Urban Waterfront Revitalization Through Landscape Approach Environmental Sciences Essay

Urban waterfronts have heavily degraded and received bad perception from urban dwellers. There are needs of effective urban waterfront revitalization programs to achieve a sustainable development of those waterfronts. This research studies is to formulize a landscape approach principles into revitalization program of urban waterfront. This study uses archival analysis to identified type of urban waterfront revitalization programs around the world and to understanding the role of urban waterfront. Finally, it uses literature survey to identified design considerations of landscape approach. Expected results of the study would include the types of waterfront revitalization programs, role of urban waterfront and design consideration for waterfront landscape. They are expected to lead towards formalizing the urban waterfront revitalization principles based on landscape approach. After the introduction of the background problem, the proposal will present the literature on waterfront revitalization, urban waterfront and waterfront revitalization program, and describe the research methodology before presenting the expected results. This study contributes in developing principles for waterfront revitalization program. Besides adding value to existing urban assets, the proposed principles for waterfront revitalization program support the sustainable development agenda of the world.

Keywords: Landscape approach, urban waterfront, waterfront revitalization program.

1.1 BACKGROUND

Urban rivers provide many functions to the cities such as water supply, transportations, biological protections and promoting for the development of the cities with its social, economical and environmental values. However, with the not planned well urbanization, the rivers have been disturbed which resulting in degradation of urban ecosystem.

River restoration has increasingly drawn attention, and corresponding activities have been carried out extensively (Holmes, 1998). Urban rivers that once were the most importance element of city were neglected. They were channelized and turn into big drain. The properties on its corridor turn their back to the river and the cities tried to treat river as “unwanted” thing.

Nonetheless, river corridors remain as continuous natural feature within suburbanized landscapes, which make it more important resource for habitats restoration and nature preservation. The encroachments of development into this area have fragmented, diminished and divided the vegetation along this corridor into small patches. These lead to substantial loss of habitat and biodiversity especially in urban areas.

Due to the natural recourses destruction in urban area, importance of rivers has become realize by city dwellers. It becomes important places for recreation and leisure. This why in recent years, the riverfront design and planning initiatives have increased. There are two major issues for this development, conservation and human use. Most of approaches for river developments have difficulties to deal with both of them, which they tend to choose either one. These lead to the failure of the project. This thesis aims to bring these issues together to inform the practice of landscape architecture.

1.2 APPROACH

This research study used a set of literature addressed waterfront development around the world. The literatures have covered many perspectives such as ecological, historical, cultural and built design. Even though the literature review provides a broad overview of waterfront development, the designs and planning of these waterfront developments have been superficial especially in ecology perspectives. Furthermore, for river corridor development, most literatures are focusing to non-urban landscapes, leaving the river corridors in urban landscape open for exploration.

1.3 Problem statement

1.4 Research question

1.4.1 Main Research Question

1.4.2 sub Research Question

1.5 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

1.5.1 GOALS

Revitalize the urban river through comprehensive landscape design solutions.

1.5.2 OBJECTIVES

To ensure the goal can be achieved, these objectives have been derived:

To assess the literature on waterfront revitalization programs around the world.

To assess the design that using landscape approach to understand their characteristic, strengths and weaknesses.

To investigates and understand of the role of urban river to the users.

To formulize the design principles for urban riverfront revitalization programs.

1.6 CHAPTER OUTLINE

Chapter One introduces and contextualizes the research problems. The literature reviews are presented in Chapter Two. It examines the development of waterfronts, its design and planning approaches. Chapter Three is describing the research method. It analyze the landscape approach literature to define the concepts and highlight the principles that will guide the development of landscape design principles for urban riverfront on Chapter Four. Chapter Five summarizes the findings of this study; discuss the application of the principles and presents areas of further research.

It is considered that the design principles here proposed will be useful for landscape architects, designers and planners in designing the waterfront. Hence, it is expected they will help designers establishing and creating sustainable waterfront that celebrating the past, enjoying the present and respecting the future of urban environment.

Figure 1.1 Research design diagram

1.7 significant of study

1.8 TERMINOLOGIES

1.8.1 URBAN watercourse

Walsh, Christopher J. et al. (2005) indicated that an urban watercourse is a formerly natural waterway that flows through a heavily populated area. Urban watercourses often significantly polluted due to urban runoff and combined with sewer outflows.

1.8.2 RIVER CORRIDOR

From Malaysian Drainage and Irrigation Department (DID) guidelines of river development (2004), river corridor is the area outside the river reserved and in 50 meters from the river-reserved boundary.

1.8.3 SUSTAINABLE watercourse

The sustainable watercourse covers an important element in Agenda21 about sustainable development. This is because the watercourse have capacity to contribute in increasing biodiversity and profit from development, improving and enhance conditions of the areas and people who live surround it. Sustainable development elements are economic development, social progress, conservation of resources and protection of the environment (UN Earth Summit Agenda 21, Rio de Janeiro, 1992).

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

2.2 WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION

Hoyle et.al (1993, 2000) said that pioneer in waterfront rehabilitation studies was Canada in early 1970’s. In his studies, he found out that focus of waterfront rehabilitation was including wide range of development such as recreational, residential, retail, commercial, service and tourist facilities.

According to him and Breen et.al (1996), the development of waterfront in America and Europe has occurred since 1960’s. “Perspective that tent to integrate design, environmental, social and economic objectives more efficiently” (Johes, 1998) was the European approach towards waterfront development in 1990’s.

Manning (1997) adding that “no use or treatment of waterfront should be allowed to exclude recreational value that no feature or operation however mundane needs to lack an aesthetic aspect and finally that ever the demands of conserving fragile nature need not exclude people from the scene”.

In other part of the world, the development of waterfront is relatively recent phenomenal. Lately, many countries start to open their eyes on potential of their river. South of Korea has demonstrating some wonderful projects of river rehabilitation development such as Chengyecheon River and Han River rehabilitation project. Franco (2000) states that in Brazil, there are many proposals of waterfront projects have been presented since early 1990s, unfortunately, few have been implemented. Most of them are because lack of funds and supports.

Waterfront project could be divided into six categories based on Bren and Rigby (1994) studies. This categorization was used by Breen and Rigby as tool to compile a huge numbers of designs. The categories are: historical, residential, recreational, cultural, environmental and working waterfront. Usually, the development of waterfronts would include one or more categories in order to support various demands to the site. There are many cases that the waterfront project have mixed-used characteristic. For example, a project that has ecological features may be designed infused with recreation, education and trails. These multipurpose designs are to encourage the maximum use of the space.

Table 2.1 shows some of the waterfront projects that have a major characteristic but have several other features abound. This categorization does seem have significant role in effecting the frameworks and design either. In order to use the categorizations, the heuristic devise should be taken to emphasis the major characters of each project.

Table 2.1 Waterfronts, their major character and uses

No.

Waterfront / City

Major Character

Uses

Source

Baltimore Waterfront

Mixed used

Urban renewal; cultural complex, office, residential

Breen and Rugby (1994)

Boston Waterfront

Historical

Public promenades, hotel, residential

www.theboston

waterfront.net

Charleston Waterfront Park

Public Space

Park, pier

Thompson (1991)

Elbe River, Dresden

Open Space

Entertainment, art, park

Friedrich (1998)

Elbe River, Hamburg

Mixed used

Transportation, residential

Trelcat (2001)

Thames River, London docklands

Public space

Recreation, cultural

Chaline 2001

Thames River, London Millennium Village

Mixed use

Promenades, institutions, residential, commercial

Burdett (1998)

Thames River, London Millennium Dome

Public space

Recreation, cultural

Arnold (1998)

Potomic River, Georgetown

Historical

Residential, office, public space

www.georgetown

waterfrontpark.org

South Platte River, Danver

Public space

Industrial landscape, park

Leccese (2001)

Puerto Madero, Buenos Aires

Mixed use

Residential, commercial, service, open space

Schneier Madanes (2001)

Aa River, Aarhus

Public space

Steam daylighting, trail

Nielsen (1998)

Yarra River, Melbourne

Cultural

Residential, commercial, entertainment

Sandercock &Dovey (2002)

East River, New York

Public space

Promenades

Freeman 2003

Meurthe River, Nancy

Public space

Promenades

Bruel &Delmar (1998)

San Antonio River, Texas

Public space

Commercial, hotel, entertainment, historical

Posner (1991)

Maas River, Rotterdam

Mixed use

Public spaces, residential, office

Mayer (1998)

Coal Harbour, Vancouver

Residential

Open space, office, marina

Quayle (1991)

Danube River, Vienna

Public space

Dam, ecological restoration, leisure

Hansjakob &hansjakob (1998)

Chengyecheon River, Seoul

Public space

Historical, commercial, entertainment, cultural

www.preservenet.com

2.3 Role of urban watercourse

Urban watercourse is a waterways that flowing through the populated areas. It often in bad condition and heavily degraded. Many of urban rivers have been polluted mostly by urban storm water runoff and combined sewer system.

Initially, such watercourses were managed as a resource for human benefit including water supply, flood mitigation, disposal of wastewater and minimization of disease (Walsh 2000; Paul and Meyer 2001; Morley and Karr 2002). However, this has led to the degradation of river ecological functioning, an issue that was initially ignored (Paul and Meyer 2001).

Important factor for early settlement was water. Water transportation and construction of flood embankments have turn the water into the background of urban concerns. Most literature agree that these earlier settlements were settle where there were enough water and land for food production, and there were no or rare disaster related to water. Water management became the basis for religious and social institutions. As the region began to produce surplus food, there was a societies restructuring.

Dubos (1972), a humanist, states that the urban areas are identified by evaluating their cultural practices in spite of changes in technology. Social scientists begin to acknowledge the water may have played a role in determining the social characteristics of urban areas (Lind, 1979).

Increasing of impervious surface area modified of natural drainage system and local climate changes have stressed the urban river. The increasing in impervious area make the runoff of rainfall in urban area has increase, compared to rural area. Furthermore, installations of storm sewer, culverting and channelizing the natural river have transmitted the water into drainage network faster. These events increase the flow velocity, reduce the timing of the runoff hydrograph, increase the flow rates which finally giving a hydrological problem; flooding.

In term of flood mitigation, authorities who in charge in river development have change the course of the river flow, in order to prevent localized flooding. They use engineering practices known as river channelization. These technologies including lining the riverbed and banks with concrete or other materials, divert the flow into storm drains and culverts. These changes are often bringing negative effects. It includes flooding of downstream due to changes in the floodplain, loss of habitat for fish and other species, fragmentation of riparian and others, leading to deterioration of water quality.

Fortunately, some communities have taken some effort to correct these problems. Their effort is to deal with bank erosion, due to the large amount of rainwater and using technologies such as daylighting and re-meandering. Example of successful project of daylighting is Cheonggyecheon river restoration project.

Another major problem of urban hydrology is water quality degradation. McPherson (1974) states that oil leakage and spill, mining activities, surface or streets have contaminated the urban river. Other factors in this problem are soil erosion from construction, industrial process effluents, and combined sewer overflows, urban storm runoff, leakage from septic tanks and cesspools and contamination.

As a result of pollution in urban watercourse water, many of the biological and aesthetic functions of water in urban areas cannot be fully utilized, disrespect and sometimes leading to abandoning the river from urban life itself.

Litte (1990) states that there has been increasing public concern for the protection of urban watercourse water. Numerous watercourse commissions have been establish in an effort to plan use and protection. There is reason to be optimistic about combining human use and natural environments as many river cities are rediscovering their waterfronts and commissioning planning studies (Kim et al., 1991).

However, the effect of waterfront development projects is not always good. All development projects have environmental and economic impact, and the development of the waterfront is not an exception. Any development project that will benefit some people is inevitable. Social and environmental impacts of water development, a number of effects obtained are usually extends far beyond the design of the site itself. Ecologists, environmentalist and designers have difficulties to predict overall effects because of complex interaction of diverse forces.

For example, current knowledge of the man made wetland ecosystem might desirable for present of time. Thus, unless the design and planning precedes by five to ten years, something unexpected situation might to develop which some with preferable effects or some are not.

In the current state of the art, this group often has difficulties to convince engineers, economists, and politicians that certain developments are unwise, or spending for remedial measures because of lack of solid scientific evidence or facts. Furthermore, engineers traditionally handle an urban watercourse development project. Sadly, they often ignore the social and environmental considerations in their planning process. In some cases, social scientists, landscape architects and environmentalist have been brought only after the damage (Biswas and Durie, 1971). In principle, it is expensive to fix compensation after they occur: It is cheaper to take preventive measures.

However, overall framework for the planning, design and management of urban river corridors still not well establish. An integrated planning that concerns every aspect regarding to urban watercourse corridors revitalization program must be develop.

2.4 LAndscape approach design for waterfront

The word “landscape” is a complex word appears in a wide range of scientific literature. Various authors have treated this topic. Saltzman (2001) overview the term of landscape as notion of landscape has changed and evolved over time and between the various fields of disciplines.

Saltzman (2001) indicates that other disciplines has a different approach. For example, natural scientists are often focused on the biophysical environment related to the interaction between species or ongoing natural processes as a landscape. Landscape architects tends to view landscape as planning tool while for archaeologists, they are more interested in the memory of landscape and its temporal aspects. An ethnologist, anthropologists, in literature or even among other disciplines, the landscape term refers for other purposes.

In this study, writer defined the landscape using the concept of landscape as Elbakidze and Angelstam (2007). They interpret landscape as social interactions between biophysical landscape and human society as a central idea. In European Landscape Convention, a landscape defined as

“an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors” (Anon. 2000b).

The Elbakidze Angelstam (2007) concluded that the social-ecological systems contain elements of both natural and cultural landscape is intertwining with each other. Landscape characters have developed by both physical and cultural factors that evolved over the years.

These aspects of the landscape must to consider in addition to the biophysical environment. Therefore, to fully describing a landscape, the number of variables that representing all the dimensions of sustainability have to use (Forman et al 2003, Berkes 1995’s, Anderson et al, 2005).

To implementing such landscape, approach needed some changes to suit the reality. One is to include of the different perspectives from different disciplines. For example, as described by Angelstam and Richnau (2008), while forest and landscape planners and managers try to accommodate commodity and non-commodity values in the same management unit, conservationists often define functional conservation landscapes, and other stakeholders such as farming communities or district officials may refer to their cultural or livelihood landscapes (e.g., Innes and Hoen 2005).

More important in landscape approach is to explore the resources sustainably and untraditionally. Attention has to be making in evaluate the relationship between human with human, human with nature and human with god.

The landscape approach sometimes can be use as basic for ecological development scheme. It deals with the physical, ecological and geographical entity, integrating all human and natural patterns and process. In addition, the structure, composition and function analysis helps in forecasting the landscape dynamic. Landscape approach ultimate goal is to maximize the long-term benefits for biodiversity for sustainable development. This can be achieve by optimizing the balance between economic purposes, ecology and social.

“A landscape approach that considers what’s happening at both the local, water body scale and at the broader regional scale is really the only way to study these types of issues,” Cheruvelil (2010) states. “If you look at only one ecosystem in isolation, you don’t see the whole picture.”

Wiens (2002) states that systematic analysis of conservation and restoration management for aquatic ecosystems in riverine is not a tradition. However, the complex interactions between land and water systems are getting recognition from governance policies, planning and management practices.

Singer (2007) states that being a social-ecological system, the term landscape approach capture the need for applied interdisciplinary approaches. Term landscape approach also emphasizes the ecological effects of spatial patterns of ecosystem and brad spatial scales. It is including the exchange and interaction within the entire landscapes, dynamics of development and spatial heterogeneity, the influence of spatial heterogeneity of biological and abiotic processes, and the management of spatial heterogeneity.

Risser (1984) and Angelstam (2004) reflects the idea that landscapes evolve through time, as a result of being acted upon by natural forces and human beings, which underlines that landscapes forms a whole, whose natural and socio-cultural components are taken together, not separately (Berkes et al., 2003).

2.5 summary

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

In order to conduct research on the application of landscape for the urban waterfront more effectively and achieve desired results, the method to be used in this study is divided into two main phases. Each phase consists of research method that leads to the gathering of constructive information needed to the realization of the targeted goals

Phase One will be involve mostly on the data gathering; determination and review of available information while in Phase Two, based on the date acquired, a practical guidelines shall be formulated and analyzed.

Detailed reasoning and clarification of the aforementioned methodology proposed are as per the next subchapter.

3.2 PHASE ONE – DEtermine and review

Vast collection of waterfront designs and frameworks from various literatures are collected. It is crucial to establish a good data management in order to have a full understanding of the subject and its related issues, either explicitly or holistically. The assessment of the data gathered in each project is necessary where these elements are identified:

Design consideration of urban waterfront

Proposed design

Planning frameworks

Based on the collected data, principles of the projects are reviewed, segregated and tabulated into a table of nine-design consideration, which are open space, human use, character, ecology, accessibility, land use, management, design issues and economy. It is easier to review the quality and impact of a particular project through a list of segregated factors, which will be helpful for the implementation of Phase 2.

3.3 PHASE TWO – DESIGN Guideline formulation

The segregated list of design consideration from Phase 1 will be further analyzed. Each factors, its correlation, priorities and impact is review and ranked. Next, the first five best design consideration which is implemented will be selected.

From the selected design consideration, their principles are outlined in another table for analysis and incorporated in the guideline formulation.

.

3.4 LIMITATIONs

3.3 PROCEDURES

The research will be divided into 5 stages as show in the figure below:

Stage 5

Final Product

Figure 3.1: Study Approach Flow Chart

4.0 RESULT AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Design and planning of Waterfront

The existing frameworks and designs, which developed by government agencies, researches and private consulting firms, need to be examined and used as the base guidelines for proposed waterfront development and its design.

This study applied the design concept definition by Lyle (1999). He stated that design activity is equals to the participation in the process of nature creatively, which means giving form to physical phenomena in every scale. The study also accepted his opinion on the difference of planning and design. Based on his judgment, planning involves administrative activities in spite of physical form shaping while design is the creative physical activity in all scale; this design definition is similar to those explained by Steinitz and McHarg.

Even though this thesis is aimed to discuss the design of riverfronts, it is also deals with certain part of the framework planning stage. This is due to the close relation of design issues discussed in the planning stage. Even Lyle (1999) himself acknowledged that the design and planning are closely linked and sometimes indistinguishable.

Boston, Baltimore and Toronto were among the pioneers and being the model for the waterfront issues (Penteado 2004). Since 1970s, several publications illustrated the analysis of these cities waterfront (e.g. Breen and Rigby 1996 and Brutomesso 1993). In Toronto, for example, different frameworks, design and planning for its metropolitan water’s edge were introduced (e.g. Reid 1997).

Central Waterfront Planning Committee (1976) in Toronto listed the physical properties that affecting the waterfront quality. They stated that it depends on the use, history, landscape, immediacy, views, activity, contrast, drama, intimacy, sound and wildlife. The Committee primarily focused on design, explores, and suggests the quality of the water edge form, visual quality, building materials and construction details, and a variety of uses.

Waterfront design by Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs (1987) on the other hand addressed the following issues for designing waterfront; shoreline protection, public access area, beaches, recreational boating, landscape for improving the waterfront and urban design.

Royal Commission on the Future of Toronto Waterfront – RCTFW (1992) proposed a framework of design principles for its waterfront which incorporated nine significant principles:

Clean: Incentive of natural processes instead of engineering solutions

Green: Infrastructure composed of natural features and topography such as habitats, aquifers and parks

Connection: Relation between wildlife habitats, social communities, humans and nature.

Open: Maintenance and restoration of vistas

Accessible: Incorporation of public transit

Useable: Mix of public and private uses and public access

Diverse: Variety of uses and programs

Affordable: Efficient use of government resources and integration of socio economic and environmental objectives (RCTFW 1992)

Attractive: Excellence in design to create memorable places

Out of all frameworks reviewed, these principles above were the most comprehensive context in the establishment of a waterfront. They dealt with both natural systems and integration of human needs.

In contrast, Reed (1997) focused on the minimization of the impact to natural habitats when designing a trail along the Ontario Lake and thus came out with design guidelines. He proposed that each design should:

Avoid most sensitive zone

Balance the effect of alternatives

Use previous disturbed areas

Maintain natural processes

Limit access

Incorporate habitat enhancements.

Unfortunately, he failed to mention the wildlife in urban areas along the coast.

Alternatively, the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department (1994) developed a framework based on these principles:

Accessibility

Sharing the benefits

Balance

Diversity

Responsible stewardship

Many of the guidelines reviewed incorporate different principles. Another case in point is Landplan Co Ltd (1995) who proposed a framework design called “generic guidelines for managing visual change in the landscape” for the Toronto Waterfront. The general guidelines required these principles to be addressed:

Residential

Industrial

Commercial

Recreational

Rural

Historic area

Community character

Vegetation

Signage

Lighting

Hierarchy of open spaces

Several authors combined their expertise and formulated a framework for the waterfront development in the United States. One of them was from Harvard University Design (1980). They proposed a Guideline for East Boston, which was dealing with:

Open space

Public access

Orientation

Views

Neighborhood scale

Activity

Parking

There was a successful case where a comprehensive guideline was developed. Torre (1989) presented a framework of waterfront project design based on these principles:

History

Climate

Special elements

Image

Authenticity

Function

Public perception of need

Financial feasibility

Environmental approvals

Construction technology

Effective management

Goodwin and Good in 1990 formulated a framework to rebuild the waterfront in a small town. The framework displayed a list of six fundamentals in the planning process. They called them the “tool and technique” which are:

Waterfront uses and activities

Land use control and incentives

Land acquisition

Financing of riverfront revitalization

Choosing and using consultants

Obtaining waterfront development permits

Coolman (Breen and Rigby 1990), stated that these general issues must be addressed during the development of design guidelines:

Simplicity and clarity

Compatibility with zoning

Publication and communication

Table 4.1 summarizes the information of frameworks and design presented above and others world recognized waterfront project.

Table 4.1 Interpretation of concern presents in planning and design frameworks. Tick cells indicate the issues addressed by each framework.

Project, City/Literature

Human use

Open Space

Character

Ecology

Accessibility

Landuse

Management

Design issues

Economy

Resource

Toronto (1976)

âˆš

Central Waterfront Planning Committee

Greenpoint-Williamburg (1979)

âˆš

Greenpoint-Williamburg Waterfront Plan

East Boston (1980)

âˆš

Harvard Design School

Torre (1989)

âˆš

Waterfront Development

Good &Goodwin (1990)

âˆš

“Tools and Technique”

Coolman (1990)

Breen and Rigby

New York (1992)

âˆš

New York Comprehensive Waterfront Plan

Toronto (1992)

âˆš

The Royal Commission on the future of Toronto Waterfront

Toronto (1994)

âˆš

Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department

Toronto (1995)

âˆš

Landplan Collaborative Ltd.

Ajax (1995)

âˆš

Ajax Waterfront Plan

Toronto (1999)

âˆš

Our Toronto Waterfront

Greenwich (2000)

âˆš

Greenwich Development Framework

Chengyecheon (2001)

âˆš

Chengyecheon Restoration Project

Wellington (2001)

âˆš

The Wellington Waterfront Framework

Granion (2001)

âˆš

Granion Waterfront West Edinburg Local Plan

New Waterfront Policies (2002)

âˆš

United States New Riverfront Revitalization Programs

South (2002)

âˆš

Portland South Riverfront Guidelines,

Memphis (2002)

âˆš

Memphis Riverfront Plan

Toronto (2003)

âˆš

Toronto Urban Development Service

Orillia (2003)

âˆš

Orillia Waterfront Framework

Anacostia (2003)

âˆš

Anacostia Waterfront Initiative

Hobart (2004)

âˆš

Hobart Waterfront Urban Design Framework

Bellingham (2004)

âˆš

Waterfront Vision &Framework Plan Connecting Bellingham With The Bay

Melaka (2005)

âˆš

Focus Architects &Urban Planners Sdn. Bhd

Port (2006)

âˆš

Port Waterfront Public Art Framework

Los Angeles (2007)

âˆš

Los Angeles River Revitalization Master plan

Al Bateen (2007)

âˆš

Abu Dhabi Al Bateen waterfront Framework Plan

Grant (2008)

âˆš

A Framework For Evaluating Displinary Contributions to River Restoration

New York (2010)

âˆš

Vision 2020 New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan

Sum.

The information presented above were part of the efforts to create a better urban waterfront frameworks and guidelines. From the frameworks and guidelines summarized here, many of the projects showed extra concern in the ecological aspects. Second and third in line were the concern given to the accessibility and human use aspect. Design issues ranked fourth while open space was the fifth of most considered design for waterfront.

The least concern of design consideration given were the aspect of characters and building use. Second last was the aspect of economy and the management was the least concern aspect in designing the waterfront.

Several studies examined the integration of environmental support for ecological processes and urban structures. The term “environment”, in its common usage does not necessarily related to the environmental issues. “Environment” and “ecosystem” could represent the sense of space and place; but often mistakenly thought to be similar to the natural ecology and ecosystems.

Many cities adopt the economic approach to the development of the waterfront and at the same time superficially exploring the relationship between human and water even though numerous movements in many countries campaigning on the restoration and protection of natural resources. In support to the above statement, according to the frameworks described, they illustrated the use of human without paying close attention to the conservation and regeneration approaches.

Waterfront development was first popularized the 1980s but it was less pronounced in the mid-1990s, somehow rather it was becoming more prevalent recent years. For example, in 2003, the International Federation Landscape Architects (IFLA) congress meeting held in Calgary, Alberta, used the term “waterfront” as one of its sub-themes.

Hence, it shows that there are still a lot to contribute to the discussion on the practice of landscape architecture and the vision for the future of urban waterfront. As what Marshall (2001) mentioned, designers and planners are wrestling with the waterfront space provided by the city and battling with the appropriateness of their intentions for the present and the future.

4.3 Landscape approach Design Principles

Table 4.2 Interpretation of concern presents in planning and design frameworks. Tick cells indicate the issues addressed by each framework.

Rank

Design Consideration

Principles

Ecology

Encourage more green space

Increase biodiversity at waterfront

Balancing the needs of environmentally sensitive natural and the working waterfront

Conserve and enhance the areas biodiversity

Improve the water quality

Protect the ecological system

Protect from flooding and erosion

Prevent solid waste and hazardous substance from entering the water body.

Promoting a clean and green environment

Encourage the preservation of green area

Restore the health of land and water

Integrating storm water management system

Enhance river bank

Develop a cohesive greenway trail system

Design diverse plant communities

Support diverse community

Improve environmental performance

Let the natural process took place instead of engineering solutions

Use of environmental friendly technology

Accessibility

Create access to waterfront for vehicles and pedestrian in separated way but interconnected.

Reconnect the neighbourhood to the waterfront

Create pedestrian friendly streetscape

Accommodate water base transportation

Create a public access

Removing any barrier to water

Human Use

Encourage active use of the waterfront especially in town centre

Introduce recreational boating

Creating dynamic and diverse communities

Make the water edge as public area

Prepare a variety of activities such as recreational (active/passive), cultural, commercial, residential and tourist attraction spots

Open Space

Create an open up view

Create an open space for variety of activity along the waterfront

Make a spectacular public space

Develop a public space system that can be used as an alternative route to other activities area

Continuous network of park and open space

Experience of space and openness

Celebrate the waterfront

Hierarchy of open space should be clear

Maintenance and restoration of vistas

Design Issues

Create compelling skyline

Encourage a variety landform and quality design

Create a dense development

Design an unity form

Reinforced the inherent qualities of each part of waterfront

Celebrating diversity and cultural heritage

Develop river edge variety

Incorporate outdoor lighting that respond for different user

Developing complementary structured parking

Coordinate district signs

Expression of heritage and history

Create sense of place for residents

Enhance city street

Accommodate visitors and residents with facilities and amenities

The form and character of new development must be compatible with the history pattern and design of street, block and building

Place that define the city should be protected

Create a drama , contrast, and intimacy

Neighbourhood scale

Have a theme (historical, climate, special elements)

Authenticity of place

Unique identity and focus

.

5.0 CONCLUsion & Recommendation

5.1 introduction

recommendations

Order Now