Greenwich Village – a representation of complex planning and a complex urban form

While I am in New York I have decided to try and gain an understanding of the built environment framework. I am interested in both in the planning of the City, past and present and how this will impact the City’s future built environment. On Saturday I went on an urban renewal tour through Greenwich Village organised by the American Planning Association (APA). The APA is the American equivalent of the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA), of which I am a member. I was curious to gain an understanding of the planning and design nuances of the city from planners themselves.

Washington Square and New York University (In the background) core elements of Greenwich Village

Greenwich Village and the tour was fascinating. The full gamut of planning from the last 150 years is visible from old brownstone terraces, Edwardian cottages, to pre-WW1 apartments and the later functionalist blitzkrieg of Robert Moses in the 1950s. Further, of course are the more recent developments from New York University and the inevitable ‘gentrification’ of the area which has among other things, embellished the public domain.

In addition to learning first-hand about the mix of architecture and evident historical phases of urban planning in New York, I found the sheer complexity and dare I say it litigiousness of the urban planning system intriguing. Every planning and development decision (past and present) appears to be based on acceptable standards drafted in a planning instrument (legislation) of sorts at some time in the history of the City. The complexity is further entangled by the seeming lack of clarity surrounding the power structure between New York City, the Metropolitan Transport Authority (MTA), Landmarks New York, Development Corporations, State of New York and a host of other seemingly stakeholders and law makers.

Looking at the complex legislative and planning structure from a historical perspective, it seems to have actually helped enrich the fabric of the City itself. New York is such a mix of styles, influences and a portayel of economic boom and busts, as well as several ‘attempts’ at large scale masterplanning.  Attempts  at large scale master planning were made famous by none other than Greenwich Village itself.  The master plans for the area, especially in the post WW2 years was in part thwarted by early historic and preservation movements. The ‘functional chaos’ championed by Jane Jacobs and Ruth Wittenberg of maintaining the layers of urban life in Greenwich Village seems to have existed through a lack of master planning, or at least thwarted master planning which is evident through contratss with the areas which escaped the sword of 1950s functionalism.

Activism from the late 1960s onwards in Greenwich Village saved the area from a complete onslaught of Internationalist functional architecture

The main historical lesson about planning in Greenwich Village and in a wider context New York City, seems to be that long term strategic planning does not carry statutory weight and this has, in retrospect, been a good thing. The objectives of strategic planning in New York do not seem to much influence the clauses of zoning plans and mapping – which are the real drivers of what happens in each parcel of land. The perceived downside to this ad-hoc approach to development in a normal context would be that it leaves the door open for out of character buildings for areas of a particular style. Then again, the continual phase of ‘out of character’ buildings in a particular area. In New York City however, it seems to be what makes Greenwich Village and the City as a whole so interesting. The diversity of architectural styles and periods often within the same block make it unrivalled anywhere in the five continents I have travelled to.

 

Diverse mix of building styles in Greenwich Village reflect the various phases of urban planning

Whilst I am generally a supporter of the need for statutory power of strategic plans, it was these plans from the 1950s by way of Government built and rent-controlled housing projects, Long Island suburbanisation and the proposed Lower Manhattan Expressway which nearly destroyed much of which makes New York City today such a vibrant and eclectic hub of architectural styles.

Time for a car free CBD?

Time to look for the long term benefits and act on traffic minimisation the Sydney CBD.

Sydney has a magnificent central business district which for a large city has incredibly well marked boundaries. Travelling through Europe for the past 8 weeks has reinforced my view that this defined area of the CBD, should have some form of congestion charge, time of day tolling for car trips or at the very least traffic calming and reduction through road re-alignment.

What reaffirmed this view is how traffic measures in the centres of European cities make for a wonderful experience and allow the streetscape and public domain to reach its full potential. Walking round cities like, Rome, London, Budapest and Ljubljana – all of which have a form of traffic minimisation in the centre, the distraction of cars

Whilst Sydney’s core commercial area is teeming with beautiful architecture, a vibrant street scene and an increasingly active retail presence it is blighted by traffic issues. Blight may be a strong word, however, the traffic congestion, noise and often gridlocked streets dampen the pedestrian experience and don’t let the public domain reach its potential.

The Shard – design brilliance in an eclectic quarter of London

My very kind and thoughtful partner brought me tickets to go to ‘The View at the Shard’ for my recent birthday. The View at the Shard, which incorporates the viewing towers at levels 69-72 is a masterpiece in modern London tourism and does a great job promoting a building which is a member of the sometime maligned modern architecture of the capital.

Having worked in Aurora Place in Sydney for four years I have been a Renzo Piano admirer, marvelling in the focus of his buildings on smooth yet striking lines, use of exposed steel beams and outer external glass walls over the supporting steel frame.

The Shard to me seems an embodiment of Modern London which does not compromise the surroundings but adds to the eclectic mix of surrounding structures. The immediate surroundings are dominated by the nooks and weaving paths of Borough Market and the heavy practical structure of London Bridge Station. In contrast to the glass walls of Canary Wharf, the Shard looks to be a modern shining assortment of steel and glass that somehow comes together successfully to be a representative structure of London slowly but proudly building out of a financial downturn. It does not feel like an alienating quick build representation of financial boom times.

Looking East over the Tower Bridge with Canary Wharf in the background

The shape of the structure itself is strikingly deceptive. Staring vertically up at the building, the angles and dimensions of each wall seem to play a trick on the mind as they change as you walk along the bottom. Similarly whilst standing at the top what should be outwardly extending walls seem to invert into the building, creating the sensation that you are hovering over open air below.

The viewing tower whilst not cheap as far as tourism attractions go in London, certainly offers spectacular views of the city. The notorious weather is a big determinant however and it isn’t hard to imagine the views being blocked by cloud cover and the famous London Fog. It is run however seamlessly by professional and friendly staff and this adds to a willingness to accept the relatively high cost of admission.

Whilst not a cheap tourism attraction, the sweeping views from The VIew at the Shard on a good day make it worthwhile

The viewing deck itself is split between the lower inside deck (69th floor) and the upper outside deck (72nd floor). On a warm summer day the outside deck offers stunning 360 degree panorama views of the capital. It’s not hard to imagine at this altitude it would be somewhat arctic like from October till March, however the inside deck does offer the same views, its just a matter of clear skies holding out.

The views of London from such a height help the observer to easily draw neat lines of the many hundreds of surprisingly defined districts. Looking towards the North and East the City of London, Canary Wharf, the Isle of Dogs and Wapping all fit within perfect boundaries to the eye, whether or not officially drawn on a map or plan. The major landmarks of old and stand proudly – the Gherkin, Battersea Power Station, Olympic Stadium at Stratford, BT Tower and the Ford Plant at Daggenham among many more instantly recognisable built forms representing the various phases of London’s commercial and industrial history.

Looking through the exposed steel frame to The City of London

The views also allow for some unexpected vistas which further enhance the views. This includes the railway lines that spiral like wide girthed snakes from the manny terminal stations around the inner city periphery and take the mind to the many places they will call at. However most remarkable (or unremarkable) is the unexpected greenness and considerable low rose of much of middle and outer London. From spending the past month in Italian cities, the greenness and seeming tranquility of London from this aerial vantage point is the image that has stuck in my mind most since I returned back to life at a normal altitude.

It is fairly understood that the Shard is a dividing topic of built form in London. Looking at and from this amazing structure however makes me think it will win the hearts of Londoners and tourists in the long term. As an Australian town planner with a great fondness for London, I think it’s external and interior design and its relationship to the contiguous surroundings is not only design and planning excellence but in my point of view, a great symbol of modern London.

Just where are we at with Barangaroo (Part 2)

Barangaroo’s future polarising Sydney

This post is primarily in relation to the Sydney Morning Herald Article from Thursday May 16 Packer plans luxury apartments at Barangaroo casino site
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/packer-plans-luxury-apartments-at-barangaroo-casino-site-20130516-2jngu.html#ixzz2Tf70IUrQ

The announcement by Crown Limited yesterday that British firm Wilkinson Eyre had been successful in the design competition for the proposed Crown Casino and Hotel development in the central precinct of Barangaroo gives the NSW Government plenty to think about. The design based on three twisting petals, if constructed will be another fine tower to add to Barangaroo and Sydney’s stocks but I’m not so sure yet that I will get caught up in the hype promised over the development.

The design and especially the context of this proposal and type of development in the central precinct have been fiercely debated  Sydney Morning Herald writer Elizabeth Farrelly recently expressed her opinion of all three shortlisted designs, denouncing the sheer mediocrity of the entrants in rather adjective terms, stating:

The three shortlisted designs are remarkable only for their sameness. Ultra-glassy, cryogenically frozen Dubai-type towers that dwarf the rest of Barangaroo, they all have that ghostly sheen of computer-rendering, yet all claim inspiration from nature

There has also been an outpouring of negative opinion over the proposal from leading Sydney architects, as well as the peak body, the Australian Institute of Architects. The general consensus over dissatisfaction over the proposal seems to be that the proposed development looks as if it would be a transplant from Dubai or Macau, rather than an ‘iconic’ Sydney landmark.

Not all however have been critical, with Urban Taskforce CEO and former NSW Government Architect Chris Johnson praising the development and lamenting a lack of support from architect “colleagues”. Johnson necessitates the project as increasing Sydney’s role in the global economic network? What exactly increasing the City’s role in the global economic network means, is somewhat unclear to me at this stage. Further support can be found in former Prime Minister Paul Keating, who has noted that the building is heading in the right direction of being a significant building for Sydney.

From the proponents themselves of course there has been considerable support through some mind boggling rhetoric. Crown’s James Packer noted of the winning design that

“When completed, Crown Sydney will be instantly recognisable around the world,” . “Its iconic curves and fine lines celebrate the harbour and create an architectural ‘postcard’ that will help attract international tourists and assist Sydney to compete with other global destinations”

Winning design entrants Wilkinson Eyre followed this up with an equally enthusiastic description of the proposal, noting that the building will

“rise up on the skyline like an inhabited artwork, with differing levels of transparency, striking a clear new image against the sky”

What to make of it all

In this writers opinion, the design and wider planning context of the proposal is still off the mark, and there are serious gaps in the rationale for justifying this type of development and this design

Although I think the design of the building is very high quality, regardless, in its current form it is not an appropriate development for the central precinct of Barangaroo. This is remembering that Barangaroo is one of Sydney’s most signficant plots of public land to come “onto the market” in decades. For the overdone hyperbole about natural inspiration and curves, the building in its current form is more likely to be another rank and file member of Sydney’s growing base of glass and steel towers, and no where even remotely close to the legions of true icons, such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge, Sydney Opera House or Museum of Contemporary Art.

Further, the scope and use of the space for high end rollers, high heeled hotel guests and apparently now high viewing apartment dwellers, seems to be totally out of character with the working history of the site.The obsession over exclusiveness of this development may be a fit in Singapore and Macau, but is totally out of place in Sydney and almost off-putting in its sheer contempt of this great City’s citizens, who are after all the owners of the site.

It is important to consider here that I am most definitely in favour of improving Sydney’s tourism facilities and not against the creation of an iconic building. I do not think however that  catering for insular spending casino patrons, providing for super wealthy hotel guests and apartment owners and drawing comparisons with Singapore or Macau are rationale to justify the proposal as it stands. Sydney’s tourism drawcards are its amazing facilities that all are free to enjoy be they natural features, part of the built environment or both. The Harbour Bridge, Opera House, Bondi Beach, Circular Quay and The Rocks are spaces of public gathering, events and most of all places to just be. They are enjoyed in equal capacity by tourists and locals alike. Although Barangaroo will hopefully deliver a similar experience, basing the tourism trump card on an inward facing, high end luxury Casino that is well out of the reach of the vast majority of tourists and locals, is not what will help Sydney lift its international offering.

If an iconic landmark building is to be developed for the site, it should be ensured that it most of all works as a tourist facility people can experience and enjoy, even if part of the development is for high rollers or hotel guests. The owners of the land deserve something they can be a part of, not just gaze at a blinding glass edifice from outside the walls of exclusivity.

The next post on this issue will feature a “design alternative”

*All views are the views of the author”

*Pictures from Sydney Morning Herald @ http://www.smh.com.au

Waste management in India – addressing a national issue on a local level

As I am currently living in a small village on the outskirts of Jaipur in India, one of the major challenges I am currently addressing is waste disposal. A major issue facing India in the 21st century is waste management and improving informal and formal infrastructure to dispose and recycle garbage. In a country with 1.2 billion people and a rapidly emerging consumer market, a lack of formalised waste management system is likely to become a major strain on the natural environment and on the population.

Addressing waste management  at a local village level is one way to kick-start the process and start connecting with emerging networks that operate recycling and garbage removal services. Although the waste management in India, as in many developing countries, lacks a holistic government run structure for removing and recycling waste,  there is an incredible amount of informal recycling and entrepreneurialism in reusing discarded materials. This enthusiasm and local attention to waste can be built upon to address the broader issue.

At the village in Rajasthan where I am currently living, we have recently started a waste management system. It is a basic system of using large bins placed in strategic locations, to separate plastic recyclables, general waste and food scraps for composting. Although it is only a small action, it is a way of addressing waste disposal at a local level and we hope will have many flow on benefits and start encouraging recycling networks that connect the approach in our village with surrounding villages.

Encouraging residents to discard food scraps into a soiled compost bin will provide considerable benefits. In climate as hot and dry as Jaipur, a steady supply of free fertile soil is an extremely valuable resource  The soil will provide a number of uses including  soil for a vegetable garden, fertile ground-cover for a cricket oval we recently built and a base number of small gardens, as well as planting of additional trees.

For recycled plastics and glass bottles, we are hoping that by collecting them in centralised bins, we can assist the informal network of container recycling throughout our local area. These networks operate on a village level, whereby people collect, refill and resell containers for a number of purposes, thus reducing the need for new containers and removing waste at the same time.  Additionally, there are a growing number of larger recycling networks throughout the industrial areas of Jaipur. These recycling operators  recycle plastic bottles on a commercial scale and breakdown the bottles to create new products. By collecting bottles in bulk it may become feasible to sell back plastic bottles to these operators, with money being invested back into the village which could help fund further expansion of the waste management system.

Finally, there is the general waste bins. Disposal of general waste is a greater challenge, as there are limited landfill sites and resources which can dispose of general waste. However litter is a major issue throughout India and something at least on the village level, I eagerly want to tackle. With our current project in the village to landscape and beautify the site, a major task will be to drastically reduce the litter. The first step is encouraging a reduction in litter through use of the bins, a small step but something that requires a  change in cultural norm of discarding waste on the ground where the product is consumed. The next challenge is to move beyond simply removing waste to another site or burning off non-recyclables, but for now, we think the village is moving in the right direction and addressing this critical national issue with great enthusiasm on a local level.

Just where are we with Barangaroo (Part 1)

Just where are we with Barangaroo (Part 1)

Barangaroo – debating the design merits of buildings and the public domain are being lost in obsession over iconicism.

This post is written in relation to the Sydney Morning Herald article’The bland and the beautiful: battle for a public treasure. See link to the article: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/the-bland-and-the-beautiful-battle-for-a-public-treasure-20130510-2jdbv.html

The big story of Sydney over the past week has been an ongoing stoush over the performance of a racehorse involving numerous Sydney personalities. At the same time in the building universe we are also receiving a near daily dose of opinion, self promotion and dismissive spats from a plethora of harbour city big hitters over the future of Barangaroo. The talking point seems to be  the constitutions of an ‘iconic’ structure to be the centre piece of the site formerly known as the Hungry Mile.

Kohn Pedersen Fox Design

Taking out the discussion over the need for, and public benefit of, an iconic centre piece for Barangaroo (see the last paragraph) this post is focused on the design merit of the three submissions for Crown Limited’s proposed ‘iconic’ landmark casino and hotel. Three submissions for the proposed Crown hotel and casino complex in the central precinct of Barangroo from architects Adrian Smith and Gordan Gill, Kohn Pedersen Fox, and Wilson Eyre, in this writers opinion fall short of the mark for being iconic in Sydney. I say this, as a glassy mountain of tall clean lines and steel does not stand out as Iconic in a city with a multitude of not too dissimilar buildings. Should even an increased height cap of 230 metres be permitted for the proposed development, it is hard to view the three design submissions as ‘iconic’ buildings when there is a multitude of similar products a stones throw away. Examples including Deutche Bank Building (240m), Governer Phillip Tower (227m), Aurora Place (219m), Meriton World Tower (230m) as well as Chifley Tower (241m) designed by none other than Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, are all representative of the same fabric as each other, other tall buildings in Sydney and the three Crown proposals – harbour front location or not.

the Wilkinson Eyre Design is enhanced by an airbrushed background

Although the three designs, like the aforementioned buildings, in this writers opinion, are all fine designs worth due praise, it is hard to think that they would stand alone as ‘iconic’ in a city with a  myriad of not too dissimilar tall clean lined glass and steel edifices. Well recognised ‘iconic’ landmarks such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge, Sydney Opera House and even Sydney Tower (formerly Centrepoint Tower) stand out as being architectural triumphs of unique creativity with no close peers in Sydney, and in the case of the former two, the entire world. Similar resemblance of the three proposed building designs however submitted for the Crown proposal at Barangaroo, can be found by having a short stroll through the northern end of Sydney’s CBD and additionally are dotted among countless modern waterfront cities throughout the world.

The inspiration from which each design is based, curved lines and unique lower platform level structure do provide a level of differentiation from each other as well as other Sydney buildings to an extent noticeable if they are side by side or to a familiar viewers gaze. It is doubtful however if a first time viewer of Sydney would stand on the western Shore of Cockle Bay or the finger wharves of Pyrmont and view any three of the proposed structures as iconic and standing out as truly memorable in a city accommodating a healthy number of similar cousins. It is likely, given the backdrop of the CBD, whichever way one would view the location of the proposed hotel and high roller casino, it would look like another tall shimmery glass and silvery steel structure with design curves and a building height similar to the many standing behind it. This is especially pertinent considering that from most angles Barangaroo is viewed upon it sits below much of the financial centre of the CBD, thus giving the other similar buildings an increased height presence.

The Smith and Gill design is the most original

Further, given the architectural development of skyscrapers in Sydney over the past thirty years, it is hard to imagine that should one of the three designs be built, they would not be outdone or lose the freshly built excitement, to a newer, shinier, taller and dare I say it even ‘more iconic’ structure of similar design and proportions in the not too distant future.

Finally, in debating a point about what does and doesn’t constitute ‘iconic’ it is important to consider the importance of future users of Barangaroo. It is debatable that an ‘iconic’ skyscaper for a hotel and casino will be in the best interest of the public and will serve the site for generations to come, well after the current crop of heavy hitters influencing Barangaroo have passed. I am not doubting debate about the need for additional hotel accommodation in Sydney and the importance of revenue earning assets in Barangaroo, in part to pay for the massive costs of other public domain works. I am not however convinced that this type of development is the answer for what must be remembered IS, publicly owned land. The detailed answer to that will be in a future blog post.

Photos from Sydney Morning Herald at http://www.smh.com.au