from bd

“By Ellis Woodman
London Metropolitan University’s Architecture Research Unit has proposed one of three schemes chosen for the next stage in the development of South Korea’s enormous new reclaimed city of Saemangeum.
Alvaro Siza once speculated on the possibility of building in the Sahara desert, a site just about as close to tabula rasa as can be imagined.

He acknowledged the lure of the idea but conceded — or should that perhaps be hoped? — that “probably, when the foundations were dug, something would appear, delaying the proof of the Great Freedom: pottery shards, a gold coin, the turban of a nomad, indecipherable drawings etched on stone.”

These mixed emotions are doubtless familiar to the seven architectural teams that entered the invited competition to masterplan the new South Korean city of Saemangeum earlier this year. In terms of scale alone, the undertaking was fantastically daunting: when it is completed, Saemangeum will occupy an area of 396sq km — about two-thirds the size of Singapore. However, if that were not challenge enough, the feat of imagination required of the competitors was made infinitely greater by the nature of the site. At present, the vast bulk of the land on which Saemangeum will be built lies underwater.

The project has been in development since the late eighties, when the South Korean government proposed the estuarine landscape at the convergence of the Dongjin and Mangyeong rivers as the site for one of the largest land reclamation projects ever undertaken. The intention was for the land to support a mix of agriculture and industry, and for a newly constructed port to enable the city to forge trade links, particularly with China’s north-east coast just across the Yellow Sea. In 1991, work began on containing the site by means of a sea wall spanning 33km between the headlands that lie to the north and south.
————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————
From the start, the project attracted a huge amount of controversy, particularly in relation to its anticipated environmental impact. Campaigners were concerned about the loss of mudflats on the site, which have always been an important feeding ground for the 400,000 shore birds which migrate annually from south-east Asia to Russia and Alaska. Arguing that the project’s construction would contribute to the decline of several endangered species, they succeeded in halting construction using supreme court challenges in both 1999 and 2005. Ultimately, that campaign proved unsuccessful, and work on the wall was completed in April 2006.

As a consequence, the land behind the wall has been transformed into a vast freshwater lake. Work is now under way to lower its level by 1.5m, a process that requires fresh water to be discharged daily into the sea via a series of sluice gates when the tide is low. Eventually, this will make 67sq km of currently submerged land available for use. The larger part of the new city — a further 270sq km — will be built on ground created by adding landfill to the lake bed…..” Read the rest here
————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————

Popularity: 1% [?]

from ArchiKubik

“The key to preserving a suggestive, lively and attractive city capable of preserving the quality of living standards, lies in the hands of its citizens, the emotional (and functional) relationship they establish with it, and their ability to construct, to self construct even, its own identity. Not so much a collective identity, widespread and large-scale, but an intimate almost domestic identity, shared by those who are nearest to one another and in connection with what lies within closest range. A fast active identity sustained on a daily (not a centennial) basis. It is in this sense that the idea of Event is essential. Events are our means of approaching certain parts of the city; events weave an emotional web with places, acting as the raw material the city offers its users in order to transform them into citizens. Events are generated at a collective and programmed level (the Olympic Games, the Forum 2004 are examples of large-scale events designed for mass communities), and at a virtually private de-programmed level. If urban space encourages the incidence of close-range direct experiences, we are well on the way to creating an urban event culture. The crucial forms of expression that arise in urban environments include those produced on levels ranging from one-to-one, one-to-multiple, multiple-to-one and multiple-to-multiple basis. In emotional terms, our first kiss on a park bench will remain forever engraved in our memory, as will the football matches we played in a certain square and the concerts and parties we attended. Such situations, however domestic and unassuming they may seem, have the kind of impact that the Situationists termed psychogeography. We cannot trust that all our citizens will strategically and deliberately become Situationist converts, in accordance with the political terms discussed by the Situationist International in the fifties and sixties, but we should create a type of urban space – and above all a public space – able to stimulate relationships between equals. In other words, if identity is based on nostalgia and memory, we should be able to provoke reminiscences –– perhaps not general mythic memories, ideological or collective, but reactive, domestic memories generated from either personal or restrictively communal experience. Instead of encouraging action from a premise rooted in the past, we should seek to create continual action and intensive use of public space, a fundamental platform for social relations.
————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————
The conditions of this type of public space are based on urban density, which favours frequent non-programmed encounters; on the neutrality (not the generic nature) of urban space, in other words avoiding the specialisation of public space (areas designed exclusively for children, for dogs, for bowls players, etc.); and on a certain degree of continuity in town planning –– streets aren’t dead areas, but on the contrary can be understood in a variety of ways as platforms for action. In the city of Barcelona we come across examples of an urban event culture in specific areas of the Raval district. In spite of its problems, Raval is an alfresco laboratory that analyses the challenges of the contemporary city, such as multiculturalism, diversity, a high density of population (over 20,000 inhabitants per square kilometre), lack of safety on the streets, etc. And yet it also presents the liveliest social fabric of today’s city. Recently opened restaurants and other amenities, ‘new’ means of expression and interethnic co-existence are some of the proposals convening in this central district, particularly in North Raval. So our intention is to ‘Ravalise’ the whole of Barcelona, spreading the cultural virus of the ideas in action proclaimed by organisations based in the district until they converge with the advantages of the new city, overcoming problems such as the insalubrity of old run-down housing, the exceptionally narrow streets and the lack of public facilities. To ‘Ravalise’ Barcelona means to stimulate the social fabric of the city starting from urban tactics, from well-equipped public space, meeting basic housing needs. If Raval is dense, then the density of the city in general should be emphasised; if Raval is multi-layered, we should ensure the whole town is multicultural; if Raval is mixed-use, the city should be re-integrated. The idea that this district’s identity is rooted in the past is not quite true, for until a short time ago neither nostalgic myths nor ancient history seemed to bear any traces of it. Raval is in the process of shaping its own identity on paper, and it is doing so from the worst conditions possible (multiculturalism, lack of social services, stifling public spaces, etc.). So our intention is not to see Raval in a mythical light, but to draw the necessary conclusions from the reality of its thriving social fabric that will enable the other “cities within the city” to create their own logic of events.

