Part 7 – Expansion of the Bioshaft Process and the Vertical Farm Dilema

The Bioshaft® Design Process – what is it and how it came to be.

Part 7 – Expansion of the Bioshaft Process and the Vertical Farm Dilema

In the fall of 2009 I drove back from Toronto after a meeting with Joe Pantalone the city’s deputy mayor. Many ideas were swirling in my head on improving the Bioshaft design process. I was in a good mood and enjoying the autumn colors when sadness crept in. I had been driving for hours and noticed that the roadside vegetation was basically composed of two extremely invasive plants, Phragmites and Teasel. I had noticed this before but this day it really hit home. I began consciously making mental calculations of their spread. Except for a break here and there the linear connection was basically complete, a five hundred mile corridor of invasive species that spread across the landscape into wetland areas along the drive. This was an invasion facilitated by the high volume of salt used in winter road maintenance and generally polluted roadside swales that favored these plants at the expense of native species. I began to envision a possible application of my bioshaft design for elevated roadways which also led me to revisit the Chicago River bridges. 2010 proved to be a good year for exploration into the adaptability of the bioshaft. I created concepts for the drought stricken southwest part of the country and planned out how the bioshaft design process could help in alleviating the energy/water/food nexus in the favelas of South American cities. However before all this could happen I needed to resolve a few questions that only a small-scale pilot project could answer. When a few months later the Toronto election results came in confirming the end to the pilot project, I was in need of an alternative site.

I met John Edel at a gathering of concerned Chicago based citizen groups and designers where he presented his reclamation project of the Chicago Sustainable Manufacturing Center. We arranged to meet at this building to discuss my bioshaft proposal. John gave me a tour and I expressed my vision on how the bioshaft design could be implemented on site. He liked the ideas and shared plans of the building for me to work from. It took a few weeks to generate a plausible concept. I thought that now I had a good site in an area of Chicago that was targeted for renewal, John was willing to monitor the performance; all the elements were present for a good pilot project except for funding. I began fundraising presenting this work at various institutions and organizations as well as venture capitalist groups. I sought help from SCORE Chicago to write a proper proposal and learn more about business entrepreneurship and promotion of ideas. All my efforts were not rewarded, everyone said it was a good concept worth pursuing but would not invest in a pilot project. It was a catch 22 situation, without funding, a pilot project could not be built and without a pilot project I could not realistically answer the queries. I was being asked to assure success before having the opportunity to test the concept prior to any monetary investment.

In March 2010 my abstract was accepted for presentation of a poster at the Cities of the Future Conference in Boston, MA. The bioshaft concept was well received; in fact it was considered a highlight of the conference and included in a promotional PowerPoint presentation by the Water Environment Federation. It was at this conference that I learned about the difference in research approach between Northern European countries and the US. In one talk a presenter spoke of what I understood to be ‘success through failure’. They were willing to take modest risks in carrying a variety of far reaching pilot projects knowing that many may not work out. They claimed that progress was speeded up because much was learned and inferred from failed concepts as well as successful ones. No potentially good idea was cast away without a trial; a far cry from my experience of having to prove success before testing. What I was proposing was in line with the biomimicry design process. In fact I could point to the way the Earth has dealt with these issues since the beginning of this planet’s existence as proof of concept, what I was providing was a frame where these biogeochemical processes could function. The opportunity to construct a pilot project at the Chicago Sustainable Manufacturing Center slowly dissolved as John Edel became involved in the Plant. In 2012 I approached him again to have the Plant be the site for a pilot project. I met Melanie Hoekstra at a downtown coffee shop and showed her my new designs. I received an invitation to submit my drawings to them; I expressed preference of presenting my work in person and did not hear back. The Plant is being promoted as an urban vertical farm, a trendy subject of the times. I am divided on this topic; I see limited potential but numerous negatives.

In 2010 I began to focus on how the bioshaft design process could help with the urban farm movement that was sweeping the country. I did not understand what the commotion was about, I was born in a farming community where everyone grew their own food and raised their own animals for meat. The very first thing my parents did when they bought their house in Toronto was to remove all the lawn in the backyard and plant a vegetable garden. My uncle who was passionate about plants had a tiny orchard in his yard in addition to vegetables; I particularly remember a grafted combination of an apple and peach tree that bore both fruits, each on half of the canopy. He made peach wine along with grape wine. We all canned our own tomato sauce, giardiniera, eggplants and bell peppers for winter consumption. In fact Toronto has a neighborhood named Cabbage Town because historically residents grew vegetables in their front yard. However going from yard to a skyscraper was something else. We were covering good agricultural land at the city’s periphery with leap frog development and growing our food in closed controlled environments that required high energy input. Something was wrong with this picture, it was a reversal of what made sense to me. The closest association I have is the Biosphere Two experiment in Tucson, Arizona, which I visited in the 1980’s, that proved to be a failure. At that visit we met with some of the faculty at the University of Arizona where they had created a fairly sophisticated hydroponic system for growing vegetables and Tilapia. A decade later while teaching at the University of Guelph I became interested in the regenerative design work of John Tillman Lyle at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.  I used his models of sustainable regeneration in my proposal for the CARITAS drug rehabilitation program where I suggested incorporating land restoration as part of the treatment process and retrofitting the farm to the proposed models (1995).

