COLLECTIVE QUARTERS
BRB
BEN KRONENBERG RICKY RAY RICARDO BELLA LEBER-SMEATON
URBAN DATING DESIGN STUDIO
BRB
BEN KRONENBERG RICKY RAY RICARDO BELLA LEBER-SMEATON
Going Dutch “Going Dutch” is a term that indicates that each person participating in a group activity pays for himself or herself, rather than any one person paying for anyone else... we see a shift towards more involvement of the enduser in the design and decision process.” This studio focuses on the relation between different stakeholder coalitions where we the students take on the stakeholder roles in the studio. 1st role as a designer learning how to deal with the uncertainties of stakeholder coalitions. 2nd role as an active studio stakeholder, having partial influence on plans of other teams. Involving stakeholders and end users into the land development will result from mixes of parties in coalitions. Future work in this area is also likely to focus on adaptations to an existing city. This will change the nature of urban design, to a profession without a set program and one that is a component of flexible coalitions and intelligent strategies. The forming of BRB’s coalition consisted of three stake holder roles; a Green’s Party Representative, The Mayor of Melbourne and a major Developer. These roles did not necessarily affect our personal design but did give us further insight and the power to openly critique other groups presentation works in
accordance to who we were. We approached the studio with ‘Collective Quarters’ our creative injection onto our 11ha site in Docklands, Melbourne.
and poor planning strategies. Collective Quarters introducing familiarity into the Docklands by selecting planning strategies of intimate spaces and local intimacies.
Our three main goals to succeed with a conscientious project design unlike any of the previous Docklands developments were Intimacy, Diversity and Customization.
Our aim of a further developed and open demographic is produced by architectural and regulatory products such as housing, retail, office options and exposing the private at moments and blurring the lines between public and private in others.
The current state of the Docklands is in question from both the current users, residents, stakeholders, other Melbournians etc. z to its failiure to be that 24hr precinct developers MAB promised. There is a coldness to the New Quay site due to current site conditions, lack of local intimacy
Our 3rd goal Customisation, driven by Intimacy and spatial qualities, possesses flexibility within each building footprint for individual or collective stakeholders to customise space for their needs.
INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATION SECTION 1
Modular Intimate Urban Space
SECTION 2
Building Customisation and Alternate Surface
SECTION 3
Cooperative Development
INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION & CONCLUSION
LOADING GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES IN YOUR AREA...
MELB CITY COUNCIL
STATE GOVERNMENT
RELATIONSHIP STATUS: OPEN MARRIAGE
RELATIONSHIP STATUS: DIVORCED
STAR SIGN: GEMINI
STAR SIGN: PISCES
ONLINE:
ONLINE:
ABOUT ME: I am the local government authority for the City of Melbourne, and am made up of several councillors elected by the people of Melbourne. I have multiple personalities... so look out! ;-)
ABOUT ME: I am the government for the state of Victoria, and am elected by the people of Victoria. My political persuasion is pretty conservative. I used to believe in climate change, but I changed my mind. Some people say I change my mind a lot... but I don’t think so.
INTERESTS:
VIC URBAN RELATIONSHIP STATUS: MARRIED STAR SIGN: CAPRICORN ONLINE: ABOUT ME: I am the Victorian Government’s land development agency. Enjoy developing sustainable, affordable communities. I am married to both the Public & Private Sector. INTERESTS:
INTERESTS:
OR T
S
SP
PA TH E CY CL
BI
RE
N CU
LT U
TR A
TR AN SP
IV AT E
PR
BL
IC
SP AC E PU
UC TI
OP EN
N ST R
CO
PR
OF
IT S
ON
OR T
NOT ONLINE: VICROADS VICTRACK
LOADING DEVELOPERS IN YOUR AREA...
INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATION
I was quite nervous to present my initial presentation, as the brief being a little vague meant that it could be interpreted in quite a variety of ways. I took the ‘Urban Dating’ approach to my stakeholder research and compiled each stake-holder in the style of an internet dating website profile, listing their key agendas in regard to the site, and what their priorities were in terms of environment, open space, profits, transport etc… My presentation was quite different from the rest of the class - however if I am reflecting positively I would say that it was my presentation which brought a playfulness and narrative to the studio, which was echoed in the final presentation of other groups in the form of website designs and stakeholder diagrams.
VIC URBAN RELATIONSHIP STATUS: MARRIED STAR SIGN: CAPRICORN ONLINE:
MULTIPLEX RELATIONSHIP STATUS: LOOKING FOR PARTNER STAR SIGN: CANCER ONLINE:
ABOUT ME: I am the Victorian Government’s land development agency. Enjoy developing sustainable, affordable communities. I am married to both the Public & Private Sector.
ABOUT ME: Construction contrator. Enjoy creating largescale and complex landmark buildings, commercial structures and infrastructure projects.
INTERESTS:
INTERESTS:
LEND LEASE
MAB
MIRVAC
RELATIONSHIP STATUS: SWINGER
RELATIONSHIP STATUS: HORNY
RELATIONSHIP STATUS: DIVORCED
STAR SIGN: SCORPIO
STAR SIGN: SCORPIO
STAR SIGN: LIBRA
ONLINE:
ONLINE:
ONLINE:
ABOUT ME: Developer of Victoria Harbour. Big where it counts ;-) I love life on a grand scale. Very ambitious, love to bite off more than I can chew... but then chew it anyway.
ABOUT ME: Developer of NewQuay. I like developing sustainable residential, commercial, industrial & retail precincts in and around Melbourne.
ABOUT ME: Developer of Yarra’s Edge. I am able to exercise total control over the entire development process, from concept to completion.
INTERESTS:
INTERESTS:
INTERESTS:
SECTION 1.
MODULAR INTIMATE SPACE These early drawings were produced with ideas of layering, setbacks, multiple routes and varying building heights. The 1st conceptual drawing was a basis of what could be a plan view of our site with hidden pathways entangled and courtyards popping up amongst certain layers. The 2nd sketch shows an internal courtyard built around yet it doesn’t appear to be a claustrophobic area due to the set backs of building storeys and multiple staired levels. This third drawing is a perspective of what it might look like to view our early proposed site from the start of the dock. Here you can also see multiple storeys, cut aways and a surfaces that appears seamless. We can also see a connection from our Collective Quarter across to the other dock. This was an early idea of a loop tram connection from Lonsdale st to Collins Street.
The existing site conditions and pre-site conditions are important elements the 11ha posses. Introducing a wetland/marshland seemed an appropriate step to assure that we didn’t over develop the site and allowed for mass open spaces to retain flow of smaller elements. We begin to see development in the phasing of wetland and green density through our rough sketches as well as small connecting water ways.
Our concepts emerged from analysing varying precedents and Melbourne Docklands with focus on the most recent New Quay development.
Building products ideas were produced from the understanding of our stakeholders needs and public and private spaces. This was in conjunction with sight conditions which were simultaneously formed through layout testing. Spatial precedents include analysing Melbourne streets and laneways such as Wells St and QV internal courtyard and International courtyard precedents such as the Louis Scarpa Pavillion Venice. Comparing these examples success to the existing New Quay layout would further ideas on spatiality. Other courtyards we looked at and measured were Plaçá Reial Barcelona Spain, Section 8 of Tattersalls Lane of Melbourne, Montery Abbey in Italy. Building formation and typology precedents included the Maritime Youth Centre by Big Architecture, the Verdana in Funen Amsterdam, Moriyama by SANNA and Businesspark Nesciopark by Onix Architecture. The Verdana, Businesspark Nesciopark and Maritime Youth Centre all share interteresting characteristics. No longer just a roof they show new features of doubling with surface and creating interesting new spaces internally due to light and proximity. This brings our internal spatial interest to the Moriyama house by SANNA where each room is a separate build and the connecting ways are open and exposed to the elements. We analyse the success of this design to the intimacy felt in these exposed connecting ways, each in their own way comfortable spaces. The idea of the inclusion of stakeholders into the design process came from precedent Loretto Area and French Quarter of TÜbingen, Germany.
When beginning to create intimate spaces we looked at courtyards and their size, placement and connections. These sketches start to looks at how and where they may be connected to the existing site, its boundaries and how many are needed to fulfil the public and residents need for public space.
Varying heights in these sketches start to produce this idea of diversity through architectural typology. These early drawings also start to play with our interest of surface from precedents such as Onix Businesspark and Big architectures Martime Youth Centre. There is a sense of depth developing from layers of building blocks which start to capture view lines.
INITIAL MODULES MODULE 01
20x20x 10 (3 floors) = 1200m 2 Floorspace
MODULE 01
MODULE 01
30x30x10 (3 floors) =2700m2 Floorspace
40x40x10 (3 floors) 2 = 4800m Floorspace
INITIMATE SPACE TOOL BOX // YING YANG
8 X Module01 = 9600m2 Floor space - 9600m Plaza - 880m2
2
No. of Apartments: @ 60m2 - 160 @ 80m2 - 120 @ 100m2 - 96
// TETRIS
1 X Module03 = 4800m2 3 X Module02 = 8100m2 4 X Module01 = 4800m2 Floor space - 17,700m2 Plaza - 1800m2 No. of Apartments: @ 60m2 - 295 @ 80m2 - 221 @ 100m2 - 177
// SNAKE
2 X Module03 = 9600m2 3 X Module02 = 8100m2 1 X Module01 = 1200m2 1 X (10X40X3) = 1200m2 Floor space - 20,100m2 Plaza - 240m2
// BUNKER
2 X Module01 = 2400m2 2 X Module02 = 5400m2 1 X Module03 = 4800 Floor space - 12,600m2 Plaza - 800m2 No. of Apartments: @ 60m2 - 210 @ 80m2 - 157.5 @ 100m2 - 126
// BLOCK PARTY
1 X Module02 = 2700m2 8 X Module03 = 38,400m2 Floor space - 41,400m2 Plaza - 2400m2 No. of Apartments: @ 60m2 - 683 @ 80m2 - 512.5 @ 100m2 - 411
// WATER TOWER 6 X Module01 = 7200m2 2 X Module02 = 5400m2 2 X Module03 = 9600m2 Floor space - 22,200m2 Plaza - 6000m2
No. of Apartments: @ 60m2 - 335 @ 80m2 - 251
No. of Apartments: @ 60m2 - 370 @ 80m2 - 277.5 @ 100m2 - 222
// LE STACK
// THREE WAY
8 X Module02 = 21,600m2 Floor space - 21,600m2 Plaza - 875m2 No. of Apartments: @ 60m2 - 360 @ 80m2 - 270 @ 100m2 - 210
// T - BAR
3 X Module02 = 8100m2 4 X Module03 = 19,200m2 Floor space - 27,300m2 Plaza - 2602m2 No. of Apartments: @ 60m2 - 455 @ 80m2 - 341.25 @ 100m2 - 273
8 X Module03 = 38,400m2 2 X Module02 = 5400m2 Floor space - 43,800m2 Plaza - 2800m2 No. of Apartments: @ 60m2 - 730 @ 80m2 - 547 @ 100m2 - 438
// LEGEND
Module01 - 20 X 20 X 3 Module02 - 30 X 30 X 3 Module03 - 40 X 40 X 3
INITIAL MASSINGS
01
01 Initial layout massing 02 Variations 03 Maximum height locations 04 Building Types
03
02
04
WORKING WETLAND
FU TU
RE
TR AM LIN EE
XT EN
TIO
N
DOCKLANDS DRIVE
DOCKLANDS DRIVE
NEW QUAY PROMENADE
SCALE 1.2000
INITIAL SCHEMATIC
01 Initial Plan scale 1.2000 02. Stage Boundaries
KLANDS DRIVE
01
02
PENTHOUSE OFFICE
STUDIO APARTMENT RETAIL LIVING RETAIL
PLAZA
03
INITIAL SURFACE TESTING
01
02
01 NS section 1.2000 02 WE section 1.2000 03 Housing module duel entrance/uses
SECTION 2. BUILDING CUSTOMISATION + ALTERNATE SURFACE
INTIMACY = HxW /2 + H(2)xW(2)/2 01
TOO VAST
500
400
OPTIMAL
300
TOO CRAMPED
200
100
0
h= 23m
TOO VAST
500
400
OPTIMAL
300
TOO VAST
500
400
TOO CRAMPED
200
OPTIMAL
300
100
w= 12.5m w= 12.5m
0
TOO CRAMPED
200
100
0
WILLS STREET, MELB CBD. TOO VAST
500 TOO VAST
500
400
OPTIMAL
300
h= 22m
TOO CRAMPED
200
100
0
400
OPTIMAL
300
TOO CRAMPED
200
287m2
100
0
INTIMATE SPACE FORMULA TESTING
30M
45M
h= 20m
h= 22.5m
02
03
h= 7m
h= 7m
w= 5m
w= 15m w= 15m
QV. INTERNAL COURTYARD, MELB CBD. TOO VAST
500
400
01 Wills Street Scape, Melbourne
w= 5m
OPTIMAL
300
340m2
TOO CRAMPED
200
02 QV Internal Courtyard
LOUIS SCARPA PAVILLION, VENICE.
100
TOO VAST
0
150
OPTIMAL
120
90
TOO CRAMPED
60
30
35m2
03 Carlos Scarpa Bienalle Courtyard 0
DEVELOPED MODULE CUSTOMISATION
= 4800M2 = 4800M2
= 9600M2
INITIAL FOOTPRINT
OPTION 1
= 4800M2
= 9600M2
= 8600M2
=8000m2
= 8600m2
OPTION 2
OPTION 3
OPTION 4
= 8600M2
=8000m2
= 8600m2
INITIAL FOOTPRINT OPTION 1 40X40X3 FLOORS 40X40X6 FLOORS 40X40X3 FLOORS = 4800M2
= 7200M2
= 7200
OPTION 2
OPTION 3
40X40X6 FLOORS = 7200M2
OPTION 5
OPTION 4 =4300m2
40X40X6 FLOORS = 7200
40X40X9FLOORS = 7800m2
OPTION 2
OPTION 3
OPTION 4
40X40X6 FLOORS = 7200M2
40X40X6 FLOORS = 7200
INITIAL FOOTPRINT GIZA
OPTION 1
OPTION 2
40X40X3 FLOORS = 4800M2
40X40X3 FLOORS = 8600M2
40X40X3 FLOORS = 7480M2
INITIAL GIZA FOOTPRINT
OPTION 1
40X40X3 FLOORS = 4800M2
=4300m2
= 7800m2
40X40X9FLOORS = 7800m2
GIZA
INITIAL FOOTPRINT
OPTION 1
OPTION 2
40X40X3 FLOORS = 4800M2
40X40X3 FLOORS = 8600M2
40X40X3 FLOORS = 7480M2
INITIAL FOOTPRINT
OPTION 1
OPTION 2
40X40X3 FLOORS = 4800M2
40X40X3 FLOORS = 8600M2
40X40X3 FLOORS = 7480M2
ROTTERDAM SURPRISE
ROTTERDAM SURPRISE
RUBIX
INITIAL FOOTPRINT
OPTION 1
OPTION 2
20X20X3 FLOORS TOP DECK = 1200M2FOOTPRINT INITIAL
20X20X6 FLOORS =OPTION 2375M2 1
20X20X6 FLOORS =OPTION 2300m2 2
40X40X3 FLOORS = 4800M2 20X20X3 FLOORS INITIAL FOOTPRINT = 1200M2
40X40X3 FLOORS = 8600M2 20X20X6 FLOORS OPTION 1
40X40X3 FLOORS = 7480M2 20X20X6 OPTIONFLOORS 2
20X20X3 FLOORS = 1200M2
20X20X6 FLOORS = 2375M2
20X20X6 FLOORS = 2300m2
INITIAL FOOTPRINT
INITIAL FOOTPRINT DECK 40X40X3TOP FLOORS
OPTION 1
= 2375M2
OPTION 1
OPTION 2
= 2300m2
OPTION 2
40X40X3 FLOORS = 8600M2
40X40X3 FLOORS = 7480M2
GOLD FINGER INITIAL FOOTPRINT
OPTION 1
OPTION 2
40X40X3 FLOORS = 4800M2
40X40X3 FLOORS = 8600M2
40X40X3 FLOORS = 7480M2
= 4800M2
GOLD FINGER
GOLD FINGER
RUBIX
DEVELOPED MODULE CUSTOMISATION
01
02
01 Completed Site Model with flexible labels 02 Completed SIte Model
INTIMATE SPACE FORMULA TESTING PASAGE THROUGH SITE
STAGES
PLAZA ACCESS
ALTERED TOPOGRAPHY
SOFT SURFACE
MODULE DISTRIBUTION HARD SURFACE
01 Creating the void within the module
HIGH POINTS
PUBLIC PROGRAM AROUND PLAZA
02 Diagram attempting to show diversity through housing product
0101 02020303
010103030404
040402020505
050504040606
020206060707
BUILDING BUILDING 0101
BUILDING BUILDING 0202
BUILDING BUILDING 0303
BUILDING BUILDING 0404
BUILDING BUILDING 0505
070701010808 BUILDING BUILDING 0606 02
OFFSET
VOID
01
SECTION 3. COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT
SCALE 1.2000
SITE PLAN SCALE
01
LANDSCAPE SCHEME
01 Meshing of robust wharf with history of marshland 02 Potential Paving Detail 03 Potential Paving Detail
02
03
SCALE 1.4000
SCHWARTZ PLAN/LOWER CAR PARK PLAN
BUILDING FOOTPRINTS
BUILDING SHADOWS
MAJOR PLAZAS
MINOR PLAZAS
INTIMATE SPACES
INTIMATE SPACE SCHEMATICS
03
01 Flexible buildings on site 02 Buildings capable of height increase 03 Buildings capable of module shifting
03
03
16 15 0
0
14 0
13 0
12 11 0
0
10 0
9 0
8 0
7 0
6 0
5 0
4 0
3 0
2 0
1 0
0
A 0
0
3
3
3
1.5
0
1.5
3
3
3
1.5
0
1.5
3
3
3
B 0
1.5
3
3
3
1.5
0
1.5
3
3
3
1.5
0
1.5
3
3
3
C 0
1.5
3
3
3
1.5
0
1.5
3
3
3
1.5
0
1.5
3
3
3
D 1.5
1.5
3
1.5
1.5
0
0
0
3
1.5
1.5
0
0
0
1.5
3
1.5
E 0
1.5
1.5
0
0
0
1.5
1.5
1.5
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
1.5
1.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
1.5
0
0
0
F 01
TOPOGRAPHY GRID TESTING
04
02
03
01 Grid + Height levels 02 Surface undulation 03 Surface Model Test 04 PRECEDENT Triangle Tessellation SCIARC
UNDULATING SURFACE
01
01 NS Section scale 1.2000 02 WE Section scale 1.2000 02
02
01
URBAN DATING.COM
HOOK-UP WITH YOUR NEIGHBOURS!
SMALL BUSINESS PRIVATE OWNER Urban INDIVIDUALS Dating
COOPERATIVE
allows you to meet up with your future neighbours before FINANCIAL/SOCIAL MUTUAL INTEREST you‘ve LIFESTYLE moved (FINANCIAL/SOCIAL) anywhere, then customise your future building together! BACK
NEXT
“
WHAT THE PRESS ARE SAYING:
Welcome to Urban Dating. It's a website that is to urban development what internet dating is to love. It is addictive, it's fascinating, and even when you've found what you're looking for there is the sneaking suspicion that something even better lurks just a click away. Brigid Delaney, February 3, 2010
”
03
25% Co-ops encouraged 75% Open Tender
25% Co-ops encouraged 75% Open Tender
Extension of Docklands development. Developing purchasing and restrictions: No developer can purchase more than 20% (2.5ha)
Stage 1 sets up interest for Co-ops to be integrated into 25% (3ha) of site. Specific community atmosphere reached.
STAGE 3
PARTIAL RESTRICTION
STAGE 2
PARTIAL RESTRICTION
STAGE 1
URBAN CUSTOMISATION AND ONLINE URBAN COMPATIBILITY
100% Open Tender
12.5 % of all site sold to Co-operatives
01 URBAN CUSTOMISATION WEBSITE 02 BUILDING LIMIT POTENTIAL
Public pool implemented along wharf.
Specific ground floor retail experiences including retail, cafes, trestaurants, organisations, community services, firms etc.
01 WETLAND AREA 02 COMMUNITY WHARF POOL
01
02
01
01 PLAZA EAST 02 CENTRAL PLAZA
02
REFLECTION & CONCLUSION URBAN DESIGN Having never done a large scale Urban Design project before, I feel I have learn an enormous amount over the 12 day intensive studio period. I enjoyed particularly that our jurisdiction as designers was so wide, not stopping at the traditional role of the Landscape Architect; but rather making decisions on traffic systems/flows, architectural details and building footprint & configuration. I’ve never worked so primarily through model before, so this was also something new. And something I found extremely useful in terms of testing multiple urban schemes and quickly seeing their limitations. MY ROLE From the very start I was interested in the idea of building as landscape, and how we could use this as a possible solution to the harsh winds and lack of intimate public open space. This was a direction that we all embraced, but into the first week the idea of buildings ‘folding’ out of the ground to create public space on their roofs disappeared from our sketches, replaced by rooftop terraces and intimate courtyards being incorporated into the voids of the individual building modules. Intimate public space was the core idea in our project which was particularly a focus of mine, whereas Ben’s focus was more heavily directed at the module configurations. I would say that these two focuses were core to our project, and when pushed against the set of open-space principles that all three of us devised (i.e. building heights, light, width of lanes and plazas etc) this led to the final design of Collective Quarters. Other core features of the project included the website design which I
worked up. The website absorbed many of the more ‘floating’ ideas we had about encouraging cooperative buying of buildings, and flexibility in terms of building modules; it introduced a narrative to our project which aimed to demonstrate how people could become stake-holders in the project and actually influence the development process. GROUP The process of ‘speed dating’ that we all went through before the groups were organised was a good way of maximising the chances of harmonious teams. BRB - Ben, Ricky and Bella worked on the whole quite well as a team; even though there was a considerable gap in experience. I found working alongside Ben an inspiring experience - His phenomenal drive and enthusiasm prevented me from falling victim to my tendency of complacency, and as a result enabled me to produce some of my best work in such a short time frame. In return I like to believe that my perfectionism and regard for simplicity might have had an impact on the work which Ben produced.