The Urgency of Memory: Assessing the Anthropocene in Urban Deindustrial Redevelopment
Macalester College
November 16, 2018
Introduction
There is a current trend happening with redevelopment projects to adapt abandoned industrial sites into spaces for public enjoyment; The High Line, a public park constructed on a preserved historic freight train line elevated above New York City and Brooklyn’s Domino Sugar Factory, once the largest sugar refinery in the world, now turned into a site for high-rise apartments, public parks featuring pieces of machinery, and a space for public art installations, are prime examples of what I call urban deindustrial redevelopment. The defining feature of this type of redevelopment project is its celebration of the industrial history of the sites — sometimes at the expense of highlighting more important histories, such as the anthropocenic, environmental impact that industrialization has had on the environment at those places. This seems ironic, given that in this contemporary moment described as the Anthropocene, we are experiencing the negative effects that mass industrialization and development have had on the environment.
The term ‘Anthropocene’ was born out of a proposal by Paul J. Crutzen, Nobel Prize winning atmospheric chemist, to rename the current geological epoch in light of finding evidence of human activity in the earth’s geological record. The Anthropocene is an acknowledgment of the fact that humans, in the context of technological and capitalist developments, have transformed the earth beyond natural processes and systems. Put simply, it calls attention to the ways — destructive or not — that humans have altered the natural environment, accelerated by the Industrial Revolution, and it considers the environmental crisis a direct result of human activity.
Drawing from Bill McKibben, Ursula Heise, and Jennifer Fay, this paper critically engages with various interpretations of the Anthropocene. As a cultural concept, the Anthropocene prompts humans to renegotiate and re-imagine our relationship with the environment and species. In this interpretation, the environment reasserts control over its own ecosystems. Similarly, the Anthropocene, as a time period, supports technological innovation and management, but not for the purpose of industrial development; instead, technological management serves the purpose of solving or ameliorating the environmental degradation that humans have contributed to. In contrast, I am interested in exploring a more critical engagement of the Anthropocene in which the concept equips us to recognize and acknowledge human-caused environmental degradation, and in doing so, relieves us of any responsibility to try to fix it.
This analysis of the Anthropocene is discussed in the context of a major private urban deindustrial redevelopment project currently underway in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Supported by the City of Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and private developers, this project seeks to transform the Upper Harbor Terminal (UHT) from an assortment of abandoned industrial structures existing along the Mississippi River in North Minneapolis to a 48-plus-acre recreational site. This project excludes the environmental history of industrialization along the Mississippi and dismisses the environmental injustices occurring in North Minneapolis. To the extent that this UHT project attempts to incorporate the industrial sites into the new design and neglect the environmental impact of the UHT, I contend that this project enables us to interpret the Anthropocene as a way for humans to be complicit in the environmental degradation.
UHT Redevelopment and Preservation of Industrialization
The UHT is located primarily between 33rd and 40th avenues in Minneapolis, and it is composed of various industrial structures such as docks, a warehouse, storage domes, a grain elevator, conveyor system, office buildings, and support structures. These industrial structures helped to support the UHT for many decades as a barge shipping terminal for the lumber and northern pine and fir industries and eventually for industrial goods (Moberg). In 2014, the port closed and it became a storehouse for commodities (upperharbormpls.com). This area has not always been in use for industrial or commercial purposes. The land originally belonged to the Dakota First Nation, but through a treaty in 1851, the area transferred from indigenous ownership to various businesses, and finally, to the City of Minneapolis*.
A historical survey of the Upper Mississippi Harbor in 2007 deemed the area eligible to be listed both in the National Register of Historic Places and as a Minneapolis landmark (upperharbormpls.com). The UHT was deemed significant because of “the role the site played in the City of Minneapolis’ decades-long effort to have two new river locks built that would make Minneapolis, not St. Paul, the head of navigation on the Mississippi River” (upperharbormpls.com). In other words, the UHT site is celebrated for the extensive management and manipulation of the River and does not acknowledge or document the deep legacy of industrialism and its role in environmental degradation.
