uwa mech2499 final report - andrew petrisin
TRANSCRIPT
Transit Oriented Development and Related Urban Design Theories: A Study of Perth’s Planning
Efforts
Student Name21541832
Final Semester Report
Supervisors: Prof. Doina Olaru and Dr. Brett Smith Management and Organisations (UWA Business School)
1
Table of Contents
0. RESEARCH QUESTION
1. INTRODUCTION
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Identifying Design Theories in and around Perth
3. METHODOLOGY
1. Standards
2. Chosen Activity Centres
4. EMPIRICAL INQUIRY
1. TOD Score Breakdown
2. Contextual Comparison of Place
5. FINDINGS
1. Quantitative Analysis
2. Qualitative Analysis
6. CONCLUSION
2
Abstract
This research paper looks at the three case studies of Subiaco, Joondalup, and
Murdoch in the context of urban design and planning. Using the Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) Standard each case study was benchmarked in order to
determine its success as a TOD. These results were then compared to another
design standard--LEED Neighborhood Development of the US Green Building
Council. Both TOD and LEED Standards fit under the larger umbrella of the New
Urbanism design movement--a design movement that aims to return to a traditional
style of design and development. This traditional style focuses on designing places
on a human scale in contrast to the skyscrapers and freeways of modern design and
planning.
Visiting the case study sites and using data from NearMap provided the
information necessary in order to benchmark each suburb according to the
aforementioned standards. Within each standard, measurements such as walkability
and connectivity, among others, were handpicked because they provide the most
accurate and complete analysis of a place without using the TOD and LEED
Standards in their entirety. The resulting scores from the design standards
confirmed Subiaco as the best example of TOD with Joondalup and Murdoch
finishing second the third receptively. In addition to the quantitative data provided
though NearMap, a qualitative study was done with the help of the Australian Urban
Design Research Centre. This examined aspects of a place that scores could not
show, such as public realm elements and other conditions for good urban life. These
analytics reconfirmed Subiaco as the best example of TOD. Together, both TOD and
LEED provided accurate benchmarks of traditional development and design.
3
0. RESEARCH QUESTION
How is Perth benchmarking with respect to the metrics established by the
TOD and LEED Standards, using the TOD projects in Joondalup, Murdoch, and
Subiaco, and comparing their quality and efficiency in the area of urban design?
1. INTRODUCTION
After a period of the mid to late 1900’s where the modern suburb was fully
realized and dominated the development of cities and movement of people, cities
are once again the most desired place to live1. Many reasons have been cited for this,
one of the foremost being the commute from where one lives to where one works2.
In the late 1970’s a new movement arose entitled “New Urbanism”, one that sought
to redefine the way cities are designed, or more aptly, return to the pre-modern, or
traditional way of design3. Other design theories have arisen addressing the
problems of the modern city. Two of these other major theories include Transit
Oriented Development (what is currently implemented in Directions 2031) and
Landscape Urbanism. This report will investigate the contribution of these theories
to Directions 2031. In addition, the report will look at the relevance of Transit
Oriented Development and New Urbanism to the city in the 21st century.
The three developments that will be looked at are Joondalup, Subiaco, and
Murdoch. Each possesses distinct and differentiable qualities that will allow for
analysis that can pin point exactly what urban design characteristics are affecting
communities in a positive manner. LEED Neighborhood Development4 and Transit
Oriented Development Standards5 will be used to gain quantitative measurements
throughout the case study.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Identifying Design Theories in and around Perth
1 The Great Inversion, 20122 Congress for New Urbansim, 19933 Congress for New Urbanism, 19934 LEED 2009 for Neighborhood Development, 20095 TOD Standard, 2014
4
The different sites that will be investigated during the research process are
the activity centres of Joondalup, Subiaco, and Murdoch. While others in the
research group are working on the design of attractors and traffic flow, my own
research will focus on how design leads to places that people want to live and
interact. Joondalup, Subiaco and Murdoch each have distinct planning histories6,
which lead to great points of comparison when looking at the success of each place7.
Focusing in on characteristics of generators, research will be done looking at the
walkability of an area, along with how mixed-use it is partnered with looking at
connection of streets—all of which generally lead to a compact area8. Many of these
goals are key in both New Urbanism and Transit Oriented Development; however, it
is in the ways in which these design theories are implemented that differences
occur.
When looking at previous examples of both Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) and New Urban development, such as Central Saint Giles in London and the
New Urbanist Development of Poundbury, England they come across as strikingly
different9. A simple explanation could be, that while one site is found within a large
city and the other in the countryside. Leon Krier, known as a leader of the New
Urbanism movement, suggests that buildings no taller than four stories create a
feeling of connection to the community10. What are the merits of this and does this
truly add something that TOD does not?
Looking deeper into the principles of each design theory, TOD bases itself
around eight core features entitled: walk, cycle, connect, transit, mix, density,
compact, and shift11 while New Urbanism focuses on the very similar core features
of walkability, connectivity, mixed use, quality architecture and urban design,
traditional neighborhood structure, density, green transportation, and
sustainability12. Is TOD encompassed by the design theory that is New Urbanism? Or
6 City of Joondalup, 20147 Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority, 20118 TOD Standards, 20149 TOD Standards, 201410 Congress for New Urbanism, 199311 TOD Standards, 201412 Congress for New Urbanism, 2014
5
is it a concurrent, but similar theory? Identifying each core feature at the individual
activity centres will allow for a comprehensive look into the importance of the
respective urban design theories to a successful TOD plan. As far as Landscape
Urbanism is concerned, the UWA-based Australian Urban Design Research Centre
(AUDRC) provides specialized knowledge for addressing urban design challenges
associated with TOD. Contacts were made with Dr. Anthony-Duckworth-Smith, who
further assisted analysis regarding Landscape Urbanism.
By looking at Joondalup, Murdoch, and Subiaco, three different scenarios of
TOD planning can be studied. Focusing on the individual success of these
developments, it will be determined which aspects of each area’s urban design
contributed to the overall livability of the city, and what design aspects detracted
from the overall livability. Using knowledge from each of the three design theories
previously mentioned in context with current development, is there a way to take
the benefits of each in order to best plan the city of Perth?
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Standards
In order to quantitatively discuss the merits of both New Urbanism and
Transit Oriented Development two scales are used. One is be the TOD Standard
scale, which evaluates a place based around the eight core features of TOD13. The
other scale used is the LEED Neighborhood Development scale, which was founded
using New Urbanism theory14. Both of these rating systems are the official systems
used by their respective design governing bodies in order to determine to what
degree a locale has adapted the set standards.
Within each section of the design standards there are subsections that
determine the overall points for the section they belonged to. For, example, the
Walk section of the TOD Standard has five subsections ranging from percentage of
streets with safe, wheelchair accessible crosswalks, to the percentage of walkway
segments that provide adequate shade (See derivation in Appendix: Table 1). The
LEED standard was similar in that it had a list of requirements that determined total
13 TOD Standard, 201414 LEED 2009 for Neighborhood Development, 2009
6
overall points. Some of the LEED walkability factors are distance of sidewalks from a
residential unit as well as frequency of functional entries to buildings15 (See
derivation in Appendix: Table 2). As a whole, the LEED Standard was more thorough
and focused more on aesthetics than the TOD scores. Through mapping technologies
such as Nearmap and visiting the three TOD designated sites, data was collected in
order to quantitatively analyze, using these standards, the three activity centres.
3.2 Chosen Activity Centres
When looking at the different TOD sites, they offer three distinct looks with
respect to their urban design. Subiaco, at initial glance, seems to be most closely
related to New Urbanism, with the furthest away being Murdoch, and Joondalup
somewhere in the middle. Subiaco has everything you could ask for when looking at
an urban design centred around TOD and New Urbanism. With narrow streets and a
centralized open space with public transit it seems to be an ideal representation of
New Urbanism. There are plenty of mixed-use buildings as well as relatively short
building heights. After using the standards and acquiring demographic data it will it
will be interesting to see the conclusions of how important these factors become in
determining each place’s overall score.
Murdoch is a very decentralized TOD, with a major highway splitting what
seemed to be a mostly residential area from an area with multiple hospitals and
business buildings. While there are buses that do run from one side to the other,
there is little option of walking from a residential to a business area (a key
component of New Urbanism). It also lacks is a centralized open space that unifies
and connects the buildings that radiate around it. Obviously, this has a lot to do with
the fact that the activity centre is built in the middle of a large freeway. What, if any,
changes can be made that are specified, or in line with the design theories
previously stated? Are these changes feasible and what would need to happen in
order for action to occur?
As a town that has elements of the both Subiaco and Murdoch, Joondalup is a
pre-planned city built around a public transportation centre that is also a shopping
mall. This serves as the entrance to the town and it’s centerpiece to an extent. Upon
15 LEED 2009 Neighborhood Development
7
leaving the shopping mall the feel of the town changes to one of a much less modern
feel and one that in many ways feels more like Subiaco. However, due to the lack of a
central open space, there was a distinct disconnection between buildings. Another
violation would be it’s low density outside of the main blocks that we were able to
walk during our visit. This is where qualitative analysis will become more important
—it will help to pin point exactly what creates a certain “feel” about a place and also
help determine what aspects are most important when creating a sustainable city
that caters to its residents.
4. EMPIRICAL ENQUIRY
4.1 TOD Score Breakdowns
Case studies are used in order to give real world examples of theory that is
under research. The three case studies of Subiaco, Joodalup, and Murdoch are the
three chosen sites being analyzed for the purpose of testing the urban theories. The
quantitative analysis of these three sites began with an adapted TOD Standard
scoring. Because the standard covered more than was deemed necessary for the
urban design research, only certain, applicable, sections of the standard were used
for the rating system. In the revised rating system, Joondalup scored a 32 (out of
53), Subiaco also scored a 32, while Murdoch scored an 1116. The numerical
breakdown of these scores can be found in Table 3 in the Appendix. The initial
reaction from these scores is to immediately discount Murdoch as a place
incorporating Transit Oriented Design. However, the question to ask is does
Murdoch succeed in what it is meant to do? As a major place of attraction
(university and hospitals), Murdoch has a much different set of goals to accomplish
than Joondalup and Subiaco. This must be taken into account when comparing it to
places like Subiaco and Joondalup.
4.2 Contextual Comparison of Place
By looking at the scores of Joondalup and Subiaco one might think they are
incredibly similar places. However, their histories could almost be no further apart.
Joondalup is a recently planned and developed northern suburb urban centre that
16 TOD Standard, 2014
8
was completed in the 1990’s17, while Subiaco is a historic neighborhood within
Perth that, for at least the next few years, hosts one of the largest attractions in the
Perth area, the West Coast Eagles and Fremantle Dockers (Australian Football
teams) home pitch. This situation is changing soon as a new stadium is currently
being constructed in Burswood, near the Perth CBD18. So how do these places have
identical TOD Standard scores? Subiaco, being designed and planned before current
modern planning techniques, was built in a more traditional neighborhood style19;
however, even many of its newer aspects, such as the apartments east of the station,
are built in a way that conforms to the TOD Standard and many practices of New
Urbanism. Its organic growth and history have lead to Subiaco having many design
advantages that Joondalup does not possess.
Design advantages in this case are public realm elements, such as a square,
plaza, or an identifiable landmark that gives a sense of importance to a place.
Although on the decline, the Subiaco Market, Patersons Stadium, and even places
such as the Subiaco Hotel are considered places that give Subiaco public realm
elements. This is starkly different in a place such as Joondalup, which, due to its
inorganic nature of development, lacks a lot of the character that a place like
Subiaco possesses. Not only are built environment landmarks of a place important,
but also those landmarks that are natural--a point of interest for a place like
Joondalup could have been Lake Joondalup. This is an example of lack of foresight
on the part of the planners of Joondalup, which led to the loss of a public realm
element that could have enhanced the built environment. Just 400 metres east of the
Joondalup station, Lake Joondalup would have been a major attractor and public
realm element had the planning of the project been lead through design related
planning.
However, despite all of these differences, Joondalup and Subiaco scored the
same TOD Standard scores. Balancing out their Connect and Compact features, many
of the physical qualities of the two places are very similar--good, walkable streets,
17 City of Joondalup, 201418 New Perth Stadium, 201419 Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND), 2014
9
with compact areas containing mixed-use buildings. All of these features are present
in places that are designed under TOD and New Urban standards. However, when
visiting a place such as Subiaco, the place feels so much more alive walking around
the streets, than does Joondalup. This could be due to the fact that the main
attractor of Joondalup was the mall connected to the transit, which happened to be
inside and partially underground. This is in contrast to Subiaco, where exiting the
train station leads to the main attraction—the train station is not the attraction
itself. It is logical to think with the same TOD scores that these two places would
have a very similar feel. Were the sets of scores take from the TOD standards not
correct? Or did the TOD not give a comprehensive account of what a place is? This is
why many different forms of qualitative analysis must be accomplished in order to
fully attain a full understanding of a designated area.
5. FINDINGS
5.1 Quantitative Analysis
In calculating the LEED Standard scores (derived from New Urban
principles) for each of the individual case studies it was discovered that Subiaco had
a score of 14 (out of 24), Joodalup had a score of 7, and Murdoch had a score of 3.
This data more aligns with the qualitative data that was taken when visiting the
sites themselves. Some of the measures in the LEED Standard had to be discounted
because of a lack of knowledge regarding the subject. For example, the type of
façade present in the buildings was a category; however, due to time constraints this
was unable to be recorded, meaning it was left out of the standard as a whole. The
LEED standards that are used to compare to the TOD standards are Compact
Development, Mixed-Use Neighborhood Centres, Reduced Parking Footprint, Street
Network, and, additionally a percentage of overweight or obese adults with type 2
diabetes (See Appendix Tables 4 and 5). No, the latter is not a measure within the
LEED manual; however, among the claims of new Urbanism is that spaces conducive
to increased walkability lead to healthier lives, which naturally would lead to a
decrease in obesity.
In the category of Compact Development, which looked at the amount of
household dwelling per unit area, Subiaco recorded the highest amount of houses
10
per unit are with 1934 homes/km^2, while Joondalup and Murdoch came in second
and third respectively, with densities of 750 houses/km^2 and 95 homes/hm^2.
One aspect that I see lacking, or might have missed, is a score for people per unit
area (density), combined with other factors to determine a sort of carrying capacity
for an area. If the area is overstressed as a place then that must impact its
qualifications for urban design.
This was investigated using the Bertolini Node-Place Model20, which is a
model that was developed in the late 1990’s which helps describe a place in terms of
node-value, place-value, pressure, and dependence. A node-value describes how
connected the place is to other points of interest whereas the place-value describes
the quantity and diversity of activities of the place itself. Pressure means that a place
is at its full development capacity, with little opportunity to expand, while
dependent status indicates that a place has room to develop. Using this model,
Murdoch was seen as highly nodal and dependent, Joondalup scored a good balance
between node and place as well as having more pressure that Murdoch, and Subiaco
scored a high place-value and slightly more pressured than Joondalup. This Bertolini
model aligned with the data the other standards provided, and reaffirmed the
validity of the previous data.
When looking at the availability of mixed-use centres in each of the three
case studies, Subiaco comes out on top as far as people living close to places of
gathering--where people would congregate for town activities. The scores tier as
many of the scales before have with Joondalup coming in second and Murdoch again
coming in third. In fear of monotony, the other measures of Reduced Parking
Footprint along with Street Networks favor once again Subiaco, Joondalup, and then
Murdoch (See Appendix: Table 4). The additional measurement that was taken--
percentage of overweight or obese adults with type 2 diabetes; however, returned
results that were not compliant with the goals of New Urbanism. There was no
noticeable difference in the percentages of overweight or obese adults with type 2
diabetes. This result was unexpected based on the earlier results and assumptions.
5.2 Qualitative Analysis
20 Nodes and Places: Complexities of Railway Station Development
11
Other factors that are hard to quantify with numbers are those that are
related to the quality of life offered by a place. After talking to Anthony-Duckworth
Smith of the Australian Urban Design Research Centre, a few of the measurements
that were conceived were the pollution of a region (regarding noise as well as
waste), crime rates as well as overall safety of the region, what type of
recreational/open space is available for the residents, and other factors such as the
landmarks that were mentioned earlier. Although many of these factors are not as
quantifiable, they have an equally important part in determining the quality of the
place in discussion. Many of the factors must be determined using design techniques
in lieu of rigid planning scores. However, many measurements can still be taken—
for example, noise level is a part of the Nearmap statistics; however, unfortunately,
there is not data for the case study regions that are under research. Many of the
major components of the design theories of New Urbanism and TOD accompany
aspects affecting quality of life--such as central communal districts for town events,
an ability to build stronger community through neighborhood design, and planning
on a human scale. In other words, planning developments around people, and not
cars is the requirement for highly livable places. Designing communities using these
standards creates the premise for increased quality of life of the residents.
One of the shortcomings of this research was an inability to incorporate
Landscape Urbanism, one of the newer, leading design theories, into the research
metrics. Landscape Urbanism involves a layered approach, which takes into account
the accompaniment of environmental systems of a place and how those systems
relate to the built environment above. In a way, it determines where and where not
to build according to the natural environment. This is an ambitious and admirable
design strategy, as it is more important now than ever before to take into account
how we are impacting the planet with our built environment; however, the limited
time and knowledge regarding environmental systems prevented its inclusion in
this report.
6. CONCLUSION
12
The findings from the case study analysis indicate with confidence that
Subiaco is the best representation of New Urban and Transit Oriented Design
planning. In Perth, WA the standards given by TOD and New Urban theory gave a
great insight into ways in which developments are planned and designed. However,
in some cases the standards failed to give an accurate or complete representation of
the place. An example of this failure is in the Connect section of the TOD Standard,
where one long block discount dozens of other well laid-out streets. However, for
the majority of cases, the standards lead to a very accurate representation of the
case studies that align with the notes taken from visiting each place.
A key factor that differentiated one case study from another in terms of
design and liveliness was public realm elements. While Joondalup scored similarly
in terms of the TOD Standard, it lacked a central location that community members
could congregate for everyday activity. Although a modern mall is already in place,
maybe a thought would be given to designing an open-air market or something
similar for the city to have a place of gathering downtown and near (but not a part
of) the train station. The mall creates a disconnect between the station and the rest
of the city—compared to Subiaco where the station flows well into the open, relaxed
space that is the town square. One quick glace at Murdoch shows that there are no
public realm elements near the train station at present moment.
Use of urban design and planning have the ability to both create (and
destroy) a sense of feel in a place. Standards such those of Transit Oriented
Development and New Urbanism hope to create places that are not only easy to
access, but when accessed are delightful to stay and experience. By benchmarking
three distinct case studies within the Perth metroplex, many already known factors
(that lead to the design of great places) were solidified as well as others uncovered.
Many factors such as walkability, mixed-use areas, as well as use of open plazas and
places for gathering all lead to cities and places that are designed on a human scale.
While Joondalup does lack some public realm features (considered an essential
ingredient of a desirable place) that are present in Subiaco, both Subiaco and
Joondalup are great examples of thoughtful design. Murdoch is stuck in a rough spot
as its main access point is above a large freeway--this does not allow for any type of
13
connection between a person and place. While it does serve as an access point for a
university as well as the hospitals, it does not posses features that create great
community. One aspect that would be a worthwhile addition to the benchmarking of
cities is how places that are planned all at once compare to those older cities that
have a more organic growth. Ultimately, the standards set by Transit Oriented
Development and New Urbanism proved, together, to be useful benchmarks for
creating places that is truly worth caring about.
14
Bibliography
Alan Ehrenhalt, “The Great Inversion”, 2012.
Bertolini, Luca. "Nodes and Places: Complexities of Railway Station Development." European Planning Studies 4.3 (1996): 331-45.
“City of Joondalup”, Government of Western Australia. 2014. Web. http://www.joondalup.wa.gov.au/Welcome/History.aspx
“Congress for New Urbanism”, Charter for the New Urbanism. Chicago, United States, 1993. Web. http://www.cnu.org
Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. TOD Standard v2.1. New York: Despacio, 2014
“LEED 2009 For Neighborhood Development”, Congress for New Urbanism, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the U.S. Green Building Council. 2009.
“Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority” Government of Western Australia. 2001. Web. http://www.mra.wa.gov.au
“New Perth Stadium”, Government of Western Australia. 2014. Web. http://www.perthstadium.com.au
“New Urbanism: Creating Livable Sustainable Communities”, Alexandria, Virginia. www.newurbanism.org
“Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)” Sustainable Cities Institute. 2014. Web. http://www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org/topics/land-use-and-planning/traditional-neighborhood-development-(tnd)
15
Appendix
Table 1: TOD Walk Score Derivation
Walk Score Subsection Definitions Criteria Subiaco1.1 Walkways: 100% of walk-ways are complete 100% = 3
<100% = 03/3
1.2 Intersections: Every street has a pedestrian crossing
100% = 3<100% = 0
3/3
1.4: Physically Permeable Frontage: Average number of shop and building entrances per 100
metres
>= 5 = 2>= 3 = 1<3 = 0
1/2
1.5: Percentage of walkways incorporating adequate shade
>75 % = 1<75% = 0 pts
1/1
Total N/A 8/9
Table 2: LEED Walkability Score Derivation
Walk Score Subsection Definitions
Criteria Subiaco
Buildings less than 25 ft. from street
<= 25 ft = 1> 25 ft. = 0
1
Buildings less than 25 ft. from street
<= 18 ft. = 1> 25 ft. = 0
1
Mixed-Use buildings within 1 ft. of sidewalk
<= 1 ft. = 1> 1 ft. = 0
1
70% on-street parking provided
< 70% = 0>= 70% = 1
1
Continuous sidewalks Continuous = 1Separate = 0
1
Elevated finished floor >= 24 in. = 1< 24 in. = 0
0
Functional building entrance every 75 ft.
<= 75 ft. = 1> 75 ft. = 0
1
50 % of office buildings include ground floor retail
< 50% = 0>= 50% = 1
0
40% of buildings have height-street ratios of 3:1
< 40% = 0>= 40% = 1
1
75% of residential streets are <25 mph
<= 25 mph = 1> 25 mph = 0
1
75% of non-residential streets are <25 mph
<= 25mph = 1> 25 mph = 0
0
Driveways are < than 10% the length of sidewalks
<= 10 % = 1> 10 % = 0
1
Total N/A 9/12
16
Table 3: TOD Score Breakdown using Nearmap
Subiaco Joondalup MurdochWalk 8/9 7/9 6/9Cycle 0/3 1/3 1/3
Connect 5/15 9/15 1/15Mix 5/11 6/11 0/11
Compact 13/15 9/15 3/15Total 32/53 32/53 11/53
Table 4: LEED Standard Scores with Nearmap and POI Spreadsheet
Subiaco Joondalup MurdochWalk 9/12 6/12 3/12
Compact 2/6 0/6 0/6Mixed-Use 2/4 1/4 0/4
Parking Footprint 0/1 0/1 0/1Street Network 1/2 0/2 0/2
Total 14/24 7/24 3/24
Table 5: Diabetes due to Obesity
Subiaco (%)
Joondalup (%)
Murdoch (%)
Perth Metropolitan Region (%)
Percentage of overweight or obese
adults with type 2 diabetes
2.9 2.7 2.8 3.0
17