Page2 Compiled comments
Ross
LEITH DOCKS
My long time concern with large scale urban developments not only in Edinburgh,
is that they tend to be developer led. There is too little ` vision` that emanates
from Planning. Unfortunately, Councils tend not to have the necessary resources
and in house staff i.e. Urban Designers with the necessary skills to produce master
plans, even though they do have a duty to `watch dog` the public domain.
Large redevelopment schemes especially the size of that proposed at Leith Docks,
clearly have a huge impact on the city, the wider environs and ultimately peoples
lives. In my opinion, there needs to be more of a `public realm` approach,
designing from the outside in. Master plans need to be Planning led. The starting
point should be about recognizing and creating the context e.g. what does the area
offer, in this case the uniqueness of the location and setting dock front and sea
front.
The tendency is for `formula planning`, which starts with zoning the site with the
public realm aspects worked in later in the process. The developers have no doubt
ticked all the boxes and addressed the bench marks but these are likely to be
largely their own benchmarks. My main criticism with this approach is that I find
myself questioning who has made the most basic of decisions at the beginning of
the process ?. This was certainly the case at of the Tollcross scheme I was
involved with. Should the Lochrin water basin be expanded ?, how will the
development interface with the existing community ?, is this a destination place ?,
what sense of place will result?, what is its contribution to the city?
Urban Design, is largely concerned with the public realm, with the spaces
between buildings and with the interrelationship of those spaces with the
buildings set around them, with the quality and character of both together and
with how people experience them.
Edinburgh is renowned for the special character of its historic central area which
has made it worthy of World Heritage Status. The Leith site is, as you say, the
largest ever development site the greatest opportunity since the new town and
cannot be left to land owners and developers. The Georgian New Town has
special qualities in terms of the public space realm where the interrelationship of
buildings and spaces were carefully thought out at the master plan stage. The size
and proportions of open spaces and streets, building heights, vistas, handling of
corners, streetscape design etc were all carefully thought through and as a whole.
There was a clear public space strategy in place from the outset. All new large
scale urban developments in Edinburgh, should be designed to those same high
standards and aim to achieve those same special qualities to ensure a worthy
future legacy. It is a matter of considering settings, set pieces, vistas created and
conserved, widths and proportions of pedestrian ways, creations of public squares
etc, all with prior consideration to the experience for the general public as they
move from space to space and between the new buildings.
Bearing in mind first time I have seen the details of the RJMJ proposals, I did
have a few basic comments to make:
o My concern at Leith is does the scheme show any of these high aspirations
and qualities I have alluded to ?. The scheme seems to lack full recognition
that as well as a dock based rejuvenation opportunity, this is also a Forth
waterfront development opportunity . Except for Granton, which is well used,
Edinburgh lacks good public access to the sea front experience.
o I lived in Leith for a while after the first rush of redevelopment. It seemed
there was always the obsession with integrating with the city and not looking
at Leith as `a place in itself`. Edinburgh is polycentric city each area being at
one time self sufficient and sustainable with its own shops and services . We
have to the detriment of the whole city for all sort of reasons, moved away
from that in many areas. The Leith site offers an opportunity to create a
separate new fully sustainable urban community.
o The current scheme seems to be have the shopping centre as the focus which I
would question. Is this seen as the focus of activity and the pedestrian route to
which is a long high bridge ( weather protected hopefully) ? I would say the
development need its own` hub` which is not a shopping centre. People need
other facilities and services. What cultural etc facilities (buildings and spaces)
are proposed?. The National Museums of Scotland have been looking for a
long while for a home for their Leith Custom House collections. I already
have a design for re-vitalizing, enhancement and extension of the Custom
House with that in mind and which they are aware of. Surely the focus of the
Leith development could be cultural rather than commercial ?
o I would be concerned if the development were to be wholly car orientated
rather than pedestrian orientated. Again I would need to read the documents.
o You mentioned the layout is designed as `nine village`s, a term I question
when discussing urban areas. I would ask what size are these to be in terms of
numbers of people ?, how are they serviced and served by local shops and
other facilities ?, what is to be their own special character if any ?
If Planning are unable to intervene sufficiently to steer the scheme to more
meaningful result, then we could end up with a water front such as the recent
scheme at Newhaven. That is a developers solution to a golden opportunity of the
first major water front development to the Forth but which from an environmental
point of view is far from a success as far as I am concerned. Simply a path along
the front of an apartments development.
With your own scheme, I am not convinced that such a radical proposal as filling
in the whole of the inner docks ( if I understood you correctly) is absolutely
essential as a starting point for an alternative scheme. People like water and living
near it and there is a view of working with what you have. Also water spaces are a
beneficial amenity and can help create character as well as here being part of the
areas heritage. It is a matter of whether the dock heritage limits opportunities or
creates them ?, do they split up the site leaving the long land spit/main
development area remote or can they help with the eventual characterization of
the development as whole ?.
Certainly more needs to be made of the sea front and the sea front connection than
the arrangement of housing parallel with the sea and long roads as on the RJJM
scheme. Creating canal fingers and with the filing in the docks makes for a huge
civil engineering operation which may make your alternative non viable.
However I like to notion of fingers of space, road and housing giving a more open
access to the sea frontage rather than the present scheme which presents a barrier.
Any proposals should certainly include addressing the needs and opportunities of
the development site and surrounding area, the matter of place making, access to
sea front , the sea front experience, handling of the sea front housing , planning
for climate and shelter, the shear scale of the proposals, road lengths and vistas,
relationship of land uses around the water basins, pedestrian and cycleway
connections, local services and environmental and community sustainability and
generally its environmental impact.
Leslie Howson Architect Edinburgh
Ross/Shaeron
My first comment to Forth Ports would be about the fantastic opportunity the new
tram line will present - a continental city would have a hospital or university at the
end of its tramline and instead we have a shopping mall. Specifically the proposals
for the bottom of Constitution Street at Albert Dock need to be bold. If more of the
docks were filled in to permit building there would be real chance to extend Leith
to the water (instead of the autonomous arm of development proposed).
Also I understand Forth Ports have visited Malmo - the housing exhibition Bo01
kicked off development of a vast area and set a benchmark for urban and
architectural quality, to international acclaim. Can this be used as a direct model
for procurement at Leith?
good luck,
Neil
neil simpson architects
Ross/Shaeron
1. The RMJM plan is really too small scale to comment sensibly - but it fails to inspire.
2. For a site of this importance, it should really have gone out to international competition
3. there have been fine things done abroad in harbours, as well as bad, and shocking
things - wasteful things - in UK - Leith, Kirkcaldy and Dundee.
4. This should have begun with a facilitated debate or think tank on an international scale.
5. is ADS dead or merely comatose ?
best
Charles McKean Author.
Alistair,
Having just read your article “towards a sustainable city” we thought you might like to
have some input into our attempt at getting the City of Edinburgh to rethink its current
position with regard to the Outline Planning application before them by Land Owners
Forth Ports and designed by Architects RMJM.
We have formed a group called “Jump” Joined Up Master Planning to produce a Contra
proposal.
I have attached some press coverage for you so that you might wish to see what we are
trying to achieve.
A link to the City of Edinburgh Planning portal where the full application can be viewed
is,
http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/portal/portal.jsp
The application reference is 07/03895/out.
We would much appreciate your comments.
Best
Regards
Ross McEwan
