1
New Downtown Vancouver: What block types are the most viable at super high density? Issues II Stage I Emma Day
Contents
Intoduction and Brief 3 Reflective Summary of Issues I
4-5
Statement of Issues II topic
6-7
Literature Review
8 - 11
Methodology
12-15
Design Objectives
16-17
Criteria for Assessing Case Studies
18-19
Case Studies
20-29
Design Principles
30-34
New Vancouver Study Site Background
35-37
Conclusion
38-39
Bibliography
40-41
Figure 1: Vision of successful block structure composed of individual plots, creating a mixed use and vibrant public realm.
3
Introduction and brief .
Figure 2: Outline
“How do we safeguard and deliver high levels of environmental quality in the context of increasing intensification of land use?” - Issues 1 Question. Issues 1 Brief
- The nominated issue for Issues 1 was “How do we safeguard and deliver high levels of environmental quality in the context of increasing intensification of land use?” Globalisation and urban growth has highlighted the need for urban designers to accommodate for more users. Thus it is imperative to respond to intensification of developmental and societal needs in a proactive and flexible way, as well as maintaining the quality of the environment. In Issues 1 the question “How do we safeguard and deliver high levels of environmental quality in the context of increasing intensification of land use?” was answered through constructing conceptual models, in relation to two degrees of intensification - 200 people per hectare (pph) and 800 people per hectare (pph).
What block types are the most viable at super high density? Issues 2 Question. Issues 2 Brief - Indeed for Issues 2, the nominated issue “How do we safeguard and deliver high levels of environmental quality in the context of increasing intensification of land use?” remains. The aim of this report is to build upon the work produced in Issues 1, which focused heavily on concept design and model design development. This will be done, by addressing an issue which was not fully solved in Issues 1. The chosen issue will require further research and design principles which will then be tested on the Vancouver site used in Issues 1. Figure 1 shows the masterplan produced in Issues 1.
To fulfill the brief, the report has developed using the following structure (see Fig 1). To begin, a reflective discussion of the issues still apparent at the end of Issues 1 aid in the formation of a statement of the chosen issue - “How does the perimeter block fuction at higher density?” A literature review provided an opportunity to hone in the most relevant information with regards to the chosen issue. From this, a set of criteria were developed in order to analysis and critique 3 case studies. In depth analysis was key in the formation of design principles, which will result in a final masterplan.
Figure 3: Issues 1 Masterplan at the District Scale for 800pph
Reflective Summary of Issues I
5
Reflective Summary - Issues I This chapter will reflect on the Issues 1 project and the issues which were not combated in Issues 1.
Reflection - In the Issues 1 report, a vision of
vitality was embraced and led to the development of 6 objectives - connectivity, health, sociability, identity, green network and diversity (See figure 4). All of our design principles were achieved however some issues still were not addressed fully. The most likely reason for these unaddressed issues was because they did not directly come under our design objectives (Figure 4).
Issues which were not addressed in the Issues 1 project included; no small pocket parks in neighbourhoods, to extend the green network beyond the main route. Heat build up and air circulation was also still an issue to be considered. Feedback also suggested that block staggering needs to be tested in order to fully know how one would experience that at ground level. These issues will be briefly discussed and one of these issues will be chosen as the main issue to be explored and solved in this Issue II stage I report.
Figure 5: Pocket Park, Neal’s Yard
Figure 6: Staggered block atmosphere
Pocket parks are becoming a popular way to integrate more sociability into an area.
In our Issues 1 group project, the staggered block structure was designed to improve the interest at street level, whilst still maintaining continuity. However, more analysis needed to be undertaken to successfully understand how such a structure would feel at ground level.
Figure 7: Street adjacent to the Shard in London
Figure 8: Issues I masterplan
The previous project did not consider the build up of heat and air circulation as well as ventilation. More research needed to be undertaken in order to solve the issue ‘How can this be designed to prevent inactive frontages?’
The entire Issues I masterplan consisted of perimeter blocks which led to undefined space in the centre of each block. At super-density levels this issue becomes even more important as the higher buildings get the less attractive the microclimate in the centre of these blocks. Thus this report will focus on this particular issue. The next chapter will discuss this issue in detail.
Vitality
Figure 4 illustrates the objectives which were pursued in Issues 1. They all stemmed from the concept of vitality.
Statement of Issues II topic
7
Statement of Issue II topic This chapter discusses the issue which will be researched in detail.
The issue which will be considered is “What block
types are the most viable at super high density?”
Chosen Issue The issue which will be considered is “What block types are the most viable at super high density?” Perimeter block typologies become even more important in places of intensification. For space must be used most efficiently in order to provide an excellent environment of quality for people. Private space in the form of gardens, courtyards and balconies cannot be allocated to every dwelling and thus public space becomes even more important in higher density areas. Many other arguments can be made for why the perimeter block must become spatially efficient. Gated residential blocks can be oppressive, rather, the technique of allowing people to walk through the daytime and restrict access at night creates flexible permeability and uses the urban tissue more effectively as well as creating more positive outcomes. Indeed, dimensions to consider within this issue include; considering sunlight, service areas for bins and parking, mixed use with regards to what happens on the inside of the block as well as the outside of the block, ventilation that high rise buildings require.
Figure 9: Issues I block example
In Issues 1, each perimeter block has an inner space in which its use is undefined. This report will attempt to redesign this block typology in order to increase efficiency of land use.
Figure 10: Issues I masterplan
Literature Review
9
Block typologies, their size and form - Literature Review This chapter will collate literature surrounding the topic of delivering a vibrant public realm and in particular focus shall also be on the perimeter block.
Krier, L. The reconstruction of the city: Urban Components. Blocks are “the land defined by the grid” (Yeung, 2000: 64) in which public fronts and private backs must be clearly defined. Access must also be from the street front as oppose to the back. Indeed, lining the perimeter block with plots is the most effective way of ensuring buildings and streets engage and create a positive, lively public realm (Yeung: 2000). Along the perimeter block, continuity is also imperative, thus each plot must be joined by gates and walls. With regards to plot sizes, the Urban Design Compendium states that “A perimeter block of a depth of 10m for fine-grained mixeduse or housing and 20m for retail / commercial development provides a useful structuring device in master planning exercises and can be later refined to more accurately reflect preferred building types.” Indeed, if plot sizes became any larger then it would be hard to keep block sizes to 60m - 80m. For Yeung (2000) states 60-80m in city centres is a rule of thumb which on should adhere to in order to achieve accessibility, adaptability and diversity in building typology. Moreover, a 10m block depth seems the most suitable because it is allows “double aspect buildings with good daylight into the internal space” (Yeung cited Kothener Strasse: 2000).
Typologies that cater for high density must be sustainable in terms of efficiency in “land use, infrastructure and services compared to other typologies” (Tarbett, 2012: 95). It is argued that traditional close-grain development should be 4 to 5 storeys maximum in order to preserve the humane quality and attractiveness of the place in the long term. However in super high density this is of course much hard to achieve. In higher density areas, block sizes ranging from 60-80m obtain a good balance between generating “more frequent linkages, visual and pedestrian connectivity and street activity” (Tarbett, 2012: 102). Such a block size is also large enough to cater for mixed uses. Thus this block size is deemed to be the most suitable in high density areas. In addition rectangular blocks should be orientated so that the shorter side faces the main street in order to strengthen connectivity with surrounding streets. This spatial positioning also creates more crossings and junctions which slows traffic as well as increases pedestrian safety.
“The building block as a complex typological construction forms the basic element of the urban composition; of the urban pattern” (Krier, 1990). Krier suggests that large urban blocks are the wrong typological choice. He voices that their increasing construction in response to the need to intensify, led to the “exploitation of the urban blocks” (Krier, 1990: 115). A combination of minimal doors opening onto the street and windows overlooking, reduced “the street to a mere access route” (Krier, 1990:117). In sum, Krier notes that large perimeter blocks led to the “dissolution of the urban fabric” (Krier, 1990: 115). However he notes that higher densities can successfully be achieved with smaller blocks, for example, in Manhattan and the ‘Spanish Quarter’ in Naples (Krier, 1990: 116). He also notes that Stubben recommends “north-south orientation for rectangular blocks in order to reduce north exposure to the smaller facade and to have east west exposure for most façades” (Krier, 1990). All in all, Krier (1990: 113) analyses the block in great detail and concludes that urban blocks should be small in length and width as typologically viable.
Examples of ‘Haussmannien tissue,’ can be found in Paris. Below shows four homogeneous blocks. However the diagonal in the second image “disturbs the tissue of the plot subdivision (Samuels et al., 2004: 15).” As a result more irrational left over plots appear, but the old and new is “perfectly accomplished (Samuels et al., 2004: 15).” Some blocks which were restructured by Hausmann reached a total depth of 60-65 metres. With regards to the plots, their formation in Paris varies greatly as well as the size of each plot. The triangular shape of the blocks allow such variation in plot size. In Moscou-Berre, Paris, plot widths also vary from 9m to 40m. Such tightly packed plots led to the occurrence of inner courtyards shared by about four different plots. Panerai deems this space as ‘floating collective space’ as it could not be identified with a plot (Samuels et al., 2004: 24). Furthermore, apartments on higher floors overlooked the space but had no direct relationship as they had no access. In sum, it is necessary to rediscover the logic of the urban tissue and understand that the street is the driver which shapes and orders development (Samuels et al., 2004: 166).
In addition, many local plans stipulate a minimum distance between buildings to ensure privacy. “A privacy distance of 20 metres (ie. back-to-back 10 metre rear gardens or service courts) provides an approximate rule of thumb.”(2000:64). However in higher density contexts, such as this report, closer distances may well be more appropriate in order to accommodate for the large population.
Figure 11 and 12: Haussmannien block structure
Block typologies, their size and form - Literature Review
Siksna (1996). The effects of block size and form Mandanipour suggests homogeneous environments are more common. However, Barbes is an example of a public space that highlights how spontaneous a place can become – “it works as a carnival space” (Palumbo: 2010:130). However the increasing production of homogeneous, standardised and controlled nature of public space, is limiting the existence of dynamic public life. Indeed Whyte’s theory denotes that in order for a public space feel urban and stimulating “it takes about 16.6 pedestrians within the human visual field (Gehl and Svarre, 2013: 110).” Storper and Venables (2004) note that cities are “social reactors” whereby larger numbers of people leads to more social interaction and social and economic benefits. Such interaction has been termed “buzz.” In order for positive buzz to remain in areas of high intensification, the perimeter block must be used more efficiently and successful in order for social interaction to flourish despite the strain on the space in terms of denseness and potential crowding.
Siksna’s (1996) work produces findings that demonstrate certain block forms and dimensions perform better than others, focusing on selected areas in North America and Australia. Small/ medium blocks 3600 metres squared to 20,000 metres squared are much more suitable for city centres. Square blocks maximise circulation space, rectangular blocks maximise developable land (1996: 25). It was found that large perimeter blocks will often end up being divided into smaller plots. “Plots 15-20m wide and 30-40m deep constitute good modular units for most city centre developments” (1996: 29). Siksna (1996) also notes that blocks about 60m - 80m perform better than larger blocks. She argues that they produce finer-mesh patterns of circulation, more active frontages, depth in urban fabric.
Crankshaw (2009: 164) notes that buildings should have setbacks to provide space for street spillage and pocket parks, which create a street edge associated with activity rather than building mass. More importantly, he notes that any new design in the urban fabric must maintain individuality. Clearly it is important to design individuality, otherwise blocks create homogeneous environments. Individual plots should also be fine grain in order to keep active edges and enhance vitality. In doing so, the environment is more likely to be walkable, interesting and a liveable environment. This is supported by Coupland (1996) who describes the impact of mixed use schemes. He notes that mixed use developments of high density generally result in people living in the area have a lower use of private cars. In addition, Karssenberg and Laven (2012) note functionalism has dominated Urban Design for several years. However the city is also “an environment of experience” and thus it is just as important to consider the ‘urban warmth’ of place (Karssenberg and Laven, 2012: 10).
Trancik (1986: 68) discusses the transformation of lost space and management of space. He calls for making “figurative space out of the lost landscape” (eg. Leftover space at the base of highrise towers). He also notes (1986: 64) how this issue has partly occurred due to public and private institutions because they are unwilling to “assume responsibility for the public urban environment.” In sum, Trancik (1986) notes that lost space can be “transformed into viable open spaces” if the correct management strategies are in place.
11
Key themes derived from the Literature Review This summary of the literature review, highlights key themes derived from the literature. Wider reading around the topic of block typologies, their size and form has widened my knowledge base with regards to block typologies, thus allowing me to make more informed decisions in terms of design objectives in the next chapter which will be methodology.
Diversity
Land use
Accessibility
Preservation of human scale
Depth in urban tissue
Individuality as oppose to homogeneity
Adaptability Management
This section has drawn together the literature which was used to uncover more information about what block typologies and plot sizes are the most successful to use at super density levels. This graphic highlights the most common qualities which are required for successful block formation at super high density.
SWOT analysis
13
SWOT Analysis of high rise perimeter block The literature review, which pinpointed some key facts with regards to block typologies, a SWOT analysis of the perimeter block will be undertaken as well as the formation of a criteria for assessing block typologies in cities. Both these methods will aid in the formation of design objectives in the following chapter.
S
Clear distinction between ‘front’ and ‘backs’ whereby, active front overlook onto the street. Inactive backs onto the rear. The interior of the block can also provide parking and servicing to be contained.
O
Manipulate block so that the inner courtyard space can become a successful private space or a well functioning public space with high sociability. This could be achieved by making the block more permeable, which in turn would increase legibility and variety.
Compared to square blocks, rectangular blocks can accommodate commercial uses more easily as they require larger footprints (Tarbett, ).
The SWOT analysis will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these basic blocks at high density. From this, more complicated versions will be modelled in preparation for Issues II Stage II and again rigorous analysis will be undertaken.
Maintains continuity along the street, with some added variety as the short side of rectangular blocks create slighly less continuous frontage which aids in interest and variety.
There is an opportunity to create a variety of block sizes 60-80 ranging to 115-115 as this allows more efficient servicing for larger grain plots (Yeung :65) and shapes (rectangular, square). Thus the block size should be manipulated to cater for mixed use more efficiently.
In higher density areas, block sizes of 60-80m allow streets to be connected easily, especially if the shorter side of the block faces the street.
The criteria will combine literature review findings and analysis from the SWOT to create a criteria for assessing block typologies at super density.
Allow closer distances between plots in order to maximise density. A plethora of local planning authorities stipulate that there should be “a privacy distance of 20 metres (ie. back-toback 10 metre rear gardens or service courts). This can only just be achieved in a 60-80 block (see figure ?). Thus there is an opportunity for this suggestion to be relaxed when designing for superdensity levels. For designs should strive to obtain a balance between privacy and sociability, especially when it is not possible to provide private space to everyone at super density levels.
Lining the block with plots, allows the block to relate positivelyy to the public realm, with doors and windows lining the streets and increasing activity. The interior of the block allows for a public square or private communal gardens to be provided. Figure 13: Basic high rise perimeter block
W SWOT analysis summary - Overall, a
mixed use city centre area should consist of a range of block sizes in order to strike a balance between accessibility, promoting variety and adaptability. However to accommodate for amenities at superdensity level the general rule of thumb of 60-80m in city centres, may have to be more flexibly used. For block sizes may have to increase in size slightly, for instance 80-90m which is used in urban locations or 115-115m which Yeung states that this provides more efficient servicing for larger grain plots. However it is imperative from the study so far that but plot sizes do not increase in size, otherwise variety may be lost within the blocks.
No natural light can penetrate when catering for super density levels because of the height of building and space needed for plots. As a result a small, dark and often lifeless inner courtyard exists. Ultimately this becomes a lost space. It is difficult for service vehicles to efficiently and effectively access the interior area. Moreover if the interior becomes a service yard, when block size is 60-80m, then there is no space for this interior to at least be used by residents as communal gardens or a play area for children.
Low block permeability, creates poor legibility and variety which suggests that this block type is less viable at super density levels. Ultimately this simplistic design can lead to spatial monotony if repeated along streets. For citizens this reduces the quality of the environment as the block is not providing more intrigue in the grid structure by delivering depth in urban tissue.
Manipulate block to maximise natural light through design mechanisms such as lowering corners or designing gaps into the structure
T
A possible threat could be catering for the superdensity that is needed. For, it will be difficult to provide all necessary amenties whilst maintaining the sociability at the ground level within the block structure. Thus it is imperative to integrate good quality and responsive deisgn. A possible barrier that could stop the successful implementation of better block typologies at super density levels could be the general rule of thumb of 60-80m block sizes in city centres. Block sizes may have to be more flexible, however there is a risk that plots sizes may increase in size too. However evidence from the literature shows that plots sizes should remain a maximum of 15-20 wide otherwise variety and individuality will be lost.
Key qualities derived from SWOT analysis
Brief overview of other types of basic block structures:
Key qualities needed for block typologies at superdensity level derived from SWOT analysis
The gap in the block creates an inactive edge. This space is also undefined as it is not obvious if it is public or private space.
Clear distinction between public and private space
Efficient use in land
Figure 14: U shaped block
Variablity in block size and privacy distance
Isolated, sterile, not efficient use of space. This block typology also concentrates people and Increases possibilty of crowding
Maximise natural light
Figure 15: Basic tower block
Permeability
This linear block typology increases active frontages, however it is still an oppressive design that results in ill defined space. Figure 16: Linear block
The key qualities derived from the SWOT analysis are the strengths of the perimeter block. These qualities will be combined with the key themes that were derived from the litereature review (key themes were; diversity, land use, accessibility, perservation of human scale, depth in urban tissue, individuality as oppose to homogeneity, adaptability and management). This amalgamation of themes and good qualities, will form the design objectives which will be discussed in the following chapter. All in all, a total of 8 design objectives will have emerged from the literature review findings and SWOT analysis.
15
Amalgamation of perimeter block data Some initial thoughts of how these qualities could be implemented to improve block quality at superdensity level.
FIgure 17: Block with gradual increasing height, allows sun to penetrate into the interior courtyard more easily and elevated inner semi public space.
FIgure 22: An oppressive space which is ill-defined. Adding a glass structure connects the two separate plots and intensifies mixed use.
Figure 18: Preliminary Sketch up model
Figure 23: Preliminary Sketch up model
Figure 19: New York by Bjarke Ingels
FIgure 20: Block which connects into urban fabric as has good permeability, unlike a basic perimeter block.
Figure 21: Preliminary Sketch up model
Figure 24: The Exchange, Nottingham
This chapter has produced the SWOT analysis of the perimeter block at high density which pinpointed the qualities of what makes this block successful. These qualities (efficient use in land, clear distinction between public and private, maximising natural light, variability in plot size and privacy distance and finally permeability) will be carried forward along with the key themes derived from the literature review.
When combined, I have selected the most important qualities and themes which I deem are essential to create good block typologies at super high density. These are; efficient use of space, preservation of human scale, continuous frontages, circulation, mixed use, depth in urban tissue, individuality and management. Together these form the design objectives which will be explored in the next chapter.
Design Objectives Compiling the literature concerning block typology and plot sizes and the SWOT analysis of the perimeter block, has led to the emergence of 8 design objectives. Thus the design objectives consist of 8 key qualities which I deem are necessary in order to produce a good block typology at super hgih density. These design objectives will head the qualities in the criteria table of assement.
17
Design Objectives The folloing design objectives have been ranked in order of importance:
1. Efficient use of space
“The street is the driver which shapes and orders development (Samuels et al., 2004 :166). Despite this, blocks must be made to be efficient as poissible in super high density areas. Firstly, as density increases, it is
5. Mixed use
vital that space has a clear status, whether for public use or private use. Indeed in superdensity areas, private space will be less common as more space becomes public. Thus it is imperative that a balance is achieved between providing room for community facilities and a feeling of openness and privacy for individuals (Lozano, 2007). Figure 25: Interior of block in Neal’s Yard.
2. Preservation of human scale
Figure 29: Neal’s Yard
As the built environment becomes even more dense,it is necessary to keep its scale humanised in order to maintain a good quality environment. Incorporating natural elements such as grass walls, green roofs can overcome the dominance of the built environment. Splitting storeys through the use of richer and different materials can also reduce peoples perception of a buildings actual height (Lozano, 2007: 399). Building setbacks also provide space for street spillage, pocket parks, and create a street edge associated with activity rather than building mass Crankshaw (2009: 164)
Figure 26: Wall of vegetation near Walkie Talkie in London.
3. Continuous frontages
Figure 28: Figure ground of Neal’s Yard showing pedestrian route through the block.
6. Depth in urban tissue
Modern day urban construction has tended to replace “richly textured streets of small, mixed-age buildings with blocks of much larger new structures” (NTHP, 2014). As a result depth in urban tissue is rapidly being lost in spaces of new construction. Achieving good depth in urban tissue is an added bonus, as it makes a place an even better environment by enhancing vitality, diversity and sense of safety. Moreover vitality is more likely to be “deep and authentic, rather than shallow and contrived” (Adams & Tiesdell, 2007: 673).This leads onto plot individuality, which it the next design objective.
Figure 30: London Southbank
Continuous frontages are essential to maintain visual connection for people at ground level. Spaces can be connected between buildings along streets to maximise efficient use of land, but also provide a point of access into the block. This could become a cut-through or a route to access a more sheltered public space away from the main street. Well designed continuous frontages allows a ‘balance’ to be achieved so people can access the thrill of urban life at times, as well as the soothing quality of small-scale environments” (2007: 409). By establishing this, circulation can then be implemented more effectively - the next objective.
Figure 27: King’s Cross Station
4. Circulation
Jacob’s is a strong advocate of providing a variety of diverse, mixeduse units in cities. A mixed-use development intensifies land use and extends use past normal 9am to 5pm routines. In turn a more lively, attractive space is formed which also increases a sense of safety. Mixed use also aids the creation of diversity and variety which results in better social inclusion and reduces the possibility of homogeneity, segregation and social exclusion (Tarbett, 2012). Ultimately mixed use allows for depth in urban tissue to become more embedded, which it the next objective.
7. Individuality
Homogeneous environments are becoming increasingly common (Mandanipour, 2012). Homogenous, standardised and the controlled nature of public space, is thought to be limiting the existence of dynamic public life. Injecting more individuality into blocks and individual plots can maintain the ‘buzz’ in cities. Otherwise without individuality in the urban fabric, the character of a place willnot remain.
Figure 31: London Southbank markert stalls
Circulation is important in order to make the place accessible and movement flow easily. Making direct and attractive connections increases the walkablity of the area by making it more convenient to access and comfortable (Yeung, 2000). Making good connections to surrounding urban fabric is essential otherwise a block can easily become isolated and a less attractive space to visit. Routes within the interior of a block are also essential for good circulation. They also add to the urban character of the area and heighten the legibility of a place. In sum, good circulation aids the success of a mixed use place.
8. Management
Figure 32: Street lighting around Walkie Talkie building in London.
Management is key to preventing lost space (Trancik, 1986). Indeed successful management involves integrate efficient management of services, which can be flexible and adaptable for future needs. For after a block has been developed it is imperative that there is a management system in place to maintain the space and constantly improve it. This can be done by providing ‘soft’ elements such as good lighting at night, shelter from the weather. Indeed if all of the above design objectives are implemented successfully then management should be a natural process whereby the development is improved over time as technology improves and needs change.
Criteria for assessing case studies
Criteria for assessing case studies - Methodology The chosen criteria, extrapolated from the literature review and SWOT analysis are a mixture of qualities and form in Urban Design.
Figure 33: Example of criteria of assessment table
19
Case Studies
21
Case Studies This section discusses in-depth analysis of three case studies which will be key in the formation of design principles and actions. The four chosen case studies are:
The Pyramid, VIA 57 West, New York Marina One Complex, Marina Bay, Singapore Neal’s Yard, London
Plaine Monceau, Paris Figure 34: World Map
Paris - Case Study Plaine Monceau, Paris Overview - The population of this block in
Plain Monceau in Paris is 2084 people (Density Atlas [online], 2016). This area is now described as post-Haussmannien. The dwellings were originally built to house lower - middle income classes in the past. The development was developed by more than one developer (Density Atlas [online], 2011). However similar architectural style has been adopted in the built form. Each plot lines the perimeter of the block and subsequently creates a courtyard in the interior of the whole block.
Figure 35: Street view of block
Figure 37: Aerial view
The courtyards are hidden from the street and often not accessible to the majority of the residents that live within the block. For access if often only from residences of the ground floor level. Thus as the criteria table highlights, there is evidence of ‘lost’ space in the interior of the block as many of these courtyards are undefined space - they are neither public nor private.
Figure 36: Figure ground of Plaine Monceau block
Population: 2084 People per hectare: 1488 Units: 417 Site area: 14,000 square metres
Figure 38: Sketch up model of Plaine Monceau.
23
Criteria table of assessment for block typologies at high density
Figure 39: Criteria table of assessment
Singapore - Case Study Marina One Complex, Marina Bay, Singapore
Overview - Marina One is expected for com-
pletion in 2017. It will form part of the Marina Bay skyline and will consist of 4 towers. Two 34 storey towers will be residential and the other two will be 30 storey offices. In the interior of the 65,000 square foot interior a green ‘heart’ is planned which will be surrounded by retail stores. The mixed use development will be one of the first developments to integrate soft landscaping into the built urban fabric of a building. The ‘Green Heart’ will become a public vertical garden. Rising from this ‘Green Heart’ will be “the Strata Terraces, Cloud Garden, Green Screens, and Rooftop Gardens, which are meant to suggest the changing environments that a person would encounter when climbing a mountain (Egan, 2015 [online]).”
Figure 40: Marina One Complex
This development will also be a semi-indoor space. It is hoped that the amount of vegetation and water will create light and tackle the humid climate.
Figure 43: Block site plan Figure 41: Site Plan
Figure 42: Proposed aerial view
25
Singapore - Case Study
Figure 44: Criteria table of assessment
New York - Case Study The Pyramid, VIA 57 West, New York
Overview - The Pyramid designed by architect
Bjarke Ingels is situated on 57th West in Manhattan. The shape of the building is actually a hyperbolic paraboloid, which helps to solve a plethora of issues. For instance, the roof of the building reaches a height of 30 storeys but is also as “tall as a handrail” at its lowest point (Capps, 2015 [online]). Part of the roof has also been cut away to create a courtyard. Despite the fact that New York is a world city and has super density levels resulting in numerous high rise buildings with dark interiors, the inner courtyard in this building still maximises exposure to sunlight. This is because this courtyard is higher - essentially part of the roof of the building. The cutaway allows more apartments to have more views compared to if the building was a basic perimeter block.
Figure 45: ‘The Pyramid’
Figure 48: Proposed view from ‘The Pyramid.’
Figure 50: Street level view
The plot caters for apartments ranging from studio flats to 3 bedroom apartments. 20% of these are deemed to be affordable homes. Residents have access to a range of amenities such as the roof courtyard, gym, basketball court, library and children’s play room. The apartments on the North facade also feature balconies which are at 45 degree angles in order to obtain as much sunlight as possible and create a better quality environment for residents who live there.
Figure 46: Figure ground of the block which ‘The Pyramid is situated in.
Figure 49: Sketch up model of ‘The Pyramid’ and neighbouring plot in the same block.
Figure 47: Sketch up model of ‘The Pyramid’ and neighbouring plot in the same block.
Figure 51: Street level view
27
New York - Case Study
Figure 52: Criteria table of assessment
London - Case Study Neal’s Yard, London Overview - Neal’s Yard in London forms part of
the Seven Dials, which has a total population of 1,500 people. This node creates 7 diagonal streets, which results in 7 triangular block typologies. Literature has highlighted the disadvantages of triangular blocks as they usually create lost space due to the irregular shape. However Neal’s Yard is an example of a successfully triangular block typology. This is due to its small plots which successfully line the perimeter of the block. The interior is also lined with another row of plots, creating a vibrant public pocket park space in the interior of this block. This pocket par features benches, potted plants and trees. Window baskets are also a common feature which gives a high degree of sensory richness.
Figure 53: Neal’s Yard, pocket park in London
Figure 56: Sketch up model of Neal’s Yard block.
Indeed a very high level of block permeability exists. There are two access routes which allow people to easily cut through the block. Such a high level of permeability also create a more legible, safe and inviting environment. Brightly painted plots also reduce ones perception of the scale of building height, thus making the area more welcoming. The benches, picnic tables and cafe street spillage also indicate to the public that it is a space to sit and stay. Figure 54: Figure ground showing block structure Figure 57: Sketch up model showing street level view from Seven Dials.
Figure 55: Interior of the block in Neal’s Yard, London
29
London - Case Study
Figure 58: Criteria table of assessment
The criteria table of assessment was effective in analysing all of the 4 case studies; Paris, Singapore, New York and London. From these case studies valuable information has been derived, which will help to produce design actions for my design principles in the following chapter.
Design Principles
31
Design Principles Preservation of human scale
Efficient use of land
DP 1.1
Distinction between public and private space
DA 1.1.1 - Clearly distinguish between public and private space in order to mitigate collective floating space.
DP 1.3
DP 1.2
Privacy
DA 1.2.1- Reduce privacy distance between plots (currently stipulated at 21m) to about 5-15m to maximise efficient use of space.
DA 1.2.2- Create private space (balconies atleast 2.1m x 3.5m or roof terrace) as making people comfortable is key to a area’s robustness.
Adaptability
DA 1.3.1 - Make plots adaptable for future needs such as an ageing population (widening of doors for wheelchair access/ pitched roofs allow the possibility of future extensions above.
DP 2.1
Small block sizes
DA 2.1.1 - Allow blocks sizes to range from 60-115m as long as good permeability is integrated into the block (eg. pedestrianised walkways and cycle routes).
DP 2.2
DP 2.3
Materiality
Sensory Richness
DA 2.2.2- Integrate different material into facades of buildings in order to reduce people’s perception of high rise building heights (eg. wooden panels, glass and even vegetation).
DA 2.3.2 - Maximise natural sunlight entering the interior of the block and position balconies to face the south towards the sun (atleast 2 hours of sunlight achieved for each dwelling per day).
DA 2.2.1 - Georgian building storey height style to preserve human scale (4m, 3.5m and 3.1).
DA 2.3.1 - Connect the city to nature, in order to humanise the high rise and high density built environment, ensuring at least 9sq m per person.
Design Principles Continuous frontages
DP 3.1
Connecting buildings
DA 3.1.1 - Ensure that any plot development connects with surrounding urban fabric and effectively with the block it belongs to.
Circulation
DP 4.1
Accessibility
DA 4.1.1 - Connect blocks to surrounding urban fabric by making all interfaces active, so a positive relationship with the street where the building meets the ground will be achieved.
DP 4.2
Permeability
DA 4.2.1 - A minimum of 1-2 pedestrian walkways should run through an average sized block of 60m - 80m in order to increase permeability. However maximise of two otherwise sense of safety may be compromised.
33
Design Principles Mixed use
DP 5.1
Diversity
DA 5.1.1 - Create a multi-functional space by providing a variety of block and plot sizes and uses. Thus implement at least a minimum of 10 units per 100m in order to ensure a variety of uses Gehl et al., (2006).
Depth in urban tissue
DP 5.2
DP 6.1
Sociability
DA 5.2.1 - Add street furniture within the interior to encourage people to stay for longer (timber is warmer than metallic material).
Plot irregularity
DA 6.1.1 - Encourage more transparency between the inside and outside of plots. This can increase depth in urban tissue and enhance vitality even more by highlighting irreuglar forms within the block structure.
DP 6.2
Plot size variation
DA 6.2.1 - Ensure a variety of plot sizes to increase possibility of depth in urban tissue. These can range from 15m wide - 15m deep and up to about 20m wide and 25m deep.
Design Principles Individuality
Management
DP 8.1
DP 7.1
Colour
DA 7.1.1 - Encourage individual plots to use colour and artwork to make the plot more unique and create a less homogenous environment.
Efficient servicing
DA 8.1.1 - Ensure bin servicing is efficient. Streets over 8m wide can allow a bin lorry to service a block from the street in the early hours of the day. Otherwise blocks should have a servicing area.
DP 8.2
Long-term maintenance strategy
DA 8.2.1 - Provide ‘soft’ elements such as good lighting at night, shelter from the weather and ventailation.
35
New Vancouver - Study Site Background
New Vancouver - Study Site Background This chapter will describe and evaluate the test site used in the Issues I report, which was ‘New Downtown Vancouver” with regards to the topic being solved throughout this report - “New Downtown Vancouver: What block types are the most viable at super high density?” The design principles and actions developed in the previous chapter intend to improve the Issues I model with regards to issues surrounding block typology at super high density.
In our first model, block sizes were still too large if a good degree of legibility and walkability were to be achieved (See figure 60). These block sizes were divided to make the grid much finer in order to increase permeability and legibility. However in our final model, block sizes of 60m - 80m were achieved (See figure 61). This also resulted in more road junctions (approx. 74 junctions). All in all, decreasing Vancouver’s large blocks, allowed a finer grid structure which was more permeable for users. Indeed, the Issues I model has mirrored some of the findings which were uncovered in this reports literature review, especially with regards to block size and the need for permeability within the block structure.
Overview - Vancouver was chosen as our main
case study in Issues I because the city had already started to incorporate density strategies into the neighbourhoods. However given Vancouver’s increasing population, current initiatives such as planting 150,000 more trees to connect people within 5 minutes of nature, have been deemed too gentle.
Figure 60: Issues I New Vancouver block sizes
ogy. Hence why this report has focused on the issue - ‘New Downtown Vancouver: What block types are the most viable at super high density?” For the Issues 1 report did not successfully solve the issue. Indeed, this Issues II report will try to tackle the issue by implementing a design action which specifically pinpoints this issue: Sensory richness - DA 2 - Maximise natural sunlight entering the interior of the block through design mechanisms such as gaps in the building form, increased use of transparent materials (eg. glass) as well as position as many balconies and windows to face the south towards the sun as possible.
Natural light - The SWOT analysis at the be-
ginning of this report indicated that natural light was a key strength of the perimeter block typology. However at super density levels this block typology could not deliver an interior full of natural light. Indeed in Issues I, this issue was briefly consider. For the height of blocks were varyed in order to address the issue. THe variation in height was a quick solution for lower density levels where buildings reached a maximum storey height of 4 storeys (See Figure 62). However at super high densities where building heights can reach about 30 storeys, natural light will fail to enter the enter of this perimeter block typol-
Figure 59: Figure ground of Vancouver
Block size - A major change which created our
‘New Vancouver’ in Issues I was the change in street grid layout. The rigid grid structure of Vancouver needed more character which was achieved by making the road structure more fluid. Block sizes in Vancouver were also far larger than the general rule of thumb (60m - 80m).
Figure 61: Issues I New Vancouver road juctions
The next page will briefy analyse the Issues I 800pph site model using the criteria table of assessment which has been developed in this report.
Maximum plot width in model is 100m wide. Figure 62: Image from Issues I report showing sun penetration
New Vancouver - Study Site Background
37
The criteria of assessment table has been used to analyse the Issues I test site - New Vancouver. Using this table will help assess the model in terms of the block and plot structure against the 8 qualities that I consider to be essential for producing good block typologies at super high density.
The criteria of assessment table has indicated that the New Vancouver test site model which was developed in Issues I, could be improved with regards to block typology. Overall, it is clear from the low score that this case study received that the perimeter block typology is not a viable block typology to use for super density.
Conclusion
39
Conclusion
Conclusion - Getting to this stage, was not a linear process. Reflection on Issues I provided a good starting point of how to tackle the Issues II brief.
The chosen question ‘New Downtown Vancouver: What block types are the most viable at super high density?” to tackle the issue of suitable block typologies at super high densities has been addressed so far through a variety of mechanisms. First the literature review provided an insight into the topic and literature surrounding the topic. 8 key pieces of literature were then focused upon in detail. Summarising the key findings of these authors allowed a synthesis of the literature. Synthesising was useful as it fostered key themes to be derived. At this point, these key themes were; diversity, land use, accessibility, preservation of hu-
man scale, depth in urban tissue, individuality as oppose to homogeneity, adaptability and management. Next, the SWOT analysis of the perimeter block at high density pinpointed the qualities of what makes this block successful. These qualities (efficient use in land, clear distinction between public and private, maximising natural light, variability in plot size and privacy distance and finally permeability) were carried forward along with the key themes derived from the literature review. From this amalgamation of themes and good qualities, the design objectives were produced. The design objectives consisted of 8 key qualities which I deem are necessary in order to produce a good block typology at super high density. These design objectives headed the qualities in the criteria table of assessment (efficient use of land, preservation of human scale, continuous frontages, circulation, mixed use,
depth in urban tissue, individuality and management). The criteria table of assessment was effective in analysing all of the 4 case studies; Paris, Singapore, New York, London. From these case studies valuable information was derived, which helped to produce design actions for my design objectives. It is hoped that these design actions will be effective in Issues II Stage II. The brief overview of the New Vancouver test site developed in Issues I also allowed me to consider how my deisng actions which I have developed will be implemented int eh Stage II report. Indeed, it is likely that the design actions will need much further refinement as Issues II Stage II begins. Illustrations of how these design actions will be implemented would also aid their importance in tackling the issue, ‘New Downtown Vancouver: What block types are the most viable at super high density?”
Bibliography
41
Bibliography Adams, D. and Tiesdell, S. (2007). The Vital City. The Town Planning Review. (78) 671-679.
buildings-designed-by-starchitects-86015/. [Accessed 29th March, 2015].
Coupland, A. (1996). Reclaiming the City Mixed Used Development. Routledge. London
Norberg-Schulz (2007). The Phenomenon of Place. In: Larice, M. and MacDonald, E. The Urban Design Reader. 2nd Ed. Routledge: UK.
Crankshaw, N (2009) Creating Vibrant Public spaces. Island Press. Washington
NTHP (2014). National Trust for Historic Preservation. (2014). Older, Smaller, Better. Measuring how the character of buildings and blocks influences urban vitality. National Trust for Historic Preservation: US.
Density Atlas (2011). Plaine Monceau [online]. Available at: http://densityatlas.org/casestudies/profile.php?id=72. [Accessed 29th March, 2015]. Egan, C. (2016). Singapore’s New High-Rise to Look Like a Lush Fantasy Garden in the Sky [online]. Available at: http://www.architecturaldigest.com/ gallery/singapore-marina-one-garden\. [Accessed 29th March, 2015].
Samuels, I. (2004). The Death and Life of the Urban Block. Routledge, UK.
Gehl, J. and Svarre, B. (2013). How to Study Public Life. Island Press: UK
Senthilingam, M. (2015). Building the future: Singapore’s stunning architectural projects [online]. Available at: http://edition.cnn. com/2015/06/10/travel/gallery/singapore-future-buildings/. [Accessed 29th March, 2015].
Gehl, J. Kaefer, L. J. and Reigstad, S. (2006). Close encounters with buildings. International. (11) 29-47.
Siksna (1996). The effects of block size and form in North American and Australian city centres. Urban Morphology 19-33.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House Inc: New York.
Thomson, S. (2016). Bjarke Ingles [online]. Available at: http://architizer.com/blog/bjarke-ingels-firm-of-the-year/. [Accessed 29th March, 2015].
Karssenberg, H. and Laven, J. (2012). The City at Eye Level. In: Glaser, M. Hoff, M. Karssenberg, H. Laven, J. and Teeffelen, J. (ed). The City at Eye Level Lessons for Street Plinths. Eburon: Netherlands.
Tarbett, J. (2012). The Plot: Designing Diversity in the Built Environment. RIBA Publishing: UK.
Krier, L. (1990). Urban components. In Papadakis, A and Watson, H. (1990) New Classicism. London.
Trancik, (1986). What is lost space? In: Carmona, M and Tiesdell, S. (2007) Urban Design Reader. Elsevier: UK.
Lee, C. and Jacoby, S. (2007). Typological formations: Renewable types and the City. Architectural Associations Publications: UK.
Yeung, L. (2000). Urban Design Compendium. English Partnerships: UK
Lozano, E. (2007). Density in Communities, or the most important factor in building urbanity. In: Larice, M. and MacDonald, E. The Urban Design Reader. 2nd Ed. Routledge: UK. Mandanipour, A. (2012). Whose Public Space?: International Case Studies in Urban Design and Development. Routledge: UK. Marina One Residences (2016). Marina One Residences [online]. Available at: http://marinaoneresidence.net/marina-one-residences-floor-plan/. [Accessed 29th March, 2015]. Nonko, E. (2016). Changing the Skyline [online]. Available at: http://www. newyork.com/articles/real-estate/changing-the-skyline-8-stunning-nyc-
Zimmer, L. (2015). Singapore’s Marina One green-infused residential building will feature lush cloud forests [online]. Available at: http://inhabitat.com/singapores-marina-one-green-infused-residential-building-will-feature-lush-cloud-forests/. [Accessed 29th March, 2015].