• an analysis of the performance and prospects for the town centre
• an aspirational, long-term vision for the town centre, and
• proposals for short-term action

Background

Glenrothes was constructed in 1948 under the New Towns (Scotland) Act.  It grew and developed through a strong tradition of community and public sector partnership and is now home to approximately 40,000 people. In 2009, Glenrothes town centre “won” Prospect magazine’s Carbuncle award for the most dismal place in Scotland.  Like most of our consultees we think the award was unhelpful and unjustified. The continuing, though declining, commercial vitality of Glenrothes and the high standard of management in the Kingdom Centre is in marked contrast to the depressed state of some failing town centres in Scotland. The town’s large working population, the attractive planting and floral displays, and the year-round popularity of the Rothes Halls for entertainment, community events and business meetings are all positive assets.

In reality, Glenrothes is a sizeable town without a true town centre. There is only limited out of hours activity and nothing that could reasonably be described as an evening economy. The outdoor spaces are grim and cheerless and leisure facilities such as bowling and night clubs have failed. The lack of useable, quality public space means there is no natural venue for outdoor events, farmers’ markets or community celebrations. Glenrothes is a successful place with a strong community spirit, but it is badly let down by its town centre. Many higher income residents of the town and the wider catchment area choose other centres – in Fife and beyond – to shop, and for leisure, entertainment and culture. The town centre’s most loyal customers are from lower income groups, and this is reflected in the retail offer.

The causes of the town centre’s decline are complex and deep-seated. Some are unique to the history and development of Glenrothes, while others reflect the legacy of the New Towns. Above all, the fortunes of the town centre have been shaped by powerful socio-economic forces – choice, competition and mobility – which have given rise to new forms of retail and leisure, and a new geography of consumption. No places are exempt from the pressures arising from these trends and there is no point in wishing for a return to the past.

Focus groups

Four focus groups were held in June and August 2010.  The focus groups revealed almost unanimous dissatisfaction with the condition of Glenrothes town centre. As far as many people are concerned, Glenrothes “doesn’t have a town centre”:

• the quality of the retail offer in the Kingdom Centre has been affected by the recession
• out of shopping hours the town centre is almost deserted and there is a very limited and fragmented evening economy
• the Rothes Halls complex is a valuable facility, but it could contribute more to the vitality of the town centre
• in spite of clear efforts to maintain them to a high standard, parts of the town centre are now regarded as ugly and unwelcoming
• it is a car-dominated environment.  Although pedestrian connections to surrounding neighbourhoods have been improved, these links could be stronger.

We concluded that Glenrothes is a popular, attractive and successful community that is let down in some critical aspects by its town centre. In an age of mobility and choice, only a small proportion of local people (and lower than expected from the rest of Fife) choose Glenrothes town centre.  Further that the town centre is a child of its time and the problems it faces are typical of shopping centres in other former New Towns.  At the same time, Glenrothes is arguably the best kept New Town in Scotland and has many positive attributes.

Issues and options

There are two main groups of issues facing the town centre – its environment and its history.

There is a generally held perception of a bleak and unwelcoming environment and in particular:

• the architecture of the town centre is uninspiring – only St Columba’s church and the 1950s shopping precinct at the east end of the town make a positive contribution to the townscape
• a rich landscape setting, but little public realm in the town centre – although tidy and well maintained, none of it is high quality with significant areas of surface parking and service yards
• being able to find one’s way around and read the layout of the town is particularly difficult and  the bulk of the Kingdom Centre discourages north-south pedestrian movement and is an absolute barrier when the shops are closed

The factors contributing to decline of the town centre are complex and deep-seated:

• development of the town centre lagged behind the construction of new houses: so from the beginning this established the residents’ shopping patterns of going elsewhere and it has never quite recovered
• the Kingdom Centre is an enclosed indoor mall – fashions change and in the past 10 years in particular there has been a strong push to return to traditional streets woven into the urban fabric
• small and medium-sized town centres have been severely squeezed by  profound changes in the way we shop and spend our leisure time: driven by unprecedented levels of consumer choice and personal mobility

Glenrothes town centre is therefore a product of its time and needs to adopt the approach of Harlow, Bracknell and others who are trying to re-invent themselves.  We also cautioned that town centres may not be “the heart of the community” these days due to changing lifestyles, choice, competition, mobility and the “captive” market of low income customers.

Any long term plans for the future of the town centre should:

• embrace a wider area adjacent to the town centre
• make the wider town centre an attractive place to shop, work and spend leisure time
• create a new civic centre and business district
• re-investment to reposition the Kingdom Centre
• develop the non-retail and civic components and the centre and reduce the impact of cars
• improve access within the town centre and with the rest of the town
• potentially develop a new street grid of boulevards, walking and cycling networks

New directions

The problems facing Glenrothes town centre are deep-seated and systemic. The current budgetary constraints and fragility of the economy reinforce the reality that there are no easy answers and no quick fixes. Many people at the focus groups made the point that there is little point in promoting the centre when the product is poor, or in encouraging people to walk where the pedestrian environment is hostile.  At the same time, there is the need to avoid impracticable grand plans.  In current market conditions the prospects of a comprehensive re-development of the Kingdom Centre are remote.  However, Fife Council, the local community and business interests have started a process of taking a fresh look at the town centre together and of looking at more than just physical answers to the town centre’s problems and this is a positive way forward.

We held workshops with the Harbour Commissioners and a range of public and private sector bodies and discussed a range of strategic propositions from which we developed some conceptual ideas for the future development of the harbour lands. The broader strategic concept is based on three principles:

a) to position Coleraine within the wider inter-regional maritime context

b) to establish a strategic vision for the Lower River Bann as a major economic and tourism driver for the region
The spatial concepts for the harbour lands themselves indicate how a range of development scenarios might be considered from a largely maritime industrial complex to a more significant reappraisal of the existing Dunne’s site as part of the development mix. The concepts are meant as tools for further consideration of the site’s future, not as development solutions and they provide the basis for further discussion and investigation. From left to right, options A to C – click to enlarge:

Option 1: Develop Marina at Cushowen

The initial site appraisal and financial appraisal looked at a 100 berth marina with the full complement of storage and maintenance facilities situated on and around the Cushowen site at the most northern end of the Harbour
lands. Further discussions, both at the workshop and the board have indicated that this may not be the most suitable location, in terms of operational viability and in commercially realising the assets of the site. (left diagram)

Option 2: Develop Marina beside existing Dunnes site
This option starts to free up more land for leisure-based activity and development options. This option would necessitate agreement on the lease with T-Met or be part of a longer term plan post 2021. This option also allows for additional pontoon berths at the Cushowen site for larger vessels and allows the storage, maintenance and boat lifting facilities to be positioned at the top end of the site, this releasing more land for re-development. It also permits a more strategic approach to the development and the ability to bring in periphery sites in public and private ownership as indicated in he centre diagram.

Option 3: Develop Marina on existing Dunnes site
Option 3 takes the principals of Option 2 another stage further and is the most ambitious of the three. It positions the marina on the existing Dunnes site. Again, this would require a partnership with Dunnes and re-location of the existing store, perhaps to one of the new retail developments in the town centre. The advantages of this option are three fold. Firstly, it further optimises the land for redevelopment, both within the existing site boundary and in the surrounding area. Secondly, it provides a possible solution to the navigation of the old bridge by incorporating a lough gate and thirdly, it goes the furthest in realising the ambition of creating a “River Town” where the harbour lands and the town centre are fully integrated. This will have positive economic benefits for the commercial viability of the harbour itself and the wider town and region. Studies have shown that the most successful marina developments are those which have the best linkages to the town they serve.

Clearly there are a number of delivery issues which the Harbour Commissioners are well aware of including clarity and certainty about future ownership of the harbour lands, the future direction of the Port’s maritime activities, future land use directions and the necessity of partnership working. Nevertheless, we hope this short strategic exercise has helped to raise awareness of the broader issues around the future of the harbour.

KEY ISSUES AND FINDINGS

We noted in our proposal for this work that there was a striking contrast between the centre of the town and its peripheral areas – almost as if the centre mattered but the rest didn’t. We had a strong feeling in Stromness that there was a need to re-learn how to build places – not so much in terms of architecture but in relation to the basic components of the external environment, the siting of development and the overall form of settlement. Our anticipated headline issues were:

• the presence of the past
• a distinctive sense of place
• learning how to build anew
• localising urban design
• traffic by design
• sustainability – a fundamental theme

These are the basic foundations of the urban design framework. If anything the contrast between the old town and the surrounding areas was more marked than we thought. There is a strong sense that the old town is regarded, like the library, as unfit for purpose in the 21st century. The decanting of uses to Hamnavoe and Garson is evidence of this while the Pier Arts Centre seems to represent the very opposite view – a well received triumph of careful design and function in constrained circumstances.

At the same time, the quality of the old town deteriorates in a myriad of small ways – vinyl street signs replacing old painted versions, unnecessary parking restrictions, inappropriate ‘heritage’ street lighting, vacant property and insensitive repairs to buildings and the public realm.

In parallel with this is the sense that Garson is used as a convenient place to site things that can no longer be accommodated in the old centre. So the town has no real structure or cohesion. This was recognised in the brief for this work which stated that the purpose of the study ‘is to establish a strategic framework and vision which would direct future proposals towards a coordinated and legible urban form’.

While preserving and enhancing the historic core has been an objective of the Council for some time, changes in land use patterns, changes in the type and location of housing, the relocation of important community institutions and the growing rate of vacancies in the historic core suggest a need to ask some very basic questions about the future of the town. Some of these are:

• What is the purpose and role of the town?
• What is the future of the historic core and what function might it perform?
• What are the roles of the various other parts of the town and can these areas work in an integrated and holistic manner?
• Are there too many proposals competing for scarce resources and might fewer stronger proposals help to fulfil more integrated spatial objectives?
• Should the unrelenting drift to the north be channelled into a new spatial structure for North Hamnavoe?
• Is there a positive future for Garson other than as a home for things that can’t be accommodated elsewhere?
• What can be done about the low quality of design of new buildings on the edges of the town and in the surrounding countryside?
• What size should Stromness be? Is building 140 houses by 2010 (as per the Local Plan) sensible or just very un-ambitious?
• How do we build urban form in such a low demand environment – is low density a realistic option?
• Each of the character areas described needs attention of some kind – the 4th and 5th tier areas have the most potential for change but how should these be improved?
• Can the town put its energy and sustainability research credentials to work for the Stromness environment?

These questions are answered to a greater or lesser degree in the report below. The culture of Orkney and Stromness is very project orientated and there was significantly more interest in implementing these rather than addressing strategy and policy which would in turn produce more appropriate projects than the current batch. There is also enormous resistance to change on the part of the local community and widely differing opinions about what should actually happen in the town.

The inevitable result of this is compromise and our report reflects that. However it has opened up wide ranging discussions about the form and function of the town and set out some new thinking, especially in relation to the form of peripheral development in the stunning Orkney landscape. The final report is shown below:

The study team comprised WMUD (lead), Yellow Book (economic strategy), Drew Mackie Associates (consultation), Hamilton-Baillie Associates (traffic and movement), Jacobs (Strategic Environmental Assessment and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment) and Leslie Burgher(architecture).

Our starting point is that the Castle has the potential to be:

• an area which can be enjoyed by as broad a spectrum of people as possible – young and old, local residents and visitors
• a space which enhances the social and economic life of the town – including its place competitiveness in the modern global economy, contributing to Castlederg’s economic health and its ability to attract and retain residents, businesses and visitors
• an important public space in Castlederg – and is, or has the potential to be, the focus of the local community’s aspirations for the future of their town
• an important part of the much bigger reconciliation process which lies at the heart of Peace III funding for Castlederg

Developing a shared vision for the Castle has a significance which goes beyond creating a new shared space – it should be pivotal for the town as a whole by contributing to economic competitiveness, attracting and retaining skilled people, bringing about a blossoming of civic pride, presenting an enhanced image of the town to visitors, and reinforcing the town’s distinctive sense of place for decades to come. Of course, a shared space at the Castle cannot achieve all these things alone – but it can make an important contribution to each of them.

These outcomes all come on the back of tangible, physical improvements to the Castle. There are also equally important intangible reconciliation benefits which could accrue if the right approach is used for this study. To put it another way, we believe that the way in which this commission is carried out is absolutely fundamental to enable progress towards the brief’s ultimate objectives of developing a more peaceful society.

Sensitivity to the history and sense of a place is an integral part of all our projects. Castlederg’s origins as an early Plantation town, the symbolism of the Castle as a visual reminder of that history, the trauma of the Troubles, and changes in recent years have all shaped both the place and the people of the town.

Planning and designing the future of any part of the town, including the Castle, must also reflect Castlederg’s position in the geography and economy of modern Northern Ireland. The town is an important rural service centre, although many of its residents are likely to feel relatively isolated from larger urban centres and the opportunities and facilities that they provide. That reality will shape how the local economy operates and how people live their lives in the town. Whilst the design outputs from this commission may focus on the Castle, they must be prepared in the context of the town as a whole, its contemporary role, and how it is changing.

