Milton | Bridging the Islands | Masterplanning

Milton Masterplan

Stage

Package

Masterplan

Group 3: Bridging the Islands

Prepared by Chris Wiseman and Marc Miller Urban Design Studies Unit, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, May 2017

Introduction In 2016, Glasgow Housing Association tabled proposals to the University of Strathclyde Urban Design Studio to develop a new ‘vision’ for Milton, which could be used as a model for further regeneration schemes around the City of Glasgow.

This booklet marks the culmination of the Analysis and Strategy phases; the implementation of our Strategy process through the creation of the Foundation Masterplan, and Detailed Masterplan.

This booklet describes the preliminary ‘foundation’ plan and local urban code upon which any future development should be based. It also presents a detailed masterplan which illustrates one way in which the proposals for Milton could evolve over the next 30 Years.

Authors Chris Wiseman

BA (Hons) Lancaster University PGDip Landscape Archtitecture University of Gloucestershire

Marc Miller

Bsc (Hons) Msc, Glasgow University

Contents Milton: An Analysis

4

Masterplan Design Area

8

Milton: Existing Concept

9

Milton: A Strategy

12

Milton: Proposed Concept

17

Concept Precedents

20

Vision Statement

22

Foundation Masterplan

23

Phasing

30

Detailed Masterplan

35

Start with the Street

38

Housing Typologies

52

Ecological Networks

68

Character Areas and Special Places

73

References and Figure List

97

3

Milton: An Analysis Before any interventions can happen, there must first be a detailed understanding of place. This section provides a summary of the analysis of the existing site conditions.

The purpose of the analysis was to contextualise the Milton site, in terms of: its physical characteristics and form; its historic and social development; extant and future planning policy and strategy, social and economic trends; its connectivity to the wider urban fabric (MCA); and its character and imagined fabric as told by its residents.

Our group Strategy was borne out of 5 ‘Projects’. These Projects were based on the following principal conclusions from the Analysis phase that we considered to be the key to resolving the most pressing of Milton’s issues: the issues that must be solved to kick-start its regeneration.

The following principal conclusions can be drawn from the Analysis phase. Further informatino can be found in the Strategy booklet:

• Accessibility: Milton exhibits low car ownership. Conversely there is high usage of public transport, notwithstanding its poor service of the area. When considered with high levels of income deprivation, it is reasonable to assume that the means of accessibility for the population of Milton are a result of necessity, not choice. From the analysis stage we conclude that lack of accessibility, and lack of choice of options for travel are a primary and limiting issue of the site.

fig. 1: Castlebay Drive

• Density The entire site covers some 149 hectares. According to measurements conducted by the University of Strathclyde (2016) Urban Design Studio Group the residential unit density across Milton currently stands at approximately 79 dwelling per hectare (dph), and population of approximately 6600 (Playle and Meyerricks, 2016). However, this density is skewed by the 6 no. residential towers within the site which together have an average density of c.191dph.

Within our Design Area the average density is approximately 31dph; generally this comprises two storey semi-detached housing at 20-38dph, with a small number of maisonette flats south of Mingulay Street at 6775dph, and a new development of contemporary 2 and 3 storey buildings to the north and south of Liddesdale Road at approximately 43-45dph.

Considering also the high proportion of derelict and / or vacant land within the site, the density of Milton is low. This is reflected in the small number of weak ‘hubs’ (i.e. insufficient to class as ‘nodes’ of activity across the site) offering limited provisions for the local population. The MCA analysis also demonstrates that these nodes lie on routes which have low

4

fig. 2: Liddesdale Road Flats

‘betweeness’ and low ‘closeness’, which would indicate that Milton is not very finely grained relative to Glasgow as a whole.

• Legibility Within our Design Area the amount of vacant land means that nearby streets tend to lack a defined edge and, in turn, a sense of enclosure.

Open views to the rear of far-off buildings do not provide a focus on any distinguishing features, which may otherwise help to orientate pedestrians or vehicle users.

In other areas, the buildings that front the streets within the study area are typically two storeys high and are separated from the street edge by green space. This arrangement, together with the wide carriageways results in an average height to width ratio which does not reflect and reinforce the function or hierarchy of routes or spaces within the Design Area

fig. 4: Vacant Land Milton

fig. 5: Community Shops on Castlebay St

fig. 3: Vacant Land Milton

fig. 6: Community Shops on Liddesdale

5

The MCA output for straightness centrality (undertaken by The University of Strathclyde Analysis Group 5) indicates that the road network within the study area does not provide direct connections to other places.

The routes are convoluted, partly due to the absence of north-south connections. This contributes to a lack of legibility as it is not always obvious how to get from one place to another. The pedestrian only links within the study area are an attempt to resolve the shortcomings of the road network. These, however, are not overlooked and may be unattractive to vulnerable people.

• Places for People While Milton has a high proportion of open space (albeit largelyvacant / derelict land) the access to, and through, it is poor. The existing open space on the site is mono-functional, and separate from the urban fabric; for example, the towers act as islands in a vast sea of amenity grassland.

Milton Park is lost through a lack of legibility. And, despite its proximity to open countryside and the ecologically rich area of the Forth and Clyde canal, there are few formal links from Milton to the wider natural landscape.

Also contributing to these social factors is a poor quality built environment and poor quality of available services. Milton suffers from high crime rates. It is clear from the use of surveillance cameras in Milton, and physical evidence of anti-social behaviour, that the public realm has issues with safety. Evidently the large, unlit areas of vacant land and substantial setbacks between properties and streets do also not provide good natural surveillance

fig. 7: CCTV Milton

• Disconnected Milton currently has large ‘single use’ areas, notably the Balmore Industrial Estate and the largely residential uses throughout the rest of the site. This ‘zoned’ approach does not currently promote mixing of activity / opportunities; it creates barriers to movement; and it does not animate the street, for example the Miltonbank Primary School is hidden from public view within a residential ‘block’.

Within our Design Area there is predominantly residential development, open and vacant land, and a small hub of local services.

fig. 8: Liddesdale Rd

fig. 9: Berneray St

fig. 10: Milton Industrial Estate

fig. 11: Liddesdale Rd

This arrangement is characteristic of the wider residential area within Milton, which lacks a hierarchy of centres. This is because the arrangement of roads and services precludes the concentration of activity and, in turn, the incidence of viable locations for the range of services that one would expect a community the size of Milton to be able to sustain.

Rather than being able to walk from local centre, to neighbourhood centre, to possibly town centre within a reasonable distance, residents on the edge of Milton are faced with the prospect of encountering local centre, local centre, followed by local centre. This limits the incentive to travel up the hierarchy, resulting in much longer journeys for anything other than everyday services, quiet streets that lack animation, and no obvious place for people to come together.

6

To back up the empirical analysis of Milton’s existing condition, it was essential to balance this with a professional appraisal of more qualitative issues that affect, or benefit the site.

The Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Challenges (SWOC) of the site have been analysed in order to understand what areas, or aspects of Milton (physical or social) are most in need of being addressed through the proposals.

By undertaking this initial phase, the proposal should respond to these issues, and look to focus on those most critical to the regeneration of the site. This process started with the use of ‘Place Standard’ online assessment tool developed by Architecture and Design Scotland, NHS Scotland and the Scottish Government.

fig. 13: SWOC Analysis Strengths and Opportunities

fig. 12 Milton Place Standard Assessment fig. 14: SWOC Analysis Weaknesses

fig. 15 SWOC Analysis Challenges

7

Masterplan Design Area The Design Area (‘the site) has evolved from the ‘Area of Interest’ used in the Strategy phase.

• • •

•

Area: 38 hectares; Location: South-east Milton; Key Features: Milton Community Gardens, Milton Memorial Gardens, St. Augustines Church, Ashgill Care Home.

Proportion of Vacant/Derelict Land: 4.29ha (11.3%)

fig. 16: St Augustines Church

fig. 18: Community Garden Sign

fig. 17: Milton Memorial Gardens

fig. 19: Milton Memorial Gardens

The Design Area is bounded by Ashgill road to the east, Berneray Street to the south, open space to the west, and by Mingulay Street and Elgilsay Street to the north. Liddesdale Road bisects the Design Area.

8

fig. 20: Design Area

fig. 21: Design Area Aerial Image (2016)

fig. 22: Liddesdale Road

fig.23: Derelict Milton School Site

fig. 24: Liddesdale Square

Milton: Existing Concept The Existing Concept Plan (Figures 25-28) show the site’s current conditions observed in the Analysis phase of the Project.

This detailed Existing Concept mapping has been undertaken by, and reproduced with the kind permission of Fleischmann M., Saracini M., Wang R., Kovacs I.A., Kyaw L.M., and Wang Y. (2016) ‘Urban Design Studio: Strategy Group 2’.

As described above, this plan looks at those aspects of the urban fabric where most intervention will be focussed, namely:

9

0 100

Density and Nodes

Residential Density Non Residential Urban Area

Urban Node Node 400m Catchment

500

fig. 25: Density and Nodes

Ecological Networks

Cemeteries Tree Density

10

Green Belt Open Spaces

Golf Courses Parks/Designated Natural Space

fig. 26: Ecological Networks

Hierarchy of Streets and Public Transport

High Speed Roads

Urban Main Streets

Bus, Rail and Cycle Transportation

Bus Routes

Cycle Routes

0 100

Local Main Streets

500

fig. 27: Hierarchy of Streets and Public Transport

fig. 28: Bus, Rail and Cycle Transportation

11

Milton: A Strategy

The purpose of the Strategy for Milton is to identify, based on the findings of the previous Analysis phase, ‘Strategic Programmes’ for the development and management of transformation within the Milton site, also taking into account its surroundings.

The Strategic Programmes are based on a combined understanding of the issues facing Milton, both physical and social, in terms of the site’s existing strengths, weaknesses, constraints and opportunities.

The Strategic Programmes are based broadly on the following aspects of urban design and masterplanning: • Nodes; • Road Hierarchy and Transportation; • Densities; and • Ecological Networks These programmes will first be presented as a series of 5 ‘Projects’ which deal with the complex and interlinked issues identified in the analysis phase, with our proposals as to how these may be solved.

The proposed Projects both rely on, and enhance each other. This synergy was an important consideration in terms of what Projects we have chosen to address; tackling those issues in Milton which individually, and together, can bring about the greatest change.

12

1

Empower Movement

2

Maximise Density

3

Help Milton to Find Its Way

4

Bring the Countryside In

5

Rebuild the Community

1

Empower Movement

The focus of this strategy was to create a new Urban Main Street connection to Bishopbriggs at the junction of Scaraway Street and Ashgill Road to the north-east; Kilfiinan Street and Balmore Road at Lambhill to the south-west and Berneray Road and Ashgill Road to the south. These three connections enhance connectivity with surrounding neighbourhoods and draw people through the heart of Milton at Vallay Street, joining Liddesdale.

The Local Main Street hierarchy will allow for public transport circulation across the site: everyone within 400m (5 minute walk). These parts of the site still require being well connected and the Secondary roads also connect Primary Routes.

The proposed pedestrian / public transport strategy involves densifying pedestrian friendly routes to allow for greater permeability and a 400m pedshed from centres of activity. The road network should provide for a modified 200m x 200m grid, as recommended for suitable pedestrian / cycle circulation in Barton et. al (2010), p.147. Routes will be legible and direct through the site.

fig. 29: Vehicular MovementStrategy

Pedestrian travel will take advantage of the strategic green spine running through the scheme.

Enhanced, safe ‘greenways’ will encourage greater pedestrian use through the scheme through an emphasis on place function over movement.

fig. 30: Pedestrian / Public Transport Strategy

0 100

500

13

2

Maximise Density

+

3

Help Milton to Find Its Way

New high density areas of housing / mixed use development will be located around new principle nodes (Fig 31). These nodes are themselves located on our proposed Urban Main Streets and Local Main Street hierarchy - itself improving the current lack of legibility of the streetscape.

New Landmark buildings will be placed at strategic locations within nodes to improve legibility.

Landmark buildings will be introduced at key existing, or new, gateways into Milton. Landmark buildings will be placed along key sightlines to lead the eye to important views, for example at the junction of Castlebay Street and Liddesdale Road, and along the line of Castlebay Street to the north, towards the Campsie Fells.

Key views to the Campsie Fells, Canal, and City to the south will be retained and enhanced.

Logically, nodes of activity will be centred on areas of importance which occur at the intersection of the above.

14

fig. 31: Density, Nodes and Legibility Strategy

0 100

500

4

Bring the Countryside In

A distinct series of multi-functional, well connected green spaces will be created throughout Milton; connecting the city to the south, with the countryside to the north. The open space typologies shall offer competing rather than duplicating opportunities; thereby increasing choice for the residents.

The spatial arrangement of built form should be such that: •

•

there is good natural surveillance of all of the open spaces in Milton, providing safe play areas, amenity areas, and routes to schools etc. established / important green space (i.e. the plantation on Castlebay Street) are protected and enhanced.

Community hubs and projects focussed on health, social cohesion and the natural environment, such as those run by LoveMilton and North Glasgow Community Food Initiative shall be enhanced throughout the site.

fig. 32: Ecological Network Strategy

0 100

500

15

5

Rebuild the Community

Our Strategy for Rebuilding the Community will involve better connections between existing community projects (Fig 33). These facilities will be re-sited to provide ‘walkable’ access (400m / 5 minute walk) from every part of the site to at least one community asset.

Our proposed increase in population to c.12,000 residents will require one new 2-entry primary school (serving c.4000 people), which could be sited at Liddesdale Square, and an expansion (by c.1-2ha) of the existing Miltonbank Primary School onto currently vacant space at Rassay St. to become a 2-entry school.

