Page3 Compiled comments
Berth of new idea will wow Waterfront
IT was a great pleasure to see the enthusiastic way in which the
team of architects from Leith-based Art in Architecture hoped to
launch their plans for redevelopment of the Leith Waterfront (We'll
put 'wow' into Waterfront, Evening News, December 21 ).
Since landowners Forth Ports put forward their development
strategy as part of the £7 billion development, there has been a
great amount of public concern regarding the possible over
development of large unsightly housing blocks, that seem to be
built with the point of maximum units built for the minimum
expenditure – a principle that could affect the quality of
architectural and environmental design.
As the Waterfront development is one of the largest brownfield
regeneration developments in Europe, the developers must listen to
the open criticism that is being voiced. They may own the land, but
they have a moral obligation to the existing community outside the
development and also to the city of Edinburgh.
If the developers were to conduct a study and ask residents if they
where inspired by what they see happening within the Waterfront
today, I suspect the answer would be a resounding no!
Local architect Ross McEwan and sculptor Shaeron Averbuch
highlighted how they feel the development is uninspiring, which
only confirms the need for a change of direction regarding the
overall architecture and environmental design.
More must be done to blend the Waterfront with the existing
communities and to use its great historical past as a guide to
possible design. One great architectural opportunity would be to
save the existing Granton gasholder and incorporate the iconic
structure into the development.
The architecture and environmental design is going to make or
break the Waterfront development. The team from Leith architects
AiA have a inspiring vision that must be taken seriously by the city
planners and developers.
Lawrence Dinse, Crewe Road North, Edinburgh
Gordon
Your emails to Andres Duany on the above captioned refer. On behalf of
Andres, we offer our apologies for the belated reply. As you can imagine,
Andres has been incredibly busy with ongoing work (including a couple of
charrettes in the last three weeks).
He has therefore asked me to respond on his behalf. As a manner of
introduction, I am Director for Business Development for the firm and am
also a Senior Project Manager and Senior Designer. Incidentally, I have
also been extensively involved in our projects and other efforts in the
UK, and if my father is to be believed, have remote roots in Scotland. I
often speak with clients and other groups about charrettes and am happy to
engage you in a similar discussion.
Thank you for inviting us to comment on the scheme, and for providing
the preliminary information on the Leith Docks proposal (in fact I spent an
afternoon there last October when we were in town for a lecture series);
here are a few comments/queries for discussion:
GENERAL
How much flexibility is available in the RMJM plan? Has this plan
already been approved and ratified? Or conversely, is this just a preliminary
proposal with opportunities for revision/amendment as required?
The RMJM plan that was provided seemed to be a building heights plan;
what is the overall regulatory plan to which this is attached? Is it a land
use zoning plan? It is somewhat difficult to comment on the plan without
knowing the underlying principles for planning and distributing the
proposed uses. Are the neighborhoods laid out as isolated pods of
single/limited use/s? You may already know that land use zoning and
planning are an outdated system of planning and in fact are what have
created suburban sprawl in the United States and now, with the careless
emulation of this bad development model, in many other parts of the world
as well.
Conversely, the New Urbanism curbs suburban patterns of development
and promotes traditional neighborhood patterns and authentic mixed use by
discarding the antiquated land use-based planning system, replacing it
with a _form-based_ planning system instead. As such, the urban and
architectural syntax become the focus, guaranteeing a coherent, compact,
pedestrian-friendly built environment, while permitting various degrees of
mixed uses.
T H E T R A N S E C T
T1 NATURAL ZONE T2 RURAL ZONE T3
SUBURBAN ZONE T4 GENERAL URBAN ZONE T5
URBAN CENTER
ZONE T6 URBAN CORE ZONE D DISTRICT
Appropriate detailing of public space such as streets, and their interface
with private buildings, is important to ensure the comfort and safety of
the pedestrian. The varying degrees of density and their corresponding
built forms are governed by the Transect - an organizational concept
developed by DPZ which proposes appropriate detailing (lot sizes, road
widths, building form and function, etc.) according to each development’s
classification within a continuum from a rural to urban context.
We acknowledge that the information you have provided may not reveal
the entire planning intent for Leith Docks, but it is not apparent from the
preliminary materials provided that the development has a structure based
on form and allocations of density. Rather, even with the proposed height
variations (which are possibly oversimplified), there appears to be a
“sameness” and segregation of uses/typologies that threaten to end up as
sprawl.
Is there an identifiable center to the entire Leith Docks redevelopment
(where there may be increased density)? Does each of the nine
neighborhoods have a sub-center, a _neighborhood center_, as well?
What considerations determined the neighborhood structure? Is there a High
Street? We acknowledge the rectilinear nature of the site, but the layout
of the proposed redevelopment appears to be too rigid and relentless (e.g.
those roads parallel to the long waterfront on the NE edge are excessively
long and potentially monotonous). When I visited last October, I found
the streets to be too wide.
Conversely, it would have been much more interesting, if not
relevant/resonant, to extend the more organic fabric of the surrounding
neighborhoods (more organic pattern, narrower streets, terminated vistas,
etc.) into the redevelopment area, as had been proposed development to
the NW of the harbor (plan by Robert Adams). Apart from being contextual
and establishing a seamless integration between the old and new fabric, this
would have created more interesting spaces, and created many
opportunities for more interesting architecture. Of course not all the streets have to
be narrow and picturesque, but what we suggest is in fact not unlike the
patterns established in Edinburgh, with _degrees_ and multiple settings of
street types and sections, as per the Transect above, perhaps combining
elements of Old Town _and_ New Town Edinburgh (the latter which the RMJM
plan seems to want to emulate).
SPECIFIC ISSUES
Neighborhood and Block Structure
The increment of each of the nine neighborhoods seems to be within the
optimal range for a walkable community (i.e. 5-minute walk from center
to edge, covering an area of about 50-60 hectares per neighborhood).
However, most of the neighborhoods seem to lack the _center_ that is
needed to mark each neighborhood.
As discussed above, what were the factors that determined the delineation
of the neighborhood increments?
Where is the center for the _entire_ development? Assuming this is
related to the tallest heights shown on the diagram, the center seems to
be loosely arranged around the marina/harbor. This needs to be improved
and “tightened”/condensed, especially with increased densities, a
concentration of uses and the provision of the transportation interchange.
The street blocks seem to be excessively long. In a TND, the optimal
block length is about 200 meters.
We commend the attempt to create physical and visual corridors to the
waterfront, particularly the NE edge. However, the corridors are not
consistent/coherent, and the street blocks are oriented with their long
side parallel to the waterfront. The better parti would be to have the
short end of the street blocks parallel to the waterfront with the long
side perpendicular to the water’s edge; in this manner, you can bring in
“more waterfront” deeper into the site and create greater permeability on
the water’s edge itself (refer to DPZ’s plans for Seaside, Rosemary Beach
and Alys Beach as examples).
Traffic and Transportation
Has a hierarchy of streets been developed in association with the plan?
As discussed above, many of the streets are relentlessly straight and may
contribute to a monotonous streetscape.
What are the considerations/regulations for crossing the harbor/the river?
How are parking requirements addressed in the plan? Largely underground
or in parking structures, perhaps? Is there a plan that shows the parking
allocations?
Open Space
There is evidently a generous allocation of open space, and as stated
above, the proposed corridors to the waterfront are commendable. The
larger open spaces however all seem to be too large and out of human
scale. Again, using the Transect, there needs to be a finer grain in the
open space network. Smaller parks, greens, squares, plazas, piazzetas and
gardens need to be introduced along with the larger meadows and pitches
for a full range of open space experiences. In the context of the
discussion above regarding the “heart” of the overall development, where
is the “postcard” image for Leith Docks? Or put in a more colorful
manner, if the residents were to stage a rally or a revolution, where
would they gather?
Use, Architecture
There is obviously a wide range of uses that are provided in the
development. However, and unless we are misunderstanding the plan and
the video, they are not truly mixed – that is, the mix is present horizontally
(the Govt offices are next to Ocean Terminal, which is next to a residential block, etc.), but there seems to be little vertical mix of uses. As such, the plan in fact appears to be suburban in nature.
The video mentioned the provision of affordable housing (something of
special concern to DPZ). Where is this provided in the plan? Is it set
apart as a “pod” (discouraged), or is the affordable housing integrated
with other uses (preferred)?
Is there an urban and architectural code? If so, is it available for our
review? Does it in fact encourage vertical integration of uses (e.g.
shops/restaurants on the ground floor with offices and/or residences above
in the areas of highest density)?
What is architectural syntax for the development? Has it been developed
with the vernacular in mind?
Other
Where there any other technical, engineering or environmental
considerations that influenced the layout of the plan?
CHARRETTE
As far as the charrette goes, we would like to hear from you regarding
what _your_ intent is for your proposed charrette.
Presumably, given that you have been approached to review the RMJM
Plan, could the plan in fact still be revised? If so, then the charrette is
definitely the best methodology for doing so.
Charrettes provide fora for ideas, offer immediate feedback to the
designers and give mutual authorship to the plan by all those who
participate. The charrettes that DPZ orchestrates accomplish the
following goals: (1) all those influential to the project develop a
vested interest in the design and the shared experience of the charrette
builds broad support for its vision; (2) the group of design disciplines
work in concert to produce a set of finished documents that address all
aspects of design; (3) inputs of all the players are collectively
organized at one meeting and thereby eliminates the need for prolonged,
sequential discussions that can delay conventional planning projects and
lose the momentum of constituents; and (4) a better final product is
created through the assimilation of many ideas in a dynamic, collaborative
and cost effective process.
A primary feature of charrettes is that they are specifically organized to
encourage the participation of all parties who are interested in the
project, whether they represent the interests of municipal regulators, the
developers, the consultant team, other stakeholders or the general
public. It has been our experience that an open charrette process has a
higher probability of success than a closed one, and given the importance
of this site and its various development aspects, an open charrette would
in fact be required. It is preferable that the charrette be held on or
close to the project area, to facilitate the intensive interaction among
the planning team and consultants, the client team and the local
leadership over the duration of the workshop.
As such, if the intent is to overhaul the master plan and develop a new
set of proposals, the suggested weekend workshop may not provide
enough time to achieve this goal. DPZ’s charrette methodology takes the plan
development from “soup to nuts”, so to speak, typically in 10-12 days.
The design team produces concept plans, but only as part of this process
in the first few days of the charrette, then quickly moves forward to the
preferred final master plan. The charrette is aimed at bringing the
stakeholders into the decision-making-cum-design process _in real time_;
i.e. we would seek to have the client team, all pertinent consultants,
government agencies and other key community members at the charrette
and have them make their decisions there as the team presents the various
sketch options and instantaneously responds to requested changes. Formal
and informal meetings are held with these various pertinent agencies and
interest groups during the first half of the charrette. The second half
consists of daily design and review sessions with a closing presentation
on the final day. This is why for this project, we advise that the
duration of the charrette be longer; this would allow at least one
“feedback loop” with the decision-makers in the development of the plans
from concept proposals to the final recommendations. The design team’s
proposals and strategies are tested with the client and other
decision-makers over the course of the charrette, so it is impossible to
take an unacceptable scheme too far.
(Note: While the charrette indeed comprises some 10-12 days with the
core design team present for entire duration, other participants
[subconsultants, the client team, government representatives and staff,
other stakeholders, etc.] may participate for only key days/sessions.
This is managed via a charrette schedule that is developed and
disseminated to the participants prior to the charrette. With the client’s
assistance, we arrange the necessary meetings with all appropriate
governmental agencies and offices and/or approval bodies.)
Again, we apologize for this belated response, but we hope the above
proves to be useful. Please do correct us if our understanding of the
RMJM plan’s intent is inaccurate or incorrect; we trust you understand
that we have only been able to work off of the heights diagram and the
video. Going back to our statement at the beginning of this message, the
primary question in our mind is whether or not the RMJM plan may in fact
be revised. Was this not recently submitted for planning approval? Is
there in fact scope for revising, or replacing, it?
We would welcome continuing our dialogue on this project.
Regards
Senen
Senen M. A. Antonio | UAP LEED CNU
Business Development
DPZ | Architects and Town Planners
1023 SW 25th Ave | Miami | Florida | 33135
Dear Senen
Yes, thank you very much indeed for taking the time to comment on the RMJM master
plan for Leith Docks.
I noted your points about the fact that there was only one plan to draw information from.
In total I believe there are about 7 plans that indicate what the outline planning master
plan framework will consist of.
When AiA / JUMP group met with Forth Ports PLC and RMJM they of course said this
was just an outline planning application and that each of the 9 proposed villages within
the general layout would be individually worked up. We feel strongly that presenting an
outline planning application for a site of this size and not committing to the definite
inclusion amenities is extremely wrong. An area called “the hub” which currently
consists of the Ocean Terminal shopping centre, a 12 screen cinema complex and the
Royal Yacht Britannia is the commercial centre and focal highlight of this whole
proposal. Not even one primary school or nursery have been proposed. The suggested site
for one high school clearly then suggests that in fact the addition of another high school
resource could be placed anywhere else in the city.
We totally agree with all your points on the road layouts, etc, etc. The main road running
east – west across the site is easily twice the length of Edinburgh’s principle street,
Princes Street.
I am sure my partner Ross will reply in more detail to your comments. Could we have
your permission to add your comments to our website and for press publicity. We do
have support from BD, Building Design so it would be good to pass your comments onto
the journalist covering the story.
Regards
Shaeron
Shaeron
Thank you for your reply.
This project is of immense interest to us, given our recent and imminent
involvement in development in Scotland.
I agree with your sentiment that even at an “outline planning application” level,
the bones/framework of the plan needs to be in place. The neighborhood structure
is fundamentally flawed (the block structure, the long streets, the provision [or
non-provision] of public/civic amenities including open space, and the
distribution/mix of uses) needs to be addressed now.
We are okay with your using our comments with the caveat that these are
preliminary based on very cursory information that had been provided to us, and
may be subject to amendment upon further review/study of the RMJM plan. This
statement needs to somehow be included in any published version of the
comments, and we would like to see/approve how our comments would appear
before you publish them.
Regards
Senen
Senen M. A. Antonio | UAP LEED CNU
