FINAL YEAR PROJECT - PART I by Kristelle Boulos

American University of Beirut Faculty of Agriculture and Food Sciences Department of Landscape Design and Ecosystem Management

[UNDER] BRIDGE SPACES THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER] BRIDGE

Kristelle Boulos December 19th, 2013 [Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

Kristelle Boulos

ABSTRACT

With fast urbanization and exorbitant real estate prices, it is not easy to find available spaces to create new green public spaces around Beirut. As a matter of fact, Beirut residents spend most of their free time on the streets, especially that there is much more infrastructure than there are parks. The issue with infrastructure (specifically highways) is that apart from connecting areas together, they act like physical boundaries between communities, impacting the urban and social fabric. The aim of this project is to transform underbridge areas into public places, since underbridge spaces are already available and belong to the Public Domain. In order to achieve this objective, an underbridge typology was conducted to gather information about such spaces around Beirut. One of these spaces was selected as a case study (Yerevan Bridge) to illustrate an example of design implementation under a bridge. What is proposed to be developed under the Yerevan Bridge is a linear park divided into several â&#x20AC;&#x153;episodesâ&#x20AC;? that relate to what is happening from both sides of the bridge on the ground floor level in order to give value to the space around the bridge and reconnect the separated communities.

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

Kristelle Boulos

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are so many people I would like to thank for helping me during the past three months. First, I would like to express my deep gratitude to Nayla al Akl, my primary research advisor, along with Maria Gabriella Trovato and Dr. Yaser Abunnaser, my secondary research supervisors, for their patient guidance, enthusiastic encouragement and useful critiques for this research work. I would also like to thank Mr. Talal Farhat and Mr. Elie Helou (Council for Development and Reconstruction) for their kindness in sharing their data concerning bridges and infrastructure in Beirut. I would also like to thank Mr. Antranik Misserlian and Mr. Georges Krikorian, respectively president and vice president of the Bourj Hammoud Municipality for their enthusiasm and interest in my project. I owe a deep gratitude to Nour Raad, previously a landscape design student who worked on the Bourj Hammoud area and shared the technical data needed for this project. My thanks and appreciation also go to my amazing classmates, especially Yara Falakha, Rima El Assi, Arwa Al Jalahma and Yasmine Esteitie for their moral support and precious feedback. I am particularly grateful for my valuable friends who complete me: Melissa Khairallah, for her exceptional architectural perception, Alexandra Hitti, for her unique vision and creativity, and LĂŠa Corban, for her exclusive writing and critical thinking skills. Finally, I send my deepest regards to my family who were very sympathetic about my absences at family reunions due to limited time situations, especially my mother and my father who supported me morally and financially throughout my four challenging years at AUB.

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

ii5

Kristelle Boulos

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT �� i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ��ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ��iii TABLE OF FIGURES �� iv I. INTRODUCTION Framework ...................................................................................................................... 14 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 16 II. PROPOSITION Context Issue .................................................................................................................. 20 Local Issue ...................................................................................................................... 21 Vision .............................................................................................................................. 22 Strategy .......................................................................................................................... 22 Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 22 III. LITERATURE REVIEW : LANDSCAPE INFRASTRUCTURE Definitions & Descriptions ............................................................................................... 26 Summary of books, articles, architects perspectives ..................................................... 27 Interpretation of the literature review ........................................................................... 29 IV. CASE STUDY ANALYSIS Queens Plaza: Reframed Landscape .............................................................................. 30 Hollywood Freeway Cap: Park 101 ................................................................................ 31 V. SITE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS [Under]bridge Typology .................................................................................................. 34 Basta Bridge ...................................................................................................... 36 El Helou Bridge .................................................................................................. 40 Charles Helou Bridge ......................................................................................... 44 Cola Bridge ......................................................................................................... 48 Ring Bridge ......................................................................................................... 52 Elias el Hraoui Bridge ......................................................................................... 56 The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge .............................................................................. 60 Mood & Character of the Yerevan Bridge .......................................................... 62 Subtypologies Sections ...................................................................................... 64 Building Use & Ground Floor Land Use .............................................................. 66 Activities ............................................................................................................ 68 Vehicular Circulation .......................................................................................... 70 Pedestrian Circulation ........................................................................................ 72 Potential Areas .................................................................................................. 74 Light (Day and Night) ......................................................................................... 76 VI. PROGRAMMING Proposed “Episodes ........................................................................................................ 80 Proposed Design Solutions ............................................................................................. 82 VII. PROPOSED AREA OF FOCUS Proposed Area of Focus .................................................................................................. 86 VIII. SCHEDULE OF WORK Schedule of Work ............................................................................................................ 90 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 92

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

iii 7

Kristelle Boulos

TABLE OF FIGURES

Fig.1 Green Public Spaces in Beirut �� 14 Fig.2 Road Network in Beirut �� 14 Fig.3 Streets perceived as public spaces �� 14 Fig.4 Categorization of the Land Surface of Municipal Beirut (Serof & Serof, 1999) �� 15 Fig.5 Selected Bridges for Study �� 16 Fig. 6 Vacant underbridge , Hayek Bridge, Sin el Fil �� 20 Fig. 7 Bridges in relation to Beirut (Administrative context) �� 20 Fig. 8 Bridges in relation to Beirut (Community context) �� 20 Fig.10 Rooms cut off from a building to fit the bridge ��21 Fig.11 No privacy for the adjacent buildings ��21 Fig. 9 Building stuck to the bridge ��21 Fig.12 Issues related to the Yerevan Bridge �� 21 Fig.13 Formalizing the underbridge space �� 22 Fig.14 Reconnecting the communities �� 22 Fig.15 Creating a community space �� 22 Fig.16 Engaging infrastructure �� 22 Fig.17 Vision: Transforming underbridge spaces into public spaces �� 22 Fig.18 Recent published books about the Landscape Infrastructure topic �� 26 Fig.19 Infrastructure Examples �� 26 Fig. 20 Mono-Functional Space �� 30 Fig. 21 Multi-Functional Space �� 30 Fig. 22 Queens Plaza �� 30 Fig. 25 Park 101 �� 31 Fig. 23 Reconnecting communities �� 31 Fig. 24 Design Sketch �� 31 Fig. 26 Bridges in relation to Beirut (Community context) �� 34 Fig. 27 Basta Bridge Location Map �� 36 Fig. 28 Basta Bridge Key Map �� 36 Fig. 29 Basta Bridge Axonometry �� 38 Fig. 30 Basta Bridge Section �� 39 Fig. 31 El Wati Bridge Location Map �� 40 Fig. 32 El Wati Bridge Key Map �� 40 Fig. 33 El Wati Bridge Axonometry �� 42 Fig. 34 El Wati Bridge Section �� 43 Fig. 35 Charles Helou Bridge Location Map �� 44 Fig. 36 Charles Helou Bridge Key Map �� 44 Fig. 37 Charles Helou Bridge Axonometry �� 46 Fig. 38 Charles Helou Bridge Section �� 47 Fig. 39 Cola Bridge Location Map �� 48 Fig. 40 Cola Bridge Key Map �� 48 Fig. 41 Cola Bridge Axonometry �� 50 Fig. 42 Cola Bridge Section �� 51 Fig. 43 Ring Bridge Location Map �� 52 Fig. 44 Ring Bridge Key Map �� 52 Fig. 45 Ring Bridge Axonometry �� 54 Fig. 46 Ring Bridge Section �� 55 Fig. 47 Elias el Hraoui Bridge Location Map �� 56 Fig. 48 Elias el Hraoui Bridge Key Map �� 56 Fig. 49 Elias el Hraoui Bridge Axonometry �� 58 Fig. 50 Elias el Hraoui Section �� 59 Fig. 51 Location Map: Yerevan in context �� 60 Fig. 52 Yerevan key map & division of sub-typologies �� 61

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

iv 9

TABLE OF FIGURES

Fig. 53 Yerevan: Dominant Bridge �� 62 Fig. 55 Yerevan’s Vertical Contrast �� 62 Fig. 54 Mood Sketch Yerevan �� 62 Fig. 56 Yerevan Key Map for Sections �� 64 Fig. 57 Yerevan Section S1 �� 64 Fig. 58 Yerevan Section S2 �� 64 Fig. 59 Yerevan Section S3 �� 65 Fig. 60 Yerevan Section S4 �� 65 Fig. 61 Yerevan Section S5 �� 65 Fig. 62 Building Use & Land Use Diagram �� 66 Fig. 63 Activities Diagram �� 68 Fig. 64 Vehicular Circulation Diagram �� 70 Fig. 65 Pedestrian Circulation Diagram �� 72 Fig. 66 Potential Areas Diagram �� 74 Fig. 67 Lights at Night, Yerevan �� 76 Fig. 68 Lights during the Day, Yerevan �� 77 Fig. 69 Program Diagram �� 81 Fig. 70 Different Stops Diagram �� 83 Fig. 71 Area of Focus Diagram �� 87

Kristelle Boulos

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

Kristelle Boulos

I NT R O D U CT ION

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

INTRODUCTION

FRAMEWORK

Fig.1 Green Public Spaces in Beirut

Beirut has a collection of public spaces, many of which are not parks. In fact, only a small percentage of parks are really public; the rest is fenced or closed to the public and surrounded by barbed wires, pushing away visitors. Nonetheless, Lebanese citizens have developed other forms of public spaces such as souks, malls, public squares, seafront promenades and finally streets. Most people do not bother thinking about where they could spend time outdoors, they simply place white plastic chairs aligned in a semi circle shape on the sidewalk, sometimes with a checkers table and at other times with a Shisha, and enjoy their own informal public space. This is the most common type of public space present around Beirut. One of the most successful public space in Beirut is the seaside “Corniche” consisting of a simple sidewalk, a rail, some palm trees, light poles and a breath-taking view of the sea, where people from all Beirut corners meet for different activities: jogging, cycling, chatting, strolling, dancing, singing, thereby creating a rather unique place.

Fig.2 Road Network in Beirut

Asphalted roads and streets around Beirut are much more abundant than green open public spaces. Wouldn’t it be rational to think about ways to create green public spaces within existing infrastructure? To really take advantage of the fact that streets, roads and sidewalks belong to the public domain?

Mar Mikhael

Hamra

Ain Al Mreisseh

Downtown

Manara

Bourj Hammoud

Fig.3 Streets perceived as public spaces

Kristelle Boulos

INTRODUCTION

In the end, infrastructures especially streets, roads and bridges are physical networks that connect people together. Why not use these existing elements and explore their potential of being actual public spaces? The result would be a rich interconnected landscape of infrastructure in the city of Beirut.

Fig.4 Categorization of the Land Surface of Municipal Beirut (Serof & Serof, 1999)

This project is focused specifically on underbridge spaces.

Underbridge, (noun): a bridge spanning an opening under a railway or road. Bridges are a form of infrastructure in a city that help transporting people from one place to another, making the distances shorter, thus making it faster to get to a destination. However, engineers who build these structural elements focus only on the transportation function, without giving much attention to the consequences of the introduction of these alien species into the city. What bridges leave behind are the spaces created below them: Underbridge spaces. These spaces are ambiguous and difficult to categorize. The great public, having an impression of an obscure, filthy and dangerous place, rarely acknowledges their presence. Since these spaces are not given any importance, they end up being abandoned or only used by pure necessity. However, they have the potential of being transformed into attractive public places. The goal of this project is to maximize the value of underbridge spaces by transforming them into public spaces that are used and even appreciated by citizens, thus, leading to a new vision that drives public spaces into a whole new dimension.

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

INTRODUCTION

METHODOLOGY The method of approach to the issues regarding the underbridge spaces is shaped by several steps. First, a literature review is conducted to establish the framework for the study of underbridge spaces within urban environments. Second, building a typology of bridges in Beirut and understanding the differences and similarities between them and their different role in their direct context will lead to a selection of a single bridge on which further analysis and research will be conducted in order to come up with a transformation of a space into a public place. The studied bridges are the following: -Basta bridge -El Wati bridge -Charles Helou bridge -Yerevan bridge -Ring bridge -Elias el Hraoui bridge -Cola bridge The bridge under consideration is the Yerevan bridge, which crosses three different communities (Sin el Fil, Nabaa and Bourj Hammoud), and where a whole new ecosystem is thriving in the shadow of the 1.5 km-long bridge. After completing the analysis of the current conditions of the site, the findings are summarized into a program plan. The program elements are then combined into the best overall design solution.

Basta Bridge

Charles Helou Bridge

Cola Bridge

Fig.5 Selected Bridges for Study

Kristelle Boulos

INTRODUCTION

Yerevan Bridge

Elias el Hraoui Bridge

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

Ring Bridge

El Wati Bridge

Kristelle Boulos

P R O P O S IT ION

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

PROPOSITION

CONTEXT ISSUE Engineers build bridges without taking into consideration the impact on the context and the fabric of the city. What the city ends up having is a collection of unused or informally used spaces, divided communities, and structures that are only used for vehicle transportation. First, the spaces are relatively large compared to their surrounding, sometimes being the largest spot in a community. However, because the general public does not acknowledge them, perhaps because they do not look appealing or because unprivileged people informally use them, no one tries to rethink them as a potential public open space. Consequently, these spaces are perceived as “Dead Zones” (Doron 2000), “Spaces of uncertainty” (Cupers and Missen 2002) or “Voids” (Armstrong 2006).

Fig.6 Vacant underbridge , Hayek Bridge, Sin el Fil

Second, introducing such colossal structures in a dense and old city like Beirut requires some changes in their direct surrounding context. Their presence affects people, the morphology of the space and the community around it. When looking at the administrative boundaries of Beirut, bridges are within different sectors of Beirut, and when looking closer at the communities that are within the administrative boundaries, the bridges appear to be at the edge of each community, forming a physical boundary between them. For instance, the Ring Bridge is a physical boundary between the Beirut Central District and Bashoura. Third, vehicles being the primary reason to build a bridge, pedestrians are rarely accounted for in the projects, resulting in unlinked communities that make it rather difficult to walk from one to another, and dangerous roads to walk on, for example, the Charles Helou Bridge. However, these issues give the opportunity to work with these spac-

Fig.7 Bridges in relation to Beirut (Administrative context) Studied Bridges

Fig.8 Bridges in relation to Beirut (Community context) Charles Helou El Wati Ring Elias el Hraoui Basta Cola Yerevan Kristelle Boulos

PROPOSITION

es, to try and improve the quality of life of the people living around these bridges and even providing new spaces for other people. These spaces are already there and are rather spacious, the challenge is to find a way to transform them into appealing, functional spaces for the people. LOCAL ISSUE (SPECIFIC TO YEREVAN (UNDER)BRIDGE Yerevan bridge was built around 2000 over Bourj Hamoud in order to link Ashrafieh to Baouchrieh. In order to be built, some blocks of buildings had to be removed and even some buildings had to be cut in the middle in order to fit the bridge. Many residents did not receive the compensation they were promised to receive, so this bridge left the neighborhood with scars, contempt, and a large space beneath it. People walk under and on the bridge everyday; it is part of their daily routine. However, everyone tries to ignore its presence, as if it was a tumor growing into the neighborhood. People suffer of pollution, privacy, noise pollution, lack of light, parking space, and they all see the bridge as a big constraint and not as an opportunity.

Fig. 10 Rooms cut off from a building to fit the bridge

Fig. 9 Building stuck to the bridge

Fig. 11 No privacy for the adjacent buildings

Fig. 12 Issues related to the Yerevan Bridge [Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

INTRODUCTION

VISION Envisioning a transformation of the unexplored underbridge spaces into successful public spaces used by residents in Beirut. STRATEGY Fig.13 Formalizing the underbridge space

Fig.14 Reconnecting the communities

Investigating a local case (the Yerevan [under] bridge) in order to demonstrate an example of how to transform such an area into a public space, by rethinking its structure and role in its community. OBJECTIVES The objectives fixed for the Yerevan [under]bridge are the following: • Formalizing the underbridge space (turning the informal spaces and activities into formal ones) • Reconnecting the communities (by using the underbridge space as a tool to merge the lateral groundfloor land use from both sides of the bridge) • Creating a community space (by making the space a destina tion, a landmark for the people) • Engaging the infrastructure (by incorporating the physical ele ments as part of the space)

Fig.15 Creating a community space

Fig.16 Engaging infrastructure

Fig.17 Vision: Transforming underbridge spaces into public spaces

After having introduced the project’s background with its vision, issues and objectives, it is now time to go into the theoretical research about the subject of “Landscape Infrastructure”. This literature review helped to look at different landscape architects’ and scholars’ perspectives about the subject and see how some theories could apply to this project and what are the gaps that exist between what was found and the project itself.

Kristelle Boulos

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

Kristelle Boulos

LIT ERAT U R E REVIEW: LAN D S CA P E INF RA S T RU CT U R E

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

LANDSCAPE INFRASTRUCTURE

DEFINITION AND FRAMEWORK Landscape infrastructure is a recent layer added to landscape architecture; it is a new branch sprouting under landscape urbanism. It is about considering the existing infrastructures in a city as part of the overall landscape and reintegrating them into designed landscapes and public spaces. Nowadays landscape infrastructure is a trendy topic; many landscape architects are sharing their perception and there are numerous conferences, discussions and debates about the subject.

Fig. 18 Recent published books about the Landscape Infrastructure topic

Avenue St. Dimistros

Hazmieh Bridge Fig. 19 Infrastructure Examples

Kristelle Boulos

LANDSCAPE INFRASTRUCTURE

SUMMARY OF ARTICLES AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS’ PERSPECTIVES What is a park, Landscape or Infrastructure? | Nam Henderson A park is not necessarily about greenery. In fact, it should go beyond the traditional concept of a park and correspond to the morphology of a city, thus, dealing with infrastructure. Landscape of infrastructure is about thinking of the best ways to enhance urban infrastructural spaces that are under used. Landscape Infrastructure | Case Studies by SWA With the increase of residential densities, there is a high demand for upgraded transit and uniform access to open spaces for cultural and social activities. The role of public infrastructure in cities is changing and landscape has become the medium that helps formulate solutions to issues related to the integration of infrastructure. Landscape acts like infrastructure, considering that it is a type of distribution network capable of transporting people and being the base of a variety of living entities. Landscape infrastructure = methodology that expands the performance parameters of the design landscape to a multifunctional, highperformance system, including those systems originally ascribed to traditional infrastructure. Urban design founded on principles of landscape infrastructure focuses on the innovative opportunities in order to introduce nature and public amenities into the infrastructure of a city. Some examples of such practices are: • • • • • • •

City beautification and re-vegetation/reforestation Water and energy conservation Natural systems restoration Storm water management Energy farming Wildlife habitat expansion Favored pedestrian use

Landscape Infrastructure: System of contingency, flexibility and adaptability | Ying Yung Hung In the past twenty years, society started to become aware about its contribution to the deterioration of the environment. Ever since, landscape architects and urban planners have been seeking ways to deal with this threat. Landscape is a mosaic; it is a complex network of systems that are highly inter-connected and interdependent. Hence, landscape architecture is crossing disciplines: it is working more closely with infrastructure, economics, sociology, politics and environment. Traditional infrastructure was historically conceived as a central, sin[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

LANDSCAPE INFRASTRUCTURE

gle proposed system, separately from the global urban context, leading to conflicts between infrastructure and their context that often requires the use of specific measures such as camouflage, mitigation and deactivation of the system. The trend is to decentralize them and to respond to environmental problems and multifunctioning (such as community revitalization through increase of open-spaces, creation of habitats, transformation of urban blight into urban destination). It is necessary that roads present multiple functions rather than one: they must act as connectors as well as public spaces. Foregrounding | Julia Czerniak As J.B Jackson, geographer argues, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Infrastructure comes before the growth of the city. It is also the last thing left after the city declines.â&#x20AC;? By placing infrastructure in the foreground, it is a strategy to make it more visibly useful. In perspectival images, foregrounding means the portion of the scene nearest to the viewer, and in literature foregrounding is the emphasizing of certain words or images over others that surround them. Second nature: New territories for the exiles | Adriaan Geuze and Matthew Skjonsberg For a city to be vibrant, it requires three elements: good social interaction, good infrastructure, and nature. There are two types of nature as described by Geuze and Skjonsberg. The first nature being the wilderness, and the second nature being the nature shaped by humans, which is the design nature created in parallel to existing urbanization in order to maintain the stability of ecological systems. Infrastructural Urbanism | Stan Allen Architecture has the power to structure cities thanks to its ability to concretize social and cultural concepts, unlike other practices such as literature, film, politics, advertising or art installations. It also contributes in actualizing concepts that technical disciplines such as engineering cannot. As Foucault claims: techniques are social before they are technical. Infrastructure as Landscape | Gary Strang Landscape architects must find techniques to allow the coexistence of natural landscape and the landscape of infrastructure and implement multiple functions. Nature and infrastructure must both be allowed to express themselves as a major determinant of urban and regional form. It is up to engineers, landscape architecture and biologists to show the way.

Kristelle Boulos

LANDSCAPE INFRASTRUCTURE

INTERPRETATION OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW What can be extracted from this literature review is the fact that landscape infrastructure is mainly about finding a balance between nature and infrastructure, transforming infrastructure from a single use element to a multi-use element, and finally taking into consideration the consequences on the community and the environment before implementing any infrastructure project. However, all these landscape architects are based in North America and do not have the same values as we do in Lebanon. Most of these perspectives are involving larger issues such as environmental issues, functions and aesthetics rather than equity justice in a local environment. In this project, communities that are suffering from their location next to the bridge play an important role in the analysis and design decisions.

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

QUEENS PLAZA: INFRASTRUCTURE REFRAMED Margie Ruddick, Marpillero Pollack Architects, Wrtdesign The Queens plaza transforms the knot of urban infrastructure, cutting through Long Island city from a disorienting industrial maze into a navigable landscape, and an entryway to long island city. The design reconnects the surrounding communities and re-establishes the connection between the city and the river. The project addresses an urban condition that is common in New York and around the world: the intersection of multiple infrastructure systems that create a hostile and hazardous environment for people. Fig. 20 Mono-Functional Space

Fig. 21 Multi-Functional Space

At Queens Plaza, the infrastructure elements are the Queensboro Bridge, the elevated subway lines (for the N, W, and 7 trains), an elevated subway station, and heavy traffic and parking below. The designers incorporated these systems with art and ecology, turning leftover space into public space that performs ecological functions. The situation of this project is somewhat similar to what is happening under the Yerevan Bridge, in the sense that the surrounding communities are disconnected and the underbridge space is mainly occupied by vehicles. The outcome of the Queens project illustrates an idea of a possible way to deal with such situations, acting like an inspiration for the Yerevan Bridge project.

Fig. 22 Queens Plaza

Kristelle Boulos

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

HOLLYWOOD FREEWAY CAP: PARK 101 AECOM The design of the park is based on the extension and intersection of disconnected street grids on both sides of the freeway. The plan seeks to reconcile points of intersection and the axial vistas connecting key landmarks such as the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, Union Station, Fort Moore Hill, and the Los Angeles River providing opportunities for a range of programmatic components, and create the physical alignments and forms that give shape to the park. Design Principles 1. Consolidate on/off ramps at the east and west ends of the Park 2. Maximize the value of underutilized parcels 3. Create a recognizable cultural public realm 4. Integrate land uses throughout 5. Create a single development entity 6. Create a singularly unique urban district 7. Capture a significant portion of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s growth 8. Maximize the development potential and revenues.

Fig. 23 Reconnecting communities

The Hollywood Freeway Cap is a good example to look at because it deals with vehicular circulation in order to balance it with pedestrian circulation, thus transforming a highway into a complex network of Fig. 24 Design Sketch pocket gardens, which breaks the linearity of the highway.

Fig. 25 Park 101 [Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

Kristelle Boulos

S IT E INVEN TO R Y & A N A LY S IS

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

All highway bridges do have the same function of transporting vehicles from one point to another. However, there are several types of bridges present in Beirut, each made of different lengths, different shapes, different materials, and positioned in different locations while having different functions in the local and city context, thus creating different types of spaces below them and different feelings originating from them. These dissimilarities are what form each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s character. The typology of [under]bridge spaces demonstrates the different impacts of a bridge on a community and on the morphology of the space. This typology is a result of photographic surveys, analysis on site, land use mapping, ground floor use mapping, informal use mapping and interviews.

Fig.26 Bridges in relation to Beirut (Community context) Charles Helou El Wati Ring Elias el Hraoui Basta Cola Yerevan

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

TYPOLOGY #1 • THE COMMUNITY INTRUDER BASTA BRIDGE

BASTA TAHTA BASTA FAOUKA

Fig. 27 Basta Bridge Location Map

3 2 1

Fig. 28 Basta Bridge Key Map

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

23.09.13, 5:00 pm Meeting point between army tank, mosque and political bases

23.09.13, 5:00 pm Park present at the extremity of the bridge and cars park under the bridge

23.09.13, 5:00 pm Bridge = “Alien” structure to the community

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION [UNDERBRIDGE]

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION [ON BRIDGE]

TYPOLOGY #1 • THE COMMUNITY INTRUDER BASTA BRIDGE

UNDERBRIDGE USE

200 m 200 m

People Standing People Sitting Parked cars

GROUNDFLOOR USE & PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

Army Tank

Shops Park Green Empty Lots Religious Services Snacks/Restaurants Pedestrian circulation

Fig. 29 Basta Bridge Axonometry

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

The length of this bridge is relatively small compared to the rest, since it is 400m long but divided in two bell-shaped bridges. Because it is small, it does not appear to be “heavy” on the community; it is not dominant. However, it still acts as an intruder to the community, people see it everyday, walk under it everyday; it is omnipresent. It is made of green steel, which makes the sound of vehicles very pronounced, leaving a heavy noise when cars pass on it. Its colour is very unique, vibrant green, and it reminds the people about the two public gardens that are situated on the two extremities of the bridge. On the ground floor layer there are two parks along with several antique shops and a mosque. The parks are relatively empty compared to the shops and mosque that are nearby. In fact, most of the pedestrian circulation is concentrated around the mosque: people sit, stand and park under the bridge.

COMMUNITY INTRUD ER

Mood

Day

The area is very lively and dynamic. However, because the area is politically engaged, there is an army tank located under the bridge, leaving an impression of danger and hostility.

Night

HEAVY NOISE STEEL BOX INSECURITY DISCRETE

6.0 5.5

4.5 5.5

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SHOPS GROUNDFLOOR

BRIDGE

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SHOPS GROUNDFLOOR

Fig. 30 Basta Bridge Section [Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

TYPOLOGY #2 • THE LOCAL ATTRACTOR EL WATI BRIDGE

SIN EL FIL CORNICHE AL NAHR Fig. 31 El Wati Bridge Location Map

abt-

1 2 3

abt

-2

Fig. 32 El Wati Bridge Key Map

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

Saturday 07.09.13, 3:00 pm Where the underbridge and the actual Souk al Ahad connect

Saturday 07.09.13, 3:00 pm The Souk extending below the bridge and the strip of light

Thursday 29.08.13, 4:00 pm The same space on a week day: Almost empty

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

40 0m

People Standing People Selling Parked cars Bus stop

GROUNDFLOOR USE & PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

UNDERBRIDGE USE

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION [UNDERBRIDGE]

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION [ON BRIDGE]

TYPOLOGY #2 • THE LOCAL ATTRACTOR EL WATI BRIDGE

Green Empty Lots Industrial Entertainment Garages/Workshops Snacks/Restaurants Pedestrian circulation

Fig. 33 El Wati Bridge Axonometry

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

“Jisr Al Wati” is a bridge that goes along the boundary of Beirut. Compared to Basta bridge, it is the same length but the shape of the bridge is different: it is elongated and bell-shaped. Just as its name indicates, it is a rather low bridge, making it very claustrophobic for some people. Furthermore, the Beirut River goes along the bridge, leaving a repulsive smell around it, which makes the underbridge even more claustrophobic. As the bridge divides the lanes into two parts, there is a strip of light that comes through and gives a bit of fresh air to the space.

LOCAL ATTRACTOR

Mood

However, even though its surrounding is highly industrial and has a lot of vacant lots, it is extremely populated on weekends for the Sunday Market “Souk al Ahad”. It actually acts as an extension for the Sunday market, which is adjacent to it and expanding every year. The underbridge is divided in two parts: one part acts as an extension for the Souk, and the second part acts as a parking for the Souk. Day

In addition for it being a destination on weekends, this bridge is an attractor to street artists who perceive this space as a leftover space where they can easily express themselves.

Night

INTERACTION DYNAMIC CLAUSTROPHOBIC DIVERSITY OF PEOPLE STRIP OF LIGHT EPHEMERAL BAD SMELL

12.0

12.0 2.6

16.0

3.0 2.5-6

11.0

INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

ROAD

BRIDGE

Fig. 34 El Wati Bridge Section [Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

30.0

BRIDGE SOUK AL AHAD RIVER

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

TYPOLOGY #3 • THE FORMAL TRANSPORTATION HUB CHARLES HELOU BRIDGE

BEIRUT PORT

MAR MIKHAEL

Fig. 35 Charles Helou Bridge Location Map

1 2

Fig. 36 Charles Helou Bridge Key Map

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

02.10.13, 3:30 pm Bus Station

23.10.13, 1:30 pm Saifi Urban Park adjacent to the Charles Helou Bridge

23.10.13, 3:30 pm Drivers from the Charles Helou Station

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

UNDERBRIDGE USE

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION [UNDERBRIDGE]

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION [ON BRIDGE]

TYPOLOGY #3 • THE FORMAL TRANSPORTATION HUB CHARLES HELOU BRIDGE

650 m

People Standing People Sitting People Selling

GROUNDFLOOR USE & PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

Parked cars

Green Empty Lots Industrial Residential Shops Snacks/Restaurants

Fig. 37 Charles Helou Bridge Axonometry

Pedestrian circulation

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

The highway bridge links Beirut to the North, consequently, the underbridge, called “Charles Helou Station”, is a bus and taxi station for vehicles heading North of Lebanon and even to Damascus; this underbridge area is highly and regularly used. The underbridge is next to the Beirut Port and there is no direct link between one edge of the bridge and the other. It acts like a retaining wall, cutting the Medawar area in two parts: Mar Mikhael and the port. Consequently, all activities are concentrated on one side of the bridge: people are waiting for their bus, paying their ticket, chatting, selling objects such as watches, eating and even praying. There are many shops and coffee shops where drivers rest and eat between their trips. There is only one access point to get to the bridge, even though it is open from everywhere because of the road that is adjacent to the underbridge and has a low wall as a median, making it dangerous to cross. However, at the other side of the bridge, several pubs and restaurants on Rue Pasteur are located right adjacent to it as if it was not even there. At some points, the station is accessible from the back (for example, there is a door leading to it from the Saifi Urban Garden to the Charles Helou station).

FORMAL TRANSPORTATION HUB

Mood

Day

Night

CLAUSTROPHOBIC HARASSMENT HOSTILITY DANGER UNFRESH AIR

43.0

10.0

HIGHWAY

CHARLES HELOU STATION

Fig.38 Charles Helou Bridge Section [Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

TYPOLOGY #4 • THE INFORMAL TRANSPORTATION HUB COLA BRIDGE

JNAH

TARIQ EL JDIDEH

Fig. 39 Cola Bridge Location Map

1 2 3

Fig. 40 Cola Bridge Key Map

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

07.09.13, 2:30 pm Self-made park under the Cola Bridge

07.09.13, 2:30 pm Coffee vendors & informal bus stop

07.09.13, 2:30 pm Informal Bus Stop

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

UNDERBRIDGE USE

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION [UNDERBRIDGE]

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION [ON BRIDGE]

TYPOLOGY #4 • THE INFORMAL TRANSPORTATION HUB COLA BRIDGE

People Standing People Sitting People Selling Parked cars Bus stop

GROUNDFLOOR USE & PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

Army tank

Green Empty Lots Institutions Residential Shops Snacks/Restaurants Pedestrian circulation

Fig. 41 Cola Bridge Axonometry

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

Being one of the oldest bridges in Beirut, it links Downtown Beirut to the airport. The Cola intersection is known as a public transportation node where mini vans, buses and taxis can go towards North or South of Lebanon. It is also known as a landmark; it is common to hear someone saying “meet me at the Cola” or “drop me at the Cola”. Being an informal station, it is very dynamic and chaotic, where a symphony of honking and “La wein?” (“where to?”) get mixed with people chatting out loud. In fact, there are no clear paths for cars or for pedestrians. Hence, they tend to mix together well.

INFORMAL TRANSPORTATION HUB

Mood

The two intersections are green. There was a plan to green the whole underbridge area but the project is suspended for the time being. The existing plants are in poor condition, and the area is poorly maintained. In fact, there are homeless people, trash in the areas allocated for planting, and people informally squatting the place. Being a physical separator between a “Chiaa” and a “Sunnite” zone, there is an army tank located under the bridge, which is a very strategic spot. The presence of the army did not seem to bother the homeless people who are well settled with the little they have nor the visitors who sometimes run picnics on weekends. The place is also strategic for vendors who achieve good turnovers while people wait for their public transportation.

Day

Night

WELCOMING LANDMARK HONKING CHAOS

MEETING POINT

16.0 5.0

6.0

9.0

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

ROAD

BRIDGE

ROAD

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SHOPS GROUNDFLOOR

Fig.42 Cola Bridge Section [Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

TYPOLOGY #5 • THE EMPTY TRANSIENT SPACE RING BRIDGE

DOWNTOWN BEIRUT

BASHOURA

MONOT

Fig. 43 Ring Bridge Location Map

2 3 1

Fig. 44 Ring Bridge Key Map

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

07.09.13, 1:30 pm Large underused space

07.09.13, 1:30 pm View from downtown side towards Bashoura side

07.09.13, 1:30 pm Workers resting in the shade before getting back to work

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

People Standing People Sitting 300 m

Parked cars Bus stop

Snacks/Restaurants

GROUNDFLOOR USE & PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

UNDERBRIDGE USE

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION [UNDERBRIDGE]

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION [ON BRIDGE]

TYPOLOGY #5 • THE EMPTY TRANSIENT SPACE RING BRIDGE

Green Empty Lots Construction Sites Religious Residential Services Pedestrian circulation

Fig. 45 Ring Bridge Axonometry

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

As its name indicates, it is a ring built around Beirut Central District, which acts as a clear physical boundary for the area. It separates completely the Beirut Central District from the Bashoura area and links Ashrafieh to Hamra. The space below the bridge is very large, in fact it is the largest so far compared to the rest with a width of 28 m. In addition, it is not really close to any building so it is well aerated. This space does not appear to belong to anyone. It is deserted and acts like a no-man’s land. Being there, we are neither in downtown nor in Bashoura. We are in an uncertain space, in a transient empty space. The visitors of the underbridge are mainly workers coming from downtown’s construction sites. They use the space to rest on concrete blocks, or wait for vans to pick them up. These people are just visitors and not regular users; in a year or two they won’t be here anymore, making the space even more empty and unused than it already is.

EMPTY TRANSIENT SPACE

Mood

Day

Night

SEPARATION OPENNESS DESERT PASSAGE NO MAN’S LAND

28.0

5.0

10.0

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

ROAD

BRIDGE

ROAD

Fig. 46 Ring Bridge Section [Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

TYPOLOGY #5 • THE GREEN UNUSED SPACE ELIAS EL HRAOUI BRIDGE

SIOUFI SODECO FURN AL CHEBBAK

CORNICHE AL NAHR

Fig. 47 Elias el Hraoui Bridge Location Map

Fig. 48 Elias el Hraoui Bridge Key Map

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

07.09.13, 4:00 pm Groundcover and some trees

03.11.13, 5:30 pm Groundcover and some trees

03.11.13, 5:30 pm View below the bridge

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

UNDERBRIDGE USE

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION [UNDERBRIDGE]

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION [ON BRIDGE]

TYPOLOGY #5 • THE GREEN UNUSED SPACE ELIAS EL HRAOUI BRIDGE

GROUNDFLOOR USE & PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

Planted Vegetation

Green Empty Lots Shops Civic Buildings Pedestrian circulation

Fig. 49 Elias el Hraoui Bridge Axonometry

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS [UNDER]BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

Elias el Hraoui Bridge is a voluminous bridge linking Ashrafieh to Baabda, and passing through Furn El Chebbak. The studied underbridge is a green roundabout called “Adlieh”, which is mainly used for vehicular circulation. It is surrounded by public institutions buildings (including the Ministry of Finance, the court of justice, some syndicates, etc..). In order to get there, people need to park their cars and cross the dangerous roundabout. It has the same width as the Ring Bridge, however it is green and unoccupied by people. In fact, it was very hard to take pictures there because of all the civic buildings surrounding the area. This roundabout is like the central zone of a spider web: if a man stands there, all the soldiers distributed around the area are aware of his presence, putting him in a very vulnerable position. Why would anyone want to stay there?

E USED SPAC GREEN UN

Mood

Day

Night

UNAPPRECIATED RESTRICTIONS OPENNESS VEHICLE ISLAND EMPTINESS

28.0

ROAD

BRIDGE

ROAD

Fig. 50 Elias el Hraoui Section [Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER]BRIDGE

Bourj Hammoud

BEIRUT

Ashrafieh

YEREV AN B R

IDG

Nabaa

Sin El Fil

Fig. 51 Location Map: Yerevan in context

RI UT

AS H R A F IEH

TYPOLOGY #1 THE COMMUNITY INTRUDER

B OU RJ H AMMOU D SCHOOL

SIN EL F I L

CHURCH

N AB A A SCHOOL TYPOLOGY #1 THE COMMUNITY INTRUDER

TYPOLOGY #4 THE INFORMAL TRANSPORTATION HUB TYPOLOGY #6 THE GREEN UNUSED SPACE TYPOLOGY #1 THE COMMUNITY INTRUDER

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER]BRIDGE

Compared to the rest, Yerevan bridge is the longest bridge (1.5 km), crossing 3 communities (Sin el Fil, Nabaa and Bourj Hammoud) and linking Ashrafieh to Bauchrieh. This long stretch of structure “suspended” in the middle of a neighbourhood acts like a permanent cloud above it, leaving the ground floor in the shade. There are several streets crossing the underbridge area, which is a main road. There is a mix of shops, workshops, garages, coffee shops, hairdressers, houses, public parks, stadiums and football fields around the underbridge, making it a very dynamic area. People use this space not specifically because it is a bridge but because they were here before the bridge. In fact, the bridge had to be built over this community, by sacrificing blocks of buildings and even parts of some buildings, which became vulnerable, as they are left exposed to all pedestrians walking on the bridge. Consequently, the residents prefer living in the darkness with their curtains constantly shut. This bridge is so long that it is composed of several sub-typologies that were analysed in the previous section.

TYPOLOGY #6 THE GREEN UNUSED SPACE TYPOLOGY #1 THE COMMUNITY INTRUDER TYPOLOGY #3 THE FORMAL TRANSPORTATION HUB TYPOLOGY #5 THE EMPTY TRANSIENT SPACE

BOURJ HAMMOUD MUNICIPAL STADIUM

BLIND PEOPLE’S HOME ELDERLY HOME

MILITARY BASE SCHOOL FOOTBALL FIELD

B A U C H RI EH

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

Fig. 52 Yerevan key map & division of sub-typologies

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER]BRIDGE

MOOD AND CHARACTER OF THE YEREVAN BRIDGE

Fig. 53 Yerevan: Dominant Bridge

The bridge is seen from all of the alleys that cross the main road (which is right under the bridge). It is so dominant around the area that it is part of the landscape.

Fig. 54 Mood Sketch Yerevan

The bridge is animated, there are people on the bridge and below the bridge, people sitting in front of shops, intermingling with cars and others looking into peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s houses.

Fig. 55 Yerevanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Vertical Contrast

On the bridge, the rythm is really fast, only patches of colors can be seen left and right, and some people walking at a fast pace to arrive at destination as soon as possible. At some point some sound barriers are seen. Below the bridge, everything is slow, traffic is slow, people stroll around.

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER]BRIDGE

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER]BRIDGE

SUBTYPOLOGIES SECTIONS

S1 S2 S3 S4

Fig. 56 Yerevan Key Map for Sections

Fig. 57 Yerevan Section S1 Typology #4 | The Informal Transportation Hub

Road

Informal Bus Stop

Bridge

Road

This section illustrates the subtypology “Informal Transportation Hub” where all the people wait for their public transportation just like the Cola Bridge and where there is a large openness created by the abscence of buildings around.

Fig. 58 Yerevan Section S2 Typology #1 | The Community Intruder

Residential Building

Street

Residential Building

Coffee shop

Street

Bridge

Street

Shop

Residential Building

Street

Residential Building

This section illustrates the subtypology “Community Intruder” where everyone can see everyone, being up or down, looking up or down. Buildings are close to the bridge, creating a semi closed space where there are a lot of activities happening below the bridge.

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER]BRIDGE

Fig. 59 Yerevan Section S3 Typology #1 | The Community Intruder

Residential Building

Street

Residential Building

Ramp

Street

Bridge

Street

Shop

Residential Building

This section illustrates the subtypology “Community Intruder” at a specific point where the upper level and lower level of the bridge meet with the ramp. At this point, a special asymetrical space is formed where there is only one side active.

Fig. 60 Yerevan Section S4 Typology #6 | The Green Unused Space

Road

Green Roundabout

Bridge

Road

This section illustrates the subtypology “Green Unused Space”, which happens at street intersections: no buildings are around, so the space is well lit, and an island of trees is there for aesthetic purposes.

Fig. 61 Yerevan Section S5 Typology #5 | The Empty Transient Space

Empty Vacant Lot

Street Parking

Bridge

Street Parking

Empty Vacant Lot

This section illustrates the subtypology “Empty Transient Space”, where nothing much happens, there are cars parked everywhere, no activities and no people around. It is a very calm area, located at the end of the bridge. [Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER]BRIDGE

BUILDING USE & GROUD FLOOR USE

UNDER BRIDGE

ON BRIDGE

OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS

Residential

Green Open Spaces

Commercial

Construction Sites

Institutions

Vacant Lots

Fig. 62 Building Use & Land Use Diagram

On the ground floor level, there is a multitude of different land use (residential, commercial, institutional, green open spaces, vacant lots, construction sites), which make the street life very dynamic. It is this variety that gathers people from different backgrounds (workers, residents, young and old people, athletes, students, vendors) and everything is at proximity. At the right extremity of the bridge the lots become gradually larger and unoccupied, allowing the sun to penetrate more easily, yet the spaces are currently unexploited. There are two categories of buildings: residential or institutional. 70% of the buildings are residential, which are mostly bothered by the presence of the bridge. Some of these buildings had some rooms removed to fit the bridge. Residents are confined to live in the shadow, with a noisy background and lots of dust, and with pedestrians invading their privacy. Initially, they had a poor quality of life, and the bridge made their situation even worse.

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER]BRIDGE

29.08.13, 3:30 pm Typical residential building with shop on the ground floor

16.09.13, 6:40 pm Relationship between residents and the bridge

16.09.13, 6:45 pm “Naked” building

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER]BRIDGE

ACTIVITIES

UNDER BRIDGE

ON BRIDGE

OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS

Cycling

Walking

Sitting

Selling

Bus Hopping

Fig. 63 Activities Diagram

The sidewalk right below the bridge is informally exploited. Various activities are distributed unevenly along the sidewalk: nearly 40% of the people walk from shop to shop or from one area to another, and around 30% of the people find seating spots along the sidewalk (they either sit on the sidewalk itself, on concrete blocks or bring external chairs). Around 20% of the people use their bikes, and the rest is either selling things or bus hopping. On the bridge there is only one activity: Walking. In fact, people use the bridge as a shortcut to move from one place to another (like vehicles). As mentioned in the land use section, at the right extremity of the bridge there are more open spaces, but the activities decrease because these adjacent spaces to the bridge are not exploited yet.

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER]BRIDGE

29.08.13, 3:30 pm Informal gathering

29.09.13, 3:30 pm Corn vendor on the corner of a street

04.11.13, 12:00 pm Playing checkers

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER]BRIDGE

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION

ON BRIDGE

OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS

TO ASHRAFIEH

UNDER BRIDGE

TO BOURJ HAMMOUD

TO BAUCHRIEH

Primary Vehicular Roads Secondary Vehicular Roads

Fig. 64 Vehicular Circulation Diagram

On the bridge, the cars drive up to 100 km/h, making it dangerous for pedestrians to walk next to the lanes, and noisy for the people living in the buildings adjacent to the bridge. The vehicular circulation on the bridge is straightforward, people can either go to Ashrafieh or go to Bauchrieh; they can also take ramps that take them to Bourj Hammoud. There is a total of 7 ramps linking the upper floor to the ground floor. In comparison, the streets below the bridge are narrower and are filled with cars that are parked parallel to the sidewalks. The traffic is much slower, and sometimes gets jammed because there are many streets that interrupt the vehicular flow. At the right extremity of the bridge, the sidewalk below the bridge becomes a parking for cars so the space there becomes gradually more vehicular than pedestrian, and leads to the main Dekwaneh highway.

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER]BRIDGE

16.09.13, 6:40 pm Fast Highway

16.09.13, 6:45 pm Ramp = start of traffic jam

29.08.13, 3:30 pm Filled with parked cars

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER]BRIDGE

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION

UNDER BRIDGE

ON BRIDGE

OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS

Bridge Pillars Dense Pedestrian Traffic Scattered Pedestrian Traffic

Fig. 65 Pedestrian Circulation Diagram

The pedestrian circulation on the bridge is mainly concentrated around the ramps, since these are the connectors between the upper level and the ground level. Pedestrians walk on a narrow sidewalk (a width of around 30cm) that was not designed to be used by people. It is quite dangerous for people to walk up on the sides of the bridge, but they still do it because it saves them a lot of time. Residents in the adjacent buildings are bothered by them because some of the pedestrians look into the apartments and spot objects to steal. Below the bridge, the pedestrian circulation is mainly on the lateral axis, leading from one shop to another, and from one street to another rather than along the bridge. One of the reasons is that the main sidewalk under the bridge is interrupted by perforated pillars that fit only one person, hence it is not practical for groups of people, and sometimes the pillars have a small wall that prevents people from passing through. These obstacles do not facilitate the walk. As observed previously, the right extremity of the bridge has limited pedestrian flow since there is no reason for people to go there as the land is still unexploited yet and there is no activity in that area.

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER]BRIDGE

16.09.13, 6:40 pm Pedestrians on the bridge centimeters away from the residents

16.09.13, 6:40 pm Narrow Sidewalk, sound barrier and the “naked” building

10.11.13, 4:30 pm Pedestrians next to the bridge

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER]BRIDGE

POTENTIAL AREAS

UNDER BRIDGE

ON BRIDGE

OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS

Potential Areas

Fig. 66 Potential Areas Diagram

The bridge itself is entirely a potential area to work with, either to support structures or to suspend structures. For example, suspending swings or climbers, or even planting trees on the bridge. However, the bridge level is not the focus in this project, so it would only play a secondary role by incorporating its physical elements into the design of the underbridge space. Below the bridge, the stretch of sidewalk is the main focus to be worked on, but the available adjacent spaces next to the bridge could come in handy as tools to make the underbridge space more available to the people. They could either become parking spaces in order to give more priority to pedestrians below the bridge, or catalysts spaces where there would be an attraction that would lead the people to using the space below the bridge.

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER]BRIDGE

10.11.13, 5:15 pm Ending of the bridge

10.11.13, 5:15 pm View of the ending of the bridge taken from a pedestrian bridge

10.11.13, 4:20 pm Empty green lot

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER]BRIDGE

LIGHT DAY/NIGHT OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS

NIGHT There are three sources of light below the bridge: the projectors under the bridge (which are always available except when the electricity cuts off), the shops adjacent to the bridge, and finally the cars. At night, the bridge is not as visible as during the day, it actually disappears into the darkness of the sky and the projectors below it act like artificial stars. This makes the lighting below the bridge richer at night than during the day because there is lighting coming from different angles. In fact, Bourj Hammoud is a vibrant neighborhood at night where most of the artisans work late at night. After 12.00 am it is rather dangerous and not recommended to walk there, as there are risks of aggressions or theft.

Fig. 67 Lights at Night, Yerevan

Kristelle Boulos

SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS THE CASE OF YEREVAN [UNDER]BRIDGE

DAY There is only one source of light below the bridge: the sun. Light penetrates through small openings between sections of the bridge.

LIGHT DAY/NIGHT OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS

Consequently, when taking pictures there, the exposure varies a lot. Sometimes the picture is well exposed, while at other times it is either over exposed or under exposed. The street below the bridge is probably the only street where the light varies so much. The closer the bridge is from buildings, the darker it is under the bridge. Ramp openings and large streets allow the light to penetrate more easily. Some balconies almost never see the light. People use the under bridge area as a shading structure. Sunnier areas are usually planted.

Fig. 68 Lights during the Day, Yerevan

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

Kristelle Boulos

P R O G R A MMIN G

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

PROGRAMMING PROPOSED PROGRAM

PROPOSED “EPISODES” Based on the land use and activities existing under the bridge

INFORMAL BUS STOP PUBLIC PLAYGROUND

SCHO

STR RES EET CAF TING E SPO S TS

It is important to look at the underbridge space in a lateral way, to understand what happens from both sides of the bridge and how to use the bridge as a tool to link both areas rather than keep them separated. In this proposition, which is purely based on the land use analysis, what is proposed is 6 “episodes” in which different activities happen. For instance, the 1st and 4th episodes are street cafés and resting spots. Since there are several shops, hairdressers and workshops which are located on both street sides, and there are pedestrian flows back and forth between these street sides, it would be interest-

Kristelle Boulos

AND

FOR BUS MAL STO P

O PLA UTDOO YGR R OUN D

AND

STR RES EET CAF TING E SPO S TS

CHURCH

PROGRAMMING PROPOSED PROGRAM

ing to view the underbridge space as an extension of these shops. The remaining episodes would include: • A formal bus stop: The current informal bus stop would be formalized. • An outdoor playground, which would be an extension of the public playground that is located adjacent to the bridge. • A resting area that would be convenient to be used by people from the Blind People’s Home and the Elderly Home that are located in the area. •A recreational space, which brings together the BourjHammoud Municipal stadium, the football field, the school and the future school that is currently being built.

OOL

SCHOOL

BOURJ HAMMOUD MUNICIPAL STADIUM

ELDERLY HOME

STI N AR G EA

BLIND PEOPLE’S HOME

MILITARY BASE SCHOOL (CONSTRUCTION)

FOOTBALL FIELD

EA TIO SP NAL AC E

SCHOOL

Fig. 69 Program Diagram [Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

PROGRAMMING PROPOSED PROGRAM

PROPOSED DESIGN SOLUTION Taking the walking experience below the bridge to a whole new “level”.

STOP 1 INFORMAL BUS STOP PUBLIC PLAYGROUND

SCHOO

STOP 2

CHURCH

STOP 3 STOP 4

CONSTRAINTS • Residents who need their privacy • Abundancy of cars (parked cars & cars in movement) • Bridge pillars which are interrupting the main sidewalk • Shade and lights to consider for planting OPPORTUNITIES • Large open spaces at the right extremity of the bridge • The current users of the space • The main large sidewalk below the bridge • The seven ramps along the bridge linking the upper level to the ground floor level

Kristelle Boulos

PROGRAMMING PROPOSED PROGRAM

The proposed solution includes some activities to be added within the underbridge area aiming to connect the communities and create a communal space that would become a destination. More specifically, the underbridge space should be seen like a story, where the proposed activities would act like episodes. It should take the walking experience below the bridge to a whole new “level”. Below are some reference images of activities below bridges that visualize what could be done at these specific “episodes”. 1. Pascual Sisto/Urban Intervention “Meeting Under Bridge”, Los Angeles 2. Urban Interventions and vallo sadovsky architects, Slovakia 3. Busarama “Ghost Trail Park”, Peru 4. Kualalampur 5. Bajo Puentes, Mexico 6. La Dallman, “Urban Plaza/Media Center”, Wisconsin

STOP 5 SCHOOL BLIND PEOPLE’S HOME

BOURJ HAMMOUD MUNICIPAL STADIUM

ELDERLY HOME

STOP 6

SCHOOL

MILITARY BASE

FOOTBALL FIELD

Fig. 70 Different Stops Diagram [Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

Kristelle Boulos

PROP O S E D A R E A OF F O CUS

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

PROPOSED AREA OF FOCUS

INFORMAL BUS STOP PUBLIC PLAYGROUND

SCHO

O PLA UTDOO YGR R OUN D

CHURCH

Kristelle Boulos

PROPOSED AREA OF FOCUS

The proposed areas of focus would be either the outdoor playground, the resting area, or the recreational space. What would be interesting about the recreational space is that it would target different kinds of people and different ages. It would be a recreational space for everyone in Bourj Hammoud including visitors. It is also the section that has the most open spaces, hence there is a lot of potential to spread the design even outside the bridge. The resting area is interesting, first, because of the circular ramp that provides a lot of movement into the space and a lot of light, and second, because it is already green and third, because the targeted people are unusual, so it would be a challenge to design for them. The outdoor playground could be an interesting and fun element too, although it is very specific to children and their parents.

OOL

SCHOOL

BOURJ HAMMOUD MUNICIPAL STADIUM

ELDERLY HOME

STI N AR G EA

BLIND PEOPLEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S HOME

MILITARY BASE SCHOOL (CONSTRUCTION)

FOOTBALL FIELD

EA TIO SP NAL AC E

SCHOOL

Fig. 71 Area of Focus Diagram [Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

Kristelle Boulos

S CHED U LE O F WO R K

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

SCHEDULE OF WORK

JANUARY 03 JANUARY 27

• Deeper light analysis • Model & 3D representation of the Yerevan bridge with some of the direct context • Surveys & Interviews conducted on site (residents and site users separately) • Photograph the bridge from a high building • If possible, visit some people who live right next to the bridge to document about their living condition next to the bridge • Prepare photomontages describing ideas for the different scenarios happening along the bridge • Municipality: Try to collect information about the story of the construction of the bridge (when it was planned, why at this location, pictures before and after) + a map with building heights

JANUARY 28 FEBRUARY 28

• A more thorough analysis of the bridge focusing specifically on the proposed program • Discussion with the adviser about the area of focus • Gathering information about the area of focus (measurements, surveys, photographs before, history) • Case studies related directly to the chosen area of focus • Development of a conceptual design

MARCH 1 APRIL 1

• Development of a schematic design

APRIL 1 MAY 1

• Detailing design

MAY 1 MAY 20

• Finalizing the design and the overall project

Kristelle Boulos

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge

REFERENCES

BOOKS Hung, Ying-Yu, et al. Landscape infrastructure: case studies by SWA. Edited by The Infrastructure Research Initiative. Birkhäuser Architecture, 2010. Mossop, Elizabeth. “Landscapes of Infrastructure.” Edited by Charles Waldeheim. The Landscape Urbanism Reader (Princeton University Press), 2006: 163-177. Shayya, Fadi, et al. At the Edge of the City: Reinhabiting Public Space Toward the Recovery of Beirut’s Horsh Al-Snawbar. Edited by Fadi Shayya. Beirut: Discursive Formations, 2010.

JOURNALS & MAGAZINES Bélanger, Pierre. “Landscape as Infrastructure.” Edited by MED. Landscape Journal (The University of Wisconsin Press, Journals Divison) 28, no. 1 (Spring 2009): 79-95. Poole, Kathy. “Civic Ecology: Infrastructure in the Dynamic City.” Critical Urbanism (Proceedings of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture Northeast Regional Conference), 1995.Beirut: Discursive Formations, 2010. Stan, Allen. “Infrastructural Urbanism.” In Points + Lines: Diagrams and Projects for the City (Princeton Architectural Press), 1999: 46–59. Strang, Gary. “Infrastructure as Landscape.” Places (Pratt Institute School of Architecture) 10, no. 3 (Summer 1996).

WEBSITES American Society of Landscape Architects. 2013: ASLA Student Awards. 2013. http://www.asla.org/2013studentawards/index.html (accessed December 7, 2013). LA DALLMAN. Urban Plaza/Media Garden. http://www.ladallman. com/prj_urban_plaza.html (accessed December 17, 2013). Miroff, Nick. In Mexico City, planners turn vacant space under freeways into places to work, dine, play. May 29, 2013. http://articles. washingtonpost.com/2013-05-29/world/39589383_1_office-spacebridges-planners (accessed December 12, 2013).

Kristelle Boulos

REFERENCES

MOVIES Niasari, Nora. Beirut, Under Bridge. Short Film. Directed by Nora Niasari. Produced by Nora Niasari. 2011.

[Under] Bridge Spaces | The Case of Yerevan [Under] Bridge