Page 1

00 | ABSTRACT In the beginning was the city The Megacities phenomena is historically ascertain: The antic Greece’s polis were the Mega-cities of the Classicism, Rome was the first mega-city in the world history and if we look back through the cases like London and Paris, the population grew up remarkably with arrival of the industrial revolution, which can be compared with the Chinese system of megalopolis. The Megacities not only represent our past, but also our future. If the cities were in possession of a magnetic force on the territory, the Megacities instead are the melting pot of opportunities and challenges given by the high concentration of social, economical, political infrastructure and energetic potential. In fact, we are speaking about Global Cities, where the impact of the social process use to have a big influence on urban development, where the network is essential ingredient for a radical transformation up to come. The questions of local urbanism- immigration, job, social marginality,and sustainability - nowadays have global influence and they had to be studied by looking the Global Cities as complementary knot of the interconnected network. This case study is based to have an eye for the relationship between the visibly network (economic, society, governance) and invisibly one (territorial morphology and infrastructure) and how the first have the influence on the second considering multiplicity scale. This connection appears in the cities or part of them, that are physically separated but functionally connected, so that, they can make stronger connections between different Global Cities than within their very regional or interregional territories, which they belong.

If the existing network between society and urban structure can be visible on the regional scale, in the Europe it appears on the urban scale. The purpose is to demonstrate how these complex networks can be read in the case study of London 2012, the first Global City in Europe. It will investigate the central structure of Ilford, its socioeconomic set-up as public facilities distribution and population diversity, in order to understand the intrinsic potentials of this new London hub. The relation between spatial components and functional needs is the starting point for a strategic intervention in the opportunity area, in sight of the upcoming high-speed rail station. Through the elaboration of typological “working class” block and through spatial collective hybridization, the planning intervention attend to give birth to the new forms of urban quality able to conjugate global corridor together with local hierarchy in one urban catalyst.

Andrijana Sekulic Claudia M. M. Sinatra

1 2

5

1 2

5

1 2

1 2

5

5

425 1 2

5

1 2

5

1

1 2

2

5

5

1

1

2

2

5

5 1 2

5

1 2

5

Complex(C)ity

The Network Metropolis of Global London.

Observations and design suggestions for a multifunctional centrality in Ilford. 1 2

1 2

5

UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA

5

00 ABSTRACT 01 URBANIZATION OF THE WORLD 02 MEGACITIES METABOLISM 03 EUROPE OF CITY REGIONS 04 SOUTH EAST ENGLAND DNA 05 KEY LONDON 06 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK 07 STRATEGIES 08 HYBRID CLUSTER: THE PLINTH 09 HYBRID CLUSTER: THE INTERFACE 10 HYBRID CLUSTER: THE GRAFT 11 VERTICAL LIVING 12 HYBRID FEELING

COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD


01 | URBANIZATION OF THE WORLD human footprint

population (in milions)

less influenced

1 5 10

more influenced

london

Source: wildlife conservation (WSC) and Central for International Earth Science information network (CIESIN)

tokyo new york city

growth (person per hour) +10

+30

-0.1

+50

st petersburg

+1

shanghai

london

0

-0.4

+20

kharkiv

year

seul

beijing

1950 national ecological footprint*

mumbai

mexico city

+3

urbanization level

12

10

8

6

dubai

-0.3

mexico city

johannesburg

*global ha/person (2006)

4

sydney

2

0

HDI 0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

mumbai

+22

das es salaam

+12

jakarta

lima

levels of urbanization related with the energy consumption challenge the earth’s capacity to sustain balanced and equitable growth. Source: the data had been compile by LSE cities

+3

johannesburg são paulo

+3.2

santiago

1.0

sydney

population (in milions)

population (in milions)

1

1

5

5

10

10

regression index

human development index

no recession

london

major recession | full recovery minor recession | full recovery major recession | partial recovery minor recession | partial recovery

london

shanghai

+44

khartoum

lagos são paulo

2025 Source: Revision of World Urbanization Prospects, United Nations, 2009, http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup Source: The endless city, Urban Age LSE, 2011

+26

cairo

havana

+10

1990

tokyo

+49

new york city

< 20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% 70-80% 80-90% >90%

tokyo

new york city

partial recession

shanghai

full recession

0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.5 0.5 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 - 0.9 0.9 - 1.0 1.0

istanbul

new york city

tokyo

development index (2010)

shanghai

mexico city mumbai

developed country developing country underdeveloped country

mumbai

mexico city

no data

são paulo

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

johannesburg sydney

40% 44% 49% 55% 62% 67% 72% 75% 78%

the Human Development Index is a composite measure to track educational attainment, life expectancy and economic development. Source: various United Nations Development Programme Human Develompent; Reports sources with local sources compiled by Urban Age

60% 56% 51% 45% 38% 33% 28% 25% 22%

427

johannesburg

develop-ing vs -ed

são paulo

0

economic performance ranking by world region

20

29 36

40

Source: rookings analysis of data from Oxford Economics, Mood’s Analyitics and U.S. Census Bureau

economic performance developed metro areas

80

Source: brookings analysis of data from Oxford Economics, Moody's Analytics, and U.S. Census Bureau

90

100

106

116

117

120

127 developing developed eastern asia-pacific asia-pacific europe and (n=18) (n=24) central asia (n=11)

average annual growth rate in GVA

foregin investments (in millions of USD)

+1.00

200 000 40 000 16 000

+5.00 +10.00

economic performance developing metro areas

43

48

60

latin america (n=12)

middle

east and

africa

(n=11)

north america (n=64)

developing

western europe

(n=42)

(n=60)

Source: brookings analysis of data from Oxford Economics, Mood’s Analytics and U.S.

developed (n=158)

4 000

year the Gross Value Added measures the domestic output of a wider region around the city

+2.2 london

+2.0

+1.2

vancouver

paris

+2.2

+3.4

+1.9

los angeles

-0.1

Source: e data have been compiled by the LSE cities where Urban Age is located for the Global Metro monitor research project

+7.9

moscow

berlin

tianjin

+9.4

+1.8

shanghai

istanbul

madrid

+2.8

+2.6

cairo

austin

+1.6

+9.7 -1.8 riyadh

mumbai

mexico city

+7.2

+1.7

bangalore

bogotà

+0.5

+4.6

calcutta

-1.2

GDP - GVA income per capita country - regional average

maximum average minumum

+3.0

singapore

200

*value archieved by cities in a region. overline values indicates best than national performance.

150

jakarta

+1.8

rio de janeiro

santiago

socioeconomic performance index

300

bangkok

lima

+3.2

city vs nation

800

500

+1.1

+4.5

1000

tokyo

guangzhou

+2.4 dubai +4.1

Source: world development indicators, World Bank, 2000, C.Rozenbalt, 2000 www.unctad.org/fdistatistics

+11.4

bucharest

+1.6

new york city

san jose

+7.8

1980 1988 2010

+1.7

são paulo

100

+1.2

75

johannesburg

+1.0

cape town

50

+1.9 sydney

UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA

25 europe

united states

brazil

india

china

south africa

289 cities above 50,000 GDP - PPP/person 34,741 US$

273 large cities

94 large cities

GDP - PPP/person 47,398 US$

GDP - PPP/person 10,512 US$

35 cities over 200,000 GDP - PPP/person 2,790 US$

40 cities over 700,000 GDP - PPP/person 5,990 US$

24 cities over 25,000 GDP - PPP/person 10,442 US$

COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD


02 | MEGACITIES METABOLISM

urban footprint

connecting density

city

rail underground

region built-up area

%

planned extension population density

MUMBAI

%

$

current population in the city

current population in the metropolitan region

central area density(people per km�)

project growth 2010-2050

city as a prectenage of national GDP

city as a prectenage of national population

GDP per capita (US$)

percentage of the people under 20

11,710,100

19,280,100

45,021

44

2.9%

0.9

$1,871

36,3 2001

MUMBAI

SÃO PAOLO

SÃO PAOLO

MUMBAI

ISTANBUL

NEW YORK NEW YORK

MEXICO CITY

SHANGHAI

ISTANBUL

LONDON

SHANGHAI

LONDON

JOHANNESBURG

BERLIN

MEXICO CITY

JOHANNESBURG

SÃO PAOLO

10,400,000

ISTANBUL

12,700,000

NEW YORK

8,090,000

SHANGHAI

15,460,000

15,460,000

LONDON

7,560,000

7,560,000

MEXICO CITY

8,580,000

JOHANNESBURG

3,230,000

BERLIN

3,330,000

19,220,000

11

10,376

11.9%

5.8

31.0

$12,021

2010

12,700,000

12

20,128

18,820,000

9

15,353

22.0%

17.8

$12,856

3.3%

2.8

$55,693

32,1 2009

25.7 2008

5.0%

26

23,227

1.0

16,0

$8,237

2005

3.4%

1

8,326

12.4

$60,831

23.8

$18,321

32.9

2009

BERLIN

major world airline routes city size

19,240,000

14.8%

10

12,880

8.4

2005

3,890,000

3.4%

3

2,203

8.1

$9,229

34,6 2010

world city major center secondary center

london

4,330,000

0

0

6,683

4.2

$34,017

16,5 2008

more frequently routes istanbul

new york city

tokyo

Source: world develompent indicators, world bank,2000

mumbai

mexico city

429

region airline routes

shanghai

1 2

são paulo

5

housing

income

wealth

travel

crime

average rent per month in US$

GDP per capita in US$

working time required in minutes to buy 1 kg of bread

average cost of public transport ticket in US$

murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants

anual electricity use (kWh per capita)

litres per capita per day

1,000

$1,871

14

0.2

3.0

579

90

SÃO PAOLO

570

$12,021

30

1.6

21.0

1.954

185

ISTANBUL

610

$12,856

14

1.0

3.0

2.267

155

NEW YORK

2,500

$55,693

16

2.3

6.3

6.603

607

SHANGHAI

360

$8,237

35

1.5

1.4

6.357

439

LONDON

2.390

$60,831

5

7.1

4.539

324

MEXICO CITY

810

$18,321

53

0.2

13.2

1.00

343

JOHANNESBURG

640

$9,299

12

1.2

15.7

3.388

378

BERLIN

750

$34,017

12

3.8

1.2

3.880

johannesburg

electricity

water

sydney

MUMBAI

social footprint

urban economy

administrative boundaries

<1

most disadvantaged average

4 1 18

tertiary sector

1

7

13

29

<1

15

primary and secondary sector

29 10

most privileged

non - market services

34

MUMBAI

SÃO PAOLO

ISTANBUL

Source: All maps are drawn with data gathered from local data source and generated froma ‘heat sensitive‘ GIS technology compiled by LSE cities

30

37

15

33

24

transport, hotels, restaurants energy and manufacturing construction

MUMBAI

ISTANBUL

SÃO PAOLO

Source: Urban Age reserach by LSE cities

<1 31

3 4

8 6

26 39

34

31

24 40

12

23

NEW YORK

SHANGHAI

agriculture

27

17

NEW YORK

LONDON

SHANGHAI

LONDON

<1

<1 4 15

2.2

7 27

3

6 21

11

20 40 23

23

11 42 26

MEXICO CITY

JOHANNESBURG

BERLIN

MEXICO CITY

20

JOHANNESBURG

BERLIN

171

Source: Urban Age reserach by LSE cities

UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA

COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD


03 | EUROPE OF CITIES Oslo Moscow

Stockholm

globalization and world cities (GaWC)

european urban system

global

strong relation increasing relation selective relation supporting relation underlying relation

sub-global national capitals

population (in milions)

potential relation break break relevant integrated system consoldated integrated system blu banana

1 Copenhagen

5 10

Dublin

Warsaw

Rank cities score in terms of interconnectivity

Berlin

New York City

Amsterdam

London

Düsseldorf

Brussel

London Prague

6.22

5.42

Hong Kong

Zurich Geneve Milan

Boston

7,100,000 4.14 650,420 amsterdam 589,955 rotterdam Chicago 3.94 581,810 the hague 295,335 utrecht Los Angeles 3.90 5,500,000 Flemish Diamond brussel Singapore 1,089,5383.45 483,505 antwerp 243,366 ghent Sydney 95,4633.44 leuven Randstad

Budapest

Venice

Istanbul

3.03

13,900,000 Vienna commuter belt 2.96

7,560,000 5.35

Paris Vienna

Munich

Berlin

5.86 population Madrid 3.02 metro-urban in the blue banana

Tokyo London

Frankfurt

Paris

strategic node policentric node

Source: GaWC Reasearch Network

Hamburg

SeoulEMRZ 3,800,000 3.40 Zurich Brussels

372,000

3.29

2.78

Frankfurt

2.78

Shanghai

2.78

Buenos Aires

2.73

Stockholm

2.71

Zurich

2.68

Moscow

2.61

Barcelona

2.57

11,316,000 3.26 Dubai 1,000,289 cologne 586,217 düsseldorf Washington, D.C.581,308 3.25 Rome dortmund 576,259 essen 491,931 duigsburg Toronto 3.13 Amsterdam 319,841 bonn

2.56

Beijing

2.41

Rhein-Ruhr

San Francisco

Rome

Barcelona Madrid Lisbon

Athen

3.12

Mexico City

network structure development center

urban region

centrifugal mode - rhine ruhr

centripetal mode - london

2.56

2.54 incorporational mode - randstad

Venice 3,500,000 metropolitan 309,000 venice-mestre region 215,000 padua "the world’s biggest, most interconnected cities help set global agendas, 107,000 vicenza weather transnational dangers, and serve as the hubs of global 84,000 treviso

integration. They are the engines of growth for their countries and the gateways to the resources their regions." Source: Eurostat;ofESPON (European Spatial Planning Observation Foreign Policy journal Network

Moscow

european population

foreign investments

metropolitan Regions with more than 5 million residents.

Less than 50

Source: Eurostat, United Nations

Berlin-Brandenburg South East England

Randstad

metropoli globali secondo livello

100 - 150

metropolitani polarizzati

150 - 250

centri metropolitani puri

250 - 350

metropoli comando

350 - 500

metropoli europee complete

Stuttgart Zurich

Lombardia

1000 - 1500

high skills cluster

1500 - 2500

traditional cluster the “blue banana”

More than 2500

Munich

*Knowledge intensive FDI (excl. finance) Venice

european network structure

direction cluster

500 - 1000

Rhine-Ruhr Rhine-Main

Ile de France

globalization and world cities (GaWC) metropoli globali primo livello

50 - 100

Source: Global and World Cities Network, Geography Department at Loughborough University

Source: Eurostat, UnitedFDI Nations *Knowledge intensive (excl. finance)

LONDON

RANDSTAD

RUHRGEBIET

FLEMISH DIAMOND (VLAAMSE RUIT)

BASEL-ZURICH-BERN

VENICE METROPOLITAN REGION

Istanbul

Barcelona Madrid

foreign population as a share of the total population

EU high-speed railways (2010)

stockholm

sokttan

33.5%

completed

foreign-born*

category I category II category III

%

42.5% 13.9%

16.4% 94.2%

non-nationals**

not completed category I category II category III

planed category I category II category III

ports and harbor

%

airports 57.6%

the main reason for migrating foreign-born persons aged 25–54 who mi- grated to the EU when they were aged 15 or over.

31.2% 8.8% %

*Foreign-born persons are those whose place of birth (or usual residence 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% of the motherat the time of the birth) is outside the country of his/her usual residence.

glasgow

employment, job found before migration

43.2% 10.9%

10%

33.1% 11.0%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

46.7% 11.6% 56.1% 36% 73%

48%

73.1% 21.7%

birmingham

foreign-born

international protection

non-EU-27-born

other

60.3% 15.2%

Germany

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

london

Danzica, Katowice, Žilina frankfurt

nancy tours

Danubio

nurnberg wien

karlsruhe stuttgart

metz

paris

Venezia, Trieste, Lubiana, Maribor, Budapest, Uzhhorod, Leopoli, Kiev

wroclaw

erfurt

brussel

persons with a foreign background persons with a mixed background

Dresda, Norimberga, Praga, Vienna, Bratislava, Győr, Budapest, Arad, Bucarest, Constanţa, Craiova, Sofia, Salonicco, Filippopoli, Istanbul

halle

rotterdam antwerp

Durazzo, Tirana, Skopje, Bitola, Sofia, Dimitrovgrad, Burgas, Varna Helsinki, Vyborg, San Pietroburgo, Pskov, Mosca, Kaliningrad, Kiev, Chişinău, Bucarest, Dimitrovgrad, Alessandropoli

munich

Salisburgo, Lubiana, Zagabria, Belgrado, Niš, Skopje, Veles, Salonicco

basel

Source: Trans-European Transport Network, TEN-T

Belgium

51.8%

Luxemburg

63.6% 0.1%

santiago de compostela

United Kingdom

49.1% 7.3%

bilbao

porto

Netherlands

aveiro

Hungary 71.4% 11.1%

toulouse

Poland

cordoba seviglia

Slovakia càdiz

Espagna

rom

barcelona

Ireland Czech Republic

istanbul

zaragoza

toledo

lisbon

bologna

marseille figures

madrid

verona venice

montpellier

perpignan

valladoid salamanca

portugal

Austria 46.4% 13.9%

dax

burgos

Slovenia

milan genova

oviedo

Portugal

ljubljana turin

bordeaux

France Littvania

7.2%

lyon

limoges

Greece 90%

52.1%

Bruxelles, Aquisgrana, Colonia, Dresda, Breslavia, Katowice, Cracovia, Leopoli, Kiev

amsterdam

Estonia

49.5%

Berlino, Poznań, Varsavia, Brěst, Minsk, Smolensk, Mosca, Nizhny Novgorod

warszawa

berlin

hamburg

second-generation migrants aged 25–54 by type of background, 2008 0%

64.7%

bremen

liverpool leeds

study

90% 100%

47% 0.1%

Corridoi paneuropei Helsinki, Tallinn, Riga, Kaunas, Klaipėda, Varsavia, Danzica

employment, **56 % of the non-nationals living on the territory of the EU-27foreign-born Member States have European citizenship; no job40% found before migration 37 % are citizens of another EU Member State and 19% are citizens of a non-EU country. Around non-EU-27-born of the EU-27 foreigners come from countries outside Europe. family reasons

14.0%

50.5% 11.1%

kobenhagen

athen valencia

granada

alicante

ronda malaga

Italia Source: Eurostat, United Nations

UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA

COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD

431


04 | SOUTH EAST ENGLAN DNA

birmingham and the west midlands milton Keynes

south east england spatial strategy

air-water hubs

regional spoke

port airport

international gateway

highways intercity rail regional rail

regional hub cambridge

transport hub aylesbury

luton

motorway

Source: UK Department for Transport; UK Ordnance Survey; Natural England, Defra (UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

ipswich

milton keynes

trunk road

oxford

channel tunnel railway

luton

airport

Swindon

slough

port

reading Bristol/Bath

London

camberley farnborough

woking

gunfleet sands I & II

London

swindon

southend-on-sea

relgace gulldford

reading

southend-on-sea

London

swindon

canterbury

chatham & gillingham

300

kentish flats

CO2 emmission thanet

maidstone tonbridge

redhill

90

ramsgate chatham

aldershot salisbury / exeter

108 65 oxford

rochester ebbstleet

annual power generation in Mega Watt (MW) Source: LDA (London Development Agency); RenewableUK: Natural England, Defra (UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

luton

oxford

staines

Basingstoke

energy production 100

14 milton keynes

reading

dover

ashford

gatwick

agriculture (0.3%)s

domestic use of fuels

chatham & gillingham

21

crawley

bournemouth / pool

Southampton

havant chichester

transport little cheyne court

worthing hove

60

energy

southampton

hastings eastbourne

brighton

portsmouth bognor regis ryde

southampton portsmouth

nuclear heat

bournemouth

brighton

solid fuel

36

natural gas petroleums

monocentric density bloomsbury, london population per km²

luton town centre

Source: ONS (UK Office of National Statistics)

oxford town centre

built-up land within 500 m from open non-agricultural land

milton keynes

mixed-use

> 1,000 1,000 - 5,000 5,000 - 10,000 < 10,000

luton

oxford

built up land

> 10,000 5,000 - 10,000 1,000 - 5,000 < 1,000

east ham, london

luton 7,988 pp/km2

land use

predominantly residential

more dense less dense

milton Keynes 5,519 pp/km2 Oxford milton keynes 6,602 pp/km2

9 3 14 38

bournemouth

London 17,325 pp/km2

industry, energy, commercial gas generation

renewables

brighton

portsmouth

little cheyne court

isle of wight

56

23

highspeed rail link to Belgium and France

open non-agricultural land (> 2ha)

predominantly commercial workplaces per km²

luton

central urban areas

Source: Natural England, Defra (UK Department for East Environment, *38% of South England’sFood and Rural Affairs) population lies with in 500 meters of non-agricultural open land

oxford

Source: ONS (UK Office of National Statistics) southend-on-sea town centre

southend-on-sea

London

swindon

Southend-on-Sea 8,663 pp/km2

reading

London

swindon

southend-on-sea

canary wharf

reading town centre

east gillingham

reading

chatham & gillingham

chatham & gillingham

Reading 8,175 pp/km2

heathrow airport

croydon + urban areas

ashford stansted

little cheyne court Southampton 6,462 pp/km2

orpington

portsmouth

bournemouth

brighton town centre

portsmouth town centre

southhampton town centre

brighton

portsmouth

southampton brighton

433

little cheyne court southampton

bournemouth + suburban areas

Brighton 13,443 pp/km2

Portsmouth 12,902 pp/km2

buissnes climate

GDP per capita university rank

6 5 4

R&D public

break monocentricity

more than 15,000

crossrail

10,000 to 15,000

milton keynes

Source: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

population density

3

commuters in one direction

top ten performing regions south east england inner london outer london kent

GDP weighted

travel network

milton keynes

5,000 to 10,000

Work-related commuter flows between local authorities

luton

luton

2 oxford

1 unemployment

0

business

oxford

southend-on-sea

London

swindon

-1 -2

reading

chatham & gillingham

reading

southend-on-sea

chatham & gillingham

elsewhere 6

competition

patents

London

swindon starting in greater london

94 within greater london

access by air

human capital

little cheyne court

little cheyne court starting outer greater London

southampton brighton

portsmouth

access by road

specialisation HMH

transport CO2 emissions

southampton

elsewhere

portsmouth

brighton

17

bournemouth

specialisation KIS

bournemouth

23

83

road freight

type of workers 7

self-employed

4

14

part-time time 79

usual method to travel

temporary employees

workers with second jobs

unemployed

1

25 full time 65

private motorised

walking and cycling

motobike cycle 14 4

13

26

7

cars

people work-hyperconcentretion

61-80 min >80 min 41-60 min 13 10

bus rail 11

public transport 73

60

time taken to travel to work

usual method to travel to work

other

6

foot

21-40 min

24 62

up to 20 min

london brighton oxford luton reading portsmouth southampton milton keynes

4,976

7,854 8,835

12,173 13,813 11,530 12,086

49 car and motorcycle

within greater london

e economic activity

ground based taxi rail underground 4 4 aviation 11 bus 5 4

distance travelled per person

cars rail taxi bus cycle walk

1,150 364 275 72 300 *number data in km per year

employed

UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA

COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD


05 | KEY LONDON

1834

1846

1847

poor law amendament act

nuisance removal act

town public health improvement act act

1848

1872

1875

1885

1889

public health act

public health act

artisans' and labourers' dwellings act

london county council (LCC)

establishes a coherent administrative machinery to deal locally with issues of health and sanitation.

conditions considered

reformes the country's poverty relief system, including the building of workhouses.

habitation in living accommodation

housing of the working class act

1894

1898

1905

london building act

local government act

royal commission on congestion

1909

1845

1887

1898

1900

1902

1903

parliament authorizes more than 600 acts for new improvement schemes in british towns

In The Condition of the Working Class in England, F. Engels write about London “A town, such as London, where a man may wander for hours together without reaching the beginning of the end, without meeting the slightest hint which could lead to the inference that there is open country within reach, is a strange thing. This colossal centralisation, this heaping together of two and a half millions of human beings at one point, has multiplied the power of this two and a half millions a hundredfold; has raised London to the commercial capital of the world, created the giant docks and assembled the thousand vessels that continually cover the Thames.”

charles booth’s poverty map reveals that more than 30% of urban population live under an inacceptable standard

e. howard publishes “to-morrow: a peaceful path to real reform” introducing the idea of garden city

the county of london covers the city of london and 28 boroughs for an area of 303.12 km²

A revisioned version of Howard’s book is published under the name of “Garden Cities of to-morrow”

work begins on letchworth, britain's

a. blanqui used the term “industrial revolution” describing the contemporary era; it is a turning point for the creation of a modern city

1976

1963

1980

draft greater london local government, development plan planning and lad act (urban renewal)

greater london council (GLC)

1979

1965

1981 Urban Development Corporations (UDC) and Enterprise Zones (EZ) are introduced to regenerate Urban Development Areas (UDA).

prime minister thatcher incourages social rent by the “right to buy”. social housing is no more responsibility of local authorities

the greater london covers the city of london and 32 boroughs for an area of 1,572 km²

1924

1930

1938

1943

housing act

greenwood act housing act

the green belt (london and home counties) act

county of london plan

compels local authorities to tackle substandard housing; new housing developments encouraged on 'garden city' principles and geddes’ surveys

the GLC is abolished and Its functions were devolved to the corporation and the london boroughs

EZ are established in London, among them the isle of dogs.

1999

1998 Public referendum about regional authority

local government act

1982

1918 addison's housing act

1919

1927

1933

1940

1942

town planning schemes become obbligatory for cities with 20.000 inhabitants

greater london planning committee reports london’s urban expansion

athen chart, published after the fourth CIAM conference, introduces relevant observations under the titles: living, working, recreation and circulation

barlow commission

scott commission

1944

1946

greater london plan

new towns act

often referred to as the abercrombie plan, intended to control and halt london’s expansion. establishment the "green belt", creation of new towns and expansion of existing towns

It creates the Greater London Authority, London Assembly and the directly elected Mayor of London responsible for transport

1986

1988

1992

the motorway M25 or london orbital is completed

the london planning authority commitee

exodus by rem koolhaas

rescue, development and strategic planning

1999

2000

the lower administrative level consists of two-tier local authorities: counties and districts. london is an exception.

planning results like the report “towards an urban reinassance” and the foundation of CABE agency

Regional Planning

the localism bill

the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs such as SEEDA, South East of England Development Agency, or EEDA, East of England Development Agency) are responsible for economic development and strategic spatial planning in their respective regions

it devolves partially spatial planning responsibilities, previously held by the RDAs, to local authorities, which have the power to draft their own neighbourhood plans. despite the informal collaboration on a regional scale, some of central government’s responsibilities are reinforced

London - Luton - Bedford Corridor

Enfield

Harrow

Waltham Forest

Haringey

Hilingdon

Camden

Brent

Redbridge Havering

Hackney Tower

Ealing

Newham

Barking

Richmond

Wandsworth

Lambeth

the london ringways, a series of four ring roads, are planned to circle

1965 the greater london covers the city of london and 32 boroughs for an area of 1,572 km²

1979

Urban Development Corporations (UDC) and Enterprise Zones (EZ) are introduced to regenerate Urban Development Areas (UDA).

prime minister thatcher incourages social rent by the “right to buy”. social housing is no more responsibility of local authorities

CAZ inner london metropolitan centre opportunity area

olympic site green belt and metropolitan open land regional park opportunities regional park crossrail 1

Wood Green Harrow

Romford

greater london

growth 2006 to 2031

public transport schemes

centre

36-54%

west

18-36%

north east south Central Activity Zone Inner London

0-18% -1- 0%

crossrail 1 crossrail 2 thameslink rail programme

crossrail 2 thameslink east london line orbital rail network

Thames Gateway

main airports

Shepherd Bosh Source: GLA Economics (all maps extracted from The London Plan 2011 are Copyright of Greater London Authority and Crown)

Hounslow

overground Kingston

Bromley Croydon Sutton

international centre major centre

Croydon

Sutton

1960s

golden lane housing competition

local government act

metropolitan centre

Merton

Kingston

1952

1981

sustainable communities growth area regional coordination corridors

london’s town centre network Bexley

Lewisham

the top-tier local government administrative body for greater london replaces the earlier LCC, covering a biggerer area

London - Stansted - Cambridge - Peterborough Corridor

Outer London

Greenwich

Hounslow

establishes procedures to control the growth of towns and cities

1980

draft greater london local government, development plan planning and lad act (urban renewal)

area for intensification regeneration area strategic development centre (outer london)

Ealing

Barnet

greater london council (GLC)

Ilford

Kensington & Chelsea

1976

1963

town and country planning act

strategic key diagramm

2010

2001

Greater London Authority Act

Uxbridge Western Wedge

Hammersmith & Fulham

1947

congestion on the city's road system

1986

local government act

housing and town planning act

extends the 1875 artisans' act by offering greatly increased loans to local authorities

1840 1837

the top-tier local government administrative body for greater london replaces the earlier LCC, covering a biggerer area

1890

Wabdle Valley

district centre

Bromley

central activites zone (CAZ)

435

employment growth 2007-2031

slow mobility schemes

international centre

25-47%

Thames Path Lea Valley Jubilee Walk

15-25%

metropolitan centre

King’s Cross

10-15% 5-10%

district centre

2 - 5%

12

1

11

2

central activites zone (CAZ)

Stratford

Bromley by Bow Canary Warf North Greenwicvh Crossharbour Woolwich Canada Water Elephant & Castel Walworth road

metropolitan centre

Jubilee Greenway Strategic Walking Routes Capital Ring London Outer Orbital path (LOOP) Green Chain

3

10

cycle superhighways

major centre district centre

planned cycle routes*

4

CAZ frontage

9

1 Tottenham to City (before 2015) 2 Ilford to Aldgate (summer 2011) 3 Barking to Tower Gateway (open 2010) 4 Woolwich to London Bridge (before 2015) 5 Lewisham to Victoria (before 2015) 6 Penge to City (before 2015) 7 Merton to City (open 2010) 8 Wandsworth to Westminster (summer 2011) 9 Hounslow to Hyde Park Corner (before 2015) 10 Park Royal to Hyde Park Corner (before 2015) 11 West Hendon to Marble Arch (before 2015) 12 Hornsey to City (before 2015)

6

Hackerbridge

4

38

12

27

strategic regeneration areas

Total benefits (transport and earning)

crossrail regional map

20% most deprived LOAPs

station

Existing station

preferred industrial location (PIL) industrial business park (IBP)

crossrail line 100 - 150 £m 50 - 100 £m

PIL/IBP

37

opportunity area*

5

13 35 20 16 10 36 22 15 21 26 39 3 23 32 3018 14 34 11 2 33 29 9 8 7 28 40 17

31

24

41

42

6

25 - 50 £m 10 - 25 £m

area for intensification**

43

19 25 1

*Opportunity Areas 1 Bexley Riverside 2 Charlton Riverside 3 City Fringe 4 Colindale/Burnt Oak 5 Cricklewood/Brent Cross 6 Croydon 7 Deptford Creek/Greenwich Riverside 8 Earls Court & West Kensington 9 Elephant & Castle 10 Euston 11 Greenwich Peninsula 12 Heathrow 13 Ilford 14 Isle of Dogs 15 Kensal Canalside 16 King’s Cross 17 Lewisham, Catford & New Cross 18 London Bridge & Bankside 19 London Riverside 20 Lower Lee Valley (including Stratford) 21 Paddington 22 Park Royal/Willesden Junction 23 Royal Docks and Beckton Waterfront 24 Southall 25 Thamesmead & Abbey Wood 26 Tottenham Court Road 27 Upper Lee Valley (including Tottenham Hale)

5 - 10 £m 0 - 5 £m Ilford opportunity area

28 Vauxhall, Nine Elms & Battersea 29 Victoria 30 Waterloo 31 Wembley 32 White City 33 Woolwich **Areas for Intensification 34 Canada Water 35 Dalston 37 Haringey Heartlands/Wood Green 38 Harrow & Wealdstone 39 Holborn 40 Kidbrooke 41 Mill Hill East 42 South Wimbledon/Colliers Wood 43 West Hampstead Interchange

Shenfield Brentwood Goodmayes Liverpool Street Seven Kings Gidea Park Romford Tottenham Manor Park Harold Wood Forest Gate Court Rd Ealing Broadway Chadwell Heath Bond Street Maryland West Ealing Acton Ilford Stratford Taplow Burnham West Main Line Whitechapel Custom Hayes & Drayton Slough Iver House Harlington Maidenhead Paddington Farringdon Hanwell Canary Langley Southall Wharf Woolwich Abbey Wood

*Total benefits are spread to boroughs not on the Crossrail routeand widely to outer London. The above maps shows transport benefits and earnings distributed according to where public transport users live, which is why the City receives a low value, due to its small population.

Heathrow Airport

Crossrail will cost about £15 billion.

5

project timeline

New station Surface line Tunnel Portal (tunnel entrance and exit) regeneration area opportunity area

Crossrail will help people travel across London more quickly and in less crowded trains. It will mean less cars and pollution. It will be better for tourists and visitors. It will help businesses stay in London.

design and service facts

2001

Design

2005

Rolling stock

first proposal

the Crossrail Bill 2005

* indicative routes subject to consultation

5 8 7

?

Crossrail is a new railway that will go under the middle of London from the West to the East.

2

Vauxhall Battersea

major centre

key information about Crossrail project

1

london’s potential centre network

10 new station

60 trains 24 trains per hour up to 1.500 passengers

2009

construction started at Canary Wharf station

East depot Ilford

2012

West depot Old Oak Common

begin digging tunnels

It will mean more accessible travel across London. There will be chances for Londoners to get local jobs. It will help businesses and new home building in London.

Some East London politicians saw as an expensive west-to-east commuter.

Ilford opportunity area

It could primarily benefit City and Docklands businesses and bring much disruption to East London. It would use up much of the remaining rail capacity within the London area. The redevelopment of the area forced the closure of a number of historic music venues In February 2010, Crossrail was accused of bullying residents whose property lay on the Crossrail route into selling for less than the market value

2018

(first 2017) Crossrail services start.

impact on exemples journey time

32 mins intead 55

Slough to Tottenham Court Rd Heathrow to Leeverpool Street

25 mins intead 35 Ilford to Bond Street

18 mins

Ticket

integreted with TfL, National Rail, Oyster card

enviromental facts

Carbon

1.7 million tonnes of CO2 (construction) 70,000 to 225,000 tonnes of CO2 saving (operational)

Material

at least 15% of total material value derives from reused and recycled content and will aim for 20%

intead 40

City | Liverpool Street to Abbey Wood

16 mins intead 30

Waste

5.6 million m² of clean excavated material will be beneficially reused

Paddington to Canary Wharf

Source: Department for Communities and Local Government ONS Lower Super Output Area Boundaries, 2007*

UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA

COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD


06 | SPATIAL FRAMEWORK

M25

M11

east london identity

metropolitan open land

east london framework plan

green belt regional park

station crossrail line

district park linear park

mainline railway central line distict line

Woodford Broadway Snakes Lane

A406

Manford way

Woodford Bridge

A12 South Woodford

Barkingside

A118

strategic open space project small open space ward

DLR major road motorway cycle way metropolitan centre major centre district centre

The leafy borough 1/3 land is green belt and parks

local centre major watercourse green belt and metropolitan open land deprived area | brownfield

Walthamstow

Romford Gants Hill

Wanstead

existing community place

Newbury Park Chadwell Heath Goodmayes

young people (0-19)

Seven Kings

26 - 28% 22 - 26% 18 - 22% 14 - 18%

Ilford

ward

Olympic site

Shoreditch

Barking

The young borough

Stratford

26.6% population under the age of 19

East Ham

Brick Lane

London City airport

BME population 58 - 72%

Canary Wharf

Greenwich peninsula

46 - 58% 34 - 46% 22 - 34% 10 - 22%

Times Gateway bridge (proposed)

ward

The diverse borough

48.1% Black and Minority Ethnic population

Source: ONS (UK Office of National Statistics)

5,6520 ha total size within Redbridge borough

40% green space and 27% domestic gardens

238,635 people live in Redbrige

main driveway

public buildings

intensification retail

6% of them live in Ilford

71,100 young people are aged 0-19

ilford

redbrige

london

120,695 people

have a minority ethnic background

population structure 13 crossrail connection

urban service

intensification housing

7 2

11

1

54

2

white mixed

12 29

3

25

64

asian

3

72

black other

3

the youngest

800 jobs 5,000 homes

0-19

area capacity

26

27

38

19+

ilford size by land use

130,000 m2

domestic garden 36.2%

crossrail worksite

road

21.7%

domestic building

15.6%

non domestic building

9.6%

74

73

public transports

local service

62

land

brownfield

green land 40

43

14,150 inhabitants

36

other

17,950 in 2031

57

430,000 m2 regeneration area

64

Source: ONS (UK Office of National Statistics)

ilford population by ethnic group

asian

54.1%

indian

25.6%

white paki

28.5% 19%

slow mobility

UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA

60

residence

green corridor

COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD

437


footprint 2012

urban relevance and centrality 2012

footprint 2018

the mall

station

city hall

urban centre

the mall

city hall

urban centre

07 | STRATEGIES

urban relevance and centrality 2018

olympics as a global catalyst

status

olympics influence crossrail work in progress

strategy

puncture intervent

action

colonization

reaction

temporary centrality

The urban footprint shows the differences between terrace houses and the latest urban structure characterizing the centre of Ilford. While the first is spread all around the area, the second is longitudinally oriented by a thick row of buildings which marks the commercial street from south to north. The grain of the remaining blocks lacks in homogeneity, so even if the vertical and horizontal axis look solid, the inner side is made up of a soulless alternate of full sand empty spaces.

status

ilford as a future centrality

post olympics

The areas interested by the urban growth will experience a gradual functional emptying to let the spread of new settlements possible. in the OA some building are torn down as in the purpose of Ilford strategic plan. The difference among the horizontal city and the vertical one is cutted out. The horizontal one is massive present and it gets mixed up with the vertical part, creating a complex density and improving interactions.

crossrail arrival

P

P

temorary parasite

strategy

empting intervent

action

reconnection

reaction

complex density

horizontality as local facilities verticality as global services

complex density

parking as a colonized space

the mall as an opportunity

working class as wide spread

sinergy as polar intervention

footprint 2025

status

crossrail effects ilford gateway centre

strategy

disperse intervent

action

polarization

reaction

hybrid cluster

the mall

station

city hall

urban centre

439

urban relevance and centrality 2025

garden as a necessity

Ilford’s centre changes its air. The proposal is to level off the existing part in order to uniform the horizontal city without obstructing the further development. The same level of density is enhanced all along the commercial streets and a lighter one on the fairest sides to preserve the slow rhythm of the residential zones. In the urban centre the typical spatial hierarchy is completed upset and the open blocks become more suitable for a vertical city based on the high quality services.

urban space as a collector

hybrid cluster transport as a magnet

vertical living as a preference

1. city hall area

2. cineworld cinemas area

2870,00 m2

4132,90 m2

3. central library & museum area

2619,90 m2

4. keeneth more theatre area

1640,25 m2

strategic masterplan vision

all area

56200,00 m2

area

3

n. floor:

93% coverd space open space

use

coverd space

7%

open space

collective

propriety

use

coverd space

8%

open space

313,60 m2

collective

use

n. floor:

coverd space

38%

open space

collective

use

1074,60 m2

35%

570,00 m2

collective

coverd space open space

use

propriety public

active time:

UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA

public

active time:

510000 m2

7. sainsbury supermarket area

3

7110,00 m2 n. floor:

8. parking space area

1

9. ilford train station

8550,00 m2 n. floor:

area

1

620,00 m2 n. floor:

10. block house type area

1

9500,00 m2 n. floor:

3-4

3

65%

1619,90 m2 1000,00 m2

propriety private

active time:

3

62%

3819,50 m2

propriety public

active time:

n. floor:

92%

2670,00 m2 200,00 m2

4

area

4915,00 m2 n. floor:

n. floor:

6. valentine park

5. the exchange mall & vertical parking

96%

54000 m2

4%

2200m2

collective

propriety

coverd space open space

use

coverd space

0%

open space

0 m2

active time:

0%

0 m2

100% 8500m2

function collective

collective

private

public

propriety private

active time:

100%

4915,00 m2

active time:

coverd space open space

use

54%

3810,00 m2

46%

3300,00 m2

collective

propriety

coverd space open space

use

0 m2

8550,00 m2

collective

propriety private

active time:

0% 100%

coverd space open space

use

31%

190,00 m2

collective

propriety active time:

42%

covered space (single house)

100,00 m2

open space (private yard)

135,00 m2

use

57%

individual

propriety public

private

active time:

69%

430,00 m2

private

active time:

COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD


08 | HYBRID CLUSTER: THE PLINTH hybrid cluster

y block

the graft

the plinth

site plan | 1:1000 The new urban block wants to connect the horizontal city and the vertical one, creating cohesion by the interface, which becomes public and semi public space. Some public services don’t stop on the ground floor but climb up to the housing blocks. In this way the urban block become the real hybrid cluster with the different range of formal and informal realities creating spontaneous environment made by temporary and permanent users. public reverse

urban centre

441

c block users

use

score

housing 6 office 5 informal market 3

4 pubblic space and green areas museum

ground floor plan | 1:500 i blocks

1

a b

housing congress center

c

restaurant c

housing

4

3

start up shop

fitness

luxury store service

e

consulting management 1

work

d d

coworking newspaper library

food experience

start up permanent

restourant beauty beauty

roomsr congress restourant relax&lounge

food experience

e

ooms congress

shop f

shop

f

a b

semipublic space private space

a-a section

ff

c

b-b section

screening workshop cafè

screening events cocktail/exhibition events

dd

e

a

a

d-d section

start up bank

post

e-e section

start up

multipurpose space work

b

c-c section

i blocks*

b

c

workshop bar

health health bank

f-f section

pharmacy

local services shop public space

health health pharmacy

* informal dominance

*commuters dominance

4 b-b section

accomodation

a-a section

c-c section

b

3

c

y block*

d

housing

aa

event space

performance space

co-working

terrace

start up shop

2

coworking newspaper library

py playground g roomsr rooms beauty

food experience

garden

4

foyer y

terrace

ooms relax&lounge

shop

housing

rooms

4

foyer

hotel room wellness hall

multifunctional sports camp gym sport bar

common room study room common room

b

housing

mixed

e

c block* a-a section

hall

7

hall

temporary

commercial

kitchen

student house work shop semipublic space

start up consulting shop

hall

c

d

private space * young dominance

student space f-f section

e-e section

d-d section

financial

administration

foyer

4

functional hybrid

start up shop

shop

japan thai france terrace italy turkey africa china india take away

housing

housing

multicultural space

food experience

housing

2

UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA

c-c section

d-d section

1

hotel rooms wellness beauty

common rooms

rooms

playground

gardentmultifunctional gym

sports camp

gym sport bar

b-b section

housing

3

study rooms

eracce

common rooms

teracce

kitchen

laundry

start up

hall

shop shop

consulting shop

COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD


09 | HYBRID CLUSTER: THE INTERFACE

443

interface floor plan | 1:500

trasversal section | 1:500 UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA

longitudinal section | 1:500 COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD


10 | HYBRID CLUSTER: THE GRAFT y* block

c* block

445

3 to 11 floor plan | 1:500 UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA

0 to 2 floor plan | 1:500

3 to 11 floor plan | 1:500

COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD


11 | VERTICAL LIVING

block houses

typology 2 bed. apartment code 062b dimension 74 sq.m users

thin houses

typology 2 bed. apartment code 062b dimension 78 sq.m users

typology 1 bed.apartment code 062b dimension 70 sq.m users

typology 1 bed | 1 office apartment code 062b dimension 78 sq.m users

typology 1 bed. | 1 office appartment code 062b dimension 78 sq.m users

typology 2 bed. duplex | 1 terrace code 042t dimension 65 + 35 sq.m users

typology 1 bed. duplex code 041t dimension 50 + 35 sq.m users

typology 2 bed. duplex code 061t dimension 70 + 50 sq.m users

penthouses

typology 2 bed. appartment code 082b dimension 95 sq.m users

typology 3 bed. appartment code 083b dimension 100 sq.m users

typology 2 bed. appartment code 092b dimension 108 sq.m users

typology 3 bed. appartment code 093b dimension 112 sq.m users

typology 2 bed. maisonette code 002d dimension 68 + 50 sq.m users

typology 3 bed. | 1 terrace maisonette code 003d dimension 60 + 50 + 35 sq.m users

typologies solutions | 1:200

code 17

062b

code

pure living

living+ working

10

code

083b

typology 1 bed bed | 1 office appartment code 082b dimension 100 sq.m users

typology 2 bed | 1 office appartment code 083b dimension 100 sq.m users

block houses

code 22

042t

2

pure living

30 living+ working

code

pure living 062t

447

2

70 typology 2 bed | 1 office appartment code 093b dimension 112 sq.m users

100

2

24 76 code

041t

thin houses

094b pure living

40 living+ working 60

code

edge houses

10

012e pure living

40 living+ working code

002e

60 100

6 code 7

003e

pure living

edge houses

typology 3 bed. appartment code 012e dimension 130 sq.m users

typology 2 bed. | 1 office appartment code 112e dimension 125 sq.m users

typology 2 bed. | 1 office appartment code 112e dimension 130 sq.m users

penthouses

elevations | 1:500 UNIVERSITĂ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTĂ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA

COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD


12 | HYBRID FEELING

449

UNIVERSITÁ DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA | FACOLTÁ DI ARCHITETTURA | RELATORE NICOLA MARZOT | CANDIDATI ANDRIJANA SEKULIC CLAUDIA M. M. SINATRA

COMPLEX(C)ITY | THE NETWORK METROPOLIS OF GLOBAL LONDON | OBSERVATIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS FOR A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY IN ILFORD

Complex(C)ity. The Network Metropolis of Global London.  

Master Thesis project: observations and design suggestions for a multifunctional centrality in Ilford

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you