2013.01.31 GROUP # 20
Karabay Gizem [Urban design & Landscape Architecture] Redealli Luca [Planning]
Index
1. GENERAL INFO
1.1 Info about the project
1.2 Framework
1.3 Before and After
2. STORY OF THE PROJECT
2.1 Planning process
3. PHYSICAL CONFIGURATION
3.1 Transformation of the area
3.2 Visual perspective
3.3 Main structure
3.4 Block, grid, public space
3.5 The different parts
4. PART’S INTERPRETATION
4.1 Commercial part
4.2 “Urban heritage” part
4.3 Residential part
4.4 Residential & Riverside part
4.5 Riverside & The Hub part
5. CONCLUSIONS
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
[pag. 2]
[pag. 5]
[pag. 6]
[pag. 11]
[pag. 16]
0. Introduction
0.1
ABSTRACT
This work seeks to find and investigate the most relevant aspects about the urbanism project of STRAND EAST in London, emphasizing on those particular elements that define it.
We will tackle this question starting from a more general standpoint of the project and delving into the recently developed district of Stratford, in which the new Olympic park has been founded. Firstly, we achieved to know and describe it; we can finally analyze the approach and ideas involved in its creation. Then, we tried to understand and interrogate from different scale and different point of view.
We decided to describe the project in two steps:
• The first step is the description of the general structure interpreting the general characteristics
of blocks, grid and public space;
• The second step is to describe more in deeply the configuration of the single elements
compo-sed the project.
In the descriptions of the the general structure we saw how various elements is differences from other and how these differences create differences spaces, relationships and functions; so we divi-ded the area in five quarters and interpreted the principal characteristics.
Newham
is the district
London
is the city
Strand East
is our case study
14 ha
Dimension of site
residential &
recreational
commercial
directional & tertiary
Public space:
80.000 mq
2012
Buildings Start-up
1,1 mq/mq
Area ratio
1000
New homes
60.000 mq
Built surface
1. General info Img. 1: Info about the project (source: Pictures, Stratford metropolitan Masterplan Executive Summary
2011; graphics, personal elaboration)
1.2
FRAMEWORK
Barking & Dagenham Tower
Strand east is a new project for the rede-velopment of Stratford. The project contain a big area in Stratford where are localized another four project and the most impor-tant is the Olympic park for Olympic game 2012. The area is an ex industrial districts characterized for the presence of industrial heritage.
The promoter of the project are Stratford district and the most important developer is IKEA group, would realize a new sustai-nable project in an area will be a new center in the urban region of London. The quarter is delimited at North from the High Street A 12, at East and South from Three Mills Wall river and at West from River Lee Navigation.
Where in London
Focus on masterplan area
The two maps under this description show the context of Stratford Masterplan and syn-thetize the principal characteristic of the new development of Stratford divided into each quarter.
Img. 2: General framwork (source: personal elaboration)
Img. 3: Stratford Masterplan area (source: Google Earth and personal elaboration)
Img. 4: Interpretation about the Stratford Masterplan (source: personal elaboration)
1. General info
1.3
BEFORE AND AFTER
2.1
PLANNING PROCESS
2. Story of the project Sugar House
Lane Land Use and Design
Brief 2012 Games
Legacy Plan
Northern Olympic Fringe
Masterplan Wood Beton spa
Img. 6: Planning assumptions and actors involved (source: personal elaboration)
The Olympic Games is a big event for a State in particular for the host city; in this case London. The pro-cess starting from a project (ma-sterplan) of the area is realizing the Olympic Park all in accordance with the London Plan.
The London Borough of Newham exposes the guidelines and the principal strategy: Housing tegy, economic development stra-tegy, property strastra-tegy, strategy of sustainable communities.
After this the master plan follows the guidelines and elaborates the projects. In this case there are few master plan revolve around the Stratford Metropolitan Masterplan.
3.1
TRANSFORMATION OF THE AREA
3. Physical configuration
Status of the area today
Img. 7: Industrial presence today (source: Google Earth and personal elaboration)
The old grid is characterized for simplicity: two stre-ets to connect industrial fabric and highway. This structure can be acceptable for an industrial quar-ter were the connection with the context is insignifi-cant. These are the principal elements:
• No relationship with the context;
• Regular grid;
• Access only from the high-street.
Old grid
Img.8: Industrial presence grid (source: personal elaboration)
Status of the area tomorrow
New grid
Img.9: StrandEast Masterplan (source: http://www.arc-ml.com)
Img.10: StrandEast grid (source: personal elaboration)
The new grid presents some different ele-ments; from the old structure resumes only the two streets, modifying and create new access:
• Irregular grid;
• Relationship with the context (three new bridge)
• Realized on the human dimension
• The space is characterized for more spa-ce to pedestrian
According to our points of view, it is important to define how the characteristic of the old structure and the new one are related in order to understand the changes that the project brings in the area. At this point, a question can could be: “Does the project take some points from the old structure?”
Img.11: Old grid interpretation (source: personal elaboration)
3.2
VISUAL PERSPECTIVE
Img.13: Panoramic Views of the site from its environment (source: personal elaboration)
Img.14: Main Vista - Views of Natural Qualities (source: personal elaboration)
Img. 15: Views from inside (source: personal elaboration)
Views to Three Mills
V
Views to the Landmark Views to the Abbey Mill Station
Img.16: Views into the area (source: personal elaboration)
The urban space can be also experienced by our perception and cognition. As indicated in the “Public Places Urban Spaces”, we can explain the urban environment with the help of different level of difficulty in mentally grouping variety of elements from the visual interpretation into a general outlook. (170) Therefore, some components can be used in the reading of visual dimension of an urban space such as sense of patterns, appreciation of rhythm, recognition of balance and harmony. As a result, when analyzed the Strand East in terms of visual observation, we can examine some cru-cial a sequence of prevailing panoramic views to the project area at the first glance. The reason for this is to covered by the water element from three sides. Also, when considering the height of floors, the sense of rhythm can be observed, especially on the High Road.
As indicated above, on the account of the sur-rounding three sides by natural elements creates main vistas without any visual barrier. The axe in the middle of project enables the orientation with the help of us-ing grouped elements/buildus-ings through parallelism. In addition to this, some important buildings outside of the area, for example, The Gasholders can be on the High Street across the Bow Back River and are a further reminder of London’s growth in the nineteenth century. (Sugar House Lane Masterplanning Assess-ment, 23)
There is another approach to create controlled panoramas into the project area in order to provide the detection of surrounding buildings. When considering the existing industrial plan of the site, there were three chimneys which have a role as landmarks. The project commonly preserved their spaces by opening these spaces as squares and this leads to a clear vision.
Moreover, the Three Mills complex can be ob-served from southwards along Sugar House Lane.
The most perceivable element is the landmark of the project. It is immediately obvious and become ap-parent from every aspect of the site.
Also, façade rhythms can be readily conceived when walking though the environment of the river path. Therefore, it reflects the variety of sensations contained within it because the balance of them change according the feature of the space.
3.3
MAIN STRUCTURE
Strand east shows how a sustainable project can be done because it is developed by a gre-at organizgre-ation of transport, open space. The area is totally viable by foot.
The quarter is composed by three different type of building; the differences between them concern about their position and the function taking in place. The project reinter-preted the present layout (industrial district).
The most part of Strand East is occupied by residential area. Here we can find the most vital part of “interaction” space because the structure is composed by open court in which the street are open and the buildings floor are lowest.
Building
Build reconvertited
Public space Green area Green area building
River
Building Background Streets
Project perimetre
General point of view
3. Physical configuration Blocks
Strand East is composed by three types of blocks: court, tower and linear. These are characterized for the relationship with the open space and for their functions. Re-sidential buildings are composed by two courts on up to four floors and one up to three floors. The tower has up to six from sixteen floors and the linear blocks have up to five-six floors.
Streets
They are not much developed because the principal scope of project is to realize a quarter wi-thout car so the street is only for the public transport. The unique entrance (for the transport) is lo-calized at north where there is the High Street A 12 and for the rest is all composed of sustainable tran-sport systems like pedestrian and bicycle.
Green
In the project there isn’t a lot of green area. The most important is localized on the river West where the linear blocks are setback to create a front on the river. The gre-en on the East side is private for the residential.
Courtyard
The space included by court is characterized from different con-nection and open space. Residen-tial blocks create open space (th-ree floors) and a continuous visual perspective; where there are four floors create a semi-private space for the inhabitants; the last space is private space characterized the commercial area where there are all work and service for the com-mercial space.
Public space
Almost 80.000 mq are for the pu-blic space. In the quarter it assu-mes different characteristic about the relations create with building, we can divided it in: square, inte-raction space and transit space. Img. 17: StrandEast project area (source: Amended Plan 2012 and
perso-nal elaboration)
Element composed the project
Block
Elements of the project
+
Court, linear blocks
Towers
Strand East is characterized by few elements related to each other: block, grid, and public space. These elements are distinguished to each other for the function of the space (residential, commercial, and tertiary).
The space is characterized by diffe-rent types of buildings (court, linear blocks). This type has a relation with the sourrounding space in different way on the account of the fact that it depends on its form.
The project is characterized for the pre-sent of only two streets and the other space is composed by pedestrian ways. The sketch of grid presents the characte-ristic of European grid, irregular not well- defined by regular blocks.
It is explained before the project and is identified by different re-lationship among public space, buildings and their form.
On the side, we can see how the buildings are arranged to create public space.
In the northern part (commercial area) the high building are over-looking the street and create a corridor inside the project; the riverside quarter on West create a green area between its and the river and a barrier in direction of the street. The riverside quarter on East create a waterfront on Three Mills River and an interac-tion space between the linear block and the court. The center quarter create a semi-public space between the building with three floors and a continuum from the north and the south. The southern building creates a square among the tower.
Buildings
Simple structure, caraterized by court, tower, liner block. The high building is localized at the edge co create a front with the context.
Sustainable project but with an high area ratio 1,1 mq/mq
FUNC
TIONALL
Y
The residential court create a semi-private space: “under the control of residence. The tower create a visual point of orientation. In the south the three public tower create a big square in connection with the two new pedestrian an cycle connection.
The most part of the project is open/public space. Connection East/West between the block; Noth/South into the block (are open and create interaction space)
Green space doesn’t enter in the block but stops when arrive at the blocks base.
The visual space doesn’t stops but create a continuom. The principal square is localized at north and south in the center there is only “transit space”
To interpret the general pattern
Img. 19: Block pattern (source: personal elaboration)
The area presents a tower block in each quarters as a “landmark”
Grid
Img. 21: Grid structure (source: personal elaboration)
Img. 22: Characteristic of general structure (source: personal elaboration)
3. Physical configuration Project perimeter
Project perimeter
Img. 20: Relationship between buildings and public space (source: personal elaboration)
3.5
THE DIFFERENT PARTS
Five spaces
Seeing more in detail the general plan we can see how the project is divided in five quarters.
What are the differences between in these quarters?
Different typology
stretch push/pull
slice
1. The North East Quarter of the site is subject to a detailed planning application which will create first phase of this development already has planning permission, with Dane’s Yard to be bought forward as the location for a new 40m high illuminated sculpture set within a landscaped public square and a new destination restaurant to be operated by Graysons;
2. A Commercial Quarter would sit along the northern part of the site, adjoining the high street, northern and western boundaries of the site.
3. A Residential Quarter sits at the heart of Strand East which will be characterized by low level mews housing, with shared internal garden courtyards and semi-private spaces;
4. A Riverside Quarter east and west, will sit at the water side edges of Strand East with housing arranged in a linear fashion along the waterfront. In some instances buildings may be placed immediately on the water’s edge, in other locations it would be set back to create public space adjacent to the water.
5. The Hub is the quarter at the south end of the site, with a community building at its heart, surrounded by cafes, bars and small shops that will look out onto a public square and the water.
Residential
Commercial
Tertiary / directionaly +
STRAND EAST____
The spaces are composed by a few typologies of buildings: courtyard (open/closed). The form of buildings are characterized for different function (residential, commercial and directionally). Also, we can see a different type of space where the buildings are related to the space.
+ + +
Img. 23: Different parts (source: Amended Plan 2012 personal elaboration)
Imgs. 24-25:Elements compose the project StrandEast (source: personal elaboration)
3. Physical configuration Commercial space
The blocks are break by street and by public spaces
Block Private court Block Block
P.S. Public space
The street
One of the most important fact is the difference of the public space from one side to the other of this part of the project. This is visible in the section and also we can understand that, probably, is due to the presence of the street which “bound” the public spa-ce, then in the other part, it is “protected” between the block.
The part along the highway Which part?
This part is the only one in which the building type is a series of “closed court” that define inter-nal and private spaces.
Here we can see that the stre-et, unlike the rest of the “nei-ghborhood”, gives form at the part composing the blocks and transforming it in a sort of “line-ar building”.
Here we try to show, as also in the other pages, how the block works.
Which building?
Highway A12
Public spaces
Private Courtyard Zone
4. Part’s interpretation
Many “factors” that can break the block
4.1
COMMERCIAL PART
Imgs. 28:Building’s typology (source: personal elaboration)
Imgs. 29: What breaks? (source: personal elaboration)
Which building?
A reflection “among the parts”
Public spaces High buildings
Main internal axis
zone identificable
Factors that can break the block Which part? A sort of internal satellite based on pre-existin buildings
The second part is that we have defined “urban heritage” becau-se here the aim of the project is try to maintain some existing building and to add some others that resemble the old structure.
Now is possibly to understand why this part is so different from the others.
For us, also, here the design has tried to make more recogniza-ble this part with the idea to put here the two highest landmarks. (Ones is the wood’s tower)
These parts, as we can see, are similar at two island; both for the building and for the gene-ral structure (as already said).
In this case however the part isn’t crossed by the road but only by the public spaces that, with the ex-industrial framework, modify the block.
Now, we know that in this part (but is true also for the residential part) that the public space is very important in the definition of the block.
With these images we have tried to show that the public space trans-form also the grid and the blocks that could be (on the left)
something different from what they will be in the realty.
zone identificablezone identificable zone identificablezone identificable
4. Part’s Interpretation
4.2
“URBAN HERITAGE” PART
Imgs. 31: Which part (source: personal elaboration)
Imgs. 33: Which building (source: personal elaboration)
Imgs. 32: The part inside (source: personal elaboration)
Imgs. 34: What breaks (source: personal elaboration)
This section is useful for us to understand the im-portance of the internal corridor that create a pu-blic space, breaking an area that would have been deprived.
4.3
RESIDENTIAL PART
Public spaces
Semi-Private Courtyard
Semi-Public Courtyard
The core of the project: besdential block Which part?
Many “factors” that can break the block
The center of the project is this residential part around which will’ do a lot of reasoning. For example we analyzed that also in this part the street is im-portant beacause breaks in the middle the block.
There is also the visual perspec-tive that divide the block in a lon-gitudinally way and open it for internal square (and so for the public space).
The quarter is composed by courtyard buildings. This buildings create a different space in each part: Semi-public and semi-private. The block is composed by different levels: a perimetral buil-ding (six floors) and an internal builbuil-ding (three floors).
Block Semi-priv. gardenBlock BlockSemi-priv gar- Block
den Semi-public
space
Which building
4. Part’s Interpretation Imgs. 37-38: Which & How (source: personal elaboration)
Imgs. 39: Which building (source: personal elaboration)
Canal
Private Courtyard Zone
Private green Public
green
Public spaces
Which part? A sort of part that protect the internal public space
These two parts are very similar, on the other hand, we will understand that are also so different between each other.
They are both faced on the river but will create a very different space, one has open-green and the other one is public, but closed with the buildings.
Which building?
4. Part’s interpretation
How does public space “work”?
A “step by step” spaces
As we said the public space is very important; here to underline this fact we have tried to show the strictly connections with the block. For example in the first scheme is possible to see that the pu-blic space pass into the block from “north to south”, but not from “west to east” (and that is visible also in the blocks. Then in the second and in the third scheme we can see the “sequence” of the spaces and which are more important than others.
Hierarchical type & series of spaces
4.4
RESIDENTIAL & RIVERSIDE PART
Imgs. 42-43-44-45: Understanding public spaces (source: personal elaboration)
Imgs. 46-47: Which & How (source: personal elaboration)
Both ar
and the canal) on the back and have stong r
4. Part’s Interpretation
Then for the last part is useful to say that this commercial “encla-ve” is a sort of another island but is different from the “heritage” one.
Firstly, this part is completely new; secondly the spaces are more big and green.
Also, in this part the buildings are a quite high tower that create a huge square.
In conclusion, we can say that also the public space modifies the block and re-treats the plots.
Being totally devoted to the commercial function can be risky to be a “ghost place” in the evening.
Which building?
These parts of the river, as we said, are similar. One of these si-milarities is that both have a “C shape” due to the public space that retreat the plot and create a square (green or built).
As we can see in the sections the width of these two spaces is dif-ferent and so also the practices that will be possible.
Another important fact is that the buildings seems to protect the public space against the street and the (for the east part) river.
A sort of enclave around public space
Many “factors” that can break the block
4.5
RIVERSIDE AND THE HUB PART
Imgs. 49: Public space & block (source: personal elab.)
Imgs.50: The sections (source: personal elaboration)
Imgs. 51-52: Which & How (source: personal elaboration)
This is one of the most complex part of our work because is quite easy to be banal saying what is beautiful or ugly. We tried to avoid this point of view in order to find a general “backbones”.
For us the first step is to underline that one of the “bones” is for sure the public space.
We listed many times its importance inside each part of the project and also among them.
In this scheme we already said that the public space generates both the form of the grid and the form of the blocks; however, as we know it is not the only factor that can to do this.
Here we can see the street and how it is able to modify deeply the form of the blocks and the spaces.
We can see clearly that all buildings along the street are linear and they are not open (excluding the basic way to circulate by foot and by bicycle).
This scheme is useful, one more time, to understand better the importance of public space. We can see on the
right how it is the first fact of the form of the block. We can observe that when two or three main public axis join it to create a sort of square or a place with
a different building’s characteristics (more or less higher than the rest).
As a conclusion, it can be underlined that this project is quite interesting mainly for the fact that is small but very full of conceptual topic. It may be thought well by the designers but it is more significant. To sum up, when considering the importance of the project, it can be pointed out that the project try to combine a lot of topics in terms of urban design sphere.
5.
CONCLUSIONS
Carmona, M., Tiesdell, S., Health, T., Oc, T. (2010/2nd. Ed.). Public Places Urban Spaces The Dimensions of Urban Design. Oxford: Elsevier Publications. (pp. 40-74).
Chevin, Denise. (2012, March). New Urban Living: The making of East Village. (pp. 1-25).
The Smith Institute. London.
Cliff Moughtin. (1992). Urban desing. Street and square. (pp. 1-190). Butterworth Architecture. Oxford (UK).
Crozier S. (2011, Winter). East, bright future. The schemes lighting up east London. London’s Hotspot: East London Issue II (2/12/39/47). Retrieved from http://www.sinclairclark.co.uk/down-loads/east.pdf
Frey, H. (1999). Designing the City Towards a more sustainable urban form. New York: Spon Press. (pp. 39-51).
Hanafi, N., & Groom, J. (2012). Landprop submit plans for Strand East: creating a new
waterside neighbourhood for East London. London: London communications agency on behalf of LandProp, part of the Inter IKEA Group.
Retried on http://strandeast.com/#press
John R. Gold, Margaret M. Gold. (2010). Olympic cities: City agendas, Planning and World’s Games. (986-2016). Routledge: New York.
Kasprisin R. (2011). Urban design: the composition of complexity. Routledge. New York
London Thames Gateway. (2008). Sugar House Lane Master planning Exercise Assessment of pro-posed conservation area. London: Urban Practitioners. (1-34).
Retrieved from http://www.newham.gov.uk/nr/rdonlyres/ecd62139-cc4f-4e9d-bd23- 2ba14f-f52e7a/0/sugarhouselaneheritageassessment290408_lowres.pdf
Malcolm M., & Rowland J.. (2006). Urban design futures. Routledge. New York
Newham London (2011). Stratford Metropolitan Master Plan. Supporting document: Sustainabili-ty Appraisal. London: Urban Initiatives. (1-210). Retrieved from http://www.newham.gov.uk/NR/ rdonlyres/57D2D0F6-16A6-4646-8859- E44658C874A8/0/SMMSustainabilityAppraisalLowRes. pdf
Newham London (2010, December). Stratford Metropolitan Master Plan. Supporting document: Transport Report. London: Urban Initiatives. (1-244). Halcrow Group Limited.
Retrieved from www.newham.gov.uk/stratfordmetropolitan
6.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Panerai P., Castex J., Depaule J.-C., & Samuels I. S. (2004). Urban forms: death and life of the urban block
Porta, S. (2002). Dancing streets. Scena pubblica urbana e vita sociale. Milano: Edizioni Unicopli.
Roberts, M., Greed, C. (2001), pp. 23-24-29-32 . Approaching urban design: The design process. Harlow:Longman
Vescovi F. (2011). Il rinascimento urbano in Inghilerra. Lezioni di strategia progettuale tra la sostenibilità e lo sviluppo economico. Maggioli. Santarcangelo di Romangna (RN)
Wall, E., & Waterman, T. (2010), pp.112-135. Urban design. Lausanne, Ava publishing.
Whetstone M. (2012). Welcome to IKEA - Land: Furniture giant begins urban planning project. The Globe and Mail (1-3). Retrieved from http://strandeast.com/#press
