Sketchblog: Land Use & Urban Design

Peter Elliot, guest lecturer

Major early trends and shifts in Urban Design thinking

Demolish and rebuild

Assemblage and collage

'Public Space Architecture'

Melbourne historical case

Foundational grid

Public gardens fought case by case (political, town plan weak)

Adelaide actually made allowance specifically for parklands in its master plan

Melbourne kept its laneway networks, service lanes which became critical to its character

State Library used to be fenced off, not that accessible to the public

Balance between intensive intervention vs a light touch

Sometimes simple changes are most profound for re-establishing spatial dynamics

Importance of small incremental changes to the flow of urban fabric

Always relative and responding to other buildings in the environment

Host Architecture; add on, infill, excavate, new

Some of the best cities have a strong sense of the civic

The civic is what connects people to place, what attaches us to belonging in place; collective memory

Topographic Architecture; prominent examples in Italy. Relationship to storey, height to ground. Terracing, stairs, undulating walls, roofs that can be traversed

Urban Design;

Original town plan never engaged with how the streets would connect or relate to the buildings within the grid

Sometimes small interventions that remove can in turn add to the urban dimension

RMIT campus used to be gated, it engaged little with its surrounding neighborhood

We wanted to pedestrianise the network within the campus. We wanted to build a legible walkable network. We offsett parking off site to open the internal up.

We mapped the urban fabric, highlighting both the surrounding footprint and the internal network of buildings

What are the elements that make up our urban fabric; e.g.

Largo / expanded street,

Theatre / public space as outdoor theatre, how we frame the space, how the buildings then front / how we use incidental space to open up public possibility, archway as enticement or invitation

Not all spaces will have the same role for the public realm; they will be for different civic purposes

Street /

Alley / spaces between buildings and through buildings as intimate encounters, allowing for open flows, clear access

Precinct Mapping; investigation of a places key attributes

Pick 3 key concepts or ideas and graphically highlight them

Reflections:

So far there has been little consideration of access for people of limited capacities

Peter says to bring people along with these projects requires some well articulated and commited people to advocate for their behalf

Aka all these projects are intensely political and are subject to contestation

A public ( and powerful stakeholders ) appreciation for the value of urban design and space is critical for success

Land ownership is a critical dimension

More under the link.

Sennett, R. (2018). Five Open Forms: Building and dwelling: ethics for the city. Allen Lane, pp.205-241. Synchronous Space where many people congregate in the space, engaging in multiple activities at the same time

Sequential Space where many engage in the same activity, at the same time Q: How to develop principles for co-coordinating uses in a synchronous space? According to authors the space must issue an ‘invitation to mix’, not an imposition. They also describe how that invitation must be clear, and ... intuitive for the use or activity they are expecting to undertake. A space with multiple uses then needs some communication (some form perhaps) to delineate, and orientate the user. Porous Form where there is an open flow, but the structure retains it’s shape. 'Porosity exists in dialogue with resistance... sometimes means the [border] is open to inundation, and sometimes is retentive.’ Open / closed.  Boundaries vs. borders derived from ecology; borders are porous whilst boundaries are not. Borders demarcate a limit or threshhold, an edge where different groups interact. Visualizing this relationship in the urban fabric is important to reveal possibilities of relation and resistance. ‘Even a thick wall can issue an invitation to dwell’ emphasizing how shifting social relations and imaginaries define the potential use of the form, which I like. The edge has a rich potential for social interaction. But a planner forcing an edge, forcing interaction with design where social dynamics do not wish it are bound to fail. A liminal edge describes where people might experience a transition space as if there is no clear barrier between two states (zones?). The skyscraper as vertical street, a novel concept! Shells where the form does not extinguish any particular configuration imposed at the start.   Type forms set the terms for making a family of forms, forms yet to be made. They should be able to be scaled up, i.e Barcelona’s Superblocks, co-ordinated at the metropolitan scale: 

Typomorphological defined

On the role of Codes

Analysis Framework for Coding tensions

Definitions of  Urban ‘Code’

Elements within an Urban Code Land uses † Layout of public space. † Residential, commercial and mixed land uses. † Building use. † Parks and open spaces. Streets † Street types and dimensions. † Location of car parking. † Street furniture, planters, etc. † Type and placement of trees, etc. Blocks † Street block pattern. † Plot aggregation Plots † Position of buildings. † Gardens. † Boundary treatments. Buildings † Building type. † Building massing. † Height of buildings. † Size and shape of windows, doors, etc. † Details of eaves/overhangs, gutters, etc. † Signage.

Week 2 * Mapping is still and always at best an abstraction * It can highlight particular relationships, stripping out unnecessary data

Morphology Study of the form of things, recording the spatial distribution/ relationship of something Inputs:

Statistics, geocoded 

Surveys

Observations

Tracking (movement, time, behaviours between classes)

Streets a way through, connection Lots subdivision of plots Lot types (small > large scale) Pavillion > Towerblock Courtyard > Perimeter block Row > Slab Building private domain, shelter, goods & services Permeability ability to move through the urban fabric Grain the scale of land parcel, lot and thus the smaller the scale, the finer the grain Public-private Land access open > restricted, land control private > public Quasi public = semi open, semi public control

Lehnerer, A. (2009). The Tightrope Walk of Exercising Control over Private Property. Grand Urban Rules. 010 Publishers.

Lehnerer, A. (2009). The Tightrope Walk of Exercising Control over Private Property. Grand Urban Rules. 010 Publishers.

Week 6 Excerpts from the reading I found to be worth considering, in this case highlighting the tensions underlying the notion of ‘the public realm’ and ‘public interest’. 

Lehnerer, A. (2009). The Tightrope Walk of Exercising Control over Private Property. Grand Urban Rules. 010 Publishers. 

These fragments highlight the limitation of certain definitions of public vs. private. There is the risk pf defining the public realm as the anti space which remains less private property. This is a very limited notion of what constitutes the public domain. It does not allow for the recognition of collaborative/ collective/ common-ownership land management and use practices that can be found elsewhere, and which the we could draw upon. Additionally, even under this model the reality is that these domains are not so black and white, there is encroach, there is borrowed use and so on.

Meanwhile, in my view, depending on the procedural structures that are accessible (to whom), informal democratic and participatory processes of collective organisation change, transform and do themselves ‘mediate desire’ of the spatial domain (Habermas, 1991) - alongside other more formal processes such as land use zoning. It is important not to divorce this collective instrument (governance, self-organization etc.) from conceptions of the potential/ limitations of urban coding to shape space.  As Benington (2009) summarises, ‘ public value is a contested concept which depends upon a deliberative process within which competing interests and perspectives can be debated. This requires the creation of a well informed “public” with the consciousness and the capability to engage actively in this kind of democratic dialogue.’

The core problem of every urban design action is, to begin with, the definition of the public interest. Derived from a critical quantum of private interests, the public interest is essentially delimited from these. Wherever public interest has been defined in specific terms, for instance in codifications of what was or not beneficial to the public health, the following dilemma has been imminent: how to mediate between the two poles, between public and private.

SWA Group have produced a revised study of behavioral trends observed in the use of public space. The Guardian have helpfully aggregated some of their work, which I’m going to re-post here for future reference.

...

‘The research found people tended to occupy the edges of a plaza before filling in the middle. This was observed in a range of plazas, including those with seating and planting distributed evenly throughout the space. Generally, the capacity along the edge reached 50%-75% before people began migrating into the middle

Views of the city attracted people, even if comfort was compromised or the site not easily accessible. People were drawn to views in both highly trafficked tourist areas and areas with less traffic. In both types of spaces, people tended to go straight towards the best view first. Many lingered long enough to take a photo. If seating was available nearby, this often extended their time spent in the space by 10 to 15 minutes. Some people even perched on the backs of benches to get a better view

Pathways with minimal edge variation sped up pedestrian traffic and lowered dwell times in the plazas. People tended to walk faster and stop less frequently in straight pathways through plazas. These pathways were often undifferentiated from their surroundings in terms of hardscape and planting material and had few or no openings to the plaza

People didn’t dissipate evenly throughout the spaces. Schooling was observed in most of the plazas. People were not deterred by crowding or groups of people; rather, people seemed to be attracted to spaces with a medium-to-high density of people over spaces with a lower density

Slightly perched and protected areas were popular. Stationary people tended to go to elevated areas that overlooked the plaza space. The youngest gravitated towards higher perches (at least 3ft), and the middle aged were drawn to slightly raised spaces (under 3ft). Protected perches with canopies and a sense of backing were most popular

Soft material in the sun attracted people to recline. Young plaza users tended to bask in the sun if offered a soft surface such as wood or turf. This was observed in a range of spaces of varying elevation. Most often, people basked in small groups of two-to-four

People seeking privacy chose spurs with good visibility. This was observed in plazas with a varied series of outdoor rooms. Individuals eating alone, on a phone call or reading often found seating outside the main plaza space and off the main circulation routes. Favoured locations tended to have strong backing (with walls, furniture, or planting) and clear views out into the plaza

Younger groups tended to occupy bi-directional areas where they could be part-audience, part-performer. Teenagers occupying the plazas wanted to see what was going on around them and be seen. During their time in the space, they toggled back and forth between these roles. Adjacent circulation increased the popularity of these spaces

People tended to occupy protected, in-between spaces. When given the option, many plaza users gravitated towards liminal plaza zones – seating areas that felt sheltered but were directly adjacent to a more open and exposed area. These types of spaces were very crowded and had long dwell times, often more than 30 minutes per group

Spaces with a sense of backing, where there was less activity behind them, attracted people. This phenomenon was observed in most of the plazas with people wanting protective seating. The backing took many forms – from higher plant material to walls, to construction fences and jersey barriers. People tended to occupy these seating areas over more exposed spaces

People often moved to face the sun. Many young people were observed doing this in the plazas and would seek sunny areas to linger in. In tracking the rays, they often shifted their positions on stationary furniture or even moved to other areas of the plaza in order to stay in the sun

A low element at the edge of an outdoor room attracted people. One well-used subdivision of plazas was an area surrounded by a low element, generally under 4ft. This took the form of planters, jersey barriers, a glass rail, or a mesh rail. Clear sightlines into and out of the space seemed to be important for those using the corral. These subdivisions created refuge islands, allowing people to get away from busy areas but still have views to pedestrians

Fixed areas that offered a choice in seating type, height, material, or personal position had high dwell times. In general, people preferred variety in seating – they tended to occupy spaces that had a range of furniture to choose from. For example, if seating was designed with multiple heights and depths, people used it for sitting on, standing by, lying on,and leaning on

Temporary plaza interventions drew people into the space. Interventions that had a limited lifespan, from one day to an entire season, tended to increase usage of the plaza. These interventions seemed to work better in spaces populated by locals rather than in spaces sought out by visitors

Plazas with wide and open entrances at cross streets or transverse paths facilitated higher flows of people. More people tended to pass into plazas from adjacent public spaces if the edge of the plaza was unobstructed by planting, furniture or walls. The wider the entrance, the greater the flow

People used accessible elements at the edges of plazas to take short breaks. This was observed in many plazas with high flows of pedestrian traffic. Those walking on the edge of plazas took short breaks and lingered if there were elements such as walls or planters to lean on or set their belongings upon. People often did this while waiting – for a bus, for the light to change, or to meet up with a friend

People made furniture out of anything. In most plazas, especially those that were saturated, people got creative when it came to seating and tables. Plaza users sat on many objects not intended for furniture such as peaked curbs, security bollards with flat tops, jersey barriers, and electrical boxes. They also used many types of objects to eat meals off 

Large groups of people gravitated towards moveable furniture. In situations where four or more people wanted to sit together, they often bypassed fixed seating, preferring to use moveable or partially moveable seating instead. This type of furniture included fixed seats with moveable pieces that swivelled and transformed. After settling on an area of the plaza to use, the groups typically rearranged the furniture to best fit their needs

Groups of people tended to congregate around objects, even if they were not using them. This phenomenon was observed in most plazas. When three or more people stood or sat together in a group, they often did so around a piece of furniture, low planter, flat-topped bollard, or even a garbage can. The groups represented a range of plaza users, from office workers to tourists

People sat facing an area with a constant flow of pedestrian traffic, even if there were other options. Stationary people tended to want to watch others, especially in active areas with high pedestrian turn-over. These plaza users even sat facing a blank wall as long as between the seating and the wall there was significant movement. Two well-used streams, especially if perpendicular to one another, created additional visual interest for those watching