patterns for new urban developments

Transcription

NEW URBAN DEVELOPMENTS
FOR
PATTERNS
Funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
PATTERNS FOR NEW
URBAN DEVELOPMENTS
City of Vienna, Municipal Department 18 – Urban Development and Planning,
Capital of the SR Bratislava, Municipal Department - Coordination of Area Systems
WERKSTATTBERICHTE
Nr. 116
PATTERNS OF NEW URBAN DEVELOPMENTS
Compiled on behalf of
the City of Vienna, Municipal Department 18 – Urban Development and Planning, and
the City of Bratislava, Municipal Department - Coordination of Area Systems
by
Architectural studio Franz Kuzmich
Franz Kuzmich, Stefan Kernstock, Gerhard Kleindienst, Lena Neudecker
Institute of Urban Design and Landscape Architecture,
Faculty of Architecture and Regional Planning of Vienna University of Technology
Peter Zlonicky, Bernhard Eder, Christoph Luchsinger
Faculty of Architecture of the Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava
Maroš Finka, Štefan Buček, Milan Husár, Peter Bláha, Ľubomir Jamečný, Ivana Chvostaľová
Cyprián Müller, Michal Buček, Vladimír Ondrejička
Plansinn GmbH
Johannes Posch, Erik Meinharter, Hanna Posch
coordinated by Michael Rosenberger, MA 18
Supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF )
Owners and publishers:
Municipal Department 18 of the City of Vienna
Urban Development and Planning
www.stadtentwicklung.wien.at
Legal Notice
Municipal Department - Coordination of Area Systems
Bratislava City Magistrate
www.bratislava.sk
Project leaders:
Michael Rosenberger, Municipal Department 18 of the City of Vienna
Eleonora Adamcová,Municipal Department - Coordination of Area Systems
Bratislava City Magistrate
Content development:
Architectural studio Franz Kuzmich
Institute of Urban Design and Landscape Architecture,
Faculty of Architecture and Regional Planning of Vienna University of Technology
Faculty of Architecture of the Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava Plansinn GmbH
Graphic design:
Karol Izakovič, STU Bratislava
Technical coordination:
Willibald Böck, Municipal Department 18
Translation:
Sigrid Szabó
Proof-reader:
Sigrid Szabó
Printed by:
AV+ Astoria Druckzentrum, Wien
Printed on ecological paper from the sample folder of ÖkoKauf Wien
Copyright:
2011 – Urban Development Vienna, Bratislava City Magistrate
ISBN 978-3-902576-50-7 English edition
Project participants:
Eleonóra Adamcová
Michal Babiar
Adriana Bachora
Róbert Barca
Peter Bláha
Willibald Böck
Michal Buček
Štefan Buček
Ivana Chvostalová
Margot Deerenberg
Marek Dinka
Wolfgang Dvorak
Bernhard Eder
Maroš Finka
Wolfgang Gerlich
Martin Göckler
Astrid Hergovich
Pia Hlava
Silvia Hofer
Kurt Hofstetter
Vladimír Hrdý
Milan Husár
Nataša Hurtová
Karol Izakovič
Ľubomír Jamečný
Katarina Kapišinska
Eva Kail
Lea Karakolevova
Stefan Kernstock
Gerhard Kleindienst
Franz Kobermaier
Franz Kuzmich
Christoph Luchsinger
Thomas Madreiter
Erik Meinharter
Lena Neudecker
Vladimír Ondrejička
Johannes Posch
Hanna Posch
Kurt Puchinger
Magdalene Rakel
Michael Rosenberger
Gaby Schinko
Wolfram Schneider
Manfred Schönfeld
Thomas Titz
Peter Zlonicky
Magistrat der Hauptstadt der SR
Regionale Förderstelle
Eurosense s.r.o Bratislava
STU Bratislava
MA 18
STU Bratislava
STU Bratislava
STU Bratislava
Plansinn
MA 18
TU Wien
STU Bratislava
Plansinn
MA 18
Büro Implan
MA 18
Wohnfonds Wien
MA 18
STU Bratislava
Magistrát hl. m. SR Bratislava
STU Bratislava
STU Bratislava
MD BD Gruppe Planung, Wien
Büro Arch. Kuzmich
Büro Arch. Kuzmich
MA 19
Büro Arch. Kuzmich
TU Wien
MA 18
Plansinn
Büro Arch. Kuzmich
STU Bratislava
Plansinn
Plansinn
MD BD Gruppe Planung
MA 18
MA 18
TINA Vienna
PRISMA Wien GmbH
MA 21B
MA 21A
TU Wien
Bratislava
Bratislava
Bratislava
Bratislava
Bratislava
Bratislava
Table of Contents
Legal Notice
2
Type 6
Foreword
5
31/ Monte Laa C
8
33/ Bike City
Table of Contents
Organisational Framework
Introduction
3
6
Definition and Glossary
14
Overview of Types and Examples
21
Type 1
23
01/ Wohnanlage Tamariskengasse
02/ Wohnhausanlage Traviatagasse
03/ Siedlung am Park
04/ Borneo Eiland 1
05/ Borneo Eiland 2
Type 2a
06/ Nove Rusovce
Type 2b
07/ Drotarska
08/ De Bongerd
09/ Siedlung Ruggächern
10/ Wohnhäuser am Mühlweg
11/ Karree St. Marx C
12/ Wohnsiedlung Werdwies
24
26
28
30
32
35
36
39
40
42
44
46
48
50
Type 3a
53
14/ Erzherzog-Karl-Stadt B
56
13/ An den alten Schanzen
15/ Beddington Zerobed
Type 3b
16/ Pekna Cesta
17/ Wohnen am Laaer Wald
18/ Gartensiedlung Ottakring
19/ Wohnhausanlage Katharinengasse
Type 4
20/ Satzingerweg C
21/ Oberlaa – Liesing Bach
22/ Am grünen Mühlweg
23/ Leberberg
24/ Rozadol
25/ Südliche Langobardenstrasse
35/ Haus mit Veranden
98
100
102
104
106
Type 7
109
37/ Quartier Vauban
112
36/ Oberlaa
38/ Drotarska Martinengova
39/ In der Wiesen
40/ Karlova Ves nam. sv. Frantiska
41/ Autofreie Mustersiedlung
42/ Octopus
43/ Koloseo
110
114
116
118
120
122
124
Type 8
127
45/ Bebauung Klee
130
44/ Vinex Siedlung – Ypenburg
46/ Vajnorska
47/ Frauen – Werk - Stadt
48/ Eurovea
49/ Lind, Little Italy
50/ Kagran West „Donaufelderhof“
128
132
134
136
138
140
142
58
Type 9a
147
62
54/ Monte Laa / Elf_Zwei
150
66
56/ Karlova Ves – Karloveska Zatoka
52/ Alley 24
144
148
61
53/ Satzingerweg_A
64
55/ Das Brückenhaus / Kabelwerk
68
57/ Silodam
71
Type 9b
159
74
59/ Tatracity
162
72
58/ Wienerberg City
76
60/ 888 Beach Avenue
78
80
82
27/ Erzherzog-Karl-Stadt A
88
29/ Museum Place
34/ Trnavka Galvaniho
96
51/ Olympic Village Par. 10
85
28/ West Point Grey
32/ Wohnpark Perfektastrasse
95
54
Type5
26/ Satzingerweg B
30/ Kajplats
86
90
92
Table of Illustrations
Abbreviations
152
154
156
160
164
166
167
Foreword
In our world, many reasons advocate more compact urban design – short
distances, variety, ecology and cost efficiency are only some of them. Especially today, when urban environments are constantly gaining in importance, the questions of the hour are frequently: how can we draw on
contemporary design concepts to create the degree of urban density that
is essential for numerous urban qualities and facilities? How can highquality living and efficiency be combined? How to create pleasant urban
environments while at the same time using our resources as sparingly as
possible?
Urban sprawl is easy to bring about; car-friendly settlement types do not
require a lot of forethought. Compact cities are a different beast – they are
characterised by a constant interplay of innumerable factors; solutions
must be optimised and thought through to the last detail. This has always
been the great achievement of cities, and this is why they are often so
successful. New construction projects – no matter whether they concern
urban expansion or restructuring – must attain these qualities as well.
This publication is to give as comprehensive as possible an overview of
the range of available solutions and elements at the disposal of urban developers. All examples shown have already been built, often following
competitions or other procedures, and may be considered models for reflections on urban development. However, the word “model” should not
be understood as a perfect example or gold standard to imitate, but
rather as a prototype of urbanistic solutions that visualises and illustrates
the communication of individual ideas and objectives and serves as a
starting-point for the evolution of original ideas.
Given this premise, we hope that the present catalogue will provide all
actors of urban development – be they experts, interested citizens or political decision-makers – with a tool to facilitate and accelerate planning
and fine-tuning processes and bring us all closer to the goal of vibrant
new city quarters with high quality of life.
5
Organisational Framework
Role of SK-AT Programme
The present publication was compiled in the context of the project CIDEP (City Development
Patterns). The entire venture from project idea to printed publication was financially supported by
the EU Cross-border Cooperation Programme Slovakia-Austria 2007-2013 (see also www.sk-at.eu).
Co-financing enabled the participating partners to address the subject-matter of the project with
the necessary depth and scope.
CIDEP as part of SK-AT Programme
European Territorial Cooperation is one of the European Commission’s objectives for the 20072013 funding period. One instrument towards attaining this goal lies in funding programmes
geared at establishing and intensifying cross-border cooperation along the borders of EU Member
States.
The top strategic goal of the Cross-border Cooperation Programme Slovakia-Austria 2007-2013 is
to create a region that due to its dynamic, knowledge-based regional economy, attractive social
environment and intact ecological systems can act as a pioneer for Europe.
The Slovak-Austrian border region presents excellent prerequisites for becoming one of the bestdeveloped economic spaces in the EU. The two capital cities Bratislava and Vienna are located at
only 60 km distance from each other; most company headquarters, universities and research institutions of both countries are concentrated in this area. As a result, the region is ideally suited for
evolving into a hub of economy and research in Central Europe. The Cross-border Cooperation Programme Slovakia-Austria 2007-2013 aims at supporting the emergence of a cross-border learning
region.
Activity field 2.2 “Sustainable Spatial Development and Sound Regional Governance” promotes
several measures to which the present CIDEP project wants to contribute.
6
◣
Support of a joint cross-border spatial planning perspective: the cooperation of experts
from the urban planning departments of both Vienna and Bratislava as well as from
the field of economy led to the development of a joint understanding of tasks and solutions.
◣
Setting-up of durable structures: the sustainability of the housing development types
analysed was a constant element of research. Finding a joint answer to this issue was
a key project goal.
◣
Cooperation to foster integrated and sustainable spatial and regional planning policies:
by discussing and agreeing on joint values regarding viable housing development
types, the findings and experience of the project will influence the administrative practice of the participating partners. Moreover, the contacts established can be reactivated when dealing with further questions at a later date.
Project goal
It was the project goal of CIDEP to develop the present catalogue of housing development types
potentially suitable for urban expansion ventures in the Vienna/Bratislava region. All types and examples are described in comparable fashion based on uniform indicators and parameters, visualised and illustrated in a clearcut, universally intelligible manner.
Project structure/participants
The project was initiated and managed by the Vienna City Administration, Municipal Department
18, and the Bratislava City Magistrate. The Viennese architectural studio Franz Kuzmich, the Institute of Urban Design and Landscape Architecture at the Faculty of Architecture and Regional Planning of Vienna University of Technology as well as the Faculty of Architecture of the Slovak
University of Technology in Bratislava were commissioned with preparing and developing the content of this publication.
In the context of moderated workshops and a study trip, the project team collaborated with a
monitoring group composed of experts in order to integrate practical experiences from a wide
range of disciplines.
7
Introduction
Importance of housing development types as a subject of analysis
Urban growth
Many European cities – let alone the Asian or African mega-cities – are expecting a phase of demographic growth. This also goes for Vienna and Bratislava including their environs. A notable population increase has already occurred in recent years and is likely to continue over the next few
decades. This is compounded by two other demographic phenomena: the population shares of elderly persons and migrants are both markedly on the rise.
Population growth and augmenting prosperity lead to a clear increase in floorspace requirements
for housing, education, offices, services, etc. It is therefore an imperative of our time to systematically address the question of how the (presumably needed) hundreds of thousands of new
dwellings should look like, as this will decisively influence the look of the inner and outer urban expansion zones of our cities, to specify the tasks they will have to fulfil and to clarify how residents
as well as society will be able to afford them.
Energy, efficiency and sustainability
In addition to the fact that many new spaces must be created for a much higher number of people, the question of necessary restrictions comes again to the fore. Modern solutions must be
“smart”, i.e. intelligent in making the most of relatively little. The times when the possibilities fuelled by cheap energy and resources seemed endless and suitably lavish structures could be created are over. Settlement types directly impact mobility patterns, land use, travel distances,
self-determination in old age, dealing with the effects of climate change and resource consumption. New buildings and city quarters must be constructed in keeping with the available possibilities while yet creating high utility value. Many believe that cities can indeed be productive,
efficient and sustainable and hence contribute significantly to successfully coping with topical and,
above all, future challenges.
Functioning density
From the outset of the project, it was evident that one of the key achievements of urban structural
types lies in their high density, and that many advantages of the city (walkable distances, efficient
public transport, shops for everyday necessaries, ...) are in fact only made possible by this density.
At the same time, high density entails drawbacks that partly nullify these advantages. The search
for suitable urban settlement types mostly concerns solutions that enable high development density combined with equally high quality of living. The earlier we identify development types that
balance the contradiction between required high density on the one hand and privacy on the other
hand, the more easily can citizens be provided with attractive housing that is durably affordable
and ecologically sound.
Providing an overview of possibilities
Any urbanistic plan begins by outlining a programme for its development area. Before decisions
regarding land purchases, investments and architecture can be taken, the prime question is: what
forms of use are possible in this site, and to what extent? This is where the present “catalogue”
comes in to supply information. Already implemented projects highlight the range of available
basic structural types and provide a quick overview of what can be done and how potential volumes would appear and look like. Moreover, important characteristics of the model projects are
identified as well. In any case, the authors recommend that readers complete this first impression
by visiting the development types proposed on-site and using them as “show-houses” to obtain a
first-hand understanding of their real-life impact.
8
This catalogue is to offer a largely complete overview of urban architectural and structural designs
ranging from densified single-family units to maximum-density high-rise quarters. All available solutions were to be represented so as to provide a clear picture of potential options: as a kind of
thought experiment, readers can try to select one (or several) of these possibilities to choose the
“right” settlement type, i.e. the one most appropriate for their specific urban expansion area. This
is why actually implemented projects from a comparable cultural setting were compiled for this
catalogue. Many of the projects showcased were selected in the context of competitions or other
qualification procedures or specially singled out for praise in relevant literature or local practice.
Visionary projects that (possibly for good reasons) have not yet moved into the realm of actual implementation were deliberately, albeit reluctantly, excluded.
“Patterns serve as a direct bridge to design”, urban planner Kevin Lynch states in his book “Site
Planning”. Few urbanistic design tasks are so unique, he contends, as to defy apt description and
communication on the basis of examples. Above all analogues and images based on experience
allow for a quick run-through of design scenarios, thus triggering an iterative process involving
stakeholders. Recurring, similar and hence typical solutions to specific tasks moreover tend to
evolve over time and can serve as starting-points for urban design work.
Regarding the quality of the projects presented: these examples are no collection of best practices
but are to illustrate and concretise possible urbanistic solutions. Of course, many examples are
successful, were planned by distinguished architects, chosen in the context of competitions and
may be regarded as models. At the same time, however, quality standards are highly dependent
on the subjective assessment and preferences of readers/users. This is borne out by the fact that
some people prefer to inhabit Gründerzeit houses in condensed urban neighbourhoods, while others favour row houses with small gardens at the periphery. A family van most certainly is no sports
car, and vice versa. The diagrams, statistics and texts of this catalogue are to render the characteristics, pros and cons of the different building types transparent. The set of qualities best suited
for a concrete site and target group must be identified by the readers of this catalogue.
How to use this publication
The main body of this catalogue is structured into 12 chapters, each describing one urbanistic archetype. These development types were derived from research into an enormous variety of projects implemented roughly over the past 20 years. Every type is illustrated by several examples
shown on one double page each. On the one hand, these examples are to provide a clearcut understanding of the type in question; on the other hand, they are to highlight the diverse application possibilities of this type. The chapter “Definitions and glossary” provides readers with a
glossary of the most important terms used in describing the various development types to expound on their meaning and technical relevance.
Time-tried and novel methods of research
In part at least, the availability of new technical tools enabled the research for this publication to
assume a wider scope than comparable earlier works. The present project made use of a great variety of information capturing and evaluation techniques, such as data from geographic information systems, satellite images, aerial images, oblique aerial views, project databases, online and
library-based literature research, Google Street View, open-source maps, e-mail and webform communication, etc.
Coupled with the involvement of seasoned experts and interdisciplinary study trips, these methods allowed for the implementation of a wide-ranging research project within the available framework. As a result, readers may expect a largely complete catalogue of currently possible
development and estate types. The next section will look at the approach employed in greater detail.
International search: whatever is possible
The present compilation of housing development types and examples is the outcome of an extensive search process. As a first step based on a rough concept of types encountered in comparable
cultural settings, the authors looked for suitable, already implemented projects. The construction
histories of Vienna and Bratislava over the past two decades were duly analysed. Out of several
9
hundreds of projects, the authors selected those that represented a certain type effectively or
proposed interesting solutions within a given context. Projects outside this geographical area
were moreover identified by means of literature research, personal contacts or experiences of
the compilers of the catalogue.
After collecting and roughly analysing these examples, the material gathered allowed for a review
of the originally sketched typology in cooperation with the members of the expert monitoring
group. Furthermore, projects representative of every type were selected as examples to give an
overview of the full range of possible solutions. It became apparent that in some cases no examples of specific densities combined with specific building types could be identified, while examples were numerous for other types. The selection process was therefore fine-tuned until at least
one example per density level could be selected for every type (where possible). In those cases
where several possibilities were available, it was tried to highlight the range of possible solutions
for one type.
It had been a key motive in the selection process to include mainly projects that could be viewed
as exemplary and future-oriented. However, this rigid logic had to be abandoned since the experts
involved could not agree on what projects to define as exemplary; neither was it possible to identify unreservedly recommendable examples for all situations described in the catalogue. For the
sake of completeness and as benchmarks, the publication thus also includes projects that suffer
from weaknesses and drawbacks and thus will probably be applied less frequently in the future.
Readers can derive the quality attributed to each project from the given parameters, illustrations,
descriptive text and, ideally, also from on-site visits.
Search for parameters
The value of a catalogue lies in the possibility of comparing individual products and selecting a solution for an upcoming planning task. Thus a key first step in compiling the present catalogue lay
in the question of what characteristics to draw on to describe settlements. At the outset of the
project, a discussion focused on what traits of designs are most significant for the urbanistic scale
and tried to operationalise these traits on the basis of indicators. This revealed that the number of
themes considered relevant is much larger than those for which suitable measurement methods
are actually available or could be established in the course of this project. In practice, reliance on
verbal descriptions and expert assessments proved inevitable whenever no viable parameters
were available for a given situation. This indicates that many qualities and needs of urban planning have not yet been defined or rendered measurable with sufficient precision and that the assessment of projects or project proposals will in practice be often incomplete.
Finally, the present catalogue aims in three ways to enable readers to evaluate the development
examples presented:
10
◣
Graphical representations and photos of standardised situations
◣
Verbal descriptions of projects based on a uniform structure
◣
Urbanistic parameters and typologies where possible and useful
Moreover, all construction projects feature a map and detailed address and can thus be visited to
obtain a first-hand, on-site impression.
The subjects of this study were to be “urban components”, i.e. areas provided as fully as possible
with a range of facilities that in addition to useful internal floorspace include ancillary spaces, such
as green and open zones, as well as amenities serving the local community, such as kindergartens, schools and shops for everyday supply. Theoretically, these components are summable at
an urbanistic level, which would produce some indication of the capacity and quality of newly built
quarters. However, since contemporary urban planning largely discards such homogeneous ensembles in favour of diversity and mixed use, the subject of the present study had to be curtailed
to the scope of actually implemented projects (often covering less than one hectare), hence abandoning the idea of measuring the full provision with public open spaces, local shops, etc. on the
basis of concrete projects. To work around this problem, one can give a detailed description of the
functions provided by the individual development and then aggregate the missing remainder as a
fictitious notion. In assessing examples – in particular densities –, this aspect is highly relevant, because some settlement types integrate a comprehensive set of amenities (open areas, circulation
areas, communal facilities and rooms, shop and office spaces, etc.), while others only provide residential floorspace but lack other functions or force residents to fulfil these requirements in the
neighbourhood. In the verbal descriptions of the individual projects, these factors were identified
in greater detail under the headings “Situation within the city”, “Prerequisites of success”, “Quality
and flexibility of use” and finally “Quality of urban space”.
The next sections expound on the structure of the descriptive texts shown on the left side of every
project presentation. For the parameters given on the right side of the project presentations,
please consult the following section (“Definitions and Glossary”).
Context
The following external factors influencing the quality of housing and living in the respective
project are described to provide a context for the individual examples:
◾
Situation within the city, traffic/transport links and infrastructure
This paragraph provides information about the distance between project and city
centre and about the nearest means of public transport/high-level street and
moreover lists relevant supply infrastructure in the closer vicinity (e.g. educational facilities, hospitals, shops, etc.).
◾
Location assets
This heading describes specific quality-determining characteristics in the direct
vicinity (e.g. situation next to a green corridor, adjoining a neighbourhood park,
directly connected to an Underground station, …) that have a bearing on the
(housing) quality of the individual settlement type.
Project description
Regarding the development or project area per se, the following aspects were described
and visualised:
◾
Prerequisites of success
Many qualities of settlements cited as examples cannot be generalised since
they depend on specific local or historical aspects. The description of these decisive factors of influence is to enable readers to better gauge the achievements
of the respective development or building type.
These aspects e.g. include the kind of qualification or planning procedure employed (e.g. competition, developers’ selection procedure, participatory planning
process) or special architectural or design challenges that were mastered or
should be given particular consideration in connection with this project type.
11
◾
Quality and flexibility of use of individual structures
This paragraph deals with such aspects as:
◾
⚫
Suitability of rooms for daily use (quiet, daylight incidence, quality of layouts, natural ventilation, north-facing flats)
⚫
Fostering of a sense of neighbourship (number of dwellings per
building/staircase/entrance, rooms for communication and joint activities,
access solutions)
⚫
Possibility of integrating non-residential functions (number of storeys, possibility of creating offices or shops, wing depth/useful floorspace, attractive
entrance/lobby zones for enterprises, accessibility by car, frequency and
visibility, handling of noise/exhaust fumes, etc.)
⚫
Are safety needs of users met (anxiety-inducing spaces, social control of
circulation routes, attractiveness of public spaces and entrance zones)?
⚫
Can shopping facilities within walking distance be created or are already in
place? Experience shows that a supermarket needs the purchasing power
of at least 3,000 local residents to flourish; a range of shops for extended
supply (supermarket, drugstore chain outlet, tobacconist’s, bank, florist,
cafés and restaurants) only makes economic sense starting at 5,000 residents.
Availability and quality of open spaces
This heading describes and assesses open spaces (from public to private) and
their quality of use within the settlement type analysed, e.g. private gardens,
areas for play, sports and communal activities as well as circulatrion routes inside the development.
◾
⚫
What spatial qualities are generated by the individual project type? Can
private, communal or public use be implemented with a good quality
standard, given the project’s density and building type?
⚫
Do flats feature sufficient private open spaces? What open spaces
encourage communal use?
⚫
How well are the twofold functions of open spaces - circulation vs. rest and
communication - balanced?
⚫
Were open spaces designated for young people? What role is assigned to
stationary traffic (parked vehicles) in the open spaces?
Neighbourship, communal facilities
This heading assesses the potential of the respective development type to
promote a sense of neighbourship and community, e.g. by means of shared open
spaces, communal rooms in buildings, arrangement of flats into moderatelysized groups or number of flats accessed via one staircase.
◾
Quality of urban space
This paragraph addresses the impact of the project on the cityscape, streetscape
and environs and explores to what degree the design chosen allows responding
to these needs. In this context, the following aspects were assessed:
⚫
12
Suitability for pedestrians (short distances, prospects, vistas and spots of
interest for pedestrians, such as shops/cafés, etc., avoidance of areas
experienced as uninteresting or unsafe, such as isolated base zones,
garages/gates, parking lots, undefined spaces)
⚫
Variety, small dimensions and human scale of buildings, mainly for the
base zone (number of separate buildings and/or uses per front length, possibility of active ground-floor utilisation, possibility of also creating small
units to enhance variety, design of transition zones between public space
and buildings, façade structuring of large volumes)
⚫
Public space orientation of buildings by means of shop displays, windows,
balconies, transparent building elements, illumination, design of transitions
from private to public areas
⚫
Avoidance of shading and visual dominance of streetscape, unobstructed
view of scenic spots, landmarks and points of reference
Need for further research input
The very intensive work for the CIDEP project has shown that despite massive commitment and a
broad approach many themes identified at the project outset could by far not be dealt with exhaustively. Some reasons for this include the following:
◣
Recent urban development tends to eschew large-scale, homogeneously developed
areas; multifaceted solutions and small lots dominate. The hypothesis that phenomena and parameters can be empirically observed on the basis of ideal-typical projects
had to be largely curtailed. Such an approach would call for the construction of fictitious development zones.
◣
Many important parameters cannot be measured reliably on a reasonable time and
cost basis and thus had to be eliminated or replaced by expert assessments or verbal
descriptions. Therefore many questions, such as energy efficiency, resident satisfaction, construction costs or mobility behaviour of different settlement types, seem
highly relevant for decision-making but cannot be operationalised. The relevant available literature likewise proved insufficient or inapplicable.
◣
Finally, the often required qualitative assessment proves a difficult or sensitive issue.
While the project management team united a diversified group of planning and construction experts, the positions of other user groups were by necessity neglected. The
widespread – certainly appropriate – reticence to criticise recent projects equally impedes the evaluation of design solutions.
The experience made in compiling the present publication shows that many questions and aspects
must remain unanswered or unconsidered for the time being; hence further studies would be
highly welcome.
13
Definition and Glossary
Term
Explanation
A
Aboveground parking (sq m)
Surface exclusively used as parking lot at ground-floor level and mostly reserved
for owners/tenants or customers of a development.
Access type
Defines the arrangement of corridors and staircases inside a building. The projects
presented distinguish between the following types of flat access:
Landing access: 2 or more flats are situated on one landing.
Central access: 4 or more flats are situated around a staircase.
Central corridor access: flats are situated on both sides of an access corridor.
Covered walkway/arcade access: flats are accessed from an external walkway.
Direct access: flats are accessed directly from the street.
Amenities for residents and
locals
Private facilities and amenities for the population of a residential area, e.g. retail
shops, cafés, restaurants, personal services, doctor’s surgeries, etc.
Areas for third-party use
Sum total of all useful (non-residential) floorspace for rent of a given project.
Atrium house
An atrium house receives daylight via a central space that is either an open-air internal courtyard or designed as a glass roof. Thus the building may also forgo outside-facing windows.
Average flat size (sq m)
Average useful flat surface of the individual project.
B
Base zone
Ground-floor zone. This is the part of a building in closest visual and functional contact with the adjoining streetscape and usually extends over one (sometimes more
than one) storey. This zone frequently offers the possibility of accommodating
spaces for commercial use, e.g. shops, cafés, small offices or studios. The design of
base zones is of prime importance for the atmospheric quality of the adjoining
streetscape.
Basic supply
Cf. shops for everyday necessaries
Blind wall
Cf. fire wall
Block grid
Usually rectangular grid-type arrangement of > urban blocks in a city quarter.
Brownfield site
Area within city limits formerly used for industrial or commercial purposes and subsequently cleared for new forms of use due to closedown or relocation.
Building line
This publication defines the building line as the boundary between public circulation
areas (footpaths, lanes, streets and squares) and private development surfaces.
Built-up surface (hectares)
The built-up surface results from the maximum area covered by a horizontal projection of all aboveground storeys.
C
Central corridor access
Access type that allows for the individual flats of one floor to be accessed via a central corridor running parallel to the building’s longitudinal axis. This type is characterised by very low consumption of space for landings and stairs and allows very
deep wings (up to 20 m) and hence high densities. A drawback lies in the fact that
many dwellings often face only in one direction, which can entail problematic flat
layouts and orientation.
Circulation area (sq m)
Public or semi-public open space of a plot exclusively used for traffic.
Concierge service
Service rendered in the management of multi-storey residential buildings. In addi tion to supervision and care services on behalf of residents, staff also renders a variety of personal services, such as transporting items, accepting parcels, runnings
mall errands or taking care of pets during the owner’s absence.
Covered walkway/ arcade
Horizontal walkway along a building façade serving as access for upper-storey
units. Walkways are vertically linked by staircases. Generously dimensioned walkways can also serve as communication areas. The advantage of this system lies in
14
the fact that a number of flats arranged side by side can be reached via one staircase, which is not possible with just one landing; at the same time, the drawbacks of
a central corridor are avoided.
Cross-ventilation
Flats with windows on two opposite sides allow for cross-ventilation, an important
quality criterion to safeguard efficient air change e.g. on hot days. Some access
types (e.g. central corridor) preclude this possibility.
Cul-de-sac
A cul-de-sac (dead end) is a street or path with only one inlet/outlet. Its purpose is
traffic-calming and keeping residential areas free of through-traffic.
D
Developers’ competition
Selection procedure for developers applied in Vienna, in whose context the City
Administration or wohnfonds wien (Fund for Housing Construction and Urban
Renewal) as land owners sell lots for social housing projects and grant subsidies in a
competition procedure (focusing on quality, costs).
Docklands
Originally, the term “docklands” referred to part of the Port of London. With the
decline of the shipping industry, the abandoned sites were redeveloped into flats
and offices. Projects in similar locations and with similar characteristics are often
likewise called docklands.
Double-line arrangement
Cf. central corridor access
Dwelling (housing unit)
Self-contained series of rooms normally connected and destined for residential purposes; permits conducting a private household.
E
Elementary school, compulsory School for children aged 6 to 10
Extended supply
Cf. shops for everyday necessaries
F
Façade distance
Average distance between the volumes of a project or surrounding buildings of relevance for users of the dwellings. This is significant because wider spaces between
volumes tend to ensure greater privacy, better daylight incidence and views as well
as less noise from neighbours.
Due to the value distribution observed, the following classes were established:
small = distance less than 12 m
medium = distance between 12 and 25 m
big = distance in excess of 25 m
Fire wall
A fire wall (fire partition, fire barrier) is a wall that divides a building into separate
fire compartments and is to prevent a fire from spreading to other buildings or building sections. In most cases, fire walls built along a building’s boundary must present no apertures and therefore are also referred to as “blind” or “blank” walls.
Flat sizes (sq m)
Refers to the range of useful flat surfaces (excluding open spaces).
Flats extending across entire
building depth
Flats with windows facing two opposite sides of a building. This design allows for
cross-ventilation and daylight incidence from both sides. It moreover offers the
advantage of having the flat face two directions, which permits functional
optimisation (views, quiet, balconies, etc.).
Flats/hectare of reference
surface
Refers to the intensity of use of a development type. The more flats can be
accommodated on one hectare of building land, the more economical in land use
and compact it will turn out. However, in comparing this parameter
among projects, the size of the flats and the share of surfaces destined for housing
in the overall useful floorspace must be considered as well. The number of flats can
also be placed in relation to the size of the plot of the project (flats/hectare of plot
suface).
Flats with private open
spaces (%)
Proportion of flats within the overall project that offer annexed open spaces in the
form of tenant/resident gardens, loggias, verandas, balconies or terraces.
Floor area ratio
(German acronym GFD)
Ratio of how many storeys would have been built on a given plot if all floorspace
were evenly distributed across the entire plot. To ensure comparability with earlier
studies and meaningfulness within the overall urban-structural context, the present
publication makes use of the entire reference surface (= gross development sur-
15
face). Since the standard reference value commonly used is the net plot surface,
this variable is determined as well.
Gross floor area ratio (gross GFD) = gross floorspace/reference surface
Net floor area ratio (net GFD) = gross floorspace/net plot surface
G
Garden wing
Volume shielded from the street by other volumes and hence not directly accessed
via a street.
Green belt
Continuous system of green and open spaces encircling a settlement area or city in
the style of a belt. Normally, green belts are specially protected and legally safeguarded by means of corresponding land use plans.
Gross floorspace (sq m)
The gross floorspace (German acronym BGF) is the total floorspace of all aboveground storeys. It is calculated on the basis of the overall dimensions of buildings
and hence includes walls and internal circulation routes. There are three BGF
categories; their ratio is given in percent:
Housing: flats with proportional share of annexed facilities and circulation/access
areas
Work: enterprises including studios, surgeries, etc. with proportional share of
facilities and circulation/access areas
Services: social infrastructure facilities, such as kindergartens, schools, social
service offices, etc.
H
Head volume
Independent volume at the end of a row or attached development if its layouts
differ from that of the row and if it features a separate access system.
Heat requirement
The heat requirement (German acronym HWB) is the calculated amount of energy
to be input into a building during the heating period to maintain the desired room
temperature.
Housing tenure
Flats may be rented or owner-occupied.
I
Inner urban expansion
Measures taken to mobilise/create development potentials in built-up, condensed
urban zones, mostly as a result of the conversion of former industrial sites, barracks,
railway stations, etc. Smaller lots, gaps between buildings and poorly used areas are
also drawn upon for inner-city densification.
J
K
Karree (court, rectangle)
Closed, rectangular or trapezoidal arrangement of buildings enclosing a shared
(often greened) courtyard.
L
Landing access
Building type for multi-storey volumes where one to three flats (though there may
be more) are accessed from the staircase of one storey.
Line of sight
Zone kept clear of buildings of any kind to allow for vistas and daylight incidence.
Live/work units
Dwellings conceived to allow for a combination of living and working in one place.
The work function is often located at ground-floor level while the residential unit can
be found directly above. These units are to take account of the space requirements
of micro enterprises while improving the mixed-use situation and variety in a
quarter.
Lot coverage ratio
The lot coverage ratio is the portion of the net plot surface covered with buildings
(percent).
Lot coverage ratio (%) = built-up area/plot surface x 100.
Allows for assessing the degree to which a property was built up.
Low-energy house, low-energy New and rehabilitated older buildings that attain legally defined energy engineering
house standard
requirements and energy standards.
M
Maisonette
16
A maisonette (split-level flat) extends over more levels than one, connected by an
internal flight of stairs. This design can be used to create flats facing in two directions despite central corridor access and also allows for providing more units with direct building access and a garden or roof terrace.
Mean number of storeys
Mean number of storeys = gross floorspace/built-up surface.
Mixed timber-solid masonry
construction
Construction method that applies two construction techniques jointly in one
building. Solid masonry is used e.g. for the underground garage and ground-floor
level, while timber construction is employed for all other storeys.
N
Net plot surface (hectares)
The net plot (or development) surface is equal to the areas designated for
construction purposes, the open areas forming part of the property and the internal
access and circulation routes. It results from the > reference surface after
subtracting circulation areas, open and distance spaces as well as the half road
widths added to the reference surface.
Number of dwellings
Sum total of all flats (dwellings) of a given housing project.
Number of slots
Number of all car parking slots available aboveground or belowground to residents
and enterprises of a project/object.
Number of storeys
Number of aboveground storeys. In case of buildings of uneven height, the lowest
and highest number of storeys is given. Fully developed rooftop storeys are
assigned the letter “D” (for German “Dach” = roof), while recessed top storeys
(terrace storeys) are assigned a “T”. Individual objects differing from this
categorisation and forming part of a larger, uniformly structured development were
disregarded (e.g. one-storey daycare centres, additions, etc.).
O
Open space (sq m)
This category states open areas within a property or plot (public streets and parking
lots outside the property or plot surface are excluded). Open spaces may be green
spaces, footpaths, cycling tracks and other paved surfaces.
According to accessibility, they are classified as:
Public: everybody may enter and use these spaces.
Partially public (semi-public): these spaces are entirely or primarily reserved for the
residents of a development.
Private: rented or owner-occupied open spaces, e.g. tenant or owner-occupied
gardens, open spaces of kindergartens or children’s groups.
Children’s playgrounds open to all residents of a housing development are specially
marked as such.
P
Passive house, passive house
standard
Building whose room temperatures are attained by means of adequate heat
insulation and largely “passive” resources, such as sunlight incidence, heat emitted
by persons and waste heat of technical appliances.
Patio
Interior courtyard of a townhouse.
Perforation
In case of very long buildings, this is a transverse interruption in the volume (not
ches extending over several storeys), usually a structure-creating device.
Perimeter development
Cf. urban block
Permeability, permeable
The permeability of a development refers to the possibilities it affords pedestrians
and cyclists to cross the property as well as to the cross-vistas generated. Since
pedestrians are highly sensitive to distances, the permeability of developments is
an important contribution towards pedestrian-friendliness.
Protection zone “Wald- und
Wiesengürtel”
The “Forest and Meadow Belt” of Vienna was stipulated under law to preserve and
create green zones in order to protect the health of the urban population and ensure
opportunities for open-air recreation. These areas may be used for agriculture or
forestry.
Public space
Urban space that is freely accessible for everybody and built, managed and
maintained by the municipal authorities. In addition to public traffic areas for
pedestrians, cyclists and motorised vehicles, this category also includes parks and
squares.
17
Q
Quarter, city quarter
City quarters (residential quarters) are defined as moderately sized social reference
systems often composed of only a few streets and felt to be a “homogeneous” part
of the city that is delimited from other city quarters both spatially/geographically
and on the basis of the social or ethnic composition of its population (no official
boundaries).
R
Reference surface
The reference surface (= gross development surface) is the total surface of the
investigated area to which the parameters given refer. In case of larger projects, it
also comprises internal access zones, public open spaces, distance spaces and half
of the adjoining street width (where required to provide access to the project).
Residential street
Cf. traffic-calming
Row
Multi-storey building type whose layout is composed of rectangular attached units,
resulting in an oblong shape.
S
Semi-public space
This publication uses the term to denote open spaces that are part of housing
projects and primarily designated for use by residents of the project in question.
Service infrastructure costs
Service infrastructure costs are construction and maintenance costs of road and
utility networks (electricity, gas, water, sewers, ...). Usually, these are largely borne
by the public authorities. Keeping these costs per dwelling as low as possible is a
key objective of economically sustainable development.
Service infrastructure costs
per dwelling
The present publication defines this term as the costs arising per dwelling for the
construction of the local access street including supply utilities. The costs were
estimated on the basis of the road type required (width, appointments), the
necessary circulation route length and standard costs per running metre of supply
lines. Finally, the projects were divided into three categories (< €/D 3,000: low; €/D
3,000-10,000: medium; €/D > 10,000: high).
Shading
Keeping sunlight incidence from buildings or open spaces. This may have positive
effects by avoiding unwanted effects like dazzle, reflections, overheating of
buildings, or negative ones, e.g. excessive shading of open spaces or neighbouring
buildings.
Shops for everyday necessaries Supply of everyday necessaries, mainly foodstuffs but also personal services;
centrally located and within walking distance. Accessibility within walking distance is
defined as approx. 400-800 m at most (12-15 minutes). Experience shows that a
supermarket needs the purchasing power of at least 3,000 local residents to
flourish; a range of shops for extended supply (drugstore chain outlet, tobacconist’s,
bank, florist, cafés and restaurants) only makes economic sense starting at 5,000
residents.
Single-flat landing
Cf. landing access
Social infrastructure
Portmanteau term for a variety of municipal facilities, such as educational
establshments (schools, daycare centres, …), services (assistance, craftspeople, …),
healthcare (physicians, pharmacies, hospitals, ...), cultural and religious institutions
(libraries, event venues, …).
Solid timber construction
Timber construction technique that makes overall use of solid elements for walls,
roof and ceiling.
Standalone volume
A standalone building is not attached to any other volumes.
Stiege (staircase)
Specifically Austrian term that defines all flats accessed via one staircase; also part
of a complete address in housing developments with several wings (and hence,
staircases).
Street courtyard
Courtyard extending along an access road.
T
Temporary utilisation
Temporary utilisation of a building, area or plot.
Traffic calming
Streets or zones where motorised individual traffic is strongly regulated or decelerated to favour pedestrian traffic. Includes residential streets, pedestrian zones and 30
km/h zones.
Two-flat landing
Cf. landing access
Types of parking space
One can distinguish between slots outside a building (open-air), in underground
18
garages (UG) and multi-storey car parks (German acronym HG).
U
Urban block
Urban blocks (city blocks, apartment blocks) are typical inner-city structures
composed of multi-storey, continuous, closed volumes (cf. perimeter development).
Urban wilderness
Green zone, usually of smaller dimensions or part of a larger green area and without
visible measures taken to cultivate/care for its vegetation (spontaneous/overgrown
vegetation).
Urbanistic master plan
Integrated overall plan embodying an urbanistic vision to provide qualitative and
quantitative pointers for the urban development of larger or multiple areas. It lays
down a roadmap for further planning and implementation steps and targets
authorities, owners, future users, investors as well as all actors affected by the
planning and implementation process.
Useful living area (sq m)
Sum total of all flat surfaces of the project in question. Open spaces like balconies,
terraces, etc. were not included; neither were general circulation and access zones,
such as staircases, corridors and communal areas inside a building (e.g. storerooms
for prams and bikes, waste container rooms, building utility rooms).
V
W
Walking distance
Distance covered by pedestrians. This distance is not always the same and increases with the attractiveness of the destination (big park, underground station, major
public facility). Approx. 300 m can be covered in 5 minutes; approx. 800 m, in 15
minutes. Only a small part of the population is willing to walk more than 500 m for
everyday chores; thus short and attractive walking distances are of the utmost importance for creating a pedestrian-friendly environment.
Wing depth (m)
Depth of a volume between the two façade surfaces on each side. Wing depth
strongly influences development intensity as well as built floorspace quality. Thus
useful floorspace increases markedly with wing depth; at the same time, however,
this means that the number of windowless and hence badly lit rooms augments as
well.
X
Y
Z
Zoning
Distribution of functions and (partly) design types in space; defined by an urban
development plan.
19
20
21
GFD up to 1.0
1
1.0-2.0
2.0-2.5
Tamarisken-
Traviata-
Borneo2
gasse
gasse
over 3.5
Kabelwerk
Borneo1
Nove Rusovce
2a
2b
3a
3b
2.5-3.5
Drotarska ul.
Karree St. Marx C
De Bongerd
Werdwies
Ruggächern
Mühlweg
An den alten
Pekna Cesta
Schanzen
Monte Laa A
Baldiagasse
Katharinen
-gasse
Erzherzog-KarlStadt B
London
Satzingerweg C
4
Oberlaa
Leberberg
Südliche
Mühlweg
Rozadol
Langobardenstraße
Satzingerweg B
Erzherzog-KarlStadt A
West Point
Museum Platz
Monte Laa C
Bike City
Buchengasse
5
Malmö
6
7
9a
9b
Galvaniho ul.
Oberlaa Kurt-
In der Wiesen
Autofreie
Koloseo
Tichy-Gasse
Karlova Ves
Mustersiedlung
Freiburg
Martinengova ul.
8
Octopus
Vinex Siedlung
Frauen-Werk-Stadt
Zürich Klee
Eurovea
Vajnorska ul.
Lind
Satzingerweg A
Kabelwerk
Monte Laa B
Karloveska zátoka
Kagran West
Olympic Village
Alley 24
Silodam
Wienerberg
Tatra City
888 Beach
Avenue
black = Vienna
22
Perfektastraße
green = Bratislava
blue = Europe
red = USA, Canada
1/
HIGH-DENSITY LOW-RISE DEVELOPMENTS, ATRIUM HOUSES
Description:
Inward-facing houses with internal courtyards
(patios) and closed design
1-4 storeys
Plot coverage
35-75%
Distance b. buildings
minimum footpath width
Wing depth
4-18 m
Floorspace density
0.7-2.1
Flats/hectare
45-190
This is a very introverted housing type; rooms mostly receive
light and ventilation from one side only.
This type allows for the construction of floorspace densities of up
to 1.5 with 1- to 2-storey developments. In case of multi-storey
buildings (example from Amsterdam), densities of up to 2.3 are
possible. Visually condensed impact due to private gardens shut
oﬀ from the surroundings.
Since every flat has its own private open space that is invisible
from outside, there is little need for additional, public open
spaces. Thus outdoor spaces are not designed for communication
or leisure activities but mostly serve as access zones.
Due to the internal circulation network, the houses are easy to
access on foot or by bike. Access by car is possible but limited.
Although very popular in Austria, this building typology is only viable for implementation in the urban periphery (due to high land
prices).
Access type:
Preferred orientation:
Ground-floor level suitable
for non-residential use:
Suitability for flat variety:
Suitability for priv. open spaces:
Privacy (invisible f. outside):
direct access from outside
individual houses face south
no
low
high
high
Lot size (individual houses):
Lot width:
200-300 sq m
> 12 m
Public open spaces:
Open space quality:
none
low
Parking spaces:
multi-car parking lot or garage
23
01/
Wohnanlage Tamariskengasse (1220 Wien, Tamariskengasse 102)
In brief
Multi-element housing project with 231 flats in one-storey atrium buildings, two-storey
terraced houses and three-storey residential blocks that shield the development along
its northern and western edges. The private atmosphere of the open areas is strongly
emphasised by walls. The open spaces enclosed by the built volumes are public, carfree and highly differentiated in design.
Situation within the city
The complex is situated in the north-eastern urban expansion zone of Vienna (22nd municipal district). An Underground station is situated in front of the development, while
tram and bus stops are located at a distance of 100-400 m. Cars access the complex via
two culs-de-sac at its western periphery (no through traffic). A school, kindergarten and
shops for daily necessaries can be found nearby.
Location assets
Easily reached by public transport due to extension of Vienna Underground line.
The residential complex Tamariskengasse is an example of how excellent housing quality can be attained with highly condensed low-rise buildings. Cars may only be parked in
an underground garage; the adjoining section of Tamariskengasse between the garage
entrances is likewise car-free (part of Tamariskengasse is a residential street). However,
the narrow lanes permit only limited use.
This estate type exclusively serves housing purposes. Most flats face south. Threestorey structures along the western and northern periphery shield the complex against
noise and wind from outside. The interior zone is tranquil and surrounded by buildings
staggered in height. Flexibility of use was not aimed for.
Two large squares linked by a common form the spatial centre of the housing development Tamariskengasse. All flats have their own private open spaces designed as southfacing, secluded terraces, loggias and, in case of atrium or terraced houses, walled
garden courtyards. Freed of the constraints of traffic logistics and road layouts, public
space emerges as a differentiated tissue of narrow lanes, ample squares and green
zones boasting trees and water basins. Young people find room to move both in these
open spaces and in the residential street (Tamariskengasse).
The differentiated range of open spaces fosters a sense of neighbourship. The range of
communal facilities is limited to those stipulated under building law (rooms for parking
prams and bikes, general-purpose storage room).
The entire complex is car-free and generates open spaces that are interesting for pedestrians. Since this project is a purely residential one, its appeal for non-inhabitants is limited.
24
01/
Wohnanlage Tamariskengasse (1220 Wien, Tamariskengasse 102)
Reference surface, hectares
Net plot surface, hectares
3.87
3.57
Built-up surface, hectares
Lot coverage ratio, %
1.50
42
Wing depth, m
Access type
Façade distance
Number of storeys
Gross floorspace, sq m
Of which housing, %
Of which work, %
Of which services, %
Floor area ratio, gross
Floor area ratio, net
Total useful living area, sq m
Number of dwellings
Flat sizes, sq m
Average flat size
Flats/hectare of plot surface
Flats/hectare of reference surface
Flats with open space
Of which with private garden, %
Of which with balcony, loggia, %
Of which with terrace, %
Housing tenure
Non residential use, sq m
Total open spaces, sq m
Of which public, %
Of which semi-public, %
Of which private, %
Of which children’s playgrounds, %
Circulation areas, sq m
Aboveground parking, sq m
Number of slots
Type of parking
Service infrastructure costs/dwelling
Year of completion
Planner
Developer
6-12
direct, SP, LG
narrow
1-3
1.7
26,000
100
0
0
0.67
0.73
19,000
231
60-120
82
65
60
229
73
14
13
0
20,700
0
11,150
9,300
250
336
0
231
TG
low
1993
Rainer
GESIBA
25
02/
Wohnhausanlage Traviatagasse (1230 Wien, Traviatagasse 21-29 / Pfarrgasse 67-73)
In brief
The housing development Traviatagasse is a purely residential complex with some
buildings designed to create a sense of community. The settlement is composed of oneto four-storey single-family and terraced houses with highly urban character, high density and staggered heights that decrease towards the centre of the project. Two rows of
buildings to the west and north shield the other volumes, thereby generating a spatially
closed ensemble slightly reminiscent of a fort or castle. Three rows of four-storey terraced houses are situated to the east; open to the south, the project interior accommodates a diagonally rotated square block of three-and-a-half-storey courtyard houses
(“castrum”).
The settlement is part of a residential area at the southern periphery of Vienna and adjoins an industrial zone in the village of Inzersdorf. Bus stops are situated adjacent to
the project, which is also connected to the road network on three sides. The distance
from the village core of Inzersdorf with all its facilities (social infrastructure, shops) is
approx. 600 m.
Location assets
To the east, the project is bordered by a protected green zone (green belt “Wald und
Wiesengürtel”).
On the basis of an urbanistic master project, four construction stages providing different
solutions to the task of devising urban, condensed low-rise housing were implemented.
As a whole, the residential complex – in particular the “castrum” at its centre – presents
an extremely introverted character, indicating that maximum privacy was a key design
goal.
The 169 flats differ in type but mainly face the block interior. The different types include
one-storey atrium buildings, staggered two-storey maisonettes, four-storey terraced
houses, arcade-style volumes and three- to four-storey courtyard houses offering multiple-use spaces on the ground floor, first-floor bedrooms and a residential storey with access to a roof terrace above. Flexibility of use was not intended.
The open spaces allocated to the individual flats are mostly paved garden or roof terraces. Most publicly accessible open spaces, too, are paved; the share of green spaces
is overall low. The rhomboid contours of the open spaces do not favour communal use;
the open spaces are unsuitable as a meeting point or play area for young people (surface problem).
A sense of neighbourship is generated and fostered by the secluded open spaces inside
the complex and the communal facilities, since the development accommodates e.g. a
children’s house, a youth house and a sauna building.
This generously dimensioned residential development is reserved for pedestrians only
but projects a closed and introverted visual impression.
26
02/
Wohnhausanlage Traviatagasse (1230 Wien, Traviatagasse 21-29 / Pfarrgasse 67-73)
4.10
3.50
1.24
35
Wing depth, m
Access type
Façade distance
Number of storeys
10/18
RH
narrow
1-4
2.9
Of which housing, %
Of which work, %
36.300
97
0
3
Number of dwellings
Flat sizes, sq m
Average flat size
0,89
1,04
20,400
169
121
47
40
169
55
0
45
Housing tenure
600
Of which public, %
Of which private, %
22,600
0
72
28
0
Number of slots
Type of parking
130
0
TG
medium
Year of completion
Planners
Developer
1991
Abraham,Pruscha,Buck,Giencke
Lautner, Scheifinger, Szedenik
GSG
27
03/
Siedlung am Park / Kabelwerk, Bauplatz C (1120 Wien, Thorvaldsengasse 36-44)
In brief
The project Siedlung am Park is part of the new residential quarter Kabelwerk in a
southern part of Vienna. The multi-coloured single-family dwellings with up to three
storeys are densely packed. To yet ensure privacy, the angled structures are introverted, face south and boast small gardens or terraces.
This former industrial site – hence the name ”Cable Works” – is situated in a densely
built-up southern part of Vienna (12th municipal district) and connected to the road network by public streets encircling the entire complex, while the Vienna Underground is
only 100 m away. The project includes a range of supply options for everyday necessaries and social infrastructure: the ground-floor zones of the quarter offers space for
shops, offices, communal facilities, children’s playrooms, cafés and restaurants. A children’s daycare centre is likewise part of the development.
Location assets
Part of the large-scale project Kabelwerk with direct connection to the Underground network. A new park adjoins the project to the east.
An urbanistic competition allowed future residents to codetermine the final outlook. This
settlement type must not be viewed on its own but in context with the entire
Kabelwerk project and its infrastructure.
“Siedlung am Park” offers many different types of dwellings: atrium buildings, single
units stacked atop multi-flat structures, maisonettes, traditional one-level apartments.
There are a total of 67 units, all of which face the private gardens to the south. This results in high living quality and individuality of the complex despite massive densification, yet precludes contact with public space. For its inhabitants, Siedlung am Park is an
alternative to run-of-the-mill single-family homes. The project did not strive for flexibility
of use.
Circulation is safeguarded by footpaths leading directly to the private gardens. Except
for these gardens, the project does not offer space for young people to spend time in;
however, such areas exist in the public zones of the Kabelwerk quarter as whole. The
buildings are directly accessed from an underground garage.
A sense of neighbourship is created by the single-family home character and the circulation routes inside the project. There are no communal facilities.
Siedlung am Park delimits the Kabelwerk quarter in its entirety vis-à-vis the older singlefamily homes to the south and the new park to the east. The structure of the open
spaces renders the overall project permeable for non-residents as well.
28
03/
Siedlung am Park / Kabelwerk, Bauplatz C (1120 Wien, Thorvaldsengasse 36-44)
0.37
0.26
0.17
64
Wing depth, m
Access type
Façade distance
Number of storeys
Of which housing, %
Of which work, %
Number of dwellings
Flat sizes, sq m
Average flat size
4-7
direct
narrow
2-3
2.2
3,674
100
0
0
0.99
1.41
3,123
26
101-130
120
100
70
26
100
0
85
(many flats with own gardens and terraces)
Housing tenure
Of which public, %
Of which private, %
Number of slots
Type of parking
Year of completion
Planners
Developer
owner-occupied
0
950
56
0
44
0
0
0
26
TG
medium
2006
Schwalm-Theiss, Gressenbauer,
Bresich
Kabelwerk Bauträger GmbH
29
04/
Borneo Eiland 1 (Amsterdam, Feike de Boerlaan)
In brief
Borneo Eiland 1 is a quarter in the former docklands that reinterprets the traditional
Dutch urban row-house. While the plots are small, shared courtyards meet the social
objective of providing affordable housing for families with children close to the city centre, despite the high degree of densification.
The project is situated at 4 km from the city centre. The surrounding quarter is composed of 1,950 townhouses and three blocks with 150, 204 and 214 apartments, respectively, as well as 5,000 sq m for commercial uses partly integrated into the blocks.
The distance to the nearest bus stop is 300 m; to the tram, 600 m; and to shops in the
vicinity, likewise approx. 600 m. The quarter is surrounded by residential streets. Densification allows for the proximity of shops and infrastructure within walking distance.
Green areas and playgrounds are also situated close by. The project boasts shared
courtyards and an elementary school at only 600 m.
Location assets
By the water’s edge, uncluttered views, residential streets with playgrounds.
Urbanistic design embracing the two peninsulas Borneo and Sporenburg and stipulating
the same rules for all architects working on the different lots. The 30% social housing
share required under law was created elsewhere in this quarter.
The project is exclusively composed of maisonettes, with the flats facing either
north/south or one side only. A garage for residents is located below the courtyard. The
higher ground-floor premises provide flexibility of use.
The residential streets lead into spacious courtyards, from which several houses are accessed. The courtyards allow for group activities but also accommodate separate, individual “front gardens”. Each dwelling has a roof terrace or patio.
A sense of neighbourship is engendered by the shared courtyards, especially for persons in the creative industries, due to courtyard studios.
Borneo Eiland 1 represents an introverted design but also offers street-side, groundfloor flats with direct access to the sidewalk and street as a gesture towards a more vibrant and lively urban space.
30
04/
Borneo Eiland 1 (Amsterdam, Feike de Boerlaan)
0.56
0.35
0.25
71
Wing depth, m
Access type
Façade distance
Number of storeys
8/12/14
narrow
2-3
2.4
Of which housing, %
Of which work, %
6,100
100
0
0
1.09
1.74
Number of dwellings
Flat sizes, sq m
Average flat size
Housing tenure
73
191
120
67
9
0
91
0
Of which public, %
Of which private, %
Number of slots
Type of parking
Year of completion
Planner
Developers
4,880
67
2,020
0
35
65
0
0
0
36
TG
medium
2000
Marlies Rohmer
New Deal Amsterdam NL
31
05/
Borneo Island 2 (Amsterdam, Borneokade)
In brief
Borneo Eiland 2 reinterprets the traditional Dutch urban row-house, presenting two variations of the basic row-house type and five variations of the basic one-level apartment
type. The location quality in the former docklands with an uncluttered view of the water
is high, and despite massive densification and a small lot, it was possible to create largely individual housing options.
The quarter is situated 4 km from the city centre near Sporenburg and Borneo on
cleared areas formerly occupied by docks. The entire quarter is composed of 1,950
townhouses, three blocks with 150/204/214 apartments and 5,000 sq m of commercially used properties partly integrated into the blocks. Bus stops can be found at 300 m
and a tram stop, at approx. 550 m. There are no shops inside the quarter; the distances
from the social infrastructure facilities in the blocks, the elementary school or facilities
in the adjoining quarters in the western part of the peninsula are relatively long (approx.
1 km).
Location assets
By the water’s edge, uncluttered views, residential streets with playgrounds.
Urbanistic design embracing the two peninsulas Borneo and Sporenburg and stipulating
the same rules for all architects on different lots.
Corresponding to the situation of the pier, the flats mainly present a southern/northern
orientation. The introverted design allows for privacy despite high densification. No
mixed-use approach was implemented to preserve the character of a tranquil residential area. However, flexibility of use is safeguarded: the ground-floor rooms have a
ceiling height of 3.5 m, which allows for potential conversion of these spaces into service facilities or studios. The original concept of allowing for multiple use of the individual ground-floor garages to create a more vibrant and lively streetscape was taken up
only in a few cases.
Access from the residential streets leads via the garage to a patio and on to the house
entrances. There are no semi-public spaces in the quarter and no front gardens; the
buildings directly adjoin the residential street. Thus there are no specially designated
areas for young people to spend time in. Instead of a shared underground garage, the
car slots were integrated into the buildings, i.e. cars can be parked at ground-floor level
within the row-house lot.
Neighbourhood appeal is generated to a limited degree; along the northern edge, every
five flats share one common access zone at ground-floor level. All flat entrances are on
the ground-floor. There are no communal facilities.
The residential streets with ground-floor shared entrances create an attractive streetscape for the quarter.
32
05/
Borneo Island 2 (Amsterdam, Borneokade)
0.97
0.64
0.49
77
Wing depth, m
Access type
Façade distance
Number of storeys
8.4 resp. 40
narrow
2-4
2.7
Of which housing, %
Of which work, %
13,400
100
0
0
1.38
2.09
Number of dwellings
Flat sizes, sq m
Average flat size
Housing tenure
10,720
126
60-100
85
197
130
126
0
14
86
owner-occupied/rented
0
Of which public, %
Of which private, %
3,220
0
22
78
0
280
260
partly integrated into building (ground-floor)
Number of slots
36
Type of parking
aboveground
medium
Year of completion
Planner
Developer
2000
Rudy Uytenhaak
New Deal Amsterdam NL
33
34
2a/
INDIVIDUAL HOUSES, SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES
Description:
Individual houses on plots of approx.
500 sq m
Freestanding or semi-detached
1-3 storeys
Plot coverage
17%
Distance b. buildings
6 m lateral
Floorspace density
approx. 0.2
Flats/hectare
16-30
According to surveys, single-family homes are widely regarded as
the ideal housing type. However, freestanding single-family
homes are the building type with the highest land consumption.
Hence their viability in urban areas is limited and hard to defend.
Due to low development density, the public cost of creating access routes and supply and disposal infrastructure is above average. High share of individual motorised traffic; long distances to
infrastructure facilities.
Access type:
direct access from outside
n.a.
no
low
high
low (except with private
fences)
Lot size (individual houses):
Lot width:
Lot depth:
300-600 sq m
15-20 m
20-30 m
Public open spaces:
Open space quality:
none
low
Parking spaces:
owners park cars on their own
lots
35
06/
Nové Rusovce (Bratislava – Rusovce, Pri gaštanovej aleji)
In brief
The housing development Nové Rusovce is composed of about 50 two- and three-storey
single-family and duplex houses individually designed by numerous architects.
The project is situated at the southern periphery of Bratislava in the suburb of Rusovce.
While the distance from the city centre is 13 km, it can be reached in only 20 minutes
by car or bus. Public transport connections are good, since bus stops can be found at
200-600 m, and a train station, at approx. 500 m. Social infrastructure and a good selection of shops can only be reached by bike or car (at 1.5 km in Rusovce proper).
Location assets
The project itself and the borough of Rusovce combine the advantages of living in the
countryside with quickly accessible cultural and community facilities typical of the city.
Being close to water bodies (lakes, Danube canals) and the Danube cycling track, the
area is a popular and attractive leisure magnet.
The location is so attractive (e.g. good traffic and transport connections, recreation
areas, green zones) that the property proved easy to sell. The objective lay in making
maximum use of the plot. The project type presents ambitious challenges regarding
both technical and transport infrastructure.
Nové Rusovce is a purely residential complex. Every unit faces all directions. The architectural type chosen corresponds to that of a single-family house offering maximum privacy and intimacy. Due to this design, interior spaces can be optimised in harmony with
the exteriors (e.g. gardens face south, garages face north).
Apart from the private gardens, there are no semi-public or public open spaces, only access and exit routes. Car parking slots are situated individually on each property.
Due to the single-family home character of the project, a sense of neighbourship can
evolve solely through direct contact with the inhabitants of adjoining properties. There
are no communal facilities.
As a result of its low height, the development is visually discreet but functionally and
structurally rather monotonous and lacks intermediate stages between public and private spaces, which hampers the emergence of both a feeling of neighbourship and
urban appeal.
36
06/
Nové Rusovce (Bratislava – Rusovce, Pri gaštanovej aleji)
4.27
3.65
0.62
17
Wing depth, m
Access type
Façade distance
Number of storeys
Of which housing, %
Of which work, %
Number of dwellings
Flat sizes, sq m
Average flat size
Housing tenure
Of which public, %
Of which private, %
direct
medium
1-3
1.9
8,212
100
0
0
0.19
0.22
8,212
54
152
14.8
12.6
54
100
owner-occupied
0
36,500
0
17
83
0
6,153
0
Number of slots
107
Type of parking
open-air slots, indiv. garages on
the plots
high
Year of completion
2000-2003
37
38
2b/
INDIVIDUAL HOUSES, “TOWN VILLAS”
Description:
Freestanding individual buildings
facing in all directions;
number of (residential) units served by one
vertical access core is maximised
3-8 storeys
Plot coveragee
22-26 %
Mean distance b. buildings
13-18 m
Wing depth
10-30 m
Number of storeys
3
3+T 4
5
8
Floorspace density
1,1
1,3
1,8
2,2
Flats/hectare
90
110 120 150 165
1,4
There are various embodiments of the freestanding individual
house as building type: from minimal building density exemplified
by freestanding, 1- to 3-storey single-family homes to 3- to 5storey town villas as shown above and high-rise clusters with
high floorspace density.
In contrast to typical urban blocks, this design has no “inside”,
“outside” or main orientation, which calls for sensitive handling of
the transition zones.
Pros: adaptability to different plot layouts; avoidance of largescale architecture; possibility of design variety if projects are entrusted to several architects and/or developers.
Possible cons: if the distance between buildings is small, this impacts privacy; some flats only face north; protection against
street noise is poor.
Access type:
landing access
n.a.
yes
high
yes
low
Lot size:
Lot width:
Lot depth:
1.6-3.3 hectares
150 m
100 m
Public open spaces:
Open space quality:
distance spaces
low
Parking spaces:
underground garage
(per house or shared)
39
07/
Drotárska ul. (Bratislava, Drotárska ul.)
In brief
The urban villas in Drotárska Street with a view of Bratislava were built in the late 20th
century. This group of nine five-storey residential buildings is arranged in a circle
around the access road.
The complex is situated on the slope of Machnáč Hill slightly outside the old city centre
of Bratislava and difficult to reach by public transport. In this area, easy mobility definitely requires car use.
The complex and its direct surroundings feature some basic infrastructure (crèche,
kindergarten, elementary school, grocery stores).
Location assets
Close to city centre and Horský Park (gardens), hillside position with pretty city view. A
multifunctional building complex will soon be erected in the immediate vicinity.
Genesis and prerequisites of success
The shape of the ensemble with its point blocks arranged in a circle makes good use of
attractive features of the natural environment and acts as a prerequisite for the further
spatial and functional enlargement of the complex.
Big balconies on every floor and the unconventional, arched top-storey roofing are special architectural characteristics. The flats face east/west. Communal facilities are minimal; the complex itself does not offer shops or other social infrastructure amenities.
The buildings boast large balconies on every floor and loggias for the top-storey units.
Circulation within the complex is provided by a wide ring-road. Meadows between the
point blocks are partly defined as children’s playgrounds. Due to the ample space available, the possibilities of use are varied. Cars are parked either in underground garages,
along the ring-shaped access road or on parking lots.
Overall, the point blocks arranged around the central circular ring-road create a pleasant housing environment that fosters a sense of neighbourship. Communal facilities fulfil only minimal standards, which falls short of the high quality of the flats themselves.
Neighbourship appeal can emerge due to varied spatial qualities.
Despite its mono-functionality, the complex enters into synergy with the environs and
hence offers high living quality in a beautiful location surrounded by greenery. The physical (by car, on foot) and visual permeability of the settlement enhances urban space.
40
07/
Drotárska ul. (Bratislava, Drotárska ul.)
1.87
1.61
0.41
22
Wing depth, m
Access type
Façade distance
Number of storeys
direct, staircase
medium
5
5.0
Of which housing, %
Of which work, %
19,790
100
0
0
1.06
1.23
Total useful living area, sq m 19,790
Number of dwellings
Flat sizes, sq m
Average flat size
135
146
83.6
72.2
Housing tenure
owner-occupied
0
Of which public, %
Of which private, %
14,614
100
0
0
1.5
2,990
454
medium
Year of completion
1999
41
08/
De Bongerd (Amsterdam Noord, Moestuinlaan)
In brief
De Bongerd is a residential quarter with small-scale buildings that is similar to a garden
colony and presents six different point block types. The residential streets are quiet due
to traffic calming; the individual structures are small-scale and low-rise (maximum four
storeys). Narrow open spaces extend between the buildings.
The estate is situated at approx. 9 km from the city centre in a quarter on Zijkanaal I
with its narrow green corridors along the water’s edge. A bus stop is located at a distance of 300 m. Social infrastructure and shops for daily necessaries will be provided in
future, not yet constructed phases of the overall project.
Location assets
Location on the water’s edge, close to green spaces (north of the canal, to be reached
via a new bike tunnel currently underway). Further green spaces along the canal are
planned.
The settlement is the first phase of a “21st-century garden city” (as defined by its planners). So far, 150 housing units have been built; the overall concept provides for a total
of 1,300 to 1,400 rented and owner-occupied flats. A good social mix is essential – 30%
of the flats are state-subsidised; additional facilities for seniors are envisaged.
Depending on the building type, the flats face in different directions. Density is relatively high, with two to eight units per house. All structures are small-scale. Due to the
designs chosen (single-family, duplex and multi-family dwellings), flexibility of use is
practically nonexistent.
The combination of low-rise buildings with high density allows for only minimal individual open spaces. Some distance spaces between buildings are extremely tight. Due to
ground-floor parking slots, cars are very visible. There is a small playground for use by
residents, yet no areas designated for teens. However, the open spaces along the canal
are generously designed.
A sense of neighbourship emerges by necessity due to high densification (glimpses inside neighbouring flats due to minimal clearance between houses) but is limited to
next-door neighbours. The only communal facilities are a very small children’s playground (for kids aged up to 6 years) and a small square. The canal offers infrastructure
for houseboats.
Traffic calming in the residential streets ensures good quality of urban space.
42
08/
De Bongerd (Amsterdam Noord, Moestuinlaan)
2.52
2.00
0.72
36
Wing depth, m
Access type
10.5-14.5
DH, SP
medium
3-4
3.1
Façade distance
Number of storeys
Of which housing, %
Of which work, %
22,000
100
0
0
0.87
1.10
Number of dwellings
Flat sizes, sq m
Average flat size
Housing tenure
17,000
151
(40 houses)
72-144
113
76
60
151
84
0
16
owner-occupied/rented
0
Of which public, %
Of which private, %
8,650
0
15
83
2
2,800
1,100
high
Number of slots
174
Type of parking
individual+open-air slots
Year of completion
Planner
Developer
2000
Rudy Uytenhaak
City of Amsterdam, ODP
43
09/
Siedlung Ruggächern (Zürich, Affoltern)
In brief
The densely built-up estate Ruggächern is composed of point blocks and rows of houses
along a train line. The individual structures with their red brick façades present a homogeneous look and feature high appointment standards. Flat types are varied and spacious, with attractive communal facilities. A good social mix is aimed for.
The development area Ruggächern in Zurich-Affoltern is situated at approx. 8 km from
the city centre. A bus stop and the commuter train station Zurich-Affoltern are located
directly south of the settlement. Social infrastructure and a good range of shops can be
reached on foot. A school complex adjoins the settlement.
Location assets
Public transport connections are excellent due to the commuter train station situated directly south of the complex.
The settlement Ruggächern creates an independent architectural gesture between the
densely built-up surrounding area and the open spaces in the environs. Despite their
high quality, rented flats are affordable.
The quarter was exclusively planned for residential purposes. A good social mix was
aimed for not only at settlement level but rather within individual houses as well. Flats
face two directions (corner position) or one direction only, while the buildings as such
face all four directions. There are no flats on the ground floor. Half of the 278 units are
spacious family flats with four big rooms and one small room. A total of 34 units are
available for seniors or singles. Individual rooms for rent are also on offer. One building
is especially geared towards the needs of seniors. Flexibility of use is partly provided by
communal facilities on the ground floor and by the individual rooms for rent.
Every flat has its own private open space (loggia). Open spaces are ample and car-free.
The settlement boasts two squares and several playgrounds. Cars can be parked along
the train line and in underground garages. The communal rooms are always connected
to the open spaces outside; areas were designated for young people to meet and play.
A sense of neighbourship can emerge both in the buildings (contact on the stairs) and
open spaces. Special facilities such as communal rooms with a kitchen, a health and
wellness zone, a library with Internet corner and guestrooms at the ground-floor level of
the perimeter buildings are available. This family-friendly settlement also features a
daycare nursery.
With its open perimeter zones and generously sized courtyards, the project is characterised by an appealing urban quality.
44
09/
Siedlung Ruggächern (Zürich, Affoltern)
3.78
3.38
0.80
24
Wing depth, m
Access type
Façade distance
Number of storeys
16.5
SP, LG
medium
4-7
5.9
Of which housing, %
Of which work, %
47,300
99
0
1
1.25
1.40
Number of dwellings
Flat sizes, sq m
Average flat size
27,850
278
40-122
100
82
74
278
0
100
0
Housing tenure
rented
1,000
Of which public, %
Of which private, %
19,100
0
90
0
10
5,570
420
medium
Number of slots
210+22
Type of parking
TG + open-air slots
Year of completion
Planners
Developer
2007
Baumschlager/Eberle
ABZ–Allg.Baugenoss.Zürich
45
10/
Wohnhäuser am Mühlweg (1210 Wien, Mühlweg 74-78 / Fritz-Kandl-Gasse 1-11)
In brief
The estate takes the form of a multi-storey residential project designed as solid-timber
or mixed timber-solid masonry “town villas” with small-scale, car-free open spaces. The
choice of materials aims for moderate energy consumption.
Situated at the northern periphery of Vienna in the 21st municipal district with a commuter train station (Strebersdorf) at 800 m, tram and bus stops at 500 m and the nearest hook-up to the A22 (Danube Riverbank motorway) at 1,000 m from the
development. Schools, kindergartens and shops for everyday necessaries can be found
in the village of Strebersdorf at only 500-1,000 m distance.
Location assets
The project is situated directly along a green belt (Marchfeld Canal) to the east and a
road with traffic calming (Mühlweg) to the west.
Outcome of developers’ competitions, embracing three lots, for multi-storey timber
structures designed as low-energy or passive houses.
Depending on their position within the respective building, the flats face one, two or
three directions. Due to small unit sizes and storey heights, flexibility of use is largely
absent.
The open spaces of the development are small-scale, manifold and may embrace the
whole range from public to private. However, the proportions of these open spaces differ intentionally from lot to lot. Smaller open spaces for communal use are available.
Circulation routes within the development (small number of flats per building entrance)
and manifold open spaces foster a sense of neighbourship. There are no specially designated areas for use by young people; except for one lot, all communal facilities only correspond to the minimum stipulated under law (rooms for parking prams and bikes,
general-purpose storage room).
No car traffic within the blocks; pedestrians can cross the project to reach the green corridor beyond.
46
10/
Wohnhäuser am Mühlweg (1210 Wien, Mühlweg 74-78 / Fritz-Kandl-Gasse 1-11)
2.57
2.14
0.75
35
Wing depth, m
Access type
12-22
LG, MG, central
Number of storeys
Façade distance
Of which housing, %
Of which work, %
3+T / 4+T
4.0
medium
30,000
100
0
0
1.17
1.40
Number of dwellings
Flat sizes, sq m
Average flat size
Housing tenure
22,526
252
60-130
89
118
98
252
22
68
10
rented/owner-occupied
0
Of which public, %
Of which private, %
Number of slots
Type of parking
14,150
0
68
22
10
0
0
low
252
TG
Year of completion
2006/07
Planners
H.Kaufmann, Riess, D.Untertrifaller
Developers
BWS, Arwag, BAI
47
11/
Karree St. Marx C (1030 Wien, Erne Seder Gasse 2-8 / Viehmarktgasse 1A-1B)
In brief
Six point blocks set among a park-type environment shielded from the road by an Lshaped perimeter structure. To the northwest, the project composed of residential units,
a kindergarten and shops adjoins an “urban wilderness”, which is continued by the architectural design chosen. Resting atop glazed or open ground-floor zones, the structures seem to float. The visual impression of an unbroken cityscape is preserved.
This project situated 4 km southeast of Vienna’s historic centre is part of a plan to develop the former slaughterhouse yards of St. Marx and hence should be classified as an
“inner-city urban expansion” venture. Distances to tram and bus stops are 100-200 m;
to the nearest Underground station, 600 m. Car access is provided via roads on two
sides of the property. The social infrastructure and range of shops to be found on a
major road west of the development and around the Underground station correspond to
the city location.
Location assets
Location close to historic centre, topographically slightly raised vis-à-vis the adjoining
northwestern lot, an “urban wilderness” that serves for leisure and recreation.
Karree St. Marx C was implemented together with three separate teams of architects on
the basis of an urbanistic master project (developers’ competition). The effect of heavily
trafficked Schlachthausgasse west of the project is still palpable, but it is planned to
shield the residential section by means of a block containing offices and shops.
The flats face the surrounding green zones on all sides. All units have spacious balconies; many flats occupy corner positions. The ground floor of the L-shaped perimeter
structure accommodates a large unit designed for a flat-sharing community. The development boasts a kindergarten and three shops. The central access zone is well-lit. Flexibility of use of the ground-floor zones is ensured by generous room heights and building
depth.
The entire project is characterised by a pleasant balance of built volumes and open
spaces. Private open spaces such as balconies are provided. The settlement is permeated by greenery, is accessible for pedestrians from outside and offers generous spaces
for appropriation by young people.
A sense of neighbourship is likely to develop due to the generously sized communal facilities (children’s playrooms) and open spaces of the project. All ground-floor zones of
the point blocks are dedicated to communal facilities.
The entire project is publicly accessible for pedestrians and directly adjoins a nature
park-style “urban wilderness”.
48
11/
Karree St. Marx C (1030 Wien, Erne Seder Gasse 2-8 / Viehmarktgasse 1A-1B)
2.94
2.67
0.76
28
Wing depth, m
Access type
Façade distance
Number of storeys
15/28-30
SP/central
wide
6-9
7.2
Of which housing, %
Of which work, %
55,000
96
2
2
1.87
2.06
Number of dwellings
Flat sizes, sq m
Average flat size
35,355
406
41-112
87
152
138
406
0
95
5
Housing tenure
rented
1,110
Of which public, %
Of which private, %
19,072
0
92
3
5
Number of slots
Type of parking
Year of completion
Planners
Developers
0
0
low
430
TG
2010
Prohazka, Querkraft
Geiswinkler&Geiswinkler
ÖSW, Bauhilfe, Sozialbau
49
12/
Wohnsiedlung Werdwies (Zürich, Grünauring / Bändlistraße)
In brief
The residential development Werdwies is a settlement composed of four free-standing,
eight-storey point blocks and three buildings with air wells and was constructed following the demolition of a 1950s settlement. Integrated infrastructure facilities and public
housing subsidies for the flats safeguard high quality of use.
The suburb of Grünau is situated close to 6 km from Zurich Main Station near Limmat
River. The housing development Werdwies is easily reached by public transport (only 20
m to tram and bus stops and 600 m to the nearest commuter train station). The condensed structure of this suburb allows for social infrastructure and a good range of
shops within walking distance.
Location assets
Excellent connection to public transport network; proximity to urban recreation zone
along Limmat River.
The housing development Werdwies – the outcome of an architectural competition
and the commitment of one housing developer – was to meet a high level of energy
efficiency close to passive house standards. The innovative implementation concept
also included identity-creating intermediate utilisation of the property (artistic interventions) between the demolition of the previous buildings and the construction of the
new project.
Many of the 152 flats occupy a corner position and hence boast views of the city from
two directions. The building arrangement safeguards particularly favourable lighting
and minimal shading. The ground-floor zone integrates a bistro, supermarket, kindergarten and crèche as well as small service providers and studios, thus ensuring high
flexibility of use.
All flats have loggias. Due to their position, the character of the settlement’s open
spaces is public, highly attractive and appealing. Children and young people find play
equipment scattered across the open spaces. Cars and bikes can be parked underground and on a one-storey covered parking lot.
Neighbourhood communication is facilitated by the building lobbies. The development
also features communal rooms and music rooms. Every floor of the point blocks boasts
a soundproofed music room.
Good spatial quality is ensured by the ground-floor zones, whose shops and service
providers are easily accessible on foot, as well as by the streetscape of the project.
50
12/
Wohnsiedlung Werdwies (Zürich, Grünauring / Bändlistraße)
2.04
1.69
0.49
29
Wing depth, m
Access type
Façade distance
Number of storeys
Of which housing, %
Of which work, %
Number of dwellings
Flat sizes, sq m
Average flat size
17-37
SP
wide
1-8
6.4
31,300
1.53
1.85
16,430
152
66-154
108
90
75
152
0
100
0
Housing tenure
rented
2,030
Of which public, %
Of which private, %
13,680
0
51
26
23
580
340
medium
Number of slots
Type of parking
TG + open-air slots
Year of completion
Planners
Developer
2007
Adrian Streich
City of Zurich
51
52
3a/
2- TO 4-STOREY LINEAR DEVELOPMENTS
Description:
Oblong, narrow volumes
set closely side by side;
ground-floor flats with gardens
2-4 storeys
Plot coverage
34-44%
Distance b. buildings 12 m
Wing depth
6-20 m
Number of storeys
1-2
2+T
3
3+T
Floorspace density
<1.0
1.3
1.4
1.8
Flats/hectare
<100 110
120
140
Linear ribbon-type developments with narrow volumes are both
well-suited for low row houses and multi-storey buildings. It is essential to provide for an appropriately situated open space
(“gap”).
Row houses offer a level of housing quality similar to single-family homes but are less land-consuming.
Narrow volumes allow for cross-ventilated flats.
Possible cons: if the distance between buildings is small, this impacts privacy; the access side and private (garden) side may be
identical.
Access type:
Suitability for priv. open
spaces:
direct (row houses), landing ac
cess or covered walkways (others)
south, west
no
yes
yes
low
Lot size:
Lot width:
Lot depth:
> 1 hectare
> 100 m
approx. 60 m for three rows
Public open spaces:
Open space quality:
situation-dependent
good
Parking spaces:
underground garage(s)
53
13/
An den alten Schanzen (1220 Wien, Soldanellenweg 4)
In brief
The two-row residential project adopting a terraced-housing style is composed of ten
identical three-storey blocks. The ground-floor flats have their own front gardens; those
on the floor above feature balconies, while the top-floor units boast terraces. The complex is part of a larger development, with which it shares a children’s playground and an
underground garage.
The project forms part of an urban expansion zone along the northeastern periphery of
Vienna and, surrounded by single-family homes, occupies a long and narrow plot typical
of the Marchfeld Plain. On one side, the complex is accessed by a public road that is
also used by a bus line. The village core of Aspern with social infrastructure (school) and
a variety of shops can be found at a distance of approx. 900 m.
Location assets
A public park with play areas for younger and older children is situated north of the project.
Exemplary low-rise, condensed settlement with ample green spaces at the urban periphery.
All 110 housing units face east/west and have their own open spaces (front gardens,
balconies, roof terraces). The ground-floor units resemble terraced single-family homes.
All units moreover disclose views of the surrounding greenery. Due to its terraced-house
character, the complex presents but little flexibility of use.
The open spaces extending between the rows and offering access to the individual
buildings are atmospheric and provide space for children to play and spend time in. The
two-row complex composed of ten identical blocks is centrally accessed via a footpath,
with intersecting lanes in-between connecting it to the road.
There are no communal facilities. The sense of neighbourship is fostered by the adjoining gardens. Young people find space to meet and play in the adjacent park.
While publicly accessible, the central footpath is predominantly used by inhabitants – an
effect of the purely residential character of the complex.
54
13/
An den alten Schanzen (1220 Wien, Soldanellenweg 4)
1.63
1.13
0.48
42
Wing depth, m
Access type
Façade distance
Number of storeys
14.5
SP
medium
2+T
2.6
Of which housing, %
Of which work, %
12,380
100
0
0
0.76
1.10
Number of dwellings
Flat sizes, sq m
Average flat size
Housing tenure
110
36
37
27
owner-occupied
0
Of which public, %
Of which private, %
Number of slots
Type of parking
Year of completion
Planners
Developer
9,000
110
60-100
82
98
68
6,480
0
51
49
0
0
0
low
110
TG
1994
Marschalek, Ladstätter
Wohnungseigentum
55
14/
Erzherzog-Karl-Stadt B (1220 Wien, Annie-Rosar-Weg 1-3)
In brief
The project is a row-type development with narrow volumes and composed of twostorey terraced houses with only minimal depth and small spaces between the blocks.
Both ground-floor and upper-storey units have their own gardens (at ground-floor level,
with direct access from the flats including those on the upper floor). Urban quality is
solely derived from the environment and the proximity of the settlement to the centre
of the city quarter.
This housing complex is part of Erzherzog-Karl-Stadt, a residential development in Vienna’s 22nd municipal district. The distance from the nearest bus stop is approx. 100 m;
that from the nearest tram stop, approx. 300 m. Social infrastructure (kindergartens, elementary schools) and shops for everyday necessaries can be found both in the quarter
itself and in the nearby village core of Aspern. Erzherzog-Karl-Stadt is a car-free zone for
pedestrians and covers a surface of roughly 10 hectares.
Location assets
Protected position shielded by row buildings that block the noise from the nearby street.
Part of a larger urban development area.
This settlement type shows how the housing quality offered by single-family homes can
be implemented even in a condensed terraced-house project.
Strictly residential project. The flats all face their individual gardens. The east/west
alignment ensures good housing quality. Flats are not designed as maisonettes but extend over one storey only. Flexibility of use was obviously not aimed for.
Apart from the necessary access paths, there are no open spaces for communal use.
However, the private gardens offer ample green zones. While the project itself does not
provide space for young people to play and meet, these exist in the close vicinity.
Neighbourship is fostered by the fact that all flats have their own garden, which stimulates communication. There are no communal facilities.
While the complex as such conveys an impression of mono-functionality, the fact that
cars are banned from the development ensures permeability for pedestrians, also from
outside.
56
14/
Erzherzog-Karl-Stadt B (1220 Wien, Annie-Rosar-Weg 1-3)
1.13
0.98
0.33
34
Wing depth, m
Access type
Façade distance
Number of storeys
6.1
RH, direct
narrow
2
2
Of which housing, %
Of which work, %
6,542
100
0
0
0.58
0.66
Number of dwellings
Flat sizes, sq m
Average flat size
5,113
77
64-87
66
79
68
77
100
0
0
Housing tenure
rented
0
Of which public, %
Of which private, %
Number of slots
Type of parking
Year of completion
Planners
Developer
6,500
53
0
45
2
0
0
medium
77
TG
1998
Katzberger, Loudon
Neues Leben
57
15/
Beddington Zerobed (London, Beddington)
In brief
Beddington Zerobed is a quarter composed of six one- to three-storey row volumes. This
settlement type provides an optimised combination of ecological housing and working
with high quality of life. The highly condensed, low-rise townhouse design reinterprets
the English garden city. The communal centre “BedZED Pavilion” has acquired regional
importance.
Beddington Zerobed is situated in the borough of Sutton at 14 km distance from London’s city. A bus stop is situated directly adjacent to the development, while a suburban
train station can be found at only 600 m from the complex. “Green transport schedules”
and car sharing promote a new mobility concept. The nearest supermarket is at 2 km; a
twice-weekly local farmers’ market offers additional shopping possibilities.
Location assets
Recreational area to the northeast of London.
Following land rehabilitation, Beddington Zerobed was constructed on a former sewage
works site. The underlying concept aims at “green lifestyles“: use of natural materials
such as brick and certified timber; aerodynamic design and rooftop ventilators to improve ventilation without air-conditioning units; heating provided by a cogeneration
plant (fuelled by locally produced biomass); solar panels on roofs; sustainable water
use; own water treatment plant; greywater used for toilet flushing. In keeping with
these standards, the original investment costs were high. The project is composed of
social housing, rented apartments and owner-occupied flats for one third each.
The project creates possibilities of combined living and working in one building. Flatscum-studios, terraced houses, attic flats and one-level apartments are available. Flats
face south (optimised energy consumption), while studios face north. The individual
wings are relatively deep (up to 20 m) and compact. Flexibility of use is provided by the
ground-floor studios. Densification ensures supply with everyday necessaries and a
wider range of shops and service providers within walking distance.
The development boasts a differentiated range of private open spaces (resident gardens, terraces, roof terraces, balconies). Traffic calming was introduced for the residential streets; a village green fosters communication. There are also spaces for young
people, e.g. a sports pitch.
Both open spaces (sports pitch, village green) and buildings offer communal facilities
(clubhouse, community centre/BedZED Pavilion, kindergarten and gyms).
Due to the architectural design, the open spaces are very introverted and hence of little
attractiveness for the surrounding city quarter.
58
15/
Beddington Zerobed (London, Beddington)
0.93
0.83
0.35
42
Wing depth, m
Access type
Façade distance
Number of storeys
12.5-20
RH, SP
narrow
1-3
2.3
Of which housing, %
Of which work, %
8,000
74
20
6
0.86
0.96
Number of dwellings
Flat sizes, sq m
Average flat size
Housing tenure
5,290
63
84
76
68
-
owner-occupied/ rented
400
Of which public, %
Of which private, %
2,430
0
12
72
16
Number of slots
Type of parking
2,950
510
medium
44
open-air slots
Year of completion
Planner
Developer
2002
Bill Dunster
Peabody Trust
59
60

patterns for new urban developments

Transcription

Similar documents

Zuidhorn Komplan >>>

by Boyd Willatt

Scandinavian designs

A4 width-Poster - Acorn

Inflatable pool toy for parties - Oak Flats

view article - Terracotta Design Build Co.

Round Rock ISD Success High School

The Crossing at Palm Valley

The article