Etherington MARC5001 Sem. 1 2014 Urban Heterodoxy

nathan etherington + roderick simpson 140302 1

GRADUATION STUDIO

MARC 5001 Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning University of Sydney

semester 1 2014

urban heterodoxy:

liverpool hub

DRAFT Unit Coordinator: Dr Francois Blanciak Tutor: Nathan Etherington [email protected] Guest Tutors : Carme Fiol, Arriola +Fiol Arquitectes Assoc. Prof Roderick Simpson Rm: 547 [email protected] Michael Zanardo [email protected] Sam Rigoli

theme+intellectual context During Semester 2 2013 the city centre of Liverpool was the focus for a seminar, analyses, assignments and studios for the Master of Urban Design, and Master of Urban Regional Planning. This work showed that a different approach to the planning for the city centre, which focussed more on residential and mixed use development in the city itself, retaining much of the existing fine grain subdivision patterns, would also allow for the expected and needed job growth. It also became evident that the bus station, rail station and rail line occupy a critical location in the city centre. They may be functional connectors but they also act as physical barriers. We have many places like this that fulfil a functional role but have no architectural presence and little civic grace because in Australia we have had a particular view of the city and of urbanity, or more accurately; SUBurbanity. Our suburban conception of the city is the result of the historical and ideological factors that have become entrenched both culturally and institutionally. (These aspects will be explored in greater depth in a lecture during the semester)


Relevance to Liverpool and the design challenge The physical result of these approaches planning and governance are evident all around the project site:

- The pragmatics of putting in a rail line have severed the connection and relationship to the river.

- The high traffic volumes on the ring road within the city, and the need for buses to interchange with rail has severed the city from Bigge Park.

- Large institutions, the hospital, schools and civic buildings serve their function but have little civic presence

- Forecourts and the settings for heritage buildings have been misappropriated for car parking

- The approach to planning in the past that has been dominated by zoning combined with an unrealistic

- And so on

central business district or central social district: urbanity The suburban a view of the city is of a city comprised of centres that serve a surrounding population, and in the case of transport hubs, give access to other centres. This is a functionalist/mechanistic view of the city, where there is a place for everything, and everything is in its place. Where the flows of goods and people are predictable and where traffic lights and rail timetables are calibrated to this predictability, and obviously, rely on it being predictable. The random and spontaneous interactions of citizens, workers, children do not need to be considered in detail in this schema. The physical form and networks of the city are the infrastructure that individuals inhabit, the way the city has been planned, designed, built and operated allows, in fact facilitates some patterns and inhibits, or possibly makes others impossible.

Figure 1 Informal spontaneous emergence vs planned static In other words, the city is planned and managed with a particular idea of what the ideal state of the city should be, and strives to maintain it. In affluent Australia, we have the resources, the expertise, the political systems and the governance and legal frameworks in place for such an aim to be achievable. Compared to the urban conditions of the other 3.5billion people who live in urban areas, where informal settlements predominate, our governance is fairly effective in delivering the planned city. But the question may be asked, and is a key question for the studio, are we ruling out the consideration of other possibilities that may be interesting in our cities. Do our efficient regulated environments and procedures not even allow hints of alternatives to come into our collective consciousness? In other words do our preconceived ideas about what the city should be like and the policies we put in place actually stop patterns that are possible better than those planned to emerge?


Figure 2 Liverpool city centre area

The potential for urbanity in Liverpool Liverpool is located 25km to the south west of Sydney. It has 15,000 jobs and almost 14,000 people living in the city centre. Liverpool Hospital is the largest in the southern hemisphere, employing about 4,500 people. 50% of these live within 10 km of the city centre and 25% within 5km. This goes some way to explain the very high proportion 17% of people living in the city centre (outlined in red to the left) who walk to work and the 23% of households in the centre that do not own a car. This is simply because there is everything you need with in walking distance: schools, shops, recreation, health and business, government and health services. The urban condition in Liverpool allows people to have a very different urban pattern of living from most suburban areas. And that pattern of living is based on walkability; every thing you need, including access to the City of Sydney and other public transport is within walking distance. Strange as it may seem, Liverpool has the potential for an urbanity not very different from the patterns of living in the centre of Sydney such as Surry Hills and Ultimo. Liverpool has the second highest intake of refugees after Fairfield and has 132 nationalities living in the area. So it also has the potential to be a very cosmopolitan place. What is holding the place back? And what could be improved?

Figure 3 Current zoning: residential prohibited in yellow and blue

Impediments Current planning for Liverpool adopts the suburban model outlined above- a centre serving a hinterland. The conventional approach to planning for these centres is to zone them commercial core which prohibits residential development. This is considered necessary because residential development can afford to pay more for land than commercial (office and retail) development. The theory is that once land has been turnedover to residential then the potential for developing offices and shops will be reduced and so will the attractiveness of the centre for people wanting to build conventional office building for employment. Yet again this is a fundamentally sub-urban conception and is flawed in a number of ways:

- Reserving space for buildings does not in itself create employment: - Employment and residential are not mutually exclusive- they can co-exist

and concepts of central business districts are - The wrong experts are asked for advice about how best to plan for city

centres- they are usually commercial real estate agents who have a vested interest in doing what they did yesterday- they have no broader interest, or understanding of the city.

- The other experts are major property investors- (superannuation funds, property trusts and so on) and their problem is that these trusts not


interested in the city either; each trust specialises in retail, office, or occasionally residential and serviced apartments- and they cannot cope with mixed use portfolios.- in other words- it is difficult to get finance.

- The nature of work is changing and it is quite possible to imagine different types of premises in the future.

- The total employment growth currently planned for Liverpool is 9,000, and probably should be much more, but it doesnt all have to happen in the city centre and only a small proportion of these jobs will need A-grade office space.

- There is a large industrial site to the east that could accommodate low to mid rise business park (though it might take a different form to conventional business parks and have a mix of uses- this will be explored by the urban design studio B)

- Most significantly, despite the reserving of land, there has been little investment in office spaces in the city centre and the retention of a business-only area has only served to stop residential development.

- It could be argued that the attractiveness of the area will change significantly once Badgerys Creek airport is developed, but even then the rationale for business to locate in Liverpool itself is weak- business are more likely to locate around the airport itself or near related logistics centres. (Ingleburn and Moorebank). Not only do suburban planning approaches lead to zones of separated activities, but particular built forms are designed to be a perfect fit for the particular functions and activities they are meant to accommodate, and the planning controls act to limit deviations from a preconceived ideal built form. So what is the problem? Simply that this is not the ways cities have worked up to the time we believed we could control them. Think of the city, its structures and buildings as simply the physical armatures through which life flows, which accommodate different patterns over time. Long life loose fit. Think of how generic typologies can be occupied by different functions over time: structures that through their dimensions can accommodate a variety of functions. How warehouses have become residences, factories; galleries, offices; apartments. The conversion to residential is seen as the end point in adaptation in Australia, because of the power of bodies corporate to restrict activities and because there is an assumed minimum level of amenity for residences. But what if that is the decision- to trade off some amenity for some other advantage? Does everyone REALLY need a balcony with a minimum size if there is a park within 100m? Dont we want people out on the streets, patronising the cafes, partying on the roof tops?


Figure 4 Urban armatures1

armatures+generic structures

serving mixed uses

So think of generic structures combined with the specific- only make those specific (auditoria? gathering spaces? hospitals? circulation armatures?) that need to be specific- maximise the generic to allow adaptation, to allow the city to adapt as patterns of living change and as markets shift. The thing that does not change as much is the road and subdivision pattern and though fixed, if they anticipate change can provide the greatest flexibility and capacity for change. But in the densest parts of the city, at interchanges, is it possible to think of these circulation systems existing on multiple levels but still allowing for change over time? So where does that leave us? Searching for an alternative approach!

urban heterodoxy urban: a. of, or living or situated in, a town or a city heterodoxy: a. not orthodox (orthodox: a. holding usual or currently accepted views; generally approved, conventional) The studio is called urban heterodoxy simply because we will be aiming to show how approaches that are not allowed within current planning or that are not the usual way of delivering project can produce a much better result. In other words rather than striving to achieve a better city through the various agencies (transport, parks, roads, buses, education) we are trying to illustrate a different integrated proposition for a place. This is not to dismiss the concerns and interests of these agencies. The design proposal must address and satisfy their needs (though not necessarily by the usual means and practices).

temporal context Students will be asked to consider their response to the brief and site in the context of a 30 year time frame. This allows for potential future developments in and around the site to be considered (for example an airport at Badgerys Creek) but also requires students to imagine and project a future for Liverpool as well as responding to current challenges.

1 Frampton, A, Solomon, J, Wong, C_Cities without ground, a Hong Kong guidebook


1. Response and premise for the studio An alternative economic and social development strategy would look at the qualities and potential that the place already has or need to be revealed through visionary design- (that is where you all come in!). The strategy would be based on making the city centre as liveable as possible.

key elements: the brief - to link the city to the river - a cultural centre opening /addressing the park - childcare, school and education - affordable housing, residential, hotel , serviced apartments - generic structures for retail/commercial/ co-working - rail concourse as a civic gathering place and link to the river

key considerations - subdivision pattern and staging - enlivening and addressing Bigge Street - integration into the overall Bigge Park hospital and TAFE precinct - links and relationship to funky town

site The primary site is area bounded by the Georges River, Bigge Park and Moore Street in Liverpool as shown on the diagram below.


2. Process Week 1 .07 March 0900-1100 Lecture LECTURE Studio option presentations and selections 1100-1400 Admin Studio Selection process 1400-1700 Studio RS: Studio introduction to Liverpool, overview of tasks, allocation of research NOTE Students will be expected to visit the site before week 2 Week 2 .14 March 0900-1100 Lecture Francois Blanciak 1100-1300 Studio Nathan Etherington + Rod Simpson. Overview of major projects. Overview of

site. MUrbDes student work. 1400-1700 Studio Masterplanning exercise (groups of three- four) NOTE Precedent research during this week Week 3 .21 March 0900-1100 Lecture Nathan Etherington

1100-1300 Studio Presentation and discussion of precedents (interchanges, mixed use,

residential) 1400-1700 Studio Masterplanning synthesis three Groups of 5-6. Allocation of sites. Setting the

targets. Detailed briefs. Week 4 .28 March 0900-1100 Lecture Michael Zanardo- typologies- generic buildings- housing 1100-1300 Interim Submission / Review ( possible guest Carme Fiol) 1400-1700 Individual projects. Masterplan model discussion. Week 5 .4 April 0900-1100 Lecture Carme Fiol/ 1100-1700 Individual project briefs and drawings Week 6 .11 April 0900-1100 Review Interim Review 25% 1100-1700 Review Week 7 .18 April Good Friday Break Week .25 April Mid Semester Break Anzac Day NOTE Design workshop during this week at Liverpool date TBC 29April -2May Week 8 .02 May Draft Design Book Submission 0900-1100 Lecture Nathan Etherington/ Michael Zanardo 1100-1700 Studio Individual projects drawings and models. Week 9 .09 May 0900-1300 Lecture Philip Thalis & Peter John Cantrill urban projects 1400-1700 Studio Individual project briefs and drawings Week 10 .16 May 0900-1300 Studio Individual projects drawings and models. 1400-1700 Studio Individual projects drawings and models. 1700-1800 Studio Design Project +Design Book Week 11 .23 May 0900-1300 Studio Individual projects drawings and models. 1400-1700 Studio Individual projects drawings and models. Week 12 .30 May 0900-1300 Individual

assistance Individual tutorials by appointment

1400-1700 Individual assistance

Individual tutorials by appointment

Week 13 .06 June Final Review 50% 0900-1300 Review Final Submission / Review 1400-1700 Review Week 16 .20 June Design Book 25%

Submission


program The project will begin with intensive research by students concurrently with a three week group master planning exercise. The first week will be introductory. You will be expected to visit the site before the studio in week 2. In week 2, Associate Professor Rod Simpson will present the work of last semester's USYD Masters of Urban Design studio on Liverpool, and the results of the Urban Morphology unit to speak to you more about the site, and elaborate on the studio themes further. Students, in groups of three-four, will develop public domain masterplan proposals which address transport, infrastructure, and natural, as well as engineered, systems. In week 3, Rod will return to assist with synthesising the masterplans, allocate the individual sites, and set the development targets. A group masterplan drawing will be produced by the end of the week three studio.


The group masterplan model will need to be completed by the end of week 6. The group model is a critical element of the studio, being the place where individual proposals come together in the making of a comprehensive and coherent proposal. The model also will be an essential design tool, a focus for group discussions, and a central piece to the final exhibition. It is expected that you will work in both drawings and models throughout the studio. The premise of the studio will be a critique of existing applicable policies representing the often poorly formulated status quo in city making. The studio will look to understand business as usual in order to question its motivations, values, methods and efficacy. The students will then develop alternative propositions in response to their findings which will be 'stitched' together to form a coherent urban proposition for the Liverpool bus-rail interchange site comprising the designs of multiple authors. Each student will design a group of buildings, infrastructure elements and adjoining public domain within a master plan, and in so doing explore the possible forms of architecture that might emerge if freed from normal single programs, and land use zoning.

design focus Briefs for individual projects will be mixed use and up for negotiation, but must each include an element of public domain/infrastructure. The brief students propose will be related to the position of the site within the master plan; the size and shape of the lot; any existing structures to be adaptively reused; and based on student research identifying existing local and regional use needs, as well as new demands that may be created by the development itself. A key aspect of the studio is an exploration of the relationship between built and open space. Each project is required to develop a scheme that integrates built and open space but students should also consider their projects in relation to wider networks and ecologies (both infrastructural and natural). Projects will be place specific, based on evidence, and should be carefully integrated into their context. They will gain their value both through their relationship to the public domain and to each other. Desirable qualities will include flexibility, diversity and contribution to the public domain. Projects should seek attributes of long life, loose fit, low energy. Like the city, this studio will have an open and inclusive culture where students are encouraged to pursue their own varied interests whilst working together and negotiating outcomes that optimise development within the masterplan. The normal constraints of land use zoning, height and density parameters will be removed to broaden the architectural possibilities. However, projects will need to take into account other realities of practice, such as structural adequacy, conformance with the BCA (eg fire egress) and Australian Standards (eg car parking and access), as well as other relevant legislation such as SEPP65. Consultant tutors will be brought in to help you shape your project. The results of the studio will be capable of


presentation to the Liverpool council and State government agencies as demonstration of a possible future for the Liverpool bus rail interchange. All briefs will include a residential and infrastructure component, though some may be primarily commercial or laboratory functions; it will be left to the designer to determine whether these functions should be in the same building or on separate subdivided lots. The potential for the precinct to evolve and change over time will be a primary consideration. In this way the studio will simulate the development processes that should apply to major urban renewal projects in Australia. The approach of defining a public domain framework, stating the environmental, social and economic results that are expected, subdivision into development lots with a range of different sizes that enables many authors/ designers (you) is very different to the more common approach of handing over entire precincts to single developers. In this way the studio will offer a critique of the delivery processes on sites such as Barangaroo and Docklands in Melbourne. The focus of the critique will be on the tension between the desire to have large integrated mega-buildings and entire urban precincts in the control of a single developer which can attract large investment, or the desire to have a staged urban form, subdivision and ownership pattern that allows for evolution and emergence of un-planned, un-anticipated activity and increase in land value over time.

outcomes The studio offers the opportunity to develop an alternative proposition for the mixed use urban project in Sydney (rich history of this stretching back more than a century) that questions normal approaches to heritage, infrastructure, social, student and moderate income housing and social engagement. Students will be exposed to the real-world dilemmas of political and social context. The development feasibility and environmental performance of the entire precinct will be modelled, in order to produce an overall, integrated urban proposition for the area capable of being presented to the NSW Government. As the culminating project of your university career, this studio asks you to consider the motivation and intention you embed within your design work. What kind of practitioner do you want to be? What are the social and ethical attributes that your work embodies? How do you communicate this vision to others in a compelling way so that they see value in your ideas and will want to continue on and carry out these intentions? Throughout this semester, we would like you to develop an appreciation of the many-layered strategic, economic, social and environmental context in which architecture and urban design occurs. The intention is not to overwhelm you with limitations imposed by the real world, but to assist students to develop the skills to formulate and communicate balanced and reasoned, but visionary, propositions in ways that are meaningful for interest groups and decision makers as well as the general public. How can your work connect with the broader societal aspirations of the community? What measures can you put in place to achieve the intention of your


architecture? How can you serve the public interest as well as your client's?

3. Submission requirements This document supplements the MARC5001 Graduation Studio Unit of Study Outline document that contains the generic objectives and outcomes expected across all graduation studios. It describes the assessment criteria, attendance requirements, addresses dishonesty and plagiarism, and the workings of appeals and special consideration. It also describes the design portfolio and dossier requirements, touches on the exhibition, and includes an extensive bibliography. Please be sure to refer to this document closely.

individual work Each project will demand its own method of communication. Drawings should be tailored to best explain your project. As a guide, up to 6x portrait A1 panels should be sufficient to convey your project at a variety of scales. Include a full range of suitable drawing techniques to communicate your proposal convincingly including, but not limited to, sketches, scale plans (oriented north), sections and elevations, axonometrics, perspectives, photomontages, and diagrams. Experimental drawings and diagrams are encouraged. Scales might be in the range from 1:10,000 context to a 1:50 detailed section. Every drawing must have a clear purpose. It is advised to begin considering your final presentation at the outset by setting up panels and gradually filling them in, refining and curating your material over the course of the semester. Detailed model of your proposal of at least 1:200 is also required.

group work One of the important objectives of the studio will be to produce a comprehensive and integrated proposal for the site. This means you will be also be required to produce:

- simple CAD drawings that can be combined to produce a set of drawings for the entire scheme. This will require strict adherence to CAD protocols.

- Completion of a schedule of areas and quantification of the scheme to enable cost and environmental modeling

- 1:500 model for insertion into the group base model.

assessment criteria Assessed on innovation, public-mindedness and practicalities in equal measure.


nathan etherington BA, BArch (Hons 1) Sydney, MArch Harvard, ARB 9173 Nathan is graduate of the University of Sydney and the Harvard Graduate School of Design. He has worked in offices in London (Skidmore Owings and Merrill) and Sydney (Bates Smart) and is currently with Scale Architecture. Nathan has experience across a range of project scales from small residential to high rise commercial and master plans. Nathans research interests are currently focused on the intersection of architecture, landscape and infrastructure. In 2013 he was the recipient of the AIAs David Lindner Prize which has supported his ongoing research into the Alexandra Canal, the subject of last years Graduation Studio at the University of Sydney.

roderick simpson Director Urban Design Program , principal simpson+wilson MPIA, AAIA ARB 5868 Rm: 547 [email protected] Rod has led a wide range of the urban design and spatial planning project in 30 years of practice including recent projects: the Sustainable Sydney 2030 Strategy, East Lake Urban Renewal Project and Molonglo Valley stage 2 release in Canberra, and other strategic and policy consultancies in the ACT. In 2005 he was co-director of strategic development for the Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney. He has long had an interest in quantification and the environmental performance of buildings and urban precincts to inform policy: Kinesis in 2009 he developed PRECINX for the NSW residential development agency Landcom to assess the carbon, water, affordability and social performance of entire precincts. He was and was instrumental in the development of the BASIX sustainability index that applies to all residential development in NSW. He is a member of the Landcom project review panel and is on the board of the Historic Houses Trust in NSW.


references More references will be provided during the course of the studio: Abrahamse, J.E. et al Eastern Harbour District Amsterdam: Urbanism and Architecture, NAi Publishers Rotterdam, 2003 Actar, Total Housing: Alternatives to Urban Sprawl, Actar, Barcelona 2010 Alexander, C. The Oregon Experiment, Oxford, New York 1975 ARUP, C_life,http://www.archdaily.com/37282/low2no-competition-helsinkis-sustainable-future/ Cantrill, P.J., & Thalis, P An Urban Laboratory, Form Technique Content, FOG Publications, 2/1996, pp116-113 De Lapuerta, J.M., Collective Housing: A Manual, Actar, Barcelona, 2007 Firley, E. & Stahl, C., The Urban Housing Handbook, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, 2009 Firley, E. & Stahl, C., The Urban Masterplanning Handbook, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, 2011 MVRDV, FARMAX: Excursions on Density, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 1998 Levitt, D.,The Housing Design Handbook, Routledge, London, 2010 PlanningNSW,: Residential Flat Design Code (SEPP65), Sydney 2002 Pope, A., Ladders, Architecture at Rice 34, Princeton Architectral Press, New York, 1996 Steinemann R., Global Housing Projects: 25 Buildings Since 1980, ETH and Actar, Barcelona, 2008 Uytenhaak, R., Cities Full of Space: Qualities of Density, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 2008 Videos of all presentations from Semester 1

theme+intellectual contextRelevance to Liverpool and the design challengecentral business district or central social district: urbanityThe potential for urbanity in LiverpoolImpedimentsarmatures+generic structuresurban heterodoxytemporal context1. Response and premise for the studiokey elements: the briefkey considerationssite

2. Processprogramdesign focusoutcomes

3. Submission requirementsindividual workgroup workassessment criterianathan etheringtonroderick simpsonreferences

Documents

Etherington MARC5001 Sem. 1 2014 Urban Heterodoxy