The first decree in 1724 to build a levee on the Mississippi River marks the beginning of the human intervention and environmental degradation of this once natural body of water and surrounding ecosystems (Madrigal). With the Flood Control Act of 1928, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was granted permission to further manipulate the River with levees, weirs, dredging, and revetments (Seventieth Congress, Sess. I. Ch. 596). These interventions are meant to tame the River so that, in part, it can be used for industrial purposes. The UHT, then, is intertwined with the industrial history of the Mississippi River and the consequential environmental impacts; shipping industrial goods along the River pollutes the water over time through the discharge of fuel and other toxins and accidental spills of oil or nonbiodegradable waste (OECD, 11). This has effects on the wildlife and natural habitats existing in or along the banks of the Mississippi. The centuries of industrial shipping occurring on the Mississippi River throughout its 2,348 miles no doubt has had unmeasurable detrimental effects on the environment.
According to the City of Minneapolis, the overarching goals for the UHT redevelopment project are to create a unique regional park and recreational space for community members and to preserve the (industrial) history of the UHT. The City of Minneapolis is working with private developers and seeking community input to carry out this project. Plans for redesigning the site attempt to preserve and adapt the industrial structures into deindustrialized sites. For instance, a few ideas for reconstruction are: “Beer fermentation tanks in the grain elevators, with an adjacent taproom; Aquaponics in the warehouse or possibly parking for a major riverfront destination; an indoor recreation center and climbing wall in a dome, leading up to a zipline that would follow the existing conveyors” (upperharbormpls.com).
Erasure of Environmental History in Urban Deindustrial Redevelopment
Another goal of the UHT project is to “showcase ‘green,’ sustainable approaches and features” (upperharbormpls.com); however, the proposed plans and preparation phase suggest that environmental sustainability is at best an embellishment to the project rather than a central goal. The reconstruction ideas discussed above promote consumerist and capitalist behaviors (which are ultimately anti-environmental), and although the zipline would facilitate interaction with nature, it could instead be invasive to the environment. The plans do not mention whether trees will need to be cleared for the zipline to be implemented. Instead, the private developers spearheading this project (United Properties, Inc., THOR Development, and First Avenue Productions) have investigated the site for any environmental conditions — such as presence of hazardous materials or groundwater contamination — which would act as major challenges or barriers to redevelopment (upperharbormpls.com). On the other hand, it appears that no studies were done on the negative effects that redevelopment would have on the environment itself.
Instead, the redevelopment of the UHT appears to be a gentrification project to enhance the appeal of North Minneapolis, where the UHT is primarily located. In addition to beer fermentation tanks and a zipline, the proposed plans also include “a themed restaurant, photo studio, planetarium or other use that could take advantage of the large open space in a dome” (upperharbormpls.com) and an “8,000 to 10,000-seat riverfront amphitheater” (uproperties.com).
It is important to note that the primary private developer involved in this project, United Properties, Inc., does industrial, office, retail, healthcare, and senior living development projects. As of May 2018, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton approved $15 million in funding for this UHT project (Belz).
While the City of Minneapolis acknowledges the racial and economic inequalities of North Minneapolis, the UHT project’s plan suggests that the City does not take seriously the need to address them: “Given its size and key riverfront location, the redevelopment of the UHT site offers the opportunity to positively impact North Minneapolis through the provision of a major new regional park amenity as well as adjacent private development that will benefit the community” (upperharbormpls.com). Besides discussing affordable housing, the UHT project points to Psycho Suzi’s Motor Lounge and Betty Danger’s Country Club, among others, as similar redevelopment projects in North and Northeast Minneapolis that supposedly have had positive impacts on the residents (upperharbormpls.com).
