Critical Debates in Urban Design and City Planning

BENV GPD 2 C R IT IC A L DE B ATE IN UR BA N DE S IGN A ND CIT Y P LAN N IN G 2017 - 2018 W ING S Z E C AT H E R IN E C H AO

IN DIVIDUAL LITERATURE R EVI EW PR OJEC T

DENSITY, DIVERSITY AND MIX OF USES BUILDING HEIGHTS, FORMS AND TYPOLOGIES, AND THE SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF A PLACE

URBAN MORPHOLOGY

INTRO D U C T I O N I n t he s t u die s o f b ui l t env i ronm ent, th er e ar e a wide r ange of pr inc iples a nd c o n c e pt s o f urb a n d esi g n. This liter atur e r eview pr ogr esses t o w a r ds t h e u n dersta nd i ng a nd rep resentation of one of the themes in “a t t rib u t e s o f p hysi ca l form” – d ensi t y, diver sity and mix of use of ur ban e nvi r o n me n t . I t co m p ri ses of a com p r ehensive and c r itic al investigation o n t h e d e f in it io ns o f the concep ts, and their inter pr etation in differ ent co nt e x t s . A mo r e i n- d ep th exp l o ra ti on into the subjec t on how building he i g h t s , fo r m s a nd typ ol og i es sha pe and nur tur es soc ial qualities of p l a c e is t h e n ill ustra ted a l o ng wi th a c ase study in Shor editc h. By the e nd o f t h e lit e r ature rev i ew, i t i s ho p ed that a c onc eptual and analytic al t o o l k it c a n be p ro d uced to refl ect upon the r elevanc e in the field of u r b a n d e s ign r esea rch a nd p ra cti ce.

DENSITY

COGNITIVE & SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTORS

SPATIAL & ARCHITECTURAL CUES

BUILDING HEIGHT

DIVERSITY

CASE STUDY SHOREDITCH DENSITY

MIX OF USE

BUILDING FORM

BUILDING TYPOLOGY

SOCIAL QUALITIES OF CREATIVE CLUSTER

F I G U R E 1 . S t r u c tur e o f l i ter atur e r ev i ew

DE NS IT Y

PERCEIVED PUBLIC SPACE

BUILLDING

PEOPLE

PHYSICAL

ATTRIBUTES OF PHYSICAL FORM

The wor d “density ” may seem s t r a i g h t f or w a r d a n d ea s y t o d ef i n e, i n f a c t i t c a n b e a c om p l ex c on c ep t t h a t i s of t en b e i n g mi s un d e r s to o d and misinter pr eted. Indeed, i n Ca m b r i d g e Di c t i on a r y, “d en s i t y ” i s d ef i n ed a s “ t h e n u m b er of p eop l e or t h i n g s i n a p l a c e w h e n c ompar ed with the size of th e p l a c e” ( Ca m b r i d g e U n i ver s i t y Pr es s , n o d a t e, n o p a g e) , s u g g es t i n g va g u en es s i n th e w o r d i ts e l f. T h i s c ould be explained with the b r oa d s p ec t r u m of d ef i n i t i on s of d en s i t y u n d er d i f f er en t c on t ex t s a n d i n d i f f er en t d i s c i p l i n e s .

In ur ban design and plannin g, d en s i t y c a n b e u n d er s t ood i n t w o p er s p ec t i ves – p h ys i c a l d en s i t y a n d p er c ei ved d e n s i ty. C h e n g ( 2 0 1 0 ) c ategor ises physic al density i n t o p eop l e d en s i t y a n d b u i l d i n g d en s i t y, a d d i n g a n ot h er l a yer t o i t i s op en s p a c e d e n s i ty d e mo n s tr a te d b y D ovey (2 0 1 6 ). Whilst physic al d en s i t i es c a n b e vi ew ed a s “ a m u l t i p l i c i t y of i n t er c on n ec t ed c on c ep t s ” ( Dovey, 201 6 , p . 3 1 ) , th e y a r e a l l measur ed differ ently (FIGUR E 4) . A n i s s u e t h a t h a s b een w i d el y r es ea r c h ed i s t h e a b s en c e of i n t eg r a t ed m od el th a t c a n d e mo n s tr a te their inter c onnec tions and t h ei r c ol l ec t i ve i n f l u en c es on t h e u r b a n en vi r on m en t . Dovey a n d Pa f k a ( 2014) d evel o p e d a n a s s e mb l a g e model that, in theor y, allow i n ves t i g a t i on of d en s i t y a n d u r b a n i n t en s i t y i n a n y u r b a n m or p h ol og y b y a s s em b li n g e x i s ti n g b ui l d i n g, population, and open spac e d en s i t y m od el s .

FLOOR AREA RATIO

PLOT COVERAGE

DWELLING DENSITY PER HACTARE

PLOT COVERAGE

RESIDENTIAL DENSITY

OCCUPANCY DENSITY

OPEN SPACE RATIO

PLOT FACTOR

STREETLIFE DENSITY

PEOPLE OPEN SPACE

W hi l s t t h e r e ar e d i sti ncti o ns o n wa ys density is measur ed, the way it is per c eive d a n d e xp e r ie n c e d als o d i ffer a cro ss org anisations of spatial and ar c hitec tur al en t i t i es .

Pe rce iv e d d e n s i ty i s a n i nd i v i d ua l ’ s per c eption and exper ienc e on the gr oun d i n a g i ve n a r e a , t h e sp a ce a v a i l a b l e a nd its or ganization” (Tonk iss, 2 0 1 3 ; Rapop or t , 1 9 7 5 ) . F I G U R E 3 i l l ustra tes the conc ept using c ontr asting typology of building s w i t h t he s a m e d e n s ity b ut wi th d i fferent configur ation of public and pr ivate settings. B u i l tf o rm a n d a r c h itectura l fea tures a re k nown to be c ontr ibuting fac tor s to the per c ep t i on o f d en s it y, t h e y ra ng e fro m b ui l d i ng faç ade, height, layout, to str eet width, op en a nd gr e e n s p a ce, the l i st ca n g o o n. Multiple r esear c hes have been c onduc t ed t o e xp l o r e t h e ir s p a ti a l a nd so ci a l effec ts (Car mona et al., 2 0 1 0 ; Zac har ias and St a m p s , 2 0 0 4 ; B o n n e s et a l . , 1991; Fl a chsbar t, 1 9 7 9 ). It is also impor tant to bear in m i n d t ha t in d iv idu a l co g ni ti v e a nd so ci o - c ultur al fac tor s ar e also c ontr ibuting to peop l e’s p e rce p t io n o f d ensi ty, b ut thi s wi l l not be the foc us of this r eview.

BUILDING

F I G U RE 2 . Ty pe s of density

FIGURE 3. D i f f e r e n t bui l di n g co n f i gur ati o n o f th e s am e d e n s i t y

F I G U R E 4 . P h y s i c al densi ty measur ements

DIV E RS I TY Ra t her t h a n b ei ng a g oa l i tsel f, d en sity is mor e of a tool or measur ement for a c h i evi n g s om et h i n g el s e. O n e of t h e m os t d i s c u s s ed i s J a c ob s ’ ( 2011) c on c ep t o f us i n g d e n s i ty i n su p p o r t in g d iv ersi ty o f uses a nd o f user s. By establishing a notion that ther e i s a c l os e r el a t i on s h i p b et w een r es i d en t i a l , i n t er n a l a n d s t r eet l i f e d en s i t i es , s h e a r g u e d th a t ur b a n v i ta l i ty a nd s afe t y in mi xed - use, p erm ea b l e and small-gr ained development sc hemes ca n on l y b e a c h i eved w i t h d en s i t y b ec a u s e i t c ou l d s h a p e h i g h l evel of s t r eet l i f e a n d w a l ka b i l i ty w i th a c c e s s t o d iv e r s e am e n i ti es. Ho wev er there is still ambiguity in what diver sity is, how i t c a n b e m ea s u r ed , a n d h ow i t c a n b e a c h i eved . O n e of t h e m or e s t r a i g h t f or w a r d d e f i n i ti o n o f d i v e r s i ty i s : “a s t at e o r q ua l i ty o f b ei ng d i ffer ent or var ies, a point of differ enc e” (Reev es , 2005, p .8) . S t i l l , i t i m p l i es d eg r ees of r el a t i vi t y a n d g en er a l i t y.

I nd e ed , d iv e r s ity ca n ha v e m ul ti p l e meanings. Studies on ur ban diver sity r ange f r om n ei g h b ou r h ood t o n a t i on a l s c a l es ; a n d f r om m i x i n g of b u i l d i n g, f u n c t i on s , s p a ti a l f o r ms to mi x i n g o f i n c o me , a g e, g end er, ra ce a nd e thnic ity (Tar batt, 2 0 1 2 ; Talen, 2 0 0 6 ; Reev es , 2005) . Des p i t e d i f f er en t p er s p ec t i ves on t h e i m p a c t s of d i ver s i t y, i t c a n b e c on c l ud e d th a t, i n ur b a n d i sc o u r s e , c o n n ecti o ns exi st b etwee n var ious dimensions of diver sity, whilst an d t h e g oa l i s t o s eek p l a c es w i t h p r es en c e of d i ver s i t y, a n d s t r a t eg i es t o s u s t a i n a n d s ti mul a te s o c i a l p hy s ic al h e t e r o g enei ty (Sa l a m a a nd Thier stein, 2 0 1 2 ).

IZ -L OT S

E

OM

IX

A MIX OF MIXES

INC

LM

T&

EN

To sum m a r is e , “the ra ng e of d i fferen t func tions housed in a r ange of differ ent b u i l d i n g s of d i f f er en t si ze s lin k s t o t he ra ng e o f d i fferent people who will live and wor k ther e” (D ove y, 2016, p .28)

DR

So c i a l m ix – n ot rel a ted i n “ use” , but r ather foc uses on the USERS of func ti on a l a n d f or m a l m i x w i t h t h e p r in c ipl e of a v oi d i ng sp a ti al segr egation ac c or ding to wealth, ethnic i t y, g en d er, a g e, or a b i l i ty.

CIA SO

F o r m a l m ix – ha s l ess d i rect l i nkage to “use”. Never theless, it foc uses in t h e a p p l i c a t i on a n d a d o p t io n o f d if ferent typ es, si ze, a g e and ar c hitec tur al style for the mixed-use b u i l d i n g s .

IXE

Fu n ct io n a l m ix – l i nks wi th l a nd use and mixed-use buildings; mixed uses c a n b e a c h i eved b y ha vi n g b u ild in gs whi ch ea ch ha s mix of uses (e.g. gr ound floor r etail, uppe r f l oor s r es i d en t i a l ) o r ha v in g a m i x of si ng l e - use b ui l dings (Car mona et al., 2 0 1 0 ). A good c it y or d i s t r i c t c a n b e d e t e r min e d b y how cha l l eng i ng i t i s to map out func tions of plac es and buildi n g s – i n t er m i x ed of f u nc t io n s ar e fa v o ured (Ti b b a l d s, 19 9 2 ).

C o n dit io n 4 “ Th er e must be a suf f icien t den se co n cen t r at io n o f peo ple, f o r w h at ev er pur po ses t h at may be t h er e”

-M

M i x o f u s e h a s b een cel eb ra ted a nd advoc ated sinc e Jac obs (2 0 1 1 ) pr oposition of f ou r c on d i t i on s i n c r e a t in g a d i v erse, l i v el y, a nd sa f e ur ban envir onment. As Tibbalds (1 9 9 2 ) s t a t ed , “ b es t u r b a n p l a c e s o f fe r a m i xture of uses a nd a var iety of ac tivities and exper ienc es” (p.32) . Dovey ( 2016) e st a b lis h e s t h a t urb a n m i x i s a b out the r elationship between func tions (func tiona l ) , b u i l d i n g s ( f or m a l ) a nd p e o ple ( s oci a l ), a nd ca l l s i t “ a mix of mixes” (p.2 6 ). H e also demonstr at ed h ow J a c ob s ’ f ou r co ndit io n s c an i n fa ct b e seen a s el ements of ur ban mix.

E FO & AG RM E & TY AL MI PE X

MIX O F U SE

Condition 3 “ The district must m ingle buildings that v ary in age and conditions”

FUNCTIONAL MIX - WORK & VISIT & LIVE

Condition 2 “Most blocks m ust be short; streets & opportunities to turn corners must be frequent ”

Condition 1 “ The dis trict... mus t s erve more than one primary function; preferably more than tw o...”

F I G U R E 5 . J a c o b s ’ fo u r c o n d i t i o n s i n c r e a t i n g d i v e r s i t y a nd “a mi x o f mi xes”

BEN VGPD 2 C R IT IC A L DE B ATE IN UR BA N DE S IGN A ND CIT Y PLAN N IN G 2017 - 2018 W I NG S Z E C AT H E R IN E C H AO

IN DIVIDUAL LITERATURE R EVI EW PR OJEC T

S o ci a l qu a lit ie s ca n b e m a noeuv red by var ious envir onments and c onditions. How ever t h e w a ys of h ow b u i l d i n g h ei g h t , f or m , a n d t y p o l o g y fa c ilit a te the soci a l q ua l i ti es and pr oc esses that nur tur e c r eative c lus t er s a r e t h e f oc u s i n t h e r em a i n i n g of t h i s r evi ew.

SO C I AL Q UA LI T IE S O F C R E AT IV E CLUS T E R S E a r l y w o r k fr o m B urg ess (1928) a nd Pr eston (1 9 6 6 ) suggested that the fr inge of t h e i n n er c i t y i s t h e c om m on l oc a t i on f or c r ea t i ve cl u s t e r s t h a t h a s m ul ti p l e p hysi ca l ch ar ac ter istic s “typified by mixed land use, a g i n g s t r u c t u r es , g en er a l i n s t a b i l i t y, a n d c h a n g e, a n d b y a w id e r a n g e i n typ e a nd q ua l i ty of func tions” (Pr eston, 1 9 6 6 , p.2 3 6 ). H owever w h a t ex a c t l y d r a w s c r ea t i ve p eop l e, a c t i vi t i es a n d e co no mie s in t o certa i n p l a ces? I n ter ms of soc ial ur ban studies, Flor ida (2 0 1 2 ) r ec og n i s es q u a l i t y of p l a c e a s a k ey f a c t or t h a t d r i ves t he c o n glo m e r a ti on of crea ti v e cl a ss. Quality of plac e is defined as “the unique s et of c h a r a c t er i s t i c s t h a t d ef i n es a p l a c e a n d m a k es i t a t t ra c t iv e ” ( F lo r i d a , 2012, p . 280), and it spr eads ac r oss 3 dimensions: what ’s t h er e, w h o’s t h er e, a n d w h a t ’s g oi n g on . Wi t h i n t h es e d i men s io n s , 8 s oci a l q ua l i ti es o f creative c luster s have been identified (Figure 6) . G i ven t h e l i m i t a t i on on t h e l en g t h of t h i s r evi ew, o nl y S O C I A L I NTE RAC TI O N , D I V E RSITY , and IDENTITY qualities of two sele c t ed s i t es i n S h or ed i t c h a r e b ei n g ex a m i n ed .

CASE S TU DY: S H O R E DITC H

Th e t w o s el ec t ed s i t es a r e l oc a t ed i n S h or ed i t c h , F I G U R E 6 . 8 s o c i a l q u a l i ti es o f cr eati v e cl uster s London Borough of Hackney, East London. Since the m i d - 1990s S h or ed i t c h h a s b ec om e t h e h om e t o a w i d e r a n g e of a c t i vi t i es a n d b u s i n es s es of t h e c r ea t i ve i n d u s t r y. Th i s c r ea t i v e c l us te r h a s mo r e r ec en t l y ex p a n d ed t o p a r t s of t h e O l d S t r eet a r ea w i t h a c on c en t r a t i on of w e b a n d s o f twa r e t ec h n ol og y c om p a n i es . B es i d es n ew d evel op m en t p r oj ec t s , m os t b u s i n es s es occ up y b ui l d i n g s th a t h a ve b een c on ver t ed f r om f or m er i n d u s t r i a l b u i l d i n g s .

F I G U R E 7 . Lo n d o n B o r o u g h o f H a c k n e y (l e ft ); S h o r e d i t c h wa r d a n d l o c a t i o n o f s e l e c ted si tes ( r i ght)

SITE 1 – W HITE COLLAR FACTORY White Collar Fac tor y (FIG U RE 8) i s a r ed evel op m en t p r oj ec t l oc a t ed a t t h e c or n er of t h e O l d S t r eet Rou n d a b ou t . C o mp l e te d i n 2 0 1 7 , the 1 5 -level offic e building is h ou s i n g 9 d i f f er en t c r ea t i ve b u s i n es s es . Ri g h t n ex t t o t h e b u i l d i n g i s a n ew p u b l i c c o ur ty a r d , O l d Str e e t Yar d. The building is about 7 0m i n h ei g h t ; i t h a s a 45% p l ot c over a g e a n d a 7.7 F l oor A r ea Ra t i o. A c c or d i n g t o A l ex a n d e r ( 1 9 7 7 ) , us e o f land c an be optimised and c on t i n u ou s u r b a n f a b r i c c a n b e f or m ed b y b u i l d i n g n o m or e t h a n h a l f of t h e t ot a l s i t e ar e a . Fur th e r mo r e , i ts topology is a TOWER. It is said t h a t “ TO W E R d oes n ot n ec es s a r i l y a c h i eve d en s i t y b u t i t d oes es t a b l i s h IDE NTITY” ( D o v e y, 2 0 1 6 , p . 7 1 ) .

With r efer enc e to Lync h’s (1 9 61) t h eor y, t h e a r ea h a s a u n i q u e i d en t i t y a s t h e S i l i c on Rou n d a b ou t a n d t h e b u i l d i n g c o ul d b e r e g a r d e d as the LAND MARK for the Old S t r eet p a r t of S h or ed i t c h .

T

STREE

While it may seem lik e ther e is a l a c k of s oc i a l i n t er a c t i on a n d d i ver s i t y d u e t o t h e m i n i m a l a r ea s of a c t i vi t i es ( F IG UR E 9 ) a n d s i n g ul a r business land use (FIGURE 1 0) , m os t s oc i a l i n t er a c t i on a n d a c t i vi t i es i n f a c t ex i s t s w i t h i n t h e b u i l d i n g i t s el f. W h i te C o l l a r Fa c to r y i s a building designed for c o -wor k i n g, i n a d d i t i on t o t h e s i t e vi s i t s I p er f or m ed f or t h i s t a s k , I h a ve h a d t h e c h a n c e t o t our a r o un d th e b ui l d i n g last semester. Fr om my obser v a t i on , m os t s p a c es on ea c h f l oor a r e d es i g n ed w i t h f l ex i b i l i t y f or a d i ver s e u s e, a n d s o c i a l i n te r a c ti o n i s enc our aged in an open offic e en vi r on m en t w i t h p eop l e f r om d i f f er en t c om p a n i es u s i n g t h e s a m e s p a c e ( F IG U RE 1 1 ) , wh i c h i s e x a c tl y the qualities needed in c r eative c l u s t er s ( Ma r t i n s , 2015) . In a d d i t i on , ef f or t s h a ve b een m a d e t o c om p en s a t e t h e w e a ke r v i ta l i ty c a us e by single land-use thr ough Ol d S t r eet Ya r d . It c r ea t es a m or e c on vi vi a l en vi r on m en t i n t h e op en s p a c e t h r ou g h s t i mul a ti n g a v a r i e ty o f use with soft landsc aping and t h e p r es en c e of c h a i r s a n d t a b l es f or p eop l e t o u s e ( W h yt e, 1980) .

CITY ROA

OLD STREET YARD

D

WHITE COLLAR FACTORY

MALLOW

STREET

OLD

Commercial F I G U R E 1 1 . E x t e r i o r a n d i n t e r i o r o f Wh i t e C o l l a r Fa c t o r y i n r eal l i f e F I G U RE 8 . S it e plan

FI GUR E 9. Ar e as o f acti v i ti e s

F I G U R E 1 0 . La n d u s e

CORBET PLAC

E

SITE 2 – 11 4 – 1 1 8 C O M M E R CIA L S T R E E T & JACKS P L ACE

114 – 118 Commercial Street & Jacks Place

ER

MM

CO AL CI ET

RE

ST

T hi s i s a s it e ( F I GURE 12) com p ri ses of two 5 -6 levels mixed-use buildings. Loc at ed i n t h e c o r n e r of Co m m erci a l Street and Cor bet Plac e junc tion, it is one minu t e a w a y fr o m t h e Shored i tch wel l - kno wn str eet – Br ic k Lane. The building is housin g r e t a i l u n it s , r e s ta ura nts, ca fés, stud i os, and offic es. The buildings ar e about 1 2m t o 2 8m in h e ight; i t ha s a 76% p l o t c over age and a 4 .6 Floor Ar ea Ratio. T h e si t e i s m a d e u p of 2 m a i n b ui l d i ng for ms: 1 1 4 – 1 1 8 Commer c ial Str eet has a mo re c o n t e mp ora ry fa ça d e a nd use of c omposition in building bloc k s, wher ea s J a c ks P lac e w a s form erl y a wa reho use and has been c onver ted into c ommer c i a l u se s . J ac k s P lace, i n p a rti cul a r, exhibits str ong degr ee of adaption in use, whi c h i s f a v o u r ab le in a ev er- cha ng i ng creative c luster (Flor ida, 2 0 1 2 ). The ir r egul a r sha p e s fo r m e d b y the 2 b ui l d i ng s create a H YBRID building typology, c ontr ibutin g t o a n “ o r ga n ic ” IDEN TITY i n urb a n fabr ic that r eflec ts the Shor editc h industr i a l p a st .

HANBURY STREET

FIGURE 12. Site plan

S u ch t y p o lo gy often l ea d s to a rel a tively lac k ing open spac e, however it has n ot l i mi t e d t h e a m o unt a nd a rea o f a ctivities within the site (FIG U RE 1 3 ). Soc i a l i nt e ra c t io n c o u l d b e sp o tted wi thi n and outside the buildings. This c ould be du e t o i t s p r o x imit y to a m a j or ro a d – C ommer c ial Str eet – but mor e impor tantly th e si t e h as a div e r se l a nd uses, wi th a c tive gr ound floor fr ontages with r etail uni t s a nd r e s t au r an t s (FIGURE 15) tha t for m inter ac tive str eet edges and enc our ages a d a p t iv e u s e o f ol d b ui l d i ng s (Gehl , 2 0 0 6 ).

CO NC LU SI O N

(A r c h d a i l y, 2 0 1 5 )

F I G U R E 13. Ar eas o f acti v i ti es

Studi o space Co mmer ci al Retai l , r estaur ants, caf es

FIGURE 14. Aerial view

F IGURE 15. Land use

W hi l s t S it e 1 and Si te 2 exhi b i t v ery differ ent building height, for m and typolog y, b ot h s i t es c on t r i b u t e t o s h a p i n g a n d n u r t u r i n g of s oc i a l q u a l i t i es of c r ea t i ve c l u s te r s i n d i f f e r e n t wa y s a nd a t d if fe r e n t d eg ree. Howev er this does not mean that they ar e the “ideal” u r b a n s p a t i a l c on f i g u r a t i on s or u s e of d en s i t y f or a l l c r ea t i ve c l u s t er s . W h et h er or n o t p a r ti c ul a r a ttr i b ute s o f p h y s ic al fo r m wo rks wel l i n the urban fabr ic var ies ac r oss ar eas and is dep en d en t on ot h er b u i l t en vi r on m en t el em en t s . B u i l d i n g s a n d u r b a n m or p h ol og i es m us t a d a p t to th e s o c i a l a nd ec o n o mic c o ntext o f the a rea . This might also be the r eason for the inc on c l u s i ve d ef i n i t i on s a n d i n t er p r et a t i on s of d en s i t y, d i ver s i t y, a n d m i x of u s e.