3863 11 Englisch CIDEP Kern K3 ek - Stadt Wien...05/ Borneo Eiland 2 32 Type 2a 35 06/ Nove Rusovce...

WERKSTATTBERICHTEISBN 978-3-902576-50-7

PATT

ERNS

FORNE

WUR

BANDE

VELO

PMEN

TS

PATTERNS FOR NEWURBAN DEVELOPMENTS

City of Vienna, Municipal Department 18 – Urban Development and Planning,Capital of the SR Bratislava, Municipal Department - Coordination of Area Systems

Funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)Nr. 116

Werkstattb

erich

tNr.11

6A_OBALKA DEFINITIVA:Sestava 1 16. 8. 2011 21:23 Stránka 1

PATTERNS OF NEW URBAN DEVELOPMENTS

Compiled on behalf of

the City of Vienna, Municipal Department 18 – Urban Development and Planning, andthe City of Bratislava, Municipal Department - Coordination of Area Systems

by

Architectural studio Franz KuzmichFranz Kuzmich, Stefan Kernstock, Gerhard Kleindienst, Lena Neudecker

Institute of Urban Design and Landscape Architecture,Faculty of Architecture and Regional Planning of Vienna University of TechnologyPeter Zlonicky, Bernhard Eder, Christoph Luchsinger

Faculty of Architecture of the Slovak University of Technology in BratislavaMaroš Finka, Štefan Buček, Milan Husár, Peter Bláha, Ľubomir Jamečný, Ivana ChvostaľováCyprián Müller, Michal Buček, Vladimír Ondrejička

Plansinn GmbHJohannes Posch, Erik Meinharter, Hanna Posch

coordinated by Michael Rosenberger, MA 18

Supported by the Europea Regional Development (ERD )

A_ALLGEMEINEN TEIL a:Sestava 1 27. 8. 2011 11:02 Stránka 1

n Fund F


Owners and publishers:Municipal Department 18 of the City of ViennaUrban Development and Planningwww.stadtentwicklung.wien.at

Municipal Department - Coordination of Area SystemsBratislava City Magistratewww.bratislava.sk

Project leaders:Michael Rosenberger, Municipal Department 18 of the City of ViennaEleonora Adamcová,Municipal Department - Coordination of Area SystemsBratislava City Magistrate

Content development:Architectural studio Franz KuzmichInstitute of Urban Design and Landscape Architecture,Faculty of Architecture and Regional Planning of Vienna University of TechnologyFaculty of Architecture of the Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava Plansinn GmbH

Graphic design:Karol Izakovič, STU BratislavaTechnical coordination:Willibald Böck, Municipal Department 18

Translation:Sigrid SzabóProof-reader:Sigrid SzabóPrinted by:AV+ Astoria Druckzentrum, WienPrinted on ecological paper from the sample folder of ÖkoKauf Wien

Copyright:2011 – Urban Development Vienna, Bratislava City MagistrateISBN 978-3-902576-50-7 English edition

Project participants:Eleonóra Adamcová Magistrat der Hauptstadt der SR BratislavaMichal Babiar Magistrat der Hauptstadt der SR BratislavaAdriana Bachora Regionale FörderstelleRóbert Barca Eurosense s.r.o BratislavaPeter Bláha STU BratislavaWillibald Böck MA 18Michal Buček STU BratislavaŠtefan Buček STU BratislavaIvana Chvostalová STU BratislavaMargot Deerenberg PlansinnMarek Dinka Magistrat der Hauptstadt der SR BratislavaWolfgang Dvorak MA 18Bernhard Eder TU WienMaroš Finka STU BratislavaWolfgang Gerlich PlansinnMartin Göckler MA 18Astrid Hergovich Büro ImplanPia Hlava MA 18Silvia Hofer Wohnfonds WienKurt Hofstetter MA 18Vladimír Hrdý Magistrat der Hauptstadt der SR BratislavaMilan Husár STU BratislavaNataša Hurtová Magistrát hl. m. SR BratislavaKarol Izakovič STU BratislavaĽubomír Jamečný STU BratislavaKatarina Kapišinska Magistrat der Hauptstadt der SR BratislavaEva Kail MD BD Gruppe Planung, WienLea Karakolevova Magistrat der Hauptstadt der SR BratislavaStefan Kernstock Büro Arch. KuzmichGerhard Kleindienst Büro Arch. KuzmichFranz Kobermaier MA 19Franz Kuzmich Büro Arch. KuzmichChristoph Luchsinger TU WienThomas Madreiter MA 18Erik Meinharter PlansinnLena Neudecker Büro Arch. KuzmichVladimír Ondrejička STU BratislavaJohannes Posch PlansinnHanna Posch PlansinnKurt Puchinger MD BD Gruppe PlanungMagdalene Rakel MA 18Michael Rosenberger MA 18Gaby Schinko TINA ViennaWolfram Schneider PRISMA Wien GmbHManfred Schönfeld MA 21BThomas Titz MA 21APeter Zlonicky TU Wien

Legal Notice



Legal Notice 2Table of Contents 3Foreword 5Organisational Framework 6Introduction 8Definition and Glossary 14

Overview of Types and Examples 21Type 1 2301/ Wohnanlage Tamariskengasse 2402/ Wohnhausanlage Traviatagasse 2603/ Siedlung am Park 2804/ Borneo Eiland 1 3005/ Borneo Eiland 2 32Type 2a 3506/ Nove Rusovce 36Type 2b 3907/ Drotarska 4008/ De Bongerd 4209/ Siedlung Ruggächern 4410/ Wohnhäuser am Mühlweg 4611/ Karree St. Marx C 4812/ Wohnsiedlung Werdwies 50Type 3a 5313/ An den alten Schanzen 5414/ Erzherzog-Karl-Stadt B 5615/ Beddington Zerobed 58Type 3b 6116/ Pekna Cesta 6217/ Wohnen am Laaer Wald 6418/ Gartensiedlung Ottakring 6619/ Wohnhausanlage Katharinengasse 68Type 4 7120/ Satzingerweg C 7221/ Oberlaa – Liesing Bach 7422/ Am grünen Mühlweg 7623/ Leberberg 7824/ Rozadol 8025/ Südliche Langobardenstrasse 82Type5 8526/ Satzingerweg B 8627/ Erzherzog-Karl-Stadt A 8828/ West Point Grey 9029/ Museum Place 92

Type 6 9530/ Kajplats 9631/ Monte Laa C 9832/ Wohnpark Perfektastrasse 10033/ Bike City 10234/ Trnavka Galvaniho 10435/ Haus mit Veranden 106Type 7 10936/ Oberlaa 11037/ Quartier Vauban 11238/ Drotarska Martinengova 11439/ In der Wiesen 11640/ Karlova Ves nam. sv. Frantiska 11841/ Autofreie Mustersiedlung 12042/ Octopus 12243/ Koloseo 124Type 8 12744/ Vinex Siedlung – Ypenburg 12845/ Bebauung Klee 13046/ Vajnorska 13247/ Frauen – Werk - Stadt 13448/ Eurovea 13649/ Lind, Little Italy 13850/ Kagran West „Donaufelderhof“ 14051/ Olympic Village Par. 10 14252/ Alley 24 144Type 9a 14753/ Satzingerweg_A 14854/ Monte Laa / Elf_Zwei 15055/ Das Brückenhaus / Kabelwerk 15256/ Karlova Ves – Karloveska Zatoka 15457/ Silodam 156Type 9b 15958/ Wienerberg City 16059/ Tatracity 16260/ 888 Beach Avenue 164

Table of Illustrations 166Abbreviations 167

Table of Contents





5

Foreword

In our world, many reasons advocate more compact urban design – shortdistances, variety, ecology and cost efficiency are only some of them. Es-pecially today, when urban environments are constantly gaining in impor-tance, the questions of the hour are frequently: how can we draw oncontemporary design concepts to create the degree of urban density thatis essential for numerous urban qualities and facilities? How can high-quality living and efficiency be combined? How to create pleasant urbanenvironments while at the same time using our resources as sparingly aspossible?

Urban sprawl is easy to bring about; car-friendly settlement types do notrequire a lot of forethought. Compact cities are a different beast – they arecharacterised by a constant interplay of innumerable factors; solutionsmust be optimised and thought through to the last detail. This has alwaysbeen the great achievement of cities, and this is why they are often sosuccessful. New construction projects – no matter whether they concernurban expansion or restructuring – must attain these qualities as well.

This publication is to give as comprehensive as possible an overview ofthe range of available solutions and elements at the disposal of urban de-velopers. All examples shown have already been built, often followingcompetitions or other procedures, and may be considered models for re-flections on urban development. However, the word “model” should notbe understood as a perfect example or gold standard to imitate, butrather as a prototype of urbanistic solutions that visualises and illustratesthe communication of individual ideas and objectives and serves as astarting-point for the evolution of original ideas.

Given this premise, we hope that the present catalogue will provide allactors of urban development – be they experts, interested citizens or po-litical decision-makers – with a tool to facilitate and accelerate planningand fine-tuning processes and bring us all closer to the goal of vibrantnew city quarters with high quality of life.



Organisational Framework

Role of SK-AT ProgrammeThe present publication was compiled in the context of the project CIDEP (City DevelopmentPatterns). The entire venture from project idea to printed publication was financially supported bythe EU Cross-border Cooperation Programme Slovakia-Austria 2007-2013 (see also www.sk-at.eu).Co-financing enabled the participating partners to address the subject-matter of the project withthe necessary depth and scope.

CIDEP as part of SK-AT ProgrammeEuropean Territorial Cooperation is one of the European Commission’s objectives for the 2007-2013 funding period. One instrument towards attaining this goal lies in funding programmesgeared at establishing and intensifying cross-border cooperation along the borders of EU MemberStates.

The top strategic goal of the Cross-border Cooperation Programme Slovakia-Austria 2007-2013 isto create a region that due to its dynamic, knowledge-based regional economy, attractive socialenvironment and intact ecological systems can act as a pioneer for Europe.

The Slovak-Austrian border region presents excellent prerequisites for becoming one of the best-developed economic spaces in the EU. The two capital cities Bratislava and Vienna are located atonly 60 km distance from each other; most company headquarters, universities and research insti-tutions of both countries are concentrated in this area. As a result, the region is ideally suited forevolving into a hub of economy and research in Central Europe. The Cross-border Cooperation Pro-gramme Slovakia-Austria 2007-2013 aims at supporting the emergence of a cross-border learningregion.

Activity field 2.2 “Sustainable Spatial Development and Sound Regional Governance” promotesseveral measures to which the present CIDEP project wants to contribute.

Support of a joint cross-border spatial planning perspective: the cooperation of expertsfrom the urban planning departments of both Vienna and Bratislava as well as fromthe field of economy led to the development of a joint understanding of tasks and so-lutions.

Setting-up of durable structures: the sustainability of the housing development typesanalysed was a constant element of research. Finding a joint answer to this issue wasa key project goal.

Cooperation to foster integrated and sustainable spatial and regional planning policies:by discussing and agreeing on joint values regarding viable housing developmenttypes, the findings and experience of the project will influence the administrative prac-tice of the participating partners. Moreover, the contacts established can be reacti-vated when dealing with further questions at a later date.

6

◣

◣

◣



Project goalIt was the project goal of CIDEP to develop the present catalogue of housing development typespotentially suitable for urban expansion ventures in the Vienna/Bratislava region. All types and ex-amples are described in comparable fashion based on uniform indicators and parameters, visu-alised and illustrated in a clearcut, universally intelligible manner.

Project structure/participantsThe project was initiated and managed by the Vienna City Administration, Municipal Department18, and the Bratislava City Magistrate. The Viennese architectural studio Franz Kuzmich, the Insti-tute of Urban Design and Landscape Architecture at the Faculty of Architecture and Regional Plan-ning of Vienna University of Technology as well as the Faculty of Architecture of the SlovakUniversity of Technology in Bratislava were commissioned with preparing and developing the con-tent of this publication.In the context of moderated workshops and a study trip, the project team collaborated with amonitoring group composed of experts in order to integrate practical experiences from a widerange of disciplines.

7



Introduction

Importance of housing development types as a subject of analysis

Urban growthMany European cities – let alone the Asian or African mega-cities – are expecting a phase of demo-graphic growth. This also goes for Vienna and Bratislava including their environs. A notable popu-lation increase has already occurred in recent years and is likely to continue over the next fewdecades. This is compounded by two other demographic phenomena: the population shares of eld-erly persons and migrants are both markedly on the rise.

Population growth and augmenting prosperity lead to a clear increase in floorspace requirementsfor housing, education, offices, services, etc. It is therefore an imperative of our time to systemati-cally address the question of how the (presumably needed) hundreds of thousands of newdwellings should look like, as this will decisively influence the look of the inner and outer urban ex-pansion zones of our cities, to specify the tasks they will have to fulfil and to clarify how residentsas well as society will be able to afford them.

Energy, efficiency and sustainabilityIn addition to the fact that many new spaces must be created for a much higher number of peo-ple, the question of necessary restrictions comes again to the fore. Modern solutions must be“smart”, i.e. intelligent in making the most of relatively little. The times when the possibilities fu-elled by cheap energy and resources seemed endless and suitably lavish structures could be cre-ated are over. Settlement types directly impact mobility patterns, land use, travel distances,self-determination in old age, dealing with the effects of climate change and resource consump-tion. New buildings and city quarters must be constructed in keeping with the available possibili-ties while yet creating high utility value. Many believe that cities can indeed be productive,efficient and sustainable and hence contribute significantly to successfully coping with topical and,above all, future challenges.

Functioning densityFrom the outset of the project, it was evident that one of the key achievements of urban structuraltypes lies in their high density, and that many advantages of the city (walkable distances, efficientpublic transport, shops for everyday necessaries, ...) are in fact only made possible by this density.At the same time, high density entails drawbacks that partly nullify these advantages. The searchfor suitable urban settlement types mostly concerns solutions that enable high development den-sity combined with equally high quality of living. The earlier we identify development types thatbalance the contradiction between required high density on the one hand and privacy on the otherhand, the more easily can citizens be provided with attractive housing that is durably affordableand ecologically sound.

Providing an overview of possibilitiesAny urbanistic plan begins by outlining a programme for its development area. Before decisionsregarding land purchases, investments and architecture can be taken, the prime question is: whatforms of use are possible in this site, and to what extent? This is where the present “catalogue”comes in to supply information. Already implemented projects highlight the range of availablebasic structural types and provide a quick overview of what can be done and how potential vol-umes would appear and look like. Moreover, important characteristics of the model projects areidentified as well. In any case, the authors recommend that readers complete this first impressionby visiting the development types proposed on-site and using them as “show-houses” to obtain afirst-hand understanding of their real-life impact.

8



This catalogue is to offer a largely complete overview of urban architectural and structural designsranging from densified single-family units to maximum-density high-rise quarters. All available so-lutions were to be represented so as to provide a clear picture of potential options: as a kind ofthought experiment, readers can try to select one (or several) of these possibilities to choose the“right” settlement type, i.e. the one most appropriate for their specific urban expansion area. Thisis why actually implemented projects from a comparable cultural setting were compiled for thiscatalogue. Many of the projects showcased were selected in the context of competitions or otherqualification procedures or specially singled out for praise in relevant literature or local practice.Visionary projects that (possibly for good reasons) have not yet moved into the realm of actual im-plementation were deliberately, albeit reluctantly, excluded.

“Patterns serve as a direct bridge to design”, urban planner Kevin Lynch states in his book “SitePlanning”. Few urbanistic design tasks are so unique, he contends, as to defy apt description andcommunication on the basis of examples. Above all analogues and images based on experienceallow for a quick run-through of design scenarios, thus triggering an iterative process involvingstakeholders. Recurring, similar and hence typical solutions to specific tasks moreover tend toevolve over time and can serve as starting-points for urban design work.

Regarding the quality of the projects presented: these examples are no collection of best practicesbut are to illustrate and concretise possible urbanistic solutions. Of course, many examples aresuccessful, were planned by distinguished architects, chosen in the context of competitions andmay be regarded as models. At the same time, however, quality standards are highly dependenton the subjective assessment and preferences of readers/users. This is borne out by the fact thatsome people prefer to inhabit Gründerzeit houses in condensed urban neighbourhoods, while oth-ers favour row houses with small gardens at the periphery. A family van most certainly is no sportscar, and vice versa. The diagrams, statistics and texts of this catalogue are to render the charac-teristics, pros and cons of the different building types transparent. The set of qualities best suitedfor a concrete site and target group must be identified by the readers of this catalogue.

How to use this publicationThe main body of this catalogue is structured into 12 chapters, each describing one urbanistic ar-chetype. These development types were derived from research into an enormous variety of proj-ects implemented roughly over the past 20 years. Every type is illustrated by several examplesshown on one double page each. On the one hand, these examples are to provide a clearcut un-derstanding of the type in question; on the other hand, they are to highlight the diverse applica-tion possibilities of this type. The chapter “Definitions and glossary” provides readers with aglossary of the most important terms used in describing the various development types to ex-pound on their meaning and technical relevance.

Time-tried and novel methods of researchIn part at least, the availability of new technical tools enabled the research for this publication toassume a wider scope than comparable earlier works. The present project made use of a great va-riety of information capturing and evaluation techniques, such as data from geographic informa-tion systems, satellite images, aerial images, oblique aerial views, project databases, online andlibrary-based literature research, Google Street View, open-source maps, e-mail and webform com-munication, etc.

Coupled with the involvement of seasoned experts and interdisciplinary study trips, these meth-ods allowed for the implementation of a wide-ranging research project within the available frame-work. As a result, readers may expect a largely complete catalogue of currently possibledevelopment and estate types. The next section will look at the approach employed in greater de-tail.

International search: whatever is possibleThe present compilation of housing development types and examples is the outcome of an exten-sive search process. As a first step based on a rough concept of types encountered in comparablecultural settings, the authors looked for suitable, already implemented projects. The constructionhistories of Vienna and Bratislava over the past two decades were duly analysed. Out of several

9


10


After collecting and roughly analysing these examples, the material gathered allowed for a reviewof the originally sketched typology in cooperation with the members of the expert monitoringgroup. Furthermore, projects representative of every type were selected as examples to give anoverview of the full range of possible solutions. It became apparent that in some cases no exam-ples of specific densities combined with specific building types could be identified, while exam-ples were numerous for other types. The selection process was therefore fine-tuned until at leastone example per density level could be selected for every type (where possible). In those caseswhere several possibilities were available, it was tried to highlight the range of possible solutionsfor one type.

It had been a key motive in the selection process to include mainly projects that could be viewedas exemplary and future-oriented. However, this rigid logic had to be abandoned since the expertsinvolved could not agree on what projects to define as exemplary; neither was it possible to iden-tify unreservedly recommendable examples for all situations described in the catalogue. For thesake of completeness and as benchmarks, the publication thus also includes projects that sufferfrom weaknesses and drawbacks and thus will probably be applied less frequently in the future.Readers can derive the quality attributed to each project from the given parameters, illustrations,descriptive text and, ideally, also from on-site visits.

Search for parametersThe value of a catalogue lies in the possibility of comparing individual products and selecting a so-lution for an upcoming planning task. Thus a key first step in compiling the present catalogue layin the question of what characteristics to draw on to describe settlements. At the outset of theproject, a discussion focused on what traits of designs are most significant for the urbanistic scaleand tried to operationalise these traits on the basis of indicators. This revealed that the number ofthemes considered relevant is much larger than those for which suitable measurement methodsare actually available or could be established in the course of this project. In practice, reliance onverbal descriptions and expert assessments proved inevitable whenever no viable parameterswere available for a given situation. This indicates that many qualities and needs of urban plan-ning have not yet been defined or rendered measurable with sufficient precision and that the as-sessment of projects or project proposals will in practice be often incomplete.

Finally, the present catalogue aims in three ways to enable readers to evaluate the developmentexamples presented:

◣ Graphical representations and photos of standardised situations

◣ Verbal descriptions of projects based on a uniform structure

◣ Urbanistic parameters and typologies where possible and useful

hundreds of projects, the authors selected those that represented a certain type effectively orproposed interesting solutions within a given context. Projects outside this geographical areawere moreover identified by means of literature research, personal contacts or experiences ofthe compilers of the catalogue.



Moreover, all construction projects feature a map and detailed address and can thus be visited toobtain a first-hand, on-site impression.

The subjects of this study were to be “urban components”, i.e. areas provided as fully as possiblewith a range of facilities that in addition to useful internal floorspace include ancillary spaces, suchas green and open zones, as well as amenities serving the local community, such as kinder-gartens, schools and shops for everyday supply. Theoretically, these components are summable atan urbanistic level, which would produce some indication of the capacity and quality of newly builtquarters. However, since contemporary urban planning largely discards such homogeneous en-sembles in favour of diversity and mixed use, the subject of the present study had to be curtailedto the scope of actually implemented projects (often covering less than one hectare), hence aban-doning the idea of measuring the full provision with public open spaces, local shops, etc. on thebasis of concrete projects. To work around this problem, one can give a detailed description of thefunctions provided by the individual development and then aggregate the missing remainder as afictitious notion. In assessing examples – in particular densities –, this aspect is highly relevant, be-cause some settlement types integrate a comprehensive set of amenities (open areas, circulationareas, communal facilities and rooms, shop and office spaces, etc.), while others only provide resi-dential floorspace but lack other functions or force residents to fulfil these requirements in theneighbourhood. In the verbal descriptions of the individual projects, these factors were identifiedin greater detail under the headings “Situation within the city”, “Prerequisites of success”, “Qualityand flexibility of use” and finally “Quality of urban space”.

The next sections expound on the structure of the descriptive texts shown on the left side of everyproject presentation. For the parameters given on the right side of the project presentations,please consult the following section (“Definitions and Glossary”).

ContextThe following external factors influencing the quality of housing and living in the respectiveproject are described to provide a context for the individual examples:

◾ Situation within the city, traffic/transport links and infrastructureThis paragraph provides information about the distance between project and citycentre and about the nearest means of public transport/high-level street andmoreover lists relevant supply infrastructure in the closer vicinity (e.g. educa-tional facilities, hospitals, shops, etc.).

◾ Location assetsThis heading describes specific quality-determining characteristics in the directvicinity (e.g. situation next to a green corridor, adjoining a neighbourhood park,directly connected to an Underground station, …) that have a bearing on the(housing) quality of the individual settlement type.

Project descriptionRegarding the development or project area per se, the following aspects were describedand visualised:

◾ Prerequisites of successMany qualities of settlements cited as examples cannot be generalised sincethey depend on specific local or historical aspects. The description of these deci-sive factors of influence is to enable readers to better gauge the achievementsof the respective development or building type.These aspects e.g. include the kind of qualification or planning procedure em-ployed (e.g. competition, developers’ selection procedure, participatory planningprocess) or special architectural or design challenges that were mastered orshould be given particular consideration in connection with this project type.

