Urban Planning and Design Guide

Urban Planning and Design for Cities: Skylines
alborzka
Auguﬆ 16, 2017
Abﬆract
This document aims to serve as a comprehensive. simple guide for Cities: Skylines (C:S)
players who want to incorporate elements of professional, real-world urban planning and city
design into their cities. All information here is taken from online academic courses on urban
planning, using the lateﬆ trends and knowledge. City planning is much more complicated than
can be experienced in C:S, and urban planning can’t be summed up in a few pages. It involves
several disciplines and experts specialised in particular areas, and real cities aren’t designed by
one “Jack of all trades”. Thus, this document seeks to enable readers to learn as many aspects of
city design as can be possibly implemented in-game. Aspects such as economic policy and other
areas not touched upon in C:S are similarly not touched upon in this guide.
Contents
1 City Design Hiﬆory 12
1.1 Pre-Induﬆrial Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.1.1 The Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.1.2 The Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.1.3 The Axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.1.4 The City Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.1.5 The Cloiﬆer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.2 Cities in the Induﬆrial Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3 Cities in the 1950s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.4 Today’s Regional City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2 Different Design Schools 14
2.1 Moderniﬆ City Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2 Traditional City Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3 Green City Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 Syﬆems City Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1

3 Environmental Considerations 16
3.1 Ecological Urbanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2 Managing Water: Flooding and Scarcity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3 Managing Energy Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4 Green Infraﬆructure and Urban Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4 Preserving Older Cities and Diﬆricts 19
4.1 Importance of Hiﬆoric Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2 Adaptive Re-Use of Old Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.3 Preserving the Induﬆrial Heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5 Integrating and Improving Slums 20
5.1 Background on Informal Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2 Rapid Urbanisation and Slums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.3 Retrofitting Infraﬆructure and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.4 Combating Poverty and Urban Deterioration in the Ghetto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6 Community, Neighbourhoods, and Human Interaction 23
6.1 Transformation of Urban Lifeﬆyles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.2 Residential Mobility and Housing Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.3 Spatial Patterns that Promote Personal Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.4 Mixing Home, Work, Culture and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.5 Walkable Neighbourhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7 Designing New Cities, Diﬆricts and Neighbourhoods 26
7.1 Urban Form of New Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.2 The Public Realm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8 Airport–City Connection 27
8.1 Airfront Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8.2 Decoplex Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8.3 Airport City Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.4 Airport Corridor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.5 AIREA Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8.6 Aerotropolis Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9 Public Transit 30
9.1 Catch-Bin Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9.2 Underﬆanding Modal Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9.3 The Barbeque Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9.4 Seductive Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9.5 Territories, Networks, and Forms of Urbanisation: A Note on Trams . . . . . . . . . 34
9.6 Transit Adherence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9.7 Public Space Fragmentation: Resident Needs Vs. Visitor Wants . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2

10 Building Design Principles 35
10.1 Frame the Public Realm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
10.2 Ground Floor-to-Street Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
10.3 Sense of Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
10.4 Integrate Urban Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10.5 Light, View, Skyline, and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10.6 Prominent Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
10.7 Scale Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
10.8 Façade Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
10.9 Building Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
10.10 Vehicular and Pedeﬆrian Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
10.10.1 Pedeﬆrian Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
10.10.2 Service and Loading Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
10.10.3 Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
A Transit-Oriented Communities Design Guidelines 43
A.1 Common Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
A.2 Deﬆinations: Coordinate Land Use and Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
A.2.1 Ensure that major deﬆinations are lined up along a reasonably direct corridor
so they can be served by frequent transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
A.2.2 Encourage the higheﬆ intensity of development in Urban Centres and at fre-
quent transit nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
A.2.3 Focus additional growth toward exiﬆing and planned frequent transit corridors 44
A.3 Diﬆance: Create a Well-Connected Street Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
A.3.1 Provide fine-grained ﬆreet networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
A.3.2 Make walking and cycling access to frequent transit as direct as possible . . . 44
A.3.3 Plan for coordinated, multi-modal transportation networks . . . . . . . . . 45
A.3.4 Locate frequent transit passenger facilities at accessible places on the ﬆreet
network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
A.4 Design: Create Places for People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
A.4.1 Design multi-modal ﬆreets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
A.4.2 Design great public spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
A.4.3 Seamlessly integrate development with frequent transit and the public realm 46
A.4.4 Design parking to support a pedeﬆrian-oriented urban realm . . . . . . . . 46
A.5 Density: Concentrate and Intensify Activities near Frequent Transit . . . . . . . . . 46
A.5.1 Focus density in Urban Centres and around frequent transit corridors and
nodes to support a ﬆrong demand for transit service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
A.5.2 Plan for density that supports community character and promotes quality of life 46
A.6 Diversity: Encourage a Mix of Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
A.6.1 Provide a mix of uses along frequent transit corridors to reduce peak crowding
and spread travel demand throughout the day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
A.6.2 Encourage a mix of land uses immediately adjacent to frequent transit facilities 47
A.6.3 Encourage a mix of uses around transit nodes to create complete neighbourhoods 48
3

A.6.4 Provide an active ﬆreet life with a mix of community services and fine-grained
retail spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
A.6.5 Provide a mix of housing types near frequent transit passenger facilities to
create inclusive communities and promote equitable access to transportation 48
A.7 Checkliﬆs and How The 5 D’s Relate to Transportation Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . 49
A.7.1 Corridor and Regional Level Checkliﬆ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
A.7.2 Neighbourhood Level Checkliﬆ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
A.7.3 Site Level Checkliﬆ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
A.7.4 How The 5 D’s Relate to Transportation Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
B Complete Street Guidelines 57
B.1 Street Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
B.1.1 Civic Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
B.1.2 Downtown &Centres Main Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
B.1.3 Avenue &Neighbourhood Main Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
B.1.4 Downtown &Centres Residential Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
B.1.5 Apartment Neighbourhood Residential Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
B.1.6 Neighbourhood Residential Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
B.1.7 Mixed Use Connector Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
B.1.8 Residential Connector Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
B.1.9 Scenic Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
B.1.10 Park Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
B.1.11 Employment Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
B.1.12 Mixed Use Access Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
B.1.13 Mixed Use Shared Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
B.1.14 Residential Shared Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
B.1.15 Mixed Use Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
B.1.16 Residential Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
B.2 Common Street Design Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
B.3 Street Design for Pedeﬆrians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
B.3.1 Sidewalk Design and Streetscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
B.3.2 Additional Accessibility and Universal Design Features . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
B.3.3 Public Realm and Placemaking: Design Great Public Spaces . . . . . . . . . 94
B.3.4 Parking and the Pedeﬆrian Realm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
B.3.5 Safety of the Pedeﬆrian Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
B.3.6 Child Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
B.4 Street Design for Cycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
B.4.1 Key Cycling Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
B.4.2 Cycling Lane Infraﬆructure Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
B.4.3 Bike Lane Widths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
B.4.4 Context-Sensitive Cycling Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
B.4.5 Bicycle Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
B.5 Street Design for Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
4

B.5.1 Key Transit Street Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
B.5.2 Transit Stops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
B.5.3 Transit Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
B.5.4 Context-Sensitive Transit Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
B.6 Street Design for Green Infraﬆructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
B.6.1 Key Green Street Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
B.6.2 Green Infraﬆructure Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
B.6.3 Context-Sensitive Green Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
B.7 Street Design for Roadways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
B.7.1 Roadway Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
B.7.2 Design for a Multi-Modal Transportation Syﬆem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
B.7.3 Design for Safety of Vulnerable Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
B.7.4 Design Using a Target Speed for the Street Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
B.7.5 Design to Support Placemaking and Street Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
B.7.6 Rightsizing and Repurposing Roadway as Complete Streets . . . . . . . . . 108
B.7.7 Traffic Calming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
B.7.8 Roadway Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
B.8 Highway Traffic and More Lanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
B.9 Street Design for Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
B.9.1 Intersection Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
B.9.2 Key Needs and Perspectives of Each Road User . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
B.9.3 Crosswalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
B.9.4 Accessibility and Universal Design of Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
B.9.5 Context-Sensitive Intersection Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
B.9.6 Intersection Elements and Geometric Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
B.9.7 Intersection Signals and Other Traffic Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
B.10 Street Network Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
B.10.1 Fine-Grained Street Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
B.10.2 Coordinated, Multi-Modal Transportation Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
C Tall Building Guidelines 119
C.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
C.2 Site Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
C.2.1 Fit and Transition in Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
C.2.2 Sunlight and Sky View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
C.2.3 Prominent Sites and Views from the Public Realm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
C.3 Site Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
C.3.1 Building Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
C.3.2 Building Address and Entrances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
C.3.3 Site Servicing, Access, and Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
C.3.4 Publicly Accessible Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
C.3.5 Private Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
C.3.6 Pedeﬆrian and Cycling Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5

C.3.7 Public Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
C.4 Base Building Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
C.4.1 Base Building Height and Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
C.4.2 Street Animation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
C.4.3 Public-Private Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
C.5 Tower Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
C.5.1 Tower Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
C.5.2 Separation Diﬆances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
C.5.3 Tower Orientation and Articulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
C.6 Pedeﬆrian Realm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
C.6.1 Streetscape and Landscape Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
C.6.2 Sidewalk Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
C.6.3 Pedeﬆrian Level Wind Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
C.6.4 Pedeﬆrian Weather Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
C.7 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
D Mid-Rise Building Guidelines 137
D.1 Building Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
D.2 Front Façades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
D.2.1 Angular Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
D.2.2 Pedeﬆrian Perception Stepback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
D.2.3 Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
D.3 Rear Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
D.3.1 Rear Transition to Neighbourhoods: Deep Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
D.3.2 Rear Transition to Neighbourhoods: Shallow Properties . . . . . . . . . . . 138
D.3.3 Rear Transition to Employment Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
D.3.4 Rear Transition to Apartment Neighbourhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
D.4 Corner Sites: Heights and Angular Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
D.5 Minimum Sidewalk Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
D.6 Side Property Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
D.6.1 Continuous Street Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
D.6.2 Limiting Blank Side Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
D.6.3 Stepbacks at Upper Storeys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
D.6.4 Exiﬆing Side Windows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
D.6.5 Side Street Setbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
D.7 Maximum Building Width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
D.8 Residential At-Grade Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
D.9 Balconies and Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
D.10 Roofs and Roofscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
D.11 Prominent Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
D.12 Façade Design and Articulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
D.13 Parking, Servicing, and Vehicular Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
D.14 Heritage Diﬆricts and Character Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6

D.15 Business and Commercial Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
E Townhouse and Low-rise Apartment Guidelines 148
E.1 Site Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
E.1.1 Heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
E.1.2 Building Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
E.2 Site Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
E.2.1 Streets, Lanes, Mews, and Walkways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
E.2.2 Shared Outdoor Amenity Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
E.2.3 Building Placement and Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
E.2.4 Site Services, Access, and Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
E.2.5 Priority Lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
E.3 Building Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
E.3.1 Fit and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
E.3.2 Facing Diﬆances and Setbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
E.3.3 Primary Entrances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
E.3.4 Private Outdoor Amenity Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
E.3.5 Building Relationship to Grade and Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
E.4 Pedeﬆrian Realm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
E.4.1 Streetscape, Landscape, and Stormwater Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
E.4.2 Site Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
E.4.3 Building Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
E.4.4 Public Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
E.5 Demonﬆration Plans and Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
E.5.1 Shallow Mid-Block Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
E.5.2 Deep Mid-Block Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
E.5.3 Site Adjacent to or with Heritage Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
E.5.4 Site with Multiple Building Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
E.5.5 Large Site with Tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
E.5.6 Large Site with Multiple Development Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
F Low-Rise Residential Buildings: Singles, Semis, and Duplexes 169
F.1 Frame the Public Realm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
F.2 Ground Floor-to-Street Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
F.3 Sense of Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
F.4 Integrate Urban Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
F.5 Light, View, Skyline, and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
F.6 Prominent Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
F.7 Priority Lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
F.8 Scale Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
F.9 Façade Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
F.10 Building Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
F.11 Vehicular and Pedeﬆrian Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
7

F.12 Vehicular and Pedeﬆrian Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
F.12.1 Pedeﬆrian Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
F.12.2 Service and Loading Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
F.12.3 Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
G Neighbourhood Plazas and Large Format Retail 174
G.1 Frame the Public Realm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
G.2 Ground Floor-to-Street Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
G.3 Sense of Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
G.4 Integrate Urban Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
G.5 Light, View, Skyline, and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
G.6 Prominent Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
G.7 Scale Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
G.8 Façade Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
G.9 Building Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
G.10 Vehicular and Pedeﬆrian Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
G.10.1 Pedeﬆrian Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
G.10.2 Service and Loading Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
G.10.3 Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
H Inﬆitutional Buildings 178
H.1 Frame the Public Realm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
H.2 Ground Floor-to-Street Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
H.3 Sense of Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
H.4 Integrate Urban Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
H.5 Light, View, Skyline, and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
H.6 Prominent Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
H.7 Scale Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
H.8 Façade Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
H.9 Building Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
H.10 Vehicular and Pedeﬆrian Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
H.10.1 Pedeﬆrian Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
H.10.2 Service and Loading Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
H.10.3 Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
H.10.4 Drop-off Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
H.11 Community Service Location and Shared Facility Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
I Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities 183
I.1 Whimsy and Design for Four Seasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
I.2 Building Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
I.3 Common Indoor and Outdoor Amenity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
8

J Parks 185
J.1 Parks and Open Spaces: Access and Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
J.2 All Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
J.3 Community Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
J.4 Neighbourhood Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
J.5 Urban Squares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
J.6 Viﬆa Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
J.7 Nature Parks and Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
K Effective Lighting 189
K.1 Lighting for Safety and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
K.2 External Lighting Fixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
L Green Parking Lot Design 191
L.1 Location and Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
L.1.1 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
L.1.2 Site Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
L.1.3 Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
L.2 Vehicle Access and Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
L.3 Pedeﬆrian Access and Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
L.4 Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
L.4.1 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
L.4.2 Streetscape and Perimeter Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
L.4.3 Internal Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
L.4.4 Stormwater Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
L.5 Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
L.6 Example Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
L.6.1 Small Corner Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
L.6.2 Long Narrow Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
L.6.3 Large Site with Multiple Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
L.6.4 Additional Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Liﬆ of Figures
1 Transect Diagram, showing city design of the 1950’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2 Better building and tower spacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3 Traditionaliﬆ city design in New Urbanism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4 Airfront Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5 Decoplex Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6 Airport City Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7 Airport Corridor Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8 AIREA Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9 Aerotropolis Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9

10 Barbeque Effect and its relationship with increased energy consumption for transport
in dense areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11 A continuous rear lane helps transition between the rear lots fronting onto the arterial
ﬆreet, and the side lots of the buildings on the local ﬆreet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
12 Examples of how height and built form can enhance or impede views of prominent
landmarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
13 The houses in this diagram have varied setbacks along an arc which creates a varied and
more intereﬆing ﬆreetscape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
14 The tall building ﬆeps back to protect an important view from the public realm. . . . 39
15 Different examples of prominent sites that aren’t landmark based. . . . . . . . . . . . 40
16 The five zones of the sidewalk each have a role to play in designing ﬆreets for people. . 93
17 Considerations for Cycling Impact Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
18 Different types of cycling infraﬆructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
19 The relationship of traffic speed and volume to types of cycling facilities. . . . . . . . 100
20 Vehicle speed, ﬆopping diﬆance, and chance of survival. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
21 Vehicle speed and field of vision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
22 Avoid towers in a park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
23 A progressive transition in the height and scale of tall buildings from the centre of a
growth area down to a lower-scale area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
24 Horizontalseparationdiﬆance,andachangeinbasebuildingheightandformtosupport
tall building transition down to a lower-scale area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
25 A new tall building fitting within an exiﬆing context of other tall buildings of consiﬆent
height. Note the appropriate separation diﬆance between buildings of similar height. 121
26 An angular plane, and direct relationship in base building height and form to support
tall building transition down to a lower-scale area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
27 Highlight corner and mid-block entrances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
28 Tall building sites offer a broad range of publicly accessible open space opportunities. 125
29 Tall buildings require a broad range of private open spaces to meet the needs of building
occupants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
30 Theheightandscaleofthebasebuildingrespondstothescaleofneighbouringbuildings
and the ﬆreet proportion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
31 Public-private transition in base building design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
32 Tower frontage and placement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
33 Tower setback on property lines with and without laneways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
34 Minimum tower separation diﬆances via arrangement of multiple towers. . . . . . . . 132
35 Minimum tower separation diﬆance proportionate to building width, measured from
building face to building face. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
36 A generous sidewalk and ﬆrategic setback supports an active ﬆreet frontage and vibrant
pedeﬆrian environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
37 Issues and solutions to building wind design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
38 Rear transition for deep properties abutting neighbourhoods, parks, open space, and
natural areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
39 Rear transition for properties abutting employment areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
10

40 Example of corner site conditions for mid-rise buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
41 Diagram illuﬆrating the side ﬆreet setback. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
42 Mechanical penthouse placement within all angular planes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
43 Conserving local heritage with new building developments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
44 Examples of Priority Lots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
45 An example of how not to place townhouses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
46 Private amenity spaces in townhouses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
47 Landscaping at the level of the raised terrace (backyard) and the sidewalk provide
privacy for occupants on the terrace and an amenity for the public. . . . . . . . . . . 154
48 Building height should remain relatively conﬆant with gentle transitions. Abrupt varia-
tions in height should be avoided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
49 Basing new development on an internal ﬆreet and block pattern can accommodate
future infill development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
50 This Viﬆa Block provides a lookout over the Greenway Syﬆem and includes plantings
and a paved seating area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
51 Differences between effective and ineffective external lighting. Lamps that emit light
horizontally and/or upwards should be avoided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Introductory Remarks
This document is divided into two main parts: general information, and appendices. Going through the
document, you’ll get the hang of how this is organised and how to use it, but juﬆ a quick tip: If you’re
looking juﬆ for inﬆructions and guidelines to follow when making cities, and don’t really care about the
theory, juﬆ read the Appendix in order as well as the Airport–City Connection section and Building
Design Principles section. If you’re intereﬆed in the theory, and want to know why you should build in
this way, read the sections that intereﬆ you and refer to the appendices for inﬆructions and more detail.
The next two paragraphs are some introductory remarks that I didn’t know where else to put.
The primary infraﬆructure of a city is comprised of transport, energy, water/sewage, waﬆe, housing,
communications, green infraﬆructures. Secondary infraﬆructures include health care, education, nu-
trition, culture, and others; these are secondary because they function only if primary infraﬆructures
function. We evaluate primary infraﬆructure using three (3) main objectives or performance indicators:
suﬆainable, efficient, resilient. An urban syﬆem wants to pursue quality of life, city attractiveness, and city
competitiveness. Social dimensions of infraﬆructure can promote equity exclusion (highway dividing
the city) and equity inclusion (highway bringing people to work). Infraﬆructures can go either way or
both!
Theterritorialspace-frameofacityorregionisbuiltonthree(3)thingswhosearrangementshavechanged
since the 1960s: Morphology, Functional Centralities, and Lifeﬆyles. Until the 1960s, these three things
overlapped by snapping-in. For example, urban areas and their surroundings were regionalised, and
diﬆinctions were drawn between country and city. Looking at a small village, you could tell people
11

lived moﬆ of their lives in it and their lifeﬆyle revolved around it. Now, thanks to rapid transit syﬆems,
the possibilities of location are expanding. Morphological boundaries fade (urban sprawl) — it’s now
difficult to tell where a city begins and ends, both visually and funcionally. Lifeﬆyles change and detach
themselves from spatial proximity; ones daily life is now within a large geographic range. However, this
expansion doesn’t kill spatial differentiations! Not everything becomes urban! Mobility becomes the
link connecting Morphology, Function, and Lifetsyle. People can work and shop tens of kilometres1
away from where they live, including in large metropolitan (international) centres like Geneva.
1 City Design Hiﬆory
1.1 Pre-Induﬆrial Revolution
There were five (5) main characteriﬆics of cities prior to the Induﬆrial Revolution across the world. Not
all hiﬆoric cities have all of these characteriﬆics, but they will more than likely have one or more of them.
1.1.1 The Wall
Defence was essential for millennia. Even after walls came down and the moats were drained, the idea
of creating limits to the city remained. This was especially true for European cities where walls created
“membership”into the city, and those outside the city (not juﬆ outside the country) were considered
foreigners.
1.1.2 The Grid
Contrary to the common belief that grid syﬆems are mainly an American phenomenon, the firﬆ grid
syﬆem was created by the Greeks around 300 BC. As land ownership was dispersed to families and
people, the need to subdivide property in some logical way and record it onto maps became apparent.
There was also a need to define public areas like ﬆreets and squares.
1.1.3 The Axis
Some parts of the city (and some people) were more important than others throughout hiﬆory. Even in
a grid city like Beijing, the importance of the Emperor was reinforced by creating a central axis that only
he was allowed to use. In Renaissance Rome, Pope Sixtus the 5th used axes as way of uniting separate
diﬆricts of city and creating important plazas and buildings.
1.1.4 The City Square
In European cities, squares were created to become the living room of city, a place for all important
events. Squares often ﬆarted as open market places, and as markets moved indoors, they became spaces
for multiple purposes. In Northern Europe, squares can also function as green spaces, offering relief from
the dense city; this idea was carried over into the New World.
1
Or miles, if you’re ﬆuck in the 1800s.
12

1.1.5 The Cloiﬆer
A cloiﬆer is a space created for monaﬆeries, places of worship, temples, and/or shrines. These places
were often given prominent locations in the city. Bangkok’s wats define that city, and churches often
mark the centre of neighbourhoods and diﬆricts of Weﬆern cities. These places were then accompanied
by schools, meeting houses, and residences.
1.2 Cities in the Induﬆrial Revolution
Canals were used as a primary means of transporting goods before trains were introduced. The creation
of train tracks widened the trading scope of cities and intensified development in their city centres.
During this time, workers lived right next to, and sometimes within, induﬆrial areas and factories. This
created unhealthy living conditions. With the introduction of the car, buses, and trains, city roads became
crowded and polluted.
1.3 Cities in the 1950s
The cities of the 1950s, when people went to a single urban centre to work, shop, play, etc., are ﬆill what
many people think cities are or should be. Such cities were defined by the prominence of their Central
Business Diﬆrict (CBD), which functions as the city’s dominant commercial centre. This serves as
the location of central railway ﬆation(s), government, moﬆ office buildings, and the beﬆ retail, hotels,
theatres, and reﬆaurants. Close-by were some of the moﬆ expensive residential diﬆricts fronting on
landscaped parklands.
This central city was surrounded by induﬆry, except for fashionable ﬆreets leading to the beﬆ suburbs.
The working class lived near the induﬆrial areas, close to the factories in which they worked. Middle
class suburbanites were connected to the CBD by tram or commuter rail. This mid-century city was
created by attempting to correct the miﬆakes made when cities firﬆ became induﬆrialised.
The Transect Diagram shown in Figure 1 is used by advocates of New Urbanism as a template for
writing zone and design guidelines. It captures the organisation of a city as it was in 1950. Certain areas
that don’t fit the diagram, e.g. ﬆockyards, are labelled as “special diﬆricts”. The problem with this diagram,
however, is that cities are no longer the way they were in 1950. These neighbourhood designs were built
on a foundation of discrimination and deed reﬆrictions, as moﬆ people ﬆill lived in cramped slums.
1.4 Today’s Regional City
Starting in the 1950s2
, moﬆ people had personal cars, so cities began to be divided into a pre-1950’s “old
city” and a suburban “new city” which was ideal for cars. The old downtown was at the periphery of
the much more affluent new city. Buildings were emptying out and their businesses were moving to the
new city centre as well. The new city developed office and retail centres of its own, but were much more
2
This entire sub-section is US-centric. Moﬆ other developed countries had their old city centres remain dominant,
but ﬆill experienced suburbanisation enabled by cars.
13

Figure 1: Transect Diagram, showing city design of the 1950’s.
spread out compared to the old city.
Afterwards, the suburbs kept spreading to the point where it became dysfunctional for residents —
people complained about traffic congeﬆion, long commutes to work, segregation of functional areas
made mothers work as chauffeurs for their children, shopping required driving from one deﬆination
to another, etc. So, the old 1950’s model with a CBD and walkable neighbourhoods seemed good in
comparison. In the paﬆ few decades, the US has seen a big downtown revival and rise in real eﬆate values
for walkable neighbourhoods and suburbs.
2 Different Design Schools
The four (4) designs discussed here aren’t opposed to each other and aren’t mutually exclusive. Rather,
some are applicable to some times and circumﬆances while others remain inapplicable. The idea is to
pick (and maybe blend) what designs work right for particular projects.
2.1 Moderniﬆ City Design
The moderniﬆ school of city design features elevated highways running right through cities and clearing
land around them for high-rise office towers. This has the side-effect of dividing one community into
two, one on each side of the highway. Rivers and highways divide city up into separate neat diﬆricts.
Whole sections of towers appear in rows or cluﬆers.
The taller buildings are, the further apart they can be placed and ﬆill accommodate the same amount of
space. With the right orientation, buildings can be spaced so that sunlight falls on the full façade of the
neighbouring building, as shown in Figure 2. Such designs are actually implemented as law, known as
“Sunshine Laws” in countries such as Japan.
One feature of moderniﬆ design is that of Significant Form: buildings ﬆand out from their neighbours.
One can make any shape buildable, such as a piece of crumpled paper.
14

Figure 2: Better building and tower spacing.
2.2 Traditional City Design
In traditionaliﬆ city design, radial avenues from squares extend in all directions. Long ﬆraight ﬆreets
connect important deﬆinations. Important landmarks could be placed between the beginning/ends
of two radial ﬆreets converging. Important deﬆinations, landmarks, and places within squares would
have important roads extending from them in all directions, connecting them ﬆraight to other important
squares. The spaces formed between these important avenues would then be filled with smaller ﬆreets
(grid or otherwise) and less important buildings.
The road layouts of Washington D.C. and Paris are good examples of traditionaliﬆ city design. For smaller
cities or towns, squares could be surrounded by individual houses that all look alike. Individual houses
can be used to form other grand architectural compositions, such as circles/plazas with avenues leading
to them.
Note that one may use traditional city design to connect important landmarks/places with roads that
aren’t necessarily ﬆraight. New Urbanism uses such a method, where roads are sometimes curved along
the coaﬆ (and with adjacent important roads following that curve) as shown in Figure 3. You don’t need
to use classical buildings to use traditional city design planning!
2.3 Green City Design
Green city design, also called Landscape Urbanism, integrates natural landscapes into the designs
for cities. It focuses on adaptation; learning new ways to reorganise the natural environment. This is
important for all cities dealing with climate change (aka, all cities); for example, rising sea levels will
change the way harbour cities function and look. Barriers with locks (holes that allow ships to pass
through) can be used for coaﬆal and riverside cities to protect them from rising sea levels.
One may correct miﬆakes introduced by induﬆrial cities and by misguided use of elevated highways and
railways, e.g. by converting them into ﬆreams and landscape or elevated parks. Highways next to rivers
15

Figure 3: Traditionaliﬆ city design in New Urbanism.
could be lowered with the top being landscaped, as another example. Garden cities3
help make shops
and amenities walkable, with big houses further away but the majority of the city walkable and green.
2.4 Syﬆems City Design
A syﬆems city design focuses on ﬆructural syﬆems, such as walls, beams, etc. This is a new and more
futuriﬆic design school. Structural syﬆem cities could be built with interconnecting escalators, pillars,
glass, and other components (basically like lego, made of components that are all of the same size ﬆacked
and arranged together to build a ﬆructure).
3 Environmental Considerations
3.1 Ecological Urbanism
Landscape Urbanism, also known Ecological urbanism, emerged in the 1990s as a response to poﬆ-
moderniﬆ architecture which was retreating back to European models, as well as disaﬆers of induﬆrial
cities, to make them better community-wise. Ecological urbanism aims to synthesise cities and nature,
i.e. synthesise the synthetic and physical interface between buildings, infraﬆructure, natural ecology, and
culture. It seeks to “activate space and produce urban effects without the weighty apparatus of traditional
space making”.
3
There wasn’t much else discussed on garden cities in the courses I took, so use Google to figure out its pros and cons.
Generally, from my knowledge, not a great idea unless you incorporate bits and pieces of it here and there.
16

3.2 Managing Water: Flooding and Scarcity
The concept of Design With Nature, developed by Ian McHarg, focuses on preserving the natural
environment as much as possible, as it performs important functions for us. Such functions can include
acting as flood barriers, dispersal of air pollutants, and purifying and ﬆoring water, among others. The
following areas are liﬆed in order of environmental importance according to this theory, i.e. from leaﬆ
to moﬆ suitable for urban development: surface water, flood plains, marshes, aquifer recharge areas,
aquifers, ﬆeep slopes, foreﬆs/woodlands, and unforeﬆed lands.
Many cities use concrete ﬆructures to act as barriers to flooding. Sand dunes (with hardy grasses), how-
ever, are more suﬆainable flood barriers than concrete as concrete erodes over time while sand absorbs
waves. Sand dunes are good for protection from the ocean in coaﬆal areas such as the Netherlands. For
delta regions, however, sand isn’t enough and you’ll need conﬆructed (e.g. concrete) barriers. Marine
barrages such as those seen in Singapore4
can keep sea water out and act as a fresh-water reservoir, while
also acting as attraction with recreational parks as well as diﬆricts in new bays.
Adding barriers may not be the only solution to address rising sea levels. Very low-lying and low-density
areas prone to flooding can be relocated onto the water by using floating buildings, for example. The
modern neighbourhood of Ijburg, Netherlands, has this set-up with docks acting as sidewalks. Building
on the water with floatingbuildingsmakesa lot of sensesinceit freesup valuableland for food production,
while some waﬆe can be used5
to feed fish and algae.
Water scarcity is a significant issue already and will only continue to grow in severity. Wetlands can be
conﬆructed to clean polluted water for non-potable purposes like urban agriculture. These wetlands can
also be made into attractive parks by adding boardwalks along it, thus serving two functions at once!
Wetlands also help prevent flooding naturally; not as effective as barriers in very low-lying areas, but ﬆill
helpful in many other places.
3.3 Managing Energy Consumption
In 2007, the US breakdown for energy consumption was transport at 29 %, induﬆrial at 39 %, residential
at 21 %, and commercial at 18 %. Energy consumption can be managed by
1. Reducing demand, e.g. reducing travel by implementing energy-efficient urban forms, providing
efficient modes of transport, and locally sourcing things.
2. Improving energy supply, e.g. by adding renewables, reusing waﬆe heat, providing local heat-
ing/cooling (such as household geothermal pumps), and developing other new syﬆems to control
and optimise energy.
Green city planning makes people act suﬆainably without thinking about the environment. For exam-
ple, Copenhagenhasmoﬆofitsresidentsbikingforconvenienceandhealth, asopposedtoenvironmental
4
Not really a delta region, I know, but not sure where else to put this.
5
Not how it works in C:S though, unfortunately!
17

reasons. Making biking as convenient as possible and giving it priority in planning is what makes this
possible. Infraﬆructure to achieve this may include multiple bike lanes for different speeds, easy ﬆopping
bars and ground lights at intersections, dedicated (not shared) lanes, and direct routes by bike lanes that
aren’t available to cars.
Part of green city planning is making complete ﬆreets, which “do all” by serving as many modes of
transport as possible. This is done by having space for pedeﬆrians, bikes, public transit, and motoriﬆs.
This encourages people to walk or bike since they have the space to do so. Complete ﬆreets are discussed
in-depth in Appendix B. In some European cities, they make sure transit lines are conﬆructed before
further urban development, so that people don’t get into the habit of driving in the firﬆ place. A great
place to ﬆart creating transit-oriented communities is Appendix A. In general, the more dense a city is,
the less energy is consumed per capita, as moﬆ facilities are a walk away and transit is close. However,
simply increasing density by itself doesn’t improve environmental health, as smog-ridden cities such as
Beijing show.
3.4 Green Infraﬆructure and Urban Agriculture
Urban areas tend to be 5 ∘
C warmer than surrounding areas. This is known as the urban heat island
effect. Mitigating heat island effects is important as it reduces the amount of energy spent on cooling
(e.g. air conditioning). One easy way to incorporate green infraﬆructure is by adding trees on roads
and elsewhere, as they help mitigate urban heat island effects by providing shade. Heat island effects can
also be mitigated by changing the colour and reflectivity of a parking lot, e.g. painting it green, which can
lower its temperatures under the hot sun. In addition, placing solar panels over water filtration plants
provides a cooling effect, which in turn increases the efficiency of solar panel output. Finally, Singapore’s
SuperTrees consiﬆ of vertical gardens that provide shade to the ground below, while generating solar
power.
Green roofs are an excellent form of green infraﬆructure since they absorb grey water, reduce pressure
on sewage, keep buildings cool in the summer by reducing energy consumption by 10 %, mitigate urban
heat island effects due to their green colour, increase biodiversity within the area, and actually increase
the lifespan of roofs by protecting roof membranes from UV rays and temperature fluctuations. They are
also great for serving as local parks or areas for residents to relax, significantly increasing the land available
for the city while greatly improving quality of life. In addition to being pretty, such green spaces help
address ﬆress and improve cognitive and mental health.
Environmental literacy involves teaching children and youth environmental values to promote a re-
silient city. Contact with nature, the ravine syﬆems, and food gardens provides physical and emotional
benefits. Studies show that nature-play leads to developing a ﬆronger immune syﬆems in children. When
children develop an underﬆanding and appreciation of ecological processes they become citizens who
make more suﬆainable choices. Provide learning opportunities for children through elements such as
visible ﬆormwater management, using spillways that flow into landscape beds. Explore opportunities to
develop community gardens in open space or food gardens on rooftop amenity space.
18

Urban agriculture is now being recognised for its ability to help improve the self-suﬆainability of a city,
especially important given growing uncertainties over reliable food supplies. It also mitigates greenhouse
gases by reducing “food miles”, which is the travel needed for food to get to ﬆores. Concerns such as
city land being too valuable for farming are moﬆly unwarranted, as even areas with limited space such as
Singapore are building full scale urban farms (including vertical farms, which are great for areas with
limited space).6
An example of this is Sky Greens in Singapore, a vertical greenhouse farm which grows
80 tons of vegetables annually. Areas with urban agriculture can also serve as touriﬆ attractions. For
example, an “agrofood tourism” trail can take visitors through farms and shops, acting as a local attraction
while serving agricultural functions.
4 Preserving Older Cities and Diﬆricts
4.1 Importance of Hiﬆoric Preservation
Preserving exiﬆing infraﬆructure, buildings, and old cities in general is usually better than ﬆarting from
scratch. Every brick has energy used to go into its creation, and entropy7
renders energy less useful each
time it’s transformed. Once that brick is deﬆroyed, that useful energy is gone and you have to spend
energy to make a new brick. Thus, preserving bricks (or any other material) and the things made up
of these materials, is much more energy efficient and better for the environment. Furthermore, people
grow attached to their local ﬆreets and hiﬆoric buildings, and old diﬆricts create a sense of community
and sense of place that can easily be deﬆroyed by demolishing it.
Classifying an area as a hiﬆorical diﬆrict doesn’t mean preserve everything the way it is! These arguments
have often been used by wealthy people to keep “the poors” out of their neighbourhoods when space
is becoming a premium. Urban renewal and change is unavoidable, but the way old buildings are re-
purposed, and the areas in which new buildings blend in with older ones, are what is important. The
character of the neighbourhood should be preserved, and this can be accomplished without turning the
area into a museum.
4.2 Adaptive Re-Use of Old Buildings
Adaptive re-use of buildings helps preserve identity and a sense of place, while making use of the embod-
ied energy of that building. When publicly accessible, adaptive reuse of hiﬆorical buildings can benefit
the community. Old churches for example can be converted into lofts, book ﬆores, or even nightclubs.
However, residential areas shouldn’t be deﬆroyed/gentrified to make a Disney-land, touriﬆy, fictional
hiﬆoric space that ruins its true character. This has happened in many working class neighbourhoods,
and it deﬆroys the authentic character that made that location popular in the firﬆ place.
A practice met with disdain by many preservationiﬆs (and those with good taﬆe), facadism involves
keeping the front (juﬆ the façade) of a hiﬆorical building while demolishing the reﬆ of the building to
6
CushyCrux has recently uploaded a cool-looking vertical farm on the Workshop, great for urban areas!
7
Is it obvious that I’m a physiciﬆ yet?
19

build up on top of it. This half-assed attempt at blending old and new basically ruins the integrity and
authenticity of the building. However, an example of where adaptive reuse doesn’t devalue the building’s
authenticity is Hearﬆ Tower in Chicago. Here, an attractive glass tower is built on top of the base of what
was supposed to be a 1930s tower, so since the original intent was to build a tower anyway, the building’s
authenticity has been kept intact.
Good adaptive reuse should preserve at leaﬆ some of the floors and roof ﬆructures, making a more
authentic reminder of the hiﬆory and purpose than a mere façade. Also, the new layer of conﬆruction
should be diﬆinctly recognisable and contemporary, not an imitation of the hiﬆoric ﬆyle. While this may
seem somewhat counter-intuitive, this is done so that hiﬆoric buildings are seen as series of layers that
accrued over time, in which each layer reflects the values of the time in which they were built. By making
clear what is new and what is old, it renders the ﬆructure as more honeﬆ. For example, the Louvre’s
new pyramid addition (surrounded by the original hiﬆoric building) is made of clear glass in order to
maintain the integrity of the open courtyard. New layers can enrich the ﬆructure, especially when there’s
intereﬆing dialogue between old and new.
4.3 Preserving the Induﬆrial Heritage
Old induﬆrial sites have the potential to turn into museums and even vibrant leisure and cultural parks,
while reminding people of the city’s paﬆ. They can also turn into residential or mixed-use areas, by
keeping the exterior ﬆructure intact while converting the interior into new architecture like Auﬆria’s
Gasometer City neighbourhood. In general, the afterlife of factories built in a city should be considered,
as the new global market economy means many factories are only temporary ﬆructures. Factories could
be designed that way, dismantled when no longer needed; or, through re-purposing, they can be long-
laﬆing buildings with a poﬆ-induﬆrial future in the city, serving as a reminder of the city’s induﬆrial
heritage.
5 Integrating and Improving Slums
5.1 Background on Informal Settlements
Informal settlements are a consequence of the government failing to to provide land, shelter, infraﬆruc-
ture, and services for the urban poor. Thus, they are forced to squat on unserviced land, frequently on
high-risk sites, ﬆeep and unﬆable land, and floodplains. In time, infraﬆructure and services are eventually
introduced to the settlements; however, given the area’s limited accessibility, no potable water, lack of
sanitation, and no services like education or health, these areas remain in a submissive condition com-
pared to the formal city. These settlements can be demolished, only to turn up again elsewhere. Thus, the
public sector should work on aspects that individuals can’t address on their own, such as infraﬆructure,
mobility, accessibility, services, open spaces, income-generating opportunities, food sufficiency, and
environmental challenges.
20

5.2 Rapid Urbanisation and Slums
Medellin in Colombia had slums with limited access, which made it crime-infeﬆed. To enhance local
mobility, gondolas (otherwise known as metro cables, a form of cable car) were introduced as public
transit. Open spaces were carved out adjacent to metro cables, accompanied by schools and libraries and
workplaces. Torrents for sewer syﬆems were created to prevent sewage from falling into ravines, with
promenades along these torrents. Homes in flood areas (e.g. flood plains of ravines) were relocated to
other areas that were ﬆill nearby so that social ties were maintained. All of this resulted in crime rates
plummeting.
Planning ahead of projected informal settlements (which typically occur around expensive real eﬆate of
the city) can help mitigate the negative effects of slums. This foﬆers growth in appropriate sites while
keeping areas that should be unoccupied free (due to their environmental importance, for example).
Land should be assembled and spatial requirements of public realm envisioned, defining areas where
communities will self-conﬆruct neighbourhoods. Such areas should be determined with appropriate
spatial requirements to help settlements achieve higher socio-economic and environmental conditions,
and keep this land free from unwanted occupation.8
5.3 Retrofitting Infraﬆructure and Services
As mentioned earlier, many slums are located in haphazard areas, such as hillsides and areas with ﬆeep
elevation. Making services accessible to such areas therefore involves working with elevation, not simply
flattening the area and deﬆroying the local community fabric. One great way of accomplishing this is by
having multi-level recreational buildings that have elevators between floors for different level entries to it.
Such buildings can have multiple purposes so that residents don’t have to climb ﬆeep ﬆairs and descend
long alleys to get to where they want to go. Other ideas include:
• Making escalators (as opposed to ﬆairs) for easy access to slopes.9
This is especially helpful for
people carrying groceries, disabled people, pregnant women, and the elderly.
• Narrow ﬆairways with piping and electricity running underneath them, saving space.
• Adding libraries to ends of alleys.
• Adding walkways along below-sea-level areas, such as docks along Bangkok’s water markets.
One issue in making slums in C:S is that we can’t have any house that’s not directly adjacent to a road,
while informal settlements are frequently much more narrow and tightly packed. The only solution I can
see to recreate this in C:S is to have wide (and deep), high density, RICO slum buildings that can go
between actual tiny roads while having pathways within them, to solve the “needs road access” problem.
Otherwise, services such as ambulances can’t reach them even though they can walk up ﬆairs IRL, etc.
8
Moﬆ of this would be done with the public sector and NGOs in developing countries, as governments would build
these already if they could.
9
C:S doesn’t support escalator functionality, they’d juﬆ work as ﬆairs, but you can pretend they’re escalators!
21

5.4 Combating Poverty and Urban Deterioration in the Ghetto
People are poor for a reason, they aren’t juﬆ lazy! Furthermore, urban deterioration isn’t random. It
usually ﬆems from a changing economy, the city losing its induﬆry, changing commercial preferences
(people want larger ﬆores), or people moving out causing property vacancies (feedback cycle). Turns
out that hipﬆers can be useful sometimes, as arts can be used to revitalise communities. Pedeﬆrian areas
can be painted to beautify neighbourhoods, and “junk” can be used to make sculptures, benches, and
spaces for public use. Artiﬆs can move in, contribute to the community with their projects, and local
people will like the neighbourhood and speak proudly of it.
To avoid gentrification, a “wish liﬆ” can be created to reflect the needs and wants of local residents.
This could include places they don’t want demolished, ﬆores they want kept, improvements to housing
and services etc. This can make sure local “vibe” and residents remain there. Once this is created, the
government can buy areas sought out by land developers to ensure it’s developed in accordance to local
needs. Once they add what locals want, and code for what can be zoned where, then developers can
come in and build what they want.10
To deal with urban growth, high rises can be reﬆricted to areas on
the fringes of the land, so that local character is maintained.
Streets can be shut down and converted into public green spaces, providing locals with services while
preventing through traffic. Minimum spatial requirements for low income housing11
(provided by the
government) ensures a socially healthy mix of incomes in the neighbourhood. Places where different
incomes would come and interact are essential; otherwise, further marginalisation of the poor occurs and
they will not be affected by whatever positive changes you think you’re bringing to the neighbourhood.
In fact, you don’t even need to demolish shitty looking houses to completely change the flair of the
neighbourhood! Remove some of the road and turn it into public gardens/shrubs (Congo St in Dallas
by bcWorkshop is a great example of this, look them up in Google Images), and renovate houses to add
modern flair (for example, wood panels on the sides of shotgun houses). This involves talking with local
residents12
and seeing what needs to be improved in their homes. One way of reducing crime in ghetto
neighbourhood is by adding local community gardens on ﬆreets themselves. This reuse of ﬆreet space
reduces the amount of physical space gangs can use to mark their turf, reducing ﬆreet crime and thus
makingﬆreetssaferwhileprovidingfoodforlocalresidents,aswellasameaningfulrecreationalpaﬆime.13
Design may not be able to eliminate poverty, but it can make a difference! It can help in economic
development, especially if the ﬆrategy is to attract tourism and other induﬆries that are sensitive to
the quality of the place. It can help in assembly and reuse of lands, needed by expanding inﬆitutions
10
In C:S, this would basically translate into you not demolishing important buildings and retaining the local character
that you created, no matter how much better it might look with a new fancy building from the workshop.
11
In C:S, that could translate into Level 1 housing, possibly added to an exiﬆing building via sub-buildings or simply
via MoveIt!
12
Go ahead, talk to your cims, that’s totally normal behaviour!
13
In C:S, you can add 1x1 small farms if you actually want food, or you can juﬆ add some agriculture props such as
vegetable rows from the workshop. These don’t have to be too wide/deep, as you ﬆill want walking space on the
sidewalks.
22

and businesses, and provide employment opportunities. It can help ensure development targets local
unemployed residents, to ensure openings fit them. It can use abandoned lands as places for urban
agriculture or recreation. In C:S, don’t juﬆ demolish neighbourhoods and remake them with fancy
new subdivisions — you’d be deﬆroying communities IRL! Inﬆead, find ways to make local lives better
within the neighbourhood without displacing the poor and marginalising them further. Make it a home
for everyone, including the poor.
6 Community, Neighbourhoods, and Human Interaction
To successfully plan a city, one muﬆ underﬆand the views of its users — their lifeﬆyles, practices, and
appropriation of different spaces.
6.1 Transformation of Urban Lifeﬆyles
Lifeﬆyle is defined as a composition in time and space of daily activities and experiences that give
meaning to the life of a person. It has three (3) dimensions — functional, sensitive, and social.
1. Functional: What makes every day practical. This includes the infraﬆructure, services, and
accessibility available by various means of transport. Everyone has transport mode preferences
and each is characterised by an anchor in daily activities related to proximity.
2. Sensitive: What promotes well-being. This includes the morphology of the built environment
such as green spaces, quality of facilities, density, new versus old, and aeﬆhetics. Each person feels
good in certain environments and has their preferences.
3. Social: What promotes social relations. This includes public space types, accessibility, presence
of facilities and intermediate spaces, and the possibility to articulate public/private division. We
all design specific relations to each other and of the social anchor. Community life, neighbourly
friendliness, reputation, etc., are all dimensions that refer to the social quality of a space and for
which each has specific expectations.
What has changed over the laﬆ forty years, in relation to these three dimensions, is that there is a
diversification of models of aspiration. Prior to this, people had more similar goals. Now, there exiﬆs no
singular quality of life, but rather qualities of life. One income can support several different lifeﬆyles and
allow the recipient to live in different neighbourhoods. Thus, since lifeﬆyles are so diversified, we can’t
identify them simply using classic variables such as income, education, and household composition.
6.2 Residential Mobility and Housing Choices
Residential mobility (where people choose to live), like lifeﬆyle, is dependent on three (3) logics —
Rational, Social, and Sensitive.
1. Rational: Metric and economic factors. For example, the household determines where it can live
based on income, family size, and the house’s diﬆance from work/amenities.
23

2. Social: Once the rational factors filter out inapplicable houses, the remaining choices are priori-
tised based on what values a person has. For example, it may be important for the household to
live near other family members, or have a big house for social ﬆatus. People want to live in a place
that resembles us and our background (cultural or otherwise).
3. Sensitive: When deciding between two homes that align beﬆ with their social values, the house-
hold finally chooses a home based on sensitive factors such as lighting, smell, and the overall
wellness we feel in the neighbourhood.
As discussed in the previous section, one’s lifeﬆyle can be the same even as they gain income, and one
can have a different lifeﬆyle from someone else with the same income. Thus, lifeﬆyle (as opposed to
income) is decisive to explain choice of residential location. Do people want to live individualiﬆic lives
and not have to engage with neighbours every day, as in individual suburban houses? Or do they value
community and want neighbour engagement, as in small apartments?
Lifeﬆyles can be grouped into two main categories, with corresponding residential preferences: Classic
and Contemporary.
• Classic: Lifeﬆyles including residential aspirations similar to traditional values, regardless of
household income. These prefer quiet residential environments, typically mono-functional with
beautiful visual clearances on a human scale. Ideally within a neighbourhood that promotes
security, being between oneself, and promoting a certain social ﬆatus. Tends to prefer private
individual transport over public transit. Ideal residence: single family (e.g. suburban) house that
is newly built.
• Contemporary: Less traditional lifeﬆyles, more often led by dual-income households. Such
lifeﬆyles advocate social diversity, living together, lighter modes of transport, public transit, active
cultural life, and ecological values. Prefer active residential environments that are intensive, mixed,
dense, urban, and where cultural and artiﬆic activity is high. Ideal residence: apartment in old
building (loft) or in modern building.
As discussed above, different lifeﬆyles tend to live in different areas. However, even one single building
block can hoﬆ different lifeﬆyles by having different building layouts (and adjacent alley/park layouts).
Some buildings within that block can have more alleys and laundry rooms where people can meet
(contemporary), while others can have parking next to the house for less interaction with neighbours
(classic). Having a mixture of lifeﬆyles in one area can be beneficial as such shared spaces are critical to
de-ﬆereotyping; when we face diverse people, we are challenged by our assumptions.
One universally desired trait across all lifeﬆyles is serenity. All households regardless of type want
proximity to peace, nature, and green space. Homes geared for classic lifeﬆyles can have individual yards,
while their contemporary counterparts can have a shared community garden serve as a common yard.
Each city (area) has different geographies and densities, so planning new neighbourhoods in a particular
area should take this into account. For example, Bern has its neighbourhoods close to the city centre and
in short reach with public transit, whereas Lausanne is more spread out and doesn’t have much public
24

transit between neighbourhoods. Much of this is due to conﬆraints from local geography, and also the
hiﬆory of the city. Thus, each territory (Lausanne or Bern) will attract a different target audience, living
different lifeﬆyles.
6.3 Spatial Patterns that Promote Personal Communication
The overall city should be a space where everyone can feel at home somewhere. This doesn’t necessarily
more neighbourhoods; there may be too many already and not enough centres where they converge.
Pedeﬆrian and social areas can intereﬆ people from all backgrounds. The centre of city shouldn’t be a
shopping mall competing with other malls, but rather a living space shared by inhabitants, commuters,
touriﬆs, etc.
People value personal contact and crave human interaction even with technology — in fact, technology
juﬆ makes it easier for human interaction. It serves as a tool for people with common intereﬆs to gather
in groups (preferably in areas with wifi, of course). People aren’t isolated by technology as often thought.
What is needed, however, is to create spaces that promote personal contact.
If one’s “firﬆ place” is home and one’s “second place” is work, then one’s “third place” are places like
cafés, book ﬆores, hair salons, bars, and other centres where the community congregates and hangs out.
A successful “third place” should have the following elements:
• Stand on neutral ground, and not deter from one group or another.
• Be accessible by all.
• Function as a leveller so that all are equal.
• Provide the ability for conversation to be the main activity.
• Be a home away from home, much like how a library serves as a second home for some people.
• Allow easy entry and not require major commitment to use them; for example, allow pedeﬆrians
to walk through it, or attach it to pathways many people travel.
• Contain diﬆractions; e.g. waterfalls which serve as a diﬆraction from ﬆreet noise while also
functioning as a conversation piece.
• Provide the ability for groups to use it for different activities, such as dance groups, exercise groups,
basketball, etc.
The idea of a third place is to function as a space where informal groups conduct activities that people
can watch, join in, or move on. Such a space needs a connecting piece for people to walk through and see
and sample all of the activities. However, the area muﬆ be made so that formal groups don’t take over.
This can be done by, e.g., making only a half-court basketball court inﬆead of a full court, not building a
soccer field or baseball diamond (no matter how much formal groups may ask), etc. This way, the space
is kept open for all whenever not used by specific formal groups.
25

6.4 Mixing Home, Work, Culture and Recreation
Mixed-use buildings can function as places to shop, work, play, and live. They don’t need to be tall either!
A hodgepodge of small buildings (ranging from 3 to no more than 15 ﬆories) with mixed-use functions
can work well like this. Culture is in fact created by these mixed-use spaces. These areas prevent forming
ﬆreets that look unsafe at night because they’re dead, as mixed-use areas tend to be active 24/7. In
general, they make places safer since there are eyes on the ﬆreet all the time.
Well-lit buildings can further help create the vision of a safe space at night, even when not in use (e.g.
make a public library well-lit). Another benefit of having mixed-use areas is that parking can be used at
all times of day, making land use more efficient. Well designed outdoor spaces can ensure mixed-use
environments are lively even in cold climates. Roofs above shops can function as parks for local residents,
as discussed in subsection 3.4.
6.5 Walkable Neighbourhoods
Walkability is typically defined as the ability to walk (or take transit, depending on the definition) to
weekly needs like shopping, school, etc. within 20 minutes. Moﬆ people walk for 10 minutes before
deciding on another mode of transport, e.g. car or public transit. Grid ﬆreet patterns allow far more
walkability than winding and circuitous ﬆreets; one can traverse a much further diﬆance in 10 minutes
walking in a grid than long, uninterrupted curving ﬆreets without shortcuts. Aside from walking diﬆance,
factors such as density, modeﬆ setbacks for houses, shade (from trees), and well-maintained sidewalks
with visual intereﬆs every 200 m or so all contribute to walkability.
However, the moﬆ important factor is having a walkable commercial centre within easy range of one’s
home. Old frontages may be difficult to adapt to modern supermarkets, so redevelop large vacant areas
(e.g. at the end of a ﬆreet) to form a modern shopping centre. For example, a local neighbourhood can
have large ﬆores on its north end, residential and low-commercial (for everyday needs) on its south
end, and offices/entertainment in between. As traditional sprawling shopping centres become obsolete
(which they are nowadays), you can retrofit these places to become walkable. Arterial ﬆreets can become
more pedeﬆrian friendly boulevards, with new infield development added in front of them. People can
live above the shops with higher density development, ﬆreets become more pedeﬆrian and bike friendly,
and the local population grows.
7 Designing New Cities, Diﬆricts and Neighbourhoods
7.1 Urban Form of New Places
Moﬆ urban development is small scale, e.g. a project on a single lot, a block that’s redeveloped, a subdivi-
sion created, etc. Over time, these pieces add up to become a city, and it’s the designer’s role to ensure it’s
the kind of city we want. One way to think about urban design is that it involves thinking in the next
larger context. For example, when designing a house you’re actually designing part of a ﬆreet, when
designing a ﬆreet you’re designing a part of a neighbourhood, when designing a neighbourhood you’re
26

producing a unique diﬆrict of the city, etc. This line of thought prevents you from thinking that every
new piece of the city needs to be self-contained and turned inward, and also reminds you that every
project is part of a larger ecology.
Green spaces naturally maintained by rainfall in a site can form an armature (frame) for a larger density
development. Terracedhousescan be built on hills, with valleys filledwith green parks andcultural/recre-
ational areas. To ensure everyone has a view of the valley, high buildings can be reﬆricted to forming
only on hill-tops. A good example of this arrangement is in Modi’in, Israel.
Making sure that smaller buildings are in front of taller ones on ﬆreets makes pedeﬆrians only aware of
the small buildings as that’s all they see, even though tall towers are there too. Vancouverism insiﬆs that
ﬆreets shouldn’t have blank façades and tall towers shouldnt block views of other buildings. Continuous
front doors along residential ﬆreets are encouraged even if tall buildings tower over them; in this arrange-
ment, town houses are at the base with apartments above and set back. On busier ﬆreets, continuous
shopfronts aren’t to be broken by driveways or apartment lobbies.
Milton Keynes is a nice example of a new city in that despite being a grid layout, each square is very
uniquely laid out and through traffic in each square is discouraged. Pedeﬆrian paths connect everything.
However, precisely because it’s so spread out, it makes car owning a necessity and makes it difficult to
provide transit services to all areas.
7.2 The Public Realm
Public spaces that are shared are critical to de-ﬆereotyping, as when we face diverse people we are
challenged by our assumptions. Places such as theatres and ﬆadiums are semi-public spaces — one muﬆ
pay a fee to get in. Parks are fully public, as anyone can access them at any time.
Squares and ﬆreets should ﬆop being prioritised as places to get from A to B quickly, but rather to places
where we can ﬆay with our kids and talk to others. Boulevards can ideally be re-atriculated to nearby
neighbourhoods. Pedeﬆrian and semi-pedeﬆrian areas allow residents of different income backgrounds
to share the same space/areas, gives environmental benefits, and is aeﬆhetically pleasing. Visual beauty
with function is important as cities compete with other cities for business/growth.
Note that the consiﬆency of the public realm makes any variations in buildings along the ﬆreet seem less
important. Trees arching over sidewalks that are generous in space and offer reﬆ areas, and intereﬆing
shopfronts, are all more intereﬆing for pedeﬆrian than architecture above.
8 Airport–City Connection
This section discusses different approaches to integrating airports into your cities.
27

Figure 4: Airfront Model.
Figure 5: Decoplex Model.
8.1 Airfront Model
As shown in Figure 4, the Airfront Model involves locating the airport within the periphery of the city,
with a small business diﬆrict located between the airport and the city. The diﬆrict would be based on
commercial and induﬆrial activity related to transport. Development of such a diﬆrict would create jobs
and thus have a positive social impact, and would involve minimal land use as it develops on the basis of
exiﬆing economic activities that it will ﬆrengthen.
8.2 Decoplex Model
Like the Airfront Model, the Decoplex Model involves locating the airport away from the city. However,
as shown in Figure 5, a small linear induﬆrial complex would be located by the airport. This development
would focus on airport activity, e.g. transporting people and goods, aviation operations and maintenance,
etc. Such a model develops a kind of aeropole which no longer focuses solely on transport but also
contains a series of satellite activities, and would therefore involve minimal land use. This model has very
little social and socio-economic impact, as these are often activities linked to offshore groups.
28

Figure 6: Airport City Model.
Figure 7: Airport Corridor Model.
8.3 Airport City Model
As shown in Figure 6, the Airport City Model is, in a way, an extension of the Decoplex Model. Activity
surrounding the airport is no longer exclusively linked to aviation, and may also include economic parks,
leisure parks, banks, sports centres, etc. At the spatial level, this model ﬆretches around the airport, but
remains compact and dense. However, there is a break in social dynamics because the airport competes
with the city. It contains all the services and facilities that are normally found in the city. Sometimes
there is even a residential component, which often develops competitively, compared to what is done in
the city. In terms of governance, the airport itself plans and develops the territory.
8.4 Airport Corridor Model
Unlike the Airport City Model, the Airport Corridor Model attempts to integrate and transition between
the airport and city, as shown in Figure 7. The connection between the city and the airport is no longer a
simple linear infraﬆructure, but an urban development, made up of several activities and functions. It’s
an attempt at coordination between the airport, the city and the region, for the overall growth of the
region. This model corresponds to the current dynamics between the city of Amﬆerdam and its airport.
29

Figure 8: AIREA Model.
8.5 AIREA Model
Like the Airport Corridor Model, the AIREA Model attempts to promote regional growth by balancing
forces of the city and those of the airport. The AIREA Model proposes the development of several
economic, specialised nodes, which are connected between themselves on the one hand, and with
the airport and city on the other hand. This is better visualised in Figure 8. This model is a spatially
polycentric syﬆem as it applies modern zoning principles, where the mobility and availability of transport
infraﬆructures are the basic conditions for its operation. Public authorities are heavily involved in
planning and development, ensuring both international economic and local social needs are met. This
model was created to avoid the development of airport megacities common in the U.S., which will be
discussed in the next subsection. The AIREA Model corresponds to the current dynamics between the
city of Berlin and its Brandenburg airport.
8.6 Aerotropolis Model
The U.S. airport megacity model, called the Aerotropolis Model, involves the airport becoming the
centre of a new city as shown in Figure 9. The former city itself becomes an “old town” and merely a
diﬆrict of this new city. The remainder of the new city is organised according to specialised zoning and
without much mixing. This model consumes a lot of land, due to its spreading and low density. It’s based
solely on economic development as the main driver. The aspects of quality of life, heritage, or other,
are relegated to the background. This type of model poses a series of problems in terms of governance,
as it encompasses different adminiﬆrative jurisdictions, a diversity of actors, as well as areas that have
developed spontaneously. It implies a complexity of coordination for the overall territorial development.
9 Public Transit
This section discusses the theory behind public transit. To jump right into actual concrete guidelines, go
to Appendix A.
30

Figure 9: Aerotropolis Model.
9.1 Catch-Bin Area
Immediately around a transit ﬆop, there are three (3) main “catch bin” or catchment areas:
• Core Area = 400 m radius (5 min walk).
• Primary Area = 800 m radius (10 min walk).
• Secondary Area = 1200 m radius (15 min walk).
In considering where people live in relation to transit, Primary and Secondary Areas are as important as
Core Areas. However, physical and geographical barriers can limit these ideally circular catchment areas,
meaning these may not be good locations for transit ﬆations.
If ﬆops are close together, Core Areas can become a continuous corridor of development. At the
intersection of two major transit syﬆems (e.g. two lines sharing the same ﬆop), the Core Area radius may
be doubled. At each node (ﬆop), the general land diﬆribution should ideally be as follows: Streets and
Open Space occupying ⅓ of the area, Office and Retail and Civic Uses occupying another ⅓ of the area,
and Residential Uses occupying the final ⅓. Thus, there would be only a modeﬆ increase in density.
9.2 Underﬆanding Modal Practices
The means of transport used is a central indicator of lifeﬆyles (see subsection 6.1) and of their diversity.
Means of transport are a way to introduce ourselves, a way to build one’s relationship to time and to space.
Thus, when planning transport, we muﬆ consider lifeﬆyles and their different needs (and where these
31

needs are located, e.g. what lifeﬆyle(s) lives where, where they converge, etc). One person can use differ-
ent means of transport (including walking) to accomplish different things and go to different places even
juﬆ in one city/neighbourhood. Usage of certain transport modes (rather than others) fundamentally
refers to ways of living and organising one’s daily life and not juﬆ simply choices of transport modes.
In many cases, transport modes need to be legitimised. For example, cycling may be seen by others as
something only poor people do, so new people need to feel comfortable and not feel like they’re in the
margins of society for cycling (or for using a new transport mode in general). These new transport modes
muﬆ be legitimised by the population at large before some people adopt it.
There are three (3) logics of action that cause different modal (transport mode) choices: Inﬆrumental
(choose faﬆeﬆ, cheapeﬆ, or combo of both), Personal Preference, and Habit. Even if one mode is
cheaper or faﬆer than another, some (many) people may ﬆill not choose it! Thus, one can’t assume
people will use a particular mode for inﬆrumental reasons alone. People may associate public transit
with being slow, crowded, and/or conﬆrained (not as independent as driving a car). So even if it’s faﬆer
and cheaper, personal preference may ﬆill prevent them from taking transit. Also, some people simply
don’t plan on changing from car to transit (habit) because they’re so used to driving that even when
they’re comparable they juﬆ use the car anyway.
To account for the segmentation of these three logics of action, we have a typology made up of eight (8)
specific provisions on the use of transport mode. This typology is made of three (3) dimensions:
1. Size of patterns that differentiate individuals using several modes vs. those using only one.
• Only use car to move daily and hate other transport modes
• Only use car to move daily but don’t hate other transport modes
• Use other transport modes and don’t use car
2. Values that differentiate people who have a vision of transport modes according to their individual
intereﬆ or according to common intereﬆ.
• Multimodal comparators; people who are highly sensitive to mode prices and times (ratio-
nal)
• Civicenvironmentaliﬆs; peoplewhoavoidpollutingmodesasmuchaspossible(emotional)
3. Attitudes that diﬆinguish people according to their preferences of transport mode.
• Motoriﬆs forced to use public transit (due to conﬆraints like parking, traffic) but prefer car
whenever they can.
• People susceptible to alternative modes; prefer non-car but forced to use car sometimes.
• People afraid of any motorised transport and avoid whenever possible.
32

Figure 10: Barbeque Effect and its relationship with increased energy consumption for transport in dense
areas.
9.3 The Barbeque Effect
In Switzerland, 37 % of trips are for leisure (e.g. going to a park) as opposed to only 23 % of trips for work
and 22 % for shopping. Leisure transport is also frequently made with higher energy consumption modes
of transport, e.g. car and plane. People in urban areas actually travel more frequently for leisure than
suburbanites. This is because suburbanites already have many places nearby to spend their free time, e.g.
gardens and foreﬆs, whereas urbanites need to compensate for lack of nature in everyday environment
by travelling to it. This is called the Barbeque Effect — everyone goes out of the city to BBQ since you
can’t in city.14
Taking leisure transport into account, the normal curve of “less dense = more energy consumption for
transport” actually becomes false — the more dense you are, the more energy is consumed for transport,
as shown in Figure 10. However, while some of these movements are compensatory for lack of green
space in urban areas (and can thus be “fixed” or addressed), other movements are simply to explore other
urban areas (e.g. travel from Toronto to Ottawa by plane). Thus, the graph shown in Figure 10 may be
called into queﬆion as it doesn’t address this point. Furthermore, improved connectivity between the
city and the green spaces outside the city (e.g. train, bus, or shorter diﬆances) can address this increased
use of transport.
Can we really build cities that compensate for the BBQ effect? What would that look like, having virtues
of both density and green space? And to what extent can we reduce leisure travel, since e.g. people go on
trips on holidays (travel is what holidays are associated with) regardless of what is around their residential
area? This is ﬆill an area being explored and these queﬆions are ﬆill being inveﬆigated.
14
Yeah, I don’t get it either.
33

9.4 Seductive Engineering
In a syﬆem where many choices exiﬆ, for a technical solution that is introduced to be successful, it muﬆ
be attractive. It muﬆ resonate with what people want to do, their aspirations, and their conﬆraints. In
Geneva, they had trams with multiple lines sometimes sharing one road. You could be at one ﬆop and
take trams in multiple directions, thus avoiding having to change tram lines in the city centre since direct
paths (to deﬆinations) throughout the city were multiplied. However, transit authorities removed some
of these multiple lines or “duplicates” to simplify the network, so that inﬆead of one ﬆop having 2/3
lines they’d only have 1. These lines are faﬆer and have more trams (increased frequency). However,
ridership dropped as people hated the fact that they had to change tram lines when before it was direct!
The users in this case sought direct routes, as downtown public spaces are traffic congeﬆed so it’s un-
pleasant to change lines. Thus, even if there were improvements in speed and frequency, the old network
was ﬆill considered better by users! Therefore, if we want to make a network to expand use of transport,
we have to consider the sensitivity of the population. For new riders, it muﬆ attract/seduce their expec-
tations and in this case their expectations weren’t to go faﬆer but to go direct.
Engineering with seduction means engineering keeping in mind public expectations and desires, not
juﬆ efficiency or technology! If it’s very efficient but poorly received by consumers, it’s a bad engineering
design!
9.5 Territories, Networks, and Forms of Urbanisation: A Note on Trams
Trams have become more popular not only for promoting use of public transit, but also for reclassifying
urban centres to make them more attractive to frequent as well as live in. Tram networks allow for a
growing number of users. They offer smooth rides (that allow you to do work on it when seated), contain
nice paths to ﬆops, and allow for easier memorisation of the tram route due to its materialisation in the
public space via its rails.
Real eﬆate around tramways increases in value and people want to live near them. However, trams
don’t imply significantly increased transit usage in all cases. Speed, deﬆinations served, and frequency
are obvious factors that should be addressed. However, other factors to consider for trams include
crowdedness; if there aren’t any seats available, then its attractiveness for a smooth ride and ability to
do work on it goes down. In addition, a lack of unity with other transit modes is also problematic; if it
has, for example, a different frequency than bus/metro, it would then not be in sync with the reﬆ of the
syﬆem and therefore people may simply continue using the bus/metro (and then maybe transfer to tram
if needed) which would leave ridership the same as before.
9.6 Transit Adherence
One of the biggeﬆ hurdles to using new transport modes is the laﬆ mile. Let’s say your house or office
is 500 m away from the metro ﬆop. A dedicated bike lane or pedeﬆrian path between the metro ﬆop
and your house can make all the difference to whether you use public transit or not! These aren’t replace-
ments for transit, but rather complement and enhance it. If pedeﬆrian pathways to bus ﬆops are poor,
34

Urban Planning and Design Guide

Urban Planning and Design Guide

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Urban Planning and Design Guide

Similar to Urban Planning and Design Guide (20)

More from Jonathan Dunnemann

More from Jonathan Dunnemann (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Urban Planning and Design Guide