Liveability in Urban Intensification: The case of Vienna

URBD 7019

LIVEABILITY [adj.]

suitable for living in; habitable; comfortable

How can Vienna Maintain its Liveability standards in the context of Intensification?

Creating compound block structures to deliver high liveable qualities

SAGARIKA CHOWDHURY 19126548

RESEARCH REPORT

URBAN DESIGN IN CHALLENGING CONTEXT

(2021)

MA UD

INTRODUCTION

BRIEF AND ISSUE

04

LITERATURE REVIEW

10

CASE STUDIES

18

CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

STAGE I MASTERPLAN ASSESSMENT

35

DESIGN PRINCIPLES

38

SITE INTRODUCTION

44

CONCLUSION

48

REFERENCES

50

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

IDEATION

CONTEXT AND ANALYSIS

TS

N

TE

N

O

C

WAY FORWARD

PREFACE

The report is prepared for the second part of Urban Design in Challenging Context module for MA Urban Design. This report aims to take forward the issues prevalent within the masterplan created in the first stage of the module which addressed the issue of delivering high environmental qualities in intensifying urban environments.

This report identifies the issues left unresolved within the Vienna masterplan which benefit the wider issue. The report looks at various literature as theoretical practices and case studies for practical knowledge to design an analytical frame work and derives design principles to be applied to a 3-block radius on the Vienna masterplan.

The issue which will be taken forward is delivering high standards of liveability in an intensifying community in Vienna. Vienna has been named one of the most liveable city in various world indices for several years. The challenge is to maintain the existing liveability standards within Vienna while doubling its density. The report aims to define, characterise and extract objectives and principles of a liveable city to incorporate them within the site.

“The streets of Vienna are paved with culture, the streets of other cities with asphalt.”

- Karl Kraus (2013)

01

INTRODUCTION BRIEF AND ISSUE

1.1 GROUP MASTERPLAN BRIEF 1.2 SUB ISSUE INTRODUCTION 1.3 REFLECTIVE SUMMARY ON MASTERPLAN 1.4 METHODOLOGY 1.5 RESEARCH QUESTION, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The chapter aims at providing an insight into the question posed at the development in Vienna. The chapter looks into what the initial Vienna masterplan aimed to achieve and the route taken to achieve the aims.

Furthermore, it introduces the sub-issue of liveability and its connection to Vienna. Reflective summary of the Vienna masterplan is provided at the end to understand where we left off and what was missing from the masterplan.

Figure 1.

Vienna (google)

RESEARCH REPORT

1.1

GROUP MASTERPLAN STAGE (BRIEF) “How do we safeguard and deliver high levels of environmental quality in the context of increasing intensification of land use?”

Intensification is a worldwide issue which deals with the increased density of people in an area.

The module of Urban design in challenging context allows us to deal with real world problems and find practical methods to deal with them.

The individual stage of the module aims at taking forward the key unresolved issues within the group stage. The masterplan produced is a culmination of several design qualities which intended at providing high environmental qualities.

The aim of the group stage was to try and deliver high environmental qualities within the context of providing a density of 800pph. The final outcome was a conceptual model based on 64 ha grid which was later applied to an appropriate site in Vienna.

However, certain key aspects and issues have not been dealt with to their fullest capacity. This research report is the first stage in a two-step process to completely familiarise ourselves with the specific issue chosen for this report. The findings of this report, in the form of design principles, will help resolve the unresolved issues still prevailing in the Vienna masterplan.

The conceptual model was a result of a meticulous literature review which help us extract important non-negotiable environmental qualities and research best practice case studies which enable us to understand the practical application of those qualities.

This report will form a methodology to extract and define the term liveability as a general concept and in context of Vienna. It will then proceed to look at various resources to help identify the best possible connections between liveability and block structures. Furthermore, looking at best practice case studies for highly ranked liveable cities and hybrid block structures, we shall derives a set of design principles which merge the concept of liveability and compound blocks with the existing morphology of Vienna.

Liveability

In the group stage, we took the main issue and adapted it to out site by asking if Vienna would be able to maintain its liveability standards while doubling its density. The concept of liveability is a wide topic which was slightly touched upon in our masterplan. At the present time, Vienna is named the most liveable city at almost half the density that we trying to deliver. Thus, the question arises:

“How can Vienna maintain its liveability standards in the face of intensification”

Block structure Figure 2.

Site context

Theme selection

5

INTRODUCTION

1.2

SUB-ISSUE INTRODUCTION

“How can Vienna maintain its liveability standards in the context of intensification” To understand the underlying issue, we must first understand the term liveability. We must also understand the Vienna’s contribution to liveability as a city and lastly the need for a shift from the traditional courtyard blocks common in Vienna to a compound block structure.

The aim of the project is to provide a number of blocks which deliver the liveable qualities for which Vienna is famous. This project will try to delve deep into what is liveability and how to measure and achieve liveability in a densifying context. Identifying key design principles which contribute to liveability and apply them to the selected site.

Liveability Liveability is a term which has been made popular worldwide due to its usage in various newsletters magazines and articles. Even after its widespread usage, it is hard to pin down on one definition of the term. It is often used in relation to quality of life or well being of the community. Liveability, in certain texts, is referred to as a place fir for human living. Therefore, creating a space with people at the centre of its design ideology is important. The report will look through various texts identifying the key vocabulary to define liveability and analyse different liveability indices to understand how highranking cities function in high density to maintain its 800pph liveability.

500pph 200pph

Figure 4.

Vienna

Figure 3.

6

Ariel view of vienna (google maps)

Traditionally, Viennese architecture falls back on courtyard blocks as a means to deliver majority of its housing needs. Most districts in Vienna have a population density of 300-400pph closer to the city centre and thins down on the outskirts of the city.

Courtyard perimeter blocks have been efficient in proving good quality housing for such densities. The brief for this project demands a density of 800pph which is double the density of most districts in Vienna. The concept of courtyard blocks may not be viable in terms of environmental qualities and liveability when it comes to high densities. The central courtyard would become a shaft like narrow space.

To maintain the liveable quality of the courtyard and allow sunlight and ventilation, the block sizes would have to be increased. This will r

Courtyard block evolution in high density

Vienna has held the first spot for the most liveable city in the world in several indices. The city provides it residents with all facilities and amenities within close proximity. The city also has a very wellintegrated public transport network. Vienna did not stop using its tram when the underground tube was built which resulted in a wide variety of public transport available to the people. In addition to compactness and public transport, Vienna also has several varieties of open spaces which allow different social settings and activities to take place within it.

Compound blocks The liveability of a courtyard block Is significantly reduced once the density is increased. There is a need to reimagine the block structure in a way that it respects the surrounding morphology and innovates the block typology to deliver liveable qualities in high density. The report will look into theoretical concepts pert aining to high density urban living and analyse best practice case studies in cities which rank high in various liveability indices to find practical application of hybrid blocks which integrate well with the surrounding context and at the same time innovate the block structure according to the needs of the society.

RESEARCH REPORT

1.3

REFLECTIVE SUMMARY

Environmental Qualities Delivered Familiarity Belonging

Figure 5.

• •

Choice

•

Walkability

•

Accessibility

•

Connection to Nature

•

Environmental qualities

Mixed Use

Social Housing Figure 6.

Relevance to Theme Issue:

Final masterplan of vienna

• •

Sense of place makes places liveable

Community plays a huge role in liveable environments

For people to choose to live a place, they should have different options

Liveable streets are support pedestrian movement and cyclists

Create accessible spaces for ease of usage in terms of public uses

Liveablity depends on the environmental factors which are suppoted by green and blue networks

creating compact neighbourhood

Housing for all income groups within the development.

The masterplan aimed at delivering high environmental qualities in the context of high density.

A vast array of literature was used to extract key design features and qualities which were important for delivering the aim. Using the 3 umbrella terms of Social, Mobility and Built, we developed a matrix of 8 environmental qualities which supported the aim.

Due to time constraints, not every issue present within the site was dealt with to its fullest extent. Some of these issues are listed below 1. Vienna’s high standards of liveability in 300400pph and how to achieve the same within 800pph density.

2. Vertical urbanism within a city that has over 80% courtyard block structure not more than 5 floors high.

3. Materiality of Vienna and using it to enhance people’s experiences and mental wellbeing 4. Narrow street dimension in certain high-density area might create dimly lit alleyways leading to issues of safety and security 5. Morphological place identity of Vienna in terms of route structure and building typology This report is an attempt at understanding the case of Liveability and Vienna’s connection to the concept in greater detail by defining Liveability, looking through international liveability indices and finally deriving a design route for achieving the already existing standards in high density.

The driving force behind the whole development was mental and physical wellbeing of the community. This meant that the people of Vienna were at the centre of the design process. Each environmental quality and the derived design principles were aimed at increases the mental and physical well being of the community. The design brought together concepts of Vienna’s morphology with concept of wellbeing in the form of design principle informed through best practice case studies.

Figure 7.

Vienna masterplan 3d view

7

INTRODUCTION

1.4

METHODOLOGY

Theme identification

Analytical Framework

One of the themes which was not looked at in depth during the group stage was Liveability.

The concept of Liveability is important in the context of Vienna since it already holds the highest rank in various indices.

Maintain that standard while doubling the density will be a massive challenge.

A review of theoretical knowledge comprising of liveability definitions and Liveability measurement indices lead to the formation of an analytical framework which will be applied to selected best practice case studies to determine how well have the liveability concepts been implemented.

01

8

02

03

Evaluation Design Principles

The design produced is then evaluated against the assessment framework created initially to critically analyse the standard of liveability within the development. Final evaluation is carried out in the second stage after the report.

Practical analysis combined with the analytical framework will provide us with refined design principles which will guide our design towards a more liveable urban development.

04

Literature Review

Case Studies

Various literature resources were consulted to understand the Liveability and the challenges faced by it in urban contexts.

The literature review focused on 4 major topics, Liveability, Liveability indices, Vienna and compound blocks. Each of these sections helped us understand a different facet of the issue.

A variety of case studies were chosen to understand the practical implication of high-density development, compound block structures and railway integration. Each theme chose two case studies from cities which rank high in the liveability index.

05

06

Analysis and Application on site Site analysis and a SWOT is carried out of the surrounding area and the group masterplan.

The design principles are applied on the site to develop a highdensity mix use development with high liveability standards.

The final result is displayed in the second stage after the report

07

RESEARCH REPORT

1.5

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

OBJECTIVES AIMS

Understand liveability as a quality

Deliver a high-density mix use development in the historic context of Vienna How can Vienna maintain its liveability standards in the face of high density?

Maintain Vienna’s Liveability standards according to various international Liveability Indices

Understand components of liveability to be delivered in the development

How can compound block structures be used to incorporate liveability concepts?

Create a compound block structure to facilitate the facets of liveability

Design a high-density block structure which provides a vibrant mix use neighbourhood for high-density.

9

02

SYNTHESIS OF LIVEABILITY CONCEPTS MATERIAL REVIEW 2.1 Liveability 2.2 Liveability indices 2.3 Vienna 2.4 Block Structures 2.5 Key Findings 2.6 Liveability framework This chapter aims to provide us with theoretical concepts and practices pertaining to liveability and its indices. Along with it, the chapter also sets out to give us theories on compound block structures and how to utilise them in an intensifying context. To do so, this section has carefully summarised an array of literature and audio-visual data to fully concepts of liveability and compound blocks.

Figure 8.

Vienna library (google)

RESEARCH REPORT

2.0

MATERIAL REVIEWED

Yeung, L. (2000) Urban Design Compendium

Ruth, M., & Rachel, F. S. (2013) Liveability for all? Conceptual limits and practical implications. Applied Geography

Kashef M. (2016) Urban Liveability across disciplinary and professional boundaries, Frontiers of Architectural Research

Tarbett, J. (2012).

The Plot: Designing Diversity in the Built Environment

Pacione, M., (1990) Urban liveability: a review. Urban Geography.

Hagerty, M.R., Cummins, R.A., Ferriss, A.L., et al., (2001) Quality of life indexes for national policy

Siksna (1996) The effects of block size and form in North American and Australian city centres. Urban Morphology

Krier, L. (1990) Urban components

Ahmed N., El-Halafawy A., and Amin A. (2019), A Critical Review of Urban Liveability. European Journal of Sustainable Development

11

MATERIAL REVIEW

2.1

LIVEABILITY

“Liveability refers to various constructed views regarding the quality of life in any human living environment. This concept is concerned with optimizing the performance and the integrity of human life” (Ellis and Roberts, 2016; Hagerty et al., 2001)

Liveability v/s Sustainability

LIVEABILITY

“…characterization of urban liveability as a human behavioural function that denotes the interaction between individuals and the environment (Pacione, 1990) Fit or suitable for human living

Behaviour related function of the interaction b/w characters and their environments

Degree of liveability depends on social/ community specific values Figure 9.

News articles from UBS, INSIDER AND EIU for liveable cities

The term Liveability has been become a household term, thanks to various publication of ranking within print media. Even after reaching widespread usage, there is still ambiguity about the true definition of Liveability.

Cities were made liveable again by putting people at the centre of the design process. Rankings such as Mercer’s Worldwide Quality of Living and World’s most Liveable Cities have made the term popular and given us an index of qualities which a city should possess to become a liveable city.

12

Liveability depends on the characters and their interaction with the environment. Liveability can be objective in terms of services provided and quality of space. It can also be objective in terms of mental health and wellbeing experienced by an individual.

On the other hand, Sustainability deals with resources, both tangible and intangible. It is a function of time wherein the development is measured in terms of resilience and use of resources. Liveability is about here and now. Sustainability is about there and then

Liveability v/s Quality of Life Liveability is the presence of quality infrastructure and amenities within the built and natural environment.

To provide a liveable development which benefits all, services and infrastructure should be available and affordable for all. This deals with the idea od inclusivity. Quality of life is an objective area which deals with user experience of those amenities. The better the quality of amenities, the more interaction it receives from the public.

Key takeaways: 1. Liveability is both objective and subjective

Liveability v/s Satisfaction/Wellbeing

2. Liveability can be characterised as the experiences between people and their surroundings.

Satisfaction is a subjective quality which depends on the people. The same amenity may provide different levels of satisfaction to different people.

This depends on the economic status, age group, gender and cultural background. Unlike quality of life, Satisfaction is not easily measured. It is the state of mind of the characters which is an intangible aspect.

It is a subjective area which gets excluded from most liveability indices.

3. Developments which cater to people and put the community at the forefront of the design have better success at reaching liveability status 4. Liveability is the presence, access and experiences with services and amenities.

RESEARCH REPORT

2.2 LIVEABILITY INDICES There are several Liveability Indices which compare cities worldwide on various levels to determine which cities can be deemed as the most liveable. An inspection into these indices has revealed a variety of criteria which are considered while ranking cities.

Overall, most indices follow a similar assessment criteria comprising of health, environment, policies, housing and infrastructure.

2. Healthcare (20%)

3. Culture and environment (25%)

4. Education (10%)

5. Infrastructure (20%)

1. Socio-political environment

crime, safety, and stability

2. Economics

banking regulations and services

3. Sociocultural environment

media, censorship, and personal freedom

4. Health

private and public services, air quality, sanitation, and waste disposal

5. Education

private and public

quality affordable private/ public medical services, including the availability of over-the counter drugs and preventive care.

6. Utilities

transportation, traffic, and services

7. Recreational facilities

restaurants, theaters, sports, and leisure

climate; air quality; traveller satisfaction; corruption; recreational amenities; food and drink; social/religious tolerance; freedom and level of censorship; and availability of consumer goods, sports venues, and cultural institutions

8. Market

availability of goods

Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU ranking criteria) 1. Stability (25%)

Mercer Quality of Living Survey

crime rates, threats of civil unrest, military conflicts, and terrorism

provision and quality of private/ public educational institutions across various learning levels. local road networks, mass transit regional and international connectivity; telecommunication sanitation; and availability of water, energy, and quality housing.

9. Housing and climate, natural calamities, Natural environment and weather extremes

Additional consideration to be made within liveability index: 1. Pedestrian transit 2. Bike lanes 3. Network 4. Child friendly 5. Mix use 6. Multicultural 7. City centre revival 8. Outdoor communal activities

Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD) Better Life Index (BLI)

and

1. Housing 2. Income 3. Employment 4. Social support systems

Key takeaways:

5. Education

1. More subjective categories should be included within Liveable city indices.

6. Environment

2. People participation and opinions will drastically change the ranking 3. Prescence of above-mentioned categories is a must to achieve liveability within a development.

4. Most indices deal with the accessibility and availability of various aspects of a development.

7. Health 8. Governance 9. Life satisfaction 10. Safety 11. Work–life balance 13

MATERIAL REVIEW

2.3

VIENNA

Vienna is widely recognised as an example of urban sustainability, crowned as one of the most liveable cities worldwide by several quality-of-life rankings.

Despite being highly committed to incorporating the ecological and social dimension into its urban development strategy, Vienna is undergoing a deep transition, orienting its urban policy more closely toward economic criteria and techno-managerial solutions to climate change.

Green spaces Contrary to initial expectations, the subjective green Quality of Life (QoL) assessment measured via ‘‘satisfaction with access to green spaces’’ varies proportionally to the GIS shares of adjacent green areas. People are very well aware about abundance or lack of green space and consequently wish to have more green spaces in ill-supported urban environments. When asked if more green spaces would better their QoL, almost everyone replied positively.

Figure 10.

Vienna in newsletters about Liveability

Key takeaways: 1. Vienna’s housing structure and policies make it easy for everyone to have equal access to affordable and quality homes.

2. 24/7 running public transport which is very well integrated within the city is a major reason behind lower car ownership leading to walkable/cyclable streets.

3. Each housing development lends a big portion of it land to green spaces. Creates developments where people choose to live.

4. Tree lined street are a commonality in Vienna.

It creates a suitable microclimate for pedestrian movement.

14

Public Transport Vienna has a rich and well-integrated public transport network. A survey conducted with over 8,400 yielded the result that more than 70% had access to private vehicles but at the same time, almost 70% preferred using public transport multiple times a day. It is widely preferred while travelling to the city centre due to scarcity of parking spaces and close proximity of public transport nodes to all amenities. Vienna also has one of the cheapest public transport fares where it costs 1 euro a day to travel anywhere on trams.

Housing Vienna started building social housing 100 years ago, and it never stopped. Its housing policy believes in providing luxuries to all. Within the same development, we would find people from all income groups. This is due to the fact that all developments having more

than 150 dwellings are required to have 2/3rd as social housing and rest as market housing. Most medium density housing developments lend 4-7 floors to social housing while the upper two floors are private/ penthouse apartments. It promotes inclusivity and makes social housing accessible to all.

Housing is seen as an amenity which needs to be provided for all and not a luxury that can only be afforded by the wealthy. The concept of mixed housing leads to social housing developments to have swimming pools, saunas and educational institutes within the site. This makes social housing an aspirational place to live in. In Vienna, subsidised housing doesn’t mean cheap housing, it means balconies, swimming pools, great views and vast accessible green spaces allowing people to form community connections in these spaces, elevating the liveability of such areas.

Parklets These parklets are micro public spaces that extend the sidewalks by occupying one or several parking spaces. In general, they seek to improve streets as spaces for people that can promote different uses: sit, play, meet, rest, gardening. The first parklet installation was created in San Francisco in 2005. Vienna as a city has begun to implement these parklets however, these are yet to be found in our site boundary.

In Vienna’s urban planning frameworks, we can find two specific kinds of parklets: Schanigarten and Grätzloase. For both, the Municipality provides a simple application process and easy-to-read infographic material to translate the public space legislation into understandable information. This is a way to match citizen’s creativity in appropriating public space with public space legislation.

What is a liveable city – living in a place because you choose to, not because you have to. It’s a place you can enjoy, afford and is child friendly.

RESEARCH REPORT

2.4

BLOCK STRUCTURES

The research focused on North American and Australian cities, which have both been named as the most liveable regions in various liveability indices, concludes that smaller block sizes create a more vibrant urban fabric. They create more active frontages and junctions which regulate traffic. The paper also mentions to pros of a rectangular plot as “…they increase developable land.”

The book looks through a number of case studies with different block configurations to conclude that high density development is unable to follow the traditional block typologies which are 4-5 storey to preserve human scale. The block size most suitable for high density areas is concluded to be around 6080m which is described as efficient in land use and infrastructure.

Morphological study of block dimensions within square and rectangular blocks within various cities shows that block sizes between 60-80m work more effectively than larger or smaller blocks.

The block size is ideal as it create more linkages and junctions which slow down traffic movement and promote walkability.

Siksna (1996). The effects of block size and form in North American and Australian city centres. Urban Morphology

The author notes that the creation of larger urban clocks to combat intensification has led to exploitation of the urban block. It minimizes openings onto the street and reduced eyes on the street. This directly affects the safety and usability of the street as a public space. The author notes that larger block frontages reduced streets in mere transition zones.

Higher densities can be achieved with smaller block dimensions, as stated by the author, as seen in the examples in north American cities.

Krier, L. (1990). Urban components. In Papadakis, A and Watson, H. (1990) New Classicism. London

Tarbett, J. (2012). The Plot: Designing Diversity in the Built Environment. RIBA Publishing: UK

Key takeaways: 1. Creating larger blocks reduces junctions and creates poor circulation.

2. Optimum block sizes should be approximately 6080m 3. Orientation of smaller façade along main road create more active frontages for rectangular plots 4. Creating perimeter blocks for high density is not suitable due to inadequate conditions of the inner courtyard such as sunlight and natural ventilation.

In terms of lighting, a 10m block depth seems the most suitable because it allows “…double aspect buildings with good daylight into the internal space” Creating 20m deep plots for ground floor retail is stated as being a useful structure in designing blocks.

Anything deeper than that would increase the block size more than 60-80m which the author states is a rule of thumb while designing blocks, especially in city centres.

Yeung, L. (2000). Urban Design Compendium. English Partnerships: UK

Figure 11.

Block dimensions ( Siksna, 1996 : 5)

15

MATERIAL REVIEW

2.5 KEY FINDINGS

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

01

The natural environment, comprising of green and blue networks, is a key feature of all liveability indices.

Cities scoring high within the natural environment have better access and management of green spaces.

SOCIO-CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

02

LIVEABILITY

Socio-cultural aspects such as community interactions, variety of spaces and dwelling types creates a diverse mix of people living in one community. Cities scoring high in this aspect have more spaces allocated for positive interactions between people.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

03

The built environment deals directly with the morphological layers of the city. It aims to preserve human scale and create a sense of belonging through built mass. Cities which have successfully accomplished this have a diverse mix of land uses.

SOCIO-POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

04 16

Socio-political aspects deal with safety and stability for the people. It calculates the crime rates and its cause. Cities with high scores in this area have strong policies guarding the interested of the people along with providing a safe environment for them to live.

RESEARCH REPORT

2.6 LIVEABILITY FRAMEWORK GREEN AND BLUE NETWORK NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Micro climate

1. Continuous green corridors for a more integrated development 2. Water features to regulate micro-climate

SOCIO-CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

Maximise density around greens

1. Mixed variety of greens to allow intergenerational interactions 2. Maximise density around green spaces to promote interactions with natural environment

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Preserve Human scale

1. Preserve human scale while designing green spaces - large green spaces without functions may be underused 2. Access to green spaces should be clear and legible

SOCIO-POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

Different activities in green spaces to avoid inactive spaces

1. Categorise green spaces with different activities to avoid inactive spaces and reduce crime

PUBLIC

OPEN SPACES STREETS

AND

Open space shading 1. Maintaining micro-climate of streets and open spaces tree lined streets 2. Street orientation towards wind direction for natural ventilation 3. Seamless integration of old and new streets increasing permeability.

Variety of activity in public open spaces

1. Mixed variety of public open spaces for different activities 2. retail spill out spaces for temporary markets and social interactions in lost spaces.

Height to width ratio and legibility 1. Maintain height to width ratio of buildings to street 2. Legibility of spaces which allow people to read the space with ease 3. Bock permeability - allow more junctions

Eyes on street and street furniture 1. eyes on the street - blocks with backs on the inside and maximum openings onto streets.

2. street furniture allows people to pause and utilise the streets to a greater extent, reducing the changes for inactive areas

BLOCKS AND PLOTS Height Variations and appropriate depth

1. Appropriate depth of blocks to allow daylight penetrations 2. Varied heights for good natural ventilation 3. Blocks oriented at least 30 degrees to south for maximum solar gain,

Compactness of neighbourhoood

1. Spaces for social interactions at various levels- terraces, corridors, swimming pools, walkways 2. Compact urban form with amenities within reach allowing a diverse social mix

Mix use and walkable neighbourhoods

1. Land use - mix use blocks 2. Urban grain - block dimensions and configurations to create walkable neighbourhoods

Barrier free movement 1. Increase access to streets by removing barrier between streets and plots 2. Allow multiple access points into blocks configurations to create walkable neighbourhoods

BUILDINGS Building Orientation and green roofs and walls 1. Thermal comfort in buildings - orientation for maximum solar gain and natural ventilation 2. Green wall, terraces and roofs for maintaining microcliate and thermal comfort 3. Use of local materials in buildings for sustainability

Different sizes and types of dwelling.

Connection to context

1. Different sizes of dwelling units to cater to all 2. Different types of dwelling ranging from social housing to market houses for a good social mix 3. Maintain view cones for landmarks buildings by regulating building heights for place identity

Building typology and regular shapes for flexibility 1. Building typology should respect morphology 2. Innovative building designs to increase people interaction with built environment 3. Regular shaped spaces create legible layouts

Balconies facing public spaces for surveillance 1. Balconies which look onto public spaces 2. Create a barrier free space by providing pedestrian connection on various levels including the ground 17

03

INQUIRY INTO BEST PRACTICES PRACTICAL ARCHIVE

3.1 Assessment Framework 3.2 Case Study Sites 3.3 Selection Criteria 3.4 Alt Erlaa, Vienna 3.5 Marina One complex, Singapore 3.6 Interlace, Singapore 3.7 Urban Hybrid, Switzerland 3.8 Utrecht, Netherlands 3.9 Luchtsingel, Rotterdam This chapter inquires best practice case studies to acquire practical knowledge about how cities which rank highly on the liveability indices deal with high density mix use development, compound block structure and railway integration which are key issues prevailing on our site. It is methodology to extract design actions to deliver liveable neighbourhoods while dealing with certain urban design issues.

Figure 12.

The Interlace, Singapore (google images)

RESEARCH REPORT

SOCIO-POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

SOCIO-CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

3.1

ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK Morphology

Indicators

Assessment

Green and blue network

Green network connection Water feature

Is there a coherent green network?

Are water features used as means to control the micro-climate?

Open spaces and streets

Shading provided by trees Street orientation Connection to context

Are the streets and walkways shaded by trees?

Is the street oriented in the direction of wind to allow ventilation?

Are the streets lined with existing network?

Blocks and plots

Block depth Height variation Façade orientation

Does daylight penetrated well into the block?

Is there height variation, allowing natural ventilation Are the façades oriented for maximum solar gain?

Buildings

Green roofs and walls Materials

Are green roofs and walls used to control micro-climate?

Is there usage of local sustainable materials?

Green and blue network

Variety of green spaces Density concentration

Is there variety in size and use of green spaces?

Is the density concentrated around green spaces for max interactions

Open spaces and streets

Variety of open spaces Spill out spaces

Is there variety in uses and sizes of public open spaces?

Do retail centric areas allow for spill out spaces for temporary setup?

Blocks and plots

Public spaces at various levels Compact block

Are public spaces provided on multiple levels, such as sky-walks?

Is the block mix uses and walkable?

Buildings

Dwelling size Dwelling types Respect for landmark identity

Is there appropriate variation in dwelling sizes for all family sizes?

Is there a variety of dwelling types such as social and market?

Are view cones taken into considerations while building high?

Green and blue network

Human scale Access to green spaces

Does the size of green space respect human scale?

Is the access to green spaces legible?

Open spaces and streets

Height to width ratio for streets Legibility of road network

Is the height to width ratio of streets maintained?

Is the road network permeable allowing ease of movement?

Blocks and plots

Block permeability Mix use blocks Block dimensions

Does the block structure allow permeability?

Does the block house multiple uses?

Is the block dimension appropriate for a walkable neighbourhood?

Buildings

Building typology Innovative design Regular spaces

Does the building typology respect the existing morphology?

Is the new development innovative and attractive?

Are the spaces regular in shape allowing flexibility for future?

Green and blue network

Activities associated with greens

Are the green spaces active?

Open spaces and streets

Active frontages Street furniture

Does the block have multiple active frontages?

Is there street furniture present to allow pause in public spaces?

Blocks and plots

Barrier free movement Access points for blocks

Does the development have barriers or gates?

Does the block have multiple access points into its interior?

Buildings

Balconies and terraces Multilevel pedestrian movement

Are accessible balconies and terraces provided?

Is pedestrian paths provided on higher levels?

Score

19

CASE STUDY

3.2

CASE STUDY SITES

Rotterdam, Neatherlands

Utrecht, Neatherlands

Urban Hybrid, Switzerland

Alt Erlaa, Vienna

The Interlace, Singapore

20

Marina One Complex, Singapore

RESEARCH REPORT

3.3

SELECTION CRITERIA

All six case studies are chosen carefully to provide insight into various issues that are prevalent on the test site. Each case study is chosen from cities ranking high on the liveability indices to understand the implications that a high density development has had on its liveability. Netherlands gives us practical knowledge about how to integrate railway tracks within a site and create a barrier free development where pedestrian movement is not hindered. On the other hand, Singapore and Switzerland show us innovative and high density compound block structures which help in housing high density population.

01

02

HIGH DENISTY MIX USE DEVELOPMENT

03

COMPUND BLOCK STRUCTURE

ALT ERLAA, VIENNA

RAILWAY INTEGRATION

UTRECHT, NETHERLANDS THE INTERLACE, SINGAPORE

MARINA ONE COMPLEX, SINGAPORE

URBAN HYBRID, SWITZERLAND

ROTTERDAM, NETHERLANDS

21

CASE STUDY

3.4

ALT ERLAA, VIENNA

The city has managed to mitigate the threat of unsafe areas and ghettos through a stringent policy on social housing. It is mainly funded by an earmarked portion of income tax and housing contribution paid by all employers.

The socio-political aspects within this case study are strong since the government mandates that any development consisting more than 150 dwelling units has to provide 2/3rd of its share to social housing. This has made the city a more safe, stable and desirable city to live in.

Figure 13.

Top left : green balconies, Alt erlaa (ArchDaily) Figure 14.

Top right: building section, Alt erlaa (ArchDaily)

The development offers diversity in terms of dwelling units by providing flats of one to five bedrooms for all family sizes. The average dwelling size is 75 sq m which decrease or increases depending on the number of bedrooms.

Key design strategies:

2. Creating a compact neighbourhood results in high levels of satisfaction and makes a development more liveable and desirable

Figure 17.

Arieal view (google images)

3. Providing green balconies helps regulate the microclimate and soften the visual impact of highrise developments.

4. Providing swimming pools on the rooftop helps with microclimate regulation.

Along with being a housing development, Alt Erlaa also serves as a compact neighbourhood with six children’s park, two nurseries, a church, sports hall, multipurpose hall, two healthcare centres as well as a local shopping centre. All essential amenities are present within the development only a 5–10-minute walk through the vast greens that stretch between the tower blocks.

22

Site plan , Alt erlaa (ArchDaily)

1. Thermal comfort for all dwelling units is important.

Using setbacks and variations, we must ensure that all residents receive daylight.

Figure 15. bottom leftt : upper floor plan, Alt erlaa (ArchDaily)

This case study deals with a high-density social housing development. It is often known as the one of the best examples of social housing in the world.

Located in district 23 in Vienna, Alt Erlaa, is high rise development with towers having 27 floors with green balconies and terraced swimming pools in each building. The green balconies also help soften the har landscape created by the towering blocks.

Figure 16.

In term of thermal comfort, we see that each floor above the next is set back a little to maximum solar gain for the floor below. Over the years a high level of resident satisfaction was recorded. Through the years the amount of vacancy within the development have gone from few to none.

Figure 18.

Alt Erlaa

RESEARCH REPORT

SOCIO-POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

SOCIO-CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

3.4

ASSESSMENT

Green and blue network

Green network connection Water feature

Coherent green network,both horizontally and vertically Swimming pools on terrace and green balconies for micro-climate

Open spaces and streets

Shading provided by trees Street orientation Connection to context

Shaded walkways alone green spaces North-South orientation for natural ventilation Good integration with existing street network

Blocks and plots

Block depth Height variation Façade orientation

Shallow building depth for daylight penetration Slight height variation Smaller face oriented to south reduces solar heat gain

Buildings

Green roofs and walls Materials

Green balconies and swimming pools on roof Local materials used on construction

Green and blue network

Variety of green spaces Density concentration

Different sizes of green spaces - central parks to private balconies Residential buildings concentrated around central green park

Open spaces and streets

Variety of open spaces Spill out spaces

No coherent uses for green spaces, slight variation in scale No spill out spaces for retail around shopping centre

Blocks and plots

Public spaces at various levels Compact block

Vertical movement is supported, horizontal movement is missing Building width is larger than 60-80m

Buildings

Dwelling size Dwelling types Respect for landmark identity

Large variety of dwelling sizes are available Different types of housing is available Views of neighbouring green areas and forest is provided.

Green and blue network

Human scale Access to green spaces

No, large spaces spanning more than 100m, not walkable Legibility compromised due to vast size of central green area

Open spaces and streets

Height to width ratio for streets Legibility of road network

High tower blocks do not consider human scale Larger width of tower blocks reduces permeability

Blocks and plots

Block permeability Mix use blocks Block dimensions

Larger width of tower blocks reduces permeability Yes, areas for social interaction such as indoor pools are present No, linear arrangement of tower blocks with less permeability

Buildings

Building typology Innovative design Regular spaces

No, building typology differs from existing morphology Yes, innovative solutions for softening hardscapes are present Yes, rectangular shapes of tower blocks makes flexible spaces

Green and blue network

Activities associated with greens

Green spaces are used sufficiently

Open spaces and streets

Active frontages Street furniture

Public use blocks such as shopping centre and clubs have are active Yes, street furniture is provided within the development

Blocks and plots

Barrier free movement Access points for blocks

Yes, the development has boundary walls No, only few access points into the tower blocks

Buildings

Balconies and terraces Multilevel pedestrian movement

Yes, green balconies and terraces are provided Accessible area for horizontal movement on terrace is available 23

CASE STUDY

3.5

MARINA ONE COMPLEX, SINGAPORE

Marina one complex stands as an international example for living and working. The high-density mix use development spans over 400,000sq m. It consists of 4 towers, 2 34 storey residential towers and two 30 storey office buildings, surrounding the central green heart, which is a public square spread across multiple levels. The central oasis reflects the flora of the area.

The 2 office towers have an area of 175,000sq m and the residential towers provide about 1042 apartments almost 3000 residents.

The spatial massing and orientation of the buildings and the central green space allow for natural ventilation and regulate the microclimate. The introduction of louvers and organic spaces of the towers contribute to the microclimate. The development houses 300 different types of trees and the green heart spans over 37,00sq m. Public uses such as retail, cafes, fitness clubs, pool, supermarket and food court allow for a vibrant use of the space and create great opportunities of social interaction between workers, residents and visitors.

Marina one complex, (google Figure 20. massing (google images)

Figure 19. images )

Glazing

Figure 21.

Central green heart of Marina one complex (ArchDaily)

Several measures have been taken to make it an energy efficient development. Solar screening devices and energy saving ventilation systems have been used which reduce solar heat gain due to weather conditions. It is also directly connected to Singapore’s 6 major transport network in a bid to reduce carbon emissions caused by private vehicles.

It introduced a new bus stop and bicycle parking in addition to electronic vehicle charging stations. The exterior of the building sports an earthy bronze haze on the glazing to integrate with the context.

Key design strategies: 1. Integration with the natural environment is a priority.

It helps manage the microclimate and regulate the ecosystem.

Figure 23.

Terrace level plan (ArchDaily)

Figure 24.

Building Section, (ArchDaily)

2. Variation in heights within the development allow natural ventilation. The gaps in between the towers are oriented in the direction of the wind flow which regulates the air flow 3. Mix use development with retail, cafes, clubs and food courts provide more spaces for community interactions and increase the liveability of a space.

Figure 22.

24

Ground floor plan (ArchDaily)

4.Compactness of the development helps people live and work within the same space contributing to the reduction of carbon emissions and dependency on private vehicles.

RESEARCH REPORT

SOCIO-POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

SOCIO-CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

3.5

ASSESSMENT

Green and blue network

Green network connection Water feature

Yes, coherent green network spanning several floors Yes, water features in the form of fountains and pools

Open spaces and streets

Shading provided by trees Street orientation Connection to context

Shaded walkways and bridges Yes, openings within building allows natural ventilation Good connection to Singapore’s public transport network

Blocks and plots

Block depth Height variation Façade orientation

Certain interior areas do not receive proper daylight Yes, towers of varying heights are present Yes, building facades oriented for proper heat gain

Buildings

Green roofs and walls Materials

Green core spanning several floors for well-rounded microclimate Materials used are local and common within the city

Green and blue network

Variety of green spaces Density concentration

Green spaces host a variety of uses on different levels Yes, green areas are at the core of the development

Open spaces and streets

Variety of open spaces Spill out spaces

Yes, open spaces range from large greens to small private spaces Terraces are used as spill out spaces for retail and other public uses

Blocks and plots

Public spaces at various levels Compact block

Several multilevel terraces are forms within the central green core Yes, the block is mix use with all round facilities available

Buildings

Dwelling size Dwelling types Respect for landmark identity

Yes, 1 to 5 bedroom apartments are available for all family sizes Yes, market housing and social housing schemes are available The development respects the skyline of Singapore

Green and blue network

Human scale Access to green spaces

No, green space spans more than a 100m Access is provided through the tower blocks

Open spaces and streets

Height to width ratio for streets Legibility of road network

Heigh to width ratio of Singapore’s streets is maintained No, the building sits as single structure

Blocks and plots

Block permeability Mix use blocks Block dimensions

No, access only allowed through tower blocks Yes, it is a mixe d use development No, the dimensions do not create a walkable neighbourhood

Buildings

Building typology Innovative design Regular spaces

Yes, the building structure respects Singapore’s morphology Yes, innovative ways to incorporate biodiversity are used Yes, the regular spaces of interior spaces make them resilient

Green and blue network

Activities associated with greens

Yes, green spaces have several activities associated with it

Open spaces and streets

Active frontages Street furniture

Yes, the tower block has active frontages on all sides Yes, spaces for sitting are available within the central public area

Blocks and plots

Barrier free movement Access points for blocks

Yes, the development is a gated area Access is only available through the tower blocks.

Buildings

Balconies and terraces Multilevel pedestrian movement

Yes, multilevel terraces are provided Yes, there are several pedestrian terraces on different levels 25

CASE STUDY

3.6 THE INTERLACE, SINGAPORE The interlocking of the horizontal blocks creates a multitude of niche green space which are converted into spaces for social interaction and community building. The spaces provide uses such as leisure gardens, pools, green terraces and sky gardens. There is an intricate network of private and public spaces.

Which allows for interesting circulation systems.

Figure 25.

Figure 26.

The Interlace, Singapore (google Images)

Conceptual diagrams (ArchDaily)

The Interlace, situated in Singapore, is an amalgamation of both vertical and horizontal urbanism which makes it a great example for a hybrid block structure. The development extends over 170,000sq m. It provides 1040 dwellings to a density of 550pph. This is one of the first attempts at moving away from creating the traditional individual vertical residential towers which are common in Singapore, to a more holistic tropical living approach.

The blocks do not rest completely on top of each other providing framed glimpse of the greenery around the site. This reduces the effect of a high solid mass of construction by providing a visual connection to the greens at every level.

Central courtyrads (ArchDaily)

Figure 29.

Top view (google images)

The towers resting on each other have central circulation system which allows vertical movement to the higher tower block. One the other hand the interlocking buildings provide intermediate terraces and connection used as sky walks contributing to horizontal movement in public spaces on multiple levels.

Key design strategies: 1. The development has managed to maintain the density of Singapore. The urban grain is not dissimilar to the ones commonly seen within the city.

2. Creation of intermediate spaces for greens and social interaction between people brings about a sense of belonging to the community. It also makes a high-density development more environmentally friendly by giving more green spaces on each level.

The vision behind creating this development was to deliver a high-density development without added another skyscraper to Singapore’s skyline. The 31 identical 6 storey horizontal blocks are placed one on top of another in a hexagonal grid pattern to form 6 highly integrated internal courtyards. The site is a great example for integration of green spaces within the built environment. The development has managed to provide 112% of green spaces.

Figure 27.

26

Figure 28.

Variety of green spaces (ArchDaily)

3. The interlocking, while an innovative idea, also serves several other purposes such as providing both vertical and horizontal movement corridors, creates voids in the built mass for a visual connection to the green network.

RESEARCH REPORT

SOCIO-POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

SOCIO-CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

3.6

ASSESSMENT

Green and blue network

Green network connection Water feature

Yes, an interconnected network of greens on various levels Yes, intermediate terrace has swimming pools

Open spaces and streets

Shading provided by trees Street orientation Connection to context

Shading is provided on all intermediate terraces Gaps within interlaced blocks is used to allow natural ventilation Connection to context is legible

Blocks and plots

Block depth Height variation Façade orientation

Shallow blocks are used to allow daylight penetration There is no height variation within the blocks No, façades are not aligned wrt to heat gain

Buildings

Green roofs and walls Materials

Yes, several intermediate terraces are green Local materials have been used

Green and blue network

Variety of green spaces Density concentration

Yes, green space range from central courtyard to small green terraces Density is evenly distributed across the development

Open spaces and streets

Variety of open spaces Spill out spaces

Open spaces have variety in terms of uses No, temporary areas for retail uses are not available

Blocks and plots

Public spaces at various levels Compact block

Yes, multiples bridges are provided on various levels No, the development is not mix use

Buildings

Dwelling size Dwelling types Respect for landmark identity

Yes, several different apartment sizes are available Yes, different schemes for housing is available Gaps within the interlaced blocks provide a view of the context

Green and blue network

Human scale Access to green spaces

Certain green spaces respect human scale Excess of intermediate greens can be confusing

Open spaces and streets

Height to width ratio for streets Legibility of road network

No, height to width ratio is compromised Road network is permeable in certain area

Blocks and plots

Block permeability Mix use blocks Block dimensions

Yes, interlaced blocks allow multiple access points No, residential uses dominate the development Yes, shallow depth of blocks allow for walkability

Buildings

Building typology Innovative design Regular spaces

No, the development is more horizontal than most in Singapore Yes, an interesting idea of interlocked blocks is used Yes, rectangular blocks are used for flexibility

Green and blue network

Activities associated with greens

Yes, certain green spaces are sufficiently used

Open spaces and streets

Active frontages Street furniture

Openings are present on both sides of the longer edge Furniture is present on intermediate terraces

Blocks and plots

Barrier free movement Access points for blocks

Yes, the development has gates Yes, the block allows permeability

Buildings

Balconies and terraces Multilevel pedestrian movement

Yes, several terraces are provided Pedestrian movement is supported both horizontally and vertically 27

CASE STUDY

3.7

URBAN HYBRID, SWITZERLAND

The urban hybrid creates a hybrid form of a perimeter block to serve the purpose of urban living while providing a suburban environment. The site has a density of 350pph spread across 95 dwellings. There are 16 different types of dwelling which cater to all family sizes. The housing units measure from 30sq m to 130sq m. The hybrid has successfully delivered urban city dwelling qualities by providing underground parking, different dwelling sizes, privacy and central location within the city. On the other hand, it has also provided a few suburban characteristics like community living, gardens both shared and private and small-scale housing.

The block is highly permeable with several entrances for the residents living in the centre of the block and for people visiting the communal garden areas. The difference in the façade layout of the exterior of the block as compared to the interior is striking, the exterior gives off a urban settlement quality while the inner facades provide a more intimate suburban and green environment.

Figure 30.

3D renders of Urban Hybrid (ArchDaily) Figure 31.

Design development (MVRDV)

Figure 32.

Site plan (ArchDaily)

Key design strategies: 1. Rotatable walls used for sports such as table tennis helps community interaction and interactions with the built mass. It allows increases the permeability of the spaces by providing moveable walls.

2. The vegetation blurs the lines between exterior and interior while also providing shade and comfort to the people making the space more walkable.

The apartment block and houses were placed around a shared courtyard and a few private gardens. It serves as mix use development in terms of housing by providing apartment blocks at the corner, townhouses on the periphery along the streets and smaller residences, patio houses and gardens in the centre of the block. All the individual buildings have been given identifiable colour which highly increases community interactions with the built environment.

The separate buildings are modelled after traditional swiss town centre houses while bringing a sense of innovation with the bright colours and mix of dwellings.

28

3. Underground parking allows more green space and a car free development which is both child friendly and environment friendly.

People of all social classes will be able to buy houses within the urban hybrid. Depending on the income they can buy more or less finfishes houses, unfinished houses or partially finished which individuals would finish themselves.

RESEARCH REPORT

SOCIO-POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

SOCIO-CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

3.7 ASSESSMENT Green and blue network

Green network connection Water feature

Yes, interconnected public and private gardens are available No, presence of water features is not extensive

Open spaces and streets

Shading provided by trees Street orientation Connection to context

Yes, different canopies are present for shading Yes, natural ventilation is supported for the interior spaces of the block Block entrances are lined with existing network

Blocks and plots

Block depth Height variation Façade orientation

Yes, block depth allow for daylight penetration Yes, height variation between different plots Blocks are oriented 30 to south for heat gain

Buildings

Green roofs and walls Materials

Green roofs are proposed for a better micro climate Local materials are preferred

Green and blue network

Variety of green spaces Density concentration

There is variety of sizes of green spaces Density is not maximum around public green spaces

Open spaces and streets

Variety of open spaces Spill out spaces

There is a variety of uses in open spaces No areas for temporary setup within the blocks

Blocks and plots

Public spaces at various levels Compact block

No, multilevel pedestrian network is not supported The block is mix use and but dimension exceed walkable sizes

Buildings

Dwelling size Dwelling types Respect for landmark identity

Yes, appropriate mix of dwelling sizes Yes, appropriate mix of types – market, social Low rise block structure does not obstruct views

Green and blue network

Human scale Access to green spaces

Yes, green spaces do not span more than 100m in any area Green spaces can be access through the streets and private houses

Open spaces and streets

Height to width ratio for streets Legibility of road network

Yes, development respects human scale with smaller green pockets Yes, block structure is permeable

Blocks and plots

Block permeability Mix use blocks Block dimensions

Yes, multiple access points into the block Yes, exterior plots use a mix of uses Dimensions exceed walkable neighbourhoods

Buildings

Building typology Innovative design Regular spaces

Yes, block structure respects existing morphology Innovative ides in terms of increasing density and use of open space Yes, regular shapes are used for flexible spaces

Green and blue network

Activities associated with greens

Yes, green spaces are active

Open spaces and streets

Active frontages Street furniture

Yes, perimeter block has active frontages on all sides No, street furniture is used

Blocks and plots

Barrier free movement Access points for blocks

Certain areas have gates for private gardens Yes, multiple access points to reach interior of block

Buildings

Balconies and terraces Multilevel pedestrian movement

Yes, balconies are provided No, pedestrian movement on higher levels is not supported 29

CASE STUDY

3.8 UTRECHT, NETHERLANDS The Moreelseberg bridge was built as a way to bridge the gap between East and the west side of the city.

The city wanted to incorporate the western part of the city into its centre. Newer public facilities surrounding the bridge meant that the area would be active for the major part of the day. A large public square and stairs were meant to give the railway station a recognisable face on the west side. The public would gather in these spaces for open air theatre and stage performances.

One of the major features which stands out about the bridge is the presence of trees on the walkway. The designers did not want any other vertical element dwarfing the height of the trees. They decided against putting lampposts or high railings. Instead, they incorporate lighting as a design feature where the trees would be lit up from the bottom at light and the railings had string lights underneath them.

Figure 35.

Plan of bridge (ArchDaily)

One of the main reasons behind this redevelopment was to create better permeability within the area.

The tracks posed a connectivity problem. For over 1.6 miles, there wasn’t a single crossover bridge which connected the two sides and allowed pedestrian access. The bridge was the first step in eradicating the barrier in movement for cyclists and pedestrians.

It connected the historic core in the centre of the city to the residential and office centres which lie to the eats of the city.

The area is visited by around 1500 people in a day, for shopping, offices and an events centre. The new development consisting of new office spaces, leisure facilities, housing units and parking spaces allowed more traction into the area which played a large part in making the bridge connection a success.

The total project costed about 3 billion euros and is estimated to finished production on 2030.

Figure 36.

Cycle gutters for ease of movement (ArchDaily)

Key design strategies: 1. Provide access for bicycles using cycle gutter and elevators on both sides.

Figure 33.

Access to bridge (ArchDaily)

Figure 37.

Bridge lighting (ArchDaily)

Figure 38.

Bridge section (ArchDaily)

2. Wherever possible add connections to the surrounding buildings increasing connectivity and interaction with existing context.

3. Use lighting as a feature for greater interaction with the public

Figure 34.

30

Plan of bridge (ArchDaily)

4. Cost efficiency – long space bridges are more costly and do not provide the physical intimacy required for a pedestrian walkway.

RESEARCH REPORT

SOCIO-POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

SOCIO-CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

3.8

ASSESSMENT

Green and blue network

Green network connection Water feature

Trees are provided as the only vertical element on the bridge No, water features are not used

Open spaces and streets

Shading provided by trees Street orientation Connection to context

Trees are not used for shading Bridges is open and allows ventilation It is aligned with existing road network on both sides

Blocks and plots

Block depth Height variation Façade orientation

Buildings

Green roofs and walls Materials

Green and blue network

Variety of green spaces Density concentration

Is there variety in size and use of green spaces?

Is the density concentrated around green spaces for max interactions

Open spaces and streets

Variety of open spaces Spill out spaces

There is variety of open spaces being developed around the bridge Yes, open air centres are developed for temporary uses

Blocks and plots

Public spaces at various levels Compact block

Yes, the bridge is used for pedestrian movement on higher levels The bridge is not too long and is walkable

Buildings

Dwelling size Dwelling types Respect for landmark identity

Is there appropriate variation in dwelling sizes for all family sizes?

Is there a variety of dwelling types such as social and market?

Are view cones taken into considerations while building high?

Green and blue network

Human scale Access to green spaces

Tree height respects human scale

Open spaces and streets

Height to width ratio for streets Legibility of road network

Width of the bridge respects existing road widths Movement network is permeable

Blocks and plots

Block permeability Mix use blocks Block dimensions

Yes, bridge forms connection to nearby buildings Yes, the area is being developed as a public open space with variety of uses

Buildings

Building typology Innovative design Regular spaces

The bridge is innovative and attractive with lighting solutions and cycle gutters to benefit all

Green and blue network

Activities associated with greens

The bridge is extremely active

Open spaces and streets

Active frontages Street furniture

Street furniture is not provided on the bridge

Blocks and plots

Barrier free movement Access points for blocks

The bridge is not gated and provides a barrier free movement The bridge has multiple points of access

Buildings

Balconies and terraces Multilevel pedestrian movement

Lifts are provided for wheelchairs and cycles Pedestrian movement is supported on higher levels.

31

CASE STUDY

3.9 ROTTERDAM, NETHERLANDS

Figure 39.

Bridge plan (googel images)

Key design strategies:

Figure 43.

1. Bright colours add a layer of public interaction with the built environment 2. Multiple staricases leading to the bridge helps connect every edge of the site 3. Central focal area created by circular movement creates a new space for social interactions

Figure 41.

Pedestrian movement on bridge (google images)

Figure 42.

Cnetral focal point of bridge (ArchDaily)

Coonection to nearby buildings (ArchDaily)

The bridge connects three formerly disconnected area of the city by building a pedestrian network over roadways and railway lines. The bridge is elevated by an entire storey to form connection with nearby public buildings. It also links a rooftop garden and a park. Bright colours and spaces for lingering are created to allow people to use it as a public realm along with a mode of transition.

4. Create connection to the surrounding buildings aong with roads to increase footfall onto the bridge

Figure 40.

32

Ariel view of bridge (ArchDaily)

The pedestrian bridge at Luchtsingel is a crowdfunded 400 m long bridge and is said to be the world first crowdfunded public infrastructure project increases people participation within community activities.

Figure 44.

Luchtsingel Brdge (ArchDaily)

RESEARCH REPORT

SOCIO-POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

SOCIO-CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

3.9

ASSESSMENT

Green and blue network

Green network connection Water feature

The bridge provides a connection between green spaces on both sides of the railway track

Open spaces and streets

Shading provided by trees Street orientation Connection to context

The connection to the bridge is aligned with existing street network

Blocks and plots

Block depth Height variation Façade orientation

Buildings

Green roofs and walls Materials

Green and blue network

Variety of green spaces Density concentration

Green spaces are not provided on the bridge but exist around it

Open spaces and streets

Variety of open spaces Spill out spaces

There is a variety of open spaces on and around the bridge

Blocks and plots

Public spaces at various levels Compact block

Multilevel movement is supported Uses around the bridge are mixed

Buildings

Dwelling size Dwelling types Respect for landmark identity

Green and blue network

Human scale Access to green spaces

Bridge dimensions respect human scale Access is legible with bright colours

Open spaces and streets

Height to width ratio for streets Legibility of road network

Yes, height to width ratio is maintained Yes, multiple access staircases are provided

Blocks and plots

Block permeability Mix use blocks Block dimensions

Yes, several access points are available Mix use development is present around the bridge Length of bridge promotes walkability

Buildings

Building typology Innovative design Regular spaces

Bright colours are used as an innovative way to attract people

Green and blue network

Activities associated with greens

Bridge edges face multiple active building frontages

Open spaces and streets

Active frontages Street furniture

Furniture is not provided on the bridge

Blocks and plots

Barrier free movement Access points for blocks

The bridge does not have any gates or barriers Separate staircases from different areas provide access to the bridge

Buildings

Balconies and terraces Multilevel pedestrian movement

Supports pedestrian movement on higher levels 33

CASE STUDY

3.10

KEY FINDINGS

HIGH DENSITY MIX USE DEVELOPMENT

COMPOUND BLOCK STRUCTURE

RAILWAY INTEGRATION

Creating compact neighbourhoods lead to high levels of satisfaction between the residents. Having al necessary amenities within reach makes a more liveable environment.

Apart from amenities, having a variety of housing types and sizes significantly helps raise the liveability standards of a development.

While dealing with high density, creating traditional perimeter blocks may not be able to deliver the same levels of density and quality of life. Creating a compound block structure which incorporates the existing morphology but also provides new and innovative ways to increase the density of the area to met requirements goes a long way.

Barrier free developments score significantly high on liveability indices. This allows people to walk freely within the development. Segregation of spaces might be necessary on certain places, but creating multi-level pedestrians corridors creates new and exciting opportunities for social interactions and increases the accessibility factor.

01

HIGH DENISTY MIX USE DEVELOPMENT Key design strategies: Alt erlaa 1. Thermal comfort

2. Creating a compact neighbourhood

02

COMPUND BLOCK STRUCTURE Key design strategies: The Interlace 1. Maximise in density

2. Creation of intermediate spaces for greens and social interaction

03

RAILWAY INTEGRATION Key design strategies: Utrecht 1. Provide access 2. Add connections to the surrounding buildings

3. Use lighting 3. Providing green balconies Key design strategies: Marina One 1. Integration with the natural environment

3. Both vertical and horizontal movement corridors, Key design strategies: Urban Hybrid 1. Increases the permeability

2. The vegetation blurs the lines between exterior and interior

4.Compactness 3. Underground parking 34

Key design strategies: Rotterdam 1. Bright colours

2. Multiple staricases

2. Variation in heights

3. Mix use development

4. Cost efficiency

3. Central focal area

4. Create connection to the surrounding buildings

04

GROUP MASTERPLAN ASSESSMENT VIENNA

4.1 Masterplan Overview 4.2 Assessment The chapter aims at understanding where the masterplan lies within the liveability framework. The assessment will provide us with areas and issues regarding liveability which will help us select a tests site within the masterplan to implement out design principles.

Figure 45.

Vienna masterplan 3D view (Vienna Masterplan report)

MASTERPLAN ASSESSMENT

4.1

GROUP STAGE MASTERPLAN

Figure 46.

Final masterplan (Vienna Masterplan report)

Figure 47.

Street network map (Vienna Masterplan report)

The Vienna masterplan aims at providing a density of 800pph in a 73 ha site. The driving force of the design was mental and physical wellbeing. The masterplan started by laying down a route structure making proper connectivity with the existing morphology. 4 different types of street were introduced. We had a central shared street which had landmark buildings, parks, retail and maximum density concentrated around it. The second level of streets were the secondary streets which were 15m wide along the secondary frontages of the block. The third level of streets which were 12m were along the residential frontages of the mixed-use blocks. The fourth level were pedestrian green network street which were 12m wide allowing solely pedestrian and cycling movement through.

Figure 48.

36

Green network map (Vienna Masterplan report)

The concept of a compact city was used to deliver a high-density mix use development. To deliver the quality of walkability, we provided a distance of 500m between most non-negotiable facilities which support life and mental wellbeing of the people.

Each neighbourhood in the radius of 500-600m had a school, retail core, employment opportunities and public green spaces. This is also in response to the global pandemic where movement is restricted and people require essential services to be within walkable distance for accessibility for all age groups.

The density of the site is concentrated on the central shared street and on podium blocks along the railway line to move the residential areas up to reduces disturbance due to railway. The density thins out as we reach the edges of the site to merge well into the existing morphology of Vienna.

Figure 50.

Proximity maps for services (Vienna Masterplan report)

A coherent green network has been provided joining green public spaces, public open spaces and existing greens around the site through green/pedestrian corridors. This is done because initially the site acted as an island site and created a great barrier between the west and the east. Creating throughfare through the site in certain vehicular streets and certain pedestrian streets helped in allowing both car traffic and people to move through our site increasing integration with the existing context.

Figure 49.

Land use diagram (Vienna Masterplan report)

Figure 51.

Density map (Vienna Masterplan report)

RESEARCH REPORT

SOCIO-POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

SOCIO-CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

4.2

ASSESSMENT

Green and blue network

Green network connection Water feature

Yes, green corridors are used to form a green network Swimming pools are introduced in certain apartment blocks

Open spaces and streets

Shading provided by trees Street orientation Connection to context

Yes, trees are used to create shaded walkways Yes, streets are aligned northwest for natural ventilation Yes, street network is aligned with existing context

Blocks and plots

Block depth Height variation Façade orientation

Yes, shallow blocks are used for daylight penetration Yes, height variation is present Façade orientation is not considered

Buildings

Green roofs and walls Materials

Certain blocks have suggested green roofs Materiality is not considered in depth

Green and blue network

Variety of green spaces Density concentration

Yes, different sizes and variety of green spaces is used Maximum density concentrated around green corridors

Open spaces and streets

Variety of open spaces Spill out spaces

Yes, open spaces have a wide variety of uses associated with them Yes, spill out spaces are considered on shared streets

Blocks and plots

Public spaces at various levels Compact block

Yes, bridges are proposed over railway line Yes, 70% of blocks are mix use

Buildings

Dwelling size Dwelling types Respect for landmark identity

Yes, 1-5 bedroom apartments are provided Yes, 70% social homes and 30% market homes are provided View cones have not been considered within the masterplan

Green and blue network

Human scale Access to green spaces

Yes, green spaces do not span more than 100m Yes, access to spaces is legible

Open spaces and streets

Height to width ratio for streets Legibility of road network

Height to width ratio is not considered in high rise areas Yes, a greater number of junctions are provided

Blocks and plots

Block permeability Mix use blocks Block dimensions

Yes, smaller block sizes allowing more permeability Yes, blocks are mix use Yes, block dimensions do not exceed 60-80m

Buildings

Building typology Innovative design Regular spaces

Yes, traditional courtyard blocks are provided The development is driven by existing morphology Yes, regular block shapes are used for flexibility

Green and blue network

Activities associated with greens

Yes, green spaces have several activities attached to them

Open spaces and streets

Active frontages Street furniture

Yes, perimeter blocks with multiple active frontages is used Yes, street furniture is suggested within shared spaces

Blocks and plots

Barrier free movement Access points for blocks

Internal courtyards are inaccessible and private Blocks do not permit entry into internal courtyard

Buildings

Balconies and terraces Multilevel pedestrian movement

Terraces are provided in residential blocks Bridges over railway support pedestrian movement on higher levels. ¬

37

05

DESIGN PRINCIPLES IDEATION

5.1 Introduction 52 Natural Environment 5.3 Socio-cultural Environment 5.4 Built Environment 5.5 Socio-Political Environment

Figure 52.

Design Principles (Vienna Masterplan report)

RESEARCH REPORT

5.1

DESIGN PRINCIPLES

01

03

Natural Environment

Built Environment

02

04

Socio-Cultural Environment

Socio-Political Environment

39

DESIGN PRINCIPLES

5.2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Green corridors

Introducing water features

Street orientation

Street alignment with context

Height variation

40

South facing blocks for solar heat gain

Tree lined streets

Daylight penetration

RESEARCH REPORT

5.3 SOCIO-CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

Variety of greens

Retail spill out spaces for temporary markets

Variation in dwelling size

Increased density around greens

Open space variation

Multiple level public spaces

Compact neighbourhood

Variation in dwelling type

Visual connection to context 41

DESIGN PRINCIPLES

5.4 BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Preserve human scale in large green areas

Legible street network

Respect existing building typology 42

Access to green – minimise gates

Increase junctions

Innovative design

Mix use blocks

Heigh to width ratio of streets

Urban grain – walkable block dimensions

Regular space of spaces

RESEARCH REPORT

5.5

SOCIO-POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

Associate activities to green spaces

Maximise openings onto street

Street furniture

Remove walled barriers between plots and streets

Multiple access points into blocks

Balconies facing public places for surveillance and safety

Barrier free movement on all levels

43

06

SITE INTRODUCTION CONTEXT AND ANALYSIS 6.1 Site Introduction 6.2 SWOT of Group Masterplan 6.3 Intial Iterations

Figure 53.

Final masterplan - Vienna (Vienna Masterplan report)

RESEARCH REPORT

6.1 SITE INTRODUCTION District 2

Vienna

Austria

Figure 54.

Figure 55.

Site area (google maps)

Vienna location

INTRODUCTION

CURRENT CONTEXT

CURRENT CONDITION

The site area chosen lies in district 2 of Vienna which is biggest district in terms of area. The site area is 33,946 sqm (3.3ha). According to the masterplan, the 3-block radius is a viable location for a business district with residential areas due to prior development and location within the district. The southern edge of the site also leads towards a major transport hub which houses a railway station, busstop, underground tube and tram stop. This forms a great network of public transport for the people to visit the site and reduces car dependency which benefits the natural environment.

The southern edge of the site is witnessing the development of a business district which would greatly benefit the site and creates an opportunity to extend the business district into the select site. The west edge of the has low rise residential development and is relatively quiet. The east edge houses several high rise social housing development which would benefit from the development of a business/retail centre on the site as it would create more job opportunities and increase spaces for social interaction.

The site is barren at the present time. There is a railway line which cuts through the middle of the site posing a threat to the residential areas. Noise pollution will need to be curbed and innovative solution to raise the level of residential development will be used to move residents away from the railway line and increase privacy. The railway line may also act as a barrier between the two sides. Underpass for cars is available on site and overbridge for pedestrians and cyclist will need to be provided to create a barrier free development and connect the two formerly disconnected location.

45

SITE INTRODUCTION

6.2

SWOT ANALYSIS

in the context of Liveability

Strength: 1. Nearby business district development 2. Mix of uses that can be incorporated within the site through masterplan zoning 3. Available tram stops and transport hub in close proximity

02

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Opportunity 1. Extension of emerging business district 2.Creating multilevel pedestrian movement through railway bridges

01

02

01

03

01

SOCIO-CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

02 Figure 56.

Figure 58.

Site strengths Weakness 1. Railway line diving the site in two creating a barrier 2. Difference in density of development due to low density residential area on the west.

01

Site opportunities Threat 1. Noise pollution due to railway line 2. Threat to existing view cones due to high rise development

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

03

01

02

02

SOCIO-POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

04 Figure 57.

46

Site Weakness

Figure 59.

Site threats

RESEARCH REPORT

6.3 INITIAL ITERATIONS

The block structures merge the courtyard block typology with tower blocks creating a variant of podium tower typology blocks.

The tower benefits from intermediate terraces and views due to heights

The stepped tower block above the courtyard block helps integrated the green terraces on each level and provide access to green spaces for all residents living higher up and do not have direct visual or walkable access to open/green spaces on the ground floor.

The courtyard benefits from retail and employment activation on all four sides of the block.

Figure 62.

Initial iteration for compound block structure with terracing Figure 60.

Initial iteration for Compound block structure

The pedestrian bridge not only connects the two roads on opposite sides of the railway track but also aims at creating a connection between the buildings on public floors to benefit each other from the footfall received on either side.

Green vegetation on either sides of the railway track to mitigate the noise pollution caused due to trains and pedestrians walkways going across over the green spaces for a great visual connect to public open spaces.

The bridge facilitates a barrier free movement for pedestrians and creates an opportunity for multilevel spaces for social interactions.

Figure 61.

Initial iteration for pedestrain bridge connections

Figure 63.

Initial iteration for conceptual site plan

47

07

CONCLUSION WAY FORWARD

RESEARCH REPORT

7.1 REPORT CONCLUSION Way Forward

APPLYING DESIGN PRINCIPLES TO DIFFERENT LAYERS OF MORPHOLOGY

CREATING A COMPOUND BLOCK STRUCTURE DELIVERING SPECIFIC DESIGN PRINCIPLES

INTEGRATE RAILWAY LINE IN BUILDING DESIGN

PRESENTATION FEEDBACK

CONCLUSION

An inquiry into different block typologies needs to be made. A SWOT analysis needs to be carried out to extract the best practices within block structures when designed for high density. These qualities will help us further in designing a hybrid block structure which will provide the best qualities from each block typology to deliver highest quality of natural environment, socio-cultural environment, built environment and socio-political environment.

The report began with a reflective summary of the Vienna masterplan which was a great starting point and helped us understand where we left off. The issue of Liveability was picked up from the list of topics which were not covered in greater detail within the masterplan. Starting off with the definitions of key terms within the research question was a good way to understand what I aimed to achieve at the end of the report. Furthermore, concepts of Liveability were introduced within the literature review and compound blocks were introduced.

There is a need to look deeper into the morphology of Vienna to understand standard dimensions which will help us in delivering high liveable qualities.

Standard height to width ratio of streets, width of green spaces for walkable neighbourhoods, block dimensions and distances between road junctions need to be measured.

TEST FINAL OUTPUT AGAINST LIVEABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

Liveability framework created using the literature review gave us out final design principles. The report ends with an introduction to the selected site and initial iterations which will be carried forward within the module.

The case studies helped in understanding the application of various theoretical knowledge in the practical realm within cities ranking high in the liveability indices. A critical assessment of the case studies and the masterplan of Vienna against the 49

REFERENCES

8

REFERENCES

ArchDaily (2015) The Luchtsingel/ZUS. Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/770488/the-luchtsingel-zus (Accessed: 15th March 2021) ArchDaily (2013) Urabn Hybrid Housing Winning Proposal/MVRDV. Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/401711/urban-hybrid-housing-winning-proposal-mvrdv (Accessed: 15th March 2021) ArchDaily (2015) The Interlace/Oma 2. Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/627887/the-interlace-oma-2 (Accessed: 15th March 2021) Architonic (2017) Marina One Complex Available at: https://www.architonic.com/en/project/ingenhoven-architects-marina-one-complex/5105702 (Accessed: 14th March 2021) Ahmed N., El-Halafawy A., and Amin A. (2019), A Critical Review of Urban Liveability. European Journal of Sustainable Development BBC (2021). My Perfect City: housing in Vienna. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct1czm (Accessed: 13th March 2021) Gyori a.k., Barona P.C., Resch B., Mehaffy M., Blaschke T., 2019. Assessing and Representing Liveability through the Analysis of Residential Preference. Sustainability. MDPI Hagerty, M.R., Cummins, R.A., Ferriss, A.L., et al., 2001. Quality of life indexes for national policy: review and agenda for research. Soc. Indic. Res. Hatz G. The city with the best quality of living worldwide. Theorizing and evaluating concepts and Vienna’s performances of liveability. Department of Geography and Regional Research, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Hatz G. Wordly Vienna – the city with the highest quality of living worldwide. Applied assemblage urbanisms. An approach. Department of Geography and Regional Research, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Inhabitat (2013) Rotterdam citizens crowdfund fantastic wooden Luchtsingle Footbridge. Avaiable at: https://inhabitat.com/rotterdams-wooden-luchtsingel-footbridgeis-a-fantastic-piece-of-crowdfunding-architecture/ (Accessed: 15th March 2021) Inhabitat (2013) MVRDVS Urban Hybrid Project Is A Micro City Set to Be Constructed in Switzerland. Avaiable at: https://inhabitat.com/mvrdvs-urban-hybrid-project-is-amicro-city-set-to-be-constructed-in-switzerland/ (Accessed: 15th March 2021) Kashef M. (2016), Urban Liveability across disciplinary and professional boundaries, Frontiers of Architectural Research. ALHOSN University, Abu Dhabi.

Krier, L. (1990). Urban components. In Papadakis, A and Watson, H. (1990) New Classicism. London Municiple Dreams (2020) Alt Erlaa, Vienna: ‘the world best council housing?’ Available at: https://municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2020/04/07/alt-erlaa-vienna-theworlds-best-council-housing/ (Accessed:14th march 2021) Pacione, M., 1990. Urban liveability: a review. Urban Geography.

Ruth, M., & Rachel, F. S. (2013). Liveability for all? Conceptual limits and practical implications. Applied Geography.

50

RESEARCH REPORT

8

REFERENCES

Siksna (1996). The effects of block size and form in North American and Australian city centres. Urban Morphology Tarbett, J. (2012). The Plot: Designing Diversity in the Built Environment. RIBA Publishing: UK UrbanNext (2017). Moreelsebrug: Redevelopment of Utrecht’s Station Area. Available at: https://urbannext.net/moreelsebrug/ (Accessed: 14th March 20221) UrbanNous (2020). Vienna: Rapid Urban Planning in the World’s most Liveable City with Maria Vassilakou on ideasSPAC. Avaiable at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=0KwfP9Yo-7I&t=248s (Accessed : 13th March 2021) Yeung, L. (2000). Urban Design Compendium. English Partnerships: UK

51