2001-June 6-8 MILU - Iiinstitute.nl

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• Need better area planning – reinforcing existing residential neighborhoods. • Need to reinforce the existing good cultural life (more community gathering places), a few existing farms of historical significance still exist in the area. • Need to find financing for new improvements – looking for a mix of public-private sources. 3. RELEVANT CASE STUDY CONSIDERATIONS The working party was asked to present a few comparable case studies with a view to illustrating possible relevancy’s and unique approaches to the problems of the Groruddalen Valley. The following considerations emerged from two case studies presented: • Redevelopment can cause dislocations on local establishments and opportunities i.e. equilibrium of land use (compatible land uses). • Need for consistency with local character. • No preference for mixed use over single use – expediency should dictate approach. • Establish a clear regional plan or strategic context for all interventions. Specific issues emerging from these presentations were: • Consider a telescoped scale of thinking – from the regional to local. • Consider the advantages of current and future infrastructure. • Consider the need for clear community definitions. • Consider the nature of edges. • Examine the degree of land coverage (large roof areas, degree of visible exposure). • Match ecology with topography. • Do not ignore political realities while considering economic and ecological considerations. 4. RECURRING WORKING PARTY QUESTIONS The prevailing issues as listed were obtained through a series of observations from the working party. Although they are descriptive of the valley, these issues do not provide a sense of the larger imperatives for intervention necessary to assign development priority and planning focus. Recurring questions from the working party that would assist in this regard were: • How critical are the existing distribution functions? What are the current and future needs of this function? • Regional imperatives – has the cost of losing infrastructure been considered? • What are the known local imperatives by residents and local employers? • Is there any assessment of the valleys potential for redevelopment? 19.
5. WORKING PARTY DISCUSSIONS Following presentation of the case studies, the working party decided that in light of an inadequate understanding of the valley and clarity on local vs. regional development imperatives, a discussion of intervention strategies was premature. Three members of the group had the following observations: Heinrich Klose 1. Evidence of good islands of residential development (single family homes of good quality) 2. Toll Roads – revenue generating, but not clear to what end. 3. Existing valley patterns are a porridge of mixed uses. 4. Local identity appears completely confused. Jacek Malasek 1. Low aggregate densities characterize the valley. 2. The valley has no clear land use patterns. 3. Are the existing railway connections valuable? If so, to whom? Arun Jain 1. The site presents evidence of fractured land use and complicated existing circulation. 2. There are no apparent hierarchies of circulation or physical land use coherence (i.e. relationship of residential areas with public amenities such as schools, open space or local commercial facilities). 3. What are the development priorities? (Local and regional - residential, work or industrial) 4. Residential areas convey no apparent sense of community. 5. Clear need to rationalize transportation – separate better the local from the regional traffic better. 6. CONCLUSIONS The subgroup o<strong>nl</strong>y loosely identified apparent areas of dysfunction within the valley without being able to develop detailed approaches or strategies for intervention. The working party underscored the need for a more comprehensive view of the area free from local planning departments and their more focused agendas. Needed also was a clear sense of process that took into account regional, local and neighborhood considerations, suggesting that a community visioning process be initiated. This in addition to more detailed analysis by an interagency planning group capable of looking at the range of scales necessary to effect meaningful change in the valley. 20.
Page 1 and 2: IFHP Working Party Multifunctional
Page 3 and 4: Contents Introduction Participants
Page 5 and 6: Participants As could be expected f
Page 7 and 8: These topics fitted perfectly in th
Page 9 and 10: Ad II: General basis for evaluation
Page 11 and 12: Theoretical frame work For the eval
Page 13 and 14: Report of working group A: Changing
Page 15 and 16: • Create new city spaces over the
Page 17 and 18: Significance for the Oslo-cases: Am
Page 19: 1. CONTEXT The following is a list
Page 23 and 24: Chapter 3. Evaluation (plenary sess
Page 25 and 26: List of Participants and e mail add
Page 27 and 28: Name Organisation Address Zip- City
Page 29 and 30: Annexes to the report of the Oslo m

2001-June 6-8 MILU - Iiinstitute.nl

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?