Planning for Freeman's Bay

Source: Georgia Sanders Photos, 2008

Planning Studio 123
The second studio paper involved undergoing a contextual site analysis for Freemans Bay. The purpose of this studio paper was to work in groups and develop a proposal that would increase the net density from 35 dwellings per hectare to 75 dwellings per hectare, in order to accommodate future growth on the site. The site analysis involved looking at the following things:
• Historical development of the site: how has the past shaped the built form and characteristics of the site?
• Biophysical conditions of the site: topography, wind direction, sun direction , vegetation
• Land uses on the site: relationship between public open space, residential development, commercial development, community facilities, scale of buildings
• Constraints and opportunities of the site: block structure

Firstly a bit of background to the Freemans Bay area:

The site is a significant site in the Auckland context due to its locality and its historical character. Firstly, the importance of the locality of the site is due to the fact that it is in close proximity to the motorway, CBD , Ponsonby and Victoria Park.
Secondly, the character of the site has been largely shaped by its past. Originally, the site was a working class area with many of its inhabitants working in urban factories. In 1935 the Auckland City Council claimed that 35% of the housing was unfit for habitation. It wasn’t until the 1950s that the council recognised there was a real problem with housing as it was unfit for habitation. Their response to this was to plan 5 “Superblocks” for medium density council housing that would increase net density to 12’000. However, this plan was too ambitious and it wasn’t until the 1970s that the council deemed the site where the study area is located as a “reclamation area” whereby there was a plan for urban renewal to take place. This plan change was to focus on the needs of the residents through developing a site that would provide neighborhood-scale amenities including public open space, improved neighborhood facilities, recreation spaces, improved street layout –with the introduction of cul-de-sacs and town-housing.

With this in mind, the studio group proposal was intended to retain the historical characteristics and landscape character of the site such as trees, vegetation, view shafts and open spaces. Furthermore issues and constraints of the site were identified and mapped out including lack of permeability, inaccessible open spaces and slope of the sight. However, these issues and constraints of the site were seen as opportunities as the proposal addressed these issues in order to improve the well being of residents on the site and to accommodate future growth on the site.



The proposal:

We decided collectively as a group to divide the block into 4 smaller blocks. The proposal outlined that the housing typology on the site would consist of 4-5 story medium-rise apartments on the higher slopes to the south of the site. 2-3 story terraces would occupy the northern part of the site for the purpose of increasing density on the site and retaining views to the city, Victoria Park and the harbor. Not only this but, the proposal also took into consideration achieving greater sustainable outcomes through retaining green open spaces within the site to enhance biodiversity, ecosystems, amenity and recreational enjoyment. This use of public space would also work to enhance social cohesion in the neighborhood as it would provide an opportunity for neighbors to socially interact with one another. Furthermore, a “home zone” was proposed which would allow for pedestrian friendly access through the site to encourage walking and cycling. Finally, higher densities and mix-use development would reduce the need for residents to get into their cars and drive to the nearest supermarket to shop. Instead, they would be able to access everyday needs within the site.

I found this studio paper to be really interesting because it enabled me to understand how to design a block layout giving consideration to a number of things including historical characteristics, biophysical characteristics, landscape character, land uses, housing typologies and working with densities.

During studio week each group constructed a model as a visual representation of our proposals and we showcased them during studio week. Not only was it fun but it was a good team-building exercise.

The most interesting aspect of the paper I found was studying housing typologies. There were a few individual assignments leading up to group work based on analyzing housing typologies including low-density stand alone houses, medium density row and terrace housing and high density high rise buildings. Floor plans were studied and matched by criteria to enhance the well-being of residents. I found this highly interesting as it enabled me to understand what types of housing typologies are suited to different sites and what qualities of plans should contribute to a better quality of life and more sustainable outcomes.