Life Between Buildings
(2 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...In a city environment, public space becomes very important to the individual. With minimal or non existent back and front yards and smaller apartment style living, the street that you live and work in becomes a vital space. Planning in recent times has identified these spaces as being important to the liveability of Melbourne as a result many policies for the CBD and inner city suburbs have focused on streetscapes and the interaction of buildings and the surrounding context. In a broader sense the functioning of a city is reliant on these spaces to get people from A to B in a safe and dynamic manner. Due to the increase in centre shopping and internal shopping strips within the CBD the consideration for the streets that connect can often be missed. The Melbourne Central and GPO developments have being successful in interacting the exterior with the interior shopping and this was mainly due to the insistence by the City of Melbourne to create a space that can be merge into the urban fabric. The DFO development at Spencer station has had virtually no integration between the interior function of the building and the street level or passing by level. You have to enter the building via an escalator, with parking at the pedestrian level. This is a common occurrence right across the Docklands development.
The concepts of these active public spaces are well documented by numerous planning theorist and professionals such as Jane Jacobs. But I want to bring to the table a Danish Architect and Planner Jan Gehl. He is particularly interested in the importance of these spaces in Cities and the incorporation of design and planning. He has being fundamental to the revival of Melbourne’s public spaces and streetscapes.
“What we have are closed, self-absorbed buildings. What we would like to have is open, versatile, interesting and safe cites. The challenge is how to incorporate large buildings in cites where people have the same small stature and slow pace they had hundreds of years ago.” (Gehl et al, 2006)
The edges between buildings provide an opportunity for numerous activities. When these edges are uninviting such as long windows that allow no place to sit and offer no visual opportunities to see in or out, they become unsuccessful. (Gehl, 1968) An example of a street and building in Melbourne that has being transformed to incorporate these theories is shown below.
The key concept of these theories is the size of the human compared to the size of the developing cites. In a world where everything is big and bold, where technology is developing a frantic pace and everyone is starting to get out of their cars and walk. The person perspective needs to be considered so as not to be lost in the chaos which is the modern city. A person walking needs stimulation of all the senses. For example a changing façade of a building that incorporated many different shops or uses with the opportunity to see in and out of will be a better space then one that has one long building with no chance for stimulation other then the horizon line. The mix of uses in an area is also important, cafes next to clothes shop next to a chemist creates a dynamic experience.
There has being a lot of development in the Docklands as a new suburb of Melbourne. It is a requirement for all new developments to ensure a certain amount of active ground floor frontage. Unfortunately these planning principles have failed to be successfully integrated into the design of the already constructed buildings. The Telstra Dome and the area surrounding the stadium itself could have being an excellent development. What has happened is a mass of spaces that gives the feeling of nothing but a throughway. This development inspires many questions about how good policies have failed to be implemented in the built form. How can planners implement their strategies successfully given all the market considerations, architects visions and budget constraints? There are many issues down at the docklands and there is the possibility of a very interesting discussion. It would be interesting to see a planner’s perspective on the development and their thoughts on how successful it is and where they think it is going. I have a provided a check list developed by Gehl that shows the key factors that need to be considered when planning street life for pedestrians as a point of discussion. (Table 1, 2006)
Discussion Points:
- How can planners enforce the need for human interaction?
- Should there be a focus on improving areas that fail to connect the pedestrian?
- Can planners enforce policies developed when there are many other considerations?
- Can we actually design and plan for the pedestrian or can these spaces only develop organically?
- How much can you plan and design before a space becomes contrived?
- Is the Docklands successful? If not, how can the development redeem itself, if it ever can?
References
Gehl, J, Kaefer, LJ, and Reigstad, S, 2006, Close Encounters with Buildings, Urban Design International, Vol 11, pages 27-47, Retrieved 18 March 2007 from [online].
Gehl, J, 1968 Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space, Danish Architectual Press, Copenhagen.
Further Reading
Life Between Buildings, using public space, Jan Gehl, Danish Architectural Press, 1968.
Public Space, Public Life, Jan Gehl, Danish Architectural Press, 2004.
New city spaces, Jan Gehl, Danish Architectural Press, 2001.
Public Life, in Melbourne Gehl Architects, 2004 - available Melbourne town hall.
In search of the new public domain, Maarten Hajer, Arnolf Reijndorp, NAi Publishers, Rotterdam, 2001.
Posted in Physical Planning, Planning Practice |
Genevieve, you have included some interesting points in you blog discussion. What interested me the most was your discussion on how developments as Melbourne Central have successfully integrated the interior with the exterior. QV is another development that has attempted this, though in my opinion less successfully. QV’s many levels and different entrance points have made this development hard to navigate, much unlike the Melbourne Central development.
DFO Spencer Street is another development that is not user friendly. This box development incorporates little good urban design features. As discussed in your blog, access to the building is difficult and there is little interaction between this building and the outside world. DFO Spencer Street is reminiscent of other large bulky goods outlets as Ikea and Bunnings. For such large developments there should be proper guidelines in place to prevent such inclosed developments that do not interact with the outside area.
The Bulky Goods Retailing Association does little to enhance and improve the development of these large retailing premises. There guidelines for new development are only specific to providing for customer parking and incorporating a mixture of tenants within the development (BGRA, 2007, online). The Bulky Goods Retailers Association also has listed some planning requirements for development of bulky goods retail outlets. Some of the requirements are finding a large flat site for development, good exposure to passing traffic, location on a major road and co-location with other bulky goods retailers, though nothing is said about the overall design of the building (BGRA, 2007a, online).
Planners do need to ensure that new developments encourage human interaction. Planning for human interaction would involve creating developments that are easy to navigate, access and use. Such development as the DFO Spencer street are not user friendly, its box like appearance repeals rather then attracts people to this development.
Resources:
Bulky Goods Retailers Association, 2007, Responsible Development, accessed online- http://www.bulkygoodsretailers.com.au/development.php- accessed 16/05/07
- 2007a, Planning Requirements, accessed online, http://www.bulkygoodsretailers.com.au/planningReq.php- accessed 16/05/07
Genevieve, I have enjoyed reading your blog on public space in the CBD. I agree that public space is crutial, even when we are trying to pack everything and everyone in, we still need our space and without realising it or not we choose our journey each day through the city based on spaces that we know are easy to access, pleasant to pass through and are surrounded by many facilities. Its the small things that we often are so unaware of that attract us to take the path we take.
What I’m not sure that I agree with is that the Docklands has not been a success. As a newly established inner city suburb, it is easy to access, contains a wide variety of services and facilites and is a pleasant place to be with large amounts of public space and large amounts of housing. I think given time, it will slowly be discovered and will be a success.
It may not be the husstle and busttle of right in the middle of the CBD, but maybe this is one of its qualities, being so close and yet seemingly so far away.
And the DFO shopping hall was once considered a major threat to Melbourne city shopping, but now it has its place. It has not taken away from the Melbourne shopping experience, but is located close by and is another option for shoppers who want a bargin in the city.
The experience of the pedestrian can be documented throughout cities worldwide and compared with respect to building facades, setbacks, footpath widths etc. What is interesting in Melbourne’s CBD is that Urban Design principles still centre around these measurable quantities.
I think what is lacking is the importance of the experience. As stated above various areas of the CBD perform differently, creating various experiences to a wide range of customers. Whilst Genevieve critiques the Docklands space HJ sings its praise.
How do we measure levels of experience - good, bad, pleasant unpleasant…and to whom? Is it important to base design and the use of these in-between spaces through ones experience.
There is a student doing her final project in Landscape Architecture at the moment whose project titled ‘Pleasuring the Pedestrian’ looks at pedestrian traffic flows throughout the CBD in terms of experience. It will be interesting to see, one how she manages to document this and two what this investigation means to design - urban and landscape and planning as a practice within cityscapes.
Genevieve, you’ve raised an interesting issue here. I tend to agree with the statements about Spencer St Station, I have found it difficult to navigate and find it almost possess an uninviting atmosphere, which relates to kd’s ideas about experience. If one is having trouble navigating Spencer St and the DFO, will they then avoid the area altogether?
I agree that Melbourne Central works very well, as it can be used as a pleasant walkway, as it has numerous access points (main ones and through smaller lanes) but is mainly limited in an easy to navigate main corridor. Melbourne Central ‘enforces the need for interaction’ due to the design and accessibility, and the nature of the shopping strip.
I have limited experience with the Docklands development, but it strikes me as a rather sterile environment, a bit of a ‘concrete jungle’ and seems not to work integrating the pedestrian, although this could due to the size of the area. I agree though with HJ in that the area is establishing itself as the new inner city suburb, and it may then generally evolve over time to better suit the community. I think this area could be planned to better suit the pedestrian, as the facilities are available, public transport, waterfront, shops, restaurants, and housing.
I have two tangents I would like to go off on. The first being my theory that what is highly problematic about creating vibrant spaces under the Victorian Planning Scheme is the Mixed Use Zone. This zone was implemented as a transition category for gentrifying areas to avoid rapid rezoning from industrial to residential or commercial use. This blasé use of the term mixed use has removed a lot of the meaning behind the original concept. I attended a presentation a week or so ago about a ‘successfully’ masterplanned mixed use building in Docklands and was really annoyed that a building with 500 apartments and a café could be termed mixed use. I think that what was a really beautiful poststructuralist stance on spatial planning has been turned into another planning weasel word (like water sensitive urban design or livability) that has lost all of its original connotations, but works well in a sales brochure. Jan Gehl and his predecessors tried to theorise the ‘organic’ things in life that are place making in order to create a better understanding of the social fabric of cities, and now we use these ideas to create design by numbers public spaces that are sterile and purposeless. I hereby call for a definition of mixed use that involves a mixture of uses, not just a basement support service.
My second tangent is about the success of Docklands. Personally I think it is over designed and completely unsustainable long term, however I understand that this is a personal opinion and so I will move on to a less subjective topic. Love or hate Docklands it would be hard to call it successful from a planning point of view. The establishment of Docklands saw the birth of the State Government development authority, VicUrban, and is the result of one of the most extensive masterplanning process in the history of planning in Victoria. Rightly so, it is not everyday you get to create a new suburb. So why is it that, despite all the rigmarole of the planning process, the built outcome of the suburb in no way resembles the masterplan? For some reason we went to all the trouble of creating a detailed masterplan that we then allowed the developers to dispose of at will. Surely this is a prime example of the inefficiency of the planning system and our unwillingness to enforce vision when more money can be made. The development of Docklands was all about a quick buck not long term planning. What happens when the international student market, which accounts for a large percentage of occupancy, drops off? What happens when minimalist, over designed architecture becomes passé? What happens when residents realize they have no local services or basic retailing? We all like to point out the design flaws in the Corbusian commission housing tower blocks, I recommend you sit down and do a comparison of the basic components of Docklands residential living and a public housing tower. I think you will find the housing tower comes off looking better as a long term sustainable development, and 40 years later we are all hankering to knock them down.
My critique of the Docklands development is not so much about what it will be in 20 years time but what it is now. What we need there now is a direct connection to the city that facilitates the movement of people at slow speed. For instance to get to the Telstra Dome and into the docklands from Bourke Street, you have the choice of steep stairs, escalators or a lift. To me that is not a successful design for a gateway into Melbourne’s new address. Further along the connection you will see great big screens that block out the views to the rail infrastructure. Along these screens are large advertising that promotes channel 7. To see this advertisement you need to be at a distance, when you are close all you see are little dots that give you a small glimpse to the other side. These are examples of how the design of the space has not identified the pedestrian as the key user and considering that it is a pedestrian bridge it is a real shame. Instances like this appear right across the development. I do agree that perhaps in 20 years time the Docklands will have taken on a character of its own. But considering the choices made so far about how the development has being staged, planned and designed I have great concerns.
The comments made by KD were very interesting. The experience should be the most important consideration when designing and planning for a public space. I don’t think that it should be a matter of measuring this experience but being able to understand how people experience a place and then interpreting that into design. But how can you interpret experiences into the planning scheme?
http://www.docklands.com/docklands/about/staged/index.shtml
The idea of experience is an interesting one. I mean how do you measure experience? I am currently working as a student urban designer and as kd pointed out we use such urban design principles to document experience such as building facades, setbacks, footpath widths, surfaces and so on but perhaps with regards to urban design and the experience of a place their could be another way of measuring and designing?
I feel that the Docklands is an interesting topic in terms of experience, my opinion is that it is a place that unfortunately does feel distanced from the CBD but I think that in the long term the Docklands will establish itself. Perhaps it will become an extension of the CBD because the connections are more established?
My view of the Docklands is that although it does feel like a separate and isolated place, this can also become a positive attribute. As I don’t go there often whenever I go to the Docklands it feels like an experience, a field trip, a journey, maybe other people feel this way? When I did the Around The Bay in a Day we ended our ride at the Docklands and personally I thought this was a perfect area to end. It provided a boulevard with amazing views, open space to hold an event with thousands of people and also presenting people with the opportunity to have a choice of restaurants and other amenities.
So if everyone has a different attitude and view towards ‘experience’ then how do you cater for everyone? How do you design experience?
Genevieve I appreciated reading your discussion of life between buildings and I think that you raise some very valid points. The Gehl check list is something I have not come across before and could prove very useful in relation to urban design.
Your discussion regarding the DFO development at Spencer Street got me thinking about how I feel about these spaces. It’s interesting that the whole concept of DFO takes me back to my childhood days of hoping in the car on a Saturday afternoon with my mum and my sister and driving for what felt like 2 hours to the ‘nearest’ clump of box top developments, only to be faced with screaming ladies, queues and never ending traffic jams. With the addition of a new DFO at Essendon airport I have now been privileged to experience the same childhood nightmares within 2km of my house. What is bizarre to me is that people still love to flock to these spaces! For me, the whole concept of a perfect Saturday afternoon is much different, to say the least. I don’t want to be completely negative about the whole DFO experience as I think that the idea of locating the newest addition within the CBD is a great step forward to achieving a move away from box top developments in the outer suburbs. However, I have to agree with the points that you raise. It seems that planning had great intentions to integrate this huge development within the streetscape of Spencer Street and the station, but we have to begin to question, what the hell happened? I feel I must point out the obvious- that integration with the streetscape should consist of more than a single escalator up from street level. A quick look at the DFO Spencer Street website’s flash introduction http://spencerstreet.dfo.com.au/index.htm will prove just how interesting the streetscape is. Excited? I’m surely not.
Within the Melbourne Retail Strategy 2006:2012, Objective 5 (Architecture and Design, page 25) aims to ‘Encourage integration of the retail experience and street landscape.’ While I think this is a positive step forward, we have to question exactly how they are going to go about doing this. Strategies include: ‘Encourage active street frontages throughout the city to create pleasant spaces to walk through, supporting a vibrant street life’ and ‘Develop an incentive scheme for retailers to maintain high quality visual displays on windows facing streets and to regularly update these displays to increase pedestrian interaction with the retail space’. So we have to begin to question, where were these strategies applied in the DFO development? Was the strategy even considered in what is one of the largest retail developments in Melbourne as of late? It seems that the Melbourne Retail Strategy was lowest on the developer’s priority list…
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against shopping. I don’t think any girl is. I agree with you in saying that places like Melbourne Central and QV are much more enjoyable environments to wander through. Your discussion on ‘experience’ is interesting. For me, catching the train into the city and going to places like QV and exploring the various pocket laneways around Melbourne on a weekend is an ‘experience’ and definitely a Melbourne culture that should be celebrated. Melbourne City Council regonises this; ‘Retail in Melbourne is an experience – not a shopping trip’. Source: Melbourne City Council website http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/info.cfm?top=175&pg=3221 But like Lara points out, how do we cater for everyone, when everyone’s idea of a ‘good experience’ is so diverse? I think the underlying issue is much deeper than creating enticing space between buildings, but rather, we need to look into what attracts people to certain spaces in the first place. Complex issues of the wider picture ie public transport options, social issues, are the perhaps what is really comes down to here.
I would have to agree with Sarah when discussing the Docklands site. The whole concept of Mixed Use derives from exactly that, and it is this key idea which I feel is currently lacking at the docklands. Supplying all residents with two mini supermarkets and a whole promenade of expensive eateries does not seem to constitute mixed use in my eyes. If the population of this area is to rise to the projected 20000 by 2015, source: http://www.docklands.com/docklands/neighbourhoods/menu/index.shtml, surely we must work on something else to attract residents! Your stance surrounds the idea that we should be aiming to create functional, interesting, perceptually enticing space wherever possible and aim to break down the barriers between private and public space. Docklands seem to address this issue in their documents, but I have the opinion that we have seen no evidence so far of achieving these desires. Of course, Docklands is a progressive development and wont just explode into a thriving public space on day one, however, the Melbourne Docklands website states that ‘Development is being strategically staged so each one complements its neighbour at each stage of the process, ensuring Docklands offers something for everyone’. Vic Urban, whose catch phrase is ‘remember the future’, should possibly take a look at ‘remembering the present’. Not only designing for the future, but designing for the now.
Melbourne Retail Strategy 2006:2012, http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/info.cfm?top=175&pg=3221 [online]
Melbourne Docklands Strategy, http://www.docklands.com/docklands/neighbourhoods/menu/index.shtml [online]
Genevieve I appreciated reading your discussion of life between buildings and I think that you raise some very valid points. The Gehl check list is something I have not come across before and could prove very useful in relation to urban design.
Your discussion regarding the DFO development at Spencer Street got me thinking about how I feel about these spaces. It’s interesting that the whole concept of DFO takes me back to my childhood days of hoping in the car on a Saturday afternoon with my mum and my sister and driving for what felt like 2 hours to the ‘nearest’ clump of box top developments, only to be faced with screaming ladies, queues and never ending traffic jams. With the addition of a new DFO at Essendon airport I have now been privileged to experience the same childhood nightmares within 2km of my house. What is bizarre to me is that people still love to flock to these spaces! For me, the whole concept of a perfect Saturday afternoon is much different, to say the least. I don’t want to be completely negative about the whole DFO experience as I think that the idea of locating the newest addition within the CBD is a great step forward to achieving a move away from box top developments in the outer suburbs. However, I have to agree with the points that you raise. It seems that planning had great intentions to integrate this huge development within the streetscape of Spencer Street and the station, but we have to begin to question, what the hell happened? I feel I must point out the obvious- that integration with the streetscape should consist of more than a single escalator up from street level. A quick look at the DFO Spencer Street website’s flash introduction [http://spencerstreet.dfo.com.au/index.htm] will prove just how interesting the streetscape is. Excited? I’m surely not.
Within the Melbourne Retail Strategy 2006:2012, Objective 5 (Architecture and Design, page 25) aims to ‘Encourage integration of the retail experience and street landscape.’ While I think this is a positive step forward, we have to question exactly how they are going to go about doing this. Strategies include: ‘Encourage active street frontages throughout the city to create pleasant spaces to walk through, supporting a vibrant street life’ and ‘Develop an incentive scheme for retailers to maintain high quality visual displays on windows facing streets and to regularly update these displays to increase pedestrian interaction with the retail space’. So we have to begin to question, where were these strategies applied in the DFO development? Was the strategy even considered in what is one of the largest retail developments in Melbourne as of late? It seems that the Melbourne Retail Strategy was lowest on the developer’s priority list…
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against shopping. I don’t think any girl is. I agree with you in saying that places like Melbourne Central and QV are much more enjoyable environments to wander through. Your discussion on ‘experience’ is interesting. For me, catching the train into the city and going to places like QV and exploring the various pocket laneways around Melbourne on a weekend is an ‘experience’ and definitely a Melbourne culture that should be celebrated. Melbourne City Council regonises this; ‘Retail in Melbourne is an experience – not a shopping trip’. Source: Melbourne City Council website http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/info.cfm?top=175&pg=3221 But like Lara points out, how do we cater for everyone, when everyone’s idea of a ‘good experience’ is so diverse? I think the underlying issue is much deeper than creating enticing space between buildings, but rather, we need to look into what attracts people to certain spaces in the first place. Complex issues of the wider picture ie public transport options, social issues, are the perhaps what is really comes down to here.
I would have to agree with Sarah when discussing the Docklands site. The whole concept of Mixed Use derives from exactly that, and it is this key idea which I feel is currently lacking at the docklands. Supplying all residents with two mini supermarkets and a whole promenade of expensive eateries does not seem to constitute mixed use in my eyes. If the population of this area is to rise to the projected 20000 by 2015, source: http://www.docklands.com/docklands/neighbourhoods/menu/index.shtml, surely we must work on something else to attract residents! Your stance surrounds the idea that we should be aiming to create functional, interesting, perceptually enticing space wherever possible and aim to break down the barriers between private and public space. Docklands seem to address this issue in their documents, but I have the opinion that we have seen no evidence so far of achieving these desires. Of course, Docklands is a progressive development and wont just explode into a thriving public space on day one, however, the Melbourne Docklands website states that ‘Development is being strategically staged so each one complements its neighbour at each stage of the process, ensuring Docklands offers something for everyone’. Vic Urban, whose catch phrase is ‘remember the future’, should possibly take a look at ‘remembering the present’. Not only designing for the future, but designing for the now.
Melbourne Retail Strategy 2006:2012, http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/info.cfm?top=175&pg=3221 [online]
Melbourne Docklands Strategy, http://www.docklands.com/docklands/neighbourhoods/menu/index.shtml [online]
I agree that the spaces created within the city spaces need to be interactive and appealing. The arguments presented here form some important arguments. To really appreciate a good space is to feel comfortable within it. You have bought up some great arguments in regards to this topic Genevieve.
Urban design is a critical element within planning and it needs to be considered and addressed in all circumstances. Human interaction is an important factor and it is of great importance especially within the CBD areas were pedestrian traffic is constant. The design element and the relation it has with the street level should be carefully designed and as you have stated Genevieve places such as the new DFO on Spencer Street and the Docklands area presents bad urban design examples. Clearly this was not entirely considered when these areas were constructed.
Improvements to areas can be made with small but highly desirable methods of urban design. This could include material changes within ground level and general appearance changes to create a better place.
We need to design pedestrian areas and the buildings which form as edges need to be responsive to the pedestrian areas. This should be considered when designing the buildings and introducing policies to address this is the most desirable as developers would then need to adhere to them. With provisions guiding the work the final outcome will create problems on these pedestrian spaces.
Genevieve, I enjoyed reading your blog and its focus on the design of public spaces.
I had not heard of Jan Gehl but found his table very interesting. Are you able to provide more insight to his influence on Melbourne’s public spaces and streetscapes?
Allan B. Jacobs (1993, pg 270) states, “Certain physical qualities are required for a great street. All are required, not one or two. They are few in number and appear to be simple, but that may be deceptive. Most are directly related to social and economic criteria having to do with building good cities: accessibility, bringing people together, publicness, liveability, safety, comfort, participation, and responsibility”. In my opinion, overall or as a city, the streets, lanes and public spaces of Melbourne’s CBD are “great streets” as defined by Jacobs (1993) and discussed by Gehl (2006). However they have not always been so. (Southern Cross DFO is no doubt poorly designed, however it is yet to be fully completed and is just one example).
By the 1980s the CBD was considered ad hoc and unhospitable, and the Melbourne City Council was considered to have a “laissez-faire” approach to planning. The following quote is taken from an article that appeared in The Age June 1978, titled “An empty, useless city centre” by Professor Norman Day.
“Effective city planning has been almost unknown in Melbourne for at least 30 or 40 years. For the ordinary Melbournian that means our city has been progressively destroyed. It no longer contains the attraction and charm it once had… To the city retailer – ever ready to adapt to new circumstances – it means expensive expansion into the suburbs to chase the customers who no longer visit the city… Our planners lack the courage to bring the city back to life… Our planners should be reaffirming the notion of Melbourne as an arcaded city instead of allowing architects to allocate useless, wind-swept forecourts ‘for the public use’”.
Since the mid 1980’s the Melbourne City Council in collaboration with the State Government has executed a range of urban design strategies and individual initiatives. As a result, there has been a reversal of the long downward trend in commercial activity and employment, and a dramatic increase in resident and visitor populations (City of Melbourne & GEHL Architects, 2004).
Urban design strategies and initiatives that focused on improving the experience of the pedestrian include:
• Major projects such as Federation Square, QV, Melbourne Central, the Yarra corridor, Southbank Promenade, City Square and Birrarung Marr.
• Major upgrades of Swanston Street and Bourke Street.
• New pedestrian links such as north-south laneway thoroughfares, Federation Square and Spencer Street footbridge.
• Laneways and arcades have been revitalised.
• Public open spaces have been developed to offer greater sunlight.
• Street and laneway lighting as been improved (ornamental and feature).
• The introduction of permanent and temporary laneway closures.
• A healthy urban environment ie. street trees and landscaped medians.
• An increase in public events, markets and evening activities.
• Integrated street furniture.
• An increase in ‘micro-scale’ retail ie. flower and fruit stalls, newsstands, information pillars.
• Improved weather protection provided by canopies, verandahs and awnings.
• City-wide art programs.
• Improved cycle and public transport access.
And the list goes on (City of Melbourne & GEHL Architects, 2004).
In response to Genevieve’s questions, “can planners enforce policies developed when there are many other considerations?” and “can we actually design and plan for the pedestrian or can these spaces only develop organically?”, I believe the City of Melbourne Planning, City Projects and Urban Design Departments have clearly shown that we can plan and implement (“enforce”) design principles that better the public realm.
Kd raises an interesting issue/question with regards to urban design principles (rhythm, active facades, transparency) vs the experience of the pedestrian. An ‘experience’ provides a qualitative measure as opposed to the quantitative measures of setbacks, footpaths widths, tree spacings etc. I believe it is a valid argument that the ‘experience’ should influence design just as much as principles, however it is not without its difficulties, ie:
• How do we measure, evaluate or compare an experience?
• Whose experience do we seek/value?
• Wouldn’t an experience have to be had once a space is developed?
• Isn’t it the designer’s role to envision the experience different individuals may have?
References
1. City of Melbourne & GEHL Architects. (2004) Places for People. (Publisher and place of publication unknown)
2. Jacobs A. B. (1993) Great Streets. DEKR Corporation. United States of America. Pg 270-292, 294-307
Thankyou everyone for your comments.
I strongly believe that if Planners and Urban Designers seriously address the issues with some of Melbourne’s public places in particular key pedestrian paths then we are going to find Melbourne to be a better place to live. This is for all areas across Melbourne, from the example of the Docklands to the new developments on the fringe. It is really important to appreciate the power streets have on communities and with that I leave you with this quote from Allan Jacobs, author of Great Streets.
“If we can develop and design streets so that they are wonderful, fulfilling places to be – community-building places, attractive for all people – then we will have successfully designed about one-third of the city directly and will have had an immense impact on the rest.” (Jacobs, A, 1993)
Gen, you have a good discussion going. My input on the topic is one of architectural/cultural critique on Melbourne CBD. Designing in an existing fabric requires sensitive intervention and definately shouldn’t be blamed on Urban Design- which seemed to be the general vibe that I got from the discussion. All professionals work within constraints of their own and of others, and in the end it may not be the work of an Urban Designer that gets implemented- but the Landscape Architect or Architect for instance. I think the other matter that may factor into the failure of some urban spaces is the need for a space to do more than it should. I believe a space starts to work when it becomes familiar and convenient, but i also believe it is not the work of an Urban Designer that creates this experience, but the collective ideas and interpretations by all users of the space that gives it its richness. It is part of a greater culture. Let me give you an example- from early days parks were designed with promenades for the ladies and gents in their formal wear. Now people co-incide the space with their own lifestyle- some cycle, others prefer to kick a footy. Slowly and over the years we have interpreted the space very differently, but there has never been a need to design for multi-functions. Perhaps designing for a raw purpose, for instance play or relaxation, may bring to boil some the basic needs/function of a public space.
Bringing this back to the Southen Cross Station example. I think what they’ve tried to do is create a new destination point rather than establish a relationship between existing ones. It’s sort of like making a satelitte hub, but they’ve missed the crucial element of connectedness, particularly at the pedestrian scale. It took a simple corridor to connect Melbourne Central and La Trobe Street to Myer and Bourke, so perhaps all that really needs to be done is get back to basics.