FINAL THESIS.Indb

URBAN STREETSCAPE

THE ROLE OF STREET AS URBAN OPEN SPACE FOR URBAN REGENERATION IN DUTCH NEIGHBOURHOOD

GRADUATION STUDIO URBAN REGENERATION IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT

2012-2013

Juyoung Jung, 4182790

Mentor team: 1st mentor: Paul Stouten, Dr. Ir. P.L.M. 2nd mentor: John Westrik, Ir. J.A. External examiner: Andre Mulder

Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture Department of Urbanism Urban regeneration in the European context

June. 24th. 2013 PREFACE PREFACE The Netherlands is one of the ﬁ rst countries that have This report discusses the case of Carnisse, a neigh- implemented Pedestrian Oriented Design (POD) concept bourhood in the southern part of Rotterdam. In order in the urban area. ‘Woonerf’ (it can be roughly translated to develop this project, the neighbourhood was ana- in English as ‘Living yard’) was the most popular type lysed within the city, district and neighbourhood scale. of POD in 1970s. ‘Woonerf’ aimed to inﬂ uence driver’s The analysis of Carnisse showed some possible rea- behaviour and improve both the safety and quality of life sons that could make the neighbourhood deprived. on the street. It gave the street the functions of meeting place, playground, and walking area. Consequently, it made playful and creative urban landscape, and was very successful in the Netherlands. Moreover, it has spread throughout Western European countries such as Ger- many, Denmark, and the UK(Hamilton-Baillie, 2008).

In the case of UK, the concept of ‘Home Zones’ was developed from the original concept of ‘Woonerf (residential area with restrictions to slow down trafﬁ c)’, and it was implemented in order to revitalise deprived neighbourhoods. The increasing in attention to road safety and environmental issues in the UK has made the concept of ‘Home Zones’ popular. In 1999, the British government created guidelines for the home zones, and it has included 14 pilot home zone projects. Home zones are considered as places for social interaction and intended, create a greater sense of pride and ownership in the street by the government of the UK. Consequently, Home zones are expected to improve the liveability in the deprived neighbourhoods (Clayden et al., 2006). However, it is hard to ﬁ nd this kind of approach, for example home zones, to improve the condition of deprived neighbourhoods.

The main goal of this project is to introduce Pedestrian Oriented Street Design as an approach to improve the liveability of Dutch neighbourhood. In the northern part of the Netherlands, there are some examples of POD, in the form of ‘Shared Space’. However, this approach is more focused on the development of a shopping street rather than of a whole neighbourhood. Thus, this report proposes the developed of Pedestrian Oriented Design in residential streets using with the case of Carnisse.

In order to achieve the aims of this project and answer the research questions, diverse theories and discussions were reviewed. There are already many discussions Delft, May 2013 about the value of street as an urban open space. They point out that the street takes the largest portion of urban open space (Woolley, 2003), it is the place where people can experience the city(Glaser, 2012), and where public socialising and community enjoyment in daily life can occur (Jacobs, 1993). Thus, this report searches for the possibilities of POD in the process of urban regeneration. CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAME- CHAPTER THREE: CASE STUDY WORK

1.1 AIMS OF THE PROJECT 8 2.1 URBAN REGENERATION 24 3.1 APPROACHES IN THE NETHERLANDS 48 DEFINITION OF URBAN REGENERATION WOONERF(RESIDENTIAL AREA WITH RESTRICTIONS 1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AREA 9 CASE OF THE UK TO SLOW DOWN TRAFFIC) 1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT 10 CASE OF THE NETHERLANDS 30 Km/h zones 1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION 13 CASE OF ROTTERDAM SHARED SPACE 1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 14 CONCLUSION CONCLUSION 1.6 RELEVANCE OF THIS PROJECT 18 1.7 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS 20 2.2 URBAN OPEN SPACE 3.2 WOONERF IN DELFT 55 DEFINITION OF URBAN OPEN SPACE PAXLAAN SOCIAL BENEFITS OF URBAN OPEN SPACE DIAMANTPAD ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF URBAN OPEN SPACE CONCLUSION ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF URBAN OPEN SPACE CONCLUSION 3.3 SHARED SPACE 61 HAREN 2.3 PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED STREET 35 DRACHTEN WHY STREET CONCLUSION REQUIREMENTS OF STREET FOR PEOPLE EFFECTS AND LIMITATION 3.4 CONCLUSION 70 CONCLUSION

2.4 CONCLUSION 42 CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF CAR- CHAPTER FIVE: DESIGN PROPOSAL CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION NISSE

4.1 HISTORY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF 5.1 INTRODUCTION 110 6.1 MAIN QUESTION OF THE THESIS 160 CARNISSE 74 KEY ISSUES AND INITIATIVES URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF CARNISSE 6.2 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE APPROACH161 CONCLUSION 5.2 DESIGN PRINCIPLE FOR PEDESTRIAN ORI- ENTED STREET 113 6.3 MAIN PROPOSAL 162 4.2 ANALYSIS OF DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 79 6.4 MAIN BENEFITS AND LIMITATION OF THE POPULATION 5.3 STRATEGIC PLAN 114 PROPOSAL 163 HOUSEHOLDS CONCLUSION 5.4 PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED STREET REFLECTION 116 4.3 URBAN FABRIC 83 STREET HIERARCHY BUILT AREA SHARED SPACE LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE NEW WOONERF PUBLIC BUILDING PLEINWEG AND DORPSWEG STREET PROFILE CONCLUSION 5.5 NEW FAMILY HOUSING 132 PLAN OF NEW FAMILY HOUSING LANDUSE OF GROUND LEVEL 4.4 NETWORK OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD 91 PLOT AREA NETWORK OF PEDESTRIAN SECTION OF NEW FAMILY HOUSING NETWORK OF BICYCLE NETWORK OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT NETWORK OF PRIVATE VEHICLE 6.6 RESTRUCTURING OF URBNA FABRIC CONCLUSION GOEREESESTRAAT TEXELSESTRAAT 4.5 ANALYSIS OF HOUSING SITUATION 98 NUMBER OF DWELLINGS 5.7 NEW TRAM LINE 150 HOUSING CONDITION TENURE CONDITION CONCLUSION

4.6 ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL INDEX 103 SOCIAL INDEX EVALUATION OF SOCIAL INDEX OF CARNISSE CONCLUSION

4.7 CONCLUSION 107

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 AIMS OF THE PROJECT The ultimate purpose of this project is to propose a street design which can improve the liveability of a deprived neighbourhood in an urban area. In order to achieve this goal, four detailed goals have been set up. Each detailed goal has become the aim of the chapter of theoretical framework, analysis and design proposal.

Firstly, the theoretical framework considers three main questions: why the improvement of streets is important in the ﬁ eld of urban regeneration; what pedestrian oriented design for the residential street is; and what the criteria for the analysis of the project site and the design principles for the design proposal are.

Secondly, the analysis has a goal of evaluating the streets of the project area by several criteria from the theoretical framework.

Lastly, design proposal aims to introduce the pedestrian oriented design to the residential street in an urban area, Carnisse in the city of Rotterdam. The proposal aims to ﬁ nd a way that it is able to apply the ﬁ ndings from the previous chapters, theoretical frame work, analysis and case study.

MAIN AIMS OF THE PROJECT CHAPTERS

ROLE OF STREET THEORETICAL IN THE PROCESS OF URBAN REGENERATION FRAMEWORK

ROLE OF URBAN OPEN SPACE CASE STUDY IN THE PROCESS OF URBAN REGENERATION

EVALUATION OF ANALYSIS OF PROJECT SITE CARNISSE

INTRODUCING OF DESIGN PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED STREET PROPOSAL

8 INTRODUCTION 1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AREA The project area is a neighbourhood located in the Zuiderpark is the biggest city park in Rotterdam. The southern part of Rotterdam, called ‘Carnisse’. Carnisse park, built 1952, has several allotments and many sports is located in the centre of the district of Charlois. The neigh- ﬁ elds. In 2006, the park was renovated greatly. A number bourhood can be easily deﬁ ned by Pleinweg, Dorpsweg, of allotments were demolished and new ponds were con- and Zuiderpark. structed to increase the capacity for water storage.

The Carnisse neighbourhood has a number of advan- Ahoy Rotterdam is multi-functional event place. The tages as a place to live for people who move to Rotterdam. current buildings are constructed from 1968 until 1980. The It has very good connections with city centre and other Ahoy is used for exhibitions, conferences and seminars. In districts by private cars and public transport. 2006, the concert hall and sports arena were constructed, which is now is used as cultural centre. Carnisse is close to the Maastunnel and Erasmusbrug, and they connect the neighbourhood with the city centre. Zuidplein is the main shopping area in the southern part Carnisse also has a big hub of public transportation with of Rotterdam. Ahoy, Ikazia hospital and the police station two metro lines and more than twenty bus lines. Thus, the of Zuidplein are all within walking distance. Furthermore, neighbourhood is considered as a very well-connected this shopping mall is connected with metro station, and the area. bus station.

These are Zuiderpark, the Ahoy, and the Zuidplein, and There are more than 650 houses in Carnisse, which they provide various leisure programmes for the inhabitants are relatively cheap, compare to other neighbourhood in of Carnisse. Rotterdam.

Carnisse Zuidplein

Ahoy Zuiderpark

District of Charlois Neighbourhood of Carnisse

INTRODUCTION 9 1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT URBAN OPEN SPACE IN URBAN REGENERATION The hypothesis of this thesis is that urban open space can play a key role in the process of urban regeneration. The urban open space has social, ecological, and economic beneﬁ ts, and they can contribute to achieve the goals of the urban regeneration.

In order to make a conclusion for the hypothesis, the report searches the urban regeneration of the UK and the Netherlands to understand what the urban regeneration is. This report uses the Sykes and Roberts (2000)’s defi nition of urban regeneration because their defi nition explains the social, economic, physical, and environmental issues of urban regeneration in the UK. Besides, Stouten (2010) who explains the urban regeneration of the Netherlands uses their defi nition, too. In other words, the urban regeneration is explained by the cases of the UK and the Netherlands.

The opportunities of urban open space can be divided into social, ecological and economic beneﬁ ts(Woolley, 2003). As urban open space is a place where the social interactions(- Jacobs, 1993), it can contribute to improve the social cohe- sions in the neighbourhoods. Many governments addressed the urban open spaces because of the its environmental possibilities(Swanwick et al., 2003). Lastly, as the urban open space can boost tourism, it contributes to the local economy(Woolley, 2003).

Kop van Zuid, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (source: http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/38633485.jpg)

10 INTRODUCTION PROBLEM OF STREET “… the introduction of motorised vehicles during the last century posed new challenges for the way we use the Since the late of 1960s, many people started to think public realm”(Hamilton-Baillie, 2008b, 132). The technol- that streets were not a safe place for people. This led to the ogies of last century have been focused on the speed fi rst pedestrian oriented developments, Woonerf (residen- and volume of vehicle movement, and the policies have tial area with restrictions to slow down traffi c), in the Neth- aimed to fi nd a balance between accessibility and safety. erlands in 1970s(de Wit and Talens, 1999). The current This tendency has led to the concept of separation and pedestrian oriented developments aim to make the streets segregation of traffi c and pedestrians(Hamilton-Baillie, safer and more accessible for pedestrians and reinforce 2008b). the usage of public transport(Passmore, 2005).

However, car oriented roads have decreased Even though there are some examples of shared the non-motorised traffi c and social interactions on space in shopping streets in Friesland, there is no good streets(Hamilton-Baillie, 2008b). People who proposed pedestrian oriented street design on residential area in the separated road did not expect that separated roads would Netherlands. Hans Monderman implemented the concept decrease the accessibility for non-motorised traffi c. To of integration and the use of social protocols for the streets balance the safety and accessibility, more underpasses, and public spaces in Friesland(Hamilton-Baillie, 2008a). bridges, traffi c signals, barriers and controls were needed. However, these projects have the limitation of location. These have made it diffi cult for people to use the roads. They are constructed on shopping streets in rural and small Moreover, isolation and fragmented roads were not con- villages. It is not a design of a residential street in urban sidered as been part of the public realm(Hamilton-Baillie, area. There is lack of pedestrian oriented street to residen- 2008a, Hamilton-Baillie, 2008b). tial streets in urban areas.

trafﬁ c jam in NY (source: http://www.brooklynhotelsinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/trafﬁ c_jam-nyc-300x200.jpg)

INTRODUCTION 11 PROBLEM OF CARNISSE Carnisse has three main problems. Firstly, the streets directly because the park is divided by the allotments. in the neighbourhood are not attractive, and secondly the Because there is no public street in the allotments, people streets are not well organised. The third problem is that the cannot pass there. People who want to go to Zuidplein houses are small and old. cannot go to there through the streets inside the neighbourhood, because one of the residential blocks obstructs the Unattractive conditions of the streets have led to dissat- way to Zuidplein. isfaction among the residents. Many streets in the neighbourhood are narrow, and there is not enough greenery. Most of the houses in Carnisse are small fl ats and need There are also many parked cars on both sides of the road. to be modernised. Because the houses were not renovated This tends to impede the use of the streets by people. As in the urban renewal of 1980s, they have still old fl oor plans Allan Jacobs stated: and structures that are not suitable for current life styles. This characteristic of the houses has made the price of “The essential purpose of this street, which gives it its spe- houses cheap, and it has attracted many social starters cial character, is sociability: people come here to see and be and poor households. However, a person who has children seen, and to communicate their vision to one another, not or need bigger living space has diffi culties to fi nd an appro- for any ulterior purpose, without greed or competition, but as priate house. an end in itself .”(Jacobs, 1993, 272)

However, the streets in the neighbourhood are not considered as a place where social interactions occur.

The streets in Carnisse are not well-organised. The residents in the neighbourhood cannot go to Zuiderpark

12 INTRODUCTION 1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION

MAIN RESEARCH QUESTION “What kind of pedestrian oriented design of the residential street can be an eff ective approach that contributes to an improvement of the liveability in the neighbourhood of Carnisse?”

SUB RESEARCH QUESTION • How does street as urban open space play a role in the process of urban regeneration?

• What are the main discussions of pedestrian oriented design on the street in the residential area until now?

• What are the conditions that can increase the usage of streets by pedestrians in Carnisse?

• What kind of spatial demands and design strategies are needed in Carnisse to improve the urban fabric?

INTRODUCTION 13 1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY MAIN METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH This project consists of both a research and design part. Because the research part generates the important criteria for the design part, the conclusions from the research part should be accurate. Therefore, various methods are used to perform the research.

The research part can be divided into three parts: theoretical framework; case study; and analysis of Carnisse. The theoretical framework discusses the urban regeneration of the UK and the Netherlands, and the issues of streets as an urban open space and pedestrian oriented design for residential streets. Literatures about the urban regeneration, urban open space and the street are reviewed in order to ﬁ nd the beneﬁ t of urban open space and street in the process of urban regeneration. The discussions about the pedestrian oriented design for streets in residential area are reviewed to generate the design principles.

The selected areas for case study are evaluated by the criteria from the theoretical framework. This section is assisted by two areas for pedestrian oriented design to improve the liveability of neighbourhood. The selected areas are reviewed by several criteria, such as safety, street network, car parking, and physical characters of street.

Analyses of Carnisse are conducted by physical and social analysis. There is a short review that explains the history of urban development of Carnisse. Physical analysis has two main sections. The ﬁ rst is the analysis of urban fabric and the second is physical network of the neighbourhood. To understand current social fabric of Carnisse, demographic data and social index are reviewed.

14 INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

URBAN REGENERATION IN THE UK IN THE NETHERLANDS IN ROTTERDAM

URBAN DESIGN ECONOMIC STRENGTH ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY URBAN OPEN SPACE GOOD GOVERNANCE SOCIAL WELL-BEING GREEN SPACE CULTURAL DIVERSE SEMI NATURAL SPACE EQUITABLE CITY FUNCTIONAL GREEN SPACE HOUSING PROVISION AMENITY GREEN SPACE STREET COMMUNITY CIVIC SPACE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED STREET WOONERF SHARED SPACE

ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE

PHYSICAL SOCIAL ANALYSIS ANALYSIS

URBAN FABRIC NETWORK OF HOUSING SITUATION DEMOGRAPHIC DATA SOCIAL INDEX NEIGHBOURHOOD + BUILT AREA + PEDESTRIAN + NUMBER OF + POPULATION + EVALUATION + LANDSCAPE AND + BICYCLE DEWELLINGS + HOUSEHOLDS OPEN SPACE + PUBLIC TRANSPORT + HOUSING CONDITION + PULBIC BUILDINGS + VEHICLE + OWNERSHIP + STREET PROFILE STRUCTURE

INTRODUCTION 15 METHODS Literature research is the main method for theoretical framework. For this chapter, literature by a number of authors has been reviewed. In order to ﬁ nd the beneﬁ ts or possibilities of streets as an urban open space in urban regeneration, literature is reviewed such as ‘Urban regeneration: a handbook(Sykes and Roberts, 2000)’ and ‘Urban open spaces(Woolley, 2003)’. Considering pedestrian oriented design for streets, other literatures are reviewed, for example, ‘Woonerfs and other experiments in the Netherlands(Kraay and Verkeersveiligheid, 1986)’ and ‘Home Zones-Reconciling People, Places and Transport(Hamilton-Baillie, 2002)’.

A case study is undertaken by literature study, site observation, and mapping. Firstly, several areas are selected, through much literature about pedestrian oriented design for streets such as ‘Shared space: reconciling people, places and trafﬁ c’(Hamilton-Baillie, 2008a) and ‘Shared Space and Naked Intersections’(Sutcliffe, 2009). After the selection, the chosen areas are evaluated with the ﬁ ndings from the literature research. In order to make conclusions, maps based on the site observation and literature research has been conducted.

Ofﬁ cial data research, site observation, mapping, and interview are used to perform analysis of Carnisse. In order to ﬁ nd out the socio-economic characteristics of the project area, various data from the Dutch government and municipality of Rotterdam is analysed, for example demographic data, social index, and so on. For the physical analysis, site observations and mappings are mainly used. Especially, mappings are carried out from city scale to neighbourhood scale.

16 INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK LITERATURE REVIEW DATA RESEARCH

PROBLEM RESEARCH ANALYSIS/ STATEMENT QUESTION CARNISSE

SOCIO-ECONOMIC WOONERF CASE STUDY ANALYSIS DELFT RIJKSWIJK SPATIAL ANALYSIS SHARED SPACE DRACHTEN HAREN TOOLS 2D MAPPING 3D MODELLING LITERATURE RESEARCH SITE OBSERVATION DESIGN PRINCIPALS

ALTERNATIVES

EVALUATION

FINAL PRODUCTS

INTRODUCTION 17 1.6 RELEVANCE OF THIS PROJECT ACADEMIC RELEVANCE Urban regeneration aimed to improve the living condition of residents in urban areas in developed countries. In order to achieve the aim, governments and other partners generated various approaches with concerning of physical, social, economic, cultural and ecological aspects.

In this thesis, urban open spaces are strongly considered as a contributor to improving the liveability of urban areas. As many researchers pointed out, urban open space is a place where people meet each other and exercise. It is also the most proﬁ table space where the cities can improve their sustainability and environmental conditions. Thus, it is necessary that the intervention to streets can play a role in the process in urban regeneration.

Another aim of this thesis in academic ﬁ elds is generating the requirements of residential street as urban open space. Many researchers have stated the importance of streets in urban areas. This thesis reviewed the discussions mentioned in the research about streets, to extract the key requirements of residential streets.

The last academic value of this research is the re-introducing of the discussion about the pedestrian oriented design of the streets in Dutch residential area. In case of the UK, there are several experiments of ‘Home Zones’ in the deprived residential areas, and research about its effects. Although there is some research about pedestrian oriented design in the Netherlands, most of the research deals with the street design in a shopping area. Thus, there is a need to develop the pedestrian oriented design for the Dutch residential streets.

18 INTRODUCTION PRACTICAL RELEVANCE Carnisse has several social and physical problems. People are comparatively low educated, and they feel they have a lack of contact with their neighbours. Also, the neighbourhood does not attract businesses that can provide more jobs and improve its economic condition. In the case of physical problems, the neighbourhood is isolated from its surroundings. Two busy roads separate the neighbourhood, and there are no proper connections to Zuiderpark. Some of residents have difﬁ culties to ﬁ nd a good quality house with enough space. In addition, the streets in the neighbourhood are narrow and unattractive.

In order to improve the liveability of Carnisse, the neighbourhood needs something that can improve the social environment, the condition of houses and outdoor space, and the connectivity.

INTRODUCTION 19 1.7 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS INTRODUCTION CONCLUSION This chapter presents the problems and approaches to This part is the last of this report showing the overall address them. There are the descriptions of how this report conclusion, anticipating the benefi ts and limitations of the understands the problems and proposed approaches. design proposals. Through the process, the aim is set up and the research questions are defi ned. The research questions give the guidelines for the theoretical framework, case study, and analysis. Furthermore, the questions are considered as an evaluation of design proposals and the relevance of this project both in academic and practical terms is outlined. In the fi nal section, there are the explanations about the methodologies that are used in this report.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK This chapter is the basis for the academic arguments, and defi nes some specifi c terms. Theoretical framework describes the main theories and discussions about the role of urban open space in the process of urban regeneration. Afterwards, the possibilities of the street are discussed in the fi eld of urban regeneration. In addition, various discussions about the streets and pedestrian oriented design will be introduced.

CASE STUDY This chapter explains the analysis of different projects that relate with the concept of POD; ‘Woonerf’ and ‘Shared Space’. These concepts are a kind of street design in the sense of POD. Considering the case study problems and crucial elements of the development are deﬁ ned.

ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE This analysis section depicts a neighbourhood that gives more attention to the physical environment than the social environment. The aim of this project is to propose a street scape in Carnisse, thus, the analysis of it is one of the most important aspects of the project. The streets’ physical character and the use and behaviour of people is analysed as the street is not a simple trafﬁ c way. The results of this chapter, together with theoretical framework, give design principles for the street design in Carnisse.

DESIGN PROPOSAL The design proposal is formed on the conclusions of the analysis, and recommends the strategy and design for the neighbourhood of Carnisse. In order to improve the liveability of Carnisse, not only the street design is proposed, but a new residential block is also suggested in order to enhance the effect of the development of the street and satisfy the spatial demands of Carnisse.

20 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 21

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The goal of this chapter, theoretical framework, is generating the criteria for the case study, analysis, and design. To achieve the goal of the chapter, there are three main discussions of urban regeneration, urban open space, and pedestrian oriented streets.

The ﬁ rst section explains the urban regeneration to understand the current urban regeneration. Firstly, it introduces several deﬁ nitions of urban regeneration of various authors. And then, the changes of urban regeneration in the UK, the Netherlands, and Rotterdam are explained.

After the key elements of urban regeneration are generated, the beneﬁ ts of urban open space are discussed with three main aspects; social aspects, ecological aspects, and economic aspects. Lastly, there are explanations of the concept of pedestrian oriented streets to deﬁ ne the requirements of pedestrian oriented streets. 2.1 URBAN REGENERATION DEFINITION OF URBAN REGENERATION

Many authors have discussed urban regeneration. region.’(Stouten, 2010, p. 13). To sum up, urban regeneration has Sykes and Roberts (2000) deﬁ ned the urban regeneration paid more attention to city or regional approach rather than local based as below: approach (Stouten, 2010).

‘Urban regeneration is a comprehensive and integrated Tosics and Nodus (2009) deﬁ ned the urban regeneration as below: vision and action which leads to the resolution of urban ‘The “new generation” of integrated area-based urban renewal problems and which seeks to bring about a lasting programmes aim to improving deprived areas through complex and change in the economic, physical, social and environ- interlinked multi-sectorial interventions’(Tosics and Nodus, 2009, p. 1). mental condition and an area that has been subject to change’(Sykes and Roberts, 2000, p. 34). Thus, urban regeneration can be considered as an integrated solution included not only physical intervention but also as social, economic, As their statement, the urban regeneration should deal with social, democratic, and sustainable measures to solve urban problems. economic, physical and environmental issues in urban areas. Recent urban problems cannot be solved by single solution because each problem is interrelated. According to Sykes and Roberts (2000), urban regeneration needs the integrated solutions.

Stouten (2010) discussing the changes of urban renewal over time points out, the difference between urban regeneration and previous urban renewal is the emphasis of ‘environmental objects related to sustainable development’ and ‘more or less part of a more comprehensive form of urban regeneration of a city or

(source: http://rethinkingchildhood.com/)

24 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK CASE OF THE UK

The case of the UK is very valuable because they have urban renewal. At that time, the urban renewal addressed paid more attention to implementations. As it was men- to the old urban areas(Sykes and Roberts, 2000). tioned, the urban regeneration has the integrated aims. The urban regeneration in the UK has received the evaluation In the 1980s, it was ‘Redevelopment’ focused on the that has achieved the complex aims with the implementa- problems of the inner urban areas, and the partnership of tions. The development of urban area in the UK has moved public sectors and private sectors in the process of urban towards a form that encourages more participation; has a development. As communities were considered as an comprehensive and integrated vision; and aims for sustain- important factor in the previous urban renewal, local based able development. development became the main scheme. The consideration of ecology also increased (Sykes and Roberts, 2000). In the 1950s, the main theme of urban regeneration was ‘Reconstruction’, and focussing on the reconstruction and In the 1990s, the focus was on ‘Regeneration’, which extension of older areas of cities. The government of the involved a more comprehensive form of policy and prac- UK was a key actor in this process, providing everything for tice. The partnership became the dominant way to develop urban development, for example ﬁ nances, plans, and con- urban areas, and the balance between regional and local structions. In order to improve the housing and living stand- planning was addressed. Ecological sustainability was also ards, the replacement of inner city areas and development introduced and considered during the process of urban of new suburbs was used(Sykes and Roberts, 2000). development(Sykes and Roberts, 2000).

In 1960s, the name of scheme was ‘Revitalisation’; In the 2000s, it is ‘Urban Renaissance’ based on ‘princi- it was a continuation of the ‘reconstruction’ process of ples of design excellence, economic strength, environmen- 1950s. Suburbs and peripheral area of cities grew, and tal responsibility, good governance and social well-be- there was an attempt at rehabilitation. The private sector ing.’(Power and Burdett, 1999, 2). The urban renewal was also participated in the process of urban renewal and local changed by the technical revolution, ecological threat, and level of developments moved towards the regional level of transformation. In order to adapt to the changes, more development(Sykes and Roberts, 2000). comprehensive and integrated visions were proposed. For instance, to make a sustainable city, urban policy moved In the 1970s, the focus was on ‘Renewal’ and the devel- towards compact urban development with the creation of opment of neighbourhoods in urban areas. The key actor in integrated urban transport systems that prioritise the needs urban development changed from the central government of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport passen- to the private sector and local governments. This meant gers(Power and Burdett, 1999). that inhabitants were able to participate the process of

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 25 CASE OF THE NETHERLANDS The Netherlands also have similar tendency of urban de- hood. In addition, the urban renewal added the environ- velopments with the UK. It aims for participation of various mental objectives related to sustainable development to its sectors, decentralisation of key actors, and a sustainable aims(Stouten, 2010, Priemus, 2004). development(Stouten, 2010).

Before the 1970s, it was ‘Restructuring of city centres’. After the World War II, solving the post-war housing shortage was a main purpose of the national housing policy of the Netherlands. At the end of the 1960s, the aim was changed into the quality and differentiation of new buildings. Between 1968 and 1972, 20,000 dwellings were demolished or lost their housing function in order to introduce better connections and better living conditions in urban areas(Priemus, 2004).

In the 1970s, the biggest change of urban renewal was new addressing points from demolition to renovation. The slogan of ‘Building for the neighbourhood’ was very famous(Priemus, 2004). In order to achieve the aim, the key actor of urban renewal was decentralised to local governments(Stouten, 2010). ‘Building for the neighbourhood’ strategy aimed to decrease social inequality. In order to achieve the aim, the Dutch government wanted to provide social houses for low-income groups. Because of the policy changes, urban renewal could create houses that were affordable and in better condition(Priemus, 2004).

In the 1980s, ‘Urban Renewal’ expanded to ‘Social Renewal’. Previous urban renewal addressed physical interventions to solve urban problems, new urban renewal approach paid attention to housing and social situations, such as trafﬁ c, business, education, art, public services, employment, environment, and management(Stouten, 2010).

From the middle of 1the 990s, the term of ‘Urban Regen- eration’ appeared in the ﬁ eld of planning, and it suggests a comprehensive planning method considering various aspects of urban problems. The attention of urban renewal moved to the post-war neighbourhoods which consisted of the rented social housing. The houses in these post-war neighbourhoods did not meet the new demands, and social problems started to present in these neighbourhoods, for example, a sense of insecurity, vandalism, crime and unemployment of young people. In order to solve the urban problems, which are mentioned above, new urban renewal aims for the improvement of housing condition, structure of urban planning, quality of public space, and to enhance the economic, social, and cultural amenities in the neighbour-

26 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK the U.K. the Netherlands Rotterdam

Reconstruction 1950s Restructuring of city centre - replacement of inner areas Construction of expansion and peripheral development

-slum clearance Revitalisation 1960s -introducing luxury apartment - rehabilitation of existing area -good accessiblity to city centre by cars

Renewal 1970s Building for neighbourhood - more renewal of older urban area - improvement of housing situation - more integral approach included improvements to infrastructure, services and businesses

Redevelopment 1980s Social renewal - major schems of replacement - participation of the residents and new developments ‘flagship schemes’ - socialisation of the housing provision

Urban renewal renewed -provision of housing for every economic group -stimulating private buildings Regeneration 1990s Big city - more modest than 1980s; - to combat inner city deprivation heriatge and retention by strengthening and taking advantage of economic potential of city Urban Urban regeneration renewal

Renaissance 2000s Strategic area approache

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 27 CASE OF ROTTERDAM After World War II, the aim of development in Rotterdam ed of residents, civil servants and the representatives of was the reconstruction of the inner city area, and construc- housing association. Therefore residents of the project tion of new extensions around the city. Rotterdam was area were involved in the modernisation and new building one of most destroyed cities during World War II. During projects to meet their needs and requirements. Because the period, the most part of city centre of Rotterdam was the new urban renewal project were also concerned with destroyed by bombardment. To overcome of the post-war social renewal, affordable housing was provided to socially housing shortage, housing policy addressed the provision vulnerable people through social housing(Stouten, 2010). of affordable houses. However, at the end of the 1960s, policy shifted from the provision of housing to the supply Since the 1990s, as the socio-economic inequality has of affordable housing for the low-income groups. In new increased(Stouten, 2010). The Municipality of Rotterdam urban renewal, rehabilitation was the preferred method, has understood that it cannot solve the current problems such as small interventions, renovation of old housing, and with the previous approaches. Instead, the Municipality has new buildings in empty areas. Furthermore, the participa- introduced an approach of ‘Strategic Area Planning’. This tion of local residents was involved in the decision-making approach combined physical, economic, and social meas- process for area plans and during the implementation of ures, and sustainable development. Physically, the city of the urban renewal projects(Stouten, 2010). Rotterdam provided various living conditions, differentiation of housing and residential environment. Socially, Rotter- In the 1970s, urban renewal had the social and physical dam tried to reduce unemployment, mental weakness, and objective of ‘Building for the Neighbourhood’. The biggest health problem. To achieve the aim, a reasonable living change of urban renewal in 1970s was the increase of par- condition was created in the city centre. Lastly, sustainable ticipation by residents from the area involved the process development was one of the key goals because the public of urban renewal, and the provision of social housing. The consideration of environment has been increased(Stouten, project group that implement the urban renewal consist- 2010).

urban regeneration in the UK (source: http://images.reds.co.uk/gallery/media_city.jpg)

28 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK CONCLUSION The main scheme of urban development has been changed continuously. After World War 2, many European countries tried to restore destroyed urban areas. Until 1970s, main concerns of urban development were the expansion of urban area to provide enough living spaces to increased population. From 1990s, the focusing area was deprived urban area, the term of urban regeneration appeared in the UK. Urban regeneration tends to includes not only physical developments but also various approaches that interacts with urban area and people. Besides, it also includes various actors such as residents, private developer, sub municipality, and central government during the process of urban regeneration.

Dutch urban regeneration has similar tendency with general trends of urban regeneration, however it has several differences. From 1970s, residents have participated in the process of development. As the terms of urban regeneration appeared in 1990s, main scheme has been changed from neighbourhood based approach to regional or city based approach. As the changes of urban regeneration are looked, the urban regeneration is the combining physical, economic, and social interventions to improve urban qualities. However, it paid more attention to housing problems.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 29 2.2 URBAN OPEN SPACE DEFINITION OF URBAN OPEN SPACE In previous section, four aims of urban regeneration urban open space is considered as space that is not occu- were categorised; improvement of physical environments, pied by buildings, and able to generate social interaction. strengthening of economy, achieving social well-being and environmental sustainability. In this chapter, urban open space is analysed using these four criteria.

Urban open space was discussed by many authors. In order to defi ne urban open space, Woolley (2003) divided it into three categories: physical defi nition, user based defi nition, and ownership based defi nition. In physical defi nition, she defi nes it as the space that is not covered with artifi cial elements such as buildings and traffi c roads. In the user based defi nition, she defi nes it as the place where social activities occur. Lastly, in the ownership based defi nition, she defi nes it as the place that people can get a perception of public realm(Woolley, 2003). Executive (2001) defi nes urban open space as ‘land laid out a public garden, or used for the purposes of public recreation, or land which is a dis- used burial ground’(Executive, 2001, 19). Swanwick et al. (2003) defi nes urban open space as “part of the urban area that contributes to its amenity, either visually by contribut- ing positively to the urban landscape, or by virtue of public access”(Swanwick et al., 2003, 98). Thus, in this section

URBAN AREA

EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDINGS

GREY SPACE GREEN SPACE LINEAR GREEN SPACE SEMI NATURAL SPACE FUNCTIONAL CIVIC SPACE FUNCTIONAL GREEN SPACE GREY SPACE AMENITY GREEN SPACE

PUBLIC ACCESS PUBLIC OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE

30 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK SOCIAL BENEFITS OF URBAN OPEN SPACE The social benefi ts that come from urban open space Urban open space can be used as an educational are one of its most evident benefi ts(Woolley, 2003). source(Executive, 2001, Woolley, 2003). Well-maintained According to Woolley (2003), urban open space has three open space provides an ‘outdoor classroom(Executive, social benefi ts. First of all, urban open space has a positive 2001, 9)’. It is important for young people to be educated effect on the mental and physical health, providing space about environmental issues. An accessible ‘outdoor class- for exercise and recreation. Secondly, it is important that room’ can be provided by urban open space(Executive, children have a chance to interact with the nature and 2001). Furthermore, Woolley (2003) insists that urban open develop their personality. Lastly, good urban open space space can assist the improvement of the personalities of provides places where people can interact, so a sense of young children. community can be increased(Woolley, 2003). Lastly, many authors insists that urban open space Urban open space can improve the physical and mental can enhance a sense of community, and improve social health of residents(Executive, 2001, Woolley, 2003, cohesion(Clayden et al., 2006, Executive, 2001, Chiesura, Jorgensen et al., 2002). Executive (2001) mentioned 2004, Thompson, 2002, Woolley, 2003). Thompson (2002) that the most important purpose of urban open space is argues people can get a sense of equality from urban open to provide places for sport and physical recreation. This space because it is an open place to everyone, including is one of the reasons why people come to urban open the poor, rich, elderly, children, and disabled people. There- space, to maintain their physical health in urban open fore the improvement in social inclusion can be assisted by space(Woolley, 2003). Furthermore, citizens can maintain urban open space(Executive, 2001). In addition, increased their mental health and reduce their stress using urban interaction occurs among neighbours since people are en- open space(Jorgensen et al., 2002), and hospital patients couraged to participate in outdoor activities by urban open who can see nature scene in the form of urban open space space(Chiesura, 2004). recovered faster than others who cannot see the natural landscape(Chiesura, 2004).

(source: www.cchangeproject.org)

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 31 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF URBAN OPEN SPACE

The infl uences of the urban open space on environ- ley, 2003). For example, six hundreds of oxygen can be ments are extensive(Woolley, 2003). Urbanisation has emerged by one hectare park, and this can decrease caused the changes of urban environment, physically temperature in urban area(Executive, 2001). and ecologically, from micro scale to macro scale. This has become a big threat to cities. In order to overcome Urban ecologic systems can be developed by the pres- the threats, many people consider urban open space as ence of urban open space(Executive, 2001, Goddard et al., the best solution. The environmental benefi ts of urban 2010, Woolley, 2003). All kinds of vegetated open space open space can be divided into three: the reduction of in urban area have a positive infl uence on the protection climate change, the minimisation of micro-climate, and the of native biodiversity. In the case of the UK, there are improvement of urban ecologic system(Executive, 2001, over a thousand species of plants in open space in urban Woolley, 2003). areas. In case of the US, bird and butterfl y diversity was signifi cantly increased by native planting in urban open The main environmental function of urban open space space(Goddard et al., 2010). is to absorb carbon dioxide emissions in urban areas(Mo- rancho, 2003, Woolley, 2003). Carbon-dioxide is one of the main causes of global climate change. Many national governments have tried to reduce the emission of carbon-dioxide, for example, by boosting the levels of walking and cycling for daily trips (Executive, 2001). Among the variety of urban fabrics, only open space can reduce carbon-dioxide, as vegetation in urban open space can absorb carbon dioxide(Morancho, 2003).

Urban open space can decrease the negative micro-climate effects of urban areas(Woolley, 2003). Urban environments are drier, more polluted, and hotter than country side. This is because of accumulation of human activities and paved surface in urban areas. Urban open space can decrease these micro-climate changes in urban area(Wool- (source: http://odhaldydokultury.ﬁ les.wordpress.com)

32 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF URBAN OPEN SPACE

There are only few researches that have defi ned the economic value of urban open space(Morancho, 2003, Rodenburg et al., 2001, Woolley, 2003). Many authors insist that economic value of urban open space is not apparent in the short term but, needs to be considered in a long term perspective. Besides, it is hard to defi ne economic benefi ts of urban open space(Executive, 2001, Morancho, 2003, Wool- ley, 2003). However, two benefi ts are discussed.

Urban open space impacts on land property value(Roden- burg et al., 2001, Woolley, 2003).Luttik (2000) studied three Dutch cities, Apeldoorn, Emmen and Leiden, to determine the economic beneﬁ ts of urban open space. According to his research, the property value of the houses that are closest to urban open space is from six per cent to nine per cent higher. This is because people prefer to have a house that is close to parks, trees, canals, and lakes.

Urban open space can also boost tourism and improve the local economy(Baycan-Levent and Nijkamp, 2009, Woolley, 2003). Baycan-Levent and Nijkamp (2009) and Woolley (2003) point out the biggest economic value of urban open space is the boosting of tourism. For example, the Kew Gar- dens in London attracts more than 1.35 million of people per a year, and earns ﬁ fty-six million pounds per a year. Howev- er, these kinds of economic beneﬁ t have limitations because national or regional attractions can also boost tourism.

(source: www.travelmezze.com)

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 33 CONCLUSION Urban open space can be a tool that achieves the aims of urban regeneration in social, ecological, and economic aspects. As the urban open space gives residents the place where people can keep their physical and mental health, people can meet each other, and chances to interact with the nature. The ecological beneﬁ ts of the urban open space might be the biggest advantage of urban open space. For example, vegetation in the urban open space can absorb the carbon dioxide. The decent urban open space boost people to walk rather than take the vehicles that produce huge amount of carbon dioxide. Lastly, there is only small direct economic beneﬁ ts of the urban open space but it can save or make huge money indirectly. Therefore, the streets as an urban open space helps to achieve the aims of urban regeneration.

34 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.3 PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED STREET WHY STREET Over time the meaning of streets and, roads, has changed from a on urban quality of life; equity, economic effi ciency, loss of urban ‘living simple traffi c road into public road(Woolley, 2003). The original purpose space’, air pollution, accidents, competitiveness, severance, energy of roads was transporting of goods, animals, and people. However, consumption, noise and vibration, and visual intrusion. According to the people used streets for many other purposes. Social encounters and report, these problems have become increasingly worse by traditional exchanges happened in streets. Socialising is one of the main reasons approaches. Governments tried to solve the congestion on existing road why people live in cities(Jacobs, 1993). In addition, people used to meet by providing more space for cars. However, new roads encourage more their friends on streets, and watch others who walk through the streets. people to drive their cars, resulting in governments providing more spac- Streets used actively are crucial elements to make liveable neighbour- es for cars again. In other words, there is a need of new perspective on hoods(Jacobs, 1961). Exchanges of services or goods occur on streets. streets(Directorate-General, 2004). People get information about merchandises through show windows on street(Woolley, 2003). In some countries, such as South Korea, streets Many authors provided various perspectives on streets. Glaser are considered as important space for the traditional market. Small (2012) insisted streets as a the frontage of cities. He said that it was children used to use streets as play grounds(Woolley, 2003). streets where people fi rstly experienced and felt cities(Glaser, 2012). According to Allan B. Jacobs (1993) book ‘Great streets’, streets are The propagation of private vehicle changed the priority of streets places for socialising. To make good cities, it is compulsory that the from people to cars. The explosive increase in the number of vehicles great streets have accessibility, publicness, liveability, and comfortless(- changed the main users of streets from people to cars(Hamilton-Baillie, Jacobs, 1993). Appleyard (1980) suggested more concrete concepts of 2008). Policy makers and traffi c engineers aimed to make streets faster what should streets be. He outlined seven concepts and safer for more vehicles. To achieve this aim, they introduced the segregated traffi c road. The concept of road user segregation was ‘The street as a sanctuary: Streets on which children adopted by many developed countries(Hamilton-Baillie, 2008). grow up should be safe from speeding and careless drivers.’(Appleyard, 1980, p. 107) Since the middle of twentieth century, there has been criticism of car-oriented urban conditions. In recent years, the Directorate-General ‘The street as a liveable, health environment: The street (2004) announced ten negative effects of urban traffi c and congestion environment should have places where people can sit,

source:blog.ohmynews.com THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 35 converse, and play.’(Appleyard, 1980, 107) In conclusion, streets should be reconsidered as an urban open ‘The street as a community: Streets should be places space rather than simple trafﬁ c road in order to improve current where communal life is possible and where it can hap- situation. Streets should be changed into a place where people can use pen…’(Appleyard, 1980, pp. 107-108) freely and safely. And we can call it ‘Pedestrian-Oriented Street’.

‘The street as neighbourly territory: the street should become in a symbolic, sense territory that the residents believe belongs to them…’(Appleyard, 1980, p. 108)

‘The street as a place for play and learning: Places which are diverse in character, with different kinds of surfaces, and with adequate spaces to play all the street games children like to engage in…’(Appleyard, 1980, 108)

‘The street as a green and pleasant land: The “greening” of streets is perhaps one of the most common desires of those who live in the central city.’(Appleyard, 1980, p. 108)

‘The street as a unique historic place: People take pride in places that have a special identity. … Residential streets should be destinations, not routes.’(Appleyard, 1980, pp. 108-109)

(source: Reclaiming city streets for people: chaos or DIRECTORATE-GENERAL, E. C. E. 2004.)

36 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK REQUIREMENTS OF STREET FOR PEOPLE

What kinds of elements are needed to make successful pedestrian turn their backs or blank sides on it and leave it blind. oriented street? In this section, the requirements of streets as mentioned by various authors are introduced. Jane Jacobs and as it was mentioned And third, the sidewalk must have users on it fairly continuously, both before, Allan Jacobs stated the requirements of streets as a place where to add to the number of effective eyes on the street and to induce the social interactions occur. And Biddulph (2012b) and Cao et al. (2006) people in buildings along the street to watch the sidewalks in sufﬁ cient discussed the relation between physical environments and pedestrian’s numbers. Nobody enjoys sitting on a stoop or looking out a window at behaviour. an empty street. Almost nobody does such a thing. Large numbers of people entertain themselves, off and on, by watching street activity.”(- Jane Jacobs (1961) emphasised the social and physical safety of Jacobs, 1961, p. 35) streets. She is one of the most famous American writers on cities. She disagreed with American suburbanisation, and proposed various criteria Allan Jacobs is an American urban planner. His book, Great for good cities. One of the criteria is a safe street, insisting that safe streets(1993), is famous because it explains the interaction between streets can be made by participation of users of streets, and safe streets people and streets. Allan Jacobs (1993) suggested six physical can attract more people(Jacobs, 1961). elements for the great streets. The book presents six criteria for great streets with analysis of great streets over the world. “A city street equipped to handle strangers, and to make a safety asset, in itself, our of the presence of strangers, as the streets of successful “Places for People to Walk with Some Leisure: The point of view and city neighbourhoods always do, must have three main qualities: interest of this inquiry has mainly to do with the best streets for people, mostly on foot. … It’s on foot that you see people’s faces and statures First, there must be a clear demarcation between what public space is and that you meet and experience them. That is how public socialising and what private space is. Public and private spaces cannot ooze into and community enjoyment in daily life can most easily occur.”(Jacobs, each other as they do typically in suburban settings or in projects. 1993, pp. 271-272)

Second, there must be eyes upon the street, eyes belonging to those “Physical comfort: The best streets are comfortable, at least as we might call the natural proprietors of the street. The buildings on a comfortable as they can be in their settings. They offer warmth or street equipped to handle strangers and to insure the safety of both sunlight when it is cool and shade and coolness when it is hot. They residents and strangers must be oriented to the street. They cannot offer reasonable protection from the elements without trying to avoid or

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 37 negate the natural environment.”(Jacobs, 1993, p. 275) 2006). Many people want light streets to feel safe from crime, and wider pedestrian paths to avoid potential car accidents. Especially low traffi c “Defi nition: Great streets have defi nition. They have boundaries, usual- volume and speed can also impact on physical safety(Biddulph, 2012b). ly walls of some sort or another, which communicate clearly where the The connectivity and distance of streets to destinations also infl uences edges of the street are, that set the street apart, that keep the eyes on pedestrians’ behaviour(Cao et al., 2006). and in the street, that make it a place.”(Jacobs, 1993, p. 277) Pikora et al. (2006) analysed physical factors that could infl uence “Qualities That Engage the Eyes: Great streets require physical char- people who want to walk. They categorised many physical factors acteristics that help the eyes do what they want to do, must do: move. as four main factors; functional factor; safety; aesthetic factor; and Every great street has this quality.”(Jacobs, 1993, p. 282) destination(Pikora et al., 2006). Each of major factors is divided into several specifi c factors. For example, functional factor includes walking “Transparency: The best streets have about them a quality of transpar- surface, width of street, traffi c, and permeability. It is presented that the ency at their edges, where the public realm of the street and the less functional factor and safety gives positive impacts on the pedestrians’ public, often private realm of property and buildings meet.”(Jacobs, behaviour in four major factors. On the other hand, aesthetic factor 1993, p. 286) and destination are not as infl uential. However, the presence of public transport and public facilities can encourage people to be pedestrians “Maintenance: … most important to achieving a great street and the signifi cantly(Pikora et al., 2006). answers are very likely to include words like “cleanliness,” “smooth,” and “no potholes.”…Care of trees, materials, buildings, and all the To sum up, there are several elements that should be considered parts that make up a street is essential. … people would prefer to be in order to implement successful pedestrian oriented street. Firstly, on well-maintained rather than poorly maintained streets.”(Jacobs, streets should be safe from traffi c accidents and crimes. For this, the 1993, p. 289) speed of vehicles should be restricted and the pedestrian path should have enough width and adequate lighting. Secondly, streets should Cao et al. (2006) mentioned fi ve key elements that make people be well-connected. At the small scale, every street should connect to walk. They researched the impact of the built environment on pedestrian an important place, and public transport and public facilities should be behaviour, and the connection between the built environment and provided within walking distance. Lastly, streets need well-maintained pedestrian behaviour in Austin, Texas in the US. According to their greenery. For this, more private gardens faced on streets and street result, physical and social safety of streets is the most important trees are necessary. element that encourages people in walking for any reason(Cao et al.,

(source: Allan Jacobs, 1993, Great street)

38 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FUNCTIONAL

WALKING SURFACE STREETS TRAFFIC PERMEABILITY PATH TYPE WIDTH VOLUME STREET DESIGN SURFACE TYPE SPEED INTERSECTION MAINTENANCE TRAFFIC CONTROL DESIGN CONTINUITY DEVICES INTERSECTION DIRECT ROUT DISTANCE OTHER ACCESS POINTS

SAFETY

PERSONAL TRAFFIC LIGHTING CROSSINGS SURVEILLIANCE CROSSING AIDS VERGE WIDTH

AESTHETIC

STREETSCAPE VIEWS CLEANLINESS POLLUTION TREES GARDENS SIGHTS MAINTENANCE ARCHITECTURE STREET MAINTENACE PARK

DESTINATION

FACILITIES SHOPS PARKS LOCAL FACILITY PUBLIC TRANSPORT VEHICLE PARKING FACILITY

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 39 EFFECTS AND LIMITATION

The recent concept of the pedestrian oriented street has two main 2009). approaches, ‘Home Zones’ and ‘Share Space’. As it is mentioned previ- ously, ‘Home Zones’ is the ‘Woonerf’ that is developed in the UK(Clayden Even though the concept of pedestrian oriented streets has several et al., 2006). Shared space is recently accepted approach. Both have advantages, it has obvious limitations too. Firstly, concentrating on similar objectives that make pedestrian-oriented streets, however they streets cannot guarantee the improvement of social cohesion(Clayden have the difference of applied location. Home zones and Woonerf are et al., 2006, Van Beckhoven and Van Kempen, 2003). There are no applied on streets in residential area, and Shared space tends to be improvements of social cohesion in some home zones in the UK. This is implemented on shopping streets or main streets in neighbourhoods. because of lack of participation during the project. Also, some residents According to recent research, each approach has some positive and disagreed the implementation of home zones because it would decrease negative results. parking spaces(Clayden et al., 2006) and many residents want to watch their car from the windows of their houses because of safety. Thus, with- Home zones, and Woonerf, have created a number of positive out safe parking area this approach cannot succeed. Lastly, both home impacts on streets in residential area. According to the research of zones and share space cannot be applied to narrow streets. This is one Biddulph (2012a), home zones have encouraged more street users of the reasons why ‘Woonerf’ was failed(de Wit and Talens, 1999). and activities, but the most of the users are children. More adults also have stayed on streets, but they have to watch their children rather than meet somebody. However, in case of the home zones where residents participated in the start of projects, social interaction has been increased up to forty per cent(Clayden et al., 2006). In addition, volume and speed of trafﬁ c has decreased, and residents have felt more safe in neighbourhoods (Biddulph, 2012a, Clayden et al., 2006, Hamilton-Baillie, 2002).

Shared space also has generated some positive results. The most positive result of shared space is the reduction of traffi c volume and speed, the increase of road safety, and the improvement of traffi c fl ow(Leeuwarden, 2007, Sutcliffe, 2009). Stores on shared space had provided the safety for pedestrians, resulting in more people visiting the street. Furthermore, public programmes have occurred on streets. In the case of Drachten, more cafés and restaurants provides tables on the street and, users have been satisfi ed by the lively atmosphere(Sutcliffe,

WALKABILITY AESTHETIC WIDTH, PAVEMENT, DIRECT ROUTE STREET TREES, STREET FURNITURE, CONNECTION PLINTH

SAFETY PARKING SPACE TRAFFIC VOLUME, TRAFFIC SPEED, LIGHTING, OPENESS MINIMISING PARKING ON STREET

CONNECTIVITY SHOPS, PARKS, LOCAL FACILITY, PUBLIC TRANSPORT

40 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK CONCLUSION

Streets are an important space in urban areas. The streets are a trafﬁ c road that makes people transport goods, animals, and themselves. Besides, they are a social place where people meet each other, talk to each other, and stay on the streets. Children play and learn how to live in the urban area on the streets. And lastly, the streets are the ﬁ rst place where people meet cities, and streets give a huge impression to people.

To make a good street, there are some requirements; functions, safety, aesthetic, and destination. The street should be fulﬁ l with its functional requirements. Trafﬁ c volume and speed should be controlled to keep pedestrians and cyclists safe, and the streets should have good connection with public transportations and facilities. And streets should be a safe place. People want to walk or stay on the safe streets. Streets should have attractive atmosphere, therefore streets need good maintenance, trees, gardens, and nice view.

The pedestrian oriented street has some limitations. Firstly, improvements of street conditions cannot promise to strengthen the social cohesion. It can give chances to interact but there is no concrete results. Secondly, current methods cannot be a universal approach. Usually, the pedestrian oriented street needs large surface to provide more space to pedestrians, however many old streets do not have enough space for it. Thus, the development of street should combine with other urban developments such as new parking spaces and restructuring of old blocks.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 41 CONCLUSION Streets can be considered as an essential elements for urban regeneration because the streets can contribute to improve living conditions. Urban regeneration aims to solve current urban problems includes physical and social problems with physical, social, economic, and ecological approaches. If the conditions of streets are improved, there will be some possibilities to improve physical, social, economic, and ecological conditions in urban areas. Thus, the improvement of streets can play a key role in the process of urban regeneration.

However, there are some requirements during the design process to make liveable streets in residential areas. Firstly, residents should be involved in the design process. As mentioned in this chapter, there will not be increase of social interactions if there is no participation of people. Secondly, ﬁ ve elements should be considered; walkability, safety, connectivity, aesthetic, and parking space. Without the fulﬁ lment of these elements, the streets cannot attract people to walk and stay.

To sum up, streets is a space that can improve people’s living quality in urban area. Therefore streets should be paid attention in the process of urban regeneration.

42 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 43

CHAPTER THREE: CASE STUDY This chapter discusses the approaches of pedestrian oriented streets in the Netherlands. There are three sections, ﬁ rst section shows the brief changes of the concept of pedestrian oriented streets in the Netherlands. They are the Woonerf, 30km/h zone, and Shared space.

The second section is the case study of the Woonerf areas in Delft. The Woonerf is the ﬁ rst concept of pedestrian oriented streets, and it is ﬁ rstly applied to Delft. To understand the traditional and current Woonerf, two streets, Paxlaan and Diamantpad, are selected.

The last section of this chapter is the case study of Shared space in Haren and Drachten. The both of cities are located in Friesland. Shared Space is applied to the towns since the end of 1990s. WOONERF 30 KM/H

RISING OF AWARE OF CAR ORIENTED STREET EXPERIMENT OF WOONERF IN DELFT RISE OF CRITICISM OF WOONE INTRODUCING THE REGURLATION OF WOONERF TRAFFIC CARMING SPREAD OUT WOONERF TO EUROPE REVISE THE REGULATION OF W

1970 1980

46 CASE STUDY SHARED SPACE

ERF EXPERIMENT OF SHARED SPACE AND NAKED INTERSECTION IN FRISLAND WOONERF IMPLEMENTATION OF HAREN AND DRACHTEN 500

400

300

200 Cars and light trucks per 1000 population Cars

1990 2000 2005

Trend in car and light truck ownership per 1000 population in the Netherlands

CASE STUDY 47 3.1 APPROACHES IN THE NETHERLANDS

WOONERF (RESIDENTIAL AREA WITH RESTRICTIONS TO SLOW DOWN TRAFFIC)

In 1960s, the number of vehicles was increased rapidly in the Neth- residential areas(Hamilton-Baillie, 2008). Their concept of Woonerf erlands. In case of the Netherlands, the number of vehicles per 1,000 considered the streets as a social space, and aimed to avoid the reduc- people was only fi fty-nine in 1960, but it became almost 200 in 1970. To tion of freedom of movement available to children. Even though several cope with the dramatic growth of vehicles, the Dutch government drew Woonerf were implemented in Delft, it could not spread out entire cities new regulations for car roads(Hamilton-Baillie, 2008, de Wit and Talens, in the Netherlands because of the lack of legal framework(de Wit and 1999). According to these regulations, areas newly developed should Talens, 1999). have wider car-roads and parking areas. During this period, the priority of roads and streets was moved from people to vehicles, gradually. In 1970, the reconsideration of main users of streets got more attentions from public, and the regulations of ‘Woonerf’ were founded Since the middle of 1960s, the criticism of car-oriented streets in in 1976(de Wit and Talens, 1999). The Dutch government was forced urban area was rose by the residents in urban areas (Vis et al., 1992, to make the safety regulations of streets by some organisation that Hamilton-Baillie, 2008, de Wit and Talens, 1999). Especially, inhabitants aimed to protect the safety of children on streets. In 1972, the ‘Board of of dense urban areas strongly want to get back traditional streets. They Traffi c Safety’ was established, and Woonerf got defi nite legal status in thought that car oriented streets, or roads, were ‘concrete jungle without 1976(de Wit and Talens, 1999). The regulation of Woonerf is as in the character’, ‘anti-social and very dangerous area’(de Wit and Talens, following. 1999, p. 21). • The Woonerf should mainly fulfi l a function enhanc- At the end of 1960s, Joost Vàhl and his colleagues suggested ing the residential nature of an area. ‘Woonerf’(residential area with restrictions to slow down traffi c) on streets in urban area to minimise traffi cs’ impacts on streets in • The road or road system within a Woonerf should

48 CASE STUDY be constructed in such a manner that where mo- may not however lead to a situation whereby the torized trafﬁ c is concerned these roads can only be parking space available in the area immediately used for access to and from destinations within the adjacent to a Woonerf fails thereby to meet the Woonerf (thereby deterring any through trafﬁ c). demand of residents of said areas.

• On any road within the Woonerf the traffi c volume • On the parts of the roads within a Woonerf suitable involving motor vehicles should not be such that for use by vehicles, provisions should be applied the character of the road as a component of a which induce a limiting of the speeds maintained Woonerf could be adversely affected. by various types of vehicles. The intervals between these provisions should not exceed 50 meters. • The impression should not be given that the road is split into a carriageway and a footpath or foot-way. • The parts of the road referred to in Article 9 above There should be no continuous height differen- should not have provisions applied which would tial in the cross-section profi le of a road within a result in motor vehicles driving close to housing lo- Woonerf. Kerbs which may give the impression cated on short distance from the side of said roads. of demarcating footpaths or foot-ways from the carriageway should therefore be broken at intervals • The provisions intended in Article 9 should not be of approximately 25 metres and the presence of in any way hazardous to traffi c passing through intervals between the kerbing should be obvious to these provisions taking account of the legal speed road motorists. limit prescribed as ‘walking speed’.

• Vertical elements (such as plant pots and shrubs) • Adequate public lighting should be provided in a should not impede visibility. Woonerf, so that any provisions, particularly those intended in Article 9, are also clearly visible at • The entrances and exits providing access to a night. Woonerf should be clearly discernible from their construction and where they are to be used by ve- • Locations which have been especially laid out hicles should also be clearly indicated as being an as play areas for children should be adequately entrance/exit, where the kerbing should preferably marked as such, to distinguish them from areas be continued but lowered at such locations. This intended for use by motor vehicles. If possible requirement is also complied with if the entrance/ these areas would be cordoned off from other parts exit to a Woonerf is set some distance back from of the highways. the junction with other roads. The road leading to a junction may not in such a case be regarded as an • A sub-plate sign should be placed beneath trafﬁ c exit on the street traversing it. sign 57c with the word ‘Woonerf’ marked. (de Wit and Talens, 1999, p. 4) • The edges of that part of the road pavement intended for the parking of one or more vehicles ‘Woonerf’ can be characterised by several elements. First feature should be clearly indicated by road marking of at is its location. Woonerf used to be implemented in residential area. the least the corners of such spaces. The colour Second characteristic is the free use of street by people. Residents can of this marking and the letter ‘P’ should be clearly walk in everywhere and children can play in everywhere. Third feature is discernible from other road pavement at such that there is a distinct entrance and exit of Woonerf. It is used that every locations. The letter ‘P’ may be applied on a paving method can identify drivers as belonging in pedestrian areas. And the stone. last is physical and visual facilities are used to protect pedestrians and children(Kraay and Verkeersveiligheid, 1986). • There should be sufﬁ cient parking space within a Woonerf to meet the needs of local residents. If Even though the concept of ‘Woonerf’ was spread out to the other unused parking facilities are available in the im- European countries, it fades out from the Netherlands at the early of mediate proximity of a Woonerf, then the demand 1980s(Hamilton-Baillie, 2008). After the introducing of regulation of for local residents within a Woonerf for parking Woonerf, it faced various criticisms. The regulations are too detail space may be allowed to be exceeded slightly. This and the cost of implementation is too high(de Wit and Talens, 1999).

CASE STUDY 49 And also it needs enough space for the implementation(Kraay and Verkeersveiligheid, 1986). Joost Vàhl and his colleagues experimented principles in the small town of Culemborg, Utrecht, however the Woonerf was not developed in the Netherlands(Hamilton-Baillie, 2008).

50 CASE STUDY 30 Km/h zones

The most popular approach of trafﬁ c calming in 1980s was the introducing of speed control hump(de Wit and 7. If those provisions referred to in point 1 are applied Talens, 1999). Existed Woonerf has positive results, but it they should not present any hazard to trafﬁ c passing these could not be applied everywhere because of the rea- provisions at the permitted speed (30 km/h). sons mentioned above. Local government should make economical low-speed streets in the residential area. II. That determined in section I shall not apply if a tempo- Other experiments were applied the city of Eindhoven and rary situation arises which would require the placing of sign 1. Rijswijk at the end of 1970s. In 1984, the ’30 km/h zones’ were introduced(Vis et al., 1992). The regulation was as III. The Decree of 16 March 1983 regarding the require- the followings. ments which roads or road sections within built-up areas should comply with, shall be hereby revoked. I. Sign 1 (indicating a maximum speed limit of 30 km/h) and sign 1b (30 km/h zone) may only be applied in built-up IV. This Decree was applicable from 1 January 1984. areas if the following requirements are complied with: (de Wit and Talens, 1999, p. 6)

1. The nature and state of the roads and road sections Various means were used to reduce traffi c volume and concerned should be such that where speed-inhibiting speed. Vis et al. (1992) summarised it into six categories. measures have been applied on such roads or road sections, a maximum speed of 30 km/h is a reasonable 1. Essentially based on the emphasis of residential function and logical consequence of the application of such design (elongated humps; see Fig. 1). measures. 2. Mainly based on the inconvenience caused by up-and- 2. The roads or road sections where sign 1 has been down movement (humps and other forms of uneven road placed should, as far as motorized traffi c is concerned, paving; see Fig. 2). only have a relevant function to traffi c having its destination or original departure point on such a road or road 3. Mainly base on a forced course to be followed (axis section, or within the immediately proximity of said road. realignments; see Fig. 3). The same also applies to a 30 km/h zone. 4. Mainly based on narrowing the carriageway (see Fig. 4). 3. On the roads in question the directness and effi ciency of public transport services should not be adversely 5. Mainly based on narrowing the carriageway, combined affected to any signifi cant extent. with possible obstruction (see Fig. 5).

4. The impression should be avoided that the roads 6. Mainly base on the likelihood of obstructing the carriage- concerned are a constituent part of a woonerf. way (see Fig. 6). (Vis et al., 1992, p. 77) 5. If those provisions referred to in point 1 are applied on the roads or road sections concerned, they should not Among the measures, it came out that the speed control interfere with or impede the smooth passage and acces- hump was the most effective methods(Vis et al., 1992). sibility to the emergency services (police, fi re brigade and According to the research, mean speed of vehicle was ambulance) or the effi cient fl ow of access to goods traffi c. decreased to under 30 km/h after the implementation of speed control humps, narrowing of the road, partial 6. If those provisions referred to in point 1 are to be barricades, elongated humps and entrance construction. applied, then adequate public lighting must be present in And the traffi c accidents was also decreased after the order that the provisions are also clearly visible at night or introducing of 30 km/h zone(Vis et al., 1992). during the hours of darkness.

CASE STUDY 51 In 1980s, ‘Woonerf’ was revised because of the high demands for pedestrian oriented street(de Wit and Talens, 1999). After the decision of court, highways should provide safe environments to every user including cyclists and pedestrians; it was increased to keep the safety of all users in shopping streets and business parks. Thus, Woonerf was developed into the ‘extensive Woonerf’ and ‘simple Woonerf’(de Wit and Talens, 1999).

(source: Safety effects of 30 Km/H zones in the Netherlands, 1992)

52 CASE STUDY SHARED SPACE

In 1990s, the new concept of integration was experi- More people were satisfi ed with streets. Thus, the criticism mented in Friesland, the northern province of the Nether- was decreased gradually. lands(Hamilton-Baillie, 2008). Hans Monderman, a traffi c engineer of Friesland, experimented with simple landscape Let see the case of Haren and Drachten, ‘Shared Space’ measures and the reduction of road marking, sign and has several physical characters; the threshold entry to humps. He did the fi rst experiment in Oudehaske, and he shared space, curve-linear alignment and furniture, trees could get successful results such as the reduction of traffi c and no kerbs, and intermittent parking(Sutcliffe, 2009). volume and speed, and traffi c accidents(Hamilton-Baillie, The entry design and intermittent parking aims to reduce 2008). the traffi c speed and volumes, and the others aims to give more pleasant environments to users. Especially the However, some journalists and researchers criticised it design of entrance was also addressed in the concept of because the approach could only applied in small town or Woonerf; it makes drivers reduce the speed of vehicles and rural area(Hamilton-Baillie, 2008). Previous experiments be aware of other users, such as pedestrians and cyclists. were constructed in small villages, thus it was hard to avoid Generally, it is a road alignment change, a vertical rise, this kind of criticisms. However, the criticisms were dis- specifi c paving treatment or landscaping treatment. pelled by the implementation of Drachten(Hamilton-Baillie, 2008). The town is the suburb of Groningen, and the population of the town is over 40,000. The shared space was constructed in shopping streets. After the construction, the speed of vehicles and the traffi c accidents was decreased.

CASE STUDY 53 CONCLUSION

In the Netherlands, there are mainly three approaches; Woonerf in 1970s; 30Km/h zone in 1980s; and Shared space in 1990s. ‘Woonerf’ (residential area with restrictions to slow down traffi c) was the fi rst approach of pedestrian oriented street in Europe. At the end of 1960s, there was the movements to improve the safety of streets in the Netherlands, and it made the concept of ‘Woonerf’. ‘Woonerf’ was fi rstly implemented in Delft, the city in the province of Zuid-Holland, and it spread out to other Dutch cities. Its aim is making a safe playground for children on the residential streets. However, it was diminished because of high costs for implementation and safety issues on streets. In 1980s, the term of ‘30km/h zone’ was introduced. It aimed to control the traffi c speed and volume in residential areas. Various elements were used to achieve the aim, however speed control hump is considered as the most popular and effective tool. In 1990s, traffi c experts in Friesland, the province of northern Netherlands, did the experiment of ‘Shared Space’. It was implemented in the central area of towns, and it has a strong connection with commercial area. It has increased the attractiveness and safety of streets.

54 CASE STUDY 3.2 WOONERF IN DELFT PAXLAAN OVERALL pavement, so the drivers cannot easily notice it visually. Paxlaan is the one of traditional Woonerf(residential area with restrictions to slow down traffi c). Paxlaan is the very old street in Delft. The The main threat of Paxlaan is parked cars on the narrow street. It is street is shown in a topographic and military map(Topographische en almost impossible to use the street as a social area for the residents. militaire kaart) of 1910. Most of the buildings in Paxlaan are constructed Children cannot use the street as a playground that is the main purpose before the World War II. of Woonerf. Paxlaan is located in just western side of the centrum of Delft. In 500 metre, there are the station of Delft, the centre of Delft, and municipality building of Delft. CONNECTIVITY Some facilities are in 500 metre; park, school, and Delft station, and inhabitants can go to the facilities from Paxlaan on feet and bikes within WALKABILITY fi ve minutes. The street can be thought to have well-connected with the Total width of Paxlaan is less than eight metre. The street consists of facilities. The streets to the facilities are also Woonerf area, so residents pedestrian path, carriageway and one-side parking space. Pedestrian can go to there in same atmospheres of the streets. path has a kerb, so a kerb makes separation from carriageway. The The centrum of Delft is also very close; however it is not easy to width of one-side is only 1.5 metre, and the other is 2.5 metre. The go the centrum. The distance to the centrum is also within 500 metre. carriageway is totally four metre, and 1.5 metre is parking area. People can go to the centrum in a short time. However, it is not seemed Paxlaan is not an attractive street for pedestrians, cyclists, and easy because of parking area, tramlines, and car roads. The system of car-drivers. The pedestrian path is very narrow and the lack of greenery. traffi c of Phoenixstraat is quite complex, so inhabitants can be diffi culties Cyclists should share the carriageway with car, but it has the very with the crossing Phoenixstraat. narrow width and parking spaces.

AESTHETIC SAFETY Paxlaan is looks like very unattractive because of the lack of green- There are some street furnitures to keep the safety of Paxlaan, such ery and unattractive plinth. There are small amounts of street trees on as the speed control humps at the start and end point of street, and bol- the street. Most of them is located in parking area, so residents cannot lards. The humps and trafﬁ c signal of Woonerf are used to let car-drivers use the shade of trees for staying on the street. And in case of the plinth know they are in residential streets. The humps has same colour with in the street, it faces the street. There is no semi-private area in front of

ST VE ER OV VAN AN LA AALENLAAN N G VA AT TRA LSS SINGE Gemeente Delft

PAXLAAN Delft train station

50 m woonerf area 30 km/h zone

CASE STUDY 55 the porches. If there is semi-private areas, inhabitants can have some place for gardening or meeting, and pedestrian can enjoy more vibrant street scape.

PARKING SPACE Even though the width of Paxlaan is narrow, there are parking spaces on the street. The parking spaces are necessary to the residents of the street. However, if they want more attractive and safer street, they should endure inconveniences to park cars in other place rather than just in front of house. To solve the lack of parking spaces in Paxlaan, alternative parking area is under the bridge. It is quite close for the street. However, it is not look like safe because it is dark and bad-maintenance.

pllan of PAxlaan 56 CASE STUDY CASE STUDY 57 DIAMANTPAD OVERALL CONNECTIVITY Diamantpad is located in just southern part of the centrum of Delft. The connectivity is generally good. The centrum of Delft is near to the The centrum of Delft and Zuidpoort, shopping area, are in walking street, but people should use underground path or cross to go there. distance. Diamantpad is quite new area. Most of buildings on the street are constructed during the seventies. The housing typology is the traced housing and attached house with private garden. AESTHETIC Diamantpad is the one of Woonerf. Most of Woonerf is shared with Enough greenery and plinth of houses makes the street is attractive. every traffi c methods, for example pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. There are no street trees but the greenery looks enough because of However, the street is an exclusive pedestrian and bike path. The driving central fl owerbeds with small fl owers and bushes. And the residents a car in the street is prohibited. used to use in-between space as a garden; it makes the street scene vibrant. WALKABILITY Diamantpad is exclusive pedestrian road, and total width of the street PARKING SPACE is almost twelve metre. The street consists of two pedestrian paths There are alternative parking areas at the each ends of the street. and central green areas. Both of pedestrian paths are wider than three The inhabitants in Diamantpad should walk to get in their car, but they metre, and the width of greenery is 3.6 metre. Especially, one of the can have the very attractive and safe residential street because of their pedestrian paths can be considered the semi-private space. The one of little inconvenience. pedestrian path is faced on the plinth of houses, so the residents used to use the path as semi-private space. And there is a difference of pavement in the pedestrian path. This is give the feeling that divided the street into two-part; public path, and semi-public path.

SAFETY The street is considered as a very safe area because there is no car. And also the street can be watched by the resident very easily. So it is also safe socially.

DIAMANTPAD

MIJNBOUWSTRAAT BK of MAERTEN TOMPSTRAAT TUDelft

ROTTERDAMSEWEG

50 m woonerf area 30 km/h zone

58 CASE STUDY CASE STUDY 59 CONCLUSION

For the case study of ‘Woonerf’, two ‘Woonerf’ areas are visited, Paxlaan and Diamantpad. Paxlaan is the residential street that is located in 500 metre from the station of Delft, and it is one of the traditional ‘Woonerf’ in Delft. Diamantpad is the residential street that is located in the south of the centre of Delft, it faces the plinth of houses on the street.

In case of Paxlaan, the condition of the street is not good. The width of the street is narrow, and its conditions are also not good. There are the lack of greenery, unattractive plinths, and parked vehicles on the street. Furthermore, it is not a good condition to walk and stay because of the lack of maintenance of the streets of public facilities, sucha s ﬂ ower beds. In case of Diamantpad, the street is exclusive Pedes- trian Street, and it faces with the plinth or front garden of the houses in the street. Therefore, there are not parking areas that threaten the users of the street, and also public facilities in the street are well-maintained.

However, both of them does not have the good connections to other urban facilities, such as educational facilities, public transportations, and shopping centres. They are closed to the centre of Delft, but the ‘Woonerf’ street does not connect with the centre, it is ﬁ nished at the end of the residential street.

60 CASE STUDY 3.3 SHARED SPACE HAREN

OVERALL SAFETY Haren is a municipality in the city of Groningen in the Shared space of Rijksstraatweg has very noticeable north-eastern Netherlands, there are almost 19,000 inhabit- entrance and exit. Speed control humps and different ants. Haren is a commuting town with wealth inhabitants. pavements are used for it. Drivers can be easily notice the The concept of shared space in Haren was applied to shared space visually, and then they get warnings with the the main shopping street of Haren in 2002. The shopping humps. Thus the drivers can pay more attention to others, street is called ‘Rijksstraatweg’ and the shared space of such as cyclists and pedestrians. Rijksstraatweg is approximately 500 metre long. According The pedestrian path can be defi ned by the not-elevated to the concept of Shared space, traffi c signal, separated kerb, street furniture, and trees from the carriageway. It bike path, and kerb were demolished. looks impossible that the vehicles occupy the street. Most interesting area is transitional spaces on the street. As it is mentioned above, it is in-between space. WALKABILITY This space can be considered as buffer zone for the street The width of Rijksstraatweg is generally less than twenty safety. metre. The street consists of two-side pedestrian path and carriageway. Each foot path has fi ve metre width and transitional area. Transitional area is in between space CONNECTIVITY of pedestrian path and carriageway. It can be defi ned by Rijksstraatweg connects several facilities, such as old fences and boundary stones. The transitional areas are church, municipal building, and bus stops. The inhabitants used for parking areas of vehicles and bicycles, or resting of Haren can approach the facilities safely and pleasantly. areas with benches. However, the station of Hare is one kilometre far from There are some crosses on the street, but pedestrians the street and the concept of shared space does not con- can cross the carriageway everywhere safely. Every user tinued to the station. of the street are very tolerant, they used to wait for each other. Pedestrians usually cross the carriageway with the gap of cars. In case of marked cross, car drivers used to AESTHETIC give the way to pedestrians. Even though there are enough street trees on Ri- jksstraatweg, maintenance of street also makes the street

CASE STUDY 61 62 CASE STUDY vibrant. Especially, the shared space in front of old church is very beautiful. Big trees and small plaza make the place as the centre of the town.

PARKING SPACE Basically, it is prohibited to park cars on Rijksstraatweg except distribution vehicles. Most of car use parking areas near the streets. Some parking spaces are located in the transitional zone, but they are small amount.v

CASE STUDY 63 64 CASE STUDY DRACHTEN OVERALL SAFETY Drachten is the one of suburbs of Groningen, and there Generally, pedestrians are protected from vehicles. are approximately 45,000 inhabitants. It was very small There are no parked cars in the streets and fences and town with 10,000 people; however the town was grew street trees keep off the streets for invasion of cars. How- rapidly after the relocation of Philiaps. ever, bikes use both of way, pedestrian path and carriage- The shared space of Drachten is on the sets of several way. Sometimes it can be threat to pedestrians. streets, Noorderbuurt, Zuidbuurt, Museumplein, Moleneind, Zuidzijd, and Zuidkade. The sets of streets are the main shopping street of the town. CONNECTIVITY The streets connect public buildings, parking areas with the shopping streets. And the shared space in Drachten WALKABILITY gives a visual connection between public facilities and The total width of the streets is twenty metre, and they shopping street. The concentration of public facilities consist of two-side pedestrian path and carriageway that around the streets provides convenience to users. Visual is shared with vehicles and bicycles. The width of each connections make users of the street notice they are in the pedestrian path is almost ten metre, and the width of main street of the town. carriageway is only fi ve metre. In the pedestrian path, there are various street furniture, resting area, and street trees. And the pavement of pedestrian path is red bricks; the AESTHETIC pavement of carriageway is yellow bricks. Many street trees and fl uent fl ower beds make the The pedestrian path can be distinguished by the sloped streets vibrant and comfortable and various kinds of street kerb with black colour, and the different colour of pave- furniture provide conveniences of use. Trees makes ment. The slope of kerb stones can make users with stroll- shades on the streets, the shops set up tables on the er or bike cross road easily. And also it makes the vehicles streets. User can experience the streets not only traffi cs for retails move to the shops. but also the space for social activity. This various use of street makes itself attractive.

CASE STUDY 65 PARKING SPACE Car parking in the streets is generally prohibited. Only distribution vehicles of shops can park in the streets. So other users should use other public parking area near the streets. There are several parking areas in walking distance. It is not hard to ﬁ nd them and move to the streets after parking.

66 CASE STUDY CASE STUDY 67 68 CASE STUDY CONCLUSION

For the case study of ‘Shared Space’, two towns are visited, Haren and Drachten in the province of Friesland. Both of areas were constructed during 2000s, and they are located in the shopping streets. Several parking areas are near the streets, they have a good connection with the main streets. Besides, the main streets are connected with other facilities by ‘Shared Space Street’. In case of Drachten shopping streets connect with the museum, church and the municipality building. Commercial programs of ground ﬂ oor attract more people to the streets, and it makes the streets vibrant.

However, this ‘Shared Space’ is not considered as an effective way to improve the condition of residential streets because vibrant atmosphere of the streets was considered as the result of the commercial programs. Thus, to apply ‘Shared Space’ to residential areas, there is a need of other space program that can boost people to use the streets. However, there are several good examples for the pedestrian oriented street such as pavements, parking areas, and street furniture.

(source: http://gehlcitiesforpeople.dk)

CASE STUDY 69 3.4 CONCLUSION Since 1970s, various approaches of pedestrian oriented street have been applied in the Netherlands. ‘Woonerf’ was the ﬁ rst pedestrian oriented streets in the Netherlands, and it gave a big impact on not only across the Netherlands but also other European countries. Because of several reasons, ‘30km/h zone’ was implemented, and it is the most popular trafﬁ c calming methods until now. The most recent approach is ‘Shared space’. It was started in the northern part of the Netherlands, it got a successful result.

‘Woonerf’ was implemented mainly in residential areas, and it got the great success at that time. However, it has several problems to implement. Firstly, it needs large spaces to apply, thus it cannot be a universal solution for every street, especially old or historic streets. And the second is that most of ‘Woonerf’ does not have a good connection with other facilities. Because streets is not an exclusive pedestrian path, there is a possibility to be threatened by parked cars.

‘Shared Space’ is considered as a proper approach for pedestrian oriented street. Most of them have a nice connection with other facilities, it makes people walk rather than using a vehicles. And commercial programs on ground ﬂ oors make more people walk and stay on the streets. Finally, people can get enough space to enjoy the programmes of streets without parked cars because of alternative parking areas near the streets. However, ‘Shared Space’ is the concept for the commercial area or the central areas. Therefore, it is hard to apply on the residential area directly.

70 CASE STUDY CASE STUDY 71

CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF CAR- NISSE

This chapter represents the detailed information about the project area, Carnisse. The aim of the chapter is defi ning the social and physical problems in Carnisse. To achieve the aim, various aspects of Carnisse are analysed; history of development in Carnisse, analysis of demographic data, urban fabric, network of the neighbourhood, housing situation, and social index in Rotterdam. In the section of history of urban development in Carnisse, multiple expansion plans and housing plans for Carnisse are explained. With the information, it is possible to understand the reasons of current problems of urban fabrics that are generated by changes of the times. To understand the social conditions, and defi ne the social problems in Carnisse, various demographic data and the social index of Rotterdam are analysed. And then, some specifi c issues in Carnisse are generated by several physical analyses and a social analysis. The section of urban fabric has the aim to search various types of urban fabric, such as built area, open space, public buildings, and streets in Carnisse. With this analysis, some physical problems of urban fabrics in the neighbourhood are defi ned. Networks of Carnisse are analysed, the networks means the connections by each traffi c methods. The main concerns of this thesis is the pedestrian networks, but it includes other networks of bicycle, public transport, and private vehicles. As it is mentioned in the previous chapter, improvements of street conditions should be together with the improvements of other urban fabrics. The section of housing situation gives the brief information about the number of dwellings, housing condition, and tenure condition. 4.1 HISTORY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF CARNISSE

74 ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 75 1900-1944 1945-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 0Builtm year, source: Verkenning Carnisse

URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF CARNISSE

Housing blocks in Carnisse can be divided into two woningen plans that were proposed by J.H. van den Broek. parts: fi rst part is built before the second expansion plan These plans were called ‘1,000 woningen plan’ and ‘1,900 by W.G. Witteveen and another part is built after the plan. woningen plan’. These plans aimed to provide proper Before his plan, there were several plans for expansions. houses to the workers who worked for harbour, Maashaven However, they were not realised except the houses that and Waalhaven. The plans were developed in the second were around Carnisselaan. Thus, those houses, in Carnis- expansion plan; however they changed the density of selaan, were in the area before 1930s. household. The reason of the current urban structure is originat- After the development of housing blocks, various kinds ed from second expansion plan of W.G.Witteveen. First of infrastructures were introduced from 1950s. In 1949, the expansion plan by W.G.Witteveen was announced in 1926. plan for Zuiderpark and other green spaces in Carnisse In this plan, he suggested the traditional townscape with was proposed by Wan Traa. In 1950, the construction of streets, squares, parks and closed blocks. Only the idea of Maastunnel was fi nished, and then other facilities, such as transport hub was accepted. In 1937 he suggested the sec- churches, schools, and shopping blocks of Zuidplein, were ond plan that showed very similar urban structure with the constructed until 1959. As a metro was introduced in 1960, current situation. In his plan, the connections with Maas- new plan for ‘Centrum Zuid’ was proposed. And this plan tunnel and Third crossing of river Maas, now Erasmusbrug, was realised in the early of 1970s. were suggested. And green structures were simplifi ed into Because of urban renewal in 1970s and 1980s, the Lepelaarsingel, Amelandseplein, and Zuidplein. Thus the housing blocks built in 1920s were modernised. In 2000s, most of second plan by W.G.Witteveen was realised. there were several small interventions on the neighbour- After the second plan was suggested, there were two hood; however most of housing blocks did not get modern-

76 ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 2nd expansion plan of Maas by W.G. Witteveen, source: Verkenning Carnisse

isation. Thus most of post-war houses have bad physical conditions, small ﬂ at size, old-fashioned ﬂ oor plan, and bad maintenance.

ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 77 CONCLUSION

Housing blocks in Carnisse can be classiﬁ ed in two sections; the ﬁ rst section is the building blocks built before the 1920s, and the houses in the blocks were renovated by the urban renewal in 1980s. The other housing blocks are constructed by Witteveen’s second expansion plan of Rotter- dam. These housing blocks are a large portion of the blocks in Carnisse, and they need modernisation.

In the plan of Witteveen, the main axis of Carnisse is pointing at the harbours but the main attraction was changed from the harbours to Zuidplein as the hub of public transportation and the shopping centre. Thus, some of old blocks do not have well-organised connection to Zuidplein.

left: A dwelling in Carnisse, right plan of Zuidplein, source: Verkenning Carnisse

78 ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 4.2 ANALYSIS OF DEMOGRAPHIC DATA POPULATION

Since 1987, the population of Carnisse was decreased gradually; however after the late of 2000s it has been increased slightly. In 1987 there were 11,678 inhabitants in the neighbourhood. The number of inhabitants of 1987 was less than the population of 1987, and the falling tendency of the population in the neighbourhood was continued until the late of 2000s. After 2009, the population has been gradually increased till now; there are 10,876 residents in the neighbourhood.

Carnisse can be distinguished by large number of young people, from ﬁ fteen to sixty-four years old. The current proportion of working ages, from ﬁ fteen to sixty-four, is 63.8 per cent; it is higher than the percentage of Charlois and Rotterdam. Since 1987, the proportion of young aged people is higher than the other neighbourhoods. The percentage of people, who aged from twenty to sixty-four years old, was 56.7 per cent in 1987. From 1987 to 2012, the percentage of the old, it was decreased from 17.2 per cent to 7.0 per cent.

The percentage of foreigners of Carnisse in 1987 was only 7.1 per cent; however it has been increased to 51 per cent in 2012. This is lower than the proportion of Rotterdam, it is 10.4 per cent in 2012. However, the current percentage of foreigners in the neighbourhood is higher than Rotterdam. Even though there is not highly concentrated ethnic group, according to the report of the municipality of Charlois (visie deelgemeente Charlois 2010-2014) there is highly concentration of Eastern Europeans.

Rotterdam Carnisse 616,456

610,000 11,198

11,000 10,878 600,000 599,859 10,800

10,600 10,644

590,000 589,965 10,400

10,200 582,949 580,000 10,000 9,960 9,800

570,000 9,600

9,400

1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011

trends of population in Rotterdam and Carnisse, source: COS, http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/home/default.htm

ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 79 composition of population in Rotterdam and Carnisse, source: CBS, http://rotterdam.buurtmonitor.nl/

composition of population in Rotterdam and Carnisse, source: CBS, http://rotterdam.buurtmonitor.nl/

80 ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE HOUSEHOLDS

The number of households has very similar tendency with the change of population in Carnisse. The number of households in 1987 was 6,606, and the current number is 6086. It has been changed continuously; however it stayed in the range of 6,000 households. Since 1987, the proportion of single-person households has been higher than ﬁ fty per cent. It was increased rapidly almost twenty per cent from 1987 until 2012. The current percentage of single-person household is 56 per cent. This is higher than the percentage of Charlois and Rotterdam.

6800 6606 6600

6400

6200 6086

6000

5800 5730

5600

5400

5200 19872008 2009 2010 2011 2012

number of households in Rotterdam and Carnisse, source: CBS, http://rotterdam.buurtmonitor.nl/

composition of households in Rotterdam and Carnisse, source: CBS, http://rotterdam.buurtmonitor.nl/

ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 81 CONCLUSION

The population and the number of households in Carnisse were decreased until the late of 2000s, but both of them is slightly increased recently. This trend is very similar with the trends of the city of Rotterdam and the district of Charlois.

The biggest characteristic of demographic information of Carnisse is the large number of young adults. The 64 per cent of total population of the neighbourhood is the working age, from 20 to 65 years old. This can be a strong point of the neighbourhood.

RIVER MAAS KATENDRECHT

MAASHAVEN FEIJENOORD

TARWEWIJK

OUD CHARLOIS CARNISSECARARNIRNNISSSSESEE ZUIDPLEIN VREEWIJK

KARL MARXBUURT

ZUIDERPARK

300 m location of Carnisse

82 ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 4.3 URBAN FABRIC BUILT AREA

The neighbourhood has disorganised urban fabric and network of streets, generally. The urban fabrics in the second expansion plan by W.G.Witteveen were oriented by the harbours, Maashaven and Waalhaven. As the role of harbours in Carnisse is decreased, the old urban structures are not proper networks at now. Zuidplein plays a key role in the district of Charlois as a shopping centre and transportation hub.

Most of building programme is residence. Some small retails are at the edge of the neighbourhood, the Pleinweg and Dorpsweg. Public service buildings are also outside of the neighbourhood. Current urban development tends to make mix land use plan because the mix-use planning can encourages the improvement of quality, safety, and diversity (Carmona et al., 2009). Thus the development of the mix-use plan is necessary to improve the liveability of the neighbourhood.

Houses Special residential buildings Mixed use building Residentail buildings Social facility Business N Garages 100m

building programme of Carnisse

ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 83 LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE

There is a big park in southern part of Carnisse, and a small park in the neighbourhood. Zuiderpark is 215 square metres. It means that the park can include 430 football ﬁ elds. The park is the largest city park in the Netherlands. It was built in 1952, and it was renovated greatly in 2001. There are two-kilometre long promenade, children’s playground, forests, islands, and watershed. However, the park does not have good connections with the neighbourhood because of the allotments and some urban blocks in south of the neighbourhood. People cannot go to the park directly from their houses because of the some blocks and the lack of public street that passes through the allotments.

Inside the neighbourhood, there are two small green spaces. One is Amelandseplein and the other is Lepelaarsingel. Amelandseplein is a kind of pocket park, there is children’s playground, trees and sports ﬁ eld in it. Legelaarsingel consists of watershed and green area; there are not special programmes on it. These green spaces keep nice physical condition, and many residents and municipality think it is the best public space in their neighbourhood.

84 ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE RIVER MAAS

MAASHAVEN

KAREL DE STOUTEPLEIN MILLINXPARK

AMELANDSEPLEIN

NACHTEGAALPLEIN WALKENIERSWEIDE

ZUIDERPARK EDUCATIEVE TUIN DE ENK 300 m

green spaces in Carnisse

N 100m

green structure of Carnisse

ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 85 PUBLIC BUILDING

Around Carnisse, there are several buildings that provide various kinds of public service. The biggest facility is ‘Ahoy’ that is located in the south-east of the neighbourhood. It is complex of cultural events, many exhibitions, concerts, and sports events are held every year. There are a lot of sports facilities in the Zuiderpark. Various kinds of educational and medical facilities are located in-between the park and the neighbourhood. However there is no enough connection to use these facilities effectively.

Rotterdam South Station Theater Zuidplein Zuidplein Deelgemeente Charlois Ikazia Ziekenhuis Rotterdam Ahoy

300 m Educational facility Cultural facility Health facility public facilities in Carnisse

86 ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE STREET PROFILE

The streets of Carnisse are not attractive. Because they are narrow, and they have two side parking space, and also there are not enough green elements. The dimension of Pleinweg and Dorpsweg, the main road of the neighbourhood, is forty-ﬁ ve metres, they have four car lanes and two- side parking spaces and foot path. The width of pedestrian path is three metres, however small retails put their standing boards on the street. This weakens the walkability. Two- side parking spaces in the street reduce usage of street by people, and makes people cross the road in unpleasant environments. These streets are the main streets that connect the neighbourhood with other places, whereas there is no proper bike path. However, the street trees are very good condition, it makes the shadow on the foot path, and pleasant atmosphere.

In case of a street inside the neighbourhood, it is worse than Pleinweg and Dorpsweg. The street from Gruttostraat to Markerstraat is a main connection that goes through the neighbourhood. This set of streets has three metres wide foot path, and two-sides of parking area. This parking area and simple pavement makes the streets unattractive. And also, there are not enough street trees, except the street around Amelandseplein. Car road Car road Car road Car road Bus stop Bus stop Green area Pedestrian path Pedestrian path

50 m 3,707 4,035 5,149 7,087 2,803 10,186 5,480 4,252 3,235

section of Dorpseweg

ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 87 The streets inside the building blocks are also unattractive. Even though parking area is one-side, people parks their cars on both side of street. It gives bad effects on trafﬁ c ﬂ ows, and usage of street by people. The dimension of street is three metres; however the lack of trees and singular plinth of the buildings does not make the streets where people want to stay. Car road Parking area Parking area Pedestrian path Pedestrian path

2,767 2,500 4,132 4,132 2,500 2,965 50 m

section of Gruttostraat

88 ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE Car road Parking area Parking area Pedestrian path Pedestrian path

50 m 5,995 2,000 3,085 2,000 2,375

section of Walchersestraat Car road Parking area Pedestrian path Pedestrian path

50 m 5,139 2,000 4,492 3,846

section of Quinststraat

ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 89 CONCLUSION

There are mainly two weak points in Carnisse. The ﬁ rst is that most of building programmes in the neighbourhood is residential. This single land use cannot make the neighbourhood active and vibrant, thus other building programmes is necessary in the neighbourhood. The other is the street conditions in the neighbourhood are poor. The streets are narrow, the lack of greenery, and both lines of parking space. These elements has made the street unattractive.

There are enough green spaces in Carnisse because of the Zuiderpark, and a small parts in the neighbourhood. However, the green spaces does not make a good connection with the neighbourhood.

90 ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE Disconnected point Residential street Main residential street Commercial street Green street Street beside high way Allotments Allotments Pedstrian corssing

100 m

connections of the neighbourhood

4.4 NETWORK OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD NETWORK OF PEDESTRIAN

This network is researched by crucial elements that can inﬂ uence the usage of street by people. Requirements for the pedestrian path are walkability, destination, safety, and attractiveness. Walkability means physical factors of the street, such as walking surface, street width, and trafﬁ cs. Walkability and destination are the elements that can give the biggest effect on usage of the streets by people. Safety means the both of social and physical; social factors tends to give bigger effects in the safety factors. And attractiveness means the aesthetic of the streets(Pikora et al., 2006). Thus streets are analysed with these criteria.

First of all, the almost of streets’ width is two or three metres. The width is quite narrow. If there is a wheel chair or person with stroller, they will not have enough space to move at same time. And also this narrow street cannot provide small spaces for outdoor activities without the transport.

Secondly, people can feel dangerous from bad conditions of street furniture and the lack of street light. In Carnisse, the crime rate is not very high. But safety factor in the social index is quite low. This is because the quality of outdoor space.

ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 91 Gruttostraat Z1 Z4 Z3 Z5

Z2 Klaverstraat Quintstraat

Walchersestraat

Korhaanstraat

Residence Retail Office Industry Z0 Monotonous street design 100 m street scape in Carnisse

Ilona otter, the district coordinator of the borough Charlois at deelgementee Charlois, also pointed that.

Thirdly, monotonous street scene can impact on the use of street. As you saw the analysis of land use in Carnisse, most of the buildings are residence. And its typologies are also very similar. It makes street-scape very simple and monotonous. The attractiveness of street can be reduced by this street scene.

Lastly, several streets do not have proper connection with the surroundings of Carnisse, Zuiderpark, Zuidplein, and Ahoy. For example, Makerstraat is expected to connect the neighbourhoods to Zuidplein. However, it is disconnected by the building block. Thus, several building blocks should be re-structured to improve the connectivity of the neighbourhood.

92 ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE Z1 Z2

PARKING AREA

NARROW STREET PARKING AREA NARROW STREET PARKING AREA PARKING AREA

Z3 Z4

PARKING AREA NARROW STREET PARKING AREA PARKING AREA NARROW STREET PARKING AREA

PARKING AREA NARROW STREET PARKING AREA

ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 93

300 m bike path near Carnisse

NETWORK OF BICYCLE

There is no bike path inside and outside of Carnisse. The bicycle is the most popular transport method in the Nether- lands. Many Dutch cities are trying to make the network of bicycle in the cities. The city of Rotterdam also has good bike network. However, Carnisse does not have it. The neighbourhood is located in the middle of southern part of Rotterdam, and there is the best place to take a bike, Zuiderpark. Thus there is a need to have a bike path in the neighbourhood to improve the connectivity.

94 ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 300 m 7UDP 0HWUR 7UDLQ

public transportation of Carnisse

NETWORK OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT

The connection by public transportation is good because the Zuidplein provides metros and buses to the city centre and other parts of Rotterdam. Zuidplein is an above-ground metro station, and it is the part of Rotterdam Metro lines D and E. These two metro lines connect the neighbourhood with the city centre of Rotterdam and Den Haag. And also it provides three kinds of bus lines; Stadsbus, Streekbus, and BOB-bus, totally twenty-two bus lines. Through these bus lines, people can go to the most of areas in Rotterdam, and other cities, like Utrecht.

However, there is not enough connection inside the district of Charlois that includes Carnisse. In Carnisse, there is one tram line, and three bus lines. This tram line goes from the east of Rotterdam to Oud Charlois, and it just passes through the northern part of Carnisse. Thus, the neighbourhood does not have good connection between Carnisse and the other neighbourhoods in the south of Rotterdam.

ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 95 300 m car road of Carnisse

NETWORK OF PRIVATE VEHICLE

Because of Maas Tunnel, Erasmus Bridge, and the Zuidplein, the neighbourhood has very good connection by personal cars. Maastunnel and Erasmusbrug is the main connection between the north and south of Rotterdam. When people who want to go to the city centre with their car, they can go to the centre easily and rapidly. And also Dorpsweg is very good connection to the Ring road of Rotterdam. Thus, Carnisse is considered as the neighbourhood that has very good connection by private vehicle.

In the case of parking area, big parking building is in the Zuidplein. The parking area is constructed in order to provide enough parking spaces to the customers of shipping centres. The parking spaces for the residents are besides of the streets. Some building blocks needs more parking spaces, whereas most of the blocks has enough parking spaces.

96 ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE CONCLUSION

Because Carnisse is located in the centre of the southern parking of Rotterdam, the network of the neighbourhood by public transportations and private vehicle has a good connection. Main approaches to the Erasmusbrug and the Maastunnel go through the neighbourhood, so people can get to the centre of Rotterdam easily. And the neighbourhood has also a very good connection with public transportation because of Zuidplein that is the hub of public transportations.

However, the connection by bikes and pedestrians is deﬁ cient. Even though Carnisse’s location is the centre of south Rotterdam, there is no bike path that can connect other areas from the neighbourhood. And also, the liveability of streets in Carnisse is not friendly to walk. Narrow streets and the lack of greenery does not attract people to walk or stay. People cannot cross roads easily and safety. Furthermore, two lines of parking space on the streets are threatening users.

ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 97 Low-rise house Detached house Low-rise house two families Porch house with elevator Apartment Tenement house N with closed garden Tenement house 100m with open garden housing typology of Carnisse

4.5 ANALYSIS OF HOUSING SITUATION NUMBER OF DWELLINGS

According to Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statisteik(COS, Centre for Research and Statistics of Rotterdam), the number of dwellings in Carnisse is 6,011 in 2012. There were 5,600 houses in the neighbourhood in 1987. Approximate 400 houses were constructed for twenty-ﬁ ve years.

Most of houses in Carnisse are porch house without elevator (Portiek- woning zonder lift) and attached house (Benedenwoning). The proportion of porch house without elevator is 51.9 per cent, and attached house is 27.2 per cent. The characteristic can distinguish the neighbourhood from other neighbourhood in Charlois and Rotterdam. In case of Charlois, there are similar amount of detached houses (eengezinswoning) with attached houses (single family housing: 16.0 per cent, attached house: 16.6 per cent). In case of Rotterdam, detached house is the most popular housing typology (23.3 per cent).

Sixty per cent of houses have small surface, from 45 sqm and 59 sqm. In case of the houses in Rotterdam, the houses that have from sixty square metres to seventy-four square metres are the most. And the size from ninety square meters to on-hundred and nineteen square metres is second largest fl at size. However, the neighbourhood has only ten per cent of houses that have larger fl at size than ninety square metres. This means that there is a big concentration of the small fl at housing.

98 ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE HOUSING TYPOLOGY NUMBER OF ROOMS

Porch / gallery house Gallery house with elevator, 1.7% without elevator, 1.3% 6 rooms, 1% 1 rooms, 1%

Family house, 3.7% 5 rooms, 7%

4 rooms, 12% Ground floor apartment, 27.7% Porch house 2 rooms, 32% without elevator, 52.8% 3 rooms, 47%

Apartment, 2.0% Free apartment, 10.7% source: CBS, http://rotterdam.buurtmonitor.nl/

Rotterdam Carnisse

45 m² t/m 59 m² 60 m² t/m 74 m² 62% 31.2%

1 m² t/m 44 m²: 3% 1 m² t/m 44 m²: 2% 45 m² t/m 59 m²: 18% 60 m² t/m 74 m²: 22% 75 m² t/m 89 m²: 14% 75 m² t/m 89 m²: 4% 90 m² t/m 119 m²: 23% 90 m² t/m 119 m²: 8% 120 m² t/m 149 m²: 8% 120 m² t/m 149 m²: 2% 150 m² + : 3% 150 m² + : 0% composition ﬂ at size in Carnisse, source: CBS, http://rotterdam.buurtmonitor.nl/

ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 99 Good Reasonable to moderate Unknown Bad Development environment N 100m housing conditions of Carnisse

HOUSING CONDITION

According to the municipal report, large number of houses of Carnisse needs to be modernisation. There are two kinds of housing blocks in the neighbourhood. One is the housing blocks that was built in 1920s, and these are called ‘Old Car- nisse (Oud Carnisse)’. Another is the housing blocks called ‘New Carnisse (Neiuw Carnisse)’ are constructed after the World War II. The houses in old Carnisse were modernised by urban renewal in 1980s, however another part did not. Thus many housed in new Carnisse needs to modernise.

100 ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE Rotterdam Carnisse

social housing, 13%

owner occupied housing, 35% owner social housing, 41% occupied housing, 48%

private housing, 39%

private housing, 16% institutional housing, 0% institutional housing, 0%

tenure conditions of Carnisse

TENURE CONDITION

Almost ﬁ fty per cent of houses in Carnisse is owner occupied housing. Forty-eight per cent of houses of the neighbourhood is owner occupied housing and thirty-nine per cent is private housing. Remarkable of the ownership structure in the neighbourhood is that there is only thirteen per cent of social housing. Charlois and Rotterdam has more than forty per cent of social housing. The reason is that the property value of houses in the neighbourhood is relatively cheap compare to other districts in Rotterdam. The cheap houses have encouraged starters and poor households to come to the neighbourhood and buy a home.

ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 101 Rotterdam Carnisse

150,000 - 200,000: 250,000 - 300,000 3.38% 4% 150,000 - 200,000 200,000 - 250,000 20% 9% 100,000 - 150.000: 25.60%

100,000 - 150,000, 38% 50,000 - 100,000: 69.39% 50,000 - 100,000 21%

1 - 50,000: 0.26% 200,000 - 250,000: 0.65% 300,000 - 350,000: 1.93% 250,000 - 300,000: 0.07% 350,000 - 400,000: 1.13% 350,000 - 400,000: 0.03% 400,000 - 450,000: 0.74% 400,000 - 450,000: 0.02% 450,000 - 500,000: 0.56% 450,000 - 500,000: 0.02% 500,000 +: 1.87% 500,000 +: 0.02% unknown: 1.11% unknown: 0.83%

CONCLUSION

Many housing stocks in Carnisse need a modernisation because there are some problems of the houses’ foundations, and they do not have proper fl at size and fl oor plan that fi ts current life styles. It makes the property value low, and it attracts starters to the neighbourhood.

102 ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 10 Rotterdam Rotterdam sociaal sociaal gemeten gemeten 3e meting Sociale Index 4e meting Sociale Index

4.6 ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL INDEX SOCIAL INDEX

‘Social Index’ is a research data by the municipality of Rotterdam and a research group to deﬁ ne social quality of the neighbourhoods in Rotterdam. In order to grasp the social quality of Rotterdam, they have established four main criteria; social binding (sociale binding), capacities (capac- iteiten), living environment (leefomgeving), and participation (meedoen). Each main criterion has two or four detailed criteria, for example living environment has absence of discrimination (ontbreken van discriminatie), appropriate housing (passende huisvesting), adequate facilities (adequate voorzieningen), and pollution and nuisance (verwiling en overlast). And each of them got scores in ﬁ ve levels; very weak, problematic, vulnerable, adequate and strong.

The aim of this chapter is to deﬁ ne social condition of Carnisse with the changes of social index from 2008 to 2012. Most of analysis that mentioned previous chapters pays more attention to physical condition of the neighbourhood. Because it is impossible to understand the neighbourhood with only physical data, general social condition is looked in this section.

ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 103 7

6.0 6 5.8 5.8

5.5 Rotterdam 5.1 5.1 5.0 5

4.9 4.9 4.7 Charlois Carnisse 4.6

2008 2009 2010 2012

score of social index, source: social index

EVALUATION OF SOCIAL INDEX OF CARNISSE

Generally, the social index of Rotterdam has been of social bonds includes experienced social bonds and dropped after 2008. The social index was increased from mobility. The mobility is quite low compare to Rotterdam. 5.8 to 6.0 in 2009; however the social index of 2012 is According to the report of municipality of Charlois, over only 5.5. Especially, the score of Social bond represent the twenty per cent of inhabitants of Carnisse tend to move largest drop, from 6.0 in 2008 to 5.2 in 2012. The social with-in two years. index of Charlois is also dropped from 5.0 in 2008 to 4.7 in 2012. The score under 5.0 means the district is problemat- The score of capacities was increased to 5.2 in 2009, ic. Overall decrease of the social index in Rotterdam and but it has been dropped to 4.3. Especially, the drop of Charlois is considered to inﬂ uence on the social index of income and health is big. It is because of the increasing of Carnisse. immigrants from Eastern Europe and starters. Their income condition is usually low, so they cannot get proper health According to the ‘Social Index in 2012’, Carnisse was care system. deﬁ ned as a problematic area from 2008. The score in 2008 was 4.9; the neighbourhood was a problematic area The score of living environment is 4.9; it means that the from 2008. The current social condition is worse than the score is dropped 0.4 points from 5.3 in 2008. Even though past. Every criterion was decreased. The biggest drop there are not big changes of the number of foreigners in occurs in social bonds and living environments, each cat- the neighbourhood, the score of absence of discrimination egory was drop 0.4 from 2008. Social bonds have always dropped 0.8 to 4.6. The condition of appropriate houses gotten under 5.0. is also considered as a problem in the neighbourhood. Its score has been decreased after 2008. In 2012, the score of social bonds is the lowest; the score is dropped 0.4 to 3.7 from 4.1 in 2008. The criterion The only participation (meedoen) got more than 5.0. This

104 ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 7

Social sufficient

6 5.6 5.6 5.5 vulnerable 5.2 5.3 5.3 Paricipation 5.2 5.0 5 4.9 Living Environment 4.4 Problem 4.5 4.3 4.1 Capacity 4 3.9 Social weakness 3.7 Social Cohesion 2008 2009 2010 2012

score of social index, source: social index

category is the strongest part of Carnisse. Nevertheless the score of involvement of school and work is 4.1, social and cultural activities are 6.5; it is the highest points in every criteria. The Zuiderpark and Ahoy can be the main reason why the score is higher than the others.

ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 105 2008 2009 2010 2012

Adequate training 5.0 6.0 6.4 5.7

Good health 4.3 4.7 4.3 3.7

Sufficient Income 4.8 5.6 5.6 3.9

Sufficient proficiency 3.9 4.3 3.9 3.9

Absence of discrimination 5.4 5.0 4.5 4.6

Appropriate housing 5.0 5.0 4.6 4.7

Adequate facilities 5.5 6.0 5.8 5.5

Low pollution and nuisance 5.3 5.1 5.1 5.0

Work and school 4.6 5.0 4.6 4.1

Social contacts 5.6 5.5 5.3 4.9

Social and cultural activities 6.0 6.3 6.5 6.5

Social commitment 6.0 5.8 5.5 5.7

Mobility 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.3

Experienced binding 3.5 4.2 3.2 3.0

CONCLUSION

Social index is a research that is deﬁ ne the social quality of the neighbourhood of Rotterdam. Carnisse has got low scores in the research. The score of social index of Carnisse is decreased until 2012. Especially, the social index related on social network is low, and the condition is getting worse and worse. Thus, Carnisse can be considered as a problematic neighbourhood in social perspective.

However, the cultural facilities such, as Ahoy and Zuider- park, make the score of social and cultural activities high.

106 ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 4.7 CONCLUSION

Carnisse has several physical and social problems. Firstly, the streets in Carnisse are not attractive. Most of the streets have two lines of parking areas, and too stony street-scape. These are not a friendly conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. The second point is the single land use of residences. It cannot generate various programmes in the neighbourhood. Furthermore, most of houses are small and have problems on its foundation. Some houses need a modernisation. Finally, some urban fabric are not well-organised because of the change of main axis from harbour to Zuidplein.

In case of social conditions, the neighbourhood does not have strong social cohesion and 20 per cent of households in Carnisse has moved to other areas in ﬁ ve years.

However, Carnisse have some strong points. Firstly, there is a concentration of young adults, it means working age. And secondly, the location of the neighbourhood is the centre of south of Rotterdam, so it is well-connected with the other areas by public transports and private cars. And around the neighbourhood, there are several urban facilities such as a park, hospital, shopping centre, the hub of transportation, and the exhibition centre. Finally, the property value and rental price is not expensive, so Carnisse has attracted starters in Rotterdam.

ANALYSIS OF CARNISSE 107

CHAPTER FIVE: DESIGN PROPOSAL 5.1 INTRODUCTION

CARNISSE

SOCIAL PROBLEM PHYSICAL PROBLEM

HIGH MOBILITY BAD WALK-ABILITY WEAK SOCIAL COHESION UNATTRACTIVE STREET CAR-ORIENTED STREET

MAINM APPROACHPROR PROVISION OF PEDESTRIAN FAMILY HOUSING ORIENTED STREET DESIGN

After the analysis of Carnisse, it can be deﬁ ned that there are several problems of the neighbourhood. The biggest social problem is high mobility of residents. The high mobility can be considered as a main reason of weak social cohesion. The biggest physical problem is disorganised and unattractive streets in the neighbourhood. The disorganised streets have isolated the neighbourhood from public facilities and other neighbourhoods in the district of Charlois. The unattractive streets have not played a role as an urban open space, and it is not a good condition to stay on the streets.

In order to improve the liveability of Carnisse, it is clear that the problems, mentioned above, should be unravelled. It is impossible to solve the urban problems of Carnisse with single solution. Thus, this thesis proposes several physical interventions. Main design proposals are the improvement of streets condition and the introducing new residential blocks. To improve the street condition, the pedestrian oriented design is applied to the streets. With the approach, street can be used as a place where social interaction occurs, and it can contribute to improve social cohesion. To reduce the mobility, there is a need of family houses which can satisfy the stages of housing career.

110 DESIGN PROPOSAL KEY ISSUES AND INITIATIVES

Social sufficient

6 5.6 5.6 5.5 vulnerable 5.2 5.3 5.3 Paricipation 5.2 5.0 5 4.9 Living Environment 4.4 Problem 4.5 4.3 4.1 Capacity 4 3.9 Social weakness 3.7 Social Cohesion 2008 2009 2010 2012

score of social incex of Carnisse, source: social index

High mobility According to the municipal report, twenty per cent of people left Carnisse in 2010. For the high mobility, the social cohesion of the neighbourhood got low scores in Social Index research. There will be various reasons, why residents leave this neighbourhood. The lack of family houses is considered as the main reason. There are very small amount of large houses, where three or four people can live, so the people in the neighbourhood cannot get appropriate housing when the family size is increased.

New family housings In order to decrease the mobility, 150 dwellings are proposed in the south part of the neighbourhood. With this approach, it is expected that the households, from single-person household to three or four-people household, can ﬁ nd a proper house in the neighbourhood. As more households can live in the neighbourhood for longer time, social cohesion can be strengthened.

Poor walking condition of the streets Most of the streets in Carnisse do not have good condition to walk. Because of the approaches to Maastunnel and Erasmusbrug, trafﬁ c inside the neighbourhood is very busy. The parking areas are located on the both side of streets, so people cannot use the streets freely. And the streets are narrow and unattractive. Most of the streets have the width under

DESIGN PROPOSAL 111 Disconnected point Residential street Main residential street Commercial street Green street Street beside high way Allotments Allotments Pedstrian corssing

100 m connections of Carnisse three metre. Some streets become narrow down because of car-parking areas. The streets are the lack of green elements, such as street trees and ﬂ owerbeds. These hinder people from staying on the streets. Lastly, the streets are disorganised. There are not proper connections to Zuidplein and Zuiderpark.

Pedestrian oriented street In order to increase walkability of Carnisse, ‘Pedestrian oriented street design’ is applied. The approach will decrease the trafﬁ c volume and speeds in the neighbourhood, and encourage people to walk or stay on the streets of Carnisse. The concept of ‘Shared Space’ is applied on one kilo-metre of the main streets, and the streets in residential areas are designed by the concept of Woonerf. The New connections to Zuidplein and Zuiderpark are proposed. To prevent the streets by parked cars, underground parking garage is proposed, too.

112 DESIGN PROPOSAL 5.2 DESIGN PRINCIPLES DESIGN PRINCIPLE FOR PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED STREET Walkability • Pedestrian streets with 3.5 metre wide • Streets with single side parking spaces • Various use of pavement

Safety • Introduce the speed controls, such as narrow car road and speed control hump • Reorganisation of street hierarchy

Connectivity • Introduce new approaches to Zuidplein and Zuiderpark • Introduce a tram line

Aesthetic • More street trees and ﬂ ower beds • Various materials of pavements

Parking • New underground parking spaces

Design of the project is based on the design principles generated from the theoretical framework and the case study.

DESIGN PROPOSAL 113 5.3 STRATEGIC PLAN

n Maashave

Waalhaven

114 DESIGN PROPOSAL n

New train staition of south Rotterdam

Zuidplein

Ahoy Housing Shared block space

Public Green building area

Attractions Bike path

Zuidpark Tram line

DESIGN PROPOSAL 115 5.4 PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED STREET STREET HIERARCHY In order to maintain the street condition, every street in Carnisse is restructured. In this project, the streets are considered as a place where people get priority.

116 DESIGN PROPOSAL Seperated street

Street of partial shared space Street of full shared space

Woonerf

100 m

DESIGN PROPOSAL 117 SHARED SPACE FROM GRUTTOSTRAAT TO MARKERSTRAAT

Gruttostraat Utenhagestraat

Newly designed area

Existing area

Street of fully shared space

Parking area New tram stop 50 m Singular tram line

118 DESIGN PROPOSAL Amelandseplein Markerstraat

This set of streets is a main street in the neighbourhood, and the concept of shared space is applied. The street, Amelandseplein, is designed as a full shared space; it means that the street will be shared by every trafﬁ c methods, such as pedestrian, cyclist, trams, and private vehicles. And the others are designed as a partial shared space. Pedestri- ans have a own path, but cyclists and car driver share the streets.

DESIGN PROPOSAL 119 FROM AMELANDSEPLEIN TO MARKERSTRAAT FULL SHARED SPACE

A B’

Amelandsestraat

Schoklandsestraat

Terschellingsestraat

Amelandseplein

Amelandseplein A’ B

25 m

This part of Shared space consists of two sections; full- shared space and partial shared space. Near the park, the Section of Amelandseplein street, Amelandseplein, is full shared space. People, cyclists, and car drivers use same surface. People can access the park without elevated curb and other street furniture, however, vehicles are controled for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.. From Markerstraat, the street is a partial shared space. The surface of pedestrians is distinguished by curbs from car roads. Bike use same surface with vehicles.

A Car road Car parks Pedestrian path

10,100 8,800

120 DESIGN PROPOSAL Wieringerstraat

Walchersestraat

Markerstraat

Section of Amelandsestraat

A’ B B’

Amelandsestraat Amelandseplein/Park Car park Car road Pedestrian path Pedestrian path Pedestrian path 3,500 2,000 6,500 5,800

3,500

DESIGN PROPOSAL 121 GRUTTOSTRAAT Partial ‘shared space’

Eksterstra

Dorpsweg

Gruttost

Tapuitstraat

Fazantstraat 25 m

These drawings show a part of partial Shared space. Bikes and vehicles share same surface, but only pedestrians have seperated path for safety. Pedestrian path is seperated by curbs, 15 centi-metre. From the case studies, some people feels streets are threaned by bikes and mopads. Thus in partial shared space, there is seperated pedestrian streets.

In order to make safe and pleasant streets, one-line of car parks is removed. Alternative underground parking places are in walking distance in 500 metre. This means that number of parked vehicles are minimised and people can cross A roads easily and safely. Car road Parking area Pedestrian path Pedestrian path

3,500 7,500 2,500 9,000

122 DESIGN PROPOSAL A

at B

Korhaanstraat traat

A’

B’

Lepelaarsingel

A’

canal green area canal Car road Tram stop Tram Pedestrian path Pedestrian path

B 3,500 7,500 9,000 B’

DESIGN PROPOSAL 123 NEW WOONERF

Traditional Woonerf has some problems that are mentioned in the chapters of theoretical framework and case study. The biggest problem is parking. Parking area has disturbed people to use a street. Thus, this project proposed new Woonerf that has a concentration of parking areas. Car parks of type one is located at the start and end point of a street. The case of type two, parking area is located at the middle of a street. The case of both types, middle of the street is Woonerf where people can use all surface without parked cars.

traditional Woonerf

Type one

Type two

124 DESIGN PROPOSAL KLAVERSTRAAT

A B

Klaverstraat Utenhagestraat

A’ B’ 10 m

AMELANDSESTRAAT

A B

Flakkeesestraat

Amelandsestraat

n i

A’ B’ 10 m Amelandseple

DESIGN PROPOSAL 125 NEW WOONERF PARKING AREA

KLAVERSTRAAT

AMELANDSESTRAAT

126 DESIGN PROPOSAL WOONERF AREA

KLAVERSTRAAT

AMELANDSESTRAAT

DESIGN PROPOSAL 127 PLEINWEG AND DORPSWEG Pleinweg and Dorpsweg are the main approaches to PLEINWEG Maastunnel and Erasmusbrug and the main roads of Car- nisse. They are wide and busy trafﬁ c road. Because of the reasons, these roads used to be overwhelmed by cars. Even though they are the main connection of southern area of Rot- terdam, there is no bike path. Thus, Pleinweg and Dorpsweg are considered as good streets to pedestrians and cyclists.

In order to improve the current condition of streets, bike paths are proposed. And parking spaces on the both side of Pleinweg and Dorpsweg are changed into single side parking areas. Pleinweg

DORPSWEG

Fuutstraat

Dorpsweg

Wielewaalstraat

128 DESIGN PROPOSAL Texelsestraat

Pleinweg

20m

Texelsestraat

Wulpstraat Wulpstraat

Dorpsweg

20m

DESIGN PROPOSAL 129 PLEINWEG AND DORPSWEG Car road Car road Car road Car road Bike path Bike path Green area Parking area Parking area Pedestrian path Pedestrian path

3,5003,500 5,160 7,2503,600 7,250 5,1603,500 3,500 1,000 1,000 Car road Car road Car road Car road Bike path Bike path Green area Parking area Parking area Pedestrian path Pedestrian path

3,5003,500 5,160 7,2502,840 7,250 5,1603,500 3,500 1,000 1,000

130 DESIGN PROPOSAL DESIGN PROPOSAL 131 5.5 NEW FAMILY HOUSING case neighbourhood: Morgenweide, Ypenburg, the Netherlands

132 DESIGN PROPOSAL Private garden Attached housing

Communal garden Mid-rise appartmnet

• Mixture of semi-public and private green space • Various housing typology • Medium density of dwellings • Possibility of introducing 'Woonerf'

DESIGN PROPOSAL 133 PLAN OF NEW FAMILY HOUSING

New housing blocks are proposed. The blocks are located in the southern part of Carnisse, between the neighbourhood and Zuiderpark. At now, there are several tennis courts and a part of Zuiderpark.

The houses in the area consists of family housing with bigger ﬂ at size than 100 sqm. Because Carnisse does not have enough large houses for families with children. After the implementation, 100 of new family houses are provided to the neighbourhood. To provide a good connectivity, new tram stops is in walking distance, 200 metre.

Number of dwellings: 150

Housing density: 40dwellings/ ha

Flat size: 100 sqm - 119 sqm 120 sqm - Elisabeth School Ha

Introducing Woonerf inside of blocks New connection to Zuiderpark Green spaces for decreasing the noise from trafﬁ cs

50 m

134 DESIGN PROPOSAL Kerk van de Nazarener

Hoornbeeck College

annie Dekhuijzen

DESIGN PROPOSAL 135 LANDUSE OF GROUND LEVEL

Elisabeth School H

residential

commercial

open space

woods

Woonerf 50 m

136 DESIGN PROPOSAL Kerk van de Nazarener

Hoornbeeck College

Hannie Dekhuijzen

DESIGN PROPOSAL 137 PLOT AREA

Elisabeth School H

- 99 sqm

100 - 109 sqm

110 - 119 sqm

120 sqm -

50 m

138 DESIGN PROPOSAL Kerk van de Nazarener

Hoornbeeck College

Hannie Dekhuijzen

DESIGN PROPOSAL 139 SECTION OF NEW FAMILY HOUSING Woonerf Car road Private garden Private garden Attached house Attached house Pedestrian path Mid-rise apartment

6,000 3,500 21,000 25,000 10,000 12,000 10,000 30,000 Car road Private garden Attached house Pedestrian path

13,000 3,500 6,400 38,000

140 DESIGN PROPOSAL Woonerf Car road Private garden Attached house Attached house Pedestrian path Mid-rise apartment

10,000 12,000 10,000 17,000 21,000 3,500 6,000

Park

70,000

DESIGN PROPOSAL 141 5.6 RESTRUCTURING OF URBAN FABRIC GOEREESESTRAAT

Municipality of swimming pool

Zuidplein Municipality of Charlois

142 DESIGN PROPOSAL retail

retail

tram stop

entrance of

underground parking space

residence residence residence

main entrance of public program municipality swimming pool

To improve the connectivity of Carnisse, two building blocks are restructure. The building block in Goereesestraat block the ﬂ ows to Zuidplein and public buildings from the inside of the neighbourhood. To make better connection, this block is demolished, and new mix-use buildings are proposed.

DESIGN PROPOSAL 143 SECTION OF GOEREESESTRAAT

Under ground parking garage

Residence ResidenceSemi-private Mix use

Pedestrian path open space Pedestrian path

3,500 20,926 7,9007,210 3,500 7

144 DESIGN PROPOSAL Swimming pool Car road Pedestrian path

7,000

DESIGN PROPOSAL 145 TEXELSESTRAAT

retail

residence

residence residence residence

residence residence

residence

residence residence

public program

residence 25 m residence

residence

146 DESIGN PROPOSAL office

retail office retail

residence

residence retail

entrance of underground parking space

20 m

In the case of Texelsestraat, the building block hinders trafﬁ c ﬂ ows to the north of Carnisse. The block is break, and new houses, commercial buildings and a green space are proposed. Under the block, the underground parking spaces are proposed because the parking problems can be happened after the implementation of woonerf and shared space.

DESIGN PROPOSAL 147 SECTION OF TEXELSESTRAAT

Under ground parking garage

Bike path Residentail building Private Pedestrian Communal Pedestrian Residential building Pedestrian path garden path garden path

1,0003,500 10,500 5,500 3,500 7,000 3,164 19,000

148 DESIGN PROPOSAL Car road Car road Pocket park Pedestrian path

3,500 7,000 15,000 13,000

DESIGN PROPOSAL 149 5.7 NEW TRAM LINE NEW TRAM LINE IN SOUTHERN ROTTERDAM

NEW DEVELOPMENT OF WAALHAVEN

150 DESIGN PROPOSAL NEW DEVELOPMENT OF STADIUM AND TRAIN STATION

In order to improve the connections to the other neighbourhoods and the city centre of Rotterdam, new tram line is designed. This tram line connects the neighbourhood with Waalhaven and southern train station of Rotterdam.

Every tram stop is located in 500 metres, so residents can get the stops in 5 min. Furthermore other neighbourhood, such as Oud Charlois, can also get to Zuidplein and Zuider- park easily with this tram line.

DESIGN PROPOSAL 151 NEW TRAM LINE IN CARNISSE

500m, 5min.

Oud Charlois Waalhaven Wielewaal

152 DESIGN PROPOSAL 500m, 5min.

Zuidplein Ahoy Zuiderpark Vreewijk Bloemhof Rotterdam station

DESIGN PROPOSAL 153 WIELEWAALSTRAAT DETAIL PLAN

Tapuitstraat

Korhaanstraat

Wielewaalstraat

A’

SECTION

A A’ Car road Tram line Tram Pedestrian path Pedestrian path

7,000 8,000 2,650 2,650 1,000 3,500

154 DESIGN PROPOSAL CARNISSESINGEL DETAIL PLAN Madeliefstraat Klaverstraat Lepelaarsingel

Carnissesingel

A’

SECTION

A A’ Plinth Car road Car road Tram line Tram Tram stop Tram stop Tram Green space Pedestrian path Pedestrian path Pedestrian path Pedestrian path

3,500 6,704 1,5003,650 1,500 3,500 16,100 2,4253,500 4,875 2,650

DESIGN PROPOSAL 155 CARNISSESINGEL

DETAIL PLAN Ebenhaëzerstraat

Urkersingel

Walchersestraat Carnissesingel

Goereesestraa

A’

SECTION

A A’ Car road Tram line Tram line Tram Bike path Tram stop Tram stop Tram Green dspace Pedestrian path Pedestrian path Pedestrian path

6,800 18,000 10,000 5,500 3,650 2,850 2,850 3,650 3,500

156 DESIGN PROPOSAL GOEREESESTRAAT

DETAIL PLAN Carnissesingel

A A’

B Gooilandsingel

Zuiderparkweg

N Zuiderparkweg

B’

SECTION

A A’ Car road Car road Tram line Tram line Tram Tram stop Tram stop Tram Green space

11,000 11,700 10,500 3,500 3,000 3,000 3,500

DESIGN PROPOSAL 157

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION 6.1 MAIN QUESTION OF THE THESIS The aim of this thesis is to propose the street design unattractive, especially streets. Every street in Carnisse for pedestrians and cyclists in a Dutch post-war neigh- has two lines of parking areas. It makes an unattractive bourhood. Those kinds of streets are called as ‘Pedestrian street scape, traffi c congestion, and less usage of streets Oriented Street’. ‘Pedestrian Oriented Street’ means that by people. Streets does not have enough greenery, so it is priority of streets is given to people, pedestrians and not a good place to stay. And street scape of the neigh- cyclists. There are several approaches in the Netherlands. bourhood is quite monotonous. This thesis focused on ‘Woonerf’ (residential area with restrictions to slow down traffi c) and ‘Shared Space’. According to the social index from 2008 until 2012, the social network in Carnisse is quite weak. The score related There are two main reasons why the thesis deals with with social cohesion and network has been low and it has streets. The fi rst reason is that streets are social spaces, been decreased continuously. not only traffi c roads. The second reason is that streets can play a role in the process of urban regeneration. However, Carnisse has some strong points. Firstly, there is the concentration of young adults, from 20 to 60 years The main purpose of streets is transporting of people, old. Secondly, the property value of the neighbourhood is animals, and good, however, various activities occur on not expensive. It means that Carnisse is a good neighbour- streets. Streets are considered as a social place where hood for starters. And, Carnisse has very good connections people meet each other, and talk to each other. People use with other areas of Rotterdam with private cars and public streets as a market place, religious ceremony and cultural transportation. The main approaches to Eramusbrug and activities. And also a large portion of the urban open space Maastunnel go through the neighbourhood. Lastly, there is streets. It means that streets have a huge possibility that are many facilities around Carnisse. urban open spaces have. Thus, streets should be paid attention as an urban open space. To sum up, Carnisse is chose as the project neighbourhood for this thesis because the neighbourhood has some Besides, streets can play a key role that contributes to problems, such as isolation, unattractive outdoor space, achieve the aims of urban regeneration. Streets are the fi rst and housing problems, and some possibilities, such as place where people meet cities, experience cities, and feel many affordable houses, nice connection, and facilities. cities. Attractive design of streets gives a positive impression to visitors and residents, and it improves urban quality. And streets can improve social cohesion. A good streets can attract people to stay outside, walk, and play on it. Thus, people have more chances to meet their neighbours. Lastly, the greenery on streets can absorb carbon dioxides. And it make streets more attractive, so it boosts people to walk rather than take a private car. Thus, these benefi ts can contribute to achieve the aims of urban regeneration.

The project neighbourhood is Carnisse located in southern part of Rotterdam. There are some physical and social reasons why the neighbourhood need urban regeneration. Firstly, main roads, Pleinweg and Dorpsweg, make Carnisse isolated. It hinders the neighbourhood from interacting with other neighbourhoods and facilities such as Zuiderpark, Zuidplein, and river Maas. Another physical problem is the housing that needs modernisation. The housing blocks that did not get modernisation in 1980s have foundation problems and have old fashioned ﬂ at standards and people demands large houses for three or four family members. There is a lack of larger dwellings for the family with at least 3 or 4 people. The last physical problem is that the outdoor space in the neighbourhood are

160 CONCLUSION 6.2 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE APPROACH In order to answer the research questions and achieve the aim, this thesis searched several theories about urban regeneration and streets, the case study for pedestrian oriented street, and analysis of Carnisse. Urban regeneration in the UK, the Netherlands, and Rotterdam is studied. The result of the studies about urban regeneration helps to fi nd the value of urban open space. Lastly, recent discussions about streets are reviewed. With the fi ndings, several requirements for pedestrian oriented streets are generated. Requirements are function, safety, aesthetic, and destination. Each criterion is essential to make attractive and vibrant street scape in the process of urban regeneration. From these requirements generate fi ve criteria for design: walkability, safety, connectivity, aesthetic, and parking space.

These criteria are used for analysis of the case study, and the project area. In the case study, three cities are chose, Paxlaan and Diamantpad in Delft for ‘Woonerf’, Drachten and Haren for ‘Shared Space’. ‘Woonerf’ on Paxlaan and Diamantpad needs an improvements in every criterion. The streets are narrow and dark, and vehicles are parked. Furthermore the streets are the lack of connectivity with other areas and facilities. Thus, a street needs minimisation of parking areas and well maintenance. The cases of ‘Shared Space’, Drachten and Haren, are also analysed by the criteria. The streets have wide pedestrian path, connections with facilities, enough street trees and furniture. And parking areas are minimised, and alternative parking spaces are around the streets.

The streets in Carnisse are also analysed by the criteria, walkability, safety, connectivity, aesthetic, and parking area. The streets are considered as vehicle oriented streets. On the both side of streets, there are parking areas instead of alternative car parks. It reduce the walkability of streets because people cannot cross vehicle roads easily, and use streets as social place where people meet and children play. And there are not enough greenery on the streets, so pedestrians do not get a positive impression from the neighbourhood. Lastly, the streets does not have connections with facilities, such as the public transportation, shopping centre, and parks.

Thus, the criteria generated from the theories are used as tools that evaluate the cases and Carnisse. The evaluations give design principles, and those become main approaches that can improve the liveability of Carnisse.

CONCLUSION 161 6.3 MAIN PROPOSAL There are four main proposals in the thesis. The most important proposal is the introducing pedestrian oriented streets. The others are new housing blocks, restructuring of urban fabrics, and new tram lines. Each proposal is suggested by the ﬁ ndings from the theory research and the analysis of the cases and the project neighbourhood, and they contribute to solve the current urban problems.

The introducing of pedestrian oriented streets is applied to main streets and the streets inside residential blocks. The proposal consists of wider side walk, single-line parking areas, more green elements, and speed control elements. This proposal gives safer and more attractive streets to inhabitants. Furthermore, this approach contributes to improve social cohesion with provision of enough space for social interaction on streets.

New housing block is proposed between Carnisse and Zuiderpark. Many houses in Carnisse are small and have foundation problems. And also, there are a need for larger houses where family with children can live. In the proposal, there is the plan of 100 new houses that are bigger than 100 sqm. And inside the blocks Woonerf is proposed where people can enjoy the street life. At now there are green spaces and tennis courts, so demolishment of existing blocks is not necessary.

There are many facilities near Carnisse, for example there are shopping centre, a transportation hub, a hospital, park, and the river. However, the neighbourhood is disconnected with those facilities because of some blocks. Thus, to connect the neighbourhood with the facilities, two housing blocks are break down and new mix-use building is suggested.

Last proposal is a new tram line that connects Carnisse with Waalhaven, Zuidplein and Rotterdam station. Current tram line, number 2, does not give the approaches Zuidplein, Zuiderpark and Ahoy, even though they are very important facilities. Thus the proposed tram line will provide better connection of those facilities and it runs east and west.

162 CONCLUSION 6.4 MAIN BENEFITS AND LIMITATION OF THE PROPOSAL What kind of benefi ts are expected from the proposals suggested in the thesis? Several benefi ts can be said. First of all, inhabitants have safer and more attractive street conditions. Children use streets as a playground, and adults use streets as a meeting place with their neighbours and a staying place in sunny days. Secondly, any more there is no needs to move to other neighbourhood to fi nd bigger houses for large family. Residents of Carnisse starts their living career in Carnisse, however they should move to other neighbourhoods or cities when they got a new family mem- ber. Thus, family housing is necessary to fulfi l their demands. Lastly, the inhabitants have better connection with attractions and adjacent neighbourhoods. New public transportation method and better condition of streets boost people to walk to a destination.

There are several beneﬁ ts of the proposals in the thesis, but they have some limitations. Main limitation of the suggestions is whether the approaches can give positive effects on social condition of Carnisse or not. The provision of great streets cannot guarantee the improvement of social cohesion. In a research of street design, the improvements of street condition boost the usage by children, their parents and elderly, but there is no proof that means betterment of social condition. Thus, project groups should give a chance of interact to inhabitants from starting and end of the project.

Another limitation is that there are small economic benefi ts from this kind of project. It means that the municipality will be only fi nancial provider. However, these days municipalities does not have enough money to realise new projects. Thus, it is necessary to fi nd economic benefi ts that can attract other fi nancial providers.

CONCLUSION 163 APPENDIX

164 CONCLUSION REFLECTION

The graduation studio of ‘Urban regeneration in Euro- can be suggested. Another refl ection from the process of pean Context’ leaves several refl ections. In Korea, recent the project is the case study. The thesis analysed just the scheme of urban development is changing from redevel- Dutch cases because the Netherlands founded the concept opment, demolish everything and make new buildings, into of pedestrian oriented streets, Woonerf, in 1960 and the regeneration, minimise demolishment and improve areas. project neighbourhood is also in the Netherlands. However, The studio provides general information, crucial elements, there are similar cases in Asia, such as South Korea and main consideration, current refl ections and trends of urban Japan. If the cases from Asia is included in the project, regeneration. The topic of the thesis, pedestrian oriented new suggestions could be developed with the comparison street, has also some refl ections. Still, there are discus- of Asian and European cases. Lastly, it was hard to fi nd sions about separated streets and integrated streets. Re- detailed information in English during the period of the cently, many countries are examining pedestrian oriented case study and the analysis. There is many literature and streets in residential areas, however the results of them is research about ‘Woonerf’ and ‘Shared Space’ in Dutch. It is not clear. Most of Korean streets were integrated streets in hard to fi nd the English sources except the explanation of the past. Nowadays, the concerning of the safety on streets ‘Home Zone in the UK’. are paid attentions more and more. This trend makes separated streets as a main stream of developments. However, The last refl ection is about the result of the thesis. Most the thesis states that the integrated streets are safer and of the process is valuable and interesting, however there they have more social, ecological, and economic benefi ts is a sense of frustration. As it is discussed in the chapter of mentioned in the chapter of theoretical framework. theoretical framework, urban regeneration deals with most of elements related with urban areas, such as economic The theme of the studio is too broad for me, so it takes situation, social condition, ecological problems, physical lots of time to specify the main topic of the project. The problems, and so on. However, this thesis mainly focuses fi rst topic of the thesis was the composition of urban open on the physical intervention. Especially, Carnisse, the space: which type of urban open space is better for urban project area, has some social problems, such as weak areas between several small parks and one large park. social cohesion. In the thesis, it is discussed that physical Finally, it was fi xed that ‘what kind of pedestrian oriented intervention can contribute to improve social conditions, street in residential area can be an effective approach that but its effectiveness is unclear. Thus, there is a need of contributes to improve the liveability in the neighbourhood in-depth researches to solve or improve the current social of Carnisse?’. However, it took almost one semester. If condition in Carnisse. the specifi c topic was chose in early time of the process of studio, more theories, analysis, and design proposals

CONCLUSION 165 • APPLEYARD, D. 1980. Livable Streets: Protected Neighborhoods? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 451, 106-117. • BAYCAN-LEVENT, T. & NIJKAMP, P. 2009. Planning and management of urban green spaces in Europe: Comparative analysis. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 135, 1-12. • BIDDULPH, M. 2012. Radical streets?: The impact of innovative street designs on liveability and activity in residential areas. Urban Design International, 17, 178-205. • BIDDULPH, M. 2012. Street design and street use: comparing traffi c calmed and home zone REFERENCES streets. Journal of urban design, 17, 213-232. • CAO, X., HANDY, S. L. & h, P. L. 2006. The infl uences of the built environment and residential self-selection on pedestrian behavior: evidence from Austin, TX. Transportation, 33, 1-20. • CARMONA, M., BURGESS, R. & BADENHORST, M. S. 2009. Planning Through Projects: Moving from Master Planning to Strategic Planning: 30 Cities, Techne Press. • CHIESURA, A. 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68, 129-138. • CLAYDEN, A., MCKOY, K. & WILD, A. 2006. Improving residential liveability in the UK: Home zones and alternative approaches. Journal of Urban Design, 11, 55-71. • DE WIT, T. & TALENS, H. Traffi c calming in The Netherlands. Transportation Frontiers for the Next Millennium: 69th Annual Meeting of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1999. • DIRECTORATE-GENERAL, E. C. E. 2004. Reclaiming city streets for people: chaos or quality of life?, Offi ce for Offi cial Publications of the European Communities. • DUKES, T. & MUSTERD, S. 2012. Towards social cohesion: bridging national integration rhetoric and local practice: the case of the Netherlands. Urban Studies, 49, 1981-1997.

166 CONCLUSION • EXECUTIVE, S. 2001. Rethinking open • MORANCHO, A. B. 2003. A hedonic valuation space. The Stationery Offi ce, Kit Campbell of urban green areas. Landscape and urban Associates, Edinburgh. planning, 66, 35-41. • GLASER, M. 2012. The City at Eye Level. • PASSMORE, D. 2005. EVOLVING STREETS: AREVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY • GODDARD, M. A., DOUGILL, A. J. & APPROACHES TO STREET DESIGN.A BENTON, T. G. 2010. Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban • PIKORA, T. J., GILES-CORTI, B., KNUIMAN, environments. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, M. W., BULL, F. C., JAMROZIK, K. & 25, 90-98. DONOVAN, R. J. 2006. Neighborhood environmental factors correlated with walking • HAMILTON-BAILLIE, B. 2002. Home Zones- near home: using SPACES. Medicine and Reconciling People, Places and Transport. Science in Sports and Exercise, 38, 708. Cambridge: Harvard Design School. • POWER, A. & BURDETT, R. 1999. Towards • HAMILTON-BAILLIE, B. 2008. Shared space: an urban renaissance, Urban task force, reconciling people, places and traffi c. Built department of the environment, transport and environment, 34, 161-181. the regions. • HAMILTON-BAILLIE, B. 2008. Towards shared • PRIEMUS, H. 2004. Housing and new urban space. Urban Design International, 13, 130- renewal: current policies in the Netherlands. 138. European Journal of housing policy, 4, 229- • JACOBS, A. B. 1993. Great streets, MIT press 246. Cambridge, MA. • RODENBURG, C., BAYCAN-LEVENT, T., VAN • JACOBS, J. 1961. The life and death of great LEEUWEN, E. & NIJKAMP, P. 2001. Urban American cities. New York: Random House. economic indicators for green development in cities. Greener management International, • JORGENSEN, A., HITCHMOUGH, J. & 105-119. CALVERT, T. 2002. Woodland spaces and edges: their impact on perception of safety and • STOUTEN, P. 2010. Changing contexts in preference. Landscape and urban planning, urban regeneration 30 years of modernisation 60, 135-150. in Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Techne Press. • KRAAY, J. H. & VERKEERSVEILIGHEID, S. • SUTCLIFFE, D. 2009. Shared Space and W. O. 1986. Woonerfs and other experiments Naked Intersections. in the Netherlands, Institute for Road Safety • SWANWICK, C., DUNNETT, N. & WOOLLEY, Research SWOV, The Netherlands. H. 2003. Nature, role and value of green • LEEUWARDEN, N. H. 2007. The Laweiplein: space in towns and cities: An overview. Built Evaluation of the reconstruction into a square environment, 29, 94-106. with roundabout, Noordelijke Hogeschool • SYKES, H. & ROBERTS, P. 2000. Urban Leeuwarden. regeneration: a handbook, Sage Publications • LUTTIK, J. 2000. The value of trees, water and Limited. open space as refl ected by house prices in the • THOMPSON, C. W. 2002. Urban open space Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, in the 21st century. Landscape and urban 48, 161-167. planning, 60, 59-72. • MEHTA, P. 2008. The Impact of Urban • TOSICS, I. & NODUS, L. 2009. Dilemmas Regeneration on Local Housing Markets–A of integrated area-based Urban Renewal Case Study of Liverpool. Liverpool: Liverpool Programmes. The URBACT Tribune, 27-30. John Moores University.

CONCLUSION 167 • VAN BECKHOVEN, E. & VAN KEMPEN, R. 2003. Social effects of urban restructuring: a case study in Amsterdam and Utrecht, the Netherlands. Housing Studies, 18, 853-875. • VAN HERZELE, A. & WIEDEMANN, T. 2003. A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63, 109-126. • VIS, A., DIJKSTRA, A. & SLOP, M. 1992. Safety effects of 30 Km/H zones in the Netherlands. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 24, 75-86. • WOOLLEY, H. 2003. Urban open spaces, Taylor & Francis.

168 CONCLUSION