00 | ABSTRACT In the beginning was the city The Megacities phenomena is historically ascertain: The antic Greece’s polis were the Mega-cities of the Classicism, Rome was the first mega-city in the world history and if we look back through the cases like London and Paris, the population grew up remarkably with arrival of the industrial revolution, which can be compared with the Chinese system of megalopolis. The Megacities not only represent our past, but also our future. If the cities were in possession of a magnetic force on the territory, the Megacities instead are the melting pot of opportunities and challenges given by the high concentration of social, economical, political infrastructure and energetic potential. In fact, we are speaking about Global Cities, where the impact of the social process use to have a big influence on urban development, where the network is essential ingredient for a radical transformation up to come. The questions of local urbanism- immigration, job, social marginality,and sustainability - nowadays have global influence and they had to be studied by looking the Global Cities as complementary knot of the interconnected network. This case study is based to have an eye for the relationship between the visibly network (economic, society, governance) and invisibly one (territorial morphology and infrastructure) and how the first have the influence on the second considering multiplicity scale. This connection appears in the cities or part of them, that are physically separated but functionally connected, so that, they can make stronger connections between different Global Cities than within their very regional or interregional territories, which they belong.
If the existing network between society and urban structure can be visible on the regional scale, in the Europe it appears on the urban scale. The purpose is to demonstrate how these complex networks can be read in the case study of London 2012, the first Global City in Europe. It will investigate the central structure of Ilford, its socioeconomic set-up as public facilities distribution and population diversity, in order to understand the intrinsic potentials of this new London hub. The relation between spatial components and functional needs is the starting point for a strategic intervention in the opportunity area, in sight of the upcoming high-speed rail station. Through the elaboration of typological “working class” block and through spatial collective hybridization, the planning intervention attend to give birth to the new forms of urban quality able to conjugate global corridor together with local hierarchy in one urban catalyst.
Andrijana Sekulic Claudia M. M. Sinatra
1 2
5
1 2
5
1 2
1 2
5
5
425 1 2
5
1 2
5
1
1 2
2
5
5
1
1
2
2
5
5 1 2
5
1 2
5
Complex(C)ity
The Network Metropolis of Global London.
Observations and design suggestions for a multifunctional centrality in Ilford. 1 2
1 2
5
UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA
5
00 ABSTRACT 01 URBANIZATION OF THE WORLD 02 MEGACITIES METABOLISM 03 EUROPE OF CITY REGIONS 04 SOUTH EAST ENGLAND DNA 05 KEY LONDON 06 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK 07 STRATEGIES 08 HYBRID CLUSTER: THE PLINTH 09 HYBRID CLUSTER: THE INTERFACE 10 HYBRID CLUSTER: THE GRAFT 11 VERTICAL LIVING 12 HYBRID FEELING
COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD
01 | URBANIZATION OF THE WORLD human footprint
population (in milions)
less influenced
1 5 10
more influenced
london
Source: wildlife conservation (WSC) and Central for International Earth Science information network (CIESIN)
tokyo new york city
growth (person per hour) +10
+30
-0.1
+50
st petersburg
+1
shanghai
london
0
-0.4
+20
kharkiv
year
seul
beijing
1950 national ecological footprint*
mumbai
mexico city
+3
urbanization level
12
10
8
6
dubai
-0.3
mexico city
johannesburg
*global ha/person (2006)
4
sydney
2
0
HDI 0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
mumbai
+22
das es salaam
+12
jakarta
lima
levels of urbanization related with the energy consumption challenge the earth’s capacity to sustain balanced and equitable growth. Source: the data had been compile by LSE cities
+3
johannesburg são paulo
+3.2
santiago
1.0
sydney
population (in milions)
population (in milions)
1
1
5
5
10
10
regression index
human development index
no recession
london
major recession | full recovery minor recession | full recovery major recession | partial recovery minor recession | partial recovery
london
shanghai
+44
khartoum
lagos são paulo
2025 Source: Revision of World Urbanization Prospects, United Nations, 2009, http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup Source: The endless city, Urban Age LSE, 2011
+26
cairo
havana
+10
1990
tokyo
+49
new york city
< 20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% 70-80% 80-90% >90%
tokyo
new york city
partial recession
shanghai
full recession
0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.5 0.5 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 - 0.9 0.9 - 1.0 1.0
istanbul
new york city
tokyo
development index (2010)
shanghai
mexico city mumbai
developed country developing country underdeveloped country
mumbai
mexico city
no data
são paulo
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
johannesburg sydney
40% 44% 49% 55% 62% 67% 72% 75% 78%
the Human Development Index is a composite measure to track educational attainment, life expectancy and economic development. Source: various United Nations Development Programme Human Develompent; Reports sources with local sources compiled by Urban Age
60% 56% 51% 45% 38% 33% 28% 25% 22%
427
johannesburg
develop-ing vs -ed
são paulo
0
economic performance ranking by world region
20
29 36
40
Source: rookings analysis of data from Oxford Economics, Mood’s Analyitics and U.S. Census Bureau
economic performance developed metro areas
80
Source: brookings analysis of data from Oxford Economics, Moody's Analytics, and U.S. Census Bureau
90
100
106
116
117
120
127 developing developed eastern asia-pacific asia-pacific europe and (n=18) (n=24) central asia (n=11)
average annual growth rate in GVA
foregin investments (in millions of USD)
+1.00
200 000 40 000 16 000
+5.00 +10.00
economic performance developing metro areas
43
48
60
latin america (n=12)
middle
east and
africa
(n=11)
north america (n=64)
developing
western europe
(n=42)
(n=60)
Source: brookings analysis of data from Oxford Economics, Mood’s Analytics and U.S.
developed (n=158)
4 000
year the Gross Value Added measures the domestic output of a wider region around the city
+2.2 london
+2.0
+1.2
vancouver
paris
+2.2
+3.4
+1.9
los angeles
-0.1
Source: e data have been compiled by the LSE cities where Urban Age is located for the Global Metro monitor research project
+7.9
moscow
berlin
tianjin
+9.4
+1.8
shanghai
istanbul
madrid
+2.8
+2.6
cairo
austin
+1.6
+9.7 -1.8 riyadh
mumbai
mexico city
+7.2
+1.7
bangalore
bogotà
+0.5
+4.6
calcutta
-1.2
GDP - GVA income per capita country - regional average
maximum average minumum
+3.0
singapore
200
*value archieved by cities in a region. overline values indicates best than national performance.
150
jakarta
+1.8
rio de janeiro
santiago
socioeconomic performance index
300
bangkok
lima
+3.2
city vs nation
800
500
+1.1
+4.5
1000
tokyo
guangzhou
+2.4 dubai +4.1
Source: world development indicators, World Bank, 2000, C.Rozenbalt, 2000 www.unctad.org/fdistatistics
+11.4
bucharest
+1.6
new york city
san jose
+7.8
1980 1988 2010
+1.7
são paulo
100
+1.2
75
johannesburg
+1.0
cape town
50
+1.9 sydney
UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA
25 europe
united states
brazil
india
china
south africa
289 cities above 50,000 GDP - PPP/person 34,741 US$
273 large cities
94 large cities
GDP - PPP/person 47,398 US$
GDP - PPP/person 10,512 US$
35 cities over 200,000 GDP - PPP/person 2,790 US$
40 cities over 700,000 GDP - PPP/person 5,990 US$
24 cities over 25,000 GDP - PPP/person 10,442 US$
COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD
02 | MEGACITIES METABOLISM
urban footprint
connecting density
city
rail underground
region built-up area
%
planned extension population density
MUMBAI
%
$
current population in the city
current population in the metropolitan region
central area density(people per km�)
project growth 2010-2050
city as a prectenage of national GDP
city as a prectenage of national population
GDP per capita (US$)
percentage of the people under 20
11,710,100
19,280,100
45,021
44
2.9%
0.9
$1,871
36,3 2001
MUMBAI
SÃO PAOLO
SÃO PAOLO
MUMBAI
ISTANBUL
NEW YORK NEW YORK
MEXICO CITY
SHANGHAI
ISTANBUL
LONDON
SHANGHAI
LONDON
JOHANNESBURG
BERLIN
MEXICO CITY
JOHANNESBURG
SÃO PAOLO
10,400,000
ISTANBUL
12,700,000
NEW YORK
8,090,000
SHANGHAI
15,460,000
15,460,000
LONDON
7,560,000
7,560,000
MEXICO CITY
8,580,000
JOHANNESBURG
3,230,000
BERLIN
3,330,000
19,220,000
11
10,376
11.9%
5.8
31.0
$12,021
2010
12,700,000
12
20,128
18,820,000
9
15,353
22.0%
17.8
$12,856
3.3%
2.8
$55,693
32,1 2009
25.7 2008
5.0%
26
23,227
1.0
16,0
$8,237
2005
3.4%
1
8,326
12.4
$60,831
23.8
$18,321
32.9
2009
BERLIN
major world airline routes city size
19,240,000
14.8%
10
12,880
8.4
2005
3,890,000
3.4%
3
2,203
8.1
$9,229
34,6 2010
world city major center secondary center
london
4,330,000
0
0
6,683
4.2
$34,017
16,5 2008
more frequently routes istanbul
new york city
tokyo
Source: world develompent indicators, world bank,2000
mumbai
mexico city
429
region airline routes
shanghai
1 2
são paulo
5
housing
income
wealth
travel
crime
average rent per month in US$
GDP per capita in US$
working time required in minutes to buy 1 kg of bread
average cost of public transport ticket in US$
murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants
anual electricity use (kWh per capita)
litres per capita per day
1,000
$1,871
14
0.2
3.0
579
90
SÃO PAOLO
570
$12,021
30
1.6
21.0
1.954
185
ISTANBUL
610
$12,856
14
1.0
3.0
2.267
155
NEW YORK
2,500
$55,693
16
2.3
6.3
6.603
607
SHANGHAI
360
$8,237
35
1.5
1.4
6.357
439
LONDON
2.390
$60,831
5
7.1
4.539
324
MEXICO CITY
810
$18,321
53
0.2
13.2
1.00
343
JOHANNESBURG
640
$9,299
12
1.2
15.7
3.388
378
BERLIN
750
$34,017
12
3.8
1.2
3.880
johannesburg
electricity
water
sydney
MUMBAI
social footprint
urban economy
administrative boundaries
<1
most disadvantaged average
4 1 18
tertiary sector
1
7
13
29
<1
15
primary and secondary sector
29 10
most privileged
non - market services
34
MUMBAI
SÃO PAOLO
ISTANBUL
Source: All maps are drawn with data gathered from local data source and generated froma ‘heat sensitive‘ GIS technology compiled by LSE cities
30
37
15
33
24
transport, hotels, restaurants energy and manufacturing construction
MUMBAI
ISTANBUL
SÃO PAOLO
Source: Urban Age reserach by LSE cities
<1 31
3 4
8 6
26 39
34
31
24 40
12
23
NEW YORK
SHANGHAI
agriculture
27
17
NEW YORK
LONDON
SHANGHAI
LONDON
<1
<1 4 15
2.2
7 27
3
6 21
11
20 40 23
23
11 42 26
MEXICO CITY
JOHANNESBURG
BERLIN
MEXICO CITY
20
JOHANNESBURG
BERLIN
171
Source: Urban Age reserach by LSE cities
UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA
COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD
03 | EUROPE OF CITIES Oslo Moscow
Stockholm
globalization and world cities (GaWC)
european urban system
global
strong relation increasing relation selective relation supporting relation underlying relation
sub-global national capitals
population (in milions)
potential relation break break relevant integrated system consoldated integrated system blu banana
1 Copenhagen
5 10
Dublin
Warsaw
Rank cities score in terms of interconnectivity
Berlin
New York City
Amsterdam
London
Düsseldorf
Brussel
London Prague
6.22
5.42
Hong Kong
Zurich Geneve Milan
Boston
7,100,000 4.14 650,420 amsterdam 589,955 rotterdam Chicago 3.94 581,810 the hague 295,335 utrecht Los Angeles 3.90 5,500,000 Flemish Diamond brussel Singapore 1,089,5383.45 483,505 antwerp 243,366 ghent Sydney 95,4633.44 leuven Randstad
Budapest
Venice
Istanbul
3.03
13,900,000 Vienna commuter belt 2.96
7,560,000 5.35
Paris Vienna
Munich
Berlin
5.86 population Madrid 3.02 metro-urban in the blue banana
Tokyo London
Frankfurt
Paris
strategic node policentric node
Source: GaWC Reasearch Network
Hamburg
SeoulEMRZ 3,800,000 3.40 Zurich Brussels
372,000
3.29
2.78
Frankfurt
2.78
Shanghai
2.78
Buenos Aires
2.73
Stockholm
2.71
Zurich
2.68
Moscow
2.61
Barcelona
2.57
11,316,000 3.26 Dubai 1,000,289 cologne 586,217 düsseldorf Washington, D.C.581,308 3.25 Rome dortmund 576,259 essen 491,931 duigsburg Toronto 3.13 Amsterdam 319,841 bonn
2.56
Beijing
2.41
Rhein-Ruhr
San Francisco
Rome
Barcelona Madrid Lisbon
Athen
3.12
Mexico City
network structure development center
urban region
centrifugal mode - rhine ruhr
centripetal mode - london
2.56
2.54 incorporational mode - randstad
Venice 3,500,000 metropolitan 309,000 venice-mestre region 215,000 padua "the world’s biggest, most interconnected cities help set global agendas, 107,000 vicenza weather transnational dangers, and serve as the hubs of global 84,000 treviso
integration. They are the engines of growth for their countries and the gateways to the resources their regions." Source: Eurostat;ofESPON (European Spatial Planning Observation Foreign Policy journal Network
Moscow
european population
foreign investments
metropolitan Regions with more than 5 million residents.
Less than 50
Source: Eurostat, United Nations
Berlin-Brandenburg South East England
Randstad
metropoli globali secondo livello
100 - 150
metropolitani polarizzati
150 - 250
centri metropolitani puri
250 - 350
metropoli comando
350 - 500
metropoli europee complete
Stuttgart Zurich
Lombardia
1000 - 1500
high skills cluster
1500 - 2500
traditional cluster the “blue banana”
More than 2500
Munich
*Knowledge intensive FDI (excl. finance) Venice
european network structure
direction cluster
500 - 1000
Rhine-Ruhr Rhine-Main
Ile de France
globalization and world cities (GaWC) metropoli globali primo livello
50 - 100
Source: Global and World Cities Network, Geography Department at Loughborough University
Source: Eurostat, UnitedFDI Nations *Knowledge intensive (excl. finance)
LONDON
RANDSTAD
RUHRGEBIET
FLEMISH DIAMOND (VLAAMSE RUIT)
BASEL-ZURICH-BERN
VENICE METROPOLITAN REGION
Istanbul
Barcelona Madrid
foreign population as a share of the total population
EU high-speed railways (2010)
stockholm
sokttan
33.5%
completed
foreign-born*
category I category II category III
%
42.5% 13.9%
16.4% 94.2%
non-nationals**
not completed category I category II category III
planed category I category II category III
ports and harbor
%
airports 57.6%
the main reason for migrating foreign-born persons aged 25–54 who mi- grated to the EU when they were aged 15 or over.
31.2% 8.8% %
*Foreign-born persons are those whose place of birth (or usual residence 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% of the motherat the time of the birth) is outside the country of his/her usual residence.
glasgow
employment, job found before migration
43.2% 10.9%
10%
33.1% 11.0%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
46.7% 11.6% 56.1% 36% 73%
48%
73.1% 21.7%
birmingham
foreign-born
international protection
non-EU-27-born
other
60.3% 15.2%
Germany
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
london
Danzica, Katowice, Žilina frankfurt
nancy tours
Danubio
nurnberg wien
karlsruhe stuttgart
metz
paris
Venezia, Trieste, Lubiana, Maribor, Budapest, Uzhhorod, Leopoli, Kiev
wroclaw
erfurt
brussel
persons with a foreign background persons with a mixed background
Dresda, Norimberga, Praga, Vienna, Bratislava, Győr, Budapest, Arad, Bucarest, Constanţa, Craiova, Sofia, Salonicco, Filippopoli, Istanbul
halle
rotterdam antwerp
Durazzo, Tirana, Skopje, Bitola, Sofia, Dimitrovgrad, Burgas, Varna Helsinki, Vyborg, San Pietroburgo, Pskov, Mosca, Kaliningrad, Kiev, Chişinău, Bucarest, Dimitrovgrad, Alessandropoli
munich
Salisburgo, Lubiana, Zagabria, Belgrado, Niš, Skopje, Veles, Salonicco
basel
Source: Trans-European Transport Network, TEN-T
Belgium
51.8%
Luxemburg
63.6% 0.1%
santiago de compostela
United Kingdom
49.1% 7.3%
bilbao
porto
Netherlands
aveiro
Hungary 71.4% 11.1%
toulouse
Poland
cordoba seviglia
Slovakia càdiz
Espagna
rom
barcelona
Ireland Czech Republic
istanbul
zaragoza
toledo
lisbon
bologna
marseille figures
madrid
verona venice
montpellier
perpignan
valladoid salamanca
portugal
Austria 46.4% 13.9%
dax
burgos
Slovenia
milan genova
oviedo
Portugal
ljubljana turin
bordeaux
France Littvania
7.2%
lyon
limoges
Greece 90%
52.1%
Bruxelles, Aquisgrana, Colonia, Dresda, Breslavia, Katowice, Cracovia, Leopoli, Kiev
amsterdam
Estonia
49.5%
Berlino, Poznań, Varsavia, Brěst, Minsk, Smolensk, Mosca, Nizhny Novgorod
warszawa
berlin
hamburg
second-generation migrants aged 25–54 by type of background, 2008 0%
64.7%
bremen
liverpool leeds
study
90% 100%
47% 0.1%
Corridoi paneuropei Helsinki, Tallinn, Riga, Kaunas, Klaipėda, Varsavia, Danzica
employment, **56 % of the non-nationals living on the territory of the EU-27foreign-born Member States have European citizenship; no job40% found before migration 37 % are citizens of another EU Member State and 19% are citizens of a non-EU country. Around non-EU-27-born of the EU-27 foreigners come from countries outside Europe. family reasons
14.0%
50.5% 11.1%
kobenhagen
athen valencia
granada
alicante
ronda malaga
Italia Source: Eurostat, United Nations
UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA
COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD
431
04 | SOUTH EAST ENGLAN DNA
birmingham and the west midlands milton Keynes
south east england spatial strategy
air-water hubs
regional spoke
port airport
international gateway
highways intercity rail regional rail
regional hub cambridge
transport hub aylesbury
luton
motorway
Source: UK Department for Transport; UK Ordnance Survey; Natural England, Defra (UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
ipswich
milton keynes
trunk road
oxford
channel tunnel railway
luton
airport
Swindon
slough
port
reading Bristol/Bath
London
camberley farnborough
woking
gunfleet sands I & II
London
swindon
southend-on-sea
relgace gulldford
reading
southend-on-sea
London
swindon
canterbury
chatham & gillingham
300
kentish flats
CO2 emmission thanet
maidstone tonbridge
redhill
90
ramsgate chatham
aldershot salisbury / exeter
108 65 oxford
rochester ebbstleet
annual power generation in Mega Watt (MW) Source: LDA (London Development Agency); RenewableUK: Natural England, Defra (UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
luton
oxford
staines
Basingstoke
energy production 100
14 milton keynes
reading
dover
ashford
gatwick
agriculture (0.3%)s
domestic use of fuels
chatham & gillingham
21
crawley
bournemouth / pool
Southampton
havant chichester
transport little cheyne court
worthing hove
60
energy
southampton
hastings eastbourne
brighton
portsmouth bognor regis ryde
southampton portsmouth
nuclear heat
bournemouth
brighton
solid fuel
36
natural gas petroleums
monocentric density bloomsbury, london population per km²
luton town centre
Source: ONS (UK Office of National Statistics)
oxford town centre
built-up land within 500 m from open non-agricultural land
milton keynes
mixed-use
> 1,000 1,000 - 5,000 5,000 - 10,000 < 10,000
luton
oxford
built up land
> 10,000 5,000 - 10,000 1,000 - 5,000 < 1,000
east ham, london
luton 7,988 pp/km2
land use
predominantly residential
more dense less dense
milton Keynes 5,519 pp/km2 Oxford milton keynes 6,602 pp/km2
9 3 14 38
bournemouth
London 17,325 pp/km2
industry, energy, commercial gas generation
renewables
brighton
portsmouth
little cheyne court
isle of wight
56
23
highspeed rail link to Belgium and France
open non-agricultural land (> 2ha)
predominantly commercial workplaces per km²
luton
central urban areas
Source: Natural England, Defra (UK Department for East Environment, *38% of South England’sFood and Rural Affairs) population lies with in 500 meters of non-agricultural open land
oxford
Source: ONS (UK Office of National Statistics) southend-on-sea town centre
southend-on-sea
London
swindon
Southend-on-Sea 8,663 pp/km2
reading
London
swindon
southend-on-sea
canary wharf
reading town centre
east gillingham
reading
chatham & gillingham
chatham & gillingham
Reading 8,175 pp/km2
heathrow airport
croydon + urban areas
ashford stansted
little cheyne court Southampton 6,462 pp/km2
orpington
portsmouth
bournemouth
brighton town centre
portsmouth town centre
southhampton town centre
brighton
portsmouth
southampton brighton
433
little cheyne court southampton
bournemouth + suburban areas
Brighton 13,443 pp/km2
Portsmouth 12,902 pp/km2
buissnes climate
GDP per capita university rank
6 5 4
R&D public
break monocentricity
more than 15,000
crossrail
10,000 to 15,000
milton keynes
Source: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
population density
3
commuters in one direction
top ten performing regions south east england inner london outer london kent
GDP weighted
travel network
milton keynes
5,000 to 10,000
Work-related commuter flows between local authorities
luton
luton
2 oxford
1 unemployment
0
business
oxford
southend-on-sea
London
swindon
-1 -2
reading
chatham & gillingham
reading
southend-on-sea
chatham & gillingham
elsewhere 6
competition
patents
London
swindon starting in greater london
94 within greater london
access by air
human capital
little cheyne court
little cheyne court starting outer greater London
southampton brighton
portsmouth
access by road
specialisation HMH
transport CO2 emissions
southampton
elsewhere
portsmouth
brighton
17
bournemouth
specialisation KIS
bournemouth
23
83
road freight
type of workers 7
self-employed
4
14
part-time time 79
usual method to travel
temporary employees
workers with second jobs
unemployed
1
25 full time 65
private motorised
walking and cycling
motobike cycle 14 4
13
26
7
cars
people work-hyperconcentretion
61-80 min >80 min 41-60 min 13 10
bus rail 11
public transport 73
60
time taken to travel to work
usual method to travel to work
other
6
foot
21-40 min
24 62
up to 20 min
london brighton oxford luton reading portsmouth southampton milton keynes
4,976
7,854 8,835
12,173 13,813 11,530 12,086
49 car and motorcycle
within greater london
e economic activity
ground based taxi rail underground 4 4 aviation 11 bus 5 4
distance travelled per person
cars rail taxi bus cycle walk
1,150 364 275 72 300 *number data in km per year
employed
UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA
COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD
05 | KEY LONDON
1834
1846
1847
poor law amendament act
nuisance removal act
town public health improvement act act
1848
1872
1875
1885
1889
public health act
public health act
artisans' and labourers' dwellings act
london county council (LCC)
establishes a coherent administrative machinery to deal locally with issues of health and sanitation.
