Reinstating Urban Ecological Commons Ecological commons as determinants of inclusive and resilient Urban form
Ashwin S | SPA/NS/UD/859 | MUD, SPA Delhi
INTRODUCTION
Area of Concern Chennai’s Ecology Thesis Intent Literature Reviews Case Studies
Introduction Area of Concern
Abstract spaces
Since time immemorial, the interfaces between the built fabric of a city and its ecological resource became inclusive common spaces for commerce, recreation, religious gathering and other activities. As cities evolved to be places of capital accumulation, the association for such functions faded and the common spaces around such ecological resources became commodified spaces for the richer group and refugee spaces for the marginalized.
Social spaces
Neighborhood commons Infrastructure commons Urban Commons Ecological commons
Unless there is a holistic framework that acknowledge the ecological assets and the common spaces adjoining them to build ecological integrity and social relationships, the concerns pertaining to the diminishing and marginalized ecological systems would threaten the sustainable future of the cities. Private
Commons
Urban Ecological Commons = Natural resource commons (Green-blue lifelines) + Socio ecological commons (Social spaces)
Cities in the past Houses
Private
Streets
Neighborhood Restricted Commons
Local ecology
Commodified
Streets
Neighborhood
Local ecology
Neglected/ Refugee
Natural resource
Chennai’s Ecology Chennai has had a great relationship to rainwater and temporal waterbodies and the ecological commons in their conjunction in history. Rainwater is now seen as waste water to be drained rather than a resource. Perennial waterbodies and the land associated to them are seen as land assets because of lack of ownership.
Natural resource
Contemporary cities Houses
Cultural commons
• From 150 water bodies in 1970, the city now holds only 27 waterbodies • 37 areas of Chennai spread along 14 wards have been declared the most vulnerable to flood • 78% of the city’s slums are directly on/ on the fringe of ecologically sensitive areas
Source: The Indian Express: Chennai’s water crisis is man-made (26.06.19)
Introduction Intent and Framework Statement of Intent Urban commons can provide a key to sustainable living and wellbeing in cities, helping citizens forge new connections, rebuild social capital and reclaim their right to the city. Urban Design can, by a systematic approach, can activate these ecological commons to appreciate them as a part of their everyday life. This can be done by exploring the idea of how these natural commons can be integrated as a part of neighborhood commons. Or how the cultural commons get spatially manifested through these natural commons.
Aim To create a new model for resilient and inclusive neighborhoods, that establishes the lost linkages with the diminishing ecological commons thereby addressing the ecological and social concerns relating to these commons
Objectives • Augmenting and enhancing public space provision in the city • Establishing the interdependencies between people and ecology thereby enabling a greater efficiency in usage of open green spaces and water edges • Addressing the development pressure on the ecological features by guiding sensible new development • Making the city resilient and flexible towards seasonal floods
Scope The thesis presents a model of an inclusive neighborhood that sets a benchmark for any outgrowth development in an area with ecological assets, without compromising on the physicality of the asset, retaining the social linkages that are bound to it and its surroundings
Secondary Studies
1971
2016
Key Plan
Literature Reviews Reading History and Power in Urban Landscapes: The Lens of Urban Political Ecology - Karen Coelho • Urban spaces are hybrid productions at different levels defined by socio spatial manifestations like capital projects and nature as an empirical force and a social construct of values. • Boundaries between city and ecology drawn by the different political forces curbed the hybrid relationship and gave way for infill developments to enhance the supply of housing and to accommodate capital projects through the case examples of Delhi’s development along the Yamuna floodplain. • To resolve the issues created by these drawn boundaries, the same political forces, in name of ecorestoration gone past the historical functions to appropriate new functional roles that are again development oriented rather than establishing the hybrid relationship. • The contemporary revalorization efforts by the political forces further dislodges the value of livelihood of these subaltern groups who are forced to the peripheries where they have yet another contestation with the capitalist investments.
2
1
3
Kodungayur lake
4 5
Madhavaram tank
Haunted Landscapes: Ghosts of Chennai Past, Present and Future yet to come - Beth Cullen • The British classified lands along waterbodies and wetlands as ‘wastelands’ (porambokke) or nonrevenue generating lands • In the 1970s and 80s, these forgotten water bodies were filled to house the new housing schemes to cater to the rapid development of the city. • The ghosts of these dead waterbodies have been haunting us in means of floods and droughts resulting in palpable sense of horror. • Further, the neoliberal vision of the future made sure that there is no the pace of growth never slowed down and the city expanding outwards replicating the historic negative relationship with its waterbodies.
Perambur lake
Pallikaranai marsh Water body
Velachery lake
Built encroachments
Vegetation
Water vs Land negotiation A comparative analysis
Vacant lands
Source: Author
Secondary Studies Case Studies Hammarby Sjostad, Stockholm, Sweden
Chitra Nagar, Chennai
Justification The Hammarby Model serves as a universal planning approach towards an ecologically sensitive and sustainable neighborhood which is the primary intent for the thesis
Justification Chitra Nagar, located within Chennai, has similar characteristics in terms of physicality and society as the selected site
Description The Hammarby Model, which is the district’s attempt at a balanced, “closed-loop urban metabolism”, accounts for the unified infrastructure of energy, water and waste.
Description The Chitra Nagar housing scheme will be retrofitted to close the water loop through water collection, recycling and recharge, as well as solid waste management: giving residents a reliable and clean source of water while preventing chronic floods and standing water. Nature Based solutions are proposed for in-situ sewage treatment and sanitation schemes are developed to improve the overall health of the population
Key Takeaways • Green network as a connector of major green spaces – ecological integrity • Establishing a movement system that is continuous and integrated with the continuous green • Housing development in conjunction with the transportation network – equal access to all parts by all walks of the society • Waste segregation system – generation of electricity from waste; waste as manure for agriculture
Key Takeaways • Water edges bounded by walkway making it as a frontal space for the community • Social facing water edges – doubling as retention ponds during monsoon • Increased permeability across the site and structured drainage system ensures storm water drains to the river • Urban forestry and community led farming adds to ecological value and generates income for the community
Source: Gaffney A. (2007), Hammarby Sjostad Case Study | CP 249 Urban Design in Planning 2007
Source: Ooze Architects (2016)Water as Leverage for Resilient Cities Asia
THE CITY AND THE STUDY AREA
City’s Growth and Commons
Functional Association Typologies of Commons Transformation Trends Site Studies Built and Ecological interface
Understanding the City
km
City’s Growth and Commons
Built area vs Ecological Commons 1973
Built area vs Ecological Commons 1991
Loss in the ecological assets and common spaces in the city between 1973-2008
Built area vs Ecological Commons 2008
Source: MP-II/2008 - CMA Change in Urbanization (Chennai second Masterplan)
From a cluster of fishing villages in the 16th Century to the fourth largest metropolitan area in India today, Chennai has come a long way. Chennai city, the fourth largest metropolitan city of the country, finds 157th rank in the list of urban areas categorized by developed land area i.e. urban foot print. Chennai has developed from a population of 64.25 lakhs and an area of over 609 sq km (with a population density of 10,550 persons per sq km) during 2001, to oven 90 lakhs in 2008. Urban areas increased by 70 percent, in Chennai, India, between 1991 and 2008, mainly towards the periphery. Chennai urban area is expected to attain a population of 100.70 lakhs in the year 2025. Chennai is expanding rapidly in all directions from the core city, along the 5 major highways, commodifying the ecological common spaces and on/ around the ecological features, making them residual parts of the city. Two major rivers, Adyar and Cooum form the major ecological features in the city with 58% of their banks occupied by the marginalized population and 40% being unusable. The only accessible portion of the rivers are the eco parks. In present days, 72% of the ecological features and the commons related to them are present in the periphery of the city 1973
1982
1991
2008
Water bodies
Petroleum Industrial zone – Predominant ecological commons – sea and beach; Creek – Petro-chemical based activities
Understanding the City
km
Functional Association
Aviation and Railway Industrial zone – Predominant ecological common – reservoirs, lakes and protected forests – restricted activities
Proposed land use 2006 (Chennai Master plan document 1975)
Existing land use 2006 (Chennai Master plan document 2008)
Proposed Landuse 2026 (Chennai Master plan 2006) LEGENDS Residential
Automobile Industrial zone – Predominant ecological commons – Reserved forest, Lakes and rivers
Commercial Institutional Mixed use
Industrial
Aviation zone Predominant ecological commons – Hills – reserved forest – restricted access
Core city area - Predominant ecological commons Rivers, beaches, national park – multifunctional
Forests/ Agriculture Open green/ Recreation Non-Urbanizable Urbanizable Water bodies
Source: Second Master Plan 2026 document (2008)
Outgrowth area– Predominant ecological commons - Agriculture lands, Lakes and ponds – agriculture based activity
IT/ SEZ zone – Predominant ecological commons - Marshland, Beaches – Recreational activity
Understanding the City
I. Protected greens Reserve/ Protected forests – Owned and maintained by the Forest Department Catchment area and CRZ – Owned by government – Restricted usage/ development
Typologies of Commons Ennore Kosashthalayar Flood Plains
Red hills catchment area Protected forest area after Chennai floods – development prohibited
II. Infrastructure/ Cultural commons Religious institutions – Owned by HRCED or private Airports/ Bus terminals/ Port Government institutions Private institutions – Restricted access Roads and streets
Marina beach – Largest inclusive common space in the city Guindy National Park and IIT campus forest Chennai Airport and Aviation area – development control
Adyar Ecological park
III. Open greens/ Recreation Green pockets around water bodies City level parks Neighborhood parks Amusement parks, theatres, multiplexes – privately owned - restricted access
LEGENDS
IV. Beaches
Protected greens Infrastructure
Pallikaranai Marshlands
Open greens Beaches
ECR Beach
Water based Non-Urbanizable Roads
Nanmangalam Forest reserves and Lakes km
V. Water based Sea River – No ownership Lakes – Owned by PWD – Restricted development/usage Ponds – Owned by local Municipal authority Wetlands – Owned by NWA – restricted access/usage
Urban Ecological Commons Transformation Trends 1987
Built
Water
Green
2020
Nanmangalam protected forest – Reduced from 2400 hectares to 320 hectares in 4 decades due to mining and encroachment
1987
Protected forests – Forests maintained by the state fall prey for Resettlements colonies, Institutional developments and real estate. Forests existing inside campuses like IIT and CLRI remains intact
2020
Pallikaranai Marshlands – The area of this marshland reduced from 52 sq.km to 4.5 sq.km between 1960 and 2010
Built to edge – Poor interface – Lack of visibility and permeability Mangroves and Wetlands – Otherwise restricted from construction by private developers, the wetlands and sensitive interfaces are compromised for MRTS corridors, TNHB housing and other physical infrastructure
Built over ecology – Diminishing ecological system and social association
Urban Ecological Commons Transformation Trends 1987
Built
Water 2020
Green
Rivers – Real estate developments replaced agriculture in floodplains; marginalized population occupied/ replaced along the common green spaces adjacent to rivers choking the drainage system and freedom to swell up during monsoon
Soft edge – Agriculture and urban forest
Kaateri lake
Adyar River – The perineal river that had over 120 tributaries, now has none, local drainage carrying sewage and solid waste draining into it during monsoon
1987
2020
Built edge – Real estate/ slums
Lakes/ Ponds– Newer built developments engulf the common spaces around the local water bodies and cut-off the larger linkages to other system
Soft edge – Space for cattle rearing, recreation
Velacherry Lake – The area of the lake reduced drastically to 1/4th its size from 1991 due to unorganized and rapid development due to city’s expansion
Built edge – Real estate/ slums
Site Analysis Introduction
Demographics:
Types of commons:
Location: Urapakkam (Census town)
• Mannivalkam
Authority: CMA/ PU
• Sittheri lake – Ecological common
Population: 14,561
• Urapakkam
Accessible open space: 1.13 sq.km Per capita open space: 7.8 sq.m Built vs open: 1:4
–
Ecological common
Site area: 1.4 sq.km
Population density: 10,051 people/ sq.km
lake
pond
VANDALUR
–
Ecological common
• Adyar
river/
stream
–
Ecological common • Lake and river wetlands – Ecological commons • Urapakkam railway station – Infrastructure common
Sittheri lake
Mannivakkam lake
Outgrowth area - Mannivakkam
The transformation trends and the commons based study in the city suggest that it is essential to address the unorganized growth through multi-disciplinary approach, especially along the peripheries that are rapidly disassociating with the abundant ecological commons that are being taken up by developments. Mannivakkam, falls under the south western periphery of Chennai. It is facing a steady urban growth overlooking its ecological system, with multiple city level anchors in proximity. The locational context of the site, parallel to the national highway 45, adjacent to the outer-ring road and in proximity to the newly proposed Mofussil bus terminal, provides a possibility for this area to develop as an important urban anchor of the area.
