ArchDaily (Han Shuangyu): How does SOM define TOD (Transit-oriented development)? What design scope does TOD design include?

SOM (Derek Moore, Thomas Hussey): All development should be “transit-oriented” in the sense that access and mobility must be planned for any development, Greenfield or Brownfield, new city, or existing urban fabric. “TOD” is commonly understood to be intensive mixed-use development in close proximity to similarly concentrated nodes of public transit – rail, light rail, bus, etc. This proximity promotes pedestrian mobility and limits LOV (low-occupancy vehicle) use of private cars, taxis, and app services. It also lowers energy usage for both transit and development. 

This more intensive development around transit nodes is understood to be mixed-use, including commercial, hospitality, retail, food, and beverage, and even residential and entertainment. This concentration of uses further reduces energy usage. The core scope of TOD is the coordination of the comprehensive planning and design. Architects are best suited for this role, at the right hand of developers.  

TOD project development 

ArchDaily: Since the Canary Wharf masterplan and the entrance design of the Jubilee Line subway, SOM has completed many TOD projects. What are the changes, or the shifts in focus in terms of the design direction of TOD over the years?

SOM: Much has changed and yet very little – the overarching objectives of TOD planning and design are present, even as the size and complexity have increased, and new programmatic elements have been added. That objective is to realize the benefits of proximity to transit to improve people’s lives, bolster the economy and enhance energy efficiency.  That said, there have been subtle shifts in focus.  Transit planning and mixed-use development can be more richly mixed. Public open space has become even more important and more challenging to provide for all parts of the development. But the greater size of the developments has allowed a wonderful diversity of open space and its design. Retail, F&B, entertainment for 24/7/365 liveliness have assumed a greater role in making TOD a destination in the city, even for people who do not transit through or work there. Residential can be an important complement to TOD development, especially in making the Retail, F&B and Entertainment successful financially.  

One of the most significant developments in Europe and the US has been the revitalization of older and historic rail stations and terminals for contemporary TOD. At about the same time as Canary Wharf, SOM was engaged at the Broadgate development over the tracks at Liverpool Street Station in London, a crucial early project for TOD. Since then, other stations in London and other European cities have been redeveloped for HSR and other rail, metro, and surface modes, while also retaining the historic structures. In the US, SOM has developed a significant portfolio of TOD projects, beginning with the Northeast Corridor revitalization project, and continuing with Denver Union Station, the masterplan for 30th Street Station in Philadelphia, and the recently opened Moynihan Train Hall in New York.  These projects combine the sense of place of historic structures with contemporary transit engineering and design.

TOD in China

ArchDaily: SOM has completed several TOD projects, both in the early years abroad and in recent years China. Tell us about the experiences that are applicable for current projects. What are some of the design strategies designated to Chinese projects?

SOM: One of the biggest differentiators in China’s approach to TOD is the massive investment in high-speed rail. In just 13 years since its inception, China boasts the world’s largest HSR network with 37,900 km operational track through 2020. Coupled with China’s ongoing urbanization, HSR investment offers the opportunity to drive development to zones around new stations within existing metropolitan areas or establish urban development in altogether new places. While China’s HSR is a national connectivity strategy, a subset of HSR–called intercity HSR–offers the concept of TOD at a regional scale. Strategies such as “Jing-Jin-Ji”, the regional cooperation of the provinces surrounding Beijing/Tianjin, or “Greater Bay Area”, the term used for collective urban strategy of the Pearl River Delta, are reinforced through intercity HSR networks.

Along with these networks come opportunities to define satellite districts and new sub centers for cities. Examples include Tongzhou, a new subcenter of Beijing that will be anchored by Beijing East HSR terminal and a four-metro line interchange, or Nansha, a new sub center for Guangzhou at the heart of the PRD. Xiong’an, China’s new “model city of the future” is made possible by the insistence on early phase HSR connections to Beijing and Tianjin. Many of China’s first generation HSR stations were built at the periphery of cities, designed much in the fashion of airports, with a focus on vehicular access through grade-separated arrivals and departures. This auto-focused approach led to stations that are predisposed to having challenges in anchoring pedestrian-oriented districts. 

In recent years there has been a notable effort to integrate HSR stations more smartly within urban environments through underground rail infrastructure and increased TOD capacity. Tianjin Yujiapu brings trains underground right to the heart of the emergent Tianjin Binhai core area. Similarly, below-grade tracks and platforms at Beijing East railway station and Xiong’an’s intercity station allow for intensive pedestrian-focused district centers that maximize opportunities for compact development and establish an attractive urban character much more in tune with today’s desire for sustainable, healthy, people-focused places.

China has moved TOD to a different level. Some techniques appropriate in Europe and the US are less applicable in China. The greater size and faster speed implementation of TOD developments in China have altered the internal dynamic that prevailed in most TOD planning and design. Previously, development around transit was expected to take place at a slower pace, over years or decades (for example, Canary Wharf, London). Likewise, it was assumed that a more limited set of facilities would be put in place at the outset and a framework established within which new buildings and public spaces would be added over time.

That is, it was expected that TOD districts would mature over time and have a variety of building designs. Likewise, it was assumed that the mix of uses could change according to emerging needs. By the same token, TOD in China has changed the approach to transit planning requirements. The greater size and complexity of the transit components of TOD in China not only means larger sites, more underground rail types (metro, HSR, airport rail), but important and varied rubber-tire modes of mobility – from taxis and app services to shuttles, city buses and inter-city coaches. As the modes have grown and multiplied, so the number of intermodal connections for riders. This has presented challenges to convenience (level changes, diverse fare-control conditions, and commercial opportunities. Likewise, the connections to the street and at the street, as well as to vertical development, have multiplied and become potentially more complex.

But the core objective remains – realize the convenient connections of TOD. Those earlier assumptions about TOD development entailed a more limited opportunity to influence the specifics of design, because the initial design team would not necessarily be the “design guardian” of the district 10, 20 or 30 years hence. The larger initial construction campaigns of TOD in China today presents an important opportunity to determine not only building design, but streetscapes, landscape and open spaces, and amenities.