conditions considered
reformes the country's poverty relief system, including the building of workhouses.
habitation in living accommodation
housing of the working class act
1894
1898
1905
london building act
local government act
royal commission on congestion
1909
1845
1887
1898
1900
1902
1903
parliament authorizes more than 600 acts for new improvement schemes in british towns
In The Condition of the Working Class in England, F. Engels write about London “A town, such as London, where a man may wander for hours together without reaching the beginning of the end, without meeting the slightest hint which could lead to the inference that there is open country within reach, is a strange thing. This colossal centralisation, this heaping together of two and a half millions of human beings at one point, has multiplied the power of this two and a half millions a hundredfold; has raised London to the commercial capital of the world, created the giant docks and assembled the thousand vessels that continually cover the Thames.”
charles booth’s poverty map reveals that more than 30% of urban population live under an inacceptable standard
e. howard publishes “to-morrow: a peaceful path to real reform” introducing the idea of garden city
the county of london covers the city of london and 28 boroughs for an area of 303.12 km²
A revisioned version of Howard’s book is published under the name of “Garden Cities of to-morrow”
work begins on letchworth, britain's
a. blanqui used the term “industrial revolution” describing the contemporary era; it is a turning point for the creation of a modern city
1976
1963
1980
draft greater london local government, development plan planning and lad act (urban renewal)
greater london council (GLC)
1979
1965
1981 Urban Development Corporations (UDC) and Enterprise Zones (EZ) are introduced to regenerate Urban Development Areas (UDA).
prime minister thatcher incourages social rent by the “right to buy”. social housing is no more responsibility of local authorities
the greater london covers the city of london and 32 boroughs for an area of 1,572 km²
1924
1930
1938
1943
housing act
greenwood act housing act
the green belt (london and home counties) act
county of london plan
compels local authorities to tackle substandard housing; new housing developments encouraged on 'garden city' principles and geddes’ surveys
the GLC is abolished and Its functions were devolved to the corporation and the london boroughs
EZ are established in London, among them the isle of dogs.
1999
1998 Public referendum about regional authority
local government act
1982
1918 addison's housing act
1919
1927
1933
1940
1942
town planning schemes become obbligatory for cities with 20.000 inhabitants
greater london planning committee reports london’s urban expansion
athen chart, published after the fourth CIAM conference, introduces relevant observations under the titles: living, working, recreation and circulation
barlow commission
scott commission
1944
1946
greater london plan
new towns act
often referred to as the abercrombie plan, intended to control and halt london’s expansion. establishment the "green belt", creation of new towns and expansion of existing towns
It creates the Greater London Authority, London Assembly and the directly elected Mayor of London responsible for transport
1986
1988
1992
the motorway M25 or london orbital is completed
the london planning authority commitee
exodus by rem koolhaas
rescue, development and strategic planning
1999
2000
the lower administrative level consists of two-tier local authorities: counties and districts. london is an exception.
planning results like the report “towards an urban reinassance” and the foundation of CABE agency
Regional Planning
the localism bill
the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs such as SEEDA, South East of England Development Agency, or EEDA, East of England Development Agency) are responsible for economic development and strategic spatial planning in their respective regions
it devolves partially spatial planning responsibilities, previously held by the RDAs, to local authorities, which have the power to draft their own neighbourhood plans. despite the informal collaboration on a regional scale, some of central government’s responsibilities are reinforced
London - Luton - Bedford Corridor
Enfield
Harrow
Waltham Forest
Haringey
Hilingdon
Camden
Brent
Redbridge Havering
Hackney Tower
Ealing
Newham
Barking
Richmond
Wandsworth
Lambeth
the london ringways, a series of four ring roads, are planned to circle
1965 the greater london covers the city of london and 32 boroughs for an area of 1,572 km²
1979
Urban Development Corporations (UDC) and Enterprise Zones (EZ) are introduced to regenerate Urban Development Areas (UDA).
prime minister thatcher incourages social rent by the “right to buy”. social housing is no more responsibility of local authorities
CAZ inner london metropolitan centre opportunity area
olympic site green belt and metropolitan open land regional park opportunities regional park crossrail 1
Wood Green Harrow
Romford
greater london
growth 2006 to 2031
public transport schemes
centre
36-54%
west
18-36%
north east south Central Activity Zone Inner London
0-18% -1- 0%
crossrail 1 crossrail 2 thameslink rail programme
crossrail 2 thameslink east london line orbital rail network
Thames Gateway
main airports
Shepherd Bosh Source: GLA Economics (all maps extracted from The London Plan 2011 are Copyright of Greater London Authority and Crown)
Hounslow
overground Kingston
Bromley Croydon Sutton
international centre major centre
Croydon
Sutton
1960s
golden lane housing competition
local government act
metropolitan centre
Merton
Kingston
1952
1981
sustainable communities growth area regional coordination corridors
london’s town centre network Bexley
Lewisham
the top-tier local government administrative body for greater london replaces the earlier LCC, covering a biggerer area
London - Stansted - Cambridge - Peterborough Corridor
Outer London
Greenwich
Hounslow
establishes procedures to control the growth of towns and cities
1980
draft greater london local government, development plan planning and lad act (urban renewal)
area for intensification regeneration area strategic development centre (outer london)
Ealing
Barnet
greater london council (GLC)
Ilford
Kensington & Chelsea
1976
1963
town and country planning act
strategic key diagramm
2010
2001
Greater London Authority Act
Uxbridge Western Wedge
Hammersmith & Fulham
1947
congestion on the city's road system
1986
local government act
housing and town planning act
extends the 1875 artisans' act by offering greatly increased loans to local authorities
1840 1837
the top-tier local government administrative body for greater london replaces the earlier LCC, covering a biggerer area
1890
Wabdle Valley
district centre
Bromley
central activites zone (CAZ)
435
employment growth 2007-2031
slow mobility schemes
international centre
25-47%
Thames Path Lea Valley Jubilee Walk
15-25%
metropolitan centre
King’s Cross
10-15% 5-10%
district centre
2 - 5%
12
1
11
2
central activites zone (CAZ)
Stratford
Bromley by Bow Canary Warf North Greenwicvh Crossharbour Woolwich Canada Water Elephant & Castel Walworth road
metropolitan centre
Jubilee Greenway Strategic Walking Routes Capital Ring London Outer Orbital path (LOOP) Green Chain
3
10
cycle superhighways
major centre district centre
planned cycle routes*
4
CAZ frontage
9
1 Tottenham to City (before 2015) 2 Ilford to Aldgate (summer 2011) 3 Barking to Tower Gateway (open 2010) 4 Woolwich to London Bridge (before 2015) 5 Lewisham to Victoria (before 2015) 6 Penge to City (before 2015) 7 Merton to City (open 2010) 8 Wandsworth to Westminster (summer 2011) 9 Hounslow to Hyde Park Corner (before 2015) 10 Park Royal to Hyde Park Corner (before 2015) 11 West Hendon to Marble Arch (before 2015) 12 Hornsey to City (before 2015)
6
Hackerbridge
4
38
12
27
strategic regeneration areas
Total benefits (transport and earning)
crossrail regional map
20% most deprived LOAPs
station
Existing station
preferred industrial location (PIL) industrial business park (IBP)
crossrail line 100 - 150 £m 50 - 100 £m
PIL/IBP
37
opportunity area*
5
13 35 20 16 10 36 22 15 21 26 39 3 23 32 3018 14 34 11 2 33 29 9 8 7 28 40 17
31
24
41
42
6
25 - 50 £m 10 - 25 £m
area for intensification**
43
19 25 1
*Opportunity Areas 1 Bexley Riverside 2 Charlton Riverside 3 City Fringe 4 Colindale/Burnt Oak 5 Cricklewood/Brent Cross 6 Croydon 7 Deptford Creek/Greenwich Riverside 8 Earls Court & West Kensington 9 Elephant & Castle 10 Euston 11 Greenwich Peninsula 12 Heathrow 13 Ilford 14 Isle of Dogs 15 Kensal Canalside 16 King’s Cross 17 Lewisham, Catford & New Cross 18 London Bridge & Bankside 19 London Riverside 20 Lower Lee Valley (including Stratford) 21 Paddington 22 Park Royal/Willesden Junction 23 Royal Docks and Beckton Waterfront 24 Southall 25 Thamesmead & Abbey Wood 26 Tottenham Court Road 27 Upper Lee Valley (including Tottenham Hale)
5 - 10 £m 0 - 5 £m Ilford opportunity area
28 Vauxhall, Nine Elms & Battersea 29 Victoria 30 Waterloo 31 Wembley 32 White City 33 Woolwich **Areas for Intensification 34 Canada Water 35 Dalston 37 Haringey Heartlands/Wood Green 38 Harrow & Wealdstone 39 Holborn 40 Kidbrooke 41 Mill Hill East 42 South Wimbledon/Colliers Wood 43 West Hampstead Interchange
Shenfield Brentwood Goodmayes Liverpool Street Seven Kings Gidea Park Romford Tottenham Manor Park Harold Wood Forest Gate Court Rd Ealing Broadway Chadwell Heath Bond Street Maryland West Ealing Acton Ilford Stratford Taplow Burnham West Main Line Whitechapel Custom Hayes & Drayton Slough Iver House Harlington Maidenhead Paddington Farringdon Hanwell Canary Langley Southall Wharf Woolwich Abbey Wood
*Total benefits are spread to boroughs not on the Crossrail routeand widely to outer London. The above maps shows transport benefits and earnings distributed according to where public transport users live, which is why the City receives a low value, due to its small population.
Heathrow Airport
Crossrail will cost about £15 billion.
5
project timeline
New station Surface line Tunnel Portal (tunnel entrance and exit) regeneration area opportunity area
Crossrail will help people travel across London more quickly and in less crowded trains. It will mean less cars and pollution. It will be better for tourists and visitors. It will help businesses stay in London.
design and service facts
2001
Design
2005
Rolling stock
first proposal
the Crossrail Bill 2005
* indicative routes subject to consultation
5 8 7
?
Crossrail is a new railway that will go under the middle of London from the West to the East.
2
Vauxhall Battersea
major centre
key information about Crossrail project
1
london’s potential centre network
10 new station
60 trains 24 trains per hour up to 1.500 passengers
2009
construction started at Canary Wharf station
East depot Ilford
2012
West depot Old Oak Common
begin digging tunnels
It will mean more accessible travel across London. There will be chances for Londoners to get local jobs. It will help businesses and new home building in London.
Some East London politicians saw as an expensive west-to-east commuter.
Ilford opportunity area
It could primarily benefit City and Docklands businesses and bring much disruption to East London. It would use up much of the remaining rail capacity within the London area. The redevelopment of the area forced the closure of a number of historic music venues In February 2010, Crossrail was accused of bullying residents whose property lay on the Crossrail route into selling for less than the market value
2018
(first 2017) Crossrail services start.
impact on exemples journey time
32 mins intead 55
Slough to Tottenham Court Rd Heathrow to Leeverpool Street
25 mins intead 35 Ilford to Bond Street
18 mins
Ticket
integreted with TfL, National Rail, Oyster card
enviromental facts
Carbon
1.7 million tonnes of CO2 (construction) 70,000 to 225,000 tonnes of CO2 saving (operational)
Material
at least 15% of total material value derives from reused and recycled content and will aim for 20%
intead 40
City | Liverpool Street to Abbey Wood
16 mins intead 30
Waste
5.6 million m² of clean excavated material will be beneficially reused
Paddington to Canary Wharf
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government ONS Lower Super Output Area Boundaries, 2007*
UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA
COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD
06 | SPATIAL FRAMEWORK
M25
M11
east london identity
metropolitan open land
east london framework plan
green belt regional park
station crossrail line
district park linear park
mainline railway central line distict line
Woodford Broadway Snakes Lane
A406
Manford way
Woodford Bridge
A12 South Woodford
Barkingside
A118
strategic open space project small open space ward
DLR major road motorway cycle way metropolitan centre major centre district centre
The leafy borough 1/3 land is green belt and parks
local centre major watercourse green belt and metropolitan open land deprived area | brownfield
Walthamstow
Romford Gants Hill
Wanstead
existing community place
Newbury Park Chadwell Heath Goodmayes
young people (0-19)
Seven Kings
26 - 28% 22 - 26% 18 - 22% 14 - 18%
Ilford
ward
Olympic site
Shoreditch
Barking
The young borough
Stratford
26.6% population under the age of 19
East Ham
Brick Lane
London City airport
BME population 58 - 72%
Canary Wharf
Greenwich peninsula
46 - 58% 34 - 46% 22 - 34% 10 - 22%
Times Gateway bridge (proposed)
ward
The diverse borough
48.1% Black and Minority Ethnic population
Source: ONS (UK Office of National Statistics)
5,6520 ha total size within Redbridge borough
40% green space and 27% domestic gardens
238,635 people live in Redbrige
main driveway
public buildings
intensification retail
6% of them live in Ilford
71,100 young people are aged 0-19
ilford
redbrige
london
120,695 people
have a minority ethnic background
population structure 13 crossrail connection
urban service
intensification housing
7 2
11
1
54
2
white mixed
12 29
3
25
64
asian
3
72
black other
3
the youngest
800 jobs 5,000 homes
0-19
area capacity
26
27
38
19+
ilford size by land use
130,000 m2
domestic garden 36.2%
crossrail worksite
road
21.7%
domestic building
15.6%
non domestic building
9.6%
74
73
public transports
local service
62
land
brownfield
green land 40
43
14,150 inhabitants
36
other
17,950 in 2031
57
430,000 m2 regeneration area
64
Source: ONS (UK Office of National Statistics)
ilford population by ethnic group
asian
54.1%
indian
25.6%
white paki
28.5% 19%
slow mobility
UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA
60
residence
green corridor
COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD
437
footprint 2012
urban relevance and centrality 2012
footprint 2018
the mall
station
city hall
urban centre
the mall
city hall
urban centre
07 | STRATEGIES
urban relevance and centrality 2018
olympics as a global catalyst
status
olympics influence crossrail work in progress
strategy
puncture intervent
action
colonization
reaction
temporary centrality
The urban footprint shows the differences between terrace houses and the latest urban structure characterizing the centre of Ilford. While the first is spread all around the area, the second is longitudinally oriented by a thick row of buildings which marks the commercial street from south to north. The grain of the remaining blocks lacks in homogeneity, so even if the vertical and horizontal axis look solid, the inner side is made up of a soulless alternate of full sand empty spaces.
status
ilford as a future centrality
post olympics
The areas interested by the urban growth will experience a gradual functional emptying to let the spread of new settlements possible. in the OA some building are torn down as in the purpose of Ilford strategic plan. The difference among the horizontal city and the vertical one is cutted out. The horizontal one is massive present and it gets mixed up with the vertical part, creating a complex density and improving interactions.
crossrail arrival
P
P
temorary parasite
strategy
empting intervent
action
reconnection
reaction
complex density
horizontality as local facilities verticality as global services
complex density
parking as a colonized space
the mall as an opportunity
working class as wide spread
sinergy as polar intervention
footprint 2025
status
crossrail effects ilford gateway centre
strategy
disperse intervent
action
polarization
reaction
hybrid cluster
the mall
station
city hall
urban centre
439
urban relevance and centrality 2025
garden as a necessity
Ilford’s centre changes its air. The proposal is to level off the existing part in order to uniform the horizontal city without obstructing the further development. The same level of density is enhanced all along the commercial streets and a lighter one on the fairest sides to preserve the slow rhythm of the residential zones. In the urban centre the typical spatial hierarchy is completed upset and the open blocks become more suitable for a vertical city based on the high quality services.
urban space as a collector
hybrid cluster transport as a magnet
vertical living as a preference
1. city hall area
2. cineworld cinemas area
2870,00 m2
4132,90 m2
3. central library & museum area
2619,90 m2
4. keeneth more theatre area
1640,25 m2
strategic masterplan vision
all area
56200,00 m2
area
3
n. floor:
93% coverd space open space
use
coverd space
7%
open space
collective
propriety
use
coverd space
8%
open space
313,60 m2
collective
use
n. floor:
coverd space
38%
open space
collective
use
1074,60 m2
35%
570,00 m2
collective
coverd space open space
use
propriety public
active time:
UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA
public
active time:
510000 m2
7. sainsbury supermarket area
3
7110,00 m2 n. floor:
8. parking space area
1
9. ilford train station
8550,00 m2 n. floor:
area
1
620,00 m2 n. floor:
10. block house type area
1
9500,00 m2 n. floor:
3-4
3
65%
1619,90 m2 1000,00 m2
propriety private
active time:
3
62%
3819,50 m2
propriety public
active time:
n. floor:
92%
2670,00 m2 200,00 m2
4
area
4915,00 m2 n. floor:
n. floor:
6. valentine park
5. the exchange mall & vertical parking
96%
54000 m2
4%
2200m2
collective
propriety
coverd space open space
use
coverd space
0%
open space
0 m2
active time:
0%
0 m2
100% 8500m2
function collective
collective
private
public
propriety private
active time:
100%
4915,00 m2
active time:
coverd space open space
use
54%
3810,00 m2
46%
3300,00 m2
collective
propriety
coverd space open space
use
0 m2
8550,00 m2
collective
propriety private
active time:
0% 100%
coverd space open space
use
31%
190,00 m2
collective
propriety active time:
42%
covered space (single house)
100,00 m2
open space (private yard)
135,00 m2
use
57%
individual
propriety public
private
active time:
69%
430,00 m2
private
active time:
COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD
08 | HYBRID CLUSTER: THE PLINTH hybrid cluster
y block
the graft
the plinth
site plan | 1:1000 The new urban block wants to connect the horizontal city and the vertical one, creating cohesion by the interface, which becomes public and semi public space. Some public services don’t stop on the ground floor but climb up to the housing blocks. In this way the urban block become the real hybrid cluster with the different range of formal and informal realities creating spontaneous environment made by temporary and permanent users. public reverse
urban centre
441
c block users
use
score
housing 6 office 5 informal market 3
4 pubblic space and green areas museum
ground floor plan | 1:500 i blocks
1
a b
housing congress center
c
restaurant c
housing
4
3
start up shop
fitness
luxury store service
e
consulting management 1
work
d d
coworking newspaper library
food experience
start up permanent
restourant beauty beauty
roomsr congress restourant relax&lounge
food experience
e
ooms congress
shop f
shop
f
a b
semipublic space private space
a-a section
ff
c
b-b section
screening workshop cafè
screening events cocktail/exhibition events
dd
e
a
a
d-d section
start up bank
post
e-e section
start up
multipurpose space work
b
c-c section
i blocks*
b
c
workshop bar
health health bank
f-f section
pharmacy
local services shop public space
health health pharmacy
* informal dominance
*commuters dominance
4 b-b section
accomodation
a-a section
c-c section
b
3
c
y block*
d
housing
aa
event space
performance space
co-working
terrace
start up shop
2
coworking newspaper library
py playground g roomsr rooms beauty
food experience
garden
4
foyer y
terrace
ooms relax&lounge
shop
housing
rooms
4
foyer
hotel room wellness hall
multifunctional sports camp gym sport bar
common room study room common room
b
housing
mixed
e
c block* a-a section
hall
7
hall
temporary
commercial
kitchen
student house work shop semipublic space
start up consulting shop
hall
c
d
private space * young dominance
student space f-f section
e-e section
d-d section
financial
administration
foyer
4
functional hybrid
start up shop
shop
japan thai france terrace italy turkey africa china india take away
housing
housing
multicultural space
food experience
housing
2
UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA
c-c section
d-d section
1
hotel rooms wellness beauty
common rooms
rooms
playground
gardentmultifunctional gym
sports camp
gym sport bar
b-b section
housing
3
study rooms
eracce
common rooms
teracce
kitchen
laundry
start up
hall
shop shop
consulting shop
COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD
09 | HYBRID CLUSTER: THE INTERFACE
443
interface floor plan | 1:500
trasversal section | 1:500 UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA
longitudinal section | 1:500 COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD
10 | HYBRID CLUSTER: THE GRAFT y* block
c* block
445
3 to 11 floor plan | 1:500 UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA
0 to 2 floor plan | 1:500
3 to 11 floor plan | 1:500
COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD
11 | VERTICAL LIVING
block houses
typology 2 bed. apartment code 062b dimension 74 sq.m users
thin houses
typology 2 bed. apartment code 062b dimension 78 sq.m users
typology 1 bed.apartment code 062b dimension 70 sq.m users
typology 1 bed | 1 office apartment code 062b dimension 78 sq.m users
typology 1 bed. | 1 office appartment code 062b dimension 78 sq.m users
typology 2 bed. duplex | 1 terrace code 042t dimension 65 + 35 sq.m users
typology 1 bed. duplex code 041t dimension 50 + 35 sq.m users
typology 2 bed. duplex code 061t dimension 70 + 50 sq.m users
penthouses
typology 2 bed. appartment code 082b dimension 95 sq.m users
typology 3 bed. appartment code 083b dimension 100 sq.m users
typology 2 bed. appartment code 092b dimension 108 sq.m users
typology 3 bed. appartment code 093b dimension 112 sq.m users
typology 2 bed. maisonette code 002d dimension 68 + 50 sq.m users
typology 3 bed. | 1 terrace maisonette code 003d dimension 60 + 50 + 35 sq.m users
typologies solutions | 1:200
code 17
062b
code
pure living
living+ working
10
code
083b
typology 1 bed bed | 1 office appartment code 082b dimension 100 sq.m users
typology 2 bed | 1 office appartment code 083b dimension 100 sq.m users
block houses
code 22
042t
2
pure living
30 living+ working
code
pure living 062t
447
2
70 typology 2 bed | 1 office appartment code 093b dimension 112 sq.m users
100
2
24 76 code
041t
thin houses
094b pure living
40 living+ working 60
code
edge houses
10
012e pure living
40 living+ working code
002e
60 100
6 code 7
003e
pure living
edge houses
typology 3 bed. appartment code 012e dimension 130 sq.m users
typology 2 bed. | 1 office appartment code 112e dimension 125 sq.m users
typology 2 bed. | 1 office appartment code 112e dimension 130 sq.m users
penthouses
elevations | 1:500 UNIVERSITĂ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTĂ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA
COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD
12 | HYBRID FEELING
449
UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA
COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD