RiverCity

By: Samira Heshmatzadeh

Many people are considered to be variable knowledge about the state of affairs in a DISTINCT or geographic socio-cultural area. Whenever something of Importance that happens upon their concerns domain, they are to be likely be called upon to explain or interpret the events publicly. In this term they start to find the issues and objectives by observing the area, as we did in our project.

The fact is that all projects log in research, observation, and collection of materials. Excursion as one way suggested data collecting and getting familiar with problem area by observing the problem area. Direct way commands as another way is information gathering, Sequence of Operations That Enabler the user to learn the commands Which change his data sets. The Distinction between the excursion and the direct way is because of the distinction between there plan and performance, or between knowing and doing. So the best way of doing comprehensive research is to combine different type of data gathering.

On the 30 ^th March 2010, as the first step of starting our project, we start to observe the area of our study in five diffferent groups, EACH were responsible for part of area specified by documenting the day with photo and prepare a presentation.

So the first group's points of interest was:

· Angered bridge

· Area Planned for new tunnel

· Marieholm bridge.

For the second group was:

· Backaplan (Development Area)

· Ringön and Trains chunting yard close by

· DHL terminal and Gullbergsvass kay area.

Third group were Responsible for:

· Älvrummet (exhibition about the River City)

· Biskopsgården

· wharf.

Forth Group to observed:

· Rock - Älvsnabben

· Färjenäs

· Sannegårdshamnen

· Stena terminal.

Finally the load group observed:

· Amf4 military area - as a potential area for new development

· Risholmen / Heart Holmen

· Kungsten / Älvsborgsbron bridge.

By observing the area, the strengths and weakness as well as potential and future possibilities of the area could be understandable more tangibly. After That observation EACH groups presented their own understanding of that area of the whole members. For example the first group started by their observation at Angered, passing the bridge, taking photos and discussing the strengths and weakness of that area, try to draw reason for them, like the inaccessibility to the river side, no social meeting place, non residential friendly and so on. They also "mentioned thats the linkage between both sides of the river was so weak and there was a new project of building a new tunnel completely close to the old one which seem questionable. They also "found thats the density of the area from the east side was so diffused and as you go more along the river up to center it was sensed both for residential and industrial area with these objectives. They came to this conclusion, that what would be the benefits as well as loss of Sustainable Development on that area.