Our team for this study comprise WMUD, Nick Wright Planning and Derry based RPD. We will update this post as the work progresses.

As a follow on from the post here almost two years ago entitled Terrain Vague: place and landscape and Stephen Gill’s photographic work in the Lower Lea Valley, this video which has been around for a few months on Vimeo, draws attention to the destruction of land, common land, allotments and football pitches which are being cleared to make way for the 2010 Olympics. The story moves through the various people whose lives are being disrupted by the proposals and who point out that this land is not simply unused but provides an escape from the city.

As Iain Sinclair and others have pointed out, the breathtaking intellectual thinness of the proposed Starbucks landscape of the Olympics compares badly with the richness of the existing complex environment. This is not a plea for doing nothing – it’s more a wish that in the rush to create, to ‘deliver’ and to ‘drive forward a vision’ towards this dubious prize, designers, planners, procurement officers or whoever should work with what is there rather than scrape it away and produce just another piece of second rate UK property development. Post-Olympics the communities can have most of this back – except that there will be nothing worth having in comparison to the richness of what is already there.

Many of the issues raised here resonate with the work we did in Sheffield on the Council’s Rivers and Waterways Strategy, especially in relation to the disregard that development agencies have for existing character and their blindness to the ways in which this can be used to create contemporary environments that are rich, exciting and beneficial to local communities. The Sheffield – City of Rivers report is available below: (should be browsed fullscreen).

Public Policy

The Scottish Government wants to create a more successful Scotland by increasing sustainable economic growth. The Government acknowledges that a high quality environment is an important part of achieving this. Highland Council’s ambitions for its population are expressed in the Single Outcome Agreement, and link back to the Government’s aim of creating a wealthier, fairer, healthier, smarter, greener and safer Scotland. The Single Outcome Agreement aims to promote sustainable Highland communities, safeguard the environment and create a competitive, sustainable and adaptable Highland economy. It also aspires to a healthier and fairer Highlands with better opportunities for all.

These aims have implications for the type and form of place that Inverness should become. For example, how successful is Inverness in catering for a broad range of expectations? How well are the Single Outcome Agreement’s ambitions being met? How well does the city cater for everyone’s needs? Is any section of the community disadvantaged? Retention of the local population, in particular the 16-35 age range, is important for Inverness and the surrounding Highland communities. However, it is this age group that tends to be attracted elsewhere – so it is important to provide what is needed in order to attract and retain them.

A new city vision

One way of shaping a city future is by agreeing a vision which describes the necessary ingredients of a settlement in terms of quality of streets, buildings, spaces and sets out an image of the kind of city that Inverness could be. Over the next few months, Highland Council will be facilitating a visioning exercise for the City of Inverness. This is part of the process of preparing the new generation of planning documents for the area. It is is a different way of planning. It involves working with everyone with a stake in the future of Inverness and develop a shared vision. We will be doing this at a series of special Future City Events from Wednesday 20th January to Friday 22nd January 2010 for people from local communities, businesses and the public sector.

The City Vision team
We have been appointed by Architecture and Design Scotland to work with Highland Council staff in preparing the spatial content of the Vision. Nick Wright Planning has been commissioned to work with the residential and business communities in Inverness in the lead up to the Future City Events as well as consult widely with a range of public sector agencies. Highland Council have set up a blog which records the process and provides a wealth of background information. The British Council has run the Future City Events have a webpage here which describes the process.

• inform the forthcoming Local Plan process, in particular the Proposed Plan stage
• identify and set out the key components required within the SLA and provide an overall structure within which individual masterplans can be prepared

This report proposed a strategic framework showing how the land-use elements of the Dunfermline SLA – housing, employment, community facilities and infrastructure – could be accommodated on the city’s western flank between 2011 and 2026, in a manner which results in high quality, sustainable and distinctive place-making.

Key elements

The starting point for the form of the strategic framework was the development of walkable neighbourhoods based around mixed use local centres. Walkable means preferably within five minutes walk of the local centre and or public transport facilities but this could extend to a ten minute walk. Four new neighbourhoods are proposed in the period to 2026 – a large area to the south west of the city and three neighbourhoods to the west, north west and north.
Integrated with this set of walkable neighbourhoods is a new public transport system based on an integrated street system linking the new areas (rather than a remote segregated system). The eventual form of this transport system has not been determined at present but it is likely to be either a Bus Rapid the strategic framework Transport (BRT) or Light Rapid Transport (LRT). There is also a requirement for a new western distributor road for the city which would be integrated with the BRT or LRT in part.

The protection of the historic landscape of the city and the protection of the integrity of a green belt between Dunfermline and Crossford has been an important factor in the development of the framework. At the outset, it was considered that a series of neighbourhoods had a potentially better fit in sensitive landscape than a larger settlement form. Care has been taken with the siting of these neighbourhoods and their associated landscaping although it should be stressed that by designating an SLA in the sensitive landscape of west and south west Dunfermline, it was inevitable that some conflict would occur between different interests.

These new neighbourhoods have to perform a number of functions in relation to the existing urban fabric of Dunfermline. For example linkage to the existing fabric is important as is the provision of facilities in the new development which enhances the quality of life in existing areas. It was also seen as important to provide only local retail facilities and not compete with the centre of Dunfermline. The provision of employment space in local centres or in associated mixed use areas is also seen as desirable.

Finally it was necessary to accommodate the quantum of development specified in the SLA namely for:

• 4,200 new homes up to 2026
• 80 hectares of employment land
• capacity for further housing and emploment growth post 2026
• a high school
• 3 primary schools

Other facilities that the development industry might be expected to provide are:

• education, sport and healthcare facilities
• local shops and services
• employment opportunities
• public transport facilities and services
• strategic and local transport improvements
• walking and cycling improvements
• affordable housing
• public art and landscape enhancement

Integrated in these new neighbourhoods are high quality design, low or zero carbon developments and neighbourhood-wide Combined Heat and Power (CHP).

Team

The study was carried out through extensive client-side workshops and collaboration. The team was WMUD, Kevin Murray Associates, Nick Wright Planning and MRC McLean Hazel.

• to enrich the quality of life of people who live and work in Rotherham, and to improve the experience of visitors
• to promote nature conservation and biodiversity
• to stimulate investment and regeneration

The policy context

Rotherham’s rivers and waterways figure prominently in regional and local planning policy, and across a wide range of other policy areas. However, while the waterways are generally deemed to be valuable assets, there is little evidence that the poor quality and condition of many of the borough’s rivers, canals and waterspaces has been acknowledged. This confirms the clients’ perception that a strategy is required to focus attention on the waterways and to devise a cohesive strategy and plan for action.

Although the potential of Rotherham’s waterways remains unfulfilled, it is clear that they can make an important contribution to the quality of life in the borough, to biodiversity and to regeneration.

Waterways in the landscape

Rotherham’s waterways have played a pivotal role in the Borough’s rich and fascinating, determining the location of settlements and sites of industry. The canalisation of the river Don in the mid 18th century made Rotherham an important inland port, and encouraged the growth of industry, even though the waterway was soon superseded by the railways. Though the borough only covers a small area, it is surprisingly diverse: while the Don and the Rother became archetypal industrial rivers, the attractive streams in the limestone country to the east feed into the Trent catchment. Ancient ponds are a feature of Rotherham, as are planned landscapes with water features, as at Wentworth.

This diversity is still reflected in the condition of Rotherham’s waterways today, which present a challenging mix of assets and liabilities. The consultant team has analysed the waterways and waterspaces by type, function and context, and we have also identified a series of distinct character areas.

Rotherham’s waterways appraised

We tested and developed our analysis in a series of consultations and at a stakeholder workshop. These events confirmed the mixed “report card” on our site visits and research. There was unanimous recognition of the potential of Rotherham’s waterways, and a broad consensus that recent successes (Rother Valley Country Park, Blackburn Meadows, Chesterfield Canal improved water quality etc) had raised public awareness of the value of water and its potential to contribute to a better quality of life. The Cuckoo Way and Roche Abbey are examples of little known delights in the borough. At the same time, the urban Don and the lower Rother still appear to be neglected and under-used places, and recent events have highlighted the threat of flooding and the presumed effects of climate change. The potential is unmistakable, but the problems are big and structural and the barriers to progress sometime appear formidable.

Developing the strategy

The report draws on this analysis to map out a vision and strategy for Rotherham’s waterways. Achieving the vision will require action to nurture, restore, celebrate and care for Rotherham’s unique network of rivers, canals and water spaces.

The report frames a series of strategic objectives and identifies six broad priorities for action: river restoration, major regeneration projects, the Chesterfield Canal, nature reserves, the access network and community projects.

Given the sheer scale and diversity of the challenges, it is not possible or desirable to draw up a detailed blueprint at this stage, but the consultant team has drawn up a set of 11 guiding principles, to be applied as appropriate as new projects are brought forward.

This section concludes by highlighting some of the places and ideas that have helped to shape the Rotherham Waterways Strategy, and which should act as sources of inspiration in the future. In particular, we acknowledge our debt to Emscher Landscape Park in Germany’s Ruhr region, which is the best example in Europe of the transformation of a polluted and semi-derelict post-industrial landscape.

The action plan

The themes of the strategy are drawn together in Section 6 which begins by recommending that the key themes of the action plan should be: New Life for the Urban River valleys, the Chesterfield Canal, the urban waterfront, riverside communities, Rotherham’s Hidden Gems, caring for the waterways, and celebrating them.

We also recommend the formation of a Rotherham Waterways Partnership (with a maximum 5 years’ life) to drive forward the initiative, and the appointment of a project manager.

We have drawn up an illustrative 3-5 year action plan, which distinguishes between project development activities (where the partnership should take a lead role) and influencing the work of others to ensure that benefits for the rivers and waterways are achieved. We have estimated that the partnership would require a budget of around £850,000 over 3 years to take forward this work programme.

The success of the partnership will be determined largely by its ability to engage effectively with other partners, locally and at the sub-regional, catchment and regional levels. We have identified some key connections, including with Sheffield which is also developing proposals for reviving its urban rivers.

Finally, we have stressed the importance of knowing what success looks like. A simple performance management framework is required for the partnership, which should be the subject of an independent review after three years.

Key decisions and choices

The issues and choices will be a key theme for the next stage of the study and we have set out some of the strategic choices that need to be addressed:

• should Glasgow City Centre North continue to be a location for industry in the city, or should the strategy encourage a shift to higher value uses such as offices and housing?
• is it desirable or practicable to try to provide “local jobs for local people” in the study area, or should we be encouraging a step change in the local economy?
• could all or part of the study area be reinvented as a new community, with a mix of housing by type and tenure, parks, transport and social infrastructure that will attract people to live in north Glasgow?
• are we trying to create a destination in the city or should we be aiming for an attractive, popular and sustainable city neighbourhood?
• to what degree should the strategy be shaped by economic goals, or should we also be pursuing social, environmental and cultural objectives?
• should the strategy be predicated on incremental change, albeit with a clear direction of travel, or should the partners aim for more rapid and radical change, for example, the transformational projects described above or the creation of a new university campus/innovation park?

Must-do actions

These and other choices will be identified and discussed during the strategy formulation phase, but the process has already revealed a number of areas where urgent action is deemed to be essential. Progress on these themes can be seen as an essential pre-condition for sustainable regeneration and they include:

• Mobilising community and stakeholder support: Every effort should be made to align the public sector stakeholders and resources, and the success of the project will also turn on its ability to command the support of local communities. Change projects also mean thinking about the needs and expectations of people who are not in the study area at present, but who you are seeking to attract – to live, work or visit.
• Animating the canal corridor: The canal is the study area’s unique asset, and a key source of distinctiveness and competitive advantage, but an under-used waterway can become a liability and place that people avoid rather than an attraction. For this reason, any positive future scenario will be predicated on the presence of a lively and attractive waterfront, and activity on the water; there is a need for early action to animate the waterspace and encourage people to visit Glasgow’s little-known canal.
• Improving public transport: For a variety of historic reasons, the study area is poorly served by public transport. Radial routes pass through the area, north and south, but bus services do not penetrate into the heart of the area. This only serves to compound a sense of isolation, and local business recognise it as a weakness. Sustainable regeneration can only be achieved if Glasgow City Centre North is reconnected to the city centre and adjoining neighbourhoods, and all the best European models treat connectivity as a non-negotiable requirement.
• Improving pedestrian access to and through the study area: Most pedestrian routes in and out of the study area are obscure and unattractive, and sometimes hostile. Port Dundas, for example, is easily walkable from the city centre but it is not a good experience. The study area often feels deserted: even at the busiest times of time there are few people on the streets. Over time, radical solutions may be required to remove barriers; in the short term, a plan to make pedestrian routes safer and more attractive is imperative.
• Enhancing the public realm: Although parts of the study area have a rich character and heritage, the quality of the public realm is almost uniformly poor: The canalside around Speirs Wharf is the only exception. The strategy must include a long-term plan for strengthening and enhancing the public realm and creating high quality urban spaces, but a short-term early action plan should also be devised – focusing on areas with the potential for rapid improvement, for example, by cleaning up derelict land, improving recent development sites and influencing new developments.
• Raising design standards: Recent investment in the study area is a source of some encouragement, but the design quality of projects post-Speirs Wharf has, almost without exception, been very disappointing. The City Council has a responsibility to ensure that future developments set a higher standard for architecture and urban design. One of the most disappointing features of recent projects has been the way in which anodyne buildings have eroded the distinctiveness of the study area without injecting style or quality into the townscape.

Implementation

We have advocated a twin-track approach to the next phase of the study. In parallel with work on the strategy, a second workstream should focus on implementation: producing a plan which will focus on the “how” and “when” of the regeneration process. Some of the work has already been undertaken in this study: Section 6 contains sets out a detailed and authoritative account of market conditions in different parts of the study area, although a more fine grained market appraisal will still be required to shape and inform proposals for specific sites. We have also gathered information on property and site ownerships, which are likely to be a key factor in determining the feasibility of particular proposals as well as the timing of developments.

It is already clear that only limited amounts of land are owned by the Council or key partners such as British Waterways, and that the pattern of ownership in the study area is fragmented. Experience suggests that this is likely to be a significant constraint on the partners’ aspirations, and much will therefore depend on the Council’s willingness and/or ability to create the conditions for change.

Positive strategic role

There is definite potential to undertake significant development on the study area – and to influence regeneration in the surrounding areas in the northern part of the Borough and in adjoining boroughs, and possibly even at a London level and beyond. The full scope and scale of transformation is dependent on a number of factors, including the ability to capitalise upon opportunities and address some very real constraints.

Constraints

There are a number of key constraints affecting development of the site particularly:

• The rail and canal corridors form barriers to north-south movement within and beyond the site. Whilst development could possibly be built over the railway, this is unlikely to be viable for the canal.
• Safety concerns around the gasholders are likely to prevent residential development on portions of the site as long as the gasholders are in place (until at least 2016).
• The single vehicular connection to the site makes it isolated, both in terms of public and private transport. It also places significant physical constraints on the quantum of development.
• The existing Sainsbury’s store may or may not wish to move from its current site – it could possibly be redeveloped as part of a larger, denser development.
• Crossrail are seeking to use part of the southern portion of the site as a temporary bus garage during construction works, to 2017.

Recommendation

The recommendation is to pursue as ambitious an option as possible in partnership with the key landowners, and to continue to build up the parallel case for a station. We see this option being represented as a composite of C and D at this stage, beginning in the eastern part of the site, and extending westwards over time as the gas holders are decommissioned. This composite is more ambitious than options A and B, but is more feasible than option E. It could also provide a basis for including part of option F if the opportunity presents itself.

Scenario development
Given that this stage in the process was upstream of generating any real development proposals, it was necessary to explore a wide range of possibilities in an open, value free way. Therefore, rather than ‘design’ a selection of alternative indicative schemes, the method at this stage was to explore and develop a range of scenarios (future circumstances) with associated development typologies (physical place outcomes). At this stage of feasibility testing we considered it important not to prejudge any outcome, nor to have premature preferences that may preclude creative options be explored. Also, we found it particularly important to be open-minded about both cost-value parameters (these changed even in the short time of the study) and about a potential Crossrail station – even though this has been a desired outcome of the Council – because it is not in itself a ‘given’ component.



The scenario approach used enabled different kinds of future circumstances and outcomes to be constructed, explored and developed, then further reviewed and tested for feasibility and desirability. This method was wide-ranging including scenarios various people acknowledged were more or less desirable. It was not simply a wish list of a few idealised end-states. These scenarios were explored in a future situation (2025) well beyond the limits of current policy, and also without community involvement at this ‘upstream’ stage.

Our view is that this open, relatively creative approach demonstrates a wide range of possibilities. Importantly, it generated a wide range of relevant issues for further testing, review and, where appropriate, policy action and dialogue with landowners and statutory bodies.

The study team comprised Kevin Murray Associates (lead), Willie Miller Urban Design (WMUD), Alan Baxter Associates, Battle McCarthy, Colliers CRE and Gardiner & Theobald.