWeese, J., & Deas, M. (2016). Rebuilding
with resilience lessons from the Rebuild by Design competition after Hurricane Sandy. Georgetown
Climate Center, accessed at: http://www.rebuildbydesign.org/data/files/504.pdf
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American
Journal of Sociology, 91(1985), 481-510.
Gravel, Ryan (2016). Where We Want to Live: Reclaiming Infrastructure for a New Generation of Cities.
New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Griggs, D., Smith, M.S., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M., Shyamsundar, P., … Noble, I. (2013). Policy:
Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495: 305–307, doi: 10.1038/
495305a.
Grootaert, C. (1996). Social capital: The missing link? Washington, DC: World Bank, Social Development
Department Publications
Gross, J. (2007-2008, Fall-winter). Community Benefits Agreements: Definitions, Values, and Legal
Enforceability. Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law, 17(1–2) 35–58.
107
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Guillen-Royo, M. (2010). Realising the ‘wellbeing dividend’: An exploratory study using the Human Scale
Development approach." Ecological Economics, 70 (2010), 384–393.
Habermas, J. (1992). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of
Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Originally published in German in 1962, first
translation in English in 1989, first paperback edition in 1992.
Hacke, R. & Donovan, A. (2019, April 11). Inviting a dialogue on Opportunity Zones. Center for Community
Investment, accessed at: https://centerforcommunity investment.org/blog/inviting-dialogue-
opportunity-zones
Hackworth, J. (2007). The neoliberal city: Governance, ideology, and development in American urbanism.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hamilton, K. (2012). Comments on Arrow et al., 'Sustainability and the measurement of wealth'.
Environment and Development Economics, 17(3), 356-361.
Hardin, G. (1968, December 13). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-48.
Hajer, M.A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy
process. New York, NY: The Oxford University Press.
Hajer, M. & Reijndorp, A. (2001). In Search of New Public Domain. Rotterdam: NAL.
Hart, A. (2018, December 14). A year after California extended cap-and-trade, Newsom still prefers carbon
tax. Politico California, accessed at: https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2018/12/
14/a-year-after-california-extended-cap-and-trade-newsom-still-prefers-carbon-tax-740266.
Harvey, David (1989). The Condition of Modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harvey, David (2007). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. First
published in 2005, paperback edition in 2007.
Harvey, David (2009). Social Justice and the City. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. First published
by John Hopkins University Press, 1973.
Harvey, David (2011). The Enigma of Capital and the Crisis of Capitalism (rev. ed.). London: Profile.
Harvey, David (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London, UK and
Brooklyn, NY: Verso.
Hassell+ (2018). Resilient South City: Final design report. Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge, accessed
at: http://www.resilientbayarea.org/resilient-south-city
Haughton, G. (1997). Developing Sustainable Development Models. Cities, 14 (4), 189-195.
Haughton, G. (1998). Geographical equity and regional resource management: Water management in
Southern California. Environment and Planning, B 25(2), 279-298.
Haughton, G. (1999). Environmental Justice and the sustainable city. Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 18(3), 233-243.
Hawken, P., Lovins A., & Lovins, L.H. (1999). Natural capitalism: Creating the next industrial revolution.
New York, NY: Little, Brown.
108
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Healey, P. (1997/2006). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative Planning in Perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101-123.
Healey, P. (2009). The Pragmatic Tradition in Planning Thought. Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 28 (3), 277.
Hempel, L. (2009). Conceptual and Analytical Challenges in Building Sustainable Communities. In D.A.
Mazmanian & M. Kraft (Eds.), Toward Sustainable Communities, Transition and Transformation in
Environmental Policy, Mazmanian and Kraft Ed., (pp. 33-62). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hicks, J.R. (1946). Value and Capital (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hillier, J. (2002). Shadows of Power: An Allegory of Prudence in Land-Use Planning. London: Routledge.
Hillier, J. (2003). Agon’izing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be ‘real’. Planning Theory, 2
(1), 37–59.
Hinkel, J., Lincke, D., Vafeidis, A.T., Perrette, M., Nicholls, R.J., Tol, R., … Levermann, A. (2014). Coastal
flood damage and adaptation cost under 21st century sea-level rise. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, United States of America, 111. 3292-3297. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222469111.
Ho, William (2007–2008). “Community benefits agreements: An evolution in public benefits negotiation
processes.” Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law, 17(1–2), 7–34.
Holdren, J.P. (2006). The energy innovation imperative: Addressing oil dependence, climate change, and
other 21st century energy challenges. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(2),
3-23. Doi: 10.1162/itgg.2006.1.2.3
Holdren, J.P. (2008a). Meeting the climate change challenge. Washington DC: National Council for Science
and the Environment. Accessed at: https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/
files/2008_1-17_NCSE_final.pdf
Holdren, John P. (2008b). Science and technology for sustainable well-being. Science, 319 (5862), 424-
434. Doi: 10.1126/science.1153386
Holling, C.S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, 4, 1–23.
Holling, C.S. (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management. International Series on
Applied Systems Analysis, 3, Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Home Team (2018). ouR HOME: Final design report. Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge, accessed at:
http://www.resilientbayarea.org/our-home.
Homsy, G.C. & Warner, M.R. (2015). Cities and sustainability: Polycentric action and multilevel
governance. Urban Affairs Review, 51(1), 46–73.
Hotelling, H. (1931). The economics of exhaustible resources. Journal of Political Economy, 39, 137-175.
Hunt, S. (2009). Citizenship's place: the state's creation of public space and street vendors' culture of
informality in Bogota, Colombia. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 27(2), 331-351.
109
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Innes, J.E. & Booher, D.E. (2000). Indicators for sustainable communities: A strategy building on
complexity theory and distributed intelligence. Planning Theory & Practice, 1(2), 173-186.
International Panel on Climate Change (2001). Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable
development and equity. Third assessment report: Climate change 2001, working group II, chapter
18. IPCC, accessed at: https://archive.ipcc.ch/publicationsanddata/publications_and_data_
reports.shtml#1
International Panel on Climate Change (2007). "Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis."
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. C. Marquis, K. Avery, M. Tignor,
and H. L. J. Miller (Eds.), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014). "Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary
for Policymakers.” accessed at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_
FINAL_SPM.pdf
International Panel on Climate Change (2018). Summary for policymakers: Global warming of 1.5°C. An
IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and
related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global
response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate
poverty. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization. Accessed at https://report.
ipcc.ch /sr15 /pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
Integrated Regional Water Management (2013). Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.
Accessed at: http://bayarea irwmp. org/irwm-plans/
Jackson, H-B. (2015). SB 379: Land use: General plan: Safety element. California State Legislature, accessed
at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB379
Jackson, T. (2017). Prosperity Without Growth (2nd ed.). New York, Routledge. First edition published by
Earthscan, 2010.
Jacobs, J. (1992). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Originally
published in New York by Random House in 1961.
Jacobs, J. (1970). The Economy of Cities. New York, NY: Vintage Books, Random House.
Jacobs, M. (1997). Sustainability and markets: On the neoclassical model of environmental economics.
New Political Economy, 2(3), 365-385.
Jacobs, M. (2013). Green growth. In Robert Falkner (Ed.), The Handbook of Global Climate and
Environment Policy. John Wiley & Sons. Online ISBN:9781118326213
Jansson, A-M., Hammer, M., Folke, C. & Costanza, R. (Eds.) (1994). Investing in natural capital: The
ecological economics approach to sustainability. Washington DC: Island Press.
Jargowsky, P.A. (2003). Stunning progress, hidden problems: The dramatic decline of concentrated
poverty in the 1990s. Living Cities Census Series No. 1, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
110
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Jargowsky, P. (2015). Architecture of segregation: Civil unrest, the concentration of poverty, and public
policy. The Century Foundation, Issue Brief: August 7, 2015, published online at: https://tcf.org/
experts/paul-jargowsky/.
Jargowsky, P. (2018, summer). The persistence of segregation in the 21st century. Law & Inequality, 36(2),
207-230.
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.H. (2015). Dreamscapes of modernity: sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication
of power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Jonas, A.E., & Wilson, D. (Eds.) (1999). The urban growth machine: Critical perspectives two decades later.
Albany NY: State University of New York Press.
Jonas, A.E., & Wilson, D. (1999). The city as a growth machine: critical reflections two decades later. In
A.E. Jonas & D. Wilson (Eds.), The Urban Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives Two Decades Later
(pp.3-20). Albany NY: State University of New York Press.
Jonas, A.E., & Ward, K. (2007). Introduction to a debate on city-regions: New geographies of governance,
democracy and social reproduction. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(1),
169-178.
Kantor, P. (2006). Regionalism and reform: a comparative perspective on Dutch urban politics. Urban
Affairs Review, 41, 800–829.
Katz, B. & Noring, L. (2016, February 16). Why Copenhagen works. Brookings, accessed at: https://www.
brookings.edu/research/why-copenhagen-works/
Katz, B. and Nowak, J. (2018). The new localism: How cities can thrive in the age of populism. Washington
DC: The Brookings Institution Press.
Katz, B. & Baird, R. (2019, March 7). Towards a new system of community development. The New Localism
Newsletter, accessed at: https://www.thenewlocalism.com/newsletter/towards-a-new-system-
of- community-development.
Kay, R., Dix, B., Bruguera, M., Wong, A., Scheuer, K., & Kim, J. (2018). Overcoming organizational barriers
to implementing local government adaptation strategies. California’s Fourth Climate Change
Assessment. California Natural Resources Agency, Publication number: CCCA4-CNRA-2018-005.
Keeling, B. (2019, January 7). Gov. Gavin Newsom calls for ‘Marshall plan for affordable housing’: “We
have a homeless epidemic that should keep each and every one of us up at night,” adds
California’s new governor. SF Curbed.
Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche
formation: the approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management, 10(2), 175-195.
Kemp, R., & Loorbach, D. (2006). Transition management: a reflexive governance approach. In J-P. Voss,
D. Bauknecht, and R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive Governance and Sustainable Development (pp. 103-
130). Camberley, UK: Edward Elgar.
111
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Kennedy, R.F. (1968). Remarks at the University of Kansas, March 18, 1968. JFK Library.org, accessed at:
https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/the-kennedy-family/robert-f-kennedy/robert-f-
kennedy-speeches/remarks-at-the-university-of-kansas-march-18-1968.
Kersten, E., Morello-Frosch, R., Pastor, M., & Ramos, M. (2012). Facing the climate gap: How
environmental justice communities are leading the way to a more sustainable and equitable
California. USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE) and UC Berkeley, College
of Natural Resources, accessed at https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/242/docs/Facing
TheClimateGap_web.pdf.
Kirkey, K. (2016). Plan Bay Area 2040, Final preferred scenario: Regional growth pattern and Investment
Strategy. Presentation to Special Joint Meeting of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
and the ABAG Executive Board, November 17, 2016, accessed at https://mtc.ca.gov/sites
/default/files /Final%20Preferred%20Scenario%20POWERPOINT.pdf.
Kirkpatrick, O.L. & Smith, M.P. (2011). The infrastructural limits to growth: Rethinking the urban growth
machine in times of fiscal crisis.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35, 477–
503.
Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine and the rise of disaster capitalism. New York, NY: Picador, Henry Holt
and Company.
Klein, N. (2014). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster
Paperbacks.
Kneebone, E. & Garr, E. (2010). The suburbanization of poverty: trends in metropolitan America, 2000 to
2008. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Kneebone, E. & Berube, A. (2013). Confronting suburban poverty in America. Harrisonburg, VA: R. R.
Donnelly.
Kolko, J. (2015, February 5). No, suburbs aren’t all the same; The suburbiest ones are growing fastest.
CityLab, accessed at: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/02/no-suburbs-arent-all-the-same-
the-suburbiest-ones-are-growing-fastest/385183/
Kolko, J. (2016, March 30). Urban revival? Not for most Americans. JedKolko.com.
Kubisch, A.C., Auspos, P., Brown, P., & Dewar, T. (Eds.) (2010). Voices from the field III: Lessons and
challenges from two decades of community change efforts. Washington DC: Aspen Institute.
Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Franco, C., Lawn, P., Talberth, J., Jackson, T., Aylmer, C. (2013). Beyond GDP:
Measuring and achieving global genuine progress. Ecological Economics, 93 (2013), 57–68.
Kuznets, S. (Ed.) (1934) National Income, 1929-1932. National Bureau of Economic Research, Bulletin 49
(rev. ed.). New York, NY: National Bureau of Economic Research, accessed at:
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2258.pdf.
Laird, J., Parolin, Z., Waldfogel, J., & Wimer, C. (2018). Poor state, rich state: Understanding the variability
of poverty rates across U.S. states. Sociological Science 5: 628-652.
Laurent, É. (2017). Measuring tomorrow: Accounting for well-being, resilience, and sustainability in the
twenty-first century. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
112
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Lebel, L., Anderies, J.M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughs, T., & Wilson, J. (2006).
Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecology
and Society 11(1), 19.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Translated by D. Nicholson-Smith, Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell. First published in 1974, as La Production de l’espace. Paris: Anthropos.
Leigh, N.G. (2003). The state role in urban land redevelopment. A Discussion Paper Prepared for the
Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and CEOs for Cities, April 2003.
Li, H., Campbell, H. & Fernandez, S. (2013). Residential segregation, spatial mismatch and economic
growth across US metropolitan areas. Urban Studies, 50(13), 2642-2660. DOI: 10.1177/004209
8013477697
Li, J.C. (2002). Including the feedback of local health improvement in assessing costs and benefits of GHG
reduction. Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies, 14, 282–304.
Light, I. (2004). Social capital’s unique accessibility. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(2),
145-151.
Light, I., & Dana, L-P. (2013). Boundaries of social capital in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 37(3), 603-624.
Lipschutz, R.D. (2018). Eco-utopia or eco-catastrophe? Re-imagining California as an ecological utopia.
Elementa Science of the Anthropocene, 6(65). Doi: 10.1525/elementa.320
Logan, J. & Molotch, H. (1987/2007). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place (2nd ed.). Berkeley
and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Logan, J., Whaley, R.B., & Crowder, K. (1997). The character and consequences of growth machines, an
assessment of 20 years of research. Urban Affairs Review, 32(5), 603-630.
Los Angeles Collaborative for Environmental Health and Justice (2010). Hidden hazards: A call to action
for healthy, livable communities. Los Angeles, CA: Liberty Hill Foundation.
Low, S. and N. Smith (Eds.) (2006). The politics of public space. New York NY: Routledge
Lubell, M. (2017). The governance gap: Climate adaptation and sea-Level rise in the San Francisco Bay
Area. University of California, Davis, accessed at http://environmentalpolicy.ucdavis.edu/
blog/2017/06/456
Magis, K., & Shinn, C. (2009). Emergent themes of social sustainability. In J. Dillard, V. Dujon & M.C. King
(Eds.), Understanding the social aspect of sustainability (pp. 1-16). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mallach, A. (2012). Depopulation, market collapse, and property abandonment: Surplus land and buildings
in legacy cities. In A. Mallach (Ed.), Rebuilding America's legacy cities: New directions for the
industrial heartland (pp. 85-110). New York: American Assembly.
Marantz, N.J. (2015). What do community benefits agreements deliver? Evidence from Los Angeles.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 81(4), 251-267.
Marcuse, P., Connolly, J., Magana, I.O., Novy, J., Potter, C., & Steil, J. (Eds.) (2009). Searching for the just
city. New York: Routledge.
113
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Margolis, J. (1957). Municipal fiscal structure in a metropolitan fegion. Journal of Political Economy,
65(June), 225-36.
Markley, O.W. & Harman, W.W. (1982). Changing images of man. New York: Pergamon Press.
Markusen, A. & Schrock, G. (2009). Consumption driven urban development. Urban Geography, 30(4),
344-367.
Maser, C. (1997). Sustainable community development: Principles and concepts. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie
Press.
Mathie, A. & Cunningham, G. (2003). From clients to citizens: Asset-based community development as a
strategy for community-driven development. Development in Practice, 13(5), 474-486.
Mathie, A. & Cunningham, G. (2005). Who is driving development? Reflections on the transformative
potential of asset-based community development. Canadian Journal of Development Studies,
26(1), 175-186.
Max-Neef, M. (1995). Economic growth and quality of life: a threshold hypothesis. Ecological Economics,
15, 115–118.
Mazmanian, Daniel M. (2009). Los Angeles’ clean air saga – spanning three epochs. In D.A. Mazmanian &
M. Kraft (Eds.), Toward Sustainable Communities, Transition and Transformation in Environmental
Policy (pp. 89-114). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mazmanian, D.M. & Kraft, M. (2009). The three epochs of the environmental movement. In D.A.
Mazmanian & M. Kraft (Eds.), Toward Sustainable Communities, Transition and Transformation in
Environmental Policy (pp. 3-32). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mazmanian, D.M. & Kraft, M. (Eds.) (2009). Toward Sustainable Communities, Transition and
Transformation in Environmental Policy (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mazmanian, D.M., Nelson, H., & Jurewitz, J. (2013). Climate change policy: A race to the top. In Ethan
Rarick (Ed.), Governing California: Politics, Government and Public Policy in the Golden State (3rd
ed., pp. 405-423). Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Public Policy Press.
Mazmanian, D.M. & Blanco, H. (Eds.) (2014). Elgar Companion to Sustainable Cities: Strategies, Methods
and Outlook. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Mazmanian, D.M. & Blanco, H. (2014). Conclusion. In D.M. Mazmanian & H. Blanco (Eds.), Elgar
Companion to Sustainable Cities: Strategies, Methods and Outlook (pp. 449-468). Northampton,
MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
McCauley, D.J. (2006). Selling out on nature. Nature, 443, 27–28.
McDonald, R.I. (2015). Conservation for cities: How to plan & build natural infrastructure. Washington DC,
Island Press.
McIntyre, S. (1997). The Black report and beyond: what are the issues?' Social Science and Medicine, 44,
723-745.
McKibben, B. (2007). Deep economy: The wealth of communities and the durable future. New York: Times
Books.
114
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
McKinsey Institute (2016). A toolkit to close California’s housing Gap: 3.5 million homes by 2025. McKinsey
Global Institute accessed at https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/urbanization/closing-
californias-housing-gap.
McNeill, J.R. (2001). Something New Under the Sun. New York, London: W.W. Norton.
McPherson, E.G. (1994). Benefits and costs of tree planting and care in Chicago. In G.E. McPherson, D.J.
Nowak, & R. A. Rowntree (Eds.), Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: Results of the Chicago urban
forest climate project, General Technical Report No. NE-186 (pp. 115–34). Radnor PA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
McPherson, G., Nowak, D., Heisler, G., Grimmond, S., Souch, C., Grant, R., & Rowntree, R. (1997).
Quantifying urban forest structure, function and value: the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project.
Urban Ecosystems 1, 49–61.
Meadows, D., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W.W. (1972). The limits to growth. New York, NY:
Universe.
Meadows, D., Meadows, D.L., & Randers, J. (1992). Beyond the limits: Global collapse or a sustainable
future. London, UK: Earthscan Publications Limited.
Meadows, D. (1998). Indicators and information systems for sustainable development: A report to the
Balaton Group. Hartland VT: The Sustainability Institute.
Meadows, D., Randers J., & Meadows, D. (2004). Limits to growth: The 30-year update. White River
Junction, VT: The White River Publishing Company.
Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Medoff, P. & Sklar, H. (1994). Streets of hope: The fall and rise of an urban neighborhood. Boston, MA:
South End Press.
Megerian, C. & Dillon, L. (2016, September 9). Gov. Brown signs sweeping legislation to combat climate
change. Los Angeles Times, accessed at http://www.latimes.com/politics /la-pol-ca-jerry-brown-
signs-climate-laws-20160908-snap-story.html
Mendez, M.A. (2015). Assessing local climate action plans for public health co-benefits in environmental
justice communities. Local Environment, 20(6), 637-663, DOI:10.1080/13549839.2015.1038227.
Metcalf, G. (2014). 8 ways to make San Francisco more affordable: Proposals to solve the housing
affordability crisis. San Francisco Planning and Urban Research, accessed at: http://www.spur.org
/publications/spur-report/2014-02-11/8-ways-make-san-francisco-more-affordable
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments (2017a). Final Plan
Bay Area analysis report. Plan Bay Area 2040, Adopted July 26, 2017. San Francisco, CA:
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments (2017b). Equity
analysis report. Plan Bay Area 2040, Final Supplemental Report, July 2017. San Francisco, CA:
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments.
Meyerson, H. (2006, October 22). No justice, no growth. The American Prospect.
115
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems & Human Wellbeing: Synthesis. Washington DC:
Island Press.
Miller, C.A. (2004). Climate science and the making of a global political order. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of
knowledge: The coproduction of science and social order (pp. 46–66). New York: Routledge.
Milroy, B.M. (1991). Into postmodern weightlessness. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 10 (3),
181-187.
Molotch, H. (1976). The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place. The American
Journal of Sociology, 82(2), 309–332.
Molotch, H. (1990). Urban deals in comparative perspective. In J.R. Logan & T. Swanstrom (Eds.), Beyond
the city limits: Urban policy and economic restructuring in comparative perspective (pp.175–198).
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Molotch, H. (1999). Growth machine links: Up, down and across. In A.E. Jonas & D. Wilson (Ed.), The urban
growth machine: Critical perspectives two decades later. Albany NY: State University of New York
Press.
Monbiot, G. (2012, August 6). Putting a price on the rivers and rain diminishes us all. The Guardian.
Montgomery, C. (2007, June 25). Bogota's urban happiness movement. Globe and Mail, June 25, 2007.
Morello-Frosch, R. and B.M. Jesdale (2005). ""Separate and unequal: residential segregation and
estimated cancer risks associated with ambient air toxics in US metropolitan areas."
Environmental Health Perspectives, 114 (3), 386–93.
Morello-Frosch, R., Pastor, M., Sadd, J. & Shonkoff, S. (2009). The climate gap, inequalities in how climate
change hurts Americans & how to close the gap. Accessed at: https://dornsife.usc.edu
/assets/sites/242/docs/The_Climate_Gap_Full_Report _FINAL.pdf
Moser, S.C., Ekstrom, J.A. Kim, J., & Heitsch, S. (2018). Adaptation finance challenges: Characteristic
patterns facing California local governments and ways to overcome them. California’s Fourth
Climate Change Assessment, Publication number: CCCA4-CNRA-2018-007. California Natural
Resources Agency.
Moskowitz, P. (2017). How to kill a city: Gentrification, inequality, and the fight for the neighborhood. New
York, NY: Nation Books, Perseus Books, Hachette Book Group.
Mouffe, C. (2000). The Democratic Paradox. New York, NY: Verso.
Mouffe, C. (2005). On the Political. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mumford, L. (1925). The fourth migration. Survey Graphic, 3(54), 130-133.
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (2003). Environment and Sustainable
Development Indicators for Canada. Ottawa: NRTEE.
Naveh, Z. (2001). Ten major premises for a holistic conception of multifunctional landscapes. Landscape
Urban Planning, 57, 269–284.
116
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Nelson, Julie and Lisa Brooks (2016). "Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity."
Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE), accessed at: https://www.racialequityalliance
.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/GARE-Racial_Equity_Toolkit.pdf.
New Economics Foundation (2008). Co-production: A Manifesto for Growing the Core Economy. London:
New Economics Foundation.
Newman, Peter (2014). Rediscovering compact cities for sustainability. In D.A. Mazmanian & H. Blanco
(Eds.), Elgar Companion to Sustainable Cities: Strategies, Methods and Outlook (pp. 15-31).
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Nichols, Mary D. (2010). Sustainable communities for a sustainable state: California's efforts to curb
sprawl and cut global warming emissions. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, 12, 185-192.
Nolan, L., Garfinkel, I., Kaushal, N., Nam, J-H., Waldfogel, J., & Wimer, C. (2016). “A New Method for
Measuring Historical Poverty Trends: Incorporating Geographic Differences in the Cost of Living
Using the Supplemental Poverty Measure.” Journal of Economic and Social Measurement 41:237–
64, doi.10.3233/JEM-160433.
Nordhaus, W. & Tobin, J. (1972). Is growth obsolete? A chapter in Economic research: Retrospect and
prospect, Volume 5, Economic growth (pp 1-80). National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Nordhaus, W. (2007). A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. Journal of
Economic Literature, 45(3), 686–702.
Nordhaus, W. (2014). Estimates of the social cost of carbon: concepts and results from the DICE-2013R
model and alternative approaches. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource
Economists, 1(1), 273-312.
Nordhaus, W.D. (2017). Revisiting the social cost of carbon. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 114(7), 1518-1523.
Nordhaus, W.D. (2018). Evolution of modeling of the economics of global warming: changes in the DICE
model, 1992–2017. Climatic Change, 148, 623–640.
North, D. (2005). Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Northcross, M., Spencer, R., Vajjhala, S., Paparian, M., Benn, B., Shaefer, K., & Hill, C. (2018). Finance guide
for Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge design teams (version 2.0), accessed at http://www.
resilientbayarea.org/finance-advisory-team.
Nussbaum, M.C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach, Cambridge MA:
Belknap Press.
O’Connor, J. (1991). Socialism and ecology. Capitalism, Socialism, Nature, 2(3), 1-12.
O’Connor, M. (1993). On the misadventures of capitalist nature. Capitalism, Socialism, Nature, 4(3), 7-40.
Oakland, W.H. & Testa, W. (1995). Does business development raise taxes? Economic Perspectives, Mar-
Apr 1995, 19 (2).
117
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Office of Governor Gavin Newsom (2019, January 15). Governor Newsom Unveils Proposals to Tackle
Housing Affordability Crisis. CA.gov, accessed at: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2019/01/15/ housing-
affordability-crisis/
Oliver, M.L. & Shapiro, T. (1995). Black wealth, white wealth: A new perspective on racial inequality. New
York: Routledge.
Olmstead, S. (2016). Applying market principles to environmental policy. In N. Vig & M. Kraft (Ed.)
Environmental Policy: New Directions for the 21st Century (8
th
ed., pp. 215-238), Los Angeles: CQ
Press, and Imprint of Sage Publications.
Olson, R.L. (1995). Sustainability as a social vision. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 15-35.
Orfield, M. (1997). Metro politics: A regional agenda for community and stability (rev ed.). Washington
DC: The Brookings Institution, and Cambridge MA: The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2002.
Orfield, M. and Luce, T.F. Jr. (2009). Governing American metropolitan areas: Spatial policy and regional
governance. Megaregions: Planning for Global Competitiveness, Ross Ed., pp. 250-279.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2001). The Well-being of Nations: The Role of
Human and Social Capital. OECD.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2009). Territorial Reviews: Copenhagen,
Denmark. Paris: OECD.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2011). Towards Green Growth. Paris: OECD.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2012a). OECD work on green growth. Accessed
at: http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/oecdworkon greengrowth.htm.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1993). Social capital and development projects. Prepared for Social Capital and Economic
Development, July 30-31, Cambridge MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Ostrom, E. (2012). The future of the commons: Beyond market failure and government regulation. London,
UK: The Institute of Economic Affairs.
Ostrom, Elinor (2014). A polycentric approach for coping with climate change. Annals of Economics and
Finance, 15(1), 97–134. Published in 2009 as "Background paper to the 2010 World Development
Report, policy research working paper 5095," World Bank.
Ostrom, V. (1999). Polycentricity—Part 1. In M. McGinnis (Ed.), Polycentricity and local public economies
(pp. 52–74). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ozawa, C.P. (2014). Developing effective participatory processes for a sustainable city. In D.A. Mazmanian
& H. Blanco (Eds.), Elgar Companion to Sustainable Cities: Strategies, Methods and Outlook (pp.
210-227). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Paehlke, R.C. (1994). Environmental values and public policy. In N. Vig & M. Kraft (Eds.), Environmental
Policy in the 1990s (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
118
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Parks and Recreation (2008, Summer). First person in Bogota, the people's politician. Parks and
Recreation, 69-71.
Pastor, M., Dreier, P., Grigsby, J.E., & Lopez-Garza, M. (2000). Regions that work: How cities and suburbs
can grow together. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Pastor, M., Sadd, J., & Hipp, J. (2001). Which came first? Toxic facilities, minority move-in, and
environmental justice. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(1), 1–21.
Pastor, M., Morello- Frosch, R., & Sadd, J. (2005). The air is always cleaner on the other side: race, space,
and ambient air toxics exposures in California. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(2), 127–148.
Pastor, M., Benner, C., & Matsuoka, M. (2009). This could be the start of something big: How social
movements for regional equity are reshaping metropolitan America. Ithaca, New York: Cornell
University Press.
Pastor, M. (2014). “A measure of justice: environmental equity and the sustainable city.” In D.A.
Mazmanian & H. Blanco (Eds.), Elgar Companion to Sustainable Cities: Strategies, Methods and
Outlook (pp. 228-252). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Pearce, D.W. & Atkinson, G. (1993). Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: An
indicator of weak sustainability. Ecological Economics, 8, 103-108.
Penalosa, E. (2009). Towards a more socially and environmentally sustainable city. Presentation to MIT,
February 6, 2009.
Permaculture and Social Equity (2018). People's plan: Final design report. Resilient by Design Bay Area
Challenge, accessed at: http://www.resilientbayarea.org/peoples-plan.
Persky, J. & Wiewel, W. (1996). Central city and suburban development: Who pays and who benefits?”
Chicago IL: University of Chicago.
Pickett S.T.A., Cadenassso M.L., Morgan G.J. (2004) Resilient cities: meaning, models, and metaphor for
integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape Urban Planning,
69(4), 369–384.
Picketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, Harvard University.
Picketty, T. (2015). The economics of inequality. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, Harvard University.
Pigou, A.C. (1932). The economics of welfare (4th ed.). London: McMillan and Company
Pincetl, S. & Gearin, E. (2005). The Reinvention of Urban Green Space. Urban Geography, 26(5), 365-384.
Pittel, K. & Rubbelke, D. (2008). Climate policy and ancillary benefits: a survey and investigation into the
modeling of international negotiations on climate change. Ecological Economics, 68, 210–220.
Polak, F.L. (1973). The Image of the Future. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Policy Link (2015). An equity profile of the San Francisco Bay Area Region. Oakland CA: Policy Link.
Pollan, M. (2006). The omnivore's dilemma: A natural history of four meals. New York: Penguin.
Porter, D. (2016, August 29). SB 32: California’s big bet on the environment. San Diego Free Press.
119
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Porter, M.E. (1995, May-June). The competitive advantage of the inner city. Harvard Business Review, 55-
71.
Portney, K.E. (2013). Taking sustainable cities seriously: Economic development, the environment, and
quality of life in American cities (2nd ed.), Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Portney, K.E. (2014). Developing sustainable city indicators. In D.A. Mazmanian & H. Blanco (Eds.), Elgar
Companion to Sustainable Cities: Strategies, Methods and Outlook (pp. 283-301). Northampton,
MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Potoski, M. & Prakash, A. (2004). The regulation dilemma: Cooperation and conflict in environmental
governance. Public Administration Review, 64(2), 152-163.
powell, j. a. (2000). Addressing regional dilemmas for minority communities. In B. Katz (Ed.), Reflections
on Regionalism (pp. 218–246). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
PPIC (2019). California’s future: housing. Public Policy Institute of California, accessed at https://www.
ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/californias-future-housing-january-2019.pdf.
Press, D. & D.A. Mazmanian (2016). Toward sustainable production: Finding workable strategies for
government and industry. In N. Vig and M. Kraft (Eds.), Environmental policy: New directions for
the 21st century, (pp. 239-264). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press, an imprint of Sage Publications.
Prince, T.J. (2004). Portland’s response to homeless issues and the broken windows theory. In C. Ozawa
(Ed.), The Portland edge: Challenges and success in growing communities (pp. 280–301).
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Pulido, L. (2004). Environmental racism and urban development. In J. Wolsh, M. Pastor & P. Dreier (Eds).,
Up Against the Sprawl: Public Policy and the Making of Southern California (pp. 71-98).
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Purcell, M. (2009). Resisting neoliberalization: Communicative planning or counter-hegemonic
movements? Planning Theory, 8(2), 140–165, DOI: 10.1177/1473095209102232.
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital.” Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
Putnam, R.D., Feldstein, L., & Cohen, D. (2003). Better Together: Restoring the American Community. New
York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Putnam, R. (2004) Using Social Capital to Help Integrate Planning Theory, Research, and Practice. Preface
to the Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(2), 142-145.
Putnam, R. (2015). Our kids: The American dream in crisis. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
Rabe, B.G. (2016). Racing to the top, the bottom, or the middle of the pack? The evolving state
government role in environmental protection. In N. Vig & M. Kraft (Ed.), Environmental Policy:
New Directions for the 21st Century (pp. 33-57). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press, an imprint of Sage
Publications
Rainey, D.V., Robinson, K.L., Allen, I., & Christy, R.D. (2003). Essential forms of capital for sustainable
community development. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(3), pp. 708-715.
120
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Randers, J., Rockström, J., Stoknes, P.E., Golüke, U., Collste, D. & Cornell, S. (2018). Transformation is
feasible: How to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals within planetary boundaries.
Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Resilience Centre.
Rast, J. (2006). Environmental justice and the new regionalism. Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 25, 249-263.
Ravetz, J. (1994). Manchester 2020: a sustainable city region project. Town and Country Planning, 63, 181-
185.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press.
Real Estate Research Corporation (1974). The Costs of Sprawl: Environmental and Economic Costs of
Alternative Residential Development Patterns at the Urban Fringe. Portland Regional Planning
History, 26, accessed at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_planning/26.
Rees, W.E. (1990). The Ecology of sustainable development. The Ecologist, 20(1), 18-23.
Rees, W.E. (2017). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves
out. Urbanisation, 2(1), 66–77. Sage Publication. Originally published in 1992, in Environment and
Urbanization 4, 121-130. doi: 10.1177/2455747117699722
Rees, W.E. (1995). "Achieving Sustainability: Reform or Transformation?" Journal of Planning Literature,
May 1995, 9(4), 343-361.
Rees, W. & Roseland, M. (1991). Sustainable communities: Planning for the 21st century.
Plan Canada, 31(3), 15-26.
Regional Plan Association (2006). America 2050: A prospectus. New York: Regional Plan Association.
Renwick, T. & Fox, L. (2016). The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2015. Accessed at:
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-258.html.
Resilient by Design (2017). Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge: Design brief. Resilient by Design,
accessed at http://www. resilientbayarea.org/design-brief/
Riddell, R. (2003). Sustainable urban planning: Tipping the balance. Malden MA: Blackwell.
Ringquist, E.J. (2005). Assessing evidence of environmental inequities: a meta-analysis. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 24 (2), 223–47.
Rittel, H. & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in the general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(1973), 155-
169. Republished by Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E., … Foley, J. (2009). Planetary
boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2): 32
Rohe, W.M. (2004). Building social capital through community development. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 70(2), 158-164.
121
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Roos, M. (2018). Climate Justice Summary Report: California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment.
Publication number: SUM-CCCA4-2018-012, Accessed at http://www.climate assessment.
ca.gov/state/docs/20180928-ClimateJusticeSummary.pdf
Rose, E. (2011). Leveraging a new law: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions under Senate Bill 375. Berkeley,
CA: University of California, Berkeley, Center for Resource-Efficient Communities, accessed at:
http://crec.berkeley.edu/LeveragingNewLaw.pdf
Roseland, M. (1992). Toward sustainable communities. Ottawa: National Round Table on the Environment
and the Economy.
Roseland, M. (2005). Toward sustainable communities: Resources for citizens and their communities.
Garbriola Island, BC Canada: New Society Publishers.
Ross, C. (Ed.) (2009). Megaregions: Planning for Global Competitiveness. Washington DC: Island Press.
RothBlatt, D.N. (1999). North American metropolitan planning reexamined, Working Paper No. 99-2.
Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley
Rothstein, Richard (2017). The Color of Law: a forgotten history of how our government segregated
America. New York, NY: Liveright Publishing Corporation, a division of Norton & Company.
Rusk, David (1993). Cities Without Suburbs. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rusk, David (1999). Inside Game / Outside Game. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Rusk, David (2013). Cities without Suburbs: A Census 2010 Perspective (4th ed.). Washington DC: Woodrow
Wilson Center Press.
Rydin, Y., Bleahu, A., Davies, M., Dávila, J., Friel, S., Grandis, G.D. … Wilson, J. (2012). "Shaping cities for
health: complexity and the planning of urban environments in the 21st century." Lancet, 379
(9831), 2079-2108.
Sale, K. (1985). Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Sancton, A. (2001). “Canadian cities and the new regionalism.” Journal of Urban Affairs, 23: 543–555.
San Francisco Bay Area’s Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project (2015). The baylands and climate change:
What we can do, Baylands ecosystem habitat goals science update 2015. Oakland CA: California
State Coastal Conservancy.
San Francisco Department of the Environment (2013). San Francisco Climate Action Strategy 2013 Update.
accessed at https://sfenvironment.org/sites/default/files/fliers/files/sfe_cc_climateactionstrat
egyupdate2013.pdf
Sandel, M. (2013). What money can't buy: The moral limits of markets. London: Penguin.
Sandercock, L. (2003). Mongrel cities: Cosmopolis 11. London: Continuum.
Sanders, L. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory 25(3), 347–76.
Sandler, T., Daniel, G., & Arce, M. (2003). Pure public goods versus commons. Land Economics, 79(3), 355–
68.
122
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Samara, T.R. (2016). Race, inequality and the resegregation of the Bay Area. Oakland, CA: Urban Habitat.
Sarkozy, N. (2010). Preface. In J.E. Stiglitz, A. Sen, J-P Fitoussi, Mis-measuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t
Add Up. New York, NY: The New Press.
Satterthwaite, D. (2008). Cities’ contribution to global warming; notes on the allocation of greenhouse gas
emissions. Environment and Urbanization, 20(2), 539–550.
Satterthwaite, D. (2009). The implications of population growth and urbanization for climate change.
Environment and Urbanization, 21, 545.
Satterthwaite, D. (2016a). Editorial: A New Urban Agenda? Environment & Urbanization, 28(1), 3–12.
Savitch, H. V. and Vogel, R. (2004). Suburbs with-out a city: power and city–county consolidation. Urban
Affairs Review, 39, 758–790.
Scape (2018). Unlock Alameda Creek: Final design report. Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge, accessed
at: http://www.resilientbayarea.org/unlock-alameda-creek.
Schafran, A. (2013). Origins of an urban crisis: The restructuring of the San Francisco Bay Area and the
geography of foreclosure. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(2), 663–88,
DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01150.x
Schellnuber, H. J. (1998). Discourse: Earth system analysis: the scope of the challenge. In H.J. Schellnuber,
& V. Wetzel (Eds.), Earth System Analysis (pp. 3-195). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Schildt, C. (2017). Regional resegregation: Reflections on race, class, and power in Bay Area suburbs.
Oakland, CA: Urban Habitat.
Schlosberg, D. (1999). Environmental justice and the new pluralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schumpeter, J. (1975). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper. Originally published in
1942.
Scott, A.J. & Storper, M. (2015). The nature of cities: the scope and limits of urban theory. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(1), 1-15.
Scott, J.W. (2007). Smart growth as urban reform: A pragmatic ‘recoding’ of the new regionalism. Urban
Studies, 44(1), 15–35.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, Harvard University Press.
Sennett, R. (1971). The uses of disorder: Personal identity and city life. New York: Knopf.
Serageldin, I. (1996). Sustainability as opportunity and the problem of social capital. The Brown Journal of
World Affairs, 3(2), 187-203.
Serageldin, I. & Grootaert, C. (2000). Defining social capital, an integrating view. In P. Dasgupta & I.
Serageldin (Eds.), Social capital a multifaceted perspective. Washington DC: World Bank.
123
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Serageldin, I. & Steer, A. (Eds.) (1994). Making development sustainable: From concepts to action.
Environmentally sustainable development studies and monograph series, 2. Washington DC:
World Bank.
SFEI and SPUR (2019). San Francisco Bay shoreline adaptation atlas: Working with nature to plan for sea
level rise using operational landscape units, publication #915. Richmond, CA: San Francisco
Estuary Institute.
Shapiro, T. (2017). Toxic inequality: How america’s wealth gap destroys mobility, deepens the racial divide,
and threatens our future. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Shuman, M. (2006). The small-mart revolution: How local businesses are beating the global competition.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Siegel, Z. (Ed.) (2019). Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge. San Francisco, CA: Multiplier.
Siegel, Z., Brown-Stevens, A., Okamoto, T. (Eds.) (2018). Connecting People to Climate Risks, Participation
+ Action + Education Toolkit. Resilient by Design, accessed at http://www.resilientbayarea.org
/toolkit
Simon, W.H. (2001). The community economic development movement. Durham NC: Duke University
Press.
Skinner, R. (2004). City profile Bogota. Cities, 21(1), 73-81.
Smith, A. (2007). Translating sustainabilities between green niches and sociotechnical regimes.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(4), 427-450.
Smith, A. & Stirling, A. (2010). The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical
transitions. Ecology and Society 15(1), 11.
Smith, G.D., Blane, D., & Bartley, M. (1994). Explanations for socioeconomic differentials in mortality:
evidence from Britain and elsewhere. European Journal of Public Health, 4, 131-144.
Smith, N. (2008). Uneven development: Nature, capital and the production of space (3rd ed.). Athens, GA:
University of Georgia Press. Originally published in 1984, 2nd Ed. In 1990.
Smith, N., & Low, S. (2006). Introduction: The imperative of public space. In S. Low and N. Smith (Eds.),
The Politics of Public Space, New York, Routledge.
Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. New York:
Verso Books.
Soursourian, M. (2012). Suburbanization of poverty in the Bay Area. Community Development Research
Brief, San Francisco, CA: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Stampe, E. (2016). Leading the way: Policies and practices for sustainable communities’ strategies:
Executive summary. Climateplan. Accessed at https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/climate
plan/pages/162/attachments/original/1501025786/Leading-the-Way-Exec-Summary-Web.pdf
STAR Communities (2018). Measuring resilience with the STAR community rating system. Accessed at
http://www.starcommunities.org/
124
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution
Control Officials (2000). Cancer risk from diesel particulate: National and metropolitan area
estimates for the United States. Washington DC, accessed at: http://www.4cleanair.
org/comments/Cancerriskreport.PDF
Stavins, R. (1997). Policy instruments for climate change: How can national governments address a global
problem? University of Chicago Legal Forum, Vol. 1997: Rethinking Environmental Protection for
the 21st Century, (pp. 293–329).
Steffen, W., Crutzen, P.J., & McNeill, J.R. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the
great forces of nature?” Ambio, 36(8), 614-621.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., … Sörlin, S. (2015).
February 13). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet, Science,
347, 6223.
Steinberg, D. (2008). Senate Bill 375. Introduced by Senator Darrell Steinberg, February 21, 2007,
approved by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger September 30, 2008, available at:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id= 200720080SB375.
Steiner, F. (2011). Landscape ecological urbanism: Origins and trajectories, Landscape and Urban
Planning, 100(2011), 333–337.
Stern, A. (2016). Raising the Floor: How a Universal Basic Income Can Renew our Economy and Rebuild the
American Dream. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
Stern, N. (2006). What is the economics of climate change? World Economics, April–June 2006, 7:2.
Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern review. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Stern, N. (2008). Richard T. Ely lecture: The economics of climate change. American Economic Review:
Papers & Proceedings 2008, 98(2),1-37.
Stiglitz, J.E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J-P (2010). Mismeasuring our lives: Why GDP Doesn’t add up. New York,
NY: The New Press.
Stiglitz, J.E., Amartya S., & Fitoussi, J.P. (2011). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic
Performance and Social Progress. Accessed at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/
118025/118123/Fitoussi+Commission+report
Stiglitz, J. (2012, 2013). The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers our Future. New
York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Stoknes, P.E. and Rockström, J. (2018). Redefining green growth within planetary boundaries. Energy
Research & Social Science, 44, 41–49. Doi.10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.030.
Storper, M. (2013). Keys to the city: How economics, institutions, social interaction, and politics shape
development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
125
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Storper, M., Kemeny, T., Makarem, N., & Osman, T. (2015). The rise and fall of urban economies: Lessons
from San Francisco and Los Angeles. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books, and imprint of
Stanford University Press.
Storper, M. (2018). UCLA’s Michael Storper on squaring urbanism & density. The Planning Report, April 9,
2018, accessed at: https://www.planningreport.com/2018/04/09/ucla-s-michael-storper-
squaring-urbanism-density#
Swanstrom, T. (1995). Philosopher in the city: The new regionalism debate. Journal of Urban Affairs, 17(3),
309–324.
Swanstrom, T. (2008). Regional resilience: A critical examination of the ecological framework. IURD
Working Paper Series, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Berkeley, CA: University of
California.
Swanstrom, Todd (2019). Market-savvy housing and community development policy: Grappling with the
equity-efficiency trade-off. In M. Metzger and H. Webber (Eds.), Facing segregation: Housing
policy solutions for a stronger society (pp. 173-196). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Swyngedouw, E. & Heynen, N.C. (2003). Urban political ecology, justice and the politics of scale. Antipode,
34(5), 898–918.
Szasz, A., & Meuser, M. (1997). Environmental inequalities: Literature review and proposals for new
directions in research and Theory. Current Sociology, 45(3), 99-120.
Tach, L., Pendall, R., & Derian, A. (2014). Income mixing across scales rationale, trends, policies, practice,
and research for more inclusive neighborhoods and metropolitan areas. Washington DC: The
Urban Institute.
Taylor, J. & Silver, J. (2019). The Community Reinvestment Act as a catalyst for integration and an antidote
to concentrated poverty. In M. Metzger and H. Webber (Eds.), Facing Segregation: Housing Policy
Solutions for a Stronger Society (pp. 126-145). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, M. (2015). California’s high housing costs: Causes and consequences. Legislative Analyst’s Office,
March 17, 2015.
Teitz, M. (1989). Neighborhood Economics: Local Communities and Regional Markets. Economic
Development Quarterly, 3(2), 111-122.
Thorne, J.H., Wraithwall, J., & Franco, G. (2018). California’s changing climate 2018: A summary of key
findings from California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. California’s Fourth Climate Change
Assessment. California Natural Resources Agency.
Tirole, J. (2017). Economics for the common good. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Torfing, J., Peters, B.G., Pierre, J., & Sørensen, E. (2013). Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Tress B., Tress, G., & Fry, G. (2005). Integrative studies on rural landscapes: policy expectations and
research practices. Landscape Urban Planning, 70, 177–191.
126
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Turner, M. (2017, October 23). Homelessness in the Bay Area: Solving the problem of homelessness is
arguably our region’s greatest challenge. The Urbanist, 560. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco
Planning and Urban Research.
Twu, A. (2019, April 7). California housing legislation highlights. The Bay City Beacon.
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (2012). Rio+20: United Nations Conference on
Sustainable Development. Accessed at: https://sustainable development.un.org/rio20
United Nations Environment Programme (2011). Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable
development and poverty eradication. Nairobi: UNEP.
UN Habitat (2016). The city prosperity initiative. Accessed at http://cpi.unhabitat.org/
United Church of Christ (1987). A national report on the racial and socio-economic characteristics of
communities with hazardous waste sites. New York: United Church of Christ, Commission for
Racial Justice.
Urban Land Institute (2015). Tackling sea level rise: Best practices in the San Francisco Bay Area. Urban
Land Institute.
US Census (2018). The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2017, Accessed at https://www.
census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-265.pdf
US Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1995). The technological reshaping of metropolitan
America, OTA-ETI-643. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
US EPA (2002). Health assessment document for diesel exhaust. National Center for Environmental
Assessment, EPA/600/8-90/057E
Verma, P., Rinzler D., & Zuk, M. (2019). Rising housing costs and re-segregation in the SF Bay Area.
Berkeley CA: UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project and the California Housing Partnership.
Vermuri, A.W., & Costanza, R. (2006). The role of human, social, built, and natural capital in explaining life
satisfaction at the country level: Toward a National Well-Being Index (NWI), Ecological Economics,
58 (2006) 119–133.
Vig, N., & Kraft M. (Eds.) (2016). Environmental policy: New directions for the 21st century, ninth edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press, an imprint of Sage Publications.
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth.
Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Walker, B.H., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R, & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability
in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9 (2), 5.
Walker, B. & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: sustaining eco-systems and people in a changing world.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Walker, R. (2018). Pictures of a gone city: Tech and the dark side of prosperity in the San Francisco Bay
Area. Oakland CA: PM Press.
127
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Wiener, J.B. (2007). Think globally, act globally: The limits of local climate policies. University of
Pennsylvania Law Review, 155, 1961–1979.
Weber, E.P. (2003). Bringing society back in: Grassroots ecosystem management, accountabilty, and
sustainable communities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Westbrook, R.B. (1991). John Dewey and American democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Wheeler, S.M. (2002). The new regionalism: Key characteristics of an emerging movement. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 68(3), 267-278, Doi: 10.1080/01944360208976272
Wheeler, S. (2009). Regions, megaregions, and sustainability. Regional Studies, 43(6), 863-876, DOI:
10.1080/00343400701861344
White, M., & White, L. (1962). Intellectuals versus the city. New York: Mentor.
White, R. & Whitney, J. (1992). Cities and environment: an overview. In R. Stren, R. White & D. Whitney
(Eds.), Sustainable cities: Urbanization and the environment in international perspective (pp. 8-
52). Boulder CO: Westview.
Wiewel, W., Persky, J., & Sendzik, M. (1999). Private benefits and public costs: Policies to address
suburban sprawl. Policy Studies Journal, 27(1), 96-114.
Wiley, H. (2019a, May 20). Gavin Newsom wants to fix California’s housing crisis. So what are his options?
Sacramento Bee.
Wiley, H. (2019b, May 20). California cities killed a sweeping housing reform bill. Can Gavin Newsom find
another option? Sacramento Bee.
Wilkinson, R. & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone. New York:
Bloomsbury Press. First edition published in 2009, London: Allen Lane, Penguin Group.
Wilson, E. O. (1988). The current state of biological diversity. In E. O. Wilson (Ed.), Biodiversity, Washington
DC: National Academy Press.
Wimer, C., Mattingly, M., Kimberlin, S., Fisher, J., Danielson, C., & Bohn, S. (2017, October). California’s
poverty rate goes down, but 7.5 million remain poor. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Center on Poverty
and Inequality.
Wimer, C., Mattingly, M., Kimberlin, S., Fisher, J., Danielson, C., & Bohn, S. (2018, July). 2.1 million
Californians in deep poverty. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality.
Wondolleck, J.M. & Yaffee, S.L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural
resource management. Washington DC: Island Press.
Wolsh, J., Pastor, M., & Dreier, P. (Eds.) (2004). Up Against the Sprawl: Public Policy and the Making of
Southern California. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Wong, C. (2015). A framework for ‘City Prosperity Index’: Linking indicators, analysis and policy. Habitat
International, 45 (2015), 3-9.
World Bank (1997). Expanding the measure of wealth: Indicators of environmentally sustainable
development. Washington, DC: World Bank.
128
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
World Bank (2011). The changing wealth of nations: Measuring sustainable development in the new
millennium. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank (2012a). MDBs: Delivering on the promise of sustainable development. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
World Bank (2012b). Inclusive green growth: The pathway to sustainable development. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
World Commission on Environment and Development (2009). Our common future. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. Original work published 1987.
Wratten, S., Sandhu, H., Cullen R., & Costanza, R. (2013). Ecosystem services in agricultural and urban
landscapes. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wright, L. & Montezuma, R. (2004). Reclaiming public space: the economic, environmental, and social
impacts of Bogota's transformation. Paper presented to 'Walk 21-V Cities for People', Fifth
International Conference on Walking in the 21st Century, Copenhagen Denmark, 9-11 June.
Wyly, E.K., Atia, M. & Hammel, D.J. (2004). Has mortgage capital found an inner-city spatial fix? Housing
Policy Debate, 75(3), 623-686.
Young, I.M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Young, I.M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zabin, C., Martin, A., Morello-Frosch, R., Pastor, M., Sadd, J. (2016, September 13). Advancing equity in
California climate policy: A new social contract for low-carbon transition. Berkeley, CA: UC
Berkeley, Center for Labor Research and Education
Zimmerman, R. (2014). Strategies and considerations for investing in sustainable city infrastructure. In
D.M. Mazmanian and H. Blanco (Eds.), Elgar Companion to Sustainable Cities: Strategies, Methods
and Outlook (pp. 133-153). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Zint, M., & Wolske, K. (2014). From information provision to participatory deliberation: engaging residents
in the transition toward sustainable cities. In D.M. Mazmanian and H. Blanco (Eds.), Elgar
Companion to Sustainable Cities: Strategies, Methods and Outlook (pp. 188-209). Northampton,
MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Zuk, M. & Chapple, K. (2016, May). Housing production, filtering and displacement: Untangling the
relationships. Berkeley CA: University of California Berkeley, Institute of Governmental Studies.
129
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

130
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3. Research Methodology
Overview
The Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge invited design teams to engage big questions, such as: Is there
a better way to design our cities in the SF Bay Area to meet the challenges of climate change? What is the
best way to adapt to rising sea levels and other impacts of climate change, and how do those strategies
align, or not, with the strategies for climate change mitigation? And how can we do a better job of meeting
the needs of all people, especially as the effects of rising inequality have become so entrenched? This RbD
design challenge provided a unique opportunity to investigate these issues from a design perspective.
Design teams were invited to explore ideas with the public as their client, and with public agencies and
local governments as partners. The purpose of the research portion of this project is to gather insights
from the nine teams that completed the design challenge, and to distill those insights into a format that
can help guide future projects and future policy.
Research Point of View
The point of view I bring to the research is personal, professional and academic. I am a practicing architect
with a deep commitment to sustainability and social justice and was also a team member on one of the
Resilient by Design teams throughout the design challenge. Now, after the challenge is over, I have been
continuing to seek opportunities to further this work. Detailed analysis of the RbD projects in tandem with
a thorough and structured literature review has been a strategy to understand better the key issues that
underlie the patterns of development that promote the status quo, and also the opportunities to promote
positive change. It was a privilege to get to know the other designers, expert advisers, community
partners, and RbD staff as we interacted regularly throughout the design challenge and built a network of
friends and collaborators for the future.
Research Questions
As discussed in Chapter 1, this research project was initiated to address these research questions:
1. What was learned from the RbD challenge that will help communicate the urgent challenges
of sustainability, equity and resilience in a way that will build support in the larger community
for needed changes to design, planning and public policy?
2. How can the diverse ideas developed by the Resilient by Design (RbD) Bay Area Challenge be
synthesized into a resilience framework to help guide future Bay Area design projects?
3. What are the key leverage points for positive change?
Because the RbD design challenge was tackling a complex, multi-layered set of issues within an emerging
field of inquiry, the teams were challenged to define the design problem while solving it. This made
visioning and engagement a big part of the design challenge. Each team need to listen and learn from
their community partners, to understand the unique context they were working in, while also sharing and
building their expertise. Finally, there is a need for innovative tools as well as policy fixes to address
political, economic and governance challenges. The diversity of design method brought by the various
131
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
teams, and diverse design context in locations around the Bay Area provided a unique laboratory for
investigation.
Three Areas of Inquiry
The research method for this dissertation was developed to explore questions related to both process and
proposed innovations. To do so, the method was organized around three distinct areas of inquiry – 1)
Discovery Phase; 2) Analysis Phase - Case Study Evaluation; and 3) Integration Phase – Identify Policy
Proposals.
The RbD case study analysis included informal interactions during the course of the design challenge, with
all structured analysis – what I am calling the discovery phase – occurring after the challenge was complete
in May 2018 and final reports were issued by all teams. Then, my analysis phase began in fall of 2018, and
included development of a preliminary Resilience Framework, and the integration phase began in early
2019. I will briefly describe each of these below.
Discovery Phase
The discovery phase included systematic review of each of the nine RbD proposals, including careful
reading of the final design reports and videos produced by each team, and review of the video recordings
of each team’s final public presentation including the discussion with the design jury. The reports are
detailed and thorough given the level of project development; including graphics and text these are
approximately 100-200 pages long each. Numerous articles published after completion of the challenge,
including additional commentary from RbD team members and community stakeholders, have also been
reviewed.
Subsequently I engaged in a round of one-on-one interviews to gather insights from diverse perspectives
including RbD leaders, team members and their collaborators. This gathering of information was critical
to frame the issues that would guide the rest of the study. The initial round of interviews included eight
people directly involved with the RbD process, including the program director, staff and advisory board
members, and key design team members. Each interview began with an overarching question and then
followed with specific detailed questions. First, I asked: “How is the focus on resilience planning changing
the way you work? Is the design and planning process different? Or is it the same?” Then, I asked these
follow up questions:
1. How has the focus on resilience changed the way you work?
2. Is different expertise required to address climate and sea level rise?
3. Who can best be the project catalyst – design professional? community members? Local
government?
4. How does the need for public financing affect the way we work?
5. How can development projects ensure public benefit? Equity?
6. What are your thoughts on multi-benefit projects versus projects focused solely on resilience
goals?

132
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
The following people were interviewed:
1. Sequoia Erasmus – 7/16/18 (by phone)
Director of Community Engagement, City of Richmond CA
Community Advisory Board member for RbD Home Team, Our Home project
2. Alexis Roberts – 7/17/18 (by phone)
Economic and Policy Analyst, Hatch
Design team member of the Hassell+ team, Resilient South City project
3. Richard Mullane – 7/17/18 (by phone)
Design Principal, Hassell
Design team leader of the Hassell+ team, Resilient South City project
4. Allison Brooks – 7/19/18 (in person)
Executive Director, Bay Area Regional Collaborative
Executive board chair, Bay Area Resilient by Design Challenge
5. Amanda Brown-Stevens – 7/19/18 (in person)
Managing director, Bay Area Resilient by Design Challenge
6. Kristina Hill – 7/19/18 (email response to questions)
Assistant Professor, University of California Berkeley
Design team member for the All Bay Collective team, Estuary Commons project
7. Chris Guillard – 7/20/18 (in person)
Principal Landscape Architect, CMG
Design team member for the All Bay Collective team, Estuary Commons project
8. Laura Tam – 7/20/18 (by phone)
Sustainable Development Policy Director at SPUR, a bay area policy think tank
Executive board member, Bay Area Resilient by Design Challenge
The interviews revealed some interesting tensions that were important to identify early in the process as
they helped with the framing of the rest of the work. For example, a number of people expressed concern
that resilience as a concept is not well understood, and that there seems to be a danger that it may be
adopted as a “replacement” for a focus on sustainability, or that people fearful of sea level rise and
flooding, would shift their concerned to their immediate well-being, favoring hard infrastructure and
disregarding the global crisis that still demands attention. Important detailed issues were also discussed,
such as how to fund multi-benefit projects, and the appropriate role for government versus private
investors when non-monetary public benefits can be achieved with lower economic returns. Additional
insights from the interviews are discussed in chapters 1 and 5.
Analysis Phase
The RbD projects provide a window into what neighborhoods in the SF Bay Area might look like if they
were developed with a focus on sustainability, equity and resilience. The ideas are rich and thought
provoking – illustrating design and policy proposals in ways that communicate to larger audiences – and
contributing to the search for constructive solutions to complex and urgent social and environmental
challenges. My goal in this analysis has been to document the ideas in a way that will help others build on
them in support of multi-benefit solutions that focus on the greatest ‘return’ to community. The method
133
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
involved a process of coding and categorizing individual design strategies to develop a ‘master list’ of
concepts employed by the nine RbD teams. I developed the “Transformation Dashboard” as a tool to
display the information graphically and enable a systematic comparison between the projects. The
graphic is based on a radial grid, that organizes a total of 120 strategies in four quadrants, with each
quadrant displaying thirty strategies along five radials. While many frameworks already exist to describe
urban sustainability goals, I was searching for a method to reveal the complex overlay of social and
environmental issues present in the SF Bay Area. Beginning with detailed notes on each project, I searched
for the common themes and strategies through many iterations, rather than beginning with a framework
in mind. As the framework categories emerged, I structured them to support the concept of community
wealth-building though cultivation of all six forms of community capital, as was discussed in chapter two
(Serageldin 1996; Roseland 2005; Stiglitz, Sen, Fitoussi 2011; Dasgupta 2014; Laurent 2017). While the
dashboard requires that design strategies be categorized and assigned to specific quadrants, there is quite
a bit of overlap as many strategies produce multiple benefits.
The Transformation Dashboard – (see appendix 1)
The Transformation Dashboard is a tool I developed, inspired by the RbD project teams and the literature,
that functions as a meta-framework bringing together urban design and planning strategies promoting
diverse goals in one place – strategies that are often advocated for by very diverse constituencies. The
diverse issue areas are organized into four “quadrants” of the dashboard representing strategies that are:
resilient, sustainable, socially beneficial and socially just. Within those quadrants, topics are developed
that support a focus on six forms of capital – physical, natural, human, social, cultural and economic. My
hope is that a focus on all six forms of capital will reveal the opportunities to build wealth in communities
as a constructive shared goal. The three E’s of sustainability – environment, economy, equity – identify
important themes that must all be addressed but tend to be viewed as oppositional goals (Campbell 1996,
etc.). Building six forms of capital is a way to align goals and support a “multi-benefit mindset.” The
discussion below will describe the structure of the Transformation Dashboard in greater detail, and a
larger scale version of the graphic can be found in appendix one.
Two Axes
The organization of the framework begins with the
establishment of two primary axes. First, the east-
west axis categorizes strategies that build social
resilience on the right hemisphere, and those that
address climate resilience on the left hemisphere.
Second, the north-south axis categorizes strategies
that are adaptive, building ‘strength’ in various
ways in the upper hemisphere, and those that
mitigative, reducing stresses, in the lower
hemisphere.
Four Quadrants
As a result of the two primary axes, four quadrants are defined. These describe the overlay between the
two axes representing the goals of social resilience and climate resilience, and the tools of adaptation and
Figure 3.1: Basic organization of the Transformation Dashboard
(by the author)
134
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
mitigation. For example, the upper left quadrant is defined by the goal of climate resilience and the tool
of adaption, describing a quadrant that will include strategies that strengthen the urban ecosystem. The
upper right quadrant is defined by the goal of social resilience and the tool of adaptation, describing a
quadrant focused on strengthening the social ecosystem. The lower left quadrant is defined by the goal
of climate resilience and the tool of mitigation, describing a quadrant that includes mitigating climate
stress, including strategies typically identified as sustainability actions. Finally, the lower right quadrant is
defined by the goal of social resilience and the tool of mitigation, defining a quadrant that includes
mitigating social stresses, including strategies that reduce social vulnerability and address social injustice.
While categorizing adds structure to the analysis, it is important to emphasize that there is no fixed line
between the categories and that strategies generating co-benefits in different quadrants of the dashboard
are to be expected.
Radial Grid
The Transformation Dashboard is developed as a radial grid, with five radials in each quadrant
representing the design categories, and “dots” placed along the radials representing individual strategies.
While not literally mapped one-to-one, the categories on the radials were formulated to capture the six
types of community capital described in chapter two – natural, human, physical, social, cultural, and
economic (Roseland 2005; etc.). Figure 3-2 displays the radial grid, with all dots ‘empty’ however the
project dashboards each display a pattern of dots based on the strategies employed in the projects.
As mentioned above, many design elements will register in more than one location, especially those
providing multiple benefits. For example, a new public open space designed as a resilience hub or as a
floodable park, may contribute to both urban resilience and social resilience, and may also provide
Figure 3.2: Transformation Dashboard with sub-categories (by the author)
135
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
valuable health benefits to underinvested areas with few open space resources. Furthermore, depending
on the design execution there are many opportunities to mitigate climate impacts through carbon
sequestration, connectivity with transportation planning, water recycling, site ecology, etc. A possible
future use of the dashboard is to help identify and prompt consideration of co-benefits.
Project Dashboards
A project dashboard has been created for each RbD project. In Chapter 4 each project description includes
a framework diagram like the one below, illustrating the array of strategies employed with circles in the
diagram filled in when the strategy has been integrated into the design. At the end of chapter four, a table
provides a grid listing each strategy and identifying which projects included it. The research files including
direct quotes from each of the design reports with page number citations to show where the strategy is
mentioned, are included in Appendix 2, for those that want to learn more about the specific applications.

Figure 3.3: Assessment of the nine RbD projects, using the Transformation Dashboard (by the author)
136
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
How to interpret the project dashboards
Given the diverse nature of the information
collected, the cumulative ‘score’ is
interesting to consider, but not intended to
be an indicator of overall performance, and
the projects with more data points are not
necessarily “better,” however the
Dashboard does identify relative areas of
attention. This is important because each
quadrant generally aligns with issue areas –
resilient, sustainable, socially beneficial
and socially just – that have specific
constituencies advocating for them, as well
as professionals and policy makers with
highly developed areas of expertise. Some
of the RbD teams worked across each of
the quadrants, and others were more
focused within one or two of the
quadrants. The Transformation Dashboard
provides a systematic description of the
scope of the RbD projects, enabling
comparison and surfacing questions about
the potential for more holistic future
solutions.
Key to the project strategies
A key is provided below, listing the strategy areas under each of the categories, in each quadrant. In the
graphic dashboard, the four quadrants are defined by the axes, the categories are defined by radials (five
in each quadrant), and the strategy areas are defined by ‘dots’ (six on each radial, and thirty in each
quadrant). When a strategy area is included in a project, the ‘dot’ has been filled in on the related ‘radial’.
Each radial has six individual strategies (or strategy areas), with the first located at the center of the
structure and the sixth at the outer perimeter. There is no particular significance to the order in which the
strategies are displayed, and no weighting has been implied by their order. The reader can learn more
about each of the concepts by reviewing the full case study descriptions in Appendix 2. Those descriptions
provide excerpted text for each of the strategies noted as well as page number citations to the project
team reports.
1. Strengthen Urban Ecosystem – ‘Resilient’
These are climate resilience strategies focused on adaptation, including sea level rise and flooding, as well
as increased vulnerability to earthquakes and heat extremes. Strategies in this quadrant include those
that protect, adapt and retreat to protect the physical assets of the city, including buildings, infrastructure
and natural systems including creeks, shorelines and the urban forest. These physical assets may be
owned privately or publicly.
Figure 3.4: Four key issue areas – resilient, sustainable, socially beneficial
and socially just – within the Transformation Dashboard (by the author)
137
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
A. Shoreline zone
i. Build or enhance conventional seawall or levee
ii. Develop a horizontal living levee
iii. Grow protective reef in the subtidal zone
iv. Restore tidal marsh as a protective buffer
v. Create waterfront park as buffer for rising tides
vi. Create pebble dune beach to control erosion

B. Riparian zone
i. Reconfigure and naturalize channelized creeks
ii. Reconnect creeks to the bay and tidal wetlands
iii. Remove watershed barriers (levees, dams, diked ponds)
iv. Enhance natural sediment transport systems
v. Expand floodplain areas along creeks
vi. Create tidal lagoons for floating structures

C. Lowland transition zone
i. Increase elevation of land (accretion, nourishment)
ii. Utilize dredge spoils and/or soil swaps to elevate land
iii. Transition under-utilized land to green infrastructure
iv. Integrate floodable parks, green space to absorb water
v. Create inland freshwater wetlands
vi. Create space for tidal wetlands to migrate inland

D. Buildings
i. Adapt new structures to withstand future flooding
ii. Plan to upgrade existing flood-prone buildings
iii. Develop surge housing for use while housing is upgraded
iv. Retreat, relocate existing uses to higher elevations
v. Locate new buildings on higher ground
vi. Develop floating structures

E. Infrastructure
i. Relocate and/or elevate transportation infrastructure
ii. Build new levee as multi-benefit public pathway
iii. Create multi-benefit "slow streets"
iv. Create/manage reservoirs (flood control, groundwater recharge)
v. Integrate water detention structures in open space areas
vi. Integrate rain gardens and bio-retention areas

2. Mitigate Climate Stresses – ‘Sustainable’
A comprehensive approach to climate resilience requires ongoing mitigation strategies to reduce climate
change impacts. Integrated climate mitigation strategies that relate to buildings, infrastructure and
natural systems are highlighted here, and are structured around the categories used in many of the
existing sustainability frameworks, such as LEED and STAR Communities (LEED n.d.; Star Communities
138
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
2018). Strategies captured in this quadrant primarily focus on protecting and cultivating natural capital
and physical capital, while human, social, cultural and economic co-benefits are tracked in the other
quadrants on the ‘social’ side of the Dashboard.
A. Transportation
i. Create a new multi-modal transit hub
ii. Integrate ferry service for transit
iii. Strengthen the mobility network
iv. Support bicycle and pedestrian mobility
v. Create a multi-benefit urban greenway
vi. Realign and/or cover existing freeway

B. Energy
i. Promote energy efficient buildings
ii. Support renewable energy generation
iii. Plan for future all electric buildings
iv. Plan for community energy systems
v. Capture energy synergies with eco-industrial park
vi. Plan for electric vehicles

C. Materials
i. Reuse abandoned buildings, infrastructure
ii. Reuse dredge spoils for bay / marsh restoration
iii. Reuse excavated material for bay / marsh restoration
iv. Recover compost for ecosystem restoration, urban farming
v. Develop “circular economy” flows with local resources
vi. Develop a regional sediment management plan

D. Water
i. Improve water quality
ii. Integrate rainwater harvesting systems
iii. Integrate water reuse systems
iv. Integrate wetlands with wastewater treatment systems
v. Decentralize wastewater treatment systems
vi. Develop integrated plan for water resources

E. Ecology
i. Enhance site biodiversity
ii. Protect / restore wildlife habitat
iii. Protect / restore habitat for endangered species
iv. Enhance carbon sequestration with wetlands
v. Enhance carbon sequestration with urban forest
vi. Reduce urban heat island, pollution with greening/urban forest

139
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3. Strengthen Social Ecosystem – ‘Socially Beneficial’
Social resilience is enhanced as human, social and cultural capital is cultivated in communities in a way
that is inclusive and creates opportunities to build wealth locally, improving well-being for individuals as
well as the ‘community’, and creating cycles of reinvestment. Development of common pool resources
support collective well-being, as a form of shared ‘public wealth,’ and community participation is an
important enabling goal, that supports formation of social and cultural capital.
A. Social Capital
i. Protect community cohesion
ii. Enhance community identity
iii. Reveal cultural history
iv. Increase / enhance public gathering spaces
v. Protect / enhance / co-locate community services
vi. Link diverse neighborhoods to promote social mixing

B. Community Participation
i. Develop simple, memorable public messaging about resilience
ii. Promote broad community input into design/planning process
iii. Engage local businesses, NGOs with aligned interests
iv. Build community capacity (advocacy, leadership)
v. Support community partnership for design/planning
vi. Leverage participation with EcoDistrict, People's Plan

C. Common Pool Resources
i. Expand recreational public open space
ii. Enhance pedestrian network, bike paths
iii. Enhance local retail, civic, cultural space
iv. Restore fishing in creeks, bay
v. Promote community gardens for food production
vi. Create emergency place of refuge

D. Wealth building
i. Support / attract local business opportunities
ii. Promote mixed-use community development
iii. Protect / enhance stock of affordable commercial space
iv. Increase home ownership opportunities
v. Promote locally owned accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
vi. Reduce cost of living (housing, transportation, utilities)

E. Human Capital
i. Create new job training programs
ii. Create new place-based educational programs
iii. Enhance schools with linkages to open space
iv. Support / enhance childcare, senior daycare
v. Improve public safety (roadways, lighting, open space)
vi. Improve quality of life with urban greening
140
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
4. Mitigate Social Stresses – ‘Socially Just’
A comprehensive approach to social resilience also requires mitigation strategies to address injustices
from structural racism and economic exclusion. Integrated strategies that work to proactively reduce the
negative effects of concentrated poverty, pollution and limited access to opportunity without
displacement are highlighted here. This quadrant includes five issue areas – health and wellness,
economic empowerment, community stabilization, inclusive process and community reinvestment.
A. Health / Wellness
i. Promote tree planting to improve air quality
ii. Provide air quality buffers around air pollution sources
iii. Improve opportunities for active transportation
iv. Improve access to parks and natural amenities
v. Improve access to healthy food
vi. Support community health initiatives

B. Economic Empowerment
i. Improve transportation access to jobs
ii. Support local business creation
iii. Increase local employment with ecosystem restoration jobs
iv. Support local jobs with local hire provision
v. Enhance access to financial capital
vi. Support sharing economy strategies

C. Community Stabilization
i. Support naturally affordable units (ADU, microunit, small lot)
ii. Stabilize housing costs with land trust, non-profit operator
iii. Protect / enhance stock of affordable housing
iv. Require below market rate units in new development
v. Enforce anti-displacement (no net loss, right to return)
vi. Plan for emergency housing needs (homeless, etc.)

D. Inclusive Process
i. Create inclusive community-driven planning process
ii. Involve local CBOs (Community Based Organizations)
iii. Involve marginalized community members in planning
iv. Develop racial equity strategy
v. Provide funding for community participation
vi. Develop implementation with community as a full partner

E. Social Investment
i. Upgrade under-invested public realm
ii. Transition vacant properties
iii. Engage a participatory budgeting process
iv. Pursue mitigation funds for impacted communities
v. Integrate community benefits in development projects
vi. Identify / establish non-profit to administer community benefits
141
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Case Studies – (see chapters 4, 5 and appendix 2)
This chapter has described the research method used to develop the Transformation Dashboard as a tool,
including the categorizing of strategies as a ‘coding’ process to describe each project relative to the
Transformation Dashboard. In chapter four, each case study is summarized, beginning with a narrative
project description, and an overview of the design challenge and the equity position taken by the team.
Then, a graphic of the Transformation Dashboard is presented along with a listing of the strategies
integrated into the design proposal. At the end of chapter four, quantitative summaries are included for
each quadrant of the dashboard that describe how frequently each of the design strategies were
employed by the RbD teams. In chapter five, the conclusion, the strategies are summarized in a discussion
that highlights key themes and areas of opportunity, and the nine dashboards are compared with each
other and observations are made. Finally, the research files developed to support the analysis in chapter
four are included for those interested in delving into greater detail, in appendix two. These provide
excerpted text from the project team reports, providing more information about each strategy and page
number citations to the individual team reports.
Transformation Toolkit – (see appendix 3)
The case study analysis developed for this project categorized strategies in a total of eight areas. The first
four categories, discussed above, align with the Transformation Dashboard, and are presented in detail in
chapter four. Three of the last four categories focus on process – including governance tools, community
engagement process, and finance – and the last category is one I call “linkages.” The last four categories
are essential elements to project implementation and include a number of innovative concepts. In
recognition of this, some of the key process concepts have been integrated into the Transformation
Dashboard, particularly in the categories of “community participation” and “inclusive process.” The
Transformation Toolkit was developed to outline the broader set of process tools identified by the RbD
team. It also highlights additional resources that have been created by others summarizing the innovative
process tools. Each category in the Transformation Toolkit includes a vast set of issues and delving into
detail on each of them is beyond the scope of this project, however Toolkit does provide an outline of the
strategies identified and quantitative comparisons, like those developed in chapter four. The list below
provides the category level outline of the content that is described further in appendix three.
1. Governance Tools
A. Advocacy
B. Coalition Building
C. Governance Structure
D. Planning Processes
E. Policy Creation

2. Community Engagement Tools
A. Community Engagement Events
B. Place-based Information Gathering
C. Educational Events
D. Community Partnership
E. Process Tools

142
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3. Financial Tools
A. Local Public Funding
B. External Public Funding
C. Align with Asset Owners
D. Private Investment Incentives
E. Community Based Investment
F. Philanthropy
8. Linkages
A. Multi-benefit Linkages
B. Economic Linkages
C. Land Use Linkages
D. Governance Linkages

Integration Phase
In the final phase of the project, the innovative concepts developed by the RbD project teams were
evaluated within the larger Bay Area policy context. The goal was to identify where existing programs and
initiatives could be leveraged to promote positive multi-benefit outcomes addressing resilience and
equity, and also to identify where gaps exist that should be addressed. It is important to underscore that
the RbD challenge was a collaborative design and policy making opportunity from the outset. While
landscape architects and urban designers are typically thought of as working within established regulatory
and planning guidelines, the RbD challenge was specifically developed as a collaborative process with
regulators, planners and grant makers involved so that solutions could be developed involving policy
innovation as well as design innovation. During the integration phase I developed my personal assessment
of the proposed design and policy innovations identified by the RbD teams, based on an extensive
literature review to put those proposals within a larger context. Key literature sources are summarized in
chapter two and a full list of resources is provided at the end of the chapter. A set of six preliminary policy
proposals inspired by the RbD projects and the literature are presented in chapter five.

143
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH
4.0 Research Introduction
4.1 Elevate San Rafael
4.2 Estuary Commons
4.3 The Grand Bayway
4.4 Islais Hyper-Creek
4.5 Our Home
4.6 The People’s Plan
4.7 Public Sediment
4.8 Resilient South City
4.9 South Bay Sponge
4.10 Cumulative Assessment
4.11 Linkages

144
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.0: RESEARCH - INTRODUCTION
4.0 Research – Introduction

Overview
The Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge was a year-long process to spur creative community-driven
design to address resiliency challenges throughout the nine-county Bay Area. The challenge brief
encouraged a comprehensive approach to environmental and social resiliency with a focus on equity and
inclusion for under-served communities (Resilient by Design 2017). Nine multi-disciplinary design teams
participated, comprised of leading firms locally, nationally and internationally. The driving idea behind the
RbD process was that design thinking would promote more holistic problem solving and engage
communities with a more creative public process.
The Case Studies
This chapter focuses on the RbD case
studies, and what can be learned from
them. The nine case studies are each
located in very different cities, with
varying densities and land use. They
were selected to participate in the design
challenge because of their vulnerability
to sea level rise and flooding – however
each location has multiple vulnerabilities
and challenges. Many of them are cut off
from their neighbors, separated by
roadways or rail lines, or unwelcoming
industrial landscapes. Most of them lack
basic services and have poor access to
open space. However, the other reason
the site locations were selected is
because they advocated for themselves
and expressed their desire for change.
The communities that participated in the
challenge were well organized, with
strong volunteer networks and
community partners.
The case studies provide an important
complement to the literature presented
in chapter 2, as the authors describe and
diagnose the urban condition, with its
well-known patterns of unequal
development that produce predictable
Figure 4.0.1: Bay Area
sea-level rise inundation
map with RbD project
areas noted (Siegel ed.
2019, p.11)
145
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.0: RESEARCH - INTRODUCTION
outcomes. The challenges of unsustainable growth and unjust distribution of resources erode public
wealth and threaten the future. However, these well documented and well understood challenges have
not motivated change. The RbD case studies offer a vision of what change could look like. While the extent
of engagement varied from team to team, and the timeframe overall was too short for in-depth
community process, teams worked collaboratively with “the public” as the primary client. Design teams
supported visioning with physical models, digital visualizations and playful narratives to solicit input and
provide a vision of what is possible – shifting perception in many cases from fear to anticipation.
Guiding Principles
As a foundation for the Bay Area Challenge, Resilient by Design developed the guiding principles on the
right, which were used internally first, and then shared with the design teams “to assist in the
development of their workplans and engagement tools with the goal of fostering an inclusive, equitable
and collaborative design process” (Siegel ed. 2019, p.21).
Organization of this Chapter
This chapter has a number of sections. In
this first section (4.0) I provide some
background to the RbD Design Challenge
and its research purpose, followed by a brief
overview of design concepts with reference
images describing the kinds of strategies
that are commonly included in the case
studies. The next nine sections (4.1 to 4.9)
are brief reports describing each project.
The original authors of the design reports
are quoted liberally, to share the voice of
the team, as that is an important part of the
message.
A graphic resilience framework I developed
and named the “Transformation
Dashboard” is provided with each project
description with a listing of the strategies
identified. The dashboard provides a quick
look at where the team placed their focus,
as the level of attention to climate
mitigation and social justice varied from
team to team. Section 4.10 provides a
cumulative look at the projects, with a tally
of which teams pursued which strategies,
and section 4.11 identifies “linkages”
between urban and social resilience
strategies that were identified by the RbD
teams in their final project reports.
RbD GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1. ADDRESS MULTIFACETED, DYNAMIC ISSUES THROUGH
COLLABORATION, COORDINATION AND CONNECTION.
2. PREPARE VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES FOR A RESILIENT
FUTURE BY ADDRESSING OUR SHARED HISTORY,
ECOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL VULNERABILITIES
THAT STILL EXIST TODAY.
3. INTEGRATE SOCIAL AND ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS THROUGH
RIGOROUS RESEARCH AND A STRONG UNDERSTANDING OF
ECOSYSTEMS, LOCAL COMMUNITY, AND GOVERNMENT
CHALLENGES.
4. INTEGRATE PRINCIPLES TO SUSTAIN BIODIVERSITY AND
ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS.
5. MERGE LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND INTERNATIONAL
KNOWLEDGE WITH TECHNICAL EXPERTISE TOWARD
IMPLEMENTABLE AND CREATIVE DESIGN-DRIVEN IDEAS.
6. ACKNOWLEDGE PLACE AND THE FIRST NATIONS OF THE
BAY AREA.
7. DEVELOP EQUITABLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
PRACTICES WHERE COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE TRUE
COLLABORATORS AND PARTICIPATE AS EQUAL PARTNERS
AT EVERY LEVEL OF DESIGN FORMATION.
8. LEVERAGE COMMUNITY KNOWLEDGE AND INTEGRATE
IN DESIGN TO IMPROVE AND NOT DISPLACE COMMUNITY
MEMBERS.
Figure 4.0.2: RbD Guiding Principles (Siegel ed. 2019, p.21)
146
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.0: RESEARCH - INTRODUCTION
Design Concepts

1. Restored Creeks with Pedestrian Pathways
Restored creeks provide flood control, sediment flow,
remove pollutants from air and water, and mitigate
CO2 emissions – they also provide great
neighborhood connectors encouraging social
interaction and active transportation.

2. Resilient Mixed-Use Development
Many neighborhoods in the Bay Area that lack local
retail and services, can benefit from “endogenous
development” to nurture a local economy and small
business development, building social and culture
capital at the same time.

3. Housing Affordable by Design
Housing has become very expensive to build in the SF
Bay Area with low-income areas particularly impacted
as the infrastructure deficit is high, and the tax base
is low. Strategic public investment in infrastructure,
alternative ownership structures such as land trusts
and cooperatives, and net zero energy design support
housing that is affordable by design.
4. Multi-functional Infrastructure
Over 20 wastewater treatment plants along the
SF Bay are at risk from rising sea level. Upgraded
water treatment plants can be integrated with
horizontal living levees, and recreational open
space.
Figure 4.0.6: Living Levee at Southwest Plant Concept,
San Francisco (BIG ONE Sherwood 2018, p.191)
Figure 4.0.3: Terrace Trail Visualization, Alameda
Creek (Scape, p.68-69)
Figure 4.0.4: Fred Jackson Way Transformation,
North Richmond (Home Team 2018, p.48-49)
Figure 4.0.5: Grove and Giaramita Transformation,
North Richmond (Home Team 2018, p.38-39)
147
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.0: RESEARCH - INTRODUCTION
5. Shoreline Resilience as Public Commons
Areas along the bay for flood control can be
developed as wonderful public gathering spaces – a
commons for recreation and gathering.

6. Industrial Uses Integrated with City Fabric
Industrial uses, such as warehouses for the SF Food District
depicted here, can become integrated with the fabric of the
city, especially with careful planning of transportation
logistics and use of electric vehicles instead of diesel.
Walkable connections to residential neighborhoods support
healthy, livable communities.

7. Bay Restoration as Tourism Destination
The North Bay has space available for large scale
restoration, providing ecosystem benefits and
significant carbon mitigation, as well as a tourism
destination creating new business opportunities.

8. New Social Infrastructure
Schools can act as a community hub and a resource in
times of emergency when located centrally in
communities. Play fields can be developed as
floodable parks and connection to pedestrian
networks reduce reliance on the automobile.
Figure 4.0.9: Proposed Cullinan Road Landing
Rendering (Common Ground 2018, p.65)
Figure 4.0.7: The Estuary Commons (All Bay
Collective 2018, p.50)
Figure 4.0.10: School as Resiliency Hub (Hassell+
2018, p.48-49)
Figure 4.0.8: SF Food District Concept
(BIG ONE Sherwood 2018, p.202)
148
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.0: RESEARCH - INTRODUCTION
9. Hybrid Water Infrastructure
In urbanized areas where space does not permit full
naturalizing of creek corridors, hybrid strategies can
combine hard and soft infrastructure to provide
stormwater management with climate and health
benefits. Hybrid creek systems can provide positive
amenity spaces and connections for bicycles and
pedestrians too.

10. Living with Water
New floating and amphibious housing models that
rise with the tides offer a way of living with water and
uncertain shoreline conditions.

Figure 4.0.11: Colma Creek Vision (Hassell+ 2018,
p.74-75)
Figure 4.0.12: Long Term Vision, San Rafael
(Bionic 2018, p.100)
149
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.1: RESEARCH – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL
4.1 Elevate San Rafael
San Rafael, CA

Bionic Team Members:
• Bionic
• PennDesign
• WXY architecture + urban
design
• Studio for Urban Projects
• Enterprise Partners
• SF State University
• Michael Yarne
• Keyser Marston Associates
• WRA Environmental
• RAD Urban
• Moffatt & Nichol

Synopsis:
The Bionic Team planned for a substantial retreat from the shoreline to land at higher elevation, together
with multi-functional infrastructure that will adapt and grow over time in response to sea level rise, as
opposed to a fixed hard infrastructure solution that is vulnerable to failure. The disruption involved with
a retreat from low-lying areas is justified in part by the recognition that current land uses including big
box retail and car showrooms are already subject to change based on ebbing consumer demand. Incentive
zones are proposed to promote and accelerate the needed change. Anti-displacement strategies for
existing residents are proposed as an integral part of the strategy.
Problem Statement:
Flood Risk - “Downtown and East San Rafael are located within a singular watershed. All rain eventually
flows to and under the canal district which is the lowest lying area of San Rafael and thus will be the most
severely impacted by storms and sea-level rise. The area usually stays dry now because it is pumped.
However there are many corroded and undersized pipes. This system is a major vulnerability: any human
or technical failure could devastate the residents and local economy at any time” (p.41).
Potential Economic Loss - “The economic losses of just one pump district failing are huge. A total power
outage could have potential losses in the billions of dollars,” Including the following: (p.43)
• $4,099,455,360 Assessed Value
• 9,524 Housing Units
• $3,001,944,000 Business Revenue
• 19,177 Jobs
Figure 4.1.1: Catalyst project for new forms of living (Bionic 2018, p.70-71)
150
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.1: RESEARCH – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL

Subsidence – “Subsidence in the San Francisco Bay Area: San Rafael will subside 15” by 2040” (p.7).
Impact to Vulnerable Communities - “The Bionic team identified the areas in San Rafael with the
greatest risk of climate-change related flooding. An analysis synthesizing the lowest lying areas, the
areas with the greatest amount of corroding pipes, the greatest amount of multi-family and wood
framed structures, and the highest population densities, revealed the sites with the highest
vulnerability. The Canal District neighborhood is particularly vulnerable. To preserve community, the
Bionic Team evaluated San Rafael’s capacity to retain this population within the city limits. According to
the 2020 General Plan, San Rafael has a number of underutilized sites where new housing could be
constructed. However, it is spread out through the city limits and would separate a cohesive
community” (p.52).
Risk of Displacement – “Rents in the Canal District are lower than anywhere else in the County and all
rental housing in Marin is highly impacted. Displacement of Canal residents will lead to homelessness and
displacement from the City and County… The strongest displacement risk indicators include: proximity to
rail transit, high percentage of renter-occupied housing, a high share of renters paying more than 35% of
their income in rent, and a high percentage of non-white occupants – all of which are indicators that are
present in the Canal district. Renovation/retrofit/redevelopment of existing housing runs the risk of
seeding gentrification. Areawide improvement (trail access, waterfront access/amenities, etc.) also run
the risk of seeding gentrification” (p.107).
Need to Look Beyond Conventional Engineered Solutions - “The conventional solution would be to gate
off the creek, raise the levees, add flood gates and seawalls, and proceed with life as it is known today.
To continue with this paradigm would compound risk. It would increase the separation that the city has
Figure 4.1.2: Projected flood impacts from total pumping system failure (p.43)
151
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.1: RESEARCH – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL
with its waterfront. It would further eradicate coastal habitats and interrupt coastal processes. It would
be hugely expensive. If there was a failure it would be a humanitarian crisis. As sea levels rise it would
ultimately become obsolete, and a legacy offering danger and even fewer options would be left to future
generations. The Bionic Team studied the conventional solution and asked a critical question: Is there a
different way?” (p.48)
Design Response:
“The Bionic Team project is titled Elevate San Rafael. It is the simplest way to describe what needs to be
done: to occupy higher elevations and raise the quality of life and social connection for everyone. The
project does not propose that the city should merely adapt, retreat, or resist. Instead, it proposes that
the city should evolve with intention. Elevating is to physically elevate habitation, and the bonds of
community and dignity; to elevate ones social and financial position in life, and policy for urban change;
to lift infrastructure to a new level, and allow for ecology to expand. Elevating employs coastal
management approaches in combination with a moral, financial, and infrastructural agenda for large scale
preparation. In this process of strategic change and redefining the relationship to the bay, the project
proposes a singular opportunity to elevate all aspects of life” (p.9).
“Building on the catalyst and pilot projects of the near term, the Bionic Team proposes that the city
gradually shift resources away from the current pump and levy system, and reduce the perimeter that the
City maintains for risk reduction. Paired with programs for upgrading to floodable buildings, acquisition
of property for infrastructure protection, and equitable housing, this strategy proposes to build a city scale
apparatus of green infrastructure that would elevate life in San Rafael and the systems that support it.
Through this framework future generations would have options, space, and resources for how they
continue to build resilience, and could choose to persist in this place for another hundred years or more”
(p.100).
Social Equity Position:
“In a short amount of time, the Bionic Team wanted to understand the details of life in San Rafael, and
the everyday issues that matter for people, their families and businesses now... It was clear: People share
the desire for essentials that allow them to thrive - safety, secure housing, a livelihood, equal access to
Figure 4.1.3: Catalyst project for new neighborhood development (Bionic 2018, p.72-73)
152
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.1: RESEARCH – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL
resources, a community to rely on. Through this process, the Team also gained an appreciation for the
community members themselves and their social cohesion. It is complex and interwoven. It is also highly
resilient” (p.18).
“Our approach has been to engage in the complexity of the forces and cultures that created the
conditions of postindustrial cities, and to forecast how they can be employed over time to correct them.
And to elevate solutions and their cumulative effects on life to a higher level of sophistication and equity”
(p.18).
“From discussions with the community, it became evident that a new process is needed where the city
and residents work together to prioritize equity, housing affordability, stability, and design. This would
require state level commitment in policy and legislation, and city level housing policies. This type of
commitment is critical to prevent against displacement and preserve a vibrant community” (p.52).
Transformation Dashboard:

Figure 4.1.4: Transformation Dashboard for the Elevate San Rafael project

Integrated Strategies:
The dashboard strategies integrated into the Elevate San Rafael design proposal are listed below. See
appendix two for excerpted text with page number citations to the project team report, for each of the
strategies listed below.
153
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.1: RESEARCH – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL
1. Strengthen Urban Ecosystem
A. Shoreline Zone
• Build or enhance conventional seawall or levee
• Grow protective reef in the subtidal zone
• Restore tidal marsh as a protective buffer
• Create waterfront parks as buffer for rising tides
B. Riparian Zone
• Enhance natural sediment transport systems
C. Transition Zone
• Transition under-utilized industrial land to green infrastructure
D. Buildings
• Adapt new structures to withstand future flooding
• Plan to upgrade flood-prone buildings
• Develop surge housing for use while housing stock is upgraded
• Relocate existing uses to higher elevations
E. Infrastructure
• Relocate and/or elevate transportation infrastructure
• Build new levee as multi-benefit public pathway

2. Mitigation Climate Stresses
A. Transportation
• Strengthen the mobility network
• Support Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility
B. Energy
C. Materials
D. Water
E. Ecology
• Protect / restore wildlife habitat

3. Strengthen Social Ecosystem
A. Social Capital
• Protect community cohesion
154
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.1: RESEARCH – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL
• Increase / enhance public gathering spaces
• Protect / enhance / co-locate community services
B. Community Participation
• Promote broad community input into design process
• Engage local businesses, NGOs with aligned interests
• Support community partnership for design / planning
C. Common Pool Resources
• Expand recreational public open space
• Enhance pedestrian networks, bike path
• Create emergency place of refuge
D. Wealth Building
• Increase home ownership opportunities
• Reduce cost of living (housing, transportation, utilities)
E. Human Capital
• Enhance schools with linkages to open space
• Improve public safety (roadways, lighting, open space)

4. Mitigate Social Stresses
A. Health / Wellness
• Improve access to parks and natural amenities
• Support community health initiatives
B. Economic Empowerment
• Enhance access to financial capital
C. Community Stabilization
• Stabilize housing costs with land trust, non-profit operator
• Protect / enhance stock of affordable housing
• Require below market rate units in new development
• Enforce anti-displacement strategies (no net loss, right to return)
D. Inclusive Process
• Create inclusive community driven planning process
• Involve marginalized community members in planning
E. Social Investment
155
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.1: RESEARCH – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL

Figure 4.1.6: Map of proposed incentive zones (p.92)
Figure 4.1.2: Map of proposed incentive zones (p.92)
Figure 4.1.5: Diagram of shifting land uses (p.90)
156
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.1: RESEARCH – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL

Figure 4.1.8: Rendering of long-term vision (p.100)
Figure 4.1.7: Rendering of catalyst project illustrating
neighborhood amenities (p.73)
157
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – ESTUARY COMMONS 1
4.2 The Estuary Commons
San Leandro Bay including the cities of Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro

The All Bay Collective team members:
• AECOM
• CMG Landscape Architecture
• UC Berkeley College of
Environmental Design
• California College of the Arts
• Silverstrum Climate Associates
• Skeo
• Moll de Monchaux
• David Baker Architects

Synopsis:
The All Bay Collective Team proposed the development of a network of parks organized around the
estuary shoreline and restored creek edges. This new amenity, called the Estuary Commons, would
provide a sense of shared identity and safe and connected mobility, in addition to ecosystem restoration.
Transportation strategies include realignment of highway 880, undergrounding of a key portion of it to
reconnect communities to waterfront, and construction of a new multi-modal transit hub serving as the
hub for a new transbay connection to San Francisco. Housing strategies include mixed-income
development, incentives for ADUs in existing neighborhoods and formation of Community Land Trusts to
protect long term affordability. Innovative engagement methods included the development of a
collaboration game called “In it Together” and a quadruple bottom line evaluation tool.
Key Challenges:
Unfair Environmental Burdens – “We also learned that local neighborhoods bear unfair environmental
burdens. Traffic on Interstate 880 brings goods and mobility to the San Francisco Bay region (and the
nation), but it also exacerbates asthma rates for local children. Adding to this impact, emissions from a
nearby crematorium and industrial uses intensify air pollution and health stressors” (p.12).
Health Impacts – “Our study area includes East Oakland, where residents have long been concerned about
environmental health burdens. Data collected by county, regional, and state agencies confirm that East
Oakland neighborhoods experience significant disproportionate environmental, economic, and health
impacts. This area is also considered a ‘Community of Concern’ by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission and it ranks in the lowest 5th-25th percentiles in CalEnviroScreen due to poor air quality,
water pollution, underemployment, and extreme poverty… Local ecological health is also a major concern.
San Leandro Bay is on California’s list of Toxic Hot Spots for its severe water pollution, which poses a threat
to aquatic life, wildlife, and human health” (p.36).
Es Figure 4.2.1: Proposal for Estuary Commons with Tidal Cities
(All Bay Collective 2018, p.42)
158
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – ESTUARY COMMONS 2

Cumulative Challenge of SLR and Subsidence – “One especially valuable contribution during the design
phase was our research on the cumulative effects of sea level rise and groundwater emergence. Our maps
show that about 23 percent more land will food around the Estuary if both rising tides and rising
groundwater are considered. This double-threat means that traditional protective measures like levees or
seawalls will not solve the problem; rather, it emphasizes the need for dynamic, adaptive solutions that
enable humans to live with water” (p.14).
“Also, because a higher water table can intensify liquefaction risks, the region’s seismic resilience will
decline. Furthermore, underground pipes and basements could fill with contaminated water, and our
ability to deal with stormwater will become severely compromised because the “sponge” of the soil will
already be saturated. To get a better picture of groundwater emergence, we mapped surface
groundwater projections in tandem with sea level rise estimates” (p.24).
Limited Public Awareness of the Watershed – “The effort has been a great learning experience for
everyone involved. I’m pretty sure that every Oaklander knows the Coliseum, but very few think of the
area as the San Leandro Bay shoreline, connecting San Leandro Creek upstream with Damon Marsh and
the Oakland Estuary downstream” (p.20, quoting Mayor Libby Schaaf, City of Oakland).
Legacy of Structural Racism – “Racism has also limited the educational and workforce opportunities
available, especially to East Oakland residents. Our team understood urban investment as a benefit, but
Es Figure 4.2.2: Existing site area, San Leandro Bay (p.22)
159
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – ESTUARY COMMONS 3
we became more aware that those benefits are often so unequally shared that they instead accelerate
displacement. It became clear that this history of injustice could not be remedied through new
investments controlled by people outside Estuary communities. New investments in housing, parks, and
infrastructure must first and foremost support residents’ ability to gain control over their own health,
wealth, and stability” (p.12).
“We learned that past discriminatory practices like redlining and predatory lending have effectively
prevented East Oakland residents from building wealth from home ownership. Discrimination in hiring
practices and education have also burdened these communities. Air pollution—especially from I-880 and
nearby industrial uses—has led to high asthma rates and other health issues” (p.26).
Development Drives Displacement – “To remedy these longstanding environmental injustices,
unconventional urban development strategies are needed to promote the health, wealth, and stability of
residents around the Estuary—especially in East Oakland. Instead of jumping to the business-as-usual city
center mix of housing, parks, and transit, our team recognized that investments like this were just as likely
as flooding to accelerate displacement. Instead, new solutions are needed to put residents at the heart of
the urban development conversation… and propose hyper-local governance frameworks that could fund
and implement neighborhood-scale adaptation efforts. Two catalytic, near-term elements of this
framework include: (1) local ownership of land and housing stock through a community land trust, like
the existing Oakland Community Land Trust; and (2) the formation of an East Oakland Community Benefit
District (CBD) to negotiate for and fund community benefits” (p.26).
“Resilience isn’t just about protecting shorelines. It’s also about making sure people can thrive in place, in
a way that doesn’t amplify gentrification trends today. Innovative models of cooperation among
governments and homeownership can help people find strength in numbers.” -- Janette Kim, Assistant
Professor, CCA and co-Director, Urban Works Agency (p.88).

Figure 4.2.3: Rendering of the proposed Estuary Commons (p.50)
160
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – ESTUARY COMMONS 4
Design Response:
“The idea of a commons derives from a rich political and urban history. It joins people and place through
shared management of resources for the benefit of all. A commons is at once the public process of
governance and civic life, and the spaces that bring us together. We envision the Estuary Commons as a
network of communities joined in mutual obligation to share and manage the resources of this working
urban landscape. Locals have been referring to San Leandro Bay as “The Estuary” for many years. The
Estuary Commons reaffirms this community-conceived identify, while also calling out the need for shared
places and processes that forge a path forward and drive resilient outcomes for generations to come”
(p.46) .
“First, our designs catalyze
existing, on-the-ground actions
while helping to establish the
conditions necessary to create
sustained equity. Vital to this
strategy is our Resilient Equity
Hubs concept. These hubs wield
governmental powers (through
special districts and joint
authority arrangements) to
administer neighborhood-scale
resilience actions and support
community priorities, like green
infrastructure and affordable
housing” (16).
“Second, our designs adapt the
MLK Shoreline and surrounding
waterways to create an iconic,
working landscape. This strategy
proposes reshaping waterways to
accommodate rising tides;
restoring ecosystem function to
create additional wildlife habitat;
linking adjacent neighborhoods
through circulatory pathways;
and gathering Estuary residents in
new social, cultural, and
recreational spaces” (p.16).
“Third, our designs stitch
neighborhoods to the shoreline
through potentially
transformative long-term
transportation scenarios. We
Figure 4.2.4: Long Term Vision for Resilient Equity Hubs (p.89)
Figure 4.2.5: Estuary Commons “Stitch” (p.60)
161
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – ESTUARY COMMONS 5
propose further studying the possibility of realigning and tunneling Interstate 880 to the east of its current
alignment—a move that would both protect this vital asset from sea level rise and provide new, green
pathways over the buried highway” (p.16).
“Lastly, our long-term design scenarios envision communities that prosper in harmony with rising tides.
We propose a multi-modal transit hub that integrates the Estuary’s existing transportation assets under
one roof: BART, Amtrak, Alameda County Transit, and the Oakland International Airport’s air train. This
hub would be the heart of a new district that includes affordable housing and spaces for community-
driven entrepreneurial pathways. As combined sea level rise and groundwater emergence inundate
Estuary landscapes many decades from now, we envision dynamic neighborhoods emerging that
interweave built and natural environments. These Tidal Cities combine tidal lagoons with floating housing,
enabling future residents to live with water” (p.16).

Social Equity Position:
“Through listening, learning, and co-designing with stakeholders throughout the Resilient by Design Bay
Area Challenge, we came to embrace the values of sustained collaboration and community-driven
resilience. Our unifying idea of the Estuary Commons builds on these values to envision a shared, working
landscape that is managed for the benefit of all. In this landscape, community priorities are at the heart
of important decisions and residents prosper in harmony with rising tides” (p.11).
“We learned that residents and activists frame the changes affecting their neighborhoods through the
everyday threat of losing their homes as rents increase. Historical injustices like redlining—an example of
systemic racism by private banks and public institutions—severely affected people’s ability to own their
own homes and benefit from higher real estate values during the 20th century. Racism has also limited
Figure 4.2.6: Tidal Cities Design Concept (p.93)
162
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – ESTUARY COMMONS 6
the educational and workforce opportunities available, especially to East Oakland residents. Our team
understood urban investment as a benefit, but we became more aware that those benefits are often so
unequally shared that they instead accelerate displacement. It became clear that this history of injustice
could not be remedied through new investments controlled by people outside Estuary communities. New
investments in housing, parks, and infrastructure must first and foremost support residents’ ability to gain
control over their own health, wealth, and stability” (p.12).
Transformation Dashboard:
Integrated Strategies:
The dashboard strategies integrated into the Estuary Commons design proposal are listed below. See
appendix two for excerpted text with page number citations to the project team report, for each of the
strategies listed below.
1. Strengthen Urban Ecosystem
A. Shoreline Zone
• Build or enhance conventional seawall or levee
• Develop a horizontal living levee
Figure 4.2.7: Transformation Dashboard for the Estuary Commons project (by the author)
163
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – ESTUARY COMMONS 7
B. Restore tidal marsh as a protective buffer Riparian Zone
• Reconfigure and naturalize channelized creeks
• Enhance natural sediment transport systems
• Expand floodplain areas along creeks
• Create tidal lagoons for floating structures
C. Lowland Transition Zone
• Increase elevation of land (accretion, nourishment)
• Utilize dredge spoils and/or soil swaps to elevate land
• Transition under-utilized land to green infrastructure
• Create space for tidal wetlands to migrate inland
D. Buildings
• Adapt new structures to future flooding
• Plan to upgrade flood-prone buildings
• Develop floating structures
E. Infrastructure
• Relocate and/or elevate transportation infrastructure
• Build new levee as a multi-benefit public pathway
• Integrate rain gardens and bio-retention areas

2. Mitigate Urban Stresses
A. Sustainable Transportation Systems
• Create a new multi-modal transit hub
• Strengthen the mobility network
• Integrate ferry service for transit
• Support bicycle and pedestrian mobility
• Create a multi-benefit urban greenway
• Realign and/or cover existing freeway
B. Sustainable Energy Supply
• Plan for community energy systems
C. Materials / Waste
• Reuse dredge spoils for bay / marsh restoration
D. Water
164
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – ESTUARY COMMONS 8
• Improve water quality
E. Ecology
• Protect / restore wildlife habitat
• Enhance carbon sequestration from urban forest

3. Strengthen Social Ecosystem
A. Social Capital
• Protect community cohesion
• Enhance community identity
• Increase/enhance public gathering spaces
• Link diverse neighborhoods to promote social mixing
B. Community Participation
• Develop simple, memorable public messaging about resilience
• Promote broad community input into design process
• Engage local business, NGOs with aligned interests
• Build community capacity (advocacy, leadership)
• Support community partnership process for design / planning
• Leverage partnership with EcoDistrict, People’s Plan
C. Common Pool Resources
• Expand recreational public open space
• Enhance pedestrian network, bike paths
• Promote community gardens for food production
D. Wealth Building
• Support / attract local business opportunities
• Promote mixed-use community development
• Increase home ownership opportunities
• Promote locally owned Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
E. Human Capital
• Create new job training programs
• Create new place-based educational programs
• Support / enhance childcare, senior daycare
• Improve public safety (roadways, lighting, open space)
165
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – ESTUARY COMMONS 9
• Improve health and quality of life with urban greening

4. Mitigate Social Stresses
A. Health Impacts
• Promote tree planting to improve air quality
• Improve opportunities for active transportation
• Improve access to parks and natural amenities
• Support community health initiatives
B. Economic Empowerment
• Improve transportation access to jobs
• Support local business creation (incubator, co-working)
• Increase local employment with ecosystem restoration jobs
C. Community Stabilization
• Support naturally affordable units (ADU, microunit, small lot)
• Stabilize housing costs with land trust, non-profit operator
• Protect / enhance stock of affordable housing
• Require below market rate (BMR) units
• Enforce anti-displacement (no net loss, right to return)
D. Inclusive Process
• Create inclusive community-driven planning process
• Involve local CBOs (Community Based Organizations)
• Develop racial equity strategy
• Develop implementation with community as a full partner
E. Social Investment
• Transition vacant properties
• Engage a participatory budgeting process
• Pursue mitigation funds for impacted communities
• Integrate community benefits in development projects
• Identify / establish non-profit to administer community benefits

166
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – ESTUARY COMMONS 10

Figure 4.2.8: In It Together Game (p.147)
Figure 4.2.3: The Estuary Commons model (p.140)
Figure 4.2.9: Equity Checklist (p.182)
167
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.3: RESEARCH – THE GRAND BAYWAY
4.3 The Grand Bayway
San Pablo Bay

Common Ground team members:
• TLS Landscape Architecture
• Exploratorium
• Guy Nordenson and Associates
• Michael Maltzan Architecture
• Sitelab Urban Studio
• HR&A Advisors
• Lotus Water
• Rana Creek
• Dr. John Oliver
• Richard Hindle, UC Berkeley
• Fehr & Peers

Synopsis:
The Common Ground team has proposed a monumental infrastructure project – integrating large scale
bay restoration together with an elevated roadway, bike lanes, pedestrian pathways and recreational
assets – as it upgrades an important state road at imminent risk of inundation from sea level rise. The
proposal transforms the northern edge of the bay into a tourism destination with scenic views into
restored marshlands, fishing and boating locations and historic structures. This portion of the bay is
unique in that there is space available to restore marsh ecology on a large scale, providing a regional
ecological asset.
Key Challenges:
Flood risk compounded by seismic risk – “The area is already impacted by flooding due to incremental
sea level rise as well as the certainty of instantaneous dike failure from seismic liquefaction. These
baylands represent the most significant area for ecosystem protection and enhancement and represents
the largest opportunity for natural-systems based resilient solutions for San Francisco Bay. Bay Area
residents place great value on the richness, biodiversity, and scale of this last remaining large-scale marsh
complex and would not like to see it inundated by the Bay, which is the default outcome” (p.10).
Major roadway at risk – “The natural berm on which SR 37 is built is formed by wave-deposited
sediment… As less and less sediment enters the bay, the edge of this strip marsh is beginning to recede
northward, back toward the highway. We don’t know when, but it’s likely that this berm would naturally
migrate north of the current SR 37 alignment” (p.16).
Land subsidence from lack of sediment – “The core of the site contains two large zones with distinct
marsh ecosystems and habitat – the western baylands that were farmed and the eastern baylands that
Figure 4.3.1: Rendering of the Grand Bayway (Common Ground
2018, p.66)
168
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.3: RESEARCH – THE GRAND BAYWAY
were used for salt ponds. The large portion of the site that was farmed for over 100 years lost much of
the peat in the soil and had no input of sediment during that time, resulting in areas of land subsidence
up to 7 feet. Restoring these areas by conventional means would consume a huge amount of resources -
imported sediment as well as money - to achieve ecological goals” (p.24)
Valuable natural landscape is likely to urbanize – “This area represents the largest patch of non-
fragmented landscape in the entire bay area. Marsh ecologies have the best opportunity to freely migrate
upland connecting to regional greenbelts. 1/3rd of Bay’s fluvial sediment comes from Sonoma and Napa
watersheds.” At the same time, “The North Bay remains the most affordable housing market in the region,
and both the housing and job markets are projected to grow the most in the next 50 years” (p.11)
Limited transportation connectivity – “East/West connections are currently inadequate, but are
necessary to connect decentralized cities in the North Bay that lack public transit. As of today, SR 37 is key
lifeline for many communities to get to work.” This is a social equity issue as “Approximately 2/3 of all
trips on SR 37 are made by those earning at/below the median income” (p.11).
Lack of economic activity – “In addition, the City of Vallejo is in dire need of more local employment
opportunities. The current employment outlook makes long commutes for current residents necessary
and has not favored a positive development climate for the City. Since the closure of the Mare Island
Naval Shipyards, Mare Island has been left with vast area of vacant historic buildings, warehouses, and
infrastructure” (p.82).
Design Response:
“State Route 37, a low-lying commute route that skirts the northern edge of San Pablo Bay, is both traffic-
choked and increasingly flooded due to sea level rise. Sitting atop a precarious levee that confines an
immense but compromised marsh complex, Dr. Fraser Shilling of the UC Davis Road Ecology Center has
observed, “the highway has the dubious distinction of constricting both traffic and tidal flows.” The project
considers a new future for this highway as an elevated scenic byway, creating an iconic “front door” to a
vast ecological open space previously known to few. Accessible to cyclists, runners, kayakers, campers,
Figure 4.3.2: Rendering of proposed Cullinan Road Landing (Common Ground 2018, p.65)
169
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.3: RESEARCH – THE GRAND BAYWAY
and fishermen, the Grand Bayway will become a Central Park with more 21st century sensibilities for
rapidly expanding North Bay communities” (p.2).
“Sea level rise is an incremental risk… At the same time, we are also threatened by stochastic seismic
activity… Although neither of these threats are intuitively perceptible on human timescales, both are
poised to dramatically change our landscapes and communities in our lifetimes…the same geomorphology
that defines areas of risk also delineates zones of relative safety. The topography of the bay is determined
by faults and their corresponding ridges, and working with our geology should be a starting point for
determining how we use our uplands and lowlands. Our bay is an archipelago of headlands and peninsulas
amidst the soft ground, alluvial fans, marshes, and littoral mudflats below. Stable, high ground is the
natural place to focus our long-term investments in infrastructure. As bay waters encroach on our low-
lying shores, we will need to find new and adaptive ways to inhabit these lands. Resilience requires both
flexibility and an honest assessment of which lands can or should be inhabitable in the future” (p.6).
“This project thinks about how life in
this region of the bay can grow in a
more holistic way and foster a
lifestyle not only on dry land but
interwoven with the complexities
and opportunities of the bay as an
ecological catalyst. We envision a
lifestyle more evolved and culturally
responsive than the simplistic Bay
Area auto-sprawl of the past. As part
of this work we have re-imagined
how the “soft ground” of the State
Route 37 (SR 37) corridor can benefit
the restoration and adaptation of the
Bay Area’s largest continuous
bayland marsh system and equitably
connect communities around San
Pablo Bay through a resilient and
diverse transportation network”
(p.8).
“Historically, marshlands and
wetland ecosystems were present
around the margins of the entire San
Francisco Bay. Alternating headlands
and lowlands comprise the
topography of the bayshore
landscape, with marshes filling in the
low lying areas. Cordgrass and
pickleweed dominate here, providing rich habitat for many organisms and particularly endangered species
and species of special concern. Today, the San Pablo Baylands is the largest section of the bay margin with
potential to grow, improve, and enhance these crucial marsh ecosystems” (p.12).
Figure 4.3.4: Ecological Central Park concept (p.35)
Figure 4.3.3: Rendering of proposed SR 37 with causeway above
(p.64)
170
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.3: RESEARCH – THE GRAND BAYWAY
“Common Ground’s approach is to produce a framework, The Grand Bayway, for future regional
conservation, connectivity, and identity towards a more resilient San Pablo Baylands (North Bay). Key
tenets of this approach involve coordination of investments in light of sea level rise impacts and identified
need to restore aging, under-capacity, and at-risk transportation infrastructure. Inextricably linked to this
infrastructure are sensitive, yet productive, wetlands that serve as a major public amenity and ecological
asset. Approaches include capital improvements in transportation infrastructure, including a scenic SR 37
causeway, implementation of a potential new regional rail network, and the ecological enhancement of
wetlands as a means of advancing the greater aspirational objectives for the North Bay, defined by:
1. Enhancement of ecological function and health;
2. Cultivation of a cohesive regional identity;
3. Improved connectivity and mobility (Elevated SR37 Causeway, SMART Rail, Bay Trail);
4. Protection of infrastructure and upland communities from impacts of sea level rise;
5. Promotion of regional economic development” (p.67).
Social Equity Position:
“Equity is one of the most important benefits this project could provide, but it’s also one of the most
challenging to measure. These benefits cannot all be quantified, but creating an ecological “central park”
would be great asset for the 550,000 (million) residents living in cities around San Pablo Baylands.
California state agencies have studied and described the many social and health benefits of outdoor,
natural-area recreation for members of the public as part of the California Outdoor Recreation Plan… The
team also acknowledges the importance of distributing these equity benefits among the current
vulnerable communities around SR 37 and the baylands. Both benefits and impacts from modification of
SR 37 would require careful planning and discussions with impacted communities” (p.91).
Figure 4.3.5: Restored marsh with public access and monitoring stations (p.49)
171
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.3: RESEARCH – THE GRAND BAYWAY
The report also notes that the “North Bay remains the most affordable housing market in the region, and
both the housing and job markets are projected to grow the most in the next 50 years” (p.11). And yet,
this project proposes traditional economic development strategies such as tax increment financing to fund
transportation investment based on increases in land value. Given that this area is one of the last places
in the bay area where low-income people can afford to live, there could be negative effects of
gentrification and displacement for current residents. Proactive housing policy would benefit this
development proposal.
Transformation Dashboard:
Integrated Strategies:
The dashboard strategies integrated into the Grand Bayway design proposal are listed below. See
appendix two for excerpted text with page number citations to the project team report, for each of the
strategies listed below.
1. Strengthen Urban Ecosystem
A. Shoreline Zone
• Develop a horizontal living levee
• Grow protective reef in the subtidal zone
Figure 4.3.6: Transformation Dashboard for the Grand Bayway project (by the author)
172
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.3: RESEARCH – THE GRAND BAYWAY
• Restore tidal marsh as a protective buffer
B. Riparian Zone
• Reconnect creeks to the bay and tidal wetlands
• Remove watershed barriers (levees, dams, diked ponds)
• Enhance natural sediment transport systems
C. Lowland Transition Zone
• Increase elevation of land (accretion, nourishment)
• Transition under-utilized land to green infrastructure
• Create space for tidal wetlands to migrate inland
D. Buildings
• Retreat, relocate existing uses to higher elevations
E. Infrastructure
• Relocate and/or elevate transportation infrastructure

2. Mitigate Climate Stresses
A. Transportation
• Create a new multi-modal transit hub
• Integrate ferry service for transit
• Strengthen the mobility network
• Support bicycle and pedestrian mobility
• Realign and/or cover existing freeway
B. Energy
C. Materials and Waste
• Reuse abandoned buildings, infrastructure
• Reuse dredge spoils for bay / marsh restoration
D. Water
• Improve water quality
E. Site Ecology
• Enhance site biodiversity
• Protect / restore wildlife habitat
• Protect / restore habitat for endangered species
• Enhance carbon sequestration from wetlands
173
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.3: RESEARCH – THE GRAND BAYWAY
3. Strengthen Social Ecosystem
A. Social Capital
• Enhance community identity
• Reveal cultural history
B. Community Participation
• Promote broad community input into design / planning process
• Engage local business, NGOs with aligned interests
C. Common Pool Resources
• Expand recreational public open space
• Enhance pedestrian network, bike paths
• Enhance local retail, civic, cultural space
• Restore fishing in creeks, bay
D. Wealth Building
• Support / attract local business opportunities
• Promote mixed-use development
• Protect / enhance stock of affordable commercial space
E. Human Capital
• Create new place-based educational programs
• Enhance schools with linkages to open space

4. Mitigate Social Stresses
A. Health Impacts
• Improve access to parks and natural amenities
B. Economic Empowerment
• Improve transportation access to jobs
• Support local business creation
• Increase local employment with ecosystem restoration jobs
C. Community Stabilization
D. Inclusive Process
E. Social Investment

174
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.3: RESEARCH – THE GRAND BAYWAY

Figure 4.3.7: Explorer’s map (p.22)
Figure 4.3.8: Rendering of proposed Cullinan fishing camp (p.42)
175
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.3: RESEARCH – THE GRAND BAYWAY

Figure 4.3.9: Sear’s Point Gateway (p.38)
Figure 4.3.10: Proposed train stop in Buchli (p.40)
176
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.3: RESEARCH – THE GRAND BAYWAY

Figure 4.3.11: Stages of sediment accretion (p.45)
177
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.4: RESEARCH – ISLAIS HYPER-CREEK
4.4 Islais Hyper-Creek: A Social Ecosystem
San Francisco, Southeast Waterfront

