|
Focus Summer 2001 - Menu - Index -
Previous - Next
The Public Realm
Keith Briars, Planning Liaison Officer for
the London Borough of Croydon talked to the Society on 20th March.
Mr Briars works on the sixteenth floor of Taberner House, commanding
an excellent view of the Town Centre and beyond. He is a member
of the Urban Design team of the Planning and Development Department.
The Public Realm includes not only public
open spaces, but also the streets and open areas between or adjacent
to buildings of all kinds and, more debatably, covered-in areas
such as building foyers where these are open to the public, and
shopping malls, such as the Whitgift Centre.
The subject is a topical one, and references
to its importance are to be found in such key national documents
as the Urban Design Compendium, produced jointly by English partnerships
and the Housing Corporation, the DETR Good Practice Guide and
the Urban White Paper. English Heritage, the Greater London Authority
and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
have all made contributions recently to the philosophy and practice
of public spaces in urban design.
Street clutter had been identified as a major
problem. In January 2001 Croydon Council had hosted a teach-in
on this subject, led by English Heritage, with the purpose of
introducing local authority technical staff other than just planning
officers to the design principles advocated in the recent publication
of English Heritage "Streets for All"
Croydon Council's own contribution has been
contained in the 2020 Vision prepared by leading consultants
EDAW in consultation with major interests, including developers,
landowners and businesses. This inspirational master plan drawn
up in 1998 had been welcomed by the then Minister for London,
Nick Raynsford, and Croydon's success in town centre regeneration
had been recognized by a Beacon Award of the DETR.
Croydon Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance
on Vision 2020, Town Centre Public Realm and Movement Strategies
were all in preparation and would shortly be put out for consultation.
The Urban Design team was now able to take more of a lead in
coordinating urban design aspects of many Council activities,
which gave opportunities not previously available.
Practical progress was also being made. Small
but significant schemes aimed at improving the visual aspects
of the urban scene, reducing the scope for vandalism and providing
safe havens from the traffic had been carried out, such as the
Sydenham Road/Bedford Park roundel. Existing public areas called
for improvement, the Queens gardens in front of Taberner House
and College Green between the Fairfield Halls and Croydon College
being examples of this. The transport interchange at West Croydon,
where the tube extension would facilitate re-design, and the
market in Surrey Street were further examples. Full use would
be made of Section 106 agreements to require developers to effect
public realm provisions and improvements as a condition of planning
approval.
New proposals for the Town Centre such as
Croydon Gateway, on land in multi-ownership adjacent to East
Croydon station, the Centrale project and the Park Place development
would include public realm provisions, the latter involving the
regeneration of the Queen's Gardens
Some of the points made in the discussion
which followed Mr Briars's talk were:-
Increased recognition of the importance of
urban design in the redevelopment of Croydon and of the need
to avoid repeating the mistakes of the 1960s was welcomed.
The definition of "the public realm"
was unclear. Was it just the spaces between buildings or should
it be the whole public sector?
Street clutter through unnecessary signage,
duplication of traffic signals etc. was a major problem, not
only visually but also as an obstacle to free circulation by
pedestrians and especially people with disabilities.
2020 Vision was a step towards overall urban
planning in Croydon. It was not without serious defects, which
had been pointed out by the Society in its response; and the
consultation in its preparation had failed to include amenity
interests. Even with its defects, it was a strategic basis for
Croydon's redevelopment, and it was therefore disappointing to
see that developers were not being required to conform to its
provisions. The degrading of Katharine Street, which should have
become a spacious and dignified public square in front of the
Town Hall, but under the Park Place plan would be a narrow bus
corridor, was an example of this.
The East/West division of central Croydon
by Wellesley Road and Park Lane was a fundamental planning problem,
which 2020 Vision had failed to address. A radical solution,
such as roofing over the North/South traffic lanes to provide
broad pedestrian walkways, was needed, rather than the more passive
solution of introducing more pedestrian crossing points at grade,
as had been advocated by the consultants and accepted by the
Council.
The re-planning of the interchange at West
Croydon should not be allowed to wait for the possible extension
of the tube, which was several years off.
The absence of specific provision for families
and young people in the urban regeneration plans was regrettable.
Pubs and games arcades or expensive health clubs were not the
answer. A municipal swimming pool, affordable sports and training
facilities and safe areas for activities such as skateboarding
and rollerblading were needed.
The assumption that Croydon should be developed
still further as a shopping and commercial centre was questioned.
That policy would create insoluble traffic and transport problems.
2020 Vision and even more the permitted misinterpretations
and violations of it by developers would involve too high a density
of building in Central Croydon to afford an adequate public realm.
There must be less commercial space and more public space. This
could only come about if the Council used its planning powers
to ensure that the needs and wishes of the public were respected.
Developers were motivated by profit and in many cases had no
long-term interest in Croydon.
Mr Briars replied to the debate, acknowledging
the validity of many of the points made, but reminding his audience
that negotiation and compromise were inevitable in producing
the new Croydon.
Our thanks are due to Keith Briars for his
talk and his relevant slides and the opportunity it gave for
members to express their views on an important topic.
Geoffrey Myers
|