SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT EVALUATIONS & CONCLUSIONS Sheet1
5
50% 40%
7
30%
5
20% 10% 0%
1
2
3
4
5
6+
4 3
50%
4
5
4
6 4
4 3
PROGRAMMING URBAN SPACE Four categories of urban programmes were addressed throughout the Urban Circulatory Network: Social Mixing, Circulation, Agricultural, and Recreational/ Gathering spaces. These were distributed based on analysis of network characteristics.
40% 30% 20%
URBAN NODES
10% 0%
1
2
3
4
5
Sheet1
80% 60% 40%
6+
Node connectivity informed type and size of programme space allocated. A distribution of node connectivity and types resulted in a differentiation of urban gathering spaces, with nodes ranging in function from ‘Major Hubs’ to ‘Local Nuclei.’ Higher connected nodes, such as the Major Hubs, were considered higher-level attractors and therefore assigned more open space and more floor area dedicated to social mixing spaces.
20% 0%
i < 50%
50% >= i < 85%
i <= 100%
Page 3
URBAN PATHS
80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
i < 50%
50% >= i < 85%
i >= 85%
Paths were likewise analysed for their connectivity/integration and ranked. Path sections were then broken into four programme zones, Public/Private Transition, Pedestrian Paths, Infrastructure, and Transport/Transit. Sectional Components were proposed for the four zones.
SPATIAL HIERARCHY
Page 2
284
Edible Infrastructures
In applying the scaled programme areas to nodes and paths throughout the sample, differentiation in public spaces across the tissue began to suggest a spatial hierarchy, at a city district scale (1km2). Further work is required to resolve how a hierarchy might emerge when multiple districts are combined.