Team Name: BIG + ONE + Sherwood
Team members:
• BIG (Bjarke Ingels Group)
• One Architecture & Urbanism
• Sherwood Design Engineers
• Nelson Nygaard
• Strategic Economics
• Moffat & Nichol
• The Dutra Group
• Stanford Research Team

Synopsis:
This project offers a big vision for transforming an industrial area that was built overtop an existing creek,
to restore natural ecosystems and address the challenges of flooding and vulnerability to earthquakes.
Low lying areas around Islais Creek that have been filled in the past are particularly at risk of flooding,
subsidence, and liquefaction in an earthquake. This project proposes land use intensification to
accommodate existing uses in less space, freeing up space for the creek and other uses including PDR jobs
and affordable housing. Six prototype areas were developed that begin to show how a set of toolkit
concepts can be integrated into site specific solutions.
Key Challenges:
Coastal flood risk: “Coastal flood protection measures will also need to be implemented. Without them,
access to the Bayview and Hunters Point from the north will become compromised starting at the 3rd
Street bridge and radiating out. Many of the Port properties and other lands around Islais Channel will be
inundated in the coming decades if nothing is done” (p.10). “The Sewer System Improvement Program
(SSIP) maps indicate that the banks (essentially very low levees) on either side of Islais Creek are high
enough that, even for 100-year storm surge conditions, coastal flooding does not occur. However, a
significant portion of the areas behind the levees are lower than the 100-yearstorm surge, indicating that
upstream flooding could occur if adequate storm drainage infrastructure does not exist” (p.62).
Inland flood risk: “The CSS has a limited conveyance capacity as it is sized for a 5-year storm event, per
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) “level of service” design criteria, larger events surcharge
the system… Areas along Alemany Boulevard and Cayuga Street see flooding during heavy rainfall when
flows periodically overwhelm the system, entering homes and businesses. The Islais Creek watershed
could see hundreds of acres of low-lying land inundated during an extreme rainfall event. Extreme rainfall
Figure 4.4.1: Islais Creek Gateway Concept (BIG One
Sherwood, p.185)
178
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.4: RESEARCH – ISLAIS HYPER-CREEK
has occurred several times in recent years with storms defined by the SFPUC as 25-year and 100-year
storms… These large events result in as much as seven feet of flood depth in certain places” (p.62).
Critical infrastructure at risk: “The creek is located amid a network of vital infrastructure hubs including
the Wastewater Treatment Plant (which treats 80% of the City’s sewage), the San Francisco Wholesale
Produce Market, FEDEX, USPS, the MUNI Yards, cement and aggregate businesses, as well as additional
industries that in turn support other industries. In many ways, this district can be considered the center
of critical infrastructure that makes San Francisco work” (p.11).
Leaching of industrial pollutants: “In addition, there is legitimate fear that increased flooding and a raised
water table will unlock industrial pollutants that may have accumulated in soil and groundwater reserves
over the years” (p.11).
Blue-collar jobs at risk: “The Islais Creek Valley today is the last and largest refuge for the City’s blue-collar
jobs, infrastructure, logistical operations and warehousing, as well as an important center for food
distribution, shipping and mailing” (p.17).
Displacement pressures: “Historically, the Bayview had a higher percentage of homeownership than San
Francisco as a whole, despite having lower median incomes than the rest of the City. Factors that have
kept prices low include racist land-use policies, poor connectivity to the rest of San Francisco and the
region at large, lack of amenities, and polluting industrial conditions. Today, given the region’s notoriously
Figure 4.4.2: Islais Creek climate stress diagram (p.97)
179
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.4: RESEARCH – ISLAIS HYPER-CREEK
high housing prices and the relative proximity of this neighborhood to both downtown San Francisco and
to Silicon Valley, old market patterns are breaking down” (p.61).
Risk of gentrification: “Gentrification is the most pressing concern when it comes to the Bayview. Our
hope is to find a balance between neighborhood beautification and improvements while respecting and
empowering the current community (especially racial minorities) and support them to stay in their
neighborhoods and enjoy the positive changes that are underway” (p.45; quoting May Aguiar, of the SF
Parks Alliance).
Congestion: “The Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhoods and the 3rd Street commercial corridor are
flanked by industry and highways. 3rd Street is used as a bypass when the highways get congested, causing
major accessibility issues in the local street network with ripple effects for those attempting to use public
transit or alternative modes, such as bicycle or walking” (p.61).
Poor transportation infrastructure: “Despite the intense daily commute between downtown and Bayview
Hunter Point, the public transportation network doesn’t provide an efficient and fast connection. The local
T-line service is slow and the green infrastructure system is disjointed” (p.36).
Historic racial injustice: “The Bayview-Hunters Point (BVHP) area is one of the most socially complex and
traditionally underserved neighborhoods in the forty-nine square miles of San Francisco, with a long
history of racial oppression, economic neglect, extreme environmental injustice, and resultant challenges
in public health, crime rates, economic mobility, and more” (p.38).
Soil contamination: “The Islais Creek industrial basin and its surrounding residential neighborhoods are
subjected to extensive pollution including soil contamination, poor air quality from congested freeways
Figure 4.4.3: Area of combined risk (p.77)
180
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.4: RESEARCH – ISLAIS HYPER-CREEK
and streets, and combined sewer discharges into the Bay… The entire Southeast area, including the Islais
Creek Basin, has problematic legacy soil contamination related to the area’s history of heavy industrial
use in the maritime industry, slaughter houses and rendering facilities, a Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)
energy plant, and other polluting industries” (p.60).
Health risk from poor air quality: “Air quality issues have been addressed to some extent through the
closure of two power plants, Hunters Point Power Plant in 2006 and Potrero Generating Station in 2010.
However, Interstate Highways 280 and 101 continue to expose residents and workers to particulate
matter associated with elevated asthma and other public health risks” (p.60).
Subsidence and Settlement: “Coastal areas along San Francisco Bay that are built on fill material, like
portions of the Islais Basin, are sinking at a rate as high as 0.4 inches per year, according to a newly
released study by Shirzaei and Bürgmann. This research suggests that coastal flooding due to sea level rise
will be exacerbated in these areas, including Port-owned land at the mouth of Islais Creek Channel” (p.63).
Seismic Risk: “The Islais Basin now rests to a large degree on building rubble discarded after the 1906
earthquake. Bay mud and other poor fill materials make the area especially prone to liquefaction during
seismic events. Furthermore, old building stock is primarily built to less stringent standards, further
increases the risks during a future earthquake. On top of this risk, future increased groundwater levels
with sea level rise amplifies the seismic risk in areas with unstable soils” (p.63).
Combined Sewer Discharge (CSD) Risk: “During extreme events, when the treatment plant is at maximum
capacity, combined flows are pre-treated in CSS transportation and storage boxes, where sedimentation
occurs and baffles prevent floatables from entering the Bay. These combined sewer discharges (CSD) are
permitted to occur a maximum of 10 times annually from CSD boxes 18-35 (Per National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit NO. CAOO386IO). CSDs create an ongoing impact on aquatic
ecology and public access to the Bay. Climate change is likely to increase the intensity of rainfall in San
Francisco, which would further aggravate the issue of CSDs” (p.63).
Design Response:
Figure 4.4.4: Long term vision for Islais Creek (p.221)
181
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.4: RESEARCH – ISLAIS HYPER-CREEK
“Islais Creek emerges into the bay at the low-
lying southeastern edge of San Francisco’s
largest watershed. It is home to the City’s most
active maritime port, thriving production,
distribution, and repair (PDR) jobs, and one of
the City’s most historically disadvantaged
communities. Surrounded by mounting
development and displacement pressures, this
area is also highly vulnerable to risks of
terrestrial flooding, liquefaction, and sea level
rise.
The BIG + ONE + Sherwood team’s vision for
Southeastern San Francisco, Islais Hyper-
Creek, includes the restoration of the natural
ecosystem in a new major park that
simultaneously addresses risks from coastal
and stormwater flooding and becomes an
opportunity to bring the existing industrial
ecosystem into the next economy.
The real innovation of Islais Hyper-Creek is
rooted in its renewed attitude toward the
area’s dual history of vibrant ecology and
industry, land uses too often seen at odds with
one another. In linking these crucial functions in a considerate, resilient, and non-exploitative manner,
vitality and local culture can be reconnected in this historic riparian corridor” (p.6).
“Climate and urban challenges force us to think collectively to envision a future where water is no longer
constrained but has space to flow, slow down, and be absorbed. The historic marshlands can be
reestablished and natural flood management for the creek rebuilt. A clear concept has emerged through
our design process: we need to make space for water, while allowing industries, communities and local
stewards to live, grow and thrive alongside it.
The BIG + One + Sherwood team’s vision for Southeastern San Francisco is an Islais Hyper-Creek—a
restoration of the natural ecosystems in a new major park that addresses risk from coastal and storm-
water flooding and serves as an opportunity to bring the existing industrial ecosystem into the next
economy. We envision an elegant mechanism allowing for selective retreat and program stacking to
achieve this resilient future that holistically addresses the community’s needs. Sensitive landscapes will
be protected and lost habitats will be restored to floodplains and wetlands. The Hyper Creek is a place
that allows for a future of living and working with water” (p.91).
Social Equity Position:
“The Bayview-Hunters Point (BVHP) area is one of the most socially complex and traditionally underserved
neighborhoods in the forty-nine square miles of San Francisco, with a long history of racial oppression,
Figure 4.4.5: SF Food District concept (p.202)
182
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.4: RESEARCH – ISLAIS HYPER-CREEK
economic neglect, extreme environmental injustice, and resultant challenges in public health, crime rates,
economic mobility, and more” (p.38).
It became clear that agencies are individually searching ways to evolve over the next decades and set a
roadmap for future adaptation and environmental mitigation. On the other hand, community leaders and
residents have expressed their concerns about environmental justice, local workforce development,
government accountability, and lack of investment. Being part of a competition structure has helped our
team establish a position “in between,” without a specific client to serve. This has allowed us to freely
hear and transmit some of the most prominent hopes and fears from both the community and City” (p.38).
“The role of a community convener focused on social resilience is to ensure that the process we are co-
creating is inclusionary and empowers youth, families, and local businesses, tying short-term efforts into
long-term planning efforts in resiliency” (p.48).
“The primary concerns voiced by community members from both neighborhoods included the potential
for displacement and accelerated gentrification fueled by the production of green spaces bringing in high-
end development followed by overpriced food and cultural programming” (p.142).
Transformation Dashboard:
Figure 4.4.6: Transformation Dashboard for the Islais Hyper-Creek project (by the author)
183
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.4: RESEARCH – ISLAIS HYPER-CREEK
Integrated Strategies:
The dashboard strategies integrated into the Islais Hyper-Creek design proposal are listed below. See
appendix two for excerpted text with page number citations to the project team report, for each of the
strategies listed below.
1. Strengthen Urban Ecosystem
A. Shoreline Zone
• Build or enhance conventional seawall or levee
• Develop a horizontal living levee
• Restore tidal marsh as a protective buffer
• Create waterfront park as buffer for rising tides
B. Riparian Zone
• Reconfigure and naturalize channelized creeks
• Reconnect creeks to the bay and tidal wetlands
• Expand floodplain areas along creeks
C. Lowland Transition Zone
• Transition under-utilized land to green infrastructure
• Integrate floodable parks, green space to absorb water
• Create inland freshwater wetlands
D. Buildings
• Adapt new structures to withstand future flooding
• Locate new buildings on higher ground
• Develop floating structures
E. Infrastructure
• Relocate and/or elevate transportation infrastructure
• Create/manage reservoirs (flood control, groundwater recharge)
• Integrate water detention structures in open space areas
• Integrate rain gardens and bio-retention areas

2. Mitigate Climate Stresses
A. Transportation Systems
• Create a new multi-modal transit hub
• Integrate ferry service for transit
184
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.4: RESEARCH – ISLAIS HYPER-CREEK
• Strengthen the mobility network
• Support bicycle and pedestrian mobility
• Create a multi-benefit urban greenway
• Realign and/or cover existing freeway
B. Energy
• Promote energy efficient buildings
• Support renewable energy generation
• Plan for community energy systems
• Capture energy synergies with eco-industrial park
• Plan for electric vehicles
C. Materials
• Recover compost for ecosystem restoration, urban farming
• Develop “circular economy” flows with local resources
D. Water
• Improve water quality
• Integrate wetlands with wastewater treatment systems
• Decentralized wastewater treatment systems
• Develop integrated plan for water resources
E. Ecology
• Enhance site biodiversity
• Protect / restore wildlife habitat
• Reduce urban heat island effect with greening, urban forest

3. Strengthen Social Ecosystem
A. Social Capital
• Enhance community identity
• Increase/enhance public gathering spaces
• Protect / enhance / co-locate community services
B. Community Participation
• Develop simple, memorable public resilience messaging
• Promote broad community input into design / planning process
• Engage local businesses, NGOs with aligned interests
185
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.4: RESEARCH – ISLAIS HYPER-CREEK
• Support community partnership for design / planning
C. Common Pool Resources
• Expand recreational public open space
• Enhance pedestrian network, bike paths
• Enhance local retail, civic, cultural space
• Promote community gardens for food production
D. Wealth Building Opportunities
• Support / attract local business opportunities
• Promote mixed-use community development
• Protect and enhance stock of affordable commercial space
E. Human Capital
• Create new job training programs
• Create new place-based educational programs
• Improve public safety (roadways, public open space)
• Improve quality of life with urban greening

4. Mitigate Social Stresses
A. Health / Wellness
• Promote tree planting to improve air quality
• Improve opportunities for active transportation
• Improve access to parks and natural amenities
• Improve access to healthy food
B. Economic Empowerment
• Improve transportation access to jobs
• Support local business creation
• Increase local employment with ecosystem restoration jobs
• Support sharing economy strategies
C. Community Stabilization
• Require below market rate units in new construction
• Enforce anti-displacement (no net loss, right to return)
• Plan for emergency housing needs (homeless, etc.)
D. Inclusive Process
186
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.4: RESEARCH – ISLAIS HYPER-CREEK
• Create inclusive community-driven planning process
• Involve local CBOs (Community Based Organizations)
• Involve marginalized communities in planning
• Develop implementation with community as a full partner
E. Social Investment
• Upgrade under-invested public realm (utilities, complete streets, lighting)
• Transition vacant properties

Figure 4.4.7: Land Use Diagram (p.81)
187
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.4: RESEARCH – ISLAIS HYPER-CREEK

Figure 4.4.8: Islais Creek Gateway short term project (p.182)
Figure 4.4.9: Islais Creek Gateway long term vision (p.183)
188
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.4: RESEARCH – ISLAIS HYPER-CREEK

Figure 4.4.10: Islais Creek Gateway concept (p.185)
189
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.4: RESEARCH – ISLAIS HYPER-CREEK

Figure 4.4.11: Living Levee at Southwest Plant Short-term Project (p.188)
Figure 4.4.12: Living Levee at Southwest Plant Long-term Vision (p.188)
190
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.4: RESEARCH – ISLAIS HYPER-CREEK

Figure 4.4.13: Living Levee at Southwest Plant Concept (p.191)
191
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – OUR HOME
4.5 Our Home
North Richmond, CA

Home Team members:
• Mithun
• Streetwyze
• Integral Group
• Alta Planning & Design
• Biohabitats
• Mofatt & Nichol
• HR&A Advisors
• The Resilient Design Institute
• Chinatown Community
Development Corporation
• Urban Bioflter

Synopsis:
The Home Team proposal entitled ouR HOME is based on the idea that having a home and supportive
community is fundamental to resilience, particularly in the under-invested fenceline community of North
Richmond. Design strategies developed in close collaboration with residents, the housing authority and
other stakeholders, address housing affordability and home ownership, tree planting for climate and
pollution mitigation, active transportation connections and a multi-funtional horizontal levee for
protection from sea level rise. Alternative funding methods explored include cooperatives, community
land trusts, social impact bonds and pollution mitigation funds. Development of local business and
employment opportunities related to the greening and resilience strategies are integrated.
Key Challenges:
Sea level rise inundation and Inland flooding – “The neighborhood lies within a topographic bowl at the
edge of the bay, at risk to immediate, significant inland flooding and longer-term sea level rise inundation”
(p.26).
Groundwater pumping system at risk – “North Richmond lies in a topographic bowl and some of the
lowest lying areas of the neighborhood are kept dry from stormwater flooding by a county-owned pump
that deposits millions of gallons of urban runoff into the Bay, even during the dry season…This critical
piece of infrastructure lies within the sea level rise zone, is reaching the end of its functional lifespan, and
currently serves as a stop-gap solution to inland flooding within the neighborhood” (p.23).
Unhealthy air quality – “Air Quality Significance: Surrounding heavy industrial uses, an adjacent refinery
operation and heavily-trafficked transit corridors lead to poor air quality and high community health
burdens, with the highest CalEnviroscreen score for asthma in the state. (See Air Quality Map &
Figure 4.5.1: Proposed new ‘small lot” net zero housing (Home
Team 2018, p.38-39)
192
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – OUR HOME
CalEnviroscreen scores, Appendix X)”
(23); ” Richmond residents' rate of
asthma is 17% versus an average of 7%
statewide” (p.50).
Fenceline community disconnected
from surrounding neighborhoods —
“The community is pinned between
Chevron’s refinery operation and the
Republic Services landfill, cut off from
the surrounding urban fabric by BNSF rail
lines on the east, the refinery and
industrial uses on the south, and
Richmond parkway on the west” (p.26).
Historic segregation and disinvestment
– “In the years following the
establishment of the adjacent Chevron
Richmond Refinery in 1901 and the
World War II ship-building effort, North
Richmond become a place of racial
inequity. African Americans arrived in
the Bay Area from across the country during the WWII labor surge and were forced to settle in the low-
lying and flood-prone topographic bowl through de facto segregation” (p.6).
Vacancy – “North Richmond is caught between the challenges of disinvestment and resulting health
impacts, and the threat of gentrification. Vacancy is currently a challenge with more than 214 public
housing units at Las Deltas in transition, as the rental assistance program will be fully transferred to other
sites throughout Contra Costa County, and the existing units either renovated or replaced. Most of the
Las Deltas units are already vacant, another 10% of all housing units in the neighborhood are vacant year-
round, and many lots are empty” (p.41).
Aging infrastructure – “North Richmond infrastructure has suffered from decades of deferred
maintenance and is in urgent need of investment to upgrade water piping, electrical grid infrastructure
etc. The residents have been rate payers but have not received upgrades to basic infrastructure” (p.82).
The current grid is already facing stability issues, resulting in power outages and inability to feed power
from renewables back into the grid. Overall, the local utility grid is overdue for infrastructure upgrades
and has been under-invested historically” (p.83).
Displacement – “The legacy of structural racism–slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, predatory lending, mass
incarceration—continues to shut this community out of the economic recovery that has benefited much
of the Bay. North Richmond’s average household income declined over 30% from 2000–2016, while the
cost of housing has been increasing, eroding home ownership and driving displacement. North
Richmond’s home ownership rate—once high at over 60% is currently 31.8%—much lower than the
California average of 55%, and the US average of 64%” (p.40).
Figure 4.5.2: Vacancy map – orange indicates vacant, grey
indicates six feet of sea level rise (p.22).
193
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – OUR HOME

Design Response:
“ouR HOME emerges from the community’s ideas for building health, wealth and home ownership for
more than 5,000 North Richmond residents—turning investments in sea level rise adaptations and aging
infrastructure into opportunities for all.
The ouR-HOME sea level rise response projects are linked to the health and financial well-being of
residents that have been traditionally shut out of opportunities to build family wealth and stability–
restoring opportunity while restoring ecosystems. As sea level rises in North Richmond, the pump and
outfall that keeps some homes in a topographic bowl dry will be threatened. The wastewater facility
serving west Contra Costa County, marsh habitat and a major vehicular arterial, Richmond Parkway, are
also at risk.
Proposed health and wealth strategies will provide individuals with the financial stability to make choices
before and/or after climate change impacts. This social stability is key driver of resilience…
Many strategies that seem unrelated to sea level rise are truly central to wise investments. For example,
small lot housing, a community land trust, social impact bonds and community infrastructure combine to
lower the cost of entry to home ownership, strengthening the local economy with wealth building
opportunities. Strategies that reduce pollution while providing sea level rise protection include green
infrastructure proposals to bring the ‘marsh to Main Street’ with a horizontal levee and wetlands
restoration, a plan to plant 20,000 trees to filter air and water, a pilot for decentralized wastewater that
Figure 4.5.3: North Richmond future vision (p.10-11)
194
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – OUR HOME
creates additional reclaimed water for local
use, and an overpass to the Richmond
Parkway that closes gaps in trail connections
and provides access to the Bay. Finally,
innovative methods are being explored to
fund necessary investments in an equitable
manner, including social impact bonds to
fund new and renovated housing as a
strategy to stabilize housing costs so the local
community is not adversely impacted by
development, mitigation funds to address
historic inequities and health impacts that
have already occurred, and a green benefits
district for community-wide green
infrastructure improvements funded by new
commercial development projects” (p.5).
“Building on a vibrant local history,
neighborhood stabilization and strategies for
home ownership underlie the vision for a
resilient North Richmond. Using vacant lots
as a catalyst, a community land trust and
small lot splits lower the cost of entry for
ownership. Sustainable energy and water
strategies keep utility costs low. Financial
stability is key for residents to have the
capacity to respond to sea level rise” (p.29).
Social Equity Position:
“Leading with Equity. ouR-HOME emerges from the North Richmond community’s ideas for building
health, wealth and home ownership for more than 5,000 residents—turning investments in sea level rise
adaptations and aging infrastructure into opportunities for all. Using a racial equity lens in each stage of
work, the Mithun Home Team joined with a community advisory board to explore ways the neighborhood
can adapt in place, prioritize
projects and co-create a
process that can continue as
projects are implemented”
(p.29).
“Equity means that people at
all levels of the income scale
get the extra support needed
to build wealth through
home ownership, low utility
costs, quality jobs that build
Figure 4.5.4: Fred Jackson Way before (p.46-47)
Figure 4.5.5: Fred Jackson Way after, showing mixed use
development for local business and services, community
gathering and affordable housing (p.48-49)
Figure 4.5.6: Small lot split housing concept, showing conversion of single-
family parcels to enable affordable home ownership opportunities (p.42).
195
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – OUR HOME
careers and a healthy environment. North Richmond is caught between the challenges of disinvestment
and resulting health impacts, and the threat of gentrification… Greening strategies to improve the
neighborhood and reduce negative impacts of vacancy and surrounding industry must be paired with new
affordable housing and community wealth building strategies to avoid displacing current residents to the
margins of the Bay Area with even less access to jobs, transportation, services and the supportive, familiar
community on which they currently rely” (p.41).
“Rather than utilizing the traditional value capture approach—which prioritizes the generation of new
opportunities to investment and development, and captures the economic and fiscal benefits of increased
value associated with these investments—the Mithun Home Team developed interventions that seek to
stabilize the existing community, provide tools for local wealth building and catalyze locally-concentrated
economic activity. Our approach to initiative development was shaped by a benefits assessment
methodology that identifies and positions individual projects and initiatives to deliver community
priorities and environmental, social and economic benefits” (p.92).
Resilience Framework:

Integrated Strategies:
The dashboard strategies integrated into the Our Home design proposal are listed below. See appendix
two for excerpted text with page number citations to the project team report, for each of the strategies
listed below.
Figure 4.5.7: Transformation Dashboard of the Our Home project (by the author)
196
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – OUR HOME
1. Strengthen Urban Ecosystem
A. Shoreline zone
• Build or enhance conventional seawall or levee
• Develop a horizontal living levee
• Restore tidal marsh as a protective buffer
B. Riparian zone
• Remove watershed barriers (levees, dams, diked ponds)
• Enhance natural sediment transport systems
C. Lowland transition zone
• Transition under-utilized land to green infrastructure
• Create inland freshwater wetlands
• Create space for tidal wetlands to migrate inland
D. Buildings
E. Infrastructure
• Build new levee as multi-benefit public pathway
• Integrate rain gardens and bio-retention areas

2. Mitigate Climate Stresses
A. Transportation
• Support bicycle and pedestrian mobility
• Create a multi-benefit urban greenway
B. Energy
• Promote energy efficient buildings
• Support renewable energy generation
• Plan for future all electric buildings
• Plan for community energy systems
• Plan for electric vehicles
C. Materials and Waste
• Recover compost for ecosystem restoration, urban farming
• Develop “circular economy” flows with local resources
D. Water
• Improve water quality
197
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – OUR HOME
• Integrate rainwater harvesting systems
• Integrate water reuse systems
• Integrate wetlands with wastewater treatment systems
• Decentralize wastewater management systems
• Develop integrated plan for water resources
E. Ecosystems
• Protect / restore wildlife habitat
• Protect / restore habitat for endangered species
• Reduce urban heat island, pollution with greening/urban forest

3. Strengthen Social Ecosystem
A. Social Capital
• Protect community cohesion
• Enhance community identity
• Reveal cultural history
• Increase / enhance public gathering spaces
• Protect / enhance / co-locate community services
B. Community Participation
• Develop simple, memorable public messaging about resilience
• Engage local businesses, NGOs with aligned interests
• Support community partnership process for design / planning
• Leverage participation with EcoDistrict, People’s Plan
C. Common Pool Resources
• Enhance pedestrian network, bike paths
D. Wealth Building
• Support / attract local business opportunities
• Increase home ownership opportunities
• Reduce cost of living (housing, transportation, utilities)
E. Human Capital
• Create new job training programs
• Create new place-based educational programs
• Enhance schools with linkages to open space
198
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – OUR HOME
• Support / enhance childcare, senior daycare
• Improve quality of life with urban greening

F. Mitigate Social Stresses
A. Health / Wellness
• Promote tree planting to improve air quality
• Provide air quality buffers around air pollution sources
• Improve opportunities for active transportation
• Improve access to parks and natural amenities
• Improve access to healthy food
• Support community health initiatives
B. Economic Empowerment
• Support local business creation
• Increase local employment with ecosystem restoration jobs
• Support local jobs with local hire provision
• Enhance access to financial capital
• Support sharing economy strategies
C. Community Stabilization
• Support naturally affordable units (ADU, microunit, small lot)
• Stabilize housing cost with land trust, non-profit operator
• Protect / enhance stock of affordable housing
• Enforce anti-displacement (no net loss, right to return)
D. Inclusive Process
• Involve non-profit CBOs (Community Based Organizations)
• Develop racial equity strategy
• Provide funding for community participation
• Develop implementation with community as a full partner
E. Social Investment
• Upgrade under-invested public realm (utilities, complete streets, lighting)
• Transition vacant properties
• Pursue mitigation funds for impacted communities
• Integrate community benefits in development projects
• Identify / establish non-profit to administer community benefits
199
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – OUR HOME

Figure 4.5.8: Overpass providing safe pedestrian over Richmond Parkway, and access to the Bay Trail (p.80-81)
Figure 4.5.9: Creek Path After (p.72-73)
200
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.2: RESEARCH – OUR HOME

Figure 4.5.10: Muted Marsh View (p.66-67)
Figure 4.5.11: Horizontal Levee plan diagram (p.65)
201
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.6: RESEARCH – THE PEOPLE’S PLAN
4.6 The People’s Plan
Marin City, CA

Permaculture + Social Equity Team:
• Pandora Thomas
• Urban Permaculture Institute
• Ross Martin Design
• Alex Felson, Yale University
• Ecopolitan Design

Synopsis:
The Permaculture and Social Equity Team (P+SET) focused on process, with a commitment to empower
local residents as leaders in the development of a “People’s Plan.” Resident teams were trained in the
permaculture design system and introduced to a series of “solution forms” that can be implemented as
hands-on solutions to stormwater and erosion challenges that aggravate flood risk. The P+SET team
guided resident leaders through a Community Partnership Process (CPP) to build capacity and cultivate
stewardship of place. The CPP process is an “asset-based methodology for sustainable community
development that focuses on a community’s assets” rather than their deficits, as a means of building local
solutions to challenges. “In this process, community members are actors with agency” that bring
“knowledge, skills, and passion as strengths to the process, as they work to influence their physical space,
foster exchanges, and foreground culture, history, and community vision” (P+SET 2018, p.5).
Key Challenges:
Chronic flooding – “Marin City is within the Richardson Bay watershed, and the Marin County Flood
Control District Zone 3. With the steep watershed hills of the Marin Headlands on one side and developed
areas and Highway 101 and the Richardson Bay on the other, Marin City chronically floods. The
stormwater infrastructure and local drainage facilities, including pipes and ditches, are not sized
adequately to convey flashy hillside runoff. This storm water carries high sediment or mud which heavily
impacts local businesses and homeowners” (p.16).
Transportation disruption – “Extreme events can inundate Highway 101 causing regional transportation
breakdowns on the only road and major commuter corridor connecting Marin City to the rest of the
Figure 4.6.1: Permaculture strategies above Golden Gate Village
(P+SET 2018, p.38)
202
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.6: RESEARCH – THE PEOPLE’S PLAN
county and San Francisco. Of greater impact locally, the one road in and out of Marin City, Donahue Street,
is regularly flooded and closed more frequently” (p.16).
Sediment flows – “significant sediment loading in the stormwater conveyance creates risk for the
residents. The community partner-led tours showed us the many sites where erosion causes said
sediment load. It was obvious any recommended pipe resizing/infrastructure spending would only be
temporarily effective until headwaters erosion mitigation work is performed” (p.17).
Underinvested community / structural racism – “Infrastructure has not been maintained consistently
due to a lack of appropriate funding unlike in more affluent communities. Fresh water is wasted and
contaminated while damaging community infrastructure and property in addition to endangering
residents during floods. In response to these issues, Shore Up Marin has formed a multi-racial
environmental coalition advocating for equitable inclusion of low-income communities in planning and
disaster preparedness” (p.18).
Disengaged marginalized community – “Chronically marginalized communities (often subjected to the
excluding impacts of institutional or structural racism) find themselves on the front lines of sea level rise
with inadequate infrastructure, inequitable resources, and oftentimes in the San Francisco Bay Area, the
imminent threat of displacement along with enduring stressors like food insecurity. Even well-intended
municipal planners, designers, developers, and regulators can be seen as outsiders and the community
regularly retreats into apathetic or obstructionist positions not trusting the intentions of those that
engage them only for temporal feedback on ideas generated by a professionalized design culture with
technical jargon” (p.4).
Design Response:
“(T)he Permaculture and Social Equity Team (P+SET) proposed an unconventional approach - a social
design process to build community capacity and ecoliteracy to address the challenges of coastal
adaptation and resilience planning, especially in vulnerable communities that have experienced
generations of marginalization and exclusion.
In a three month period, we successfully piloted this capacity building program in Marin City, California
resulting in an inspiring People’s Plan to authentically reflect the aspirations and intentions of the resident
community of place… Additionally, the community has enhanced their existing advocacy literacy to more
effectively engage with municipal, regulatory, and regional stakeholders. More importantly, we were
reaffirmed of our hypothesis that
communities have, often latent,
skills, experiences, and strategies to
solve the local and regional
challenges and risks they face.
Unlocking or reclaiming this
potential seems to require a
particular ordered process” (p.3).
“The opportunity was to transform
the process of ‘engagement’ to one
of authentic partnership - to initiate
site design by first increasing the
capacity of the resident community
Figure 4.6.2: Capacity Building Training (p.27)
203
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.6: RESEARCH – THE PEOPLE’S PLAN
recognizing, leveraging, and enhancing the already existing assets and initiatives in a place. This reparative
capacity building approach, in its most elaborate, protracted form, intends to redress the structural
inequities of the present and past and result in a comprehensive, living, People’s Plan that becomes a
more effective starting point for the complex process of our collective adaptation to living in an uncertain
climate” (p.4).
“A People’s Plan is a living (adaptive), iterative container to hold and convey the expression of the
rationalized intentions, aspirations of a community of place. It looks like a collection of maps and
documents that records the assets, risks, issues, and strategies to move elements in place and time to
celebrate what is beloved in community and address challenges and problems. A People’s Plan is
especially relevant to communities who have not regularly participated in municipal general or specific
planning due to structural discrimination and oppression. The strategies in a People’s Plan might include
solution forms related to housing, infrastructure, landscape management, and land use in general. In the
era of climate change People’s Plans will be more and more focused on addressing risks to resilience
including sea level rise, extreme storm events, fires, famines and chronic stressors related to lack of
affordable housing, economic opportunity, and mobility” (p.12).
Figure 4.6.3: Permaculture solution forms presented as part of community capacity building training (P+SET
2018, p.65-68; updated image presented in Siegel Ed. 2019, p.45)
204
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.6: RESEARCH – THE PEOPLE’S PLAN
Social Equity Position:
“The ‘business as usual’ norms of planning and development community engagement are proving to be
ineffective in the context of coastal adaptation and resilience planning. Chronically marginalized
communities (often subjected to the excluding impacts of institutional or structural racism) find
themselves on the front lines of sea level rise with inadequate infrastructure, inequitable resources, and
oftentimes in the San Francisco Bay Area, the imminent threat of displacement along with enduring
stressors like food insecurity. Even well-intended municipal planners, designers, developers, and
regulators can be seen as outsiders and the community regularly retreats into apathetic or obstructionist
positions not trusting the intentions of those that engage them only for temporal feedback on ideas
generated by a professionalized design culture with technical jargon. Proposals commonly driven by
market rate return capital financing tend to lead to exploitative outcomes. The normal process of assess,
ideate, engage (solicit community feedback), iterate, then present assumes certain constraints on, or at
least overlook, the community’s capacity to generate or express their own self-determined ideas,
possibilities, and dreams” (p.4).
“Permaculture design has an explicit set of ethics that emphasize care of people (all people, not just
some), care of earth, and voluntary limits to consumption. These ethics act as boundaries to action (a
filter for appropriate strategies) to ensure “permanent” (long standing / enduring) culture. The strategies
developed in People’s Planning will be critically assessed by the community for how they meet human
needs (care of people), while enhancing biodiversity (care of earth), and demonstrating equity or avoiding
cultural norms of disproportionate wealth hoarding” (p.14).

Figure 4.6.4: Marin City resilience hub with intergenerational garden (p.37)
205
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.6: RESEARCH – THE PEOPLE’S PLAN
Transformation Dashboard:
Integrated Strategies:
The dashboard strategies integrated into the People’s Plan design proposal are listed below. These
represent a “narrower and deeper” focus on select set of issues, given the commitment to engage a
rigorous co-creative process with the community, and do not preclude the possibility that additional
strategies could be integrated as the project evolves. See appendix two for excerpted text with page
number citations to the project team report, for each of the strategies listed below.

1. Strengthen Urban Ecosystem
A. Shoreline zone
B. Riparian zone
• Enhance natural sediment transport systems
C. Lowland transition
D. Buildings
E. Infrastructure
• Relocate and/or elevate transportation infrastructure
Figure 4.6.5: Transformation Dashboard for the People’s Plan project (by the author)
206
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.6: RESEARCH – THE PEOPLE’S PLAN
• Integrate water detention structures in open space areas
• Integrate rain gardens and bio-retention areas

2. Mitigate Climate Stresses
A. Transportation
B. Energy
C. Materials
D. Water
• Integrate rainwater harvesting systems
• Integrate water reuse systems
E. Ecology
• Protect / restore wildlife habitat

3. Strengthen Social Ecosystem
A. Social Capital
• Protect social cohesion
• Reveal cultural history
• Increase / enhance public gathering spaces
• Protect / enhance / co-locate community services
B. Community Participation
• Develop simple, memorable public resilience messaging
• Promote broad community input into design / planning process
• Engage local businesses, NGOs with compatible mission
• Build community capacity (advocacy, leadership)
• Support community partnership for design / planning
• Leverage participation with EcoDistrict, People’s Plan
C. Common Pool Resources
• Expand recreational public open space
• Provide community gardens for food production
• Create emergency place of refuge
D. Wealth Building
E. Human Capital
• Create new place-based educational programs
207
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.6: RESEARCH – THE PEOPLE’S PLAN
4. Mitigate Social Stresses
A. Health Impacts
• Improve access to healthy food
B. Economic Empowerment
• Increase local employment with ecosystem restoration jobs
C. Community Stabilization
• Require below market rate units in new development
• Enforce anti-displacement (no net loss, right to return)
D. Inclusive Process
• Create inclusive community-driven planning process
• Involve local CBOs (Community Based Organizations)
• Involve marginalized community members in planning
• Develop racial equity strategy
• Develop implementation with community as a full partner
E. Social Investment
Figure 4.6.6: Proposed detention basin with interconnected bioswales at Donohue Street (p.40)
208
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.6: RESEARCH – THE PEOPLE’S PLAN

Figure 4.6.7: Marin City Context Map (p.15)
Figure 4.6.8: Proposed detention basin and parking lot retrofit (p.39)
209
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.7: RESEARCH – PUBLIC SEDIMENT
4.7 Public Sediment for Alameda Creek
Alameda Creek

SCAPE Team:
• SCAPE Landscape Architecture
• Dredge Research Collaborative
• Arcadis Coastal Engineering
• UC Davis Department of
Human Ecology and Design
• Architectural Ecologies Lab
• TS Studio Landscape
Architecture
• Cy Keener Monitoring

Synopsis:
The Public Sediment team chose a narrower focus for their design proposal, to enable an in-depth
exploration into the issue of sediment flows, or “mud” within the Alameda Sedimentshed. The team
proposed a comprehensive restoration of the Alameda Creek, combining hard and soft “natural”
infrastructure to restore the flow of sediment to the bay, while providing both flood control and natural
amenity spaces to communities along creek channel. The team looked broadly at the scale of the
challenge, engaging dialogue with partners to envision the multi-agency collaborative planning process
that would be needed to plan the watershed and its sedimentshed comprehensively, and also identifying
pilot scale projects for early implementation (Public Sediment 2018).
Key Challenges:
Lack of Sediment Flow - “Tidal ecosystems are protective infrastructure that cushion the urban edges of
the San Francisco Bay. Yet the Bay Area’s tidal ecosystems—its marshes and mudflats—are at risk. These
systems require sediment to vertically grow in response to sea level rise – without sediment, our baylands
will drown. This represents a slow but devastating scale of loss that threatens ecosystems, recreational
landscapes, and places hundreds of thousands of residents and the region’s critical drinking water, energy,
and transportation systems at risk. To creatively adapt to this challenge, our team has focused on
sediment, the building block of resilience in the Bay” (p.8).
Bay Ecosystem Vulnerable to Drowning – “Tidal ecosystems are protective infrastructure that cushion
the urban edges of the San Francisco Bay. Yet the Bay Area’s tidal ecosystems—its marshes and
mudflats—are at risk. These systems require sediment to vertically grow in response to sea level rise –
without sediment, our baylands will drown. This represents a slow but devastating scale of loss that
Figure 4.7.1: Proposed Terrace Trail visualization (SCAPE, p.68-69)
210
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.7: RESEARCH – PUBLIC SEDIMENT
threatens ecosystems, recreational landscapes, and places hundreds of thousands of residents and the
region’s critical drinking water, energy, and transportation systems at risk” (p.8).
Flood Risk – “The communities of Fremont, Union City, and Newark are vulnerable to sea level rise. These
risks can be addressed by unlocking the creek to sustain the bayland ecosystems that cushion shorelines
from sea level rise, bringing the creek back into the public realm, and improve ecosystem health for human
and non-human species” (p.24).
Natural Creek Systems Compromised – “After repeat flooding in the mid-1900s, the creek was
channelized for flood protection, enabling large scale suburbanization of the dried alluvial fan. While this
supported the development of Fremont, Union City, and Newark, the creek itself was sterilized, and lost
its role as a connective space for people, as a migration corridor for fish, and as a transport mechanism
for sediment. The creek became a barrier to cross with no room for engagement” (p.28).
Marsh Loss and Subsidence – “Today’s conditions are unsustainable and vulnerable. Sediment is trapped
in the channel, reducing flood capacity and creating the need for expensive dredging. Sediment flows do
not reach the baylands, leading to extreme rates of subsidence along the shoreline and accelerating tidal
marsh loss. Communities and the critical infrastructure that supports them – wastewater treatment
plants, highways, and parks – are at risk. Without a bayland cushion, these sites face increased inundation
and extreme tides as sea levels rise” (p.30).
Barriers between neighborhoods – “This large suburb is extraordinarily diverse, hosting an Asian-majority
population and the region’s largest concentration of Afghan residents in Little Kabul. Yet many of these
communities are isolated from one another - of the twelve bridges that do cross the 12-mile creek system,
only six are accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists, leaving miles of isolated urban fabric between” (p.52).
Figure 4.7.2: Existing Alameda Creek Channel (p.42-43)
211
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.7: RESEARCH – PUBLIC SEDIMENT
Design Response:
“The PUBLIC SEDIMENT team believes that the San Francisco Baylands are adaptive, living infrastructure.
We propose to DESIGN WITH MUD, to reconnect sediment flows and feed the bay with this valuable
material. We aim to MAKE SEDIMENT PUBLIC, to link vulnerable communities to the Bay and spur the
long-term stewardship of our public sediment resources” (p.5).
“Our team proposes to treat sediment as a public resource, and to DESIGN WITH MUD. We propose to
connect the uplands and the lowlands – to harvest, retrofit, and remove dams, to unlock tributary
channels, and to test new methods of mud placement in the Bay. We must also MAKE SEDIMENT PUBLIC,
reconfiguring landscape resources to better meet the needs of people and engage them in the long-term
stewardship of our public sediment resources.
PUBLIC SEDIMENT FOR ALAMEDA CREEK is a proposal to address the challenge of sediment scarcity along
the vulnerable urban edges of Fremont, Union City, and Newark. Alameda Creek is the largest local
tributary that feeds the bay. Our work here aims to redesign this waterbody from the uplands to the
lowlands, to create functional systems for sediment, people and fish. Our proposal spans four geographies
(uplands, creek, baylands, and bay) and results in three proposals:
UNLOCK ALAMEDA CREEK is an implementable project that links the Creek with the Baylands. It provides
a sustainable supply of sediment to baylands for sea level rise adaptation, reconnects migratory fish with
their historic spawning grounds, and introduces a network of community spaces that reclaim the creek as
a place for people, building an ethos and awareness around our public sediment resources.
Figure 4.7.3: Active Creek Channel Concept (SCAPE 2018, p.56-57)
212
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.7: RESEARCH – PUBLIC SEDIMENT
RETHINK THE SEDIMENTSHED is a long-term, multi-agency collaborative planning process for the
sedimentshed of Alameda Creek that balances creek inputs with bayland needs over time. The work would
develop strategies to rethink upland dam and reservoir infrastructure, to harvest sediment and move it
downstream. It would quantify and monitor the sediment needs of the changing baylands and balance
supply with demand over time.
PLAN AND PILOT FOR A FUTURE BAY is a design/science collaboration that develops a plan for the future
of the San Francisco baylands with low sediment supply and sea level rise. It is time to translate the
investments in science into clear alternatives that directly inform decision-making and policy at the scale
of the Bay. This proposal would identify and implement short term pilots crucial for future adaptation”
(p.8).
“PUBLIC SEDIMENT FOR ALAMEDA CREEK represents a paradigm shift in how we plan for climate change.
Rather than hardening the edge and ignoring the long-term consequences, we must recalibrate our
relationship with sediment and water resources to invest now in living systems that can adapt to climate
change” (p.9).
Figure 4.7.4: Creek Channel Diagrams (p.47)
213
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.7: RESEARCH – PUBLIC SEDIMENT
Social Equity Position:
This team addresses social equity primarily as an issue of access to public open space and recreational
assets. “Today, public access is limited and the creek bed itself has been erased from the public realm.
Alameda Creek holds great potential to expand equitable public space and create zones of exchange and
interaction between culturally distinct neighborhoods” (p.52).
In the section entitled: “Implementation
Roadmap, Funding Goals + Disadvantaged
Communities” the available funding
streams for disadvantaged communities
are referenced. “The Alameda Creek
watershed is home to a diverse community
spanning a range of racial and
socioeconomic districts. The Bay Area has
clear priorities around funding and grant
allocation around disadvantaged
communities, with multiple definitions of
disadvantaged communities required by
different funding entities. Portions of the
Alameda Creek watershed overlap with
disadvantaged and low income
communities as defined by SB 535, AB
1550, and the Department of Water
Resources Disadvantaged communities
definition. Measure AA: An economically
disadvantaged community (EDC) is defined
as a census tract with a median household
income less than 80% of the area median
income (AMI)” (p.142).

Figure 4.7.5: Floodroom Diagram, Page 58
Figure 4.7.6: Mudroom Diagram, Page 59
Figure 4.7.7: Public Access in the Creek Channel, Page 52-53
214
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.7: RESEARCH – PUBLIC SEDIMENT
Transformation Dashboard:

Integrated Strategies:
The dashboard strategies integrated into the Public Sediment design proposal are listed below. These
represent a “narrower and deeper” focus on the issue of creek restoration for sediment flow and public
access, but does not preclude the possibility that additional strategies could be integrated as the project
evolves. See appendix two for excerpted text with page number citations to the project team report, for
each of the strategies listed below.
1. Strengthen Urban Ecosystem
A. Shoreline Zone
• Grow a “living levee”
• Restore tidal marsh as a buffer for rising tides
• Create pebble dune beach to protect against erosion
B. Riparian Zone
• Reconfigure and naturalize channelized creeks
• Reconnect creeks to the bay and tidal wetlands
Figure 4.7.8: Transformation Dashboard for Public Sediment project (by the author)
215
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.7: RESEARCH – PUBLIC SEDIMENT
• Remove watershed barriers (levees, dams, diked ponds)
• Enhance natural sediment transport systems
• Expand floodplain areas along creeks
C. Lowland Transition Zones
• Use dredge spoils and/or land swaps to elevate land
• Integrate floodable parks, green space to absorb water
D. Buildings
E. Infrastructure
• Create / manage reservoirs (flood control, groundwater recharge)

2. Mitigate Climate Stresses
A. Transportation
• Create a multi-benefit urban greenway
B. Energy
C. Materials
• Use dredge spoils for bay/marsh restoration
• Develop a regional sediment management plan
D. Water
• Improve water quality
E. Ecology
• Protect / restore wildlife habitat
• Protect / restore habitat for endangered species
• Enhance carbon sequestration from wetlands

3. Strengthen Social Ecosystem
A. Social Capital
• Protect community cohesion
• Increase / enhance public gathering spaces
• Link diverse neighborhoods to promote social mixing
B. Community Participation
• Develop simple, memorable public messaging
• Promote broad community input into design / planning process
216
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.7: RESEARCH – PUBLIC SEDIMENT
• Build community capacity (advocacy, leadership)
• Support community partnership for design, planning
C. Common Pool Resources
• Expand recreational public open space
• Enhance pedestrian network, bike paths
• Restore fish to creeks
D. Wealth Building
• Support / attract local business opportunities
E. Increase Human Capital
• Create new place-based educational programs
• Enhance schools with linkages to open space

4. Mitigate Social Stresses
A. Health / Wellness
• Improve access to parks and natural amenities
B. Economic Empowerment
C. Community Stabilization
D. Inclusive Process
• Involve marginalized community members in planning
E. Social Investment

Figure 4.7.9: Public Sediment Concept Diagram (p.20-21)
217
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.7: RESEARCH – PUBLIC SEDIMENT

Figure 4.7.10: Alameda Creek Diagram (p.44-45)
Figure 4.7.2: Alameda Creek Sedimentshed, Page 117
Figure 4.7.11: Alameda Creek Sedimentshed (p.117)
218
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.8: RESEARCH – RESILIENT SOUTH CITY
4.8 Resilient South City
South San Francisco

Hassell+ Team members:
• HASSELL, Australia
• Deltares, Netherlands
• Goudappel,
Netherlands
• Lotus Water
• Page & Turnbull
• Hatch
• Idyllist
• Brown and Caldwell

Synopsis:
The Hassell+ team employs public open space as a primary resilience strategy, both ecologically and
socially. Their Resilient South City design proposal integrates a broad set of green infrastructure strategies
with planning for active transportation, and services and amenities within walking distance to enhance
connectivity (Hassell+ 2018). They advocate for strengthening smaller cities for the benefit of the entire
Bay Area regionally and suggest that local governments should actively explore opportunities to convert
public and semi-public land into “multi-benefit public open spaces that manage water, restore native
ecologies, support and connect communities, and enhance the abilities of those communities to respond
to disaster” (p.52).
Key Challenges:
Colma Creek regularly floods – “Colma Creek is a major drainage corridor through the area, incorporating
the cities of South San Francisco, Colma and parts of Daly City and San Bruno. The lower sections of Colma
Creek connect key places in South San Francisco including the BART station, sites for the new Civic Campus
& PUC developments (under design), Orange Memorial Park, the Lindenville Industrial Precinct, the
underside of the rail line, 101 Highway, and the South San Francisco Water Treatment Plant at the Bay’s
edge… Colma Creek has flooded regularly over the last several decades. Communities, businesses and
infrastructure have been greatly affected by these floods and there is a sense of concern about the
potential impacts of future flood events” (p.2).
Vulnerable communities most at risk – “Creekside and shoreline areas are vulnerable to flooding, sea-
level rise and liquefaction. Primarily, communities in low-lying shoreline and creek-side locations are at
Figure 4.8.1: Resilient South City watershed (Hassell+ 2018, p.57)
219
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.8: RESEARCH – RESILIENT SOUTH CITY
risk from sea-level rise and increased chances of storm and earthquake events. These are most often the
communities that have already been hit by losses of employment opportunities, challenges with
affordability, and are now finding themselves literally stranded between rising tides and stormwater”
(p.6).
Communities are cut off from the shoreline – “Restoration projects need to better engage with and
educate local communities. Greater access to the shoreline, education uses, and places of genuine public
ownership are needed to create a critical mass that care about the shoreline and are invested in this
important conversation. This may require some innovative thinking around balancing restoration and
protection of habitat while increasing public shoreline access and programming” (p.6).
Public open space and access is limited at the bay shoreline – “There are few parks and limited public
access at the shoreline… Barriers such as the rail corridor, freeways, and large industry clusters have
disconnected communities from the shoreline” (p.7).
Transit connections are limited – “Land Use within South San Francisco is divided east and west of the
101 Highway. To the west are the predominantly residential neighborhoods whilst adjacent to the
highway and to its east lie the industrial and commercial employment lands… Unfortunately the
composition of the rail corridor, highway and industrial properties of Lindenville keep these live and work
populations relatively separate. This appears to be exacerbated by the lack of east-west connectivity.
Although serviced by BART, CalTrans and the Ferry, South City exemplifies the challenge of last mile
connectivity as between these unintegrated services which are spread east-west across the City” (p.39).
Design Response:
“Our strategy of “collect and connect” creates a resilient, responsive network for the entire bay area…we
propose the creation of a number of “collectors”, new spaces for community gatherings/ interactions, for
capture and slow water flows, and for assembly during disasters. These are located at the Bay’s edge and
along ridge lines with key urban nodes in between… These spaces are then linked by a series of
“connectors”, primarily local streets and creek lines. These connectors provide better access to the
waterfront and to the ridgetops, to public transportation, to retail, employment, and residential
neighborhoods” (p.10).

Figure 4.8.2: Benefits of public open space (p.52-53)
220
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.8: RESEARCH – RESILIENT SOUTH CITY
Creeks and Streets have potential to be transformed into linear corridors of water management and
community gathering to transform the regional structure from a vulnerable loop to a resilient network.
Through ‘collecting and connecting’ both water and communities, a polycentric regional system
distributes amenity and strengthens the resiliency and lifestyle of smaller cities for the benefit of the
whole Bay Area.” (14)
Public Open space is critical to resilience. Cities no longer create new open spaces as they did in the past…
A new approach is needed in order to develop multi-benefit public open spaces that manage water,
restore native ecologies, support and connect communities, and enhance the abilities of those
communities to respond to disaster. We must call on all available green, open and public (or semi-public)
land order to deliver on this goal.” (52)
“The Resilient South City project identifies sites and measures across the entire Colma Creek watershed
that can build resilience related to Water, Ecology, Community & Emergency. Through adaptation projects
at a range of green space across the creek’s catchment (Mountain, Cemeteries, Schools and Parks) as well
as new ‘slow streets’ for mobility and water, a resilience network will be established across South City and
neighboring areas within the Colma Creek Watershed…
The primary objectives of the Colma Creek project are to reduce the impacts of reoccurring flooding (from
annual to 100 yr. events) as well as protect against sea-level rise, increase amenity and recreation
opportunities while re-establishing continuous public access to the shoreline.” (56)

Figure 4.8.3: Colma Creek vision (p.74-75)
221
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.8: RESEARCH – RESILIENT SOUTH CITY
Social Equity Position:
The Hassell+ team believes that public open space is an essential resilience tool, and that providing
equitable distribution of public open space will uplift under-invested communities with recreational
resources, opportunities for active transportation and flood protection. This team also highlights the role
that public open space can play in emergency response as a place for staging emergency services.
The report speaks to the potential to increase property values but does not acknowledge the very real
potential for gentrification and displacement of current residents. “Stakeholders who will Financially
Benefit: Improvements to local parks, and new creekside and east-west bicycle paths will increase access
and are expected to help raise property values. Property owners who stand to benefit from these
increased values are candidates for special assessments or special taxes to help pay for these
improvements” (95)
The report follows the statement above with “Disadvantaged Communities: Our design proposals have
been driven by the understanding that disadvantaged communities in South San Francisco have lacked
access to the shoreline, and to parks and open space more generally. By increasing bicycle and pedestrian
East-West travel across Highway 101, we are also helping South San Franciscans with limited
transportations options to gain access to jobs in the technology firms at Oyster Point.” (95)
The word “equity” does not show up in the document, and the word “equitable” only shows up in
reference to the RbD stated goals on page ii, however the Hassell team uses the term “social resilience”
multiple times in the document. For example, “Upgrading parks, squares, and public facilities in the heart
of smaller vulnerable cities and neighborhoods is critical to building social resilience and preparing for
disaster.” (12)

Figure 4.8.4: School as Resiliency Hub (p.48-49)
222
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.8: RESEARCH – RESILIENT SOUTH CITY
Transformation Dashboard:

Integrated Strategies:
The dashboard strategies integrated into the Resilient South City design proposal are listed below. See
appendix two for excerpted text with page number citations to the project team report, for each of the
strategies listed below.

1. Strengthen Urban Ecosystem
A. Shoreline zone
• Develop a horizontal living levee
• Restore tidal marsh as a protective buffer
• Create waterfront parks as a buffer for rising tides
B. Riparian zone
• Reconfigure and naturalize channelized creeks
Figure 4.8.5: Transformation Dashboard for Resilient South City (by the author)
223
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.8: RESEARCH – RESILIENT SOUTH CITY
• Expand floodplain areas along creeks
C. Lowland transition
• Integrate floodable parks, green space to absorb water
D. Buildings
E. Infrastructure
• Integrate multi-benefit “slow street”
• Create reservoirs for flood control, groundwater recharge
• Integrate water detention structures in open space areas
• Integrate rain gardens and bio-retention areas

2. Mitigate Urban Stresses
A. Transportation
• Integrate ferry service for transit
• Strengthen the mobility network
• Support bicycle and pedestrian mobility
B. Energy
• Support renewable energy generation
C. Materials and Waste
• Reuse excavated material for bay / marsh restoration
D. Water
• Improve water quality
• Integrate rainwater harvesting systems
• Integrate water reuse systems
• Integrate wetlands with wastewater treatment systems
E. Ecosystems
• Enhance site biodiversity
• Protect / restore wildlife habitat
• Enhance carbon sequestration from wetlands

3. Strengthen Social Ecosystem
A. Social Capital
• Protect community cohesion
224
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.8: RESEARCH – RESILIENT SOUTH CITY
• Enhance community identity
• Increase / enhance public gathering spaces
• Protect / enhance / co-locate community services
B. Community Participation
• Develop simple, memorable public resilience messaging
• Promote community input into design / planning process
C. Common Pool Resources
• Expand recreational public open space
• Enhance pedestrian network, bike paths
• Enhance local retail, civic, cultural space
• Restore fishing in creeks, bay
• Promote community gardens for food production
• Create emergency place of refuge
D. Wealth Building
• Support / attract local business opportunities
E. Human Capital
• Create new place-based educational programs Enhance schools with linkages to
open space

4. Mitigate Social Stresses
A. Health / Wellness
• Improve opportunities for active transportation
• Improve access to parks and natural amenities
B. Economic Empowerment
• Improve transportation access to jobs
• Increase local employment with ecosystem restoration jobs
• Support sharing economy strategies
C. Community Stabilization
• Protect / enhance stock of affordable housing
D. Inclusive Process
E. Community Investment

225
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.8: RESEARCH – RESILIENT SOUTH CITY

Figure 4.8.6: Eco Water Park master plan (p.80)
Figure 4.8.7: Rendering of proposed Eco Water Park (p.82-83)
226
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.8: RESEARCH – RESILIENT SOUTH CITY

Figure 4.8.8: Colma Creek master plan (p.66-67)
Figure 4.8.9: Aerial view of Colma Creek master plan (p.64-65)
227
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.9: RESEARCH – SOUTH BAY SPONGE
4.9 South Bay Sponge
Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, including Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Santa
Clara and Mountain View

Field Operations Team members:
• James Corner Field Operations
• Acterra
• Andrea Baker Consulting
• Moffatt & Nichol
• Magnusson Klemencic
Associates
• The San Francisco Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve
• The Bay Institute, Marc Holmes
• SeArc EConcrete
• James Lima Planning and
Development
• H.T. Harvey & Associates
• Adventure Pictures
• Playhouse Animation

Synopsis:
The Field Operations team promoted the idea of ‘sponge’ landscapes as a communications strategy to
build support for the multi-jurisdiction transformation of twenty miles of shoreline in the South Bay,
including the South Bay Salt Ponds. The design proposal includes the large-scale restoration of bay
marshlands as multi-functional green infrastructure together with absorptive floodable parks and green
spaces at higher elevations to manage inland flooding during storm events. Development at increased
density is encouraged to offset the cost of open space investments, and a land swap mechanism is
proposed to make space for marshland by increasing density in concentrated areas, with soil swaps
proposed to provide necessary soil to build up the elevation of land on shoreline development sites (Field
Operations 2018).
Key Challenges:
Communities cut off from the bay – “Whereas a satellite photograph may well show many communities
surrounding the Bay, the actual condition on the ground is that these same communities are often
disconnected from and bear little actual relationship to the Bay. Many are cut off from the Bay by freeways
or other infrastructures; others turn their back on marsh-land and other edge conditions as they see little
Figure 4.9.1: Sponge concept diagram (Field Operations 2018, p.59)
228
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.9: RESEARCH – SOUTH BAY SPONGE
value or connection. Question: How do we re-connect communities with the Bay in direct, visceral and
experiential ways that support greater understanding and reciprocity?” (p.4)
Loss of wetland and marsh ecology – “To the extent that the Bay has always had soft wetland and marsh
edges, these have been seriously diminished and will continue to be lost as water levels rise and swallow
them up. These wetlands are crucial to resiliency as they help to absorb and minimize damage from floods
and storms, while at the same time providing critical habitat and bio-diversity” (6). “Historically, the entire
South Bay was a “sponge” for the region… more than 85% of these tidal wetlands have been lost” (p.52).
Inadequate transportation systems – “The Bay area is one of the worst regions for commuting in the
country. Traffic and transit issues dominated many of the conversations with community members around
the Bay” (p.8).
Lack of housing – “The Bay area is desperately under-served in terms of housing, especially affordable
housing for lower income groups. At the same time, many sites are land-constrained and challenged for
building new communities. Surely new investment in housing and development would not only help to
support a more equitable and diverse set of communities, but would also help to support some of the
costs involved in building a more resilient Bay and related infrastructures” (p.10).
Inadequate funding for shoreline protection – “Measure AA promises $500M over 20 years for shoreline
improvements. The costs of simple levee installation and upgrades, however, range from $7-77M per
mile, which would equal between 7-77 miles of improvement. There are more than 500 miles of Bay edge
today. Question: Where might additional sources of funding come from? How might resiliency
investments add value and therefore derive revenue? Might re-zoning, densification, infill, and land swaps
/ transfers help in terms of creating value over time?” (p.12)
High potential cost of sea level rise and flooding – “in the South Bay, there are vulnerable community
resources: homes, schools, churches and libraries; vulnerable critical infrastructure: bridges, highways,
water treatment facilities, water supply facilities, airports; and, vulnerable businesses that are an
economic engine for the region: Facebook, Google, Amazon and many other companies have
headquarters that are at risk with sea level rise. While tools for calculating the value of expected losses
are still in their early stages, current models project an average of $10-15BN in annual losses across San
Mateo and Santa Clara Counties as a result of sea level rise and fluvial flooding if no action is taken” (p.24).
Inadequate stormwater infrastructure – “Flooding today is largely the result of severe storms, with creeks
and channels over topping their banks or storm drains reaching capacity or failing. After major storms, the
city of East Palo Alto has to vacuum stormwater from streets. This storm-induced flooding will only be
exacerbated with rising sea levels, as stormwater entering low-lying areas from upstream will be unable
to drain into the bay” (p.26).
Lack of regional coordination for resilience planning – “The South Bay Towns project is the epitome of a
multi-jurisdictional challenge: the project encompasses two counties (San Mateo, Santa Clara), one water
district (Santa Clara Valley Water District), six cities (Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Palo Alto, Mountain View,
Sunnyvale, Santa Clara), and at least five federal agencies (National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Natural Resources Conservation, NASA). At each level,
each of these agencies - among many other non-government stakeholders - are leading their own sea-
229
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.9: RESEARCH – SOUTH BAY SPONGE
level rise planning processes, which can easily result in ad-hoc decision-making, lack of regional
coordination and failure to account for interdependence” (p.44).
Low-income community especially vulnerable to sea level rise – “East Palo Alto is today one of the
lowest-lying and most vulnerable communities to sea-level rise in the entire Bay Area. Many residents live
at or near sea-level today protected only by a shoreline levee that is below sea-level rise projections and
existing stormwater infrastructure is already overwhelmed by regularly occurring storm events” (p.54).
Flood risk in low-lying areas from two directions – “As sea-level rises, low-lying communities like East
Palo Alto will face flooding from two directions: 1) higher average elevations of the Bay compound the
flooding potential of high and king tides, increasing the possibility of over-topping levees and 2)
stormwater run-off draining towards the Bay from within the communities will be unable to drain into the
Bay because of higher water levels” (p.56).
Design Response:
“The concept: Nature, in the form of wetlands, marshes, wet-footed forests, mudflats, inter-tidal zones
and soft shouldered creeks, acts as a giant “sponge” - absorbing floodwaters during storm events and
slowly releasing runoff as storms and tides subside.” (50) “Historically, the entire South Bay was a
“sponge” for the region. Expansive tidal wetlands and mudflats once circled the edge of the Bay and
served as natural buffers against flood events. While more than 85% of these tidal wetlands have been
lost, it is possible to reclaim space for “sponges” and restore the important ecological and flood protection
benefits” (p.52).
Figure 4.9.2: Land use swap diagram (p.89)
Figure 4.9.3: Restored creek diagram (p.105)
230
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.9: RESEARCH – SOUTH BAY SPONGE
“As a means to spread the concept of “sponges” as a
natural form of flood protection and to engage with as
broad an audience as possible, we created a mobile
hub of information on the South Bay Resilient By
Design Effort, dubbed the “Sponge Hub”. Between
February and May, our team toured the Sponge Hub
around South Bay Communities - appearing at Farmers
Markets, churches, high school sport events, park and
Bay Trail locations. At each appearance, our approach
was four-fold: 1) to communicate the work of Resilient
By Design, 2) to convey the specific relevance of sea-
level rise to each community and each place, 3) to
listen, absorb and interact with the community, and 4) to be optimistic, forward thinking, memorable and
fun (we served cotton-candy “edible sponges”) - all with the aim of fostering greater curiosity, enthusiasm
and optimism for participating in sea-level rise planning” (p.60).
“Using the concept of nature as a “sponge”, we combine a new shoreline levee PLUS shallow marshland
edges in the Bay (“horizontal levees” or “saltwater sponges”) and new inland freshwater wetlands
(“freshwater sponges”) for stormwater to collect, filter and ultimately disperse. The result is an innovative
redesign of the modern shoreline that employs natural systems or “sponges” to not only defend against
sea level rise, but also sequester carbon, cleanse pollutants and revitalize fish and native wildlife” (p.58).
“The “Sponges” are green infrastructure on a large-scale: new absorptive landscapes for collecting,
filtering and dispersing flood waters during storm events. The Sponges are also diverse eco-tones,
designed with topographic variation to support a range of ecological conditions from ponds, to
Figure 4.9.4: Sponge Hub mobile exhibit (p.61)
Figure 4.9.5: The sponge landscape (p.103)
231
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.9: RESEARCH – SOUTH BAY SPONGE
marshlands, to transitional and seasonal wetlands, to floodable parks and green spaces at higher
elevations alongside new and existing neighborhoods and development” (p.100).
“The South Bay Sponge is a design framework that thoughtfully imagines new possibilities for climate
adaptation in the South Bay that can grow in scale, incentivize investment, build public support and
excitement, facilitate coordination across jurisdictions, and contribute to the larger effort to increase
resilience in the Bay Area. It is big, ambitious, complex and seemingly impossible to implement. The level
of cooperation required across jurisdictions is unprecedented. However, the cooperation involved is
necessary. Without a cohesive, multi-jurisdictional solution - massive financial, infrastructural, ecological
and human losses will occur and reoccur - and the most vulnerable of South Bay communities, East Palo
Alto, will be left behind” (p.164).
Social Equity Position:
The Field Operations team addresses equity by choosing to focus on the most vulnerable communities,
and by promoting equitable access to natural resources. “Our government system does not work for large-
scale, multi-benefit projects. Access to resources and ability to leverage funding varies significantly across
the region. Individual jurisdictions, utilities, and private landowners are rightly concerned about meeting
their own immediate resiliency needs. This individualized approach makes already extraordinarily
expensive projects even more costly, and puts under-resourced jurisdictions, communities or land-owners
at a significant disadvantage” (p.186).
“Completing “resilience” in one place only
magnifies the stresses and vulnerabilities
of neighboring places. Without a holistic
and large-scale approach, any resiliency
efforts in the South Bay will be incomplete.
Therefore, The Field Operations Team
worked with several neighboring
communities in the South Bay, with a
specific focus on East Palo Alto, one of the
most disadvantaged and vulnerable
communities to sea level rise in the Bay
Area (and, yet, full of vitality, curiosity and
enthusiasm to get things done!). Our
communication and engagement efforts
focused on achieving as broad and diverse a representation of the East Palo Alto community as possible.
Throughout this effort, we have sought to create an open and inclusive engagement process; to
thoughtfully identify key vulnerabilities, disadvantages and inequities; and to prepare creative solutions
to environmental, social and economic challenges that are resonant and effective” (p.18).
Of concern is the fact that current funding strategies do not address structural inequality. “While a variety
of existing sources of local, state, and federal funding may support the implementation of the South Bay
Sponge, the 20-mile project will be dependent on a portfolio of multiple-funding sources. Given the scale
and estimated costs of the framework components, all existing sources of funding, even when combined,
Figure 4.9.6: East Palo Alto Baylands park (p.124)
232
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.9: RESEARCH – SOUTH BAY SPONGE
fall short of what is necessary to protect vulnerable areas. Moreover, the availability of some of our
identified sources of funding is uncertain in the future” (p.168).
Projects in Santa Clara will benefit from both the Water District and its parcel-tax funded mandate to
provide flood protection for the county, as well as the high potential for public-private partnerships with
Silicon Valley firms. These advantages, however, will not address projects in neighboring San Mateo
County, or ensure that sufficient funding is available for all projects or all communities. An ‘all of the
above’ approach to building a funding portfolio will be necessary, and this complex portfolio will then
require significant levels of cooperation between jurisdictions to ensure cohesive decision-making,
regional coordination, and interdependence” (p.168).
Transformation Dashboard:
Integrated Strategies:
The dashboard strategies integrated into the Resilient South City design proposal are listed below. See
appendix two for excerpted text with page number citations to the project team report, for each of the
strategies listed below.
1. Strengthen Urban Ecosystems
A. Shoreline zone
• Build or enhance conventional seawall or levee
Figure 4.9.7: Transformation Dashboard for the South Bay Sponge project (by the author)
233
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.9: RESEARCH – SOUTH BAY SPONGE
• Develop a horizontal living levee
• Restore tidal marsh as a protective buffer
• Create waterfront parks as a buffer for rising tides
B. Riparian zone
• Reconfigure and naturalize channelized creeks
• Reconnect creeks to the bay and tidal wetlands
• Remove watershed barriers (levees, dams, diked ponds)
• Expand floodplain areas along creeks
C. Lowland transition zone
• Utilize dredge spoils and/or soil swaps to elevate land
• Transition under-utilized land to green infrastructure
• Integrate floodable parks, green space to absorb water
• Create inland freshwater wetlands
D. Buildings
• Locate new buildings on higher ground
E. Infrastructure
• Build new levee as multi-benefit public pathway

2. Mitigate Urban Stresses
A. Transportation
• Strengthen the mobility network
• Support bicycle and pedestrian mobility
B. Energy
• Community energy systems
C. Materials and Waste
D. Water
• Improve water quality
E. Ecology
• Protect / restore wildlife habitat
• Enhance carbon sequestration from wetlands
• Enhance carbon sequestration from urban forest

234
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.9: RESEARCH – SOUTH BAY SPONGE
3. Strengthen Social Ecosystems
A. Social Capital
B. Community Participation
• Develop simple, memorable public resilience messaging
• Promote community input into design / planning process
• Engage local businesses, NGOs around aligned interests
C. Common Pool Resources
• Expand recreational public open space
• Enhance pedestrian network, bike paths
• Restore fishing in creeks, bay
D. Wealth Building
• Support / attract local business opportunities
• Promote mixed use development
E. Human Capital

4. Mitigate Social Stresses
A. Health Impacts
• Improve opportunities for active transportation
• Improve access to parks and natural amenities
B. Economic Empowerment
C. Community Stabilization
• Protect / enhance stock of affordable housing -
D. Inclusive Process
E. Social Investment

Figure 4.9.8: Sponge Hub
events (p.62)
235
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.9: RESEARCH – SOUTH BAY SPONGE

Figure 4.9.9: Moffit Field – Current (p.130-131)
Figure 4.9.11: Moffit Field – Future (p.140)
Figure 4.9.10: Moffit Field – Future (p.130-131)
236
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 4.9: RESEARCH – SOUTH BAY SPONGE

Figure 4.9.12: Sunnyvale Moffit Park – Current (p.136-137)
Figure 4.9.14: Sunnyvale West Channel (p.140)
Figure 4.9.13: Sunnyvale Moffit Park – Future (p.138-139)
237
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

4.10: RESEARCH – CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
4.10 Cumulative Analysis

Overview
The project analysis was developed to catalogue the strategies developed by the various RbD design
teams, to develop an overall framework of issues that could be beneficial for others addressing similar
challenges. The structure of the framework is described in chapter three, methodology and detailed text
relating to each case study strategy is included in the appendix.
Strengthen Urban Ecosystem

Shoreline zone
The most frequently developed strategy in the shoreline zone (8 of 9), was the restoration of tidal
marshlands as a protective buffer. Marshlands provide protection by reducing the impact of storm surge,
which plays a large role in flooding. This is a multi-benefit strategy that contributes to carbon
238
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

4.10: RESEARCH – CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
sequestration, air and water quality, and supports wildlife habitat. Almost as many (7 of 9) proposed use
of horizontal living levee, which integrates marsh plantings into a gently sloping grade, to provide greater
protection from the rising tides, as marsh plantings migrate in response to rising water drowning the
marsh at lower elevations. Given the variable bay conditions, many of the teams (5 of 9) also proposed
construction of conventional sea walls and levees. And most of the teams (4 of 9) integrated planning for
waterfront parks as part of the buffer strategy along the bay. Some teams (2 of 9) proposed growing a
protective reef in the subtidal portion of this zone, and one team proposed creation of a pebble beach to
control erosion.
Riparian zone
Riparian zones were a key focus on the design teams, as many creeks providing drainage in urbanized
areas have been highly modified, limiting ecological function and transport of sediment that can build up
the bay shoreline over time. Most of the teams (6 of 9) focused on the issue of sediment transport,
proposing strategies to increase flow. Almost as many (5 of 9) focused on reconfiguring and naturalizing
creeks that had been channelized, and a similar number (5 of 9) included strategies to expand floodplain
areas along the creek edges. Almost half (4 of 9) worked to remove barriers, such as levees, dams and
diked ponds to enhance riparian areas, and a similar number (4 of 9) reconnected creeks to the bay and
restored tidal wetlands. One team proposed the creation of a tidal lagoon that would accommodate
floating structures.
Lowland Transition Zone
The lowland transition zone includes low-lying land that is especially vulnerable to flooding. This zone
along the San Francisco Bay includes transportation infrastructure, industrial and commercial uses and
some housing as well. The most frequent strategy identified (6 of 9) was to transition under-utilized, how
value land to green infrastructure. Almost half (4 of 9) proposed floodable parks as a use that would
support surrounding neighborhoods and also absorb water during storm events. Some teams (3 of 9)
proposed creation of new freshwater wetlands in inland locations, and an equal number proposed
creating space for tidal wetlands to migrate inland. Some of the teams (3 of 9) proposed elevating low-
lying land by “swapping” soil and/or dredge spoils from adjacent sites, essentially removing fill from land
previously filled and restoring a portion of the bay in the process. Another strategy to elevate land
proposed by some (2 of 9) included sediment accretion with supplemental nourishment.
Buildings
Building related adaptation strategies were identified by fewer teams. Just three teams (3 of 9) proposed
adapting new structures to withstand future flooding and two teams (2 of 9) each proposed upgrading
existing flood prone buildings, relocating buildings to higher ground, or locating new buildings on higher
ground. One team (1 of 9) proposed creation of surge housing to accommodate displaced residents while
existing housing is upgraded.
Infrastructure
Many of the teams focused on infrastructure with most (5 of 9) focused on relocating and/or elevating
existing transportation infrastructure including roadways and rail lines. Most (5 of 9) also included
integration of rain gardens and bioretention, a multi-benefit strategy that also supports climate
239
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

4.10: RESEARCH – CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
mitigation. Almost half (4 of 9) proposed a new levee integrated with a multi-benefit public pathway.
Some (3 of 9) proposed creating and managing reservoirs for flood control and groundwater recharge,
and the same number (3 of 9) propose integration of water detention structures in open space areas.
Finally, one team (1 of 9) proposed creation of a multi-benefit “slow street” that would integrate rain
gardens and sidewalks for pedestrians.
Mitigate Climate Stresses

Transportation
Improvements to transportation were highlighted frequently, as a community benefit and a climate
mitigation opportunity. Most teams (7 of 9) focused on enhancing bicycle and pedestrian mobility, and
most (6 of 9) also proposed improvements to the mobility network as transit service was limited in many
of the site locations. Almost half (4 of 9) proposed a multi-benefit urban greenway, integrating open space
with transportation in a pedestrian friendly setting. Given the bay location, almost half (4 of 9) proposed
integration of ferry service and some (3 of 9) proposed a new multi-modal transit hub. Finally, some of
the teams (3 of 9) proposed ambitious strategies to relocate and/or cover existing freeways along the bay,
to address flood vulnerability while also enabling better access to the waterfront for adjacent
communities.
240
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

4.10: RESEARCH – CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
Energy
Fewer teams focused on energy systems, however it is interesting that most frequently proposed strategy
(4 of 9) was for integration of community energy systems, a strategy to reduce emissions while also
providing a community asset. The next most frequent strategy (3 of 9) was for the integration of
renewable energy generation. Two teams (2 of 9) promoted energy efficient buildings, and two (2 of 9)
planned for electric vehicles. One team (1 of 9) planned for all electric buildings, and one (1 of 9) proposed
an eco-industrial park to capture energy synergies.
Materials
Material and resource efficiencies were addressed by some of the teams, with the most frequent issue (3
of 9) being reuse of dredge spoils for marsh or bay restoration. Two of the teams (2 of 9) described a
commitment to “circular economy” flows with local resources, and two (2 of 9) planned for compost
recovery for ecosystem restoration and urban farming. One team (1 of 9) planned to reuse abandoned
buildings and infrastructure, one planned to reuse excavated material for bay fill, and finally one proposed
a regional sediment management plan.
Water
Water strategies include those that improve water quality in the bay, as well as those that improve
efficient use of potable water supplies. Most of the teams (7 of 9) identified the integration of strategies
to improve water quality, while some (3 of 9) focused on water efficiency with rainwater harvesting and
integration of water reuse systems. Two teams (2 of 9) planned for decentralized wastewater treatment
systems and two proposed development of an integrated plan for water resources.
Ecology
Ecology was one area that all teams focused on, with all nine (9 of 9) noting the use of strategies to protect
and/or restore wildlife habitat. Most of the team (4 of 9) also highlighted the benefits of carbon
sequestration from wetland areas integrated into their planning. Some (3 of 9) worked to enhance site
biodiversity, and to protect and/or restore habitat for endangered species. Two teams (2 of 9) noted
carbon sequestration from strategies to increase the urban forest, and two note reduced urban heat
island effect from urban greening and tree planting.

241
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

4.10: RESEARCH – CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
Strengthen Social Ecosystem

Social Capital
Public gather spaces, community spaces and pedestrian circulation are part of the social infrastructure of
a community that fosters social and cultural capital. Design can both reveal and enhance community
identity, and support community cohesion. Most of the teams (7 of 9) focused on strategies to increase
and enhance public gathering spaces, and most of them (6 of 9) described strategies to protect community
cohesion, and more than half (5 of 9) explored strategies to enhance community identity. A similar
number (5 of 9) integrated strategies to protect and/or enhance community services through co-location.
Some (3 of 9) focused on revealing the culture history of the community and place they were working in.
And finally, two (2 of 9) described strategies to link diverse neighborhoods to promote social mixing.
Community Participation
The focus on community participation was integral to the design challenge. The most frequently described
(8 of 9) strategy was one of broad community input into the design and planning process. Most teams (7
of 9) also described engagement with local businesses and NGOs with aligned interests. Messaging was
also a strong focus as well, and most of the teams (7 of 9) worked to developed simple and memorable
242
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

4.10: RESEARCH – CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
public messaging about resilience as part of their design effort. Most teams (6 of 9) went beyond
community input to foster partnerships for collaborative design and planning. Some teams (3 of 9)
described efforts to build community capacity through advocacy and leadership development, and some
(3 of 9) promoted use of collaboration structures such including the EcoDistricts protocol and a “People’s
Plan.”
Common Pool Resources
One of the larger themes that emerged through the design challenge was the idea of the commons, with
a focus on common pool resources to serve the community. The most frequently described (8 of 9)
common pool resources were recreational public open spaces, enhanced pedestrian networks and bike
paths. Almost half (4 of 9) of the teams identified a goal to restore water quality sufficiently that fishing
could be restored in the creeks and bay waters, and a similar number (4 of 9) included community gardens
for food production in their proposals. Some of the teams (3 of 9) included strategies to enhance retail,
civic and cultural space, and some (3 of 9) integrated an emergency place of refuge into their plans.
Wealth Building
Many of the projects integrated strategies to promote economic development with a focus on community
wealth building. The most frequently described strategy (7 of 9) was to support and/or attract local
business opportunities. Almost half (4 of 9) proposed mixed-use community development as a strategy to
keep more resources within the community, and some (3 of 9) focused on local home ownership
opportunities. Two of the team (2 of 9) noted the need to protect and/or enhance the stock of affordable
commercial space, and two teams highlighted the opportunity to reduce the cost of living for housing,
transportation and utilities by embracing sustainability goals of energy efficiency and reduced reliance on
the automobile. Finally, one team (1 of 9) promoted the use of locally owned accessory dwelling units as
a strategy for affordable housing as well as supplemental income to local homeowners.
Human Capital
Many of the projects integrate a community development approach that helps to build human capital.
The most frequently described strategy (7 of 9) involves leveraging place-based ecological restoration for
educational programs. More than half (5 of 9) also highlighted the potential from linkages between
schools and new open space resources. Some of the proposals (3 of 9) described new job training
programs, improved public safety through design of roadways, lighting and open space, and general
improved quality of life resulting from urban greening. Finally, two teams (2 of 9) proposed integrating
childcare and/or senior daycare.

243
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

4.10: RESEARCH – CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
Mitigate Social Stresses

Health / Wellness
A focus on improving health and wellness in underinvested communities is an important social justice
strategy that builds human capital. The most frequently described approach (8 of 9) involves improving
access to parks and natural amenities. More than half (5 of 9) described improving opportunities for active
transportation. Some of the teams (3 of 9) identified tree planting to improve air quality, while some (3
of 9) focused on improving access to healthy food, and some (3 of 9) supported community health
initiatives. Finally, one team (1 of 9) described development of air quality buffers with dense tree planting
to mitigate the effects of air pollution sources.
Economic Empowerment
Strategies to build economic strength in low-income communities are another important social justice
strategy. The most frequently described strategy (6 of 9) was to increase local employment with
ecosystem restoration jobs. Almost half (4 of 9) highlighted local business creation as an important
complement to local jobs. A similar number (4 of 9) focused on improving transportation access to jobs
outside of the community. Some (3 of 9) highlighted sharing economy strategies, and two (2 of 9)
244
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

4.10: RESEARCH – CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
described improved access to financial capital for community members. Finally one team (1 of 9) included
local hire provisions for new resilience investments to support local jobs.
Community Stabilization
Given the widespread challenges of housing affordability and displacement in the SF Bay Areas,
community stabilization is a high priority, especially for vulnerable communities. More than half of the
teams (5 of 9) recommended enforcement of anti-displacement measures including no net loss of housing
and right to return. A similar number (5 of 9) included strategies to protect and enhance the stock of
affordable housing. Almost half of the teams (4 of 9) suggested requirements for below market rate units
in all new housing development. Some teams (3 of 9) suggested stabilizing housing costs with community
land trusts and non-profit operator. Two of the teams (2 of 9) suggested development of naturally
affordable units, including small lot, microunits and ADUs. Finally, one team (1 of 9) included planning for
emergency housing needs for people experiencing homelessness.
Inclusive Process
While Community Engagement was discussed above, the focus here is promoting the voice of
marginalized community members and neutralizing power differentials. Almost half of the teams (4 of 9)
described strategies to involve marginalized community members in planning through active recruitment,
payment of stipends, etc., and the same number (4 of 9) described a project implementation process with
the community as a full partner. Many (4 of 9) involved local Community Based Organizations (CBOs) to
strengthen representation, and some (3 of 9) developed a community-driven process with leadership
positions for community members. Some (3 of 9) developed an explicit racial equity strategy and one
team (1 of 9) provided funding for community participation.
Social Investment
Social investment includes community development strategies that build social and cultural capital. The
most widely used strategy (3 of 9) involves transitioning of vacant properties to beneficial community
uses. Some teams (2 of 9) described upgrades to an underinvested public realm, and the use of mitigation
funds to support impacted communities. Two teams (2 of 9) described integration of community benefits
in development projects, and establishment of a non-profit to administer community benefits. Finally,
one team (1 of 9) described use of a participatory budgeting process.

245
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 4.11: RESEARCH – LINKAGES
4.11 Linkages

Overview
This research section ends with an exploration of the linkages between strategies addressing urban
climate resilience and social resilience, as identified by the RbD project teams. These ideas are limited to
those that were specifically discussed within the project team reports, and so may not capture the full
breadth of multi-benefit thinking that the teams considered. Yet, even with an understanding that this list
is preliminary, the concepts represent interesting areas for future investigation, as they underscore the
multi-benefit potential of a holistic design approach. More detail on the specific team proposals can be
found in Appendix 2.

Multi-benefit Planning Strategies
M1. Integrate beneficial new uses with resilience investments – new uses such as housing, retail and
commercial development can be integrated with resilience investments. Most of the teams (5 of 9)
included this strategy in their projects.
M2. Strengthen community connections with ecological restoration – shoreline and riparian investments
bring valuable green space into urban communities, assets that are lacking in low-income communities.
These linear spaces offer open space amenity as well as opportunities for walkways and bikeways that
connect residents to jobs and services.
M3. Develop integrated plan for water resources and health – two of the projects include wastewater
treatment plants in need of protection from sea level rise, which opens up a question about the potential
for multi-benefit strategies using combinations of green and grey infrastructure.
246
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 4.11: RESEARCH – LINKAGES
M4. Schools as multi-benefit centers of emergency response – one team developed this idea with the
school as a community hub and emergency resource, utilizing integrated water catchment and energy
generation as dual strategies to promote sustainability and community safety.
M5. Use triple bottom line modelling to inform decisions – three of the teams recognized the need for
economic modelling that goes beyond traditional cost-benefit calculations.
Economic linkages
E1. Anti-displacement prior to development – two teams specifically outlined anti-displacement
strategies that should be put in place prior to development, including rent control eviction protections
and right to return.
E2. Land use intensification (density for resilience investments) – five teams advocated for increases in
density to provide more housing, with modest increases in most cases targeted to low-rise apartment
buildings and alternative dwelling units (ADUs) to supplement-income of home-owners.
E3. Leverage land trust for affordability and resilience upgrades – two teams included community land
trusts in their planning to provide long-term affordability.
E4. Managed retreat finance linkages and incentives – three teams suggest this strategy to finance
managed retreat based on density bonuses and other incentives.
E5. Leverage insurance pools for resilience investments – two teams suggested this as the government
currently charges a higher rate for insurance and self-insured insurance pools could save money and also
provide a source of funds for resilience upgrades.
Land use linkages
LU1. Transformation of low-lying industrial lands – five teams explored new uses for low-lying industrial
lands with come keeping industrial uses and others transforming under-utilized land to provide more
housing and better connection between neighborhoods.
LU2. Urban creeks as right-of-way for resilience, public access – naturalizing urban creeks is beneficial
ecologically, and can create a beneficial right of way for bicycles and pedestrians.
LU3. Floodable detention areas as new community asset – one team developed this as a creative use for
land under the elevated highway 101.
Governance linkages
G1. Establish a multi-benefit resilience district – three teams advocated strongly for this approach as a
necessary tool for funding that can be spread across multiple destinations.
G2. Engage multi-jurisdiction resilience funding / implementation – five teams advocated for this multi-
jurisdiction approach to resilience funding and implementation.
G3. Link rigorous community process to resilience funding – one team engaged a community led process
including extensive training and capacity building.
247
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

248
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
5. Conclusion
The Resilient by Design challenge was engaged at an opportune time in the SF Bay Area - a time when
pent up demand for housing and transportation is meeting a time of renewed public capacity as the
economic recovery has generated a surplus of revenue at the state level and among cities with a strong
tax base. This is a time that is likely to begin a cycle of construction activity that will define the Bay Area
for many decades and perhaps for centuries. It is a time that invites us to look at the physical form of our
region and the infrastructure that connects our cities. Given the urgent pressures of climate change and
the growing social divide, this is also a time of heightened awareness of the relationship between place
and opportunity. Careful analysis of the RbD design proposals can play an important role, bringing new
thinking to bear at a critical point in time to help move the Bay Area into the future.
The completed RbD projects provide a window into the best design
thinking on the dual challenges of climate and equity facing the Bay Area,
from an internationally prominent set of design leaders. This project
analyzes and summarizes nine design proposals for diverse locations
along the San Francisco Bay, and puts them into context with current
policy debates and theoretical academic literature.
This project explores three key questions: First, what was learned from the RbD Challenge that will help
communicate the challenges of resilience and equity, and build support for needed changes to design,
planning and public policy? Second, how can the diverse ideas developed by the RbD Challenge be
synthesized into a framework to help guide future Bay Area projects? And third, what are the key leverage
points for positive change? My response to these questions is discussed below under three headings:
Lessons from the RbD Projects, The Transformation Dashboard, and Recommendations. A final section
entitled Building Will concludes the discussion.
First, ‘Lessons from the RbD Projects’ is specifically informed by the nine RbD projects, as teams worked
closely with their community partners to educate, inspire and co-create, building community capacity and
will to address resilience and equity challenges. While each location had unique challenges, distinct
themes emerged that highlight the potential for significant co-benefits to enhance quality of life, build
wealth and protect against loss. A variety of alternative financing methods were explored that offer the
potential for more inclusive participation in the innovation culture of the Bay Area. Design proposals from
the nine RbD project teams demonstrate the magnitude of opportunity that is available with targeted
investment, particularly in under-invested areas housing vulnerable communities.
Second, the ‘Transformation Dashboard’ section describes a tool I have created as part of this research
project, which graphically displays the physical design concepts in the RbD projects in a consistent way,
so projects can be compared, and the strategies studied further. The dashboard is organized into four
quadrants, to describe strategies addressing resilience, sustainability, social justice and social benefit
goals. A summary description of the tool, potential future use of the tool and an assessment using the
tool to compare the nine RbD projects are described below. One key takeaway important to note here,
however, is my conclusion that the Transformation Dashboard and the physical planning ideas it
249
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
represents are not sufficient on their own to initiate the transformation needed to address the urgent
challenges of resilience, equity and sustainability. The need for additional policy levers to support
meaningful transformation has inspired the recommendations described next.
Third, the ‘Recommendations’ section acknowledges the importance of moving beyond physical design
parameters to address deeper structural challenges behind the allocation of resources and the
distribution of political power. I believe that the overarching vision needs to be a shift towards wealth
building, using an asset-based approach versus the current extractive model of development – an
approach that is inherently more inclusive and aligns well with the innovation culture of the Bay Area. The
six recommendations are a preliminary look at specific ideas that could unlock greater opportunity by
addressing funding challenges, embedded incentives and new governance opportunities. Many other
ideas will be needed as well, however these are offered as potentially valuable areas for future
investigation.
Finally, I end with some closing thoughts on Building Will. The use of a collaborative design challenge to
begin to craft a vision of the future was strategic. While much of the public messaging around the climate
crisis generates fear and dread – and social justice challenges stoke bitterness and mistrust – the images
produced for the design challenge are prototypically positive. When linked to a community process of co-
creation, visualization can be a powerful tool to illustrate the collective yearning for vibrant communities
and healthy natural systems rooted in a unique expression of local culture and place. However, even when
the goal is articulated and visualized, the pathway to accomplishing it is not easy. The RbD projects and
the literature indicate the need for a shift to a planning and design paradigm that is more inclusive,
supplementing the dominant planning paradigm with tools and strategies to uplift places currently left
behind. My suggestion is that this shift should be based on a “post-neoliberal” vision of sustainability and
resilience as wealth building, using an asset-based approach that focuses on cultivation of all six forms of
capital – built, natural, human, social, cultural, and economic.
Lessons from the RbD Casestudies
The Resilient by Design challenge was initiated with a design brief that encouraged a comprehensive
approach to environmental and social resiliency with a focus on equity and inclusion for under-served
communities (Resilient by Design 2017). Teams joined with community members to explore what
equitable and resilient urban neighborhoods rooted in specific places could look like. The concepts that
were developed are multi-faceted and specific to their locations, and each of them highlight the
magnitude of opportunity available with targeted investment, particularly in under-invested areas
housing vulnerable communities.
The teams explored goals of climate resilience and social equity in nine diverse places around San
Francisco Bay – places selected based on an assessment of environmental and social vulnerability. The
case studies highlight the linkage between social and ecological goals, as the places most challenged by
pollution and vulnerability to sea level rise and flooding are also places of high social vulnerability. The
coincidence of social and environmental vulnerability underscores the environmental justice / just
sustainability challenges discussed in detail in the literature. The case studies explore place-based
solutions to what is a complex mosaic of risk and vulnerability. As each team framed the design challenge
in their local context, the unique challenges of real places informed a more complex view of the social and
environmental challenges in the SF Bay Area. These include complex hydrological dynamics around sea
250
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
level rise and flooding, terrestrial dynamics as subsidence compounds both flooding and seismic risk, as
well as critical infrastructure serving the region that is vulnerable to disruptions. On the social side, there
is a geography of opportunity that is impacted by dynamics of exclusion and isolation that play such a
large role in widening income inequality and increasing poverty. The discussion below will summarize the
key challenges and opportunities that were identified, as well as innovative tools and strategies to realize
the projects.
SF Bay Area Resilience and Equity Challenges
Climate change impacts are not just a future challenge – RbD teams found that the reality of current
flooding made climate change and sea level rise much less abstract for the impacted communities,
promoting increased awareness of the need to prepare for future impacts. Five of the projects highlighted
“regular” or “chronic” flooding that is already occurring, and the toll it is taking on communities, creating
cycles of loss and repair that are especially impactful to low-income residents and businesses. These
projects highlight the challenge of stormwater management as homes, businesses, and roadways
providing critical access get overwhelmed during larger storm events. In addition, two projects reference
vulnerable pumping systems that are in place to manage what would otherwise be regular flooding.
Urban water management problems are exacerbated with sea level rise, as stormwater outfalls to the
Bay are challenged by rising sea levels, which drive rising groundwater levels, creating conditions where
water ‘emerges’ from low-lying area. For example, South Bay Sponge noted that “storm-induced flooding
will only be exacerbated with rising sea levels, as stormwater entering low-lying areas from upstream will
be unable to drain into the bay” (Field Operations 2018, p.26). At the same time, subsidence and increased
seismic risk amplify the challenges of flooding and sea level rise. Subsidence is a critical issue that is
compounding flood risk from sea level rise, with an extreme of seven feet of historic subsidence noted by
the Grand Bayway project, putting large areas of Baylands below current water levels (Common Ground
2018, p.24). Islais Hyper-Creek notes that “Coastal areas along San Francisco Bay that are built on fill
material, like portions of the Islais Basin, are sinking at a rate as high as 0.4 inches per year,” and
furthermore, increased risk of earthquake damage is another compounding risk, as “future increased
groundwater levels with sea level rise amplifies the seismic risk in areas with unstable soils” (BIG One
Sherwood 2018, p.63).
In addition to the neighborhood impacts, the Bay Area shoreline is occupied by a dense network of critical
infrastructure that is increasingly at risk, including airports, wastewater treatment plants and power
plants that are essential to the regional economy. For example, Islais Hyper-Creek notes that “The creek
is located amid a network of vital infrastructure hubs including the Wastewater Treatment Plant (which
treats 80% of the City’s sewage), the San Francisco Wholesale Produce Market, FEDEX, USPS, the MUNI
Yards, cement and aggregate businesses” that are critical to operations citywide (BIG One Sherwood 2018,
p.11). Disruption of critical infrastructure due to climate change is potentially very costly – South Bay
Sponge estimated the cost of disruption to infrastructure and “vulnerable businesses that are an economic
engine for the region: Facebook, Google, Amazon and many other companies,” stating that “current
models project an average of $10-15BN in annual losses across San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties as a
result of sea level rise and fluvial flooding if no action is taken” (Field Operations 2018, p.24). The potential
for economic loss related to climate change is high, even in areas not part of the tech economy. For
example, the Elevate San Rafael project, where sprawling low-rise commercial and a mix of single-family
and multi-family housing occupies the shoreline, the assessed value of property at risk is over $7 billion,
including over 9500 housing units and over 19,000 jobs (Bionic 2018, p.43).
251
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
Vulnerability is another important factor, as low-income people living in low-lying areas along the Bay’s
industrial shoreline are subject to unfair environmental burdens and health impacts. Islais Hyper-Creek
described the Bayview-Hunters Point area that surrounds the Islais Creek as “one of the most socially
complex and traditionally underserved neighborhoods in the forty-nine square miles of San Francisco,
with a long history of racial oppression, economic neglect, extreme environmental injustice, and resultant
challenges in public health, crime rates, economic mobility, and more” (BIG One Sherwood 2018, p.38).
Our Home described the challenges for North Richmond, as “heavy industrial uses, an adjacent refinery
operation and heavily-trafficked transit corridors lead to poor air quality and high community health
burdens, with the highest CalEnviroscreen score for asthma in the state” (Home Team 2018, p.23). Estuary
Commons describes the challenges of air pollution, high asthma rates and other health issues noting that
“We learned that past discriminatory practices like redlining and predatory lending have effectively
prevented East Oakland residents from building wealth from home ownership. Discrimination in hiring
practices and education have also burdened these communities” (All Bay Collective 2018, p.26). East
Oakland, which is included in the study area is designated as a ‘Community of Concern’ by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and “ranks in the lowest 5th-25th percentiles in
CalEnviroScreen due to poor air quality, water pollution, underemployment, and extreme poverty” (p.36).
Given the magnitude and the duration of injustice, the team became convinced that solutions will require
a different process: “It became clear that this history of injustice could not be remedied through new
investments controlled by people outside Estuary communities. New investments in housing, parks, and
infrastructure must first and foremost support residents’ ability to gain control over their own health,
wealth, and stability” (p.12).
Spatial isolation is the physical manifestation of economic and social exclusion that is experienced by
many in the SF Bay Area, and project teams noted physical barriers between neighborhoods, as well as
barriers limiting access to the shoreline and to transportation assets. Our Home focused on North
Richmond, a fenceline community disconnected from surrounding neighborhoods and “pinned between
Chevron’s refinery operation and the Republic Services landfill, cut off from the surrounding urban fabric
by BNSF rail lines on the east, the refinery and industrial uses on the south, and Richmond parkway on the
west” (Home Team 2018, p.26). Likewise, in South San Francisco “Barriers such as the rail corridor,
freeways, and large industry clusters have disconnected communities from the shoreline” (Hassell+ 2018,
p.7). Public open space along the Bay and along urban creeks are potential connectors of diverse
neighborhoods, such as along the Alameda Creek, where “twelve bridges that do cross the 12-mile creek
system, only six are accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists, leaving miles of isolated urban fabric
between” (SCAPE 2018, p.52).
Finally, the issue of displacement requires discussion, as it was a primary concern for every project team.
Our Home described “The legacy of structural racism–slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, predatory lending, mass
incarceration—continues to shut this community out of the economic recovery that has benefited much
of the Bay. North Richmond’s average household income declined over 30% from 2000–2016, while the
cost of housing has been increasing, eroding home ownership and driving displacement. North
Richmond’s home ownership rate—once high at over 60% is currently 31.8%—much lower than the
California average of 55%, and the US average of 64%.” (Home Team 2018, p.40)
One interesting and important note is that climate change mitigation was only directly addressed by two
of the RbD project teams in their final project reports. Islais Hyper-Creek noted that “the spectre of rising
sea levels and other climate hazards make it necessary to rethink infrastructure holistically, preparing for
adaptation and climate mitigation” (Big One Sherwood 2018, p.17), and Our Home noted that the
252
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
challenges of adaptation and mitigation are systemic, and that “Adaptation to and mitigation of sea level
rise and other climate change impacts cannot be solved in isolation” (Home Team 2018, p.34). Their
projects include strategies such as net-zero energy buildings, district energy systems, decentralized
wastewater treatment and low carbon transportation (Home Team 2018; BIG One Sherwood 2018). Many
teams that did not address climate mitigation strategies directly described the role of natural systems in
carbon sequestration. Overall, this seems to indicate an opportunity for more integrated design and
planning in the future and reflects the disconnect occurring at the state and local level between resilience
planning and climate protection planning, that was discussed in Chapter 1.
SF Bay Area Opportunities for Transformation
An important aspect of the RbD Design Challenge is the focus on design and visualization of physical
design solutions developed in collaboration with community members, business, local government and
agency stakeholders. These provide a glimpse into what the future could look like, and the potential for
meaningful, positive change. See Chapter 4 for project summaries including graphics produced by each
team, and a graphic depiction of the Transformation Dashboard documenting the strategies employed.
For further study, see Appendix 2 which includes excerpted text from the design team reports relating to
each strategy from the Transformation Dashboard, with page number citations. This summary provides
an overview of key themes that were developed by the nine RbD teams. The following section delves into
greater detail on strategies related to these themes.
Need for dynamic adaptive systems
Design in the age of climate change requires a new mindset as the climate has shifted from an era of
relative stability, to one where we can expect to see changes in average temperature, precipitation rates
and frequency leading to increased flooding and drought, as well as rising sea levels and a corresponding
increase in ground water levels (Ackerly et al. 2018). Each of the RbD teams addressed this shift, making
a case for design based on dynamic adaptive systems in shoreline and riparian environments.
Conventionally engineered systems do not work as well as under changing conditions, as they are
susceptible to failure and become obsolete over time. Elevate San Rafael noted that “The conventional
solution would be to gate off the creek, raise the levees, add flood gates and seawalls, and proceed with
life as it is known today. To continue with this paradigm would compound risk. It would increase the
separation that the city has with its waterfront. It would further eradicate coastal habitats and interrupt
coastal processes. It would be hugely expensive. If there was a failure it would be a humanitarian crisis.
As sea levels rise it would ultimately become obsolete, and a legacy offering danger and even fewer
options would be left to future generations. The Bionic Team studied the conventional solution and asked
a critical question: Is there a different way?” (Bionic 2018, p.48).
The corollary to the adaptive systems needed to respond to a changing climate is the adaptive
environment needed to support thriving communities. The RbD projects each recognized the importance
of design strategies that promote community gathering, the development of social bonds and engaged
democratic processes. Resilient South City offered that “Upgrading parks, squares, and public facilities in
the heart of smaller vulnerable cities and neighborhoods is critical to building social resilience and
preparing for disaster” (Hassell+ 2018, p.12). Estuary Commons promoted the role of ‘the commons’ in
supporting an adaptive social environment, as they explain that “the idea of a commons derives from a
rich political and urban history. It joins people and place through shared management of resources for the
benefit of all. A commons is at once the public process of governance and civic life, and the spaces that
bring us together. We envision the Estuary Commons as a network of communities joined in mutual
253
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
obligation to share and manage the resources of this working urban landscape” (All Bay Collective 2018,
p.46).
Working within existing communities, the RbD teams explored strategies to enable changes to be made
over time, as conditions evolve. For example, “Migration zones are integrated into the design for an
expanded MLK Shoreline Park, with grading proposed to enable marsh accretion and habitat migration as
sea levels rise” (All Bay Collective, p.55). Our Home suggested that “Historically the creeks connected in
this area. The levees along the creeks can be designed to allow for breaching in the longer-term future
should a “grey to green” strategy be adopted. Allowing space for marsh and wetland between the creeks
provides options for managing stormwater and upland flooding in the context of the dynamic conditions
of climate change” (Home Team, p.65). Grand Bayway planned for future adaptation by working with land
owners to purchase development rights, enabling “willing sellers to conserve valleys and plains with low-
intensity agriculture adjacent to tidal areas for future marsh and transition zone migration” (Common
Ground, p.31).
Need for multi-benefit solutions
The urban neighborhood scale is where many co-benefits of sustainable planning and resilient design are
experienced and understood. Walkable communities, access to transit, public open space, an enhanced
urban forest, parks and open space all contribute to the qualitative experience of place. For example,
green infrastructure for stormwater management can support flood control while also contributing to an
urban ‘commons’ providing localized benefits. As discussed in Chapter 2, living systems and ecosystem
services have traditionally been undervalued by economic measures (Costanza et al. 2014), and co-
benefits are rarely considered, however this is an opportunity area as incentives could be adjusted in the
future to recognize the combined benefits of carbon mitigation with local health co-benefits.
Multi-benefit solutions maximize the value of resilience investments to a broad set of constituents. It is
an important frame of reference that invites participation by diverse partners. The most regularly
promoted multi-benefit strategy by the RbD teams was public open space as it can support community
gathering while also serving as green infrastructure for flood management, climate moderation (when
planted with trees), and space for emergency response. Resilient South City was a particularly strong
champion for public open space, claiming it to be “critical to resilience” (Hassell+ 2018, p.52). They
describe this as a primary challenge as “Cities no longer create new open spaces as they did in the past,”
and that “A new approach is needed in order to develop multi-benefit public open spaces that manage
water, restore native ecologies, support and connect communities, and enhance the abilities of those
communities to respond to disaster. We must call on all available green, open and public (or semi-public)
land order to deliver on this goal” (Hassell+ 2018, p.52). They also note that “Creeks and Streets have
potential to be transformed into linear corridors of water management and community gathering to
transform the regional structure from a vulnerable loop to a resilient network. Through ‘collecting and
connecting’ both water and communities, a polycentric regional system distributes amenity and
strengthens the resiliency and lifestyle of smaller cities for the benefit of the whole Bay Area” (p.14).
The urban forest becomes another example of a multi-benefit climate strategy that many teams
employed as it provides valuable community benefits, in addition to climate moderation and air pollution
reduction. Our Home proposed diverse strategies including “A greenbelt of planting along the largely
diesel-based industrial corridor of the Richmond Parkway and larger scale neighborhood streets,” as well
as “groves of trees on larger residual lots not viable for housing” acting as community parks while
supporting air and stormwater filtration (Home Team 2018, p.9). The Home Team described this strategy
254
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
as an “ecological buffer zone” separating a busy trucking route and industrial uses from adjacent
residential uses, to address the urgent environmental justice problem of unhealthy air quality with a multi-
benefit system addressing “air quality, stormwater filtration, and heat reduction, as well as biological
diversity and ecosystem health” (p.85). The tree planting provides additional wealth-building benefits as
“local organizations and individuals will benefit from expanding existing jobs growing, installing and
maintaining these trees and raingardens” (p.50).
Land use and zoning as key strategies
Land use and zoning are key enabling strategies that support development of adaptive, multi-benefit
green infrastructure in shoreline and riparian zones, as each of the teams searched for beneficial ways to
make space for water and natural systems such as expanded marshlands, horizontal levees and shoreline
parks at the bay edge and along creeks and streams. Islais Hyper-Creek noted that even in industrial areas,
such as Islais Creek in San Francisco “we need to make space for water, while allowing industries,
communities and local stewards to live, grow and thrive alongside it” (Big One Sherwood 2018, p.91).
Land is a premium in the SF Bay Area, and teams thought carefully about how to balance the goal of
selective retreat with the reality of limited financial resources. One strategy proposed is to buy out land
subject to frequent flooding, and to compensate for lost land value by upzoning the remaining buildable
areas. Islais Hyper-Creek offered that “Done the right way, transitioning to multi-story development will
help make space for the naturalization of Islais Creek, reduce flood risk zones, and allow for efficient
earthquake proofing of new construction. With the right incentives and allowances for higher revenue
functions to be balanced with current land uses, it is possible to preserve the affordability that is so critical
while providing additional jobs” (BIG One Sherwood 2018, p.12). South Bay Sponge described a similar
pairing of retreat with density as a “land swap”, and noted that “The goals of the “land-use swap” are
two-fold: 1) to densify, to enable and encourage more dense and mixed forms of development in suitable
sites and 2) to de-densify, to release the lowest-lying areas to provide space to support the regions flood
management strategy” (Field Operations 2018, p.94).
Community zoning bonuses proposed by Resilient South City “allow developers to build at higher densities
in exchange for providing community amenities beyond what regulations require. Amenities that improve
resiliency could qualify, such as more permeable surfaces or setting aside land to increase the width of
stormwater channels” (Hassell+ 2018, p.129). Elevate San Rafael paired their retreat strategy with a
proactive housing strategy to minimize displacement by building surge housing to keep the community
intact while existing homes are upgraded and or rebuilt on higher ground. “Paired with an agreement with
the city to master lease units, the City could ensure a stable supply of surge housing for current residents
while their homes are upgraded, and a neighborhood preference program to prioritize first right of return
to their homes” (Bionic 2018, p.112).
Opportunities include valuable co-benefits such as greater access to nature, new social infrastructure
integrated with green infrastructure investments, pedestrian and transit connections. Many of them
utilize increased density to unlock value. However, one consistent challenge teams faced was how to
protect existing low-income residents from displacement as a result of the gentrifying effects of new
investment. Finally, each team worked to build local capacity for change, using a variety of outreach,
engagement and co-creative methods.
Social resilience is enhanced with development of mixed-use districts that provide opportunities for
development of local business and services to create ‘complete communities.’ As was discussed in Chapter
255
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
2, many are advocating for sustainable economic development based on endogenous (local resources)
development with a broad definition of local resources (Blakely and Leigh 2010; Blakely 2014; Chapple
2015; etc.). The transformation of an industrial service area into one that strengthens local business
opportunity rather than displaces it as density is added, is described by Islais Hyper-Creek. They note “In
the next series of capital investments planned by the SF Wholesale Produce Market, complementary
functions such as food production, processing, distribution, a culinary school, and even food consumption
could be stacked on top of the existing market… creating space for water retention and creek restoration,
and adding jobs while allowing lower revenue-generating programs and production to stay in San
Francisco” (BIG One Sherwood 2018, p.13).
Need for new tools to fund development
Each of the project teams developed a finance plan as part of the design challenge, outlining potential
sources of funding for project development. In areas with a strong real estate market, or adjacent to
strong markets, existing mechanisms could be utilized that leverage private development through public-
private partnerships using ‘value capture’ mechanisms such as tax increment financing and community
benefit agreements. A broad array of Bay Area Regional and State of California grant programs are also
available for transportation, affordable housing, bay restoration and other elements related to
comprehensive resilience planning and development. These were summarized for the RbD teams in the
Finance Guide for Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge Design Teams (Northcross and Spencer 2018).
Another useful resource for public funding is "Adaptation Finance Challenges: Characteristic Patterns
Facing California Local Governments and Ways to Overcome Them," developed as a chapter for
California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment (Moser et al. 2018).
Funding proved to be a primary challenge for each of the teams. In an environment already challenged to
provide funding for infrastructure given significant municipal and state funding restrictions, the need to
fund large scale resilience is particularly daunting. South Bay Sponge explains that “Our government
system does not work for large-scale, multi-benefit projects. Access to resources and ability to leverage
funding varies significantly across the region. Individual jurisdictions, utilities, and private landowners are
rightly concerned about meeting their own immediate resiliency needs. This individualized approach
makes already extraordinarily expensive projects even more costly, and puts under-resourced
jurisdictions, communities or land-owners at a significant disadvantage” (Field Operations 2018, p.186).
They emphasize that “The level of cooperation required across jurisdictions is unprecedented. However,
the cooperation involved is necessary. Without a cohesive, multi-jurisdictional solution - massive financial,
infrastructural, ecological and human losses will occur and reoccur - and the most vulnerable of South Bay
communities, East Palo Alto, will be left behind” (p.164).
The challenge of funding infrastructure is already extraordinary for low income communities such as East
Palo Alto mentioned above, and it is structural, as the ability to raise tax revenue in California is restricted
through propositions 13 and 8A, in effect enforcing a regressive tax structure on those communities
(Kirkpatrick and Smith 2011; Schafran 2013; etc.). The scale of investment needed to address climate
change impacts of sea level rise and flooding alone are beyond currently available resources, especially
for low-income communities already challenged with poor transit access, environmental health impacts,
lack of opportunity and vacancy. Within this context, RbD teams proposed innovative strategies to create
alternative funding pathways. These include a ‘Green Benefit District’ that describes a method not unlike
the environmental ‘reparations’ as described by Collin and Collin (2005); use of Community Land Trusts
(CLTs), particularly in areas with high vacancy; use of Insurance Pools for reinvestment and finally, wetland
256
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
mitigation banking. While these tools are not likely to be sufficient on their own, they are representative
of innovative thinking to develop new sources of revenue for development that can build wealth in local
communities.
The Green Benefit District proposed by Our Home is a new policy tool “envisioned to support local
investment, hiring and project development” and “will collect funding from three key sources: 1)
mitigation funding from state and federal funding sources for environmental remediation, 2) redirected
County funds by streamlining waste and water programs, and 3) impact fees from new commercial and
industrial development. This is a primary tool in moving from a traditional ‘return to capital’ model to a
community wealth building ‘return to community’ model, capturing the benefits of re-localizing labor,
capital and resources (such as water and biomass)” from regional infrastructure including a wastewater
treatment plant and landfill/waste transfer facility (Home Team 2018, p.12).
Community Land Trust (CLT) structures are recommended to transition vacant properties without
speculative profit-taking by two teams. Our Home noted that “CLTs reflect a choice to stabilize the housing
market in favor of slower, more predictable growth over dramatic swings in the market that create
windfall profits for some and loss for others” (Home Team 2018, p.99). Likewise, Estuary Commons
described the structure as one providing “modest gains to the owner from the value increase of their
home, while maintaining long-term affordability. This model ensures that housing within the CLT stays
affordable in the long term while fostering a sense of community and ownership. It also encourages the
development of shared amenities and spaces that promote social resilience” (All Bay Collective 2018,
p.77).
Insurance pools were presented as a new tool to fund resilience investments on an ongoing basis by two
of the teams. Resilient South City offered that “One of the pillars of our funding strategy is to create pools
of flood insurance policy holders to fund resiliency improvements through lower insurance premiums”
(Hassell+ 2018, p.95). They describe their proposal as a “Community Facilities Resiliency District (CFRD)”
that is able to offer a lower insurance rate as a group than landowners pay with the current National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP), and because the cost of flood insurance is higher than the true actuarial rate,
this enables the “CFRD to provide savings in flood insurance to land owners within its boundaries and
simultaneously fund resiliency infrastructure” (p.129). The value of this approach is likely to increase over
time, as Estuary Commons cautions “as flood zones expand, more property owners may be subject to
federal regulations that limit new construction and mandate the purchase of flood insurance—
requirements that could make housing even less affordable” (All Bay Collective 2018, p.25). Estuary
Commons continues, to suggest diverse new climate related bonds including “social and green
infrastructure bonds” and “insurance-related climate adaptation securities like resilience and catastrophe
bonds” (p.103).
Finally, wetland mitigation banking is proposed as a potential revenue source. Estuary Commons suggests
“One innovative idea for funding these improvements involves creating a wetland mitigation bank. In this
framework, Arrowhead Marsh would earn credits for its ecological and habitat restoration practices and
bank them. Proponents of projects that would have an impact on wetlands elsewhere could then purchase
these banked credits, effectively funding future resilience activities around the Estuary. As this program
gains consistency, we see it potentially providing economic pathways and spillover benefits for local
communities” (All Bay Collective 2018, p.84). Grand Bayway also identifies wetland mitigation banking as
a potential strategy to fund the expansion of marsh areas, describing that “Wetland and conservation
mitigation banking is a system by which ecological losses, especially to wetlands and streams, driven by
257
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
development are compensated for by the preservation and restoration of wetlands, natural habitats, and
streams to ensure zero net loss to the environment (Common Ground 2018, p.76). They continue,
explaining that California currently has over eighty mitigation and conservation banks, and that in practice,
commercial developers typically take on the task of establishing a mitigation bank associated with a
specific site and selling the credits (p.76).
Need for multi-jurisdiction cooperation
Each of the teams described the governance challenge, highlighting the difficulty of aligning diverse
stakeholders at different levels of government. Two types of solutions were proposed – those the
proposed a single entity with broad powers, and those that proposed a coalition structure.
A new entity, the Islais Creek Authority (ICA) was proposed by Islais Hyper-Creek, “based on the many
joint powers authorities already operating in the Bay Area,” to be “a single entity to manage and
implement the long-term vision for the Islais Creek watershed” (BIG One Sherwood, p.230). They describe
the benefits and objectives as follows (p.230):
• Create a single entity to direct implementation projects and ensure that 20 to 30 years from now,
the sum is greater than the whole of its parts;
• Allows for a single fiscal agent who can apply for and manage grant funding directed to project
implementation as funds from these sources become available;
• Establishes a bonding authority that can incur debt and therefore deliver large-scale projects;
• Can assemble land on behalf of member entities;
• Can maximize the value capture potential created by acquiring and managing land for multiple
purposes, including flood control and intensification;
• Can access capital at lower interest rates than the private sector;
• Can carry out necessary predevelopment activities including but not limited to research and
development related to project delivery;
• Manage and leverage risk through life-cycle costing, and balanced risk sharing;
• Sustain ongoing community input and maintain ongoing project transparency.
The South Bay Multi-Benefit Resiliency District proposed by South Bay Sponge is a similar concept for
managing and delivering the region’s multi-benefit flood protection projects (Field Operations 2018,
p.164). Benefits including coordination of permitting as a team to review “multi-benefit wetland
restoration, flood management and public access infrastructure projects” in an efficient manner (p.185).
Other teams suggested a coalition structure that enables coalition partners to retain their individual
identity and point of view in a power sharing structure. For example, Public Sediment advocated for a
coalition stating: “A coalition, not a single entity, is critical to implementing this work, as no one of these
partners has the authority or expertise to realize all the elements of this project. Only as a coalition can
they ensure that the multi-benefit goals of the project (around sustainable sediment flows, human access
and awareness of the creek ecosystem, and ecosystem benefits particularly for migratory species) remain
intact… The lead agency would shift depending on the geography of the effort” (SCAPE, p.124).

258
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
Transformation Dashboard
The RbD projects address the need for adaptation and mitigation of social and ecological systems,
demonstrating synergies and co-benefits that can be gained through a holistic design approach. However,
as discussed in Chapter 2, new metrics are needed to measure individual and community well-being, as
typical project metrics focus primarily on the economic return to capital and not the qualitative and
quantitative ‘returns’ to the community. The evaluation of projects in terms of narrow economic criteria
represents a missed opportunity to measure individual and community benefits.
The Transformation Dashboard was developed to display strategies that support the formation of all six
forms of capital – built, natural, human, social, cultural, and economic. Physical and natural capital
strategies are described on the ‘urban’ side of the Transformation Dashboard, and human, social, cultural
and economic capital strategies described on the ‘social’ side and is inclusive of strategies supporting
community participation and inclusive process. Furthermore, the four quadrants of the dashboard
describe strategies that are classified as urban or social, and adaptive or mitigative, with a full
understanding that there is no fixed line between these categories and that strategies generating co-
benefits in different quadrants of the dashboard are to be expected. The axes of urban-social and
adaptation-mitigation define four quadrants of the dashboard – with each quadrant describing issues
supporting outcomes that are more Resilient, Sustainable, Socially Beneficial and Socially Just.

