Infrastructural Opportunism: Drinking Water as Landscape

Brian Raymond Green

Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

Dean Bork - committee chairNathan Heavers - committee member

Paul Kelsch - committee member

December 4, 2014Alexandria, Virginia

C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 1 4 , B r i a n R a y m o n d G r e e n

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: This book is dedicated to my family for their unwavering support and commitment to my education.

To my mother, thank you for pushing me no matter how often I want to give up and for your many brilliant ideas. And, to my father, thank you for reminding me to always stay calm.

I also want to thank my committee for their invaluable insight and guidance, as well as Rob Holmes for pointing me in the right direction early on.

Finally, I want to thank my studio mates for their opinions and advice and for keeping me mostly sane, especially Chris Ard, David Bayer, Jae Cho, Laura Cohen, Lesley Conroy, Amanda Foran, Jason Granado, James Hangar, Lama Hasan, Maria José Laclaustra, My-Lin Pham, and John Whilden.

“FOR EVERY PILE THERE IS A PIT.”

-MATTHEW COOLIDGE, THE INFRASTRUCTURAL CITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS: ABSTRACT

UNDERPINNING Introduction Infrastructure in the Present A Failing Grade Apparenstructure “Landscape as Infrastructure” Water Water Water City of Alexandria Drinks Narrowing Inequitable Infrastructure Lorton

DESIGN On Infrastructural Opportunism Ground Rules Program Four Entrances Water

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT First Pass Design Challenges

FINDINGS

WORKS CITED

IMAGE SOURCES

7

8

9

11

12

13

15

17

18

21

23

26

30

31

32

35

39

54

58

59

62

64

66

68

occoquan reservoir and vulcan quarry, lorton, virginia (1)

6

For decades, infrastructure design rested squarely on the shoulders of civil engineers and urban planners who developed single-function, centralized systems to move water, energy, and people through our cities. Today, in an environment of political turmoil and resistance to large, government funded projects, these massive systems are untenable. As a result, a paradigm shift is underway - infrastructural opportunism - that aims to create combinatory infrastructure systems that are both multi-functional and multi-scalar. Further, landscape architects are well positioned to take leadership roles in this new era of infrastructure.

This thesis applies aspects of infrastructural opportunism to drinking water infrastructure, an area where landscape architects have completed little academic research or built work to date. The result is an alteration of a long-term plan to convert a diabase quarry into a reservoir in Lorton, Virginia. By applying landscape architectural analysis and principles to an engineering problem, the design maximizes site functionality over the course of the project and invites the public into the infrastructural scale of the quarry to witness some of the very processes that are vital to our modern way of life.

After applying infrastructural opportunism to drinking water infrastructure design, the author finds that landscape architects must: 1) emphasize the necessity for collaboration between competing entities and professions; 2) embrace the scale and time-frame of these projects, while looking to maximize value during construction; 3) utilize landscape tools over engineering tools to increase efficiency at large scales over long periods of time; and 4) provide the public with a place to experience the processes and systems of extraction necessary to maintain current standards of living.

ABSTRACT:

7

UNDERPINNING:

infrastructure, n.,: A collective term for the subordinate parts of an undertaking; substructure, foundation; spec. the permanent installations forming a basis for military operations, as airfields,

naval bases, training establishments, etc.

-Oxford English Dictionary

8

INTRODUCTION: Infrastructure, translated from Latin, means literally “to build beneath.” The word is composed of the Latin prefix “infra,” meaning beneath and the verb “structura,” meaning to build or construct (List). Originally a French term stemming from the development of the railroad during the 1870s, the word entered the English language in the 1920s, a period of significant American economic growth. Following World War II, NATO used the word to describe military installations needed to house troops and protect Europe from the Soviet Union. By the 1970s, urban planners adopted infrastructure to describe vital construction projects too large or important for private sector undertaking (Lewis).

Today, this word, only 90 years old, takes on many meanings. Most broadly however, infrastructure refers to the underlying framework of a system, both physical and social. These include: highway systems, railway systems, air traffic control systems, ports, telephone systems, the Internet, postal services, courts and jails, schools, power and electrical systems, and water and sewerage systems, among many others (Frischmann). This list can be expanded upon extensively, but author of Infrastructure and Cardozo Law professor Brett Frischmann sums up infrastructure neatly as a “shared means to many ends” (4).

“Shared” stands out in Frischmann’s definition because most infrastructures are truly joint endeavors paid for by society for the benefit of society. However, today this arrangement is becoming exceedingly awkward because fewer and fewer individuals recognize that they are intrinsically part of this system—that they are linked to their neighbors via the streets outside their homes, the pipes beneath these streets, the wires above, and the utility bills in their mailboxes. This is partially what makes infrastructure so fascinating. Our way of life is totally dependent on systems that we can barely see and our willingness as a society to keep these systems running.

Urban studies professors Stephen Graham and Simon Marvin, in their book Splintering Urbanism, which dissects

modern networked infrastructures, state, “infrastructure networks are the key physical and technological assets of modern cities…. Infrastructure networks, with their complex network architectures, work to bring heterogeneous places, people, buildings, and urban elements into dynamic relationships and exchanges, which would not otherwise be possible” (10-11).

The underpinning portion of this thesis investigates three areas regarding infrastructure. First, it will examine the importance of infrastructure to public safety and our modern way of life. It will detail why we are letting these vital systems fall into serious disrepair, concluding with an overarching explanation for our infrastructure problem: most Americans are only marginally aware of the systems that support their existence and therefore unable to champion their repair.

Then, the scope will narrow, focusing on drinking water and wastewater treatment infrastructure systems. There are few activities more mundane, yet critically important, than turning on a kitchen facet or flushing a toilet. These activities are essential to our quality of life and must not fail. The systems that bring clean water to our homes and remove dirty water are prodigious, complex, mysterious, and generally disregarded. Furthermore, they are absolutely indispensible to our economy, health, and lifestyle. In order to raise awareness of drinking and wastewater systems, landscape architects must understand how they operate. This section will broadly describe these systems in the City of Alexandria, Virginia. Even at a macro level, understanding an infrastructure system may reveal opportunity for intervention.

Finally, the research portion will conclude by exploring means of raising awareness of these systems in the Washington, DC area. By gaining a broad understanding of the public drinking water infrastructure of northern Virginia, a series of opportunities to apply the “landscape as infrastructure” metaphor present themselves. The site

9

selection process culminates in a specific design opportunity to bring people in contact with their infrastructure in a way that benefits both the public and the system. The chosen site is located in a small, but fascinating town in southern Fairfax County: Lorton.

In Lorton, there is great opportunity to use proposed drinking water infrastructure expansion as a springboard for a more ambitious public works project that moves beyond the scope of a single, local government agency’s plan and into the domain of a collaborative, opportunistic addition to the public realm. By conducting multi-scalar analysis on a specific site within Lorton, as well as the surrounding community, the landscape architect is well positioned to deliver a design that meets the needs of many users. Here, the design’s main objective is to create a beautiful place for visitors to explore both now and in the future. The design must adapt to the long-term plans of the site and be flexible to the unforeseeable needs of its users decades into the future. As Cornell University landscape architecture professor Brian Davis advises, designing for interstitial periods maximizes the value of the land and efficiency of the landscape instruments at play (Davis). Secondarily, it should raise awareness of the vital infrastructure from which it’s born. The end product must be more than an ecological theme park or an exercise in revelatory design; it must be appealing, engaging, and remind us that we are human in order to encourage broad public use, and then, infrastructural awareness.

i-35 west mississippi bridge collapse, minneapolis, minnesota (2)10

INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE PRESENT: The etymology of the word infrastructure is telling. These systems are often built infra, or beneath, the ground, where they are out of sight to the vast majority of their users. Award winning author, illustrator, and professor at the Rhode Island School of Design, David Macaulay likens this network in his book Underground to the roots of a tree—absolutely fundamental to the tree’s existence, yet mysterious and unknown. Still, some infrastructure systems manage to hide in plain site, a truly remarkable feat of camouflage. Roads, for example, transport millions of vehicles each day in the United States; yet, few people think twice about their role in modern society, and even fewer consider how they are maintained (Frischmann).

These forgotten overlooked systems are the foundation of our modern lifestyle. Our economy, public safety, and quality of life is highly dependent on infrastructure. Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, Robert Puentes explains that infrastructure “fosters the movement of goods, people, and ideas” (LePatner xiii). Former U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar stated in 2010, “the U.S. surface transportation network, unmatched by any other in the world, is the backbone of the nation’s economy. It has provided American businesses and consumers with enormous economic competitive advantages and access to markets over the course of the past century” (LePatner xi). This network includes everything from massive intermodal cargo ports to the innumerable traffic signals that abound in our cities. However, our transportation infrastructure is hardly the only critical system.

Infrastructure systems are also vital for national security. They provide means for communication in the event of an emergency and the ability for first responders to get to the scene quickly. Their reliability provides the necessary stability to foster development and a healthy, stable economy (LePatner).

Author and real estate attorney Barry LePatner wrote the seminal book Too Big to Fall following the collapse of the I-35

Bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota in 2007. LePatner explains, “From the levees restraining our navigable waterways and the aqueducts providing our drinkable water to the interstate highway system, our infrastructure was essential to our achieving many of our critical national objectives” (xix). This system is ingrained in American history, as the nation grew through westward expansion, canal building, and the transcontinental railroad (LePatner). Today, an aging power grid carries electricity to run the televisions in our homes and the advanced medical equipment in our hospitals. This electricity is produced at approximately 6,600 power plants across the country that as a whole consume 201,000,000,000 (201 billion) gallons of water per day or 49 percent of all daily water usage in America (this number only includes water used in gas, coal, and nuclear power plants) (Fishman; U.S. Energy Information Administration). Despite the general public’s lack of infrastructural awareness, it is clear that the disruptions to our economy, public safety, and quality of life in the event of a large-scale failure would generate massive public outcry, disbelief, and hardship.

