Urban Design Masterplan Proposal - Year 5 Portfolio by Tom Greenfield

PART 4 - CONCLUSION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

PREFACE This report will explain and illustrate my design for the site (or parcel) taken from the studio 1 module. The report is set out in 4 parts. Part 1 will begin with an introduction to the project and site followed by details of the studio 1 parcel necessary to gain a full understanding of the new site. Part 2 will introduce the themes that I have used in the design:The design is explained in detail in Part 2 through design themes. The themes provide a platform to discuss all the issues raised throughout the project and how they have been dealt with. They are supported by images of what the proposal should look like and carefully considered precedents that have informed my decisions. Part 3 will go into detail about the over-arching design issues (landscape treatment, sustainability and economic feasibility) that cannot be categorised into the design themes. Although as important as the design themes, this section provides all the additional information not covered in Part 2. Part 4 will conclude the report with a brief SWOT of the final proposal and a finishing statement on what reflections I have had of this project including what I would change.

CONTENTS PART 1 - UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT 6 Introduction 7 Policies Considered 8 Studio 1 Masterplan 9 SWOT of Parcel 11 Studio II Parcel 12 Studio II Masterplan

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY 14 Concept - Key Factors 15 Visual Matrix 16 Site Impacts 17 Concept Development 18 Development Diagrams 19 3D model of site 20 Design Explanation and Themes 21 Design Explanation Matrix 22 High Levels of Social Interaction 24 Shared Responsibilities and Values 28 Demographically Inclusive 30 Appropriate and Interesting Built Aesthetic -Unit Breakdown -Design Types 1-5 38 Design Specifics and Summary

PART 3 - CENTRAL ISSUES 40 Landscape Treatment 42 Sustainability 45 Sensory Richness 47 Economic Feasibility

PART 4 - CONCLUSION 50 Conclusion 51 Reflections 52 References 55 Appendices

Part 1 will discuss and illustrate the proposal origins. This includes policy, site constraints and a SWOT of the previous studio I site used as a basis for this project.

6 7 8 9 11 12

INTRODUCTION POLICIES CONSIDERED STUDIO 1 MASTERPLAN S W O T O F PA R C E L S T U D I O I I PA R C E L STUDIO II MASTERPLAN

PART 1 - INTRODUCTION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

INTRODUCTION

The Urban Design specialisation for the Part II Architecture MA required us to design a proposal based on the West Oxford AAP. Roughly using the site boundaries specified in the AAP, we undertook a group task and designed a scheme separated into 4 character areas. Now individually, but still communicating as a group, the new project has allowed me to create a better and smaller scale design for one of these character areas (or parcels). When designing this new parcel, I had a few issues partly brought into this project from the previous group project, and partly because I wanted to create a proposal that addressed issues that would ultimately end up with a high quality outcome. The issues I wanted to overcome were: Creating a design that bonded a community together and allows an ideal situation for interaction between site users to occur. To use the existing merits of the site to their full potential in many ways to create an interesting sensory experience. Populating the site with many types of people, not just people passing through. Figure 1-1 Drawing out the design principals

PART 1 - INTRODUCTION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

POLICIES CONSIDERED The policies concerning my project are detailed in this page, I have only included the ones that have been most prevalent throughout my design.

OXFORD POLICIES: POLICY CP.1 - DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS POLICY CP.3 - LIMITING THE NEED TO TRAVEL POLICY CP.6 - EFFICIENT USE OF LAND & DENSITY POLICY CP.8 - DESIGNING DEVELOPMENT TO RELATE TO ITS CONTEXT POLICY CP.9 - CREATING SUCCESSFUL NEW PLACES POLICY CP.10 - SITING OF DEVELOPMENT TO MEET FUNCTIONAL NEEDS POLICY NE.6 - OXFORD’S WATERCOURSE POLICY NE.7 - DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNDEVELOPED FLOOD PLAIN POLICY NE.10 - SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE POLICY HS.4 - GENERAL REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY HS.5 - PROPORTION AND MIX OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BE PROVIDED POLICY HS.8 - BALANCE OF DWELLINGS POLICY HS.21 - PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 3: HOUSING OXFORD LOCAL PLAN 2001-2016 OXFORD WEST END AREA ACTION PLAN (AAP) OXFORD CORE STRATEGY AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPON’S LONDON HOUSING GUIDE

Figure 1-2 Manual for Streets

Figure 1-6 West End AAP

Figure 1-3 UD Compendium

Figure 1-7 SPONS 2011

Figure 1-4 Oxford Core Strategy

Figure 1-8 London Housing Design Guide

Figure 1-5 Oxford Local Plan

Figure 1-9 Affordable Housing SPD

PART 1 - INTRODUCTION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

STUDIO 1 SITE PLAN

^ N

This pllan shows the parcel thaat was desiigned in the Stud dio 1 module. The dasheed areea show ws my parcel for this ((SStud dio II)) p pro ojjecct.

Figure 1-10 Studio 1 Masterplan with Studio II overlay

PART 1 - INTRODUCTION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

SWOT ANALYSIS OF STUDIO 1 PARCEL STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIES 1. Attractive water source

4. Central zone provides a hub to draw people into the site.

As well as providing water-side views for many properties, the water also contributes to the irrigation of the allotments and adds to the sensory richness of the site.

Opportunities 5. Ability to use water in a more inclusive way rather than a flood counter-measure 6. Involve the primary school and develop the urban farming principal further

Figure 1-11 Attractive Water Source

2. Links to surrounding neighbourhoods and major routes

3 4 1

Figure 1-12 Connecting Streets

3. Natural environment highly visible from anywhere on site

Figure 1-14 Studio 1 Plan with Strengths and Opportunities Marked

Figure 1-13 Prominent Natural Environment

PART 1 - INTRODUCTION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

SWOT ANALYSIS OF STUDIO 1 PARCEL WEAKNESSES AND THREATS

Weaknesses

Figure 1-15 Section through Studio 1 Plan Central zone

1. Lack of clarity between public and private areas 2. Lack of sensory experience in central zone 3. Little hierarchy of streets and areas. 4. Awkward corners

Threats 5. Flooding 6. Vandalism, although the central zone is very overlooked and active, there is expensive street furniture here.

2 4

Figure 1-16 Studio 1 Plan with Weaknesses and Threats Marked

PART 1 - INTRODUCTION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

Figure 1-17 Studio II Site Plan

PART 1 - INTRODUCTION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

^ N

Figure 1-18 Studio II complete group site plan

NTS

PART 1 - INTRODUCTION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

Part 2 will illustrate the design process in chronological order. It will begin with the Key Factors taken from the SWOT in Part 1. It will then lead onto the Initial Design Matrix where the Key Factors are looked at in physical terms. Site Impacts will then be briefly analysed resulting in the Concept Development which will be the result of all the above. As a result of the initial analysis and concepts, the Design Explanation and Themes will be outlined with a Design Explanation Matrix showing how the design qualities can be achieved in physical terms. This will then lead on to a detailed explanation of the design ordered in theme order, finishing with a diagram on how integrated community is linked with sensory stimulation.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

K E Y FA C T O R S V I S UA L M AT R I X S I T E I M PA C T S CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DIAGRAMS 3D MODEL OF SITE D E S I G N E X P L A NAT I O N A N D T H E M E S D E S I G N E X P L A NAT I O N M AT R I X 22 HIGH LEVELS OF SO CIAL INTERACTION 2 4 S H A R E D R E S P O N S I B I L I T I E S A N D VA L U E S 2 8 D E M O G R A P H I C A L LY I N C LU S I V E 3 0 A P P R O P R IAT E A N D I N T E R E S T I N G B U I LT A E S T H E T I C -UNIT BREAKDOWN -DESIGN TYPES 1-5 38 DESIGN SPECIFICS AND SUMMARY

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

KEY FACTORS The following themes have been selected as a result of the SWOT analysis. I have outlined the most poignant factors that could really add to the richness of the new area, in both sensory and practical ways.

Figure 2-19 Osney Allotments

Existing Allotments

As a result of this preliminary analysis the following design vision has provided a backbone throughout the design.

Distinctive neighbourhood aesthetic

INTEGRATED COMMUNITY

Figure 2-20 Botley Road

Figure 2-21 River at site

DESIGN VISION:

"To create an integrated community through sensory stimulation"

Vegetation and open space

Figure 2-22 Current site

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

River

INITIAL DESIGN MATRIX

Distinctive neighbourhood aesthetic

KEY FACTORS River

Vegetation/open space

Existing allotments

PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION IDEAS

Figure 2-23 Diagram: Various Images

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

SITE IMPACTS

Figure 2-25 River Page 16 River flanks the site, therefore providing a large, natural barrier between housing on either side of the site. The other potential is flooding of the site. Figure 2-24 Open Space

Figure 2-26 Allotments

Figure 2-25 River

Figure 2-28 Housing abutting site tightly

Figure 2-27 Community Centre

Figure 2-30 Existing Recreational Facilities

Figure 2-29 Google Earth Image of Site

Figure 2-26 Allotments Page 16 Existing allotments are under-used. They could be reduced in size, although they give a lot of character to the area, incorporating it into the new plan would be beneficial for both existing and future users. Figure 2-24 Open Space Page 16 Open space can be reduced without impacting on the users or neighbours. It would be ideal to keep the green link and incorporate it into the new Masterplan. Figure 2-28 Housing abutting site tightly Page 16 The residential block abutting the site is restrained by a small brook lined with trees. Although there is a natural boundary here, the height of the buildings can be used as a precedent for the ridge heights in the new scheme. Figure 2-27 Community Centre Page 16 The local community centre provides a good focal point in the area. I would like to think a dual use for this building could be implemented. Figure 2-30 Existing Recreational Facilities Page 16 Although the open space itself isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t intensively used, the recreational facilities are popular, and it is vital for the community to incorporate this with new proposals.

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT The following illustration shows how I used the information and analysis to form a basis of design. Figure 2-31 Google Earth Image of Site and concept overlay

I have proposed that the green elements on the site extend into it, so the boundaries between built and unbuilt are less defined and therefore creating a green indulgence through the heart of the scheme. The block formation has been arranged so that most blocks address the green space within the site, I foresee this acting as a node or a hub in more detailed design. The blue arrows indicate potential new access into the site. If this place is to be activated, at least one of these links should be implemented. The allotments on the right of the image will be more than halved in size, as they seem to be under used. As my â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Key Factorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; diagram shows on page 1, they provide a strong theme for the new scheme. Incorporating them will not only emphasise this theme, but it will recompense the existing allotment owners for their loss in space.

Figure 2-32 Connections

Figure 2-33 Blocks

Figure 2-34 Connections, blocks and types

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES The following sketches have been drawn to illustrate some general and some specific Urban Design principals that are necessary for this proposal to succeed. Throughout the design explanation, these principals will be addressed at the appropriate theme.

Figure 2-35 Hierarchy of Open spaces

Figure 2-36 Make Routes interesting

Figure 2-37 Identifiable Entrances

Figure 2-38 Overshadowing

Figure 2-39 Public Area Focus

Figure 2-40 Hierarchy of connected spaces

Figure 2-41 Intermixed housing types

Figure 2-42 Places to stop and sit

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

Figure 2-43 3D site model showing central hub and surrounding blocks

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

DESIGN EXPLANATION AND THEMES DESIGN VISION "TO CREATE AN INTEGRATED COMMUNITY THROUGH SENSORY STIMULATION"

Definition of vision: A majority of the people in the site interacting with each other often, across the demographic spectrum of the neighbourhood, and with the backdrop of an interesting and exciting place

HIGH LEVELS OF SOCIAL INTERACTION

SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES AND VALUES

DEMOGRAPHICALLY INCLUSIVE

APPROPRIATE AND INTERESTING AESTHETIC

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

DESIGN EXPLANATION MATRIX The following matrix shows how the design themes on page 20 link to the vision of ‘Integrated Community’ and the ways in which they can be achieved in physical terms.

WHAT URBAN QUALITIES MUST BE PRESENT FOR AN INTEGRATED COMMUNITY?

HOW CAN THESE URBAN QUALITIES BE DELIVERED?

1. High levels of social interaction

Connected streets, pedestrian dominance, local shops, recreational areas, play areas

2. Shared responsibilities and values

Shared open spaces, gardens, community farm

Accessibility for all, areas for wheels as well as feet, centralised meeting points

3. Demographically inclusive

4. Appropriate and Interesting Aesthetic

Local (Oxfordesque), varied, consistent detailing

Figure 2-44 Diagram: Various Images

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

1. HIGH LEVELS OF SOCIAL INTERACTION (MACRO) DIVERSE, CROSS-SEASONAL ACTIVITIES AND DAILY TASKS THAT ALLOW A LARGE PROPORTION OF SITE USERS THE CHANCE TO INTERACT WITH OTHERS

Macro Design Actions (DA) DA 1: Connected streets to increase population of the site. DA 2: Hierarchy of the hub and nodes will encourage people to move from one to the other DA3: Mixed residential tenure will allow a variety of people to activate the area for more hours of the day DA4: Allowing wide field of view from the central hub to many residences and public areas

Figure 2-47 DA 1, Connected streets increase activity

Due to the river acting as a barrier between neighbouring residential blocks, it is important to encourage use of the site. This can be partially resolved by building links with the neighbouring blocks, but this alone will not activate the site. Like Jan Gehl states in his book ‘Cities for People’ ( Gehl 2010) by designing opportunities for staying it not only increases the chances that people interact, but also increases the likely hood of ‘something happening when something happens’ as Gehl states.

Figure 2-46 DA 2, Hierarchy of hub and nodes to encourage movement

Figure 2-45 Movement Diagram

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

1.1 HIGH LEVELS OF SOCIAL INTERACTION (MICRO) Micro Design Actions (DA) DA 1: Playground areas provide activities for children and give back existing facilities DA 2: Several benches/bike racks have been specified at key points in the hub to allow people to stop and stay DA 3: Allotments have been re-thought and re-introduced in the form of an urban market garden. These consist of several wooden planters (2x5m). This will provide many opportunities for interaction as well as linking the primary school with the site as it is envisaged that the primary school will have a few planters themselves. DA 4: Interactive board to connect residents digitally

Figure 2-50 DA 4, Interactive screen at the central hub

Figure 2-51 DA 2, Natural Bench

Figure 2-54 DA 2, Bike bike-rack

Figure 2-53 DA 1,2,3, places to stop and sit Figure 2-52 DA 3, having a focus to a public space gives it atmosphere

Figure 2-48 Initial sketch of hub area Figure 2-49 CAD Plan with Interaction overlay

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

2. SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES AND VALUES RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, SHARED VALUES ARE THE DESIRE TO LIVE IN A ACTIVE, SOCIAL AND INTEGRATED COMMUNITY

Design Actions (DA) DA 1: Neighbour maintenance of landscape. Like in the Swindon case study, neighbours will be encouraged to maintain their surrounding environment: As proved, by having an emotional attachment with the landscape, it can reduce vandalism and increase opportunities for community interaction DA 2: Urban Market Gardening and selling scheme. The benefits of this are numerous, but in terms of sharing responsibilities it and values, this can bond a community together. DA 3: Car Share scheme. Firstly as there aren’t enough car spaces for all residents, it aides mobility for residents without spaces. Secondly, for a city that has congestion issues, the car share scheme means that the pressure on Oxford is reduced, as well as reducing carbon emissions.

PRECEDENT - THE TRIANGLE - SWINDON This development by Hab Oakus aimed to get people to ‘buy in’ to their new homes. Before the site was even completed, residents were invited (and urged!) to come into the site and assist with the planting of the landscape. By doing this is not only helps the neighbours to get to know one another, but it also forces the residents into an emotional attachment with their surroundings, which one would assume, they would try and maintain. I could see this working well in my site, although more research would have to be carried out on this precedent to see whether the actions the neighbours carried out actually had the desired effect on the neighbourhood.

“IT’S LOVELY. I LIKE THE SIZE OF IT AND IT IS SO BRIGHT. IT’S NICE BECAUSE YOU GO OUT THE FRONT DOOR AND EVERYONE IS LIKE ‘HIYA’ AND ‘MORNING’. WE WERE SO EXCITED WHEN WE FOUND OUT WE WERE GOING TO MOVE HERE.” TRACY HACKETT - RESIDENT (HTTP://WWW.WESTLEA.CO.UK/PUBLICATIONS/HOME_AUTUMN11.PDF)

“Every resident here, we did interview quite rigorously about the values of the scheme but they all bought into it.”

The joint venture between McCloud’s company Hab and the housing group GreenSquare has been designed to “encourage people to spend more time outside” and to “socialise more”. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-14030381) Figure 2-57 DA3, Car Share

Figure 2-55 Hab Oakus development - Swindon Triangle Plan

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

Figure 2-56 Swindon Triangle and Kevin McCloud

1:200 PLAN OF CENTRAL HUB AND SURROUNDING BUILDINGS

Figure 2-58 1:200 of Central hub

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

2.1 SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES AND VALUES

PRECEDENT - GROWING COMMUNITIES - HACKNEY

The Urban Market Gardening and selling scheme within my proposal is based on a case study that has been looked at in some depth. I chose to look at ‘Growing Communities’ based in Hackney Parks. They have a two fold operation; see Figure 2-60 Growing Communities Management Model Page 26. The management of the Urban Market Garden within my site will take the form between the two models in figure 2-28. The box scheme seems favourable spatially, as the planters in the central hub are a suitable size for growing salad, not vegetables. Secondly, as mentioned by the case study, salad is a high value crop, so the potential for profit and re-investment is greater. Thirdly, the box scheme is based on selling the produce through outlets. I have designed a market/shop on the fringe of the site. This not only means there is a place where the produce can be sold, it will also encourage people into the site who normally wouldn’t have visited.

Figure 2-59 Sophie, Growing Communities Apprentice

Figure 2-60 Growing Communities Management Model

Figure 2-61 Growing Communities Hackney Map

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

2.2 SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES AND VALUES Security of the Market Garden

rs nte Pla

Although the proposal encourages many people to get involved with the market garden and the site of planters being so central, the risk of vandalism should already be lower than the allotment, however, there is still a threat from users both inside the site and outside. To address this issue, I have designed a planter (see figures 2-63-64)for the market garden that allows the crops to be locked away at night when they are not photo synthesizing. If finances allowed, these planters could have lights installed inside the covers to increase yield as plants only need about 1-2 hours of darkness.

Market Station>>>>

Bot

Location of Market Garden

ley >>>

Firstly, as part of the design vision: Creating an integrated community through sensory stimulation, it will engage many types of people (as is indicated in my Neighbourhood Story pictogram in Part 3) either passing by or making a concerted visit. Secondly, by being located centrally (see figure 2-29) it allows easy access for those in the retirement home. Thirdly, the Osney Mead Community Primary School will be able to easily access the planters for educational purposes.

Primary school

Rd>

The planters are located in the central hub for three reasons.

Figure 2-65 Site Plan showing location of planters in relation to the primary school and market outlet

The figure above shows the relationship of the primary school and market with the urban market garden. They all are integral to the success of the garden(fig 2-65); the market provides a platform to turn a profit on the garden, and the primary school provides education of the garden and growing to young children so that they can take over responsibilities when they are a little older. This education element has been adapted from the case study where â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;apprenticesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; are trained up.

Figure 2-62 Plan view of planters (not to scale)

Figure 2-63 Planter closed for night

Figure 2-64 Planter open in morning

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

3. DEMOGRAPHICALLY INCLUSIVE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT PROVIDES AND PROVOKES INTERACTION OPPORTUNITIES FOR EVERY DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP

Design Actions (DA) DA 1: Intermixed housing types (and tenures) to activate the area and to increase the amount of opportunities for interaction between demographic groups. DA 2: Mixed recreational areas; urban farm planters in the central hub and a playground for children. In addition the SUD/balancing pond feature allows all demographic groups to benefit. DA 3: Primary school combined with community centre allows people without children to benefit from the building. DA 4: Lifetime homes standard to be applied to the residential homes constructed so that they are not restricted to one type of user during the building’s life. DA 5: Retirement home situated nearest the central hub so that amenities are more accessible to older/impaired people.

PRECEDENT - ELLISTOWN PRIMARY SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY CENTRE

Figure 2-67 Proposed primary school logo

I wanted to combine the existing community centre with mine and the councils desire to have a new primary school in the area. Both of these facilities could be combined, like in this case study (see fig 2-66). It would be likely that the existing community centre would have to be extended, but as the school is only in use 7am-4pm, this leaves a lot of time in the afternoon for other activities. The community centre would also go hand-in-hand with the urban market gardening proposed as they could use this as a ‘base’ for occasional meetings etc.

Indoor Facilities Easy Interior Access Access Ramp Kitchen 2 Toilets (3 Accessible) 1 Baby Changing Outdoor Facilities Easy Exterior Access Picnic/Seating: c.20 Gazebo with c 20 seats School playing field Outdoor facilities only available outside school hours

Figure 2-66 Ellistown Primary School and Community Centre Figure 2-68 DA1, intermixed housing types

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

3.1 DEMOGRAPHICALLY INCLUSIVE: AFFORDABILITY AND TENURE In order to create a neighbourhood that is active and integrated, it is imperative that different demographic groups are mixed within the site. Figure 2-37 shows the breakdown of each of the residential types as well as the location of the Design Actions. The 50% affordable housing provision set by Oxford City Council has nearly (43%) but not completely been achieved. This is mainly due to the close proximity with the city centre; it is hard to achieve the high residual land value (RLV) if affordable housing takes up more of the units that already specified.

Affordable Terraces 8%

DA5

Botley - Apartments 1 bed 12%

DA2

Botley - Apartments 2 bed 24%

Affordable Appartments 35%

Botley - Terraces 15%

Botley - Semidetached 3 bed 6%

Figure 2-70 Doughnut chart showing breakdown of affordable provision

DA3

Figure 2-69 Site Plan showing tenure

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

4. APPROPRIATE AND INTERESTING BUILT AESTHETIC AN ENVIRONMENT THAT BOTH COMPLEMENTS THE LOCAL SURROUNDING BUT ALSO CREATES A UNIQUE PLACE THAT IS VISUALLY STIMULATING

Design Actions (DA) DA 1: Buildings design with link back to Oxford (building height, materials or detailing for example) DA 2: A network of spaces between buildings with hierarchy, this increases legibility and gives the area coherence. DA 3: Variety of building types to be created. This will make for amore interesting aesthetic. There will not be too many types otherwise it risks disneyfication. DA 4: Create buildings that are highly desirable/ sellable. This may mean that more of the buildings are more traditional looking in form.

Historical significance/content - environments that provoke favourable associations Order - organisation, coherence, congruity, legibility and clarity Nasar, J L (1998) The Evaluative Image of the City, Sage, London As the Osney allotment site is so close to the city centre, I feel that it is appropriate to produce a design for the built elements that honours the local character, whilst being distinctive to create a sense of legibility without producing designs of complete pastiche.

Nasar’s criteria/ comparative scale Oxfordshire (large scale)

Naturalness

Upkeep

Openness

Historical

Order

High

Oxford (mid scale)

Mid

High

Very High

High

Botley Road (local scale)

Mid/low

Mid

Low

Mid

Proposal aims

Mid/high

High

Mid

High

In order to address the local character, I have undertaken a brief study of the surrounding environment of Oxfordshire, Oxford and Botley road using Nasar’s criteria to assess the qualities so that I can apply them to my proposal. Visual appreciations are heavily linked with how much we care to value a place Nasar (1998) identified that due to this factor, people ‘liked’ environments based on five criteria:

Naturalness - environments where there is a predominance of natural over build elements Upkeep/civilities - environments that are looked after Openness and defined spaces - blending of defined open space with panoramas of pleasant elements

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

Oxfords Architectural style provides a design base to work from

4.1 AESTHETIC: DESIGN CODE

Nasar’s criteria assessment/ the Oxfordesque

1 2 3 4 5 Figure 2-71 Building 1

Figure 2-72 Building 2

Figure 2-74 Building 4

Variety

Design Code

Distinctiveness /Legibilty

Figure 2-73 Building 3

Figure 2-75 Building 5

A, A1, B, B1, D, E, K, L (3 storey, 2 bedroom flats) C, D1 (2 storey, 2-3 bedroom terraces) H (2 storey, 3 bedroom semi-detached) F (3 storey, 3 bedroom terraced houses) I, I1, J (3-4 storey, 1-2 bedroom flats, affordable/sheltered)

5 Building types

Sellability

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

4.2 UNIT BREAKDOWN Figure 2-76 shows the breakdown of units within the site. This information has been calculated based on the requirements set out in the Balance of Dwellings SPD and the Affordable Housing SPD. To make it easier to compare with the aesthetic of the proposal I have included figure 2-77 to show the proportion of building type within the site.

Why the density? The density of mainly 3-4 storeys (average over site is 53 DPH) is necessary on this site, as the location is very close to Oxford City centre, making the land value higher. To achieve a high residual land value (RLV) it is necessary to have a high density.

4 3

Figure 2-76 Building mix (proportion of units per type)

Figure 2-79 Site plan displaying unit types by letter

Type 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 4 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 Figure 2-78 Illustration of the recommended residential unit mix

Unit Letter A (duplicate unit in plan) B B1 C D D1 D2 E E1 F1 G H I I1 J K L TOTAL

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

Floors 4 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2.5 4 3 3 2 2

Units 16 6 9 4 12 4 13 3 9 1 7 22 12 15 30 7 7

Bedrooms 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 3

177 Figure 2-77 Table to show details of unit types

Affordable

Yes yes yes

yes yes

yes yes yes

Flats Yes yes yes yes

yes yes yes

Area m2 65 65 52 60 60 60 72 62 72 60 70 120 65 50 60 72 72

4.3 BUILDING TYPE 1 Case Study Marston Road Apartments, Oxford (see image)

Figure 2-83 Type Sketch

Figure 2-84 Precedent

‘The Contemporary Apartment’ Design elements Floors: 3 Bedrooms: 1-2 Materials: Timber boarding or orange brick/white render/grey or neutral fenestration Distinctiveness: Steep mono-pitched roofs, planted herb walls to link to previous site occupation.

Price: £249,000 Bedrooms: 2 Materials: Buff brick/white render/zinc roof Gated back garden Undercover bike storage Close to South Park Easy links to Oxford City and London No Parking provision

Rear access through lobby to shared private open space

Oxfordesque elements: Mainly in the stone material choice. Not much Oxford-orientated on this design type to provide variety on site. Basic sizes: Unit width: ~5m Unit length: 6.5-7.5m Open space provision: ~87m2 pp Parking: On street

Figure 2-82 Unit E-E1 showing access to private open space

Open space is accessed through the building cores and through gates located either end of the space (ringed in pink). This is for the residents use only, as it backs on to the gardens of other homeowners. Keyed access only

Figure 2-80 Unit E-E1 showing access to private open space

Figure 2-81 Unit J showing gated access to private open space

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

4.4 BUILDING TYPE 2 Case Study Private development, Bladon (see image above) Figure 2-88 Type Sketch

Figure 2-89 Precedent

‘The Compact, Affordable, Traditional row house’

Price: £249,000 Bedrooms: 2-3 Materials: Buff/grey brick/brown tiled roof Gated back garden On street parking

Design elements Floors: 2-3 Bedrooms: 2-3 Materials: Portland stone/white render/grey or neutral fenestration Distinctiveness: Planted herb walls to link to previous site occupation.

Figure 2-87 Indicative Floor Plans

Oxfordesque elements: One of the more Oxfordorientated housing types, the proportions and the dormer basic sizes flirt with design features of the surrounding neighbourhood properties. Basic sizes: Unit width: ~5m Unit length: 6.5-7.5m Open space provision: ~87m2 pp Parking: On street

Figure 2-86 Case study - Bladon Figure 2-85 Street scene of Design type 2

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

4.5 BUILDING TYPE 3

Figure 2-92 Type Sketch

Figure 2-93 Precedent

‘The Comfortable, Family Semi’ Design elements Floors: 2 Bedrooms: 3 (4 with potential attic conversion) Materials: White render with buff brick. Distinctiveness: Very shallow hips fit in with local area whilst maintaining the ability to convert the attic into accommodation.

Figure 2-91 Indicative Floor plans

Oxfordesque elements: Building proportions and detailing but designed in a more contemporary way. Basic sizes: Unit width: ~5.6m Unit length: 9m Private space provision: ~30m2 pp Parking: On street

Figure 2-90 Street elevation of H units

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

4.6 BUILDING TYPE 4

Figure 2-98 Type Sketch

Figure 2-99 Precedent

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Contemporary, flood-proof row houses Design elements Floors: 2-3 Bedrooms: 2-3 Materials: Portland stone/white render/grey or neutral fenestration Distinctiveness: Planted herb walls to link to previous site occupation. Other: Balconies designed to reduce crime and to maximise space

Figure 2-97 More flood-prone location

Figure 2-96 Hand drawn streetscape

Oxfordesque elements: Repetition of style, small setback is like many town houses in Oxford. Basic sizes: Unit width: ~13m Unit length: 6.5-7.5m Private space provision: ~87m2 pp Parking: On street

Figure 2-94 1:200 Floor Plan

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

Figure 2-95 Front elevation of a Design type 4

4.7 BUILDING TYPE 5

Figure 2-103 Type Sketch

Figure 2-104 Precedent

‘Landmark, high-rise retirement home’ Design elements Floors: 3-4 Bedrooms: 1-2 Materials: Portland stone/white render/grey or neutral fenestration Distinctiveness: Community feel to the unit, many on site facilities provided but also to blend in with public facilities on site such as the waterside area. Oxfordesque elements: Materials, variety in brick and buff brick Basic sizes: Private space provision: ~8m2 pp Parking: Some on street, mainly for visitors

Figure 2-100 Perspective of Unit I and I1.

Case Study Belong retirement home, Wigan (see image above) Won ‘Best Urban Design’ from Wigan BC Bedrooms: 2-3 Materials: Buff/grey brick/brown tiled roof Gated, safe community with village feel Cycling parking provided No car parking provision

Figure 2-101 Front Elevation of Units I-I1

Figure 2-102 Perspective from street level

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

DESIGN SPECIFICS AND SUMMARY

^ N

Gate

The diagrams on the right show in more detail the separation of public and private space for those living in flats. The table below provides a summary of Part 2. It sums up the initial design vision linking together Sensory Experience and Integrated Community and showing how each theme is realised in spatial terms.

Figure 2-107 Shared private space for Units K-L

Gate

Gate Figure 2-105 Site Plan showing shared private spaces in site

Sensory Experience Linked with Integrated Community Theme 1.High Levels of Social Interaction

Gate

Spatial Terms Streets are connected to increase site mobility. Nodes created by larger trees, seats and paths orientated with best relationship to open space.

Sensory Experience

Figure 2-108 Shared private space for Unit J

Sight/smell/sound. Visually stimulating range of paths/pedestrian routes.

Gate

Public route

2. Shared Responsibilities and Values

Urban Farm is created to provide shared responsibility for community.

Touch/sight/sound. Interaction with neighbours would evoke shared responsibility of area.

3. Demographically Inclusive

Buildings arranged to incorporate different tenures.

Sight. Different types of people for interesting environment. For example, children playing football, mums chatting with pushchair.

4. Appropriate and Interesting Aesthetic

Diverse but not chaotic designs/size in dwelling. Creating mixture of small and larger open spaces

People more likely to be outside if aesthetic is interesting/active/engaging. Gate Figure 2-106 Shared private space alongside bisecting through route for pedestrians

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

Whereas Part 2 dealt with detailed design issues by theme, Part 3 will deal with issues that concern the whole design. Part 3 - Central Issues will commence with continue from where Part 2 left off; the aesthetic of the Landscape will be explained in detail. This will be followed by an investigation of how the proposal addresses Sustainability. An explanation of Sensory Richness will then follow this showing how different users of the site respond to the design actions in Part 2. Finally the Economic Feasibility of the proposal will be picked apart to show why decisions have been made about unit types etc.

40 42 45 47

L A N D S C A P E T R E AT M E N T S U S TA I NA B I L I T Y ( E N E R G Y E F F I C I E N C Y ) SENSORY RICHNESS ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY

PART 3 - CENTRAL ISSUES OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

LANDSCAPE TREATMENT DISPLAY AND COMPLIMENT THE EXISTING GREEN NETWORK TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT FEELS MORE DOMINATED BY NATURE As mentioned in Design Theme 4, having a dominance of natural elements over the built creates a universally more pleasant environment. Being that the site is situated on a greenfield site, it could be quite easy to create an environment that has a predominance of nature, however, it is more of a challenge to create spaces that many people are attracted to but also work in urban design terms.

design themes) I have created a demographically inclusive environment. There are places to stop and stay, play areas for children, visually and physical connection with the water front area, and the urban market gardens. The urban market gardens, apart from providing a sustainable source of organic salad, it act as micro-nodes. Based on Jan Gehl’s theory something happens when something happens (Gehl 2010), when one person is using Based initially on Gordon Cullen’s theory of the one of the planters, it would be anticipated Kinaesthetic (Cullen 1961), and the drama of the that this would cause communication/ juxtaposition, I have sought to create a hierarchy interaction between different users of the site of open spaces so that users of the site are supplied - therefore satisfying my overall design vision with a variety of different spaces depending on of community interaction through sensory what activity they want to do. Secondly, I have stimulation. sought to make routes through the public space as interesting and engaging as possible, this is partly Allotments to create a sensory stimulating environment. The A part of the site that has been reserved for site contains different types of landscaping that existing allotment users. I would hope that over can be categorised into the following: time, the allotment users see how the urban market garden works and thus demanding the Private expansion of the current scheme. Many trees and shrubs are placed within private gardens as the maintenance cost to the site will be Public reduced as the owners are responsible for them. The central hub area as shown on page 41 See figure 3-112 combines a mixture of surfaces and trees. The basic principle for this open space has been Shared Private derived from the basic urban design principles Predominantly grassland, the shared private area set out at the start of the report (see fig 3-111). has main routes though it which are paved to I have created an area that provides a hierarchy make winter access pleasant. In addition the space of open spaces and certainly makes the routes is appropriate for all times of year as it is sheltered interesting (fig 3-109) through the waterside from the wind by the surrounding properties. area, a bridge, an interactive board and Public Open Space and Urban Market Gardens connecting pedestrian footpaths. The central hub area constitutes most of the built site’s public open space. Here (as mentioned in the

Figure 3-109 Make Routes Interesting

Figure 3-111 Hierarchy of open spaces

Figure 3-112 3D image showing tree network in private gardens

Figure 3-110 Engaging with waterfront: Man crossing bridge over swale

PART 3 - CENTRAL ISSUES OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

LANDSCAPE TREATMENT In order to retain the predominance of nature, the design of the road of quite important as this is the largest mass of a non-natural surface: Shared surfaces were designed in the central hub area for several reasons; firstly it promotes a safer environment as endorsed by Manual for Streets. Secondly, it allows the design of one area to blend into the next, this will encourage the site user to move through the spaces. Although shared surfaces were adopted in the design, there are certainly different materials being used. This is to allow the pedestrian and driver to distinguish the separate areas. Figure 3-116 shows the different street materials and what they achieve.

^ N

Permeable, compressed gravel immediately abutting the swale so that run-off or flood water can drain back to the water table Figure 3-113 Waterside

By having small block paving, the drivers feel the effect of their speed more, slowing them down. Removing road markings also reduces speed. Figure 3-114 Road

Figure 3-115 UMG

Figure 3-116 Site plan showing surfaces

Grass-blocks have been chosen as the surface underneath the urban market gardens as it will change colour with the seasons and also increases the presence of nature within the central hub Trees Using the Ozone index and ‘Trees and Urban Air Quality’ by Nick Hewitt (Hewitt 2010) to aid my decision; I have decided that Raywood Ash and Silver Birch will make up the majority of trees in the public and private spaces. This is because they are colourful, less dense, reducing leaf-drop, however still provide shade and improvements to air quality. For more poignant locations; larger trees that provide shelter have been selected (Field and Norway Maples) as they have more of a ‘presence’ and can act as natural nodes.

Figure 3-117 Benefits and drawbacks of urban trees

Figure 3-119 Raywood Ash

Figure 3-120 Silver Birch

Figure 3-121 Nodal Tree: Field Maple

Figure 3-118 Urban Tree Air Quality Score Groups

PART 3 - CENTRAL ISSUES OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

SUSTAINABILITY CREATE AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT WHERE SOLAR GAIN IS MAXIMISED THROUGH SPATIAL DECISIONS AND RENEWABLES ARE CONSIDERED WHEN POSSIBLE

^ N

MACRO Maximised solar gain through spatial layout of site. Car Share Scheme MICRO Micro hydro power in balancing pond/swale. PV’s applied to higher (3 floors or more) units. Grey water recycling in most units. Urban Market Gardening Solar Trees

SUNPATH DIAGRAM

Summary of sustainable design decisions:

Figure 3-122 July 9am

Figure 3-123 December 9am

Figure 3-124 July 4pm

Figure 3-125 December 4pm

Sun Angle Analysis The figures 3-122-125 show which parts of the site are in shade depending on the time of day and year. It is important to note that the central waterside areas is completely shade-free during daylight hours no matter what time of year. This is vital if the area is to stay active throughout the seasons. One area of the site that hasn’t quite achieved the desired result is shown in Figure 3-124 in the south-west corner: The shared private open space is shaded in the afternoon as the building in front of it is 3-4 storeys. All the streets are wide enough so many of them are in shade but the buildings addressing them are not. This is shown in more precise terms in the section on page 42.

PART 3 - CENTRAL ISSUES OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

SUSTAINABILITY Micro hydro-power is proposed at the join between the swale and the balancing pond. This is for two reasons; 1. It generates a large amount of electricity and is a renewable resource. 2. It will increase the pleasant noise of the river which will enhance the sensory experience. Figure 3-126 shows the PV’s on top of the retirement building (I1). As mentioned on the previous page, these would only be located on 3+ storey buildings so that they can: Reduce potential of overshadowing by other buildings, and to prevent them being seen from ground level. Grey-water recycling. Unlike many other grey-water recycling systems, the ‘Sloan aqus’ system proposed for most of the units is simple, cheap and saves about 30% of

water in the household. See figure 3-128. Urban Market Gardening Although this cuts down considerably on food miles, it is not enough alone to sustain a site of this size. Therefore it’s impact is limited in terms of sustainability, however, assuming the scheme is profitable, potential to expand the operation would be encouraged and resulting in a more sustainable resource. Solar Trees. Instead of lampposts, I have specified solar trees, which are essentially solar powered lampposts that are aesthetically superior to standard lampposts. This will reduce the sensory experience for the pedestrian and slow down traffic as they are low level. (see them in plan on figure 3-127)

Figure 3-126 PV’s on unit I1

Figure 3-127 Location of Hydro-power turbine

Figure 3-128 Sloan Aqus Greywater system

Figure 3-129 Urban Market Gardening

Figure 3-130 1:200 Dimensioned section through central hub

PART 3 - CENTRAL ISSUES OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

SUSTAINABILITY - TRANSPORT STRATEGY Also one of the design themes, reduction in car usage and promotion of cycling and walking will not only increase the amount of opportunities for stopping, staying and interacting, it also reduces the amount of cars in the site and creates a more pedestrian dominated area.

^ N

As the movement plan (fig 3-134) shows on the right, the pedestrian and cyclist has many more routes available to them than the car thus encouraging pedestrians. Figure 3-131 Car club

The car parking provision in this site is 0.8 per dwelling (average). For higher occupancy dwellings (4, 3 and some 2 bedroom) this figure is higher. The parking provision could be higher as there is room for more cars, but in order to activate this site the decision has been made to promote the use of a car share club; this would involve cars being used to share commutes; they would also have allocated spaces more conveniently placed to promote the club further. Cyclists have been encouraged into this site through the design of cycle routes around the central hub. They also have shortcuts available to them and not to cars. The cyclists are protected from cars by the planting of trees in between the cycle lane and the shared surface. This can be seen on the 1:200 plan on page 25.

Figure 3-132 Promoting walking

Figure 3-133 Site is designed for cyclists

PART 3 - CENTRAL ISSUES OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

Figure 2-134 Movement plan

SENSORY RICHNESS USE WATER, ACTIVITY AND NATURE TO MAXIMISE THE SENSORY EXPERIENCE IN THE SITE AREA Summary of sensory richness design decisions: Water Wanting to engage as many people as possible with the waterfront, the water is felt through many senses; sight, sound, touch and smell. Sight - A footpath has been located either side of the water, with hard, shared surfaces flanking and buildings overlooking. This increases the amount of exposure that the water has within the site. Sound/smell - As mentioned on the previous page, the hydro-power turbine combined with the rocky slope into the balancing pond will increase the soundscape of the central hub. On top of this, a fountain has been situated in the middle of the bridge; its pressure is dictated by the weather. When the forecast is for rain, the fountain pressure reaches heights of 7m, when the forecast is dry it stays at a low 4 metres from the waterline. The rationale behind this was so that it emphasises the link with the urban market gardeners, so they can see from their planters what weather is forecast and plan their gardening accordingly. Activity:

7mh: Wet outlook

growing out of the central of them have been located, (see Figure 2-51 DA 2, Natural Bench Page 23). The advantage of this is that it creates opportunities for interaction, as well as decreasing the amount of street furniture on the site. The other type of bench, is a rolling bench also featured on page 23 where the bench can be rolled to get a dry patch, thus creating a seat that can be used all through the year. Playground As the site plan, children’s play areas have been located amongst other engaging objects within the central hub (namely the urban market garden) this is so there is more community integration (as per my design vision).

4mh: Dry outlook

^ N Figure 3-136 Perspective of people enjoying fountain

Figure 3-137 Interactive Boards

Interactive board Based on a case study I found on a trip to Copenhagen: Visitors and residents to the site can use an interactive screen to socialise through the community website. This would link in very well to the Urban Market Gardens as well; they could upload photos of things they’ve grown etc thus binding the community together. Seating As the site plans show, I have used a mixture of outdoor seating types. On the fringes of the central hub, organic-looking benches with plants

Figure 3-135 Plan of bridge with fountain Figure 3-138 Children’s play area

PART 3 - CENTRAL ISSUES OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

SENSORY RICHNESS This diagram shows a cross section of the neighbourhood (far left column) referenced with the senses. Each one of these pictures represents one of my design actions across all the themes. The diagram proves how all the design actions activate different senses depending on which section of society you are from.

PART 3 - CENTRAL ISSUES OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY The target land value per hectare for this area of Oxford is £4m. This has been achieved and surpassed due to the density that I have chosen and the sites proximity with central Oxford. Using prudence with the estimations, house prices were calculated using Right-move.com and the OCC website. This means that profits are never anticipated but they are expected. The prices were taken from appropriate properties around the Botley area.

£1.7m /ha

The spreadsheet sample here on the right and below shows the process when trying to increase the RLV. When I took the project on from Studio I, I only achieved 72 units on the 3.3 Ha parcel. Realising the need to considerably increase this figure, I increased the density to finally achieve 43% affordable but still making £6.45m per hectare.

25% affordable Units in area increased by 100%

80.00

£6.9m /ha 38% affordable

For the costings, SPONS 2011 used and site works were inflated due to the amount of groundworks (for anti-flood measures) that would have to be completed here.

Increased aff. Flats by 19

158.00

£7.3m /ha £6.45m/ha

The 50% affordable housing provision set by OCC has nearly been met. It has not quite been achieved because the Osney Mead allotment site has to maximise the RLV to offset the huge cost outlay from the Station Square development. Reaching 43% is nearly enough to satisfy the OCC criteria while making the Station Square development viable.

43% affordable 177.00

Figure 3-140 Average House Price in Oxford City Council Housing Strategy

93 This figure might be around 3, ±15% 94 95 96 Net Residential Density

97 as dwellings per hectare 98

3.58

total fees.............. tot STF% excl land tot voids exc land 53.64 totdevcost exc land land value a profit STF% on lan totdevcost+profit

99 99 100 101 102

residual present value of land. . . . . . . land value/hectare........

£2,130,912 £926,947 £624,464 £21,439,922 £9,012,040 £30,451,962 £22,560,038

43%

£22,560,038 £1,288,944 £21,271,093 £6,445,786

103

Figure 3-139 House on Botley Road

Figure 3-141 Results of feasibility spreadsheet

PART 3 - CENTRAL ISSUES OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY The total net residential density for the whole masterplan is 50 dwellings per hectare. This result shows a relatively low density has been achieved. The reason for this is because the station square development does not have any residential units on it, and that figure is averaged over all the parcels including open space.

117 DPH

Over the Studio II Osney Mead parcel, the density is 53 D.P.H. Over the studio I parcel this was considerably less because the area was nearly 8 Ha and there were many more semi-detached units. To rectify this I have increased the amount of flats. The minimum recommended densities at national level, as specified in Planning Policy Statement 3 stand at 30D.P.H. Oxford City Council have higher recommended a minimum density requirement of 40 D.P.H, suggesting higher densities of at least 60 D.P.H in city centre locations. These targets have been met at the site at Botley Road. As the figure on the right shows, the density varies depending on location within the site. The area nearest the centre are denser because they have more prominent location within the site and the amount of units overlooking the waterside has been maximised. Although this density is high, it is appropriate for the location and helps to meet Oxfordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s growing housing demand.

PART 3 - CENTRAL ISSUES OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

34 DPH 50 DPH 73 DPH

117 DPH

^ N

50 51 52 52 53

CONCLUSION REFLECTION PICTURE CREDITS BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX

PART 4 - CONCLUSION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

CONCLUSION AND SWOT OF PROPOSAL The proposal presented in this report combines; a priority for community interaction with high levels of sensory experience and beauty through enhancing the sites natural characteristics and sustainability. The initial questions raised at the start of the report have been answered through the design process presented. The design foundations set from Studio I have been achieved, then adjusted and strengthened for this Studio II project. In reference to the Studio I design themes, the Osney Mead proposal has created a design that: 1. Responds to the landscape. 2. That is sustainability conscious. 3. Created an environment that can be lived in with the risk of flooding. The design themes for Studio II, although different, were created with the knowledge of the existing themes, while focussing more on the psychological impression of the site upon site users. These were: High Levels of Social Interaction, Shared Responsibilities and Values, Demographically Inclusive and Appropriate and Interesting Aesthetic. High levels of social interaction have been created through connecting streets within the site and creating a central hub that acts as a focal point containing places to stop and stay. Shared responsibilities primarily comes through the landscape. Most the Urban Market Gardens offer the opportunity to work towards community goals, but also like in the ‘Triangle’ case study, resident upkeep of the landscape should not just reduce crime but really bond the community together. A demographic inclusive proposal has been created through strategic placement of different

housing types and tenures. This means that not only does a wider variety of people interact, but the site is activated for longer. One aspect of this theme that I feel casts huge merit towards the scheme is the inclusion of the retirement home. This engages a part of society that is getting larger and catering for these peoples needs is vital. An appropriate and interesting aesthetic has been achieved through the analysis of Nasar’s (1998) objectives and investigating the style of architecture in Oxford to inform but NOT dictate the design within the Osney Mead proposal. Five building types were proposed that provided a variety in aesthetic and size to cater for as many residents as possible. Through the use of the urban design principals set out at the start of the report, the landscape has been treated as an integral part of the proposal. At every decision I have striven to create an active environment that stimulates the senses. In particular, the proposal has been successful in creating a plan more dominated by nature that celebrates the existing site merits (the large expanses of the grassland and the river). In order to create an energy efficient scheme, I have specified a mixture of large and small scale products that can be applied to the site. On one hand simple measures such as grey water recycling and a car share scheme are likely to be feasible due to low cost (small payback) and the benefits reaped in the subsequent years. On the other hand the measures such as the solar trees are likely to be more contentious as they have a large visual impact on the landscape. Lastly, the proposal has been proven to be feasible. The spreadsheet calculations have provided an easy way to change housing types to maximise the

PART 4 - CONCLUSION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

RLV and to offset the cost-centres of the whole scheme elsewhere within the site.

I have completed a SWOT Analysis of the final scheme so that acknowledgement is given to decisions that worked well and to those which worked less well: Strengths:

Opportunities:

1. Brought in and celebrated the water as more of an engaging feature rather than a flood countermeasure. 2. Incorporated and integrated community together through thoughtful selection of tenure and more micro and detailed aspects. 3. Created a plausible Urban Market Gardening scheme that could work well and integrate the community further. 4. Central hub attracting many types of people through stimulating many senses, and making an engaging environment

1. The Urban Market Garden, assuming it’s successful, could expand into the larger open space to increase the volume of market produce. 2. As the buildings have been designed to lifetime homes standards, they have the ability to be adapted to suit the owner requirements.

Weaknesses: 1. Overall shape of blocks although contributing to Cullen’s theory of serial vision, may decrease legibility as they are all of a curved origin. 2. The link to the river, other than a path, is not as pronounced as it could be. 3. The privacy of the ground floor rooms in the sheltered accommodation block (I and I1) is poor.

Threats: 1. Flooding over the capacity of the swale and balancing pond

REFLECTION In reaction to some of the weaknesses identified in the final SWOT on page 50, I have completed a few extra designs on how these issues would be addressed.

Concluding statement

Figure 4-143 shows a sketch plan of Block I/I1. This it to address the poor privacy issue that the ground floor bedrooms have in that unit. It is especially important, as this vulnerable category of site users are likely to spend considerably more time in their rooms than average. A landscaped barrier has been erected in front of the front facade. In conjunction with new french doors, this creates a private buffer that not only activates that area more, but it also screens the rooms for privacy. Figure 4-142 shows an 3D image showing what the riverside area of the site to the north could look like. As set out in the studio 1 themes, ‘a healthy and active lifestyle’ has been addressed here by installing outdoor gym equipment (pictured in the foreground). With a network of paths, this is likely to activate a much larger site that would not normally be used.

What I would do with more time. I would look in detail at how the Urban Market Garden could be expanded to increase output so that eventually the entire community could be provided for. 2. I would design another style of semi detached house. Realistically just the one type isn’t enough for 11 units, there would have to be 4-5 types to create real variety. 3. I would investigate additional ways to encourage people into the site, although the streets provide useful connections, I think another use (possibly retail) could entice more people to come into the site.

Figure 4-143 Sketch plan of Unit I/I1 (retirement block) showing privacy boundary

As an Architecture student, I have found this project one of the most rewarding that I have ever completed. I have used and applied the Urban Design knowledge acquired throughout the course in every design decision and as a result I feel confident to go and design real-life schemes in the future. I have created a proposal to be proud of using a design process I feel very comfortable with. The final outcome addressed a variety of issues that a new development in this part of Oxford would face. The proposal has addressed the challenges set out in the introduction and using the information learned throughout the year, I believe a highly thoughtful, pragmatic and creative design has been achieved; creating a new neighbourhood that engages the residents on multiple levels both with each other and with the environment.

Figure 4-142 3D model of what the riverside area could look like

PART 4 - CONCLUSION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

PICTURE CREDITS Figure 1-1 Greenfield, T. 2012. Drawing out the design principals Page 6 Figure 1-2 Dept for Transport. 2007. Manual for Streets. http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/ planningandbuilding/manualforstreets Page 7 Figure 1-3 English Partnerships. 2000. Urban Design Compendium. http://www.rudi.net/pages/8758 Page 7 Figure 1-4 Oxford City Council. 2011. Oxford Core Strategy. http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decP/Core_ Strategy_occw.htm Page 7 Figure 1-5 Oxford City Council. 2011. Oxford Local Plan. http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decP/Oxford_ Local_Plan_occw.htm. Page 7 Figure 1-6 Oxford City Council. 2011. West End AAP. http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decP/West_End_ AAP_occw.htm. Page 7 Figure 1-7 Davis Langdon. SPONS 2011. www.davislangdon.com Page 7 Figure 1-8 London Development Agency. 2010. London Housing Design Guide.www. homesdesign.wordpress.com/ london-housing/ Page 7 Figure 1-9 Oxford City Council. 2012. Affordable Housing SPD. www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decP/ Supplementary_Planning_Documents_occw.htm Page 7 Figure 1-10 Greenfield. T.2012.Studio 1 Masterplan with Studio II overlay Page 8 Figure 1-11 Greenfield, T. 2012. Attractive Water Source Page 9 Figure 1-12 Greenfield, T. 2012. Connecting Roads Page 9 Figure 1-13 Greenfield, T. 2012. Prominent Natural Environment Page 9 Figure 1-14 Greenfield, T. 2012. Studio 1 Plan with Strengths and Opportunities Marked Page 9 Figure 1-15 Greenfield, T. 2012. Section through Studio 1 Plan Central zone Page 10 Figure 1-16 Greenfield, T. 2012. Studio 1 Plan with Weaknesses and Threats Marked Page 10 Figure 1-17 Greenfield, T. 2012. Studio II Site Plan Page 11 Figure 1-18 Greenfield, T. 2012. Studio II complete group site plan Page 12 Figure 2-19 Greenfield, T. 2012. Osney Allotments Page 14 Figure 2-20 Greenfield, T. 2012. Botley Road Page 14 Figure 2-21 Greenfield, T. 2012. River at site Page 14 Figure 2-23 Greenfield, T. 2012. Diagram: Various Images Page 15 Figure 2-24 Greenfield, T. 2012. Open Space Page 16 Figure 2-25 Greenfield, T. 2012. River Page 16 Figure 2-26 Greenfield, T. 2012. Allotments Page 16 Figure 2-27 Greenfield, T. 2012. Community Centre Page 16 Figure 2-28 Greenfield, T. 2012. Housing abutting site tightly Page 16 Figure 2-29 Google Inc. 2012. Google Earth Image of Site. www.google.com/maps Page 16 Figure 2-30 Greenfield, T. 2012. Existing Recreational Facilities Page 16 Figure 2-31 Google Inc. 2012. Google Earth Image of Site and concept overlay. www.google.com/maps Page 17 Figure 2-32 Greenfield, T. 2012Connections Page 17 Figure 2-33 Greenfield, T. 2012. Blocks Page 17 Figure 2-34 Greenfield, T. 2012. Connections, blocks and types Page 17 Figure 2-35 Greenfield, T. 2012. Hierarchy of Open spaces Page 18 Figure 2-36 Greenfield, T. 2012. Make Routes interesting Page 18 Figure 2-37 Greenfield, T. 2012. Identifiable Entrances Page 18 Figure 2-38 Greenfield, T. 2012. Overshadowing Page 18 Figure 2-39 Greenfield, T. 2012. Public Area Focus Page 18 Figure 2-40 Greenfield, T. 2012. Hierarchy of connected spaces Page 18 Figure 2-41 Greenfield, T. 2012. Intermixed housing types Page 18 Figure 2-42 Greenfield, T. 2012. Places to stop and sit Page 18 Figure 2-43 Greenfield, T. 2012. 3D site model showing central hub and surrounding blocks Page 19 Figure 2-44 Diagram: Various Images Page 21 Figure 2-45 Greenfield, T. 2012. Movement Diagram Page 22 Figure 2-46 Greenfield, T. 2012. DA 2, Hierarchy of hub and nodes to encourage movement Page 22 Figure 2-47 Greenfield, T. 2012. DA 1, Connected streets increase activity Page 22 Figure 2-48 Greenfield, T. 2012. Initial sketch of hub area Page 23 Figure 2-49 Greenfield, T. 2012. CAD Plan with Interaction overlay Page 23 Figure 2-50 Greenfield, T. 2012. DA 4, Interactive screen at the central hub Page 23

PART 4 - CONCLUSION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

Figure 2-51 Calogero, C. 2009. DA 2, Natural Bench. http://www.homesqu.com/tag/outdoor-bench Page 23 Figure 2-52 Greenfield, T. 2012. DA 3, having a focus to a public space gives it atmosphere Page 23 Figure 2-53 Greenfield, T. 2012. DA 1,2,3, places to stop and sit Page 23 Figure 2-54 Bowman,R. 2005. DA 2, Bike bike-rack. http://lawrencebikeproject.wikispaces.com/ Page 23 Figure 2-55 Link Magazine. 2009. Hab Oakus development - Swindon Triangle Plan. http://www.swindonlink.com/news/kevin-mccloudsgrand-design-gets-go-ahead Page 24 Figure 2-56 Hab Oakus. 2010. Swindon Triangle and Kevin McCloud. http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/nov/19/kevin-mccloudhousing-triangle-swindon Page 24 Figure 2-57 Go Car. DA3, Car Share. http://gocarshare.com/ Page 24 Figure 2-58 Greenfield, T. 2012. 1:200 of Central hub Page 25 Figure 2-59 Growing Communities. 2012. Sophie, Growing Communities Apprentice. http://www.growingcommunities.org Page 26 Figure 2-60 Greenfield, T. 2012. Growing Communities Management Model Page 26 Figure 2-61 Communities. 2010. Growing Communities Hackney Map. www.growingcommunities.org Page 26 Figure 2-62 Greenfield, T. 2012. Plan view of planters (not to scale) Page 27 Figure 2-63 Greenfield, T. 2012. Planter closed for night Page 27 Figure 2-64 Greenfield, T. 2012. Planter open in morning Page 27 Figure 2-65 Greenfield, T. 2012. Site Plan showing location of planters in relation to the primary school and market outlet Page 27 Figure 2-66 Ellistown Primary School and Community Centre. 2003. http://www.school-portal.co.uk Page 28 Figure 2-67 Greenfield, T. 2012. Proposed primary school logo Page 28 Figure 2-68 DA1, intermixed housing types Page 28 Figure 2-69 Greenfield, T. 2012. Site Plan showing tenure Page 29 Figure 2-70 Greenfield, T. 2012. Doughnut chart showing breakdown of affordable provision Page 29 Figure 2-71 North Oxford Property. 2011. Building 1. http://www.nops.co.uk. Page 31 Figure 2-72 David Parker Architects. 2009. Building 2. www.davidparkerarchitects.co.uk Page 31 Figure 2-73 David Parker Architects. 2009. Building 3. www.davidparkerarchitects.co.uk Page 31 Figure 2-74 Modern Chicago Homes. 2011 Building 4. /www.modernchicagohomes.com Page 31 Figure 2-75 Pozzini. 2011. Building 5. www.pozzoni.co.uk/sectors/older-people/belong-wigan/ Page 31 Figure 2-76 Greenfield,T. 2012. Building mix (proportion of units per type) Page 32 Figure 2-77 Greenfield,T. 2012. Table to show details of unit types Page 32 Figure 2-78 Greenfield,T. 2012. Illustration of the recommended residential unit mix Page 32 Figure 2-79 Greenfield,T. 2012. Site plan displaying unit types by letter Page 32 Figure 2-80 Greenfield,T. 2012. Unit E-E1 showing access to private open space Page 33 Figure 2-81 Greenfield,T. 2012. Unit J showing gated access to private open space Page 33 Figure 2-82 Greenfield,T. 2012. Unit E-E1 showing access to private open space Page 33 Figure 2-83 Greenfield,T. 2012. Type Sketch Page 33 Figure 2-84 North Oxford Property. 2011. Precedent. http://www.nops.co.uk. Page 33 Figure 2-85 Greenfield,T. 2012. Street scene of Design type 2 Page 34 Figure 2-86 David Parker Architects. 2009. Case study -Bladon. www.davidparkerarchitects.co.uk Page 34 Figure 2-87 Greenfield,T. 2012. Indicative Floor Plans Page 34 Figure 2-88 Greenfield,T. 2012. Type Sketch Page 34 Figure 2-89 David Parker Architects. 2009. Precedent. www.davidparkerarchitects.co.uk. Page 34 Figure 2-90 Greenfield,T. 2012. Street elevation of H units Page 35 Figure 2-91 Greenfield,T. 2012. Indicative Floor plans Page 35 Figure 2-92 Greenfield,T. 2012. Type Sketch Page 35 Figure 2-93 David Parker Architects. 2009. Precedent. www.davidparkerarchitects.co.uk. Page 35 Figure 2-94 Greenfield,T. 2012. 1:200 Floor Plan Page 36 Figure 2-95 Greenfield,T. 2012. Front elevation of a Design type 4 Page 36 Figure 2-96 Greenfield,T. 2012. Hand drawn streetscape Page 36 Figure 2-97 Greenfield,T. 2012. More flood-prone location Page 36 Figure 2-98 Greenfield,T. 2012. Type Sketch Page 36 Figure 2-99 Modern Chicago Homes. 2011. Precedent. www.modernchicagohomes.com Page 36 Figure 2-100 Greenfield,T. 2012. Perspective of Unit I and I1. Page 37 Figure 2-101 Greenfield,T. 2012. Front Elevation of Units I-I1 Page 37 Figure 2-102 Greenfield,T. 2012. Perspective from street level Page 37 Figure 2-103 Greenfield,T. 2012. Type Sketch Page 37 Figure 2-104 Pozzini. 2011. Precedent. www.pozzoni.co.uk/sectors/older-people/belong-wigan/ Page 37

Figure 2-105 Greenfield,T. 2012. Site Plan showing shared private spaces in site Page 38 Figure 2-106 Greenfield,T. 2012. Shared private space alongside bisecting through route for pedestrians Page 38 Figure 2-107 Greenfield,T. 2012. Shared private space for Units K-L Page 38 Figure 2-108 Greenfield,T. 2012. Shared private space for Unit J Page 38 Figure 2-108 Greenfield,T. 2012. Shared private space for Unit J Page 38 Figure 3-109 Greenfield,T. 2012. Make Routes Interesting Page 40 Figure 3-110 Greenfield,T. 2012. Engaging with waterfront: Man crossing bridge over swale Page 40 Figure 3-111 Greenfield,T. 2012. Hierarchy of open spaces Page 40 Figure 3-112 Greenfield,T. 2012. 3D image showing tree network in private gardens Page 40 Figure 3-113 Pebble Pave. 2009. Waterside. http://www.pebblepave.com.au/666_csupload_32617225. Page 41 Figure 3-114 GD Bass. 2009. Road. http://gdbass.netefficiency.co.uk/uploads/Newbury_Shared_Street_ Page 41 Figure 3-115 HomeZooka. 2006. UMG. http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz25/homezooka Page 41 Figure 3-116 Greenfield,T. 2012. Site plan showing surfaces Page 41 Figure 3-117 Hewitt, N. 2009. Benefits and drawbacks of urban trees Page 41 Figure 3-118 Hewitt, N. 2009. Urban Tree Air Quality Score Groups Page 41 Figure 3-119 British Trees. 2004. Raywood Ash. www.britishtrees.co.uk Page 41 Figure 3-120 Stuart, S. 2008. Silver Birch. http://www.sxc.hu/photo/803952 Page 41 Figure 3-121 Visual Photos. 2006. Nodal Tree: Field Maple. http://www.visualphotos.com/image Page 41 Figure 3-122 Greenfield,T. 2012. July 9am Page 42 Figure 3-123 Greenfield,T. 2012. December 9am Page 42 Figure 3-124 Greenfield,T. 2012. July 4pm Page 42 Figure 3-125 Greenfield,T. 2012. December 4pm Page 42 Figure 3-126 Greenfield,T. 2012. PVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s on unit I1 Page 43 Figure 3-127 Location of Hydro-power turbine Page 43 Figure 3-128 Inhabitat. 2009. Sloan Aqus Greywater system. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/gardeningadvice/6249948/How-to-grow-winter-saladsin-a-box.html Page 43 Figure 3-129 Buckley, J. 2011. Urban Market Gardening. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/gardeningadvice/6249948/How-to-grow-winter-salads-ina-box.html Page 43 Figure 3-130 Greenfield,T. 2012. Dimensioned section through central hub Page 43 Figure 3-131 Metro. 2012. Car club. http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2010/08/26/article-1282830824935-0AED569E000005DC-152263_466x310.jpg Page 44 Figure 3-132 Blog Spot. 2012.Promoting walking. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yyWBy-TORTo/T3HRqB2KTYI/AAAAAAAAAGc/Z4pKhThjWTY/s1600/da ily+walking+may+reduce+risk+of+type+2+diabet Page 44 Figure 3-133 Going Bike. 2005. Site is designed for cyclists. http://www.goinggoingbike.com Page 44 Figure 3-135 Greenfield,T. 2012. Plan of bridge with fountain Page 45 Figure 3-136 Greenfield,T. 2012. Perspective of people enjoying fountain Page 45 Figure 3-137 Blog Spot. 2009. Interactive Boards.http://digital-examples.blogspot.co.uk/2011_02 Page 45 Figure 3-138 John, L. 2008. Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Play Area. http://johnl.org/files/2009/10/playground1_large. Page 45 Figure 3-139 Rightmove. 2012. Botley Road House. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-21981531.html Page 47 Figure 3-140 Oxford City Council. 2011. Average House Price in Oxford City Council Housing Strategy. www.oxford.gov.uk Page 47 Figure 3-141 Greenfield,T. 2012. Results of feasibility spreadsheet Page 47 Figure 4-142 Greenfield,T. 2012. 3D model of what the riverside area could look like Page 51 Figure 4-143 Greenfield,T. 2012. Sketch plan of Unit I/I1 (retirement block) showing privacy boundary Page 51

PART 4 - CONCLUSION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

BIBLIOGRAPHY Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2003). Public Places, Urban Spaces. Oxford: Architectural Press. Clarke, R., & Mayhew, P. (1980). Desiging out Crime. London: Her Majestys Stationary Office. Corbusier, L. (1927; 1973). The Charter of Athens. London: Penguin Putnam. Cullen, G. (1961). A Concise Townscape. Butterworth-Heinemann. Department for Transport (2007) Manual for Streets. London. Her Majestys Stationary Office Evans. (2006). Common Ground. Urban Design , 31-33. Frers, L., & Meier, L. (2007). Encountering Urban Places. Aldershot: Ashgate. Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People. Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press. Gehl, J. (2001). Life Between Buildings. Copenhagen: The Danish Architectural Press. Gehl, J., & Gemzoe, L. (1996). Public Spaces, Public Life. Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press. Hague, & Jenkins. (2004). Place Identity, Participation and Planning. New York: Routledge. Hazan, J. (1978). The Treatment of Aesthetics in Urban Planning. London: Polytechnic of Central London School of Environment Planning Unit. Hewitt, N (2010) Trees and urban air quality: Birmingham as a case study. University of Lancaster. www.es.lancs.ac.uk/people/cnh/UrbanTreesBrochure.pdf. Accessed 13/4/12 Lucas, R. and Romice, O. (2008) Representing Sensory Experience in Urban Design. Design principles and Practices â&#x20AC;&#x201C; An International journal. Vol 2. Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Oxford City Council Housing Strategy (2008 to 2012 / Forward to 2020) cited at: http://www.oxford.gov.uk/Direct/75541OxfordCityCouncilHousingStrategy20082011FINAL.pdf Accessed on 15/03/12 Oxford Local Plan (2005) Cited at: http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decP/Oxford_Local_Plan_occw.htm Accessed on 12/03/12 Secure By Design (2010) New Homes Cited at: http://www.securedbydesign.com/pdfs/SBD_New_Homes_2010.pdf Accessed 08/03/12

PART 4 - CONCLUSION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

APPENDIX INDICATIVE FLOOR PLANS (NOT TO SCALE)

PART 4 - CONCLUSION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

APPENDIX

PART 4 - CONCLUSION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

APPENDIX FINAL FEASIBILITY SPREADSHEET A

Financial Feasibility Spreadsheet, to explore residual valuation.

FILE NAME:..............…

Residential numbers, areas and values (VAL1)

e.g. your name/date/number

Type

UNIT area m2

53 New Station Square

edited 19/10/2010

(edited by JC)

54 Lake and Swales

NUMBER of UNITS

NETT area m2

GROSS area m2

SALES PRICE

56 The Retreat

Value / M2

subTOTALS

57 The Leisure Quarter 58 Bus Station

59 Train Station

50 70 100 70 50 80

11 Botley - Apartments 2 bed

12 Botley - Semi-detached 3 bed 13 Botley - Terraces

14 Affordable Appartments 15 Affordable Terraces

21 37 22 25 58 14

1050.0 2590.0 2200.0 1750.0 2900.0 1120.0

1050.0 2590.0 2200.0 1750.0 3480.0 1344.0

£240,000.00 £240,000.00 £600,000.00 £420,000.00 £192,000.00 £304,000.00

£5,040,000.00 £8,880,000.00 £13,200,000.00 £10,500,000.00 £11,136,000.00 £4,256,000.00

62 64 Commercial Building Costs (BCOST2)

TYPE

65 66

67 Retail- Oxpens & Botley zone A

70 Retail - Park End zone A

18 19

177.00

21 Residential Building Costs (BCOST1) 22 Type

23 Oxpens - Apartments 1 Bed

24 Oxpens - Apartments 2 Beds 25 Oxpens - 2 storey 26 Oxpens - 3 storey

27 Botley - Apartments

28 Botley - Semi-detached

29 Botley - 3 storey terraces 30 Affordable Appartments 31 Affordable Terraces

cost/m2 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £950.00 £1,300.00 £950.00 £900.00 £750.00

32 33 Shop Apartments 34 Station Terraces

35 Student Accomodation 36 SUM (BCOST1)

£900.00 £1,200.00 £1,025.00

37 Commercial numbers, areas and values (VAL2)

TYPE

39 40 Retail- Oxpens & Botley zone A 41 Retail- Oxpens & Botley zone B

42 Retail - Oxpens & Botley zone c 43 Retail - Park End zone A

44 Retail - Park End zone B

45 Retail - Park End zone C 46 offices - Oxpens 47 offices - Botley

48 offices - Park End & Worcester 49 Restaurants/Cafes

50 Conference Centre

NETT M/2

SUM(VAL1). . . . . . . . . . . . .

£53,012,000

71 Retail - Park End zone B

72 Retail - Park End zone C 73 offices - Oxpens

COST (based on GROSS AREAS) £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £2,460,500.00 £2,860,000.00 £1,662,500.00 £3,132,000.00 £1,008,000.00 Value divided by costs £0.00 This figure might be around 3, ±15% £0.00 4.77 £0.00 £11,123,000.00

74 offices - Botley

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RENT/M2 RENTROLL by zone 165.00 0 82.50 0 41.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 110.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

YLD% 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.00 7.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 6.50 7.00 7.00

subTOTALS

COST/m2 m/2 800 0 0 0 0 0 0

75 offices - Park End & Worcester 76 Restaurants/Cafes

77 Conference Centre 78 Hotel Extension 79 Primary School

80 New Station Square 81 Lake and Swales 82 Park End Street 83 The Retreat

84 The Leisure Quarter Square 85 Bus Station

86 Train Station 87 88 89

GROSS M/2

total bcost2 b/f bcost1 total bcost

Construction COST 600000 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1,000 0 3,700 0 0 0 0 0

855000 2220000

3,675,000 11,123,000 14,798,000

90 91

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.00 nil nil nil nil nil nil 0.00 0.00

0 nil nil nil nil nil nil 0 0 SUM(VAL2). . . . . . . . b/f(VAL1). . . . . . . Total val. . . . . . .

7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.50 6.50

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0 £53,012,000 £53,012,000

69 Retail - Oxpens & Botley zone c

£4,800 £3,429 £6,000 £6,000 £3,200 £3,167

68 Retail- Oxpens & Botley zone B

20 Total units

600 0 0 0 0 0

55 Park End Street

type numbers in shaded areas

10 Botley - Apartments 1 bed

0 855

52 Primary School

4 5

51 Hotel Extension

92 Total Value divided by Total Bld Costs

93 This figure might be around 3, ±15% 94 95 96 Net Residential Density

97 as dwellings per hectare 98

3.58

Variables ..........(with example inputs)

contract,years prof. fees%......... STF.,base rate+3%....... voids,in years...... siteworks %......... return risk+profit%.............. STF.,land. base+1%..... site area m2...?......... RESERVED LAND private sector special projects hotel, cinema, etc.. Sports Centre Art Gallery Swimming Pool Ice Rink Fire Station tot reservd land m2 RESULTS(fixed formulae)

total value........... totbcost & stwks total siteworks........ total fees.............. tot STF% excl land tot voids exc land 53.64 totdevcost exc land land value a profit STF% on lan totdevcost+profit

residual present value of land. . . . . . . land value/hectare........

Tests,% of GDV

33% £53,012,000 £17,757,600 £2,959,600 £2,130,912 £926,947 £624,464 £21,439,922 £9,012,040 £30,451,962 £22,560,038

100 102

........m2

101

1.50 12.00 6.00 0.50 20.00 17.00 6.00 33,000

43%

£22,560,038 £1,288,944 £21,271,093 £6,445,786

103

PART 4 - CONCLUSION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT