The Rippling Effects of Good Design and Planning â Effects on Resilience . .... 2016). Figure 5.19. Precedence for Thames Pathway (London Bridge Public Realm by ...... the forefront for hosting resiliency forums, sharing knowledge and lessons. ..... https://luxurypropertyinspain.wordpress.com/ Accessed September, 2016.
Achieving Urban Resilience: Through Urban Design and Planning Principles Yasaman Soofi Siavash
This dissertation is submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of MSc in Spatial Planning.
Department of Planning Oxford Brookes University September, 2016
I affirm that this dissertation contains no unacknowledged work or ideas from any publication or written work by another student or any other person.
This dissertation involved human participation. An E1 form has been attached to this dissertation as an appendix.
Abstract The concept of resilience is gaining momentum within both academia and practice. It has been linked to sustainability and is identified as a mobilizing concept. This paper looks specifically at urban resilience within the built environment. It seeks to identify key urban planning and design principles and interventions that contribute to increasing a city’s level of urban resilience. This study defines urban resilience as social, economic and environmental resilience. Theoretical and analytical research was used to develop the Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework, which identifies morphological components and urban design qualities that contribute to urban resilience. Relevant interventions and lessons have been highlighted through the study of secondary case studies. The paper aims to bridge the gap between theory and practice by conducting qualitative research on a live case study in East London. Interventions and propositions were developed using enquiry by design and the Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework. An observation study was conducted to gain insight on the built environment. Interventions targeted the four key morphological elements identified in this paper: streets and spatial structures, green, blue networks and open space, building typologies and density and patterns of use. These have been identified as aspects of the built environment that influence and foster resilience. The paper establishes the need for change in the urban planning and design process and promotes building capacity for learning, innovation and adaptability. It advocates for the development of long-term plans, which encourage flexibility, robustness and collaboration. This change in status quo can foster natural evolution and transformation as cities adapt to changes in population, economic shifts, technological advances, lifestyle changes and climate change.
Key words: urban resilience, urban design, urban planning, morphology, adaptability. Word count: 16, 208
Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 0 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 0 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 0 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 0 Chapter 1:
Introduction – Aims and Objectives ...................................................................... 1
Chapter 2:
Literature Review – Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework............................. 5
2.1
Resilience....................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1
Resilient City: What does it mean? ....................................................................... 5
2.1.2
Key Urban Resilience Definitions .......................................................................... 6
2.1.3
Resiliency Policies and Strategies .......................................................................... 8
2.1.4
Components of a Resilient City ............................................................................. 9
2.2
Urban Design and Planning ......................................................................................... 11
2.2.1
The Role of Urban Design in Resilience Planning ................................................ 11
2.2.2
Urban Morphology .............................................................................................. 14
2.2.3
Urban Design Qualities ........................................................................................ 22
2.2.4
The Rippling Effects of Good Design and Planning – Effects on Resilience ........ 30
Chapter 3:
Methodology ....................................................................................................... 32
Chapter 4:
Secondary Case Studies ....................................................................................... 34
4. 1
Barcelona’s Resiliency Agenda .................................................................................... 34
4. 2
Vancouver’s Resiliency Agenda ................................................................................... 39
Chapter 5:
Case Study and Analysis – Charlton Riverside ..................................................... 46
5.1
Reinforcing London’s Resilience.................................................................................. 46
5.2
Charlton Riverside: History and Site Context .............................................................. 48
5.2.1
Charlton Riverside – Existing Landscape ............................................................. 50
5.2.2
Socio-Economic Considerations .......................................................................... 59
5.2.3
Analysis of Existing Regeneration Plans .............................................................. 59
5.2.4
Government and Public Insights ......................................................................... 61
5.3
Recommendations for Fostering Resilient Regeneration ........................................... 63
Chapter 6:
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 80
References................................................................................................................................... 85 Appendix A – E1 Ethics Form....................................................................................................... 94 Appendix B – Semi Structured Interview Transcription .............................................................. 96
List of Tables Table No.
Description
Table 2.1
Associated Qualities and Stressors of Resilience
Table 2.2
Attributes of Urban Resilience
Table 2.3
Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework – Physical features of a city that generate urban resilience
Table 2.4
Most common building typologies found worldwide
Table 2.5
Example of different perceptions of density
Table 2.6
Measures and Impacts of Resilience (from Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework)
Table 3.1
Research Methods
Table 5.1
Streets and Overall Spatial Structures SWOT analysis
Table 5.2
Green, Blue Networks and Open Spaces SWOT analysis
Table 5.3
Building Typologies and Density SWOT analysis
Table 5.4
Patterns of Use SWOT analysis
List of Figures Figure No.
Description
Figure 2.1
High Density Design (Andrew Wright Associates cited in Kiang Heng et al., 2010, 44)
Figure 2.2
Qualities That Foster an Urban Sense of Place (Montgomery, 1998, 97)
Figure 2.3
Permeable, Well-Connected Street Network (Llewelyn-Davies, 2000)
Figure 2.4
Benefits of Well Connected Streets (ITDP, 2014)
Figure 2.5
Liveable Mid-rise, Mixed-use Neighbourhoods (Pembina Institute, 2015)
Figure 2.6
Barcelona Infill Design to Accommodate Densification (Busquets, 2005, 301)
Figure 2.7
Urban Grain, Density and Adaptability
Figure 4.1
Cerda-grid Network in Eixample, Barcelona (SBL, 2015)
Figure 4.2
22@ District Before and After Design (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2012, 10)
Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5
Illustration of Superblock Movement Patterns and Usage Hierarchy (BCNecologia) Aerial View of Vancouver’s Downtown Illustrating ‘Vancouverism’ (PREEMPT, 2015) Vancouver’s Public Realm – Eyes on The Street from High-density Towers (Onceanu, 2008)
Figure 4.6
Vancouver’s Seawall – A Well Connected Green Corridor (Vancouver, 2010)
Figure 4.7
Vancouver’s Seawall – Public Realm (Vancouver, 2010)
Figure 5.1
Charlton Riverside Opportunity Area in Relation to London
Figure 5.2
Study Area 1) Charlton Riverside 2) Charlton 3) Greenwich 4) Woolwich
Figure 5.3
Charlton Riverside Site Boundary
Figure 5.4
Street Hierarchy and Key Crossing Points
Figure 5.5
Street View of A206 – Charlton Riverside’s Main Road Running East-West
Figure 5.6
Charlton Riverside Street Network – Highlighting Lack of Connections
Figure 5.7
Walking Distances within Charlton Riverside
Figure 5.8
Green and Open Spaces within Charlton Riverside Boundary Area
Figure 5.9
Type A: Industrial Typologies
Figure 5.10
Type B: Large Retail Typologies
Figure 5.11
Type C: Housing Typologies
Figure 5.12
Type D: Local Amenities
Figure 5.13
Patterns of Use (Adapted from RBG, 2013)
Figure 5.14
Charlton Riverside Masterplan SPD (Allies and Morrison, 2012)
Figure 5.15
The A206 Intersection – No public realm and poor pedestrian crossings
Figure 5.16
Proposition for Improved Pedestrian Crossing (Ennis Flint)
Figure 5.17
Proposed Road Extension for NE Section of Charlton Riverside
Figure 5.18 Figure 5.19 Figure 5.20
Proposition for Thames Barrier Visitor Centre Park (Montgomery County, 2016) Precedence for Thames Pathway (London Bridge Public Realm by arUrbanism) Water Square Project – Integrating Public Space with SUDS (DeUrbanisten, 2013)
Figure 5.21
Sustainable Roundabout Design for Uptown Circle (Hoerr Schaudt, 2011)
Figure 5.22
Proposition for Pocket Park on Existing Open Green Spaces
Figure 5.23
Precedence: Mixed-use, compact and dense urban fabric (ITDP, 2014)
Figure 5.24 Figure 5.25
Precedence for Infill (Before/After Transformation of Retail Centre/Carpark Inhabitat, 2009) Illustration Highlighting Benefits of Mixed-use (ITDP, 2014)
Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to my dissertation supervisor Georgia Butina Watson for her time and engagement. You have provided endless support, guidance and encouragement throughout the dissertation process, thank you. Furthermore I would like to acknowledge the lecturers and staff in the Planning Department at Oxford Brookes University. I have thoroughly enjoyed this last year and have gained valuable knowledge and insight in the field of Urban Planning and Design. Last but not least I would like to thank my family for their continuous love and support. I could not have fulfilled this milestone without you in my corner, merci.
Chapter 1: Introduction – Aims and Objectives Cities and regions are known to be dynamic systems that continuously evolve as their size, social structures, geopolitical settings and technological systems change over time (Kennedy et al., 2007; Agudelo-Vero et al., 2011, 2295). Every city has its unique urban form, history and identity, however in today’s globalised world our cities are faced with three major forces: population growth, rapid rates of urbanisation and climate change. In 2014 the urban population has grown to 3.9 billion people, accounting for 54% of the total global population. Projections for 2050 show that urbanisation combined with overall population growth could result in an increase of 2.5 billion people living in urban centres, increasing the global urban population to 66% (UN ORG, 2014). Cities have significantly contributed to climate change. Burning of fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas – for buildings, transportation, manufacturing and agricultural systems has resulted in a 40% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution (Ritchie, 2009, 6; NCA, 2014).
As cities rapidly urbanise we will need to carefully estimate the population growth relative to the capacity of the city to provide water, energy and food, sewage and waste disposal systems, transport and social infrastructure and work opportunities for current and future conditions (Roaf, 2010, 37). Cities must look at ways to manage, mitigate and adapt to stressors and disruptions. More than ever they are required to be resilient when confronted with environmental and socio-economic challenges. Urban resilience is considered to be an extension of sustainable development, which is a key component in today’s spatial planning agenda. Resilience and sustainability are both concepts that are intuitively understood but are contentious as there is no agreed upon universal concept or concrete, operational term (Briassoulis, 1999, 889). Both agenda’s have three fundamental pillars at their core: society, economy and the environment. Economic resilience and sustainability refers to the potential of a city to qualitatively reach a new level of socio-economic, demographic and technological output, which reinforces the foundations of the urban systems in the long run (Basiago, 1999, 148). Social resilience embodies the principles of futurity, equity, participation empowerment, accessibility, cultural identity, institutional stability and security. Environmental resilience
1
embraces the notion of the sensitive pursuit of urban development that synthesises land and resource use with nature conservation (Basiago, 1999, 150-157). These definitions highlight the important links that resilience has to urban and socio-economic elements that are related to the built and natural environment. Therefore, it is critical that as planners and designers, we deepen our understanding on urban resilience frameworks and build consensus on policies that support it. These must be grounded in evidence-based, long-term and inclusive thinking that take an integrated systems approach to reduce vulnerability and risk while increasing adaptive capacity (ICLEI, 2015, 5).
This paper specifically evaluates urban resilience and the influence that urban planning and design principles have on creating liveable, sustainable and just cities. Since the 1990’s resilience, in relation to planning, was regarded as a means to respond to environmental threats with a focus on physical and infrastructure improvements to prevent disturbances (Mileti, 1999). Literature on resilience in planning is often associated with environmental mitigation and adaption, and is centred on land use management as a means of minimising existing stressors and reducing the risk of new disturbances (Lu et al., 2013, 201). However, as highlighted above, it is important to recognise the influence of social, economic and political factors that impact a city’s level of resilience. Urban resilience, at a socio-economic and environmental level, is gaining awareness through initiatives and agendas such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, Rockefellers 100 Resilient Cities initiative. Movements such as the New Urbanists and Smart Growth also have complementary views to the principles that generate urban resilience. This is accompanied by literature that validates the role of the built environment on a city and its residents. Authors such as Jane Jacobs, Jan Ghel and Matthew Carmona speak to urban design’s contribution in addressing urban resilience. Urban design deals beyond particular buildings or plots and rather pays close attention to the built fabric, movement patterns and open and green spaces that support economic, social and cultural activity. This can be considered as the physical features of a city, which influence its socio-economic and ecological resilience.
2
Urban resilience is gaining momentum and is considered to be a mobilizing concept for sustainable development (Agudelo-Vera et al., 2011 2296; Hassler and Kohler, 2014, 119). However, not enough work has been done to address the issues relating to social and economic resilience and how it relates to the built environment. Academics and practitioners alike have identified a host of urban design and planning principles that create sound places. The literature is vast, however little has been done to integrate ideas into resilience strategies at a city and regional level.
The aim of this paper is to identify urban planning and design principles and interventions that contribute to increasing a city’s level of social, economic and environmental resilience. Five key objectives have been identified: Objective 1: Develop a conceptual framework for analysing dimensions of resilience. Objective 2: Develop an analytical and methodological approach to assessing urban resilience. Objective 3: Identify secondary case studies that have achieved high levels of urban resilience. Discuss their lessons, methods and interventions. Objective 4: Use the conceptual and analytical framework and qualitative research methods to assess a live case study and develop propositions and recommend interventions. Objective 5: Highlight processes and principles that contribute to achieving a higher level of resilience.
The paper is structured such that each section broadly corresponds to the objectives identified above. In order to achieve the objectives of this paper, a combination of theoretical and applied methodology was used. Chapter 2 is composed of objectives one and two and uses theoretical and analytic methods. A literature review is used to analyse dimensions of urban resilience and principles of urban planning and design. This informs the development of the Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework, which is used to guide the paper. Chapter 4
3
corresponds to objective three and uses a secondary case study approach on the cities of Barcelona and Vancouver. Chapter 5 incorporates the Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework to assess a live case study on a regeneration plan for an East London Opportunity Area. This uses a case study approach and incorporates qualitative data from field research. Chapter 5 will compile and delineate key processes and principles that have been identified in this paper.
4
Chapter 2: Literature Review – Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework The objective of this section is to identify and analyse literature relating to urban resilience in connection to the natural and built environment. This will inform the later half of the section, which will develop the Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework that identifies urban design and planning principles that are essential in producing social, economic and environmental resilience.
2.1
Resilience
2.1.1
Resilient City: What does it mean?
Over the last 40 years the term ‘resilience’ has been associated with a number of different disciplines. The concept has recently become more prevalent in debates relating to sustainable development, climate change, policy and governance (Basiago, 1999; Godshalk, 2003; Wilkinson, 2011; Davoudi et al., 2012; Coaffee, 2013; Lu et al., 2013, 200; Tasan-Kok et al., 2013, 39; Merrow et al., 2016). It is considered to be a leading driver and mobilizing concept for developing sustainable cities (AgudeloVera et al., 2011 2296; Hassler and Kohler, 2014, 119).
Urban planning and design are acknowledged to be catalysts in promoting urban resilience (Fleischhauer 2008; Gleeson 2008; Davoudi 2012; Tasan-Kok et al., 2013). In this field, resilience relates to the built environment and includes natural, physical, economic, social and cultural assets within a neighbourhood, city or even region. The built environment can be defined as hard built infrastructure such as the fabric of buildings, networks of buildings and physical support systems or the soft built infrastructure like institutions, rules, governance, knowledge, values and it can refer to the relationships between communities and the their environment (Hassler and Kohler, 2014, 125).
5
The discourse around resilience creates opportunity for a trans-disciplinary bridge. However, as it stands the definition of resilience is contested and the concept is difficult to conceptualize. Merrow’s literature research found twenty-five prominent but differing definitions of urban resilience. The descriptions all agreed that resilience is a positive notion, however, disagreement occurs when identifying the pathway for achieving resilience (Merrow et al., 2016). This confirms that there is currently no universally accepted definition for urban resilience (Lewis and Kelman, 2010; Alexander, 2013; Levine et al., 2012; Davoudi, 2012; Weichselgartner and Kelman, 2013; Merrow et al, 2016). This generates contradictions, ambiguity and inconsistency between various actors that are working towards achieving urban resilience.
2.1.2
Key Urban Resilience Definitions
Resilience has many definitions but at its core it can be defined as the ability to respond, adapt and evolve from different forms of pressure and risks (Hassler and Kohler, 2014, 119). The simplest definition of urban resilience is a city’s ability to absorb disturbances while maintaining its functions and structures (Holling, 1987, 2001; White, 2010; Lu et al., 2012). The definition developed from Merrow’s extensive literature review defines urban resilience as “the ability of an urban system – and all its constituent socio-ecological and socio-technical networks across temporal and spatial scales – to maintain or rapidly return to desired functions in the face of a disturbance, to adapt, to change, and to quickly transform systems that limit current or future adaptive capacity” (Merrow et al., 2016, 39). This definition recognizes that urban resilience is highly dynamic, requiring adaptable strategies that enhance a city’s human and physical capacity. Coaffee echoes the need for capacity building, stating that urban resilience builds the capacity of urban systems in order to adapt to changes over time and to withstand and rebound from disruptive challenges (Coaffee, 2013, 323). Carpenter, Walker, Anderies and Abel (2001) also stress the importance of a systems ability to build and increase its capacity for learning and adapting (Desouza et al., 2013, 90). Miletti defines resilience as the ability to withstand extreme events without suffering devastating losses or diminishing productivity or quality of life (Miletti, cited in Godschalk, 2003, 136). In a report
6
produced from the Global Forum on Urban Resilience and Adaption, a ‘Resilient City’ was defined as one that is “prepared to absorb and recover from any shock or stress while maintaining its essential functions, structures and identity, as well as adapting and thriving in the face of continual change” (ICLEI, 2015, 5). These definitions highlight the importance for capacity building and adaptability in relation to creating resiliency.
As shown in Table 2.1, there are three pillars urban resilience: society, economy and the environment. Elements
Social Resilience
Economic Resilience
Environmental Resilience
Qualities
Stressors
Equity Empowerment Accessibility Participation Sharing Cultural Identity Institutional Stability Growth Development Innovation Productivity Trickle Down Eco-System Integrity Carrying Capacity Biodiversity
Political Turmoil Public Unrest Poverty Unaffordability Lack of Public Services
Financial Crisis Economic Shocks Industry Collapse Climate Change Loss of Biodiversity / Extinction Natural Disasters
Table 2.1: Associated Qualities and Stressors of Resilience (Adapted from Kahn, 1995).
Social resilience relates to institutions for social reorganisation or collective action and the existence of social security. This is dependent on robust governance systems and is influenced by the availability to high-quality and diverse lifestyles (Adger et al., 2005 in Tasan-Kok, 2013, 42). Economic resilience refers to the ability to cope with changes or withstand economic shocks due to internal or external factors without losing the capacity to allocate resources
7
efficiently (Perrings, 2006, 418; Tasan-Kok, 2013, 42). Environmental resilience refers to an ecosystem’s ability to sustain its desired state, its capacity to generate its services or to transform degraded ecosystems into fundamentally new and more desirable configurations (Folke, et al., 2004, 557).
Strategic planning and policy-making that accounts for urban resilience are seen as a proactive rather than reactive approach (Mehmood, 2015, 411). As the concept of urban resilience evolves so does its definition, however, there is a progression towards ‘bouncing forward’; anticipating stressors or disruptions and adapting systems to lessen or eliminate shocks (Manyena et al, 2011). These new concepts of resilience must be integrated into strategies and policies for urban regeneration and development.
2.1.3
Resiliency Policies and Strategies
Mehmood states that resilient strategies must have the capacity for learning (preparedness), being robust (persistence), being innovative (transformability) and being flexible (adaptability) in the face of a crisis or change both immediately and in the long term” (2015, 416). Resiliency agendas are based on a city’s priorities, sectors or stressors and therefore, differ for each city. However, strong policies and strategies can be developed if key underlying fundamentals are applied. This includes collaboration with a multidisciplinary lens, deep urban systems analysis, forward planning, flexibility and integrated strategies. It is also important to acknowledge the influence of people, be it citizens, governments or organisations, on a city’s resilience. Merrow proposes that urban resilience is shaped by the people or bodies that define the agenda. Therefore, it is essential to consider fundamental questions relating to urban resilience, such as ‘whose resilience is prioritized, and who benefits or loses as a result?’ (Merrow et al., 2016, 46).
8
Resilience offers a way of thinking and a set of methods to cope with change. The development of resilience frameworks, templates, case studies and design rules can help to reduce the contradictions and inconsistency in the definitions, methods, implementation and results (Hassler and Kohler, 2014, 128). Carpenter, Walker, Anderies and Abel (2001) definition identifies three conditions that achieve resilience – integrity, coordination and selfimprovement, in relation to local conditions (Desouza and Flanery, 2013, 90).
Resilient
societies need to have both problem-solving capacity and sufficient resources in order to confront major challenges (Hassler and Kohler, 2014, p122). According to UN Habitat an effective resiliency agenda is dependent on political stability, strong government structures, integrated public/private partnership and long term planning strategies (2011, 126).
Much of the literature speaks to anticipating disasters, however, Widavsky (1988) argues that anticipation is only possible if sufficient information is known so that precautionary actions can be taken (cited in Hassler and Kohler, 2014, 123). Since the scale and timing of threats are often unknown, anticipatory strategies can result in increased vulnerability. He also argues that such strategies are often established from centralized power, lacking both flexibility and capacity to learn. In contrast to the anticipation approach, the resilience approach is based on the development of capacity(ies) to cope with uncertainty and surprises whilst maintaining overall system persistence (Hassler and Kohler, 2014, 126).
2.1.4
Components of a Resilient City
The resilience agenda has a vital role in today’s planning, urban design and policy-making arena. Resilient thinking can help integrate and bridge social, economic and environmental issues within policy and plans that proactively shape and monitor change. There are a number of key attributes that are associated with resilience. Godsalk identifies the combination of apparent opposites that exist in resilient attributes, such as redundancy and efficiency, diversity and interdependence, strength and flexibility, autonomy and collaboration, planning
9
and adaptability (Godshalk, 2003, 139). Table 2.2, below, summarizes the attributes that are identified as integral for generating resilient policies and strategies. Attribute
Definition
Adaptability
To have the capacity to learn from experiences and the flexibility to change.
Autonomy
To have the capacity to operate independently of outside control
Collaboration Connectivity Flexibility Recovery
To create multiple opportunities and incentives for broad stakeholder participation. The degree to which nodes of a network are directly linked; nodes can be either physical or social. The ability or capacity for a system or organisation to change or react to a disturbance or stress. The ability of a system to recover from a disturbance and respond in response to it. To have a number of functionally similar components or spreading capacity
Redundancy
among different systems, so that the entire system(s) does not fail when (if) one component or system fails.
Robustness
The ability to withstand a given level of stress without suffering degradation or loss of function.
Table 2.2: Attributes of Urban Resilience (Adapted: Godshalk, 2003 and Tasan-Kok et al, 2013).
The range of differing attributes confirms the complexity of resilience. Scholars believe that cities can adapt to uncertainty, be it social, economic, environmental or government, if they have the required combination of these attributes (Godshalk, 2003, Fleischhauer, 2008 in Tasan-Kok et al., 2013, 46).
10
2.2
Urban Design and Planning
2.2.1
The Role of Urban Design in Resilience Planning
Urban design is an integrative design field that is concerned with city planning, civil engineering and architecture. It was first theorized in North America in the late 1950s, founded in the City Beautiful movement and linked to theorists such as Jonathan Barnett (1982), Kevin Lynch (1960) and Jane Jacobs (1961) (Butina Watson, 2014, 117). Urban design is a catalyst that compiles matters such as planning and transportation policy, architectural design, development economics, landscape and engineering into a vision for an area and deploys the skills and resources to deliver the vision (Llewelyn-Davies, 2000, 12). Contemporary urban design is concerned with quality of both the physical and socio-cultural aspects of the public realm and the making and managing of meaningful ‘places’ (Carmona and Tiesdell, 2007, 7). At the core, urban design inquires into the human experience that is evoked from the built environment, across both the private and public realm.
Simply put, urban design is the art of placemaking and the process of designing a place. Like planning, urban design must engage, interact and contend with private investors, landowners, community members, interest groups, legislators and funding agencies (Sternberg, 2000, 266). It produces interventions at different morphological levels, from streets and buildings to neighbourhoods, districts and city regions (Butina Watson, 2014, 117). Urban design is considered to be a transformative tool that can address issues relating to environmental responsibility, social equity and economic viability. Washburn contends that the purpose of urban design is to change the status quo, to leave the city better than you found it (2013, 8). A UNISDR study (2013) suggests that sound urban planning practices and design can serve resilience and development efforts. It is therefore important to better understand the elements of a good place and the urban design qualities that can promote resilience.
Urban resilience is highly related to the built and natural environment. Cities are complex systems with varying morphological components and urban design qualities. The physical
11
features of a city highly impact the degree of social, economic and environmental resilience that can be achieved. The physical features in Table 2.3 were selected through extensive review of literature in the field of urban design and planning. They have been identified as essential components that provide context when analysing an existing city and are consider fundamental elements for developing a new city.
The features identified in Table 2.3 will be used as a basis for analysing urban resilience and are therefore essential elements for developing the Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework. Each component has a specific role in how a city functions and performs. These will be introduced in the following section to provide context and a deeper understanding of their role and importance.
Table 2.3 differentiates the role of morphological components and urban design qualities when relating to the physical features of a city. This is partly due to the fact that the morphological structures of a city have a slow rate of change and are often pre-existing elements in the built environment. Urban design qualities are more flexible and can change and vary over time. It is therefore important to first begin with identifying the morphological components of the local urban fabric and to then move onto the urban design qualities.
12
Time Scale
Physical Features of a City Morphological Urban Design Components Qualities
Withstands Time Most resilient
•
Streets and Overall Spatial Structures
• • • •
Permeable Connected Accessible Legible Fine grain
Impacts or Measures of Resilience Social • • • • •
Social cohesion Place identity Social activity Natural surveillance Public realm
• • • • •
Green, Blue and Open Spaces
• • • •
Multifunctional Adaptable Connected Accessible
• • • • •
Periodic Change Least resilient
Environmental
Building Typology and Density
• • •
Variety of uses Adaptable Mixed Tenure
• • • •
•
Patterns of Use
• • •
Mixed use Diversity Adaptable Vertical zoning
• • •
Sensory experience Physical/mental health and well-being Social cohesion Public realm
•
Street life Active/natural surveillance Diversity and social cohesion Active transit
•
Access to services, jobs and education Diversity and social cohesion Place identity Street life, walkability
• •
• • • •
•
Walkability Landscape architecture Green and blue network Open spaces Increased biodiversity Integrate natural and built environment Promote sustainable urban drainage systems Improved air quality and microclimate Addresses microclimate issues (wind, sun) Promotes TOD Incorporates SUDS Quality (green) design Proximity and access to green/blue and open space Promotes walking and cycling
Economic • • •
• • • •
• • •
• • • •
Connections/accessibility Footfall for businesses Transport opportunities
Increased land market value Access to productive land use (allotments) Energy efficiency Reduced heat island effects Increase in productivity and innovation Decrease in infrastructure costs Promotes TOD Increased economic activity Diversity and mix of uses Supports small/local businesses Multipurpose trips/TOD
Table 2.3: Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework – Physical features of a city that generate urban resilience
13
2.2.2
Urban Morphology
The study of urban morphology focuses on the physical form and shape of settlements over time. The shape and structure of the urban fabric are essential components when developing robust and adaptable places that are able to accommodate changing movement and activity (Carmona et al., 2010, 110).
Streets and Overall Spatial Structures A city’s most permanent components are the street and overall spatial structures. Therefore, decisions relating to these structures should have long-term foresight, accounting for sufficient capacity and flexibility that can last for generations (Roger Evans Associates, 2007, 59). The street pattern and block structure are important when determining the pattern of movement, which highly affects the character of the area. The street pattern is considered to be the most resilient form of a city. Therefore, it should have dimensions which can accommodate, rather than inhibit, change (Carmona et al, 2010, 97).
Block sizes should be determined by analysing the local context and their role (Carmona et al., 2010, 98; Clarke, 2009, 16). For greenfield sites it is important to consider proposed land uses or the historical precedent of the greater area. For regeneration projects such as brownfield sites, the existing block size is generally kept as a basis with new connections created to facilitate movement and integrate with the surrounding context (Carmona et al., 2010, 98). However, when cities organically evolve it is more common to find small typologically more complex urban blocks at the centre, with blocks growing larger and less complex as it reaches outwards to the periphery (Krier 1990 citied in Carmona et al., 2010, 99).
14
The street network is seen as a morphological structure that transcends time. Most urban planners and designers believe that the (Cerdà) grid network is the most efficient form as it allows for straight forward, legible, and permeable movement through an area (Carmona, 2000, 81; Llewelyn-Davies, 2000, 38). They also accommodate different building typologies, whereas cul-desac networks are less efficient and are often only suited for large, separated residential plots (Llewelyn-Davies, 2000, 38). The grid network also allows for differing block lengths and plot sizes. These are often fixed once developed, however, depending on the variation of the original built form it can still allow for adaptation and change over time. Cruz states that urban patterns with multiple and diverse functions in multiple nodes and centres tend to be less vulnerable (Cruz et al, 2013, 54).
An important aspect of any street is the transportation network, which needs to accommodate all modes of travel from walking and cycling to public transit and the private car. To foster sustainable, multi-modal movement street and overall spatial structures should have space allowance for each mode and be well connected.
Green, Blue and Open Spaces The morphological landscape is a fundamental element in the design and development process. It must consider landforms, ecosystems and open-space networks that shape the natural environment and influence human activity (Von Borcke, 2009, 30). The roles and benefits of nature and landscape are often interlinked with multiple ecological, social and economic benefits from improving local micro-climate to mental health and increasing property values Von Borcke, 2009, 33). Public open spaces can come in all shapes and forms from water ways, allotments and parks to squares, plazas and streets. Although the character and functions of each space is unique, they all contribute to benefiting the overall built environment.
15
The ecological footprint of development can be reduced by working with the grain of the landscape (Llewelyn-Davis, 2000, 58). Conducting a landscape assessment, which considers topographical, climatic, hydrologic or ecological conditions can identify opportunities to use intrinsic landscape features to generate unique development responses. Landscape elements such as natural waterways, mature trees, historic features, unique habitats and ecosystems can be used within the design. Aligning building footprints, streets, sewers or other watercourses to follow the slope contours can minimise the need for cut and fill and enables natural gravity-flow drainage (Llewelyn-Davis, 2000, 58). Allocating urban spaces and parks in areas that are unsuitable for building can create ‘green’ corridors that enhance biodiversity and allow for better wildlife movement and recreational opportunities within an urban area (Von Borcke, 2009, 35).
At a large strategic scale green, blue and open spaces should be easily accessible and well connected to allow for easy movement of both people and wildlife (Llewelyn-Davies, 2000, 57). These spaces vastly improve the quality of the urban environment while also safeguarding for future development. The Green Urbanism movement strives to harmonize green and ecological features in city design while creating places that are just, healthy and provide a high quality of life (Beatley, 2008, 189). The strategy of ‘greening the city’ seeks to integrate ecological networks of green neighbourhoods that include features like parks, trees, community gardens, restored streams, buildings with rooftop gardens, vegetated walls and facades, and other natural features. These features serve many functions such as: providing wildlife habitat, reducing air pollution and energy consumption, cooling the urban environment, containing and treating storm water, and beautifying the city (Beatley, 2008, 190).
Public spaces, such as parks, squares and streets, constitute for more than half the total area of urban land. As Ritchie et al. states, the space in between buildings provides vitality, light amenity, room to travel and room to rest. Landscape features such as vegetable gardens, parks and reed
16
beds are essential ingredients in the design of public space; plants improve microclimate, promote biodiversity and provide safe spaces for wildlife (Ritchie, 2009, 5).
Building Typology and Density At the morphological level, the urban fabric, also known as urban tissue, contains lots, blocks, and streets that form the city. This is the point in which land ownership is defined and physical structures are formed. Building typology is related to its function and is also influenced by economic, social and environmental conditions that are considered during the design (Sheer, 2010, 30). The morphological history and current typological conditions can be used to determine how and why a place has developed and evolved over time (Scheer, 2010, 71).
Building types are defined as an abstraction of a series of buildings that share common formal characteristics such as internal and external circulation patterns, scale, relationship to site, spatial quality and structure (Scheer, 2010, 97). Building functions inspire and shape the physical characteristics of a building type. Building types are a solution – a response to a set of conditions that exist at the time of construction. However, these conditions can and do change overtime, so it is important that building types are adaptable and flexible rather than rigid with only one practical function (Scheer, 2010, 27). Wheeler finds that there are 27 basic types of built landscapes that make up metropolitan regions worldwide. The most common types of built form are identified below and collectively account for 78% of the land area in the twenty-four regions studied (Wheeler, 2015, 168).
17
Building Typology Loops & Lollipops Degenerated Grids
Description Large-scale, mass-produced residential landscapes with regular, curvilinear street patterns and poor connectivity. Large-scale residential landscapes with rectilinear street patterns and poor connectivity. A semirural residential landscape with very large parcels (usually 1–10
Rural Sprawl
acres per dwelling unit). Rapidly growing in many countries, though at times restricted by laws to protect farmland. Landscapes of boxy buildings serving industrial or commercial uses.
Workplace Boxes
Subtypes include office parks and warehouse/distribution centres. These include large landscaped parking or loading docks. Small-scale land subdivision and development, usually within an
Incremental/Mixed existing large-scale road system, resulting in a non-uniform mix of forms and moderate-to-poor street connectivity. Organic Rectangular Block Grids
Tightly woven street pattern with dense, fine-grained urban development. A rectangular-block grid form used for early Renaissance suburbs in Europe, late-19th c. streetcar suburbs in North America, and Latin American cities in many eras. High street connectivity. Industrial uses on large parcels. Often includes large-footprint
Heavy Industry
buildings and extensive outdoor space for storage or car park. Often has rail access. Relatively uniform landscapes of large residential buildings often slab
Apartment Blocks
like. Buildings higher and with less orientation to the outdoors than garden apartments.
Table 2.4: Most common building typology found worldwide (Adapted from Wheeler, 2015)
18
Building density plays an important role in shaping the urban fabric and is therefore influential in the urban morphology of an area. Density, in urban planning, is generally measured in two categories: people density and building density. Whereby people density is expressed as the number of people or households per given area and building density is defined as the ratio of building structures to an area unit (Cheng, 2010, 4). There are a number of urban features and design attributes that contribute to the perception of density; these include the building height-tospace ratio, width of streets and sidewalks, number of people and traffic, the complexity of the street i.e. the number of street signs, furniture or trees, and the level of activity (Cheng, 2010, 13). Perception of density is highly subjective and is dependent of societal and individual norms. As seen in Table 2.5 the level of density is unique for each city and region and can change overtime. It is linked to the morphological structure of the city, its existing built form and access to land.
Density Levels
Residential Development per Country United Kingdom
United States
Low Density
< 20 dph
25-40 dph
Medium Density
30-40 dph
40-60 dph
High Density
> 60 dph
> 110 dph
TCPA, 2003
Ellis, 2004
Source
Table 2.5: Example of different perceptions of density (Cheng, 2010, 14)
Development density can vary across an urban area and is be dependent on proximity to the city, local centres, public transportation nodes and other facilities or amenities (Clarke, 2009, 17). Highdensity developments have a number of social, economic and environmental benefits such as: cost savings in land, infrastructure and energy, reduced economic costs of travel time, concentration of knowledge sharing and innovative activity, lower crime and greater safety, the preservation of green spaces, reduced emissions, greater physical activity, and social connectedness, and vitality
19
(Ministry of the Environment of New Zealand, 2005, 8-11). High-density developments are being used to combat limited land stock while creating highly diverse, vibrant and resilient neighbourhoods.
Figure 2.1: High Density Design (Andrew Wright Associates cited in Kiang Heng et al., 2010, 44)
20
Patterns of Use Similar to street and block structures, patterns of use influence movement. This guides the parameters for development and contributes to the character of the area. Land is usually parcelled into plots and assigned a use such as residential, commercial, industrial or institutional (Wheeler, 2015, 167). Patterns of streets and spaces develop over time, changing and evolving in the process. The urban fabric of a settlement is made up of a series of overlays with fragments and ‘ghost’ patterns from different eras (Carmona, 2010, 80). Plot boundaries, ownership and buildings may change overtime but patterns of use influence the urban form and can remain for decades or even centuries (Scheer, 2010, 111). The urban landscape influences the type of building use selected and impacts the feel and identity of the place along with the sustainability, liveability or equity of the area. There are two common street patterns: fine grain, which is composed of many small sized street blocks and coarse grain, which have fewer, larger blocks. Fine grain street patterns are preferred as they provide greater choice of routes improving the permeability of the area (Carmona, 2010 81).
As identified in Wheeler’s study, there are some common patterns of parcelisation and land use, which are influenced by cultural, geographical, institutional, economic and political factors (Wheeler, 2015, 168). Pre-industrial patterns of use were highly functional, mixed-use with multipurpose neighbourhoods usually made up of fine grain grid networks. Post-industrial development has generated different types of patterns of use, which are linked to regulations around land-use zoning that was first introduced in the United States in the 1920s. Critics believe that this method of zoning arbitrarily divides the city into separate functional districts, which results in a waste of land, resources, inefficient material and energy use and excessive travel time (Kiang Heng and Choo Malone-Lee, 2010, 42). The New Urbanism and Smart Growth movements promote compact, mixed-use and transit-oriented land use patterns. This type of development is believed to facilitate increased accessibility to services, make more effective use of land and
21
provide better quality urban life (Bertolini et al., 2009, 1). Patterns of use are highly dependent on the scarcity or demand for land. High demand often results in higher density; this is when twentyfour hour mixed-use developments should be prioritized. Mid to high-rise buildings are effective at integrating diverse uses such as retail, offices, residential, entertainment and culture (LlewelynDavies, 2000, 97). This mix of use maximizes the day and night usage of the land and also enables multipurpose trips. Microclimate, views and vistas are important factors to consider when determining patterns of use. Issues of wind, sun penetration, green spaces and views have a significant impact on the built environment (Carmona et al., 2010, 97).
2.2.3
Urban Design Qualities
The components identified above are fundamental to the morphological urban fabric, also known as ‘place’. However, a city cannot function without the integration of each component and the urban qualities that accompany them. Montgomery’s visual depiction of place making encompasses three pillars that create place: activity, form and image (1998, 97).
The qualities identified in Figure 2.2 are examples of the various urban design qualities that deliver a good place. No one quality alone can create a resilient place. Resilience requires variations of each to deliver an inclusive, safe, vibrant and just place. Figure 2.2 has been used to guide the selection of key urban design qualities that relate to the four morphological components outlined in our conceptual framework above.
22
Figure 2.2: Qualities That Foster an Urban Sense of Place (Montgomery, 1998, 97).
Permeability / Connection / Accessibility Permeability is defined by the ease, access and opportunity for movement within a city. Visual permeability refers to the ability to see routes through an environment while physical permeability is the ability to move through an environment (Carmona, 2010, 81). The morphological makeup of the city is therefore important in determining the level of permeability. The block size (small versus large), street pattern (grid versus cal-de-sac) and the grain texture (fine versus coarse) are all factors that influence permeability (Carmona, 2010, 82). Creating new block structures requires analysis of the existing size, pattern and grain in the local area. To enhance and improve permeability, connectivity and accessibility one can reintegrate isolated
23
fragments and re-establish or create new linkages; this can help facilitate integration with the existing area (Carmona, 2010, 98).
Figure 2.3: Permeable, Well-Connected Street Network (Llewelyn-Davies, 2000)
The success of an urban area is dependent on good access, connections and movement networks, which affects the level of activity, density and security. The movement framework focuses on street and footpath networks that connect and integrate existing built environment (LlewelynDavies, 2000, 34). New developments need to consider all modes of movement with a focus on walking, cycling and public transit. A successful movement network gives people the maximum choice on how they make their journey, both in the routes and the mode they choose. These qualities impact the walkability of the city, which consequently influence the sense of place and economic activity that takes place on a given street or within a neighbourhood (Llewelyn-Davies, 2000, 69).
24
Figure 2.4: Benefits of Well Connected Streets (ITDP, 2014)
Legibility Legibility refers to the ease with which the spatial structures of a place can be understood or navigated as a whole (Ewing et al., 2006, 223). It can further be defined as the degree to which the different elements of the city are organized into a coherent and recognizable pattern. These elements, as identified by Lynch (1960), are made up of paths, edges, districts, nodes and landmarks. A legible place provides users with a sense of orientation, using physical elements to serve as reference points and provide a sense of location (Ewing et al., 2006, 223). Legibility largely focuses on the human interaction and relationship as they move around a city. Lynch identifies a number of elements that create legibility. The first is vivid paths with identifiable origins and destinations that connect the city and give the user bearings (Lynch, 1960, 4). This refers to the channels along which a user travels from streets and paths to transit lines, canals and railroads. Edges create distinctive lateral boundaries between areas of differing identity (Lynch, 1960, 62). These boundaries can be edges formed by buildings or topographic features and can be used to distinguish between public and private land ownership. Districts are considered to be recognized section of a city usually comprising of multiple neighbourhoods that are believed to have a unifying identity and character (Lynch, 1960, 66). Nodes are strategic entry points within a city;
25
they can be composed of primary junctions and crossings or transport hubs (Lynch, 1960, 72). These are areas of activity where users must act with heightened awareness. Landmarks are known as reference points; they are usually distinctive physical objects such as buildings, statues or landscape features that an observer recognizes (Lynch, 1960, 78). Legibility is influenced by aesthetics and urban form and must be carefully considered when designing complex and compact urban areas.
Diversity Diversity is an essential component of a sustainable city and promotes a mix of land uses, housing types and tenure as well as architectural styles (Jabareen, 2006, 42). Incorporating diversity within the use and form of the built environment can aid in attracting, retaining and growing an area. This can entail having a mix of cultural, social, ethnic, religious, economic and aesthetic qualities (Jain, 2008 149). The two key qualities that diversity embraces is mixed-use and social mix of income, which includes housing tenure, demographics and lifestyles.
Mixed-use developments were a fixture of pre-industrial cities but began to decline in modernist urban planning in the mid-twentieth century (Siemiatychi, 2015, 231). The principles of mixed use are regaining interest especially among New Urbanist, Smart Growth and Transit-Oriented Development movements (Beauregard, 2008, 104). Mixed-use environments are often formed by the building typology, density and patterns of use within a city. These developments can mix public, private and non-profit land to provide a variety of uses from residential and commercial, to cultural or institutional. As seen in Figure 2.5, the multifunctional aspect of these developments provides a range of live, work, amenities, social services and recreational activities all within a close proximity (Jabareen, 2006, 41; Pembina Institute, 2015). By integrating a mix of uses, both horizontally and vertically, users are given more convenient access to facilities, greater
26
opportunity for social interaction and in turn a greater feeling of safety through more active edges and eyes on the street (Llewelyn-Davies, 2000, 39).
Transit oriented development (TOD) is regaining popularity as communities shift to less autodependent development. They are often located at crossroads and along main movement arteries. TOD allows for more efficient land use and contributes to making these areas more vibrant, resilient communities. The combination of TOD and mixed-use developments promote multipurpose trips; often prioritizing active modes of transport such as walking cycling and public transit (Dittmar et al., 2004, 3).
Figure 2.5: Liveable Mid-rise, Mixed-use Neighbourhoods (Pembina Institute, 2015)
27
Mixed Tenure Mixed housing tenure aims to provide a variety of housing types and ownership patterns; creating more inclusive, diverse and equitable communities. Housing tenure comes in many forms and is the condition under which a household inhabits its home. The most common tenures include owner occupied, privately rented, affordable or socially rented units (UK GOV, 2012). Mixing of housing types can occur in two ways: construction of a new mixed-tenure development or by infilling new structures in either vacant parcels or through the addition of smaller units wherever possible (Talen, 2006, 2).
Figure 2.6: Barcelona Infill Design to Accommodate Densification (Busquets, 2005, 301)
The literature on mixed tenure identifies a number of conditions that are required to ensure its success. The first is in relation to zoning and building codes that put limits on things like density and lot size. The second is innovative designs that can accommodate for new housing types such as corner duplexes or walk-up apartments. The third is the allocation of high quality public realm, where residents can meet and engage; promoting social cohesion. Lastly, the success hinges on access to a mix of uses, services and amenities that can serve the residents (Talen, 2006, 2; Kearns and Mason, 2007, 665).
28
Adaptability, Robustness and Flexibility Three key qualities that are essential in resilient placemaking are adaptability, robustness and flexibility. All of which are highly influenced by the urban form, economy and environment. Although they share similarities they also embody distinct qualities of their own.
Adaptability is the ability to accommodate rapidly changing and unpredictable economic, demographic, and social trends. It also requires flexible infrastructure to support such changes (Jain, 2008, 148). A dense and fine-grained urban fabric allows for a more easily adaptable physical environment. Adaptability of the built environment can be achieved by providing excess capacity at the onset, allowing space for growth at the ends, sides and within sectors (Lynch, 1972, 108). A resilient community requires adaptable services and built environment that can absorb challenges such as flooding, earthquakes or economic failures.
Figure 2.7: Urban Grain, Density and Adaptability
High-density developments promote a flexibility framework that encourages responsive change, embraces choices, nurtures opportunities and offers inclusivity; these elements create highly vital
29
and functioning areas (Kiang Heng and Choo Malone-Lee, 2010, 50). Land uses are highly adaptable and can accommodate a variety of forms. In contrast, buildings tend to be less flexible, especially in relation to the rapidly changing technology and user demands. It is therefore important to consider flexibility and adaption into the design of the built environment (Carmona, 2010, 253).
Robustness is the ability to accommodate change without a significant change in the physical form (Carmona, 2010, 253). It has a ‘long-life/loose fit’ model where designs account for changing capacities and are able to adapt alleviating the potential functional obsolesce of a building or piece of infrastructure (Carmona, 2010, 254). Open spaces can be robust if they are able to accommodate change. They must embody properties like flexibility, allowing for change or varied use. This can be done by providing different infrastructure, furniture and access points. It also can consider non-physical aspects like comfort, the ability to respond to different microclimatic and weather needs, and sociable, the ability to support different patterns and types of social activity (Carmona, 2010, 254).
There is evidence to show that cities and neighbourhoods that have fine grain, a mix of uses, building types and shared public spaces are better at accommodating for incremental changes rather than requiring radical interventions and retrofits (Carmona, 2010, 256).
2.2.4
The Rippling Effects of Good Design and Planning – Effects on Resilience
The conceptual framework has identified key morphological components and urban design qualities that are essential in developing resilient cities. It also identifies key features that influence social, economic and environmental resilience. As mentioned throughout this research, cities are dynamic systems, therefore designs, policies and interventions have varying effects and
30
outcomes as they are highly dependent on their specific built and natural environment and variables, such as residents, businesses and government. Hassler and Kohler state that resilience is dependent on the sustainable, long-term management of the built environment made up of the natural, physical, economic, social, cultural and political components of the city (2014, 121). A resilient city is therefore dependent on the sustainable network of its physical systems and human communities (Godschalk, 2013, 137).
• • • • •
Social Social cohesion Place identity Social activity Natural surveillance Public realm
Measures and Impacts of Resilience Environmental • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • •
Sensory experience Physical/mental health and well-being Social cohesion Public realm
•
Street life Active/natural surveillance Diversity and social cohesion Active transit Access to services, jobs and education Diversity and social cohesion Place identity Street life, walkability
•
• •
• • •
Walkability Landscape architecture Green and blue network Open spaces Increased biodiversity Integrate natural and built environment Promote sustainable urban drainage systems Improved air quality and microclimate Addresses microclimate issues (wind, sun) Promotes TOD Incorporates SUDS Quality (green) design
• • •
• • • • • • • •
•
Proximity and access to green/blue and open space
• • •
Economic Connections/accessibility Footfall for businesses Transport opportunities Increased land market value Access to productive land use (allotments) Energy efficiency Reduced heat island effects Increase in productivity and innovation Decrease in infrastructure costs Promotes TOD Increased economic activity Diversity and mix of uses Supports small/local businesses Multipurpose trips/TOD
Table 2.6: Measures and Impacts of Resilience (from Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework)
31
Chapter 3: Methodology Urban resilience is an emerging topic with significant interest from both public and private parties. There is much literature about the topic from scholars of Environmental Sciences, Humanities, Engineering, and the Built Environment. Within most of the literature, urban resilience is observed to be the ability to bounce back from a disturbance or even to bounce forward from stressors. The paper identifies a gap in the literature. It observes the need to study urban resilience with a lens focusing on social, economic and environmental conditions in the urban built environment that influence a cities level of resilience. With this clearer understanding of urban resilience, the objective of this paper is to develop an Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework, which includes urban planning, and design principles and qualities that create socially inclusive and safe communities, economically diverse and vital cities, and green and open spaces that enhance biodiversity and absorb the climatic changes of the world.
Theoretical and analytical research methods were used to achieve the aim and objectives for this paper. The aim is to identify and develop urban planning and design principles and interventions that contribute to increasing a city’s level of urban resilience. The following methods were used to achieve the five objectives identified.
32
Objective
Types of Research
Methods of Research
Conceptual Framework for analysing
Theoretical
Literature Review
dimensions of resilience associated
Concepts
Critical Analysis
Theoretical
Literature Review
Concepts
Critical Analysis
Develop an Urban Resilience
with the built environment Develop analytical and methodological approach to assess urban resilience Identify and discuss secondary case
Theoretical
studies in relation to urban resilience
Concepts
and develop propositions and
Observation Study Qualitative Study
recommendations. Highlight processes and principles that contribute to achieving a higher level of resilience
Literature Review Critical Analysis
Use the Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework to assess a live case study
Secondary Case Study
Semi-structured Interview Enquiry by Design Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework
Analytical
Critical Analysis
Concepts
Table 3.1: Research Methods
The methods used for this paper demonstrate a multifaceted approach to formulate and develop the aim and objectives of the study. Objectives one to three provide a foundation of lessons, principles and theories that were gained from leading academics and practitioners. Propositions and recommendations for a live case study were developed using the Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework and enquiry by design. Each element of the research process was integral in the development of key processes and principles highlighted in objective five.
33
Chapter 4: Secondary Case Studies The cities of Barcelona and Vancouver have been selected, as they are both leaders in the field of urban planning and design. Both are known for unique city models and have been acknowledge for their work in creating resiliency. Their shared topographical features - proximity to the sea and mountains - pose opportunities, constraints and vulnerabilities for urbanisation. Both cities have used the Olympic Games as a catalyst for development. They have also regenerated their waterfronts creating new social and economic benefits, such as development of new residential and retail units, public open space and tourism.
4. 1
Barcelona’s Resiliency Agenda
The industrial, overpopulated city of Barcelona saw its first urban revitalisation in 1844 with the radical expansion plan called Eixample. This formed a strong morphological structure that still defines the city today. The 1980s and 1990s were also influential in the city’s regeneration with a number of strategic plans that focused on ‘recovering’ the city; making improvements to facilities and regenerating degraded neighbourhood (Busquets, 2005, 343). The projects varied in scales from small urban improvements for squares and parks to more complex urban development programmes such as strategies for critical sectors of the city and preparing to host the 1992 Olympic Games (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 1987).
The city’s unique development process has led to the coining of the term ‘Barcelona model’, which is rooted in the forward planning tradition informed by economic and social analysis, also known as ‘urbanism’ (Marshall, 2004, 7; Monclus, 2010, 402). The model also refers to inclusive and multi-disciplinary approach to planning. There is close cooperation and collaboration between citizens, politicians and professionals, such as architects, engineers, planners and economists (Marshall 2000; 306). The model also refers to Barcelona’s morphological resilience, which is due
34
to the large Cerdà-grid network that is highly permeable with internal passages reinforcing legibility and accessibility (Bohigas, 2004, 94). The octagonal blocks with courtyards or fragments allocated for communal use also create architectural flexibility (Busquets, 2005, 297).
Figure 4.1: Cerdà-grid Network in Eixample, Barcelona (SBL, 2015).
The form, function and image of the city are tied with the physical and social identity of its wider setting. Barcelona’s compact, dense structure with squares, parks and open spaces are part of its strong identity and a foundation for its urban resilience (Bohigas, 2004, 93). However, in the last decade the city has struggled with unemployment, increasing air pollution and infrastructure failures (100 Resilient Cities, website). Barcelona has implemented a number of projects and focus groups to combat this from the regeneration of district 22@ to the development of a Resilience Department and their most recent innovative project of superblocks.
35
Case 1: Development of 22@ district The regeneration of the industrial district of Poblenou was approved in 2000. The aim of the project was to create an innovative and complex urban environment that favours information exchange, fosters social cohesion, generates economic vitality and prioritizes green and public spaces. Fundamental to the 22@ district regeneration plan are the key morphological components and urban design qualities identified in the Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework.
The plan transformed a predominately industrial use area to a vibrant, dense and complex district. The area was re-designated for mixed-use with 70% towards productive uses, 10% new amenities, 10% new housing and 10% green spaces (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2012, 10).
Figure 4.2: 22@ District before and after design (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2012, 10)
A key component for its success was the flexible planning system that was established to respond to the complexity of the transformation (Clos, 2004, 198). A progressive regeneration process was established, encouraging public and private cooperation on initiatives. It set out some obligations but also allowed flexibility in size of interventions and time scales so to avoid brusque changes in
36
current use and building types (Clos, 2004, 194; Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2012, 13). An Industrial Heritage Protection Plan was established to safe keep the historic identity of the area. It promoted the integration of tradition and innovation, in which new buildings and public spaces co-exist with historic sites and elements that represented the industrial identity of the area (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2012, 15). The project allocated 10% (114,000m2) of previously industrial land to green spaces stating that public spaces are the backbone for social cohesion (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2012, 25). The project set forth an obligation for responsible management of natural resources and established a modern power supply grid, centralised climate control and pneumatic refuse collection systems (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2012, 28).
Case 2: Creating a Department of Resilience In 2009 Barcelona launched their urban resilience partnership, an integrative disaster risk management and failure prevention programme that aimed to respond to the challenges and disruptions they suffered. The partnership involves 13 companies and high-level research centre, establishing a public-private alliance with Barcelona City Council and UN-Habitat’s City Resilience Profiling Programme (BCN Resilience, 2015, 2). Barcelona’s resilience model is based on high stakeholder engagement, cross departmental working groups, underlining challenges and identifying key factors for success and the exchange of knowledge from different cities. Since its launch, the initiative has led to a number of successes from the development of the Resilience Department, a city resilience strategy and the implementation of several resilience-focused projects. Barcelona is a role model known for cutting edge resilience planning and thinking. They have been recognised by UNISDIR’s “Making Cities Resilient Campaign”, UN Habitat’s City Resilience Profiling Programme and Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilience Cities network. Barcelona has hosted a number of forums to share experiences, foster synergy and inspire a range of professionals to innovate and develop urban resiliency initiatives.
37
Case 3: Mobility Plan - Superblocks The city’s new mobility plan ‘superilles’ (superblock) aims to redefine the public space of the city as living quarters and communal areas for activities, green space, history and civic life (Superilles, 2016). The plan aims to reduce traffic by 21% subsequently lowering private car use, air and noise pollution (Bausells, 2016). The superblock, which is 400 x 400 metres, will consist of nine existing grid blocks. Figure 4.3 shows the permitted usage of the street network. Car, scooter, lorry and bus traffic will be restricted to the black routes lining the perimeter of the superblock while the green routes will prioritise pedestrian and cycle movement and only allow residential or retail associated private vehicle usage. The bus network navigates a series of main thoroughfares ensuring that bus stops are accessible within a 300m radius (Bausells, 2016).
Figure 4.3: Illustration of superblock movement patterns and usage hierarchy (BCNecologia).
The ambitious and innovative plan will free up 13.8 million square meters of land that is currently dedicated to motorised traffic. The project hopes this will increase walking, cycling and public
38
transit usage. The project will monitor and evaluate the implementation phases to gain lessons and ensure a successful transition.
There are a number of transferrable lessons that can be gained from Barcelona. At the root is the instilled urbanism approach which considers social and economic factors within the built environment. This has reflected in their governance structure which prioritises inclusivity and collaboration; creating space for knowledge sharing and innovation. The city continues to push boundaries as their conditions and variables change. They do not shy away from progressive changes and allow for flexibility and adaptability in the planning process, focused on site-specific solutions rather than rigid blanket policies.
4. 2
Vancouver’s Resiliency Agenda
Founded in 1886, Vancouver is a twentieth-century city. It was primarily an industrial hub with regional processing, distribution and control centres. However, in the 1970s and 1980s the regions industries crashed and the city was faced with an economic downturn. Vancouver displayed regional resilience by developing a new vision for the city, which included new economic industries (Siemiatycki et al., 2014, 2). The city has since gained an international reputation for achieving a generally high standard of design and making the most of its beautiful natural landscape (Punter, 2003, 8). A key transformation was its 1970s rezoning and development efforts for the industrial area of False Creek, which greatly influenced the growth of a high-density residential downtown and created public access to the waterfront (Punter, 2003, 8; Hutton, 2011, 242). The Liveable Region 1976-1986 plan, although not successful in attaining its targets, set an important precedence for future development of the city focusing on issues such as sprawl and protection of ecological resources, which still hold true today (Hutton, 2011, 243). The city used events like Expo 86 and the 2010 Winter Olympic Games to catalyse development for transit
39
infrastructure and regeneration of brownfield land (Hutten, 2011, 251). Vancouver’s global reputation as a high-ranking liveable and green city is due to the development of strong inclusive governance structure, development policies, urban design guidance and initiatives that promote a healthy and green society.
Figure 4.4: Aerial View of Vancouver’s Downtown Illustrating ‘Vancouverism’ (PRE-EMPT, 2015)
Case 1: Governance Structure and Policies Vancouver has a unique governance structure that prioritises inclusive community engagement. This is partially due to a Charter assigned by the province in 1953, which gave Vancouver independence and scope for planning of the city. This has allowed the city to develop innovative policies such as discretionary zoning and design review panel (Punter, 2003, 17). High demand for development with healthy competition between developers has allowed Vancouver to establish a regulatory system that promotes good design, allocates provisions for infrastructure and creates inclusivity in the process. The city’s discretionary zoning policy provides a basis for innovation. It establishes flexible urban design guidelines that recognise the efficiency
40
of public-private process. They are customised for specific neighbourhoods and consider differences in scale of development and timeframes (Firley and Grön, 2013, 173; von Hausen, 2013, 424). This system has been successful as it incentivises developers with additional floor space in return for compliance to good design guidelines (Punter, 2002, 274). The city has enforced three development taxation policies to ensure proper allocation of public services and amenities. Established in 1989 the Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) are subjected to privately initiated site-specific residential development and ensure amenities such as parks, community centres and social housing are allocated. In 1990 the Development Cost Levies (DCLs) and Major Project Public Amenity Requirements (MPPARs) were enacted. The DCLs focus on major redevelopment areas and ensure that parks, day care, replacement housing and basic infrastructure are covered in the redevelopment plan while the MPPARs are for mega-projects and cover basic DCLs as well as schools, libraries, amenity centres, public art and site-specific speciality items (Punter, 2002, 272). The development review and approval process has strong multistakeholder engagement. An Official Development Plan is produced by politicians and developers and engages the public through a series of workshops from start to end. The Urban Design Panel, an independent council-appointed group of design experts, also provides guidance and review proposals (von Hausen, 2013, 428). This planning process allows for flexibility and develops consensus and buy-in from the community, developers and the city council.
Case 2: High Density Towers and Vancouverism Vancouver has been actively engaged in developing a ‘liveable’ downtown since the 1970s and 1980s. The ‘living first’ strategy, referred to by local planners, aims to develop high-density residential neighbourhoods in and around the downtown (Beasley, 2000, 1; Punter, 2003, 13; Macdonald, 2005, 13). This has led to the term “Vancouverism” which is defined by the city’s large mixed-use, high density towers at 50-100 dwellings per acre. The design guidelines set forth have ensured that these compact neighbourhoods are of high urban design quality with strong
41
neighbourhood identity, liveability, eyes on the street and an active public realm (CoV, 1993; Macdonald, 2005, 13).
Vancouver’s skyline is well known for its towers, which may range in height but are consistent in achieving quality streetscape at the ground floor (Firley and Grön, 2013, 174). Design principles guarantee that the base of the buildings are used for commercial purpose or function as townhouses or dwellings with individual entries (Macdonald, 2005, 18). This ensures there is an interactive street edge and active frontage for pedestrian movement throughout the neighbourhood (Firley and Grön, 2013, 175).
Figure 4.5: Vancouver’s Public Realm - Eyes on the Street from High-density Towers (Onceanu, 2008)
The design guidelines set high standards for public realm stating that spaces should be varied, interesting and designed to reflect their functions, activities and topography (CoV, 1993, 1). Rooted in social elements influencing the built environment, these design principles are based on
42
the concept of a ‘liveable city’ and consider aspects of accessibility, vitality, safety, community and sustainability (Punter 2003, 371). High-density developments ensure that amenities, employment and transit are supported and within walking and cycling distance reducing the need for private vehicles (CoV, 2012, 15).
Case 3: Access to Green Spaces Situated in between mountains, forests and the ocean Vancouver’s geographic location has greatly impacted the city’s growth and development priorities. Its green roots were established in 1888 when the city preserved Stanley Park, a large forest north of the city’s downtown. This led to the formation of The Vancouver Park Board, which has since played a major role in planning. Its vision seeks to create an urban environment that is in harmony with nature (Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, 2016, 1). The city has worked to preserve, enhance and reclaim its natural assets and provides generous access for public use (Punter, 2003, 8). In 1990 the city’s municipal regions worked together to develop a Green Zone. This identified land with ecological importance and agricultural value; forbidding urban development to take place (Abbott, 2012, 579). This has translated into the development and maintenance of a series of public parks, beaches, walkways and cycle paths that are open to the public. One of the most popular is the Sea Wall, an uninterrupted green corridor along 28 km of the waterfront. It allows for both pedestrian and cycle movement and connects Stanley Park to six districts along the waterfront, including the city’s downtown.
43
Figure 4.6: Vancouver’s Seawall – A Well Connected Green Corridor (Vancouver, 2010)
Figure 4.7: Vancouver’s Seawall – Public Realm (Vancouver, 2010)
44
Two of the city’s initiatives that contribute to greening the city are The Biodiversity Strategy, which aims to use park acquisition, tree planting and the development process to expand and connect parks to further build the city’s ecological network (CoV, 2015, 25). The Greenest City Action Plan seeks to increase residential access to parks, greenways and green spaces as well as increase canopy cover and restore or enhance 25 hectares of natural areas (Cov, 2015, 24). Among these initiatives the city has allocated space for 4,450 community garden plots and recognises the importance of access to local food and its inherent contribution to biodiversity. It is working to shift urban form and land use to build more resilient, adaptable urban agriculture infrastructure (CoV, 2015, 33). The city is a leader in the soft integration between the built and natural environment.
Vancouver offers a number of lessons for fostering resilience through the built environment. The city has placed a high precedence on sustainability and liveability. This can be seen through the development of design guidelines and a tiered taxation policy, which encourages good design, a strong public realm and access to amenities and services. The city has also established an inclusive planning system that incorporates multi-stakeholder engagement and checks and balances throughout the process.
These secondary case studies demonstrate the varying policies and interventions that can be implemented in order to build resilience; considering morphological development, design guidelines and governmental departments and processes. These lessons can be analysed and adapted to create city specific interventions that tackle challenges related to social, economic and environmental resilience.
45
Chapter 5: Case Study and Analysis – Charlton Riverside The study thus far has analysed and compiled literature that informed the development of the Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework, which considers the morphological components and urban design qualities that generate social, economic and environmental resilience. The secondary case studies have provided insights on policies and interventions that have been implemented to tackle certain challenges. The objective of this section is to assess a live case study by using the theoretical and analytical insights gained through the first three objectives. The Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework will be used as a tool to develop recommendations for a regeneration plan in East London.
5.1
Reinforcing London’s Resilience
London has been a place to live and do business for centuries, displaying great longevity and resilience. The city is a global hub for business, arts and culture, tourism and is a centre for education. Its population of more than 8 million people is diverse, which brings both tension and vibrancy (Tewdwr-Jones, 2013, 12). Over the years, London has proven its resilience by adapting and recovering from disruptive events such as the Great Plague, the Second World War, the Great Fire and overcoming economic recessions over the years (Cameron, 2014, 21; Tewdwr-Jones, 2013, 12). The city has formed many multi-agency collaboration efforts to overcome emergencies. The most significant being the 2002 London Resilience Partnership, which aims to develop the city’s capacity to address risks and challenges (LRP, 2013, 8). The city has been a model for confronting poor air quality and pollution, developing the world’s largest congestion pricing traffic schemes and mandating strict emission codes. In the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the government calls for sustainable development and includes guidance relating to the building of resiliency into plan-making and the addressing of challenges relating to climate change, flooding and coastal change (NPPF, 2012). However, like all cities, there is room for improvement. London
46
has challenges with high real estate costs, a shortage of affordable housing stock, infrastructure failures and the effects of sea level rise (100RC, 2016).
London’s resilience is a testament to its geographic setting, governance, rule of law and economic stronghold (Cameron, 2014, 22). However to build its capacity London must look to its neighbouring boroughs to accommodate the required large-scale development that will help support the city’s growth and continued resilience. The Mayor’s 2015 London Plan has identified a number of Opportunity and Intensification Areas. The Opportunity Areas (OA) are predominately brownfield sites that can be more productively used for housing and commercial purposes. This section will study the Charlton Riverside OA, located east of London. It is a strategic area within the greater regeneration plans along the River Thames and the Thames Gateway (Allies and Morrison, 2012, 29).
Figure 5.1: Charlton Riverside Opportunity Area in Relation to London
47
5.2
Charlton Riverside: History and Site Context
The site is within the Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG) and its strategic boundary on the River Thames has influenced its growth as a dominant industrial area. Charlton Riverside is situated between the Greenwich Peninsula and Woolwich, both of which have already begun their transformations with new infrastructure development (Allies and Morrison, 2012, 31).
Figure 5.2: Study Area 1) Charlton Riverside, 2) Charlton, 3) Greenwich 4) Woolwich
There are three important regional targets that must be integrated into the regeneration of Charlton Riverside. The first is the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), which has identified 6,000 potential new homes for the area, contributing to London’s housing targets for 2011-2021. Charlton’s industrial history shapes the following two regional policies: the safeguarding of ‘Strategic Industrial Location’ (SIL) land and the Industrial Capacity Supplementary
48
Planning Guidance (SPG), in which surplus industrial land will be released for development of strategic and local planning objectives such as housing or social infrastructure (Allies and Morrison, 2012, 34).
The RBG Core Strategy (CS) identifies a number of development strategies for Charlton Riverside from the creation of a new mixed-use urban quarter to the regeneration of housing estates and a high quality river-front development. The regeneration will retain productive industrial uses and safeguard the three wharves: Angerstein, Murphy’s and Riverside. The plan must consider the intensification and re-use of under productive industrial land that is of poor environmental quality (RBG, 2012, 64). The CS identifies a number of policies that relating to economic activity in the study area. It intends to intensify and consolidate employment land, reduce out of town retail and increase employment through business parks and the creative industry sector. It also recognizes the need for buffer zones around the safeguarded wharves and (SIL) land (RBG, 2012).
Figure 5.3: Charlton Riverside Site Boundary
49
5.2.1
Charlton Riverside – Existing Landscape
A field visit to Charlton Riverside was conducted to better understand the physical features of the study area. Through an observation study, key morphological components and urban design qualities have been identified and analysed.
Streets and Overall Spatial Structures Public transit was used to reach the site. This required two tube changes and a travel time of less than one hour from Paddington Station. Charlton Station, a relatively new station, is quite small in size with a bike rack and no car park facilities on-site. As seen in Figure 5.3 the Charlton Riverside boundary area is north of the station at the main intersection crossing Woolwich Road and Charlton Church Lane. Woolwich Road, also known as the A206, is a major access road with heavy traffic use. The dual carriage way is primarily used for private vehicle, lorry and bus transit but also has cycle lanes and sidewalks.
Figure 5.4: Street Hierarchy and Key Crossing Points
50
Figure 5.5: Street View of A206 – Charlton Riverside’s Main Road Running East-West
Due to its industrial nature, the morphological street structure of the site is made up of predominately large industrial plots with no legible grid network. As shown in Figure 5.6, the current street network lacks connections from the A206 towards the riverside, which limits views and accessibility to the River Thames, one of the site’s major assets. The secondary streets are not predictable and therefore not permeable or legible. They are of differing dimensions with limited options for movement and access for almost all modes of transport. The A206 and the secondary streets do not prioritise cycling or walking; they lack a public realm, have poor crossing points and limited natural surveillance.
51
Figure 5.6: Charlton Riverside Street Network – Highlighting Lack of Connections
Figure 5.7: Walking Distances within Charlton Riverside
52
Green, Blue Networks and Open Space Charlton Riverside’s strategic location has access to existing blue and green networks as well as public space. This includes the River Thames, Barrier Park and Maryon Park, just south of the boundary area. The Thames Pathway provides open spaces along the river but they currently lack opportunities to stay and play, are aesthetically unpleasing and have limited natural surveillance. There is also green space and a small child park at the Thames Barrier Centre but the area is not being used to its full potential and has room for improvement. Barrier Park provides foot and cycle pathways from the river to the A206. The park lacks connections to the surrounding area, has limited opportunities for leisure and recreation and offers negligible natural surveillance making it unsafe and uninviting. Maryon Park has a number of walking paths, leisure activities and is home to a new allotment.
Figure 5.8: Green and Open Spaces within Charlton Riverside Boundary Area.
53
Building Typology and Density The study site has four distinct building typologies: large detached blocks of industrial buildings (type A); large retail buildings (type B), smaller residential row housing (type C) and local amenities (type D). These can be seen in Figures 5.9-12 below. Type A and B building typologies have associated large surface car parks or lorry stations, which reduces the productivity of the land. The area has both low industrial and residential densities, which limits its current ability to support improved transportation, local amenities and social infrastructure. There are no listed buildings or structures within the study area but a cluster of Grade I and II buildings are just east of the boundary on Ruston Road (Historic England, 2016).
54
Figure 5.9: Type A – Industrial Typologies (from left: DAY Aggregates, Various Businesses, Second Floor Studios)
Figure 5.10: Type B – Large Retail Typologies (from left : M&S and Sainsbury’s, Currys PC World and Halfords, and Greenwich Shopping Park)
55
Figure 5.11: Type C – Housing Typologies
Figure 5.12: Type D – Local Amenities (from left: Royal Greenwich UTC, Primary School, Anchor and Hope Pub)
56
Patterns of Use Given the sites industrial past, it currently has a number of diverse uses including: industrial estates; local engineering, plumbing and electrical businesses; large, out-of-town, retail shops and a new, growing creative industry led by art studios. In addition, the site has housing estates, two educational institutes and a handful of pubs and cafes. As shown in Figure 5.13 the uses are scattered around the site, which creates a piecemeal, disconnected urban fabric and does not use land to its full potential. The current mixes of uses are not strategically integrated; residents living in the housing estates are poorly connected to the services and employment opportunities in the area. This requires a vehicle to access areas of the site due to limited pedestrian throughway.
57
Figure 5.13: Patterns of Use (Adapted from RGB, 2013)
58
5.2.2
Socio-Economic Considerations
Charlton Riverside has a small, low-density residential community but is within the greater Charlton ward. Given its small existing residential population and close proximity to Charlton, the integration of the two areas is of great importance. The 2011 census estimates that Charlton has a population of 14,385 residents. The workforce of 6,698 people has a range of employment types that include: professional occupations (22.8%); wholesale, retail or auto repair (11.8%); education (11.4), and health and social care (11.4%) (Office for National Statistics, 2011). The community of Charlton currently has one nursery, six primary, one special academy school and no secondary schools. One of the primary schools and the Royal Greenwich University Technical College are located in Charlton Riverside, pictures in Figure 5.12 above.
As previously mentioned the site has predominantly low-density industrial uses and businesses that support their needs. The site has recently seen the emergence of a creative industry established by Second Floor Studios, which provides affordable studio, workshop and creative spaces for more than 420 members (SecondFloor, 2016). The site has limited restaurants, cafes and evening economy.
5.2.3
Analysis of Existing Regeneration Plans
The Charlton Riverside regeneration planning process began in 2012 with the commissioning of Allies and Morrison Urban Practitioners to design the site’s Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The firm created a vision with a number of objectives for the area that includes: improving connections and public transport links; increasing residential use and encouraging the activity of education and creative sectors (Allies and Morrison, 2012, 11).
59
Figure 5.14: Charlton Riverside Masterplan SPD (Allies and Morrison, 2012)
For the purpose of this study, the 2012 SPD has been analysed to identify its limitations and shortfalls as well as to identify objectives and strategies that can be built upon. These will be assessed using the lens established in the Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework. The analysis will help inform recommendations for future development, ensuring that the new development considers factors contributing to social, economic and environmental resilience.
To begin, the plan’s major limitation is the absence of a sustainable mixed-use strategy. The plan has instead taken a zoned approach, dividing the site into three character areas, resulting in the separation of residential, business, retail, education and industrial uses. The plan allocates only one mixed-use quarter, which creates large inactive zones throughout the site and limits the full potential of the area. The plan has created new street patterns; however the blocks remain large
60
in size with impermeable and illegible streets, leaving room for improvement. The plan also neglects to address solutions and methods in dealing with the 3a Flood Zone in which the majority of the site resides. The recommendations in this paper have built upon the SPDs objectives in regards to the expansion of Barrier Park, an increase in public open space along the Thames Pathway and better connections to the river from the A206. It also considers strategies to attract new employment opportunities and residents as well as appropriate services and infrastructure that accommodate the change in usage.
5.2.4
Government and Public Insights
In order to gain local insight into the regeneration planning process, an interview was conducted with the RBG Regeneration Manager, Jane Nielson. Local blogs, articles and reports were also studied to gain awareness on the issues relevant to the local Charlton community. This information provides additional site context, which has influenced the development of recommendations.
In a semi-structured interview with Nielson, key information regarding the sites opportunities, constraints and future plans were discussed. Nielson echoed the same concerns identified during this study’s analysis of the 2012 SPD. She states that the new plan will feature a mixed-use approach throughout the site rather than the three-zoned quarters originally proposed. She recognises the need to retain the site’s 7000 jobs but suggests that the strategy will identify some slightly different economic profiles (Nielson, 2016).
Nielson also highlights a number of the sites constraints such as difficulties in reaching consensus and developing a delivery strategy that pleases 500 diverse landowners. She also notes the challenge with the inefficient, underutilisation of land due to uses such as large out-of-town retail
61
shops, car repair shops and surface car parks. She also identifies the need to increase density using low-rise perimeter blocks between five and six stories high across the site. Barrier Park and the ‘green chain’ are also identified as areas of improvement, where a focus on better connections and more attractive spaces should be applied. She also speaks to the need of improved transport links both within the site and to the surrounding area.
The RBG is conducting three strategic studies to inform their regeneration plans. The department is currently steering an economic profile study with established businesses in the area. This aims to better understand current and future business plans in order to determine how and where they may fit within the new masterplan or whether they should be relocated to more suitable locations. A study on the A206 is also underway; it aims to humanize the road without altering traffic capacity. Lastly, they are leading a Flood Risk Strategy to better understand the levels of risk and identify types of infrastructure, systems and design that can be used to reduce the impact of potential floods.
There are a number of established community associations within the greater Charlton area, which vocalize their opinions on the development of the area. The Charlton Champion is the leading source of local media coverage for events and news regarding the area. The Charlton Champion posts planning related articles ranging from planning application analysis to feedback on project implementations. There are a number of articles specifically written about the 2012 SPD and regeneration plan for Charlton Riverside, in which a number of hesitations and aspirations are shared. The analysis of the SPD begins with loss of employment and cites a document by RBG titled ‘Charlton Riverside: An alternative plan’, which identifies the number of businesses that will be threatened by the redevelopment plans. It questions the claim that intensification and change to employment land use will retain current employment numbers. The article also acknowledges the potential of the creative industry. It seeks more information regarding its potential growth
62
within the proposed ‘creative quarter’ (Charlton Champion, 2014). They also echo the underutilisation of land, citing the large retail centres such as Sainsbury’s, Marks and Spencer, and Brocklebank, which have all been developed since the 2012 plan was released. The author advocates for residential development above the large out-of-town retail units and hopes for more traditional High Street shopping options. They also appeal for the reduction or replacement of surface level car parks and suggest a multi-storey car park to free up land (Charlton Campion, 2014). Their analysis also makes references to the need for better public transportation, especially with the proposed increase in density.
5.3
Recommendations for Fostering Resilient Regeneration
The information gathered above has provided considerable context for the site’s built and natural environment as well as its associated economic and social activities. The site’s location and history greatly influence Charlton Riverside’s regeneration plans. Its rich industrial past must be safeguarded and built upon by embracing the emerging creative industry and business park. The location, adjacent to the riverbank provides access to green and blue spaces offering great opportunity to create a healthy, vibrant residential community. However, in order to meet the needs of the new and existing residents, employees and businesses; it must create better transportation options, improve the public realm and make better use of its existing built environment.
The recommendations for the regeneration of Charlton Riverside will be rooted in the lessons gained from the Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework and the secondary case studies. This will ensure that interventions and plans consider the morphological components and urban design qualities that will establish social, economic and environmental resilience. A Strengths, Opportunities, Weakness and Threats (SWOT) analysis is conducted for each morphological level
63
to identify components, which must be addressed in the regeneration plan. This will be accompanied with new interventions or with ideas that build on the existing proposal. The proposed interventions aim to contribute to improved urban design qualities that will build social, economic and environmental resilience.
Streets and Overall Spatial Structures Strength
Weakness
- A206 connects the site to surrounding areas
- Road design tailored to automobiles
- Existing Thames pathway along the river
- Limited street connections off of A206
- Street connections to Charlton Station
- Poor public realm on streets
- Existing street network within the site
- Poor cross walks for pedestrians
- Cycle lanes and sidewalks on A206
- Streets lined with unacitve edges
- Existing pathways through Barrier Park Opportunity
Threat
- Improve public realm
- Changes to public realm effecting traffic
- Extend exisiting streets networks
capcity on A206
- Create new streets
- Unactive edges detering street activity
- Enhance Thames Pathway
- Flooding due to 3a Flood Zone
Table 5.1: Streets and Overall Spatial Structures SWOT analysis
As identified in the site analysis, the road prioritises motorised movement and lacks a public realm. The 2012 proposal calls for downgrading of the road along the boundary of the site, however as Nielson states, the traffic capacity must remain the same. It is therefore proposed that soft road design and landscaping measures are introduced to heighten driver awareness as well as provide
64
more attractive streets for cyclists and pedestrians. The road network requires more frequent and improved pedestrian crossings. The large intersection from Charlton Station requires significant improvement, as it will act as a gateway to Charlton Riverside. The current staggered crosswalk design does not prioritise the pedestrian. It is proposed that the road surface for the crosswalks be modified using soft materials, colours and texture features to emphasise pedestrian priority. The existing midblock island can also be used as an opportunity to improve the public realm.
Figure 5.15: The A206 Intersection – No public realm and poor pedestrian crossings
Figure 5.16: Proposition for Pedestrian Crossing (Ennis Flint)
65
The A206 is the main connection to the regeneration site and is therefore essential in creating improved connections into the site itself. Currently there are only three streets that connect to the riverside. Three additional roads can be altered to provide new connections, increasing the permeability of the area. The street network is severally fragmented due to the large industrial sites and out-of-town retail centres. Results from the RBG economic profile study should be used to redefine plot and grid structure. Large plots should be subdivided allowing for the extension of existing streets or creating new throughways, as seen in Figure 5.17. The redefined street structure should also consider existing and future public transit nodes and ensure that these are well integrated and connected within the greater area. As mentioned in the RBG Core Strategy “the full potential of Charlton Riverside cannot be realised without improved public transport in the waterfront area. New river crossings are also important to support development on the riverside (RBG CS, 2012, 40).
Figure 5.17 – Proposed Road Extensions for NE Section of Charlton Riverside
66
The Thames pathway provides significant opportunity to connect to the riverside. There are currently only two entrances to the path. The first at Anchor and Hope Lane and the second at the Thames Barrier information centre, off of Eastmore Street. Lessons from Vancouver’s wellconnected Seawall could be utilised for improving connections to the Thames Pathway. Much of the pathway along Charlton Riverside is currently fenced off from the industrial and business plots that line it. Where possible, it is advised that fences are removed, minimized, or at the very least, made more attractive with art or green features. Figure 5.17, above, proposes new links to the Thames Pathway.
By developing a more predictable, integrated and fine-grained street network, the site will have improved permeability and legibility. This will positively contribute to improved connections for all modes of transport. Special consideration should be made to prioritise and promote active modes of transportation through transit, cycling and walking. Increasing the number of access points and improving the public realm of the Thames Pathway will encourage more use of the space by new and existing residents as well as attract new visitors.
67
Green, Blue Networks and Open Space Strength
Weakness
- Access to exisiting green spaces throughout - Exisiting green spaces are not easily the site
accessible with only few avaliable entrances
- Prime location adjacent to the River Thames
- Limited attractions for leisure and recreation
- Thames Pathway
- Very limited active surveilince in existing spaces
Opportunity
Threat
- Build a green corridor
- Risk of flooding
- Create more attractive spaces within exisiting - Potential clash with industrial areas green space and along the riverside pathway
- Limited active survilence, potential for
- Use roundabouts as focal points and undesirable activity increased green spaces and SUD system - Convert industrial buffer areas for public open spaces Table 5.2: Green, Blue Networks and Open Space SWOT analysis
Charlton Riverside is fortunate to have two existing parks and the River Thames, which runs parallel to the site. As identified in the 2012 SPD, the Barrier and Maryon Parks both provide opportunities to create a green corridor. This intervention requires a strategic analysis of existing activities and uses within the corridor and identification of new access points. It is proposed that distinct areas for leisure and recreation be established at access points throughout the site. This should be coupled with more active building typologies to increase natural surveillance. The crosswalk between the two parks can also be enhanced, although it is currently the most pedestrian friendly crossing point on the A206.
68
Currently the Thames Pathway stretches along the majority of the site and is used as a throughway. Although it has some benches and street lamps, the space is unattractive and uninviting for users as a piece of public space. It is recommended that focal points and areas for activity be established along the path, especially at new street connections. There is currently a green space with a small playground and benches at the Thames Barrier Visitor Centre. It is advised that this space be refurbished to incorporate more leisure and recreational activities.
Figure 5.18: Proposition for Thames Barrier Visitor Centre Park (Montgomery County, 2016)
The Thames Pathway currently stops at the Port of London Authority and resumes just east of Warspite road, on the eastern boundary of the regeneration site. It is proposed a pathway is developed to link these points to create an integrated linear pathway along the River Thames. The creative industry currently resides adjacent to the proposed extension and could provide natural surveillance for the area.
69
Figure 5.19: Precedence for Thames Pathway (London Bridge Public Realm by arUrbanism)
The majority of the site is located within a 3a flood zone. It is recommended that sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) be incorporated in the redesign of these green spaces. SUDS can increase the site’s capacity for retaining floodwater as well as enhance local aesthetics, increase biodiversity and provide nodes for local wildlife habitat. SUDS can be incorporated into the design of recreational play areas or within the roundabout design, as seen in the examples below.
Figure 5.20: Water Square Project – Integrating public space with SUDS (DeUrbanisten, 2013)
70
The site has three existing roundabouts that offer opportunity for creating green focal points and entries into new neighbourhoods. It is advised that community groups are engaged to regenerate these spaces into more easily accessible and aesthetically pleasing green spaces. The space can integrate SUDS design to also help with retaining potential rainfall. This can form community partnerships between new and existing residents in the area as well as enhance the public realm. These spaces can also integrate SUDS to enhance the environmental resilience of the area.
Figure 5.21: Sustainable Roundabout Design for Uptown Circle (Hoerr Schaudt, 2011).
The site has a number of valuable, underused spaces that could be converted into public open space. This will be especially important given the increased density proposed for the area. There are a number of green spaces throughout the existing residential neighbourhood, which are unmaintained and can attract undesirable activities. It is recommended that these spaces be converted into pocket parks, illustrated in Figure 5.21 below. It is also advised that community organisations are engaged to cooperate with the development and maintenance of these spaces. Provisions for public space should be made around the buffer zones proposed for the wharves and the land retained for SIL as these spaces are flexible and can adapt to future changes.
71
Enhancement and conversion of existing green and open space will provide the existing and new community with improved access to leisure and recreational activities. An increase in green spaces, canopy coverage and general landscaping will contribute to improved air quality and microclimate. These spaces will also increase biodiversity, benefiting local wildlife habitat. Green and open spaces will be essential for creating social cohesion within the new community. It is critical that a strategy for increased lighting, natural surveillance and maintenance is considered, as these are fundamental in creating safe and inviting public spaces. The incorporation of SUDS within these uses promotes environmental resilience and reduces potential vulnerabilities in regards to flooding.
Figure 5.22: Proposition for Pocket Park on Existing Open Green Spaces
72
Building Typology and Density Strength
Weakness
- Close proximity to City of London
- Piecemeal building types and urban fabric
- Building views of the River Thames
- Large detatched building plots
- Available good quality building stock onsite
- Low-density inactive building typologies - Large underutilized space (surface carparks)
Opportunity
Threat
- Rezoning for new land use
- Risk of flooding
- Policy in favour of high-density, mixed-use
- Relocation or closure of businesses/services
- Vertical gains through multi-storey allowance
- Difficulty building continity throughout the
- Introduce new building typology choice
site, especially around industrial areas and
- Incorporate adaptable, flexible typologies
buffer zones
Table 5.3: Building typologies and density SWOT analysis
Building typology is highly dependent on the street structure; the new redefined network can attract new typologies. Consideration from the economic profile study should provide guidance for areas that can be rezoned or repurposed. This will inform the generation of new plot and block structures. This may require demolition of existing structures or the refurbishment and adaption of buildings for new uses. New building typology may also be introduced through infill development within the site. These new development opportunities can provide a diverse mix of building typologies, which can help accommodate new functions. Active building typologies should be introduced along main streets and areas of activity. Fences and inactive building typologies should be discouraged.
73
The thriving creative industry, located in the north-eastern corner of the site, is a great example of repurposing existing building typologies. These warehouse buildings have been converted into art, craft and design studios and workshops. Buildings that are structurally sound and have a potential for adaption should be retained as they provide historic value and positive place identity.
Given the site’s flood zone location, it is advised that SUDS are included in the design of buildings and plots. Building typologies should also include energy efficient designs and green features such as roofs, walls and landscaping that can retain precipitation, floodwaters and improve microclimate. Building typology should also consider solar access, view corridors and other features within the local context of the area. In addition, new building typologies should include a high degree of flexibility and adaptability within the layout and design to allow for potential future changes in use.
Both the SPD and interview with Nielson highlights the need for changes to the existing out-oftown retail centres that often include large surface car parks. Strategic relocation and phasing out of these building typologies will be critical to the success of the site as a large portion is located parallel to the A206. Where possible, these building typologies should be split into smaller parcels of land and converted into multi-story buildings.
Building typology is highly influenced by an area’s proposed use and density. Currently the site is predominately low-density, however introduction of new and infill developments will create an opportunity to increase densities. Nielson and the 2012 SPD both propose an increase to medium and high-density areas throughout the site. As mentioned in Chapter 2, density refers to both buildings and people. Building density will require an increase in actual building structures on the site while human density will be realized through building typologies that can accommodate
74
higher density residential living such as multi-storey developments. The success of increased density is highly dependent on morphological elements such as street structures and dimensions, building heights and access to open and green spaces.
Figure 5.23: Precedence: Mixed-use, compact and dense urban fabric (ITDP, 2014)
As identified in the Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework, building typologies and densities are the least resilient and change more frequently than other morphological components. As such, it is critical that flexibility, adaptability and robustness are built into the design of all buildings and structures within the site. The increased density that is associated with the new building typologies, coupled with the allocation of quality public and green spaces, creates increased activity in the area. This positively affects the social and economic vibrancy of the new community. It is important that new structures consider active edges along the street network and within areas that require natural surveillance such as the open and green spaces identified above. Incorporating new building typologies that are of human scale will also increase the legibility and inclusivity of the area. Finally, it is important that new building typologies reflect aspects of the existing place identity while introducing new character. This will help integrate the new development with the existing built environment.
75
Patterns of Use Strength
Weakness
- A diverse mix of industrial, commerical and - Piecemeal patterns of use, fragmented fabric creative businesses currently on-site
- Limited exisiting local ammeneties and social
- Small but existing residential community
services
- Established train station and bus routes
- Exisiting development and uses prioritises
- Adjacent to established Charlton community
vehicular movement
Opportunity
Threat
- Strategically plan and zone for new uses
- Well-phased and integrated relocation,
-
Integrate
mixed-use
developments closure or introduction of uses
throughout the site
- Lack of support for new services
- Develop new industries and communities
- Poorly established transit network to support
- Introduce new public transit options
new development
- Increase natural surveillance throughout site Table 5.4: Patterns of use SWOT analysis
One of the biggest opportunity gains for the Charlton Riverside site is the introduction of new land uses through rezoning and intensification. The currently low-density, primarily industrial use limits the site’s full potential. It is recommended that mixed-use developments be integrated throughout the site, especially overlooking main movement networks. These should follow the principles identified in the Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework and the lessons gained from Vancouver. Horizontal and vertical mixed-use developments should locate amenities, commercial, business or townhouse use on the ground floor and a mix of residential units above. This type of development will significantly increase the residential building stock that is required to reach the SHLAA targets. Mixed tenure and housing types should be incorporated in the regeneration plans. As identified in the CS, developments should contain a proportion of three, four and four plus bedroom units (RBG
76
CS, 2014, 50). The increase in density and mixed tenure must be supported by new public transit infrastructure and social facilities (RBG, 2012, 97).
The economic profile study will provide evidence for strategic re-location or intensification of businesses in the area. The CS states that large retail and out-of-town outlets will be concentrated in Woolwich Centre (RBG, 2012, 65). This creates space for potential new uses in the existing retail centre. This presents opportunities for new businesses as well as the growth of the creative industry and the business park. It is also recommended that a new evening economy be incorporated into the mix of uses. This will provide evening activity, support local services and provide residents with opportunity to live, work and play within their local area. The increase in human density and intensification of twenty-four hour use will contribute to increased natural surveillance in the area. Where possible they should overlook activity zones such as the Thames Pathway and Barrier Park. These new uses should consider the local context and complement the existing businesses and facilities within Charlton Riverside and the greater Charlton area.
Figure 5.24: Precedence for Infill (Before/After Transformation of Retail Centre/Carpark - Inhabitat, 2009)
77
The strategic planning and rezoning of land-use will create a more cohesive environment. Mixeduse and mixed tenure developments will inject new cultural, social, ethnic and economic qualities into the neighbourhood. This diversity will give new life to the area and contribute to attracting new residents and businesses while retaining existing ones. The stimulation from high-density resident development will stir the creation of new business and will support new social and transit services. New multifunctional uses will allow for a mix of residential, employment and recreational activities in the area. This increase in twenty-four hour activity will promote more social interaction resulting in street life, social cohesion and the creation of new place identity.
Figure 5.25: Illustration Highlighting Benefits of Mixed-use (ITDP, 2014)
The development of these recommendations has demonstrated the importance of taking a strategic, multi-dimensional approach to regeneration planning. It confirms the need and importance of conducting a SWOT analysis to identify weaknesses and areas of opportunity within each morphological level. The Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework highlights the correlation that exists between each morphological level. It also illuminates the significant influence that interventions at the morphological level have on the quality of the place, especially in regards to urban design principles. Each intervention aims to develop social, economic and environmental benefits. These gains are achieved by integrating value that is achieved together rather than individually. The process also highlights the importance of developing informed decisions and
78
made multiple references to RBG studies. It is important to acknowledge RBG’s efforts in promoting evidence-based decision-making through the development and use of such studies. Given the proposed large-scale changes, it is essential that the public is engaged throughout the process and that inclusive, two-way communication is prioritised. The success of this regeneration project is dependent on the creation of a resilient, integrated social, economic and environmental network.
79
Chapter 6: Conclusion The overall aim of this paper was to identify and develop urban planning and design principles and interventions that contribute to increasing a city’s level of urban resilience. This has been achieved through the study’s five main objectives. The development of the Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework was a product of the first two objectives and attempts to identify morphological components within the built environment that generate good urban design qualities, influencing and fostering social, economic and environmental resilience. The paper identifies key definitions and policies in the current agenda. It acknowledges the need for distributed resilience through the built environment and building capacity for learning, robustness, innovation and adaptability. It advocates for the development of long term plans while instilling a level of flexibility to allow for natural evolution and transformations due to changes in population, economic shifts, technological advances, lifestyle changes and climate change. It also acknowledges the need for cities to absorb and adapt to sudden short-term changes from events like an economic crash, earthquake or flood (Larco, 2016, 22).
Urban design and planning have been recognised as catalysts to implement actionable results which achieve resilience. The Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework in this paper highlights the built-in resilience and slow rate of change that exists in street and spatial structures, open space and green and blue networks. The research, as well as the case studies, exemplifies the more frequent change associated with building typologies, patterns of use and changes in density. Although differences exist between each morphological level, obvious connections and dependencies are also shared. The urban design qualities identified in the Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework also catalyse multi-level influence. These qualities are the functional elements that influence the environment around them and are fundamental to creating a resilient city. Similar to the morphological levels, the change in the built environment will come from the integration of urban design principles. The multi-functional aspect of these urban design qualities
80
influence and shape society, the economy and the natural and built environment. There are a number of shared and distinct qualities of resilience, which are gained through interventions of the physical environment. Social cohesion, natural surveillance and place identity create social resilience and are outcomes gained from multi-level interventions. Green, blue and open spaces throughout the city increase the physical and mental health of its residents; it also improves the general microclimate and contributes to a reduction in the impacts from climate change. Economic resilience is gained from all morphological levels. Permeable streets with good public realm generate walkable communities, which contribute to increased footfall and retail revenues. Mixed use, multi-storey developments reduce infrastructure costs and increase building and land efficiency. Green and open spaces increase property values. Benefits can be absorbed throughout the city when interventions focus on social, economic and environmental elements associated with the built environment.
Objective three was achieved through the analysis of Barcelona and Vancouver’s resilience strategies. With different legacies, evolutions and even governance structures, the cities have been leaders for developing and implementing policies and plans that foster resiliency and sustainable development. Cities are unique, however as exemplified by these case studies similar challenges, threats and opportunities can be shared. This highlights the importance of a multidimensional approach to the planning and design process. Both cities have flexible and adaptable planning policies that consider site-specific conditions. They have both regenerated their brownfield waterfront and have established great public spaces and new productive uses. Their policies and interventions have created a well-designed urban fabric, which exhibits urban design principles like permeability, legibility, mixed-use and diversity. Barcelona specifically, has been in the forefront for hosting resiliency forums, sharing knowledge and lessons. This institutes collaboration and partnerships both within a city level but also globally. This helps further the conversation of resilience and encourages innovation.
81
The Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework attempts to create a useful tool for planners and urban designers. This was used to analyse a live case study for objective four. The conceptual framework aimed to bridge theory and practice by testing the concepts that were explained through theoretical research. The Charlton Riverside case study provided a great platform for this type of analysis, as it required interventions throughout each morphological level. This exercise required a holistic approach, which was gained through the observation study. Interventions and propositions were developed using enquiry by design and the Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework. This informed the regeneration proposal, which recommended improvements to the street structure, enhancement of the green and blue networks and creation of new public open spaces. As the conceptual framework suggested, the biggest changes were proposed for building typologies, densities and patterns of use. The propositions advocated for increased density through new multi-storey, mixed-use developments. It suggested building on the new creative industry and welcoming new employment avenues while relocating other business to more strategic areas within the surrounding borough. The study highlighted the importance of evidencebased decision making along with flexible and adaptable strategic plans.
Concerns with Urban Resilience Urban resilience remains a complex challenge as cities are constantly changing with new conditions, challenges and stressors. Although awareness on the topic of resilience is increasing the agenda is still predominately focused on reducing vulnerability and risks associated with climate change. There is need for a multi-dimensional approach, integrating socio-economic and political factors into the equation. Urban resilience pertains to all sectors and levels of society, there is not one solution or method to achieving it. All disciplines are responsible for building awareness and driving change. As identified within the literature, the built environment plays an important role in shaping a city’s level of resilience. As such, achieving urban resilience requires reforming current urban planning processes and development approaches. We need to progress
82
from our rigid, historic policies and legislation and instead create long-term plans that accommodate and facilitate flexibility. We must create new financial structures and incentives so that project backing is not solely dependent on economic returns. Social, economic and environmental life-cycle modelling is required to better understand both the upfront and longterm costs and benefits associated with a project (Cotugno and McArthur, 2007, cited in Larco, 2016, 21). Changing the status quo will require strong leadership from all levels. It will entail the fostering of strong mutually beneficial partnerships, which apply both a bottom-up and top-down approach to management and genuine two-way communication and engagement of all levels of public and private partners. Urban resilience will only be realised through a multi-dimensional lens and incremental change.
Overall Value This paper aimed to theorize urban resilience through compiling existing literatures within the fields of resilience, urban planning and design. Much of the existing literature on resilience did not specifically relate to urban design as a tool for transformation. In light of this, the development of the Urban Resilience Conceptual Framework provides a tool for the analysis and application of urban resilience principles for the built environment. The structure of the framework provides both a broad lens on the overall physical features of the city but also offers fine detail for each component and its associated urban design qualities. Proposed interventions are categorised pertaining to their morphological level and related urban design outcomes. This provides a snapshot view of how each intervention impacts the social, economic and environmental components associated with the built environment. Compiling the resiliency outcomes within each category can also generate a cohesive urban resilience strategy. The framework can also be used to test the vibrancy of current schemes by cross-referencing to reveal whether elements are missing or whether further social, economic or environmental gains can be made. The tool is relatively straightforward and can be used by developers, municipalities or community
83
organisations. It creates a simplified visual perspective on the city’s physical features and their level of resilience.
Reflection and Further Work The qualitative nature of this paper has provided insight on urban resilience and the role of urban planners and designers in making communities more resilient. It has identified the need to address social, economic and environmental issues in order to achieve resilience. However a gap exists between theory and practice. Further quantitative research is required to endorse the correlation that exists between socio-economic and environmental components and the built environment. This can be done by monitoring and analysing interventions to determine the level of resilience achieved when applying the urban design principles discussed. Further work is required to build consensus on not only the definition of resilience but clarity on the roles and responsibilities of governments, planners, developers and the general public. Achieving resiliency requires a change in the status quo, a change in mentality. Strong leadership is required to further build awareness and change perceptions of how resilience can be achieved. It requires both changes in governance policies and legislation but also changes in behaviour and lifestyle. Given the dynamic nature of cities and their consistently changing components, it is unlikely that absolute urban resilience will ever be achieved. It is therefore essential that the components of urban resilience - flexibility, adaptability, redundancy and collaboration be at the forefront of the urban resilience agenda.
84
References 100RC (100 Resilient Cities) (2016) London’s Resilience Challenge. http://www.100resilientcities.org/cities/entry/london#/-_Yz5jJmg%2FMCd1PWJwb28%3D/ Accessed September, 2016 Abbott, J. (2012). Planning as Managing Uncertainty: Making the 1996 Livable Region Strategic Plan for Greater Vancouver, Planning Practice & Research, 27:5, 571-593, DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2012.701788 Agudelo-Vera, C.M., Mels, A.R., Keesman, K.J., Rijnaarts, H.H.M. (2011). Resource management as a key factor for sustainable urban planning. Journal of Enviro mental Management, 92, 2295-2303 Ajuntament de Barcelona (1987). Memoria de la primera inecia d’alcaldia, 1983-1987. Barcelona: Ajuntament de Barcelona. Ajuntament de Barcelona (2012). 22@ Barcelona Plan, programme of urban, economic and social transformation. Barcelona: Ajuntament de Barcelona. Alexander, D.E. (2013). Resilience and disaster risk reduction: An etymological journey. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 1, 1257-1284. Allies and Morrison (2012). Charlton Riverside Masterplan SPD (Chapters 1 – 9). London: Allies and Morrison Urban Practitioners http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/downloads/file/1267/charlton_riverside_masterplan_spd_apr il_2012_-_chapters_1_to_3 Access June-September, 2016 arUrbanism (2016). London Bridge Public Realm Visioning http://www.arurbanism.com/work/projects/london-bridge-public-realm-visioning Accessed: September 2016 Bausells, M. (2016). Superblocks to the rescue: Barcelona’s plan to give streets back to residents. The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/17/superblocks-rescue-barcelonaspain-plan-give-streets-back-residents Accessed August 2016 BCNecologia (2016). Superblocks. Agencia de Ecología Urbana de Barcelona http://www.bcnecologia.net/en/conceptual-model/superblocks Accessed August 2016 BCN Resilience (2015). Barcelona’s Experience in Resilience. w110.bcn.cat/Urbanisme/Continguts/Documents/BCNResilienceEvent_Program_.pdf Accessed September 2016
85
Beasley, L. (2000). ‘Living First’ in Downtown Vancouver, American Planning Association Zoning News, April, 1-4. Basiago, A.D. (1999). Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning practice. The Environmentalist, 19, 145-161 Beatley T. (2008). Green Urbanism: A Manifesto for Re-Earthing Cities. In Haas, T. (Eds) New Urbanism and Beyond – Designing Cities for the Future. New York: Rizzoli International Publications. Beauregard, R. (2008) Urban Design and the Metropolis. In Haas, T. (Eds) New Urbanism and Beyond: Designing Cities for the Future New York: Rizzoli International Benach, N. (2004). Chapter 8: Public spaces in Barcelona 1980-2000 in Transforming Barcelona Ed. Marshall, T. London: Routledge Bertolini, L, Curtis, C. and Renne J.L. (2009). Transit Oriented Development, Making it Happen. Surry: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Bohigas, O. (2004). Chapter 5: Ten points for an urban methodology in Transforming Barcelona Ed. Marshall, T. London: Routledge Briassoulis, H. (1999). Who Plans Whose Sustainability? Alternative Roles for Planners. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42 (6), 889-902 Busquets, J. (2005). Barcelona the urban evolution of a compact city. Rovereto: Nicolodi, Harvard University Graduate School of Design Butina Watson, G. (2014). Urban Design and the Retrofit Agenda. In Dixon, T., Eames, M., Hunt, M. and Lannon, S. (Eds) Urban Retrofitting for Sustainability: Mapping the transition to 2050. Abingdon: Routledge CABE (2004). The Value of Public Space. London: CABE. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/the-value-of-publicspace1.pdf Accessed on: 3rd September, 2016. Carmona, H. and Tiesdell, S. (2007). Urban Design Reader. Oxford: Architectural Press Cameron, H. (2014) London: The Resilient City in Measuring The Resilience of Cities: The role of Big Data Conference Report Ed. Cole, J. STFC/Rusi Conference Series No. 2
86
Charlton Champion (2014). Charlton’s riverside masterplan: What’s it all about? https://charltonchampion.co.uk/2014/10/19/charltons-riverside-masterplan-whats-it-all-about/ Accessed June and September, 2016 Cheng, V. (2010). Understanding Density and High Density in Designing High Density Cities – For Social and Environmental Sustainability Edited by Ng, E. London: Earthscan Clos, O. (2004). Chapter 11: The transformation of Poblenou: the new 22@ District in Transforming Barcelona Ed. Marshall, T. London: Routledge Clarke, P. (2009) Urban Planning and Design (P12-21) in Sustainable Urban Design: An Environmental Approach. Ed: Ritchie, A. and Thomas, R. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Coaffee, J. (2013). Towards Next-Generation Urban Resilience in Planning Practice: From Securitization to Integrated Place Making. Planning Practice & Research, 23(3), 323-339 [CoV] City of Vancouver (1993) Downtown South Guidelines (exclusing Granville Street). Vancouver: City of Vancouver [CoV] City of Vancouver (2012) Transportation 2040 Plan. Vancouver: City of Vancouver [CoV] City of Vancouver (2015) Greenest City 2020 Action Plan: 2015-2016 Implementation Update. Vancouver: City of Vancouver Coyle S. (2011). Sustainable and Resilient Communities: A Comprehensive Action Plan for Towns, Cities, and Regions. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Cruz, S.S., Costa, J.P.T.A, Avila de Sousa, S. and Pinho, P. (2013). Urban Resilience and Spatial Dynamics In Eraydin A. and Tasan-Kok, T. (Eds) Resilience Thinking in Urban Planning London: Springer Davoudi, S. (2012). Climate risk, resilience and security: New ways of seeing ‘the environment’ in the English planning system. European Planning Studies, 20(1), 49-69 DeUrbanisten (2013). Water Square Project. http://www.urbanisten.nl/wp/?page_id=47 Accessed September 2016 Dittmar, H., Belzer, D. and Autler, G. (2004). An Introduction to Transit-Oriented Development. In Dittmar, H and Ohland, G. (Eds). The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development. Washington: Island Press
87
Darryl (2016). Charlton Skate Park Gets Go-Ahead From Greenwich Councillors. Charlton Champion https://charltonchampion.co.uk/2016/09/15/charlton-skate-park-gets-go-ahead-fromgreenwich-councillors/ Accessed September, 2016 Ewing, R., Handy, S., Brownson, R.C., Clemente O. and Winston E. (2006). Identifying and Measuring Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 1, 223-240 Firley, E. and Grön, K. (2013). The Urban Masterplanning Handbook. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Fleischhauer, M. (2008). The role of spatial planning in strengthening urban resilience. In. H.J. Passman & I.A. Kirillove (Eds.), Resilience of cities to terrorists and other threats. Learning from 9/11 and further research issues. Dordrecht: Springer Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M. Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L. and Holling C.S. (2004). Regime Shifts, Resilience, and Biodiversity in Ecosystem Management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 35, 557-581 Gleeson, B. (2008). Critical commentary. Walking from the dream: An Australian perspective on urban resilience. Urban Studies, 45(13), 2653-2668 Godschalk, D.R. (2003). Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities. Natural Hazards Review, 4(3), 136-143 Hassler U. and Kohler N. (2014). Resilience in the built environment. Building Research and Information; 42, 2 p119-129 Historic England (2016). Listings Map https://www.historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/mapsearch?clearresults=true Accessed: September 2016 Hoerr Schaudt (2011). Uptown Normal Circle – Sustainable Stormwater in Public Space. http://www.illinoisfloods.org/documents/2011_IAFSM_Conference/2%20Wednesday/3D_Water% 20Feature%20Fed%20by%20Stormwater%20Runoff%20in%20Normal,%20IL.pdf Accessed September, 2016 Hutton, T.A. (2011) Thinking Metropolis: From the ‘Livable Region’ to the ‘Sustainable Metropolis’. Vancouver, International Planning Studies, 16:3, 237-255, DOI: 10.1080/13563475.2011.591144
88
ICLEI (2015). Resilient Cities Report 2015: Global developments in urban adaption and resilience. http://resilientcities2015.iclei.org/fileadmin/RC2015/RC2015__Congress_Report__Final.pdf Accessed: June, 2016 Inhabitat (2009) Precedence for Infill (Before/After Transformation of Retail Centre/Carpark http://inhabitat.com/urban-sprawl-repair-kit-offers-simple-plans-to-fix-suburbia/ Accessed September 2016 [ITDP] Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (2014). What is TOD? www.itdp.org/library/standards-and-guides/transit-oriented-development-are-you-on-themap/what-is-tod/ Accessed: September 2016 Jabareen, Y.R. (2006). Sustainable Urban Forms: Their Typologies, Models and Concepts. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26:1, 38-55 Jacobs, A. (2008). Great Streets and City Planning Processes in New Urbanism and Beyond – Designing Cities for the Future. New York: Rizzoli International Publications. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York City: Random House, Inc. Jain, A. (2008). Integrated Approaches and Dynamic Processes in New Urbanism and Beyond – Designing Cities for the Future. New York: Rizzoli International Publications. Kahn, M. (1995). Concepts, definitions and key issues in sustainable development: the outlook for the future. Proceedings of the 1995 International Sustainable Development Research Conference, Manchester, England, Mar.27-28, 1995, Keynote Paper, 2-13 Kearns, A. and Mason, P. (2007). Mixed Tenure Communities and Neighbourhood Qualities. Housing Studies, 22:5, 661-691 Kennedy, C., Cuddihy, J. & Engel-Yan, J. (2007) The changing metabolism of cities. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11 (2), 43–59. Kiang Heng,, C. and Choo Malone-Lee, L. (2010). Density and Urban Sustainability: An Exploration of Critical Issues in Designing High Density Cities – For Social and Environmental Sustainability Edited by Ng, E. London: Earthscan Larco, N. (2016). Sustianable urban design – a (draft) framework. Journal of Urban Design, 21(1), 129 Lewis, J. and Kelman, I. (2010), Places, people and perpetuity: Community capacities in ecologies of catastrophe. ACME, 9 (2), 191-220
89
Levine, S., Pain, A., Bailey, S. and Fan, L. (2012). The relevance of ‘resilience’?. HPG Policy Brief 49. London: Humanitarian Policy Group Llewelyn -Davies (2000) Urban Design Compendium. London: English Partnership and the Housing Corporation. LRP (London Resilience Partnership) (2013) London Resilience Partnership Strategy. Lond: London Resilience Partnership https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/London%20Resilienc e%20Partnership%20Strategy%20v1%20web%20version.pdf Accessed September 2016 Lu, P. and Stead, D. (2013). Understanding the notion of resilience in spatial planning: A case study of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Cities 25, 200-12 Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press Lynch, K. (1972). What Time is This Place? Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press Macdonald, E. (2005). Street-facing Dwelling Units and Livability: The Impacts of Emerging Building Types in Vancouver’s New High-density Residential Neighbourhoods. Journal of Urban Design, 10(1), 13-38 Marshall T. (2004) Introduction in Transforming Barcelona Ed. Marshall, T. London: Routledge Meerow S., Newell J.P., Melissa S. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning: 147, p38-49 Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press Ministry for the Environment of New Zealand (2005) Summary of the Value of Urban Design: The economic, Environmental and Social Benefits of Urban Design, https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/value-of-urban-design-full-report-jun05_0.pdf Accessed September, 2016 Monclus, F.J. (2003). The Barcelona model: and an original formula? From ‘reconstructuon’ to strategic urban projects (1979-2004). Planning Perspectives, 18(4), 399-421 Montgomery County, MD (2016). Montgomery Parks Design www.montomeryparks.org/projects/listing/2017-park-recreation-open-space-pros-plan-update Accessed September, 2016
90
NCA (2014). The National Climate Assessment Overview. nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/overview/overview Accessed: September, 2016 NPPF (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. London: Department of Communities and Local Government Office for National Statistics (2011). Neighbourhood Statistics: Charlton. London: Office for National Statistics http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=5&b=6500695& c=Charlton&d=14&e=62&g=6325039&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1404385016650&e nc=1 Accessed September, 2016 Onceanu, D, (2008). Vancouver’s Public Realm – Eyes on The Street from High-density Towers. The Ritz Coal Harbour. urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/10/vancouverism-part-5-public-realm-pedestrianexperience-design Pembina Institute (2015). Liveable Mid-rise Neighbourhoods. www.pembina.org/reports/makeway-for-mid-rise.pdf Accessed August 2016 [PRE-EMPT] Pre-eclampsia and eclampsia monitoring, prevention and treatment. (2015). Aerial view of Vancouver’s downtown illustrating Vancouverism, https://pre-empt.cfri.ca/fifth-annualpre-empt-meeting Accessed September, 2016 Punter, J (2002) Urban Design as Public Policy: Evaluating the Design Dimension of Vancouver's Planning System, International Planning Studies, 7:4, 265-282, DOI:10.1080/1356347022000027710 Punter, J. (2003). The Vancouver Achievement: Urban Planning and Design. Vancouver: UBC Press Ritchie, A (2009). Introduction. In Ritichie, A. and Thomas, R. (Eds). Sustainable Urban Design: An Environmental Approach. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Roaf, S. (2010). The Sustainability of High Density in Ng, E (Eds). Designing High Density Cities – For Social and Environmental Sustainability. London: Earthscan Roger Evans Associates. (2007). The Urban Design Compendium 2 (Second Edition). London: English Partnerships [RBG] Royal Borough of Greenwich (2012). Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies. Woolwich: Royal Borough of Greenwich
91
[RBG] Royal Borough of Greenwich. (2013). Charlton Riverside: An Alternative Plan. Woolwich: Royal Borough of Greenwich Sanders, T.I. (2008). Complex Systems Thinking and New Urbanism in New Urbanism and Beyond – Designing Cities for the Future. New York: Rizzoli International Publications. SBL International, 2015. Image of Cerda-grid network in Eixample, Barcelona. https://luxurypropertyinspain.wordpress.com/ Accessed September, 2016 Siemiatycki, M. (2015). Mixing Public and Private Uses in the Same Building: Opportunities and Barriers. Journal of Urban Design, 20:2, 230-250 Scheer, B.C. (2010). The Evolution of Urban Form – Typology for Planners and Architects. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association Planners Press. Superilles (2016). Superilles. Barcelona: Ajuntament http://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/superilles/ca/ Talen, E. (2006). Design for Diversify: Evaluating the Context of Socially Mixed Neighbourhoods. Journal of Urban Design, 11:1, 1-32 Tasan-Kok, T., Stead, D. and Lu, P. (2013). Chapter 3: Conceptual Overview of Resilience: History and Context. In Eraydin, A. and Tasan-Kok, T. (Eds.) Resilience Thinking in Urban Design. Dordrecht: Springer Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2013). Challenges in London’s Resilience: Adaptive Governance for a Pressurised World City. Regions: 290, 12-14 UK GOV (2012). Definitions of general housing terms. UK: Department for Communities and Local Government www.gov.uk/guidance/definitions-of-general-housing-terms Accessed August 2016 UN Habitat. (2011). Global report on Human Settlements 2011: Cities and Climate Change. London: Eartscan UNISDR (2013). Making Cities Resilient: Summary for Policymakers: A global snapshot of how local governments reduce disaster risk – Accessed April 2013 DOI: http://www.unisdr.org/files/33059_33059finalprinterversionexecutivesu.pdf UN ORG (2014). World’s population increasingly urban with more than half living in urban areas. www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-urbanization-prospects-2014.html Accessed 5th September, 2016
92
Vancouver (2010). Vancouver’s Sewall – A Well Connected Green Corridor. www.vancouver.ca/parks-recreation-culture/seawall.aspx Accessed September 2016 Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation (2016) Biodiversity Strategy Vancouver: Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation Von Borcke, C. (2009). Landscape and Nature in the City (P30-41) in Sustainable Urban Design: An Environmental Approach. Ed: Ritchie, A. & Thomas, R. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Von Hausen, M.A. (2013). Dynamic Urban Design: A Handbook for Creating Sustainable Communities Worldwide. Bloomington: iUniverse Weichselgartner, J., and Kelman, I. (2014). Geographies of resilience: Challenges and opportunities of a descriptive concept. Progress in Human Geography, 1–19. Wilkinson, C. (2011). Social-ecological resilience: Insights and issues for planning theory. Planning Theory, 11(2), 148-169 Wheeler, S. (2015). Built Landscapes of Metroploitan Regions: An International Typology. Journal of the American Planning Association, 81:3, 167-190
93
Appendix A – E1 Ethics Form
94
95
Appendix B – Semi Structured Interview Transcription Date: August 2, 2016 Interview with: Jane Nielson List of Questions That Guided the Conversation: 1) Brief background on New Charlton –your vision for the site and how it integrates with the greater Greenwich borough 2) From the site allocation plan it looks like C2 and C5 have the most new development opportunities. 3) Have you decided on the residential typologies for the area 4) Will much of the mixed use involve retail on the groundfloor and residential above? 5) Is there a maximum height allowance for new buildings? 6) Will there be any social/council housing available? 7) What types of social facilities, public spaces are you planning to incorporate within the site? 8) Are you incorporating sustainable urban drainage systems/designs for the areas that are in the flood zone? 9) Is there a strategy for integrating the new and old developments? 10) Are you authorizing any flexible landuse rights, especially for area C7 the Westminster industrial estate which is the creative uses and offices area 11) What percentage of residents in Charlton work in the area? 12) Are there any plans to calm the traffic on A206? 13) What are the key challenges with the site 14) What is the proposed density for the area? p/m2 15) When will phase 1 begin?
96
Nielson’s Response: - Majority of principles and vision from the 2012 SPD will remain - However instead of the zoned approach there will be much more mixed-use throughout the site. - 5000 new homes - Area has strategic industrial land which is safeguarded for employment. SIL can be used for any industry but does not allow any residential uses. - New infrastructure - new east west link transport link - Additional public transport within the site. - Social infrastructure will include schools, doctor surgeries, green open space, village halls - Area has 500 different business currently 7,000 jobs. Retain these but potentially with slightly different economic profile. - Currently working on a parallel study to identify why types of businesses exist in the area, who is working there and what their plans are to determine how and where they fit in on the new masterplan – or whether they should be relocated - Attract new employment opportunities - Currently a lot of wasted spaces, surface car parks, car repair shops, etc. Plan is to intensify and rationalize space – not lose any net employment space/jobs but better use the space. - Currently there is a lot of space used by out of town retail - they plan to try to discourage this type of development and move them to Woolwich which has a shopping mall that needs to be strengthened. - The retail on the site will meet more of a neighbourhood demand. Constraints - EA has TE 2100 flood risk. A flood plan is required. - Increasing height of flood wall – key infrastructure that is needed. - Will work on flood risk strategy and surface water runoff. Will include SUDs and urban design - Currently there are 500 different land owners – difficult for land assembly and delivery
97
- 30 year + framework – in parts due to the SIL that cannot be touched as well as the large scale land uses like supermarkets that have a 20 year life span. - Thames Barrier – national infrastructure that has corresponding safety issues and building constraints. - Currently there are little residential uses - There are a significant number of heritage buildings on site that have SIL land use which can’t be used for residential but can but used for any industry – creative, tech, etc. - A206 barrier for the site – at the moment doing parallel study on Woolwich road. Looking to humanize it. Not reduce traffic capacity but rather turn it into a street. Public realm improvement, landscaping, lighting. - Density – plan is for high density but low rise -promote low rise perimeter blocks. – 5-6 stories across the site. - P tel rates low for the area – residential capacity that can support transport services// transport services available for residential area are low – need to increase both to make it more liveable. - Thames walk – missing link east ward. Negotiating with land owner on accessing/creating a route that is parallel to the river. - Areas within the walk way can be used for pop-up or mixed temporary use – but will need to be strategic locations/areas. - The green chain – park system – better connect and make more attractive. - In the process of draft master plan SPD – come out for consultation in oct. - Hoping to have a final masterplan by dec 2016 or early 2017. - Interested in seeing what I come up with once dissertation is complete.
98