Potential uses of the Transformation Dashboard, include use by project teams as a process tool while
developing new projects. Projects focusing predominantly in one quadrant or another may benefit from
consideration of additional strategies that could provide a more comprehensive project with additional
Figure 5.1: Key to the Transformation Dashboard developed by the author (see Appendix 1 for full size graphic)
259
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
co-benefits. Finally, the Transformation Dashboard can also be used as a communication tool, to describe
multi-benefit goals and the community benefit that results.
Detail is available in the project team reports that is worthy of deeper investigation. See Chapter 4 for a
description of each project, including the specific challenges at each site, a summary of the design
response and the social equity position, a graphic depiction of the Transformation Dashboard and a listing
of the strategies addressed. See Appendix 1 for a full-size graphic of the key to the Transformation
Dashboard (figure 5-1), and Appendix 2 for more detailed project information, including excerpted text
with page number citations to the research reports for each of the identified strategies from the
Transformation Dashboard. Key issues addressed in each quadrant of the Transformation Dashboard are
highlighted below.
Strengthen Urban Ecosystem
Strengthening the built and natural environment does not require fixed ‘hard infrastructure’ systems to
be robust; rather, adaptive systems can be employed to respond to the challenges of climate change over
time. The RbD project strategies have been organized in this report based on their relationship to the
watershed, including the transition zone (between upland and lowland), the riparian zone, and the
shoreline zone (including tidal and subtidal areas). Strategies impacting buildings and infrastructure are
also included. Dynamic adaptive strategies give preference to the use of natural and hybrid strategies over
built ‘hard infrastructure’ strategies. Estuary Commons noted: “It is essential to restore the ecological
transition zone—the elevational zone where low-lying marsh habitat and upland habitat meet—to
provide future habitat for species to transition as sea level rises” (All Bay Collective 2018, p.84). In some
cases, teams proposed acquiring low-lying land to supplement marsh environments; while in others, the
strategy involved supplementing shoreline zones with additional material to restore marsh habitat.
The availability of material to elevate marsh areas along the shoreline is a challenge, especially given the
scale of the Bay. To address this, projects proposed use of dredge spoils and other debris, as well as
strategies designed to capture sediment, and ‘grow’ in place. The most extreme of these was the Grand
Bayway project which was working to restore tidal flow to lands that had subsided a full seven feet from
prior uses. Noting that “The greatest impediment to using dredge spoils to help build subsided lands and
nourish imperiled and eroding marshlands is the cost of transport and placement,” (Common Ground
2018, p.50), the team proposed “Hyper-accretion gardens based on design inventions and experiments
with wattle fences, lattice berms, etc.” to accelerate natural sedimentation in tidal and upland
watersheds” (p.43). South Bay Sponge proposed the use of a “soil swap” for sea-level rise improvements,
given that “there is not enough soil that is either readily available or that meets the soil specification”
(Field Operations, p.82).
Finally, floating mixed-use neighborhoods were proposed by some teams as a strategy to ensure that
structures would remain adaptive as Bay water levels change over time. Estuary Commons suggested “a
dynamic shoreline landscape that combines tidal ponds with floating mixed-use neighborhoods to create
a floodable urban fabric” that would be more resilient to both sea level rise as buildings would rise with
the tides and floating on water would provide natural protection from earthquakes (All Bay Collective
2018, p.63). Islais Hyper-Creek described floating structures as connected to a “new Innovation Dock
where local business incubators, research facilities, and experiments in resilient floating architecture form
a hub of innovation for the city” (BIG One Sherwood 2018, p.13). Elevated roadways were another feature
that were employed to provide better access to the shoreline and greater tidal flow for naturalized areas.
260
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
Mitigate Climate Stresses
Mitigation strategies are needed to provide a comprehensive approach to climate resilience and reduce
climate change impacts. As discussed in Chapter 2, the global climate crisis is an urgent concern, and many
of the actions taken at the local scale drive emissions, and likewise, it is on the local scale where carbon
reduction co-benefits are realized, including health benefits from pollution reduction and multiple
benefits from compact walkable neighborhoods with access to local goods and services that support local
jobs and local economic development. The strategies included in this section include transportation,
energy systems, materials, water and site ecology related to buildings, infrastructure and natural systems.
Ambitious carbon reduction strategies offer economic and well as environmental benefits. Our Home
described “Strategic investment in affordable ‘net zero’ ownership housing, electric vehicles, transit
connections and community support services” which “can reduce the cost of living for residents and
catalyze local reinvestment and wealth building” (Home Team 2018, p.40). This is an important equity
issue, as incentives for consumers to incentive purchase of solar PV and electric vehicles tend to be benefit
those that are already well off. Our Home also noted that “Marin Clean Energy (MCE) programs streamline
low-cost financing and provide bonuses for energy savings and installed solar power, making solar
profitable for residents as well as installers.” They continue, noting that “Integration of electric vehicle
hubs for car/bike sharing can help households reduce the number of cars they own. Contra Costa County
recently received a grant to support electric vehicle (EV) readiness and provide incentives to low-income
households” (p.41).
Transportation was a primary focus of team proposals focused on sustainability, as this carbon emissions
reduction strategy provides powerful co-benefits in terms of economic development and social
connectivity, while active transportation modes provide health co-benefits. Many of the teams proposed
multi-modal hubs or stations, and integration of ferry services was also a major theme. However, the
teams also described transportation needs in terms of a mobility network that connects people to
destinations, while building social connection. “Any growth and resiliency planning at the Bay’s edge must
be tied in with improvements to connectivity, mobility and transit. Running trails, bikeways, BRT routes,
Light-rail and heavy rail trains all form part of a mobility network that will not only increase the prosperity
of the region, but also the resilience of the communities and residents living, working and commuting
along the Bay” (Field Operations 2018, p.96).
Finally, urban forest and wetlands play an important role in carbon sequestration, an opportunity noted
by many teams. Some of them suggested that the carbon offset market represents an area of potential
future development to support investment in green infrastructure. Another consideration is that the Bay
ecology as a living system is at risk and requires both protection and nurturing if it is going to continue to
provide protection for communities that live in the Bay Area. Public Sediment noted that “Tidal
ecosystems are protective infrastructure that cushion the urban edges of the San Francisco Bay. Yet the
Bay Area’s tidal ecosystems—its marshes and mudflats—are at risk. These systems require sediment to
vertically grow in response to sea level rise – without sediment, our baylands will drown. This represents
a slow but devastating scale of loss that threatens ecosystems, recreational landscapes, and places
hundreds of thousands of residents and the region’s critical drinking water, energy, and transportation
systems at risk. To creatively adapt to this challenge, our team has focused on sediment, the building block
of resilience in the Bay” (SCAPE 2018, p.8).
261
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
Strengthen Social Ecosystem: Socially Beneficial
The neighborhood context, as it shapes human, social, economic and cultural capital represents what I
am calling the ‘social ecosystem.’ Assets include housing, jobs, recreation, community gathering spaces,
access to transportation and quality education, community cohesion, strengthening of social bonds, etc.
Community participation and common pool resources are highlighted as complements to the other forms
of capital creation. Key strategies from the RbD projects include public open space as a multi-benefit social
infrastructure; development of ‘complete communities’ with increased density and mixed-use cores to
support a local economy and green jobs; and creation of resilience hubs.
First, public open space is essential social infrastructure that can be designed as a multi-benefit resilience
strategy. Elevate San Rafael described the proposed Pickleweed Park as “the community’s most important
resilience infrastructure,” as it was designed to provide an active community gathering space with event
space, and new recreational facilities as well as a “safe haven for the community in a time of crisis,” based
on planned improvements including a pumping station (Bionic 2018, p.60). Parks can also be designed as
storm buffers by being intentionally designed to be floodable with green space that will absorb water.
Resilient South City describes how new parks are proposed adjacent to the creek right of way, “for
infiltration and/or overflow into the creek, reducing peak flow” (Hassell+ 2018, p.58). Islais Hyper-Creek
explained that locating new parks in low-income areas not currently serviced by parks is a social equity
strategy. They note that “Most parks in San Francisco are located in low-density areas in the western part
of the city. The creation of a large park on the Bay-side of San Francisco—the area least serviced by parks
while subject to most of the City’s future urban growth—is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to restore
equity with the provision of green spaces” (BIG One Sherwood, p.11).
Development of local walkable retail is another primary strategy that contributes to complete
communities, building resilience through social bonds and reducing carbon emissions related to
transportation of goods and services. The Grand Bayway noted the importance of “reintroducing a central
main street and preserving local businesses while big box stores like Walmart displace local retail
establishments, creating very little diversity in uses and an inactive public realm.” The first phase to
transform Napa Junction/American Canyon as an urban node at the edge of the baylands is to create a
well-connected and accessible community by leveraging multimodal transportation opportunities.
Following transportation upgrades, the reuse of existing large industrial buildings supports the
introduction of new creative businesses” (Common Ground, p.84).
Finally, the resilience hub concept was proposed by several teams, as a place that supports community
gathering and enhances formation of social capital, while also serving as a hub for needed services in the
community and services and refuge in times of emergency. People’s Plan proposed “a resiliency hub for
all of Marin City” including “water security cisterns, disaster preparedness services, rain gardens, food
security gardens, and more” (Permaculture + Social Equity 2018, p.37). Resilient South City proposed that
their schools be developed as resilience hubs, with “water, energy, food and facilities needed to house
displaced communities, or even just as temporary points of gathering and information distribution.
Through increased community access to schools, communities will become more connected and more
able to self-organize in these times of disaster, knowing where older and more vulnerable member of
their community live and being able to help them” (Hassell+ 2018, p.60).

262
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
Mitigate Social Stresses: Socially Just
A comprehensive approach to social resilience also requires mitigation strategies to address historic and
current injustices from structural racism including redlining, under-investment and lack of opportunity in
communities of color. Strategies include those that promote health and wellness, economic
empowerment, community stabilization, inclusive planning and development processes and a just
amount of social investment. Some of the key strategies focus on wealth building through affordable
home ownership and local business, new jobs and job training programs, and improved access to services.
The nature of the community partnership plays an essential role as well.
Affordable housing helps to stabilize communities, and affordable home ownership for low-income
households is a key for wealth building. Our Home proposed “small lot home ownership” as a housing
strategy that is affordable by design, and “builds on the history of do-it-yourself resourcefulness of North
Richmond residents and proposes subdivision of vacant lots to create small lot housing in keeping with
the scale of existing homes. Larger lot housing redevelopments at Las Deltas and Grove and Garamita can
help stabilize affordable home ownership through exploration of a community land trust” (Home Team
2018, p.9). Elevate San Rafael proposed that housing include many levels of affordability, building a
“housing ladder into new and retrofitted housing (in the) Canal Catchment to enable housing and
economic mobility, including lease-to-own and other opportunities.” Furthermore, to “Preserve
community and reduce isolation, replacement housing should be built within the same, existing ‘social
catchment area’ and improve connectivity to resources outside of the catchment” (Bionic 2018, p.107).
Jobs and job training were also a key strategy in many of the plans. For example, Islais Hyper-Creek
planned to “grow neighborhood jobs, port operations, local food production, diverse opportunities for
recreation as well as education and workforce training” as well as “a maker’s village, arts district,
workforce training centers, youth educational centers,” including training opportunities linked to local
schools, and local industries (BIG One Sherwood, p.128). Our Home proposed to increase local
employment with ecosystem restoration jobs and ongoing scientific research, offering that “While trees
contribute to a healthy community and healthy ecosystems, local organizations and individuals will
benefit from expanding existing jobs growing, installing and maintaining these trees and raingardens”
(Home Team 2018, p.50). The Grand Bayway noted that “According to NOAA economists, restoration
projects can create as many as 39 jobs for every $1 million invested. These jobs are distributed in the
following industries: planning and design, implementation and construction, operations and monitoring,
recreation and ecotourism” (Common Ground 2018, p.91).
Services and amenities within the community contribute to ‘complete communities’ that support
community resilience and provide opportunities to build wealth. Resilient South City noted that
“Community resilience is often dependent on the quality of the services and amenities within walking
distance of neighborhoods, as well as how these sites/services can adapt in times of emergency.”
(Hassell+, p.7). Sharing economy services further support affordable living and community wealth
building. Resilient South City addressed these opportunities with “a suite of structures, facilities and
programs for these spaces – from tool libraries to Resilience Education Centers, from sports fields to
market halls” (p.10).
Finally, the engagement process itself creates a pathway to address social justice deficits. Some of the
communities participating in the RbD challenge are actively engaged in community-driven planning,
similar to what has been described in the literature as a comprehensive community development process
263
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
(Simon 2001; Blakely and Leigh 2010). Estuary Commons described the East Oakland Neighborhood
Initiative (EONI) as “the ultimate, successful realization of the Transformative Climate Communities (TCC)
planning grant. This grant was awarded to a coalition led by East Oakland Building Healthy Communities,
Oakland Climate Action Coalition (OCAC), and HOPE Collaborative, in partnership with the City of Oakland
Planning Department and numerous other local community-based organizations (CBOs). This coalition will
use TCC funds to assess the environmental, economic, and social justice priorities of six East Oakland
neighborhoods through a community-driven planning process” (All Bay Collective, p.70).
Assessment

Figure 5.2: Comparative assessment of the nine RbD projects using the Transformation Dashboard, created by
the author.
264
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
Comparison between the nine RbD projects, was a key purpose of the Transformation Dashboard, to
assist future design teams and other project stakeholders interested in learning more about these
innovative projects. The categories in the Transformation Dashboard represent dimensions of personal
and community well-being that produce cumulative benefit, with many synergies and co-benefits
between the various strategies. Individual strategies in each category have been developed based on the
RbD projects, and so are specific to the nine project areas, however they will be generally applicable to
projects at or near the edges of the bay watershed, including the shoreline as well as creeks and streams.
When a strategy has been identified as one included in a project, the empty ‘dot’ is filled in. It should be
noted that every strategy on the radial grid will not all be applicable to every site, and no attempt has
been made to ‘weight’ the strategies in terms of their benefit or to prioritize strategies relative to each
other. Given the diverse nature of the information collected, the cumulative ‘score’ is interesting to
consider, but not intended to be an indicator of overall performance, as thresholds and weightings have
not been assigned to the strategies. Where the Dashboard may have value, however, is in its
representation of relative areas of attention. For example, a team keenly focused on climate adaptation
and mitigation will have more dots filled in the “resilience” quadrant and the “sustainability” quadrant,
whereas a team focusing only on shoreline resilience may have very few dots filled in the sustainability
quadrant. Some observations based on comparison of the project dashboards are provided below.
Comparison of the project dashboards
As discussed previously, comparison of diverse projects has been a primary motive for development of
the Transformation Dashboard. Recognizing that the quantitative aspect of the comparison is an
indication of ‘area of focus’ and not a measure of project performance, there are patterns that emerge
from the comparison. To summarize the number of strategies identified as ‘dots’ in the dashboard graphic,
a number has been placed in the corner of each quadrant in figure 5-2, reflecting the total number of dots
represented. A comparison of the quadrants to each other produces the following observations:
My first observation is that the ‘Socially Beneficial’ quadrant is a primary area of focus for each project
and reflects the greatest number of strategies relative to the other quadrants in six of the nine projects.
Of the other three, one has a greater concentration of strategies in the ‘Sustainable’ quadrant, one has
more in the ‘Resilient’ quadrant, and the third has more in the ‘Socially Just’ and ‘Sustainable’ quadrants.
The results are more mixed relative to the ‘Socially Just’ quadrant, as just three teams have a distinct
concentration of strategies in this quadrant (with 17, 21, and 24 dots), and three teams had distinctly few
strategies in this quadrant (with 2, 3 and 4 dots), and three teams were in between.
The results were also mixed in the ‘Sustainable’ quadrant, as just two teams have a strong concentration
of strategies in this quadrant (with 19 and 20 dots), and two teams had distinctly few strategies in this
quadrant (with 3 dots each), and five teams were in between.
Finally, the ‘Resilient’ quadrant is a strong area of focus, as would be expected, however it is not the
‘primary’ area of focus as mentioned previously. Eight of the nine teams show a concentration of
strategies in this quadrant (ranging between 10 and 17 dots), and one teams had distinctly few strategies
in this quadrant (with just 4 dots).
If project teams had access to the Transformation Dashboard as a design tool for brainstorming, my
sense is that the number of strategies integrated into each project would have been greater.
265
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
Recommendations
Reflecting on the ideas developed and the community process engaged for the RbD challenge, my sense
is that physical planning ideas are not sufficient on their own to initiate the transformation needed to
address the urgent challenges of resilience, equity and sustainability. Given the relative strength of the
Bay Area economy at this time, I also believe that the challenge is not purely one of funding availability
but is deeply embedded in the economic incentives and patterns of racial and economic exclusion that
have been established over time. While design is a powerful tool, I believe that additional policy levers
are needed to support inclusive socio-ecological transformation. The focus here is on planning and urban
design as a tool to shape the geographic and socio-spatial development patterns that profoundly impact
the way resources are used and natural systems are managed – as well as the landscape of opportunity
that is currently excluding so many but could become the source of future ‘green growth’ and prosperity.
The six recommendations are a preliminary look at specific ideas that could unlock greater opportunity by
addressing places in the SF Bay Area that are often overlooked by those imagining the future of the region.
My hypothesis is that community-driven sustainable development of the most vulnerable communities
surrounding the Bay can provide a pathway to a more sustainable, equitable and resilient region. These
recommendations leverage existing policy to address funding challenges, embedded incentives and new
governance opportunities. Many other ideas will be needed as well, however these are offered as
potentially valuable areas for future investigation.
1. Create Priority Resilience Areas for targeted investment
Some of the most disadvantaged communities in the Bay Area are located near the bay edge in the
inundation zone - areas that have been identified as having a high risk for flooding and sea level rise. These
areas are also outside of the “high opportunity area” designation that would provide priority for
subsidized housing investment including federal tax credits (CASA Compact, 2018). Given the magnitude
of housing supply shortage in the SF Bay Area – a deficit estimated at 3.5 million statewide, with almost
one million housing units needed in the SF Bay Area by 2025 to address the current market demand for
housing (McKinsey 2016) – it is especially unfortunate that some areas are being left behind. The
following is recommended:
• Create an overlay in Plan Bay Area to identify “Priority Resilience Areas (PRA)” for priority
planning. These are areas that will reap the greatest benefit from investment from a combination
of community economic development (CED), affordable housing and resilience investments as the
need is so high.
• Prioritize PRA areas for funding to support development of specific plans integrating resilient
nature-based infrastructure based on the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas: Working
with Nature to Plan for Sea Level Rise Using Operational Landscape Units (SFEI and SPUR 2019).
• Planning should integrate beneficial new uses with resilience investments, including mixed use
development with housing and commercial space for local business, net zero energy homes,
transportation access, public space and other priorities as identified by the community.
• Planning must include a community-driven process to build the local economy and protect
affordability while proactively addressing potential drivers of displacement.
266
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
RbD linkages:
The Home Team proposed “Priority Resilience Areas” as
an overlay to Plan Bay Area, the regional land use, housing
and transportation plan. “North Richmond is an acute
example of why the current methods for directing funding
to Priority Conservation Areas and Priority Development
Areas does not support current issues facing the Bay. The
current model is dichotomous, and the future is a rapid-
response hybrid” that should be developed to support
both ecological and community-based needs with multi-
benefit solutions. (Home Team 2018, p.16)
The All Bay Collective proposed “Resilient Equity Hubs”
(REHBs), an idea similar to the Priority Resilience Area
concept, which they describe as “alliances among
agencies, community advocates, and residents… At the
neighborhood level, REHBs establish the networks
necessary to deliver near-term results in pursuit of shared,
systematic goals. We see REHBs as both a process and a
distinct spatial strategy; and as both a near-term and long-
term approach. It is vital that REHBs are implemented
early to integrate community priorities into long-term
financing mechanisms and cross-jurisdictional governance
frameworks” (All Bay Collaborative, p.49).
2. Identify select CoC tracts as early action “TCC+” demonstration projects using measure AA
resilience funds, TCC funds and a fair share of new regional housing funds
The California legislature has acted quickly to support the findings from the CASA Compact, with new
housing bills proposed including SB 5: Beall, Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment
Program (Beall 2019); and AB 1487: Chiu, San Francisco Bay area: housing development: financing (Chiu
2019) that mirror the language from the CASA Compact. Governor Newsom has also issued an executive
order requiring every state-owned parcel to be considered as a site for affordable housing (Office of Gov
Newsom, 2019).
The flurry of activity on housing is potentially positive however that are many questions about how the
investment will be directed and how it will be distributed regionally. If funding only supports construction
in portions of the metro area that are already affluent, given the preference for affordable housing
construction in high opportunity areas (HOAs), the under-invested areas of the region will fall even further
behind. It is also primarily a regressive tax structure, given that the majority of funds derive from a new
sales tax and a new parcel tax. The current bill includes a modest element of regional revenue sharing
(maximum of $200 million per year) through the ERAF mechanism which was established to distribute
state funds for education (Chiu 2019). Overall, this is a good, but imperfect, building block for change as
it will support desperately needed new housing, and promote somewhat less segregated HOAs, providing
greater opportunity to a portion of those who need it and providing greater demographic mixing.
Figure 5.3: Proposed locations for Priority
Resilience Areas (Home Team 2018, p.29)
267
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
The Cap-and-Trade program provides an interesting model for how new funding for affordable housing
could be allocated, as it has evolved based on input from Environmental Justice community to focus on
social costs, and to prioritize a minimum of 25% of auction proceeds to benefit disadvantaged
communities, with the Transformative Climate Communities program (TCC) developed to award those
funds (Carlson 2016; Cushing et al. 2016; Zabin et al. 2016).
Communities of Concern (CoC) are defined in the Plan Bay Area, Equity Analysis Report, based on
concentration of low-income residents and minority population, or a concentration of low-income
population plus three of six other vulnerability characteristics (MTC 2017b). Based on this definition, MTC
designated 365 census tracts (or 23 percent of the total number of tracts) as CoCs,” with a “significant
concentration of disadvantage” (MTC 2017b, p.2-3). Given the high social cost of concentrated poverty,
including lack of opportunity, low social mobility and reduced life expectancy, public investment is needed
to promote healthier communities providing equal opportunity. The following is recommended:
• Provide support for key sites to be developed as Transformative Climate Communities “Plus”
(TCC+) demonstration projects, to provide a concentration of funding and support for community-
led processes focused on comprehensive community economic development (CED), affordable
housing, resilience and transformational climate investment.
• A minimum of 25% of the total value of the new “Affordable Housing and Community
Development Investment Program,” which is estimated at $1.5 Billion per year for 15 years,
should be allocated to projects in CoCs for comprehensive CED, including development of low-
income housing together with other appropriate investments for community improvement.
• A community stabilization plan must be developed by resident leaders together with appropriate
professional expertise, as needed, to ensure that existing residents are not displaced.
• If there is a delay in the disbursement of funds for development, those funds should be held for
use at the appropriate time. No funds should be lost.
Figure 5.4: Site location of nine Bay Area
RbD projects (Seigel 2018, p.11)
Figure 5.5: Map of High Opportunity Areas (HOA) in the
SF Bay Area (CASA 2018, p.8)
268
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
From the literature:
High Opportunity Areas (HOAs) are a big topic of discussion in California housing policy (CASA Committee
2018, 2019; Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2017b; Kirkey 2016, etc.) and in current public
policy discussions. The map in figure 5-4 identifies the site locations of the nine RbD case study projects,
while the map in figure 5-5 identifies areas classified as “high opportunity” in the Plan Bay Area Equity
Analysis Report. It is interesting to note that the RbD sites are not in HOA areas.
The challenges of concentrated poverty and the mechanisms that create it are well known (Aldana and
Dymski 2004; Goldsmith and Blakely 2010; Jargowsky 2015, 2018; etc.). Paul Jargowsky (2015) refers to
concentrated poverty as a “choice,” stating that “Our governance and development practices ensure that
significant segments of our population live in neighborhoods where there is no work, where there are
underperforming schools, and where there is little access to opportunity.” He continues, offering that “we
have to try to stabilize low-income areas, improve inner-city schools, and expand economic opportunities
for those currently living in disadvantaged neighborhoods. And perhaps more importantly, we have to
find a way to stop creating so many high-poverty neighborhoods in the first place. We must work to
change the development paradigm that creates high-poverty neighborhoods” (Jargowsky 2015, p.14).
Fundamental premises which have guided urban planning and policymaking need to be rethought,
including the dispersal approach that is used “to locate the poor near social and economic opportunities,”
argues UC Berkeley’s Karen Chapple (Chapple 2015, p.3). Focusing on place-based endogenous
development, she questions the singular focus often placed on the export base and suggests that “local
consumption may drive regional growth by creating new markets, intensifying local impacts, or enhancing
a region’s attractiveness” (p.197; citing Markusen and Schrock 2009). Furthermore, she notes that “To the
extent that new local-serving activity relies on underutilized land or labor, it will also increase overall
productivity (p.198; citing Bartik 2004).
RbD linkages:
Estuary Commons described the positive impact the TCC program can have for vulnerable communities,
as East Oakland, a community within their project area had recent funding success. “A coalition of
community-based organizations and the City of Oakland recently won a Transformative Climate
Communities (TCC) grant, setting the groundwork for community-driven resilience planning in and around
Figure 5.6: Existing Site Area San Leandro Bay,
(All Bay Collective 2018, p.22)
Figure 5.7: Estuary Commons with Tidal Cities
proposal for San Leandro Bay, (All Bay Collective
2018, p.42)
269
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
the Estuary. Their ultimate vision—the East Oakland Neighborhood Initiative (EONI)—will scaffold
collaboration around local adaptation for years to come” (All Bay Collective 2018, p.116). They describe
this opportunity as one that has the potential to demonstrate that resilient infrastructure investment can
“not only protect local communities, but also lead to equitable, economically vibrant, and environmentally
thriving places” as local leaders “build additional capacity around resilience planning and establish a
community-based governance framework to steward future adaptation strategies” (p.116).
3. Pilot new models for community stabilization and wealth building
New development tools are needed to stabilize low-income communities, to protect them from
gentrification and displacement, as well as the corrosive effects of deferred investment, vacancy and low
levels of service. Once communities are stabilized, endogenous development opportunities should be
explored to promote local business development based on community assets.
• Create a CASA 2.0 task force to explore community economic development strategies in under-
invested areas within sensitive communities. The CASA Compact offers communities a five-year
window of time to defer new affordable housing construction for community planning. The
community planning process will need funding and sensitive communities are entitled to a fair
share of the housing funds for comprehensive community economic development (CED).
• Explore alternatives to existing housing delivery models that burden housing project costs with
the full cost of infrastructure, driving up the cost of affordable housing and under-funding
infrastructure development.
• Explore alternative funding formulas for community facilities such as schools and parks, as impact
fees charged on a per unit basis are a form of regressive taxation, as smaller affordable units are
taxed at the same rate as much larger market rate units.
• Develop a vacant land strategy. Explore creation of a locally controlled land bank and/or land trust
to transition vacant and tax delinquent vacant property (including “zombie properties”) that are
currently vacant.
• Identify pilot neighborhoods that can be developed as “green niches,” as described in the
resilience literature. These should explore net zero energy housing and walkable communities
with transit-connections to prototype innovative high-performance affordable living.
From the literature:
The idea of a “green niche” comes from the transition process outlined by Smith and Sterling (2010),
which I paraphrase as including problem definition; piloting and prototyping; learning and adaptation; and
institutionalization (Smith and Sterling 2010). They describe the concept of a “green niche” as a
“protective settings that reduce susceptibility to prevailing market pressures” during the piloting phase,
and they advise that “radical sustainable innovations that carry systemic implications typically need this
kind of space to develop, improve, and enroll support” (Smith and Sterling 2010, p.6; citing Kemp et al.
1998, Smith 2007). Ahern (2011) also promotes the benefits of testing and prototyping, offering that
“These should explore net zero energy housing and walkable communities with transit-connections to
prototype innovative high-performance affordable living. This is an opportunity to test, prototype and
‘learn-by-doing’, as many new systems and infrastructures, as well as policy and governance structures
will be needed to make the transition to a sustainable society” (Ahern 2011, p.343; citing Holling, 1978).
270
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
RbD linkages:
The Home Team promoted housing that is Affordable by Design – “Selective housing investment in North
Richmond can catalyze employment and improve quality of life for current residents with housing that is
affordable by design. Home sizes will vary, with small lot homes averaging about 1000 SF each and multi-
family homes ranging from micro-units at 300 SF to larger family units at 1200-1500 SF. This plan will
produce housing for moderate-, low- and very low-income households with minimal or no local subsidy.
Key factors are as follows: (Home Team 2018, p.41)
• impact fees greatly reduced (infrastructure
funded through Green Mitigation Fund)
• no-cost financing (social impact bond
revolving loan fund)
• minimal or no land cost (transfer of land to
community land trust)
• reduced parking requirement
• zero energy water efficient homes have low
utility costs
• limited profits at resale (~ 2-3% annual gain
over inflation, to be determined by CLT)”
4. Develop regional resilience vision to protect and restore watershed assets
A regional resilience vision is needed that can provide a framework for regional development integrating
long-range goals for growth management and stewardship of water resources, within a larger framework
of sustainability and equity. The SF Bay Area has a Joint Policy Committee (JPC), formed in 2003, that
provides coordination of the regional planning efforts of ABAG, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Committee (MTC), and includes select representatives from the State. The
JPC lead an initiative called “OneBayArea,” to coordinate development of Plan Bay Area, the region’s long-
range plan for sustainable land use, transportation, and housing (IRWM 2013, p.13-2).
The Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) is a comprehensive assessment of
water resources with a focus on protection of water resources, including resilience planning. Given the
magnitude of climate change impacts that are anticipated, and the investment needed to address sea
level rise and flooding alone, an assessment of spatial planning and urban design impacts on water
resources is merited. Integration of water resource planning with growth management and transportation
planning could lead to new thinking about embedded incentives that are working against current growth
sustainability goals. Design visualization can be a powerful tool to explore impacts and test future
scenarios.
• Create a Bay Watershed Vision task force including subject matter experts, agency
representatives, university partners, and planning and urban design leaders to explore planning
scenarios based on deep sustainability goals including decentralized water management systems.
Figure 5.8: Small Lot Housing Concept for North
Richmond (Home Team 2018, p.42)
271
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
• Create a multi-benefit framework to evaluate the planning scenarios developed by the task force.
From the literature:
The term new regionalism seems to be under constant reinvention. After a brief fascination with the idea
of mega-region economic integration, many urban theorists that are also looking at sustainability and
equity challenges are advocating for smaller organizational units tied more closely to their local economies
(Campbell 2009, Wheeler 2009, Roseland 2005). Stephen Wheeler (2009) proposes a model for
sustainable region as one with distinct community clusters each supporting a local economy, creating a
“focus on smaller-scale community development within the region, with attempts to maintain separation
between local communities in terms of labour markets, housing markets, road systems, and land
development” (Wheeler 2009, p.872). With smaller economic units, the mega-region goal becomes one
of eco-regional planning to steward natural resource, watersheds, etc.
RbD linkages:
Public Sediment argued that
a new “design/science
collaboration” is needed to
develop a plan for the future
of the San Francisco
baylands, and should include
smaller pilots to test ideas
crucial for future adaptation
(SCAPE 2018, p.9). They
describe the San Francisco
Bay as a “mosaic of estuarine
ecosystems. Tidal marshes
and mudflats ring the Bay,
buffering vulnerable edges
and levees from wave action
and tidal energy.
Constructed ponds and diked
agricultural areas are built in
former marshlands and
provide unique habitats and
economies. Combined, this
mosaic of ecosystems known
as the Baylands filter the
region’s water, sequester
carbon, reduce coastal
erosion, dissipate tidal
energy, create recreational
space for people, and
provide critical habitat for
threatened and endangered
species” (p.120).
Figure 5.9: The Baylands Living Infrastructure (SCAPE 2018, p.13)

272
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
5. Create Multi-Jurisdiction Resilience Fund as a Regional Wealth Fund
Transformation of the SF Bay Area to meet climate and resilience goals will require significant investment
in infrastructure that crosses jurisdictional boundaries. A multi-jurisdiction resilience fund is proposed to
support investment in large scale multi-benefit projects providing valuable public benefit. A feature of the
proposed fund is that it be structured as a regional urban wealth fund (UWF), similar to the urban wealth
funds detailed by Dag Detter and Stefan Fölster in their book The Public Wealth of Cities (Detter and
Fölster 2017). The fund would hold and manage public land developed as part of the resilience investment,
capturing value from new uses and using funds to reinvest in other regional projects. The wealth fund
would be held as a public trust, building wealth and long-term resilience, and insuring the region against
future uncertainties.
A regional fund structure would enable cross-jurisdictional funding and bridge the equity challenge of
vastly different funding capacity on a city by city basis, as concentrations of wealth and affluence follow
municipal boundaries in the Bay Area. The issue of land ownership between the municipality and the
regional authority may be contested, however revenue sharing agreements could be made between the
fund and municipalities, utilities and others with separate authority. One possible model is to begin with
land BCDC already controls along the bay edge, with additional property added on an opt in basis.
• Create a regional fund for resilient infrastructure investments in SF Bay inundation zones. The
fund would hold and manage public land developed as part of the resilience investment, capturing
value from new uses and using funds to reinvest in other regional projects. The wealth fund would
be held as a public trust, building wealth and long-term resilience, and insuring the region against
future uncertainties.
• Create a regional climate-risk insurance pool with a reinvestment feature that invests the delta
between the current FEMA charge for insurance and the self-insured rate to provide a fund for
resilience upgrades. The fund would increase in value as risk is reduced over time.
• Create an expanded California cap-and-trade regional offset market to create incentives for green
infrastructure investments, prioritizing those that provide community co-benefits.
From the literature:
In The Public Wealth of Cities, Dag Detter and Stefan Fölster (2017) argue that cities can better manage
existing public assets using the concept of an urban wealth fund (UWF), a tool used in major cities
including Copenhagen, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Singapore (Detter and Fölster 2017). They advise that “The
key is to unlock social, human and economic wealth that cities already own but is out of sight. A focus on
existing public wealth helps to shift attention and resources from short-term spending to longer-term
investments that can dramatically raise the quality of life for urban residents” (p.x).
The Copenhagen model described by Bruce Katz and Jeremy Nowak (2017) makes use of an urban wealth
fund as a “public-purpose revenue concept” described as “a new publicly owned, privately managed
corporate vehicle that could regenerate large areas in the city’s core, maximize the value of underutilized
public land, and use the revenues generated by smart zoning and asset management to finance transit
and other infrastructure. The aspiration was to combine the efficiency of market discipline and
mechanisms within the benefits of public direction, legitimacy, and low-cost finance” (Katz and Nowak
2017, p.121-122).
273
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
Social investments often do not provide market rate returns. Tim Jackson argues that “Longer term, less
productive investments will be essential for sustainability but less attractive to private capital. So, the role
of their progressive State in protecting these assets is going to be vital. Financing social investment
without increasing public sector debt can only be achieved through higher taxation. Or through the public
sector taking some ownership stake in productive assets. Or else by a reform in the monetary system in
favour of sovereign money.” (Jackson 2017, 222)
A new method for measuring “genuine green growth” has been developed to address the concern that
claims of green growth are not making significant enough progress to meet urgent climate goals. Per
Espen Stoknes and Johan Rockström (2018) developed a metric to measure the carbon productivity or
‘CAPRO’ needed to meet established planetary boundaries. “Starting with climate emissions, this means
that to earn the label of ‘genuine green growth’ the carbon productivity of an economic entity must
achieve a trajectory over time sufficient to meet science-based targets derived from planetary boundaries
(Stoknes and Rockström 2018, p.43; citing CDP et al. 2016; Krabbe et al. 2015; Steffen et al. 2015).
RbD linkages:
Islais Hyper-Creek proposed the formation of a single entity, the Islais Creek Authority (ICA), with
participation by a cross-section of public entities. “The ICA’s key members could include the City of San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the Port of San Francisco, the San Francisco Planning Department,
and potentially, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, the California Department of Transportation
(CalTrans) and other state agencies. Except for the Planning Department, all of these agencies own
essential assets in the area and will require long-term investments to protect these facilities from the
increasing threats associated with flooding and sea level rise, including increased vulnerability to
liquefaction and major damage from seismic hazard” (BIG One Sherwood, p.230).
Current land use intensity is low, and much of the land is publicly owned. Islais Hyper-Creek notes that
“Between City-owned and privately-owned lots, there are 125 acres of parking, 70 acres of vacant lots,
and 130 acres of outdoor operations. There is an opportunity to utilize portions of these areas for
floodplain restoration and creek daylighting” (BIG One Sherwood 2018, p.107). They propose the ICA to
be a “single fiscal agent who can apply for and manage grant funding directed to project implementation”
and also “establish bonding authority that can incur debt and therefore deliver large-scale projects.”
Furthermore, they suggest that “there should be a policy or advisory committee that represents
community stakeholder interests to ensure that even as projects are being identified, designed, and
funded, that every project delivers the triple bottom line promise” (p.230).
Figure 5.10: Islais Creek, San Francisco, Existing
Climate Stress (BIG One Sherwood 2018, p.97)
Figure 5.11: Islais Creek, San Francisco, Concept for a
Resilient Future (BIG One Sherwood 2018, p.97)
274
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
6. Promote Community Partnership Process
A community engagement process promoting true community partnership is recommended to build
community capacity and social capital. Community participation and co-leadership with expert
consultants should be integrated at all phases of plan development, and an asset-based community
development approach is encouraged to recognize local assets and build on strengths. Meaningful
community process takes time, however, and local governments are expected to self-fund their plan
development, because “a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or
assessments” (Jackson 2015; citing Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution). Grant funding
can be applied for; however, the application process requires time and effort and does not guarantee
success.
• Provide state funding for community planning in disadvantaged communities, including stipends
for participating community members. Include project evaluation by community participants at
conclusion of the planning effort. Share lessons learned and provide awards for exemplary
projects.
• Pilot and test use of the Transformation Dashboard as a tool for future Bay Area planning
processes, understanding that teams using the tool are encouraged to customize it as
appropriate.
• Fast track funding for community-based planning in all “Priority Resilience Areas.”
From the literature:
“Communities can drive the development process,” claim Alison Mathie and Gord Cunningham (2005).
They describe asset-based community development as a process of “identifying and mobilizing existing
(but often unrecognized) assets” including personal attributes and social ties, to create local opportunity
(Mathie and Cunningham 2005, p.176).
Social capital is fully accessible, explains Ivan Light (2004) “all other forms of capital exclude the poor,
ignorant, unpropertied, and uncultivated… However, the poor do have some limited ability to create and
maintain social capital.” Because of this quality, he describes social capital as being “uniquely democratic”
and “the place to start when encouraging agency in necessitous populations” (p.149).
Disproportionate pollution burdens in communities of color have been conclusively demonstrated,
however Manuel Pastor (2014) believes the results suggest “that it is less about race per se than it is about
voice in the political process” (Pastor 2014, p. 229; citing Pastor et al. 2001; Pastor et al. 2005; Morello-
Frosch 2002). Because of this, he is a strong advocate for community process that empowers residents
to gather data, create maps and ‘ground truth’ information (p.241).
RbD linkages:
People’s Plan worked with community members in Marin City to “transform the process of
‘engagement’ to one of authentic partnership - to initiate site design by first increasing the capacity of
the resident community recognizing, leveraging, and enhancing the already existing assets and initiatives
in a place. This reparative capacity building approach, in its most elaborate, protracted form, intends to
redress the structural inequities of the present and past and result in a comprehensive, living, People’s
Plan that becomes a more effective starting point for the complex process of our collective adaptation
to living in an uncertain climate.” (P+SET, p.4)
275
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
The purpose of engaging a Community Partnership Process (CPP) was to build community capacity on
top of existing assets (skills, resources, and knowledge). This typically looks like skills and literacy
transfer.” (Permaculture + Social Equity 2018, p.8) The product produced “looks like a collection of maps
and documents that records the assets, risks, issues, and strategies to move elements in place and time
to celebrate what is beloved in community and address challenges and problems” (p. 12). Additionally,
“the community has enhanced their existing advocacy literacy to more effectively engage with
municipal, regulatory, and regional stakeholders” (p.3).
Community Partnership Process
The P+SET design concept approach is a Community Partnership Process (CPP) to establish local
leadership across generations. We go beyond engaging with communities to partner with residents.
The CPP specifically designs programs for individual communities based on their unique assets and
needs. Asset-based methodology for sustainable community development focuses on using a
community’s assets as a means of building local solutions to challenges. In this process, community
members are actors with agency. Local residents including individuals, groups and associations, and
institutions bring knowledge, skills, and passions as strengths to the process to influence their
physical space, foster exchanges, and foreground culture, history, and community vision.
Based on community perspectives, we provide technical expertise and education to give members
the skills to interpret and solve immediate challenges (such as flooding in a particular location).
Principles of CPP – “Our research and experience has yielded some repeating themes or patterns
that can be distilled as principles or guidelines of an effective CPP.
• Seek an invitation - A CPP is most likely to be successful if you are invited in by the
community. Seek first not to solve problems, but seek how to get invited to any existing
projects related to the area you are wishing to make an impact in.
• Build trust - A successful CPP must be grounded in trust. Explicit disclosure of intent and
vision are critical to developing trust. Acting in ways that assume and acknowledge the
existing skills, experience, and knowledge of the community helps build trust.
• Embrace diversity and inclusion - A diverse team to facilitate a CPP is more likely to be
successful in engaging with a diverse community. Include all voices and elevate those most
often marginalized. If possible attempt to mimic the type of representation to the
community you are partnering with.
• Transfer skills - Relinquish power and build skills. Use the most accessible language as
possible.
• Forge mutually beneficial relationships - Utilizing a whole systems perspective, emphasize
strategies and approaches to “stack benefits.”
• Constantly seek feedback - Build regular and varied feedback mechanisms into the CPP to
develop adaptations.
• Be adaptive - Prepare to adjust timelines, language, and focus according to the emergent
needs of the community.” (p.9)
Excerpted from the People’s Plan, Permaculture + Social Equity Team 2018, page 9
276
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
Building Will
The purpose of the RbD process, supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, was to develop visionary plans
for the future of the Bay Area, while building capacity within communities to engage in collaborative
planning, informed by a broad resilience agenda. Structured as a cohort, the RbD teams learned from each
other, building experience that each individual and firm involved will have to build upon in the future.
The challenge of transforming the physical form of one of the world’s most dynamic and productive urban
regions is no small task. The organizers of the competition knew that promoting change in advance of a
crisis, as opposed to in response to a crisis, as had been the case with the previous Rebuild by Design
process in the New York-New Jersey area after Hurricane Sandy, would be a challenge that gets to the
core purpose of planning.
The urgent task we face as planners and urban designers is to address the geographic and socio-spatial
aspects of sustainability, as unsustainable land use and poor stewardship (and neglect) of natural, human,
social and cultural resources are impacting our well-being and our prosperity, and ultimately, our
sustainability. While not all challenges of sustainability can be met by planning, the potential to make
systemic changes that support the health and productivity of natural resources, promote ‘circular
economy’ efficiencies, and reduce reliance on the automobile are important opportunities. And yet, sea
level rise and flooding are symptoms of a much larger root problem.
Actions taken in the coming decade will determine the extent of climate disruption and the potential
crossing of “a ‘tipping point’ into unmanageable degrees of climatic change” (Holdren 2008b).
Underscoring the challenge, the IPCC 2014 update states that “Without additional mitigation efforts
beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead
to high to very high risk of severe, wide-spread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence)” (IPCC
2014, p.17).
Investment in mitigating climate impacts is highly cost effective and produces valuable co-benefits
(Thorne et al. 2018; Moser et al. 2018), and yet, the need to respond locally to an issue of global concern
is a classic collective action problem. Press and Mazmanian describe ‘collective action problems’ as a
category of problems where cooperative action on common goals, such as environmental protection, are
undermined: “These occur when individuals would be better off if they cooperated in pursuit of a common
goal,” but instead, individuals “forgo the better joint gain for a nearer-term assured and secure, but lesser,
individual gain” (Press and Mazmanian 2016, p.241).
Collective action to address the global climate crisis and avert massive climate change is described by
Elinor Ostrom (2014) as a public good and “potentially the largest dilemma the world has ever knowingly
faced.” She continues, explaining that “The classic theory of collective action predicts that no one will
change behavior and reduce their energy use unless an external authority imposes enforceable rules that
change the incentives faced by those involved. This is why many analysts call for a change in institutions
at the global level (Ostrom 2014, p. 5; citing Stavins 1997; Miller 2004; Wiener 2007).” And yet, she
cautions that “’global solutions’ negotiated at a global level, if not backed up by a variety of efforts at
national, regional, and local levels… are not guaranteed to work well” (Ostrom 2014, p.4). Ostrom
advocates for ‘polycentric governance’ as the best way to address complex collective action challenges;
and, based on detailed observation of cultures that do manage their shared resources well, has developed

277
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

a set of ‘design principles’ that address the essential role of community bonds and collaborative
governance to support cooperation, trust and monitoring (Ostrom 1990, 2012, 2014).
Mapping the transition from centralized environmental management to multi-level collaborative
governance, Mazmanian and Kraft (2009) offer that “the environmental and sustainability movement in
the United States has shifted its attention to the subnational level... In doing so, it has recognized that
national regulatory strategies that require direct government enforcement, while serving as an important
legal and policy framework, need to be complemented with a myriad of public-private and collaborative
strategies that bring communities together in pursuit of their common interests in a better future”
(Mazmanian and Kraft 2009, p.5). They describe the emergent “third epoch” of environmental movement
as one where “collaboration and cooperation among all affected stakeholders and incentive-based
methods of policy implementation are promoted as the preferred approaches for both philosophical and
instrumental reasons” (Mazmanian and Kraft 2009, p.25; citing Maser 1997; Weber 2003; Wondolleck and
Yaffee 2000).
Collaboration and cooperation, as described by Mazmanian and Kraft (2009), begins to get at the root of
the problem. To foster collaboration and cooperation, I believe we need to build cultural understanding
of the linkages between the climate crisis and the crisis of inequality and exclusion. Mazmanian and Kraft
(2009) emphasized that “linking sustainability concepts to concepts of community has particular
advantages, since communities represent the social and physical expression of interdependence”
(Mazmanian and Kraft 2009, p.21). This is why I believe that socially just regeneration of physical and
natural infrastructure in neglected communities – developed in a way that builds human, social, cultural
and economic capital – can demonstrate mutual benefit and catalyze ‘virtuous cycles’ of growth.
The planning process provides a critical opportunity to promote greater understanding and build public
support for change, explains Hilda Blanco (1994), as “Lack of consensus characterizes major recalcitrant
social problems,” and while “as a society, we can initiate social change without consensus,” she cautions
that without consensus the change will not be sustained, and backlash is likely. She advises that “it is
precisely strong participatory planning processes that offer the best means to forge consensus and build
community in heterogeneous societies” through a process she calls “facilitating communities of hope”
(Blanco 1994, p.196). She argues that “The planning process is the democratic way to generate consensus
on social issues. Such consensus, in effect, constitutes the formation of a community. The communities
formed through such a planning process are communities of interpretation and hope” (p.197).
This, then, is the essential role for the design community today – working in partnership with
communities to vision possible futures and build consensus on the way forward. Carpenter et al. (2019)
describe this as a time requiring healthy and generative social innovation, yet they acknowledge that
“anxiety will tend to reduce real exploration and sustainable innovation,” and can provoke reactionary or
escapist responses. They offer that “Imagining a collective future always involves beliefs about values,
norms, and ways of life that characterize a society,” and requires most of all that “people of very different
worldviews” find ways to “talk and work together about desirable common futures in a time of
extraordinary change” (Carpenter et al. 2019, p.4; citing Jasanoff and Kim 2015; Ellis 2018). This is the way
to develop a meaningful civic vision.

278
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 1
KEY TO THE TRANFORMATION DASHBOARD

279
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 1: TRANSFORMATION DASHBOARD
The Tranformation Dashboard

The Transformation Dashboard is a meta-framework bringing together urban design and planning
strategies promoting diverse goals in one place – strategies that are often advocated for by very diverse
constituencies. The diverse issue areas are organized into four “quadrants” representing strategies that
are: resilient, sustainable, socially beneficial and socially just. Within those quadrants, topics are
developed that support a focus on six forms of capital – physical, natural, human, social, cultural and
economic – to highlight opportunities to build wealth in communities as a constructive shared goal that is
fundamental to long term sustainability (Serageldin 1996; Roseland 2005; Stiglitz, Sen, Fitoussi 2011;
Dasgupta 2014; Laurent 2017). The three E’s of sustainability – environment, economy, equity – identify
important themes that must all be addressed but tend to be viewed as oppositional goals (Campbell 1996,
etc.). Building six forms of capital is a way to align goals and support a constructive multi-benefit mindset.

Figure A1.1: Enlarged version of the Transformation Dashboard, highlighting the organizational
structure (by the author).
280
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 1: TRANSFORMATION DASHBOARD

Figure A1.2: Enlarged version of the Transformation Dashboard, rotated to fit the page (by the author).
281
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 1: TRANSFORMATION DASHBOARD
1. Strengthen Urban Ecosystem – ‘Resilient’

A. Shoreline zone
i. Build or enhance conventional seawall or levee
ii. Develop a horizontal living levee
iii. Grow protective reef in the subtidal zone
iv. Restore tidal marsh as a protective buffer
v. Create waterfront park as buffer for rising tides
vi. Create pebble dune beach to control erosion

B. Riparian zone
i. Reconfigure and naturalize channelized creeks
ii. Reconnect creeks to the bay and tidal wetlands
iii. Remove watershed barriers (levees, dams, diked ponds)
iv. Enhance natural sediment transport systems
v. Expand floodplain areas along creeks
vi. Create tidal lagoons for floating structures

C. Lowland transition zone
i. Increase elevation of land (accretion, nourishment)
ii. Utilize dredge spoils and/or soil swaps to elevate land
iii. Transition under-utilized land to green infrastructure
iv. Integrate floodable parks, green space to absorb water
v. Create inland freshwater wetlands
vi. Create space for tidal wetlands to migrate inland

D. Buildings
i. Adapt new structures to withstand future flooding
ii. Plan to upgrade existing flood-prone buildings
iii. Develop surge housing for use while housing is upgraded
iv. Retreat, relocate existing uses to higher elevations
v. Locate new buildings on higher ground
vi. Develop floating structures

E. Infrastructure
i. Relocate and/or elevate transportation infrastructure
ii. Build new levee as multi-benefit public pathway
iii. Create multi-benefit "slow streets"
iv. Create/manage reservoirs (flood control, groundwater recharge)
v. Integrate water detention structures in open space areas
vi. Integrate rain gardens and bio-retention areas

282
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 1: TRANSFORMATION DASHBOARD
2. Mitigate Climate Stresses – ‘Sustainable’

A. Transportation
i. Create a new multi-modal transit hub
ii. Integrate ferry service for transit
iii. Strengthen the mobility network
iv. Support bicycle and pedestrian mobility
v. Create a multi-benefit urban greenway
vi. Realign and/or cover existing freeway

B. Energy
i. Promote energy efficient buildings
ii. Support renewable energy generation
iii. Plan for future all electric buildings
iv. Plan for community energy systems
v. Capture energy synergies with eco-industrial park
vi. Plan for electric vehicles

C. Materials
i. Reuse abandoned buildings, infrastructure
ii. Reuse dredge spoils for bay / marsh restoration
iii. Reuse excavated material for bay / marsh restoration
iv. Recover compost for ecosystem restoration, urban farming
v. Develop “circular economy” flows with local resources
vi. Develop a regional sediment management plan

D. Water
i. Improve water quality
ii. Integrate rainwater harvesting systems
iii. Integrate water reuse systems
iv. Integrate wetlands with wastewater treatment systems
v. Decentralize wastewater treatment systems
vi. Develop integrated plan for water resources

E. Ecology
i. Enhance site biodiversity
ii. Protect / restore wildlife habitat
iii. Protect / restore habitat for endangered species
iv. Enhance carbon sequestration with wetlands
v. Enhance carbon sequestration with urban forest
vi. Reduce urban heat island, pollution with greening/urban forest

283
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 1: TRANSFORMATION DASHBOARD
3. Strengthen Social Ecosystem – ‘Socially Beneficial’

A. Social Capital
i. Protect community cohesion
ii. Enhance community identity
iii. Reveal cultural history
iv. Increase / enhance public gathering spaces
v. Protect / enhance / co-locate community services
vi. Link diverse neighborhoods to promote social mixing

B. Community Participation
i. Develop simple, memorable public messaging about resilience
ii. Promote broad community input into design/planning process
iii. Engage local businesses, NGOs with aligned interests
iv. Build community capacity (advocacy, leadership)
v. Support community partnership for design/planning
vi. Leverage participation with EcoDistrict, People's Plan

C. Common Pool Resources
i. Expand recreational public open space
ii. Enhance pedestrian network, bike paths
iii. Enhance local retail, civic, cultural space
iv. Restore fishing in creeks, bay
v. Promote community gardens for food production
vi. Create emergency place of refuge

D. Wealth building
i. Support / attract local business opportunities
ii. Promote mixed-use community development
iii. Protect / enhance stock of affordable commercial space
iv. Increase home ownership opportunities
v. Promote locally owned accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
vi. Reduce cost of living (housing, transportation, utilities)

E. Human Capital
i. Create new job training programs
ii. Create new place-based educational programs
iii. Enhance schools with linkages to open space
iv. Support / enhance childcare, senior daycare
v. Improve public safety (roadways, lighting, open space)
vi. Improve quality of life with urban greening

284
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 1: TRANSFORMATION DASHBOARD
4. Mitigate Social Stresses – ‘Socially Just’

A. Health / Wellness
i. Promote tree planting to improve air quality
ii. Provide air quality buffers around air pollution sources
iii. Improve opportunities for active transportation
iv. Improve access to parks and natural amenities
v. Improve access to healthy food
vi. Support community health initiatives

B. Economic Empowerment
i. Improve transportation access to jobs
ii. Support local business creation
iii. Increase local employment with ecosystem restoration jobs
iv. Support local jobs with local hire provision
v. Enhance access to financial capital
vi. Support sharing economy strategies

C. Community Stabilization
i. Support naturally affordable units (ADU, microunit, small lot)
ii. Stabilize housing costs with land trust, non-profit operator
iii. Protect / enhance stock of affordable housing
iv. Require below market rate units in new development
v. Enforce anti-displacement (no net loss, right to return)
vi. Plan for emergency housing needs (homeless, etc)

D. Inclusive Process
i. Create inclusive community-driven planning process
ii. Involve local CBOs (Community Based Organizations)
iii. Involve marginalized community members in planning
iv. Develop racial equity strategy
v. Provide funding for community participation
vi. Develop implementation with community as a full partner

E. Social Investment
i. Upgrade under-invested public realm
ii. Transition vacant properties
iii. Engage a participatory budgeting process
iv. Pursue mitigation funds for impacted communities
v. Integrate community benefits in development projects
vi. Identify / establish non-profit to administer community benefits

285
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 2
DETAILED CASE STUDIES
APP2.1 Elevate San Rafael
APP2.2 Estuary Commons
APP2.3 The Grand Bayway
APP2.4 Islais Hyper-Creek
APP2.5 Our Home
APP2.6 The People’s Plan
APP2.7 Public Sediment
APP2.8 Resilient South City
APP2.9 South Bay Sponge

286
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 2.1: DETAILED CASE STUDY – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL
APPENDIX 2.1: Elevate San Rafael
San Rafael, CA

Bionic Team Members:
• Bionic
• PennDesign
• WXY architecture + urban
design
• Studio for Urban Projects
• Enterprise Partners
• SF State University
• Michael Yarne
• Keyser Marston Associates
• WRA Environmental
• RAD Urban
• Moffatt & Nichol

Transformation Dashboard:

Figure A2.1.1: Catalyst Project New Forms of Living (Bionic 2018, p.70-71)
Figure A2.1.2: Transformation Dashboard for Elevate San Rafael project (by the author)
287
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 2.1: DETAILED CASE STUDY – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL
Strategies:
1. Strengthen Urban Ecosystems
A. Shoreline Zone
• Build or enhance conventional seawall or levee – “The Bay Trail currently runs along
the San Rafael shoreline, but does not connect the shoreline to the neighborhoods,
to downtown, or the creek. A new bike lane levee on Canal Street (City owned land)
would complete the Bay Trail with a Class-I multi-use path that doubles as flood
protection for the majority of at-risk housing and businesses” (Bionic 2018, p.64).
• Grow protective reef in the subtidal zone – “With the need to integrate the ecologies
of the bay edge, the existing living shoreline program could be expanded to test the
ability of this technology to influence coastal processes. A sediment surger array
could be installed in open water to build upon existing living shoreline pilot projects
and test their viability for sedimentation, habitat retention, and wave energy
dissipation.” (76) Note: this is described as a pilot project, with the following
described as the long term project… “The Bionic Team proposes an array of
constructed reefs to support the main marsh areas. The arrays would build upon the
existing pilot and test the viability of these structures for sedimentation, habitat
creation, and wave energy dissipation on a large scale” (p.84).
• Restore tidal marsh as a protective buffer – “To prime its potential as a waterfront
and a destination, a program of floating wetlands could be installed along
underutilized portions of the creek to provide a range of ecological services. The
wetlands could stimulate activity, test their viability, create habitat, reduce erosion,
and build stewardship.” (74); New tidal marsh restoration (p.73)
• Create waterfront parks as buffer for rising tides – “New waterfront open space
serves as buffers from rising tides for long term and increased projections” (p.72)
B. Riparian Zone
• Enhance natural sediment transport systems – “The Team specifically studied
sediment transport in near shore conditions through hydrodynamic modeling. The
models suggest patterns for sediment deposition and the scale necessary to influence
this coastal process. The initial pilots would test different forms, orientations, and
exposures in San Rafael Bay. Learning from the pilots, the reef sites could be
multiplied to form an enormous array” (p.76).
C. Transition Zone
• Transition under-utilized industrial land to green infrastructure – “In the industrial
conditions, the 101/580 transportation corridor is highly exposed to flooding… Along
the critical spine of Francisco Boulevard, owners could choose to protect in place or
sell, and parcels could be acquired for the creation of green infrastructure (p.97).
D. Buildings
• Adapt new structures to withstand future flooding – “To accompany new policy for
community values, resilience planning, and adaptation incentives, an upgrade to the
288
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 2.1: DETAILED CASE STUDY – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL
housing stock would be created on a large underutilized site adjacent to the existing
community. This project would establish a new datum for flood protection through
the creation of a large parking podium. This seemingly common construction would
solve a basic need to park a car for many canal residents and enhance their financial
security. It would also reduce the amount of fill required to construct the project at a
future-proof elevation. The new datum would also sponsor the creation of a large re-
stored marsh and recreation area” (p.70).
• Plan to upgrade flood-prone buildings – “The Class-I multi-use path solution activates
new priorities and requirements for upgrading buildings. Similar to the seismic
upgrade programs in San Rafael, this approach requires safety upgrades for flooding
and offers owners choices on how to adapt” (p.68).
• Develop surge housing for use while housing stock is upgraded – “Elevate San Rafael
envisions a multi-pronged approach that creates surge housing and new housing on
a large underutilized site adjacent to the existing neighborhood for current residents
to occupy while existing housing is retrofitted and upgraded to floodable typologies…
Paired with an agreement with the city to master lease units, the City could ensure a
stable supply of surge housing for current residents while their homes are upgraded,
and a neighborhood preference program to prioritize first right of return to their
homes” (p.112).
• Relocate existing uses to higher elevations – “Business and Housing relocation”
(p.58); also captions read: “New housing on higher ground” and “new businesses on
higher ground” (p.93). “Kerner Boulevard connects the high ground to the south with
Pickleweed Park. Francisco Boulevard parallels the transportation corridor and leads
to the down town area. These 2 corridors should be the future spines of development,
services, infrastructure, and movement. Along these city owned streets, acquired
properties could be raised to higher elevations and connect higher ground” (p.94).
E. Infrastructure
• Relocate and/or elevate transportation infrastructure – “These 2 corridors should
be the future spines of development, services, infrastructure, and movement. Along
these city owned streets, acquired properties could be raised to higher elevations and
connect higher ground. Infrastructure in these elevated alignments could be buffered
from destructive forces of water and seismicity by new edges that host ecologies,
culture, and maritime activities. Infrastructure could also influence the pattern of
development away from the most hazard prone and subsided areas. Pickleweed park
would remain connected to the community and a center for maintaining social
resilience” (p.94).
• Build new levee as multi-benefit public pathway – “The Bay Trail currently runs along
the San Rafael shoreline, but does not connect the shoreline to the neighborhoods,
to downtown, or the creek. A new bike lane levee on Canal Street (City owned land)
would complete the Bay Trail with a Class-I multi-use path that doubles as flood
protection for the majority of at-risk housing and businesses. Equally important, the
new facility would future-proof essential utility services” (p.64).
289
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 2.1: DETAILED CASE STUDY – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL
2. Mitigate Climate Stresses
A. Transportation
• Strengthen the mobility network – “The long-term strategy engages the invisible
forces to enhance mobility, reinvent infrastructure, enable ecology, and provide
enduring protection. The city will need to use incentives to shift the pattern of
urbanization from diffuse and auto centric, to a more equitable and resilient urban
form” (p.92).
• Support Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility – “Sustainable transportation routes,
additional bike and pedestrian paths of travel” (p.109)
B. Energy
C. Materials
D. Water
E. Ecology
• Protect / restore wildlife habitat – “The pilots would test their capacity for habitat
creation including eel grass beds in a greater range of bathymetric conditions” (p.79).

3. Strengthen Social Ecosystems
A. Social Capital
• Protect community cohesion – “The City of San Rafael must reevaluate their housing
policy to ensure social cohesion of the existing community and that all residents have
equal access and opportunity to housing in San Rafael” (p.106). “Replacement
housing should be built within the same, existing “social catchment area” and
improve connectivity to resources outside of the catchment” (p.107).
• Increase / enhance public gathering spaces – “The Park is the community’s most
important resilience infrastructure. P3 (Protect Pickleweed Park) proposes to upgrade
flood infrastructure and a pump station with a multi benefit project that would also
create an event space, a new playground, sports facilities, and a water sports access”
(p.60).
• Protect / enhance / co-locate community services – “Canal residents report heavy
reliance on the services located within the district… Plan for the protection and
replacement of critical public and community assets alongside housing” (p.107).
B. Community Participation
• Promote broad community input into design process – “There are many occupations
and ways of life in San Rafael. The design of our engagement strategy used
community partners and the Team’s resources to create a net of outreach. Through
this approach, the team created a broad reach to the community at large and to
groups with special interests to learn about their needs” (p.18).
290
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 2.1: DETAILED CASE STUDY – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL
• Engage local businesses, NGOs with aligned interests – Stakeholder and partner list
includes: “home owner associations, neighborhood associations, business owners…
NGOs…” (p.19)
• Support community partnership for design / planning – “The City of San Rafael must
reevaluate their housing policy to ensure social cohesion of the existing community
and that all residents will have equal access and opportunity to housing in San Rafael.
A new process is needed where the city and residents work together to prioritize
equity, housing affordability, stability, and design” (p.106).
C. Common Pool Resources
• Expand recreational public open space – “A new bike lane levee on Canal Street (City
owned land) would complete the Bay Trail with a Class-I multi-use path that doubles
as flood protection for the majority of at-risk housing and businesses. Equally
important, the new facility would future-proof essential utility services” (p.64).
• Enhance pedestrian networks, bike path – “The Bay Trail currently runs along the San
Rafael shoreline, but does not connect the shoreline to the neighborhoods, to
downtown, or the creek. A new bike lane levee on Canal Street (City owned land)
would complete the Bay Trail with a Class-I multi-use path that doubles as flood
protection for the majority of at-risk housing and businesses” (p.64).
• Create emergency place of refuge – “The Park is the community’s most important
resilience infrastructure. P3 (Protect Pickleweed Park) proposes to upgrade flood
infrastructure and a pump station with a multi benefit project that would also create
an event space, a new playground, sports facilities, and a water sports access. In the
case of emergency, this project would be stout enough to withstand flooding and
provide a safe haven for the community in a time of crisis” (p.60).
D. Wealth Building
• Increase home ownership opportunities – “Build housing ladder into new and
retrofitted housing Canal Catchment to enable housing and economic mobility,
including lease-to-own and other opportunities” (p.107).
• Reduce cost of living (housing, transportation, utilities)- “Site replacement housing
with the transit needs of the community in mind” (p.107).
E. Human Capital
• Enhance schools with linkages to open space – “Boardwalks, bike paths, new
connection across the canal to provide access to San Rafael High School” (p.109)
• Improve public safety (roadways, lighting, open space) – “People share the desire
for essentials that allow them to thrive - safety, secure housing, a livelihood, equal
access to resources, a community to rely on.” (18); “The Bionic Team hosted a bicycle
tour through the Canal District and East San Rafael to generate awareness about
bicycle safety and lack of safe conditions in San Rafael” (p.34).

291
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 2.1: DETAILED CASE STUDY – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL
4. Mitigate Social Stresses
A. Health / Wellness
• Improve access to parks and natural amenities – “The Bay Trail currently runs along
the San Rafael shoreline, but does not connect the shoreline to the neighborhoods,
to downtown, or the creek. A new bike lane levee on Canal Street (City owned land)
would complete the Bay Trail with a Class-I multi-use path that doubles as flood
protection for the majority of at-risk housing and businesses” (p.64).
• Support community health initiatives – “Key takeaways from the survey… Protect
the schools and health center” (p.19)
B. Economic Empowerment
• Enhance access to financial capital – Section on policy mechanisms includes a
“Community Finance” diagram with “microlending, crowdfunding, coop credit union”
as well as a “Public Private Finance” diagram with “social impact bonds, TILT housing
funds, green bonds” (p.106)
C. Community Stabilization
• Stabilize housing costs with land trust, non-profit operator – “Offer buyout option
to existing property owners in the Canal by City- or County-controlled Community
Land Trust (CLT) or other mission-minded affordable housing organizations” (p.107).
• Protect / enhance stock of affordable housing - Catalyst project list includes “Build
Affordable Housing Now + Parking” and lists “50% Affordable Housing” for the
Canalways area (p.58).
• Require below market rate units in new development – “Ensure that any new
housing is operated with affordability restrictions that reflect the needs of the existing
community” (p.107)
• Enforce anti-displacement strategies (no net loss, right to return) – “Any plans to
improve or protect housing stock in the Canal District against flood risks must be
paired with tactics to protect existing residents from displacement due to
gentrification” (p.107): “Offer right to return for Canal residents displaced by retrofits
to buildings acquired by CLT.” (p.107); “Build new housing first, relocate residents
second. No residential unit should be taken off the market without first providing a
replacement unit” (p.107).
D. Inclusive Process
• Create inclusive community driven planning process
• Involve marginalized community members in planning – “Involve existing residents
in the assessment of size and scope of the need for replacement housing Canal,
including culturally sensitive evaluation of household configurations… Low income
and immigrant families often rely very heavily on social and familial networks to
bridge for stability and advancement. Involve existing residents in designing
connectivity between existing and replacement housing” (p.107).
292
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 2.1: DETAILED CASE STUDY – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL
E. Social Investment

Transformation Toolkit:
5. Collaborative Governance Tools
A. Advocacy
• Chief Resiliency Officer – “… the City could advance the resilience conversation and
planning in the near term, with the support of the County of Marin, by creating a new
position of Resiliency Officer that reports to the city mayor” (p.108).
• Build public support for new resilient housing – “… any successful relocation and
return program hinge on the County’s ability to assemble the appropriate land.
California is in the middle of a massive housing crisis, brought on in part, by general
unwillingness to develop new housing. For this strategy to be valid, local officials and
members of the community must gather the political capital to support new housing
development and policy” (p.113).
B. Coalition Building
• Assemble stakeholders – “There are many occupations and ways of life in San Rafael.
The design of our engagement strategy used community partners and the Team’s
resources to create a net of outreach. Through this approach, the team created a
broad reach to the community at large and to groups with special interests to learn
about their needs” (p.18).
C. Governance Structure
D. Planning Processes
• Embed resilience in General Plan update – “Given the regulatory and funding
processes in California, it will be important for the San Rafael Canal Area to be
embodied in a planning document that is sponsored by the governing jurisdiction.
One possible tool that could be very effective is a General Plan update through 2040.
The city is currently updating the General plan. The plan update is ongoing and will
be completed by 2020. It is recommended that the resiliency planning will be
incorporated in the ongoing General Plan update, and the General Plan update
incorporate the data and analysis prepared as part of this challenge” (p.110).
• Embed resilience in Specific Plan – “Another tool for the city is to prepare Specific
Plans for the Canal Area to provide detailed guidelines for future developments.
Specific Plans could be prepared in conjunction with the General Plan 2040
preparation” (p.110).
E. Policy Creation
• Multi-level housing policy (city, state) – “The City of San Rafael must reevaluate their
housing policy to ensure social cohesion of the existing community and that all
residents will have equal access and opportunity to housing in San Rafael. A new
process is needed where the city and residents work together to prioritize equity,
293
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 2.1: DETAILED CASE STUDY – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL
housing affordability, stability, and design. This would require state level commitment
in policy and legislation, and city level housing policies. This type of commitment is
critical to prevent against displacement and preserve a vibrant community” (p.106).
• No Net Loss of housing units – “No residential unit should be taken off the market
without first providing a replacement unit’ (p.107).
• Increase allowable density (FAR and building height) – “Do not replicate
overcrowding… Increase building heights and FAR limits; Adjust envelope
restrictions” (p.107).

6. Community Engagement Tools
A. Community Engagement Events
• Workshops / Working group meetings – captions read “Community Meeting, Canal
District Community Meeting” (p.35)
• Fairs and Festivals – “The Flood Fair reached out to San Rafael residents to: teach
people about the flooding challenges San Rafael is facing, meet people who want to
be part of the solution, hear what flooding means to residents…” (p.26)
B. Place-based Information Gathering
• Mobile exhibit – “To increase the visibility of the issue and the cause, the Bionic Team
designed an Econoline Ford van wrap, the Flood Mobile / The Flo-Mo, and left is as a
gift and tool for community partners to continue their work. The Flood Mobile
documents how floods affect everyone and everything in San Rafael to generate
awareness and a commitment to building resilience” (p.24).
• Walking tour – “The Bionic Team hosted a shoreline walking tour that commenced at
Pickleweed Park and ended at the Marin Rod and Gun Club with an oyster shucking
party. Along the way, the tour saw the Flood Mobile, documented flora and fauna,
studied the living shoreline pilot project, learned about existing projects, and
discussed ideas for San Rafael’s future” (p.30).
• Kayak tour – “The Bionic Team hosted a kayaking tour of the Canal and shoreline,
making stops at the living shoreline pilot project, Pickleweed Park, and mudflats. It
explored a way of living with water that may be the future for San Rafael” (p.32).
• Bicycle tour – “The Bionic Team hosted a bicycle tour through the Canal District and
East San Rafael to generate awareness about bicycle safety and lack of safe conditions
in San Rafael” (p.34).
C. Educational events
• Community education - “To communicate with the community and stakeholders, the
Team designed logos, stickers, books, posters, digital graphics, and surveys. To
engage and educate people who have differences in learning, the Team designed a
3d printed flood kit. To increase the visibility of the issue and the cause, the Team
294
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 2.1: DETAILED CASE STUDY – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL
designed a van, the Flood Mobile / The Flo-Mo and left it as a gift and tool for
community partners to continue their work” (p.20).
• Educational outreach to schools – “The Flood Kit is designed to teach people of all
ages and learning abilities how flooding works in San Rafael. After teaching 4th and
5th grade students and other community members how flooding works in San Rafael,
Bionic donated 2 Flood kits to San Rafael elementary schools and the organization Y-
Plan to utilize as a tool to teach the greater community about flooding and risks”
(p.22).
• Student Engagement – “The Bionic Team visited Laurel Dell Elementary School to
teach students about flooding and sea level rise in San Rafael, and to hear from the
students their ideas on how to adapt and live with water. The students’ ideas inspired
design strategies captured in the Elevate San Rafael Proposal” (p.28).
D. Community Partnership
E. Tools
• Visualization – “The Bionic Team used drones, under water cameras, time lapse
video, simulation software and sensory data in the analysis and visualization” (p.20).
• Survey cards – survey results are displayed on page 19

7. Economic Tools
A. Local Public Funding
• Local (general fund, bonds, special assessments) – “general fund… assessment
districts, development impact fees…” (p.110)
• Social Impact Bond (SIB) – included in Public-Private Finance diagram on page 106.
• Community Finance District (CFD) – “A Community Finance District [CFD] would be
employed at a neighborhood or city scale to issue retrofit grants and low interest
financing to support the housing and business upgrade program, along with near term
public infrastructure projects that protect San Rafael in the near term” (p.112).
• Value capture – “A Tax Increment Finance [TIF] or Enhanced Infrastructure Finance
District [EIFD] would also support public infrastructure improvements. Paired with an
agreement with the city to master lease units, the City could ensure a stable supply
of surge housing for current residents while their homes are upgraded, and a
neighborhood preference program to prioritize first right of return to their homes”
(p.112).
B. External Public Funding
• Federal low-income housing funds (LIHTC, Section 8) – “The Low-Income Housing
Tax Credit (LIHTC) program is a federally-funded, state administered subsidy program
designed to provide gap financing toward the development of affordable housing.
Affordable housing developers compete for tax credits by responding to a State
authored Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP), detailing development priorities.
295
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 2.1: DETAILED CASE STUDY – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL
California’s current QAP requests a host of LEED-centric sustainable building
practices, but makes no mention of “sea-level rise”, “flooding,” or “climate change.”
It is possible that the use of LIHTC for this purpose would require a change at the State
level” (p.113). “Project-based Section 8 could provide rent subsidy to residents living
in the new affordable housing development. Local Public Housing Authorities can
allocate 20% of its authorized voucher units to project-based developments. Unlike
traditional housing vouchers, which are allocated to families, project-based vouchers
are attached to a given building. To understand if this program could be relevant in
this case, more detail would need to be developed on how the voucher program
would be administered in San Rafael” (p.113).
• Other Federal – “Other federal sources may also include: army core of
engineers(ACOE), EPA grant” (p.110)
• California Cap and Trade – “cap and trade funds” (p.110)
• Other California Grants – “sb2 funds, clean water state revolving fund, state
infrastructure bank” (p.110)
• Regional Resiliency Fund – “Rising sea levels will have impacts throughout the Bay
Area and will require costly solutions. As a result, it is envisioned that new regional
public funding sources will be needed and developed to specifically fund resiliency
systems… potential new sources might include… a regional bond issue for sea level
rise improvements, or the dedication of State matching funds for improvements.”
(p.110)
• Other regional grants – “one bay area grant program, TAP program, measure AA
parcel tax…” (p.110)
C. Align with Asset Owners (mitigation funds and co-benefits)
• Transportation agencies – “In the industrial conditions, the 101/580 transportation
corridor is highly exposed to flooding. Along this edge there is clear opportunity for
the city and the regional transportation agencies to anticipate the future and combine
resources.” (p.97)
D. Private Investment Incentives
• Zoning incentivizes – “The city will need to use incentives to shift the pattern of
urbanization from diffuse and auto centric, to a more equitable and resilient urban
form. Using enhanced zoning, density bonuses, housing subsidies, and community
land trusts, property owners could be motivated to face the creek, add housing and
business space, provide continuous water access, and nature based solutions to
define the edges. In the canal district and areas currently protected by levees,
property owners could be incentivized to build flood proof housing and add to the
supply where allowable. Businesses could be incentivized to become flood proof as
well, or to move their operations in San Rafael to the area West of the freeway where
conventional risk reduction is in place and reliably stout.” (p.92)
• Wetland banking – “Examples of potential new sources might include a market
system for incentivizing the dedication of land to wetlands or the Bay…” (p.110)
296
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 2.1: DETAILED CASE STUDY – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL
• Public-private finance – “Public-private finance: social impact bonds, TILT housing
fund, green funds” (p.106)
E. Community Based Investment
• Community Land Trusts – “Offer buyout option to existing property owners in the
Canal by City- or County-controlled Community Land Trust (CLT) or other mission-
minded affordable housing organizations” (p.107).
• Community finance – “Community Finance: microlending, crowdfunding, coop credit
union” (p.106)
F. Philanthropy
• Foundation grants (private, community) - “Marin Community Foundation grants”
(p.110)

8. Linkages
A. Multi-benefit strategies
• Integrate beneficial new uses with resilience investments – “projects align with the
goals of multiple public funding sources such as affordable housing, multi-modal
transportation, increasing connectivity, incentivizing in-fill development at floodable
elevations / conditions, and enhancing access to the Bay” (p.109).
B. Economic linkages
• Anti-Displacement prior to development – “Ensure that strategies to protect
residents (from displacement) are in place prior to implementing new plans” (p.107).
• Managed retreat finance linkages and incentives – The linkage is not described in
the report, however the potential for this linkage exists given the focus on property
buy-outs. Other reports describe this strategy in more details. “Along the critical spine
of Francisco Boulevard, owners could choose to protect in place or sell” (p.97)
C. Land Use Linkages
• Transformation of low-lying industrial uses – Industrial change provides opportunity
to bring in new uses, enabling creation of more resilient urban patterns. “Invisible to
the eye but obvious in the data of land use patterns and global trends, the business
tax base of San Rafael in the 100-year flood plane is largely comprised of uses that
are undergoing industry transformation. Incremental change is happening in
automobiles, retail, logistics and supply chains, labor, and building trades. These
changes are occurring over the San Rafael terrain at a steady but difficult to perceive
pace… The urbanization pattern of San Rafael was optimized for industry and the
efficient movement of automobiles. The combined effect of the invisible forces
shaping San Rafael could be understood and engaged as an opportunity to gradually
reposition the urbanization pattern of today, to an urban form that can sustain life in
the uncertain future of rising sea levels.” (p.90)

297
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 2.1: DETAILED CASE STUDY – ELEVATE SAN RAFAEL
D. Governance Linkages
• Engage multi-jurisdiction resilience funding / implementation – “Rising sea levels
will have impacts throughout the Bay Area and will require costly solutions. As a
result, it is envisioned that new regional public funding sources will be needed and
developed to specifically fund resiliency systems. Examples of potential new sources
might include a market system for incentivizing the dedication of land to wetlands or
the Bay, a regional bond issue for sea level rise improvements, or the dedication of
State matching funds for improvements” (p.110).
298
RESILIENT AND EQUITABLE URBANISM BY DESIGN SANDRA MENDLER 2019

APPENDIX 2.2: DETAILED CASE STUDIES – ESTUARY COMMONS
APPENDIX 2.2 The Estuary Commons
San Leandro Bay including the cities of Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro