THE IDEAL CITY? by SandraFroschauer

Diploma Thesis

The ideal city Concept of a new urban space by taking into consideration American and European city typologies

Submitted to FH JOANNEUM Gesellschaft mbH Major Architecture tabled by Sandra Froschauer Baumgarten 8 4331 Naarn Supervisor Arch. DI Wolfgang Schmied

ABSTRACT

THE IDEAL CITY? - As the title of my mas-

ter thesis implies, the main aim of my work is to find out if an ideal city concept exists and which city concept is going to be the most ideal for the development of future cities. Therefore, the main goal of my work is to develop city concepts based on an “Urban Planning Toolbox”, which is grounded on a research on European and American city typologies. The question in this context is which aspects (American, European or both) can be better implemented on a building plot. This research will show the main differences and similarities between American and European city typologies. Aspects like history, tradition, urbanization or demographic change, economy, city development, the relationship between population and the urban structure need to be taken into consideration. There will be an analysis about European and American cities and local specifics and how they can be explained. Strengths and weaknesses are analyzed and directly set against each other. Furthermore, I will analyze an American as well as a European city in more detail. This means that an Austrian city will be compared with a matching American city. To gain a perspective for the future of cities, the task of the analysis is to obtain an understanding of diverse structures of cities. Furthermore “Classic Districts” and “Mixed-

Use-Districts” will be analyzed in more detail. The study examines the patterns and relationships of different districts depicted in diagrams created from different maps and aerial imagery. The insights of the concluding assessment of both city typologies are then listed to get an overview of the previous work. On the basis of the analysis and the list of key categories it is possible to compare towns or city typologies and filter out what the advantages, chances and main differences of both typologies are. Having considered advantages and disadvantages, problems and chances, key criteria for city planning can be explored. Therefore, potentials, general city planning principles and important aspects for developing city life will be elaborated. The potentials will be collected and based on this, an “Urban Planning Tool” will be developed. This instrument will allow to evolve different urban scenarios. The scenarios can consider American or European city planning principles, or both. The urban planning scenarios will show different characteristics and forms depending on which potentials and aspects will be selected from the “Urban Planning Toolbox”. To sum up, the result of my master thesis will be a proposal for urban planning scenarios based on key principles of American and European city typologies. Furthermore, it will give insights on the future of cities and how the advantages of them can be realized in a new scenario. Abstract

III

DECLARATION

â&#x20AC;&#x153;I hereby declare that the present masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s thesis was composed by myself and that the work contained herein is my own. I also confirm that I have only used the specified resources. All formulations and concepts taken verbatim or in substance from printed or unprinted material or from the Internet have been cited according to the rules of good scientific practice and indicated by footnotes or other exact references to the original source. The present thesis has not been submitted to another university for the award of an academic degree in this form. This thesis has been submitted in printed and electronic form. I hereby confirm that the content of the digital version is the same as in the printed version. I understand that the provision of incorrect information may have legal consequences.â&#x20AC;?

Graz | January 30th, 2017 ( Sandra Froschauer )

Declaration

III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Arch. DI Wolfang Schmied for the continuous support throughout this study. Besides my advisor, I would like to thank the Austrian Marshall Plan Foundation for making my stay in the United States possible. Finally, I express my very profound gratitude to my family and especially to my parents for providing me with unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout my years of study and through the process of researching and writing this thesis. This accomplishment would not have been possible without them. Thank you.

Acknowledgement

VII

TABLE OF CONTENT

ABSTRACT DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TABLE OF CONTENT

III V VII VIII

I ABSTRACT

III

PROLOGUE

II DECLARATION

III ACKNOWLEDGEMENT GENERAL GOALS IV

VII

STRUCTURE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PROLOGUE 1.1

REGION

GENERAL GOALS

1.2 STRUCTURE HISTORY 1.2.1 Structure of a City OF URBAN FORMS CITY STRUCTURE MODELS 1.2.1.1 Urban morphology

2 2

1.2.1.2

Structural level

2 2

1.2.2

Structure of my Thesis

CITY

195

DISTRICT

14 21

2 REGION 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5

HISTORY OF URBAN FORMS IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES Medieval City (~ 8th – 15th century) WHY VIENNA AND SAN FRANCISCO ? European settlements (15th century) Residence city (~16th – 18th century) Industrial City (~ 19th century) New towns ( 20th century)

2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4

CITY STRUCTURE MODELS Concentric Zone Theory Sector Theory CRUCIAL OBSERVATION The Multiple Nuclei Theory CLASSIC DISTRICTS CONCLUSION Urban-Realms Theory

5 6 8 9 11 13

14 15 16 17

3 CITY

3.1

WHY VIENNA AND SAN FRANCISCO? Table of ConteNT

4 DISTRICT

4.1 CRUCIAL OBSERVATION 4.1.1 What is the “Floor Area Ratio” – FAR? 4.1.2 Database

21 21 22

4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2

CLASSIC DISTRICTS District views Street Pattern

25 26 27

4.2.3 4.2.4

Average Block Size Orientation to Primary Street

31 31

4.2.2.1 Gridiron 4.2.2.2 Organic 4.2.2.3 Loose Grid 4.2.2.4 Radial Grid

29 29 30 30

4.3 CONCLUSION

5 BLOCK

5.1 5.1.1

36 37

MIXED USE DISTRICT Block Structure

5.1.1.1

Block Size

5.1.2 Circulation 5.1.3 Transportation

39 40

5.1.4

Land Use Mix

5.1.5

Land Coverage

5.1.3.1 Public Transportation 5.1.3.2 Streets 5.1.4.1 5.1.4.2 5.1.4.3 5.1.5.1 5.1.5.2

Land use pattern San Francisco: Land use pattern Vienna: Summary findings Livability index Open Space Network

5.1.6 Buildings 5.1.6.1 5.1.6.2

41 42

Building Typologies The balance of the urban form

Table of ConteNT

47 47 48

BIBLIOGRAPHY LIST OF FIGURES

51 XIII 53 XVII

55 57

6 PLOT

6.1 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.3

59 59 60 60

FUTURE OF THE CITY Mobility Open Spaces Land use pattern and building development

BLOCK

6.2 POTENTIALS MIXED USE DISTRICT

6.3 PATTERN FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENTS 6.3.1 Property 6.3.2 Pattern

62 62 62

PLOT

6.4

URBAN PLANNING TOOL

6.5 6.5.1 6.5.2 6.5.3 6.5.4 6.5.5

URBAN PLANNING SCENARIOS FUTURE OF THE CITY Scenario 1 POTENTIALS Scenario 2 PATTERN FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT Scenario 3 URBAN PLANNNING TOOL Scenario 4 URBAN PLANNING SCENARIOS

58 65

73 73 83 93 103 113

Scenario 5

V BIBLIOGRAPHY VI

XIII

LIST OF FIGURES

XVII

Table of ConteNT

PROLOGUE

1.1

GENERAL GOALS

The main goal of my work is to develop a concept of a new urban space by taking into consideration American and European city typologies. The question in this context is which aspects (American, European or both) can be better implemented in a new urban area. To develop a well-grounded master plan, theoretical principles like the theory of city planning and an analysis about American and European city typologies, will provide a helpful basis for the design proposal. The objective in this context is to gain a better understanding of different urban models. By comparing and analyzing American and European City typologies and cities in detail the main criteria will be as follows:

Prologue I General goals

In the first part I will show main differences. Aspects like history, tradition, urbanization or demographic change, economy, city development, the relationship between population and the urban structure need to be taken into consideration. Based on the theoretical research strengths and weaknesses are analyzed and directly set against each other. Having considered advantages and disadvantages, problems and chances key criteria for city planning can be explored. The insights of the concluding assessment of both city typologies are then listed to get an overview of the previous work. On the basis of the analysis and the list of key categories it is possible to compare towns or city typologies and filter out what the advantages, chances and main differences of both typologies are.

1.2

STRUCTURE

1.2.1

STRUCTURE OF A CITY

1.2.1.1

URBAN MORPHOLOGY

“Urban morphology is the study of the city as human habitat.”1 “Urban morphologists concur: they analyze a city’s evolution from its formative years to its subsequent transformations, identifying and dissecting its various components.”2

The purpose of the following graph is to demonstrate the five different structural levels and how they relate to each other.

“Morphological analysis is based on three fundamental components: form, resolution, and time.”3

REGION

“The study seeks to understand the spatial structure and character of a metropolitan area, city, town or village.”4 1.2.1.2

CITY

STRUCTURAL LEVEL5

Looking at a city and its environment different layers can be identified. The different levels of a city structure build upon one another are: ‣‣

DISTRICT

the city, embedded in the region

‣‣ the district as a component of a city ‣‣

a block as a unit within a district

‣‣

the plot as a basic component of a city

1 2 3 4 5

V.~Moudon 1997, p. 3 V.~Moudon 1997, p. 3 Sendich 2006, p. 401 Wikipedia 2017 cf. Reicher 2016, p. 42

BLOCK

PLOT Figure 1: Structural Level

Structure I Prologue

1.2.2

STRUCTURE OF MY THESIS

The city structure levels provided the basis for the framework of my diploma thesis and it therefore contains five chapters: ‣‣

Figure 2: Region

Region

In this chapter the history of urban forms of European and American cities are analyzed in detail. Furthermore, city structure models which have been established in the framework of historical development of cities are described. ‣‣

City

This chapter describes which American city I will compare with a matchable Austrian city. ‣‣ Figure 3: City

In this chapter, I will analyze an American as well as an European city in more detail. This means that different aspects of “Classic Districts” will be studied and summarized in a conclusive comparison chart. ‣‣

Figure 4: District

Prologue I Structure

District

Block

The study in this chapter focuses on key issues of “Mixed-Use Districts” such as block structure, land-use mix, open-space distribution and character.

The insights of the different research areas are then listed to get an overview of the previous work and will serve as a basis for the design proposal. Essential positive aspects, strengths and chances are the basis for the last chapter of my thesis. They can either be of American or European origin, or both, and the goal is to show how the advantages of them can be realized in new urban concepts. ‣‣

Figure 5: Block

Plot

The final chapter of my thesis takes the key criteria that have proved to be important in the previous analysis into consideration. As mentioned above the planning principles are seen from of an American and European point of view. The main question in this context is which aspects (American, European or both) can be better implemented in different urban concepts.

Figure 6: Parcel

First an “Urban Planning Tool” based on the basic potentials is developed. Therefore, the future of cities plays an important role in selecting different potentials. A design plan which shows a proposal for a specific building structure will be the last part of this chapter. On the basis of the “Urban Planning Tool” the building structure will be implemented in different urban planning scenarios.

Structure I Prologue

REGION

2.1

HISTORY OF URBAN FORMS IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES

“Settlement form is the spatial arrangement of persons doing things, the resulting spatial flows of persons, goods, and information, and the physical features which modify space in some way significant to those actions, including enclosures, surfaces, channels, ambiences, and objects. Further, the description must include the cyclical and secular changes in those spatial distributions, the control of space, and the perception of it.”6 The contrast between the United States and Europe is mainly striking in urban matters. On the one hand, there are European cities which have changed over a long period of time and on the other hand, there is the massive surge and cycle of rapid growth of American cities.7

6 7

Region I History of Urban forms in Europe and the United States

Lynch 1987, p. 48 cf. Le Galès, Zagrodzki

Figure 7: 900

2.1.1

MEDIEVAL CITY (~ 8TH – 15TH CENTURY)

‣‣

The development of European cities began long before the growth of American cities. Due to social and economic conditions, the urban form of European cities was subject to constant change and characteristic urban and historical structures have molded European cities up to this day. Based on the first stage of existence, medieval cities can be divided in five main categories. Three of them are of organic growth.8 ‣‣ Towns of roman origin, about to take a new lease of life. In this context it should be pointed out that the gridiron structure of roman towns was no longer effective and unplanned organic growth of the medieval norm took place. 8

Burgs,

founded in the 9th century as military bases. These cities often attained commercial functions later. ‣‣

Organic growth towns,

mostly from village settlements. These villages made use of geographical advantages and grew from villages to towns. In general, it can be said that a medieval village became a town when it grew up to a local trading center. In Addition, the presence of specialist industry encouraged the promotion from village to town status.

cf. Morris 1979, pp. 66–83

History of Urban forms in Europe and the United States I Region

The other category of medieval town is divided into two sub-types: ‣‣

Bastide towns,

founded in France, England and Wales. Key factors of all bastides were predetermined plan forms, gridiron systems of rectilinear plot subdivisions and the grant of a house plot within the town. ‣‣

Planted towns,

founded throughout Europe generally. To summarize the constituent elements of the five groups mentioned above are normally:9 ‣‣

The wall with its towers and gates

‣‣

Streets and related circulation spaces

‣‣

The market place, probably with commercial buildings and a market hall

‣‣

The church, usually standing in its own space

‣‣

And the great mass of general town buildings and related private garden spaces. Figure 8: New Haven in 1641

cf. Morris 1979, pp. 71–76

Region I History of Urban forms in Europe and the United States

Figure 9: 1500

2.1.2

EUROPEAN SETTLEMENTS (15TH CENTURY)

Cities in the United states have been planned since the advent of European settlements. In 1501, the first city founded by Europeans in America was built. Transportation determined the location of settlements which can be divided in:10

‣‣

English settlements

Instead of systematic design, growth was the reason for the rise of the first towns on the Atlantic coast. Thus, far town planning came into view as early as 1638 with New Haven in Connecticut. The site was chosen based on:11 ‣‣

‣‣ The land being sparsely inhabited as a result of European epidemics that reduced the native population substantially. cf. Morris 1979, 254 ff. cf. Hopkins

‣‣

Spanish settlements

The Laws of the Indies, which can be seen as the first American planning code, served as a guideline for hundreds of Spanish settlements. “The essential elements were a central square within a grid and public institutions situated around the square.” 14 The impact of Spanish rectilinear planning could be spotted in cities like Santa Fe, Los Angeles and San Antoni.15

‣‣

Its natural harbor

‣‣ The red cliffs of West and East Rock overlooking a plain surrounded by wilderness

10 11

“Nine large squares were arranged in rows of three, with the central square serving as the town common or green.” 12 This so-called “Nine Square Plan” became a characteristic feature of many English settlements.13

French settlements 16

France entered the New World over 10 years later than Spain. St. Louis on the Mississippi was founded in 1762, which marks the end of French urban settlement. 12 13 14 15 16

City Planning cf. DeStefano, p. 3 City Planning cf. City Planning cf. Morris 1979, 254 ff.

History of Urban forms in Europe and the United States I Region

Figure 10: 1800

2.1.3

RESIDENCE CITY (~16TH – 18TH CENTURY)

From the 16th through the 18th century the concept of city planning was increased, seeing cities as a complex system of interconnected components dealing with public utility and beautification. 17 The three main design components of residence cities are:18 ‣‣

The primary straight street,

which provided the access to buildings and had direct connections with regional routes. It can be said that the medieval street was functionally insufficient and aesthetically unconsidered; therefore, in the main form of main routes, the primary straight street is a renaissance innovation. ‣‣

The use of gridiron

either as the basis of residential districts which were added to existing urban areas 17 18

cf. City Planning cf. Morris 1979, p. 123

along with a primary street for the design of other new urban areas, or for the entire layout of new towns. ‣‣

Enclosed space

which served symbolic and aesthetic purposes for example as a space in front of an important building or as a setting for a statue. New capital cities in the late seventeenth and eighteenth century were influenced by European baroque plans. For example, the plan for Annapolis, Maryland, prepared by Francis Nicholson in 1694 was one of these strategies. With its two great circles, the imposing “Blooms-bur Square,” and the several radiating diagonal streets, the layout introduced a new concept of civic design to colonial America.19 The high point of such plans was the design of Pierre L’Enfants who was responsible for the new federal city of Washington in 1791. 19

Region I History of Urban forms in Europe and the United States

cf. Reps 1992, p. 106

Figure 11: Washington Pierre L'Enfants

History of Urban forms in Europe and the United States I Region

Figure 12: 1850

2.1.4

INDUSTRIAL CITY (~ 19TH CENTURY)

In America, two cities served as a model for nineteenth-century planning. On the one hand there is Manhattan with the strategy to plat the entire island with a rectilinear set of north-south avenues and east-west streets, an on the other hand Philadelphia, with its grid that sets an example for many cities. These plans transformed every piece of ground into an instantaneously distinguishable peace of real estate. Because of this, the standard gridded town was planned to be open to all possible residents and investors, which is one reason why many cities are based on the same principle as New York and Philadelphia.20 The nineteenth century also gave birth to many factory towns which grew rapidly and therefore became centers of production and population. This massive growth led in the next step to enormous urbanization and the development of great cities. 20

cf. City Planning

“Cities grew both upward and outward in the second half of the nineteenth century.”21 Products of steel construction, the elevator, tall buildings, and thus central business districts with establishments like department stores, office buildings, or banks were formed. One feature that distinguishes European from American cities is the absence of skyscrapers and in Europe Central Business Districts did not grow as heavy as they did in New York and Chicago.22 Furthermore, expansion along main transit lines favored the development of new neighborhoods which ranged from tracts of small “workingmen’s cottages” and cheap row housing to elegantly landscaped “dormitory suburbs” for the upper crust. The most common form of development was the “streetcar suburbs”.23 “These were usually subdivisions laid out as extensions of the city grid.” 24 21 22 23 24

Region I History of Urban forms in Europe and the United States

City Planning cf. Hohenberg, p. 37 cf. City Planning City Planning

Riverside, served as a very significant model for suburbs. The model was designed by Olmsted and it provided large lots, park space, a commercial core around a commuter rail station and curving streets.25 At the time of massive expansion of industrial capitalism, the making of the urban maps followed similar lines both in the United States and in Europe.

Figure 13: Manhattan 1920

Therefore, pollution and diseases in the central cities in Europe lead to a separation of workplace and residence, just like in the US-Cities. In view of this fact the old pattern, such as living above the shop, gave way to the more homogeneous blocks of flats, row houses or detached villas. Progress in transport, like omnibuses, rails, trams, the underground, buses, and motor cars, with falling cost and improving quality, was key to the process.26 Thus, there was also a separation of living and working but not to the extent as in American cities. Furthermore, urban design elements such as tenements, work - and villa settlements developed. Despite the areal division of living and working there was a close side by side and the special quality of European cities still preserved.

Figure 14: Riverside

25 26

cf. Planning London cf. Hohenberg, p. 33

History of Urban forms in Europe and the United States I Region

Figure 15: 1950

2.1.5

NEW TOWNS ( 20TH CENTURY)

There was a way of change in thinking at the turn of the 20th century. The industrialized cities of the 19th century had a lot of disadvantages especially for factory workers. Therefore, theorists began to develop urban planning models in America as well as in Europe. There are two modifications of urban development in European cities. On the one hand, there was the closed development with gridiron city plans and a high floor area ratio and population density. On the other hand, there was the spacious city with ideas of modernism, the fact that urban planning became more and more professionalized at this period and the concepts like the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Garden city movementâ&#x20AC;?.

In North America, the Garden City movement was also popular. Furthermore, city planning in general is due to reform activities at the end of the 19th century. The Parks movement, campaigns for housing regulations, the City Beautiful movement, and the zoning of land which became the most powerful instrument for monitoring urban growth.27 In summary, European and American cities always differed from one another because of variances in historical development. European cities have developed long before the rise of the car industry, while most American cities grew after the development of cars. That is the main reason why cities in the United States were often laid out in grid pattern But what are other differences or similarities of todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s cities in Europe and America? What are the advantages and problems? I try to answer these questions in the following sections of my thesis. 27

Region I History of Urban forms in Europe and the United States

cf. Ellis

2.2

CITY STRUCTURE MODELS

Every city is different and offers a range of functions like residential, industrial and service functions. A lot of different models and theories have been developed through history to explain how these functions are organized in relationship to one another. I would like to mention that not every city can definitely be assigned to one of the following models but they remain useful as a concept to explain urban form. 2.2.1

As you can see, the first and smallest zone is the central business district, with its retail and wholesale sectors, followed by the zone of transition, characterized by industry and poorer-quality housing, the zone of factory workersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; homes, the zone of better residential units, an area of good apartment blocks and private housing and the commuter zone, a suburban dormitory zone characterized by single family dwellings.30 The size of the rings can differ, but the structure always remains the same.

CONCENTRIC ZONE THEORY

This model was formed in 1923 by E.W. Burgess, Robert Park and Roderick McKenzie and it was the first to analyze the allocation of social groups within urban areas. 28 Based on the study of one city (Chicago) at one point in time, it offers a description of urban development. Burgess maintained that the city tends to grow outwards in annular fashion from Zone I to Zone V. 29

Figure 16: concentric zone theory

28 29

cf. Anarfi, p. 9 cf. Pacione 2009, 138 ff.

cf. Pacione 2009, p. 141

City Structure Models I Region

2.2.2

SECTOR THEORY

Because the concentric zone model is not appropriate to lots of cities the earliest constructive criticism of Burgessâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s model emerged from an analysis of the internal residential structure of 142 American cities by Hoyt in 1939.31 Homer Hoyt, suggested that a city develops in sectors instead of rings along highways or railroads and other transportation arteries. The main factor is that the model grows outwards if radial space exists and is not constrained by natural barriers like water bodies. While commercial functions would stay in the CBD, manufacturing functions would increase in a wedge close to transportation routes. On the one hand, residential functions would develop in wedge-shaped patterns with a sector of low-income housing attached to manufacturing sectors. On the other hand, segments of middle- and high-income households were situated as far away as possible of these functions. In general, it can be predicted that more recent cities tend to follow the Burgess model and older cities tend to follow the Hoyt model. 32

31 32

cf. Pacione 2009, p. 142 cf. Geographic Models, p. 10

Region I City Structure Models

Figure 17: sector theory

2.2.3

THE MULTIPLE NUCLEI THEORY

In 1945, two geographers, Chauncy Harris and Edward Ullman, established a third model to explain city formation. Their aim was to develop a model which shows the complex nature of urban areas, especially those of larger size. According to the multiple nuclei theory, most large cities do not grow around a single CBD but are shaped by a number of distinct cores.33 Around each core, related services gather. “For example, a university core may attract well-educated residents, pizzerias, and bookstores, whereas an airport may attract hotels, low-income residences, and warehouses. Dissonant activities will avoid clustering in the same area, explaining why heavy industry and high-income housing rarely exist in the same neighborhood.”34

‣‣

Some activities are limited to particular sites because they have highly specialized needs.

‣‣

Some activities tend to cluster in the same district because subsequently they can carry on their activities more efficiently.

‣‣

Certain related activities, by their very nature, reject each other.

‣‣

Certain activities, unable to generate enough income to pay the high rents of certain sites, may be relegated to more inaccessible locations like some specialty shops.

The location and growth of these multiple nuclei are determined by a number of controlling factors:35

33 34 35

cf. Pacione 2009, p. 142 The structure of cities cf. Brunn et al. 2016, p. 35

Figure 18: multiple nuclei theory

City Structure Models I Region

2.2.4

URBAN-REALMS THEORY

The key element of this model is the advent of large independent urban areas. Each area is independent of the traditional downtown and central city. Five characteristics shape ban-Realms Model: 36

Vance’s

Ur-

‣‣

The terrain (topographical and water barriers)

‣‣

The overall size of the metropolis

‣‣

The amount of economic activity within each realm

‣‣

The internal accessibility of each realm in relation to its dominant economic core

“The Urban Realms Model constitutes the latest step in identifying and modelling the modern American urban structure. It shows that the outer cities are not "satellites" of the central city, but are in fact becoming cities themselves and shaping the metropolis.”38

An urban realm is likely to become self-sufficient if:37 ‣‣

“The size of the overall metropolis is large”

‣‣

“There is a large amount of decentralized economic activity in the region”

‣‣

“Topography barriers isolate the suburban region”

‣‣

“Good internal accessibility for daily commercial and business travel exists (especially to airport)”

36 37

cf. Pacione 2009, p. 147 Bouras

Region I City Structure Models

Figure 19: urban-realms theory

In the following I will compare a European and an American city in more detail. These two cities are Vienna and San Francisco. In summary, it can be said that on the one hand Vienna has grown, like most European cities, in a quite concentric way. One reason is for sure the historical development of European cities. On the other hand, the second city, San Francisco complies with the Urban-Realms Theory.

Urban Realms Model

CITY â&#x20AC;&#x153;Cities are highly diverse. For example they can be large or small, full or empty, constricted or generously spaced, modern or traditional. There is practically no limit to the number or combination of such defining characteristics.â&#x20AC;? 39

Figure 20: Google Maps San Francisco

Figure 21: Google Maps Vienna 39

The Century of Cities.

City Structure Models I City

3.1

WHY VIENNA AND SAN FRANCISCO?

An important question of my master thesis was which city I would compare with one another.

Figure 22: San Francisco

Figure 26: San Francisco

The first city, Vienna, could be determined relative quickly, seeing as it is the capital of Austria, but a counterpart to the Austrian city had to be found. During the research for an appropriate city it became apparent that some factors played an important role: ‣‣ It was important that I had already visited the town to get an idea of how the city looks like to be able to draw the best possible comparison.

Figure 23: San Francisco

Figure 24: Vienna

Figure 27: Vienna

Figure 25: Vienna

City I Why Vienna and San Francisco?

‣‣

The approximate same size of densely built-up areas.

‣‣

The city’s population and the population density.

SAN FRANCISCO

VIENNA

City Population

805.235

1.840.573

Density (inhabitants per square kilometer)

6.656

4.437

Size

600 square miles

415 square miles

11, 45 kilometres

11, 45 kilometres 11, 45 kilometres

11, 45 kilometres

5 km 1 : 200 000

Map dat a © OpenSt reet Map cont ribut ors

Figure 28: San Franciso Scale 1:200 000

GSEducationalVersion

Figure 29: Vienna Scale 1:200 000

GSEducationalVersion

Why Vienna and San Francisco? I City

4.1

CRUCIAL OBSERVATION

When comparing two cities you have to find an indication to illustrate comparative figures. To ensure comparability and meaningfulness the indicator Floor Area Ratio (FAR) provides the basis for my research.

DISTRICT

Floor Area Ratio is a more balanced indicator for density than population or dwellings, because it is more abstract and generic. Density shouldn’t depend on the uses or zoning.40 4.1.1

WHAT IS THE “FLOOR AREA RATIO” – FAR?

“FAR expresses the relationship between the amount of useable floor area permitted in a building (or buildings) and the area of the lot on which the building stands. It is obtained by dividing the gross floor area of a building by the total area of the lot.”41

potentials for urban planning scenarios are marked with this icon

Healthy transit and walkable urbanism need Floor area ratio’s to be at least 1,5 to 3,0. In Europe cities have FARs that are apparently over 3,0. In America most of the commercial areas have very small developed FARs of about 0,3. 40 41

District I Crucial Observation

cf. Fernández Per 2015, p. 55 A City Planner's Guide to Floor Area Ratio

FAR 1,5 - 3,0

4.1.2

DATABASE

Ratio Limit RH-1(D), RH-1, RH-1(S), RH-2, RH-3, RM-1, 1.8 to 1 RM-2, RTO, RTO-M

C-3-C

6.0 to 1

RM-3

3.6 to 1

C-3-O

9.0 to 1

C-3-R

RM-4

4.8 to 1

6.0 to 1

C-3-G

RC-1, RC-2

1.8 to 1

6.0 to 1

C-3-S

5.0 to 1

RC-3

3.6 to 1

C-3-O (SD)

6.0 to 1

NC-1, NCT-1

1.8 to 1

SLR, SLI

2.5 to 1

(SU) Area Ratio. To do 4.8 tovalues 1 7.5 to so, 1 The general object was to createRC-4 a map with the same for C-3-S Floor the C-M RED, RED-MX 1.0 to 1 9.0 to 1 following steps are needed. M-1, M-2 RSD, SPD 1.8 to 1 5.0 to 1 NCT-3, Mission Street SSO and in a 40 or 50 foot height district 3.6 to 1 as a basis For the city of San Francisco, theNC-3, following data served for further examination: 3.0 to 1 Chinatown R/NC 1.0 to 1

(extract)

DISTRICT

Basic Floor Area

Ratio Limit RH-1(D), RH-1, RH-1(S), RH-2, RH-3, RM-1, 1.8 to 1 RM-2, RTO, RTO-M

2.0 to 1

Chinatown CB

2.8 to 1

C-1, C-2

SSO and in a 130 foot height district

3.6 to 1

C-2-C

4.8 to 1

C-3-C

6.0 to 1

MUG, MUO, MUR, UMU, WMUG, WMUO, SALI, PDR-1-B, PDR-1-D, PDR-1-G, and PDR-2 in a 40, 45, or 48 foot height district

C-3-O

9.0 to 1

RM-3

3.6 to 1

C-3-R

6.0 to 1

RM-4

4.8 to 1

C-3-G

6.0 to 1

RC-1, RC-2

1.8 to 1

C-3-S

5.0 to 1

RC-3

3.6 to 1

C-3-O (SD)

6.0 to 1

RC-4

4.8 to 1

C-3-S (SU)

7.5 to 1

RED, RED-MX

1.0 to 1

C-M

9.0 to 1

RSD, SPD

1.8 to 1

M-1, M-2

5.0 to 1

NC-1, NCT-1 NC-3, NCT-3, Mission Street

1.8 to 1

SLR, SLI

2.5 to 1

Chinatown R/NC

1.0 to 1

Chinatown VR

2.0 to 1

Chinatown CB

2.8 to 1

SSO and in a 130 foot height district

C-1, C-2

3.6 to 1

C-3-C

6.0 to 1

MUG, MUO, MUR, UMU, WMUG, WMUO, SALI, PDR-1-B, PDR-1-D, PDR-1-G, and PDR-2 in a 40, 45, or 48 foot height district

C-3-O

9.0 to 1

C-3-R

6.0 to 1

C-3-G

6.0 to 1

C-3-S

5.0 to 1

C-3-O (SD)

6.0 to 1

C-3-S (SU)

7.5 to 1

C-M

9.0 to 1

M-1, M-2

5.0 to 1

SLR, SLI

2.5 to 1

3.6 to 1

Figure 30: FAR San Francisco4.8 to 1 C-2-C

SSO and in a 40 or 50 foot height district SSO and in a 65 or 80 foot height district SSO and in a 130 foot height district MUG, MUO, MUR, UMU, WMUG, WMUO, SALI, PDR-1-B, PDR-1-D, PDR-1-G, and PDR-2 in a 40, 45, or 48 foot height district MUG, MUO, MUR, UMU, WMUG, WMUO, SALI, PDR-1-B, PDR-1-D, PDR-1-G, and PDR-2 in a 50, 55, or 58 foot height district MUG, MUO, MUR, UMU, WMUG, WMUO, SALI, PDR-1-B, PDR-1-D, PDR-1-G, and PDR-2 in a 65 or 68 foot height district MUG, MUO, MUR, UMU, WMUG, WMUO, SALI, PDR-1-B, PDR-1-D, PDR-1-G, and PDR-2 in a 85 foot height district MUG, MUO, MUR, UMU, WMUG, WMUO, SALI, PDR-1-B, PDR-1-D, PDR-1-G, and PDR-2 in a height district over 85 feet

3.0 to 1 4.0 to 1

SSO and in a 65 or 80 foot height district

Chinatown VR

SSO and in a 40 or 50 foot height district SSO and in a 65 or 80 foot height district

MUG, MUO, MUR, UMU, WMUG, WMUO, SALI, PDR-1-B, PDR-1-D, PDR-1-G, and PDR-2 in a 50, 55, or 58 foot height district MUG, MUO, MUR, UMU, WMUG, WMUO, SALI, PDR-1-B, PDR-1-D, PDR-1-G, and PDR-2 in a 65 or 68 foot height district MUG, MUO, MUR, UMU, WMUG, WMUO, SALI, PDR-1-B, PDR-1-D, PDR-1-G, and PDR-2 in a 85 foot height district MUG, MUO, MUR, UMU, WMUG, WMUO, SALI, PDR-1-B, PDR-1-D, PDR-1-G, and PDR-2 in a height district over 85 feet

3.0 to 1 4.0 to 1 4.5 to 1

4.0 to 1 4.5 to 1 3.0 to 1

4.0 to 1

5.0 to 1

6.0 to 1

7.5 to 1

3.0 to 1

4.0 to 1

5.0 to 1

6.0 to 1

7.5 to 1

4.5 to 1 3.0 to 1

4.0 to 1

5.0 to 1

6.0 to 1

7.5 to 1

Figure 31: SF zoning map

Crucial Observation I District

For the city of Vienna, the following map has been used:

Figure 32: FAR Vienna

District I Crucial Observation

These data were acquired, combined, and brought together to a unitary map legend. In the next step two comparable graphs have been drafted.

FAR 0,5 - 1,8

FAR 1,9 - 3,6

FAR 3,6 - 5 Figure 33: FAR SF

FAR > 5

Figure 34: FAR Vienna

Crucial Observation I District

4.2

CLASSIC DISTRICTS

In order to cover all fields based on “Floor Area Ratio” six different districts have been selected.

3 2

5 kilometers

There are some characteristics of density which have the same importance as FAR. These are the performances that define the quality of density, which are for example the insertion in the grid or the orientation. 42 The following study examines the patterns and relationships of different “Classic Districts”, depicted in diagrams created from different maps and aerial imagery. Facts about each district complement these figures.

1 Figure 35: classic district San Francisco

regions within a 5 km limit

5 6

5 kilometers

4 most densely area

Figure 36: classic district Vienna

District I Classic Districts

cf. Fernández Per 2015, p. 136

4.2.1

DISTRICT VIEWS

Given a detailed analysis of the city, this chapter serves as a resource to compare the urban morphologies of Vienna and San Francisco. Urban morphologies are as diverse as the people who reside within their typologies.

Figure 37: San Francisco 1

Figure 40: Vienna 1

Figure 38: San Francisco 2

Figure 41: Vienna 2

Figure 39: San Francisco 3

Figure 42: Vienna 3

6 Classic Districts I District

4.2.2

STREET PATTERN

â&#x20AC;&#x17E;Street pattern determines the shape and size of street blocks and establish the pattern of transportation routes that allow people and cars to move around the area.â&#x20AC;&#x153; 43 Street pattern are an important factor for the overall aesthetic feel of the community. Each block fells different and on the one hand a street pattern that uses dead ends creates a sense of security and privacy on the other hand a rectangular grid may create a feeling of openness. The following section presents the various individual characteristics of street pattern:44

43 44

District I Classic Districts

Yin, Farmer 2012, p. 140 cf. Munson

Figure 43: San Francisco 1_Street Pattern

Figure 46: Vienna 1_Street Pattern

1:5000 1:5000 GSEducationalVersion GSEducationalVersion

Figure 44: San Francisco 2_Street Pattern

Figure 47: Vienna 2_Street Pattern

GSEducationalVersion

1:5000

GSEducationalVersion

Figure 45: San Francisco 3_Street Pattern

Figure 48: Vienna 3_Street Pattern

Classic Districts I District GSEducationalVersion

6 28

4.2.2.1 GRIDIRON45 Gridiron street patterns are a simply layout of a sequence of streets at right angles, forming either rectangular blocks or squares. Grids characterize organization and power, which is either religious, political, or commercial.

Figure 49: gridiron

4.2.2.2 ORGANIC46 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Organic streets start and end, seemingly at random and they curve back and forth. Organic streets can come from disorganized, fast-paced development, as it is common in todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s slums or it can grow slowly over time like many of European cities.â&#x20AC;?47 Organic street patterns are planned very sensitively, one building or a parcel at a time. Apparently random lines follow political divisions, watercourses, contour lines or other features.48

45 cf. Munson 46 cf. Munson 47 Munson 48 cf. Kostof 1991

District I Classic Districts

Figure 50: organic

4.2.2.3 LOOSE GRID49 Gridiron and organic systems form the basis for the loose grid. On the one hand streets curve, as with the organic and on the other hand there are four-way intersections as with the gridiron. Most European Cities started on a stringent gridiron pattern and evolved into a more organic plan during the middle ages. As a contrast to that, street patterns that started off more organic can become formalized to gridiron streets, as in the case of Lower Manhattan.

Figure 51: loose grid

To summarize the loose street patterns fill the range between gridiron and organic forms. 4.2.2.4 RADIAL GRID50 The radial grid is much rarer than the other types of grid patterns. It is stringently geometric, regardless of consisting topography. Streets radiate from landmarks like palaces, state buildings or churches. You can find this kind of street pattern in palatial estates of Europe and capitals, as in Washington. Figure 52: radial grid

49 50

cf. Munson cf. Munson

Classic Districts I District

4.2.3

AVERAGE BLOCK SIZE 975

945

135

85 152

965

136

895

90 85

105

8 94

935

945 8

115

865

41 12

8 35

38 8

43 8

145 405 8

935

5 8 40

455

445

945

8 46

38 8

5 415 8

5 8 41

42 11

8 43

405 8

8 42

5 8 48

8 38

875

495 4

955

915

Mean value width 94

375 4

885

945

115

46 8

395 8

‣‣

935

Total of height 95

955

665

625

995

615

945

8 86

705

935

‣‣

138

575

735

955

835

8 8

Total of width

585

915

‣‣

935

915

138

955

945

145

935

115

146 4

935

925

945

198

945

136

905

138

185 8

965

196

135

8 5

137

955

855

46 8

425 8

895

133

197

The Average Block Size was determined as follows:

395

125

965 8

8 43

705

105

555

198

5 8 44

5 8 42

49 10 8

985

385

875 10

Figure 54: average block size height

1:10000

‣‣

Mean value height 4.2.4

ORIENTATION TO PRIMARY STREET

Each of the 6 districts has a relationship to a second level and a local street. 975 8

945 8

Local Right-of-Way

135 5

8 152

965

136

895 85

105

8 94

945

935

69 41 12

935

455

445

945

8 46

38 8

5 8 40

145 405 8

8 43

8 35

38 8

43 8

8 42

42 11

945

Primary Right-of-Way

405 8

915

5 8 48

8 38

115

865

875

1:10000

District I Classic Districts

Figure 53: average block size width

955

5 8 41

885

8 15

5 415 8

945

945 8

495 4

95 115

935

955

395 8

95 8

375 4

665

625

955

46 8

615

995

8 86

8 95

138

8 95

Secondary Right-of-Way 85

8 8

8 945

705

935

575

935

835

735

8 5

138 125 5 125

585

5 5

145 4

125

955

915

146 4 125

94 8

695

915

935

95 8

935

95 8

115

945

925

11 99

905

138 68

185 8

8 5

198 8

945 8 136

965

135 8 5

137 13

133

435

196

895

5 27 10

11 955

895

125

197 46 8

425 8

855

965 8

8 43

705

105

555

198 8

5 8 44

5 8 42

49 10 8

895

275

985

385

875 10

1:1

Figure 55: San Francisco 1_Street Pattern

Figure 58: Vienna 1_Street Pattern

4 1:5000

1:5000

GSEducationalVersion

Figure 56: San Francisco 2_Street Pattern

Figure 59: Vienna 2_Street Pattern

5 1:5000

1:5000

GSEducationalVersion

Figure 57: San Francisco 3_Street Pattern

Figure 60: Vienna 3_Street Pattern

1:5000

Classic Districts I District

1:5000

4.3

CONCLUSION

The study has demonstrated several ways to characterize different districts through a variety of facets. An important finding is that there is no single best district typology because in practice there are a lot of factors which have to be taken into consideration when devising a strategy for urban areas. A sufficiently detailed analysis defines the aspects and which of them are the best for a new district. The aspects are, as mentioned above, for example the orientation to the primary street, the type of street pattern, the average block size and so on. All in all, this chapter served as an illustration to demonstrate which types of districts exist in Vienna and San Francisco. For better comparability and to condense the previous chapter, all results of the different districts have been summarized in the following chart:

District I Conclusion

FAR

San Francisco 1

San Francisco 2

average block size

orientation to primary street

13248 m²

parallel to primary street

105 x 109 11445 m²

flanking primary street

138 x 96

San Francisco 3

94 x 63

5922 m²

perpendicular to primary street

Vienna 1

102 x 82

8364 m²

perpendicular to primary street

Vienna 2

71 x 90

6390 m²

perpendicular to primary street

Vienna 3

68 x 71

4828 m²

all streets on the same level

Figure 61: summary chart

Conclusion I District

The objective in the chapter below is to gain a better understanding of different mixed use block developments. My study focuses on key issues such as block structure, land-use mix, open-space distribution, and character. The insights of the different inquiries are then listed to get an overview of the previous work and will provide assistance for the design proposal. Essential positive aspects, strengths and chances are the basis for a further development proposal of the district and the goal is to show how the advantages of them can be shown in different urban planning scenarios.

BLOCK

Block I Conclusion

potentials for urban planning scenarios are marked with this icon

5.1

MIXED USE DISTRICT

Mixed Use Districts are singular developments that bring together a broad range of activities, including commercial, residential, and high-quality outdoor recreation activities.51 In the following, 4 different mixed use districts will be analyzed. These districts have been selected as follows:

2 kilometers

‣‣ As a first step the most densely area in Vienna and San Francisco was identified. ‣‣

Next mixed use districts were determined within a 2 km limit. The selection criterion was an average FAR of 3,00.

‣‣

This criterion considered four different districts were selected.

Figure 63: mixed use district San Francisco

4 3

2 kilometers

Figure 62: mixed use district Vienna 51

cf. Cherry, Nagle 2009, p. 39

Mixed Use District I Block

Figure 64: google maps SF 1

Figure 65: google maps Vienna 1

Block I Mixed Use District

Figure 66: google maps SF 2

5.1.1

BLOCK STRUCTURE

Figure 67: google maps Vienna 2

5.1.1.1

BLOCK SIZE

Block dimensions range from approx. 5,15-by- 51,85 m to 221,45-by-158,45 m. While it is hard to say what a â&#x20AC;&#x153;typicalâ&#x20AC;? block dimension is, widths between 90 and 120 meters tend to be the most flexible. This dimension allows a pedestrian to walk one side of the block in roughly a minute and a half, which is reasonable for pedestrian activity, yet it is also wide enough for phased development to occur flexibly. An urban block should be able to accommodate early development of a single-storey use as well as more intensive uses.52 Therefore, the block size in the last part of my master thesis will be 120-by-90 m.

Figure 68: San Francisco 1

1:5000

Figure 70: San Francisco 2 1:5000

GSEducationalVersion

GSE du ca tio na lV er sion

1:5000

Figure 69: Vienna 1 52

GSEducationalVersion

Figure 71: Vienna 2

cf. Cherry, Nagle 2009, p. 60

Mixed Use District I Block 1: 5

5.1.2

CIRCULATION

Just one mixed use district is next to a major arterial street that has four to six lanes of two-way traffic. Narrower streets traverse all districts: double two-way travel lanes on the busiest streets, two single travel lanes for local streets.

Local Right-of-Way Secondary Right-of-Way Primary Right-of-Way

Figure 72: San Francisco 1

Figure 74: San Francisco 2

GSEducationalVersion

Figure 73: Vienna 1

Figure 75: Vienna 2 GSEducationalVersion

GSEducationalVersion

Block I Mixed Use District

5.1.3

TRANSPORTATION

Figure 76: transportation_SF1

GSEducationalVersion

Figure 77: transportationn_Vienna 1

bikeway

bus station

sidewalk

tram station

tramway

subway station

Figure 78: transportation_SF2

Figure 79: transportation_Vienna 2 GSEducationalVersion

GSEducationalVersion

Mixed Use District I Block

5.1.3.1 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 5.1.3.1.1 Modal share

“A Modal Share is the percentage of travelers using a particular type of transport or number of trips using said type. Modal share is an important component in developing sustainable transport within a city Region.”53

Figure 80: modal-split Vienna

“EPOMM considers modal split to be the best indicator for the mobility policy in a city.”54

Figure 81: modal-split San Francisco

Figure 82: modal-split San Francisco

Block I Mixed Use District

53 54

Modal share TEMS - The EPOMM Modal Split Tool

5.1.3.2 STREETS The layout of a street considers what features are needed to manage traffic flow through the street. 55

Figure 83: Street 1_SF

The following graphs show different streets with different features in San Francisco and Vienna: bikeway roadway median strip on-street parking sidewalk

Figure 84: Street 3_SF

tramway green zone (median strip/ curb zone)

Figure 85: Street 1_Vienna

Figure 86: Street 2_Vienna

cf. Yin, Farmer 2012, p. 138

Mixed Use District I Block

SAN FRANCISCO: Scale 1:500 SF1

GSEducationalVersion

bikeway

median strip

roadway

on-street parking SF3

GSEducationalVersion

Figure 87: Street 1_SF

Figure 89: Street 2_SF

SF5

GSEducationalVersion

Figure 88: Street 3_SF

Block I Mixed Use District

Figure 90: Street 4_SF

VIENNA: Scale 1:500

sidewalk

green zone (median strip/ curb zone)

tramway

Wien2

GSEducationalVersion

Figure 93: Street 2_Vienna

Figure 91: Street 1_Vienna

Wien3

GSEducationalVersion

ucationalVersion

Figure 92: Street 3_Vienna

Figure 94: Street 4_Vienna

Mixed Use District I Block

To sum up, there are a variety of design features which help, for example, to create greater use of sidewalks by pedestrians and furthermore to create streets that are more attractive to shoppers or other visitors. In conclusion, the following diagram shows a cross-section of a street with useful features, based on the above analysis. Figure 95: street features

sidewalk

on-street parking

median strip

Geschoss

Block I Mixed Use District

curb zone

5.1.4

LAND USE MIX

A livable city must have a strong mix of uses. It has to offer space for living, working, culture, sport or education. In order for that movement between all the different functions to be as short, fast, and comfortable as possible the different types of space have to be assembled compactly. The more variously land uses are connected with one another, the better a city will work. The result is an interplay between different land use classifications and as a result of this, a city has a high quality of life. Moreover, the more integrated and varied the land use is in a development, the more inviting it is as a walkable mixed-use environment.56 Therefore, the main aspects of the intense density are the mix of uses and the compactness.

A Land use plan characteristically categorizes all the diverse land uses in a city. Land use classification standards vary from place to place, as all places are different from each other. Even the land use plans from San Francisco and Vienna differ from one another. Therefore, it was important to create a unified map for greater comparability of land use classifications. The land-use classifications of the four contrasting study areas were laid down as follows: ‣‣

Analysis of land use classification of the city of Vienna

‣‣

Analysis of land use classification of the city of San Francisco

‣‣

Summarizing the findings

‣‣

Creation of a uniform graph

cf. Cherry, Nagle 2009, p. 60

Mixed Use District I Block

5.1.4.1 LAND USE PATTERN SAN FRANCISCO: ‣‣

CIE (Cultural, Institutional, Educational)

‣‣

MED (Medical)

‣‣

MIPS (Office)

‣‣

MIXED (Mixed Uses - without residential)

‣‣

MIXRES (Mixed Uses - with residential)

‣‣

PDR (Industrial)

‣‣

RETAIL/ENT (Retail, Entertainment)

‣‣

VISITOR (Hotels, Visitor Services)

‣‣

VACANT (Vacant)

Figure 96: land use pattern_source_SF1

GB 5

5 3 1

2 4 6

14-16

h -S ch m id t- P l.

GB5

F ri ed ri c

SPK

Eb e n d o rf e rs 9 tr.

tr. R at h a u ss 18

18 16

Pl .

9 8

GB 5

R e ic h s

8. 7. 15. 6.

GB 5

4 1

. 7

16.

23.

20.

18.

12.

GB 5

B a rt e n s te in g.

GB 5

SPK

13.

21.

19.

17.

14.

1-3

10.

ra ts s tr

S ta

GB5 2

ls g .

3 1

11 13

GB 5

d io n 9 Wien Übersicht g .

L ic h te n fe

R at h a u ss

tr.

GB 5

13 11 9

GB 5

ri ch ts st r.

10 12

La nd es ge

Sc hm id t-

W4 4

Fr ie dr ic h-

F e ld e rs 4 tr.

5 3

6 4

1 3-7

ka g . Kup

st r.

La nd es ge ri ch ts

ka g .

Kup 4

tr .

GB 4

5-6

p e rg s

3-5

7 5

5 7 9 11 13-15 17 8 10 12 14 16

A u e rs

3 Figure 98: land use pattern_source_Vienna

u ts o n

W1 Tra W4

D o b lh o ff g . 6

2 1

3 6

8 5

6-8 1

GB1 GB5 GB1

3 15 1

g. Jo se fs

4 3

10 7

4 1

8 6

6 5

ld g . 1 7

88 77

fe B uc h

Sk od 1 ag. 1

Feld g. 11

3 Sk od ag .

dag 5 . Sk o 1

2 1

Tulp eng .

Loido ldg.

14 12 11 9

GB5 L ie b ig g.

Florianipark

Sch mid g.

1122 99 1111

Lenau g. 15 1133

ur gg .

GB3

W ic ke nb

3 6

12 10 9 7

12 13

W1 17

W4 W2

14 13

.6 7 11

11 9

ld g . B u ch fe

GB4

GBGV1 GBGV3 GBGV1 GB 3 GB4

22 25

. e gg e rg Neud

GBGV1 GB4 GB3

W4 18 16 14 13 11

17 15

W4 W3 24

St ro zz ig .

Ze ltg .

Sc hlö ss elg

26 24

3 6

GB3

28 29 27 33 31

12 10 8 14 9 7 GB 4 13 11

34 32 36 23 31 27

GB3

GB1

40 38 33 37 35

GB1

32 30 35 38 37 35 A 39 43 W3

41 39

GB4

42 46 44 50 45 54 52 49 47 53 51 W4 55

50 48 43

GB4

8 7

g . 11 9 S c h mid

W2 W1

. 30

La m m g.

W1 2 W4

10 12 16 14 9 ig . 11 Fl o ri an 13

Maria-Treu-G. 2

. La ng e G

Pi ar is te ng

33 31

GB5

18- 22 17

22 20 18 17

12 11 9

GB 2

44 42 40 47

Lau don g.

25 23

4 2 1

3-5 1

g . 4-6

12 10 8 7

W4WGV1 W3

Led erer g.3

Koch g.

EPK

Schönbornpark

P f e il

Lau don g.

ESP

10 8

W4 W1

24 22 21 19 17 15

WGV1

WGV1 W4

44 39

Weiterverwendung nur mit Quellenangabe Keine Haftung für Vollständigkeit und Richtigkeit Kein Rechtsanspruch ableitbar Quellenangabe: Stadt Wien - ViennaGIS Kartengrundlage: MA41 - Stadtvermessung

120 m

Fl or ia ni g.

35 33

12 14A 14 19 17A 17 15 13

18A 18 16 21

EPK

Block I Mixed Use District

. Le rc he ng

GB4

Tigerpark

r St r.

22 19

GBGV1

WGV1

34 32 27

Tiger g.

GB419

Jos e fs t ädte

Fuhrman nsg.1

34 31

GB4 GB GB3 4 23

61 5 9

Löwenburgg.

W4 W3

58 56 6

W463 WGV1

Mölk er G.

GB4 GBGV1

gpl . 7 7

W4 WGV1

e r l in

38 39 37

Ham

Kle she img .

EPK

12 18A 18 16 14 15 W2

Hamerlingpark

43 41

WGV1

industry

Kro t en tha ll e r 2 g.

Sch önb orn g.

n ig .

WGV1

5544 5577

W1use pattern_source_SF2 Figure 97: land

27 25

Druckdatum: 30.01.2017 00:25

29-31

‣‣

trade structure

F lo r ia

‣‣

5500

office/administration

3 4

‣‣

22 27 25

education

‣‣

Laudong.

26 28 33 31

culture/leisure/religion/fairW4 49A 47

‣‣

Dau ng.

mixed use (with residential)

‣‣

2222

1133

W3 WGV1 W442 W2

6 5

www.wien.at/flaechenwidmung/public 5.1.4.2 LAND USE PATTERN VIENNA: W2 W4 W4

Maßstab 1:4 000

GB 5

Flächenwidmungs- und Bebauungsplan

5.1.4.3 SUMMARY FINDINGS

mixed residential

mixed use

civic use

industrial use

office use

residential use

GSEducationalVersion

Figure 99: land use pattern_summary_SF1

Figure 101: land use pattern_summary_SF2

Figure 100: land use pattern_summary_Vienna1 GSEducationalVersion

Figure 102: land use pattern_summary_Vienna 2

GSEducationalVersion

Mixed Use District I Block

The final land use classification were defined as follows: Mixed Residential use: A single building or site which offers a variety of land use classifications including residential uses. Mixed use: A single building or site which offers a variety of land use classifications without residential uses. Civic use: This group includes a wide range of land uses like uses for culture, education, or institutional and recreational facilities. Office use: These areas are used by businesses, including management, information or professional services. Industrial uses: This category typically includes land uses for production, distribution and repair. Residential use: This group includes places for living.

Block I Mixed Use District

Within the context of the analysis it became clear that there are different types of urban land use patterns: ‣‣ Balanced Mixed Use (Retail/Office/Residential) ‣‣

Residential Driven Mixed Use

‣‣

Retail Driven Mixed Use

The balanced and residential-driven mixed use projects tend to have more constant activity through a longer portion of the day and night, with fewer “single purpose” traffic moments. It is important to know that retail driven mixed use results in intense traffic, making streets wider and walking areas narrower. Due to the fact that all districts are mixeduse districts, all study areas include different functions, but the precise mixture varies. This can be seen as further potential. Some projects emphasize residential function, whereas others are more clearly shopping or employment destinations.

mixed residential

mixed use

civic use

industrial use

office use

residential use

The slices of the chart compare the percentage distribution of land use patterns. Figure 105: Chart_Land use Pattern_SF2

Figure 103: Chart_Land use Pattern_SF1

36 % 22%

17 %

12 % 15 %

31 % 7%

23 %

This chart has the largest number of residential uses followed by the percentage of mixed residential uses and mixed uses.

23 %

This graph shows a balanced distribution of all land use patterns.

This district has the largest number of mixed residential uses. 77 %

13 %

94 % 4%

10 %

Figure 104: Chart_Land use Pattern_Vienna 1

1% 1%

Figure 106: Chart_Land use Pattern_Vienna 2

Mixed Use District I Block

5.1.5

LAND COVERAGE

5.1.5.1 LIVABILITY INDEX57 “The Livability index is used to identify the relationship between streets and their densities and gives a correlation between the total area of built environment and the total area of open spaces in a street zone. This index takes into consideration not only open space around the buildings but also considers the open space that is free form cars, for pedestrian use only. The ratio of this livable land area to total construction is referred to as the “livability index”.”58 The index as mentioned above, “refers to the proportion of walkable open spaces in the total built area and is also used to identify the relationship between streets and their densities. This index gives a correlation between the total area of built environment and the total area of open spaces. When the built environment has a higher livability index value, people have a sense of lower density.”59

57 58 59

Block I Mixed Use District

cf. Pandey et al. 1992 Pandey et al. 1992 Pandey et al. 1992

The slices of the chart compare the percentage distribution of built and unbuilt land. Figure 107: built_unbuilt San Francisco 1

75 % built

62 % built

25 % unbuilt

built

38 % unbuilt

38 %

62 % unbuilt

Figure 108: built_unbuilt Vienna 1

Figure 109: built_unbuilt San Francisco 1

built 70 %

30 % unbuilt

Figure 110: built_unbuilt Vienna 2

Mixed Use District I Block

5.1.5.2 OPEN SPACE NETWORK Based on the places I studied, open space is typically a combination of parks, green areas, sport, event space and parking space. The distinguishing factor was the amount and degree of smaller, more diverse open spaces that interconnected, as opposed to a single grand space.

Figure 111: open space SF 1

GSEducationalVersion

Figure 112: open space Vienna 1 GSEducationalVersion

Block I Mixed Use District

green area

park

sport

square

street trees

Figure 113: open space SF 2

Figure 114: open space Vienna 2 GSEducationalVersion

parking

The slices of the chart compare the percentage distribution of different types of open spaces. pavement green area sport square

park

Figure 115: open space_San Francisco 1

other open areas (pavement, inner courtyard) Figure 117: open space_San Francisco 2

66 %

14 %

56 % 22 %

27 %

66 %

8% 9%

51 % 9% 31 % 17 %

Figure 116: open space_Vienna 1

Figure 118: open space_Vienna 2

Mixed Use District I Block

5.1.6

BUILDINGS

5.1.6.1 BUILDING TYPOLOGIES The districts I studied show different types of building typologies. The most common types I found are: SF1

SF2

5.1.6.1.1 Block

A block is a group of plots surrounded by roads. Potentials: ‣‣ Vienna2

High flexibility regarding land use

‣‣ High Vienna1 ‣‣

social mixture

SF1

Clear separation of public (streets) and private space

Weaknesses:

Figure 119: block

Block I Mixed Use District

‣‣

Compass direction

‣‣

Bad natural light for example in corner areas

‣‣

Lack of private green areas

‣‣ Adjacent streets are used almost entirely for motorized private transport

5.1.6.1.2 Slab

SF1

SF2

A slab can be described as a linear addition of parcels with entrances oriented to the street.

Potentials: ‣‣ easy integration into the urban network ‣‣

flexible in connecting to other building typologies

‣‣

appropriate for mixed-use development

‣‣ eligible for topographical problem regions

Figure 120: slab

Weaknesses: ‣‣

Compass direction

5.1.6.1.3 Point Building

A point building is a single building which shows a high individuality. Potentials: ‣‣

optimal orientation of the building is possible

‣‣

compactness of the building

‣‣

individuality

Weaknesses: ‣‣

high land consumption

‣‣

limitation of land use mix

Figure 121: point building

Die Reihe

Mixed Use District I Block

5.1.6.2 THE BALANCE OF THE URBAN FORM60 “The horizontal axis shows the COVerage index, and the vertical index shows the FAR index.”61 The urban block can be detected at the upper right corner and serves as an example of an intense use of the land. The other building typologies are under 2,00 FAR with a small Coverage index.

Figure 122: balance of the urban form 60 61

cf. Fernández Per 2015, 86 ff. Fernández Per 2015, p. 86

Block I Mixed Use District

PLOT

Mixed Use District I Plot

6.1

FUTURE OF THE CITY

“By 2025 the world’s urban population will have grown from today’s figure of 3.5 billion to an estimated 4.5 billion, while the rural population is only likely to increase very slightly from 3.4 billion to 3.5 billion. The United Nations estimates that about 75 percent of the world’s inhabitants will be living in cities in 2050, as compared to today’s figure of 50 percent.”62 The number of people who will live in cities will present a challenge for the future of urban regions. Although I analyzed different cities, they share one aspect, in particular the matter of how quality of life is respected. This is important for the development of the populations in their local environment and a crucial aspect to the future of the growth of cities.63 In the following, I will partly refer to research work by Jahn Gehl. He has a deep understanding of how we use the public domain and offers us the tools we need to improve the design of public spaces and, as a consequence, the quality of our lives in cities.64 “To me, a sustainable city would be a very people-friendly city. It would be a city with good public spaces and a city that is rather compact. It would be a city that really invites people to walk and bicycle as much as possible. A good walking and cycling environment 62 63 64

The Century of Cities. cf. The Century of Cities. cf. Gehl 2010

Plot I Future of the City

with a good public realm is also a good environment for public transport, so there is an important connection here as well. Strengthening public transportation will be essential in the future, in order to become less dependent on private cars and also in order for the city to become more people-friendly.”65 public transport

In the quote above, Jan Gehl summarizes the main qualities which characterize a sustainable city. As a summary one may say that the main key elements of a city are: ‣‣

Mobility

‣‣

Open Space

‣‣

Land use pattern and building development

6.1.1

MOBILITY

Current urban mobility in Vienna and especially in San Francisco characterize by countless inefficiencies like air pollution, traffic congestion and noise. The utilization rate of a car is below 5 % because 95 % of their lifetime cars are parked and thus they consume very valuable urban space. Up to 70 % of urban areas not occupied by buildings are reserved for cars. The relation of mobility to urban space and resources in the modern city has failed in all aspects of sustainability.66 Therefore, it is important to find ways to en65 66

Jan Gehl: Making healthy cities - Danish Architecture Centre cf. Urban mobility reloaded:

courage more alternative types of transport. These forms could be public transport, walking and cycling as well as car- and bike-sharing. Fever cars means more space for walking, meeting other people, or playing. cycling

walking

Hence, cities should create space for walking and cycling, increase the public transport system and, as mentioned before, enable bike- and car-share systems. Strengthening such systems means existing cities will be more people-friendly, keep us healthy and will bring us all together. 67 6.1.2

OPEN SPACES

The main ambition of a city is creating possibilities for human contact.68 Therefore, it is important that cities create open spaces, which can be: ‣‣

Parks

‣‣

Event spaces

‣‣

Green spaces

‣‣

Open spaces with restricted access

‣‣

Pedestrian zones

‣‣

Green ways

‣‣

etc.

Good urban design makes sure that places are well connected to each other and that open spaces are easy to get to.69 67 68 69

cf. Urban mobility reloaded: cf. Jacobs 1970 cf. Yin, Farmer 2012, p. 142

6.1.3

LAND USE PATTERN AND BUILDING DEVELOPMENT

The main aspects for a sustainable building development are a compact design and a good land use mix. If a city is compact enough you can walk, bike or take the public transport, according to what your daily needs are.70 Designs with mixed-land use patterns can help to create areas that have diverse uses and are lively spaces. A mixed-use district that includes buildings with residential apartments, offices, and shops is likely to have people coming and going at different times throughout the day. People tend to be attracted to places that are well used by lots of other people. 71 Reduced distances between workplaces, housing or retail businesses, great housing density and pedestrian and bicycle-friendly environments encourage a compact development. 72

70 cf. Is Jan Gehl winning his battle to make our cities liveable? 71 cf. Yin, Farmer 2012, p. 142 72 cf. Wikipedia 2016

Future of the City I Plot

6.2

POTENTIALS

In the following, all potentials from the preceding analysis are listed: In the next chapter the key elements are summarized and illustrated in the “Urban Planning Tool”. This tool serves as a basis for the final part of my master thesis.

The result of my master thesis will be a proposal for urban planning scenarios based on key principles of American and European city typologies. First, I will create an “Urban Planning Tool” and based on this, different scenarios will be developed. The scenarios can consider American or European city planning principles, or both.

green area bring potentials on a building plot

on-street parking land use mix

flexible buildings square sidewalk

walkability

median strip

sport

street trees curb zone

living walls cycling density

public transport

different building types

communication

open spaces private garden

parks communication

bike sharing

building site 90 m x 120 m

Figure 123: potentials

Plot I Potentials

6.3

PATTERN FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENTS

Based on the previous studies the goal of the final chapter is to find a way to combine the detected potentials and unit them on a property. 6.3.1

PROPERTY

The block size will be 120 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; by â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 90 m. As mentioned in the study before the size tend to be the most flexible. 6.3.2

PATTERN

Based on the above-mentioned building types a concept for urban developments was designed. Before an urban planning tool can be implemented a flexible pattern for city growth needed to be found. The next question in this aspect is how different land use classifications can be combined in one building.

Pattern for Urban Developments I Plot

Figure 124: pattern concept 1

Figure 127: pattern concept 4

urban block

programmatic division

The advantage of a block building typology is used. Advantages are for example a high flexibility and a clear separation of public and private space.

This step is important to reach a good connection within a mixed-use network. Figure 128: pattern concept 5

courtyard block Figure 125: pattern concept 2

Figure 126: pattern concept 3

light optimisation

create passages

The result is a flexible building type with different heights, widths and functions of buildings.

height variation Figure 129: pattern concept 6

Plot I Potentials

Arrangement of internal circulation cores â&#x20AC;&#x201C; this offers scope for a wide range of uses

Figure 130: pattern concept 7

divide

Elaborate a suitable raster which allows various building depths and floorplan sizes.

circulation cores Figure 133: pattern concept 10

Figure 131: pattern concept 8

raster Different uses can be assigned and combined in different ways. This allows a high diversity and flexibility.

circulation cores

Figure 134: pattern concept 11 Figure 135: pattern concept 12

standard element

circulation cores

Figure 132: pattern concept 9

Potentials I Plot

6.4

URBAN PLANNING TOOL

Based on the analysis of urban areas in Vienna and San Francisco and the expertise gathered from the research on the future of cities the “Urban Planning Tool” works as follows: Figure 136: Toolbox

Plot I Urban Planning Tool

Urban Planning Tool I Plot

space for bike-sharing systems

open space free from cars for pedestrian use only Figure 138: bike sharing Toronto

Figure 137: street elements

Plot I Urban Planning Tool

Geschoss

different ways of transportation

Figure 140: park trees

possibilities to "green up" the community

Figure 139: living wall

Figure 141: street tree

Urban Planning Tool I Plot

Based on the analysis, different open spaces were selected:

Figure 142: square

grassy open spaces

squares help to define an entire urban community

Parks are regularly the largest public space. A park helps to create space for pedestrian movement.

Figure 143: park

Plot I Urban Planning Tool

semi-public green space

Figure 144: sky garden

private green space

provides room for sport activities and playgrounds

Figure 145: public garden

Urban Planning Tool I Plot

In addition to various building patterns the facade of the building should be designed in a flexible way. Three methods were developed:

Figure 146: balcony

The methods can be used separately or in combination. The advantages of an adaptive facade system leads to a new flexibility, sustainable urban development, increased density and space saving.

Figure 148: winter garden Geschoss

Geschoss

Figure 147: loggia

Plot I Urban Planning Tool

GSEducationalVersion

Figure 149: facade

EST Gross Far

Maximum number of floors

Land use Mix Percentage allocation of different land use pattern

Built / Unbuilt Relation between built and unbuilt space

This graph determines compass direction

the

This graphic regulates the location of different types of transportation on the property

Urban Planning Tool I Plot

6.5

URBAN PLANNING SCENARIOS

Based on the Urban Planning Tool the final step is to design five different Urban Planning Scenarios.

6.5.1

SCENARIO 1

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

Urban Planning Tool I Plot

In this scenario car traffic represents a barrier while the other types of transport allow open building development.

Figure 150: types of transportation GSEducationalVersion

open up

Figure 151: barriers

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

40 % built-up area

total area = 10 800 mÂ˛ 60 % undeveloped area Figure 152: built_unbuilt

The building development and raster resulted from using the concept described under point 6.3 1

13 16 different blocks

5 6

10 7

Figure 153: structure GSEducationalVersion

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

FAR : 2,6

tallest building: 13 floors

Taking into consideration the maximum number of floors and FAR the following structure has been developed:

Figure 154: building heights GSEducationalVersion

36 %

36 % 28 %

Figure 155: mixed use

GSEducationalVersion

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

living areas located in the upper part

GSEducationalVersion

Figure 156: mixed use

commercial pattern next to pedestrian zones

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

create a connection between different buildings connect separated building plots and land use patterns

B C

next to a pedestrian zone

green up the city

E F

additional green space for everyone

G Figure 157: top view

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

B G

A G

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

oriented south orientation to a park

bike- sharing next to a bike lane

Figure 158: rendering

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

6.5.2

SCENARIO 2

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

In this scenario car traffic represents a barrier while the other types of transport allow open building development.

Arrangement as in Scenario 1. Figure 159: types of transportation GSEducationalVersion

open up

Figure 160: barriers

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

45 % built-up area

total area = 10 800 mÂ˛ 55 % undeveloped area Figure 161: built_unbuilt

GSEducationalVersion

The building development and raster resulted from using the conept described under point 6.3 1

modified 14 different blocks

Figure 162: structure GSEducationalVersion

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

tallest building:

FAR : 3,2

15 floors

Taking into consideration the maximum number of floors and FAR the following structure has been developed.

Figure 163: building heights GSEducationalVersion

14 %

48 % 38 %

Figure 164: mixed use

GSEducationalVersion

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

residential land use patterns oriented to the south

connection to the square

commercial floor 1 and floor 2

GSEducationalVersion

Figure 165: mixed use

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

using street features

B C E D E

green up the city

center of public activity

establish pedestrian movement

Figure 166: top view

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

E A

B E

C Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

buffer zone between space for living and roadways changing facade

Figure 167: rendering

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

6.5.3

SCENARIO 3

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

In this scenario car traffic represents a barrier while the other types of transport allow open building development.

Figure 168: types of transportation GSEducationalVersion

open up

Figure 169: barriers

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

45% built-up area

total area = 10 800 mÂ˛ 55% undeveloped area Figure 171: built_unbuilt

GSEducationalVersion

The building development and raster resulted from using the conept described under point 6.3 1

14 different blocks

modified

Figure 170: structure GSEducationalVersion

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

FAR : 3

tallest building: 13 floors

Taking into consideration the maximum number of floors and FAR the following structure has been developed.

Figure 172: building heights GSEducationalVersion

38 %

11%

31 %

20 %

Figure 173: mixed use

GSEducationalVersion

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

seperation of land use patterns space for living oriented south

GSEducationalVersion

Figure 174: mixed use

additional type of land use patterns reference to the axis for public transport

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

sidewalks for people to walk

seating, public artwork, central activity space

wide range of recreational activites

Figure 175: top view

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

B A

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot 100

private green space

G Figure 176: rendering

101

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

102

6.5.4

103

SCENARIO 4

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

104

In this scenario a bikeway crosses the property.

Figure 177: types of transportation GSEducationalVersion

open up

Figure 178: barriers

105

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

50% built-up area

total area = 10 800 mÂ˛ 50 % undeveloped area Figure 179: built_unbuilt

GSEducationalVersion

The building development and raster resulted from using the conept described under point 6.3 1 17 different blocks

17 16 15

13 12

Figure 180: structure GSEducationalVersion

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

106

FAR : 3 tallest building: 11 floors

Taking into consideration the maximum number of floors and FAR the following structure has been developed.

Figure 181: building heights GSEducationalVersion

30% 33 %

28 % 10 %

Figure 182: mixed use

GSEducationalVersion

107

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

creating an inner courtyard

commercial floor 1 and floor 2

GSEducationalVersion

Figure 183: mixed use

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot 108

bike sharing the bikeway

along

balconies oriented to the courtyard

D B

Figure 184: top view

109

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

110

E space for sport activities

using the feature bikeway creation of a bike platform

Figure 185: rendering

111

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

112

6.5.5

113

SCENARIO 5

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

114

In this scenario the tramway is the central element.

Figure 186: types of transportation GSEducationalVersion

open up

Figure 187: barriers

115

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

60 % built-up area

total area = 10 800 mÂ˛ 40 % undeveloped area Figure 188: built_unbuilt

GSEducationalVersion

The building development and raster resulted from using the conept described under point 6.3

16 different blocks

Figure 189: structure GSEducationalVersion

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

116

tallest building:

FAR : 4

15 floors

Taking into consideration the maximum number of floors and FAR the following structure has been developed.

Figure 190: building heights GSEducationalVersion

26%

33 % 40 %

Figure 191: mixed use

GSEducationalVersion

117

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

office from the third floor upwards

living from the third floor upwards

commercial floor 1 and floor 2

GSEducationalVersion

Figure 192: mixed use

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

118

space for people to walk

C C D D

green spaces for everyone green spaces on different levels

Figure 193: top view

119

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

E E

D B

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

120

E concept to create green spaces

Figure 194: rendering

121

Plot I Urban Planning Scenarios

Urban Planning Scenarios I Plot

122

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS & MAGAZINES Brunn, Stanley D.; Graybill, Jessica K.; Hays-Mitchell, Maureen; Zeigler, Donald J. (2016):

Cities of the world. Regional patterns and urban environments. Sixth Edition. Lanham, Boulder, New York, London: Rowman & Littlefield.

Cherry, Nathan; Nagle, Kurt (2009):

Grid/street/place. Essential elements of sustainable urban districts. Chicago, Ill.: American Planning Association Planners Press.

FernĂĄndez Per, Aurora (2015):

Why density? Debunking the myth of the cubic watermelon ; desmontando el mito de la sandia cubica. Vitoria-Gasteiz: a+t research group.

Gehl, Jan (2010):

Cities for people. Washington DC Wash.

Jacobs, Jane (1970):

The economy of cities. New York: Vintage Books

Kostof, Spiro (1991):

The city shaped. Urban patterns and meanings through history. Boston, Mass.: Little Brown.

Lynch, K. (1987):

Good City Form. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Pr.

Morris, Anthony Edwin James (1979):

History of urban form. Before the Industrial Revolution. 2. ed. London: Godwin.

Pacione, Michael (2009):

Urban geography. A global perspective. 3. ed. London: Routledge.

Pandey, Rajendra Kumar; Razzini, Giancarlo; Bicelli, Luisa Peraldo (1992):

A comparative study of the morphological and compositional trends in CdTe films galvanostatically deposited from an ethylene glycol based bath. In: Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells

Reicher, C. (2016):

StĂ¤dtebauliches Entwerfen: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

Reps, John William (1992):

The making of urban America. A history of city planning in the United States. Princeton Paperback print.

Sendich, Emina (Hg.) (2006):

Planning and urban design standards. 1. ed. Hoboken NJ: Wiley

V.~Moudon, Anne (1997):

Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field. Accessible online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Moudon/ publication/235359167_Urban_morphology_as_an_emerging_interdisciplinary_field/links/0c96052f41bc2b4ab5000000.pdf.

Yin, Jordan; Farmer, W. Paul (2012):

Urban Planning For Dummies. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Accessible online: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10538646.

bibliography

XIII

ONLINE A City Planner‘s Guide to Floor Area Ratio.

Accessible online: http://www.sonic.net/~apk/FAR/home.html.

Anarfi, Barima Abel O.: Form, structure and morphology of urban planning.

Accessible online: https://www.academia.edu/9468419/FORM_STRUCTURE_AND_MORPHOLOGY_OF_URBAN_PLANNING.

Bouras, Zacharis: Urban Realms V.2.

Accessible online: http://www.lewishistoricalsociety.com/wiki/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=44.

City Planning. Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World.

Accessible online: http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/city-planning

DeStefano, John: Introduction.

Accessible online: http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/cityplan/pdfs/PlanningPrograms/ComprehensivePlan/SectionIIntroduction.pdf

Ellis, Cliff: History Of Cities And City Planning.

Accessible online: http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/simcity/manual/history.html.

Geographic Models.

Accessible online: http://www.amyglenn.com/GEOG-PHYSICAL/Geographic%20Models%20I.pdf

Hohenberg, Paul M.: The historical geography of European cities: an interpretive essay. Accessible online: http://www.econ.brown.edu/Faculty/henderson/hisgeotext21.pdf.

Hopkins, Jonathan: How We Got Here.

Accessible online: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/define_the_city/

Is Jan Gehl winning his battle to make our cities liveable?

Accessible online: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/dec/08/jan-gehl-make-cities-liveable-urban-rethinker

Jan Gehl: Making healthy cities - Danish Architecture Centre.

Accessible online: http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-cities/sustainable-cities/experts/jan-gehl-making-healthy-cities/

Le Galès, Patrick; Zagrodzki, Mathieu: Cities are back in town: the US/Europe comparison. Accessible online: http://blogs.sciences-po.fr/recherche-villes/files/2010/01/cahierville0606.pdf

Modal share.

Accessible online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share.

Munson, Dave: Which street pattern represents your continent? Accessible online: https://munsonscity.com/tag/gridiron/.

Planning London.

Accessible online: http://londontouristattractions.net/planning-london/

TEMS - The EPOMM Modal Split Tool.

Accessible online: http://www.epomm.eu/tems/index.phtml.

The Century of Cities.

Accessible online: https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/mercedes-benz/next/connectivity/the-century-of-cities/

The structure of cities.

Accessible online: https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/population-and-urbanization-17/urbanization-and-the-development-of-cities-123/the-structure-of-cities-694-10482/.

XIV

bibliography

Urban mobility reloaded: Planning our future cities - Biomimicry Institute. Accessible online: https://biomimicry.org/urban-mobility-reloaded-planning-future-cities/

Urban Realms Model.

Accessible online: https://mhsaphuge3.wikispaces.com/Urban+Realms+Model.

Wikipedia (2016): Mixed-use development

Accessible online: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=749281903

Wikipedia (2017): Urban morphology Accessible online: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=758246970

bibliography

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Structural Level

Figure 2: Region

Figure 3: City

Figure 4: District

Figure 5: Block

Figure 6: Parcel

Figure 7: 900

Figure 8: New Haven in 1641

Figure 9: 1500

Figure 10: 1800

own diagram based on REICHER, C.: Städtebauliches Entwerfen, Vieweg+Teubner Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2012 own diagram based on REICHER, C.: Städtebauliches Entwerfen, Vieweg+Teubner Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2012 own diagram based on REICHER, C.: Städtebauliches Entwerfen, Vieweg+Teubner Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2012 own diagram based on REICHER, C.: Städtebauliches Entwerfen, Vieweg+Teubner Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2012 own diagram based on REICHER, C.: Städtebauliches Entwerfen, Vieweg+Teubner Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2012 own diagram based on REICHER, C.: Städtebauliches Entwerfen, Vieweg+Teubner Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2012 own diagram based on http://worldpopulationhistory.org/map/1/mercator/1/0/25/ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=759066240 own diagram based on http://worldpopulationhistory.org/map/1/mercator/1/0/25/ own diagram based on http://worldpopulationhistory.org/map/1/mercator/1/0/25/

Figure 11: Washington Pierre L'Enfants

Figure 12: 1850

Figure 13: Manhattan 1920

Figure 14: Riverside

Figure 15: 1950

Figure 16: concentric zone theory

Figure 17: sector theory

Figure 18: multiple nuclei theory

Figure 19: urban-realms theory

https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/771/flashcards/46771/jpg/place--wash_dc--l'enfant_plan--small_00046.jpg own diagram based on http://worldpopulationhistory.org/map/1/mercator/1/0/25/ http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/manhattan_upper_1920.jpg http://99percentinvisible.org/article/unlikely-neighbors-americas-linear-alley-capital-first-curvy-suburb/ own diagram based on http://worldpopulationhistory.org/map/1/mercator/1/0/25/ http://cdn.yourarticlelibrary.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/clip_image002_thumb55.jpg http://cdn.yourarticlelibrary.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/clip_image00614.jpg http://cdn.yourarticlelibrary.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/clip_image014.jpg http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/oxford/Oxford_Geography/0198606737.multiple-nuclei-model.1.jpg

List of Figures XVII

Figure 20: Google Maps San Francisco

Figure 21: Google Maps Vienna

Figure 22: San Francisco

Figure 23: San Francisco

Figure 24: Vienna

Figure 25: Vienna

Figure 26: San Francisco

Figure 27: Vienna

Figure 28: San Franciso Scale 1:200 000

Figure 29: Vienna Scale 1:200 000

Figure 30: FAR San Francisco

Figure 31: SF zoning map

Figure 32: FAR Vienna

Figure 33: FAR SF

Figure 34: FAR Vienna

Figure 35: classic district San Francisco

Figure 36: classic district Vienna

Figure 37: San Francisco 1

Figure 38: San Francisco 2

Figure 39: San Francisco 3

https://www.google.at/maps https://www.google.at/maps own image own image own image own image own image own image

https://www.schwarzplan.eu/ https://www.schwarzplan.eu/

http://planning.sanfranciscocode.org/1.2/124/ http://sf-planning.org/zoning-map https://www.wien.gv.at/stadtentwicklung/grundlagen/stadtforschung/gis/karten/siedlungsentwicklung.html own image own image own image own image

https://www.google.at/maps https://www.google.at/maps https://www.google.at/maps

XVIII List of Figures

Figure 40: Vienna 1

Figure 41: Vienna 2

Figure 42: Vienna 3

Figure 43: San Francisco 1_Street Pattern

Figure 44: San Francisco 2_Street Pattern

Figure 45: San Francisco 3_Street Pattern

Figure 46: Vienna 1_Street Pattern

Figure 47: Vienna 2_Street Pattern

Figure 48: Vienna 3_Street Pattern

Figure 49: gridiron

Figure 50: organic

Figure 51: loose grid

Figure 52: radial grid

Figure 53: average block size width

Figure 54: average block size height

Figure 55: San Francisco 1_Street Pattern

Figure 56: San Francisco 2_Street Pattern

Figure 57: San Francisco 3_Street Pattern

Figure 58: Vienna 1_Street Pattern

Figure 59: Vienna 2_Street Pattern

https://www.google.at/maps https://www.google.at/maps https://www.google.at/maps https://www.schwarzplan.eu/ https://www.schwarzplan.eu/ https://www.schwarzplan.eu/ https://www.schwarzplan.eu/ https://www.schwarzplan.eu/ https://www.schwarzplan.eu/

https://munsonscity.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/all-grids.jpg https://munsonscity.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/all-grids.jpg https://munsonscity.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/all-grids.jpg https://munsonscity.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/all-grids.jpg own image based on https://www.schwarzplan.eu/ own image based on https://www.schwarzplan.eu/ own image based on https://www.schwarzplan.eu/ own image based on https://www.schwarzplan.eu/ own image based on https://www.schwarzplan.eu/ own image based on https://www.schwarzplan.eu/ own image based on https://www.schwarzplan.eu/

List of Figures

XIX

Figure 60: Vienna 3_Street Pattern

Figure 61: summary chart

Figure 62: mixed use district Vienna

Figure 63: mixed use district San Francisco

Figure 64: google maps SF 1

Figure 65: google maps Vienna 1

Figure 66: google maps SF 2

Figure 67: google maps Vienna 2

Figure 68: San Francisco 1

Figure 69: Vienna 1

Figure 70: San Francisco 2

Figure 71: Vienna 2

Figure 72: San Francisco 1

Figure 73: Vienna 1

Figure 74: San Francisco 2

Figure 75: Vienna 2

Figure 76: transportation_SF1

Figure 77: transportationn_Vienna 1

Figure 78: transportation_SF2

Figure 79: transportation_Vienna 2

own image based on https://www.schwarzplan.eu/ own image own image own image

https://www.google.at/maps https://www.google.at/maps https://www.google.at/maps https://www.google.at/maps

https://www.schwarzplan.eu/ https://www.schwarzplan.eu/ https://www.schwarzplan.eu/ https://www.schwarzplan.eu/

own image based on https://www.google.at/maps own image based on https://www.google.at/maps own image based on https://www.google.at/maps own image based on https://www.google.at/maps own image based on https://www.google.at/maps own image based on https://www.google.at/maps own image based on https://www.google.at/maps own image based on https://www.google.at/maps

List of Figures

Figure 80: modal-split Vienna

Figure 81: modal-split San Francisco

Figure 82: modal-split San Francisco

Figure 83: Street 1_SF

Figure 84: Street 3_SF

Figure 85: Street 1_Vienna

Figure 86: Street 2_Vienna

Figure 87: Street 1_SF

Figure 88: Street 3_SF

Figure 89: Street 2_SF

Figure 90: Street 4_SF

Figure 91: Street 1_Vienna

Figure 92: Street 3_Vienna

Figure 93: Street 2_Vienna

Figure 94: Street 4_Vienna

Figure 95: street features

Figure 96: land use pattern_source_SF1

Figure 97: land use pattern_source_SF2

Figure 98: land use pattern_source_Vienna

Figure 99: land use pattern_summary_SF1

https://www.fahrradwien.at/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/modal-split-2014-2015.png https://i1.wp.com/sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/02/survey-pie.jpg?w&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2Cpx ttps://i1.wp.com/sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/02/survey-pie.jpg?w&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2Cpx https://www.google.at/maps https://www.google.at/maps https://www.google.at/maps https://www.google.at/maps

https://data.sfgov.org/Housing-and-Buildings/Land-Use/us3s-fp9q https://data.sfgov.org/Housing-and-Buildings/Land-Use/us3s-fp9q https://www.wien.gv.at/flaechenwidmung/public/ own image

List of Figures

XXI

Figure 100: land use pattern_summary_SF1

Figure 101: land use pattern_summary_SF1

Figure 102: land use pattern_summary_SF1

Figure 103: Chart_Land use Pattern_SF1

Figure 104: Chart_Land use Pattern_Vienna 1

Figure 105: Chart_Land use Pattern_SF2

Figure 106: Chart_Land use Pattern_Vienna 2

Figure 107: built_unbuilt San Francisco 1

Figure 108: built_unbuilt Vienna 1

Figure 109: built_unbuilt San Francisco 1

Figure 110: built_unbuilt Vienna 2

Figure 111: open space SF 1

Figure 112: open space Vienna 1

Figure 113: open space SF 2

Figure 114: open space Vienna 2

Figure 115: open space_San Francisco 1

Figure 116: open space_Vienna 1

Figure 117: open space_San Francisco 2

Figure 118: open space_Vienna 2

Figure 119: block

own image own image own image own image own chart own chart own chart own chart own chart own chart own chart

own image based on http://www.openstreetmap.org/ own image based on http://www.openstreetmap.org/ own image based on http://www.openstreetmap.org own image based on http://www.openstreetmap.org own image based on http://www.openstreetmap.org own image based on http://www.openstreetmap.org own image based on http://www.openstreetmap.org own image based on http://www.openstreetmap.org own image based on https://www.schwarzplan.eu/

XXII

List of Figures

Figure 120: slab

Figure 121: point building

Figure 122: balance of the urban form

Figure 123: potentials

Figure 124: pattern concept 1

Figure 125: pattern concept 2

Figure 126: pattern concept 3

Figure 127: pattern concept 4

Figure 128: pattern concept 5

Figure 129: pattern concept 6

Figure 130: pattern concept 7

Figure 131: pattern concept 8

Figure 132: pattern concept 9

Figure 133: pattern concept 10

Figure 134: pattern concept 11

Figure 135: pattern concept 12

Figure 136: Toolbox

Figure 137: street elements

Figure 138: bike sharing toronto

Figure 139: living wall

own image based on https://www.schwarzplan.eu/ own image based on https://www.schwarzplan.eu/ A+T Research Group (2015): Why density? Vitoria-Gasteiz: A+T Architecture Publ. own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image

http://www.bikeshophub.com/contentimage/large/2014/02/toronto-bixi-martin-reis.jpg http://www.greenovergrey.com/images/Green-over-Grey-Living-Green-Wall-Vertical-Garden.jpg

List of Figures XXIII

Figure 140: park trees

Figure 141: street tree

Figure 142: square

Figure 143: park

Figure 144: sky garden

http://www.cityofparkston.org/vertical/Sites/%7BA11694B9-5368-4205-B65D-1BC83B79DECC%7D/uploads/trees_2.jpg http://s79f01z693v3ecoes3yyjsg1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/f.6Trees.1118.jpg http://www.detail.de/fileadmin/_migrated/pics/LAAC_LHP06052011-007_01_09d587009f_01.jpg http://www.clubl94.de/typo3temp/pics/cbd53a110e.jpg https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51616b90e4b0715db61ed528/5181e9cde4b04f94760cbdf5/5181e9e0e4b0cb6af950e7b8/1367468523228/Sky2.jpg

Figure 145: public garden

http://blog.wernerlampert.com/wp-content/uploads/urban-farming-in-New-York.jpg

Figure 146: balcony

Figure 147: loggia

Figure 148: winter garden

Figure 149: facade

Figure 150: types of transportation

Figure 151: barriers

Figure 152: built_unbuilt

Figure 153: structure

Figure 154: building heights

Figure 155: mixed use

Figure 156: mixed use

Figure 157: top view

Figure 158: rendering

Figure 159: types of transportation

own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image

XXIV List of Figures

Figure 160: barriers

Figure 161: built_unbuilt

Figure 162: structure

Figure 163: building heights

Figure 164: mixed use

Figure 165: mixed use

Figure 166: top view

Figure 167: rendering

Figure 168: types of transportation

Figure 169: barriers

Figure 171: built_unbuilt

Figure 170: structure

Figure 172: building heights

Figure 173: mixed use

Figure 174: mixed use

own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image

Figure 175: top view

100

Figure 176: rendering

102

Figure 177: types of transportation

105

Figure 178: barriers

105

Figure 179: built_unbuilt

106

own image own image own image own image own image

List of Figures XXV

Figure 180: structure

106

Figure 181: building heights

107

Figure 182: mixed use

107

Figure 183: mixed use

108

Figure 184: top view

110

Figure 185: rendering

112

Figure 186: types of transportation

115

Figure 187: barriers

115

Figure 188: built_unbuilt

116

Figure 189: structure

116

Figure 190: building heights

117

Figure 191: mixed use

117

Figure 192: mixed use

118

Figure 193: top view

120

Figure 194: rendering

122

own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image own image

XXVI List of Figures

List of Figures XXVII

Sandra Froschauer, BSc I Baumgarten 8 I 4331 Naarn