5
Augustine Savage & James Jamieson 1. through tower bridge 2. bridge to garden path 3. garden path/claw 4. small foor bridge 5. tasports 6. terminal 7. access to terminal 8. middle bit 9. pedestrian overpass 10. train station 11. platform 12. platform walk 13. publuc/private intersection 14. tower 15. submerging path

SHARED SPACE HOBART

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

RMIT Architecture Upperpool Design Studio, Semester 01, 2008. Studio Leader: Nigel Bertram, RMIT Architecture Senior Lecturer, Practice Director: NMBW; Member, Sullivans Cove Design Panel. Students include: Augustine Savage & James Jamieson; Kylie Freeman; Marcello Donati. Sponsoring partner: Sullivans Cove Watefront Authority, Hobart

Citation preview

Page 1: SHARED SPACE HOBART

Augustine Savage & James Jamieson

1. through tower bridge2. bridge to garden path3. garden path/claw4. small foor bridge5. tasports6. terminal7. access to terminal8. middle bit9. pedestrian overpass10. train station11. platform12. platform walk13. publuc/private intersection14. tower15. submerging path

Page 2: SHARED SPACE HOBART
Page 3: SHARED SPACE HOBART

002

Shared Space Hobart

Nigel Bertram

RMIT ArchitectureUpper Pool Design StudioSemester 01, 2008Tutor: Nigel BertramSponsoring partner: Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority, Hobart

Exhibited Students:Augustine Savage & James Jamieson Kylie Freeman Marcello Donati

Hobart’s Sullivans Cove and the remarkable urban topography of its hinterland have been the subject of numerous urban and architectural studies over decades by architects, academics and students. As such, there is a considerable body of sophisticated local knowledge and urban analysis which lies behind the Cove’s current strategic planning guidelines and Urban Design Framework. At the present time, there is strong private sector and governmental interest in developing key sites in the Cove to capitalise on its accrued role as the natural gathering point, entertainment and social melting pot of Hobart. It is the primary public domain of the city.

This is fairly standard fare for contemporary waterfront city precincts – to focus on providing spaces for entertainment, festivals, tourist attractions and visitor accommodation while also boosting local residential capacity with the aim to create a 24-hour mixed use precinct. What is particular to Hobart’s situation, however, is that this development has not yet substantially occurred. At the same time as being the city’s premier entertainment destination, the physical environment of the Cove maintains a strong sense of its industrial origins – wide flat concrete apron spaces scaled to the operation of gantry cranes, micro-infrastructure for refuelling and servicing fishing vessels spread throughout the public realm, long low storage shed buildings occupying 100m stretches of central waterfront surrounded by vacant apron space on all sides as required for loading and unloading cargo.

This ‘paused’ and provisional state of the immediate waterfront area is one of Hobart’s greatest assets. Here we can find a true, if accidental, co-existence of diverse yet functioning urban activities and sub-cultural groups (port workers/ industrial vehicles/ up-market diners/ tourist campervans/ drunken youths/ ceremonial space/ vacant space). The broad expanse of flat concrete apron, referred to locally and in the UDF as the ‘cove floor’, has been protected from development at least in part by the steady trickle of revenue its operators receive from open air carparking, so easily accommodated on its surface, and so conveniently located adjacent to the central business district of the city. The official planning strategy for the apron/ floor is that it is to remain a ‘shared space’: shared between working port and public realm, shared between vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles, shared between locals and visitors, shared between temporary and permanent/ large and small scale activities. This unusually flexible strategic planning policy – taken as a conceptual framework as much as a literal one – was the starting point for the studio investigations.

The notion of shared space on the floor is from the beginning a physical one, inseparable from the flatness and smoothness of this surface in contrast to the dramatic topography of Hobart as a city. Its breadth and scale allow large gatherings, its need to remain flexible for ship berthing and unloading promotes temporary and provisional occupations. The form and use-properties of this urban precinct are not able to be determined by urban design notions such as proportion, functional zoning, civic scale or concepts of beauty – but rather have been set up by the straightforward operational parameters of previous industrial activity and equipment1. That it now also plays a crucial social, commercial and symbolic role in the city demands that we find non-traditional urban strategies to engage with and actively share this strong space – without suffocating its raw and democratic openness.

1. As pointed out by Leigh Wolley

Page 4: SHARED SPACE HOBART

003

Kylie Freeman Kylie Freeman sensor activated lights reveal axis in the water

Augustine Savage & James Jamieson Augustine Savage & James Jamieson

Hobart Line of Communication

Page 5: SHARED SPACE HOBART

MONTAGE SHOWING TEMPORARY MARKET STALLS IN

HIP DOCKING CONDITION VIEW FROM PRINCES

WHARF 2 LOOKING AT PRINCES WHARF SHED NO.1

MONTAGE SHOWING TELESCOPIC MODULE DURING

SUNDAY MARKET CONDITION

IEW FROM PRINCES WHARF SHED NO.1

WEST ENTRANCE LOOKING EAST.

MONTAGE SHOWING TEMPORARY MARKET STALL IN

UNDAY MARKET CONDITION

SUNDAY MARKET CONDITION PLAN

WEEKDAY CONDITION PLAN

SHIP DOCKING CONDITION PLAN

004

Kylie Freeman sensor activated lights reveal axis in the water

Augustine Savage & James Jamieson Marcello Donati