LEGAL FEASIBILITY Of the Western station area in Nijmegen

Authors: Rolf van der Leeuw 1268341Theresa Wu 4033140

Course: AR1U100 R+D STUDIOGroup: 1Tutors: Willem Hermans & Gabriela RendonDate: 22 January 2010

1/10

Index

1. Preface 3

2. Introduction 42.1 Introduction 42.2 Problemstatement 42.3 Visions 42.4 Complexity 4

3. Sightlines 53.1 Plan A 53.2 Plan B 5

4. Import buildingprojects 64.1 Plan A 64.2 Plan B 6

5. Noise & Nature 75.1 Noise plan A 75.2 Nature plan A 75.3 Noise plan B 75.4 Nature plan B 8

6. Conclusion 9

2/10

PrefaceThis report is a result of the projectcourse AR1U100 of the Msc 1 Q2 Urbanism at the TU Delft. In this reportwe make a short investigation into the legal feasibility of two design proposals for the regeneration of thestation area in Nijmegen. The assignment consists out of three subjects: sightlines, importantbuildingprojects, noise and nature. We will test our proposals and explain how we dealt with these subjects.

3/10

1.1 IntroductionThe division of groups within our projectgroup was done according to five different projectlocations. TheCitadel, the node in Lent, the station area, the neighbourhood around the Marialaan and the Industrial areain the west. We decided not to select one of the two designs but to compare the two and draw conclusionfrom that. In the first part of the report we explain the similarities and differences off our vision and actualplans, the second part consists of the exercise as stated in the form and the third part is a conclusion on thecomparison of the two plans. The plan of Rolf van der Leeuw will be referred to as plan A and the plan ofTheresa Wu will be referred to as plan B.

1.2. Problem statementFor both of us there were a number of reasons why we chose this specific area.We both think that this area is the entrance of the city, with the ringroad coming in the future, the image ofthis city’s gate should be re-shaped to stand a position for the new ringroad also to strengthen theconnection with the city centre.While the east and west area was cut into two pieces by the rail road, without any further planning in thissite, it will break into pieces after the ringroad enter. So we both want to use ring road as a connection tolink the east and the west area, to sew up this area and give it a new life.

1.3 VisionsAlthough we had the same problem statement and the same goals we wanted to achieve within thesationarea we used totally different strategies to reach these goals. The most important difference is theroute that the ring road follows from the Keizerkarelplein to the Marialaan. In plan A the exisiting route ofthe nassaulaan tunnelweg Marialaan is maintained and in plan B a new connection is made by extending theVan Schaik Mathonsingel through a new tunnel to the Marialaan. This essential difference has given us atotal different starting point for our visions. In plan A the existing tunnel is widened and shortened in orderto improve the connection between East and West and in plan B the existing tunnel is transformed to ashoppinggalery that acts as a connector.

1.4 ComplexityA big issue with the development of station areas is the complexity of these large scale projects. Theyconcern large inner-city areas with a lot of stakeholders involved with different interests that all need to bekept on the same track. Therefore the plans for these locations take years to develop and the actualrealisation may take another 5 to 20 years depending on the scale of the project. During the construction allthe processes that take place have to be able to continue. Trains have to keep running as usual and thesame goes for busses, trams, cars, etc. This calls for a lot of temporary solutions.

To determine the costs concerning these projects is very difficult. Most of the design solutions are far fromstandard and a lot of different construction costs have to be taken in to account. To make sure we won't loseourselves in this complexity we chose not to include the actual station in the estimate, but to select thewestern part of the development as our plan for this assignment.

4/10

2 Most important building projects

planpreparation and estimate.5. marketmodel: Municipality and private parties are together responsible for plan making but the

private parties take care of the plan preparation and the estimate.6. concessionmodel: The municipality is landowner and does the planmaking. The realisation of the

planmaking is given to private parties via a integral contract design, build, finance, maintain (thePPP concession).

For my plan I chose the joint venture model because the spread of risk and direction between private partiesand the municipality is about equal as shown in the following scheme.

In the table above I show all the different stakeholders that are involved with the different buildingprojects. The land does not have to be bought from the current landowners, they can take part in the developmentprocess to develop there own land as a part of the total project. Especially the UWV building that need to bedemolished for building 1 and 2 is very expensive to buy. It is more feasible to let them take part in the PPP.

2.2 Plan B

Building projects plan BBuilding 1 Building 2 Building 3 Building 4 Building 5

Functions Hotel National Muesum Gallery Gallery Shop

Commissioner Private company Local Government Private company Private company Private person

Future owner of land Project Developer (NSPoort)

Local Government Local government Local Government Local Government

(1) This is the tallest building in the area. It faces directly to the station and stands in the centre of thelandscape green belt. It will be the icon of this area.

(2) This is the National Museum, sets besides the ringroad. Will works as a ferment to activate the art andculture activities in this area.

(3) This is the gallery block, change the original street housing in to the galleries.

(4) This is the gallery block, change the original street housing in to the galleries.

(5) This is the new structure that add on the street housing which is transferred into the gallery. Will workas the café shop or the art shop. Will have commercial activities in it.

the table above indicates the commissioner and land owner which probably will result in future problems. Take building 2 for example, this building is of crucial importance, only when this project is succeed canbring the 3,4 and 5 project in. the local government have to communicate with the land owner to get theland and build a new museum. The commissioner of the building 3,4 and 5 and the local government should try to have more negotiationswith the original land owners, communicates with them about the future plan for this area, and make it clearthat they can change their housing to the new dwelling at the front station area. So the local governmentcan own the land and load the housing to the private art company.

7/10

Fig 2.7 Jointventure model

2.3 Noise and Nature

2.3.1 Noise plan AIn my design for the western station area two important infrastructural lines are of influence; the railway andthe the ring road (tunnelweg). These infrastructural lines are existing and will not have a greater noisedisturbance for the existing buildings. However for the new development this important lines have to betaken in to account. In the north part of the plan (see fig. 2.3) the buildings are positioned very close to thetracks. In Fig. 2.3.1 the maps shows the noise disturbance in dB, the whole area has a higher disturbance of60-64 dB. This means that new measures have to be taken to block the noise. These measures can either befree standing elements like a sound screen but can also be integrated within the design of the buildings. Inthis way the new development blocks the noise from the rest of the neighbourhood. The noise disturbanceof trains has more influence on dwellings than on office or commercial functions.

The tunnelweg is intensively used by al means of transport. With the new station entrance and bus station inthe west this traffic intensity will only grow. This is traffic will have influence on the attractiveness and valueof the new development especially for the buildings 1 and 2 (Fig. 2.3) that are very close located to the newbus station. Therefore the apartments are only located on the higher floor levels and the first floor is usedfloor commercial functions. A further investigation has to be done to the influence of the new bus station tothe existing neighbourhood in the south. When it turns out to cause a lot of new disturbance to theneighbourhood it will be likely that it will cause a lot of protest within this neighbourhood, this can lead to alot of delay.

2.3.2 Nature plan AIn the project area is no protected nature present. There is however in the current situation a vast greenspace between the railways and the neighbourhood in the west that. This open green space is not of highquality and isn't really used by the local citizens. In my design I tried to maintain this green image in thenew development. In the south part of the plan the empty green area is transformed into a park. In thenorthern part of the plan the green space is also transformed to a park and integrated with newdevelopment.

2.3.3 Noise plan BNoise: In this area, railways and the ring road are the two main noise sources in the sub area. Severaldesign methods have been made to protect health of inhabitants and quality of life from the harmful effectsof noise.

1. Sound wall will be built next to the railway tracks.2. The new building must stand back at least 8 meters from the side walk to reduce the harmful effects fromthe noise.

8/10

Fig. 2.3.1 Noise disturbance from the railway(source: Prorail)

Fig. 2.3.2 Legend ofnoise disturbance(Source: Prorail)

3. landscape green belt has been designed next to the railway. Trees and shrubs may contribute toreducing the environmental noise.

2.3.4 Nature plan BNature: In my whole design, I especially take the connection between the original green open space intoaccount. Use the pedestrian walking path to link the three green area’s belt.

In the backside of the station area. Besides to strengthen the original green open space, more green spacehas been designed and input in this area. People can walk in this green belt, rest in it or participate theactivities happen on the plaza. Also to use it to connect with the front station area or the museum area.Green open space helps to create a life of quality and rebuild the image of the station area.

9/10

3 Conclusion In this report we looked at different legal subjects that are of influence in our design proposals. There are alot of similarities on the subjects of sightlines and noise and nature but also differences in the way we dealwith the stakeholders.

We both make use of different sightlines in our plans. These lines are formed by physical structures likeroads, footpaths and are focused towards or from the station. This makes the station in both the plans avery import point of reference. In plan B the mandatory legal status of the sightlines is in our opinion extraimportant because the land around the station is open and can be subject of new development in the future.In plan A this is less likely because the sightlines are already outlined with new development, the are morephysically present.

The main difference in approach is in the way we deal with our stakeholders. Plan A has a PPP constructionto involve the stakeholders at the very start of the project. The municipality isn't the contractor but thepartnership is. In this way information of all parties is exchanged and risks and profits can be spread over alarger area. This is a very common construction for combinationprojects like the development of stationareas. All the stakeholders are more committed because they have a common interest.

In plan B the municipality is contractor and has to deal with different projects individually. The advantage isthat they are less depended on other parties. On the other hand they do take all the risks for themselves.

The noise and nature are dealt with in different ways. The most important factor will be the noisedisturbance due to the two heavy infrastructural lines, the railway and the tunnelweg. As is shown in chapter2.3 the railway causes a higher noise disturbance in the project area. Both plans deal with this problem indifferent ways, Plan A needs to take extra measures to protect new development from the noise. This causesextra costs in the first place and has a thread of protest from citizens when this problem isn't dealt withproperly. Plan B has avoided this problem by locating the new development outside the noise disturbancearea. The area along the railway is developed as a recreational area and acts as a sound buffer.

It is hard to say which plan is more feasible or less feasible. The danger for Plan A will be caused by thebuildings located close to the railway and maintaining the cooperation within the PPP. Plan B deals well withthe sound an nature because the undeveloped area is kept open. The hard part is that the development ofplan B is all within the existing fabric. The demolition of the existing housing will be difficult and can putextra pressure on the feasibility of the project.

10/10