streets without cars
luke madden 359911
[1]
The intersection of Gipps and Stanley Street has become a mundane facilitator of overflow traffic from Swan Street, much to the distaste of local residents. This thesis will celebrate the
from mundane to arcane, a modern palimpsest
mundane, reinstate the arcane and enigmatic quality of the area through a reclamation of the streets using nuances of the local built environment. In doing so, this thesis project will encourage residents to spill into from the restrictive boundaries of their dwellings. This thesis envisions what could have existed under an alternative set of priorities where pedestrian experience is paramount
[1]
[2]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Warwick Mihaly I found this to be a difficult project, as it was at a smaller scale than I have previously dealt with as well as dealing with subject matter that was completely new to me. Your guidance and suggestions provided me with plenty of critical thoughts to pursue, and you always did it in an encouraging way. Thanks Warwick. The community at Gipps Street and Stanley Street First and foremost, I want to thank the community for tolerating my loitering while collecting traffic data as well as my unexpected door knocking. Furthermore, I would like to thank those who took part in my survey - you all provided invaluable information that helped shaped this project. Jane Carr Likewise, I want to thank Jane for tolerating my irregular sleep hours and obsessive work periods throughout the semester. I’m also grateful for all of the times you drive to pick me up from uni when class ran late, it shows how happily and fully you support me, and I genuinely appreciate it. My laptop Thank you, laptop, for not crashing, despite being made to pump out perspectives, plans, sections and other renders non-stop for the last two weeks before submission. You’re the real MVP. [3]
contents
RESEARCH
DESIGN
Project Thesis...............................................................................1 Acknowledgements.....................................................................3 Contents......................................................................................4 Introduction.................................................................................6 Case Study.................................................................................10 The Serpentine Gallery Pavilions.................................11 Bibliography.................................................................15 City of Yarra: Ward Mapping.....................................................16 The Mapping of Melba Ward.......................................17 Street Selection: Intersection of Gipps Street and Stanley Street...............................................24 Street Research.........................................................................28 Traffic Volume............................................................29 Traffic Statistics...........................................................43 Community Briefing..................................................................56 Resident Demographics..............................................57 Resident Responses....................................................73
Thematic Response: a Modern Palimpsest...............................86 Architectural Relics.....................................................88 Material Palette..........................................................80 Master Plan...............................................................................92 Project Brief................................................................93 Roads and Parking......................................................95 Pedestrian Circulation.................................................97 Bike Circulation...........................................................99 Vehicular Circulation..................................................101 Programme Allocation...............................................103 Thesis Proposal........................................................................104 Project Brief...............................................................105 Reading Room...........................................................109 Book Exchange + Office............................................113 Veranda + Dorm.........................................................117 Bike Cover..................................................................121 Citrus Forest..............................................................123 Fire pit + Kitchen........................................................125 Personal Reflection...................................................129
[5]
introduction
Streets Without Cars is an unsolicited urban design project initiated in late 2013 by Mihaly Slocombe, an emerging architecture practice located in the inner north of Melbourne. The project has now been expanded into a Design Thesis studio for the Melbourne School of Design. This studio is taken by Master of Architecture students as their final design project prior to graduation. The project asks the question: what opportunities exist when we reimagine our streets as spaces for pedestrians instead of cars? The entire City of Yarra will be examined, with fifteen streets with cars strategically dispersed across the municipality. - Warwick Mihaly, studio leader of Streets Without Cars
Left: Stanley Street, as viewed from the south. [7]
Streets Without Cars
The concept of Streets Without Cars is an interesting one to me - it is something which I had seen before and been interested in, but not something which I have any had any personal experience with. One thing that really caught my interest was the idea of creating something from scratch, rather than designing something after being approached by a client. As such, I chose this studio as a way to broaden my skill set, in addition to being drawn to the idea of having contact with a real world client. I believe this semester has been a successful one, and I have learned many things from it. I fully believe in the idea of Streets Without Cars, and I fully believe that my project embodies the concepts and ideas taught in this project quite well.
Right: entrance to the proposed area from the northern end of Stanley Street. Introduction
[8]
[9]
case study: serpentine gallery pavilions
THE SERPENTINE GALLERY PAVILIONS The Serpentine Galleries Pavilion is a temporary structure commissioned by the Serpentine Galleries on an annual basis. The architect is given a brief with the simplest of requirements: the pavilion must include a cafe open during the day, and facilitate a variety of exhibitions during the evening, from live art, to music and public speeches. The pavilion first came to existence in the year 2000, when Zaha Hadid (a member of the Serpentine Galleries) was commissioned to design a temporary structure for the galleries’ 30th anniversary gala. The entire project used only the budget which would have been allocated to hiring an event marquee for the gala. Hadid’s pavilion was met with such universal adoration by the visiting public that it was left standing for the remainder of the summer. The popularity of the structure prompted the Serpentine Galleries to repeat the exercise the following year, when they invited Daniel Libeskind to design a second summer pavilion.
Left: 2014 pavilion, by Smiljan Radic. Top right: 2000 pavilion, by Zaha Hadid. Bottom right: 2001 pavilion, by Daniel Libeskind. [11]
Streets Without Cars
The Serpentine Galleries provide only one prompt to their chosen architect each year: that they reinvent the idea of a tent or temporary pavilion. Beyond this, the form of the pavilion each year is left to the commissioned architect to decide. As such, the form varies drastically from year to year. Alvaro Siza and Eduardo Souta de Moura with Arup (2005) created a completely enclosed structure, utilising a series of interlocking partitions to span the length of the pavilion without the need for columns. In contrast, Sou Fujimoto (2013) designed a pavilion based entirely on a series of interconnected steel bars, resulting in a cloud-like space which suggests enclosure more than provides it.
Left: 2005 pavilion, by Alvaro Siza & Eduardo Souta de Moura with Arup. Right: 2013 pavilion, by Sou Fujimoto. Case Study: Serpentine Gallery Pavilions
[12]
[13]
The pavilions are largely funded by sponsorship and donated services from stakeholders involved in its design and construction. A portion of the consultants’ fees are also covered by the sale of the pavilion at the end of its exhibition period. The budget has increased substantially from Hadid’s shoestring pavilion in 2000, coming in at £750,000 for Jean Nouvel’s iteration in 2010. The transient life of the Serpentine Galleries Pavilions is a strong example of architecture responding to an explicit social need. Without the initial popularity of the 2000 pavilion, the now world-famous Serpentine tradition would never have been established. The is precisely the community response that Streets Without Cars is seeking: by creating something that not only caters to the needs of a community, but responds to their lifestyles, ambitions and desires too.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Iwan Baan, Serpentine Galleries Pavilion 2014 by Smiljan Radić, photograph, http://www.serpentinegalleries.org/about/press/2014/03/exhibitions/serpentine-galleries-pavilion-2014-designed-smiljan-radić. 2. Hélène Binet, Serpentine Galleries Pavilion 2000 by Zaha Hadid, photograph, http://www.serpentinegalleries.org/about/press/2011/02/exhibitions/serpentine-gallery-pavilion-2000-designed-zaha-hadid. 3. Hélène Binet, Serpentine Galleries Pavilion 2001 by Daniel Libeskind with Arup, photograph, http://www.serpentinegalleries.org/about/press/2004/02/exhibitions/serpentine-gallery-pavilion-2001-designed-daniel-libeskind-arup. 4. Sylvain Deleu, Serpentine Galleries Pavilion 2005 by Álvaro Siza and Eduardo Souto de Moura with Arup, photograph, http://www.serpentinegalleries.org/about/press/2014/02/exhibitions/serpentine-gallery-pavilion-2005-designed-Álvaro-siza-and-eduardo. 5. Jim Stephenson, Serpentine Galleries Pavilion 2013 by Sou Fujimoto, photograph, http://www.serpentinegalleries.org/exhibitions-events/serpentine-gallery-pavilion-2013-sou-fujimoto. 6. Philip Ruault, Serpentine Galleries Pavilion 2010 by Jean Nouvel, photograph, http://www.serpentinegalleries.org/about/press/2010/02/exhibitions/serpentine-gallery-pavilion-2010-designed-jean-nouvel.
Left: 2010 pavilion, by Jean Nouvel. [15]
Streets Without Cars
city of yarra: ward mapping
THE MAPPING OF MELBA WARD One of the most important aspects of Streets Without Cars is the heavy dependency on the community who are to become stakeholders of the project, as well as the suitability of the area in question. To that end, primary research and first hand documentation becomes an invaluable tool in the process of selecting an area which has the potential to benefit from an urban design intervention. A large region must be broadly documented, so that an informed decision can be made on where to focus further research. The City of Yarra was the starting point for this research, being separated into fifteen smaller sections (one for each studio participant). The area allocated for the purpose of this thesis was the southwest region of Melba Ward, covering the area bound by Bridge Road to the north, Church Street to the east, the Yarra River to the south, and Punt Road to the west.
Left: Melba Ward, area divisions. Area two is the focus of this section. [17]
Streets Without Cars
Every single street within this area was visited and documented in an effort to gain a greater understanding of the area. Each street had a variety of qualities documented: street length, number of lanes, street width, asphalt width, road usage, building types, parking type availability, presence of bike lanes, presence of footpaths, presence of nature strips and presence of trees. From this data, further information could be generated about what is characteristic of the area, in addition to assist in both quantitative and qualitative analysis of suitability for further development. The findings are as follows:
Top right: building types by proportion. Bottom right: street types by proportion. City of Yarra: Ward Mapping
[18]
[19]
Streets Without Cars
Top left: footpath prevalence. Bottom left: nature strip prevalence. Top right: street orientations by proportion. Bottom right: bike path prevalence. City of Yarra: Ward Mapping
[20]
[21]
Streets Without Cars
City of Yarra: Ward Mapping
[22]
While a large degree of variance was presented in the 101 streets observed, there were some surprising results: - Only two streets had nature strips (1.98%), neither of which were residential streets, despite being a mostly residential area. - Only two streets had any kind of education institution (1.98%), only one of which was a primary school. - Only one path had a bike lane marked out (0.99%), despite being an area with a reputation of slow vehicular traffic. Based on the information observed from each street, the area is quite homogeneous. As such, the qualities considered when determining a street for further analysis were qualitative, rather than quantitative. Areas with defining characteristics were considered in a favourable manner, as they presented an opportunity to work with richer existing site qualities. Top left: parking types by proportion. Bottom left: prevalence of trees. Top right: overall statistics of the south-eastern region of Melba Ward. [23]
Streets Without Cars
STREET SELECTION: INTERSECTION OF GIPPS STREET AND STANLEY STREET In moving forwards, a number of streets were considered before ultimately choosing one to focus on. Key selection criteria considered the character of each street, as well as what is immediately adjacent, in order to ensure a well-integrated proposal, as well as basic considerations of a rough housing typology which would be catered to and physical restrictions of the site. Rather than deciding on a single street, the intersection of Gipps Street and Stanley Street in Richmond was settled on as it provided an interesting possibility for further development. The majority of the properties in the area have car access via the rear, in addition to exceptionally wide streets where the space is simply not required for the level of traffic they facilitate. Being situated in a primarily residential area, within close proximity to main roads, is also a favourable quality of the area.
Right: the intersection of Gipps Street and Stanley Street. City of Yarra: Ward Mapping
[24]
0 [25]
50m
Left: individual conditions of Gipps Street, Right: individual conditions of Stanley Street, City of Yarra: Ward Mapping
[26]
[27]
Streets Without Cars
dando street
17
15 11
13
15
17
19
19a
11 21
stanley stre et
25
27
29
31
street research 14
22 16
18
18a
20 20a
22a 12a
9a
9 12 7 10
5 8
gipps street
carroll street
23
26
28
30
32
34
33
TRAFFIC VOLUME Given that this project involves redeveloping an area which is currently used for cars, it is important to understand the existing traffic conditions to ensure that it does not negatively impact vehicular usage of the site, in addition to understanding the current flow of pedestrian traffic so it can be preserved and nurtured. In doing so, pedestrian usage of the site can be considered the primary consideration of the development, while also being able to make informed decisions the affect the flow of vehicular traffic. Data for this analysis was collected over six observations sessions conducted between the 19th and 22nd of August. Observation sessions catalogued the numbers of cars, bicycles and pedestrians using Gipps and Stanley Streets in Richmond. They also noted the number of arrivals and departures, the direction of travel, and time taken to move through the street.
Left: existing conditions site plan of the area observed for this project, 1:1000 @ A5. [29]
Streets Without Cars
Weekday morning Wednesday 20th August 6:45-9:15am Light wind, cloudy, 7 degrees Gipps Street
Stanley Street
Time
Cars
Bikes
People
Dogs
Prams
TOTAL
Cars
Bikes
People
Dogs
Prams
TOTAL
6:45
25
2
3
1
0
30
9
0
2
1
0
11
7:00
35
2
9
1
0
46
12
2
3
1
0
17
7:15
29
2
9
2
0
40
10
0
5
1
0
15
7:30
41
2
12
2
0
55
8
0
1
1
0
9
7:45
47
3
15
3
0
65
25
1
2
2
0
28
8:00
67
6
13
2
1
86
27
4
5
2
0
36
8:15
68
14
18
0
0
100
27
2
8
0
0
37
8:30
60
4
19
0
0
83
30
0
3
0
0
33
8:45
73
3
12
4
0
88
41
0
5
0
0
46
9:00
71
2
12
2
0
85
27
1
4
0
0
32
Avg.
51.6
4.0
12.2
1.7
0.1
67.8
21.6
1.0
3.8
0.8
0.0
26.4
Further observations: - Cars very rarely have to wait for traffic at the intersection, even at peak traffic loads. - Joggers are very infrequent, although pedestrians generally appear to be walking casually. - 2% of all users are stopping or leaving from within Gipps Street, and 10% of users from within Stanley Street. Right: traffic observations for the morning of 20/8/2014, Street Research
[30]
[31]
Weekend morning Saturday 23rd August 8:00-9:15am Sunny, no wind, 9 degrees Gipps Street
Stanley Street
Time
Cars
Bikes
People
Dogs
Prams
TOTAL
Cars
Bikes
People
Dogs
Prams
TOTAL
8:00
20
0
5
2
0
25
14
0
4
2
0
18
8:15
19
0
10
0
0
29
8
0
6
1
0
14
8:30
30
1
7
3
1
38
10
0
4
3
1
14
8:45
30
2
6
1
0
38
15
0
10
2
0
25
9:00
26
1
7
0
0
34
12
0
7
0
0
19
Avg.
25
0.8
7.0
1.2
0.2
32.8
11.8
0.0
6.2
1.6
0.2
18.0
Further observations: - Only 20% of parks in use on Gipps Street, and 60% in use on Stanley Street at any given time, despite the prevalence of hospitality and retail establishments on Swan Street (200m south). - Vehicles types are overwhelmingly cars, with only one motorbike observed. - 4% of all users are stopping or leaving from within Gipps Street, and 21% of users from within Stanley Street.
Right: traffic observations for the morning of 23/8/2014, Street Research
[32]
[33]
Weekday daytime Friday 22nd August 12:15-1:30pm Sunny, light wind, 17 degrees Gipps Street
Stanley Street
Time
Cars
Bikes
People
Dogs
Prams
TOTAL
Cars
Bikes
People
Dogs
Prams
TOTAL
12:15
51
1
4
0
1
56
21
0
4
0
0
25
12:30
55
1
2
0
1
58
21
1
10
0
1
32
12:45
67
1
9
0
1
77
32
0
7
0
0
39
13:00
70
1
13
0
1
84
39
2
14
0
0
55
13:15
67
1
14
0
1
82
20
0
9
0
0
29
Avg.
62
1.0
8.4
0.0
1.0
71.4
26.6
0.6
8.8
0.0
0.2
36
Further observations: - Only 50% of parks being used on either street at any given time. - The majority of pedestrians on Stanley Street walked in pairs from Swan Street (200m south). - 3% of all users are stopping or leaving from within Gipps Street, and 17% of users from within Stanley Street.
Right: traffic observations for the daytime of 22/8/2014, Street Research
[34]
[35]
Weekday daytime Saturday 23rd August 12:15-1:30pm Sunny, no wind, 20 degrees Gipps Street
Stanley Street
Time
Cars
Bikes
People
Dogs
Prams
TOTAL
Cars
Bikes
People
Dogs
Prams
TOTAL
12:15
28
1
7
1
0
36
12
0
7
1
0
19
12:30
32
2
9
0
0
43
8
0
5
0
0
13
12:45
25
0
10
0
0
35
9
0
7
2
0
16
13:15
27
0
8
1
0
35
13
0
8
2
0
21
13:30
35
0
10
1
0
45
13
0
7
1
0
20
Avg.
29.4
0.6
8.8
0.6
0.0
38.8
11.0
0.0
6.8
1.2
0.0
17.8
Further observations: - Only 30% of parks in use on Gipps Street, and 80% in use on Stanley Street at any given time, despite the prevalence of hospitality and retail establishments on Swan Street (200m south). - 80% of traffic on Stanley Street is on the southern side of the intersection. - 5% of all users are stopping or leaving from within Gipps Street, and 11% of users from within Stanley Street.
Right: traffic observations for the daytime of 23/8/2014. Street Research
[36]
[37]
Weekday evening Tuesday 19th August 3:45-6:15pm Overcast, no wind, 12 degrees Gipps Street
Stanley Street
Time
Cars
Bikes
People
Dogs
Prams
TOTAL
Cars
Bikes
People
Dogs
Prams
TOTAL
15:45
42
0
4
2
0
46
13
0
6
2
1
19
16:00
45
0
10
6
1
55
14
0
6
4
0
20
16:15
53
0
11
4
0
64
16
0
7
0
0
23
16:30
45
1
6
3
0
52
18
1
6
2
0
25
16:45
46
1
10
0
0
58
16
1
4
0
0
21
17:00
55
1
6
0
0
62
20
1
2
0
0
23
17:15
65
6
10
1
0
81
19
0
5
0
0
24
17:30
55
4
20
1
1
79
21
1
6
1
0
28
17:45
91
2
18
4
0
111
19
0
6
0
0
25
18:00
64
5
12
0
0
81
13
1
7
2
0
21
Avg.
56.1
2.0
10.7
2.1
0.2
68.8
16.9
0.5
5.5
1.1
0.1
22.9
Further observations: - Only 70% of parks being used on either street at any given time, the highest of any observation period. - 20% of all drivers turn, with traffic being heavier on the southern and eastern sides of the roundabout. - 1% of all users are stopping or leaving from within Gipps Street, and 9% of users from within Stanley Street. Right: traffic observations for the evening of 19/8/2014. Street Research
[38]
[39]
Weekend evening Saturday 23rd August 5:00-6:15pm Some clouds, no wind, 18 degrees Gipps Street
Stanley Street
Time
Cars
Bikes
People
Dogs
Prams
TOTAL
Cars
Bikes
People
Dogs
Prams
TOTAL
17:00
36
0
10
0
0
46
13
0
10
1
0
23
17:15
62
2
7
1
0
41
15
0
9
0
1
24
17:30
30
0
5
0
1
35
10
1
7
2
0
18
17:45
35
0
12
0
1
47
9
0
7
0
0
16
18:00
35
0
9
0
0
44
14
0
8
0
0
22
Avg.
33.6
0.4
8.6
0.2
0.4
42.6
12.2
0.2
8.2
0.6
0.2
20.6
Further observations: - Traffic was balanced on all sides of the intersection, having previously been busier on the souther and eastern sides. - No motorbikes or joggers observed. - 7% of all users are stopping or leaving from within Gipps Street, and 12% of users from within Stanley Street.
Right: traffic observations for the evening of 23/8/2014 Street Research
[40]
[41]
Throughout the course of these observations, it became apparent that an overall variation between peak and off-peak hours existed: - Both Gipps and Stanley Streets have the most cars during weekday days, outside of traditional peak periods. Weekend car traffic is lower and more consistent. - Both Gipps and Stanley Streets have fewer bikes during the day on weekdays, and a higher, consistent number on weekends. - Gipps Street has fewer pedestrians during the day on weekdays while Stanley Street has significantly more. Conversely, Gipps Street has more pedestrians during the day on weekends while Stanley Street has fewer Of all of the statistics gathered, however, the most striking is the difference in arrivals and departures between the two streets. Stanley Street was consistently between 10 and 20% of all street users, whereas Gipps Street usually ranged between 1 and 5%. Of the arrivals and departures in Stanley Street, a large majority was pedestrians, which also correlates to the higher proportion of pedestrians to vehicles using Stanley Street when compared to Gipps Street. Moving forwards from here, it will be important preserve the current usage for pedestrians on Stanley Street, but more importantly, to encourage pedestrians to use Stanley Street as well.
Street Research
[42]
TRAFFIC STATISTICS Based on the traffic data recorded and introduced in the previous section, a number of patterns have been distinguished for traffic movements along Gipps and Stanley Streets, Richmond. These patterns will be very useful in planning the theoretical usage of the site. As noted previously, observation sessions examined the numbers of cars, bicycles and pedestrians using the two streets, the number of arrivals and departures, direction of travel, and time taken for each user to move through the street. This analysis uses the data collected to arrive at an understanding of how the site is currently used, why this may be, and how this may affect future planning.
[43]
Streets Without Cars
Average number of users of each street per hour Using this data, it would appear that on average: - 1031 cars use Gipps Street each day, compared to 400 for Stanley Street. - 35 bikes use Gipps Street each day, compared to 9 for Stanley Street. - 223 pedestrians use Gipps Street each day, compared to 157 for Stanley Street. It is likely that these totals are higher than the actual numbers, as they have not taken into account an assumed reduction of traffic through the night. Previously, there was a strong variation between so called peak and off-peak periods: - Gipps Street has 15% more cars during the day than during morning and evening peak periods. It has consistent car use on weekends. - Stanley Street has 38% more cars during the day than during morning and evening peak periods. It has 9% fewer car on weekends. - Gipps Street has 66% fewer bicycles during the day than during morning and evening peak periods. It has consistent bicycle use on weekends. - Stanley Street has 20% fewer bicycles during the day than during morning and evening peak periods. Only one bicycle was observed on the weekend, in the evening. - Gipps Street has 27% fewer pedestrians during the day than during morning and evening peak periods. It has 13% more pedestrians on weekends. - Stanley Street has 89% more pedestrians during the day than during morning and evening peak periods. It has 6% fewer pedestrians on weekends.
Right: average number of users of each street per hour. Street Research
[44]
[45]
Average travel times for users of each street Using this data, it would appear that on average: - On weekdays, cars move at a speed of 24.7km/h on Gipps Street and 24.1km/h on Stanley Street. - On weekends, cars move at a speed of 23.9km/h (3.5% slower) on Gipps Street and 25.4km/h (4.8% faster) on Stanley Street. - On weekdays, bicycles move at a speed of 19.0km/h on Gipps Street and 16.6km/h on Stanley Street. - On weekends, bicycles move at a speed of 18.3km/h (3.6% slower) on Gipps Street and 16.6km/h (the same speed) on Stanley Street. - On weekdays, pedestrians move at a speed of 5.6km/h on Gipps Street and 7.1km/h on Stanley Street. - On weekends, pedestrians move at a speed of 6.5km/h (1.6% faster) on Gipps Street and 6.01km/h (17.5% slower) on Stanley Street. Additionally: - Cars and bicycles rarely have to wait at the roundabout, permitting rapid travel times. - The surveyed section of Stanley Street was larger than that of Gipps Street, accounting for the longer travel time.
Right: average travel times for users of each street. Street Research
[46]
[47]
Overall difference in weekday and weekend traffic for Gipps Street The weekend sees a sharp reduction in cyclist traffic when compared to other modes, which are reduced to a lesser degree. Background: the overall difference in weekday and weekend traffic for Gipps Street.
Overall difference in weekday and weekend traffic for Stanley Street The overall ratio of pedestrians to cars is higher for Stanley Street, but the number of cyclists is statistically insignificant. Background: the overall difference in weekday and weekend traffic for Stanley Street.
[49]
Overall difference in arrivals and departures between streets Using this data, it would appear that on average: - In Gipps Street, 3% of cars either arrive in or depart from the area. Of the 172 cars observed each hour, 5 arrive or depart. - In Stanley Street, 13% of cars either arrive in or depart from the area. Of the 67 cars observed each hour, 9 arrive or depart. - In Gipps Street, 10% of bicycles either arrive in or depart from the area. Of the 12 bicycles observed every two hours, 1 arrives or departs. - In Stanley Street, 10% of bicycles either arrive in or depart from the area. Of the 10 bicycles observed every five hours, 1 arrives or departs. - In Gipps Street, 6% of pedestrians either arrive in or depart from the area. Of the 37 pedestrians observed each hour, 2 arrive or depart. - In Stanley Street, 16% of pedestrians either arrive in or depart from the area. Of the 26 pedestrians observed each hour, 4 arrive or depart.
Right: overall difference in arrivals and departures between streets. Street Research
[50]
[51]
Intersection usage As observed over the six site visits: - Very few cars exit the roundabout travelling north, making it by far the least utilised side of the intersection. - For the most part, turning is an irregularity. Most cars travel directly through. - The western side of the roundabout is by far the most popular exit for turning traffic. Left: balance of traffic of either side of the intersection Right: proportion of turning directions from each side of the intersection.
[53]
Overall conclusions From this information, the following overall conclusions can be reached: - Both Gipps and Stanley Streets appear to ignore the regular peak hour of Melbourne, with more cars on the road during the middle of the day. - Gipps Street facilitates a significantly higher amount of traffic than Stanley Street. This is most likely a result of rat-running by cars avoiding nearby Swan Street. - The ratio of cars and bicycles to pedestrians is much higher on Gipps Street, indicating that Stanley Street is either more usable for pedestrians in its current state, or that there is a higher demand for pedestrian usability. - The speed of users varies greatly between modes of transportation, but only marginally between streets. Increased traffic on Gipps Street has no impact on the overall speed, indicating that both streets facilitate traffic flow far better than they need to. - Proportionally, pedestrian usage of the streets is much higher on weekends. This would indicate that weekday car and bike traffic is largely work related. Following this analysis, the next step is to begin consultation with the local community about their thoughts on the project.
Left: traffic volume of street users other than cars, bikes and pedestrians. [55]
Streets Without Cars
community briefing
RESIDENT DEMOGRAPHICS Knowing the demographics of the residents in the immediate area to be developed is crucial, as they are the users who have the most opportunity to use the site, in addition to being those who are the most greatly affected. As such, communication with as many residents in the area as possible was established in order to gain the most accurate understanding possible. This one done via two methods: - Knocking on the doors of resident and speaking to them directly. - An online survey in which residents could respond in their own time. The survey dealt with two areas of information, and this section will address the first – demographics – which sought to learn about who this project is to cater for.
Left: Gipps Street, as viewed from the west. [57]
Streets Without Cars
dando street
17
15 11
13
15
17
19
19a
11 21
23
25
27
29
31
stanley stre et
33 participated (11/37)
declined (7/37)
no contact (19/37)
14
22 16
18
18a
20 20a
22a 12a
9a
9 12 7 10
8
gipps street
carroll street
5
26
28
30
32
34
As expected, the online survey was less successful, gaining only one response. In terms of volume data, speaking directly with resident was far more successful, with 11 of the 37 households happy to participate. Furthermore, the quality of these surveys was significantly higher, as it allowed for a more in-depth discussion where specific points could be addressed. The image the left shows the households which participated. The distribution of participants over the observation area was fairly even, meaning a fairly equitable provision of spaces can be established based on the requests of the residents that share an immediate border. While this was a consideration, however, none of the participants had any objection to the placement of any specific spaces, instead being comfortable with any of the spaces discussed in front of their property, and comfortable being a short walk away from other spaces.
Left: existing conditions site plan of the area showing which households took part in the survey, 1:1000 @ A5. [59]
Streets Without Cars
Gender, age and ownership The division of genders and age was fairly even, as expected based on empirical observations. The divide between owners and renters was much more notable however, with an overwhelming majority of households surveyed being the owners of their own homes. This provides an interesting point of consideration for the future of this project, as it suggests that many of the residents will most likely live in the area for the foreseeable future, and therefore feel the impact of such a project more intensely.
Right: gender, age and ownership, based on survey results. Community Briefing
[60]
[61]
Household types, private open space and private space usage The typical terrace houses which dominate the area are generally quite large, thus it comes as no surprise that the average number of occupants for a household is nearly three, with families with children being a common household typology. Private spaces were also quite similar across the properties surveyed, with the usages of these spaces also being quite similar. The most surprising result here is the distinct lack of usable spaces adjacent to the street – all of the functional outdoor spaces were located at the rear of each property.
Right: household types and, private open space and private space usage, based on survey results. Community Briefing
[62]
[63]
Household averages The average length of time each resident has lived in the area was higher than initially expected, but not surprising giving the high number of residents who own their home.
Right: household averages, based on survey results. Community Briefing
[64]
[65]
Daily commute As the area of focus is an inner Melbourne suburb, it comes as no surprise that residents can easily access all parts of Melbourne. The large variety in daily commute destinations suggests that the majority of residents wholeheartedly take advantage of this centralised location.
Right: daily commutes, based on survey results. Community Briefing
[66]
[67]
Commute transport modes Despite the close proximity to Richmond railway station and relatively low average commute distance, very residents indicated that they use public transport, instead opting to drive. This is quite surprising, and will be a key consideration in moving forwards with the planning of this project.
Right: commute transport modes, based on survey results. Community Briefing
[68]
[69]
Occupational fields A fairly even distribution of professions was reported, but it didn’t seem to correlate to distance travelled in daily commutes, or to any opinion expressed in the second part of the survey.
Right: occupational fields, based on survey results. Community Briefing
[70]
[71]
Overall conclusions To summarise, here are the key findings based on this demographic component of the survey: - There is a fairly even divide of genders and ages throughout the area. - An overwhelming majority of residents own their own homes. - Functional outdoor spaces are a rarity at the front of houses, but very common at the rear of houses. - Further to this, most outdoor spaces are too small to accommodate anything beyond sedentary activities such as sitting and relaxing or dining. Many rear courtyards also function as car spaces, despite the street offering adequate parking the majority of the time. Residents with children indicated that even with rear courtyards, there wasn’t enough space for the children to play, and instead opted to play at the rear of their properties, where there is significantly less traffic than Stanley or Gipps Streets. - Driving is the preferred method of transport, despite living in close proximity to Richmond railway station and an average commute distance of only 7.35km.
Community Briefing
[72]
RESIDENT RESPONSES For the second part of the survey, residents were asked a number of questions relating to how they use the street, potential alternative usages of the street, how any changes might affect their current private space usage, and whether they would support any particular implementation methods. Respondents were not presented with ideas, and were only prompted only once they had introduced an idea in order to fully flesh out the idea. In doing so, the survey responses are purely based on the perceptions and experience of the residents of the area.
[73]
Streets Without Cars
Preferred site improvements and potential usage The most prominent question was quite bluntly, what the respondent would prefer to happen to the area in the event that a development would happen. Based on their responses, the following were most noteworthy: - Passive spaces are undoubtedly the most popular, with more than half of respondents indicating they would be interested in turning the roads into green spaces (covering a wide variety of usages such as casual walking, providing a space for pets, etc.). - Multiple residents indicated that they felt the roads weren’t safe for the perceived high children population of the areas (all respondents with young children expressed their desire for a place for their children to play quite strongly, more so than any other respondents), citing that a number of by-laws which are frequently ignored. - Further Gipps Street (to the east), the road is marked as being only one way, yet cars consistently travel in either direction. - Enforcing this appears to be of importance to the local community. - The speed bumps to the north and south of the roundabout, on Stanley Street do very little to slow traffic, with the majority of cars not slowing down at all when approaching them. - Suggestions involving more significant infrastructure (such as pavilions and shade structures) were the only areas where respondents were unsure on whether they would actually be used, but still received mostly favourably. - One respondent indicated opposition to any infrastructure at all, instead indicating the space should be transformed into a purely grassy area. - Overall, the suggestions made by respondents were fairly unambitious. Most respondents mentioned that they were unsure, and quickly followed up by mentioning greens spaces, which could possibly mean it was suggested without conviction.
Right: preferred site improvements and potential usages.. Community Briefing
[74]
[75]
Specific interests and effects on usage of private spaces Most residents indicated that they had at least one specific interest for consideration of the project, but those who didn’t still expressed interest in using the theoretical installations. This even extended to the respondents who indicated they would still use their private spaces for activities which could possibly be facilitated in the street (dining, example, was still considered a private activity for some, but still expressed interest in other usages of the public space).
Right: specific interests and effects on usage of private spaces. Community Briefing
[76]
[77]
Preferred usage periods for developed spaces Of all the questions responded to by the local community, this one produced the most varied results. However, despite the variety of times preferred, specific patterns emerged: - Work hours – respondents not only had a preference for times that worked around school hours, but showed a preference for weekends - Sun – respondents had a clear preference for hours and conditions when it will still light outside, as well as warmer conditions and an affinity to summer
Right: preferred usage periods for developed spaces. Community Briefing
[78]
[79]
Ownership of developed spaces Not a single person indicated their only preference was for increased private space. Instead, an overwhelming majority of respondents indicated that they preferred communal spaces, even when prompted with ideas for private developments, generally responding that they were satisfied with the property which they currently occupy. The only exception to this was a preference for private car spaces, purely for convenience. In this case, the respondent still indicated their preference for the majority of the street to be developed into communal spaces.
Right: ownership of developed spaces. Community Briefing
[80]
[81]
Project commitments While most people were open to the idea of performing some degree of maintenance, restrictions were placed on this pledge, generally indicating preferences for maintenance immediately adjacent to the property and within the capabilities of their health and expertise (i.e. residents were not interested in learning new skills). Residents were far less prepared to make financial contributions, however, with only slightly more than half responding positively to the suggestions, some of which had reservations which were dependent on what could be installed. Among those who did respond positively, however, it was universally agreed that the best way of doing so would be via council rates.
Right: project commitments. Community Briefing
[82]
[83]
Overall conclusions Overall, local community appeared to show interest in the possibility of a Streets Without Cars installation, and looked favourably upon the idea of elevating the presence of pedestrians. To summarise: - The local community loves the idea of introducing green spaces, with 64% responding along those lines without any prompting, and 100% being on board with it after discussion. - Reducing traffic along Gipps Street is of great concern, with respondents indicating they are not currently satisfied with the measures undertaken by local government to discourage traffic from Swan Street from migrating towards it. - Periods of usage relate primarily to typically warm and sunny conditions, and around working and school hours to a lesser degree. - Communal usages of the site are overwhelmingly more popular than private usage. - Willingness to make financial contributions is somewhat shaky, but is likely to be more consistent when a more specific development can be presented. The vague nature of the responses ultimately points to an unambitious project without any standout thematic response to particular issues. As such, it may be necessary to look beyond the responses of the participants (while still catering to their preferences) in order to produce that fully utilises the potential of the site.
Community Briefing
[84]
[85]
Streets Without Cars
thematic response: a modern palimpsest
While the residents of Gipps Street and Stanley Street provided invaluable information about what they didn’t want the streets to be, very little of what they spoke about gave any specific direction to the project. From a master planning perspective, the requirements were quite few: -
Reduce traffic (or reduce traffic speed, at the very least). A larger amount of space for passive activities such as reading, sitting, socialising and general relaxation. A smaller amount of open space for children to play. The spaces need to feel open to the sun, rather than walled in.
As such, the qualities of the streets became the inspiration for this project. The area is quite old, and shows a variety of qualities which fit the mold of a quintessentially Australian street, with quintessentially Australian housing and architecture. As such the architectural relics of such an old and traditional street, as well as the material qualities, have become the palette for the project. This fits the mantra of “from mundane to arcane, a modern palimpsest” quite well, as it provides the opportunity to celebrate the existing street in an accessible manner. Furthermore, the use of the architectural relics and materials found in this street can be done so in a flexible manner, allowing these mundane elements to feature a twist which gives the project a unique but relevant identity in such a homogeneous area.
Left: a typical house in the area observed for this project. [87]
Streets Without Cars
ARCHITECTURAL RELICS
Quintessentially Australian streets and homes have a “slapped together� nature - each alteration is a new layer which is distinctly separate from the previous one. This is demonstrated in a number of ways, such as houses being built up against each other and using distinctly separate materials. This erratic nature is exemplified by the variety in fences on both streets, from both a material and geometric standpoint, and can be used as a form finding tool.
Left: a typical fence line seen in the observation area. Centre: a lattice being used as a decorative privacy screen. Right: a typical brick house seen in the observation area. Thematic Response: a Modern Palimpsest
[88]
Every home within the immediate vicinity of this project features some variety of lattice or trellis. The usage of existing lattices is quite narrow - as a decorative element on verandas, or as a medium for plants to grow on to moderate visual permeability. For the purposes of this project, the lattice will be envisioned as tool to generate structural form. This will allow a unique visual identity, without compromising the open quality sought by residents.
Bricks are the most common material used for structure at the homes in Gipps Street and Stanley Street. Based on discussions within residents, however, lightweight partitions would be preferable in order to create an environment which feels open. As such, bricks will instead be featured in a distinctly separate way - as a ground surface material, and also as a material to generate furniture which emerges from that ground. [89]
Streets Without Cars
MATERIAL PALETTE
Left: overgrowing plants seen in the observation area. Centre: various usages of corrugated meta seen in the observation area. Right: overhead cables seen in the observation area with no distinct purpose. Thematic Response: a Modern Palimpsest
[90]
Overgrowing vegetation is characteristic of the area, and provides an aged quality that is otherwise difficult to replicate. As such above-ground greenery will be used to preserve this quality, in addition o being used as a method for filtering light and visual permeability without sacrificing the open quality sought by residents.
Corrugated sheeting is apparent in all places in Gipps Street and Stanley Street - being used primarily as a roof surface, but also as a vertical partition. The versatility of corrugated sheeting allows it to be used as an effective barrier, while also being compatible with lightweight structures, such as those featured in this project.
Lastly, there is an abundance of overhead cables in the area. Whether or not these cables still serve a functional purpose is unclear, given the tendency for services to be buried at present time. As a characteristic of this street, however, they will be employed in conjunction with the relics and materials of this project to replicate the old-school feel of the street.
[91]
Streets Without Cars
dando street
17
15 11
13
15
17
19
19a
11 fire pit + kitchen
stanley stre et
21
25
27
29
31
master planning book sun exchange + reading + office
14
22 16
18
18a
20 20a
9a
citrus forest
22a
veranda + dorm
bike cover
9
12a
12 7 10 5 8
gipps street
carroll street
23
26
28
30
32
34
33
PROJECT BRIEF As discussed in the previous section, there were only a few requirements for the master plan of the project, as decided by the community: -
A reduction in traffic volume and traffic speed. Space for passive activities such as reading, sitting, socialising and general relaxation. Space for children to play. The spaces need to feel open to the sun, rather than walled in.
In addition to the community mandated objections, a number of additional goals were set in order to address a number of issues which were not considered by the survey respondents: - Increase engagement between properties and the streetscape. - Rework the layout of parking spaces in the area to better reflect the loading requirement, based on research and observations.
Left: the final master plan of the project area, 1:1000 @ A5. [93]
Streets Without Cars
dando street
17
15 11
13
15
17
19
19a
11 21
23
25
27
29
31
stanley stre et
14
22 16
18
18a
20 20a
22a 12a
9a
9 12 7 10
8
gipps street
carroll street
5
26
28
30
32
34
33
ROADS AND PARKING While many community members recognised the benefits or reducing traffic in the area, their recommendations only dealt with the issue quite lightly by suggestion changes to speed limits, better enforcement of existing road laws, and the introduction of one-way traffic. Given that the issue is that Gipps Street has become a secondary thoroughfare to Swan Street for traffic moving both east and west, a more suitable solution would be to halt traffic completely. Doing so produces a number of desirable results: -
Traffic loads would be significantly reduced, as the roads essentially become of use only to residents. The issue of speeding traffic and safety concerns for children in the area is effectively nullified. The resulting spaces become more versatile, as they are not restricted by sharing a boundary with a road. Parking favours residents, as access to the site via car from surrounding areas is reduced.
In terms of parking, it provides an opportunity to reformat the existing overabundance of road space into more functional and desirable areas by reducing the number of car parks to being a more suitable number. As previously mentioned, site observations found parks to generally be no more than 50% full, meaning that only 28 of the 56 parking spaces would be in use. Given that there is an average of 1.45 cars per household, and thee are 37 properties, there are an estimated 54 cars owned by residents. However, given that 21 of these properties car spaces accessible from the rear of the property, only 23 of these car require space on the street for parking. As these parking spaces become less attractive to travellers with no intention to visit the site, reformatting the area to have 30 parks is a generous yet realistic amount. Furthermore, this reduction is the spatial requirements for parking allows the road to be narrowed to use a single row of angle parks, eliminating the secondary row of parallel parks. This reduces the width requirements of the road, allowing for a larger buffer between properties and the roads. The larger space promotes a more pedestrian friendly environment, and promotes a better engagement with the street.
Left: road and parking layout., 1:1000@A5. [95]
Streets Without Cars
dando street
17
15 11
13
15
17
19
19a
11 21
23
25
27
29
31
stanley stre et
14
22 16
18
18a
20 20a
22a 12a
9a
9 12 7 10
8
gipps street
carroll street
5
26
28
30
32
34
33
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION Given that one of the key intentions of this project re-think the built environment to promote a hierarchy where pedestrians are dominant over vehicles, it was important to promote circulation with as little restriction as possible. In allowing pedestrians to navigate through the site on either side of both Gipps Street and Stanley Street, this has been achieved. Furthermore, this arrangement of pedestrian circulation is also the most effective in facilitating residents of the properties it borders. By ensuring a footpath is present in front of each house, the occupants can access the site directly, thus further promoting engagement with the site from a resident perspective.
Left: pedestrian circulation within the project area, 1:1000 @ A5. [97]
Streets Without Cars
dando street
17
15 11
13
15
17
19
19a
11 21
23
25
27
29
31
stanley stre et
14
22 16
18
18a
20 20a
22a 12a
9a
9 12 7 10
8
gipps street
carroll street
5
26
28
30
32
34
33
BIKE CIRCULATION As with pedestrian circulation, bike circulation has been planned to sit above vehicular circulation on the overall traffic hierarchy. Given that each of the footpaths have been widened to a width of 4m, the is enough room to safely create a shared zone for pedestrians and bikes. As a precautionary measure, however, the material choice for the ground has been chosen carefully to discourage cycling at reckless speeds: bricks. In choosing bricks as surface coverage, a textural quality is created which is virtually unnoticed when traversing the site as a pedestrian, but felt quite strongly when riding a bike to the point that it is uncomfortable compared to the normal smooth surface of a road. Additionally, the brick orientation is at an angle to ensure that cyclists will feel the texture.
Left: bike circulation with the project area, 1:1000 @ A5. [99]
Streets Without Cars
dando street
17
15 11
13
15
17
19
19a
11 21
23
25
27
29
31
stanley stre et
14
22 16
18
18a
20 20a
22a 12a
9a
9 12 7 10
8
gipps street
carroll street
5
26
28
30
32
34
33
VEHICULAR CIRCULATION While creating areas of one-way traffic may have reduced the volume of vehicular traffic moving though the site, it also had the possibility to enforce the area as a thoroughfare for traffic moving in a particular direction, in addition to having no effect on the current problems of enforcing the speed limit. Such a change of this does not solve the issue at hand, but instead attempts tries to minimise the problem with as little change as possible. Given that it still allows vehicular to me the dominant mode of transport, it is not an appropriate solution, given the intention of this project. By removing the intersection and preventing traffic from moving through, the only functional purpose for a car to be present in the site is to access either the site in the centre, or the properties in the immediate vicinity. In doing this, parking in the area in order to visit other places, such as Swan Street, is disincentivised.
Left: vehicular circulation within the project area, 1:1000 @ A5. [101]
Streets Without Cars
dando street
17
15 11
13
15
17
19
19a
11 fire pit + kitchen
stanley stre et book sun exchange + reading + office
14
22 16
18
18a
20 20a
9a
citrus forest
22a
21
12
10 5 8
gipps street
27
29
31
12a
7
carroll street
25
veranda + dorm
bike cover
9
23
26
28
30
32
34
33
PROGRAMME ALLOCATION By clearing the intersection and defining circulation paths, there are 5 distinct areas which have been created. These functions of these spaces have been primarily defined by community suggestions, but the overall theme has been shaped to fit the theme of celebrating the mundane relics of the area. The areas are as follows: North Sun + reading room, book exchange + office A space where residents can sit back and enjoy the sun. This space also facilitates activities such as reading or studying by creating a book exchange, where residents can leave or borrow books as they please, as well as broadcasting public wifi and creating open desks spaces to offer the students and professionals of the an alternative space to the cramped up offices in their own homes. South Veranda
+ dorm A space where residents can sit back and look out into their streets - unlike their existing verandas which are too small crowded to serve any functional purpose. The veranda looks onto an grass patch to the south, providing a space where parents can keep an eye on their children while also relaxing or socialising.
East Bike cover The absence of bikes in the street is most likely related to lack of space to store them and the currently unsavoury cycling conditions as a result of heavy and fast traffic. In making the area more attractive to the usage of bikes, the introduction of a bike cover aims to facilitate and encourage this increase. West Fire pit + kitchen Residents expressed a keen interest in spaces suitable for dining outside, but did not entertain the idea of preparing their meal outside too. The fire pit and kitchen creates a social environment where both can be done, including an open flame in the centre for grilling (and providing warmth) in addition to masonry ovens. Centre Citrus forest The backyard lemon tree is a quintessential part of any Australian property, as thus is the obvious choice when celebrating the mundane. As this is to be a “forest� however, additional citrus plants have been introduced, including oranges and cumquats. Left: the final master plan of the project area, 1:1000 @ A5. [103]
Streets Without Cars
thesis proposal:
from mundane to arcane
A PROJECT BRIEF As previously discussed, there were very few elements of this project set by the community, instead opting to voice opinions on what is currently lacking in the area. To summarise, here is what was discovered through site observation and survey discussion: - There are not enough sunny spaces in the area. - Private courtyards are too cramped to be of any use. - Existing spaces do not provide any degree of relaxation. - Work and study spaces are currently uncomfortable and not conducive to productivity.
B B’
A’
Left: book exchange + office as seen form the citrus forest. Right: roof plan of the site, 1:500 @ A5. [105]
Based on these considerations, the spaces aim to tackle these issues in the following way: -
The spaces will be as open as possible to allow as much natural light as possible. Open spaces will be included to allow for a variety of unprescribed activities. The spaces developed must have cater to individuals looking for private space, as well as group spaces. Spaces must be comfortable enough to carry out activities without being disruptive or breaking concentration.
Each space in the site uses the architectural relics and materials discussed previously to match thematic response of this thesis.
Left: section AA’, the north-south section of Stanley Street, looking east, 1:750 @ A5. Right: section BB’, the east-west section of Gipps Street, looking north, 1:750 @ A5. Thesis Proposal: from Mundane to Arcane
[106]
[107]
Streets Without Cars
C C’
READING ROOM Left: plan of the reading room, 1:200 @ A5. Right: section CC’ of the reading room, 1:200 @ A5.
The reading room is an outdoor space in which users can relax while reading a book, browse the web on publicly broadcasted wifi and casually sit around while taking advantage of the northern sun. The area itself is partitioned by a lightweight and permeable framing system which seeks only to distinguish the area, rather than enforce hard boundaries. The frame is also extruded in some places to create solitary boxes in which the user can separate themselves from other readers. The ground features a series of brick undulations which serves to create small pockets space which can be used as private or as group spaces, in addition to forming basic furniture to facilitate comfortable sitting.
3450
4000
12200
[109]
4000
6000
Streets Without Cars
Left: the reading room, when approaching from eastern side of Stanley Street from the north. Right: the reading room, when approaching from western side of Stanley Street from the north.
[111]
D D’
3450
4000
12200
4000
6000
BOOK EXCHANGE + OFFICE Left: plan of the book exchange + office, 1:200 @ A5. Right: section DD’ of the book exchange + office, 1:200 @ A5.
The high presence of students and professionals in the area indicated they would be interested in finding a casual outdoor area in which they could work and study, which led to the creation of the book exchange + office. It is a semi-enclosed continuation of the reading room, featuring more explicitly defined joinery to facilitate more explicitly defined activities. The area also serves as the broadcast point for public wifi, as well as incorporating power connections to more smoothly facilitate its purpose as a casual working environment. The area also features shelving units which not only serve to softly define work spaces, but also facilitate a “leave a book, take a book” system where users of the space can leave old and unwanted literature that may be of interest to others.
4000
12200
[113]
4000
3000
Streets Without Cars
Left: the book exchange + office, when approaching from eastern side of the citrus forest. Right: the book exchange + office, when approaching from western side of the citrus forest.
[115]
E’ E
4000
12200
4000
3000
VERANDA + DORM Left: plan of the veranda + dorm, 1:200 @ A5. Right: section EE’ of the veranda + dorm, 1:200 @ A5.
Despite having no useable street facing spaces, many homes have verandas (which were equally unuseable, as they were generally clutter and had their views blocked). Residents expressed their displeasure at this situation but felt they were unable to rectify it, leading to the creation of this space. The veranda + dorm is a space where users can casually sit around and relax while looking out into the street, as well as fulfil any other function they would otherwise use their private verandas for. The veranda opens out to look onto the citrus forest to the north, and an open green space in the south so that parents can supervise children playing. Additionally, the space features day beds where the residents can sprawl out and relax, adding to its casual nature.
4000
4000
12200
[117]
4000
Streets Without Cars
Left: the veranda + dorm, when looking at the bike cover area from the northern opening. Right: the veranda + dorm, when approaching from eastern side of Stanley Street to the south.
[119]
F F’
4000
4000
12200
4000
BIKE COVER Left: plan of the bike cover area, 1:200 @ A5. Right: section FF’ of the bike cover area, 1:200 @ A5.
The entire development is intended to not only elevate pedestrians so that they are no longer dominated by cars, but bikes too. As such, the bike cover area was introduced to make the area more accessible to site users and therefore encourage it’s use. Ultimately, the area primarily serves as a functional space where users can leave their bikes in a secure place which is also protected from the weather, but it also serves as a barrier to separate the pedestrian space within the site from the road it borders.
1500
4150
12200
[121]
4150
Streets Without Cars
CITRUS FOREST The citrus forest is a slightly different take at the slapped together nature of the streets in the area - rather than emulating such erratic arrangement, the plants are arranged in a geometric fashion. This centrepoint provides a soft division between the surrounding areas and helps define site circulation. The space is inspired by the old lemon tree that can be found in nearly every Australian backyard. However, given the number of plants arranged in the space, a variety of citrus plants have been used (including lemon, orange, lime and cumquat to provide a variety of fruits which can be used by residents in the area.
Left: the bike cover area, when approaching from northern side of Gipps Street from the west. Right: plan of the citrus forest, 1:200 @ A5. [123]
Streets Without Cars
G’ G
1500
4150
12200
4150
FIRE PIT + KITCHEN Many residents expressed interest in dining in a more open space that their own private courtyards, but did not consider the possibility of preparing their food outside too. The fire pit + kitchen serves as a space in which both of these activities can be done, while also facilitating a social environment.
Left: plan of the fire pit + kitchen, 1:200 @ A5. Right: section GG’ of the fire pit + kitchen, 1:200 @ A5.
The space contains a central fire pit with a grill in addition to a 3 brick ovens, which also serves as a barrier to separate this space from the road it shares a border with. This allows a variety of cooking methods, while also functioning as an outdoor fireplace for social gatherings during the colder times in the year.
3000
4150
12200
[125]
4150
1700
Streets Without Cars
Left: the fire pit + kitchen, when looking in form the northern side of Gipps Street. Right: the fire pit + kitchen, when looking through from the southern side of Gipps Street.
[127]
Thesis Proposal: from Mundane to Arcane
[128]
PERSONAL REFLECTION This was a difficult project for me for two reasons - it was not at a scale that I had worked at before, and it was not an outcome I have worked toward before (especially working on a location I had no prior familiarity with). That said, I was interested in using this project as a way to develop these skills. Overall, I’m pleased with the work I have put forward. The resolution of small details is perhaps not as fine as I would have liked, but given the time frame in which this project was completed, it’s a result I am still proud of. In terms of the entire outcome, I am confident that what I have designed reflects the needs and desires of the residents. The research phase was of great benefit to this project, and I think that the research I conducted was done quite well and produced a lot of useful information. The specific requests of the residents in terms of what they precisely wanted very difficult to decipher, and meant I had to rely on the quantitative data previously collected more than I would have liked. That said, I believe the thematic response, combined with the qualitative information gathered from discussions with residents has allowed me to provide a response that I fully believe responds to the needs of the community and supports the lifestyles of the local community.
[129]
Streets Without Cars
streets without cars
luke madden 359911 design thesis abpl20169, s2 2014