Cities Methodologies

8/3/2019 Cities Methodologies

1/3

BISHOPSGATE GOODSYARD

TRANSFORMED

BENVGBU1 - TRANSFORMING LOCAL AREAS: URBAN DESIGN FOR DEVELOPMENT I 2009-10

MSC BUILDING AND URBAN DESIGN IN DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT PLANNING UNIT, THE BARTLETT

introductionhe objective of this exercise was to write a development brief for the Bishopsgate Goodsyard site in

horeditch complementing the planning guidance prepared jointly by the London Borough of Hackney,

he London Borough of Tower Hamlets and the Greater London Authority with Terry Farrell and Partners.

his is an important and strategic site in Shoredtich that has been vacant for many years but now

as an opportunity for redevelopment, given that the Shoreditch Station as part of the East London

ine extension is due to open in 2010. The exercise was conducted in two stages: Part 1 involved an

rban analysis of the designated study area where conventional urban design analytical techniques

were combined with social science research tools to identify comprehensive regeneration opportunities

nd constraints for the site wtihin a wider area. Part 2 involved the writing of a development brief

ddressing the principles of urban structure, public realm and accessibility characteristics for the benet

f professional development teams. An investigation of potential transformation of the study area was

ndertaken through the analysis of six thematic categories: 1. Socio-economic analysis; 2. Urban grain/

mix; 3. Public realm/open spaces; 4. Accessibility; 5. Massing/density; and 6. Typology/landmarks.

1 socio economic

2 urban grain/mix

Key data from Neighbourhood Statistics 2001 was analysed for seven wards surrounding the Bishopsgate Goodsyard site

ncluding the socio-economic prole of the residents, quality of housing stock, the economic structure of local businesses, and

mportant indicators including crime.

> population densities

> ethnic mix

>household characteristics

Traditional gure ground analysis

to understand the historic evolution

of the urban block structure was

combined with attempts to delayerthe urban grain of the study area

in the third dimension by not just

documenting the built versus open

space but also prviate and public

realm as well as activities at both

ground and upper levels. In order to

capture the complex nature of the

areas mixity, conventional land use

characterisation was replaced by

eight more dynamic categories.

> 2010> 1940> 1897> 1827

> plot fabric

> private space

> built fabric

> activities

> top: ground level activities; above: upper oor activities


2/3


TRANSFORMED



3 open spaces/public realm

The relation of open space within Bishopsgate Goodsyard is primarily analysed on three scales: the city

level, the local area and the site and its immediate borders. The core analytical framework used four

dichotomies that characterize the use and meaning of open spaces: the distinction between private

and public; the relation between formality and informality; the differentiation between hardscapes and

softscapes; and nally the high and low intensity of use of space. The main system of open spaces in

the local area is characterized by the presence markets mainly Spitaelds, Columbia, Brick Lane,

Sunday Upmarket and Petticoat Lane. These are present in both public and private domains, open

and covered, formal and informal and in both a temporal and permanent form.

> active frontages: weekday > active frontages: weekend

> Sound - Movement & Space - Time Analysis

> Public open space > Private open space > Collective open space


3/3


TRANSFORMED



Excludingthetwoextreme

examples,itseemsthatmixedusebuildingsarethe

landmarkelementswith

morebalancedbuiltvalues.Thepotentialforrenova-

tionandflexibilityincreasethechancesforconserva-

tionandtimeusage.Other

areaseitherlackphysicalquality(blightedareas)or

socialintensity(highrises).

PHYSICAL

SOCIAL

ECONOMIC

VISUAL

PHYSICAL

SOCIAL

ECONOMIC

VISUAL

PHYSICAL

SOCIAL

ECONOMIC

VISUAL

PHYSICAL

SOCIAL

ECONOMIC

VISUAL

PHYSICAL

SOCIAL

ECONOMIC

VISUAL

PHYSICAL

SOCIAL

ECONOMIC

VISUAL

TEMPORARYMARKET

+BUILTMIXEDUSE

MEDIUMSCALEMIX

USERENOVATIONS

PERMANENTMARKET

&SHOPS

SIGNIFICANT

BUILDINGS

LARGESCALEMIXEDUSE

RENOVATIONS

NEWHIGHRISES

Landmark correlations

Amongst the different kind of landmarkbuildings seen in the area, several c leargroups were identified. The threeprincipal ones are mapped in theprevious landmark location maps.However, further detail is worth forclarification. Included to the right, arethese main typologies, which range fromthe temporary market to the high-techhigh rises. In between these twoextremes, the Bishopsgate Goods Yardarea has an extended presence of mixeduse spaces, which not only suggest agrowing need for them, but a truepotential. The presence of large Victorianstorehouses, old factories, and emptywarehouses in a city in dire need for realestate, opens as a market of availablefloor space. Renovated spaces like theTea Building, the Buiscuit Building andthe Old Truman Brewery are someexamples.

Landmark values

Considering the previous analysis ofbuilding use, blight and conservation, anassumed qualification of several valuesare made: the Physical value (the builtquality of the landmark space), theSocial value (the social and/or culturalsignificance of the space), the Economicvalue (the potential for economicactivities) and the Visual value (its visualdominance of the space in thesorroundings). For this purpose, aspecific built example of each typologyhas been selected, including categoriesthat explain their physicality as well astheir role in the areas context.

BrickLaneMarketCategories SpitalfieldsMarketMixeduse OldTrumanBrewery ChristChurch TEABuilding BroadgateTower

PUBLICTOPRIVATE

QUALITYOFCONSERVATION

GENERALTIMESOFUSE

INCLUSIVE

LESS MORE

EXCLUSIVE

weekends mixed allweek allweek allweek allweek monday-friday

6 building typologies/landmarks

There are highly diverse built typologies, many of them being old Victorian warehouses and factories

that through renovation have become shelter for several mixed-use compounds. Its proximity to

the City of London, and a much lower real estate value, has steadied the consolidation of some of

these spots. At the same time, though, the area is subject to striking constrasts, that are a reection

of the council divide, the new development pressures, and the urban decay that is both a statistical

reality and a perceptual image. With considerable levels of crime, there is an additional sense of

insecurity that can be related to the blighted built environment that is identiable in some zones.

Derelict infrastructure creates a perception of needed re-development, which is the tendency of new

projects. These call for a complete transformation of the current urban fabric, and the introduction

(or extension) of a new typological landscape, completely different of the textural quality that is

representative of the current elements.

> historical periods

> texture > materials

> grafti/hoardings/decay > blight

London population.Urban 8,278,000 inhab. Urban Area: 1,623 km2

Average of households per ha= 42, Density 5,100 per km2.

Metropolitan population: 13,945,000 inhab. Area : 4,761/km2

HACKNEY CITY OF LONDON TOWER HAMLETS

Population: 202,824 Population: 7,185 Population: 196,106

Density: 106.39 p/ha Density: 24.79 p/ha Density: 99.2 p/ha

5 massing/density

4 accessibility

Cities Methodologies

Documents

Transcript of Cities Methodologies