LEGENDS Primary road Secondary road
Urapakkam flyover
Tertiary streets Agriculture land
Urapakkam pond
River
Urapakkam railway station
Lake/ Pond Public open space Water edges/ Wetlands
URAPAKKAM
Site Analysis
Built Use distribution
Movement and Built Use
• 88% primary Residential • 10% mixed residential
PERI college VANDALUR
PERI college VANDALUR
zone • 2% institutional
Built and Ecology • 16% of residential plots built on water edge • 21% of residential plots facing water edge • 38% built edge – 62% Mannivakkam lake
soft edge
Sittheri lake
Sittheri lake
Mannivakkam lake
LEGENDS Railway line
Residential Mixed use residential
Urapakkam flyover
Industrial
Hr. Sec. School
Institutional Commercial
Urapakkam pond
Plots for sale Urapakkam railway station
The Urapakkam flyover that connects the site to the NH-45 is an important anchor for the area’s development along with the Urapakkam railway station
Urapakkam railway station
Barren land Water bodies
URAPAKKAM
Site Analysis Built Ecological interfaces
Wetland
Open Space beyond compound wall
Residence
B
1
Solid waste disposal in open land beyond compound wall
A
Wild green space proves to be a barrier for visual connection to the pond
LEGENDS
LEGENDS Residential
Commercial
Built
Men
Solid waste
Mixed use residential
Barren land
Open space
Women
Liquid waste
Religious
Water bodies
Water bodies
Cattles
Primary road
Secondary road
Informal eateries branching out of commercial stretch in the edge of pond; Waste disposal in pond; Undefined pedestrian movement
1
Section A – Newer developments give no respect to the ecological interface making them backyards of the area
2m wide shoulder
18 m wide primary access road from flyover
4m wide shoulder
Road edges occupied by vehicles disrupts pedestrian movement
Section B – Primary access road serves as commercial anchor overlooking the pond
Site Analysis Built Ecological interfaces
1
A
1
2
Negative Interface - Increased land value led to real estate investments which eventually leads to landfill into the lake
LEGENDS
LEGENDS Residential
Commercial
Built
Men
Solid waste
Mixed use residential
Barren land
Open space
Women
Liquid waste
Religious
Water bodies
Water bodies
Cattles
Primary road
Secondary road
Wetland
Edge
3m wide mud road
Semi private cattle spaces
Semi pukka houses
Positive Interface – Community using waterbody for a variety of purposes Strong relationship with lake for washing, cleaning and cattle rearing
2
Fenced semi private space for cattle and domestic birds
Section A – Community using the water from the lake for domestic use
Site Analysis Built Ecological interfaces
1
1 Edges of the river defined by compound walls that are physical and visual barriers making the edges as waste dumping spaces, spaces for defecation and spaces of anti-social activities
LEGENDS
LEGENDS Residential
Commercial
Built
Men
Solid waste
Mixed use residential
Barren land
Open space
Women
Liquid waste
Religious
Water bodies
Water bodies
Cattles
Primary road
Secondary road
2 2 Green pockets amidst development not administered or maintained making them unhygienic spaces of waste dumping and defecation
URBAN DESIGN INTENT
Prioritized Issues and Vision
Planning Guidelines Existing Structure Plans Design Strategies Proposed Structure Plans Site Delineation and Expected Outcomes
Inferences Prioritized Set of Issues Issues
Concerns Ecological
Social
Diminishing ecological features
Development pressure due to urban growth
Break in blue green network
Unplanned new development
Ecological fringes seen as backyards to
•
developments
•
economically backward
double as ecological corridors
•
A network of public space that connects the green zones with appropriate functions to activate the edges
systems and edges
•
Unorganized development
pedestrian access
•
Amenities accessible only from the primary road
•
Lack of access to basic amenities
•
Poor housing infrastructure for the economically
•
No alternate source of income/ lack
Infrastructure
Buffer green zone around waterbodies and wetlands that
Lack of prominence/ownership to ecological
Poor road networks; Lack of
•
•
community
Ecological fringes – settlements of
Spatial/
Lack of association of water/ green edges with
Strategies
•
movement and NMV •
weaker section
of job opportunity to women
Hierarchical road networks with emphasis to pedestrian Introduction of mixed use development and amenities along main corridors and nodes
•
Housing for the poor groups with better infrastructure
Vision Statement An inclusive neighbourhood that is resilient to natural forces, respects the ecological assets and celebrates the common spaces associated with them as everyday spaces, thereby fostering
ecological integrity and social cohesion
making it economically and socially viable.
Proposed Guidelines and Planning Frameworks Regulations • Introducing Waterside Regulation Zone (WRZ) that restricts development along water edges at two levels: - WRZ 1 – No development from minimum water level to maximum water level - WRZ 2 – Low density development from maximum water level till 50-100m (based on the size of waterbody) • Classification of open greens, recreational and green infrastructures as separate land uses. • Addition of special greens to land-use that mandates 25% of it to be in any WRZ development • Protected/Reserved forests, Rivers and canals to be listed as natural heritage under heritage precincts section of the masterplan
WRZ 1 WRZ 2 Waterbody
Guidelines • Any new development in the city: - In the higher parts of the local drainage basin – necessary to drain water from site towards the existing drainage path - In the low-lying parts of the local drainage basin – to ensure that the development doesn’t disrupt the drainage path; if disrupted, to ensure continuity in drainage system by provision of alternate means - On the existing catchment area – must have a local water body to collect the draining water or provisions to drain water to the nearest drainage system - All drainage body/routes to be identified as special greens • Local Sewage collection Plant (SCP) in each ward and any new development that cannot have an on-site STP should connect to the local SCP and shouldn’t leave the sewage into the waterbodies • All existing/proposed roads/bridges over an existing water body to have open greens on either side to an extent of 1/3rd the width of the road
Drain towards existing path No construction on drainage path Local drainage
Alternating drainage route
Proposed Guidelines and Planning Frameworks
km
Governance • Integrated water authority that addresses all water related moves by various agencies– Integrating the fragmented control and distribution system • Categorizing water bodies in terms of hierarchy of sizes and de-centralizing the management systems • Special greens along the waterbodies to come under Integrated water authority and other greens apart from the green infrastructure to be maintained by forest authority as accessible greens
Water distribution Lake management
Open green infrastructure
Spatial strategies
Ponds and small water body management
Integrated water authority
Slums along the water bodies: High rise low density in-situ rehabilitation by PPP (in accordance with WRZ) Incentive for developers with Premium FSI for 25% EWS housing in any development in WRZ 2 MRTS stations to have 100m of recreational zones on either side that favors local informal commerce • All pedestrian pathways to have water percolation systems to be collected at the local water body • All new transit infrastructure to have local water collection pit that can be re-used for the usage within the transit campus
LEGENDS Water bodies
• •
WRZ Slum redevelopment
Mannivakkam
New Development zones
Existing Structure Plan Ecological Systems
LEGENDS
Water body (dry season) Water body (monsoon season) Wetlands porambokke Paddy cultivation Un cultivated agriculture lands Barren land (Poramboke)
1
Lake as seen from the community
2
Perineal drain that connects to lake
3
Agriculture fields as seen from road
Plots for sale Water level during heavy monsoon Ridges Water drainage pattern
1
3
• The area drains into the three lakes. The existing connections between the lakes following natural slopes are compromised for new developments. • Edges of the lakes flanked by non-accessible barren lands and un cultivated agriculture lands having dense vegetation covers • This interface forms potential space for design interventions that serves as visual and functional anchor for a number of non-built usage
2
Existing Structure Plan Morphology and Movement
LEGENDS
Water body (dry season) Water body (monsoon season) Wetlands porambokke Paddy cultivation Un cultivated agriculture lands Plots for sale Housing types
Section A – Secondary Road in a mid rise neighborhood (High income migrants)
Apartments and mid rise Low rise/ Single unit Semi-pucca single unit Katcha/ LIG/EWS housing Gated communities Educational institutions Primary transit route Secondary Vehicular route
Section B – Tertiary Road in a low rise neighborhood (Low/ mid income migrants/ students)
Tertiary mud road Schools Religious places A
B
C
Section C – Primary Road – Mixed use/ Commercial zone
Existing Structure Plan Interface
LEGENDS
Water body (dry season) Water body (monsoon season) Wetlands porambokke Paddy cultivation Un cultivated agriculture lands Plots for sale Housing types Apartments and mid rise B
Low rise/ Single unit Semi-pucca single unit
Section A – Hard edge Interface to river defined by compound walls
Katcha/ LIG/EWS housing Gated communities Educational institutions
A
Primary transit route Water level during heavy monsoon Hard edge Soft edge Existing dependencies - Access Schools Religious places Section B – Soft edge Interface – Agrarian population area – views to lake • Potential views and vistas exist along the lake edges other than the areas which are built to edges • Accessible areas to lake are used to rear cattle and for open defecation
Proposed Design Ideations Spatial Strategies
Existing system
Existing system
Drainage system and Water levels
Strategy 1- Conservation
Flood prone areas
Strategy 2 – Activating edges
Strategy
Strategy 3 – Networking/ Access
Proposed Design Ideations Spatial Strategies
Existing system
Utilizing the potential of nodes to enhance livelihood
Existing system
Enhancing last mile connectivity with hierarchy of movement corridors
Existing system
Introducing new functions and inducing community led stewardship to maintain the commons
Proposed Structure Plan Ecological Network
LEGENDS Water body Paddy cultivation Wetlands porambokke Public green spaces
Public open spaces Creating a network of walkable and cyclable green corridors that breaks barrier between neighborhoods
Linking the green corridors to water bodies to re-establish the lost connection to the water and creating a larger inclusive public green
Strategies: 1. Green Loop - Eco-sensitive ecological edges Creating a green buffer to the existing water bodies and wetlands that provide a continuous loop of green spaces that doubles as walkways and NMV routes; path for cattle and other fauna movement
Proposed Structure Plan Movement Network
LEGENDS Water body Paddy cultivation Wetlands porambokke Public green spaces
Public open spaces
Proposed transit route – mixed use edge Proposed transit route – soft edge Proposed NMV and pedestrian route Proposed Eco trail
Proposed multimodal transit node
Strategies: 1. Green Loop - Eco-sensitive ecological edges Creating a green buffer to the existing water bodies and wetlands that provide a continuous loop of green spaces that doubles as walkways and NMV routes; path for cattle and other fauna movement 2. Circulation Loop – Hierarchy of Access roads Designing new roads and enhancing existing roads to form a loop of road systems that are inclusive and facilitates the drainage pattern by managing the surface run-off Introducing multimodal transit nodes at appropriate places to facilitate access to alternate means of movement
Proposed Structure Plan Functional Structure
LEGENDS Water body Paddy cultivation Wetlands porambokke Public green spaces
Proposed transit route – mixed use edge Proposed transit route – soft edge Proposed NMV and pedestrian route Proposed Eco trail
Public open spaces
Proposed multimodal transit node
Institutional zone – Visual connect
Proposed amenity and work center node
Market area – Functional dependency
Proposed Water treatment plants
Community/ Recreational zone – Ecological and Visual connect
Housing zone – Physical recreational interface
