Parklife - Making London Greener

Two stories related to parks in London grabbed my attention this past week.  First was Rowan Moore’s excellent review of the proposed London River Park which is quickly turning into the capital’s new planning saga (see here).  The proposal is for a new walkway on the northern side of the River Thames, stretching from Millennium Bridge in the west to the Tower of London in the east.  The initial plans include landscaping, seating, a swimming pool and a series of pavilions which can be used for exhibitions and cultural uses.   

But it is the creation of a pseudo-public space that angers Moore the most.  Drawing on Anna Minton’s highly recommended book Ground Control, Moore describes how the river park will in fact turn a public river view into a highly controlled private space.  In addition, the effort from the architects appears to have been spent on the revenue generating pavilions and not on the walkable areas in-between.  So if London is trying to ape New York’s High Line it will have to put considerably more effort into the ‘park’ element of the scheme.  Latest news is that the planning application will not be considered by the City of London at the November Planning Committee and the project will now miss being open for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee.  Open for the Olympics?  We will see.

A Letter to London

With the Musing Urbanist soon to depart these shores for the glass towers of Vancouver, I felt now was a suitable time to reflect on the state of urbanism in London.  While the popularity of ranking cities according to liveability shows no signs of abating, my letter to London hopes to inform the debate from a specific planning and urbanist standpoint.

Dear London
I first got to know you on annual weekend visits as a child. Your famous monuments and overpriced hotels opened my eyes to a type of settlement a million miles away from the rural idyll of the Channel Islands. After I relocated to the city in 2006 I have got to know you on a more personal level and have seen you and at your best and worst.  So as I depart for a city often feted for its approach to urbanism and liveability (rightly or wrongly), I leave with you my thoughts on what makes you world class and not bottom of the class. 

Parks  
London's parks come in all shapes and sizes, shabby or royal, overgrown or majestic.  Having lived in west London for the past two years I have been spoiled for choice with access to Hyde Park, Holland Park and Ravenscourt Park - not to forget the future plans for the redevelopment of Shepherds Bush Green.  London's parks often appear from nowhere, surrounded by terraced housing and suddenly providing open greenspace in the heart of the city.  Clearly we owe a great deal to the Royal Parks for establishing a blueprint of substantial open parkland which the city continues to benefit from.  


Public Transport

Mind the Gap

It is all to easy to mock the Tube for cramped carriages and weekend closures.  But the geographical coverage of the network is truly inspiring.  I often think that if the tube were being developed today it would consist of less than half the number of lines and stations.  Though some areas of the city are not well served by the tube (i.e. Hackney) the growing London Overground service is providing the necessary linkages to offer multiple options for your journey.  While Vancouver gets excited about one underground train line, London operates with 13 lines and significantly more buses.  As London grows eastwards the extension of public transport will be vital to support the new communities.  Just don't mention the strikes!


Old and New
After visiting Paris I was suddenly struck by how London brazenly mixes new and old architecture.  Central Paris is a museum city whereas London embraces contemporary development alongside its historical monuments. While one can endlessly debate the architectural and design quality of the new buildings, the sheer fact they are being built is testament to the city.  London has its fair share of architectural mistakes, but overall I think the city embraces change in its more central areas whilst not neglecting the Gherkin and the soon to be finished Shard add to the character of London and have quickly become part of the urban fabric.


Strategic Planning

The London Plan Key Diagram

The changes described above can be more recently attributed to the establishment of the Greater London Authority in 2000.  Though Mayor Livingstone's pandering to certain property developers was regretful, his time as Mayor saw the establishment of the London Plan and the strategic planning function.  Currently there is a national tension in planning between localism and the requirement to plan certain development at a regional or national level.  Only recently the Government were criticised for constraining wind farm development due to the absence of a strategic plan. The London Plan has set a framework which identifies the key issue to London's future - the growth of East London, the importance of climate change and the role of public transport.  It is an excellent template which other city-regions would benefit from. 

Yours
Musing Urbanist

Neighbourhood Planning - the case of Bermondsey

Yesterday saw the announcement of 17 communities that have been chosen by the Government to be Neighbourhood Planning Vanguards.  In line with the planning reforms expected in the Localism Bill, neighbourhoods will play a greater role in formulating planning policy.  The 17 vanguards will therefore be eligible for £20,000 from DCLG to help organise themselves into a recognised body and begin work on a Neighbourhood Plan.

Life before Google Maps

How local is too local

Apart from identifying the vanguards and allocating the cash, DCLG has purposefully resisted issuing too much guidance on how the neighbourhood planning process should operate.  In the spirit of localism, it is now up to Local Authorities and the relevant communities to chart their own course.  This is a welcome change.  The planning profession has been shaped too much by over prescriptive rules and regulations from national, regional and local government.  This has led to a loss of creativity in the planning sector where professionals are too eager to dive into Circulars and PPS' to decide what is best for a neighbourhood.  By shifting the onus onto neighbourhoods, Local Authority planners will be tested to understand the aspirations of local residents and not just the generic results of technical reports produced ad nauseam by outside consultants.  

Mistakes will be made as the 17 vanguards pilot neighbourhood planning.  But this should be expected. Planning is a messy and political minefield - just like life itself.  However, I am confident that in some instances a neighbourhood will show true inspiration and allow a forum that engages with those members that have previously not connected with planning.

Working in the City

The Shard viewed from St Thomas Street

Of the 17 vanguards named by Greg Clark MP, one stands out. Bermondsey.  Whilst the majority of the neighbourhoods chosen fit with the parish council model often evoked by Eric Pickles MP, Bermondsey is an inner London neighbourhood characterised as much by large social housing estates as by the Shard.  From an initial inspection it appears that the neighbourhood forum is already up and running and has clealry set a timetable for the production of a Neighboruhood Plan.

However, from reading the Localism Bill and hearing Eric Pickles MP speak (see here), I often have the impression that Conservative planning policy is based on the rural idyll with a parish council, village hall and local pub.  This scale of settlement allows a neighbourhood to come together and make minor decisions on the use of the village green or the preservation of the local post office.  Yet Bermondsey is nothing like this and falls within a recognised Opportunity Area (see the London Plan) where existing planning policy promotes regeneration, economic growth and tall buildings.  The area surrounding London Bridge is one of London's fastest changing cityscapes with the Shard, London Bridge station redevelopment, the 32-storey Quill and other iconic developments in the pipeline.  This is an area which neccessatates strategic planning - with strong input from the Mayor and the Greater London Authority.

But the strategic nature of London Bridge and Bermondsey should not exclude the local residents.  It just means that neighboruhood planning in this area is sure to create more tensions compared to vanguards in Banbury or Dawlish.  Property developers require certainty in planning policy so that investment can be guaranteed and schemes can be designed appropriately.  In the case of Bermondsey it is unclear how the forthcoming Neighbourhood Plan will sit alongside the existing draft Supplementary Planning Document which encourages tall buildings and considerable development opportunities.  The Localism Bill makes clear that Neighbourhood Plans cannot be anti-development, but they can shift the emphasis of planning policy.  It will be interesting to see how the case of Bermondsey develops over the coming months and whether the parish Council model of neighbourhood planning is suitable for an inner city environment.  The Musing Urbanist will be keeping a keen eye on Bermondsey to see how this episode of neighbourhood planning sits within the existing and proposed planning regime.

 

A Time for Reflection?

It is sometimes easy to think that planning stops with the issuing of a permission. Job done. Case closed. After that the drawings are handed over to the construction team and we move onto the next job. But the recent publicity of how the Shard is sitting behind St Paul's Cathedral demonstrates that more reflection is required on what was promised during planning compared to what gets built.

Londoners could not have failed to notice the speed at which the Shard is redefining London Bridge and the wider skyline. The development will finally reach 72 storeys and provide a mix of apartments, restaurants, offices and a hotel. Yet it made news in last weeks Evening Standard following criticisms by English Heritage, a vocal objector at the time of the planning application. The Mayor of London has a range of strategic planning powers and most notably he issues directions on which views require protection (outlined here). Of all the viewing corridors he has established, St Paul’s Cathedral has the most historic interest. Up until 1962 St Paul's was the tallest building in London and its iconic silhouette famously stood untouched during the Blitz. Undoubtedly, St Paul’s has great historic and cultural value to the city.

The problem is that during the planning process, a great deal of imagination is required. Architectural sketches and 3D models can only go so far in presenting a mock-up of how the tall building will sit in the skyline. There is even a question as to how accurate these techniques are. I’ve not seen the plans submitted on the Shard so can’t comment on how they compare to what has been built – in particular the relationship with St Paul’s. But what it does make me realise is the need for greater reflection in planning. Research should be undertaken comparing the photo montages submitted during planning and the actual photos of the completed scheme. This can act as a sense check and give greater confidence to decision-makers, especially on high profile sites such as the Shard.

But this shouldn’t end with visual assessments. Whilst planning is awash with guidance, it is poorly served by simple data on how development schemes have been used in practice. This could relate to demography (how many people live in a certain type of building, what age ranges etc), socio-economics (how many jobs were created during construction) and public space (how do people physically move around the streets and spaces). Currently the profession relies too much on generic formulas that fail to take account of various building types and uses or Census data which is dated and inflexible. Clearly, at a time of public sector budget cuts it is hard to see how local planning departments will have the time and resources to commission this research. So I propose that universities step in and play a greater role in analysing how finished development schemes compare to the assumptions made pre-planning. This would provide excellent training and know-how to graduates and be of huge benefit to the profession as a whole.

In order to move forward perhaps we need to look back just a little.

The end of Hobbit Homes?

The Musing Urbanist was at City Hall last Friday to see the issue of mandatory space standards being discussed. The Mayor of London has proposed a new policy in the London Plan to require all new residential development to meet minimum space standards, starting at 50sqm for a 1-bed flat. This was being discussed as part of the wider London Plan which sets strategic planning policy for the city. With Boris being very vocal on this issue and his reference to the ‘Hobbit Homes’ of London, it was sure to be a heated discussion!

The case for Space Standards

Quality of Life. That was the phrase most often used by advocates of space standards, arguing that London needs to catch up to Europe and stop building minuscule spaces that pass as homes. I agree that the level of space can impact on quality of life, but I think there are other factors that must be considered – access to park space, the quality of the build, services and facilities, safety etc. But in the main I can’t disagree with this argument.

CABE put forward some excellent points including how the London Plan should be at the cutting edge of policy and not be afraid to drive forward new policy. The Merton Rule (10% on-site renewable energy) began life as a small policy in a London Borough and has now spread much further. So no reason why the London Plan can’t change the national picture either.

The National Housing Federation also were impressive, arguing for the increased supply of housing, but with a recognition that homes must be built to a decent standard in order to last. The speaker also recognised that housing changes tenure over its lifetime and it would be nonsensical to only adopt space standards for affordable housing – a point well made.

The case against Space Standards

The Home Builders Federation were champing at the bit to bring down this policy and duly reeled off a detailed critique of town and country planning!! The HBF argued that if developers were required to build larger units, viability would be impacted and affordability would skyrocket (even further). They argued that planning has acted as a constraint on housebuilding for too long and has left millions unable to afford a home. Playing to the galleries somewhat they made a pitch to the younger audience and the need to avoid young adults living at home ala Italy!

The viability argument was also backed up by London First and a number of interested developers. They repeatedly made the point that housing must be provided to meet all financial requirements. By reducing the number of units on a site the build costs would increase and the individual cost of units would begin to exceed those at the bottom of the market.

View of the Musing Urbanist

Space standards are no different to any other planning ideal – excellent design, access to parks, and protection of neighbour’s amenity. Just because UK planning has behind the curve on this issue doesn’t make it less important. It must be considered on a level par with these other issues. If anything it is more important than some others that already form London Plan and national policy. Fingers crossed the Panel see it this way and keep the space standards in the London Plan.

The World's Most Liveable (and expensive) Cities

I've always kept more than a passing eye on the annual Monocle 'Quality of Life in Cities' Survey. It's a publication that unashamedly trumpets the importance of style, design and travel by congratulating cities that have the right approach to life.


I can see why some think that the magazine might be a tad pretentious with its focus on the jet-setting elite....but it provides a great range of stories and looks damn good as well!

http://www.monocle.com/specials/35_cities/

Two things struck me about this years (and preceding years) listed cities:

1. The issue of affordability gets short shrift. I don't doubt that the number of art-house cinemas is of interest, but ultimately it comes down to how much bang you get for your buck. Especially with housing. For a city to be liveable surely it must also be affordable? Personally I have limited experience of the cities in this years Top 25 but from those I do know about, the issue of escalating house prices is never off the front page. Vancouver is a great example. It is a city that regularly wins surveys for livability and quality of life yet suffers horribly from astronomical house prices. It raises the question of how long can the good times continue? Even the most creative of cities needs a core of service staff that cannot (and should not) have to pay top rates for city living. The solution........rent control and building more (affordable and desirable) homes.

2. London. Where is it? For the last three years the city has failed to place within the Top 25 list. It should not be ignored that Monocle is based in London and therefore the staff are open to all of the city's frustrations (as well as delights) which can easily count against it. The exotic is always more appealing and returning home after a foreign trip to the mundane aspects of home life is never fun. But since 2000 and the introduction of an elected Mayor, London has been unabashed in declaring itself the preeminent world city. From an urban planning standpoint the city has been nothing but ambitious since Ken Livingstone was elected and money was pumped into the Underground network whilst 'starchitects' were given almost free reign to build towers in central London.



So what's the problem? Here is my list:

• the high cost of public transport
• poor value for money on housing - small apartments at silly prices
• too heavy a reliance on the finance sector for jobs and value
  
• the risks of cycling on London's streets (could this change with the new velo scheme?)
• the poor use of the Thames for transport

My fix? Well, I think having the Greater London Authority as a strategic body has helped guide development and other cities in the UK should take note. But....housebuilding is still at very low rates and what is built, in terms of apartments, is still too small in terms of internal space. Taking cars off the roads in central areas would be my biggest wish as it could have multiple benefits. As for London in the Top 25, maybe next year?!