11

A FAILING GRADE: Despite the United States’ history and reliance on strong infrastructure systems to fuel fiscal growth, over the past several decades all levels of government have wholly failed to maintain these essential systems, unnecessarily costing taxpayers millions of dollars (LePatner). LePatner writes, correcting “widespread infrastructure problems while continuing to meet the needs of a growing population…will take an enormous national commitment. Unfortunately, the reality is that our nation as a whole, and our government leaders in particular, do not yet possess the proper mindset for addressing these problems” (xxi).

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) agrees. The professional organization, with 140,000 members, draws attention to the decline of public infrastructure. Every four years the ASCE publishes a Report Card rating the “condition and performance of the nation’s infrastructure” (ASCE). The 2013 Report Card scored U.S. infrastructure a D+, up slightly from 2009 when the national GPA was an even bleaker D.

The Report states that since 1998, average grades for infrastructure are near failing, citing many worrisome statistics. For example, there are approximately 240,000 water main breaks per year in the United States; annual fiscal allocation for superfund sites is about $500 million short; one out of every nine bridges in the U.S. is rated structurally deficient; and deteriorating public transit systems cost the economy $90 billion in 2010 alone (ASCE). The report is taken seriously in Washington, although it does stir political reaction from both sides of the aisle, especially after the Obama administration’s stimulus plan in 2009 (Scribner).

President Obama stated during a speech in March 2013 at the Port of Miami, “we still have all kinds of deferred maintenance…we still have too many ports that aren’t equipped for today’s world commerce. We’ve still got too many rail lines that are too slow and clogged up. We’ve still got too many roads that are in disrepair, too many bridges that aren’t safe” (Remarks). Obama recently proposed

Unfortunately, the reality is that our nation as a whole, and our government leaders in

particular, do not yet possess the proper mindset for addressing these problems” (xxi).

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) agrees. The professional organization, with

140,000 members, draws attention to the decline of public infrastructure. Every four years

the ASCE publishes a Report Card rating the “condition and performance of the nation’s

infrastructure” (ASCE). The 2013 Report Card scored U.S. infrastructure a D+, up slightly

from 2009 when the national GPA was an even bleaker D.

Infrastructure Type 2009 Grade

2013 Grade

Aviation D D

Bridges C C+

Dams D D

Drinking Water D- D

Energy D+ D+

Hazardous Waste D D

Inland Waterways D- D-

Levees D- D-

Ports N/A C

Public Parks and Recreation

C- C-

Rail C- C+

Roads D- D

Schools D D

Solid Waste C+ B-

Transit D D

Wastewater D- D

America’s GPA D D+

Investment Needed $2.2 trillion $3.6 trillion

Source: ASCE Report Card for America’s Infrastructure

a national infrastructure bank to finance repairs and mentioned this plan in his 2013 State of the Union Address (Schwartz). Clearly, as the ASCE Report Card demonstrates, repairing our critical infrastructure systems will be a daunting and expensive task.

12

APPARENSTRUCTURE: It is established that infrastructure is vital to the continued prosperity of our nation and that these systems are falling into disrepair. The cause of this epidemic is both highly complex and political. This section will briefly discuss a few of the policy and economic causes that have lead to the current state of our infrastructure and then present a way forward for landscape architects to begin the process of solving our infrastructure crisis.

Traditionally, infrastructure is studied through a supply-side economic lens. Governments supply these systems for the benefit of all, even when users fail to realize the benefits they receive. These infrastructures take the form of public education, highways, and other commons, or systems that benefit the society as a whole. The capital to create and maintain these systems comes either through taxes or fees, often with little input from those paying. The reasons for this are many and include the size and scale of such systems as well as the interconnectedness of infrastructure management at various levels of government (Frischmann). Frischmann, in his book Infrastructure, argues that economists need to begin approaching infrastructure management through a demand-side perspective. He argues that users of infrastructure systems do not “adequately signal social demand” for services that benefit society as a whole (xi). This creates a series of challenges for public entities trying to manage and fund these systems. Without public understanding of their added societal value, public willingness to pay for their upkeep is limited. Simply, there is an information gap between infrastructure suppliers and users who foot the bill for these systems.

Taxpayers do not understand that infrastructure is a basic input into almost all goods and services produced in this country. Frischmann argues that demand-side studies of the economics behind infrastructure might close this gap.

“A demand-side approach facilitates a better understanding of how infrastructure resources generate value for society and how decisions regarding the allocation of access to such

resources affect social welfare” (Frischmann xii). “Society is better off sharing infrastructure openly” (Frischmann xiii).

However, the paradigm shift in how infrastructure is viewed and studied (supply-side to demand-side) cannot succeed without public backing, which is difficult when few voters recognize how infrastructure benefits them and society as a whole (Frischmann). Public awareness is therefore pivotal.

State and federal laws also play a huge role in how infrastructure projects are financed. The formation of the Interstate Highway System following World War II created a massive new infrastructure without establishing a plan to pay for maintenance and diverted money for upkeep of existing roads to new construction projects (LePatner). Some states attempted to raise revenue for maintenance by enacting tolls on drivers. In general, however, the situation only grew worse until the federal government was forced to step in during the 1970s (LePatner). The federal Department of Transportation set up highway and bridge inspection programs to ensure safety and collect data on the condition of the Interstate system. This information was then used to allocate federal funds for emergency repairs. By the 1980s, the situation was so dire that President Reagan increased the gasoline tax for the first time since 1961 to pay for Interstate maintenance. And in the 1990s, for the first time, the federal government allocated funds to states for preventative maintenance, recognizing that it is far cheaper to fix infrastructure before it fails (LePatner). Federal action and money slightly improved the state of our nation’s bridges and roads through the 1990s. However, these programs led to some unplanned consequences.

States realized during the 1990s and 2000s that it if they deferred maintenance and let their infrastructure systems fall into disrepair they would qualify for federal emergency funds. Unfortunately, this behavior is highly inefficient and wasteful as it is generally much more expensive to repair highly degraded infrastructure rather than pay for preventative maintenance and regular upkeep (LePatner).

13

LePatner describes this relationship between federal and state government as perpetuating “perverse incentives” (67). For example, he cites a New York City study that found that $5 million in preventative bridge maintenance would reduce new construction costs by $100 million. Yet, current law would require that $5 million preventative maintenance expense to come from the city’s budget, while federal funds would cover most of new construction costs (LePatner). Obviously, these programs are highly wasteful, but without public outcry, politicians do little to change the status quo.

This leads to the final, and most significant, reason this thesis will provide for our nation’s failing infrastructure: the general public simply does not demand that its political leaders maintain these systems. Cornell University engineering professor T.D. O’Rourke advocates the importance of raising awareness of infrastructure in his article Critical Infrastructure, Interdependencies, and Resilience. By increasing awareness, O’Rourke believes the public will begin to recognize the importance of our infrastructure systems and subsequently pressure government and private industry to fix them (O’Rourke). LePatner describes this phenomenon as politicians “thinking about the publicity involved and the community support engendered by spectacular projects, groundbreakings, and dedications, rather than facing the future costs of operating such facilities” (47).

The nature of infrastructure perpetuates this problem. Remember, “infra” means beneath, or out of public sight, and often conscious. Politicians are rewarded politically for building new projects. A ribbon cutting ceremony means a chance for political leaders to show their constituents a tangible asset they have delivered. This inevitably leads to local leaders emphasizing new development over the much less glamorous, but much more important, task of repairing existing infrastructure that is often hidden from voters. The first step to solving our infrastructure problem is making the public understand there is a problem.

The Latin root “apparere” means “to come forth” or “to be

visible” (Latin). This thesis calls for landscape architects to herald a new model for building infrastructure that will foster awareness rather than apathy. Apparenstructure, meaning to build visibly, should be the benchmark our profession strives to reach; infrastructure is no longer adequate. Already landscape architects in both academia and general practice are advancing the profession towards this model. The profession is well positioned to replace infrastructure with apparenstructure, to raise awareness of our crumbling infrastructure while creating well-designed places in 21st century cities.

metroway ribbon cutting, alexandria, virginia (3)14

“LANDSCAPE AS INFRASTRUCTURE”: Harvard University professor of landscape architecture Pierre Bélanger explains in his essay Landscape infrastructure: urbanism beyond engineering, that the field of landscape architecture is gaining influence as a by product of rapid urbanization worldwide and the massive infrastructures that must be developed and built to support these huge numbers of new urban dwellers. He argues that three major events have led to the realization that current models of creating infrastructure that were developed and put into practice by civil engineers and urban planners are failing. These events include the environmental movement of the 1970s, the failures of public works projects during the 1980s, and large-scale collapse of post-World War II structures during the 1990s and 2000s (Bélanger).

This trend of urbanization, paired with the failing of current models of creating infrastructure, according to Bélanger, opens the door for landscape architecture to take a leading role in the critical act of designing modern systems of urban infrastructure.

As Bélanger points out, citing the three events, the straightforwardness of civil engineering and urban planning failed our cities. So, he argues that today’s infrastructure must be rooted in an interdisciplinary approach that incorporates methods of the traditional fields responsible for city building (architecture, urban planning, civil engineering) and fields outside of the predominant, traditional professions (ecology, for example) (Bélanger).

Sanford Kwinter, professor of architectural theory at Harvard University, expands, “the demand for design and de-design—in our over-engineered, over-mediated world is both enormous and pervasive, yet the majority of architects still respond to it with the medieval language of the stoic, autonomous building” (Bélanger 14).

Bélanger presents a metaphor, “landscape as infrastructure,” to guide and inspire the interdisciplinary approach he advocates (16). He emphasizes the study of ecology within

the city, which can be “deployed as the agent of urban renewal and expansion” and which differs from models developed by engineers and planners (Bélanger 16). It is critical that landscape architects map the living organisms that underlay their cities, the flora, large and small, that take root, as well as the people that call it home. These complex maps will better represent the true nature of the city, how it operates, and the opportunity for intervention. The complete, spatial representation of the city must not just include the organisms present, but the complex systems that they create and affect. In this vein, urban designers must now understand the complex ecosystem of the city that involves processes such as storm water management, sewer treatment, channels of food production, and the transport of energy and waste in order to understand the fragmented, decentralized urban areas where they design. This immense collection of data then must be compiled and organized in a way that traditional models and graphic representations created by engineers and planners cannot take into account. And so here in lies the opportunity for landscape architects to capitalize on their own model, “landscape as infrastructure,” to develop new, urban systems (Bélanger).

This hybrid infrastructure must be equally as concerned with culture as with engineering and, as Bélanger reminds us, landscape architecture finds itself positioned nicely to respond. The profession combines the technical, environmental, and cultural savvy and sensitivity necessary to lead this interdisciplinary approach. For example, celebrated landscape architect Peter Walker stated while describing the September 11 Memorial in New York City, which he helped design, that “the nice thing about trees: they change in a way that humans tend not to pay attention to but like” (Walker).

The best landscape architects are masters at creating pleasing places, even when visitors are unsure why or what it is they like. This is the type of subtle touch that must be applied to infrastructure. And today many firms are practicing what Bélanger preaches. They have succeeded

metroway ribbon cutting, alexandria, virginia (3) 15

in creating multi-functional infrastructure projects to address varied urban conditions, such as poor stormwater management, mass transit alternatives, wildlife habitat destruction, wetland destruction, sustainable energy generation, and wastewater treatment, while adding to the fabric of the city. Still, there is one vital infrastructure system, highly dependent on geography and topography, where Bélanger’s metaphor has yet to be applied: drinking water.

september 11 memorial, new york city, new york (4)16

WATER WATER WATER: All of the water on Earth was delivered here when the planet formed, somewhere between 4.3 and 4.5 billion years ago. In fact, we have no means of creating more water or destroy-ing the water we have. Our supply is fixed, for eternity, and unlike other precious resources, it can never be depleted. This includes the water inside our bodies, the water in every stream, river, and ocean, and even molecular water found in rocks hundreds of miles beneath the Earth’s crust. Our rela-tionship with water is very complicated making it prime for study by landscape architects, as Bélanger advises. Water is the most important substance in our lives; yet, we know very little about it. We think of the Earth as a wet planet. However, it is very dry. All of the water on the Earth’s surface, 71 percent of which is covered in water, makes up only .025 percent of the Earth’s total mass. We think of water as either clean or dirty, but dirty water can easily be made clean and vice versa (Fishman). Charles Fishman, author of The Big Thirst and the keynote speaker at the 2012 ASLA Conference in Phoenix, states:

“The good news is that most of what we know about water isn’t really wrong, because we don’t know that much. The bad news is that the invisibility of water in our lives isn’t good for us, and it isn’t good for water. You can’t appreci-ate what you don’t understand. You don’t value and protect what you don’t know is there” (Fishman 4).

If landscape architects want to apply infrastructural oppor-tunism to a system, they must understand it through and through first. What follows is a very generalized overview of the drinking and wastewater systems in Alexandria, Virginia. First, however, it is important to point out a fact that Fishman makes very clear in his book: “all water problems are local” (301). The water system in Alexandria would not function elsewhere, even in similarly sized communities. The prob-lems facing our water infrastructure are not global (Fish-man). Each community will require specialized attention and landscape architects need to recognize that a one-size fits all approach does not apply to water.

17

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA DRINKS: Located on the banks of the Potomac River, about 140,000 people call the City of Alexandria, Virginia home (Statistics). This translates to approximately 26,000 customers for the local water utility, Virginia American Water. Yet, none of the water supplied to those living and working in Alexandria actually comes from within the city’s boundaries. Instead, it is supplied through an agreement with Fairfax Water (Fairfax County is a neighboring municipality), which draws raw water from two sources, the Potomac River and the Occoquan Reservoir. One reason that Alexandria pays neighboring Fairfax County for drinking water, despite its location on the Potomac, is topographical. Gravity pushes water downhill for free, meaning that in some cases it is more efficient to transport water over long distances from a higher elevation to a lower one, even when the lower elevation has plenty of its own source water available for treatment (Fairfaxwater.org). Remember, all water problems are local.

Fairfax Water operates an interconnected system with two treatment plants, the Corbalis Treatment Plant along the Potomac River, North of Great Falls and the Griffith Treatment Plant at Occoquan Reservoir. Together, these facilities can treat around 325 million gallons of water per day serving approximately 2 million people (Fairfaxwater.org).

Once raw water is drawn from the Occoquan Reservoir or the Potomac River, Fairfax Water adds chemicals that make suspended particles adhere to one another. This process is called coagulation and the resulting clumps are called floccs. Eventually, the floccs become large and heavy enough that they sink to the bottom of the tank where the water is being held. From here, the water is treated with ozone, a gas made by electrifying oxygen molecules. The ozone kills bacteria and other microorganisms, but is also a significant source of air pollution. Next, the water moves through a carbon filtration system that removes traces of pharmaceuticals and other physical contaminates. Finally, chlorine and fluoride are added to the finished drinking water before it enters the

distribution system (Fairfaxwater.org; Hayes).

Distribution systems vary greatly depending on the size, layout, and topography of the area they supply. In general, the water must remain in the system for at least 24 hours for full chlorine disinfection. These networks also rely on gravity as much as possible, rather than pumps and other means of propulsion (Hayes). In fact, on the hill near the George Washington Masonic Temple in Alexandria there is a former reservoir. Now obsolete, the site previously used gravity to supply Old Town with drinking water (Fleming).

Today, Alexandrians rely on a network of underground pipes, pumping stations, and water towers to distribute the water they purchase from Fairfax County. While much of the system is buried underground, tall water towers are visible in most neighborhoods. At these locations, Virginia American Water uses small pumps to lift the water about 100 feet in the air. From this elevation, gravity creates enough pressure to supply the surrounding area. The multi-legged water towers in Alexandria are painted blue and are generally flat and fat, a design that promotes uniform water pressure compared to tall and skinny tanks. Often the tanks are filled at night when water demand and energy costs are low, so they are full in time for the morning bathroom rush (Hayes).

While water distribution systems use gravity to improve efficiency, they are still highly wasteful. The ASCE estimates that about 16 percent of all drinking water simply leaks into the ground during distribution through faulty pipes. This means that one out of every six gallons of treated drinking water will be wasted before it ever reaches a faucet, washing machine, or toilet (Fishman).

18

raw water

domestic water

DULLES AIRPORT

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY

FAIRFAX COUNTY

OCCOQUAN RESEVOIR GRIFFITH WATER TREATMENT PLANT

CITY OF FAIRFAX

CITY OF FALLS CHURCH

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

ARLINGTON COUNTY

WASHINGTON DC

LOUDOUN COUNTY

CITY OF MANASSAS PARK

CITY OF MANASSAS

CORBALIS WATER TREATMENT PLANT

DALECARLIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT

POTOMAC RIVER WATER INTAKENORTHERN VIRGINIA DOMESTIC WATER DISTRIBUTION

LITTLE FALLS WATER INTAKE

FAIRFAX WATER treatment: occoquan reservoir | griffith water treatment plant | 120 MGD capacity potomac river | corbalis water treatment plant | 225 MGD capacity

distribution: city of alexandria | 25 MGD average dulles airport | 1 MGD average fairfax water retail | 95 MGD average loudoun county | 17 MGD average prince william county | 25 MGD average

total | 163 MGD average

WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT DIVISION treatment: potomac river | dalecarlia water treatment plant | 240 MGD capacity

distribution: arlington county | 27 MGD average city of falls church | 17 MGD average

total | 44 MGD average*

*district of columbia consumes 140 MGD average from the dalecarlia treatment plant

sources: fairfax water interstate commission on the potomac river basin metropolitan washington council of governments

fairfax water system diagram 19

Still, Americans use an incredible amount of potable water each day, including 5,700,000,000 (5.7 billion) gallons of drinking water we flush down our toilets daily. A typical American will use 100 gallons of clean water at home per day. This figure does not take into account the amount consumed outside of the home or for industrial uses, like creating electricity. And, of course, one way or another most of the water we use finds its way into a wastewater system, along with kitchen waste, cleaning chemicals, and other “solids” we flush down the toilet (Hayes).

To most Americans, dirty water disappears as effortlessly as clean water appears—like magic, it is there and then it is gone. But, it is not magic at all. As the drinking water exiting a kitchen faucet in a home in Alexandria endured an incredible journey, starting in a river or lake in Fairfax County, through a filtration plant and miles of pipes, up and then down a water tower, and finally splashing into the sink, it begins an equally incredible process the moment it exits that same kitchen sink as wastewater.

In Alexandria, wastewater is processed at the Alexandria Renew wastewater treatment facility located near the confluence of Cameron Run and the Potomac River. The facility can treat up to 120 million gallons of wastewater per day that flows from Alexandria’s homes, businesses, and stormwater drains. The plant, like most wastewater treatment facilities, is located at a low point along a waterway. Unlike drinking water systems, which flow under pressure and have an easier time traveling up and down in elevation, wastewater is solely at the mercy of gravity. To overcome topographical obstacles, pumping and lifting stations are required and sewer pipelines must be very carefully engineered and constructed to maintain a flow rate of two or three feet per second to prevent backups (Alexandria Renew; Hayes).

