Urban Design Learning’s Post

View organization page for Urban Design Learning, graphic

4,854 followers

In this video, Esther Kurland takes a look at how approaches to density can change over time even in the same development. As what was London's working riverside has been converted to different uses including housing, offices, culture and tourism, there have been dramatically different attitudes at different points about what is acceptable in terms of building heights, open space between them etc... Here we're looking at one of the more subtle examples of those changes – all of the buildings under discussion operate at what many would call a human scale – but there's still a very clear difference between the three phases.

Brian Quinn

Versatile research-orientated built environment professional

3mo

Great video Esther. I wonder if you could follow this with a further video of locations as density goes up further and what happens then to shared space — perhaps talking about roof terraces or other ways of building in shared outside space to super dense schemes. The Coin Street schemes are deservedly commended as examples of their time, and are some of my favourites, but we would now build them to much higher densities if such central sites were available now, especially to deliver this quantum of genuinely affordable housing. It is always useful to think about the evaluation of the lived experience in schemes as height and density goes up. The Tower Hamlets research that underpinned their High Density Living SPD and also Social Life's research for L&Q on the use of shared spaces in schemes and subsequent work at Grahame Park and Woodberry Down might be helpful to explore the effects of density. I'm sure there are other inputs that would help too.

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics