Archive for the 'Bita Roxana' Category


Urban Audit- site cu statistici comparative despre orase europene

asta e linkul :

de exemplu e interesant de vazut, in legatura cu o ipoteza despre numarul mare de spitale forumalata de o colega pe blogul acesta, ca avem intr-adevar in bucuresti si in romania un nr mai mare de paturi de spital pe 1000 de locuitori decat, de exemplul, Copenhaga sau danemarca
Number of hospital beds per 1,000 residents Bucuresti:10.96 Romania: 6.58, in timp ce in Danemarca sunt 3.98 (se pot compara si orasele si tarile, in masura in care exista date suficiente. pt 2004 nu sunt toate datele momentan dar oricum cred ca merita). Poate ar trebui sa comparam cu nr de vizite anuale la medici pentru controale de rutina, daca am avea datele astea.

alt exemplu: in timp ce in danemarca procentul de familii care platesc chirie e de 10%, in romania e de 1,ceva %. (era previzibil , dar devine tangibil prin statistici).
have fun!

ps: imagine cu o comparatie
cz: romania are cea mai mare rata de mortalitate infantila, cea mai mare proportie de proprietari si cea mai mica suprafata de locuire/persoana… suprafara asta nu stiu totusi cum se calculeaza.


Let’s Plan on Walking by Hannah Twaddell

Attractively designed, pedestrian-oriented commercial arteries are one component of a community’s “quality of life,” an important factor in economic health.What image of the community do each of these commercial roadways convey?credits: above left, Dan Burden; above right; Wayne Senville

Read beginning of article:

In Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, British everyman Arthur Dent first sees alien visitor Ford Prefect standing, inexplicably, in the middle of a busy street with his hand outstretched toward an onrushing VW Beetle. After Arthur pushes the fellow out of harm’s way, he learns Ford was trying to befriend the car. The newcomer had decided these ubiquitous metal creatures must be our planet’s dominant life form.

Well, in a sense he was right. Our cars are very much a part of us now. But while we now enjoy a level of mobility unprecedented in human history, our growing dependence upon our cars has created some challenging problems. Seniors become trapped in their homes as their ability to drive diminishes. Children can’t get anywhere by themselves, and their parents are stressed to the limit with the complicated job of chauffeuring them everywhere. Traffic congestion spoils once-peaceful rural roadways, renders major arterials hopelessly inefficient, and spews noxious gas into our air.

We can’t afford the money or land area to keep expanding our roadways. And, given all the negative consequences of more traffic, many communities are recognizing that we must create alternatives to driving in order to sustain — or restore — our quality of life. But efforts to invigorate alternatives like public transit often fail because so many of the places we try to serve are so far apart, and difficult to navigate without a car.

One key part of any approach to reducing people’s need to drive lies in pulling our far-flung destinations closer together and designing safe ways to access them on foot. In other words, we need to create walkable communities.

What is a Walkable Community?

When asked to picture a walkable community, many folks remember a neighborhood, town square, or city block where people of all ages enjoyed being outside. It featured streets along which people could comfortably walk and talk, buildings they could easily see and enter on foot, and a variety of folks out and about.

Before the advent of the automobile, when towns were built along rail lines and rivers, it would have been unthinkable to lay out a place that couldn’t be navigated on foot. Since the mid-20th century, however, it’s been unthinkable to develop a place where you can’t drive. In order to make room for bigger roads and parking lots, we often sacrifice the elements that make a community walkable. We have to think about design in a whole new way if we want to accommodate pedestrians as well as drivers.

The following list from the 1994 “Walk Boston” plan is a good summary of are the basic elements planners need to consider in order to shape walkable places:

  • Coherence. A clear, understandable and organized sidewalk, street and land-use system consistent with the scale and function of the surrounding urban context;
  • Continuity. A pattern of design and usage that unifies the pedestrian system;
  • Equilibrium. A balance among transportation modes that encourages pedestrians;
  • Safety. Pedestrian protection from automobiles and bicycles. Adequate time to cross intersections. Physical separation from fast-moving cars;
  • Comfort. Secure and negotiable paving materials for sidewalks and crosswalks. Unobstructed passage on the sidewalk and at corners;
  • Sociability. A sense of hospitality and suitability for individual and community interactions;
  • Accessibility. The opportunity for all individuals to use the pedestrian environment fully;
  • Efficiency. Simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and minimum pedestrian delay in design and function; and
  • Attractiveness. Clean, efficient and well-maintained surroundings, with adjacent storefronts and activities that provide sidewalk interest.Effective pedestrian plans are built (literally and figuratively) from the ground up by engaging community residents in simple, straightforward activities that help them envision these fundamental elements. Walkability advocate Dan Burden (named by Time Magazine in 2001 as one of the nation’s top civic innovators) has prepared a list of Walkable Community Criteria that can be used to stimulate public awareness and discussions of walkability in any community. Sidebar, Criteria for a Walkable Community. … article continues with examination of the benefits of walkable communities, and ideas on how to promote more walkable cities and towns.

    The full article can be ordered & downloaded. Click lightning bolt icon at top left.

    publicat de Roxana Bita

  • 02

    Operationalizare concept si ipoteze Roxana B.

    M-am inspirat dintr-un articol publicat in engleza intr-un alt post, articol despre “The walkability of a city”.

    Conceptul ar fi Evaluarea unui oras/ Perceptia asupra unui oras.

    O dimensiunea e Dezirabilitatea orasului pentru pedestri (de fapt vreau sa traduc walkability prin asta,dar nu-mi iese). Altele ar putea fi dezirabilitatea dpdv economic, dpdv al cresterii copiilor in el, etc.

    Cred ca aceasta dimensiune a dezirabilitatii unui oras (ca Bucurestiul) pentru pedestri poate fi investigata cu ajutorul unor indicatori precum:

    -existenta trotuarelor – in conditie buna pentru mers
    – de marime potrivita (pentru a exista zone walkable, e nevoie de trotuare de latime considerabila, dispersate in toate zonele orasului; nu e nevoie ca toate trotuarele sa fie mari)

    OBS: de acest punct se leaga existenta parcarilor, astfel incat masinile sa nu parcheze pe trotuar, dar si existenta pistelor de biciclete.

    – existenta trecerilor de pietoni si a pasajelor adaptate nevoilor de circulatie ale pietonilor
    – nivelul de poluare fonica, precum si a aerului
    – existenta spatiilor verzi si a elementelor de decor stradal, precum si a elementelor care raspund unor nevoi practice: banci si toalete publice.
    – prezenta elementelor daunatoare sentimentului de siguranta/confort pe strada : cersetori, gheata, polei, turturi iarna, cladiri in stare indoielnica, caini comunitari.
    – frecventarea de catre pietoni cu scop recreativ

    – dispersarea zonelor walkable, precum sunt identificate prin studiul indicatorilor de mai sus si precum sunt confirmate de comportamentul pietonilor, in toate cartierele orasului, pentru accesul facil al tuturor.

    Mentiune: exista doua feluri de pedestri – cei care circula cu un scop pragmatic si cei care doar se plimba. Eu vreau sa ma gandesc doar la cei care se plimba, nu merg in vederea unui scop pragmatic, ci recreativ (si poate fac jogging in cel mai pragmatic caz).

    In ce priveste perceptia oamenilor despre proprietatea de walkability a unui oras putem verifica daca:

    • Perceptia asupra criminalitatii afecteaza mobilitatea oamenilor in oras (limiteaza accesul la anumite zone considerate periculoase).
    • Intensificarea activitatilor comerciale in spatiul public transforma perceptia oamenilor asupra plimbarii, exclude ideea de  plimbare fara scopul de a cumpara sau planifica viitoare cumparaturi.

    alte ipoteze:

    • Daca nu exista o proiectare a blocurilor cu tot cu spatii comerciale la parter, nevoia pentru acestea se satisface prin convertirea masiva a apartamentelor in spatii comerciale.
    • Cabinele telefonice Roamtelecom au devenit insalubre deoarece au evoluat mai lent decat tehnologia accesibila maselor/decat nevoile oamenilor.( altfel spus: daca un aranjament din spatiul public evolueaza mai lent decat nevoile cetatenilor, acesta se deterioreaza fizic; alt ex: cladiri industriale comuniste)
    • Cu cat un  cinematograf este mai apropiat de locuitorii unui anumit cartier, cu atat mai des vor vedea acesti locuitori filme la cinematograf. ( altfel spus: datorita sun plaza berceni, distanta dintre oamenii din berceni si cel mai apropiat cinematograf se scurteaza, deci ei vor sta in casa cu cu atat mai putine ocazii cu cat refuzau inainte sa mearga la film din cauza distantei.)
    • Punctul de intalnire/socializare a comunitatilor “de bloc” pe timp de vara apare daca si acolo unde primaria amenajeaza un grup de banci.
      Existenta spatiilor neconstruite, neamenajate,si neingrijite creste reticenta oamenilor de a merge pe acolo sau de a locui in imediata vecinatate.

      • Scaderea performantei economice a unei tari duce la o rata crescuta a aparitiei de magazine second-hand.
      • Diferenta radicala de abordare a proiectarii spatiului urban in doua perioade apropiate duce la incoerente in structura orasului.(lacul vacaresti)
      • Lipsa de anticipare a evolutiei orasului duce la incoerente in structura lui.

      “Comercializarea” prea intensa a centrului istoric duce la pierderea valorii lui turistice/recreative.

    May 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « Jan