the adg rest area

New CityCAD Introduction video uploaded to YouTube

We've uploaded a short video showing the basics of how CityCAD works.

CityCAD is the leading conceptual design tool for professionals involved in large-scale masterplanning. It allows you to test hundreds of design options very quickly, and incorporates planning, sustainability, liveability and financial analysis. Best viewed in HD

A practical, searchable user-generated database for sustainable city design?

What's the problem?

There's no shortage of good city design case studies on the web - the problem is that they're all fragmented into several databases and it's difficult to find relevant case studies.

A selection of existing databases:

http://www.cabe.org.uk/case-studies - large database of case studies of buildings, parks and other places in the public realm
www.sustainablecities.dk - a database of sustainable places and practices maintained by the Danish Architecture Centre
http://showcase.hcaacademy.co.uk - case studies maintained by the HCA Academy
http://www.urbandesigncompendium.co.uk/CaseStudySearch.aspx - case studies form part of the Urban Design Compendium
http://www.rudi.net/pages/8026 - a collection of in-depth case studies of various projects
http://www.greatstreets.org/MainStreets/MainStreetsProfiles.html - case studies of great streets
http://www.designforhomes.org/hda/ - a database of award-winning housing schemes
http://www.housingprototypes.org/ - a more technical database of housing types
http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/deps/cs/shdg/cases/index.html - case studies in the Sustainable Housing Design Guide for Scotland
http://www.sust.org/?view=49&parent=4 - case studies of sustainable buildings in Scotland
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/codecasestudies - case studies of houses built using the Code for Sustainable Homes
http://www.academyofurbanism.org.uk/ - are developing an online resource called 'knowyourplace' - which is described as a 'place-based equivalent to facebook'.

Many of the databases above are publicly funded and were created with the best of intentions, but collectively there is a missed opportunity to create a really useful resource.

An open, public database

In order to build a critical mass of information, where it would become really useful, we feel that a database would need to be open for anyone to add to it.

In an ideal world, there would be a single database - probably in an open, flexible XML format - where attributes such as the number of dwellings, number of people, or the type of project would be stored in a way that makes it easy to search.

Let's say you wanted to look for good examples of sustainable developments of a group of about 5 houses in the UK.

Ideally you would able to go to just one website, set the number of houses and the UK as search parameters, and get a list of results.

If the database contained geographic locations, then links to resources such as Microsoft's birds eye view, Google Maps and Streetview would allow you to explore places further and get a real sense of what the place is like.

As a simple example of the kind of thing we're talking about, we've built our own prototype database of urban spaces in the world - allowing users to search for spaces by geometry (size and shape) and using the Google Maps API to display an aerial photo of the space - www.holisticcity.co.uk/urbanspaces So for example, if you're working on a masterplan which has a rectangular public space of about 0.4ha, you can search our database and find examples of spaces of the same size and shape. (please note this is just a prototype - it's not possible to add any data to it at the moment).

What should the database contain?

The structure of the database would need to be flexible, and would need to be worked out in consultation with a wide range of people.

The following are just first thoughts:

Name of feature.
Contributor - name and link to their website. (In particular we'd encourage architects to submit projects they have worked on - it's an opportunity to promote their projects and they will also have data easily available, such as the number of different types of dwellings.)
Type of feature: eg. City, Neighbourhood, Housing, Street, Park, Masterplan, Town Centre, Policy Initiative
Attributes such as population, no. of houses, no. of flats, area, shape, length, width, diameter, and other technical information - costs, timings, densities etc. For public spaces, ideally coordinates of a polygon describing the space should be included - this would allow it to be imported directly into design software applications. We could incude a web interface allowing users to quickly draw the outline of a public square on top of Google Maps.

There would be a single website where these attributes could be used as search criteria. Alternatively, anybody would be free to create their own pages, and access and filter the data in new ways.

• For example, you could search for examples of neighbourhoods in the UK with a net residential density of between 35 and 40 dwellings per hectare.
• You could search for all housing developments of between 3 and 7 houses which contain at least one house achieving Level 5 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
• You could search for examples of a rectangular public space measuring about 20m x 40m.

But what about the existing case studies on websites?

Some of the websites mentioned above have spent a lot of money preparing their case studies, and may be reluctant to contribute their data for free.

One option might be to only contribute basic details to the public database, and then provide a link to more detailed information on their own website. This way they could benefit from the extra traffic that searches could bring, while contributing to the larger database and helping to make it a really useful resource for everyone.

One some websites the data is already available to the public, and we're suggesting that it is re-entered in a form where it can be more easily searched.

In any event, each item in the database should include a link to where the information came from, to provide recognition and encouragement to contributors.

Why are you posting this now?

We're interested in the idea of starting a really useful, user-generated database to help everyone involved in city design, planning and development, and we wanted to share these thoughts for two reasons:

1. To ask for any comments and feedback on the idea.
2. To ask if anyone's already thought of this and has started making it already.

I don't know yet if this is something we will fund ourselves, or whether someone else (like a forward-looking public regeneration agency) might be interested in supporting it.

In any event, at this stage we'd be grateful for any comments and thoughts. Please reply to this post, or you can contact me at chris@holisticcity.co.uk

Getting Around London in 2030 ?

Here's a sketch diagram of what London's suburban rail network could have in 2030 :

(click for full size image)

This isn't based on any detailed feasibility study. It's the result of a bit of Saturday afternoon planner's megalomania - a loose collection of existing strategies and schemes, with a few changes. Most underground lines are left out for clarity.

Railways

London has lacked high frequency commuter lines which go deep into the city centre, like the Berlin S-Bahn and Paris RER.

The Crossrail lines will help remedy this, and make it easier to commute from a long distance directly to the centre without having to change at a main line station on to a congested tube.

There's also an opportunity to create an Outer Circle Line - following the route of the London Overground network - to relieve pressure on the centre, make it much easier to travel between the north and south suburbs and improve connections with the airports. This would be a similar scale to the JR Yamanote Line in Tokyo.

For an outer circle line to work, it needs good connections with the radial routes heading in to London.

There will be interchanges at Clapham Junction, West Hampstead, Dalston Junction, Whitechapel and Shadwell, but there could also be valuable interchanges at Willesden Junction with Crossrail and the main line, and at Surrey Canal Road with the Thameslink line.

A link at Willesden Junction could also allow high speed trains to run directly from Heathrow to either Europe or the Midlands and Scotland.

Airport Links

There is a proposal to build a new link between Staines and Heathrow Terminal 5, which could potentially be linked to Crossrail Line 2.

In the North East, there could potentially be a new interchange at Hackney or the lines could merge at another location, providing a direct rail link between Heathrow and Stansted Airports in under 2 hours.

A New Thames Gateway Airport

London is looking at the feasibility of building a new long-haul hub airport outside London, probably on an artificial island in the Thames Gateway.

I don't have enough information to know if it's the right idea or not.

It would improve the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of people in West London, it would allow a state-of-the-art airport with fewer delays and plenty of expansion room. It would also release a large well-connected site in West London for thousands of new houses (despite the current recession, new houses will still be needed in London).

On the other hand, it would mean tens of thousands of people who work at Heathrow would need to find new work or commute a long way to the new airport.

(When the main airport was replaced in other cities eg. Paris Orly to Charles de Gaulle, or New York La Guardia to JFK, the number of people affected was much lower, and Heathrow would represent a totally different scale of upheaval.)

There is also a huge cluster of services, hotels, logistics, car parks and other businesses in the area around Heathrow, which would also need to move. Lastly, the airport would be in a very inconvenient location. There might be a decent train service to London St Pancras, but getting there from the rest of the country would be difficult.

It would be expensive (My best guess is £25-30bn by the time it was finished), but in the long-term this could possibly be paid for by redevelopment of the existing Heathrow site and savings from fewer delays etc.

What do you think?

What is Parametric City Design ?

This year, at the Architecture Biennale in Venice, Patrik Schumacher gave a fascinating introduction to the concept of ‘parametricism’ as a new style, that could be applied to all design tasks including urbanism. As creators of parametric city design software, we feel this is a good time to produce a quick summary of what parametric design is, and to share our view about its possibilities and limitations in the field of city design.

What is parametric design?

Parametric design is an established concept in CAD.

Instead of drawing lines, a design is created by specifying parameters, and the actual geometry is then generated automatically by the software.

In the diagram below, the line on the left is just a line – it is drawn from one end point to another. The street designs to the right, however, were drawn parametrically. The positions of the end points were specified and the software then generated the pavements, vehicle lanes, central reservations and trees based on pre-set parameters.

The parameters in this case are the number, type and width of the elements of the streetscape - the pavements, cycle lanes, trees, vehicle lanes and central reservation, and their relationship to each other.

‘Parametric’ simply means ‘of or relating to a parameter’ - or in the case of CAD, generated by parameters.

What are the benefits of parametric design?

In architectural design and engineering, parametric modelling tools allow designers to create a framework of relationships and constraints between parts of a model. If one part is adjusted, then other parts will be updated automatically according to pre-defined rules.

In the example of the streets above, you could type in a new width for the pavement, and the model will be updated automatically.

The advantages are clear – things can be drawn faster, more accurately and with less chance of mistakes, and they can be modified extremely quickly. They can also be used to automatically extract data such as floor areas, or quantities of materials.

The disadvantages are that the designer is constrained by the rules of the CAD system, and changing the rules can require a high level of technical knowledge and programming skills.

The nature of city design and planning

All design exercises require a balance between creativity and analysis, between an intuitive approach and a systematic approach. City design and planning usually requires a much more systematic approach than other forms of design because of the quantity and complexity of the information involved.

It is often more of a political exercise and less of a technical challenge, as urban masterplans have to accommodate the complex, sometimes intangible, diverse and changing needs of a large number of people.

Also, because an urban masterplan can affect the quality of life of thousands of people, there is a clear obligation to choose a design approach with a proven track record and high probability of success.

So how can parametric design help city designers?

Parametric design has to be a systematic process because it is carried out by computer software - and in many ways it is ideally suited to city design.

Parametric design involves the automatic generation of design geometry, and a key question is what scale does this automatic generation take place?

At a relatively small scale, like the scale of a street or road, a designer can set parameters such as the width of the pavements or vehicle lanes, specify a path or alignment for the street, and the software can then help calculate the total area of paving stone needed, or the quantity of concrete needed, or the volumes of cut and fill to build the road through an existing terrain.

At the scale of a block, you could set parameters such as the number of storeys, the average unit size, and the depth of a perimeter block, and the software can then generate a visualization and calculate the total floor area of the block and the number of units within it. More advanced generative programs could optimize the height of a perimeter block so as to provide a specified number of hours of daylight to rooms on the ground floor of the block. (The number of hours of daylight would be the key parameter).

Parametric design can also be applied at a much larger scale – algorithms can be written and parameters set that will generate a large masterplan layout. For example, an algorithm could generate a street layout that varies the block size and density based on the distance to transport nodes.

What are the risks of using parametric techniques in city design?

The idea that we can generate an ideal city from a set of principles and logical steps has of course tempted city designers since long before computers were invented. However, generative parametric techniques make it easier than ever before to apply this approach.

It is easy to think that a generated/parametric design is legitimate just because it is based on an systematic process, especially if it happens to look beautiful on screen. However, as with all other software, the output is only as good as the program that creates it. Parametric techniques normally only deal with a narrow part of the city design brief and for this reason parametric technique should not, in themselves, confer legitimacy on a design.

Also, parametric techniques can leave little room for any kind of intuitive, emotional response to a site and its residents, and makes it easy to overlook or exclude vital characteristics that could make a design successful.

Having said this, there’s no reason why large scale generative parametric design shouldn’t be used to explore concepts, as long as it only informs the design process and does not drive it. Parametric software can be so powerful and produce such seductive images that it can require an effort of will (and common sense) from the designer in order to stay in control of it.

The difference between 'parametricism' and 'parametric city design'

The new proposed style of ‘parametricism’ is mainly an aesthetic agenda – assigning value to interarticulation and continuous surfaces while avoiding clear-cut zones/territories, repetition, straight lines, right angles and platonic or hermetic objects.

It’s true that 'parametricism' cannot exist without parametric software, but parametric software can, and does, exist without ‘parametricism’.

Parameters can be applied to rectangular city blocks and there is nothing inherently un-parametric about platonic solids or right angles. Clear-cut zones and territories sometimes work very well in urban planning, and can be dynamically generated by parameters as well. As Patrik Schumacher himself writes, designers "are employing parametric tools in ways which result in the maintenance of a modernist aesthetics, ie. using parametric modelling to inconspicuously absorb complexity."

Our approach to parametric city design software

In our city design software, geometry is only generated at a relatively small scale in the urban context – at the level of streets and blocks as opposed to whole urban areas.

In this way, the designer still relies on their experience and judgement to ‘draw’ the layout of streets and specify the size and shape of each building.

Once it is drawn, the parametric capabilities of the software can then analyse the model and automatically calculate floor areas, residential densities, car parking, energy and resource use, costs, values and other sustainability and quality of life indicators.

If a design is changed – if new storeys are added, or if a street is made wider, or if a land use is changed – then all of the floor areas and other data can be updated automatically, saving a huge amount of time.

When it comes to city design, the real value of parametric technology is not so much in generating geometry at a large scale, but in offering instantaneous feedback of masterplan design information and analysis during the design process.

Do City Designers need 'Le Correcteur Terminologique'?

I was sent this story from a month or two ago :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/10/wfra310.xml

It's about a new piece of software that is being installed for the French civil service to try and discourage English phrases such as 'email' from creeping into the French language.

The word 'email' is understood by the whole world and is quite useful. Because of this, the new French software will probably make it more difficult for people to understand each other.

But it got us thinking about the problem of language in our own field of work.

All of the different groups involved in city design, planning and development speak their own dialects. For example, a 'house' might be called :

• a 'unit' by surveyors
• a 'dwellinghouse' by planners
• a 'dwelling' by architects
• a 'home' by sales brochures

A large residential development might be called :

• a 'masterplan' or 'place' by planners
• a 'new community' by a developer
• a 'new urban quarter' by sales brochures
• a 'dormitory estate' by opponents of the development.

A wide part of a street might be called :

• 'that bit of the road next to the new building' by locals
• a 'space' by architects
• the 'public realm' by planners
• an 'area of hard landscaping' by designers
• an 'off site infrastructure item' by a developer.

New shops in a town centre might be called :

• a 'shopping centre' by local residents
• a 'new piece of the city' by architects
• 'town centre retail-led regeneration' by developers
• an 'extension to the prime retail pitch' by surveyors
• a 'brownfield opportunity site' by planners

The fact that there are many different ways of describing exactly the same things illustrates how fragmented the city design, planning and development community is.

One professional group on its own is capable of creating a huge amount of impenetrable jargon.

When several professions get together, as they do in city design, the quantity of jargon can grow at a terrifying rate. Rob Cowan's Dictionary of Urbanism is a heroic attempt to control and explain this jargon.

Our urban design software, called CityCAD, was originally conceived as a way of trying to bring together all of the different groups involved in city design and planning.

It does this by creating a shared integrated model of the masterplan where all data can be stored. It doesn't solve the problem of language (it has to use some words, obviously) but the main technique for communicating information is through a 3D perspective view.

A 'Correcteur Termonologique' probably wouldn't help though, as everyone seems to enjoy jargon far too much to do away with it.

New 'Neighbourhoods' in Masterplans

What are Neighbourhood Units?

When designing New Towns or other large scale masterplans, a popular approach is to subdivide the masterplan into small 'neighbourhood units', sometimes called 'communities' or 'urban villages'.

Each Neighbourhood can be described as a circular blob with a diameter and an average density.

The diameter can be measured in metres, but it can be more useful to use 'Mins' Walk Across', as this is a more meaningful measure of distance to residents.

How many dwellings are in one Neighbourhood Unit?

This depends on its density and size. If the Neighbourhood is circular, this graph shows how many dwellings can be achieved at different densities and different sizes.

For example, if a new development needs to be 10 mins' walk across, then the graph shows that an average density of 30dph across the development will yield about 1000 dwellings, while an average of 40 will yield about 2000.

(This is obviously not an exact science, as the shape of the Neighbourhood Units will vary according to local constraints, and is unlikely to be exactly circular.)

NB. In the graph, the Densities are Gross (or 'Neighbourhood' or 'City') Densities. Normally it is Net Residential Density which is discussed and negotiated. Net Densities exclude major roads, hospitals, schools, playing fields etc in their calculation. Although areas of housing may have a Net density of 30 dw/ha, the overall Gross density of the Neighbourhood may only be 10dph or so.

What sort of services can each Neighbourhood Unit support?

This depends on a complex range of factors, but the number of dwellings is often a useful measure of what can be supported.

Let's say that each Neighbourhood Unit needs a service, such as a local shop, which needs approximately 2,000 dwellings to support it.

Going back to the graph, a horizontal line can be drawn at this number.

The graph tells us that a range of options are available to achieve 2,000 dwellings.

It could be 10 mins' walk across, but then an average density of 40dw/ha would be needed. This is a high Gross density, and probably only appropriate in a town centre location. Alternatively it could be 15 mins' walk across, with an average density of 20dw/ha.

Of course most developments are far more complex than this, but the graph is useful for quickly estimating numbers.

Our city modelling technology - CityCAD - will make analysis of complex masterplans with many different densities much easier at the conceptual stage.

Will 2/11 shape the future?

According to proposals made last week by the DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government), each house would be allowed to install one wind turbine without planning permission.

The Consultation Paper mentions striking a balance between energy production and potential impact and they suggest a max rotor diameter of 2m, and a max height of 11m.

What does this mean from a design point of view?

It's complicated, because a proliferation of smaller turbines (in different colours, at different heights, some fixed to the roof, some on free-standing poles) could create a huge amount of clutter on a residential street and potentially be more damaging than a single well-designed, taller and larger installation shared by several houses.

The example below is a simplistic one, but I hope it illustrates the point. A small 2m turbine, if the wind blows, might generate around 1500-2000 kWh per year - which might be roughly half the requirement of a house.

However, a larger turbine (set a short distance away from the houses) with a 7m diameter might generate 24,000kWh per year - approx half the requirement of 12 houses - and leave the houses themselves uncluttered.

To make things more complex, we know that the amount of electricity generated rises sharply with wind speed, which makes it very difficult to judge the relative costs and benefits of different heights.

In some situations an extra 3m of height might lead to a massive increase in the amount of energy generated. In some situations a higher post may be perfectly acceptable from a design point of view, but the need to apply for planning permission would deter this, even though it would be much more sensible.

Having said all this, there's no easy answer to the impossible 'balance between energy production and potential impact'. Anything larger than 2m or higher than 11m would begin to have a wider impact on surrounding houses, and it's right that they should be subject to judgement on a case-by-case basis through the planning system.

For this reason, the 2m/11m compromise would seem as good as any - but it would still be a compromise. Decisions would be taken on the basis of these numbers and not on the basis of urban design quality or renewable energy efficiency.

Too Much Measurement in City Design and Planning?

The article below describes a fictional new UK planning system in the future, based on ‘Liveability Impact Units’ (LIUs). There is a growing preoccupation at the moment with ever more detailed and complex systems of measurement and guidance. The LIU trading scheme described below is the logical conclusion of this attitude, which completely removes any site-specific design judgement from the process.

We hope a scheme of this kind never happens, for reasons explained at the end of the article.

---

A Summary of the Planning (Liveability-Impact-Unit Trading Scheme) Act 2014

Background

The Planning (Liveability-Impact-Unit Trading Scheme) Act 2014 comes into effect next month. This is a brief introduction to the background and provisions of the Act.

In the 20^th century, the planning system was slow and unreliable. It was based, too often, on arbitrary professional judgements which lacked consistency, objectivity and transparency. In the modern age, planning should be based on measurable, objective criteria which give confidence to the development community.

Until now, it has been difficult to measure certain aspects of planning, such as the picturesque composition of historic streets, or the mixed-use character of different types of neighbourhoods. However, the new ‘Liveability Impact Units’, developed by a panel of design and planning experts, has overcome this technical problem.

Liveability Impact Units and the New Planning System

The ‘New Planning’ Act, as it has come to be known, effectively abolishes town and country planning as we know it.

It supersedes all earlier planning acts, and introduces a new system based on a calculation of the impact of a development. ‘Liveability-impact-units’ are a measure of how an urban development reduces the ‘liveability capital’ of a site and its context.

Developed by a panel of experts, LIU’s are calculated using an entirely objective analysis of a proposed development, based on the measurable social, environmental, economic and management characteristics. The 1400-page ‘Handbook of LIU Calculation’ (HMSO, 2013) explains how each indicator should be calculated.

How does the New Planning System work?

Each planning application will qualify for a certain quota of LIU’s, depending on the size and population of the new development. The developer can then decide how they would like to ‘spend’ their quota of LIU’s, and if their scheme is designed well, then fewer LIU’s are used.

For example, if a development provides an active frontage along a street then fewer LIU units are ‘spent’. If an entrances every ‘x’ metres along a street frontage, then the amount of LIU’s used can be calculated by 1 / (x * k), where ‘k’ is the multiplier depending on the surrounding density and context, as described in Appendix Q of the Handbook.

Some actions will ‘cost’ a large number of LIUs. For example, demolishing a listed building would require a large number of LIUs to be spent, based on the ‘Significance Matrix’ in Appendix G of the Handbook. Demolishing a listed building would normally cause a developer to exceed their quota of LIUs.

If the development designed a high quality mixed-use development, and does not use its full quota of LIU’s, then it can sell its surplus LIU’s to another developer. If the development requires more LIU’s than the allowed quota, then they can buy additional LIU’s on the open market, and these would be added to its quota.

Planning permission will be automatically granted, as long as the developer provides the correct number of LIU’s, and construction can begin as soon as the local authority verifies the developer’s LIU calculations.

What are the objectives of the new scheme?

The idea is based on the carbon emissions trading scheme, where market forces are used to meet a collective responsibility to reduce carbon emissions. LIU-trading applies this principle to the planning process and will use market forces to meet a collective responsibility to create sustainable urban environments.

The scheme will impose extra costs on those types of development which create lower amounts of liveability capital, and those costs would then be used to subsidize developments which create high amounts of liveability capital. It uses market forces to place a greater financial value on liveability and sustainable development.

Unfortunately, it has been necessary to remove planning from local democratic control, as the LIU market has to operate at a national level for it to work properly. However, the government believes that the overall standard of urban design quality will rise as a result of this scheme.

Ends

---

Although we’re in the business of computer modelling of urban systems, we need to stay aware of the limitations of measurement and modelling in something as complex as cities.

For as long as cities are inhabited by humans, then design decisions will always require an element of judgement, intuition, common sense, lateral thinking and imagination in order for the masterplan to be successful.

While objective, evidence-based analysis is a crucial element of city design and planning, it must never completely replace human judgement.

Even the most complex masterplan (like any design process or creative endeavour) requires a strong conceptual lead if it is to be successful. A conceptual lead cannot be provided by analytical systems, however sophisticated.

What Can City Designers learn from Doctors?

There are many similarities between cities and the human body, but cities do not enjoy the same level of systematic and objective care that humans receive from doctors.

What are the similarities between a city and the human body?

1. Both have distinct functional parts - rail stations, shopping centres, houses, roads, civic centres etc.
2. Both have a complex three-dimensional physical structure.
3. Cities have a 'skeletal' system of civil engineering to support their buildings, streets and spaces.
4. Cities have a 'digestive' system, which brings in supplies of water, energy and other resources into buildings, which then consume resources and transmit the waste products to their excretory 'organs' (sewers, landfills etc.)
5. Cities have a 'nervous' system of information technology - data/internet cables, radio/microwave/wifi transmissions and old phone lines.
6. They have a 'circulatory' system of vehicle roadways, pavements, pathways, cycle lanes, bus routes, overland railways, trams and subways to move people and goods around.
7. Cities have their own variation of the 'immune' and 'reproductive' systems - their own economic and regulatory systems of building, planning and development, which act to enlarge the city or renew derelict or gap sites within the city.
8. Both tend to have a name and external identity.
9. Parts of the city can become 'ill' - the symptoms might be falling population, low land values, litter/vandalism and a poor quality of environment. The phrase 'health check' is growing more popular in describing the economic or social health of a city neighbourhood.

There are of course limits to this analogy. There is little consensus on how to measure the health of a city, or how to assess the priority, or 'clinical need' of different areas. Also, unlike humans, cities can grow extremely fast and change beyond all recognition over a short period of time.

The most important difference is that humans have a single soul, whereas cities contain many thousands or millions.

However, we think this analogy may be useful to city designers and planners when discussing treatment of a city's problems. Both ciites and humans sometimes invite specialists to diagnose problems and prescribe treatment.

What can City Designers and Planners learn from doctors?

1. The doctor-patient relationship aspires to 'Patient-centred care' which focuses on the needs of the patient. Multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs) are assembled for the purpose of providing treatment to both humans and cities. Doctors follow established guidelines set out by NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) and cannot provide certain treatments unless they are part of a suitably qualified MDT. In city design and planning, despite the availability of guidance eg. CABE's guide to successful masterplans, the assembly of suitably qualified multi-disciplinary teams can sometimes be more haphazard.
2. Doctors practise 'Evidence-based medicine' - they only prescribe treatment which has been researched, and do not generally prescribe or perform unproven therapies or surgical procedures. In contrast, architectural and urban design education encourages experimentation with typologies and layouts, which is carried through into practice. At the large masterplan scale, this exposes large numbers of people to the risk that the new typologies and layouts may not be successful. Although some consultancies promote a more evidence-based approach (eg. Space Syntax), the complexity of city design projects often means that an objective analysis of the clinical need is not possible.
3. The concept of 'Continuity of care' after treatment is established practice for doctors, but is frequently lacking in city design and planning interventions, when the emphasis is only on capital funding and not ongoing maintenance costs. Well intentioned improvements can degrade very quickly if they are not looked after. Continuity of care is important in maintaining trust in the medical profession, and the same applies to city design and planning.
4. Medical treatments have a wide range of side effects, and so do development and planning activities. Doctors ensure that their patients are aware of the potential benefits and side effects of treatments, so that their patients can make informed decisions. 'Informed Decision Making' is now standard practice in medicine. In city design and planning, expertise is often so fragmented that informed decision making is not always possible. The most common error in recent decades has been 'prescribing' too much 'treatment' for traffic congestion, in the form of roundabouts, grade-separated junctions and high design speeds for roads. This type of decision is often made without considering the adverse (side) effects on the quality of the street.

In the dark ages, medicine used to be steeped in superstition and irrationality. Treatment was based more on the personality of the patient than on objective analysis of the clinical need ("Would you prefer leeches or laudanum?")

Contemporary city design has certainly emerged from the dark ages and become more 'evidence based', but it is still so professionally fragmented that the 'side effects' of development and planning projects cannot be easily detected, and 'patient-centred care' and 'informed decision making' are therefore difficult to achieve.

We think city design and planning has a lot to learn from medical practice and will be researching this analogy further over the next few months.

Please let us know any comments or suggestions you have on this, or contact us if you would like to discuss further.

Better Bus Stops

If you take the bus to work every day, then it’s possible that you might spend about 4 days a year just waiting at a bus stop.

This is a long time to be hanging around on a bit of pavement with strangers, so it’s worth looking at the design of bus stops in more detail.

What makes a good bus stop?

1. Comfortable

It should be comfortable. This means several things - obviously some decent seats are important. Also, there should be a clear view in the direction where the bus is coming from (not obscured by advertising boards), so that the bus can be seen coming. Information on bus routes, bus times and a local map are always useful.

Also, real-time information displays have been shown to make passengers more relaxed, as they have more certainty over how long they need to wait.

2. A 'bus stop ecosystem' of other useful things

It must have a good ‘bus stop ecosystem’. There should be a range of other things at a bus stop for the convenience of passengers. This can range from simple things like a bin, a post box and a phone box up to more complex things like a convenience shop, car park or interchange with other public transport. Plenty of activity makes the bus stop feel safer.

3. Queues

The design of bus stops should take into account the tradition of queuing for buses. In practice, this is only possible in less busy areas, where bus stops are only served by one bus route. In busier, city centre locations, queues make no sense because nobody knows which bus route the others are waiting for, and if two buses appear at the same time, everyone just runs for it.

It might be possible to mark separate queue lines on the pavement for each bus route, but even to the queue-loving English this might seem a bit extreme.

4. A Sense of Permanence

Lastly, bus stops must have a sense of permanence. Buses are the most efficient and most environmentally sensible form of public transport in most cities. The common problem of congestion is easily solved by dedicated bus lanes and priority junctions.

The problem is that they don’t feel like permanent services because they don’t have rails - there is a sense that they could be easily stopped or re-routed tomorrow. This is why much less efficient and more expensive forms of transport like electric trams are more popular.

A sense of permanence can be created by evidence of long-term investment in the bus route and bus stop. This might take the form of higher quality street furniture, or publishing maps that indicate every bus stop on the route, in the same way that rail maps indicate each station. (The excellent Spider Maps produced by Transport for London are a good example of this) - if we see our bus stop marked on a map then we have more confidence that it will be there for the foreseeable future.