Greening our City: Improved Health and Sustainability, Economic Stability in Crisis Times

Greening Newtown‐The Results
of USF’s Environmental Science
and Policy Capstone Seminar
1
2010
Edited and Compiled by Robert Brinkmann
University of South Florida
12/1/2010
Authors:
Jennifer Ascani
Leslie Babiak
Todd Bogner
Alana Brasier
Rebekah Brightbill
Melissa Brogle
Melanie Decesare
Sara Giunta
Justin Heller
Garrett Hyzer
Katrina Johnson
Jason Kendall
Christopher Klug
Anna Leech
Corey Leonard
Scott Moore
Lin Ozan
Adrien Roth
Matthew Torrence

Table of Contents
Introduction
Robert Brinkmann……………………………………………………………………………page 1
A Sustainable Urban Environment: the use of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ in
Newtown, Sarasota
Jennifer Ascani…………………………………………….…………………………………page 3
Green Roof Gardens for Enhancing Sustainable Development in Newtown
Leslie Babiak………………………………………………………………………..………page 17
What a Greenway Park could mean socially and environmentally to a diverse population
within Sarasota
Todd L. Bogner………………………………………………………………………….…page 36
A Green Infrastructure Network to Sustainably Redevelop Newtown, Sarasota
Alana Brasier………………………………………………………………………………page 52
Minority Business Creation in Newtown: Equalizing the Reach of Green
Rebekah G. Brightbill……………………………………………………………….……page 68
Waste Reduction, Litter Prevention, and Litter Control in Newtown
Melissa R. Brogle…………………………………………………………………………page 87
Newtown Residential Bus Stop Inventory
Christopher Cochran……………………………………………………………………page 100
A Citizen’s Initiative for Sustainable Urban Living through Expanded Recycling and
Conservation in the Home and Community
Melanie M. DeCesare……………………………………………………………………page 117
Brownfields to Created Wetlands: A Project Initiative for Newtown, Sarasota
Sara Giunta……………………………………………………………..…………………page 135
Benefits of Improved Street Lighting Using Energy Efficient LED Technology
Justin Heller………………………………………………………………………………page 152
Sarasota’s Food Desert:A Case for Providing Newtown’s Residents Access to Healthy
Foods
Garrett Hyzer……………………………………………………………………………page 168
Sustainable Redevelopment within the Newtown Community of Sarasota, Florida:
Green Streets
Katrina Johnson…………………………………………………………………………page 183

Promoting Sustainable Redevelopment in Newtown with Urban Forestry
Jason Kendall…………………………………………………………………………page 199
The Potential Effects of Rising Sea Levels on Sarasota and Newtown, and the Lessons
learned from Hurricane Katrina.
Christopher Klug………………………………………………………………………page 213
Bicycle Infrastructure in Newtown
Anna Leech……………………………………………………………………………page 227
Assessing the Potential Benefits of Florida Friendly Municipal Landscaping in Newtown,
Sarasota
Corey Leonard…………………………………………….…………………………page 243
Noise Pollution and Environmental Justice
Scott A. Moore…………………………………………………………………………page 258
The Benefits of On-Site Power Generation for Newtown
Lin Allen Ozan…………………………………………………………………………page 272
A Natural History of Newtown, Sarasota, Florida: Including Geology, Hydrology and Soils
Adrien Roth……………………………………………………………………………page 288
The Feasibility of Public Wi-Fi in Newtown, Sarasota: Investigating Community and
Economic Development through Public Wireless Internet Access
Matt Torrence…………………………………………………………………………page 307

1
Introduction
Robert Brinkmann, Ph.D.
Professor of Geography
Months ago, I had my first encounter with Newtown. I drove from USF in Tampa to visit my
friend and colleague, Ms. Lorna Alston. She just started her new position as the General
Manager of the North Sarasota Redevelopment Division and I was anxious to see how she liked
her new position. I was familiar with her impressive work in East Tampa and I knew she was
going to make a big difference in the community and in the lives of its citizens. As I drove into
Newtown’s main street, I was struck by its small-town charm. In many ways, the structure of
Newtown is similar to that espoused by those who seek a “New Urbanism” in American cities.
New Urbanists recommend developments with small downtowns within walking distance of
homes and places of work, and with access to public transportation and parks. Indeed, Newtown
has many things in place that make it a highly desirable place to live. It has a distinct
neighborhood feel, parks, and easy access to transportation. Yet, there are also problems of
underemployment, crime, environment, and economic development. Around the United States,
there are many Newtowns. Many people are working to improve these communities and there
are many success stories. I have no doubt that North Sarasota will be among the success stories.
To many, Sarasota is considered one of the greenest cities in the United States. It was
one of the first in Florida to embrace many of the key elements of the modern sustainability
movement. Thus, it makes sense to think about Newtown and the North Sarasota region within
the context of environmental sustainability. How can this part of Sarasota become a bigger part
of Sarasota’s national and international reputation as an urban ecotopia?
Each time I teach my graduate seminar called Capstone Seminar in Environmental
Science and Policy, I try to give my students opportunities to work within a community on
examining sustainability issues. To me and my students, environmental sustainability includes
not just the environment, but also social and economic issues. Thus, I challenge my students to
look at all aspects within a community to evaluate how to make improvements and to develop
plans and ideas that are practical and that can assist others in making their communities a better
place. In the past, my classes have done similar projects in Clearwater and Tampa. I am thrilled
that I was given permission to work with Sarasota in examining the North Sarasota

2
Redevelopment area. I am grateful for the assistance of many who gave of their time to assist
students in their efforts.
Within this document are reports from 20 students. This is the largest group I have ever
had in this course. The students include individuals working on masters degrees in Geography,
Planning, or Environmental Science and Policy. In addition, some of the students are completing
a Graduate Certificate Program in Environmental Management. The student projects vary
considerably from green job training to green roof development. The nature of the reports very
as well in that some are very applied programs with concrete suggestions, while others are more
theoretical in nature. Regardless of the content, each student brings a unique perspective to the
understanding of the North Sarasota area.

3
A Sustainable Urban Environment: the use of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ in
Newtown, Sarasota
Jennifer Ascani
Abstract
Urban Environments are commonly depicted by their man-made infrastructures -
skyscrapers, parking garages, roads, sidewalks, restaurants, and apartments. Often times, natural
landscapes must be altered to accommodate a proposed structure. This can be done through a
number of means: dredging, filling, clearing and flattening. Native vegetation and natural
environments are more often than not altered, if not completely demolished, in the process of
urban expansion. While destruction of these natural environments is harmful to inhabitants of
these ecosystems, lack of green spaces in new urban environments can be just as harmful to its
new residents. The implementation of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ is a proposed effective
strategy to halt, replenish, and even prevent the loss of natural ecosystems in Florida’s urban
environments. In urban neighborhoods, such as Newtown, Sarasota, implementation of native
vegetation in residential yards yields a plethora of benefits to the neighborhoods’ wildlife as well
as its residents.
Outline
The following outline highlights the main sections of this technical report:
I. Newtown Sarasota
A. History of the Newtown Community
B. New Beginnings for Newtown
C. Goals & Objectives of Newtown Community Redevelopment Area
II. Current Conditions
A. Newtown Boundaries
B. Focus on Residential Yards
1. Newtown Gospel Church
2. City of Sarasota Housing Authority
3. Residential House 1

4
III. Proposed Conditions
A. “Curb Appeal”
B. Smart Landscaping
C. Be an Environmental Advocate
D. Your Residence Could Look Like This
IV. About The Florida-Friendly Landscaping Program™
V. Nine Principles of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™
VI. Education & Introduction of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ into the Newtown Community
VII. Benefits of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ for the Newtown Community
A. Becoming a Sustainable Community
B. Environmental Benefits
C. Environmental Benefits
D. Residential Benefits
E. Communal Benefits
VIII. Conclusion
Newtown, Sarasota
History of the Newtown Community:
The town of Sarasota, originally platted in 1883, was founded in 1902 (History of the
Newtown Community, 2008). In 1904, the Florida West Shore Railway was constructed in the
region that is now considered Newtown, thus bringing the rail service to Sarasota. Newtown is
considered the second historic African-American core district of Sarasota. The first African
American core district, originally called Overtown and more recently known as the Rosemary
District, boomed at the turn of the century and into the 20’s, demanding further growth north.
Charles Thompson, a well-known circus manager, led the development of Newtown in
1914. Thompson’s motivation for development stemmed from his desire to better the quality of
life for Sarasota’s African-American community. Around the same time, Sarasota’s Downtown
was expanding, thus thrusting the African-American population northward. By 1960, Newtown
was home to approximately 7,000 people, or about 6% of Sarasota County’s population.

5
In the 1960’s, Newtown’s commercial community prospered. The community boasted
many restaurants, grocery stores, service stations, a drug store, repair shops, beauty parlors,
barbershops, and a doctor and dentist’s office (City of Sarasota, 2008). Sadly, decades of
decreased investment and financial flight, along with creation of government subsidized housing
and social services, have resulted in residential properties in disrepair alongside flourishing
single-family homes. Additionally, many multifamily houses in the community have not
received continued care, thus resulting in extensive community decomposition.
New Beginnings for Newtown:
The city of Sarasota held a community-wide meeting with Newtown residents on
February 11, 2010, requesting ideas on how to improve the quality of life of the Newtown
community, particularly within the areas of Economic Development, Law Enforcement,
Neighborhoods, Social Services, and Youth Services (New Beginnings for Newtown, 2008). The
intended outcome of this meeting was to discover ideas and solutions that would assist, as well
as equip, the residents of Newtown to bring about positive change within their community. On
February 23, 2010, the city of Sarasota held another community-wide meeting with Newtown
residents, where they presented the proposed changes and adopted a grass-roots effort to achieve
these changes. The meeting attendees then broke into focus groups based on their area of interest
and developed action plans to accomplish their goals.
Goals & Objectives of Newtown Community Redevelopment Area:
The lists of assets and issues generated at the public meeting have been developed into a
list of goals and objectives that provide the guidelines for redevelopment in the Newtown
Community, referred to as the Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan 2020 (Newtown
Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan 2010 Goals and Objectives, 2010). For the purpose of this
technical report, the focus will be on the establishment of functional, aesthetically pleasing
community development. The following is a list of objectives from Newtown Comprehensive
Redevelopment Plan 2020 in which the research of this technical paper will aid in achieving:
1. Administration (Redevelopment Administration and Policy):
Goal III: Prevent the occurrence of slum and blight.
Objective 2: Eliminate conditions that decrease property

6
values and reduce the tax base.
2. Economic Development:
Goal II: Re-establish old neighborhoods through redevelopment and
revitalization of the housing stock. Establish a safe, functional, and aesthetically
pleasing community environment.
Objective 4: Work with the City to clean up vacant, unattended
properties.
4. Land Use:
Goal 1: Establish Land use pattern that reflects the redevelopment area as a
community of diversified interests and activities while promoting compatibility
and harmonious land-use relationships.
Objective 4: Protect and enhance existing residential neighborhoods.
8. Urban Design/Parks:
Goal I: Establish Parks, recreation, open space, and beautification efforts to create
an identifiable character for the redevelopment area, one which will reflect a
pleasant, appealing atmosphere for working, shopping, touring, and residing in the
district.
Objective 3: Prepare landscaping, streetscaping and lighting plans for
public to strengthen the historic character of the redevelopment area and
encourage the use of these features when negotiating private sector
development plans.
Objective 8: Utilize a variety of beautification techniques to provide
comfortable, pleasing, and healthful work, leisure, residential, and shopping
environments.
Objective 9: Develop urban site design, landscape design, and architectural
design guidelines for new and redevelopment projects.
Current Conditions
Newtown Boundaries
According to the Geographic Boundary Map of Newtown (pg. 2 of Front Porch Florida
Communities Newtown, 2007), the Newtown neighborhood boundaries are as follows: Old
Bradenton Road to the west, US Hwy 301/North Washington Boulevard to the east, Myrtle
Street to the north and 17th Street to the south.

7
Focus on Residential Yards
On October 30, 2010, photographs were taken of five random residential sites to illustrate
current conditions of residential yards in Newtown. As the photographer was alone, observations
cited in this paper are based on the photographer’s observations of the yards during a less than
five-minute drive-by and observed from the photographs.
Table 1.1
Name Location Site Name
Newtown Gospel Church 1815 Gillespie Avenue Site 1
City of Sarasota Housing
Corner of 24th Street and
Site 2
Authority
Dixie Avenue
Residential House 1 2831 Maple Avenue Site 3
Residential House 2 2830 Goodrich Avenue Site 4
Residential House 3 2728 Goodrich Avenue Site 5
Newtown Gospel Church
According to the Sarasota Property Appraiser, Site 1 is zoned as RMF2: Residential,
Multi-Family (9 units/acre) with (land) use code 7100: Institutional- Churches. The Land Area of
the parcel is 47,564 square feet. The 2010 Assessed Value of the parcel is $ 329,900.00
(Appendix A).
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, Site 1 is
composed (as a percentage of total area) of the following soil types: 100% EauGallie and
Myakka fine sands (Appendix B). The current vegetation is mostly sparse, exposing many areas
of soil. There are a fair number of established deciduous and coniferous trees as well as a few
palms on site. The established deciduous and coniferous trees are located at the rear of the
church (west) and provide shade for the building (Appendix C). There is a concrete sidewalk that
perimeters the front of the site and an unpaved parking area is located to the right of the building
(Appendix D).
City of Sarasota Housing Authority
According to the Sarasota Property Appraiser, Site 2 is zoned as G: Governmental Use
with (land) use code 0390: Residential Multi-Family - 100 or more units. The Land Area of the

8
parcel is 586,811 square feet. The 2010 Assessed Value of the parcel is $ 2,059,000.00
(Appendix E).
Myakka fine sands (Appendix F). The current vegetation is mostly turf grass. There are a fair
number of established deciduous and coniferous trees as well as a few palms on site. The
established deciduous and coniferous trees are located to the west and south of the Housing
Complex and providing shade for few buildings (Appendix G). There are concrete sidewalks that
perimeter each neighborhood block. Additionally, there are no paved or unpaved parking areas
as all parking is street parking (Appendix H).
Residential House 1
According to the Sarasota Property Appraiser, Site 3 is zoned as RSF4: Residential,
Single Family (5.5 units/acre) with (land) use code 0100: Residential - Single Family. The Land
Area of the parcel is 5,000 square feet. The 2010 Assessed Value of the parcel is $ 39,100.00
(Appendix I).
Myakka fine sands (Appendix J). The current vegetation is overgrown and unmanaged. There are
a fair number of established deciduous and coniferous trees as well as a few palms on site. The
established deciduous and coniferous trees are located at the rear of the residence (west) and
provide shade for the building (Appendix K). There is a concrete sidewalk that perimeters the
front of the site. Additionally, there are no paved or unpaved parking areas as parking for this
residence is street parking (Appendix L).
Residential House 2
According to the Sarasota Property Appraiser, Site 4 is zoned as RSF4: Residential,
Single Family (5.5 units/acre) with (land) use code 0100: Residential - Single Family. The Land
Area of the parcel is 5,000 square feet. The 2010 Assessed Value of the parcel is $ 49,800.00

9
(Appendix M).
composed (as a percentage of total area) of the following soil types: 45.4% EauGallie and
Myakka fine sands and 54.6% Holopaw fine sand, depressional (Appendix N). The current
vegetation is mostly turf grass. There are a fair number of established deciduous and coniferous
trees as well as a few palms on site. The established deciduous and coniferous trees are located at
the rear of the residence (east) and provide shade for the building (Appendix O). There is a
concrete sidewalk that perimeters the front of the site as well as a concrete driveway.
Additionally, there is a chain-link fence that perimeters the property (Appendix P).
Residential House 3
According to the Sarasota Property Appraiser, Site 5 is zoned as RMF2: Residential,
Multi-Family (9 units/acre) with (land) use code 0820: Multi-Family/less than 10 units/Duplex.
The Land Area of the parcel is 5,000 square feet. The 2010 Assessed Value of the parcel is $
64,500.00 (Appendix Q).
Myakka fine sands (Appendix R). The current vegetation is mostly turf grass. There are a fair
number of established deciduous and coniferous trees as well as a few palms on site. The
established deciduous and coniferous trees are located at the rear of the residence (east) and
provide shade for the building (Appendix S). There is a concrete sidewalk that perimeters the
front of the site as well as a concrete driveway to the south (Appendix T).
Proposed Conditions
“Curb Appeal”
One strategy used to raise aesthetic value of a residence is to improve “curb appeal.”
Shows such as HGTV’s Curb Appeal take a less than aesthetically pleasing residential yard and
transform it via new landscaping into an eye-catching, property with the potential to sell quickly.

As many of the objectives of the Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan 2020 include an
aesthetically pleasing sector, creating “curb appeal” has been a supported strategy for achieving
this.
10
Smart Landscaping
While creating an aesthetically pleasing residential yard increases property value as well
as meets objectives of the Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan 2020, when executed
in a particular fashion this creation can also be environmentally sustainable. One of the 9
Principles of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ (FFL) is “Right Plant, Right Place.” Unlike
nutrient rich soil found in the north, central Florida boasts mostly xeric (dry) conditions
(Appendix U). While many people want a lush, green lawn, they don’t realize that the soil
conditions of Florida do no support that type of vegetation. Homeowners end up pumping
excessive amounts of water and fertilizer into their lawns, believing if they add enough they will
be rewarded with a lush, green lawn. Conversely, lawns that go unattended and unmanaged are a
breeding ground for exotics species.
The majority of people are unaware that excessive watering depletes Florida’s aquifer.
While the aquifer does get replenished through rain, if the state experiences a drought, residential
lawns suffer. This is not aesthetically pleasing, nor does it support a favorable ecosystem for
wildlife. FFL offers a sustainable solution to this all too common problem. Choosing native
plants capable of thriving in xeric conditions by adapting to periods of little to no water can keep
residents’ lawns looking beautiful, while reducing irrigation demands and associated costs
(McKinney, 2008). Introducing rain barrels (Appendix V) as an alternative means of watering,
through the capture and re-use of rainwater, can also help to transform lawns into sustainable
ecosystems (Bucklin, 1993). Native vegetation also attracts and supports wildlife that would not
be found in turf grass (Doody et al, 2010). Wildlife displaced by urbanization can thrive in a
residential lawn of native vegetation allowing residents to live in harmony with nature (Chen,
2009).
Be An Environmental Advocate
In addition to residents misusing water to keep their lawns lush and green, over

fertilization is another environmental issue (Manning, 2008). Urban environments usually have
high amounts of impermeable surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, and roads where water
does not filter through but runs across the surface. Natural rain, as well as sprinkler systems and
self-watering that comes in contact with fertilized lawns, carries the fertilizer down storm drains
and into wetlands, lakes, and ponds. While large amounts of fertilizer may be beneficial to
plants, excessive nutrient loads have the opposite effect in water bodies (Erickson et al, 1999).
Excessive amounts of nutrients feed algae blooms, making lake and pond management extremely
difficult. Utilizing native plants that require little to no fertilizer will aid in reducing urban run-off
11
as well as keep water bodies more biologically and aesthetically pleasing.
Your Residence Could Look Like This
Go to http://www.floridayards.org/interactive/index.php to use Florida-Friendly
Interactive Yard. This online interactive tool will give you step-by-step directions to transform a
common turf yard into one dominated by FFL plants. The site is a copyrighted production of
Fusionspark Media, Inc. so no part of the production can be copied and reproduced. Additionally
found on the site is a Florida-Friendly Plant Database that can be utilized in FFL transformation.
Black (2003) compiled a list of Florida’s native plants that he believes has the greatest potential
landscape use. These plants are equally practical and attractive when utilized in rural and urban
environments.
About The Florida-Friendly Landscaping Program™:
The Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ (FFL) Program is an extension of the University of
Florida, Institute of Food & Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) Environmental Horticulture
Department. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) primarily funds the
FFL program and as of 2009, has required that UF/IFAS use the term “Florida-Friendly
Landscaping” in all of its research, publications, and associated materials to match the language
that is used in Florida’s state legislation (citation*). FloridaYards.org is a project of the Florida
Springs Initiative of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and is
presented by UF/IFAS. The FFL program was created to include Florida Yards &
Neighborhoods (FYN) program and the Florida-Friendly Best Management Practices for

12
Protection of Water Resources by the Green Industries (GIBMPs). The FYN program and the
GIBMP program both promote the 9 Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ Principles, which apply
equally to homeowner and industry sanctions.
Nine Principles of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™:
The University of Florida, Institute of Food & Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) created
The Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Handbook that highlights nine principles that will aid
residents in reaching their goal of a Florida-Friendly Yard. The nine principles are as follows:
1. Right Plant, Right Place
2. Water Efficiently
3. Fertilize Appropriately
4. Mulch
5. Attract Wildlife
6. Manage Yard Pests Responsibly
7. Recycle Yard Waste
8. Reduce Stormwater Runoff
9. Protect the Waterfront
Education & Introduction of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ into the Newtown
Community
While knowledge can be a powerful tool, many times it can go to waste if it is not shared
and therefore does not have the opportunity to impact others. The following section highlights
strategies to effectively educate and expose the Newtown community to the sustainable
landscape approach of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™:
 Display of Informative Posters at high traffic community areas such as community
centers/schools /libraries/grocery stores. Colorful, eye-catching posters are visual tools
that can attract the attention of passers-by and encourage them to learn more.
 Creation of a website link to Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ Program
(http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/) and Florida-Friendly Landscaping™

13
(http://www.floridayards.org/) from Newtown’s website. A simple link that connects
Newtown’s residents to the “How-To” of FFL (Naveh, 2007).
 Presentations at schools/community centers of the Nine Florida-Friendly Landscaping™
(FFL) Principles. Children are sometimes the environment’s best advocates. FFL is an
active, outdoor activity that many children would enjoy doing with a parent or guardian.
 “Model FFL Yard” in the community. Many times a Model, able to be seen, touched, and
observed can be a highly effective tool in motivating others to apply the same Model
principles to their properties. Pick a parcel that is in a high community traffic area to
maximize learning potential.
 Creation of a Gardening Club that abides by the Nine FFL Principles. Creation of a
Gardening Club to uphold FFL Principles as well as build community camaraderie can be
offered through the community center.
 Handouts/brochures: Creation and distribution of handouts/brochures of FFL is a non-spoken
way of getting word out into the community. Handouts can supplement posters
and presentations and can always be made available at the community center.
Benefits of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ for the Newtown Community:
Becoming a Sustainable Community
FFL has environmental, communal as well as economic benefits. In a community such as
Newtown that is striving to become a more sustainable town, FFL is a simple strategy that
supports the big picture idea of sustainable living. While it does not solve every environmental
and economic issue, it is a small step that nearly every resident can take and will contribute
toward the realization of Newtown’s goals in becoming a sustainable community (Kuo, 2003).
Environmental Benefits
As mentioned in previous paragraphs, environmental benefits of FFL include a reduction
in watering amounts and costs, minimizing urban run-off, and recruitment of native (plant and
animal) species. Additionally, installing FFL trees increases CO2 uptake, which is quite plentiful
in urban environments (Manning, 2008). Tress, if planted in particular locations, can shade
residences, which in turn reduces the need to run air conditioning thus saving money and
resources.

14
Residential Benefits
Increasing green spaces in urban environments increases the quality of life of residents
(Kuo, 2003). Residents who utilize FFL in their yards will most likely spend more time outside,
enjoying the work of tending to their yards. This could lead to communal bonding and, as
mentioned before, the creation of a Gardening Club. Native plants can be purchased from local
nurseries, thus supporting sustainable business practices in Newtown. Enjoyment of such
gardening activities may also lead to an interest of a career pursuit in landscape architecture;
landscape ecology, botany, and many related fields, as well as small business opportunities.
Communal Benefits
Lastly, general aesthetics of the community of Newtown would improve drastically if
residents took part in the FFL program. The community as a whole would enjoy a newly founded
cohesion through their unity of practicing the 9 Principles of Florida-Friendly Landscaping™.
While aesthetics is beneficial to the community, it meets many objectives from Newtown
Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan 2020 (Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan 2010
Goals and Objectives, 2010). FFL would increase property value as well. Very few people are
interested in living in areas that are not aesthetically pleasing, with overgrown lawns and
mismanaged vegetation. An entire community implementing FFL would only increase outsider’s
interests in joining the community and willingness to pay the extra dollar to have a low-maintenance,
aesthetically pleasing lawn.
Conclusion
Newtown is faced with a tremendous opportunity to transform a neglected neighborhood
to a sustainable, model community for the entire city of Sarasota. Small changes that residents
can accomplish on their own that will aid in helping their community become more sustainable
while giving residents a sense of pride of ownership of their community. The implementation of
FFL as an effective strategy to halt, replenish, and even prevent the loss of natural ecosystems in
Florida’s urban environments will in turn create a sustainable ecosystem for wildlife as well as
for residents. Most importantly, FFL is an opportunity for the citizens of Newtown to come

together and collectively make a positive difference within their community as well as the planet.
15
Works Cited:
Black, RJ. (2003). Native Florida Plants for Home Landscapes. Retrieved from:
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ep011.
Bucklin, R. (1993). Cisterns To Collect Non-Potable Water For Domestic Use. Retrieved from:
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ae029.
Chen X, Wu J (2009) Sustainable landscape architecture: implications of the Chinese
philosophy of “unity of man with nature” and beyond.” Landscape Ecol. 24: 1015-
1026.
City of Sarasota. (2010). Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan 2010. Goals and
Objectives. Retrieved from:
http://www.sarasotagov.com/newtown/Newtown_CRA_G&O.pdf#page=1.
City of Sarasota. (2008). New Beginnings for Newtown. Retrieved from:
http://www.sarasotagov.com/newtown/newbeginnings.html.
City of Sarasota. (2008). History of the Newtown Community. Retrieved from:
http://www.sarasotagov.com/newtown/history.html.
Doody, B., Sullivan, J., Meurk, C., Stewart, G., Perkins, H. (2010). Urban realities: the
contribution of residential gardens to the conservation of urban forest
remnants. Biodiversity and Conservation 19:1385-1400.
Erickson, J., Volin, J., Cisar, J., Snyder, G. (1999). A Facility for Documenting the Effect of
Urban Landscape Type on Fertilizer Nitrogen Runoff. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 112:
266-269.
Florida Department of Community Affairs. (2007). Front Porch Florida Communities
Newtown. Retrieved from: www.dca.state.fl.us.
Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ Program | UF Dept of Environmental Horticulture. (2010).
These nine principles will help you reach the goal of a Florida-Friendly Yard.
Retrieved from: http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/homeowners/nine_principles.htm.
Fushionspark Media Inc., (n.d.) Florida-Friendly Interactive Yards. Retrieved from:
http://www.floridayards.org/interactive/index.php.
Google Earth. Imagery Date December 15, 2008. Retrieved from: www.googleearth.com.

16
Haynes, J., Hunsberger, A., McLaughlin, J., Vasquez, L. (2001) Drought-Tolerant, Low-
Maintenance Plants for Southern “Florida Yards” and “Florida Landscapes.” Proc. Fla.
State Hort. Soc. 114:192-194.
Kuo, F. (2003). The Role of Arboriculture in a Healthy Social Ecology. Journal of
Arboriculture 29:148-155.
Manning, W. (2008). Plants in urban ecosystems: Essential role of urban forests in urban
metabolism and succession toward sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable
Development & World Ecology 15:362-370.
McKinney, ML. (2008). Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and
animals. Urban Ecosyst. 11:161–176.
Naveh, Z. (2007). Landscape ecology and sustainability. Landscape Ecol. 22:1437–1440.

17
GREEN ROOF GARDENS FOR ENHANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
IN NEWTOWN
Prepared by Leslie Babiak
“Is it not against all logic when the upper surface of a whole town remains
unused and reserved exclusively for a dialogue between the tiles and the stars.”
Le Corbusier
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An increased public awareness of the importance of maintaining ecological systems in an
expanding built environment has led to the development and application of technologies that
allow us to live more lightly on the planet, strengthen our connections between people, and
create more sustainable communities. The concept of sustainability and sustainable development
has evolved over time to incorporate various meanings; however, sustainability is usually
associated with living within the earth’s means through the alteration of individual and collective
human behavior in ways that improve the quality of life while preserving environmental
potential for the future. The natural environmental elements of a community are essential, not
only for human survival, but also for emotional and psychological health; thus, finding ways to
build a stronger connection between community residents and natural landscapes enhances
community sustainability.
Green roofs, layered systems in which a vegetated area becomes part of the roof, offer the
potential to provide a greater array of benefits to the built and natural environment, than any
other sustainable building technology. The sustainable development of a community can be
further enhanced by using green roofs as a viable solution for growing healthy food locally. The
long distance production and transport of fresh foods, typically 1500 miles from field to table,
arrives with environmental and social costs attached. Growing food locally on a green roof can

18
contribute to a community’s food security network, improve the nutrition of local residents,
provide job skills training and other educational opportunities, and create opportunities for
revenue. Underutilized rooftop space can be transformed into a new avenue for cultural
expression and citizen involvement; hence, strengthening community ties.
Though prevalent throughout many parts of the world, green roof technology has only
recently received recognition in the United States and Canada. Public education of the value of
green roofs and the ways in which they reduce environmental impacts and provide social,
ecological, and economic benefits will help increase widespread awareness, remove institutional
barriers, and strengthen the likelihood that local policy-making and incentives supporting green
roof installations will become more of a reality. A green roof growing fruits and vegetables in
Newtown would serve not only as a learning tool but would be a promising stride toward setting
a community standard for sustainable development.
This paper begins by offering an overview of the benefits of a green roof and of growing
food closer to home. Secondly, an account of green roof garden design considerations and an
illustrative case for successful green roof food production will be presented. This will be
followed by a depiction of how this innovative approach in taking advantage of unused roof
space can impact Newtown’s redevelopment in a sustainable way.
WHAT IS A GREEN ROOF?
While the modern day green roof originated in Germany over one hundred years
ago, green roofs have existed for thousands of years in many different parts of the world.
Although recently introduced within the past decade in the United States and Canada, robust
growth in installation efforts and progress in policy-making are indicative of a strong likelihood
that green roofs will become widespread throughout North America in the near future. Installed

on top of the existing roofing membrane, the green roof system components are typically layered
as follows: waterproof membrane protection layer, insulation or separation layer, root barrier,
drainage layer, filter fabric aeration layer, growing medium (often referred to as substrate), and
vegetation (figure 1). Modern green roof technology incorporates patented soil blends that are
customarily composed of a mix of organic and inorganic ingredients including perlite, compost,
peat moss, small stones, and expanded clay or shale.
19
FIGURE 1: SECTIONAL VIEW OF LAYERED GREEN ROOF COMPONENTS
practitiionerresources.org/document64941
Extensive green roofs, categorized as having a substrate depth of 2 to 6 inches and
usually not accessible to the public, are less expensive to install as the building load rarely
requires modification. Having a substrate depth of six inches or greater, intensive green roofs
are usually more costly to construct and maintain, are designed to accommodate a wide range of

plant and tree species, and may even contain public park-like areas. The goals of the green roof
project and its intended usage will determine the type of green roof constructed. As the
cultivation of food crops necessitates soil depths of 6-18 inches, an intensive green roof system
engineered for adequate weight bearing capacity would be the type of green roof required for this
project (Weiler & Scholz-Barth, 2009; Dunnett & Kingsbury, 2008).
WHY SHOULD WE PLANT GREEN ROOFS?
20
Although green roofs are not a panacea for the problems brought about by urban and
suburban development, green roofs provide a greater range of benefits than any other green
building technology (Cantor, 2008). The proven environmental benefits from green roofs
include: the capture and filtration of rainwater resulting in a decreased quantity of water entering
storm drains and flowing into rivers and other water bodies, reduction of the urban-heat-island
effect by cooling and cleaning the air, provision of natural habitat, and reclamation of green
space previously lost to development. Benefits to the built environment, due to the insulating
effects of the green roof system, include doubling the life span of the roof membrane and
improving the thermal performance of buildings, thereby reducing energy consumption and
lowering heating and cooling costs. Provision of space for local food production and other uses,
potential sources of revenue, therapeutic and recreational outlets in caring for plants, and the
strengthening of community ties in working together toward a common good are some of the
cultural benefits that can be derived from green roofs.
On the other hand, the drawbacks of green roofs pertain to the comparatively high initial
costs and the necessary prerequisites for satisfying the additional weight load to the building
(Oberndorfer et al., 2007). When a roof surface is transformed into useful space, the building
becomes economically and functionally more efficient; however, the important point to consider

accrue over the life of the roof, will outweigh the upfront capital costs. Even though intensive
green roofs are typically more expensive to construct and maintain, the environmental and social
benefits will be far more substantial than those of extensive, or shallow, green roofs. In a cost-benefit
21
analysis, it is important for full life-cycle costs, including the extended lifespan of the
roofing membrane resulting from the protection provided by the green roof, to be considered.
For example, a gravel-covered roof usually requires replacement after 25 years, in comparison to
a green roof membrane which should not require repairs for 40-50 years (Ngan, 2004).
GROWING FOOD CLOSER TO HOME
Urban or peri-urban agriculture, the production of fruits and vegetables within city or
suburban areas to provide the local population with access to high quality food, is an emerging
industry in the United States, where the ingredients for an average meal travel for roughly 14
days and up to 1500 miles from farm to table (Pirog, 2003). This long-distance transport of
produce increases the cost of the food, contributes to energy consumption and pollution, and is
associated with a decline in the food’s nutritional value (Dunnett & Kingsbury, 2008). Roof
surfaces offer a viable opportunity for growing healthy food in urban and suburban areas where
garden space may be restricted, soil may be contaminated, or access to inexpensive, high quality
fresh foods is often limited. In contrast to growing food in containers placed atop the roof, a
green roof design is an integrated system which allows the growing medium, or soil, to cover the
rooftop. Due to the greater surface area of greenery and its integration with the green roof
components, the green roof yields more environmental, structural, and food security benefits
than those obtained through growing food in containers (Garnham, 2002).
The green roof garden would afford Newtown the opportunity to reap the social,
economic, and environmental benefits derived from gardening, in combination with those

provided by green roof technology. It has been conservatively estimated that if 6% of Toronto’s
roofs were greened, jobs for 1,350 people per year would be created. If 10% of these green roofs
were covered with food producing crops, the city could reap 10.4 million pounds of produce—
with a market value of 4 to 5.5 million dollars per year (Dunnett & Kingsbury, 2008).
DESIGNING THE GREEN ROOF GARDEN
22
There are many interactive factors that need to be taken into account when designing a
green roof for food production; hence, an outline of the considerations and constraints regarding
design, safety, and maintenance is in order. When considering the suitability of an existing
building, evaluation of the roof’s load bearing capacity, or weight load of the people, crops, and
equipment that the roof is capable of supporting, will be the most important consideration
(Snodgrass & Snodgrass, 2006). In consulting with a structural engineer, the type of green roof,
depth of soil, total surface area, and intended use will be dictated by the structural support and
load bearing capacity of the roof. The engineer will analyze the type of roofing construction
(concrete, steel, wood) and roofing framework, identify obstacles such as roof vents and ducts,
chimneys, electrical equipment and drains, as well as document potential solutions to designing
around them, and verify the real load capacity of the roof. The water saturated weight of the
green roof system, including vegetation, must be calculated as permanent load to the roof
(Weiler & Scholz-Barth, 2009).
Although the building standards that determine minimum load-bearing capacity will vary
across the United States, the typical loadings of intensive green roofs range from 300-1000
kg/m2 (61-205 lb/ft2) or more (Dunnett & Kingsbury, 2008). The live load specifications for a
roof will include water, wind and safety factors required for the building’s performance as well
as human traffic and anything transient in nature such as furniture or maintenance equipment.

Dead load includes the weight of the roof itself and any permanent structural elements including
roofing layers, heating and cooling mechanical equipment, and projected wind and rain loads.
23
The American Standard Testing Methods, (ASTM), a non-profit technical society that
develops and publishes standards for materials, has published several standards for green roof
systems, specifically related to the determination of roof loads for the weight of the green roof
system and guidance in the selection, installation, and maintenance of plants for green roofs
(Getter & Rowe, 2006; Weiler & Scholz-Barth, 2009; Dvorak & Volder, 2010). For further
detail, these standards are featured in Appendix A. Final analysis should include a survey
designating the feasible locations for the green roof or a proposed framework for reinforcement.
Engineered reinforcements will result in added costs, possibly negating the viability of the site;
hence, undergoing a structural analysis at the beginning of the project is highly recommended.
In addition to the engineered survey, an analysis of the roof’s daily exposure to the natural
elements-- - sun, wind, and rain-- will be necessary and can be conducted by a landscape
architect or designer. Maximizing yields from food-producing plants mandates eight to ten hours
of sunlight each day. Although roofs are elevated and the sun exposure on the roof is generally
more ample than the sunlight at ground level, a study of daily sunlight exposure on the roof will
prove useful in designing the layout of the garden to correspond with specific needs. For
example, in areas that are exposed to a stronger amount of sunlight than is desirable for some
plants, such as certain varieties of herbs, varying degrees of shade can be created by installing
architectural features such as an arbor or small storage building, or by adding living features such
as a grouping of tall plants. Allocating certain plants to areas of the roof that are shaded by
neighboring buildings may be another viable option. When wind intensity proves to be stronger

24
on the rooftop than at ground level, wind breakers can be designed to protect plants from the
threat of wind damage.
Water is another fundamental need for plants and installing a rainwater collection
system, such as rerouting rooftop gutters to a cistern, (or holding tank), to store the water until
needed, is a vital component to the green roof. Sarasota County’s Low Impact Development
(LID) Manual of strategies for enhancing the local environment, protecting public health, and
improving community livability is currently moving towards finalization (L. Ammeson, personal
communication, Sept. 14, 2010). The green roof designer should refer to the LID Manual:
Chapter 3.4: Green Roof Storm Water Treatment Systems, as it offers preliminary details for
requirements and guidelines for the installation of green roofs and for cisterns enabling the
storage and reuse of captured rainwater (LID, 2009). As overhead watering on a rooftop can
quickly evaporate or be misdirected by wind, an irrigation system utilizing plastic drip lines
should be installed with connections running to the cistern to allow for supplemental irrigation in
a more sustainable fashion. Plans should include provision for an additional water source at the
roof for backup irrigation and in case of fire (LID, 2009).
Roof access and safety are other important considerations which will need to be
addressed. Stairs or a working elevator will be necessary to transport people and materials to the
green roof garden. In instances where the parapet does not meet local building codes for public
access, safety features such as railings or a wall should be included (LID, 2009). An attractive
safety wall can be created by installing chain link fencing, which can then be transformed into a
wall of greenery in offering additional growing space for climbing or trailing plants needing
vertical support. If within budgetary means, enclosed storage for equipment will provide

25
protection from the outside elements and the convenience of having gardening tools close at
hand; and, a designated area for compost production will prove worthwhile.
A wide selection of proprietary green roof systems, also known as vegetated roof
assemblies, are currently available for the design professional to choose from. The basic
components of these systems support the basic requirements of a green roof: optimal water
retention, drainage of excess water, and provisions for growing medium and airflow (Weiler &
Scholz-Barth, 2009). The site chosen by Newtown for the green roof, the amount of capital
available, and the community’s desired outcomes for the garden are some of the main factors that
which will determine the specific requirements for the design, function and maintenance of the
agricultural green roof. Successful realization of the project will require the integration and
collaboration of professionals from varied disciplines, as well as owners and stakeholders who
are willing to shoulder higher short-term costs to achieve long-term gains. As there are many
factors influencing total costs, details regarding an approximation of costs involved with
installing an intensive green roof on an existing building can be found in Appendix B, Table 1.
SUCCESS IN GREEN ROOF FOOD PRODUCTION
The production of an array of marketable fruits and vegetables atop roofs and balconies is
common in other countries including Thailand, China, Japan, Australia, India, Russia, Columbia,
and Haiti (Dunnett & Kingsbury, 2008; Joe, M. 2010). As urban agriculture continues to evolve
into a full-fledged commercial industry, successful projects in North America are showing that
rooftop agriculture combined with green roof systems is a viable method for producing food
locally. The designs, activities, and outcomes of these projects vary and examining each project
would be beyond the scope of this paper. The case featured here illustrates some of the ways in
which a community can benefit from an agricultural green roof, and many of these ideas could

26
be implemented by Newtown.
A model for utilizing the benefits of a green roof in combination with providing fresh
produce to the local community, Eagle Street Rooftop Farm is a 6000 square foot green roof
organic vegetable farm located on a warehouse rooftop. The lightweight growing medium, a
manufactured soil for green roof applications, is 5 to 9 inches in depth and consists of a blend of
compost, rock particulates and shale. The medium can retain over 1.5” of rain, providing a
marked reduction in storm water runoff. Sixteen north-to-south beds measuring a maximum of
four feet in width are divided down the middle by a single aisle and all aisles are filled with
mulched bark. Constructed in 2009, the cost was lower than most green roof installations,
(approx. $10 per square foot), due to the existing structural details of the building and the use of
recycled materials, including used rafters for edging.1
In its first season, Eagle Street yielded over 30 different kinds of produce, with the most
successful plants being tomatoes, micro-greens, onions, garlic, and herbs, while production per
square foot yielded highest on tomatoes, kale and chard. At market, mixed salad greens yielded
the best overall price per foot planted. Eagle Farm sells its harvest through its own Community
Supported Agriculture (CSA) program in which members provide the farm with seed money by
paying a lump sum for a weekly supply of the season’s produce. In exchange, members enjoy
fresh local produce and the benefits from a direct relationship with a trusted source. Produce is
also sold at community based local markets and to several local restaurants.
Brooklyn residents also enjoy the benefits of Eagle Street’s commitment to community
outreach and environmental education. During the 2009 growing season, Eagle Street conducted
_________________
1.http:www.rooftopfarms.org/Eagle_Street_Rooftop_Farm_Fact_Sheet_2010.pdf
rooftop workshops to over 30 different schools and groups who had the opportunity to learn

about their food’s journey from the soil to the kitchen. On Sundays, volunteers—from beginner
to green thumb—are invited to participate in exchange for learning how to maintain the green
roof farm. Due to Florida’s mild weather and extended growing season, a green roof in
Newtown can provide a sustainable environment for year-round cultivation. Varieties of beans,
cabbages, endive, kale, lettuces, collard and mustard greens, spinach, peppers, squash, tomatoes,
and herbs, as well as broccoli, cauliflower, celery, cucumbers, onions, radishes, strawberries, and
small melons can be harvested at different times throughout the year (Stephens et al., 2009).
27
IMPLICATIONS FOR NEWTOWN
The demand for fresh produce is apparent in Newtown, as residents participate in
impromptu sales of fresh fruit and vegetables out of the backs of trucks that park near busy
intersections lacking traffic safety and easy access. An outdoor market in Newtown featuring
locally harvested produce would aid in keeping local dollars within the community while
providing safe and reliable access to healthy food and opportunities for strengthening social ties.
The green roof garden would be an important step in helping Newtown to overcome the
challenge of forging stronger connections amongst Newtown residents and between those
residents and the natural environment.
Considered a leader in the state, Sarasota is known for its commitment to educate local
citizens and other jurisdictions on sustainable technologies and green building policy (Ranwater
& Martin, 2008). An edible green roof demonstration project located in Newtown offers the
opportunity for Sarasota to extend its education and outreach to green roof applications. The city
of Sarasota is a vibrant tourist magnet and the green roof has the potential to attract not only
local interest but attention from national and international visitors as well. Opening the green
roof to guests and conducting guided tours of this roof top food production system would be a

28
significant force toward the positioning of Newtown as a destination.
Designated as one of Florida’s Enterprise Zones, Newtown, also referred to as North
County, has been targeted for economic renewal. Available tax credits for real estate property,
business equipment, and building materials, as well as other business assistance benefits can be
utilized by locating the green roof in this Enterprise Zone. At the same time, the food producing
green roof would help revitalize the Newtown Community by reducing unemployment through
new and diverse job opportunities, and expanding the economic base through the attraction of
outside businesses and the formation of partnerships between property owners and private and
public sectors. If the decision is made to pursue large-scale marketing of the harvested produce,
the Entrepreneur Center (slated for establishment in 2011), a part of Newtown’s Business
Incubator Program, may be a valuable source of assistance and support during start-up.
An investigation was conducted to determine potential sites for a green roof within the
Enterprise Zone boundaries. Search criteria were limited to commercial or institutional buildings
with flat to low pitched roofs and poured concrete load bearing frames. Roofs constructed with
metal or shingles over wood were eliminated, as well as any buildings having a roof footprint of
less than 1500 square feet. After mapping the sixteen candidate roofs, the average productivity
per unit of area per month was calculated in order to obtain an annual estimated food yield for
each candidate roof (figure 2). Estimated average yields ranged from 2400 to over 58,000
pounds of fresh produce. Atop the Fairmont Hotel in Vancouver, a 2100 square foot green roof
garden has been thriving since 1991. Supplying the hotel’s restaurant with honey and sixty
varieties of herbs, vegetables, and fruits, it saves the hotel nearly $30,000 per year in food costs.2
____________
2.http.www.fairmont.com/NR/rdonlyes/WFC_Herb_Garden_Dec01_pdf
It is important to note that further structural analyses by qualified professionals is necessary to

29
confirm the suitability of the candidate roofs identified within Newtown’s Enterprise Zone.
Figure2: POTENTIAL SITES FOR GREEN ROOF GARDENS IN NEWTOWN’S
ENTERPISE ZONE WITH ESTIMATED ANNUAL FOOD YIELD
(Leslie Babiak)
Building upon Newtown’s sense of place, through the linkage of the neighborhood to the
natural landscape, a food-producing green roof in the community would serve as a model of
sustainability at the neighborhood scale. This green roof offers the potential for contributing to
the fulfillment of the following goals and objectives, as set forth in Newtown’s Comprehensive

30
Redevelopment Plan-2020.3
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:
 Make Newtown a destination
 Expand the economic base by creating new and diverse employment opportunities
 Encourage the development of regionally competitive businesses to help retain
Newtown consumer dollars in the community
LAND USE:
 Promote and locate land use activities of regional importance within the
redevelopment area to attract visitors and capture additional market opportunities
URBAN DESIGN/PARKS:
 Establish parks, recreation, open space and beautification efforts to create an
identifiable character for the redevelopment area
An edible garden green roof in Newtown would serve as an example of how a
community can play a proactive role in enhancing its sustainability. Beyond food production,
this project would provide the Newtown Community the potential for job skills training and
local employment while increasing green space and promoting city pride. Additionally, the
utilization of the untapped resource of rooftop space of multi-family, commercial, warehouse,
and institutional buildings through the leasing of this unused space for agricultural production
capabilities is a concept that is rapidly gaining attention in North America and would afford
Newtown with a novel opportunity for income generation.
This project presents unique learning opportunities that foster community empowerment.
Seniors, youth and the under-employed can work side by side and learn from one another while
overcoming social barriers and building understanding and respect. A program that teaches
youth how to grow, harvest, and cook vegetables helps young people to learn that fruits
____________
3.http.www.sarasotagov.com/newtown/Newtown_CRA_G&O.pdf#page=3 (pp11-19)
and vegetables don’t simply come from the store, but require the effort of people working
together in ways that respect and care for the environment. The rooftop garden can also serve as

a place to host educational workshops and social events, thus promoting neighborhood cohesion.
31
CONCLUSION
Greening efforts, such as street tree planting, brownfield redevelopment, and constructing
green roofs enhance a region’s natural resources and quality of life. Communities that highlight
and restore their natural environments will be places where people will want to live, work, and
play. While green roofs hold promise for addressing a myriad of problems that have resulted
from development, a green roof boasting a bountiful harvest of fresh fruit and vegetables reflects
the harmonious efforts of a community and holds promise for building a stronger connection
between community residents and the natural landscape.
This paper has illustrated how green roof gardens would reflect the efforts of the
community in taking control of food security and social ills while providing food, jobs,
environmental enhancement, education, beautification, inspiration, and hope. The benefits and
design considerations of green roofs and the advantages of growing food close to home have
been depicted through a spotlight on how the implementation of a green roof for local food
production affords the opportunity to enhance economic, environmental, and social
sustainability. A green roof featuring an edible garden in Newtown would be a powerful agent
for change in introducing an innovative environmental feature for the community to enjoy,
profit, and learn from while providing a learning landscape for a vast audience.
Works Cited
American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM Book of International Standards.
(2007). vol.4.12
Armstrong, Donna. (2000). A survey of community gardens in upstate New York:
Implications for health promotion and community development. Health and

32
Place, (6) 319-327.
Berghage, R., Beattie, D., Jarrett, A., Thuring, C., & Razaei, F. (2009). Green roofs for
stormwater runoff control. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Cantor, S. L. (2008). Green roofs in sustainable landscape design. New York, NY:
W.W.Norton
Dvorak, B. & Volder, A. (2010) Green roof vegetation for North American ecoregions:
A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 96 (4), 197-213.
Dunnett, N. & Kingsbury, N. Planting Green Roofs and Living Walls. (2008). Portland,
OR. Timber Press
Eagle Street Rooftop Farm. (2010) Farm Fact Sheet. Retrieved from
http:www.rooftopfarms.org/Eagle_Street_Rooftop_Farm_Fact_Sheet_2010.pdf
Fairmont (2001). How does our garden grow? Retrieved from
http. www.fairmont.com/NR/rdonlyes/WFC_HerbGarden_Dec01.pdf
Garnham, Luke. (2002) Green roofs and the promise of urban agriculture. The Green
Roof Infrastructure Monitor 4(2), 17-19.
Getter, K. & Rowe, D.B. (2006) The role of extensive green roofs in sustainable
development. HortScience, 41 (5), 1276-1285.
Joe, M. (2010). Urban Farming: Veggies with a view. Retrieved from
http://www.cnngo.com/Tokyo/eat/urban-farming-veggies-view-958246.
Le Corbusier, (1946). Towards a new architecture. London, UK: Architectural Press
Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan-2020. Retrieved from
http://www.sarasotagov.com/newtown/Newtown_CRA_G&O.pdf#page=3.
Ngan, G. (2004). Green roof policies: Tools for encouraging sustainable design.
Retrieved from http://www.lacf.ca/system/files/Policy%20report.pdf
Oberndorfer, E., Lundholm, J., Bass, B., Coffman, R.R., Doshi, H., Dunnett, N., Gaffin,
S., Kohler, M., Liu, K.K., & Rowe, B. (2007). Green roofs as urban ecosystems:
Ecological structures, functions, and services. BioScience, 57 (10), 823-833.
Peck, S. & Kuhn,M. (2001). Design guidelines for green roofs. Retrieved from
http://www.cmhc.ca/en/inpr/bude/himu/coedar/loader.cfm?url=/getfile

33
Pirog, R. (2003). Checking the food odometer. Iowa State University: Leopold Center
for Sustainable Agriculture. Retrieved from
http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs/staff/files/food_travel1072103.pdf
Ranwater, B. & Martin, C. (2008). Florida counties pushing ahead. In American
Institute of Architects Report, Local leaders in sustainability: Green counties
(pp.36-37) Wash, DC: AIA
Sarasota County (2009).Greenroof stormwater treatment systems. In: Sarasota county
preliminary LID manual (chapter 3.4). Retrieved from
http://www.scgov.net/Environmental/Services/Water/SurfaceWater/documents
LIDManual_Changes_Aug_Sep09.pdf.
Snodgrass, E.C. & Snodgrass, L.L. (2006). Green Roof Plants: A Resource and Planting
Guide. Portland, OR. Timber Press
Stevens, J.M, Brown, S.P., Treadwell, D., Webb, S., Gevens, A., Dunn, R.A., Kidder, G.,
Short, D.,& Simone, G.W. (2009). Florida vegetable gardening
guide.(pub#SP103) University of Florida: Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.edis.ufl.edu/vh021.
Wegscheid, C. (2009) Living with a green roof. Construction Specifier (14)1; 18-35
Weiler, S.K. & Scholz-Barth, K. (2009) Green roof systems: A guide to the planning,
design, and construction of landscapes over structure. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
&Sons
Wheeler, S. (2004) Planning for Sustainability: Creating Livable, Equitable, and
Ecological Communities. New York, NY: Routledge.
APPENDIX A
National Green Roof Standards, as published in the Annual Book of ASTM International Standards, (2007),
Volume 04.12.
E2396 ,2005, Standard Testing Method for Saturated Water Permeability of Granular Drainage Media [Falling‐
Head Method] for Green Roof Systems

34
E2397, 2005, Standard Practice for Determination of Dead Loads and Live Loads Associated with Green Roof
Systems
E2398, 2005, Standard Test Method for Water Capture and Media Retention of Geocomposite Drain Layers for
Green Roof Systems
E2399, 2005, Standard Test Method for Maximum Media Density for Dead Load Analysis* of Green Roof
Systems
E2400, 2006, Standard Guide for Selection, Installation, and Maintenance of Plants for Green Roof Systems
*Method E2399 includes tests to measure moisture retention potential and saturated water permeability of
media.
ASTM E2397 ‐ 05 Standard Practice for Determination of Dead Loads and Live Loads associated with Green Roof
Systems
1.2 The procedure addresses the loads associated with green roof systems. Components that are typically
encountered in green roof systems include: membranes, non‐absorptive plastic sheet components, metallic layers,
fabrics, geocomposite drain layers, synthetic reinforcing layers, cover/recover boards, insulation materials, growth
media, granular drainage media, and plant materials.
1.3 This procedure also addresses the weight of the green roof system under two conditions: (1) weight under
drained conditions after new water additions by rainfall or irrigation have ceased (this includes the weight of
retained water and captured water), and (2) weight when rainfall or irrigation is actively occurring and the
drainage layer is completely filled with water. The first condition is considered the dead load of the green roof
system. The difference in weight between the first and second conditions, approximated by the weight of transient
water in the drainage layer, is considered a live load.
ASTM E2399 ‐ 05 Standard Test Method for Maximum Media Density for Dead Load Analysis of Green Roof
Systems:
This is a standardized procedure for predicting the system weight of a green roof system.
The density of mixed media materials will vary depending on the degree to which they are subjected to
compaction and the length of time that the material is allowed to hydrate and subsequently drain. Most green roof
media materials have a large capacity to absorb and retain moisture. Furthermore, moisture will drain gradually
from the media following a hydration cycle. The maximum media density measured in this procedure approaches
the density at the theoretical saturation point.
The value of this test method to the green roof designer is that it provides an objective measure of maximum
probable media density (under drained conditions) for estimating structural loads. It also provides a method for
estimating the lower limit for the water permeability of the in‐place media. This latter value is important when
considering drainage conditions in green roofs. Finally, the maximum media water retention has been shown to be
a useful indicator of the moisture retention properties of green roof media.
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for determining the maximum media density for purposes of estimating
the maximum dead load for green roof assemblies. The method also provides a measure of the moisture content
and the water permeability measured at the maximum media density.

1.2 This procedure is suitable for green roof media that contain no more than 30% organic material as measured
using the loss on ignition procedure Test Methods F 1647, Method A.
1.3 The maximum media density and associated moisture content measured in this procedure applies to drained
conditions near the saturation point.
35
1.4 The test method is intended to emulate vertical percolation rates for water in green roofs.
ASTM E2400 ‐ 06 Standard Guide for Selection, Installation, and Maintenance of Plants for Green Roof Systems:
This guide addresses performance characteristics for green roof systems with respect to the planting. A rooftop is
an extreme environment with strong and variable wind patterns and little or no protection from the sun’s intense
heat and ultraviolet radiation. Selection of plant material can be crucial for success of the green roof system.
5.1.1 This guide provides general guidance only. It is important to consult with a professional horticulturist, green
roof consultant, or work with similar professionals that are knowledgeable, experienced, and acquainted with
green roof technology and plants.
(Determining these performance characteristics of green roof systems provides information to facilitate the
assessment of engineering aspects of the facility. Such aspects may include structural design requirements,
mechanical engineering and thermal design requirements, and fire and life safety requirements)
This guide covers the considerations for the selection, installation, and maintenance of plants for green roof
systems.
1.2 This guide is applicable to both extensive and intensive green roof systems
APPENDIX B
Table 1: Costs Associated with Installing an Intensive Green Roof on an Existing Building
Component Cost Notes & Variables
Design & Specifications cost 5 - 10% of total roofing project
depends on project size & complexity
The number and type of consultants
required
Project Administration & Site Review 2.5 - 5% of total roofing project cost. The number and type of consultants
required depends on project size &
complexity
Re-roofing with root-repelling
membrane ($10.00 - $15.00 per ft2)
Cost factors include type of new
roofing system to be installed, ease
of roof, nature of flashing required
Green Roof System (curbing,
drainage layer, filter cloth, growing
medium, decking and walkways)
($15.00 - $30.00 per ft2) Cost factors include type & depth of
growing medium, type & height of
curbing, decking type, & project size
Plants ($5.00 - $200.00 per ft2) Cost is completely dependent on the
type and size of plant chosen, since
virtually any type of plant suitable to
local climate can be accommodated
Irrigation System ($2.00 0 $4.00 per ft2) Cost factors include type of system
used & size of project

36
Guardrail/Fencing ($20.00-$40.00 per ft.)
Cost factors include type of fencing,
attachment to roof,
size of project/length required
Installation/Labor
($8.00 - $18.00 per ft2) Cost factors include equipment rental
to move materials to and on roof,
size of project, complexity of design,
& planting techniques used
Annual Maintenance ($1.25 - $2.00 per ft2) Cost factors include size of project,
irrigation system, and size and type
of plants used
Adapted from Peck & Kuhn.(2001). Design guidelines for green roofs (p.16)

What a Greenway Park could mean socially and environmentally to a diverse population
37
within Sarasota
Todd L. Bogner
Abstract
Dividing Newtown and Ringling Art College in Sarasota is Whitaker Bayou. The bayou
is currently used as a way to rid both populations of excess surface water complicating the
ecology for Sarasota Bay. There is a proposal to build a Greenway Park on the Newtown side of
the bayou. This paper discusses the ecological history of the watershed in which Whitaker bayou
lies and management approaches to the watershed. Next, I will discuss what a greenway is and
what a greenway park is. Finally, I will describe what this park can achieve through a
multifunctional design for the environment as well as for the residents of Newtown and the
surrounding areas.
Sarasota Bay Watershed
Sarasota Bay, in central western Florida lies between Anna Maria Island to the north and
Venice to the south. It is comprised of 52 square miles of open water and a watershed of
approximately 150 square miles called the Sarasota Bay watershed, which is split between
Sarasota and Manatee counties. The main source of freshwater to Sarasota Bay is Phillippi
Creek, which accounts for 38% (57 square miles) of the watershed (SWFWMD, 2002). Other
major tributaries include South Creek, Bowles Creek, and Whitaker Bayou. Whitaker Bayou
accounts for only 5% (8 square miles) of the Sarasota Bay watershed, however along with

38
Hudson Bayou and Cedar Hammock Creek, Whitaker Bayou has one of the highest levels of
contaminant discharge into Sarasota Bay (EPA, 2007).
Whitaker Bayou was chosen for this paper because it is the smallest of the major
contributing sources of surface water to Sarasota Bay, has one of the highest sources of
contaminants discharged into Sarasota Bay, and is a proposed site to build a greenway park in
Newtown. This paper will examine the Sarasota Bay watershed, what a greenway park is, and
what the social and ecological affects of a greenway park in Newtown could mean.
Sarasota Bay was created about 5,000 years ago due to sea level rise and fall resulting in
the formation of barrier islands which frame the westernmost part of the bay. People have lived
in the Sarasota Bay area as far back as around 10,000 B.C. (Sarasota Bay SWIM Plan, 2002).
The landscape was much different then than it is now mostly due to human influences shortly
after Florida gained statehood in 1845. One hundred and fifty years ago the Sarasota Bay
watershed had pockets of isolated wetlands, which played an important role in its hydrology and
biodiversity (Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, 2006).
Early American Settlers found living in the Sarasota Bay watershed to be uninhabitable
for most of the year due to the high mosquito populations. In order to combat the mosquito
populations, a Mosquito Control District was established in the early 1900’s. This organization
interconnected many of the isolated wetlands by ditches, severely altering the hydrology of the
watershed (Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, 2006).
The assault on Sarasota Bay’s wetlands did not stop with the mosquitoes. Drainage
Districts were created in the 1920’s under the Land Reclamation Act of 1913 to drain wetlands to
be used for agriculture (Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, 2006). The draining would
continue until the early 1960’s under the pretenses that it was for the alleviation of flooding. It is

estimated that there are some 800 miles of ditches in Sarasota County originating from this time.
At the present time about half are now on privately owned lands (Sarasota County
Comprehensive Plan, 2006).
With the rise in population came the need for development, and with it came the filling in
of wetlands for houses, roads, and other impervious surfaces (Sarasota County Comprehensive
Plan, 2006). Prior to development, during extreme rain events, water would sheet flow and
collect in the isolated wetlands. With the alterations in the natural hydrology, water from storm
events would cause flooding if not directed elsewhere.
39
The solution to directing water away from harming people and economic loss, was to
direct it to the largest body of water as fast as possible. That body of water for the Sarasota Bay
watershed was Sarasota Bay (and subsequently the Gulf of Mexico) via various bayous, creeks,
and other tributaries. With redirected water comes the added hydrologic load of municipal
wastewater and runoff from agriculture, residential, and commercial irrigation. Also, any
contaminants on roads have a direct path to Sarasota Bay.
Management and Politics
In 1987 Sarasota Bay became an Estuary of National Significance by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program (SBNEP),
formed in 1989 to be the acting body which would care for the interests of Sarasota Bay and its
natural resources (SWFWMD, 2002). In 1995 SBNEP issued a document called the
“Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan” (CCMP). The Florida Legislature created
the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Act of 1987. This act gave the water
management districts the ability to “protect the ecological, aesthetic, recreational, and economic

value of the state’s surface waters…”, and stated that pollution sources can come from non-point
as well as point sources (SWFWMD, 2002 pg.3). The Sarasota Bay SWIM plan was created in
1997 and focused on projects outlined in the CCMP, such as improvements in sediment and
water quality, habitat losses, and recreational uses (SWFWMD, 2002). The projects on the
SWIM plan are prioritized by the SBNEP.
40
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to identify waters which are “impaired”.
Impaired waters are listed as “fair” or “poor” in the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) report. Through the CWA and the 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act,
the FDEP sets Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL’s) of nutrients, bacteria, chemicals,
sediments, or other pollutants that are causing the impairment through the Watershed Approach
Initiative. The most notable efforts to improve surface water quality came with the 1972 Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (FWPCAA), which gave the EPA deadlines to grant
permits to water pollution sources, make wastewater guidelines, require water pollution sources
to have water pollution control technology, and eliminate pollution discharges to make the
nation’s waterways fishable and usable for recreational purposes (Switzer, 2004).
It has been found that although the FWPCAA gave the government Command-and-
Control governance over point source pollution, it did little to nothing for a more pressing
concern: non-point source pollution. Non-point source pollution includes agricultural runoff,
urban runoff, and stormwater runoff and is the leading cause of impairment in the nation’s
waterways. Pollution from these sources include: increased nitrogen, phosphates, heavy metals,
sediments, and animal wastes. Non-point pollution not only affects surface-water, but can
infiltrate to ground water sources as well, contaminating drinking water. Unfortunately, non-point
sources are the hardest to identify, and even more difficult to regulate.

41
Wetland restoration as a priority project
Wetlands in the Sarasota Bay watershed include both inland freshwater ecosystems, as
well as coastal freshwater and saltwater ecosystems. Mitsch et.al describes wetlands as “the
kidneys of the landscape”. The reason for this designation is because they receive waste from
upstream water sources, and cleanse it for sources downstream, shorelines, and for groundwater
recharge (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000).
Wetlands also serve as reservoirs to hold water for flood protection in times of heavy
rains and storm events. Biodiversity is often more varied in wetlands than they are in their
adjacent ecosystems and provide a habitat which is conducive for a wide variety of flora and
fauna.
With the destruction of wetlands for agricultural and urban uses comes a decline in water
quality downstream, increased chances of flooding, and a loss of biodiversity. For these reasons,
the SBNEP lists wetland habitat restoration projects as a priority throughout the Sarasota Bay
watershed. Other priority projects by the SBNEP include projects such as determining water
quality, identifying toxic loads, determining nitrogen loading, updating the pollutant loading
model, integrated water resource evaluation, and the evaluation and implementation of
stormwater retrofit (SWFWMD, 2002).
Whitaker Bayou
Like most coastal bayous and creeks in Florida, the creeks and bayous of Sarasota Bay
were historically tidal extensions of the estuaries with most of the freshwater influxes coming
from storm events and heavy rains. Whitaker Bayou is one such source for Sarasota Bay.

Kathryn L. Meaux, classifies Whitaker Bayou as a “Tidal Creek” and quotes Holland et al., as
saying “tidal creeks are sentinels that provide early warning of the degree to which land
development affects coastal environmental quality” (Meaux). Tidal creeks link upland wetlands
with coastal estuaries.
42
In October, 2010 while kayaking Whitaker Bayou, I observed stormwater drains and
other surface water runoff culverts draining unfiltered, directly into Whitaker Bayou. Some of
the human artifacts observed were an innumerable amount of plastic bottles, bicycles, cans,
various articles of clothing, every imaginable type of fast food container, and shopping carts,
which Ann Riley describes as an “indicator organism” of the urban creek in her 1998 article,
“What is Restoration” (Riley, 1998).
This waste comes from both sides of the river. Ironically, the two sides could not be more
different from each other. On the eastern bank is Newtown; on the western bank is the Ringling
College of Art and Design. Newtown is a city within a city in Sarasota. It is the poorest area of
Sarasota with over 30 percent unemployment and 40 percent transient residents. Ringling on the
other hand, is a leading private not-for-profit art institute. Even with this stark dichotomy of
cultures, each side’s trash and pollutants end up in Whitaker Bayou.
Meaux’s data shows that Whitaker Bayou is the most impacted of the tidal creeks which
extend into Sarasota Bay, one of the poorest in water and sediment quality, and the least in
habitat richness (Meaux). The bayou itself, excluding the poor water quality, poor clarity, and
lack of aquatic life, is a beautiful meandering waterway through an otherwise urban
neighborhood.
According to Rutherford Platt, there does not need to be a strict dichotomy between
nature and city. An urban watershed (often first and second order streams under the Strahler

classification system) should serve the same functions as any upstream tributary. The various
parts of a watershed provide ecological services as well as recreational purposes such as fishing
and canoeing (Platt, 2006). Negative impacts of urbanization will increase as the population
grows unless measures are taken to control pollutants and bad management practices (Platt,
2006).
43
Greenways
In its natural state, Whitaker Bayou would serve as a “greenway”. Although there is no
absolute definition of a greenway, Jack Ahern defines greenways as,
“… networks of land containing linear elements that are planned, designed, and managed
for multiple purposes including ecological, recreational, cultural, aesthetic, or other
purposes compatible with the concept of sustainable land use” (Ahern, 1995 pg 134).
A greenway by design is linear allowing biotic communities to migrate. Many greenways
are situated along riparian corridors. These greenways act as a buffer to mitigate runoff from
agriculture and stormwater for the health of water bodies downstream (Ahern, 1995).
Past management techniques for stormwater management and flood control have been to
design catchment ponds. These catchment ponds only serve as “islands”. Without linear
interconnections, the biodiversity and breeding populations are isolated (McGuckin and Brown,
1995). Restored wetlands should not only take into consideration flood control, and groundwater
recharge, but the biotic community as well. This should be done through planning their

44
interconnectivity thoughtfully to be a greenway, and not an isolated island.
Robert Searns describes three generations of greenways. Originally greenways linked
points of destination in an aesthetically pleasing way. Next, they took the traveler out of the city,
not for the purpose of transportation, but for the journey itself. Now, we are in what he describes
as the third generation. This is where attitudes change from what people want to do with the
environment for their own pleasures, to environmental stewardship (Searns, 1995).
In this phase of greenway development greenways are built not just for the human
psyche, but for the betterment of the environment, taking into consideration other species, habitat
conservation, health of the environment, and functioning environmental services (Searns, 1995).
Environmental services are things the environment provides which would be costly for us to do
mechanically, if it could be done at all. Examples of environmental services are water
purification and flood control.
According to the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, protection and restoration of
natural systems is an important part of Sarasota’s watershed management program (Sarasota
County Comprehensive Plan, 2006). The amendment known as the “2050 plan,” includes
Resource Management Areas (RMA’s), which are areas designed to protect contiguous
greenways on waterways with ecological benefits (Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, 2006).
Greenway Parks
A “greenway park” is a linear park which uses open spaces, often along a riparian
corridor, to create an aesthetically pleasing environment which allows for biodiversity, and
environmental services. This type of park is also built with the human residents in mind as well
as the environment.

45
Many people who live in urban areas do not experience green open spaces on a regular
basis. Studies have shown that green open spaces are beneficial to an individual’s quality of life
by reducing stress as well as other benefits for mental health and well being (Hartig et al., 1991;
Conway, 2000). Along with reducing stress in individuals comes a reduction of violence and
aggression in society. A greenway park, with its open green spaces, can also provide both social
and economic benefits for the entire community in which it lies.
It has long been established that green open spaces and parks are important for social
gatherings, which in turn build social bonds. However, many factors must be considered in the
planning of any park, especially an urban greenway park as urban environments typically have
ethnically and culturally diverse populations.
Research conducted by Paul H. Gobster at Chicago’s Lincoln Park showed that people of
Caucasian origin are more likely to travel farther than minority groups, often travel alone or as a
couple, and are more likely to participate in individual sports than minority groups surveyed.
Minority groups would tend to use the park more for social activities, would come in larger
groups, and participate in group sports. People of Latin American origin had the greatest amount
of age-diversity and were the largest in terms of group sizes. People of African origin also used
the park for social gatherings such as picnics; however they preferred more open, maintained
landscapes than Caucasians (Gobster, 2002).
Studies such as theses are important not for the reason of stereotyping, but to understand
that people use parks in different ways, and have varying perceptions on how a park should
function and be designed. Not all people will see or use a park in the same manner.
Gobster considered four different “visions of nature” while studying Chicago’s Lincoln
Park. These four visions are: as a designed landscape, for habitat, for recreation, and finally

restorative to pre-European development (Gobster, 2001). In designing a greenway park,
planners may each have their own view of what that park should be, and how it should function,
from the view of the participant.
46
Whitaker Bayou Greenway Park
There is a proposal to build a greenway park on the Newtown side of Whitaker Bayou. A
project such as this could mean very different things to various stakeholders. Careful
consideration should be taken to include all parties such as those living in Newtown, Ringling
College of Art, as well as those who live downstream in Sarasota Bay. The design of the park
itself should incorporate many different activities and services for people as well as the
environment.
A greenway park should be multifunctional in that it provides habitat as outlined by the
SBNEP, protects ecological benefits as stated in the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, and
functions for the well being of the people who live in the area. It should embody parts of each
“vision of nature” in that people can see their individual vision within the design of the park.
It is impossible to restore an urban park to pre-European development, but aspects of the
park can give the user the feeling of “wilderness”. There should be transitional places between
the city and the park, designed by a landscape architect, as well as incorporating new design
aspects of the park for added ecological services. In designing a park with different visions, a
broad range of recreational activities can be enjoyed.
Boundary Parks and Green Magnets
Solecki and Welch hypothesize that parks that lay between two adjacent communities and

differ in socioeconomic status can act as a barrier in which case the park may not be used by
either side and may fall into disrepair (Solecki and Welch, 1995). This type of park is considered
a boundary park. The Whitaker Bayou Greenway Park, which is planned to be along Whitaker
Bayou on the Newtown side just north of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Park, could be
considered a boundary park. If a boundary park does become a barrier between neighborhoods,
Solecki and Welch call this a “green wall”. Gobster states that there are examples of boundary
parks which run counter to this. These boundary parks act as “green magnets” because they
incorporate opportunities for ethnically and socially diverse groups to interact within the park
(Gobster, 1998). Activities which draw residents from both sides of Whitaker Bayou would
allow the new greenway park to act as a green magnet. This type of management starts with
design. When designing the park it is important to include residents from both sides in the design
process to share their visions and ideas.
47
The Sarasota Comprehensive Plan states that the natural systems restoration has the
intention to restore the natural systems water budget to “predevelopment” (Sarasota County
Comprehensive Plan, 2006). In order to achieve a longer residence time, and thus restore the
water budget to predevelopment, constructed wetlands can be made as part of the greenway park
design whereby stormwater would enter the constructed wetland prior to entering a waterway
such as Whitaker Bayou. Plants planted in the constructed wetlands would be of varieties which
can take out harmful pollutants and nutrients before entering the waterway. In addition to taking
out pollutants, the constructed wetland also has the benefit of being a sediment basin, lowering
the amounts of sediments which are deposited into the bayou. Infiltration is the first step in
stopping pollutants from reaching the waterway, and is the first process which takes out harmful
metals. Devices which allow water to infiltrate quicker, called infiltration strips, can be

incorporated in the greenway park design either before or after the constructed wetland. The
design of a constructed wetland can be changed as the needs change, and the infiltration strips
can be removed and replaced when they become impacted. This is much more economical than
removing the same pollutants once dispersed in the waterway.
Through smart design, both in the greenway park, as well as cooperation in private parks
(such as Ringling), and other public parks along the bayou to build like designed parks,
improvements can be made to adhere to the objectives of the CWA, the SBNEP, and SWFWMD.
48
Partnerships
Government regulation has been mainly command and control and has worked well for
specific point sources of pollution, but that same regulation can be expensive, laborious, and
inefficient when dealing with non-point sources of pollution. This is where partnerships can
emerge to deal with problems beyond local regulations using local knowledge, innovation, and
problem solving solutions which are mutually beneficial to a wide range of stakeholders (Lubell
et al, 2002).
Partnerships offer solutions which are outside of regulation. They allow environmental,
social, and economic interests to be addressed by all parties affected. Partnerships emerge when
the benefits of a project exceed its transaction costs (Lubell et al, 2002). Benefits of a greenway
park along Whitaker Bayou, which also has restored wetlands and an intermediary system for the
collection and remediation of stormwater, include social and economic benefits as well as the
environmental benefits.
In the design of such projects as a Whitaker Bayou Greenway Park, local residents of
Newtown should be involved as well as residents downstream and Ringling College. In some

49
cases, it has been discovered, local residents are more aware of environmental concerns within
their neighborhood than urban planners (Smith, 1976).
Conclusion
Watershed partnerships are an important part of ecosystem management. Through these
partnerships, many voices can be heard, and many goals can be achieved. Collaborative
management allows citizens, government, and private companies to work together on projects
which are mutually beneficial to all parties.
In the case of the proposed Whitaker Bayou Greenway Park there are social, economic,
and environmental benefits which affect a wide range of stakeholders. Smart planning on the part
of the SBNEP and a watershed partnership can ensure that the park is built in a way in which all
of these benefits are served. A park without ecological service benefits is just a park. A properly
planned greenway park can accomplish goals which have been set forth by the SBNEP,
SWFWMD, and the EPA as well as to serve as a mitigation bank for future development in
Sarasota County. A properly managed park must first start with a properly managed design. It
must be a design which incorporates the neighborhoods who the designers hope to attract. This
starts with listening to the visions of the citizens and allowing them to be a part of the overall
design process. Science can show the health of Whitaker Bayou is in decline due to excessive
nutrient and pollution loading. Observation shows that storm sewers and poor surface water
retention practices have lead to these problems. However, it is people who are going to decide
whether to take the data and observations described in this paper to make a difference in this
community.

50
Works Cited
Ahern, Jack (1995). Greenways as a Planning Strategy. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33 pp.
131-155
Conway, H., 2000. Parks and people: the social functions. In: Woudstra, J., Fieldhouse, K.
(Eds.), The Regeneration of Public Parks.
Chiesur, Anna A., (2004). The Role of Urban Parks for the Sustainable City. Landscape and
Urban Planning, Volume 68, Issue 1 pp. 129-138
Environmental Protection Agency (2007). http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nepccr/index.html
Site accessed September 20, 2010
Gobster, Paul H. (1998). Urban Parks as Green Walls of Green Magnets? Interracial relations in
neighborhood boundary parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 41 pp. 43-55
Gobster, Paul H. (2001). Visions of Nature: Conflict and Compatibility in Urban Park
Restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning, 56 pp. 35-51
Gobster, Paul H. (2002). Managing Urban Parks for a Racially and Ethnically Diverse Clientele.
Leisure Sciences, Volume 24 pp. 143–159
Gobster, Paul H., & Westphal, Lynne M. (2004). The Human Dimensions of Urban Greenways:
Planning for Recreation and Related Experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68 147-165
Hartig, T., Mang, M. and Evans, G., 1991. Restorative effects of natural environments
experiences. Environ. Behav. 23, pp. 3–26. Full Text via CrossRef
Lubell, Mark, Schneider Mark, Scholz John T., & Mihriye, Mete (2002). Watershed Partnerships
and the Emergence of Collective Action Institutions. American Journal of Political Science,
Volume 46, No. 1, pp. 148-163
McGuckin, Christopher P., & Brown, Robert D. (1995). A Landscape Ecological Model for
Wildlife Enhancement of Stormwater Management Practices in Urban Greenways. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 33 pp. 227-246
Meax, Katherine . Powerpoint presentation. www.chnep.org/Events/Summit08/
presentations/Meaux.ppt. Site accessed October 15, 2010

51
Mitch, William J., Gosselink, James G. Wetlands (3rd e.d.) 2000
Platt, Rutherford H. (2006). Urban Watershed Management: Sustainability, One Stream at a
Time. Environment, Volume 48 No. 4 pp. 26-42
Riley, Ann L. (1998) What is Restoration? Restoring Streams in Cities
Rosenbaum, Walter A. (2005). Environmental Politics and Policy (6th ed). Washington, D.C.,
CQ Press
Searns, Robert M. (1995). The Evolution of Greenways as an Adaptive Urban Landscape Form.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 33 pp. 65-80
Smith, Geoffrey C. (1976). Responses of Residents and Policy-Makers to Urban Environmental
Hazards. Area, Volume 8, No. 4, pp. 279-283
Solecki, W.D., Welch, J.M., 1995. Urban parks: green spaces or green walls?. Landscape and
Urban Planning 32, 93±106.
SWFWMD. 2002. Sarasota Bay Surface Water Improvement Management (SWIM) Plan.
Southwest Florida Water Management District. SWIM Section, Resource Management
Department. Tampa, FL.
http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/documents/plans/sarasota_bay_2002.pdf. Site accessed October
2, 2010
Switzer , Jacqueline Vaughn. (2004). Environmental Politics: Domestic and Global Dimensions
(4th ed). Belmont, CA, Thompson/Wadsworth
Tourbier, J. Toby. (1994). Open Space through Stormwater Management: Helping to structure
growth on the urban fringe. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 49(1) pp. 14-21

Greening our City: Improved Health and Sustainability, Economic Stability in Crisis Times

Greening our City: Improved Health and Sustainability, Economic Stability in Crisis Times

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (8)

Destacado

Destacado (10)

Similar a Greening our City: Improved Health and Sustainability, Economic Stability in Crisis Times

Similar a Greening our City: Improved Health and Sustainability, Economic Stability in Crisis Times (20)

Más de School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens

Más de School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens (20)

Último

Último (20)

Greening our City: Improved Health and Sustainability, Economic Stability in Crisis Times