 My negative opinions on vertical farming were confirmed and enhanced upon reading the book ‘Vertical Farming’ by Dickson Despommier. In it he describes an Orwellian mode of production where sealed environments are frequented by farmers wearing masks and clothed in sanitized suits to avoid disseminating diseases. I also wondered where the pollinators would be housed and how they would survive. I saw a great potential for corporate takeover, what better model for agribusiness than a factory food production setting. Where would the animals be housed and what about hygienic conditions and waste treatment? The amount of infrastructure needed and its maintenance would be challenging. How was the soil to be re-nourished? Where we to grow everything with hydroponics and what would the water volume required be? Do we really want to eat food grown under artificial light rather than sunlight? What repercussions could this have on the quality of food? With vertical farming we are in effect separating ourselves one degree more from the earth. My biggest concern however remained the highly anthropocentric criterion in play. If we are to dedicate much of the urban spaces to farming where can we create habitat niches for fellow creatures that inhabit the same space? Perhaps there is a way to include habitat within the urban farm organization. I designed what I termed habitat pyramids that would have water features and waste reclamation zones and accommodate habitat niches for pollinators at all phases of their life cycle and a plant matrix to mimic local ecosystems. I later expanded this design approach to my proposal of converting the voluminous parking spaces in malls into habitat function and groundwater recharge zones that included rapid transit and recreational corridors alongside small scale organic food production.

 In a 2012 meeting of the Bioneers at the University of Illinois in Chicago, John Edel presented the Plant and its intended function, an anaerobic digestor was going to be added to accommodate the organic waste and generate power for the facility. The waste produced was insufficient so the call went to neighbors to bring their waste and add it to the mix. The anaerobic digestor would produce methane that was converted to fuel. This is certainly an alternative choice. My reservations however persist especially after the presentation given by Vandana Shiva at the same gathering where she recounted the Indian farmers’ battle against Monsanto. How even against this Goliath they managed to reclaim the land and limit farm sizes so that individual families could thrive without being exploited by the agribusiness multinational corporations. This I thought was a more sound approach than the vertical farm option; a hark back to Ebenezer Howard‘s Garden City mixed with John Tillman Lyle’s regenerative system models.

Back in 2010 another challenge came to bear on my designs - Entropy - .

Part 6 -Oh Canada

The Bioshaft® Design Process – what is it and how it came to be.

Part 6 - Oh Canada

In October of 2009 I attended the Cities Alive conference in Toronto. I did not present at this event, instead I had arranged a meeting with Joe Pantalone, at the time Toronto's Deputy Mayor. I had met Joe in Boston at a previous conference and had the opportunity to discuss my work; we agreed that sometime in the future I could show it to him. When I found out that the Cities Alive conference was being held in Toronto I contacted him and he was gracious in honoring the agreement. Joe Pantalone was a familiar name in Toronto politics having served the city for three decades; he was a great advocate for the green movement. As I opened the familiar portals of Toronto’s City Hall I could not help think of how easy it had been to meet the deputy mayor whereas in Chicago the doors to city officials were still firmly shut to me. I had arrived a little early and took the time to take in the groundbreaking modernist architecture of Viljo Revell completed in 1965, a year after my parents and I arrived in Toronto as new immigrants; I was nine years old. After all these years the building still has no rival in Toronto for its imaginative use of concrete shapes and composition.  I stopped at the time capsule location in the lobby of the building and recollected the fanfare that went with selecting the articles placed inside. The meeting was a success; Joe suggested a possible pilot project at a new building construction site within the Canadian National Exhibition Grounds. I was elated; if Chicago was not the first place then Toronto seemed fitting. I had lived more than half my life in this city; I was still a fan of the Maple Leafs, could even remember the last time they won the Stanley Cup (1967) with Punch Imlach at the helm, Dave Keon stickhandling around opponents and Tim Horton’s wicked slap shot from the point.  Later how the country came to a standstill at the first Canada vs. Russia series, I was in high school and at game time all classes were suspended, the televisions in the classrooms turned to the hockey action and the ecstasy of seeing Paul Henderson of the Maple Leafs score the winning goal. The surreal scene on St. Clair Avenue West, the second Little Italy of Toronto, when more than 100,000 Italo-Canadians flooded the neighborhood in celebration of Italy’s 1982 World Cup Soccer win. Yes, Toronto was still in my blood, it was the place where I lived as an artist and where I shared my first experiences on sustainability, in particular a memorable project in the Annex neighborhood near the Bloor Street and Bathurst Street intersection. In 1994 I was a founding member of the Ecological Resource Group; we worked with the Albany Street neighborhood association to link neighboring private properties into a contiguous habitat system. It took a few years to make the project a reality (1996-1997) at first having to battle city ordinances and then having the satisfaction of witnessing Barbara Hall, Toronto Mayor at the time plant the first native species for the second year’s start to the project. However the most important and proud moment came when the legendary Jane Jacobs, who lived in this neighborhood, gave us her blessings and support. During this time we also completed a butterfly garden project at Humberside Collegiate and proposed a schoolyard greening project for Corvette High School in Scarborough. The latter was curtailed by the maintenance staff even though supported by the teaching staff, a real surprise to us on who had more leverage in these matters. In my own work I had generated concepts for the Don River and the Toronto central waterfront that provided aquatic habitats, the latter was included in an exhibit of the best concept plans. I persuaded CARITAS, a Catholic organization, to generate a proposal to include ecological restoration in their drug rehabilitation program. I saw a direct link between those who fought to be released from their drug dependency and liberating the environment from the use of pesticides, fertilizers and invasive species. At this time I was also promoting Kneip Therapeutic Gardens as part of my designs which bridged health with landscape. Later in 1998, a year after my move to the US, I proposed similar works in the Village of Schaumburg situated northwest of Chicago where I worked as landscape planner. I developed a strategy for creating green corridors through private properties to connect three major forest preserves at the periphery of the village, Busse Woods, to the east, Poplar Creek to the west and Paul Douglass to the north, after my departure the plan was shelved. As I drove back to Chicago in 2009 all these experiences coalesced in my thoughts and a more complete version of the Bioshaft design process emerged.

Shortly after our meeting Joe Pantalone entered the race for mayor, despite his popularity he lost to Rob Ford whose political stance was not as welcoming to green initiatives as that of Pantalone’s. With Joe’s defeat in the election the pilot project faded away.

Part 5 - The Yellow Emperor’s Spell is Broken

 The Bioshaft® Design Process – what is it and how it came to be?

Part 5 - The Yellow Emperor’s Spell is Broken

 In ancient Chinese mythology the Yellow Emperor is the one that imprisoned Chaos in a mirror so that humans could enjoy a peaceful and predictable existence. He is the bringer of civilization and discovery. The myth of the Yellow Emperor was back in my thoughts. I had returned from California and found the situation in Chicago quite chaotic. After the initial surprise of the great financial meltdown of 2008, the truth began to emerge. A remarkable few, unscrupulous individuals had managed to topple the world economy. This did not happen in a month or a year but was the product of unbridled corrupt system of predatory capitalism. The State of Illinois was prosecuting its fourth Governor that would end up in prison, Chicago was facing new scandals and many jobs had vanished. The spell of the Yellow Emperor was being undone as predicted in the myth. The image of the mirror as a passage to an unfamiliar world has been a common theme in fairytales and now had become a reality. The image we had created of ourselves in the reflection we saw in the mirror had deceived us. Like Narcissus we were spellbound by our own reflection and failed to notice what was happening to the world around us. The global market intended to create an ordered equitable system had been turned into a weapon that only benefitted a few powers and left the rest of humanity stranded in its wake. The fix was in to the point that stock market outcomes were manipulated by algorithms capable of thousands of transactions per second and had no connection to reality or moral values that even those who claimed professional competence could not tame. The welfare of the community was under siege by the welfare of corporate entities that had surrealistically obtained the status of persons. Outside of the anthropocentric sphere the situation was even more desperate, sustainable life processes had reached a breaking point in dire need of resuscitation. In 2009 I found myself starting all over again. In fact my thoughts made a complete circle back to my master thesis research when I first came to know the myth of the Yellow Emperor in the book Turbulent Mirror by John Briggs ad F. David Peat (1989).

In 1990 I defended my master thesis at the landscape architecture department, University of Guelph. I had become fascinated by Chaos Theory and the Game of Life and incorporated the inherent stochasticity and cellular automata into a computer model for a dynamic simulation of groundwater movement in the vadose zone, (the unsaturated areas of soil strata). Apart from my thesis supervisor Dr. Robert Brown, Department of Landscape Architecture and Dr. John Holbrook at the Department of Pure Math who had been of great help in the building of the model, the rest of the landscape architecture faculty had been quite cold towards this work; they questioned its significance related to the landscape profession, preferring I had done a design-based thesis. Why would a model of water behavior in the area of the root zone of many plants be a contribution to landscape architecture? In my mind it was all pretty clear. Now (2009) twenty years later, I realized that it was at the heart of my work to build an onsite biogeochemical waste treatment system and habitat for the urban cores. The big problem of traditional engineering efforts is its reliance on linear equations where one action preceded a predictable reaction. Whereas nature cycles are fundamentally stochastic, they can be predicted only to a general trend but not to specificity. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s the Mandelbrot Set and the Julia Sets with their swirling gorgeous patterns introduced the fractal beauty of chaos to all of us. James Lovejoy’s Gaia Hypothesis (1965) was back in vogue; his revelation that life on our planet is responsible for the maintenance of a beneficial atmosphere that in turn supported life (self-sustaining) along with Biophilia (1984) the landmark book by E.O. Wilson that proclaimed a desired affiliation of humans to the web of life formed the basis of my design process. In addition the insights of Lynn Margulis had challenged the prevailing ‘survival of the fittest’ theory attributed to Darwin by demonstrating the wonderful and more numerous symbiotic relations present in nature. Lynn Margulis and E.O. Wilson would become two of my reference points in the evolution of the Bioshaft design process.

As I worked on my thesis I was particularly struck by the realization that one raindrop changes the biogeochemical properties of the soil for the next raindrop and so forth and the soil is being constantly changing due to organisms, organic content and fungi that inhabit it. The raindrops themselves a product of activity far from the land they now fell upon. This was my equivalent of Lorenz’s butterfly effect. Predicting at this level is impossible. In the end we must accept this limitation and take responsible steps that do not compromise the chaotic balance of nature. Whenever we become too confident in our abilities to control we ultimately create problems. Stochasticity must be part of the solution in a global cyclic atmospheric pattern where distant events affect local conditions. In the case of the bioshaft design, stochasticity is introduced by setting up initial conditions that allow natural processes to evolve.

I was no longer interested in yet another report for future plans. There was the Club of Rome report in the 70’s, the Bruntland Report in the 80’s, the 2010 plan, the 2020 plan, the 2030 plan, the 2040 plan and now the 2050 plan is in the works. All predicting terrible consequences if action is not taken. I wanted to arrive at a solution that could be built in place now and would not depend on whole economies changing or whole cities built or even a new building built. I envisioned it as an organ transplant; in fact my new analogy was that of the human liver. My goal became to biomimic the function of the liver and apply it to an existing building or group of buildings. My Ventura concept designs for small scale needs rather than large scale grid distribution systems were refined. This is how the earth operates; each organism contributes at a local level. If we don’t need to match the power of a large coal fueled plant or nuclear plant then alternative energy solutions should be relatively easy to achieve. The question is how small a scale is desirable that makes economic sense but above all that makes ecological sense which is in direct contrast to the smart grid solutions being promoted by the energy corporations. This small scale energy production would democratize the cost distribution. The energy production infrastructure would be the responsibility of the developer with costs including maintenance factored in. It would be fitted to that particular project and only scaled up when additional development took place. Communities would not need to bear the costs of providing these services. If subsidies are needed for large complexes such as hospitals, military bases, first response quarters and other public service facilities then it would be part of an open political choice made by the communities. But we would not be subsidizing for example a power plant’s use of water, or energy to manufacturers without knowing the full costs. At the same time waste treatment would also be designed in proportion to the development, to be dealt with on site. Point source pollution would then be identified and dealt with accordingly, not become a public burden and hazard. Large scale black outs would be avoided, only the directly connected communities would be jeopardized and speedy recovery could occur due to easily identifiable problem locations. This alternative solution would depend largely on biological systems that can become part of the overall cyclic, stochastic natural processes.

Part 4 - Glorious California

The Bioshaft® Design Process – what is it and how it came to be?

Part 4 – Glorious California

 “Glorious California”, is the way that the character Sabina in Milan Kundera’s ‘The Unbearable Lightness of Being” describes her arrival in this great state. This quote is from the movie version; I read the novel in Italian and don’t have a direct literary comparison. In the movie, when Sabina’s voice is heard saying this phrase, the image on the screen is of a very healthy, beautiful young woman on horseback riding on a Malibu stretch of beach with the Pacific Ocean in the background, an American Lady Godiva.  Although this was not the scenario that awaited me upon my arrival in Los Angeles, I found myself thinking that this was truly a glorious place. I was part of an incredibly gifted team spearheaded by Ken Smith, Steve Handel, and my direct employer Mia Lehrer. The team was working on arguably the biggest and most ambitious project of its kind in the nation, the transformation of the Marine Corps El Toro base in Irvine into a great park that included creation of a canyon system. I loved my job with its intense creative environment. In the eight week contractual period I produced a report on the recycling of the voluminous concrete that had formed runways and other materials from the deconstruction of hangars and other buildings. I was tasked with creating viable solutions for site furnishings, retention walls and habitat creation using the recycled material and teamed up with the lead biologist to produce the guidelines for habitat creation in the park. The sketches I produced for this project where later published in Landscape Architecture magazine accompanying an article on Steve Handel’s role in the Great Park.  I was particularly pleased when in 2011 I met up with Steve at the World Conference on Environmental Restoration in Merida, Mexico where these sketches were included in his presentation. At the same conference I presented my Bioshaft® design process.