Raval is also plays significant in another fundamental aspect of town planning, as the former dichotomy between the city centre and the outskirts disappears as a result of the existence of more than one ‘centre’. The centre, as such, is a key feature for establishing distance (both physical and emotional) as a unit of measure. The centres of European towns influence their entire metropolitan areas. Conceiving the new city implies envisaging this new centrality.

Built-up urban areas in medium-sized European cities like Barcelona cannot continue to present one single unit of measure. On the contrary, while town centres are vital in some capacities, the outskirts prove central in others. The emergence of multiple centres gradually cuts into the isolation of the periphery, marking the need for a certain degree of specialisation –– the oldest quarter should not necessarily also embrace the political centre, the cultural and the social heart of the city. New centres must be generated in each of the city’s fresh challenges. Thus, Sagrera must take advantage of the intermodal railway station to re-centre the approaches to Barcelona. As the means of access to the city for millions of people arriving by train, it must be alluring and appear as another ‘Plaça Catalunya’ for those who are visiting the city for the first time. In its specialisation, the district of Sagrera must welcome the possibilities for economic exchange provided by business, and the opportunities for cultural and social exchange offered by tourism and recreational urban activities. Railway infrastructures have the advantage of penetrating into the very heart of the city (as opposed to the peripheral condition required by airports), a key factor in the new centrality of Sagrera. As the new city rises to the surface, it must display Barcelona’s main feature: its domesticity. Visitors find Barcelona (or should we say each of the various ‘Barcelonas’) striking, because all parts of the city are equally prepared for active public life. People can eat, go out for a drink, take a stroll, go to the cinema or shop in most districts –– in short, they can live anywhere. Barcelona is domestic and familiar, it is apprehensible, easily ‘understood’ and experienced –– the same cannot be said of all cities. Its value resides in the number of people liable to wander as they leave the railway station, and in its ability to administer this domesticity for the continual arrival of new and experienced visitors and residents.

Bearing in mind these considerations, the new Barcelonas will be ‘glocal’, acting on a global scale as poles of attraction to promote relations on a local scale between current and future inhabitants and urban space.

Public versus Private: The Sphere of the Possible

Cities have traditionally been divided into these two distinct categories, public space versus private space, with no intermediate areas. Yet if a city is able to knock down this mental (and often physical) barrier, its urban mass will be much more receptive, osmotic and permeable.

This can be done by broadening the scope of possibility between clear-cut public and private space, providing the city with a whole range of new intermediate areas. This does not mean mixing public and private, merely creating a buffer between the two, able to generate an active transition between what takes place on a large scale and what is individual. To a certain extent what is called for is a redefinition of the initial dichotomy by creating spaces that are semi-public, others semi-private, and spaces of approximation –– in short, enhancing the range of possible relations between citizens and their immediate environment. Although this is not a new idea perhaps it hadn’t been clearly expressed until now. In the refurbished inner courtyards of the blocks in the Eixample district designed by Cerdà, open public use of space co-exists with the private appropriation of these areas by adjacent buildings. These hybrid spaces are officially public, yet in practice they are enjoyed by local neighbours. Designing such spaces increases the possibilities for interaction between the city and its citizens. What the tourist may miss will be enjoyed by the city-dweller, the connoisseur of the town, district or street in question. The idea is to create an urban fabric on a scale smaller than that of great streets, squares and buildings; channelling public space towards the private spheres of homes and offices; designing not specific corners, twists and turns, but rather areas in which citizens can voluntarily disappear, sheltered from cars and protected from public gazes. The reinvention of the street, of front and back, of what is exposed and what remains secluded, lies precisely in this transitional realm between public and private, mass and individuality. Such polyhedral cities, full of delicate ramifications, encompass manifold interpretations and recuperate the Situationist idea of drift (dérive) or détournement.

Repetition versus Variation: The System

When we speak of a certain ‘model’ of city we usually resort to generalisations that are unable to capture the necessary nuances of living cities. The model refers to a masterly solution, almost an ideological vision of a solution, an idea that is usually greatly impoverished when the conditions in which it is applied are not those best suited to the model’s co-ordinates.

To model complexity is an extremely difficult task when it comes to contemporary cities. Variables are affected by the constant fluctuation of determinants, leading to models that are either too general (and therefore unable to assume the nitty-gritty of their actual application), or too specific with regard to local detail (and therefore not applicable in other suppositions). To counteract the dysfunctions of a given model we shall adopt the idea of the system.

The city considered as a system is understood as an unfolding of platforms intended to develop simultaneous situations, multiple actions and experiences. The variables of such systems must be clearly established, in particular the scope for transformation they are able to assume. Systems are more flexible than models; they have a wider range of application in changing environments and are more liable to provoke appropriate responses. A certain behavioural logic, certain guidelines and codes of reaction to change underlie all systems, guaranteeing adaptive transformations and pertinent solutions to varying demands.

The city appears a system of systems, all interconnected, interwoven and interdependent, systems covering different areas of the city superimposed on other systems of greater scope. Such systems are not conditioned by aesthetic precautions such as variations or repetitions to taste. Systems have a self-programmed logic that depends on the external forces to which they are subjected; in fact, systems are mutable and their forms are directly related to their own pre-existing conditions. Form, therefore, is not an essential feature, a trait neither definitive nor definitional of the system’s functionality. Form does not exist inasmuch as it is not established a priori; it exists as a final result of an urban process of calculation. The issue is not of course merely to translate the resultants of density, buildability, usage, etc., into spatial factors, but to work out the degree of density of the event in programmatic-spatial terms, the definition of all sorts of variables (immigration, mobility, scheduled uses, interaction, dependence, independence and interdependence, etc.), using algorithms that will express the extreme yet necessary complexity of cities.

In Favour of a Liveable City

As opposed to the inhumane breaking up of the generic city and the romantic tyranny of the recognisable city, with its nostalgic codes of identity and associations with totality, we propose a polyhedral city –– a city of multiple gazes, a macro-regional, macro-architectural, macro-territorial and micro-urban city. A city of encounters, of voluntary drifts and on-demand references; a city of the hustle and bustle of shopping and of our first furtive kiss; a city of urban event culture and private domestic culture; a city interconnected with the world and intra-connected with our most intimate imaginary. We propose a city of multiple identities rather than official identity; a city of artificial domesticity and urban naturalness; a city that reacts to indifference, to all that is generic, to shallow standardisation. We propose a city that welcomes the tension of contradictions, of exchange and responsibility. A city both functional and emotional; a city of experience and invention; a city that is increasingly POLIS and decreasingly MEGA. A city of value and countervalue, of tradition and innovation, of narrative and poetry, of confluence and dispersal. A city that offers a choice, a city that adapts; a city of public space charged with capacities and possibilities; a city that must be re-visited from without and re-envisaged from within. A complex city with coincidental limits; a city not of perplexity but of paradox. In short, we propose a city mirrored on the men and women who inhabit it, a city to live in… a Liveable City.” Archikubik

Popularity: 1% [?]

from Archinect

Tulane University students building a home for a low-income family in New Orleans as featured in the Sundance Channel original series “Architecture School”.
—————————————————————————
by Liz Martin

“This Wednesday, August 20, 2008, the Sundance Channel will premiere Architecture Schools. The docudrama follows twelve students enrolled in the Design/Build Program at Tulane University’s School of Architecture as they build a sustainable, design-forward home for a family returning to New Orleans.

Series co-creators Consulting Producer Stan Bertheaud (left) and Director/Executive Producer Michael Selditch(right)
—————————————————————————

Under the creative direction of Robert Redford, Sundance Channel is the television destination for independent-minded viewers seeking something different. To architect-turned-director Michael Selditch, Sundance seemed the ideal place to pitch the shows idea of bringing the architectural process to the screen capturing the design-build experience as seen through the student’s eyes.

After positive feedback and interest from Sundance, almost two years later, co-creators Michael Selditch and Stan Bertheaud got the green light in August 2007. “Two years have passed since Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast and there is still an extraordinary amount of work to be done,” commented Laura Michalchyshyn, Sundance Channel EVP of Programming and Creative Affairs. “This series provides a great opportunity for Sundance Channel to be part of the rebuilding process while presenting inspiring and compelling programming that spotlights sustainable design and the next generation of community planners.”

First, the creative team was given 40k to pull together a 10-minute trailer to show the intent and character of the proposed reality based design/build school project. Bertheaud pitched the idea to several architecture schools throughout the country starting with the renowned Rural Studio, however, Tulane University dealing with post-Katrina New Orleans jumped at the chance to tell their story and showcase their proactive and socially-conscious architecture curriculum.

Yes, in Architecture School (and you have to love that plain-Jane title), there’s a competition. But it doesn’t involve a judge’s panel or weekly stunt challenges. A group of, yes, Tulane University architecture students are assigned to design a low-cost house to be built in an area devastated by Hurricane Katrina; and the winning house gets built. The show walks us through the design process and workshops, explaining principles of modern affordable design along the way, as well as factoids like “shotgun house,” or “stringer”.

There’s conflict, though not the stage managed kind─not that I have anything against the Project Runway style, but this is higher education so to speak. Rather the series accurately shows the combative discussion sessions, we’ve all been a part of with students and professors challenging the designers on their work and how well it serves the low-income residents it’s intended for. “How does your design make better the life of someone who wants to live in the house,” one critic asks, “rather than stoke the ego of the architect who wants to express their nifty idea?” Ouch! As important, the show spends a considerable amount of time with New Orleans neighborhood residents, discussing the hurricane’s effect on them and their hopes for rebuilding.

Tulane University students voting on a house design they will build for a low-income family in New Orleans as featured in the Sundance Channel original series “Architecture School”.
—————————————————————————
In a nutshell: “Architecture School” tells the story of twelve idealistic architecture students who are bringing a social mission into the classroom by working with communities and populations that do not traditionally have access to architects. Although it’s considered reality TV, the series was filmed more like an old school documentary told from a classic fly on the wall point-of-view. Selditch, who spent most of the time on-location, mic’d up each student while he asked questions, but took himself, as narrator, out of the final editing leaving the experiences of the team building the house, neighbor’s opinions, the staff at housing services, and the life of the city to tell the story.

Tulane University students building a home for a low-income family in New Orleans as featured in the Sundance Channel original series “Architecture School”.
—————————————————————————
Liz Martin interviews co-creators Michael Selditch (MS) and Stan Bertheaud (SB) along with Tulane faculty Professor Byron Mouton (BM) regarding the T.V. series.

LM_ How was the series conceived? And what was the show’s intent?

SB_ Michael Selditch and I are both architects as well as filmmakers. We’ve talked about fusing architecture and film for many years. After visiting Auburn University and seeing what they do in Hale County with Rural Studio, we realized the arc of a design-build studio would be a good story to tell.

MS_ The show touches on many different levels from the students own personal journey to the people living in that neighborhood to the individuals that are desperately trying to get a house to the bigger city issues of knocking down public housing that seems perfectly fine and so on. It comes back to the idea of Sundance really wanting to do the show in New Orleans thinking that it was the ideal place to film this series. It sounds like a cliché, but New Orleans is very much a character in the series-you see a lot of New Orleans culture with the students going to bars listening music, the food, etc.

BM_ The series aim was to capture the studio experience and expose the audience to the creative process. The crew strategically organized filming based on our design-build process spanning two semesters. One of the early episodes exposes the studio learning process during a pin-up critiquing the work and the late night hours students often embrace throughout the semester.

LM_How did you choose the students that were a part of the TV series? Were all students in the class a part of the actual series?

BM_ The class was developed as a design studio and the topic of research was described in the course catalogue. There was no special process. Students simply selected the course of study and signed-up like any other class on campus. All students in the class are visible in the footage, but not all have primary roles.

Front row left to right: Scott Mucci, Carter Scott, Nik Haak, AmaritDulyapaibul, Alex Mangimelli , Ian Daniels, Casey Roccanova, Christina Alvarado-Suarez. Rear from left to right: Sam Richards (co-director), Byron Mouton (director), Kim Lewis, Emilie Taylor (project manager), and Adriana Camacho (kneeling)
—————————————————————————
LM_ This is being billed as a reality TV series. Was anything scripted or did the teaching style change as a result of the camera?

BM_ Not really. Once in a while students and faculty were asked to repeat something that had already been said. The series is the result of some editing, but basically what you see is what you get.

SB_ Nothing was scripted. Occasionally we had someone repeat a line if it was garbled the first time through. It’s as real as we could make it. Series is filmed actually like a documentary in an old school “fly on the wall” sense. There’s no artificial competition here. No one gets voted off the island.

MS_ When we get on site, [as director] I might ask a question like. “Begin by telling us how the final design was chosen,” and then the students begin to banter about their final review. That’s where the directing, quote-unquote, comes in for a documentary-style project like this one. I’m never telling anyone what to do or what to say, but I’m also always thinking in my head, “What do I need to tell this story to try and accurately capture it?” So it’s all happening and it’s all real, but as the director you kind of influence and “edit” how to portray all these interesting events to tell the story and tie together activities from episode-to-episode.

LM_Were you able to capture the design or studio learning process on film?

SB_ We spent time in the studio during work hours and after. The after hours conversations of the students were very revealing…and often funny. Watching smart students balance internal design questions with studio politics is pretty engaging…And Byron Mouton, the studio’s professor, is very good on camera. He’s a very comfortable guy to be around so he puts the students at ease. He’s smart too…

MS_ Bryon Mouton has a major presence, but he is not consistently in every episode, in fact, there is probably an episode or two where he’s barely in it. We essentially followed the process of the design-build project and some students were really vocal and others were more behind the scenes; sometimes the faculty stood out and others times they were completely back ground. But there is a scene on the roof, which became Byron’s scene because he’d had a very traumatic experience falling and it was a story he had told us prior to shooting that we thought was really interesting. It was an experience that had happened to him 12 years earlier, but it was a story that was a thread throughout the entire series. For example, there is one student, Carter, who wanted to do a three story house in a two story district and Bryon had a strong opinion of it and you realize it most likely had to do with his fear or trauma from his previous accident. Its one thing that I’m really proud of is that there are a few things, like Bryon’s accident falling off a roof, that arc throughout the series.

LM_Bryon, you had a personal scare a few years back–falling off a roof of a building under construction–how do you deal with that experience and heading up a design-build program?

BM_ Safety is a priority. Yes I had a scare in 1998; I fell from a framing platform and was unconscious for a while. In fact, I had an ‘accelerated brain concussion’ and was forced to spend 6 weeks attending physical and occupational therapy. I’m lucky to have walked away.

That experience strongly influences the way we control the job site and establish limitations of risk. No matter what, the job site and tools are dangerous; we cannot avoid that. However, we do our best to reduce the risks. This responsibility alone justifies the need for three experienced faculty members to be involved during construction. We attempt to lead by example, but we must constantly remind the students to take care. In the end, we cannot forget that they are adults, and they are expected to respond to all situations as such. They do repeatedly rise to that challenge….But we still keep a careful watch.

LM_ Why did you choose Tulane to feature in the series? How do post-Katrina New Orleans issues affect the series?

SB_ I used to teach at Tulane and Katrina had just happened. With my contacts and the national attention the storm focused on the city it was really a no-brainer. Post-Katrina Nola issues permeate the series and Nola is definitely a character. The city is still recovering. We shot in and around the city whenever we could. We spend a good bit of time with the students after hours doing “student stuff”… and it is New Orleans.

MS_ Filming in New Orleans post-Katrina seemed timely. A big realization, or shock to be honest, I had while doing the original 10-minute teaser trailer was that there were a lot of horrible abandoned housing and poverty situations prior to Katrina. When I first went on a tour of the city outskirts with Bryon and Reed Kroloff, who at the time we began filming was Dean of Tulane, I was shocked and said, “the storm did all that?,” and Bryon said well this area has been abandoned for almost 30-years [before Katrina]. The poverty level in some parts of New Orleans would shock the rest of the nation. Of course, there are other cities that have similar problems like if you go to Detroit, or Bronx in NY, or Watts in Los Angeles, but Katrina shed light on this phenomena in the US where not only rebuilding became really important, but also simply those who are in need.
—————————————————————————

—————————————————————————
BM_ There has always been support for our design-build program, but the greatest amount of support was, in fact, provided by H.U.D.. During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, while students and faculty were in exile, Ila Berman (associate dean at the time…has since gone off to San Francisco) collected the works and progress of several faculty members and students in effort to assemble and submit a grant proposal. The proposal described the intention to conduct urban research at both the Macro and Micro scale of the city. The $300,000 grant was awarded, and that really propelled the program. Ila concentrated on the study of urban strategies, while I concentrated on the development of dwelling and neighborhood strategies.

As with other educational design/build programs across the nation, the goal was to provide students with the opportunity to work collectively on the design, development and construction of affordable housing prototypes. However, in contrast to programs offered by other schools, students were challenged to develop progressive proposals amidst selected deteriorating neighborhoods of an existing historic urban fabric and of course, the idea of water / flooding.

LM_ What do you think the students will learn from this experience that is different than a normal design studio that never leaves the studio?

BM_ Students leave the program with a sense of group accomplishment rather than individual accomplishment….they learn a very important skill–how to respectfully hold their colleagues accountable for their actions and decisions while still maintaining progress in the workplace. They learn professional conduct amidst the arena of difference in opinion.

SB_ Architecture is often just too abstract, so learning what happens on the job site is invaluable for students…But maybe even more important were the interpersonal lessons learned by all involved, both within the studio group and extending into the neighborhood and city.

MS_ To me, building efficiency beautifully. The house is really beautiful; flawlessly made with a really smart compact plan—no wasted space in that house. It’s on a tight little foot print, its 1200sf house—super small and it is packed with three bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, living and dining room, kitchen, etc. It’s an efficient floor plan with open feeling the way it’s designed with multiple outdoor spaces off grade. And I think the neighbors’ kind of came around, especially the ones that thought it was ugly at first, once they saw all the interesting and efficient spaces that were built by these students.

LM_ Describe one of your favorite episodes?

MS_ During production, Architecture Record came and did this great little story on what we were all doing and the kids were energized by all the support. This essentially is captured in episode 5, the house designed and fully framed. Then there’s open discussion on the arch record website, people start blogging in and at first they were very supportive and positive, this is great that these students are doing this for New Orleans, congratulations and blah, blah, blah…and then the discussion started going south and became really harsh. One comment was “it looks like terrorists dropped a bomb, what are these kids thinking?” And it kept going and got really unnecessarily cruel. And one student, in particular, got really discouraged and took it really personally. This was one of the students that was really about the altruism of the project. Through this series of events, it comes out on film through this one student, how architects, with the best intentions, can feel completely underappreciated within not only the neighborhood and community they are so desperately trying to heal, but also their peers. If you try and do something out of the norm, it will always open you up to criticism.” Archinect

—————————————————————————

—————————————————————————

Popularity: 7% [?]

Registration deadline: September 30th, 2008

“”A design competition which focuses on three specific areas of the city of Roanoke, VA and challenges design professionals and students to create new environments that will transform the current urban landscape. Applicants will explore the city’s potential by creating unique urban and architectural designs that enhance the best qualities of Roanoke and create positive impact on three specific areas of the city: the Roanoke City Market, The Crossing, and Reserve Avenue/Roanoke River. Each is located along the city’s main thoroughfare, Jefferson Street. Through public/private partnerships, redevelopment efforts are currently underway in this area known as The Jefferson Street Corridor.

Drawing upon the skills and resources of designers and visionaries nationwide, we seek big plans to inspire the community and stimulate dialogue about the future growth and development of the city. Roanoke Urban Effect challenges applicants to look beyond the traditional urban planning and architectural model to present innovative and inspired ideas that create a vision for a more vibrant and sustainable urban environment.”

Contact: Joesephine Villacreces

540-857-3298

questions@roanokeurbaneffect.org

———————————————————————————————————————————–
About Roanoke

The City of Roanoke is nestled in a picturesque valley surrounded by the scenic Blue Ridge Mountains. First inhabited by Native Americans, the region was a fertile hunting ground with an abundant supply of game drawn to the area by the natural salt licks occurring along the valley’s floor. These natural salt deposits gave the region its first name, Big Lick. Due to its favorable geographical location and with passable gaps in the four cardinal directions, colonials and pioneers began to settle the area. With the emergence of coal mining in West Virginia, the area developed from a small farming village into the railroad hub for the Norfolk & Western Railway. In 1882, the railroad developers, seeking a more dignified appellation for the growing town, changed the name from Big Lick to Roanoke. As the influence of rail travel increased and lines were built and expanded the town grew rapidly. Within two years the population grew from 600 to 5,000 inhabitants. In eagerness to expand the railroad lines, tracks were laid along the path of least resistance. For Roanoke this meant filling and covering the salt licks, the largest of which was filled with rock and became the city’s Main Street, now known as Jefferson Street.

old Roanoke Mills [from flickr]
———————————————————————————–

Jefferson Street runs on a North/South axis crossing the rail lines at Norfolk Avenue on the south side of downtown. The rail yards and machine shops are located along the north side of the tracks and to the east of downtown. The Hotel Roanoke and the former Norfolk & Western passenger station, now the O. Winston Link Museum, are both located to the east of Jefferson Street on the north side of the tracks. The urban core of the city extends southward from the tracks along Jefferson Street. Market Street, home to the vibrant local farmer’s market as well as retailers and restaurants, parallels Jefferson Street to the west and terminates at Elmwod Park. Jefferson Street continues through the city, past the new Carilion Medical complex and proposed Riverside Center, ending in the neighborhood of South Roanoke.

The Jefferson Street Corridor has been chosen as the focus area for this competition due to its unique influence in Roanoke’s history, on its urban core, and its potential too affect the city’s future.

downtown Roanoke, VA from Mill Mountain [from Flickr]
————————————————————————————-
Design Goals

* Improve the quality of life in the city of Roanoke by creating a more vibrant and sustainable urban environment.
* Present innovative and inspired ideas to the community, providing them a vision of how well-designed public spaces can improve the city and its quality of life.
* Encourage young talent in the area to become involved in the future growth and development of the city.
————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————————-
Design Options:

Option 1 - Buildings
Present a design solution that proposes a building development plan for one of the competition focus areas. Proposals should address building function, scale, massing, interrelationship with other buildings and open spaces, and conceptual theme.

Option 2 - Urban Design
Propose an urban design solution that connects all three focus areas along the Jefferson Street Corridor. Proposals should address street scape, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, public art, street furnishings and other methods of enhancing linkage of the three focus areas.

Option 3 - Urban Planning
Propose a land use policy or scheme that creates a pattern of development along the Jefferson Street Corridor that creates synergy and connectivity between the Market area and Riverside.

In all options, entrants are encouraged to incorporate the ideals of sustainability and pedestrian movement while addressing the issues and constraints unique to each focus area.

Proposed Focus Areas
Three focus areas have been chosen for this competition. All are located along the Jefferson Street Corridor. The Jefferson Street Corridor lies along a north/south axis and is anchored by the railroad tracks and Rail Walk fountain to the north and the Carilion/Roanoke Memorial Hospital to the south. These three sites have also been identified by the City of Roanoke as preferred sites for proposed redevelopment.

Some properties on these focus areas are susceptible to flooding during periods of heavy or extended rainfall, specially focus areas #2 & #3. Any proposed solution for these areas should take into account that much of the area is within the 100 year floodplain

* Early Registration - August 18th - 31st, 2008
* Registration - September 1st - 30th, 2008
* Q & A - August 25th – September 5th, 2008
* All Q & A will be addressed by this date - September 12th, 2008
* Site Visits - September 2008 (Day TBD)
* Site Visits - October 2008 (Day TBD)
* All competition entries must be received by 5:00PM EST to be eligible for judging - October 31st, 2008
* Competition Judging - November 13th, 14th and 15th, 2008
* Awards Announcement and Final Awards Event - November 15th, 2008
* Exhibition - November 16th, 2008 – December 7th, 2008

Jury Panel: To be announced
———————————————————————————-
Check All the details of  ROANOKE URBAN EFFECT 2008 DESIGN COMPETITION on:
http://www.roanokeurbaneffect.org
———————————————————————————-

Popularity: 8% [?]

From Bustler

INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION FOR THE DESIGN OF THE KAPTOL, ZAGREB (CROATIA)

RESULTS
” In March 2008, the CITY OF ZAGREB launched a public, single stage, open, international ideas competition for the design of the Kaptol in Zagreb (Croatia) and invited all architects, urban planners or landscape architects to take part in it.

The Kaptol area is a part of the city core as well as an element of the historical urban area of the City of Zagreb, the most complex space considering cultural, historical, spiritual, social and legal aspects.  The competition is primarily aimed at urban requalification of the Kaptol area through its historical identity, contents and traffic elements.

The competition was organized with the support of the Croatian Architects’ Association (CAA).

JURY
The jury, under the presidency of Nikola Basic, architect (Zadar, Croatia), was composed of: Ivica Fanjek, architect, representing the City of Zagreb; Sasa Begovic, architect, representing the CAA (Zagreb) ; Miljenko Bernfest, architect, representing the CAA (Zagreb) ; Igor Franic, architect, representing the CAA (Zagreb); Juraj Kolaric, professor, representing the Zagreb Archdiocese Cultural Assets Office; Dietmar Steiner, architect (Vienna, Austria) and Alan Kostrencic, architect, deputy member (Zagreb).

WINNERS
The jury conferred from 11 to 13 July 2008 in Zagreb and examined the entries. The results were officially announced on July 13th, 2008. When the adjudication was over, anonymity was lifted and the names of the winners revealed.
————————————————————————————-
FIRST PRIZE
mikelic vres architects
Marin Mikelic, Tomislav Vres, Josip Jerkovic (Zagreb)

————————————————————————————-
SECOND PRIZE
Andrej Radman, Igor Vrbanek (Zagreb)

————————————————————————————–
ONE OF THE TWO EQUAL INCREASED PURCHASES
zerOgroup – Laurent Troost (Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil) (http://www.zerogroup.org)

————————————————————————————–

ONE OF THE TWO EQUAL INCREASED PURCHASES
NEIDHARDT Architects - Velimir Neidhardt (Zagreb)

————————————————————————————–

ONE OF THE TWO EQUAL PURCHASES
SKOPEO - Andrea Barac (Zagreb)

Popularity: 10% [?]

Witherford Watson Mann (WWM)

“Bankside Urban Park
Bankside, London | Urban Framework | 2007

The Bankside Urban Forest framework aims to highlight the relationship between the less intensively developed urban interior and its active, increasingly corporate, edges. By recognising the capacity of the public realm to be shared by each, the framework identifies improvements to open spaces and connecting routes, to support interaction between residents, workers, visitors, local institutions and organisations. Existing projects are drawn together with our proposed ones to help to negotiate, informally influence and direct emerging projects and to secure additional funding for enhancing the public realm.”
————————————————————————————-
Project Design Case:(you can also download the full study at the end of this entry)

Summary

Bankside Urban Forest is a co-ordinated and strongly characterised urban design framework for the public realm within the area extending from the river edge down to the Elephant and Castle, bordered by Blackfriars Road and Borough High Street. The work has been commissioned by Better Bankside in collaboration with a broad group that comprises the London Borough of Southwark, Tate Modern, The Architecture Foundation, Transport for London, Land Securities, Cross River Partnership and Native Land.
Centuries of overlapping development patterns have created a pronounced ‘urban interior’ within the Bankside and Borough area that is less intensively developed and used than the more active edges - Blackfriars Road, Borough High Street and the river edge. The construction of the viaducts and Southwark Street have further served to isolate this urban interior from more diverse uses and activities. This quieter interior area is characterised by its scattered small open spaces and strong local identity, and it acts as a counterbalance to the increasingly international, corporate, large-scale developments that are being constructed and planned around its edges.

Bankside Urban Forest responds to these conditions with five principal proposals;
1. Increasing the opportunities for ‘sharing’ - that the existing social and physical relationships between the local ‘urban interior’, and the rapidly developing edges within Bankside and Borough, are supported and reinforced through significant improvements to the public realm and local amenities, and by increasing the opportunities for social engagement.
2. That the Urban Forest is the characterisation of this distinctive area of London, based upon the existing spatial qualities that underpin the area’s identity; meandering streets, multiple routes, clearings, clusters of vaulted and canopied spaces.
3. That evolutionary change takes place in a coordinated (not piecemeal) way, meshing existing projects and initiatives with new opportunities. Bankside Urban Forest must engage and sustain the commitment of the diverse individuals and groups in the area to take ownership of the projects over the long term.
4. That an ecological approach to urban regeneration based on networking, self- sufficiency, and ‘economies of small-scale’ will create a new sense of urban equilibrium between contrasting economic, social and cultural groups.
5. A collective project based on shared principles - that the Bankside Urban Forest establishes a new model for regenerating the public realm in London to attract significant public and private partners and investment.
We have identified a number of existing places which bring different people who use the area into contact with each other - ‘places of exchange’. These places and the activities that they support suggest sociable uses of the public realm. The framework supports these sociable places by drawing together many existing initiatives by Bankside Open Spaces Trust (BOST), LB Southwark, Transport for London, the Peabody Trust and private developers. We have proposed several projects that incorporate new trees, vertical planting, public art, hard landscaping and lighting in order to illustrate how the Bankside ‘forest’ could be realised.
It is intended that the Bankside Urban Forest framework can shape a common imagination between the many different interest groups in the area.
————————————————————————–

———————————————————————
the urban interior

The social and physical characteristics of Bankside and Borough reflect the area’s historical location in relation to the City of London. The foot of London Bridge was a place of great intensity, but no formal structure, being a meeting place for travellers and pilgrims upon leaving or entering the City. St Saviour’s offered a place of sanctuary (earlier St Mary Overie and later to become Southwark Cathedral) and the monastery, St Thomas’s, developed into a hospital. The market that originally occupied London Bridge was relocated to the ‘Triangle’, once the churchyard of St Margaret’s. Development in the area was not based on any formal models and was broadly linear, following the approach to London Bridge and the river edge. In 1769 the completion of Blackfriars Bridge led to a more formal urban model of tenement blocks and squares. The middle ground or ‘urban interior’ remained free from any identifiable structure or development, being ‘loosely’ occupied by tenter grounds and vinegar yards.

Click to enlarge
———————————–
The marginal use of the urban interior and its separation from the river edge was cemented by the construction of the viaducts and Southwark Street. This physical disconnection was reinforced by the change of use along the river edge through the 1980’s and 90’s. Large scale commercial, institutional and leisure uses rapidly replaced the grain of the wharfs. This pattern of development has continued with increasing intensity and is evident in the latest planning applications for large scale, high-rise office, residential and cultural buildings.
———————————————————————————-
pedestrian movement

Pedestrian movement is not always a reflection of the most direct route between places. It reveals complex, often sub-conscious, decisions; where other people are, things of interest, noise levels, presence of vehicles, what can be seen ahead and so forth. A few hours spent in Bankside and Borough demonstrates that for local residents and workers many of the quieter or less trafficked roads are favoured.
Visitors’ experience of moving around Bankside and Borough however, reflects the distinct change between the busy activity around the edges and the more secluded urban interior. Truncated views, reduced activity at ground level, narrow pavements and the dark viaducts that criss-cross the area give the sense of having moved ‘off track’, raising feelings of anxiety and fear that prevents many people from exploring the area’s rich heritage and open spaces.

Click to enlarge
———————————–

Understanding and supporting people’s natural wayfinding is therefore more than an issue of signage. It is how the layout of the streets and spaces affect what people see when exploring the street network, as well as the buildings and spaces that they see during their journey and which attract them along specific routes. Visibility analysis is a measure of how much space pedestrians can see as they move around at ground level.
For Bankside, the visual field open to pedestrians as they move around the street network has been measured using a computer programme. This calculates the visual field available to pedestrians for wayfinding at every step of any possible journey within the network, creating an overall measure of visibility of pedestrian space for the entire centre. A map of visibility in the study area is shown on this page. The visibility of the individual pavements is shown as a spectrum, where the areas in red have the longest views and the areas shown in dark blue are the most secluded.
————————————————————————————-
dominant land use

Bankside and Borough’s urban interior remains notably distant from the activity that characterises its edges. The severance caused by Southwark Street and the railway viaducts serves to isolate the interior from colonisation by external uses. This interior is mostly occupied by businesses. The lack of more diverse activities over different times of the day adds to the sense of it being concealed or ‘buried’. The meandering road layouts and larger plot sizes within the interior present an inherent resistance to comprehensive redevelopment and formal urban planning. This resistance to larger-scale change has however resulted in some noticeably beneficial conditions, particularly in that it has supported a strong sense of local identity through the community’s long-standing commitment to the area. This is reflected directly in the high proportion of residents that have lived here for all, or most, of their lives and the number of local initiatives that to some degree characterise this area.

Click to enlarge
———————————–

The above diagram includes some of the recent planning applications that have either been granted or submitted, where this will significantly affect land-use. It is therefore assumed that either these schemes, or alternatives with similar land-uses to them, will be constructed.
————————————————————————————-
institutional players

The area and its urban interior must serve a number of primary functions to ensure its long-term endurance and identity within competing London districts. The railway stations, Guy’s Hospital, Borough market, Southwark Cathedral, London South Bank University, Tate Modern and the Globe Theatre represent a diverse range of cultural and business interests. Between them, these ‘institutional players’ have the potential to support an active public realm over long periods of the day and week, a necessity not just in social and economic terms, but also in contributing significantly to the passive surveillance and use of small open spaces. It is important to resist seeing these highly specific and self-interested institutions as autonomous, and to understand how they can each contribute to a ‘common’ programme for the public realm and social engagement.

Click to enlarge
———————————–

‘Any primary use whatever, is by itself relatively ineffectual as a creator of city diversity. If it is combined with another primary use that brings people in and out and puts them on the street at the same time, nothing has been accomplished. In practical terms, we cannot even call these differing primary uses. However, when a primary use is combined, effectively, with another that put people on the street at different times, then the effect can be economically stimulating: a fertile environment for secondary diversity.’
Jane Jacobs The Death and Life of American Cities
———————————————————————————

hidden places

The columned canopy of Borough Market, flickering lights of the trains, ruins at All Hallows, golden deer, Cross Bones Graveyard, long shadows from latticed bridge structures, shrine of the Most Precious Blood, hanging vegetation in Playhouse Court, Clink skeletons and deep viaduct arches all contribute to the sense of ‘losing oneself in the city’.

Click to enlarge
———————————–
The scattered ‘special places’ or clearings make manifest the long history of informal development in an area beyond the laws of the City; an incremental series of individual aspirations and isolated opportunities. The presence of this condition is so strong within Bankside that it is reasonable to say that it is characteristic of the area. It forms part of Bankside’s identity.
————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————————
places of exchange

supporting and extending existing places of exchange
There are a number of existing places within Bankside and Borough which in differing ways have the capacity to bring people who do not know each other into contact, places which ‘suggest’ social engagement between different racial, ethnic and class communities, where people can express differences of opinions and find mutual support, where civility can flourish – Places of Exchange.

Click to enlarge
———————————–

There is a significant opportunity to create a completely new ‘place of exchange’ on the south side of Tate Modern. The necessity for a place that has this capacity to bring people in contact with one another is particularly important here as this area is going to be shared by both the existing community and a significant number of new residents and workers.
Places of Exchange are often supported by, and indeed support, the scattered network of small open spaces, parks and gardens. The public realm must therefore contribute further to underpinning these more diverse and sociable places by improving the connections between them to form a more coherent and pedestrian orientated ground.
————————————————————————————
the seeds of the framework

existing clearings and special places intensified
The columned canopy of the market, flickering lights of the trains, ruins at All Hallows, golden deer, Cross Bones Graveyard, long shadows from latticed bridge structures, shrine of the Most Precious Blood, hanging vegetation in playhouse court, Clink skeletons and deep viaduct arches all contribute to the sense of ‘losing oneself in the city’. The nature of this labyrinthine terrain establishes the roots the Forest. The scattered ‘special places’ or clearings are buried deep within the network of East-West rides and long meandering North-South streams. The framework weaves these fragments of the forest into a co-ordinated but loose structure.

————————————————————————————–

spreading roots

the existing spaces and new projects begin to connect

————————————————————————————–
maturing of the framework

active edges and urban interior are meshed

As the forest begins to mature as an idea, significant new areas and spaces are ‘unlocked’ and brought into life, for example, Tate Modern playground, Cross Bones Graveyard, a quarter of a million square feet of viaduct arches, Mint Street Park and London South Bank University Square. The roots and social influence of the key players begin to extend and embed themselves into the urban interior of the forest. The thresholds suggest exploration, the rich history and local identity are embedded and intertwined, streams and rides improve access to new facilities, jobs, clubs and spaces. The intertwining of the roots serves to make a robust and resilient quarter of the city.
———————————————————————————–

—————————————————————————-
the planted arch

One of the main East-West pedestrian and cycle routes into the area runs from The Cut into Union Street. This is directly opposite Southwark Underground and runs alongside the Palestra Building. The first viaduct arch marks a very important threshold to the forest and sits just off an important crossing with Great Suffolk Street. The space is occupied by a café built into the viaduct wall, the Union Jack pub and the emerging night-time economy in and around the viaducts as far as the White Hart Pub. …

—————————————————————————-
flat iron square
The small traffic island, where Union Street crosses Southwark Bridge Road, occupies an important position within the framework. As well as the Island Cafe there is a thriving row of small shops and cafes and, opposite, the refurbished community centre and training school at 56 Southwark Bridge Road….

——————————————————————-
redcross way
The Cathedral School of St Saviour and St Mary Overie, St Joseph’s School, Redcross Garden and Little Dorrit Park cluster around Redcross Way and provide a local ‘place of exchange’ for parents and children…..

——————————————————————————
tate modern playground
Tate Modern presents a rare opportunity to create a significant new public space within the framework. It could also be the kind of place that London has not seen before, a place of exchange that weaves together something innocent and everyday with something more profound….

—————————————————————————
viaducts

The viaduct that extends between Borough Market (Southwark Street) and Southwark Underground Station (Blackfriars Road) has contributed to the segregation of the urban interior at Bankside from the active river edge. This section of arches, which totals approximately 250,000ft2, is mostly closed off from the public, occupied by car parking and storage, both of which are likely to be placed under increasing economic pressure to survive as the congestion charging extends.

This viaduct now provides the opportunity to connect the urban interior into the broader area, in the way that the Westway has come to support the knitting together of the area around Ladbroke Grove. This type of ‘knitting together’ goes much further than providing improved pedestrian access through previously closed or poor quality areas, more importantly, it supports the intense occupation of them…

Witherford Watson Mann - Download the full study here
—————————————————————

About WWM

“Stephen Witherford, Christopher Watson and William Mann studied together at the University of Cambridge. They started collaborating in 1997, with weekly walks through London’s former and current periphery, and on their winning Europan 5 competition entry. They established Witherford Watson Mann Architects Ltd in 2001 after winning Europan 6. These early projects cemented their approach, based on careful observation, recognising the often surprising relation of city and landscape, and the mutual dependence of public buildings, collective space and everyday activities. The practice now has a staff of ten.”

Website: http://www.wwmarchitects.co.uk

Popularity: 6% [?]

LEBBEUS WOODS

“High-rise towers rarely develop the verticality of spaces they create, remaining instead only iconic objects in the urban landscape. Their interiors consist of stacked-up floor plates, maximizing leasable or usable floor area, and in urban centers where groupings of towers crowd to get her on the most expensive land, the spaces between the towers are ignored. No doubt, these conditions result from the single-minded interests of commercial developers and the isolation enforced by private property ownership.

The potential remains, regardless of the limitations of current attitudes, to invest the latent and actual verticality of towers with new programs of habitation that expand the meaning and experience of urban tower space.

This was the aim of the sixth semester design studio in the Graduate School of Architecture at Pratt Institute this past semester. It was realized in a one-to-one installation constructed by the members of the studio in the main space of a recent addition to the architecture building, designed by Steven Holl.
Read the full story

Popularity: 9% [?]

Guller - Guller

” In a time when most European metropolis find their planning options around their airports increasingly limited, Paris is considering the development of its largest strategic reserve of 1000ha – the Triangle de Gonesse – positioned in-between the airport of Charles de Gaulle and le Bourget. The development of this last major land reserve inside the metropolitan area is a unique opportunity to reposition Paris as a city of excellence. Read the full story

Popularity: 10% [?]

This is an interview with Yves Lion,  the winner of the Grand Prix d’ Urbanisme 2007 in France. The interview is done by Pierre Valet (in 6 parts) ,

Read the full story

Popularity: 9% [?]