Gipps and Stanley Streets community

My previous project installment mentioned that next step of Streets Without Cars would be to consult the local community on who you are, and what you might want to see happen with the project. Here is the site plan again, showing the residents considered as part of this analysis, and how many agreed to take part in the survey:

20141007 gipps and stanley community #1
Survey respondents

The survey dealt with two areas of information, and this entry will deal with the first – demographics – which sought to learn about who this project is to cater for. Here is what was discovered:

Gender, age and ownership

20141007 gipps and stanley community #2

The division of genders and age was fairly even, as expected based on empirical observations. The divide between owners and renters was much more notable however, with an overwhelming majority of households surveyed being the owners of their own homes. This will be interesting when interpreting your thoughts on the future of this project, as it implies many of you will most likely live in the area for the foreseeable future, and therefore feel the impact of such a project more intensely.

Household types and private open space

20141007 gipps and stanley community #3

The typical terrace houses which dominate the area are generally quite large, thus it comes as no surprise that the average number of occupants for a household is nearly three, with families with children being a common household typology. Private spaces were also quite similar across the properties surveyed, with the usages of these spaces also being quite similar. The most surprising result here is the distinct lack of usable spaces adjacent to the street – all of the functional outdoor spaces were located at the rear of each property.

Household averages

20141007 gipps and stanley community #4

The average length of time each resident has lived in the area was higher than initially expected, but not surprising giving the high number of you who own your own home.

The daily commute

20141007 gipps and stanley community #5

As the area of focus is an inner Melbourne suburb, it comes as no surprise that residents can easily access all parts of Melbourne. The large variety in daily commute destinations suggests that you wholeheartedly take advantage of this centralised location.

Commute transport modes

20141007 gipps and stanley community #6

Despite the close proximity to Richmond railway station and relatively low average commute distance, very few of you indicated that you use public transport, instead opting to drive. This is quite surprising, and will be a key consideration in moving forwards with the planning of this project.

Occupations

20141007 gipps and stanley community #7

A fairly even distribution of professions was reported, but it didn’t seem to correlate to distance travelled in daily commutes, or to any opinion expressed in the second part of the survey.

To summarise, here are the findings based on this demographic component of the survey:

  • There is a fairly even divide of genders and ages throughout the area.
  • An overwhelming majority of you own your own home.
  • Functional outdoor spaces are a rarity at the front of houses, but very common at the rear of houses.
  • Further to this, most outdoor spaces are too small to accommodate anything beyond sedentary activities such as sitting and relaxing or dining. Many rear courtyards also function as car spaces, despite the street offering adequate parking the majority of the time. Residents with children indicated that even with rear courtyards, there wasn’t enough space for the children to play, and instead opted to play at the rear of their properties, where there is significantly less traffic than Stanley or Gipps Streets.
  • Driving is the preferred method of transport, despite living in close proximity to Richmond railway station and an average commute distance of only 7.35km.

Coming up next will be the results of what you thought of the street, and how you can see it being improved.


Image sources

1. Survey respondents, this and subsequent images copyright the author.
2. Gender, age and ownership
.
3. Households and private open space.
4. Miscellaneous averages.
5. Commute destinations.
6. Commute transport modes.
7. Occupationals.

Advertisements

Gipps and Stanley Streets traffic conclusions

Based on the traffic data recorded and previously introduced, a number of patterns have been distinguished for traffic movements along Gipps and Stanley Streets, Richmond. These patterns will be very useful in planning the theoretical usage of the site. As noted in my previous entry, observation sessions examined the numbers of cars, bicycles and pedestrians using the two streets, the number of arrivals and departures, direction of travel, and time taken for each user to move through the street.

This analysis uses the data collected to arrive at an understanding of how the site is currently used, why this may be, and how this may affect future planning. You can download an excel spreadsheet containing the full set of observational and analytical data here (39kb).

20140924 gipps and stanley traffic conclusions #1
Overall average number of users of each street per hour

Using this data, it would appear that on average:

  • 1031 cars use Gipps Street each day, compared to 400 for Stanley Street.
  • 35 bikes use Gipps Street each day, compared to 9 for Stanley Street.
  • 223 pedestrians use Gipps Street each day, compared to 157 for Stanley Street.
  • It is likely that these totals are a bit high, as they have not taken into account an assumed reduction of traffic through the night.

As mentioned in my previous post, there was a strong variation between so called peak and off-peak periods. Here’s a more in-depth look at how they compared:

  • Gipps Street has 15% more cars during the day than during morning and evening peak periods. It has consistent car use on weekends.
  • Stanley Street has 38% more cars during the day than during morning and evening peak periods. It has 9% fewer car on weekends.
  • Gipps Street has 66% fewer bicycles during the day than during morning and evening peak periods. It has consistent bicycle use on weekends.
  • Stanley Street has 20% fewer bicycles during the day than during morning and evening peak periods. Only one bicycle was observed on the weekend, in the evening.
  • Gipps Street has 27% fewer pedestrians during the day than during morning and evening peak periods. It has 13% more pedestrians on weekends.
  • Stanley Street has 89% more pedestrians during the day than during morning and evening peak periods. It has 6% fewer pedestrians on weekends.
20140924 gipps and stanley traffic conclusions #2
Overall average travel time for users of each street

Using this data, it would appear that on average:

  • On weekdays, cars move at a speed of 24.7km/h on Gipps Street and 24.1km/h on Stanley Street.
  • On weekends, cars move at a speed of 23.9km/h (3.5% slower) on Gipps Street and 25.4km/h (4.8% faster) on Stanley Street.
  • On weekdays, bicycles move at a speed of 19.0km/h on Gipps Street and 16.6km/h on Stanley Street.
  • On weekends, bicycles move at a speed of 18.3km/h (3.6% slower) on Gipps Street and 16.6km/h (the same speed) on Stanley Street.
  • On weekdays, pedestrians move at a speed of 5.6km/h on Gipps Street and 7.1km/h on Stanley Street.
  • On weekends, pedestrians move at a speed of 6.5km/h (1.6% faster) on Gipps Street and 6.01km/h (17.5% slower) on Stanley Street.

Additionally:

  • Cars and bicycles rarely have to wait at the roundabout, permitting rapid travel times.
  • The surveyed section of Stanley Street was larger than that of Gipps Street, accounting for the longer travel time.
20140924 gipps and stanley traffic conclusions #3
Overall difference in weekday and weekend traffic for Gipps Street
20140924 gipps and stanley traffic conclusions #4
Overall difference in weekday and weekend traffic for Stanley Street

Gipps and Stanley Streets have a similar ratio between car, bicycle and pedestrian use.

20140924 gipps and stanley traffic conclusions #5
Overall difference in arrivals and departures between streets

Using this data, it would appear that on average:

  • In Gipps Street, 3% of cars either arrive in or depart from the area. Of the 172 cars observed each hour, 5 arrive or depart.
  • In Stanley Street, 13% of cars either arrive in or depart from the area. Of the 67 cars observed each hour, 9 arrive or depart.
  • In Gipps Street, 10% of bicycles either arrive in or depart from the area. Of the 12 bicycles observed every two hours, 1 arrives or departs.
  • In Stanley Street, 10% of bicycles either arrive in or depart from the area. Of the 10 bicycles observed every five hours, 1 arrives or departs.
  • In Gipps Street, 6% of pedestrians either arrive in or depart from the area. Of the 37 pedestrians observed each hour, 2 arrive or depart.
  • In Stanley Street, 16% of pedestrians either arrive in or depart from the area. Of the 26 pedestrians observed each hour, 4 arrive or depart.
20140924 gipps and stanley traffic conclusions #6
Proportion of turning directions from each side of the intersection
  • Very few cars exit the roundabout travelling north, making it by far the least utilised side of the intersection.
  • For the most part, turning is an irregularity. Most cars travel directly through.
  • The western side of the roundabout is by far the most popular exit for turning traffic.
20140924 gipps and stanley traffic conclusions #7
Balance of traffic on either side of the intersection
20140924 gipps and stanley traffic conclusions #8
Traffic volume of additional street users beyond cars, bicycles and pedestrians

From this information, these overall conclusions can be reached:

  • Both Gipps and Stanley Streets appear to ignore the regular peak hour of Melbourne, with more cars on the road during the middle of the day.
  • Gipps Street facilitates a significantly higher amount of traffic than Stanley Street. This is most likely a result of rat-running by cars avoiding nearby Swan Street.
  • The ratio of cars and bicycles to pedestrians is much higher on Gipps Street, indicating that Stanley Street is either more usable for pedestrians in its current state, or that there is a higher demand for pedestrian usability.
  • The speed of users varies greatly between modes of transportation, but only marginally between streets. Increased traffic on Gipps Street has no impact on the overall speed, indicating that both streets facilitate traffic flow far better than they need to.
  • Proportionally, pedestrian usage of the streets is much higher on weekends. This would indicate that weekday car and bike traffic is largely work related.

With traffic observations and analysis wrapped up, the next step will be to consult the local community on their opinions of the street. Stay tuned to find out what residents feel is lacking in the street, what they might want in the street, and how they think such a project should be rolled out.


Image sources

  1. Overall traffic volume, this and subsequent images copyright the author.
  2. Traffic speed.
  3. Weekend traffic – Gipps Street.
  4. Weekend traffic – Stanley Street.
  5. Arrivals and departures.
  6. Cardinal traffic balance of intersection.
  7. Turning directions at intersection.
  8. Other street users.

Gipps and Stanley Streets traffic analysis

20140923 gipps and stanley traffic #1

Data for this analysis was collected over 6x observations sessions conducted between the 19th and 22nd of August. Observation sessions catalogued the numbers of cars, bicycles and pedestrians using Gipps and Stanley Streets in Richmond. They also noted the number of arrivals and departures, the direction of travel, and time taken to move through the street.

Statistics recorded are presented here according to the number of users per hour, for each transport type.

20140924 gipps and stanley traffic #2

Weekday morning
Wednesday 20th August
6:45 – 9:15am
Light wind, cloudy, 7 degrees

20140924 gipps and stanley traffic #3

Weekend morning
Saturday 22nd August
8:00 – 9:15am
Sunny, no wind, 9 degrees

20140924 gipps and stanley traffic #4

Weekday daytime
Friday 21st August
12:15 – 13:15pm
Sunny, light wind, 17 degrees

20140924 gipps and stanley traffic #5

Weekend daytime
Saturday 22nd August
12:15 – 13:30pm
Mostly sunny, no wind, 20 degrees

20140924 gipps and stanley traffic #6

Weekday evening
Tuesday 20th August
15:45 – 18:15pm
Overcast, no wind, 12 degrees

20140924 gipps and stanley traffic #7

Weekend evening
Saturday 22nd August
17:00 – 18:15pm
Some clouds, no wind, 18 degrees

My observations revealed a high overall variation between peak and off-peak hours:

  • Both Gipps and Stanley Streets have the most cars during weekday days, outside of traditional peak periods. Weekend car traffic is lower and more consistent.
  • Both Gipps and Stanley Streets have fewer bikes during the day on weekdays, and a higher, consistent number on weekends.
  • Gipps Street has fewer pedestrians during the day on weekdays while Stanley Street has significantly more. Conversely, Gipps Street has more pedestrians during the day on weekends while Stanley Street has fewer.

Stay tuned for a more in-depth analysis of these observations.


Image sources

  1. Site plan, this and subsequent images copyright the author.
  2. Weekday morning traffic.
  3. Weekend morning traffic.
  4. Weekday daytime traffic.
  5. Weekend daytime traffic.
  6. Weekday evening traffic.
  7. Weekend evening traffic.

Intersection of Gipps and Stanley Streets

20140907 gipps and stanley #1

20140907 stanley street #2

One of the most important aspects of Streets Without Cars is the heavy dependency on the community who are to become stakeholders of the project, as well as the suitability of the area in question. To that end, primary research and first hand documentation becomes an invaluable tool in the process of selecting an area which has the potential to benefit from an urban design intervention.

To that end, a large region must be broadly documented, so that an informed decision can be made on where to focus further research. The City of Yarra was the starting point for this research, being separated into fifteen smaller sections (one for each studio participant). The area allocated to me was the southwest region of Melba Ward.

20140907 gipps and stanley #3
Zone 2 is bordered by Bridge Road to the north, Church Street to the east, the Yarra River to the south and Punt Road to the west.

Every single street within this area was visited and documented in an effort to gain a greater understanding of the area. Each street had a variety of qualities documented: street length, number of lanes, street width, asphalt width, road usage, building types, parking type availability, presence of bike lanes, presence of footpaths, presence of nature strips and presence of trees. From this data, further information could be generated about what is characteristic of the area, in addition to assist in both quantitative and qualitative analysis of suitability for further development.

The findings are as follows:

20140907 gipps and stanley #4

20140907 gipps and stanley #5

20140907 gipps and stanley #6

20140907 gipps and stanley #7

20140907 gipps and stanley #8

20140907 gipps and stanley #9

20140907 gipps and stanley #10

20140907 gipps and stanley #11

20140907 gipps and stanley #12

A collection of individual street data can be downloaded here in .pdf format (31Mb). A spreadsheet documenting this information, as well as the results of initial analysis, can be downloaded here (26Kb).

In moving forwards, a number of streets were considered before ultimately choosing one to focus on. Key selection criteria considered the character of each street, as well as what is immediately adjacent, in order to ensure a well-integrated proposal, as well as basic considerations of a rough housing typology which would be catered to and physical restrictions of the site. Rather than deciding on a single street, the intersection of Gipps Street and Stanley Street in Richmond was settled on as it provided an interesting possibility for further development. The majority of the properties in the area have car access via the rear, in addition to exceptionally wide streets where the space is simply not required for the level of traffic they facilitate. Being situated in a primarily residential area, within close proximity to main roads, is also a favourable quality of the area.

A much more rigorous analysis of the site is next to come.


Image sources

1. Gipps Street Documentation, copyright the author.
2. Stanley Street Documentation, copyright the author.
3. Melba Zone 2, copyright the author.
4. Building types, copyright the author.
5. Street types, copyright the author.
6. Prevalence of footpaths, copyright the author.
7. Prevalence of nature strips, copyright the author.
8. Street orientations, copyright the author.
9. Prevalence of bike paths, copyright the author.
10. Parking types, copyright the author.
11. Prevalence of trees, copyright the author.
12. Basic statistics of documented streets, copyright the author.

The Serpentine Galleries Pavilion

20140816 serpenting pavilion radic

The Serpentine Galleries Pavilion is a temporary structure commissioned by the Serpentine Galleries on an annual basis. The architect is given a brief with the simplest of requirements: the pavilion must include a cafe open during the day, and facilitate a variety of exhibitions during the evening, from live art, to music and public speeches.

20140816 serpenting pavilion hadid

The pavilion first came to existence in the year 2000, when Zaha Hadid (a member of the Serpentine Galleries) was commissioned to design a temporary structure for the galleries’ 30th anniversary gala. The entire project used only the budget which would have been allocated to hiring an event marquee for the gala. Hadid’s pavilion was met with such universal adoration by the visiting public that it was left standing for the remainder of the summer. The popularity of the structure prompted the Serpentine Galleries to repeat the exercise the following year, when they invited Daniel Libeskind to design a second summer pavilion.

20140816 serpenting pavilion libeskind

The Serpentine Galleries provide only one prompt to their chosen architect each year: that they reinvent the idea of a tent or temporary pavilion. Beyond this, the form of the pavilion each year is left to the commissioned architect to decide.

20140816 serpenting pavilion siza

As such, the form varies drastically from year to year. Alvaro Siza and Eduardo Souta de Moura with Arup (2005) created a completely enclosed structure, utilising a series of interlocking partitions to span the length of the pavilion without the need for columns. In contrast, Sou Fujimoto (2013) designed a pavilion based entirely on a series of interconnected steel bars, resulting in a cloud-like space which suggests enclosure more than provides it.

20140816 serpenting pavilion fujimoto

The pavilions are largely funded by sponsorship and donated services from stakeholders involved in its design and construction. A portion of the consultants’  fees are also covered by the sale of the pavilion at the end of its exhibition period. The budget has increased substantially from Hadid’s shoestring pavilion in 2000, coming in at £750,000 for Jean Nouvel’s iteration in 2010.

20140816 serpenting pavilion nouvel

The transient life of the Serpentine Galleries Pavilions is a strong example of architecture responding to an explicit social need. Without the initial popularity of the 2000 pavilion, the now world-famous Serpentine tradition would never have been established. The is precisely the community response that Streets Without Cars is seeking: by creating something that not only caters to the needs of a community, but responds to their lifestyles, ambitions and desires too.


Images sources

  1. Serpentine Galleries Pavilion 2014 by Smiljan Radić. Copyright Iwan Baan.
  2. Serpentine Galleries Pavilion 2000, by Zaha Hadid. Copyright Hélène Binet.
  3. Serpentine Galleries Pavilion 2001, by Daniel Libeskind with Arup. Copyright Hélène Binet.
  4. Serpentine Galleries Pavilion 2005, by Álvaro Siza and Eduardo Souto de Moura with Arup. Copyright Sylvain Deleu.
  5. Serpentine Galleries Pavilion 2013, by Sou Fujimoto. Copyright Jim Stephenson.
  6. Serpentine Galleries Pavilion 2010, by Jean Nouvel. Copyright Phillip Ruault.