To return to Scottish Planner Extra February 2010, close this window or click here 

Design Codes and Their Impact on Sustainable Urban Places

John Walls, West of Scotland Chapter Convener, reports on lectures by Robert Adam and Sjoerd Soeters, experienced architects from the Department of Architecture at the University of Strathclyde, on 15 December 2009 on the use of codes to deliver sustainable urban places.

Robert Adam

Robert Adam’s talk was illustrated by his experiences in the development of Poundbury, Shepton Mallet and Granton Harbour, Edinburgh. The thrust of his talk indicated that the existence of a design code or masterplan improved the chances of delivering sustainable development. However, even having a code was no guarantee of success as the codes are always open to interpretation; not to mention they were likely to be under attack from those who are not going ‘to be convinced against their will’. He also observed that the existence of the code made it easier for the architect to persuade the client to adopt the right design principles and specifications.

In his view it was important to get the character description right from the outset; i.e. the type of place sought. He said that producing the design code was a team process; e.g. having a good highway engineer was important to get the basic road surfaces right. The code should make clear what you cannot do. It was also important that the developers were confident that other builders would follow the code.

Mr Adam stressed that one needed to anticipate problems and reduce them. For example, it was important to give consideration to the sourcing of materials; ideally local, but where not available, indicating alternative suitable sources. As regards performance rating of materials, it was important to require a performance level which was realistic in terms of cost. As will be appreciated, this means that much research has to be done during the preparation of the design code.

He also observed that they had introduced a gradation into the level of control, according to how important it was in terms of urban design. The aim was to provide the designer with some flexibility and opportunities for cost savings. These gradations ranged from 1 to 5, where 1 was mandatory to protect the integrity of the planned urban design quality and 5 was total freedom. Intriguingly the developers tended to prefer level 1, presumably because they prefer certainty.

Robert Adam noted that successful outcomes were often driven by a good agent. The key point being that choosing the right people is important irrespective of having a design code. He also observed that the code was limited to the outward face of the development and that the rest is based on market decisions – a not inconsiderable factor.

His examples chosen from Edinburgh's Granton Waterfront were more about masterplanning than a detailed design code. Mr Adam’s practice had developed a masterplan with basic building blocks and boulevards to provide the developers and their architects freedom to develop their own designs within these blocks. The overarching masterplan was tested for winds, sun and daylight. This had revealed why the original developments had been the way they were.

He stressed it was important to be flexible over time to accommodate a changing market place. This means that the land uses may have to change and so could impact not only on the masterplan but the marketing of the development.

Developers’ vision statements were evaluated only in a negative sense; i.e. only if it causes concern should it be questioned. For example, there was no need to question statements about ‘good quality development’. One practical observation was that public squares tended to be made too big. His advice to developers is to compare plans with traditional squares to get the sizing better.

In his closing remarks Mr Adam stressed that there is a need to be able to sell the development; i.e. be commercial. This meant the code had to take on board the number of units required for a viable development and then crafted to make livable accommodation; this means a lot of detail. Finally the code had to give the developer certainty, knowing that he was on a level-playing field with competitors.

Sjoerd Soeters

Mr Soeters opened by describing two types of architect; one who is a semi-god or genius and the other who uses a conceptual diagnostic approach (Vetruvius). In his view, architecture is too important to be left to geniuses. He illustrated his starting point by showing a few aerial shots of different cities to demonstrate the differences between places. The ‘footprints’ of different places were quite legible and informative to urban designers.

He then turned to Amsterdam and explained that the traditional buildings in Amsterdam are dictated by the strength of the beam; i.e. bay widths of 5 metres. Each house has its own barcode of fenestration. Therefore, from his point of view, any new development should have this sense of rhythm. Indeed this character has an economic value, making the development far more marketable.

He sees urban developments as a collage of enjoyable buildings and spaces but not memorable. Big buildings are impersonal and not congenial to the pedestrian environment. Moreover, they can be dangerous because the space is often not defensible. He further commented that the mediaeval town shrunk its public areas: in smaller spaces there is an increased chance of meeting people - see Life Between Buildings: Jan Gehl.

Mr Soeters then described his urban design approach to the regeneration of a large derelict quayside with warehouses on a long narrow island on the edge of Amsterdam, not far from Central Station. It was a challenging prospect. The island is about 1.5 kilometres long by 150 metres wide and linked by a bridge to the mainland. The surface level was 2 metres above the water-level, so from a pedestrian's point of view there was no connection with the water - and it was difficult to feed the ducks! Put simply it was a very boring linear site.

In terms of the preliminary masterplanning, Mr Soeters set out some very basic principles. The density was to be 100 houses per hectare. The island would be broken up by inserting canals across its width - madness to the engineers but liked by the client.  The developments would take the form of hollow squares and the water’s edge height would be reduced to 80 cm to reconnect the water with the pedestrian. Some buildings on the hollow square would be allowed to penetrate into the courtyard area to increase the level of supervision. In addition, the bridges and paths were located on a central spine to take shelter from the wind by running down the middle of the islands. These parameters were happily embraced by the developer.

At this stage the project was turned over to 20 young architects – young heroes – to transform these basic design principles into more detailed designs. They were provided with one page of guidelines to allow for creativity and variety. Models of their proposals had to be done in colour – apparently an anathema to architects

The resulting schemes were evaluated by testing against the short brief. This included testing the compatibility of adjacent buildings in the proposals; i.e. good manners. The grain of the development had to be linked to the Amsterdam geography. The fenestration barcode was important. The courtyard areas in the hollow squares were also important. Mr Soeters was looking for designs to make people happy – happy people have children and ensure that the space is well used. Balconies were not permitted on the external face but were allowed in the hollow square to increase supervision. The ground floor of the flats was raised 1.6m to allow for parking underneath. Undulation to the island was provided by the bridges between the islands and the play areas. The vitality of the development was further enhanced by the introduction of little boats on the little canals.

Mr Soeters concluded that the outcome had produced many 'genius touches' by the young architects. The open coding brief had produced an interesting patchwork quilt of development but nonetheless the overall effect was integrated. It proved to be very marketable and successful. The photographs of this completed scheme confirmed this appraisal to the author’s eyes.

He then moved on to a project in Copenhagen. While the circumstances were different, there was a strong resonance with the Amsterdam development just described. The key point of interest was that the Danish were expecting 1,600 dwellings on the site and Mr Soeters’ team had delivered 6,000. While this gave rise to interesting battles with both architects and engineers locally, the form and density of the development proved to be attractive and marketable. Of course, these numbers also helped the economics of the development in terms of all the infrastructure and engineering works required.

An overview

These Department of Architecture and Urban Design’s lectures on sustainable urban design provided an enjoyable, enlightening and even uplifting evening last December. The two speakers gave two different perspectives on delivering sustainable developments. Both were very experienced, working as they do at an international level in their fields. As a result, they were able to bear the skills and awareness of the world as it is in their talks. Most planners would easily have been able to sympathise with the points made by the speakers in relation to the value of urban design codes and masterplanning.

On the basis of past experience in development management in Scotland, I could relate to the advantages of a clear specific design code to provide certainty for developers. Even then it’s not necessarily easy because of different interpretations. As indicated by both speakers, dealing with good competent people was always more likely to produce a sustainable result.

The masterplanning approaches of both speakers were cast to encourage variety and vitality in new developments. This is introduced by involving a number of designers and developers to develop street blocks. This underlines the importance of team work in urban design. The Dutch example was particularly compelling. Who would reckon it would be possible to get an attractive development on a flat island 1.5 km long, 150 metres wide and 2 metres above water level? No me.

Both speakers featured marketability strongly – being commercial is important. To my mind they demonstrated the need not to undermine the objective of achieving good quality sustainable urban design. I hope that the young architects on the Strathclyde Urban Design Code learned a lot from the speakers. If so, we planners might find our tasks easier in future.

My thanks to the University for the invitation to the event and to the two outstanding speakers, Robert Adam and Sjoerd Soeters.

To return to Scottish Planner Extra February 2010, close this window or click here

Author:

James Henderson

Publisher:

The Royal Town Planning Institute

Date:

08-Mar-10

This article has been read 802 times.