Description
“Woonerf”, roughly translated as “living streets”, is what the Dutch call a special kind of street or group of streets that functions as shared public space — for pedestrians, cyclists, children and, in some cases, for slow-moving, cautiously driven cars as well. It is a street design philosophy intended to place cyclists, pedestrians, and automobiles on equal footing. A Woonerf is generally characterized by a complete absence of signs, traffic lights, signals, markings, lane dividers, elevations separating the automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian realms, or even sidewalks, forcing road users to rely on eye-contact and human communication to navigate the street safely. Automobiles are limited to "walking speeds" which are physically enforced through street design with narrow, curving streets, bulb-outs, and differential surface treatments. This action allows more room for new features in the street such as street furniture (e.g., planters, street trees, benches) and areas for social interaction, bringing more people out on the streets to walk, bike, play, and interact with each other. In other words, a Woonerf transforms the street into a liveable and attractive environment for a variety of activities.
The Dutch term was coined in the 1960s when traditional urban architecture was being rethought, and today the Woonerf sign is common, with slight variations, across Europe: a blue rectangle with stick-figure symbols of a ball-playing child and parent, a car, a house. The concept of the Woonerf was actually developed in the late 1960s in the city of Delft, Netherlands. Residents of a neighbourhood were upset with cut-through traffic speeding through their neighbourhood, making it unsafe. The residents took out their brick streets and replaced them with winding serpentine paths. This action initiated the Woonerf - a residential street in which the living environment predominates rather than vehicular infrastructure.
The main aim of a Woonerf is to change the way streets are used and to improve the quality of life in residential streets by designing them for people, not just for traffic. Some of the major goals of this concept are to: create more efficient use of space; promote more active lifestyle in communities; increase socialization and activities; enable the elderly and others with limited mobility to have better access and mobility within in their own street environment; create a more attractive street; reduce driving speeds and increase levels of safety; decrease the rate of automobile use; increase bicycle ridership and the rates of bicycle transportation user comfort, convenience and satisfaction; increase pedestrian travel and the rates of pedestrian comfort, convenient and satisfaction; improve the environmental quality of urban streets.
Results and impact
Scientific studies have provided some proofs that Woonerf approach may be particularly useful to cities that have restricted access to green space. Researches have also observed that in those cases people generally stay for longer periods of time in the streets and also engage in more verbal communication.
The woonerf concept in urban planning has proven to be successful in the Netherlands. As a result, it has become increasingly popular in many other countries in Europe as well as around the world. Woonerfs and their derivatives (shared spaces, complete streets, home zones, etc.) are piquing the interest of urban planners in several countries.
In the Netherlands, more than 6,000 Woonerf zones burnish these badges of communal spirit where motorized traffic doesn’t rule the road. Moreover, after a period in which they fell out of fashion, the Woonerfs are making a strong comeback.
Type of activity
Building health promoting infrastructure
Place: Netherlands
Territorial level: National
Organizer: Separate city authorities
Source: http://policyatlas.org/ | https://nacto.org/docs/ | www.nytimes.com/ | Ben-Joseph, E. (1995) Changing the residential street scene: adapting the shared street (woonerf) concept to the suburban environment. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 61(4), pp. 504-515