Lastly, a new mixed-use canal-side development will be created to the west to encourage investment by business.

fig. 33: Community Asset Strategy

0 100

500

Consultation Critical to the success of any masterplan will be engagement with key stakeholders and residents who live in Milton. The aims and strategies we propose must receive the backing of the people who will, ultimately, live, work and manage Milton. To that end, a number of key stakeholders were identified who we feel would be necessary to engage with to drive and shape our proposals.

fig. 34: Project Consultees

16

Proposed Concept Plan

fig. 35: Proposed Concept Plan

0

100

500

17

Density and Nodes

High Density (120-90dph): Median 105dph

fig. 36: Density and Nodes Concept

Proposed Node

Medium Density (80-40dph): Median 60dph Low Density (40-25dph): Median 32.5dph

Ecological Networks

Primary Green Spine (boulevard)

Proposed / Re-configured Green Space

Secondary Green Spine (avenue)

Existing Open Channel

Retained and Improved Green Space

Proposed New Open Channel

fig. 37: Ecological Networks Concept

0

18

100

500

Hierarchy of Streets and Public Transport

fig. 38: Streets and Public Transport Concept

Urban Main Street Local Main Street

0

100

500

19

Concept Precedents

fig. 39: Kerr Street

fig. 40: Kerr Street

fig. 43: Upton, Northampton

fig. 46: Accordia

fig. 47: Hammarby Sjostad

fig. 41: Gun Wharf

fig. 42: Gun Wharf

fig. 44: Upton, Northampton

fig. 45: Accordia

fig. 48: Malmo Bo01

The Strategy and Proposed Concept are to be grounded in best practice urban design and successful schemes from the UK and Europe: As with Kerr Street (Figures 39 & 40) our proposal seeks to create a new ‘piece of town’ in the heart of an existing settlement, focussing ‘nodes’ on principal routes. Active frontages containing shops / services will be located on principal routes, with housing set back in quieter areas. Enhanced main streets will increase connectivity through new and improved connections to neighbouring streets and to the wider area.

Hybrid homezones will define the character of residential areas away from the main streets.

20

The regeneration of Milton will require the creation of a place that will give people pride; a reason to care. As with schemes such as Gun Wharf (Figures 41 & 42) a high quality public realm, placemaking and creation of a streetscape that give streets back to people is at the heart of what the proposal seeks to achieve.

In line with Glasgow City Council planning policy and best practice, movement infrastructure, open space, sustainable drainage and ecological networks shall be symbiotic; considered as one interconnected system.

Upton in Northampton (Figures 43 & 44) is one example of where SUDS and ecological networks are woven into street design.

With regard to ecological networks and open space, it is important that these elements of the Proposed Concept are interconnected to allow for maximum biodiversity benefits. Accordia, Cambridge, (Figures 45 & 46) is one such example of where housing is set within a green framework.

Milton has copious open space, however it is overprovided, lacking in function and character, and as a result is poorly utilised. Integrating public open space within housing such as at Hammarby (Figure 47) and within the street network in pocket parks and incidental open spaces such as Malmo (Figure 48) is a key aspiration of the proposal.

21

Vision Statement “What should a city accomplish after it meets our basic needs of food, shelter, and security? The city should strive to maximize joy and minimize hardship. It should lead us toward health rather than sickness. It should offer us real freedom to live, move, and build our lives as we wish. It should build resilience against economic or environmental shocks. It should be fair in the way it apportions space, services, mobility, joys, hardships, and costs. Most of all, it should enable us to build and strengthen the bonds between friends, families, and strangers that give life meaning,” Charles Montgomery, Happy CIty: Transforming our Lives Through Urban Design. P.42

The vision for Milton is to no longer be the ‘edge’ to the City but a ‘gateway’ to the wider countryside and natural beauty to the north of Glasgow and, ultimately, a destination in its own right.

A highly permeable, well connected neighbourhood based around a strong green framework; providing variety, opportunity and flexibility for its residents at all stages of life

22

Foundation Masterplan

23

24

Booklet No.8

fig. 49: Foundation Master-

0

50

100

25

Foundation Masterplan Process The Foundation Masterplan adds detail the ideas outlined in the Concept Plan. The form of blocks, street edges, streets and public spaces, specialist buildings as well as ordinary ones are considered. The process is iterative and while the themes of the Concept Plan remain true, the detail is refined to reflect the actual structure of a great place.

•

Confirmation / Transformation

The first stage was to identify Confirmation / Transformation areas.

Confirmation Areas, simply put, are those we felt necessary to retain for their value, character, or strategic importance. Transformation Areas are the remaining areas within which the greatest interventions may occur. Our Confirmation areas include: • • • •

•

St Augustine’s Church and Grounds for its community and placemaking value Milton Community Gardens for its community and placemaking value; Milton Memorial Gardens for its community and placemaking value; Housing to the north west and north east for its low density suburban semi-detached and row housing typology and appropriate density c.30dph; Housing to the south west for its low density suburban semi detached and row housing typology and appropriate density c.30dph

fig. 50: Transformation / Confirmation Areas

Transformation Area Confirmation Area

0

26

50

100

•

Streets

The second step was to refine the street network and hierarchy. As per our Strategy and Concept plan the aim was to reduce the size of the block structure, while using the basic framework of the existing streets; the rationale being that this contributes to the ‘character’ of Milton, while also being extremely expensive and time consuming to ‘undo’. The process involved a series of trials, (Figure 51) before finalising the network shown in figure 52.

fig. 51: Street Design Evolution

fig. 52: Street Hierarchy

0

50

100

27

•

Street Edge Densities

Densities of the street edges were attributed to achieve the aims set out in the Strategy and Concept stages, as described above. Also, the gradient of densities (transect) between areas of highest density and lowest density also considered the existing ‘confirmation’ areas within the site to result in a seemless transition. Our Strategy and Concept was to increase the density of Milton from c.6000 people, to c. 12,000. These calculations are discussed in pages 54 and 55 of this document. Our proposed nodes are located in areas with the highest potential for activity and density suitable to support a variety of services.

fig. 53: Street Edges and

•

Ecological Networks

As proposed in our Concept Plan and Strategy, our Foundation Masterplan is focussed on a reduction of overall open space, improvements to its function and distribution. As a result, the following spaces are provided: •

• • •

•

28

The retention of Milton Community Gardens and Memorial Gardens, and the grounds around St. Augustine’s Church (see Confirmation Areas above) Central civic square, with amenity space; Land to accommodate planned expansion to Milton Community Gardens; A large area of public open space to the south-west of the site to accommodate a Locally Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) and ‘natural play’ elements; and A large ‘village green’ area of open space to the north-east.

0

50

100

Of course, natural systems cannot populate ‘islands’ of open space with any great success. Biodiversity relies on linear corridors that connect areas of habitat. On this basis, the Foundation Masterplan proposes multifunctional integrated sustainable drainage and lines of trees along the network of streets: • • •

Urban main roads with boulevard style tree planting and SUDS on both sides of the street; Local main roads that have at least one continuous line of tree planting or SUDS on one side of the street; Local and shared space ‘Homezone’ roads with incidental, but frequent, trees and SUDS features. fig. 54: Ecological Networks

0

50

100

29

Phasing •

Phase 1: 2018-2023: the negative consequences of living near areas of vacant &

derelict land is recognised by the Scottish Government who administer the Vacant & Derelict Land Fund with a view to prioritising the redevelopment of sites that fall within settlements of 2,000 people or more. The first implementation phase, therefore, seeks to accomplish the following twin objectives: •

To address the expansive arrangement of Vacant / Derelict land around Liddesdale Road, and;

•

To establish a community facility and civic square in a central location that, in turn, will generate and attract a critical mass of activity that is a prerequisite for other successful retail, leisure, and community services. This intervention will be devised to compliment the ambitions of to extend / improve the existing Community Garden.

fig. 55: Phase 1

0

•

By the end of 2023: it is envisaged that the following will have been realised: • •

•

•

30

The establishment of a Community Centre in a landmark building that occupies one edge of a new Central Square; Improvement and extension of roads infrastructure to partially realise the proposed urban main road route. This intervention should activate the streets and transform the potential of the proposed neighbourhood centre into a viable location for a range of services; Redevelopment of vacant and derelict land. This shall build upon the potential of the new road infrastructure by establishing active frontages/relatively dense residential development in central locations. In other locations, vacant and derelict land will have been redeveloped in accordance with the Foundation Masterplan, and; Construction of a new care home in a central location, fronting a quiet street edge, in close proximity to St Augustine’s Church - an ‘anchoring point’ in the urban environment associated with memories.

50

100

•

Phase 2: 2024-2029: the completion of the principal route to the neighbouring centre of Bishopbriggs, in accordance with the Proposed Concept Plan, will enhance the potential of Milton, and set the groundwork for a range of higher order retail, leisure, and community functions. These functions, however, relay on both a critical mass of ‘passers-through’ as well as a robust population living and/or working nearby. The second implementation phase, therefore, seeks to accomplish the following objectives: •

To increase the number of people living near the commercial areas that were established in Phase I, and;

•

To address the needs of the increased number of residents by providing additional facilities including a Primary School as well as further commercial units, which will ensure that everyday services can be accessed by all within a walkable distance. fig. 56: Phase 2

0

•

50

100

By the end of 2029: it is envisaged that the following will have been realised: •

•

• •

The completion of the new link to Bishopbriggs (outside of the Design Area) that will significantly increase activity within location of the proposed node and form a primary bus route.

Redevelopment along the edge of the completed principal route that will include additional commercial space, residential development, and a street design that will encourage the ‘spilling-out’ of activity, which will reinforce the importance of the new street.

Residential development, including the provision of public open space, to consolidate the built form around the locations development in Phase I. The construction of a new primary School and neighbouring blocks on the Local Main Road the south, which will form a secondary bus route.

31

•

Phase 3: 2030-2035: it is envisaged that the vision for Milton will, largely have been realised by 2030. However, there is further opportunities that will be realised between 2030 and 2035 as the remaining original housing stock within the Design Area reaches the end its design life. The third implementation phase, therefore, •

•

32

prioritises the redevelopment of urban blocks in more central areas in a manner that compliments, extends, and enhances the green network and that completes the proposed Local Main Road network.

By the end of 2029, it is envisaged that the following will have

been realised: •

The redevelopment of urban blocks in less central locations that incorporates valuable areas of public open space in ‘quieturban’ spaces. This is considered necessary to provide a counterpoint to busier areas and to allow for people, particularly the elderly, to restore their attentional reserves that can become depleted as they negotiate very active places.

•

The completion of the High and Medium Density blocks along the proposed Local Main Road network, which will form a secondary bus route.

fig. 57: Phase 3

0

50

100

•

Phase 4: 2036-2041. The approach undertaken in Phase 3 shall be continued in Phase 4 except that, where built form is in peripheral locations that are not the focus for any specific intervention, alternatives to demolition (such as operations to extend the deign life of the buildings) will be considered appropriate. Where blocks are demolished, or partially demolished, redevelopment will, however, reflect the qualities of good design and the vision for Milton by creating new street edges, appropriately sized urban blocks, and, good quality public open space. fig 58: Phase 4

•

By the end of 2041, it is envisaged that the following will have

0

50

100

been realised: •

The redevelopment of blocks, in whole or in part, to reflect the proposed local road network and the area of public open space;

•

Consolidation of built form to respect the incidences where the design life of original buildings has been extended.

33

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

34

D e t a i l e d Masterplan

35

fig 59: Detailed Masterplan

36

Booklet No.8

0

50

100

37

Start with the Street Start with the street. As possibly the most enduring facet of urban design, it is crucial to get this first step right. And to understand what good street design is, first it is useful to understand what a street is defined as.

The National Association of CIty Transportation Officials (NATCO) and the Global Designing Cities Initiative (2016) ‘Global Street Design Guide’ (p.4) states,

“Streets are...multi-dimensional spaces consisting of many surfaces and structures. They stretch from one property line to another, including the building edges, land uses and setbacks that define each side. They offer space for movement and access and facilitate a variety of uses and activities. Street are dynamic spaces that adapt over time to support environmental sustainability, public health, economic activity and cultural significance.”

In order to create successful streets for Milton, our proposal first needs to consider what parameters can guide the design. In order to do this we have considered measures of success for our proposed street hierarchy. Designing Streets (2010), p.11, states the following 6 qualities of streets as places:

•

Distinctive

Milton’s new streets will respond to their context and create a strong character within the urban realm through landmark buildings, vistas and distinctive form.

•

Safe & Pleasant

Milton’s new streets will be inclusive for all people, regardless of age or mobility. People will have priority, but due consideration will be given to the need for motorised users of the streets.

•

Easy to move around

Milton’s new streets will be well connected, allowing for a variety of choice of movement. Public transport will be integrated. The road design will favour pedestrian movement, and not be based on standard road engineering layout.

38

•

Welcoming

Milton’s new streets will be based around an urban form that is walkable, with an emphasis on place function over transit function where appropriate.

•

Adaptable

Milton’s new streets will be integrated with the wider street network.

The future flexibility and adaptability of the street design will be key to the creation of a new sustainable urban area. The needs of vehicular and pedestrian users will be taken into account.

•

Resource Efficient

Milton’s new streets will be integrated with green infrastructure and sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS). The the layout and design of built form will maximise environmental gains.

The National Association of CIty Transportation Officials (NATCO) and the Global Designing Cities Initiative (2016) ‘Global Street Design Guide’ goes further to state the following 5 objectives of successful streets p.6-7:

•

Public Health and Safety

Milton’s new streets will offer healthy choices such as walking, cycling and use of public transport. They will support the positive use of natural features and provide good access to healthy environments.

