Happold (England)
Composition of the team:
- Urban planning and design, landscape design, architecture
- Economic
- Technical design
Approach:
Setting objectives -> Understanding parameters -> Developing and evaluating options
The focus is on economy and business plan and the physical planning strategies are based on that.
Key Ideas:
Strong points:
Happold has proposed relatively strong and clear strategies in order to develop a sustainable economy and enhance social inclusion through that. They have also tried to translate these into physical structures.
Drawback:
However the connection between proposed economical strategies and physical planning needs to be elaborated more.
Schönherr (Denmark)
Composition of the team:
Schönherr represents different sectors: the academic world, consultancy, the public sector, and independent critical thinking. It also consists of people from different disciplines:
- Urban planning
- Sustainable urban development
- Traffic planning
- Sustainable architecture
- Engineering and technical design
- Place mapping and strategic cultural planning
Approach:
“Cultural mapping”
This approach is based on the belief that each place has its own distinctive cultural DNA (its way of living, its peculiar texture and a variety of routines of daily life), which needs to be mapped and grasped before any urban intervention takes place.
Key Ideas:
- Gothenburg already has a strong identity. It just needs to be celebrated, activated and integrated through acknowledging diversity of cultures in the city.
- The river is the key conveyor of Gothenburg’s identity.
- The strategy is to start now and take small steps in order to celebrate, activate and integrate Gothenburg’s identity through the river. For example a river festival can be a starting point.
- Some other actions to achieve that goal include organizing series of cultural events, constructing joint functional green public spaces along the water, and providing variety of transport choices.
Strong points:
Schönherr has introduced a new perspective to urban planning issues. They have properly pointed out that Gothenburg has a unique quality i.e. multicultural city but this quality has not been appreciated and recognized by the city authorities.
Drawback:
The discussion in Schönherr’s work is more on a general level. They did not translate it thoroughly into physical structure which, in my opinion, is a necessary step in order to achieve concrete design ideas and implement the theories.
SLA_HLA (Denmark)
Composition of the team:
- Architecture, urban planning, and landscape architecture
- Engineering and water science
- Ethnology
Approach:
“Think big, start small, scale fast!”
The SLA’s approach is to define and illustrate an ambitious vision and identify different small steps to reach that goal.
Key Ideas:
- Connecting north and south by creating an inclusive central park in Frihamnen
- Turning climate challenges into urban design opportunities
- Start with small steps: create green space (green) -> provide recreational or other activities for all people (inclusive) -> these increase property values and creates long term growth (dynamic)
Strong points:
SLA has adopted direct pragmatic approach toward sustainable urban development by “Think big, start small, scale fast!”. They have considered all three objectives (Green, Inclusive, and Dynamic) equally.
Drawback:
Unfortunately, they did not have specific proposals for all areas in the RiverCity project (only Frihamnen and Skeppsbron). It would be interesting to see what the outcomes of their strategy for other areas could be.
Sweco (Sweden)
Composition of the team:
- Urban Planning
- Architecture
- Landscape architecture
- Environmental and urban sociology
- Economics
- Traffic, and transportation planning
- Waste management planning
Approach:
“Sustainable City Concept”: a holistic and integrated concept for sustainable urban development
Sweco’s approach includes a holistic view toward transforming the RiverCity, considering socio-cultural, economic and ecological issues within a spatial framework.
Key Ideas:
- Climate smart: develop a robust system for climate adaptation and protect city from impacts of climate change and sea-level rise
- Locally produce energy from renewable sources
- Densification with diversity of housing opportunities
- Enhanced connected green public spaces
- More bridges over the river
Strong points:
Sweco has fully illustrated the future of RiverCity area (after implementing the sustainable development strategies) through strong clear images and creative storytelling.
Drawback:
Unfortunately the design process has been missing in Sweco’s presentation. It would be more effective if they presented how the master plan has formed. Another drawback is that their design is too detailed and fixed. It is good for illustrating the potential future but since they did not present the design process it is hard to fully understand their planning strategies through their master plan.
West8 (Netherlands)
Composition of the team:
- Urban design and landscape architecture
- Planning and infrastructure
- Future sustainable scenarios
- Long term leadership development, project management and process leadership (economic aspects of urban development)
- Environmental management
Approach:
West8 has adopted the scenario thinking method for tackling the urban planning challenges in Gothenburg.
Key Ideas:
- Recreation of the Scandinavian waterfront
- Giving space to innovative industry while expanding and relying on big industries such as Volvo and the port.
Strong points:
Their strong emphasis on the preservation and restoration of Gothenburg’s spirit is appreciated. The core concept in their design which has been recreation of the “Scandinavian waterfront” is smart, fresh and pragmatic.
Drawback:
However they have mentioned little about strategies for social inclusion and dealing with flooding.
Comparison between the ideas of each team for different areas
| | Frihamnen | Gulbersvass | Ringön | Skeppsbron and Masthuggskajen | Backaplan | City Center |
| East | Bridge City (developed into a mixed-use neighborhood; Stenaline moves here) | Big lake for managing the flood | new business district | New public spaces along the river | Mixed-use neighborhood | |
| EGA | Event place (diverse and flexible) | Gradual transformation from an industrial site into a mixed-use neighborhood | Gradual transformation from an industrial site into a mixed-use neighborhood | | | |
| Espinas | The Stenaline ferry terminal | Transform into a mixed-use neighborhood containing housing and offices as well as water related businesses, artist and professional workshops | Transform into a mixed-use neighborhood containing housing and offices as well as water related businesses, artist and professional workshops | Relocating the ferry terminal opens up space for new public places along the river | | |
| Grau | Creating a CBD (central Business District) | High density residential district providing housing opportunities for everyone | welcoming the river; creating solar city, producing and spending energy in the area itself | | | Creating a river park along the river while protecting the city from flooding by a barrier |
| Güller Güller | Park | common city district | common city district | | Mixed-use dense city district (a strong center in the north of the river) | Densified around the central station |
| Happold | Temporary events + city park + some housing/offices | Mixed-use employment and residential | bottom up business incubator/crea-tive zone | Housing | Housing area connected directly to Avenyn and city center | |
| Schönherr | Functional park | | | | | |
| SLA_ HLA | Park, recreational activities, few buildings | | | public riverside, temporary recreational activities, flood barrier, and buildings in the future | | |
| Sweco | Mixed-use small scale dense neighborhood | Mixed-use small scale dense neighborhood | Mixed-use small scale dense neighborhood | Mixed-use small scale dense neighborhood | | |
| West8 | Low rise high density development (Scandinavian watercity, floating houses, and ferry/cruise terminal) | Mixed-use business district (offices and housing) including canals | slow transformation, enterprise/innovative industry | Urban quay, promenade | | |
Conclusion
As you can see above each team has had different composition and competences and used a specific approach. The common points among all teams were the presence of architects, and urban designers and their emphasis on sustainability. The differences imply that there are many ways to achieve sustainability through urban planning and design and those who are able to apply an optimal mix of all different point of views will be the most successful ones. This is exactly what Gothenburg has been trying to do through Centrala Älvstaden project and the RiverCity International Workshop.
Here I sum up the common strong points among all teams:
Considering complexities and uncertainties of the 21st century’s problems, most of the teams have tried to provide a method of thinking rather than a fixed design. Their effort has been to be as innovative and novel as possible and many in my opinion were really successful. Looking at the results we also see concepts from wide range of perspectives including culture and identity, economics and business, physical structure and integration, etc. Putting together this variety of point of views one can successfully achieves a holistic view over Gothenburg’s situation and identifies starting points for making the change. Another common strong point among the proposed concepts is the emphasis on Gothenburg’s valuable qualities i.e. diversity and multicultural environment which needs to be recognized more clearly by the city’s authorities.
There were also many drawbacks in teams’ works which were mostly because of the time constraints, the huge scale of the project, and the complexity of the issue. Besides, there exist some controversial ideas and intriguing questions. For example, how should Frihamnen be developed? Should it be a big park contributing to city’s ecology or a mixed-use dense city district enhancing Gothenburg’s economy? Such questions definitely need further discussions. Citizens’ participation which is the next step after the workshop might also help untangling these controversial issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment