Urban Planning & Design « The Gondola Project

Urban Planning & Design

14
Feb

2012

Yurikamome AGT, Tokyo – Coordinated Urbanism

Yurikamome - 15km elevated AGT system - in Tokyo. Notice how the transit line blends into the surrounding urban fabric - almost making it appear invisible.

Elevated infrastructure can elicit different responses and reactions from cities and communities. Some find a gap in the underutilized spaces below a structure (such as with the boxing ring built under the Sao Paulo highway) while others enjoy the convenience of well-planned, multi-layered cities. For the latter let us turn to Japan.

The Yurikamome (aka Black Headed Seagull) is a 15km elevated AGT line built in the Odaiba and Shiodome districts of Tokyo, Japan. The districts are home to several important commercial, residential and touristed-oriented building and considered one of the most modern areas in the city. (In fact, Obaida was first redeveloped in the 1990s as part of a showcase of futuristic living.) Today, the districts have some of the most visually stunning mixtures of architecture, urban design and transit planning in the world. Check it out:

Obaida, Tokyo in Japan.

Shiodome, Tokyo in Japan

For more photos, click here and here.

The built form is immaculate and in some ways, rather surreal — as though it was plucked straight out of a science fiction film. The Yurikamome’s design is no different and in my opinion, the elevated transit infrastructure and stations are some of the most beautiful examples of above grade transport in the world.

Elevated station, tracks and train. Notice how the different layers of transport connections are all melded together making multi-modalism simple and easy.

The Yurikamome is a vital piece of rapid transit in Shiodome and Obaida.

Station interior within Yurikamome. Bright lighting and platform doors ensure safety for passengers.

It is incredible how the stations and tracks all appear to be seamlessly integrated and blend into the existing urban fabric. This serves as solid evidence for elevated infrastructure, that if planned and designed properly, can be built to enhance the cityscape. As with the case of gondolas, successful elevated system designs can provide strategies and best practices that will guide future city-builders as they continue to create and construct urban transit solutions.

Comments

13
Feb

2012

Boxing and Highway Viaducts – Ad-Hoc Urbanism

An underground boxing ring in Sao Paulo, Brazil. A unique human layer that brings into perspective the beauty (and tragedy) that sometimes exist in many developing cities. Image by Nacho Doce.

In the past, we’ve discussed the implications of creating aesthetically-pleasing elevated infrastructure (recall the Ranstadrail and Most Beautiful Elevated Transport Infrastructure). While these examples exemplify the capabilities of planned transit infrastructure, I believe informal uses (and their spinoff effects) may deserve a little more attention.

One of the most inspiring case studies that I’ve come across is Sao Paulo’s underground boxing gym, located beneath the Alcantara Machado viaduct. This training academy was started by a former boxer, Nilson Garrido, as an attempt to help disadvantaged youth. Although Garrido’s pupils train with rudimentary equipment (tires, rocks, plastic containers), their dedication to the sport and their tenacity appears relentless.

Training facility located adjacent to highway overpass in Sao Paulo. Image by Nacho Doce.

I think this type of ad-hoc urbanism is a testament to human ingenuity and adaptability — one that is often unaccounted for and ignored by modern North American city-building principles. In other words, it begs the question: How many unique uses of urban space are lost when planners and decision-makers are confined to stagnant and outdated zoning laws?

For more photos, click here.

Infrastructure / Urban Planning & Design

Comments

12
Sep

2011

What Does Your Report Say? Like, Really Say?

So a study out of the University of Miami discovers this:

“Better-looking documents produce increased pride of ownership for a company, and this pride increases valuation.”

Should this surprise us? Not at all. But consider how much of an impact aesthetics had in this study:

When students were given the first three pages of two annual reports with the exact same financial information, those students priced the stock shares of the firm with the “more attractive” annual report almost 70% higher than the other firm.

But what do they know? Those are just students, right?

Wrong.

The study also experimented with “experienced investors” and the findings showed that the mere inclusion of one additional colour in a firm’s annual report has roughly the same impact on an investor’s evaluation of the firm as a 20 percent improvement in revenue from the previous year.

Maybe your planning reports aren’t saying what you think they’re saying. Put a different way: Maybe they aren’t saying everything they could be saying.

Urban Planning & Design

Comments

11
Aug

2011

TOD’s, urban gondolas and what to do about privacy concerns (Part 3 of 3)

Part 1 and Part 2 of this series discussed many of the pros to combining CPT with Transit Oriented Development (TOD). Today we’ll consider one of the major arguments against cable transit — security concerns, and how smart design and planning can help mitigate these issues.

Gondolas may pass alongside private property, even when traveling along a public corridor. Generally retail and commercial space are not impacted to the same extent as residential properties, therefore residential properties require special consideration. This is vastly avoided in a TOD arrangement where retail and commercial buildings typically occupy the land closest to transit.

Critical heights for CPT are located around the 2nd and 3rd stories of building. This critical area should receive further design considerations.

Windows can be tinted on residential properties, particularly those in bedrooms and bathrooms.

Proper residential property setbacks, orientation and internal room layouts are some of the ways residential design can help minimise the perception of privacy issues in relation to CPT infrastructure.

Vegetative screening – strategically utilising trees or foliage to block or obstruct the view of CPT passengers.

Land in direct proximity to the CPT infrastructure can be utilised as green or pedestrian spaces, maximising setbacks to residential buildings. Surveillance by riders could also increase safety in those areas.

There are many strategies that can help reduce safety concerns. Some of these strategies are more easily incorporated into the design of a master planned neighbourhood, as opposed to redevelopment projects. The other approaches can be implemented to the transport system directly.

In summary, CPT does not present a physical barrier in neighbourhoods, nor does it compromise pedestrian safety. The technology, in fact, maximises land for open space for development while vastly eliminating noise and vibration nuisance, as compared to other modes of transport. With appropriate design components privacy concerns can also be dramatically reduced. In the end this means that the most valuable land in proximity to the transit infrastructure with in TOD can be utilised to its full potential.

What are your thoughts? Does CPT really offer impressive credentials for TOD and urban design in general?

This post was written by Ryan O’Connor, a planning and transportation professional based in Wellington, New Zealand. Ryan has been involved with Creative Urban Projects since March 2010.

Design Considerations / Urban Planning & Design

Comments

09
Aug

2011

What opportunities do urban gondolas present TODs? (Part 2 of 3)

Last week, in Part 1 of this series, the idea of combining CPT and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) was introduced. Today we’ll look closer at this topic and explore the opportunities ropeway technologies present to TOD.

While at-grade cable systems, such as funiculars have similar characteristics to LRT in terms of their impact on the urban form, top-supported systems, such as gondolas, present a unique situation.

From a planning effects based perspective, gondolas are well suited to TODs because they lessen the adverse effects on adjoining land, as compared to more traditional urban transport.

Here are just a few reasons why urban gondolas are well suited to TOD’s:

FOOTPRINT: Gondolas have a very small land footprint. Since land is valuable in a TOD this is clearly a positive characteristic. Utilizing less space for transit means more area to work with. This flexibility gives property developers and authorities a larger scope for development options. Since urban gondola TOD’s would not be limited by existing transport corridors (such as ‘at grade’ LRT and BRT) their route is less constrained by topography and the ‘urban form’.

PEDESTRIANS: Gondolas do not present a safety issue for pedestrians since they operate above foot traffic. This is a positive characteristic considering TOD are meant to be walkable and safe.

POLLUTION: Gondolas do not generate point source pollutants, noise or vibration effects. This plays heavily into TODs as a place of amenity – designed for people to live, work and play. Try having a coffee outside next to a busy bus route – not nice!

What other urban gondola characteristics are beneficial to TOD’s, and how? How can the urban form be designed and developed to be complementary to gondolas and vice versa?

(Addressing privacy impacts will be detailed in Part 3.)

This post was written by Ryan O’Connor, a planning and transportation professional based in Wellington, New Zealand. Ryan has been involved with Creative Urban Projects since March 2010.

Urban Planning & Design

Comments

04
Aug

2011

Transit Oriented Development and CPT (Part 1 of 3)

Most readers understand the concept of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) – a planning approach that encourages transit ridership through increased development around transit stations. TODs are designed to create higher density, mixed use, walkable communities. In this way the day-to-day needs met by shops, cafes, and entertainment venues are located within the neighbourhood (usually near the station), and access to a rapid public transport network is maximised. Despite mixed successes, TODs are often touted as one of the great solutions to urban mobility.

TOD designs tend to occur within 800 metres of the transit station, which is considered the distance that people are willing to walk or cycle to reach public transport. However, depending on the transport mode and the ‘walking culture’ of the area, this distance can vary between 400-1200 metres.

Typically, TODs are associated with streetcars, LRT and heavy rail, although the developing world has implemented successful BRT TODs as well. A few examples of CPT and TOD also exist. The Metrocable in Medellin, Columbia utilises elements of TOD for the Linea L & J lines. The Metrocable in Caracas, Venezuela integrates retail, commercial and social services into customised CPT stations, although it appears that no coordinated development has occurred outside of these stations.

What is important to remember is that (for the most part) efficient public transport spurs development regardless of TOD plans. TODs simply try to offer an assurance that development will occur in a planned, coordinated way over a shorter timeframe (often determined by investors.) TODs can be master planned or guided redevelopment. Planning regulations are often tweaked to allow different land uses and higher densities. Property developers demand certainty to the type of development that is expected in order to reduce business risk. TODs usually involve a number of stakeholders and in some instances are implemented via innovative PPP arrangements. However, TODs are not always successful as there are multiple internal and external factors at play.

It is also frustrating that the very factor that make TODs possible – rapid transport systems – can also significantly hinder their success and have negative impacts on the adjoining land and people. Basically, ‘at grade’ transit presents a problem to the urban form; it bisects it, it divides it, it makes it unsafe for pedestrians. Tracks takes up valuable land. Buses are noisy and generate pollutants. Heavy rail is even noisier (unless underground) and produces vibration effects. These nuisances impact properties adjoining the infrastructure and can compromise the whole TOD model – which values land close to public transport.

TRB research finds that property prices are compromised as close as 200 metres from a transit line. For this reason, the 200-400 metre quadrant (from the transit station) in a TOD tends to be the most sought after by residents and therefore most valued. What should be the most desirable, useful and practical land – that closest to the transport station – is not maximised to its full potential. This is a serious issue and one that compromises the very outcomes TOD seek to achieve – liveability and sustainability.

What opportunities exist for CPT and TODs? I will tackle this issue next week in Part 2 of TODs and CPT.

This post was written by Ryan O’Connor, a planning and transportation professional based in Wellington, New Zealand. Ryan has been involved with Creative Urban Projects since March 2010.

Urban Planning & Design

Comments

15
Mar

2011

The 10 Most Beautiful Examples of Elevated Transport Infrastructure – Part 2

As I said yesterday, elevated transport infrastructure don’t get no love.

In this, the second of two posts, we wrap up our list of the 10 most beautiful examples of elevated public transport infrastructure from around the world.

Art / Design Considerations / Uncategorized / Urban Planning & Design

Comments

The Gondola Project