ADAPTABLE ELEMENTS OF EDINBURGH’S NEW TOWN
A Dissertation submitted for Masters of Architecture (MArch) Degree Edinburgh College of Art University of Edinburgh
by David FC Sonka
First Reader: Derek Fraser SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE EDINBURGH COLLEGE OF ART
2009-2010
CONTENTS
List of Illustrations
ii
Abstract
01
Introduction
01
Case Study One The 1st New Town (Urban Adaptability)
09
Case Study Two 13-11 Melville Street (Commercial Adaptability by Reconfiguration)
28
Case Study Three St Andrew Square (Commercial Adaptability by Redevelopment)
47
Case Study Four The Moray Estate (Residential Adaptability)
59
Conclusions
72
Bibliography
77
List of Appendices
80
i David FC Sonka
03000436
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1: Appendix 1: The phases of Edinburgh's New Town
page 4
Source: authors work - original map source: Edina (2007) Digimap Collections Available from: <http://www.edina.ac.uk/digimap> [Accessed on 20th July 2010]
Figure 2: Appendix 2: James Craig's First New Town, as proposed page 9 Source: Youngson, A.J. (1966) The Making of Classical Edinburgh, Edinburgh, The Edinburgh University Press
Figure 3: The hierarchy of the First New Town plot
page 10
Source: authors work
Figure 4: the New Town townhouse with an early frontage (left) and later unified palatial frontage (right) page 11 Source: authors work
Figure 5: Appendix 3: The First New Town as built (Extract from the Kirkwood Map 1819). Townhouse frontage - Yellow, Tenement frontage - Orange, Merchant frontage - Red, Service frontage – Blue page 13 Source: authors work, Original image sourced from: Youngson, A.J. (1966) The Making of Classical Edinburgh, Edinburgh, The Edinburgh University Press
Figure 6: New Town tenement block configurations, flat above a townhouse (left) flats only (right) stairwell (centre) page 14 Source: authors work
ii David FC Sonka
03000436
Figure 7: Appendix 4: The contemporary First New Town, Commercial Office frontage - Green, Commercial Shop frontage - Red, Service – Blue page 16 Source: authors work - original map source: Edina (2007) Digimap Collections Available from: <http://www.edina.ac.uk/digimap> [Accessed on 20th July 2010]
Figure 8: Appendix 5 – First New Town Long Section
page 19
Source: authors work - original map source: Edina (2007) Digimap Collections Available from: <http://www.edina.ac.uk/digimap> [Accessed on 20th July 2010]
Figure 9: Appendix 6 – First New Town Section
page 19
Source: authors work - original map source: Edina (2007) Digimap Collections Available from: <http://www.edina.ac.uk/digimap> [Accessed on 20th July 2010]
Figure 10: Unified palatial frontage example found in Charlotte Square and subsequent New Town phases page 21 Source: McWilliam, C. (1973) Georgian Edinburgh: An Illustrated Record of the Eight Main Areas of the New Town Development 1750-1850, Edinburgh, Brunstane Press
Figure 11: Space Syntax diagram of Edinburgh City Centre - high integration value (red) low integration value (blue) page 22 Source: authors work
Figure 12: Left to Right: Strøget – Copenhagen, Zeedijk – Amsterdam, Rose Street – Edinburgh page24 Source: authors private collection
iii David FC Sonka
03000436
Figure 13: North side of Charlotte Square
page 28
Source: authors private collection
Figure 14: Princes Street
page 28
Source: authors private collection
Figure 15: Evolution House, West Port, Old Town
page 28
Source: authors private collection
Figure 16: Hopefield Development, Bonnyrigg, Midlothian
page 28
Source: CALA Group Limited. (2009) Cala Homes, Hopefield, Bonnyrigg Available from: <http://www.cala.co.uk/homes/development/Hopefield/Overview.aspx> [Accessed 30th July 2010]
Figure 17: Sluseholmen, Copenhagen
page 28
Source: Arkitema - People in Architecture www.arkitema.com, Sluseholmen Canal community with 1,000 dwellings Available from: <http://www.arkitema.com/Boliger+Living/Privat+boligbyggeri/Sluseholmen.as pxx> [Accessed on 18th August 2010]
Figure 18: appendix 7: The Western Extensions Phase, showing the hierarchy of streets and 11-13 Melville Street page 29 Source: authors work - original map source: Edina (2007) Digimap Collections Available from: <http://www.edina.ac.uk/digimap> [Accessed on 20th July 2010]
Figure 19: commercial adaptation of the New Town plot
page 30
Source: authors work
iv David FC Sonka
03000436
Figure 20: Left to right, mews stable typologies to the rear of 11-13 Melville Street showing adaption to commercial floor space, through access to the former private garden space and additional car parking. page 31 Source: authors work
Figure 21: the second townhouse frontage to Randolph Lane
page 33
Source: Microsoft Corporation (2010) Bing maps Available from: <http://www.bing.com/maps/> [Accessed on 20th July 2010]
Figure 22: Appendix 8: typical modular division of a townhouse terrace, as built (red) post commercial adaptation (blue) page 35 Source: McWilliam, C. (1973) Georgian Edinburgh: An Illustrated Record of the Eight Main Areas of the New Town Development 1750-1850, Edinburgh, Brunstane Press
Figure 23: Typical original layout of a 3 storey New Town townhouse page 36 Source: authors work, original CAD drawings: Debenham Tie Leung: International Property Advisors (2006) Sourced from: (The) City of Edinburgh Council. (2010) Planning and Building Standards Portal Available from: <http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/portal/portal.jsp> [Accessed 20th July 2010]
Figure 24: 11-13 Melville Street, Commercial Adaptation
page 38
Source: authors work, original CAD drawings: Debenham Tie Leung: International Property Advisors (2006) Sourced from: (The) City of Edinburgh Council. (2010) Planning and Building Standards Portal Available from: <http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/portal/portal.jsp> [Accessed 20th July 2010]
Figure 25: A FFL Drawing Room
page 40
Source: authors private collection
v David FC Sonka
03000436
Figure 26: A Porch adapted as a Commercial Foyer
page 40
Source: authors work
Figure 27: 23 St Andrew Square (centre)
page 48
Source: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) Edinburgh, 23 - 23a St Andrew Square, Exchange Bank Of Scotland Available from: <http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/52418/digital_images/edinburgh+23+2 3a+st+andrew+square+exchange+bank+of+scotland/> [Accessed on 18th August 2010]
Figure 28: 27-28 St Andrew Square, Scottish Equitable Life Assurance, J.M Dick Peddie and George Washington Browne, 1899 page 48 Source: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) Edinburgh, 27, 28, 29 St Andrew Square, Scottish Equitable Life Insurance Company Available from: <http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/114995/digital_images/edinburgh+27+ 28+29+st+andrew+square+scottish+equitable+life+insurance+company/> [Accessed on 18th August 2010]
Figure 29: 23 St Andrew Square, Section showing current configuration page 50 Source: authors work, original image source: Microsoft Corporation (2010) Bing maps Available from: <http://www.bing.com/maps/> [Accessed on 20th July 2010]
Figure 30: 23 St Andrew Square, 1929 layout, Dick Peddie and McKay Architects (left – right: GFL, FFL, 2FL, 3FL) page 50 Source: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) Edinburgh, 23 - 23a St Andrew Square, Exchange Bank Of Scotland Available from:
vi David FC Sonka
03000436
<http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/52418/digital_images/edinburgh+23+2 3a+st+andrew+square+exchange+bank+of+scotland/> [Accessed on 18th August 2010]
Figure 31: 27-28 St Andrew Square, GFL Plan 1899, J.M Dick Peddie and George Washington Browne page 53 Source: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) Edinburgh, 27, 28, 29 St Andrew Square, Scottish Equitable Life Insurance Company Available from: <http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/114995/digital_images/edinburgh+27+ 28+29+st+andrew+square+scottish+equitable+life+insurance+company/> [Accessed on 18th August 2010]
Figure 32: 27-28 St Andrew Square, GFL plan, 2010, Lime House Design Partnership page 53 Source: authors work, original CAD drawings: Lime House Design Partnership (2010) Sourced from: (The) City of Edinburgh Council. (2010) Planning and Building Standards Portal Available from: <http://citydevportal.edinburgh.gov.uk/portal/portal.jsp> [Accessed 20th July 2010]
Figure 33: serviced and service configuration of the original townhouse plot page 57 Source: authors work
Figure 34: serviced and service configuration of the commercially redeveloped plot page 57 Source: authors work
Figure 35: Space Diagram for Residential Conversion
page 60
Source: authors work
vii David FC Sonka
03000436
Figure 36: The subdivision of the townhouse into the reduced townhouse, basement flat and mews house with garages page 61 Source: authors work, original image source: Microsoft Corporation (2010) Bing maps Available from: <http://www.bing.com/maps/> [Accessed on 20th July 2010]
Figure 37: various locations showing the variance between the LGFL and street level page 63 Source: authors work
Figure 38: A Basement Flat entrance which has been personalised by the occupant page 64 Source: authors work
Figure 39: red lines indicate the original terraced configuration of the stables. Highlighted areas show the reconfiguration of the properties to from mews housing page 66 Source: authors work
Figure 40: new build and historic versions of the mews house typology page 67 Source: authors work
Figure 41: No. 10 Circus Lane front
page 68
Source: Richard Murphy Architects Ltd. (2010) Mews House, 10a Circus Lane, Edinburgh Available from: <http://www.richardmurphyarchitects.com/projects/280/ > [Accessed 18th August 2010]
viii David FC Sonka
03000436
Figure 42: No. 10 Circus Lane rear
page 68
Source: Richard Murphy Architects Ltd. (2010) Mews House, 10a Circus Lane, Edinburgh Available from: <http://www.richardmurphyarchitects.com/projects/280/ > [Accessed 18th August 2010]
Figure 43: Bo-01, Malmo, Sweden, Van Gehl Architects
page 71
Source: Gehl Architects Available from: <http://www.gehlarchitects.com/> [Accessed on 30th July 2010]
Figure 44: Shared Surface on South Castle Street
page 72
Source: authors private collection
ix David FC Sonka
03000436
ABSTRACT When it comes to the need for change and modernisation, many city districts face demolition and redevelopment. Contrary to this Edinburgh‟s New Town has adapted to suit a variety of different uses and has survived many attitudes towards architecture and urban design. There is no doubt that the New Town is a successful development which is robust enough to withstand time and change. This research is intended to examine the aspects of design within the New Town that contribute to its robustness. Determining these aspects would allow for their inclusion in current development, providing them with a similar robustness. INTRODUCTION The first mentions of the laying out of new streets to the North of the City of Edinburgh can be traced back to papers written by the Earl of Mar in 1726, Gifford and Wilson (1991). However, the prospects for a New Town for the city of Edinburgh were not given serious consideration until it was suggested by Sir Gilbert Elliot Minto in his 1752 pamphlet: “Proposals for Carrying on certain Public Works in the City of Edinburgh”, Lowrey (2001). According to Lowrey, the pamphlet discussed a number of issues facing the city that were eroding its status, notably in comparison to London. Since the acts of union between Scotland and England in 1603 and more importantly, 1707, Edinburgh lost its political power and much of its significance to London.
The aristocratic classes and cultural elite were deserting Edinburgh in
favour of London. This was not only because of the shift in political power, but also because of London‟s favourable conditions.
According to Lowrey, Sir Gilbert Elliot
Minto compared London to Edinburgh:
1 David FC Sonka
03000436
London has every advantage: “Even upon the most superficial view, we cannot fail to remark its healthful, unconfined situation, upon a large plain, gently shelving towards the Thames.” Elliot goes on to praise its beautiful streets and squares, its bridges and great public buildings, including two Houses of Parliament and the Law Courts. One of the major benefits of all of this is the economic well-being, not only of London, but the whole of South Britain (i.e., England). Edinburgh, by contrast, is presented as a city of horrendous congestion, with poor amenities and almost entirely lacking in the great public buildings we would expect a capital city to have.” The conclusions of Elliot‟s pamphlet was for the laying out of new streets on the lands north of the city which sloped down to the banks of the Firth of Forth, very much like London slopes to the Thames. Elliot therefore surmised that if Edinburgh was to expand in a similar fashion to London, it could hold on to the elite and aristocrats of society that were abandoning it in favour of London and therefore reap the same benefits.
The proposal was well accepted by the then Lord Provost
Drummond, who set about realising the New Town, Gifford and Wilson (1991). Announcing a competition for a master plan for the New Town in 1766, the design belonging to James Craig was chosen, Volker (1999); construction began in 1767, Gifford and Wilson (1991). Craig‟s plan for the district that is now known as the First New Town (figures 1-2) was a radical departure from medieval layouts of the Old Town of Edinburgh. According to Gifford and Wilson (1991) possible precedents for the First New Town included Robert and John Adams design for Inveraray, Argyll of 1747 for its grid iron hierarchal layout with a central street and axial square and the City of Bath for its one sided terraced streets. Strict design guidelines called for
2 David FC Sonka
03000436
unified contemporary architecture built upon a geometric arrangement of streets based on a strict hierarchy, Coutts (1977). Set street widths and building heights, together with more than a tenth of the New Town consisting of open space for private pleasure grounds, Byrom (1995) ensured that the New Town would be open, airy and light.
So successful was Craigâ€&#x;s First New Town, additional extensions,
based on similar principals were planned and executed before it was even completed in 1820, planning for the Second New Town began in 1792 and was under construction by the 1810â€&#x;s, Gifford and Wilson (1991). In 1791, Robert Adam evolved the concept of street unity that the standardized plots of the new town were pioneering when he designed the palatial frontages of Charlotte Square. Although the residences behind these facades were little different from the rest of the New Town, the appearance of their blocks as singular buildings presented an iconic civic gesture. The palatial frontage was adopted with great success for the much of subsequent development of the New Town, Gifford and Wilson (1991). Since the turn of the nineteenth century, the demand for property in the New Town began to change from a residential to a commercial one, Gifford and Wilson (1991), instead of redevelopment, many aspects of the New Town, including its buildings were adapted to these new uses. Despite an ever changing remit for use and demand, the New Town of Edinburgh has been able to address its new requirements and adapt to suit them. Where more recent developments are unable to adapt to new uses and are subsequently replaced,
the aim of this research is to identify particular design
characteristics of Edinburghâ€&#x;s New Town that are attributes of its robust and
3 David FC Sonka
03000436
adaptable design. It will examine those characteristics and determine firstly how they in themselves have adapted over time to suit the changing uses of the New Town and secondly, how they have aided the New Town as a whole to adapt to its changes in requirements and uses. The ultimate aim will be to determine design characteristics
that
could
then
be
considered
for
current
contemporary
developments.
Figure 1: Appendix 1: The phases of Edinburgh's New Town
The design of the New Town will be evaluated by a series of examples which will vary in use and scale to
encompass various aspects.
The examples will be
evaluated against four criteria which will address the objectives of this research, the purpose being to identify and determine any design characteristics of the example that contribute to the New Towns robustness as an adaptable urban model. The criteria will consist of: space, function, scale and architectural typology. The criteria of space will examine the relationship between the constituent elements which make up the New Town. Beginning from the primary townhouses, to their
4 David FC Sonka
03000436
rear, their connection with their private gardens and ancillary buildings will be discussed. To the front, the houses connection with first the street via its threshold and then the private shared gardens beyond will be discussed.
The criteria of
function will be concerned with the adaptable built form of the New Townâ€&#x;s buildings. It will investigate the layout of each example, analysing how the use of specific spaces have changed in each circumstance. This will lead to the identifying any consistencies in the pattern of adaptation. The criteria of scale will examine aspects such as the mass, width and height of each example and their component parts, its ratioâ€&#x;s compared to other elements of its environment such as the building to the street will be investigated. This will vary considerably according to each example. Elements such as the unified frontages and the street as an object will be brought to light under this criterion. This final criterion of architectural typology will focus on the various features found in the architecture of the chosen examples; this is likely to include materials, craftsmanship, windows, steps, entranceways and other design embellishments (decoration). Each of these criteria will be placed against the four chosen examples as applicable, those being The First New Town (Urban Adaptability), 13-11 Melville Street (Commercial Adaptation), The North Side of St Andrew Square (Commercial Adaptability by Redevelopment) and The Moray Estate (Modern Residential Adaptation). At the end of each example the findings will be evaluated and any contributing design aspects found will be discussed. As a matter of investigation, any aspects found to detract from the robustness of the New Town will also be discussed.
5 David FC Sonka
03000436
A varying range of methodologies will be employed to evaluate each example against the criteria. The criteria of space will be considered through the study of historical maps and plans. Literature reviews of previous work already carried out on the subject and personal on-site investigation will be utilised. As the history and development of the New Town is well documented, a literature review will provide valuable insight of previous analysis into the characteristics of the New Town, notably from a historical perspective.
A literature review will also provide a
referenced source for drawings and plans. Personal on-site investigation will allow for a non-biased and wholly accountable interpretation of the subject, this will aid presentation of accurate conclusions as much of the literature referred to as part of the research will be able to be tested or confirmed. To evaluate the criteria of function (adaptable built form), the original and adapted layout and configurations of the chosen examples will be examined. The will be done by the study of planning documents that will be sourced from the City of Edinburgh Council Planning Department and archives.
On-site observations will
provide an understanding of the examples in their current configurations. The criteria of scale will be examined through the study of historical and current maps and planning documents. Literature reviews and on-site analysis. On site analysis will provide insight into the proportion of the varying scales of the New Town from the human perspective.
Regarding the criteria of architectural typology, a
literature review of pre-existing studies regarding the original architectural style of the New Town can be compared with the architecture as it exists today through on-site examination. Intermediate adaptations may be found through the study of historical
6 David FC Sonka
03000436
plans.
Such comparisons should allow for the identification of the most robust
features of the original architectural styles that have remained in place despite the extent of adaptation that has been undertaken.
Given that the New Town is a
protected area and many of elements of its architectural style must be preserved, this section will examine how the adaptations accommodate the architectural style as much as it will examine how the architectural style accommodates the adaptations.
7 David FC Sonka
03000436
EXAMPLE ONE: The First New Town (Urban Adaptability)
Figure 2: Appendix 2: James Craig's First New Town, as proposed
James Craig‟s proposal for the First New Town was awarded in 1766 and construction of the East End began in conjunction with the building of North Bridge and the draining of the Nor‟ Loch (now Princes Street Gardens) in 1767, Gifford and Wilson (1991). Development continued in an East to West direction and culminated in the construction of Charlotte Square (originally titled St George‟s Square in Craig‟s proposal (figure 2)).
8 David FC Sonka
03000436
Space
Figure 3: The hierarchy of the First New Town plot
Craig designed his New Town around a four level street hierarchy, different elements were intended to accommodate different functions and were therefore varied from one another to best suit their intended functions. Figure 3 above shows a plan of a single First New Town development plot (historically treated as a feu), this slice through the hierarchy of the First New Town demonstrates the relation between the constituent elements as they were originally planned by Craig. The First New Town was intended to appeal to the upper classes of 16th century society, Lowrey (2001) and hence its design was based around the townhouse located on the principal streets and squares (figure 4).
Beginning with the
9 David FC Sonka
03000436
townhouse, to its front it is typically set back from the street by a threshold which is created by way of the Lower Ground Floor Level (LGFL) access. This necessitated the requirement of a bridge over the threshold to access the main entrance, the bridge is usually raised by a varying number of steps as the level difference between the Ground Floor Level (GFL) and the street level is seldom even. The effect of the raised bridge enhances the status and importance of the townhouse entrance.
Figure 4: the New Town townhouse with an early frontage (left) and later unified palatial frontage (right)
Beyond this is a wide street, the width of the street as well as the building heights were determined in Craigâ€&#x;s original design to ensure that they would present an open and diffused space, this was partly in response to the enclosed nature of the Old Town of Edinburgh which had the a notoriously high building height to street width ratio, Birrell (1986). The width of the street also allowed for appreciation of the scale of the townhouse terraces which were often well embellished with architectural decoration and which also evolved to become unified frontages. In Princes Street, Queen Street, St Andrew Square and Charlotte Square, opposite the townhouse terraces are private shared gardens. Access to the gardens was intended to be exclusive to the residents of the development, who used them as private pleasure
10 David FC Sonka
03000436
grounds.
The concept of the residents‟ private shared gardens is one which
developed as the New Town phases progressed, whilst later gardens were inclusive of the development, the initial gardens on Queen Street gardens and Princes Street were developed by the streets residents independently, Byrom (1995). To the rear of the townhouse was a private garden which lead to the service lane, a stable and coach housing were typically built here at the discretion of the resident. The private garden was an enclosed space which was accessed from the service level situated on the LGFL, it was most frequently used as an outdoor utility space such as for the drying of clothes or as a children‟s play area, Byrom (1995). The stable and coach house led onto a service lane which was the narrowest street and lowest in Craig‟s hierarchy. The lane streets provided access to the stables as well as to service the rear of the merchants‟ shops and workshops which fronted onto the narrower merchant streets which run East West between the primary streets. Function The criteria of function will examine the layout of Craig‟s plan. It will firstly look at the Craig‟s original New Town as built, and then it will look at these same aspects in their current form. By contrasting the original proposal against the present situation, it can be determined how the plan has adapted through time.
11 David FC Sonka
03000436
Figure 5: Appendix 3: The First New Town as built (Extract from the Kirkwood Map 1819). Townhouse frontage - Yellow, Tenement frontage - Orange, Merchant frontage - Red, Service frontage - Blue
Although the Georgian townhouse built for the upper classes is the most numerous building typology of the First New Town, the original plan did contain a variety of housing types to suit a range of residents from across the social spectrum of the period. Other housing typologies included tenement flats, smaller scale townhouses for the middle classes, merchant housing and shop frontages for traders and servant accommodation for the working classes (figure 5). These different housing types were located on separate streets which made up Craigâ€&#x;s hierarchy. This hierarchy was based upon four levels. The primary streets made up the first and second levels of the hierarchy.
The principal level was
intended to provide for the grandest of townhouses (shown on figure 5 in yellow) and was situated along the East West routes of George Street, Princes Street and Queen Street as well as around St Andrew Square and Charlotte Square. George Street was intended to be the primary street of the First New Town; it was given the widest boulevard, is centrally located and has the highest elevation. Princes Street and Queen Street provided the unparalleled views across the residents' private pleasure gardens. St Andrew Square and Charlotte Square provided equally open vistas onto
12 David FC Sonka
03000436
gardens. The North South routes lacked the advantage of having private shared gardens for the residents and the superior view that they provide and hence were not as desirable for development as townhouses. These streets form the second tier of the hierarchy and were almost exclusively developed as tenement flats; some shop frontages occupied their GFL‟s and LGFL‟s from the outset, Gifford and Wilson (1991).
Tenement flats of the New Town would either sit above standard
townhouses and radiate of a central stairwell situated between terraced townhouses, or they would occupy the entire townhouse block with the possibility of the GFL flat retaining an independent entrance to the street, the latter being more common in the North South streets of the First New Town (figure 6).
Figure 6: New Town tenement block configurations, flat above a townhouse (left) flats only (right) stairwell (centre)
The third level of the hierarchy is the narrower secondary East West streets of Rose Street and Thistle Street (including Hill Street and Young Street sections of Thistle Street).
Craig intended these streets to contain smaller scale townhouses for
workers and shops. The final level of Craig‟s hierarchy consists of the lanes which run between the principal and secondary East-West streets and are accessed from
13 David FC Sonka
03000436
the secondary streets. These lanes were intended to provide service access to the rear of the properties of the other streets, allocating all service access to these lanes meant that the principal streets were kept free from the problems of stable accommodation and the secondary streets were kept free from deliveries and workshops facing onto the street. Over its lifetime the occupants of the First New Town have altered considerably from those for whom it was designed. Today, the area is mostly a commercial centre for the city. The majority of premises contain small to medium office based businesses, with some larger complexes situated primarily in the East end. The southern streets of Princes Street and Rose Street as well as George Street have almost entirely been given over to shopping as have the southern sections of the North South routes. Residential properties are now rare on the primary and secondary streets and the squares. However, the recent development of small scale mews housing in the tertiary service lanes is beginning to reverse this trend. The current map in figure 7 shows that although the buildings have changed in their use and form. That as the layout of the streets are unchanged, the hierarchal model with the service lanes in particular is still an efficient layout for the commercial district as it was for the 16 th century residential district.
14 David FC Sonka
03000436
Figure 7: Appendix 4: The contemporary First New Town, Commercial Office frontage - Green, Commercial Shop frontage - Red, Service - Blue
Figure 7 shows the primary and secondary streets, originally containing residential units, they are now entirely dominated by commercial use, either office based (green) or as shops (red). The contemporary First New Town that is a part of 21st century Edinburgh demonstrates how Craigâ€&#x;s urban layout to has adapted to a new demand. Although many of the plots (feus) have been redeveloped, this further validates the adaptability of the plot because of its configuration and its association within the urban layout. This is best demonstrated by Princes Street, Rose Street and their respective service lanes. The plots along these streets have undergone significant changes in use and configuration. In many circumstances the original townhouses have been replaced by buildings several times their size. Despite the vast difference, the new buildings still have their main entrance on the primary streets and are serviced from the tertiary lanes. The narrow width of the lanes has allowed for the largest of the
15 David FC Sonka
03000436
new buildings to outgrow their original plots by bridging over the lanes to establish a presence on the secondary streets (The George Hotel, the Debenhams Department Store and the Marks and Spencers building being examples of this.) The various sizes of the plots allow for a variety of commercial typologies as they originally allowed for a variety of residential typologies. Small scale boutiques and pubs are common place on the smaller plots along the secondary streets, where as the combining of larger plots on the primary streets has allowed for the creation of larger premises such as office complexes, hotels and department stores. Scale and Architectural Typology The First New Town was planned and built as a distinct and isolated development out with the then current city. Today, the First New Town is firmly in the centre of the greatly expanded city, yet features of its layout distinguish it as a distinct district with solid boundaries. A number of elements of the Craigâ€&#x;s layout contribute to this. The primary East West streets have well defined terminations.
George Street is
terminated at each end by St Andrew Square and Charlotte Square which act as dumbbells. The dumbbell typology is a proven method of containment, commonly used in contemporary applications for the design of shopping centres. As squares, the termination points of George Street are strong and identifiable locations, this allows them to act as anchor points. The street, which in urban terms conveys a weaker sense of place, can then stretch between these anchor points. Princes Street and Queen Street lead onto other districts but their terminations at the districtâ€&#x;s boundaries are defined by the location of landmark structures and street junctions, changes in the direction of the route also mark the termination of the street
16 David FC Sonka
03000436
and district. York Place and Waterloo Place which extend Queen Street and Princes Street to the east respectively can be construed as exceptions to this. Although these streets technically belong to later phases of the New Town, they lead their surrogate streets to the suitable terminations at Picardy Place and Calton Hill (figure 1). Queen Street is also extended at its West end by Glenfinnian Street and St Colme Street which belong to the Moray Estate phase and therefore can be construed as an exception also.
However, as can be seen on Craigâ€&#x;s original
proposals (figure 2), Queen Street was always intended to be terminated at the West end in this fashion.
It was a misinterpretation of the boundaries of the Earl of
Morayâ€&#x;s property which led to North West section of the First New Town being restricted, Gifford and Wilson (1991). The unusual curve at the junction of Queen Street and North Charlotte Street demonstrates the boundary line in figure 7. The district is contained to the North and South by the presence of Queen Street Gardens and Princes Street Gardens. Although the North South routes of the First New Town continue beyond the boundaries the presence of such distinctive and expansive park lands act as a threshold signifying the districts edge. The First New Town contains a hierarchy of streets designed to suit different functions (figure 7). To suit this variety each street type was designed to varying scales and to intersect one another in specific ways, forming their distinct block pattern. As each street type is distinctive in its scale and purpose it is easy for one to identify their location within the district as well as to identify primary or intended routes of movement through the district.
17 David FC Sonka
03000436
Figure 8: Appendix 5: First New Town Long Section
Figure 9: Appendix 6: First New Town Section
Figures 8 and 9 show cross sections through Craigâ€&#x;s First New Town development. The greatest distinction is between the wide diffused boulevards of the principal streets and the narrow enclosed spaces of the secondary merchant streets of Rose Street and Thistle Street. The wide diffused boulevards of George Street, Princes Street and Queen Street were a response to the 18th century cultural eliteâ€&#x;s
18 David FC Sonka
03000436
dissatisfaction with the cramped and poor conditions of the Old Town when compared to their equivalent country estates and modern developments in London, Lowrey (2001). According to Birrell (1986), Craig therefore planned his principal streets to be of a specific width and height, George Street was to be 100ft (30m) wide with the building line not exceeding three storeys plus an attic level. Princes Street, Queen Street and the North South Routes were to be 80ft (24m) wide with heights the same as George Street. The LGFL service entrance which created a threshold between the townhouses and the street added to these dimensions further and were all of the same mandatory width of 8ft (2.4m). These strict dimensions ensured that these streets were always wider than what their buildings were high and thus ensured an open and diffused environment.
That Princes Street and
Queen Street are both open on one side enhances their open quality further. The width of the primary streets appealed to the original residents of the New Town as they contributed to the streets civic qualities, which aided in creating a sense of place within the street. The presenting of a unified frontage in the form of the palatial frontages pioneered on Charlotte Square contributed to the creation of the civic space further.
Although the palatial frontages only became common towards
completion of the First New Town they were continued in subsequent phases. The palatial approach to the unified terrace design works in conjunction with the other elements of the primary routes, such as the wide street and pleasure grounds to achieve the palace effect. This approach to architecture was concerned with the civic space of the street rather than the architecture of the individual plots. Although the design of the unified facade tended to become more embellished towards the
19 David FC Sonka
03000436
ends and centre, this did not bear any significance to the townhouses behind the facade, as each tended to be very similar in layout.
The focus on the unified
frontage is further demonstrated by the lack of design afforded toward the rear of the townhouses, Wallace (1972), (figure 10).
Figure 10: Unified palatial frontage example found in Charlotte Square and subsequent New Town phases
The wide boulevards are of appeal in the contemporary New Town for new and original reasons. As it appealed to the original high end residents, the grandness of the civic architecture now appeals to high end business. The availability of wide pavements for shoppers and wide parallel traffic routes for differing transport solutions are new reasons. In the original townhouse, the GFL and First Floor Level (FFL) were used as the primary living levels and therefore had greater proportions. In the contemporary New Town, the high floor to ceiling ratios are ideal for conversion to shop frontages. Princes Street is Edinburghâ€&#x;s principal thoroughfare and is the principal gathering point for the city. The open environment created by the vista across the city on its southern side enhances its capacity as the principal gathering point, events such as the annual Hogmanay celebrations and the festival fireworks attract persons to the street for its connectivity and its vista. Space syntax allows for the identification of a streets integration value within its urban context. The integration value of a street
20 David FC Sonka
03000436
determines how accessible it is from all other points, thereby demonstrating its connectivity. When Edinburgh is subjected to a space syntax study (figure 11), Princes Street clearly stands as having the highest value and is therefore the most accessible street in Edinburgh. This explains the upturn in demand for retail on Princes Street, as it became the natural migration point for the city. The space syntax also demonstrates the hierarchy of the First New Town model. The principal streets have high integration values whilst the less significant tertiary lanes, being only accessible via the secondary streets have lower values.
Figure 11: Space Syntax diagram of Edinburgh City Centre - high integration value (red) low integration value (blue)
21 David FC Sonka
03000436
The narrower secondary streets of the First New Town are of a different scale to the primary routes as they were intended to address other requirements within Craigâ€&#x;s master plan; these streets are narrower than their buildings are high. According to Coutts (1977), Craig intended the height of buildings on Rose Street and Thistle Street to be only two storeys plus an attic level, however lax enforcement of guidelines resulted in the initial phases being built as three storey buildings plus an attic level. The three storey limit was allowed to continue so as to maintain the uniform appearance of the street, Gifford and Wilson (1991). Streets of proportions as that of Rose Street present the feeling of a human scale and conform to Jan Gehlâ€&#x;s
theories
on
multiple
active
frontages
and
are
hence
ideal
for
pedestrianisation. Jan Gehl has conducted research relating to the effect of the civic nature and architecture of cities upon the pedestrian, his conclusions propose the re-orientation of the city towards the pedestrian using several techniques. His theories include that of multiple active frontages, which argues that the desirability of a street to a pedestrian is enhanced if that street has a wide variety of active frontages to engage their interest. Active frontages are most numerous on Rose Street as shops, bars and cafes, their activity is further enhanced by awnings and outdoor displays and seating areas. Street performances and retail carts further add to active variety within the street. As Rose Street is narrow, both sides are well connected with the pedestrian at the same time, this also further increases the level of active frontages presented to the pedestrian. The enclosed atmospheres of streets such as Rose Street are ideal for smaller businesses as they are able to project a substantial
22 David FC Sonka
03000436
presence on to their location. The lack of traffic provides a friendlier pedestrian environment which is further enhanced by the commercial unit‟s space to extend their premises out into the street space with extra seating or display space. Similarities
can
be
drawn
between
Rose
Street,
Copenhagen‟s
Strøget,
Amsterdam‟s Zeedijk as well as numerous other locations, where pedestrianisation has also been carried out to positive effect, (figure 12).
Figure 12: Left to Right: Strøget – Copenhagen, Zeedijk – Amsterdam, Rose Street – Edinburgh
Evaluation The evaluation of the urban layout of the First New Town district has revealed several qualities which bring into question current day approaches to urban design. Amongst these observations is the defining of the area as a distinct district, the inclusion of a street hierarchy with strict guidelines governing what is permitted on each street, variance in the scale of each street type and the approach to the districts architecture from the streets point of view rather than that of the building. As the First New Town district has well defined boundaries, it maintains a strong sense of place and presence within the greater city. A benefit of this is the exclusivity that can be placed upon it. As long as the area remains desirable, the pressures on
23 David FC Sonka
03000436
space created by the limits of confines ensures high property values, this is akin to the 1sqm City of London financial district. Craigâ€&#x;s use of a strictly enforced hierarchy allowed for the instigation of the other positive features of his master plan. By using a hierarchy, Craig ensured all of the plots along the length of each street were of the same proportion and layout. This in turn led to the ability to create a single modular design for each street type. Lastly as each street was of a particular status, function and typology, it became straightforward to create an appropriate unified street frontage (in Charlotte Square and subsequent development). The use of a hierarchy also ensures the inclusion of various types of property development. As it has been identified, the First New Town contained four typologies of residential accommodation which were intended to cater for residents from across the social spectrum of the era. The street hierarchy has adapted to a commercial use successfully as it allows a premises to separate its „front of houseâ€&#x; activities on the primary or secondary streets from its service activities on the tertiary lanes. Many modern developments do not adopt this system of a hierarchy to same level of commitment and therefore cannot provide a sense of distinction as to what should be a primary street and what should be a service street. The street hierarchy of the First New Town provided a range of streets that varied in width and height that allowed them to adapt to different requirements.
Modern developments, as well as tending to lack a hierarchy by
means of layout, tend to lack variance in street scale. The adaptability of streets to suit differing requirements could be difficult if all of those streets are the same and are connected to one another in the same way.
To be successful, residential
24 David FC Sonka
03000436
districts require variety.
The range of Craigâ€&#x;s street types and their respective
guidelines ensured a variety of typologies would occur. As these guidelines were strictly enforced, the buildings of each street were designed and built very similarly to each other. As the buildings of each particular street are similar in nature, they can all be adapted in a similar fashion, allowing the entire street to easily adapt from one use to another. Although, variety can vary in modern residential developments, this is rarely done with commitment to a strict hierarchy of residential typology or street layout. Therefore different scales of buildings and various plot sizes tend to be intermingled with one another, removing the possibility for a unified street that can be easily adapted to alternative use. The First New Town initiated the concept of the unified street frontage with the construction of Charlotte Square.
In most contemporary streets, there typically
exists a plethora of architecture in a range of styles and periods. In their own right, these buildings can be fine examples of architecture, yet together the conflict of opposing styles can detract from the overall quality of each building, this is best demonstrated by the New Townâ€&#x;s Princes Street, where the redevelopment has been allowed to occur without any consideration for the civic spaces overall appearance. Figures 13 and 14 show the contrast between the unified appearances of the properties on the North side of Charlotte Square compared to the ensemble of conflicting architectural styles of the separate buildings that have been allowed to develop along Princes Street. Though this is point is not intended to suggest that any new development in historic areas should replicate the historical architecture of the said area, it does suggest that
25 David FC Sonka
03000436
contemporary development in these areas should be based on similar architectural principals as its period neighbours and follow original design coding.
Evolution
House located on the West Port of Edinburgh‟s Old Town (figure 14) is an example of how this can be achieved, though it is a contemporary building firmly representative of the 21st century, its plan and elevation is based on the rigg and close system that is both common throughout the Old Town and practical for its topography. By taking such considerations into account, this modern building fits comfortably within its historic surroundings. The final point regarding the unified street frontage is the advantage of the collective pride that can be instilled by the grand appearance of the New Town‟s „palaces‟. Modern development such as the „townhouse‟ development at Hopefield, Midlothian is an example of how the civic approach to designing architecture for the street is no longer being carried out, instead each of the new „townhouses‟ are defined as separate properties (figure 15), encouraging the residents to focus their pride on their own particular slice of the terrace. The Sluseholmen development in Copenhagen (figure 16) can be seen as an example of a contemporary approach to the unified palatial frontage. According to Arkitema, who were its lead architects, though each house in the terrace is distinguishable, each facade was designed according to strict coding and guidelines, which allows them to relate to one another in a unified sense.
The appeal of
celebrity architecture can also be cited as a link between the success of the frontages of both the New Town terraces and Sluseholmen. As it tends to be in many areas of the arts, prospective residents were keen to buy a property in the New Town if its frontage had been designed by the well known architects of the time. As a result of this, Royal Circus designed by William Henry Playfair and Charlotte
26 David FC Sonka
03000436
Square designed by Robert Adam proved to be amongst the most successful terraces in the New Town, Gifford and Wilson (1991). According to their website, www.arkitema.com, by employing well established as well as young up and coming architects to design the various frontages for Sluseholmen, Arkitema encouraged a similar euphoria.
Figure 13: North side of Charlotte Square
Figure 14: Princes Street
Figure 15: Evolution House, West Port, Old Town
Figure 16: Hopefield Development, Bonnyrigg, Midlothian
Figure 17: Sluseholmen, Copenhagen
27 David FC Sonka
03000436
EXAMPLE TWO: 11– 13 Melville Street (Commercial Adaption)
Figure 18: Appendix 7: The Western Extensions Phase, showing the hierarchy of streets and 11-13 Melville Street
According to Gifford and Wilson (1991) the Western Extensions phase of the New Town was laidout in 1823 (figure 18). Development was ongoing throughout the 1830‟s. As it was a much later phase of the New Town, the architectural style of the Western Extensions had advanced from the Georgian concepts familiar in Craig‟s First New Town, the inclusion of bay windows and arched entry ways are examples of the newer architectural attitudes. However, most changes were purely cosmetic and the layout and principals of the Western Extensions was highly similar to those that were inaugurated by Craig‟s master plan and augmented by Robert Adams palatial frontages. Melville Street was begun in 1814 and completed by 1833 as a palatial frontage designed by Robert Brown. It was intended to be the principal street for this section of the development and was accordingly provided with an appropriate width of 33m. Unified street decoration consisting of iron fencing and arched gas lamps increased the unity of the street and its sense of place.
28 David FC Sonka
03000436
As a primary street, Melville Street accommodates townhouses. Built in perimeter blocks, a tertiary service lane accesses the rear of each plot from within the centre of the perimeter block (figure 18). The change in use of the New Town from residential to commercial has led to the total conversion of Melville Streets townhouses to commercial properties. This chapter will evaluate the typical New Town property of 11-13 Melville Street, which has been converted to commercial use. Space The criteria of space will examine the changes in the relationships between the constituent elements of the New Town model which have come about as a result of the buildings adaptation to a commercial use (figure 19).
Figure 19: commercial adaptation of the New Town plot
On site research and observation has found that the rear of the properties still function mostly in the service capacity. The stable mewsâ€&#x; have generally adapted in
29 David FC Sonka
03000436
three ways. The most numerous are their conversion to parking facilities for the commercial premises now situated in the townhouse. A common trait of this type of conversion is that the stable mewsâ€&#x; allows vehicular access through to the garden space, which has also been adapted to provide parking. Alternatively the mews stable has been converted into habitable floor space. Some examples of which fulfil a residential requirement and are covered in chapter four. Most conversions in this area of the New Town provide further commercial floor space. Where the stable mews typology has altered to serve this function, these types tend to stand as separate commercial premises from their townhouses. Commercial mews properties are smaller than the townhouse counterparts and less impressive in their architecture and location, therefore providing lower range floor space and preserving variety in the area (figure 20).
Figure 20: Left to right, mews stable typologies to the rear of 11-13 Melville Street showing adaption to commercial floor space, through access to the former private garden space and additional car parking.
The private garden to the rear of the original townhouse has tended to adapt in three ways. Most numerously the private garden space to the rear of the townhouse has been converted into additional parking and service access.
Where several
30 David FC Sonka
03000436
townhouses have been combined to create a single commercial complex the private spaces to the rear have also been combined to create combined car parks. The second means of commercial adaptation of this space is the provision of outdoor private garden space. In these circumstances these spaces have altered very little, although the use has altered. In the original residential townhouse, the private rear garden provided an outdoor utility space. In the townhouse converted to commercial use, it is intended to provide a refuge for the employees in a similar fashion that the shared gardens to the front provided to the original residents. The final type of adaptation to the rear of the townhouse is its utilization as space for expansion of commercial floor space.
The extent, use and methods of expansion vary
considerably throughout the New Town.
In the Western Extensions district the
extensions tend to be small, usually not rising above one or two storeys and are intended to provide additional office space. A form of adaptation of the rear of the commercial townhouse is rare but highly innovative is the creation of a second frontage.
An example of this is found in
Randolph Lane which is the service lane for the West side of Charlotte Square (figure 21).
This commercial premises which has its original front to Charlotte
Square has had its rear remodelled to present a second front to Randolph Lane, with car parking and a second entrance to this street.
This building now has the
advantage of offering more office space with favourable views than others on Charlotte Square. Such extensive alteration to the rear of the townhouse is possible as all of the architectural merit was directed towards the frontages of the New Townâ€&#x;s buildings. As their rears were held in low regard, their alteration is less
31 David FC Sonka
03000436
beleaguered by historic preservation legislation. Volker (1999) discusses Patrick Geddes views on the disregard for the rear of the palatial fronted tenements: “Consequently, Geddes appreciated Adam‟s Charlotte Square terraces in Edinburgh or comparable structures in London, whose „facades, each with its dozen or score of great houses combined into a single palace-front as long as a cathedral, are all in their way a supreme achievement of the eighteenth century renascence‟. Nevertheless, these buildings were far from being perfect, which becomes obvious when looked at from the back. Geddes comments that in the past ages the space behind such grand buildings would have accommodated „a stately pillared courtyard;... a great cloister-square, an ambulatory gardens of herbs‟ or similar open spaces. He continues: „But here, even Adam has been allowed to give us nothing but a bare rough-built tenement wall, such as we can see it anywhere in Edinburgh slums, and an outlook upon a labyrinth of dreary drying-greens, cut up by mean walls
of
proportionless
quadrilaterals,
triangles
and
clumsy
trapeziums.‟”
Figure 21: the second townhouse frontage to Randolph Lane
32 David FC Sonka
03000436
The frontage of the commercially adapted townhouse has changed little since its original construction; this is largely due to the constraints of historical preservation in the area. Directly in front of the townhouse and separating it from the street and pavement is the LGFL entrance which acts as a threshold for the property. As it was for the original townhouse this threshold provided entrance and daylight to the LGFL as well as enhancing the privacy of the GFL rooms the windows of which were often raised above street level as a result of the threshold. Although the LGFL entrance is generally no longer used in commercial adaptations, the extent of the threshold and size of the windows on this level allow for the penetration of decent levels of day lighting, allowing this floor to become useful office accommodation. Commercial adaptation of the townhouse retains its relationship to the wide street. The boulevards of the primary routes appeal to businesses for their wide, open and diffused environments, the same reasons that they appealed to the original residents. When combined with the grand unified frontages this created an opulent environment that is symbolic of the extravagance that can be afforded by the occupiers of the New Town district. The historic listing of Melville Street has led to the preservation of this area and its maintaining in its original condition and appearance. Another benefit to the wide nature of Melville Street is its ability to accommodate large numbers of parking spaces for todayâ€&#x;s vehicular driven society, like George Street, Melville Streetâ€&#x;s central reservation is an effective car park whilst still allowing ample space for traffic lanes and parallel parking. Though none are present to front onto 11-13 Melville Street, the Western Extensions contains several private shared garden spaces (figure 18). These gardens are all
33 David FC Sonka
03000436
still privately owned and require a subscription to gain access. According to Byrom (1995), the fact that they are still well kept and privately owned suggests that they are in high demand. The number of small hotels in the area is a possible explanation for demand. Function The New Town developed as a commercial district because of its central location within the city. Businesses therefore moved into the townhouses of the New Town because of their location and not necessarily because of their architectural qualities or their layout. In evaluating how the buildings have adapted to accommodate a new commercial use, it must be kept in mind that the situation has not always been ideal for the business, that they tolerate deficiencies due to the often unalterable historic nature of the building in order to maintain their central location. With this in mind, it must also be recognised that the desire to preserve the historic nature of many of the New Townâ€&#x;s buildings is a relatively recent concept and that many of the townhouses that have been extensively adapted or replaced altogether had been done so without significant historic damage as many of their period features (notably internal ones) had already been lost.
Figure 22: Appendix 8: typical modular division of a townhouse terrace, as built (red) post commercial adaptation (blue)
34 David FC Sonka
03000436
Through observation and the study of archived plans for commercial adaptations, the success of the adaptability of the New Town townhouse terraces has been found to lie with their modular layout. Though not as rigorously enforced as the streetscape guidelines, the townhouses layout conformed to a fairly standardized plan. This was due to the scale and pace of development and the desire for a very specific room layout by the original target residents, Wallace (1972). This led to a repetition of layout through the length of the terrace and was essentially a form of modular construction. Figure 22 above shows in red on the left the original three bay wide townhouse units were typically configured. Whilst in blue on the right, the figure shows how the units have been combined and partitioned to form commercial premises of various sizes.
Figure 23: Typical original layout of a 3 storey New Town townhouse
According to Byrom (1995), as well as general observation, the typical layout of the original New Town townhouse (figure 23) consisted of three to four living levels (including the attic floor) and the LGFL service level. The GFL and FFL were the primary living levels. One would enter into a porch on the GFL (figure 26), large
35 David FC Sonka
03000436
enough to accommodate a sedan chair, (a popular form of transport for the upper class at the time). The porch led onto the main hall and stairwell for the townhouse. Prior to the New Town, Old Town residences tended to be located on a single level within their tenement, Birrell (1986). Therefore much opulence was afforded to this area as the staircase and the concept of living across multiple levels was new to Edinburgh and was a feature to be boasted. To the front of the GFL the dining room was located, Wallace (1972). A more private room was located towards the rear and was typically a study or similar. The GFL shared the highest status of floor hierarchy with the FFL, the entire frontage of this floor was given over to the drawing room, which was the principal room for rest and recreation, Wallace (1972). As the FFL and GFL contained the primary rooms of the Dining Room and Drawing Room, they were afforded higher ceiling levels and greater architectural detail and extravagance than the other floors (figure 25). The larger windows on these floors were also provided desirable views across the shared private gardens in most streets. The master bedroom and sanitary facilities (once they became commonplace) also tended to be located on this level to the rear of the house. The Second Floor Level (2FL) provided bedroom accommodation; where there was no Third Floor Level (3FL) the master bedroom was usually located on the FFL. Were there existed a 3FL this was always within a dormered attic and would have provided lesser bedrooms for the accommodation of servants and children, Wallace (1972). The LGFL functioned purely as a service level. It contained a kitchen, storage and servants accommodation. A separate entrance from the primary street provided access to the LGFL by way of the lowered threshold, this allowed service
36 David FC Sonka
03000436
staff to enter and exit the house to the primary streets without using the serviced areas on the GFL. Access to the rear private garden space was also gained from the LGFL, this enforces the notion that this outdoor space to the rear of the townhouse was originally intended to be used a s service area and that residents of the household would have used the private shared gardens spaces in front of the house for recreational purposes, Wallace (1972).
Figure 24: 11-13 Melville Street, Commercial Adaptation
The New Town townhouses are a form of modular design, the same layout is repeated along the length of the terrace. This, combined with the Georgian ideal to have overly large rooms has allowed for an effective easily repeatable adaptation of these buildings. Figures 22 and 24 show that by creating new accesses through the original partition walls the circulation of separate townhouses can be linked together. Similarly, by reconfiguring original internal walls to become partition walls,
37 David FC Sonka
03000436
townhouses can be also become divided between new complexes. Some of the original rooms have required little change in their configuration in order to adapt to a commercial use. The original porch is retained in most circumstances and functions as a foyer (figure 26). As during their original function, the foyer forms a part of an entrance sequence which was intended to impress. From this room, a door led onto the stairwell at the heart of the house, the door was usually glazed allowing the extravagance of the stairwell to be apparent as well as for day lighting purposes. In the larger commercial complex, entrance through to the stairwell via this door is typically blocked.
Instead, new accesses have been formed leading into the
adjoining dining rooms which function as receptions. In smaller complexes or where the complex is occupied by various tenants, direct entrance to the stairwell is retained and a smaller reception can be located here. In this circumstance, the individual tenants have their premises in the rooms off of the stairwell and share common services such as the WCâ€&#x;s. Where the complex consists of more than one townhouse, there can be many stairwells.
In some cases and in many earlier
conversions, the redundant staircases were removed, allowing for further floor space (figure 24). As legislation to preserve the historic nature of these buildings has become more rigorous, the removal of the redundant stairwells is more difficult to justify. Such legislation serves as a restraint, as floor space has a high premium in the commercial market, its loss to unnecessary extra stairwells is a disadvantage. Some of the redundant stairwells maintain useful purposes by accommodating lifts (increasing the buildings accessibility), or by being converted to fire escape routes. Both these adaptations can have a negative impact on the historic fabric of the stairwell.
38 David FC Sonka
03000436
Figure 25: A FFL Drawing Room
Figure 26: A Porch adapted as a Commercial Foyer
The remaining rooms tend to have adapted with greater ease. This is due to their large size, common accessibility to the circulation stairwell, and high floor to ceiling levels.
Smaller rooms have often been combined to create adequate space.
Alternatively they are utilised as individual offices, storage or service areas such as WCâ€&#x;s or as service risers where they are stacked above one another. Figure 24 shows how the removal of one of the staircases in the smaller premises has allowed for the installation of such facilities and a lift. The LGFL has typically adapted in two ways, either its large kitchen and servant accommodation are utilised as further office floor space having had little alteration required. Or it continues as a service level providing staffrooms, staff kitchens, toilets and changing facilities, as well as plant rooms for the building.
39 David FC Sonka
03000436
Architectural Typology A major factor that has affected the New Townâ€&#x;s buildings ability to adapt is the level of historic preservation legislation that has been applied to this area in greater and greater quantities over time. Given the level of preservation imposed on the New Town, sacrifices are necessary by both the buildings and the businesses in order to co-exist. Positive effects of historic preservation include the maintaining of the New Townâ€&#x;s character as an example of unified design.
Negatively, preservation
legislation can be restricting as it requires many of the buildings historic features to be retained which can impede the buildings ability to function as a modern commercial space. The historic fabric of Melville Street is now heavily protected by conservation legislation. Unlike areas such as Princes Street, the streetscape of Melville Street is well preserved and its architecture has altered little from its original state. As it is preserved in its original condition, Melville Street continues to present itself as a unified piece of civic street architecture.
As with Charlotte Square, the unified
architecture of the buildings on Melville Street combines to create a harmonious space. The preservation of the street frontage only impacts on the facade and its features, such as redundant doors. In modern conversions, the additional doors allow for emergency escape routes and can also provide alternative disabled access that does not affect the usually better preserved primary entrance (figure 24). The retention of the original facades can be detrimental to businesses which rely on passing trade such as estate agents, as they are denied ideal shop frontages.
40 David FC Sonka
03000436
Internally, the commercial adaptation of the townhouse has previously involved the reconfiguration of internal rooms to create larger open plan floor spaces. Period Georgian decor usually contained a high level of ornate features and detail (figure 25). In his book Wallace (1972) discusses the ornate nature of the skirting and door frames of the original townhouses. The combining of multiple rooms into one has typically meant the complete removal of the internal walls including their cornicing and skirting. This also led to the loss of the other ceiling mouldings such as the elaborate rose dishes which were no longer centred. In many conversions, false ceilings have been installed to carry servicing resulting in the covering of any remaining plasterwork. Due to stricter legislation, it is more difficult to justify the removal of internal partitions if they still contain such features. However, because of the high floor to ceiling heights found in these properties, similar results in floor space can be achieved by the partial removal of the lower section of the internal partitions, leaving the top section and cornicing intact. Such a proposal would leave the plasterwork across the ceiling of each room in place. The retention of such elements would aid to keep the substance of the original rooms intact, despite their amalgamation. Where the preservation legislation inhibits the removal of the internal walls, the creation of new doorways in the fashion of the originals would still allow the combining of individual rooms. The high nature of the ceilings in the townhouse has allowed for the installation of false ceilings into which services are routed. False ceilings for this purpose became vital for the commercial occupier as wired electronic networks became standard. Until the era of wireless technology, the extent to which the New Town townhouse
41 David FC Sonka
03000436
was able to accommodate electronic servicing was being brought into question, and can be linked to the downturn in the demand for commercial property in the New Town during the 1990â€&#x;s and early 2000â€&#x;s. False ceilings can cover and protect the original features which can be reinstated when desired. Similar methods can be applied to other features such as fireplaces. Inclusive access has become a greater issue for the commercial townhouse as legislation has improved, (Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004). Major issues of are the lack of elevators and stepped main access.
Adaptation to improve
accessibility is possible; however these adaptations, such as the installation of lifts and ramped access to the primary entrance often require extensive alteration to the interior and frontage. In the case of inclusive access, a significant visual impact on the integrity of the preserved streetscape would occur and therefore inclusive access tends to be by way of alternative entrances. The ethics of re-routing disabled access away from the primary access for the sake of architectural preservation provokes question. This research will merely point out that there exists enough precedent examples to state that: with some modification, disabled access can be achieved through the majority of the New Town townhouse primary entrances, though at the expense of historic integrity. The requirement to introduce modern technology and services has been an issue for the New Town since the introduction of indoor plumbing during the early 19th century and has invariably impacted on the building fabric at several points in time, Birrell (1986). Adaptation to suit commercial needs has brought requirements for services such as electronic wiring and heating and ventilation. The attitude of the planning
42 David FC Sonka
03000436
authorities at all times has been to preserve the frontage of the primary street by locating alterations to the rear which is of lesser status and architectural regard. Comparing the front and back of 11-13 Melville Street, the frontage is relatively clear with only drainage from the gutter present. The rear conversely is covered in utility pipes and cabling.
Internally, though there has always been a requirement for
service risers, as more technology and utilities have been introduced to the house, space in these risers has become limited. The complete remodelling of the interior space (larger complex in figure 24) allows for new risers to be placed wherever needed. Where the historic fabric of the interior is required to be preserved the locating new risers is more restricted but can still be located behind false walls, or externally towards the rear. Larger premises are adapted from multiple townhouses being linked together. Although they require the installation of more utilities, lifts, service risers and the likes, in most circumstances these can restrained to just one of the original townhouse units. By grouping these elements together in the least preserved house allows for the remaining houses in the complex to be kept closer to their original condition. Example Evaluation This chapter set out to evaluate the New Town townhousesâ€&#x; adaptability to a new commercial use that they were not originally designed for. It has examined elements of the interior and exterior and evaluated the conflicts between adaptation and preservation. It has considered the impact that adaptation and preservation has had on the commercial occupants, who desire to occupy the building because of its
43 David FC Sonka
03000436
location within the central business district rather than for its merits as a building. Premises such as 11-13 Melville street are more often than not advertised as grade A office space (Ryden.co.uk), demonstrating that these townhouses can and do provide commercial floor-space that rivals purpose built alternatives. Evaluation has shown that these conversions are sited in locations that are appealing for the prestigious environment created by their grand scale and unified architecture as well as their location within the greater city. They are easily serviced, can provide private parking and are extendable to their rear. Internally they are of an ideal layout, consisting of a suitably impressive foyer and circulation space with ideal locations for receptions and shared facilities. The office spaces benefit from high levels of day lighting and natural ventilation, high floor to ceiling heights allows for false ceilings and the installation of services where they are necessary. There are drawbacks to commercial occupation of these adapted properties. Tougher preservation has led to the sacrifice of space for the preservation of internal features. The occupantâ€&#x;s ability to install modern services and conveniences such as lifts, toilets, service risers and electronic networks is also restricted because of the lack of space and preservation requirements. The number of New Town properties that still have all or any of their original features should be considered. In many circumstances the townhouses were converted to commercial premises before such rigorous legislation was in place or were converted from townhouses that have been constantly updated throughout their lifespan and hence there are few original features left to protect. Although preservation legislation has brought hindrance to the adaptability of the New Town, alternative solutions do exist, such as the creation
44 David FC Sonka
03000436
of archways and doorways or the partial instead of the complete removal of internal walls to create larger floor spaces. Period features that are not currently desired can be covered and protected for the future by the use of false ceilings and walls. The preservation of such features could aid the buildings future adaptability as current trends are for townhouses to revert back to residential use, where original features are desired. The greatest issue raised by this example is preservation. Previously before such significance was placed on these buildings their alteration or replacement was relatively straight forward and diverse in its possibilities. Although modern levels of preservation are responsible for the retaining of the high standard of space and character of Melville Street.
It was only because of more lenient preservation
legislation that the adaptation of townhouses was able to occur, thus maintaining demand for the area. St James Square, was built as a separate extension to the First New Town between 1773 and 1786, its North East side was considered an early example of unified terrace frontage, Gifford and Wilson (1991). Rather than commercial, it adapted to suit industrial demand. Unfortunately, such adaptation made the square difficult to further adapt to alternative use after the industrial demand declined. As it could not adapt, the square fell into disuse and neglect, it was demolished in 1965, Gifford and Wilson (1991). No traces of it remain. With the requirement for preservation as strict as it currently is, it is more difficult to continue the adaptation of these buildings to suit new uses and functions as they arise. However, this largely only applies to facades and in preserved areas. The rear spaces are more loosely protected than the other elements of the townhouse
45 David FC Sonka
03000436
and many extensions of various typologies can be found facing onto the tertiary lanes. This argument could be carried into the interiors as many of the adapted buildings have already lost their original features.
46 David FC Sonka
03000436
EXAMPLE THREE: The North Side of St Andrew Square (Commercial Adaptability by Redevelopment) The north side of St Andrew Square is an example of the extensive adaptation that can take place within the original configuration of the New Town plot. Through tracing the history of these properties, there adaptation from residences to commercial premises, then extended commercial premises and finally as redeveloped commercial plots, will be explored.
The North side of St Andrew
Square was amongst the first development to take place in New Town, Gifford and Wilson (1991).
Since their construction, the buildings in this block have been
continuously altered and updated, Gifford and Wilson (1991). Whereas the rest of St Andrew Square and the majority of Princes Street plots that were converted in this nature have been redeveloped completely, the North side of St Andrew Square, with the exception of number 27-28, has retained its original townhouses. Space and Function
Figure 27: 23 St Andrew Square (centre) Figure 28: 27-28 St Andrew Square, Scottish Equitable Life Assurance, J.M Dick Peddie and George Washington Browne, 1899
47 David FC Sonka
03000436
Number 23 (figure 27) was built in 1770-2 alongside number 24-26, according to Gifford and Wilson (1991) and The Royal Commission for Ancient and Historic Monuments for Scotland (RCAHMS), each house was built to comparable designs and frontages, setting precedent to future unified development. Since completion, each house began to be extensively altered separately from one another. In 1848 number 23 was transformed into commercial premises by David Bryce for the Scottish Banks Clearing House and Exchange.
This adaptation included the
remodelling of its frontage to its current configuration, (RCAHMS, Gifford and Wilson 1991).
The new frontage distinguished number 23 as a prominent commercial
establishment within the square.
Number 23 was further extended in 1878 by
Peddie and Kinnear and again by Dick Peddie and McKay in 1929 (RCAHMS). Peddie and Kinnear's plans (figure 30) show a commercial adaptation similar in scale to that of 11-13 Melville Street with an additional extension to the rear. Its layout and functions were similar also, a formal frontage was presented to the street and servicing were provided by the LGFL to the lane. This extension was demolished and replaced in 1996 by larger modern commercial floor space. The townhouse was retained and its features restored.
The transformation of number 23 from a
residential townhouse into a large scale commercial building occurred in phases over a long period of time. Although the size grew larger, at each increment of its growth, the buildings relationship with the other elements of its plot remained the same (figure 29).
48 David FC Sonka
03000436
Figure 29: 23 St Andrew Square, Section showing current configuration
Figure 30: 23 St Andrew Square, 1929 layout, Dick Peddie and McKay Architects (left – right: GFL, FFL, 2FL, 3FL)
49 David FC Sonka
03000436
The early adaptation of numbers 21-26 included retaining the townhouse as it was convenient, but not the design of the facade which was not considered significant. The townhouse survived because the plot was converted to large commercial premises in incremental phases. When number 27-28 (figure 28) was redeveloped directly from an adapted townhouse to a large commercial complex (RCAHMS), the merits of the townhouseâ€&#x;s mass and layout brought little benefit to the new larger complex. As it carried less historical significance at the time of redevelopment there was little reason to retain it. By the time number 23 and its neighbours had grown to their current size as large scale office developments, the townhouse had gained a historical value and its preservation had become preferable. In terms of layout and architecture, the townhouse of number 23 proclaims few of the merits of the contemporary building that it fronts. The frontages of the north side have continued to abide to the design codes of the New Town throughout their adaptation. They are still separated from the street by way of a threshold. The threshold fulfils identical functions for the large complex as it does for the smaller properties discussed earlier. The exception to this is a greater availability of floor space and the requirement for additional service in the larger complexes, hence the LGFL of the townhouse is usually utilised as service space rather than offices. Like the smaller commercial adaptations, access to the LGFL via the threshold no longer tends to be utilised. The bridging of the threshold for the primary access continues to instil significance towards the main entrance; this is exaggerated in some instances by being widened.
50 David FC Sonka
03000436
As the rear gardens are obscured from the environment of the primary streets, structures suitable for modern commercial floor space can be built to contemporary designs without having to liaise to their historic surroundings. Although any original mews stables have been removed to allow for further extension, the replacement buildings still use the lane access for their service areas situated on the LGFL. As service is constrained to the lane, the frontage onto the primary street can continue solely as a formal entrance.
51 David FC Sonka
03000436
Figure 31: 27-28 St Andrew Square, GFL Plan 1899, J.M Dick Peddie and George Washington Browne
Figure 32: 27-28 St Andrew Square, GFL plan, 2010, Lime House Design Partnership
52 David FC Sonka
03000436
In 1899, number 27-28 was completely redeveloped, the redevelopment adhered to many of the New Townâ€&#x;s traits and design codes and hence bears similarity with the townhouse (figure 28, figure 31).
Its use of the plot and the adjoining urban
framework remained the same and as previously discussed. Although stretching the length of the plot and facing onto two streets, the premises were designed to face onto St Andrew Square in line with the original townhouses.
Though designed
internally as a single development, there is a clear distinction in the original plans between the front of the premises, which can be likened to the converted townhouse and the rear, which can be likened to an extension (figure 31).
Subsequent
development appears to acknowledge this distinction (figure 32). According to the architectsâ€&#x; plans, recent adaptation to number 27-28 has included the retaining of the front and the restoration of its original features. In 1963 the rear section which sits on the area of the private rear garden and mews stables was demolished and rebuilt to contemporary styles and standards (RCAHMS). Scale The new larger premises are of a greater scale than the original townhouse developments. The retained townhouses between numbers 21 and 26 disguise the scale of their premises. The remainder of St Andrew Square (excluding Dundas House) have not retained their townhouses and are more representative of their true mass, scale and use.
Princes Street has similar issues; its large scale
redevelopments have greatly increased the streets mass and scale. Yet many of its buildings are still adaptations of the original townhouses or have been rebuilt in accordance to the original proportions, causing a conflict between the preserved
53 David FC Sonka
03000436
structures and the larger replacements. This conflict is echoed on St Andrew Square by numbers 21-26 against their neighbours. Architectural Typology As an abundant amount of floor space is made available in the new sections, there is less pressure for the original townhouse to provide large open plan floor spaces than in smaller premises such as 11-13 Melville Street. This allows for the townhouseâ€&#x;s rooms and original features to be restored. As they were originally intended, the restored rooms make for extravagant surroundings that enhance the prestige of the complex. Externally, despite continuous internal alterations and expansion, refurbishment of the frontages of the North side of St Andrew Square ceased to be of a contemporary nature after the redevelopment of 27-28 St Andrew Square in 1899, Gifford and Wilson (1991). Beyond this point, any alterations to the frontages have been in period styles conforming to Georgian or classical design, examples of this include number 25, which had an ionic porch added to it in 1970, Gifford and Wilson (1991) and retention of the 1899 facade of number 27-28 during its alteration in 1963 (RCAHMS). Although it does not apply to areas such as St Andrew Square and Princes Street as they have not been conserved in their original historic forms, the method of preserving the frontage of the plot and allowing flexibility towards the rear, which is visually separated from the frontage, allows for extensive adaptation to take place in even the most preserved areas of the New Town. The Roxburgh Hotel on Charlotte
54 David FC Sonka
03000436
Square and number 118-124 George Street are examples where this has been carried out. Example Evaluation Rather than indicating the robustness of the buildings, observations from the North side of St Andrew Square reveal the robustness of the configuration of the plot and the urban model earlier discussed by example one. The first example demonstrated the robustness of the methods of locating a standardized plot within a street hierarchy and the use of strict design and building coding that dictated typologies. Positive aspects that bear relevance to this example include the division of „serviced areas‟ from „service areas‟.
In the original
configuration, the LGFL, the private rear garden space and any mews building were all directed towards the tertiary lane and were „service areas‟.
The GFL and
subsequent levels remained purely as „serviced areas‟ and address the primary street by way of the main entrance. The modern commercial complex requires large amounts of service space for parking, plant, deliveries and support functions; it is preferable for these functions to be separate from the businesses „front of house‟. In the same fashion that the tertiary lane historically kept the service functions removed from the residents, it now keeps the service function removed from the businesses front of house (figure 33, figure 34).
55 David FC Sonka
03000436
Figure 33: serviced and service configuration of the original townhouse plot
Figure 34: serviced and service configuration of the commercially redeveloped plot
In the few cases where large scale developments have retained the original townhouses, the premises grew to its current size incrementally. The example of 1113 Melville Street showed the original townhouse to adapt quite suitably to the smaller premises that properties such as number 23 began their commercial life as. The townhouses are less suitable for large scale redevelopment; this can be attributed to the appearance and scale of its architecture rather than its function. When number 23 (figure 30) is compared with number 27-28 (figure 31-32), both the adapted townhouse and the 1899 replacement office are seen to offer a similar type of layout, circulation and floor space. Both buildings also offer five levels including a dormered level and the LGFL. The examples differ in terms of scale and appearance, number 27-28 is of a greater scale with higher floor to ceiling heights,
56 David FC Sonka
03000436
larger windows and has a steeper, higher roof, resulting in a greater building. As the architecture of number 27-28 was not restricted by the townhouse, it was able to freely express its own particular style of architecture that was suitable for its scale and capable of conveying the buildings purpose as commercial premises.
The
townhouse frontages of 21-26 convey the impression of their original modular residences and obscure the true nature of their current use as modern office complexes. Given these reasons, the retention of the townhouse and facades can be brought into question. Reasons for preservation include the historical value bequeathed to them by contemporary society. Another possibility is the provision of smaller rooms as a supplement to the open plan spaces provided by new phases. If the reason is purely due to the historical value, the case for preservation is more linked to the architecture of the square and the greater district than it is to do with the architecture of the modern extension.
Whilst such inclination is justified in well
preserved areas such as Charlotte Square and the Western Extensions which stand as examples of unified civic spaces. Areas such as St Andrew Square and Princes Street, built before the introduction of the unified palatial frontage, were never regarded as outstanding examples of architectural merit, Gifford and Wilson (1991), Coutts (1977), though a lesser sense of street unity was conveyed by the scale and massing of the original townhouse properties. As they were not regarded as being of merit, the townhouseâ€&#x;s removal to make way for commercial redevelopment was of little issue, thus allowing the New Town to increase in density according to demand. Today, both areas contain examples of architecture from multiple eras. The newer
57 David FC Sonka
03000436
buildings relate to one another in the fields of materials, use, scale and massing. As the few preserved townhouses represent a different scale, use and massing that is out of context with the larger redevelopments, the question as to why they should be preserved in these areas when they are no longer representative of its unity, comes to light.
58 David FC Sonka
03000436
EXAMPLE FOUR: The Moray Estate Town Houses (residential adaptation) The Moray Estate was developed between 1822 and 1836 by the Earl of Moray and master planned by James Gillespie Graham, Gifford and Wilson (1991). As it was developed as a single project over a short period of time, this phase contains some of the best examples of unified frontages. As it lay further from Edinburghâ€&#x;s city centre and Central Business District, commercial adaptation was only partial in the Moray Estate. Although there are some commercial conversions, most plots are still residential. This example will discuss how the townhouse and its auxiliary buildings have adapted to suit the living needs of 21st century society. Space and Function
Figure 35: Space Diagram for Residential Conversion
59 David FC Sonka
03000436
Figure 35 describes a typical feu from the Moray Estate, demonstrating how the relations between each element have altered from their original configurations. The greatest alteration has been the sub-division of the townhouse and its auxiliary buildings to form numerous smaller properties. Some instances show conversion of the townhouse into flats, where by each floor is treated as a separate property with access off of the communal stairwell. More commonly the townhouse is divided into two properties; the LGFL is separated to form an independent basement flat and the GFL and subsequent floors remaining as a townhouse. The mews stables to the rear are also commonly adapted as separate properties (figure 36).
Figure 36: The subdivision of the townhouse into the reduced townhouse, basement flat and mews house with garages
The GFL and upper floors of the primary townhouse have changed little in their application. The loss of the LGFL has required the relocation of the kitchen to the GFL. Prior to sub-division, the townhouse would use its service lane and the LGFL entrance for service access. In some instances access to the service lane has been retained by ownership of the rear garden and the garage level of the mews block, or
60 David FC Sonka
03000436
by an access path or right of access agreement between the townhouse and the rear service lane. Where it is its only point of access, the townhouses frontage has increased in significance. Where the LGFL forms an independent property, the stair connecting these levels becomes redundant.
In earlier adaptations this was
removed, providing further floor space to each property. In later conversions it has been a requirement to retain this stair case for possible future reinstatement. Though it reduces the amount of floor space (notably in the basement flat), as a period feature, it adds desirability to each property. Where in commercial properties floor space is valued above all other factors, in residential properties, once a suitable amount of floor space is assured, the desire for period features tends to take precedence over additional space. The reduced townhouse is still a large property that commands high property values. In this respect the residential function of these houses remains to provide residences for the higher end of the social spectrum.
61 David FC Sonka
03000436
The LGFL has typically become a separate property often referred to as a basement flat. Its location directly beneath the primary townhouse property allows it to reap similar benefits.
Although commonly described as basement flats, the LGFL is
located on the original ground level whilst the street was raised to the level of the GFL (figure 37). The topography of the New Town means that many of the LGFLâ€&#x;s are not entirely located below the level of the street which they face.
Figure 37: various locations showing the variance between the LGFL and street level
62 David FC Sonka
03000436
Access to the basement flat is from the primary street, by way of the original townhouseâ€&#x;s servants' entrance. The threshold is wide enough to allow the occupant to personalise it, there are several examples of intimate garden and entrance spaces throughout the New Town (figure 38). The bridging threshold to the townhouse above provides the reduced townhouse residents with a similar opportunity to personalize their entrance.
With the basement flatâ€&#x;s entrance being located within
the threshold, it presents a second frontage to the street. Increasing the number of properties accessed directly from the street.
Figure 38: A Basement Flat entrance which has been personalised by the occupant
The division of the original townhouse into unequal parts provides different sized properties appropriate for different buyers.
This new range of housing types
maintains the versatility of the district that was originally instilled by the different typologies on each street type. Where rear access is sacrificed for a mews property the front entrance to the reduced townhouse and basement flat is used for all purposes. Coupled with the rise of vehicle ownership, an increase in the demand for parking to the front has resulted. The streets wide nature has allowed it to provide
63 David FC Sonka
03000436
high levels of parking at the expense of reducing the area for flowing traffic. As most of the Moray Estates streets are not primary routes for the greater city, they are only required for access.
The threshold continues to serve in its original intentions,
including the provision of light and access to the LGFL. All of the original private shared gardens within the Moray Estate remain in private ownership by residentâ€&#x;s associations.
Although there is two to three times the
amount of residents, entitled to a subscription based on the location of their property. As alternative city parks and the surrounding countryside are now more accessible, the demand for shared gardens is less than it has been historically.
The new
individual properties are configured to retain sufficient levels of privacy from one another. Whilst contemporary building guidelines require a distance of 18m between properties to ensure privacy (Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004), the average length
of
the
New
Town
rear
garden
is
between
18m
and
24m
(edina.ac.uk/digimap/), allowing the mews properties of the New Town to sit at a distance which is deemed suitable for privacy. The offsetting of GFL levels between these properties further enhances privacy. To the rear of the plot, there is a growing trend to convert the stable buildings into mews houses, like the basement flats they then become separate from the reduced townhouse. As demand for their original use declined many mews stables were adapted to storage spaces and vehicular parking. Often falling into misuse and neglect in the process, many have subsequently been replaced. The recent trend to combine and convert these buildings to form residential properties provide an
64 David FC Sonka
03000436
alternative typology for city centre living. The conversion has also brought about changes in the role and perception of the tertiary streets.
Figure 39: red lines indicate the original terraced configuration of the stables. High-lighted areas show the reconfiguration of the properties to from mews housing
The mews stables were only subject to loose guidelines governing their position, size and use; hence small levels of variation could occur between them.
As each
stretched across the width of the plot, they became terraced. Although designed independently from one another, their simple layout of an up-stairs room placed above an open plan GFL is relatively standardized across the New Town. The width of the stable allowed for two stable doors or one stable door and for accommodation to have a presence onto the street.
This was an entrance door leading to the
staircase. Both types are common in the remaining original buildings. The original accommodation space of the mews stable was small, often only consisting of one room, Wallace (1972). The common method of adaptation of these buildings into mews houses is to combine several together. Figure 39 shows the accommodation levels on the upper floors combined to create a living space
65 David FC Sonka
03000436
acceptable for modern living. On the lower levels, the majority of the original stables serve as garages. For each mews house, a garage unit is sacrificed to serve as an entrance, providing a presence on to the street. The garages below the townhouse can be treated a separate properties and can serve the residents of the other converted properties.
The garden behind the townhouse is the area most
accommodating to change and adaptation, this allows for extensions to the mews house that can provide greater adaptability. Against the reduced townhouse and basement flat, the mews house provides a distinct alternative in terms of scale, architectural style, location, environment and space. The townhouse consists of a grand scale and a unified frontage; they have high ceilings with equally proportioned rooms and fixtures to suit. In contrast the mews houseâ€&#x;s original function was a service one. It is modest in scale and built to simple designs. Each building stood distinct from its neighbour, resulting in a range of modest period buildings that are appreciated for their scale and simplicity. As each mews house is converted on a singular basis at varying times by different parties, the individuality between residences has continued. This variance allows the mewsâ€&#x; to stand in contrast to the grandly scaled and embellished unified townhouse.
Figure 40: new build and historic versions of the mews house typology
66 David FC Sonka
03000436
Many original mews stables were demolished, as per demand they were replaced by garages and parking. With the increase in demand for housing, many of the garages are now being replaced by new examples of mews housing (figure 40). The ground floor of the new mews house tends to emulate their original counterparts, accommodating a garage and a smaller element of the house frontage onto the street (figures 40 - 41). The upper levels then accommodate the living space. Number 10, Circus Lane, designed by Richard Murphy Architects, was constructed in 2004.
Despite its contemporary architecture, No. 10 adheres to the common
layout that is suited to this situation. The main living space is located on the upper level above the garage and entrance. Its frontage adheres to the building line and arrangement of the street; to its rear it expresses itself in its own distinctive fashion (figure 42).
Figure 41: No. 10 Circus Lane front
Figure 42: No. 10 Circus Lane rear
The change of use of the mews stables into small scale desirable residences has also changed the nature of the lane. The tertiary lanes were historically viewed as service lanes and used only by the serving population of the New Town. With the
67 David FC Sonka
03000436
development of the mews housesâ€&#x;, peopleâ€&#x;s perception of these streets altered, becoming more akin to that of a country lane. This perception is provoked by the lanes scale and isolation. The smaller scale of the buildings gives the lanes a lower density than that normally expected for a city centre location. As more mews houses appear on these streets, the various arrays of small frontages combine to form an eclectic street scape of active frontages in accordance to the earlier discussed theories of Jan Gehl. As they are not primary routes, the tertiary lanes are accessed rarely and usually only by the residents on the streets. By being enclosed by the larger structures of the townhouses on all sides, the lanes and mews houses are sheltered from the elements as well as the noise from the city beyond.
The
presence of large, mature trees which overreach the mews houses from the rear gardens also enhances the lanes nature as a quiet and secluded place. As the views are restricted to within in the lane, it is possible to stand in the mews lane and become unaware of its location within the greater city. Evaluation The New Town plot and townhouse is suited to adaptation to modern residential premises. Reasons supporting this include the units' uniformity, size and layout, the amount of usable outdoor space, the external configurations, the abundance of period features, the environment created by gentrification of the mews lane and new possibilities for the primary streets. The layout and size of the townhouses are suitable to be separated into several properties acceptable for contemporary living. As they lead off a central staircase it is straightforward to separate each floor into separate properties.
As with
68 David FC Sonka
03000436
commercial adaptations, larger or smaller properties can be created as the uniformity of each unit allows for units to be separated and interconnected. As it was typically separated from the main staircase, the stair leading from the GFL to the LGFL is able to be isolated and blocked off without significantly impacting on the remainder of the stair and hall, which allows for the creation of basement flats separate from the stairwell. A success of the three property adaptation is the level of outdoor space available to each property. The private garden can be amicably divided between the separate properties. streetscape.
Each property also has direct access and frontage onto a
The townhouse and basement flat have a threshold that provides
amenable outdoor space that can be personalised by the occupiers. The mews house fronts onto a street that is secluded from the rest of the city, it provides close environment that in itself acts as a threshold between the residence and the greater city. Bo-01 was master-planned by Klas Tham of Van Gehl Architects and was the centre piece of the Malmo European Housing Exposition in 2001 (figure 43). The masterplan focussed on creating a strong community within the greater city. One of the methods employed to achieve this was the enclosing of the neighbourhood block. Encircling the periphery, is a ring of large apartment buildings, within this barrier are located groupings of smaller, less dense units.
The ring of high density units
enshrouds the smaller units and protects them from the elements of the weather and noise of the city. The atmosphere created by this introverted approach is a calm and private one. In the same way as Bo-01, the townhouses of the New Town block surround the smaller scale mews dwellings on the tertiary streets. The success of
69 David FC Sonka
03000436
Bo-01â€&#x;s
contemporary
architecture
stands
as
testament
to
the
enclosed
neighbourhood models ability to provide quiet, tightly-nit community environments. As the mews lanes were converted to residential streets the New Town block became an introverted neighbourhood like that of Bo-01, providing similar quality for the residents of the mews lanes.
Figure 43: Bo-01, Malmo, Sweden, Van Gehl Architects
The wide nature of the street, coupled with traffic flow measures has allowed the street to provide high levels of parking at the expense of reducing the area for flowing traffic. As many of the Moray Estates streets are not primary routes for the greater city and are only required for access, they would be ideal for conversion to shared surface areas.
This would place a pedestrian friendly emphasis on the
street, making it a more permeable link between the houses and the shared gardens. The widening of the pavement and removal of the visual clutter on the street would unify the streetscape as a single object, bringing the scale of the street into line with
70 David FC Sonka
03000436
the scale of the unified building frontage.
Examples of removing the vehicular
associated paraphernalia from the street and converting it to a shared surface have already been carried out on the First New Townâ€&#x;s South Castle Street. As well as well as unifying the street surface as a single design element, the space can now be better utilised by pedestrians who are no longer confined to the narrow sides, the success of frequent markets on South Castle Street is further justification for this (figure 44).
Figure 44: Shared Surface on South Castle Street
71 David FC Sonka
03000436
CONCLUSIONS This research was intended to identify characteristics of the New Town that contribute towards its robustness as an adaptable urban model. To identify these characteristics, four examples focusing on varying elements of the New Town model where evaluated against the criteria of space, function, scale and architectural typology.
The identified characteristics were then appraised to determine their
effectiveness. Through the evaluation of its own and subsequent examples, the hierarchal layout of its urban framework has been found to be a critical element of the New Town that allows it to be a robust and adaptable model. Through this hierarchy, additional robust and adaptable elements are able to be engaged, such as the unified approach to layouts and frontage. Evaluation of the urban form of the First New Town showed it to contain a variance of street types which were tailored to meet specific requirements for their use. The variance has allowed each street type to adapt to differing contemporary uses. As they were with their original functions, the functions of the contemporary streets complement one another by providing for differing typologies and use. The modern application of the primary streets as commercial and shopping thoroughfares and as transport arteries for the city whilst the secondary streets are utilised as pedestrianised areas demonstrates this. The inclusion of separate service lanes within the hierarchy allowed for the segregation of the „service‟ elements from the „serviced‟ elements.
This division between „back of house‟ and „front of house‟
72 David FC Sonka
03000436
allows for extensive levels of service to be incorporated into the New Town plots with no affect on their frontage. The original architecture of the New Town was concerned with frontages and the creation of strong civic spaces. The relation of the frontage to the building was secondary to the relation of the frontage to its streetscape. The current attitude towards preservation means that the historic fabric of the New Town should be retained. To do this, it is the qualities of the street that must be preserved rather than the structures behind the facade. Although its buildings have been significantly altered internally, the character of Melville Street is retained by the preservation of its unified facades and streetscape.
Conversely, even though much of the original
townhouses and historic facades of 21-26 St Andrew Square have been preserved, the piecemeal redevelopment of the square has led to the ruin of its unified civic nature.
In preserved areas, the equality in scale, design and materials of the
buildings allows the creation of a strong streetscape that is appealing for its unified attributes. The case to preserve these streets is just as any new development would detract from this unity. The less a new building adheres to the original design coding or unified frontage, the more it will disrupt the streets „sense of placeâ€&#x;. Though preservation of the historic fabric is an issue affecting the further adaptability of the New Town, it does not impede it altogether. By creating a hierarchy and treating the architecture of each street with different levels of regard, a separation between areas that should be preserved and areas that can be altered has been created. The modern complexes found behind 21-28 St Andrew Square and the alterations to the rear of Melville Street are examples of this.
73 David FC Sonka
03000436
The hierarchy of the urban layout has dictated the configuration of the plots and their subsequent buildings within the New Town. Evaluation of the commercial examples has shown that new developments, though vastly different from the original structures in terms of size, architecture and use, are very similar in terms of their configurations. In both circumstances they utilize the benefits of the urban hierarchy to divide their „service‟ and „serviced‟ aspects. Internally, the layout of the townhouse has been found to be an adaptable form. Up until now, most townhouses have been adapted to serve as commercial premises or modern residences. Elements that have made these buildings ideal for commercial premises include the size and scale of the rooms, providing impressive environments large enough to accommodate modern offices. The townhouse is further made ideal for commercial premises as it has a centralized circulation configured around its stairwell which communal services can then also run off. This also allows each floor to be segregated as individual premises allowing for multiple tenants, with the stair and its services remaining communal. The modular design of the New Town terrace allows developers to link neighbouring townhouses together to form complexes of various sizes as required by the tenant.
Disregard for original internal features
allowed for significant internal alteration to the townhouses, this included the removal of walls and redundant staircases.
Such removals created space within the
circulation for modern utilities and services to be installed.
Where such period
features still exist, there is now a strong argument for their preservation. Although this then reduces the level of available floor space, the evaluation has found that many of the benefits of the internal alterations can still be attained whilst still
74 David FC Sonka
03000436
retaining the features of the building. The retention of features whether in use and view or not, can improve future adaptability of the townhouse as there is then the option to reinstate them. An aspect of the Townhouse which is detrimental to its adaptability as commercial premises is its ability to provide inclusive access at the expense of historic preservation. Where the townhouse exists as a preserved element of larger commercially redeveloped plots, the benefits of their retention is questioned. Where their internal layout still exists, the arrangement of smaller rooms may compliment the open plan layout of the modern complex and in a restored condition they can convey the qualities of grandeur that they were originally intended.
However, without the
townhouse, these qualities if desired could still be created in a modern context. Externally, their architecture is out of context with the mass and scale of both their buildings and the redefined streetscapes where these complexes are located. Commercial redevelopments such 27-28 St Andrew Square that have removed the townhouse where built in adherence to much of design codes and configurations of the New Town and therefore are still within their areas context. However, without the townhouse it is able present itself to the primary street with a scale and architecture appropriate for its function. In most circumstances, the original size of the typical townhouse was too large to suit modern residential requirements. Evaluation of adapted residential properties has shown the configuration of the plot and townhouse to be suitable for conversion into smaller residential units. These adapted residences vary in typology, scale and location to provide variety within the district. The gentrification of the tertiary mews
75 David FC Sonka
03000436
lanes has created secluded residential environments, providing an alternative to the grandeur of the primary streets. External aspects that contribute to the robustness of the townhouse include the provision of independent frontages and entrances for each property and suitable outdoor space for each property that can be personalised. Internally, the townhouses configuration around its stairwell allows for the division of each floor to become a separate property in a similar fashion to commercial adaptations. As with commercial adaptation, the modular design and layout of the townhouses and their plots has allowed for combination of units where required. This is shown in the conversion of the former stables to mews houses. If the elements, found by this research to contribute to the robustness of the New Town, were included in current contemporary developments and master plans. It would be likely that they would inherit some of the robust aspects which have allowed the New Town to adapt to new uses and therefore survive as re-useable urban model.
The process of urban regeneration through demolition and
redevelopment could be significantly reduced, saving on materials, energy and time. As has occurred with the New Town, new robust and adaptable districts could gain historical significance as they age, increasing their value further.
76 David FC Sonka
03000436
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books: Birrell, G (1986) Edinburgh Princes Street and the New Town, Edinburgh Coutts, H (1972) Edinburgh: An Illustrated History, City of Edinburgh Museums and Art Galleries Gifford, J. McWilliam, C. Walker, D. Wilson, C. (1991) Edinburgh (The Buildings of Scotland), 3rd ed. London, Penguin Books Ltd. Lindsay, I.G. (1973) Georgian Edinburgh, revised ed. Edinburgh, Scottish Acedemic Press Ltd. McWilliam, C. (1973) Georgian Edinburgh: An Illustrated Record of the Eight Main Areas of the New Town Development 1750-1850, Edinburgh, Brunstane Press Nimmo, I. (1991) Edinburgh The New Town, Edinburgh, John Donaldson Publishers Wallace, J.M (1972) Great King Street and the Second New Town of Edinburgh. Edinburgh, The Great King Street Association Youngson, A.J. (1966) The Making of Classical Edinburgh, Edinburgh, The Edinburgh University Press
Journals: Byrom, Connie, (1995) The Pleasure Grounds of Edinburgh New Town. Garden History, summer, v.23 n.1 pp(67)-90 Lowrey, John. (2007) From Ceasarea to Athens: Greek revival and the question of Scottish identity in the unionist state. Journal of the society of Architectural Historians, June, v60, n.2 pp(136)-157 Volker, Welter. (1999) Slum, Semi-Slum, Super-Slum – Some Reflections by Patrick Geddes on Edinbugrhâ€&#x;s New Town. Archtectural Heritage: the journal of the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, v.10 pp66-73
Other Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004, Edinburgh: TSO
77 David FC Sonka
03000436
Websites: Arkitema - People in Architecture www.arkitema.com, Sluseholmen - Canal community with 1,000 dwellings Available from: <http://www.arkitema.com/Boliger+Living/Privat+boligbyggeri/Sluseholmen.aspxx> [Accessed on 18th August 2010] CALA Group Limited. (2009) Cala Homes, Hopefield, Bonnyrigg Available from: <http://www.cala.co.uk/homes/development/Hopefield/Overview.aspx> [Accessed 30th July 2010] (The) City of Edinburgh Council. (2010) Planning and Building Standards Portal Available from: <http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/portal/portal.jsp> [Accessed 20th July 2010] (The) City of Edinburgh Council. (2010) Edinburghâ€&#x;s Hogmanay Available from: <http://www.edinburghshogmanay.com> [Accessed 18th August 2010] Dictionary of Scottish Architects (2008) Dictionary of Scottish Architects 1840-1980 Available from: <http://www.scottisharchitects.org.uk> [Accessed on 30h July 2010] Edina (2007) Digimap Collections Available from: <http://www.edina.ac.uk/digimap> [Accessed on 20th July 2010] Gehl Architects Available from: <http://www.gehlarchitects.com/> [Accessed on 30th July 2010] guardian.co.uk Š Guardian News and Media Limited (2005) Swede Dreams Available from: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2005/aug/29/architecture> [Accessed on 18th August 2010} guardian article: Swede dreams Microsoft Corporation (2010) Bing maps Available from: <http://www.bing.com/maps/> [Accessed on 20th July 2010] Richard Murphy Architects Ltd. (2010) Mews House, 10a Circus Lane, Edinburgh Available from: <http://www.richardmurphyarchitects.com/projects/280/ > [Accessed 18th August 2010] Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) Edinburgh, 23 - 23a St Andrew Square, Exchange Bank Of Scotland Available from: <http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/52418/digital_images/edinburgh+23+23a+st+ andrew+square+exchange+bank+of+scotland/> [Accessed on 18th August 2010] Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) Edinburgh, 27, 28, 29 St Andrew Square, Scottish Equitable Life Insurance Company Available from: <http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/114995/digital_images/edinburgh+27+28+29 +st+andrew+square+scottish+equitable+life+insurance+company/> [Accessed on 18th August 2010]
78 David FC Sonka
03000436
Ryden LLP (2010) Commecial Property Solutions, Available from: <http://www.ryden.co.uk/> [Accessed on 20th July 2010]
79 David FC Sonka
03000436
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Figure 45: The phases of Edinburgh's New Town
page 4
Appendix 2: Figure 46: James Craig's First New Town, as proposed
page 8
Appendix 3: Figure 47: The First New Town as built (Extract from the Kirkwood Map 1819). Townhouse frontage - Yellow, Tenement frontage - Orange, Merchant frontage - Red, Service frontage – Blue page 12 Appendix 4: Figure 48: The contemporary First New Town, Commercial Office frontage - Green, Commercial Shop frontage - Red, Service – Blue page 15 Appendix 5: Figure 49: First New Town Long Section
page 18
Appendix 6: Figure 50: First New Town Section
page 18
Appendix 7: Figure 51: The Western Extensions Phase, showing the hierarchy of streets and 11-13 Melville Street page 28 Appendix 8: Figure 52: typical modular division of a townhouse terrace, as built (red) post commercial adaptation (blue) page 34
80 David FC Sonka
03000436