Child Friendly Urbanism Handbook

Child Friendly Urbanism

successful examples, best practice & resources, and strategies for success

Annie Palone Master Design Study Fall 2014

1

Š 2014 Annie Palone. All rights reserved.

This material may not be reproduced, displayed, modified or distributed without the express prior written permission of the copyright holder. For permission, contact anniepalone@gmail.com.

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

Child Friendly Urbanism successful examples, best practice & resources, and strategies for success Annie Palone Master of Science Urban Design Advisor: Dean J. Almy III Second Reader: Allan W. Shearer, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture Fall 2014

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

Child F riendly U rbanism Annie Palone Master of Science Urban Design

Abstract

In the past fifty years, urban children have lost their freedom to roam, to explore, and to make meaning of the world around them. Kids need free time, free play, and access to nature if they are to develop into healthy, environmentally-engaged adults. Environmental education, ecoliteracy, and time spent outdoors in free play, can help to re-engage children with the world around them, and to build the foundation of positive environmental attitudes that they will take into adulthood. This study collects resources and strategies in the hope of inspiring urban designers to prioritize the making of child friendly urban places. Addressing sustainability through the prioritization of “future generations” – starting with today’s children – this study offers examples, resources, and best practice, to posit strategies for child friendly urban design. Strategies and resources for restoring lost habitats through contemporary initiatives, including Nature Play and Learning areas, schoolyards reimagined as community playgrounds, and teaching gardens are outlined. Successful examples from three exemplary cities (Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and Stockholm) are documented at three scales of intervention (ecodistricts, housing, and play places), in order to identify additional 21st century strategies for child friendly city-making. These strategies are tested in East Boston, where four “acupuncture” sites, identified through careful analysis, are updated with elements of “Nature Play,” chosen according to a site conditions matrix.

1

Design is activism.

At its best, sustainable design combines ecological health and phenomenological richness to create diverse & abundant ecosystems, and populations, richly synaesthetic and nuanced places, and habitats that promote health.

2

3

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.�*

* Brundtland Commission, 1987. Our Common Future: chapter 2 c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

4

Today’s children are the first of these future generations.

They are tomorrow’s leaders.

Design that neglects them is not sustainable.

5

“The rudiments of knowledge imbibed through play are an essential part of education.”

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

– Mahatma Gandhi (Moore 1986: 1)

6

7

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

8

CONTENTS

01

Introduction

11

02

Endangered Childhood?

23

2.1 Urban Transformation

26

2.2 Habitat Loss

28

35

2.3

03

Habitat Restoration: Elements of Nature Play

Three Exemplary Cities, Three Scales of Intervention

3.1

Ecodistricts & Sustainable Neighborhoods

3.2 Urban Housing

49 54 96

3.3 Play Places

138

04

183

Opportunities for Play

4.1 Boston Context

186

194

4.2

Adjacencies & Resources

4.3 Opportunity Sites

200

References

220 9

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

10

01 11

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

12

INTRODUCTION

Agenda : Child Friendly Urbanism

To redefine sustainable development to include and prioritize the needs of urban children through the agency of design (versus policy, planning, or other disciplines). This document expounds integrated design ideas of child friendly urbanism.

01

This document catalogs successful examples of European ecodistricts, urban housing, and play places, and research into the importance of free, outdoor play for children, and applicable best practices in policy and design, using them to pinpoint strategies for child friendly urbanism. By focusing on landscape architectural projects including open space, parks, playgrounds and green infrastructure; architectural strategies for child and family friendly housing; sustainable neighborhood and eco-district design; and the urban networks that tie them all together, it posits an integrated view of design approaches to child friendly cities. Through plans, diagrams, site photographs, descriptions, and analyses, and their test through the application of best practice to park sites in East Boston, this handbook aims to provide a resource for designers interested in child friendly cities and child friendly urbanism.

“Childhood experts show increasing recognition of, and interest in, the ways in which built environments both reflect and condition the key environmental and behavioural dynamics that shape the well-being of children” (Gleeson and Sipe 2006: 2). This growing understanding is only just beginning to be translated into guidelines and advice for designers of urban places. A small, but growing, body of research supports the ideas presented in this handbook.

Gleeson’s and Sipe’s (Eds.) collection of essays entitled Child Friendly Cities: Reinstating Kids in the City (2006), addresses “the different institutional and spatial scales at which cities can 13

be conceived from the perspective of children, and examines the domains of policy and professional practice that shape urban conditions for children” (7); its focus is mainly on policy recommendations.

In September 2014, comprehensive National Guidelines for Nature Play and Learning Places, were published by the Natural Learning Initiative’s Robin C. Moore, with Allen Cooper of the National Wildlife Federation, and the US Forest Service. This publication provides a wealth of information for designers, focused at the scale of individual children playing in nature. It also makes a strong case for children’s need for access to, and play in, natural settings (Moore 2014). Recommendations from Nature Play and Learning Places are included in this document on pages 33-47.

Also published in autumn 2014, Tim Gill’s “The Benefits of Children’s Engagement with Nature: A Systematic Literature Review” (Children, Youth, and Environments 24(2), pp. 10-34), “sets out the findings of a systematic review of the research literature on the benefits that arise when children under 12 spend time in natural environments” and explores “the relationship between these benefits and the style of children’s engagement with nature.” Gill’s findings support the idea “that spending time in nature is part of a “balanced diet” of childhood experiences that promote children’s healthy development, well-being and positive environmental attitudes and values. It also points to the value of more playful engagement styles.

The findings are relevant to the development of educational and planning policy practice, and to advocacy work” (Gill 2014, Abstract).

The publication of these studies, and others that investigate the role of environmental factors in supporting – or undermining – childhood health and wellbeing, indicate that a shift in the way that we understand our relationship with the world around us is underway.

This handbook seeks to promote and propagate just such a paradigmatic shift. The book begins with an interrogation and new understanding of sustainability, and the proposal that the concept be c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

refocused to prioritize the experience of those “future generations” alive today: today’s children.

The discourse of sustainability as it stands in the design disciplines today is all well and good, and designing greener city systems is critical – however, until we begin to directly address the issues facing children in our cities, true sustainability will remain out of reach.

Understanding Sustainability

The most ubiquitous definition of sustainability comes from the 1987 Brundtland Commission: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland et al.). It seems that we have all read and heard this definition so often that we hardly hear its meaning: today’s children are the first of these future generations and design that neglects them is inherently not sustainable.

Sustainability is typically understood through a tripartite diagram, which represents three overlapping circles: economy, environment, and society. The Venn diagram provides decisionmakers with a way to test their ideas against three criteria: Is this socially equitable? Is it environmentally sound? And, is it economically feasible?

The issue with this approach is that children are often overlooked, even in ‘social equity’ considerations: “Since spatial arrangements are taken for granted and children are powerless, the child’s disadvantage in the politics of space remains uninteresting for adults and adult city planners” (Freund and Martin 1996: 54).

Despite the well-intentioned attempts of users of the Venn diagram to unite the three realms of sustainability, their presentation of sustainability as divisible into distinct, and isolated, areas – instead of as integral parts of a whole – is problematic.

14

“...the detachment of education from the physical world not only coincided with the dramatic rise in life-threatening childhood obesity, but also with a growing body of evidence that links physical exercise and experience in nature to mental acuity and concentration.�

Richard Louv, 2005. Last Child in the Woods : 100

15

Gaia Education

Dimensions of Sustainability*

Modules 1 Creating Community & Fostering Social Justice • Building Community & Embracing Diversity • Fostering Social Justice • The Power of Building Community • Starting Community: The Essentials • Vision, Mission and Goals

Modules

2 Governance: Group Dynamics & Decision Making

1 Holistic Worldview / Restorative Worldviews

• Issues of Group Dynamics • Facilitation Skills • Decisions everybody can support • Consensus • Understanding Conflict

• Repressive Power versus Creative Power • The Emerging Worldview • The Holographic Universe • New Paradigm Thinkers • Science and Spirituality

3 Power, Rank, Privilege, & Leadership • Integral Leadership • Social Justice and Systems of Oppression • Rank, Difference, and Power • Compassionate Communication • Helping Each Other Lead - Coaching

4 Art, Social Transformation & Media Literacy • Art in Community • Everyone is an Artist • Art and Creativity • Celebrating and Honouring Life • Media Literacy

2 Reconnecting with Nature • Gaia Theory • Cosmic Thinkers • Reconnecting to Nature • Learning from Sustainable Cultures • Designing with Nature

Social Dimension

3 Being & Doing for Social Change: Transformation

Worldview

5 Networks & Social Activism

• Local, Bioregional and Global Outreach • What is Bioregionalism?

• Bioregional Mapping • Building Effective Networks • Global Networks

• The Ecological Self • Awakening and Transformation of Consciousness • Spiritual Practices in Ecovillages • Similarities of Religions • Becoming a Co-creator of Evolution

4 Healthy Living in the Human & Natural Environment • Health and Culture • Elements of a Healthy Liberatory Consciousness • Global Health • Integral Health • Death as Transition

5 Socially Engaged Spirituality & Indigenous Traditions

Modules 1 Shifting the Global Economy towards Sustainability • How the Global Economy Works Today, and Why We Need to Change it • Unmasking the Global Economy and Why it Behaves As It Does • Role of International Organizations • Shifting the Global Economy Towards Sustainability • Footprint Analysis and Ecological Impacts

2 Community Funds, Local Currencies & Banking • Making Money Our Servant Rather than Our Master • Experiments with Locally-based Investment and Currency Systems • Slow Money and Patient Capital • Microcredit • Local Investment Vehicles

3 Right Livelihood

• Do High Levels of Consumption Improve Human Well-being?

• Right Livelihood • Alternative National- and International-level Indicators • Values and Ethics in Economic Life • Investment Choices

4 Nurturing Local Economies • Social Enterprise • Plugging the Leaks • Village Enterprises • Relocalization • The solidarity economy

Economic Dimension

• What Must Be Done • Activism Against Oppression and for Liberation • Spiritual Activism • Prayer • Engaged Spirituality Networks

Ecological Dimension

Modules 1 Whole Systems Thinking & Design • Whole System Approach • Master Planning • Scale and Decentralization • Carbon, Climate, and Peak Oil • The Earth as a System

2 Urban Agriculture: Food & Nutrient Recycling, Permaculture • Permaculture • Sustainable Food and Farming • Wilderness • Whole System Ecology • Ecological Restoration

3 Green Building, Retrofitting, & the Environment • Green Building • Heating and Cooling • Local Materials • Urban Neighbourhoods • Retrofitting

5 Legal Structures

• Legal and Financial Issues • Choosing Legal Structures • Types and Sources of Finances • Preparing Feasibility Studies and Business Plans • Economic Justice and oppression

4 Mobility, Resilience, Irregular Settlements • Appropriate Technology • Clean Water Science • Water Conservation • Renewable Energy • Energy Conservation

* Four Pillars. Gaia Education, 2014. www.gaiaeducation.org c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

16

An alternative model for the sustainable design of communities comes from the Gaia Foundation and Global Ecovillage Educators’ Ecovillage Design Education Curriculum (See diagram on facing page). Offered internationally in over 30 countries, as well as online, Gaia’s curriculum includes society, environment, and economy, and adds a fourth pillar: that of worldview. Underlying this inclusion is a belief that paradigm change is a necessary prerequisite for the shift to a truly sustainable future. (Of course the three traditional pillars are always filtered through the lens of our worldview, but Gaia’s curriculum distinguishes Worldview even further.)

Changing our focus – our worldview – from a distant and disembodied idea of “future generations,” to an understanding that the phrase refers concretely to today’s children, before it reaches across time to include their children and children’s children, is critical.

After all, “...a society that neglects children is not concerned with its future in general, and is vulnerable thereby to social and ecological dysfunction. A society that places children’s needs at its centre must, of necessity, always look to the future and make provision for it. Children remind us of the meaning and the urgency of the imperative for inter-generational equity, which goes to the core of sustainability” (Gleeson and Sipe 2006: 2, citing Stanley, et al.

2005).

Tipping Point?

Sustainability needs our attention. And more than likely, a new approach.

“In the space of a single human lifetime, society finds itself suddenly confronted with a daunting complex of trade-offs between some of its most important activities and ideas. Recent trends raise disturbing questions about the extent to which today’s people may be living at the expense of their descendants, casting doubt upon the cherished goal that each successive generation will have greater prosperity” (Daily 1997: 1).

Technology is not going to save us from overconsumption.

Ecologically educated, environmentally-minded future generations may. Building resilience into city systems – as well as urban children – is of the utmost importance.

Resilience Thinking

“Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and still retain its basic function and structure” (Walker and Salt 2006: xiii). “Resilience thinking is systems thinking” (Walker and Salt 2006: 11).

Resilient people can recover from shocks. Resilient systems can recover from disasters. “The key to sustainability lies in enhancing the resilience of social-ecological systems, not in optimizing isolated components of the system” (Walker and Salt 2006: 9; emphasis added).

A systems perspective of how the world works includes the following concepts:

+ We are all part of linked systems of humans and nature

+ These systems are complex adaptive systems.

+ Resilience is the key to the sustainability in these systems.

(Walker and Salt 2006:11)

At its best, nature play can help children to understand these ideas. Environmental Education and “Eco-literacy” have an important role to play in the development of the next generation as resilience-thinkers. The impact of humans on global systems must be understood by tomorrow’s decision-makers, since “...it is clear that only an environmentally literate public will be able to find workable, evidence-based solutions for these challenges” (NAAEE 2011: 2).

Sustainability & Child-Friendliness

“Children are the canaries in the mines. Youth suicides, drug use, and feelings of disenfranchization [sic] and disconnection are increasing in epidemic proportions in cities across Australia and in many 17

nations around the world” (Malone in Gleeson and Sipes 2006: 29).

Beyond global ecosystem crises, many critics have pointed to childhood epidemics as another indicator that all is not well in the world (Louv 2005, among others). Sustainability and resiliency go hand in hand, and children who are ill-equipped to deal with the world around them make adults who are equally ill-suited to solve the world’s burgeoning environmental problems.

In the U.S., the Center for Disease Control has found that “the amount of TV that children watch directly correlates with measures of their body fat” (Louv 2008, 47). Anecdotal, and increasingly, academic, evidence suggests a linkage between mental, social, and behavioral problems, and 21st century children’s lack of time spent outdoors. Spending time surrounded by trees and plants decreases stress and anxiety, and helps children to refresh their immune systems, and mental capacities, allowing them to learn, complete tasks, and develop motor and mental skills more successfully.

Obesity among American children aged 6-11 years increased from 7% in 1980, to nearly 18% in 2010. Among adolescents (aged 12-19), obesity increased from 5% to 18% in the same time period (Center for Disease Control). Richard Louv calls attention as well to the explosion of stimulants prescribed to control Attention Deficit Disorders – increasing by 600% between 1990 and 1995 – and still on the rise. “These drugs are overprescribed, perhaps by as much as 10 to 40 percent” (Louv 2008: 101).

Can play solve these ills? “A growing research literature (including results of research conducted by the Natural Learning Initiative) suggests that exposure to the natural environment is linked to positive behavioral outcomes. Attributes of outdoor natural environments (gardens) have been associated positively with physical activity, attention functioning, cognitive development, selfesteem, academic performance, and motor development. Scientific evidence supporting the therapeutic effects of contact with nature continues to grow” (Cosco and Moore 2009, 168).

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

Over millennia, humans co-evolved with the plants, animals, and ecosystems with which they lived. The question of ‘not enough exposure to nature’ was unthinkable. But human societies, and our planet have changed beyond what our ancestors might comprehend.

These changes and challenges to ecosystem functioning and productivity at the global scale require a new approach. Today’s young people will ultimately bear the responsibility for overseeing new methods for conservation, resource management, and ecosystem recovery – these will require an ecologically-grounded worldview, a respect for the living systems humans rely upon for our survival.

Environmental literacy describes a person’s level of understanding of the natural systems around him or her. The North American Association for Environmental Education defines an environmentally literate person as “someone who, both individually and together with others, makes informed decisions concerning the environment; is willing to act on these decisions to improve the wellbeing of other individuals, societies, and the global environment; and participates in civic life” (Moore 2014: 33, citing NAAEE 2011, emphasis added).

The divisive way in which we have been studying science and natural systems has created strong, imaginary boundaries between people and the systems we rely upon for life. Thinkers in the sciences and humanities are beginning to challenge this reductive modus operandi with integral approaches to the life sciences (Capra 2014, among others). Environmental education, ecoliteracy, and time spent outdoors in free play, can help to re-engage children with the world around them, and to build the foundation of positive environmental attitudes that they will take into adulthood.

Besides future obligations to right the wrongs of the past, children have a set of rights mandated by the United Nations’ Convention for the Rights of the Child (CRC). The CRC, Agenda 21, the Child Friendly Cities Initiative, and other UN/UNICEF documents, are “political devices for making the State accountable for the ways 18

they plan and design our city landscapes” (Malone in Gleeson and Sipes 2006: 30). But many countries, the US among them, have refused to ratify such bills, citing economic burden. If children are not worth investing in, who or what is?

Where local governments have tried to implement more inclusive participatory planning, inviting children to have a hand in shaping the future of the cities in which they live, lack of experience and expertise is problematic. Designers, policy-makers, politicians, and community leaders need better information about strategies for making cities more child friendly What is a Child Friendly City?

According to UNICEF’s Child Friendly Cities Initiative, a Child Friendly City is a city, or system of local governance, that is “committed to fulfilling children’s rights.” These include the right of every child and young person to:

• Influence decisions about their city

• Express their opinion on the city they want

• Participate in family, community and social life

• Receive basic services such as health care and education

• Drink safe water and have access to proper sanitation

• Be protected from exploitation, violence and abuse

• Walk safely in the streets on their own

• Meet friends and play

• Have green spaces for plants and animals

• Live in an unpolluted environment

• Participate in cultural and social events

• Be an equal citizen of their city with access to every service, regardless of ethnic origin, religion, income, gender or disability

“These rights come from the 1992 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). A “child friendly city” embodies these rights at the local level through policies, laws, programs, and budgets, which reflect children’s rights. Several of these rights emphasize the importance of children’s own agency in decisions that affect them. In

the Child Friendly City, children must be “active agents; their voices and opinions are taken into consideration and influence decision making processes” (Child Friendly Cities website).

“Ideally, neighbourhoods, towns and cities should be places where children can socialize, observe and learn about how society functions and contribute to the cultural fabric of their community.

They should also be sites where they find refuge, discover nature and find tolerant and caring adults who support them. For cities to be supportive of children’s needs and to fulfill their obligations in terms of the principles contained in the CRC (UNICEF 1992), sustainable systems and increased local capacity are required” (Malone in Gleeson and Sipes 2006: 30).

Child friendly cities are creative cities

“Creative people are curious, flexible, persistent, and independent with a tremendous spirit of adventure and a love of play.”

– Henri Matisse (Utile Design Blog 2014)

Children’s curiosity, imagination, and their drive to explore their surroundings should be supported and encouraged by safe, welcoming, and interesting physical environments.

Today, many children are imprisoned by the perception – real or imagined – of danger lurking out of doors, and by “social traps” (in which parents feel obliged to make choices about parenting because of their perception of what other parents are doing (Tranter in Gleeson and Sipe 2006: 121-135)). At the same time, older children and youths (aged 13-18) are often disenfranchised and excluded from social space by the perception that they are ‘troublemakers’ (Iveson in Gleeson and Sipe 2006: 49-65). Iveson characterizes the notion of a “city free of conflict,” (“that is both “safe for ‘our children’ and free of troublesome ‘youths’”) as problematic, (in Gleeson and Sipe 2006: 49). This exclusion of children and youth from partaking in the social life of the city as they grow older adds another layer to the complex problem of re-enfranchising future generations in sustainable urban design. Not only do young children need places that are safe and 19

welcoming, but youths also need places where they are not only allowed to be, but are actively engaged.

Municipal Mind: Manifestos for the Creative City “prescribes an aesthetic intuited in the heart of the citizen, the desire of the citizen for elements one no longer dares to ask for – conviviality, joy, delight in wonder, the shared forum of imagining and play, of unreserved laughter and serenity – all the fluff things we have decided we have no levers for, but yearn for, all the playful and ecstatic registers that justify city life, without which the city becomes a place of business, or indentured servitude” (De Cicco 2007: 14).

Why Child Friendly Urbanism?

Family- and child-friendly design is multifaceted: there are social and psychological factors (which lie largely beyond the scope of this research), there are planning factors (such as the location of services and amenities like schools, libraries, and playgrounds), and there are urban design elements like parks, playgrounds, and streetscape, housing design and density, the distribution of publicprivate spaces, blue and green infrastructure, and transportation networks and alternatives. Child Friendly Urbanism, as defined here, focuses on these urban design attributes.

Urban design has a critical role to play in the creation of high quality indoor and outdoor spaces for children, family, and all cityvisitors and city-dwellers. Not least among these spaces are those that enable and encourage free play.

their own interests and competencies. Play allows them to use their creativity while developing imagination, dexterity, and physical and emotional strength. When adults aren’t directing or organizing them into activities, kids create and explore worlds they can master...

Play helps them develop new competencies that lead to enhanced confidence and resilience needed to face future challenges” (Ginsburg 2011: 49).

What is Nature Play?

“Nature play is defined as a learning process, engaging children in working together, to develop physical skills, to exercise their imaginations, to stimulate poetic expression, to being able to understand the workings of the world around them” (Moore 2014, vii).

“The [Nature Play and Learning Places] guidelines focus on design and management of physical settings that facilitate direct, hands-on engagement with nature in the everyday lives of children and families. As defined by the national steering committee, a nature play and learning place is: “A designated, managed area in an existing or modified outdoor environment where children of all ages and abilities play and learn by engaging with and manipulating diverse natural elements, materials, organisms, and habitats, through sensory, fine motor and gross motor experiences”” Ibid.; emphasis added).

The Value of (Free) Play

“Highly scheduled children have less time for child-driven creative play that is central to healthy development. When adults over-schedule children’s free time, it isn’t really free at all. Two important elements are forgotten amid these hectic schedules.

Unstructured free play (or down time in the case of adolescents) not only offers benefits that protect against the harmful effects of stress, but play also gives children unlimited opportunities to discover c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

“Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact.”

– Carl Sagan

20

On Children’s Experience of Place, Competence and Confidence

“We need to provide our children with natural settings in which to play, learn, and thrive. We need to help them form emotional bonds with the abounding beauty of flowers and trees, rivers and streams, critters and clouds. We need them to be fascinated with these things, to grow into close and careful observers of the world around them, to feel not only appreciative but protective, and to be prepared to live their lives accordingly.

This is a public health strategy, an environmental strategy, and an educational strategy...and a path to the future we want” (Howard Frumkin, M.D., Dr. P.H., Dean University of Washington School of Public Health. Moore 2014: xvii, Foreword).

“Confidence is rooted in competence. Children can’t gain genuine confidence without experiencing their own competence.

They have to manage challenges to know they are able to succeed.

Only then will they be truly confident” (Ginsberg 2011: 117).

Either children are allowed to test themselves, developing competence, or children are overwhelmed by a “sense of inferiority and inadequacy” (Moore 1986: 14).

“…the children’s view of the city is optimistic and full of life, open to the future while firmly rooted in the present. A sense of the future that boldly demands to be listened to and dialogued with. A tenacious feeling of optimism that claims the right to be part of the dialogue in giving shape and identity to the city” (Davoli and Fari 2000: 18, cited by Malone in Gleeson and Sipes 2006: 30).

can be further enhanced through practice and performance (in traditional games, for instance). As the child develops biologically, new play opportunities must become available to support the growth of competence. If too many barriers... are encountered, motivation towards competence will begin to waver. Especially for schoolaged children, it will become replaced by a sense of inferiority and inadequacy (unless compensated for by extracurricular sports, music, guiding/scouting, etc.)” (Moore 1986: 14; emphasis added).

“When play is allowed to be child-driven, kids move at their own pace, discover their own talents and interests, and ultimately engage fully in the passions they wish to pursue. In contrast to passive entertainment like watching television, play builds active, healthy bodies. Above all, play is a simple joy that is a cherished part of childhood” (Ginsburg 2011: 49).

Final Thoughts

Play is the first ingredient. Child Friendly Urbanism supports the creation of play places at all scales, to encourage and support children’s explorations of their environments. Resilient, connected systems at the scale of the city are needed to support healthy environments. Housing that supports urban families with adequate storage, access to the outdoors, and interesting nooks and streetside crannies that invite dwellers to come outside and play, is the next scale. And once out-of-doors, safe, secure, ecologically- and phenomenologically-rich play spaces – hard-scaped or soft – must be available to draw children and young people into worlds of imagination that inspire, educate, challenge, and support their physical, mental, and spiritual growth.

“...the child’s playful interaction with the environment and her/his assimilation of worldly experience, produces a feeling of competence: a sense of mastery and control over the environment,” utilizing it to “achieve one’s goals and enrich one’s experience”” (Moore 1986: 12, citing Hart 1979: 211). (emphasis added)

“The wellspring of competence may be seen as a natural striving by the young child to acquire knowledge and skills, which 21

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

22

02 23

Š unesco.org

Š mirror.co.uk

Urban Transformation

Habitat Loss

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

Elements of (Nature) Play

24

ENDANGERED CHILDHOOD?

02

“...the detachment of education from the physical world not only coincided with the dramatic rise in life-threatening childhood obesity, but also with a growing body of evidence that links physical exercise and experience in nature to mental acuity and concentration.”

– Richard Louv (100)

Richard Louv (2005). Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children

from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books.

25

2.1 Urban Transformation

“In the space of a single human lifetime, society finds itself suddenly confronted with a daunting complex of trade-offs between some of its most important activities and ideas. Recent trends raise disturbing questions about the extent to which today’s people may be living at the expense of their descendants, casting doubt upon the cherished goal that each successive generation will have greater prosperity. Technological innovation may temporarily mask a reduction in earth’s potential to sustain human activities; in the long run, however, it is unlikely to compensate for a massive depletion of such fundamental resources as productive land, fisheries, old-growth forests, and biodiversity.”

Gretchen Daily (Ed.), 1997 Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, Washington DC: Island Press: 1.

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

26

© unesco.org

The transformation of urban spaces over the past 40 years, and more critically, children’s access to them (or more often, lack thereof), is not just a spatial issue, but also a social one. Perceptions of danger have skyrocketed, whether linked to real dangers, or more to dissociated fears – “...the inability of children to move safely through auto space and the auto’s appropriation of space in which children play, particularly poor children in inner city areas, are important forms of social inequity” (Freund and Martin 1996: 54).

The greatest threat to children’s safety in urban spaces is posed by cars, not by strangers. Designers of a certain age are likely to see the streets still as available for children’s play – but the reality is that they are not. Children interviewed by UNESCO for the Growing Up In Cities project (Lynch 1977) identified streets and plazas as their favorite places to play:

“When asked about what they choose to do, the places they are interested in, how they spend their time, or how they would like to, the children do not talk much about school, the playground, or even their own private yards They talk about the street or courtyard, their own room if they have one, and, to a lesser degree, the sports facilities, the wastelands, the natural open spaces, and the center of the city” (Lynch 1977: 15).

In cities where the automobile had already come to dominate public space, exceptions were found:

“... the Tolucan children mention the streets much less often

in describing their activities. Clearly, they are intimidated by the overbearing traffic that pours through their neighborhood. The streets themselves have no nooks or crannies; the sidewalks are narrow and lined with unrecessed facades and fences. the traffic pavements are patently dangerous. Thus, the children turn to the formal parks and playgrounds of the city, which fortunately are within their reach” (Lynch 1977: 21).

Between the 1970s and 1990s a great deal of change in cityspace occurred, as did a dramatic rise in car ownership:

“In an empirical study of British children aged seven to fifteen years, comparing 1990 to 1971, it was found that the space usable by children had been reduced considerably. The principal reason given by parents for the decreased independent mobility of their children was increased street traffic. The analysis by the researchers concluded that “the increase in personal freedom and choice arising from widening car ownership has been gained at the cost of freedom and choice for children.” (Freund and Martin 1996: 54; citing Hillman et al.).

Freund and Martin (1996). The Ecology of the Automobile.

Lynch (1977). Growing Up in Cities. UNESCO.

27

2.2 Habitat Loss

“Our greatest period of geographical experience is that found in each of us in our childhood. All children have an urge to explore the landscape around them, to learn about it, to give order to it, and to invest it with meaning – both shared and private.”

Roger Hart, 1979 Children’s Experience of Place: 3

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

28

“The important barriers to movement are not distance but personal fear, dangerous traffic, a lack of spatial knowledge, the cost of public transport, or... parental controls...”

dis-experience of where we actually are in space. This sense of placelessness is a principal source of the existential alienation experienced in city life… As well as being a source of our simultaneous yearning for nature, community and stability, placelessness may be a cause of the ecological destructiveness of our way of life” (Freund and Martin 1996: 107).

(Lynch 1977: 23)

As ecosystems have suffered damage, and society has shifted with growing cities, and growing perceptions of danger, children’s “habitats” have been lost, as have the wilder landscapes in which they used to play. Children’s mobility has decreased noticeably as a result of perceived safety:

“Independent geographic mobility has long been used by child development experts as a measure of human maturation. In the 1940s, even slow-maturing children were expected to be able to go to familiar places on a bus, or to go downtown, getting on and off by themselves, by the time they were 9 years old. With today’s auto-centered transport, many youths do not have their first solo excursion beyond their neighbourhoods until they are permitted to drive” (Freund and Martin 1996: 54; citing Schaeffer and Sclar).

The infrastructure and speed of automobility represents a real danger, and physical block to children’s freedom of movement.

It has also negatively affected ecosystem function, and the mobility of wild animals, as their habitats are likewise curtailed.

“The built environments of auto space -- the sameness of high-speed freeways, vast parking lots -- contribute to the

Existential alienation notwithstanding, an antidote to this homogenizing placelessness imposed by the same streets, same strip shopping malls, same roadside restaurants may be urban streetscapes with strong local character. As Lynch’s UNESCO study noted in 1977, “The shape of the local streets, stairs, and courtyards is important to these children: the paving, the trees, the safety, the suitability for informal play, the corners, doorways, nooks, and benches where they can meet their friend, the opportunities those places give them to slip away from the parental eye while still being thought safe and under general supervision” (21). These nooks and crannies provide safe habitats for children’s play close to home, and safely under their parents’ watchful eyes.

Gill’s recent literature review finds that, “There is also good evidence of a link between time spent in natural settings as a child, and positive views of nature as an adult...Studies have found that a lack of regular positive experiences in nature is associated with the development of fear, discomfort and dislike of the environment” (Gill 2014: 18). Some of children’s fears may be quelled by spending more time out of doors, where positive environmental attitudes can grow, helping a generation to come of age who are equipped to deal with “the ecological destructiveness of our way of life” (Freund and Martin 1996: 107).

29

Robin Moore’s 1986 Childhood’s Domain looked at urban children from three English cities, cataloging their experiences with (preferred) play spaces. He found five categories of outdoor play space in that research, conducted between 1976 and 1978. Those comprise five chapters of his book, with subheadings as indicated below.

As will be evident to the reader, several of these spaces, or the social and geographic mobility necessary to access them, has since been lost to most urban children. The idea of letting children wander freely through the city will strike fear into the hearts of most contemporary parents. While real danger due to the growth of automobile infrastructure and ownership, the increasing speed of cars, and the likelihood distracted drivers, exists, the perceived danger of strangers has also grown exponentially.

Social pressures, social traps, and legal dangers curtailing children’s ability to wander freely have also grown. Parents who give their children free reign to explore may face legal repercussions or social censure for this lack of care.

The Flowing Terrain wandering

pedestrian networks bicycles

other ways of travelling

getting through

playing along the way topography

hide and seekness

harvesting found objects

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

30

Habitats Around the Home

home as haven transitional niches sheds and garages places for pets yards and gardens ‘backs,’ mews and alleys old and new town ‘fronts’ car places streets as playgrounds

Parks & Playgrounds*

playgrounds in parks parks as playgrounds parks as scarce resource areas child-adult relations in parks hallowed ground? adventure playgrounds

31

Greens*

school grounds fields

greenway edges

sports fields

essential ingredients

Rough Ground & Abandoned Places

a ‘meanwhile’ sanctuary woods fields farms

building sites

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

32

Today’s children have largely lost access to these kinds of free play spaces, and at the same time, their access to free time, and free play.

As Tim Gill’s 2014 literature review shows, “creative engagement” encouraging free play, imagination, and investment in children’s knowledge of, and care for, the world of nature, are critical to healthy child development.

The studies Gill reviewed “support the view that spending time in nature is part of a “balanced diet” of childhood experiences that promote children’s healthy development, well-being and positive environmental attitudes and values” (17).

Tim Gill (2014). The Benefits of Children’s Engagement with Nature: A

Systematic Literature Review. Children, Youth and Environments

24(2). Denver: University of Colorado Press.

33

Habitat Restoration

“Children must spend more time outdoors – for their good health and the health of our planet. If children don’t move enough, their bodies will not develop in a healthy manner.

“If children don’t grow up engaged with nature, chances are they will never understand human dependency on the natural world.”

Robin Moore (2014): 9

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

This section focuses on suggestions from the September 2014 publication Nature Play and Learning Places: creating and managing places where children engage with nature. Nonetheless, there is a time and a place for traditional playground equipment. Following Robin C. Moore’s, and his co-authors’ lead, I suggest that natural materials – wood, stone, brick, and lots of vegetation – are preferable to the ready-made manufactured equipment that turns up on so many new playgrounds – usually on a clear cut pad without a hint of shade or green nearby.

A growing body of research suggests that there are demonstrable health and well being benefits for children who spend time engaged with nature. And where there is no access to the outdoors, even tiny interventions can have huge impacts. Parks and playgrounds are meeting places, where relationships and communities grow.

Increasing abundance, diversity, and affordance is the goal of any nature play area, no matter its size. “Affordance is “a quality of an object, or an environment, which allows an individual to perform an action.”

The abundance and diversity of vegetation create habitat for a broader range of insect, amphibian, bird, and small mammal species, which have the power to surprise and delight children.

34

2.3 Elements of Nature Play

Entrances Pathways Boundaries Plants

Trees Shrubs

Perennial Plants

Permanent Edible Plants

Vegetable Gardens

Annual Plants Natural Surfacing Natural Loose Parts Natural Construction Natural Play Structures Multipurpose Lawns Meadows Woodland Landform Animals Aquatics Sand, Soil, Dirt Gathering Program Base & Storage Performance Signage Moore (2014), Nature Play & Learning Places

“Healing the broken bond between our young and nature is in our self interest, not only because aesthetics or justice demands it, but also because our mental, physical, and spiritual health depends on it.�

Richard Louv in Moore 2014: 22.

Robin Moore (2014). Nature Play and Learning Places: Creating and managing places where children engage with nature. NLI, NWF, USFS. op. cit.: Van Lier, L. 2004. The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

35

22”

22”

Traditional Playground Equipment*

“Children should be able to do their own experimenting, their own research... In order for a child to understand something he must construct it for himself, he must reinvent it... if in the future individuals are to be formed who are capable of creativity and not simply repetition.”

Jean Piaget in Moore 1986: 10.

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

h >15”

2h

safety surfacing = 2h x 6’

36

Natural Play Structures “Permanent play structures can be built from natural materials such as logs and rocks with possible cost savings.”

Affordances • Support gross motor play. And encourage strength and balance building.

• Support dramatic play in settings such as playhouses, enclosures, and stacks logs and rocks, decks, stages. (Moore 2014: 87)

© stockholm.se

Walking Wall * 37

Gathering Places Affordances • Broaden opportunities for children to develop social relationship with peers and adults.

• Support dramatic play.

• Strengthen existing social relations.

• Build community social capital.

• Offer educators functional learning environments for activities and lessons.

• Provide playworkers programmatic infrastructure.

• Provide hangout area for parents.

“Design gathering spaces to accommodate groups of different sizes.

Locate small intimate settings where children can play quietly , socialize in small groups or withdraw from the noise and distractions of more boisterous activities.” (Moore 2014: 97)

© vulgare.net

Performance Spaces Affordances • Stimulate self-expression.

• Encourage teamwork.

• Foster a sense of community.

• Help create a “culture of place.”

“The need for large gathering settings is frequently overlooked during the design programming process. Often, the organization has not fully considered how new nature play and learning space will be an attractive venue for community special events... ” (Moore 2014: 99)

© Kristine Jensen

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

38

Aquatics / Splash Fountains & Water Features Affordances • Engage children in hands-on, multi-sensory experience.

• Provide direct experience of aquatic wildlife in and around water.

“Streams, ponds, and marshes occur naturally but also may be intentionally designed, each with its own challenges as a play and learning setting... Naturally occurring aquatic settings have a distinct advantage over designed settings. Because they are not artificially provided, they are not subject to local health and safety regulations like new construction would be (although water quality and/or habitat preservation regulations may apply). However, risk management protocols are still relevant.” (Moore 2014: 94)

39

Sand, Soil, Dirt

“Because of its softness and malleability, sand is one of the most popular play materials. It is easy to move and mold.

It can be dug, sifted, sculpted, poured, and drawn upon. Combined with water, it provides even more opportunities for creative and imaginative play.”

“Natural loose parts such as twigs, fallen leaves, and small stones help children create imaginary worlds in sandy settings and places such as the dirt between tree roots. Symbolically it is like playing with the surface of the planet. Soil is critical to life and therefore has high educational value.”

Zen Pebble Garden, Japan

http://www.1001gardens.org/2014/07/20-mud-kitchen-ideas/

Affordances • Engage children in creative, imaginary experience.

• Provide exploration of the sensory qualities of soil/dirt.

• Offer opportunities for collaborative social interaction.

Considerations

“Enclose sand play settings to keep the sand from migrating... The setting itself should be at least 2 feet deep with good drainage... a net cover can be used to keep animals out of the sand. Rain, air, and sunshine will clean the sand. Do not use an airtight cover, as this will make the sand rancid. Provide access to water, preferably within the sand play setting itself.”

(Moore 2014: 96) Blue Lake Park © learninglandscapesdesign.com

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

40

Natural Loose Parts

“Children can transform virtually any natural, small loose object into a prop to afford dramatic and constructive play.

Examples include insects, worms, cattails, pine cones, driftwood, leaves, twigs, seeds, shells, rocks, dirt, sand, and many more.

Larger natural objects such as logs and stones may not be “loose” in the sense of being easily manipulated, liftable, and transportable from place to place, but they may be turned over to see what’s living underneath or rolled around to create spaces.”

Affordances • Provide children opportunities to manipulate the environment and transform it into imaginary worlds.

• Extend the play and learning possibilities of any nature play and learning space.

“Nature is a huge supplier of free loose and movable parts. Downed or decaying limbs and sticks can be harvested for use as loose parts. Logs, rocks, and larger pieces of timber can also be added. Dramatic play can be enhanced by adding manufactured items such as sawn lumber, pieces of textile, sections of plastic pipe, pieces of rope, sheets of heavy cardboard, reused containers, and repurposed scraps of all kinds. Dress-up clothes and play props such as animal tails, ears, and facemasks can extend dramatic play possibilities.”

(Moore 2014: 85)

4.40

4.39

4.41 © Moore 2014, natureplayandlearning.org

nAtURAL LooSe PARtS

4.39 There is something

Children can transform virtually any natural, small loose object into a prop to afford dramatic and constructive play. Examples include insects, worms, cattails, pinecones, driftwood, leaves, twigs, seeds, shells, rocks, dirt, sand, and many more. Larger natural objects such as logs and stones may not be “loose” in the sense of being easily manipulated, liftable, and transportable for place to place, but they may be turned over to see what’s living underneath or rolled around to create spaces.

magical about the way children create assemblages of natural loose parts, which symbolize something concrete to the maker and appear otherworldly to an adult outsider. Here, parts of the surrounding plants provide everything required.

Nature PlayScape, Cincinnati

Natural loose and movable part affordances

Nature Center, OH (Case

Dramatic play can be enhanced by adding manufactured items such as sawn lumber, pieces of textile,

• Provide children opportunities to manipulate

sections of plastic pipe, pieces of rope, sheets of

the environment and transform it into imagi-

heavy cardboard, reused containers, and repur-

nary worlds.

posed safe scrap of all kinds. Dress-up clothes and

• Extend the play and learning possibilities of any nature play and learning space.

play props such as animal tails, ears, and facemasks can extend dramatic play possibilities.

Study 6).

4.40 A few sticks, fallen leaves, and pieces of rotting log. What is it? You would need to ask but please do not interrupt this child’s reverie.

Nature PlayScape, Cincinnati Nature Center, OH (Case Study 6).

Considerations

Adjacencies

Nature is huge supplier of free loose and movable

From the child’s point of view of, natural loose parts

41

4.41 Larger scale loose parts

Meadows “Technically, meadows are fields of grass and other non-woody plants managed as “wild” ecosystems to attract diverse wildlife for children to observe and enjoy as they explore and play in the tall plants. Meadow habitats may occur naturally or they can be created from cleared woodland...” (Moore 2014: 89)

© mmmdesigngroup.com

Lawn “Flat and/or undulating grassy areas are often considered essential to any play and learning space, especially for the emerging walker. However, a lawn may not be justified if the overall space is relatively small or soil conditions or irrigation will not naturally support lawn turf.” (Moore 2014: 88) © landperspectives.wordpress.com

Woodland “Patches of existing remnant woodland, with modest design and management intervention (adding primary pathways to improve access, for example), can provide a ready-made nature play and learning offering a multitude of affordances. Woodland settings can be created by design and appropriate management, although they are more challenging and time dependent...” (Moore 2014: 88) c h i l d

© http://thisisme-sarahmumof3.blogspot.com/

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

42

Landform

“Landforms are a fundamental characteristic of the terrestrial environment.

They may already exist as a site feature or be created as part of the design. They motivate play and stimulate learning about relationships between aspect, sunlights, drainage patterns, and vegetation – including erosion and soil conservation.

Landforms, major and minor, increase landscape diversity and extend the potential for play and learning.”

Affordances • Encourage fantasy play, orientation skills, and hide-and-seek games.

• Provide lookout spots (prospect and refuge) from which children can observe their surroundings.

• Add visual interest and complexity to a site.

• Motivate rolling, crawling, sliding, balancing and jumping – activities that stimulate the vestibular and kinesthetic senses.

Considerations

“Mounds with varied slopes are fun for all children and can be used to increase visual complexity and screen undesirable views.

Landforms integrated with fixed structures many enhance play value and protect steep grades from erosion...”

(Moore 2014: 91) © Carve / landezine.com

43

Plants

“Plants and associated animal life are the crucial ingredients of nature play and learning spaces. The infinite affordances of plants can create a highly interactive environment, greatly extending the range of possible play and learning activity as well as providing aesthetic enhancement for all ages.”

What Plants Offer

“The diversity and multiple affordances of plants offer many other unique qualities as an eco-service to nature and play learning.”

• Manipulability

• Sensory stimulation

• Dramatic play

• Shade

• Indoor-outdoor transitions

• Integrate life into activity settings

• Interdisciplinary outdoor classroom

• Space making

• Create a sense of place

• Communicate seasonal cycles

• Show where food comes from

• Show where medicines come from

© Mutabilis LA©/ landezine.com

(Moore 2014: 74-76)

© Kristine Jensen

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

44

Animals & Natural Habitat “Animals are an endless source of wonder for children. Play with animals may foster a caring attitude, a sense of responsibility toward living things, and empathy for life. They offer many opportunities for multidisciplinary learning. When children interact with animals, they invest in them emotionally. Animals can provide a powerful therapeutic effect. They are a meaningful socializing medium. They provide companionship in non-threatening ways, which is especially effective for children with low self-esteem. Caring for animals can produce a strong sense of personal competence and pride. Many types of beneficial animals (insects, amphibians birds. small mammals) can be attracted to nature play and learning spaces by selecting relevant plants used for food and shelter (especially those producing nectar or bearing fruit, cones, and seeds).” (Moore: 92)

© https://www.flickr.com/photos/nathanbarry/6998247342/

© http://www.learninglandscapesdesign.com/

45

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

46

“...kids aren’t as fragile as we tend to think. They are born with strengths and abilities to cope with adversity, learn from their mistakes, and mature into responsible, competent adults. Yet they cannot develop and energize their inner resources unless we allow them the opportunities to do so.�

Kenneth Ginsburg, Building Resilience in Children and Teens, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2011: 21.

47

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

48

03 49

Amsterdam

Copenhagen

Stockholm

Ecodistricts

Housing

Play Places

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

50

THREE EXEMPLARY CITIES, THREE SCALES OF INTERVENTION Travel Research | Summer 2014

2.1 Eco Districts and Sustainable Neighborhoods represent a relatively new trend in urban design, and one that is desperately needed, since sustainable thinking is systems thinking, and requires a scale larger than that of individual dwellings. The examples profiled in 2.1 cover a range of site conditions, and sizes, but have remarkably similar target densities, and parallel ways of thinking about the ways that social and environmental sustainability are interwoven.

GWL Terrein and Hammarby-Sjöstad are completely built; IJburg has several complete islands, with a plan for several more in the next decade; Ørestad is still under construction, having stalled in the wake of the financial crises of 2006 and 2007; and Nørdhavnen is a project that lives only on the drawing board. The competition brief noted later in this section outlines ideas and requirements for competition entrants to consider with regard to Environmental Sustainability.

2.2 Child Friendly Urban Housing, as presented in Section 2.2, represents 21st Century responses to inherited problems. Strategies for creating dense, mixed use housing, with access to outdoors, and a high degree of self-determination, are responses to the problems of 20th Century cities.

Two critical factors appear across all of the examples: the first is a focus on individuality embodied by a front door (that doesn’t come from a dead-end, boring, dimly-lit, typical apartment building hall), an

03

entrance of one’s own. The second, critically, is access to outdoor space.

In all of the projects included in this section designers have striven to provide every unit with access to private outdoor space – in some instances this is limited to a balcony (or two), other units have rooftop or terrace gardens, others have private gardens and entrances at ground level. Wherever these spaces are located vertically, they act as buffers between the public space outside, and the private space within.

As buffers, they are inherently mediators between public and private, sitting between the space of the home, and the world beyond. For young children, this creates safe outdoor places at the threshold of home; as they grow older, and more adventurous, children can move safely into the more public realm beyond the doorstep. Private gardens at ground level, that provide access onto public, car-free green space represent the ideal.

IJburg, a district on constructed islands just east of Amsterdam, forces architects and designers to adhere to a strict set of rules, while encouraging playful façades and (tightly controlled) diversions from the norm. Packed with pocket playgrounds, but short on large open spaces, in IJburg views onto water are considered as therapeutic as access to, or views over, green. Traditional, 19th Century Amsterdam city blocks are operationally transformed to create organizational diversity, and discovery for explorers of the islands.

*Noordbuurt, on Steigereiland, has triangular wedge-like blocks, wrapped with an sea side promenade. Block 126, by VMX Architects (for Vesteda), uses garage-style glass doors to offer a 51

transformable threshold space. Stacked terrace-style apartments have views onto interior courtyards, and beyond, to the IJmeer, Holland’s inland sea.

*KCAP’s design for Block 11 is more urban. On IJburglaan, Haveneiland’s main drag, and immediately adjacent to the island’s largest commercial hub / shopping center, Block 11 combines housing, commercial, office space, and medical offices.

The GWL Terrein, in central Amsterdam’s Westerpark, represents an urban reclamation of the former site of the Municipal Water Company (“GWL”). A car-free, park-like expanse of six hectares, it converses with the 19th Century blocks across van Hallstraat, but in its own, unique way. Four to five story blocks sit in a field of green – garden allotments, community compost, flowers, trees, and ivy-faced red brick buildings – edged on its northern and western sides by a meandering set of buildings, four to nine stories tall. The commission given to the site’s five architecture firms urged them to maximize private entries and private gardens. The balcony, terrace, garden strategy outlined above is very much in evidence here.

Moving north to Copenhagen, Ørestad is a new mixed-use, high-density, and transit-oriented district comprised of a university and communications hub (north), city center, and commerce / housing hub (south). Situated between central Copenhagen and the new Øresund link to Malmö, Sweden, Ørestad is envisioned as a new city unto itself, with focal points of education, performance, enterprise, communication and connectivity...

Just south of the island of Södermalm (and south of central Stockholm), Hammarby-Sjöstad is an ecologically-designed village that sits on a former industrial, brown-field site. A tram, buses, and ferry services connect the idyllic site with the central city. A garbage dump has been turned into a ski slope, the lake port has been planted with reeds, laced through with a boardwalk that lets you float above the water. Private moorings, sidewalk cafés, and little shops line the canals, spanned by bridges for pedestrians and cyclists only.

2.3 Open space, green infrastructure, parks, and playgrounds The six parks highlighted in this section exemplify strategies for 21st Century urban park-making that are particularly Child Friendly. Each park represents a strategic move by designers working with community members to solve problems faced by contemporary city dwellers.

“Green infrastructure is the interconnected network of open spaces and natural areas, such as greenways, wetlands, parks, forest preserves and native plant vegetation, that naturally manages stormwater, reduces flooding risk and improves water quality.

Green infrastructure usually costs less to install and maintain when compared to traditional forms of infrastructure. Green infrastructure projects also foster community cohesiveness by engaging all residents in the planning, planting and maintenance of the sites” (Center for Neighborhood Technology, What is Green Infrastructure: Green Values Stormwater Toolbox. Accessed 10/29/13, from http://greenvalues.cnt. org/green-infrastructure).

“Green infrastructure is a term that can encompass a wide array of specific practices, and a number of definitions exist (see the EPA’s definition here). In our view: • Green infrastructure is an approach to water management that protects, restores, or mimics the natural water cycle. Green infrastructure is effective, economical, and enhances community safety and quality of life.

• It means planting trees and restoring wetlands, rather than building a costly new water treatment plant. It means choosing water efficiency instead of building a new water supply dam. It means restoring floodplains instead of building taller levees.

• Green infrastructure incorporates both the natural environment and engineered systems to provide clean water, conserve ecosystem values and functions, and provide a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife” (American Rivers, What is Green Infrastructure? Accessed 10/29/13, from http://www.americanrivers.org/initiatives/pollution/ green-infrastructure/what-is-green-infrastructure/).

“Green infrastructure solutions can be applied on different scales, from the house or building level, to the broader landscape

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

52

level. On the local level, green infrastructure practices include rain gardens, permeable pavements, green roofs, infiltration planters, trees and tree boxes, and rainwater harvesting systems. At the largest scale, the preservation and restoration of natural landscapes (such as forests, floodplains and wetlands) are critical components of green infrastructure.

Green infrastructure investments boost the economy, enhance community health and safety, and provide recreation, wildlife, and other benefits.

Many forward-looking cities are already embracing green infrastructure, including New York, Chicago, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Toledo, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia, as well as many others“(American Rivers, What is Green Infrastructure? Accessed 10/29/13, from http:// www.americanrivers.org/initiatives/pollution/green-infrastructure/ what-is-green-infrastructure/).

Sønder and Prags Boulevards in Copenhagen are linear parks, green streets, which anchor neighborhood revitalization efforts. Both mix linear elements with playful programmed zones that attract users across a wide range of age groups, from young children to adults.

Community participation was critical to both parks’ design processes, and the programmed zones reflect the needs raised by neighbors in meetings with the designers.

Superkilen, also in Copenhagen, transforms a wedge of formerly unused land in the heart of a mixed use, hyper-diverse neighborhood, creating an urban park that doubles as a museum of kitsch. Through the collection of objects from 60 global cultures – representing the homelands of the diverse population of the neighborhood – Superkilen celebrates diversity, while providing urban places for children, teenagers, and adults to engage with cultural artifacts, vegetation, and each other.

lies in the transformation of a busy city street, into a wholly pedestrianized urban plaza, with play opportunities for young children. Young neighborhood residents are invited to bounce, slide, crawl, and climb, and to personalize the black rubber impactattenuation surfaces with chalk drawings.

The playground at Van Beuningenplein was redesigned by a team of designers working in concert with community participation.

The charge: to redesign the dilapidated, hidden play area, while providing two storeys of underground parking. A teen center, café, playground, and two game courts are protected by dense vegetation: existing trees were kept where possible, and Van Dijk en Co. were charged with doubling the on-site vegetation.

Just up the street from Hammarby-Sjöstad’s ferry station, Lumaparken similarly conceals a 260-space parking garage, while providing opportunities for play. The eco-development’s main drag, the Hammarby Allë, runs through the site. Up the hill from a transit plaza with light rail and bus stops, manufactured play equipment is interspersed with landscape features in the hilltop site: grassy berms, groves of trees, and a shallow “creek” that runs down the hill, inviting “nature play” and exploration. Long winding paths climb from the transit plaza and main street to the hilltop playground – for the intrepid, the park’s granite staircases have built-in ramps for bicycles and strollers.

Urban Networks are the glue that hold cities together – their presence (or absence) can also make the difference between a project’s failure and its success. As we see in Hammarby-Sjöstad, the application of systems thinking – ecological thinking – to urban design is critical.

While the approaches of the 19th and 20th Centuries were about largely about piecemeal, reductivist thinking about city systems, in the 21st Century, reconnecting systems, networks, and communities is critical.

The more that a city can behave like an ecosystem, the less waste, the less want.

Potgieterstraat, a pocket playground in Amsterdam’s Westerpark, seems relatively pedestrian at first glance. Its uniqueness 53

Goal

Promote equity and opportunity and ensure fair distribution of benefits and burdens of investment and development.

Eco-District Performance Areas*

Objectives

• Ensure neighborhood investments provide direct community benefit through job creation and investment opportunities • Provide quality and consistent local job opportunities through EcoDistrict projects • Mitigate the forced displacement of existing residents and businesses • Ensure diverse stakeholder invovlement in all EcoDistrict activities and decision making.

Goal

Promote human health and community wellbeing.

Objectives

• Provide access to safe and functional local recreation and natural areas • Provide access to healthy, local and affordable food • Ensure safe and connected streets • Improve indoor and outdoor air quality

Goal

Zero waste and optimized materials management.

1 Equitable Development

Objectives

• Eliminate practices that produce waste wherever possible • Minimize use of virgin materials and minimize toxic chemicals in new products • Optimize material reuse and salvage, and encourage use of regionally manufactured products and parts • Where opportunities for waste prevention are limited, maximize use of products made with recycled content • Capture greatest residual value of organic wastes (including food) through energy recovery and/or composting

Goal

Achieve healthy urban ecosystems that protect and regenerate habitat and ecosystem function.

* Children’s health and wellbeing need to be prioritized, as they “are the canaries in the mines”

2 Health & Wellbeing

8 Materials Management

Goal

7 Habitat & Ecosystem Function

Create cohesive neighborhood identity through the built environment and a culture of community.

Sustainability

3 Community Identity

Objectives

• Create beautiful, accessible and safe places that promote interaction and access • Foster social networks that are inclusive, flexible and cohesive • Develop local governance with the leadership and capacity to act on behalf of the neighborhood.

Objectives

• Protect and enhance local watersheds • Prioritize native and structurally diverse vegetation • Create habiat connectivity wihtin and beyond the district • Avoid human-made hazards to wildlife and promote nature-friendly urban design

6 Water

4 Access & Mobility

* Educate community members

5 Energy Goal

Meet both human and natural needs through reliable and affordable water management.

Objectives

• Reduce water consumption through conservation • Reuse and recycle water resrouces wherever possible, using potable water only for potable needs • Managem stormwater and building water discharge within the district * Education & Green Infrastructure / LID

Goal

Achieve net zero energy usage annually.

Goal

Provide access to clean and affordable transportation options.

Objectives

• Provide accessible services through mixed-uses and improved street access • Prioritize active transportation • Reduce vehicle miles traveled • Use low and zero emission vehicles * Create safe streets for multimodal users, pedestrians, and children at play

Objectives

• Conserve energy use by minimizing demand and maximizing conservation • Optimize infrastructure performance at all scales • Use renewable energy * Include educataional goals and programming

* The EcoDistricts Protocol. EcoDistricts (formerly Portland Sustainability Institute), 2014. www.ecodistricts.com .org

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

54

ECODISTRICTS & NEIGHBORHOOD SUSTAINABILITY SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

At the scale of ecodistricts, or neighborhoods designed with sustainability principles, the interconnection of the systems that serve the critical is of paramount importance. As far as specific childfriendliness goes, energy, water, and waste systems that are well connected provide a cleaner, healthier environment. Open space networks – enough area, access, distribution, connectivity, and appropriate programming – are critical. Transportation networks can also be improved by designing the city’s streets and sidewalks for human comfort before carfriendliness.

According to EcoDistricts.org (formerly the Portland Sustainability Institute):

3.1

for people to come together to set goals, define projects, engage in collaborative efforts, and raise the bar for sustainable practices.”

“Stakeholders in an EcoDistricts include property owners, tenants, residents, utilities and government. Each has a role in achieving sustainability performance goals in eight areas, which can help guide district investments and community action.” (ecodistricts.org)

EcoDistricts.org’s performance areas, goals, and objectives are outlined to the left. The next pages outline an one alternative to sustainable neighborhood design, the USGBC’s LEED ND (Neighborhood Development).

”An EcoDistrict is a neighborhood, or redevelopment area, committed to advancing sustainability through green building, smart infrastructure and behavior. It provides a framework 55

LEED N D S c orec ard

1

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Preferred Locations / 10 points possible Brownfield Redevelopment / 2 points possible Location w/ Reduced Automobile Dependence / 7 points possible Bicycle Network & Storage / 1 point possible Housing & Jobs Proximity / 3 points possible Steep Slope Protection / 1 point possible Site Design for Habitat or Wetland & Water Body Conservation / 1 Restoration of Habitat / Wetlands & Water Bodies / 1 point possible Long-Term Conservation Management / 1 point possible

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Walkable Streets / 12 points possible Compact Development / 6 points possible Mixed-Use Neighborhood Centers / 4 points possible Mixed Income Diverse Communities / 7 points possible Reduced Parking Footprint / 1 point possible Street Network / 2 points possible Transit Facilities / 1 point possible Transportation Demand Management / 2 points possible Access to Civic and Public Spaces / 1 point possible Access to Recreation Facilities / 1 point possible Visitability & Universal Design / 1 point possible Community Outreach & Involvement / 2 points possible Local Food Production / 1 point possible Tree-Lined & Shaded Streets / 2 points possible Neighborhood Schools / 1 point possible

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

3

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Certified Green Buildings / 5 points possible Building Energy Efficiency / 2 points possible Building Water Efficiency / 1 point possible Water-Efficient Landscaping / 1 point possible Existing Building Use / 1 point possible Historic Resource Preservation & Adaptive Reuse/ 1 point possible Minimized Site Disturbance / 1 point possible Stormwater Management / 4 points possible Heat Island Reduction / 1 point possible Solar Orientation / 1 point possible On-Site Renewable Energy Sources / 3 points possible District Heating and Cooling / 2 points possible Infrastructure Energy Efficiency / 1 point possible Wastewater Management / 2 points possible Recycled Content in Infrastructure / 1 point possible Solid Waste Management Infrastructure / 1 point possible Light Pollution Reduction / 1 point possible

1.1 - 1.5 Innovation & Exemplary Performance / 5 points possible 2 LEED Accredited Professional / 1 point possible

5

1.1 - 1.4 Regional Priority Credit: Region Defined / 4 points possible

56

1.7

1.8

1.2

1.4

1.3

1.6 1.5 1.1

1 Smart Location & Linkage

1.9

27 Points Possible 5 Prerequisites

Prereq. 1 Prereq. 2 Prereq. 3 Prereq. 4 Prereq. 5

3.4

3.3

Smart Location Imperiled Species & Ecological Communities Wetland & Water Body Conservation Agricultural Land Conservation Floodplain Avoidance

4.1.1

4 Innovation &

4.1.2

4.1.3

4.1.4

4.1.5

4.2

Design Process

3.2

6 Points Possible

3.5 3.1

3 Green Infrastructure & Buildings

3.9

2.1

29 Points Possible 4 Prerequisites

3.6 3.7

3.10

Prereq. 1 Prereq. 2 Prereq. 3 Prereq. 4

2.13

Certified Green Building Minimum Building Energy Efficiency Minimum Building Water Efficiency Construction Activity Pollution Prevention

2 Neighborhood Pattern & Design

3.8

2.3

29 Points Possible 3 Prerequisites

3.13 3.15 3.16

3.11

3.12

5.1.1

2.2

Prereq. 1 Walkable Streets Prereq. 2 Compact Development Prereq. 3 Connected & Open Community

5 Regional

2.8

Priority Credit 4 Points Possible

3.14

3.17

2.15

5.1.2

2.7

5.1.4

2.9

2.4

5.1.3

2.12

2.6

2.14 2.5

2.10

2.11

Adapted from LEED ND / © USGBC

57

IJburg

Amsterdam, Netherlands

1000 m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

58

Designers Palmboom & van den Bout (PALMBOUT) H+N+S dRO Amsterdam Architekten Cie

Claus & Kaan Design 2005 – 2010 Construction 1998 – 2012

IJburg

“East of Amsterdam, beyond the A10 ring road, lies the most urban of all outlying Vinex developments on a group of man-made islands in the inland sea of IJmeer. A striking new bridge access IJburg and leads to IJburglaan, the central axial avenue of shops and services and the islands’ principal entry. IJburg is reached by rapid tram straight from the center of Amsterdam. The district had a long gestation period that goes back to the ‘City on Pampus’ proposal of 1965 and will only by brought to a conclusion after the Vinex period. The brief consists of Steigereiland (self-build plots, some exempt from official interference, and floating houses), Haveneiland (which reverts to large city blocks) and the three Rieteilanden with more up-market and self-build plots organized to a strict urban regime. Four more islands – Centrumeiland, Strandeiland, Middeneiland and Buiteneiland – are to be developed after the Vinex period. Diemerpark, laid out along Diemerzeedijk atop a former rubbish tip, is to be IJburg’s main green recreation area.

Artificial reed beds occupy the space between Haveneiland and the Rieteilanden. The residential islands are urban in the extreme and have little in the way of green space. As IJburg is a sand fill in IJmeer, the district is unencumbered by a dyke so that its dwellings look out across the water” (VINEX: 159).

Size

308.7 hectares 8,701 units (12,000 planned) - 3% detached / freestanding - 2% semidetached / chain - 37% terrace housing - 59% apartments

Gross Density

- 28 dwellings / hectare

- 61% owner occupied

- 39% rental units

Development Partners

Delta Forte (Owner), IJburgermaatschappij (OC), IJdelta (OC), Lingotto, Monteflore, SBB, UBA, Vesteda (WC), Waterstad 1 (OC), Waterstad 2 (OC), Waterstad 3 (BAM), De Alliantie (C), Rabo Bouwfonds, Volker Wessels, Ymere (WC))

59

Infrastructure Infrastructure

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

Facilities Facilities

u r b a n i s m

Density Density

60

“These districts were planned so that each grid within the master plan would have a number of apartment blocks and each block would have its own program of housing, business and communal facilities containing a wide mix of dwelling types, offices, local services and general amenities.

Each apartment block was designed to be at least three stories high, a minimum height of 10 meters with dwellings on the street side. The ground floor was set to a height of 3.5 meters and the first floor 2.9 meters.

Each apartment block has a central void to ensure that light enters into the middle of the deep-plan accommodation.”

Planning for “Spatial diversity and attractiveness”

(Cousins 2009, Design Quality in New Housing: Learning from the Netherlands: 38.) © 2009 Cousins, Design Quality in New Housing: Learning from the Netherlands

“The main structure of Uburg consists of a grid of blocks 175 meters long and varying in width between 45 and 90 meters.

These blocks, each made up of several individual buildings, are fitted out with a mix of terraced houses, apartments, business units and amenities. Each block was assigned more than one architecture firm to design the different buildings, giving a vibrant and varied streetscape.

The mix of housing types also makes for different kinds of outdoor space, ranging from private gardens to public green space and from communal gardens to interior streets. At island scale the uniform blocks present a grid-shaped urban street pattern. Along IJburglaan, the main through route, there is space for shops and services along the ground floor. In the streets beyond, the dwellings give onto the street. At the smaller scale of pedestrians and cyclists, the public space seems far more open and accessible. Many slow traffic routes wind through the courtyards of the blocks, and housing units can be accessed from both streets and inner courtyards.

Public green space is concentrated in the parks and communal gardens. Most blocks provide sufficient car parking underground in this part of the island” (Vinex Atlas: 161).

61

IJburg, Amsterdam (2001-20012) Density = 28 dwellings / ha

Surface area of subareas 172.9 ha

Surface area of business park 135.8 ha

Gross area of Vinex (planning) district 308.7 ha

Š Boeijenga & Mensink, Vinex Atlas 2008

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

62

–– 70 dwellings / ha * 6.2 ha

2 Steigereiland, Zuidbuurt (2004-2009) Freestanding 80 Semidetached/Chain 60 Terrace 370 Apartment 420 Total Units 930

–– 41 dwellings / ha * 22.5 ha

3 Steigereiland, Waterbuurten (2006-2011) Freestanding 127 Semidetached/Chain 30 Terrace 28 Apartment 76 Total Units 261

–– 29 dwellings / ha * 8.9 ha

4 Haveneiland West (2001-2011) Terrace 980 Apartment 2310 Total Units 3290

–– 70 dwellings / ha * 46.8 ha

5 Haveneiland Oost (2005-2010) Semidetached/Chain 10 Terrace 1090 Apartment 2070 Total Units 3170

6 Kleine Rieteiland (2002-2009) Terrace 140 Total Units 140

–– 54 dwellings / ha * 58.8 ha

7 Grote Rieteiland (2001-2008) Freestanding 45 Semidetached/Chain 70 Terrace 350 Apartment 15 Total Units 480

–– 21 dwellings / ha * 22.8 ha

Fre e Se stand mi in Ter deta g ch e ra do Ap ce art rC ha me in nt Re nta l De (gray nsi ) ty (dw elli ng s/h a)

Density and Housing Typologies by Subdistrict 1 Steigereiland, Noordbuurt (2007-2010) Terrace 220 Apartment 210 Total Units 430

–– 20 dwellings / ha * 6.9 ha

Area of Green Paved Area Buildable Plots (Boeijenga and Mensink, Vinex Atlas 2008: 159)

63

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

64

65

GWL Terrein

Westerpark, Amsterdam, Netherlands

1000 m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

66

Designers KCAP (MP) DKV Architecten Design xx

Neutelings Riedijk Architecten Completion xx

Meyer & Van Schooten Size xxx sq. meters

Atelier Zeinstra, van der Pol Cost Landscape ?West 8 Client Keywords Competition 1993 – 1994

Realization 1997 – 1998

“Ecological and car-free residential neighborhood”

Developed as a demonstration project for car-free living, GWL Terrein is revolutionary in its exclusion of motorized vehicles across its 6 hectare urban site.

A 1992 referendum in favor of a car-free center for Amsterdam set the stage for the development Located in central Amsterdam, on the site of the former municipal water utility (GWL), GWL Terrein was re-designed and built between 1993 and 1998

by Kees Christiaanse Architects & Planners with landscape architecture by West 8.

Located about 3 km from the city center, at the terminus of an existing tram line, and the edge of the late 19th century city extensions, it fits into the context of its 19th century neighborhood, while maintaining a distinctive identity.

Size

Density

29,000 sq. meters / 6 ha 600 residential units 14 blocks of 4-5 stories 1 block of 4-9 stories (57%) 260 garden allotments 100 dwellings per hectare

Client Ecoplan Foundation Keywords Urban Design + Housing

Neighborhood Development

Industrial Reclamation

© kcap.eu

67

16.3. GWL-Terrein, Amsterdam: Carfree Public Housing

Outside of Blocks 1 and 2, narrow parking lots run along the western edge of the site, accommodating 110 cars, but keeping them outside of GWL Terrein’s garden heart. With 100 units per acre, and only 0.2 parking spaces per unit, the site is dense, but it is dominated by a green pedestrian realm, and by the site’s 260 garden allotments.

Historic GWL buildings, including the working Water Tower (watertoren) and Magazine (het magazin) were maintained as landmarks, while the Water Pump House (het machinepompgebouw) is now home to a restaurant, art gallery, television studio, offices, and event space. Stormwater and recycled gray water are used as site amenities, and run through a wetland / canal midsite. Rainwater is used to flush toilets. On-site recycling (glass and paper) and composting facilities, green building technologies, passive solar, photovoltaic panels, green

Map 16-A: Location of GWL-terrein in relation to Amsterdam's historic centre, transport routes and local centres © gwl-terrein.nl

The density and parking ratios are similar to those of the surrounding neighborhood, and announced streets from In 1993, the Amsterdam borough of Westerpark the realisation of a the neighborhood extend into the site as pedestrian 600-unit car-free housing project. The concept of carfree housing is not entirely new to pathways,asmaintaining a sense within of integrity integration.

Amsterdam, residential redevelopment the old canal quarters hasThe been quite infrastructurally-scaled meandering buildings that lineseen theas commonly exempted from parking provision even since 1945 as this was north and westthe edges of the site protect thepre-industrial site fromcity. “the essential to preserve character and functionality of the The westerly wind and from the noise of the Haarlemmerweg emergence of a larger carfree demonstration project can also be traced to the strong trunk road,” while a boundary between the 19th popular support for trafficforming reducing policies in inner Amsterdam, which culminated in century housing blocks of the Staatslieden neighborhood, the success of the 1992 referendum in favour of a carfree city centre (Apel et al 1997). and businesses and industry to the west.

At thethe project's inception, Westerpark's borough council ran a newspaper ad to inform

urban ecology, innovations in housing policy and the future of cities c h i l d f r i e n d l y u r b a n i s m

276

68

roofs and walls (and rooftop gardens), and a ban on lumber from non-sustainable producers, help the development to achieve its goal of sustainability.

© gwl-terrein.nl

© kcap.eu

© kcap.eu

The exclusion of automobiles also means that the central site is much more permeable than would otherwise be possible. In 1999, an initiative transformed van Hallstraat with traffic calming measures, including the removal of onstreet parking, widening of sidewalks and crosswalks, and an extension of the tram line terminus and re-design of its station platform.

© kcap.eu

69

“On its western and northern sides the site is enclosed by a meandering residential block that climbs from four storeys in the South to nine in the North-East...

“Together, the 14 blocks of four to five storeys form a park-like setting. They stand on green islands with private gardens surrounded by hedges.” (Engels)

© kcap.eu

Waste is separated into four categories and is collected below-ground, keeping collection trucks out of the pedestrian realm. A community center, small shops and services, bicycle sales and repair, large and small cafés and a restaurant are clustered around the Water Pump House, and along van Hallstraat.

GWL’s organization of linked spaces along a hierarchy of private to public is a key factor in its success as a child and family friendly development. Virtually every unit has some kind of direct access to the outdoors – that ranges from balconies to terraces to private gardens. Over half of the dwellings have a private garden allotment, accessible from ground floor units, public walkways or rooftops, supplying a majority of apartments with a private outdoor space, and thus access to nearby nature. c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

70

© kcap.eu

71

GWL TERREIN Sustainability Checklist Resource Use

Revitalization of previously developed site

Low-energy building standard

Passive Solar Design

Solar-supported heating and/or photovoltaics

Rainwater collection and indoor use

Green roofs & living walls

On-site gray water treatment

On-site recycling facilities (paper, glass)

On-site composting facilities © kcap.eu

Community

Purpose-built community center

Resident participation during planning

Resident involvement in running of facilities

Institutionalized representation of residents Mobility

Integration with public transit facility

Integration with pedestrian and cycling networks

Exclusion of motorized traffic

Reduced parking provision (less than 0.5/unit)

On-site car sharing vehicles

Integration of basic retail facilities

Allocation of open space for food production

Integration of commercial / office spaces

Engels, “Carfree Housing.” Accessed 9/12/14, http://www.gwl-terrein.nl/files

© kcap.eu

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

72

© kcap.eu

© KCAP.eu

73

haarlemmerweg

KCA 2B

2C t llstraa van ha

Hotel de Windketel

Ne

3 Het Magazin

watertorenplein

Me

waterkeringweg

4

Watertoren

2A

DK

Ate

His

waterspiegelplein

Het Machinepompgebouw CafĂŠ Amsterdam

5

waterleliegrecht

ter loo

te rb

10

9

llstraa

8

van ha

an

wa

wa

1

7 p

6

waterkersweg

wa

loop water

neighborhood management

13

rb an

14

waterkeringweg

kweg aterrij

w

in

valple

water

KCAP Neutelings Riedijk

17 1

16

15

f r i e n d l y

t

straa

dorp

ogen

van h

c h i l d

te

12

t

11

u r b a n i s m

20 m

20 m

DKV KCAP

Meyer & van Schooten

Neutelings Riedijk

Atelier Zeinstra, van der Pol

DKV

Historic GWL Buildings

Meyer & van Schooten

74

75

Ørestad

København S, Denmark

Ørestad North

Amager Faelled

Ørestad City

Ørestad South 1000 m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

76

Designers Client

ARKKI (Master Plan) Ørestadsselskabet I/S

Competition 1994 - 1995 Completion (anticipated 2025)

Copenhagen Growing

“Walking through Ørestad today, watching parents playing with their kids in the parks, it makes one wonder that this was all bare fields only ten years ago.

Considering the thousands of commuters being transported in the Metro to and from Ørestad every day and seeing the many students everywhere, one may ask, ”where else in Copenhagen would it have been possible for all these people to work, study or live?”

“A possible answer is that development would have come to a halt in Copenhagen – and other cities, such as Stockholm and Hamburg, would have benefited. Ørestad has been a much needed lever for the development of Copenhagen and has developed into an exciting urban quarter in itself” (Copenhagen Growing: 5).

Keywords Urban Design Neighborhood Development Finger Plan TransitOriented Development

New City Center

Tax Increment Financing * Infrastructural Link (to Øresund Bridge to Malmö, SE) * Financing for Metro expansion / update to transit system financed by rising land values in to-be-developed Ørestad (TIF)

(http://www.orestad.dk/~/media/images/copenhagen-growing_ web.pdf; )

77

Ørestad North Today building this neighborhood has almost finished – characteristic buildings are DR Byen (the Danish Broadcasting Corporation) headquarters and the extensive educational institutions of the southern campus of The University of Copenhagen and the IT University. The many students in the area, the residents and the various employees all give a varied urban life.

Amager Faelled The district between Vejlands Allé and Grønjordssøen will be the last of the neighbourhoods in Ørestad to be developed. Until now, the dwelling complex Solstriben and the psychiatric ward of Amager Hospital have been built here east of the Metro.

Ørestad City Ørestad City is limited by Vejlands Allé in the north and the motorway in the south.

Even though this neighbourhood has not been finished yet, it is already vibrant with its international companies, dwellings, the shopping and event centre Field’s, a series of small shops and a much visited café. Byparken, the local park, is one of the natural meeting places in the neighbourhood, particularly in the summer, when there are events or concerts. The park is also popular in everyday life, being visited by grammar school students, families with children, football players and people walking their dogs.

Ørestad South

1000 m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

The building of Ørestad Syd, bordering on Kalvebod Fælled (Common), started a few years ago. The majority of the buildings will consist of residential flats, institutions and shops. The primary infrastructure has already been established, and the first café in the neighbourhood has opened. Here you will also find the very popular, but temporary activity area PLUG N PLAY. 78

© ørestad.dk / Copenhagen Growing

© ørestad.dk / Copenhagen Growing

© ørestad.dk / Copenhagen Growing

© ørestad.dk / Copenhagen Growing

© ørestad.dk / Copenhagen Growing

79

Infrastructure

Education

“The first phases of the new Copenhagen metro was to be financed by selling sites in Ørestad and by taking loans. When the Vestamager line opened in 2002, it ran along a traditional residential district on one side and the naked common on the other. To some it might have looked like an example of bad urban planning, because the buildings constituting today’s Ørestad had not been built yet. Now the city has grown up around the Metro, though, and in 2008 Ørestad Station was Denmark’s fifth largest station when it comes to the number of passengers. Situating Ørestad so close to the motorway and the new Sound bridge and tunnel connection gave the new city quarter a fantastic infrastructure from the very beginning. Not only was the city quarter situated closer to Rådhuspladsen, the Town Hall Square of Copenhagen, than e.g. the quarter of Østerbro, its position between Central Copenhagen and the airport was perfect, and via the new Sound connection the access to neighbouring Sweden had really opened up.”

© Copenhagen Growing

“From the very start Ørestad was characterized by know-how companies and institutions. When it all started, the Southern Campus of the University of Copenhagen, was situated in the northern area of future Ørestad. The campus doubled in size in 2002 – its buildings were some of the first in Ørestad. This branch offers Denmark’s largest range of studies within the fields of languages and culture. The second building stage has started now. Many of the old KUA buildings have been torn down, and between 2011 and 2013 computer science, theology and law studies will join the humanities in Ørestad Nord. There are now about 17,000 students and 800 staff members – but these figures bound to rise when the new buildings are finished.

The IT University, Ørestad’s second university, appeared here in 2004 and contributed significantly to making Ørestad one of Copenhagen’s most research focused districts. Currently this university has 1,500 students and about 400 staff members. In 2006 students could live quite close to the educational institution when award-winning Tietgen Hall of Residence and the Bikuben Hall of Residence were finished in Ørestad Nord. The many students in Ørestad Nord do not go unnoticed, as they are often seen in the recreation areas at the canals and in the park.

Ørestad also offers pre-university education. Ørestad Gymnasium opened in 2007 and has since then been the most appliedfor upper secondary school in Denmark. Since the summer of 2005, Ørestad has had its own private school, and in 2011 the first public school in Ørestad, run by the City of Copenhagen, will open right next to the gymnasium. This school will be a pioneer within sustainability, new learning tools and food culture. At the same time a new public library will open.” © Copenhagen Growing

© ørestad.dk / Copenhagen Growing

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

80

Sustainability

Urban Life

“From the start Ørestad was meant to be a sustainable city quarter. The Metro would be the backbone of transport, together with good bicycle lanes minimizing private car transport. To support public transport and the environment, the City of Copenhagen adopted a low parking norm in Ørestad. The Ørestad Development Corporation adapted the norm into a parking strategy to the effect that commercial and private users share the available parking spaces: residents use the parking spaces in the evenings and at night so that employees from outside Ørestad may use the spaces in the daytime. Parking spaces are primarily placed in parking garages, which means that the urban space of Ørestad is not dominated by parked cars.”

“Today more than 6,100 residents in Ørestad benefit from a vibrant cultural life, large parks and, gradually, also cafés and restaurants in the streets. Urban life in Ørestad has developed much since the area was a bare field, but there is still a long way to go before urban life here is fully developed. Going from nothing to something required a focused effort. Due to a lack of buildings, Ørestadsselskabet worked on creating a ”mental infrastructure” with the Copenhageners. As a citizen you should be aware of the geographical position of Ørestad so as to create an image of the future city quarter as early as possible. Events and temporary urban life projects in the quarter were meant to create the wished-for awareness about Ørestad. The idea about the temporary activities would prove to be essential in the urban life history of Ørestad, an idea that has later inspired other urban development projects. Unused building sites were temporarily used for some of the cultural and sports facilities that would normally only have been established several years later.

In 2008, Ørestad had its first shops at street level.

Residents had been able to shop in Field’s for a long time, but now they could also shop in a DøgnNetto, a discount supermarket, in Parkhusene, just south of Byparken. At the same time, a handful of small shops opened in the same area. ”Foodshop no. 55”, a café and deli opening at the beginning of 2010, was to be the first café in Ørestad.

After years with temporary urban spaces, Ørestad Nord had its first large, permanent park, Grønningen, in 2009. It is divided into three zones: an urban, a park and a nature zone all functioning as free areas for the many students and residents in the neighbourhood. Grønningen boasts a range of small, popular sports facilities. Temporary solutions are still being used. In 2010, the concept of 1:1 temporary architecture is adopted: Temporary architecture being tested at street level before being made permanent. During 2010 the residents of Ørestad City also got ”pocket parks” between V-huset, Parkhuset and a park south of Bella Hus. The pocket parks, which are already now very popular, are a bit more quiet and easy to move around in than Ørestad’s large city park.” © Copenhagen Growing

Business

“Today about 12,000 people work in Ørestad. When building has finished here, that number will have risen to about 80,000. The many people going to work in Ørestad every day make Ørestad a vibrant city quarter at all times of the day. The companies of Ørestad are manifold, but there are particularly many within the know-how fields of IT, the medical industries and consultancy. Quite a few international and internationally orientated companies benefit from Ørestad’s advantageous position in the Sound region: close to Sweden, the railway system, the motorway, the airport and central Copenhagen.” © Copenhagen Growing

© ørestad.dk / Copenhagen Growing

81

2003

2006

2012

2004

2005 c h i l d

2013 f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

82

83

Hammarby-Sjรถstad

Sรถdermalm, Stockholm, Sweden

1000 m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

84

Keywords Eco-District Development

Industrial Harbor Re-use Systems Thinking Ecological Design

Systems Thinking for Resiliency

“It has only taken a few years for Hammarby Sjöstad to become one of the world’s highest profile examples of Sustainable City Development, mentioned in specialist publications worldwide. Hammarby Sjöstad is visited by over 10,000 decision makers and specialists in the field every year, making it one of Stockholm’s most important destinations. Planning work was integrated with environmental goals from the very start of the planning process, and this is, we believe, the main reason why it has been so successful. This approach has been followed ever since by consultations between the City of Stockholm’s administrative departments and the companies responsible for waste management, energy, water & sewage, aimed at developing the solutions needed to enable the environmental goals to be met. We are delighted to have the opportunity to present the environment programme in this publication. We hope that in reading it, you will find our experiences in developing Hammarby Sjöstad of practical use. By learning from each other, we can all make real progress towards a sustainable society in the years ahead.

Lars Fränne, GlashusEtt Stockholm, June 2007 Chairman of the Steering Group” (Miljo, Hammarby-Sjöstad Book: http://www.hammarbysjostad.se/inenglish/pdf/ HS_miljo_bok_eng_ny.pdf)

85

Hammarby Sjöstad – a unique environmental project in Stockholm

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

86

The Hammarby model The Hammarby model Energy

Energy

Högdalen’s combined heat and power plant

Biofuel

Hammarby heat plant

Biosolids Högdalen’s combined heat and power plant

el

lec

tri

ci

Biosolids

ict h eat

e

de

lec

tri

B i ogas

te e Organic was

g

The sea

ca

lw ast e

in

lw ast e Drink

tri

ica

an in d e s lec an

st Wa

d

ele

ctr

e e

Lake Mälaren/drinking water plant

Wa s te wa ter

Sjöstaden’s and Henriksdal’s wastewater treatment plants

r

te

te

r

Biog a s

st Wa

te te wa wa m m a Stor Stor w wa in in (ra (ra ater ater rm w rm w Street sto Street sto

, tte Organic waasss l g s, xe bo r g e kaginap pancg – p li eew c y c N R us , t d o ss a r gl a z H a x e s, bo r e pa p – li n g Recyc us do ar z Ha

ing wa ter

kagin

ing wa ter

pac ew

Drink

N B i osolids

Biog a

s

Biofu

el

wast

s

B i osolids

ible

Pu

ater

ust

ooling rict c

s t ew

mb

s

ist B i ogas g – D n i t ea th tric

wa

Co

Di

Environmentally friendly electricity

Pu

i ed

ty

ci

Hammarby heat plant

rif

wast

an

ooling rict c

ater

ible

ing

Di

Environmentally friendly electricity

ic str

Dist g– n i t ea th

s t ew

Biofu

Biofuel

wa

ust

de

i ed

mb

an

rif

Co

ing

ty

Distr

ict h eat

Purified wastewaPteurrified wastewater

Distr

The sea

Wa s te wa ter Equalizer

Sjöstaden’s and Henriksdal’s wastewater treatment plants

r)

r)

Lake Hammarby Sjö Equalizer Sedimentation

r Wate Lake Hammarby Sjö

© Hammarby-Sjöstad / Miljo Bok

87 Lake Mälaren/drinking water plant

Sedimentation

r

1000 m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

88

89

Š http://les-temps-changent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Hammarby-sjostad.jpg

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

90

91

Nørdhavnen

København N, Denmark

1000 m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

92

norDhavnEn iDEaS compEtition articlE

Designers

Arup Urban Design, London

12

EnvironmEntal SuStainability

Nordhavnen Ideas Competition Manual: “Article 12: Environmental Sustainability”

EnvironmEntal SuStainability ved arup urban Design london

Keywords

Eco-District Development Industrial Harbor Re-use

introduction The intention is that Nordhavnen will be developed as a vibrant and attractive city, based on a strong

According to agenda the competition brief, sustainability “The intention is that will be developed as sustainability – addressing environmental issues as well as socialNordhavnen and economic. a vibrant andConsequently attractive city, based a strong agendaand – addressing environmental competition entrants,on the judging panel,sustainability CPH City and Port De-velopment the CoDepartment face a great challenge. sustainabilitypenhagen issuesMunicipality as wellPlanning as social and economic.

Consequently competition entrants, the judging panel, CPH City and Port Development and the Copenhagen Municipality Planning Department at a large scale is a relatively new phenomenon, and environmental sustainabil-ity in face a great Sustainability challenge. particular is not yet an established practice in Denmark. CPH City and Port Development has commis Sustainability at a large scale is a relatively new phenomenon, and environmental Ove Arup and Partners LTD, London, to produce a set of exemplar guidelines for environmental sustainabilitysioned in particular is not yet an established practice in Denmark. CPH City and Port sustainability issues to provide inspira-tion for the competition entrants and to support the parties Development has commissioned Ove Arup and Partners LTD, London, to produce a set of exemplar who, through their participation in the judging of the competition, planning process, and/or realisaguidelines for environmental sustainability issues provide inspiration for the competition tion of Nordhavnen, share the responsibility for turning theto vision into concrete plans. entrants and to support the parties who, through their participation in the judging of the competition,Theplanning process,sustainability and/or realization of Nordhavnen, sharebythe exemplar environmental guidelines are based on an approach developed Arup responsibility for to manage and ensure integrated sustainable decisions in connection with new urban de-velopments. turning the vision into concrete plans. more prescriptive set of requirementssustainability based on a similar approach has beenare used based

by Arup onon thean approach developed

The Aexemplar environmental guidelines Dongtan project, which is described in the article nr 13 “The city and the environment citizen workby Arup to manage and ensure integrated sustainable decisions in connection with new urban shop”. developments.

A more prescriptive set of requirements based on a similar approach has been used by Arup on the Dongtan project, which is described in the article nr 13 “The city and the Arup has been given freedom to formulate the environmental sustainability guidelines. As a conseenvironmentquence, - citizen workshop”. this format of this article is different from the other background articles.

Arup has been given freedom to formulate the environmental sustainability guidelines.

As a consequence, this format of this article is different from the other background articles. The The exemplar environmental sustainability guidelines are included with the background docu-menexemplar environmental sustainability guidelines included sustainability with the background documentation tation of the competition brief to highlight the importanceare of environmental in the of the competition brief highlight the importance ofmay environmental in the competition, to giveto ideas about how environmental sustainability be dealt with on the sustainability site and acknowledge that the sustainability perspective is making an already complex task evenbe moredealt with on the site competition,toto give ideas about how environmental sustainability may demanding. that the sustainability perspective is making an already complex task even and to acknowledge more demanding. guidelines cover a series of topics which could be included in a sustainability strategy for Nord The The guidelines cover a series of topics which could be included in a sustainability strategy havnen. Each topic is divided into Objective, Issues to Consider and Possible Design Strategies. The for Nordhavnen.

Each topic is divided into Objective, Issues to Consider and Possible Design key point of the article is that any environmental sustainability measure will affect the masterplan, Strategies. The key point of the article is that any environmental sustainability measure will affect necessitating a holistic and integrated approach to optimise the synergies between different measuthe masterplan, necessitating a holistic isand integrated to optimise res, such that environmental sustainability also seen in context ofapproach social and economic sustainabi- the synergies between different measures, such that environmental sustainability is also seen in context of social and lity. economic sustainability.” (Arup Copenhagen Article_12.pdf) 93

ment ing f turning r sustainable

tion of climate

materials; • Incorporate ‘systems thinking’ – demonstrating an

pe

measurable sustainability objectives.

te

n how teams

as dW

masterplans should be design lead and capable of delivering

an

d approach to

als

way of thinking will affect the form of masterplan designs:

i ter Ma

n Copenhagen

sca

and integrate with one another as illustrated in Figure 1. This

Energy

ate an

Microclim

nd

understanding of how different sustainability measures impact

Environmentally Sustainable rm Masterplan d urban fo

La

or changes to

• Resource efficient - in terms of energy, water, waste and

y

rns and rising

objectives are achieved in the masterplan;

sit

his is through

er iv od

er, it must be

• Performance based rather than prescriptive - demonstrating how

Bi

ons of carbon

App roa ch

W at er

An environmentally sustainable masterplan should be:

ental Sustainability Movement and Transport

asterplan for

m iron Env

ry teams are

vironmentally

Figure 1. Environmental Sustainability Approach diagram

© Arup Urban Design London

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

94

95

IJBURG

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

GWL TERREIN

u r b a n i s m

ØRESTAD

96

URBAN HOUSING

Rethinking housing – as opposed to houses – is critical for the cities of the twenty-first century. In some locations – such as those where historical housing stock is worth protecting and preserving – it may be more difficult to enact broad changes in the way that urbanites dwell – but new developments should follow several fairly simple rules to encourage young families to stay in the city.

There are many successful examples of low to mid-rise buildings which prioritize individual front doors, and access to private (or semi-private) outdoor space in the cities studied above. Where possible, units should have access to car-free outdoor space just outside their front doors. Units for families need more bedrooms, and more storage – bigger closets with smaller bedrooms are a selling point in Vancouver (see CityLab article). Like Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and Stockholm, Vancouver has been successful at getting, and keeping, families in the central city. Passive surveillance is important to parents’ sense of security, and children’s safety: windows

3.2 that afford views onto interior courtyards, and semiprivate outdoor spaces make it easier for children to feel independent, while being within view.

Parks and green spaces adjacent to housing are also critical. Even small parks or parklets can make a huge difference in the way that people live. A small apartment or attached housing unit can be expanded substantially by the provision of outdoor spaces arranged hierarchically, from private, to public. Well-defined thresholds help children and parents to feel safe, while providing room for children’s territorial ranges to expand as they grow older and more comfortable navigating the city around them.

Outdoor spaces need not be large – small nooks and crannies, a recessed bench along a quiet street, a single street tree, a stretch of sidewalk for chalk drawings, or even a mud puddle can send a child’s imagination soaring. Small corners of garden where children can dig for worms, or watch flowers blossom can spark a lifelong love of nature.

97

how

Vancouver

became one of North America’s most

Family-Friendly Cities

Increasing Kids Population

Comparative Under-15 Population c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

CITY LAB City Fixer, 2014 © citylab.com

98

“It took very concerted policy efforts going back to the early 1990s.”

by Eric Jaffe CITY LAB August 8, 2014

Buildings: Family-friendly buildings need a few architectural quirks that towers for singles might not: bulk storage space for things like strollers or toys, better nighttime lighting in common areas, corridors that can fit a tricycle. They also need secure, safe play spaces—ideally ones that can be seen from inside the units or from a designated supervision area. The spaces should maximize sunlight and be made to withstand “the rough and tumble of children’s play,” according to Vancouver’s guidelines. You have to love a government document with lines like this: “Opportunities for water and sand play are especially important.”

“If you’re a city resident of a certain age—basically, that part of the generational Venn diagram where X and Y overlap—you probably know someone who recently left to start a family. The reasons vary, but in predictable fashion. Not enough room in the apartment. Not enough park space nearby. No dependable public school and no affordable private one. No way to navigate a stroller on the subway that doesn’t result in occasional tears of rage.

Surrounding areas: Vancouver also realized that not all parts of the city were as family-friendly as others. It instructed developers to choose sites within half a mile of elementary schools, daycare centers, and grocery stores, and within a quarter mile of transit stops. Safe walking routes—ideally separated from high-traffic arterials—were also important. Langston writes that the city went a step further and actually required some developers to build or fund community facilities (such as daycare centers or parks) if none already existed, and even to designate sites for schools.

But are cities fundamentally unsuited to family life, or have they been in such a rush to feed the needs of young singles that they’ve unwittingly overlooked the procreating part of the population? The Sightline Institute’s blog has been running a fantastic series, written by Jennifer Langston, tackling these very questions. All the posts are worth a read, but what caught my eye was one on a North American city that seems to be doing an especially great job luring families: Vancouver.

Downtown Vancouver, in particular, has made a concerted effort to improve living conditions for families, starting back in the early 1990s.

Evidently, the policies have paid off. In 2011, downtown Vancouver was home to 5,100 kids under 15—five times more than downtown Seattle, which itself is doing better in this regard than most American cities. This part of Vancouver is also outpacing the city at large, as well as outlying parts of the metro area.

Let’s take a closer look at the policies responsible for this change (most of them described in a set of guidelines for “high-density housing for families with children” adopted by the city in 1992).

Units: For starters, Vancouver required developers to set aside of share of high-density housing units for families—typically 25 percent, according to Langston. That means at least two bedrooms, one of which should have play space for toddlers designed into it. (Oh, and thick, thick walls.) Since families might not want to live on the 16th floor, the city suggested grouping family units closer to street level, often in multilevel townhouse-type structures that form the base of more traditional residential towers. This groundlevel clustering makes coming and going easier and gives children peers in neighboring units.

One former Vancouver planner told Langston that developers might initially balk at such requirements, but that they’d eventually recognize the potential to reach a new market. Indeed, a follow-up study on housing satisfaction among families in the city’s False Creek North area found that 96 percent would recommend living there. The conditions aren’t family-perfect— the city still has a shortage of schools, space for teenagers has been tougher to create, and questions of affordability linger—but they’re definitely familyfriendly.

American cities, meanwhile, have some catching up to do. Many have outdated parking, zoning, or land-use policies—as A-P Hurd pointed out here yesterday—that discourage the sort of development found in Vancouver.

Writing at his Urbanophile blog earlier this year, Aaron Renn pointed out that the 10 U.S. cities with the lowest share of children under 18 is also a who’s who of places otherwise fulfilling progressive urban development programs: San Francisco, D.C., Portland, and Boston, among them.

Using Census data, we reexamined this list by change in population of kids under 15 (not 18) between 2000 and 2012: (facing page)

What does this show us? First and foremost, that many major U.S. cities have their work cut out for them if they want to be home to more families. Those that do can’t start implementing such policies soon enough.

But it’s interesting to note that the two cities on this list actually growing their youth population, Seattle and Portland, are also the ones closest to Vancouver. Coincidence? Perhaps. A good place to set the family-friendly compass? Sure seems like it.”

Accessed 10/6/14 from http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2014/08/how-vancouverbecame-one-of-north-americas-most-family-friendly-cities/375617/

99

Housing in IJburg

The Netherlands’ Biggest Urban Development & Planning Project

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

100

Steigereiland

Number 1,621 Area 37.6 hectares Density 16.5 dwellings / hectare Dwelling type Freestanding, Semidetached, Terrace, Apartment Special features Steigereiland is divided into two unique zones by rail tracks and a marina. The north-east sector is home to an iconic “house-boat” marina, where the designer houses float or are moored on dijks. The southeastern corner of this island has a large park space leading up to the high school. Beyond the school, stacked two-story condos line the harbor promenade. Inside their semi-open courtyards are bicycle parking, play equipment for young children, and lots of trees and flowers.

Going southwest from the marina, across the train tracks, is a mixed-use development combining a few shops and restaurants, with houses and low-rise apartment buildings.

Haveneiland

Number 6,460 Area 105.6 hectares / 260 acres Density 61 dwellings / hectare Dwelling type Semidetached (Townhouse), Terrace, Apartment Special Features Home to Ijburg’s commercial center and most of its residents, “Harbor” Island’s shops and offices are clustered around its main street IJburglaan, which also accommodates rail lines in its median. The IJtram opened in May 2005, with three stops – Vennepliumstraat, Diemerparkelaan, and Noise Rietstraat – serving IJburg’s commuters. When the district’s next three islands are built, the tram will be extend to serve residents on Centrumeiland, Middeneiland and Buiteneiland. Buildings on Haveneiland are built densely to a grid plan like that of 19th Century Amsterdam – most buildings are three to four stories, with a few reaching up to twelve stories.

Rieteilanden

Number 620 Area 29.7 hectares Density 21 dwellings / hectare Dwelling type Freestanding, Semidetached (Townhouse), Terrace, Apartment Special features Dominated by single-family homes, both attached and detached, and designed by architects hired by land-owners (working within tight planning regulations), Rieteiland has a more suburban feel than the other islands of IJburg. Grote Rieteiland has long street frontages and with canals behind, and the one- to two-story houses mainly have garages. Little children play in sidewalk gardens, while groups of 10-12 year olds run, cycle, and skate through the quiet streets. South and east is Kleine Rieteiland which is even less dense, with stand-alone, detached single family houses, and the highest degree of selfdetermination allowed for building style and aesthetics.

101

IJburg, Amsterdam (2001-20012) Density = 28 dwellings / ha

Surface area of subareas 172.9 ha

Surface area of business park 135.8 ha

Gross area of Vinex (planning) district 308.7 ha

1000 m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

102

Steigereiland Jetty Island Noordbuurt

Waterbuurt

Zuidbuurt

Haveneiland Harbor Island Haveneiland West

Master Plan Palmboom + van den Bout PALMBOUT Urban Landscapes Dates 1995 - 2010 Target Density Dwellings / hectare

60 Average # people / dwelling 3 People / hectare

180 Population* Current

6,000 Projected Total

45,000 in 18,000 dwellings *16% are younger than 5 years; 27% younger than 10 years; 2.5% older than 65

Area Steiger, Haven, & Rieteilanden Midden, Centrum, & Buiten Total (when completed)

172.9 ha 271.1 ha 444 ha

Current Densities Steigereiland Haveneiland Rieteiland

17 dwellings / hectare 61 dwellings / hectare 21 dwellings / hectare

Haveneiland Oost

Rieteilanden Reed Islands Grote Rieteiland Kleine Rieteiland

Each island has different visual, architectural, and organizational characteristics giving a sense of diversity, which allows architects to work autonomously, but under the control of the quality board.

Haveneiland and Grote Rieteiland consist of grids of large urban blocks, with a variety of streets, avenues, canals, squares, and quays, all modeled on characteristics of historical Amsterdam. The Rieteilanden are devoted primarily to single family housing.

Rieteiland Oost 103

Planning for Quality & Diversity – Mixed Use IJburg Haveneiland West + Rieteilanden The urban plan is based on a grid structure that provides the necessary balance between continuity and variety. Variation is created by decreasing the height of the buildings gradually, with the depth varying likewise, from 90 to 60 meters. The regularity of the grid is also broken up by elements such as parks, a marketplace, “Solids” (flexible buildings with special programs), and the canal system, which opens the other closed blocks. The result is a map with streets and building blocks, in which each individual block is unique by context and size.

Program: 3600 homes and facilities Client: Consortia IJburg Status: Urban Development Plan, 2000 © de Architekten Cie ism Claus and Kaan Architects, Sheep and Stigter. Meewerkend Architect: U. Garritzmann. Garritzmann Architects Website. Accessed 10/8/14, http:// garritzmann.nl/stedenbouw/ijburg-haveneiland/

Blended Buildings single-family houses and apartment blocks are blended together in IJburg’s urban development.

Centers and Landmarks are distributed throughout the plan: canals, parks, and commercial / shopping centers are highlighted below, creating access to amenities for residents across IJburg.

© Garritzmann Architects / garritzmann.nl

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

104

Planning for Quality & Diversity – Housing Typology

“Good design quality on Ijburg is the result of a combination of factors: a strong urban programme, a quality team that oversees the design and construction of every housing block and individual house, and the implementation of good architects and built environment professionals early in the development process. The briefing programme for the islands was divided into two distinct components. The local authority developed and managed the publicly funded housing whilst private companies constructed private housing” (Cousins 2009: 33-34).

Typical terrace housing showing relationship of street to floor plan to rear gardens and courtyards.

Designers of housing in IJburg were asked to place particular emphasis on personalized access to the outdoors: through balconies, terraces, private gardens, courtyards, and seaside promenades. © 2009 Cousins

105

© VMXarchitects.nl

Steigereiland (jetty) Noordbuurt

Block 126

VMX Architects / Vesteda

VMX Architects were commissioned by Vesteda to design three identical blocks in the Noordbuurt on IJburg’s Steigereiland. The master plan for this part of IJburg is characterized by its high density, large perimeter blocks and narrow streets. In spite of this rigidity, pattern, and the many regulations each designer has to comply with, VMX aimed to create housing with as much privacy as possible and high quality private outdoor spaces.

As a starting point, the required perimeter block is combined with the spatial qualities of a ‘slab’. Nearly every individual house is thus offered a private, south-facing, outdoor space. Half of the houses (those on the North side), have entrances on the street.

The remaining houses open up to the interior of the block. This mix of private outdoor spaces and entrances within the block results in a “collective atmosphere.”

In order to provide sufficient privacy along the narrow streets, the ground floor is raised slightly above street level, with multipurpose spaces between the street and living room. These spaces allow a highly flexible use - for example as study rooms on the north side and as ‘garden rooms’ on the south side of the block. The size of windows gradually increases as they get higher above the ground, thus offering a greater view of the city and the river IJ.

© VMXarchitects.nl

Accessed 10/8/14 https://www.flickr.com/photos/ vmxarchitects/sets/72157626691527569/#.

© VMXarchitects.nl

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

106

4th-5th

© VMXarchitects.nl

© VMXarchitects.nl

3rd

1st © VMXarchitects.nl

ground

© VMXarchitects.nl

© VMXarchitects.nl

garage

© VMXarchitects.nl

107

Haveneiland (harbor)

© VMXarchitects.nl

Haveneiland West

Block 11

KCAP

Haveneiland IJburg [NL] Apartments with office space and medical care

Block 11 is one component of the plans for Haveneiland West in Amsterdam’s new residential district of IJburg. It is a variation on the traditional residential block. A canal bisects the block transversally, dividing it into two halves that open up towards the water.

The dwellings, business accommodation and care facilities are organized in a series of clusters that form the building blocks for Block 11. It combines the typology of the urban home with that of dwellings around a courtyard, resulting in a block with an urban look on the outside and a peaceful and private living environment within. KCAP devised the urban development plan for Block 11 and also designed a number of the clusters of buildings.

Client IJ-delta development vof, Amsterdam Program 155 apartments 1,850 m2 medical care 1,300 m2 office space Time 1999 - 2006 Participating parties Loof en van Stigt / Ruth Visser / Hugo Berchoor Plug © KCAP.nl

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

108

© KCAP.nl

© KCAP.nl

109

Housing in GWL Terrein

Terrace Housing & Garden Apartments

Š gwlterrein.nl

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

110

Number Residential

341 units

Buildings 1, 2A, 2B, 2C Special features Three- to nine-storey buildings of apartments with balconies, and gardens. The infrastructural scale of the buildings lining the north-western site edges create a barrier to the west wind, and block noise from the nearby ring road.

Edge Number Residential Commercial

Field

249 7

Buildings 4 - 17 Special features Three- to four-storey brick and wood terrace housing with individual front doors, balconies, terraces, and gardens, and green features, including passive solar design and daylighting. Neighborhood Center; Independent apartments with support facilities for Elderly and Disabled Residents

Number Residential Commercial Hotel Rooms

9 12 1

Buildings 3 het Magazin, Windketelhuis, Watertoren, Machinepompgebouw Special features Several nationally listed Historic Buildings + obsolete municipal water company (“GWL�) buildings (and working water tower)

Historic

111

1000 m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

112

Variation & Repetition

Buildings by Architecture Firm

haarlemmerweg

2B

2C t llstraa van ha

Hotel de Windketel

3 Het Magazin

watertorenplein

waterspiegelplein

Het Machinepompgebouw CafĂŠ Amsterdam

5

waterleliegrecht

ter loo

wa te rb

10

9

llstraa

8

van ha

an

1

7 p

6

wa

waterkeringweg

4

Watertoren

2A

waterkersweg

wa

loop water

neighborhood management

te

13

rb

12

t

11

an

14

waterkeringweg

kweg aterrij

w

in

valple

water

KCAP 17 1

Neutelings Riedijk

16

15 oge

van h

aat

pstr ndor

DKV

20 m

Site Plan

20 m

KCAP

Meyer & van Schooten

Neutelings Riedijk

Atelier Zeinstra, van der Pol

DKV

Historic GWL Buildings

Meyer & van Schooten

113

handicaps.

Density Typology split-level Special&features: 2C (100% owner-occupied / 79 grant-aided) apartments. The commission to 3-room 46 make apartments with their own 4-room 33 front doors was taken seriously by Neutelings/Riedijk. This resulted in a building with many stairs and 5-room 20

Totalthe Units 99 a facade with a series of doors. Each apartment has its own staircases with stairs forming a central feature in the dwelling. As a result, the different rooms in the apartments are relatively far 11 (100% owner-occupied / all free sector) apart and on different floors. The lower four layers are reached from the ground. The dwellings on 3-room 8 the top four floors are reached through the passage on the eighth 4-room 12 floor. The lifts are at the bends in

Total Units 20 the block.

Kees Christiaanse Architects & Planners

2C

13 (100% owner-occupied / all free sector) 3-room 5 4-room 11

Total Units 16

Block 2C

Blo

Owne Archi Archi Num dwell Dwel apart

Special Features 2C The lower dwellings Owner: VVE Block 2C occupy a single floor; in the rest of the block the dwellings have one or two floors. Living rooms face south, with views Speci Architect: Christiaanse of the historicKees site buildings . Most bedrooms and some kitchens are on have the north side. All the dwellings have a balcony. The lower four stories Achitects & Planners (KCAP) are reached from porticoes in the central part of the building. The higher on th apartments are owner-occupiers reached via two elevators at the ends of the blocks. The Number: 99 on th fourth and seventh floors have interior, glass-lined walkways, with front dwellings top have a (79 roofgrant-aided garden andand the 20 middle ones have a covered balcony, so doors for two-story dwellings. level ofAllthe terraces in the garden is raised slightly. In order to save mo free 11, 13 sector) the dwellings have an outdoor space. Units on the ground floor share one.type: Thegarden, lift in block 11.top The blocks connected the third have a southern those at the have a roofare garden, and the on ones Dwelling 46is3-room 2C Š Engels Fact Sheet / gwlterrein.nl in the middle have balconies covered by a recess in the building. apartment is, 33 4-room apartments, 20 5-room apartments.

The lower dwellings or on one floor, in the rest of the block the dwellings have one or two floors. The living rooms are on the south side with a view of the water-company site. Most bedrooms and some kitchens are on the north side. All the dwellings have a balcony.

Owne

Blo

Special features: The lower four layers are reached from porticos in the central part of the building.

The higher apartments are reached with two lifts at the ends of the blocks. On the fourth floor is a glass way with front doors for dwellings with two floors. On the seventh floor is an internal walkway with front doors for the higher floors.

11 association of owners has its own website and a regular newsletter 13 (EnBloc).

The c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

Archi Archi Num dwell Dwel Š Engels Fact Sheet / gwlterrein.nl apart 114 one 5

Neutelings Riedijk Architects

Density & Typology

2A (100% owner occupied / all units subsidized)

3-room 42 other 12

Total Units 54 2B Includes Special Facilities for Disabled Residents

(100% owner occupied / all units subsidized)

3-room 47 other 12

Total Units 59 8

2

(no owner occupied / all rental units) Studio, 3- and 4-room, and one communal unit Total Units 16

15 (100% owner occupied / all free sector)

3-room 8 4-room 8

Total Units 16 Owner: Woningbouwvereniging Special Features 2A+B Stadgenoot The architects’ commission was to make apartments with their own front doors: eachNeutelings apartment has its own staircase as a central feature in the Architect: Riedijk dwelling.

Different rooms within each apartment are quite separate, and on Architects BV different floors.

The lower four levels of apartments are reached from the Number: 16 rental dwellings ground. Elevators in the block’s bends provide access to the dwellings on Dwelling type:which 3- andare 4-room the top four floors, reached through a passage on the eighth floor. apartments, communal group 8 Apartments with staircases. The front doors are on the north side, studio on theapartment, ground floor, butapartment are barely visible because they are covered by an

Block 8

2

15

8

© Engels Fact Sheet / gwlterrein.nl

Block 15

outdoor staircase leading to the living room on the first floor. Each staircase Special features: with As a result, neighbours share a includes storage space Apartments for two dwellings. staircases. The front doors are on the north side, on the ground floor, barely because terrace onbut theare first floorvisible looking out over the garden. The living rooms are the south, the north and the service spaces (bathroom, they are covered by an outdoor staircase leading to the livingonroom on the the firstbedrooms floor. Eachto staircase kitchen and toilet) and the stairs are in the middle of the dwelling. Half includes storage space for two dwellings. As a result, neighbours share aVVE terrace on the floor Owner: Block 15first have a garden, the other half have roof gardens. Three dwellings have been looking out over the garden. The living rooms are on the south, the bedrooms to the north and the Architect: Neutelings Riedijk apartment. In the long wall of the comlinked together to form a communal service spaces (bathroom, kitchen and toilet) and the stairs are in the middle of the dwelling.

Half of doors leading to their own stairs. munal space of this apartment are three them have a garden, the other half has a roof garden. ThreeArchitecten dwellings have BV been linked together to 15 The dwellings all have their own entrance on the ground floor and Number: 16 form a communal apartment. In the long wall of the communal space offloor this owner-occupier apartment are three on the first on the gallery.

Each dwelling has its own staircase behind doors leading to their own stairs. the front door.

As a result, half of the houses have a connection to the gardwellings (vrije sector) den, the other half to the roof garden. The dwellings are intertwined, none Dwelling type: 3-room of them is the same.acht The storage spaces are in the cellar, as a result of which the dwellings are on a slightly higher level than the street. Because the apartments, acht 4-room bedrooms are at garden level, there is a split level. The difference is bridged © Engels Fact Sheet / gwlterrein.nl in the dwellings by short staircases. apartments 115

Het

Special features: l dwellings. The dwellings all have their own entrance on the ground floor and on

Dobbelaar de Kovel de Vroom Architects (DKV)

Density & Typology 1

(no owner occupied / all rental units) 20 different dwelling types including apartments, maisonettes, 3-bedrooms & special dwellings for the handicapped Total Units 129

Special Features

An elongated (186 meters) building, snake-shaped and gesticulated building with a facade rising from 5 to 9 levels, Block 1 offers 129 units divided between twenty different dwelling types (apartments, maisonettes, 3-room apartments, dwellings for handicapped), the basic type has a kitchen block in the center, living on the street side and dining room on the inner side.

Entrances to the first five levels are through porticoes (6 to 8 dwellings per portico). Two staircases run to the top layer and link to the upper-story apartments. The dwellings on the first floor are linked by a central corridor. The ground floor dwellings have private gardens on the inner side; the apartments and maisonettes have loggias, balconies or roof gardens.

1 c h i l d

1 f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

116

Block 11

Meyer & van Schooten Architects

5

Density & Typology

4 (100% owner occupied / all units subsidized) 3-room 12 4-room 10 commercial space 7

Total Units 22 + 7

Owner: VVE Block 11 & 13 Architect: Kees Christiaanse Architects & Planners (KCAP) Number: 20 owner-occupier dwellings (free sector) Dwelling type: 8 3-room apartments, 12 4-room apartments

5

Special Facilities for the Elderly (no owner occupied / all rental units) Total Units 24

7

(no owner occupied / all rental units) Total Units 19

Special features: All the dwellings have an outdoor space. The ones on the ground floor have a garden on the south side, the ones at the top have a roof garden and the middle ones have a covered balcony, so the building is recessed. The level of the terraces in the garden is raised slightly. In order to save money for a lift, blocks 11 and 13 share one. The lift is in block 11. The blocks are connected on the third floor by a pedestrian bridge.

9 owner occupied / all rental units) Block 12(no

Total Units 18 Owner: VVE Blok 12 Architect: Meyer & Van Schooten Architects BV Number: 19 owner-occupier dwellings (free sector) Dwelling type: 4 3-room apartments, 14 4-room apartments, one 5-room apartment

10

9

12

© Engels Fact Sheet / gwlterrein.nl

(100% owner occupied / all free sector) Total Units 17

12 (100% owner occupied / all free sector) 3-room 4 4-room 14 5-room 1 Special features: The dwellings on Units 16 the ground floorTotal have a garden to

Special Features

the south. The ones above are connected on the east side by a communal staircase and emerge in the middle of the block in an indoor street. This street is covered, with plenty of daylight coming from above.

10

4 The smooth north façade has small windows onto bedrooms, while the southern façade is open with lots of glass and balconies onto living rooms. Dwellings are accessed from a double height, daylit, interior street that is linked at each end by two staircases.

5 Twenty-four units for the elderly with independent dwellings, special facilities, and community space. Passive solar and daylighting. Five 2000-liter tanks store rainwater that is used to flush the toilets, helping to achieve a 50% saving on household drinking water usage. Received official exemplary status by the Ministry of Housing.

7 A large number of small dwellings are located on the ground floor to maximize the number of residents who have a garden. Living rooms are on the south, and bedrooms on the north.

10 Similar to 7, but with upper apartments linked to van Hallstraat via a separate stairwell (a small tower); an open bridge to the covered indoor street connects front doors to a suspension bridge to block 9.

12 The dwellings on the ground floor have south-facing gardens. The ones above are connected on the east side by a communal staircase and emerge in the middle of the block in an indoor street, with plenty of daylight coming from above.

117

Atelier Zeinstra, van der Pol

Density & Typology

6 (100% owner occupied / all free sector) 3-room 12

Total Units 12 14 (no owner occupied / all rental units) 3-room 16

Total Units 16 16 (no owner occupied / all rental units) 3-room 20

Total Units 20

14

17 (no owner occupied / all rental units) 3-room 14

Neighborhood Center

Total Units 14

Special Features

6 A combination of back-to-back dwellings and zigzag dwellings. All of them have their own entrances. One half has the entrance on the north side, the other half on the south side. Two dwellings each over four floors are intertwined (zigzag). As a result, the plans of the apartments differ from one apartment to the next.

As a result, one has a garden on the south and a roof garden on the north, for the next the situation is reversed. The storage spaces have been placed below the middle of the block. As a result, the living room-kitchens are extra high. A relatively large amount of room is used as traffic spaces because each apartment has its own entrance and stairs.

14 A combination of back-to-back dwellings and zigzag dwellings. All of them have their own entrances. One half has the entrance on the north side, the other half on the south side. Two dwellings each over four floors are intertwined (zigzag). As a result, the plans of the apartments differ from one apartment to the next.

As a result, one has a garden on the south and a roof garden on the north, for the next the situation is reversed. The storage spaces have been placed below the middle of the block. As a result, the living room-kitchens are extra high. A relatively large amount of room is used as traffic spaces because each apartment has its own entrance and stairs.

16

6 c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

118

119

Housing in Ørestad Mixed Use, Townhouses, Apartments, Condos, Penthouses, Student Residences, Public Housing, etc.

Ørestad North

Amager Faelled

Ørestad City

Ørestad South 1000 m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

120

Housing 29,842 sq. meters Childcare Center 880 sq. meters Number

115 public housing apartments

40 co-op housing units 134 condos

Boligslangen

Architect Dwelling type Owner Special features

Domus + Arkitema Architects Condos, Co-ops, Public Housing FSBbolig, Ørestad Nord & Cube Build Every unit has at least one balcony. The adjacent City Park (designed

by Arkitema) accommodates underground parking.

Housing Number

26,800 sq. meters 360 student flats

Architect Lundgaard & Tranberg A/S Landscape Marianne Levinsen & Henrik Jørgensen Dwelling type University Residences Owner Fonden Tietgenkollegiet Special features Award-winning co-student housing and co-op.

Tietgenkollegiet

Housing 62,000 sq. meters Number 475 rental dwellings Architect Dwelling type Owner Special features

8-Tallet

BIG – Bjarke Ingels Group Mixed Use – Penthouses, Townhouses, Apartments, & Retail St. Frederikslund Holding

121

Boligslangen / Serpentine House Ørestad, København S, Denmark

© DOMUS.dk / Jens Lindhe

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

© arkitema.dk

122

Boligslangen, the Serpentine House (literally “the housing serpent”), is a mixed use project comprised of two distinct buildings in Ørestad North that share a single, 25-meter high roof. The huge archway between the buildings frames a view onto the adjacent Amager Faelled (Amager Common open space). It is Ørestad Nord’s biggest residential housing project, with nearly 300 units and an on-site day care center occupying 880 square meters on the ground floor of the Faelledhaven building.

Designed by DOMUS, Faelledhaven has 115 public-housing units.

Faelledhaven’s design focuses on flexibility and resident influence more than most public housing units: interior partitions can be tailored to resident-needs, allowing individual tenants to customize their apartments, accommodating changing tenants’ changing needs. The simple housing plans have large common rooms with free movement around bathroom cores, offering a high degree of flexibility.

Communal terraces and gardens create a framework for social networking and community. The surrounding urban spaces extend right up to the individual homes, and private frontages optimized sunshine and views, extending the landscape into the building. The long, narrow balconies can be extended deep into the home when the weather permits

The project’s other building, Universitethaven (University Gardens), has 174 units, split between privately-owned condos and cooperatives. Every unit has at least one balcony. Comprised of 5 distinct construction sites, all under the same (concrete) roof, the building’s materials – recessed white concrete, enlivened by black and glass panels, and, broken up by the many balconies – tie the site together aesthetically. University Gardens sit on a large city park – also designed by Arkitema, and with a large a parking garage underneath – and overlook Ørestad Nord’s canal, the little lake, and Amager Faelled.

The “housing serpent” intertwines with Ørestad Nord’s canal, which cuts through the center of the nearby Copenhagen University, past the Danish Broadcasting Corporations’ media center, and into a little lake called Grønjordssøen.

The scheme represents an attempt to create a diverse mix of residents and a positive urban environment.

Accessed 9/20/14 and 10/5/14 from http://mimoa.eu/projects/Denmark/Copenhagen/Boligslangen, http://www.domus.dk/node/39 (Translated by google chrome) and http://arkitema.dk/projekter/bolig/ universitetshaven-1/, http://arkitema.dk/projekter/urban-design/universitetshaven/, http://www.dac.dk/da/ dac-life/copenhagen-x-galleri/cases/boligslangen/, http://www.dac.dk/da/dac-life/dansk-arkitekturguide/ koebenhavn/universitetshaven/, and http://www.dac.dk/da/dac-life/copenhagen-x-galleri/cases/ boligslangen/.

FAELLEDHAVEN Architect Domus Architekter Engineer Hamiconsult A/S Landscape Peter Holst MAA MD Completion 2006 Size Housing 11,682 sq. meters Day Care 880 sq. meters 115 residences Cost Client

E 16,500,000 FSBbolig, Ørestad Nord

UNIVERSITETHAVEN Architect Arkitema Engineer COWI Landscape Arkitema Dates 2005 - 2007 Size Housing 17,800 sq. meters

75-130 sq. meters / unit 174 residences

- 134 condos

- 40 co-op housing units Landscape 7,600 sq. meters (2006-9) Client Cube Build KEYWORDS Urban Design / Housing Public Housing

Park over Parking

123

Faelledhaven

© DOMUS.dk / Jens Lindhe

© DOMUS.dk / Jens Lindhe

© DOMUS.dk

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

© DOMUS.dk

© DOMUS.dk

© DOMUS.dk

124

Universitethaven

© arkitema.dk

© arkitema.dk

© arkitema.dk

© arkitema.dk

© arkitema.dk

© arkitema.dk

© arkitema.dk

125

Tietgenkollegiet

Ørestad, København S, Denmark

© Lundgaard & Tranberg A/S, ltarkitekter.dk / Jens Lindhe

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

126

“The principle inspiration for the project is the meeting of the collective and the individual, a characteristic inherent to the dormitory building type.

The simple circular form of the Tietgen Dormitory is an urban response to the context, providing a bold architectural statement in the newly planned area. The building’s circular form - symbol of equality and the communal - is contrasted by projecting volumes expressing the individual residences.

The upper levels are organized with 360 residence units along the perimeter and the communal functions are oriented toward the inner courtyard. Facilities common to the entire dormitory are grouped at ground level.

The apartments are set at differing depths in an alternating rhythm, which expresses the individual’s unique identity through its form and gives the exterior form of the building its characteristic, crystalline expression and neutralizes the possibly monumental shape of the cylindrical space.

The apartment groups’ communal spaces are formed correspondingly. They stand out as dramatically protruding building masses that face the middle of the courtyard - the center-point of the entire form.

The dormitory’s facade of copper alloy panels is complemented by a glass partition and sliding screen profile system of oiled American oak. The building’s interior is characterized by an exposed concrete structure and plywood clad partitions. Poured magnesia flooring and acoustic ceilings of expanded metal are used throughout the dormitory.”

Designer Lundgaard & Tranberg A/S Landscape Marianne Levinsen A/S +

Henrik Jørgensen A/S Art consultant Aggebo & Henriksen Competition 2002 - 1st Prize Realization 2002 - 2006 Size 26,800 sq. meters 288,000 ft²

360 flats Client Fonden Tietgenkollegiet Prizes - Preserving the beauty of Copenhagen 2005 - The Wood Award 2006 - Copenhagen Municipality 2006 - Concrete Element Prize 2007 - RIBA European Award 2007 Keywords Urban Student Housing Cooperative Living fine print

Project Facts Address: Rued Langgårdsvej 10-18, DK-2300 Copenhagen S from < http://www.ltarkitekter.dk/en/projects/5 > Other info @ http://www.creativefluff.com/designs/architecture/tietgen-dormitory-danish-architecture-firm-lundgaard-tranberg/

127

Situation

Concept Model

© KHR Arkitekter, “Master Plan Process”

© Lundgaard & Tranberg A/S, ltarkitekter.dk / Jens Lindhe

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

128

Tietgenkollegiet Landscape Plan

Š Ny Agenda / New Agenda: Danish Architecture Center

129

8Tallet / 8House

Ørestad, København S, Denmark

Ørestad South

200m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

130

CIRCULATION, DIVERSITY, MONTAGE, COLLAGE : besides being a magnificent architectural object, 8-House is also a neighborhood in threedimensions.

“8 House is located in Ørestad South on the edge of a canal with a view of the open spaces of Kalvebrod Faelled in Copenhagen. With 475 units with a variety of sizes and layouts, the building meets the needs of people in all of life’s stages: young and old; nuclear families and single people; families that grow and families that become smaller.

The bow-shaped building creates two distinct spaces, separated by the center of the bow tie which hosts the communal facilities of 5300 SF (500 sq. m).

At the very same spot the building is penetrated by a 30ft (9m) wide passage that connects the two surrounding city spaces: the park area to the west and the channel area to the east. Instead of dividing the different functions of the building – for both habitation and trades – in separate blocks, they have been spread out horizontally.

The apartments are placed at the top, while the commercial program unfolds at the base of the building. As a result the apartments benefit from sunlight, fresh air and the view, while the commercial spaces merge with life on the street.

The 8 House has two sloping green roofs over 18,000 SF (1700 sq. m.) which are strategically placed to reduced the urban heat island effect as well as to visually tie it back to the adjacent farmlands towards the south. The shape of the building allows for daylighting and natural ventilation for all units. In addition, rainwater is collected and repurposed through a stormwater management system.”

Designers BIG – Bjarke Ingels Group Collaborators Hopfner Partners, MOE & Brodsgaard, KLAR Completion 2010 Size 62,000 sq. meters 475 residences Client Awards

St. Frederikslund Holding

Keywords

Urban Design, Housing

Best Housing: 2012 AIA National Award & 2011 World Architecture Festival; 2010 Scandinavian Green Roof Award

Partner-In-Charge: Bjarke Ingels, Thomas Christoffersen Project Leader: Ole Elkjaer-Larsen, Henrick Poulsen Project Manager: Finn Norkjaer, Henrik Lund Project Team: Dennis Rasmussen, Rune Hansen, Agustin Perez Torres, Annette Jensen, Carolien Schippers, Caroline Vogelius Wiener, Claus Tversted, David Duffus, Hans Larsen, Jan Magasanik, Anders Nissen, Christian Alvarez Gomez, Hjalti Gestsson, Johan Cool, James Duggan Schrader, Jakob Lange, Kirstine Ragnhild, Jakob Monefeldt, Jeppe Marling Kiib, Joost Van Nes, Kasia Brzusnian, Kasper Broendum Larsen, Louise Heboell, Maria Sole Bravo, Ole Nannberg, Pablo Labra, Pernille Uglvig Jessen, Peter Rieff, Peter Voigt Albertsen, Peter Larsson, Rasmus Kragh Bjerregaard, Richard Howis, Soeren Lambertsen, Eduardo Perez, Ondrej Tichy, Sara Sosio, Karsten Hammer Hansen, Christer Nesvik, Soeren Peter Kristensen, Lacin Karaoz, Marcello Cova, Luis Felipe González Delgado, Janghee Yoo, SunMing Lee

Accessed 9/20/14 from http://www.big.dk/projects-8/ and http://www.archdaily.com/83307/8-house-big/.

© BIG.dk

Varied Façade

Layered Program + Context

TWIST

Maximize Sunshine + Views 131

Second Floor / Apartments

First Floor / Townhouses

Ground Floor / Businesses

Š t58t.wordpress.com/vaerkanalyse

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

132

Green Roof + Daylighting

Vertical Circulation

Semi-Private Penthouse Garden

Apartments with Balconies

Semi-Private Townhouse Garden

Climbing Path

Retail &/or Storage

Š t58t.wordpress.com/vaerkanalyse

133

Rooftop Penthouses

Apartments

Retail

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

Garden Townhouses Path bing m i l C The u r b a n i s m

134

Climbing Path / Penthouses Green Roof 8Tallet Café

Climbing Path / Townhouses

© BIG.dk

© BIG.dk

135

Building as Topography - Site Circulation

base drawing © 8tallet.dk © 8tallet.dk

Central Core Communal facilities, community gathering & primary vertical circulation

Plan Variation - Apartments, Townhouses, & Penthouses

Penthouses + Townhouses Accessed from the climbing rooftop “street,” these have semi-private gardens and panoramic views Apartments Traditional apartments stack above retail and below penthouse rowhousing

top

penthouses

center

apartments

base

commercial

Ground Floor Retail Extra deep lots provide space for residential gardens above

Stacked Mixed Use - Variation & Variety base drawing © 8tallet.dk

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

© rasmusborennum.files.wordpress

u r b a n i s m

136

137

SÃ&#x2DC;NDER BOULEVARD

PRAGS BOULEVARD

LUMAPARKEN

POTGIETERSTRAAT

VAN BEUNINGENPLEIN

SUPERKILEN

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

138

PLAY PLACES

The exemplary play places highlighted in the following pages demonstrate strategies for taking back the street to reinvigorate public play spaces. A new literature promoting Nature Play and Learning Places (Louv 2008, Moore 2014, Gill 2014, etc.) is burgeoning, and a growing body of research affirms the benefits for children â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and the environment â&#x20AC;&#x201C; of engagement with nature. Creative engagement, and the allowance of unstructured, child-driven free play seems to produce the best results (Gill 2014).

Whatever the size of the space available, opportunities to create play places that protect and enhance physical and mental wellbeing abound. Gardens have long been considered as microcosmic: representing the landscapes of the larger world beyond their bounds.

For children, play in a sandbox may help them relate to the soil, beaches, and mountains, of the land beyond the city. Habitat creation for bugs, amphibians, birds, and small mammals is relatively easy to add to a space of any size, but can stimulate curiosity, wonder, and imagination

3.3 for young children. Walking along tree-lined streets has been suggested as a therapy for ADD and ADHD, and even in small doses, exposure to the living things of the natural world, can have big effects.

These 21st century parks and playgrounds all share one extraordinary feature: they all disrupt the hegemony of automobility. The linear and wedge parks force traffic to slow down, or find another way, by closing down traffic lanes, and increasing pedestrian crossings, and foot and bicycle traffic. Potgieterstraat, the smallest playground, takes over half a block, transforming parking spaces and busy traffic in front of a school, into a dedicated car-free place for play and socializing. Beuningenplein and Lumaparken both bury the parking: underground lots provide for needed car parking spaces, but leave the ground plain car-free, and green, for the safe enjoyment of children, families, and all urban dwellers. Critically, play places are not just for toddlers. Children, youths, adults, and the elderly can all benefit from greener, safer places to stay (or play) along the way.

139

P l a y p l a c e s – Programs & Elements – Plan Comparison Sønder Blvd

10 m

Prags Blvd

Lumaparken

Beuningenplein

Potgieterstraat

Superkilen

playground

sport ‘cage’

sport court

nature play

skate park

garden

lawn

splash feature

stages

P

seating / café 100 m

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

140

P l a y p l a c e s – Programs & Elements – Spatial Breakdown Prags Blvd

Sønder Blvd

10 m

Lumaparken

Beuningenplein

Potgieterstraat

Superkilen

playground pirate ship, balance bars, sandbox, and swings

sport ‘cage’ for basketball, soccer, hockey, volleyball, etc.

not included

not included

not included

not included

sport court soccer, hockey, skating; also ping pong tables

not included

nature play interspersed throughout larger landscape

not specifically included

not specifically included

no dedicated space

not specifically included

skate park ramp and grind bars located in NE corner

not included

garden interspersed throughout larger landscape

four raised beds in stainless steel planters plus one roundabout

more than shown

more than shown

yes

no

four sprayers

multipurpose wooden decks serve as stages, seating areas, and more

stainless steel cylinder rising above super-graphic decorated plaza

benches double as stage

• picnic tables • food truck / cofé • weekly farmers’ market

movable chairs

not specifically included

lawn more than shown

not included

splash feature ~1.5 not sure if included

stages

seating / café

141

Sønder Boulevard

Vesterbro, København V, Denmark

1000 m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

142

© Stig L. Anderson / sla.dk

Designers Stig L. Anderson LA with

Hansen & Henneberg

Københavns Kommune

Vej & Park Design 2004-2005 Completion 2006 Size 16,000 sq. meters (1.6 ha) Client Municipality of Copenhagen Keywords Park Street Neighborhood Revitalization

Sønder Boulevard / South Boulevard

“Not long ago it was known by the nickname “Europe’s biggest dog toilet”.”

From a dilapidated arterial thoroughfare dominated by traffic, Sønder Boulevard has become “perhaps the most striking example of the transformation of the Vesterbro district,” according to the Danish Architecture Center. The boulevard was widened to 15-17 meters, and SLA transformed the new central piece into a linear park packed with program.

Basketball courts, an enclosed ball court, blossoming perennial gardens, a playground for toddlers, and a track for skateboards and BMX bikes, and seating areas create pockets with very different ambiances, all linked together by paths that meander orthogonally down the length of the park. Trees, paving, grass, and flowers create a sense of identity for the park, while the diverse programming activates certain areas with higher densities of users.

The “flexible framework” designed by SLA “not only brought new urban life to the area”, but also created new links from Vesterbro to the City Center, the new Carlsberg Area, and the Central Train Station. Traffic on Sønder Boulevard has been slowed down with speed bumps, and textured crosswalks, and one cross street has been closed to cars.

From an abandoned median, to a bustling linear park, lush with vegetation, the redesign of Sønder has ensured that activity and sociability have not disappeared into the private courtyards of the adjacent housing blocks. “Families with children, teenagers, adults who like to get together over a beer and many more use the boulevard, which ought to be called a new kind of park.” (DAC)

During the design stage, six town meetings were held, inviting public participation.

Residents were asked about their wishes, habits, and needs. The project was a direct result of the City of Copenhagen’s action plan for city places: “The overall goal was to rethink the classical boulevard and make Sønder Boulevard one of the most distinctive green city spaces in the Vesterbro quarter.”

(http://www.sla.dk/en/projects/frederiksbergnyebyrum-2 & http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-life/danish-architecture-guide/ copenhagen/soender-boulevard/ & http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-life/copenhagen-x-gallery/cases/soender-boulevard/)

© Stig L. Anderson / sla.dk

© vulgare.net

143

Program

Play Places Paths & Plazas Gardens

birds & bees

imagine

s m e ll t he f lowe r s

dine

1. Plazas

2. Playground

3. Sport Court & Cage

4. Rock Garden

5. Flower Garden

6. Picnic Decks & Ping Pong

5

1

2

7. Skate Park c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

144

shop

sport

skate relax

compete

4 3

5

6

1

5

4 1

1 5

5

1

3

100 m 145

Paths & Plazas Elements

Decomposed Granite / Gravel

Bricks, Granite Pavers and Curbs

Stone Boulders

Concrete Paths

Wooden Decks Programs

Café, Farmers’ Market, Craft Market,

Neighborhood Events, 5K / Marathons

Play Places Elements

Sinking Ship Play Structure, Sand Box,

Balancing Logs, Rubber Topography

Sport Courts

Table Tennis / Ping Pong

Skate Ramp and BMX Park

Programs

Free Play, Balance, Climb, Roll, Run,

Build / Dig, Imagine, Skate / Bike, Sport

© Stig L. Anderson / sla.dk

Gardens Elements

Trees, Grasses, Flowering Perennials Program

Vegetation provides “loose parts” for children to inspect and collect, fueling imagination play. Flowering plants attract pollinators and provide habitat and food for small urban critters. The informal perennial plantings are less “damageable” by children,and provide greater habitat opportunities for urban wildlife. c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

© Stig L. Anderson / sla.dk

146

© Stig L. Anderson / sla.dk

© Stig L. Anderson / sla.dk

© vulgare.net

147

Prags Boulevard

Amager, København S, Denmark

1000 m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

148

Designer Arkitekt Kristine Jensen Tegnestue Design 2001 Completion 2005 Size 16,758 sq. meters Client Københavns Kommune Keywords Park Street Neighborhood Revitalization

International Ideas and Design Competition 2001, 1st Prize

Part of the regeneration of the Holmbladsgade neighborhood – a densely populated and dingy district – the renovation of Prags (Prague) Boulevard was designed to create public space for everyone, while recognizing the mixed (“rough and rugged”) character of its surroundings. The long and narrow park is structured by a series of continuous green elements: 120 tall poplar trees planted in a diagonal line, a long grass court, and a straight series of 90 florescent lamp poles, which are tightly spaced closer to the city, gradually spreading out along the length of the park. Seven hundred green “Prags” chairs complement these organizational elements.

As counterpoints to the continuous green features, there are seven areas of activity, with programs chosen by resident participation. During the design process the community named the programs they desired: a public square, a garden, a stage, a ball court, a game cage, a children’s-garden, and skate ramp. Resident participation and user dialogue were important parts of the project’s development throughout.

(Arkitekt Kristine Jensen website- http://www.kristinejensen.dk/ Prags_Boulevard_p25.html; Ny Agenda / New Agenda (Forlaget Bogværket): 166-169; The Public Chance (Vitoria Gasteiz, Spain: A+t Ediciones): 30-47.)

© publicspace.org

149

1.

3.

4. perform

compete

dine

2.

4. blossom

3.

2.

1.

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

150

5.

p l a y ball

7.

100 m

6.

5.

6.

7.

roll

climb © A+t - The Public Chance

© A+t - The Public Chance

151

Structure Linear Green Elements : Poplars Prager Lamps Prags Chair Continuity © Kristine Jensen

© Kristine Jensen

© A+t - The Public Chance

© Kristine Jensen

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

© Kristine Jensen

u r b a n i s m

© Kristine Jensen

152

Program

7 Activity Areas

1.

+ Defined by red rubber & super graphics + act as Punctuation to rhythm of linear green elements

2.

3.

© Kristine Jensen

4.

5.

© A+t - The Public Chance

6.

1. The Plaza / Pladsen

The plaza at the meeting of Prags Boulevard and Amagerbrogade was designed as an introduction to the motifs used throughout the site. It has a café with outdoor seating, bicycle parking on a bright red rubber surface, the large circular supergraphics that repeat throughout the park, as well as the first bright green light posts and poplars, making two lines of green that disappear into the distance.

7.

© Kristine Jensen

153

2. The Garden / Haven

Four large stainless steel planter boxes overflow with pink and red blossoms, marking the park’s widening from the narrow block beginning at Amagerbrogade, into the more open green lawn lined with poplars and Prager lamps that continue for the next kilometer.

© Kristine Jensen

3. The Stage / Scenen

Interrupting the linearity of the green elements, the Stage is a stainless steel disc fifteen inches high and 3.5 m in diameter. It occupies the eastern end of a paved plaza marked with a red supergraphic pattern of 4x9 circles. A ten minute (400 m) walk from Amagerbrogade.

© Kristine Jensen

4. The Court / Banen

Accommodating basketball, hockey, and soccer games, the court has an asphalt surface with painted lines, enclosing walls roughly one meter high, with goals and basketball hoops.

A paved path connects north to south, and paved and grassy edges invite pause. The ubiquitous movable Prags chairs can be moved to face the low wall that doubles as seating. c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

© Kristine Jensen

154

5. The Cage / Buret

Two hundred meters beyond the Court, a second enclosed sport court with much higher walls invites players of volleyball, soccer, and other court sports.

The cage saves game-players from having to chase balls down, while removing the danger of children dashing into traffic. The sense of enclosure also invites children to play within its fenced walls, when organized games are not in the offing.

© Kristine Jensen

6. The Kindergarten / Børnehaven

Literally “children’s garden,” this quiet corner offers swings and tire swings, climbing equipment, and “natural” climbing and balancing opportunities through anchored tree trunks. A shaded deck for watching parents lines one edge of the fenced space, and a plastic fence liner creates distance from the street. © A+t - The Public Chance

© Kristine Jensen

© A+t - The Public Chance

© Kristine Jensen

7. The Skate Park / Rampen

Platforms, ramps, and grind bars invite skateboarders and BMX bikers.

Geared towards young users, toddlers – little brothers and sisters ride tricycles at the edges – while elementary to middle school aged skaters practice tricks.

155

Lumaparken

Hammarby Sjรถstad, Stockholm, Sweden

1000 m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

156

Client Södermalm, Stockholm Keywords Playground

Play over Parking Nature Play

© stockholm.se

The Playground Lumaparken

“In the park’s north-eastern part is a miniature play landscape with hills. It includes playhouses, climbing frames and a sandpit.” Lumapark’s southern edge accommodates Hammarby-Sjöstad’s main transit station, where trams from the central city arrive. A wide transit plaza provides space for markets and events. Steps down Hammarby Allë is the ferry terminal, which provides a connection back to the island of Södermalm, and central Stockholm.

Occupying a large sloping hill – which hides a 260-space parking lot – the site climbs to a playground for young children combining manufactured play equipment (in natural materials) with opportunities for nature play, including a constructed creek that winds down the hillside. In the center of the park, a granite and grass amphitheater occupies a large slice of the sloping lawn, providing a venue for concerts and gatherings. Steel art pieces are scattered throughout the site, providing visual interest and landmarks.

On the park’s northern edge is a bilingual Vittra school for 225 children, with a preschool (age 1 to 5 years), and elementary school (kindergarten to third grade), in “newly renovated, beautiful and bright rooms that have been decorated according to Vittra ideas of ​​learning environment.” (stockholm.se)

© wikimedia.com

157

Š bothniag.se/galleri/referensobjekt/Lumaparken

10 m

Š bothniag.se/galleri/referensobjekt/Lumaparken

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

158

perform splash

c lim b

play

park

LEARN

connect commute 10 m 159

© stockholm.se

© stockholm.se

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

© stockholm.se

160

© stockholm.se

© stockholm.se

© stockholm.se

161

Potgieterstraat

Stadsdeel West, Amsterdam, Netherlands

1000 m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

162

Designer Carve LA Team Elger Blitz, Mark van der Eng, Renet Korthals Altes, Jasper van der Schaaf, Lucas Beukers, Stef van Campen

Completion 2010 Size 1,500 sq. meters Client gemeente Amsterdam Keywords Playground Reimagining the Street http://www.carve.nl/?pme2=540&lg=en

© Carve / landezine.com

Transforming Auto Hegemony

Potgieterstraat, a playground in inner Amsterdam, designed by Carve Landscape Architecture, transformed a busy street and parking area into a lively “urban stage.” Located in a 19th century neighborhood – typified by blocks enclosing private inner courtyards and a dearth of public squares and public green – Potgieterstraat provides a much need public space. In a neighborhood dominated by cars, the streets’ recently introduced bike lanes take space away from adjacent sidewalks, narrowing the pedestrian realm. These factors lead to a reimagination of this busy street.

Working with district residents, Carve suggested closing down one street to car traffic, opening the former street and parking space for public use. The site was transformed from 1500m2 of traffic and parking, into a meeting place, and playground for children. The intervention is seen as a “positive urban beacon for the district.” Access was restricted to bikes and pedestrians, excluding cars. New trees, and existing vegetation, improve the green atmosphere of what was only pavement.

Surface materials were removed, and in the new space Carve designed a “mogul landscape” with integrated play objects, and a soft black rubber surface. Trampolines, a tunnel, a slide, water sprayers, and the undulating surface create opportunities for play and engagement. The soft rubber acts as an impact attenuation surface, a canvas for chalk drawings, and as a noise damper. Benches and a kiosk provide places for adults to sit and watch, read, or chat.

The greatest benefit of the design is perhaps not obvious: it is in the reclamation of the street from cars, for the benefit of the public realm. Parents, children, and citizens without young children can all interact and relax here. The participative design process was “characterized by conflict” rather than “cooperation.” The city council demanded 70% citizen agreement (by written survey) on the design; but some residents did not want their parking moved around the corner. “Despite political conflicts, and resulting delays, the design is seen as a success. Residents organize little outdoor dinners and drinks here, and whenever the weather allows, children and adults can be seen claiming the street.” (http://www.landezine.com/index.php/2012/06/potgieterstraat-by-carve-landscape-architecture/)

© Carve / landezine.com

© Carve / landezine.com

163

100 m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

164

SLIDE

rol l © Carve

bounce

draw

CRAWL

© Carve

© Carve

relax

scale = ?

“Small interventions often evoke bigger changes. Local involvement in a design for a street in the city of Amsterdam became the stage for public participation.”

165

Water sprayers

© Carve / landezine.com

© Carve / landezine.com

Trampolines

Stainless steel tunnel c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

Bench seat with a view – towards Bilderdijkstraat u r b a n i s m

166

Š Carve / landezine.com

167

Bueningenplein

Westerpark, Amsterdam, Netherlands

1000 m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

168

Designers Dijk & Co LA (park/planting) Concrete AA (architecture)

Carve LA (playground) Design 2007 Completion 2011 Client West District, Amsterdam Keywords Playground

Play over Parking

Play Over Parking

The building of a two-story, underground parking lot inspired the redesign of the entire square – formerly a somewhat dilapidated play area hidden behind a tall fence. Working with Amsterdam’s West district, the design team created park space framed by indoor-outdoor rooms, two pavilions housing a teen center, and café respectively, along with sport courts, a playground, and garden space. On site trees were preserved wherever possible, while new plants were added, doubling the overall green.

Concrete Architectural Associates’ statement says that they: “introduced the concept to create a living room for the neighborhood on the square, integrating the pavilions. The rectangular space is divided into zones. Each zone or room is adapted to specific functions and age groups. The rooms either are sunken into the ground or elevated. Three zones are framed by steel beams... [creating] intimacy and [shaping] room-type spaces on the square.”

“The first room is the entrance zone... The connection pavilion includes a teen-centre called ‘the garage’, a place for teenagers to meet and organize activities. A hangout and ‘panna’ soccer field are situated on the roof. The next room contains playing fields and skate spots. The living room is next to this, again a framed zone with picnic tables and a stage. The stage offers the possibility to give performances and install a movie screen. The stage additionally contains two snug sunken sitting areas and some trees.

This framed room is connected to a pavilion containing the teahouse... The roof is accessible from the teahouse and serves as a terrace. In the final zone, the frame is connected to a smaller pavilion, to provide an additional passenger entrance for the parking garage.” (http://www.architecturenewsplus.com/projects/1745) 169

9 9

7 8

aat van Hallstr

1

5

6 11

4 3

12 lein ningenp

75° ROTATEto to get up??

NORTH

van Beu

100 m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

170

5

6 11

9 9

straat van Hall

1

4

7 8

3

12 n

lei genp n i n u e

van B

10 m 1. underground parking entrance (cars) 2. teen center 3. seating facilities 4. skateboard track 5. playing fields (sports) 6. teahouse

7. concrete picnic tables 8. stage 9. slide 10. playing field 11. sandpit 12. parking entrance (pedestrian)

E 75° OTAT t to to ge up??

H NORT

Plan Base courtesy of Concrete A.A.

Š Dijk en Co. Landscape Architects

171

The Garage: Entrance Pavilion & Teen Center

The entrance pavilion has a ramp for cars descending to the 2-levels of underground parking below the square.

Above, the Teen Center (nicknamed “the garage”) provides an indoor / outdoor place for teenagers to hang out, with a secondstory veranda overlooking the square. © Ewout Hubers for concrete a.a.

© Ewout Hubers for concrete a.a.

Ball Courts & Skate Park

Designed by Dijk en Co. Landscape Architects, one large sunken field with bright blue rubber surfacing, with soccer / hockey goals, and basketball nets, dominates this room. The adjacent blue on black surface can be used for two to three smaller games, or as a second large field. Flat-topped skate ramps separate the teen center pavilion from the ball courts.

The Living Room: Tea House, Picnic Area, Stage

Designed by Concrete Architectural Associates, the Tea House serves drinks, pastries, sandwiches and more, and has outdoor terrace seating on its roof, and outside its glass doors. Concrete picnic tables with wood surfaced benches provide a place for parents and neighbors to chat, work, or watch children play over a cup of coffee and a treat. c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

172

The Play Rooms

Designed by Amsterdam-based Carve Landscape Architecture, the play rooms are built of wood, steel, blue rubber surfacing, and have climbing, sliding, bouncing, swinging, balancing, and splash elements. Two wooden towers with slides and climbing ropes anchor the play rooms, inviting young children to challenge themselves, while a wooden deck with springy rubber swings provides a separate place for older kids to bounce and chat.

© Dijk en Co. Landscape Architects

© Carve / landezine.com

© Carve / landezine.com

173

Superkilen

København N, Denmark

1000 m c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

174

Designers BIG, Topotek1, Superflex Design 2010 Completion 2012 Size 30,000 sq. meters (3.3ha) Cost $10 million / E 7.8 million Client Copenhagen Municipality Realdania Keywords Urban Plaza Neighborhood Revitalization Emphasize Diversity

© big.dk

“How do you create a solid and open framework that can satisfy the wishes and needs of 60 cultures and thousands of individuals?

How do you create a solid and open framework that can

Superkilen is a half mile long urban space wedging through one of the most ethnically diverse socially challenged neighborhoods in Denmark.

It has one overarching satisfy theand wishes and needs of 60 cultures and thousands of idea that it is conceived as a giant exhibition of urban best practice – a sort of collection of individuals? global found objects that come from 60 different nationalities of the people inhabiting the

area surrounding it. Ranging from exercise gear from muscle beach LA to sewage drains from Israel, palm trees from China and neon signs from Qatar and Russia. Each object is accompanied by a small stainless plate inlaid in the ground describing the object, what it Superkilen longand urban space wedging through most is and whereis it a is half froma– mile in Danish in the language(s) of its origin. Aone sortof of the surrealist collection ofdiverse global urban diversitychallenged that in fact reflects the true nature of the localItneighborethnically and socially neighborhoods in Denmark. has one hood –rather than perpetuating a petrified image of a homogeneous Denmark.” (BIG Project overarching idea that it is conceived as a giant exhibition of urban best practice Sheet- http://static.big.dk/projects/suk/slides/project_sheet_SUK%20KLAVIKA%20UK_original.pdf)

– a sort of collection of global found objects that come from 60 different nationalities of the people inhabiting the area surrounding it. Ranging from

© Iwan Baan / archdaily.com

175

Concept Diversity

Structure 3 Zones

Global Found Objects

60+ cultures represented through 108 global ‘souvenirs’ © big.dk

green park the greenthe park sport / fitness / play

black market the blackthemarket urban living room

© big.dk

the red square the red square market / culture / play

© big.dk

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

© big.dk

100 m

176

Š Mike Magnussen / archdaily.com

177

s k a te ramp

SWING

sit + watch

slide

climb | roll

meander

supergraphic

WAYFINDING

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

BIKE PARK u r b a n i s m

S KATE

DINE

m e e t

chat 178

RELAX

meet

roll

skate shoot score

GATHER

swing

100 m

workout

commute

bike

100 m 179

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

180

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Although playgrounds have been around for more than a century, play is needed now more than ever.

As neighborhoods have become increasingly isolated and dependent on cars, as schools have become increasingly focused on teaching to the test, and as families have become increasingly reliant on large and small screens for entertainment,

our children need safe, communal spaces within walking distance where they can move their bodies, exercise their imaginations, and make friends â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in short, a place where they can play.â&#x20AC;?

Darell Hammond, 2014 Once Upon a Playground, Brenda Biondo, Lebanon NH: ForeEdge

181

East Boston

*

Massachusetts Schools, 2013

*

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

182

04 183

4 ORIENT HEIGHTS

5

Charlestown

Allston Brighton

East Boston North Beacon End Hill Downtown Back Bay Chinatown S. Boston Fenway Waterfront South End South Boston Mission Hill

EAGLE HILL

HARBORVIEW

3 Harbor Islands

Roxbury Jamaica Plain

CENTRAL SQUARE

2

PARIS FLATS

Dorchester

West Roxbury

Roslindale Mattapan LOGAN AIRPORT

MAVERICK SQUARE

Hyde Park

1

Boston Context

Adjacencies & Resources

JEFFRIES POINT

Opportunity Sites

Parks Service Areas & Need Scores

Publicly Accessible Open Space Other Open Space Park Need Score Least Need

Most Need

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

184

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PLAY Applied Research

04

185

4.1 Boston Context

“...the studies support the view that spending time in nature is part of a “balanced diet” of childhood experiences that promote children’s healthy development, well-being and positive environmental attitudes and values.

Claims about health benefits, both physical and mental are the most strongly supported by empirical evidence. In the case of mental health, emotional regulation and motor development, the evidence base includes a small number of more robust, cause-and-effect studies.

“There is also good evidence of a link between time spent in natural settings as a child, and positive views of nature as an adult. The evidence base for these benefits covers a comparatively broad range of children from different countries and backgrounds. However, not all children are equally keen on nature and the outdoors. Studies have found that a lack of regular positive experiences in nature is associated with the development of fear, discomfort and dislike of the environment.”

Tim Gill (2014): 17-18 c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

186

Background

“Originally a five-island group, East Boston was connected to Boston with the establishment of the first ferry in 1637. In the 1833, William Sumner established the East Boston Company to develop this area as one of the first planned communities in Boston. From 1840 to 1865, East Boston began to expand rapidly, becoming a major site for the construction of world-famous clipper ships by well known builders such as Donald McKay and Samuel Hall. Thus, East Boston became a significant transportation center and shipping port. Attracting a large number of immigrants seeking employment in the shipbuilding industry, its population began to grow dramatically.

With the Cunard Line establishing a port of entry in the Maverick Square area by 1839, East Boston became the Ellis Island of New England. In 1905, the first subway tunnel to downtown was opened. The development of Logan Airport in 1923, the Sumner Tunnel in 1934, and other transportation-related projects left severe impacts on the neighborhood. Local industrial facilities began to decline in favor of airport-related development and many families left for the suburbs.

Today, despite such pressures, East Boston has stabilized as a neighborhood and in the recent years has had many new investments geared toward public facilities. The third harbor tunnel (aka Ted Williams Tunnel) has helped reduce airport bound traffic on residential streets. East Boston enjoys an extensive waterfront that will continue to provide redevelopment opportunities for maritime, industrial, commercial, residential, and open space uses.”

Analysis

“East Boston is pre-dominantly a family neighborhood – nearly 25% of the population is composed of children under the age of 20. East Boston compares favorably with other densely populated neighborhoods in that it has 5.33 acres of open space for every 1000 residents, though this number is still below the city average of 7.64 acres. The neighborhood has seen 5.5% population growth between 2000–2010, a trend that will likely continue as underutilized parcels are redeveloped for residential uses. East Boston neighborhoods are generally dense, with limited private residential outdoor space. This is a community that is dependent on its parks. East Boston has an extremely rich mix of landscape types: active and passive areas, linear facilities, natural areas and waterfront access. Over 206 acres of open space in East Boston are located within two sizable saltwater marshes.

Nearly the entire neighborhood meets at least one of the State’s Environmental Justice criteria. This combination of factors – high density, demographic and socio/economic factors – results in a high park need score for almost all of East Boston, with the greatest need in the Eagle Hill neighborhood.

Across East Boston, many parks are located on the edges of the neighborhood – bordering the water or the airport. Playground distribution is reasonable and walkable in this neighborhood, though two areas rely on BPS schoolyards for playlots – Orient Heights (Bradley School) and Eagle Hill (O’Donnell and Kennedy) (East Boston Map 7). Due to recent renovations, East Boston now has three synthetic turf fields – East Boston Memorial Stadium, LoPresti Park, and American Legion Park. Conversion from natural to synthetic turf allows these facilities to accommodate heavy use loads, which is necessary in this neighborhood (East Boston Map 8). Eagle Hill stands out as a neighborhood with high open space needs that are not being met. The north side of Orient Heights near Suffolk Downs also has a deficiency of park space (East Boston Map 11). This issue might see some improvement with the upcoming phased renovation of the BHA Orient Heights pubic housing community. Impacts of the possible redevelopment of Suffolk Downs could be sizable, but are uncertain at this point. Much of the land there is unbuilt.”

City of Boston, 2014. Open Space Plan 2015-2021, Draft. Section 7.2.6 Needs Analysis: East Boston. Accessed 10/25/14: <http://cityofboston.gov/Parks/openspace/2015_2021.asp>.

187

City of Boston | Population Density

Overall and Youth and Children (0-17) 2010 Populaton Density by Census Block

Boston Census 2010 Demographics

Children 0 to 17 years CHARLESTOWN

Charlestown

East Boston EAST BOSTON

NORTH END

WEST END

Central

BEACON HILL

Back Bay/ Beacon Hill

Allston/Brighton Fenway/ Kenmore

ALLSTON/BRIGHTON

South Boston

DOWNTOWN

CHINATOWN

BACK BAY

South End SOUTH END

FENWAY/ KENMORE

Roxbury

SOUTH BOSTON

BOST ON

ROXBURY

North Dorchester

2010 Populaton Density by Census Block

Harbor Islands

HARBOR ISLANDS

NORTH DORCHESTER

Jamaica Plain

JAMAICA PLAIN

Boston Census 2010 Demographics

Children 0 to 17 years

South Dorchester West Roxbury

SOUTH DORCHESTER

Charlestown

Roslindale

East Boston

Mattapan

MATTAPAN T:\DCGIS_Administration\CITYWIDE\CENSUS_Misc\Census2010 Demographics\Pop Density 2010.mxd

Central

Population Density

Back Bay/ (persons per acre, by census block) Beacon Hill

Allston/Brighton Hyde Park

CHARLESTOWN

ROSLINDALE WEST ROXBURY

501 - 1,628

Fenway/ Kenmore

101 - 500

South Boston

51 - 100 31 - 50

South 16 End - 30 0 - 15 None Source: U.S. Census 2010, SF1.

Planning District Boundary

Boston Census 2010 Populaton Density by Census Block2010 Demographics Roxbury

North Dorchester

0

1

EAST BOSTON

0 to 17 years

BEACON HILL

DOWNTOWN

as % of total population, by census block

HYDE PARK

0% - 7%

ALLSTON/BRIGHTON

CHINATOWN

BACK BAY

8% - 15% 16% - 24% FENWAY/ KENMORE

25% SOUTH - 35% END SOUTH BOSTON

36% - 83% Non-residential area

Map produced by the Office of Digital Cartography & GIS, BRA. November 2011.

Source: U.S. Census 2010, SF1.

Miles

NORTH END

WEST END

ROXBURY

Harbor Islands

0

1

BOST ON 2 Miles

HARBOR ISLANDS

NORTH DORCHESTER

Jamaica Plain

Children 0 to 17 years

JAMAICA PLAIN

South Dorchester SOUTH DORCHESTER

West Roxbury

Roslindale

CHARLESTOWN Mattapan

ROSLINDALE

WEST ROXBURY MATTAPAN

East Boston Hyde Park

Population Density

(persons per acre, by census block)

501 - 1,628 101 - 500 51 - 100

WEST END

31 - 50 16 - 30 0 - 15

BEACON HILL

None Source: U.S. Census 2010, SF1.

Central Allston/Brighton

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

Back Bay/

u r b a n Beacon i s m Hill Fenway/ Kenmore

0 to 17 years HYDE PARK

NORTH END

CHINATOWN

BACK BAY 0

South Boston

EAST BOSTON

DOWNTOWN

Planning District Boundary

ALLSTON/BRIGHTON

T:\DCGIS_Administration\CITYWIDE\CENSUS_Misc\Census2010 Demographics\Pop Density 2010.mxd

Charlestown

Map produced by the Office of Digital Cartography & GIS, BRA. November 2011.

Source: U.S. Census 2010, SF1.

1

Miles

as % of total population, by census block

0% - 7% 8% - 15% 16% - 24% 25% - 35% 36% - 83% Non-residential area

0

188 1

2 Miles

City of Boston | Foreign-Born Population

Top Ten Countries of Foreign-Born Citizens’ Birth BOSTON NEIGHBORHOODS: Top 10 Countries of Birth for Foreign-Born Population

CHARLEST CHAR CH CHARLESTO H RLEST S OW OWN O WN WN g 2,313 3 foreign born

Font size is proportional to the foreign-born population within each neighborhood.

EASTT B BO BOST O TON gn 20,611 foreig born

WEST W ST END END EN

ALLSTO AL ALLST TON TO

NOR NO N ORT R H EN ND

fore fo re eign ig gn g 1,052 052 bforeign o or orn r

fo ore ore or eiig gn 6,337 bo orn

foreign gn 8800 born 880 bo bo

BEACON BEAC NHILL ILLL 1 163 1,163

FENWA FENW NWAY WAY

g 7,601 77,6 ,601 6011 foreign born n

DOWNT NTO NT TOWN N

fore eign eign g born n

ore or eig ign 5,439 for bor bo orn n

BACK BAY BA foreign g gn n 33,063 063 0 3 foreig born orn

SOUTH B STON BO BOS SSTTON WATERFRO WAT TE TE ONT ore eign ig g 1997 fore 197 born b orn

A LMA

gn 443 foreig born born n

BR RIGHTON g 14,4494 foreign born

MISSIO ON HIL HIL IILL L fore eign g 4,011 bor rn rn

SOUTH BOSTON N

SO SOUTH END

gn gn 3,526 foreig born

foreig eig eign g 7,354 54 bor orn

ROXBURY JAMAICA PLAIN 7,549

g 10,791 foreign born

foreign g born

DORCHESTER HE HES ES o ore oreign re eign gn g n 34,247 ffo bor orn rn

WEST ROXBURY g 10,791 foreign born

ROSLINDALE fo g for 7,906 foreign b rn born n

MATTAPAN g 8,585 foreign born

HYDE PARK

2,460

2,410

2,583

2,553

2,863

2,651

2,583

3,731

3,477

3,136

5,528

4,051

6,636

6,591

5,830

7,380

14,542

City of Boston’s Top 20 Countries of Birth for Foreign Born Population

7,262

16,481

16,097

g 9,685 foreign born

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey.

Neighborhood boundaries based on a combination of Census Tracts, Zip Codes, and Zoning Districts.

Map produced by BRA Office of Digital Cartography & GIS. Data by BRA Research Division.

189

Revere SuďŹ&#x20AC;olk Downs

Orient Heights

East Boston Neighborhoods Chelsea

Belle Isle Mar Reservation

Harborview

Constitution Beach

Eagle Hill

Charlestown, City of Boston

ric

ill

le H

Eag

to His

t

tric

Dis

Win

Maverick Square JeďŹ&#x20AC;ries Point

North End / Downtown Boston

c h i l d

Boston Logan International Airport

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

190

Population Density: Youth & Children Ages 0 -17

Orient Heights

Eagle Hill Harborview

Maverick Square Population Density â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 0 to 1 7 years as % of total population, by c ens us bloc k

0% - 7 % 8% - 1 5% 1 6% - 24% 25% - 3 5% 36% - 83%

Jeffries Point

Non-residential area

191

Topography

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

192

Open Space Availability & Need Score

193

4.2 Adjacencies & Resources benches & trails

American Legion Playground

Boston Parks & Recreation Department

Belle Isle Marsh Preserve

Mass. Department of Conservation & Recreation

Sumner & Lansing Street Playground Boston Parks & Recreation Department

picnic tables restrooms food & drink

2

11

6

playground Condor Street Urban Wild

bike trail

Boston Parks & Recreation Department

Constitution Beach

Piers Park

Mass. Department of Conservation & Recreation

Massport

sports activities water activities public art scenic view canoe access

3

12 10

7

Cuneo Park / Saratoga Street Play Area Boston Parks & Recreation Department

East Boston Memorial Park

Boston Parks & Recreation Department

East Boston Greenway

Boston Parks & Recreation Department

birdwatching community garden

LoPresti Park

Boston Parks & Recreation Department

1

4 Noyes Park & Playground

Boston Parks & Recreation Department

5

13

8 Porzio Park

Boston Parks & Recreation Department

Paris St. Playground & Pool

Boston Parks & Recreation Department / Boston Centers forYouth and Families

9 Open Space Amenities at Adjacent Parks

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

194

M.E. Bradley Elementary 298

E. Boston High School 9

1,373

10

11

318

k

1

2

3

4

6

7

2

3

4

6

5

319

5

k

1

2

3

4

k

1

2

3

4

5

212

5

5

6

7

5

8

James Otis Elementary

Umana Middle School 730

1

Excel Academy Charter

Patrick Kennedy Elementary

Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Donnell Elementary 293

k

Guild Elementary

12

395

8

k

1

2

3

4

5

4

3

7

2

8

13

1

12

10

Dante Alighieri Montessori k

1

2

3

4

5

11

9

Sam Adams Elementary 292

k

1

2

3

4

5

McKay Elementary 681

k

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

East Boston EEC 196

0.1 mile

0.25 miles

0.5 miles

pk

k

1

East Boston School Populations 195

American Legion Playground

Eagle Hill

Condor Street Urban Wild East Boston High School

Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Donnell Elementary

Patrick Kennedy Elementary

Paris Street Playground

DanteAlighieri Elementary

Bordered by the Chelsea River, the Inner Harbor, and the McClellan Highway, this is a primarily residential area with some abandoned industrial uses along the waterfront. Small open spaces like Prescott and Putnam Squares are located at street grid corners. American Legion Park accommodates active recreation needs. The area is one of East Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most stable sections, with many of the homes here having been occupied by the same families for generations. This area, while rich in history and future potential, is currently lacking in the availability of diverse recreational and passive open space resources.

This is especially true for the dense residential streets between Central and Day Squares, with the nearest ball field being at American Legion.

The Chelsea River (aka Chelsea Creek) and Inner Harbor edges also remain generally inaccessible and undeveloped. The former Hess Oil site, with likely contaminated soils, yet on the Chelsea Creek waterfront, has unrealized potential for community open space.

City of Boston, 2014. Open Space Plan 2015-2021, Draft. Section 7.2.6 Needs Analysis: East Boston. Accessed 10/25/14: <http://cityofboston.gov/Parks/openspace/2015_2021.asp>.

Condor Street Wild c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

American Legion Playground 196

Roughly the triangular area between Maverick Square, Central Square, and LoPresti Park, the Maverick Square sub-area contains a mix of residential and industrial uses.

However, traffic arteries and commercial uses dominate both Central (a center for neighborhood commerce) and Maverick Squares. LoPresti Park, located next to the Maverick Landing public housing development (1,500 residents), is in the midst of a multiphased renovation effort.

Central Square will be reconfigured through a Boston Transportation Department project, making its central feature, Bertulli Park, more accessible to the neighborhood for passive uses. The Lewis Mall from Maverick Square to Boston Harbor along Lewis Street suffers from inattention and lack of development. As development proceeds over time along the piers in this area, with the consequent extension of Harborwalk, this open space connection will increase in importance as a gateway from the interior of East Boston to its greatest regional open space asset.

Maverick Square Maverick Square Central Square

* LoPresti Park

City of Boston, 2014. Open Space Plan 2015-2021, Draft. Section 7.2.6 Needs Analysis: East Boston. Accessed 10/25/14: <http://cityofboston.gov/Parks/openspace/2015_2021.asp>.

Central Square

LoPresti Park 197

Jeffries Point E. Boston Memorial Park

East Boston EEC

* Brophy Street Park McKay Elementary

Sumner & Lansing Street Playground

*

*

Porzio Park East Boston Piers Park

“A largely residential area to the south of East Boston Memorial Park, Jeffries Point has a long waterfront directly facing downtown Boston. While some piers have maritime uses, most are underutilized or abandoned.

This is one of the oldest and most densely settled areas of the neighborhood, dominated by triple-decker rowhouses. Brophy Park is a small passive area. The rest of the open space facilities are dominated by ball courts and sitting areas. Porzio Park and Piers Park provides access to the water.

“This area remains relatively isolated from active recreation facilities with airportrelated highway ramps separating the residents from East Boston Memorial Park.

The first segment of the East Boston Greenway connects this area to East Boston Memorial Park, helping to overcome that isolation, and to Piers Park, the latter a much used and valued asset for both Maverick Square and Jeffries Point residents. The extension of the East Boston Greenway from the Bremen Street Park to Constitution Beach has been designed.”

City of Boston, 2014. Open Space Plan 2015-2021, Draft. Section 7.2.6 Needs Analysis: East Boston. Accessed 10/25/14: <http://cityofboston.gov/Parks/openspace/2015_2021.asp>.

East Boston Piers Park c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

Brophy Street Park

Sumner & Lansing Street Playground 198

Orient Heights / Harborview M.E. Bradley Elementary

Noyes Park & Playground

Cuneo Playground

Constitution Beach

“This northernmost area of Boston has the Orient Heights public housing development as well as a number of single-family homes (the rest of East Boston has multiple-family homes).

It is characterized by hills gently sloping up from the water, with housing situated on well-defined terraces. Available open space facilities... include a large playground (Noyes), saltwater marshes, Constitution Beach, a cemetery, and small play areas. Pedestrian and bicycle connections between facilities in the area are lacking, and several of the natural areas are unprotected.

“East Boston as a whole has a high park need score; its high density contributes to this, as does pressure for additional housing. The lack of open land for future parks distributed throughout the neighborhood, has lead to the BRA’s recommendation of looking to existing open spaces and assets, and improving the linkages between them, to generate a high degree of access and usability out of limited resources, which are nonetheless high quality and water-oriented.”

City of Boston, 2014. Open Space Plan 2015-2021, Draft. Section 7.2.6 Needs Analysis: East Boston. Accessed 10/25/14: <http://cityofboston.gov/Parks/openspace/2015_2021.asp>.

Noyes Park & Playground

Mannassah Bradley Elementary

Constitution Beach 199

4.3 Opportunity Sites

1

Existing Parks & Open Space

The majority of East Boston neighborhoods come close to meeting the standard open space metric of 10 acres per 1,000 people.

However, as noted above, Belle Isle Marsh Preserve comprises 206 acres of overall open space, in a not-so-accessible form and location.

Beyond Belle Isle, many of East Boston’s parks have little more in the way of amenities than paved paths, park benches, and perhaps trash cans. They are places to pass through, or circumvent, rather than attractive places to stay and play. Small programmatic improvements can vastly improve their amenity value, encourage parents and children to visit them, and to engage in imaginative play.

2

Schools as Opportunity Sites

Urban schoolyards are a wonderful resource. As in many other places, East Boston’s schoolyards are almost entirely covered with impervious surfacing; some have manufactured play equipment, or murals on walls and pavement, but few have vegetation beyond overhanging border trees. They represent community-accessible space that can be transformed through increasing permeability and re-vegetation, the addition of edible gardens, or simply through increased community access – as New York City has done – by making them community playgrounds during out-of-school hours, weekends, and holidays.

3

Proposed Design Interventions

“Children mirror a community’s values, progress and challenges. If a community’s children are thriving, it is likely that the whole community is doing well...”

“Creating safe, nurturing places where all children can grow and develop their unique gifts is a responsibility of all adult members of a society. This cross-cut filter provides key information on the status of Boston’s children across all sectors, making it possible to track progress and understand challenges in critical areas such as health, education, safety, housing, community participation and access to resources such as open space, creative outlets, and education.”

Boston Indicators Project, Boston Foundation

http://www.bostonindicators.org/indicators/children-and-youth

Seven small parks, in four areas across East Boston have been diagrammatically redesigned in order to show possible ways to transform the urban fabric through the addition of nature play spaces. c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

200

1

Existing Parks & Open Space

LoPresti Park

Condor Street Urban Wild

American Legion Playground

Boston Parks & Recreation Department

Boston Parks & Recreation Department

Boston Parks & Recreation Department

2

1

3

Cuneo Park / Saratoga Street Play Area Boston Parks & Recreation Department

4

Porzio Park

Boston Parks & Recreation Department

9

Noyes Park & Playground

Piers Park

Boston Parks & Recreation Department

Massport

6

5

4

3

5

10

7

2

Belle Isle Marsh Preserve

Mass. Department of Conservation & Recreation

13

6

8

Mass. Department of Conservation & Recreation 12

Boston Parks & Recreation Department

11 Constitution Beach

1

Sumner & Lansing Street Playground

East Boston Greenway

Boston Parks & Recreation Department

10 11

9

7 benches & trails

playground

public art

picnic tables

bike trail

scenic view

restrooms

sports activities

canoe access

food & drink

water activities

birdwatching

East Boston Memorial Park

Boston Parks & Recreation Department

8

12 Paris St. Playground & Pool

Boston Parks & Recreation Department / Boston Centers forYouth and Families

13 201

2

Converting Schoolyards to Community Playgrounds New York City Best Practice PlaNYC, 2014

text from: http://www.nyc.gov/html/ia/gprb/downloads/pdf/NYC_Parks&Rec_Schoolyards.pdf

© NYC.gov

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

© NYC.gov

© NYC.gov

202

The Edible Schoolyard Urban Agriculture & Education edibleschoolyard.org

© edibleschoolyard.org

Twenty years ago, Alice Waters was quoted in a local newspaper, claiming that the school she passed every day looked like no one cared about it. Neil Smith, then principal of Martin Luther King, Jr. Middle School, contacted Alice with the acre of blighted land on the school’s grounds firmly in mind. He wanted her to see the school and perhaps find a way to help. It was clear to Alice: she wanted to start a garden and build a teaching kitchen that could become tools for enriching the curriculum and life of the school community. Neil and Alice met with the faculty and the idea slowly began to take form. Teachers Phoebe Tanner and Beth Sonnenberg envisaged teaching fractions in the kitchen as a way of making math interactive, and growing heirloom grains in the garden as a way of teaching early civilizations. Parent volunteer Beebo Turman motivated the community, which, in turn, invited family and friends to begin the transformation from asphalt to an Edible Schoolyard. (http://edibleschoolyard.org/our-story)

© edibleschoolyard.org

© edibleschoolyard.org

203

3

4

Proposed Design Interventions

EAGLE HILL

HARBORVIEW

3

CENTRAL SQUARE

2

ORIENT HEIGHTS

PARIS FLATS

LOGAN AIRPORT

MAVERICK SQUARE

1

JEFFRIES POINT

Urban Acupuncture | Opportunity Sites DESIGN INTERVENTIONS Additional Opportunity Sites Schools as Opportunity Sites Existing Parks and Open Space

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

204

ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION TYPE SITUATION PROPOSED ELEMENTS TOPOGRAPHY PLAY “INFRASTRUCTURE” high drumlin landform playfield medium sand / gravel construction area low marsh grass discovery area “GRITTINESS” VEGETATION TYPE & DENSITY high dense woodland vegetation medium meadow, scattered trees low lawns and flowers

ADJACENT PROGRAM PROPOSED PROGRAM & VARIETY

high quality & variety less programmed, more vegetation medium emphasis on habitat and play structures low highly programmed, highly varied

205

SITES + ANALYSIS

1

1 Brophy Park TOPOGRAPHY PLAY INFRASTRUCTURE

medium sand / gravel construction area “GRITTINESS” VEGETATION

low lawns and flowers

10 ft 1 in = 10 ft

ADJACENT PROGRAM PROPOSED PROGRAM

high quality & variety less programmed, more vegetation

2 Central Square 50’

2

TOPOGRAPHY PLAY INFRASTRUCTURE

medium to low sand / gravel construction AND marsh grass discovery area “GRITTINESS” VEGETATION

high to medium dense woodland vegetation AND meadow, scattered trees

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

ADJACENT PROGRAM PROPOSED PROGRAM low quality & variety highly programmed, highly varied 206

3

3 Eagle Hill Pocket Parks TOPOGRAPHY PLAY INFRASTRUCTURE

high to medium drumlin landform AND sand / gravel construction area “GRITTINESS” VEGETATION

medium to low meadow, scattered trees AND lawns and flowers ADJACENT PROGRAM PROPOSED PROGRAM

medium to low quality & variety habitat and play structures AND highly varied program

4

4 Orient Heights TOPOGRAPHY PLAY INFRASTRUCTURE high drumlin landform playfield “GRITTINESS” VEGETATION

high to medium dense woodland vegetation AND meadow, scattered trees ADJACENT PROGRAM PROPOSED PROGRAM

low quality & variety highly programmed, highly varied 207

SITE ANALYSIS: BROPHY PARK TOPOGRAPHY: medium Play Infrastructure: sand / gravel construction “GRITTINESS”: low Vegetation: lawns and flowers

1 Brophy Park

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

ADJACENT PROGRAM: high quality & variety Program: less programmed, more vegetation

208

Climbing Trees (add safety surfacing) Gathering Plaza (expand footprint) Granite Boulder Splash Feature Gravel Garden & Water Stair Fountain Sloped Lawns

0’

50’

100’

200’ 209

2 Central Square

SITE ANALYSIS: CENTRAL SQUARE TOPOGRAPHY: medium to low Play Infrastructure: sand / gravel construction AND marsh grass discovery “GRITTINESS”: high to medium Vegetation: dense woodland AND meadow, scattered trees ADJACENT PROGRAM: low quality & variety Program: highly programmed, highly varied

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

210

Walking Walls Border Bench Gravel Garden & Sand Play Marsh Discovery Plan Area Bug Habitat Wall Rhododendron Border Mini Woodland Stage & Amphitheater Café Kiosk and Bistro Seating Area Public Art Grove

0’

50’

100’

200’ 211

Gathering Plaza Stage & Performance Space Sit Wall / Benches Rhododendron Woodland

3.1 White Street at Monmouth c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

212

SITE ANALYSIS: EAGLE HILL TOPOGRAPHY: high to medium Play Infrastructure: drumlin landform AND sand / gravel construction

Fountain Plaza (existing) Landform Play Area Playground Equipment

Hillside Slide, Swings, Balance Wall Walking Walls

“GRITTINESS”: medium to low Vegetation: meadow, scattered trees AND lawns and flowers ADJACENT PROGRAM: low quality & variety Program: highly programmed, highly varied

0’

50’

100’

200’

3.2 White Street at Eutaw 213

Rock Garden & Sand Play Water Spray Fountain Walking Walls Landform Play Area

0’

50’

100’

200’

3.3 Putnam Square c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

214

Walking Walls Traditional Playground Equipment Café & Transit Plaza Performance Amphitheater Lawns & Climbing Trees Gravel Garden with Fountain

0’

50’

100’

200’

SITE ANALYSIS: EAGLE HILL TOPOGRAPHY: high to medium Play Infrastructure: drumlin landform AND sand / gravel construction “GRITTINESS”: medium to low Vegetation: meadow, scattered trees AND lawns and flowers

3.4 Prescott Square

ADJACENT PROGRAM: low quality & variety Program: highly programmed, highly varied

215

SITE ANALYSIS: ORIENT HEIGHTS TOPOGRAPHY: high Play Infrastructure: drumlin landform “GRITTINESS”: high to medium Vegetation: dense woodland AND meadow, scattered trees ADJACENT PROGRAM: low quality & variety Program: highly programmed, highly varied

4 Orient Heights

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

216

Walking Walls Traditional Playground Equipment Gathering Area Sloped Meadow Gravel Garden with Fountain Bug Habitat Wall Basketball & Soccer Courts

0’

50’

100’

200’ 217

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

218

â&#x20AC;&#x153;...kids arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t as fragile as we tend to think. They are born with strengths and abilities to cope with adversity, learn from their mistakes, and mature into responsible, competent adults. Yet they cannot develop and energize their inner resources unless we allow them the opportunities to do so.â&#x20AC;?

Kenneth Ginsburg, Building Resilience in Children and Teens, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2011: 21.

219

REFERENCES ARCAM (Architectuurcentrum Amsterdam). 2009. Architectural Map / Architectuurkaart Amsterdam. Amsterdam: ARCAM. ARCAM. 2013. (Eds. Yvonne de Korte, Dave Wendt, Nels van Malsen.) IJburg Architecture Guide. Amsterdam: ARCAM. Arup Urban Design, London. 20xx. “Environmental Sustainability.”

Nordhavnen Ideas Competition, Article 12. London: Ove Arup & Partners Limited.

Chermayeff, Serge, and Christopher Alexander. 1963. Community & Privacy: Toward a New Architecture of Humanism. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co. Beek, P., & Vermaas, C. J. 2011. Landscapology: Learning to landscape the city. Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura Press.

Boeijenga, Jelta, and Jeroen Mensink. 2008. Vinex Atlas. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010 Publishers.

Brundtland, et al. / World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Capra, Fritjof. 2014a. A Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Capra, Fritjof. 2014b. “The Unification of Physics.” Fritjof Capra Blog. Accessed 10/12/14: http://www.fritjofcapra.net/blog.html.

Center for Disease Control. Accessed 4/5/13 and 10/10/14: http:// www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm.

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

Child Friendly Cities Initiative (CFCI) website. 2014. What is a Child Friendly City? Accessed 9/27/14 from http://childfriendlycities.org/ overview/what-is-a-child-friendly-city/.

Cosco, Nilda, and Robin C. Moore. 2009. “Sensory Integration and Contact with Nature: Designing Outdoor Inclusive Environments.”

NAMTA Journal Vol. 34, No. 2. Accessed 11/22/12: http:// naturalearning.org/content/nli-publications.

Daily, Gretchen, Ed. 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington DC: Island Press: 48-68.

Davoli, M. and Fari, G. 2000. Reggio Tutta: A Guide to the City by Children. Reggio Emiliana, Italy: Reggio Children. (Op. cit. Malone in Gleeson and Sipes 2006: 30.)

De Cicco, Pier Giorgio. 2007. Municipal Mind: Manifestos for the Creative City. Toronto: Mansfield Press.

Freund, Peter and George Martin. 1996. The Ecology of the Automobile. Montreal, New York, London: Black Rose Books. op.cit. K.H. Schaeffer and Elliott Sclar, 1975, Access for All: Transportation and Urban Growth. Baltimore: Penguin. op. cit. Mayer Hillman, John Adams, and John Whitelegg.

1990. One False Move: A Study of Children’s Independent Mobility.

London: Policy Studies Institute: p. 106. op. cit. Ole Nielsen. 1990. “Safe Routes to School in Odense, Denmark,” in Rodney Tolley, ed., The Green of Urban Transport: Planning for Walking and Cycling in Western Cities. London: Belhaven Press: pp. 255-265.

Gaia Education (GEESE / Global Ecovillage Educators for a Sustainable Earth). 2012. Teacher’s Guide: Design for Sustainability, version 5. http://www.gaiaeducation.net/ Gill, Tim. 2014. “The Benefits of Children’s Engagement with Nature: A Systematic Literature Review.” Children, Youth, and Environments, Vol. 24, No. 2. Denver: University of Colorado at Denver: 10-34.

220

Ginsburg, Kenneth R.2011. Building Resilience in Children and Teens: Giving Kids Roots and Wings, 2nd Edition. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics.

Per, Aurora Fernández, and Javier Arpa. 2008. The Public Chance: New urban landscapes. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain: A+t In Common Series.

Gleeson, Brendan and Neil Sipe. 2006. Creating Child Friendly Cities: Reinstating Kids in the City. London and New York: Routledge.

Pooley, C.G., Turnball, J., and Adams, M. 2004. Changing Patterns of Everyday Mobility Full Report of Research Activities and Results.

Lancaster: Department of Geography, Lancaster University. (Op. cit.

Gleeson and Sipe 2006: 74).

Green, Jared. 2013. “Superkilen: Global Mash-up of a Park.” ASLA The Dirt, 3/14/2013. Accessed 9/13/14: http://dirt.asla.org/2013/03/14/ superkilen-global-mash-up-of-a-park/.

Louv, Richard. 2008. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books.

Lund, Annemarie. 2009. Ny Agenda: Dansk Landskabarkitektur / New Agenda: Danish Landscape Architecture 2003-08. Heftet, DK: Forlaget Bogværket.

Rosenburg Bendsen, Jannie. 2012. Fingerplan, Forstæder & Fremtid: Goliger fra 1950’erne. København, DK: DAC & Life / Dansk Arkitektur Center.

Spirn, Anne Whiston. 1998. The Language of Landscape. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Stanley, Richardson, and Prior. 2005. Children of the Lucky Country?: How Australian Society has Turned its Back on Children and Why Children Matter. Sydney: Pan MacMillan.

Lynch, Kevin. 1977. Growing Up In Cities. UNESCO. Cambridge MA : MIT Press.

Sustainable Sites Initiative. 2009. The Case for Sustainable Landscapes. http://www.sustainablesites.org.

Møller, Lars Fjendbo (Ed.). 2013. Guide to New Architecture in Copenhagen, 6th ed. København K: Danish Architecture Centre (DAC).

UNICEF. 1992. Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United Nations Publications.

Moore, Robin C. 1986. Childhood’s Domain: Play and place in child development. London & Sydney: Croom Helm.

Utile Design Blog. 2014. “The Utility of Play.” Accessed 10/11/14: http://utiledesignblog.com/.

Moore, Robin C. 2014. Nature Play and Learning Places. Creating and managing places where children engage with nature. Version 1.1. Natural Learning Initiative and National Wildlife Federation.

Accessed 9/17/14: http://natureplayandlearning.org.

Walker, Brian, and David Salt. 2006. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington DC: Island Press.

NAAEE. 2011. Developing a Framework for Assessing Environmental Literacy: Executive Summary. Washington DC: NAAEE (North American Association for Environmental Education). Accessed 10/5/2014: http://www.naaee.net/framework.

221

c h i l d

f r i e n d l y

u r b a n i s m

222

BIOGRAPHY

Annie Palone holds a Master of Landscape Architecture (2013) from the University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture, and a Master of Science in Urban Design (anticipated December 2014).

She graduated from Stanford University with a Bachelor of Arts, studying English Literature (with a focus on 20th century prose fiction) and Studio Art. Long-standing interests in anthropology, geography, and the stories people tell about the places they love inform her approach to sustainable design for ecologically and socially resilient cities.

The maxim that truly sustainable design prioritizes healthy children, and results in healthy cities that are better for people of all ages, is the foundation for this handbook.

223

Š2014 Annie Palone university of texas at austin school of architecture