Strategies: 1. Green Loop - Eco-sensitive ecological edges Creating a green buffer to the existing water bodies and wetlands that provide a continuous loop of green spaces that doubles as walkways and NMV routes; path for cattle and other fauna movement 2. Circulation Loop – Hierarchy of Access roads Designing new roads and enhancing existing roads to form a loop of road systems that are inclusive and facilitates the drainage pattern by managing the surface run-off Introducing multimodal transit nodes at appropriate places to facilitate access to alternate means of movement 3. Functional Loop – Series of connected functions Inducing appropriate functions to the common areas along the ecological interface making them a loop of inclusive and accessible spaces to the different communities of the locality
DESIGN DEMONSTRATIONS
Site Delineation Design Demonstration – Site A Design Demonstration – Site B Design Demonstration – Site C Conclusion
Site Delineation Expected Outcomes • A continuous ecological system that facilities un-interrupted ecological processes • Socially inclusive and ecologically sensitive interface between communities and the ecological features • Clearly defined views and vistas that celebrates the aesthetic beauty • The ‘ecological urban commons’ owned and maintained by all sections of the society
Vision Statement An inclusive neighbourhood that is resilient to natural forces, respects the ecological assets and celebrates the common spaces associated with them as everyday spaces,
thereby fostering ecological integrity and social cohesion making it economically and
Site A
socially viable.
Agriculture and Community zone – Commons as economic drivers Social cohesion/ Socio-economic development Site C
Institutional – Ecological Interface – Commons as Social facilitators New Urban Center
Site B
Commercial – Community - Ecological Interface Socio economic development/ Community anchor
Design Demonstration
Towards Outer Ring Road Towards NH45
Site A – Proposed Structure Plan
Crematorium
Key Plan – Not to scale
Strategy 1 – Ecological integrity – • Reinstating the lost ecological connections; • Protect the edges – Defining the boundaries of the ecological features with buffer plantation
Legends
Market
Agriculture Fields Community Center
Bus stop
Wetlands Water bodies Community space New Mixed Use Developments Transit corridor Shared Street Pedestrian routes
Amenities
Strategy 2 – Socio ecological linkages – • Making the defined edges as daily pedestrian and NMV movement corridors • Facilitation the access to the edges through alternate means
Multi-modal transit spot Towards Otteri village
Commercial Node Green corridor Entry node
Design Demonstration Site A – Detailed Design Plan Legends 1. Vegetable Market 1a. Space for Informal commerce 1b. Forecourt 1c. Waste management Unit 2. Farmer’s cooperative and retail 3. Community Kitchen 4. Community hall 5. Maidan/ Multipurpose ground 6. Outdoor play 7. Outdoor gym and Children’s play 8. Community park 9. Space for Energy generation 10. Proposed mixed use 11. Transit corridor 12. Multimodal transit area 13. Promenade 14. Farming
1c 2 1b
1a
14
5
9 1
10
3
13
6 14
4 11
8 12 7
Key Plan – Not to scale
Design Demonstration Site A – View of Transit Corridor
Public toilet in the pedestrian – transit road intersection improves hygiene
Cycle stand in proximity to bus stop facilitates the users
Electric rickshaw stand – Availability of NMV means of transport promotes NMV usage
Street furniture facilitates pedestrian movement
3m Wide pedestrian pathway with appropriate signage improves walkability
New Mixed use commercial units utilizes the potential of transit corridor
Bus stops at important junctions
Ecological Buffer bars physical access; enhances visual connectivity
Design Demonstration Site A – View from promenade
Artificial bunds with vegetation to elevate the promenade and sustain flooding during monsoon
Information boards about the importance of wetlands and fauna
2m wide promenade for pedestrian/ cycle movement and recreation
1m buffer with spaces for seating and information bulletin
3m wide pathway for NMV and cattle movement
Farming activities by the farmers from the local village
Design Demonstration
Towards NH45
Site B – Proposed Structure Plan
