Accumulated 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
T 00 34 93 317 02 09
F 00 34 93 317 72 66
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
------ Forwarded Message
From: Lennon Matthew <matthew.lennon@newcastle.gov.uk>
Date: 21 Nov 2007 11:33:00 -0000
To: Ross artinarchitecture <ross@artinarchitecture.co.uk>
Conversation: quayside ghetto
Subject: quayside ghetto
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 sub-components 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
Matthew Lennon
Public Art Curator
Urban Design team
Regeneration
Newcastle City Council
Civic Centre
Floor 10
+44 (0)191 277 8945
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 identity-rich 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 un-joined-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
land 00 44 131 558 8804
05601148990
Much of what I have read is more to do with informing the masterplan design that we will be developing which is why I wanted to talk through what I have read with the sketches in front of us.
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 eejits 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
Martin Crookston
Director – Planning
Llewelyn Davies Yeang
London, Newcastle, Belfast
020 7612 9423
Ross
LEITH DOCKS
Ø 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.
Ø 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.
Ø 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
tel./fax: 0131 226 6369
150 Rose Street Lane South
e-mail: ns@neilsimpsonarchitects.co.uk
Edinburgh EH2 4BB
web: www.neilsimpsonarchitects.co.uk
U n i t e d K i n g d o m
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.
From: Ross McEwan [mailto:ross@artinarchitecture.co.uk]
Sent: 25 February 2008 15:33
To: alastair@ab-arch.co.uk
Subject: Leith Docks Outline Planning Application.
Importance: High
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
AiA
Art in Architecture LLP
wow people are interested, dpz are respected urbanists
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Senen Antonio" <senen@dpz.com>
Date: 11 February 2008 16:34:39 GMT
To: <DuB@sust-concepts.co.uk>
Cc: <ross@artinarchitecture.co.uk>, "'Aduany Account'" <aduany@dpz.com>
Subject: RE: Leith Docks Masterplan, Edinburgh Waterfront
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
T: 305 644 1023 | dpz.com
From: Shaeron Averbuch [mailto:shaeron@artinarchitecture.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:09 AM
To: senen@dpz.com
Subject: Leith Docks Master Plan Comments
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
AiA
Art in Architecture LLP
Shaeron Averbuch
2 Commercial Street
Leith
Edinburgh
EH6 6JA
UK
+ 44 (0) 131 555 2280
+ 44 (0) 7946 584 726
www.artinarchitecture.co.uk
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
Business Development
DPZ | Architects and Town Planners
1023 SW 25th Ave | Miami | Florida | 33135
T: 305 644 1023 | dpz.com
------ Forwarded Message
From: Jenny Dawe <Jenny.Dawe@edinburgh.gov.uk>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:39:40 -0000
To: Ross McEwan <ross@artinarchitecture.co.uk>
Cc: Jenny Dawe <Jenny.Dawe@edinburgh.gov.uk>
Conversation: Council budget 2008: delivering your priorities
Subject: RE: Council budget 2008: delivering your priorities
Dear David
COUNCIL BUDGET 2008 : DELIVERING YOUR PRIORITIES
Thank you for your further email of 30 January offering your single-minded comments and criticisms of the city’s leadership in relation to development. It is for precisely the reasons that you identify that the city appointed its own Design Champion, Sir Terry Farrell. This appointment facilitates a co-ordinated, holistic approach to development in the city to ensure that Place issues are central to the way Edinburgh moves forward.
Best wishes
Jenny
Councillor Jenny Dawe
Leader – The City of Edinburgh Council
************************************************************************
From: Shaeron Averbuch [mailto:shaeron@artinarchitecture.co.uk]
Sent: 06 February 2008 11:33
To: Jenny Dawe
Subject: City Planning, Place Making, etc
FAO: Jenny Dawe - Leader of City of Edinburgh Council
Dear Mrs Dawe
In response to your last correspondence to my partner Ross McEwan, copied in below, I now feel obligated to add my comments.
As the founding partner of AiA Art in Architecture, a Leith based company, I have been aware of the development proposals for the Edinburgh Waterfront over several years. We are therefore more than aware of the involvement and roles of Sir Terry Farrell as Design Champion and Riccardo Marini as Design Leader within CEC.
At present it is apparent that Edinburgh may wish and believes it is actively moving forward with an "holistic approach", however, this is just not the case.
It is for this very reason that AiA Art in Architecture have been committed to raising awareness to issues relating to the quality of the built environment and open spaces within the City of Edinburgh. We have now formed a group called JUMP (Joined Up Master Planning). JUMP is an open interactive group of urban design professionals and others from multidisciplinary backgrounds. JUMP is currently working on a Contra Proposal for the Leith Docks site. On the 21st of January a meeting was held between JUMP with landowners Forth Ports PLC and RMJM Architects who have drawn up the live outline planning application currently sitting with the City of Edinburgh Council. There was no representation from the City of Edinburgh Council at that meeting. This should not be the case. As has been stated in much professional press and by local professional bodies The City of Edinburgh Council should be taking a leading role irrespective of whether the land is currently in the ownership of Forth Ports PLC.
Attached is the latest professional press coverage in Building Design on 1/2/08 describing AiA Art in Architecture's work regarding this matter.
JUMP strongly request a meeting with yourself and key members of the Council and it's officers.
Regards
Shaeron Averbuch
AiA
Art in Architecture LLP
Dear Shaeron
CITY PLANNING, PLACE MAKING
Thank you for your email of 6 February following on from my previous correspondence with your partner, Ross McEwan.
You suggest that The City of Edinburgh Council should be taking a leading role in relation to the Waterfront and Leith Docks. The Council has been promoting Waterfront regeneration to provide a new city quarter for a considerable time. Without this level of commitment, large parts of the Waterfront area would still be unsightly brownfield sites and the Council would now have to consider releasing large areas of greenfield land in order to accommodate housing pressures. I should also advise that the Leith Docks Development Framework was approved by the Council after extensive consultation. Its key purpose is to set the high standards for the sustainable development it will require. Now that policy is in place, we have moved on to detailing its objectives and we are leading on implementation. There seems to be very limited value in discussing criticism of the policy or the process.
You strongly request a meeting with me or key members of the Council and its officers. We are currently processing a planning application. It would therefore be completely inappropriate for Council officials to discuss it with a group of objectors. Similar concerns exist about facilitating meetings with elected members at this sensitive time. I very much regret, therefore, that I am unable to accede to your request.
Whilst this may be disappointing to you, I do hope that you can appreciate the proprieties that that I must observe.
Best wishes
Jenny
Councillor Jenny Dawe
Leader - the City of Edinburgh Council
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
AiA
From: Alastair Binnie <alastair@ab-arch.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:41:44 -0000
To: 'Ross McEwan' <ross@artinarchitecture.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Leith Docks Outline Planning Application.
Dear Ross
Thanks for your email.
I think the concept of an Outline Planning Approval with a Masterplan stapled to it, must be fundamentally too rigid for this large site, and ultimately for all involved. Why not promote the idea of designating the site as a development area, and allowing the vision, analysis and strategy for sustainable development to evolve. Seems odd that things are being fixed in Masterplan terms when who knows what will surface – they talk vaguely about the potential for cultural, leisure and other public aspects to the development, but already have a rigid structure which might not allow this potential to be fulfilled. Just think what fun could be had with some more flexibility; competitions for important new buildings, new transport links, low carbon strategies etc! And how much better, and vibrant, the result would be.
Hope this helps.
Alastair Binnie
Director
www.ab-arch.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1865 554558
Fax: +44 (0)1865 311232
Shaeron
Thanks for copying me into the various aspects of the Leith Docks groups activities etc. I was interested to read the accumulation of comments, especially those from Andres Duay`s office.
I am certainly very interested in an alternative scheme; especially having carefully studied ( in the Planning office) the RMJM proposals which are in for Outline Planning Consent. I have several notes which I can pass to you for your file, though probably not taking the debate beyond what has already been said.
On the design approach side - I am certainly concerned by a number of fundamentals in respect of the whole approach, which we can all see is mostly from a developers site development perspective and the concern that what the applicants call this `broad framework` will end up as the detailed master plan. Also I am not convinced by the consultations process which seems questionable for an opportunity this significance.
One hope in the RMJM documents, was reference to urban design principles as in effect their aims and objectives (Section 5) but which are in fact lifted straight out of the City Councils own urban design guide ( which I refereed to at the meeting I did attend) This demonstrates their `good intentions` but I did not see the sorts of studies I would expect and for example do not think ghosting in building profiles onto endless photographs was any use at all as compared with a properly constructed 3D CAD model
On the master plan and accompanying documents - there are of course the matters of lack of permeability to the Forth frontage, use of `formula block` planning, concerns regarding the lack of road hierarchy ( no tree lined boulevards leading to lower activity roads system ), no evidence of planning studies for the so called urban villages, etc∑∑∑..etc.
A major criticism of mine which I have expressed to City Planning on a number of occasions, is the lack of presentation of development s of this size, as 3D CAD moving models, which every major urban design proposal should incorporate, especially as part of the consultations process. Artists impressions and an aerial axonometrics are of no use in my opinion except to sell schemes to investors.
I am sure your have passed the point of merely critisms of the scheme in for Planning consent, and that your own team design is progressing. Pressure of work has prevented me getting down to your meetings and I am not sure that I can be of help at this late stage, observing you have a tight knit group now with defined roles up to your deadline of 10th March.
Les Howson
Architect and Urban Designer
Urban Design Solutions Ltd
Jon Aldenton
The Environment Trust
4 Pinchin Street
London E1 1SA
' 020 7264 4660
Shaeron
Good to meet you on Friday and thanks for the info. When the masterplan of Edinburgh New Town was devised the architect worked to a clear brief from the City. Do you have a copy of the brief given to RMJM by Forth Ports and agreed in a document with the Council? Most schemes go wrong because the brief is defective.
Jon
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:59 PM
Subject: RE: JUMP Request for Information
Dear Shaeron
Thanks for Design Workshop communicado. Absolutely the right thing to do for the City and a great idea for constructive and creative critical response.
This cannot go without being noticed as it is pro bono effort given by professionals for professionals. This really has to be a message that the Press should be aware of.
Congrats and see you Thurs.
Bill
WJ Cairns
Chairman & Chief Executive
Cairns Intersphere Consulting Limited
18 Rothesay Place
Edinburgh, Scotland
EH3 7SQ
T: +44 (0) 131 226 3175
F: +44 (0) 131 527 3636
M: +44 (0) 7787 128 422
W: www.cairns-icl.com
E: wjcairns@cairns-icl.com](Comments_files/shapeimage_1.png)
