Regional and Urban Planning: Diagnostics of the Municipality of Candelária (RS, Brazil) and Multipurpose Track Proposal
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X40487Keywords:
Candelária, Multipurpose Track, Urban EquipmentAbstract
With the purpose of consolidating, in a strategic way, to encourage and to support the local commerce, sports and cultural aspects in the city of Candelária (Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil), we propose a study of equipment needs that offer entertainment and leisure to the population, preventing residents from moving to other nearby cities to meet those needs. Favored by the flat topography of the site, the solutions interconnect with the proposal to create a multipurpose track, which would encourage the use of the bicycle as a means of transport, not only for working purposes, but also for leisure, as well as providing benefits of greater road safety and travel speed. For this, the proposed urban equipment and its connections with the multipurpose track are analyzed using geoprocessing and virtual reality features. Virtual maps and three-dimensional models help on exemplification of the proposals, enabling better study of the city’s existing potentialities as conditioning factors of the project.
Downloads
References
CÂMARA, G.; MONTEIRO, A. M. V.; MEDEIROS, J. S. Introdução à Ciência da Geoinformação. São José dos Campos: INPE; 2004. Disponível em: http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/livro/introd/ .
CARMONA, M.; HEATH, T.; OC, T.; TIESDELL, S. Public places - urban places: the dimensions of urban design. Burlington: Architectural Press, 2003. 312 p.
COMITÊ PARDO. Disponível em: http://www.comitepardo.com.br/ Acesso: 18 mar. 2018.
DEL RIO, V. Introdução ao desenho urbano no processo de planejamento. São Paulo: Pini, 1990
FNRU – FÓRUM NACIONAL DA REFORMA URBANA. Carta de princípios para a elaboração do Plano Diretor - 1989. In: DE GRAZIA, Grazia (Org.). Plano Diretor: Instrumento de Reforma Urbana. Rio de Janeiro: FASE, 1990.
GEHL, J. Cidades Para Pessoas. 2. ed. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 2015. 280 p.
IBGE – INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATÍSTICA. Candelária. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: IBGE, 2018. Disponível em: https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/rs/candelaria/panorama. Acesso: 2 de abril de 2019.
IBGE – INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATÍSTICA. Censo Demográfico 2010: Resultados do Universo Agregados por Setor Censitário. Rio de Janeiro, RJ:
IBGE, 2011. Revisado em 22/02/2013. Disponível em: https://censo2010.ibge.gov.br/resultados.html. Acesso: 25 abr. 2018.
JACOBS, J. Morte e vida de grandes cidades. 3. ed. São Paulo: WMF Martins Fontes, 2011. 532 p.
LANG, J. Urban design: a typology of procedures and products. Burlington: Architectural Press, 2005. 421 p.
LYNCH, K. A imagem da cidade. 3. ed. São Paulo: WMF Martins Fontes, 2011. 227 p.
MOBILIDADE EM SAMPA. Parque do Chuvisco é entregue no Campo Belo. Disponível em: https://mobilidadesampa.com.br/2017/04/parque-do-chuvisco-e-entregue-no-campo-belo/ . Acesso: 5 abr. 2018.
PEREIRA, L. S.; PAMBOUKIAN, S. V. D. Criação de uma maquete vitual 3D de edifícos do campus Higienópolis da Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie. In: XIII Jornada de Iniciação Científica e VII Mostra de Iniciação Tecnológica, 3-6 out. 2017; São Paulo: UPM, 2017.
PORTUGALI, J. Self-organization and the Cities. Berlim, Alemanha: Springer-Verlag, 2000. 352 p.
SABOYA, R. Tipos de desenho urbano. Urbanidades. 17 nov. 2010. Disponível em: https://urbanidades.arq.br/?p=811. Acesso: 30 abr. 2018.
SMAO – SECRETARIA DE MEIO AMBIENTE E OBRAS, Prefeitura Municipal de Candelária.
SOUZA, M. L. de. Mudar a cidade: uma introdução crítica ao planejamento e à gestão urbanos. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil, 2010.
UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA MARIA (UFSM). Pista multiuso. Disponível em: http://fonte.ufsm.br/index.php/pista-multiuso-campus-ufsm . Acesso: 6 abr. 2018.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