•

Quality of Life

Milton’s new streets will encourage social interaction; the potential for chance meetings. They will be places, not just movement corridors.

The new streets will use natural surveillance to redress issues of safety and crime. Importantly, Milton’s new streets will aim to create a vibrant and liveable place which is attractive to residents and commercial businesses.

•

Environmental Sustainability

Equality and opportunity are important ingredients of the manifesto for Milton’s new streets. However, our proposals will aim to encourage sustainable modes of transport wherever possible. As described above, the streets will be integrated with the sustainable use of water, and a strong Green Infrastructure framework to provide a high quality and healthy environment.

•

Economic Sustainability

Milton’s new streets will seek to be attractive places to live and to work. The quality of the public realm will invite investment from businesses.

Flexible movement and provision of parking and servicing areas will be important to create an adaptable and resilient economic area.

•

Social Equity

Quite simply, Milton’s new streets will be for all its residents and designed to remove barriers to movement.

39

Urban Main Roads The Multiple Centrality Analysis undertaken in the analysis phase of the project indicates the part of the road network within Glasgow that is most likely to be encountered by significant numbers of people en-route to other destinations.

These roads typically form the principal thoroughfares to and from the city’s network of centres and the principal routes to other significant places outside of Glasgow.

Within this road network, it is possible to distinguish two distinct typologies: •

•

High-Speed Roads: this is the part of the network where the movement function takes precedence over the place function.

Examples may include the M8 motorway, at one extreme, to parts of Springburn Road, at the other, where the place function is more significant yet still secondary to movement. These roads will typically have a speed limits in excess of 30mph.

Urban Main Streets: the movement and place functions are more evenly matched in Urban Main Streets. The tension between movement and place provides a degree of conflict but also opportunities for all sorts of interactions as people pursuing a diverse range of objectives are concentrated in one place. It is considered that examples of Urban Main Streets in close proximity to the design area can be found at Kirkintilloch Road and Saracen Street. The town centres of Possilpark and Bishopbriggs can be found on these routes.

With refence to the proposed concept and strategy plans, a new route between the established centres of Bishopbriggs and Possilpark will function as an Urban Main Street that, in turn, will provide a viable location for locally significant retail, leisure and community activities.

Within the design area the Urban Main Street network will be established by extending Valley Street to form a junction with Liddesdale Road; while two short links between Liddesdale Road / Scalpay Street and Ronaldsay Street / Berneray Street will complete the route.

The importance of this route will be reinforced by active street frontages, a consistent arrangement of street trees, and good quality surface finishes at locations where place function becomes particularly important, such as at the central square. Carriageway and footway widths will be the widest of all street types within the design area, with space for activity to spill-out on to the street. Where appropriate formal pedestrian crossing opportunities will be provided. This route will form a principal bus route and bus stops will be provided with shelters, seating and raised kerbs. Bicycle parking will be provided a bus stops on principal bus routes to encourage people to choose sustainable modes of transport and to change modes of transport as seamlessly as possible.

40

fig. 60: Liddesdale Road, Milton

fig. 61: Illustrative Urban Main Road

“Major streets that connect neighborhood centers or run through the downtown can be daunting for pedestrians to cross, depressing property values and the quality of the public realm as a result.

While many of these streets have significant traffic volumes at peak hours and bustle with activity throughout the day, there are opportunities to improve these corridors for everyone using them.”

NATCO Urban Street Design Guide (2013) [online]

Proposed Urban Main Road Section

fig. 62: Proposed Urban Main Road Section

Proposed Urban Main Road Plan Comparison

Scale: 1:200

fig. 63: Existing and Proposed Urban Main Road Plan Comparison

41

fig. 64: Deaderick Street, Nashville

fig. 67:Lancaster Boulevard, California

fig. 65: Maidstone High Street

42

fig. 66:Charenton le Pont

fig. 68: Charenton le Pont Town Centre

Local Main Roads While local main streets still exhibit a tension between movement and place, the main difference between these streets and Urban Main streets is that Local Main Roads are less likely to be encountered by people en-route to significant destinations within the city and beyond.

The streets, however, are still important for a significant number of people to pass through even although they are less likely to be on their way to strategically significant places (i.e. between city centres or to and fro’ specialist areas of activity such as airports). It is considered that examples of Local Main Road in close proximity to Milton are Hawthorn Street and Woodhill Road.

With reference to the Proposed Concept and Strategy Plans, a network of local main streets that link to the Urban Main Street Route will be established within the design area. The edge of local main streets will be characterised by relatively dense and predominantly residential urban form although with some incidences of locally significant functions (i.e. the proposed primary school, care home, and the existing church, will all have either primary or secondary accesses on Local Main Streets).

The significance of these streets as both places in their own right and as routes that are necessary to accommodate significant levels of nonstrategic journeys, will be reflected by their design characteristics. To this end: • Parking bays will be arranged in a consistent manner although with significant space to facilitate informal pedestrian crossing opportunities.

• Shared surfaces will emphasise significant junctions and will reinforce important street edge activities; • A less formal arrangement of street trees will contribute to the green network and reinforce the position of Local Main Streets in the street hierarchy; • The principal bus routes found on Urban Main Streets will be complimented and enhanced by secondary bus stops on Local Main Streets.

fig. 69: Ronaldsay Street, Milton, Existing

fig. 70: Illustrative Local Main Road

“Neighborhood main streets are a nexus of neighborhood life, with high pedestrian volumes, frequent parking turnover, key transit routes, and bicyclists all vying for limited space..”

NATCO Urban Street Design Guide (2013) [online]

43

Proposed Local Main Road Section

fig. 71: Proposed Local Main Road Section

Proposed Local Main Road Plan Comparison and Coding

fig. 72: Proposed Local Main Road Plan Comparison

44

Scale: 1:200

fig. 73: Ashford, Kent, Shared Space Local Main Road

fig. 74: Gibbs Street, Ottowa, Canada

fig. 75: Buckley Hill, Hobsonville, NZ

fig. 76: Ashford, Kent, Shared Space Streetscape

fig. 77: George Street, Sydney, Australia

45

Local Roads The proposed local road network will be based on a hierarchy of street typologies, designed to emphasise a scale of movement function in the 1st Order Local Roads, to an emphasis on place function within local shared space streets.

The narrowing of these streets compared to the Urban Main Road and Local Main Roads, together with integrated landscape and parking will encourage lower speeds, providing an ideal environment to cycle in.

Our Strategy and Concept was based on the premise that modes of travel shouldn’t be segregated; rather, the street design should be sufficiently well considered that an appropriate environment is provided for all modes of travel. Our local roads therefore achieve the aim not only of increased permeablility for vehicle users, but also pedestrians and cycle users.

Key to achieveing the aims of this street design there will be the following components to the streetscape: • • •

• •

•

Raised tables at junctions to allow safe crossing points and control speeds; Kerb extensions to provide space for people and activities to take place; Significant opportunities for the inclusion of sustainable drainage, landscape planting and trees to provide visible hazards to slow traffic, while improving the pedestrian environment; A minimum of signage and visual clutter; On shared space streets there will be no visible demarcation of carriageways and footways other than changes in paving material to indicate defensible space. staggered blocks of landscaping; Parking to be allowed within designated areas on 1st order local roads and shared space streets. On 2nd order local roads parking may be in the carriageway to create a ‘yield’ system.

fig. 78: Mingulay Street, Milton, Existing

fig. 79: Illustrative Local Road Yield Street

“2-way yield streets are appropriate in residential environments where drivers are expected to travel at low speeds. Many yield streets have significant off-street parking provisions and onstreet parking utilization of 40–60% or less.”

NATCO Urban Street Design Guide (2013) [online]

fig. 80: Illustrative Local Road

fig. 81: Illustrative Local Shared Space Road

“Local streets in residential neighborhoods are often underutilized as spaces for play and leisure. These streets should provide safe and inviting places to walk with direct access to local stores and schools.”

“Shared streets can meet the desires of adjacent residents and function foremost as a public space for recreation, socializing, and leisure.

Street furniture, including bollards, benches, planters, and bicycle parking, can help define a shared space, subtly delineating the traveled way from the pedestrian-only space.”

NATCO Urban Street Design Guide (2013) [online]

46

NATCO Urban Street Design Guide (2013) [online]

Proposed Local Road Sections

7.5

fig. 82: Proposed Local Road Sections.

47

Proposed Local Road Shared Space Plan Comparison

Scale: 1:200

48

(fig. 83:)

fig. 84: Buckley Hill, Hobsonville, N.

fig. 85: Local Road, Auckland, NZ

fig. 86: Shared Space Local Road

fig. 87: Local Road, Assen, Holland

fig. 88: Shared Space Local Road, Morice Town, Plymouth

49

Street Coding Summary Street Type

Urban Main Road

Width of adoptable highway

18.6m (minimum)

Carriageway width

6.0m (minimum 3.5 varies)

Footway Provision

3.0m both sides. Flexible 1.5m commercial spillout space / privacy strip

Cycleway Provision

In carriageway

Building Line

Formal

Maximum Setback

2m

Bus Route

Yes

Direct vehicular access to properties

No

On Street Parking

Yes

Street Type

Local Main Road

Width of adoptable highway

16.6m (minimum)

Carriageway width

6.0m (minimum 3.5 varies)

Footway Provision

2.0m both sides. Flexible 1.5m commercial spill out space / privacy strip

Cycleway Provision

In carriageway

Building Line

Formal

Maximum Setback

2m

Bus Route

Yes

Direct vehicular access to properties

No

On Street Parking

Yes

fig. 89: Urban Main Road Extract

fig. 90: Local Main Road Extract

50

Street Type

Local Road

Width of adoptable highway

11.3m (minimum)

Carriageway width

5.5m (minimum 3.5 varies)

Footway Provision

2m both sides

Cycleway Provision

In carriageway

Building Line

Informal

Maximum Setback

2m

Bus Route

No

Direct vehicular access to properties

Yes

On Street Parking

Yes

Street Type

Local Road Shared Space

Width of adoptable highway

7.5m (minimum)

Carriageway width

5.5m (minimum 3.5 varies)

Footway Provision

In shared surface

Cycleway Provision

In shared surface

Building Line

Informal

Maximum Setback

1m (with 1m privacy strip)

Bus Route

No

Direct vehicular access to properties

Yes

On Street Parking

Yes (limited)

fig. 91: Local Road Extract

fig. 92: Local Road Shared Space Extract

51

Housing Typologies •

The Need

To support Glasgow City Council’s Draft Housing Strategy (20172022) target of: • 2008-2016 - between 24,645 - 30,800 units; • 2016-2020 - between 12,674 - 15,300 units; • 2020-2025 - between 7,314 - 9,990 units

•

The Response

Our aim will be to create a vibrant neighbourhood at Milton with a population in the region of 10,000-15,000 people – considered by Barton et.al (2010) (p.32) to be within the threshold of a ‘neighbourhood’. In the long term, Milton should have the capacity / flexibility to grow into a ‘town’ which according to Barton et. al (2010) (p.32) needs a minimum of 15,000 people.

Overall, within the combined new high and medium density areas, we will aim to achieve a ‘sustainable urban density’ (CABE, (2005) ‘Better Neighbourhoods: Making Higher Densities Work’) of c.69dph.

To do this, in line with GCC (2009) ‘City Plan 2’ planning policy ‘Priority Restructuring Areas’ (p.17), and as implemented in Transformational Regeneration Areas (TRAs) around Glasgow, the redevelopment of vacant / derelict land should be considered as a priority. Another aim of the densification project should be to offer a range of housing typologies to maximise the opportunities available to residents of Milton and address some of the wider housing shortage issues of Glasgow.

•

The Delivery

A mixture of housing types are proposed to ensure that, in line with the Strategy and Concept, there is provision for a vibrant and mixed community at Milton, at all stages of life, and to account a variety of socieconomic situations. The intention is to create resilience within the urban fabric.

•

•

52

Mixed tenures shall be provided. This will include flats above commercial units; multiple occupancy flats at a variety of densities (‘urban villages’); single unit housing to accommodate families of varying sizes, with flexibility to be converted to commercial use on ground floors, and providing continuous street frontages; terraced housing; semi-detached housing; and detached housing.

The masteplan proposals has cognisance of the existing urban fabric of Milton. This is not central Glasgow. The prevailing housing typology is semi-detached and short rows of housing, with a generally low density of between 20-40dph. Our masterplan proposal aims to knit seemlessly with the existing fabric, while providing an appropriate cross-section fo density between our node and more peripheral areas.

Housing Standards As noted by Tarbatt (2012), (p.104), there are few ‘standard’ plot sizes. Building regulations, the standardisation of building materials, and market forces all interact to provide more of a consensus surrounding the dimensions of any one house type. This consensus is useful as planning policy tends to use the floorspace of a dwelling to determine the minimum area of of private garden ground, however; developers should, where feasible, demonstrate that their designs exceed these minimum expectations. To this end, the following documents provide minimum guidelines for the development of new homes in Milton. It is expected that development proposals exceed the guidelines.

•

Department for Communities and Local Government (2015), Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard; deals with internal space within new dwellings and is suitable for application across all tenures.

•

BRE and BREEAM (2015) Home Quality Mark; which is used to assess the design, construction quality and running costs of new homes;

•

Habinteg Housing Associated and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2010) The Lifetime Homes Standard; which considers 16 Design Criteria for new homes focussing on access and adaptability; and;

•

Police Security Initiative (2016) Secured by Design: Homes and New Schools 2016; Version1; which is mandatory on new build developments to consider crime prevention through design.

For each proposed house type, further information on the key considerations that developers will be required to take cognisance of are summarised in the Local Urban Code section of this document. The considerations for detached houses are limited as any proposal shall be considered on its own merit and innovative design solutions are encouraged.

53

Local Urban Code

54

Introduction to the Local Urban Code The local urban code (LUC) does not restrict the exact amount or location of different building typologies. Instead, the Foundation Masterplan suggests a broad strategy for their distribution across the Design Area based on the hierarchy of streets; the Detailed Masterplan is one way in which this proposal may be interpreted.

Each type is then described in more detail on the subsequent pages, with supporting Illustrations provided to understand the nature of each typology; however, these should not be considered as mandatory designs or reflective of the character: this would be the responsibility of the architect for each plot / block / street edge.

It would be possible and acceptable to alter elements of the proposed typologies, as long as the resulting type meets the specified requirements of the LUC: this is not a ‘standard’, but a formula for creating a great place.

Further information on the housing typologies as proposed by the Detailed Masterplan (Figure 59) is provided overleaf.

55

fig. 93: Local Urban Code 3D representation of built form and 2D Plans

56

•

Number of Units

17

76

316

241

•

Population (2.1 average occupancy)

36

160

664

506

•

Use

Residential

Residential

Residential

Residential

•

Street Edge

Local Road

Local Road / Shared Space

Local Road / Shared Space

Local Road / Shared Space

•

Plot Width

12.5m-33.5m

7.5m-11.7m

5.4m-8.7m

6.3m-9.7m

•

Building Width

8.0m

5.0m-7.0m

5.4m-8.7m

6.3m-9.7m

•

Plot Depth

25.0m-30.0m

18.0m-35.0m

14.0m-31.0m

20.0m-29.0m

•

Average Plot

0.31

0.38

0.38

0.38

•

Access

Street Entrance

Street Entrance

Street Entrance

Street Entrance

•

Parking

On-street / side drive

On-street / side drive

On-street / side drive

On-street / side drive

•

Private Open Space

Private garden

Private garden

Private garden

Private garden

•

Local Urban Code Reference

Upton, Northampton (Precedent)

Upton, Northampton (Precedent)

Northpark Street LUC (p.31)

Northpark Stree LUC (p.31)

et

310

78

28

12

290

651

1310

474

202

290

Residential / Mixed Use

Residential / Mixed Use

Residential

Residential

Residential / Mixed Use

Local Main Road / Local Road

Local Main Road / Local Road

7.3-12.2m

14.8m-18.1m

24.5m-28.4m

14.8.-18.5m

14.6m-18.8m

7.3-12.2m

14.8m-18.1m

24.5m-28.4m

14.8.-18.5m

14.6m-18.8m

17.2m-28.5m

18.4m-37.4m

18.3m-39.0m

23.6m-33.2m

16.3m-29.4m

0.41

0.47

0.5

0.60

0.41

Street Entrance

Communal Entrance

Communal Entrance

Communal Entrance

Communal Entrance

On-street / side drive

On-street/ parking court

On-street/ parking court

On-street/ parking court

On-street/ parking court

Private garden

Communal / balconies

Communal / balconies

Communal / balconies

Communal / balconies

Bonawe Street LUC (p.55)

Crown Street LUC (p.87)

Richmond Park Gardens LUC (p.141)

West Graham St. LUC (p.169)

Urban Main Road / Local Main Road

Urban Main Road / Local Main Road

Urban Main Road / Local Main Road

Alexandra Parade, Glasgow (Precedent)

57

Mixed Use / Aggregated Multi-family •

High Density Mixed Use: c.120dph

Mixed use buildings will feature solely at nodes of activity, in locations such as the civic square and Urban Main Road. These buildings will include a mix of uses including offices and commercial retail, with residential flats on upper floors.

Private dwellings are accessed from internal ways to the rear of plots. Communal open space is provided to the rear of plots, and on balconies on upper floors.

Ground floors should have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 3.7m.

The building design should be sufficiently adaptable to allow for future change of use; to reduce the likelihood of vacant units if economic or social conditions change. The subdivision of these plots will be encouraged to create a finer urban grain and increase the potential for variety.

fig. 94: Mixed use street edge on public square, Vathorst Amersfoot, Holland

58

fig. 95: Mixed use street edge on public square, Temple Bar, Dublin

•

High Density Residential Flats: c.120dph-105dph

High (H+) density apartment buildings are sited within, and in close proximity to the node and central civic square. This typology is suitable only for Urban Main Roads and Local Main Roads. The H= typology is suitably for Urban Main Roads, Local Main Roads, and on Local Roads in close proximity to nodes of activity.

This typology is suitable for use in isolated locations to terminate vistas, or to provide a focal point that will contribute to the character of a street edge or add to the variety and mix of unit types within a block.

Plots are accessed form the street through communal entrances.

A shared private open space is available to the rear. Communal shared private open spaces, or courtyards, can be created within perimeter blocks by agreement of amalgamating the private open space of individual plots.

Similar to the mixed use plots, ground floors should have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 3.7m to allow for flexibility of future use as office / commercial space. The building design should be sufficiently adaptable to allow for future resilience to reduce the likelihood of empty units.

Subdivision into small plots will be encouraged to create a finer urban grain and increase the potential for variety.

fig. 96: New England Quarter, Brighton

fig. 97: Temple Quay, Bristol

fig. 98: Plot variety. Borneo Sporenborg, Amsterdam

59

•

Medium Density Residential Flats: c.70-80dph

Medium density aggregated multi-family apartments are principally sited on Urban Main Roads. They are appropriate on Local Main Roads further from nodes, but in locations where there is likely to be increased activity and a need for enclosure of space.

This typology can be used on Local Roads in more urban, central locations. In locations where height to width ratio with the street may be too high, these units can either have 3 storeys, or 4 storeys with recessed upper floors and greater articulation. Since these buildings can vary between 3-4 storeys and alternating roof lines could allow for roof terraces to overlook the street, providing further animation of the street edge, and surveillance of public space.

fig. 99: Coin Street, South Bank, London

60

fig. 100: Norfolk Park, Sheffield

Aggregated Row Single-family •

Medium Density Row Housing: c.50-70dph

•

Low Density Row Housing: c.45dph

Terraced housing typologies are most typical of the existing housing stock in Milton. They provide small family homes. In the Local Urban Code the typologies proposed can have up to 4 storeys in higher density areas to accommodate large families in more urban higher density areas.

These typologies are suitable for local roads and local shared space ‘homezone’ roads. Higher (M=) density typologies can be used on Local Main Roads and around public open space in selected locations to contribute to the character of a street edge, to provide a focal point in lower density suburban areas, or add to the variety and mix of unit types across a block.

As opposed to the aggregated multi-family apartments, these houses benefit from direct street access and private back gardens. Even in suburban areas the proposed coding and densities are sufficient to support local services and public transport.

These typologies have relatively consistent building lines and have the potential to be extended in the future within the longer plots. Where rear internal ways / lanes are present, these can be activated by live-work units in rear gardens; providing they meet these conditions. This would be determined by the plot passports for these plots.

fig. 101: Almere Poort, Holland

fig. 103: Borneo Sporenborg, Amsterdam

fig. 104: Individuality, Almere Poort, Holland

fig. 102: Newhall, Harlow, UK

fig. 105: Allerton Bywater, UK

fig. 106: Upton, Northampton

61

Isolated Single-family •

Low Density Semi-detached Housing: c.45dph

Semi-detached typologies are suitable for lower density street edges away from nodes of activity, and only on local roads or local shared space roads. These plots provide relatively large family homes. They are typical of some existing housing stock in Milton, where they are used in pairs, or short terraces. They tend to have a suburban character and as such should be considered only on low density street edges.

Side drives are accommodated on the plot. The plot space provides separate external access to the private garden.

•

Low Density Detached Housing: c.25-35dph

Detached typologies are suitable for lower density street edges away from nodes of activity, and only on local roads. They provide large family homes. These plots will have a more suburban character and as such should be considered only on low density street edges or on edges which require corner treatments that overlook two streets.

Side drives are accommodated on the plot. Side drives / areas provide means of access to the rear of these units external to the building.

fig. 107: Telford Millennium Community

fig. 109: Upton, Northampton, Detached

62

fig. 108: Upton, Northampton, Semi Detached

fig. 110: Upton, Northampton

Special Buildings Special buildings are the exceptions to the local urban code described in the previous section, either by their use, or by their plot / morphometrics; for example, special landmark buildings which define space, or aid in legibility of the urban environment. On this basis, the architecture of these buildings should be unique to the prevailing environment.

•

The Community Hub Building

Located on the main civic square, this 0.5 hectare plot includes the existing allows for a new community hub building up to 4 storeys to create a distinctive landmark at this important location at the heart of Milton. The plot includes the Community Gardens and land to accommodate thier proposed expansion. The built form should provide enclosure to the central square.

The building should serve several purposes: to accommodate the formal office space proposed by Milton Community Gardens and Love Milton and local enterprises; space for additional community services such as doctor’s surgeries, nurseries, government / council services; elements of the proposed primary school could also be incorporated into this building to increase the available teaching space and provide a ‘campus’ style facility around the central node; lastly, this building should be suitably flexible that it can provide for private commercial or residential use.

fig. 111: Masterplan Extract, Community Hub

fig. 112: Curo Group and BDP Architects, Mulberry Park Community Centre Concept

fig. 113: Hebburn Central Community Centre, Newcastle

fig. 114: Girdwood Community fig. 115: Community Centre and Hub, Belfast Library, Melbourne

63

•

The Primary School

Located in close proximity to the main civic square, this 0.8 hectare (8000m sq.) plot allows for a new 2-form entry school. Outside of the Design Area two other schools would be provided across Milton as part of the overall strategy to densify the site.

The location of the primary school at the heart of the community will tie the social mix together. It lies adjacent to the retained St. Augstine’s Church, care home, Milton Community Gardens (and expansion plot), Memorial Gardens, the Community Hub and civic square. Together these facilities can work harmoniously within a legible, easily accessible node for all residents creating a vibrant mix of uses and potential for interactions.

There is no minimum standard for primary school sizes in Scotland.

Barton et. al (2010) suggest c.1.0 hectare. The Scottish Government Architcture and Design Scotland Schools Programme provides a suite of documents and precedent studies of schools across Norway and Germany.

In Scottish Government (2005) Design and Construction of Sustainable Schools Volume 1 example schools c.300-500 pupils in Kjeldas (Norway), Oddemarka (Norway) and Schafersfeld (Germany) had a building footprint of 1500m sq., 4500m sq., and 3600m sq. respectively. On this basis, we envisage that the school plot, together with the potential to share space and facilities with the adjacent 0.5 hectare Community Hub and Milton Community Garden and other school facilites across Milton, as proposed in our Strategy, would provide suitable space.

fig. 117: Oddemarka School

fig. 119: Schafersfeld School

64

fig. 116: Masterplan Extract, Primary School

fig. 118: Kjeldas School

fig. 120: Schafersfeld School Grounds

•

The Care Home

While the detailed design of the proposed care home is outside the scope of the Masterplanning exercise, the location of the building has devised to provide older people with: • • •

Access to others; Access to nature, and; Access to light.

The proposed care home is centrally located but with a frontage and small garden on a quiet street, which will allow residents to retreat from busier public spaces. The small garden and the principal elevation of the building faces the hall of St Augustine’s Church, which as a listed building is likely to be, and to remain, what Ward-Thompson (2016) describes as an anchoring point in the urban environment associated with memories.

fig. 121: Masterplan Extract, Care Home

The care home is also a place of employment. To increase the visibility of the home, there will be limited car parking so that employees, visitors, and residents have maximum opportunity to avail themselves of the opportunities offered by Milton’s centre. Parking for staff, who may work outside of normal hours, and a dedicated on-street drop-off / pick up point will be provided. Other than this the remaining area of the plot can be used to create sensory gardens etc.

The care home is a critical part in creating what Penalosa (2011) terms an ‘8-80’ community i.e. places that are good for an 8 year old and for an 80 year old are likely to be good for everyone.

65

Masterplan

Summary Below is a table containing the population projection for 2041 within the Design Area, based on adoption and full build out of the proposals described above and in the Detailed Masterplan. As one of three ‘main’ nodes within our Strategy, a population of 4477 strongly supports our aim to achieve a population across Milton of between 10,000-15,000; described

by Barton et.al (2010) (p.32) as the threshold of a ‘neighbourhood’.

The Design Area totals 38 hectares, which gives an average density of 56 dwellings per hectare (dph). Taking into account that the site is on the periphery of Glasgow, thus partly suburban, this number is sufficiently close to the ‘sustainable urban density’ (CABE, (2005) ‘Better Neighbourhoods: Making Higher Densities Work’) figure of c.69dph to suggest that a range of facilities could be supported. It is important to note that in close proximity to the node, the density would be equal to, or above this suggested threshold, which serves to reinforce the approach to density we have taken.

Furthermore, across the Design Area as a whole, the minimum threshold of 25dph for sustaining a regular bus service (CABE, 2005, p.7) is comfortably exceeded such that a regular, express service may be accommodated (CABE, 2005, p.12).

The range of densities allows for a flexible approach for future typology of built form. 120-90dph can be configured as ‘urban villages’ (CABE, 2005, p.7); and at the higher end potentially mixed use tenure apartments with shared gardens and communal facilities (Barton.H et.al, 2010, p.246).

Medium density at 80-40dph allows a configuration possibly including two-storey cottages or three to four storey formal terraces and buildings as perimeter blocks (Barton.H et.al, 2010, p.247).

Low density at 40-25dph allows for two-to-three storey properties, some with shops on ground floors, continous frontages and informal market places (Barton.H et.al, 2010, p.247).

Street Edge Code

No. units Storeys No. dwellings per unit Total dwellings Average occupancy

H+ (Mixed Use)

23.00

4.00

6.00

H+

12.00

4.00

H=

28.00

4.00

Population per street edge

138.00

2.10

289.80

8.00

96.00

2.10

201.60

8.00

224.00

2.10

470.40

M+

78.00

4.00

8.00

624.00

2.10

1310.40

M=

310.00

3 to 4

1.00

310.00

2.10

651.00

M‐

241.00

3.00

1.00

241.00

2.10

506.10

L+

316.00

2.00

1.00

316.00

2.10

663.60

L=

76.00

2.00

1.00

76.00

2.10

159.60

L‐

17.00

2.00

1.00

17.00

2.10

35.70

Retained

90.00

2.00

1.00

90.00

2.10

189.00

Totals

66

1191.00

2132.00

4477.20

66

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

67

Ecological Networks Broad professional consensus (Biddulph.M, 2005) is that it is not simply quantity of open space that is provided in new development, but its quality; both large and small spaces (p.205). Overall, within the Design Area c. 2.0 hectare of public open space is provided as part of the Ecological Network of the site including civic spaces, parks, and larger parklets within residential areas.

This section considers public open space areas generally. Further information on Special Areas within the masterplan is considered in the following section of the booklet.

fig. 122: Milton Community Gardens, Existing

Public open space provision across the Design Area will offer a hierarchy open spaces of varying sizes within walkable distance (400m) from people’s homes, linked by tree lined and landscaped streets. The premise of the open space strategy is: •

• •

Retain and enhance the most valuable or more important examples e.g. Milton Community Gardens and Memorial Gardens (right); Reduce the amount of unused open / derelict land or monofunctional open space; and Provide safe, overlooked areas which enhance character and local distinctiveness.

fig. 123: Milton Memorial Gardens, Existing

Overall, within the Design Area, c. 2.0 hectares of public open space is provided including civic spaces, parks, and larger parklets within residential areas.

Semi-public open spaces i.e those which are privately owned and are used permissively by agreement of the plot owner. These include the retained church grounds and Milton Community Gardens, including the expansion of the Community Gardens. Within the Design Area these spaces total c.0.8 hectares.

Together, these spaces comprise approximately 10% of the space within the Design Area; one of the most urbanised sections of our proposal for Milton. This does not account for substantial greening of the streets, SUDS features and other incidental opportunities for landscape interventions.

The Street Network As described previously, the street network has generous landscape provision and tree planting relative to its hierarchy across the site.

fig. 124: Boulevard trees. Deaderick Street, Nashville

68

fig. 125:Integrated landscape.

Lonsdale Street, Melbourne

fig. 126: SUDS Planting

The Street Network (cont) •

Urban Main Road: Near continuous boulevard style tree planting and landscape areas on both sides of the carriageway to create pleasant small scale spaces for pedestrian / place function.

•

Local Main Road: Tree lined street with integrated SUDS and landscape areas alternating / breaking up parking bays.

•

Local Roads and Shared Spaces: Frequent, but irregularly spaced tree planting and landscape opportunities. Through a number of these streets there will be a variety of types of recreational space, including play. Where possible, these should be naturalistic, informal play features for “play along the way” to schools or community facilities.

fig. 128: Rain garden

fig. 127: Tree lined street, Gibbs Street, Rockville

fig. 129: Street Landscape. Great Kneighton, Cambridge

fig. 130: SUDS planting, Portland, Oregon

Public Open Space Areas Village Green: This 0.16ha area of public open space should reflect the suburban character of this area. Overlooked on all sides, and set within a shared surface section of the street network, this public open space should encourage safe use by children and adults alike.

The formal framing of this area on all sides, together with the prevailing densities, lend this space to a mixture of uses as one might find in a village green: fig. 131: Masterplan Extract, Village Green

69

• •

• •

Formal amenity space, for games, relaxation and exercise; Locally Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) which should be a minimum 20m by 20m in size, and at least 20m from the nearest building frontage. LEAPs will take the form of informal, naturalistic play areas with seating and static play equipment including sculptural features.

Orchards or community growing spaces.

Since this space lies at the foot of sloping ground to the north of the Design Area, options for the integration of SUDS, and placemaking features including bridges, stepping stones and crossing points over swales should be explored.

fig. 132: Residental Park, Upton, Northampton

fig. 133: Orchard Planting

fig. 134: Coimmunity Growing Space, Partick, Scot-

fig. 135: Natural playground

Public Open Space Areas Naturalistic / Natural Play Area: This 0.23ha area of public open space is situated on the Local Main Road, between the existing school / play fields opposite Castlebay Street to the west of Liddesdale Road, and the proposed new primary school and central civic square. This space therefore forms part of an important potential route for children to “play along the way” to schools or community facilities.

The area is overlooked on all sides, as well as being in close proximity to a Local Main Road, with a relatively high volume of passing traffic. Therefore, a more exploratory, heavily planted space is appropriate. in this location.

70

fig. 136: Masterplan Extract, Naturalistic Park

•

•

•

Natural play areas with woodland planting, wildflower meadows, wood sculpture, boulder parks and informal planting to allow the children of Milton to reconnect with less formal, more natural green space - to encourage use of the adjacent countryside from an early age.

Locally Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) which should be a minimum 20m by 20m in size, and at least 20m from the nearest building frontage. LEAPs will take the form of informal, naturalistic play areas, including sculptural features.

Natural topography to be used to enhance the opportunity for play e.g. slides and tunnels. This also provides options for the integration of SUDS, and placemaking features including bridges, stepping stones and crossing points over swales should be explored.

fig. 137: Wildflower Meadow Planting

fig. 139: Westmoreland Park, Portland

fig. 138: Nature play area at Silver Falls State Park in Oregon

fig. 140: Marylhurst Heights Park

fig. 141: SUDS as play features

fig. 142: Naturalistic Woodland Planting

71

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

72

Character Areas and Special Places

73

74

fig. 143: Character and Special Areas

0

50

100

75

Special Area 1

76

fig. 144: Central Square and Community Hub Plan View

0

10

50

77

78

fig. 145: Central Square and Community Hub Section

0

10

50

fig. 146: Central Square and Community Hub 3D Render

79

Central Square and Community Hub

fig. 147: Central Square and Community Hub Sketch North-west entrance from Liddesdale Road

The Central Square and Community Hub will be the beating heart of the Design Area. The intention is to create the following character: • A flexible mix of uses around the public space with residential dwellings above active ground floor uses; • Trees to provide shade, soften the urban form, and to subdivide the space into more ‘human scale’ compartments; • The square is to be prioritised for pedestrians; • Outdoor seating to be arranged formally and informally to encourage a variety of use; • Amenity space for informal play and relaxation; • Public art and sculpture • Opportunities for the residents of Milton to populate the space flexibly, whether through markets, community events, LoveMilton skills workshops, outdoor cinemas or exhibitions.

•

Urban Form

The Central Square lies on the Urban Main Road, at the Junction with the Local Main Road. The Urban Main Road changes direction at the Square, providing an opportunity to create attractive views along the street with ‘landmark buildings’, such as the Community Hub, which give visual clues of arrival at the centre.

fig. 148: Lonsdale Street, Melbourne

The buildings around the square should create a sense of enclosure and cohesion. They must also aim to replicate the scale and grain of a place made up of individual plots; unity without uniformity.

All mixed use buildings fronting the square must be 4 storeys. All residential buildings must be a minimum of three storeys, but should be designed in such a way as to maximise enclosure of this space. Ground floors should have a minimum floor to floor height of 3.7m within all mixed use buildings fronting the central square.

80

fig. 149: Charenton le Pont Town Centre

Hard Landscape

The Square itself will have high quality flexible spaces, overlooked on all sides, to provide a safe and useable space to be populated by the residents of Milton.

High quality paving should be used throughout, to reflect the civic status of the Square. A continuous paving treatment should extent across the square, to the community hub and primary school, to reinforce that all of these facilities are part of one unified centre.

The hard landscape should extend into the urban main road treatment along the square, which should emphasise pedestrian priority.

Raised tables at the entrance junctions and horizontal road surface banding should be considered to reduce traffic speeds.

fig 150: Bike Rack Sculpture / Placemaking, David Byrne

Lighting, seating and other street furniture should be of high quality and sustainiable materials appropriate to the scale of the space, and architectural vernacular.

•

Landscape

Large mature trees should be used generously across the square to frame key views to the community hub and primary school. The landscape treatment and tree planting should consider the opportunity to subdivide the space into smaller compartments. Smaller trees may be planted more informally within and around the square to provide shade and visual interest. Species selection should be consistent with the wider character area.

fig. 151: Pop up shipping container shoRe:Start Mall, Christchurch, NZ

Sustainable drainage should be incorportated into the design of the hard landscape in planters, bioswales and landscaped areas.

•

Opportunities

The Central Square should explore opportunities for public art, sculpture, and high quality landscape architecture to generate a sense of place and pride in the quality of the built environment.

fig. 152: Community Event, Silo Park, Auckland,

fig. 153: High Quality Streetscape at all Hours, Wynyard Quarter, Auckland, NZ

fig. 154: Community enjoying high quality hard landscape at Beenleigh Town Square, Australia

fig. 155: High quality drainage and landscape design, Sovereign Square Leeds

81

Special Area 2

82

fig. 156: Residential Open Space Plan View

0

10

30

fig. 157: Residential Open Space

0

10

30

83

fig. 158: Residential Open Space 3D Render

fig. 159: Residential Open Space Western entrance from Mingulay Street

84

Shared Space Residential Character The shared space special area is a flexible space that can be changed over time to accommodate more parking, or be entirely dedicated to public open space, incorporating movement. These spaces echo those found elsehwere in Milton, but with the benefit of being well enclosed, safe and animated by daily life. These spaces can be repeated, or incidental along quiet shared space streets.

• • • •

•

Provide a meeting space for interaction between people; Provide safe areas for children to play and interact; Trees to provide shade, soften the urban form, and to subdivide the space and provide biodiversity; High quality play equipment and street furniture to generate a sense of pride in place.

Urban Form

Housing around these areas will be 2 storeys, although a maximum of 3 storeys may be used for isolated buildings on corner plots to enhance legibility, or to terminate vistas.

The building line should be close to the street, with a maximum 1m setback (and 1m privacy strip), to provide good enclosure to the street and surveillance of the open space and play area.

•

Hard Landscape

On shared space streets, there should be no visible demarcation of carriageways and footways other than changes in paving material to indicate defensible space. Staggered blocks of landscaping can be used to create a chicane effect; There should be a minimum amount of signage and visual clutter.

•

Landscape

Smaller street trees should be used to create shade for users of open space, to soften the appearance of built form, and increase biodiversity.

The selection of tree species should consider the surrounding character area.

Significant opportunities exist in these areas for the inclusion of sustainable drainage, landscape planting and trees to provide visible hazards to slow traffic, while improving the pedestrian environment;

•

Opportunities

Play areas should have high quality equipment with an emphais on natural play. These spaces should meet the minimum requirements for Local Areas of Play as set out in the Fields in Trust‘ Guidance for Outdoor Sport and Play Beyond the Six Acre Standard’ (Scotland, 2015), which state a minimum of 10m sq. play area, 5m from the nearest habitable dwelling.

85

fig. 160: Landscape treatment in shared space street, Newhall, Harlow

fig. 163: Frontages and street edge, Upton, North-

fig. 162: Hard landscape, Upton Northampton

86

fig. 161:Landscape and sustainable drainage shared space

fig. 164: Parking and landscape Upton, Northampton

fig. 165: FIshergate, Preston, Shared space hard materials

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

87

Special Area 3

fig. 166: Residential Open Space, Scalpay Street Cross-Section

88

fig. 167: Residential Open Space, Scalpay St Layout Plan

0

50

10

0

10

50

89

fig. 168: Residential Open Space, Scalpay Street 3D Render

Scalpay St Open Space The Scalpay Street Open Space Special Area provides a quiet counterpoint to the nearby urban main road and the commercial activity around the central square. Spaces such as this are valued by people, particularly the elderly, who can inhabit the space to restore their attentional reserves that can become depleted from negotiating very active places.

The space, however, is also within a medium density residential area and the design of the space shall encourage its temporary appropriation by residents for pop-up play spaces or for additional seating to supplement the formal play equipment and permanent benches that the space provides.

Despite the spaces central location, the place function takes precedence over the movement function. This is accomplished by both the design detail and the driver uncertainty created by the confluence of vehicular and pedestrian routes in a shared space environment.

•

Urban Form

Housing around the area will be 3 storey terraced houses with one edge being occupied by a 4 storey multiple occupancy building, which terminates the vista from the Central Square.

The building line, setback 2.0m, is close to the street edge despite the relativley robust height of the buildings as the shared space is relatively wide. This should provide good enclosure to the street and surveillance of the open space and play area without the special area appearing overbearingly enclosed. This is helped by the offset breaks in urban blocks due to the convergence of routes.

90

Rooflines and building facades should be relatively consistent to reflect the proximity of the space to the central square, however it is appropriate to alter the rooflines or facades of buildings at the end of terraces or where they terminate views from other streets.

•

Hard Landscape

On shared space streets, there should be no visible demarcation of carriageways and footways other than a change in paving material to indicate defensible space. As the central area will be grassed, a change in ground level will be necessary. Bollards will demark the central play / seating area and shall be spaced at 4.0m centres, which should preclude informal parking.

•

Landscape

Small street trees should be used to create shade for users of open space, to soften the appearance of built form, and increase biodiversity. The selection of tree species should consider the surrounding character area.

•

Opportunities

Play areas should have high quality equipment with an emphasis on natural play. These spaces should meet the minimum requirements for Local Areas of Play as set out in the Fields in Trust Guidance for Outdoor Sport and Play Beyond the Six Acre Standard’ (Scotland, 2015), which state a minimum of 10m sq. play area, 5m from the nearest habitable dwelling.

fig. 169: Play space, Port Adelaide

fig. 170: Shared Space, Worbis, Germany

fig. 171: Seating and trees, Barcelona, Spain

fig. 172: Open Space & medium density development Toronto, Ontario

fig. 173: Landscape and street edge Guitrancourt, France

91

Special Area 4

92

0

50

10

fig. 174: Ronaldsay Street Public Space Cross-Section

0

50

10

fig. 175: Ronaldsay Street Public Space Layout Plan

93

fig. 176: Ronaldsay Street Public Space, View to Landmark Building and Church

fig. 177: Ronaldsay Street Public Open Space, View to Ornsay St from New Ronaldsay St

94

Ronaldsay Street Public Space The Ronaldsay Street Public Space Special Area is located on the interface between two character areas on a Local Main Road. The space provides a gateway to the Core Character Area while significant community functions i.e the primary school, church, and care home occupy the street edge to the northeast while a footpath link to the north leads to the improved and expanded community gardens.

It is envisaged that the role of this special area will be: • • • • •

To reflect and reinforce the transition to the Central Character Area by creating a sense of arrival; To provide an appropriate setting to the nearby significant community functions; To facilitate movement of people between the significant community functions; To be a place to where people are happy to arrive and wait (for their Children, for Church-goers, or pick something up from the community garden.

To slow traffic prior to the bus stops positioned outside of the primary school;

The physical features of the space will need to be considered carefully as both the movement and place functions are relativley balanced. This presents a good opportunity. In general the features of the space shall be devised in accordance with the following:

•

Urban Form

Housing around at the edges of the special area will be 3 or 4 storey terraced houses. The 4 storey typology shall apply to the landmark building and to the buildings at the end of terraces.

The building line, setback 2.0m, is close to the street edge although relatively distant from the running lane of the shared surface. Enclosure of the space will be supplemented by large street trees that will be arranged in a rectilinearly at the interface between the standard and special footway treatments.

The treatment of building facades should reflect the formality of the street edges with the landmark building being the most formal, then the building front to the south, which is a curvilinear extension to the built form ‘scene’ on Ronaldsay Street. The remaining two edges break the building line of the street to complete the square and should be treated with less formality.

•

Hard Landscape

The street shall transition to a shared surface on the approaches to the shared surface. The standard footway arrangement shall not terminate at this juncture. Rather it will form the edges of the ‘square’ that will be reinforced with street trees, there will be no physical demarcation between carriageways and footways (standard or special) other than a change in paving material to indicate defensible space and the bounds of the square. Bollards will demark the vehicular running lane and shall be spaced at 4.0m centres, which should preclude informal parking. Seating shall be provided and will reflect the lines of the trees and the interface between the shared surface and the standard footway treatment (i.e. the edges of the ‘square’).

•

Landscape

Street trees should be used to create shade for users of open space, to reflect the edges of the ‘square’ and to provide a sense of arrival to the core character area.

•

Opportunities

Rather than being the ‘back door’ to the community garden, it is possible that this space could form a component of it, particularly if raised planters incorporate seating and some permanent leaf cover so as not to preclude the other functions of the space.

95

fig. 178: Place, movement & landscape, Karlovy, Czech Republic

fig. 179: Urban Parklet, Auckland, New Zealand

fig. 180:Paving for legibility Karlovy, Czech Republic

fig. 181: Informal, temporary seating, Jubilee Sq., Leicester

fig. 182: Church Sq, Borken, Germany

References and Figure List References 1. Biddulph M (2005), Introduction to Residential Layout. Routledge 2. Barton H., Grant M., and Guise R. (2010). Shaping Neighbourhoods for Local Health and Global Sustainability. 2nd Edition, Routledge 3. BRE and BREEAM (2015) Home Quality Mark. Available at http://www. homequalitymark.com/ (accessed 24/04/17) 4. Centre for Architecture and the Built Environment (2005). Better Neighbourhoods: Making Higher Densities Work. Available at: http:// webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe. org.uk/files/better-neighbourhoods.pdf (accessed: 19/11/16).

5. Department for Communities and Local Government (2015), Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524531/160519_Nationally_Described_Space_Standard____Final_Web_version.pdf (accessed 24/04/17) 6. Fields In Trust (2015) Guidance for Outdoor Sport and Play Beyond the Six Acre Standard: Scotland. Available at http://www.fieldsintrust. org/Upload/file/Guidance/Guidance-for-Outdoor-Sport-and-Play-Scotland.pdf (accessed 08/01/17) 7. Glasgow City Council (2009). City Plan 2. Available at: https://www. glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=16185 (accessed: 01/12/2016).

8. Glasgow City Council (2016). Glasgow’s Housing Strategy: Sustainble Communities, Affordable Homes. For Consultation, Glasgow’s Draft Housing Strategy 2017-2022. Available at: https://www.glasgow.gov. uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=4584&p=0 (accessed 01/12/2016) 9. Habinteg Housing Associated and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2010) The Lifetime Homes Standard. Available at http://www.lifetimehomes.org.uk/pages/revised-design-criteria.html (accessed 24/04/17) 10. Montgomery, C. (2013) Happy City: Transforming our lives through urban design: Penguin Books 11. Penalosa, G. (2011), ‘Creating 8-80 Cities, from thinking to doing’ [online] Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQWWhnjNUtc [accessed 25/04/2017] 12. Playle R. and Meyerricks S, (2016) Milton Talks: People, Place and Priorities; Survey Findings and Recommendations for Community Regeneration – 2016. Available at: http://www.ngcfi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Milton-Talks-Report-Oct-2016.pdf - (accessed 27/11/16)

97

13. Police Security Initiative (2016) Secured by Design: Homes and New Schools 2016; Version1. Available at http://www.securedbydesign.com/ industry-advice-and-guides/#dsgngd (accessed 24/04/17) 14. Scottish Government, Edinburgh (2005) Design and Construction of Sustainable Schools: Volume 1. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/ Topics/Education/Schools/Buildings/Designandconstruction (accessed 17/02/17) 15. Scottish Government, Edinburgh, 2016, Designing Streets: A Policy Statement for Scotland. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2010/03/22120652/0 [Accessed 28/11/16] 16. Tarbatt J (2012) The Plot; Designing Diversity in the Built Environment, a manual for architects and urban designers. RIBA Publishing 17. The National Association of CIty Transportation Officials (NATCO) (2013) Urban Street Design Guide. Available at: http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ (accessed: 01/12/2016).

18. The National Association of CIty Transportation Officials (NATCO) and the Global Designing Cities Initiative (2016) Global Street Design Guide. Island Press 19. University of Strathclyde Urban Design Unit (2013/14) Local Urban Code.

20. Ward-Thompson, C. (2016), ‘Understanding the built environment and its effect of human health and wellbeing’. Places and Spaces for Health and Wellbeing Conference, 25/04/2017, Glasgow.

Figure List 1. Castlebay Drive. From Bricka-Brac blog (date unknown). Castlebay Drive Milton [online]. Available at http://bricka-brac.blogspot.co.uk/ [accessed 02/04/17) 2. Liddesdale Road Flats, Milton, 2016, photo by Authors 3. Vacant Land, Milton, 2016, photo by Authors 4. Vacant Land, Milton, 2016, photo by Authors 5. Community shops on Castlebay Street, Milton, 2016, photo by Authors 6. Community shops Liddesdale Square, Milton, 2016, photo by Authors 7. CCTV, Milton, 2016, photo by Authors 8. Liddesdale Road, Milton, 2016, photo by Authors 9. Berneray Street, Milton, 2016, photo by Authors

98

10. Milton Industrial Estate, Milton, 2016, photo by Authors 11. Liddesdale Road, Milton, 2016, photo by Authors 12. Place Standard Assessment. From Architecture and Design Scotland, NHS Health Scotland and The Scottish Government (date unknown) Place Standard Assessment. Available at: http://www.placestandard. scot/#/home (accessed 19/11/16); and Author’s own findings.

13. SWOC Analysis Strengths and Opportunities, drawn by Authors 14. SWOC Analysis Weaknesses, drawn by Authors 15. SWOC Analysis Challenges, drawn by Authors 16. St Augustine’s Church, Milton, 2016, photo by Authors 17. Milton Memorial Gardens, Milton, 2016, photo by Authors 18. Milton Community Garden sign, Milton, 2016, photo by Authors 19. Milton Memorial Gardens, Milton, 2016, photo by Authors 20. Design Area, drawn by Authors 21. Design Area Aerial Image. From Google Earth 7.1.8.3036 (2017), [online] viewed on 10/04/17 22. Liddesdale Road, Milton, 2016, photo by Authors 23. Derelict Milton School site, Milton, 2016, photo by Authors 24. Liddesdale Square, Milton, 2016, photo by Authors 25. Existing Concept Plan: Density and Nodes. From Fleischmann M., Saracini M., Wang R., Kovacs I.A., Kyaw L.M., and Wang Y., (2016).

Existing Concept Plan; Density and Nodes. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde Urban Design Studio Strategy Group 2.

26. Existing Concept Plan: Ecological Networks. From Fleischmann M., Saracini M., Wang R., Kovacs I.A., Kyaw L.M., and Wang Y. (2016).

Existing Concept Plan; Ecological Networks. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde Urban Design Studio - Strategy Group 2.

27. Existing Concept Plan: Hierarchy of Streets and Public Transport.

From Fleischmann M., Saracini M., Wang R., Kovacs I.A., Kyaw L.M., and Wang Y. (2016). Existing Concept Plan; Hierarchy of Streets and Public Transport. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde Urban Design Studio - Strategy Group 2.

28. Existing Concept Plan: Bus, Rail, and Cycle Transportation. From Fleischmann M., Saracini M., Wang R., Kovacs I.A.,Kyaw L.M., and Wang Y. (2016) Existing Concept Plan; Bus, Rail and Cycle Transportation. Glasgow: University of StrathclydevUrban Design Studio Strategy Group 2.

99

29. Vehicular Movement Strategy, drawn by Authors 30. Pedestrian / Public Transport Strategy, drawn by Authors 31. Density, Nodes and Legibility Strategy, drawn by Authors 32. Ecological Network Strategy, drawn by Authors 33. Community Asset Strategy, drawn by Authors 34. Project Consultees. From: Outspoken Arts (date unknown), Glasgow City Council Logo [online] Available at: http://outspokenarts.org/ wp-content/uploads/2014/04/GCC-20mmmarkrgb.png [accessed 21/11/16]; mygov.scot (date unknown), Transport Scotland Logo [online] Available at: https://www.mygov.scot/assets/images/organisations/ transport-scotland.png [accessed 21/11/16]; Sheffield Bus Partnership (date unknown), First Group Logo [online] Available at: https:// sheffieldbuspartnership.co.uk/wp-content/themes/sbp/assets/images/ logos/logo-first.png [accessed 21/11/16]; Wikimedia Commons (date unknown), Strathclyde Partnership for Transport Logo [online] Available at: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0c/Strathclyde_Partnership_for_Transport_(logo).svg/1280px-Strathclyde_Partnership_for_Transport_(logo).svg.png [accessed 21/11/16]; ScotWays, (date unknown), Scotways Logo [online] Available at: https://www.scotways.com/images/logo.gif [accessed 21/11/16]; Bicycle Ballet, (date unknown), SusTrans logo [online] Available at: http://www.bicycleballet.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SUSTRANS_1.jpg [accessed 21/11/16]; Wikimedia Commons (date unknown) Scottish Canals Logo [online] Available at: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Scottish_Canals_logo.jpg [accessed 21/11/16]; Paisley.Org (date unknown), Scottish Wildlife Trust logo [online] Available at: http:// www.paisley.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/scottish-wildlife-trust. gif [accessed 21/11/16];Wheatley Group (date unknown), Glasgow Housing Association logo [online] Available at: http://www.wheatley-group.com/Images/Uploads/GHA_1355754345_2.jpg [accessed 21/11/16]; Mygov.scot (date unknown), Architecture and Design Scotland logo [online] Available at: https://www.mygov.scot/assets/images/organisations/architecture-and-design.png [accessed 21/11/16]; University of Stirling (date unknown) Saltire Society logo [online] Available at: http://www.publishing.stir.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/tmp/ saltire_society_f030511.jpg [accessed 21/11/16]; Scottish Environment Protection Agency (date unknown), SEPA logo [online] Available at: http://www.sepaview.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/SEPA_Logo.jpg [accessed 21/11/16]; ESRI (date unknown), Scottish Natural Heritage logo [online] Available at: http://resource.esriuk.com/wp-content/ uploads/2015/12/snh_logo_tall.png [accessed 21/11/16]; Scottish Government and Digital Inclusion for Health (date unknown), North Glasgow Community Food Initiative Logo [online] Available at: http:// www.digitalinclusionforhealth.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ NGCFI_logo-e1415724496561.jpg [accessed 21/11/16]; Love Milton (date unknown), Love Milton Logo [online] Available at: https://lovemilton-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/sites/5418d62ce2c093a9a8000002/ assets/5421b3747fff539fc400002a/logo.png [accessed 21/11/16

100

35. Proposed Concept Plan, drawn by Authors 36. Density and Nodes Concept, drawn by Authors 37. Ecological Networks Concept, drawn by Authors 38. Streets and Public Transport Concept, drawn by Authors 39. Kerr Street. From Redrow Homes (2016), Plymouth Vision [online] Available at: https://www.redrow.co.uk/-/media/redrow-co-uk/images/ developments/west-country/vision-plymouth/vision-header-24756.jpg?w=1160&h=506&useCustomFunctions=1&centerCrop=1&hash=6B7D77A3DE87AFD9D30616BE50E6FEA4254BE7D7 [accessed 21/11/16] 40. Kerr Street. From Redrow Homes (2016), Plymouth Vision [online] Available at: https://www.redrow.co.uk/-/media/redrow-co-uk/images/ developments/west-country/vision-plymouth/vision-header-24756.jpg?w=1160&h=506&useCustomFunctions=1&centerCrop=1&hash=6B7D77A3DE87AFD9D30616BE50E6FEA4254BE7D7 [accessed 21/11/16] 41. Gun Wharf. From LHC Architects (date unknown), Gun Wharf Circus [online] Available at: http://www.lhc.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ Gunwharfcircus.jpg [accessed 21/11/16] 42. Gun Wharf. From RUDI (date unknown), Gun Wharf [online] Available at: http://www.rudi.net/files/book/illustrations/BG03.jpg [accessed 21/11/16] 43. Upton, Northampton. From RUDI (date unknown), upton_0706_19 [online] Available at: http://www.rudi.net/files/paper/illustrations/02-Upton_0706_019.jpg [accessed 21/11/16] 44. Upton; Northampton. From RUDI (date unknown), upton_0706_034 [online] Available at: http://www.rudi.net/files/paper/illustrations/07-Upton_0706_034.jpg [accessed 21/11/16] 45. Accordia. From Fielden Clegg Bradley Architects (2016), Accordia Cambridge, [online] Available at: http://fcbstudios.com/assets/imgsupl/ Feilden_Clegg_Bradley_Studios-Accordia-Cambridge-04.jpg [accessed 21/11/16] 46. Accordia. From The Building Centre (2014), Grant Associates Accordia [online] Available at: http://www.buildingcentre.co.uk/system/ images/images/000/041/281/big/Grant-Associates---Accordia---new--CAM117_N280.png?1419339573 [accessed 21/11/16] 47. Hammarby Sjostad. From brflugnvattnet1 (date unknown), Hammarby Sjostad [online] Available at: http://www.brflugnvattnet1.se/ [accessed 27/11/16]

101

48. Malmo Bo01. From Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, (date unknown), Malmo Bo01 [online] Available at: http://www.msaudcolumbia.org/summer/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/aerial1.jpg [accessed 28/11/16] 49. Foundation Masterplan, drawn by Authors 50. Transformation / Confirmation Areas, drawn by Authors 51. Street Design Evolution, drawn by Authors 52. Street Hierarchy, drawn by authors 53. Street Edges and Nodes drawn by authors 54. Ecological Networks, drawn by authors 55. Phase 1, drawn by authors 56. Phase 2, drawn by authors 57. Phase 3, drawn by authors 58. Phase 4, drawn by authors 59. Detailed Masterplan, drawn by authors 60. Liddesdale Road, Milton (2016), photo by Authors 61. Illustrative Urban Main Road. From National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), (date unknown), Downtown 2-Way Street, [online]. Available at http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-designguide/streets/downtown-2-way-street/ [accessed 29/12/16] 62. Proposed Urban Main Road Section, drawn by Authors 63. Proposed Urban Main Road Plan Comparison, drawn by Authors 64. Deaderick Street, Nashville. From Panoramio, (2012), Deaderick Street Nashville TN, [online]. Available at http://www.panoramio.com/ photo/72808284 [accessed 29/12/16) 65. Maidstone High Street. From Laud8, (date unknown), laud8-maidstone-1. [online]. Available at https://laud8.wordpress.com/2015/07/20/ maidstone-high-street/ [accessed 29/12/16) 66. Charenton le Pont. From Landezine, (date unknown), charenton-lepont-town-centre-03 [online]. Available at http://www.landezine.com/ index.php/2015/10/charenton-le-pont-town-centre-by-agence-babylone/charenton-le-pont-town-centre-03/ [accessed 29/12/16) 67. Lancaster Boulevard, California. From Smart Growth Online, (date unknown), lancaster-california2 (California), [online]. Available at http:// smartgrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/lancaster-california2.jpg [accessed 29/12/16)

102

68. Charenton le Pont Town Centre. From Collegi d’Arquitectes de Catalunya, (date unknown), P8160F3, [online] https://www.arquitectes. cat/iframes/paisatge/fotos_proj/8a_BIENNAL/P8160/P8160F3.jpg [accessed 29/12/16) 69. Ronaldsay Street, Milton, Existing. From Google Earth 7.1.8.3036, (2017), Ronaldsay Street Glasgow [online] viewed on 10/04/17 70. Illustrative Local Main Road. From National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), (date unknown), Neighbourhood Main Street, [online]. Available at http://nacto.org/publication/urban-streetdesign-guide/streets/neighborhood-main-street/ [accessed 29/12/16] 71. Proposed Local Main Road Section, drawn by Authors 72. Proposed Local Main Road Plan Comparison, drawn by Authors 73. Ashford, Kent, Shared Space Local Main Road. From Kent & Sussex Journal, (2013), img_9349 [online] Available at https://casualwalkers2. files.wordpress.com/2013/05/img_9349.jpg [accessed 30/12/16] 74. Gibbs Street, Ottowa, Canada. From Friends of White Flint, (2013), A bike lane on Gibbs Street in Rockville, [online]. Available at http://www. whiteflint.org/2013/06/07/white-flint-needs-a-connected-bike-network/ [accessed 30/12/16] 75. Buckley Hill, Hobsonville, NZ. From Auckland Council, (date unknown), Auckland Design Manual [online]. Available at http://content. aucklanddesignmanual.co.nz/ADM%20Images/Carousel/002%20Terraced/002-06%20Building/NEW%20STRUCTURE/001-06-1-5-endsrows-courtyards/BDP1/G1%20hobsonville%20corner.jpg [accessed 30/12/16] 76. Ashford, Kent, Shared Space Streetscape. From Hamilton-baillie Associates, (date unknown), low-speed two-way boulevard [online]. Available at http://www.hamilton-baillie.co.uk/index.php?do=projects&sub=details&pid=29 [accessed 30/12/16] 77. George Street, Sydney, Australia. From Group GSA, (date unknown), George Street Cycleway, [online]. Available at http://gsa.edelmandigital.com.au/cn/work/projects/landscape/george-street-cycleway [accessed 30/12/16] 78. Mingulay Street, Milton, Existing. From Google Earth 7.1.8.3036, (2017), Mingulay Street Glasgow [online] viewed on 10/04/17 79. Illustrative Local Road Yield Street. From National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), (date unknown), Yield Street, [online]. Available at http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-designguide/streets/yield-street/ [accessed 29/12/16] 80. Illustrative Local Road. From National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), (date unknown), Neighbourhood Street, [online]. Available at http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-designguide/streets/neighborhood-street/ [accessed 29/12/16]

103

81. Illustrative Local Shared Space Road. From National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), (date unknown), Residential Shared Street, [online]. Available at http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/streets/residential-shared-street/ [accessed 29/12/16] 82. Proposed Local Road Section, drawn by Authors 83. Proposed Local Road Plan Comparison, drawn by Authors 84. Buckley Hill, Hobsonville, NZ. From Auckland Council, (date unknown), Auckland Design Manual, Buckley Terraces [online]. Available at http://www.aucklanddesignmanual.co.nz/design-process/developing-new-homes/case-studies/buckley_terraces [accessed 30/12/16] 85. Local Road, Auckland, NZ. From Auckland Council, (date unknown), Auckland Design Manual [online]. Available at http://content.aucklanddesignmanual.co.nz/ADM%20Images/Carousel/002%20Terraced/002-02%20Placing%20the%20building/002-02%2002%20 Fronts%20and%20backs/Outcomes/B.jpg 86. Shared Space Local Road. From Proctor and Matthews Architects, (date unknown), SMARTLife, [online]. Available at https://www.proctorandmatthews.com/project/smartlife [accessed 17/04/17] 87. Local Road, Assen, Holland. From As Easy As Riding a Bike Blogspot, (date unknown), dscn9393.jpg [online]. Available at https://aseasyasridingabike.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/dscn9393.jpg [accessed 12/01/17] 88. Shared Space Local Road, Morice Town, Plymouth. From Neighbourhoods, (date unknown), Photo: Adrian Trim, Morice Town Project Manager [online]. Available at http://neighbourhoods.typepad.com/ neighbourhoods/2004/03/home_zones_and_.html [accessed 23/04/17] 89. Urban Main Road extract, drawn by authors 90. Local Main Road extract, drawn by authors 91. Local Road extract, drawn by authors 92. Local Road Shared Space extract, drawn by authors 93. Local Urban Code 3D representations of built for and 2D Plans, drawn by authors 94. Mixed Use Street Edge on Public Square. From Leenman, (date unknown), Winkelcentrum Vathorst te Amersfoort [online]. Available at http://www.leenmanbv.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/dura_winkelcentrum_vathorst_te_amersfoort_042.jpg [accessed 06/04/17] 95. Mixed use street edge on public square, Temple Bar Dublin. From Rewitalizacje Archiektura I urbanistyka Rzeszow, (2015) Temple Bar Dublin, [online]. Available at http://rewitalizacje.blog.pl/files/2015/01/ TBsq-for-Bitbuzz.jpg [accessed 17/04/17]

104

96. New England Quarter, Brighton. From RUDI,(date unknown), untitled [online] Available at: http://www.rudi.net/files/book/illustrations/untitled.

JPG [accessed 21/01/17] 97. Temple Quay, Bristol. From URBED, (date unknown), temple-quaynorth, [online]. Available at http://urbed.coop/projects/temple-quaynorth [accessed 17/02/17] 98. Plot variety, Borneo Sporenborg, Amsterdam. From A collection of things blog, (date unknown), rowhouses_copenhagen_01, [online].

Available at https://acollectionofthings.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ rowhouses_copenhagen_01.png [accessed 17/02/17] 99. Coin Street, South Bank, London. From Camlin Lonsdale Landscape Architects, (2012), Coin-Street-2, [online]. Available at https://www. camlinlonsdale.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Coin-Street-2.jpg [accessed 02/04/17] 100. Norfolk Park, Sheffield. From Wildgoose Construction, (date unknown), norfolk-park-sheffield-38, [online]. Available at http://www.wildgooseconstruction.co.uk/norfolk-park-sheffield-38 [accessed 02/02/17] 101. Almere Poort, Holland. From Geertfotofrafeert (2014), Homerus [online]. Available at http://www.geertfotografeert.nl/2014/homerus-nobel. html [accessed 02/02/17] 102. Newhall, Harlow. From Dezeen (2013), South Chase Housing by Alison Brooks Architects [online] Available at https://www.dezeen. com/2013/01/30/south-chase-housing-by-alison-brooks-architects/ [accessed 02/02/17] 103. Borneo Sporenborg. From Buildingbutler (date unknown), housing Borneo sporenburg [online]. Available at http://www.buildingbutler.com/ bd/Amsterdam/housing-Borneo-Sporenburg/6549 [accessed 02/02/17] 104. Individuality, Almere Poort, Holland. From Firstharvest.ehv (2015), Figure 1: A rich variety of facades, colors and style, found in Almere [online]. Available at https://firstharvestehv.wordpress.com/2015/06/10/ self-building-in-the-netherlands-the-absence-of-a-guideline-that-is-theguideline/ [accessed 02/02/17] 105. Allerton Bywater, UK. From HTA (2017), Allerton Bywater [online].

Available at http://www.hta.co.uk/projects/allerton-bywater [accessed 02/02/17] 106. Upton, Northampton. From HTA (2017), Upton D2 [online]. Available at http://www.hta.co.uk/projects/upton-d2 [accessed 02/02/17] 107. Telford Millennium Community. From Wienerberger (date unknown), Telford Millennium Community [online]. Available at http://wienerberger.co.uk/App/Maps/Wb-uk/innovateinbrick/projects18_telford.html [accessed 02/02/17] 108. Upton, Northampton Semi Detached. From Persimmon Homes (date unknown), Marina Gardens Northampton [online]. Available at https:// www.persimmonhomes.com/images/homes-for-sale-marina-gardens-northampton_the-upton_95345.jpg?width=840&height=570 [accessed 02/02/17]

105

109. Upton, Northampton Detached. From Rightmove (date unknown), Detached house Upton Northampton [online]. Available at http:// media.rightmove.co.uk/81k/80293/52746391/80293_26033013_ IMG_16_0000.jpg [accessed 02/02/17] 110. Upton, Northampton. From HTA (2017), Upton Site C [online]. Available at http://www.hta.co.uk/web/uploads/projects_13_3_large.jpg [accessed 02/02/17] 111. Masterplan Extract, Community Hub, drawn by Authors 112. Curo Group and BDP Architects, Mulberry Park Community Centre Concept. From Curo Group (2016), 160624-public-consultation-boards_final [online]. Available at http://www.curo-group.co.uk/ media/489025/160624-public-consultation-boards_final.pdf [accessed 28/03/17] 113. Hebburn Central Community Centre, Newcastle. From Dezeen (2015), FaulknerBrowns Architects Hebburn Central community centre [online]. Available at https://www.dezeen.com/2015/10/09/faulknerbrowns-architects-hebburn-central-community-centre-library-newcastle-rusted-steel/ [accessed 28/03/17] 114. Girdwood Community Hub, Belfast. From Michael Whitley Architects (2016), Girdwood Community hub [online]. Available at https://michaelwhitleyarchitects.wordpress.com/girdwood-community-hub/ [accessed 28/03/17] 115. Community Centre and Library, Melbourne. From Builtoffsite (date unknown), library at the dock by clare design and hayball, Melbourne, [online]. Available at http://builtoffsite.com.au/issue-01/timber-massivepromise-new-thinking-wood/ [accessed 28/03/17] 116. Masterplan Extract, Primary School, drawn by Authors 117. Oddemarka School. From Oddemarka Skole, (2014), Oddemarka School [online]. Available at http://dev.redrock.no/oddemarka/oddemarka/?p=480 [accessed 06/03/17] 118. Kjeldas School. From Sande Commune (date unknown), Kjeldas skol, [online]. Available at https://www.sande-ve.kommune.no/Globalmeny/ Om-Sande/Virksomheter1/Skole-og-utdanning/Grunnskole/Kjeldas-skole1/ [accessed 18/04/17] 119. Schafersfeld School. From VS Network (date unknown), vs_42903_10_2 [online]. Available at http://vs-network.com/media/ timelines/items/schulmuseum.zumkuckuck.com/vs_42903_10_2.jpg [accessed 18/04/17] 120. Schafersfeld School Grounds. From Behnisch & Partner, (date unknown), Progymnasium “Auf dem Schafersfeld� Lorch [online]. Available at http://www.behnisch-partner.de/projects/educational-buildings/ schaefersfeld-middle-school [accessed 18/04/17] 121. Masterplan Extract , Care home, drawn by Authors

106

122. Milton Community Gardens, Existing, (2016) photo by Authors 123. Milton Memorial Gardens, Existing (2016) photo by Authors 124. Boulevard Trees, Deaderick Street, Nashville. From Panoramio, (2012), Deaderick Street Nashville TN, [online]. Available at http:// www.panoramio.com/photo/72808284 [accessed 29/12/16) 125. Integrated Landscape. Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. From Monmontcalm.com (2016), BKK_DandenongLonsdaleSt_JohnGollings [online].

Available at http://blogue.monmontcalm.com/2016/des-visiteurs-delespace-dans-le-quartier-montcalm/ [accessed 29/12/16] 126. SUDS Planting. From Leaside Planning (date unknown), the green mile [online]. Available at http://leasideplanning.co.uk/portfolio_page/ the-green-mile/ [accessed 18/04/17] 127. Tree lined street, Gibbs Street, Rockville. From Friend of White Flint (2013), A bike lane on Gibbs Street in Rockville [online]. Available at http://www.whiteflint.org/2013/06/07/white-flint-needs-a-connectedbike-network/ [accessed 29/12/16] 128. Rain Garden. From Green Infrastructure Digest (2012), Ballard Roadside Rain Gardens [online]. Available at https://hpigreen.files. wordpress.com/2011/12/ballard-rain-garden-2011-08-10-050small.jpg [accessed 18/04/17] 129. Street Landscape. Great Kneighton, Cambridge. From RIBA J (2014), long houses little lanes and typologies to fit how we live now homes at Great Kneighton [online]. Available at https://www.ribaj.com/culture/ better-for-everyone {accessed 18/04/17] 130. SUDS Planting, Portland, Oregon. From SYEP@PSU Students in Transportation Engineering (2010), PSU_GreenStreetBikeTour, [online]. Available at http://psu-step.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/portlandgreen-streets-tour-november.html [accessed 29/12/16) 131. Masterplan Extract Village Green, drawn by Authors 132. Residential Park, Upton, Northampton. From Google Earth 7.1.8.3036 (2017), Clickers Place, Upton, Northampton [online] viewed on 10/04/17 133. Orchard Planting. From National Geographic, (2014), Photograph

by Farrukh, [online]. Available at http://theplate.nationalgeographic. com/2014/07/22/history-of-apples/ [accessed 18/04/17 134. Community Growing Space, Partick, Scotland. From Erz Studip. (Date unknown), Partick growing space [online]. Available at http://www. erzstudio.co.uk/projects/partick-growing-space [accessed 16/04/17] 135. Natural Playground. From Nature Play WA, (date unknown), Nature Playgrounds [online]. Available at http://www.natureplaywa.org.au/ programs/nature-playgrounds [accessed 18/04/17] 136. Masterplan Extract, Naturalistic Park Area, drawn by Authors

107

137. Wildflower Meadow Planting. From Eden Project, (date unknown), How to create a wildflower meadow in your garden [online]. Available at http://www.edenproject.com/learn/for-everyone/how-to-create-awildflower-meadow-in-your-garden [accessed 18/04/17] 138. Nature play area at Silver Falls State Park in Oregon. From National Wildlife Federation’s BLOG, (2014), A nature play area at Silver Falls State Park in Oregon, [online]. Available at http://blog.nwf.org/2014/09/ nature-play-coming-to-every-community/ [accessed 18/04/17.

139. Westmoreland Park, Portland. From Design Museum Portland, (2017), Westmoreland_5_Overall-copy-1024x576 [online]. Available at https:// designmuseumfoundation.org/portland/blog/2017/01/18/recap-extraordinary-playscapes/ [accessed 18/04/17] 140. Marylhurst Heights Park. From Playing in Portland, (2013), Marylhurst Heights Park img_3848 [online]. Available at https://playinginportland. wordpress.com/tag/west-linn/ [accessed 18/04/17] 141. SUDS as play features. From PLayscapes (2012), Rainwater on the Playground – Making Drainage a Play Feature, [online]. Available at http://www.play-scapes.com/play-design/natural-playgrounds/rainwater-on-the-playground-making-drainage-a-play-feature/ [accessed 29/03/17) 142. Naturalistic Woodland Planting. From Cool Green Science, (2016), Planting Healthy Air: Can Urban Trees Help Clean Up Pollution? [online]. Available at http://blog.nature.org/science/2016/10/31/planting-healthy-air-can-urban-trees-help-clean-up-pollution/ [accessed 16/04/17] 143. Character and Special Areas, drawn by Authors 144. Central Square and Community Hub Plan View, drawn by Authors 145. Central Square and Community Hub Section, drawn by Authors 146. Central Square and Community Hub Plan 3D Render, drawn by Authors 147. Central Square and Community Hub Sketch North-west entrance from Liddesdale Road, drawn by Authors 148. Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. From Taylor Cullity Lethlean, (date unknown), Lonsdale Street [online]. Available at: http://tcl.efront-flare. com.au/cms_images/274_10-10-2012_6457.jpg (accessed 22/04/17) 149. Charenton le Pont Town Centre. From Collegi d’Arquitectes de Catalunya, (date unknown), P8160F3.jpg [online] https://www.arquitectes. cat/iframes/paisatge/fotos_proj/8a_BIENNAL/P8160/P8160F3.jpg [accessed 29/12/16) 150. Bike Rack Sculpture. From BAM,(date unknown), David Byrne Bike Rack [online]. Available at: http://www.bam.org/visit/david-byrne-bikeracks [accessed 22/04/17]

108

151. Pop up shipping container shops, Re:Start Mall, Christchurch, NZ. From Shopfloor NZ, (date unknown), Re:Start Mall, Christchurch [online]. Available at: http://www.shopfloor.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/re-start_MainRotator.jpg [accessed 22/04/17] 152. Community Event, Silo Park, Auckland, NZ. From Heartofthecity, (date unknown), Silo Cinema [online]. Available at: https://www.heartofthecity.co.nz/sites/default/files/listing_images/Silo%20Cinema%202_3.jpg [accessed 22/04/17) 153. High Quality Streetscape at all Hours, Wynyard Quarter, Auckland, NZ. From Firth Concrete, (date unknown), IMG-8773, [online]. Available at: http://www.firth.co.nz/assets/Uploads/NewsPosts/IMG-8773.jpg [accessed 22/04/7] 154. Community enjoying high quality hard landscape at Beenleigh Town Square, Australia. From Logan City Council, (date unknown), Beenleigh Town Square [online]. Available at: http://www.logan.qld.gov.au/ planning-and-building/planning-and-development/planning-and-design-projects/beenleigh/beenleigh-town-square [accessed 22/04/17] 155. High quality drainage and landscape design, Sovereign Square Leeds. From The Landscape Institute (2016), The new Sovereign Square, Leeds [online]. Available at https://www.landscapeinstitute.org/ news/new-public-square-opens-leeds/ (accessed 23/04/17) 156. Residential Open Space Plan View, drawn by Authors 157. Residential Open Space Plan Section, drawn by Authors 158. Residential Open Space 3D Render, drawn by Authors 159. Residential Open Space Western entrance from Mingulay Street, drawn by Authors 160. Landscape treatment in shared space street, Newhall, Harlow. From University of Greenwich ‘The Landscape’, (2014), sam_1340.jpg [online]. Available at: https://thelandscapedotorg.files.wordpress. com/2014/09/sam_1340.jpg (accessed 22/04/17) 161. Landscape and sustainable drainage shared space. From National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), (date unknown), yield street [online]. Available at http://nacto.org/publication/urbanstreet-design-guide/streets/yield-street/ [accessed 29/12/16] 162. Hard Landscape, Upton. From Urbangrit, (2012), Shared street in Upton, Northampton [Online]. Available at: https://urbangrit.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/upton-shared-street-1.jpg (accessed 22/04/17) 163. Frontages and Street Edge. From Urbangrit, (2012), Shared street and parking at Upton, Northampton [Online]. Available at: https://urbangrit. files.wordpress.com/2012/03/upton-shared-street-parking.jpg (accessed 22/04/17) 164. Parking and Landscape, Upton, Northampton. From Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU), (date unknown), Upton Northampton, [online]. Available at: http://cnu.civicactions.net/sites/www.cnu.org/files/ mews%20at%20Upton.jpg (accessed 22/04/17)

109

165. FIshergate, Preston, Shared space hard materials. From Smart Magazine, (2014), Preston Fishergate [online]. Available at: http://www.smart-magazine.com/content/uploads/2014/11/Header-Shared-Space-Preston-Fishergate-smart-magazine-panorama.jpg [accessed 22/04/17] 166. Residential Open Space, Scalpay Street, Cross-Section, drawn by Authors 167. Residential Open Space, Scalpay Street, Layout Plan, drawn by Authors 168. Residential Open Space, Scalpay Street, 3D Render, drawn by Authors 169. Play space, Port Adelaide. From Brice, D., 2014, ‘Hart’s Mill Surrounds

by ASPECT Studios’ [online] Available at: http://www.landezine.com/ index.php/2014/07/harts-mill-surrounds-by-aspect-studios/02_aspect_ hartsmillsurrounds_donbrice/ [accessed 24/04/17] 170. Shared space, Worbis, Germany. From Langreder, T., (2013), ‘Friedensplatz and Rossmarkt, Worbis’ [online] Available at: http://www. landezine.com/index.php/2013/01/friedensplatz-and-rossmarkt-worbis-by-f-landschaftsarchitektur-gmbh/ [accessed 24/04/2017] 171. Seating and trees, Barcelona, Spain. From Landezine, 2010, ‘Torrent d’en Farre’ [online] Avaialble at: http://www.landezine.com/ index.php/2010/12/torrent-den-farre-by-m-isabel-bennasar-felix-landscape-architecture/ [accessed 24/04/2017].

172. Open Space & medium density residential development, Toronto, Canada. From Janet Rosenberg & Studio, 2015, ‘Joel Weeks Park’ [online] Available at: http://www.landezine.com/index.php/2015/04/ joel-weeks-park-by-janet-rosenberg-studio-landscape-architects/joel_ weeks_park-janet_rosenberg-studio-06/ [accessed 24/04/17] 173. Landscape and street edge, Guiltrancourt, France. From: Falsimagne, J., 2016, ‘Guitrancourt Town Centre by Espace Libre’ [online] Available at: http://www.landezine.com/index.php/2016/06/guitrancourt-town-centre-by-espace-libre/guitrancourt_place_du_village_10b/ [accessed 24/04/2017] 174. Ronaldsay Street Public Space, Cross-Section, drawn by Authors 175. Ronaldsay Street Public Space, Layout Plan, drawn by Authors 176. Ronaldsay Street Public Space, View to Landmark Building and Chuch, drawn by Authors 177. Ronaldsay Street Public Space, View to Ornsay St from New Ronaldsay Street, drawn by Authors 178. Place, movement & landscape, Karlovy, Czech Republic. From Hajek, V., 2015(a), ‘Rijna Square in hradec kralove’ [online] Available at: http://www.landezine.com/index.php/2015/08/28-rijna-square-in-hradec-kralove-by-atelier-hajek/photo012/ [accessed 24/04/2017]

110

179. Urban Parklet, Auckland, New Zealand. From Devitt, S., ND, ‘St. Patrick’s Square by Boffa Miskell’ [online] Available at: http://www.landezine.com/index.php/2016/04/st-patricks-square-by-boffa-miskell/urban-fountain-on-church-square-landscape-architecture-01/ [accessed 24/04/2017] 180. Paving for legibility, Karlovy, Czech Republic. From Hajek, V., 2015(a), ‘Rijna Square in hradec kralove’ [online] Available at: http://www. landezine.com/index.php/2015/08/28-rijna-square-in-hradec-kralove-by-atelier-hajek/photo012/ [accessed 24/04/2017] 181. Informal, temporary seating, Jubilee Sq., Leicester. From LDA Design, 2015, ‘Jubilee Square’ [online] Available at: http://www.landezine.com/ index.php/2016/05/lda-designs-jubilee-square/ [accessed 24/04/2017] 182. Church Sq., Borken, Germany. From WBP Landschaftsarchitekten, 2016, ‘Church Square St. Remigius, Borken’ [online] Available at: http://www.landezine.com/index.php/2017/01/church-square-st-remigius-borken/remigiusborken01_2016-claudia-dreysse/ [accessed 24/04/2017]

111