Writing assignment

Green Alley Programs: Planning for a sustainable urban infrastructure?

Joshua P. Newell a,⇑, Mona Seymour b, Thomas Yee c, Jennifer Renteria d, Travis Longcore e, Jennifer R. Wolch f, Anne Shishkovsky g a School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States b Urban Studies Program, Loyola Marymount University, 1 LMU Drive, 4328, Los Angeles, CA 90045, United States c Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Lewis Hall 312, Los Angeles, CA 90089, United States d School of Architecture, University of Southern California, Watt Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90089, United States e Spatial Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, 3616 Trousdale Parkway, AHF, Los Angeles, CA 90089, United States f College of Environmental Design, University of California, 230 Wurster Hall, 1820, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States g School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 20 September 2011 Received in revised form 13 March 2012 Accepted 10 July 2012 Available online 3 August 2012

Keywords: Alleys Green infrastructure Urban sustainability Planning Los Angeles

a b s t r a c t

Revitalization of urban alleys, underway in cities and towns in North America, Europe, and other regions, can be seen as a manifestation of a broader movement among city agencies, planners, and community groups to expand green urban infrastructure and promote sustainability. This article analyzes alley greening programs in seven cities in the United States using the lens of sustainability planning. Study results indicate that most alley greening programs are narrowly oriented toward stormwater manage- ment. An in-depth exploration of the alley greening program in the city of Los Angeles illustrates how a more robust commitment to sustainability – through the adoption of goals related to environmental protection, economic development, and social equity – might be actualized in the context of alley green- ing efforts. The article also considers the role of collaboration in developing integrative sustainability programs around alleys.

! 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Many North American cities are taking steps to strengthen their green infrastructure, or the networks of wildlands, woodlands, waterways, and wetlands that, when combined with green roofs, permeable paving, vegetative swales, parks, and green streets, support ecological processes and contribute to human health and quality of life (Benedict & McMahon, 2002). One innovative strat- egy emerging among cities including Chicago, Baltimore, and Los Angeles is to green (or, in the case of Baltimore, ‘‘blue’’) long-ne- glected back alleys to achieve a suite of ecosystem service and public health goals. These cities contain extensive alley networks; for instance, the city of Chicago has approximately 1900 miles of alleys, comprising more than 3500 acres (Chicago Department of Transportation, 2007). The city of Los Angeles has an estimated 12,309 alley segments, a network of more than 900 linear miles,

or approximately 1998 acres (Cassidy, Newell, & Wolch, 2008), while Baltimore’s alley network encompasses over 600 linear miles (City of Baltimore Department of Public Works, 2008). Alleys are thus a significant, though typically overlooked, urban public infra- structure resource.

The potential benefits of alley greening projects are numerous. Alleys may facilitate urban runoff management through infiltra- tion, groundwater recharge, heat island reduction, and expanded wildlife habitat (Wolch et al., 2010). Back alleys have recently been heralded by New Urbanists for their ability to reinvigorate pedes- trian activity throughout neighborhoods (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, & Speck, 2001; Zelinka & Beattie, 2003). Wolch et al. (2010) have pos- ited that redesigned alleys may provide services such as park and recreational space, improvements, and pedestrian linkages within the community. As safe, attractive, usable social spaces, converted alleys may help renew neighborhoods by fostering increased visibility and use of previously feared spaces.

Conceptualizing alleys as green infrastructure represents a new vision for an old design feature. For more than 2000 years alleys have served as spaces for neighbors to interact, children to play, as access points for infrastructure services, and a variety of other purposes (Beasley, 1996; Borchert, 1980; Martin, 2001, 2002). In the US, alleys fell into disfavor in the late nineteenth century because they were often seen as dangerous, unhealthy places (Ford,

0264-2751/$ - see front matter ! 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.07.004

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 1064 Dana Building, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States. Tel.: +1 734 763 8652; fax: +1 734 763 8965.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.P. Newell), [email protected] (M. Seymour), [email protected] (T. Yee), [email protected] (J. Renteria), longcore@usc. edu (T. Longcore), [email protected] (J.R. Wolch), [email protected] (A. Shishkovsky).

Cities 31 (2013) 144–155

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Cities

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / c i t i e s

2001). By the 1930s, federal housing policy effectively disallowed alleys, and urban design and municipal services evolved to focus attention on streets and front yards (Martin, 2001).

This article profiles eight alley greening programs in seven US cities. Our objective is to consider the goals and practices of these programs in light of sustainability planning (Wheeler, 2004). This perspective allows us to reflect upon the extent to which alleys, as green infrastructure, fulfill sustainability objectives. Because organized alley greening efforts in the US are relatively recent developments, this analysis may provide guidance for new and emerging programs. In the next section, we elaborate on the relationship between green infrastructure and sustainability plan- ning and contextualize our research objectives within these literatures.

Green infrastructure and sustainability planning for cities

The roots of green infrastructure can be traced to theories and practices that emerged in Western planning over the past century and a half, including Olmsted’s greenway visions and New Town development (Benedict & McMahon, 2002; Kambites & Owen, 2006; Walmsley, 2006). In its present incarnation, and termed thusly, ‘‘green infrastructure’’ has gained rapid currency in planning theory and policy. The term now has a multitude of def- initions, revealing itself to be an ambiguous and contested concept, as different interest groups attach different meanings and benefits to it (Mell, 2008; Wright, 2011). In pursuit of critical reflection on the term, Wright (2011) has identified the notions of connectivity, multifunctionality, and ‘‘green’’ (typically representing the infra- structural elements that act as a basis for environmental improve- ment) as the ‘‘core ideas’’ of green infrastructure, and present in nearly all definitions of the concept. Tzoulas et al. (2007, p. 169), for instance, write that green infrastructure may comprise ‘‘all natural, semi-natural and artificial networks of multifunctional ecological systems within, around and between urban areas, at all spatial scales.’’ Turning to considerations of what green infra- structure means in practice, definitions variously identify and emphasize environmental, social, and economic benefits. Some scholars have suggested, for instance, that the US literature tends toward an environmental focus, while UK policy writing on the application of green infrastructure focuses on socio-economic functions and benefits (Kambites & Owen, 2006; Wright, 2011).

Benedict and McMahon (2002, p. 12) are among those who explicitly link green infrastructure to sustainable development, arguing green infrastructure ‘‘is the ecological framework needed for environmental, social and economic sustainability.’’ The con- cept of sustainability, and especially its close sibling, sustainable development, achieved mainstream status following the release of the Brundtland Commission report Our Common Future in 1987. This report provided the international community with what has become the most well-known and commonly referenced defi- nition of sustainable development, defined as ‘‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’’ (World Commis- sion on Environment & Development, 1987, p. 8). Numerous alter- native definitions have since been proposed, most referencing in some fashion what are widely acknowledged to be three primary goals of sustainable development: environmental protection, economic development, and social equity (often referred to as the ‘‘Three Es’’). This schema is perhaps too simplistic as it does not convey the contested negotiations (and often incompatibility) between these three objectives when planning for sustainability, but it nonetheless provides a useful construct within which to broadly conceptualize priorities.

The link between green infrastructure and sustainability plan- ning is evident at the scale of the city. Numerous scholars and

practitioners consider green infrastructure expansion as a means to foster urban sustainability (Ahern, 2007; Mell, 2009; Sandström, 2002; Schilling & Logan, 2008). Promoters cite its broad potential to advance sustainability in an array of environmental, social, and economic fronts. For example, green infrastructure may in- crease landscape connectivity for wildlife movement (Kong, Yin, Nakagoshi, & Zong, 2010), support biodiversity conservation (Bry- ant, 2006; Goddard, Dougill, & Benton, 2010), maintain or enhance natural ecosystem functions (Xiao & McPherson, 2002), facilitate climate change adaptation (Gill, Handley, Ennos, & Pauleit, 2007), and assist in stormwater management and flood alleviation (Ahern, 2007). It may increase land and property values (Conway, Li, Wolch, Kahle, & Jerrett, 2008), attract tourists, industry, and skilled workers (Deng, Arano, Pierskalla, & McNeel, 2010; Kambites & Owen, 2006), support the development of green industry (Schil- ling & Logan, 2008), and reduce costs associated with urban heat islands (Bowler, Buyung-Ali, Knight, & Pullin, 2010) and storm- water (Carter & Jackson, 2006; Soares et al., 2011). It also offers potential social benefits such as improved health and well-being, culture, sport, and recreation opportunities, and a stronger sense of community (Kambites & Owen, 2006; Mell, 2007; Tzoulas et al., 2007), ideally with equity in mind. Aside from distributional equity, notions of procedural equity suggest that the production of green infrastructure space must involve ensuring democratic par- ticipation in decision-making processes about the qualities of that infrastructure (Lake, 1996; Young, 1990).

Sustainability planning literature emphasizes the interconnec- tedness of these three Es (Beatley & Manning, 1997; Berke, 2002; Kaiser, Godschalk, & Chapin, 1995). Berke (2002, p. 31) notes,

‘‘When all values cannot be represented, sustainability cannot be promoted by a plan. If environmental values are not accounted for, then the basic life support process on which a community depends cannot be sustained. If economic develop- ment values are not represented, then the fundamental source of community change and improvement is denied. If social val- ues are not reflected in a plan, then places will be created that do not meet the life and work needs of local people and do not fairly serve all interest groups.’’

A balance must be attained in the representation of these values; as Kaiser et al. (1995, p. 52) state, ‘‘for the [three-legged] stool to stand, every part must be in place, equally proportioned and properly joined.’’ This planning challenge clearly plays out at the local scale, where interest groups and public agencies will often de- fine sustainability for their own purposes (Andrews, 1997). Professional and fiscal constraints may limit planners and other entities in terms of breadth of the goals their projects represent (Campbell, 1996). Scholars acknowledge the conflicts inherent in striking a balance between these three corners of the ‘‘planner’s triangle’’ (Campbell, 1996). Thus, seeking representation of these three perspectives in any given plan for sustainability, and develop- ing decision-making processes for reconciling specific goals associ- ated with these sometimes competing values, are necessities in the sustainability planning process. Layered on is the complexity of interconnected scales, so even specific, local scale projects that are incremental and iterative must also be designed with an awareness of how they influence and are influenced by broader spatial scales.

This article uses the lens of sustainability planning to interro- gate US alley greening programs and to determine the breadth of engagement with sustainability evident in this form of green infra- structure intervention. Do alley greening programs embrace sustainability in its fullest sense, construed here as balanced atten- tion to the ‘‘Three Es’’ in program objectives, or do they reflect a narrower commitment to select values?

J.P. Newell et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 144–155 145

Materials and methods

Organized alley greening efforts in the United States are gener- ally considered to date back to 2006, with the establishment of Chicago’s pioneering Green Alley Program. To identify other alley greening programs throughout the country, we relied on Internet searches as well as leads provided by program representatives during correspondence. The search for programs initially occurred in 2007 and 2008, with another search conducted in 2011 and 2012. Alley greening programs that met the following five criteria were selected for inclusion in the analysis:

1. The ‘‘program’’ is a designated program, pilot program, or initiative with multiple projects/pilot projects planned and/or executed. We excluded ‘‘one-off’’ projects not currently part of any larger program.

2. The program represents the ‘‘core ideas’’ of green infrastructure – i.e., connectivity, multifunctionality, and ‘‘green.’’ We excluded alley programs with goals that were entirely social or economic.

3. The program is intended to facilitate ongoing alley greening across a neighborhood, a city, or another spatial unit of urban geography. We excluded green alleys that were installed ‘‘in one fell swoop’’ (e.g., in a greenfield development project), outside of the auspices of a sustained program that provides support for ongoing and future alley greening projects.

4. The program’s literature explicitly states that it targets alleys. We excluded programs (e.g., ‘‘green streets’’ programs) that did not explicitly state a focus on alleys in addition to streets, side- walks, and other focal rights-of-way.

5. Alleys are a major focal point rather than one target among many. We excluded programs that do not focus substantial energy on alleys relative to their focus on other infrastructural elements.

Based on these criteria, we identified eight qualifying alley greening programs. An inventory of these programs was conducted through analysis of print and online policy and program docu- ments; media coverage of the programs; and in-person and tele- phone interviews and email correspondence with key program contacts.

Alley greening programs: Sustainability planning in practice?

Table 1 describes key components of the eight alley greening programs. Using this table as a point of reference, this section first focuses on the range of objectives identified for each program and then reflects on these programs in light of sustainability planning.