Wastewater is separated from solids as it enters the treatment facility. Then, it goes through a coagulation process, similar to that in the drinking water treatment

plant to create and separate floccs. The water is inoculated with bacteria that break down and consume organic material before it passes through an ultraviolet light system, rendering any surviving bacteria or pathogens sterile. Non-potable, the treated wastewater can be used on-site as grey water for cleaning, irrigation, HVAC, and other plant processes. In 2011, Alexandria Renew, saving about $3 million, used 1.3 billion gallons of reclaimed water for these purposes. All remaining treated water empties into Cameron Run and the Potomac River (Alexandria Renew; Alexrenew.com).

Alexandria Renew also treats the solid waste it receives by separating plastics and other non-compostable materials from the organics, which are transported to a landfill. The remaining organic solids are pasteurized and delivered as an agricultural fertilizer to farms across Virginia. Unlike most wastewater treatment plants, Alexandria Renew heats its solids to a temperature high enough that it can legally sell the solids to consumers as a compost product. This product, humorously branded George’s Old Town Blend, is mixed with wood chips and may eventually be available to the public for residential scale gardening applications. If George’s Old Town Blend is to be successful, consumers will have to overcome the “yuck factor” associated with handling and applying pasteurized human poop in their gardens. The pilot program seems like a glaring opportunity for landscape architects to design with soil manufactured from the waste of each and every Alexandrian. Controversial proposals raise eyebrows (Alexandria Renew; Fishman).

alexandria renew treatment plant, alexandria, virginia20

NARROWING: Beyond George’s Old Town Blend, exploration of the drinking water distribution system revealed five potential areas for further study. The process for determining these potential sites consisted of meeting and subsequent communication with a civil engineer at Fairfax Water, the source of Alexandria’s water, as well as independent research on public initiatives water distribution organizations are considering in the D.C. metro area. A more thorough understanding of Fairfax Water’s water treatment and distribution system exposed some fascinating discoveries and opportunities for study. These areas for further investigation were narrowed to: 1) collecting water treatment plant residual waste; 2) improving source water quality; 3) addressing leaking distribution pipes; 4) creating stormwater management systems; 5) investigating the plan to transform the Vulcan quarry into a reservoir.

1). Water treatment plants produce waste. This residual waste consists of sediments that were sucked into the treatment plant along with the source water and subsequently filtered out, as well as physical and chemical residue from the filtration process. In some soil types, the residual waste contains naturally occurring radioactive particles and therefore all water treatment residual waste is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Fairfax Water’s residual waste does not contain these radioactive elements and is disposed of in two ways. At the Corbalis Water Treatment Plant near Herndon, VA, water is removed from the residual waste and it is trucked outside of the region and applied to farm fields. Fairfax Water has to pay for this service. At the Griffith Water Treatment Plant, water is not removed from the solid residuals and the mixture forms sludge. This sludge is piped to an abandoned quarry nearby where the solids sink to the bottom and the water outfalls into the Occoquan River (Drinking Water Treatment Wastes; Fairfax Water).

2). For a water treatment facility, dirty source water requires more cleaning in order to meet drinking water standards. In other words, the cleaner the source water, the less money

required to achieve potable standards. One avenue for further research considered was studying means to improve source water. Fairfax Water has two sources, the Potomac River and the Occoquan Reservoir, and is currently working to improve their quality. Fairfax Water promotes initiatives to improve the quality of the Potomac River watershed, but it has little direct control over this process. However, along the Occoquan Reservoir, Fairfax Water is able to control run-off and potential pollutants by establishing strict 100 to 500 feet setback easements that prevent dwelling and construction in some areas. Additionally, about 20 percent (up to 90 percent during periods of drought) of the Occoquan Reservoir consists of water discharged from a wastewater treatment plant upstream. The quality of this source is closely monitored and well established as suitable for treatment (Fairfax Water).

3). The ASCE estimates that about 16 percent of all drinking water in the United States leaks into the ground due to faulty pipes (ASCE). An engineer at Fairfax Water stated that their rate is lower than the ASCE average, but leaks are still a significant system inefficiency. This loss of treated water is built into the cost customers pay and any leak reduction could lead to lower utility bills. However, these leaks are difficult to detect and expensive to repair. Additionally, people illegally tap into water mains and steal drinking water, which adds to the difficulty of preventing lost water during distribution (Fairfax Water).

4). Fairfax Water serves almost 2 million people clean drinking water. The system is the largest in Virginia and consists of two water treatment plants, dozens of pumping stations and storage tanks, and about 3,300 miles of distribution pipes (FairfaxWater.org). Fairfax Water owns many parcels of land throughout northern Virginia and at each one there is the opportunity to apply stormwater management techniques. By working regionally, unique economies of scale might present themselves that are not available on a site-by-site stormwater management plan.

alexandria renew treatment plant, alexandria, virginia 21

5). The Vulcan Materials Company owns a large diabase quarry adjacent to the Griffith Water Treatment Plant in Lorton, VA. For the past ten years, Fairfax Water studied whether it would be possible to use the quarry for water storage once mining operations cease. Recently, Fairfax Water began the process of obtaining the necessary zoning changes to make their intentions a reality. The quarry is an attractive site for Fairfax Water because of its proximity to the treatment plant and the Occoquan Reservoir. The long-term plan to fill the quarry would give Fairfax Water extra storage in case of extreme drought or contamination in the Occoquan. When the reservoir is full, water would be pumped to the quarry. As it fills, raw water would be withdrawn from the quarry and processed at the Griffith Treatment Plant. This constant circulation would help keep the water fresh. The Vulcan quarry project would not begin until around 2035, once mining operations are complete in the northwest corner of the quarry, and at that time it should hold around 1.7 billion gallons. Eventually, around 2085, the quarry will be abandoned completely and could be filled to hold around 17 billion gallons. This long-term planning will help Fairfax Water meet their demands in the decades to come (Fairfax Water; Vulcan Quarry as a Water Supply Reservoir).

There were attractive aspects of all five areas for further research, but the list was initially narrowed to two: collecting water treatment plant residual waste and exploring opportunities presented by the Vulcan quarry plan. The other three were discarded for a variety of reasons, including the difficulty of applying the “landscape as infrastructure” metaphor, their regional, rather than local, scale, and the likeliness to pull the research away from drinking water infrastructure. Throughout the site selection process, it was important to not lose sight of the objectives mentioned above: to create an engaging place for visitors that should raise awareness of the vital infrastructure from which it’s born. Under this lens, the Vulcan quarry presented the most opportunity to apply the “landscape as infrastructure” metaphor to an existing infrastructural system.

proposed watertreatment plant

luck stone quarry a

potomac raw water intake

leesburg

potomac raw water intake

wssc potomac water filtration plant

travilah quarry

occoquan reservoir

vulcan quarry pitfairfax water griffithwater treatment plant

fairfax

prince william

prince george’s

alexandria

arlington

d.c.

montgomery

loudoun

loudoun water

fairfax water

washington suburban sanitary commission

proposed quarry to reservoir projects in d.c. metro

22

INEQUITABLE INFRASTRUCTURE: While the proximity of the Vulcan quarry to the Griffith Water Treatment Plant is advantageous, it is not unique. Loudoun Water and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, which provides drinking water to Montgomery and Prince George counties in Maryland, are exploring similar plans to store reserve water in old quarries located near their treatment plants. In fact, quarries are common throughout the DC area. Currently, there are 24 active quarries within 30 miles of Washington, DC and countless abandoned quarries are scattered throughout the suburbs, and for good reason (active-mines.findthedata.org). It takes approximately 85,000 tons, or over 5,500 15-ton dump truck loads, of sand and crushed stone aggregates to build one mile of four-lane highway (Rockology 101).

Despite our general apathy, we each rely on an immense amount of raw materials that are transformed into and through our infrastructure networks. These materials must come from somewhere and the Vulcan quarry is one such source in northern Virginia. The quarry began operations in the 1950s and it is this quarry and ones like it that provide the raw materials necessary to build the roads and buildings we call home today. They are physical reminders of our past, a monument to our ingenuity and drive. From them our cities are born (Vulcan Materials Company).

In his essay The Trouble with Wilderness, William Cronon, professor of history and geography at the University of Wisconsin, describes one motivation for creating National Parks in the 19th century. “Wild land,” as he calls it, was crucial in the making of America through westward expansion, its role in democracy, and developing the American ideal of freedom. So, when only a few wild places remained, some argued they must be saved. Cronon writes, “if wild land had been so crucial in the making of the nation, then surely one must save its last remnants as monuments to the American past” (76). Here, national parks operate as both places of physical beauty and as reminders of our past and what’s important for our country’s future.

Quarries are also physical reminders of our past, but unlike our ideal vision of wilderness, which, like quarries, Cronon argues is an inherently manmade concept, they are often forgotten and discarded (perhaps making them wilder than Yosemite?). There is a reason why society undervalues and neglects quarries rather than memorializes them as relics of human achievement. According to urban design professors Steven Graham and Simon Marvin, it’s that infrastructure in modern America is inherently biased and divisive.

There is an infrastructure paradox in America. On a large scale infrastructure connects, but on a small scale it divides. For example, an interstate highway connects two large cities and allows for the transport of goods, people, and services between these hubs. Yet, this same interstate divides each small town along its path into two pieces. And because infrastructure is often bundled into large clusters of energy, water, people, information, its splintering effect is also multiplied, leaving the places in its path fractured. Eventually, the small town is divided into fragments and what flows through the networked infrastructure is obscured by its complexity rendering it invisible to those who rely on it most, the users at the end of the network (Graham and Marvin). Simply, “the construction of spaces of mobility and flow for some, however, always involves the construction of barriers for others” (Graham and Marvin 11). Therefore, the experience of infrastructure is highly contingent on the position of the viewer; are they in the big city or the small town?

Certainly, not all infrastructures link large cities. Instead, for example they may connect similar groups of people that are spatially very far apart, creating local disconnections between people who are spatially very close to one another. Regardless, all infrastructure networks are infused with bias by entities vying for social, economic, ecological, or political power. This bias traces its roots back to the formation of most our nation’s infrastructure networks between the late 1800s and the 1960s. Its causes are variable and at times, the result of the good intentions of urban planners. It is a

23

nike missile site

prison rifle & tear gas range

maximum security central prison facility

maximum security central prison facility

prison transport facility

interstate 95

amtrak station &csx rail line

nike missile siteminimum security women’s prison

medium security men’s prison

fairfax water griffith treatment plantvulcan quarry

high tension power lines & ox substation

abandoned quarry

interstate 95 landfill

energy resource recovery facility

lorton construction debris landfill

rainwater construction debris landfill

norman m. cole jr.pollution control plant

youth correctional facility

vulcan quarry barge loading facility

prison guard training academy

dairy farm

lorton, va | infrastructure snapshot 2000-2006

lorton infrastructure and former prison grounds24

complex phenomenon that cannot be generalized because the creation of infrastructure networks involve many, sometimes competing, entities with various motivations over long periods of time and space. The bias is also contingent on the position of the viewer. Bias may become especially apparent when the infrastructure network is under stress or fails (Graham and Marvin).

And this phenomenon is not new. For example, in ancient Rome “ the city’s sophisticated water network was organized to deliver first to public fountains, then to public baths, and finally to individual dwellings, in the event of insufficient flow” (Graham and Marvin 11). Here, some might argue the bias was benevolent towards the poor who relied on public fountains for their drinking water, but hypothetically, if the network was altered, it is easy to see how the bias could shift from the poor to the rich.

So, by the late 1800s as American cities began developing bundles of infrastructure they too did so with inherent bias. Cities initially saw their infrastructure as points of great pride and global competition brewed to deliver “showpiece projects…that were glorified through technologically triumphalist narratives” (Graham and Marvin 47). Electricity became especially glorified as cities raced to light their streets and urban elites pressed to become the first to connect to the grid. “City governments competed to develop the most awesome infrastructure networks,” states Graham and Marvin (47).

Soon, telephone, transportation, and drinking water infrastructure followed electricity in American cities. The modern networked city was taking shape. Such large systems required centralized control and standardization to run smoothly. Municipalities aimed to provide these services across their boundaries. However, local utility operators, both public and private, were fraught with social, political, and economic pressure and instability, leading to highly unequal coverage across American cities. During the early 20th century, for the first time urban planners began to lay

out centralized infrastructure through comprehensive urban development plans. Despite their often-good intentions, some urban planning policies splintered American cities. It would take until the 1960s, until modern infrastructure reached the vast majority of Americans. Not coincidently, more equitable coverage happened as the civil rights movement gained momentum, empowering those suffering unfair infrastructural bias to demand access to the modern city (Graham and Marvin).

25

LORTON: In Washington, DC, the same national trends played out locally. In the name of improving prison conditions, in 1908 a presidentially appointed commission was formed to recommend changes to the District’s jail. The commission decided it was best to move prisoners to the country where they would be exposed to “nature, light, and clean air” (Historic Context of the Prison). Congress followed the commission’s recommendations and purchased 1,155 acres in a small town in southern Fairfax County (Historic Context of the Prison). At the time, Lorton, VA was a small community of people surviving mostly on subsistence farming and fishing. Colonial farming practices had depleted the soil and most residents of Lorton were struggling financially. The future prison however promised new jobs and modern farming methods. Over the decades, the prison grew. “At its height, the D.C. prison at Lorton covered almost 3,500 acres. The prison ran its own cannery, slaughterhouse, meat locker, deep freeze storage facility and fish processing plant” (Clifton a).

The small workhouse planned in 1910 expanded into a massive network of corrections and related agriculture facilities over the 20th century. Residents of Washington, DC could appreciate that the prison kept dangerous criminals off their streets. However, residents of Lorton likely felt differently. According to Irma Clifton, Lorton historian:

“Anyone who lived in the Lorton area before the D.C. Prison closed will remember the hair-raising stories told about events that occurred there. From the buzz of helicopters overhead to sirens blaring in the dead of night to police combing through backyards in search of escapees; it all happened within easy memory of a lot of local folks” (Clifton b).

On top of the fear related to living near a massive prison system, the residents of Lorton, current population 18,210, had to deal with the bundled infrastructure that accompanied it (U.S. Census Bureau). Three landfills, a waste incinerator, a recycling and sorting facility, two Nike

Missile silos, prison guard firing ranges, quarries, Interstate 95, railways, an Amtrak vehicle loading station, a wastewater treatment plant, a reservoir, and a water treatment plant all came to or through Lorton since the prison opened. By the time the last inmate left Lorton in 2001, Lorton was a fractured community, divided by the many infrastructure systems nearby (Clifton a). Yet, these infrastructures were designed to connect, and most of them are successful in their respective missions. The landfills accept the waste of thousands of families across northern Virginia, the quarries provide the raw materials for new roads, the recycling plant turns trash into a commodity for the county, which in turn uses the revenues to benefit all of its residents. Remember, that most infrastructures are joint endeavors paid for by society for the benefit of society, but it seems the residents of Lorton have to pay more than others who benefit from the same networks.

After the Virginia earthquake of August 2011, the phone at the Vulcan quarry in Lorton started ringing off the hook. Angry residents were calling to complain about unscheduled blasting at the quarry as mystified quarry operators explained that they were not behind the rumbling (Vulcan Materials Company). That local residents could confuse a magnitude 5.8 earthquake with the typical operations of the quarry sheds some light onto what it’s like to live near the Vulcan pit. Since the prison closed in 2001, Fairfax County has redeveloped some of the former prison land into two schools, a golf course, and an arts center. And there are plans to further convert some of the former prison grounds into mixed-use developments and residential communities (Fairfax Grants Final Approval). Still, much of the former prison is abandoned and decaying. Across the street from the arts center, Fairfax Water built its Griffith Water Treatment Plant in 2006 on former prison land and, as mentioned previously, it hopes to someday fill the massive Vulcan quarry with water. In a community so badly divided by infrastructure, there is great opportunity to use it as a means for connecting people to the systems they rely on and promoting a new era of infrastructural opportunism.

26

south countymiddle school

laurel hillgolf club

south countyhigh school

future commercial, retail, residential reuse

future recreational space, includes:sports fields, disc golf, meadows, passive recreation areas, picnic areas, skate park, children’s play area, dog park, equestrian complex, sculpture garden, community gardens, orchard, and mountain biking park

spring hill seniorcommunity

laurel hill elementary school

halley elementary school

lorton stationelementary school

interstate 95

amtrak station &csx rail line

future museum

workhousearts center

fairfax water griffith treatment plant

vulcan quarry / fairfax water storage

high tension power lines & ox substation

abandoned quarry

interstate 95 landfill

sports fields

energy resource recovery facility

lorton construction debris landfill

rainwater construction debris landfill

current local infrastructure restaurant / bar

major trail

proposed major trail

future local infrastructure / development

future local recreation areas

current local recreation areas

current regional infrastructure

unplanned public space

norman m. cole jr.pollution control plant

temporary fairfax county fire & ems training facility

vulcan quarry barge loading facility

unplanned

lorton, va | local infrastrucure - current & planned

subwaylasani kabobfireside grillvocelli pizza

aroma indian cuisinehong kong cafeglory days grilltokyo onez pizzaquiznos

five guyshunan lorton

dairy queensubwaypizza hutsteak n’ thingsszechuan d’lite

secret garden cafeblue arbor cafepink bicycle tea roommadigan waterfront

wendy’skfcsubwaybistro l’hermitagemcdonald’sana’s restaurant shanghai cafe

taco bellkabob grillsubwayalmita’s carry outpupuseria acucenadixie bones bbqastoria pizzael pulgarcito grillfuente’s grillel hangueo

burger kingtaco bellmcdonald’spanda chineselake ridge pizza

the electric palm

lazy susan’s dinner theaterskinifatz nightspot & restaurant

mcdonald’staste of bejinglas colinasfather & son seafoodvinny’s italian grill

aroma pizza plusthaiboxginger beef

high tension power lines

lorton local infrastructure study 27

28

vulcan quarry blasting time lapse (5) 29

DESIGN:

30

ON INFRASTRUCTURAL OPPORTUNISM: The underpinning sections of this thesis build confidence and provide the systemic scale knowledge of drinking water infrastructure in northern Virginia necessary to propose and develop a program and design aimed at taking advantage of inherently present opportunities. Developing a broad understanding of the systems associated with an infrastructure is fundamental to infrastructural opportunism. Simply, you cannot choose the best path forward until you can see all of the options. And these options only become apparent through broad, interdisciplinary research—a prerequisite to the design process. Of course, it is impossible to fully grasp the potential of an infrastructure to do more than its primary functions, but the intent is to unearth as much opportunity as possible through this research phase.

Analysis of the water system led to two potential approaches: develop a proposal at the scale of the entire system or work at one point or node along the existing system. The latter approach was chosen (see supra, Narrowing), in hopes of working within the existing infrastructural framework of the drinking water supply system—rather than reinventing this framework altogether. Consideration was then given to evolving infrastructure through a series of speculative additions and/or subtractions, leaving the existing infrastructure and plans for its growth in place. This thinking reconciles initial systemic research with a site scale design proposal.

