Southmere Lake Southmere Lane proposed in Peabody’s new masterplan. It conncets the new crossrail service to Southmere Lake, with many catalyst buildings along the way.
Hartslock Drive
Harrow Manorway
Portmeadow Walk
Yarnton Way Eynsham Drive
Harrow Manorway
Peabody’s New Development
Wolvercote Road
Hinksey Path as a principal pedestrian path, connecting the main new hight street, the neighbourhood and the green space.
Lensbury Way
Abbeywood Station
From Surplus to Cityness In many parts of London, new city space is often delivered through a tabula rasa approach, demolishing existing stock and building anew. This scheme aims to present an alternative to this approach by leveraging Thamesmead’s abundance of surplus space. It acknowledges the importance of Thamesmead’s location in driving future development, but also sees significant opportunity in what exists in the area already, specifically its physical, social, and hidden economic infrastructure. It believes that building the diverse connections of cityness, spatial, social and economic can be achieved through incremental adaptation, empowerment of existing residents, and a more participatory city-making. [School Project at the LSE CITIES]
LONDON & THAMESMEAD The London Plan recognises both the need for new housing and for commercial space, driving to provide THE both in a way that acknowledges and supports the LONDON distinctive diversity of the city, where home and PLAN economic activity intermix. This is exemplified in spatial typologies such as the high street and the mews.
Built largely in the 1960s, Thamesmead has experienced little new development since. It lacks the kind of density and diversity of urban life that other parts of London exhibit. Surplus space abounds, which is partially why it has been identified as an Opportunity Area.
LONDON
25%
7,500,000 m2
working population is currently estimated to work from home.
more comercial space will be needed in London by 2036.
THAMESMEAD
36%
2-3 people
less population in the site have full-time jobs compared to the Greater London.
size co-working space are the most popular for micro-bussiness in the area.
SITE STRATEGY
Southmere path & Proposed High Street
Site
Landscape Links
Focal Point Catalyst Buildings
Neighbourhood link
TIMELINE
1972 ‘A Clock-work Orange‘ in Thamesmead
2010 Construction Started in
2016 Peabody Submits Planning Application
1968 The First Family Moved In
1985 Broadwater Farm Riots
1952 Unité d’habitation Opened
1976 Docklands Strategic Plan 1989 ‘Right to Buy’ Housing Act
1961 Park Hill Estate
£- NORMAL
1999 Gallions, Trust Thamesmead and Tilfen Land Manages Thamesmead together.
2008 Crossrail Act
2014 Peabody arrived and has committed £225m
1946 New Town Act 1965 Formally published Master Plan of Thamesmead. Construction Started.
1977 Thamesmead Resident
1994 Closure of the Royal Arsenal
2007 Demolition in Tavy Bridge 1961 Jane Jacobs
I 1st wave of new towns
Thamesmead
II III 2nd wave of new towns 3rd wave of new towns
Thamesmead - New Stage & Redevelopment
UK HOUSING PRICE SINCE 1952
SITE CHALLENGES & POTENTIALS
Abundance of adaptable space
Confusing + Redundant circulation space
Lack of visible social spaces and activity
Evidence of adaptation
Lack of cityness and commercial activities
INTERVENTION Through the interventions, residents and other actors are empowered to decide how to use space, ultimately creating a more granular landscape that exhibits elements of cityness. There are three different spatial typologies: undercrofts, garages, and backyard pathways. Tenants, owners, or even housing associations can rent out the undercrofts and garages to external tenants. Residents would have access to productive space if they chose to utilise it, but alternatively they could easily generate additional income by subletting their undercrofts or garage units.
op
sh
rk Wo
GARAGE Size:3.9m x 4.4mm
rs
rbe
Ba
• • • •
A convivial market street with clear way-finding and graphic suggestion.
Two allocated garages per house with the accommodation on the two floors above. Located along side streets. Some already adapted. Can accommodate workshops, studios, or other service-oriented businesses.
Paving change suggesting private and public seperation.
BACKYARD PATHWAYS • •
Creation of common area that demands collective responsibility. Increase in safety and trust amongst neighbours. Lowering of fences. Possibility of shared backyards and food gardens.
• •
ath yP se
k Hin
Enhanced public space with street furniture and facilities.
g/
rin
S
sin
Bu
UNDERCROFT
Reclamation of the corridor space to be public gardens.
Size:3.9m x3.9m Amount: 60 units (942m2) •
yG
nit
mu
m Co
e ath
ll ma
r
ato
ub
nc sI es
• • •
Small undercrofts adjacent to the houses that lead to their front doors. Can be individual units or joined with two or more units. Low-nuisance businesses that depend more on foot traffic. Residents could utilise space for themselves, or rent it out to someone else to use
M
er ak
e ac
Sp
ar
il B
Na
PHASING STRATEGY Stage 1 - Hub + Market
Stage 2 - Year 1-2
Stage 3 - Year 3-5
Stage 4 - Year 6-10
Hub • One of establishment grant • Form the community board Market • Existing home-based businesses / External traders • Residents
Hub
The first phase would include the establishment of a market, as described above. Some of the undercrofts and the garages may be converted during this time as well. At least two of the backyards, possibly one north of Hinksey Path and one south, are suggested to go through pilot stages to experiment how the interventions work. As the intervention is at its introductory stage, it would take time to solidify. During this phase, the market might happen more frequently and would have grown to occupy more spaces along Hinksey Path. There may also be a growth in the number of permanent adaptations of undercrofts and garages. More backyards might undergo interventions, and therefore footfall might become more concentrated along Hinksey Path and the mews.
By this phase, Thamesmead might have become known for its market street along Hinksey Path. The majority of undercrofts and garages may be occupied by businesses. Perhaps all of the backyard pathways have adapted, with some converted into shared green spaces and possibly even food gardens. An improved pedestrain circulation is formed.
Community Association • • •
Increasingly take-on the responsibilities of the hub. Governed by a board equally represented by the residents, homeowners, and businesses. Identify the need for a nominal levy to be paid for the upkeep of the area. Garages
Collage of the undercroft market street and garages
Undercrofts
1
From Surplus to Cityness
2
THE OPPORTUNITY 1.1 Cityness and surplus space in Thamesmead Cityness is found in diverse connections between dense populations that are not just spatial, but also social and economic (Jacobs, 1961). As London seeks to address housing demands, it runs the risk of squeezing out space that fosters its diverse connections and makes the city desirable, its mix of uses, its neighbourhood-specific character, its cityness. While this dynamic exists for many parts of London, it is not universal. Parts of London have been immune to these pressures, but now face challenges and opportunities of different sorts. Such is the case in Thamesmead, a post-war residential development located on London’s south-eastern periphery.
Built largely in the 1960s, the area has experienced little new development since. Built as a predominantly residential area, Thamesmead lacks the kind of density and diversity of urban life that other parts of London exhibit. Surplus space abounds, which is partially why Thamesmead has been identified as an Opportunity Area to address London’s housing shortage and drive further development (GLA, 2018). In many parts of London, new city space is often delivered through a tabula rasa approach, demolishing existing stock and building anew. In fact, such a development process has already been planned and initiated for portions of Thamesmead by the local councils (Bexley and Greenwich) and a developer (Peabody Housing Association) (Peabody, 2018a).
Southmere Lake, Thamesmead early days Source: Peabody, 2018
Original Plans of Thamesmead Estates Source: GLC Department of Architecture and Civic Design, 1976
Our intervention aims to present an alternative to this approach, by leveragingThamesmead’s abundance of surplus space. It acknowledges the importance of Thamesmead’s location in driving future development, but also sees significant opportunity in what exists in the area already, specifically its physical, social, and hidden economic infrastructure. Current development plans dismantle the physical form and disrupt the existing social and economic connections in order to construct fully designed, mixed-use spaces. In contrast, our intervention proposes a processes of incremental adaptation, empowerment of existing residents, and a more participatory city-making.
Camden High Street Source: Dietrich, 2012
3
1.2 Space for Living and Working The London Plan recognises both the need for new housing and for commercial space, driving to provide both in a way that acknowledges and supports the distinctive diversity of the city, where home and economic activity intermix (GLA, 2017). This is exemplified in spatial typologies such as the high street and the mews. The local nature of this morphology naturally brings home and work closer together and is critical to the economy, with “more people employed on London’s high streets and within 200 metres of them than in the whole of the Central Activities Zone (Central London)” (We Made That & LSE Cities, 2017:20).
In addition to the need for workspace, there is the changing nature of work itself - with a trend towards more self-employment (ONS, 2017) and more home-based business (Holliss, 2015). Work requires less physical proximity in many sectors and thus more people are working remotely or from home more often (New London Architecture, 2016). In the UK, around a quarter of the working population is currently estimated either to live at their workplace, or work at or from home for at least eight hours a week (Holliss, 2015). Work is also becoming more informal and insecure, visible in the rise of the ‘gig economy’ (BBC, 2018).
An architect, employing 8 people out of a mews at the end of her backyard, has emphasised how such live-work configurations support a mixed economy. Those working in the mews go out for lunch, have clients visiting the area, and use the public spaces during the day - activities that bring life to the area throughout the day and thereby impact it economically and socially (Holliss, 2015).
These changes have implications for both commercial and residential property, and increases the need for smaller workspaces with lower overheads that are closer to homes. A photographer who uses her living room as a studio highlighted that fact that she would prefer to have a separate studio, but at £15 a day it would double her costs and make her business unsustainable (Holliss, 2015). There are clear benefits, but also necessity, in such ‘live-work’ units.
Due to the demand for housing and rising property costs across London, many businesses have to relocate, move further out, or even move out of the capital. Some estimates state that an additional 7.5 million square metres of commercial space will be needed in London by 2036 (New London Architecture, 2016).
Live/Work in London Source: Holliss, 2015
4
1.3 Business activity in Thamesmead There is evidence of significant demand for work space in Thamesmead, both home-based and otherwise. Homebased businesses are prevalent in Thamesmead and three key obstacles identified are: the lack of space, access to funding, and general business support (The Cities Programme, 2017). These findings were reiterated by Peabody’s Economic Inclusion division. During our interview with them, they reported that Thamesmead residents demanded work space specifically, and business support services more broadly.