In 2007, the Orange County Great Park Project team understood the challenges of attempting to create an ecosystem such as a canyon. The approach taken was to design habitat niches for targeted species rather than a general catchall ecosystem. Particular focus was given to habitats that were quickly disappearing and the endangered species of the region. We understood that a mature habitat took time to establish and our task was to set the conditions to kick-start the evolutionary process. To achieve these focused habitats we took many field trips into the surrounding countryside to study the natural environments where these eco niches persisted. I filled my sketchbook with drawings and notes that later I transcribed into potential designed habitats using the recycled materials. I began to study how this approach might benefit my own work with urban vertical watersheds. I saw how it could transform the design of green roofs into functioning targeted ecosystems and the role eco shafts would play. The eight weeks seemed to have flown by and I was somewhat saddened to leave the project, however in the meantime I had fallen in love with California and applied for jobs in the area.  California was like going home to Italy, a similar Mediterranean climate, similar hilly terrain that ended with ocean-side cliffs and where figs, citrus and grapes were common. I was hired by George Girvin Associates at their Ventura office; the company specialized in the planning and design of high end resorts. On my way to San Buonaventura (Ventura), named after a Franciscan, Tuscan monk, I played ‘Ventura highway’ by the Eagles to set the mood for the drive.

Ventura is a small city situated between Malibu to the south, Santa Barbara to the north with the Channel Islands in view to the west. George proved a wonderful employer, very talented and kind. My co-workers were a great bunch and the projects offered plenty of opportunities to explore and create. I was mainly involved with projects in Cabo San Lucas, Baja California, Mexico. I rented an apartment six minute walk from work and ten minute walk to the beach. Used my car only on weekends and only if I needed to go out of town. My neighborhood provided all I needed, a farmers’ market a block away, a bakery just around the corner and plenty of restaurants and entertainment venues. Ventura’s East Main Street had been the setting for the street scenes in American Graffiti (1973) and the Busy Bee Café and Diner had kept the fifties décor and menu. The setting and the work was satisfying and my wife and I decided to make our move to California.  Once I settled into a daily routine I began to notice the scars even in this idyllic part of the world. I thought Ventura was not taking advantage of the potential of crafting a great downtown core, even though a great many people biked, the emphasis was still on car transportation. Only a small portion of the beach had been restored to native habitat and the river mouth was strangled by invasive reeds. There was a great amount of land dedicated to parking lots. At this time I also joined the Central California Chapter of the US Green Building Council and was in effect elected vice president for the advocacy committee. I began to develop concepts on my own time for a downtown Ventura based on a greener lifestyle and smarter water usage. It was here that the second watershed moment occurred on the road to the Bioshaft design process. I divided Ventura into civic blocks that would supply their own energy and treat their waste on site. I did not see a need for electrical power to be supplied through an outdated grid that wasted much of the energy produced. I envisioned the town becoming an independent energy coop that did away with money market-driven criteria, CEO’s, their salaries and parachute packages. My reference model was that of the Tennessee Valley Authority modernized to suit today’s needs. The parking lots became the core areas to place the infrastructure needed to achieve the goals.  This is when the renamed Bioshaft design process came into focus and when the goal was clarified in the treatment and reuse of water. What would an alternative scenario be if instead of using water to treat our waste we switched to a soil-based geochemical process system? How would this take physical shape and what where the elements needed for it to work? Before I had time to work on these questions the economic crash of 2008 was upon us. The workload at Girvin and Associates diminished, many projects were placed on undetermined hold and George needed to cut staff to keep afloat. Luckily for my wife and me, we had not accepted an offer made on our home and on a  sunny December day I packed my belongings and began the long drive back to Illinois; my California dream behind me.

Part - 3 Breaking from Past Assumptions

The Bioshaft® Design Process – what is it and how it came to be.

Part 3 – Breaking from Past Assumptions

 

In 2005 I started my own company, D’Alessandro & Associates, I had recently quit my job at a Chicago based firm and was looking to expand on my own. For a few months I was still providing my design skills pro bono towards the completion of the fish hotel  for the Friends of the Chicago River. I was full of energy and optimism. My first plan of action was to collaborate with other firms by subcontracting my services. The strategy worked; I was involved in green housing projects, urban renewal and used my artistic talents in designing features that helped in the branding of these projects. Over time however I became disillusioned by the housing trends. Too much land was being eaten up by these projects and despite their green status we were selling bad planning. I had bought into the claims made by the green industry. Now I started to question the rationale of Greenfield developments and the suburban best management practices that claimed to be a solution for the urban challenges. Even porous paving became suspect, I had doubts that water would percolate through a 95% compressed substrate which was required for road construction and that microbes could live in such a harsh environment. The water for me simply percolated down a foot or so through the gravel layers and then moved laterally wherever the ground sloped, carrying with it all the pollutants it had picked up from the surface. I referred back to the porous alleys program and created alternatives to the simplistic solution. I envisioned the alleys as potential pollinator corridors and instead of the water trickling through the various porous paving products that eventually would clog up and need cleaning with pressurized water, a further waste – I designed habitats on the private properties of adjacent homeowners that would be tied to their own roof runoff collection and be part of a greater habitat function along with vegetable gardens, rain gardens and rain barrels. But this still did not solve the downtown urban challenges. The green movement was promoting solutions for the residential areas; the high rises of the city scape could not be accommodated by the bio-swale and rain garden approach. The use of open space to accommodate the city runoff for me was a red herring. It would require converting the current habitats in the forest preserves into flood plain management. It may work in some zones but there were no sufficiently large preserves in the Chicago loop. The green roof promoters were making exaggerated claims of the abilities of rooftop gardens to handle significant rain events; later studies showed that after a one inch rainfall most of the water would be runoff.  Many desired green effort examples came from cities such as Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington. A far cry from the summer drought conditions and severe winter weather Chicago was prone to. The real challenges were being ignored and most solutions were still based on an anthropocentric view of the world.

