URBAN DESIGN International

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 93–110 | Cite as

Modularity and sustainability: Eindhoven as an example of pragmatic sustainable design

Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Sustainability has become the transdisciplinary buzzword of urbanism. Sustainability can be leveraged as an integrated tool that can fortify design and redesign of urban forms that are deemed ‘unsustainable’. For this study, sustainability is given criteria, following the methodology of Frey, and applied to the redesign of an actual existing city. This methodology reorganizes cities or districts into ‘urban quarters’, which are modular units within the city. In this manner, the city of Eindhoven, The Netherlands was taken as a case study and the sustainability criteria given by Frey’s method were used to analyse and identify the levels of sustainability in urban quarters in Woensel, a district of Eindhoven. The results indicate that a grand part of the evaluated areas as unsustainable possess characteristics that diagnose a loss of modularity principally in the quarters in the north of Woensel. A redesign proposal is presented, to modularly restructure the district Woensel. The development of a large urban unit is carried out as example, through the union of sustainable and unsustainable areas.

Keywords

sustainability urban quarter urban form Eindhoven 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barton, H. (2000) Sustainable Communities, the Potential of Eco-Neighborhoods London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  2. Beekman, P.C. (1982) Eindhoven: Stadsontwikkeling 1900–1960 Mierlo, The Netherlands: Eigen Uitgave.Google Scholar
  3. Breheny, M., Williams, K., Jenks, M. and Burton, E. (1996) The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? London: E & FN Spon.Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan, M. (2002) Small World: Uncovering Nature’s Hidden Networks London: Phoenix, New ED Edition.Google Scholar
  5. Davidson, M. (2010) Sustainability as ideological praxis: The acting out of planning’s master-signifier. City 14 (4): 390–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doevendans, K. (2005) Het Wij van Wijkgedachte. De biografie van een stedebouwkundig subject. In: F. Sanders (ed.) Reflecties op het woondomein Eindhoven, The Netherlands: Bouwstenen Publicaties.Google Scholar
  7. Doevendans, K. (2009) De ontphilipste stad, kansen voor architectuurbeleid in Eindhoven Eindhoven, The Netherlands: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  8. Doevendans, K. and Schram, A. (2005) Creation/accumulation city. Theory Culture & Society 22 (2): 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doust, K. (2014) Toward a typology of sustainability for cities. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering 1 (3): 180–195.Google Scholar
  10. Ehlers, E. (2011) City models in theory and practice: A cross-cultural perspective. Urban Morphology 15 (2): 97–119.Google Scholar
  11. Frey, H. (1999) Designing the City: Towards a More Sustainable Urban Form London: Spon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frey, H. and Yaneske, P. (2007) Visions of Sustainability, Cities and Regions New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  13. Frey, H., Bagaeen, S., Gianchis, C. and Faria, P. (2010) Urbanising suburbia: The handbook. Establishing threshold, average and target values of sustainable urban quarters, Report in city-form.org.uk, http://www.city-form.org/uk/pdfs/CityForm_US_Handbook.pdf.
  14. Grigonis, V. (2013) World cities and urban form: Fragmented, polycentric, sustainable? Urban Design International 18 (2): 182–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jabareen, Y. (2006) Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models and concepts. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26 (1): 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jenks, M. and Dempsey, N. (2005) Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities Oxford: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jenks, M. and Jones, C. (2010) Dimensions of the sustainable city. vol 2. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Jones, H. and Jones, P. (2007) Cities and sustainability. Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (1): 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karimi, K. (2013) Retrofitting suburbia: Urban design solutions for redesigning suburbs. Journal of Urban Design 18 (1): 168–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kärrholm, M. (2011) The scaling of sustainable urban form: A case of scale-related issues and sustainable planning in Mälmo, Sweden. European Planning Studies 19 (1): 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krier, L. and Thadani, D. (2009) The Architecture of Community London: Island Press.Google Scholar
  22. Krier, L. (1984) The city within the city. Architectural Design 54 (1): 70–105.Google Scholar
  23. Luederitz, C., Lang, D.J. and Von Wehrden, H. (2013) A systematic review of guiding principles for sustainable urban neighbourhood development. Landscape and Urban Planning 188 (10): 40–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Neuman, M. (2005) The compact city fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research 25 (1): 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pfeiffer, D. (2014) Retrofitting suburbia through second units: Lessons from the Phoenix Region, Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 8 (3): 279–301.Google Scholar
  26. Rutgers, R.A. and Custers, L. (2005) Historich Morfologische Atlas van Eindhoven Eindhoven: Gemeente Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  27. Schippers, H., Bosman, J. and Doevendans, K. (2007) City-plan Eindhoven (1967–1970): het modernste ontwerp voor de stad Eindhoven, The Netherlands: Walburg Pers.Google Scholar
  28. Sorensen, A. (2001) Subcentres and satellite cities: Tokyo’s 20th century experience of planned polycentrism. International Planning Studies 6 (1): 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. UN-Habitat. (2009) Global Report of Human Settlements 2009: Planning Sustainable Cities. United Nations Human Settlements Programme: UN-Habitat, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
  30. Vall-Casas, P., Koschinsky, J. and Mendoza, C. (2011) Retrofitting suburbia through pre-urban patterns: Introducing a European perspective. Urban Design International 16 (3): 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. WCED. (1987) Our Common Future. The Brundtland Report, World Commission for Environment and Development Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Winston, N. (2013) Sustainable communities? A comparative perspective on urban housing in the European union. European Planning Studies 22 (7): 1387–1406.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technische Universiteit EindhovenEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Instituto de Arquitectura y Urbanismo, Universidad Austral de ChileValdiviaChile

Personalised recommendations