Week 3 Studio: Zoning the First District

Zone the district, then put land value and commute distance side by side and account for the gap between what you hoped for and what the readout says.

8 March 2027

What to bring#

Open <student ID>-w02 with the Brayhurst quarter zoned low-density residential, its block dimension written in the save notes, and one dwelling chosen by address. Bring last week’s readings, the 38%/24% Hessel Row pair and the ₡310/month upkeep difference. Know the prevailing wind — WNW — and be able to turn its arrows on inside the air pollution view in seconds. Bring a sandbox for the comparison branch.

What happens in the room#

The first fifteen minutes treat the zoning palette as what it is: a use-based code in which every painted cell names a use. Build Scheme A in the assessed save, then Scheme B in the sandbox against the same block pattern and population target.

Place and cost the fixed utilities, then read ground, air, water and noise pollution as four separate views, followed by traffic volume, on both branches at 08:00. The final board puts district and eastern-block land value beside home-to-work distance and timed travel from the named front door. Return to Scheme A before 15:35; Scheme B remains counterfactual evidence. The Assessment 1 brief is issued at 15:50.

The two schemes#

Scheme A — separated. Housing stays on the terrace, commerce forms a strip on the Brayhurst collector, and industry goes to the Pellow cells on Ombersley Flats. The cells are downwind, downstream, flat and cheap. Pollution leaves the residential quarter, but the named dwelling sits about 3.2 km and one river crossing from work, with one route carrying the trip.

Scheme B — adjacent. Mixed housing occupies the quarter’s main frontages and corners; industry sits on the eastern edge of the Reach, about 0.8 km from the dwelling, without a crossing and with several possible routes. The commute contracts, while the pollution footprint lands on the eastern residential blocks. Do not collapse ground stain, air footprint, receiving-water mark and noise contour into one “plume”. The issue is where each medium lands relative to wind and river flow, not whether one branch generates a more convenient shape.

The utilities pass#

In Scheme A, place the water intake upstream of the Pellow outflow, place the sewage outflow below the cells, and supply power at the district’s current scale. Read the monthly cost once and reproduce the same positions in Scheme B. This fixes a disclosed condition for the Week 7 stress test; it is not a second design exercise or an Assessment 1 claim.

What the readings said#

The Scheme A reference row reaches 3,600 residents in 1,410 households and the first surplus, +₡900/month. Timed travel rises from 4.2 to 6.8 minutes, district walk share falls from 31% to 22%, happiness reaches 72% and land value reaches 24. Transit remains 0%.

Mobility down. Nothing is queuing; the code simply put destinations further apart. Strict separation lifted land value and balanced the books by lengthening every trip. A plan claiming all three metrics improved has not been read carefully.

The tradeoff, and what you commit#

This is livability against mobility performance. Measure both schemes from the same front door, record the cost in the metric that loses, and commit Scheme A to <student ID>-w03. Assessment 1 is due next Monday at 12:00, so a hybrid district that buys both the crossing and the residential pollution footprint is not a deferred decision. It is two costs without a position.