The objective of our last task was to map a set of urban parameters that define models of proximity on the site, at different scales. The methodology for this exercise was to develop a series of “what-would-happen-if experiments”, questioning the limits and flexibility of the studied area. These experiments refer to plot size, plot and building orientation, distance regulation, territorial depth schemes, presence of overlap, barriers or gaps within the configuration of territories.
By doing so, each of the 9 groups came up with a series of design strategies, now to be further developed...
Group 1
Weronika Salach / David Barrero Gonzalez / Klaas Dhaene / Stephan Jud
“In our scenarios, we examined in a first step the consequences of large changes in ground prices (Scenarios A & B), and then in further steps the impacts of a loss of building regulations and the implementation of a different function. We did our research in 3 different places which seem to be not that different from each other than we first concluded, being much more a continuously developed suburban settlement. By defining simple, clear rules, we examined what would happen if we change the parameters of living. Most of the work was done on the scale of plots and by thinking about how to in-/ or decrease the density on the plots itself, although the existing buildings seem to be underused and could easily be converted to accommodate more inhabitants without building completely new ones. After having examined those four scenarios, it seems that we have to blend them together, especially as the implementation of a different function will change the mechanism of this suburban settlement. Also, we want to go further into the scale of houses itself, especially as they are mostly very solid and durable constructions which represent a certain value.”
Group 5.
Maria Elorriaga Los Huertos / Mariia Grachova / Katarzyna Juszczyszyn / Didem Zkizilcik
“We ba
sed our work on 4 different experiments. What if the position of houses would have been different? If there would appear the situation in the planning, that every 3 houses should share their garden. We thought it might be interesting for the neighbors to get to know each other better, and stimulate social cohesion. What would happen if the garden strategy would change? We discovered the overall presence of “representative” front gardens in Linden. We thought that it would be interesting to look how the situation changes if we take the front garden away, and make the communal back garden for all the neighbors to work in (maybe a few hours on weekend) What if there would be different street connections? We thought that it is worth taking into account the influence of the street network at the citizens of Linden. Because they all use the most common crossroads and ways to get home. We did experiment of how the situation will change if we make other crossroads and streets then “main” ones, changing hierarchy. What would happen if we create the common public space not in the center? This experiment is more like a possible conclusion to the general problem that we tried to solve in the previous experiments. As there are many retired people in Linden, we wanted them to have common spaces, that they can easily reach and meet with people from all neighborhood. Because the existing few places where they can meet now are the only ones in the center, which is quite far to rich for them without taking car.”
Group 8
Weronika Kowa / Smaranda-Madalina Cheregi / David Raquel / Guillaume Harache
“Our experiments were oriented towards the different ways in which people would share space built on the hypothesis that there were no more laws and regulations to confine private and individual areas. One scenario was the following: the government goes bankrupt and pulls away from any decision taking in the area; all documents regarding people’s private property are lost, houses being perceived as separate entities spread in the land. New property limits would be defined, according to a simple mathematical rule: merely dividing by 2 the distances between every 2 houses. The direction of this experiment is answering the following questions: what happens to the neighbor to neighbor relationship? Can we still speak about public space? We looked at 2 extreme possibilities: the ideal case in which the new land divisions would bring people together for making decisions regarding the shared spaces, versus the worst situation when everyone takes their own decisions, leading to a complete anarchy. The other scenario was looking at the possibility of transforming the suburbia into an area served only by e-shopping; this new system for providing goods, together with the development of teleworking and ‘virtual’ jobs, might lead to the complete isolation of people; our question is: would there be still any need for sharing spaces?”
By doing so, each of the 9 groups came up with a series of design strategies, now to be further developed...
Group 1
Weronika Salach / David Barrero Gonzalez / Klaas Dhaene / Stephan Jud
“In our scenarios, we examined in a first step the consequences of large changes in ground prices (Scenarios A & B), and then in further steps the impacts of a loss of building regulations and the implementation of a different function. We did our research in 3 different places which seem to be not that different from each other than we first concluded, being much more a continuously developed suburban settlement. By defining simple, clear rules, we examined what would happen if we change the parameters of living. Most of the work was done on the scale of plots and by thinking about how to in-/ or decrease the density on the plots itself, although the existing buildings seem to be underused and could easily be converted to accommodate more inhabitants without building completely new ones. After having examined those four scenarios, it seems that we have to blend them together, especially as the implementation of a different function will change the mechanism of this suburban settlement. Also, we want to go further into the scale of houses itself, especially as they are mostly very solid and durable constructions which represent a certain value.”Group 5.
Maria Elorriaga Los Huertos / Mariia Grachova / Katarzyna Juszczyszyn / Didem Zkizilcik
“We ba
sed our work on 4 different experiments. What if the position of houses would have been different? If there would appear the situation in the planning, that every 3 houses should share their garden. We thought it might be interesting for the neighbors to get to know each other better, and stimulate social cohesion. What would happen if the garden strategy would change? We discovered the overall presence of “representative” front gardens in Linden. We thought that it would be interesting to look how the situation changes if we take the front garden away, and make the communal back garden for all the neighbors to work in (maybe a few hours on weekend) What if there would be different street connections? We thought that it is worth taking into account the influence of the street network at the citizens of Linden. Because they all use the most common crossroads and ways to get home. We did experiment of how the situation will change if we make other crossroads and streets then “main” ones, changing hierarchy. What would happen if we create the common public space not in the center? This experiment is more like a possible conclusion to the general problem that we tried to solve in the previous experiments. As there are many retired people in Linden, we wanted them to have common spaces, that they can easily reach and meet with people from all neighborhood. Because the existing few places where they can meet now are the only ones in the center, which is quite far to rich for them without taking car.”Group 8
Weronika Kowa / Smaranda-Madalina Cheregi / David Raquel / Guillaume Harache
“Our experiments were oriented towards the different ways in which people would share space built on the hypothesis that there were no more laws and regulations to confine private and individual areas. One scenario was the following: the government goes bankrupt and pulls away from any decision taking in the area; all documents regarding people’s private property are lost, houses being perceived as separate entities spread in the land. New property limits would be defined, according to a simple mathematical rule: merely dividing by 2 the distances between every 2 houses. The direction of this experiment is answering the following questions: what happens to the neighbor to neighbor relationship? Can we still speak about public space? We looked at 2 extreme possibilities: the ideal case in which the new land divisions would bring people together for making decisions regarding the shared spaces, versus the worst situation when everyone takes their own decisions, leading to a complete anarchy. The other scenario was looking at the possibility of transforming the suburbia into an area served only by e-shopping; this new system for providing goods, together with the development of teleworking and ‘virtual’ jobs, might lead to the complete isolation of people; our question is: would there be still any need for sharing spaces?”
Cool graphics
ReplyDelete