Design Proposals

[D6 & AD2 2012]
Following the URBAN ANALYSIS component of the course, the teams took two different directions: either to develop an urban scale (MACRO) design or a building scale (MICRO) design. In both cases the design work is derived from their initial analysis. There are five MICRO scale design teams: Eco-belt, Patterns, Transport, Water, and Heritage. And there are four MACRO scale design teams: Geology & Infra-Structure, Micro-Urbanism, Economics and Dencity.



PATTERNS
Team: Alexander Milojevic (FINAL PDF), Seth Munn, Mikhail Rodricks (FINAL PDF)
Using the observations of different urban fabrics, each team member selected a different site and grafted in figurative patterns to suggest new organisations. These patterns become organisational principles both at the urban scale and the building scale.



DENCITY (FINAL PDF)
Team: Zhi Jian David Wong, Che Wei Jacky Lee, Praveen Karunasinghe
The team uses the method of scenario planning to test four possible futures given different urban strategies. The team’s aim is to determining the most viable urban strategy for Christchurch. Each scenario takes into consideration the whole of Christchurch, while understanding the centre is the CBD. The four strategies tested are: 1. A Sprawling City – Declining CBD and Suburban sprawl (pre-earthquake situation); 2. An Intensified City Core – Intensifying the CBD with increased mixed use zoning (current draft plan); 3. An Autonomous Network of Towns Surrounded by Green Belts – densification of satellite towns connected via a public transportation system; 4. A Tree of Life – Urban corridor scheme that feeds into an intensified CBD.



ECO-BELT
Team: David Ma (FINAL PDF), Tina Martin, Thomas Denhardt
Using the Waimakariri River as a figurative starting point, the team conceptually imposed the image of the river into the centre of the city and developed urban connections stringing together vacant lots and introducing new programs.



ECONOMICS (FINAL PDF)
Team: Jeremy Yoo, Sam O’Connor, Thomas Ward
After analysing the city and discovering the financial value of the local malls, the Economics team proposed creating a network of financial hubs, each with a unique identity. The concept is to increase development along the major streets adjacent to the malls, and make local town centres by allowing for higher buildings and more floor area. As well the strategy considers how each hub knits into the fabric with cycleways, pedestrian-ways and greenways. The team will illustrate the strategy through three examples of a small, medium and large mall type. As well their proposed urban strategy will be applied to the CBD, treating it similarly by creating denser corridors of activity.


HERITAGE
Team: Gong Rickey Wang (FINAL PDF), Gang Henry Feng (FINAL PDF), Logan Suhrer (FINAL PDF)
In the team’s initial research, they found that the heritage buildings in Christchurch were a product of their time. A series of variables contributed to their identity as ‘heritage’ such as aesthetic, materialistic, technological and programatic. The team endeavours to proposed three heritage buildings, a reconstruction of the Town Hall, a new transportation hub and an earthquake memorial. Each project finds a unique understanding of the meaning of heritage and pulls it through their design: the town hall uses a relationship to views and literally folds in the Garden City identity, the bus station is a reinterpretation of gothic, and the earthquake memorial serves the purpose of a place to remember through experience.



INFRA-STRUCTURE & GEOLOGY
Team: Johnathan James Guest (FINAL PDF), Scott Alexander Riley Thorp (FINAL PDF), Duy Khang Phuong (FINAL PDF)
Building on their research of ground conditions, the team has developed three proposals. The first proposal develops a comprehensive strategy for all urban infrastructures, with the underlying concept to create networks joined by a backbone rather then a centralised system. The second proposal develops a global strategy for the city’s waste; the aim is to turn waste into energy and benefit the city, this is done through the introduction of catalysts. The third urban strategy focuses on developing a comprehensive catalogue of possible structural types relative to zoning and ground condition; this proposal underscores that Christchurch can rebuild but they need to understand the structural requirements relative to ground conditions.



TRANSPORT
Team: Justin Baatjes (FINAL PDF), Yvonne Mak (FINAL PDF), Eric Nakijima (FINAL PDF)
The team developed three transport hubs at the perimeter of the CBD, challenging the notion of a single central hub. The intention is to free the city centre from heavy bus traffic and allow for a localised central transfer system to link each hub. They went on to couple unique programs with each of the proposed hubs: a stadium, a hospital and a shopping centre.



WATER
Team: Jason Barnes (FINAL PDF), Richard Jones (FINAL PDF), Charlotte Laus (FINAL PDF)
The team set a clear ambition to optimise the use of water as it relates to different contexts and their associated programs. The team developed a rural farm, a suburban algae park and an urban greenhouse. Each project finds a unique relationship between the ecological landscape and the built form, seamlessly transitioning between the two.



MICRO-URBANSIM (FINAL PDF)
Team: Jordon Tomas Saunders, Yun Kong Sung, Adrian Vincent Kumar
The future of urban planning could be in scripting rather than a zoning code, the micro-urbanism team developed an urban strategy around such an idea. They took all the possible ecological parameters and in a sense treated them like characters on a stage, assigning each one a responsive trait then hitting play to watch them self organise. Each trait can be given a lesser or higher priority thus playing out ideal scenarios based on optimising different ecological variables. The team will illustrate their design through three case studies: an idealised city based on minimising pollution, an idealised city based on wind patterns and an idealised city based on ground water conditions.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s