Alley greening programs in the US are unquestionably oriented toward stormwater management goals. For instance, the Blue Al- leys pilot effort in Baltimore aims to diminish the volume of pol- luted runoff into neighborhood streams and Baltimore Harbor; Washington DC’s program seeks to improve the water quality of Rock Creek and other proximate water courses through improved control of stormwater; and Chicago’s Green Alley Program was implemented to reduce periodic flooding and to aid groundwater recharge. Traditional urban runoff management strategies rely on channeling rainwater into city sewer systems, but peak storm events can overwhelm system capacity. To this end, all programs incorporate some type of permeable surface material (sometimes in concert with features including pitched surfaces and bioswales), which allows water to infiltrate into the subsoil (Fig. 1). A variety of permeable materials are on the market, including permeable con- cretes, permeable asphalts, pavers (individual concrete or stone blocks that fit tightly together but allow water to percolate), and

Grasscrete", which is a paver-grass hybrid. An efficacy study of a green streets program – Seattle’s Street Edge Alternatives (SEAs) program, which installs permeable surfaces along with bioswales and tree and shrub plantings – estimated the program has prevented dry season water discharge and reduced wet season run-off by 98% (Horner, Lim, & Burges, 2002). This has improved water quality and reduced the water volumes in traditional infra- structure systems (Wise, 2008).

The pervasiveness of stormwater abatement goals may be tied to the availability of federal, state, and city funding for stormwater management. In 2004, Los Angeles voters passed Proposition O, which provides up to $500 million for water-related projects, many of which are focused on stormwater capture, clean-up, and re-use. A number of alley projects in LA have emerged due to this funding mechanism. Baltimore’s Blue Alleys Program and Washington DC’s Green Alley Program are partially funded through stormwater-re- lated sources. Stormwater funding may help to expand the Green Alley Program in Dubuque, Iowa, where a proposal for $8 million toward alley reconstruction is targeting funding from the interest to a state revolving fund (SRF) loan. This SRF loan is financing the city’s new wastewater treatment plant. Program staff are pro- posing to exercise the option to use the interest toward projects that reduce stormwater, rather than to pay all of the interest to the state; should this be approved, the funding would cover 50% of Dubuque’s alleys (Jon Dienst, February 2012, personal communication).

Two of the alley greening programs identify a larger suite of environmental protection goals. In addition to stormwater man- agement, the Chicago and Los Angeles programs seek to mitigate the urban heat island effect and avoid exacerbation of urban light pollution (Longcore & Rich, 2004). Chicago’s oft-referenced Green Alley Handbook depicts light-colored, high albedo pavement and energy efficient lighting which directs light downward and out- ward, rather than upward into the sky (Chicago Department of Transportation, 2007). Stakeholders in the Los Angeles program identified an additional green goal in harvesting rainwater for use, and in Chicago, energy conservation is specified.

Objectives related to public health and safety, beautification, community empowerment and community building, and educa- tion are stated in a smaller number of the programs. A number of Los Angeles projects feature lighting to foster walkability and enhance safety. Baltimore’s Alley Gating and Greening Program originated from concerns about crime, dumping, and pest-control problems associated with alleys, and it has since evolved to encompass a stormwater management vision. In this two-tiered program, residents may apply to gate their alleys in order to elim- inate noise, littering, and loiterers, and they may also apply to green an alley. In early projects, greening was construed in the sense of beautification, in order to enhance an alley’s amenity value. The first completed project, referred to as the Luzerne-Glo- ver alley, has reduced crime and illegal dumping, features elements including potted flowers and seating, and functions like a residen- tial pocket park, a social space that has reconnected neighbors (Cassidy et al., 2008). Beautification is to be achieved in some Los Angeles projects by planting vegetation and by creating valued community spaces that residents are likely to monitor and care for.

Baltimore’s Alley Gating and Greening program is one of the two programs that identifies a commitment to building and empowering communities. Ashoka Community Greens, one of the collaborating organizations, offers leadership training to Baltimore residents to develop their capacity as community organizers. Gating and greening is at the behest of residents, 80–100% of adja- cent residents must signify agreement with the proposal, and res- idents have some latitude in proposing to the city what ‘‘greening’’ will constitute in their alleyways. Thus the training is meant to as-

146 J.P. Newell et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 144–155

Table 1 Key aspects of US alley greening programs.

Location Program name and year establisheda

Objectives Features (implemented and anticipated)

Project counts (as of March 2012)

Collaborating agencies and organizations

Maintenance of green technologies

Funding

Chicago, IL Green Alley Program (2006)

SWM; UHI; LIG; ENC

PER; IMP; PIT; DRP; GRA; INF; HAP; RCM; DAR; ENE

100 + Completed Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT); Department of Environment; Department of Water Management; Mayor’s office

CDOT Chicago Department of Transportation; Alderman funds

Baltimore, MD

Alley Gating and Greening Program (2007)

SWM; EMP; BEA; SAF; GRE; BUI

PER; IMP; PLA; BEN; GAT; LEA

4 + Completed; 100 + applications

Department of General Services; Department of Public Works; Ashoka’s Community Greens

Adjacent residents

Adjacent residents

Los Angeles, CA

Green Alley Program (2008) Also referred to as Green Streets and Green Alleys Program

SWM; HAR; UHI; GRE; TRA; ACT; CON; BUI Consult Table 2 for additional objectives associated with specific projects

PER; IMP; COL; GRA; DRC; DRY; INT; BIO; HAP; RCM; PLA; BEN; PED; LGT Consult Table 2 for additional features associated with specific projects

3 + Completed; 8 + planned

Green Alleys Subcommittee (Department of City Planning; Board of Public Works; Bureau of Sanitation; Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles (CRA/ LA); University of Southern California Center for Sustainable Cities; Trust for Public Land) Numerous additional collaborators on a project-by- project basis; consult Table 2 for examples

City and county departments; adjacent businesses; adjacent residents; varies project to project

City and county funds; CRA/ LA; in-kind support; varies project to project

Dubuque, IA Green Alley Program (2009)

SWM PER; COL; PIT; DRP; GRA; HAP; RCM

4 Completed; 3 planned for immediate future

Public Works Department; Engineering Department; Housing and Community Development Department; Economic Development Department; Planning Services Department; Water Department

City departments; private contractors

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; city funds

Richmond, VA

Green Alleys Initiative (2009)

SWM PER; COL; PIT; DRP; GRA

2 Completed; 2 under construction; 1 planned for immediate future

Department of Public Utilities Department of Public Utilities

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant; Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; Department of Public Utilities

Seattle, WA Ballard Green Alleys (2010)b

SWM PER 6 Planned Seattle Public Utilities Not determined Seattle Public Utilities

Baltimore, MD

Blue Alleys (2011)

SWM; BEA; EDU

PER; DRP; GRA 3 Planned for immediate future

Blue Water Baltimore Community associations

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant; City of Baltimore; donated services

Washington, DC

Green Alley Program (2011)

SWM PER; DRP; GRA 3 Planned for immediate future; 15 + in design phase

District Department of Transportation (DDOT); District Department of the Environment

DDOT Street and Bridge Maintenance Division

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; DDOT funds; MS4 funds; Transportation Enhancement funds from the Federal Highway Administration

OBJECTIVES FEATURES

SWM – Stormwater management PER – Permeable asphalt, concrete, and/or pavers (may be alternated with grass) HAR – Harvest rainwater IMP – Impermeable concrete or asphalt paving UHI – Urban heat island mitigation COL – Collar to hold pavers in place (often impermeable) LIG – Light pollution mitigation PIT – Pitched surfaces/subsurfaces ENC – Energy conservation DRP – Subsurface drainage pipe EMP – Empower community members to change their neighborhoods GRA – Subsurface gravel/rock/sand layer BEA – Beautification DRC – Concrete drainage channel SAF – Enhance safety DRY – Dry well GRE – Expand greenspace INT – Grease interceptor TRA – Encourage or facilitate non-motorized transportation (such as walking

and biking) BIO – Bioswale

ACT – Facilitate active recreation/physical activity INF – Infiltration trench CON – Increase connectivity between local destinations HAP – High albedo pavement BUI – Build community RCM – Recycled construction materials EDU – Environmental education DAR – Dark sky compliant light fixtures

ENE – Energy efficient light fixtures PLA – Plantings (trees, shrubs, vines, and/or other greenery, including potted plants and flowers)

(continued on next page)

J.P. Newell et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 144–155 147

Table 1 (continued)

OBJECTIVES FEATURES

BEN – Benches or chairs PED – Pedestrian walkway LGT – Lighting for pedestrian use or decorative purposes GAT – Gates LEA – Leasing agreements

a In some cases, program websites, program literature, key contacts, and media coverage referred to programs and initiatives using slightly different names (e.g., Green Alley Program versus Green Alleys Program versus Alley Greening Initiative); in most cases, the table displays the name given on the program website.

b This pilot program is currently on hold. Plans to install the six green alleys in 2012 and 2013 have been pushed back ‘‘a few years’’ as efforts are currently being focused on other types of green stormwater infrastructure for the city (Arnel Valmonte, February 2012, personal communication). The program is dated here to 2010 as in that year two porous concrete panels were installed into an alley to test the materials; the program is seated within the city’s Green Stormwater Infrastructure program which dates to 1999.

Fig. 1. Stormwater management retrofits in US alleyways. (a) A flooded, impermeably paved alley in Chicago. (b) The alley was resurfaced with permeable pavement. Source: Photo courtesy of the Chicago Department of Transportation (2010). (c) Dubuque’s first green alley, being paved with permeable asphalt. Source: Photo courtesy of J. Dienst (2009).

148 J.P. Newell et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 144–155

sist residents in garnering support for projects and in building a community of neighbors working toward (and later reaping the benefits of) a common goal. Some projects associated with the Los Angeles program similarly seek to build community and to em- power residents to improve their neighborhoods, such as through the involvement of residents in the alley design process (this will be discussed in more detail in the following subsection).

To increase public acceptance for stormwater management practices on a larger scale, a goal of Baltimore’s Blue Alleys Program is public education. Outreach has suggested that Balti- more residents are generally unaware of relationships between stormwater, waterway pollution, and health. In Los Angeles, inter- pretive elements to be placed in greened alleys are intended to educate residents about green infrastructure benefits including pollution prevention and community health.

All of the documented alley greening programs in the US embrace visions of environmental protection, with several imple-

menting features that speak to safety, health, and community building outcomes. Among them, only the Green Alley Program of Los Angeles states goals that align with additional sustainability planning values of social equity and economic development. The following section relates the genesis of this program and discusses its objectives, doing so in part through vignettes of several projects.

The Los Angeles Green Alley Program

The Green Alley Program originated in part from a research pro- ject entitled Back Alley LA, a collaborative effort spearheaded in 2006 by the Center for Sustainable Cities (CSC) at the University of Southern California and drawing on expertise from local non- governmental organizations including the Trust for Public Land (TPL), TreePeople, Pacoima Beautiful, and the Los Angeles Neigh- borhood Land Trust. This research initiative resulted in a series of

Fig. 2. Alley density in the city of Los Angeles, by subregion. Source: Compiled by the authors.

J.P. Newell et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 144–155 149

studies: extensive mapping of alley resources in the Los Angeles re- gion and audits to assess the physical attributes and activity pat- terns of the alleys (Seymour, Reynolds, & Wolch, 2010; Wolch et al., 2010); alley-adjacent resident focus groups in five neighbor- hoods in the Los Angeles region (Seymour, Wolch, Reynolds, & Bradbury, 2010); measurement of soil contamination levels in un- paved alleys (Devinny & Longcore, 2008); and a guide to organizing an alley revitalization project (Ben-Horin, Drayse, & Imhoff, 2008).

One of the major research findings from this initiative was that alley density is generally highest in regions (namely, South and East Los Angeles) where communities have dramatically less access to park resources than do residents in other areas of the city (Fig. 2) (Wolch et al., 2010). These park acreage-poor neighbor- hoods tend to be low-income communities populated by Latinos, African Americans, and Asian-Pacific Islanders (Sister, Wolch, & Wilson, 2010; Wolch, Wilson, & Fehrenbach, 2005). Focus groups revealed that residents were wary of alleys and considered them dirty, poorly maintained, and potentially dangerous, only using them when necessary. Residents were open to a variety of greening and other redesign strategies, though not without reservation; concerns about maintaining ingress/egress and attracting undesir- able users were among those voiced (Seymour, Wolch, et al., 2010). The soil contamination study examined trace metal deposits such as lead, chromium, and arsenic, and petroleum compounds common in fuel and motor oil, measured as Total Petroleum

Hydrocarbons (TPHs). It referenced California Human Health Screening (CHHS) standards set at levels believed to be appropriate to protect the health of residents who might contact soils through the suspension of dust, gardening and other yard activities, and children who may accidentally ingest soils. Three alleys in the 10-alley sample displayed trace metal contamination levels of ar- senic, lead, or chromium higher than CHHS standards, and would require some level of remediation (Devinny & Longcore, 2008). The findings indicated that green designs for urban runoff manage- ment could be useful in rehabilitating contaminated soils.

Preliminary findings from these studies were disseminated to local government at a time during which programmatic commit- ment to addressing LA’s stormwater management problems was growing. As the Back Alley LA project neared completion, the Los Angeles Department of Public Works established the Green Alleys Subcommittee in 2008, nesting it within the city’s existing Green Streets Committee. This subcommittee included representatives from the City’s Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA/LA), Board of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation, and Department of Planning along with representatives from the CSC and TPL. In fall 2008, the Los Angeles City Council adopted a green alleys program for the city. The program was initially designed to achieve multiple objectives, including: improving urban runoff management; cooling the urban heat island; harvesting rainwater; promoting physical activity through walking, cycling, and playing; increasing

Fig. 3. Select options for alley greening, City of Los Angeles Green Alleys Subcommittee. From top: infiltration of rainwater with drywell; use of biofiltration borders and reduced paving; full conversion to pedestrian use. Source: Ahbe Landscape Architects (reproduced with permission).

150 J.P. Newell et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 144–155

connectivity between homes, schools, and parks; encouraging non-motorized transport; expanding green and open space; and building neighborhoods and communities. These broad objectives were confirmed by the subcommittee as desirable, although no specific law or ordinance mandated them. In 2009, the subcommit- tee formalized a ‘‘menu’’ of six green design scenarios for alleys, meant to guide the engineering and design of alley projects (Fig. 3). All strategies variously included features such as high-al- bedo pavement, bioswales, and permeable pavers. The final scenario integrated stormwater management features with modifi- cations intended to increase walkability, including lighting, benches, decorative plantings, and limited vehicular access (City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, 2009).

A primary task of the subcommittee was to determine how to implement this program at a city-wide scale. As noted previously, Los Angeles contains over 900 linear miles of alleys, or just over 3 square miles of surface area. A number of demonstration projects were identified to refine project selection criteria, partnership arrangements, and design guidelines. After the green alley design principles were established and pilot projects were underway,

the Green Alley Subcommittee concluded that its core tasks were fulfilled and its responsibilities were folded into the broader Green Streets Committee. This committee and the Watershed Protection Division of the Department of Public Works Bureau of Sanitation continue to promote alley conversion and other green infrastruc- ture projects across the city.

Planned, in-progress, and completed alley projects have points of commonality in terms of stormwater management goals and green design elements, which reflects the city departments’ com- mitment to these objectives. The green infrastructure project mas- ter list – managed by the city’s Department of Public Works for the Green Streets Committee – has over 150 planned or completed green infrastructure projects, including the aforementioned alley- related projects. Almost all of these projects focus on best manage- ment practices (BMPs) designed to manage runoff and improve runoff water quality, such as through the use of bioswales and permeable pavement (City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, 2011). Yet some alley projects exhibit considerable differ- ences with respect to other objectives and features, which signify the role of outside partners in project visioning and implementa-

Table 2 Select Los Angeles Green Alley Program projects.

Project name Objectives Features (implemented and anticipated)

Collaborating agencies and organizations Status

North Hollywood Alley Retrofit Project

SWM; BEA PER; IMP; GRA Department of Water and Power; Department of Public Works (DPWs)

Completed in 2011

East Cahuenga Cosmo Pedestrian Alley

SWM; PUB; COM PER; PIT; GRA; INO; PLA; PED; LGT; SEC

Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA/LA); Council District 13; DPW; Hollywood Property Owners Alliance; Hollywood Business Improvement District; Cahuenga District Coalition; Hollywood Entertainment District

Completed in 2012

Avalon Green Alley Network Also referred to as South Park Green Alley Network

SWM; HAR; UHI; LIG; HAB; AIR; COV; EMP; BEA; SAF; GRE; TRA; ACT; CON; BUI; EDU; ACG; ACF; MEN; PUB

PER; PIT; GRA; DRC; DRY; BIO; INP; INO; HAP; RCM; LCM; DAR; ENE; NPL; DRO; PLA; GAR; PED; LGT; SIG; ART; EDS; FIT

Trust for Public Land; CRA/LA; Bureau of Sanitation

Grant application/ construction document preparation for two demonstration projects

OBJECTIVES FEATURES

SWM – Stormwater management PER – Permeable asphalt, concrete, and/or pavers (may be alternated with grass) HAR – Harvest rainwater IMP – Impermeable concrete or asphalt paving UHI – Urban heat island mitigation PIT – Pitched surfaces/subsurfaces LIG – Light pollution mitigation GRA – Subsurface gravel/rock layer HAB – Habitat for native species DRC – Concrete drainage channel AIR – Improve air quality DRY – Dry well COV – Expand tree canopy coverage BIO – Bioswale EMP – Empower community members to change their neighborhoods INP – Infiltration planter BEA – Beautification INO – Other/unspecified infiltration system SAF – Enhance safety HAP – High albedo pavement GRE – Expand greenspace RCM – Recycled construction materials TRA – Encourage or facilitate non-motorized transportation (such as walking

and biking) LCM – Locally-sourced construction materials

ACT – Facilitate active recreation/physical activity DAR – Dark sky compliant light fixtures CON – Increase connectivity between local destinations ENE – Energy efficient light fixtures BUI – Build community NPL – Native plantings EDU – Environmental education DRO – Drought-tolerant plantings ACG – Facilitate access to greenspace for underserved communities PLA – Plantings (trees, shrubs, vines, and/or other greenery, including potted plants

and flowers) ACF – Facilitate access to food for underserved communities GAR – Community gardens, fruit trees, and/or edible landscaping MEN – Enhance mental health and wellness PED – Pedestrian or exercise path PUB – Create useable public open space LGT – Lighting for pedestrian use or decorative purposes COM – Extend shops, cafes, and other commercial uses into alley SEC – Security system or program

SIG – Signs, pavement markings, and other tools to encourage pedestrian use ART – Murals and other artwork EDS – Interpretive or educational signage FIT – Fitness equipment

J.P. Newell et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 144–155 151

tion. While reconfiguring alleys into recreational and social space is in line with the Green Alley Subcommittee’s original vision, the representation of these goals in specific projects has thus far hinged upon nongovernmental partners such as the Trust for Public Land and the Hollywood Property Owners Alliance. Table 2 provides a selection of green alley projects in Los Angeles, includ- ing project objectives, features, and collaborating entities.

The North Hollywood Alley Retrofit Project involved several contiguous alley segments. A strip of permeable pavers was in- stalled down the center of each segment (Fig. 4). This redesign, per- formed to alleviate flooding in the alley and to recharge groundwater supplies, was also intended to improve the neighbor- hood. The Department of Water and Power provided most of the

funding for the $800,000 project. With its focus on stormwater abatement, the project is representative of the majority of projects listed in the city’s green infrastructure project master list.

The East Cahuenga Cosmo Pedestrian Alley project is located in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles. The vision for the T-shaped alley, located just south of Hollywood Boulevard, involved transforming the alley segments into a pedestrian-friendly space that capitalizes on its adjacency to numerous restaurants and other businesses. Visitors should be able to mingle in the alley and enjoy al fresco dining outside of the cafes that line the segments. The project was also designed to help manage stormwater (Fig. 4). Before the project broke ground, the Hollywood Business Improve- ment District agreed to a supplemental tax – estimated to generate

Fig. 4. Alley greening projects in Los Angeles. (a) North Hollywood Alley Retrofit Project. (b) East Cahuenga Cosmo Pedestrian Alley. Source: Photo courtesy of T. Trindle (2012).

152 J.P. Newell et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 144–155

US $125,000 annually – to pay for alley cleanup and to provide security services for a larger network of alleys along the 18-block stretch of Hollywood Boulevard (Berg, 2009; Meinert, 2008). This sort of attempt to reinvigorate alley life is reflected in other alley programs around the US, such as Seattle’s Clear Alleys Program, which bans dumpsters and other receptacles from downtown busi- ness districts in order to enhance the attractiveness, safety, and walkability of alleys.

A more extensive project is represented by the Avalon Green Alley Network. This project centers on transforming a network of approximately 10 alley segments in the South Los Angeles region, one of the most underserved parts of the city, into green, connec- tive tissue linking together two parks and two school sites. Demon- stration projects are in the planning stage; one of these projects targets a T-shaped alley in the northeastern corner of the network, and the other targets segments located between a Food 4 Less and a high school (Fig. 5). The project proposes to implement numerous stormwater BMPs, including the harvesting of rainwater for trees and vines planted along the sides of the alleys: stormwater collected from permeable paving or drain inlets will flow toward the plants’ roots through a sloped subgrade or through infiltration planters. Proposed features include interpretive elements on green infrastructure and the Los Angeles River watershed, espaliered fruit trees intended to provide supplemental food for local residents, and outdoor fitness equipment such as pull-up bars. Project litera- ture highlights that alleys in this region are polluted and unsafe and that identifying health and safety goals may be realized through increased usage and stewardship by residents.

In December 2010, the CRA/LA was funded to develop the South Los Angeles Green Alley Master Plan, a plan for additional networks of green alleys, streets, and community connections in South Los Angeles that would build on the Avalon Green Alley Network. The plan includes design guidelines and policy recommendations for three to five networks of green alleys and streets, ‘‘with an emphasis on how to create green alley networks that promote infill development, improve community walkability (thereby reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled), develop new and attractive spaces for out-

door exercise and promote multi-benefit infrastructure improve- ments with a focus on stormwater capture and infiltration’’ (City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, 2010, p. 2). Plan collaborators include the CRA/LA, TPL, California State Polytechnic University-Pomona’s Department of Landscape Archi- tecture graduate project studio (606 Studio), Jefferson High School Green Academy, and the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Wa- tershed Council (now the Council for Watershed Health).

The Los Angeles Green Alley Program represents a commitment to sustainability planning in a more complete sense than the other alley greening programs we analyzed. Environmental protection objectives are omnipresent in associated projects, deployed primarily through stormwater management practices. Yet some projects clearly also embrace economic development and social equity goals. The East Cahuenga Cosmo Pedestrian Alley has been envisioned as a destination for locals and tourists, ‘‘a new walkable, public space that will help attract more visitors to our local busi- nesses’’ (Hollywood Property Owners Alliance Executive Director Kerry Morrison, quoted in Newton, 2011). The city’s green infra- structure project master list contains two additional projects sim- ilarly oriented toward economic development, with goals to create public open space and facilitate outdoor dining opportunities (along with the implementation of stormwater BMPs).

The explicit commitments to improving access to recreational and food resources in projects such as the Avalon Green Alley Net- work and the related South Los Angeles Green Alley Master Plan align with social equity values. The Master Plan seeks to increase access to green space ‘‘in one of the most underserved and economically chal- lenged areas of the City of Los Angeles. Approximately 30% of [the ci- ty’s] alleys are located in South Los Angeles, a blighted urban community with very little green space. Residents of South Los Angeles are disproportionately affected by poor air quality, have high rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease, and have few or limited places to play outdoors’’ (City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, 2010, p. 3). Similar text on providing recreational opportunities for residents living in a community with few safe green open spaces is found in Avalon Green Alley Network

Fig. 5. Avalon Green Alley Network project area. Source: Trust for Public Land (reproduced with permission).

J.P. Newell et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 144–155 153

project documents. The demonstration project includes the planting of fruit trees, ‘‘a source of sustainable food production for a commu- nity where 33.1% of households are defined as food insecure’’ (The Trust for Public Land, 2011, p. 14). Although not identified as a pro- ject goal, the construction of stormwater management infrastruc- ture in South Los Angeles may also address an inequity in terms of the distribution of flood risks. This region has the second highest ‘‘flood complaint density’’ (reports of flooding and/or inadequate drainage) in the city (Wolch et al., 2010), a testament to its deficit of permeable surfaces and its aging stormwater infrastructure.

Along the lines of procedural equity, there is some attention in the proposed South Los Angeles projects to the voices of local res- idents in alley design; for instance, in the context of the Master Plan, collaborating agencies propose to survey residents on their needs and priorities related to alleys and to use the results as a de- sign template. The Avalon Green Alley Network demonstration project included community outreach as well. Through meetings and workshops, TPL staff have broached ideas of alley greening and asked residents to share their visions for the alleys. Residents’ priorities included alley cleanliness and safety and they were open to TPL’s design suggestions. Due to these preoccupations with alley safety and sanitation and to high residential turnover (a large pro- portion of residents are renters), it has been challenging to involve residents in the design phase. So staff have focused on organizing alley cleanups and on working with the community to develop a neighborhood watch program to address residents’ needs (Tori Kjer and Laura Ballock, February 2012, personal communication).

In its conception, the Los Angeles program represents a commit- ment to environmental protection, economic development, and so- cial equity. In contrast to alley greening programs in other US cities, projects associated with the Los Angeles program are planned and executed with a wider and varying range of collaborating agencies and organizations. This model may confer benefits in terms of broader visions and enhanced capacity, and may result in creation of green alleys well-attuned to the needs of proximate residents and businesses. However, this commitment to all three values is not apparent on a project-by-project basis, and there are no codified means to ensure that any given project represents and balances environmental protection, economic development, and social equi- ty goals. Nonetheless, the fledgling Los Angeles Green Alley Program currently provides the most robust model of sustainability planning among contemporary alley greening programs in the United States.

Conclusions

By cataloging and analyzing program objectives and design fea- tures of eight alley programs, this article has documented how al- leys in the US are being operationalized as green infrastructure. Greening alleys is primarily being done to realize environmental sustainability objectives such as urban runoff mitigation and urban heat island reduction, though goals around business development and addressing social inequities including park resource distribu- tion are apparent in a small number of projects. The Los Angeles Green Alley Program demonstrates possibilities for a more integra- tive approach to implementing sustainability – though, again, not holistically on a project-by-project basis.

Collaborations that underlie the programs provide insight into the narrow focus of most alley greening efforts in the US. By and large, these programs are based in city departments with responsi- bilities for public infrastructure maintenance and enhancement, or are the initiative of environmental nongovernmental organiza- tions. The orientation of these programs toward stormwater man- agement is indicative of the availability of stormwater management funding and also of existing urban governance struc- tures, which run counter to the kind of interdepartmental collabo-

ration and public–private coalitions needed for integrative green alley projects. Planners and engineers are typically trained to see vehicular traffic, service infrastructure, and pedestrian traffic as conflicting rather than integrated activities – and seek to separate these uses. The Green Streets and Complete Streets movements are a response to this dilemma, working to dismantle the barriers be- tween municipal service delivery, vehicular transportation plan- ning, and pedestrian oriented street design. Indeed, the Los Angeles Green Alley Program is part of the larger multi-depart- mental Green Streets Committee designed explicitly to foster col- laboration across city departments that historically existed in separate silos, and even went so far as to incorporate nonprofit organizations and university researchers into their operations. Col- laborations between city departments and civil society groups that align with different or additional sets of sustainability-related val- ues have been crucial to the deployment of Los Angeles projects that demonstrate more complete commitments to sustainability.

Ultimately, most of the programs discussed here are in their in- fancy, and though heavily stormwater-focused, have the potential to expand in terms of their commitment to sustainability planning. Aiming for ‘‘low-hanging fruit’’ or actions that are relatively easy to implement (here, ‘‘easy’’ in the context of their home agencies) can provide a foundation from which to build programs that advance more complete visions of sustainability (Conroy & Beatley, 2007; Jepson, 2004). These initial forays into alley greening may help to attract attention from a diversity of actors and build support and capacity for more integrative programs.

As local government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and community groups increasingly recognize the potential for al- leys to become a backbone of green infrastructure, it would be useful to evaluate post-construction how effectively these alley greening initiatives have met their objectives. Analyses of stormwater man- agement performance, effects on residential and commercial prop- erty values and retail sales, and health and wellness outcomes will help to specify and establish the value of alleys to sustainability planning. Paying attention to other forays into alley greening – for instance, those not connected to established initiatives or programs – may reveal more integrative sustainability planning models and insight into how to catalyze alley greening efforts outside of city government. Further research will strengthen the platform for addi- tional green infrastructure efforts around alleys and to extend the theorization of neglected urban features as spaces that may be re- claimed in order to broadly foster urban sustainability.

Acknowledgments

The research presented in this paper was made possible by gen- erous financial support from the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation. We would also like to express our gratitude to Kim Reynolds, Joseph Devinny, Hilary Bradbury, Zaria Tatalovic, Greg Elwood, Mia Costa, Rachel Bramwell, Ari Briski, Michael Schreiber, Ross Stephenson, and Theadora Trindle, as well as to our community partners TreePeople, Trust for Public Land, Paco- ima Beautiful, and the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust. We thank representatives of the programs discussed in this manuscript for their time in sharing information and insight on these pro- grams. Any factual and interpretive errors are our own. We are also grateful to members of the Los Angeles Green Alleys Subcommit- tee, including Paula Daniels, Emily Gabel-Luddy, Simon Pastucha, Wing Tam, and Karen Yamamoto.

References

Ahern, J. (2007). Green infrastructure for cities: the spatial dimension. In V. Novotny & P. Brown (Eds.), Cities of the future: Towards integrated sustainable water and landscape management (pp. 267–283). London: IWA Publishing.

154 J.P. Newell et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 144–155

Andrews, R. N. L. (1997). National environmental policies: The United States. In M. Jänicke & H. Weidner (Eds.), National environmental policies: A comparative study of capacity building (pp. 25–43). Heidelberg and New York: Springer Verlag.

Beasley, E. (1996). The alleys and back buildings of Galveston: An architectural and social history. Houston: Rice University Press.

Beatley, T., & Manning, K. (1997). The ecology of place. Planning for the environment, economy, and community. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2002). Green Infrastructure: Smart conservation for the 21st century. Renewable Resources, 20, 12–17.

Ben-Horin, E., Drayse, R., & Imhoff, C. (2008). How to lead an alley revitalization project. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Center for Sustainable Cities and TreePeople.

Berg, N. (2009). From utility to amenity: greening the alleys of Los Angeles. Planetizen. <http://www.planetizen.com/node/37038>. Retrieved August 2011.

Berke, P. R. (2002). Does sustainable development offer a new direction for planning? Challenges for the twenty-first century. Journal of Planning Literature, 17, 21–36.

Borchert, J. (1980). Alley life in Washington: family, community, religion, and folklife in the city, 1850–1970. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S. (2010). Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97, 147–155.

Bryant, M. M. (2006). Urban landscape conservation and the role of ecological greenways at local and metropolitan scales. Landscape and Urban Planning, 76, 23–440.

Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradiction of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62, 296–312.

Carter, T., & Jackson, C. R. (2006). Vegetated roofs for stormwater management at multiple spatial scales. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80, 84–94.

Cassidy, A., Newell, J., & Wolch, J. (2008). Transforming alleys into green infrastructure for Los Angeles. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Center for Sustainable Cities.

Chicago Department of Transportation (2007). The Chicago green alley handbook: An action guide to create a greener, environmentally sustainable Chicago. Chicago: City of Chicago.

City of Baltimore Department of Public Works (2008). Alley gating & greening program. Baltimore: City of Baltimore. <http://www.baltimorecity.gov/ Government/AgenciesDepartments/GeneralServices/ AlleyGatingGreeningProgram.aspx>. Retrieved August 2011.

City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency (2010). South Los Angeles Green Alleys Master Plan Proposal. <http://www.sgc.ca.gov/docs/funding/ grantee_3010/3010-516_Los_Angeles.pdf>. Retrieved October 2011.

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (2009). Green Streets & Green Alleys Design Guidelines Standards (1st ed.). <http://www.lastormwater.org/ siteorg/GreenStreets/GreenstreetGuidelines_Ch1-3.pdf>. Retrieved August 2011.

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (2011). Development best management practices handbook: Working draft of LID manual. (4th ed.). <http://www.lastormwater.org/siteorg/program/LID/LID-Handbook-6-8- 11.pdf>. Retrieved August 2011.

Conroy, M. M., & Beatley, T. (2007). Getting it done: An exploration of US sustainability efforts in practice. Planning Practice and Research, 22, 25–40.

Conway, D., Li, C. Q., Wolch, J., Kahle, C., & Jerrett, M. (2008). A spatial autocorrelation approach for examining the effects of urban greenspace on residential property values. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 41, 150–169.

Deng, J., Arano, K. G., Pierskalla, C., & McNeel, J. (2010). Linking urban forests and urban tourism: A case of Savannah, Georgia. Tourism Analysis, 15, 167–181.

Devinny, J. S., & Longcore, T. (2008). Survey of soil contamination in Los Angeles alleys. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Center for Sustainable Cities.

Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., & Speck, J. (2001). Suburban nation: The rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream. New York: North Point Press.

Ford, L. R. (2001). Alleys and urban form: Testing the tenets of new urbanism. Urban Geography, 22, 268–287.

Gill, S. E., Handley, J. F., Ennos, A. R., & Pauleit, S. (2007). Adapting cities for climate change: The role of green infrastructure. Built Environment, 33, 115–133.

Goddard, M., Dougill, A., & Benton, T. (2010). Scaling up from gardens: Biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25, 90–98.

Horner, R., Lim, H., and Burges, S. (2002). Hydrologic monitoring of the Seattle ultra- urban stormwater management projects. Water resources series. Technical report no. 170.

Jepson, E. J. Jr., (2004). The adoption of sustainable development policies and techniques in US cities: How wide, how deep, and what role for planners? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23, 229–241.

Kaiser, E. J., Godschalk, D. R., & Chapin, F. S. (1995). Urban land use planning (4th ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Kambites, C., & Owen, S. (2006). Renewed prospects for green infrastructure planning in the UK. Planning, Practice & Research, 21, 483–496.

Kong, F., Yin, H., Nakagoshi, N., & Zong, Y. (2010). Urban green space network development for biodiversity conservation: Identification based on graph theory and gravity modeling. Landscape and Urban Planning, 95, 16–27.

Lake, R. W. (1996). Volunteers, NIMBYs, and environmental justice. Dilemmas of democratic practice. Antipode, 28, 160–174.

Longcore, T., & Rich, C. (2004). Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2, 191–198.

Martin, M. D. (2001). The question of alleys, revisited. Urban Design International, 6, 76–92.

Martin, M. D. (2002). The case for residential back-alleys: A North American perspective. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 17, 145–171.

Meinert, M. (2008). Hollywood property owners are mulling a fund to clean up neighborhood alleys. Los Angeles Business Journal. Los Angeles.

Mell, I. C. (2007). Green infrastructure planning: What are the costs for health and well-being? Journal of Environment, Culture, Economic and Social Sustainability, 3, 117–124.

Mell, I. C. (2008). Green infrastructure: Concepts and planning. FORUM Ejournal, 8, 69–80.

Mell, I. C. (2009). Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering Sustainability, 162, 23–34.

Newton, D. (2011). Open space starved Hollywood breaks ground on ‘‘Cahuenga Alley.’’ <http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/05/03/open-space-starved-hollywood- breaks-ground-on-cahuenga-alley/>. Retrieved December 2011.

Sandström, U. G. (2002). Green infrastructure planning in urban Sweden. Planning Practice and Research, 17, 373–385.

Schilling, J., & Logan, J. (2008). Greening the rust belt: A green infrastructure model for right sizing America’s shrinking cities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74, 451–466.

Seymour, M., Reynolds, K. D., & Wolch, J. (2010). Reliability of an audit tool for systematic assessment of urban alleyways. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 7, 214–223.

Seymour, M., Wolch, J., Reynolds, K. D., & Bradbury, H. (2010). Resident perceptions of urban alleys and alley greening. Applied Geography, 30, 380–393.

Sister, C., Wolch, J., & Wilson, J. (2010). Got green? Addressing environmental justice in park provision. GeoJournal, 75, 229–248.

Soares, A. L., Rego, F. C., McPherson, E. G., Simpson, J. R., Peper, P. J., & Xiao, Q. (2011). Benefits and costs of street trees in Lisbon, Portugal. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 10, 69–78.

The Trust for Public Land (2011). Urban greening grant application. Los Angeles, CA. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Pelonen, V., Kazmierczak, A., Niemela, J., & James, P.

(2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, 167–178.

Walmsley, A. (2006). Greenways: Multiplying and diversifying in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 76, 252–290.

Wheeler, S. M. (2004). Planning for Sustainability: Creating Livable, Equitable, and Ecological Communities. London: Routledge.

Wise, S. (2008). Green infrastructure rising: Best practices in stormwater management. Planning, 74(8), 14–20.

Wolch, J., Wilson, J. P., & Fehrenbach, J. (2005). Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: An equity-mapping analysis. Urban Geography, 26, 4–35.

Wolch, J., Newell, J., Seymour, M., Huang, H. B., Reynolds, K., & Mapes, J. (2010). The forgotten and the future: Reclaiming back alleys for a sustainable city. Environment & Planning A, 42, 2874–2896.

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wright, H. (2011). Understanding green infrastructure: the development of a contested concept in England. Local Environment, 16, 1003–1019.

Xiao, Q., & McPherson, E. G. (2002). Rainfall interception by Santa Monica’s municipal urban forest. Urban Ecosystems, 6, 291–302.

Young, I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Zelinka, A., & Beattie, W. (2003). How to turn alleys into allies. Planning, 69, 25–28.

J.P. Newell et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 144–155 155