Debanilp major research project

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

LIVING WITH WATER How can public realm improvements and design interventions along London’s post industrial waterfront help in creating a better interaction between the water and the users, the places they inhabit as well as the water’s edge ?

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

1

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON FACULTY OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING MAJOR PROJECT : “ How can public realm improvements and design

interventions along London’s post industrial waterfront help in creating a better interaction between the water and the users, the places they inhabit as well as the water’s edge ? “

by Debanil Pramanik , B . ARCH

Word count : 7798 Being a major project in Urban Design and City Planning submitted to the faculty of the built environment as part of the requirements for the award of Msc Urban Design and City Planning at University College London , I declare that this project is entirely my own work and that ideas , data , images and direct citations drawn from elsewhere are identified and referenced.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT I acknowledge and greatly appreciate the guidance and critical inputs provided by my supervisor David Syme throughout the process of the project. His patience and support have been invaluable towards the completion of this project.

I would also like to thank the faculty especially Professor Juliana Martins for her constant support and discussions which helped me narrow down my research question to its present form.

All suggestions and comments made by jurors during the various presentations were constructive and have been duly noted at stages of the project.

Lastly I would like to thank my batch mates for creating an atmosphere of learning , creativity and helping exchange of ideas without which working on this project would not have been such an enriching experience.

Signature Date

DEBANIL PRAMANIK DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

2

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

ABSTRACT “Cities seek a waterfront that is a place of public enjoyment. They want a waterfront where there is ample visual and physical public access – all day, all year - to both the water and the land. Cities also want a waterfront that serves more than one purpose :they want it to be a place to work and to live, as well as a place to play. In other words, they want a place that contributes to the quality of life in all of its aspects – economic, social, and cultural”.

Remaking the Urban Waterfront, the Urban Land Institute (Seattle Department of Planning and Design, 2012)

The role of water in our cities has changed dramatically over time. Once considered sacred and cherished, then networks for flourishing trade,commerce and industries, what we have today in many cities is an a system of post industrial waterfronts with reduced accessibility to water affecting chances of interaction between man and the natural element in the face of conflicting pressures of urban development. Amongst these challenges are opportunities to move away from capital intensive, mono-functional systems to a more holistic approach of relooking the way we interact with water specially along our waterfronts.

The project explores ways of increasing interaction with water both at the edge and within the urban fabric in the post industrial context along rivers.

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

3

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1A Problem to be addressed and justification of topic 1B Framing the research question 1C Objectives of the research question 1D Methodology

7 8 9 10

3. QUESTIONNAIRE 3A Survey sheets 3B Pie charts 3C Analysis of results

40 41 43

4. CASE STUDY 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F 2G 2H 2I 2J 2K 2L 2M 2N 2O 2P 2Q 2R

Structure of literature review Water as a planning element Waterfront regeneration Timeline of waterfront regeneration Types of waterfront regeneration Stages of successful waterfronrt regeneration Pitfalls of waterfront regeneration Realms of waterfront Types of waterfront edges (plan) Types of interaction Types of waterfront edges (section) Placemaking Water as a placemaking element Integration of water into urban realm Water sensitive urban design Evolution of waterfront regeneration in London Projects on the Thames Challenges with designing with water in the U.K.

14 15 16 17 18 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 37

4A 4B 4C 4D 4E 4F

Structure of case study analysis Kop van zuid , Rotterdam Rotterdam 2035 Hafencity , Hamburg Hammarby Sjostad , Stockholm London (Docklands and Southbank)

46 47 49 50 52 54

5. TOOLKIT 5A Objectives 5B Principles 5C Tools Detailed explanation of tools 5D Tools of interaction 5E Tools of integration

58 59 60 61 64

7. THE MASTERPLAN 7A 7B 7C 7D 7E 7F

Arriving towards the masterplan Multiscalar options on site Tools on site Masterplan with wider context Masterplan at Low tide Masterplan at high tide Detailed interventions 7G Intervention at Scale 1 : Enclosure 7H Interventions at Scale 2 : Urban fabric 7I Detailed sections 7J Interventions at Scale 3 : Waterfront

91 92 93 97 98 99 102 104 112 114

8. CONCLUSION 8A 8B 8C 8D 8E

New linkages Phasing Funding Evaluation Conclusion

127 128 129 130 132

Bibliography

134

6. THE SITE 6A 6B 6C 6D 6E 6G 6H 6I

Justification of choice of site Site context Historic evolution of site Recent planning applications Macro analysis Micro analysis : Conditions on site Micro analysis : Opportunities on site Strategies on site

68 70 72 74 76 82 84 88

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

4

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

S.NO

SUBJECT

PAGE

FIG 1 FIG 2 FIG 3 FIG 4 FIG 5 FIG 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 FIG 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 FIG 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 FIG 24 , 25 , 26 , 27, 28 , 29 FIG 30 FIG 31 , 32 , 33, 34 , 35 , 36 FIG 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 FIG 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 FIG 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 FIG 52 , 53, 54 , 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 FIG 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 FIG 68 , 69, 70, 71, 72 FIG 73 , 74, 75, 76 FIG 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 FIG 85 FIG 86, 87 FIG 88 , 89 , 90 , 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 FIG 96 , 97, 98, 99, 100 FIG 101 , 102, 103, 104 FIG 105, 106, 107, 108 FIG 109 , 110 , 111, 112, 113 FIG 114 , 115, 116, 117, 118 FIG 119, 120, 121, 122, 123 FIG 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128, 129, 130, 131, 132 FIG 133 , 134 , 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143 FIG 144 , 145 FIG 146 , 147 FIG 148 FIG 149 , 150, 151 FIG 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157 FIG 158, 159, 160, 161, 162 FIG 163 FIG 164

Post industrial decay along waterfront Standardized waterfront design approach Interaction with water Structure of the literature review Aim of understanding the role of water Effect of water as a planning element Design led and culture led regeneration Timeline Types of waterfront regeneration Realms of waterfront design Types of waterfront edge (Plan) Types of surface interaction Types of waterfront edges (section) Stages of successful waterfront regeneration Pitfalls of waterfront design Water as placemaking element Integrating water into urban fabric Evolution of London’s waterfront Projects on the Thames Questionnaire Images used for questionnaire Rotterdam case study Hafencity case study Hammarby Sjostad case study London case study Site Justification Historical evolution of site Conditions on site Opportunities on site Strategies on site Strategies on site 2 Strategies on site 3: Application of Toolkit The Masterplan in wider context Interventions Detailed sections Interventions continued New linkages Phasing

8 8 8 12 13 13 14 15 16 - 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 - 25 26-27 29 30-31 32 - 34 38 41 45 - 47 48 - 49 50 - 51 52 - 53 66 - 67 70 - 71 80 - 81 82 - 84 86 - 87 89 90 - 91 95 101 - 109 110 - 112 115 - 123 125 126 127

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Types of waterfront edge (Plan) 19 20 Types of surface interactions Types of waterfront edge (Section) 21 22 Stages of successful waterfront regeneration Table 5 Pitfall of waterfront regeneration 23 - 25 27 Table 6 Placemaking and water as placemaking element 59 - 63 Table 7 Detailed Toolkit 80 - 81 Table 8 Conditions on site 82 - 84 Table 9 Opportunities on site 86 - 87 Table 10 Strategies on site 128 -129 Table 11 Analysis of conclusions Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

5

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

6

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

1. INTRODUCTION 1A. PROBLEM TO BE ADDRESSED

THE LONDON CONTEXT LONDON CONTEXT : CULTURAL / OTHER

OTHER EUROPEAN EXAMPLES

EXISTING

UPCOMING

RICHMOND , LONDON OSLO

www.pps.org

www.almany.com www.telegraph.co.uk

www.west8.nl

LONDON CONTEXT : RESIDENTIAL WATERFRONT EXISTING

UPCOMING

HAMBURG

RICHMOND , LONDON

www.skift.com

“Waterfronts with continuous public access are much more desirable than those where the public space is interrupted. Even small stretches where the waterfront is unavailable to the public greatly diminish the experience” PROJECT FOR PUBLIC SPACES

The enquiry into the research question begins with my travel to other European cities and observing that their postindustrial waterfronts are far more animated as compared to the ones in London.In this context one of the key factor that binds all the other European waterfronts in question was their accessibility to water and also integration of water into the existing urban fabric in some cases

www.almany.com hidden-london.com

www.primeresi.com

While many of London’s postindustrial waterfronts have gone through dramatic transformation it is the existing as well as upcoming regeneration of post industrial land along the Thames into residential schemes which feel like much thought was not put in integrating them either with water or the urban fabric.

This lack of imagination results in a very mundane user experience making it an opportunity lost. This is despite the fact that these are the places they inhabit and spend maximum time in apart from work.

Images like these from parts of London’s waterfront with better accessibility to the river show that given an opportunity people would probably interact with water in similar ways as observed in other European cities.

PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Taking into account all these aspects the major research project looks at how design interventions for increasing interaction with water and integrating it into the urban fabric along post industrial waterfronts can not only serve as place- making tools but also as technical solutions within the public realm, to overcome the social and practical barriers that prevent them from becoming common practice of just aesthetic / landscape upgradation.

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

7

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

1. INTRODUCTION 1B . FRAMING THE RESEARCH QUESTION

FIG 1

FIG 2 www.pland.gov.hk

www.thspaces.com

WHY WATERFRONT ?

With a major shift in the industrial uses of waterfronts away from the urban core a lot of disused and derelict land is opening up for redevelopment into alternative uses.

Waterfront redevelopment raises issues concerning an extensive range of urban planning and management perspectives, extending from space design to economic, environmental, cultural ,tourism considerations as well as opportunities to integrate water into the urban fabric to bring users closer to water .

THE USUAL PROCESS

+

Due to their advantageous location at the interface between built environment and water, they provide highly exploitable urban spaces for new development.

However, the role that the post industrial waterfronts can play and the solutions towards how this should be integrated in urban fabric have become standardized ,often unanimated & without opportunity of interaction with water.

The water edges which have been able to move away from this monotony have often been deemed more successful than others

FIG 3 www.ou.org

THE CHALLENGE

=

How to avoid the risk of replicating spatial planning clichés along post industrial waterfronts?

How to re connect users with water and water with the urban fabric?

How to emphasize the presence of water and make it a part of user’s everyday life ?

RESEARCH QUESTION “ How can public realm improvements and design interventions along London’s post industrial waterfront help in creating a better interaction between the public , the water , the water’s edge and the places they inhabit ? “ DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

8

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

1. INTRODUCTION 1C. OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH

OBJECTIVE 2

OBJECTIVE 3

To make a comparative assessment of urban waterfront revitalization projects around the world and understand what makes some more successful than the others

To treat the project as more than just landscape upgradation and also look into the possibility of incorporating multiple functions

OBJECTIVE 4

OBJECTIVE 5

OBJECTIVE 6

To ensure that plans are flexible, adapt to preferences in the level of interaction , seasons , tides and other such variations

To look into the possibility of incorporating natural systems / landscape apart from other measures as connecting mediums between users , water and the water’s edge

To prevent standardization of the interventions. In short, models can often be unconnected with area under evaluation. Link to context

OBJECTIVE 1 To understand challenges designers face while working with waterfronts

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

9

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

1. INTRODUCTION 1D. METHODOLOGY

FORM CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDY

BOOKS , JOURNALS AND RESEARCH PAPERS

STAGE 2

DESKTOP RESEARCH

STAGE 1

LITERATURE REVIEW

1

STUDY OF EXAMPLES

1

HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROCESS

2

EXAMPLES FROM THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT Kop Van Zuid ,Rotterdam Hammarby Sjostad , Stockholm Hafencity , Hamburg Southbank and Docklands , London

Study of varying interaction levels depending on treatment of water’s edge

2

INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER AND WATER’S EDGE

PROJECT ON THE THAMES

Understanding the various realms of waterfront design

Floating Village River Park Thames Bath

3

PRINCIPLES OF SUCCESSFUL WATERFRONT REGENERATION AND PITFALLS OF THE WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROCESS

4

INTEGRATING WATERFRONT / WATER WITH URBAN FABRIC

+

ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDIES Comparison of case studies based on parameters selected from the literature review

STAGE 3

3

BARRIERS IN DESIGNING WITH WATER IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

10

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

1. INTRODUCTION

STAGE 4

1D. METHODOLOGY

+

INTERVIEWS

This stage leads to the Toolkit PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS

STAGE 5 COMBINING ALL THE STAGES

This stage is crucial to get an idea about the mindset of the people and how they currently interact with the river in London and given an opportunity how they would like to change things.

STAGE 6 ARRIVING TOWARDS A TOOLKIT FOR TESTING ON SITE The analysis of available literature and relevant case studies points towards devising a toolkit.All the stages before broadly cover three important aspects INTERACTION : Between the water , user and water’s edge as well as water and the urban fabric INTEGRATION : Incorporating water into the urban fabric to connect it back to the water / river INVOLVEMENT : making the whole process of water integration a part of people’s everyday lives in order to sensitize them to the use of waterscapes as communal spaces and water as a valuable resource

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

11

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

12

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

LITERATURE REVIEW

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

13

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2A . STRUCTURE OF LITERATURE REVIEW WATER AS PLANNING BUILT ENVIRONMENT &

WATERFRONT Process History Type of regeneration Successful waterfront regeneration process Pitfalls of waterfront regeneration

Usage and interaction between user and the waterfront and waterfront with the built environment Study of various edge conditions at the interface of water and the built and understand varying levels of interaction and accessibility

Perception of the waterfront and experiencing it based on the quality of surrounding public realm / built environment

WATER

Relation between the built urban fabric , the element of water and ways to integrate the both

INTERACTION Realms of waterfront Types of waterfront edges

INTEGRATE WITH URBAN FABRIC

USERS Water as a Placemaking tool and people’s involvement with water

INTEGRATION + INVOLVEMENT

Incorporate water by making it a part of people’s everyday use

Water in placemaking Water sensitive urban design

Making people more sensitive / appreciative about the presence of water by integrating it into the urban fabric

WATERFRONT REGENERATION IN LONDON

FIG 5 : The role of water in urban system

FIG 4 : Structure of the literature review

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

14

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW WHY WATERFRONT ?

2B. EFFECTS OF WATER AS A PLANNING ELEMENT

Waterfront provides unique opportunity to study the impact of water as a planning element and its interaction with the urban realm Visual

Audial

AESTHETIC EFFECTS

FIG 6

FIG 8

WATER According to (Önen, 2007) Urban natural water elements play an important role in the establishment of balance in natural and social life in cities . Water is the most important planning element which brings about physical and psychological comfort. In addition it also brings a number of aesthetic and functional features Moretti (2008), the word “waterfront” means “the urban area in direct contact with water”. Yasin et al.

(2010) indicated that waterfront is defined generally as the area of interaction between urban development and the water. Hou (2009), described the waterfront area as the conflux area of water and land.

+

WATERFRONT Tactual

Psychological FIG 7

FIG 9 Aesthetic effects of water

Climate control / Biodiversity

Recreational

Effects of water as planning element in an urban area

FIG 10

FIG 11

FUNCTIONAL EFFECTS

Circulation Source : (Önen, 2007)

Noise control FIG 12

Functional effects of water

15

FIG 13 DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2C. WATERFRONT REGENERATION

THE PROCESS

In the contemporary city, the success of the quality of life embodied in public spaces is increasingly accepted as a guarantee factor for an overall success.

As such, cities have realized the importance of the role of water for a better quality of life in the city.

Many cities around the world are creating ambitious waterfront projects, trying to solve their problems related to water and combining this with improved public spaces.

WHY POST INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT ?

Water is a recurring theme through history. During the last decades, due to various reasons, harbour facilities moved away from urban centers in many parts of the world. This has left great amount of land close to city’s central areas free for intervention and development.

In most of European capitals,waterfront was occupied by harbour facilities, and due to commercial expansion, these spaces were growing and became segregated from the urban space. This process did not allow the development of leisure areas on the waterfront.

(Martire, 2008) Technical, political, social, and economical transformations in the cities provoked significant changes on the spatial configuration of the city in general and on their waterfronts in particular. Since the 1970s, the experience of urban rehabilitation, recycling the existing urban fabrics and their adaptability to new uses has opened up ways of proceeding for cities. The possibility of using former industrial areas and ports assured a qualitative and economical improvement for the city. New uses in these recycle areas are usually assigned to trigger the acceleration of the advance of the city and public spaces are predominantly allocated therein.

DESIGN LED : BALTIMORE

DESIGN LED REGENERATION Earliest known example : Baltimore , Barcelona : Different approach , positioned designers as artists , public spaces as sculptural elements FIG 14 www.baltimorewaterfront.com

DESIGN LED : BARCELONA

CULTURE LED REGENERATION London : 1980’s , 1990’s Investing public funds into locations of new cultural facilities eg.Southbank SOUTHBANK , LONDON

FIG 15 www.spaintravel.com

DESIGN LED : BARCELONA

FIG 17 www.theguardian.com

16

FIG 16 DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2D. TIMELINE OF WATERFRONT REGENERATION FIG 18

18Th Century

Rivers and waterfronts became important for trade;development of ports

40 year long trend begins to repurpose waterfronts as destinations with museums , cultural complexes , festivals

HAFENCITY ,HAMBURG www.e-architect.co.uk

CURRENT TREND Treating waterfronts as flexible zones where mitigation principles, new experiments in design of public spaces can be done

Residential mix introduced into the mix in waterfront development

Higher environmental standards corresponding to increase popularity of these areas as prime property / increase commercial value

19Th,20th Century

1970’s

FIG 22

Festival of Britain ; Southbank : Waterfront as destination

1951

1960’s to 1970’s

1980’s

1980’s

Late 1980’s

1981

THE LONDON CONTEXT

Containerization resulted in shifting of docks further away from urban core eg. Rotterdam (35 kms)

BALTIMORE WATERFRONT www.visitmaryland.com FIG 20

London becomes world’s busiest port

WEST INDIA DOCK , 1820 www.stgite.org.uk

THE WORLD CONTEXT

HAMBURG PORT , 1800’s de.wikipedia.org FIG 19

FIG 21

18Th Century

FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN ,1951 www.telegraph.co.uk FIG 23

Containerization ; Shifting of docks 30kms away from urban core WEST INDIA DOCK REDEVELOPED (CANARY www.canarywharf.com

All of London’s major docks closed

LDDC (London Dockland Development Corporation) Formed ; Major regeneration starts

CURRENT TREND Waterfronts are in a state of confusion with most of them not a s interactive as their European counterparts

?

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

17

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW NEW URBAN EXPANSION

This typology contains the waterfront areas which are built all over again in available areas; and reclaimed old industrial or port areas. Some examples of it can be found at Hafen City in Hamburg, and on Lake Spandau and the Bay of Rummelsburg, in Berlin

HA

2E . TYPES OF WATERFRONT REGENERATION

N FE

HA M TY, I C

BURG

LO N

CE BAR

FIG 24

N BO

FRONT TER A W

ap

ar

tm

(Aksoy, 2006; Moretti, 2008a).

LIS

www .

ba r c elo na

The waterfront regeneration implies innovative consequences along the banks and in the surrounding areas. It provides public uses along pedestrian paths. For example, Barcelonetta Beach and its environs which connects the port areas and river bank along the Thames in London with public uses like a jogging, walking and cycling etc.

A ET

H AC

t.co .uk

NEW URBAN WATERFRONT ITINERARIES

BE

www.e-archi tec

(Moretti, 2008a; Giovinazzi & Giovinazzi, 2008).

FIG 25

ts en

m .co

WATERFRONT AND GREAT EVENTS

et

18

.n es iti r-c

(Moretti, 2010).

w w w. riv e

This one is established as a consequence of important temporary events in the waterfront area such as the Expos in Seville(1992), Barcelona (1992, 2004), Genoa (1992 and 2004), Lisbon (1998), London(2000), Zaragoza (2008). Afterward, new urban areas are developed around these areas like residential and production area

FIG 26

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

KO

2E. TYPES OF WATERFRONT REGENERATION

P

N VA

ID ZU

, ROTTERDAM

REUSE OF PORT AREAS This typology includes waterfront areas which is regenerated former port areas. With re-use of these areas, the water is regained the heart of cities. For instance,Rotterdam

A

FLOOD DEFENCE

p0 10 .n l

NU BE

NN VIE , ND LA

DA

www .k o

IS

(Moretti, 2008a).

LO

RONT ERF T A W

ww w.i i i n sti tu t

O S

FIG 27

Some structures which is established for river flood defence can represent a new opportunity for city expansion and for the establishment of new urban uses. Three examples of this can be given. The first one is with green areas and recreational uses like an open air festival and sport activities etc. The Donauinsel (Danube Island) in Vienna,as a created barrier island (Moretti 2008a).

nl e.

FIG 28

URBAN BEACHES

ww w . po r ta

ec th nd

wo ity.

e rdpr

FIG 29

They artificially created environment in an urban areas.Urban beaches are relatively unfixed due to temporary and mobile. Their locations and uses may be change. They may be a seasonal (especially the warmer months) installation over a roadway or a parking lot or a public park or a site cleared by demolition.

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

19

ss.com

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2F. SUCCESSFUL WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROCESS STAGE 1

TABLE 4

VISIONING THE WATERFRONT

Visioning the waterfront environment as important public domain

FIG 48 : Visioning the waterfront

STAGE 2

Opening up the waterfront to existing urban fabric

STAGE 3

Creating physical , visual and psychological accessibility to water

CREATING ACCESSIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE FIG 49 : Accessibility to water

STAGE 4

Planning mixed use and multi functional uses

STAGE 5

Responding to context consideration for historic and existing built context

STAGE 6

Provision of open spaces along water and the promenade

STAGE 7

Designing scale and form of built environment to enhance sense of place

SHAPING THE WATERFRONT’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT

FIG 50 : Use of iconic architecture to shape built environment

STAGE 8

Creating people , activity and event oriented spatial structure

STAGE 9

Long term piece meal step by step process

STAGE 1O

ANIMATING THE WATERFRONT

Programming of indoor and outdoor activities FIG 51 : Animation on the waterfront

(Yang,2002),(Falk,1992)

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

20

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2G . PITFALLS OF WATERFRONT REGENERATION

TABLE 5

ikim w.w

DIVORCED FROM LOCAL IDENTITY

While landmark buildings are sometimes insufficient to sustain a constant flow of visitors to a site, uninspired design will only hurt the potential draw of a waterfront.

A waterfront that erases local identity is one that will not only often fail to draw a crowd but will also alienate residents.

Great vision takes into account all of the factors on this list, from accessibility, to local identity, to balance of space, to land use.

A good waterfront highlights response to history and context , a bad one conceals it.

-cdn.tripadv isor .co m

edia.org

POOR DESIGN , LACK OF VISION

FIG 53 : Lack of response to context

e d ia w,m ww

uarespace.com w.sq ww

ww

FIG 52 : Monotonous waterfronts

FIG 54 : Lack of public access to parts of the

EXCLUVIST Public access is central to a thriving waterfront When waterfronts are predominantly owned and operated by private entities that block large segments of the people from reaching the water, that waterfront cannot be considered a success as it does very little for the urban area at all.

Encouraging people to interact with the space as a natural part of their daily lives and keeps the waterfront from becoming exclusionary.

Source : www.thewaterfront.com DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

21

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2G. PITFALLS OF WATERFRONT REGENERATION TABLE

simone.com

.blogspot.com

ny w,to ww

.b p w.1 ww

aterfrontconferenceco w.w mp ww a ny . co

m

FIG 55 : Involvement of stakeholders in process

FIG 56 : Purely residential waterfront

FIG 57 : Waterfronts that run for miles

LACK OF POLITICAL AND PUBLIC SUPPORT

SINGLE USE DEVELOPMENTS

NOT COMPACT

A public development can go nowhere if local politicians and citizens oppose it as it leads to insurmountable hurdles.

Support and input from those who will be most affected by a development is key for it to have any semblance of legitimacy

Singe use development places real limits on the versatility of a public space and can strangle the flow of potential visitors.

Dedicating a waterfront to just businesses, or homes, or even parkland, brings in only people partaking in very specific activities and doesn’t encourage them to linger past the completion of that activity.

To say that a waterfront destination must be compact in nature is not to say that a multi-mile waterfront development is ineffective or wrong. Rather, destinations within a waterfront must be compact to be successful.

A waterfront, like any urban space, must feature walkable centers. Diffuse attractions cannot draw the visitors that concentrated, well-connected areas can.

Source : www.thewaterfront.com DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

22

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2G . PITFALLS OF WATERFRONT REGENERATION TABLE

THE NEXT PART

Be it a flooding river or storm prone sea, one bad day can destroy millions in development and revenue.

While many people enjoy a drive along a river, they won’t linger unless there is way for them to interact with the blue space as pedestrians.

This reflects back on the need for a waterfront to be open to the public.

enha n ci

Ecosystems are important assets in and of themselves and require protection.Waterfronts are both bountiful resources and changeable hazards.

A quick way to take a gorgeous waterfront and make sure no one ever accesses it is by making it a space for cars instead of people.

raction w inte it h

Perhaps the biggest gaffe a waterfront developer can make is failing to plan for the environment.

IN TE

m

AUTO CENTRIC WATERFRONT

r

heeseland.co

LACK OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

TION C RA

te a w

stinc w.lo

rthjersey.com w.no

FIG 59: Motorway flanking the river in Paris

The treatment of the interface between water and urban realm / land is important to the way the user perceives the waterfront and also affects the interaction level and pattern between water , user and the urban fabric.The next part of the literature review summarises these findings.

ng

ww

ww

FIG 58 : Biologically dead waterfront

From the previous part of the literature review especially the study of successful waterfront regeneration process increasing interaction and accessibility to water comes across as an extremely crucial factor.

Source : www.thewaterfront.com DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

23

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2H.REALMS OF THE WATERFRONT Visual and psychological accessibility

Physical,visual, psychological accessibility

Physical, visual, psychological accessibility

Visual, psychological accessibility

Usage of floating objects(boats, marinas etc)

Adaptive reuse (renovation , refurbishment and preservation )

Coherent design vocabulary (material, façade, colour)

Continuous ,accessible promenade with landscape , activity nodes,public art

Sufficient open space, height, distance, mixed use, landmark architecture, water faced builtform

Coherent design vocabulary (material, façade, colour)

1

2

3

Relation to urban fabric

1. WATER SURFACE The surface of the water itself 2.WATER’S EDGE Boundary where water and land meet 3.FOREGROUND WATERFRONT A. FRONT : The place where people mentally and visually feel the presence of the waterscape A. FRONT : The place where people feel physical closeness to water B. BACK : Includes a major access path / road running parallel to the water’s edge 4.BACKGROUND WATERFRONT A. FRONT : The boundary where urban structure meets the foreground waterfront A. FRONT : Visually and physically still accessible to water but not as much as foreground waterfront B. BACK : Less accessible and visually interrupted

Sufficient open space, height, distance, mixed use

5.INLAND Unlikely to have a sense of waterfront

Connection between city and water

Visual and physical accessibility very limited

5

4

(Yang,2006)

The following pages explore the condition at the water’s edge and how treating it differently can impact the level of accessibility and interaction to water.

FOREGROUND WATERFRONT WATER SURFACE

BACKGROUND WATERFRONT

INLAND

These conditions are studied both in plan and section to get a better understanding

WATER EDGE FIG 30 : The five realms of the waterfront

24

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2I. TYPES OF WATERFRONT EDGES (PLAN) NATURAL /SINUOUS

CONCAVE

CONVEX

EXTENSION

ENCLOSURE

ISLAND

EDGE PROFILE(PLAN)

STRAIGHT

TABLE

CHARACTERISTICS

INTERACTION LEVEL WITH

(Yang,2006)

Linear interaction Linear but dynamic between water and users This is often engineered

FIG 31

OSAKA (Yang,2006)

This is often natural

FIG 32

MEXICO CITY

Typical for docks , canals , harbors

Improved interaction water’s edge

Inward waterfront into cities

Extended to create more frontage

BRISTOL

FIG 33

(Yang,2006)

(Yang,2006)

25

Multidimensional interaction between water and edge Ship building

FIG 34

VANCOUVER (Yang,2006)

To protect against weather and wave

Great potential for use patterns

Shipbuilding waterfront

Natural or artificial island

FIG 35

BOSTON (Yang,2006)

FIG 36

BARCELONA (Yang,2006)

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2J. CLOSENESS OF WATERFRONT THREE SIDED

TWO SIDED

FOUR SIDED

WATER SURROUNDED

LAND SURROUNDED

EDGE PROFILE(PLAN)

ONE SIDED

TABLE 2

CHARACTERISTICS

INTERACTION LEVEL WITH

(Yang,2006)

One way visual interaction

Multidirectional visual interaction

Multidirectional visual interaction

Very multidirectional visual interaction

Less dynamic interaction with waterscape

Limited interaction of waterscape

Panoramic waterscape

Dynamic experience of waterscape

FIG 37

BATH (Yang,2006)

FIG 38

THE FALKS (Yang,2006)

FIG 39

BRISTOL

FIG 40

(Yang,2006)

Typical Island typology Less dynamic interaction like one sided

BALTIMORE

Multidirectional visual interaction More dynamic experience as compared to island

FIG 41

GRIMAUD

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

26

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2K. TYPES OF WATERFRONT EDGE DIAGONAL

LEVELLED BANK

STEPPED

PIER

SLOPE

INTERACTION LEVEL WITH

AVAILABILITY OF EDGE

SECTION

PERPENDICULAR

TABLE 3

Psychologically and visually accessible to water Physically not accessible

FIG 42

NEW YORK

Psychological and visual accessibility limited

Visually and psychologically accessible

Physically limited accessibility

Physically accessible

FIG 43

OSAKA

FIG 44

Psychologically and visually very accessible Physically accessible,creation of sociable space

YOKOHAMA

FIG 45

OSLO

Sense of freedom Great potential for water related activities

FIG 46

OSLO

Overcome boundary between land and water Can become dramatic activity node over water

FIG 47

BRIGHTON

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

27

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW PLACEMAKING CRITERIA

2L. PLACEMAKING AND WATER AS PLACEMAKING ELEMENT There are substantial spatial opportunities offered through application of social , technical and placemaking principles.

The successful transition to water sensitive cities where water becomes a part of everyday life and is integrated into the urban fabric is dependent on “the ability to provide engaging and informative landscapes in the public realm” (Wong,2006).

Character Character

The following criteria can be used in assessing integration of water into the urban fabric in terms of placemaking. (Gold,1980 ; Vernon & Tiwari , 2009 )

1

Activity Atmosphere Atmosphere Spatial arrangement Norbert Schultz (1980) suggests space as an organisation of physical elements that creates the atmosphere which together creates the character of place.

Character Activity

Spatial arrangement

Function

FIG 60 : Water channel in urban www.watergovernance.eu

Variety of experiences “Sense of place”

AESTHETIC AMENITY Visual attractiveness added by intervention

2

Relph(2007) states that it is this amalgamation of qualities that provides a variety of experiences creating a sense of place.

Atmosphere

Spatial arrangement

Function

Simonds (1983) suggests that functionality contributes to atmosphere through creation of activity and corresponding feelings

THE NEXT PART In this context water can be looked at as the function addition of which generates activity. The next part of the literature review deals with studying integration of water as a placemaking element

FIG 61: Interaction with water as a part of the urban architecturenow.co.nz

INTERACTION Introduce interface between water and people DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

28

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW TABLE

2M. PLACEMAKING AND WATER AS PLACEMAKING

3

5

7

FIG 62 : Accessible water in the urban realm bettercities.net

FIG 63 : Continual occupancy and passive surveillance www.1zoom.net

FIG 64 phys.org

ACCESSIBILITY Contribution of intervention to improve access

SECURITY Providing means of continual occupancy which also leads to passive surveillance

INTEGRATION Into context , responding to land uses , social functions , orientation

4

6

8

FIG 65: Bioswales in the urban context

FIG 66 : Maintenance of water features

parkingottawa.wordpress.com

www.1zoom.net

FIG 67 www.dailymail.co.uk

HEALTH AND SAFETY Using intervention to improve health and sanitation standards by means such as conserving surface runoff

MAINTENANCE Cost , liability , responsibility

IDENTITY / SENSE OF PLACE Distinct character in which the intervention plays a crucial role

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

29

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2N. INTEGRATING WATER INTO URBAN FABRIC

INTEGRATION OF WATER

Making water a part of everyday life

Collective Social Approach

Making the process of integrating water into the urban fabric more visible

Water appreciation

BEAUTIFUL PUBLIC REALM

INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY / INTERACTION WITH WATER

INTEGRATION OF WATER Of the many approaches of successfully integrating water into the urban fabric one of the most holistic approaches is WSUD (Water Sensitive Urban Design)

Good Placemaking techniques

It is the means of sustainable development which recognizes the ecological (Novotny & Novotny , 2009) ,functional and social value of surface water ; integrating the urban built with the urban water cycle (Wong , 2006)

Enhanced waterfronts / public realm interventions

The ideal scenario is the combination of several physical , functional and social processes to result in successful implementation of the same.

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

30

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2O. INTEGRATING WATER INTO THE URBAN FABRIC (WATER SENSITIVE URBAN DESIGN) (Wong , 2006 ; Novtony and Novtony ,2012 ; De Graaf and Van der Ven , 2012)

1

2

3

FIG 68 : urban water harvesting pools bettercities.net

FIG 69 : Bioswales in urban system nacto.org

FIG 70 : Water traetment system as landscape element phys.org

HARVESTING Reducing demand through efficient use , conservation and use of alternative sources

INFILTRATION Distributing and localising water through slow conveyance and on site infiltration

4

TREATMENT Minimising generation of waste water , Reusing and recycling water for everyday use

5 THE NEXT PART OF LITERATURE REVIEW The next part of the Literature review deals with a deeper understanding of the London context : Evolution of waterfront regeneration in London and other projects on the River Thames , where they currently stand and what are the various challenges designers face while designing with or around water in London.

FIG 71: Retention pond in urban system www.loveyourlandscape.org

STORAGE Promoting creative and multifunctional storage of water in urban landscape , contributing ans visual and recreational amenity

FIG 72 :Water feature in the public realm www.pps.org

PUBLIC SPACE Restoring a healthier water system , integrating with urban fabric , encouraging biodiversity

It is important to look into this aspect of literature as the Research question deals with London’s post Industrial waterfronts and transforming them with the river playing a very important part of the design DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

31

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2P . EVOLUTION OF LONDON’S WATERFRONT

te nwa rba rfront.blogspot.co.u k/

gspot.co.uk/

rfront.blogspot.co .uk/

blo ront. terf

wate ban /ur

a nw

:/ tp ht

a rb //u p:

u :// tp ht

ht t

FIG 73 : Southbank transformation

FIG 75 :Tourist attractions along the river

FIG 74 : Roger’s vision for London’s waterfronts

BEGINNING OF THE TRANSFORMATION In 1951 the Festival of Britain redefined the post industrial Southbank area as a place for arts and entertainment. Thus began one of the first major waterfront regeneration attempts along the Thames.

QUICK TRANSFORMATION MID 1980’S ; RICHARD ROGERS VISION FOR THE THAMES Steel and glass dominated Rogers’ scheme. Futuristic trams and gracefully thin bridges spanned great distances to connect new islands in the Thames.

London’s waterfront was quickly transformed, but the effect was ultimately a mixed message.

Perhaps the vision of Rogers (and those like him) was shortsighted.

Perhaps the city was too eager to build first and ask questions later resulting in springing up of attractions like the O2 or the London Eye. DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

32

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

“ Visiting the Tate’s waterfront plaza on the Thames is an exercise in frustration.

Redeveloped and re-opened in 2000, the new design feels purposefully manipulative. One feature, a series of birch allées that form a path to nowhere, typifies the design mentality on display throughout the plaza. It is a place that limits visitor’s options, forcing them to use the space in prescribed ways. When people feel controlled by a space–when their freedom is restricted–they will not stay long, and they will rarely choose to return “ PROJECT FOR PUBLIC SPACES

/urb

erfront.blogs anwat po t . c o.u k/

THE CITY’S FRONT YARD Despite many miscalculations, London has managed one important step in transforming its river. The water is reinforced as the front yard of the city. It is the center of the action for iconic development keeping the waterfront firmly planted in the public realm

MOVING TOWARDS CRITICISM

p :/ htt

FIG 76 : Thames waterfront as a public

“interruption in the visual and stylistic continuity on the river” Parks, Promenades and Planning 2010 Rotch Traveling Scholarship

“lack of public access to water makes project almost parasitic with respect to urban context without contribution to the public realm” Fluid city

In this context it is essential to also learn about a few current proposals on the Thames , their current status and the hurdles they have faced along the way.

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

33

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2Q. PROJECTS ON THE THAMES

FLOATING VILLAGE , ROYAL DOCKS

PROJECT INFO Multi-million pound scheme in Royal Docks, east London, to be UK first floating village The scheme would turn the Royal Victoria Dock, which was an industrial powerhouse for more than a century, into an array of brightly-coloured houses, paths and restaurants on giant concrete ‘stilts’.

Floating villages are a new idea for the UK, but already popular in Europe, especially in Holland

CURRENT STATUS Planning approval awaited from Newham Council FIG 77 : Masterplan for the floating village www.constructionglobal.com

CHALLENGES Environmental impact Businesses not interested in coming to area Lack of affordable housing , Newham council head feels it will cater to only affluent people

FIG 78 : Artist’s impression of the floating village www.dailymail.co.uk

FIG 79 : Architect’s vision of the floating village www.dailymail.co.uk

34

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2Q. PROJECTS ON THE THAMES

RIVER PARK , NORTHBANK

PROJECT INFO Enjoyed enthusiastic backing from London Mayor Boris Johnson and other key stakeholders The London River Park concept aims to enhance the city’s reputation as a preeminent world capital by opening a new walkable expanse along the Thames. By linking St Paul’s Cathedral to The Tower of London, Millennium Bridge, Tate Modern, and Thames Clipper services, the park offers an exciting addition to the city’s rapidly evolving riverfront.

CURRENT STATUS FIG 80 : Aerial concept showing the concept of the river park www.e-architect.co.uK

“No contact” has been made by the architects or developer, Singapore firm Venus, since 2011

CHALLENGES Navigational safety issues Noise Pollution Environmental clearances Rather than being a park, CABE said the structure appeared “more akin to a pier or walkway”

FIG 81 : Architect’s impression of the river park www.ianvisits.co.uk

35

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2Q. PROJECTS ON THE THAMES

THAMES BATH , TEMPLE

PROJECT INFO A utopian vision of swimming in the Thames involving floating pools of natural Thames water Current proposal is for a lido featuring two pools : a 25-metre lap pool , a training pool The design, which includes a pair of pools supported by a concrete slab and raised to the height of the high water mark on a series of steel columns. The pools would be replenished with fresh river water at high tides

CURRENT STATUS FIG 82 : Plan showing the Thames Bath proposal www.dezeen.com

Since September 2014, the Port of London Authority (PLA) has been involved on the technical design and specific locations for the Baths Kick starter campaign for funding April 2015 onwards has already $221,000

CHALLENGES Environmental impact , Pollution in Thames Heating / All weather functionality Overcrowding due to possibility of it becoming major tourist destination Ownership / Logistics FIG 84 : Architect’s vision www.dezeen.com

FIG 83 : Architect’s vision www.dezeen.com

36

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2R . CHALLENGES WHILE DESIGNING WITH WATER IN LONDON

CLIMATE Cities with limited sunny days , frequent showers pose a unique challenge for waterfront development City spaces should find ways to plan for all weathers including winter and maximizing available sun in the winter is key to creating people friendly spaces Urban fabric can provide protection with street patterns and structures that break up and block the wind Small destination or strategically placed comfort zones for people helps break up the impact of weather and encourages all weather use of waterfront

POLLUTION In 1957, the Natural History Museum declared the Thames biologically dead. News reports from that era describe it as a vast, foul-smelling drain Wartime bombings had destroyed some of the old Victorian sewers .Post-war Britain did not have the resources to fix the problem quickly The Cleaner Thames campaign was launched in September 2015 to combat plastic waste. Perception regarding pollution is changing fast and today surveys suggest people are open to the idea of returning to Thames

OWNERSHIP The waterfront is a patchwork of disjointed private and public spaces resulting in ‘permissive’ access tempered by locked gates and timing restrictions, the details of which have to be negotiated individually for each property A 2003 London Assembly report warned that to many people the riverside seemed to be mutating into a thin strip of affluence, characterised by a “sterile mono culture” – a world barricaded off from the rhythms of the metropolis that lay on its doorstep provide further relief. Construction is expected to start in 2016

Thames Tideway Tunnel, a major new sewer, will provide further relief. Construction is expected to start in 2016 DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

37

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2R . CHALLENGES WHILE DESIGNING WITH WATER IN LONDON

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

HERITAGE

TIDAL VARIATIONS

Environmental and site specific factors such as noise and traffic generation, the disposal of wastes, existing trees and other flora and fauna

Waterfront environment includes sites with statutory designations, such as Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas

Inconsistent water levels

Attitude of the local community is important in determining the level of priority attached to the redevelopment of an existing industrial site

It also includes the wider historic landscape and locally distinctive, valued and important buildings and features

Safety of users

Clarity in legislation

Designing waterfront sensitively also brings with itself constraints such as designing with an effort not to overshadow the existing heritage but to complement it.Other constraints include respecting surrounding scale , uses , vegetation

Sedimentation

There is an issue of contamination and making sites safe for development, given what the land may have been used for before

Soil erosion

Limited physical / visual access to water

Possible flooding Threat to natural habitat of flora and fauna

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

38

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

SURVEY

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

39

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

3. SURVEY 3A. THE QUESTIONNAIRE

PAGE 1

PAGE 2

PAGE 3

FIG 85

Printouts of these questions were used to ask respondents on the Southbank and the Northbank of the Thames (details have been discussed later ).Questions were broadly divided into PAGE 1 : Personal information ; PAGE 2 : Interaction and PAGE 3 : Integration with water.

Responses from the survey have been shared on the next few pages and all results were mapped for analysis.

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

40

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

AGE GROUPS Maximum respondents belonged to the 31 to 40 years age group

USER GROUPS Most respondents were from within U.K.with a huge number of international visitors too

PURPOSE OF VISIT A large chunk of the people surveyed were on the Thames Southbank for leisure / Sightseeing

MOST IMPRESSIVE WATERFRONT ELEMENT While most people spoke about the promenade itself , many also felt that architecture and open spaces are value additions

SENSE OF WATERFRONT Most people felt that open access to water with animation on its surface as well as edge can really uplift the sense of the waterfronts

WATER’S EDGE Maximum people showed preference towards fig 4 which shows steps leading to water while only 10% were happy the way things currently are (Fig 1) DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

41

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

HOME 40 %

MAXIMUM TIME OF DAY SPENT Most respondents said that they spent large part of the day at home after returning from work

YES 67 %

BEING CLOSE TO WATER IF NOT PREOCCUPIED Large number of people answered in the affirmative also saying that it calming , healthy option

YES 58 %

WATER BODIES NEAR RESIDENCE People mostly said yes to the idea of having water bodies / features near their residence .Some even said it would make for a better everyday experience

YES 54 %

IMPROVED INTERACTION WITH WATER 54 % people were open to the idea of improving interaction with water by increasing accessibility , functionality and removing physical / visual barriers

YES 52 %

WATER IN EVERYDAY LIFE Majority of the people welcomed the idea.However many could not make up their mind DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

42

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

3. SURVEY 3B. ANALYSING THE RESULTS LIMITATION OF THE SURVEY The survey was conducted primarily along the Southbank (National Theatre , Royal Festival hall and Southbank centre) as well as Northbank (The area around Monument and Somerset house).

Due to logistical and time constraints responses have not been recorded on a larger section of London’s waterfronts.

FIG 86 : Bio swales in the urban environment www.inhabitat.com

Considering Southbank has an industrial past and has been successfully transformed its setting as one of the venues for the questionnaire survey to answer the research question is relevant.

Responses were recorded on a weekday and it might vary it terms of various parameters on a weekend.

Some of the response values have been rounded off to get a clearer picture and form the graphs / charts for analysis.

Responses were recorded on a sunny day and it might vary with changing weather conditions.

FIG 87 : Retention ponds in the urban environment www.inhabitat.com

While the survey gives a basic / general idea about the research question , more time and manpower in terms of conducting the survey can yield better and more detailed results.

These images were used / shown to respondents when they were asked the questions on the Page 3 specifically that were related to integration of water in their immediate surroundings and facilitating better interaction between and water

KEY FINDINGS FROM THE SURVEY

54 %

felt that they would not hesitate to interact (touch , play with ) the water in Thames and wanted avenues for improved interaction with water.Many campaigns to clean the river water as well as the upcoming Thames Tideway might have been responsible in the change of people’s perception

42 %

people said this could be achieved by creating avenues for openness to water.They were open to the idea of steps , slopes , piers as an extension to the current waterfront for better interaction with water.

35 %

felt that connection / openness to water was one of the most crucial factors in determining a sense of place for the waterfront Most respondents who spent a large part of their day at home were open to the idea of integrating water into the urban fabric in their immediate surroundings.

58 %

people answered they would prefer water to become a part of their everyday lives using such methods.

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

43

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

44

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

CASE STUDIES

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

45

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

4. CASE STUDIES 4A. STRUCTURE FOR ANALYSING THE CASE STUDIES PARAMETERS FOR EVALUATION From the literature review the success of a waterfront regeneration can be judged based on four prominent categories : STAGE A : VISIONING THE WATERFRONT STAGE B : CREATING ACCESSIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE

STAGE B : CREATING ACCESSIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE

Evaluating the water’s edge ; Physical , visual , psychological accessibility to water

STAGE C: SHAPING THE WATERFRONT’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Strategies to open up the waterfront to water , facilitating interaction between water , water’s edge and water , user

STAGE D: ANIMATING THE WATERFRONT

Interaction / integration with existing urban fabric

(Yang,2002),(Falk,1992) These further become the principles which I have used to evaluate the case studies in this section

1 SCOPE / TYPE STAGE A : VISIONING THE WATERFRONT Basic information about the project Type of regeneration : Port regeneration , Design led , Culture led , Mixed use

3 EVALUATION

2 INTERACTION

STAGE C : SHAPING THE WATERFRONT’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT

1

2

3

4

5

Unsatisfactory Bad Moderate Good Excellent

4 TRANSFER First step towards extrapolation Approaching the toolkit

Provision of open spaces along the water and on the promenade Quality of public realm design

STAGE D : ANIMATING THE WATERFRONT Create people , activity and event oriented spatial structures Programming / opportunities for activities to occur

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

46

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

4. CASE STUDIES 4B. KOP VAN ZUID , ROTTERDAM The harbour areas on the south bank of River Maas facing the present center have lost their earlier function with the westwards expansion of the port in the 1960s and 1970s, leaving the area abandoned. Being the former harbour area at the top of Rotterdam-south, Kop van Zuid area has been transformed into a new part of the modern city center of Rotterdam.

The plan aimed a leap of the city center across the river Maas and connecting the north and south shores of the Maas (with the strong contribution of the new bridge) assigning it the heart of the city again.

For urban planner Schrijnen (Schrijnen, 2008) in Rotterdam, when the harbour was there, the city itself was not positioned on the river, instead the harbour was. When this part of the harbour shifted away to the west, Kop van Zuid or new parts of it are only now touching the river as new urban settlements. As a big change, the city turned from a city on the harbour into a city on the river.

SCORE 12 / 20 EVALUATION ON NEXT PAGE

KOP VAN ZUID :

47

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

4. CASE STUDIES 4B. KOP VAN ZUID , ROTTERDAM

2 INTERACTION

Integration of water with the urban fabric.

Not much effort witnessed in making water an integral part of the built

STAGE B : CREATING ACCESSIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE Lively waterfront and sloping landscaped areas which lead to the waterfront

STAGE D : ANIMATING THE WATERFRONT People seem to enjoy spending time there though when weather permits , high quality design not involved.

FIG 88 : Aerial view www.roeldijkstra.nl

1 SCOPE / TYPE STAGE A : VISIONING THE WATERFRONT The plan used Rotterdam’s water as a vast, binding, collective factor, for fragments of the project and the city.

FIG 89 : Sloping landscape leading to the river www.rotterdam.nl

STAGE C : SHAPING THE WATERFRONT’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Use of public art elements to shape built environment

An area of 45 000 m2 was left for recreational activities.

www.cityrotterdam.com

4 TRANSFER

The essential aspect of connectivity with the city center on the north was provided by; the Erasmus Bridge A hotel, a restaurant, a museum, passenger terminal and other urban functions were planned on the Wilhelminapier

FIG 91 : Overview of part of waterfront design

Treatment of the water’s edge and use of public art in enhancing quality of public realm

FIG 90 : Art installation in the urban realm www.youropi.com DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

48

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

4. CASE STUDIES 4C. WATER SQUARES AND ROTTERDAM

2 INTERACTION STAGE B : CREATING ACCESSIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE Steps and ramps lead to the water square making it accessible to the general public

Integration of water with the urban fabric.

This approach makes water a part of people’s everyday life

STAGE D : ANIMATION

Innovative and multifunctional water squares allow various kinds of animation / uses based on weather conditions with great flexibility

FIG 92 : Water square in Rotterdam www.dutchwatersector.com

1 SCOPE / TYPE ROTTERDAM 2035 WATER STRATEGY Living in Rotterdam will become water related in residential communities on the water Water will be more actively used for public transport in the city

FIG 93 : Submerged water square www.urbanisten.nl

STAGE C: SHAPING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Water squares are open spaces that temporarily store water when it rains. When it is not raining, they can be used for various activities, such as leisure activities.

FIG 95 : Multi functionality of the water square www.theneweconomy.com

4 TRANSFER

Rain will become a recurrent festival instead of an inconvenience

The river banks will become more of places for private initiatives and urban activities

The idea of incorporating water into the urban fabric and make it a part of everyday life Element of multifunctionality FIG 94 : Water square as a public space www.urbanisten.nl DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

49

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

4. CASE STUDIES 4D. HAFENCITY , HAMBURG In Hafencity area, port function continued until the end of 80s and the area remained as brownfield until 1997.

Time span of the transformation extends until 2017 when a total integration is achieved.

Situated directly between the historic Speicherstadt warehouse district and the River Elbe, there will be a new city with a cosmopolitan mix of apartments, service businesses, culture, leisure, tourism , and Hafencity Project, will expand downtown Hamburg by 40 % in about 20 years.

SCORE 16 / 20 EVALUATION ON NEXT PAGE

HAFENCITY :

FIG 96 www.Hafencity.com

50

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

4. CASE STUDIES 4D. HAFENCITY , HAMBURG

2 INTERACTION STAGE B : CREATING ACCESSIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE Cascading landscaped terraces which lead to the water

FIG 97: Aerial overview www.Hafencity.com

1 SCOPE / TYPE

STAGE A : VISIONING THE WATERFRONT

Integration of water with the urban fabric.

This approach makes water a part of people’s everyday life

STAGE D : ANIMATION

Cultural highlights of the project range from the striking landmark Elbphilarmonie Concert Hall (Herzog & de Meuron) to International Maritime Museum of Hamburg and the new urban plazas being used for smaller events.

FIG 98 : Cascading green www.Hafencity.com

STAGE C: SHAPING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Vibrant and high quality open spaces , Flood protection combined with public- private spaces

FIG 100 : Multi functionality of public spaces www.Hafencity.com

The port area renewal project includes approximately 10 km of quayside promenades. .As a solution for the accessibility of water at all tides in the very high quays was designed a descending ‘landscape’ of surfaces ,

Design of water’s edge and public realm to facilitate interaction between user and water

Elevated footpaths, waterproof parking basements and the accessible waterfronts have provided a successful combination of safety and spatial quality of urban spaces

Design of other vibrant new open spaces by and on the water are characterized by parks, plazas and promenades, quays with floating pontoons.

4 TRANSFER

FIG 99 : Quality of public spaces www.Hafencity.com

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

51

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

4. CASE STUDIES 4E. HAMMARBY SJOSTAD , STOCKHOLM Hammarby Sjostad is a district in Stockholm, Sweden adjacent to the downtown, which is a brownfield site that is being developed as a sustainable neighborhood. Previously an industrial waterfront, planning for the redevelopment of the site began in 1996. The 2004 Olympic bid was incorporated into the site’s redevelopment, however after Sweden did not receive the bid, the city shifted its development focus to building a sustainable community that is twice as efficient as a typical one.

The 200 hectare district houses approximately 20,000 people in 9000 housing units. Hammarby also provides 200,000 square meters of commercial space providing jobs for 10,000 people (CABE 2007).

The district also provides for a wide range of educational, cultural and recreational programs (Dastur 2005).

SCORE 16.5 / 20 EVALUATION ON NEXT PAGE

HAMMARBY SJOSTAD , STOCKHOLM

52

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

4. CASE STUDIES 4E. HAMMARBY SJOSTAD , STOCKHOLM

2 INTERACTION STAGE B : CREATING ACCESSIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE Waterfront / water readily accessible using landscaped terraces , slopes , boardwalks

FIG 101 : Aerial overview www.skyscrapercity.com

1 SCOPE / TYPE

STAGE A : VISIONING THE WATERFRONT

A network of varied parks, green spaces and walkways runs through the district to provide a counterbalance to the dense urban landscape.

Green surfaces and trees that have been planted help to collect rain water locally instead of having it drain into the sewage system.

The natural landscape, where possible, has been preserved and has provided inspiration for the development. The original reeds and rushes remain along the waterfront, where built secluded walkways extend out into the water (CABE, 2007)

Integration of water with the urban fabric.

This approach makes water a part of people’s everyday life

STAGE D : ANIMATION

Water has been used to successfully animate spaces along the waterfront as well public squares and gardens

FIG 102 : Boardwalk along waterfront www.solaripedia.com

STAGE C: SHAPING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Promenades and plazas with public art , furniture and vegetation.Innovative use of green + blue infrastructure

FIG 104 : Animation on the waterfront www.symbiocity.org

4 TRANSFER The idea of incorporating water into the urban fabric and make it a part of everyday life

FIG 103 : Water within the urban fabric www.solaripedia.com

The rainwater from surrounding houses and gardens is led by an open drain system that drains out to the attractive channel. The water then runs into a series of basins, known as an equalizer, where the water is purified and filtered through sand filters or in the artificially established wetlands of the area.

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

53

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

TOOLKIT FRAMEWORK 4F. SOUTHBANK , LONDON DOCKLANDS

LONDON’S WATERFRONT

SCORE 10.5 / 20 EVALUATION ON NEXT PAGE

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

54

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

CASE STUDIES 4F. SOUTHBANK , LONDON DOCKLANDS

2 INTERACTION STAGE B : CREATING ACCESSIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE Not a lot of opportunities for closer interaction with the river.Mostly high embankments

Integration of water with the urban fabric.

This approach makes water a part of people’s everyday life

STAGE D : ANIMATION

Seasonal programming and events add an element of vibrancy to the London promenades.

Public art as source of animation on waterfront has scope for improvement

FIG 106 : Embankments along the riverfront www.west8.nl FIG 105 : Aerial overview edition.cnn.com

1 SCOPE / TYPE

STAGE C: SHAPING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Promenades and plazas with public art , furniture and vegetation.Not much innovation in design, conventional elements

4 TRANSFER

STAGE A : VISIONING THE WATERFRONT

When in 1980’s most of London’s post industrial landscape was derelict the national government started one of the first brownfield developments in Europe. But most of this regeneration were only commercially motivated without much attention to the quality of public realm it was creating

FIG 107 : Public realm along the Southbank en.wikipedia.org

FIG 108 : Barren patches of the waterfront

Learning from the various other examples of waterfronts in European cities it is clear that London has a lot of scope to improve as far as improving interaction between the user and Thames , developing its waterfronts as successful public spaces as well as integrating water into its urban fabric is concerned

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

55

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

56

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

TOOLKIT

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

57

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

5. TOOLKIT FRAMEWORK 5A. DESIGN OBJECTIVES 1

Literature

Case studies

+

+

+

+

Comparison

Personal observations

The category of INVOLVEMENT overlaps with interaction and integration and is directly or indirectly associated with all the tools

Re engage the user with water and make him appreciate the presence of water.

Examine the interface between water and the built environment and redesign it if need be to facilitate objective 1

INTERACTION

=

To help achieve the objectives the principles enlisted on the next page can be applied in a variety pf permutation and combinations.

These can be broadly grouped under three broad categories : INTERACTION , INTEGRATION and INVOLVEMENT.

OBJECTIVE 2

=

On careful examination of relevant literature , case studies and personal observations made the following are objectives to be achieved to answer the research question.

OBJECTIVE 1

INTEGRATION

2

OBJECTIVE 3

OBJECTIVE 4

OBJECTIVE 5

Use water as a placemaking tool to redefine the public realm and improve interaction between water + water’s edge and water + user.

Integrate water into the urban fabric to make it a part of people’s everyday life

Getting the community involved for continual engagement with water and help in the process of better interaction between water and the built environment DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

58

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

5. TOOLKIT FRAMEWORK 5B. SUPPORTING PRINCIPLES INTERACTION

3

Multisensory interaction The design intervention should allow the user to connect physically , visually and

Appropriate functionality Incorporate multiple functionality as part of the intervention to make it user friendly

Accessibility Make the design freely accessible to everyone

Continual occupancy Provide options for continuous occupancy which also helps in passive surveillance

Designing for tidal variation and mitigating impact of flood in unlikely situation

INVOLVEMENT

The principles of interaction and integration combine to make people more sensitive to the presence of water in and around their urban fabric by making water a part of their everyday life and ensuring continuous engagement with water

INTEGRATION

Overlap of communal space with waterscape The design should facilitate the use of waterscape as communal space

Infiltration Design should allow water to integrate with the built by allowing it to percolate

Conveyance Design should allow easy circulation of water which could also be used as an element of landscape design

Treatment Design should allow possible treatment of water so that it can be reused

R Harvest and storage Use design to help in storing and harvesting water within the urban fabric

Retrofit Most of these principles can be retrofitted to existing urban fabric DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

59

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

5. TOOLKIT FRAMEWORK 5C. TOOLS TO BE USED 4

Combination of these various principles result in the evolution of tools which will be tested on site for the final part of the project.Each of the tools and their underlying principles have been discussed further on the next few pages SLOPED ACCESS

SURGE POOL

BIO SWALES

TIERED SLOPE ACCESS

BOARDWALK

PERMEABLE PAVING / SURFACE

STEPPED ACCESS

RAIN GARDEN

WATER BASINS

URBAN BEACH

FLOATING WETLAND

WATER CHANNELS

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

60

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

5. TOOLKIT FRAMEWORK : DESCRIPTION

5D. TOOLS FOR INTERACTION

PRINCIPLES

1 Water surface 3

Sloping extension (Slope 1:12 ,

2 comfortable for walking /wheelchair

Multisensory interaction

Accessible

3 Existing waterfront 2

As per literature on the table on pg.27 incorporating slopes with the waterfront gives a sense of freedom and great potential for water related activities 1

SLOPED ACCESS

Such sloped extensions increase the physical , visual , tactual and psychological accessibility to water facilitating better interaction between water , water’s edge and the user.

Appropriate functionality

Passive surveillance and continual occupancy

Waterscape

1 Water surface 2 5

Sloping extension (Slope 1:12 , comfortable for walking /wheelchair wheelchairs ; accessible during low tide

Accessible

Multisensory interaction

3 Walkway

4

4 Sloping extension (Slope 1:12 ,

comfortable for walking /wheelchair wheelchairs ; accessible during high tide

3

5 Existing waterfront

2 1

This kind of a tiered approach gives the user the flexibility of using spaces depending on tidal conditions

Appropriate functionality

Passive surveillance and continual occupancy

Waterscape

Tidal Variation TABLE

TIERED SLOPE ACCESS

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

61

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

5. TOOLKIT FRAMEWORK : TABLE 5D. TOOLS FOR INTERACTION

DESCRIPTION

PRINCIPLES

1 Water surface 2 Stepped access to the water surface 3

3 Existing waterfront

Multisensory interaction

Accessible

Existing waterfront connected to water surface using steps creates visual , psychological and tactual interaction between user and water.

2

1

This also gives rise to the potential of creating sociable spaces.Ensuring continual occupancy also enables passive surveillance

Appropriate functionality

Passive surveillance and continual occupancy

Waterscape

STEPPED ACCESS

1 Water surface 2 Urban beach 3 Access ramp

4

Accessible

Multisensory interaction

4 Existing waterfront 3

2

1

Urban beaches simulates a public beachfront, through the use of sand, beach umbrellas, and seating elements.

The very point of the urban beach is to surprise and delight city residents, workers, and visitors by inserting a beach atmosphere into an otherwise typical urban area

Appropriate functionality

Passive surveillance and continual occupancy

Waterscape URBAN BEACH

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

62

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

5. TOOLKIT FRAMEWORK : TABLE

DESCRIPTION

5D. TOOLS FOR INTERACTION

PRINCIPLES

1 Water surface 2 Lower basin (to be filled when upper basin

3

5

is full with excessive rain and water is let out using the water gate.Till then the lower basin can be used as an urban element for recreational or communal activities

4

Accessible

Multisensory interaction

3 Watergate 4 Upper basin (Can be used as a communal

2

1

SURGE POOL

space or for recreational activities when dry.Fills up in the event of a flood when excessive water from lower basin is let to the upper basin,also used for flood mitigation) 5 Existing waterfront

Appropriate functionality

Passive surveillance and continual occupancy

Tidal Variation

Waterscape

Flood mitigation

1 Water surface 2 Boardwalk along water surface to

increase interaction.Boardwalks can also used as elements of circulation / connection to various zones of the waterfront design

3

Accessible

Multisensory interaction

3 Existing waterfront

Appropriate functionality

2

Passive surveillance and continual occupancy

1

Waterscape

BOARDWALK

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

63

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

5. TOOLKIT FRAMEWORK : DESCRIPTION

5E. TOOLS FOR INTEGRATION

1 Paving blocks

R

2 Sediment laying course 3 Sub base (ground) 2

1

TABLE

PRINCIPLES

Infiltration Conveyance

Retrofit

Application along shared spaces / paved areas to allow water to infiltrate to the ground.It also improves the relation between water and the built environment

3

Water channels as connecting elements between various water integration features in the built environment

PERMEABLE PAVING 1 Upper basin : Allows storage of water

during rains and can be transfered into a lower basin in the event of it filling up using a watergate.When dry is used as a communal space

4

5 3

2

Harvest

2 Sloped extension / green space to

allow infiltration during transfer to lower basin

3 Lower basin to be used as recreational

1

Infiltration Conveyance Treatment

/ open space when dry.Structure makes mater a visible entity within the urban fabric and makes it a part of the user’s everyday life

Storage

Appropriate functionality

4 Water basin 5 Sloped extension

Overlap of communal space and waterscape

WATER BASINS DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

64

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

5. TOOLKIT FRAMEWORK : TABLE

DESCRIPTION

5E. TOOLS FOR INTEGRATION

PRINCIPLES

1 Max 1:3 slope ; Min 5ft wide , Max 12

3

ft wide depression for slowing and capturing runoff horizontally in the urban fabric

Infiltration Conveyance Treatment

2 12 “ growing medium 1

R

3 Permeable filter fabric

Application in forecourts , street spaces , kerbs with frequent runoff.In this context it usually refers to a waterharvesting ditch.It is looked at as a good way of integrating water into the built environment

2

Overlap of communal space

Multisensory interaction

Retrofit Everyday use

Biodiversity

BIO SWALE 1 Ponding zone (low area) 2 Garden (slope)

Infiltration Conveyance Treatment 2

3 Prepared soil mix 3

1

4

4 4” gravel reservoir

Can be applied in large open spaces , acts as calmers , landscaped zones of interaction.Can be planted with relevant vegetation to make these zones rich in biodiversity.

Overlap of communal space and waterscape

R Multisensory interaction

Retrofit

Everyday use

Biodiversity RAIN GARDEN DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

65

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

66

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

THE SITE

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

67

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

1. WHY PUBLIC REALM IMPROVEMENTS ?

LACK OF WELL DESIGNED PUBLIC REALM

2. WHY POSTINDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT ?

BEFORE

3. WHY RESIDENTIAL WATERFRONT ?

CULTURAL / MIXED USE WATERFRONT

AFTER

FIG 109 : The current scenario www.urban75.org

FIG 111 : Olympicopolis waterfront

RESIDENTIAL WATERFRONT econgeogblog.blogspot.com

The survey conducted on Pg. 40 points towards lack of complete satisfaction with the quality of the public realm.

The study of successful waterfront projects from other parts of Europe show that an enhanced public realm can make the place more attractive , generate footfall, create opportunities for retail and recreation and improve people’s interaction with the water.

FIG 110 : Canary Wharf now and

With more and more derelict industrial land going in for regeneration in London and around the world specially along riverfronts , it is important to relook at the way we design our waterfronts.

The present site allows application of different scales of design interventions to help create a community which has a positive relationship with the element of water that surrounds them

FIG 112: London’s residential waterfront worldarchitecture.org

The survey also shows people spend a lot of time at their home after work.While other waterfronts are being enhanced using creative solutions it is the waterfronts along residential areas where they inhabit that remain monotonous and lack animation.

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

68

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

6. THE SITE 3. WHY NEW DEVELOPMENT ?

CHELSEA WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT

“ How can public

realm improvements and design interventions1 along London’s post industrial waterfront2

FIG 113: Upcoming riverfront developments , Thames (Chelsea) search.knightfrank.co.uk

CURRENT PRACTICE : With a lot of new development schemes all over London along the Thames having received planning permission it is important to treat them as opportunities of reworking on practices that have been going on in the past and enhance the quality of solutions.

6A. SITE JUSTIFICATION

help in creating a better interaction between the public , the water, the waters edge and the places

inhabit3 ? “

In most of these developments increased interaction between the river and the user and river and the urban fabric are lost in the clutches of standardized waterfront designs.

they

The current site helps in answering most parts of the research question.It is post industrial with a new residential development coming up where people will be inhabiting.

OPPORTUNITY Since the current site has just received planning permissions and construction has not started interventions for improving the quality of its waterfront remain a possibility

This scheme has received planning permission with a vast scope of improvement on the waterfront and connecting it to the River Thames on one side and river Lea on the other while integrating water into the proposed urban fabric and making water a part of user’s everyday life DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

69

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

6. THE SITE 6B. SITE LOCATION AND CONTEXT

THE SITE AND ITS LOCATION The Leamouth region of Tower Hamlets is rapidly changing - once an area of intense industrial activity, the closure of the docks and decline in manufacturing resulted in numerous vacant and underused brownfield sites.

More recently, the employment opportunities of Canary Wharf and its improved transport links into the City have created an emerging satellite town in the docklands,bringing positive opportunities for rapidly growing and high density residential populations in surrounding areas such as Leamouth.

TOWER HAMLETS IN LONDON CONTEXT

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

70

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

6. THE SITE 6B. SITE LOCATION AND CONTEXT

ING

LOWER LEA CROSS

RIV

ER

EAST INDIA DOCK BASIN

LEA

THE SITE

RIVER

THAM

ES

THE SITE

SITE WITHIN TOWER HAMLETS

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

71

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

6. THE SITE 6C. HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE SITE

an

www.to werh am lets . go v.u k/ ... /p l

ng ni pp _a

lica

s tion

EARLY 1700’S

MID 1800’S

From the middle ages and right up to the late 18th century, Orchard Place was green and rural.

The Orchard House estate was first built on Leamouth South in the late fifteenth century, although rebuilt several times, it occupied the Site for over 300 years until eventually demolished in 1870.

Earliest records show the Leamouth peninsulas were divided into two freehold estates including Orchard House estate on the southern peninsula.

ww

FIG 115 : East India Dock

a

ing_applications.

cations _appli

/plann

ing ann /p l

/... v.uk .go

/...

s let am rh

The Brunswick Dock was one of the first docks to be built in East London and was constructed in 1789.

we rh

k v.u go ts. le

we .to

THE DOCK : EARLY1800’S

w. to

m

ww w

The Brunswick Dock was converted to the East India Export Dock in 1803 and from that time the area took on another scale of ship building and trading

FIG 116 : Orchard house

FIG 114 : The

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

72

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

6. THE SITE 6C. HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE SITE www .t o w erh a

ml et s.g

DR Y DOCK : EXAMPLE

o

n lan /p .. . k/ v.u

MID 1900’S : DECLINE

plica _ap ing

tions.

8/31/2016

By the 20th Century, large-scale shipbuilding was in decline due to steam power and larger ships outgrowing the space on the peninsula.

By the 1950s most of the trade had left East India Docks with the area falling into dereliction.

Republic

Republic - Google Maps

cs.finescale.

THE SITE TODAY

FIG 117 : Trinity Buoy

LATER 1800’S Trinity Buoy Wharf and many of its original Victorian buildings remain on Leamouth South today. The experimental lighthouse was used to test maritime lighting equipment and train lighthouse keepers.

GOOGLE EARTH

FIG 118

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

73 Imagery ©2016 Google, Map data ©2016 Google

50 m

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

6. THE SITE 6D . RECENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS

1 The applicant has owned the Site for several years and submitted a previous planning application designed

by SOM architects in 2005. The application was recommended for refusal and so withdrawn prior to a decision.The current scheme by Allies and Morrison has planning consent

2 Trinity Buoy Wharf gained planning permission for a cycle and pedestrian bridge link in the north west corner of the Site in 2010 and is currently pursuing funding to build the bridge.

3 Orchard Wharf is a safeguarded wharf. A planning application was submitted for a aggregates batching plant on Orchard Wharf in 2011. The application was refused by LBTH due to design quality and massing.

Map showing recent planning permission on site

4 Trinity Buoy Wharf were granted planning permission in 1998 for a 5 storey building made from recycled shipping containers located directly adjacent to Trinity Buoy Lighthouse.

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

74

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

6. THE SITE 6E . APPROVED PLANNING APPLICATION

The standardized design for the waterfront as proposed in the current proposal which has planning consent.

MY APPROACH Ideally one would work towards relooking and dealing with the inefficiencies of the residential masterplan.

However having already received planning permission , a better approach might be to use interventions as an overlay that add value to the proposal as it stands.

There will be limitations to this approach but they can demonstrate the applicability of the interventions on ongoing projects.

Source : Allies and Morrison architects

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

75

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

6. THE SITE 6F. MACRO ANALYSIS OF CONTEXT : FIGURE GROUND As can be seen from the figure ground the site and its immediate surroundings have a fairly good balance of built vs unbuilt.Visually the percentage of green / open spaces exceeds the built and this factor should be taken into consideration while designing such that the balance is not hampered.

G

LOWER LEA CROSSIN

RIV

ER

EAST INDIA DOCK BASIN

Except the East India Dock basin which acts as an enclosure of water there are not much avenues for integrating water into the urban fabric

LEA

ORCHARD PLACE

TRINITY BUOY WHARF

RIVER THAMES

1 : 6000

WITHOUT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

After the proposed development the percentage of open space within the site boundary highlighted in red reduces and it is important to look into interventions which can help reintegrate green as well as water into the new urban fabric.

G

LOWER LEA CROSSIN

RIV

ER

EAST INDIA DOCK BASIN

LEA

ORCHARD PLACE

Built

RIVER THAMES

Unbuilt

TRINITY BUOY WHARF

Water 1 : 6000

WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

76

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

6. THE SITE 6F. MACRO ANALYSIS OF CONTEXT : OPEN + GREEN This map shows all the green / open spaces in and around the site.The biodiversity rich East India dock Basin is an important part within the site boundary.

The open spaces have a higher percentage but many new developments have recently received planning permissions in the region. How long the scenario would stay similar to this map is yet to be seen

G

LOWER LEA CROSSIN

RIV

ER

EAST INDIA DOCK BASIN

LEA

ORCHARD PLACE

TRINITY BUOY WHARF

RIVER THAMES

1 : 6000

WITHOUT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This map shows the context with the proposed residential scheme in place.The East India Dock basin could be crucial in inspiring green strategies for the new urban fabric as a result of the upcoming residential development at Orchard place The design solution has to look at mitigating the impact of construction on an otherwise open site.

G

LOWER LEA CROSSIN

RIV

ER

EAST INDIA DOCK BASIN

LEA

Potential to become green space

ORCHARD PLACE

Green space Built

RIVER THAMES

Open space

TRINITY BUOY WHARF

Water 1 : 6000

WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

77

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

6. THE SITE 6F . MACRO ANALYSIS OF CONTEXT : BUILDING The older urban fabric comprises primary of low rise built upto 5 floors.Most of the recent construction in the area and upcoming developments are going to drastically change the built landscape with many high rises above the 15 floor height mark G

LOWER LEA CROSSIN

RIV

ER

EAST INDIA DOCK BASIN

LEA

ORCHARD PLACE

TRINITY BUOY WHARF

RIVER THAMES

1 : 6000

WITHOUT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The new development has a mixture of predominantly 11 - 20 floors as well as 21 floors and above

G

LOWER LEA CROSSIN

RIV

ER

EAST INDIA DOCK BASIN

LEA

1 - 5 floors

ORCHARD PLACE

6 - 10 11 - 20 floors RIVER THAMES

TRINITY BUOY WHARF

21 floors and above 1 : 6000

WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

78

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

6. THE SITE 6F. MACRO ANALYSIS OF CONTEXT : ROUTES

T

EAS

IA IND

This map analyses the ways to access the site as well as the road network surrounding the site.As of now their are existing pedestrian linkages and access to the nearby East India DLR Station.

CK

DO

UPCOMING NEW DEVELOPMENT

DL

RC

ON

NE

CT

ION

Extension of the Thames path can greatly benefit the site and form a continuous stretch of public infrastructure.

G

LOWER LEA CROSSIN

RIV

ER

EAST INDIA DOCK BASIN

LEA

ORCHARD PLACE

TH S PA

Primary routes

ME THA

RIVER THAMES

Secondary routes

TRINITY BUOY WHARF

Tertiary routes

1 : 5500

WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

79

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

6. THE SITE 6F. MACRO ANALYSIS OF CONTEXT : PROPOSED

It was important to make an assessment of the proposed and existing land uses on site to generate more informed design interventions and take decisions regarding where to place them on site so that they could have some correspondence to the land uses.

G

LOWER LEA CROSSIN

RIV

ER

LEA

Since the buildings have now received planning permission the source of this land use data is the application made to the Borough of Tower Hamlets by the developer

EAST INDIA DOCK BASIN

ORCHARD PLACE

RIVER THAMES

TRINITY BUOY WHARF

GROUND FLOOR LAND USES

1 : 3600

Recreational

G

LOWER LEA CROSSIN

Retail RIV

ER

Community LEA

Circulation / common areas

EAST INDIA DOCK BASIN

Commercial + office Cultural ORCHARD PLACE

Education Restaurant / cafe Residential

RIVER THAMES FIRST FLOOR AND ABOVE LAND USES

Roof garden TRINITY BUOY WHARF

1 : 3600 DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

80

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

6. THE SITE 6F. MACRO ANALYSIS OF CONTEXT : WATER FLOW ON SITE AND FLOOD

The site is within an Environment Agency designated Flood Zone 3 - land assessed as having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding

(>1%), or a 1 in 200 or greater annual probability of flooding from the sea (>0.5%) in any year, ignoring the presence of defenses.

All proposals are broadly acceptable in principle in respect of London Plan policy 5.12 but should be updated at the detailed stage to improve the development resilience in the unlikely event of a flood.

1 : 5500

PLANNING APPLICATION , TOWER HAMLETS

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

81

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2G. MICRO ANALYSIS : CONDITIONS ON SITE HERITAGE

6. THE SITE CONDITION OF RIVER WALL

RIV

ER

PARKING DOMINATED

TABLE

WA LL

DRY DOCK

RIV

CAISSON

ER

TRINITY BUOY WHARF

FIG 118 : Trinity Buoy Wharf

Highlighted in the graphic above the heritage elements on site : The Trinity Buoy Wharf , the now covered dry dock and the caisson along the river wall.Though designing around heritage elements can be tricky it can be used to the advantage of developing a concept for the intervention.

WA LL

FIG 119 : River wall

The condition of the river wall along the site is questionable along many points and might prove to be a threat later.The design proposal must take this into account and work towards strengthening it using design interventions

TRINITY BUOY WHARF

FIG 120 : Parking

The site currently is a huge expanse of impermeable surface which reduces chances of establishing a positive connection between the site and water.

The area near the Trinity buoy wharf is also parking dominated which makes matters worse

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

82

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2G. MICRO ANALYSIS : CONDITIONS ON SITE LACK OF GREEN SPACES

RIVER

6. THE SITE

TABLE

PROBABILITY OF FLOOD

NO / LIMITED ACCESS TO THE RIVER

LEA

FLOOD ZONE III

RIVER

THAM

ES

FIG 121 : No visual connection with water

The site with its current configuration of buildings doesn’t leave any scope for through and through visual axis preventing a sense of contact between the user and the rivers on both sides of the site

FIG

The site lies in flood zone 3 which means the probability of it getting affected by a flood is very low but this aspect should be considered in further design proposals

FIG 123 : No access to the river

Though the site is surrounded by water on three sides it has no accessibility to the river hindering any form of physical and psychological interaction between user and water.

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

83

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2H. MICRO ANALYSIS : OPPORTUNITIES ON SITE BIODIVERSITY RICH ZONE ACCESSIBILITY TO THE WETLAND

EAST INDIA DOCK BASIN

6. THE SITE TABLE 9

IMPROVEMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE

EAST INDIA DOCK BASIN

FIG 125 : No access to

FIG 126

Currently the user can feel disconnected physically to the biodiversity in the wetlands of the East India dock basin.It could be interesting to give them the option of going closer to the flora and fauna

Infrastructure in the East India dock basin such as this bridge is in need of repair , upgradation and upkeep to encourage users into this area.The basin offers dramatic views of the Thames with O2 as the backdrop

FIG 124 : East India Dock Basin

The ecologically diverse East India dock basin lies within the site boundary which can provide clues for incorporating water within the urban fabric using natural processes.

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

84

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2H. MICRO ANALYSIS : OPPORTUNITIES ON SITE ACCESSIBILITY TO THE RIVER TAKE ADVANTAGE OF VISUAL AXIS

6. THE SITE CONNECTING WATER & URBAN FABRIC

NEW DEVELOPMENT (UNDER

NEW DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING PERMISSION)

FIG 127 : Lack of accessibility to water

All along the site there is lack of accessibility to the rivers which can be changed to establish a more positive relationship between water and the users of the upcoming residential towers on site

FIG 128 : Upcoming new development in the

The site can be connected to upcoming (under construction) developments in the vicinity to possibly generate long stretches of continuous and shared green / open spaces between the two residential developments.

FIG 129 : Taking water inland (East India Dock Basin)

The site is surrounded by water on three sides and in its present form could be used to integrate water into its built fabric to connect it better with its surroundings

This in in context to a proposal for a new bridge which has already received planning permission DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

85

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

2H. MICRO ANALYSIS : OPPORTUNITIES ON SITE SILT ACCUMULATION

6. THE SITE TABLE 9

CULTURAL QUARTER THE STEP FORWARD : STRATEGIES

For indicating the strategies on site the footprint of the proposed residential scheme is also considered because my final proposal has to be looked at as a holistic design which integrates with the residential proposal. Learnings from identifying the present conditions and opportunities on site are combined with the residential proposal by Allies and Morrison to come to a consolidated concept for the masterplan.

Ideally one would work towards relooking and dealing with the inefficiencies of the residential masterplan.

However having already received planning permission , a better approach might be to use interventions as an overlay that add value to the proposal as it stands.

There will be limitations to this approach but they can demonstrate the applicability of the interventions on ongoing projects.

FIG 130 : Silt accumulation

As can be seen in the image silt accumulates at specific locations along the site and can be made accessible during low tides to bring users closer to water

FIG 131 : Trinity Buoy wharf

Having a cultural element within the site boundary could prove to be a huge positive influence and give clues towards design of the public realm on site.

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

86

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

6. THE SITE ARRIVING TOWARDS SITE STRATEGY OBSERVATIONS ON SITE

CONSTRAINTS

+ SITE ANALYSIS

STRATEGIES

OPPORTUNITIES

+

TOOLKIT

EXPLAINING INTERVENTIONS IN DETAIL

ARRIVING AT THE CONCEPTUAL MASTERPLAN

APPLICATION OF TOOLS ON THE VARIOUS LOCATIONS OF THE SITE BASED ON THE STRATEGY

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

87

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

6. THE SITE

6I. TOWARDS PROPOSAL : STRATEGIES ON SITE

TABLE 10

ACCESSIBILITY TO THE BASIN

CONNECT SITE TO BIODIVERSITY ZONE

FIG

Extend accessibility to the basin , taking visitors closer to experience the biodiversity.Also create floating wetlands along the new access to enhance the experience

PARK IMPROVEMENT + INFRASTRUCTURE

FIG

Connect the ecological park to the site by forming corridors within the urban fabric with green + Blue infrastructure and make water a part of people’s everyday lives

THAMES PATH EXTENSION

FIG

Design a visitor / interpretation centre for the ecological park (East India Dock basin) and improve design/landscape of the park

BUFFER ZONE

FIG

Create suitable buffer zone to help mitigate impact of the development on the ecologically sensitive East India Dock Basin

INTRODUCE WATER INTO URBAN FABRIC

FIG

Connect the proposal to the Thames Path and develop a continuous waterfront

FIG

Create avenues for incorporating / extending the experience of blue (water) into the urban fabric DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

88

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

6. THE SITE

6I. TOWARDS PROPOSAL : STRATEGIES ON SITE EXTEND URBAN REALM INTO WATER

CREATE AN URBAN BEACH

FIG

FIG

Create avenues for incorporating / extending the experience of green (land) into water as an extension of the existing urban realm

EMPHASIZE AXIS

HIGHLIGHT HERITAGE

Silt accumulation zone. Potential for creation of an urban beach as extension of the existing urban realm

STAGGERING PROPOSAL

FIG

FIG

Incorporate cultural characteristic of the Trinity Buoy wharf into this part of the waterfront

FIG

Resurface the heritage elements and incorporate them into the overall design strategy.

CULTURAL QUARTER

Utilize through and through visual and physical linkages through site for connecting both the waterfronts and also users on site to the element of water

TABLE 10

FIG

Stagger design to facilitate easy movement of boats to pier DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

89

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

APPLICATION OF TOOLS ON SITE

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

90

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL Putting all the strategies in place with the proposed residential scheme to arrive at the next stage of programming the proposal.

FIG

BL INFR UE+GR EE AST RUC N TUR E ROO F GA BLU RDE INFR E+GR N EE AST RUC N TUR E ROO F GA RDE N BL INFR UE+GR EE AST RUC N TUR E

WET

LAN

INFR

AST

RUC T

URE

IC

FIG

E

ID

T GH

HI

OL

O EP

RG

SU

H HIG

E

OW

L E+

TID

PLA Y

DS PICN

Diagram showing the location of various programs on site for the interventions as consolidated from the strategies map above

TID

UR

B

AN

C W ULT AT UR ER A FR L O N

CH

A

BE

T DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

91

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL 7B. THE SITE DIVIDED INTO THREE DISTINCT PARTS DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER AND SCALE OF POSSIBLE INTERVENTIONS

SCALE 1 : (SMALL) ENCLOSURE

FIG

Mostly retrofitting

Mostly retrofitting + minor construction

SCALE 3 : (LARGE )WATERFRONT Involves construction

PROGRESSING SCALE OF INTERVENTIONS 92

SCALE 3 : (LARGE ) WATERFRONT

SCALE 2 : (MID) URBAN FABRIC

SCALE 2 : (MID) URBAN FABRIC

SCALE 1 : (SMALL) ENCLOSURE

Mostly retrofitting

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

SLOPE

RAIN GARDEN

ROOF GARDEN TIERED SLOPE

RAIN GARDEN

7C. APPLICATION OF THE TOOLS ON SITE AS PER THE THREE DIFFERENT SCALE OF INTERVENTIONS ROOF GARDEN

BOARDWALK

BOARDWALK

SURGE POOL

STEPS

FIG 147

FLOATING WETLAND

SLOPE

TIERED SLOPE

URBAN BEACH

TIERED SLOPE

STEPS DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

93

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL

SCALE 1 : (SMALL) ENCLOSURE Mostly retrofitting

SCALE 2 : (MID) URBAN FABRIC

Mostly retrofitting + minor construction

PROGRESSING SCALE OF INTERVENTIONS

7C. APPLICATIONS OF THE TOOLS ON SITE AS PER THE THREE DIFFERENT SCALE OF INTERVENTIONS

BOARDWALK

SCALE 1 : ENCLOSURE

FLOATING WETLANDS SCALE 2 : URBAN FABRIC

SLOPE

ROOF GARDEN

TIERED SLOPE

RAIN GARDEN

BOARDWALK

SCALE 3 :WATERFRONT

STEPS

TIERED SLOPE

URBAN BEACH

SLOPE

SURGE POOL

SCALE 3 : (LARGE )WATERFRONT Involves construction

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

94

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

THE PROPOSAL

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

95

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

96

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL 7D. MASTERPLAN THE WIDER CONTEXT

The tools , strategies and programs are combined to arrive at the conceptual masterplan which have been discussed further at the macro and micro scales.

A DI IN AD T O S EA CK R DO

GAS HOLDERS

UPCOMING RIVER ISLAND LIMMO

DLR

RIV

ER

EAST INDIA DOCK BASIN

NEWPORT AVENUE

MES

THA

LEA

ORCHARD PLACE

PATH

RIVER

DOCKLAND WASTE

THAME

S

1 : 5500

FIG 148 : Masterplan with wider context

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

97

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL 7E. MASTERPLAN AT LOW TIDE : (RIVER WATER AT +2.59 M FROM 0 LVL LOWER LEA 24

1

3

RIVER

23

25

LEA

22 20

2

21

7 20 20 4

ORCHARD PLACE

6

17

18

8

12

20 26

9

5

ATH ES P

M THA

EAST INDIA DOCK

19 10

WATERFRONT

RIVE

R TH

Urban beach

1

Observation decks

7

Vegetated Buffer

13

2

Floating wetlands

8

Picnic area

14 Existing pier

20 Roof gardens

3

21 Boardwalks

9

Sloped extension

15 Floating deck

22 23 Lea

4

Interpretation centre

10 Surge pool

5

Gardens

11 Tiered slope extension 17 18 Linear Park

6

Improved bridge

12 Kid’s play area

16

URBAN FABRIC

Cultural quarter

19 Swale along

TRINITY BUOY

11

16

13

AM

ES 14

Slope extending to River

11 15

24 Proposed new bridge 25 Bridge plaza 26 Resurfaced drydock

Approved residential scheme (designed by Allies and Morrison architects) DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

98

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL 7F. MASTERPLAN AT HIGH TIDE : (RIVER AT +3.76 M FROM LOWER LEA 24

1

3

RIVER

23

25

LEA

22 2

20

EAST INDIA DOCK

21

7 20 20

4

ORCHARD PLACE

6

17

18

8

12

20 26

ME THA

EAST INDIA DOCK

9

5

TH S PA

19 10

TRINITY BUOY

11

WATERFRONT

RIVE

R TH

Observation decks

7

Vegetated Buffer

2

Floating wetlands

8

Picnic area

14 Existing pier

20 Roof gardens

3

21 Boardwalks

9

Sloped extension

15 Floating deck

22 23 Lea

4

Interpretation centre

10 Surge pool

16 Cultural quarter

24 Proposed new bridge

5

Gardens

11

Tiered slope extension 17 18

6

Improved bridge

12

Kid’s play area

19

Linear Park

Swale along routes

URBAN FABRIC

16

13

AM

1

13 Urban beach

ES 14

Slope extending to River

11 15

25 Bridge plaza 26 Resurfaced drydock

Approved residential scheme (designed by Allies and Morrison architects) DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

99

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

100

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

INTERVENTIONS FOR INTEGRATION

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

101

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL

7G . SCALE 1 : (SMALL) ENCLOSURE THE EAST INDIA DOCK BASIN 6

RIV

ER

RIV

ER

4 5

TH

LEA

AM

ES

N

4

LOCATION TOOLS USED

+

4 7

BOARDWALK

FLOATING WETLANDS PRINCIPLES

3

4 1 Anchor points 2 Floating unit 3 Floating boardwalks

2

Accessible

Multisensory interaction

R

4 Floating Wetlands 1 1

5 East India Dock Basin 6 Existing peripheral walkway 7 Urban furniture

Appropriate functionality

Infiltration

Treatment

Retrofit

Biodiversity DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

102

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL

FIG 149 : Taking users closer to experience the biodiversity using boardwalks and floating wetlands as mediums of enhancing DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

103

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL

7H . SCALE 2 : (MID) URBAN FABRIC,

RIV

ER

LEA

TIERED SLOPE RIV

ER

TH

PRINCIPLES

TOOLS USED

TIERED SLOPE LEADING TO RIVER LEA

+

Accessible

Multisensory interaction Waterscape

Appropriate functionality

Infiltration Conveyance Treatment

BOARDWALK

AM

ES

N LOCATION

BIOSWALE

RAIN GARDEN

Tidal Variation

Overlap of communal Everyday use space and waterscape

DETAIL II

8

DETAIL I 6

HIGH TIDE 5

4

3 2

1

The sloped terrace gives options to maintain level of interaction with the river as per personal preference and tidal conditions.The terrace helps the urban fabric lead / connect to the river.

Towards the end three levels are interaction are possible (Promenade , garden , Boardwalk)

: +3.76

1

Bio swale

6 Promenade walk

2

Walkways and urban furniture

7 Boardwalk

3

Sloped rain garden (Tier 1)

8

4

Flat surface

5

Sloped rain garden (Tier 2)

7

River Lea

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

104

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL DETAIL I

The tiered nature of the slope

DETAIL II

Three levels of interaction : Bordwalk(High), Slope leading to river lea (Mid), Promenade (Low)

FIG 150 : View looking from tiered landscaped slope towards River Lea DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

105

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7H . SCALE 2 : (MID) URBAN FABRIC,

TIERED SLOPE WITH PLAY AREAS LEADING TO RIV

ER

LEA

SLOPE RIV

ER

TH

PRINCIPLES

TOOLS USED

+

Accessible

Multisensory interaction Waterscape

Appropriate functionality

Infiltration Conveyance Treatment

BOARDWALK

AM

ES

N LOCATION

BIOSWALE

RAIN GARDEN

Tidal Variation

Overlap of communal Everyday use space and waterscape

The sloped terrace unlike the previous one is not tiered.It also gives options to maintain level of interaction with the river as per personal preference and tidal conditions.

The terrace helps the urban fabric lead / connect to the river.This intervention is a variation of the previous option and incorporates dedicated play areas.

7

Also this is a single sloped design feature which is surrounded by bio swales that act as a landscaped feature as well as help in percolation of run off water

5 3

2

1

6

HIGH TIDE

4

1 Bio swale

5

2 Sports / play area 1

6 Boardwalk

3 Sports / play area 2

7

: + 3.76 M

Promenade

River Lea

4 Sloped Rain garden (Tier 1) DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

106

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL

FIG 151 : View showing sloped landscape area with play zones leading to the River Lea DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

107

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7H . SCALE 2 : (MID) URBAN FABRIC,

RIV

ER

RIV

ER

TH

PRINCIPLES

TOOLS USED

TYPICAL ROOF GARDEN FOR AREA

Appropriate functionality

LEA

Infiltration

AM

ES

Multisensory interaction

Everyday use

Overlap of communal space and waterscape

Treatment

R

N LOCATION

ROOF GARDEN

Retrofit

Harvest

6

1 2

4

5 1 Dry landscaping

3

2 Roof garden 3 Walkway 4 Boardwalk 5 Promenade with rain

garden and permeable paving 6 River Lea DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

108

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL

Biodiversity

7H . SCALE 2 : (MID) URBAN FABRIC,

RIV

ER

+

LEA

ER

TH

Appropriate functionality

Multisensory interaction

Everyday use

PERMEABLE PAVING

BIO SWALE

RIV

PRINCIPLES

TOOLS USED

LINEAR PARK DESIGN

AM

Infiltration

ES

N

RAIN GARDEN

LOCATION

Treatment

R

Biodiversity Overlap of communal space and waterscape

Conveyance

Retrofit

6 4

5

3 1 2

Bio swale

2 Rain Garden 3 Urban art installation

1

4 Promenade with permeable paving 5 Boardwalk 6

River Lea DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

109

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7H . SCALE 2 : (MID) URBAN FABRIC,

RIV

ER

Accessible

LEA

+

WATER BASINS RIV

ER

TH

PRINCIPLES

TOOLS USED

THE HISTORIC DRY DOCK RESURFACED AND

Multisensory interaction

PERMEABLE PAVING Passive surveillance and continual

AM

ES

N LOCATION

DETAIL II

BIOSWALE

RAIN GARDEN

Everyday use

4 7

3

5

3

1

2

5

8

7

Infiltration Treatment

Overlap of communal space Storage Biodiversity and waterscape

DETAIL I

4

Appropriate functionality

6

BASIN I (LOWER)

2

BASIN II (UPPER)

1 Bio swale

5 Urban furniture

2 Peripheral water channel

6 Connecting bridge

leading to water storage pond

The resurfaced drydock as a public space to integrate green + blue infrastructure into the urban fabric making water a part of people’s everyday lives.The feature is flanked by bioswales on all sides.Water from the upper basin is let into the lower basin using a Watergate .Both basins are used as work + play areas bringing people closer to water 110

1

3 Wooden deck 4 Landscaped steps

7 Water retention

feature

8 Water gate DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL ZOOMED PERSPECTIVE SECTION DETAIL I

The Watergate between the Upper and lower DETAIL II

The swale and water channels feeding water into the retention ponds streams

FIG 151 : The resurfaced drydock as a feature to integrate green + blue infrastructure into the urban fabric.THe area is treated as a communal public space for work and play.

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

111

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL

7I. SECTIONAL DETAILS RAIN GARDEN ON PROMENADE 1

Perforated pipe connecting to basin / outlet

2

WATER BASIN (DRY DOCK AREA) Rain garden / native plants

1 Waterfront surface

6

Prepared soil mixture

2 Kerb

7 Water Channel for taking runoff water to

3

Gravel drainage layer

3 Prepared soil mixture

4

Sand transition layer

4 Sand transition layer

5

Waterfront surface

5 Gravel drainage layer

6

Rain garden 6

5

1

2

FIG

FIG 156 : Section through site

1

6

6

2

3

4

3

4

3

8 Water retention pond / water feature

7

6 4

8

5

5

FIG

; SCALE 1: 9000

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

112

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL SWALE ALONG ROAD

PERMEABLE PAVING TO ALLOW INFILTRATION

1

Perforated pipe connecting to basin / outlet

1

2

Prepared soil mixture

2

Paver blocks

6 Bedding course

3

Road surface

3

Building

7 Geotextile on sub base

4

Kerb

4

Foundation

8 Sub base

5

Rain garden / Bioswale

5

9 Perforated pipe connecting to basin

/ outlet

3

2 3

1

5

5 6 7

4

2

Gaps with vegetation

4

8

1

FIG

FIG

FIG 156 : Section through site ; SCALE : 1:9000

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

113

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL

7I. SECTION SHOWING INTEGRATION OF WATER INTO THE URBAN FABRIC

River Lea

Roof garden

Upper water basin with landscape Bioswale Lower water basin with landscape

Permeable paving

Runoff collection Storm water filter To storm water drain High water pump Storage volume

Irrigation pump FIG 157 : Detailed section showing flow of water Water basin pump DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

114

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

INTERVENTIONS FOR INTERACTION

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

115

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL

7J . SCALE 3 : (LARGE) WATERFRONT, SLOPED EXTENSION

RIV

ER

RIV

5

ER

1

TH

LEA

AM

ES

N LOCATION

2

TOOLS USED

3 4

+

6

DE H TI

HIG

LOW

76 M

.

:+3

.59

TID

2 E:+

SLOPED TERRACE

M

This part of the waterfront has been extended as a combination of steps and sloped landscape to increase interaction between the existing embankment and the river Thames.Populating the slope with urban furniture and vegetation (both conventional and intertidal) helps create potential zones of social gathering.The design caters to the high tide in the river as has been indicated in the diagram.The stepped access gives another format of positively influencing interaction between the user and water.

STEPS PRINCIPLES

1 Existing waterfront / embankment remodeled as

per concept

Accessible

Multisensory interaction

2 Sloped extension 3 Urban furniture

Appropriate functionality

4 Boardwalk

Passive surveillance and continual occupancy

Waterscape

5 Stepped access 6 River Thames DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

116

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL

FIG 158 : View looking towards promenade showing various zones of interaction on the sloped extension of the waterfront DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

117

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7J . SCALE 3 : (LARGE) WATERFRONT , TIERED SLOPE EXTENSION

RIV

ER

RIV

ER

1 2 5

TH

AM

ES

N

3

4

LEA

LOCATION TOOLS USED

7

6

8

IDE HIGH T

6 : +3.7

M

+

.59 M

E:+2

TID LOW

TIERED SLOPE

BOARDWALK PRINCIPLES

This part of the waterfront has been extended as a tiered slopes which can be used as per the tidal conditions.These terraces are populated with potential areas for setting up temporary kiosks , urban furniture and vegetation to allow continual occupancy.They have not been over programmed are options on how to use it are left to the user.This approach again increases visual , tactual and psychological access to the river.

1 Existing waterfront / embankment remodeled as

per concept

Accessible

Multisensory interaction

2 Sloped extension (Accessible during high tide) 3 Potential location of Kiosk 4

7 Boardwalk

5 Sloped extension (Accessible during low tide) 6 Urban furniture

8 River Thames

Appropriate functionality

Passive surveillance and continual occupancy

Waterscape

Tidal Variation DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

118

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL

FIG 159 : View looking towards promenade showing various zones of interaction on the tiered slope extension of the waterfront DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

119

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7J . SCALE 3 : (LARGE) WATERFRONT, RIV

ER

RIV

ER

PRINCIPLES

TOOLS USED

SURGE POOL

+

LEA

Accessible

SURGE POOL

TH

STEPS

AM

ES

Appropriate functionality

Multisensory interaction

Passive surveillance and Waterscape continual occupancy

Tidal Variation

N

Flood mitigation

RAIN GARDEN

LOCATION

9

5

8

1O 4

6 3

1

Lower basin (to be filled when upper basin is full with excessive rain and water is let out using the water gate.Till then the lower basin can be used as an urban element for recreational activities

2

Stepped access

4

5 Boardwalk

6 Watergate

8 Recreational garden 9 Picnic area

7 1

2

IDE : HIGH T L

IDE OW T

+ 3.76

M

59 M

: + 2.

1O River Thames

Upper basin (Can be used as a communal space or for recreational activities when dry.Fills up in the event of a flood when excessive water from lower basin is let to the upperbasin,also used for flood mitigation) DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

120

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL

The flooded lower basin

FIG 160 : Shows the use of the surge pools as a part of the waterfront DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

121

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7J . SCALE 3 : (LARGE) WATERFRONT ,

RIV

ER

RIV

ER

TH

+

LEA

Accessible

BOARDWALK

URBAN BEACH

AM

PRINCIPLES

TOOLS USED

URBAN BEACH

ES

N

Multisensory interaction

Passive surveillance and continual occupancy

Appropriate functionality

Waterscape

Tidal Variation LOCATION

4 3 5 1 Urban beaches simulating a constructed

public beachfront(zone of silt accumulation on site), through the use of sand, beach umbrellas, and seating elements.

2

Urban art

3

Access ramp to urban beach

4

Existing waterfront redesigned as per new concept

5

Rain gardens / landscaped area

2 6

1

6M : + 3.7 E D I T HIGH 2.59 M IDE : + T W LO

6 Boardwalk DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

122

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL

FIG 161 : The proposed urban beach in the zone of silt accumulation DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

123

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7J . SCALE 3 : (LARGE) WATERFRONT,

RIV

ER

+

LEA

Accessible

URBAN BEACH RIV

ER

TH

PRINCIPLES

TOOLS USED

CULTURAL QUARTER + STEPPED EXTENSION

Multisensory interaction

BOARDWALK Passive surveillance and continual occupancy

Appropriate functionality

AM

ES

N

RAIN GARDEN

LOCATION

Waterscape

Tidal Variation

TRINITY BUOY WHARF

5

4

RIVER THAMES 2

3 1

1 Floating deck / stage 2 Access ramp to stage 3 Rain garden / landscaped area (fills

76 M E : +3..59 M ID T H HIG IDE : +2 LOW T

up during high tide

4 Stepped access / amphitheater

(when dry) 5 Proposed cultural quarter of waterfront

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

124

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

7. THE PROPOSAL

FIG 161 : View looking towards proposed residential scheme showing the floating deck DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

125

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

TCONCLUSION

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

126

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

8. CONCLUSION 8A. LINKAGES CREATED AS A RESULT OF THE DESIGN INTERVENTIONS

Application of the interventions also result in creating new linkages and enhancing already existing ones.The diagram shows these linkages and their relation to the proposed intervention.

LIMITATION Creation of these linkages is based on application of tools which were a product of theoretical study and personal observations.

Ultimately how they are used depends on the stakeholders concerned.It is therefore essential to involve the community in all stages of decision making to provide optimal design solutions.

New linkages / extension of linkages Incorporating green (swales) along routes Existing pedestrian linkage Enhanced accessibility to the river Enhanced linkage through site to river Connectivity to site using waterways Existing connectivity using DLR FIG 163 :Existing and new linkages created as a result of the interventions

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

127

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

8. CONCLUSION 8B. PHASING OF THE PROJECT

RIV

LEA

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

ER

Improvements to the East India Dock Basin

RIV

ER

TH

AM

Improvements to the existing promenade

ES

Integrating green infrastructure into promenade Establishing the cultural quarter , extension of promenade into River ; to progress with construction of residential project Establishing the urban beach as an added attraction to the waterfront Introducing green + blue infrastructure into urban fabric ; to follow progress of residential scheme construction

FIG

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

128

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

8. CONCLUSION 8C. FUNDING OF THE PROJECT RESIDENT’S INVESTMENT Proportion of sale price for flats in the residential scheme bought before construction reserved for implementation of green + blue corridors within the residential scheme

THE EAST END ENERGY FIT TEAM Providing grants for implementation of green + blue infrastructure and creating a sustainable community

TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL

CULTURAL QUARTER GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE : RESIDENTIAL SCHEME

Subsidizing cost of public realm improvements and enhancement of the waterfront

PROMENADE FIG

RIVER THAMES SOCIETY

GREEN SPACES

Support the local improvement scheme ; Enable crowd sourcing for improving connection with London’s rivers

URBAN BEACH PROMENADE EXTENSION

LONDON NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY + LEE VALLEY REGIONAL PARK Funding for restoring ecosystem

EAST INDIA DOCK BASIN

The funding for the project is crucial and should ideally be acquired in collaboration with the developer of the residential scheme for a holistic design intervention which enhances the overall quality of the public realm .

The diagram locates parts of the design intervention which will require funding and probable funding agencies. My design proposal doesn’t deal with the builtform of the residential scheme but with the non built spaces around and within the scheme.

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

129

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

8. CONCLUSION EXISTING

PROPOSED

EVALUATION

TABLE 11

The interventions injects green + blue corridors into the proposed residential scheme (urban fabric) in order to connect the users with water as part of their daily lives as well visually connect them to the rivers by through and through axis.

The success of this intervention would depend largely on people’s response and support from the developer

Existing one sided visual connection to river

CREATE GREEN + BLUE CORRIDORS The intervention converts the zone of silt accumulation into an urban beach with a boardwalk segregating the beach area from the river.This gives the user a variety in formats they use to interact with the river

LIMITATIONS London’s predominantly cloudy weather , environmental clearances , can be used only during low tides

THE URBAN BEACH

Silt accumulation zone

Throughout the design proposal accessibility to the river has been increased by connecting the existing waterfront to the river.This can successfully change the way users interact with the river LIMITATIONS Clearances from the environmental agencies ; design based on assumption from theoretical framework, early integration into phase of construction of residential

INCREASE ACCESSIBILITY TO RIVER

No access to water

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

130

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

8. CONCLUSION EXISTING

PROPOSED

EVALUATION

TABLE 11

The proposal enhances the cultural quality of the area around trinity buoy wharf and spreads it onto the part of the waterfront where it is located LIMITATIONS Agreement with others users apart from the Trinity Buoy wharf is crucial to successfully transform this zone into a cultural quarter.The change cannot adversely affect their everyday functioning.

The deck has to be made functional for tidal variation

DEVELOP THE CULTURAL QUARTER

Trinity Buoy Wharf

The proposal enhances the experience of being in a bio diversity rich ecological zone by taking user closer to the flora and fauna as compared to the distant experience currently on this part of the site.

LIMITATIONS Environmental clearances would be required.

Any new construction has to be carried out without adversely affecting the widlife in this zone.

Support from various environmental groups is crucial

ENHANCE EAST INDIA DOCK

East India Dock Basin

This is a tiered concept and can be used at different levels depending on tidal condition.The success of such schemes would depend heavily on behaviour patterns of user groups and more detailed analysis over a longer period of time can help improving the design

MOVE AWAY FROM STANDARDIZED DESIGN

Artist’s impression of the residential waterfront

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

131

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

BACK TO THE RESEARCH QUESTION As a response to increasing number of waterfronts falling prey to commercially motivated mono functional entities my research question “ How can public

realm improvements and design interventions along London’s post industrial waterfront help in creating a better interaction between the public , the water , the water’s edge and the places they inhabit ? “ tries to address the changing role of water in our urban systems with the aim of restoring a healthier relationship between people and water both natural and well in the urban fabric.

The literature review highlights key features of successful waterfront interventions as well as interventions to integrate water into the urban fabric.

Three overlapping themes are developed from these : Interaction , Integration and Involvement.Through the lens of these themes tools are developed and their suitability tested by application on the chosen project site.

However one key limitation remains that a lot of the tools are based on theoretical assumptions from the literature and would benefit from consultation with the community , developers , members of the Borough council as well as any other stakeholders.

8. CONCLUSION

THE PROPOSAL

In a scenario similar to this where the residential scheme has already received planning consent and would start construction soon , participation , improved interaction between user and water as well as water and urban fabric , can be considered to be post construction as means of creating a sense of ownership and increased involvement.

In general the solutions shown in the project are of varying types and scales and a lot of them are low maintenance and have the capability of being retrofitted.

The wider perspective of the proposal allows to look into creation of public spaces that are water sensitive , contextual and that rediscover the elemental relationship between user and water. The process is then evaluated and its limitations have been highlighted.

TRANSFERABILITY

+

+ TOOLS

PERMUTATION & COMBINATIONS

SITE

The proposals are demonstrative of a direct application of the framework to public spaces , adapting the principles and techniques to produce a network of interventions reflecting the unique spatial qualities of the site.

However the modular quality of most of these tools and principles can be combined to suit distinct site conditions and other parameters to produce a variety of results on any other waterfront

CONTRIBUTION TO PRACTICE Firstly the frameworks of application contribute to an integrated approach and are demonstrative of the place making capabilities of increasing accessibility between users and water surrounding them when applied thoughtfully.

Applying them on a residential scheme like the one at Lea mouth which is representative of many such upcoming projects around the world demonstrates the use of technical solutions to create vibrant public spaces by adding the filter of experiential engagement and involvement.

Consequently interventions like runoff infiltration along streets , using green + blue infrastructure to clearly define public spaces and creating an active ecosystem facilitates a reciprocal relationship between resource and everyday lives of users.

The concept of long term behaviour change is addressed directly through creating diverse avenues of interaction between people and water which provides an educational as well as recreational interface for people to understand their connection with water. This creates a greater understanding of water as a source and facilitates collective experiences that can generate greater social responses to water through increased interaction DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

132

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

8. CONCLUSION

This major research project exhibits the potential that exists in the unification of technical , spatial and social approaches in providing a holistic design solution towards improved interaction between man , his built environment and water as well as to address broader environmental and social concerns towards creating a better water sensitive community of citizens for the future

THE END

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

133

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

BIBLIOGRAPHY Akköse, A. C. (2007). The Analysis of Istinye Shipyard Area Within The Context of Redevelopment of Urban Waterfront Areas.

Jones, A. (2008). Issues in Waterfront Regeneration: More Soberin Thoughts-A UK : Perspective, Planning Practice & Research, Vol. 13

Brownill, S. (1990), Developing London’s Docklands: another great planning disaster, London, Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.

Al Ansari, F. (2009). Public Open Space on the Transforming Urban Waterfronts of Bahrain –The Case of Manama

Morena, M. (2011). Morphological, Technological and Functional Characteristics of Infrastructures as a Vital Sector for The Competitiveness of a Country System.

Transformıng: The Dark River Irwell. Available from: http://www.merseybasin.org.uk/archive/assets/60/ original/60_APEM_River_Irwell_report_EA.pdf

Moretti, M. (2010). Valorisation of Waterfronts and Waterways for Sustainable Development.International ScientificConference about Poltva River.Available from: http://www.urbanproject.lviv.ua/php_uploads/data articles/ArticleFiles_84_Moretti_en.pdf

CABE (2001), The value of urban design: a research project commissioned by CABE and DETR to examine the value added by good design, London, Thomas Telford

Anonymous. (2013a). Baltimore Inner Harbour.

Available from: http://www.wrtdesign.com/projects/ detail/Baltimore-Inner-Harbor/157 Anonymous. Barceloneta, Barcelona, Spain. Available from: http://www.earth.google.com Anonymous. (2013c). Artificial Island. Available from: https://www.ead.ae/Tacsoft/File Manager/Quarterly/ Artificial%20Islands/Artificial%20Is lands%20of%20 the%20World%20FINAL.pdf Anonymous.(2013e).Urban Beach.,Available from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_beach Anonymous. (2013i). Waterfront Green Space in Urban Ecological Planning and Design of the Contents and Methods. Available from:http://www.docstoc.com/ docs/52295113/Waterfront-Green-Space-in-UrbanEcological-Planning Dong, L. (2004). Waterfront Development: A Case Study of Dalian Erkök, F. (2009). Waterfronts: Potentials for Improving the Quality of Urban Life Giovinazzi, O. & Giovinazzi, S. (2008).Waterfront

Önen, M. (2007). Examination Rivers’ Recreational Potential As An Urban Coastal Space: Case Study

Bellinger, E., Saul, A., Symes, M. & Hendry, K. (1993) Urban Waterside Regeneration: problems and prospects, London, Ellis Horwood, pp.43-49 Marshall, R.(ed) (2001) Waterfronts in Post-Industrial Cities, London

Pekin, U. (2008). Urban Waterfronts Regeneration: A Model of Porsuk Stream in Eskişehir.

De Klerk, L. & Vijgen, J (1992), ‘Inner Cites as a Cultural and Public Arena: Plans and people in Amsterdam and Rotterdam’

Yassin, A. B., Bond, S., McDonagh, J. (2012). Principles for Sustainable Riverfront Development for Malaysia.

Journal of Techno-Social Vol.4

Falk, N. (1992), ‘Turning the tide: British experience in regeneration urban docklands’ in Holye, B. & Pinder (1992)

Zhang, L. (2002). An Evaluation of an Urban Riverfront Park Riverfront Park, Spokane, Washington Experiences and Lessons for Designers.

Holye, B. (1995), ‘A Shared Space: contrasted perspectives on urban waterfront redevelopment in Canada’, Town Planning Review

Yang, D (2006)WATERFRONTS : Spatial composition and cultural use Banerjee, T. & Southworth, M. (eds)(1990), City Sense and City Design, London, The MIT Press Breen, A. & Rigby, D. (1994), Waterfronts: Cities Reclaim Their Edge, N ew York, McGraw-Hill Inc Breen, A. & Rigby, D. (1996), The New Waterfront: A world wide urban success story, London, Thames and Hudson

Ikeda, T. (1993), ‘R redesigning the urban waterfront in Yokohama a’ from Bruttomesso, R.(ed) (1993) Waterfronts: a new frontier for cities on the water, Venice, Cities on Water Kriken, J. (1993), ‘Creating a framework: waterfront development ent as urban placemaking’ from Bruttomesso, R.(ed) (1993), Waterfronts: a new frontier for cities on the water, Venice, Cities on Water, pp327329 DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

134

DESIGNING FOR BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN WATER , WATER’S EDGE AND URBAN FABRIC

DEBANIL PRAMANIK , BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

135