Compiled comments
Accumulated Comments on the RMJM Leith Docks Master Plan for Forth Ports PLC
Dear Gordon Duffy and Ross McEwan,
Several years ago there was a competition organised by the City authorities for
ideas—or a “vision”—for Edinburgh’s coast from Leith and up the coast towards
the airport. We were awarded first prize, and as a consequence walked along the
coast making sketches and other studies. Our concern over Leith Port was to
create a public park and promenades accompanied with an extension of the
city—perhaps organized in the spirit of the New Town with a tall building marking
say some critical point.
The project by RMJM seems to be based on the urban block, turning corners and
with central garden courts which in principle would be correct. I am not too sure
what character they are proposing, warehouse blocks by the quays? horizontal
emphasis along the promenade?
My suggestions would be to keep the high buildings down to a human scale of 6
floors and only an occasional tower.
The design of the streets, and their sequence and different character is missing
from the project. There is no sense of arrival, no sense of identity with say the
spine street—it should be wider, the separate fragments are lacking squares or
pocket gardens. There seems to be no service buildings—school, health centre,
library, cinema, cafes and other shops, and hotels.
What about the tram connection between Leith and Princes Street? Or is
everyone expected to have to use a car.
Finally, I suggest that until there is a well thought out urban design of the streets
and other public spaces, approval should be suspended.
Best of luck.
David Mackay
MBM Arquitectes
Plaça Reial 18
08002 Barcelona
Ross
thanks for keeping me on this list; very interesting; minor fragement for you - do
you know robert fergusson LEITH RACES poem - classic bit of 18th c scots -
details on a variety of web sites - a very scruffy bit of leith sands still exists or did
when i last tried to walk the fort coast like - it should be a feature in any plan that
aims for some historical depth
best Bob Morris Edinburgh
Dear Ross and Shaeron,
Thanks. Sorry I couldn’t reply sooner but here’s a quote along the lines I
sketched on Thurs which you can cite against my name if you want to:
“The redevelopment of Leith Docks is a huge, long term project for Leith and
Edinburgh, involving around 15,000 houses and possibly 30,000 to 35,000
residents, which makes it one of the largest projects in the whole history of the
urban area. If other urban designers put forward alternatives to the master plan
submitted by RMJM and Forth Ports Authority, this will stimulate thought and
debate which could well lead to fresh ideas and improvements in the whole
design, in specific aspects and areas within it both at the outset and as the plan,
almost inevitably, gets reviewed and revised in the medium term of its
implementation. This can only be to the good if the city is to maintain its best
traditions of design and quality of environment from the past, especially if the
alternatives also place a strong emphasis on sustainabilty and creating people
friendly places. After all, when the design for the first stage of the New Town was
being chosen the city held a competition and was able to select from six designs
submitted.”
Bob Hodgart, former Lecturer Urban Geography, Edinburgh University
Hi Ross:
“Beginning with density layouts and not the public spaces is an outdated method
to developing a Masterplan. It sets the wrong tone and direction of the project.
By recognizing the design of the public realm as a civic action, we can anticipate
that the behaviour should be equally aesthetic and ethical. Beginning planning
around density fosters the UK legacy of risk aversion, shabby public places and
dismally ‘adequate’ regeneration schemes. We need creative solutions, in a
collaborative process, which inform the actions that change the way we impact
our environments and experience place. Sustainability is a community
endeavour and we need to design a public realm infused with platforms that
encourage demonstrations of a sustainable culture.”-
Ethical and Aesthetic Place Shaping,
Matthew Lennon, independent curator and public realm coordinator, 2007,
Newcastle
Dear Ross:
I've reviewed the drawings you sent. Frankly I was appalled by the design
style- early 70's developers dreamland- and the blatant lack of consideration
for a dynamic public realm. The public realm is insufficient and poorly linked.
There seems to be no consideration given to ground level mixed use of SMEs or
how you facilitate a sustainable cultural neighbourhood. Transport seems
limited by design and yet it doesn't appear to be geared to pedestrians or cyclist.
Without proper platforms for cultural activities ingrained into the
infrastructure, a robust public realm, this design creates a high density
ghetto. If there isn't proper consideration given to this Leith will not be
able to link with the wider cultural schemes of the region. The public realm
will be reduced to gestures and the commissioning will be limited to culturally
regurgitated artistic plonk (CRAP). Character and distinction will be squeezed
out early on.
Hasn't anyone there heard of culturally lead regeneration? Where's the regions
pubic arts coordinator? Urban design team?
I've attached a draft of my Cultural Hub outline/essay for NCC and the draft of
the municipal art strategy I've proposed for Newcastle. If I can be of any
help let me know. It's really to valuable of a landscape to simply let it be
nothing more than a developer's scheme.
Best,
Matthew
Hi Shaeron:
Wish I could have been there throughout the design workshop. Not fully aware of
all that was discussed I keep coming back to certain elements that need to be in
the final masterplan / brief for tender.
How are the tenders going to be scored in terms of the components and subcomponents
for a sustainable community? Are there allowances for community
meeting spaces, children’s day centres?
How will the masterplan guarantee, set guidance and a management system to
ensure the best practices and expertise for ecological construction and habitation.?
Ecological objectives should have the highest priority for this site and be
established early. This should demonstrate 21 century urbanism: high density for
lowest land grab, a seamless integration of public spaces, SMEs, environmentally
friendly transport, culture platforms for public spaces and proximately for home to
jobs ratios. Points should be allocated to designs increasing use of water run off,
PV roofing, etc.
This project should set standards not succumb to existing low standards. I keep
finding in various projects that in the broad discussions this gets discussed. But
the final document seems to always lower the standards by about 2 points. The
thing we’re pushing for here, for ex. In the Scotswood plan, is that these elements
are embedded in the landscaping, through inner courts and into playscapes and
community gardens.
And certainly as was stated- why isn’t this an international call for tender? Or
even a selection of 3 to 5 selected designers to avoid the softly softly modernism
that renders most projects banal?
Anyway, bravo on your good work. Maxine and I may be up your way this
weekend or next. If so I’ll give you a shout. Hey, did you see where they’re
going to install four waterfalls on the Hudson in NYC. One on the Brooklyn
Bridge. Feck, I can’t get one fountain.
Best,
Matthew
Public Art Curator
Ross,
It could be argued that speculation has been an integral part of many successful
urban proposals, including perhaps Edinburgh’s New Town. However, usually the
speculation is under the jurisdiction of some kind of prevailing ambition. Here,
based on the evidence presented so far, ambition seems absent. Creative
enquiry has been subordinated to styling, driven simultaneously by demographic
marketing of property and the need to negotiate planning requirements. The
masterplan appears to adhere to established typological patterns with no enquiry
into what urbanism means in the 21st Century.
The absence of ambition combined with property speculation on an
unprecedented scale adds up to not just a massive missed opportunity, but the
potential erosion of Edinburgh’s ‘brand’. If ideological will and civic ambition are
to be replaced with simple economics then we should consider the long-term
symbiosis in the context of marketing and revenue potential. The identity of a
unique waterfront is a priceless and eminently marketable asset to a city. A
generic landscape is not marketable, especially when compared to the identityrich
existing jewel of the city centre. Developer led, local authority planned and
architect styled architecture is perhaps now an economic necessity and, by
default, may even contribute to the sense of intensity in the city centre. However,
the waterfront is too important a location for it.
A leading city architect in the Evening News article of January 11 disputes the
‘lack of joined up thinking’ and states that “we have to start somewhere” :
Successively book into the Holiday Inn, shop in the Ocean Terminal mall and
then go to a meeting at Ocean Point and you understand immediately how unjoined-
up and ill-conceived that landscape is.
Spend some time in the spaces around Platinum Point and you feel immediately
the disengagement from the rest of the city and from the identity of the location.
We have to start somewhere? We have to start with ambition before we start
building.
andrew stoane architect
studio 311 cowgate edinburgh eh1 1na
The information in the ES is very thorough and correctly executed but is always
neatly rounded off in favour of the proposals - of course. For example, the
ecology report states that there could be significant adverse effects on the tern
colony but that if such and such is done then there will in fact be an insignificant
effect. In terms of ecology in particular, my experience is that even if people
claim to be concerned about issues and write in appropriate clauses on how the
construction process will be sympathetic, etc., etc. the workers on site will mess it
up or the simple effect of disturbance is that whatever you are trying to protect
buggers off. There is some mention of how lighting in the completed
development would affect the birdlife, i.e. street lighting, architectural and event
lighting and that the latter two should not be switched on during the breeding
season. However, it would only take one event organiser to say that the
economy of Edinburgh relies on a super trooper being used during the festival
and this advice would be completely over looked. What I am saying is that I think
any wildlife on the site is going to suffer but that it need not necessarily be that
way especially if the proposals were less rigid.
Wildlife aside, my other main concern remains the lack of mention of any real
sustainable thinking. They are talking about 7.3m wide carriageways and
signalled interchanges when there should be a completely radical approach to
transport on the site. And the drainage/sewerage system will be a standard
solution, pumping everything off to Seafield when something like the system in
Hammarby Sjonstad should be designed where the sewage is recycled and
somehow ends up fuelling cars (I think) amongst other things.
As I also mentioned to you I am still puzzled about the phasing drawing versus
the proposed village areas.
I would have thought that each village should constitute a phase so that they can
be constructed in a coherent way and have local amenities successfully planned
and incorporated.
I don’t know what help this will be for the meeting as I say but I think I will be
more use with the masterplan now so see you Monday for that.
Liz Dorian Landscape Architect Edinburgh
Gordon,
I’ve looked at the PDF instead.
I suppose my feeling is that, OK, it’s a workmanlike plan for lots of homes and
offices, which probably meets most of the currently accepted principles for urban
design at the small (i.e. within-area) scale…..
- But that at the level of Urban Design in the broader sense – what is this place
FOR? What is special, interesting or exciting about it? How does the Plan respond
to the extraordinary opportunity of this waterfront in a conurbation which is one
of Britain’s most popular, successful and unusual places? – then it seems to
undershoot by a number of kilometres. After all, this isn’t Granton (where we
prepared a master plan on a similar scale, but which is a much more difficult
location and setting and site): this is the end of Leith Walk, next to the Scottish
Exec, etc…..
On the basis of my first point, the City Council might find it difficult to actually
find “reasons for refusal”. On the basis of the second, though – what does their
Design Champion (if he still is?) have to say to them? Is Terry on the case? Does
he share my sense of disappointment and underperformance? Might he tell them
so?
Martin Crookston
Director – Planning
Llewelyn Davies Yeang
