Firmware - Case Studies in Urban Design by RMIT Architecture

---

FIRMWARE

Case Studies in Urban Design

Ian Nazareth & David Schwarzman

FIRMWARE

Case Studies in Urban Design

_Index

P6-19

Introduction

P20-53

Physical Distancing in the Civic Realm

P54-95

Cycle Melbourne

P96-129

Walkable City

P130-159

Rearranging the City

P160-199

The Behaviour of Urban Systems

P200-219

Towards an Energy Resilient City

P220-257

Urban Performance Measures

P258-259

Final Review

P260-261

Afterword

Tess Nettlefold / Matthew Samson / Michael Cuccovia

Alex Riley / James Devereux / Sarah Martinussen

Aishwarya Anand Khoth / Jiaqi Zhang / Yihan Wang

Chaitali Bhanushali / Harshitha Mruthyunjaya / Shalome Pinto

Nutsara Thaemmee / Mihiri Niyarepola / Zhengding Qian

Chuhan Yao / Rui Wang / Haidong Guo

Zecong Tan / Mengzhen Li / Tszto Leung

_Introduction

Firmware is a design- research excursion on the city, approaching digital interfaces as physical environments. Firmware, draws reference to a particular class of computer software that provides a standardized operating environment for the deviceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s more complex operations. Without firmware, a hardware device would be non-functional. This analogy of firmware is deployed to focus on the relationship between virtual applications, digital realms and physical spaces in the city, as well as the implications they have on the temporal and permanent patterns of occupation, spaces, typologies etc. It seeks to establish a platform through which virtual (and even real-time) data can be juxtaposed from multiple sources and spatialised. This project is empowered by a process of data scrapping â&#x20AC;&#x201C; whereby Geo-referenced information and data from web-based Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) can be extracted into design environments. Here raw information is co-referenced. The platform is thus a conduit between APIs and computer aided design application (Rhinoceros 3D) through an algorithmic visual programming language. (like Grasshopper). The focus is to hybridise disparate datasets from public services and private entities who have a vested interest in the city. This convergence offers architects, planners and other disciplines an insight into behaviors of cities and networks, all captured through decentralized systems. These can record and reveal patterns and offer new ways of engaging with the city. Using metropolitan Melbourne as a prototype, the process connects opensource city data, city-council specific information, public transport, car park availability, alongside AirBnB listings, Uber movement etc. Drawing from multiple insular datasets simultaneously, it offers a collective assessment of collaborative consumption.

Whilst master planning seems hopelessly retrospective in itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s inability to meet current demands and expectations for social benefit. In Contrast, the sharing economy can be seen to promote the occupation of our cities according to temporal and dynamic user demand and popularity, as disruptive technology operating as a non-physical infrastructure results in its nimbleness, maneuverability and has an extended temporal dimension in its influence on the city and its change over time.

‘For us, of course, things can change so abruptly, so violently, so profoundly, that futures like our grandparents’ have insufficient ‘now’ to stand on. We have no future because our present is too volatile. ... We have only risk management. The spinning of the given moment’s scenarios. Pattern Recognition’ William Gibson

Pattern recognition a tool employed by sharing economy tech companieswhose underlying motives are unlikely to contain any social agenda (except accidentally, as a byproduct of their quest to remain relevant to citizen â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;needsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;) could too be a fundamental tool in the repertoire of designers and planners to improve our effectiveness in the future of the city as it unfolds over time. Pattern Recognition may help us to conceptualise change and negotiate the complexity evident in the dynamic city system, their insights affording designers and planners to intervene with an extended temporal dimension allowing for the designs to unfold and remain in play.

Cesare Marchetti uses this notion to uncover an underlying operational dynamic, instinctual rules of the game which determine our travel behavior. Frei Ottoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s analysis of growth and change in human settlement occupations and their connections provides us an understanding of the broad human dispositions, inclinations and rules for which the fabric of our modern city is suspended.

Keller Easterling’s ‘Medium design’, in a similar way, offers an approach to uncover chain reactions and interdependencies, patterns of influence and political control to better understand, and influence the matrix of rules and relationships which the city and its forms are suspended.

At a time where conventional urbanism is slow and static, often based on topdown visions, incapable of responding to rapidly changing social conditions, the sharing economy has inadvertently stumbled on a smart city,. Not one created by governments or political interests, but by users, subscribers and citizens. This together with new models based on generative computational algorithms, the increasing accessibility and robustness of GIS and real time city data allows for a better engagement with the complexity and temporarily that urbanism embodies.

Pattern recognition, medium design, sharing economies and disruptive technologies are all bound by the common feature of temporarily. That is to say they encourage the occupation of space in the city not according to long term planning rules or fixed set of criteria but rather according to ephemeral and temporal user demand and popularity. As cities, just like immune systems, natural systems or any other complex adaptive system, will not be able to settle into permanent structures, but rather remain in a constant state of adaptation and reconfiguration. Formulations on contemporary urbanism should stem from a necessity in engaging with tools in addressing and responding to the complexity of these temporal urban environments.

_Physical Distancing in the Civic Realm Tess Nettlefold / Matthew Samson / Michael Cuccovia

Hans Rucker Co

Physical Distancing

The COVID19 pandemic irrefutably disrupts the fluidity and freedom of activity in the CBD. The mentality of physical distancing will be prominent for months, and has potential to change urban dynamics. Hospitality plays a pivotal part of street activity, but how are cafes, bars and restaurants able to survive when the rely on a packed room of people? How can the CBD be adapted to respond to physical distancing measures?

Melbourne CBD Pedestrian Counts Pre & During Pandemic

Global Reactions

Singapore

Brooklyn

London

The Significance of the CBD A Collision of Activity

Case Study: Swanston St The Civic Spine

Swanston St Key Building Program

Office Retail Unused Educational Under Construction Community Parking

Swanston St Employment by Block

Office Retail Entertainment Educational Commerical Community Other

Existing Conditions Public Amenity

Bike Rack Drinking Fountain Public Seating

Legend

Bike Rails Drinking Fountains Seats

Existing Conditions Street Obstructions

Bollards Infomation Pillars Planter Boxes 32

Legend Bollards Information Pillars Planter Boxes

Existing Conditions Transport Infrastructure

Tram Routes

Tram Routes 1 3 5 6 11 12 16 30 35 48 64 67 70 72 75 86 96 109

East Coburg - South Melbourne Beach Melbourne University - East Malvern Melbourne University - Malvern Moreland - Glen Iris West Preston - Victoria Harbour Victoria Gardens - St Kilda Melbourne University - Kew St Vincentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Plaza - Etihad Stadium City Circle North Balwyn - Victoria Harbour Melbourne University - East Brighton Melbourne University - Carnegie Wattle Park - Waterfront City Melbourne University - Camberwell Vermont South - Etihad Stadium Bundoora RMIT - Waterfront City Docklands East Brunswick - St Kilda Beach Box Hill - Port Melbourne Tram Stops

1 3 5 6 11 12 16 30 35 48 64 67 70 72 75 86 96 109

Existing Conditions Urban Greenery

Tree

Pedestrian Activity Pre-COVID Wednesday*

8am Wednesday

1pm Wednesday

35 *Intensities of 4 days across all seasons

Pedestrian Activity Pre-COVID Wednesday*

36 Wednesday 6pm

11pm Wednesday

*Intensities of 4 days across all seasons

Pedestrian Activity Pre-COVID Saturday*

8am Saturday

1pm Saturday

37 *Intensities of 4 days across all seasons

Pedestrian Activity Pre-COVID Saturday*

38 Saturday 6pm

11pm Saturday

*Intensities of 4 days across all seasons

Existing Footpath Infrastructure

7 - 10 metres Physical distancing easy

5 - 7 metres Physical distancing somewhat easy

3 - 5 metres Physical distancing somewhat difficult

LEGEND = 7+m

0 - 3 metres Physical distancing difficult = 5-7m = 3-5m = 0-3m 2m 39

Footpath Taxonomy

= 0-3m

= 3-5m

= 5-7m

LEGEND = 7+m

= 7+m = 5-7m = 3-5m = 0-3m

Tactile Intervention State Library Public Space

Li t

nS sto n a Sw

La Tro be S

tre e

tre

tle

Lo ns da

Str ee

1.8m

But what happens when our footpaths are over â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;physical distancingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; capacity?

Space Entitled to Pedestrians Total Area: 506 679 m2 Accumulated Pedestrian Space: 53 593 m2

Pedestrian Capacity x Footpath Capacity Comparison of physical distancing and no physical distancing space: 53 593 m2

Under Physical Distancing (1.8m diameter grid) 16 589 people

No Physical Distancing (0.9m diameter grid) 66 044 people

70000

Footpath capacity without physical distancing

60000

40000

Pedestrians

50000

30000

20000

Footpath capacity with physical distancing

10000

Pedestrian activity

0 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300

Time

Time of day

Pedestrian Volumes Between 8 - 9AM 10m wide footpaths , under physical distancing: 396 people per 100 metres

Bourke Street Mall South Sensor 3116 people 786 metres of people

Bourke Street Mall North Sensor 3645 people 920 metres of people

Flinders St x Swanston St Sensor 4434 people 1.1 kilometres of people

Pedestrian Activity x Swanston St Footpath Capacity OVER CAPACITY Using Pedestrian Hourly Counting data from sensors along the study area - averaged from 5 different Wednesdays across seasons.

0400

0900

0100

0200

0300

0500

0600

0700

0800

1000

1100

1200

1300

1700

1800

1400

1500

1900

2000

1600

2100

2200

2300

Peak times that can not faciliate physical distancing

0800

1200

1700

1800

1600

Implementation: Street Closure

Major Car Route Tram Route Street Closure 48

Creating space that can be further utilized out of peak hours? The survival of cafes, bars & restaurants under physical distancing

Temporal outdoor dining

Conflict of Seating Capacity and Laws Currently a maximum of 20 people in pubs, cafes and restaurants. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Everyone must have four square metres of space and tables must be placed 1.5 metres apartâ&#x20AC;?

400

Selecting areas for temporary dining activity: Footpath widths | Public amenities & Street furniture | Cafes, bars & restaurants

Street Closures Example: Little Bourke Street (Chinatown)

Russell Street

Swanston Street

Lonsdale Street

Little Bourke Street

Bourke Street 1

New pedestrian zone

400

Street Closures Example: Little Bourke Street (Chinatown)

Peak hours

Transformation

Dining Area 53

_Cycle Melbourne Alex Riley / James Devereux / Sarah Martinussen

100

Australia

40 26/05/2019 100

56 56

Worldwide

20 26/05/2019

GOOGLE TRENDS - â&#x20AC;&#x153;BICYCLEâ&#x20AC;? SEARCH January 25th - First coronavirus case in Australia

In the development of this project, the initial concept was driven by the social responses to the covid-19 outbreak. Focusing on witnessed Increase in interest in cycling, and the increase of numbers of cyclists around the world we began to consider how to Maximize upon this shift in social perspective and the apparent escalation in willingness to cycling in Melbourne. We have thereby conducted research around the two main themes of safety and time efficiency with the aim to further motivate and increase support for the cyclists of Melbourne.

4.89M

7% 1.30M

POPULATION

60% MODE OF TRAVEL

INTO CITY CENTRE

CYCLING CRASHES WITH MO VEHICLES NATIONAL

58 58

37 Up until the 1960â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the Netherlands presented Urban forms to match global trends of auto-centricity, however it was a shift during the 1970â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s that reoriented cities such as Utrecht towards a cycling focus (Bliss 2019). In particular over the last decade Utrecht has prioritised a continual maintenance and improvement of the bicycle friendly nature of the city (Municipality of Utrecht 2019). With an annual investment of $55 million (Schuetze 2017) and a drive to implement innovation in their cycling improvements, Utrecht aims to double their cycling numbers by 2030 (Copenhagenize Index 2019). It is through a political will and the dedication to investment that Utrecht has risen to become a world leader in cycle-ability, it is therefore because of these factors that we will focus on Utrecht as a precedent throughout this project.

79.1%

City Profiles

75%

CITY PROFILES

OTOR

59 59

NATIONAL FATALITIES

Melbourne MELBOURNE

Utrecht UTRECHT

MELBOURNES SUBURBS

VIC AVERAGE MEDIAN AGE 37

60 60

NORTH MELBOURNE

CARLTON

POPULATION 14940

POPULATION 19001

MEDIAN AGE 28

MEDIAN AGE 24

DOCKLANDS

PARKVILLE

MELBOURNE POPULATION 47285 MEDIAN AGE 27

SOUTH YARRA

POPULATION 7409

POPULATION 10964

POPULATION 25147

MEDIAN AGE 26

MEDIAN AGE 30

MEDIAN AGE 32

WEST MELBOURNE

KENSINGTON

EAST MELBOURNE

POPULATION 5515

POPULATION 7409

POPULATION 4964

MEDIAN AGE 30

MEDIAN AGE 26

MEDIAN AGE 38

FLEMMINGTON

PORT MELBOURNE

SOUTHBANK

POPULATION 7719

POPULATION 16175

POPULATION 18,709

MEDIAN AGE 33

MEDIAN AGE 40

MEDIAN AGE 30

CARLTON NORTH

SOUTH WHARF

POPULATION 6300

POPULATION 106

MEDIAN AGE 33

MEDIAN AGE 34

61 61

PORT MELBOURNE

CARLTON

10 mins

45 mins (every 10 mins)

14 mins (every 15 mins)

SOUTHBANK

62 62

SOUTH WHARF

12 mins

17 mins (every 15 mins)

20 mins (every 15 mins)

CARLTON NORTH

DOCKLANDS

11 mins

12 mins

15 mins

19 mins (every 15 mins)

(every 10 mins)

TRANSPORT OPTIONS BY SUBURB TRAIN STATION BUS STOP NORTH MELB

TRAM ROUTE

13 mins 16 mins

BIKE PATH

(every 12 mins)

63 63

WEST MELBOURNE

16 mins 33 mins

FLEMINGTON

64 64

EAST MELBOURNE

22 mins

34 mins

19 mins (every 5 mins)

(every 15 mins)

KENSINGTON

SOUTH YARRA

18 MINS

21 MINS

29 MINS (EVERY 20 MINS)

20 MINS (every 6 mins)

TRANSPORT OPTIONS BY SUBURB TRAIN STATION BUS STOP PARKVILLE

TRAM ROUTE

24 mins 32 mins

BIKE PATH

(every 15 mins)

65 65

66 66

RESIDENTIAL ROADS BIKE ROUTES CYCLE WAYS

68 68

UTRECHT ROADS UTRECHT CYCLE NETWORK

MARIAPLAATS, UTRECHT

70 70 SURFACE TREATMENT

VRENDENBERG, UTRECHT

71 71

72 72

The following pages spatialise the traffic accidents involving cyclists over the past 5 years. This data is sourced from the Victorian Department of Transportâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s open data. By separating the crashes by the varying conditions and externalities that are at play, we have been able to pin-point unsafe locations that are the direct result of poorly designed road infrastructures. Allowing for the evaluation of these infrastructural conditions and the presentation of proposals for improvement.

CRASH SEVERITY

OTHER INJURY SERIOUS INJURY FATAL ACCIDENT

74 74

ROAD GEOMETRY

NOT AT INTERSECTION MULTIPLE INTERSECTION Y INTERSECTION T INTERSECTION CROSS INTERSECTION

76 76

LIGHT CONDITION

DUSK / DAWN DARK & NO STREET LIGHTS DAY DARK STREET LIGHTS ON

78 78

SPEED ZONE

30 KM/HR 40 KM/HR 50 KM/HR 60 KM/HR 70 KM/HR 80 KM/HR

80 80

GENDER INVOLVEMENT

1 - 2 MALES 1 - 2 FEMALES

82 82

BIKE MINGLED WITH ROAD / PUBLIC TRANSPORT CYCLE WAYS

84 84

FATAL INCIDENTS BIKE MINGLED WITH PUBLIC TRANSPORT

86 86

DRUMMOND STREET

BIKE ROUTES FATAL INCIDENTS BIKE MINGLED WITH PUBLIC TRANSPORT

88 88

Identifying where upgrades to the network were needed we then pr posed routes which could accommodate bike friendly connections throughout the entirety of the city. Striving for the fluid and transient nature of the Utrecht bike network. Then pushing it further by altering traffic light conditions to find a greater catchment of people to potentially use the bike network as a more frequent form of transport.

BIKE HIGHWAY BIKE ROUTE

10m 30s

m 13 s 30

9m 45s 3m

13m

s 30

18 m

15 s

30s

90 90

5m 15s

TIME SAVED TO GET TO THE CBD IF TRAFFIC LIGHTS ON KEY BIKE ROUTES WERE REMOVED

Key Bike Routes

in 15m

92 92

o CB t e k

WHAT IF TRAFFIC LIGHTS WERE REMOVED ON MAJOR BIKE ROUTES?

WITH TRAFFIC LIGHTS SUBURBS WITHIN 15MINUTES CYCLE TO THE CITY

CURRENT MAJOR BIKE ROUTES

TRAFFIC LIGHTS

Brunswick West

Brunswick East

Moonee Ponds Brunswick

Northcote

Ascot Vale Alphington Clifton Hill

Footscray

Kew Seddon

in 15m

o CB t e k

Port Melbourne Toorak Prahran St Kilda East St Kilda Balaclava Ripponlea Elwood 94 94

Elsternwick

NEW SUBURBS WITHIN 15MINUTES OF THE CBD

awthorn Hawthorn East

WITHOUT TRAFFIC LIGHTS SUBURBS WITHIN 15MINUTES CYCLE TO THE CITY

EXTENSIONS TO MAJOR BIKE ROUTES

CURRENT MAJOR BIKE ROUTES

_Walkable City Aishwarya Anand Khoth / Jiaqi Zhang / Yihan Wang

Walk Score

According to a survey of walk score in Melbourne, Melbourne CBDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s walk score is really high,is 99. What is interesting that Carlton and Docklands are 2 surburb that are close to CBD. Carltonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s walk score is also high, but Docklands score is much lower than Carlton and central. 98

Source: https://www.walkscore.com/

Range of study Carlton, Melbourne CBD, Docklands

By studying the pedestrian behavior in CBD, Docklands and Carlton. We have tried to address the reasons as to why the walk score of Docklands is lower than Carlton and CBD. Also, we have drawn son conclusions on what relates to a good city walking environment? and How can we create a better urban walking system ? 99

REASON AND INTRESTING WALK

100

Melbourne CBD

Carlton

Docklands

101

102

Land use analysis

It can be observed that carlton has a dominant residential land use followed by restaurant and retail precincts. CBD moreover has a good ratio of all land uses making it a mixed land use community. Whereas Docklands has a dominant commercial and residential land use. It has less amount of shopping and restaurant amenities compared to CBD and carlton.

103

CARLTON 104

CBD

Pedestrian density in relation tâ&#x20AC;&#x2039;o land use Weekdays

On weekdays the pedestrian density is observed to be the highest in CBD and can be observed to be the heavy pedestrian density along swanston, bourk and flinderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s street. This could probably be linked with its mixed ratio of land uses. Carlton has high pedestrian density along swanston street, north and Lygon street which has a dominant restaurant precinct. Lastly, Docklands has high pedestrian density towards southern cross station during weekdays.

DOCKLANDS 105

CARLTON 106

CBD

Pedestrian density in relation tâ&#x20AC;&#x2039;o land use Weekends

On weekends, the density looks almost the same in CBD with lower number of pedestrians along swanston street towards north. Carlton has increased pedestrian density along lygon street. Whereas docklands seem to less dense along southern cross station during weekends.

DOCKLANDS 107

Accessible Services andInfrastructure

Residential building

400 meters walk loop

LEGEND Entertainment Restaurant, Cafe, Retail, Supermarket Performance Hospital, clinic Educational Public Display Area Community Use Residential Building 400 meters walk loop

Then we make some residential buildings as the center point to set some 400 meters walk loops. 400 meters is a comfortable walking distance, and means people can get where they want within 5 minites by walking. So, we’d like to have a look if it’s easy access to sevices for each neighboorhood. 108

Accessible Services andâ&#x20AC;&#x2039;Infrastructure

LEGEND Entertainment Restaurant, Cafe, Retail, Supermarket Performance Hospital, clinic Educational Public Display Area Community Use Residential Building 400 meters walk loop

In Carlton and CBD, many neighborhoods offers different amenities and easy access to different kinds of services. In Docklands, people have limited opportunities and have less choice to access peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s daily needs. 109

SAFE AND COMFORTABLE WALK

110

Melbourne CBD

Carlton

Docklands

111

The Urban Grain

112

The Urban Grain

Doclands is not like CBD and Carlton have a tight urban fabric. The block size in Docklands is much bigger than Carlton and CBD. Large , uniform building plots pose the challenge of connecting the built areas with each other to ensure continuity within the urban fabric and the experience of it. Also, Docklands has less path intersection than the other 2 areas. So,the low density of intersections and lager block sizes also lead to a bad connectivity and low walkable degree.

113

Footpath Typology

Obviously, Docklandsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; streets are wider and the footpath size canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t provide too much space for people to have social activities along street.

114

Street Width and Building Elevation

This is the mapping of down street width between 3-9 m that suitable for people to walk and overlay with building elevation, so we figure out the ratio between laneway and buildings. Docklandsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; laneway scale seems overwhelming the others.

115

Average Traffic Flow of Cars in CBD, CARLTON and DOCKLANDS

This bar chart shows the average traffic flow, significantly, CBD and Carlton have higher traffic flow 116

Average Traffic FlowÂ &Â Pedestrian Density

However, through the studying the relationship between traffic flow and pedestrian flow, a phenomenon can be found. Although the number of cars in Docklands is less than and CBD and Carlton, the street with more vehicles is consistent with the street with more pedestrians. Therefore, it might exist potential safe issue of pedestrian.

117

Street Light Illumination

lighting conditions are a factor reflecting community safety. Comparing the three community, CBD has the best light illumination, followed by Docklands. 118

Greens & Street Furnituresâ&#x20AC;&#x2039;

Docklands has less green spaces and street funitures than CBD and Carlton. Open green areas in Docklands are mostly located towards Southern Docklands with green streets. However, Carlton's green spaces are more evenly. The green space and street funitures documented that many individual sites in Docklands were well designed but the connecting spaces were of low quality resulting in few pedestrians moving between destinations. 119

Maximum Pederstrian Density Street

Here are existing built fabric and building height. Docklandsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; building scale is greater than others. For ground floor context and transportation. CBD and Carlton have mix use street and transportation in CBD more friendly to pedestrian For street furniture and green space. Docklandsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; furniture and trees is the least.

120

Maximum Pederstrian Density Street

121

122

Maximum Pederstrian Density Street

In conclusion, the reasons why Docklands is not walkable enough are that building volume is too large; transportation doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t encourage people to walk and the amenities and the amount of street furniture are limited for people.

123

PROPOSAL FOR DOCKLANDS

124

Reduce Footprint Sizes â&#x20AC;&#x2039;

Reduced new buildings footprint sizes to encourage laneways for pedestrian access.That will also create some public space more suitable for human scale rather than overwhelming.

125

Distribute Amenities

Docklands can be observed to have unbalanced nature of distribution of amenities. Towards southern cross station – Low, The District – High. Mix-used buildings will provide more space as community use for people.

126

Open Ground Floor

Lobby

Compared to CBD and Carlton, Docklands seem to have very low amount of retail and cafes. Opening ground floor and increase of this land use would encourage more pedestrian density as to being a reason to walk.

127

Increase Urban Furniture and TreesÂ

Docklands has less amount of urban furniture and trees compared to the other two areas. Increasing this kind of street landscape could help pedestrian interaction with the urban fabric.

128

Decrease Street Width and Transport Modes

As observed, Docklands has wider streets and more transport systems running around the streets. Restricting vehicular transport on certain streets and improving continuns cycle lanes could help build safe pedestrian streets in Docklands. Planting trees also can narrow the streets and provide a more comfortable walking experience.

129

_Rearranging the City Chaitali Bhanushali / Harshitha Mruthyunjaya / Shalome Pinto

130

131

1.6m

20.1%

7.9m 1.6m

20.5%

1.0m 21.5%

4.5m 0.6m

13.8%

Metropolitan Melbourne 2015

2.9m 64.8%

132 132

Metropolitan Melbourne

2051

4.7m 59.4%

80K 70K 60K 50K 40K 30K 20K 10K 0-5

5-10

10-15

DISTANCE FROM CBD (KM)

15-20

0-5 5-10 10-15

DISTANCE FROM THE CBD (KM)

FIVE YEAR POPULATION GROWTH BY DISTANCE FROM CBD (2011-2016)

15-20

DISTANCE FROM THE CBD (KM)

120

100 Plenty - Yarrambat

Gladstone Park - Westmeadows

Melbourne Airport

Bundoora - North

Thomastown

Broadmeadows

Bundoora - West Bundoora - East

Tullamarine Glenroy

Gowanbrae

Greensborough Watsonia

Fawkner Reservoir - West

42.6

Kingsbury

Reservoir - East Keilor Pascoe Vale

Airport West

Montmorency - Briar Hill

Coburg North

Essendon Airport Strathmore

Keilor Downs

Viewbank - Yallambie

Preston - West Pascoe Vale South

37.6

Heidelberg West

Preston - East

Heidelberg - Rosanna

Coburg

Niddrie - Essendon West

30.8

Templestowe

Essendon - Aberfeldie

Keilor East

45.7

Thornbury Templestowe Lower

Brunswick West Sunshine North

Ne t growt h in populat ionpe r ye ar (t housands)

ROWTH

90K

Moonee Ponds

Brunswick

Ivanhoe

Brunswick East

Bulleen

Ivanhoe East - Eaglemont

Northcote Maribyrnong

11.1

Ascot Vale

9.7 25.7

31.9

28.7

27.0

Flemington Racecourse

8.2

27.2

16.2 11.1

Seddon - Kingsville

12.8

16.5

3.3

6.1

5.6

8.8

12.9

8.0

8.5

7.8

8.2

7.3

17.3

11.7

8.2

6.8

0 2005

2006

Annual Melbourne population growth by region

2007

2008

7.3

2009

Newport

Outer Growth

18.8

Outer Middle

2004

Box Hill North

Kew

Abbotsford

Surrey Hills (East) - Mont Albert Surrey Hills (West) - Canterbury

Hawthorn

Box Hill

Southbank Port Melbourne Industrial Altona North

5.1

2003

FitzroyCollingwood

East Melbourne

Docklands

Yarraville

Altona

2002

Carlton

Balwyn

9.4

3.0

Balwyn North

Melbourne

6.2

3.1

North Melbourne

6.6

8.9

4.9

Kew East

West Melbourne

Richmond (Vic.)

4.4 7.7 5.0

Yarra - North

Kensington (Vic.) Footscray West Footscray - Tottenham

Sunshine West

5.7

Doncaster

Fitzroy North Carlton North - Princes Hill Parkville

Flemington

Braybrook Sunshine

6.1

2010

Inner Centre

Hawthorn East South Melbourne Camberwell

Port Melbourne

South Yarra - West South Yarra - East

Toorak Burwood

Albert Park Prahran - Windsor Armadale Williamstown

Glen Iris - East

Malvern - Glen Iris

St Kilda

Mount Waverley - North

Ashburton (Vic.)

St Kilda East

Ashwood - Chadstone Malvern East Elwood Mount Waverley - South

Elsternwick Carnegie Ormond - Glen Huntly

Murrumbeena Hughesdale

Oakleigh - Huntingdale

Brighton (Vic.) Bentleigh East (North) Brighton East

Outer Growth Outer Middle Inner Centre

Clayton

Bentleigh - McKinnon

Bentleigh East (South)

Clarinda - Oakleigh South

133 133

Population Density Change (1981 - 1991)

less than -20 -20 to 0 less 0 to than 10 -20 10 -to200 -20 20 0 toand 10 greater 10 - 20

Population Density Change (2001 - 2011)

20 and greater persons/ha

persons/ha

Population by density and distance from CBD, 2006

0-5

5-10

160K

5-10 5-10

10-15

10-15 10-15

15-20 140K

15-20 15-20

20-25 25-30

20-25 20-25

30-35

120K

25-30 25-30

35-40

30-35 30-35

40-45 100K

35-40 35-40

45-50 50-55

40-45 40-45 45-50 45-50

55-60

80K

60-70

50-55 50-55

70-80

55-60 55-60

80-90

60K

60-70 60-70

90-100

70-80 70-80

40K

80-90 80-90 90-100 90-100

20K

300-400 >400

150-200 150-200

200-300 200-300 300-400 300-400

>400

134 134

150-200

200-300

100-150 100-150

100-150

Population Density Change (1991 - 2001)

Population Density Change (2001 - 2011)

-20

eater

persons/ha

Population by density and distance from CBD, 2011

persons/ha

Population by density and distance from CBD, 2016

0-5 5-10

160K

0-5 5-10 5-10

160K

10-15

10-15 10-15

15-20 140K

15-20 15-20 140K

20-25

20-25 20-25

25-30 30-35

120K

25-30 25-30 30-35 30-35

120K

35-40

35-40 35-40

40-45 100K

45-50

40-45 40-45 100K

45-50 45-50

50-55 55-60

80K

50-55 50-55 55-60 55-60

80K

60-70

60-70 60-70

70-80 80-90

60K

70-80 70-80 80-90 80-90

60K

90-100 100-150

40K

90-100 90-100 100-150 100-150

40K

150-200

150-200 150-200

200-300 20K

300-400

200-300 200-300 20K

300-400 300-400

>400 0K

135 135

10% 35%

20%

2.3%

Community services Business services Retail Construc�on Manufacturing

20%

15%

WESTERN

5% 10% 30% 10%

Community services Business services

1.4%

Retail Construc�on Manufacturing 45%

INNER

5% 10% 35%

1.3%

EMPLOYMENT G

Community services Business services Retail

20%

Construc�on Manufacturing 30%

INNER SOUTH EAST 136 136

Community Services

Business Services

Currently, the city has around 2.1 million jobs. As Melbourne is estimated to reach 2.8 million by

5% 20%

35%

Community services Business services

1.5%

Retail

Construc�on

Manufacturing

25% 15%

NORTHERN

10% 30% 20%

Community services Business services Retail

0.1%

Construc�on

Manufacturing

15%

25%

EASTERN

5% 20%

GROWTH BY REGION

35%

Community services Business services Retail

0.5%

Construc�on

Manufacturing

25% 15%

Retail

Construction

Manufacturing

e’s population heads towards 8 million, the number of jobs y 20316 and 3.6 million by 20517.

SOUTHERN

137 137

EXISTING EMPLOYMENT

138 138

1:25000

LOW

HIGH

NEW ESTABLISHED EMPLOYMENT 1:25000

LOW

HIGH

139 139

Australia United States Canada Japan Netherlands Germany Singapore United Kingdom Denmark New Zealand Hong Kong, China France 0

12 Tonnes of CO2 per capita

250

200

150

100

Bus Car Light commercial

140 140

Motorcycle

0 1971

1975

1981

1985

1991

1995

2001

2005

2011

2015

2019

Truck

17-29 12-17 10-12

using public8-10 transport on survey day 7-8 6-7 5-6

Persons using public transport on survey day

141 141

1% 20%

2016

2018

20%

Journeys to work

Ac�ve transport

120.00%

Public transport

Public transport 45%

2018

46%

Private transport

Private transport Other

33%

100.00%

45%

Other

34%

80.00%

2016

46%

Motorcycle Tram 60.00%

Walking

20%

40.00%

Ac�ve transport

49% Motorcycle

Other

30%

Car

Ac�ve transport

Private transport

20.00%

Cycling

Public transport

Public transport 46% 2016

2014

Tram

Bus

33%

Other

2014

49%

Bus 0.00%

Walking Cycling

2001

2006

2011

2016

Car

20% Ac�ve transport

2018 2010

45%

23%

45%

34%

Public transport

Ac�ve transport

Ac�ve Privatetransport transport Public transport Other 2014 Private transport

2010

20% Public transport 49%

Private transport 30%

Other

31%

2016 1%

1% 1%

20%

Ac�ve transport

2016

46%

2018 Private transport 33%

142 142

Ac�ve transport

Public transport45% Other

2010

23%

45% 34%

Public transport Ac�ve transport Private transport Public transport Other Private transport Other

31%

45%

74.4% CAR

MOTORCYCLE

CYCLING

0.0%

5.4%

WALKING

TRAM

10%

5.4% BUS

3.4% Melbourne is doing well in: -moving towards the 95% policy target for access to public transport -providing access to public open spaces within 400 m of residences. 69% of residences have access to a bus stop within 400 m, tram stop within 600 m or train station within 800 m, moving towards Victoriaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ambitious 95% public transport policy target. 36% of residences in Melbourne meet the stricter public transport national liveability indicator requirements, and are within 400m of a public transport stop with a scheduled service at least every 30 minutes between 7am and 7pm on a normal weekday. This result highlights the importance of service frequency in measuring transport access. However, Melbourne is not doing well in: -fully implementing policies aimed at increasing access to destinations, street connectivity, and density to create walkable neighbourhoods -providing access to public transport and walkable communities in outer suburban areas. 28% of people in Melbourne live and work in the same broad area, but when traveling to work only 16% use public transport, and only 5% walk or cycle.

143 143

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

-500 0-0.5

0.5-1

1-2

2-4

4-7

7-10

10-13

13-16

16-20

20-24

24-30

30-40

40+

distance in KM

Growth in number of journeys to work by bicycle and work place distance from melbourne city centre, 2011 to 2016 2500

2000

1500

1000

500

-500 <5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

25-30

30-35

35-40

distance in KM

144 144

Growth in number of journeys to work by bicycle and home distance from melbourne city centre, 2011 to 2016

40-45

45-50

50-55

55-60

0 100 200 300 400

500

GROWTH

DECLINE

145 145

NET VOLUME CHANGE IN JOURNEY TO WORK ORIGINS BY BICYCLE 2016

WALKABILITY CATCHMENT AREA 1:50000

146 146

HIGH

LOW

WALKABILITY CATCHMENT AREA

HIGH

LOW

1:100000

Melbourne’s target of an average net density of 15 dwellings or more per hectare is low, and well below that required to create walkable neighbourhoods (at least 25 dwellings per hectare). Notably, only 21% of Melbourne’s suburbs are achieving even this modest dwelling density target.

147 147

OFFICE WALKABILITY

148 148

1:50000

ALCOHOL ENVIRONMENT 1:50000

149 149

ARTCULTURE WALKING INTENSITY

150 150

1:50000

GREEN WALKABILITY 1:50000

151 151

Romsey

Wallan

Macedon

Riddells Creek

Kinglake

Whittlesea Gisborne

Mernda

Craigieburn - Central

Panton Hill - St Andrews

Doreen

Sunbury - South

Healesville - Yarra Glen South Morang (North) Greenvale - Bulla

Melton

Roxburgh Park - Somerton

Hurstbridge Epping - South South Morang (South) Plenty - Yarrambat

Meadow Heights Mill Park - North Lalor

Campbellfield - Coolaroo

Wattle Glen - Diamond Creek Mill Park - South

Melton West Gladstone Park - Westmeadows

Melbourne Airport

Bundoora - North

Thomastown

Broadmeadows

Bundoora - West

Taylors Lakes

Bundoora - East

Tullamarine Sydenham

Glenroy

Gowanbrae

Lilydale - Coldstream

Reservoir - West

Airport West

Keilor Downs

Pascoe Vale Coburg North

Essendon Airport Strathmore

Pascoe Vale South

Niddrie - Essendon West Burnside

Viewbank - Yallambie

Preston - West

St Albans - North

Kings Park (Vic.)

Caroline Springs Melton South

Heidelberg West

Preston - East

Coburg

Montmorency - Briar Hill Chirnside Park Warrandyte - Wonga Park

Heidelberg - Rosanna Templestowe

Essendon - Aberfeldie

Keilor East

St Albans - South

Eltham

Kingsbury

Reservoir - East

Delahey

Research - North Warrandyte

Greensborough Watsonia

Fawkner Hadfield

Keilor

Wandin - Seville Yarra Valley

Thornbury

Cairnlea Sunshine North

Moonee Ponds

Brunswick West

Templestowe Lower Brunswick

Ivanhoe Ivanhoe East - Eaglemont

Brunswick East

Northcote

Maribyrnong

Croydon Hills - Warranwood

Alphington - Fairfield

Mooroolbark

Ascot Vale

Ardeer - Albion

Fitzroy North Carlton North - Princes Hill Parkville

Flemington

Braybrook Deer Park - Derrimut

Doncaster East (North)

Bulleen

Flemington Racecourse

Sunshine

Donvale - Park Orchards

Doncaster Yarra - North

Kew East

Doncaster East (South)

Balwyn North

Ringwood North

Kensington (Vic.) Footscray

Seddon - Kingsville

Croydon - East

North Melbourne

West Footscray - Tottenham

Sunshine West

Carlton

Fitzroy Collingwood Abbotsford

Melbourne Docklands

Transport

Altona North

Uncredited Open Space

Laverton

Newport

Williamstown

South Yarra -South West Yarra - East

Blackburn South

Camberwell

Bayswater

Burwood East

Glen Iris - East

Malvern - Glen Iris

Altona Meadows

Wantirna South

Ashwood - Chadstone Malvern East

Mount Waverley - South Caulfield - South

Carnegie

Ormond - Glen Huntly

Ferntree Gully (South) - Upper Ferntree Gully Knoxfield - Scoresby

Murrumbeena Hughesdale

Brighton East

Upwey - Tecoma Rowville - North

Wheelers Hill

Oakleigh - Huntingdale

Brighton (Vic.) Bentleigh East (North)

Clayton

Rowville - Central

Bentleigh - McKinnon

Lysterfield

Mulgrave Werribee - West

Bentleigh East (South)

Rowville - South

Belgrave - Selby

Clarinda - Oakleigh South

Hampton

Clayton South

Springvale

Emerald - Cockatoo Noble Park North

Moorabbin - Heatherton

Dandenong North

Cheltenham - Highett (West)

Werribee - South

Lara

Monbulk - Silvan

Ferntree Gully (North)

Glen Waverley - East Glen Waverley - West

Elsternwick

Point Cook - North

The Basin

Boronia

Mount Dandenong - Olinda

Ashburton (Vic.)

St Kilda East

Wantirna

Vermont South

Mount Waverley - North

Elwood Seabrook

Vermont

Forest Hill

Burwood

Armadale

Caulfield - North

Werribee - East

Bayswater North

Toorak

St Kilda

Hoppers Crossing - North

Hoppers Crossing - South

Kilsyth

Croydon South Ringwood East

Box Hill

South Melbourne

Port Melbourne

Prahran - Windsor

Altona

Mitcham (Vic.)

Hawthorn East

Albert Park

Wyndham Vale

Nunawading

Hills (East) - Mont Albert Surrey Hills (West) - Surrey Canterbury

Hawthorn

Southbank

Montrose

Ringwood Blackburn

East Melbourne Richmond (Vic.)

Port Melbourne Industrial Truganina

Box Hill North

Kew Balwyn

West Melbourne

Yarraville

Mount Evelyn

Croydon - West

Sandringham - Black Rock

Cheltenham - Highett (East) Springvale South Moorabbin Airport

Beaumaris

Endeavour Hills - North

Noble Park - East

Dingley Village

Noble Park - West Endeavour Hills - South

Mentone

Narre Warren North

Doveton Mordialloc - Parkdale

Braeside Narre Warren - North East

Hallam

Keysborough Aspendale Gardens - Waterways

Narre Warren - South West

Edithvale - Aspendale

Berwick - North

Dandenong Hampton Park - Lynbrook

Pakenham - North

Chelsea Heights Transport Transport

Narre Warren South (West) Narre Warren South (East)

Chelsea - Bonbeach

Lynbrook - Lyndhurst

Berwick - South

Carrum - Patterson Lakes

Pakenham - South Carrum Downs Skye - Sandhurst Cranbourne

Seaford (Vic.)

Frankston North

Cranbourne South Frankston Portarlington

Langwarrin

Frankston South Clifton Springs

Mount Eliza Pearcedale - Tooradin

Somerville

152 152

Future Land Use Map

Koo Wee Rup

Melbourne Vision : Multiple activity centres

153 153

ACTIVITY PRECI

INDUSTRIAL PR ACTIVITY PRECINCT INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT EDUCATIONAL PRECINCT HEALTH PRECINCT

SUNSHINE LATROBE

154 154

PARKS BICYCLE ROUTE BUS ROUTE

EDUCATIONAL P

HEALTH PRECIN PARKS

BICYCLE ROUTE BUS ROUTE

ACTIVITY PRECINCT INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT ACTIVITY PRECINCT INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT EDUCATIONAL PRECINCT HEALTH PRECINCT

LATROBE LATROBE

PARKS BICYCLE ROUTE

EDUCATIONAL PRECINCT HEALTH PRECINCT PARKS BICYCLE ROUTE BUS ROUTE

BUS ROUTE

155 155

ACTIVITY PRECINCT INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT ACTIVITY PRECINCT INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT EDUCATIONAL PRECINCT HEALTH PRECINCT

WERRIBEE LATROBE

156 156

PARKS BICYCLE ROUTE BUS ROUTE

EDUCATIONAL PRECINCT HEALTH PRECINCT PARKS BICYCLE ROUTE BUS ROUTE

ACTIVITY PRECINCT INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT ACTIVITY PRECINCT INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT EDUCATIONAL PRECINCT HEALTH PRECINCT

DANDEDONG LATROBE

PARKS BICYCLE ROUTE

EDUCATIONAL PRECINCT HEALTH PRECINCT PARKS BICYCLE ROUTE BUS ROUTE

BUS ROUTE

157 157

ACTIVITY PRECINCT ACTIVITY PRECINCT INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT EDUCATIONAL PRECINCT HEALTH PRECINCT PARKS

LATROBE

158 158

FISHERMENâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S BEND

BICYCLE ROUTE BUS ROUTE

INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT EDUCATIONAL PRECINCT HEALTH PRECINCT PARKS BICYCLE ROUTE BUS ROUTE

ACTIVITY PRECINCT ACTIVITY PRECINCT INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT EDUCATIONAL PRECINCT HEALTH PRECINCT PARKS

LATROBE

CLAYTON

BICYCLE ROUTE

INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT EDUCATIONAL PRECINCT HEALTH PRECINCT PARKS BICYCLE ROUTE BUS ROUTE

BUS ROUTE

159 159

_The Behaviour of Urban Systems Nutsara Thaemmee / Mihiri Niyarepola / Zhengding Qian

160

161

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE CONGESTION

92.5%

of Australian households have a car.

1.8

car per household

92%

of Australian drive

2016

+2.5%

162 number of registered vehicles in victoria The australian bureau of statistics

2017

+2.5%

Total Number of trips originating in Melbourne on an average weekday

Work Purpose 31.03 % Social/ Recreation Purpose 21.12 % Shopping Purpose 13.34 % Accompany/ Pick up/ Drop off Purpose 12.15 % Education Purpose 7.83 % Personal Business Purpose 6.08 %

2018

+2.5%

2019

+2.2%

Other Purposes 3.44 %

Private Vehicle 38.30 % Walking 36.17 % Public Transport 19.15 % Bicycle 4.25 % Other Modes 2.13 %

Travel & activity to work and education purpose 163

164

Melbourne

TYpical Traffic congestion

2019

Travel & activity to work and education purpose Private Vehicle 38.30 % Walking 36.17 % Public Transport 19.15 % Bicycle 4.25 % Other Modes 2.13 % Low congestion

High congestion

Low Density

High 165 Density

166

building typologies

Educational Institutions Office building manufacturing 167 workshop/ studio

168

Melbourne Traffic and building

distribution

17 mins

stuck in the traffic

Peak Time 8-9 AM Average

60 % 30 %

Educational Institutions Office building manufacturing workshop/ Low congestion

High 169 congestion

170

2020

traffic congestion (During Covid-19)

Peak Time 8-9 AM 18 % Average 20 %

Educational Institutions Office building manufacturing workshop/ studio Low congestion

High 171 congestion

+80

+40

-40

-80 15 Mar 172

5 Apr

Covid-19

has changed mobility trend in 2020

Residential +16% Residential +16% Grocery & pharmacy -9 Grocery & Phamacy -9%

Workplace -37% Workplace -37% Retail & Recreation -45% Retail & Recreation -45% Park -63%

Park -63%

-67% TransitTransit stations - Stations 67% 26 Apr 173

43% 35%

55%

42%

30%

36%

38%

47%

39 43% 59% 61% 41%

174

40%

Melbourne

Through traffic

37%

49%

31% 43 %

43% TOTAL THROUGH TRAFFIC

26%

7.30-9.30 AM

34 %

10.00-11.00 PM 52 %

29%

Low congestion

High 175 congestion

Congested roads and crowded trains remain, 50 years after visionary Melbournetransport plan ABC Radio Melbourne / By Kristian Silva Posted 12 DecDecember 2019

Clogged city: Melbourne's traffic slowingdown more than anywhere else in Australia 176

THE AGE By Timna Jacks June 27, 2019

By 2036

, an extra 500,000 people were expected to pass through the CBD each day

177

178

ALTERNATIVES FOR RUDUCE THE TRAFFIC CONgEsTION

Train station Railway network Tram Stop Tram network Bus Stop

179 BICyCLE NETwORk

180

Train

Accessibility

within 5 minutes walk

Educational Institutions Office building manufacturing

181 workshop/ studio

182

TRam

Accessibility

within 5 minutes walk

Educational Institutions Office building manufacturing

183 workshop/ studio

184

Bus

Accessibility

within 5 minutes walk

Educational Institutions Office building manufacturing

185 workshop/ studio

186

BUILDING PROXIMITY

TO PUBLIC TRANSPORT HUBS

within 5 minutes walk

Educational Institutions Office building manufacturing

187 workshop/ studio

188

*** re locate services in to the buil

1. Re - Planning

building typologies

PROPOSED more mixed use buildings 70% commercial 30% residential

189. buildings where there are available spaces within the pubic transport accessible region

190

2. New BICyCLE

NETwORk

NEW BICYCLE LaNE

CURRENT BICYCLE LANE *** MORE PROTECTED BICYCLE LANES

191

192

3. identifying hot spots

of traffic , services and public transport

• introducing shuttle service SYSTEM FOR OFFICES • more public transport during peak hour • temporary close street during peak hour. • MAINTAINING DIFFERENT WORKING HOURS AMOUNG THE OFFICES IN CBD.

193

194

4. Reducing

oN street parking

Reducing on street parking in High traffic congestion area

195

43% 35%

55%

42%

30%

36%

38%

47%

39 43% 59% 61% 41%

196

40%

5. BY PASS ROUTE 37%

49%

31% PROPOSE A BY PASS STREET AROUND THE CBD TO AVOID THE TROUGH TRAFFIC

43%

26%

29%

197

Fli

198

all

tre

W TO

ati

6. Underground Passage & Mall

Fewer pedestrians on the road To reduce pedestrian congestion & pressure on Street pedestrian crossing Reduce the impact of pedestrians on traffic

L L A

IO T A T S

TOWN HALL STATION )Metro( Planned entrance

New entrance Underground Passage

Tram station Underground Mall 199

_Towards an Energy Resilient City Chuhan Yao / Rui Wang / Haidong Guo

200

201

Melbourne Energy Consumption Structure

Commercial Electricity Emission: 85% Avg. Energy Consumption per Person: 35 KWh Industrial Electricity Emission: 2% Avg. Energy Consumption per Person: 3.4 KWh Comm/Indus Gas Emission: 4% Total Emissions 4413 kt/year

Residential Gas Emission: 1%

Residential Energy Emission: 8% Avg. Energy Consumption per Person: 8.5 KWh

202

Melbourne Program Context Map

Retail/Office Commercial Residencial 203

Melbourne Energy Profile

North Melbourne: 5.2

Carlton: 5.1

West Melbourne: 5.5

Melbourne CBD: 6.0

Southbank: 4.3

Docklands: 6.2

204

Street Program: Commercial

2021

2026

205

Resilient Agenda---roof projects in Melbourne

Resilient City: Efficiency Design -Identify current roof conditions of existing buildings and discover potential for upgrading -Relief pressure to current energy consumption density 206

Resilient Practices

Installation of Solar/Green/Cool Roof will reduce energy consumption in the future.

207

Without resilient practice Low

208

High

With resilient practice Low

High

209

Street Program: Residential

2021

210

2026

Resilient Practices

Installation of Solar/Green/Cool Roof will reduce energy consumption in the future.

211

Without resilient practice Low

212

High

With resilient practice Low

High

213

System Proposal: Green Roof System

Existing Hign Recommendation 214

Recommendation

Proposal: Green Roof System

Original Comsumption (commercial)

Reduced Comsumption (commercial)

Original Comsumption (residential)

Reduced Comsumption (residential)

The Green Roof proposal helps reduce commercial energy consumption for 303570, residential energy consumption for 15512.

215

Proposal: Cool Roof System

Existing Hign Recommendation 216

Recommendation

Proposal: Cool Roof System

Original Comsumption (commercial)

Reduced Comsumption (commercial)

Original Comsumption (residential)

Reduced Comsumption (residential)

The Cool Roof proposal helps reduce commercial energy consumption for 338743, residential energy consumption for 17379.

217

Proposal: Solar Roof System

Existing Hign Recommendation 218

Recommendation

Proposal: Solar Roof System

Original Comsumption (commercial)

Reduced Comsumption (commercial)

Original Comsumption (residential)

Reduced Comsumption (residential)

The Solar Roof proposal helps reduce commercial energy consumption for 1036589, residential energy consumption for 68187.

219

_Urban Performance Measures Zecong Tan / Mengzhen Li / Tszto Leung

220

221

Urban Performance Measures Urban performance measures can help communities make informed decisions and measure results against goals. In this research we discuss some of the most important urban metrics to be taken into consideration when exploring the urban environment both on the neighborhood level and on a broader city-wide scale. 1. Land use mix 2. Comfort & amenities 3. Points of interest 4. Density 5. Intersection Density 6. Mobility & Safety

222

We define a circle with a radius of 0.25mi (400 m) as a range of activities in a person's daily life. If within this range, shopping, entertainment, greening and public transportation are all available, it means that people living in this area have a relatively high quality of life.

223

Land use mix of Melbourne

Rota Geek Apartment

Citic House

Incu. QV

224

LAND USE MIX Incu.QV close to Melbourne central station

Social Welfare Building Medical Building Cultural Activity Building Educational Reserch Building Administrative Office Building Residential Building Commercial Building Public Building

225

LAND USE MIX Rota Geek close to Flagstaff station

Educational Reserch Building Administrative Office Building Cultural Activity Building Park Residential Building Commercial Building

226

LAND USE MIX Citic House close to Southern cross station

Cultural Activity Building Administrative Office Building Residential Building

227

LAND USE MIX

标注

Incu.QV

228

Rota Geek

Citic House

Points Of Interest Incu.QV

Restaurant Bar Cafe

229

Points Of Interest Rota Geek

Restaurant Bar Cafe

230

Points Of Interest Citic House

Restaurant Bar Cafe

231

Greening Incu.QV

Tree

232

Greening Rota Geek

Park Tree

233

Greening Citic House

Tree

234

Entertainment

Incu.QV

Rota Geek

Citic House

Restaurant

Bar

Cafe

Canopy Cover Rate

Accesible Park

235

Public Facilities Incu.QV

Shared Bikes Station Train Station Parking Area Tram Station

236

Public Facilities Rota Geek

Shared Bikes Station Train Station Parking Area Tram Station

237

Public Facilities Citic House

Shared Bikes Station Train Station Parking Area Tram Station

238

Public Facilities

Incu.QV

Rota Geek

Citic House

Shared Bikes Station

Train Station

Parking Area

Tram Station

239

Access to amenities

Landmarks

Public transport stops

Outdoor furniture

Trees

Public memorials and sculptures

Drinking Fountains

240

Density Incu.QV

low

high

241

Density Rota Geek

low

high

242

Density Citic House

low

high

243

Pedestrian Counters The city of Melbourne

Pedestrian Sensor

244

245

Mobility & Safety â&#x20AC;&#x201D;â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Pedestrian accessibility

246

Mobility & Safety â&#x20AC;&#x201D;â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Pedestrian accessibility

High accessibility, fine-grained network and land use pattern Medium accessibility Low accessibility, coarse walking network and land use pattern

247

Mobility & Safety â&#x20AC;&#x201D;â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Pedestrian priority

Existing pedestrian priority area Road network

248

Current Traffic Network

Tram priority route Bus priority route Bicycle priority route Pedestrian priority route Preferred traffic route Traffic route Railway line

249

Pedestrian network volumes

Pedestrian volumes full day

250

Mobility & Safety ——

EJD : Effective job density Very high EJD High EJD Moderate EJD

251

Intersection density â&#x20AC;&#x201D;â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Crowding at intersections

Moderate overcrowding Significant overcrowding Severe overcrowding

252

Pedestrian lanterns

Existing complete pedestrian signal Traffic signal that requires pedestrian lanterns Traffic signal that requires pedestrian lanterns

253

Mobility & Safety â&#x20AC;&#x201D;â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Pedestrian street Hierarchy

254

Level 1

Vehicle speed limit 30km/h

Level 2

Vehicle speed limit 30km/h

Level 3

Vehicle speed limit 10km/h

The footprint of Melbourne

255

Laneway shared zones

Existing shared zone Lanes that currently operate as shared zones and require only signage changes

Other lanes Investigation area for lanes to be converted to shared zones

256

257

_Final Review With Guests:

Dana Behrman

(Head of Urban Design @ UNStudio, Amsterdam)

Mark Bol

(Principle Advisor @ OVGA, Melbourne)

Jeroen Zuidgeest

(ex Partner @ MVRDV & Founder of Studio for New Realities, Rotterdam)

Ryanne Janssen

(Architect & Project Leader @ Studio for New Realities, Rotterdam)

2nd June 2020, 5pm (GMT+10), Live via weblink 258

259

_Afterword

260

Through experiences and devices, we absorb space, data and information in vast proportions. While many experiences are vicariously wrought through encoded and restrictive interfaces, they temper and influence our perception of reality and space. We are also active, sometimes reluctant contributors, patrons feeding the limitless system, fodder from advanced artificial intelligences to process, reconcile and make intelligible. We know physical from digital, work from leisure, near from remote, city from wilderness but it could all well be the same; collapsed into a seamless superstructure. The rational morphology of the city is superseded by an arbitrary logic of the temperamental, the real-time, the trending and yet an exaggerated blur. We are in control, or so it seems. The awareness of our existence is augmented. We have approached the ‘hyper urban’. British architectural critic Cedric Price, who sought to rethink architecture’s relationship with society queried ‘Technology is the answer, but what was the question?’ as the title of his 1979 lecture, (Price, 1979) a polemic that remains relevant if not more acute in the post-critical era. The rapid rise of the peer-to-peer economy has already hinted at how technologies that bypass orthodoxies, might be embedded within the cognition of the city, and in equal measure their capacity for disruption. The infrastructures that enable P2P and collaborative consumption could be the pivot for resilience in future urban and architectural form. The future city needs to be adaptable and inclusive. The variants and typologies exist and the new economic possibilities present a compelling armature. It’s a question of capacity and redistribution. Millennials are already entrenched in a hybrid economic system each day. (Rifkin, 2017) The sharing economy is a prime variable, and these are futures for local and federal bodies to co-author with P2P platforms, to deliver social, economic and ecological resilience in cities.

261

Ian Nazareth & David Schwarzman

FIRMWARE

Case Studies in Urban Design