11



12

◾ Quality and flexibility of use of individual structuresThis paragraph deals with such aspects as:

⚫ Suitability of rooms for daily use (quiet, daylight incidence, quality of lay-outs, natural ventilation, north-facing flats)

⚫ Fostering of a sense of neighbourship (number of dwellings perbuilding/staircase/entrance, rooms for communication and joint activities,access solutions)

⚫ Possibility of integrating non-residential functions (number of storeys, pos-sibility of creating offices or shops, wing depth/useful floorspace, attractiveentrance/lobby zones for enterprises, accessibility by car, frequency andvisibility, handling of noise/exhaust fumes, etc.)

⚫ Are safety needs of users met (anxiety-inducing spaces, social control ofcirculation routes, attractiveness of public spaces and entrance zones)?

⚫ Can shopping facilities within walking distance be created or are already inplace? Experience shows that a supermarket needs the purchasing powerof at least 3,000 local residents to flourish; a range of shops for extendedsupply (supermarket, drugstore chain outlet, tobacconist’s, bank, florist,cafés and restaurants) only makes economic sense starting at 5,000 resi-dents.

◾ Availability and quality of open spacesThis heading describes and assesses open spaces (from public to private) andtheir quality of use within the settlement type analysed, e.g. private gardens,areas for play, sports and communal activities as well as circulatrion routes in-side the development.

⚫ What spatial qualities are generated by the individual project type? Canprivate, communal or public use be implemented with a good qualitystandard, given the project’s density and building type?

⚫ Do flats feature sufficient private open spaces? What open spacesencourage communal use?

⚫ How well are the twofold functions of open spaces - circulation vs. rest andcommunication - balanced?

⚫ Were open spaces designated for young people? What role is assigned tostationary traffic (parked vehicles) in the open spaces?

◾ Neighbourship, communal facilitiesThis heading assesses the potential of the respective development type topromote a sense of neighbourship and community, e.g. by means of shared openspaces, communal rooms in buildings, arrangement of flats into moderately-sized groups or number of flats accessed via one staircase.

◾ Quality of urban spaceThis paragraph addresses the impact of the project on the cityscape, streetscapeand environs and explores to what degree the design chosen allows respondingto these needs. In this context, the following aspects were assessed:

⚫ Suitability for pedestrians (short distances, prospects, vistas and spots ofinterest for pedestrians, such as shops/cafés, etc., avoidance of areasexperienced as uninteresting or unsafe, such as isolated base zones,garages/gates, parking lots, undefined spaces)



⚫ Variety, small dimensions and human scale of buildings, mainly for thebase zone (number of separate buildings and/or uses per front length, pos-sibility of active ground-floor utilisation, possibility of also creating smallunits to enhance variety, design of transition zones between public spaceand buildings, façade structuring of large volumes)

⚫ Public space orientation of buildings by means of shop displays, windows,balconies, transparent building elements, illumination, design of transitionsfrom private to public areas

⚫ Avoidance of shading and visual dominance of streetscape, unobstructedview of scenic spots, landmarks and points of reference

Need for further research inputThe very intensive work for the CIDEP project has shown that despite massive commitment and abroad approach many themes identified at the project outset could by far not be dealt with ex-haustively. Some reasons for this include the following:

Recent urban development tends to eschew large-scale, homogeneously developedareas; multifaceted solutions and small lots dominate. The hypothesis that phenom-ena and parameters can be empirically observed on the basis of ideal-typical projectshad to be largely curtailed. Such an approach would call for the construction of ficti-tious development zones.

Many important parameters cannot be measured reliably on a reasonable time andcost basis and thus had to be eliminated or replaced by expert assessments or verbaldescriptions. Therefore many questions, such as energy efficiency, resident satisfac-tion, construction costs or mobility behaviour of different settlement types, seemhighly relevant for decision-making but cannot be operationalised. The relevant avail-able literature likewise proved insufficient or inapplicable.

Finally, the often required qualitative assessment proves a difficult or sensitive issue.While the project management team united a diversified group of planning and con-struction experts, the positions of other user groups were by necessity neglected. Thewidespread – certainly appropriate – reticence to criticise recent projects equally im-pedes the evaluation of design solutions.

The experience made in compiling the present publication shows that many questions and aspectsmust remain unanswered or unconsidered for the time being; hence further studies would behighly welcome.

13

◣

◣

◣



14

Definition and Glossary

Term ExplanationAAboveground parking (sq m) Surface exclusively used as parking lot at ground-floor level and mostly reserved

for owners/tenants or customers of a development.Access type Defines the arrangement of corridors and staircases inside a building. The projects

presented distinguish between the following types of flat access:Landing access: 2 or more flats are situated on one landing.Central access: 4 or more flats are situated around a staircase.Central corridor access: flats are situated on both sides of an access corridor.Covered walkway/arcade access: flats are accessed from an external walkway.Direct access: flats are accessed directly from the street.

Amenities for residents and Private facilities and amenities for the population of a residential area, e.g. retaillocals shops, cafés, restaurants, personal services, doctor’s surgeries, etc.Areas for third-party use Sum total of all useful (non-residential) floorspace for rent of a given project.Atrium house An atrium house receives daylight via a central space that is either an open-air in-

ternal courtyard or designed as a glass roof. Thus the building may also forgo out-side-facing windows.

Average flat size (sq m) Average useful flat surface of the individual project.BBase zone Ground-floor zone. This is the part of a building in closest visual and functional con-

tact with the adjoining streetscape and usually extends over one (sometimes morethan one) storey. This zone frequently offers the possibility of accommodatingspaces for commercial use, e.g. shops, cafés, small offices or studios. The design ofbase zones is of prime importance for the atmospheric quality of the adjoiningstreetscape.

Basic supply Cf. shops for everyday necessariesBlind wall Cf. fire wallBlock grid Usually rectangular grid-type arrangement of > urban blocks in a city quarter.Brownfield site Area within city limits formerly used for industrial or commercial purposes and sub-

sequently cleared for new forms of use due to closedown or relocation.Building line This publication defines the building line as the boundary between public circulation

areas (footpaths, lanes, streets and squares) and private development surfaces.Built-up surface (hectares) The built-up surface results from the maximum area covered by a horizontal projec-

tion of all aboveground storeys.CCentral corridor access Access type that allows for the individual flats of one floor to be accessed via a cen-

tral corridor running parallel to the building’s longitudinal axis. This type is charac-terised by very low consumption of space for landings and stairs and allows verydeep wings (up to 20 m) and hence high densities. A drawback lies in the fact thatmany dwellings often face only in one direction, which can entail problematic flatlayouts and orientation.

Circulation area (sq m) Public or semi-public open space of a plot exclusively used for traffic.Concierge service Service rendered in the management of multi-storey residential buildings. In addi-

tion to supervision and care services on behalf of residents, staff also renders a va-riety of personal services, such as transporting items, accepting parcels, runningsmall errands or taking care of pets during the owner’s absence.

Covered walkway/ arcade Horizontal walkway along a building façade serving as access for upper-storeyunits. Walkways are vertically linked by staircases. Generously dimensioned walk-ways can also serve as communication areas. The advantage of this system lies in


15


the fact that a number of flats arranged side by side can be reached via one stair-case, which is not possible with just one landing; at the same time, the drawbacks ofa central corridor are avoided.

Cross-ventilation Flats with windows on two opposite sides allow for cross-ventilation, an importantquality criterion to safeguard efficient air change e.g. on hot days. Some accesstypes (e.g. central corridor) preclude this possibility.

Cul-de-sac A cul-de-sac (dead end) is a street or path with only one inlet/outlet. Its purpose istraffic-calming and keeping residential areas free of through-traffic.

DDevelopers’ competition Selection procedure for developers applied in Vienna, in whose context the City

Administration or wohnfonds wien (Fund for Housing Construction and UrbanRenewal) as land owners sell lots for social housing projects and grant subsidies in acompetition procedure (focusing on quality, costs).

Docklands Originally, the term “docklands” referred to part of the Port of London. With thedecline of the shipping industry, the abandoned sites were redeveloped into flatsand offices. Projects in similar locations and with similar characteristics are oftenlikewise called docklands.

Double-line arrangement Cf. central corridor accessDwelling (housing unit) Self-contained series of rooms normally connected and destined for residential pur-

poses; permits conducting a private household.EElementary school, compulsory School for children aged 6 to 10Extended supply Cf. shops for everyday necessariesFFaçade distance Average distance between the volumes of a project or surrounding buildings of rele-

vance for users of the dwellings. This is significant because wider spaces betweenvolumes tend to ensure greater privacy, better daylight incidence and views as wellas less noise from neighbours.Due to the value distribution observed, the following classes were established:small = distance less than 12 mmedium = distance between 12 and 25 mbig = distance in excess of 25 m

Fire wall A fire wall (fire partition, fire barrier) is a wall that divides a building into separatefire compartments and is to prevent a fire from spreading to other buildings or buil-ding sections. In most cases, fire walls built along a building’s boundary must pre-sent no apertures and therefore are also referred to as “blind” or “blank” walls.

Flat sizes (sq m) Refers to the range of useful flat surfaces (excluding open spaces).Flats extending across entire Flats with windows facing two opposite sides of a building. This design allows forbuilding depth cross-ventilation and daylight incidence from both sides. It moreover offers the

advantage of having the flat face two directions, which permits functionaloptimisation (views, quiet, balconies, etc.).

Flats/hectare of reference Refers to the intensity of use of a development type. The more flats can besurface accommodated on one hectare of building land, the more economical in land use

and compact it will turn out. However, in comparing this parameteramong projects, the size of the flats and the share of surfaces destined for housingin the overall useful floorspace must be considered as well. The number of flats canalso be placed in relation to the size of the plot of the project (flats/hectare of plotsuface).

Flats with private open Proportion of flats within the overall project that offer annexed open spaces in thespaces (%) form of tenant/resident gardens, loggias, verandas, balconies or terraces.Floor area ratio Ratio of how many storeys would have been built on a given plot if all floorspace(German acronym GFD) were evenly distributed across the entire plot. To ensure comparability with earlier

studies and meaningfulness within the overall urban-structural context, the presentpublication makes use of the entire reference surface (= gross development sur-



16

face). Since the standard reference value commonly used is the net plot surface,this variable is determined as well.Gross floor area ratio (gross GFD) = gross floorspace/reference surfaceNet floor area ratio (net GFD) = gross floorspace/net plot surface

GGarden wing Volume shielded from the street by other volumes and hence not directly accessed

via a street.Green belt Continuous system of green and open spaces encircling a settlement area or city in

the style of a belt. Normally, green belts are specially protected and legally safe-guarded by means of corresponding land use plans.

Gross floorspace (sq m) The gross floorspace (German acronym BGF) is the total floorspace of all above-ground storeys. It is calculated on the basis of the overall dimensions of buildingsand hence includes walls and internal circulation routes. There are three BGFcategories; their ratio is given in percent:Housing: flats with proportional share of annexed facilities and circulation/accessareasWork: enterprises including studios, surgeries, etc. with proportional share offacilities and circulation/access areasServices: social infrastructure facilities, such as kindergartens, schools, socialservice offices, etc.

HHead volume Independent volume at the end of a row or attached development if its layouts

differ from that of the row and if it features a separate access system.Heat requirement The heat requirement (German acronym HWB) is the calculated amount of energy

to be input into a building during the heating period to maintain the desired roomtemperature.