Interviews When: Jan 20th, 2018 Who: 9 Abbeywood Wilton Road Shopowners or Employees Names of Businesses: Abbeywood Dry Cleaners, Abbeywood Station Minicabs, Occasions Florist, Abbey Cafe, McColl’s, Hunters Estate Agents, Limestone Supermarket, Brownes Chemists,Sir Male Grooming Key Takeaways: - Most operated for 25 years or longer - Independently owned - Some had received grants to fund facade improvements. -Once displaced shops from demolished site were offered retail space by Peabody at Parkview Hub, live/work complex.
Our interviews with economic development agencies pointed to a growing need for rented work space in Thamesmead by both local residents and individuals from other parts of London. Jason Parker from the Thames Innovation Centre (TIC) explained that most of its business tenants are from outside the area, and chose to locate in Thamesmead in order to obtain a London business address at relatively lower cost. Bexley for Business and other local agencies are encouraging economic development in Thamesmead, and evidence from our interviews with local businesses indicates that Thamesmead’s business climate appears to be stable. Most businesses have been in operation for 25 years or longer, and the nature of each business had remained constant, regardless of ownership changes. Most of the businesses interviewed are independently owned and generally operated by families that live in the area, highlighting the close relationship between home and work that already exists there.
5
Evidence of invisible businesses in Thamesmead Source: The Cities Programme, 2017
Rod Lean Head of Economic Development
David Bussey Economic Inclusion Officer
Jason Parker Building & Facilities Manager
Interview:
Interview:
Interview:
When: Jan 25th, 2018
When: Jan 25th, 2018
When: Jan 25th, 2018
Key Takeaways: - Top industries for micro-businesses: construction, fashion, homecare. - Financially supported by GLA, Place and Making Institute (P&MI) will provide training for construction and design industries.
Key Takeaways: - Stall holders are already oversubscribed at ‘Made in Thamesmead’ pop-up market on Feb 15th, 2018. - “65% of Peabody’s micro-business workshop attendees in Thamesmead are women.”
Key Takeaways: - Top industries for micro-businesses: homecare and IT. - Most popular spaces for microbusinesses: 2-3 person and co-working. -”A co-working space is £199/month per desk at TIC.”
6
Southmere Lake
Hartslock Drive
Portmeadow Walk
Yarnton Way Eynsham Drive Wolvercote Road
Harrow Manorway
Lensbury Way
Harrow Manorway
Commercial Infrastructure Institution and Community Green Space Land Mark Buildings Peabody’s Development
a. Abbeywood Station b. Wilton Road Shops c. Sainsbury’s d. Boxgrove Primary School & Nursery e. Pathways Short Stay School f. Peabody’s Mixed Use Development g. Harton Services h. Willow Bank Primary School i. Park View Hub j. Emmanuel Baptist Church k. Place & Making Institute l. The Business Academy Bexley
7
1.4 Site of intervention Our proposed intervention is situated in a small centrally-located section of Thamesmead, falling within the borough of Bexley. This site was selected because of its physical form, its social makeup, and its geographic connection to important assets. The area is characterised by its semi-detached houses of mostly three storeys, and a maze-like network of pathways. The site has a significant number of surplus spaces at the ground level. The prevalence of these spaces is largely due to by-law restrictions that prohibit residential habitation due to flooding risks (Wigfall, 1997). Along its east-west axis lies Hinksey Path, a principal pedestrian path through the site. A series of north-south pathways intersect Hinksey Path, some lined with parking garages, others with fenced-off backyards. The dense network of pathways makes navigating the area confusing. There are six green spaces along Hinksey Path. The houses along the southern edge of Hinksey Path as well as the eastern edge of the squares have small undercrofts that lead to their front doors. Most of these undercrofts, around 13 feet by 13 feet in size, are open to the path with little signs of active use. There are certainly exceptions, with some being customised, adapted, and walled up to create extra interior rooms.
Evidence of Adaptation
Equally important is the sites’ location within greater Thamesmead. The site is centrally located and surrounded by a large residential population. On its northern edge are a series of apartment tower blocks. Further to the north is the area around Southmere Lake, with another large housing area to the east beyond Abbey Way. Observations on site noted that there is already significant footfall from this surrounding population through Hinksey Path. Predominantly this footfall is directed to and from Abbey Wood Station, which will soon see the opening of the Crossrail service. South of the station are a number of small retail businesses, with a large, new Sainsbury’s supermarket to the north. Running from the station up to Southmere Lake will be a major new Peabody development, which will include over 1500 new housing units (Peabody 2018a) and a pedestrianised retail street. There is the attraction of Southmere Lake and Southmere Park to the north and the large green space along Abbey Way to the east. Other surrounding landmarks include Willow Bank Primary School, Saint John Fisher Catholic Primary School, Dashwood Social Club, TIC, and the recently announced P&MI. All of these spatial features create forces of attraction through the intervention site, which we see as a major opportunity that can benefit the residents of the area.