Railway line Towards Otteri village
Amenities
Key Plan – Not to scale
Eateries
Strategy 1 – Interface as social and economic anchors – • Linking the primary corridor with secondary streets and using the common space at intersections as multi-functional areas with commercial and social association
Legends
Informal commerce
Agriculture Fields Commercial tower Housing
Wetlands Water bodies Community space New Mixed Use Developments Transit corridor
Strategy 2 – Socio ecological linkages – • Inducing stewardship towards protecting the ecological resources by appropriating functional roles for different groups at all areas
Institutional area
Shared Street
Accommodation facilities
Pedestrian routes Multi-modal transit spot Towards Railway station
Bus stop
Commercial Node Green corridor Entry node
Design Demonstration Site B – Detailed Design Plan Legends 1. Affordable Housing for MIG and LIG 1a. Park let/ Forecourt 1b. Community farming 2. Resource and Knowledge center 3. Agriculture research institute 4. Office/ Retail 5. Existing school 6. Proposed commercials 7. Multi modal transit space 8. Hostel accommodation 9. Incremental housing 9a. Backyard farming 10. Skill development center 11. Waste management center 12. Transit corridor 13. Shared street Key Plan – 14. Farming
14
7
5
6
4
12
3a
2
3
1b
1
1b
11
Not to scale
1a
9a 9 8
10
13
Design Demonstration Site B – Affordable Housing
Water harvesting and recycling facility in the basement
Community farming – Integrated farming initiative by the residence
Lawn area for community gathering and functions
Park let for recreation for the neighborhood
3m Wide walkway with water percolation capacity
Housing units for LIG – (60 units of 48 sq.m each – optional expansion of commercial units in stilt )
Housing units for MIG – (48 units of 72sq.m each)
Design Demonstration Site B – Shared Streets
5m wide street with pavers of water percolation capacity
Closed storm water drain line
Dedicated space for parking
Existing low and medium raised housing
Existing mixed use units
Design Demonstration Site C – Detailed Design Plan Legends
10
1. Primary health Center 2. Women Skill development Center 2a. Weaving institute 3. Multi-purpose ground 4. Primary and Secondary school 5. Veterinary clinic 6. Education hub and Youth Center 7. Proposed Mixed Use 8. Existing Temple 8a. Temple court 9. Proposed shared street 10. Farm 11. Lake
11
1
8 8a
2
2a
3 4
6
7
9
5
Key Plan – Not to scale
7
8
8a
9
Design Demonstration Site C – View of Multi-purpose plaza
New Mixed use settlement opens dedicated for rental housing
Commercial portion opening out to the plaza making it a functional space
Shared Street – Enhances walkability and facilitates traffic movement
2m wide pedestrian walkway
10m wide road favoring the movement of transit
Multi-purpose plaza serves as a host for a variety of commercial and community based activities – Also doubles as court for weaving unit
Coconut weaving institute promotes new job opportunities for the women and unemployed youth
Conclusion Aim: To create a new model for resilient and inclusive neighborhoods, that establishes the lost linkages with the diminishing ecological commons thereby addressing the ecological and social concerns relating to these commons Inclusivity
Ecological system
Urban Ecological Commons
Social structure
Social Cohesion
Ecological Integrity Spatial Structure
Outcome: The thesis presents a model of an inclusive neighborhood that sets a benchmark for any outgrowth development in an area with ecological assets, without compromising on the physicality of the asset, retaining the social linkages that are bound to it and its surroundings
Conclusion
Green Loop - Eco-sensitive ecological edges
Circulation Loop – Hierarchy in Movement
Functional Loop – Series of connected functions
An inclusive neighbourhood that is resilient to natural forces, respects the ecological assets and celebrates the common spaces associated with them as everyday spaces, thereby fostering ecological integrity and social cohesion making it economically and socially viable.
Thank You
Ashwin S | SPA/NS/UD/859 Department of Urban Design School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi