1. MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AREA IN THE BRIDGEPORT ECO-TECH PARK Penelope Papanikolaou April 28, 2015 EVST 4000W University of Connecticut Spring – 2015

2. THESIS STATEMENT A mixed-use residential area in the Bridgeport Eco- Tech Park would be most beneficial for residents and employees because it will increases their quality of life, is economical, and is a good opportunity to implement green technology.

3. BRIDGEPORT ECO-TECH PARK AND BGREEN 2020  BGreen 2020 - Sustainability plan  Focus on the Bridgeport Eco-Tech Park and the surrounding area  Upgrade existing buildings and areas to be greener, more energy efficient, and more climate resilient  Create new green industries  Create more jobs, especially low-skilled jobs  Create alternatives for energy and waste disposal  Create a new housing development and possibly a school

4. MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AREA  “An urban, suburban, or village development, or even a single building that blends a combination of residential, commercial, cultural, institutional, or industrial uses, where those functions are physically and functionally integrated, and that provides pedestrian connections.” ~ Dictionary.com

5. INCREASED QUALITY OF LIFE  Convenience for residents and employees – everything they need nearby (Grocery stores, retail, restaurants, schools and work)  Incentive to walk, bike, or use mass-transit, instead of driving  Less automobile ownership  Smaller parking lots – Land could be used for something else/green space  Less traffic and carbon dioxide emissions in the air – better air quality  Increase physical activity  Sense of community

6. ECONOMIC BENEFITS  Job Creation  Eco-Tech Park  Construction  Teachers  Community – Grocery store, retail, restaurants, etc.  Low-skill jobs (Employ younger people/those who were unable to further their education)  Low-Income Housing  Good planning and design  Cost-effective building materials (Renovating instead of tearing everything down)  Reducing energy costs (Using green energy from Eco-Tech Park)  Keeping lots and housing units small (promotes community, development more manageable, costs less to live in)

7. ECONOMIC BENEFITS CONT.  Retail  Adds a new commercial tax base – Helps offset the cost of construction and will make the rent more affordable  Bring in new customers from all over – Keeps the money flowing  New Amenities for the area – increases the value of the area

8. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND LANDSCAPING  Benefits:  Decreases long-term cost (energy)  Helps the environment  Promotes human health  Change in attitude – Green design features now important when it comes to buying homes and in master-planned communities  Naturally manages storm-water, reduces risk of floods, captures pollution, and improves water quality (Very important to Bridgeport being on the water)

9. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND LANDSCAPING CONT.  To be added to the housing development:  Permeable pavement (Flexi-Pave – road runoff to be absorbed instead of going into the ocean and grass)  Rain gardens and green roofs (Landscape-based drainage features – add green space to urban areas, help with water pollution and flooding, multiple uses as a community garden)  Native plants and trees (Withstand the climate – add shade in the summers, habitats for animals, add more green space)

10. STORRS CENTER, STORRS, CT  Before – single-use and strictly commercial, most being take-out restaurants – mostly only catered to UCONN students  Now – mixed-use, including commercial, residential, industrial, and open, green space – caters to everyone and brings in new people

11. PORTLAND, OREGON  Study conducted on “smart growth” (transport and land-use integration) in the city  Embraces sustainability principles  Private sacrifice for public gains  “Personal time losses incurred when switching from cars to transit are matched by societal gains like cleaner air and fuel savings.”  Found supply constraints have inflated land costs (per square foot and per residence)  Public gains – cheaper infrastructure per mile, cleaner air)  Private sacrifice – higher housing and land costs  Unclear if due to smart growth, or Portland just being an attractive place to live and do business  Smart Growth is promising, but has major hurdles to be overcome

12. SCHOOL AND EARLY ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION  Possibility to add a school to the housing development  Close proximity to housing, allows for more lower-income children to go to school, creates new jobs for teachers  Should have environmental education as its main goal  Teach about green technology and what the Eco-Tech Park does  Green roofs and community gardens – Provide fresh vegetables and fruit to students and community – teaches students at young age about being “green” and sustainability  The earlier the better – change the attitudes about the environment of younger generations and will change the future (and teach their parents)

13. CONCLUSIONS  Mixed-Use Residential Area will:  Increase the quality of life for residents, employees of the Eco-Tech Park, and others from around the state  Can be economical – good planning and design  Good opportunity to use green infrastructure and landscaping  Early environmental education opportunity

14. REFERENCES:  BGreen 2020: A Sustainability Plan for Bridgeport, Connecticut. (n.d.). https://learn.uconn.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1372096-dt-content-rid- 5387796_1/courses/1153-UCONN-EVST-4000W-SEC001- 12885/Bpt%20sustainability%20plan%20BGreen-2020.pdf https://learn.uconn.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1372096-dt-content-rid- 5387796_1/courses/1153-UCONN-EVST-4000W-SEC001- 12885/Bpt%20sustainability%20plan%20BGreen-2020.pdf  Cervero, Robert. (1996). Mixed Land-Uses and Commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 30(5), 361-377.  Frank, Lawrence, D. (2000). Land Use and Transportation Interaction: Implications on Public Health and Quality of Life. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20, 6-22.

15. REFERENCES  Noiseux, K., & Hostetler, M. E. (2010). Do Homebuyers Want Green Features in Their Communities?. Environment & Behavior. 42(5). 551-580.  Palmer, J. (1998). Environmental Education in the 21st Century: Theory, Practice, Progress and Promise. London: Routledge.  Perkins, Douglas D. et al. (2004). Community Development as a Response to Community-Level Adversity: Ecological Theory and Research and Strengths-Based Policy. Investing in children, youth, families, and communities: Strengths-based research and policy, 321-340.  Storrs Center: Rethink Main Street. (2014). Mansfield, CT. PPT. http://www.storrscenter.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/14- 0224_TownCouncilPres_FINAL.pdf http://www.storrscenter.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/14- 0224_TownCouncilPres_FINAL.pdf

16. REFERENCES  Talen, Emily. (2010). Affordability in New Urbanist Development: Principle, Practice, and Strategy. Journal of Urban Affairs, 32(4), 489-510.  Wise, Steve. (2008). Green Infrastructure Rising: Best Practices in Stormwater Management. Planning Magazine, August/September 2008.  Cervero, Robert. (2000). Transport and Land Use: Key Issues in Metropolitan Planning and Smart Growth. University of California Transportation Center. UC Berkeley: University of California Transporation Center. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8dc5p6mvhttp://escholarship.org/uc/item/8dc5p6mv