Intervention Site: Yarnton Way
Wolvercote Road
Lensbury Way
8
1.5 Demographics of the site There are a number of key characteristics that we identified by analysing demographic data for our chosen site. Residents of the area likely face greater barriers to well-paid employment, are likely more attached to their homes, and have more space within their homes than average Londoners. These conclusions came from an analysis of 2011 census data for Output Areas E00002071 and E00002070. Together, these areas comprise 85% of the dwellings within the intervention site. The analysis compared demographics for the intervention site to greater Thamesmead as well as Greater London. The intervention site is generally representative of Thamesmead. Not surprisingly, the intervention site differs from Greater London in many ways and to varying degrees. Eleven characteristics that are particularly relevant for this intervention are presented in the table. The extent to which the intervention site varies from London is graphed below.
Ultimately, this data indicates that the chosen area is well-suited for an intervention that utilises surplus spaces, that is centred around the home, and that creates economic opportunities for residents. Studies have shown that London’s local high street areas are supportive environments where “61% of all retail employees are women, who benefit from flexible working conditions… African, Caribbean and Asian people are more likely to start their own business than Caucasian people” (APPSSG, 2015).
When compared to Greater London, we can identify that the intervention site is generally comprised of: - Younger residents - More black residents - More lone-parent households - Larger households - Fewer employed persons - Fewer full-time employed women - Less skilled professions - More single-unit dwellings - Larger dwellings - More social rent units - More vehicular ownership
Demographic Differences between Intervention Site and Greater London Source: Census Data, 2011
Demographic Differences between Intervention Site and Greater London Source: Census Data, 2011
Output Areas E00002071 and E00002070 Source: Nomis, 2018
9
1.6 Residents Interviews Residents interviewed had mixed feelings about their community and had strong interest in activating surplus space in their neighborhood. These conclusions came from door-to-door interviews conducted within our site. When asked about the prospect of our intervention, residents were generally positive. The only objections consisted of conjecture that the project would not work because of perceived high crime in the area. None of the residents expressed objections about the activation of surplus space, either their unit or their neighbors’. In fact, three different households used the phrase, “surplus space” in describing the area and ultimately shared visions of activating it for diverse uses. That said, only one resident expressed an interest in using the space connected to his home directly. This was expressed by a man whose wife had a longstanding interest in starting a home-based catering business. The other residents expressed an interest in renting the space to another party.
Local kids at Thamesmead Arts Festival. Source: Bexley Times, 2015
Interviews When: Jan 22nd, 2018 Methodology: 50 homes visited, 10 interviews conducted Topics: Positive remarks about living in Thamesmead:
“I have five bedrooms.”
“I love the neighbors.”
“The residents are the best part.”
Negative remarks about living in Thamesmead:
“I can’t wait to move out.”
“They need to blow it all up and start over.”
“I don’t feel safe.”
Remarks about the area:
“There’s so much surplus space.”
“It’s a rat race.”
“We stick to our squares.”
10
THE INTERVENTION 2.1 Intervention overview Our proposed interventions are centred around an approach based on the empowerment of residents and the incremental adaptation of surplus spaces. We do not present an overly-planned or designed intervention, but rather provide a framework as an attempt to plan for the unplanned. Through the proposed interventions, residents and other actors are empowered to decide how to use space, ultimately creating a more granular landscape that exhibits elements of cityness. We present interventions for three different spatial typologies: undercrofts, garages, and backyard pathways.
Undercroft Garage Backyard
11
Objectives
1
Create more inclusive economic opportunities for residents.
2
Foster social relations and build social capital.
3
Enable the existing ecosystem.
“Yes! In fact my wife once wanted to start a small catering business and use that [undercroft] space as a small kitchen, but we gave up because we didn’t have enough money.”
A Life-long Resident with his 8-month-old kid
12
2.2 The Undercroft Our first intervention typology deals with the undercrofts that are located along Hinksey Path. The principal objective is to enable the adaptation of these spaces for commercial and other uses. Doing so would allow residents to leverage wtheir existing home in order to run a business or pursue other income-generating activities. Furthermore, they may sublet these spaces to other business operators, thereby generating additional income.
Undercroft
Beyond the economic empowerment of residents, we believe that this intervention has the most potential as a means of introducing an element of cityness intoThamesmead. Establishing commercial activity and other more public-facing uses along Hinksey Path can make it function much like a traditional London market street. Each undercroft is around 13 feet by 13 feet in dimension, with many of them open to the adjacent units. Some undercrofts have already been closed off by residents, illustrating the ease with which these spaces can be converted. A conversion requires the construction of walls on three sides, along with a configuration of doors and windows depending on the desired function of the space. Residents can either enter their homes through a rear entrance, or simply through the undercrofts. The resulting shop-dwelling unit is not unlike traditional forms of familyrun businesses, where families ive above ground-floor shops. Undercrofts can be configured as individual units, or joined with two or more units alongside to create a larger space. Residents would decide on the types of businesses and uses operating out of these spaces. We imagine businesses that depend on higher levels of foot traffic and convenience, such as hair salons, nail bars, general grocers and other types of small retail stores. These spaces may also be utilised as home offices, community spaces, or even small, low-intensity workshops. There is a total of over 60 adaptable undercrofts, amounting to an overall floor area of roughly 10,140 square feet. The adaptation of the undercrofts can transform Hinksey Path into a convivial market street brimming with life. One might compare its scale, form, and configuration to East Street Market off Walworth Road, or even a traditional Chinese Hutong.
Nail Bar
Community Gathering
Makerspace
Retail
13
Hutong in Dongcheng, Beijing
East St.Market Source: Hatch Enterprise, 2017
Visualisation of the ‘Market Street’
14
2.3 The Garage Much like the adaptation of the undercrofts, we aim to enable the adaptation of the parking garages located along the small side lanes that lie perpendicular to Hinksey Path. Many of these garages, to a greater extent than the undercrofts, have been converted into additional rooms. Garage doors have been replaced with walls, front doors and windows.
Garages
The housing units along these lanes were designed to have two allocated garages each, with the accommodation on the two floors above. Through conversations with residents, it appears that social rent tenants in these units are allocated only one garage, with the other rented out separately. While some single garages may be separated by walls, many of these are not load-bearing, and can therefore be opened up into dual unit spaces of 13 feet deep by 14.4 feet wide. Interviews conducted at the nearby TIC revealed that there is great demand for workspace for individuals and small teams of two. These garages present an opportunity to address the shortage of workspace in the area, especially for smaller teams. These adapted garages can be utilised for businesses and other uses that do not require high footfall and convenience. Whereas the undercrofts along the market street might accommodate retail activity, the garages can accommodate workshops, studios, or other service-oriented businesses. This alternative use of these garages can produce a street typology not unlike a typical London mews. One example is Iliffe Yard in Southwark, which accommodates design studios and other creative businesses in spaces that were built as 19th century stables and workshops. Highlighting the need for workshops and studio spaces in Thamesmead is the story of Zimbabwean-born Tapiwa Dingwiza, who has built her successful fashion label S. Vingo Bespoke from her home in Thamesmead. The adaptation of these garage spaces could accommodate local entrepreneurs like Tapiwa. As with the undercrofts, tenants, owners, or even housing associations can rent out the garages to external tenants. Residents would have access to productive space if they chose to utilise it, but alternatively they could easily generate additional income by subletting their garage units.
Potential Uses for Small Business and Workshops
15
Iliffe Yard
Visualisation of Adapting the Garages
16
2.4 The Backyard The Backyard
While the first two interventions deal with the adaptation of enclosed interior spaces, the third intervention deals with circulation spaces and exterior spaces. Adjacent to each lane where the garages are located, there are pedestrian pathways that provide circulation through the site and allow residents to access their homes via backyards. Our observations of the area led us to believe that these pathways contributed to a mazelike landscape that was confusing to navigate. The pathways are lined with mostly tall wooden fences that conceal the backyards of each housing unit. These high fences make it difficult to sense the presence of other people in the area, and produce an atmosphere of insecurity and fear. Conversations with residents reinforced this view, some describing the pathways as a “rat race”. An additional factor is that these pathways contribute to what is a network of largely redundant circulation spaces, thereby thinly distributing foot traffic throughout the area. Just 60 feet from each pathway is a parallel lane lined by garages (our proposed ‘mews’), through which one can easily pass. Our proposal is to reimagine these spaces that are currently occupied by narrow pathways, high fences, and private backyards. Central to this proposal is the intention to introduce something useful and common for the surrounding residents. Whereas the residents currently living around each pathway live behind their fences, a space that is common to all of them has the potential to foster new social relations. We do not wish to impose a fixed form on these spaces, and therefore propose a more incremental approach to devise what works best. Possible interventions might be to closeoff the pathways to the public, a solution that many residents seemed to be in favour of during our interviews with them. However, a more nuanced approach may be to install planted screens that would still allow public access but would send a signal that the pathways were not public thoroughfares. A similar result may be achieved with clear wayfinding signage that directed people down the mews and indicated that the pathways were for resident access only. These interventions allow for low-cost experimentation that achieves varied degrees of public-private access. In the event that gates are installed, we envision an evolution of these spaces as described below.
Option 1
Option 2
17
1
3
2
4
Closing off the pathways for resident-only access This might entail the simple installation of gates at each end of the pathways, as described above. These could be kept open during the day and closed at night, however, we do believe there is benefit in excluding public access to these areas. Providing access for only residents would remove some of the redundant circulation spaces, thereby making the area less confusing to navigate, concentrating foot traffic along fewer pathways, and increasing the likelihood of resident use and interaction in such spaces.
Lowering backyard fences to create communal environment Closing-off these pathways might increase trust amongst neighbouring residents, allowing them to lower their fences, thereby creating a more communal backyard area. Residents would be able to greet each other, strike up conversations, or simply create a greater sense of safety due to the increased visibility of the space.
Backyards Overtime
Conversion of private backyards into central shared gardens This would entail the alteration or even removal of defined backyards in order to create one central space that is shared by all the surrounding residents. These spaces can be compared to the communal garden squares of Georgian London. Residents benefit from the much larger space that their homes open onto, as well as a more pleasant environment, and a space that can foster further social relations amongst residents.
Use of backyards or shared garden for community food gardens Another potential use of these spaces is for the creation of community food gardens. Individual backyards or central shared spaces can be converted into spaces for foor production. This would not only allow for the production of sustainablygrown healthy food for the community, but could provide valuable educational activities for youth in the area as well as both social and income-generating opportunities.
18
THE IMPLEMENTION 3.1 Implementing the Interventions The implementation of our interventions would follow an incremental and democratic process that is centred around the empowerment of residents, homeowners, and businesses. We outline a number of phases within which various degrees of experimentation and adaptation can be carried out. Although we propose a process led by residents, we believe that having some guidance along the way can help cawtalyse the transformation of the area. Below we present the proposed phases of implementation as well as a number of support structures, including a market, a hub, and a community association.
19
‘‘
“We have found that the ground floor is where the communication between building inside and outside occurs. That’s what you see. So if the ground floor is rich, the city is rich and it doesn’t matter what you do further up” (Gehl 2010).
’’
20
3.2 Market We propose a market along Hinksey Path in order to catalyse the active usage of the undercrofts and the establishment of residentrun businesses. Before permanent conversions take place, a market allows for the idea to be introduced to residents without appearing far-fetched. Overtime, market stalls can take on a more permanent form, establishing themselves in the converted undercrofts. These markets can also play a valuable role in forming new social relations amongst residents. We observed this at Iliffe Yard, where an annual open studios event is instrumental in forging bonds amongst business tenants. Markets would allow residents to get to know each other, and to organise around the improvement of their neighbourhood.
The market can start as a bi-annual or quarterly event, but can grow to become weekly should there be sufficient demand. Free-standing stalls can be set up around the green spaces along Hinksey Path, with some of the stalls starting to occupy the undercrofts over time. The market may start in a concentrated area on the western end of Hinksey Path, but as it grows it can expand to the eastern end and around the centre. Market sellers may include existing home-based businesses, residents with hobbies or marketable skills, as well as external market traders.
Hub
Market & Hub
21
3.3 Phasing Years 1-2 The first phase would include the establishment of a market, as described above. Some of the undercrofts and the garages may be converted during this time as well. We suggest that at least two of the backyards, possibly one north of Hinksey Path and one south, go through pilot stages to experiment how the interventions work. As the intervention is at its introductory stage, it would take time to solidify. Years 3-5 During this phase, the market might happen more frequently and would have grown to occupy more spaces along Hinksey Path. There may also be a growth in the number of permanent adaptations of undercrofts and garages. More backyards might undergo interventions, and therefore footfall might become more concentrated along Hinksey Path and the mews. Years 6-10 By this phase, Thamesmead might have become known for its market street along Hinksey Path. The majority of undercrofts and garages may be occupied by businesses. Perhaps all of the backyard pathways have adapted, with some converted into shared green spaces and possibly even food gardens.
s
ear
6
y - 10
5 3-
2 1-
rs
yea
rs
yea
e
Sit
Undercroft Spaces Backyards Garages Primary Circulation
22
3.4 Hub We propose the establishment of a hub to facilitate the establishment of the market, to provide support for new and existing businesses, and to guide the phased implementation of the interventions. The hub can be an asset for the residents and businesses based in the area. It might be a coffee shop and meeting space for clubs and other members of the local community, offer basic business advice, provide basic office tools like printing and copying, Internet access, and be a place to get news and important information about what is happening in the area. It is important to note that this is not a large-scale business hub like the TIC, but a more approachable space that can empower local residents. The suggested location of the hub is in the general area where Hinksey Path and the new Peabody development intersect, due to its high visibility and its position where the two streets intersect. If supported by the relevant residents, the hub could be located in the four undercrofts at the western end of Hinksey Path. By placing the hub within a series of adjoined undercrofts, residents and businesses are able to visualise the adaptation and might be more inclined to pursue it themselves. Alternatively, the hub could be located within Peabody’s new development on the high street, or in a stand-alone facility on Hinksey Path. There will be a hub officer, possibly part-time and if there is more demand, full-time to maintain the responsibilities of the hub. The responsibilities of the hub can include:
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE HUB & ASSOCIATION Agglomeration advice Advise businesses on the best locations; for example businesses that rely on foot traffic to occupy undercrofts and more makerspaces to occupy garages Regulatory Assistance Assist residents, homeowners or businesses with planning applications for the Change of Use Class of the undercrofts and garages and Building Regulation Approval the specific commercial or other activity to function Compliance Issues General legal and compliance direction; for example assistance with business rates exemption - the size of business floor space and valuation should mean the businesses are tax exempt and can apply for consideration Contractor Liaison Provide a contact for both residents and contractors for space fit out Marketing and Advertising Local and regional marketing and advertising for the area online and offline, street signage and branding Space programming Festivals and seasonal market planning and management Financing Seek grants and other funding for individuals to use as incentives for adaptation Liaison with Bexley Council Secure funding, lobby for upkeep of public spaces, voice concerns of residents, homeowners and businesses Liaison with Peabody Negotiate social tenant agreements for residents to have the ability to sublet their spaces Rental Listings List out available undercrofts and garages for rent and advise on market rents and fair business practice Training Host talks and workshops on business skills develwopment and attract more residents and businesses to get on board
23
3.5 Community Association Once the hub is well established, and as residents and businesses begin to adapt more of the surplus spaces in the area, we propose the formation of a community association. This might be similar to the Abbey Wood Village Trade Association. As the association evolves, it would increasingly take-on the responsibilities of the hub. It would be governed by a board equally represented by the residents, homeowners, and businesses. The community association might identify the need for a nominal levy to be paid for the upkeep of the area.
BOARD 3x
3x
3x
Community Association Year 10
Residents Home Owners
Year 1
HUB Businesses
Flow diagram of transition from Hub to Community Association.
Planning Application for Change of Use Class. Source: Planning Portal (2018)
24
THE OUTCOME 4.1 Urban impacts
4.2 Street legibility and desire lines
The interventions create a shift in the urban structure that supports the objectives by creating a sense of cityness through diversifying the uses in existing surplus space. “As important meeting places for social activity, mixed-use streets help to sustain and build local community capacity and social capital” (Jones et al., 2007:106) as well as providing traders low-entry self employment opportunities (We Made That & LSE Cities, 2017). These interventions use the existing urban form adjusted and enhanced to better support the existing ecosystem. These adjustments create more street legibility and accentuate desire lines, reinforce public space and better grade transitions from public to private, encouraging congenial interaction, and creates a new town centre of a scale compatible with the supporting population numbers.
The residents themselves have expressed distress at the overwhelming and confusing interconnected pathways. A more legible street hierarchy will both reduce this confusion as well as create a supportive environment for new businesses. Creating disincentives to use the backyard pathways reduces the number of through connections and encourages foot traffic through the mews and along Hinksey Path. Observations on-site demonstrated an already strong prevalence for footfall along the spine of Hinksey Path, taking in foot traffic entering at the eastern end near the green space as well as in the centre from the towers and school to the north of Yarnton Way. The placement of the interventions accentuates these desire lines by creating corridors of interest, shop fronts, and workshops along these natural spines. High street and retail theory supports the notion of creating anchors and paths to promote vibrant urban districts and encourage the footfall necessary to support economic activity (Jones et al., 2016; Brown, 1992; Berezko, 2014). The Peabody plan creates a new ‘high’ street running from Abbey Wood Station to a new town centre cluster around Southmere Lake. This, with the hub, creates an anchor on the western end of Hinksey Path. The Abbey Way green space, TIC, and the planned P&MI creates an anchor on the east. The garages create mews typologies that feed into the main spine along Hinksey Path.
Circulation before intervention
Circulation after intervention
25
4.3 Social space and social interaction
4.4 Development scale
Undefined public space should not be undervalued in the proposed intervention. The green spaces along Hinksey Path are natural assets that can be emphasised and celebrated in the new urban structure. Shopping district theory highlights the importance of non-shopping behaviour to the success of high streets and malls (Jones et al., 2016; Brown, 1992). This is supported by evidence from London high streets where social interaction is also a key function of street space (We Made That & LSE Cities, 2017; Francis et al, 2012; Jones et al., 2007; APPSSG, 2015). An attractive public domain and spaces for social interaction must remain a priority in any future development.
An important question to ask is whether the scale of this proposed intervention can be supported in this location? By comparing the passenger entries and exits from Abbey Wood Station with equivalent stations in the London network that have high street zones, Abbey Wood is equivalent to stations such as Bexleyheath, Sidcup, Beckenham, New Malden and New Cross (Office of Rail Regulation, 2017). These areas have established high street focused centres of a District Scale (107,000 540,000 sq.ft of retail, commercial, and community use space) according to the London Plan Town Centre Network (GLA, 2016).
In the intervention, the public domain is supported by a transition of public spaces to semi-public and semi-private spaces through the adaptations. The creation of the semi-public undercroft s and garages and the semi-private backyard pathways can create a sense of ownership and personal security amongst residents of the area. These ‘semi’ spaces become safe zones where interaction can be more personal than in the public realm without trespassing into private space. This layering has been shown to help foster community interaction and social relations amongst neighbours and community (Williams, 2005; Francis et al., 2012).
Beckenham High Street Source: http://home.clara.net/davidford/highstreet_shops.htm
The interventions proposed above will create approximately 45,000 sq.ft of retail, commercial and community use floor area and the new Peabody plan proposes 44,000 sq.ft of non-residential use floor space. With the existing smallscale Abbey Wood shops and Sainsbury’s adjacent to the station, this equates to the low end of the District Town Centre scale outlined in the London Plan (GLA, 2016). In retail planning literature, a population of 5,000 - 10,000 supports a 50,000 sq.ft Neighbourhood Centre, and a District Centre is an area of 100 000 - 300 000 sq.ft, serving a catchment of 10,000 15,000 people (Markham, 2016; Urban Land Institute, 2004). As discussed above, the site is located in a catchment position of the residential area to the east and north, local schools, the TIC and the proposed P&MI, directing footfall from these key anchors towards Abbey Wood Station. More than 10,000 individuals currently live within 1 kilometer of the intervention site (calculated by totaling the Usual Resident Population from the 2011 Census for the 33 Output Areas located within 1 kilometer of the intervention site - 10,613 individuals in total). This catchment population will grow significantly with the new housing and also with the additional worker and day user population which will grow with the new P&MI (London Borough of Bexley, 2017). We can therefore conclude that the station usage and the population, current and projected, can support a Neighbourhood Centre in the short term, leading to a District Centre classification over the long term.
26
CONCLUSION From Surplus to Cityness Building the diverse connections of cityness, spatial, social and economic, can be achieved through incremental adaptation, empowerment of existing residents, and a more participatory city-making. Our intervention responds to the crunch in the provision of commercial and residential space in London in a way that builds on the essential urbanity of London as well as the changing nature of work by supporting Thamesmead’s existing local home based and entrepreneurial ecosystem to inhabit the abundance of surplus space. The site has a conducive physical and geographic form with natural footfall, significant number of adaptable spaces at the ground level and high connectivity to key landmarks creating the conditions for a successful small scale town centre. The demographic will benefit significantly from the more flexible self employment opportunities that are available in this type of urban economic structure and the resident population interviewed were generally positive about the proposed changes. The intervention provides a framework that affords planning for the unplanned. It activates the undercrofts to create a market street; the garages to create mews; and closes the backyard pathways to create commons and reduce the ‘rat run’ through ways. With implementation starting with season markets and the development of a hub, the aim is to achieve majority occupancy over 10 years, run by a community association of residents, homeowners and business owners. By year 10, we believe this intervention will lead to a lively market street along Hinksey Path, mews filled with workshops, and potentially shared gardens formed, fulfilling the objectives of better enabling the existing ecosystem, creating more inclusive economic opportunities for residents and fostering community relations that build social capital through turning surplus into cityness.
27
28
REFERENCES
APPSSG. (2015). High Street Britain. House of Commons, All-Party Parliamentary Small Shops Group.
Jacobs, J. (1961, reprint 1993). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. The Modern Library, pp. 196-285.
Wigfall, V.G. (1997). Thamesmead: back to the future. A social history of Thamesmead. Greenwich Community College Press.
Berezko, 2014, Principles of Urban Structure in Shopping Malls, Thesis, Lviv Polytechnic National University, Institute of Architecture.
Jones, P. Roberts M. & Morris, L. (2007). Rediscovering mixed-use streets: The contribution of local high streets to sustainable communities. University of Westminster.. Published for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation by The Policy Press.
Williams, J. (2005) Designing Neighbourhoods for Social Interaction: The Case of Cohousing, Journal of Urban Design, 10:2, 195-227
Bexley Times. (2015) Available at: http://www. bexleytimes.co.uk/news/new-community-artsfestival-comes-to-thamesmead-1-4070478. [Accessed 07-02-2018]. BBC. (2018). Gig economy: Workers’ rights to be strictly enforced. BBC News Online. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ business-42959756 [Accessed 07-02-2018]. Brown, S. (1992) ‘Tenant Mix, Tenant Placement and Shopper Behaviour in a Planned Shopping Centre’. The Service Industries Journal. Vol. 12, No. 3 (July 1992), pp. 384-403. Dietrich, J. (2012). Camden Market. [image]. Available at: https://panoramastreetline.com/ camden-market-london-united-kingdom-P1871 [Accessed 07-02-2018]. Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People. Island Press. GLA. (2016). Annex two: London’s town centre network. The London Plan 2016. GLA. (2017). The London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London: Draft for public consultation. Greater London Authority. December 2017. GLA. (2018). Greater London Authority: Opportunity Areas. Available at: https:// www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/ implementing-london-plan/opportunity-areas [Accessed 20-11-2017].
London Borough of Bexley. (2017). Place and Making Institute. Available at: http://www. placeandmakinginstitute.co.uk/. [Accessed 26-01-2018]. Markham, J. (2016). The Future of Shopping: Traditional Patterns and Net Effects. Springer. New London Architecture. (2016). WRK/LDN: Shaping London’s future workplaces. Nomis (2018) Census. (online) Available at http://www.nomisweb.co.uk [Accessed 21-012018]. Office of Rail Regulation. (2017). Train Station Usage. Available at: http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/ published-stats/station-usage-estimates. Accessed [03-02-2018]. ONS. (2017). Office for National Statistics. Employment by Self-Employed, Full time and Part time and Gender, Borough. Available at: https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/ employment-self-employed-full-time-and-parttime-and-gender-borough [Accessed 26-112017]. Peabody. (2018a). Thamesmead. Available at: https://www.peabody.org.uk/thamesmead. [Accessed 20-08-2017].
GLC Department of Architecture and Civic Design. (1976). Thamesmead: The First Areas. Staple Bound.
Peabody. (2018b). Thamesmead’s history. [image]. Available at: https://www. thamesmeadnow.org.uk/about-thamesmead/ history/ [Accessed 07-02-2018].
Francis, J. et al. (2012). Creating sense of community: The role of public space. Journal of Environmental Psychology 32, 401:409.
Planning Portal. (2018). Applications. Available at: https://www.planningportal.co.uk/ applications [Accessed 27-01-2018].
Hatch Enterprise. (2017). 55 East - East Street Community Enterprise Hub. [image]. Available at: http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/55east [Accessed 07-02-2018].
The Cities Programme. (2017). Connected City: LSE Cities Programme Studio Publication. The London School of Economics and Political Science, pp. 14-22.
HM Government. (2010). The Coalition: Our Programme for Government, pp. 10.
ULI. (2004) Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centres. Urban Land Institute. We Made That & LSE Cities. (2017). High Streets for All. Greater London Authority. September 2017.
Holliss, F. (2015). Beyond Live/Work: the architecture of home-based work. Routledge.
29