Moreover, in celebrating the industrial legacy of the barge shipping terminal, the UHT project ignores and de-legitimizes the environmental injustices that residents living in the industrialized area of North Minneapolis have to endure. Since 2014, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has recorded “violations of the state standard for particles in an industrial area of North Minneapolis” as well as, in 2015, concerning levels of heavy metals in the air, including chromium, cobalt, and nickel. The MPCA found Northern Metal Recycling, an industrial metal recycling facility, partly responsible for this air pollution (Yuen); in fact, there are many industrial culprits contributing to the environmental hazards of North Minneapolis, such as Interstate 94 (I-94). These environmental hazards, caused by industrial sites, have dangerous health effects that are disproportionately affecting poorer communities of color, making this an environmental justice issue: “The ZIP code that covers much of north Minneapolis — where most residents are people of color — has the highest hospitalization rates for asthma in Minnesota. It’s also home to the highest rates of lead poisoning among children in the city, according to state and city health officials” (Yuen). By ignoring the environmental impacts of the UHT on the environment and surrounding community in the redevelopment plan, this project, and by extension, the City of Minneapolis, seems to be sending a clear message to the residents of North Minneapolis. The $15 million secured for the UHT project could instead be redirected toward improving air quality and establishing environmental education programs and improved access to healthcare.
Given that the UHT project aspires to preserve the legacy of industrialization and that the proposed amenities seem inaccessible to a majority of the residents living near the UHT, it has implications for which audience the redevelopment project is meant. It does not appear to be in the interests of the residents of North Minneapolis, and it is clearly not attempting to emphasize the environmental effects of industrialization on the Mississippi River. This raises broader implications for understanding the idea of the Anthropocene.
Anthropocene and the Urgency of Memory
The UHT project’s desire to privilege the industrial history rather than raise awareness of the impacts it has had on the environment suggests that the Anthropocene, in this context, is not a re-imagination of humans’ relationship with the environment, as proposed by McKibben. In McKibben’s interpretation of the Anthropocene, humans are constructed as central agents in the renegotiation or re-imagination of humans’ relationship with the environment. It invites us to consider the current moment, how we got here, and where to go next. It opens up the possibility for a shift in power, where the environment or nature can reassert domination and authority. The UHT project, however, does not re-imagine humans’ relationship with the environment. By choosing to highlight the industrial history of the site, the UHT project reaffirms the hierarchy of humans as masters of the earth. A redevelopment project of this scale necessitates invasive environmental management and intervention. If the UHT project embodied McKibben’s understanding of the Anthropocene, the redevelopers would focus on minimizing environmental effects, thus allowing the environment to reassert authority. This is clearly not a priority for the UHT project.
The acknowledgement of humans’ mastery over nature could, as suggested by Heise, further prompt an increase in environmental management and surveillance. In fact, this could be an accurate description of the UHT project, as it has prompted testing and documentation of environmental conditions. However, drawing from Heise and Fay, the intention of this type of intervention would be purely for the benefit of the environment, to study the environmental crisis and how earth systems have been affected. In this understanding, then, “the Anthropocene confronts us with the fact that we need to learn how to live and die in an unpredictable and increasingly inhospitable world” (Fay 11). In accepting the destruction that humans have caused, one response, as described by Heise and Fay, is to apply the same tools and technology that have contributed to the destruction to figuring out how to adapt and possibly even reverse some of these inhospitable conditions. Yet, the UHT project does not express concern for the effects of industrialization on the Mississippi River. If it did — if Heise and Fay’s interpretation of the Anthropocene would apply — then the redevelopment plan might include rewilding efforts, where technology would be implemented to reshape ecological systems in such a way that would allow the environment to better thrive in the age of the Anthropocene (Heise 212). In the context of the UHT, rewilding could mean disassembling the multiple levees and dams that have been used to control the Mississippi River, or replacing the abandoned industrial structures of the UHT with monuments to document the history of humans’ management of the River. With these alternative plans, the redevelopment project would be acknowledging the environmental impact and creating a space for the public to critically reflect on this complex history.
If we accept Crutzen’s claim that we are living in the age of the Anthropocene, which implies that humans have caused extreme environmental degradation, then, drawing from McKibben, anything not actively being done to address and reverse the environmental crisis is thus considered a complicit acceptance of human-caused destruction. As the UHT project is not focused on the environmental impact of the redevelopment, it supports the interpretation of the Anthropocene as an opportunity to recognize the negative impact that humans have had on the environment — and not take any substantial action to address the environmental crisis.
My critique of the UHT project extends even further. From analyzing the process, goals, and proposed amenities, it does not seem that the City of Minneapolis or the private developers even recognize the negative effects that human intervention has had on the land surrounding the area or the Mississippi River. Instead of creating beer fermentation tanks and an indoor recreational facility as a way to preserve the industrial history of the UHT, the goal of the project should be to raise awareness of both the industrial and environmental impacts of this 48-plus-acre site.
*(Footnote): With the 1851 Treaties of Traverse de Sioux and Treaty of Mendota, Dakota people sold the majority of their land to the U.S. government for the price of $3,750,000. These treaties were signed as a result of military and economic pressures. The Dakota people received barely any of the money they were legally owed (treatiesmatter.org). For more information: http://www.usdakotawar.org/history/treaties/minnesota-treaties http://usdakotawar.org/history/treaty-mendota http://www.mnhs.org/talesoftheterritory/territory/treaty/treaties.php
References
Belz, Adam. “North Minneapolis riverfront gets $15 million for redevelopment.” Star Tribune, May 2018. Retrieved from http://www.startribune.com/north-minneapolis-riverfront-gets-15-million-for-redevelopment/484104661/
Crutzen, Paul J. and Schwägerl, Christian. “Living in the Anthropocene: Toward a New Global Ethos.” Yale Environment 360, 2011. Retrieved from https://e360.yale.edu/features/living_in_the_anthropocene_toward_a_new_global_ethos
Fay, Jennifer. Inhospitable World: cinema in the time of the anthropocene. Oxford University Press, New York, 2018.
Heise, Ursula. Imagining Extinction: the cultural meanings of endangered species. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2016.
Ibrahim, Mukhtar. “Dangerous level of air pollution recorded in north Minneapolis.” Star Tribune, May 2018. Retrieved fromhttp://www.startribune.com/dangerous-level-of-air-pollution-recorded-in-north-minneapolis/481691191/
Lippe-McGraw, Jordi. “6 Things You Never Knew About The Domino Sugar Factory.” Forbes, September 2018. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jordilippemcgraw/2018/09/20/weird-facts-domino-sugar-fctory/#c38f3ca53efd
Madrigal, Alexis, C. “What We’ve Done to the Mississippi River: An Explainer.” The Atlantic, May 2011. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/what-weve-done-to-the mississippi-river-an-explainer/239058/
McKibben, Bill. Eaarth: making a life on a tough new planet. Times Books, New York, 2010.
Moberg, Laurie. 2016. “Minneapolis’ Upper Harbor Terminal: A Geostory of Collaborative Creation.” Open Rivers: Rethinking The Mississippi, no. 4. http://editions.lib.umn.edu/openrivers/article/minneapolis-upper-harbor-terminal-a-geostory-of-collaborative-creation/.
MPCA. “New data confirms poor air quality in North Minneapolis.” Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, March 2016. Retrieved from https://www.pca.state.mn.us/featured/new-data-confirms-poor-air-quality-north-minneapolis
(OECD). 1997. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. “The Environmental Effects of Freight.” Paris. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/environment/envtrade/2386636.pdf
Seventieth Congress, Sess. I. Ch. 596. 1928. “Chap. 569-An Act For the control of floods on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and for other purposes.” Retrieved from https://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/Portals/52/docs/MRC/Appendix_E._1928_Flood_Contol_Act.pdf
Yuen, Laura. “Minneapolis community funds focus on lead poisoning, asthma.” Minnesota Public Radio, September 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/09/25/minneapolis-community-funds-focus-on-le-poisoning-asthma
http://upperharbormpls.com/
https://www.uproperties.com/
https://www.thehighline.org/visit/
