Page 1

COLLECTIVE QUARTERS

BRB

BEN KRONENBERG RICKY RAY RICARDO BELLA LEBER-SMEATON


URBAN DATING DESIGN STUDIO

BRB

BEN KRONENBERG RICKY RAY RICARDO BELLA LEBER-SMEATON


Going Dutch “Going Dutch” is a term that indicates that each person participating in a group activity pays for himself or herself, rather than any one person paying for anyone else... we see a shift towards more involvement of the enduser in the design and decision process.” This studio focuses on the relation between different stakeholder coalitions where we the students take on the stakeholder roles in the studio. 1st role as a designer learning how to deal with the uncertainties of stakeholder coalitions. 2nd role as an active studio stakeholder, having partial influence on plans of other teams. Involving stakeholders and end users into the land development will result from mixes of parties in coalitions. Future work in this area is also likely to focus on adaptations to an existing city. This will change the nature of urban design, to a profession without a set program and one that is a component of flexible coalitions and intelligent strategies. The forming of BRB’s coalition consisted of three stake holder roles; a Green’s Party Representative, The Mayor of Melbourne and a major Developer. These roles did not necessarily affect our personal design but did give us further insight and the power to openly critique other groups presentation works in

accordance to who we were. We approached the studio with ‘Collective Quarters’ our creative injection onto our 11ha site in Docklands, Melbourne.

and poor planning strategies. Collective Quarters introducing familiarity into the Docklands by selecting planning strategies of intimate spaces and local intimacies.

Our three main goals to succeed with a conscientious project design unlike any of the previous Docklands developments were Intimacy, Diversity and Customization.

Our aim of a further developed and open demographic is produced by architectural and regulatory products such as housing, retail, office options and exposing the private at moments and blurring the lines between public and private in others.

The current state of the Docklands is in question from both the current users, residents, stakeholders, other Melbournians etc. z to its failiure to be that 24hr precinct developers MAB promised. There is a coldness to the New Quay site due to current site conditions, lack of local intimacy

Our 3rd goal Customisation, driven by Intimacy and spatial qualities, possesses flexibility within each building footprint for individual or collective stakeholders to customise space for their needs.


INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATION SECTION 1

Modular Intimate Urban Space

SECTION 2

Building Customisation and Alternate Surface

SECTION 3

Cooperative Development

INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION & CONCLUSION


LOADING GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES IN YOUR AREA...

MELB CITY COUNCIL

STATE GOVERNMENT

RELATIONSHIP STATUS: OPEN MARRIAGE

RELATIONSHIP STATUS: DIVORCED

STAR SIGN: GEMINI

STAR SIGN: PISCES

ONLINE:

ONLINE:

ABOUT ME: I am the local government authority for the City of Melbourne, and am made up of several councillors elected by the people of Melbourne. I have multiple personalities... so look out! ;-)

ABOUT ME: I am the government for the state of Victoria, and am elected by the people of Victoria. My political persuasion is pretty conservative. I used to believe in climate change, but I changed my mind. Some people say I change my mind a lot... but I don’t think so.

INTERESTS:

VIC URBAN RELATIONSHIP STATUS: MARRIED STAR SIGN: CAPRICORN ONLINE: ABOUT ME: I am the Victorian Government’s land development agency. Enjoy developing sustainable, affordable communities. I am married to both the Public & Private Sector. INTERESTS:

INTERESTS:

OR T

S

SP

PA TH E CY CL

BI

RE

N CU

LT U

TR A

TR AN SP

IV AT E

PR

BL

IC

SP AC E PU

UC TI

OP EN

N ST R

CO

PR

OF

IT S

ON

OR T

NOT ONLINE: VICROADS VICTRACK


LOADING DEVELOPERS IN YOUR AREA...

INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATION

I was quite nervous to present my initial presentation, as the brief being a little vague meant that it could be interpreted in quite a variety of ways. I took the ‘Urban Dating’ approach to my stakeholder research and compiled each stake-holder in the style of an internet dating website profile, listing their key agendas in regard to the site, and what their priorities were in terms of environment, open space, profits, transport etc… My presentation was quite different from the rest of the class - however if I am reflecting positively I would say that it was my presentation which brought a playfulness and narrative to the studio, which was echoed in the final presentation of other groups in the form of website designs and stakeholder diagrams.

VIC URBAN RELATIONSHIP STATUS: MARRIED STAR SIGN: CAPRICORN ONLINE:

MULTIPLEX RELATIONSHIP STATUS: LOOKING FOR PARTNER STAR SIGN: CANCER ONLINE:

ABOUT ME: I am the Victorian Government’s land development agency. Enjoy developing sustainable, affordable communities. I am married to both the Public & Private Sector.

ABOUT ME: Construction contrator. Enjoy creating largescale and complex landmark buildings, commercial structures and infrastructure projects.

INTERESTS:

INTERESTS:

LEND LEASE

MAB

MIRVAC

RELATIONSHIP STATUS: SWINGER

RELATIONSHIP STATUS: HORNY

RELATIONSHIP STATUS: DIVORCED

STAR SIGN: SCORPIO

STAR SIGN: SCORPIO

STAR SIGN: LIBRA

ONLINE:

ONLINE:

ONLINE:

ABOUT ME: Developer of Victoria Harbour. Big where it counts ;-) I love life on a grand scale. Very ambitious, love to bite off more than I can chew... but then chew it anyway.

ABOUT ME: Developer of NewQuay. I like developing sustainable residential, commercial, industrial & retail precincts in and around Melbourne.

ABOUT ME: Developer of Yarra’s Edge. I am able to exercise total control over the entire development process, from concept to completion.

INTERESTS:

INTERESTS:

INTERESTS:


SECTION 1.

MODULAR INTIMATE SPACE These early drawings were produced with ideas of layering, setbacks, multiple routes and varying building heights. The 1st conceptual drawing was a basis of what could be a plan view of our site with hidden pathways entangled and courtyards popping up amongst certain layers. The 2nd sketch shows an internal courtyard built around yet it doesn’t appear to be a claustrophobic area due to the set backs of building storeys and multiple staired levels. This third drawing is a perspective of what it might look like to view our early proposed site from the start of the dock. Here you can also see multiple storeys, cut aways and a surfaces that appears seamless. We can also see a connection from our Collective Quarter across to the other dock. This was an early idea of a loop tram connection from Lonsdale st to Collins Street.


The existing site conditions and pre-site conditions are important elements the 11ha posses. Introducing a wetland/marshland seemed an appropriate step to assure that we didn’t over develop the site and allowed for mass open spaces to retain flow of smaller elements. We begin to see development in the phasing of wetland and green density through our rough sketches as well as small connecting water ways.


Our concepts emerged from analysing varying precedents and Melbourne Docklands with focus on the most recent New Quay development.

Building products ideas were produced from the understanding of our stakeholders needs and public and private spaces. This was in conjunction with sight conditions which were simultaneously formed through layout testing. Spatial precedents include analysing Melbourne streets and laneways such as Wells St and QV internal courtyard and International courtyard precedents such as the Louis Scarpa Pavillion Venice. Comparing these examples success to the existing New Quay layout would further ideas on spatiality. Other courtyards we looked at and measured were Plaçá Reial Barcelona Spain, Section 8 of Tattersalls Lane of Melbourne, Montery Abbey in Italy. Building formation and typology precedents included the Maritime Youth Centre by Big Architecture, the Verdana in Funen Amsterdam, Moriyama by SANNA and Businesspark Nesciopark by Onix Architecture. The Verdana, Businesspark Nesciopark and Maritime Youth Centre all share interteresting characteristics. No longer just a roof they show new features of doubling with surface and creating interesting new spaces internally due to light and proximity. This brings our internal spatial interest to the Moriyama house by SANNA where each room is a separate build and the connecting ways are open and exposed to the elements. We analyse the success of this design to the intimacy felt in these exposed connecting ways, each in their own way comfortable spaces. The idea of the inclusion of stakeholders into the design process came from precedent Loretto Area and French Quarter of TÜbingen, Germany.


When beginning to create intimate spaces we looked at courtyards and their size, placement and connections. These sketches start to looks at how and where they may be connected to the existing site, its boundaries and how many are needed to fulfil the public and residents need for public space.

Varying heights in these sketches start to produce this idea of diversity through architectural typology. These early drawings also start to play with our interest of surface from precedents such as Onix Businesspark and Big architectures Martime Youth Centre. There is a sense of depth developing from layers of building blocks which start to capture view lines.


INITIAL MODULES MODULE 01

20x20x 10 (3 floors) = 1200m 2 Floorspace

MODULE 01

MODULE 01

30x30x10 (3 floors) =2700m2 Floorspace

40x40x10 (3 floors) 2 = 4800m Floorspace


INITIMATE SPACE TOOL BOX // YING YANG

8 X Module01 = 9600m2 Floor space - 9600m Plaza - 880m2

2

No. of Apartments: @ 60m2 - 160 @ 80m2 - 120 @ 100m2 - 96

// TETRIS

1 X Module03 = 4800m2 3 X Module02 = 8100m2 4 X Module01 = 4800m2 Floor space - 17,700m2 Plaza - 1800m2 No. of Apartments: @ 60m2 - 295 @ 80m2 - 221 @ 100m2 - 177

// SNAKE

2 X Module03 = 9600m2 3 X Module02 = 8100m2 1 X Module01 = 1200m2 1 X (10X40X3) = 1200m2 Floor space - 20,100m2 Plaza - 240m2

// BUNKER

2 X Module01 = 2400m2 2 X Module02 = 5400m2 1 X Module03 = 4800 Floor space - 12,600m2 Plaza - 800m2 No. of Apartments: @ 60m2 - 210 @ 80m2 - 157.5 @ 100m2 - 126

// BLOCK PARTY

1 X Module02 = 2700m2 8 X Module03 = 38,400m2 Floor space - 41,400m2 Plaza - 2400m2 No. of Apartments: @ 60m2 - 683 @ 80m2 - 512.5 @ 100m2 - 411

// WATER TOWER 6 X Module01 = 7200m2 2 X Module02 = 5400m2 2 X Module03 = 9600m2 Floor space - 22,200m2 Plaza - 6000m2

No. of Apartments: @ 60m2 - 335 @ 80m2 - 251

No. of Apartments: @ 60m2 - 370 @ 80m2 - 277.5 @ 100m2 - 222

// LE STACK

// THREE WAY

8 X Module02 = 21,600m2 Floor space - 21,600m2 Plaza - 875m2 No. of Apartments: @ 60m2 - 360 @ 80m2 - 270 @ 100m2 - 210

// T - BAR

3 X Module02 = 8100m2 4 X Module03 = 19,200m2 Floor space - 27,300m2 Plaza - 2602m2 No. of Apartments: @ 60m2 - 455 @ 80m2 - 341.25 @ 100m2 - 273

8 X Module03 = 38,400m2 2 X Module02 = 5400m2 Floor space - 43,800m2 Plaza - 2800m2 No. of Apartments: @ 60m2 - 730 @ 80m2 - 547 @ 100m2 - 438

// LEGEND

Module01 - 20 X 20 X 3 Module02 - 30 X 30 X 3 Module03 - 40 X 40 X 3


INITIAL MASSINGS

01


01 Initial layout massing 02 Variations 03 Maximum height locations 04 Building Types

03

02

04


WORKING WETLAND

FU TU

RE

TR AM LIN EE

XT EN

TIO

N

DOCKLANDS DRIVE

DOCKLANDS DRIVE

NEW QUAY PROMENADE

SCALE 1.2000


INITIAL SCHEMATIC

01 Initial Plan scale 1.2000 02. Stage Boundaries

KLANDS DRIVE

01

02


PENTHOUSE OFFICE

STUDIO APARTMENT RETAIL LIVING RETAIL

PLAZA

03


INITIAL SURFACE TESTING

01

02

01 NS section 1.2000 02 WE section 1.2000 03 Housing module duel entrance/uses


SECTION 2. BUILDING CUSTOMISATION + ALTERNATE SURFACE


INTIMACY = HxW /2 + H(2)xW(2)/2 01

TOO VAST

500

400

OPTIMAL

300

TOO CRAMPED

200

100

0

h= 23m

TOO VAST

500

400

OPTIMAL

300

TOO VAST

500

400

TOO CRAMPED

200

OPTIMAL

300

100

w= 12.5m w= 12.5m

0

TOO CRAMPED

200

100

0

WILLS STREET, MELB CBD. TOO VAST

500 TOO VAST

500

400

OPTIMAL

300

h= 22m

TOO CRAMPED

200

100

0

400

OPTIMAL

300

TOO CRAMPED

200

287m2

100

0


INTIMATE SPACE FORMULA TESTING

30M

45M

h= 20m

h= 22.5m

02

03

h= 7m

h= 7m

w= 5m

w= 15m w= 15m

QV. INTERNAL COURTYARD, MELB CBD. TOO VAST

500

400

01 Wills Street Scape, Melbourne

w= 5m

OPTIMAL

300

340m2

TOO CRAMPED

200

02 QV Internal Courtyard

LOUIS SCARPA PAVILLION, VENICE.

100

TOO VAST

0

150

OPTIMAL

120

90

TOO CRAMPED

60

30

35m2

03 Carlos Scarpa Bienalle Courtyard 0


DEVELOPED MODULE CUSTOMISATION


= 4800M2 = 4800M2

= 9600M2

INITIAL FOOTPRINT

OPTION 1

= 4800M2

= 9600M2

= 8600M2

=8000m2

= 8600m2

OPTION 2

OPTION 3

OPTION 4

= 8600M2

=8000m2

= 8600m2

INITIAL FOOTPRINT OPTION 1 40X40X3 FLOORS 40X40X6 FLOORS 40X40X3 FLOORS = 4800M2

= 7200M2

= 7200

OPTION 2

OPTION 3

40X40X6 FLOORS = 7200M2

OPTION 5

OPTION 4 =4300m2

40X40X6 FLOORS = 7200

40X40X9FLOORS = 7800m2

OPTION 2

OPTION 3

OPTION 4

40X40X6 FLOORS = 7200M2

40X40X6 FLOORS = 7200

INITIAL FOOTPRINT GIZA

OPTION 1

OPTION 2

40X40X3 FLOORS = 4800M2

40X40X3 FLOORS = 8600M2

40X40X3 FLOORS = 7480M2

INITIAL GIZA FOOTPRINT

OPTION 1

40X40X3 FLOORS = 4800M2

=4300m2

= 7800m2

40X40X9FLOORS = 7800m2

GIZA

INITIAL FOOTPRINT

OPTION 1

OPTION 2

40X40X3 FLOORS = 4800M2

40X40X3 FLOORS = 8600M2

40X40X3 FLOORS = 7480M2

INITIAL FOOTPRINT

OPTION 1

OPTION 2

40X40X3 FLOORS = 4800M2

40X40X3 FLOORS = 8600M2

40X40X3 FLOORS = 7480M2

ROTTERDAM SURPRISE

ROTTERDAM SURPRISE

RUBIX


INITIAL FOOTPRINT

OPTION 1

OPTION 2

20X20X3 FLOORS TOP DECK = 1200M2FOOTPRINT INITIAL

20X20X6 FLOORS =OPTION 2375M2 1

20X20X6 FLOORS =OPTION 2300m2 2

40X40X3 FLOORS = 4800M2 20X20X3 FLOORS INITIAL FOOTPRINT = 1200M2

40X40X3 FLOORS = 8600M2 20X20X6 FLOORS OPTION 1

40X40X3 FLOORS = 7480M2 20X20X6 OPTIONFLOORS 2

20X20X3 FLOORS = 1200M2

20X20X6 FLOORS = 2375M2

20X20X6 FLOORS = 2300m2

INITIAL FOOTPRINT

INITIAL FOOTPRINT DECK 40X40X3TOP FLOORS

OPTION 1

= 2375M2

OPTION 1

OPTION 2

= 2300m2

OPTION 2

40X40X3 FLOORS = 8600M2

40X40X3 FLOORS = 7480M2

GOLD FINGER INITIAL FOOTPRINT

OPTION 1

OPTION 2

40X40X3 FLOORS = 4800M2

40X40X3 FLOORS = 8600M2

40X40X3 FLOORS = 7480M2

= 4800M2

GOLD FINGER

GOLD FINGER

RUBIX


DEVELOPED MODULE CUSTOMISATION


01


02

01 Completed Site Model with flexible labels 02 Completed SIte Model


INTIMATE SPACE FORMULA TESTING PASAGE THROUGH SITE

STAGES

PLAZA ACCESS

ALTERED TOPOGRAPHY

SOFT SURFACE

MODULE DISTRIBUTION HARD SURFACE

01 Creating the void within the module

HIGH POINTS

PUBLIC PROGRAM AROUND PLAZA

02 Diagram attempting to show diversity through housing product


0101 02020303

010103030404

040402020505

050504040606

020206060707

BUILDING BUILDING 0101

BUILDING BUILDING 0202

BUILDING BUILDING 0303

BUILDING BUILDING 0404

BUILDING BUILDING 0505

070701010808 BUILDING BUILDING 0606 02

OFFSET

VOID

01


SECTION 3. COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT

SCALE 1.2000


SITE PLAN SCALE


01


LANDSCAPE SCHEME

01 Meshing of robust wharf with history of marshland 02 Potential Paving Detail 03 Potential Paving Detail

02

03


SCALE 1.4000


SCHWARTZ PLAN/LOWER CAR PARK PLAN


BUILDING FOOTPRINTS

BUILDING SHADOWS


MAJOR PLAZAS

MINOR PLAZAS

INTIMATE SPACES

INTIMATE SPACE SCHEMATICS


03


01 Flexible buildings on site 02 Buildings capable of height increase 03 Buildings capable of module shifting

03

03


16 15 0

0

14 0

13 0

12 11 0

0

10 0

9 0

8 0

7 0

6 0

5 0

4 0

3 0

2 0

1 0

0

A 0

0

3

3

3

1.5

0

1.5

3

3

3

1.5

0

1.5

3

3

3

B 0

1.5

3

3

3

1.5

0

1.5

3

3

3

1.5

0

1.5

3

3

3

C 0

1.5

3

3

3

1.5

0

1.5

3

3

3

1.5

0

1.5

3

3

3

D 1.5

1.5

3

1.5

1.5

0

0

0

3

1.5

1.5

0

0

0

1.5

3

1.5

E 0

1.5

1.5

0

0

0

1.5

1.5

1.5

0

0

0

0

0

1.5

1.5

1.5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1.5

1.5

0

0

0

F 01

TOPOGRAPHY GRID TESTING

04


02

03

01 Grid + Height levels 02 Surface undulation 03 Surface Model Test 04 PRECEDENT Triangle Tessellation SCIARC


UNDULATING SURFACE

01

01 NS Section scale 1.2000 02 WE Section scale 1.2000 02


02

01

URBAN DATING.COM

HOOK-UP WITH YOUR NEIGHBOURS!

SMALL BUSINESS PRIVATE OWNER Urban INDIVIDUALS Dating

COOPERATIVE

allows you to meet up with your future neighbours before FINANCIAL/SOCIAL MUTUAL INTEREST you‘ve LIFESTYLE moved (FINANCIAL/SOCIAL) anywhere, then customise your future building together! BACK

NEXT

WHAT THE PRESS ARE SAYING:

Welcome to Urban Dating. It's a website that is to urban development what internet dating is to love. It is addictive, it's fascinating, and even when you've found what you're looking for there is the sneaking suspicion that something even better lurks just a click away. Brigid Delaney, February 3, 2010

03


25% Co-ops encouraged 75% Open Tender

25% Co-ops encouraged 75% Open Tender

Extension of Docklands development. Developing purchasing and restrictions: No developer can purchase more than 20% (2.5ha)

Stage 1 sets up interest for Co-ops to be integrated into 25% (3ha) of site. Specific community atmosphere reached.

STAGE 3

PARTIAL RESTRICTION

STAGE 2

PARTIAL RESTRICTION

STAGE 1

URBAN CUSTOMISATION AND ONLINE URBAN COMPATIBILITY

100% Open Tender

12.5 % of all site sold to Co-operatives

01 URBAN CUSTOMISATION WEBSITE 02 BUILDING LIMIT POTENTIAL

Public pool implemented along wharf.

Specific ground floor retail experiences including retail, cafes, trestaurants, organisations, community services, firms etc.


01 WETLAND AREA 02 COMMUNITY WHARF POOL

01


02


01


01 PLAZA EAST 02 CENTRAL PLAZA

02


REFLECTION & CONCLUSION URBAN DESIGN Having never done a large scale Urban Design project before, I feel I have learn an enormous amount over the 12 day intensive studio period. I enjoyed particularly that our jurisdiction as designers was so wide, not stopping at the traditional role of the Landscape Architect; but rather making decisions on traffic systems/flows, architectural details and building footprint & configuration. I’ve never worked so primarily through model before, so this was also something new. And something I found extremely useful in terms of testing multiple urban schemes and quickly seeing their limitations. MY ROLE From the very start I was interested in the idea of building as landscape, and how we could use this as a possible solution to the harsh winds and lack of intimate public open space. This was a direction that we all embraced, but into the first week the idea of buildings ‘folding’ out of the ground to create public space on their roofs disappeared from our sketches, replaced by rooftop terraces and intimate courtyards being incorporated into the voids of the individual building modules. Intimate public space was the core idea in our project which was particularly a focus of mine, whereas Ben’s focus was more heavily directed at the module configurations. I would say that these two focuses were core to our project, and when pushed against the set of open-space principles that all three of us devised (i.e. building heights, light, width of lanes and plazas etc) this led to the final design of Collective Quarters. Other core features of the project included the website design which I

worked up. The website absorbed many of the more ‘floating’ ideas we had about encouraging cooperative buying of buildings, and flexibility in terms of building modules; it introduced a narrative to our project which aimed to demonstrate how people could become stake-holders in the project and actually influence the development process. GROUP The process of ‘speed dating’ that we all went through before the groups were organised was a good way of maximising the chances of harmonious teams. BRB - Ben, Ricky and Bella worked on the whole quite well as a team; even though there was a considerable gap in experience. I found working alongside Ben an inspiring experience - His phenomenal drive and enthusiasm prevented me from falling victim to my tendency of complacency, and as a result enabled me to produce some of my best work in such a short time frame. In return I like to believe that my perfectionism and regard for simplicity might have had an impact on the work which Ben produced.

Collective Quarters Portfolio  

Portfolio for intensive design studio "Urban Dating" lead by Marco Broekman, completed Nov 2011.

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you