Urban Density Study

8/11/2019 Urban Density Study

1/46

03 urban Density studyBaCkGRounD REPoRtsouthBank stRuCtuRE Plan


2/46


3/46

03

3.0 Contents of the Urban Density Study3.1 Introduction to the Urban Density Study

3.2 Assessment Tools of the Urban Density Study

3.3 Test case: Melbourne CBD

3.4 Case Study 1: Coin Street, London, UK

3.5 Case Study 2: Borneo Sporenburg, Amsterdam, Netherlands

3.6 Case Study 3: Bercy, Paris, France

3.7 Case Study 4: Long Beach, LA, USA

3.8 Case Study 5: Battery Park, NYC, USA

3.9 Case Study 6: Southbank Melbourne, Australia

3.10 Case Study 7: Beddington Zero, Surrey, UK

3.11 Case Study 8: Mid Levels, Hong Kong, China

3.12 Case Study 9: Eixample, Barcelona, Spain.

3.12 Conclusions from the Urban Density Study

3.13 Recommendations for the Southbank Structure Plan

3.1 Introduction to the Urban Density StudyThe intention of the density study is to analyse globalcities that are renowned for inner city living. Thecase studies are intended to inform qualitative and

quantitative techniques that will be applied to thethinking behind recommendations for a sustainableSouthbank Structure Plan.

Global precedents have been sourced through AECOMoffices in the united States, Europe, Asia and Australia.These case studies have been deliberately sourced toinclude a range of different urban forms with examplesdrawn from highly urbanised cities, such as Hong Kongand New york, along with more recent urban edgeexamples, such as Beddington Zero in England (alsoincluded as a benchmark carbon neutral development).

Selection of Sites

Each site had to be an inner urban development (within2km of a CBD) and contain elements of communityactivity/use.

Examples of high density, low-rise were encouragedas it is the typology least understood for providing highdensity living, however, not at the exclusion of gaininga better, more rounded understanding of differentworkable urban situations. In order to facilitate directcomparisons the study area nominated for each casestudy is the same - 400m x 400m, that is, 16 hectaresand 5 minutes walk. This also facilitated the analysis ofa piece of city rather than an analysis of discrete urbandevelopments. The intention was to research howdifferent urban environments operate as sustainableholistic places, not just as benchmark architectural orsustainable project examples.

Key Criteria

The key indicators that the study aims to identify aredensities for the following criteria - population density,

residential density, employment density and car parkingdensity (to serve the residential population). Thisprovides a quantitative appreciation of the densitiesachieved within different urban locations. Higherdensities are associated with more sustainable urbanoutcomes as they provide the population capacity tosupport the provision of better social and infrastructurefacilities and services. To gain an understanding of therelationship between the quality of life and urban densityan analysis of each site is provided with themes basedaround the Site, the Built Form, Context and ESD asfollows:

Site

An overview of the site area including land usepercentages (building footprints and open space) and abrief description of the development history.

Built Form

An analysis of the existing urban form including dwellingbuilt form typologies, building heights and setbacks, carparking distribution and typical interface arrangementsto the street.

Context

An analysis of the access provided to services andinfrastructure within the site and within 500m of the sitearea. This includes access to public transport, parksand community facilities. An analysis of water andenergy sources is also incorporated to assess how eachpiece of city is performing environmentally.

ESD

Provides an overview of the water and energy sourcesservicing each study area to give a snapshot of theenvironmental credentials of each site.

85

D e s i g n a n D P l a n n i n g a t A e c o m s o u t h B a n k S t r u c t u r e P L A N

y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u


4/46

03

86 3.2 Assessment Tools of the Urban Density StudyThe following definitions provide further explanation ofthe framework used to inform many of the assessedcriteria.

DENSITY lAND uSE

Building Footprint

The building footprint is the total area of thesite occupied by built form.

10+

PEOPLE/HA1081.6 PERDWELLING

Population Density

The number of people residing per hectarewithin the 16 hectare site area.

1 person = 10 people/ha (An average of

two people per dwelling are assumed ifexact statistics are unavailable).

BuIlT FORM

Car Parking

The percentages of car parking typologiesON STREET in or around the site.

65%

TOWER Tower Apartments

Height Range

Heights are considered to be of lowdesirability at single story and at heightsover 10 storeys.

DWELLINGS/HA 66

Residential Density

The number of dwellings per hectare. Thecase studies represent gross densities,that is, the total number of dwellings per

hectare (inclusive of roads, waterways,public spaces etc).

1 house picture = 10 dwellings/ha

Open Space

The open space is the total area of the sitewithout built form. This is usable spaceand water is not included but removedfrom the percentages.

2 12

APARTMENTS Apartment towers typically on a podium of5% 2-10 storeys. Apartment tower in excess of

10 stories.

MID-RISE

Mid-rise Apartments

3-10 storey buildings, typically no podiumlevel although nonresidential uses common

0M

Street Setback

A zero setback is an urban response and

0-5M most desirable with increasing setbacksreducing in desirability.

CARS/HA33

Car Density

The provision of car parks per hectarewithin the site area to support the residentpopulation.

1 car picture = 10 cars/ha (An average of 1

car per two dwellings is assumed if exactstatistics are unavailable).

APARTMENTS at ground and first floor.

95%

LOW-RISE ATTACHED0%

Low-rise Attached Housing

1-3 storey attached or semi-attacheddwellings - typically low scale walk-ups,stacked townhouses, terraces or duplexes.

Street Interface

The street interface was categorised intothree alternate arrangements:

Active/positive interface at all buildinglevels.

90%

JOBS/HA1255

Employment Density

The number of jobs per hectare within thesite area.

The densities are illustrated in the following

way to enable quick comparison betweeneach study area.

1 person (employment) = 50 people/ha

LOW-RISEDETACHED0%

Low-rise Detached Housing

1-3 storey conventional houses.

5% Active/positive interface at ground levelwith inactive floors immediately above(typically car parking).

5% Inactive/negative interface at ground floor.

s o u t h B a n k S t r u c t u r e P L A N D e s i g n a n D P l a n n i n g a t A e c o m

y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u


5/46

03

87

50M APART

5%

10-50M APART

10%

SMALL PARK/SQUARE2

ACCESS TO OPEN SPACE/SOCIAl AND COMMuNITyINFRASTRuCTuRE

Nominates facilities, infrastructure and

services either within the study area orwithin 500m walk.

Open Space

Access to small community spaces orsquares provides respite from the typicalstreet activity and traffic noise.

Access to large parks provides for

play facilities and improves generalenvironmental quality.

ESD

Measures the percentage of ESD

components generally utilised in thearea. This is broken down into water andenergy.

Building Entrances

The closer the entrances are, the morestreet activity and liveliness is achieved.

under 10m distances between entrancesis a desirable urban grain.

Any entrance further than 10m creates an

environment dominated by walls, parkingentrances and glazed facades lacking anyinteraction.

Non Residential UsesThese are purely indicative to the range ofother uses in the area and not necessarilya qualitative assessment of the usesthemselves.

LARGE PARK2

E

C

s

$

Education

Access to community, tertiary and highereducation facilities provides an indicationof the range of educational possibilitiesenjoyed by the immediate community andthus the likely profile of residents.

Community Facilities

Access to the general facilities thatprovide services to enable families to liveand function at their most integrated.


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

C O M M E R C I A

L

A I L

E T R

N D U S T R I A L

I


6/46

03

88 3.3 Case Study 01 Melbourne CBD

66/haDWELLINGS CARS/HAPEOPLE/HA

1081.6 PERDWELLING

/HA 66 33

1255/haJOBS/HA1255

78%5% 2%

DATEDIST. TO CBD

1800S - 20090KM / 0 MIN

ON STREET15%

BASEMENTMelbourne's CBD in its current grid form has developedover the past 170 years. It is a mixed use area, withprimary uses being commercial, retail and increasinglyresidential. Recent local government initiatives haveincreased the number of residents by 850% in a 15 yearperiod.

95% 0% 0%TOWER

APARTMENTS5%

MID-RISE APARTMENTS LOW-RISE LOW-RISE ATTACHED DETACHED

11.95 ha73%

1:10,000

4.4 ha

27%PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 0%COMMUNAL OPEN SPACE 0%PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 27%

2 12

95%0-5M5%

5+M0%

0M

sItE buIlt FoRM


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

y I T

N S

E D

G R O U N D

B O V E

A R O U N D

G N I K R A P R A C

G

0 0 0

, 5 : 1

y G O l O P y

T G N I l l E W

D

P R T O O F G N I D l I u

B

N I T

) S y

E R O T S ( E G N A R T H G I E H

K C A

T B E S T E

E C A P S N

E T I S

P E

l A I R E A

T R E

O S


7/46

03

89

99%POTABLE TOWN SUPPLY

0.5% STORMWATER REUSED WITHIN SITE AREA0.1% GREYWATER REUSE0.1% BLACKWATER REUSE

100%0%0%

GRIDSELF GENERATEDDISTRICT DISTRIBUTED NETWORK

E004

PRIMARY SCHOOLSECONDARY SCHOOLUNIVERSITY

90% 5% 5% 30 MEDICAL SERVICES3 CHILDCARE

12 CONVENIENCE SHOPPING

Cs

s

0M / 0 MIN WALK

TRAIN 0M / 0 MIN WALK

TRAM 0M / 0 MIN WALK

FERRY 800M / 10 MIN WALK

21

LIBRARYSPORTS CENTRE

20 CULTURAL CENTRE / INSTITUTIONS100 CAFES / RESTAURANTS

BUS

50M APART

5%

ContExt sItE Photos


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

E C R u

O S R E T A W

E C R u

O S y

G R E N E

E R u

T C u

R T S A R F N I y

T I N u

M M O C / l A I C O S O T S S E C C A

A I T N E D I S

A

R F

T E

N I T E R

E - A

I L

O M M E R C I A L

E T

R T R E

N D U S T R I A L

N O N

S C I

E S u

l

S

E C

E C A P

S N

S E

C I l B u

P T

O R

S P S E N

S

C A C R A T

N C A R T N E

P E

O O T S S E C C A

N G

D I l I u

B


8/46


9/46

03

91

100%0%

0%0%

POTABLE TOWN SUPPLYSTORMWATER REUSEDWITHIN SITE AREA

GREYWATER REUSEBLACKWATER REUSE

80%20%0%


E

s

s

BUS

TRAIN

TRAM/METRO

FERRY

112


C0

16201

LIBRARY

SPORTS CENTRECULTURAL CENTRE / INSTITUTIONSCAFES / RESTAURANTSCHURCHES


80% 0% 20% 12

MEDICAL SERVICESCHILDCARE

0M / 0 MIN WALK

400M / 5 MIN WALK

400M / 5 MIN WALK

400M / 5 MIN WALK

50M APART5%

SMALL PARK/SQUARE6

LARGE PARK1

ContExt sItE Photos


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

E C R u

O S R E T A W

E C R u

O S y

G R E N E

E R u

T C u

R T S A R

F N I y

T I N u


S E S u

l A I T N E D I S

E C A

R F

O M M E R C I A L

E T

R T R E

N D U S T R I A L

N O N

C I S

T E

N I T E R

E - A

I L

E C A P

S N

S E

C I l B u

P T

O R T S P S E N

S

C A C R A T

N C A R T N E

P E

O O T S S E C C A

N G

D I l I u

B


10/46

03

92 3.5 Case Study 03 Borneo Sporenburg, Amsterdam, Netherlands

100/ha 2.5/haPEOPLE/HA DW ELLINGS CARS/HA200 /HA 100 50

JOBS/HA2.5

25%

40% 0%

BASEMENTON STREET35%

DATEDIST. TO CBD

1996 - 20002 KM

Of the 17,000 housing units in the Eastern Docklands,those in Borneo Sporenburg are the most innovative,offering a vision of urban living tuned to an aspiration

by many to live in the city's historic core, or some placelike it.

75%

TOWER APARTMENTS0%

MID-RISE APARTMENTS25%

LOW-RISE ATTACHED

LOW-RISEDETACHED0%

11.95 ha60%

1:10,000

3.2 ha

20%PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 6%COMMUNAL OPEN SPACE 2%PUBLIC OPEN SPACE12%

3 8 0M

100%

0-5M50%

5+M0%

sItE buIlt FoRM


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

y I T

N S

E D

R O U N D

G

B O V E

A R O U N D

G N I K R A P R A C

G

0 0 0

, 5 : 1

y G O l O P y

T G N I l l E W

D


B

N I T

) S y


K C A

T B E S T E

E C A P S N

l A I R E A E T I S

P E

T R E

O S


11/46

03

93

60%POTABLE TOWN SUPPLY20%STORMWATER REUSED WITHIN SITE AREA

20%GREYWATER REUSE0% BLACKWATER REUSE

100% GRID0% SELF GENERATED0% DISTRICT DISTRIBUTED NETWORK

E

C

110

00011 CAFES / RESTAURANTS

LIBRARYSPORTS CENTRECULTURAL CENTRE / INSTITUTIONS

PRIMARY SCHOOLSECONDARY SCHOOLTAFE/TECHNICAL COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY

95% 0% 5% 11 MEDICAL SERVICESCHILDCARE

s

0M / 0 MIN WALK

TRAIN 2KM / 25 MIN WALK




BUS

50M APART

5%

sItE Photos


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

E C R u

O S R E T A W

E C R u

O S y

G R E N E

E R u

T C u

R T S A R F N I y

T I N u


S E S u

l A I T N E D I S

E C A

R F

I T E

T E

N

R E - A

I L

O M M E R C I A L

E T

R T R E

N D U S T R I A L

N O N

S C I

E C A P S N

S E

C I l B u

P T

O R

S P S E N

C A C R A T

N C A R T N E

P E

O O T S S E C C A

N G

D I l I u

B


12/46

03

94 3.6 Case Study 04 Bercy, Paris, France

100/haPEOPLE/HA DW ELLINGS CARS/HA200 /HA 100 50

JOBS/HA16

16/ha

95%0% 0%

Date

Dist. to CBD

1997-1999

2 km

ON STREET5%

BASEMENTMixed use development with a new park, high densityresidential and retail, commerical and leisure facilities

100%

TOWER APARTMENTS0%

MID-RISE APARTMENTS

LOW-RISE LOW-RISE ATTACHED DETACHED0% 0%

7.5 ha47%

1:10,000

8.0 ha


7 9 0M

100%0-5M50%

5+M0%

sItE buIlt FoRM


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

y I T

N S

E D

R O U N D

G

B O V E

A R O U N D

G G N I K R A P R A C

1

0 0 0

, 5 :

y G O l O P y

T G N I l l E W

D


B

N I T

) S y


K C A

T B E S T E

E C A P S N

l A I R E A E T I S

P E

T R E

O S


13/46

03

95

90%POTABLE TOWN SUPPLY10%STORMWATER

0% GREYWATER REUSE0% BLACKWATER REUSE


E110


C

0119

LIBRARYSPORTS CENTRECULTURAL CENTRE / INSTITUTIONSCAFES / RESTAURANTS

80% 0% 20%41


s

0M / 0 MIN WALK



FERRY NA


BUS

50M APART

0%

ContExt sItE Photos


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

E C R u

O S R E T A W

E C R u

O S y

G R E N E

E R u

T C u

R T S A R F N I y

T I N u


S E S u

l A I T N E D I S

E C A

R F

N I T E

T E

R E - A

I L

O M M E R C I A L

E T

R T R E

N D U S T R I A L

N O N

S C I

E C A P S N

S E

C I l B u

P T

O R

S P S E N

S

C A C R A T

N C A R T N E

P E

O O T S S E C C A

N G

D I l I u

B


14/46

03

96 3.7 Case Study 05 long Beach, California

24/haDWELLINGS CARS/HAPEOPLE/HA

50 /HA24

24JOBS/HA92

92/ha 0%35% 50%

ON STREET15%

DATEDIST. TO CBD

1880S-20090 KM

70%

TOWER APARTMENTS20%

LOW-RISE ATTACHED10%

LOW-RISEDETACHED0%

MID-RISE APARTMENTS

Downtown long Beach in its current gridded formhas developed since the late 1880s. It is a mixed usearea, with primary uses being commercial, retail andincreasingly residential. Due to public investmentand market preferences, Downtown population hasincreased by 32% since 1990.

9.28 ha58%

1:10,000

6.72 ha


7 30 0M

80%

0-5M20%

5+M0%

sItE buIlt FoRM


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

R O U N D

G

B O V E

A R O U N D

y I T

G N I K R A P R A C

G

D

N S

E

A S E M E N T

B

y G O l O P y

T G N I l l E W

D

, 5 : 1

0 0 0

T N I


B

) S y


K C A

T B E S T E

E C A P S N

l A I R E A E T I S

P E

T R E

O S


15/46

03

97

100% POTABLE TOWN SUPPLY0% STORMWATER0% GREYWATER REUSE0% BLACKWATER REUSE


493



E

C

s

60M / 1 MIN WALK


TRAM NO


533


65% 15% 20%95



BUS

50M APART

30%

ContExt sItE Photos


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

E C R u

O S R E T A W

E C R u

O S y

G R E N E

S A R

F N I y

T I N u


S E S u

l A I T N E D I S

E R u

T C u

R T

E C A

R F

N I T E

T E

R E - A

I L

O M M E R C I A L

E T

R T R E

N D U S T R I A L

N O N

S C I

E C A P S N

S E

C I l B u

P T

O R

S P S E N

S

C A C R A T

N C

A R T N E

P E

O O T S S E C C A

N G

D I l I u

B


16/46

03

98 3.8 Case Study 06: Battery Park, New york

100/ha 830/ha 0%10% 20%ON STREET70%

PEOPLE/HA DW ELLINGS CARS/HA240 /HA

10050

JOBS/HA

DATEDIST. TO CBD

1960S-20090 KM

Battery Park City was built on landfill created during theearly 1960's and completed during the construction of theWorld Trade Center. The plan is essentially gridded followingalignments from the adjacent lower Manhattan Street grid.

70% 30%

APARTMENTS ATTACHED0%

TOWER APARTMENTS

MID-RISE LOW-RISE LOW-RISEDETACHED0%

9.92 ha62%

1:10,000

6.08 ha


7 30 0M

100%

0-5M0%

5+M0%

sItE buIlt FoRM

s o u t h B a n k S t r u c t u r e P L A N E D A W D e s i g n , P l a n n i n gD ae sniDg ne navni rD OPnlmaennnti nsgwaOtr lAD cew i oDme

y d u

t s y

t i s n e d n a

b r u

R O U N D

G

B O V E

A R O U N D

y I T

G N I K R A P R A C

G

D

N S

E

A S E M E N T

B

y G O l O P y

T G N I l l E W

D

5 : 1

0 0 0

,

T N I


B

) S y

E R O

T S ( E G N A R T H G I E H

K C A

T B E S T E

E C A P S N

l A I R E A E T I S

P E

T R E

O S


17/46

03

99

99%POTABLE TOWN SUPPLY1% STORMWATER0% GREYWATER REUSE0% BLACKWATER REUSE


E120


C

014



90% 5% 5%06


s

TRAIN

TRAM

FERRY


BUS 100M / 1 MIN WALK

200M / 2 MIN WALK

NO

200M / 2 MIN WALK

50M APART5%

SMALL PARK/SQUARE12

LARGE PARK3

ContExt sItE Photos


y d u

t s y

t i s n e d n a

b r u

E C R u

O S R E T A W

E C R u

O S y

G R E N E

E R u

T C u

R T S A R

F N I y

T I N u


S E S u

l A I T N E D I S

E C A

R F

N I T E

T E

R E - A

I L

O M M E R C I A L

E T

R T R E

N D U S T R I A L

N O N

C I S

E C A P S N

S E

C I l B u

P T

O R

S P S E N

S

C A C R A T

N C

A R T N E

P E

S E C C A

D I l I u

B

S N G

T

O O


18/46

03

100 3.9 Case Study 07 Southbank, Melbourne, Australia

41/ha 252/haDWELLINGS CARS/HA/HA41

41JOBS/HAPEOPLE/HA

581.3 PERDWELLING

10%

20% 60%DATEDIST. TO CBD

1840S-20090 KM

ON STREET10%

Southbank in its current form was developed in the1980s from its pre-existing industrial use.

8.0 ha50%

TOWER MID-RISE LOW-RISE

APARTMENTS APARTMENTS ATTACHED0%

90%10%

LOW-RISEDETACHED0%

1:10,000

8.0 ha


1 92 0M

90%0-5M10%

5+M0%

sItE buIlt FoRM


y d u

t s y

t i s n e d n a

b r u

y I T

N S

E D

R O U N D

G

B O V E

A R O U N D


A S E M E N T

5 : 1

B 0 0 0

,

l O P y

T G N I l l E W

D

N I


B

y G O T

) S y

E R O

T S ( E G N A R T H G I E H

K C A

T B E S T E

E C A P S N

l A I R E A E T I S

P E

T R E

O S


19/46

03

101

100%0%0%0%

POTABLE TOWN SUPPLYSTORMWATERGREYWATER REUSEBLACKWATER REUSE

100%0%0%


E011


0

0

LIBRARY

SPORTS CENTRE

C

+

s

BUS

TRAIN

TRAM

FERRY

10 CULTURAL CENTRE / INSTITUTIONS40 CAFES / RESTAURANTS

20% 45% 35%00



0M / 0 MIN WALK

400M / 5 MINS WALK

100M / 2 MINS WALK

800M / 10 MINS WALK

50M APART20% 50%

30%

SMALL PARK/SQUARE3

LARGE PARK1

ContExt sItE Photos


y d u

t s y

t i s n e d n a

b r u

E C R u

O S R E T A W

E C R u

O S y

G R E N E

E R u

T C u

R T S A R F N I y

T I N u


E S u

l A I T N E D I S

S

E C A

R F

N I T E

T E

R E - A

I L

O M M E R C I A L

E T

R T R E

N D U S T R I A L

N O N

C I S

E C A P S N

S E

C I l B u

P T

O R T O S P S E N

S

C A C R A T

N C

A R T N E

P E

O O T S S E C C A

N G

D I l I u

B


20/46

03

102 3.10 Case Study 08 Beddington Zero, Surrey, uK

62/ha

DWELLINGS CARS/HAJOBS/HA

10/haPEOPLE/HA100 /HA

6215

0%

20% 0%ON STREET80%

DATEDIST. TO CBD

20000 KM

Beddington Zero Energy Neighbourhood was developed as aprototype of a carbon neutral neighbourhood.

100%

TOWER APARTMENTS0%

MID-RISE APARTMENTS

LOW-RISE LOW-RISE ATTACHED DETACHED0% 0%

9.92 ha62%

1:10,000

6.08 ha


3 3 0-5M100%

5+M0%

0M0%

sItE buIlt FoRM


y d u

t s y

t i s n e d n a

b r u

R O U N D

G

B O V E

A

R O U N D

y I T

G

K R A P R A C

D

G N I

N S

E

A S E M E N T

B

0 0 0

, 5 : 1

y G O l O P y

T G N I l l E W

D


B

N I T

) S y


K C A

T B E S T E

E C A P S N

l A I R E A E T I S

P E

T R E

O S


21/46

03

103

70%15%15%0%

POTABLE TOWN SUPPLYSTORMWATERGREYWATER REUSEBLACKWATER REUSE

50%50%0%


E100


C

0

225

LIBRARY

SPORTS CENTRECULTURAL CENTRE / INSTITUTIONSCAFES / RESTAURANTS

80% 0% 20%11


s

0M / 0 MIN WALK


TRAM NO

FERRY NO


BUS

50M APART50% 50% 0%

SMALL PARK/SQUARE2

LARGE PARK1

ContExt sItE Photos


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

E C R u

O S R E T A W

E C R u

O S y

G R E N E

E R u

T C u

R T S A R F N I y

T I N u


S E S u

l A I T N E D I S

E C A

R F

T E

N I T E R

E - A

I L

O M M E R C I A L

E T R

T R E

N D U S T R I A L

N O N

C I S

E C A P S N

S E

C I l B u

P T

O R T O S P S E N

S

C A C R A T

N C

A R T N E

P E

O O T S S E C C A

N G

D I l I u

B


22/46

03

104 3.11 Case Study 09: Mid-levels, Hong Kong


15PEOPLE/HA308

JOBS/HA45

5%

15% 75%ON STREET5%

DATEDIST. TO CBD

1800S - 20091.8 KM / 10 MIN

The Mid levels of Hong Kong is a vibrant mixeduse district within close range of the CBD, Central.

Accessed via a series of covered escalators, the areacontains a variety of community amenities, universities,restaurants and local grocers. It is well integrated and

contains numerous open spaces.

40+

TOWER APARTMENTS

75%

MID-RISE APARTMENTS25%

LOW-RISE ATTACHED0%

LOW-RISEDETACHED0%

9.28 ha58%

1:10,000

4.4 ha

42%PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 3%PUBLIC SQUARE 4%PUBLIC PARKS 20%

10+

8 45

95%0-5M5%

5+M0%

0M

sItE buIlt FoRM


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

y I T

N S

E D

R O U N D

G

B O V E

A R O U N D


0 0 0

, 5 : 1 A

S E M E N T

B

y G O l O P y

T G N I l l E W

D


B

N I T

) S y


K C A

T B E S T E

E C A P S N

E T I S

P E

l A I R E A

T R E

O S


23/46

03

105

99%POTABLE TOWN SUPPLY0.5% STORMWATER REUSED WITHIN SITE AREA0.1% GREYWATER REUSE0.1% BLACKWATER REUSE

100%0%0%


1

14

LIBRARY

SPORTS CENTRECULTURAL CENTRE / INSTITUTIONS


70% 32 MEDICAL SERVICES3 CHILDCARE

25% 5%


E

Cs

s

0M / 0 MIN WALK


TRAM 1 KM / 12 MIN WALK

FERRY 1.2 KM / 15 MIN WALK

15 PRIMARY SCHOOL8 SECONDARYSCHOOL1 UNIVERSITY

BUS

50M APART5%

SMALL PARK/SQUARE2

LARGE PARK1

ContExt sItE Photos


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

E C R u

O S R E

T A W

E C R u

O S y

G R E N E

S A R F N I y

T I N u


S E S u

l A I T N E D I S

E C A

R F

T E

T E

N I

R E - A

I L

O M M E R C I A L

E T R

T R E

N D U S T R I A L

N O N

S C I

E R u

T C u

R T

E C A P S N

S E

C I l B u

P T

O R

S P S E N

C A C R A T

N C

A R T N E

P E

O O T S S E C C A

N G

D I l I u

B


24/46

03

106 3.12 Case Study 10: Eixample, Barcelona, Spain


140PEOPLE/HA351

JOBS/HA78

20%

40% 0%

DATEDIST. TO CBD

1850-19002KM

BASEMENTON STREET40%

The Eixample district in Barcelona was designed byCerdes as an extension to the city beyond the traditionaldefensible walls. The grid block layout is repeatedacross the 7.5 square kilometre suburb. It is Barcelona'sdensest city area.

100%

TOWER APARTMENTS0%

MID-RISE APARTMENTS

LOW-RISE ATTACHED0%

LOW-RISEDETACHED0%

11.04 ha69%

1:10,000

4.96 ha


3 8

100%0-5M0%

5+M0%

0M


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

y I T

N S

E D

R O U N D

G

B O V E

A R O U N D

G N I K R A P R A C

G

0 0 0

, 5 : 1

y G O l O P y

T G N I l l E W

D


B

N I T

) S y


K C A

T B E S T E

E C A P S N

E T I S

P E

l A I R E A

T R E

O S


25/46

03

107

100% POTABLE TOWN SUPPLY0% STORMWATER REUSED WITHIN SITE AREA0% GREYWATER REUSE0% BLACKWATER REUSE

100%0%0%


INSTITUTIONS

x

xx

LIBRARY

SPORTS CENTRECULTURAL CENTRE /


95% 0% 5% 1+ MEDICAL SERVICESx CHILDCARE


E

Cs

s

0M / 0 MIN WALK

TRAIN NA


FERRY NA

17 PRIMARY SCHOOL17 SECONDARY SCHOOL0 UNIVERSITY

BUS

50M APART50% 50% 0%

SMALL PARK/SQUARE1

LARGE PARK0


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

E C R u

O S R E T A W

E C R u

O S y

G R E N E

u T C u

R T S A R F N I y

T I N u


S E S u

l A I T N E D I S

E C A

R F

T E

T E

N I

R E - A

I L

O M M E R C I A L

E T R

T R E

N D U S T R I A L

N O N

C I S

E R

E C A P S

N

S E

C I l B u

P T

O R T O S P S E N

S

C A C R A T

N C

A R T N E

P E

O O T S S E C C A

N G

D I l I u

B


26/46

03

108 3.13 Conclusions from the Urban Density Case StudyThe following is a summary of the case studies orderedaccording to residential densities.

3.13.01 DensitiesDensitiesFive of the case study examples all achieved dwellingdensities in the order of 100 dwellings per hectare.These included Hong Kong, Bercy, Borneo-Sporenburg,Coin Street and Battery Park. The remaining fourcase studies recorded densities of 66 (Melbourne), 50(Beddington Zero), 41 (Southbank) and 24 (long Beach).

Employment densities varied greatly with four casestudies exceeding 100 jobs per hectare. Thesewere Coin Street, Battery Park, Melbourne CBD andSouthbank. long Beach was within reach of thisnumber at 92 jobs/hectare. The remaining three casestudies Bercy, Borneo-Sporenburg and BeddingtonZero recorded distinctly lower densities ranging from2.5 to 16 jobs per hectare. These figures reflect the

predominantly residential use of these sites.In order to achieve a successful mixed use area, it willbe important to balance sustainable residential andemployment densities.

Car densities were typically difficult to determine withinformation on car ownership not readily available foreach case study. Similarly, population data that wedefined for the relatively small study areas analysedwas not easily accessible. Considering the reliance onassumed ratios of car ownership and the number ofresidents per dwelling the recommendations drawnfrom this study will focus primarily on dwelling andemployment densities.

hE REsults ALL DENSITIES

0.6/

0.1/

0.2/

0.5/

0.5/

0.5/

0.5/0.2/

1.0/

1.0/

01 EIxaMPlE, baRCElona

02 MId lEVEls, honG konG

03 CoIn st, london

03 boRnEo sPoREnbuRG, aMstERdaM

03 bERCy, PaRIs

03 battERy PaRk, nEW yoRk

07 MElbouRnE Cbd

08 bEddInGton ZERo, suRREy

09 southbank, MElbouRnE

10 lonG bEaCh, CalIFoRnIa

351 230

308 118

200 100

200 100

200 100

240 100

108 66

100 50

58 41

230/ha

118/ha

100/ha

100/ha

100/ha

100/ha

66/ha

50/ha

41/ha

24/ha

140

15

20

50

50

50

33

12

41

50 24 24

78/ha

45/ha

300/ha

2.5/ha

16/ha

830/ha

1255/ha

10/ha

252/ha

92/ha


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

n t

t n I l l

n I / l l s R

W E

a C d

o n I G G M E

l o y

u l a

s R a

C

P o

P W E

d E M P


27/46

03

109

3.13.02 Site

Built Footprint

The building site coverage across the case studiesranged from 47% (Bercy) to 73% (Melbourne CBD).The majority of study areas were within excess of-8 percentage points of the average of 58% sitecoverage. Melbourne CBD and Barcelona had t hehighest percentage of site coverage at 73% and 69%respectively. There was no relationship evident in thisstudy between the residential or employment densities,and building footprints.

The building coverage for Southbank was 50% which

was 8 percentage points lower than the average.

Open SpaceThe area of each site attributed to open space rangedfrom 20% to 50%. The majority of this area in each case

was provided as public space predominantly in the roadcorridors/transit ways but also as accessible urbanparkland. Private open space accounted for a maximumof 10% of the site area (Bercy and Beddington Zero)and was not evident within Mid levels, Battery Park,Melbourne CBD, Southbank or Barcelona.

Southbank recorded the equal highest area of openspace (50%) and the highest area of public open space(45%). Bercy and Beddington Zero also recorded 50%open space area followed closely by Hong Kong (48%).However a review of the aerial photographs illustratesthat within Southbank a significant portion of thisarea is road infrastructure and not available as greencommunity active or passive recreation areas.

eixample, Barcelona 230

mid levels, Hong Kong 118

Bercy, Paris

Borneo-sporenburg

Coin street

Battery Park

melbourne CBD

Beddington Zero

southbank

long Beach

100

100

100

100

66

50

41

24

78

45

16

2.5

300

830

1255

10

252

92

69%

58%

47%

60%

50%

62%

73%

50%

50%

58%

eixample, Barcelona

mid levels, HongKong

Bercy, Paris

Borneo-sporenburg

Coin street

Battery Park

melbourne CBD

Beddington Zero

southbank

long Beach

230

118

100

100

100

100

66

50

41

24

78

45

16

2.5

300

830

1255

10

252

92

31%

48%

50%

20%

35%

38%

27%

50%

50%

42%

-

-

10%

6%

5%

-

-

10%

-

4%

3%

5%

10%

2%

10%

10%

-

20%

5%

18%

28%

43%

30%

12%

20%

28%

27%

20%

45%

20%

3.13.A BUILDING FOOTPRINT BREAKDOWN 3.13.B OPEN SPACE BREAKDOWN


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

t n i r p o t o F g n i d l i u

B

y t i s n e D g n i l l e w

D

n t n t y d u t s s e a

C

y d u t s s e a

C

l a n u m m

C

c e a p s n e p o

g n i l l e w

D

m e y o l p m E

m e y o l p m E

y t i

e n s

D

y t i

e n s

D

e t a v i r P

c i l b u P


28/46


29/46

03

111Building HeightFollowing the building typology mix, the predominantheight range for buildings was 2-10 storeys. Themaximum height of any dwelling was the Eureka Towerin Southbank at 92 storeys. This far surpassed the nexttallest building at 42 storeys in Hong Kong. Four of thefive highest dwelling density examples did not exceed9 storeys. Higher buildings were associated with higheremployment densities.

The relationship between building heights and densities

is illustrated in Figure 3.13E.

Southbank has the most differentiation betweenbuilding heights within the study areas with the highestand lowest building heights recorded.

3 8 7 9 7 30 2 12 3 3 2 92 7 303 98 453 8

230 118 100 100 100 100 66 50 41 24

01 02 03 03 03 03 07 08 09 10

s o u t h B a n k S t r u c t u r e P L A N

3.13.E BUILDING HEIGHT BREAKDOWN

D e s i g n a n D P l a n n i n g a t A e c o m

y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

M

d a

E R

s t

M a

,

R G

y k R

y o

E n

R

a I n

R o

I F a l

C

h ,

C a

E b G

G R R E

s u k o n

l o n a

G E W

n

k , R a

P y

E R

o , l b o u

n b u

b d C E n

R

R C E

M E

Z E R

h o n

R E

o P s o

E n

R

b o

s R I a

P ,

y

,

l s b a

, E l

M P

l o n d o n

t o n

, s t

n I o

C

G n I

d d E b

E V E

l d

M I

l b o u

t t x a

E I E

M E R C

b b a

s o u

t h b a n k

,

l o n


30/46

03

112

Car ParkingThere was a wide range of car parking configurationsacross the case studies. Five of the six sites with the

highest residential densities had a significant shareof their car parking located either in the basement oron-street. These two parking arrangements providethe best public realm experience as they avoid locatingthe inactive use of car storage at the street interface oroverlooking the street.

The parking arrangements of Southbank, long Beachand Hong Kong suggest that these cities provide theworst public realm outcome with a minimum of 80% ofcar parking located at ground level or in multi deck carparks. The effect may be mitigated to a degree howeverin Hong Kong where car ownership is significantly lowerthat in Southbank or long Beach.

This study identifies a direct relationship between carparking arrangements and building heights as thesethree city examples were also those that recordedbuildings exceeding 30 storeys.

0%

10%20% 20%

0.6/ 0.5/BASEMENTON STREET40%

ON STREET70%

40% 0%

01 230 03 50 100140EIxaMPlE, baRCElona battERy PaRk, nEW yoRk

78%5%5%15% 75% 2%

ON STREET5%

ON STREET15%

02 0.1/ 0.5/MId lEVEls, honG konG

07 MElbouRnE Cbd33 6615 118 BASEMENT

80% 0%20% 0%0% 0%

ON STREET20%

ON STREET80%

0.2/ 0.2/03 CoIn st, london20 100 BASEMENT 08 12 50bEddInGton ZERo, suRREy

10%25%

20%0%60%

40%

0.5/ 1.0/BASEMENT

ON STREET35%

ON STREET10%

03 50 100 09 southbank, MElbouRnE41 41boRnEo sPoREnbuRG, aMstERdaM

95%0%

0% 35%0% 50%ON STREET5%

ON STREET15%

1.0/

D e s i g n a n D P l a n n i n g a t A e c o m

03 0.5/ 10 lonG bEaCh, CalIFoRnIa24 24BASEMENT50bERCy, PaRIs

100

s o u t h B a n k S t r u c t u r e P L A N

y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

R O U N D

G R O U N D

G

B O V E

A B O V E

R O U N D

A G R O U N D

G

A S E M E N T

B

R O U N D

R O U N D

G G

B O V E

B O V E

A A R O U N D

R O U N D

G G

A S E M E N T

B

R O U N D

G R O U N D

G

B O V E

E v

E T I

v A g

S I T I

P

> 8 0 %

A B O V E

R O U N D

A G R O U N D

G

A S E M E N T

B

R O U N D

R O U N D

G G

B O V E

A B O V E

A > 8 0 %

R O U N D

R O U N D

G G

R M E R S

A S E M E N T

B

R O U N D

G

R M

R O U N D

G f o P E R

B O V E

B O V E

A A P E R

R O U N D

R O U N D

G G R S T

E S T

b w

A S E M E N T

B


31/46

03

113

Street SetbackZero setbacks were the most common followed by0-5m. Setbacks greater than 5m were not recorded in

any case study.Southbank was comparable with the remaining studyareas with 90% of the building footprint with no streetsetback and 10% setback 0-5m.

Beddington Zero recorded the highest extentof setbacks. Considering its suburban locationcomparative to the other case studies this is notunexpected.

0M

100%010-5M0%

5+M0%

0M 0-5M0%

5+M0%

03 100230

EIxaMPlE, baRCElona

100%

battERy PaRk, nEW yoRk

0M

95%0-5M5%

5+M0%

0M 0-5M

5%

5+M

0%

02 07 66118MId lEVEls, honG konG

95%

MElbouRnE Cbd

0M 0-5M 5+M0%

0M0%

0-5M100%

5+M0%

03 50% 50%CoIn st, london

08100 50bEddInGton ZERo, suRREy

0M

100%0-5M50%

5+M0%

0M

90%0-5M

10%

5+M

0%

03 100boRnEo sPoREnbuRG, aMstERdaM

09 41southbank, MElbouRnE

0M

100%

bERCy, PaRIs

0-5M50%

5+M0%

0M 0-5M20%

5+M0%

03 10 2480%

lonG bEaCh, CalIFoRnIa

100

3.13.F STREET SETBACK BREAKDOWN


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

E v

E T I

v A g

S I

T I

o P

> 8 0 %

> 8 0 %

R M E R S

R M E R S

f o

f o P E R

P E R

b w

R S T

E S T


32/46

03

114

Street InterfaceThe relationship of the street interface waspredominantly a mix of 65-90% active/positive interface

and 5-20% inactive interface - indicating a directinterface with the street of blank walls (typically serviceareas) or car parking.

Southbank was the clear exception to the majorityexample with only 20% of the building frontage tothe street recorded as an active or positive edge. Alarge percentage - 45% - was recorded as an activeground interface with inactive uses above - typicallycar parking. Similarly, a significantly larger than averagepercentage was recorded as inactive. This will havea significantly detrimental effect on the experience ofthe public realm within the study area, decreasing theperceptions of safety and enjoyment for visitors andresidents.

There was no discernible relationship between activeedges and densities.

There was a direct relationship between the buildingheights within the study areas and the degree of activityat the street interface as illustrated in Figure 3.13.G.Hong Kong, Southbank and long Beach all had aminimum of 30% inactive edges. These examples alsorecorded the highest buildings (with the exception ofBattery Park).

8 45 3 9 3 8 7 9 7 30 2 12 2 92 7 303 8 3 3

25% 5% o95% 70% 80% 95% 80% 90% 90% 80% 65%0% 5% 0% 20% 0% 5% 0% 20% 5% 5% 5% 5% 0% 20% 20% 45% 35% 15% 20%

230 118 100 100 100 100 66 50 41 24

01 02 03 03 03 03 07 08 09 103.13.G STREET INTERFACE BREAKDOWN


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

E v

E T I

v A g

S I T I

N E

o P

> 8 0 %

M d a

E R

s t

M a

,

R G

y k R

y o

E n

R

a I n

R o

I F a l

C

h , C a

E b G

G > 8 0 %

R R E

s u k o n

l o n a

G E W

n

k , R a

P y

E R

o , l b o u

n b u

b d C E n

R

R C E

M E

Z E R

h o n

R E

o P s o

E n

R

b o

s R I a

P ,

y

R M E R S

,

l s b a

, E l

M P

l o n d o n

t o n

R M E R S

, s t

n I

C

f o

f o P E R

G n I

d d E b

E V E

l d M I

l b o u

t t x a

E I E

M E R C

b s o u t

h b a n

k ,

l o n

b a

P E R

0 2 0 3 0 3 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 3

R S T

E S T

b w o


33/46

03

115

Building Entrances

The distance between building entrances indicatesthe grain of urban development and provides a strong

indication of the intensity of different premises withinthe site and the built form character. Entrances thatare close together (less than 10m) indicate a fine grainof development that adds diversity and interest andvibrancy to an urban area. Entrances less than 10mapart were the most common (above 50% in most casestudies).

Building entrances greater than 10m were recordedagainst all four of the lowest residential densities. Therewas no clear correlation between building entrancedensities and employment densities.

There is an identified relationship between the distancesbetween entrances and building typologies. Thetwo examples with the greatest distances recordedbetween building entrances were Battery Park (85% ofentrances greater than 10m apart) and Southbank (80%of entrances greater than 10m apart). This suggeststhat these two examples incorporate a coarser urbangrain. Coin Street and Beddington Zero each hadapproximately 50% of dwellings 10-50m apart, withnone greater than 50m. Battery Park and Southbankalso recorded two of the three highest percentages oftower apartments and it is possible to associate thiscoarser urban grain with the tower apartment typology.

01 50M APART80% 20% 0%03 50M APART5%

230100

01 EIxaMPlE, baRCElona 03 battERy PaRk, nEW yoRk

0250M APART5% 50M APART

0%118 66

02 MId lEVEls, honG konG 07 MElbouRnE Cbd

03 50M APART50% 50% 0%50M APART5% 50

08 bEddInGton ZERo, suRREy03 CoIn st, london

03 50M APART5%

09 50M APART20% 50%

30%

100 41

03 boRnEo sPoREnbuRG, aMstERdaM 09 southbank, MElbouRnE

03 50M APART

0%

10 50M APART

30%24100

03 bERCy, PaRIs3.13.H BUILDING ENTRANCES BREAKDOWN



y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

E v

E T I

v A g

S I T I

P

> 8 0 %

> 8 0 %

R M E R S

R M

f o P E R

P E R

R S T

E S T

b w


34/46

03

116

kEy outCoMEs: buIlt FoRM

The following table illustrates the performance of each of the case s tudy examples in the Built Form category. The

key outcomes that can be discerned from the study area:

1 Higher building footprints do not deliver higher densities than mid-rise buildings.

2

3

Car parking requirements are critical in achieving a high quality u rban realm within higher density `areas.

The quality of the street interface and distribution of building entrances has a direct relationship with building

height and typology.

0.6/

0.1/

0.2/

0.5/

0.5/

0.5/

0.5/0.2/

1.0/

1.0/

8

45

9

8

9

30

123

92

30



03 CoIn st, london


03 bERCy, PaRIs


07 MElbouRnE Cbd




351 230 140

308 118 15

200 100 20

200 100 50

200 100 50

240 100 50

108 66 33

100 50 12

58 41 41

50 24 24


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

n t

s G C

n I a R l d I n t

b u E

o n I t

G n I

l l

G n I

/ l s

R W E

a C d

k R a

P R y o

u t

a C l a

C E

a t

E R F

R E E

M E

h t l o y

u l a

s R a

C

P o

P W E

d E I G

h n t

s t I E M P

E v

E T v A

g S I T I

P

> 8 0 %

> 8 0 %

R M E R S

R M

f o P E R

P E R

R S T

E S T

b w o


35/46

03

117

3.13.03 ContextThe context analysis provides a useful toolto assess the livability of each case study.

Access to open space, employment, socialand community facilities and public transportall directly contribute to the quality of lifeoffered to residents and visitors within urbanenvironments.

Non-Residential UsesMost of the case studies incorporated non residentialuses with the exception of Borneo Sporenburg.Beddington Zero only incorporated commercial usesin addition to residential uses. These two case studiesalso recorded the lowest densities in employment. OnlyCoin Street and Southbank incorporated industrial useswithin the study areas.

Southbank, along with Coin Street, recorded thegreatest mix of uses within the site.

01 03100

03 battERy PaRk, nEW yoRk230


02 07118 66

07 MElbouRnE Cbd02 MId lEVEls, honG konG

03 08

10050

08 bEddInGton ZERo, suRREy03 CoIn st, london

03 09100 41

03 boRnEo sPoREnbuRG, aMstERdaM 09 southbank, MElbouRnE

03 10100 24

03 bERCy, PaRIs

NON RESIDENTIAL LAND USE BREAKDOWN


3.13.I


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

A I L

A I L

O M M E R C I A L

E T R N

D U S T R I A L

C I O M M E R C I A L

E T R N

D U S T R I A L

C I

A I L

A I L

O M M E R C I A L

O M M E R C I A L

E T R

E T R N

D U S T R I A L

N D U S T R I A L

C I C I

A I L

A I L

O M M E R C I A L

E T R N

D U S T R I A L

O M M E R C I A L

E T R

C I N D U S T R I A L

C I

A I L A I L O M M E R C I A L

E T R O

M M E R C I A L

E T R N

D U S T R I A L

N D U S T R I A L

C I C I

A I L

A I L

O M M E R C I A L

E T R O

M M E R C I A L

E T

C R N D U S T R I A L

N D U S T R I A L

C I I


36/46

03

118

Access to Public Open Space Access to public open space was provided in all casestudies however the provision of this access differedgreatly. Eixample and Borneo-Sporenburg were the twoexamples that did not have access to a large park andprovided limited access to a smaller open space area.The provision of open space in Barcelona has beencompromised by the build-out of many of the internalcourtyard spaces that historically provide a semi-privategreen space to residents.

As dwelling densities increased there was not aproportional change (negative or positive) that could bediscerned. It is therefore possible to suggest that thelevel of amenity provided to these residents is lowerthan those living in lower density areas that have anequal number of open spaces.

Considering its low residential density, Southbankprovided a higher than average ratio of small parks/squares per dwelling/hectare. The ratio of large parksper dwelling/hectare was on average with the other

case studies. The large park Kings Domain (inc. Alexandra, Queen Victoria and Botanical Gardens)is at one end of the Southbank study area and d oestherefore not provide equitable access to all residents.

12

3

03100

2

2

07

10

01

22

02

61

03

20

03

11

03

21

08

31

09

21

10230 118 100 100 100 66 50 41 24

3.13.J ACCESS TO OPEN SPACE BREAKDOWN


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

E v

E T I

v A g

S I T I

N E

o P

> 8 0 %

> 8 0 %

M

d a

E R

s t

M a

,

R G

y R M E R S

k R

y o

E n

R

a I n

R o

I F

a l C

h ,

C a

E b G

G R R E

P s o

E n

R

b o

n R l

s P y

E R

l o n d o n

t o n

a P

, y

E l

M P

, s t

n I o

C

G n I

d d E b

R S T

E V E

l d

M I

l b o u

t t E S T

b w o x a

E I E

R C

b b a E

M s o u

t h b a n k

,

l o n

R M E R S

f o

f o P E R

s u k o n

l o n a

G E W

n

k , R a

o ,

l b o u

n b u

b d C E

R C E

M E

Z E R

h o n

R E

o s R I , b

a , P

E R


37/46


38/46

03

120

Access to Public Transport All sites had access to at least two modes of publictransport. With the exception of Beddington Zero, allcase studies had access to three modes of publictransport within a 10 minute walk.

Public transport is critical to achieving urbansustainability. It has been recommended that thepopulation densities to support an urban transit centresare in the order of the following (refer Peter Newman'ssubmission to the recent Garnaut Report):

Viable Transit Centre - 10,000 people and jobswithin a 1km radius (equates to 3.14km2, that is 314hectares). This translates to 32 people and jobs perhectare (gross).

Regional Transit Centre - 100,000 people and jobswithin a 3km radius (equates to 28.27km2, that is2827 hectares). This translates to 35 people and

jobs per hectare (gross). Walking Oriented Centre - Over 100 people and

jobs per hectare in the 1km pedestrian shed. Thistranslates to residential densities of approximately40 dwellings per hectare.

Newman suggests that the mix between residents andobs is not critical in supporting public transport servicesas long as the threshold of 100 people and jobs perhectare is met. These are minimum thresholds onlyand increases in density above these levels will havea significant impact on the choice of transport mode.Densities below this level result in a sharp increase incar use, while densities above this level result in anexponential increase in the preference for walking,cycling and public transport as the preferred modeof travel. These increased densities therefore have asignificant impact on the environmental sustainability ofurban environments and should be pursued to achievethe best low fossil fuel outcomes.

Min. walk m

12

0

0

5

-

0

-

2

-

1200

-

0

400

200

800

-

600

600

Min. walk

15

-

0

5

2

10

-

8

8

Min. walk m

-

5

25

5

2

0

7

5

3

1000

0

0

400

-

0

-

100

-

Min.Walk-

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

mid levels, 118

Hong KongBercy, Paris 100

Borneo-sporenburg

Coin street

100

100

Battery Park 100

melbourneCBD

BeddingtonZero

southbank

66

50

41

long Beach24

45

16

2.5

300

830

1255

10

252

92

m

-

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

60

m

-

400

2000

400

200

0

600

400

150

3.13.K COMMUNITY FACILITIES BREAKDOWN


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

o r t e M / m a r t

n t y d u t s s e a

C

g n i l l e w

D

m e

y y t i o l p e n s

m D E

y t i

e n s

D

y r e r F

n i a r t s

B u


39/46

03

121

kEy outCoMEs:ContExt

The following table illustrates theperformance of each of the case studyexamples in the Context category. The keyoutcomes that can be discerned from thestudy area:

The provision of good amenity throughthe delivery of open space, communityinfrastructure and public transport wasnot directly related to density, howeverit was possible to discern the highestperforming examples with CoinStreet representing the best recordedoutcome.

Southbank was one of the twoworst performers along with BorneoSporenburg.

0.6/

0.1/

0.2/

0.5/

0.5/

0.5/

0.5/0.2/

1.0/

1.0/



03 CoIn st, london


03 bERCy, PaRIs


07 MElbouRnE Cbd




351 230 140

308 118 15

200 100 20

200 100 50

200 100 50

240 100 50

108 66 33

100 50 12

58 41 41

50 24 24


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

n t

t R o

P I C

a n s

t y / I

u n

a l

M M

C I

o C s o

C E a

P s n

P E

o

o n I t

G n I

l l

G n I

/ l l s R

W E

a C d

M E

l o y

u l a

s R a

C

P o

P W E

d u b

l R

P t E M P


40/46


41/46


42/46

03

124

kEy PRInCIPlEs

010203

04

05

Higher is not necessarily densertoo high leads to worse urban realm outcomesCar parking requirements (numbers and their locations)are critical in achieving a high quality urban realmresidential densities of 100+/ha and employmentdensities of 50+/ha are required to support socialinfrastructurelook to eixample, Barcelona and Coin st, london


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u


43/46

03

125

0.6/0.1/

0.2/

0.5/

0.5/

0.5/

0.5/

0.2/

1.0/

1.0/

845

9

8

9

30

12

3

92

30



03 CoIn st, london

03 boRnEo sPoREnbuRG

03 bERCy, PaRIs

03 battERy PaRk, ny

07 MElbouRnE Cbd

08 bEddInGton ZERo

09 southbank, MElb

10 lonG bEaCh, Ca

351 230

308 118

200 100

200 100

200 100

240 100

108 66

100 50

58 41

230/ha

118/ha

100/ha

100/ha

100/ha

100/ha

66/ha

50/ha

41/ha

24/ha

140

15

20

50

50

50

33

12

41

50 24 24

78/ha

45/ha

300/ha

2.5/ha

16/ha

830/ha

1255/ha

10/ha

252/ha

92/ha


y d u

t s y

t i s n e

d n a

b r u

n t

t R o

P I C

a n s

s G C

E n I a n

R l d I n t

b u E

t y / I

u n

a l

M M

C I

o C s o

C E a

P s n

P E

o

o n

I t

k R a

P R y o

u t

a C l a

G n I

l l

G n I

/ l l s R

W E

a C d

C E

a t

E R F

R E E

M E

h t l o y

u l a

s R a

C

P o

P E I G

h u b

l R

P t s d

E W E

d n

t s t I E

M P


44/46


45/46


46/46

Documents

Urban Density Study