Milton | Stitching Spaces, Making Places 2 | Masterplanning

Page 1

Stitching Spaces Making Places

Stage

Package

Masterplanning

2A Masterplan

Prepared by Martin Fleischmann, Taina Lund-Ricard, Poppea Daniel Urban Design Studies Unit, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Jan-May 2017


Stitching Spaces Making Places


Masterplan

Contents 01 PRELIMINARIES 02A MASTERPLAN Masterplanning Milton

4

Street Design

10

Ecological networks

34

Plots and buildings

46

02B MASTERPLAN 03 THE TIME DIMENSION 04 APPENDIX HOW TO NAVIGATE THESE BOOKLETS Where we refer to other parts of our work, we use the booklet number and page number. For example, b01p6 refers to page 6 in the booklet 01 Preliminaries

SPECIAL THANKS to the following people, who spared some time to draw an elevation for following our example plot passport: Fraser Yardley

Mantas Skirma

Lauren Izzett

Eliška Martínková

Martina Veronesi

Mariana Hanková

Finlay Geddes

Zdeňka Havlová

Craig Higgins

David Fořt

3


Stitching Spaces Making Places

Masterplanning Milton CYCLICAL THINKING A masterplan is constituted of many elements which must all be considered individually and in relation to each other to form a coherent and holistic product. The following section is subdivided into parts but their linear organisation is not an echo of our thought process. Indeed, our reflection was continuously cyclical to ensure no discrepancies were found in our plan. These parts include street design, green and blue networks, plots and buildings and services and amenities. We then go on to highlight a series of special places which are of particular value in both their reaction to Milton’s landscape (built and natural) and their celebration of urban and community life.

SUCCINCT EXAMPLE OF THOUGHT Liddesdale Road street design was affected by the street hierarchy which in turn affected plot sizes and orientations. Public places (St Monica Square) affected plot layout as well as street design. Public places and street design were also affected by the environmental network which was itself affected by the street hierarchy.

4


Masterplan

STREET DESIGN

ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK

PLOTS

PUBLIC

PLACES

PLOT

PASSPORTS

PLAN

REPRESENTATION

Fig. 1 : Cyclical thinking for the key elements of the masterplan

5


Stitching Spaces Making Places

50m

6


Masterplan

Fig. 2 : Masterplan of Milton - a full scale copy is provided at Annex 1

7


Stitching Spaces Making Places

Ashgyll Rd

Liddesdale Sq

Bishopbriggs

Quiet Residential Area

Shapinsay

Towerblocks

Liddesdale Rd Front

EAST

Green Belt

City Edge

Canalside Front Quiet Residential Area Scaraway St

NORTH

8


y St

Masterplan

Castlebay St St. Monica Sq Towerblocks

Green Strip

Allied Bakeries

Canal

WEST Fig. 3 : 50 sections overlayed showing the relationship between topography and Milton’s masterplanned urban fabric looking from the countryside

Green Strip Liddesdale Rd St. Monica Sq

Playing Fields

Ashgyll Rd

SOUTH Fig. 4 : 50 sections overlayed showing the relationship between topography and Milton’s masterplanned urban fabric looking from the beyond the canal

9


Stitching Spaces Making Places

Street Design STREETS, NOT ROADS

3 KEY CHANGES

Streets are by far the biggest component of public space. But more often than not, including in Milton, they are just roads, the domain almost exclusively of cars, adding very little to public life. Streets can play a hugely important role in both the spatial and social structure of cities and neighbourhoods.

Inhuman, utilitarian road lamps which currently line the streets are replaced with human scale street lighting made for public space, not traffic corridors

Two fundamental ideas underpin our approach to street design: That streets are for people - we want to reclaim the streets from cars for the people of Milton: to walk, to cycle, to play, to sit, to talk, to sell, to linger. And that the way a street is designed can transform the way people, particularly drivers, behave on it - we can design streets in such a way that the threat posed by vehicles to people and our planet, through accidents, pollution, space domination and noise is minimised. Having designed the structure of the street network (see Street Network in 01 Preliminaries) as hierarchical, connected and permeable, we now turn to detailed street design. The hierarchical network allows us to plan for movement while designing for people. The basic layout of a street follows from its position in the hierarchy -its role within the city and within Milton. Street design emphasises the specific role of streets and their centrality (b01;p45) by influencing the organisation of movement. Beyond their role in the hierarchy, street design is also influenced by local context. We design streets according to the type of environment we wish to create, making frequent exceptions to the basic rules we create. In this section we present our ideal basic street layouts and treatment of intersections between different streets in the hierarchy. We show how these are implemented on new streets on our masterplan, and adapted to existing ones.

10

Frequent marked pedestrian crossings replace a total absence of crossing. They generally coincide with the intersections of new, shorter blocks (less than 70m apart). Where blocks are longer, intermediate crossings are provided. The curves at all intersections are made much tighter than they currently are, slowing cars down. See b02a;p24 for more on intersections.

“If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places.” Project for Public Spaces

BOUNDARIES OF PUBLIC SPACE The design of liveable and safe streets doesn’t stop at the pavement edge. The way buildings interact with street space at ground level influences how people use and feel in a place, and buildings define the edge of the public domain. Just as the layout of streets follows their relative position in the hierarchy, so building height, typology and ground floor use follows too (see Foundation Masterplan, in 01 Preliminaries, and Plots and Buildings, b02a;p46).


Fig. 5 :Streets are the foundation of public realm

Masterplan

11


Stitching Spaces Making Places

NEIGHBOURHOOD MAIN STREET These streets play a key role in connecting neighbourhoods and the rest of the city. They’re also the high streets of neighbourhoods, important enough that shops and services will cluster. So neighbourhood main streets are both streets to pass through and streets in which to stay where neighbourhood life happens. Vehicle movement is important on these streets - the objective is not to slow down cars to a stop-start pace, but to moderate speeds and make drivers alert and predictable.

PAVEMENTS

TREES

Pavements are wide - this reflects the high volume of pedestrian traffic likely on these streets as well as opening them up for stationary activities. Shops and cafes can spill out onto the pavement, temporary market stalls can appear, and there are places to simply linger and chat all without inhibiting movement. Pedestrians and cyclists cross via zebra crossings at regular intervals which coincide with intersections.

Trees play many roles on the neighbourhood main street. Along with parking, they break visual monotony, keeping drivers alert and slowing them down. They give a sense of enclosure to the wider street, helping to frame the buildings on either side for pedestrians, and giving the illusion of a narrower carriageway which encourages more alert driving. They also bring green to an often grey streetscape, creating a pleasant environment and bringing environmental benefits too.

CYCLING The 2-way segregated cycle lane reflects the importance of neighbourhood main streets in making longer journeys throughout the city. Cyclists do not have to stop and wait for buses and cars, making getting around by bike attractive and efficient. Where pedestrians need to cross the cycle lane to get to bus stops, the cycle lane is raised to the height of the pavement, slowing cyclists down in expectation of people crossing. Bicycle parking is provided regularly on street, taking over parking spaces.

BUSES Neighbourhood main streets are the primary public transport routes. Buses stop on the carriageway, meaning cars must slow down and wait. The pavement extends over what would ordinarily be parking spaces, crossing a raised cycle path where necessary.

12

PARKING Parking is on-street, on both sides of the street. It serves both residents and visitors to shops and services. Providing sufficient on-street parking in the neighbourhood centre means less land given over to dedicated carparks for businesses, and naturally slows down traffic by breaking visual monotony and presenting hazards where people pull in to park, or open car doors. Stretches of parking are interrupted regularly by trees, which avoids cars dominating the streetscape.

LANES There is one carriageway in each direction, wide enough to allow the easy passage of buses in either direction, as well as delivery vehicles for shops and emergency services.


Masterplan

Fig. 8 :(Opposite page) On the wide pavements, there is room for all sorts of life Fig. 7 : (This page) Existing streets are undifferentiated, with narrow pavements and frequent speed bumps

Fig. 6 :Ideal layout for neighbourhood main streets - wide pavements for public life, parking on both sides, frequent trees and segregated cycling

13


Stitching Spaces Making Places

Ideally, trees line either side of the street - but they don’t come cheap. Here, trees are planted only on one side, but the line is maintained and helps enclose the more active north side of the street.

St Monica Square, b02b;p26

On approach to St Monica square, the paving on pedestrian space and road becomes the same. To maintain traffic flow, the edge of the pavement gently drops to the level of the roadbed.

New and old fabric interact here. Large plots with detached houses require vehicle access, breaking up parking and rendering pavements particularly wide. The bus stop pulls in here, breaking up the space.

14


Masterplan

The street narrows on entrance to St Monica Square. The pavement is maintained and parking is sacrificed. Tree coverage increases to emphasise arrival into the public square.

Demolition of vacant land allows us to get close to our ideal at this end of the street. The 2-way cycle lane runs on the north edge of Liddesdale Road, where most active frontages are concentrated.

This is our ideal bus stop layout, with the pavement extended over where you’d usually find parking. The cycle lane is raised to the level of the pavement to allow pedestrians to safely cross.

Fig. 9 :Neighbourhood main street - Liddesdale Road is Milton’s main street. In some place, implementation of our ideal street design is possible. In others, adaptations are necessary or desirable

15


Stitching Spaces Making Places

LOCAL MAIN STREET

These streets play a key role on the internal connectivity of neighbourhoods - they are less important at the city scale but still important regionally and locally. Frontages are less frequently active and buildings are at a smaller scale. Slower vehicle speeds enable cars and people to better share street space. With care, crossing is possible even without formal road markings.

PAVEMENTS

TREES

Pavements are over 3m wide, making pedestrian movement easy and facilitating life on the streets. Where frontages are active, there is space for benches placed lengthwise along the building edge facing out to street life. Frequent dropped curbs allow pedestrians to cross the street outside of formal pedestrian crossings at intersections.

The planting of trees to the mark the ends of alternating stretches of parking bays is strongly encouraged and mandated on identified green routes (see Ecological Networks, b02a;p34).

CYCLING Vehicle traffic is slowed, and cyclists share the carriageway with others. Regular cycle parking is provided in the place of parking spaces, meaning valuable pavement space is not taken up. On-street secure cycle parking in streets where setbacks are limited and use is largely residential can be provided in the form of resident key-access bike hangars.

BUSES Buses run on these streets, pulling into space which would ordinarily be parking, and the pavement extends around them to create space for waiting without compromising normal pedestrian movement on the pavement.

16

PARKING Parallel parking alternates from side to side, gently redirecting the carriageway as it does so. This gets rid of long straight stretches of street, breaking the desire lines of drivers - keeping them alert and travelling at lower speeds.

LANES As in neighbourhood main streets, there is one carriageway in each direction, wide enough to allow the easy passage of buses in either direction - this allows local main streets to become local bus routes. Where the path of traffic changes as parking alternates, this is indicated by the pavement extending into the road, with trees at either end.


Masterplan

Fig. 12 :(Opposite page) Secure bike parking can be provided in the place of on street car parking Fig. 11 :(This page) Existing streets are undifferentiated, with narrow pavements and frequent speed bumps

Fig. 10 :Ideal layout for local main streets - parking alternates and calms traffic, and people and cars can share space more easily

17


Stitching Spaces Making Places

On Glentanar Road in front of Allied Bakeries, we maintain the width needed for lorries to move freely, while improving the street scape for pedestrians, cyclists and buses Here the existing street is narrow and bordered on both sides by existing housing stock. There is no formalised parking along this segment. Space needs to be left for traffic to flow, including buses

The existing street here is very wide - giving us room to implement our ideal street design even while existing housing stock remains on both sides

Here the parking does not alternate from one block to the next: the junction makes this unsafe so parking remains on one side

18


Masterplan

Parking alternates from one side of the street or the other, calming traffic by gently redirecting the carriageway

In front of Scaraway St’s existing shops, the road is wide and already has inset parking. We use this extra space to maintain parking and create a bus stop across the street

See SuDS, b02ap38

Here we integrate this existing green island in to the SuDS network, and we borrow space to make room for our ideal street layout, with the westbound bus stop and parking inset

Fig. 13 :Extracts from the masterplan - (Far left) Glentenar Road - (Middle) Castebay Street and Egilsay Street - (Top right) Scaraway Street - three examples of what happens when a local main street runs through existing and proposed urban fabric

19


Stitching Spaces Making Places

RESIDENTIAL STREET

These residential streets are the scene of day-to-day living: people are in charge. Traffic - pedestrian, cyclist and vehicle - is largely local, with a home on a residential street usually the start or destination point.

PAVEMENTS

TREES

Pavements are still generous at 3 metres wide, and pedestrians can spill out onto widened pavements when cars are not parked, creating settings for life to happen in an environment safe from fast moving traffic. Traffic speeds are sufficiently slow and volume sufficiently low that pedestrians can safely cross anywhere, and it is safe for children to play in the whole space.

Trees and planting are encouraged, and mandated along specified green routes (b02a;p45)

CYCLING Cyclists share the space with both people and cars - cycle traffic will be mostly residents, with more efficient routes to places further afield found on local and neighbourhood main streets. Bicycle parking is largely provided privately, inside or in the front gardens of houses and flats (setbacks are larger on these streets), but in higher density areas where homes are flatted, bicycle parking is also provided on street, taking over a car parking space so as not to create clutter on dedicated pedestrian ways. As on local main streets, secure bike parking can be provided on street in the form of bike hangars.

BUSES The width of the carriageway is not sufficient for bus traffic. Bus routes can be found on local and neighbourhood main streets. Pedestrian connections to bus routes from residential areas are made easy by a permeable, connected street network.

20

PARKING Parking is an extension of the pavement - pockets of parallel parking spaces alternate from side to side of the road, gently raised up to the level of the pavement. Slim bollards mark the extent of the parking spaces on the pavement side, preventing cars from taking up dedicated pedestrian space. Additional informal parking space can be found in small back lanes in these areas, taking cars off the street and freeing up formal parking for visitors.

LANES Space is restricted to only one lane of traffic, which weaves around parking. A basic road width of 4.9m, low traffic volumes, and turnouts provided every 20m or so enable cars to pass each other. This keeps speeds very low and enables the whole width of the street to be more or less shared by everyone. The one-lane layout also discourages this streets from being used as cut-throughs, directing traffic to local and neighbourhood main streets and keeping streets safe for playing and being.


Masterplan

Fig. 16 :(Opposite page) Public life extends into the streetscape Fig. 15 :(Left) Existing streets are undifferentiated, with narrow pavements and frequent speed bumps Fig. 14 :(Below right) There is one lane of vehicle traffic, with turnouts provided so cars can pass each other

Fig. 17 :Ideal layout for residential streets - cars are restricted to one lane, weaving around parking and pavements, forcing them to wait to pass each other, and go slower

21


Stitching Spaces Making Places

With plots only on one side, plenty of greenery and plenty of space, we break with the ideal residential street here to maintain existing carparking, overlooked by these flatted plots.

These streets around the neighbourhood centre are heavily traffic calmed too, making these streets as safe for play as those in quieter residential areas.

This is a residential street, but has more the feel of a lane. With plots only on one side due to topography, we keep the parking informal.

22


Masterplan

Right on the city edge, we break with the ideal street layout, which makes less sense when only one side of the street is built up. We provide parking in angled bays on the built side

In existing streets which remain residential in our masterplan, parking is formalised to emulate our traffic calming layout without costly interventions.

Parking alternates from one side of the road to the other in small groups of bays, marked by bollards so that cars don’t take over the pavement but people can occupy the parking space. Junctions are always kept clear.

Small openings in the street scape create public places - pavement surfaces spread into the road and the roadbed raises up to pavement level. Bollards, trees or lighting mark path for traffic where necessary. Crescent, b02b;p50

Fig. 18 :Extracts from the masterplan - (Left) Strathmore Road and Kirkwall Street - (Top right) Cathay Street - (Bottom right) Malaceit Street - residential streets are traffic calmed to provide safe spaces to play, be, and enjoy public life

23


Stitching Spaces Making Places

JUNCTIONS CORNER RADII

CROSSING AT JUNCTIONS

Smaller and more compact road intersections protect more vulnerable road users. Across all streets, we reduce and tighten the curbs at intersections, slowing cars down.

Where neighbourhood and local main streets meet (Fig 22), pedestrian desire lines are maintained. The crossing is at the level of the road bed, maintaining the importance of vehicle movement along these roads. The cycle path is maintained across the junction, again dropping to the level of the road bed. Pedestrian crossings are provided at all arms of the junction.

Fig. 19 :Current situation: curves are wide and dangerous for vulnerable road users Pedestrian desire lines are deflected

Where heavily traffic calmed residential streets connect with busier neighbourhood and local main streets, the roadbed is raised to pavement level (Fig 23). This ensures vehicles turning from main to calm streets do so slowly, and establishes pedestrian priority at the junction. Where there is a cycle lane on the busier street, the desire line is maintained, and the lane raises to the level of the pavement.

To minimise crossing distance, pedestrians have to detour Cars turn earlier and faster Cyclists risk getting dangerously overtaken by cars turning left Pedestrians have to look further behind to check for fast turning cars, and can’t easily establish priority over turning vehicles

Fig. 20 :Ideal situation: Curves are tight and protect vulnerable road users Pedestrian and cyclist desire lines are maintained Vehicles turn slowly because their visibility is reduced

CROSSING THE STREET On neighbourhood and local main streets, the curb extends out to the roadbed at intersections to allow people to cross. On residential streets, crossing is informal and unmarked, with slow traffic speeds and volumes allowing pedestrians to cross anywhere.

Fig. 21 :(Top) Existing junctions have wide corner radii and no formal or informal crossing points, giving cars priority and making them dangerous for vulnerable road users

Fig. 22 :(Middle) At intersections between busier streets, pedestrian and cycle desire lines are maintained but crossings are at the level of the road bed

Cars travel slower, reducing risk for cyclists travelling straight on Pedestrians don’t have to look far back to check for turning cars, and can easily establish priority over slow turning vehicles

24

Fig. 23 :(Bottom) At intersections between traffic calmed streets and busier ones, crossings on the quiet street are raised to pavement level, slowing vehicles down when turning


Masterplan

25


Stitching Spaces Making Places

Castlebay is a local main street. At its south end it meets Liddesdale Road, Milton’s neighbourhood main street. Here, it meets Egilsay Street running horizontally. To the left, Egilsay is a residential street, heavily traffic calmed. Where it meets Castlebay, a raised bed junction paved as a continuation of the pavement indicates to drivers on the main street that they are entering a calm residential street and should slow down. Alternating parking on Egilsay stops 15-20m before the junction to avoid too much congestion. To the right, Egilsay Street is another local main street, taking local traffic to the east of Milton. The pedestrian desire line is maintain when crossing, but the roadbed does not raise to the level of the pavement here.

Liddesdale Road is a neighbourhood main street, taking local and regional traffic from west to east, and Raasay Street is a local main street taking local traffic south. At both intersections, the level of the roadbed stays the same, with crossings coming down to that level. On the north side of Liddesdale, the cycle lane continues painted across the junction with Raasay, maintaining the desire line and clear priority. The curb extends out on both sides of the street at the junction, clearing drivers’ views and enabling pedestrians and cyclists to be better seen.

26


Masterplan

Both Shapinsay Street and Malacleit Street are residential streets. Traffic is sufficiently calmed and of low volume, with one slow moving lane only, so that there are no formal crossings. Crossing the street is safe for all pedestrians anywhere along the street.

Ronay Street and Mingulay Street are both residential streets bordered on all sides by existing housing stock. Painted on-street parking formalises the parking situation and calms the streets to safe speeds. If this formalised parking is adhered to, it should be safe to cross these streets at any point, so formal pedestrian crossings are not needed. We have also reduced speeds at junctions like this by building out the corners to tighten corner radii. Cars have to slow down to 10-15mph to turn, where previously they could travel at 20-30mph.

Fig. 24 :Extracts from the masterplan - (Top left) Junction at Castlebay St and Egilsay St - (Bottom left) Junction of Liddesdale Rd and Raasay St - (Top right) Junction of Shapinsay St and Malacleit St - (Bottom right) Junction of Ronay St and Mingulay St.

27


Stitching Spaces Making Places

ADAPTING THE EXISTING As long as housing stock remains viable, much of Milton’s existing street fabric will not be replaced with ideal street layouts in the near future. It is only in undeveloped or heavily vacant areas where we can implement ideal street designs from the get-go. In the rest of Milton, though, there are small, low-tech interventions which can be made in order to drastically improve the status quo.

FORMALISING PARKING Speed bumps should be removed, and informal parking half on pavements should be disallowed. Instead, parking bays should be painted on the roadbed, alternating sides. Where existing streets are quite narrow, this will emulate our residential street layout by effectively creating a single lane for traffic, with turnouts (where parking is not allowed) for cars to wait and pass others. Where streets are wider, this will be closer to our local main streets, with two lanes of traffic weaving slightly where parking alternates.

TIGHTENING CURVES Where possible, corner radii should be built out to make them much tighter and reduce turning speeds (b02a;p24). If this proves too expensive, temporary interventions such as painting tighter radii, or working with the community to create art on the roadbed at intersections should help reduce speeds.

28


Masterplan

PROVIDING CROSSINGS Where an existing street is designated as a neighbourhood or local main street in the street hierarchy, pedestrian crossings should be painted on the road bed and the curb should be dropped. At intersections of main streets, painted crossings should also be provided.

Fig. 25 :(far left) Speed bumps do little to change driver behaviour, and make the streetscape unfriendly. Cars frequently park half on the pavements, further narrowing the already narrow pedestrian space Fig. 26 :(left) Speed bumps are removed and parking is formalised, freeing up pavement space for pedestrians and acting as low-tech traffic calming

CATERING FOR CYCLISTS As in our ideal street layouts, bicycle parking should be provided regularly in the place of parking spaces.

HUMANISING LIGHTING As in all streets, tall utilitarian road lighting is replaced with human scale street lamps, helping to create the sense that the streets are for people, not just cars.

Fig. 27 :(right) Intersections have wide curves, so cars travel at higher speeds and pedestrian freedom is inhibited Fig. 28 :(far right) Corner radii are tightened, making cars travel slower, and pedestrian crossings are painted on where appropriate

29


Stitching Spaces Making Places

The existing Egilsay Street at the west end is relatively narrow and bordered on all sides by existing stock, leaving no room to implement our ideal street design. When bordering housing stock expires, we would need to take back (and compensate owners for) a certain proportion of the front of plots.

30


Masterplan

This existing green island allows us space for our ideal street - we are also able to return some of this undefined open space to the street-scape and better work with the remainder to create a quality open green space that relates and informally belongs to the houses that front it, as well as being integrated into the SuDS network running along the street.

Vacant land along the north side of the street at the east end allows us to ‘steal’ some land to create our ideal street design, with alternating parking and free movement of buses.

Fig. 29 :Adaptation of existing Egilsay Street and interaction with new fabric

31


Stitching Spaces Making Places

PARKING

USUAL SITUATION

OUR APPROACH

Most of the UK streetscapes in old as well as new neighbourhoods are dominated by cars. Heavy on street parking has become standard and motionless vehicles are dictating the way we live in public space and how we use it.

Our proposed street design is trying to change the paradigm of a car-led approach into a human-led approach. Parking is carefully incorporated into the streetscape, however, the amount of lots is lower than usual. Contemporary cities are more and more focusing on sustainability and that is also reflected in desired modal split and the growing preference for public and non-motorized modes of transport. Moreover, the city shouldn’t be responsible for the placement of private cars on public land. Indeed, when private cars are to park where they want, that is a form of informal privatisation of public land.

WHAT’S WRONG Streets like the image below have been taken over by cars, are increasing the risk of speeding and pedestrians are losing their sense of ownership to it. The street becomes just a corridor. The continuous parking lanes on both sides are occupying space originally designated for pavements. Milton is also suffering from informal on-street parking while there are minimal actually designed parking spots.

Fig. 31 :Car dominated street forming corridors whit minimal relationship to pedestrian movement.

32

Private parking on the plots is not restricted in any way,. Supplementary guidance will however control the way entrances to ground floor or underground parking should behave in relation to the street.

Fig. 30 :Limited amount of parking spaces incorporated in wholesome street design in Sutton.


Masterplan

MATERIALS

GENERAL PAVING Existing pavements in Milton are generally covered by asphalt, the cheapest option on the market. However, materiality has a high impact on the overall feel of a space, therefore it is necessary to careful reflect on design choices. Proposed materials are trying to reach a balance between design, quality and cost. General paving across Milton should be done in paving slabs, such as shown in the image below. The actual material choices can vary, depending on the availabilities and aspirations.

reflect the value of the place and improve its quality. This selection is not restricted, but is intended to differ between places to distinguish and support their characters. The examples of paving for these kinds of areas is illustrated below. Specific use in Milton will be further examined in in Special Places (02b Masterplan).

NOTABLE PLACES Change in paving should happen on places of special interest, like squares and other important public places. Change of materials is expected where a change of scale is created. Selected surface choices should always

Fig. 34 :Big-scale slabs for important places.

Fig. 33 :Paving slabs example for general paving.

Fig. 32 :Specific style tiling defining the character of place.

33


Stitching Spaces Making Places

Ecological networks CORRIDORS FOR NATURE Urban ecological networks are formed of stepping stones of linked green and blue spaces (including private gardens) and provide ecological corridors which extend the habitat range of various species and can increase biodiversity. They are a very important part of the environmental infrastructure and resilience of the city. The continuous landscapes of this environmental infrastructure are not just environmentally productive: they connect city to country, providing many benefits including to physical and psychological health. Green infrastructure can be productive socially, cultural and economically too. Network connectivity is the degree to which all green nodes are linked by corridors. Network circuitry is the degree to which loops or alternate routes are present. Together, they measure the complexity of a network, providing an index of effectiveness of linkages strengthening biodiversity and access to green spaces for Humans.

low connectivity low circuitry

high connectivity low circuitry

high connectivity high circuitry

In our masterplan, we want to maximise network connectivity and circuitry, to reap all of these productive benefits for Milton. In this section we go through some of the interventions we use to intensify Milton’s ecological landscapes. Fig. 35 :Connectivity and circuitry

34


Fig. 36 : Integrated and continuous green and blue networks help to maximise ecosystem services

Masterplan

35


Stitching Spaces Making Places

MEDIUM-TERM IMPROVEMENTS TO MILTON PARK

Milton Park is one of the area’s only existing formal green spaces. Aside from its size, one of Milton Park’s key problems is inaccessibility. The only access point currently is from Vallay Street, housing borders the park on the remaining 3 sides, with private backs facing into the park. This lack of escape routes, and the fact that the park cannot be used to get from A to B, makes it feel less safe, and certainly means it is less well-used. We believe it is essential to improve access into the park - for pedestrian connectivity, for safety, and to allow many more residents to benefit from this green space. We think we can improve accessibility without demolishing houses before their time, following our guiding principle of the path of least resistance. We do however need to reclaim land which is currently part of back gardens to create passageways. We propose the best and most cost effective way to do this is to take land adjacent to GHA owned properties. The aim of this exercise is to make the park accessible from all sides, creating useful trajectories through the park. The exact location of paths is less important.

Fig. 38 :Masterplan - Milton Park, showing entrances from all sides Fig. 37 :Map showing ownership of buildings around Milton Park, used to selectively reclaim GHA land to create more entrance points. Building and land owned by GHA Building owned privately

36


Masterplan

The park is also a key area of flood risk. Scottish Water is currently working to install more conventional sewer capacity to manage excess stormwater - but we propose the use of SuDS (see b02a;p38) to mitigate floor risk and improve the human recreation and biodiversity value of the space. A SuDS rain pond in the place of a currently impermeable paved area can help attenuate rain water absorption, and stormwater can runoff from swales on higher ground on Scaraway Street to the north and Egilsay Street to the

Fig. 40 :A SuDS rainwater pond in Milton Park, which could easily be connected to the wider SuDS network

Fig. 39 :Map showing key areas of flood risk in and around Milton Park

MORE ABOUT MILTON PARK... south (both designated SuDS streets). On b02b;p52, we think more about the relationship between housing on Vallay Street and the park. In 03 The Time Dimension, we consider a longer time horizon, and what might come of Milton Park much further into the future.

37


Stitching Spaces Making Places

SUSTAINABLE URBAN DRAINAGE

Milton has a flooding problem and has been identified as a key area in Glasgow’s flooding prevention strategy. The neighbourhood also suffers from a shortage of quality public green spaces. Although it finds itself on the edge of the countryside, its biodiversity is poor and disparate. Milton is therefore the perfect candidate for an integrated sustainable urban drainage strategy. SuDS takes a longterm view of drainage, considering environmental and social factors and offering alternatives to conventional drainage to cope with increasingly extreme weather events. We create an integrated SuDS network which specifically focus on areas at high risk of flooding

Fig. 41 :Flood risk in Milton and an existing fragmented green network. A comprehensive networked SuDS strategy is applied to at risk areas.

4 PILLARS OF SUDS

Water quantity

Biodiversity

SuDS allows the effective management of large quantities of water - the flow rate is reduced through attenuation, lowering the pressure on already strained sewer systems. This becomes more important as extreme weather events become more common with climate change.

Water quality

SuDS Design

The quality of water runoff needs to be managed. If water is going to flow into a watercourse, treatment of water may be necessary. Some of this may be possible through bioremediation.

38

SuDS can provide a greater diversity of habitats, increasing connectivity and enabling species to reach further into the city. SuDS can also create habitats, and promote the stewardship of natural resources by humans.

Amenity

People are reconnected with the natural water cycle, mitigating heat islands, and taking pollutants out of the air. SuDS offers massive potential to make a positive contribution tot he look and feel of spaces


Fig. 42 :An integrated approach to SuDS - public and private rights and responsibilities - map showing SuDS streetscapes and private plots which border the public SuDS network

Masterplan

39


Stitching Spaces Making Places

Fig. 46 :Concrete-supported grass paving for on-street parking

Fig. 43 :Neighbourhood main street SuDS treatment Fig. 44 :Local main street SuDS treatment Fig. 45 :Residential street SuDS treatment

40


SCOPE FOR AMALGAMATION

Masterplan

BACK ACCESS

LANDSCAPING

PUBLIC

+ PRIVATE FREE

It tackles the issue of excess rain water It improves the feel of the street scape It means flooding prevention funding can be transferred over to overall street maintenance. Street design adaptations for SuDS follow the same hierarchy as for other streets (see Street Design, b02a;p10). On neighbourhood and local main streets where there is the most room, we propose swales bordering the pavement on both sides, with trees in bioretention planters. On-street parking should use permeable concrete-supported grass paving. On residential streets we propose a swale on at least one side of the road.

SuDS

<2m

The SuDS network on streets is important, but the plots bordering them are also valuable resources for water attenuation and form an integral part of the SuDS network (see Fig. 42) <1m

Where it is necessary, we transform our street networks TREATMENT to integrate flooding prevention. This has three BOUNDARY crucial benefits:

GREEN

In the plot passports (b02a;p58) for these plots, the landscaping regulation will stipulate that the owner must do a certain amount to integrate SuDS into at least the front landscaping of their plots. Plot owners will be presented with a list of acceptable actions - options and features which encourage stormwater runoff, filtration and surface permeability. As existing housing stock expires and where new plot passports are adopted, SuDS regulations should be extended to these plots where they lie along the designated network.

Fig. 48 :SuDS plots and on-street swales work together

Rainwater should where possible be harvested in communal rain butts.

water treatment plant

evaporation surface run-off

infiltration

SUDS

more vegetation

sewers

ground water

collection tank

re-used directed to

extracted

Fig. 47 :Collection, surface run-off and attenuation can be used to create more climate resilient urban landscapes

41


Stitching Spaces Making Places

Fig. 49 :Sustainable drainage takes many forms, most of which do not at first glance appear to be systems dealing with overtaxed sewer systems. Incorporating the management of water back into landscape can have a huge, positive impact on placemaking

42


Masterplan

GREATER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS

The value in the green network comes from both its parts, and what they make when sewn together. Each element in the network has its place, and is part of something bigger. Each point in the network is likely to have a core group of local users; connections between them open up these spaces to people passing through nature for leisure or longer journeys. This diversity of open spaces allows people to interact with nature at different scales and intensities, promoting synergy between people, city and nature. Some, not all of the spaces, thoroughly integrate SuDS design, but all are designed with an awareness of their interaction with and place in the environment.

In these pages we showcase some of the green ‘nodes’ in the network, and how they relate to a bigger picture. At the larger level, much of the quality of the green space will depend on the investment of public authorities. But as with many other elements of this masterplan, the ongoing maintenance of these and smaller green spaces will depend on cultivating a feeling of ownership and stewardship towards them by local communities. The actual design of these green places should be the result of true community engagement: a two way conversation in which the needs and wishes of the community who will be looking after the spaces are at the heart.

This is a holistic approach to green networks which to maximise the benefit to all should be extended across the whole of the city and beyond.

improved air quality

Fig. 50 :When green and blue networks are truly integrated, there are many direct and indirect benefits

diminution of the effects of rain

biodiversity attractive high street retail

property value increase

cooling effect

shading

sense of place strong identity shelter

walkability SUDS

43


Stitching Spaces Making Places

Possil Marsh Wildlife reserve, newly accessible Pocket park

Existing green corridor given new life Historical green corridor, redirected

Green strip block See b02b;p38

Rescuing green islands and making them productive

Canal edge See b02b;p42 Wilderness in the city, overlooked by houses

Milton’s Community Orchard part of a resilient food-growing network

44


Masterplan

SuDS wetland walkway making nature accessible

Allotments, part of a resilient food growing network (b02b;p40) Milton Park, more permeable for people and water (b02b;p522)

Ashgill Road Greenway See b02b;p54 Streets ‘greened’ by SuDS

Pocket park

Milton’s Community Garden, part of a resilient food network

Node

Linear node

Connection

Fig. 51 :Greater than the sum of its parts - green network extracted from the masterplan, showing nodes and connections between them

45


Stitching Spaces Making Places

Plots and buildings CLOSE NOT COARSE (GRAIN) With our overall urban structure and block layout determined, we reflect on subdividing our blocks into plots with the intention of developing a close grain, diverse and legible urban form. Five fundamental ideas underpin our approach to plot design: Plots must make sense in relation to likely sizes and shapes of buildings Proposed land uses must be accommodated Open space and amenity requirements must be sufficient in the area Permeability around (and through the block when possible) should be achieved The built form and massing must consider sunlight and views

“Big buildings with long façades, few entrances and few visitors mean an effective dispersal of events. The principle, in contrast, should be narrow units and many doors.” Life Between Buildings - Gehl

We have designed the skeleton of the masterplan through our hierarchical, connected and permeable street network. We now focus on the substance that hinges on this skeleton. Following our foundation masterplan, we design plots that can accommodate the typologies required to reach our desired densities. We transform those street edges and plot layouts to accommodate public spaces.

46


Fig. 52 :Streets are the foundation of public realm

Masterplan

47


Stitching Spaces Making Places

RESEARCHING PLOTS We use the Local Urban Code book both to inform our own thinking about suitable typologies and to provide ranges of key metrics for use to use as guidance when laying out the plots on our masterplan. During the foundation masterplan stage, we used information on street edge coverage, net density and mix of use. Now, we use detail at the level of the plot: including depths, widths, building lines and plot coverage ratios. At Albert Drive (Fig. 53, below) we noted variations in setback within the block, depending on whether the expression of the tenement typology was residential or mixed with commercial on the ground floor. This emphasised how subtle changes in structure can impact the feel of the street.

ON SHORT SIDES Plot frontage 45m (corners) Setbacks 0m Plot coverage c.50%

ON LONG SIDES Plot frontage 22m Setbacks 3m Plot coverage c.50%

Fig. 53 :An urban block at Albert Drive and Kenmure Street, analysed as part of research into suitable typologies and metrics for plots

48


Masterplan

AND BUILDINGS We also carefully consider how plot dimensions should interact with building orientation, and what different plot widths mean for the unit sizes within. In the case of the perimeter block, for example, buildings facing north-south need to be wider and shallower, and buildings facing east-west need to be narrower and deeper, to maximise solar gain.

THE CASE FOR SPACE The average new Dutch home is 80% (137sqm) bigger than the average new UK home. That’s despite the Netherlands being at least as space constrained as the UK (population density is almost twice as high in Holland).

We observed variations in building widths within the tenement typology in the city and found they ranged from around 12m to 20m.

A study for CABE reported that around 50% of households said they didn’t have enough room for their furniture, close to 60% had inadequate storage space, and almost 50% had insufficient space to entertain visitors.

A 20m plot width allows for 2 flats each 10m wide of frontage - 2 rooms each on the front side.

(Source: RIBA, 2009 The Case for Space)

A 12m plot width allows for 2 flats each with 6m of frontage - 1 room each on front side

The floorspace in Pollokshields’ Victorian tenements is much more generous than homes built now in the UK. Average home sizes in the UK are the smallest in Europe and new homes have been shrinking we want to reverse this trend. How much space is needed in a home depends on lifestyle and on household size, both of which change over time. Having adequate space also has wellresearched impacts on health, wellbeing and relationships both within a household and in communities. The plots we provide for single family dwellings allow for generous floorspace standards. Unless minimum standards are introduced, there is of course nothing stopping someone from building small houses on these plots (provided they meet regulations set out in plot passports), but by providing the space, we open up the potential for bigger homes to be built and expanded over time as households change and grow.

Fig. 54 :(opposite top) Urban coding on Albert Drive Fig. 55 :(above) Width and depth of plots and the buildings on them should react to orientation to maximise daylighting

49


Stitching Spaces Making Places

SPACE FOR (DIFFERENT) PEOPLE How much diversity can you create from 3 basic residential typologies? Alot. By varying plot widths, we can lay the foundations for a huge amount of diversity.

WHY LIMIT TYPOLOGIES IN THE FIRST PLACE? Limiting building typologies does not run counter to our aim of increasing diversity. Instead, it controls the quality of that diversity. Through research and observation, we have built up a picture of which typologies have the potential to positively contribute to places, and which can end up being damaging. We’ve also considered which typologies are most popular among people, what housing demand is likely to look like in the future, and what suits Milton’s position in within the city. As the last of Milton’s tenements come down, the area is left with 3 typologies - single family, mostly terraced homes, ‘cottages’ and free-standing towers. There is nothing inherently wrong with the first two - in fact they match well what people in Milton need and want. The freestanding towers, however, don’t suit Milton’s position in the city. Free-standing towers don’t interact with streets and surrounding public spaces, which make residents isolated from the neighbourhood. A single entrance to a tower containing close to 100 units means what activity there is concentrated in a single spot rather than spread around the area.

50

DIFFERENT TYPOLOGIES We look for basic typologies which are actively engaged with the urban form around them. There are of course adaptations to and variations of these typologies which work better in specific places (see 03 The Time Dimension), but there are three which form the basis of our masterplan. Single family houses Suited to all areas, but particularly quieter residential areas where we expect to find more families living Flats - 1 flat per floor Mixed into all areas where we want to ensure more frequent entrances, and provide smaller dwellings in areas dominated by houses Flats - 2 flats per floor Found mostly in areas where we want a concentration of people


Masterplan

SAME TYPOLOGIES, DIFFERENT HEIGHTS Within these typologies, there is diversity in building height - heights relate to the densities we want to achieve, to the character of the area, and how the buildings frame surrounding streets. Varying the number of storeys of a single family house, for example, drastically changes the available floorspace and the household sizes it can accommodate.

SAME TYPOLOGIES, DIFFERENT WIDTHS Along a street with a single typology, plot sizes vary. If plots are priced at a flat price per square metre, a diversity in plot size will open up the development of plots to a wide range of people, including individuals, collectives, housing associations and small developers. By varying the width of plots we also control the number of entrances on a street and therefore the level of activity observed. Widths also vary depending on the orientation of the plot, to maximise solar gain - so the shapes and sizes of the same typology facing east-west and north-south will be different. Where there are ground floor uses, different widths create variation in unit size which means commercial tenants with different space requirements and budgets can find the appropriate unit size.

SAME TYPOLOGIES, VARIATION WITHIN A BUILDING Each building of the same typology has the potential to contain a whole range of units of different shapes and sizes, suitable for different types of household, appealing to different tastes, and catering to different levels of affordability. Where there are active ground floor uses, the same typology can be configured differently for example by subdividing space to create smaller units. Where ground floor use is residential, the same typology can incorporate private on-street entrances to ground floor flats or not, changing the feel of the space. (Fig 58)

Fig. 56 :Extracts from the masterplan - Variations in height within the same typology (Top) on Vallay St facing Milton Park and (Middle) Where Liddesdale meets Scalpay Place - Variations in plot width and resulting unit sizes within the same typology (Bottom) where Castlebay St meets Torogay Terrace

51


Stitching Spaces Making Places

VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL DIFFERENTIATION Plot based urbanism can create an infinite amount of variations in the built environment. Although the masterplan might look like we are specifying the same typology in a large area and that way reducing diversity, do not be fooled by the image: internal layouts and elevational treatments can vary infinitely. Fig. 57 :(right) Apparent monotony of red, but don’t be fooled

52


Masterplan

Fig. 58 :Horizontal diversity along the street and vertical differentiation within buildings provide units suitable for a whole range of household shapes and sizes as well as ground floor business uses

53


Stitching Spaces Making Places

Fig. 59 :Maps showing heights across the design area. The majority of existing housing is 2 storey

1 storey

54

2 storey


Masterplan

HEIGHTS Across the design area, the height of buildings is influenced and influences density, character, definition in the landscape, views, and uses. The vast majority of Milton’s current housing stock is 2-storey. With no street hierarchy to define the relative importance of some streets over others, the result is endless corridors with little variety. Our street hierarchy gives prominence to certain roads over others, and we use this prominence (often combined with the requirement or possibility of active ground floor uses) to define the landscape, with buildings usually onestorey taller than in their immediate surroundings.

This is well demonstrated by the development of vacant land in the northeast of Milton. We raise building heights along Scaraway Street to the north, and along Egilsay Street to the south - two key local main routes

In St Monica Square, height is used both to emphasise the prominence of the space, and to react to the topography - buildings along the north edge are lower than the south, so need to be higher to look over the space

y - some of our intervention matches that, while building up at key points

3 storey

4 storey

High rise

55


Stitching Spaces Making Places

CASTING LIGHT In order to better understand how our proposals for new built form interacts with topography and daylight, we used GIS to map cumulative sunlight at 3 key points in the year - winter solstice, summer solstice, and spring equinox (which is similar to autumn equinox). The amount of natural sunlight has an important effect on people’s health and physical well being, and fundamentally alters the way people use space.

These maps - which invert sunlight to show shadows cast - help us to better understand the space we are creating, and where necessary to alter proposed built form to better benefit from natural daylight. Newly created public spaces are often south-facing and are well lit by natural daylight.

Fig. 60 :From the relatively light shadows here you can see that Monica Square receives a good amount of natural daylight throughout the year

Fig. 62 61 :Cumulative shadows casts over the course of the day at Winter Solstice.

56


Masterplan

Fig. 64 :(Above) Cumulative shadows cast over the course of the day at Spring Equinox

Fig. 63 :(Below) Cumulative shadows cast over the course of the day at Summer Solstice

57


Stitching Spaces Making Places

PLOT PASSPORTS

Plot passports are documents which set out the parameters of permitted developed - what’s allowed and what’s not. The idea is that they follow a regulatory masterplan covering the whole area, and act as a more or less automatic grant of planning permission where the plot owner sticks to the rules as set out. The idea is not to over-regulate and stifle development, but to get that balance between creating and maintaining over time an urban form which works and is adaptable, and allowing as much freedom as possible otherwise. The parameters of each plot passport deliberately exclude, through required heights, depths, widths and coverage ratios, certain typologies which we don’t want to allow - for reasons of resilience or of character, for example. Despite limiting typologies, both the range of plot sizes and the lack of aesthetic design codes lay the groundwork for all kinds of diversity. Sometimes plot passport include extra regulations particular to certain areas - for example plots which lie in flood risk areas have requirements for sustainable drainage in front gardens (See b02a;p41). Plot passports are widely used in new sustainable development on the continent, and in self-build projects in the UK. Plot passports could also be given to owners of existing individual built plots as a ‘menu of redevelopment options’ (Rudlin, 2016), as part of a process of developing a neighbourhood plan. As with new-build plots, this would act as an automatic grant of planning permission for redevelopment of that plot which the legacy owner could decide to take or leave. This voluntary system of redevelopment as housing stock expires is piecemeal, but preferable to compulsory purchase of owner-occupied plots by the local authority. The plot passport is a mostly graphic representation of regulations which will be given to purchasers of plots. It is

58

intended as a visual overview conveying key information specific to that plot - the purchaser will also be provided with supplementary technical documentation which explains terms and details additional regulation applying to all plot holders. In this section we go through each of the regulations set out in the basic plot passport, explaining why we believe each of them serves a purpose and is necessary. We then show an example passport for a plot on Barras Street. We circulated this plot passport to architect students and friends who we asked to produce an elevation, to see what kind of visual diversity might be produced according to the same set of rules. The results of this experiment are at b02a;p64-69.


Masterplan

TYPE

What? This regulation is in two parts:

TYPE

PE

TYPE

Single Family

Single Family

Single Family

Single Family

Multi - Family (2)Multi - Family (2)

Single family

Terraced

Whether the building on the plot should be designed to be occupied by a single household, or several households. - Family (2) Multi - Family (2) Single-family plots are Multihouses; multi-family plots, depending on the width of the plot and height restrictions, could be flats but also houses side-by-side or stacked on top of each other.

Terraced TYPE

Multi-family

Single

Single

Whether the building on the plot is part of a terrace, one half ofSemia semi, or Multi totally - Family (2) detached.

Semi

Single Family

TerracedSingle

Terraced

Detached

Semi-detached

TYPE

TYPE

These rules help us control the character of areas. Often Multi - Family (2) Multi - Family (2) we use them to create a distinction in character between Terraced Single Semi more highly populated urban and less densely populated, more residential areas, but also to generate a mix of households, large and small. Most of our plot passports stipulate buildings must be terraced - this helps us Multi - Family (2) Multi - Familyof (2) the control the continuity urban fabric and keep a more Required Required continuous interaction between buildings and streets. Terraced Single

Terraced TYPE

No

TYPE

No

Single Family

Single Family

Possible

Possible

USES

S

Sem

Semi

Single Family

Single Family

USES

GE ACTIVE FRONTAGE

Single

Why?

Terraced

Single

Sem

USES

USES

What? Possible

No

Terraced

PLOT COVERAGE

PLOT COVERAGE

PLOT COVERAGE

BUILDING HEIGHT 40% -60% max 60%

40% -60% max 60%

Sem

INNER LINE

INNER LINE

Possible

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

INNER LINE

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

INNER LINE

INNER LINE

INNER LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

INNER LINE

INNER LINE

INNER LINE

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

INNER LINE

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINESTREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

INNER LINE

INNER LINE

INNER LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

INNER LINE STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

40% -60% max 60%

Possible

A mix ofSemiuses is essential in some areas and desirable in many; there are also areas in which the character is purely residential and mixed uses are inappropriate. We use these rules to cultivate the appropriate balance of residential and non-residential uses across the masterplan Possible Required - and particularly soPossible that the core of our neighbourhood centres have the commercial space necessary to thrive.

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

ADJOINING BUILDING LINES

40% -BUILDING max 60% 60% HEIGHT BACK ACCESS

INNER LINE

LINE 40% -60% max 60%

Semi

The residential floorspace requirement keeps these areas truly ‘mixed’ rather than monofunctional. Allowing but not Required requiring non-residential uses allows for building use to respond to changes in demand and need. Plots requiring non-residential uses are carefully distributed across the masterplan according to where they will serve the largest catchment.

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

PLOT COVERAGE

SCOPE FOR AMALGAMATION

STREET LINE INNER BUILDING LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

PLOT COVERAGE

5.5 - 8m

OINING BUILDING LINES

ADJOINING BUILDING LINES

BUILDING HEIGHT

INNER LINE

5.5 - 8m STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

DING HEIGHT

Residential / other Possible floorspace

STREET 5.5 - 8m LINE BUILDING LINE

No

ACTIVE FRONTAGE

No

40% -60% max 60%

max 40% -60% 60% PLOT COVERAGE

Single

Single

INNER LINE

BUILDING HEIGHT

5.5 - 8m

USES

Professional

5.5 - 8m

No

ACTIVE FRONTAGE

ADJOINING DING LINES BUILDING LINES

T COVERAGE

Single

Required

Required

What uses the building on the plot is required or permitted to have, and by extension what uses are disallowed.

Why? No

No

40% -60% max 60%

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

ACTIVE FRONTAGE

STREET LINE INNER LINE LINE BUILDING

Residential

PLOT COVERAGE

INNER LINE

USES

INNER LINE

Industry and fabrication

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

Terraced ACTIVE FRONTAGE ACTIVE FRONTAGE

INNER LINE

USES

40% -60% max 60%

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

5.5 - 8m

5.5 - 8m

BUILDING T HEIGHT

40% -60% max 60%

Required

If non-residential uses are allowed, how much of the floorspace of the building on the plot may be used for nonresidential uses.

Multi - Family (2)

USES

Commercial

PLOT COVERAGE

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

INNER LINE

INNER LINE

Single Family

USES

INNER LINE

TYPE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

INNER LINE

INNER LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

Terraced

Possible

Possible

This regulation is in two parts:

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

No

ACTIVE FRONTAGE

INNER LINE

No

INNER LINE

ACTIVE FRONTAGE

VE FRONTAGE

59

Require

Require


Multi - FamilySingle (2) Family

Multi - Family (2)

Terraced

Single

Stitching Spaces Making Places

Terraced

Single

d

Single

Semi

ACTIVE FRONTAGE

Semi

What?

USES

This regulation stipulates whether the ground floor of a building on the plot must or is allowed to have active engagement with the street (e.g. a cafe, a shop). No

ACTIVE FRONTAGE

Why?

Possible

This is an extension of the previous regulation, which on its own does not create active street life - non-residential Single Family Multi - Family (2) uses could be any compatible uses including office area, it is Possible space and workshops. Across the masterplan Required Required important in certain areas that there is active engagement with buildings at street level - both to provide residents Possible with daily shops and services, but also to influence the Terraced Single Semi character of an area and extend activity throughout the day.

Terraced

PLOT COVERAGE

Single

40% -60% max 60%

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

INNER LINE

Possible

Required

5.5 - 8m

It stipulates where the building must be positioned in relation to the front (street edge) of the plot.

BUILDING HEIGHT

Terraced

Semi

This regulation is in two parts:

No

ACTIVE FRONTAGE Multi - Family (2)

40% -60% max 60%

What?

INNER LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE INNER LINE

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

INNER LINE

INNER LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE USES

Multi - Family (2)

BUILDING LINES

USES

Single Family

RAGE

INNER LINE

Single Family

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

TYPE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

Required

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

No

Possible

ONTAGE

INNER LINE

TYPE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

None

Single

Semi

It stipulates the ‘build zone’ within the plot where the building’s footprint is allowed

Some setback possible

BUILDING LINES

40% -60% max 60%

40% -60% max 60%

BACK ACCESS SCOPE FOR AMALGAMATION ADJOINING BUILDING LINES

FOR AMALGAMATION

60

BACK ACCESS

LANDSCAPING

No setback allowed INNER LINE

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

ADJOINING BUILDING LINES

INNER LINE

BUILDING HEIGHT

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

SCOPE FOR AMALGAMATION 5.5 - 8m

INNER LINE

PLOT COVERAGE

Required

INNER LINE

INNER LINE

Where frontages must be active, it usually follows that the building line must coincide with the front of the plot, to guarantee interaction between street and building. In other areas, more or less setback from the street is allowed, which helps us cultivate different relationships between private, semi-public and public domains in different areas. INNER LINE

BUILDING HEIGHT

5.5 - 8m LINE STREET BUILDING LINE

Possible

INNER LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

No

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

40% -60% max 60%

PLOT COVERAGE

Required

Building lines (also referred to as setback in this booklet) are hugely important in determining the character of an area, through the kind of interaction between street and building that they imply.

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

ADJOINING BUILDING LINES

INNER LINE

HEIGHT

INNER LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

Some setback required

5.5 - 8m

ACTIVE FRONTAGE

Possible

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

Why? No

Limiting setbacks via this rule is one of the most important tools we use to avoid the dominance of cars in the landscape - setbacks greater than 4m are never allowed, greatly limiting the use of front gardens as off-street parking. Inner building lines work with the coverage ratio (see next regulation) to help maintain the overlooking distances that have been carefully crafted to ensure sufficient window-to-window privacy at the back of plots.


USES

USES

No

ACTIVE FRONTAGE

Possible

Required

No

ACTIVE FRONTAGE

INNER LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

INNER LINE

5.5 - 8m

Maximum coverage

This regulation helps us influence the character of areas in terms of the amount of private outdoor space available, and works with the previous regulation to ensure plots are not overcrowded. Plot coverage ratios are also related to density, which we want to carefully craft across the masterplan area. Plot coverage ratios deliberately stipulate a maximum - plot owners can initially build on a limited portion of the plot, and expand as need and money allows. STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

40% -60% max 60%

BUILDING HEIGHT

INNER LINE

This regulation stipulates the maximum % of the plot’s area which may be built on. Why?

PLOT COVERAGE

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

What?

INNER LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

PLOT COVERAGE

Possible

INNER LINE

Masterplan

ADJOINING BUILDING LINES

40% -60% max 60%

BUILDING HEIGHT

PLOT COVERAGE

This regulation stipulates the range of acceptable building heights from cornice to cornice. It also stipulates what can happen when demand to build upwards is high, in relation to the height of corner plots.

5.5 - 8m

SCOPE FOR AMALGAMATION

BUILDING HEIGHT

BACK ACCESS

Supplementary guidance defines what is meant by cornice, and what this implies for permissible roof structures.

Cornice to cornice height

LANDSCAPING

GREEN

SuDS

<2m

FREE

What?

BOUNDARY TREATMENT

<1m

ADJOINING BUILDING LINES

Supplementary guidance on roofs and protruding building elements

Why? Again, this regulation helps us control the character of areas, as well as being a crude control on density. Height ranges roughly correspond to the number of storeys but don’t constrain designers to a traditional house format. Maximum heights maintain views where important and are designed to correspond to the type of urban environment we want to create. Extra rules as to what is permissible when demand is high allow flexibility to build upwards when needed, but regulate this process so that the continuity of the street edge is maintained and the urban form does not begin to fragment.

SCOPE FOR AMALGAMATION

61 BACK ACCESS


5.5 - 8m

INNER LINE

INNER LINE

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

Must be continuous BUILDING HEIGHT along street

5.5 - 8m

INNER LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

INNER LINE

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

40% -60% max 60%

PLOT COVERAGE

May differ along street

INNER LINE

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

INNER LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

Why?

INNER LINE

This regulation stipulates whether the building line of a Required plot must match up with its neighbours.

Possible

ADJOINING ADJOINING BUILDING LINESBUILDING LINES

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

Required

What?

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

5.5 - 8m

No

VE FRONTAGE

Possible

40% -60% max 60%

ADJOINING BUILDING LINES BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING HEIGHT

Stitching Spaces Making Places

In some areas, continuity of building lines is desirable - for example in maintaining continuity along street edges in perimeter blocks. It can also help maintain a sense of unity within areas, and be used to create special ‘stages’ where neighbouring buildings work in concert to create a distinct identity to a place. In other areas, such continuity is not as important and individual owners are free to choose the building line (within that regulation) which best suits them. INNER LINE

40% -60% max 60%

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

INNER LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

No

ACTIVE FRONTAGE

PLOT COVERAGEPLOT COVERAGE

INNER LINE

Semi

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

Single

INNER LINE

INNER LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

Terraced USES

SCOPE FOR AMALGAMATION AMALGAMATION 40% -60% max 60%

5.5 - 8m

COVERAGE

DING HEIGHT SS BACK ACCESS

ADJOINING BUILDING LINES

SCOPE FOR AMALGAMATION

What? This regulation stipulates whether adjoining plots may be bought and amalgamated.

NG LANDSCAPING

Why?

INING BUILDING LINES GREEN GREEN SuDS SCOPE FOR AMALGAMATION

SuDS

<2m

<2m

FREE

FREE

No amalgamation permitted

<1m

<1m

BOUNDARY TREATMENT TREATMENT

BACK ACCESS

LANDSCAPING

Amalgamation with specified plots permitted GREEN

SuDS

<2m

FREE

<1m

BOUNDARY TREATMENT

GREEN

SuDS

<1m

<2m

REE

62

We want to achieve as close-grain development as possible. Our favoured typologies are tailored to the smallest common denominator of plots, allowing the widest range of individuals and organisations to own and build on them. Some amalgamation of plots is not always damaging though. If regulated, it can add to rather than detract from the diversity of built form in a place, and acknowledges that the ability to physically expand with demand is sometimes desirable. Amalgamation is always at the level of the street edge, not the block, and is limited to a maximum number of plots along a single street edge this offers flexibility while avoiding a return to block-based development which has less relationship to the hierarchy of streets.


40% -60% max 60%

BUILDING HEIGHT

Why?

INNER LINE

NG

BACK ACCESS GREEN

<2m

ADJOINING BUILDING LINES

TREATMENT

40% -60% max 60%

PLOT COVERAGE

SuDS

Secondary access from back of plot 5.5 - 8m

FREE

BUILDING HEIGHT

LANDSCAPING

INNER LINE

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE INNER LINE

We want to ensure that buildings interact with streets. This means ensuring that primary entrances to buildings are on the portion of the building facing the street. Primary access at the side or rear seriously diminishes the interaction with the building and the street, and residents are less likely to interact with the street or take ownership of it. This rule does not prohibit secondary access points, and in some may mandate them where there is a back lane or backs face onto public space.

Primary access from streetADJOINING BUILDING LINES 5.5 - 8m

SCOPE FOR AMALGAMATION

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

S

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

PLOT COVERAGE

This stipulates where primary access to the building on the plot must be. INNER LINE

BUILDING HEIGHT

INNER LINE

5.5 - 8m

What?

STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

ACCESS

Required STREET LINE + BUILDING LINE

40% -60% max 60%

PLOT COVERAGE

AMALGAMATION

INNER LINE

INNER LINE

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

ADJOINING BUILDING LINES

Possible STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

No

ACTIVE FRONTAGE

INNER LINE

USES

Required

INNER LINE

ADJOINING BUILDING LINES

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

5.5 - 8m

BUILDING HEIGHT

Masterplan

Possible

STREET LINE BUILDING LINE

No

ACTIVE FRONTAGE

<1m

SCOPE FOR AMALGAMATION

FREE

GREEN

SuDS

LANDSCAPING

What?

<2m

BACK ACCESS

ADJOINING BUILDING LINES

<1m

BOUNDARY SCOPE FORTREATMENT AMALGAMATION

LANDSCAPING BACK ACCESS FREE

GREEN

None

This stipulates whether there are any requirements for landscaping on the plot. This is relevant where the plot forms part of the SuDS network or green network (see b02a;p41). SuDS requirements will be from a list of landscaping options and features which encourage SuDS stormwater runoff, filtration and surface permeability. Why?

LANDSCAPING

<2m

SCOPE FOR AMALGAMATION

<1m

BOUNDARY TREATMENT

GREEN Green

FREE

SuDS

In order to create continuous green biodiversity and sustainable drainage networks, it is necessary to stipulate rules on private plots as well as in the public realm.

<2m

BACK ACCESS

SuDS

<1m

BOUNDARY TREATMENT

BOUNDARY TREATMENT LANDSCAPING

GREEN

SuDS

<2m

FREE

What? This regulation stipulates maximum heights for front and back boundary treatment (fences and walls) on the plot. Why?

<1m

BOUNDARY TREATMENT

Permitted boundary heights

Privacy is important, but we want to balance this with avoiding the creation of fortresses. Front gardens are semipublic - in order to maximise use function for residents, they need some degree of privacy, but they also play a key role in interacting with the street scape and facilitating casual interaction, so a degree of openness is required too. The backs of plots are usually private, so higher walls and fences are permissible - but limits are still required to avoid tall walls which block out sunlight for neighbouring plots.

63


Stitching Spaces Making Places

PLOT PASSPORT CODE

LOCAL CHARACTER

L.04

Neighbourhood Core

UNIT TYPE USE

Flats, 2 per floor

Residential, Commercial AREA

390 m2 4198 sq ft

<1m

<2m

n/a

M.2

UNIT DIVISION

T.3

TYPOLOGY

U.2.rc

PERMISSIBLE USES

The building on this plot must include residential and commercial uses. A maximum of 40 of floorspace may be non-residential.

F.2

ACTIVE FRONTAGE

The building on this plot can have an active front (active engagement between the street and the ground floor eg. cafe, shop)

B.0 I.18

BUILDING LINE

C.0.55

COVERAGE RATIO

H.8.5-14

BUILDING HEIGHT

The building must be no less than 8,5m and no more than 14m tall. This equates to approximately 3-4 storeys.

E.c

ADJOINING BUILDING LINES

The building line should be continuous along the street edge.

A.3

SCOPE FOR AMALGAMATION

ou may amalgamate this plot with adjoining plots (max 3 plots can be amalgamated) and build a single building with multiple dwellings.

O.1

ACCESS

The principal elevation of the building must face the street.

G.0

LANDSCAPING

W.n;2

BOUNDARY

INNER LINE

This plot is for multiple dwellings.

This plot is for a flatted, terraced dwelling.

The building must be constructed on the street line (indicated above). The building line must be directly on the the front plot boundary. Beyond this, the footprint of the building may be anywhere within the build zone.

The building must not cover more than 55

of the plot.

ot applicable.

Back garden walls and fences must not exceed 2m in height.

Fig. 65 :Plot Passport for plot L.04

64


Masterplan

Fig. 67 : Building on plot L.04 as designed by Fraser Yardley

Fig. 66 : Building on plot L.04 as designed by Lauren Izzett

65


Stitching Spaces Making Places

Fig. 68 : Building on plot L.04 as designed by Eliška Martínková

Fig. 69 :Building on plot L.04 as designed by Mariana Hanková

66


Masterplan

Fig. 72 : Eliška Martínková

Fig. 70 :Building on plot L.04 as designed by Martina Veronesi

Fig. 71 :Building on plot L.04 as designed by Zdeňka Havlová

67


Stitching Spaces Making Places

Fig. 74 : Building on plot L.04 as designed by Finlay Geddes

Fig. 73 : Building on plot L.04 as designed by Mantas Skirma

68


Masterplan

Fig. 75 : Building on plot L.04 as designed by Craig Higgins

Fig. 76 : Building on plot L.04 as designed by David Fořt. The roof treatment of this design made us realise the need for supplementary guidance which can be found in the previous pages

69


Booklet No.7


Strategy

71



Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.