Urban Design Foundation: Comparative study

DENSITY

TOWER HAMLETS SOUTHWARK

This site interested me due to the dominance of railway lines and bridges. Furthermore, a range of building scales, typologies and land uses are present. Parts of the site have a fine urban grain with high pedestrian permeability, juxtaposed alongside larger blocks and denser areas. The site borders the River Thames to the north.

This site similarly borders a river to the north and contains a raised railway line. This produces some interesting interfaces and land patterns. There is a diverse building style across the site with various a range of housing types, which contrast industrial units including a large distribution warehouse.

Note: Where FAR values fall between categories, the higher category is used.

COMPARISON

The two sites have contrasting densities. An irregular and denser urban grain in Southwark (61% coverage) contrasts a more open and linear pattern in Tower Hamlets (50% coverage).

Despite varied building heights across both sites (figures 3-4), average height is greater in Southwark with several tall buildings (>25m) towards the riverside. The tallest buildings stand at 78.5m (Southwark) and 32.6m (Tower Hamlets).

Figures 5-6 demonstrate the higher average Floor Area Ratios (FARs) in Southwark. Few plots in Tower Hamlets have an FAR value of >4, whereas such values are common across Southwark.

Street width was included as a density indicator as it incorporates factors of perceived density and open space; both valuable in density assessments (Dovey & Pafka 2018). Despite the lower density in Tower Hamlets, the main roads are narrower to that in Southwark. Yet, street width is more consistent across Tower Hamlets, whereas there are more <5m wide pedestrian streets in Southwark. Southwark’s overall higher density reflects its inner-city location, contrasting with Tower Hamlets’ more suburban position.

Figure 1: Figure Ground Map (OS 2021a)

Figure 3: Building heights (OS 2021a, OS 2021b)

Figure 5: Floor Area Ratio (Land Registry 2022, OS 2021a) Figure 7: Street width (OS 2021a)

Figure 2: Figure Ground Map (OS 2021a)

Figure 4: Building heights (OS 2021a, OS 2021b)

Figure 6: Floor Area Ratio (Land Registry 2022, OS 2021a) Figure 8: Street width (OS 2021a)

TOWER HAMLETS SOUTHWARK

Functional Mix: Live/Work/Visit

Both sites have a varied functional mix, yet there is a predominance of ‘visit’ functions in Southwark and ‘live’ functions in Tower Hamlets. Therefore, Southwark serves more as a visitor destination than Tower Hamlets. Additionally, Southwark has a larger number of mixed-function plots compared to Tower Hamlets, particularly in the live/work category; perhaps reflecting the higher density and demands on land. Analysis of building age shows a range of building periods in both locations, but particularly in Southwark which has a substantial number of pre-1849 buildings. In contrast, historic buildings in Tower Hamlets are mostly late-19th Century, with a high proportion of buildings built since 1950.

Figure 9: Visit/ Work/ Live land uses (Land Registry 2022, Google 2023)

Figure 10: Visit/ Work/ Live land uses (Land Registry 2022, Google 2023)

Figure 12: Building ages (OS 2021a, Colouring London [n.d.], Historic England 2023)

Figure 13: Building ages (OS 2021a, Colouring London [n.d.], Historic England 2023)

Figure 11: Street views of example land uses (Google 2023)

Source: Dovey & Pafka (2018, p. 26)

Oldest: Cathedral dates back to 12th Century (Grade I listed)

Newest: Offices constructed c. 2020

Winchester Wharf (Grade II listed) built c. 1814

Oldest: Early 19th Century house (Grade II listed)

Gas cylinders built 1866 and 1889

Newest: Apartment blocks completed c. 2021

Map legend

A key ‘visit’ location is a large indoor food market.

Housing is the least predominant function, with a proportion being student accommodation.

‘Live’ uses are the predominant land function.

There are many industrial premeses within the site.

Figure 14: Different building periods (Google 2023)

SOUTHWARK

TOWER HAMLETS

Both sites have high levels of permeability providing route choice for pedestrians. Average weighted area perimeter (AwaP) calculations show that Southwark has a slightly higher level of permeability compared to Tower Hamlets, as reflected through interface catchment (IC) calculations from central points in each site (figures 19-20, top). The more suburban layout of Tower Hamlets severely impacts permeability in some areas (figure 20, bottom).

In connectivity terms, both sites offer good public transport provision and pedestrian access. However, options are more prolific in Southwark with 12 bus routes and cycle hire provision (figure 17).

Figure 15: Pedestrian and vehicular spaces (OS 2021a)

Figure 16: Pedestrian and vehicular spaces (OS 2021a)

Figure 19: Interface catchments within 200m of two different starting points: Borough High St (top), Rochester Walk (bottom) (map derived from: OS 2021a)

Figure 20: Interface catchments within 200m of two different starting points: Cambridge Heath Station (top), Huddleston Close (bottom) (map derived from: OS 2021a)

Figure 21: Block perimeter sizes (map derived from: OS 2021a)

Figure 22: Block perimeter sizes (map derived from: OS 2021a)

Figure 17: Public transport and pedestrian connectivity (OS 2021a, TfL 2023a, TfL 2023b, TfL 2023c, Footways 2023)

Figure 18: Public transport and pedestrian connectivity (OS 2021a, TfL 2023a, TfL 2023b, TfL 2023c, Footways 2023)

PUBLIC/ PRIVATE INTERFACE

TOWER HAMLETS SOUTHWARK

COMPARISON

Both sites include various public/private interfaces. However, Tower Hamlets has a greater length of impermeable interfaces, reducing “vitality, identity, and safety” (Wood & Dovey 2015, p. 5) thus representing a key disadvantage of the urban design. In contrast, the numerous retail premises in Southwark provide many direct-transparent interfaces which are advantageous to street life. Of particular interest are public/private interfaces under and alongside the railway lines. In Southwark, there is variation with various direct interfaces under bridges (figure 25). In Tower Hamlets, there are a range of direct-opaque interfaces alongside railway arches but only impermeable-opaque interfaces under bridges (figure 26). Vehicle setback interfaces reveal car-oriented communities in both sites.

Direct - Opaque

Direct - Transparent

Impermeable - Opaque

Pedestrian Setback

Car/ vehicle Setback

Categories adapted from Wood & Dovey (2015)

Impermeable - Transparent

Photographic Legend

Railway interfaces

Figure 25: Public/private interfaces under railway bridges in Southwark (Google 2023)

Figure 26: Public/private interfaces under (left) and alongside (right) the railway line in Tower Hamlets (Google 2023)

Figure 23: Categorisation of public/ private interfaces (map derived from: OS 2021a)

Figure 24: Categorisation of public/ private interfaces (map derived from: OS 2021a)

Railway interfaces

Images: Google (2023)

‘Row-slabs’ are common in the high street retail areas in both sites, comprising mainly of terraced buildings typified by continuous frontages. Southwark lacks ‘perimeter blocks’ reflecting the fewer open/green spaces in this site. Clusterings of typologies in Tower Hamlets creates distinct zones within the site. Many plots in Southwark have an ‘irregular’ typology; including building sites, public realm, and plots with a mixture of buildings. At the centre of the site is Borough Market which has a unique typology being built around the railway line. The urban design is therefore interesting and distinctive. These characteristics lack in Tower Hamlets.

‘Tower’

Plots of buildings which have no/ li�le design rela�onship with adjacent buildings

‘Row-slab’

Plots of individual buildings forming ‘slabs’ due to connec�ons with adjacent buildings along a line

‘Con�nuous slab’ Plots containing individual buildings in a linear/ oblong form

‘Perimeter block’ Plots with buildings arranged around a central open space

Irregular/ varied Plots which do not align to the above typologies

Photographic legend

050100m

050100m

Figure 27: Building typologies (map: Land Registry 2022, categories: adapted from Dovey 2016)

Figure 28: Building typologies (map: Land Registry 2022, categories: adapted from Dovey 2016)

Note: Legend shows example plots from each site falling within the respective categories. Images: Google (2023)

DENSITY & MIX

TOWER HAMLETS SOUTHWARK

DENSITY & MIX ACCESS, INTERFACES & TYPE ACCESS, INTERFACES & TYPE

In each category, the two sites demonstrate distinctive morphological characteristics. For example, Southwark is the denser of the two sites, as shown through factors including coverage and FAR.

Functional and formal mix analysis reveal Southwark’s broad mix of land uses, centring around the indoor market. There are also a wide range of historic buildings adding to local distinctiveness and character. In contrast, land functions in Tower Hamlets are more segregated and average building ages are younger. These factors are not necessarily negative, rather each site serves a different function with Tower Hamlets having a larger residential purpose.

The two sites vary the least in access terms: both providing good levels of permeability and connectivity within the sites. Overall, Southwark performs more strongly with no ‘dead end’ streets and greater public transport accessibility. Both sites have varied public/private interfaces which positively shape people’s experiences of place (Wood & Dovey 2015). However, Southwark has more direct-transparent interfaces which have the most positive impact on street life. Notably, railway-related interfaces are positively utilised in Southwark in contrast to the blank facades found in Tower Hamlets. Finally, understandings of plot typologies build upon ‘mix’ findings to suggest Southwark has a more varied and rich urban form, compared to more generalised typologies found in Tower Hamlets.

This project began with an interest in the relationship between the two sites and their railway lines. The railways are a key feature and while they may be seen as an obstacle, arguably they provide interest and variation to the urban morphology. Perhaps ironically, the site with greater railway presence (Southwark) has a higher density, a greater mix, and more active interfaces compared with Tower Hamlets. At first glance, such an outcome may seem improbable.

Another key finding is how the indoor market in Southwark has a positive urban design impact on the whole site. It increases pedestrian permeability, and additionally provides many direct-transparent interfaces: improving street vitality.

Colouring London [No date]. Colouring London map. Available at: https://colouring.london/view/age [Accessed: 7 January 2023].

Dovey, K. 2016. Urban design thinking: A conceptual toolkit. London: Bloomsbury Academic. doi: 10.5040/9781474228503

Dovey, K. & Pafka, E. 2018. Mapping urbanities: Morphologies, flows, possibilities. Abingdon: Routledge. Footways. 2023. Footways digital map. Available at: https://footways.london/digital-map [Accessed: 11 January 2023].

Google. 2023. Streetview imagery. Available at: https://www.google.com/maps [Accessed: 10 January 2023].

CONCLUSION REFERENCES

Ordnance Survey (OS). 2021b. MasterMap® Building Height Attribute [CSV geospatial data] (updated: 2 September 2021). Available at: EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service https://digimap.edina.ac.uk [Accessed: 21 December 2022].

Pafka, E. & Dovey, K. 2017. Permeability and interface catchment: measuring and mapping walkable access. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 10(2), pp. 150-162. doi: 10.1080/17549175.2016.1220413

Transport for London (TfL). 2023a. Bus map. Available at: https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/bus [Accessed: 11 January 2023].

Historic England. 2023. Search the list: Map search. Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/map-search?clearresults=true?clearresults=True#?search [Accessed: 7 January 2023].

Land Registry. 2022. Index polygons spatial data (INSPIRE). [This information is subject to Crown copyright and database rights 2022 and is reproduced with the permission of HM Land Registry. The polygons (including the associated geometry, namely x, y co-ordinates) are subject to Crown copyright and database rights 2022 Ordnance Survey 100026316.] Available at: https://use-land-property-data.service.gov.uk/datasets/inspire/download [Accessed: 10 January 2023].

Ordnance Survey (OS). 2021a. OS MasterMap® Topography Layer [GeoPackage geospatial data] (updated: 23 June 2021). Available at: EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service https://digimap.edina.ac.uk [Accessed: 21 December 2022].

Transport for London (TfL). 2023b. Cycle map. Available at: https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/cycle?intcmp=40402 [Accessed: 11 January 2023].

Transport for London (TfL). 2023c. Santander cycles: Find a station map. Available at: https://santandercycles.tfl.gov.uk/map [Accessed: 11 January 2023].

Wood, S. & Dovey, K. 2015. Public/private urban interfaces: type, adaptation, assemblage. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 8(1), pp. 1-16. doi: 10.1080/17549175.2014.891151

Figure 29: Density and Mix map summary - Southwark

Figure 30: Density and Mix map summary - Tower Hamlets Figure 32: Access, Interfaces and Type map summary - Tower Hamlets

Figure 31: Access, Interfaces and Type map summary - Southwark