Throughout 2006 I revisited the Chicago Loop including the river and arrived at the term ‘vertical watersheds’ to describe my concepts.  In a densely populated center where most of the substrate is taken up by parking garages, subway transit, service tunnels, the sprawling service infrastructure with miles of wire conduits, water mains, gas lines, potential chemical plumes, etc. Where most plantings could be termed roof-top gardens such as Millennium Park, where can one find the soil strata characteristics to recreate the proper biogeochemical processes that nature has used since the beginning to perform the water cycle? Too many illustrations of this cyclic event carelessly included city components without a real understanding.  The solution for me was a vertical one, above street level where most of the pollution occurred, but not that of the living wall concepts which were gaining in popularity at this time. These were beautiful living tapestries; they had their place but were not the answer for the creation of a true watershed function. I began to sketch out concepts for the Chicago River that now included vertical riparian systems with waterfall features to aerate the slow moving waters. Biological connections would run from green roofs down a vertical watershed column and include underwater reef- like structures in cases that connected to the river. The buildings themselves would be turned into living architecture through the use of these eco shafts. I presented these concepts for the first time at the 2007 Wild Things Conference held at the University of Illinois at Chicago and received a great reception, the room was packed and I was inundated with questions and praise after my talk. I was extremely pleased and began to seek out opportunities to present to various city departments and personnel. The only door that opened slightly was that of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, one meeting that had no follow up. All my requests to meet with anyone interested at city hall were met with silence. I decided to take the concepts west to the Fox River corridor and for a time made good progress until I was outflanked by an unethical politician who claimed my work as his and tried to build it using other sources. Fortunately I had only shared preliminary sketches and he could not make heads or tails of them given his level of knowledge. For the second time in two years I walked straight into a politically corrupt individual. This was a great setback after the euphoric feeling of a few months previous. My opinion of Illinois politicians hit an all-time low, where could I find honest people to collaborate with? At this time, the summer of 2007, I landed a two month subcontract with Mia Lehrer Associates to work on the Orange County Great Park Project in Irvine, California that gratefully took me away from the unpleasant situation.

Part 2 - The Design for the Chicago River Fish Hotel

The Bioshaft® Design Process – what is it and how it came to be.

Part 2 – The Design for the Chicago River Fish Hotel

In 2005 I was Lead Design for WRD Environmental. A year or so before I had written a report on the Chicago River delineating what I thought would be good areas for opportunities to ameliorate the habitat conditions. I walked the whole stretch of the urban river and became familiar with its characteristics. In this report I wrote that the bridges were book ends to specific architectural language –historical markers that demarcated one style from another. I introduced some potential river related interventions in my 2004 presentation at the Society for Ecological Restoration conference in Victoria, B.C. I saw great potential in the bridges themselves as protagonists in the changes proposed. I did not act on this observation on the bridges until 2010 when I revisited the sites and arrived at specific design solutions. 

In 2005 the Friends of the Chicago River approached WRD Environmental on improving a concept they had on creating fish feeding stations along the stretch of the river. Included in this concept was an information board with sonar link to the stations that would alert the viewer of any fish activity displayed by a small monitor. I took on the task of redesigning and improving the concept. The original concept had placed the feeding station at the bottom of the river next to the shoreline walls. There was no habitat creation proposed except for the food containers inside small fish cribs. I was concerned that anything left at the bottom of the river, given its depth, would not allow much vegetation growth. My first concept conversion was to have a series of fish cribs mounted on the facade of the walls at various elevations to accommodate a variety of water depths and light conditions that allowed different fish species to feed at their preferred depth. To me it looked like an apartment complex and we began to joke on the concept of providing fish habitat reminiscent of downtown condominiums, and that we were competing in a way with Donald Trump whose building was being erected across from our selected pilot project site at the foot of the Michigan Bridge-house that would eventually be converted to the Chicago River Museum. The Friends of the Chicago River began calling it Fish Hotel and the name stuck.

 I did not find this first attempt completely satisfactory. There would be little evidence above the water of what was happening in the depths below. Also we were dealing with very old walls that may not be strong enough to hold the cribs and the underwater work needed including maintenance would be challenging. I decided it best if a floating system be devised to hold the various levels of the habitat in place. This afforded the opportunity to introduce above water habitat and expand on the variety of conditions such as floating logs and floating brush piles that would attract the fish. My second concept was to create a series of floating habitats under which would be suspended the fish cribs at various depth levels. The problem to be resolved in this scenario was on how to keep the floating sections in place. At first I thought of tethering them to anchors but this proved unfeasible for it would not be restrictive enough to keep the units from being a nuisance to passing vessels and could not adjust to the fluctuations in water levels.  One solution was to have a floating frame delineate the boundaries for the floating habitats; these then could be left free to float within this area changing formation according to the prevailing water conditions.  A meeting with authorities responsible for this stretch of water set more restrictions than we had predicted. We could only occupy ten feet beyond the walls, could not have anything touch the river bed and could not attach anything to the walls below five feet above the water level.  Given these design restrictions the floating frame became the key protagonist in my design. It would need to be strong enough and rigid enough to counteract the wakes and rebound currents, it would need to withstand an occasional bump from vessels and not scratch their surface and have enough buoyancy to keep the weight of the suspended habitats in determined depths of water and must be flexible enough to be easily transported and assembled and disassembled, it must also be able to protect the vegetation from foraging ducks and geese. The search for a product that met all qualifications was extensive and lengthy taking more than a month to find. The manufacturer was located on the eastern seaboard but was interested in cultivating a Midwest market and had in fact established an outpost office near Chicago. I explained the goal and budgetary limits of the project and asked if they could give us a discount in return for publicity; they agreed. Having resolved the floating frame the next big challenge was how to attach it and respect the restrictions imposed on us. After numerous sketches I arrived at the solution, instead of poles attached to the river bottom and below water level as usually common, we simply invert it, attaching the poles at the top of wall and have them extend down to a few feet below the water level. The floating frame would be connected to the poles using a metal ring that would allow the frame to move up and down as the water level fluctuated. This proved feasible and the addition of a second metal frame to keep the floating segments in check resolved any issues of distortion as well as providing anchoring points for the suspended habitat units.  Now that I had the water component resolved I turned to the viewing stations, after examining the radar images I thought them to be too abstract for the general viewer. I suggested we place underwater cameras in selected spots on the frame to capture any fish that swam by. These cameras needed to have additional light source to offset the turbidity of the waters. The images would be relayed back to video monitors set up in the viewing stations on shore. 

By this time my work relation with WRD Environmental suffered a setback. My work concerns were not being addressed and after failed attempts at reaching common ground I decided to move on. However I did continue to work on the project on a pro bono basis for the Friends of the Chicago River, I drew details for anchoring the poles to the wall and continued working on the viewing stations until such time that I could no longer afford to do so.  The Fish Hotel was installed by WRD Environmental.  Before leaving WRD Environmental I had submitted an abstract for the presentation of this project to the Society for Ecological Restoration’s International Chapter, it was a direct continuation and a step forward from my 2004 presentation in Victoria, BC. The paper was accepted. I honored my commitment and presented the design at the conference in Zaragoza, Spain. For this presentation I went on to complete the design for the viewing station and elaborated on the overall design. I told the history of the river and its resulting conditions as an introduction to an audience not familiar with Chicago. I asked permission from the Friends of the Chicago River to photograph the installed Fish Hotel, it was given. Despite notable limitations and its apparent ugliness, it was the first time that native vegetation had come into full contact with this water; we had proven that selected plants could survive under the stress of the urban condition and that a floating habitat could be achieved even in a busy waterway. Now it was a matter of making it more palatable to the eye and improving on its habitat features. I did notice however that the poles had been installed incorrectly; they had left no space between the wall and the poles for the ring to slide through. I contacted the Friends to alert them to the problem but did not receive any answer.

Upon my return from Spain I contacted the Friends of the Chicago River to offer my designs for the viewing stations. I was met with a cold silence. Later I found out that my key role in this project had been struck from any record. I voiced my disappointment for this lack of professional courtesy and contacted colleagues to express my frustration, many had gone through the same experience at least once in their careers and suggested I ride it out, others told me ‘welcome to Chicago politics’. I had basically resigned myself to anonymity in regards to this project until I came across an article published in the Friends of the Chicago River website that gave credit for all my work to a specific person who was hired at WRD Environmental after the essential elements of the design had been resolved and who while under my supervision had not participated in this project whatsoever, this had stretched the limits of my patience.  There was a standoff with Margaret Frisbie and only after I contacted the Mayor’s office did she reluctantly comply with my request to add D’Alessandro & Associates as part of the team that produced the Fish Hotel, and then only for that particular web article. The Fish Hotel went on to win the 2007 Mayor Daley’s Greenworks Award for which I received no mention. To this day I do not understand the animosity shown to me by the Friends of the Chicago River and why I received no acknowledgement for my key contributions.

I have seen with regret the Fish Hotel placed in the Chicago River virtually unchanged from its original design. It has not evolved in all these years whereas I have designed more complex biological systems for this purpose.  I am aware that as long as the Friends of the Chicago River under the current leadership have control over whom gets to participate in the Chicago River projects I will never get the opportunity to play a role. It is unfortunate and highly questionable that one person can exert such power as to be the gatekeeper of a public process.

The modeling tasks I undertook for the SER, Zaragoza 2005 presentation brought me closer to the project’s needs and led me to new realizations, perspective and approach. I would revisit this site time and again in the coming years and each time elaborate a little more on the habitat creation opportunities. I continue to use the Chicago River as backdrop to my concepts for it is one of the great urban rivers with a unique history and full of specific challenges.

Part 1 - The View from Michigan Avenue Bridge

The Bioshaft® Design Process – what is it and how it came to be.

Part 1 – The View from Michigan Avenue Bridge

As more people have become interested in my Bioshaft® design process and the work is finally progressing, although at a slow pace, many have asked me to explain what a bioshaft design process is. I have presented this work at various venues, the latest presentation given at the German American Chamber of Commerce in Chicago. I also received awards for specific components of an overall strategy, the latest an international award from the Integrative Habitat Design Competition 2012 held in London, UK. However, in these venues, there has never been time allotted for a full disclosure on the evolution of this design process, I presented bits and pieces tailored to the central theme driving each conference. I will use the next series of blog posts to delineate the evolution of my thoughts and design and hopefully answer your questions. The watershed moment came one winter day in 2004 while standing on the Michigan Avenue Bridge looking west at the Chicago River.

I often make it a goal to traverse this bridge when in downtown Chicago because for me this corner of the city is emblematic of this great metropolis. This is the corner where Fort Dearborn stood, close to the original river mouth and where the Tribune Tower and Wrigley Building stand proudly in their gothic-style architectural drapery. These must be the most photographed structures of Chicago and certainly the city’s most recognized landmarks. That afternoon in fact I was scouting for particular architectural features I am particularly drawn to. It - came as a mist rising from the waters, a vision to replace what was before my eyes. This day the buildings flanking the river had taken on an ominous look. They no longer looked like structures for people to inhabit but rather rows upon rows of tombstones. I suddenly realized how much life was actually missing in this vista. Even the waters looked jellylike; everything static, grey and so, so, somber. This vision haunted me for most of that year, even the spring blooms could not remove it from my inner eye.

The Michigan Bridge experience came at the heels of my redesigning the front landscape for the Chicago Center for Green Technology (2003). As I worked on it my curiosity in the building that received a Platinum LEED award pushed me to ask many questions on the LEED criteria. At the time the landscape surrounding buildings were not part of the qualifying criteria. In fact one could receive LEED awards even if the structure was surrounded by an asphalt parking lot. I also questioned the rationale of giving such an award to a single structure, whereas a city is a multitude of connections.  LEED for me had too many loopholes and its one-track concern for energy saving was missing out on what was really needed. We needed a living architecture, one that placed value on habitat creation as well as energy savings, and LEED was not the way there. Over the years LEED criteria have improved dramatically and we are closer to this goal but not quite there. In my 2004 research I came across the work of Emilio Ambasz and the Organic building at Osaka by Gaetano Pesce.  Ambasz quickly became my living hero and reference point.

The work on the redesign for the landscape at CCGT and the building itself offered an opportunity to present at the Society for Ecological Restoration 2004 Conference, I submitted an abstract that was well received. I contacted Emilio Ambasz’s Green Over Grey office in New York, Gaetano Pesce and Farr and Associates, explained my position on a living architecture, on extending the one building concept into a neighborhood or at least a complex of buildings and asked permission to use images of their work, all gave their consent. The conference took place in Victoria, BC. I spoke on the CCGT’s rescue from being an illegal dumping ground to becoming a LEED platinum building and the need to include surrounding grounds as part of a LEED criteria. On the efforts that the city of Chicago was undertaking in ameliorating its ecological footprint from rooftop gardens to green bungalows to porous paving of alleys to rain gardens and Millennium Park. I pointed out that we needed to distinguish habitat creation from beautification approaches which at the time the city was grouping all into one. My appeal was to look at the city as a living organism and not focus only on single building criteria or garden-scape efforts, that green corridor habitat function should be prioritized. I called for eco-bridges to overcome the island effect of green roofs, and the need to biologically connect them to the ground level. It is good that we can build new structures with eco-friendly features but what about the city that must remain and be preserved? My final slide was that view from the Michigan Avenue Bridge annotated with preliminary opportunities for habitat creation that would biologically connect the built structures to the river and bring life into the city.