UDES0002 - URBAN DESIGN STUDIO II
UNIVERSITY
University of New South Wales (UNSW, Sydney)
​
TEAM
Chair: Dr Scott Hawken
Design tutor: Dr Carlos Bartesaghi Koc
​
EXPERT CONSULTANTS: Jodi Lawton, Prof Rod Simpson, Jonathan
PROGRAMME
Master of Urban Development and Design (MUDD)
​
PERIOD
Semester II-2018
​
STUDENTS WORK
​
UNSW UDES0002 Urban Development and Design Class: Team 1: Hailing Gu (Ling), Lixuan Huang (Miki), Zixiang Ma (Mark), Xuduo Xu (Leo), Pei Xu (Penelope), Team 2: Weiyu Han, Shenqin Jiang (Nick), Yaying Wang (Cassie), Nanrong Xiao (Vicky), Jiajing Xu (Jean), Team 3: Ziyi Bai (Danni), Hao Chen (Jessica), Hongqiao Liu (Grace), Yuxi Ren (Becky), Lingling Zheng (Lilian), Team 4: He Gong (Herman), Xiaohan Hu, Sidi Li (Sidi), Tian Tang (Tiya), Wentong Xu (Talia), Team 5: Xin Chen (Tiffany), Eileen Ng (Eileen), Aranaya Sabbarwal, Jagjeet Shergill, Yan Zhou (Yan).
Climate Futures for Western Sydney: Global Geodesign Collaboration
​
Introduction
​
This studio investigates a large-scale and complex urban development (or re-development) area, usually in Sydney or another major urban centre in NSW.
​
This studio commences with a broad analysis of the social, economic, environmental and regulatory factors shaping urban form followed by the development of a conceptual framework (structure plan) for future development. The detailed design of urban elements and precincts is then undertaken including the development of guidelines capable of ensuring that design intentions can be realised. Typically, this includes residential, commercial, institutional, transport, and infrastructure elements. The emphasis is on creating a socially responsible, environmentally sustainable and commercially feasible urban environment with reference to current urban design priorities such as urban consolidation and ecologically sustainable development principles.
The Steinitz Framework for Geodesign
The scenarios to be developed
Course Background: A Global Collaboration
​
Nations around the world face a growing challenge to plan, manage and pay for infrastructure essential to address major demographic changes and weather events accompanying a changing climate. This studio was part of a global collaboration of over 80 universities to form a multi-institutional, multi-national collaboration, influenced by the 2015 Paris Agreement. Each partner in the collaboration was systematically studying change in its region, with the aim of sharing and comparing the results. The intent was to produce guidance towards improved decision making on infrastructure investments. We had an unprecedented opportunity to make the case for climate sensitive infrastructure as a more cost effective, environmentally friendly, and socially beneficial alternative to the business as usual infrastructure approaches that currently exist.
In 2018 UDES0002, UNSW’s Advanced Urban Development and Design Studio, commenced an international collaboration involving 80 universities from around the world. The intent of the collaboration was to develop robust cross-cultural methods for addressing climate change through innovative approaches to urban development. Each university in the collaboration is free to select their own site and urban development challenge as a “living lab”: an interactive real-world design challenge. UDES0002 selected Western Sydney Aerotropolis (DIRPC, 2018) as a case study .
Images: Student's work
The methodological approach
​
The approach adopted in the 3-month studio was that of scenario-based thinking. Scenario based thinking isn’t concerned with predicting future outcomes but rather testing the consequences of alternative courses of action (CSIRO Futures, 2016). The scenario based framework is combined with geodesign methodology (Steinitz, 2012) which involves integrating data driven GIS approaches with design thinking and methods.
This conceptually and technically demanding approach was facilitated by the use of recently developed digital web 2.0 software which aims to enable collaboration between groups. The studio structure is designed to test how environmental planning geodesign approaches can be integrated with finer scaled urban design frameworks and development feasibility studies. These two contrasting scales of design require different design thinking. The studio aspired to combine a large-scale, systematic, rationalist McHargian approach with small scale interventions attuned to the socio-political and economic variation in the study area. The smaller scale is in keeping with the approach Jonathan Barnett proposes in his book “Design as Public Policy”. Each scale of design combines innovative digital data driven approaches and more traditional analogue drafting and communication. This curriculum has been developed with an emphasis on team collaboration – an essential skill for both urban designers and urban and environmental and urban planners.
1. Project Introduction and Field Study
2. System Evaluations and Expert Consultation
3. Strategic Environmental Planning Scenarios
4. Urban Design Frameworks
5. Development Feasibility
As Steinitz and his team make clear: “We are dealing with real issues of great importance. The outcome of this collaboration will not only benefit the participants directly but should also inform critical political decisions and policy implementation.
​
Images: Student work presented at the International Geodesign Collaboration (IGC) Forum in California, USA.
Two scales and Two analytical techniques
​
The studio studied and worked at two scales the urban meso scale and urban micro scale. The first is a 20 x 20km area centred on the proposed airport – this is the meso-scale. The second is a 3 x 3 km area focused on, Bringelly, a new mixeduse urban centre for the Aerotropolis district – this is the scale of urban microclimate. The two scales where developed according
to the parameters of each of the three scenarios that were given as part of the International Geodesign Collaboration: Early Adapter Scenario (EAS), Late Adapter Scenario (LAS) and Non- Adapter Scenario (NAS).
The 20 x 20 km featured various urban patterns across the three scenarios. This scale was analysed using a method known as “climatope” analysis. In this analysis the ten systems are reclassified in terms of their impact on urban microclimate and coded according to the intensity of their impact. For example, Grey infrastructure (coded red) such as the airport has a much higher impact than Green infrastructure (coded green) such as the parklands. This simple but powerful technique reveals the climatic consequences of various urban patterns and highlights hot areas which require access to cool air production zones for temperature relief. This method is effective in assessing scenarios in terms of their varying spatial configuration.
In contrast to the large meso-scale approach described above the 3 x 3 km scale analysis of Bringelly featured one pattern across all three scenarios. Rather than the pattern changing the materials, such as canopy and vegetation, cool materials, standard materials, were varied across the three scenarios. The micro-climatic impacts of changing material were then modelled in Revit. This approach reveals the considerable modifications and climate mitigation possible working with existing urban form nd patterns.
Further shadow analysis demonstrates which areas are sheltered by the sun during the summer. The importance of street trees to provide continuous shaded passages for active and mechanised transport are paramount. Finally wind analyses shows which areas are open to cooling north-easterly winds or exposed to heating south-westerly winds. Such analysis can help provide data for urban modifications to mitigate climate and urban radiation.
​
​
​