200pph V.S. 800pph in Jerico, Oxford, UK by tszhin

URBAN DESIGN ISSUES 1 “how do we safeguard and deliver high levels of environment quality in the context of increasing intensification of land use?” FEBRUARY 2015

GROUP 6

Ervand Anggryawan, Iain Stevenson, Lara Puttock, Omkar Kulkarni, Yucheng Xu, and Zixuan Chen

CONTENTS SECTION ONE : INTRODUCTION Background 5 Our Approach 5 Methodology 6 Environmental Quality 6

SECTION TWO : LITERATURE REVIEW Review against Environmental Criteria 7 The Interest in Higher Densities 9 The Benefits of Higher Density Living 9 The Concerns About High Densities 9 Guidance From The UK and Abroad 10

SECTION THREE : CASE STUDIES Background to the case studies 11 Case Study 1 : Champagne Court Locality, Hong Kong 12 Case Study 2 : Longquan Metropolis, Dongguan, China 14 Case Study 3 : Eixample, Barcelona 16 Case Study 4 : Coopers Road Estate, Southwark, London 18 Case Study 5 : Greenwich Millennium Village, London 20 Case Study 6 : Hammarby Sjostad, Sweden 22

Initial Spatial Capacity 26

SECTION FIVE : THE 200 PPH MODEL Jericho 27 The 200 PPH Model 28 Summary Of The 200 PPH Model 31

SECTION SIX : THE 800 PPH MODE Version 1 33 Version 2 33 Version 3 33 Version 4 (Final) 33 Key Aspects of The 800 PPH Model 38

SECTION SEVEN : CONCLUSION Summary of Findings 39 Application Abroad 39 Key Design Principles for High Density Living 39 References 45

SECTION FOUR : LAND USES Introduction 25 Housing 25 Education 25 Open Space 25 Local Facilities 26 Employment 26 Accessibility 26

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

SECTION ONE : INTRODUCTION

Background

Our Approach

This report has been produced in response to the following question:

Our methodology is set out in Figure 05. Using the results of the first brainstorming session a set of environmental qualities and questions to solve were developed. Space standards for some of the key land uses were reviewed. International case studies of examples of medium and high density were investigated and well as more detailed research on solutions to meet some of the environmental issues. The international case studies were then assessed against the environmental criteria to identify good points and issues to be aware of.

“How do we safeguard and deliver high levels of environmental quality in the context of increasing intensification of land use?” This section begins by explaining how we started the project and sets out the key definitions to be used when judging environmental quality. It introduces the key issues that recur throughout the report: environmental quality, densification and land uses. Section Two also provides a literature review based upon these key environmental qualities followed by a general discussion about why higher densities are becoming increasingly common followed by the benefits and challenges they present and how they might be overcome.

All this information was then used to develop criteria to inform the two models. As the models developed, particularly the 800 pph version, tensions were raised and we had to make trade-offs and consider the impact upon environmental quality and the land uses being provided.

We were instructed to produce models at 200 persons per hectare (PPH) and 800 persons per hectare and this approach is set out in Section Three.

Figure 01 : Shanghai Urban Planning Exhibition Centre

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Figure 02 : Busy Shibuya Crossing, Tokyo

Key Land Uses • Schools • Healthcare • Leisure • Transport • Recreational • Residential Initial List of Environmental Qualities (Ranked in Importance Out of 5) • Solar access – 4 • Vitality of streets - 5 • Green spaces (air quality) - 4 • Robust building form – 4 • Minimise a range of pollutants – 3.5 • Feels safe – 5 • Choice of land use vs transport – 5 • Places for people vs transport – 5 • Places for people to interact – 4 • Legibility - 4

Section Four sets out our conclusion and issues to be considered for the next stage. This is where we test and refine our design ideas, concepts, methods and solutions in response to a brief on a real site in order to produce guidance that other future designers can follow in similar situations.

Densification Issues • Increase in density per ha • Maximise available land • Mixed uses (land) function (activities) • Balance of people p/ha versus supporting structures services • Visual diversity (building) townscape (street/ other public space) • Manage car parking provision • Balance built form and open space provision • Compactiveness vs dispersed development • Rational land use management/ appropriate/complimentary land uses

Figure 03 : Kensington High Street

Figure 04 : Vauban, Freiburg

Methodology

Environmental Quality

The challenge set is how do we safeguard and deliver high levels of environmental quality in the context of increasing intensification of land use? Before deciding upon the possible design model for meeting this challenge, it was important to define what is meant by the question. This was initially undertaken by all the students. The first brainstorming session set out the key environmental qualities and ranked them in importance out of 5. This was followed by a discussion of what is meant by densification and the group also made a list of key issues that need to be considered. A list of possible land uses found in built up areas was also set out.

During our first meeting, we discussed the original list and decided to set them out as a table (see first column of Table 01). These were used to guide the literature review and evaluate the case studies. Rather than show the initial and revised version, the table shows the final list and is therefore includes some of the changes as a result of the literature review and case studies.

Criteria

Description

1/ Safety

The area feels safe to live in and visit, during the day and at night. Pedestrians and cyclists feel safe travelling around.

2/ Amenity

There is sufficient daylight within the buildings. Noise levels are acceptable. Tall buildings should not cause unacceptable wind conditions or overshadowing.

3/ Local Facilities

There is a range of services and facilities nearby to meet daily needs, including shops, cafes, restaurants and primary school restaurants. A neighbourhood centre is provided so that shared trips can be made. Sufficient amounts of open space are available, including quieter areas for relaxing.

4/ Accessibility 5/ Variety and Community

Services and facilities are within a safe and convenient walking distance. Public transport is available, including during the evening. Walking and cycling take priority. The area has variety and diversity. There should be a sense of community with opportunities to meet others.

6/ Public Realm

The public realm needs to be high quality. There should be trees, vegetation and open spaces.

7/ Identity and Legibility

The area should have an identity, such as Shoreditch in London, Jericho in Oxford, or Kowloon in Hong Kong. It should be easy to find your way around.

SECTION TWO : LITERATURE REVIEW

Review against Environmental Criteria We started out literature review according to each of the original criteria. 1/ Safety The provision of a safe and welcoming place that people want to visit and spend time in is considered essential criteria for development. A development should : • ensure natural surveillance and human presence • minimise conflict by providing safe routes for walking and cycling • design-in territoriality and community involvement. (Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) and Studio Real, 2013:106)

8/ Resources

Figure 05 : Project Methodology Undertaker by Group 6 (Source : Author)

The development should enhance the environment and limit the impact upon resources. The five key aspects (Barton, Grant and Guise, 2010 167 -224) are: Energy : reduce needs and increase renewable energy. Water : reduce use, control downstream impact (flood risk, aquifers). Food : increase access for local people (local shops, location), maximise opportunity for local food production (i.e. allotments, green roofs, markets); increase community links to food (education, school projects). Waste : recycling opportunity; localise waste facilities. Biodiversity : buildwildlife capacity; provide green routes & access to natural spaces.

Table 01 : Environmental Criteria

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Singapore has applied these in a higher density environment. Apartment blocks are designed to surround the playgrounds, events areas and sports courts to enable residents to see what is going on from their apartments. Ground areas are dedicated for specific uses to creating a zone of influence and ownership. Connecting residential common areas with the street and other busy places makes surveillance more effective. (Centre for Liveable Cities and Urban Land Institute, 2013:54)

2/ Amenity Creating a liveable environment must include high internal space standards. High densities do not have to mean smaller living space and adequate floor plate standards should be used to avoid cramped living conditions. (HCA et al, 2013:49). Buildings and windows should be orientated to maximise solar gain (in the UK) and ensure an adequate level of daylight to living and working areas. As well as ensuring a higher level of amenity for residents, this also contributes to energy efficiency. While noise has been identified as often being higher where transport and buildings are concentrated, it is also noted that quiet areas screened from road and rail traffic can still be found in high density areas. (GLA, 2004: xiii). In London, identified approaches include - extending good, noise reducing surfaces across all roads and improving noise environments, e.g. in home zones and in exemplar public space projects (GLA,2004:xvii). Building design and site layout should consider micro climate to take advantage of the breezes in summer but avoid wind tunnels, particularly in winter. For taller buildings, where there is greater spacing between them, winds can be forced down to make open spaces potentially uncomfortable (HCA et al, 2013:52), and therefore this should be

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

addressed at the earliest stage of site design and layout. (Ng, 2009:135) Consideration should be given to the building’s environment in considering amenity. In Singapore high density is relieved by interspacing lowrise blocks and spaces (e.g., schools, community centres, sports fields, and parks) with high-rise residential blocks in a checkerboard pattern to give the illusion of space and make the high-rise environment less harsh.(Centre for Liveable Cities et al, 2013:48) 3/ Local Facilities In order to minimise journeys by car and help create a sense of community, local facilities which can include shop, community centre, libraries, places of worship and other places people meet should be provided within a walkable catchment

of around 400m – 800m that is 5 -10 minutes’ walk. A number of other benefits have been identified by providing facilities locally : • meetings at local facilities reinforce local networks of support and a sense of community, • local facilities particularly retailing; can provide jobs, and • reduction in the need for travel (Barton, Grant and Guise, 2003:96). Access to open space is an important contributor to quality of life and the following criteria has been identified as what people expect to find in a quality green space. • Accessible, and connected • Attractive and appealing places • Biodiverse supporting ecological networks • Promote activity, health and well-being and • Community benefits (Greenspace Scotland and GCV Green Network, 2008:26-27) In high density environment unusual public spaces can be put to use. In Singapore this has included under railway lines, next to canals, on top of buildings, and near underground railway stations. Some have multiple users. Rooftops double as public spaces (Centre for Liveable Cities and Urban Land Institute, 2013 p35-36).

Figure 06 : Example of London Town Centre

From a study of Hong Kong, another type of space has been identified in high density environments - atriums, galleries, arcades, indoor parks, courtyards, and skycourt and sky gardens. However it is noted that these can function as exclusive spaces and one approach to overcome this is that connection between the outdoor plaza and the atrium should be identified. (Al-Kodmany, 2011:252–269) 5/ Variety and Community Urban ‘intensity’ can be defined as the experience of intensive encounter in public space that may or may not emerge under conditions of density. Urban precincts have been identified that that produce the phenomenon of ‘density without intensity’. (Dovey & Pafka, 2014:72-76) Mixed uses are one approach for injecting vitality and activity in to an area. Approaches for mixing uses at close quarters which include: • inserting managed workspaces or compatible employment uses into ‘backlands’, or block interiors; • introducing mews lined with single-aspect offices, workshops or studios; • creating hybrid building types that can serve as a buffer between different use areas; (HCA et al, 2013:96) For higher density development, ways to address this may be through creating areas people can meet and gather. Research suggests the following:

and Pitt, 2013:221). Three interrelated components can be expressed in any identifiable place, creating its specific identity: ‘physical features or appearance, observable activities and functions, and meanings or symbols’ (Relp 1976 cited in Sepea & Pitt, 2014: 223) Landmarks such as distinctive buildings help to provide reference points and emphasise the hierarchy of a place. These are best created at main centres of activity, where they are the focus of converging major streets. High-rise buildings can be used to emphasise key locations - rising above areas with a more uniform profile. The best tall buildings attend to the human scale at the bottom, and locate the most visible compositional elements at the top. (HCA et al 2013: 61-62) In terms of legibility it is noted that places where form, layout and signage make them easy to understand are likely both to function well and to be pleasant to live in or visit (DETR & CABE, 2000:28) Approaches to ensuring and improving legibility have been identified as: • Siting development to enhance existing views and vistas, and create new ones. • The ensuring the design, location and function of buildings reinforces the identity and character of the routes and spaces they serve. • Designing corners to create visual interest and

distinctive identity; and • Detailing and quality of materials in new development. (DETR & CABE, 2000 28 -29) 7/ Public Realm The arrangement of paving, planting, lighting, orientation, shelter, signage, street furniture, the way it is overlooked, the routes which pass through it and, the uses in and next to it contribute to the success of the public realm. How attractive a public space is, and how well people treat it, will partly depend on the arrangements made for its management and on how easy it is to maintain. (DETR & CABE, 2000:24) This should include the following: • A system of open and green spaces that respect natural features and are accessible. • Ground floors occupied by uses that relate directly to passing pedestrians. • Well-designed public spaces which relate to the buildings around it • Streets and spaces that are overlooked feel safer and generally are safer. • Works of art and well-designed street furniture integrated into the design of public spaces give identity and enhance the sense of place. (DETR & CABE,2000:24)

• useful plazas start at a street corner where there is considerable pedestrian traffic and activity and that sitting spaces, particularly with a view of the street. • Retail stores on the street front invite foot traffic and create atmosphere on the street • Use a minimum of 50 per cent of the ground floor area for retail use. (Al-Kodmany, 2011:262)

8/ Resources

The Interest in Higher Densities

The Concerns About High Densities

Adopting energy efficient design and greener practices is an integral part of ensuring development contributes to sustainability, mitigates the effects of climate change and other benefits in terms of amenity, maintenance and reduced energy bills for residents. Higher density urban forms can be exploited to create wildlife habitats on walls, balconies, roof terraces and decks. (UrBED, TPCA & ALGE, 2004:30)

Intensification of densities can be seen to address growing problems of congestion, urban sprawl, the cost of housing, pollution, underutilisation of resources and infrastructure, as well as impacts on the natural environment and countryside. The supposedly lower levels of travel, and hence lower levels of fuel consumption and emissions, associated with high urban densities is seen to support the case for more compact cities (Breheny, 1996:18).

The following are considerations for achieving energy efficiency:

Increasing the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing, is also a topical issue particularly in countries such as the UK, where demand far outstrips supply. The reasons include improved life expectancy rates and a growing number of oneperson households (Wilson, 2010). Arguably, these same issues can be applied to many other countries. In Australia, it is noted that that previously the economics of building higher density dwellings did not stack up for developers or owners, except for a small number of inner city areas (Urbis, 2013:2).

High density development can invoke strong opinions. The Urban Land Institute Singapore and Centre for Liveable Cities (2013) outline “A general sentiment exists that high density spells the end for liveability in a city. Density is often blamed for accentuating problems like overcrowding, crime, disease, pollution, poverty, and high living costs. The oftenreported negative impacts of high-density living, such as a congested cityscape, low quality urban services, increasing competition among people for use of facilities, and associated social conflicts, create a pessimistic view of life in a compact, highly built-up city.” (Urban Land Institute Singapore and Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore, 2013:8).

• Solar design - There are four main ways of using the sun in buildings: daylight; passive solar gain (orientation); photovoltaic (PV) modules; and active solar panels. • Water - Collect, store and recycle rainwater. Retaining surface water reduces the need for drainage infrastructure and energy for pumping, • Underground energy sources for environmentally friendly heating and cooling systems (e.g. heat pumps). (HCA & Studio Real 2013:50- 52) Creating places for biodiversity can be created in high density environments with limited land. In Singapore this has occurred on the pavement, a road divider, a building facade, or a rooftop. Methods to achieve this have included rooftop gardens, greening of vertical walls, and landscaped balconies. (Centre for Liveable Cities and Urban Land Institute, 2013:26)

6/ Identity and Legibility Places are termed places and not just spaces because they are endowed with identity. (Sepea

Figure 07 : Public Square in Barcelona

Figure 08 : London Public Realm

Figure 09 : Green Wall, London

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

The Benefits of Higher Density Living Delivering Quality Places Urban Design Compendium 2 identifies the benefits of compact neighbourhoods: • Amenity – Higher densities support mixed uses and can provide a balanced range of facilities within a 5–10 minute walk; • Housing – The stock can more easily provide a wider range of housing types and tenures; • Transportation – The development provides a customer base for effective public transport, while promoting cycling; • Economy – The development can make local business more viable; • Social – Passive surveillance and opportunities for social use of public spaces are improved; • Energy – There are opportunities for more efficient form of energy supply, including local generation and distribution networks; • Landscape – Countryside is retained and new landscape open space can be provided. • (Homes and Communities Agency and Studio Real, 2007:84)

However this has been found not to be the case. For example, Singapore, with densities over 7,000 persons per square kilometre, has been consistently ranked highly in many liveability surveys, including Mercer’s 2010 Quality of Living Survey and Siemens’s Asian Green City Index (Urban Land Institute Singapore and Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore, 2013:9). In a similar comparison it is considered that, despite its very high density, Hong Kong is a still a very liveable city compared to other large cities in the world (Yeo, 2011:1) It is considered possible to have a high standard of liveability with high densities, potentially more so that than some development at very low densities, due to easy access to sustainable transport modes, services and facilities.

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Figure 10 : The Australian Urban Design Protocol Diagram Illustrates How Economic, Social and Environmental Aspects Interrelate

Figure 11 : Hong Kong Homes

SECTION THREE :

Guidance From The UK and Abroad A review was undertaken to identify key principles adopted in the UK and overseas to deliver a high quality environment for residential and neighbourhood development. Singapore has published the following ten principles to deliver a liveable city :

Ten Principles for a High Density Liveable City • • • • • • • • • •

Plan for Long-Term Growth and Renewal Embrace Diversity, Foster Inclusiveness Draw Nature Closer to People Develop Affordable Mixed-Use Neighbourhoods Make Public Spaces Work Harder Relieve Density with Variety and Add Green Boundaries Prioritise Green Transport and Building Options Activate Spaces for Greater Safety Promote Innovative and Nonconventional Solutions Forge 3P (People, Private, Public) Partnerships

(Urban Land Institute Singapore and Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore, 2013: 3 – 4)

In the UK, National Planning Policy Framework can be considered a useful starting point to ascertain the principles of what high density development should be able to deliver.

CASE STUDIES

NPPF Principles • Will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development. • Establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit. • Optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other public space as part of developments) and support local facilities and transport networks. • Respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation. • Create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion. • Are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping. (NPPF, 2012:15)

Background to the case studies

Figure 12 : BedZED

Six case studies of existing places likely to be medium density (around 200 - 500 pph) and high density (around 800 pph) were chosen from the UK and overseas. They were selected as they were considered likely to be able to be assessed against many of the environmental criteria which had been identified in the previous chapter. The case studies are: • Champagne Court, Kowloon, Hong Kong • Longquan Metropolis, Humen, Dongguan, China • Barcelona, Spain • Cooper Street, South London • Greenwich Millennium Village, London • Hammarby Sjostad, Stockholm, Sweden An evaluation was undertaken of these examples to ascertain the strongest points of these areas and what lessons could be applied to the development of the final models. A “traffic light” system was used to indicate strong points (green) neutral (amber) and points that could be improved (red). The evaluation is as follows:

Figure 13 : St Williams Court, London

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Figure 14 : Case Study Location Map

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Case Study 1 : Champagne Court Locality, Hong Kong Champagne Court is in area of Kowloon, Hong Kong. It includes one of Hong Kong’s old composite buildings - that is it has a number of uses in the complex and is locally famous in Hong Kong as a place to come to buy cameras and photographic equipment. Anecdotally it is also known that some of the units of the building have been resubdivided. This is likely to be reflective of Hong Kong’s well known high densities and need for accommodation. Champagne Court was chosen due to its urban location and proximity to Kowloon Park and other facilities. Location :

40-46 Carnarvon Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon District, Hong Kong.

Area :

7430 m² (0.743 HA)

Population :

619

Density :

833 PPH Figure 15 : Champagne Court Top View (Source : https://www.google.com/maps) (Accessed 19 February 2015)

Summary: • Access to facilities, the main park and transport is high • The street environment is focussed around the car; pedestrian amenity is not high and often very busy. • The neighbourhood has a dense mix of uses and is usually quite crowded • In some areas in the evening the feeling of safety diminishes away from the main roads. • Generally residents do not have high amenity and lack space, • The excellent public transport does mean that people can easily access other areas.

Figure 18 : Champagne Court Interior View

Figure 17 : Champagne Court Street View (Source : https://www.flickr.com) (Accessed 26 February 2015)

Figure 16 : Champagne Court Building

Figure 19 : Champagne Court Road View

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Case Study 2 : Longquan Metropolis, Dongguan, China Longquan Metropolis Residential Building is high-rise building complex located in the centre of Humen town in Dongguan, near Guangzhou. Urbanisation in the Pearl River Delta between Guangzhou and Shenzen is high and is reflected in residential densities. The area reviewed is close to Humen Park and Pearl River and the ground floors of the buildings have a mixed use function. Location :

Humen Avenue, Humen, Dongguan, China

Area :

10000 m² (1 HA)

Population :

1152

Density :

1152 PPH

Summary • There is a lack of car parking for residents who use the streets in the area, this is affected by the transportation system in Humen, cars always dominate the road, around buildings, with limited pedestrian and cycling routes available. • Although the location is near Humen Park, the location is near the river which is not seen as an asset. • Overall the development satisfies the essential requirements, but it could have been more successful if private open space and supporting community and active transport infrastructure (including cycling etc.) had been provided.

Figure 21 : Longquan Residential Building 01

Figure 20 : Longquan Residential Building Top View

Figure 22 : Longquan Residential Building 02

Figure 23 : Longquan Residential Building 03

Figure 24 : Longquan Residential Building 04

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Case Study 3 : Eixample, Barcelona Barcelona is celebrated for its accessible open space and walkability. It has survived the economic, environmental and social changes of the last decades through focusing upon the provision of great urban spaces that centralize activity on a variety of scales: city, neighbourhood, and within each block. In short, Barcelona has been transformed into a city that provides an example of how to facilitate increasing density while maintaining a liveable and relatively compact city (Nelson, undated:1). Location :

Barcelona

Area :

748 HA

Density :

720 PPH

Summary • Barcelona was planned with series of 520 street blocks planned on a grid with major boulevards cutting through the pattern at 45 degrees. • Blocks are designed in a walkable neighbourhood • All the blocks were oriented northwest-southwest for maximum solar access, • The relative uniformity of heights, individual plots, diversity of building forms and mix of commercial uses at street level help to give this interest and a sense of vitality

Figure 26 : Eixample, Barcelona Perspective View 01

Figure 25 : Eixample, Barcelona Top View

Figure 28 : Eixample, Barcelona Perspective View 02

Figure 29 : Eixample, Barcelona Perspective View 03

Figure 27 : Eixample, Barcelona Block Pattern

Figure 30 : Eixample, Barcelona Perspective View 04

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Case Study 4 : Coopers Road Estate, Southwark, London Coopers Road Estate, Southwark is a regeneration project in inner London which involved the demolition of 1960s blocks of flats and replacement with mixed tenure housing. The housing was designed around four semi-private and secure courtyards, the principles of Secured by Design, Lifetime Homes standards and it includes wheelchair housing. Location :

London, United Kingdom

Area :

1.69 HA

Density :

198 PPH

Summary • The development used a detailed study of sun path analysis in order to ensure sunlight to the inner communal courtyards. • The perimeter block design and legible street networks and location of residential uses on the ground floor help create surveillance on the street. • A mix of housing sizes has been provided to create a degree of permanence within the neighbourhood. • Lack of various activities make the area dull towards evening and night. • The streets in the locality is a place for community interaction, socializing and playing • The development satisfies the term “good place” but could have been more successful with variety of uses.

Figure 33 : Coopers Road Estate Building View 02

Figure 31 : Coopers Road Estate Top View

Figure 34 : Coopers Road Estate Building View 03

Figure 32 : Coopers Road Estate Building View 01

Figure 35 : Coopers Road Estate Building View 04

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Case Study 5 : Greenwich Millennium Village, London Greenwich Millennium Village is a mixed- tenure urban village model located on the Greenwich Peninsula in Greenwich in south-east London. The proposal regenerated former brownfield land occupied by gas works and was intended to be developed as an example of high levels of sustainability for urban development. Figure 37 : Greenwich Millenium Perspective View Location :

Greenwich Peninsula, Greenwich, London, England, UK

Area :

145000 m² (14.5 HA)

Population :

3167

Density :

218 PPH

Summary • It is a successful example of mixed-use development built to high environmental standards from the beginning. • Transport was integrated from the start. It is based on a layout that limits through car traffic and has network of pedestrian and cycle routes which linked to the Underground and served by a number of buses. • It was designed from the beginning as a mixeduse development combining residences, retail, commercial and leisure spaces. • As the site is in an area undergoing regeneration, it does not have the vibrancy and bustle of other High Streets in London and is located some distance from the Underground. • Currently Increasing the number and diversity of stores could encourage more local trips and activity.

Figure 36 : Greenwich Millenium Village Top View

Figure 40 : Greenwich Millenium Street View 02

Figure 39 : Greenwich Millenium Village Building

Figure 38 : Greenwich Millenium Street View 01

Figure 41 : Greenwich Millenium Street View 03

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Case Study 6 : Hammarby Sjostad, Sweden Hammarby Sjostad is a district in Stockholm, Sweden developed as a sustainable neighbourhood. This 200 ha brownfield development includes homes for almost 10,000 people and is intended to deliver 10,000 jobs by 2015. The development was intended to reflect inner city Stockholm through a contemporary adoption of inner city street dimensions, block lengths, building heights, density and mix of uses. Sustainability is maximised through the use of green roofs, solar panels, and eco-friendly construction products. It has a fully integrated underground waste collection system. An integrated movement network of trams, cycle lanes, ferry links and pedestrian routes between neighbourhoods, was delivered in advance of development (HCA & Studio Real: 2007:12). Location :

Sweden

Dwellings :

9,000 - 9,500 units

Density :

175 - 198 PPH

Summary • Although the location is suburban in order to deliver a walkable neighbourhood, the design is fine grained urban, to deliver a high quality walkable neighbourhood with a mix of uses • Designed to “human scale” being 4-5 storey buildings along canal and 6-8 storey buildings along the main corridors. • Landscaping and trees help to store rain water locally using sustainable systems reducing run off. • The green and blue network underpinned the design to deliver maximum ecological enhancement.

Figure 43 : Hammarby Sjostad Perspective View 01

Figure 42 : Hammarby Sjostad Top View

Figure 44 : Hammarby Sjostad Perspective View 02

Figure 45 : Hammarby Sjostad Inner Court View

Figure 46 : Hammarby Sjostad Perspective View 03

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

SECTION FOUR : LAND USES

Introduction

Housing

Education

The brief required the proposal of concept designs for densities of 200 people per hectare and 800 people per hectare. In order to calculate how much space this was required, we first worked out the number of dwellings by dividing these figures by 2.3 which is the average number of people per household in the UK (ONS, 2013:1)

To check space requirements flats were standardised to 75m2 and housing was assumed to have a ground floor area of 50m2 and be 2 or 3 stories, all were considered to have an average occupancy of 2.3 persons based on the 2011 census (ONS, 2013:1). In order to estimate roughly how much space would be required for housing for the two populations we used a standardised estimate using occupancy of a 75m 2 bed flat compared to the estimated population numbers.

There is no specific method for assessing education requirements and there often flexibility in terms of the specific site circumstances. Barton et al (2003) provides general advice on meeting local needs for neighbourhoods and this includes education provision see Table 3.

We initially started with a model area of 800 x 800 m. This area was however too large and the population for the 800 pph model would have been 51,200 people. It was therefore changed to a smaller size and we decided to use a 400 x 400 m grid (16 hectares) and to use the same for both densities to allow us to compare the two scenarios rather than adjusting the area. This was considered to represent a neighbourhood scale.

As part of these assumptions, using the London Planâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance, the following housing sizes and occupancy levels were identified.

The 200 pp/ha model therefore has population of 3,200 people, broadly the same as a neighbourhood, whilst at 800 pp/ha has 12,800 residents, similar to a district or small town. The size of the model and the assumed density/ populations impact upon not only the environmental quality/densification issue but also the land uses proposed. As a starting point, UK space standards for key land uses was identified in order to assess the land take and spatial capacity for housing and supporting land uses in the model.

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Dwelling type

Bedroom/persons

Essential Gross Internal areas (square metres)

Flats

1 bedroom 2 person

2 bedroom 3 persons

2 bedroom 4 persons

3 bedroom 4 persons

4 bedroom 5 persons

2 storey houses

3 bedroom 4 persons

3 storey houses

3 bedroom 5 persons

102

Table 02 : Housing Sizes and Occupancy (Source: Greater London Authority, 2012:62)

The Area Guidelines for Mainstream Schools (Department for Education, 2012) sets out more detailed space standards for educational needs. Table 4 shows the recommended minimum / maximum site areas (although there is some flexibility on outdoor spaces with these figures and absolute minimum figures for the two types of schools. The 200 pph model has a population of 3,200 and under the Barton guide, we should provide approximately 1.0 ha of space to include the building and outdoor play area which we met. We have not allowed for any secondary education provision as this is assumed to be provided elsewhere, outside the Neighbourhood level. The 800 pph model has a population of 12,800 people and according to Barton et al, (2010, 132-133), we should provide 3 x 2-class entry primary schools and a target of area of around 4.0 ha. We have decided to start with this figure. For secondary school provision, Barton advises that at least 6 -12 ha land area is required for a catchment of up to 16,000 people although this will include a significant amount of open space for playing areas.

A population of 12,800 could therefore be assumed to be in the region of 8-10 ha. For the purpose of the model we have decided to start with a figure of 5 ha which is well below the national recommendations. We also consider that through creative and effective use of space, educational aims can still be delivered and have investigated other sporting facilities, such as hard play areas or gyms. The area required for the actual secondary school buildings is likely to be in the region of 2,500 sq m. This assumes that 2 x 750 pupil schools would meet the needs for 12,800 residents. These are 1,270 sq m each (2,540 sqm). In addition, there would need to be outdoor space provided.

Open Space The National Playing Field Association (now Fields in Trust) recommends a 6-acre (or 2.4ha) standard of open space per 1,000 population. It was proposed in 1938 and has been used by many local authorities ever since (Barton et al, 2010:140). The NPFA guidance states that residents should have access to local wild areas and parkland but on a larger scale. Type of open space

Area (ha)

Pitches, greens and courts

1.6-1.8 ha

Playgrounds

0.2-0.3 ha

Informal play space

0.4-0.5 ha

Total

2.2-2.6 ha

Table 03 : The NPFA 6 Acre Standard Requirements

Using the above guidance, the 200 pph model would require 7.04 ha of open space, including sports pitches and playing fields. This is considered to be unrealistic as the space would normally be required to be provided outside of the neighbourhood level. The neighbourhood should have a playground and smaller play area (total of 0.6-0.8 ha) and perhaps general hard play areas, such as tennis courts. We therefore decided to start with 1.2 ha of open space as the target. Applying the NPFA standard at 800 pph would require 28 ha which is completely unrealistic and actually exceeds our test site area of 16 ha (assuming all at ground floor). The playground and informal play space calculation works out at 7.68-10.24 ha. We decided to start with 6.0 ha and recognised that this is well short of the standard requirements. However, it should be noted that in some of the high density case studies, nearby access to large areas of open space is limited and as such an emphasis should be given to the quality, suitability and usability of the spaces to be provided. Sport England provides some useful advice on the minimum dimensions of sport pitches and indoor sports facilities. These are outlined in the diagrams below.

Local Facilities We have considered the requirements for providing local facilities such as a shops, restaurants, cafes, post office, religious buildings and community hall. These have been grouped together to provide a neighbourhood centre (one of the environmental qualities being sought) although at the District level (800 pph) this could be split into more than one area. Barton et al (2010) recommends that sufficient retail and commercial uses, such as a shops, small supermarket, post office, takeaway(s), hairdresser, etc. be provided at the Neighbourhood level (Barton et al, 2010:125 -126) however makes no specific recommendation for space requirements. Sport England provide the minimum dimensions for a community hall facility of 10m by 10m with toilets, entry and ancillary rooms see diagram below.

The number of doctors per head of population is identified in Barton et al (2010), an existing area medical practice is identified at Hollow Way, Oxford which has 8 doctors and estimated building floor space of approximately 1000m2 (as estimated from Google Earth) over two floors, therefore as an estimate a 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; doctor surgery may require only half (or less) of this floor space. For the 200 pph model we decided to look at how Jericho, Oxford, operates, or rather, could operate were it a normal neighbourhood that did not draw people in from further afield. We decided that a row of around 12 retail/commercial units would provide sufficient area for a neighbourhood centre to provide the necessary uses stipulated in our original requirements. This area equated to approximately 4,500 sq m (rounded up to 0.5 ha). The area assumes that the upper floors are in commercial/ community use although in reality some will be used for residential. For the 800 pph model, the requirements are quite different. There is some merit in multiplying the area assumed for the 200 pph model by a factor of four as it deliver four times the amount of people in the same area (2.0 ha). On the one hand, this is likely to be too large as the buildings are quite inefficient and likely to have too much rear land (previously houses). On the other hand, large populations will also need access to a more diverse range of local facilities, such as comparison shopping and a larger supermarket.

Employment Government research set out in its Employment Land Review (ODPM, 2004) provides a relatively accurate analysis on commercial floor spaces. It concluded that the average net floor space per office worker was 17.9-18.3 sqm. The difference between net internal & gross external is approximately 15-20% higher giving a figure of 20.5-21.96 sqm. Part of our original definition of an environmental quality was somewhere with good access to job opportunities. This could either by through walking or cycling to work nearby, or by using public transport to a wider area. We initially want-

ed to aim for one job per household. Using the ODPM figures of 20 sq m of space per person, the 200 pph model worked out at 1,391 dwellings x 20 sqm = 2.7 ha. This was considered achievable. At the much higher density of 800 pph it worked out at 5,565 x 20 sqm = 11 ha. This was a large area but we decided to still use the figure and accept that it may not be possible to provide this amount of employment space within the area, thereby requiring space elsewhere.

Accessibility Barton et al (2010) identifies how far people will walk to facilities in the UK. They note it varies, but recent evidence for access to local facilities in English suburbs shows that up to 600m, 75+ of trips will be on foot. They also note problems for walkers being related to safety, need for seating along parts (particularly for elderly) shared surfaces with cyclists. They identify path widths to be between 1.5m (low use), normal is 2 m and if shared with cyclists - then 3m (Barton et al 2010:145). Provision for cycling is to be a key requirement of the model. Barton et al (2010) note the average cycling journey is 3km. Separate lanes or paths need to be provided if there is conflict with heavy traffic. Cycle routes should be continuous and direct (Barton et al, 2010:147-148).

No parking is expected to be on the High Street, a tram is proposed to be provided. Servicing is to take place within enclosed courtyards or podiums.

SECTION FIVE : THE 200 PPH MODEL

Initial Spatial Capacity In order to ascertain the approximately land take of the models, the minimum areas were tabulated to ascertain the land take. For the 200 pph model this equated to nearly 16 ha (excluding roads) and for the 800 pph model this was approximately 70 ha (excluding roads). As the model area is only 16 ha this has implications for the vertical urban form. Criteria

200 pph

800 pph

Area

16 ha

Population

3,200

12,800

Dwellings

1,391

5,565

Level

Neighbourhood

District

Education

1.0 ha

9.0 ha

Open Space

1.2 ha

6.0 ha

Local Facilities

0.5 ha

2.0 ha

Employment

2.7 ha

11.0 ha

Residential (flats)

10.4 ha

41.7 ha

Jericho Before developing the two concept models, the existing neighbourhood was analysed. This was to develop ideas and start to think about the relationship between density, environmental quality and land uses.

We area has a density of approximately 190 pph assuming that the University land is housing.

Jericho in Oxford was selected for a number of reasons (see Figure 47). It represents a neighbourhood and scores highly in terms of our environmental criteria, such as having its own local centre, a clear identity, a variety of services, variety, activity as well as feeling safe. It was also estimated to have a similar density to the 200 pph model.

The area was selected to centre on the main road and include the local centre and other uses, such as a primary school, open space and employment at Oxford University Press (see Figure 48). A significant part of the area included land owned by the University of Oxford (currently being redeveloped). It was decided that this area would not normally be given over to education so it was assumed to be housing for the purposes of the model. Figure 49 shows the organic street layout of Jericho and provided a block structure for consideration. Figure 50 shows the broad distribution of land uses. The blue areas are Oxford University land.

Figure 47 : Aerial View of Jericho

Figure 48 : Jericho Figure Ground Plan

Figure 49 : Jericho Block Structure

The area scored highly in terms of all our environmental criteria, except for three aspects: there was insufficient open space both in terms of the amount and its quality; the streets were quite narrow in parts and so cars parked on the pavements; and there were limited options for local food production or biodiversity, at least within the neighbourhood itself.

Table 04 : Initial Areas Tested â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Spatial Capacity

For public transport the following standards are applied to the models : 400m walking standards for bus stops (200 pph model) Maximum 800m standard for metros. Most people are prepared to walk 800m for high quality metro or tram services. Ample cycle storage at tram or metro stations connected to a good cycling network is recommended. Provision for cars should be limited (Barton et al,2010:151) For the purposes of both models car demand is restrained. For the 200 pph model, parking is expected to be along the streets or in inner courtyards, with the main street accommodating a bus route and servicing for the shops from it. For the 800 pph model, parking is also to be restrained. Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Figure 50 : Jericho Main Land Uses

The 200 PPH Model The Jericho case study analysis was used as a basis for creating the 200 pph model (see Figure 51). Certain adjustments were made though to increase environmental quality and/or alter land uses whilst still retaining the required density. The block structure was also simplied to create a general concept that could be more easily applied elsewhere but one that still retained certain qualities (i.e. narrow streets, hierarchy of routes, smaller block sizes, small plots). The street layout and organisation of land uses was further refined in particular to give variety to the street layout but also keep the legibility of the grid. The High Street was widened to allow for a bus service. The road hierarchy is in place to ensure that there would be less traffic in the residential areas. Most of the retail units on the frontage are proposed to be smaller stores at this level, rather than large multiples, to add to variety. The road had to be wide enough to service the commercial development from the front. The park and school is

retained near to the original location and a second park added. The model was reviewed in terms of height, bulk and overshadowing and the final 3D concept model was developed. A mix of terrace houses and flats are proposed with the highest point proposed at 4 stories along the High Street. A mix of uses (retail and employment) is proposed on the lower floors along the high street with flat behind. The streets become narrower on the outskirts of the model to allow for the creation of homezones. Car parking is accommodated on the street or potentially within the courtyards of some of the perimeter blocks. In order to ensure that the environmental criteria could be met, the 200 pph model was tested in the same way as the case studies. A summary of this is below.

Figure 51 : Key Criteria From Jericho Appraisal

Figure 53 : The Proposed Land Uses For The 200 PPH Model

Figure 52 : How The Principles From The Jericho Were Applied To The 200 PPH Model

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Summary Of The 200 PPH Model

Theme

Comment

In order to ensure that the environmental criteria could be met, the 200 pph model was tested in the same way as the case studies. A summary of this is provided in Table 5.1.

1) Safety

Active edges and a busy high street have been proposed. There is a mix of uses on the principal streets and home zones.

2/ Amenity

Major traffic and movement is directed to the main road to limit noise. Overshadowing is minimised, due to orientation and building heights.

3/ Local Facilities

Shops and community services and park are provided within a 200 m walk. A primary school is located within a 400m walk.

4/ Accessibility

The model is walkable, everything is within 400m. The main street accommodates public transport (bus) within a 200m walk.

5/ Variety and Community

There is a mix of retail, education and employment. Residential buildings around parks and home zones encourage a sense of community

6/ Public Realm

The design of the blocks, enclosure around parks that can form as squares is intended to facilitate finer grain and distinctive development. Parkland is provided.

7/ Identity and Legibility

The symmetric model gives it an identity. The street layout is legible and the area is permeable. Building heights are varied

8/ Resources

There is capacity to grow food, have solar panels etc. There is solar access to parks, but there is overshadowing for some residences.

Roads in the model had to be widened to accommodate a bus route and still allow servicing bays and on street car parking on the high street.

Figure 54 : 200 PPH Model Shadow Analysis April at 9am

Figure 57 : 200 PPH Model Shadow Analysis September at 9am

Little off street car parking is provided, car parking will be on street (or within perimeter blocks) and car demand restraint for residents is likely to be required. The model could not meet the full land take for the primary school and open space for the population. The primary school may have to share some areas of open space at times. However, according the the literature research, the quality of open space and accessibility is the highest priority and this ca n be delivered. Many residential flats will not have ground level private gardens, instead it would be expected that this may be accommodated in balconies â&#x20AC;&#x201C; so there is a trade of in terms of private amenity space for this model.

Figure 55 : 200 PPH Model Shadow Analysis April at 12pm

Figure 58 : 200 PPH Model Shadow Analysis September at 12pm

Table 05 : Assessment of The 200 PPH Model

Spaces for community uses (e.g. traditional halls) need to be accommodated in the High Street mixed use area and may need to share spaces rather than being standalone uses. There is some overshadowing at time on private courtyards and some facades of buildings. (Depending on which country the model is to be applied this may not be an issue.) For some residential buildings this can be compensated by views of parkland. A conventional high school cannot be provided in the model - given the 16 ha neighbourhood area it is assumed that this is provided off site.

Figure 56 : 200 PPH Model Shadow Analysis April at 5pm

Figure 60 : Street View of the 200 PPH Model

Figure 59 : 200 PPH Model Shadow Analysis September at 5pm

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

SECTION SIX : THE 800 PPH MODE

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Version 1

Version 2

Version 3

Version 4 (Final)

The 400 x 400 m area was kept (16ha). In order to accommodate the larger population, bigger and taller buildings were required. These needed wider streets and larger block. Barcelonaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perimeter block layout was used as a starting point. In order to provide a good standard of amenity, one of the blocks was given over to public open space. The Barcelona model worked well and produced a quality environment but did lack open space and some of the street scenes may have ended up quite similar.

This design was closer to the 200 PPH model and the Jericho case study whilst still providing a block structure. The central area includes the local centre with double-fronted buildings overlooking the public open spaces. A problem with this design was that the narrow block widths of the central created possible problems with servicing.

After reviewing the design, it was decided to that the two open spaces would work better together and create a green link across the site and more a plaza in the central square. Large commercial blocks either side of the parkland would have views from offices onto the open space. the structure would provide greater interest and variety. The problem with this model was regarding servicing of the central blocks, which contained prime retail units and office accommodation. There was also uncertainty with the crossing point in the middle of the model and how pedestrian would cross the main road. The design was consequently amended.

The final version proposed perimeter blocks throughout whilst still maintaining a link betwen the two areas of open space. Some of the blocks were wider to avoid overshadowing the interiors of the residential blocks. A secondary school was proposed in a circular arrangement in order to make use of the roof space. Public transport of buses & a tram will run along the main street. Servicing for the commercial uses will take place from inside the perimeter blocks but accessed from the 2 adjoining streets running parrallel to the main road. Car parking is restricted & only provided underneath the 4 commercial blocks & some of the side streets.

Figure 61 : First Version of The 800 PPH Model

Figure 62 : Second Version of The 800 PPH Model

Figure 63 : Third Version of The 800 PPH Model

Figure 64 : Final Version of The 800 PPH Model

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Figure 65 : The Proposed Land Uses For The 800 PPH Model

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Figure 66 : Street Connectivity For The 800 PPH Model

Figure 67 : Open Spaces Type For The 800 PPH Model

Figure 68 : Roof Type For The 800 PPH Model

Figure 69 : Service and Parking Area For The 800 PPH Model

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Figure 70 : Building Type For The 800 PPH Model

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Figure 71 : 800 PPH Model Shadow Analysis April at 9am

Figure 74 : 800 PPH Model Shadow Analysis September at 9am

Figure 72 : 800 PPH Model Shadow Analysis April at 12pm

Figure 75 : 800 PPH Model Shadow Analysis September at 12pm

Figure 73 : 800 PPH Model Shadow Analysis April at 5pm

Figure 76 : 800 PPH Model Shadow Analysis September at 5pm

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

Key Aspects of The 800 PPH Model Roads in the model had to be widened (from the 200 pph one) to accommodate a tram route on the main road Buildings are likely to need to be stepped back at the higher levels to avoid a “canyoning “ effect Servicing for the main street will take place within perimeter blocks and under podiums – this means that in some cases the internal perimeter blocks would not be available as amenity space Little off street car parking is provided, car parking will be on street (or within perimeter blocks) and car demand restraint for residents is likely to be required. Like the 200pph model this one could not meet the full land take for the primary school and open space for the population. There are no houses and most of the residential flats will have balconies.

Theme

Comment

1) Safety

There are active edges and a main street with a tram. High levels of street activity, as commercial uses are on the ground floors.

2/ Amenity

Some residences affected by overshadowing. Increases in noise due to densification and activity at the street level.

3/ Local Facilities

Large range of shops and services on the main street within a 200m walk. Community uses need to share space. The park is multi use.

4/ Accessibility

The main street has a public transport (tram) within 200m of residences. Schools and services within walking distance

5/ Variety and Community

There are key identifiable uses such as residential around the parks, primary school and employment and key retail on the main street.

6/ Public Realm

The design is intended to facilitate finer grain frontage t. Building is required to be set back at higher levels to avoid “canyoning”.

7/ Identity and Legibility

The joined two areas of parkland give the area identity. Building heights and blocks vary, the street layout is legible.

8/ Resources

Unlikely to be able to apply enough solar panels etc. on roofs. Some roofs are required for terraces, some overshadowing.

SECTION SEVEN : CONCLUSION

Summary of Findings In the development of the model, a number of findings can be reported at each stage which influenced the final outcome and recommendations. As a first step, the generic environmental criteria was reviewed and widened. It was felt that other matters need to be included on the list and key questions were needed to produce a set of criteria appropriate to answering the topic. The review of available literature indicated that while there is information dealing within individual urban design issues in relation to higher densities, it was more difficult to find evaluation of densities against specified criteria. Therefore review then focussed on the identification of different approaches to meeting each criteria in high density environments.

Table 06 : Assessment of The 800 PPH Model

Community uses are likely to need to share spaces. There will be overshadowing in some areas and on private courtyards. For some residential buildings this can be compensated by balconies and roof terraces.

The case studies were selected as they were considered likely to be able to be examined against the environmental criteria and be able to provide some comparisons. Comparisons turned out to be difficult due to the conditions affecting different places examined. Arguably higher density examples have occurred in places where demand and land value is high and, arguably the importance of some of the environmental criteria may change from place to place.

A conventional high school cannot be provided in the model - given the 16 ha neighbourhood area it is assumed that this is provided off site. Some environmental requirements – allotments, wind turbines, energy for the whole buildings from solar panels may not be able to be provided.

Like the medium density examples in the case studies, the 200 pph model indicates it is possible

Figure 77 : Street View of the 800 PPH Model

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

to meet the environmental criteria with only a few trade-offs. These were found to be in relation to the land required for green space and primary school open spaces. It is considered that these can be compensated by a reduced area for the school and sharing a nearby high quality local park. In the 800 pph model, it is possible to meet the environmental criteria however there are a number of trade-offs. This is in relation to a reduced amount of private and public space, the need to share facilities, the reduction in private car use and parking and accommodation in flats rather than housing. It is considered that that the environmental criteria can be met in a qualitive sense if alternatives are considered from the onset. This includes public transport, provision of quality green spaces and community facilities. It is considered that with higher quality provision, liveable places can still be provided. Finally, moving from the 200 pph to the 800pph models there would be likely be a difference in lifestyles and it should be noted that the delivery of more compact districts and neighbourhoods will also in part depend on the recipient population.

Application Abroad In applying the models to other countries it is considered that a range of factors need to be considered. This includes : • Economic – the value of the land will be likely

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

to affect the level of densities and what facilities (such as open space) can be provided on the ground. In highly dense cities such as Hong Kong and Singapore every available space is maximised. • Climate – orientation of streets may need to be altered to ventilate streets such as in a hot humid city as such as in Hong Kong, in a hot dry climate such as Dubai, the buildings and streets may be positioned to create shade. • Cultural – some uses which may be acceptable in a mixed use building in some countries may require their own separate plots in others. The most obvious examples may be religious buildings or large public use/civic centre buildings. • User requirements/expectations – in some countries certain facilities may be required as part of development for example in many Australian developments this will include balconies, communal recreation facilities.

• Locate tall buildings on south side of park so as to avoid overshadowing • Use the ground floors of residential buildings for active uses (retail, cafes, restaurants) across the areas. • Provide open spaces and connect these together • Provide a district centre

Key Design Principles for High Density Living Further work on design principles for the buildings are suggested to address some of the issues raised in both the 200 and 800 models at a more detailed stage of development. It is suggested that these should include the following : • Use different building heights to create variety and interest • Incorporate taller buildings to create open space

Figure 78 : Hammarby Sjostad Street View

OUR TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR DESIGNING HIGH DENSITY LIVING 1

KNOW YOUR STUFF

Higher density developments often conflict with planning policies. They need to be challenged. For example, how important is a minimum distance between habitable rooms? Use your evidence to support your case and concentrate on the key issues rather than specific figures or words.

You need to become an expert on published literature and case studies. Find out what works, why and whether the principles could be applied to your site. People will challenge you so make sure you have evidence.

RESEARCH THE CONTEXT (NEARBY) Find out about the local area to ensure you only provide the services and facilities required. Expanding a local school or doctors surgery will often be a lot easier than building a new one. Check the data and don’t always accept what is said in the official reports.

RESEARCH THE CONTEXT (A BIT FURTHER OUT)

RESEARCH THE CONTEXT (A LOT FURTHER OUT)

SET OUT YOUR PRIORITIES You will need to make compromises and trade offs. Work out which environmental qualities and land uses must be delivered and where compromises can be made. Agree them with your client and stakeholders and try to include them in your Vision.

Densification And Environmental Quality - Group 6 - February 2015

BALANCE TOP DOWN WITH BOTTOM UP Space is especially precious in built up areas so try to allow the new community make their mark. They will be pleased you did and it should create a more interesting place. Is there a way of engaging with the community when considering the priorities?

BE CREATIVE Building up is the obvious way of increasing densities but some uses can go also underground or be stacked. You can also build between buildings and over spaces. Most urbanites enjoy diversity, different cultures and the buzz of the city so don´t be afraid of be a bit crazy - you’re not designing a suburb. You need to squeeze the life out of the public spaces.

Be aware of any regional or national aspects. Consider climatic issues (sun, temperature, wind), cultural, religious, economic, social and political. This will impact upon your case studies and literature review too.

BUILD IN FLEXIBILITY New places take time to evolve so set out framework but try to leave some areas to be developed at a later stage. Plot-based urbanism is more difficult at higher densities but some of the principles can still be applied. Flexibility should be built into the public spaces as well as the buildings.

See if the required land uses and services can be delivered further out. You could, for example, propose that the secondary school pupils take a bus to the nearest sports pitches. Make friends with your local sports club and think about public transport connections to other places.

CHALLENGE PLANNING POLICY

STRIVE FOR QUALITY All designers aim to create high quality, interesting and sustainable places but this is absolutely essential in higher density areas. Don’t compromise and always make sure that the key urban design principles are followed.

Education Recommendations

Typical Layout of Cricket Field and WInter Games Pitch

Education Catchment Population and Land Needs

(Source Sport England, 2001:18) For indoor courts, Sport England (2001) identifies the following minimum sizes – a two court hall 18m x 17m with around 6.1m x 7.6m clear height will allow a range of indoor sports. A one court badminton court requires 18 x 10 x 6.1m minimum clear height. (Sport England, 2001:9)

Type of school

Pupils

Implied catchment population

Typical land needs (range)

Primary School 1-class entry 2-class entry

150-200 300-400

c. 2,000 c. 4,000

0.5-1 ha 1-2 ha

Secondary 4-class entry (11-16) 8-class entry (11-18)

500-600 1,200-1,400

c. 8,000 c. 16,000

4-8 ha 6-12 ha

Approx.25,000

varied.

College sixth form/technical

Smallest Hall with The Minimum Support Accommodation Shown With Potential Extensions (Sport England, 2012:5)

(source: Barton et al, 2010:132)

Recommended Sizes for School Sites

Type of school

Min / Max site area (ha)

Primary school

1.5 – 2 ha

Secondary (1,000 pupils) up to 16

6 – 8 ha

The minimum sizes for school buildings and sites Type

Min/max building area (square metre)

Min/Max gross Site area (sq m)

Primary school

350-400

2,000-2,400

Notes on Guidance Site area includes 400 sq m hard outdoor area and 600 sq m informal/social area.

Secondary (750 pupils) up to 16 with 16+

Population and Medical Practitioners Dimensions for Popular Indoor Sports (Source: Sport England, 2001:7)

1,050-1,270 1,400-1,700

9,000-11,000 9,000-11,000

Site area includes 6,000 sq m of soft outdoor areas for sports recreation (i.e. football pitches)

Source: Figure 21, Area Guidelines for Mainstream Schools Building Bulletin. (Department for Education and Education Funding Authority, 2014: 38)

Land Need for Housing

Type

Population

Estimated land need based on 75m2 unit with 2.3 persons occupancy

Neighbourhood

3200

10.43 ha

District

12800

41.73 ha

Barton et al (2010) identified the following population requires the a certain number of doctors or GPs per population (see Appendix).

Number of GPs

Number of people on the books

Solo doctor

2000 – 3000

Two doctor surgery

4000 – 6000

Four doctor surgery

8000 - 12000

(source: Barton et al, 2010:133)

References 200 PPH Model - Group 6 - Urban Issue 1 Block

Land Use

Floor Area

Storey

Total Area

Residential - 2 Storey House

1,980

sqm

1,980

sqm

Residential - Flat

2,380

sqm

4,760

sqm

Residential - Flat

2,380

sqm

4,760

sqm

Residential - 2 Storey House

1,980

sqm

1,980

sqm

Residential - 2 Storey House

1,890

sqm

1,890

sqm

Residential - Flat

2,710

sqm

5,420

Residential - Flat

1,170

sqm

Local Facilities

815

sqm

Employment

815

sqm

Residential - Flat

815

sqm

800 PPH Model - Group 6 - Urban Issue 1

Average Dwelling

Total Dwelling

People/Dwelling

Total People

Block

Land Use

Local Facilities

5,330

sqm

5,330

sqm

Residential

5,330

sqm

21,320

sqm

Local Facilities

5,330

sqm

5,330

sqm

Residential

5,330

sqm

21,320

sqm

Education

1200

sqm

1,200

sqm

Local Facilities

5,570

sqm

5,570

sqm

3,510

sqm

Residential

6,770

sqm

20,310

sqm

815

sqm

Residential

6,370

sqm

6,370

sqm

1,630

sqm

Residential

5,497.5

sqm

5,497.5

sqm

2,445

sqm

Residential

4,625

sqm

4,625

sqm sqm

Floor Area

Storey

Total Area

Average Dwelling

Residential - Flat

1,890

sqm

3,780

sqm

Residential

3,217.5

sqm

12,870

Residential - 2 Storey House

1,790

sqm

1,790

sqm

Residential

3,217.5

sqm

12,870

sqm

Residential - 2 Storey House

1,300

sqm

1,300

sqm

Local Facilities

4,186.3

sqm

4,186.3

sqm

Residential

4,186.3

sqm

16,745.2

sqm

Prime Retail

3,501.5

sqm

7,003

sqm

Employment

3,501.5

sqm

17,507.5

sqm

Prime Retail

2,938.8

sqm

5,877.6

sqm

Employment

2,938.8

sqm

14,694

sqm

Residential - 2 Storey House

1,760

sqm

1,760

sqm

Open Space

6,264

sqm

6,264

sqm

Local Facilities

1,030

sqm

1,030

sqm

Employment

1,030

sqm

3,090

sqm

Residential - Flat

1,030

sqm

4,120

sqm

Local Facilities

800

sqm

800

sqm

Employment

800

sqm

2,400

sqm

Residential - Flat

800

sqm

3,200

sqm

Local Facilities

800

sqm

800

sqm

Residential

414.1

sqm

2,070.5

sqm

Open Space

3,904.7

sqm

3,904.7

sqm

Employment

800

sqm

2,400

sqm

Residential

3,217.5

sqm

12,870

sqm

Residential - Flat

800

sqm

3,200

sqm

Residential

3,217.5

sqm

12,870

sqm

Local Facilities

570

sqm

570

sqm

Open Space

3,904.7

sqm

3,904.7

sqm

Employment

570

sqm

1,710

sqm

Prime Retail

2,938.8

sqm

5,877.6

sqm

Residential - Flat

570

sqm

2,280

sqm

Employment

2,938.8

sqm

14,694

sqm

Open Space

4,636

sqm

4,636

sqm

Residential - Flat

1,875

sqm

3,750

sqm

Residential - 2 Storey House

1,400

sqm

1,400

sqm

Residential - 2 Storey House

1,300

sqm

1,300

sqm

Residential - 2 Storey House

1,430

sqm

1,430

sqm

Education

1,762.5

sqm

3,525

sqm

Local Facilities

815

sqm

815

sqm sqm

Residential

414.1

sqm

2,070.5

sqm

Prime Retail

3,501.5

sqm

7,003

sqm

Employment

3,501.5

sqm

17,507.5

sqm

Local Facilities

4,186.3

sqm

4,186.3

sqm

Residential

4,186.3

sqm

16,745.2

sqm

Employment

815

sqm

1,630

Residential - Flat

815

sqm

2,445

sqm

Residential

3,217.5

sqm

12,870

sqm

Local Facilities

1,045

sqm

1,045

sqm

Education

2,766.8

sqm

11,067.2

sqm

Employment

1,045

sqm

2,090

sqm

Education

1200

sqm

1,200

Residential - Flat

1,045

sqm

3,135

sqm

Local Facilities

5,570

sqm

5,570

sqm

Residential - Flat

1,875

sqm

3,750

sqm

Residential

6,770

sqm

20,310

sqm

Residential - 2 Storey House

2,250

sqm

2,250

sqm

Residential

6,370

sqm

6,370

sqm

Residential - 2 Storey House

1,980

sqm

1,980

sqm

Residential

5,497.5

sqm

5,497.5

sqm

Residential - Flat

2,380

sqm

4,760

sqm

Residential

4,625

sqm

4,625

sqm

Employment

2,380

sqm

4,760

sqm

Residential - 2 Storey House

1,980

sqm

1,980

sqm

Total Area

S T

116,365

Education

3,525

sqm

Open Space

10,900

sqm

Local Facilities

5,875

sqm

Local Facilities

5,330

sqm

5,330

sqm

Residential

5,330

sqm

21,320

sqm

Local Facilities

5,330

sqm

5,330

sqm

Residential

5,330

sqm

21,320

sqm

Total Area

413,139.8

Employment

19,710

sqm

Education

13,467.2

sqm

Residential - 2 Storey House

21,040

sqm

Open Space

7,809.4

sqm

Residential - Flat

55,315

sqm

Local Facilities

40,832.6

sqm

Prime Retail

25,761.2

sqm

Employment

64,403

sqm

Residential

260,866.4

sqm

Type of Residential

Ratio

Total Area

Unit Area

1 bedroom ﬂat

10%

5,531.5

sqm

2 bedrooms ﬂat

50%

27,657.5

sqm

3 bedrooms ﬂat

30%

16,594.5

sqm

4 bedroom ﬂat

10%

5,531.5

sqm

3 bedrooms houses

100%

21,040

sqm

Total Dwelling

People/Dwelling

Total People

Total Unit

People/Unit

sqm

111

221

sqm

453

1,360

sqm

224

897

Type of Residential

Ratio

Total Unit

People/Unit

Total People

sqm

307

1 bedroom ﬂat

10%

26,086.64

sqm

522

1,043

sqm

242

967

2 bedrooms ﬂat

50%

130,433.2

sqm

2,138

6,415

3 bedrooms ﬂat

30%

78,259.92

sqm

1,058

4,230

4 bedroom ﬂat

10%

26,086.64

sqm

290

1,449

4,007

Total Number of People

13,138

Total Number of Dwellings

1,092

Total Number of People

Total People

3,753

Total Area

Unit Area

Total Number of Dwellings

Tables Table 01 : Table 02 : Table 03 : Table 04 : Table 05 : Table 06 :

Environmental Criteria (Source : Author) Housing Sizes and Occupancy (Source : Greater London Authority, 2012:62) The NPFA 6 Acre Standard Requirements Initial Areas Tested – Spatial Capacity Assessment of The 200 PPH Model (Source : Author) Assessment of The 800 PPH Model (Source : Author)

Figures Figure 24 : Longquan Residential Building 04 (Source : www.panoramio.com/user/429816) Figure 01 : Shanghai Urban Planning Exhibition Centre (Accessed 27 February 2015) (Source : https://geography3822.wordpress.com) (Accessed 27 February 15) Figure 25 : Eixample, Barcelona Top View (Source : http://iosphera.org/contact/) (Accessed 27 February 2015) Figure 02 : Busy Shibuya Crossing, Tokyo Figure 26 : Eixample, Barcelona Perspective View 01 (Source : http://www.lavanguardia.com/mon-barcelo (Source : https://housingjapan.com) (Accessed 26 February 15) na/20140923/54416259333/barcelona-guanya-city-climate-leadership-awards.html) Figure 03 : Kensington High Street (Accessed 27 February 2015) (Source : http://www.hamilton-baillie.co.uk) (Accessed 27 February 15) Figure 27 : Eixample, Barcelona Block Pattern (Source : http://www.patrasevents.gr) (Accessed 27 February 2015) Figure 04 : Vauban, Freiburg Figure 28 : Eixample, Barcelona Perspective View 02 (Source : http://trunoguias.webnode.es) (Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauban,_Freiburg) (Accessed 27 February 15) (Accessed 27 February 2015) Figure 05 : Project Methodology Undertaker by Group 6 (Source : Author) Figure 29 : Eixample, Barcelona Perspective View 03 (Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eixample) Figure 06 : Example of London Town Centre (Source : Author) (Accessed 27 February 2015) Figure 07 : Public Square in Barcelona (Source : Author) Figure 30 : Eixample, Barcelona Perspective View 04 (Source : http://www.priceline.com) Figure 08 : London Public Realm (Source : Author) (Accessed 27 February 2015) Figure 09 : Green Wall, London (Source : Author) Figure 31 : Coopers Road Estate Top View (Source : www.google.co.uk/maps) (Accessed 27 February 2015) Figure 10 : The Australian Urban Design Protocol Diagram Illustrates How Economic, Social and Figure 32 : Coopers Road Estate Building View 01 (Source : www.rightmove.co.uk) (Accessed 27 February 2015) Environmental Aspects InterreLate. (Source : Australian Government, 2011:7) Figure 33 : Coopers Road Estate Building View 02 (Source : http://ecda.co.uk/projects) Figure 11 : Hong Kong Homes (Accessed 27 February 2015) (Source : http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1318491/hong-kongs-quali Figure 34 : Coopers Road Estate Building View 03 (Source : http://www.redelectrics.com) ty-life-index-dips-home-prices-soar?page=all) (Accessed 27 February 15) (Accessed 27 February 2015) Figure 12 : BedZED (Source : http://inhabitat.com) (Accessed 27 February 2015) Figure 35 : Coopers Road Estate Building View 04 (Source : http://ecda.co.uk/projects/new-build-housing/-/arti Figure 13 : St Williams Court, London cle/32) (Accessed 27 February 2015) (Source : www.wisemanestates.com) (Accessed 27 February 2015) Figure 36 : Greenwich Millenium Village Top View (Source : www.google.co.uk/maps) Figure 14 : Case Study Location Map (Accessed 27 February 2015) Figure 15 : Champagne Court Top View Figure 37 : Greenwich Millenium Perspective View (Source : http://www.earlkendrick.com) (Source : https://www.google.com/maps) (Accessed 19 February 2015) (Accessed 27 February 2015) Figure 16 : Champagne Court Building Figure 38 : Greenwich Millenium Street View 01 (Source : http://www.countryside-properties.com) Figure 17 : Champagne Court Street View (Accessed 27 February 2015) (Source : https://www.flickr.com) (Accessed 26 February 2015) Figure 39 : Greenwich Millenium Village Building (Source : http://vi.sualize.us/eco_oficina/ecoalojamientos) Figure 18 : Champagne Court Interior View (Accessed 27 February 2015) (Source : http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/137-photographic-industry- Figure 40 : Greenwich Millenium Street View 02 (Source : http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/prop professionals/187777-sorry-state-pentax-hong-kong-3.html) erty-31250643.html) (Accessed 27 February 2015) (Accessed 26 February 2015) Figure 41 : Greenwich Millenium Street View 03 (Source : http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2820217) Figure 19 : Champagne Court Road View (Source : https://www.google.com/maps/@51.7507858,- (Accessed 27 February 2015) 1.2338758,14z) (Accessed 26 February 2015) Figure 42 : Hammarby Sjostad Top View (Source : www.google.co.uk/maps) (Accessed 27 February 2015) Figure 20 : Longquan Residential Building Top View (Source : www.google.co.uk/maps) Figure 43 : Hammarby Sjostad Perspective View 01 (Source : http://szinv.livejournal.com/21814.html) (Accessed 27 February 2015) (Accessed 27 February 2015) Figure 21 : Longquan Residential Building 01 (Source : www.dadupo.com.tw) Figure 44 : Hammarby Sjostad Perspective View 02 (Source : http://www.rinnovabili.it/smart-city/page/36) (Accessed 27 February 2015) (Accessed 27 February 2015) Figure 22 : Longquan Residential Building 02 (Source : longquandushihuating.fang.com) Figure 45 : Hammarby Sjostad Inner Court View (Source : http://www.greenpressblog.com/2012_04_01_ (Accessed 27 February 2015) archive.html) (Accessed 27 February 2015) Figure 23 : Longquan Residential Building 03 (Source : weibo.com/u/2814345622) (Accessed 27 February 2015)

Figure 46 : Figure 47 : Figure 48 : Figure 49 : Figure 50 : Figure 51 : Figure 52 : Figure 53 : Figure 54 : Figure 55 : Figure 56 : Figure 57 : Figure 58 : Figure 59 : Figure 60 : Figure 61 : Figure 62 : Figure 63 : Figure 64 : Figure 65 : Figure 66 : Figure 67 : Figure 68 : Figure 69 : Figure 70 : Figure 71 : Figure 72 : Figure 73 : Figure 74 : Figure 75 : Figure 76 : Figure 77 : Figure 78 :

Hammarby Sjostad Perspective View 03 (Source : www.flickr.com/photos/designforhealth/6359946395) (Accessed 27 February 2015) Aerial View of Jericho (Source : www.google.co.uk/maps) (Accessed 10 February 2015) Jericho Figure Ground Plan (Source : Author) Jericho Block Structure (Source : Author) Jericho Main Land Uses (Source : Author) Key Criteria From Jericho Appraisal (Source : Author) How The Principles From The Jericho Were Applied To The 200 PPH Model (Source : Author) The Proposed Land Uses For The 200 PPH Model (Source : Author) 200 PPH Model Shadow Analysis April at 9am (Source : Author) 200 PPH Model Shadow Analysis April at 12pm (Source : Author) 200 PPH Model Shadow Analysis April at 5pm (Source : Author) 200 PPH Model Shadow Analysis September at 9am (Source : Author) 200 PPH Model Shadow Analysis September at 12pm (Source : Author) 200 PPH Model Shadow Analysis September at 5pm (Source : Author) Street View of the 200 PPH Model (Source : Author) First Version of The 800 PPH Model (Source : Author) Second Version of The 800 PPH Model (Source : Author) Third Version of The 800 PPH Model (Source : Author) Final Version of The 800 PPH Model (Source : Author) The Proposed Land Uses For The 800 PPH Model (Source : Author) Street Connectivity For The 800 PPH Model (Source : Author) Open Spaces Type For The 800 PPH Model (Source : Author) Roof Type For The 800 PPH Model (Source : Author) Service and Parking Area For The 800 PPH Model (Source : Author) Building Type For The 800 PPH Model (Source : Author) 800 PPH Model Shadow Analysis April at 9am (Source : Author) 800 PPH Model Shadow Analysis April at 12pm (Source : Author) 800 PPH Model Shadow Analysis April at 5pm (Source : Author) 800 PPH Model Shadow Analysis September at 9am (Source : Author) 800 PPH Model Shadow Analysis September at 12pm (Source : Author) 800 PPH Model Shadow Analysis September at 5pm (Source : Author) Street View of the 800 PPH Model (Source : Author) Hammarby Sjostad Street View (Source : http://andreaslindinger.at/2013/11/29/hammarby- sjostad-sustainable-urban-development-at-its-best/) (Accessed 27 February 2015)

References

Al-Kodmany, K (2011) Placemaking with tall buildings, Urban Design International 16; published online 14 September 2011, www.palgrave-journals.com.oxfordbrookes.idm.oclc.org (downloaded 7/2/14) Australian Government, (2011) Creating Places for People - An Urban Design Protocol for Australian Cities, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, www.urbandesign.org.au (downloaded 15/11/14) Barton, H, Grant, M and Guise, R (2003) Shaping Neighbourhoods – A Guide for Heath, Sustainability and Vitality, Spon Press, London Barton, H, Grant, M and Guise, R (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods – For Local Health and Global Sustainability (2nd Ed), Routeledge, London Campaign to Protect Rural England (2006) Compact Sustainable Communities Second edition www. cpre.org.uk (downloaded 6/2/15)

http://udc.homesandcommunities.co.uk(downloaded 7/2/2015) Homes and Communities Agency and Studio Real (2007) Delivering Quality Places Urban Design Compendium 2 Second Edition http://udc.homesandcommunities.co.uk(downloaded 7/2/2015) Landscape Institute (2011) Local Green Infrastructure - helping communities make the most of their landscape, www.landscapeinstitute.org (downloaded 7/2/15) Maccreanor Lavington Architects Emily Greeves Architects Graham Harrington Planning Advice (2012) Housing Density Study www.london.gov.uk (downloaded 7/2/15) Ng, Edward (2009) Designing for Urban Ventilation, Ng, Edward(ed) Designing High Density Cities , Earthscan www. dawsonera.com (downloaded 7/2/15) Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2013) Statistical Bulletin Population and Household Estimates for the United Kingdom, March 2011 www.ons.gov.uk (downloaded 16/2/15)

Breheny M (1996) Centrists, Decentrists and Compromisers: Views on the Future of Urban Form, Jenk, M, Burton E and Williams, K, The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form, E&F Spon, London www. dawsonera.com (downloaded 14/2/15)

Office of the Deputy Prime Minster (ODPM) (2004) Planning Employment Land Review Guidance Note December 2004 www.gov.uk (downloaded 19/2/15)

Centre for Liveable Cities and Urban Land Institute, Singapore (2013) 10 Principles for Liveable HighDensity Cities, Lessons from Singapore, http://www.clc.gov.sg (downloaded 7/2/2015)

Nelson P (undated) Barcelona, Spain http://depts.washington.edu/open2100/Resources/1_OpenSpaceSystems/ Open_Space_Systems/BarcelonaCaseStudy.pdf (downloaded 21/2/15)

Commission for Architecture (CABE) and the Built Environment and the Greater London Authority (2009) Open Space Strategies Best Practice Guidance www.designcouncil.org.uk (downloaded 10 /2/15)

Sepea, Marichela and Pitt, Michael (2014) The Characters of Place in Urban Design, Urban Design, International Vol. 19, p 215–227 www.palgrave-journals.com (downloaded /2/14)

Department for Education and Education Funding Authority (2014) Area Guidelines for Mainstream Schools Building Bulletin 103, June 2014 www.gov.uk (downloaded 15 /2/14)

Sport England (2001) Sport England Village and Community Hall Design Guidance Note , Sport England Publications Wetherby www.sportengland.org (downloaded 19.2.15)

Department of Environment Transport and Regions (DETR) and Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) 2000, By Design - Urban Design in the Planning System: towards Better Practice - Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, Norwich www.gov.uk (downloaded 13/2/15)

Tiwari, Reena (2014) Designing a safe walkable city Urban Design International, 20, p12–27. published online 15 January 2014 www.palgrave-journals.com (downloaded 7/2/14)

Department of Sustainability and Environment (2004) Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development ,Victorian Government. http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au (downloaded 16 /2/15)

URBED, ALGE & TCPA for the Town and Country Planning Association (2004) Biodiversity by Design, a Guide for Sustainable Communities London, http://www.tcpa.org.uk (downloaded 12/2/15)

Dovey, Kim and Pafka, Elek (2014) The Urban Density Assemblage: Urban Design International 19, p66–76; published online 7 August 2013 www.palgrave-journals.com (downloaded 7 /2/14)

URBED for CABE and the Corporation of London (2005) Better Neighbourhoods: Making Higher densities work” http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/better-neighbourhoods.pdf (downloaded 7/2/2015)

East Hampshire District Council (2012) Whitehill and Borden Eco Town Master Plan http://www.easthants.gov.uk/ (downloaded 19/2/15)

Urbis (2013) Australia’s Embrace of Medium and High Density Housing, Census 2011, Paper No 2 February 2013 www.urbis.com.au (downloaded 16/2/15)

Greater London Authority (2004) Sounder City - The Mayors Ambient Noise Strategy, Greater London Authority, London. www.london.gov.uk (downloaded 15/2/15)

Welsh Assembly, Department of Communities and Local Government, Department of Transport (2007) Manual for Streets, Thomas Telford, London www.gov.uk (downloaded 15/2/15)

Greater London Authority (GLA) (2012)Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance , Greater London Authority London www.london.gov.uk (downloaded 15/2/15)

Wilson, W (2010) Housing supply and demand, Key Issues for the New Parliament 2010 House of Commons Library Research www.parliament.uk (downloaded 14/2/15)

Greenspace Scotland and GCV Green Network (2008) Greenspace Quality, 08 A Guide to Assessment Planning and Strategic Development http://www.greenspacescotland.org.uk (downloaded 16/2/15) Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) and Studio Real (2013) Urban Design Compendium 1 3rd ed

Yeo, G.O (2011) High-density living in Hong Kong, Cities, Health and Well Being in Hong Kong, November 2011, LSE Cities & Alfred Hernhausen Society. http://files.lsecities.net/files/2011/11/2011_chw_3050_Yeh.pdf (downloaded 15/2/15)