Issue 30 in the Pamphlet Architecture series, Coupling, describes six speculative proposals applying infrastructural opportunism. With the exception of Land Reservations: Landfill as Connector, which suggests reworking suburban Detroit’s open space plan by connecting landfills, they propose opportunistically altering points along an infrastructural system as opposed to conceptualizing an existing or proposed infrastructure as a singular structure. Interventions are scaled to adapt to future conditions, including abandonment, climate change, and future development. The schemes presented in Coupling serve to further validate the process used to apply infrastructural opportunism to this thesis.

31

GROUND RULES: From the outset, two important ground rules were established to guide the site selection and design process.

First, the site needed to be located in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. Because all water problems are local, as Fishman argues, the thesis would be specific to the locality where it was sited. Additionally, site proximity was important for site analysis, visits, and photography. Initially, the thesis was envisioned as a way to raise awareness of infrastructure through design in Alexandria, VA. As the site selection process evolved, this goal did not change, but a greater understanding of how Alexandria receives its water extended the search area beyond the boundaries of the city.

Second, the thesis needed to be grounded in the reality of a local plan involving drinking water infrastructure. By piggybacking off of an existing project, the designer could claim agency in a very specific manner, using a given timeframe and parameters set outside the realm of academia. However, it is important to note that the ideas generated during the thesis process were intended to push the profession forward, rather than confirm preexisting, and potentially negative, professional roles and responsibilities. Hopefully, the thesis demonstrates the potential of landscape architects to lead an interdisciplinary infrastructure design team by showing their competence in a wide range of scales, understanding both natural and manmade flows and systems and the consequences when they are interrupted, and providing alternative solutions to avoid over engineering.

32

vulcan quarry expansion, 2012 2034

2035 2084 2085

33

1

6

3

2

4

7

8

5

1-north ridge 2-east ridge

3-west ridge 4-south ridge

6-peniwill drive5-mining equipment

7-view into quarry 8-view along top of quarry

vulcan quarry | existing conditionslorton, virginia

scale: 1”=300’site photos: 02-21-2014 & 02-28-2014

future quarry boundary

approx 2013 quarry boundary

vulcan quarry site analysis34

PROGRAM: The program consists of three major elements.

First, a small restaurant and bar allows patrons to enjoy a meal along with an incredible view of the quarry. Furthermore, they are consuming food only made possible by the quarry and eventual reservoir that is within sight. Here, an often hidden relationship presents itself clearly, one between raw material and finished product that also serves to foster an understanding of where raw materials and water come from. While most people know that fish come from the sea and can easily consume seafood at the ocean’s edge, very few people understand where their water comes from and even fewer are able to consume it so close to the source. This is a very rare experience. Similarly, the massive retaining wall is made from aggregate mined from the quarry. The wall is visible from inside of the restaurant and throughout other parts of the site, creating a visible link between construction materials and completed elements of the built environment.

Second, the swimming pool and related office space and locker rooms provide a recreational element to the site. The natural pool system does not rely on chlorinated water, instead natural filtration methods provide water for swimming before it is eventually released into Elkhorn Run or the reservoir.

Finally, the site provides a variety of observation areas to view the quarry and future reservoir. This includes places to experience, hear, and feel quarry blasting and watch the massive machinery used to move tens of thousands of tons of granite each week. Safe access to such processes is extremely rare despite anecdotal evidence from the mine operator that public interest in viewing quarrying operations is high (Vulcan Materials Company).

vulcan quarry | point of beginningviews across the quarry

scale: 1”=250’

-500

-500

-35

+200

phas

e 1

phas

e 2

point of beginning diagram 35

244

242

240

238

236

234

232

230

228

226224

222

220

218216

214

212210

228

226

224

222

220

218

216

214

220

222

224226228230232234

238

240

242

244

246

248

236

272

270

268

266

264

262

260

258

256

254

252

250

248

246

244

242

242

242

244

240

238

236

234

232

230

228

226

224

222

220

218

216

214

212

210

208

206

204

202

200

198196

244

242

240

214

216

214

212210

208

216

216214

212210

208

206

208

210

212

214

214212210208206

214

212

210

208

206

204

202

206208 210

212

FFE=214

242

238240

236234232230228226

TW=242

242

240

238

TW=242240

238

+219

+227

240

238

240

238

240

238

+233

240

238

+233

+237 237++239.5

TW=242

FFE=213

205.8+

+239.5

+243.5+245

230++230

+234 234+TW=221

4.44%

1.85%

FFE=204

+204

6” RISERS15” TREADS (TYP.)

TW=244

TW=244

1’ STEP DOWN WALLS (TYP.)

PIPE (TYP.)

UNDERGROUND FLOOD CHANNEL

GABIONWALLS (TYP.)

grading plan36

site plan 37

metamorphosis perspective

38

FOUR ENTRANCES: The design is centered on four entrances into the site. Each moves visitors from the everyday scale of which they are accustomed into the infrastructural scale that is foreign. Parallel parking and street trees were added to Peniwill Drive to accommodate visitors without a large parking lot and to increase the banality of the streetscape experience.

Site design initiated around a point of beginning that was selected because it offers the best view of the quarry without disturbing an existing hardwood forest. Once this point was established, the design process worked backwards, permitting the public to access this overlook while directing views to it from Peniwill Drive. By strategically aligning a turnaround overpass with the point of beginning, pedestrians and drivers are forced to direct their eyes down towards a 30 foot by 30 foot concrete cube perched on the quarry’s edge. Of the four sides perpendicular to the ground, the side closest to the quarry is open, while the side furthest away has only a six foot wide opening. This opening serves as a physical threshold between two worlds. On the side closest to the road, a visitor remains in the realm of typical suburbia, but as they pass through the opening, they enter the quarry, a sublime world of giant proportions. The threshold here is strong, both up-close and from afar. The path sloping down towards this cube begins very wide, like a plaza adjacent to a building facade. From the road, the intention is for the structure to feel like a two story building with a large public space in front. However, the formerly spacious plaza begins to tighten as one moves towards the threshold cube, forcing pedestrians uncomfortably close to the building, which is now taking on the characteristics of a large retaining wall. The line of windows on the second level ends, leaving a uniform 35 foot wall of concrete in its place.

The vegetation along the path also changes in scale. Near the road, Platanus x acerifolia (London Plane), the most common street tree in the world, line the plaza edge. As it narrows, towards the quarry, Carya glabra (Pignut Hickory) replace the London Planes. This hickory species can thrive

in open soil or in cramped conditions along granite rock outcrops with little soil and summer moisture. Finally, near the 30 foot cube, the species change for a third time. Here, Pinus taeda (Loblolly Pine) border the narrow concrete path. The tall evergreens are typically found in rocky conditions and prosper where few other hardwoods can survive. It is a species perfectly suited to quarry life. The thick row imitates the tall retaining wall it faces, creating a narrow passage directing pedestrians and views towards the emptiness of the quarry and beyond.

This procession from the street to quarry overlook, from typical building facade to monumental wall, from a line of common street trees to evergreens commonly found clinging to cliff faces, leads visitors through a meticulously planned metamorphosis of scale and experience.

39

metamorphosis physical model40

metamorphosis section perspective

41

planting elevation - habit and growth rate42

granite outcrop common plant communities 43

With this major circulation path and view shed in place, the designer draws from the quarry itself by creating an artificial bench, a retaining wall approximately 30 to 40 feet tall, similar in size to the existing benches of the quarry. This wall is the most important element of the design for a number of reasons. It allows the designer to manipulate the transition from the everyday scale of the road into the infrastructural scale of the quarry edge—first at the metamorphosis, but again at the second entrance into the infrastructural scale.

The earth retained by the structure is level, creating a flat approach towards the cube restaurant. This allows the designer to play a trick on those entering the site here. The cube looks like a one story structure from the road, as the bottom two levels of the building are hidden behind the wall. This means that it remains strictly in the realm of the everyday landscape until a pedestrian makes it deep into the site. This revelation is slow, an effective illusion masking the quarry until the very end. It is not until a visitor makes it on top of the massive retaining wall that the full scale of the building and the wall are exposed for the first time.

This slow reveal is the second entrance transition from the everyday scale into the infrastructural scale. It is deliberate and calculated, not giving away its secrets until the last possible moment. Additionally, the lawn area along Peniwill Drive serves as a future site for overburden soil, a miniature version of the massive pile of overburden existing nearby. The three hickory trees are meant to slightly screen the restaurant and openness of the quarry from the road, but will be removed when the time comes to add overburden material to the site.

quarry benches physical model44

slow reveal perspective

45

46

view from peniwill drive physical model

47

The large mound of overburden is one of the defining elements of the site. It blocks views into the quarry from the road entirely and is landscaped in the vernacular, suburban style so common to Lorton. It also presents a design challenge when directing vehicles towards the restaurant cube beyond. The solution here is a tunnel large enough for two lanes of traffic and a pedestrian sidewalk. Along Peniwill Drive, the tunnel is narrow, but as it moves towards the quarry, it widens setting up a grand view into the quarry. This entrance is in direct contrast to the slow reveal. It is designed for passengers in vehicles. The road slopes steeply at the tunnel entrance, but flattens out, leaving those in a vehicle with a few precious seconds of uninterrupted views as they exit the tunnel. But, as quickly as this view emerges, it is taken away. Abruptly, the road curves, facing passengers towards the monumental wall and the restaurant cube, which is pulled away from the building to frame the threshold cube and waterfall in the distance. The road makes another turn in front of the restaurant and it is now that visitors have fully arrived in the infrastructural scale of the quarry. The brief views from the tunnel exit are lasting and the road invites further exploration, wrapping tightly against the quarry edge, then, looping uphill and eventually back towards the tunnel.

The tunnel is a high speed gateway into the quarry. The third entrance is a portal from the generic landscaping along Peniwill Drive into the wild and unfamiliar world of the mine.

48

49

50

Finally, for those so inclined, a slight notch is carved into the overburden mound. While still extremely steep, this fourth entrance lends just enough invitation to journey uphill to the highest point on the site. Views from this vantage point are earned and there is no easy way to get to the top. As one continues, now downhill, the path transforms into a series of short retaining walls. Too large to be considered steps, they give the adventurous soul just enough level land to climb down the embankment. At the bottom of the mound, one is faced with a decision. They may either move onto the top of the wall or continue down a rock scramble to the base of the restaurant cube. If the latter route is chosen, it represents the third stage of a three part hike up and over the mound, trading a typical, suburban landscape, for a rocky vastness. And for all of the work required to go up and over, expansive views over the entire site and the quarry is the reward.

51

procession into the quarry perspective

52

various details, elevations, and sections 53

WATER: The site is located at the bottom of a 150 acre watershed to the northeast. The current Fairfax Water plan calls for a small stream fed by this watershed to be diverted around the northern edge of the quarry, through the site, and into Elkhorn Run to the west of the quarry. Elkhorn Run is considered a high quality waterway by Fairfax County and extra care is being taken not to destroy it by the diverted stream. Once the first phase of the reservoir is complete, the small stream will be diverted directly into the reservoir instead of Elkhorn Run. The small stream is fed by two sedimentation ponds located higher in the watershed. The Fairfax Water plan calls for an 18 inch pipe to collect a maximum base flow of 7 cubic feet per second from the sedimentation ponds. Any additional flow, especially following rain events, will be carried in a grass channel cut into the land around the northern edge of the quarry. The construction of this channel requires extensive earth moving and grading. Additionally, an automated gate will divert flows greater than a 25 year storm event per 24 hour period directly into the quarry, hopefully protecting Elkhorn Run during flood events.

The design manipulates Fairfax Water’s plan to further clean baseflow coming from the sedimentation ponds through a constructed wetland and natural pool system. The water is then diverted into a swimming pool for recreational use and then over a waterfall and into either the reservoir or Elkhorn Run, depending on the phase of the project. Meanwhile, an underground culvert is planned at the base of the wall to move water after rain events safely to Elkhorn Run. A similar automated gate is also proposed in the forested area west of the site to divert large flows into the quarry, protecting Elkhorn Run. Additionally, the design calls for control gates at both sedimentation ponds to store as much water as possible higher in the watershed to both feed the manmade wetlands and natural swimming pool during drought periods and to minimize damage to Elkhorn Run.

In terms of volume, the wetlands can hold approximately 1.21 million gallons and are fed by a tank and pump system that is built into the retaining walls. The tank can hold .5

million gallons of additional baseflow, or a volume equal to the amount released by the pool in two days of normal operations, and is fed by gravity. The Olympic pool is designed to release one foot of water depth over 10 hours each day. This will produce a 13 foot long waterfall with 208 gallons per minute of flow. This is equivalent to half the flow of the waterfalls at the World Trade Center memorial in New York City. Additionally, the waterfall is controlled by a weir gate, so water depth can be increased for events such as swimming meets or during drought periods. The wetlands can hold approximately ten times the amount of water released from the pool per day. This ensures wetland treatment time is adequate to produce water clean enough for safe swimming. The wetland surface area is approximately 67.5-percent shallow marsh, which is in the recommended range for removing bacteria and pollutants from stormwater. Plant species in the wetland, which is buffered from Elkhorn Run by the swimming pool and waterfall, include iris, bulrush, and cattails. These species are noted for their ability to clean water and remove nutrients and pollutants.

However, additional pumping, circulation, and filtration will be required. Natural pool systems are extremely popular in Europe and the first public, natural pool in the United States is currently under construction in Minneapolis. However, such a system is in direct conflict with current Fairfax Water regulations on public swimming pools. This is intentional and aimed at challenging the status quo regarding how we think about clean and dirty water.

54

watershed study 55

UNDERGROUND CONCRETE CULVERT FLOW FROM UPSTREAM SEDIMENTATION PONDS

BASE FLOW MAX : 3120 GPMTOTAL CAPACITY GREATER THAN 100 YEAR STORM RATE

10 HP PUMP + 3” PIPE TO WETLANDSMAX FLOW: 100 GPM

TREATMENT WETLANDS1,215,315 GALLON CAPACITY9.72 DAY MINIMUM TREATMENT TIME

BASEFLOW HOLDING TANK250,000 GALLON CAPACITYHOLDS 2 DAY SUPPLY

WATERFALLOPERATES 10 HOURS PER DAY208 GPM OVER 13 FEET LENGTHHALF OF WORLD TRADE CENTER FOUNTAIN RATE

IRIS

BULRUSH

CATTAIL

OLYMPIC POOL16,720 SQUARE FEET SURFACE AREA1 FOOT WATER LEVEL DROP EQUALS 125,000 GALLONS

CULVERT TO ELKHORN RUNINCLUDES AUTOMATIC GATEDIVERTS WATER DURING 25 YEAR STORMSINTO QUARRY

WETLAND SURFACE AREA RATIO

SHALLOW MARSH67.5%

OPEN WATER32.5%

2.42 ACRES

.48 ACRES

+ELK HORN RUN

hydrological relationships axon56

Finally, once the first phase of the reservoir is complete, the waterfall collection area will drain into a channel along a path leading into the quarry. This path will be carved into walls of the mine by slightly altering the mining plan, as Fairfax Water is doing to create the first reservoir. It is important to note that this aspect of the design, while not opening until approximately 2035, needs to be agreed upon presently, so the mining company does not remove the rock necessary for the path. Once it is removed, the path cannot exist, highlighting the importance of long-term planning.

Once the path is open, pedestrians will be able to descend about 130 feet into the quarry, with the path hugging the quarry wall to a viewing platform at elevation 70, where the entirety of the quarry is visible. Along this path, the water is filtered by additional weirs, plants, and other systems. It is also available for visitors to interact with before it cascades over an observation deck, called the rainbow factory, in a final massive waterfall about 250 feet above the reservoir. This waterfall is visible from the site above, hopefully creating a rainbow marking the final threshold of the design.

Around 2085, as mining operations cease, the quarry will be filled to approximately elevation 90, covering the lower section of the path down. At this time, visitors may be able to access the reservoir for any number of recreational activities such as swimming, boating, and scuba diving, as seen fit by Fairfax Water. In times of drought, the water level will drop below an accessible level, serving as a visual and programmatic reminder of the value of drinking water.

natural pool perspective

57

canal park | the olin studio luckstone quarry| loudoun, va sick and tired of being sick and tired (left); untitled (right) | melissa carroll

going to the sun road | glacier national park, montanatrollstigplataet | reiulf ramstad architects

airplane hangar | pier luigi nervibionova natural pool | germany concrete country house | mies van der rohe

icelink | lateral office

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT:

concept images board58

FIRST PASS: This design described above is a second rendition, approved after a first pass was rejected. The original design called for several similar structures and it set up a series of views. However, it felt tame compared to the adventurous spirit of the massive quarry. The mound was removed, the site losing its most defining characteristic. Additionally, the transition from everyday scale into the infrastructural scale was much less developed. Finally, and maybe most importantly, the role of water and the processes landscape architecture can bring to cleaning and moving water was not present enough in the design.

Despite the failures of the first iteration, the experience led to several important discoveries and was probably necessary for arriving at the eventual design. As Professor Paul Kelsch likes to point out, the design process is never obvious until it is viewed in retrospect.

early wall elevation sketch 59

first pass design60

design development, 08/21/2014 09/23/2014

10/28/2014 12/04/201461

The mound:The large mound of overburden presented many problems during the design process. Overburden, soil scraped off the surface of the granite formation prior to blasting, is a remnant of the mining process. The overburden mound is the tallest landform on the site and its placement along the edge of Peniwill Drive blocks all views into the quarry. It is landscaped on the side facing the street in a fashion consistent with neighboring properties. The first design called for the removal of the mound altogether to open the site and give importance to designed elements of the proposal. However, erasing the mound raised many questions from the thesis committee about honoring the industrial history of the site, as well as the associated earth moving challenges.

The second design originally called for the mound to be cut in half, in an effort to both open the site and preserve some of its industrial character. However, in order to cut the mound, a retaining wall was proposed. As the design progressed, this wall became so large that it eventually dwarfed the other retaining wall, detracting greatly from its role as the most important element of the design. Professor Dean Bork proposed two alternate solutions. His first idea was to grade the mound down using a 3:1 slope to allow a road to pass through the mound without the use of a retaining wall. This did not work because the mound needed to be mostly removed in order to grade the road through the site. His second idea was to tunnel through the mound. Quickly, this idea gained traction as it allowed for an additional type of entrance, one especially suited for vehicles, which would provide a third experiential transition from the everyday scale of Peniwill Drive to the infrastructural scale of the quarry. The tunnel became the portal and its placement allowed the design to build excitement as visitors traversed the site. Additionally, by keeping the overburden mound, a fourth entrance was conceived, the summit. The summit allowed ambitious visitors a means to reach the top of the mound, with the best views, and to climb down its reverse into the scale of the

quarry. By tunneling through the mound, the design was able to embrace the existing industrial history of the site, create exciting views, and give visitors two unique routes into the site.

Lawn:The first design called for a large open lawn. Its initial purpose was provide unprogrammed space and to serve as a central point with circulation routes revolving around it on all sides. However, it seemed unnecessary and did not add much value to the design, especially for being such a large physical feature.

The second proposal initially avoided lawn altogether. However, as the design developed, lawn was proposed for the area to the west of the overburden mound. Using lawn here achieves two design goals. First, it creates a viewshed of the restaurant cube from the street that was envisioned early on for the slow reveal. A few trees are planted to slightly obstruct this view, funneling visitors east and west to access the site. The second plan for the lawn area is to stockpile overburden soil here as the mine expands. Shortly after 2035, the mine will expand and the resulting overburden can be placed here. The mounded soil will take the place of the trees, forcing visitors east and west into the site while providing a functional role in the mining process itself. This mound will be much smaller than its sibling to the west, which is acceptable because most of the mine expansion will take place on ground that has already by stripped of overburden soil. The design utilizes lawn as a placeholder that will not be missed when it is converted into a mound, unlike other alternatives considered.

DESIGN CHALLENGES:

62

Breaking plan geometry:The importance of using a variety of modeling and drawing techniques was demonstrated when designing the metamorphosis entrance. The intent was to completely block the view into the quarry except at the six foot wide opening in the threshold cube at the quarry’s edge. In plan, the cube

was originally placed in line with the edge of the large retaining wall and swimming entrance to the east. However, after building a study model of the view down the path, it became apparent the cube needed to be shifted to properly screen the view into the quarry.

study model

63

FINDINGS:

physical model64

After investigating how landscape architects can apply the concept of infrastructural opportunism to play a larger role in designing drinking water infrastructure, the thesis revealed four findings: competing interest groups, agencies, and professions must collaborate; the value of the site must be maximized by proposing alternative uses during construction; landscape tools should be utilized, when possible, over engineering tools; and exposing the public to systems that are usually hidden is key to raising awareness of infrastructure.

1. Due to the time frame and proposed land use changes, the transformation of the Vulcan Quarry to a reservoir would require cooperation between many competing entities. In this case, the Vulcan Materials Company, Fairfax Water, Fairfax County Parks and Recreation, Fairfax County Planning, and numerous other neighborhood, regional, and state groups would be competing for jurisdiction and agency if the thesis was proposed and constructed in the real world.

Fairfax County’s overarching intent is to create a reservoir for the public on public lands, but the reality is 70 years of digging, blasting, and hauling. Here the landscape architect is primed to lead, as Bélanger advises, due to our ability to work over large tracks of time and space with both natural and mechanical systems and to coordinate the many competing interests necessary to produce multi-functional, opportunistic infrastructure.

2. Brian Davis, Cornell University professor of landscape architecture, states, “the space between intent and reality is one of the great, unexplored regions of our discipline” (295). Here, the opportunity exists for various organizations to work together to accomplish diverse goals if the site is utilized during the long construction process needed to transform the quarry into a reservoir. By proposing a design that is flexible enough to adapt to the changing site conditions over the course of the 70 year construction timeline, a maximum amount of value is generated from a site that would otherwise be off limits.

3. Davis also calls for the use of landscape architecture tools over those used by engineers. For example, the constructed wetlands demonstrates how landscape architects can apply tools to create drinking water infrastructure that is more efficient than current models by creating systems that perform multiple functions through time. In this case, the engineer’s method of creating a single infrastructure may be less efficient when taking into account how that single system fits into the landscape of bundled infrastructures nearby. Imagine the potential benefits if all the water that entered the new reservoir was filtered by natural systems first, which also created habitat for plants and animals as well as recreational space for humans. Remember, the cleaner the water is in the reservoir, the cheaper it is to convert into drinking water and a pipe does nothing to clean the water it carries.

This scenario raises a number of questions that bring landscape architecture into the fold. The thesis design acts as a catalyst to this conversation. By thinking outside of the single infrastructure model currently practiced by civil engineers, and using the landscape as infrastructure metaphor, landscape architecture is able to counter inherent inefficiencies in its tools by working on larger and smaller scales. Then, as the net gains from applying landscape tools at those scales are compiled, the opportunity for increasing efficiency further increases.

4. Finally, the design creates a place that is monitored, controlled, and secure to see inside vital infrastructural systems. This arrangement benefits both those interested in infrastructure and officials that are worried about security. The public cannot fix problems it cannot see, no matter how important they are. Additionally, many visitors may come to the site with few expectations, but leave fascinated. Children, especially, might be captivated by the massive hole in the earth, the gigantic equipment, and the loud boom of dynamite blasting tens of thousands of tons rock in less than a second. It is these early visitors that could come back time and again as the site transforms. Here, an entire lifetime of

wonder and memories might be created in an interstitial landscape—under construction and normally off-limits. And in doing so, these visits foster understanding between consumers and the goods they purchase, citizens and the infrastructure that supports their livelihood, and present an examples of what can be done elsewhere.

The design responds to the thesis question of how to apply infrastructural opportunism to designing drinking water infrastructure by emphasizing the necessity for collaboration between competing interests, acknowledging the scale and timeframe of such projects and looking to maximize value during construction, creating a small scale demonstration of a landscape tool that could be scaled up or down to increase efficiency, and providing the public with a place to experience the processes and systems of extraction necessary to maintain their consumer lifestyles.

65

WORKS CITED: “Active-mines.findthedata.com” Web. 12 December 2014.

Alexandria Renew. Personal interview by author. 16 April 2013.

“AlexRenew.com.” Alexandria Renew Enterprises. Web. 14 May 2013.

American Society of Civil Engineers. “2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure”. Web. 14 May 2013.

Bélanger, Pierre. “Landscape Infrastructure: Urbanism Beyond Engineering.” Infrastructure Sustainability and Design. Eds. Spiro Pollalis, Andreas Georgoulias, Stephen Ramos, and Daniel Schodek. New York: Routlage, 2012. 276-315. Print.

Bhatia, N., Pryzbylski, M., Sheppard, L., & White, M. “Coupling.” Pamphlet Architecture 30. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2011.

Clifton, Irma. “Lorton History: Down on the Farm.” Lorton Heritage Society. Web. 17 December 2014.

Clifton, Irma. “Prisoners Leave Lorton—The Prequel.” Lorton Heritage Society. Web. 17 December 2014.

Cronon, William. “The Trouble with Wilderness.” Uncommon Ground. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1995.

Davis, Brian. “Landscape and Instruments.” Landscape Journal. 32(2): 293-308. 2013

“Drinking Water Treatment Wastes.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 03 December 2014. Web. 17 December 2014.

“Fairfax Grants Final Approval to Transform Former Lorton Prison Into Mixed-Use Development.” Fairfax County. 29 July 2014. Web. 17 December 2014.

Fairfax Water. Personal interview by author. 07 October 2013.

“FairfaxWater.Org.” Fairfax County Water Authority. Web. 14 May 2013.

Fishman, Charles. The Big Thirst. New York: Free Press, 2011.

Fleming, Tony. “Thickness and Geology of the Potomac Formation.” Expanded Explanation City of Alexandria, VA and Vicinity. 2008. Web 14 May 2013.

Frischmann, Brett. Infrastructure: The Social Value of Shared Resources. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Graham, Stephen & Marvin, Simon. Splintering Urbanism. New York: Routledge, 2001.

Hayes, Brian. Infrastructure: A Field Guide to the Industrial Landscape. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 2005.

“Historic Context of the Prison.” Fairfax County. Web. 17 December 2014.

“Latin.” n.p. n.d. Web. 14 May 2013. [http://www.empire.net/~merlin/latin.html]

LePatner, Barry. Too Big to Fall. New York: Foster Publishing, 2010.

Lewis, Stephen. “The Etymology of Infrastructure and the Infrastructure of the Internet.” Stephen Lewis on Infrastructure, Identity, Communication, and Change. Wordpress, 22 Sept. 2008. Web. 14 May 2013.

“List of Greek and Latin roots in English.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 12 May 2013. Web. 14 May 2013.

Macaulay, David. Underground. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976.

O’Rourke, T.D. “Critical Infrastructure, Interdependencies, and Resilience.” The Bridge. Spring 2007: 22-29. Web.

66

“Remarks by the President on Rebuilding America Partnership in Miami, Florida.” The White House. Whitehouse.gov, 29 March 2013. Web. 14 May 2013.

“Rockology 101.” Rogers Group, Inc. 2011. Web. 12 December 2014.

Robinson, Alexander. “Modulating Infrastructural Flows to Create Open Space.” Landscape Infrastructure. Eds. Ying-Yu Hung and Gerdi Aquino. Basel: Birkhauser, 2011. 30-35. Print.

Schwartz, John. “Obama Fleshes Out Plans for Infrastructure Projects.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 20 Feb. 2013. Web. 14 May 2013.

Scribner, Marc. “Sorry, Progressives, But The ASCE Infrastructure Grade Boost Wasn’t The Result Of Obama’s ‘Stimulus.’” OpenMarket.Org. Competitive Enterprise Institute, 20 March 2013. Web. 14 May 2013.

“Statistics & Demographics.” AlexandriaVa.gov. City of Alexandria, 9 March 2012. Web. 14 May 2013.

U.S. Census Bureau. American FactFinder. 2010. Web. 17 December 2014.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Electricity.” U.S. Department of Energy. Web. 14 May 2013.

Vulcan Materials Company. Personal interview by author. 28 February 2014.

“Vulcan Quarry as a Water Supply Reservoir.” Fairfax Water. Web. 17 December 2014.

67

IMAGE SOURCES: The images listed below are for educational purposes only and were reproduced according to fair use law. All other images, drawings, and illustrations are by the author.

1. Bing Maps (Aerial Photo of Vulcan Quarry, Lorton, Virginia)

2. Wikimedia Commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:I35W_Collapse_-_Day_4_-_Operations_%26_Scene_(95).jpg (I-35 West Bridge Collapse)

3. Fullertography, http://fullertography.blogspot.com/2014/08/metroway-bus-rapid-transit-launches-in.html (Metroway Ribbon Cutting Ceremony)

4. Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:September_11th_Memorial_and_Museum.jpg (September 11 Memorial)

5. Lord Chesterfield (Quarry Blasting Time Lapse Series)

68

69