Housing tenure Flats may be rented or owner-occupied.IInner urban expansion Measures taken to mobilise/create development potentials in built-up, condensed

urban zones, mostly as a result of the conversion of former industrial sites, barracks,railway stations, etc. Smaller lots, gaps between buildings and poorly used areas arealso drawn upon for inner-city densification.

JKKarree (court, rectangle) Closed, rectangular or trapezoidal arrangement of buildings enclosing a shared

(often greened) courtyard.LLanding access Building type for multi-storey volumes where one to three flats (though there may

be more) are accessed from the staircase of one storey.Line of sight Zone kept clear of buildings of any kind to allow for vistas and daylight incidence.Live/work units Dwellings conceived to allow for a combination of living and working in one place.

The work function is often located at ground-floor level while the residential unit canbe found directly above. These units are to take account of the space requirementsof micro enterprises while improving the mixed-use situation and variety in aquarter.

Lot coverage ratio The lot coverage ratio is the portion of the net plot surface covered with buildings(percent).Lot coverage ratio (%) = built-up area/plot surface x 100.Allows for assessing the degree to which a property was built up.

Low-energy house, low-energy New and rehabilitated older buildings that attain legally defined energy engineeringhouse standard requirements and energy standards.

MMaisonette A maisonette (split-level flat) extends over more levels than one, connected by an


17


internal flight of stairs. This design can be used to create flats facing in two directi-ons despite central corridor access and also allows for providing more units with di-rect building access and a garden or roof terrace.

Mean number of storeys Mean number of storeys = gross floorspace/built-up surface.Mixed timber-solid masonry Construction method that applies two construction techniques jointly in oneconstruction building. Solid masonry is used e.g. for the underground garage and ground-floor

level,while timber construction is employed for all other storeys.NNet plot surface (hectares) The net plot (or development) surface is equal to the areas designated for

construction purposes, the open areas forming part of the property and the internalaccess and circulation routes. It results from the > reference surface aftersubtracting circulation areas, open and distance spaces as well as the half roadwidths added to the reference surface.

Number of dwellings Sum total of all flats (dwellings) of a given housing project.Number of slots Number of all car parking slots available aboveground or belowground to residents

and enterprises of a project/object.Number of storeys Number of aboveground storeys. In case of buildings of uneven height, the lowest

and highest number of storeys is given. Fully developed rooftop storeys areassigned the letter “D” (for German “Dach” = roof), while recessed top storeys(terrace storeys) are assigned a “T”. Individual objects differing from thiscategorisation and forming part of a larger, uniformly structured development weredisregarded (e.g. one-storey daycare centres, additions, etc.).

OOpen space (sq m) This category states open areas within a property or plot (public streets and parking

lots outside the property or plot surface are excluded). Open spaces may be greenspaces, footpaths, cycling tracks and other paved surfaces.According to accessibility, they are classified as:Public: everybody may enter and use these spaces.Partially public (semi-public): these spaces are entirely or primarily reserved for theresidents of a development.Private: rented or owner-occupied open spaces, e.g. tenant or owner-occupiedgardens, open spaces of kindergartens or children’s groups.Children’s playgrounds open to all residents of a housing development are speciallymarked as such.

PPassive house, passive house Building whose room temperatures are attained by means of adequate heatstandard insulation and largely “passive” resources, such as sunlight incidence, heat emitted

by persons and waste heat of technical appliances.Patio Interior courtyard of a townhouse.Perforation In case of very long buildings, this is a transverse interruption in the volume (not

ches extending over several storeys), usually a structure-creating device.Perimeter development Cf. urban blockPermeability, permeable The permeability of a development refers to the possibilities it affords pedestrians

and cyclists to cross the property as well as to the cross-vistas generated. Sincepedestrians are highly sensitive to distances, the permeability of developments isan important contribution towards pedestrian-friendliness.

Protection zone “Wald- und The “Forest and Meadow Belt” of Vienna was stipulated under law to preserve andWiesengürtel” create green zones in order to protect the health of the urban population and ensure

opportunities for open-air recreation. These areas may be used for agriculture orforestry.

Public space Urban space that is freely accessible for everybody and built, managed andmaintained by the municipal authorities. In addition to public traffic areas forpedestrians, cyclists and motorised vehicles, this category also includes parks andsquares.



18

QQuarter, city quarter City quarters (residential quarters) are defined as moderately sized social reference

systems often composed of only a few streets and felt to be a “homogeneous” partof the city that is delimited from other city quarters both spatially/geographicallyand on the basis of the social or ethnic composition of its population (no officialboundaries).

RReference surface The reference surface (= gross development surface) is the total surface of the

investigated area to which the parameters given refer. In case of larger projects, italso comprises internal access zones, public open spaces, distance spaces and halfof the adjoining street width (where required to provide access to the project).

Residential street Cf. traffic-calmingRow Multi-storey building type whose layout is composed of rectangular attached units,

resulting in an oblong shape.SSemi-public space This publication uses the term to denote open spaces that are part of housing

projects and primarily designated for use by residents of the project in question.Service infrastructure costs Service infrastructure costs are construction and maintenance costs of road and

utility networks (electricity, gas, water, sewers, ...). Usually, these are largely borneby the public authorities. Keeping these costs per dwelling as low as possible is akey objective of economically sustainable development.

Service infrastructure costs The present publication defines this term as the costs arising per dwelling for theper dwelling construction of the local access street including supply utilities. The costs were

estimated on the basis of the road type required (width, appointments), thenecessary circulation route length and standard costs per running metre of supplylines. Finally, the projects were divided into three categories (< €/D 3,000: low; €/D3,000-10,000: medium; €/D > 10,000: high).

Shading Keeping sunlight incidence from buildings or open spaces. This may have positiveeffects by avoiding unwanted effects like dazzle, reflections, overheating ofbuildings, or negative ones, e.g. excessive shading of open spaces or neighbouringbuildings.

Shops for everyday necessaries Supply of everyday necessaries, mainly foodstuffs but also personal services;centrally located and within walking distance. Accessibility within walking distance isdefined as approx. 400-800 m at most (12-15 minutes). Experience shows that asupermarket needs the purchasing power of at least 3,000 local residents toflourish; a range of shops for extended supply (drugstore chain outlet, tobacconist’s,bank, florist, cafés and restaurants) only makes economic sense starting at 5,000residents.

Single-flat landing Cf. landing accessSocial infrastructure Portmanteau term for a variety of municipal facilities, such as educational

establshments (schools, daycare centres, …), services (assistance, craftspeople, …),healthcare (physicians, pharmacies, hospitals, ...), cultural and religious institutions(libraries, event venues, …).

Solid timber construction Timber construction technique that makes overall use of solid elements for walls,roof and ceiling.

Standalone volume A standalone building is not attached to any other volumes.Stiege (staircase) Specifically Austrian term that defines all flats accessed via one staircase; also part

of a complete address in housing developments with several wings (and hence,staircases).

Street courtyard Courtyard extending along an access road.TTemporary utilisation Temporary utilisation of a building, area or plot.Traffic calming Streets or zones where motorised individual traffic is strongly regulated or decelera-

ted to favour pedestrian traffic. Includes residential streets, pedestrian zones and 30km/h zones.

Two-flat landing Cf. landing accessTypes of parking space One can distinguish between slots outside a building (open-air), in underground


19


garages (UG) and multi-storey car parks (German acronym HG).UUrban block Urban blocks (city blocks, apartment blocks) are typical inner-city structures

composed of multi-storey, continuous, closed volumes (cf. perimeter development).Urban wilderness Green zone, usually of smaller dimensions or part of a larger green area and without

visible measures taken to cultivate/care for its vegetation (spontaneous/overgrownvegetation).

Urbanistic master plan Integrated overall plan embodying an urbanistic vision to provide qualitative andquantitative pointers for the urban development of larger or multiple areas. It laysdown a roadmap for further planning and implementation steps and targetsauthorities, owners, future users, investors as well as all actors affected by theplanning and implementation process.

Useful living area (sq m) Sum total of all flat surfaces of the project in question. Open spaces like balconies,terraces, etc. were not included; neither were general circulation and access zones,such as staircases, corridors and communal areas inside a building (e.g. storeroomsfor prams and bikes, waste container rooms, building utility rooms).

VWWalking distance Distance covered by pedestrians. This distance is not always the same and increa-

ses with the attractiveness of the destination (big park, underground station, majorpublic facility). Approx. 300 m can be covered in 5 minutes; approx. 800 m, in 15minutes. Only a small part of the population is willing to walk more than 500 m foreveryday chores; thus short and attractive walking distances are of the utmost im-portance for creating a pedestrian-friendly environment.

Wing depth (m) Depth of a volume between the two façade surfaces on each side. Wing depthstrongly influences development intensity as well as built floorspace quality. Thususeful floorspace increases markedly with wing depth; at the same time, however,this means that the number of windowless and hence badly lit rooms augments aswell.

XYZZoning Distribution of functions and (partly) design types in space; defined by an urban

development plan.



20



Overview of Types and Examples

21



22

black = Vienna green = Bratislava blue = Europe red = USA, Canada

Overview of Types and Examples

GFD up to 1.0 1.0-2.0 2.0-2.5 2.5-3.5 over 3.5

Tamarisken- Traviata- Borneo2gasse gasse

KabelwerkBorneo1

Nove Rusovce Drotarska ul. Karree St. Marx CDe Bongerd WerdwiesRuggächernMühlweg

An den alten Pekna Cesta Baldiagasse KatharinenSchanzen Monte Laa A -gasseErzherzog-Karl-Stadt BLondon

Satzingerweg C Oberlaa Leberberg SüdlicheMühlweg Rozadol Langobarden-

straße

Satzingerweg B Erzherzog-Karl- West Point Museum PlatzStadt A

Malmö Monte Laa C Bike City BuchengassePerfektastraße Galvaniho ul.

Oberlaa Kurt- In der Wiesen Autofreie KoloseoTichy-Gasse Karlova Ves Mustersiedlung FreiburgMartinengova ul. Octopus

Vinex Siedlung Frauen-Werk-Stadt Kagran West Olympic VillageZürich Klee Eurovea Alley 24Vajnorska ul. Lind

Satzingerweg A Kabelwerk Silodam WienerbergMonte Laa B Karloveska zátoka Tatra City

888 BeachAvenue

1

2a2b

3a3b

4

5

6

7

8

9a9b



23


1/ HIGH-DENSITY LOW-RISE DEVELOPMENTS, ATRIUM HOUSES

This is a very introverted housing type; rooms mostly receivelight and ventilation from one side only.This type allows for the construction of floorspace densities of upto 1.5 with 1- to 2-storey developments. In case of multi-storeybuildings (example from Amsterdam), densities of up to 2.3 arepossible. Visually condensed impact due to private gardens shutoff from the surroundings.Since every flat has its own private open space that is invisiblefrom outside, there is little need for additional, public openspaces. Thus outdoor spaces are not designed for communicationor leisure activities but mostly serve as access zones.Due to the internal circulation network, the houses are easy toaccess on foot or by bike. Access by car is possible but limited.Although very popular in Austria, this building typology is only vi-able for implementation in the urban periphery (due to high landprices).

Access type: direct access from outsidePreferred orientation: individual houses face southGround-floor level suitablefor non-residential use: noSuitability for flat variety: lowSuitability for priv. open spaces: highPrivacy (invisible f. outside): high

Lot size (individual houses): 200-300 sq mLot width: > 12 m

Public open spaces: noneOpen space quality: low

Parking spaces: multi-car parking lot or garage

Description:Inward-facing houses with internal courtyards(patios) and closed design

1-4 storeys

Plot coverage 35-75%Distance b. buildings minimum footpath widthWing depth 4-18 mFloorspace density 0.7-2.1Flats/hectare 45-190

A_TYPEN a:Sestava 1 27. 8. 2011 11:17 Stránka 1

In briefMulti-element housing project with 231 flats in one-storey atrium buildings, two-storeyterraced houses and three-storey residential blocks that shield the development alongits northern and western edges. The private atmosphere of the open areas is stronglyemphasised by walls. The open spaces enclosed by the built volumes are public, car-free and highly differentiated in design.

Situation within the cityThe complex is situated in the north-eastern urban expansion zone of Vienna (22nd mu-nicipal district). An Underground station is situated in front of the development, whiletram and bus stops are located at a distance of 100-400 m. Cars access the complex viatwo culs-de-sac at its western periphery (no through traffic). A school, kindergarten andshops for daily necessaries can be found nearby.

Location assetsEasily reached by public transport due to extension of Vienna Underground line.

Prerequisites of successThe residential complex Tamariskengasse is an example of how excellent housing qual-ity can be attained with highly condensed low-rise buildings. Cars may only be parked inan underground garage; the adjoining section of Tamariskengasse between the garageentrances is likewise car-free (part of Tamariskengasse is a residential street). However,the narrow lanes permit only limited use.

Quality and flexibility of use of individual structuresThis estate type exclusively serves housing purposes. Most flats face south. Three-storey structures along the western and northern periphery shield the complex againstnoise and wind from outside. The interior zone is tranquil and surrounded by buildingsstaggered in height. Flexibility of use was not aimed for.

Availability and quality of open spacesTwo large squares linked by a common form the spatial centre of the housing develop-ment Tamariskengasse. All flats have their own private open spaces designed as south-facing, secluded terraces, loggias and, in case of atrium or terraced houses, walledgarden courtyards. Freed of the constraints of traffic logistics and road layouts, publicspace emerges as a differentiated tissue of narrow lanes, ample squares and greenzones boasting trees and water basins. Young people find room to move both in theseopen spaces and in the residential street (Tamariskengasse).

Neighbourship, communal facilitiesThe differentiated range of open spaces fosters a sense of neighbourship. The range ofcommunal facilities is limited to those stipulated under building law (rooms for parkingprams and bikes, general-purpose storage room).

Quality of urban spaceThe entire complex is car-free and generates open spaces that are interesting for pedes-trians. Since this project is a purely residential one, its appeal for non-inhabitants is lim-ited.

24


01/ Wohnanlage Tamariskengasse (1220 Wien, Tamariskengasse 102)

A_BEISPIELE 1a:Sestava 1 27. 8. 2011 11:04 Stránka 2


01/ Wohnanlage Tamariskengasse (1220 Wien, Tamariskengasse 102)

Reference surface, hectares 3.87Net plot surface, hectares 3.57

Built-up surface, hectares 1.50Lot coverage ratio, % 42

Wing depth, m 6-12Access type direct, SP, LGFaçade distance narrowNumber of storeys 1-3Mean number of storeys 1.7

Gross floorspace, sq m 26,000Of which housing, % 100Of which work, % 0Of which services, % 0

Floor area ratio, gross 0.67Floor area ratio, net 0.73

Total useful living area, sq m 19,000Number of dwellings 231Flat sizes, sq m 60-120Average flat size 82Flats/hectare of plot surface 65Flats/hectare of reference surface 60

Flats with open space 229Of which with private garden, % 73Of which with balcony, loggia, % 14Of which with terrace, % 13

Housing tenure -Non residential use, sq m 0

Total open spaces, sq m 20,700Of which public, % 0Of which semi-public, % 11,150Of which private, % 9,300Of which children’s playgrounds, % 250

Circulation areas, sq m 336Aboveground parking, sq m 0Number of slots 231Type of parking TGService infrastructure costs/dwelling low

Year of completion 1993Planner RainerDeveloper GESIBA

25


In briefThe housing development Traviatagasse is a purely residential complex with somebuildings designed to create a sense of community. The settlement is composed of one-to four-storey single-family and terraced houses with highly urban character, high den-sity and staggered heights that decrease towards the centre of the project. Two rows ofbuildings to the west and north shield the other volumes, thereby generating a spatiallyclosed ensemble slightly reminiscent of a fort or castle. Three rows of four-storey ter-raced houses are situated to the east; open to the south, the project interior accommo-dates a diagonally rotated square block of three-and-a-half-storey courtyard houses(“castrum”).

Situation within the cityThe settlement is part of a residential area at the southern periphery of Vienna and ad-joins an industrial zone in the village of Inzersdorf. Bus stops are situated adjacent tothe project, which is also connected to the road network on three sides. The distancefrom the village core of Inzersdorf with all its facilities (social infrastructure, shops) isapprox. 600 m.

Location assetsTo the east, the project is bordered by a protected green zone (green belt “Wald undWiesengürtel”).

Prerequisites of successOn the basis of an urbanistic master project, four construction stages providing differentsolutions to the task of devising urban, condensed low-rise housing were implemented.As a whole, the residential complex – in particular the “castrum” at its centre – presentsan extremely introverted character, indicating that maximum privacy was a key designgoal.

Quality and flexibility of use of individual structuresThe 169 flats differ in type but mainly face the block interior. The different types includeone-storey atrium buildings, staggered two-storey maisonettes, four-storey terracedhouses, arcade-style volumes and three- to four-storey courtyard houses offering multi-ple-use spaces on the ground floor, first-floor bedrooms and a residential storey with ac-cess to a roof terrace above. Flexibility of use was not intended.

Availability and quality of open spacesThe open spaces allocated to the individual flats are mostly paved garden or roof ter-races. Most publicly accessible open spaces, too, are paved; the share of green spacesis overall low. The rhomboid contours of the open spaces do not favour communal use;the open spaces are unsuitable as a meeting point or play area for young people (sur-face problem).

Neighbourship, communal facilitiesA sense of neighbourship is generated and fostered by the secluded open spaces insidethe complex and the communal facilities, since the development accommodates e.g. achildren’s house, a youth house and a sauna building.

Quality of urban spaceThis generously dimensioned residential development is reserved for pedestrians onlybut projects a closed and introverted visual impression.

26


02/ Wohnhausanlage Traviatagasse (1230 Wien, Traviatagasse 21-29 / Pfarrgasse 67-73)



02/ Wohnhausanlage Traviatagasse (1230 Wien, Traviatagasse 21-29 / Pfarrgasse 67-73)



Wing depth, m 10/18Access type RHFaçade distance narrowNumber of storeys 1-4Mean number of storeys 2.9

Gross floorspace, sq m 36.300Of which housing, % 97Of which work, % 0Of which services, % 3

Floor area ratio, gross 0,89Floor area ratio, net 1,04

Total useful living area, sq m 20,400Number of dwellings 169Flat sizes, sq mAverage flat size 121Flats/hectare of plot surface 47Flats/hectare of reference surface 40



Total open spaces, sq m 22,600Of which public, % 0Of which semi-public, % 72Of which private, % 28Of which children’s playgrounds, % 0

Circulation areas, sq m 130Aboveground parking, sq m 0Number of slots -Type of parking TGService infrastructure costs/dwelling medium

Year of completion 1991Planners Abraham,Pruscha,Buck,Giencke

Lautner, Scheifinger, SzedenikDeveloper GSG

27


In briefThe project Siedlung am Park is part of the new residential quarter Kabelwerk in asouthern part of Vienna. The multi-coloured single-family dwellings with up to threestoreys are densely packed. To yet ensure privacy, the angled structures are intro-verted, face south and boast small gardens or terraces.

Situation within the cityThis former industrial site – hence the name ”Cable Works” – is situated in a denselybuilt-up southern part of Vienna (12th municipal district) and connected to the road net-work by public streets encircling the entire complex, while the Vienna Underground isonly 100 m away. The project includes a range of supply options for everyday neces-saries and social infrastructure: the ground-floor zones of the quarter offers space forshops, offices, communal facilities, children’s playrooms, cafés and restaurants. A chil-dren’s daycare centre is likewise part of the development.

Location assetsPart of the large-scale project Kabelwerk with direct connection to the Underground net-work. A new park adjoins the project to the east.

Prerequisites of successAn urbanistic competition allowed future residents to codetermine the final outlook. Thissettlement type must not be viewed on its own but in context with the entireKabelwerk project and its infrastructure.

Quality and flexibility of use of individual structures“Siedlung am Park” offers many different types of dwellings: atrium buildings, singleunits stacked atop multi-flat structures, maisonettes, traditional one-level apartments.There are a total of 67 units, all of which face the private gardens to the south. This re-sults in high living quality and individuality of the complex despite massive densifica-tion, yet precludes contact with public space. For its inhabitants, Siedlung am Park is analternative to run-of-the-mill single-family homes. The project did not strive for flexibilityof use.

Availability and quality of open spacesCirculation is safeguarded by footpaths leading directly to the private gardens. Exceptfor these gardens, the project does not offer space for young people to spend time in;however, such areas exist in the public zones of the Kabelwerk quarter as whole. Thebuildings are directly accessed from an underground garage.

Neighbourship, communal facilitiesA sense of neighbourship is created by the single-family home character and the circula-tion routes inside the project. There are no communal facilities.

Quality of urban spaceSiedlung am Park delimits the Kabelwerk quarter in its entirety vis-à-vis the older single-family homes to the south and the new park to the east. The structure of the openspaces renders the overall project permeable for non-residents as well.

28


03/ Siedlung am Park / Kabelwerk, Bauplatz C (1120 Wien, Thorvaldsengasse 36-44)



03/ Siedlung am Park / Kabelwerk, Bauplatz C (1120 Wien, Thorvaldsengasse 36-44)



Wing depth, m 4-7Access type directFaçade distance narrowNumber of storeys 2-3Mean number of storeys 2.2





(many flats with own gardens and terraces)

Housing tenure owner-occupiedNon residential use, sq m 0

Total open spaces, sq m 950Of which public, % 56Of which semi-public, % 0Of which private, % 44Of which children’s playgrounds, % 0

Circulation areas, sq m 0Aboveground parking, sq m 0Number of slots 26Type of parking TGService infrastructure costs/dwelling medium

Year of completion 2006Planners Schwalm-Theiss, Gressenbauer,

BresichDeveloper Kabelwerk Bauträger GmbH

29


In briefBorneo Eiland 1 is a quarter in the former docklands that reinterprets the traditionalDutch urban row-house. While the plots are small, shared courtyards meet the socialobjective of providing affordable housing for families with children close to the city cen-tre, despite the high degree of densification.

Situation within the cityThe project is situated at 4 km from the city centre. The surrounding quarter is com-posed of 1,950 townhouses and three blocks with 150, 204 and 214 apartments, re-spectively, as well as 5,000 sq m for commercial uses partly integrated into the blocks.The distance to the nearest bus stop is 300 m; to the tram, 600 m; and to shops in thevicinity, likewise approx. 600 m. The quarter is surrounded by residential streets. Densi-fication allows for the proximity of shops and infrastructure within walking distance.Green areas and playgrounds are also situated close by. The project boasts sharedcourtyards and an elementary school at only 600 m.

Location assetsBy the water’s edge, uncluttered views, residential streets with playgrounds.

Prerequisites of successUrbanistic design embracing the two peninsulas Borneo and Sporenburg and stipulatingthe same rules for all architects working on the different lots. The 30% social housingshare required under law was created elsewhere in this quarter.

Quality and flexibility of use of individual structuresThe project is exclusively composed of maisonettes, with the flats facing eithernorth/south or one side only. A garage for residents is located below the courtyard. Thehigher ground-floor premises provide flexibility of use.

Availability and quality of open spacesThe residential streets lead into spacious courtyards, from which several houses are ac-cessed. The courtyards allow for group activities but also accommodate separate, indi-vidual “front gardens”. Each dwelling has a roof terrace or patio.

Neighbourship, communal facilitiesA sense of neighbourship is engendered by the shared courtyards, especially for per-sons in the creative industries, due to courtyard studios.

Quality of urban spaceBorneo Eiland 1 represents an introverted design but also offers street-side, ground-floor flats with direct access to the sidewalk and street as a gesture towards a more vi-brant and lively urban space.

30


04/ Borneo Eiland 1 (Amsterdam, Feike de Boerlaan)



04/ Borneo Eiland 1 (Amsterdam, Feike de Boerlaan)



Wing depth, m 8/12/14Access typeFaçade distance narrowNumber of storeys 2-3Mean number of storeys 2.4



Total useful living area, sq m 4,880Number of dwellings 67Flat sizes, sq mAverage flat size 73Flats/hectare of plot surface 191Flats/hectare of reference surface 120




Circulation areas, sq m 0Aboveground parking, sq m 0Number of slots 36Type of parking TGService infrastructure costs/dwelling medium

Year of completion 2000Planner Marlies RohmerDevelopers New Deal Amsterdam NL

31


In briefBorneo Eiland 2 reinterprets the traditional Dutch urban row-house, presenting two va-riations of the basic row-house type and five variations of the basic one-level apartmenttype. The location quality in the former docklands with an uncluttered view of the wateris high, and despite massive densification and a small lot, it was possible to create lar-gely individual housing options.

Situation within the cityThe quarter is situated 4 km from the city centre near Sporenburg and Borneo oncleared areas formerly occupied by docks. The entire quarter is composed of 1,950townhouses, three blocks with 150/204/214 apartments and 5,000 sq m of commerci-ally used properties partly integrated into the blocks. Bus stops can be found at 300 mand a tram stop, at approx. 550 m. There are no shops inside the quarter; the distancesfrom the social infrastructure facilities in the blocks, the elementary school or facilitiesin the adjoining quarters in the western part of the peninsula are relatively long (approx.1 km).

Location assetsBy the water’s edge, uncluttered views, residential streets with playgrounds.

Prerequisites of successUrbanistic design embracing the two peninsulas Borneo and Sporenburg and stipulatingthe same rules for all architects on different lots.

Quality and flexibility of use of individual structuresCorresponding to the situation of the pier, the flats mainly present a southern/northernorientation. The introverted design allows for privacy despite high densification. Nomixed-use approach was implemented to preserve the character of a tranquil resi-dential area. However, flexibility of use is safeguarded: the ground-floor rooms have aceiling height of 3.5 m, which allows for potential conversion of these spaces into ser-vice facilities or studios. The original concept of allowing for multiple use of the indivi-dual ground-floor garages to create a more vibrant and lively streetscape was taken uponly in a few cases.

Availability and quality of open spacesAccess from the residential streets leads via the garage to a patio and on to the houseentrances. There are no semi-public spaces in the quarter and no front gardens; thebuildings directly adjoin the residential street. Thus there are no specially designatedareas for young people to spend time in. Instead of a shared underground garage, thecar slots were integrated into the buildings, i.e. cars can be parked at ground-floor levelwithin the row-house lot.

Neighbourship, communal facilitiesNeighbourhood appeal is generated to a limited degree; along the northern edge, everyfive flats share one common access zone at ground-floor level. All flat entrances are onthe ground-floor. There are no communal facilities.

Quality of urban spaceThe residential streets with ground-floor shared entrances create an attractive street-scape for the quarter.

32


05/ Borneo Island 2 (Amsterdam, Borneokade)



05/ Borneo Island 2 (Amsterdam, Borneokade)



Wing depth, m 8.4 resp. 40Access type -Façade distance narrowNumber of storeys 2-4Mean number of storeys 2.7





Housing tenure owner-occupied/rentedNon residential use, sq m 0


Circulation areas, sq m 280Aboveground parking, sq m 260

partly integrated into building (ground-floor)Number of slots 36Type of parking abovegroundService infrastructure costs/dwelling medium

Year of completion 2000Planner Rudy UytenhaakDeveloper New Deal Amsterdam NL

33


34



35


2a/ INDIVIDUAL HOUSES, SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES

According to surveys, single-family homes are widely regarded asthe ideal housing type. However, freestanding single-familyhomes are the building type with the highest land consumption.Hence their viability in urban areas is limited and hard to defend.Due to low development density, the public cost of creating ac-cess routes and supply and disposal infrastructure is above aver-age. High share of individual motorised traffic; long distances toinfrastructure facilities.

Access type: direct access from outsidePreferred orientation: n.a.Ground-floor level suitablefor non-residential use: noSuitability for flat variety: lowSuitability for priv. open spaces: highPrivacy (invisible f. outside): low (except with private

fences)

Lot size (individual houses): 300-600 sq mLot width: 15-20 mLot depth: 20-30 m

Public open spaces: noneOpen space quality: low

Parking spaces: owners park cars on their ownlots

Description:Individual houses on plots of approx.500 sq mFreestanding or semi-detached

1-3 storeys

Plot coverage 17%Distance b. buildings 6 m lateralFloorspace density approx. 0.2Flats/hectare 16-30


In briefThe housing development Nové Rusovce is composed of about 50 two- and three-storeysingle-family and duplex houses individually designed by numerous architects.

Situation within the cityThe project is situated at the southern periphery of Bratislava in the suburb of Rusovce.While the distance from the city centre is 13 km, it can be reached in only 20 minutesby car or bus. Public transport connections are good, since bus stops can be found at200-600 m, and a train station, at approx. 500 m. Social infrastructure and a good se-lection of shops can only be reached by bike or car (at 1.5 km in Rusovce proper).

Location assetsThe project itself and the borough of Rusovce combine the advantages of living in thecountryside with quickly accessible cultural and community facilities typical of the city.Being close to water bodies (lakes, Danube canals) and the Danube cycling track, thearea is a popular and attractive leisure magnet.

Prerequisites of successThe location is so attractive (e.g. good traffic and transport connections, recreationareas, green zones) that the property proved easy to sell. The objective lay in makingmaximum use of the plot. The project type presents ambitious challenges regardingboth technical and transport infrastructure.

Quality and flexibility of use of individual structuresNové Rusovce is a purely residential complex. Every unit faces all directions. The archi-tectural type chosen corresponds to that of a single-family house offering maximum pri-vacy and intimacy. Due to this design, interior spaces can be optimised in harmony withthe exteriors (e.g. gardens face south, garages face north).

Availability and quality of open spacesApart from the private gardens, there are no semi-public or public open spaces, only ac-cess and exit routes. Car parking slots are situated individually on each property.

Neighbourship, communal facilitiesDue to the single-family home character of the project, a sense of neighbourship canevolve solely through direct contact with the inhabitants of adjoining properties. Thereare no communal facilities.

Quality of urban spaceAs a result of its low height, the development is visually discreet but functionally andstructurally rather monotonous and lacks intermediate stages between public and pri-vate spaces, which hampers the emergence of both a feeling of neighbourship andurban appeal.

36


06/ Nové Rusovce (Bratislava – Rusovce, Pri gaštanovej aleji)



06/ Nové Rusovce (Bratislava – Rusovce, Pri gaštanovej aleji)



Wing depth, m -Access type directFaçade distance mediumNumber of storeys 1-3Mean number of storeys 1.9



Total useful living area, sq m 8,212Number of dwellings 54Flat sizes, sq m -Average flat size 152Flats/hectare of plot surface 14.8Flats/hectare of reference surface 12.6

Flats with open space 54Of which with private garden, % 100Of which with balcony, loggia, % -Of which with terrace, % -



Circulation areas, sq m 6,153Aboveground parking, sq m 0Number of slots 107Type of parking open-air slots, indiv. garages on

the plotsService infrastructure costs/dwelling high

Year of completion 2000-2003

37


38



39


2b/ INDIVIDUAL HOUSES, “TOWN VILLAS”

There are various embodiments of the freestanding individualhouse as building type: from minimal building density exemplifiedby freestanding, 1- to 3-storey single-family homes to 3- to 5-storey town villas as shown above and high-rise clusters withhigh floorspace density.In contrast to typical urban blocks, this design has no “inside”,“outside” or main orientation, which calls for sensitive handling ofthe transition zones.Pros: adaptability to different plot layouts; avoidance of large-scale architecture; possibility of design variety if projects are en-trusted to several architects and/or developers.Possible cons: if the distance between buildings is small, this im-pacts privacy; some flats only face north; protection againststreet noise is poor.

Access type: landing accessPreferred orientation: n.a.Ground-floor level suitablefor non-residential use: yesSuitability for flat variety: highSuitability for priv. open spaces: yesPrivacy (invisible f. outside): low

Lot size: 1.6-3.3 hectaresLot width: 150 mLot depth: 100 m

Public open spaces: distance spacesOpen space quality: low

Parking spaces: underground garage(per house or shared)

Description:Freestanding individual buildingsfacing in all directions;number of (residential) units served by onevertical access core is maximised

3-8 storeys

Plot coveragee 22-26%Mean distance b. buildings 13-18 mWing depth 10-30 mNumber of storeys 3 3+T 4 5 8Floorspace density 1,1 1,3 1,4 1,8 2,2Flats/hectare 90 110 120 150 165


In briefThe urban villas in Drotárska Street with a view of Bratislava were built in the late 20th

century. This group of nine five-storey residential buildings is arranged in a circlearound the access road.

Situation within the cityThe complex is situated on the slope of Machnáč Hill slightly outside the old city centreof Bratislava and difficult to reach by public transport. In this area, easy mobility defi-nitely requires car use.The complex and its direct surroundings feature some basic infrastructure (crèche,kindergarten, elementary school, grocery stores).

Location assetsClose to city centre and Horský Park (gardens), hillside position with pretty city view. Amultifunctional building complex will soon be erected in the immediate vicinity.

Genesis and prerequisites of successThe shape of the ensemble with its point blocks arranged in a circle makes good use ofattractive features of the natural environment and acts as a prerequisite for the furtherspatial and functional enlargement of the complex.

Quality and flexibility of use of individual structuresBig balconies on every floor and the unconventional, arched top-storey roofing are spe-cial architectural characteristics. The flats face east/west. Communal facilities are mini-mal; the complex itself does not offer shops or other social infrastructure amenities.

Availability and quality of open spacesThe buildings boast large balconies on every floor and loggias for the top-storey units.Circulation within the complex is provided by a wide ring-road. Meadows between thepoint blocks are partly defined as children’s playgrounds. Due to the ample space avail-able, the possibilities of use are varied. Cars are parked either in underground garages,along the ring-shaped access road or on parking lots.

Neighbourship, communal facilitiesOverall, the point blocks arranged around the central circular ring-road create a pleas-ant housing environment that fosters a sense of neighbourship. Communal facilities ful-fil only minimal standards, which falls short of the high quality of the flats themselves.Neighbourship appeal can emerge due to varied spatial qualities.

Quality of urban spaceDespite its mono-functionality, the complex enters into synergy with the environs andhence offers high living quality in a beautiful location surrounded by greenery. The phys-ical (by car, on foot) and visual permeability of the settlement enhances urban space.

40


07/ Drotárska ul. (Bratislava, Drotárska ul.)



07/ Drotárska ul. (Bratislava, Drotárska ul.)



Wing depth, m -Access type direct, staircaseFaçade distance mediumNumber of storeys 5Mean number of storeys 5.0



Total useful living area, sq m 19,790Number of dwellings 135Flat sizes, sq m -Average flat size 146Flats/hectare of plot surface 83.6Flats/hectare of reference surface 72.2


Total open spaces, sq m 14,614Of which public, % 100Of which semi-public, % 0Of which private, % 0Of which children’s playgrounds, % 1.5

Circulation areas, sq m 2,990Aboveground parking, sq m 454Service infrastructure costs/dwelling medium

Year of completion 1999

41


In briefDe Bongerd is a residential quarter with small-scale buildings that is similar to a gardencolony and presents six different point block types. The residential streets are quiet dueto traffic calming; the individual structures are small-scale and low-rise (maximum fourstoreys). Narrow open spaces extend between the buildings.

Situation within the cityThe estate is situated at approx. 9 km from the city centre in a quarter on Zijkanaal Iwith its narrow green corridors along the water’s edge. A bus stop is located at a dis-tance of 300 m. Social infrastructure and shops for daily necessaries will be provided infuture, not yet constructed phases of the overall project.

Location assetsLocation on the water’s edge, close to green spaces (north of the canal, to be reachedvia a new bike tunnel currently underway). Further green spaces along the canal areplanned.

Prerequisites of successThe settlement is the first phase of a “21st-century garden city” (as defined by its plan-ners). So far, 150 housing units have been built; the overall concept provides for a totalof 1,300 to 1,400 rented and owner-occupied flats. A good social mix is essential – 30%of the flats are state-subsidised; additional facilities for seniors are envisaged.

Quality and flexibility of use of individual structuresDepending on the building type, the flats face in different directions. Density is rela-tively high, with two to eight units per house. All structures are small-scale. Due to thedesigns chosen (single-family, duplex and multi-family dwellings), flexibility of use ispractically nonexistent.

Availability and quality of open spacesThe combination of low-rise buildings with high density allows for only minimal individ-ual open spaces. Some distance spaces between buildings are extremely tight. Due toground-floor parking slots, cars are very visible. There is a small playground for use byresidents, yet no areas designated for teens. However, the open spaces along the canalare generously designed.

Neighbourship, communal facilitiesA sense of neighbourship emerges by necessity due to high densification (glimpses in-side neighbouring flats due to minimal clearance between houses) but is limited tonext-door neighbours. The only communal facilities are a very small children’s play-ground (for kids aged up to 6 years) and a small square. The canal offers infrastructurefor houseboats.

Quality of urban spaceTraffic calming in the residential streets ensures good quality of urban space.

42


08/ De Bongerd (Amsterdam Noord, Moestuinlaan)



08/ De Bongerd (Amsterdam Noord, Moestuinlaan)



Wing depth, m 10.5-14.5Access type

DH, SPFaçade distance mediumNumber of storeys 3-4Mean number of storeys 3.1



Total useful living area, sq m 17,000Number of dwellings 151

(40 houses)Flat sizes, sq m 72-144Average flat size 113Flats/hectare of plot surface 76Flats/hectare of reference surface 60


Housing tenure owner-occupied/rentedNon residential use, sq m 0


Circulation areas, sq m 2,800Aboveground parking, sq m 1,100Service infrastructure costs/dwelling highNumber of slots 174Type of parking individual+open-air slots

Year of completion 2000Planner Rudy UytenhaakDeveloper City of Amsterdam, ODP

43


In briefThe densely built-up estate Ruggächern is composed of point blocks and rows of housesalong a train line. The individual structures with their red brick façades present a homo-geneous look and feature high appointment standards. Flat types are varied and spa-cious, with attractive communal facilities. A good social mix is aimed for.

Situation within the cityThe development area Ruggächern in Zurich-Affoltern is situated at approx. 8 km fromthe city centre. A bus stop and the commuter train station Zurich-Affoltern are locateddirectly south of the settlement. Social infrastructure and a good range of shops can bereached on foot. A school complex adjoins the settlement.

Location assetsPublic transport connections are excellent due to the commuter train station situated di-rectly south of the complex.

Prerequisites of successThe settlement Ruggächern creates an independent architectural gesture between thedensely built-up surrounding area and the open spaces in the environs. Despite theirhigh quality, rented flats are affordable.

Quality and flexibility of use of individual structuresThe quarter was exclusively planned for residential purposes. A good social mix wasaimed for not only at settlement level but rather within individual houses as well. Flatsface two directions (corner position) or one direction only, while the buildings as suchface all four directions. There are no flats on the ground floor. Half of the 278 units arespacious family flats with four big rooms and one small room. A total of 34 units areavailable for seniors or singles. Individual rooms for rent are also on offer. One buildingis especially geared towards the needs of seniors. Flexibility of use is partly provided bycommunal facilities on the ground floor and by the individual rooms for rent.

Availability and quality of open spacesEvery flat has its own private open space (loggia). Open spaces are ample and car-free.The settlement boasts two squares and several playgrounds. Cars can be parked alongthe train line and in underground garages. The communal rooms are always connectedto the open spaces outside; areas were designated for young people to meet and play.

Neighbourship, communal facilitiesA sense of neighbourship can emerge both in the buildings (contact on the stairs) andopen spaces. Special facilities such as communal rooms with a kitchen, a health andwellness zone, a library with Internet corner and guestrooms at the ground-floor level ofthe perimeter buildings are available. This family-friendly settlement also features adaycare nursery.

Quality of urban spaceWith its open perimeter zones and generously sized courtyards, the project is charac-terised by an appealing urban quality.

44


09/ Siedlung Ruggächern (Zürich, Affoltern)



09/ Siedlung Ruggächern (Zürich, Affoltern)



Wing depth, m 16.5Access type SP, LGFaçade distance mediumNumber of storeys 4-7Mean number of storeys 5.9





Housing tenure rentedNon residential use, sq m 1,000


Circulation areas, sq m 5,570Aboveground parking, sq m 420Service infrastructure costs/dwelling mediumNumber of slots 210+22Type of parking TG + open-air slots

Year of completion 2007Planners Baumschlager/EberleDeveloper ABZ–Allg.Baugenoss.Zürich

45


In briefThe estate takes the form of a multi-storey residential project designed as solid-timberor mixed timber-solid masonry “town villas” with small-scale, car-free open spaces. Thechoice of materials aims for moderate energy consumption.

Situation within the citySituated at the northern periphery of Vienna in the 21st municipal district with a com-muter train station (Strebersdorf) at 800 m, tram and bus stops at 500 m and the near-est hook-up to the A22 (Danube Riverbank motorway) at 1,000 m from thedevelopment. Schools, kindergartens and shops for everyday necessaries can be foundin the village of Strebersdorf at only 500-1,000 m distance.

Location assetsThe project is situated directly along a green belt (Marchfeld Canal) to the east and aroad with traffic calming (Mühlweg) to the west.

Prerequisites of successOutcome of developers’ competitions, embracing three lots, for multi-storey timberstructures designed as low-energy or passive houses.

Quality and flexibility of use of individual structuresDepending on their position within the respective building, the flats face one, two orthree directions. Due to small unit sizes and storey heights, flexibility of use is largelyabsent.

Availability and quality of open spacesThe open spaces of the development are small-scale, manifold and may embrace thewhole range from public to private. However, the proportions of these open spaces dif-fer intentionally from lot to lot. Smaller open spaces for communal use are available.

Neighbourship, communal facilitiesCirculation routes within the development (small number of flats per building entrance)and manifold open spaces foster a sense of neighbourship. There are no specially desig-nated areas for use by young people; except for one lot, all communal facilities only cor-respond to the minimum stipulated under law (rooms for parking prams and bikes,general-purpose storage room).

Quality of urban spaceNo car traffic within the blocks; pedestrians can cross the project to reach the green cor-ridor beyond.

46


10/ Wohnhäuser am Mühlweg (1210 Wien, Mühlweg 74-78 / Fritz-Kandl-Gasse 1-11)



10/ Wohnhäuser am Mühlweg (1210 Wien, Mühlweg 74-78 / Fritz-Kandl-Gasse 1-11)



Wing depth, m 12-22Access type LG, MG, central

Number of storeys 3+T / 4+TMean number of storeys 4.0Façade distance mediumGross floorspace, sq m 30,000Of which housing, % 100Of which work, % 0Of which services, % 0




Housing tenure rented/owner-occupiedNon residential use, sq m 0


Circulation areas, sq m 0Aboveground parking, sq m 0Service infrastructure costs/dwelling lowNumber of slots 252Type of parking TG

Year of completion 2006/07Planners H.Kaufmann, Riess, D.UntertrifallerDevelopers BWS, Arwag, BAI

47


In briefSix point blocks set among a park-type environment shielded from the road by an L-shaped perimeter structure. To the northwest, the project composed of residential units,a kindergarten and shops adjoins an “urban wilderness”, which is continued by the ar-chitectural design chosen. Resting atop glazed or open ground-floor zones, the struc-tures seem to float. The visual impression of an unbroken cityscape is preserved.

Situation within the cityThis project situated 4 km southeast of Vienna’s historic centre is part of a plan to de-velop the former slaughterhouse yards of St. Marx and hence should be classified as an“inner-city urban expansion” venture. Distances to tram and bus stops are 100-200 m;to the nearest Underground station, 600 m. Car access is provided via roads on twosides of the property. The social infrastructure and range of shops to be found on amajor road west of the development and around the Underground station correspond tothe city location.

Location assetsLocation close to historic centre, topographically slightly raised vis-à-vis the adjoiningnorthwestern lot, an “urban wilderness” that serves for leisure and recreation.

Prerequisites of successKarree St. Marx C was implemented together with three separate teams of architects onthe basis of an urbanistic master project (developers’ competition). The effect of heavilytrafficked Schlachthausgasse west of the project is still palpable, but it is planned toshield the residential section by means of a block containing offices and shops.

Quality and flexibility of use of individual structuresThe flats face the surrounding green zones on all sides. All units have spacious bal-conies; many flats occupy corner positions. The ground floor of the L-shaped perimeterstructure accommodates a large unit designed for a flat-sharing community. The devel-opment boasts a kindergarten and three shops. The central access zone is well-lit. Flexi-bility of use of the ground-floor zones is ensured by generous room heights and buildingdepth.

Availability and quality of open spacesThe entire project is characterised by a pleasant balance of built volumes and openspaces. Private open spaces such as balconies are provided. The settlement is perme-ated by greenery, is accessible for pedestrians from outside and offers generous spacesfor appropriation by young people.

Neighbourship, communal facilitiesA sense of neighbourship is likely to develop due to the generously sized communal fa-cilities (children’s playrooms) and open spaces of the project. All ground-floor zones ofthe point blocks are dedicated to communal facilities.

Quality of urban spaceThe entire project is publicly accessible for pedestrians and directly adjoins a naturepark-style “urban wilderness”.

48


11/ Karree St. Marx C (1030 Wien, Erne Seder Gasse 2-8 / Viehmarktgasse 1A-1B)



11/ Karree St. Marx C (1030 Wien, Erne Seder Gasse 2-8 / Viehmarktgasse 1A-1B)



Wing depth, m 15/28-30Access type SP/centralFaçade distance wideNumber of storeys 6-9Mean number of storeys 7.2








Year of completion 2010Planners Prohazka, Querkraft

Geiswinkler&GeiswinklerDevelopers ÖSW, Bauhilfe, Sozialbau

49


In briefThe residential development Werdwies is a settlement composed of four free-standing,eight-storey point blocks and three buildings with air wells and was constructed follow-ing the demolition of a 1950s settlement. Integrated infrastructure facilities and publichousing subsidies for the flats safeguard high quality of use.

Situation within the cityThe suburb of Grünau is situated close to 6 km from Zurich Main Station near LimmatRiver. The housing development Werdwies is easily reached by public transport (only 20m to tram and bus stops and 600 m to the nearest commuter train station). The con-densed structure of this suburb allows for social infrastructure and a good range ofshops within walking distance.

Location assetsExcellent connection to public transport network; proximity to urban recreation zonealong Limmat River.

Prerequisites of successThe housing development Werdwies – the outcome of an architectural competitionand the commitment of one housing developer – was to meet a high level of energyefficiency close to passive house standards. The innovative implementation conceptalso included identity-creating intermediate utilisation of the property (artistic inter-ventions) between the demolition of the previous buildings and the construction of thenew project.

Quality and flexibility of use of individual structuresMany of the 152 flats occupy a corner position and hence boast views of the city fromtwo directions. The building arrangement safeguards particularly favourable lightingand minimal shading. The ground-floor zone integrates a bistro, supermarket, kinder-garten and crèche as well as small service providers and studios, thus ensuring highflexibility of use.

Availability and quality of open spacesAll flats have loggias. Due to their position, the character of the settlement’s openspaces is public, highly attractive and appealing. Children and young people find playequipment scattered across the open spaces. Cars and bikes can be parked under-ground and on a one-storey covered parking lot.

Neighbourship, communal facilitiesNeighbourhood communication is facilitated by the building lobbies. The developmentalso features communal rooms and music rooms. Every floor of the point blocks boastsa soundproofed music room.

Quality of urban spaceGood spatial quality is ensured by the ground-floor zones, whose shops and serviceproviders are easily accessible on foot, as well as by the streetscape of the project.

50


12/ Wohnsiedlung Werdwies (Zürich, Grünauring / Bändlistraße)



12/ Wohnsiedlung Werdwies (Zürich, Grünauring / Bändlistraße)



Wing depth, m 17-37Access type SPFaçade distance wideNumber of storeys 1-8Mean number of storeys 6.4

Gross floorspace, sq m 31,300Of which housing, % -Of which work, % -Of which services, % -






Circulation areas, sq m 580Aboveground parking, sq m 340Service infrastructure costs/dwelling mediumNumber of slots -Type of parking TG + open-air slots

Year of completion 2007Planners Adrian StreichDeveloper City of Zurich

51


52



53


3a/ 2- TO 4-STOREY LINEAR DEVELOPMENTS

Linear ribbon-type developments with narrow volumes are bothwell-suited for low row houses and multi-storey buildings. It is es-sential to provide for an appropriately situated open space(“gap”).Row houses offer a level of housing quality similar to single-fam-ily homes but are less land-consuming.Narrow volumes allow for cross-ventilated flats.Possible cons: if the distance between buildings is small, this im-pacts privacy; the access side and private (garden) side may beidentical.

Access type: direct (row houses), landing access or covered walkways (others)

Preferred orientation: south, westGround-floor level suitablefor non-residential use: noSuitability for flat variety: yesSuitability for priv. openspaces: yesPrivacy (invisible f. outside): low

Lot size: > 1 hectareLot width: > 100 mLot depth: approx. 60 m for three rows

Public open spaces: situation-dependentOpen space quality: good

Parking spaces: underground garage(s)

Description:Oblong, narrow volumesset closely side by side;ground-floor flats with gardens

2-4 storeys

Plot coverage 34-44%Distance b. buildings 12 mWing depth 6-20 mNumber of storeys 1-2 2+T 3 3+TFloorspace density <1.0 1.3 1.4 1.8Flats/hectare <100 110 120 140


In briefThe two-row residential project adopting a terraced-housing style is composed of tenidentical three-storey blocks. The ground-floor flats have their own front gardens; thoseon the floor above feature balconies, while the top-floor units boast terraces. The com-plex is part of a larger development, with which it shares a children’s playground and anunderground garage.

Situation within the cityThe project forms part of an urban expansion zone along the northeastern periphery ofVienna and, surrounded by single-family homes, occupies a long and narrow plot typicalof the Marchfeld Plain. On one side, the complex is accessed by a public road that isalso used by a bus line. The village core of Aspern with social infrastructure (school) anda variety of shops can be found at a distance of approx. 900 m.

Location assetsA public park with play areas for younger and older children is situated north of the proj-ect.

Prerequisites of successExemplary low-rise, condensed settlement with ample green spaces at the urban pe-riphery.

Quality and flexibility of use of individual structuresAll 110 housing units face east/west and have their own open spaces (front gardens,balconies, roof terraces). The ground-floor units resemble terraced single-family homes.All units moreover disclose views of the surrounding greenery. Due to its terraced-housecharacter, the complex presents but little flexibility of use.

Availability and quality of open spacesThe open spaces extending between the rows and offering access to the individualbuildings are atmospheric and provide space for children to play and spend time in. Thetwo-row complex composed of ten identical blocks is centrally accessed via a footpath,with intersecting lanes in-between connecting it to the road.

Neighbourship, communal facilitiesThere are no communal facilities. The sense of neighbourship is fostered by the adjoin-ing gardens. Young people find space to meet and play in the adjacent park.

Quality of urban spaceWhile publicly accessible, the central footpath is predominantly used by inhabitants – aneffect of the purely residential character of the complex.

54


13/ An den alten Schanzen (1220 Wien, Soldanellenweg 4)



13/ An den alten Schanzen (1220 Wien, Soldanellenweg 4)



Wing depth, m 14.5Access type SPFaçade distance mediumNumber of storeys 2+TMean number of storeys 2.6








Year of completion 1994Planners Marschalek, LadstätterDeveloper Wohnungseigentum

55


In briefThe project is a row-type development with narrow volumes and composed of two-storey terraced houses with only minimal depth and small spaces between the blocks.Both ground-floor and upper-storey units have their own gardens (at ground-floor level,with direct access from the flats including those on the upper floor). Urban quality issolely derived from the environment and the proximity of the settlement to the centreof the city quarter.

Situation within the cityThis housing complex is part of Erzherzog-Karl-Stadt, a residential development in Vi-enna’s 22nd municipal district. The distance from the nearest bus stop is approx. 100 m;that from the nearest tram stop, approx. 300 m. Social infrastructure (kindergartens, el-ementary schools) and shops for everyday necessaries can be found both in the quarteritself and in the nearby village core of Aspern. Erzherzog-Karl-Stadt is a car-free zone forpedestrians and covers a surface of roughly 10 hectares.

Location assetsProtected position shielded by row buildings that block the noise from the nearby street.Part of a larger urban development area.

Prerequisites of successThis settlement type shows how the housing quality offered by single-family homes canbe implemented even in a condensed terraced-house project.

Quality and flexibility of use of individual structuresStrictly residential project. The flats all face their individual gardens. The east/westalignment ensures good housing quality. Flats are not designed as maisonettes but ex-tend over one storey only. Flexibility of use was obviously not aimed for.

Availability and quality of open spacesApart from the necessary access paths, there are no open spaces for communal use.However, the private gardens offer ample green zones. While the project itself does notprovide space for young people to play and meet, these exist in the close vicinity.

Neighbourship, communal facilitiesNeighbourship is fostered by the fact that all flats have their own garden, which stimu-lates communication. There are no communal facilities.

Quality of urban spaceWhile the complex as such conveys an impression of mono-functionality, the fact thatcars are banned from the development ensures permeability for pedestrians, also fromoutside.

56


14/ Erzherzog-Karl-Stadt B (1220 Wien, Annie-Rosar-Weg 1-3)



14/ Erzherzog-Karl-Stadt B (1220 Wien, Annie-Rosar-Weg 1-3)



Wing depth, m 6.1Access type RH, directFaçade distance narrowNumber of storeys 2Mean number of storeys 2





Housing tenure rentedNon residential use, sq m 0


Circulation areas, sq m 0Aboveground parking, sq m 0Service infrastructure costs/dwelling mediumNumber of slots 77Type of parking TG

Year of completion 1998Planners Katzberger, LoudonDeveloper Neues Leben

57


In briefBeddington Zerobed is a quarter composed of six one- to three-storey row volumes. Thissettlement type provides an optimised combination of ecological housing and workingwith high quality of life. The highly condensed, low-rise townhouse design reinterpretsthe English garden city. The communal centre “BedZED Pavilion” has acquired regionalimportance.

Situation within the cityBeddington Zerobed is situated in the borough of Sutton at 14 km distance from Lon-don’s city. A bus stop is situated directly adjacent to the development, while a suburbantrain station can be found at only 600 m from the complex. “Green transport schedules”and car sharing promote a new mobility concept. The nearest supermarket is at 2 km; atwice-weekly local farmers’ market offers additional shopping possibilities.

Location assetsRecreational area to the northeast of London.

Prerequisites of successFollowing land rehabilitation, Beddington Zerobed was constructed on a former sewageworks site. The underlying concept aims at “green lifestyles“: use of natural materialssuch as brick and certified timber; aerodynamic design and rooftop ventilators to im-prove ventilation without air-conditioning units; heating provided by a cogenerationplant (fuelled by locally produced biomass); solar panels on roofs; sustainable wateruse; own water treatment plant; greywater used for toilet flushing. In keeping withthese standards, the original investment costs were high. The project is composed ofsocial housing, rented apartments and owner-occupied flats for one third each.

Quality and flexibility of use of individual structuresThe project creates possibilities of combined living and working in one building. Flats-cum-studios, terraced houses, attic flats and one-level apartments are available. Flatsface south (optimised energy consumption), while studios face north. The individualwings are relatively deep (up to 20 m) and compact. Flexibility of use is provided by theground-floor studios. Densification ensures supply with everyday necessaries and awider range of shops and service providers within walking distance.

Availability and quality of open spacesThe development boasts a differentiated range of private open spaces (resident gar-dens, terraces, roof terraces, balconies). Traffic calming was introduced for the residen-tial streets; a village green fosters communication. There are also spaces for youngpeople, e.g. a sports pitch.

Neighbourship, communal facilitiesBoth open spaces (sports pitch, village green) and buildings offer communal facilities(clubhouse, community centre/BedZED Pavilion, kindergarten and gyms).

Quality of urban spaceDue to the architectural design, the open spaces are very introverted and hence of littleattractiveness for the surrounding city quarter.

58


15/ Beddington Zerobed (London, Beddington)



15/ Beddington Zerobed (London, Beddington)



Wing depth, m 12.5-20Access type RH, SPFaçade distance narrowNumber of storeys 1-3Mean number of storeys 2.3



Total useful living area, sq m 5,290Number of dwellings 63Flat sizes, sq m -Average flat size 84Flats/hectare of plot surface 76Flats/hectare of reference surface 68

Flats with open space -Of which with private garden, % -Of which with balcony, loggia, % -Of which with terrace, % -

Housing tenure owner-occupied/ rentedNon residential use, sq m 400


Circulation areas, sq m 2,950Aboveground parking, sq m 510Service infrastructure costs/dwelling mediumNumber of slots 44Type of parking open-air slots

Year of completion 2002Planner Bill DunsterDeveloper Peabody Trust

59


60



Date post:	23-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

3863 11 Englisch CIDEP Kern K3 ek - Stadt Wien...05/ Borneo Eiland 2 32 Type 2a 35 06/ Nove Rusovce...

Documents