I have been spending a fair amount of time considering what are smart streets? and whilst it remains ambiguous, I think it will be increasingly important in our cities in a era of limited funding for new infrastructure.
My interest stems from a recent successful commission to develop and deliver concepts for smart streets for a North Eastern US city.
I have also been actively contributing to a discussions on this concept of smart streets through my website, an interesting forum via Linkedin as well as leading a discussion workshop at a recent Unconference in New York.
So what are Smart Streets? Well, it appears to mean different things to different people - which is okay except the 'smart fog' seems to be descending which has the potential to undermine the benefits that smart systems may offer.
For me, smart streets are about four things.
1) Better managing infrastructure and resources through the collection and use of real time information;
2) Empowering users through two-way sharing of information;
3) Enabling more sustainable behavior, infrastructure and systems to be integrated into public space;
4) Creating stimulating, dynamic, interactive and active places.
There are some examples of where some 'smart stuff' has been delivered and is making a difference to the way places operate or feel. In the UK, smart bins provide on-street compaction and then send a message when they need to be emptied.
In an attempt to achieve sustainable goals, fun technology was used to inlfuence travel behavior.
This is just a couple of ideas that are around but I think give an indication of the how wide the scope can be when it comes to Smart Systems. I intend to push further with the Smart Streets agenda so watch this space...
Friday, May 6, 2011
Monday, October 4, 2010
Who is the Master Planner?
Maybe my number one observation from the different locations I have worked around the world is the distinction, or lack there of, between the roles of the Architect, Urban Designer, Planner and Engineer. The distinction would not be important or even required if it were drawn at the project inception and based on the client's interests however the distinction, more often than not, is drawn by precedence and self-opinion.
So who should be the master planner? I am a firm believer in placing urban design as a central role within a master planning project. Ultimately, to the end user, the quality of urban space determines how one feels and even uses space. The most successful master plan processes I have been involved with are those where the process is facilitated by strong urban design primes.
Increasingly, Architects are operating in this space and, in my opinion, with mixed success. Great architects do not necessarily make great urban designers in part because Urban Designers typically acknowledge a range of competing demand requirements whereas Architects are more often focussed on the aesthetic gesture.
As with most of my posts, I also view this dynamic from the view of a technical advisor role. In all cases, engineers and planners are typically engaged to input into the process. Once again, the most successful process I have been involved with required all technical inputs to help shape the design process rather than be considered as a retro-active critique of a design.
Within a master planning project, a role I seek to carve for myself is one of an integrator. This role is intended as a single point of contact for the design team who are seeking technical advice. Typically, this role provides access to instant technical responses for a range of technical disciplines but importantly, the individual knows when and where to seek more detailed advice when the questions become complex.
Personally, I am yet to have the opportunity to provide input into a real-life master planning process here in the US but the involvement I have had in design competitions here indicate that the architect and the 'grand gesture' is held in high regard which could suggest that good design development comes second... we'll wait and see.
So who should be the master planner? I am a firm believer in placing urban design as a central role within a master planning project. Ultimately, to the end user, the quality of urban space determines how one feels and even uses space. The most successful master plan processes I have been involved with are those where the process is facilitated by strong urban design primes.
Increasingly, Architects are operating in this space and, in my opinion, with mixed success. Great architects do not necessarily make great urban designers in part because Urban Designers typically acknowledge a range of competing demand requirements whereas Architects are more often focussed on the aesthetic gesture.
As with most of my posts, I also view this dynamic from the view of a technical advisor role. In all cases, engineers and planners are typically engaged to input into the process. Once again, the most successful process I have been involved with required all technical inputs to help shape the design process rather than be considered as a retro-active critique of a design.
Within a master planning project, a role I seek to carve for myself is one of an integrator. This role is intended as a single point of contact for the design team who are seeking technical advice. Typically, this role provides access to instant technical responses for a range of technical disciplines but importantly, the individual knows when and where to seek more detailed advice when the questions become complex.
Personally, I am yet to have the opportunity to provide input into a real-life master planning process here in the US but the involvement I have had in design competitions here indicate that the architect and the 'grand gesture' is held in high regard which could suggest that good design development comes second... we'll wait and see.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
New New Yorker
I have had the fortune of working in London and Melbourne during my 10 years in transport planning and find myself entering the newest stage of my career in New York.
I have the significant advantage of working for a company that believes strongly in supporting staff requests for relocation. Arup maintains this policy to focus on our staff's career development and overall happiness, and it really works with a notably higher staff retention levels than in other comparable companies.
In planning terms, there is a lot going on here in the US. People are not afraid of identifying large infrastructure solutions for complex problems. This has its advantages and disadvantages. Whilst I admire the premise that we can design a solution to any problem, I also need to be sure we have exhausted all other options and that the major infrastructure response is the a well worked solution and not a default response.
In New York itself, the challenge is unsurprisingly to do with space, and more specifically the lack of it. I met with an interesting guy from the NYC Department of Transport who was largely responsible for compiling the recent street design guidelines for NYC. We spent some time working through the guidelines and determining how they are intended for use. The document itself appears very good and covers a wide range of issues and factors to be considered when designing changes in New York's streets. More impressive is how the document has been delivered given it has been largely endorsed by an incredible number of stakeholders and other government departments.
At its heart, the design guidelines are intended to encourage debate around the use and allocation of space within New York's highly prized streets. The guidelines encourage consideration of alternative geometries, road layouts, calming and landscaping techniques. The guidelines have effectively enable the concept of road space reallocation and alternative road user priorities to be tabled and considered.
At Arup we have been commissioned to help shape the future of downtown Manhattan and we will be looking to promote and achieve global best practice in one of the world's most iconic cities. We are working closely with NYCDOT and with these new guidelines to deliver some real change.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Melbourne: The London Review
Now I know this isn't a particularly new topic but a recent presentation by Mark Watts (Arup London) identified some key differences that exist between Melbourne and some of the world's big cities.
Mark has a fascinating role where he gets to tackle one key issue for a major city (as chosen by each Mayor) in design workshops around the world. Under the title of 'C40', Mark and others were recently in Melbourne to tackle 'Smart Grids' with some very interesting outcomes that we hope will become public in the near future.
But this isn't what I am talking about today. Mark's background was with the Greater London Authority as a key advisor to Ken Livingstone who delivered, amongst other things, the Congestion Charge and the Carbon Strategy for London. Mark was fundamental in the success of both these schemes so I asked him questions on how they made it happen.
Mark's first observation was Melbourne's incredible lack of urban density immediately outside of the CBD. The forecasts for Melbourne suggest a population of between 5 and 8 million over the next few decades. This sort of growth will place Melbourne in similar leagues to London, Paris, Barcelona etc.
Mark's second observation was Australia's continued obsession with the private car. He also remarked on the small scale of the public transport system in relation to European cities and noted that whilst it has the bones, it is a long way off supporting a population of 5 million or more. In the same week Mark was here, new public transport ridership figures suggest that public transport patronage growth in Melbourne has levelled off presumably because we just cant get on the trams and trains!
Finally, he mentioned Ken's political prowess. When Ken proposed the congestion charge it was entirely driven from an appreciation that congestion was the number 1 issue for Londoners, even ahead of crime, health, education etc. Ken knew that a scheme that actually benefited more Londoners that is hindered, would be a politically winning policy if it could actually be delivered. Even with the entire UK press running campaigns against the congestion charge, once it was implemented, the majority of people saw what it was and the benefits it was delivering and Ken's popularity rocketed.
Can Melbourne learn anything from this?
Well, lack of urban density is a major problem and one that I believe is being actively fuelled by the current Minister for Planning. This has to change. Melbourne is rapidly slipping down the 'most liveable city' league and the solution does not lie in urban fringe sub-divisions that compromise the economics of developing buildings greater than 3 storeys.
Car obsession is intriguing and to me seems to be the elephant in the room. Modern thinking recognises that the US system of continual car-focussed urban design doesn't work and yet scarily, Australia's car use is higher than many places in America. Hybrids are really just a side step and we really need to enable larger numbers of people to live without a car (this isn't crazy talk in those large cities mentioned earlier).
Finally, we need political leadership. Melbourne's politicians and Departments are proving to be either unwilling or unable to really decide and deliver. Ken made an extraordinary move with his policies around schemes such as congestion however he made highly informed decisions and he made strong allies in the private sector that helped him deliver this change. In Melbourne it seems that the large property developers influence the decisions and these companies are naturally risk adverse and sceptical of change - and that just isn't leadership.
Labels:
car use,
congestion charge,
Ken Livingstone,
Melbourne,
urban density
Monday, March 15, 2010
Measuring Design by Phil Carter
On the face of it this is an interesting concept and one that I have been involved with for a while but I think it raises a potentially new conflict... how do you measure good design?
I have often joked about working with engineers being a simple task owing to the two possible answers - yes or no. This black and white world is more often than not directed by guidelines and standards. Now clearly this is not always the case and the world is full of fantastic engineers who test and challenge convention but I have attended one too many meetings with low-level road engineers spouting the VicRoads Manual without even the courtesy to consider how to apply the 'rules' to the reality of the problem at hand.
On the flip side, I have had the pleasure of working with great designers and everyone of them has a differing view on how the world should look and work. Rather than black or white this world could be described as vary scales of grey (albeit that sounds rather dull).
It is this variety of thinking and approach that leads to unique and exciting design. Without variety we end up with very average outcomes, in every sense of the word.
I am actually a believer in measuring urban design where it is possible and sensible. We have already developed tools that can take beautiful and well thought-out urban design driven concepts for a precinct and very quickly help to determine how they perform against criteria such as water use, energy consumption and carbon footprint.
These tools offer an almost real-time outcome which could have a very real impact on the design process, particularly in design charrette forums.
This is not the decision making tool but it is a tool that can help make decisions. I don't believe it should lead the design process but it can help influence design based on criteria that are increasingly important to us. Essentially it arms designers and decision makers with real information about how good design can impact on the use of commodities that we value, namely, water, energy and carbon. Phil Carter.
all images sourced Arup
Labels:
Green Cities,
IRM,
Resource Management,
Urban Design
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)