REGION CITY‐ ASSESSMENT OF THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES IN THE OTHER THREE PROJECTS 1 REIULF RAMSTAD SIGHT LINES AND DIRECTIONS IN THE PLAN To integrate an entirely new neighborhood in an existing urban structure requires high awareness of the spatial qualities and to considerate which elements in the environment that are important to incorporate in order to create a successful anchorage. In RegionCity (RC) we have incorporated the historical directions/the 1600 and 1800 century structure, some new directions ( eg Götaälvbroen ) as well as an opportunity to take into account historical vue points that are not part of the cityscape today ‐ as Skansen Lejonet and og Bergslagsbanans Stationshus. SIGHT LINES GÖTAÄLVBROEN Strength: The sight line is well‐integrated in the district, and is led further on over the coming cityarea over the tracks. Weakness : The sight line is interrupted over the track area in order to catch up the direction of Burggrevegatan. The sightline does not lead to a point, for instance a square. SIGHT LINE TO SKANSEN LEJONET The direction to Skansen Lejonet appears from a secondary street in level 1 Strength: Skansen Lejonet will appear as a surprising vue point, when you get up in level 1 , and as such, give a special quality. Weakness : Skansen Lejonet will not be a natural orientation point between Nils Ericsson platsen and Gullbergsvass . INTEGRATION OF PARK ( AND BERGSLAGSBANANS STATIONSHUS ) INTO REGIONCITY The park appears as a detached , triangular area of this urban space , with roads on all sides. Strength: Taxi drop off located under the cantilever of the building , facing the RC ,gives this drop‐off function a clear link to RegionCity, without disturbing the park. Weakness : Since the 1800‐Century structure of the proposal , is the dominant direction right up to Bergslagsgatan, the space left between RegionCity and Berslagsgatan becomes a triangular area. The Urban space and the park with its triangular shape , is more like a "left ‐over space" / or an expanded road area, than a deliberately designed park. Bergslagsbanans stationshus , is a classic built town house , with a clear symmetry. The triangular space is an asymmetric shape, and does not support the classic building complex. BANGÅRDSVIADUKTENS FLOW THROUGH THE DISTRICT Strength: The area under Bangårdsviadukten , is used partly for trade and partly to establish a link between RegionCity and Gullbergsvass . Weakness: Bangårdsviaduktens road course seems abrupt , especially the northern part , which is 1 compressed in a meandering course , in order to connect to the rest of the street grid , respectively, against Gullbergsvass , and the "drop off" street along the park . The abrupt bend radius, appears to be on the edge of what is possible and justifiable in terms of road safety. REGION CITY S RELATION TO NILS ERICSSON TERMINAL Strength: RegionCity is built directly on to the terminal in plan 0 and creates an opportunity to get a flow of functions related to station areas. Weakness : processing must take into consideration, that a parallel connection could take the strenght out of the Nils Ericsson terminal REGION CITYS CONNECTION TO VÄSTLÄNKEN ENTRANCES Strength: Good and well‐defined squares around the station entrances Weakness : REGIONCITYS RELATION TIL THE CENTRAL STATION Strength: Well defined urban space that brings together the many directions at the entrance to RC Weakness : REGIONCITYS RELATION TO GULLBERGSVASS Strength: the urban structure in RegionCity meets the future residential area on a smaller scale. Weakness : STREETS AND URBAN SPACES: Strength: The plan shows in general a fine sequence of clear and well‐defined squares in the plan. There are good public connections between the different levels from level 0‐1‐2 The urban structure opens up to allow daylight to come down to the city's central square . Green areas both horizontally and vertically, are positive elements in the plan. Weakness : The street grid is not very dense ‐ which give relatively large districts/ neigborhoods. This gives some distance between side streets and shortcuts. INTERPRETATION OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS ( 0‐2 and 3‐5 ..) Strength: Public spaces are well connected in the lower levels Weakness : The culture layer terminates as a base for the skyline. The level where the higher houses withdraw, leaves an outdoor space. These spaces appear to be " a leftover space" at the foot of the skyline, and their usefulness and quality is debatable. DENSITY AND SKYLINE : The plan is organized in a relatively open structure, with few (3) , quite tall buildings. This means that the district predominantly, consists of buildings with a height of 7 to 14 floors. 2 Strength: When processing the plan, it is a possibility to consider daylight conditions very carefully, creating good urban space , in the lower part of the structure. Weakness : There is a risk of creating a "medium scale" that can´t decide whether it will be high or low. Buildings that have a large volume in both breadth and depth but are not allowed to grow up in height, may end up being bulky and heavy. If the justification is that it must fit into the existing city, this "medium scale" can end up being as alien as to go all out and create a " Manhattan ". ROBUSTNESS : The extensive street grid, makes large district/ neighborhoods. This appears to be less flexible seen in a development perspective. 3 REGION CITY‐ ASSESSMENT OF THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES IN THE OTHER THREE PROJECTS 2 LILJEWALL SIGHT LINES AND DIRECTIONS IN THE PLAN To integrate an entirely new neighborhood in an existing urban structure requires high awareness of the spatial qualities and to considerate which elements in the environment that are important to incorporate in order to create a successful anchorage. In RegionCity (RC) we have incorporated the historical directions/the 1600 and 1800 century structure, some new directions ( eg Götaälvbroen ) as well as an opportunity to take into account historical vue points that are not part of the cityscape today ‐ as Skansen Lejonet and og Bergslagsbanans Stationshus. SIGHT LINES GÖTAÄLVBROEN Strength: Clear connection from the bridge toward the RegionCity. Weakness : Transition from Götaälvbroen and entrance to the RC doesn´t seem well considered. The street and the square around the entrance to VL‐ station, seems too large and open . SIGHT LINE TO SKANSEN LEJONET The direction to Skansen Lejonet is caught up from the town square approx. in the middle of the east‐west street. Strength: Skansen Lejonet will appear as a surprising vue point, when you reach the square, and as such, give a special quality. Weakness : Skansen Lejonet will not be a natural orientation point between Nils Ericsson platsen and Gullbergsvass . INTEGRATION OF THE PARK IN FRONT OF BERGSLAGSBANANS STATIONSHUS , INTO REGIONCITY The park appears as a detached , triangular area of this urban space , with streets on all sides. The park is pulled down past the NE terminal and the park introduces a circular space. Along with the spanish stair that leads in‐ and up to RegionCity, the proposal introduces a number of large open spaces. Strength: Each of the urban elements have spatial qualities. Weakness : As the 1800‐ century structure , also in this proposal, is the dominant direction right up to Bergslagsgatan , the triangular park space , appears more as a "left ‐over space" than a deliberately designed plant. There is a series of fragmented, open space, facing large infrastructure, and it is doubtful whether it will appeal for people to sit or stay here. BANGÅRDSVIADUKTENS FLOW THROUGH THE DISTRICT The proposal shows two different solutions in the traffic diagram and the plans. The traffic diagram seems clearer than the plan. Strength: The area under Bangårdsviadukten , is used partly for trade and partly to establish a link between RegionCity and Gullbergsvass . 1 Weakness: Bangårdsviaduktens process ( in plandrawings ) does not feed all the way through to Bergslagsgatan, and it's a little unclear how the traffic flow is. As it stands, traffic is led through the upcoming residential area, Gullbergsvass , which is not optimal . REGION CITY S RELATION TO NILS ERICSSON TERMINAL RegionCity is held completely free of Nils Ericsson Terminal. Parallel to the terminal ,a passageway that connects the Central Station with VL station. is created. The Central Station and NE terminal are connected by a glass‐covered square. Strength: Nils Ericsson terminal will toward RC, maintain its status as a detached , fine work of architecture. Weakness : the glass roof takes some of the strength of the re‐opening of the terminal building , and blur the characteristic gable of Nils Ericsson terminal. Since RegionCity is a high and dense town, the result will in any case be a great contrast between the low terminal , and the tall buildings in the immediate vicinity . The parallel street connection is likely to take the strength of the single street in the terminal. REGION CITYS CONNECTION TO VÄSTLÄNKEN ENTRANCES Strength : defined squares around the station entrances Weakness : Especially around the middleentrance of VL, the urban space is very large and open . REGIONCITYS RELATION TIL THE CENTRAL STATION Strength: Well‐defined plaza space that brings together the many directions at the entrance to RegionCity Weakness : It is not quite clear why the square should will be covered. REGIONCITYS RELATION TO GULLBERGSVASS Strength: The urban structure in RegionCity meets the future residential area on a smaller scale. Weakness : The built structure that appears in the new Gullbergsvass doen´t follow up on the directions that form the basis of the RegionCity and the plan misses the opportunity to create context. STREETS AND URBAN SPACES: Strength: Wide variety of different spaces . Clear structure of streets . The urban structure opens up to allow daylight to come down to the city's central square. Weakness : The east‐ west streets seems like quite a broad and open street, and passing through the wide open square, it misses an opportunity to create tension. Overall, it seems that streets and squares are over dimensioned. The main square, with its square shape , seems postulated and alien in its design , both in plan and section . It does not seem convincing that the square can accomodate activity at all levels. Risk that the lower level will be perceived as a basement level . ( does the square actually go down in level ‐1 ?) At first sight the plan shows great complexity in the layout , but the tension between the different parts lack. There is a tendency that separate parts of the plan is " over‐designed " in relation to the planning stage of the project. INTERPRETATION OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS ( 0‐2 and 3‐5 ..) 2 Strength: Public spaces are well connected in the lower levels. Weakness : Around the central square, there is a risk that the many levels related to the square take the activity out of the square. It is a bit unclear whether the proposal works with a cultural layer ? It seems that the trade‐levels inhabits all levels from 0‐5 , which seem unrealistic. DENSITY AND SKYLINE : The plan is organized in a relatively open structure, with few (1) quite tall building (28 floors) and 1‐2 buildings of 23 floors . The rest of the district consists predominantly of buildings between 7 and 14 floors. Strength: At a very conscious processing of the development's location in relation to daylight , can create good well‐lit spaces , in the lower levels. The proposal suggests relatively slim volumes. Weakness : All buildings having a height of 5 storeys, are equally spaced , (same distance between builldings) creating an "open ‐ high " city, without tension between the volumes. With few tall buildings, an intermediate scale is created which can not decide whether it will be high or low. If the justification is that it must fit into the existing city, this "medium scale" can end up being as alien as to go all out and create a " Manhattan ". ROBUSTNESS : The plan is divided into relatively large neighborhoods , which seems to be less flexible , seen in a development perspective. The square in the center is in contact with a large amount of the total settlement and thus dependent on coordination between different players (investors) both in terms of design and economy , which implies a risk in order to obtain a successful result. Likewise, the grand spanish stair, might be established by more than one player. 3 REGION CITY‐ ASSESSMENT OF THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES IN THE OTHER THREE PROJECTS 4.Kanozi SIGHT LINES AND DIRECTIONS IN THE PLAN To integrate an entirely new neighborhood in an existing urban structure requires high awareness of the spatial qualities and to considerate which elements in the environment that are important to incorporate in order to create a successful anchorage. In RegionCity (RC) we have incorporated the historical directions/the 1600 and 1800 century structure, some new directions ( eg Götaälvbroen ) as well as an opportunity to take into account historical vue points that are not part of the cityscape today ‐ as Skansen Lejonet and og Bergslagsbanans Stationshus. SIGHT LINES GÖTAÄLVBROEN Strength: Clear connection from the bridge toward the RegionCity. Square around VL station, reflects a delicate transition. Weakness : SIGHT LINE TO SKANSEN LEJONET The direction to Skansen Lejonet is caught up from the other side of Bangårdsviadukten, in the square in Gullbergsvass. Strength: Skansen Lejonet will be a surprising vue point that emerges not until you reach the square, on the other side and could therefore have a special quality. Weakness : Skansen Lejonet will not (at all) be a natural orientation point between Nils Ericsson platsen and Gullbergsvass . INTEGRATION OF THE PARK IN FRONT OF BERGSLAGSBANANS STATIONSHUS , INTO REGIONCITY Area between Bergslagsbanans stationhus and RC is designed as a rectangular green area, with a bus stop , taxi drop off and short‐term parking . Strength: A rectangular plant, which corresponds to the direction in Berslagsbanans stationshus and Bergslagsgatans direction. Although also this proposal draws the1800 century structure, all the way up to Bergslagsgatan , it manages to angle the outer block, creating a precise urban space in front of Bergslagsbanans Stationshus, thus respecting the classic , symmetrical design. Although the "park" will consists of a hard coated surface rather than a green park, it opens a welcome discussion about the park's eligibility. An area of drop off, buses, etc. is a more realistic estimate of a useful space, which in many ways plays well with the history of Berslagsbanans stationshus. Weakness : If the overall goal is to create a park , it seems a little postulated that parking, drop off and buses, can coexist with a very green park . It will in any case have a more urban feel. BANGÅRDSVIADUKTENS FLOW THROUGH THE DISTRICT Strength: The area under Bangårdsviadukten , used partly for trade and partly to establish a link between the RC and Gullbergsvass . Weakness: Bangårdsviaduktens process is interrupted and swings to Gullbergsvass where traffic is passed through the coming residential area, which is not optimal. REGION CITY S RELATION TO NILS ERICSSON TERMINAL 1 Strength: RegionCity is built directly on the lev . 0 and creates a clear division of functions related to the busterminal, and a parallel walkway leading directly to VL station. Weakness : There is a strong rearrangement of Nils Ericsson terminal. The question is whether it is realistic to preserve it. (?) REGION CITYS CONNECTION TO VÄSTLÄNKEN ENTRANCES Strength : well defined space around the station entrances. The VL middle‐entrance is clearly linked to the Central Station . Weakness : REGIONCITYS RELATION TIL THE CENTRAL STATION Strength: Well‐defined square that brings together the many directions at the entrance to RegionCity Weakness : REGIONCITYS RELATION TO GULLBERGSVASS Strength: The urban structure in RegionCity meets the future residential area on a smaller scale. The large square in Gullbergsvass creates a good connection between RegionCity and the new district. The square in connection with the suggested park underlines the link between the two districts. The structure grabs directions from RegionCity. Weakness : STREETS AND URBAN SPACES: Strength: Overall a clear concept of blocks carrying towers in the corners. Good variety of different outdoor spaces. Clear street structure. Tall buildings are placed deliberately in the cityscape, especially around the main square, still taking sunlight in to account. Good idea to bring in street names from the old town to RegionCity‐ it underlines the connection with the city. Weakness : INTERPRETATION OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS ( 0‐2 and 3‐5 ..) Strength: strong retail concept in level 2, with internal streets. Cool to combine a classic urban structure of open streets with a "mall " concept . Weakness : Risk that level 2 will be labyrinthine, it works best around the square . Not so much detailing/information about the cultural layer. DENSITY AND SKYLINE : Strength: Plan concept is clearly perceptible : blocks with towers at the corners. The expression of the buildings as outlined in the images , shows as the only one of the four proposals, a shaping of the top of the buildings, rather than flat roofs. There is something endearing and beautiful by taking up this challenge. There is a possibility of a real and conscious processing , making the skyline for something special Göteborsk . Weakness : Transition between the block and the tower is not taken into consideration. A more precise position on this delicate part will provide greater clarity for the concept. The images show that buildings with varied architecture and material use. A form of the game should be described. ROBUSTNESS : The plan is divided into relatively large areas , but the block structure allows for a further breakdown . Walk way relations in level 2 can pose challenges in relation to phases. 2 3 SUMMARY Generally for all proposals : Bangårdviaduktens process should be clarified further in the next steps. There is clearly a development and clarification potential for this part, that is in any way related to how traffic is led to and from Götaälvbroen . All four proposals work with a use of the area under Bangårdsviadukten which make you believe that there is something right and durable in this solution. All four proposals are suggesting a smaller scale in the meeting between RegionCity and Gullbergsvass. It seems to be a matter to be pursued. The following is a short list of items to bring on from the other proposals. It should be read in connection with strengths listed under each proposal. ITEMS TO BRING ALONG FROM PROPOSAL 1 / Reiulf Ramstad 1 : Good organization of public spaces and squares / city space / fine triangular square 2 : Good public relations between the lower levels ITEMS TO BRING ALONG FROM PROPOSAL 2 / Liljewall 1 : Skyline / slim volumes 2 : interesting to test the disconnection of the Nils Ericsson terminal ITEMS TO BRING ALONG FROM PROPOSAL 4 / Kanozi 1 : The "park" in front Bergslagsgatan‐ discussion of the programming in terms of use . 2 : The combination of classical block structure in combination with the mall concept in level 2 Interesting to test whether it is possible to combine the mall concept with the "cultural‐
layer‐concept and the semi‐public gardens in proposal 3 3: Deliberate design of the skylines finish towards the "sky". (in stead of flat roofs) 1