2009 London, UK
Research Findings Influencing Proposals for Church Street Market Regeneration Corridor
Research Findings Influencing Proposals for Church Street Market Regeneration Corridor
Proposals
for Section Four of the Church Street Market regeneration corridor were
informed not only by on site and desk top analysis but also by a review
of the wider literature on issues relating to Identity and Difference,
Occupation and Management of Space, Transport and Movement and Crime and
Safety, all in relation to the built environment. This essay reflects
on particular literature and how it informed the four main groupings of
proposals for regenerating Section Four of the Church Street Market
regeneration corridor: Streetscape/Public Realm Improvements;
Management/Configuration of Market Stalls; Improved Way-finding/
Legibility; and Non-Retail/ Non-Residential Opportunity Realisation.
Gehls
(2004) Public Spaces, Public Life studies assessment methodology of
assessing public spaces in proximity to the space in question, as well
as the site itself, provided an insight into opportunities for
addressing challenges and ways to ensure that immediate improvements
benefit local residents in addition to providing ways for drawing people
into and through the site. The three phase approach of initially
evaluating the quality of the site, a recording of the public life
occurring within and around the space, and finally developing
recommendations for actual improvements, was taken. This order of
priority enabled us to focus on the local context, together with who,
what, why and how people use the space which informed the SWOT analysis
of the site, informing ways that the design proposals/solution could
reinforce and build upon the strengths of the area – ensuring
interventions are appropriate to the local community, but which attract
non-locals to support the area.
In
the site review it was established that the area is currently a
‘transitional space’ which people move through and along but not to
‘linger’ or socially interact – a key factor in the quality of the
public space, and public life of an area (Dines, N. Cattell et al 2006).
David Engwicht (2003, in Cowan, 2005) defines two types of public
space: ‘exchange space’ and ‘movement space’ and considers that ‘the
more space a city devotes to movement, the more the exchange space
becomes diluted and shattered. The more diluted and shattered the
exchange opportunities, the more the city begins to loose the very thing
that makes a city a city: a concentration of exchange opportunities’
(Engwicht, 2003 in Cowan, 2005). This detail reiterated for us the
importance of realising the value of the space as more than just a
transit corridor. Furthermore, the role that this space plays as a
secondary type of public space ie a local/ neighbourhood space, rather
than a main/metropolitan public space (Madanipour, 2004) led us to
conclude that the potential value of the space was as an avenue for the
resident community to socialise aswell as pass through. On market days
this level of sociability could be increased as markets can play a
diverse role to a range of different users, reflective of the diversity
of the local population (Watson and Studdert, 2006). It was decided that
maximum benefit would be had from design interventions which made the
space meaningful to as many groups of users as possible, ensuring
delivery of a multitude of benefits. Madanipour (2004) also places
emphasis on the importance of such spaces being ‘highly flexible,
allowing for multiple uses, for a variety of purposes in different time
settings’.
The
achievement of providing a space that encourages this unstructured
social interaction was not viewed as requiring drastic physical change,
but rather making subtle improvements to the public realm through
streetscaping and landscaping improvements, addressing the role of the
car, improving legibility and way finding with surrounding areas and
altering the management and configuration of market stalls for improved
use by traders and buyers. Consideration was also given to the role that
these interventions may improve and secure local economic viability as a
way ‘to avoid the increasing fragmentation and demarcation of public
space in the City (Watson, 2008, pp33). It was noted that by securing
economic viability of the area opportunities for non-retail and
non-residential development opportunities could be realised, encouraging
office, live/work and art spaces into the area, thus enticing a wider
range of workers and residents into the area that will ultimately
contribute to securing important economic viability.
The priority of
strengthening local identity by building on existing character of the
area is also part of creating an area which will attract such
investment, and which encourages visitors to support existing retail
opportunities.
Efforts
to encourage economic viability was seen as central to tackling one key
existing negative attribute of the area – crime and heightened
perceptions of crime. Van den Berg et al (2006 pp14) identified that in
an unfavourable or declining economy (as we are currently experiencing),
crime may increase. Poor earning power and unemployment can lead to
increased rates of crime, a point particularly relevant to this
community which already suffers from high levels of unemployment and
crime, and which provides evidence of the importance of ensuring any
interventions provide both physical and economic regeneration benefits.
The
night time economy was identified as central to addressing this issue
of crime and fear of crime (Tiesdell & T Oc, 1998, pp641) by
bringing activity into the area which was considered a practical, simple
way of deterring criminal incidents and giving people the confidence to
use the space into the evening (currently it is relatively deserted
after dusk). Tiesdell and T. Oc, (1998, pp641) highlight that ‘avoidance
of city centres is a consequence of fears about certain environments as
well as fears about certain incidents’. To encourage this activity we
recommended extension of market stall hours and improving links to
Samford Street to draw people using the Cockpit Theatre out into the
area in the evening. This would require the aforementioned public realm
improvements (ie shared surface, improved lighting, strengthened local
identity, creation of key gateways and landscaping) to encourage this
night time use. These interventions would be in line with guidance from
the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM, 2004) which recognises
that certain design elements can be introduced at an early stage of
planning to influence criminal behaviour.
In
summary, our approach for proposals to improve this Section Four of the
Church Street Regeneration Corridor has been simplistic in
acknowledgement of Gehl in his Public Spaces, Public Life studies who states that ‘the importance of gradual transformations in urban
redevelopments, in order to make changes sustainable and to give people
time to adapt to physical changes, adjust their lifestyles and
experiment with new ways of using the city’. It is hoped that by
proposing low key physical changes which address Streetscape/Public
Realm; Management/Configuration of Market Stalls; Way-finding/
Legibility; and Non-Retail/ Non-Residential Opportunities, that
incremental change will occur which reinforces current strengths of the
site and its surroundings, and which addresses those challenges
currently impeding the area and how local residents are able to use it.
REFERENCES
- Dines, N., Cattell, V. (et al) (2006) Public Spaces, social relations and well-being in East London, Policy Press for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Bristol, http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/public-spaces-social-relations.pdf
- Cattell, V., Curtis, S., Dines, N., and Gesier, W. 2006, Public spaces and Social Relations in East London, The Joseph Roundtree Foundation, London.
- Cowan, R., 2005, The Dictionary of Urbanism, Streetwise Press, London
- Ellin, N., (2001). Thresholds of fear: Embracing the urban shadow. Urban Studies. 38 (5-6) 869-883. [online] Available from: Sweetwise. <https://www.swetswise.com> [Accessed 5 March 2009].
- Ewins, T,. 2007, The Privatisation of Public Space, and the Democratic Alternative, Article sited on www.onlineopinion.com.au
- Gehl J and Litt D, Public Spaces for a Changing Public Life, Source: www.openspace.eca.ac.uk/conference/proceedings/PDF/Gehl.pdf
- Jan Gehl Architects, 2004, Towards a Fine City for People, Public Spaces and Public Life- London 2004. Source: http://www.gehlarchitects.dk
- Madanipour A.(2004) Marginal Public Spaces in European Cities Journal of Urban Design, Vol.9, No.3, pp267-286
- Mean, M., Timms, C., 2005, People Make Places: Growing the Public Life of Cities, Demos, London.
- Oc, T. and Tiesdell, S., (1997). Safer city centres: reviving the public realm. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
- Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Office (2004). Safer Places: The planning system and crime prevention. [online] Tonbridge: Thomas Telford Publishing.
- Roberts, M. and Eldridge, A., (2007). Quieter, safer, cheaper: planning for a more inclusive evening and night-time economy. Planning Practice and Research. 22 (2), 253-266. [online] Available from: Sweetwise. <https://www.swetswise.com> [Accessed 5 March 2009].
- RUDI (Resource for Urban Design Information), 2008, Place Making – Celebrating Quality and Innovation in Urban Life, RUDI Ltd with the Academy of Urbanism, London.
- Studdert, D., and Watson, S., 2006, Markets as Social Spaces, Joseph Roundtree Foundation, London.
- Tiesdell, S. and T Oc., (1998). Beyond fortress and panoptic cities – towards a safer urban public realm. Environment and Planning B. 25 639-655.
- Travlou, P., 2003, Teenagers and Public Space, OPEN-Space: The Research Centre for Inclusive Access to Outdoor Environments, Edinburgh College of Art & Henry Watt University
- van den Berg, L. et al., (2006). The safe city: safety and urban development in European cities. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
- Watson, S. with Studdert, D. (2006) Markets as sites for social interaction, Policy Press for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Bristol http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/1940-markets-social-interaction.pdf [accessed 22.02.09].
- Watson, S. (2008) Productive Potentialities in Public/Private and Private/Public Space Urban Design 108: 31-33
- Young, J., (2009). To these wet and windy shores: Recent immigration policy in the UK. Punishment and Society. 5 (4) 449-462. [online] Available from: Sweetwise. <https://www.swetswise.com> [Accessed 5 March 2009].