Introduction

There has been a clear bias on issues concerning sustainability in the urban context, towards the more established and ‘developed’ Western city, rather than ‘developing’ Asian cities, which are growing at historically unprecedented rates. If sustainability is to have true global depth and validity in practice, it must be malleable enough, in its meanings and forms, to dynamically address, balance and mediate unavoidable inconsistencies between the generic and specifics; eco-centric and anthropo-centric worldviews; scales of intervention, comprehensive visions and incremental actions through the diverse and complex spaces of socio-economic and cultural differences. In this globalizing world, the homogenization of urban practices is one of the root causes of current ills, but at the same time globalization's communication technologies provide the means by which future resolutions that arise may be perpetuated, expanded, multiplied and differentiated into locally sensitive global solutions in the best tradition of sustainable development.

To embrace sustainability, we should see each Asian city, or any other city for that matter, as individuals with their peculiarities and eccentricities – a mixture of indigenous urban traditions and ecological characteristics, which often clash with the overlay of modern urban practices. Attempts at unraveling the adverse impacts of unsustainable practices need to be grounded in a thorough analysis and understanding of the urban history of each city. Those specific narratives of each city would have to be integral in the sustaining trajectory of the city's future development.

Even within each city, there are high degrees of differentiation and fragmentation. This is especially true in developing countries where economic stratification is pronounced and is physically manifested (Herbert and Thomas, 1997, pp. 51–56). Thus, any attempts at sustainable practice must be tailored to the particularities, not just of cities in general but also to each of the city's parts, bits or fragments, which may have their own localized narratives. So it is with Bangkok, the topic of this paper, where a design/reorganization of the case ‘superblock’, located in Bangkok's northeastern fringe, is proposed. This proposition suggests how sprawl may be restructured, retrofitting to improve (and perpetuate) the sustainability of settlement forms.

Urban sprawl poses some of the most critical challenges for urban sustainability and is a common global phenomena tied in closely with economic and population growth. Moreover, urban sprawl is arguably one of the critical meeting points of globalization, un-sustainability and local cultures manifested in the form of pre-existing patterns varyingly erased and assimilated by sprawl. This paper argues that in order to move towards the objectives of urban sustainability, the on-ground realities of urban sprawl need to be proactively addressed and innovative sustainable retrofits are desirable.

In this paper, this is achieved by the application of an alternative scenarios method as a heuristic device. It begins by identifying the typical components of the Bangkok superblock ‘as is’, projecting a future form from there in 20 years, from the time of the case survey in 2001, if current development patterns persist. The ‘as is’ representation also addressed the past process of change leading to the present. Development precedents nearby (nearer the urban core) are considered when projecting the future form. An alternative is then proposed, addressing each component as the ‘local’ ingredients of a reorganized and restructured superblock design, if sustainable practices were the objective.

Sustaining Bangkok equates with sustaining Thailand

Bangkok has always been considered a primate cityFootnote 1 – a city that dominates its country economically, socially and culturally, and is, according to Sternstein (1982, p. 109), the ‘world's pre-eminent primate city’. This is even more so today after Thailand, an ardent participant of globalization, has experienced decades of unprecedented economic growth.Footnote 2 The majority of that growth has resulted in intense urbanization (Hamilton, 2000, p. 461) that has spread into adjacent provinces.

This growth has come at high social and environmental cost. The city has not only invaded the surrounding rural farmlands and plantations, it has also erased them, replacing the pre-existing agrarian lifestyles and ecologies with housing and industry. It exploited resources, natural and human, from far and wide throughout the kingdom and the economically poorer neighboring countries. Thus, the sustainability debate for Thailand must focus on the activities and practices of Bangkok. It is here where environmental deterioration is at its worse as the city's rapid growth ‘exceeded supply of infrastructure and services’ (Douglass and Zoghlin, 1994, p. 172) with industrialization characterized by ‘zero-investment in pollution control’ (Bello et al, 1998, p. 74).

‘Superblocks’: Bangkok's unit of lateral expansion

Further from the urban core, Bangkok becomes spatially fragmented, characterized by leapfrog developments and ‘superblocks’ (Figure 1), with empty tracts of land (or ‘empty space fragments’ in this paper) locked between and within surrounding major road arteries. These superblocks (which can be as large as 20 km2) have characterized urban growth since the acceleration of road development in the 1950s and make up the majority of the Metropolitan Region that extends 30–40 km from the old urban core (Kaothien and Webster, 2000, p. 29).

Figure 1
figure 1

The ‘superblock’, unit of Bangkok's lateral expansion – the further away from the old urban core, the larger the blocks. The plan also shows the system of main roads, minus soi's, superimposed on to pre-existing, now obscured, khlong's system (Sintusingha, 2004, p. 141).

Full size image

Bangkok's urban and suburban fragments, typically associated with the city's haphazard and indiscriminate growth, are given some organization through these gigantic grids or superblocks. Along with the shophouses, highrises – whether apartments, condominiums, hospital, office buildings and malls (often in combination with local temporal markets) – now line the major roads and highways that edges the superblock, functioning as linear cities. Inside, accessible via the system of wriggling, often dead-end, soi's (lanes) are suburban subdivisions (of townhouses, detached houses and a mixture of typologies) and open-space fragments consisting of both idle plots and those utilized for rural functions.

Here it is argued that Bangkok's urban regeneration/reorganization can best be carried out by applying the principles of ‘land readjustment’ (Bangkok Metropolitan Administration's (BMA)) official tool of choiceFootnote 3) on these unfilled, open-space fragments within superblocks to achieve the necessary efficiencies leading towards sustainability. Lessons drawn from this process may also be applicable to other Asian cities that experienced similar ‘leap-frogging’ development.

Design approach

This paper adopts Berke and Conroy's definition of ‘sustainable development’ – ‘dynamic process in which communities anticipate and accommodate the needs of current and future generations in ways that reproduce and balance local social, economic and ecological systems, and link local actions to global concerns’ (2000, p. 23). Coming from the design/planning discursive location and considering that social, economic and cultural processes manifest physically, the environment is considered the main framework and foundation for mediations towards sustainability. Moreover, narratives of sustainability historically arose – and still derive relevance – from global environmental problems and the practical need to engage with the complexities of society and the economy to mitigate those problems.

At the broadest level, the design approach for the superblock discussed here is based on the ‘model for sustainability’ (Figure 2) whereby cultural and societal functions and practices are mediated towards a circular metabolism.Footnote 4 It is posited here that if the issues of urban sustainability are to be seriously tackled, such a model provides a method or approach to guide change towards such goals. Urban economic, social, environmental and cultural processes and practices are intrinsically interdependent, and giving hegemony to one aspect, particularly the economic, as is the common practice, will always have repercussions on the others and these can often be negative. Such repercussions are often ignored or simply accepted as normal collateral damage as part of economic growth but to progress towards sustainability that needs to change.

Figure 2
figure 2

Model for sustainability as process p(by author).

Full size image

Such a model of mediation when applied to the case superblock (Figure 1) starts by documenting and analyzing the site in its contemporary condition (environmental, urban, social and ‘cultural’) as an ‘As Is’ representation from which two scenarios are then generated for the year 2020 about 20 years from the original survey undertaken in late 2001 to early 2002. First, an ‘Unmediated Change’ scenario is generated representing Bangkok's urbanization/suburbanization pattern of multiplying and intensifying of ‘superblocks’. This scenario assumes that Bangkok will continue to grow, physically and population-wise, approximately in the manner of the past 20 years.Footnote 5 The critique of this process (the ‘As Is’ representation) continued as the ‘Unmediated Change’ scenario is then amalgamated with the precepts from the ‘Model for Sustainability’ (Figure 2) to generate an ‘Alternative Future’ scenario (refer to Figure 3).

Figure 3
figure 3

Design strategy for superblock.

Full size image

In the process, the representation and scenarios were subdivided into headings of ‘Ecological, rural patterns’, ‘Road access and urbanization’, ‘Settlement forms and patterns’ and ‘Open space, production, community/activities centers’, in order to structure the components for the design. Together they form the principle ingredients and fragments addressed in the design/reorganization process that constitute the new superblock. In this paper, only ‘Ecological, rural patterns’ (Figures 4, 5 and 6, 10, 11 and 12, 14, 15 and 16) will be illustrated across the representation and scenarios, with the scenarios summarized by ‘models’ (Figures 13 and 17).

Figure 4
figure 4

Pattern pre-human settlement (before 1870s).

Full size image
Figure 5
figure 5

Agrarian pattern (1870s–1950s).

Full size image
Figure 6
figure 6

‘Water-based’ Hamlet settlements (Jaijongrak, 1975).

Full size image
Figure 10
figure 10

Pattern pre-human settlement: erased.

Full size image
Figure 11
figure 11

Agrarian pattern: framing suburbanization patterns.

Full size image
Figure 12
figure 12

Hamlet settlements: fragmented and diminished.

Full size image
Figure 14
figure 14

Pattern pre-human settlement: reinvoking memories.

Full size image
Figure 15
figure 15

Agrarian pattern: re-introduced.

Full size image
Figure 16
figure 16

Hamlet settlements: re-orientation of suburbs to khlong's.

Full size image
Figure 13
figure 13

The unmediated change superblock ‘model’.

Full size image
Figure 17
figure 17

The mediated change ‘model’ for the Bangkok superblock: mitigating the zoning mindset (which does not reflect the diverse uses on-ground reality), reorganizing the key components and encouraging dynamic overlaps.

Full size image

The design brief has come about through an analysis of the issues on the ground while concurrently aiming to address the generic, even abstract, principles of sustainability, the systemic issues of sustainable city and the physical sustainable urban form, where the recognizable specificities of place come into play. The brief integrates those analyses, syntheses and issues into the design/reorganization decision-making process, adapted from Steinitz's (1998) ‘framework for theory’, by progressing through the case superblock three times: the ‘as is’ representation – which identifies the ‘context and scope of study’; the ‘unmediated change’ – which illustrates what could transpire should there be no (or weak) intervention, clarifying the ‘method of design’ in the process; and, the ‘mediated change’ scenarios – which provisionally generates a set of possible ‘answers’.

The fundamental objectives of the design, reorganization as means towards sustainability are:

The key ‘new’ ingredient proposed in the design/planning process is the planned addition of the ‘commons’ – formal open spaces that does not merely serve urban recreational and ornamental purposes as is often practiced, but also addresses and encompasses broader ecological, socioeconomic dimensions and functions within (and beyond) the urban fabric. The commons are given priority as a public initiative as they would enhance and transform the lives of the inhabitants of the superblock of all socioeconomic background for the better in terms of sustainable development.

The design/reorganization process argues for a broader scale framework for readjustment – ‘urban’ rather than just the finer scale of ‘land readjustment’. It tackles the fundamental components/fragments that constitute Bangkok – the superblocks, the roads, the soi's and the khlong's and the various urban fragments they individually and collectively generate.

The process and planning design outcome serves as a heuristic device for urban planning/design practitioners. Should the process be continued (beyond this paper's focus), the design vision could be further tested in the process of ‘backcasting’ (Yencken and Wilkinson, 2000, p. 319), where steps, phases and details of mediation are defined, taking the conditions and practices of the present as the starting point, in order to reach – while most likely modifying in the process – the end vision.

Representation: ‘As is’ – existing development patterns; formation of the superblock (discerning the context and scope of study)

The superblock – bounded by Ramindra Rd. to the north, Nawamintr Rd. to the east, Kaset-Nawamintr highway to the south and Artnarong–Ramindra expressway/highway to the west – is located between 10 and 20 km northeast of Bangkok's urban core (see Figure 1), an area officially designated as the ‘urban fringe’ (BMAa, 1999, pp. 2–3). This area is still in the process of ‘intensification’ – its urban fabric not fully ‘developed’, having vast tracts of unbuilt open-space fragments, most of which are idle land with a small proportion still agriculturally productive.

The case superblock has an area of approximately 8.97 km2 with, to date, no formally designated public open space; recreation activities have been informally catered to by the soi's, semi-formal ‘slabs’ (concreted spaces off the soi's) and open-space fragments. Bangkok as a whole has 4.83 km2 of formal parklands (combining urban parks, ‘forest-gardens’ and ‘recreational gardens’) or around 0.30% of BMA's total area (BMAa, 1999, pp. 6–31). This is equivalent to 0.862 m2 of public open space per person, which is ‘very little compared to cities of similar size’Footnote 6 (BMAa, 1999, pp. 6–31). The distribution of those urban parks is uneven across the city, with most of the parks located in the inner city areas.

Calculating from the base of 5,643 person/km2 population density of Bungkum district for the year 2000 ((BMAb, 2001, p. 2),Footnote 7 within which most of the case superblock is located, the population of the superblock would have been about 50,618 people.

The representations model the process of transformation of the wilderness into rural lands (Figures 4) followed by the suburbanization/urbanization patterns through the construction of thanon's and soi's, which eventually amalgamate to form superblocks (Figures 7).

Figure 7
figure 7

Thanon's.

Full size image

Ecological, rural patterns

Generated representation of the pre-human settlement landscape (Figure 4):

  1. 1

    Clumps of low bush on higher grounds.

  2. 2

    Savannah grasslands (tung) of the Chao Phraya floodplains. The relatively flat topography is subjected to natural floods, fertile run-off water from the north every September to October, flushing south towards the Gulf of Thailand – thus the plain's suitability and eventual utilization as rice fields.

  3. 3

    Swamps(bung) with natural creeks and drainage lines (Hanks, 1972; Kaufman, 1976).

Generated representation of rural land subdivision pattern (Figure 5):

  1. 1

    Agricultural land subdivision pattern into sen's (Nimlek, 2002) of predominantly rice paddies.

  2. 2

    Enhanced drainage lines into khlong’s. However, the khlong's in Bangkuad were navigable only during rainy seasons and a complementary network of earth-beaten tracks was utilized in the dry months. This system of khlong's and khlongsoi's joined with the public ‘highway’ of Khlong Saen Sap (see Figure 1), dug by government around the mid-19th century, to the south.

  3. 3

    Khlong Kum with corridor hamlet settlement.

Generated representation of hamlet settlements by the khlong's (Figure 6):

  1. 1

    Khlong Lumjiek. Khlong's served multiple functions – water catchments during floods, irrigation, transportation networks, recreation spaces, etc.

  2. 2

    Khlong-side house compound ‘frequently surrounded by small irrigation canals (khu) leading into the main canal’ (Kaufman, 1976, p. 20). Once established, strip villages build temples/masjids that served as the focal point of community life – markets, rituals and festivities – within boating and walking distances.

  3. 3

    Nha's (rice paddy fields).

Accessibility and urbanization (from the 1950s onwards)

Generated representation of the generic imposition of thanon's onto rural land (Figure 7):

  1. 1

    Thanon Ramindra cut into hamlet north of Bangkuad, ignoring pre-existing patterns. The road was built to link the eastern towns and provinces with Bangkok, increasingly replacing Khlong Saen Sap's role with the land-based mode of transportation. The road quickly had an impact on local practices and villagers consciously re-oriented their lifestyles to the speed and convenience of the roads, further contributing land to build local feeders (soi's) to access the highway. They later reaped the economic benefits brought by the encroaching real-estate developments that came with the roads.

  2. 2

    One of the earliest soi in the area linking to the local temple, Wat Kuborn.

Generated representation of private soi's branching off from the main road (Figure 8):

  1. 1

    A hierarchy of soi’s branching off of Ramindra highway, Sukhapibal 1 Road (constructed 1957, later renamed Nawamintr Road), the main soi's such as Soi Kuborn, fragmenting previous rural lands into various real-estate developments. Unlike the blunt imposition of main roads, the patterns of soi extensions are influenced/framed by agrarian orientations and patterns, as each landowner individually and varyingly participates in the piecemeal development of their rice paddies into Bangkok's suburb.

  2. 2

    Early ‘land development estates’ (since the late 1950s) as differentiated from ‘housing estates’ that appeared in the urban fringe since the early 1970s (Durand-Lasserve, 1980, p. 2).

  3. 3

    Kilo Paed intersection amalgamating into a local center.

Figure 8
figure 8

Soi's.

Full size image

Generated representation of the thanon's and soi's network combining to form the superblock. The transformation from agrarian to urban society begun little over half a century ago with the role reversal between khlong's and roads being complete (Figure 9):

  1. 1

    The case superblock. Note how the new highways to the west and south, constructed in the 1990s, cut arbitrarily through the fine soi networks as well as through the land holdings and khlong's.

  2. 2

    Open-space fragments, the result of both ‘leapfrogging’ suburbanization pattern and inaccessibility, are apparent throughout the site (dark gray areas within the superblock).

Figure 9
figure 9

Superblocks: pattern of Bangkok's lateral expansion.

Full size image

The superblock ‘as is’ is likened to a modern, automobile city imposed upon an agricultural village yet retaining its rural land subdivision patterns and replicating the characteristics of the village's khlong's typologies in the utilization of road surfaces (multifunctional utilization of soi surfaces for transport, commerce, recreation, etc.). What manifests is an incomplete superblock characterized by the prevalence of open-space fragments – whether the result of inaccessibility or ‘leapfrogging’ development – of varying scales particularly in the superblock's center and scattered among densely settled areas near the main roads. The next section, ‘Scenario I’, projects the continuation of this pattern 20 years into the future.

Scenario I: ‘Unmediated change 2020’ – existing patterns persist (weak or no intervention)

In this scenario, the superblock matures (subjected to possibly two to three cycles of economic growth and recession). The urban fabric is well developed, similar to older blocks near the urban core, inheriting and propagating many problems of the contemporary inner city.

Bungkum district is projected to have a population growth rate of 2.2% per annum from 1997 to 2007 and 0.89% per annum from 2007 to 2017Footnote 8 (DRTP, 2002, pp. 4–4). Extending the 0.89% per annum rate for an additional 3 years and would result superblock's population to be about 66,284 (an increase of 31% from 2000 numbers).

The diagrams model the process of unmediated change, where the suburbanization/urbanization processes represented in the ‘as is’ diagrams continues basically unabated. Figures 10 model the erasure of the pre-settlement natural conditions and pre-urban rural settlement patterns by the city.

Ecological, rural patterns 2020: fragmenting; diminishing; transforming; disappearing

Generated scenario of the city's growth and intensification resulting in the erasure of pre-existing ecological patterns physically, and thus also of the inhabitant's and their descendant's awareness of those patterns (Figure 10).

Generated scenario of the absence of agrarian use but rural patterns are still reflected in the physical patterns of soi's and real estate development. Khlong's, now lined with concrete embankments, efficiently functions as open sewerage and drainage system. The finer networks of khlongsoi's and khu's have long been filled up as their water catchments role has become redundant since large concrete dykes (doubling as highways) shield urban Bangkok from the seasonal floods, although subjecting surrounding predominantly rural lands outside the dykes to more severe inundations (Figure 11).

Generated scenario of former hamlet settlements encroached by the suburbs (Figure 12).

  1. 1

    Former village settlements totally obscured by generations of newcomers brought in by roads and real-estate developments.

  2. 2

    Persistence of ‘undeveloped’ land likely to be located in less accessible areas further off the main road system.

This unmediated scenario (Figure 13) continues the current localized hegemonic patterns of urbanization in Bangkok. Based on contemporary principles of sustainability (of early 2000s), this scenario has ventured far off-course. The superblock will be devoid of ‘nature’, crammed with built stocks that maintain a parasitical relationship with the outskirts. The public realm remains unattractive and uninspiring – hot and not people oriented unlike the private realms in the higher end-gated communities constructed since.

Under this model, the superblock, through the process of progressive intensification, has mimed the developments – forms of the inner city. However, the superblock and surrounds would not be as densely settled as urban growth would be dissipated further out into the cheaper lands of the exurbs and adjacent provinces (often subjected to different, uncoordinated regulations) and, due to the consequent compounded traffic congestion, be eventually served with rail mass-transit. By that time, there is a likelihood of more local autonomy for the district and thus increased avenue for more locally responsive public developments (and even ‘proper’ public participation). For that reason, combined with improved tools and know-how of the planning agencies, there may be improvement in the public realm and the lives of the inhabitants particularly compared to the conditions of the inner city and the superblock ‘as is’ in 2000. But as mentioned, when assessed against the Model for Sustainability (Figure 2), the improvements, often through uncoordinated and incremental small-scale interventions, are relatively minor – as fundamental issues and ingredients are not addressed – and an alternative course, plotted in the next section, is desirable.

Scenario II: ‘Mediated change 2020’ – negotiating towards ‘sustainability’ (generating possible ‘answers’)

In this mediated change scenario, current patterns of urbanization are critically reassessed with the capability to retrofit those processes to guide suburbanization towards the goals of sustainability. This also encompasses the transformation of perceptions of khlong's and of ‘nature’ itself. The main tools for implementation would be land readjustment/reorganization – already earmarked to resolve Bangkok's and Thailand's hitherto laissez faire land developments – and more public realm-oriented regulations for both public and private developments.

Diagrams model the process of suburbanization of the superblock starting from the conditions ‘as is’ and mitigated by the ‘model for sustainability’ (Figure 2), implementing the ‘design objectives’ stated earlier. Figures 14 and 15 illustrate how ‘commons’ of nature and agriculture can be reintroduced, in evolved forms, and become an integrated function within the suburban fabric.

Ecological, rural patterns 2020: clustering; expanding; consolidating; re-appearing

The ‘Commons’ 1 (Figure 14)

  • Reversion back to pre-existing forms is not mandatory (Hough, 1995, p. 30)

  • ‘New nature’ – multipurpose, both non-utilitarian and practical (Dearden, 2002, p. 391) (eg flood mitigation, water/air cleansing systems, ground water recharge, etc) to be woven into and integrated with urban movement networks.

The ‘Commons’ 2 (Figure 15)

  • Revived ‘new agriculture’ functioning in symbiosis with ‘new nature’.

  • The urban agriculture patches serve multiple socio-economic objectives – as subsistence existence and supplementary income for urban poor and as near-source fresh food supply for urban markets (formalizing what is already informally practiced by the urban poor).

Revival of khlong's life – settlements, open spaces, circulation. On the fundamental level, it re-addresses the (forgotten) intrinsic cultural characteristics that arose from the local topographic, natural contexts and make the most of the khlong's central role in rejuvenating suburban Bangkok's urban landscapes (Figure 16).

The ‘mediated change’ scenario focuses on two main issues; the retrofitting and introduction of integrated multipurpose open spaces of nature, green and blue stocks in the suburban fabric and improvement in the urban environment, particularly in the public realm shared by all citizens of the superblock. The ‘model for the Bangkok superblock’ (Figure 17) is the culmination of the alternative scenario process synthesizing the superblock's local ingredients with the principles of sustainability. Consistent with the spirit of sustainability, the model is not prescriptive but proposes a flexible framework that encourages participation and input from multiple stakeholders at differing scales. The design speculation in the next section is conceived with the same intention and serves to further clarify the objectives of the proposed heuristic process.

Design speculation, translation of ‘superblock model’

From the ‘generic’ model for a more sustainable superblock (Figure 17), a design translation process of the model is proposed, beginning with the first set of diagrams that map the case superblock's evolution (Figures 18) and, in layers, component breakdown of ‘as is’ (Figures 21). As the design process was undertaken at the transition period between the Bangkok masterplans of 1999 and of 2004, the next two diagrams illustrate part of the masterplans corresponding with the case site, also commenting on the changes made from the 1999 (Figure 25) to the 2004 (Figure 26) plans. The plans reflect the formal and informal (and in-betweens) decision-making process since the edict that cleared the natural lands for rice farming in the late-19th century and Bangkok's first official masterplan of 1992.

Figure 18
figure 18

Bangkhuad (aerial photograph 1952; names of surrounding settlements from BMA and JICA (1988) survey map).

Full size image
Figure 21
figure 21

Existing Khlong's and water bodies 2001 – remnants of pre-existing natural system.

Full size image
Figure 25
figure 25

Bangkok second Masterplan 1999.

Full size image
Figure 26
figure 26

Bangkok third 5-year masterplan (originally to be effective July 2004 but has since been delayed).

Full size image

The subsequent set of diagrams illustrate the broad design decision-making process beginning with the identification of the unbuilt open-space fragments (Figure 27), the discernment of plot patterns (Figure 28) and, based on those open-space fragments and plot patterns, a land readjustment into ‘developmental plots’ and ‘commons’ (Figure 29). Based on the land readjustment plan, the last two plans of ‘commons development strategy’ (Figure 30), further speculating the design/planning resolution of the commons, and ‘(sub)urban development strategy’, speculating the design/planning resolution of the developmental plots, (Figure 31) are projected.

Figure 27
figure 27

Intervention focused and proposed on unbuilt open-space fragments determined from aerial photograph and photogrammetry surveys.

Full size image
Figure 28
figure 28

Plot patterns discerned from aerial photograph and pre-existing agrarian land patterns – roughing out boundaries where possible (working within the limit of not having land-ownership plan).

Full size image
Figure 29
figure 29

Based on design objectives set out in section 4 and official population projections, ‘land readjustment’ into ‘commons’ and ‘developmental plots’.

Full size image
Figure 30
figure 30

Commons development strategy.

Full size image
Figure 31
figure 31

(Sub)urban development strategy.

Full size image

The superblock: evolution

Formal decision (Figure 18):

  • Late-19th century edict to open new lands for paddies when rice became the main Siamese export. Earliest ‘sprawl’ of rice paddies with settlement corridors along khlong's into natural lands.

  • Mid-20th century construction of Ramindra Rd. to link to eastern towns and provinces beginning the transformation from ‘water-based’ to ‘land-based’ culture of settlements to adopt Jumsai's (1997) terminologies.

Formal decision (Figure 19):

  • Construction of Nawamintr Rd (formerly Sukhapibal 1 Rd).

  • Speculators and developers buy into existing and former agricultural lands to subdivide and sell.

Figure 19
figure 19

Bangkuad (aerial photograph 1981).

Full size image

Informal decision: Locals build soi's to connect their properties to the main roads. Conflict between the water and land as roads and soi's literally eat their way into and fragmenting the existing and former rice paddies. Transformation from agricultural economy to Bangkok's dormitory suburb.

Formal decision (Figure 20): Build new roads (Kaset-Nawamintr and Praditmanutham Rd.) and toll-ways (Artnarong–Ramindra over Praditmanutham); widen existing roads to accommodate increased population as a result of economic and real estate boom of the mid-1980s to mid-1990s. New roads open up once inaccessible lands (open-space fragments) to development.

Figure 20
figure 20

Aerial photograph 2000.

Full size image

Informal decisions: At finest scales, vendor and weekly markets, recreational appropriation of soi's and ‘slabs’; squatter settlements along khlong's.

The superblock: existing conditions – component breakdown

Formal decisions (Figure 21):

  • Late-19th century decision to accentuate for transportation, drainage and irrigation as well as for recreation.

  • Mid-20th century onwards filled in to build roads and for real estate subdivisions. Utilized as drainage and open sewer.

Formal decisions (Figure 22):

  • Government decision from mid-20th century: Imposing main roads on pre-existing ecological and agricultural patterns. Homogeneous use.

  • Developer and local decisions: build soi's that follow landownership patterns. Multiple uses for commercial and recreational purposes due to almost no formal provision of open spaces by both government and developers.

Figure 22
figure 22

Road surfaces 2001.

Full size image

Formal decisions (Figure 23):

Figure 23
figure 23

Building footprint 2001.

Full size image

Developer and local decisions: Intensification along roads and main soi's; fill-in with subdivisions further off from road and characterized by undeveloped open-space fragments deep into the superblock.

The ‘white’ unproductive (and unclassified on plan) and ‘green’ ‘rural and agriculture’ forms the ‘open-space fragments’. Laissez-faire – highly mixed use. No official recording of informal uses (Figure 24).

Figure 24
figure 24

Land-use plan.

Full size image

The superblock: official decision-making ‘models’ (Figures 25–26)

Consistent with the paper's proposal is the superblock perimeter highways to be augmented with rail mass-transit systems. Follow after private developments (which in turn follow public road developments). Lack finer scale plans and visions, lack public open spaces for both social and ecological functions. Mass-transit systems planned principally to address traffic problems rather than as part of comprehensive plans with urban design visions (Figure 25).

Rail mass-transit system now only runs on the south perimeter of the superblock – with raised expressways to cut through the southern portion of case superblock and also continue north from the existing Artnarong–Ramindra route. Proposed east–west roads to slice through superblocks south and east of the case site. Increased commercial and retail zonings after actual on-ground expansion (Figure 26).

Superblock readjustment: finer scale intervention (Figures 27, 28 and 29)

Within the total area of the site superblock (bounded by highways) of ∼8.97 km2, ∼0.77 km2 (∼481.28 rai'sFootnote 9) are designated as ‘commons’ that are concentrated along pre-existing khlong's (cheaper but ecologically significant lands) while there are ∼2.32 km2 (1452.18 rai's) of ‘development plots’ with access to the commons much like the agrarian pattern of khlong's and long strips of sen's (Figure 5). Finer scaled strategies are then planned/designed for both ‘commons’ and ‘developmental plots’ illustrated in Figures 30 and 31, respectively.

Superblock readjustment (Figures 30 and 31)

Discussion: superblock readjustment

The aim of the 1999 masterplan was to achieve 2 m2 of urban park area per capita in 5 years (which by 2004 – had not been met) and in the long term to reach 10 m2/person (BMA, 1999a, pp. 6–32). Through the design, retrofitting and readjustment process, approximately 0.77 km2 of ‘commons’ has been designated within the case superblock, which amounts to 8.9% of the total land area (Figure 29). Thus, the superblock would have an estimated 11.62 m2/person of public commons, exceeding BMA's official long-term objective by 16.2%.

In the scenario that the superblock absorbs a higher population and reaches the inner city density of 15, 905 people/km2 (BMA, 2001a, pp. c2–7), the number would be 5.34 m2/person of public commons. This population increase of over 90 000 people within the site superblock is achievable projecting the higher ends of dwelling units/hectare for the development plots (Figure 31) based on Ellis’ ‘Residential Density Matrix’Footnote 10 (2004, pp. 34–35), although this number is calculated based on the Bungkum's 2000 average of three person per household ((BMA, 2001b, p. 2). These numbers, whether 11.62 or 5.34 m2/person, have not included the ‘commons’ within each private development and also the recreational activity spaces provided by the now formalized and integrated woonerfFootnote 11 soi's and recreational slabs network. In the long term, these private commons within each individual ‘development block’Footnote 12 would be integrated with the public common system and allow public access.

An increase in and diversification, categorization and formalization of typologies of water bodies serving multiple functions is also proposed within both the commons and the privately developed plots.Footnote 13 These water bodies are linked with urban residential areas and activity centers through the various typologies of ‘intermediate spaces’ (Figures 30, 31): the private commons regulated for the development plots; the existing religious and education centers; the intersections of commons and the various hierarchies of thanon's and soi's; pedestrian/bicycle/vendor-friendly woonerf soi's, etc. These spaces are planned/designed to enhance the inhabitant's quality of life; to retrofit the intertwined urban and natural processes in their everyday lives; and also to engage the inhabitants with the planning/designing, development processes – particularly at the neighborhood, community scales of the intermediate spaces as the aim of achieving sustainability is not limited to simply increasing and improving recreational amenities.

The plan is thus a critique of the large-scale masterplan imposed on Bangkok, which, despite their many clear merits and good intentions, often ignore the processes and realities on ground. The imposition of a large undifferentiated swath of color-coded zones also contain inherent inequalities that leads to conflicts – land owners and developers in the rural conservation and flood drainage protection zones argue for more diverse (urban oriented) utilization of their lands (Prachachat Turakij, 2004). In fact, the construction of dykes around the built-up area of Bangkok has only served to exacerbate this inequality favoring ‘development’ and the city – protecting urban Bangkok from both sudden and seasonal floods but sacrificing the surrounds, often rural lands, to more acute and prolonged inundations (Kemgumnerd, 2002).

As the whole pre-urban landscape once served as floodplains, it is proposed that the ecological pattern be revived and the built-up areas must share drainage and water catchment responsibility – thus the key roles of water bodies of khlong's and various ponds and the need for their increase. It also calls for the creation of agricultural lands, serving both economic and social purposes, functioning in close relationship with the green and blue stocks integral to the urbanization process. The commons network, ‘new’ interlinked open spaces, serves multiple functions and purposes compared to the typical urban parks and could through routine engagements in time be perceived by urban inhabitants as an integral part of the city. The key here is diversity – functional, social and ecological-rather-than the homogenizing tendencies of the city further encouraged by the zoning approach of the masterplans.

Through this approach of concentrating on the processional realities, the problem of sprawl and its adverse impacts can be more effectively pre-empted. Urban readjustment is not limited to the physical elements but must also be applied on the process – such as of sprawl, which ignores physical boundaries. The allocation of land for the ‘commons’ and also having the private sectors contribute by adding green and blue stocks (as well as public thoroughfares) and integrate them with their developments is insufficient. Sprawl is closely aligned to market forces that must be addressed through decision-making on the level of the masterplan coordinated with finer local plans and its enforcement mechanisms. The strategically planned organization of Bangkok into a polycentric city must be implemented concurrently, consistent with the ‘decentralized-concentration’ model, which also aims to create local centers of employment (Robinson, 1995; DTCP, 1999; Kaothien and Webster, 2000).

Conclusion

The design process described here illustrates that by critically applying the generic tenets of ‘sustainability’, a marked improvement in the quality and diversity of the urban environment, focused on open spaces, can potentially be achieved. This proposition does not simply impose more sustainable physical forms per se but rather translates the normative qualities of such forms and applies them to the indigenous contexts of Bangkok's suburbanization. For instance, replacing the existing inefficient soi's (suburbanization ‘on the cheap’ – although by limiting access, addressing suburban ‘security’Footnote 14) with the time-proven efficient grid road system would be costly and improbable. It is proposed here instead that the soi's be mitigated into a systemic network, coordinating, linking various suburban functions – to resemble a loose grid. The undesirable, undeveloped suburban fringes of open-space fragments and khlong's networks are translated into a coordinated system of ecological, agricultural and recreational green and blue stocks – a ‘new’ open-space typology. A system of vendorways, pedestrian and bicycle networks integrated into both systems of soi's and open spaces also combine characteristics of generic sustainable forms with local. The normative concepts of sustainability are thus manifested/expressed in the localized forms of thanon's, soi's, superblocks, khlong's, paddies and orchards, tropical urban forests, wetlands, etc.

While the mediated alternative future scenario may be far from ‘perfect’ when assessed against the ideals of the Model for Sustainability, this is only to be expected as the model is introduced into, and mediated with, the site's peculiarities rather than imposed. It is argued that the design addresses and utilizes existing local ingredients and tools whether the forms of khlong's, open-space fragments, soi's, thanon's or slabs; the officially advocated planning tool of land readjustment; and the objectives as formally stated in the 1999 BMA masterplan. Through backcasting, it assumes a democratic, participatory politics (Maclaren, 1996; Girardet, 1999) rather than a top-down system of delivery, and is consistent with the principles of sustainable implementation by favoring a loose-structured form/process upon which local differences can be accommodated and custom design/planning detailed resolutions can be based. It also assumes that this is not an ‘end product’, rather an evolution as part of the sustainability process that is subjected to trial and error, monitoring progress and recess. Should the process be sustained for longer periods, scenarios that move closer to the Model for Sustainability is presumed.

As stated earlier, sustainability's meanings, forms and practices cannot be too dogmatic and thus impractical; yet, it also cannot afford to be too plastic and become irrelevant. Sustainability, while the broad-brush concept/tool to address global concerns, must be translatable and applicable to diverse local cultural, socio-economic and physical contexts to be critically influential in shaping each city's highly varied urban conditions and urbanization processes and practices.