Hi, High-Density by Madeleine Appelros

UD Studio WS 2015/16

documentation

HI, HIGH-DENSITY

UD STUDIO HOME GROWN - HOUSING ALLIANCES ON THE RISE (Assignment A3) Title: Hi, High-Density Group 6: Madeleine Appelros, Jennifer Gehring, Benedikt Wieser, Bu Yijie

Berlin 2016

Content

Introduction Hypothesis Project Description Hi, High-Density

esign Studio Design Framework tion between Urban Design Principles Sequencing Typologies & Density Connectivity

rg Stollmann High Square g. Katharina PlanHagg & Program

Multifunctionality Court Cooperative Section Plans & Program Actor Strategy

Unit Masterplan ilipp Misselwitz Model Photos g. Oliver Schetter

Conclusion Looking Ahead Reflection Annex Supporting Work

5 9

10 12 14 16 18 20 24 26 28 32 34 36 36 39

45 47 53

Reference Projects

Process

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

“The “standard metropolitan architecture“ is becoming the new fuel of globalisation. In this context “new“ metropolises such as Dubai, Shanghai or Singapore are much more likely to be seen as examples for the future of esign Studio urban development than the “old“ tion between western metropolises such as Paris or New York“. rg Stollmann

g. Katharina Hagg

Ananya Roy 2010

...or Berlin.

Our project begs the question, how can we develop our cities differently, in order to meet the increasing urgency and pressures of urbanisation? Our assumption from the outset, was that Berlin housing developments are producing consistently low-density typologies, and that this is not sufficient in meeting the ever-growing housing gap in Berlin, nor does it encourage new ways of thinking about how to live.

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

99,067

9,110

54,325

Pankower Tor

New registrations

300 350 400 750

9,197

750

1,100 1,100 1,360

15,650

44,742

1,500

Refugees that stayed

1,500

people

units

SteP estimated number of people coming to Berlin per year 2014-2030

New registrations + refugees that stayed in Berlin 2014

SteP projects in Pankow

Hi High-Density Program

promises vs. demands The housing development plans, according to SteP Berlin, are far from realistic. SteP is not considering the true number of new inhabitants and is far off from providing the urgently required number of housing units.

<NIGHTTIME VIEW HIGH SQUARE This perspective from the rooftop of a High Square building, depicts the urbanity, vibrancy and light of High Square at night.

HI, HIGH-DENSITY “Berlin needed 50,000 new housing units in 2015 - only 10,000 were built“.

Der Tagesspiegel, 27 Oct. 2015

The Pankow Güterbahnhof site presents an extraordinary and rare opportunity to make a large impact on Berlin‘s housing crisis, particularly so due to its immense size, centrality and well connected location. The site also presents an opportunity to think big - to think outside the box, outside of our comfort zone, outside of what we know.

esign Studio Unfortunately, SteP plans for Pankow and for Pankow Güterbahnhof do not tion between

respond to Berlin‘s needs, nor do they take advantage of the value of the site. As depicted in the graphs (p.8), SteP estimates the population of Berlin to incease by 15,650 people per year between 2014 and 2030. In reality, in 2015 Berlin became home to an estimated additional 99,000 people - made up of over 44,000 refugee registrations, plus 54,000 registrations from migrants coming from elsewhere in Germany and internationally. Facing ever increasing rates of urbanisation, accelerated by the staggering intake of refugees, the population of Berlin will continue to grow exponentially. In Pankow, SteP currently has 10 development plans, which promise a total of 9,110 new housing units. Exactly when these will be completed is unknown. One of these plans is Pankower Tor, lead by the investor Kurt Krieger and developed for Pankow Güterbahnhof. Dissapointingly, but to no surprise, Mr Krieger‘s development proposes a mere 750 housing units.

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Unit ilipp Misselwitz Our proposal utilises the unique and valuable characteristics of the site, to address the growing housing crisis in Berlin today. With the implementation g. Oliver Schetter of a variety of high-density typologies, we achieve 9,197 housing units on one site - more than what is proposed by SteP for the entire Pankow district. In addition, we meet the needs of Mr. Krieger and provide significant amounts of additional program to support such a high-density proposal. Our project aims to challenge the norm of housing development today in Berlin. The city‘s housing crisis is a serious and urgent concern. Whilst a proposal of our kind is unlikely to be implemented in the Berlin of today, we hope that it encourages thoughts and discussions on the matter, and can lead to new, alternative and innovative ways of housing development and living in Berlin.

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

FRAMEWORK

esign Studio tion between

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

FRAMEWORK AXONOMETRIC M 1:5000

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

GRID> The â&#x20AC;&#x153;boulevardâ&#x20AC;? runs the length of the site, through the centre. The transversing secondary streets are a continuation of the existing neighbourhood grid. Besides the prime purpose of accessibility, the strong grid structure defines the blocks, and is a tool to connect the new development to the existing urban structure.

SUBCENTRES> A rhythm of subcentres distributed evenly throughout the site is the first step in fostering neighbourhoods and encouraging functioning services and activities.

URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

esign Studio tion between

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

<HEIGHTS The building heights increase incrementally towards the subcentres. This principle has several motivations: subcentres are visually defined, subcentres gain additional building area to be able to provide necessary functions, and the lower height of the surrounding neighbourhood can be respected.

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

MIXED-PROGRAM> Each of the four subcentres have a specific atmosphere and program. Importantly, each subcentre provides public functions and services at ground floor and lower floors, and above there is always housing. From left to right: Pankow extension, School quarter, High Square, Campus.

Pankow extension School quarter High Square Campus

Relation to surroundings> The function and character of each subcentre is determined by its surroundings. Pankow extension grows from the existing Pankow centre and S-Bahn station. School quarter, consisting of 2 schools, a kindergarten and recreational facilities, is in the heart of the development, connected across the site and S-Bahn to green spaces and serving the families of the new framework and those of the existing neighbourhood. High Square, with its many functions and high flow of people, is located close to all forms of transport. The Campus, for a tertiary education facility, has important connections to the action of the High Square, brings large numbers of people to the area and is easily accessible by both tram and S-Bahn.

Pankow extension School quarter High Square Campus

SEQUENCING

esign Studio tion between

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

<HOUSING ONLY Inbetween the subcentres are areas for housing only. The borders between subcentres and housing-only are not necessarily clearly defined as depicted, but will be a blurred border created as the entire framework is developed according to investor and user requirements.

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

<OPEN PUBLIC SPACE Influenced by the theory of Sophie Wolfrum, the framework provides a variety of useable and socially accessible open public space, distributed throughout the framework. â&#x20AC;&#x153;It could be, that public space does not generate urbanity per se, rather, public space is only successful when it can be used by the majority of society.â&#x20AC;? (Wolfrum, 2010) Each subcentre and its program are defined by a characteristic open space.

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

A. High square, FSI 4.5 M 1.5000 A hybrid typology of big-box bases, perimeter block and high-rises provides the highest density in the framework.

B. Housing only, FSI 2.5 M 1.5000 Detached and semi detached volumes, varying in height from 3 to 8 floors, provides a typology of increased permeability and increased access to outdoor spaces in all â&#x20AC;&#x153;housing-onlyâ&#x20AC;? areas.

A b

REFERENCE AXONOMETRIC

C. Pankow extension, FSI 3.9 M 1.5000 Mid-rise buildings atop big-box bases form the typology for this area. As a subcentre, a higher density is achieved.

TYPOLOGIES & density BERLIN Pankow Centre Potsdamer Platz Alexander Platz Zoologischer Garten Hermannplatz FriedrichstraĂ&#x;e

esign Studio tion between

FSI 0.8-2.0 5.0+ 3.0-5.0 3.0-5.0 1.5-3.0 3.0-5.0

INTERNATIONAL Paris Amsterdam New York San Francisco Tokyo Shanghai

FSI 3.0 1.9 15.0 9.0 20.0 8.0

FSI COMPARATIVELY Berlin figures sourced from FIS Broker, GFZ 2011. International figures sourced from World Bank (2012).

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

1,65

2,52

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

4,49 2,54 3,17 2,28 3,86

2,48 <FSI range The built density of the site varies between subcentres and housing only areas., reflective of the frameworks sequencing and chosen typoligies. FSI is always the highest in the subcentres, with the exception of the campus due to the large open area and existing heritage buildings. Compared to other centres in Berlin the FSI figures are not unreasonable.

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

To Panketal

mobility> A hierarchy of street networks ensures efficient mobility of all kinds of transport throughout the framework. Provision for high levels of mobility is highly important in regards to the high level of density and activity proposed. The central boulevard connects all parts of the framework, primarily to be used by the tram, cyclists and pedestrians. Secondary streets connect the existing neighbourhoods across the site and S-Bahn. Tertiary streets provide high permeability for all users, while a service street is planned to serve delivery vehicles and car-driving visitors of High Square.

Pankow-Heinersdorf

Pankow Kirche

To Prenzlauer Berg Primary boulevard Secondary connection Tertiary connection Service street Surrounding roads

Primary boulevard To Alexanderplatz

Secondary connection Tertiary connection Service street

To Berlin City Center

Bordering streets

CONNECTIVITY

esign Studio tion between transportation> The site has great potential to connect to the existing public transport networks. The tram is porposed to be extended through the site along the boulevard. Berlin city development plans already suggest the extension of the U9, which we propose could be extended even further north-east to reach High Square and beyond. The U2 can be extended further north to reach Pankow Kirche and beyond. Although a massive infrastructural cost, the extension of U-Bahns could be kept as a long-term development possibility to support very high flows of people.

To Panketal

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Pankow-Heinersdorf

Pankower Tor

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter To Osloer StraĂ&#x;e

Pankow Kirche

To Prenzlauer Berg

S-Bahn

Pankow

U-Bahn Tramway

S-Bahn U-Bahn Tram

To Berlin City Centre To Alexanderplatz

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

High Square is a multi-functional, vibrant and dense hub, that caters to local residents, workers and students, as well as tourists and Berliners alike.

HIGH SQUARE

esign Studio tion between

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

STRIP AXONOMETRIC M 1:2000

daytime VIEW HIGH SQUARE> Activity and life of a bustling High Square is seen in this perspective. The square is framed on all sides by numerous and plentiful services and activities and diverse facades, boasting vibrant billboards and screens.

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

Program 858,000 54,000

Campus

1.65

82,000

Housing 4

2.52

High Square

hotel office cultural + gastronomy

858,000 54,000

Campus

1.65

82,000

Housing 4

2.52

430,000

High Square

4.49

100,000

Housing 3

2.54

retail

esign Studio tion between 430,000

432,000

parking 4.49

höffner

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg 100,000

56,000 57,000 Unit 49,000 30,000

Housing 3

Schools

2.54 3.17 2.28 3.86 2.48

PROGRAM and area DISTRIBUTION> The significantly larrgest GFA is provided in Housing 2 allowing for high the High Square district, quantities of various functions to support the Pankow High Square concept. Whilst many varied programs are provided in Housing 1 centre, a significant a concentrated and active proportion of area is still reserved for the provision of housing – 50% equaling over 200,000m2 or 3800 units (see area calculation, Annex). GFA by framework sequence FSI by framework

ilipp Misselwitz GFA m2 FSI g. Oliver Schetter

sequence

housing

56,000 57,000 49,000 30,000

3.17 2.28 3.86 2.48

Schools Housing 2 Pankow Housing 1

program

GFA m2

High-Square % of m2

GFA by framework sequence

FSI

FSI by framew sequence

<HIGH SQUARE PLAN In order to create a permeable façade at street level and to activate the street, small businesses, retail and gastronomy units are placed along the ground-floor façade of the high square and surrounding streets. The furniture store, Möbel Höffner, and the shopping mall, achieve their large required surface areas behind these finer-grained façade functions. Other suggested ground floor functions include a Playhouse Theatre, Art and Photography Gallery and bookshop. Located on the upper floors, in perimeter blocks and towers, are residential apartments, office space and a hotel. M 1:1000

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

Residents

Tourist Workers 0

Monday

HIGH SQUARE FUNCTIONS> The priority of High Square is, the Square. In order to achieve an area that is attractive and vibrant throughout the day and evening, summer and winter, the square is designed as a large, multifunctional space â&#x20AC;&#x201C; hosting events small and large, extravagant and spontaneous, independent and in conjunction with the surrounding buildingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; functions.

Tuesday

a 8:00 Commuting

b 12:00 L

d 20:00 Live Football Match

e 21:00

18 18

Monday Tuesday

MULTIFUNCTIONALity

18 18

Wednesday Tuesday

18 18

Wednesday Thursday

18 18

Thursday Friday

b 12:00 Lunch break b 12:00 Lunch break

esign Studio tion between

18 18

Saturday Friday

18 18

Saturday Sunday

Sunday

c 18:00 Performance c 18:00 Performance

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Unit e 21:00 Theater e 21:00 Theater ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

f 24:00 Nightlife f 24:00 Nightlife

The selected cooperative site stands as a transitional element between the very urban and exposed high square and the protected and introverted courtyard.

COurt coop

esign Studio tion between

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

Cooperative axonometric M 1:1000

VIEW coop public courtyard> The courtyard is a public space, offering a contrasting environment to that of the high square, with a comparatively tranquil environment marked by green space. Importantly, the courtyard offers recreational space to the local residents, as well as workers, as a means of compensation for the densely built area.

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

Cooperative SECTION> As a slice of the perimeter block, the prototype stands above a retail space on street level, and is accessible to residents from both the high square directly, and from the courtyard by means of the landscape stairs that cut the perimeter block in several locations. The prototype consists of 16 floors – based on our research, a cost and space effective choice allowing the highest possible building with only one core and one escape stair. Every two floors act together as a “micro-neighbourhood” and share laundry, cooking and dining facilities. Residents may decide in the planning process how additional common space is to be used, for example as a cinema, children’s play space, or gym. Additionally, the rooftop is designed as a common space, accessible to all residents. Common space on courtyard level could be utilised as a bike garage, workshop or café. To make use of the building’s location to the high square and urban character, we floated the idea to use the building’s facade for advertising and thus have an additional income for the cooperative (see strategy and annex). Other additional sources of income could be retail or gastronomy functions at street and courtyard levels, and guest apartments within the cooperative.

Urban LIVING common rooftop space rooftop-cafĂŠ

esign Studio tion between

collective kitchen and living room

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

collective kitchen and living room

ďŹ tness sports gym

games room

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

joker room

reading area

collective kittchen

GSEducationalVersion

cooperative section M 1:400

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

380 Rooftop rooftop

common two collective spaces

16th ﬂoor 16th Floor >

150m2

4th Floor 4th ﬂoor

3rd Floor 3rd ﬂoor

private living

2nd ﬂoor 2nd Floor

230m2 average size 30m2 + 20m2 common

1st ﬂoor 1st Floor

Courtyard Courtyard

30,000

GFA m2 per standard floor of cooperative prototype GSEducationalVersion

Private apartments private apartments Common space common space

<COMMON VS. Private In support of our high-density concept, the prototype design aims to minimise private space in individual apartments and instead offer considerable shared spaces – in order to use space effectively, reduce costs and encourage interaction with neighbours. Each standard floor has a GFA of 380 m2, with 8 apartments of different layouts: from a studio to a 2 bedroom apartment, with an average of 30m2 per apartment. Private living makes up 2/3 of the floor. When the common space is divided by apartments, each apartment has 20m2 of common space. Therefore, each housing unit could be considered to have an average of 50m2. The alternation of common and private space moving up the building allows for an interesting and varied structure of the façade, primarily through window size and location, and also due to the function beyond. Cooperative FLOORPLANS > The central core defines the floor into four areas: two private and two common. Apartments are accessed directly from the common spaces for several reasons: long, dark corridors are avoided, useable space is maximised and presence in the shared space and interaction inevitably occurs.

SHARED LIVING

24,17 m2

collective space kitchen

esign Studio tion between

x2, duplex

36,16 m2 2 rooms

21,30 m2 21,30 m2 1 room

1 room

2nd ﬂoor

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

18,02 m2

gym

x2, duplex

PLAN ROOFTOp collective gardening

M 1:400

38,63 m2 2 rooms

20,70 m2 1 room

26,20 m2

2 rooms

x2, duplex

22,47 m2 1 room

laundry room

home-oﬃce

GSEducationalVersion

collective kitchen reading area

laundry room

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

37,29 m2

18,02 m2

35,05 m2

x2, duplex

2 rooms

42,59 m2 3 rooms

PLAN COURTYARD LEVEL M 1:400

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

FRAMEWORK masterplan M 1:5000

MODEL photos

esign Studio tion between

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

framework model M 1:2000

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

esign Studio tion between

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

framework model M 1:2000

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

STRip model, high square> M 1:500

esign Studio tion between

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

final studio presentation> 18th February 2016, TU Berlin

looking AHEAD If we were to keep working on the project, in what direction would we go? Which of our current themes would we explore deeper? What new themes would we delve into?

Our proposal is of such a large scale and density, that it would inevitably esign Studio have an impact not only on its direct surroundings, but greater Berlin. We would need to consider our project at a greater scale, for example its tion between influence on Prenzlauer Berg, Mitte, Potsdamer Platz plus other centres further afar. Also working at a larger scale, how could our design, or our high-density concept “spread“ into its surroundings? - perhaps by means of infill densification projects in the numerous surrounding low-density perimeter blocks, or an additional new development of a similar nature in the many allotment gardens located north of the site. What areas are suitable for such high-density projects? What is it that makes an area suitable? Also worthy of exploration, is to what extent we would have to scale-back our proposal, for it to be passed through Berlin‘s planning processes. Our proposal is perhaps perceived as radical, but it is by no means insane, proven by our FSI densities that are comparable to other Berlin centres. However our project seems to hold a shock factor. What changes would we need to make to sell our proposal more convincingly? Similarly, it would be very worthwhile for us to further explore and understand the real financial and stakeholder possibilities in regards to our project.

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

TEAM High-density> Jennifer, Bu, Madeleine and Benedikt. Final studio presentation, 18th February 2016, TU Berlin.

process & progress> Teamwork from the start - here during the enactment, Assignment 2 of the Homegrown Studio.

reflection Interdisciplinary and International Team - Madeleine Our team: 1 German, 1 Italian, 1 Chinese, 1 New Zealander. 7 languages, 3 shared languages (we are learning mandarin…hen hao). Our cultural and national backgrounds would be enough to warrant a diverse team. In addition to that we consist of 2 architects, 1 urban planner and 1 cultural scientist. I have never worked in such a large team before, and our education and professional backgrounds, as well as cultural and lingual differences, naturally presented challenges. However they also presented great opportunities for learning, not only in an urban design or architecture sense, but in a global, social and intercultural sense. We all had specific skills and areas of expertise, which we enthusiastically passed on. Our varied disciplines often aided the distribution of work, and encouraged many varied, interesting, passionate and sometimes intense discussions. We certainly overcame the challenges; working through our group conflicts and disagreements was a great learning experience in itself. Reflecting on the semester, we always had a lot of fun and a lot of laughs. Of course it’s not all fun and games. Personally I have learnt a lot, not only from the course itself, but from each and every one of my team mates and particularly from the process of working as a team. I am grateful for the uniqually international and interdisciplinary study opportunities this course and studio allows for. I can say that I am very pleased with what we achieved and produced.

esign Studio tion between

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter Working BIG - Jennifer

Big and large-scale developments and metropolises are an interesting subject to me, so from the beginning on, “housing-everywhere” was the framework for me. My goal or main interest was to find out how to make these massive developments function: What must be provided in regards to services and facilities? What cultural or recreational activities are desirable? What are the environmental risks and how can these be mitigated? These are some of the many questions we asked ourselves throughout the process. After looking at classic, desirable high-density metropolises, such as New York and London, we talked a lot about neighbourhoods and public spaces as “magnets” - as the focal places for the success or failure of a development. As our project progressed, cooperatives and their ways of interacting with the neighbourhood, politics and the atmosphere of a district became

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

increasingly important to the urban design and opened up new possibilities and methods for us to deal with design issues. The subject of cooperatives was new to everyone. With much research and many discussions this may be the area where we gained the most new knowledge. Especially in these discussions, the international exchange of ideas and methods, but also ethics and political agendas was very inspirational and helped to broaden our horizons. For example, we discovered that internationally, high-rises or large-scale developments have a very different planning history and value than they have in Germany. It was a great experience to work in such an interdisciplinary team, also with diverse cultural backgrounds and travel experiences. For me as a cultural scientist, this was an important and challenging experience in the design field and I am glad I could have this experience with the help of my great team. I have worked on an urban design studio once before, but I have the feeling that I have only now developed a deeper understanding of what urban design is, needs to be or has the potential to be. Proposal as a Trigger - Benedikt Our proposal was more than a students‘ project simply out of scale, but a declaration for a change of track in Berlin‘s Urban Planning and Design discussion and implementation. On this very big site with a relatively detailed task, we all had the opportunity to think big. Our group did so and proposed a design, which we know would never become implemented in the Berlin of today. Realistically, I think our design would be considered too big, too dense and too high for Berlin – this city which has made “average” a principle of any political or planning process. It‘s not that I think that we should cluster Berlin full of 150 metre high-rise buildings, but something has to change in this beautiful city. We can‘t continue to implement micro-public-housing projects – that is no longer enough. I really enjoyed working on something out of the ordinary and that challenged people’s perceptions. Berlin need flats, flats and flats – as a group we insisted on that from day one. However, we were always aware of maintaining a certain level of quality. During a critique from Professor Stollmann, he said that quality would always have to be seen within the bounds of possibility. Thus we felt encouraged to continue our planning, of course by trying to find a balance between quantity and quality. I think we often seemed too radical and rough in what we proposed, but in DISCUSSION> A break from studio, with a view.

<studio High-energy and high-spirits in studio.

esign Studio tion between the end we definitely did it with passion and as a reaction to what we thought was going wrong in the current direction of Urban Design and Planning in Berlin. I see our proposal not as the best solution for the site, but as a valuable trigger for discussion. It has been a great semester for me.

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

New Territory, New Perspectives - Bu Throughout the semester, I worked in a different design style and was inspired by new perspectives in the urban design field. The Homegrown Studio theme was very attractive to me; I was eager to learn how my urban panning and strategic and master planning background could come into implementation at this smaller scale. Yet, the housing shortage in Berlin that we aimed to address on the site with “high-density” was of course a discussion in direct contact to the development direction of strategic planning of the whole city or even the metropolis. I enjoyed being able to work between scales. What‘s more, I discovered interesting similarities and differences between China and Germany. In China, all land belongs to the government or to public organisations. Therefore, having to consider negotiations and contracts between public and private actors over land, is completely new to me. I appreciate the attention that was placed on the financial systems and actor strategies supporting the design itself, which I think my former education experience didn‘t emphasise enough. Considering city density and common typologies across the world was very eye-opening to possibilities of development. When it comes to the working process, I have come through an excellent teamwork experience, including cooperating and also conflict solving. Definitely it‘s impossible for everyone in the team to contribute equally, but after some negotiation and understanding I am very happy with our achievements. As for me, the most important thing is to learn something different from my international teammates, which I have definitely done.

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

ANNEX

esign Studio tion between

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

Supporting Work

daylight along the central boulevard The diagrams depict form strategies we explored, in order to maximise daylight on the street - the most simple and effective of these being the setback at higher levels.

esign Studio tion between

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

daylight in the courtyard With our proposed high perimeter blocks, courtyards must be large enough to enable daylight to reach the lower floors.

Setbacks at ground floor increase the street width and pedestrian comfort, whilst emphasising the shops prensence. On the ground floor, shops are placed along the perimeter only so they receive daylight. In the centre, functions such as parking, storage and sports gyms can be placed, that donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t require natural daylight.

GSEducationalVersion

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

UD STUDIO

parking (1) & stepped heights Parking complexes arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t visually appealing, but parking is necessary in such a big project with our specified functions, specifically at High Square. Option one is therefore to elevate the parking level above the ground floor, leaving the valuable ground floor useable to shops and services and directly accessible to pedestrians.

GSEducationalVersion

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

Parking (2) A second approach to place car parks is to keep them in the groudfloor but to surround the perimeter with shop fronts. Thereby the parking is hidden from view, and the central dark space is filled with a necessary function.

esign Studio tion between

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

<typology density vs. quality study Several factors were taken in to consideration, in order to find a balance between density and therefore quantity of housing units, and quality. The highlighted alternatives, row houses, perimeter block, and grouped free standing were found to be the best. These are the typologies we applied to our framework.

HIGH SQUARE PROGRAM BUILD-up High Square provides a range of functions, as depicted earlier. Important to note here, is the location of public functions on the ground floor: retail (dark blue), parking (grey), theatre (yellow), cinema (ochre), gallery (red). Loacted above is housing (orange), office (light blue) and hotel (purple). The green represents the open courtyard areas.

Sequence

Plot Area

Housing GFA

80%*

Non-housing GFA

units (@50sqm)

Housing 1

12,000

29,700

23,760

475

Pankow

12,600

27,485

21,988

440

Housing 2

25,000

57,000

45,600

912

Schools

17,700

18,514

14,811

296

Housing 3

39,500

100,300

80,240

1,605

High Square shopping mall höﬀner retail oﬃce theatre cinema gallery hotel parking

96,200

240,000

192,000

3,840

Housing 4

32,400

81,540

65,232

1,305

Campus

32,800

20,300

16,240

325

TOTAL

*20% is subtracted to account for common circulaNon and technical space

AREA CALCULATIONs These calculations were essential to support our project.

9,197

21,125

37,600

191,860 32,000 43,960 1,800 21,600 18,500 10,500 1,900 19,000 42,600

33,700

Total GFA

FSI

80%*

16,900

30,080

29,700

2.48

48,610

3.86

57,000

2.28

56,114

3.17

100,300

2.54

431,860

4.49

81,540

2.52

54,000

1.65

25,600 35,168 1,440 17,280 14,800 8,400 1,520 15,200 34,080

26,960

859,124

esign Studio tion between

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

HIGH SQUARE open space The High Square landscaping was designed with smaller areas in mind, in order to be able to cater for the wide range of proposed activities

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

HIGH SQUARE references A selection of reference projects considered in the design of the High Square landscape.

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

Phasing We suggest development would start at High Square - in order for Mr. Krieger to quickly achieve his store and more importantly, to provide essential services needed to support the consequent housing areas.

Reference Projects

esign Studio tion between

Wagnis, M端nchen

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

Wagnis, M端nchen

OMA, Ole Scheeren, The Interlace, singapore

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

C.F. MĂ¸ller, Highrise Community, Belgium

Housing Typology, Borneo Sporenburg

esign Studio tion between

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

SnĂ¸hetta, Times Square regeneration, NYC

High Rise Skyline, NYC

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

Process

esign Studio tion between

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Hong Kong/TSW New Town/ FSI 12

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter Tokyo/ Toshima/ FSI 20

New York/ Manhatten/ FSI 15

Paris/ City of Paris/ FSI 3

Mumbai/ Marine Lines/ FSI 1.33

London/ Islington/ FSI 2

typologies & densities In our research, a range of cities and their typical typologies and densities were considered. Particularly, it helped to give us an understanding of varying perceptions of quality of living and quality of life. Perceptions of quality are relative - largely based on what is considered normal. Can we change this perception?

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

surrounding densities The map, depicted in people/ha (FIS Broker), shows that our site is on the edge of current high-density areas. A continuation of this high-density, as proposed by us, is possible.

<selection of site analysis From top to bottom: surrounding landuse, green and water and proximity to green areas. Understanding the functions and activities of the direct surroundings was particularly crucial in the development of each subcentre.

esign Studio tion between

land-use

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

6UD STUDIO

green + water

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

open space

highrise - foc

early high-rise sketches> We were interested in high-rises from the beginning of the semester. However the framework progressed significantly from then until now.

highris

<interim presentation, january At the interim presentation we began developing our important sequencing principle. Although the sequences and grid were there, we had not yet developed our typologies. Then, we had a majority of simple perimeter block suggestions

esign Studio tion between

rg Stollmann g. Katharina Hagg

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

site

legend:

the site stakeholders, sequencing madeleine appelros+ program

rs laye np mo om

direct connection or interest

non -hu ma na

site owner kurt krieger urban designers + architects

s or ct design

wind building form

indirect connection or interest conflict city of berlin

development

subgroups/profiles es anc alli ing us ho

public transport bvg

stakeholder baugruppen program - mixed

sunlight

housing cooperatives

program - housing only

genossenschaften

non-human actor

state-owned housing associations

mietshaussyndikat

civic space, culture + arts services

“

le” ng ju

“dow nto wn ”

housing: urban squares urban stairs

housing small businesses cafes

small business owners

housing schools kita playgrounds recreation

“ti m

noise, light services

housing: green parks squares playgrounds

re” ua sq es

civic square event space gathering point

housing office commercial restaurants

residents

möbel höffner shopping mall parking

retail giants residents

housing: courtyards urban active + lively

residents

services

developer: kurt krieger

methods & tools exercises> Exercises we completed in our Methods & Tools course, helped us to develop our subcentres and their programs, primarily by understanding the relationships between the various actors. Here is one analysis done, explaining stakeholder relations within the site

advertisers

hub” ative “cre

artists musicians self-employed start-ups

housing: adhoc self-made flexible

residents heritage buildings

recreation skatepark climbing table tennis

event space coworking space studios nightlife clubs bars cafes hipsters youth

methods & tools exercises In regards to the prototype, we explored the relationships between actors, and the hierarchy of those actors.

prototype jennifer gehring

leasehold contract

liegen schafts fond non -hu ma na

esign Studio tion between

s or ct

irreclaimable properties

rs laye np mo om

athmosphere

experiment

site owner kurt krieger

urban designers + architects

affordable housing wind

city of rg Stollmann berlin g. Katharina Hagg

legend:

the site stakeholders, sequencing + program

building form

development

es anc alli ing us ho

sunlight

state owned building societies

housing (young) cooperatives families

finance

state-owned housing associations

ecological design

mietshausnoise, light syndikat

private housing schools investor kita “

“dow nto wn ”

housing: urban squares urban stairs

Unit ilipp Misselwitz g. Oliver Schetter

housing small businesses cafes

residents

profit

small business owners

bidding process

housing: green parks squares playgrounds

housing office commercial restaurants

playgrounds recreation

small retail/ shopowners

residents

concept process

re” ua sq es

retail giants

secondary stakeholders

genossenschaften

soil

students

mietshaussyndikat

pensioners, 55 +

self-

civic space, cultureemployed + arts

assembly

civic squaregroupadvertisers event space cooperatives gathering point “ti m

le” ng ju

primary stakeholders

air

key stakeholders

services

indirect connection or interest

baugruppen

private group

unions

property

direct connection or interest

green spaces

conflict

neighbourhood

urban city of berlin designer, public transport architects bvg

design

identity of neighbourhood

restaurants/ bars/ cafes

plants

hub” ative “cre

artists musicians self-employed start-ups

housing: adhoc self-made flexible

residents heritage buildings

event space coworking space studios nightlife clubs bars cafes

housing:

möbel höffner

artists/mall shopping parking craftsmen/ gallerists/ architects

single courtyards parents urban

active + lively

residents

recreation skatepark climbing table tennis

hipsters youth

some interest indirect relationship

interest direct relationship

services

developer: kurt krieger no relationship

6UD STUDIO

madeleine appelros, jennifer gehring, benedikt wieser, bu yijie

part 2 - scenario b

Art Promotion In scenario b, we introduce the university campus and its students as a key actor, a neighbouring sub-centre of our urban design for Pankower Tor. Our intention is to suggest an alternative viable business plan to attract a greater diversity of people to High Square. We propose that once a week, for example Friday evenings, the billboards at High Square will display work of University students and affiliates, instead of the standard profit-generating commercial advertising. In doing so, the owners of High Square buildings foster important networks with their neighbours, in support and promotion of the arts and education.

Additionally, the display of art is somewhat of an event - both the event and the great display of culture will have the effect of attracting a greater diversity of people to High Square, increasing the number of visitors. This is a long-term goal, to develop High Square as a desirable destination and to sustain the atmosphere and quality of the High Square centre. In turn, the increased number of visitors will contribute to the businesses; when they shop, visit the playhouse, galleries, restaurants and bars. Artificial light generated by the billboards, remains an important flow integrated in the advertising and promotion system.

greater diversity of visitors

university

residential hotel building owner, coop

retail + gastronomy offices playhouse theatre billboards screens featuring art high square open space u-bahn

- scenario b external companies

benedikt wieser

madeleine appelros

jennifer gehring

madeleine appelros

yijie bu

s-bahn

Additionally, the display of art is somewhat of an event - both the event and the great display of culture will have the effect of attracting a tram greater diversity of people to High Square, increasing the number of visitors. This is a long-term goal, to develop High Square as a desirable destination and to sustain the atmosphere and quality of the High Square centre. In turn, the increased number of visitors will contribute to the businesses; when they shop, visit the playhouse, galleries, restaurants and bars. Artificial light generated by the billboards, remains an important flow integrated in the advertising and promotion system.

<methods & tools exercises In the final M&T exercise we chose to explore alternative financing options for our cooperative. We developed an interesting proposal, where the billboard and screen owners at high-square would work in cooperation with the art students from the neighbouring university campus. By displaying artwork on their screens, business owners in High Square would attract a wider range of people to the area. Consequently, they would attract a wider range of people to visit their shops. Additionally, good relations will be fostered with the campus.

yijie bu

UD STUDIO Habitat Unit Prof. Dr. Philipp Misselwitz WM Dipl.-Ing. Oliver Schetter http://habitat-unit.de Chair for Urban Design and Urbanisation Prof. Jรถrg Stollmann WM Dipl.-Ing. Katharina Hagg http://cud.tu-berlin.de/