London Metropolitan University Department of Architecture and Spatial Design ADP023N Advocacy: Practice Beyond Aesthetics Alec Borrill 07027752
Community Consultation and Consideration; the ripple effects of development In this essay I aim to research and consider the role of an architect and the duty of care they had concerning community involvement and consultation in a controversial development within the east end of London. The project I will be examining is the re-development of the Spitalfields market site, on the fringe between the City of London and one of the poorest and deprived County Council’s in Britain, the borough of Tower Hamlets. The issues confronted within the 17 years of development opposition set the foundation for a strong argument against the proposals, which reached practical completed in 2005. I wish to look at the options the site had and compare the built design by Fosters + Partners and how the concerns it generated were dealt with, taking into particular consideration conforming to the RIBA Code of Professional Conduct 3.1. I am also intrigued as to the exact role of Will Alsop’s involvement on behalf of the action group Spitalfields Market Under Threat (SMUT). His choice to act on behalf of the opposition campaign to the proposed scheme implies a public architectural criticism of the Foster project; something frowned upon within the architectural profession and community. I am interested in looking at the different ideas each of the architects had, and as a realistic proposal, considering the likelihood of what the different outcomes would offer. For example, as a recognised, high profile architect whom supported the cause would Alsop’s role been better acted out on behalf of the SMUT opposition movement as an architectural ambassador to the opposition group, rather than proposing an entirely new conceptual building for the site? There is also the valid opinion that Spitalfields, as an area, is a constantly changing environment, and development follows demand; as it has done for hundreds of years in this, and most parts of London. Therefore is any development simply part of the long time-line of past and future events that has formed this region of the city?
London Metropolitan University Department of Architecture and Spatial Design ADP023N Advocacy: Practice Beyond Aesthetics Alec Borrill 07027752
The area of Spitalfields is bounded by Bishopsgate and Liverpool Street station to the West and Commercial Street / Brick Lane to the east. The name is a combination of ‘Hospital Fields’, the hospital of which it belonged to dating back to 1197. Spitalfields Market was founded in 1682, with construction work on establishing a permanent market area starting two years later. The remaining section of the market that is seen today is that of the Grade 2 listed 1875-93 developments to create a covered market, with the later, and subsequently unlisted, additions in 1920-35 being demolished to make way for the Fosters scheme. The history of the market development represents a relatively short period in the areas history, though one which has received a huge amount of opposition from local community power. Owned by the City of London Corporation which ‘unlike the former Greater London Council, is more interested in maintaining London’s status as a financial centre rather than in providing leisure activities for its residents’1 the 5 ha site and market Hall has been a long running and irresistible plot for developers. Indeed, Tower Hamlets council also actively endorsed the sites development and the boost in tax rates a large city office block would generate. At the time of the first proposals, the idea of maintaining London’s position as a financial centre was linked to the relatively recent developments of Canary Wharf complex. Undeniably, the possibility for development was part of the focus as in 2001 ‘pressure is on the city...with competition from Canary Wharf and Frankfurt for being the centre of the worlds finance’2. With this in mind, surely the potential of a site (which is larger than that of the previously developed Covent Garden and within such close proximity to the major transport interchange of Liverpool Street Station and the city) would be maximised and expected? Tenure transferred to the Spitalfields Development Group ‘SDG’ in September 1987, a consortium which included the contractors Balfour Betty, and Costain. They presented a winning bid which importantly included the relocation of the fruit and vegetable market to Hackney Marsh. The site of Spitalfields market and some surrounding streets were leased to the SDG for a period of 150 years, with the Corperation of London remaining the freehold owners of the land. The 163,000 m2 proposal, designed by MacCormac Jamieson Prichard & Wright and Fitzroy Robinson & Partners consisted of large office buildings in a traditional
Spring, Martin 2005: The city marches east. http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=583&storycode=3056134 : accessed on 27/10/2007 2 Agenda, Ivan 2001: City invades Spitalfields market. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/06/6316.html?c=on : accessed on 27/10/2007 1
London Metropolitan University Department of Architecture and Spatial Design ADP023N Advocacy: Practice Beyond Aesthetics Alec Borrill 07027752
street pattern, and subsequently won planning Approval from Tower Hamlets Council with practical completion aimed for 1994. Immediately community and heritage opposition in the form of Save Britain’s Heritage, commissioned a rival scheme that recreated the former Spital Square, this starting the 19 year development dispute. In the same direction of opposition the ‘Save Spitalfields Campaign’ (the origins of the SMUT campaign) was established as an umbrella group whose aim was to represent local residents, businesses and other organisations following a public meeting in early 1987. Its original objective was to attempt to stop the movement of the original fruit and vegetable market. This move inevitably took place in March 1991 when the 1000 wholesale fruit and vegetable market traders relocated to the new market provision at Hackney marsh. Following this, the market space remained empty for almost a year. With the 1990’s collapse of the property market, building speculative offices was not an economically viable option, leaving the developers with a large empty site creating negative equity. In order to try and recover some of its financial losses, the developers established a secondary company, Spitalfields Space Management (SSM) to oversee the interim use of the Spitalfields Market buildings. Despite an original slow start, Spitalfields Market transformed into a ‘thriving, excellent, vibrant and unique space’3 which at its height accommodated 320 stalls, attracting wide ranging praise and developed the national reputation as a commercial destination, appealing to thousands of people every Sunday. In the markets new guise, the community space also played host to many events including Alternative Fashion week, Spitalfields Opera, Spitalfields Community Festival, Spitalfields Horticultural Show and even an Annual Pancake race. In 1997 the Market area received a prestigious award from the British Urban Regeneration Association. An important point to acknowledge here; is within the developments history, the market ‘we know and love to be the institution it was’4, was a direct result of the original 1987 development strategy. Simply put, the market used as an opposition tool by the SMUT campaign group would not have had a chance to have been realised had the original preliminary works for the master plan not progressed.
3 4
Meeting will SMUT former sectary Jil Cove, 06/01/08 Meeting with Eric Graham, Spitalfields Market Manager, 1990-Present, 21/12/2007
London Metropolitan University Department of Architecture and Spatial Design ADP023N Advocacy: Practice Beyond Aesthetics Alec Borrill 07027752
Had their campaign for the retention of the fruit and vegetable market been a success, there would not have been the provision of space for community activities and the Sunday market space to occur and flourish. The period of the Fosters involvement in the development on the site we see today began in June 1992, with a planning application put forward for a 16 story tower on Bishopsgate. This was Fosters first proposed development in the Spitalfields area, and was rejected with reasons of protected views to St Pauls cathedral. Seven years on, in August 1999 Fosters succeeded in securing detailed planning permission for a 12-story stock exchange and office building. Doubts towards competition were raised when the proposed office occupier, London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange (LIFFE) switched to computer trading and as a result the approved scheme became redundant. A change in circumstance came with a takeover of SDG by property developer Hammerson plc, a leading European real estate company, who specialise in shopping centres, retail parks and prime office space. The previous applications on the site, with their mixed use proposals of office and retail were therefore key to Hammerson’s sector of property development expertise. In June 2001 Fosters began a third development design appointed by Hammerson plc as a joint venture with the freehold owners of the site, the City of London Corporation. This proposal was submitted under the property portfolio title of ‘Bishops Square’, with the proposed office areas pre-leased to the international law firm Allen & Overy. Within six months the design received two major blows, the first, in November 2001 coming in the form of the Alsop counter-proposal, in collaboration with the Spitalfields Market Under Threat campaign group; the second in January 2002 from CABE whom criticised the ‘severe building form...’ in particular the ‘sloping eastern ends of the blocks’5. A revised scheme was granted detailed planning permission from Tower Hamlets council on 19th November 2002 which incorporated the objections mentioned above, and was now supported by CABE. Concerns with the junction between the listed market building and the proposed office block were still apparent (the area now called Crispin Place), with suggestions considering the character of the glazed link ‘...architects should consider a design which has its own character and its own
5 CABE Online 06/03//02: Design Review, Design Review Comments http://www.cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=971&field=sitesearch&term=spitalfields&type=0 accessed on 02/01/08
London Metropolitan University Department of Architecture and Spatial Design ADP023N Advocacy: Practice Beyond Aesthetics Alec Borrill 07027752
geometry rather than reading as an extension of the architecture of the new building’ 6. Planning success of the Foster scheme received ongoing criticism from SMUT campaigners referencing it as ‘...the imposition of a characterless corporate environment on a successful, local, diverse, sustainable community that is of equal importance to the success of London as a ‘world city’7.
Spital Square
Lamb Street
St Bolotoph’s Hall One Bishops Square
Crispin Place Spitalfields Market
280 Ten Bishops Square
Commercial Street
250
Bishops Square
Brushfield Street
Bishopsgate
Above: Plan of the Approved Fosters Scheme
The final 102,000 m2 office development was let to Sir Robert McAlpine on A 117-week design and build contract with a guaranteed maximum price. Through the course of construction no significant changes were made to the Foster designs, due to the relatively short completion time span. The 4000 Allen & Overy legal staff moved into their new offices just over a year ago. The period of time I’m looking at, concerning the application, falls with the active involvement of the SMUT campaign group raising issues and concerns with the final proposal. The basis of their disapproval lies in the ‘overspill’ of development,
6 CABE Online 06/03//02: Design Review, Design Review Comments http://www.cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=971&field=sitesearch&term=spitalfields&type=0 accessed on 02/01/08 7 Spring, Martin 2005: The city marches east. http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=583&storycode=3056134 accessed on 27/10/2007
London Metropolitan University Department of Architecture and Spatial Design ADP023N Advocacy: Practice Beyond Aesthetics Alec Borrill 07027752
breaking through the glass wall of Bishopsgate and landing the precedent for large scale development to the east of the city boundary.
Above: Aerial view of the development area
The view above gives an insight into the tension which a development of this scale would generate. Bishopsgate (indicated with the dashed red line) is the boundary between The City of London and Tower Hamlets. To the left, large scale, financial, monolithic blocks occupy huge areas of land in the city, in addition to the vast expanse of land occupied by Liverpool Street Station. The low scale environment of Spitalfields and Brick lane (indicated with the yellow dashed line) is epitomised by the city blocks outlined in green. These streets to the right of the market are occupied by slim Georgian town houses, with mixed use properties of restaurants and flats, clubs and bars, creating Brick Lane. The development area, outlined in red, sits between these two opposite ends of the architectural scale and community demographic. An expression of community issues could be paralleled with that of the architectural problems Foster would have dealt with when considering these differences of scale. Much in the way the relationships between the buildings had to work well the relationships between the owners / occupiers / traders and residents was also key, with his duty of care lying in the effort to provide a scenario which accommodates all concerned, in addition to his client.
London Metropolitan University Department of Architecture and Spatial Design ADP023N Advocacy: Practice Beyond Aesthetics Alec Borrill 07027752
‘RIBA Code of Professional Conduct: Principle 3: Relationships. Members should respect the relevant rights and interests of others. 3.1
Members should respect the beliefs and opinions of other people, recognise social diversity and treat everyone fairly. Have proper concern & due regard for the effect that their work may have on its users and the local community.’8
This principle is the root of all problems associated with the redevelopment of the market. As the architect of the programme leniency in the interpretation of this principle must be made. If an architect’s liability for a scheme is set at ‘the local community’ as a possibly effected collective there is a huge range of opinions which must be addressed and resolved. This is simply not possible, and also unfair. For example, the opinions of a market stall trader and their beliefs of how the scheme will affect their livelihood differ dramatically from that of a regular visitor to the market; and will and should have different weightings. Considering the people who would be directly affected by the scheme include the following: Finance: Hammerson Plc Spitalfields Development Group Allen & Overy
Community: Spitalfields Market stall traders Local businesses located on the perimeter of the market buildings
A conference entitled ‘Connecting Finance with Communities’ occurred in September 2001 with aims to ‘examine the role of the financial services sector and business in building strong neighbourhoods on the city fringe’9. This, though not directly related or organised to promote the Spitalfields scheme, provoked a strong reaction from the SMUT campaign, based on the apparent exclusion of communities, as Jil Cove, the Chair of the Spitalfields Community Association stated ‘...“It's outrageous that the City has the audacity to hold a conference and claims to be linking financial bodies to local community groups when the tickets are priced around £200-£400 per person. How many community members are they hoping to attract at that price?...we have clearly not been invited”’ 10. RIBA Code of Professional Conduct, January 2005, pg 5 Crystal Palace Foundation 04/11/01: DEMOLITION IMMINENT http://www.crystal.dircon.co.uk/links_societies.htm#smut accessed on 12/12/07 10 Crystal Palace Foundation 04/11/01: DEMOLITION IMMINENT http://www.crystal.dircon.co.uk/links_societies.htm#smut accessed on 12/12/07 8 9
London Metropolitan University Department of Architecture and Spatial Design ADP023N Advocacy: Practice Beyond Aesthetics Alec Borrill 07027752
I can understand the frustration at this occurring, and it does not comply with Principle 3.1 as the entry price would obviously and actively expel certain people from less prosperous backgrounds to express their valid opinions. As a possible result of this point of view a public exhibition of the planning application was arranged in March 2002. The planning consultants employed to work on the proposal by Hammerson plc, Montague Evans, oversaw and published a report on the exhibition of the planning proposals, organised by Spitalfields Development Limited, as a result of wishing to know what the general feeling of the ‘local community’ was. The report consisted of various ways to voice opinion on the scheme and visitors were invited to record their comments in a visitors’ book and/or on pre-printed cards. The exhibition was ‘well attended with 234-entries recorded in the visitors book and 44 opinion cards returned’11. Aspects addressed on the proposal were as follows: -
More public space (than any previous scheme); Brushfield Street historic frontages kept; More space for the market, especially at weekends; More shops; Less bulk for the office block; Residential developments on the Lamb Street side.
The cards asked the visitor to rate, on a sliding scale, rating from ‘very good’ to ‘could do better’, whether they supported the above aspects of the scheme, with particular reference to the previous Foster scheme of 2001. I appreciate that the method of assessing the proposals, being carried out on behalf of the planning consultant, may have been bias towards supporting the scheme; but this appears at first instances to be a fair and appropriate method to appraise the local attitude. This certainly allowing for any further comments and concerns to be voiced and recorded. Indeed, running over a period of six days the report allowed for a good chance for the community and people working in the market to organise and voice their views in this way. Cards not filled out on the day but sent to Spitalfields Developments Limited before the 7th April 2002 were also included in the statistics. If the local community view was a negative one, this could have been expressed and recorded. The conclusion reported ‘Whilst there were a number of objections expressed, it is clear that the majority view was one of support...’12. Montague Evans , The Bishops Square Development, Public Exhibition of Planning Application Scheme Proposals, 18 March-23 March 2002, Data and Analysis 12 Montague Evans , The Bishops Square Development, Public Exhibition of Planning Application Scheme Proposals, 18 March-23 March 2002, Data and Analysis 11
London Metropolitan University Department of Architecture and Spatial Design ADP023N Advocacy: Practice Beyond Aesthetics Alec Borrill 07027752
This would have proven a perfect opportunity for SMUT to communicate the views of their members and community followers as a large collective, something which was denied to them at the more general meeting in September. As a factual report, Fosters designs for the area were well received, with 54% of comments being positive, 17% negative and 29% recording ‘no impression’. Speaking to Jil Cove, about this occurrence, and trying to understand why this chance had been missed I was told that the results that were published “didn’t match the public perception of the area”13. Many of the market stall traders at the time where quietly enforced to have no negative comments for the development and as their details were required on the feedback forms or the visitor book this did not allow for confidentiality of their views. In response to this the SMUT campaign group lead an undercover assessment of the trader’s opinions, where their voice would be represented by the SMUT’s lawyers, allowing the individual traders anonymity from their opinions. Of the 200+ pre-written letters sent out to all traders, which required only their names filled in, SMUT received 22 responses. To understand the reasons for this lack of apparent concern it was explained that a majority of the traders at that time had arranged for new sites for their stalls with the impending application or were sporadic traders at Spitalfields Market, with little or no ongoing association with the site. In addition to the market traders, occupiers of the perimeter to the extension building who were disrupted by the development are listed and accounted for in the planning application forms, listing the tenancy agreements and their new places of residents. It is difficult to assess the role Fosters would have had within this period of ‘community opinion’ assessment. Though in respect to the ‘formalities’ which should be carried out to appease RIBA principle 3.1 the general consensus was one of approval. If the original limitation of liability to the directly affected population (the Spitalfields Market stall traders and businesses located on the perimeter of the 1920’s market building) is addressed twice and only a small amount of objection is raised, Fosters duty of care cannot be argued against. Saying this, the role of the architect in this case is dissolved and the boundaries unclear. Due to the complex nature of the scheme, and it’s size, issues which would be considered the priority of the architect fell to other people, Montague Evans and SDL in this example, to provide information. None-the-less, as a written factual document, the report shows a supporting majority for the scheme, from both current and possible future users. 13
Meeting will SMUT former sectary Jil Cove, 06/01/08
London Metropolitan University Department of Architecture and Spatial Design ADP023N Advocacy: Practice Beyond Aesthetics Alec Borrill 07027752
It is this ‘transfer of care’ from the architect to a sub-contracted representative which raises questions of ‘loop holes’ in the RIBA Principles. If another professional body is employed by your client to look after an area of the scheme, what rights do you have to control this and review the works carried out? An important section of questions not represented for sliding scale evaluation was the ‘future of Spitalfields’; how the development and the new demographic it would attract due to its ‘city’ roots, would change the area. Ripple effects surrounding any development are normally assumed to be a positive result, increased house prices and increased prosperity to an neighbourhood. The negative effects of rising rent prices and locals being priced out of the housing market of a previously inexpensive area of London was something considered by Hammerson and Tower Hamlets council, acknowledging the needs of the local business community. This lead to conditions in the planning approval to state the building works to include 14 shops and five restaurants marketed as ‘alternative’ businesses. Market space, and the reduction in stall numbers was a major concern for the SMUT campaign group. The Foster proposal now occupies over three fifths of the original market area, though this reduction of space has ‘weeded out stalls which duplicate products’14 this in turn raising the creativity and uniqueness of products on offer and makes the market a truly vibrant and alternative place to shop; a testament to the beginnings of the market place in the early 90’s. In addition to this, when discussing the increase in rental prices that I assumed would have been obligatory; I was assured that the prices for a week day and a Sunday pitch within the market had remained constant, set at £10 and £70 respectively. Although this is not something Foster had any control over, the extra public spaces provided allowed for adaptability and further stall provision. Despite the (possibly forced) disregard for the loss of a large portion of the market area by the market traders, this was still a driving force behind the original objections raised by the SMUT campaign.
14 Wickham, Fiona 2003: Spitalfields bows to market pressure. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2410393.stm accessed on 27/10/2007
London Metropolitan University Department of Architecture and Spatial Design ADP023N Advocacy: Practice Beyond Aesthetics Alec Borrill 07027752
Above: Old Spitalfields Market
Above: Crispin Place Market Area
Consulting the occupation figures for the market, and assessing the true effect the development had on the trader’s plots results in positive figures. Before the development, the average market occupancy was 320 stalls (figures based on Sunday trading – biggest trading day). Once the development was completed, 160 stall spaces were provided. In addition to the developments allocated market area it was noted that the covered link between the market and office building (Crispin Place) would provide an excellent spill out space for the market, this accommodating a further 160 stalls. In addition to this, the public spaces provided by the Foster scheme, in particular, the pedestrian zone of Lamb Street can accommodate a further 60 stalls (though these are not under cover). The resulting calculation provides a maximum total of 380 stalls, more than were being accommodated before the proposal. Going back to the idea of limited liability concerning the reference of ‘local community’ in principle 3.1 the users of the space were being considered, and ultimately accommodated in the Foster proposals. When discussing the defeat SMUT encountered with Jil I raised questions concerning their outlook on the scheme from the beginning. Looking at the body of organisations they were confronted with, listed by her as ‘Fosters + Partners, The City (Corporation), Tower Hamlets Council, Ken Livingstone, and the Government’ (mainly John Prescott’s and Dick Kayburne’s support for the scheme) the realistic outcome was always going to involve some level of redevelopment. The problem I identified while with her is the SMUT campaign saw any loss to market space as a failing in their role. Questioned if she honestly thought this was a realistic choice, her response was mixed. We then discussed the Will Alsop proposal and discovered his role in the history of the development.
London Metropolitan University Department of Architecture and Spatial Design ADP023N Advocacy: Practice Beyond Aesthetics Alec Borrill 07027752
Will Alsop’s involvement in the campaign alongside SMUT was an informal arrangement through the contacts the group had developed over its history of local community interface. Due to the casual relationship Alsop retained with the group his duties as an ‘architect’ are somewhat unclear and not set in the conventional sense of the architect and client with which the RIBA codes would take effect. Non-the-less the way Alsop conducted himself, and how he approached the task of acting on behalf of SMUT would be expected to follow the protection of the perception of the architectural profession. As Alsop’s scheme with SMUT was never a ‘real’ project, very little in the way of documentation exists. The knowledge I have gained about the interaction with the SMUT campaign group exists only from the meetings and discussions I have been able to conduct with the SMUT member Jil Cove.
Above: The proposal by Alsop. Architecturally I feel Fosters scheme combines the two scales of the City and Spitalfields far more successfully.
While discussing his role and the proposal, I enquired to the elements Alsop included in his scheme. What I discovered is the design put forward for the SMUT campaign was not a community involved model but simply a project Alsop had decided to create on hearing about the issues with the Foster proposal. Jil mentioned his involvement was limited to two arranged meetings, where the general ideas SMUT had were discussed, then the following week, Alsop presented a conceptual idea which ‘got everyone at the campaign group very excited’15. I’m mixed in my view of whether this was a fair route to take. By this time in the project, Foster would have been considering the redesign of the CABE criticised scheme. Within the profession I believe it would have been more professional of Alsop to try and communicate with Foster, at this stage. This would have provided a professional ‘voice’ to the SMUT group, something I believe wasn’t achievable with the members it comprised of originally. Also, as mentioned, the action of Alsop to work for, and produce a counter proposal for the opposition group is a rather public criticism of the Foster scheme. 15
Meeting will SMUT former sectary Jil Cove, 06/01/08
London Metropolitan University Department of Architecture and Spatial Design ADP023N Advocacy: Practice Beyond Aesthetics Alec Borrill 07027752
Indeed it goes against the RIBA code of professional conduct where, ‘no member must maliciously or unfairly criticise or discredit another member or that member’s work’16
Fortunately the collaboration with Alsop and the SMUT team was short lived. Once the ‘concept proposal’ was finished a meeting with Ken Livingstone was arranged to discuss the project and the markets future. After this meeting Alsop abandoned the group, mainly down to a ‘disagreement’ concerning the proposed scheme between the group and himself. I am glad that Fosters scheme was built. Before starting this course I had only visited the market once in 2004. On that day I enjoyed finding this area of London which was ‘undiscovered’ and bohemian. On hearing that the whole place was being developed, and by Fosters, my initial expectations were to not bother returning, as I expected the market to be gone completely, maximising the amount of land solely for the developers needs. Initially the basis of my paper was intended to be a full attack on the loss of a community space, and how an architects duty of care should cover not just the preservation of the buildings but preserving the area’s unique qualities, and accommodating the interests of the original market traders and the community it serves. Where London has engulfed so many of the separate communities it was once made up of, these communities and their identities have to be conserved and protected. I was in complete support for the SMUT campaign, although by the time I began researching this organisation had finished, and I wanted to ‘avenge’ their fight against Foster and the cities expansion into this area which wasn’t theirs. Fortunately, and surprisingly, this feeling did not continue once I returned to the site one Sunday afternoon. Coming from the dead weekend streets of the city I was greeted with the bustling centre of well developed and planned spaces. The old market I remembered was still there, despite being smaller, but it was the sense of space which I was immediately impressed with. Concerning the community involvement there is a feeling that the space has begun the transform from ‘community’ to commercial. There is no doubting it, this is definitely the case. Although this is an argument point against the scheme, it can equally be argued that to live in what is the centre of one of the commercial capital cities of the world one must understand certain amenities are not going to be
16
Chappell, David (ed.) 2003: The Architect in Practice. Blackwall Publishing. Pg32
London Metropolitan University Department of Architecture and Spatial Design ADP023N Advocacy: Practice Beyond Aesthetics Alec Borrill 07027752
accessible. Also the ‘reason’ of the area, the market, will naturally attract over time a commercially focused environment. The scheme appraisal conducted by Montague Evans and Spitalfields Development Limited, and further efforts to raise objection to the proposal by SMUT revealed a lack of community opposition. As stated, the role of the architect in protecting and considering the views of the local community here is difficult, due to the size of the development, and the variety of people it attracts. The area as it stands today appears to please many of it’s visitors. Unfortunately I feel this is one of Fosters more overlooked schemes, but perhaps this is a testament to the understated offices that work with, rather than dominating Brushfield street; with the market community still acting as the heart of the development.
London Metropolitan University Department of Architecture and Spatial Design ADP023N Advocacy: Practice Beyond Aesthetics Alec Borrill 07027752
Bibliography Books: Chappell, David (ed.) 2003: The Architect in Practice. Blackwall Publishing The RIBA Code of Conduct, Royal Institute of British Architects, 2005
Files: Online Planning file for the scheme. www.towerhamltets.org.uk Montague Evans , The Bishops Square Development, Public Exhibition of Planning Application Scheme Proposals, 18 March-23 March 2002, Data and Analysis
General Websites: www.visitspitalfields.com www.spitalfields.org.uk www.architecture.com
Specific Web Pages: Gates, Charlie 2005: City on the march. http://bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=449&storycode=3057609 accessed on 27/10/2007 Kennett, Stephen 2004: The city meets Spitalfields. http://www.bsjonline.co.uk/story.asp?storyType=162&sectioncode=200&storyCode=3057062 accessed on 27/10/2007 Wickham, Fiona 2003: Spitalfields bows to market pressure. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2410393.stm accessed on 27/10/2007 Roberts, Gwyn 2006: Hammerson prepares to go Native with Spitalfields sale. http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?sectionscode=530&storycode=3062732 accessed on 27/10/2007 Benzine, Adam 2006: Spit and polish. http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?storycode=3073726 accessed on 27/10/2007 Danaher, Tim 2001: Hammerson plans ‘son of Broadgate’. http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?sectionscode=36&storycode=3044723 accessed on 27/10/2007
London Metropolitan University Department of Architecture and Spatial Design ADP023N Advocacy: Practice Beyond Aesthetics Alec Borrill 07027752
Danaher, Tim 2001: City – Sun in the City. http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?sectionscode=38&storycode=3024172 accessed on 27/10/2007 Danaher, Tim 2001: Spitalfields scheme faces lengthy judicial review. http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?sectionscode=36&storycode=2003729 accessed on 27/10/2007
Thomas, Daniel 2005: English Heritage chief slams Smithfield market plans. http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?sectionscode=36&storycode=3052539 accessed on 27/10/2007 Spring, Martin 2005: 19 Years, 17 architects and a rich Roman lady. http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=583&storycode=3056136 accessed on 27/10/2007 Spring, Martin 2005: The city marches east. http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=583&storycode=3056134 accessed on 27/10/2007 Leftly, Mark 2003: CABE puts pressure on Spitalfields. http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=29&storycode=1014945 accessed on 27/10/2007 Mackenzie, Polly 2002: Spitalfields redevelopment given go ahead. http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3022290 accessed on 27/10/2007 Agenda, Ivan 2001: City invades Spitalfields market. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/06/6316.html?c=on accessed on 27/10/2007 BD online 2004: Fight for Spitalfields Goes on. http://bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3034791 accessed on 27/10/2007 BD online 2007: New life for Spitalfields. http://bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3086229 accessed on 27/10/2007 CABE Online 06/03//02: Design Review, Design Review Comments http://www.cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=971&field=sitesearch&term=spitalfields&type=0 accessed on 02/01/08 Crystal Palace Foundation 04/11/01: DEMOLITION IMMINENT http://www.crystal.dircon.co.uk/links_societies.htm#smut accessed on 12/12/07
London Metropolitan University Department of Architecture and Spatial Design ADP023N Advocacy: Practice Beyond Aesthetics Alec Borrill 07027752
Many thanks to the following people and organisations for their time and effort in helping me research this paper: Jil Cove, Sectary and Chairperson,
Spitalfields Market Under Threat Spitalfields Community Association
Eric Graham, Market Manager,
Spitalfields Market
Derek Cox, Senior Youth and Community Worker,
New Avenues Youth Project
Richard Murrell, Planning Officer Yanire Sylva, Assistant Designer
Tower Hamlets Administration Planning Department SMC Alsop London